Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2019-01-17 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: January 17, 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 / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4256 El Camino Real (18PLN-00096): Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for a new 51,861Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 100 Guest Rooms and Below-Grade Parking. Director's Adjustment Requested for a Reduction in Required On-site Parking (15%) and Loading Space Dimensions. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Being Circulated for Public Comment Between January 7, 2018 and February 6, 2018. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 380 Cambridge [15PLN-00249]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings Totaling 32,083 Square Feet and to Construct a New Three-Story Commercial Building Totaling 35,000 Square Feet. In Addition, There is a Request to Waive an Off-Street Loading Space. _______________________ 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. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In- Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial with Retail Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3, Downtown North Multiple Addresses [17PLN-00450 File Uses 250 Hamilton Address]: Request by Sure Site (on behalf of Crown Castle to Lease to Verizon) for Six Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits Poles in the Public Right of Way on Six (6) Wood Utility Poles. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303. Zoning of Node Locations is Public Facilities, Adjacent to These Zones: RM-30 (205 Everett/251 Emerson, 243 Hawthorne and 258 Waverley); RM-D (NP) 482 Everett and 301 Bryant; RM-15 (201 High). For further background information, please refer to the City’s website under the project file number 17PLN-00450). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. 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 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 6, 2018. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2018. Subcommittee Items 7. 4115 El Camino Real [17PLN-00280]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes and Clarifications Regarding Details, Security, and Maintenance. 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: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us _______________________ 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. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Wynne Furth Vice Chair Peter Baltay Boardmember 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 # 9969) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/17/2019 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. 5 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Attachments: Attachment A: ARB 2019 Meeting Schedule (DOCX) Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 6 2019 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/21/2019 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/4/2019 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. 7 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics February 7 1700 Embarcadero Road: Mercedes/Audi (2nd Formal) 190 Channing Avenue: Mixed Use (1st Formal) 702 Clara Drive: Three detached units (1st Formal) 180 El Camino Real: Macys Mens Redevelopment (Prelim) 3128 El Camino Real (Subcommittee) 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9943) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4256 El Camino Real: New Hotel (2nd formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4256 El Camino Real (18PLN-00096): Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for a new 51,861Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 100 Guest Rooms and Below-Grade Parking. Director's Adjustment Requested for a Reduction in Required On-site Parking (15%) and Loading Space Dimensions. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Being Circulated for Public Comment Between January 7, 2018 and February 6, 2018. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project, with a requirement for subcommittee review, to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67646. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment I. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and has been modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On November 15, 2018 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-11152018/ . The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Provide better details for the adjacent buildings on the streetscape elevation Updated streetscape elevation provided (A-2.1) Revise the front façade to better integrate the two sides of the building. On the fifth floor, windows, window trim, railings, and eaves have been revised to be more consistent. (Sheet A-4.0) Better integrate the enclosure on the rear stairs with the rest of the building design. The stair tower metal mesh has been changed to a dark bronze color which brings out the slotted design pattern (Sheet A-4.1), changes were also made to the roof form Thicken roof edges, increase the fascia design Roof and soffit thickness have been increased in the revised plan set (Sheet A- 4.3) Study the rear roof forms and make them more consistent The rear roof forms have been revised, see analysis section below. Provide a night view of the El Camino Real elevation A night view rendering is provided in the revised plan set. (Sheet A-5.3) Add pedestrian furniture (benches) along the street frontage Public benches have been added on the planter area of the porte-cochere and the restaurant (Sheet A-5.4) Provide more window details, including the recess depth Windows detail provided in the revised plans (Sheet A-6.2) Enhance the lobby doors of the hotel The landscaping above the doors was removed Ensure all four sides of the building employ the same high-quality materials and design details. Materials and roof forms have been revised to provide better transitions and increased the quality of the design. The project still employs two different materials for the front and back of the building, including the roof, as further discussed below (Sheet A-7.0) Provide clarification of the colors and Additional material samples, larger scale 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 material changes on the building material boards are provided, along with revised material plan sheets (Sheets A-7.0 and A-7.1) Elevations and renderings should be consistent with physical sample boards Plans and sample boards have been updated to better depict the proposed colors and materials Provide details for the landscape lighting and other features The landscape lighting has been revised and additional details are provided in the revised plans (Sheet L2.4) Provide additional information regarding the native and non-native plants The plant selection table has been revised to indicate native plants (Sheet L3.2) Analysis1 Revised the front façade The upper levels of each of the front elevations have been revised to create a more uniform design that better relates the two elements. This was achieved by mirroring the left side balcony design and applying it to the right side. Also, the window design of the left side element has been aligned to be more uniform and consistent with the rest of the front elevation window patterns. Revised Submittal 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Previous Submittal North Stair Tower Design The stair tower located on the northern portion of the building was revised by the applicant, along with materials and color changes to the façade of the building. Additionally, the roof forms adjacent to the tower have been revised to better match the top of the stair tower with the building. The color and materials changes to the building façade frame the stair tower and visually identify it as a element of the overall building with a different function than those directly adjacent to it. Though this seems to be an improvement over the previous design, the ARB’s feedback on this element and its compatibility with the building is desired. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Roof Forms As shown on Sheet A-3.5 and Sheet A-7.0, the roof is composed of two different materials. The front portion of the roof is standing seam metal, while the rear portion of the roof would be composite shingles. Staff would appreciate the ARB’s comments on these materials choices. As shown in the sections below (Sheet A-6.0), the upper levels of the proposed hotel have been moved away from the adjacent residential project to increase light and air for all uses. Previous Design New Design 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Pedestrian Seating The revised plans include pedestrian seating along El Camino Real where there was previously only a planter box. Though the porte-cochere seating area does encroach slightly into the required 12 feet sidewalk along El Camino Real, the seating does seems to work well in this location. However, the seating near the restaurant/café would fully encroach into the required sidewalk area. Staff recommends that the seating near the café be removed to maintain the required sidewalk area along El Camino Real. Material Variation Along All Four Sides of The Building The materials and roof forms have been revised, clarification has been provided on the plans to better identify the materials that will be utilized on each side of the building. The previous submittal utilized “harde board siding”, where the revised plans have replaced that material with an “oil-stained composite wood tone siding”. The ARB’s guidance on the new material selection is sought. Changes to the project seem to address the ARB’s overall comments and have resulted in a more refined and detailed design for this project. However, the changes proposed by the applicant to address the ARB’s comments, have resulted in additional changes as further described below. Floor Area (FAR) The following minor changes in FAR have been made by the applicant. The floor area for the project has increase by 562 square feet due to the addition of an additional work room in the garage (B2 level, sheet A-3.7), along with small changes in square footage throughout the building to accommodate the relocation of the rear stairwell of the hotel further away from the rear property line. This adjustment involves the removal of one room from the third and fourth floors at the rear of the building, which resulted in relocated one room to the first floor above the garage ramp and one room to the fifth floor towards El Camino Real. The ground floor lobby space was also revised, in addition to the kitchen, restroom, and restaurant/cafe space. These changes are within the allowed FAR limits for the property. Restaurant/Café The restaurant/café area of the hotel was also changed in this iteration of the project. The conference rooms that were located on the first floor have been removed, and there is now only one small conference room. The kitchen and bathroom areas have increased in size along with the overall seating area for the restaurant/café, with a decrease in bar area size. The current seating total for this area is just above half of the room total (at 53 seats) of the project. This area is viewed as an amenity to the proposed hotel, as it would provide food service to hotel guests on site, reducing the need for guest to leave the site during their stay. This would also benefit the hotel staff as they would have an on-site option for dining. Furthermore, the restaurant/café would not be advertised as a separate entity nor would the design of the building call out this area as a stand-alone business. 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Automobile Lift System/Parking Garage Changes The applicant has changed the parking lift system manufacturer to KLAUS from CITYLIFTS, though the configuration of the parking lifts is the same, with two level parking lifts being utilized, there no longer is a pit for additional parking. The current proposal has the lower lift parking space accessible at grade with garage floor level. The parking layout has also changed slightly, with a reconfiguration of the second level of the garage to accommodate a new work room for hotel staff. Changes to the parking garage do not reduce the total number of parking spaces proposed from the project (i.e. 102 parking spaces via a mixture of valet aisle parking, parking lifts, and standard spaces). Shadow Study At the ARB’s November 15, 2018 hearing, neighbors expressed concerns about shadows on their property and common space. A Shadow study is shown on Sheets A-8.0 to A-8.3. The City’s environmental threshold for shadows is the creation of substantial shadows on a public open space (other than public streets and adjacent sidewalks) between 9:00 a.m. and 3:00 p.m. from September 21 to March 21. Given there are no public open space areas in the vicinity, the project was determined to have no significant impact. This is not to say there would be no impact on the adjacent neighbors, as shown in the Shadow Study, additional morning sun would be blocked. However, this project is in conformance with the required setbacks and daylight plane regulations that are in place to respond to this type of issue. Signage The signage for the project has been updated with additional details shown on pages A-3.9 and A-3.10. However, the signage plans still lacks sufficient information to determine if the signage would meet the material and design quality for approval. Additional information regarding the color, materials, lighting, and finish of the parking and traffic signs located in the porte-cochere area are needed to approve these signs through a sub-committee process or as a separate staff level signage application. Staff recommends that the “Parking” sign and “Hotel Name” sign font match and/or be compatible for a clean look across the building frontage. The ARB feedback on these features would be appreciated. Landscape Lighting Additional, details for the landscape lighting are provide on sheet L2.4 of the project plans. However, cut sheets and the location of each light fixture (lighting plan) are not provided within the plans. Materials, color and finish are not identified in the plan set. This prevents staff and the ARB from making a final determination on exterior lighting. A lighting plan with the missing information discussed in this section would also allow for the photometrics plan to be properly reviewed. Staff is recommending a sub-committee condition be applied to this project for lighting. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 (Attachment C) requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Service Commercial, which provides citywide and regional services. This project is proposing a new hotel use with guest amenities common to hotels, such as a small restaurant which is consistent with the sites land use designation. Comprehensive plan policies and ARB findings are found in Attachment C of this report, where the project is shown to be consistent with the identified policies of the Comprehensive Plan. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, an Initial Study Mitigated Negative Declaration (ISMND) was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is being circulated for public comment between January 7, 2019 and February 6, 2019. Minor changes to the project, such as parking and FAR, noted in this staff report will be updated and reviewed prior to any Director’s decision. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on January 4, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 7, 2019, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Staff continues to work with the neighbors, keeping them informed on revised plans and environmental documents. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Recommend approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment E: Applicant Revised Project Description (PDF) Attachment F: Arborist Assessment (PDF) Attachment G: Previously Submitted Neighborhood Comments (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans and Mitigated Negative Declaration (DOCX) Attachment I: November 15, 2018 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (DOC) Attachment J: Hotel Operations (PDF) Attachment K: Applicant Response to ARB Comment (PDF) Attachment L: TDM Plan (PDF) 2 Packet Pg. 17 2.a Packet Pg. 18 ATTACHMENT B ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4256 EL Camino Real 18PLN-00096 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 0.595 acres (25,960 sf) 0.595 acres (25,960 sf) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 12’8” 12 foot sidewalk width Rear Yard None 110’-2” 19’-3” Interior Side Yard None 31’-3” 10’ (narrowest points) Street Side Yard None N/A N/A Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) N/A N/A Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real 33% of side street built to setback Not Known 50% Max. Site Coverage None 12.69% (3,296 sf) 49.6% (12,801 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than RM- 40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site Not known 50 feet (12 ft additional height for mechanical screen)(9) Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) per Code Section 18.18.060(d) 2.0:1 for hotels (51,920 sf) 3,296 sf 51,861 sf Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) N/A N/A (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage (9) Height Exception for roof top equipment to exceed the height limit by 15 ft. PAMC 18.40.090 2.b Packet Pg. 19 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Hotel use Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space per guestroom; plus the applicable requirement for eating and drinking, banquet, assembly, commercial or other as required for such uses, less up to 75% of the spaces required for guestrooms, upon approval by the director based on a parking study of parking generated by the mix of uses. Parking Lifts PAMC 18.54.020(b)4 (Minimum of two spaces or 10% of the total number of parking spaces provided, whichever is greater, shall be provided as standard non-mechanical parking spaces. Accessible spaces shall not be counted as one of the standard spaces for this requirement) 46 spaces 85 spaces*; 28 Mechanical lifts, 51 Standard, 1 Shuttle Parking, 1 Valet, Parking Reduction of 15% via Directors Adjustment for an on-site TDM program. 13 Additional Valet Aisle Parking Bicycle Parking 1 space per 10 guestrooms, plus requirements for accessory uses (drinking, banquet, assembly, commercial or other), (100% short-term required) (10 Required) Not known 12 spaces; 6 long-term, 6 short-term Loading Space 1 loading space for 10,000 - 99,999 sf Not known 1 space**, Reduced size via Director’s adjustment to minimum size of 10 ft wide by 30 ft long (SU-30 truck size) *18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director - Transportation and Parking Alternatives (up to 20% Reduction) Where effective alternatives to automobile access are provided, other than those listed above, parking requirements may be reduced to an extent commensurate with the permanence, effectiveness, and the demonstrated reduction of off-street parking demand effectuated by such alternative programs. Examples of such programs may include, but are not limited to, transportation demand management (TDM) programs or innovative parking pricing or design solutions. **18.52.050 Adjustments by the Director - Modification to Off-Street Loading Requirements (Maximum Reduction of one loading space) The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off-street loading requirements for non-residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon finding that: 1) the off-street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; and 2) the use of shared on-street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one loading space. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 4256 El Camino Real 18PLN-00096 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. On balance, the project can be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY B-6: Maintain distinct neighborhood shopping areas that are attractive, accessible, and convenient to nearby residents. POLICY B-1.7: Encourage businesses of all kinds to advance Palo Alto’s commitment to fiscal and environmental sustainability. POLICY L-4.15: Recognize El Camino Real as both a local serving and regional serving corridor, defined by a mix of commercial uses and housing POLICY L-2.12: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposed façade would be of high quality finishes and materials that will enhance the existing street scape along El Camino Real The proposal would result in a new business that serves both local and regional customers who seek lodging in Palo Alto while complying with current Green Building construction and operating standards. The proposal will redevelop an underutilized parcel along El Camino Real and will provide a local and regional serving business. The project involves new planting through the property including a large plaza in the interior of the property for hotel guest to utilize. POLICY L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing The project proposes a underground parking structure that utilizes parking lifts (puzzle lift systems), removing all surface parking from the site and allowing for a more engaging frontage. 2.c Packet Pg. 21 for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. POLICY L-9.7: Strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial districts; Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real and between Palo Alto and Stanford. Additionally, the project will provide new street trees in the public right of way that are more sustainable and suitable for the site. The project proposes a new hotel near the south City boundary along El Camino Real, contributing to the South El Camino corridor visual and business identity. PROGRAM L9.10.2: Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. The project locates backflow preventers, gas meters, electric transformers and switch gears out of the view of the public by placing them along the interior of the building footprint and the edges of the building along the interior lot lines. This application is also subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. To conform with these Guidelines, the project will plant new street trees along the El Camino Real frontage of the site and a new 12 ft wide sidewalk will be provided. The site plan and building design provides all of the on-site parking below grade and will screen all of the mechanical equipment from public view. The projects trash enclosure is located out of public view. The buildings design provides all elevations with a integrated consistent design throughout, maintaining the overall architectural theme of the building. The design of the new building is softened with the use of wood panels that connect the building façade with the existing mature redwoods that surround the site. The site plan of the project is developed to minimize the impacts to the adjacent multi-family development by stepping down the building heights from five stories down to two stories as the building approaches the rear property line. In addition, the buildings’ footprint on the site plan is oriented away from the adjacent residential developments’ common open space area by the “C” shaped site plan of the project with the opening of the “C” shaped site plan facing the common open space area, minimizing the impact to light and air. Also the building design of the project places smaller windows facing towards the property lines and larger windows facing to the interior plaza area of the site to minimize privacy impact to the adjacent residential development while still providing natural light for hotel patrons. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, 2.c Packet Pg. 22 d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is proposing new building with a façade that will enhance the local environment for the community and patrons to the local businesses alike. The design of the new building is consistent with the context-based design criteria within the CS zone, as further described below. In addition, the project integrates the exterior façade of the hotel with wood paneling inspired by the surrounding redwoods, connecting the building with the existing character and streetscape along this portion of El Camino Real. The proposal will also conform to code required setbacks through the site and will provide a pedestrian friendly 12 foot sidewalk long the sites frontage. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian- oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle-friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project will enhance the pedestrian environment by providing a 12 ft sidewalk and a restaurant with patio seating near the street. The project also proposes an engaging colored glass wall feature in an organic seafoam color palette at the pedestrian level. The project will also provide 12 bicycle parking spaces on site, including long term and short term parking. The project has a large lobby with full length windows that connects to the interior plaza area of the site, promoting an open and inviting frontage. The project is proposing pedestrian seating along El Camino Real. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The proposed building includes a recessed entry and awning and cantilever features that will function as a shelter for pedestrians. The proposed building also will have large clear windows that connect the interior of the building to the sidewalk and street, in addition to a restaurant patio that promote pedestrian activity. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing The proposed project will substantially increase 2.c Packet Pg. 23 and conform to proper setbacks the existing massing while creating a new larger front setback (12 ft wide sidewalk) from the street. Interior side setbacks vary while maintaining at least a 10 ft setback along the interior lot lines and a minimum 19 ft 3 in rear setback. All of which conform to code required setbacks. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding does not apply as the project site is adjacent to a commercial property and a dense multi-family residential development. However, the proposed design has taken the adjacent multi-family developments privacy into account and design the building in a manner where larger windows are oriented to the interior plaza of the development. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site The project provides a large open plaza area in the interior of the site that will be open for visitors of the site. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The proposed project will remove existing on- site parking and replacing surface parking with underground parking and the use of parking lift systems. No parking will be visible from the street level and the character of the site promotes an engaging frontage from the street level. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will be constructed in accordance with current green building energy efficiency requirements and will utilize natural materials such as glass, wood, metal, concrete which are readily recyclable. The project will also incorporate a landscape plan that is water efficient and drought tolerant. 2.c Packet Pg. 24 Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project involves materials which are durable and of high-quality finishes. The new façade will have a mixture of materials with stained wood paneling inspired by the surrounding redwoods throughout the façade. Additional materials in such as dark finished metal provide contrast to the wood façade softening the frontage of the site and fitting of the character and enhancing the surrounding the area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project includes a porte-cochere laid out in a lower case “h” shape, allowing for passenger and service/delivery vehicles that support the day to day operation of the proposed hotel while providing easy access for arriving vehicles into the underground garage. The porte-cochere includes a two lane driveway (single direction) that can accommodate the service vehicles up to 30 feet in length. New utilities equipment and meters are easily accessible as they are placed on the edges of the building. Additionally, the project is proposed to have new vehicle directional signage and pedestrian/vehicle alert signs promoting safer site circulation. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project meets the findings as it includes new planting throughout the site, with ten plants being California native plants within the interior plaza garden area of the site. Additionally, some of the plants in the plant palette attract wild life such as the Arbutus Menziesii (birds and bees), Pittosporum tenuifolium (birds), and the Platanus x Acerifolia “Yardwood” (birds). Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project will also comply with all applicable green building codes for energy efficient buildings such as the use of energy-efficient lighting and will utilize materials such as glass, wood, metal, concrete which are readily recyclable. The project also utilizes landscaping in the plant palette that is moderate to low water usage with nearly half of the selected plants being native to California. 2.c Packet Pg. 25 ATTACHMENT D DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4256 El Camino Real 18PLN-00096 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "The Caterina Hotel, 4256 El Camino Real,” stamped as received by the City on January 8, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The Architectural Review (AR) approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 6. STREET TREES. New three (3) street trees as noted on the approved plans, must be planted by the applicant and inspected by PW Urban Forestry prior to final inspection. 7. MECHANICAL LIFT PARKING SYSTEM. Up to 72 required parking spaces may be provided in a puzzle parking system. Valet parking services must be provided at all times on-site to ensure queuing of cars is kept to a minimum. 8. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: 2.d Packet Pg. 26 a. Signage for site to be reviewed and approved by the ARB subcommittee to determine the quality and compatibility of the porte-cochere signage with the building design. b. Landscape lighting plan and photometric plan to be reviewed and approved by the ARB subcommittee to determine the quality and compatibility of light fixtures with design of the project and that the photometric plan is consistent with the lighting plan. 9. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 10. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $ 1232203.81 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 11. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 12. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 2.d Packet Pg. 27 1. As the applicant is now proposing to extend the storm drain main on El Camino Real and connect the site’s storm runoff into that extended main as opposed to discharging through thru-curb drains as previously approved, applicant will need to provide approval from Caltrans to do so as that is their right of way and their storm drain main. Caltrans approval of this work shall be provided prior to Grading or Building permit issuance. 2. A structure is proposed over an existing PUE. Applicant will need to provide documentation verifying easement has been abandoned (recorded document from the County) or obtain an encroachment permit for a structure within a PUE by submitting an encroachment permit application, insurance meeting PW requirements, and a plan that will be reviewed by both Utilities’ groups and the storm drain division prior to grading or Building permit issuance. 3. STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project shall comply with the storm water regulations contained in provision C.3 of the NPDES municipal storm water discharge permit issued by the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (and incorporated into Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11). These regulations apply to land development projects that create or replace 10,000 square feet or more of impervious surface, and restaurants, retail gasoline outlets, auto service facilities, and uncovered parking lots that create and/or replace 5,000 square feet or more of impervious surface. In order to address the potential permanent impacts of the project on storm water quality, the applicant shall incorporate into the project a set of permanent site design measures, source controls, and treatment controls that serve to protect storm water quality, subject to the approval of the Public Works Department. The applicant shall identify, size, design and incorporate permanent storm water pollution prevention measures (preferably landscape-based treatment controls such as bioswales, filter strips, and permeable pavement rather than mechanical devices that require long-term maintenance) to treat the runoff from a “water quality storm” specified in PAMC Chapter 16.11 prior to discharge to the municipal storm drain system. Effective February 10, 2011, regulated projects, must contract with a qualified third-party reviewer during the planning review process to certify that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. Applicant provided preliminary third party approval of the project in entitlement. Please provide this C.3 data form stamped and signed by the qualified third party reviewer, and a stamped and signed letter from the third party reviewer confirming plans are in compliance with MRP 2.0 Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. These must be provided prior to PWE approval of Grading or Building permits. 4. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. Please note, applicant will be required to obtain a permit from both Caltrans and the City for shoring to encroach onto El Camino Real frontage right of way. This will require approval from Caltrans and all applicable City utility departments and is not guaranteed to be approved. 2.d Packet Pg. 28 5. Applicant will be required to offer a dedication for a public access easement for the additional dimension of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge that meets the El Camino Real Master Plan requirements. If no mapping is to be done for this project, the dedication will be required to be recorded in advance of permit issuance. 6. Applicant will be required to dedicate a Public Utility Easement at the location of the new proposed transformer. If no mapping is to be done for this project, the dedication will be required to be recorded in advance of permit issuance. 7. STORM WATER HYDRAULICS AND HYDROLOGY: Plans provided do not show if the existing site drainage has a direct discharge into the existing system. Provide an analysis that compares the existing and proposed site runoff from the project site. Runoff shall be based on City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards for 10 year storm event with HGL’s 0.5 foot below inlet grates elevations and 100- year storm with HGL not exceeding the street right-of-way. As described on the City of Palo Alto Drainage Design Standards. Please provide the tabulated calculations directly on the conceptual grading and drainage plan. This project may be required to replace and upsize the existing storm drain system to handle the added flows and/or depending on the current pipe condition. The IDF tables and Precipitation Map for Palo Alto is available County of Santa Clara County Drainage Manual dated October 2007. The proposed project shall not increase runoff to the public storm drain system. 8. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace all sidewalks, curbs, gutters and driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. 9. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 10. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that 2.d Packet Pg. 29 exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 11. DEWATERING: Proposed underground garage excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is disallowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April 1 through October 31 due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level; if the proposed project will encounter groundwater, the applicant must provide all required dewatering submittals for Public Works review and approval prior to grading permit issuance. Public Works has dewatering submittal requirements and guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 12. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include an earthworks table showing cut and fill volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans for a grading permit are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 13. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 14. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650-496-5953). This approval shall appear on the plans. Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 15. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 16. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 2.d Packet Pg. 30 17. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to issuance of the Building and/or Grading permit. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 18. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the site plan that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. Pedestrian protection must be provided per the 2007 California Building Code Chapter 33 requirements. If the height of construction is 8 feet or less, the contractor must place construction railings sufficient to direct pedestrians around construction areas. If the height of construction is more than 8 feet, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works at the Development Center in order to provide a barrier and covered walkway or to close the sidewalk.” 19. LOGISTICS PLAN: The contractor must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. The plan will be attached to a street work permit. 20. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project is required. Caltrans right-of-way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. 21. Provide a Rough Grading Plan for the work proposed as part of the Grading and Excavation Permit application. The Rough Grading Plans shall including the following: pad elevation, basement elevation, elevator pit elevation, ground monitoring wells, shoring for the proposed basement, limits of over excavation, stockpile area of material, overall earthwork volumes (cut and fill), temporary shoring for any existing facilities, ramps for the basement access, crane locations (if any), etc. Plans submitted for the Grading and Excavation Permit, shall be stand-alone, and therefore the plans shall include any conditions from other divisions that pertain to items encountered during rough grading for example if contaminated groundwater is encountered and dewatering is expected, provide notes on the plans based Water Quality’s conditions of approval. Provide a note on the plans to direct the contractor to the approve City of Palo Alto Truck Route Map, which is available on the City’s website. 22. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes (cut and fill 2.d Packet Pg. 31 in CY), pad, finished floor, garage elevation, base flood elevation (if applicable) grades along the project conforms, property lines, or back of walk. See PAMC Section 16.28.110 for additional items. Projects that front directly into the public sidewalk, shall include grades at the doors or building entrances. Provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Label the downspouts, splashblocks (2- feet long min) and any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points and grade breaks. Provide dimensions between the bubblers and property lines. In no case shall drainage across property lines exceed that which existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. In particular, runoff from the new garage shall not drain into neighboring property. For additional grading and drainage detail design See Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 23. Provide the following note on the Grading and Drainage Plan and/or Site Plan: “Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering (PWE) Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system (pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection, at a minimum 48-hours in advance by calling (650)496-6929”. 24. Decorative streetlights shall be added to meet spacing guidelines of 35-feet to 40-feet per light. Existing “cobra head” lights shall be replaced by tall decorative lights and the remaining distance shall be met with pedestrian scale lights. Spec will be provided, however applicant shall use LED luminaire instead of incandescent or sodium vapor. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION 25. Drain downspouts to landscaping or stormwater treatment area (outward from building as needed) as opposed to connecting to storm drain line or draining onto impervious surface (Sheet C-3.0 and Sheet C-3.1). Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 26. Refer to PWE comments regarding the drainage management areas on sheet HYD-2. Confirm with PWE if DMA #6 is allowed to drain to the street instead of draining to stormwater treatment area or landscaping. 27. Sheet ER-1: Erosion Control Notes: It shall be the owner’s contractor’s responsibility to maintain control of the entire construction operation and to keep the entire site in compliance with the erosion control plan and guidance from City inspectors. Add text: “Contractor is responsible for replacing storm drain inlet protection within one business day following a rain event if City staff removes inlet protection during a rain event. Offsite downgrade storm drain inlets also require inlet protection.” Add this bullet to the building plans. Sanitary facilities shall be maintained on the site at all times according to either the latest revisions of the CASQA or Caltrans BMPs. Sanitary facilities shall include secondary containment. Add this bullet to the building plans. 2.d Packet Pg. 32 All paved areas shall be kept clear of earth material and debris on a daily basis throughout the life of the project… Add this bullet to the building plans. All materials necessary for the approved erosion control measures shall be in place throughout the life of the project. Erosion control systems shall be installed and maintained throughout the life of the project. The contractor shall be responsible for checking and repairing erosion control systems after each storm. The contractor is responsible for replacing storm drain inlet protection (including offsite downgrade SD inlets) within one business day following a rain event if City staff removes inlet protection during a rain event. Measures shall be taken to collect or clean any accumulation or deposit of dirt, mud, sand, rocks, gravel, or debris on the surface of any street, alley, or public place or in any public storm drain systems on a daily basis. The removal of… Erosion control measures shall be onsite throughout the life of the project. All erosion control measures shall be installed and maintained throughout the life of the project. The contractor must install all erosion and sediment control measures prior to the inception of any work onsite and maintain the measures throughout the life of the project. Sediments and other materials shall not be tracked from the site by vehicle traffic. The contractor shall install a stabilized construction entrance and exit prior to the inspection of any work onsite and maintain it for the duration of the construction process… Only the stabilized construction entrance(s) and exit(s) shall be utilized for vehicle traffic. The contractor shall protect down slope drainage courses, streams, and storm drains with gravel bags, temporary swales, silt fences, and earth perms in conjunction of all landscaping. Excess or waste concrete must not be washed into the public right-of-way or any other drainage system. Provisions shall be made to retain concrete wastes on site until they can be disposed of as solid waste according to BMPs. Spills must be cleaned up immediately and disposed of in a proper manner using dry cleanup methods. There shall also be a spill kit onsite. Spills must not be washed… Silt fence(s) and/or fiber roll(s) shall be installed throughout the life of the project. Erosion Control Measures: The facilities shown on this plan are designed to control erosion and sediment throughout the life of the project. Erosion control facilities shall be in place throughout the life of the project… Gravel bags shall be used in place of straw bales. Construction entrances and exits shall be installed prior to commencement of grading. All construction traffic entering onto the paved roads or exiting must cross the stabilized construction entrances or exits. Contractor shall maintain stabilized entrance and exit at each vehicle access point to and from existing paved streets. Any mud or debris tracked onto public streets shall be removed daily and as required by the governing agency. Inlet protection shall be installed at open inlets to prevent sediment from entering the storm drain system, including offsite downgrade storm drain inlets… 2.d Packet Pg. 33 This erosion and sediment control plan may not cover all the situations that may arise during construction due to unanticipated field conditions. Variations and additions may be made to this plan in the field. Changes may be required by City Inspectors or other City staff… 28. Sheet ER-2 o Straw rolls shall be replaced with a different BMP according to the latest revision of either CASQA or Caltrans BMPs. 29. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 30. Storm drain/drop inlets o Ensure all drainage from inside parking garage. Note that the parking garage must drain to the sanitary sewer (per the City’s Muni Code). Other parking areas may discharge to the City’s stormwater system. These separators must be maintained on a regular frequency and will be inspected by City staff to ensure compliant. o Inlets should also be labeled with a ‘Flows to Adobe Creek’ message. 31. Stormwater treatment measures o Clear, detailed maintenance agreement for stormwater treatment must be drafted before occupancy approval. o Must meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. o Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details 32. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) o Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines- sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. o Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. 33. Stormwater quality protection: At a minimum, follow the construction BMP sheet that must be submitted with plans for entitlement. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. o Trash and recycling containers must be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. Have clear maintenance plan for trash and recycling containers to not allow overflow. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 37. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- COMPLIANCE WITH TREE PROTECTION and PRESERVATION PLAN (ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER). Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; certified that the building permit include the offsetting treatments, and propose tree protection measures identified in the Tree Protection and 2.d Packet Pg. 34 Preservation Plan during construction of the project. Adjustments to the design combined with offsetting treatments and tree protection measures are anticipated to result in impacts that are less than significant and will allow trees to recover quickly. Trees on the neighboring properties have been inspected and will continue to be monitored throughout the construction process monthly and at milestone events by the City Urban Forester. 38. (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City Standards, Regulations and information: a. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with said design changes and corresponding mitigation measures. (e.g.: if Pier/grade beam=soils report w/ specs required by Bldg. Div.; if Standard foundation= mitigation for linear 24” cut to all roots in proximity) b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. c. Specialty items. Itemized list of any activity impact--quantified and mitigated, in the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for each tree. d. Oaks, if present. That landscape and irrigation plans are consistent with CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.45 and Appendix L, Landscaping under Native Oaks and PAMC 18.40.130. 39. BUILDING PERMIT CORRECTIONS/REVISIONS--COVER LETTER. During plan check review, provide a separate cover letter with Correction List along with the revised drawings when resubmitting. State where the significant tree impacts notes occur (bubble) and indicate the sheet number and/or detail where the correction has been made. Provide: 1) corresponding revision number and 2) bubble or highlights for easy reference. Responses such as “see plans or report” or “plans comply” are not acceptable. Your response should be clear and complete to assist the re-check and approval process for your project. 40. TREE APPRAISAL & SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. (Reference: CPA Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.25). Prior to the issuance of a grading or building permit, the applicant shall prepare and secure a tree appraisal and security deposit agreement stipulating the duration and monitoring program. The appraisal of the condition and replacement value of all trees to remain shall recognize the location of each tree in the proposed development. Listed separately, the appraisal may be part of the Tree Survey Report. For the purposes of a security deposit agreement, the monetary market or replacement value shall be determined using the most recent version of the “Guide for Plan Appraisal”, in conjunction with the Species and Classification Guide for Northern 2.d Packet Pg. 35 California. The appraisal shall be performed at the applicant’s expense, and the appraiser shall be subject to the Director’s approval. a. SECURITY DEPOSIT AGREEMENT. Prior to grading or building permit issuance, as a condition of development approval, the applicant shall post a security deposit for the 150% of the appraised replacement value of the following 23 Designated Trees: (ID numbers to be determined), to be retained and protected.. The total amount for this project is: $__To Be Determined with Urban Forestry staff. The security may be a cash deposit, letter of credit, or surety bond and shall be filed with the Revenue Collections/Finance Department or in a form satisfactory to the City Attorney. b. SECURITY DEPOSIT & MONITORING PROGRAM. The project sponsor shall provide to the City of Palo Alto an annual tree evaluation report prepared by the project arborist or other qualified certified arborist, assessing the condition and recommendations to correct potential tree decline for trees remain and trees planted as part of the mitigation program. The monitoring program shall end two years from date of final occupancy, unless extended due to tree mortality and replacement, in which case a new two year monitoring program and annual evaluation report for the replacement tree shall begin. Prior to occupancy, a final report and assessment shall be submitted for City review and approval. The final report shall summarize the Tree Resources program, documenting tree or site changes to the approved plans, update status of tree health and recommend specific tree care maintenance practices for the property owner(s). The owner or project sponsor shall call for a final inspection by the Planning Division Arborist. c. SECURITY DEPOSIT DURATION. The security deposit duration period shall be two years (or five years if determined by the Director) from the date of final occupancy. Return of the security guarantee shall be subject to City approval of the final monitoring report. A tree shall be considered dead when the main leader has died back, 25% of the crown is dead or if major trunk or root damage is evident. A new tree of equal or greater appraised value shall be planted in the same area by the property owner. Landscape area and irrigation shall be readapted to provide optimum growing conditions for the replacement tree. The replacement tree that is planted shall be subject to a new two-year establishment and monitoring program. The project sponsor shall provide an annual tree evaluation report as originally required. 41. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #2-6 applies; with landscape plan: Insp. #7 applies.) 2.d Packet Pg. 36 b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, ArborResources, Inc., shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. 42. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 43. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Plans with Public Trees shall show (a) Type II street tree fencing enclosing the entire parkway strip or, (b) Type I protection to the outer branch dripline (for rolled curb & sidewalk or no-sidewalk situations.) a. Add Site Plan Notes.) i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351 "; iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496- 5953.” v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 44. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly-owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. a. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) 2.d Packet Pg. 37 separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T-2, or specific approval communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 45. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to demolition, grading or building permit issuance, a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Building Inspections Division. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. DURING CONSTRUCTION 46. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 47. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the City Urban Forester, before submitting the revision to the Building Department. 48. CONDITIONS. All Planning Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 49. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 50. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 2.d Packet Pg. 38 51. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY 52. URBAN FORESTRY DIGITAL FILE & INSPECTION. The applicant or architect shall provide a digital file of the landscape plan, including new off-site trees in the publicly owned right-of-way. A USB Flash Drive, with CAD or other files that show species, size and exact scaled location of each tree on public property, shall be delivered to Urban Forestry at a tree and landscape inspection scheduled by Urban Forestry (650-496-5953). 53. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 54. PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy, the contractor shall provide to the Planning Department and property owner a final inspection letter by the Project Arborist. The inspection shall evaluate the success or needs of Regulated tree protection, including new landscape trees, as indicated on the approved plans. The written acceptance of successful tree preservation shall include a photograph record and/or recommendations for the health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries (if any). The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 55. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650-329-2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 56. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. BUILDING DIVISION 57. A site-specific soils report will be required to be submitted for the building construction permit. 58. For the valet parking space in the basement garage, the access aisle serving them and a vehicular route from the entrance shall provide a vertical clearance of 114 inches minimum. (CBC 11B-503.5) 59. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in 2.d Packet Pg. 39 the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. GREEN BUILDING 60. Green Building Requirements for Non-Residential Projects. For design and construction of non- residential projects, the City requires compliance with the mandatory measures of Chapter 5, in addition to use of the Voluntary Tiers. (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The following are required for Building Approval: 61. The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 6.14.180 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. 62. The project is a new building over 10,000 square feet and therefore must meet the commissioning requirements outlined in the California Energy Code section. The project team shall submit the Owner’s Project Requirements (OPR), and Basis of Design (BOD), and Commissioning Plan in accordance with 5.410.2.3. 63. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 64. The project is a nonresidential new construction projects with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the prescribed potable water reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.220 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined on the following site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape.asp. 65. The project is outside the boundaries of the recycled water project area and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install recycled water infrastructure for irrigation systems. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 66. The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water 2.d Packet Pg. 40 infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 67. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). 68. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 69. The project is a nonresidential new construction project and has a value exceeding $25,000 and therefore must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 70. The project includes non-residential demolition and therefore must meet the Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction - Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.270 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 71. The project is a new non-residential structure and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5263 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details. The following are required at Post-Construction after 12 months of occupancy. 72. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. The following are optional to the project team: Optional Zero Net Energy Design Review: 73. OPTIONAL: The project is a new construction or remodel of a commercial project and therefore may elect to engage the City of Palo Alto consultant, BASE Energy Inc, free of charge. BASE will assist the project in targeting Zero Net Energy and exceeding the Title 24 Energy Code. Rebates may be available via working with Base. For more information, visit cityofpaloalto.org/commercial 2.d Packet Pg. 41 program or call 650.329.2241. The applicant may also contact Ricardo Sfeir at BASE Energy at rsfeir@baseco.com to schedule a project kick-off. Utilities Incentives & Rebates 74. OPTIONAL: The project may be eligible for several rebates offered through the City of Palo Alto Utilities Department. These rebates are most successfully obtained when planned into the project early in design. For the incentives available for the project, please see the information provided on the Utilities website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/rebates/default.asp Bird-Friendly Building Design 75. OPTIONAL: The project contains a glazed façade that covers a large area. Some fritted panels are specified. The project should consider bird-safe glazing treatment that typically includes fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing, or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns should be at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. 2.d Packet Pg. 42 1970 Broadway Ave, Ste 500 Oakland, CA 94612 (510) 451 - 2850 December 18, 2018 Planning and Community Environment Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Proposed Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Subject: Project Description – ARB, Major Project THE CATERINA HOTEL PROJECT DESCRIPTION PROJECT DESCRIPTION Applying the vision of Palo Alto’s El Camino Real Hotel Area District, the proposed project seeks to replace an existing restaurant and surface parking lot located at 4256 El Camino Real with a new boutique hotel. Achieving an FAR under 2.0 and site coverage under 50% required by the property’s CS zoning, the Caterina Hotel will take advantage of this underutilized site to provide a unique and charming environment through use of high end material and complementary aesthetics to the surrounding redwood grove. The building program includes 100 guestrooms, double height lobby/lounge, conference rooms, fitness center, staff offices, a cafe and kitchen. 85 parking spaces are provided together with additional 17 valet aisle parking, total of 102 stalls are available for valet parking service. The hotel is Type III-A construction above two levels of subterranean Type I-A garage. Height ranges from 2 to 5 stories within a maximum height of 50’, with exception of mechanical and elevator equipment that are permitted an additional 15' in height by city ordinance. PEDESTRIAN & STREET EDGE DESIGN The project is designed to enhance Palo Alto's El Camino Real Grand Boulevard Vision and to comply to South El Camino Real Design Guidelines with a welcoming and attractive urban character. A 12’ sidewalk adjacent to street trees/planters and a covered outdoor lounge connected to an interior café provide a pleasant pedestrian-friendly experience. The ground floor utilizes transparent double-high storefront and fully foldable glass door to connect activities between El Camino Real and interior functions, creating a series of semi-public spaces and enhancing the hospitable entry experience. A two story lobby with an elegantly curved-frame glass façade and grand staircase, serves as a transitional focal point 2.e Packet Pg. 43 between the El Camino Real public realm and the tranquil interior courtyard. A flush curb porte-cochere allows the pedestrian activities to seamlessly spill into the lobby space before transitioning into the private courtyard. BUILDING DESIGN Challenges of a compact site and proximity of adjacent residential properties encouraged the massing to concentrate against office parcel and El Camino Real in an “L” shape, providing a strong street frontage presence while minimizing bulk towards the rear. The building massing steps down gradually to 2 story high toward rear yard, minimizing the visual and solar impact on the south adjacent redwood trees and neighborhood buildings. Building elevations are articulated with height variations and plane changes to reduce the impact of massing. The upper levels facing El Camino contain larger transom windows, glass railings balconies, setback rooflines to provide a lighter transparent contrast to the wood-colored siding panels. The material composition also provides distinct base, middle, and top proportions per the South ECR design guidelines. The project uses rich and substantial building material to express a high-end contemporary aesthetic. Exterior finishes including wood-colored siding panel, metal column cladding with light channels, aluminum storefront, lap siding, metal louvers, and smooth plaster finish. The interior courtyard is lushly landscaped with native plant-life and bookended with the rest of the hotel massing. A distinct paving material mimicking the flow of streams continues on from the porte-cochere and lobby through the courtyard, wrapping around seating clusters and planters. TRANSPORTATION CIRCULATION A double height porte-cochere provides two distinct entries for drop-off/delivery and guest parking. Clear signage at all entries and exits will direct vehicles and pedestrians to their correct locations. Only temporary loading or Uber drop-offs are permitted at 25’ wide porte-cochere to mitigate traffic congestion and facilitate vehicular flow. Guests seeking the garage will enter through the far entrance directly down to the underground parking where a 24/7 valet service will park or retrieve their cars. Hotel supplies are schedule to deliver at the basement level during off-peak hours. Six short term bike racks are provided near the lobby entrance for guests. Six long term bike storage lockers are also provided towards the north of the courtyard adjacent to the stair for employees. Only 31% of parking stalls are mechanical lifts, 69% are standard size non-lift parking. City transportation engineer, manager of planning and project planner visited a CityLifts mechanical lift installation in early 2018 to gauge the efficacy of an automated mechanical system and the feedback we received was positive. NEIGHBOR INTERFACE This building is designed to meet the business hotel function while maintaining the privacy of the neighboring residence. Most of the amenities such as Fitness Room, Conference Rooms, Business Center, and Lobby/Lounge are contained within the building envelope. Outdoor seating and passageways are carefully connected to the courtyard to avoid disturbance of neighbors. Non-active function and native plants are proposed along the south and west boulders for the purpose of landscape buffer. The project also uses wood colored siding with pitched roofs to reflect the texture of the neighboring PAR community. 2.e Packet Pg. 44 Undulating roofline provides a softer edge towards adjacent properties and mechanical devices are located away from the neighbors and sufficiently screened with dark aluminum louvers. Building massing gradually steps down to 2 stories toward the south, greatly reduced visual impact to the Palo Alto Redwood community. An open courtyard facing the neighbor’s amenity area minimizes shadow impact to neighboring buildings and pool. The significantly increased setback, step-down massing, and limited windows at the rear of the building collectively provide for a gentler interface with the community. NEIGHBORHOOD OUTREACH Ownership contacted PAR (Palo Alto Redwoods HOA) before any submission of any plans to the city and discussed our concept design, after which we adjusted according to feedback. We engaged the HOA starting May 2017, having 2 meetings with HOA and culminating with an all residents PAR meeting proposed by the hotel ownership on August 10th 2017 just after our first ARB on 8/3/17. At those meetings the architects and applicant were present and later the landscape architect was also invited. During preparation for the 2nd pre-ARB hearing on 10/10/17 ownership requested meeting with PAR HOA and it was turned down. Ownership received an email from PAR with comments very close to the 2nd ARB meeting. Comments from 1st and 2nd ARB from PAR were consistent and almost identical, pointing out to mostly environmental issues (trees, traffic) and emphasizing that PAR needed more education on the entitlement process which was provided at length by the city planning department. Through 2018 to date PAR received hard copies of every plan updates, communication through the city planner including updated 3D Animation views of the building. Through 2018 to date PAR comments have been consistent with their 2017 comments, which have mostly been answered and clarified with the conclusion of ISMND report. Publication of all environmental reports done by city-hired neutral consultants due by the end of the year. PAR has received the latest set of plans (at every update) the same day of our submissions to the city in order to review properly. Additional hard copies of plans (11x17) have always been provided to PAR. Ownership is planning to notify all neighbors within 600 ft radius from the property for a public meeting that will take place on Oct. 22, 2018 prior to ARB hearing. SUMMARY OF MAJOR URBAN DESIGN AND BUILDING DESIGN ELEMENTS: 1. 12’ sidewalk setback at the entire frontage with public amenities such as open lounge and bar stools. 2. Prominent building façade to hold the street edge and promote Grand Boulevard character. 3. Significant El Camino Real front entry with tall glass storefront, integrated awning, and covered seating area. 4. Flush curb with bollards to enhance accessibility and pedestrian friendly street design. 5. Maximized ground level transparency for visual connectivity to courtyard. 6. Articulated roofline through use of upper level setback, habitable balconies, and angled roofs. 7. Varied building massing and roofline towards the El Camino Real streetscape 8. Accentuated contemporary interpretation of the essential Base-Body-Roof building proportions 9. Stepped down and pulled back bulk of building’s rear massing to respect the privacy of existing residential properties. ZONING: CS (Service Commercial) SITE AREA: 25,947 square feet MATERIALS: wood-colored siding panel, metal column cladding, aluminum storefront, lap siding, smooth plaster finish, and glass railings. 2.e Packet Pg. 45 Proposed Required SETBACKS: Front 4’ 0'-10' Side 10’ 0’ Rear Sidewalk at ECR 16’ 12’ 0’ 12’ HEIGHT: 50' 50’ BIKE PARKING: 12 10 FAR: 1.99 2.0 Site Coverage: 50% 50% PARKING: 85 spaces (15% reduction) +17 valet aisle spaces =102 available valet parking spaces 100 spaces 2.e Packet Pg. 46 4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project Tree Protection and Preservation Plan prepared by City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department Mr. Samuel Gutierrez 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, California 94301 Via email: Samuel.Gutierrez@CityofPaloAlto.gov prepared with the assistance of Rincon Consultants, Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 October 2018 2.f Packet Pg. 47 Table of Contents Tree Protection and Preservation Plan i Table of Contents 1 Introduction ....................................................................................................................................1 1.1 Project Location and Description ........................................................................................1 2 Methodology ..................................................................................................................................4 2.1 Background/Initial Survey ...................................................................................................4 2.2 Follow‐up Survey .................................................................................................................4 2.3 Focused Root Mapping Survey ...........................................................................................5 3 Results and Impacts ........................................................................................................................6 3.1 Follow‐up Survey Results ....................................................................................................6 3.2 Proposed Project Impacts ...................................................................................................6 4 Tree Protection and Preservation Plan ........................................................................................ 12 4.1 Preconstruction Requirements ........................................................................................ 14 4.2 During Construction Requirements ................................................................................. 15 4.3 Maintenance .................................................................................................................... 17 5 References ................................................................................................................................... 18 Tables Table 1 Overall Condition Rating Criteria .......................................................................................4 Table 2 Tree Inventory .....................................................................................................................7 Table 3 Impacts to Tree Protection Zones ................................................................................... 12 Figures Figure 1 ‐ Regional Location ...................................................................................................................2 Figure 2 ‐ Project Location ......................................................................................................................3 Figure 3 ‐ Tree Locations ..................................................................................................................... 10 Figure 4 ‐ Tree Protection Zones of Trees to be Protected ................................................................. 11 Figure 5 – Impacts to Tree Protection Zones ....................................................................................... 13 Appendices Appendix A Project Plans Appendix B Arborist Report Appendix C Root Mapping Report 2.f Packet Pg. 48 Introduction Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 1 1 Introduction The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Title 8 protects specific trees on public or private property from removal or disfigurement. The City has prepared the Tree Technical Manual (TTM) to establish procedures and standards for the preservation of trees. Per the PMAC and TTM, a Tree Protection and Preservation Plan (TPPP) must be prepared for a project with “Regulated Trees”, which include: 1. Protected Trees: All coast live oak (Quercus agrifolia), valley oak (Quercus lobata), and coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) trees, 2. Street Trees: All trees growing within the publicly‐owned street right‐of‐way, and 3. Designated Trees: All trees, when associated with a development project that are specifically designated by the City of Palo Alto to be saved and protected on a property that is subject to discretionary review. This Tree Protection and Preservation Plan was prepared to outline the measures to protect and preserve trees for the 4265 El Camino Hotel Project. This report also documents the results of a tree health assessment survey and will serve to update the health and condition of trees assessed and inventoried in the initial arborist report, completed by Kielty Arborist Services on April 27, 2017. It also presents the results of a focused root mapping survey conducted in June of 2018. 1.1 Project Location and Description The project site is located at 4256 El Camino Real in the City of Palo Alto (City), in Santa Clara County, California. The project site encompasses 0.60 acre on one assessor’s parcel (Assessor’s Parcel Number 167‐08‐042). The site is located along El Camino Real, approximately 0.25 mile southeast of the intersection of El Camino Real, Arastradero Road, and West Charleston Road. Figure 1 shows the regional location of the project site. Figure 2 shows an aerial view of the project site and immediate surroundings. The proposed project would involve demolition of the existing restaurant building followed by construction of a five‐story hotel building. The hotel would include 89 guest rooms, underground parking with mechanical lifts, and a large exterior courtyard. Amenities would include a fitness room, business center, restaurant/café, and bar. The total gross size of the project would be 51,491 square feet. The building roof height would be 50 feet, with a mechanical screen extending no more than 12 feet above the roof. The rear of the building would include an outdoor patio area with a pedestrian path, seating, a lounge area, and a gathering space with a fire pit for use by hotel guests. Parking would include 76 parking spaces located in a one‐level subterranean garage, accessible via a driveway from El Camino Real. Project plans are presented in Appendix A. 2.f Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto, California 4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project 2 Figure 1 - Regional Location 2.f Packet Pg. 50 Introduction Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 3 Figure 2 - Project Location 2.f Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto, California 4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project 4 2 Methodology 2.1 Background/Initial Survey An initial arborist survey was conducted for the project site on April 27, 2018 by Kielty Arborist Services for HXH Property LLC. The survey included an inspection of each tree to determine the diameter at breast height (dbh; measured at four and one‐half feet above natural grade), the canopy spread, and height of each tree. The trees were also given a condition rating for form and vitality. The results of this survey were documented in an arborist report dated April 27, 2017 and subsequently revised October 9, 2017 and March 12, 2018 (Appendix B). 2.2 Follow-up Survey To confirm the conditions from the initial arborist report, a follow‐up tree inventory and health assessment survey was conducted for the project. The follow‐up survey was conducted on June 25, 2018 by Rincon International Society of Arboriculture (ISA) Certified Arborist Kyle Weichert (WE‐ 12113A). During the survey, all trees located within the project site were evaluated on an individual basis. The location and dripline of each tree within the project site was recorded using a Trimble Global Positioning System (GPS) unit with sub‐meter accuracy. The location of trees outside the project site was recorded using the rangefinder function of the Trimble GPS unit to maximum extent feasible as well as the locations of any overhanging dripline. For each tree in the project site, Mr. Weichert gathered the following information: scientific and common name, evaluation of the physical structure, dbh using an English unit diameter tape or caliper, updated the estimated tree height and canopy spread of each tree and assessed each tree for health and condition. The health and condition assessment considered evidence of disease, insect pests, structure, damage and vigor, with results incorporated into the overall health rating based on archetype trees of the same species with criteria described in Table 1 (Overall Condition Rating Criteria), below. Table 1 Overall Condition Rating Criteria Rating Structure Excellent In addition to attributes of a ‘good’ rating, the tree exhibits a well‐developed root flare and a balanced canopy. Provides shading or wildlife habitat and is aesthetically pleasing. Good Trunk is well developed with well attached limbs and branches; some flaws exist but are hardly visible. Good foliage cover and density, annual shoot growth above average. Provides shading or wildlife habitat and has minor aesthetic flaws. Fair Flaw in trunk, limb and branch development are minimal and are typical of this species and geographic region. Minimal visual damage from existing insect or disease, average foliage cover and annual growth. Poor Limbs or branches are poorly attached or developed. Canopy is not symmetrical. Trunk has lean. Branches or trunk have physical contact with the ground. May exhibit fire damage, responses to external encroachment/obstructions or existing insect/disease damage. Dead Trunk, limbs or branches have extensive visible decay or are broken. Canopy leaves are non‐seasonally absent or uniformly brown throughout, with no evidence of new growth. 2.f Packet Pg. 52 Methodology Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 5 Previously mapped and numbered trees were given an identification number consistent with the March 2018 arborist report. Some additional ornamental species and additional trees were given a new unique tree identification number. Per recommendations from the City, the locations of trees on neighboring sites were estimated, and the measurements from the initial arborist report (Kielty Arborist Services, 2018) were used to determine the size of the trees on neighboring sites. 2.3 Focused Root Mapping Survey A focused survey for below‐ground roots was conducted on June 18, 2018 by Arborist OnSite, Horticultural Consulting, Inc. This survey utilized Ground‐Penetrating Radar (GPR) to determine the location and depth of below‐ground roots within separate 16 scans. The methodology and results of this survey are summarized in this report; for a detailed discussion and explanation of root mapping results see the attached ISA Certified Arborist Report (Arborist OnSite 2018; Appendix C). 2.f Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto, California 4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project 6 3 Results and Impacts 3.1 Follow-up Survey Results A total of 48 trees were assessed during the follow‐up arborist survey. Of these, 25 are located within the project site, five are street trees along El Camino Real, and 18 are located on a neighboring property. The tree species include: 22 coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens), 10 mulberry (Morus sp.), 6 tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima), 5 London plane (Platanus x acerifolia), 2 deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara), 1 avocado (Persea americana), 1 stonefruit [peach] (Prunus sp.), and 1 podpocarpus (hedge) (Podocarpus sp.) Generally, the trees in the project site are located within a landscape planter that runs the perimeter of the existing parking lot. Most of the trees onsite are ornamentals or fruit‐bearing trees. Two large and prominent deodar cedars are located in a planter near the southern boundary of the project site. A podocarpus hedge borders the north face of the existing restaurant, and several tree of heaven individuals are located in a planter along the south face. Neighboring coast redwood trees overhang the project site along the south, west, and north boundaries. Four of the coast redwood trees (trees #13, 14, 15, and 16) are located within the project site in the northwest and southwest corners. The five London plane trees (trees #1, 2, 3, 4, and 5) are City of Palo Alto street trees located along El Camino Real immediately east of the project site. Coast redwood trees and street trees are considered Protected by the City of Palo Alto and are subject to protective measures, outlined in the Section 4 below. Table 2 below provides the updated data collected for all trees. Figure 3 depicts the locations of the surveyed trees. The results of the rooting mapping survey are presented in Appendix C. 3.2 Proposed Project Impacts The proposed project would result in the removal of all trees located in the project site, with exception of the four protected coast redwood trees (Figure 4). Three London plane trees located immediately in front and north of the existing restaurant (trees #2, 3, and 4) are proposed for removal or relocation to an alternate location along the street along the eastern property boundary or removal entirely to accommodate ingress and egress for the proposed project. One additional London plane tree is proposed for removal (tree #5). One London plane tree located south of the project (tree #1) will be retained. 2.f Packet Pg. 54 Results and Impacts Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 7 Table 2 Tree Inventory Tree # Species Tree Location Tree Height (feet) Canopy Spread (feet) DBH (inches) TPZ (feet; if applicable) Overall Health Protected? Project Impact Notes 1 London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) Street 14 10 3 2.5 Fair Yes 2 London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) Street 35 36 11 Fair Yes Removal 3 London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) Street 35 32 13.5 Fair Yes Removal 4 London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) Street 35 40 13.5 Good Yes Removal 5 London Plane (Platanus x acerifolia) Street 30 25 11 Good Yes Removal 6 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 45* 30* 26.7* 22.25 Fair ‐ 7 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 35* 20* 14.3* 11.92 Fair ‐ 8 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 30* 17.2* 14.33 Fair 9 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 30* 20.2* 16.83 Fair 10 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 25* 22.4* 18.67 Fair 11 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Project Site 40 38 22.5 Fair Removal 12 Deodar cedar (Cedrus deodara) Project Site 36 30 19 Fair Removal 13 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Project Site 55 20 23.5 19.58 Fair Yes 14 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Project Site 60 25 24.5 20.42 Fair Yes 15 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Project Site 55 25 30.5 25.42 Fair Yes 16 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Project Site 55 28 29.5 24.58 Fair Yes 17 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 45 20 16.5* 13.75 Fair 18 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 50 23 17.6* 14.67 Fair 19 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40 15 9.3* 7.75 Fair 20 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 45 18 15.5* 12.92 Fair 21 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 12.1* 10.08 Fair 22 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 9.9* 8.25 Fair 2.f Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto, California 4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project 8 Tree # Species Tree Location Tree Height (feet) Canopy Spread (feet) DBH (inches) TPZ (feet; if applicable) Overall Health Protected? Project Impact Notes 23 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 17.1* 14.25 Fair 24 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 14.1* 11.75 Fair 25 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 15.8* 13.17 Fair 26 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 18.3* 15.25 Fair 27 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 18* 15.00 Fair 28 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 40* 20* 17.6* 14.67 Fair 29 Coast redwood (Sequoia sempervirens) Neighboring 38* 18* 15** 12.50 Fair 30 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 22 18 7 Good Removal 31 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 25 35 10 Good Removal 32 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 8 3 1.5 Good Removal 33 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 12 8 2.5, 2 Good Removal 34 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 10 6 2.25 Good Removal 35 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 10 6 2.25 Good Removal 36 Prunus sp. Project Site 10 10 5 Good Removal 37 Avocado (Persea americana) Project Site 14 10 2.5 Fair Removal 38 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 18 30 7.5 Good Removal 39 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 28 33 9 Good Removal 40 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 24 35 7.5 Good Removal 41 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 13 20 7.5 Fair Removal 42 Mulberry (Morus sp.) Project Site 15 25 8 Good Removal 43 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 30 10 4 Fair Removal Small spindly sapling under deodar cedars 44 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 12 8 1, 1.5 Fair Removal Small spindly sapling along south face of restaurant 2.f Packet Pg. 56 Results and Impacts Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 9 Tree # Species Tree Location Tree Height (feet) Canopy Spread (feet) DBH (inches) TPZ (feet; if applicable) Overall Health Protected? Project Impact Notes 45 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 12 5 2.5 Fair Removal Small spindly sapling along south face of restaurant 46 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 20 15 3, 4, 2, 0.5 Fair Removal Small spindly sapling along south face of restaurant 47 Tree of heaven (Ailanthus altissima) Project Site 25 6 3, 3 Fair Removal Small spindly sapling along south face of restaurant 48 Podpocarpus (Podocarpus sp.) Project Site 8 12 ‐‐ Fair Removal Hedge along north face of existing restaurant * = from initial arborist report (Kielty Arborist Services, rev March 2018); locations estimated ** = estimated 2.f Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto, California 4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project 10 Figure 3 - Tree Locations 2.f Packet Pg. 58 Results and Impacts Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 11 Figure 4 - Tree Protection Zones of Trees to be Protected 2.f Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto, California 4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project 12 Based on the project plans dated June 26, 2018, three of the four protected coast redwood trees within the project area (trees #13, 14, and 15) and an additional four protected coast redwood trees on neighboring properties (trees #6, 17, 18, and 23) would be impacted by the proposed project. These trees have a portion of their Tree Protection Zones (TPZ; defined as a radius of ten times the trunk diameter at breast height, measured in feet) within the project Shoring/Disturbed Area Boundary (Figure 5). The percentage of the TPZ impacted ranges between 0.1 percent and 4.30 percent. Table 3 below summarizes these impacts. Project‐related excavation is not expected to occur within ten feet of the protected coast redwood trees. As such, structural roots of four inches or greater are not expected to be impacted. Table 3 Impacts to Tree Protection Zones Tree # TPZ Area (ac) Impact Area within TPZ (ac) Percentage of TPZ Impacted 23 0.02 0.0003 2.11% 17 0.01 0.0003 1.98% 18 0.02 0.00002 0.10% 6 0.04 0.0003 0.72% 13 0.03 0.0004 1.42% 14 0.03 0.0013 4.3% 15 0.05 0.0010 2.15% 2.f Packet Pg. 60 Results and Impacts Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 13 Figure 5 – Impacts to Tree Protection Zones 2.f Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto, California 4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project 14 4 Tree Protection and Preservation Plan This TPPP has been prepared in accordance with the guidelines in the TTM and outlines the measures and conditions for the proposed project to reduce impacts to protected trees to a less than significant level. This plan also identifies construction guidelines to be followed through all phases of construction of the project. 4.1 Preconstruction Requirements The following measures will be incorporated by the project as required in the TTM. Site Plan ‐ The trunk locations and driplines of all trees proposed to be preserved have been plotted on the attached site plan. Project improvement plans will display these locations on the plan. For protected and street trees, the plans will accurately show the trunk diameter, dripline, and tree protection zones as detailed in the City’s Tree Technical Manual. Protective Fencing ‐ Fenced enclosures will be erected around trees to be protected (trees # 13, 14, 15, and 16). Fencing will consist of six‐foot tall, metal chain‐link material supported by metal poles two‐inches in diameter or greater. The poles will be pounded into the ground to a depth of no less than two feet and spaced no more than ten feet apart. The fencing will be installed at the boundary of the TPZ. Tree fencing will be erected before demolition, grading or construction begins and remain in place until final inspection of the project permit, except for work specifically required in the approved plans in which case the project arborist or City Arborist (in the case of street trees) will be consulted. The protective fencing will include a warning sign prominently displayed on each fence. The sign will be a minimum of 8.5 x 11‐inches and clearly state: “WARNING ‐ Tree Protection Zone ‐ This fence will not be removed until completion of project construction.” Verification of Tree Protection ‐ Prior to commencement of construction, the project arborist or contractor will verify, in writing, that all preconstruction conditions have been met (tree fencing, erosion control, pruning, etc.) and are in place. Preconstruction Meeting ‐ The demolition, grading and underground contractors, construction superintendent and other pertinent personnel will meet with the project arborist at the site prior to beginning work to review procedures, tree protection measures and to establish haul routes, staging areas, contacts, watering, etc. Areas Outside Protective Fencing ‐ Several neighboring protected coast redwood trees have canopies/driplines that reach over the project boundary into the project site (trees # 6‐10 and 17‐ 28). Prior to construction, any areas under protected trees’ driplines that occur outside the protective fencing area will be mulched with four to six inches of mulch and covered with plywood to reduce compaction. Mulch installation will leave the trunk clear to avoid excess moisture at the trunk. Mulch material will be two‐inch unpainted, untreated wood chip or equivalent. The mulch may be removed to install landscaping. 2.f Packet Pg. 62 Tree Protection and Preservation Plan Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 15 Tree Removal ‐ Protected trees will not be removed by the project, with exception of four London plane Street Trees. Removal of any trees that extend into the branches or roots of any trees to be protected will not be conducted by demolition or construction personnel, grading, or other heavy equipment. An arborist certified to the standard of the City or tree worker will remove the tree carefully in a manner that causes no damage above or below ground to trees that remain. Removal of stumps with roots entangled with those of protected trees to remain will have their roots severed prior to extracting the stump to avoid disturbing roots of retained trees. For all other stumps, removal will include grinding of stump and roots to a minimum depth of 24 inches. In sidewalk or small planter areas to be replanted with a new tree, the entire stump will be removed and the planting pit dug to a depth of 30 inches. If dug below 30 inches, compact the backfill to prevent settling. Large surface roots three feet from the outside circumference will be removed, including the spoils and backfilled with City approved topsoil to grade, and the area tamped to settle the soil. Suspended Pavement System for Street Trees – A suspended pavement system will be provided for street trees. Adequate rootable soil volume areas will be provided public trees. The volume of rootable soil to be provided per public tree will be based on the size of the tree at maturity as follows: 400 cubic feet of rootable soil volume will be available per small tree, 800 cubic feet per medium‐sized tree and, 1200 cubic feet per large‐sized tree. 4.2 During Construction Requirements Compaction ‐ To avoid soil compaction, all vehicles will remain on paved surfaces to the maximum extent feasible and all parking will occur on paved surfaces. Staging will occur on existing pavement. If vehicles must be operated in non‐paved areas near trees, mulch and plywood would be installed as detailed above. Activities Within Tree Protection Zones ‐ No equipment, building materials, refuse, excavated soils, or poisonous materials will be stored, cleaned, or deposited within a TPZ. Protected trees will not be used as wench supports, anchorage, or sign posts. Tree roots within the TPZ will not be cut for utility trenching, foundation digging, placement of curbs and trenches, and other miscellaneous excavation without prior approval from the City Arborist. If trenching, excavation, or boring is necessary within a TPZ, the contractor will notify the Applicant’s project arborist a minimum of 24 hours in advance of the activity in the TPZ. Once excavation within the TPZ starts, roots that are encountered will be cut to sound wood and repaired. Roots two inches and greater will remain injury‐free. Any approved excavation, demolition or extraction of material will be performed with equipment sitting outside the TPZ. All excavation within the TPZ will be done by hand digging, hydraulic or pneumatic air excavation technology. Excavation within the TPZ will not occur during hot, dry weather to the maximum extent feasible. For excavation or trenching for drainage, utilities, irrigation lines, etc., construction will tunnel under any roots two inches in diameter and greater. Prior to excavation for foundation/footings/walls, grading or trenching within the TPZ, roots will first be severed cleanly one foot outside the TPZ and to the depth of the future excavation. The trench will then be hand dug and roots pruned with a saw, sawzall, narrow trencher with sharp blades, or other approved root pruning equipment. 2.f Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto, California 4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project 16 Backhoes, steel‐tread tractors, or any heavy vehicles will not be used within the TPZ without prior approval by the City Arborist. If allowed, a protective root buffer would be established, consisting of a base course of tree chips spread over the root area to a minimum six‐inch depth, layered by 3/4‐ inch quarry gravel to stabilize, with 3/4‐inch plywood on top. This buffer within the TPZ would be maintained throughout the entire construction process. If injurious activity or interference with roots greater than two‐inches will occur within the TPZ, plans will specify a design of special foundation, footing, walls, concrete slab or pavement designs subject to City Arborist approval. Discontinuous foundations such as concrete pier and structural grade beam will maintain natural grade to minimize root loss and allow the tree to use the existing soil. Basement excavations will be designed outside the TPZ of all protected and designated trees and will not be harmful to other mature or neighboring property trees. Injury Mitigation ‐ A mitigation program has not been prepared for the project as drought stress, dust accumulation, or soil compaction to protected trees is not expected. Damage ‐ Any inadvertent damage to protected trees will be reported to the Project Arborist and City within six hours. Any mechanical or chemical injury, as defined in the TTM, to branches, trunk, or roots over two inches in diameter will be reported in monthly inspection reports (see below). If injury to a protect tree occurs, the following mitigation and damage control measures will apply, as required by the TTM. 1. Root injury: If trenches are cut and tree roots 2 inches or larger are encountered, they must be cleanly cut back to a sound wood lateral root. The end of the root shall be covered with either a plastic bag and secured with tape or rubber band, or be coated with latex paint. All exposed root areas within the TPZ shall be backfilled or covered within one hour. Exposed roots may be kept from drying out by temporarily covering the roots and draping layered burlap or carpeting over the upper 3‐feet of trench walls. The materials must be kept wet until backfilled to reduce evaporation from the trench walls. 2. Bark or trunk wounding: Current bark tracing and treatment methods shall be performed by a qualified tree care specialist within two days. 3. Scaffold branch or leaf canopy injury: Remove broken or torn branches back to an appropriate branch capable of resuming terminal growth within five days. If leaves are heat‐ scorched from equipment exhaust pipes, consult the project arborist within 6 hours. Offsetting Root Impacts – If project excavation impacts roots of protected trees, the impacts will be documented using photographs and measurements with the consultation of the project arborist. If roots are impacted, offsetting treatments for root loss will be proposed based on the results of a soil test and may include adjustments to watering, soil nutrients, soil organic content, or other recommendations. Inspections ‐ The Project Arborist will conduct regular inspections of the trees within the project site at least once during the process of rough grading and monthly thereafter until project construction is complete, as directed in the TTM. After each inspection, the project arborist will submit a report to the City during the first week of each calendar month. The report will document the condition of the trees, the condition of the protective measures onsite. If there are any changes to the plans or protective measures, the Project Arborist will contact the City immediately. The Project Arborist will also conduct an inspection on an as‐needed basis if any special activity is planned and approved within the TPZ, or there are abrupt changes in tree health noted by construction staff. 2.f Packet Pg. 64 Tree Protection and Preservation Plan Tree Protection and Preservation Plan 17 Imported Soil ‐ All imported soils will be tested and the results provided to the City for approval before import. Import soil shall be amended with compost per City standards in place of other soil amendments. Street trees require an automatic irrigation/bubbler system and may require tree grates. Tree well openings on El Camino Real frontage willll be 4’ x 8’’ minimum per ECR Master Plan, Tree Planting Practices Sec.5.4.2. 4.3 Maintenance Maintenance of all protected trees within the project site will be conducted in general accordance with the TTM. Irrigation ‐ Normal irrigation will be maintained on the site at all times. During the warm season (April through November), additional irrigation may be applied up to twice per month as recommended by the project arborist. Adjustments to irrigation regime may made by the project arborist as needed. 2.f Packet Pg. 65 City of Palo Alto, California 4265 El Camino Real Hotel Project 18 5 References Arborist OnSite – Horticultural Consulting, Inc. 2018. ISA Certified Arborist Report – Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California. June 25. City of Palo Alto. Palo Alto Municipal Code. Available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/clk/municode.asp City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment. 2001. Tree Technical Manual. First Edition. June. Kielty Arborist Service. 2017. Arborist Letter Report for 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California. Revised October 9, 2017, March 12, 2017. Fite K., Smiley ET. 2008. Best Management Practices (BMP) ‐ Managing Trees During Construction. International Society of Arboricultural. 2010. Arborist Certification Study Guide. Matheny and Clark. 1998. Trees and Development: A Technical Guide to Preservation of Trees During Land Development. USDA Forest Service. 1990. Agricultural Handbook 654, Silvics of North America, Vol. 1, Conifers. 2.f Packet Pg. 66 Appendix A Project Plans 2.f Packet Pg. 67 HX H P r o p e r t y L L C Th e C a t e r i n a H o t e l 42 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l , P a l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 6 Sheet Title: Scale: Job No. Drawn By: Date: Sheet No: 17001 06/26/2018 : 304 12th Street, Suite 2A : Oakland, California 94607 : (510) 451 - 2850 22 2 3 B a y s h o r e R o a d , S u i t e 2 0 0 Pa l o A l t o , C A 9 4 3 0 3 THIS DOCUMENT CONTAINS INFORMATION PROPRIETARY TO STUDIO T-SQ, INC. AND IS FURNISHED IN CONFIDENCE FOR THE LIMITED PURPOSE OF EVALUATION OR REVIEW. THIS DOCUMENT OR ITS CONTENTS MAY NOT BE USED FOR ANY OTHER PURPOSE AND MAY NOT BE REPRODUCED OR DISCLOSED TO OTHERS WITHOUT THE PRIOR WRITTEN CONSENT OF STUDIO T-SQ., INC. ALL RIGHTS RESERVED, COPYRIGHT 2010. : Architecture : Planning : Urban Design A-3.0 Floor Plan - Site Plan FE N C E F E N C E FENCE FE N C E EXISTING FENCE EXISTING FENCE TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E TR E E D/D UP KING KING Transformer pad 8'4"X8'4" DOWN TO GARAGE LOBBY BIKE PARKING 10 ' - 0 " 27 ' - 1 0 " 16'-10" 20 ' - 0 " 54'-9" 1 0 ' - 0 " 10'-0"42'-10" 22% SLOPE 11% SLOPE 24'-6" 152'-10" 15'-2"41'-5"41'-6" RECEPTION FRONT OFFICE UP UP P Dn 3'-0" 8'-0" 11 ' - 6 " 3' - 0 " 10 ' - 0 " TRASH 250 SF RESTROOM W RESTROOM M ELEC. 135 SF 6' ROLL-UP DOOR BAR KITCHEN 211 SF UP 96 Gal 3 cu.yd. 3 cu.yd. 13'-7" 17'-0" 17'-6" 9'-10" 3'-11" 73'-8" 58'-7" 68 ' - 7 " 31'-9" 41'-7 " 39 ' - 1 1 " 45 ' - 0 " 27 ' - 9 " 21 ' - 6 " 94 ' - 3 " 38 ' - 5 " 27 ' - 1 " LED FLASHING WARNING SIGN SUITE SUITE SUITE D/D CONF. RM GAS METER C B A A C B (TRAFFIC DIRECTION SIGN ) GUEST CHECK-IN 12'-0" SIDEWALK TYP. (N) CURBCUT FOR TRASH ACCESS EN T E R O N L Y EL C A N I M O R E A L 6'-8" 14 ' - 5 " 58'-6" 25'-0" 25 ' - 8 " 21 ' - 6 " 12'-0" 5'-9" 17'-8" 12'-0" SIDEWALK 28 ' - 1 1 " BLDG OUTLINE ABOVE 3'-0" GUEST CHECK-IN (TRAFFIC DIRECTION SIGN ) DROP-OFF ONLY NO RIGHT TURN CAR COMING CONF. RMCONF. RM 34 ' - 1 1 " GUEST ELEV. SERVICE ELEV. HOUSE KEEPING B.O.H KING KINGKINGKING UPDn STEEL OPEN STAIR 12 ' - 0 " 0 10' N 20' 40' 2.f Packet Pg. 68 Appendix B Arborist Report 2.f Packet Pg. 69 2.f Packet Pg. 70 2.f Packet Pg. 71 2.f Packet Pg. 72 2.f Packet Pg. 73 2.f Packet Pg. 74 2.f Packet Pg. 75 Appendix C Root Mapping Report 2.f Packet Pg. 76 . Arborist OnSite® Horticultural Consulting, Inc. www.arboristonsite.com Robert@arboristonsite.com ISA Certified Arborist Report Submitted To: Rincon Consultants Inc. 449 15th Street, Suite 303 Oakland, California 94612 Project Location: Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, California Submitted By: Robert Booty, Registered Member # 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor The American Society of Consulting Arborists ISA Certified Arborist WC-4286 June 25, 2018 2.f Packet Pg. 77 Limits of Assignment This assignment is limited to a parking lot, involving the neighboring Redwood trees bordering the proposed construction on the property. My investigation involves root locating to determine root density in the area of proposed excavation. Ground penetrating radar can not identify the presence of structural defects in roots located below ground, such as cracks or girdling roots that can be associated with tree failures. GPR can evaluate only depth, location and depending on the MHz of the antenna, targeting root size. Because trees continually change, this evaluation is valid only for the date of this inspection. Disclaimer Although studies have shown ground penetrating radar to have a high degree of accuracy1 for below-ground root identification, these are not photographs but images of predicted root targets or changes in wood composition as in the case of trunk imaging . Arborist OnSite endeavors to use equipment that generates useful information to prepare reports that will reflect its best judgment in light of the facts as it knows them. Assignment I have been retained by Karly Kaufman who is the Senior Environmental Planner for Rincon Consultants Inc. A hotel is proposed for construction on this site that involves the excavation for an underground parking garage. Surrounding the proposed excavation site, on neighboring properties are numerous redwood trees. I have been requested to use ground penetrating radar to evaluate the root density of these trees at two different locations within the parking lot. This will be an effort to determine the optimal excavation distance possibilities for the below-ground garage. 1 Nina Bassuk, “Ground-Penetrating Radar Accurately Locates Tree Roots in Two Soil Media Under Pavement” Arboriculture & Urban Forestry, International Society of Arboricultural 2011. June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 2 2.f Packet Pg. 78 Observations I visited the site June 18, 2018. I observed the redwood trees on the neighboring property. There are many, some are very large and others smaller, all are appearing to be in good health. Identifying the Redwood Trees for our root study Access to the neighboring redwood trees was not possible. A numbered metal tree tag was attached to the fence at the location each redwood tree. I only tagged the first row of redwoods closest to the fence for this report. Behind the tagged trees are many other redwood trees whose roots also have invaded the parking lot along with the ones identified in this report. This can explain the large amount of structural roots found in this root study. Conclusions Using a 400 MHz antenna I set the antenna to penetrate the soil to a depth of 4 feet. The 400 MHz antenna targets structural roots beginning at 1 inch in diameter and larger. Due to the configuration of the property line and the obstacles within it, some measurements were taken from the curb and not the fence to realistically continue to identify the proposed areas of excavation. These changes/areas are clearly marked on the scan results. The structural root mapping results identified roots to a depth of 44 inches with the majority being in the 34-38 inch depth range. Smaller absorbing roots are also present but not identified in this root study, they would be found in the upper 18 inches of the soil profile. As you are reviewing the structural root data refer to the site map on page 7 as a visual site reference. June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 3 2.f Packet Pg. 79 Methodology How does it work? Ground-Penetrating Radar (GPR) is an established technology that has been used worldwide for over 30 years. Radar is an object-detection system that uses electromagnetic waves – specifically radio waves – to identify the range, altitude, direction, or speed of both moving and fixed objects. When an electromagnetic wave2 emitted from a small surface transmit antenna / receiver encounters a boundary between objects with different electromagnetic properties, it will reflect, refract, and or diffract from the boundary in a predictable manner. Radar waves or signals are reflected especially well by materials of considerable electrical conductivity. The radar signals that are reflected back towards the antenna are the desirable ones that create the image and make radar work. Its uses today seem endless. When you look at the weather report, you are looking at a Doppler weather radar scan; it will tell you where the heaviest amounts of rain will fall in your area. It works like this, the radar signal, as it passes through the clouds is reflected back to a transmit receiver antenna that measures the density of the moisture in them and the speed they are traveling. You can then determine approximately when it will start raining and how much rain will fall in a given area. Radar is used in aviation, automobiles, law enforcement and locating objects below ground. #1 2 Daniels, D.J. 1996, Surface-Penetrating Radar. The Institute of Electrical Engineers, ISBN 0-85296-0. Open Cavity Start scan Area not Scanned June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 4 2.f Packet Pg. 80 Root Mapping An Introduction to Below-Ground Tree Root Mapping using Ground – Penetrating Radar (GPR) Ground-Penetrating Radar used as a method of mapping tree roots has several of the following advantages over other methods of root locating, 1. It is capable of scanning the root systems of multiple trees under field conditions in a short time. 2. It is completely non-invasive and does not disturb the soils or damage the trees being examined, and causes no harm to the environment. 3. Being non-invasive, it allows repeated measurements that reveal long-term root system development. 4. It allows observation of root distribution beneath hard surfaces (concrete, asphalt, and bricks) roads and buildings. Its accuracy is sufficient to resolve structural roots with diameters from less than 1 cm (0.4 in.) to 3 cm (1.2 in.) or more. It can characterize roots at both the individual tree and stand levels, facilitating correlations with tree and stand level measurements of physiological processes in complex ecological studies. This is how the radar looks at the existing roots, as the antenna is moved along the ground every 2/10ths of an inch a radar signal is released into the soil at a predetermined depth. As this signal encounters a root it is reflected off its moisture and back to a receiver inside the antenna. This returned signal is displayed as an x in the final report indicating the presence of a root, the colored x indicates the depth of the root. Secondly one can observe all roots within a given soil profile depth, on the following pages you will notice 3 color coded soil profiles depicted. When looking at the virtual trench view of maps keep in mind that each x marks the presence of a root. These roots are connected to the tree or root flare as they grow into the soil and then grow out ward in all directions, some have indicated roots that have no obstructions can travel laterally twice the height of the tree; this is what gives the tree stability. June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 5 2.f Packet Pg. 81 The use of green markers During the scan markers are placed on the field computer by the technician. These markers are used to identify points of interest along the scan line such as in this case, passing of object landmarks such as a numbered redwood tree. These manually placed markers show up in the final root analysis and can then be used to compare roots found below ground in relation to the physical tree in this case located above ground. Virtual Trench View A way of viewing the root data is as a virtual trench. The following panels represent each of the sixteen individual radar line scans from the site as if they were the walls of a trench. Think of this as if you were excavating a deep trench with a back-hoe. As you dig, tree roots will be encountered at various levels or depths in the soil profile, after you have completed your trench you then are able to walk down and stand in the bottom. Looking up at the earthen wall you are able to see the severed tree roots from your trenching protruding from the soil at the various depths of your trench. As you look at the following individual 16 virtual trench scans each x on the wall represents a severed root. Each colored x represents a different depth where the root is located. One advantage of the trench view is that one can look at individual roots within their 3 represented depth zones and see the actual depth of each individual root. Green dotted lines are markers physically placed on the field computer by the technician during the scanning. June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 6 2.f Packet Pg. 82 . Site Map Not to scale Building Shed Redwood 158 Redwood 159 171 172 160 161 162 177 163 164 165 166 167 168 169 170 Concrete Pad 173 174 179 175 176 178 153 154 155 156 157 42 5 6 E l C a m i n o R e a l Si d e w a l k Scan #1 Scan #2 Scan #3 Scan #4 Scan #5 Scan #6 Scan #7 Scan #8 Scan #9 Scan #10 Scan #11 Scan #12 Scan #13 Scan #14 Scan #15 Scan #16 Parking lot Parking lot June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 7 2.f Packet Pg. 83 . Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #1 Ten feet from the property line. Passing redwood #153 Passing redwood #154 Passing redwood #155 Passing redwood #156 Passing redwood #157 Root Depth in inches Asphalt thickness June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 8 2.f Packet Pg. 84 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #2 Twenty feet from the property line. Passing redwood #153 Passing redwood #154 Passing redwood #155 Passing redwood #156 Passing redwood #157 Root Depth in inches Asphalt thickness June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 9 2.f Packet Pg. 85 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #3 Ten feet from the parking lot curb. Asphalt thickness Passing redwood #158 Passing redwood #159 Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 10 2.f Packet Pg. 86 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #4 Twenty feet from parking the lot curb. Passing redwood #158 Passing redwood #159 Asphalt thickness Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 11 2.f Packet Pg. 87 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #5 Over Concrete Pad Ten feet from the Shed. Concrete thickness Passing redwood #160 Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 12 2.f Packet Pg. 88 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #6 Over Concrete Pad Twenty feet from the Shed. Passing redwood #160 Root Depth in inches Concrete thickness June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 13 2.f Packet Pg. 89 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #7 Twenty feet from the Shed. Passing redwood #161 Passing redwood #162 Passing mulberry Tree #177 Passing redwood #163 Root Depth in inches Asphalt thickness June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 14 2.f Packet Pg. 90 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #8 Ten feet from the Shed. Passing redwood #161 Passing redwood #162 Passing mulberry Tree #177 Passing redwood #163 Root Depth in inches Asphalt thickness June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 15 2.f Packet Pg. 91 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #9 Ten feet from the property line. Passing redwood #162 Passing mulberry Tree #177 Passing redwood #163 Passing redwood #164 Passing redwood #165 Asphalt thickness Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 16 2.f Packet Pg. 92 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #10 Twenty feet from the property line. Asphalt thickness Passing redwood #162 Passing mulberry Tree #177 Passing redwood #163 Passing redwood #164 Passing redwood #165 Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 17 2.f Packet Pg. 93 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #11 Ten feet from the property line. Passing redwood #166 Passing redwood #167 Passing redwood #168 Passing mulberry Tree #169 Passing redwood #170 Asphalt thickness Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 18 2.f Packet Pg. 94 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #12 Twenty feet from the property line. Passing redwood #166 Passing redwood #167 Passing redwood #168 Passing mulberry Tree #169 Passing redwood #170 Asphalt thickness Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 19 2.f Packet Pg. 95 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #13 Ten feet from the parking lot curb. Passing redwood #168 Passing mulberry Tree #169 Passing redwood #170 Pa s s i n g r e d w o o d #1 7 1 Passing redwood #173 Passing redwood #172 Passing redwood #174 Asphalt thickness Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 20 2.f Packet Pg. 96 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #14 Ten feet from the parking lot curb. Pa s s i n g r e d w o o d #1 6 8 Pa s s i n g r e d w o o d #1 7 3 Pa s s i n g m u l b e r r y Tr e e # 1 6 9 Pa s s i n g r e d w o o d #1 7 0 Pa s s i n g r e d w o o d #1 7 1 Pa s s i n g r e d w o o d #1 7 2 Passing redwood #174 Passing mulberry Tree #169 Passing redwood #174 Asphalt thickness Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 21 2.f Packet Pg. 97 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #15 Ten feet from the property line. Passing redwood #173 Passing redwood #174 Passing mulberry Tree #179 Passing redwood #175 Passing redwood #176 Asphalt thickness Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 22 2.f Packet Pg. 98 Caterina Hotel 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. June 18, 2018 Root Scan #16 Twenty feet from the property line. Asphalt thickness Passing redwood #173 Passing redwood #174 Passing mulberry Tree #179 Passing redwood #175 Passing redwood #176 Root Depth in inches June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 23 2.f Packet Pg. 99 . Scan #1 Scan #2 June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 24 2.f Packet Pg. 100 Scan #4 Scan #3 Scan #5 Scan #6 Scan #7 Scan #8 June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 25 2.f Packet Pg. 101 Scan #11 Scan #12 Scan #13 Scan #14 June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 26 2.f Packet Pg. 102 Scan #16 Scan #15 June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 27 2.f Packet Pg. 103 Arborist Disclosure / Performance of Services 1. Disclosure. Arborists are tree specialists who use their education, knowledge, training and experience to examine trees, recommend measures to enhance the beauty and health of the trees and attempt to reduce the risk of living near trees. Arborists cannot detect every condition that could possibly lead to the structural failure of a tree. Since trees are living organisms, conditions are often hidden within the tree and below ground. Arborists cannot guarantee that a tree will be healthy or safe under all circumstances, or for a specific period of time. Likewise, remedial treatments cannot be guaranteed. Trees can be managed but they cannot be controlled. To live near trees is to accept some degree of risk and the only way to eliminate all risk associated with trees is to eliminate all trees. 2. Indemnification from current and future tree failures. Although radar imaging has no known harmful physical affects on trees the client agrees to indemnify, defend and hold Arborist OnSite Inc. and TreeRadar inc. harmless from and against any and all claims, liabilities, suite, demands, losses, costs and expenses, including, but not limited to, reasonable attorneys’ fees and all legal expenses and fees incurred through appeal, and all interest thereon, accruing or resulting to any and all persons, firms or any other legal entities on account of any damages or losses to property or persons, including injuries or death, or economic losses, arising out of the Services and/or this Agreement, except to the extent that said damages or losses are caused by Consultant’s gross negligence or willful misconduct. This indemnity, shall survive any expiration or termination of this Agreement with regard to any claims arising during, or related to, facts or circumstances that occurred during the term of this Agreement or any extension thereof. No warranty, representation or guarantee, express or implied, is intended by this agreement. Consultant is not responsible for the completion or quality of work that is dependant upon or performed by Client or third parties not under the direct control of Consultant or for their acts or omissions or for any damages resulting there from. 3. TreeRadar™ / Arborist OnSite® Disclaimer 1. Use at Customer’s Risk. TreeRadar™ and Arborist OnSite® endeavors to use equipment that generates useful information and, when provided, to prepare reports that will reflect its best judgment in light of the facts as it knows them, TreeRadar™ or Arborist OnSite® does not guarantee the outcome of its efforts or the structural integrity of any tree. Any report prepared by Arborist OnSite® or equipment and data analysis services provided by TreeRadar™ is used strictly at your sole risk June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 28 2.f Packet Pg. 104 2. Disclaimer of Warranties. You expressly understand and agree that: (a) Your use of TreeRadar™ equipment or Arborist OnSite’s® use of ground penetrating radar technology services, are at your own risk. Such services are provided on an “as is and “as available” basis. TreeRadar™ and Arborist OnSite® expressly disclaims all warranties of any kind, expressed or implied, including but not limited to implied warranties of merchantability, fitness for a particular purpose and non-infringement. TreeRadar™ and Arborist OnSite® make no warranty that the equipment will be error-free or the data results obtained from the use of this equipment will be reliable. Neither TreeRadar™ or Arborist OnSite® shall not be liable for any direct, indirect, incidental, special, consequential or exemplary damages, including but not limited to damages for goodwill, injury to body or property, death or other losses even if TreeRadar™ or Arborist OnSite® has been advised of the possibility of such damages resulting from the use or reliance TreeRadar™ equipment or Arborist OnSite’s® use of ground penetrating radar technology. 4 General Conditions. Client acknowledges that it has read and agrees to the General Conditions contained in this document which are incorporated herein and made a part of this Agreement and report and shall apply to all services performed by Consultant. If this document is attached to another form of agreement whose terms and conditions conflict with this Agreement the General Conditions contained in this document shall prevail. Assumptions and Limiting Conditions 1. Any legal description provided to the consultant is assumed to be correct. No responsibility is assumed for matters legal in character nor is any opinion rendered as to the quality of any title. 2. The consultant can neither guarantee nor be responsible for accuracy of information provided by others, information not provided or disclosed. 3. The consultant shall not be required to give testimony or to attend court by reason of this consultation/reports unless subsequent written arrangements are made, including payment of an additional fee for services. 4. Loss or removal of any part of this report invalidates the entire report/evaluation. 5. Possession of this report or a copy thereof does not imply right of publication or use for any purpose by any other than the persons(s) to whom it is addressed without written consent of this consultant. 6. This report represents the opinion of consultant, and the consultant’s fee is in no way contingent upon the reporting upon any pre-determined findings. 7. Sketches, diagrams, graphs, photos, ect., in this report, being intended as visual aids, are not necessarily to scale and should not be construed as engineering reports or surveys. 8. This report has been made in conformity with acceptable evaluation/diagnostic reporting techniques and procedures, as recommended by the International Society of Arboriculture. 9. No tree described in this report was climbed, unless otherwise stated. Arborist OnSite® cannot assume responsibility for any defects which could only have been discovered by climbing. A full root collar or root crown inspection, consisting of excavating the soil around the tree to uncover hidden defects or disease involving the root collar and major buttress roots, was not performed, unless otherwise stated. Arborist OnSite® cannot accept responsibility for any root defects which could only have been discovered by such an inspection. June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 29 2.f Packet Pg. 105 CCeerrttiiffiiccaattiioonn ooff PPeerrffoorrmmaannccee I, Robert Booty, certify: TThhaatt II hhaavvee ppeerrssoonnaallllyy iinnssppeecctteedd tthhee ttrreeee((ss)) aanndd//oorr tthhee pprrooppeerrttyy rreeffeerrrreedd ttoo iinn tthhiiss rreeppoorrtt,, aanndd hhaavvee ssttaatteedd mmyy ffiinnddiinnggss aaccccuurraatteellyy.. TThhee eexxtteenntt ooff tthhee eevvaalluuaattiioonn aanndd oorr aapppprraaiissaall iiss ssttaatteedd iinn tthhee aattttaacchheedd rreeppoorrtt aanndd tthhee tteerrmmss aanndd ccoonnddiittiioonnss;; That I have no current interest in the vegetation or the property that is the subject of this report, and I have no personal interest or bias with respect to the parties involved; That the analysis, opinions and conclusions stated herein are my own, and are based on current scientific procedures and facts; That my compensation is not contingent upon the reporting of a predetermined conclusion that favors the cause of the client or any other party, nor upon the results of the assessment, the attainment of stipulated results, or the occurrence of any subsequent events; That my analysis, opinions, and conclusions were developed and this report has been prepared according to commonly accepted arboricultural practices; That no one provided significant professional assistance to the consultant, except as indicated within the report. II ffuurrtthheerr cceerrttiiffyy tthhaatt II aamm aa RReeggiisstteerreedd MMeemmbbeerr ooff tthhee AAmmeerriiccaann SSoocciieettyy ooff CCoonnssuullttiinngg AArrbboorriissttss,, aanndd II aamm aann IInntteerrnnaattiioonnaall SSoocciieettyy ooff AArrbboorriiccuullttuurree CCeerrttiiffiieedd AArrbboorriisstt.. II hhaavvee bbeeeenn iinnvvoollvveedd iinn tthhee pprraaccttiiccee ooff aarrbboorriiccuullttuurree aanndd tthhee ccaarree aanndd ssttuuddyy ooff ttrreeeess ffoorr oovveerr 4499 yyeeaarrss.. Signed:________________________ Date: June 25, 2018 June 25, 2018 Structural Root Study 4256 El Camino Real Palo Alto, Ca. Robert Booty Registered Consulting Arborist 487 ISA Qualified Tree Risk Assessor Copyright 2018 Arborist OnSite Horticultural Consulting, Inc. All Rights Reserved 30 2.f Packet Pg. 106 1 Gutierrez, Samuel From:Sharlene Carlson <carlsonsharlene@gmail.com> Sent:Wednesday, May 30, 2018 5:05 PM To:Gutierrez, Samuel Cc:Anne Mason; Julie Baskind; Gerhardt, Jodie Subject:Re: 4256 El Camino Real Formal Submittal City Staff Comments Attachments:Submission to PA ARB 120617 - FINAL.pdf Hello Sam, Thank you for keeping Palo Alto Redwoods updated on the application for the 4256 El Camino Real project ‐ we really appreciate your efforts. We have reviewed the project plans and the City’s comments on the plans. At this time, we do not have extensive additional comments on the project. The concerns we presented in our comments to the Architectural Review Board dated December 4, 2017 on the project remain. These comments are attached for your convenience. We are especially concerned about impacts to the Redwood trees on our property and adverse project impacts on traffic, safety, and noise. We appreciate the City’s diligence in requesting additional information to support analysis of these impact areas. We will provide more detailed comments on the CEQA environmental analysis of the project when it is available. In addition, we are also concerned about impacts related to privacy. As shown in plan sheet A‐4.2 of the applicant’s submittal showing the eastern elevation, the project design includes large windows that will look directly onto existing residences to the southeast. It is our hope that the City will consider the issue of homeowner privacy in your review of the project application. Please continue to update us as this project progresses, including providing feedback from city departments and any documents submitted by the developer. It would be great to find a way that we can electronically access the large plans but also appreciate receiving several paper copies as changes are submitted. Best regards, Sharlene On Tue, May 15, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Sharlene Carlson <carlsonsharlene@gmail.com> wrote: Hi Sam, Thank you for reaching out. We are still digesting the city input and the overall plans but will provide input as soon as possible. 2.g Packet Pg. 107 2 It would really be helpful to get electronic copies of the full plans. Is that possible by zipping the file or possibly setting up an outside source like drop box to receive them? That would be extremely helpful in sharing with our homeowners. Thanks, Sharlene On Mon, May 14, 2018 at 4:51 PM, Gutierrez, Samuel <Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org> wrote: Hello Sharlene, I am checking in to see if there are anything I can assist you with in regards to the comments or the submittal in general. Regards, Samuel J. Gutierrez | MUP | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329 ‐ 2225 Please think of the environment before printing this email – Thank you! Online Parcel Report | Palo Alto Municipal Code Planning Forms & Handouts | Planning Applications Mapped Permit Tracking – Public Access From: Sharlene Carlson [mailto:carlsonsharlene@gmail.com] Sent: Thursday, May 03, 2018 7:34 PM To: Gutierrez, Samuel Subject: Re: 4256 El Camino Real Formal Submittal City Staff Comments 2.g Packet Pg. 108 1 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Palo Alto Redwoods December 4, 2017 City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 4256 El Camino Real - Preliminary Architectural Review - 17PLN-00233 PAR Comments for Second Study Session, December 22, 2017 Dear Members of the Architectural Review Board, Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association (PAR) is submitting the following comments for your review for the second study session scheduled December 22, 2017 regarding the proposed development of the Su Hong Restaurant property by HXH, LLC. In PAR's written submission dated August 3, 2017 for the initial study session we raised a number of concerns. In addition we provided public comments at the August 17, 2017 hearing about these issues. Following the meeting, PAR provided a list of remaining concerns to the developer and had an in-person meeting to go over the developer's revised project design . Although the developer attempted to address some concerns raised by PAR and by the ARB, the measures incorporated into the revised project plan are inadequate. Our remaining concerns include, but are not limited to the following: Impacts to Redwood trees; Adverse project impacts on traffic, safety, noise, air quality, etc. minimized and mitigated; Construction process managed to mitigate noise and construction impact; Bulk of buildings do not cast shadow upon PAR homes or pool area; Minimized massing respects privacy of PAR homes, reduces number and size of rear windows; Consistency with all provisions of zoning code, specifically height; Consistency with Comprehensive Plan; Assurance that noise from HVAC and outdoor spaces cannot be heard from PAR homes; Adequate drainage to avoid runoff or flooding of PAR; Consideration of converting project to mixed-use or housing. Given that we have already submitted comments in our previous letter, we will not reiterate each of our concerns here. Instead we will detail some of our most significant concerns at this time. Any issues not addressed here remain concerns and our decision not to highlight them at this time does not indicate acceptance of changes to date. Thank you for carefully considering our request that the proposed development be significantly scaled back and include neighborhood benefits. PAR CONCERNS REMAIN * Density * Traffic Safety * Height * Parking * Tree Health * Hotel Saturation * Light Reduction * Environmental Impact * Air Flow * Health and Safety 2.g Packet Pg. 109 2 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Tree Health Redwood trees are one of the oldest living species on the planet. The residents of PAR consider ourselves caretakers of these valuable assets, which contribute greatly to our quality of life. We are proud to be residents of the City of Palo Alto, where its moniker is El Palo Alto in honor of Redwood trees. PAR has well over 117 trees, mostly Redwoods, with a number of them eligible for heritage Northern California Redwoods status. PAR has utilized the services of Henry Ardalan of City Arborist for almost 20 years to maintain tree health. Given the proposed 50-foot high building proposed next door, we are concerned for the health and care of the 28 Redwood trees in the Area B grove and the 4 Redwood trees in our entry area near the property line that will be directly impacted. PAR met with the developer's arborist, Kielty Arborist Services, to allow access to our property to measure tree diameter and distance from the common fence area. In his report, our trees were identified to be in fair or poor condition, although we have been diligent in taking care of them throughout all water conditions. PAR then retained the services of a independent arborist, Moki Smith of Smith Tree Specialists, to provide us with an assessment of the condition of our trees, with the view of determining the potential impact of construction on the Redwood trees. Mr. Smith's initial report has identified our trees as being in good condition, showing evidence of consistent and appropriate care, including irrigation. This is the opposite of the assessment by the developer's arborist. (see Arborist Smith's attached report) PAR trees located in Area B Grove In order to acquire a deeper assessment of our trees condition, we expect the city to perform the following tests to assist with analysis of potential project impacts on PAR trees: soil tests to determine mechanical and chemical profile of the soil; water analysis to determine composition of irrigation water; and live tissue testing to determine nutrient status of the trees. 2.g Packet Pg. 110 3 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 PAR has three main areas of concern related to potential impacts on trees: 1. Above ground Trees provide privacy screening, air quality, and quality of life for the homeowners and benefits to the overall aesthetics to the community. We are concerned that the amount of sunlight and wind, which is vital for healthy trees, will be severely compromised with a 50-foot high building. We consider the so-called shade study, as presented, to be inadequate, and request that the city perform an independent shade study showing all of the potentially impacted areas, including residential areas, pool/clubhouse area, and entry area that will be next to the massive 50 foot structure. Loss of sunlight would ultimately result in loss of lower limb structure in Redwoods, compromising the privacy screen, with tree growth limited to the very top, if at all. Homeowners would only have tree trunks outside their windows. The loss of light would leave PAR buildings susceptible to dry rot resulting in significant costs of repair over time. 2. Below ground The impact of grading and excavating for a multilevel building so close to the drip line, and encroaching on the root base and anchorage of the trees, will severely impact the root system of the trees. Redwood trees have shallow lateral roots and are co-dependent on each other, as their roots are all intertwined. Trenching and foundation footings must be carefully considered to avoid uprooting and long-term tree damage. When the root structure is damaged in any significant way, not only does that tree begin to decline over time, but it also affects the other trees it is connected to. 3. Impact to trees and mitigation Impacts to the trees and the mitigation for those impacts cannot be fully identified until there is a final plan for development, including an engineer’s grading plans. Only once those exist can an arborist give an accurate assessment of what mitigation is necessary. We are not opposed to welcoming a new neighbor, but we ask for the design to be reconsidered to address our concerns for our Redwood trees and the value they bring to the community as a whole. With a 50 foot hotel as high as trees, sky views will be blocked and sunlight and airflow reduced. 2.g Packet Pg. 111 4 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Parking and Traffic Safety The proposed hotel creates several unacceptable traffic and safety problems for our stretch of El Camino and raises more questions than it answers. Each of these safety concerns is described briefly below. The proposed porte cochere design will result in backed up traffic onto El Camino. What happens when multiple residents are bringing their vehicles out of the garage, the carport is full of rideshare drivers and passengers unloading, and cars are trying to enter the car port from El Camino? What happens when UPS and FedEx show up at the same time? Where is the garbage truck supposed to park when another delivery truck is already in the commercial loading area? Traffic will back up onto El Camino, blocking at least one of the three lanes. This will worsen traffic especially during peak hours. The proposed entrance is also immediately after the exit to PAR. Vehicles exiting PAR will encounter queued hotel traffic that is problematic and unsafe. The proposed location provides insufficient distance for exiting cars to make the turn light. Drivers who want to head north on El Camino after exiting the hotel will attempt to make it to the left turn light. There is not enough distance for drivers attempting to cut over to the left turn light at Dinah's Court, but they are going to attempt it anyway. This creates a safety hazard for passing cars. We already see this with cars exiting Su Hong, and it will be far worse with hotel traffic. Experimental puzzle parking technology is unproven. Puzzle parking requires excavating much deeper than for regular parking, which poses risks to PAR infrastructure. The more moving parts something has, the more likely it is to fail. If there's a malfunction retrieving one car, it renders the remaining cars inaccessible. What happens when there's a mechanical malfunction when multiple owners are retrieving their cars? How does this affect traffic in the car port? Will tiered puzzle parking work and be a desirable option over time? Illegal and dangerous parking will occur in front of the hotel, despite no parking zones. There is currently no proposed location for tour buses to park to unload passengers. As we see frequently at the Hilton Garden Inn, tour buses and Uber drivers WILL park illegally in front of the hotel despite signage and red curbs, and despite a similarly designed (and larger) car port there. This blocks visibility for drivers exiting the hotel as well as drivers passing the hotel. Since the hotel does not have responsibility for enforcing traffic laws, it has no reason to enforce the no parking zone. This is also a low priority for law enforcement. We only need to look at Edgewood Plaza, where this is an ongoing problem despite an established commercial delivery area. It would be naive to pretend that this won't occur at this site as well. This impact should be evaluated during the environmental review process. These and other negative impacts related to parking, traffic, and congestion this proposal will exacerbate the unsafe traffic conditions that already exist on El Camino. Hotel Saturation / Density in the Neighborhood Our neighborhood was declared a “hotel corridor” in city plans some time ago, but it has been allowed to become “all string and no pearls”, as the PA Weekly put it, in part because hotel tax revenues will increase city coffers. The hotel burden should be more equitably shared throughout the city, particularly given traffic implications. Our neighborhood needs to be one that neighbors can easily navigate while enjoying amenities, but instead it is increasingly being defined by massive hotel facades. Our concerns include: PAR is a diverse multi-family residential neighborhood of 275 people enjoying outdoor walkways shaded by more than 100 trees, mostly Redwoods, and a number of oases of green spaces. We also have easy access to public transportation, good schools, work places, and community services. We are exactly the kind of housing that the new Comprehensive Plan wants to see more of, and that Palo Alto should protect. 2.g Packet Pg. 112 5 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 In 2008 an Economic Resource Associates report commissioned by the City said there were 1,865 hotel rooms in all of Palo Alto. Now, within walking distance of PAR, there are 19 hotels with 1,595 rooms on El Camino alone. One of these has already submitted plans to nearly triple from 36 to 97 rooms. That’s over 1600 rooms in a stretch of less than 2.5 miles, just in the blocks of El Camino Real between 3200 and 4500. If we expand out to within five miles, including the massive Marriotts planned for San Antonio, there will be thousands of rooms. This particular dense hotel project, 80+ rooms with three time-share units, and a long stretch of 50’ high walls, is unsuitable in the neighborhood. The bulk of the project as proposed remains out of scale with the adjacent neighborhood and would significantly affect daylight for many of our units (including all 12 BMR units facing the Area B grove). Despite some glass and landscaping, the building design takes the “defensive walled approach” and at five stories high for the full facade on El Camino, is another in a series of massive and unwelcoming buildings being built in South Palo Alto. We recognize that the property at 4256 El Camino is zoned for commercial services use. We have lived peaceably with both Denny’s and Su Hong as next-door neighbors over decades. We would welcome a well-designed commercial enterprise or mixed use housing that serves the community, that is respectful of its neighbors both in its design and its uses, and that adds to the liveliness and spirit of the neighborhood rather than detracts from it. This project as proposed does none of these things, and offers nothing of benefit for those of us who live in South Palo Alto. The project’s design fails to provide harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses, fails to enhance conditions in adjacent neighborhood, and fails to include pedestrian-centric amenities. Environmental Impact We have environmental concerns that we previously raised but the developer has not adequately addressed, including: Health impacts from air, sound and noise pollution, both during and after construction; Smoke impact - PAR is a non-smoking environment, and the proposed development must designate specific areas that will not impact PAR, or designate the entire project non-smoking; Loss of light - developer's shade study included in packet does not adequately address loss of light; an independent light study should be a requirement; Safety risks for children riding to school at peak commute times on bikes need to be addressed; Safety hazards as a result of illegal and dangerous double parking, including vision impairment and blocked right lane on El Camino need to be addressed; Loss of privacy - the revised proposal diminishes the privacy of all windows facing the development. Guests in 27 hotel units will look out directly into the living rooms, bedrooms, and balconies of 18 of our homes; this is unacceptable; These are potentially significant impacts that should be thoroughly evaluated through the environmental review process. We hope the ARB will give serious consideration as to how this project will impact our residents and the neighborhood. 2.g Packet Pg. 113 6 c/o PML Management – 655 Mariners Island Blvd., Suite 301 – San Mateo, CA 94404 – (650) 349-9113 Required Findings Finally, the ARB cannot make the necessary findings to grant the requested approvals. In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code As discussed in detail throughout this letter and the PAR letter dated August 3, 2017, the revised plan does NOT provide harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses, and it does NOT enhance living conditions in adjacent residential areas. Therefore, the project is inconsistent with required ARB Finding #2. Until the project is redesigned to reduce the scale and mass of the buildings and to integrate with the existing neighborhood, the required findings cannot be made. Summary PAR is a hidden gem that is similar to the kinds of residential neighborhoods called for in the revised Comprehensive Plan. The ARB should take definitive steps to protect our unique oasis as a model to be replicated, not one to be overshadowed and made unsafe for residents and drivers. Unresolved and undesirable issues remain - many which the ARB previously raised with the developer. We will appreciate the ARB’s support of our efforts to scale back this development proposal. As mentioned in August, we invite the Board to visit our complex anytime to understand our perspective and passion for our homes. Sincerely, Board of Directors, Palo Alto Redwoods Homeowners Association 2.g Packet Pg. 114 Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “4256 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4124&TargetID=319 (Shortened link): https://bit.ly/2CYWy3f A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Being Circulated for Public Comment Between January 7, 2018 and February 6, 2018. Direct Link to MND: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=68079.19&BlobID=68287 (Shortened link): https://bit.ly/2RCy209 2.h Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto (ID # 9417) Architectural Review Board Staff Report Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/15/2018 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Summary Title: 4256 El Camino Real: New Hotel (1st formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4256 El Camino Real (18PLN- 00096): Consideration of a Major Architectural Review for a new 51,300 Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 100 Guest Rooms and Below-Grade Parking. Director's Adjustment Requested for a Reduction in Required On- site Parking (15%) and Loading Space Dimensions. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: City Manager Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a public hearing and provide feedback on the project design to staff and applicant, then continue it to a date uncertain. No formal action is necessary at this time, as the project will need to be further evaluated by staff prior to the ARB’s formal recommendation. Report Summary The subject application is a request for Major Architectural Review for a new hotel located at 4256 El Camino Real. The new hotel is proposed to be five-stories along the El Camino Real frontage. The project will be 51,300 square feet with 100 hotel rooms, a restaurant, guest amenities, and below grade parking (two levels) utilizing parking lifts and valet parking services. The applicant has requested two Director’s adjustments. The first being a 15 percent reduction in on-site parking requirements and the second being dimensions of the required on-site loading area. Staff has performed a full review of the project for Zoning Code compliance, and found the project to be Code compliant. Additionally, reviewing Staff from other departments have performed a comprehensive review of the project and found the project to be mostly 2.i Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Code compliant. The outstanding items to be resolved are minor in nature and will not impact the site plan or building design. This includes the location of EVSE chargers and the location of a trash compactor, all of which are internal to the building. The project will need to be found in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan and other policy documents including design requirements such as the context-based design criteria, El Camino Design Guidelines, and the ARB findings. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) are being prepared by a third-party consultant under the direction of City Staff and will be circulated for public comment prior to a second hearing of the ARB. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant with Board member comments on the overall design and concept of the project, which the applicant may respond to before a subsequent hearing. Board members may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate or need to be changed given the neighborhood context and consistent with City policies to meet the required ARB findings for approval. Community members are also encouraged to provide comments regarding the project. Background Project Information Owner: Catherine Huang Huang Architect: Studio T Square Representative: Mircea Voskerician Property Information Address: 4256 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Palo Alto Orchards Lot Dimensions & Area: 163.5’ by 147.3’ to 95.2’; 25,960 sf Housing Inventory Site: Yes; maximum yield of 17 units, realistic yield of 12 units Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, 5 Street Trees; 4 Redwoods; 2 Cedars Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 3,296 sf; Single Story; Built 1964 Existing Land Use(s): Retail Use (Eating & Drinking Services; Su Hong Restaurant) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CS (Residential Multi-Family) West: CS (Residential Multi-Family) East: CS(H) (The Sea Steak House & Dinah’s Poolside) South: CS (General Business Office) Aerial View of Property: 2.i Packet Pg. 117 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Service Commercial (CS) Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes, see discussion below Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Yes, see discussion below Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, see discussion below Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable 2.i Packet Pg. 118 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary Review (August 17, 2017 Staff Report) Preliminary Review (December 21, 2017 Staff Report) Project Description The proposed project would demolish the existing the 3,296 sf single story building which is currently occupied by the Su Hong restaurant to construct a five-story 51,300 square foot (FAR of 2.0:1) hotel with 100 hotel rooms, a small restaurant, small conference room to serve as an amenity for guests, and below-grade parking. The new hotel is proposed to have a maximum height of 50 feet (mechanical equipment and screening are an additional 12 feet) along the El Camino Real frontage and will taper down to a height of 19 feet 7 inches at the rear portion of the building. The design also incorporates a driveway that features an oversized porte-cochere and on-site loading area for deliveries. All on-site parking is located within the two level below- grade garage. As shown on Sheets A-3.6 and A-3.7, the parking garage will utilize valet parking for the proposed 85 spaces (51 standard spaces, 28 spaces via 2 level parking lifts; 1 valet spaces; 4 accessible spaces, and 1 van shuttle space). The proposed project has a contemporary architectural style and utilizes wood siding, stucco, finished metal beams in the design. The color palette for the project is dark stained wood paneling, dark brown, and medium grey shades. The El Camino Real Frontage features wood paneling on the exterior of the upper floors and decorative seafoam glass at the center of the porte-cochere and the outdoor dining area. The existing redwoods provide screening between the project and the adjacent multi-family residential development, while also framing the edges of the property with tree canopy. The project is designed in an A-symmetric layout where the northern section of the hotel is half the length of the southern section to help avoid shadows on the adjacent common open space. The design includes an expansive Japanese themed landscaping which runs throughout the development, beginning at the lobby and running along the rear of the property in a C-shape layout. The project’s design also includes a 12-foot wide sidewalk along the El Camino Real frontage as required by the El Camino Design Guidelines. 2.i Packet Pg. 119 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Discussion Major Architectural Review applications receive a detailed review from staff for compliance with Zoning regulations and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. Changes to the project resulting from Board comments would require additional review by staff which may reveal other code or policy concerns not found in this submittal. Architectural Review – Major (AR): This project would be subject to the criteria found within PAMC 18.77.070. Architectural Review applications are reviewed by the Architectural Review Board whose recommendations are then forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Actions by the Director are appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Architectural Review projects are evaluated against specific findings which must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any single finding requires a project to be redesigned or to be denied. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the submitted plans. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to: Transitions in scale to adjacent properties Pedestrian-orientation and design Access to the site 2.i Packet Pg. 120 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Consideration of any applicable policy documents o El Camino Real Design Guidelines o Context-Based Design Criteria Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located on the southern end of El Camino Real and surrounded by the Palo Alto Redwoods multi-family residential complex and a commercial office use. The existing development on-site is a single story (approximately 3,296 sf) restaurant known as Su Hong. The rear and side of the property are surrounded by large redwood trees that line the lots between the project site and the adjacent Palo Alto Redwoods complex, in addition to three medium size street trees along the El Camino Real frontage. The area is defined by the large width of El Camino Real and the varying densities of the developments along South El Camino Real. Similarly, the heights and setbacks of the buildings along this portion of El Camino Real varying from zero setbacks (minimum sidewalk widths of 5 feet) and single-story buildings to seven stories with 200-foot setbacks at the nearby Crowne Plaza hotel. The project proposed a hotel that is five stories tall with an increased setback over the existing development to provide a 12-foot sidewalk along the El Camino Real frontage. The 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2.i Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Page 7 scale and setback appear to fit within the varying character and setting of the area, but staff would appreciate ARB comments on this topic. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 (Attachment A) requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Service Commercial, which provides citywide and regional services. This project is proposing a new hotel use with guest amenities common to hotels, such as a small restaurant and conference rooms. A detailed review of the project’s consistency will be provided at the next hearing. Housing Element The project site has been identified in the Housing Element of the City’s Comprehensive Plan as a housing inventory site, with this property having a realistic yield of 12 housing units. In preparation for the latest Housing Element, the City anticipated some housing sites may be redeveloped for non-housing purposes. Additional housing sites, beyond the City’s regional housing obligation have been identified in the Housing Element. El Camino Design Guidelines (ECR 1976 and South ECR 2002) The project will install new street trees along the El Camino Real Frontage of the site and a new 12 ft wide sidewalk will be provided. The site plan and building design of the project will provide all the on-site parking below grade and will screen the mechanical equipment from public view. The project’s trash enclosure is located out of public view. The building's design provides all elevations with an integrated consistent design throughout, maintaining the overall architectural theme of the building. The design of the new building is softened with the use of wood panels that connect the building façade with the existing mature redwoods that surround the site. The site plan of the project is developed to minimize the impacts to the adjacent multi- family development by stepping down the building heights from five stories down to two stories as the building approaches the rear property line. In addition, the buildings’ footprint on the site plan is oriented away from the adjacent residential developments’ common open space area by the “C” shaped site plan of the project with the opening of the “C” shaped site plan facing the common open space area, minimizing the impact to light and air. Also the building design of the project places smaller windows facing towards the property lines and larger windows facing to the interior plaza area of the site to minimize privacy impact to the adjacent 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2.i Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Page 8 residential development while still providing natural light for hotel patrons. Zoning Compliance Staff has reviewed the project for compliance with all applicable Codes and found it to be compliant. The project meets the site development standards for a hotel use within the CS zone. The results of this review can be found in Attachment B of this report. The applicant has requested two Director’s adjustment for required parking and the loading area dimensions. 1. The loading zone proposed is short of the Code required length as such a length would causes conflicts with the site planning and the hotel operator has confirmed that the loading demands for the hotel use could be fulfilled by smaller vehicles (SU-30 size). The requested size reduction is for a 10 ft by 30 ft loading area placed within the porte-cochere. The required loading zone per Code consists of a 12 ft by 45 ft rectangular area with a vertical clearance of not less than 15 ft. The proposed reduced sized loading area does not conflict with vehicle access or circulation to the below-grade garage, as vehicles may pass the loading area via the second driveway aisle and exceeds the vertical clearance required. 2. The applicant has requested a parking reduction of 15%, for a total reduction of 15 required parking spaces. A TDM program has been submitted and reviewed by Staff to justify the requested parking reduction and the valet service would provide additional parking via the aisle ways of the garage. Based on a review of the project and supporting documents, Staff supports the applicant’s reduction requests as they are found to be reasonable and meet the Code requirements for Director’s adjustments. The reduction in the loading area has been found to be appropriate due to the size of service vehicles that will support the proposed hotel use and the data for hotel parking demands. To accomidate the parking reduction, the project will be required to utilize a parking lift system with two-level parking lifts and would be supported by a valet operator for hotel patrons and employees. The Municipal Code allows for the use of parking lift system(s) with the requirements outlined in PAMC Section 18.54.020(4)(G). Non-residential uses shall provide a minimum of two spaces or 10 percent of the total number of parking spaces provided, whichever is greater, in a standard non-mechanical configuration. The proposed project currently provides 57 such spaces, which meets required 10 percent threshold. Staff has thoroughly reviewed the parking lift systems proposed in this project and has conducted site visits of installed operational lift systems to determined their effectiveness and compliance with parking designed standards. The proposed parking lifts have been determined to meet all the requirements for all applicable codes relating to parking lifts and parking design standards. Urban Forestry Arborist Report Analysis: 2.i Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Page 9 A significant number of redwood trees exist on the property and near the perimeter on neighboring properties. Excavation required for construction of the below-grade parking facilities may impact trees both on site and those directly adjacent to the property. There have been thorough reports from certified arborists to ascertain the severity of potential impacts, design offsetting treatments, and propose tree protection measures during construction of the project. Adjustments to the design, combined with offsetting treatments and tree protection measures, are anticipated to result in impacts that are less than significant and will allow the trees to recover quickly. Trees on the neighboring properties have been inspected and will continue to be monitored throughout the construction process monthly and at milestone events. Utilities Analysis The project requires a new transformer to be installed and said transformer must be located adjacent to a Public Utilities Easement on the site. The existing Utilities Easement is being relocated closer to the property line and out of the proposed footprint of the hotel (see diagram). The easement adjustment documentation has been submitted to City Staff and will be going to the City Council for approval. The new easement location process will be completed prior to approval of the project. Environmental Review The subject project is being assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. An Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration (IS/MND) is being prepared by a third-party consultant for Staff review and public comment. The following technical information is being prepared and will be included in the IS/MND released for public comment: Transportation/Circulation Noise Historic and Cultural/Tribal Resources Air Quality Arborist Assessment of All Trees on and Directly Adjacent to the Property 2.i Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Given the importance of the adjacent redwood trees, staff ensured the Arborist Assessment was completed and sent to HOA representatives prior to this hearing (Attachment F). The IS/MND and related technical reports will be release for a public comment period prior to a second ARB hearing and any formal recommendation on the project. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on November 2, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 5, 2018, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comment/Community Meeting During the review of this project, one letter was submitted that reflects comments from many neighbors who live within the adjacent multifamily complex known as the Palo Alto Redwoods. The adjacent residents are concerned about the project’s impacts on the mature redwood trees, traffic, noise from construction, privacy, the overall size of the project, and the projected shadows that would be cast by the project onto their property and common space. The applicant has been in contact with and held meetings with the Palo Alto Redwoods HOA Board to gather resident feedback on the proposal. Staff has also met with HOA representatives numerous time during the review process of this application, answering questions and responding to comments. Comments from the Palo Alto Redwoods residents can be found within Attachment G. On October 22, 2018, the applicant held a community meeting on-site within the existing restaurant. Planning Staff also was in attendance to listen to the information provided and the community comments raised during the meeting. The developer led meeting covered several topics regarding the current design of the project including privacy, shadows, parking, and hotel operations. Staff addressed community comments regarding process and Code requirements. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrexz@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2.i Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment C: ARB Draft Findings (DOCX) Attachment D: Applicant Project Description (PDF) Attachment E: Hotel Operations (PDF) Attachment F: Arborist Assessment (PDF) Attachment G: Neighborhood Comments (PDF) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 2.i Packet Pg. 126 October 18, 2018 Samuel J. Gutierrez MUP | Associate Planner | P&CE Department 250 Hamilton Ave. 5th Floor, Palo Alto CA 94301 Phone: (650) 329 - 2225 Re: 4256 El Camino Real – Hotel Operation Hours, Delivery Hours, and Staffing Levels Dear Mr. Gutierrez: Hospitality Link International, Inc. and Severin Group, LLC, have been engaged by the developer of 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California, to provide a summary letter to the City of Palo Alto outlining the anticipated hotel hours of operation, delivery hours, and staffing levels required at the hotel. This letter is intended only for use by the City of Palo Alto in connection with the plan review for the aforementioned proposed hotel development. We have inspected the site and analyzed the hostelry market conditions in the Palo Alto and greater Silicon Valley market areas and herewith submit our summary letter pertaining to the proposed hotel’s hours of operation, delivery hours, and staffing levels. The proposed hotel will be built to the high standards of an upscale boutique hotel and offer services comparable to the upscale hotels in Palo Alto. The hotel will contain 100 guestrooms, a fitness room, a business center, a courtyard with a reflecting water feature, valet parking service, two adjoining flexible space rooms totaling 800 square feet, one small private dining room that can be used for private events, and an intimate restaurant and bar serving upscale set menu and tapas style casual dining options. The hotel will be boutique in nature and provide slightly less amenities than a more standard full-service hotel; comparable hotels include the Westin Palo Alto, the Garden Court Hotel, and Park James in Menlo Park. Assuming this is a non-union hotel, we are of the opinion that the following hours of operation, delivery hours, and staffing levels are required. I. Hours of Operation Reception: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Regular business hours reception crew and a night shift receptionist, usually 1-2 person(s) to revolve in 24 hours. Restaurant / Café (3 Meals): 6am – 10pm, 7 days a week. Serving upscale set menu and tapas style casual dining options. Room delivery service will be catered by the many stellar restaurants in Palo Alto upon request. Bar: 12pm-10pm SU-Th / 12pm-1am F-S. The food and beverage operation will be more beverage-service oriented with light tapas style dishes. Outdoor Courtyard: 7:30am-9pm, Sunday -Thursday and 7:30am-10pm Friday - Saturday. Tranquil setting with a reflecting water feature and seating areas. Exterior courtyard lighting after 10pm would also be reduced to minimum circulation requirements in efforts to reduce overall general lighting. 2.j Packet Pg. 127 Fitness Room: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Fitness room with fully equipped state-of-the-art equipment. Valet Parking: 6am to 10pm. After hour guests will be directed to an open space by the night shift receptionist, whom will act as valet for late check-in guests. Business Center: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Open lounge space with several computer workstations. Market Pantry: 24 hours, 7 days a week. Located in the reception area, guest can purchase snacks and drinks. Managed by receptionist. Laundry / Dry-cleaning service: Items delivered to the reception by 9am returned within 24 hours. This would be our 3rd party service provider. Business Meeting Rooms: 8am – 8pm. Can request management for extended hours beyond posted operational hours. II. Delivery Times Flexible delivery hours in sync with hotel operational hours are an integral part of a well-run hotel, which in turn increases staff productivity and guest satisfaction. The delivery and pick-up schedule for linen and terry, produce, beverages, liquor, and boxes and parcels, as well as waste pick-up must avoid peak check-in and check- out times and align with house cleaning service and the restaurant operation to ensure a sufficient stock of supplies is replenished daily. Linen and terry service drop-off will occur daily in the morning, while pick-up will occur in the afternoon (after housekeeping completes their cycle) for the soiled linen to be washed and returned the next morning. Food and beverage related deliveries will occur in the mid-morning through early afternoon, at a time when most guest will be heading off to their offices or business meetings. Waste pick-up will occur in the early morning before breakfast service starts. Boxes and parcels are expected to be delivered throughout the day. This delivery and pick-up schedule for the proposed hotel is better illustrated in the following comprehensive table showing the weekly frequency of vendor delivery and pick-up schedule. The second table illustrates peak hours at the hotel. Porte Cochere Shipping and Receiving M T W TH F S SU Linen and Terry Delivery 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am 7am - 7:15am Purchasing Department (F&B) Delivery 11am - 2pm 11am - 2pm 11am - 2pm Linen and Terry Pick-Up 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm 4pm - 4:15pm Waste Management Service Pickup 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am 6am - 6:15am Delivery of Boxes and Parcels 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm 6:30pm - 7pm Hotel Operating Schedule Restaurant - Peak Time (Breakfast)7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am 7am-9am Peak Check-Out times 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am 8am-11am House Cleaning Service 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm 8am-3pm Peak Check-In times 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm 4pm-6pm Restaurant - Peak Time (Afternoon)6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 6pm-9pm 2.j Packet Pg. 128 III. Parking / Drop-off protocol In efforts of keeping our entry drive aisle and foyer clear, the hotel will utilize a set five (5) minute waiting period per car before instructing the driver to move the car below grade to the valet receiving area. If a guest should take more than 5 minutes to exit the hotel to retrieve their car, they can proceed down the elevator to the garage level valet stand where their car will be waiting for them. Guest arrivals are scattered throughout the day; however, we do anticipate a higher volume of cars from either rentals, or taxi/Uber during the morning and evening hours. Within this time frame, we estimate an approximate 1-2 minute per car resting period to unload or pick up guests, thereby avoiding any excessive line of cars that would surpass our entry drive aisle. As a secondary precaution the parking protocol of 5 minutes would effectively move cars to the lower garage level to maintain our clear ground level foyer. With regards to our vendor deliveries, the hotel will make every effort possible with its vendors to secure vans or trucks or the proper scale, that can easily deliver to the garage level directly, avoiding any build up or vehicles on the foyer landing. IV. Courtyard use This Boutique hotel is positioned to be primarily an upscale ‘business’ hotel and will tailor it’s amenities with this in mind. For this reason, the hotel due to its size of amenities and types of anticipated clientele, will not be hosting large events or loud festivities in the outdoor courtyard. This space is reserved for guests of the hotel or clients that have reserved the meeting rooms, thus will have access to the courtyard for leisure purposes. The hotel will hold set hours of operations in efforts to reduce noise disturbance to the adjacent neighbors. Hotel staff will also be on site to manage this space to ensure sounds are kept to a comfortable conversational level, otherwise guests will be asked to move to the bar area to continue their conversations. V. Staffing Levels and Required Parking The following section illustrates the staffing levels required to operate an upscale, 100-room boutique hotel in Palo Alto. The hotel will be relatively small and boutique in nature and will provide less amenities than a more standard full-service hotel. We assume a non-union staff will operate the hotel; therefore, we are of the opinion that the following positions in the below schedule will be required to operate this hotel. Front Office • 1 Front Office Manager • 1 Security Manager • 1 Security Personnel per 8-hour shift. Total 3 People (May have 2 more people to make up for the 7 days to add to payroll or look at a 3rd party security services vendor). • 2 Receptionist (8-hour shifts) + 1-night shift. Total 5 people + 3 Additional to make up for days off. Total receptionist payroll count is 8 people. • 2 Valets (3rd Party) 2.j Packet Pg. 129 Bell boys are unnecessary given the smaller business-oriented hotels in the area don’t have them. Most business travelers travel lightly. Valet operation can be outsourced, and the night shift receptionist may act as valet for late check-ins. Total: 15 People on payroll (7 people max per shift) Administration Office • 1 Finance Person (Accountant) • 1 Sales Person • 1 General Manager • 1 Human Resources Manager • 1 Housekeeping Manager (Will manage Housekeeping staff or 3rd Party team) • 1 Head Engineer + 1 Technician For the GM position, we recommend hiring someone with a strong marketing and/or HR background. Direct hotel reservations can be handled by the receptionists and sales office. Total: 7 People on payroll Housekeeping Based on an average room count of 15-18 rooms per Housekeeper • 5 Housekeepers per shift + 1 Overnight Housekeeper • 2 Public Area Cleaners This may be a 3rd party vendor, so the company may drop them off to reduce parking requirement. Total: 7 People (7 max during one 8-hour shift during the day + 1 for overnight) Restaurant Personnel • 2 Cooks [Per Shift – (Breakfast & Lunch Shift) / (Dinner Shift)] Total of 3-4 Cooks per day • 1 Dishwasher shift and 1 evening Bar Back shift • 1 Bartender • 2 Servers to cover 53 Covers (Per 8-hour shift) Total 4 Servers per day No room service offered at this time. This amenity can be catered by the many stellar restaurants in Palo Alto that will provide room delivery upon request. Also, the F&B operation will be more beverage-service oriented with light tapas style dishes; therefore, the dinner shift may require only one cook. Assuming the overnight food consumption is light, then only one dishwasher shift per day will be required. Total: 10 People on Payroll (5 People max per shift) 2.j Packet Pg. 130 Landscaping Landscaping is assumed to be performed by a 3rd party vendor. Thank you for not smoking This Hotel will be a smoke free property. It will not allow smoking of any kind on its premises. If guests wish to smoke they will have to wait till they are off the property completely. In conclusion, the total employee count is 37 persons; however, not all employees will require parking during their respective shifts. The total Personnel Per Maximum Shift is 27 persons. This includes the 3rd party people, so if we remove the Housekeepers and Valets we are down to 17 people per shift that may require parking. Consider reducing the parking requirement by estimating the percentage of personnel driving vs. taking public transportation and arranging an employee parking agreement with a nearby parking lot. The Hotel is well situated to offer our staff and guests many of the public transportation’s great opportunities along El Camino Real with a bus stop just steps away from the front door, and the close proximity to both California and San Antonio Road Cal Train. The hotel is also providing both long term enclosed bike storage facilities as well as temporary open storage racks. We have finalized and submitted to the City our TDM package, which includes incentives we have provided to employees to utilize the existing public transportation options, as employee parking at the hotel will cost a daily rate that may not be as advantageous. An EV charging stall for electric cars will be provided on site, with additional stalls available to be installed as demand increases. The hotel plans to operate a shuttle service within a 3-mile radius for guest and staff pick up / drop off to main public transit stations and corporate offices on fixed time schedules. We appreciate the opportunity to submit this summary letter to the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the development team. Please let us know if you have any questions. Attached to this letter you will find the credentials for the contributing Hotel Consultants. Sincerely, ____________________________ Jaime Law Director Hospitality Link International, Inc. ____________________________ Holden Lim President Hospitality Link International, Inc. ____________________________ Olivier A. Severin Principal Owner Severin Group, LLC 2.j Packet Pg. 131 2.j Packet Pg. 132 2.j Packet Pg. 133 2.j Packet Pg. 134 ARB and Planning Comment Response Letter Prepared by Studio T-SQ., 12.19.2018 4256 El Camino Real – ARB Meeting 11.15.2018 Building Materials Provide larger material samples - show color and variation accurately. o Larger material samples will be provided to the city along with supplemental package two weeks before ARB hearing. Materials shown on the elevations and renders should be consistent with and representative of the materials provided. o Building elevations and massing have been redesigned to emphasize logical material transition and elevation consistency. Renders and elevations on sheets A-1.0, A-2.1, A-3.9, A-4.0 - A-5.3, A-6.1, and A7.0 represent the chosen materials in a more consistent manner. Find a way to integrate the mesh material of the stair near neighboring pool in a more natural and consistent manner. o The color and perforation pattern of the stair tower’s metal mesh and panel system have been changed from simple circular perforations to elongated slots and the color has been adjusted from to a dark bronze tone to be more consistent with the overall building’s aesthetics. Building Details Window detail/depth, need more info o Window section details with enhanced window depth at a variety of cladding conditions depicted on sheet A-6.2. Thicken roof edge and increase fascia, show detail o Roof and soffit thicknesses have been increased. Detail is included on sheet A-4.3. The two building wings against El Camino Real seem too distinct from each other due in part due to the differing glass railing conditions on either side. Find a way for both wings to share characteristics in order to unify the building. o Railing condition – window patterns, trim and eve conditions on both wings of the building have been adjusted to be consistent with each other. Railing detail provided on sheet A-4.2. o Investigate possibility of adding benches/seating at the ECR frontage o Bench seating has been added on the central planter in front of the porte-cochere as a pedestrian amenity. See sheet A-3.0 and L-1.0. Elevations and Massing Shift stair at rear corner to reflect reduced massing o Compared to the previous submittal the stair has been brought further away from the neighbor and unit massing has been reduced at the rear of the building. All four sides of the elevations should have smoother transitions from one another. 2.k Packet Pg. 135 o Material transitions have been smoothed out with logical massing transition of color matched fiber cement siding and rainscreen cladding system. All renders and elevations have been updated to reflect this change. o South façade: roof eave extends from front to back providing a unified roof form. Along with the material adjustments mentioned, the lighter stucco color at the top level extends from front to back to tie the front and rear of the building together. See sheet A-4.2. o North façade: rainscreen material now extends to the stair tower, creating a more natural junction for material change between the ECR façade and courtyard façade. Windows simplified and aesthetic matches the rest of the building. See sheet A-4.1. Simplify and make consistent for roof forms at rear o Roof forms at the rear of the building slope towards a unified direction. Roof and massing taper now more gentle and refined than previous submittal. See sheets A-4.3, and A-6.0 – A6.1. Left/Right wings of ECR elevation could be more consistent in detail o Railing detail has been unified for a more consistent aesthetic across the two wings. Window stagger has been eliminated from the left wing to match with the proportions of the right wing. Trim piece has also been added to the right wing to reflect the aesthetic division of the top level of the left wing. See sheet A-4.0. Show more context on either side on the street elevation. o Realistic context buildings have been added to either side of the street elevation. See sheet A-2.1. Provide night view rendering for ECR street view o Night view rendering will be provided with the supplemental package. Two weeks before the ARB hearing. Parking Indicate valet aisle parking at B1 level for calculation of available parking o Valet parking at B2 level added visually to sheet A-3.6. Valet parking count updated on cover page A-1.0 and A-3.6 parking calculation tables. Bike Parking at the rear is not as desirable for public use. o 6 short term bike parking are provided at the front of the hotel adjacent to the porte- cochere and lobby. 6 more long term bike parking containers are provided at the interior courtyard adjacent to the stair for employees’ commute. 12 total bike parking provided, 2 more spaces than code requirement. See sheet A-3.0 for bike parking locations. Landscape Please indicate which plants in the landscape plan are native/non-native. o The Plant Palette list on the attached plan indicates 10 species which are native species, and 9 species which are adaptive non-native species. The street trees are London Plane Trees, (adaptive non-native) which follow the existing streetscape. All the adaptive non-native species will do well in this microclimate. Study/explain landscape lighting features and effect. 2.k Packet Pg. 136 o The landscape lighting is a combination of non-imposing lighting located to avoid bright light shining into adjacent residential properties. The courtyard garden design is highlighted with in-ground lights, shown on Precedent Imagery, sheet L2.3. These special lights follow the paved stream bed design. The wood bollard lights shown on Precedent Imagery, sheet L2.4 follow the west perimeter walkway through the redwood forest and are located in the courtyard to highlight the sculpted islands. Small shrub/tree uplights will be added at a few locations in the courtyard for the personal touch to highlight specific plantings. Overhead string lights (café style) as shown on the Studio T Square Rear Perspective of the power point package (11 of 42), highlight outdoor seating at night. The front entry dropoff will have metal bollard lights shown on Precedent Imagery, sheet L2.4, and there will be overhead lamps above the dropoff, see power point package (10 of 46) Front Perspective Comparison – Current Concept. Also there are wall mount lights along El Camino Real to add character, while the streetscape is lit by the large cobra head street lights. Study landscaping above the lobby doors. o Landscape above the lobby doors was removed in the last ARB submittal due to water proofing concerns as well as lack of enough sunlight to maintain healthy landscaping. 2.k Packet Pg. 137 October 4, 2018 Updated: December 21, 2018 2.l Packet Pg. 138 THE CATERINA HOTEL 4256 El Camino Real Parking & Transportation Demand Management Plan A Trip Reduction Plan Prepared for: HXH Property LLC Prepared by: (408) 420-2411 October 4, 2018 Updated: December 21, 2018 2.l Packet Pg. 139 TABLE OF CONTENTS PTDM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE ....................................................................................... 1 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT DEFINITION ............................................. 1 Rideshare and TDM Program Benefits............................................................................. 2 Table 2 – Summary of Community, Business and Commuter Benefits ........................... 2 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION..................................................................................................... 3 4256 El Camino Real Hotel Location Map ....................................................................... 3 SECTION I – EXISTING TRANSIT AND BICYCLE FACILITIES ......................................................... 5 4.0 TRANSIT PROXIMITY ........................................................................................................ 5 Transit Access ................................................................................................................... 6 The Caterina Hotel Transit Resources.............................................................................. 6 Transit Trip Planning ........................................................................................................ 6 Santa Clara VTA Transit Map ........................................................................................... 7 5.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES ........................................................................................................... 8 Bicycle Resources ............................................................................................................. 8 Santa Clara County Bicycle Map ...................................................................................... 9 City of Palo Alto Bicycle Map ......................................................................................... 10 6.0 COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY ......................................................................................... 10 SECTION II – HOTEL EMPLOYEE TDM INFRASTRUCTURE ....................................................... 11 7.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT ............................................................................................... 11 Valet Parking Operations ............................................................................................... 11 Mechanical Lift Management ........................................................................................ 11 Carpool and Vanpool Designations ................................................................................ 11 Motorcycle Parking ........................................................................................................ 12 8.0 PARKING DEMAND ......................................................................................................... 12 9.0 PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ................................................................................................ 13 10.0 BICYCLE AMENITIES ....................................................................................................... 14 Long-Term Bicycle Parking ............................................................................................. 14 Short-Term Bicycle Parking ............................................................................................ 14 Showers and Clothes Lockers ........................................................................................ 15 Hotel Resources Webpage ............................................................................................. 15 Employee Commuter Resource Flier ............................................................................. 15 Wi-Fi Access ................................................................................................................... 17 On-site Exercise Facilities ............................................................................................... 17 SECTION III – HOTEL EMPLOYEE TDM PROGRAM .................................................................. 18 11.0 TRANSIT AND VANPOOL SUBSIDIES ............................................................................... 18 Subsidized Transit Passes ............................................................................................... 18 100% Subsidized Vanpool Program ............................................................................... 18 2.l Packet Pg. 140 12.0 COMMUTER ALLOWANCES FOR CARPOOLERS, PEDISTRIANS AND CYCLISTS ............... 18 13.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL PROGRAMS .......................................................................... 19 Ridematching ................................................................................................................. 19 Carpool Parking Permits/Reserved Parking ................................................................... 19 Commuter Bike Program ............................................................................................... 21 14.0 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM........................................................................... 21 15.0 MISCELLANEOUS TDM MEASURES ................................................................................ 22 Commuter Rewards ....................................................................................................... 22 Employee Overnight Accommodations ......................................................................... 22 16.0 EMPLOYEE COMMUTER OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND PROMOTIONS ....................... 23 Grand Opening Commuter Kick-off Campaign .............................................................. 23 Employer Commute Coordinator................................................................................... 23 Employee Outreach ....................................................................................................... 24 17.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING ..................................................................................... 25 Annual Five-day Employee Commute Survey ................................................................ 25 Annual Commute Summary Report ............................................................................... 26 SECTION IV – GUEST TDM PROGRAMS ................................................................................. 27 18.0 GUEST TRANSPORTATION ............................................................................................. 27 Pre-loaded Clipper Cards ............................................................................................... 27 Promote Car-Free Travel Packages ................................................................................ 27 Trained Reservation Staff .............................................................................................. 27 Hotel Confirmation Email .............................................................................................. 27 Getting Around Palo Alto Brochure ............................................................................... 27 Employee Commuter and Guest Shuttle ....................................................................... 28 SECTION V – GUEST AND EMPLOYEE (DUAL) TDM PROGRAMS ............................................. 29 19.0 GUEST AND EMPLOYEE (DUAL) TDM PROGRAMS ......................................................... 29 Paid Parking.................................................................................................................... 29 Valet Attendant Parking ................................................................................................. 29 Passenger Loading/Unloading Zone .............................................................................. 30 20.0 ON-SITE AND NEARBY AMENITIES ................................................................................. 30 On-site Amenities .......................................................................................................... 30 Employer-Driven Amenities (required) .......................................................................... 30 Employer-Driven Amenities (strongly encouraged) ...................................................... 31 On-Site and Nearby Amenities ...................................................................................... 31 Transportation/Commute Kiosks (TransitScreen) ......................................................... 31 Hotel Bicycle Program .................................................................................................... 32 SECTION VI – OPTIONAL TDM BENEFITS ............................................................................... 33 21.0 OPTIONAL TDM BENEFITS .............................................................................................. 33 Membership in Palo Alto TMA ....................................................................................... 33 Bus Shelter Installation .................................................................................................. 33 VTA Transit Shelter Adopt-a-Stop .................................................................................. 33 2.l Packet Pg. 141 City of Palo Alto Bike Share Program ............................................................................. 34 Carshare Program .......................................................................................................... 35 Hotel-funded Annual Carshare Membership ................................................................ 35 Proposed Palo Alto City West Shuttle ............................................................................ 36 22.0 CONCLUSION .................................................................................................................. 37 ATTACHMENT List of Nearby Amenities (personal services, restaurants, coffee, retail/sundry, banking, etc.) Case Studies – Successful Hotel Projects that Reduce Vehicle Trips APPENDIX A Parking Study for the Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto TDM SPECIALISTS, INC. QUALIFICATIONS 2.l Packet Pg. 142 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page i PTDM EXECUTIVE SUMMARY According to the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, the proposed project, known as The Caterina Hotel, would be required to develop a comprehensive Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to reduce peak-hour vehicle trips by at least 30 percent, given that the project site is located within the El Camino Real Corridor at located at 4256 El Camino Real. In addition to TDM planning, the project incorporated Parking Management and Parking Demand Assessments into the TDM plan. The project’s Parking and Transportation Demand Management (PTDM) for its proposed Palo Alto hotel development is designed to meet commute-sustainable standards and supports a parking reduction. Outcomes from these TDM actions and activities will eliminate potential spill-over parking in the neighborhood and mitigate 30 percent of peak-hour vehicle trips. This green development approach reduces parking demand, vehicle trips, air pollution and traffic congestion and contributes to successful carbon footprint and greenhouse gas reductions for long-term operations. This PTDM Plan addresses alternatives to on-site parking needs as well as hotel employee commuter activities that reduce drive-alone commuter travel. This document provides supporting justification for a proposed parking reduction of 15 percent representing 15 parking spaces. Twenty-four-hour valet parking services reclaim 17 parking spaces which effectively means there is no deficit of parking. Also, this PTDM plan helps the alternative transportation mode-use goals that address both traffic and air quality concerns in the City of Palo Alto. The measures and elements contained in this plan are consistent with well-performing employee TDM plans and commute programs in the City of Palo Alto, Stanford Research Park, and other locations in the San Francisco Bay Area. Case studies of other hotel projects with successful trip reduction programs is attached as an attachment. The Caterina Hotel project commits to meeting vehicle trip requirements using TDM strategies that are scaled to fit this hotel site. Locational advantages make the 4256 El Camino Real project very well-suited use of mass transit travel options. It has access to transit resources that provide 309 daily trips connecting to the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. Other connections include daily trips to the Santa Clara Transit Center and the Eastridge Transit Center and access to transit serving resources for the neighborhood community. In addition, the hotel will provide on-demand and fixed route shuttle services for guests and employee commuters. The project’s trip reduction activities and hotel employee transportation mode-use rates will be monitored annually, with the first employee commute survey to be conducted two year after occupancy of the project. Driveway cordon traffic hoses will be deployed annually across both driveways to record actual peak-hour trip results. An alternative transportation mode-use 2.l Packet Pg. 143 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page ii survey report will be submitted to the City’s Principal Planner following the completion of the annual employee commute survey and will include the data from the cordon hose trip counts. The City’s draft Transportation Analysis dated August 17, 2018, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, reported that AM and PM peak-hour traffic operations (at the El Camino Real/Dinahs Court intersection, “did not reveal any significant traffic-related issues, and the study intersection operated adequately during both the AM and PM peak hours of traffic. Thus, the reported level of service analysis appears to accurately reflect actual existing traffic conditions.”1 The Transportation Analysis report identified the existing occupied building’s trip generation which can be credited against the proposed hotel development. The current trips generated by the existing occupied restaurant (Su Hong Eatery Restaurant) on the site was subtracted from the trip generation estimates for the hotel. After applying estimated ITE trip rates, appropriate trip reductions, and existing site trip credits, the project would generate 37 new trips occurring during the AM peak hour and 17 new trips occurring during the PM peak hour. Table 1 below shows the estimated trip generation and calculations for this hotel project. Table 1 – Project Trip Generation Estimates A recent hotel parking demand study was conducted for another Palo Alto hotel project that analyzed the peak parking demand at 13 similar hotels and motels in the area. The purpose was 1 Draft Transportation Analysis for 4256 El Camino Real Hotel in Palo Alto, California, Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc., August 17, 2018 Land Use Size Rates Trips Rate In Out Total Rate In Out Total Proposed Land Use Boutique Hotel1 100 rooms 8.17 817 0.53 31 21 53 0.60 31 28 60 TDM Program (30%)(245)(9)(6)(16)(9)(8)(18) Subtotal 572 22 15 37 22 20 42 Existing Use Su Hong Eatery Restaurant2 3.30 ksf 89.95 (297)7.49 (17)(8)(25) New Project Trips 275 22 15 37 5 12 17 Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour 2.l Packet Pg. 144 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page iii to determine the peak parking demand per occupied room. “The average parking demand at the thirteen locations was determined to be 0.66 occupied spaces per occupied room. Hotel/motel occupancy at the time of the counts was between 90 and 100 percent at most sites. The trend of ride-sharing gaining in market share and a decline in the use of rental cars may partially explain why there is less than one vehicle parked per occupied room.”2 “The peak parking demand for the Comfort Inn was found to be 0.62 occupied spaces per occupied room, which is slightly less than the typical peak parking demand observed at other hotels/motels in the area.”3 The proposed parking ratio for The Caterina Hotel is 0.85 spaces. The core TDM measures designed to mitigate 30 percent of peak-hour vehicle trips for the project include the following: Hotel Employee TDM Infrastructure • Preferential carpool and vanpool parking • Motorcycle parking • Pedestrian facilities • Bicycle parking and shower facilities • Employee commuter resource webpage • Employee commute resource flier Hotel Employee TDM Program • Subsidized transit passes (Caltrain and VTA – at least $150 per month) • Pre-tax transit payroll deduction option • Automated monthly funding of transit pass/Clipper Card (e.g., CommuterCheckDirect.com or ClipperDirect.com) • 100% subsidized vanpool program (at 85% seat occupancy - 6 of 7 seats) • Cash allowances for carpooling, biking and walking to work (at $50 per month – taxable to employees) • Ridematching resources • Carpool/vanpool parking permits (and free parking for employees who carpool together) • Commuter bike program (for employees) • Guaranteed ride home program • Employee commuter outreach, education, promotions and marketing • Employee commute coordinator to manage programs and assist employees • Annual 5-day employee commute survey • Annual hotel driveway cordon hose count survey • Annual commute survey and driveway trip count report 2 Parking Study for the Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California 3 Ibid 2.l Packet Pg. 145 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page iv Guest TDM Programs • Pre-loaded Clipper Cards for guest transit travel (available for purchase) • Promote car-free travel packages (discounts) • Trained reservation staff to provide transit information • Hotel confirmation email to include how to reach the hotel without a vehicle • Place a Getting Around Palo Alto brochure in each guest room • Commuter guest shuttle providing on-demand and fixed route services (including to Caltrain station) Guest & Employee (Dual) TDM Programs • Hotel-operated fixed-route and on-demand shuttle services • Paid on-site parking • Valet attendant parking • Passenger loading/unloading area • On-site and nearby amenities (sundries, restaurant, laundry, exercise facilities, wireless access) • Transportation/commuter kiosks (TransitScreen) • Hotel bikeshare program Optional TDM Benefits • (Future) Hotel membership in Palo Alto TMA • Bus shelter installation • VTA Adopt-a-Stop • Integrate with Palo Alto City Bike Share program • Advocate for City to install a nearby public carshare resource (Zipcar) • Hotel-funded carshare membership for employees • Valet stacked parking to meet 100% parking requirements 2.l Packet Pg. 146 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The comprehensive plan of commute transportation options and on-site measures (identified in this report) are essential to realizing the trip reduction benefits of the project as required by potential Conditions of Approval for the Use Permit and the 2030 Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. These factors will provide the momentum to achieve desired trip reduction needs for this project. The Caterina Hotel PTDM plan incorporates trip reduction strategies to meet the City’s trip reduction goals and to reduce traffic impacts in the neighborhood and maximize mobility options for hotel employees. The applicant has included transit, bicycle, pedestrian, and rideshare incentives to promote alternative transportation uses. The 2014 Santa Clara VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines (part of the CMP adopted March 2009) identify several trip reduction elements, including some that are part of this project. This project includes the following requirements that contribute to the on-site parking demand reduction efforts: • Financial Incentives4 (transit subsidies, or SmartPass) – up to 5 percent • Employment Near a Major Bus Stop (via VTA routes/Caltrain shuttles) – 2 percent Initiating a shuttle program will further support reductions in parking: • Project-funded dedicated shuttle – 3 percent • Partially-funded multi-site shuttle – 2 percent The City of Palo Alto has the discretion to assess additional trip reduction assignments listed in this TDM Plan, such as carpool matching and parking, bicycle elements, commuter marketing features, and pedestrian elements. 2.0 TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT DEFINITION TDM is a combination of services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand and air pollution problems. The following are fundamental goals that can be achieved through effective utilization of a trip reduction program with the use of TDM measures: 4 Financial incentives must be offered on an ongoing basis and must be roughly equivalent to or higher than the monthly maximum pre-tax commuter benefit allowed under federal law at the time of TIA preparation in order for the project to receive full trip reduction. 2.l Packet Pg. 147 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 2 • Reduce parking demand by converting SOV trips to an alternate mode of transportation (e.g., transit, carpool or vanpool, bicycling or walking). • Shift travel to less congested facilities by providing traveler information systems that warn motorists about delays or alternative routes. • Support other technological solutions (e.g., compressed natural gas, electric/hybrid vehicles or other zero emission vehicles). • Eliminate or shift trips from peak periods (e.g., flexible schedules, compressed work weeks or telecommuting). Current economics and limited resources affect the ability to build and maintain more roads or parking structures. This reality necessitates the better utilization of the existing transportation infrastructure (like adding a second shift at an existing manufacturing plant). To that end, TDM measures support the transition to greater use of existing alternative transportation options. Rideshare and TDM Program Benefits Commuters can experience stress and frustration long before their workday officially begins. The transportation choices afforded by the project will improve the commuter experience, and local communities and business environments by decreasing both traffic congestion and greenhouse gas emissions. A list of community, employer and employee-related commuter benefits derived from TDM planning are shown in Table 2 below. Table 2 – Summary of Community, Business and Commuter Benefits COMMUNITY and BUSINESS Benefits COMMUNITY and COMMUTER Benefits Improve recruitment and retention rates Freedom from traffic jams Reduce the need/demand for parking Ability to work or relax during commute time and reduce stress/improve quality of life Enhance company commuter benefits package Increased time in the day to read, talk with friends, or get ahead at work Improve employee access to transit Save hundreds of dollars a year in auto expenses (gas, insurance, wear/tear, maintenance, tolls) Enhance community relations Use pre-tax dollars to pay for public transportation expenses Improve employee morale and productivity Feel secure with free emergency ride home program Alleviate employee stress and expense Lower insurance premium on personal vehicle No/low cost programs for employers Get to work and get home on time regardless of the weather, traffic accidents, and breakdowns Reduce traffic congestion Help reduce environmental pollution and overcrowded roads/congestion Access a larger employee base Reduce greenhouse gas emissions 2.l Packet Pg. 148 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 3 3.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed The Caterina Hotel site is located between street name and street name in Palo Alto. The project will include one hotel building with 100 rooms, underground parking garage, hotel amenities and additional site improvements. The project currently proposes 85 parking spaces (a rate of 0.85 spaces per guestroom). The City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 18.52 and 18.54 requires on parking space per room. Thus, the project would provide 15 spaces fewer than the code. However, valet parking service can accommodate an additional 17 vehicles using a stacked parking arrangement. A project location map is shown below. 4256 El Camino Real Hotel Location Map 2.l Packet Pg. 149 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 4 The quarter-mile radius map shows the proximity of nearby transit facilities, retail, personal services and restaurants that are near the project site. This TDM Plan is designed to address employee trips associated with a hotel project, parking management and assess parking demand. A description of alternative transportation mode-use strategies is included in the following six sections: I. Existing Transit and Bicycle Facilities II. Hotel TDM Infrastructure III. Guest TDM Programs IV. Employee TDM Program V. Guest and Employee (Dual) TDM Programs VI. Public TDM Benefits 2.l Packet Pg. 150 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 5 SECTION I – EXISTING TRANSIT AND BICYCLE FACILITIES 1 4.0 TRANSIT PROXIMITY The Caterina Hotel will be located within 0.10 and 0.20-mile walking distance near (measured from a main building entrance) two existing commuter VTA bus stop. The image below shows the location of transit bus routes and their relationship to the hotel site. 2.l Packet Pg. 151 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 6 Transit Access Transit services, within a quarter mile distance, total more than 309 trips per day providing superior transit connectivity for future hotel employees at the worksite. A transit access table, shown below, identifies the number of transit trips provided for employees who will occupy this project. A VTA transit map is provided on page 7. The Caterina Hotel Transit Resources Transit Trip Planning Online transit trip planning services are a useful tool for planning public transit trips. Regionally, 511.org services the greater San Francisco Bay Area. 511.org is a useful tool for planning public transit trips. It can build an itinerary that suits the need of the transit user. The itinerary identifies the fastest commute with the least amount of transfers or the cheapest fares. The 511 trip planner, by default, will generate the quickest itinerary between the origin and destination. This free service can be found online at http://511.org/. Route Span of Service Trips per Weekday Communities Served 22 VTA 7 Days/Week 3:41 a.m. - 3:33 a.m.150 Palo Alto Transit Center, El Camino Real & California, El Camino Real & Tamarack, El Camino Real & Showers, El Camino Real & Castro, El Camino Real & Hollenbeck, El Camino Real & Wolfe, El Camino Real & Kiely, Santa Clara Transit Center, The Alameda & Naglee, Santa Clara & 1st, King & Alum Rock, King & Story, and Eastridge Transit Center 522 VTA 7 Days/Week 5:40 a.m. - 10:52 p.m.159 Palo Alto Transit Center, El Camino Real & California, El Camino Real & Arastradero, El Camino Real & Showers, El Camino Real & Castro, El Camino Real & Hollenbeck, El Camino Real & Wolfe, El Camino Real & Kiely, Santa Clara Transit Center, The Alameda & Naglee, Santa Clara & 1st, Alum Rock & King, Alum Rock Transit Center, and Eastridge Transit Center Total VTA Bus Trips/Weekday 309 * All buses and trains are lift equipped for handicapped, elderly, or those in need. 2.l Packet Pg. 152 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 7 Google has also collaborated with select regional transit agencies to provide a public transit planner for riders of VTA, SamTrans, AC Transit and BART. This free service can be found online at www.google.com/transit. Santa Clara VTA Transit Map 2.l Packet Pg. 153 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 8 5.0 BICYCLE FACILITIES The project is surrounded by pedestrian and bicycle connections. The Caterina Hotel site can be accessed from Class II bike lanes along West Charleston Road. A copy of the VTA Bikeways Map is provided on page 9. A Bicycle Map of Palo Alto is provided on page 10. Bicycle Resources Bicycle commuters looking for bike route trip planning or to find a riding partner can log on to bicycling.511.org for more information. The 511 system provides significant resources for bicycle commuters including: Free Bike Buddy matching Bicycle maps Location of lockers How to take your bike on public transit How to take your bike across Bay Area toll bridges How to ride safely in traffic Tips on commuting Tips for bike selection Links to bicycle organizations Bike to Work Day 2.l Packet Pg. 154 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 9 Santa Clara County Bicycle Map 2.l Packet Pg. 155 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 10 City of Palo Alto Bicycle Map 6.0 COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY The Caterina Hotel will become a pedestrian-friendly and transit-oriented hotel-use project that embraces the best of Palo Alto’s goals and policies. Some of the pedestrian and transit- oriented design features include connecting last-mile shuttle service, tying into adjacent bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities, providing hotel bicycles, and a transportation kiosk. 2.l Packet Pg. 156 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 11 SECTION II – HOTEL EMPLOYEE TDM INFRASTRUCTURE The following physical infrastructure measures are designed to support alternative transportation commuters. 7.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT The willingness and actual level of employee ridesharing is directly linked to parking convenience, availability and parking cost. The following section identifies typical off-street parking management and operations activities, such as the purpose and use of the valet, the operation of the mechanical lifts, preferential carpool and motorcycle parking, and passenger loading. Valet Parking Operations The hotel valet parking operator will operate 24/7. Employees and hotel guests who arrive with vehicles will be required to check-in for registration with the hotel. This 24/7 valet operation will allow the valet operator to institute expanded parking beyond the available on-site marked spaces (up to 17 additional spaces) by using methods such as “stack parking” in drive aisles of the parking garage. More details about the valet parking program are provided on page 29. Mechanical Lift Management Mechanical lift parking equipment will be used by valet operators to help them distribute vehicles that are anticipating long-term versus short-term parking demands. Carpool and Vanpool Designations One effective means of encouraging hotel employees to carpool and/or use a clean-fuel vehicle is to reserve the preferred parking spaces (premium, convenient locations close to buildings in the shade or within 100 feet of a building entrance) for the exclusive use of carpools and vanpools. Preferential parking spaces are an excellent incentive that sends a clear visual message to employees that alternative transportation is important. The Caterina Hotel project will be responsible for striping the parking space pavement and providing appropriate signage for preferential parking. 2.l Packet Pg. 157 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 12 Motorcycle Parking The project will designate special, small parking spaces for motorcycles and electric scooters in a covered location. Electric scooters will be encouraged for employee consideration to highlight their contribution to reducing vehicle congestion and parking. 8.0 PARKING DEMAND The Caterina Hotel is seeking to reduce parking by 15 percent which would reflect a parking ratio of 0.85 spaces per hotel room. A parking occupancy survey of similar sized projects indicated typical off-street parking demand during peak periods for hotels were 0.66 spaces per hotel room. A parking occupancy survey of 3945 El Camino Real immediately adjacent to the project documented the existing off-street parking demand of the community. According to the October 2017 Parking Study for the Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, provided an analysis of the peak parking demand at similar hotels and motels in the area. Surveyed parking ratios at area hotels were used to estimate the number of parking spaces necessary to serve the Comfort Inn project. Below is an excerpt from this study summarizing the peak parking demand for Palo Alto hotels which indicates the average parking demand at 13 locations was determined to be 0.66 occupied spaces per occupied room. The Caterina Hotel is proposing a parking ratio of 0.85. A copy of this parking study is provided in Appendix A. Hexagon conducted peak parking counts at thirteen comparable hotels and motels in Palo Alto and nearby cities to determine the peak parking demand per occupied room. The number of vehicles parked at each hotel and motel were counted at midnight on two to three typical days. The hotel management were contacted to determine the number of rooms occupied on each survey date. These lodgings were chosen because they are similar in location to the Comfort Inn and serve primarily business travelers. Based on the peak parking counts conducted at the surveyed hotels/motels, parking demand was consistently found to be below the City’s code requirement of one space per room. The average parking demand at the thirteen locations was determined to be 0.66 occupied spaces per occupied room. Hotel/motel occupancy at the time of the counts was between 90 and 100 percent at most sites. The trend of ride-sharing gaining in market share and a decline in the use of rental cars may partially explain why there is less than one vehicle parked per occupied room. 2.l Packet Pg. 158 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 13 Results from the hotel parking demand surveys are reflected in the table below. Source: Parking Study for the Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California 9.0 PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES The creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment ensures access between public areas and private development while strengthening pedestrian and bicycle connections. Pedestrian-friendly ground floor facades, entrances, and pathways that will encourage pedestrian and bicycle movement. Safe, convenient and well-lit pedestrian paths will be provided, utilizing the most direct route to the nearest shuttle or transit stop from the project. Lighting, landscaping and building orientation will be designed to enhance pedestrian safety, and patio spaces/widened sidewalk areas will be provided at the building. Pedestrian spaces can be used for 2.l Packet Pg. 159 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 14 recreation, eating or other outdoor activities. According to WalkScore.com, the The Caterina hotel site has a “somewhat walkable” site, scoring of 57 out of 100. The Caterina Hotel will enhance pedestrian and bicycle connections by widening the sidewalks along El Camino Real to meet City standards. The project will provide widened sidewalks greater than the minimum standards. Pedestrian continuity will also be created by: • Disguising surface parking by placing it under and behind the building. • Recessing door and window features of the building to increase the walkable area of the sidewalks along El Camino Real. • Planting sidewalk trees that will enhance the entryway of the project. • Incorporating a plaza and landscaped area to serve visitors and passersby at the entry to the building. There will also be in-ground and potted plantings and sidewalk landscaping. 10.0 BICYCLE AMENITIES Free Class I (long-term) and Class II (short-term) secure bicycle parking facilities will be provided on-site for bicycle commuters. Long-Term Bicycle Parking A total of six Class I secure and covered bicycle parking will be provided. These parking facilities may include individual bicycle lockers or a bicycle cage/room in the garage. Sample photos of Class I bicycle parking options are shown below. Short-Term Bicycle Parking Three Class II (short-term) bicycle rack will be installed at the hotel project. Examples of Class II racks are shown below. Class II secure bicycle racks will be “U racks,” or equivalent, and must secure the frame and both wheels. Racks will be located near building entrances within 2.l Packet Pg. 160 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 15 constant visual range, unless it is demonstrated that they create a public hazard or locating them there is otherwise infeasible. If space is unavailable near building entrances, the racks must be designed so that the lock is protected from physical assault. Three bike racks can accommodate six bicycles. Showers and Clothes Lockers Showers and clothes lockers will be installed for use by employees who walk or bicycle to work, or those who wish to change clothes after commuting via an alternative mode of transportation. Shower and changing facilities will be provided free of charge for all employees. Hotel Resources Webpage The hotel project will incorporate transportation information links in their website to provide easy access to trip planning resources. Website links will include Caltrain.com, 511.com, and the Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, VTA.org and bicycle maps. A sample webpage is shown below. Employee Commuter Resource Flier All employees will be provided with an employee commuter flier. This flier will include (but is not limited to) information about free carpool parking, transit subsidies, shuttle and transit opportunities, bicycle routes and on-site amenities and resources. Fliers will be made available at the commute resources kiosks and integrated with employer information. The hotel can also use these fliers with their new employee orientation packets. A sample flier is provided below. 2.l Packet Pg. 161 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 16 2.l Packet Pg. 162 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 17 Wi-Fi Access As a hotel-complex-wide resource, free wireless service allows guest and staff to access online and real-time information. This may include apps that track transit schedules and travel alerts. Although wireless service is commonplace in today’s workplace and hospitality environments, it should be noted that it contributes as a supporting feature for successful commuter programs. On-site Exercise Facilities Typically, exercise facilities are offered at hotels for use by guests. As an added TDM feature, hotel employees will also be provided access to onsite exercise facilities. The more resources and services that can be provide to employees at their place of work, the less reason there is to drive a vehicle and make separate trips. This means that using transit is more viable since there will not be a need to drive to the gym after or before work. 2.l Packet Pg. 163 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 18 SECTION III – HOTEL EMPLOYEE TDM PROGRAM 11.0 TRANSIT AND VANPOOL SUBSIDIES Transit and vanpools subsidies will be provided to hotel staff and workers. Subsidies help reduce the number of single-occupant vehicles (SOV) on the road by encouraging employees to use an alternative method for getting to work, which can also save them money. The proposed hotel last-mile shuttle will provide connectivity with local VTA bus routes and Caltrain at the various Palo Alto transit stations. Subsidized Transit Passes The Caterina Hotel project will offer all employees (regular, part-time, and contract) a transit subsidy (up to $150 per month) or transit pass for commuting to the project site. A transit subsidy program may include participation in the VTA SmartPass program, Commuter Check Direct, pre-paid Clipper Cards, or a comparable cash transit subsidy. 100% Subsidized Vanpool Program Vanpools provide an alternative to driving alone and riding public transit. This option offers increased employee carrying capacity (than carpooling) and significantly reduced costs while still providing flexibility and convenience to the users. Programs usually involve commuters traveling in a passenger van with one member of the group acting as the driver and person responsible for the vehicle. The Caterina Hotel project will fully fund vanpools for hotel staff who organize vanpool groups. Funding will include the monthly lease, fuel, and FasTrak (if needed). In order to be sustainable, subsidized vanpools must maintain 85% employee seat occupancy which is approximately six seats in a seven-passenger minivan. 12.0 COMMUTER ALLOWANCES FOR CARPOOLERS, PEDISTRIANS AND CYCLISTS Hotel employees that regularly carpool, bicycle, or walk to work shall be subsidized a minimum of $50 per month to defray commute costs. Allowance will help to off-set costs, such as clothing, shoes, bike tires or lights, helmets, etc. Cash commuter allowances may be a taxable benefit for employees. 2.l Packet Pg. 164 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 19 It should be noted that hotel employees tend to work in specified shifts and carpools and vanpools can be more difficult to coordinate and flexible hours are can be uncertain since they are direct customer service based. 13.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL PROGRAMS Ridematching Carpooling and vanpooling will be encouraged at the project. The 511 Rideshare program provides individuals with a computerized list of other commuters near their employment and residential ZIP code, along with the closest cross street, phone number, and hours they are available to commute to and from work. Individuals are then able to select and contact others with whom they wish to commute. The prospective carpooler will also be given a list of existing carpools and vanpools from their residential area that they may be able to join should vacancies exist. 511 is working with private ride-matching companies to provide commuters the best carpool. A list of carpool apps is shown on page 20. The online 511 service will be promoted to hotel employees. The hotel management can also independently research employee ZIP code data from internal records and offer to match employees who live near one another. Carpool Parking Permits/Reserved Parking As carpools and vanpools are formed, the carpool parking spaces may require policy development, employee registration and permits. As needed, the Hotel Employee Commute Program will be responsible for monitoring the appropriate use of these designated parking spaces via registration and/or permitting. Structuring a carpool permit program with designated “reserved” parking will create a high-value reward for those who carpool. 2.l Packet Pg. 165 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 20 2.l Packet Pg. 166 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 21 Commuter Employee Bike Program The hotel will provide employees with a bicycle program. Bicycles may be provided on-site for employee use for travel to meetings, exercise, and used for commuting purposes. This employer-sponsored bicycle program will provide a selection of safe and bicycles and appropriate accessories (e.g., helmets, reflective wear, locks pant protectors, etc.). These bikes will be regular cruiser type cycles. Registration in this program will allow the employee to identify their commute travel distance from the hotel and intent to use the bicycle for commuting. Should the employee leave employment with the hotel, the bicycle will be provided to another employee. Hotel bikes for employees will be maintained regularly and kept in good working condition. All public transit resources have bicycle racks so that trips can be linked for longer distances. 14.0 GUARANTEED RIDE HOME PROGRAM The hotel shall implement a Guaranteed Ride Home (GRH) program for employees who use alternative forms of transportation. Employees who commute to work using transit, bicycle, or carpool or vanpool will be guaranteed a free ride home in the case of a personal emergency, or when they unexpectedly have to work late thereby missing the last bus or their normal carpool home. The GRH program has proven very successful as it removes one of the major objections employees have to giving up their private automobile, especially those with young families. A sample GRH taxi cab voucher is shown below. In the event the project participates in the VTA SmartPass program, a free GRH program is included for employees who use transit for commuting. 2.l Packet Pg. 167 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 22 15.0 MISCELLANEOUS TDM MEASURES Commuter Rewards Each month or quarter, the hotel project will provide a limited number of rewards to employees who are participating in transit, bike, walk, or carpool options for their commute choice. Rewards can be fuel cards, movie tickets, or gift cards (Starbucks), or any other desired item that reflect appreciation to employees. Employee Overnight Accommodations In the event that an employee is scheduled to work a late evening shift followed by an early morning shift (or vis versa), they will be provided with free overnight accommodations at the hotel (subject to room availability). This will eliminate the need for the employee to drive themselves to and from work to accommodate a busy schedule. 2.l Packet Pg. 168 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 23 16.0 EMPLOYEE COMMUTER OUTREACH, EDUCATION, AND PROMOTIONS An active Commute Coordinator, cooperative building management and involved employers will generate positive impacts toward the success of the TDM goals and elements that are implemented. TDM commute programs and benefits must be presented to the employees in a comprehensive and proactive manner along with other employee programs. This can be done via participation in and support of employee orientation forums or transportation fairs, transportation kiosk posting, employee newsletters, management bulletins, e-mails, etcetera. A summary of employer commute features that can be applied to hotel employee programs is provided in the Appendix. Grand Opening Commuter Kick-off Campaign At or before the grand opening of the hotel, the project will host a commute alternative kick-off event/celebration or employee marketing campaign. Transportation service providers, such as Caltrain, VTA, 511, and bicycle programs, will be presented to employees. The hotel or building management will advertise and market the campaign for at least two weeks. Employer Commute Coordinator The hotel ownership shall provide an employee commute coordinator (ECC) to manage and monitor the commute alternative programs. The ECC’s primary responsibility will be implementing many of the programs and features described in The Caterina Hotel TDM Plan. The ECC will be responsible for providing ongoing commute assistance to employees, producing on-site transportation fairs and promotional campaigns, collaborating with VTA to promote the Eco Pass program (if implemented), 511 to maximize rideshare resources, and conducting the annual survey. The ECC will provide the following services: • Promote trip reduction and air quality strategies to employees at the project site; • Conduct new hotel employee commuter orientation training and assistance. • Maintain membership in the TMA (if required); • Be the main point of contact for employees who wish to commute using an alternative transportation mode; • Work with local agencies such as the Palo Alto TMA, Caltrain, VTA, 511 Rideshare, the Stanford Marguerite Shuttle, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); • Develop and manage employee transportation and commute information webpage. The webpage will contain transportation information, resources, and links, promotions, incentives, prizes or awards, spare the air notices, transit links, 511 ridematching, and other related information. 2.l Packet Pg. 169 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 24 • Post informational materials on the employee Commuter Website, transportation kiosks and disperse alternative program information to employees, posters, fliers, banners, e- newsletters, new employee orientation, etcetera; • Participate in the BAAQMD Spare the Air program to encourage employees not to drive to work alone; • Coordinate various aspects of the program that require periodic updating or monitoring, management of the guaranteed ERH program, monthly rewards, car and vanpool registration, parking enforcement, and locker assignment. Alternate transportation programs will be presented to commuters in a comprehensive and proactive manner just like any other employee program. This can be done via participation in, and support of, transportation kiosk postings, employee newsletters, management bulletins, emails, and other methods. An Employee Commute Program should be viewed as a big picture process. This includes explaining the area's air quality problems and describing how fighting air pollution is part of being a good corporate citizen. It is important that the employees recognize the benefits on a personal and community level to see how they themselves gain from better air quality: less traffic congestion on the highways and the surrounding neighborhoods, fewer parking hassles, and cost savings for employees, among other benefits. The ECC will work with to build employee participation in the commute programs. Employee Outreach Throughout the year, the project ECC will maintain employee awareness by hosting transportation promotions that highlight transit subsidies and trip-planning services, rideshare matching and other commute opportunities at the site. Periodic rideshare articles will be written by the project ECC for internal employee newsletters with ongoing highlights of alternative commuters and their successes. Internal company notices and incentive promotions should attract the attention of commuters, generate excitement about the use of commute alternatives and reward those who rideshare. These promotions are often sponsored in conjunction with the Regional Rideshare Program or the BAAQMD. The ECC will register with the BAAQMD for the Spare the Air program in order to receive regional air quality forecast bulletins about poor and unhealthy air quality days. These direct e- mail updates will be forwarded to all employees to encourage the use of alternative transit modes during peak advisory periods. 2.l Packet Pg. 170 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 25 17.0 MONITORING AND REPORTING The intent of The Caterina Hotel TDM Plan is to reduce SOV trips and, in so doing, lessen the resulting parking issues, traffic congestion and mobile source-related air pollution. It is important to ensure TDM measures are actually implemented and effective; therefore, a monitoring program is necessary. Because the TDM Program is performance based and designed to reduce vehicle trips, an annual five-day survey commute program evaluation will allow the hotel and the City to assess the effectiveness of the unique program designed for their project, and adjust, as necessary, to consistently meet or exceed the goals. Annual Five-day Employee Commute Survey A five-day commute survey will be a critical part of the monitoring process to evaluate and ensure the success of TDM measures. Employees who do not participate in the commute survey will be counted as drive-alone or SOV commuters by default. This default mechanism will result in conservative results. The applicant will strongly encourage, support and participate in the promotion and marketing of the annual employee survey. Survey data may then be used to focus TDM marketing and the efforts of the ECC to maintain the project’s 30 percent alternative commute mode-use rate and commitment at the site. At that point, the TDM program could be re-tooled, if necessary, to maintain the project’s alternative commute mode-use promotions and trip reduction commitment at the site. 2.l Packet Pg. 171 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 26 Annual Commute Summary Report Each year, the hotel and CC, via employee survey data, will prepare an annual TDM summary report to be submitted to the City to document the effectiveness of the TDM Plan in achieving the goals of alternative mode-use and 30 percent trip reduction by employees. The TDM summary report will include a determination of historical employee commute methods provided by information obtained from a survey of all employees working in the buildings. The summarized results from the employee survey will provide both quantitative data (e.g., mode split) and qualitative data (e.g., employee perception of the alternative transportation programs). If the trip reduction rates have not been achieved, the report will explain how and why the goal was not reached and specify additional measures and activities that will be implemented in the coming year to improve the mode-use rate. The initial annual employee survey (and subsequent surveys) will be conducted in the fourth quarter of each year. The table below shows a sample summary matrix of an employee commute survey. Actual results will be determined once an actual survey is conducted. Employee Commuter Mode Percent Carpooler 13.67% Transit rider 7.29% Bicycle 2.98% Walk/pedestrian 0.80% Telecommuter 0.23% Motorcycle/scooter 0.56% Compressed workweek (9/8/80)2.58% Vanpooler 1.67% Total Commuter Rate 29.78% 2.l Packet Pg. 172 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 27 SECTION IV – GUEST TDM PROGRAMS 18.0 GUEST TRANSPORTATION Pre-loaded Clipper Cards The hotel will purchase pre-loaded Clipper Cards with various monetary values to be made available for purchase by guests who need transit travel cards. This convenience feature will allow transit riders to easily access any of the region’s transit services without having to learn the various and different fare media options for individual agencies. Promote Car-Free Travel Packages The Caterina Hotel will offer a Car Free Package featuring discounts and car free activities. Visitors can arrive by taxi/Uber/Lyft, train, plane, bike, boat, van, walk, bus, shuttle and enjoy discounts on hotel stays and car-free activities. As a special early bonus, visitors can receive a Caltrain pass for each night of their stay. (Restrictions apply.) By mentioning the “The Caterina Car-Free Vacation Package” when making a reservation, visitors will receive significant discounts of 10-50% off regular room rates (some restrictions apply, rooms subject to availability). Then, upon hotel check-in, guests will receive a CAR FREE- bies gift envelope with maps, luggage tags and a list of special activity discounts for the bikeshare program, Zipcar use, tours, bay cruises, bike trips, trolley sightseeing tours, catamaran cruises, rollerblade or scooter rentals, and wine country excursions. Trained Reservation Staff The hotel will provide training for reservation staff, so they are familiar and knowledgeable to guests about transit options, local train or bus schedules and routes, and on-road bicycle facilities. Reservation staff, in addition to any concierge, can act at local transportation/travel agents for hotel guest. Hotel Confirmation Email As part of the booking confirmation process, the hotel will include information about how to reach the hotel if guests will not be using a vehicle during their stay. This information will provide transportation resources links for trip planning and transit schedules as well as the hotel shuttle(s) services. Getting Around Palo Alto Brochure Each guest room will include a brochure and map that shows how to navigate the local area by transit, bike or carshare. These brochures will layout various transportation options to engage and encourage guests to choose a non-driving option. 2.l Packet Pg. 173 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 28 Employee Commuter and Guest Shuttle The hotel will operate a peak-hour commuter shuttle for guests to nearby employment areas in Palo Alto and the Stanford Research Park. This shuttle will provide access to nearby business and various Caltrain station. This guest and commuter shuttle will offer viable connections to off-site working demands with greater guest convenience and as last-mile service for hotel employees. The Catrina Hotel 2.l Packet Pg. 174 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 29 SECTION V – GUEST AND EMPLOYEE (DUAL) TDM PROGRAMS 19.0 GUEST AND EMPLOYEE (DUAL) TDM PROGRAMS Paid Parking To encourage alternative transportation mode usage, the hotel project will implement a guest and employee paid parking program. The project may charge hotel guests $10-15 per day, per parking space. Employees who carpool and vanpool to work will receive free parking. Hotel employee staff will be charged a monthly fee for parking or a discounted daily fee of 25 percent of the guest rate. Hotel management will have assigned on-site parking (at no cost). Research has repeatedly shown that one of the biggest factors in selecting a mode of transportation is the cost of parking. Valet Attendant Parking As a component of the project, 24/7 valet attendant parking will address hotel vheicle parking management and increase additional parking needs via their stacked parking methods. The hotel will traffic flow in and around the garage and ease parking constraint with the help of valet and their equipment (cones, radios, etc.). Valet parking will help the hotel stay efficient even during normal peak-hour periods. Valet parking also expands the capacity of a typical parking lot to serve more patrons. Stacked parking plans indicate that The Caterina Hotel expects to recapture 17 additional parking spaces by using valet services. The image below shows who the parking arrangements would be accomodated. 2.l Packet Pg. 175 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 30 Passenger Loading/Unloading Zone In order to facilitate disembarking and embarking guests and rideshare passengers, passenger loading/ unloading areas will be provided. A passenger loading zone will be located near a centralized location for easy access by the hotel guests, shuttle riders, and staff. The project will construct a passenger loading zone and provide the appropriate signage for this facility. 20.0 ON-SITE AND NEARBY AMENITIES Amenities provide employees with a full-service work environment. Eliminating or reducing the need for an automobile to make midday trips increases non-drive- alone rates. Many times, employees perceive their dependence upon the drive-alone mode because of errands and activities that must be carried out in different locations. By reducing this dependence through the provision of services and facilities at the work site, an increase in alternative mode usage for commute-based trips should be realized. A list of on-site amenities for The Caterina Hotel includes: On-site Amenities • Showers and changing facilities • Bicycle racks and lockers (or cage) • Carpool/vanpool parking • Electric vehicle charging facilities • Transportation and commute kiosk • Exercise/fitness room • Wireless access • Transportation resource Web links • Vending food and beverages Employer-Driven Amenities (required) • Transit subsidies and vanpool subsidies (up to $150 per month or equivalent) • 100% funded vanpool program • Emergency Ride Home (ERH) program • $50 monthly allowances or bike, walk, and carpool commuters • Employee Commute Coordinator • Promotional commuter campaigns (transit, carpool, bike and pedestrian) • Carpool matching services and incentives • Bicycle route mapping resources • Transit trip planning resources • Commuter bicycles for employees 2.l Packet Pg. 176 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 31 Employer-Driven Amenities (strongly encouraged) • Pre-tax transit or vanpool payroll deduction option • VTA SmartPass program • Annual carshare membership • Annual bike share membership On-Site and Nearby Amenities • Restaurants, cafes/delis, coffee • Daycare and preschool • Retail, grocery, personal services, shipping, and gifts • Entertainment and health/beauty • Banks and ATMs A more detailed list of nearby amenities and personal services within a ¼-mile walk from the project site is provided as an attachment. Transportation/Commute Kiosks (TransitScreen) Easily accessible transportation information will be a key component for commuter outreach and education and hotel guest services. The applicant will provide two options for users to obtain commuter materials. 1. Real-time Transportation Monitor in lobby An interactive real-time monitor will show where and when transit is located and expected to depart and arrive from a station or bus stop. A sample TransitScreen is shown below. 2. Commute Kiosk A commute kiosk will be in a common gathering area (e.g., lobby employee entrance, break or lunch room). The kiosk will contain transportation information, such as transit schedules, VTA, Caltrain, bike maps and 511 ridematching. Information will be updated periodically by the Employee Commute Coordinator. The kiosk may be wall-mounted or freestanding. 2.l Packet Pg. 177 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 32 Hotel Bicycle Program The hotel project may implement a hotel bicycle program that allows guests and staff to use hotel-branded bicycles. These bikes can be used for errands, site-seeing trips, or for business purposes. 2.l Packet Pg. 178 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 33 SECTION VI – OPTIONAL TDM BENEFITS 21.0 OPTIONAL TDM BENEFITS Membership in Palo Alto TMA Although the project is not located in the downtown Palo Alto center, if future opportunities allow, it may join the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association as an affiliate member. This will show community engagement and provide support for the TMA as it develops to serve residents and commuters. Bus Shelter Installation The applicant may pay for the construction of one transit passenger shelter on El Camino Real. The transit shelter placement and construction will be coordinated with VTA. Pad construction may include encroachment permits and approvals, as well as installation of power, lighting and water sources. The purpose of a transit passenger shelter is to provide a structure that affords protection from the weather for persons who are waiting to board a public or franchised transit vehicle. An attractive bus shelter encourages more transit ridership. A structure also provides opportunity to promote The Catalina Hotel as a transit-friend place. VTA Transit Shelter Adopt-a-Stop Outreach efforts of the applicant may include participation in the VTA Adopt-a-Stop Program. This program partners with volunteers to clean their designated bus stop on a regular basis. This will involve picking up litter, reporting damage and or graffiti and generally keeping the area around the stop free of debris and unsightly clutter. VTA may install an adoption sign at the stop recognizing the application as a program participant. Once the project is under construction, the applicant will sign up in this VTA Adopt-a-Stop program to maintain the bus stop nearest the site on El Camino Real. 2.l Packet Pg. 179 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 34 City of Palo Alto Bike Share Program If desired and feasible, the project will integrate with the Palo Alto Bike Share program (if available) by establishing a bike share station at or near the hotel. A bike sharing system usually consists of a fleet of specially designed, heavy-duty, very durable bikes that are locked into a network of docking stations located throughout a region. Some fleets may be dock-less. Bikes can be rented from and returned to any station in the system, creating an efficient network with many possible combinations of start and end points. 2.l Packet Pg. 180 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 35 Carshare Program A Carshare program expands mobility options for guests, visitors, and employees. Those who use transit, shuttles, vanpool/carpool or bikes would have access to a self-service hourly car rental program offering short-term access to a vehicle(s) for personal use. In the event the City wishes to pursue a public Zipcar resources near the Hotel project, the applicant will support this effort. Zipcar provides a shared neighborhood community or business vehicle(s) program. Zipcar users sign up to become members with a nominal annual fee and application fee. The vehicle is then reserved online and accessed via a cardkey pass system. Fuel and insurance is included in the cost for the Zipcar. Mileage is typically allocated at 180 miles per day. Benefits – guests and employees • Provides travel/transportation options for those without vehicles • Saves customers additional mobility costs for occasional travel needs (taxi/Uber) • Provides a convenient on-site resource • Offers flexible, self-serve, online registration process with advanced registration • Carshare membership may also provide access to off-site carshare resources Benefits – hotel • Reduces on-site vehicle parking demand • Reduces greenhouse gas emissions • Satisfies customer’s needs for short-term, weekday travel option • Enhances overall trip reduction goals, integrates with existing resources • Vendor Carshare programs are all inclusive (maintenance, cleaning, insurance and fuel) • May offer opportunity to brand vehicles with hotel graphics Hotel-funded Annual Carshare Membership Access to occasional transportation may be a barrier for employees when considering a transit commute. Employees who have a mid-shift doctor appointment or teacher conference may need the ability to drive themselves. The hotel will provide paid memberships for employees who want to participate in the hotel carshare program. Membership will allow employees to participate in the carshare program, but they will pay for the cost of driving the vehicle for their trip. 2.l Packet Pg. 181 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 36 Proposed Palo Alto City West Shuttle The applicant may provide an annual contribution to the Palo Alto Shuttle program for the future West Shuttle route to the project creating a public benefit for the community. Below is a map of proposed Palo Alto community shuttle routes. 2.l Packet Pg. 182 The Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real) – TDM Plan October 4, 2018 (updated December 21, 2018) Page 37 22.0 CONCLUSION The Caterina Hotel TDM Plan was developed to meet the specific needs of the project, considering logistical resources and opportunities at the site. From conception, the applicant was committed to an integrated project design that enhanced pedestrian and community opportunities. This TDM Plan provides specific elements, measures and actions that commit the applicant to implementation. The orientation of TDM features for this project will increase opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, transit and shuttle uses. The TDM Plan is performance-based and directs the applicant and hotel to incorporate programs and employee benefits that create a formal commute program. Commute program marketing, ongoing promotions, annual survey and reporting and a Transportation Coordinator will provide the synergism needed to create an effective and successful program for future project employees. Vehicle trips during peak-hours will be reduced by 30 percent and 17 additional parking spaces will be available via valet services. The language included in this TDM Plan provides very specific directions for the applicant to use for implementation and development of commuter programs. It outlines the steps necessary (infrastructure, outreach and promotions) to incorporate employee transportation benefits and programs. Annual monitoring via surveys will provide the data needed to demonstrate effectiveness and goal attainment and requires the applicant to identify additional TDM measures and programs they would implement if the goal is not achieved. The applicant is committed to encouraging employee ridership and use of alternative transportation modes. This TDM Plan provides the details of the applicant’s commitment to the City of Palo Alto and designates responsibility for implementation. The Caterina Hotel supports the City of Palo Alto’s policy of focusing clustered development along major transportation corridors, as well as reinforces the City of Palo Alto’s Green goals and practices. By balancing air quality with economic growth, The Caterina Hotel will help Palo Alto thrive as a community. It is projects like these that will contribute to the City of Palo Alto’s future livelihood. 2.l Packet Pg. 183 ATTACHMENT List of Nearby Amenities (Personal services, restaurants, coffee, retail/sundry, banking, etc.) Case Studies – Successful Hotel Projects that Reduce Vehicle Trips 2.l Packet Pg. 184 List of Nearby List of Nearby/Offsite Amenities Located 0.30 or Less Miles Caterina Hotel (4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto) Restaurants, Cafes/Delis, Coffee, and Bakeries Phone # Distance Away Su Hong 4256 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-493-4664 0 Hobee’s Palo Alto 4224 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-856-6124 0.10 mile Dinah’s Poolside Restaurant 4261 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-798-1314 0.10 mile The Sea by Alexander’s Steakhouse 4269 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-213-1111 0.10 mile Retail Phone # Distance Away Peninsula Piano Brokers 4333 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-492-4220 0.20 mile Health, Beauty & Fitness Phone # Distance Away New York Nail & Spa 4222 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-384-6878 0.10 mile Massage Envy 4335 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-305-3464 0.30 mile Forever Young Salon 1184 Los Altos Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-948-0153 0.30 mile Services Phone # Distance Away Spotless Dry Cleaning 1176 Los Altos Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-949-0832 0.30 mile Transportation, Gas, Shipping & Storage Phone # Distance Away Avis Car Rental 4230 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-493-8888 0.10 mile America’s Tire 4200 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-382-5193 0.20 mile Banks & ATM Phone # Distance Away Union Bank 4201 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-941-2000 0.30 mile AFFA, Inc (ATM) 4290 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 351 ft. Daycare/Preschool Phone # Distance Away Palo Alto Preschool 4232 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, CA 650-739-0137 492 ft. Edgewood House Preschool 493 W Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA 0.30 mile 2.l Packet Pg. 185 Case Studies – Successful Hotel Projects that Reduce Vehicle Trips 2.l Packet Pg. 186 Grand Hyatt New York has met the Standard of Excellence and is designated a Best Workplace for Commuters by offering a significant Pre-Tax Transit Benefit program to employees. Grand Hyatt provides employees with a diverse package of Commuter Benefits that improve quality of life and help support work-life challenges. Over 30% of employees at Grand Hyatt New York take advantage of their tax saving transit program. Grand Hyatt New York has been providing Green Commuter Benefits for seven years. Recently, they rolled-out a Bike-to-Work program with funding through CommuterLink/NY Rideshare’s NYCCE (New York City Commute Enhancement) Grant. They purchased and installed a bike rack and security gate and encouraged cyclists to ride in with a gift card prize to purchase equipment. Employees were able to enjoy riding to work during the warmer months and park their bike securely. Working to encourage improved air quality and green initiatives, Grand Hyatt takes pride in consistently providing employees with opportunities to participate in positive earth-friendly events, such as the American Lung Association’s Fight For Air Climb being held this November. Source: https://www.bestworkplaces.org/list-of-bwc-workplaces/grand-hyatt-new-york/ Hilton Garden Inn Arlington, Shirlington, VA Christopher Ng is the General Manager of the Hilton Garden Inn, a select service hotel in the trendy Village of Shirlington in South Arlington County, VA and he shares proudly, “We were the first LEED Certified hotel in Arlington County when we opened in December 2009.” The commuter benefits program started at once when the hotel was opened. During the hiring process, commuter benefits are highlighted as the most economical and environmentally friendly way to get to and from work. Christopher reports that, currently, 33 team members (out of 48 total) take advantage of the commuter benefits offered. On tips to get more employees to participate, Christopher added, “Team members are always going to be receptive to practices that save them money. Throw in the fact that they are going to eco-friendly and there’s no reason why they wouldn’t participate in your commuter benefits program.” Source: https://www.bestworkplaces.org/bwc-employer-spotlight/bwc-spotlight-hilton-garden-inn- arlington-shirlington-va/ 2.l Packet Pg. 187 From: Lydia F. Shackelford <lfshackelford@wellsandassociates.com> Sent: Monday, September 10, 2018 5:38 AM To: Elizabeth Hughes <elizabeth.hughes@TDMSPECIALISTS.COM> Subject: RE: [Transp-tdm] Seeking Successful Hotel TDM Case Studies I wanted to reach out and let you know about a few things we do for some of the hotels we work with in Fairfax County. They are a little larger than your 80-100 room request below, but not by much. The first hotel we work with is a Hyatt House in Mosaic. It has a somewhat of an extended stay vibe, since they have a lot of people who come for conferences or even months at a time when they are here on assignment for work. However, they also operate on a nightly rate basis as well. The hotel is part of our Mosaic Green Commute program (www.mosaicgreencommute.com), and we extend our services to their employees (who take part of our annual commute survey for the property) as well as their guests. For employees, we provide them with an Access Guide and one-on-one commute assistance whenever they need it. The Access Guide reviews all of the commute options to Mosaic and gives them information about regional commute assistance programs, like the Guaranteed Ride Home Program, so they are fully aware of all of their choices. We also gather information from them annually with our survey to see what their current commute looks like and match them to as many alternative commutes as possible (if they are currently driving alone). If they are currently using a non-SOV mode of transportation to get to work, we make sure we include them in our “regular user” marketing campaigns to encourage them to continue using their non-SOV commute of choice. We do this through our automated marketing tool, Compass and one-on-one (non-automated) marketing as well. For guests, they also have an Access Guide to the entire Mosaic property, letting them know about the many amenities the immediate area provides them with, so they can enjoy that during their stay. The hotel provides them with the access choices to the hotel ahead of time at booking, meaning once they book, they’re provided with the various ways they can get to and from the hotel from the nearby airports, train stations, etc. The hotel also offers a complimentary shuttle for its guests to help them get around without the need of a rental car during their stay. Mosaic has a goal of 5% non-SOV mode split, and that site is just under a mile from its closest transit station. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- At the Hyatt Regency Tysons Corner Center, we do not focus on their guests as much, but we do extend our Access Tysons (www.accesstysons.com) program to the hotel employees. We do the same marketing noted above with the Access Guides and one-on-one marketing that we do at Mosaic, and we also attend their monthly new hire orientations to extend our services and assistance to their employees. We offered to do this for the Mosaic employees as well, but they have less frequent orientations, and they are often not at their hotel. Tysons Corner Center has a goal of a 25% non-SOV mode split, and that site is directly on top of Metro/is a TOD. Both locations have a mode-split goal associated with their proffered requirements, meaning their proffers note that a certain percentage of the employees of these hotels should be using a non-SOV mode of transportation to get to work in order to meet their goal. We gather this information with our 2.l Packet Pg. 188 annual surveys and report on it annually to the county. We have never missed their goals in the years we have implemented these programs and provided these services at these sites. I hope this helps! Please let me know if you have any questions. Best, Lydia Lydia F. Shackelford | Senior Associate WELLS + ASSOCIATES 1420 Spring Hill Road, Suite 610 | Tysons, VA 22102 D: 703.676.3629 | M: 203.417.6179 | O: 703.917.6620 Web | Blog | LinkedIn | Twitter | Facebook An employee-owned company for over 25 years. 2.l Packet Pg. 189 APPENDIX A Parking Study for the Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto 2.l Packet Pg. 190 Memorandum Date: October 16, 2017 To: Mr. Rajen Shah, Comfort Inn Palo Alto From: Michelle Hunt Ricky Williams Subject: Parking Study for the Proposed Comfort Inn Remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California Hexagon Transportation Consultants, Inc. has completed a parking study for the proposed Comfort Inn remodel at 3945 El Camino Real in Palo Alto, California. The project site is located on the east side of El Camino Real, midblock between Ventura Avenue and El Camino Way. Currently, the hotel has 69 rooms and 60 parking spaces, including 57 standard spaces and 3 accessible spaces. The remodeling project would increase the size of the existing lobby by removing two rooms. The remodel would not change the number of parking spaces on site but would modify the parking layout to include 22 compact spaces, 35 standard spaces, and 3 accessible spaces. Thus, the proposed project would result in 67 rooms and 60 parking spaces. Both the existing and proposed on-site parking do not meet the City of Palo Alto’s parking requirement of one space per guestroom (Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.52.040). The purpose of this memo is to determine the adequacy of the proposed on-site parking lot to serve the hotel’s parking demand. This memo provides an analysis of the peak parking demand at the existing Comfort Inn and the peak parking demand observed at similar hotels and motels in the area. These surveyed parking ratios at area hotels were used to estimate the number of parking spaces necessary to serve the project. Peak Parking Demand Hexagon conducted peak parking counts at thirteen comparable hotels and motels in Palo Alto and nearby cities to determine the peak parking demand per occupied room. The number of vehicles parked at each hotel and motel were counted at midnight on two to three typical days. The hotel management were contacted to determine the number of rooms occupied on each survey date. These lodgings were chosen because they are similar in location to the Comfort Inn and serve primarily business travelers. Based on the peak parking counts conducted at the surveyed hotels/motels, parking demand was consistently found to be below the City’s code requirement of one space per room (see Table 1). The average parking demand at the thirteen locations was determined to be 0.66 occupied spaces per occupied room. Hotel/motel occupancy at the time of the counts was between 90 and 100 percent at most sites. The trend of ride-sharing gaining in market share and a decline in the use of rental cars may partially explain why there is less than one vehicle parked per occupied room. Hexagon conducted a count of the number of vehicles parked at the existing Comfort Inn at midnight during three typical weekdays (September 26-28, 2017). The count data is attached. The hotel owner also provided data on the number of rooms occupied on the date of the counts (see 2.l Packet Pg. 191 3945 El Camino Real - Comfort Inn Parking Study October 16, 2017 P a g e | 2 Table 1). The peak parking demand for the Comfort Inn was found to be 0.62 occupied spaces per occupied room, which is slightly less than the typical peak parking demand observed at other hotels/motels in the area. Proposed Parking Supply The proposed project would have 67 rooms and 60 parking spaces on site following the remodel for a parking ratio of 0.90 spaces per room. Based on the City’s parking standards, the remodeled Comfort Inn would be required to provide 67 parking spaces (one space per guestroom). The proposed project would be seven spaces short of this requirement. Although the on-site parking would not meet the City’s code requirement, parking occupancy counts at the existing Comfort Inn and other comparable hotels in the area indicate that the proposed parking would meet the projected parking demand. The average parking ratio observed at comparable hotels/motels (0.66 occupied spaces per occupied room) was used to estimate the proposed project’s peak parking demand. This is a conservative assumption since the parking counts at the existing Comfort Inn revealed that it experiences a slightly lower parking ratio (averaging 0.62 occupied spaces per occupied room). Assuming 100 percent occupancy of 67 rooms, the project is expected to experience a peak parking demand of 45 vehicles after the remodel. As proposed, the project would provide 15 more parking spaces than the projected peak parking demand. Therefore, the 60 parking spaces provided is expected to be more than adequate to serve the site. Transportation Demand Management In an effort to further reduce the peak parking demand on site and to support a lower parking ratio, the project would implement various transportation demand management (TDM) strategies. These strategies would reduce the need for employees to park on site as well as allow travelers to get from the hotel to various destinations without requiring a vehicle of their own. These strategies are described below: Transit Subsidy. The project would provide monthly bus passes to employees who wish to commute using public transportation. VTA bus stops are located immediately adjacent to the project’s El Camino Real frontage, providing transit services via Local Route 22. This route provides northbound and southbound service between the Palo Alto Transit Center and Eastridge Transit Center on 15-minute headways during both the AM and PM peak hours. Taxi or Ride-Share Subsidy. The project would provide guests with a $5 subsidy for rides using a local taxi service or Uber ride-shares. The project already has a working relationship with a local taxi service to support this subsidy. Bicycle Parking. The project will provide 9 bicycle racks, which will provide 18 Class II bicycle parking spaces to encourage employees to bike to work. Employees also may use bicycling as a last-mile connection between the project site and the California Avenue or San Antonio Caltrain stations, which are approximately 1.5 and 2 miles from the project site, respectively. The TDM strategies listed above and additional measures the hotel will take to reduce parking demand on-site are described in further detail in the projects Transportation Demand Management Plan, produced by Hexagon and dated 10/12/2017. 2.l Packet Pg. 192 3945 El Camino Real - Comfort Inn Parking Study October 16, 2017 P a g e | 3 Conclusions Based on parking counts from similar hotels and motels, and the existing parking occupancy observed at the Comfort Inn, the proposed project would be adequately served by the parking provided on site. After remodel, full occupancy of 67 rooms is estimated to result in a peak parking demand of 45 vehicles, which would be well served by the 60 spaces provided on site. In addition, the project will implement TDM strategies that would discourage the use of a personal automobile. 2.l Packet Pg. 193 3945 El Camino Real - Comfort Inn Parking Study October 16, 2017 P a g e | 4 Table 1 Hotel/Motel Peak Parking Demands Hotel City Rooms Hotel Occ.1 Pkg Spaces Occ. Spaces per Occ. Room Hotel Occ.1 Pkg Spaces Occ. Spaces per Occ. Room Hotel Occ.1 Pkg Spaces Occ. Spaces per Occ. Room Dining Options Los Prados 2 San Mateo 116 92%55 0.52 95%52 0.47 91%58 0.55 0.51 Complementary Breakfast Bay Landing 3 Burlingame 130 95%76 0.62 96%72 0.58 95%78 0.63 0.61 Complementary Breakfast Hilton Garden Inn 3 San Mateo 157 99%64 0.41 98%68 0.44 99%67 0.43 0.43 The Garden Grille & Bar, Pavilion Pantry Hilton Garden Inn 3 Burlingame 132 94%46 0.37 96%44 0.35 79%49 0.47 0.40 Great American Grill, Pavilion Pantry Holiday Inn 4 Belmont 82 79%39 0.60 83%55 0.81 n/a n/a n/a 0.71 Complementary Breakfast Fairfield Inn & Suites 5 San Carlos 120 68%66 0.80 58%88 1.28 n/a n/a n/a 1.04 Complementary Breakfast Hilton Garden Inn 6 Mt View 160 97%115 0.74 98%125 0.80 n/a n/a n/a 0.77 The Garden Grille & Bar, Pavilion Pantry Sheraton Inn 6 Sunnyvale 173 72%88 0.70 95%146 0.89 n/a n/a n/a 0.80 Faz Restaurant & Lounge Courtyard Marriott 6 Sunnyvale 145 57%55 0.67 99%107 0.74 n/a n/a n/a 0.71 The Bistro Aloft Hotel 7 Cupertino 123 100%76 0.62 98%67 0.55 n/a n/a n/a 0.59 Restaurant, Café, & Lounge Super 8 8 Palo Alto 36 100%24 0.67 100%22 0.61 100%21 0.58 0.62 Complementary Breakfast Quality Inn 8 Palo Alto 50 100%36 0.72 100%35 0.70 100%43 0.86 0.76 Complementary Breakfast Zen Hotel 8 Palo Alto 37 95%23 0.66 100%28 0.76 100%24 0.65 0.69 Complementary Breakfast 0.66 Comfort Inn 9 Palo Alto 69 100%43 0.62 100%46 0.67 97%39 0.58 0.62 Complementary Breakfast Notes 1. Hotel Occupancy represents the percentage of rooms occupied at the time of the count 2. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 3/7-9/2017 3. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 5/16-18/2017 4. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 3/30/2016 and 4/2/2016. 5. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 4/7/2016 and 4/9/2016. 6. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 4/30/2016 and 5/2/2016. 7. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 6/11/2014 and 6/14/2014. 8. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 8/26-28/2013 9. Data from counts conducted by Hexagon on 9/26-28/2017. Not included in the calculation of average parking rates for all comparable hotels. Avg. Spaces per Occ. Room Count 1 Count 2 Count 3 Average Rate for All Comparable Hotels: 2.l Packet Pg. 194 Auto-Census Counter: Matt Tyrell Location - Comfort Inn 3945 ECR Palo Alto Dates: September 26-28, 2017 Parking Occupancy 26-Sep 43 27-Sep 46 28-Sep 39 2.l Packet Pg. 195 TDM SPECIALISTS, INC. QUALIFICATIONS 2.l Packet Pg. 196 2.l Packet Pg. 197 2.l Packet Pg. 198 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9949) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 380 Cambridge Avenue: New Commercial Building (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 380 Cambridge [15PLN- 00249]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings Totaling 32,083 Square Feet and to Construct a New Three-Story Commercial Building Totaling 35,000 Square Feet. In Addition, There is a Request to Waive an Off-Street Loading Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial with Retail Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=62660. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment F. 3 Packet Pg. 199 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On December 21, 2017 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-73-2-2/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response The building is one large mass with limited variation The elevations have been revised. See Pages 18, 27, 33 through 38 of the plan set. See Analysis section for more discussion. The project should provide an on-site loading space The applicant is requesting a waiver from one loading zone. See Pages 63-66 of the plan set. See Analysis section for greater detail. How does the 7 foot fence along the City parking lot relate to the adjacent windows on the building The fence at the setback is 5 feet high (Page 19) and is designed to buffer the seating area from the adjacent parking lot. The rear portion of the fence remains at 7 feet. Glass for the lobby to be low iron clear glass The project uses ultra-clear, low iron glass at ground level and lobby (Page 27 of the plans) Project should be more pedestrian-oriented along the street More façade notches were added. Brick façade creates more interest and setback creates more room for planting and benches. The east elevation setback could support outdoor amenities associated with the retail spaces. See Pages 13, 33-38, 39 Concern about large floor plates accommodating single user tenants. The office floor plates have been designed for demising flexibility to accommodate a variety of business sizes. Possible layouts are depicted on pages 14 and 15 of the submittal. In addition, multiple ground floor entries will facilitate division of the retail space. Address impact of the building on the neighboring residential structures Portions of the west façade are setback 10 feet to maintain light and air. See Pages 67-73 of the plans. Native planting Discussions with neighbor with health issue limits planting palette and native plants are incorporated where feasible. See Analysis section for greater detail. 3 Packet Pg. 200 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Analysis1 The applicant submitted revised plans to respond to the Board’s issues as well as the neighbors. The proposed square footage remained the same, however, changes to the building footprint and elevations occurred, as shown below. October 2017 Source: Brereton October 2018 Source: Brereton Massing The Board expressed concerns that the building was too boxy, too tall and did not provide sufficient relief along the street to complement the context of the area. The building mass was addressed in the following ways: 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 201 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 The building height was limited to be code compliant at 35 feet; The building design hints at two complementary but independent building masses, straddling a central office entry element, to break up the apparent massing and bulk along Cambridge Avenue. The west building mass is further divided into two, which contributes to reducing the perceived scale of the overall building; The material on the front façade has been changed from stucco to brick to provide more warmth and texture. This also fits well into the context of the California Avenue area where there are other examples of brick structures of various styles; The building mass sets back 11 feet at the front corner of the east façade to provide open space on Cambridge Avenue at the corner retail suite; A variegated elevation on the street frontage building façade provides pockets of interest at the street/pedestrian level, which improves the pedestrian experience along Cambridge Avenue. One of the recessed areas is the entry to the office building and another introduces outdoor seating to support the adjacent ground level retail; Two levels of steel decks are introduced on the east elevation. They provide amenity space to the adjoining tenant suites and add interest to the building’s character and massing. The decks are located at the front of the building and do not affect the adjoining residential properties to the rear; Portions of the west façade have been set back 10 feet to maintain light and air access to the two adjacent residential units at 420 Cambridge. These setback areas will be landscaped to enhance their appearance. (Drawings and text are provided in the October 1, 2018 ARB submittal, pages 67 to 73). Staff’s Analysis The overall revisions to the façade and building envelop bring the project into conformance with the Architectural Review findings. The applicant has made a lot of outreach efforts to the neighbors and that is reflected in the project’s attention to the transitions of the project and the way the project interfaces with neighboring properties. For example, the project scaled back the setback along 420 Cambridge Avenue. Loading Space According to the PAMC, the project requires one off-street loading space. The applicant requests that the Director of Planning adjust this requirement (PAMC 18.52.080(e)). The applicant’s response is presented on pages 63 through 66 of the ARB submittal. In summary, the physical constraints of the site pose limitations. The ceiling height of the first floor would need to be raised and the parking floor would need to be lowered to accommodate a courier vehicle. The applicant provided a single-access option and a two-access option. The scenarios lead to the retail square footage being reduced by approximately 24% and eliminating outdoor amenities. Siting the loading space on-site for this project would conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals such as L-4.2 to “preserve ground floor retail” and L-3 “encourage street frontage that contribute to retail vitality”. 3 Packet Pg. 202 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Alternatively, existing on-street loading occurs within the block to serve the neighborhood and the proposed project. The project would eliminate an existing curb-cut adjacent to the City parking lot and create a new curb-cut to a new garage entry on the opposite side of the property. There would be no net loss in curb space for parking. The Board could recommend staff to investigate creating a limited-timed parking space at the location where the eliminated curb-cut would create a new parking space. Adjacent to this parking space the project includes a retail tenant space that could serve as a café at the edge near the City parking lot and a limited-timed parking space may help with turnover parking for that retail space. Staff supports the waiver of the on-site loading space, given on street loading spaces existing within the vicinity, and seeks a recommendation on whether an additional time-limited space is required. East Elevation Fence As depicted in the renderings on pages 33 and 38, the rear portion of the building on the east elevation is on the property line and is windowless with the front portion set back from the property line. The fence at the setback is five feet high (page 19) and is designed to buffer the seating area from the adjacent parking lot. Staff’s Analysis The project’s revision provides a sufficient buffer between the proposed outdoor amenity space and the parking lot while maintaining the openness of the space. Pedestrian-Oriented Experience The building massing includes a variegated elevation with insets and notches along the street front façade to provide pockets of interest and soften the building face at the pedestrian level; The brick façade will create more interest than stucco at the pedestrian level; The setback at central entry to office building allows space for planting and benches, while emphasizing the two-story building lobby volume; The setback on the east elevation provides covered open space for outdoor seating and tables that support adjacent ground level retail and provides a functional amenity space that will activate Cambridge; 3 Packet Pg. 203 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Landscaping within perimeter planters are introduced at the niches or pockets along Cambridge Avenue. Staff’s Analysis The project’s revisions are consistent with the Architectural Review findings. The project has a unified and coherent design and the project has an appealing ground-floor design to encourage use of the commercial spaces. Impacts on Neighboring Structures This concerns two elevations of the project. On the west elevation, the building at 420 Cambridge includes existing residences that have views of the project site. The other concern is for the neighbor to the rear, whom has health issues. 420 Cambridge The applicant has been in discussions with the neighbors of the property regarding the privacy issues. As revised, portions of the west façade have been set back 10 feet to maintain light and air access to the two adjacent residential units at 420 Cambridge. These setback areas will be landscaped to enhance their appearance. (Drawings and text are provided in the October 1, 2018 ARB submittal, pages 67 to 73.). Rear Neighbor The applicant and neighbor continue to have discussions on how to address construction and operational impacts from the project. None of these rise to the level of a significant CEQA impact. Staff does not recommend specific conditions; however, staff recommends a condition of approval to encourage these discussions between the two parties to continue to address issues as they arise. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is Categorically Exempt pursuant to Section 15302 (c) Replacement or Reconstruction and Section 15332 In-fill Development Projects. The project does not meet any of the criteria listed in Section 15300.2, exceptions that would disqualify the project from using any categorical exemptions under CEQA. The project will demolish 32,083 square feet of existing commercial space (office and retail) and construct a new 35,000 square foot building, which is a net increase of 2,917 square feet. Consistent with Section 15302(c), the project is a replacement of a commercial structure with a new structure of substantially the same size, purpose and capacity. The project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Ordinance and regulations (loading space waiver is allowed when findings are made). The project site is smaller than five acres (17,500 square feet) and is surrounded by urban uses. The project site includes no value 3 Packet Pg. 204 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. The approval of the project would not create a significant impact for air quality, noise, traffic or water quality. The site can be adequately served by required utilities and services. Additional information is provided in the attachments. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on January 4, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 7, 2019, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. At the December 21, 2017 ARB meeting, nine public speakers provided comment. These comments included the following: Erosion of community-serving business in favor of offices; lack of a loading space; concerns from 420 Cambridge regarding privacy; concern about losing small office space; specific neighbor health issues; privacy issues for neighbors at SFRs. The applicant responded to these comments in their revisions to the project. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-XXXX (650) 329-2575 planner.name@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Applicant's Response to ARB Comments (PDF) Attachment F: December 21, 2017 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) Attachment G: In-fill Exemption Documentation (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 205 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 206 124 - 32- 04 5 124 - 32- 04 8 124 - 32- 04 9 124 - 32- 01 9 137 - 01- 12 5 137 - 01- 11 3 137 - 01- 07 0 137 - 01- 06 9 137 - 01- 03 4 124 - 32- 01 2 124 - 32- 04 6 124 - 32- 04 7 124 - 33- 04 6 124 - 33- 06 5 124 - 33- 04 3 124 - 33- 02 6 124 - 33- 00 5 124 - 33- 00 7 124 - 33- 00 6 124 - 33- 01 9 124 - 33- 01 8 124 - 33- 01 7 124 - 33- 01 6 124 - 33- 01 5 124 - 32- 04 3 124 - 32- 04 4 124 - 33- 02 5 124 - 33- 02 4 124 - 33- 01 2 124 - 33- 01 3 124 - 33- 01 4 124 - 31- 05 8 124 - 31- 06 0 124 - 31- 05 9 124 - 31- 05 5 124 - 31- 05 4 124 - 31- 06 3 124 - 31- 06 2 124 - 31- 06 1 124 - 31- 06 4 124 - 31- 06 5 124 - 31- 06 6 124 - 31- 05 3 124 - 31- 01 2 124 - 31- 02 6 124 - 31- 02 7 124 - 31- 01 3 124 - 31- 01 4 124 - 31- 01 5 124 - 31- 01 6 124 - 31- 01 7 124 - 31- 01 8 137 - 01- 15 2 124 - 31- 02 9 124 - 31- 01 9 124 - 32- 01 0 124 - 32- 01 1 124 - 32- 02 2 124 - 32- 02 1 124 - 32- 01 6 124 - 32- 07 2 124 - 31- 05 0 124 - 31- 05 1 124 - 31- 05 2 124 - 31- 07 0 124 - 31- 06 9 124 - 31- 06 8 124 - 31- 06 7 124 - 31- 04 9 124 - 31- 08 0 124 - 31- 07 9 124 - 31- 07 1 124 - 31- 04 7 124 - 31- 04 6 124 - 32- 00 7 124 - 32- 02 7 124 - 32- 02 6 124 - 32- 02 8 124 - 32- 02 9 124 - 32- 03 0 124 - 32- 03 1 124 - 32- 05 0 124 - 32- 02 5 124 - 32- 07 1 124 - 32- 00 9 124 - 32- 02 0 124 - 32- 01 3 124 - 32- 06 0 124 - 32- 06 1 124 - 32- 06 2 124 - 32- 06 3 124 - 32- 06 5 124 - 32- 06 4 124 - 32- 06 8 124 - 32- 06 7 124 - 32- 06 6 124 - 31- 03 0 124 - 30- 00 6124 - 30- 00 7124 - 30- 00 8 124 - 31- 03 1 124 - 31- 03 2 124 - 31- 03 3 124 - 31- 00 9 124 - 31- 01 0 124 - 31- 01 1 124 - 31- 00 8 124 - 31- 00 7 124 - 31- 00 6 124 - 31- 03 6124 - 31- 03 5 124 - 31- 03 4 124 - 31- 02 8 124 - 31- 00 5 124 - 31- 00 4 124 - 31- 07 6 124 - 31- 03 9 124 - 31- 04 0 124 - 31- 07 5 124 - 31- 04 3 124 - 31- 04 4 124 - 31- 04 5124 - 31- 07 2 124 - 31- 08 3 124 - 33- 05 9 124 - 33- 02 7 124 - 33- 00 1 124 - 33- 02 8 124 - 33- 02 9 124 - 33- 03 0 124 - 33- 02 3 124 - 33- 02 2 124 - 33- 02 1 124 - 33- 02 0 124 - 32- 05 1 124 - 32- 03 5 124 - 32- 03 6 124 - 32- 03 7 124 - 32- 03 8 124 - 32- 03 9 124 - 32- 05 2 124 - 32- 05 3 124 - 32- 05 4 124 - 32- 05 5 124 - 32- 04 0 124 - 32- 04 1 124 - 32- 04 2 124 - 28- 00 9 124 - 28- 01 0 124 - 28- 01 1 124 - 27- 02 7 124 - 27- 02 8 124 - 27- 02 9 124 - 32- 05 6 124 - 32- 03 3 124 - 32- 03 4 124 - 32- 00 5 124 - 32- 00 4 124 - 32- 00 3 124 - 32- 00 2 124 - 32- 00 1 124 - 32- 03 2 124 - 31- 04 2 124 - 31- 04 1 124 - 28- 03 6 124 - 28- 05 1 124 - 28- 01 2 124 - 28- 01 3 124 - 28- 01 4 124 - 28- 01 5 124 - 28- 01 6 124 - 28- 01 7 124 - 28- 00 8 124 - 28- 05 0 124 - 28- 02 1 124 - 28- 02 2 124 - 28- 02 0 124 - 28- 01 8 124 - 28- 01 9 124 - 28- 03 0 124 - 28- 03 2 124 - 28- 03 4 124 - 28- 03 5 124 - 28- 02 9 124 - 28- 05 3 124 - 29- 00 5 124 - 28- 00 3 124 - 28- 00 4 124 - 28- 04 5 124 - 28- 05 2 124 - 28- 05 6 124 - 28- 03 1 124 - 27- 02 6124 - 27- 03 0 124 - 28- 02 3 124 - 28- 00 2 12 4 - 3 2 - 0 6 9 12 4 - 3 1 - 0 8 2 12 4 - 3 1 - 0 8 1 124 - 32- 07 0 12 4 - 3 1 - 0 8 4 1 2 4 - 3 8 - 0 0 3 124 - 38- 00 5124 - 38- 00 2 124 - 38- 00 4 1 2 4 - 3 8 - 0 0 1 COL L E G E A V E N U E JAC A R A N D A L A N E AS H S T R E E T NEW M A Y F I E L D L A N E NEW M A Y F I E L D L A N E E L C A M I N O R E A L CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E CAL I F O R N I A A V E N U E MI M O S A L A N E SE D R O L A N E CAM B R I D G E A V E N U E COL L E G E A V E N U E AS H S T R E E T OXF O R D A V E N U E OXF O R D A V E N U E STA N F O R D A V E N U E BI R C H S T R E E T NEW M A Y F I E L D L A N E CAM B R I D G E A V E N U E BI R C H S T R E E T BIRC H S T R E E T COL L E G E A V E N U E COL L E G E A V E N U E NO G A L L A N E JAC A R A N D A L A N E E L C A M I N O R E A L 230 5 217 2 228 0 555 559 220 0 232 5 233 1 490 233 5 227 5 480 225 1 42 5 409 407 465 463 461 459 447 445 43 7 - 441 433 - 4 3 5 245 8245 4 41 0 430 46 0 456 454 448 425 431 475 245 0 451 453 211 0 448 432 431 44 3 455 456 454 444 428 416 404 410 425 210 0 465 475 217 1 204 0 210 3 - 212 7 436 - 4 4 6 43 1 - 453 478 222 5 223 7 391 390 381 373 360 376 213 0 214 0 216 0 216 6 424 423 450 438 430 410 41 1 417 463 470 457 449 454 - 460 42 0 1 23 45 220 9 221 5 223 3 421 - 4 2 9 43 1 - 447 412 - 4 2 2 415 - 4 2 1 360 332 342 350 351 343 333 390 380 370 36 0 359 363 381 393 411 350 359 351 343 32 3 322 334 346 301 315 213 0 314 316328 440 414 406 - 4 1 0 392 360 364 415 243 8 415 421 321 361 241 5 442 - 4 4 4 433 - 4 4 7 405 - 4 0 9 403 - 409 381 - 395 341 - 347366 - 370 280 384 229 0 366 39 7 391 383 371 365 355 375 340 34 4 350 330 30 2 215 0 26 1 250285 31 5 325 335 350 318 30 6 320 310 277 231 3230 7 303 - 30 9 301 299 382 380 37 8 267 - 2 7 1 235 0 245 240 255 265 220 230 240 290 26 0 236 3 164 234 3 232 3 2155 2742145 22482250374 10 0 - 10 8 480 475 245 3 222 7 365 369 212 0 33 4 243 1 417 275 276 370 391 350 450 413 225 5 216 2 216 4 233 3 429 422 247 3 450 440 42 1 367 354 300 250 298 242 5 2260 202 1 210 1 333 44 7 222 1 216 0 223 1 228 7 231 5 213 7 420 2280 PF(R) PF(R) R-2 PF(R) CC(2)(R) CC(2) R-2 PF(R) CC ( 2 ) ( R ) PC-4127 PF( R ) CC(2)(R) R-2 CC(2) (R)(P) RM-30 PF PC-5069 CC ( 2 ) ( R ) PT O D ( R ) CC ( 2 ) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto abc Address Label (AP) 380 - 400 Cambridge 0'148' 380 -400 Cambridge Ave CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RAT E D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sahsing, 2017-12-04 15:29:00 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) CC (2) (R) 3.a Packet Pg. 207 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 380-410 Cambridge Avenue 15PLN-00249 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Regional/Community Commercial: Larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters and non- retail services such as offices and banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village and University venue/Downtown. Non-retail uses such as medical and dental offices may also locate in this designation; software development may also locate Downtown. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential FARs range from 0.35 to 2.0. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations. The project proposes the replacement of an existing commercial building with another commercial building of similar size that is consistent with the land use designation. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is surrounded by established urban uses and is designed to be consistent with the surrounding structures. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to The project includes a combination of stucco, brick veneer, glass and metal. It’s massing is 3.b Packet Pg. 208 maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. designed to support pedestrian-oriented uses at the ground floor. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures The project includes notches and varied setbacks to provide transitions to neighboring structures. Policy L-4.2: Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. The project maintains and expands the amount of retail use square footage. Policy L-4.3: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. The project provides a modulated façade that fronts the street, which includes areas for seating and landscaping. The first story windows are clear glass. All of these combined elements will support a pedestrian-oriented streetscape. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease The project has already credit for participating in the parking assessment district. All of the new parking required by the net new square footage is provided on-site. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the project provides outdoor amenity areas where it is the most compatible with the surrounding uses. For example, the balconies are situated facing the street and the City parking lot. The outdoor seating area is situated in the front that includes a five-foot high fence providing a buffer to the City parking lot. The site is not eligible for historic listing. The project is designed to provide massing transitions to the neighboring properties. For example, the project provides additional setback along the west elevation adjacent to the mixed-use building that provides a condition that would facilitate light and air for the neighbors. The front elevation includes varied setbacks and notches, a brick veneer material with metal panels in the notched area to provide character that is consistent with the architectural styles along the street. The combined design elements and features will make the building complement the surrounding. The building’s roof-top 3.b Packet Pg. 209 equipment is located in the center of the building that reduces sight and noise related issues for the neighbors. The project is consistent with the following context-based design criteria: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project has a 10-foot sidewalk along Cambridge Avenue. The sidewalk will include bicycle racks and street trees. The edge of the building includes outdoor seating spaces. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The project includes a variegated elevation with notches in the street-facing façade and multiple entries to retail spaces as well as a central lobby for the upper floor access. Along the ground floor includes an area for outdoor seating. Landscaping is provided in the notched areas of the building footprint on the ground floor. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The project meets the required setbacks and provides additional relief along the street façade. Additionally, the project includes varied materials such as brick veneer and aluminum panels with contrasting colors providing visual interest. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The project is consistent with the development standards to provide adequate setback relief. Additionally, the project locates balconies opposite of residential buildings to avoid compatibility issues. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site The project includes balconies and an outdoor seating area on the ground floor. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment Parking for the project is located at ground level within the building. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 3.b Packet Pg. 210 The site is less than an acre in size. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will address the 2016 California Green Building Code as well as introduce systems and sustainable design as part of the requirements of the City of Palo Alto and/or following good ‘green’ design practice Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project includes a variety of materials on all sides of the building. In the front, the project uses brick veneer, aluminum panels and glass, while the other sides of the building include stucco and glass. Metal is integrated into the facades and most significantly, metal balconies are used on the east property line along the City parking lot. Contrasting colors are used to convey visual interest. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). There is one vehicular access to the garage, which is located within the building footprint. Bicycle parking is available on the sidewalk (short-term racks) and within lockers (long-term) within the garage. Access to the lockers is provided through the main driveway or through the corridor on the side of the building with access to the garage for pedestrians and cyclists. Onsite showers are provided to facilitate bicycle commuting. Utility access is also provided on the east property line. Signs for the building (while not being proposed) are conceptually depicted in elevations above the entries to the retail spaces. Balconies for the project are located along the front and side (closest to the street). Additional ground floor seating area is located along the east property line. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project includes a wide variety of landscape materials such as vines, grasses, trees and shrubs. Landscaping is used within the rear setback to provide an aesthetic buffer between the project and the neighbors. Notches in the building on the ground floor provide for opportunities to use landscaping. While native plantings are included, the amount of native plants used within the planting palette is limited because of the desire to address the neighbor’s concerns, which are health related. 3.b Packet Pg. 211 Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Per the City of Palo Alto planning goals, the project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The building orientation is based on the street frontage along Cambridge Avenue, which also provides the ideal solar orientation with the long face having a south-eastern exposure. This provides a better yearly performance in regards to thermal heat gain and loss, and a more equal daily heat distribution. The building massing, setbacks, and deck overhangs along Cambridge Avenue provide solar shading at the proposed areas of glazing at the primary building entry and the courtyard. Secure bicycle parking will be provided in the garage with additional bike parking on the street along Cambridge Avenue. Both will provide alternate means of transportation with less fuel emissions and potential traffic. The systems proposed for the building will be designed to meet to energy performance criteria of California Title 24 for Mechanical, Lighting, and Building Envelope. This would include efficient mechanical systems, low power consuming LED lighting with daylighting and occupancy sensor controls, and a low solar heat transmitting envelope with high efficiency 1” insulated, low-e glazing and insulated spandrel panels. The plumbing design incorporates low-flow fixtures with sensors, and the irrigation systems will be managed by controllers for scheduled watering of the landscape. Building materials include recyclable metal panels, concrete, locally produced brick, high-efficiency glazing, and sun-shading devices. The roofing will incorporate a cap sheet to provide a cool roof to reduce heat transfer into the building and limit the heat island potential for the area’s microclimate. The landscape design utilizes regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The landscape design is coordinated with Civil to provide rain water filtration, filtering of onsite rain water and moderating the flow to the City sewer system. An irrigation system is in-place to control and moderate the watering of the landscape areas and planters. This design also acts as a buffer and screen to the adjacent residential and public parking areas. 3.b Packet Pg. 212 Parking Adjustment for Off-Street Loading Requirements (PAMC 18.52.080(e) The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off-street loading requirements for non- residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon finding that: 1) The off-street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; maximum reduction is one loading space. Providing the loading space onsite would reduce the amount of commercial square footage and be in direct conflict with Policy L-4.2, which is intended to preserve ground floor retail and expand opportunities. The project expands the existing amount of retail space for the site. Providing adequate on-site circulation to accommodate an on-site loading space would require two curb-cuts for the project, which is an additional curb-cut that does not exist now. This would reduce on-street parking and introduce a new potential conflict point for bicyclist and pedestrians. Alternatively, the project could consider basement parking to create room to provide the on-site loading space, however, the project proponents have been working with the neighbors to create a project that has the least amount of construction and operational impacts and the basement design would create more impacts to the neighbors. 2) The use of shared on-street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one loading space. There are four on-street loading spaces within the vicinity of the project, with closest being approximately 100 feet away. Alternatively, an additional time-limited on-street parking space could be created adjacent to the project frontage if desired. 3.b Packet Pg. 213 Performance Criteria 380 Cambridge Avenue 15PLN-00249 Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project provides an enclosed trash facility that will be shared between each of the uses occupying the building. The trash facility is located within the footprint of the building, fully enclosed and out of clear sight from any public right-of-way or neighboring lots. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The applicant will provide cut sheets of the proposed lighting to ensure adequate illumination is provided for safe circulation and are directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to the neighboring residents. 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick- up. The current project proposal does not include late night uses or activities. Future commercial tenants that would like this will need to file for a Conditional Use Permit, as required per the Zoning Code. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical The project abuts residential uses and provides landscaping to screen the uses of the buildings. Mechanical equipment is located in the center of the rooftop out of 3.b Packet Pg. 214 Performance Criteria Project Consistency equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. any sightlines. Other utilities are located not in plain sight from the public. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The parking areas are located within the building. Balconies are located facing the street and the City parking lot, which are away from the neighboring residences. 18.23.070 Parking The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. Parking is provided within the building on the ground floor. 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The project maintains a single curb-cut for access to a garage. The project maintains a 10-foot sidewalk. Bicycle parking is provided by the project. 18.23.090 Air Quality The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 3.b Packet Pg. 215 Performance Criteria Project Consistency hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 3.b Packet Pg. 216 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 380-410 Cambridge Avenue 15PLN-00249 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "400 Cambridge Ave. ARB Submittal for Major Architectural Review, October 1, 2018” stamped as received by the City on October 16, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION: The project approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 6. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 7. NEIGHBOR RESOLUTION: The owner or designee shall continue to have dialogue with the neighbor at 383 College Avenue to address concerns regarding air quality during construction and operation of the building. 3.c Packet Pg. 217 8. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $_______ plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 9. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF AN EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT AND/OR BUILDING PERMIT: 11. SUBDIVISION: As part of this project, a Preliminary Parcel Map and a Parcel Map are required since more than four (4) lots will be merged into one lot (PAMC 21.08.050; Government Code 66412(d)). To merge the lots, the applicant shall submit a minor subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment unless the applicant is proposing five (5) or more condominium units, in which case a major subdivision application shall be submitted. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Parcel or Tentative map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. PRIOR TO BUILDING OR DEMOLITION PERMIT ISSUANCE: 3.c Packet Pg. 218 12. Applicant submitted a C.3 certification in entitlement that required an additional certification to be done in the Building Permit stage. As such, please provide third party certification of the C.3 design prior to Building or Grading permit approval by Public Works. Please be sure to provide a stamped and signed letter by the third-party certifier that mentions the plans/documents reviewed (with dates/versions mentioned) and confirms the plans are in compliance with MRP 2.0 Provision C.3 and City of Palo Alto Municipal Code 16.11. Please be sure to have the third-party review and approve this form: http://www.scvurppp- w2k.com/pdfs/1112/SCVURPPP_C.3_Data_Form_final_2012.pdf. 13. LOGISTICS PLAN: Provide a logistics plan for review and approval by the Planning Director or designee and the Public Works Director or designee as part of the building permit for demolition, grading and excavation. Plan shall include the following, but not limited to, construction fence, construction entrance and exit, stockpile areas, equipment and material storage area, workers parking area, construction office trailer, temporary bathroom, measures for dewatering if needed, crane location, working hours, contractor’s contact information, truck traffic route, setbacks from environmentally sensitive areas, erosion and sediment control measures to be implemented during construction. See link for more information and requirements http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2719. 14. STREET TREES: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. PRIOR TO BUILDING OR GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT ISSUANCE: 15. Bicycle parking required for the proposed development cannot be located in the right-of-way. Relocate this bicycle parking within private property. 16. Note on utility plan indicates that the planters in front of the building drain through thru-curb drains. Please show these on the plan and call out City standard detail for thru-curb drains and include that City standard detail in the plan set. 17. GRADING PERMIT: The site plan must include a table that shows the earthwork (cut and fill) volumes. If the total is more than 100 cubic yards, a grading permit will be required. An application and plans including Rough Grading and Shoring Plans are submitted to Public Works separately from the building permit plan set. The application and guidelines are available on our Public Works website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 18. GRADING AND DRAINAGE PLAN: Provide a separate Grading and Drainage Plan prepared by a qualified licensed engineer, surveyor or architect. Plan shall be wet-stamped and signed by the same. Plan shall include the following: existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes (cut and fill in CY), pad, finished floor, elevator pit elevation, base flood elevation (if applicable) grades along the project conforms, property lines, or back of walk. See PAMC Section 16.28.110 for 3.c Packet Pg. 219 additional items. Projects that front directly into the public sidewalk, shall include grades at the doors or building entrances. Provide drainage flow arrows to demonstrate positive drainage away from building foundations at minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC Section 1804.3. Label the downspouts, splashblocks (2-feet long min) and any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubble-up locations. Include grate elevations, low points and grade breaks. In no case shall drainage across property lines exceed that which existed prior to grading per 2013 CBC Section J109.4. For additional grading and drainage detail design See Grading and Drainage Plan Guidelines for Residential Development. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 19. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter or connect directly to the City’s infrastructure, the Grading and Drainage plan shall direct downspout runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. The conceptual plans provided show 3 direct connections into the storm drain system. 20. The following note shall be shown on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan: “Any construction within the city right-of-way must have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 21. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite or within private property. 22. Any above grade structure such as private signs, backflow preventers, transformers, utility cabinets, irrigation equipment, charge stations, etc or below ground grease interceptors that serve the private development shall all be located completely within private property. Plot and clearly label these structures on the Site Plan and Utility Plan. 23. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. At minimum the curb and gutter and sidewalk along the project frontage shall be shown to be replaced. 24. PAVEMENT: Cambridge Avenue was resurfaced in 2012, as such any cutting into the pavement will trigger additional pavement requirements. Add the following note to the Site Plan adjacent to the public right-of-way: “Applicant and contractor will be responsible for resurfacing portions of Cambridge Avenue based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full width of the street along the project frontage may be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 3.c Packet Pg. 220 25. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. To determine the impervious surface area that is being disturbed, provide the quantity on the site plan. 26. STORMWATER POLLUTION PREVENTION – The plan set shall include the “Pollution Prevention – It’s Part of the Plan” An electronic copy of this plan is available on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 27. STORM DRAIN LOGO: The applicant is required to paint the “No Dumping/Flows to Matedero Creek” logo in blue color on a white background, adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. A deposit may be required to secure the return of the stencil. Include the directions to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. Include maintenance of these logos in the Hazardous Materials Management Plan, if such a plan is part of this project. For any new public catch basins in the public road right-of-way, applicant shall place medallions next to the inlets. Medallions are also available from Environmental Compliance Division. 28. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to building or grading permit issuance. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. 29. Proposed trash area needs to drain to the sanitary sewer. Demonstrate this on the plans. 30. Abandoned driveway approach will need to be replaced with City standard sidewalk, curb and gutter to match adjacent. 31. Civil site plan shall call out City standard details as applicable (i.e. Sidewalk, curb and gutter, driveway approach etc) and include those City Standard details in the plan set. 32. Parking garage shall drain to a sand-oil separator and then to sanitary sewer. 33. Proposed material for storm drain in the right-of-way should be called out (and should be per Public Works Engineering Specs) and City standard detail for proposed storm drain manhole should be called out and included in the plan set. PRIOR TO BUILDING PERMIT FINAL: 3.c Packet Pg. 221 34. STORM WATER TREATMENT: At the time of installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of any occupancy permit, a third-party reviewer shall also submit to the City a certification for approval that the project’s permanent measures were constructed and installed in accordance to the approved permit drawings. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 35. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b)* verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. * (b above) Other information. The Building Permit submittal set shall be accompanied by the project site arborist’s typed certification letter that the plans have incorporated said design changes for consistency with City Standards, Regulations and information: a. Applicant/project arborist’s final revised Tree Protection Report (TPR) with building permit level mitigation measures, (e.g., resolve grading proximity issues with Public trees; exact TPZ scaled in feet). Provide plan revision directions to minimize root cutting conflict that are obvious in the civil, sidewalk improvement sheets. See TPR below. b. Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual Construction Standards, Section 2.00 and PAMC 8.10.080. 36. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T‐1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full‐sized, Sheet T‐1 (Tree Protection‐it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1‐7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s construction level TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T‐1 (T‐2, T‐3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, 3.c Packet Pg. 222 using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T‐1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35‐Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 37. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: In addition to showing TPZ fencing, add the following Notes on the specified Plan Sheets. a. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T‐1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. b. Note #2. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650‐ 496‐5953) for any work on Public Trees” 38. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT‐OF‐WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly‐owned or Protected) to be removed as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. a. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650‐496‐5953).” 39. NEW RIGHT‐OF‐WAY TREES‐‐PLAN REQUIREMENTS. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in‐ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650‐496‐5953).” b. Landscape Plans shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and include relevant Standard Planting Dwg. #603, #603a or #604 (reference which), and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. c. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30‐inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2‐ inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1‐ inch. d. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right‐of‐way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” 3.c Packet Pg. 223 e. Automatic irrigation shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. f. Engineered Soil Mix (ESM). As approved, Engineered Soil Mix base material shall be utilized in specified areas, such as a sidewalk base to achieve expected shade tree rooting potential and maximum service life of the sidewalk, curb, parking surfaces and compacted areas. Plans and Civil Drawings shall use CPA Public Works Engineering ESM Specifications, Section 30 and Standard Dwg. #603a. Designated areas will be identified by cross‐hatch or other symbol, and specify a minimum of 24" depth. The technology may be counted toward any credits awarded for LEED or Sustainable Sites certification ratings. DURING CONSTRUCTION 40. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work a written verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section (derek.sproat@cityofpaloalto.org). The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 41. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air‐spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2‐1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 42. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, (name of certified arborist of record and phone #), or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 43. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T‐1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 3.c Packet Pg. 224 44. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1‐5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20‐2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 45. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY (Temporary or final) 46. LANDSCAPE CERTIFICATION LETTER. The Planning Department shall be in receipt of a verification letter that the Landscape Architect has inspected all trees, shrubs, planting and irrigation and that they are installed and functioning as specified in the approved plans. 47. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650‐329‐2441) to inspect and verify Special Conditions relating to the conditions for structures, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. POST CONSTRUCTION 48. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices‐Pruning (ANSI A300‐2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. UTILITIES WATER/ GAS/ WASTEWATER PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF DEMOLITION PERMIT 49. Prior to demolition, the applicant shall submit the existing water/wastewater fixture unit loads (and building as-built plans to verify the existing loads) to determine the capacity fee credit for the existing load. If the applicant does not submit loads and plans they may not receive credit for the existing water/wastewater fixtures. 50. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued by the building inspection division after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. FOR BUILDING PERMIT 3.c Packet Pg. 225 51. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 52. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes, electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 53. The existing sewer main is 5.4” PE, only 4” sewer lateral connections allowed. 54. There is a 24” PCC storm drain main and electrical underground in front of the properties, this may cause conflicts with water service, gas service, and especially sewer lateral. 55. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. 56. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 57. The applicant shall be responsible for installing and upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 58. The applicant's engineer shall submit flow calculations and system capacity study showing that the on-site and off-site water and sanitary sewer mains and services will provide the domestic, irrigation, fire flows, and wastewater capacity needed to service the development and adjacent properties during anticipated peak flow demands. Field testing may be required to determined current flows and water pressures on existing water main. Calculations must be signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The applicant is required to perform, at his/her expense, a flow monitoring study of the existing sewer main to determine the remaining capacity. The report must include existing peak flows or depth of flow based on a minimum monitoring period of seven continuous days or as determined by the senior wastewater engineer. The 3.c Packet Pg. 226 study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 59. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 60. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 61. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities cross connection inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 62. Existing wastewater laterals that are not plastic (ABS, PVC, or PE) shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 63. Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 64. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 65. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 66. A separate water meter and backflow preventer is required to irrigate the approved landscape plan. Show the location of the irrigation meter on the plans. This meter shall be designated as an irrigation account an no other water service will be billed on the account. The irrigation and landscape plans submitted with the application for a grading or building permit shall conform to the City of Palo Alto water efficiency standards. 67. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault 3.c Packet Pg. 227 with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 68. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans. 69. A new water service line installation for fire system usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 70. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform to utilities standard details. 71. A new sewer lateral installation per lot is required. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans 72. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 73. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. 74. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 75. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout at the front of the building. This cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 76. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. UTILITIES ELECTRIC ENGINEERING 3.c Packet Pg. 228 77. Easement is required for the transformer (10’x10’) and for the conduit 5’ corridor. 78. Applicant shall include all the comment on page 12 of the marked-up plan provided to the applicant on September 6, 2017. 79. Applicant shall include a page with the following CPAU electric standard: DT‐SS‐U‐1002, DT‐SS‐ U‐1003, DT‐SS‐C‐1005, DT‐CL‐U‐1031 and DT‐SE‐U1032. 80. There is an existing CPAU fiber box in front of the property. The applicant should consider installing a communication conduit to this box for future CPAU dark fiber service (the current tenant has CPAU dark fiber service). BUILDING 81. An analysis of the existing partition at the property boundary will be required for both seismic and gravity loads acting together, and for the fire rating required by both its location to the property boundary and the use of it to support fire rated assemblies above. 82. The east stair enclosure at all floor levels appears to include doors that encroach the required landing areas. Encroachment of these landings is limited by any door to ½ the required width. 83. Plans shall clearly show all occupancy separations and fire ratings of supporting members to be of the same or higher fire ratings. 84. Service sinks are required at each floor level and accessible to all occupants. 85. High/low drinking fountains shall be provided in alcoves at each floor level. 86. Please note on the plans that no exposed wood on roofs is allowed. This includes piping supports, screen wall elements, and equipment stands. 87. Please note on the plans that copper condensate piping is not allowed. 88. A permanent roof access ladder shall be provided. PUBLIC ART 89. Prior to the issuance of a Building permit, the applicant will be required to pay the public art fee. 90. The fee amount will be confirmed based on the building permit valuations on file at the time of application. 3.c Packet Pg. 229 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 380-400 Cambridge, 15PLN-00249 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth None 17,500 sf (0.40 acres) 17,500 sf (0.40 acres) Minimum Front Yard (2) 0 - 10' to create an 8' - 12' effective sidewalk width 10-12 feet 10-47 feet Rear Yard None None 10 feet Interior Side Yard None West: None East: 0 feet to 10 feet West: None East: 10 feet Street Side Yard None Not Applicable Not Applicable Special Setback None None None Build-To-Lines 50% of the frontage built setback. (87’-6”) 94% (170 feet) 94% (170 feet) Max. Building Height 35 feet when within 150 feet of a residential district (other than RM-40 or PC Zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 22 feet to 26 feet 35 feet Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone Limited to the first 10 feet from the property line (no daylight plane beyond 10 feet). (10 feet initial height and 45-degree angle. Not Applicable Conforms Max. Site Coverage None 94% (16,375 sf) 85% (14,850 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 2.0:1 (35,000 square feet) 1.83:1 (32,083 sf) 2.00:1 (35,000 sf) Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.10.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Commercial/Parking Assessment District Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking Retail: Intensive 1 per 240 square feet 2,711 new sf/240 = 11 spaces Office: 1 per 310 square feet 205 new sf/310 = 1 space Project is part of Assessment District 2 spaces 15 spaces 3.d Packet Pg. 230 Bicycle Parking Retail: 1 per 2,400 sf Long term = 20% (0.36) Short term = 80% (1.42) Office: 1 per 3,100 sf Long term = 60% (5.56) Short term = 40% (3.7) None 6 long term 6 short term Off-Street Loading Space Retail: None Office: 1 space None None* * Request a waiver from requirement pursuant to PAMC 18.52.050 Adjustments by Director Table 4. 3.d Packet Pg. 231 RESPONSE TO COMMENTS MADE AT ARB MEETING OF DECEMBER 20, 2017 400 CAMBRIDGE, PALO ALTO INTRODUCTION The 400 Cambridge development includes the construction of a new 3-story mixed-use building at 400 Cambridge Avenue, Palo Alto, California. This project includes the assembly of three (3) adjacent parcels and the construction of a new building with ground level retail M-Mercantile, two upper office floors B- Office, with some accessory assembly space A-3 Assembly including exterior decks. The following narrative summarizes the comments made at the ARB Hearing on 20 December 2017 and subsequent meetings with the adjoining residential neighbors. The resultant design modifications appear in the revised submittal dated October 1, 2018 Several key design modifications were made to address ARB and public comments at. Special attention has been paid to the health concerns of the neighbor to the north of the property as well as the light and air concerns of the neighbors on the west side of the property. The ARB and public comments and the design responses are described below. ARB AND PUBLIC COMMENTS The design presented at the last ARB meeting was criticized for its overall massing and light hand in breaking up the apparent volume of the building along Cambridge Avenue. Additional modulation in the façade was suggested. Further criticism focused on the request to exceed the 35 foot maximum building height. It was encouraged to put an emphasis on the pedestrian experience along Cambridge by breaking up the massing at the pedestrian level and seeking opportunities for bench seating and planting along the street front elevation. The goal is to make the base of the building more “pedestrian friendly” with increased pockets of interest. A comment was made on whether the on-site truck loading zone requirement should be waived. Additional comments included (1) concerns about the potential impact on the 420 Cambridge loft property to the west, (2) screening along the north property line, and (3) use of native planting, and (4) potential for demising of the office space. CHANGES TO MASSING The building mass was addressed by reducing the height to the code compliant 35 ft, changing façade materials, and providing more façade modulation as described below. 3.e Packet Pg. 232 • The building design hints at two complementary but independent building masses on Cambridge straddling a central office entry element to break up the apparent massing and bulk along Cambridge Avenue. The west building mass is further divided into two, which contributes to reducing the perceived scale of the overall building on Cambridge; • The material on the front façade has been changed from stucco to brick to provide more warmth and texture. This also fits well into the context of the California Avenue area where there are other other examples of brick structures of various styles; • The building mass sets back 11 ft at the front corner of the east façade to provide open space on Cambridge Avenue at the corner retail suite; • Undulations in the street front building façade at the ground level introduce pockets of interest at the street/pedestrian level which improve the pedestrian experience along Cambridge. One of the recessed areas is the entry to the office building and another introduces outdoor seating to support the adjacent ground level retail; • Two levels of steel decks are introduced on the east elevation. They provide amenity space to the adjoining tenant suites and add interest to the building’s character and massing. The decks are located at the front of the building and do not effect the adjoining residential properties to the rear; • Portions of the west façade have been set back 10 ft to maintain light and air access to the two adjacent residential units at 420 Cambridge. These setback areas will be landscaped to enhance their appearance. (Drawings and text are provided in the October 1, 2018 ARB submittal, pgs. 67 to 73.). IMPROVEMENTS TO THE PEDESTRIAN EXPERIENCE • As described above, the building massing undulates along the street front façade to provide pockets of interest and soften the building face at the pedestrian level; • The brick façade will create more interest than stucco at the pedestrian level; • The set back at central entry to office building allows space for planting and benches, while emphasizing the two-story building lobby volume; • The set back on the east elevation provides covered open space for outdoor seating and tables that support adjacent ground level retail and provides a functional amenity space that will activate Cambridge; • Landscaping within perimeter planters are introduced at the niches or pockets along Cambridge Avenue ON-SITE LOADING ZONE At the request of the ARB an analysis of on-site truck loading was undertaken and is presented in the October ARB submittal pgs. 63 to 66. In summary, it is requested that the loading zone requirement be waived by the Director because (1) the physical constraints of the relatively small site impose serious limitations, (2) there are sufficient (four) loading zones on Cambridge, (3) on-site loading will create conditions that are in conflict with the Comprehensive Plan, and (4) on-site truck loading will see little use. 3.e Packet Pg. 233 LANDSCAPE The proposed design includes landscape in the north and west set backs as well as planters along Cambridge. The ARB expressed a desire for natives. However, the health requirements of the neighbor to the north have greatly limited the pallet of possibilities. DEMISING The office floor plates have been designed for demising flexibility. Possible layouts are depicted on pgs. 15 and 16 of the October submittal. In addition, multiple ground floor entries will facilitate division of the retail space. OTHER CHANGES AND CLARIFICATIONS • Building Structure – Structure proposed to be reinforced concrete with flat plate floor system to maximize clear area between floor and underside of deck; • Wall and Roof Construction – o Walls to be light gauged metal framing with face brick veneer; o Decks to be galvanized steel decks with painted finish; o Roof construction incorporates modified bitumen roofing with cap sheet to meet cool roof requirements; • Glazing – o All glazing shall be high efficiency 1” insulated with low-e coating; o Ultra-clear, low-iron glass at the ground level retail and building lobby; o Levels 2+3 – clear low-e glazing with a very light “grey tint” (Vitro Architectural Glass, Z- 50) October 10, 2018 3.e Packet Pg. 234 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8593) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/21/2017 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 380 Cambridge Avenue: New Commercial Building (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 380 Cambridge [15PLN- 00249]: Consideration of Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings Totaling 32,083 Square Feet and to Construct a New Three-Story Commercial Building Totaling 35,000 Square Feet. The Request Includes a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Project to Exceed the Height Limit by 8 Feet. In Addition, There is a Request to Waive an Off-Street Loading Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial with Retail Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Hillary Gitelman Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Conduct a public hearing and continue the item to a date uncertain. Report Summary This is the first ARB review of the formal application for demolition of three commercial buildings (32,083 square feet) and construction of one three-story commercial building (35,000 square feet) at 380-410 Cambridge Avenue. The project includes a request to waive the one required off-street loading space and an alternative that requests a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for increased height to accommodate taller floor to ceiling space for each floor level. The project is located within the Retail Preservation Combining District and proposes retail space on the ground floor with office space on the upper two floors. The project was the 2 Packet Pg. 9 3.f Packet Pg. 235 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 subject of a Preliminary ARB meeting in March of 2015, which did not contemplate a DEE or loading zone waiver. Since then there has been two zoning code changes that affected the project and as a result, the project has been revised. The purpose of this report is to provide a summary of the project requests and seeks direction from the ARB for a project recommendation at a subsequent meeting. Background Project Information Owner: Cambridge Investments, LLC/Alhouse Deaton Management Architect: Michael J. Castro Representative: Steve Pierce Legal Counsel: Not Identified Property Information Address: 380-410 Cambridge Avenue Neighborhood: Evergreen Park Lot Dimensions & Area: 100’ x 175’ (17,500 sf) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: None Historic Resource(s): None (HRE completed and found not eligible for listing) Existing Improvement(s): 32,083 sf; 2-stories; 22-26 feet; year built Existing Land Use(s): Office and Retail Uses Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-30 (Multi-family Residential) West: RM-30 (Multi-family Residential)/PTOD (Pedestrian Transit Oriented Development) East: PF (Public Parking Lot) South: CC (2) (Offices) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 10 3.f Packet Pg. 236 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps, CNES/Airbus/DigitalGlobe/US Geological Survey/USDA Farm Agency, 2017 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CC(2)(R) Comp. Plan Designation: Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable 2 Packet Pg. 11 3.f Packet Pg. 237 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Applicable, as discussed below Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary ARB: March 5, 2015 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/46159 Video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oDgEV6BgPp8&start=3897&width=420&height=315 Project Description The proposed project involves demolition of three mid-century modern designed commercial buildings (on three separate contiguous parcels) totaling 32,083 square feet (sf) and construction of a new three-story 35,000 sf contemporary designed commercial building. The underlying lots will be merged to accommodate the project. The project provides 14 parking spaces within an enclosed garage. The project includes two alternatives: Alternative 1: A project that is consistent with the City’s development standards except for a waiver of one off-street loading space (Sheets 1 through 57). The overall height of the project is 35 feet. Alternative 2: A project that proposes increasing the height of the building to accommodate greater floor to ceiling heights and a waiver of one off-street loading space (Sheets 58 through 63). The overall height of the project is 43 feet. Site Summary The project is located near the intersection of Cambridge Avenue and Birch Street within the Evergreen Park neighborhood. The California Avenue Train Station is within one-quarter of a mile of the project site and the site is one block west of California Avenue. The project site is 17,500 square feet in area and comprises of three lots. The project will maintain the existing 10 foot wide sidewalk along Cambridge Avenue and provide three short-term bicycle racks in between the existing street trees. The existing curb cut along the northern side of the property 2 Packet Pg. 12 3.f Packet Pg. 238 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 will be removed and would likely result in one additional on-street parking space. However, to accommodate the location of the garage entry on the opposite side of the proposed building, a new curb cut will require the removal (and replacement) of one street tree and the removal of at least one on-street parking space. The first floor of the proposed building includes the parking garage, which is fully enclosed and located behind the retail tenant spaces and accessed from Cambridge Avenue. This entry will have a gate that will be open during business hours. Fourteen parking spaces are provided on- site. The remaining 102 required parking spaces were previously accounted for through the California Avenue Parking District. The garage also includes a trash/recycling area, an electrical room, a stairwell and long-term bicycle parking. Also on the first floor are two retail spaces containing 2,482 and 1,986 square feet, as well as a lobby and common area to support the upper floor office spaces. These spaces have direct access to the Cambridge Avenue sidewalk. The site also includes a 10-foot setback along the northeast abutting the public parking lot that serves as some open space area as well as access to utilities. In addition, the site includes a 10- foot setback in the rear, which provides a buffer between the building and the adjacent residential uses. No setback is provided along the southwest property line adjacent to an existing mixed-use building. Landscape opportunities for the site are limited to the setback areas, which would include low shrubs, small trees and in the rear bamboo plantings. The second floor includes 14,220 sf for office uses and the third floor includes 14,478 sf for office uses. A 121 sf deck is proposed on the third floor facing Cambridge Avenue. Roof top equipment is located centrally and fully screened from adjacent vantage points. Street trees are to be preserved except for the one that was noted previously to accommodate the new driveway into the garage. Additionally, all the vegetation on neighboring properties would be preserved. Elevations The project provides contemporary architecture for a commercial building with differing visual elements including a balcony, recessed entries for the retail spaces, a centralized entry at the ground level for the office uses, uniform fenestration and awnings along the street frontage. The portion of the building where the garage entry is located includes different fenestration treatment providing visual interest. Three sides of the building provide visual attention. One side is directly against an adjacent building where it is not visible from any vantage point. 2 Packet Pg. 13 3.f Packet Pg. 239 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Source: Project Plans, 2017 Half of the side of the building facing the public parking lot includes fenestration matching the front, while the other half is covered with stucco. The lower part of the building towards the rear includes a trellis flush with the wall to accommodate vertical vine growth. This side of the building includes the 10-foot setback that will have Japanese Maple trees. Source: Project Plans, 2017 The rear of the building includes fenestration on the upper floors. There is a 10-foot setback that would provide space for bamboo plant screening. Design Alternative 2 (Sheets 58 through 63) The applicant has submitted building design alternatives that increase the floor to ceiling height on each floor. This extends the building from 35 feet in height, permitted in this zoning district, to 43 feet in height. The interest for increased height is to provide greater floor to ceiling clearances for the retail and office spaces. Applicant has indicated an interest in seeking approval of this design alternative through a DEE. However, based on staff’s review of the code this request does not meet the intent, purpose or applicability requirements for a DEE. Applicant would need to seek a text amendment or variance to secure approval for increased height, and based on available information, staff is unable to support either request. Staff recommends the Board focus its review and attention on the Alternative 1 plans that include a code compliant building height. 2 Packet Pg. 14 3.f Packet Pg. 240 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to consider an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Design Enhancement Exception (DEE): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.050. DEE applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendation are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. DEE projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one of the findings requires project redesign or denial. The findings to consider a DEE application are provided in Attachment B. Modification to Off-Street Loading Requirements: The process for evaluating this type of request is set forth in PAMC 18.52.080(e). The director may modify the quantity or dimensions of off-street loading requirements for non-residential development based on existing or proposed site conditions; availability of alternative means to address loading and unloading activity; and, upon finding that: 1) the off-street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; and 2) the use of shared on-street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one loading space. Only one off-street loading space may be waived. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The surrounding neighborhood is characterized by medium intensity development, including two to three-story commercial, mixed-use buildings, surface parking and structured parking facilities. To the rear of the site, there are medium density multi-family neighborhood with primarily two-story buildings. Most of the architectures within the vicinity are mid-century 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 15 3.f Packet Pg. 241 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 designed, except for the immediately adjacent mixed-use development that is a contemporary designed building. The proposed contemporary design of the building would be comparable to other newer buildings within the area. At the same time, the colors of the new building are muted, which would help the building blend within the district. Source: Project Plans, 2017 The site is located within the CC(2)(R) zoning district. Recently the Retail (R) combining district was amended to require ground-floor retail and eating and service-oriented commercial development on the ground floors. The maximum height allowed for structures in the district is 37 feet, however, if the property is located adjacent to certain residential districts, then the height is limited to 35 feet. Since the site is adjacent to RM-30 district (to the rear of the site), the height for the property is limited to 35 feet. This is the situation for many of the properties on the northwest side of Cambridge Avenue. This condition does not apply to other parts of the district since those properties abut PC or RM-40 districts. Cambridge Avenue is a secondary commercial area that supports California Avenue. The primary commercial use along Cambridge Avenue is professional office with some personal service commercial. Cambridge Avenue also includes surface and structured parking facilities. At the intersection of El Camino Real and Cambridge Avenue there are retail establishments. The uses are different one block away along California Avenue, where there are more retail, restaurant and personal service uses. In the area, floor to ceiling heights at the ground level are mostly consistent in professional office buildings and office buildings that contain some personal service uses. These buildings do not provide tall floor to ceiling heights. However, for single-story commercial buildings, the floor to ceiling heights are more generous. Given the use characteristics of Cambridge Avenue, it is likely that personal service uses would continue to locate there in the future. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C and D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Retail Shopping (R) Combining District 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 16 3.f Packet Pg. 242 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The combining district requires that retail, eating and service-oriented commercial development be located on the ground floor. These uses typically activate the sidewalk and streetscape creating a friendly pedestrian ambiance. While not designed to accomidate uses with cooking facilities, the project is designed with transparent windows on the ground floor, and appears consistent with the (R) combining district standards. Proximity to residential The project is adjacent to multi-family residential. Alternative 1 is consistent with the zoning requirements as it relates to development standards that are sensitive to proximity, such as height, setbacks, and daylight plane standards. Alternative 2 is inconsistent with the height requirement. Design Alternatives While Alternative 1 intends to meet the zoning requirements with the waiver from on-site loading, the applicant sought to provide an alternative plan to accommodate increased floor to ceiling heights. Instead of integrating this design into a single proposal, the applicant created an Alternative 2 (Sheets 58 through 63 of the plan set), which is the same as Alternative 1, except with increased height. The following table summarizes the differences in floor to ceiling height between the alternatives: Floor Alternative 1 (35 feet overall) Alternative 2 (43 feet overall) Floor to ceiling Floor to dropped ceiling Floor to ceiling Floor to dropped ceiling 1st Floor 9’-5” 7’-8” 12’-5” 10’-8” 2nd Floor 8’-5” 6’-8” 10’-9” 9’ 3rd Floor 8’-5” 6’-8” 10’-9” 9’ As noted earlier, staff does not believe the requested height increase is permitted with a DEE. Context-Based Criteria The context-based design criteria include an emphasis on how the building façade interacts with the streetscape. A retail designed ground floor façade would typically include elements that meet the criteria. In contrast office uses tend to include opaque windows and do not engage with the sidewalk or streetscape since its uses are internalized to the building. Alternative 1 appears consistent with the context-based criteria. The project includes retail space on the first floor and in doing so provides pedestrian friendly design and relationship with the street through the placement of clear fenestration, and recessed entries with metal awnings. The project incorporates parking, solid waste/recycling within the footprint of the building. Retail spaces have direct entries to the street, while the office uses (situated on the second and third floors) have a centralized entry on the ground floor with a lobby. 2 Packet Pg. 17 3.f Packet Pg. 243 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 The project includes a flat roof with strong horizontal and vertical elements providing articulation and visual interest at the parapet. The elevation planes are further articulated by recessed entries at the ground level, aluminum-framed fenestration and a balcony on the third level facing Cambridge Avenue. Metal awnings provide pedestrian level scale and opportunities for tenant signage placement. The segment of the building above the garage entry provides different fenestration treatment to provide additional visual interest and reduce mass along Cambridge Avenue. The building also meets the minimum setback requirements. Alternative 2 has challenges meeting the context-based criteria because the scale and massing of the building would be inconsistent with the character of surrounding development. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Community Commercial, which includes a wide variety of commercial uses such as shops, offices and banks. There are Comprehensive Plan Elements (Land Use and Community Design & Business and Economic) policies and goals that are applicable to the project. A subsequent meeting will evaluate the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project is consistent with the City’s Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. The Plan creates the framework to increase walking and bicycling and other non-motorized transportation. This includes but not limited to programs to enhance crossings and bike lanes. The project is consistent with the plan in that it provides short-term bicycle parking at street level and long- term bicycle parking within the garage. The project also includes a design that fosters a pedestrian friendly streetscape. The project is subject to transportation impact fees that will fund projects identified in the Plan. Paying the fee and providing the bicycle parking supports the objectives of the Plan. The number of bicycle parking spaces provided is consistent with the number that is required by the PAMC. A condition of approval would require that short-term parking be located on private property and not within the public right-of-way. Vehicle Parking The project site is located within the California Avenue Parking District. The site has previously met its obligation to the district through an assessment. In addition, the existing layout of the site includes two on-site parking spaces. The project includes the net addition of 2,917 square feet. Of that total, 2,599 is attributed towards new retail space, while 381 square feet is 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 18 3.f Packet Pg. 244 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 attributed towards office space. The new net square footage is subject to the parking requirements of the district. Based on the requirements of the district, the project requires 12 additional parking spaces. Vehicle parking is provided on the first floor in a garage located behind the retail/lobby spaces. Fourteen parking spaces are provided in the garage meeting the requirements of the PAMC. Loading Space According to the PAMC, the project requires one off-street loading space. The applicant requests that there be an adjustment for this requirement (PAMC 18.52.080(e)). In order to approve such an adjustment, the Director must be able to find that: 1) the off-street loading requirement may conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access, or urban design principles; maximum reduction is one loading space; and 2) and the use of shared on-street loading would not conflict with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to site design planning, circulation and access or urban design principles; maximum reduction in one loading space. According to PAMC 18.54.020C, each off-street loading space needs to consist of a rectangular area with a dimension of 12’-0” wide by 45’-0” in length. Each space needs to have adequate access including turning, maneuvering and have access to a public street at all times. The requirement for a single off-street loading space on site would occupy a significant portion of the project’s frontage along Cambridge Avenue. The loading space would likely require two curb cuts (one of which could be shared with the on-site parking facility). That would preclude the siting of a building that would meet the Context-Based criteria. For instance, the building would not be located along the sidewalk and parking would likely be in view from the street. This would conflict with the Comprehensive Plan goals and policies to have centers be focal points and encourage a design that would reduce the effectiveness of a street frontage that contributes to retail vitality (Policy L-4.2). The project also preserves existing ground floor retail space (Policy L-2.9) by not siting a loading space on site. Environmental Review An environmental analysis is being prepared for this project and no action is anticipated at this meeting. Staff will return with an evaluation in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on December 7, 2017, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 7, 2017, which is 13 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments 2 Packet Pg. 19 3.f Packet Pg. 245 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 There has been extensive discussion between the resident that lives on the property behind the project site, the applicant and the City since the project was submitted for consideration. Attachment F includes a letter from the resident describing her concern with construction and operational air quality impacts associated with the project. None of these issues rise to the level of CEQA threshold significance, however, throughout the process staff has encouraged dialogue between the two parties and staff continues to encourage such dialogue. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Consultant Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: ARB Findings for Reference (DOCX) Attachment C: Performance Standards (DOCX) Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment E: Applicant's Justification for DEE (PDF) Attachment F: Neighbor Correspondence (DOCX) Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 20 3.f Packet Pg. 246 Attachment G CEQA Categorical Exemption 15332, In-Fill Development Projects Address: 380-400 Cambridge Avenue_______ File #: 15PLN-00249 The project includes the demolition of 32,083 square feet of office and retail space and the construction of 35,000 square feet of office and retail space. The net increase in gross floor area is 2,917 square feet, mostly attributed to retail space. The new building will be three stories in height, which is one more story than the existing buildings. The Class 32 “In-Fill” exemption from CEQA is intended to promote infill development within urbanized areas, and applies to projects meeting the conditions described in this checklist. These conditions derive from CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 and 15300.2. ☒ The project is consistent with the applicable general plan designation and all applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations. (15332(a)) General Plan Designation: CC Community Commercial Zoning Designation: CC (2) Community Commercial Sub-district 2 Design Exceptions Requested? (Circle One) ☒ Yes ☐ No Comments: The project requests an exception to height to allow for more floor to ceiling height for all floors. ☒ The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. (15332(b)) Project site size: 17,500 square feet (0.40-acre) Surrounding uses: Multi-family, mixed-use and commercial developments ☒ The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species. (15332(c)) Referenced data source: California Natural Diversity Database Info (CNDDB) and Comprehensive Plan Map N-1 Comments: The Database identifies a number of sensitive animal and plant species within the Palo Alto Quadrangle, which is a large geographic area that includes the urban portions and portions along the bay and within the foothills. The subject property does not contain the habitat to support these species. ☒ Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality (15332(d)) and would not contribute to a significant cumulative impact caused by successive projects of the same type, in the same place, over time (15300.2(b)). Net new peak hour trips: 17 AM / 7 PM per ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition) VTA TIA Guidelines suggest that projects generating less than 100 new trips per peak hour do not require quantitative analysis, subject to the Congestion Management Program requirements, because they are unlikely to result in noticeable changes in area traffic conditions, even where traffic conditions are already degraded [VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, October 2014]. To be conservative, the City of Palo Alto typically requires a focused traffic analysis that quantifies potential project impacts for projects generating more than 50 trips per peak hour. 3.g Packet Pg. 247 Attachment G The proposed project would (check one): ☒ Generate less than 50 trips per peak hour, or Has been the subject of a quantitative analysis (attached) which indicates no significant impact to area intersections using VTA’s adopted significance criteria. Cumulative Impacts: The build out of downtown Palo Alto (CD zone district) has been planned for and is subject to a development cap established in 1986 (Ord. #3696). Thus, the proposed project, along with other development in the area, will not result in significant cumulative effects beyond those anticipated when the 1998 Comprehensive Plan was adopted. The City is currently updating the 1998 Comprehensive Plan reexamining the downtown cap and undertaking a new cumulative analysis. When this planning effort if completed, the results will inform future decisions. However, the current project is not of a size or scale requiring additional review at this time. ☒ The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services. (15332(d)) The site is within an urban area that is already served by utilities and public services. While utility hook-ups will be required, not expansion in capacity or special services would be required. ☒ The project site is not visible from a scenic highway. I-280 and Skyline Blvd (HWY 35) are the only State scenic highways in Palo Alto and they are not visible from Downtown. (15300.2(d)) ☒ The project site is not on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Sec 65962.5 of the Government Code. (15300.2(e)). References: Envirostor website and Project Phase I ESA. ☒ The project will not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. (15300.2(f)) For purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource listed in, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. Historic Resources on Site: None____________________________________ Adjacent or Nearby Resources: None_________________________________ Comments: The site was a subject of a historic resource evaluation completed in 2015 by Richard Brandi. ☒ There are no unusual circumstances creating the possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA. (15300.2(c)) The proposed project would be required to comply with standard conditions of approval designed to address construction-related impacts. For example, all construction activities are subject to the City’s Noise Ordinance (PAMC 9.10), which limits noise and construction hours; large projects are required to prepare a City approved Construction Logistics Plan that reviews traffic impacts, noise, parking etc.; and Best Management Practices (BMPs) are required of all construction sites to address ground, water and air pollution related to the daily activity. The project may raise concerns due to planning or design issues, but it is within a developed, urban area where any impacts would not rise to the level of significance under CEQA. Additional Comments: 3.g Packet Pg. 248 Attachment G Prepared by: Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Consultant Planner Date: 13 October 2017 3.g Packet Pg. 249 Attachment H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “380-410 Cambridge Ave” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3291 3.h Packet Pg. 250 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9961) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Crown Castle/Verizon - Cluster 3 (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3, Downtown North Multiple Addresses [17PLN-00450 File Uses 250 Hamilton Address]: Request by Sure Site (on behalf of Crown Castle to Lease to Verizon) for Six Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits Poles in the Public Right of Way on Six (6) Wood Utility Poles. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303. Zoning of Node Locations is Public Facilities, Adjacent to These Zones: RM-30 (205 Everett/251 Emerson, 243 Hawthorne and 258 Waverley); RM- D (NP) 482 Everett and 301 Bryant; RM-15 (201 High). For further background information, please refer to the City’s website under the project file number 17PLN-00450). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) conduct a public hearing and take the following action(s): 1. Recommend conditional approval of six Wireless Communication Facilities proposed by Crown Castle for deployment in the Downtown North neighborhood (known as ‘Cluster 3’). More specifically, “small cell nodes” comprised of pole top antennas and equipment mounted onto six existing wood utility poles adjacent to the following addresses: Node 20 (pole #6474) adjacent to 205 Everett Av (also near 251 Emerson St), Node 21m1 (pole #6263 adjacent to 301 Bryant St (also near 311 Everett Av), Node 22m2 (pole #6288) adjacent to 258 Waverley St, 4 Packet Pg. 251 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Node 23 (pole #6350) adjacent to 482 Everett Av, Node 24 (pole #6378) adjacent to 243 Hawthorne Av, and Node 32 (pole #6492) adjacent to 201 High St. Report Summary This report provides background information for the first formal ARB meeting on Crown Castle’s “Cluster” of six wireless communication facilities (WCF), ‘small cell nodes’ in the Downtown North neighborhood (aka Crown Castle Cluster 3). The proposed locations are six wood utility poles within public street rights-of-way (application file 17PLN-00450). More WCF-related information and links to project status can be found here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/wireless_communication_facilities/default.asp. Interested parties may also sign up for updates at the aforementioned website. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto (Owner of Wood Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles in the Right-of-Way) Architect: Crown Castle Representative: Rochelle Swanson (Sure Site) and Sharon James (Crown Castle) Legal Counsel: Michael Shonafelt, Newmeyer & Dillon LLP Property Information Address: Public rights-of-way frontages at 205 Everett, 243 Hawthorne, 258 Waverley, 482 Everett, 301 Bryant, and 201 High (ca 1906 deemed potentially eligible California Register) Neighborhood: Downtown North Neighborhood Lot Dimensions & Area: Not Applicable Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes Historic Resource(s): Poles, no; Adjacent properties are eligible for National and California Registers (205 & 482 Everett); or potentially eligible for listing (301 Bryant). Existing Improvement(s): Six existing wood utility poles Existing Land Use(s): Residential, Commercial, Park Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Multiple-Family Residential Zones: RM-30: 205 Everett/251 Emerson, 243 Hawthorne and 258 Waverley; RM-D (NP): 482 Everett and 301 Bryant; and RM-15: 201 High. Location Map: File #17PLN-00450 – – to see zoning map please see Attachment A 4 Packet Pg. 252 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Crown Castle/Verizon Project Plans, October 30, 2018 Note that Node 22m2 (next to 258 Waverley) replaced previously proposed Node 22 (near 386 Everett). Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Public rights of way within multiple residential zoning districts: RMD (NP), RM15, RM30 Comp. Plan Designation: Multiple Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Near residential uses or districts Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: On July 25, 2011 Council approved, and NextG Networks subsequently executed, a Master License Agreement (the “MLA”) and Exhibits for third party access to and use of City-controlled spaces on utility poles and streetlight poles and in conduits for the purpose of providing wireless communications facilities services in Palo Alto: 4 Packet Pg. 253 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/28100. Crown Castle then acquired NextG Networks, Inc. through a merger with its subsidiary Crown Castle NG Acquisitions Corp in 2012. PTC: None HRB: None ARB: September 21, 2017: Preliminary Review (application 17PLN-00193) of conceptual siting criteria and project design. The agenda, staff report, minutes, and video of the ARB meeting can be found at the following weblinks: Agenda: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61859 Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61856 Video: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-70/ Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61851 Administrative Review: None Project Description The proposed “Cluster” is comprised of six (6) WCF small cell nodes located in the Downtown North neighborhood, as shown on the map on the previous page and Attachment A.1 The nodes would operate together within a larger network of nodes and would generally interface with an existing macro site at 525 University Avenue. Each node requires its own ‘Tier 3’ Wireless Communication Facility permit. The Tier 3 classification is defined under the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code (PAMC). The proposed node locations are grouped together into a cluster for processing to allow coordinated City review and transparency to members of the public about what is proposed in their neighborhoods. The applicant has provided a detailed project description (Attachment B). Crown Castle has two other pending applications: “Cluster 2” (file 17PLN-00433) in the University South neighborhood, and “Cluster 1” (file 17PLN-00416) for three nodes previously proposed near Town and Country Shopping Center. The three Cluster 1 node locations, pole types, and equipment were recently modified with a resubmittal on November 6, 2018, showing two locations along Alma Street next to Caltrain right of way (across Alma from 103 Kellogg Avenue (node 033m2) and 102 Kingsley Avenue (node 035m2)) and one location on City sidewalk fronting 63 Encina Avenue (node 034m1)). Shot Clock and Extension Process Wireless Communication Facility Permit applications have a unique application process involving a “shot clock” timeline, whereby a final decision on each node must take place within 1 The address for this application 17PLN-00450 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the existing streetlight poles and one new pole proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. 4 Packet Pg. 254 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 a specified period of time (150 days for Tier 3 applications), unless the City and applicant mutually agree to a longer time. For the nodes in 17PLN-00450, the parties have agreed that the City will take final actions within 100 days from October 30, 2018, which is the date of the latest resubmittal. Unless a further extension were agreed upon, that timeframe would include the need to make a decision on each node regarding entitlement, as well as process any street work and encroachment permit(s) if a node was conditionally approved. Crown Castle Cluster 3 Six Node Locations The application includes a deployment of six (6) small cell node locations listed in Table 1. Table 1 shows only one design configuration is proposed (with no shrouding of pole side-mounted equipment) and shows which nodes are on street intersections. Images below the table are of each node with respect to existing trees in the planter strip. Figure 1 shows a simplified image of the node design. Figure 2 is a visual simulation of one node, showing the combination of the wooden bayonet extension and the new antenna. Table 1: Six (6) Small Cell Deployment Node Locations in Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3 Node Address of Closest Adjacent APN Proposed Pole Type Design Configuration Source for Power & Fiber Corner Site? (YES/NO) Pole Replacement Proposed (YES/NO) Node 20 205 Everett Street Wood Utility Pole #6474 Config 1 Currently Unclear, Presumed Aerial Drop Yes No Node 21m1 301 Bryant Street (on Everett Avenue) Wood Utility Pole #6263 Config 1 No No Node 22m2 258 Waverley Street Wood Utility Pole pole #6288 Config 1 Yes No Node 23 482 Everett Avenue Wood Utility Pole #6350 Config 1 Yes No Node 24 243 Hawthorne Avenue Wood Utility Pole #6378 Config 1 No No Node 32 201 High Street Wood Utility Pole #6492 Config 1 No No Existing Street Tree Screening and Planting Opportunities: Trees in the public right of way can help screen unattractive equipment and utility poles in the right of way. Crown Castle Cluster 3 plans note street tree locations relative to utility poles proposed for nodes (and state in many instances that tree protection is not required). Below are pole-by-pole images (left) and tree proximity diagrams (right). The applicant did not propose adding trees. Tree planting opportunities are noted below for each node. Below: Node 20 (aka Pole #6474) Node 20 Tree Proximity is 10’ 4 Packet Pg. 255 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Node 20 planter strip existing tree could be replaced with larger tree for better screening. A non-fruiting Arbutus Marina in 24” box size is recommended to replace the small tree approximately 12 feet from the pole. Below: Node 21m1 (aka Pole #6263) Node 21m1 Tree Proximity is 16’ Node 21m1 planter strip existing small tree (Zelkova) can remain but a new 24” box Catalina Ironwood is recommended to replace the rose bush existing on the left side of the pole (as seen from the roadway) for better screening. Below: Node 22m2 (aka Pole #6288) Node 22m2 Tree Proximity is about 23’ 4 Packet Pg. 256 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Node 22m2 planter strip existing tree is mature and would remain to provide screening. The sign to the left of the pole is not a stop sign and could be relocated to between the magnolias to allow an additional tree of a species to be identified by Urban Forestry staff. Below: Node 23 (aka Pole #6350) Node 23 Tree Proximity is 23’ Node 23 planter strip existing trees are mature. The existing shorter pole would be removed. No additional tree is recommended due to sightlines, though a replacement tree for the Camphor tree is a possibility. Below: Node 24 (aka Pole #6378) Node 24 Tree Proximity is 10’ 4 Packet Pg. 257 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Node 23 planter strip existing trees are mature. The small Holly tree to the right could be recommended for replacement. Below Node 32 (aka Pole #6492) Node 32 Tree Proximity is 23’ Node 32 planter strip existing tree is mature. See the Figure 2 image of Node 32 with equipment. The utility boxes in the area would make it difficult to plant an amenity tree near this node. 4 Packet Pg. 258 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Figure 1: Example of Proposed Crown Castle/Verizon Wood Utility Pole Design Configuration 4 Packet Pg. 259 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Figure 2: Wood Utility Pole Node Simulation (Node 32) Formal Review Project Plans and Changes Post Preliminary Review Since their preliminary presentation on September 21, 2017, the applicant team adjusted the location of one node, but has arrived upon the locations presented on the project plans and listed in this staff report. The applicant team made one minor change to the design configuration; the design now includes a shroud design for the wood bayonet. The applicant indicated to staff during a Development Review Committee (DRC) meeting that they wanted to hear feedback from the ARB, the public, and the City’s subconsultants prior to adjusting their plans to respond to staff comments already presented during the review process regarding node locations and facility design configurations. The project plans (Attachment C) show the proposed node locations and show the following above ground equipment within the design configuration: 1 antenna with azimuths facing one or multiple directions, 1 antenna shroud, 1 wooden bayonet extension, 4 Packet Pg. 260 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Safety signage, Cabling in external conduit with a standoff spacer from the wood pole, Standoff bracket kit for mounting equipment to side of pole 2 Remote Radio Units, 1 fuse box, 1 disconnect box. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview The applicant requests the following discretionary approvals for each node location: A Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility (Tier 3 WCF) Permit as outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110(h). Each small cell node must comply with or meet: Development Standards, item (i) of PAMC Section 18.42.110 (Attachment D) Conditions of Approval in PAMC Section 18.42.110(j), Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d), Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c). All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve each Tier 3 WCF permit. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Staff requests the ARB’s recommendations with respect to the Development Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110(i) (Attachment D), Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d) (Attachment E), as well as consistency review with the following plans, guidelines, and requirements to the extent that they are applicable to one or all nodes: Comprehensive Plan (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915) Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928) Urban Forest Master Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/36187) Analysis2, 3 Staff scheduled this Architectural Review Board meeting to facilitate timely processing of the application and to provide the public an opportunity to provide comments in a public meeting. 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 The Palo Alto Municipal Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 4 Packet Pg. 261 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Analysis will continue after the ARB meeting taking into account the feedback provided by the public and the ARB’s recommendation. Staff believes it is possible for the project design to offer improved “stealth” and concealment strategies. Consequently, staff recommends conditions of approval that address these concerns, as discussed below. Federal Preemption & Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal regulations preempt the state and local governments from regulating RF emissions generated by wireless communications facilities. The City’s authority in this area is limited to ensuring that a proposed installation complies with comprehensive emissions standards established by the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). To this end, the city hired an Independent Consultant, CTC, to evaluate the applicant team’s radio frequency safety engineering reports for each site produced by the applicant’s consultant, Jerrold Bushberg of Health and Medical Physics Consulting. Noise The ambient noise environment is noted in the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Comprehensive Plan EIR, and Municipal Code; it is referenced therein in goals, policies, requirements, and thresholds to address potential noise impacts from new development. As currently designed, the proposed six nodes would not be a source of new ambient noise, since the configurations include equipment that can be passively cooled. If configurations were designed to place all equipment in an underground vault, except for the antenna, it would be necessary to analyze the design for consistency with all noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals, policies, and thresholds and compliance with Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 9.10 regarding noise. Maximum Buildout Once a wireless facility is placed on a given pole, the Federal Spectrum Act allows for a streamlined process should a second carrier apply to collocate on an expedited basis, so long as the proposed collocation does not substantially increase the size of the facility or defeat and stealth/camouflage elements of the design. For small cell projects like the subject applications, staff does not believe it is feasible to add equipment without defeating the stealth/camouflage elements of a design. Adjacency to Historic Properties Nodes 20 and 23 are adjacent to historic properties – found to be eligible for National and California Register listing, and on file with the State Office of Historic Preservation. Node 32 is adjacent to a property viewed in 1998 as potentially eligible but not further evaluated to determine if truly eligible for listing on these Registers. The addition of equipment onto existing wood poles would not cause irreversible impacts to the identified historic resources, given proposed conditions requiring either vaulting of equipment or the provision of a shroud to conceal pole-mounted equipment, and improved vegetative screening. Wireless Communication Facility Development Standards and Architectural Review Findings 4 Packet Pg. 262 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 Staff is reviewing the proposed nodes with respect to the Development Standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110, particularly in regard to the utilization of the smallest footprint possible, minimization of overall, mass, and size of the cabinet and equipment enclosure, minimization of visibility, utilization of stealth or camouflage design, and architectural compatibility. Although the applicant has followed along with the discussions for other wireless projects in the City and has resubmitted twice since the City Council applied relevant conditions of approval to Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169), the applicant has not yet addressed the following design concepts: Discussion of vaulting of equipment Ensuring that no sky shall be seen through the mounting and attachment equipment for the antennas and the conduits. Reducing the standoff distance for pole mounted equipment Utilization of shrouding for pole mounted equipment Reducing the volume of pole mounted equipment Maintaining required climbing space while also not having pole mounted equipment face directly toward adjacent private property or extend over sidewalks Maintaining minimum horizontal and vertical clearances: o At least 1.5-feet horizontal clearance between any new or relocated equipment and the adjacent face of curb or edge of traveled way for any public roadway, driveway, or alley, unless 16-feet vertical clearance is provided between equipment and the top of adjacent travel way. o At least 3-feet of horizontal clearance from driveways or corners. o At least 10-feet vertical clearance between the adjacent sidewalk, path, or walkway grade. The photo simulations might not clearly show the visual impact of the proposed nodes, as they are fairly dark, blurry, and do not clearly show materiality. The applicant has not yet provided a photograph of an example installation that utilizes the proposed design and there are no examples of the design within the City to refer to. Staff questions the cohesiveness and integration of: the shape, design, color, and materiality of the antenna shroud, as well as how far it extends from the base of the antenna to the top of the existing pole, the cables in the conduit into the bottom of the antenna shroud, and any separation of the conduit from the top and mid-section of the pole, given that the pole has some tapering. Staff recommends adding conditions of approval to address the design of the shroud, cables, and conduit. The City has an example of these specific concerns being successfully addressed in the Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 application (17PLN-00169). Staff recommends the conditions of approval require either: (1) modification of the proposed pole-mounted equipment design for all nodes to address equipment orientation; or 4 Packet Pg. 263 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 (2) vaulting of the equipment if technically and logistically feasible. Any pole-mounted equipment must: not face the street or adjacent properties, not extend over the sidewalk, be positioned to ensure the equipment meets minimum horizontal and vertical clearances relative to driveways, corners, and curblines, be screened by a painted metal shroud, be arranged to form a slim profile - using vertical alignment of the equipment rather than the current proposal which shows the equipment ‘sandwiching’ the bracket. Similar conditions of approval were required of the pole-mounted equipment Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169). Regarding landscaping compliance and the further screening nodes from public view, there are opportunities to plant ornamental trees at four nodes as discussed earlier in this report. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring planting of additional vegetation (“amenity” trees) in the right of way planter strips or in some cases, replacement of smaller planter strip trees with larger, more robust trees and watering of the trees for a specific time period to ensure trees become established and improve screening of the proposed nodes. Such plantings would help to interrupt direct views of the node, contribute to a more cohesive site specific design, and help maintain neighborhood character. Similar conditions of approval were required of Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 (17PLN-00169). The equipment mounting proposed for Node 23 and Node 24 are near and/or face existing short transfer poles. Staff recommends a condition of approval requiring removal of the transfer poles adjacent to Node 23 and Node 24. Alternatives Alternative Design Configurations Staff has engaged CTC to prepare a report with information on potential alternative design configurations. Staff is currently working with its consultant to complete a draft of this report to share with the ARB. The applicant has not presented an exploration of vaulting technologies for their facility equipment, nor explored how using a smaller antenna size could minimize facility height impacts. As discussed above, staff raised concerns with the applicant during the review process, including in regard to the antenna shroud, conduits, cabling, the design of the pole mounted equipment, and vaulting. Placing equipment in underground vaults or use of pole-mounted equipment within shrouding might be more effective ways to meet the current development 4 Packet Pg. 264 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 standards in PAMC Section 18.42.110, the goals and policies in the current Comprehensive Plan regarding promotion of a bicycle and pedestrian friendly environment, having a cohesive streetscape design, and compatibility with surrounding contexts. Alternative Locations During the review of previous wireless applications, the ARB indicated that street corners were disfavored. At the Preliminary Architectural Review meeting for 17PLN-00193, some ARB members indicated that this could possibly be revisited for metal streetlights, but not necessarily for wood utility poles. Staff would prefer mid-block alternatives and use of street corners remain generally dis-favored by staff. Environmental Review The project is under review in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The City’s environmental consultant is currently preparing the requisite CEQA documentation. It is likely the project will qualify for a Categorical Exemption under CEQA Section 15303, New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures (Class 3) because the project is considered a minor change to existing wood utility poles, and no exceptions to the exemption are present in the project area. Class 3 consists of “construction and location of limited numbers of new, small facilities or structures; installation of small new equipment and facilities in small structures; and the conversion of existing small structures from one use to another where only minor modifications are made in the exterior of the structure.” The Director of Planning and Community Environment, or City Council, would make the CEQA determination prior to making a decision on the project. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on the 23rd of November, 2018, which is 14 days in advance of the ARB meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on November 26th, 2018, which is 11 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments Staff received a significant number of public comments and inquiries by telephone and email. Similar to inquiries in other neighborhoods, multiple members of the public have noted their preference to gather more information before commenting. Staff received comments of support and opposition. Supporters generally cited a desire for improved wireless coverage. Opposed persons generally cited concerns regarding alternatives analysis, aesthetics, noise, compatibility with nearby historic resources, consistency with the City’s undergrounding district policies, and radio frequency emissions/health and safety. 4 Packet Pg. 265 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 Public correspondence received through November 28, 2018 has been compiled and is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4192. Additional correspondence received after this time will be provided at ARB member places at the December 6, 2018 meeting. Alternative Actions and Appeals of PCE Decisions Instead of the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may recommend: 1. Continue the project to a hearing on a date certain or uncertain. The hearing would need to occur prior to the expiration of the existing or a new tolling agreement, in order for the Crown Castle/Verizon applicant to respond to public, ARB, and staff feedback, or 2. Recommend denial of the project based on findings suggested via an ARB motion and affirmative vote, or 3. Recommend approval of the project based on findings suggested via an ARB motion and affirmative vote. Following an ARB recommendation of either approval or denial of these nodes, the PCE Director may make a decision on the application. Director decisions on Tier 3 WCFs are appealable to City Council. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2442 (650) 329-2575 Amy.French@CityofPaloAlto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Project Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant Project Description (Dated 11-02-18) (PDF) Attachment C: Applicant Project Plans (Dated 10-30-18) (DOCX) Attachment D: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section Wireless Communication Facilities (DOC) Attachment E: Palo Alto Municipal Code Section Architectural Review Findings (DOCX) Attachment F: CTC Report (dated December 4, 2018) (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 266 PC-2967PC- 3266 RM PC- PC-37 PF CD-C (P) PC-4612 RM-30 PF RM-30 PC-4063 PC-3872 PF PF PF CD-C (P) PC-4374 PF PF PF CD (P CD-N (P) PF P C-3111 PC-3974 PF PC-4262 PC-4243 PC-4195 RM-15 R M D(NP) P C-3429 CD-N (P) CD-C(GF)(P) CD-C (P) CD-C (P)PF PC-4611 PC-4053 RMD (NP) R M D(NP) RM-30 PF PC-2049 PC-3102 RM-15 R-1 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 R M-30 PF PF PC-2145 RT-50 CD-S(P) RT-35RT-50 RM-30 CD-C (P) PC-4296 PC-4436 CD-C(GF)(P) PC-5158 CD-C (P)CD-C(GF)(P) CD-S(GF)(P) A R R Y R O A D QU A R R Y R OA D EM ERS ON S TREET E L C A MIN O R E AL EL C A MIN O R E AL BRYANT STR EET PALO ALTO AVENUE PALO ALTO AVENUE HA WTHORNE AVEN UEEM ERS O N STREET RAM ONA STREET E M ERSO N STREET HA W TH ORNE AVEN U E HIG H STR EET EVERETT AVENUE EVERETT AVENUE HIG H STR EET ALMA STREET ALM A STREET ALMA STREET LYTTO N AVEN UE E L C A MIN O R E A L QU AR R Y R OA D ALM A STREET EM ER S O N STREET R A M O N A STREETLYTTON AVENUE UNIVERSITY AVEN UE R A M O N A STR EET BRYANT STR EET HIGH STREET E M ERSON STREET ALM A STREET E M E RSON STREET HIGH STREET HIG H STR EETHAMILTON AVENUE HAMILTO N AVEN U E EM ERS ON STREET HA MILTO N AVE N UE GILM A BRYA NT STREET FOREST AVEN UE RA M O NA STREET RA M O N BRYANT STREET FLO RENCE STR EET KIPLING STREET LYTTO N AVEN UE W AVERLEY STREET W AVE RLEY STREET EVERETT AVENU E EVERETT AVEN UEB RYANT STREET W AVERLEY STREET HA WTHORNE AVEN UE RA M O NA STREET BRYA NT STREET LYTTO N AVE N UE UNIVE RSITY AVENUE C O W PE R STREET KIPLIN G STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE W AVE RLEY STREET RUTHVEN AVENUE POE STREETPALO ALTO AVENUE PALO ALTO AVEN UE CO W PER STREET C O W PE R STREET W AVERLEY STREET HA W THORNE AVEN UE HA W TH O KIPLING STREET EVERETT AVEN UE CO W PER STREET ET EVE W EBSTER STREET LYTTON AVEN UE TAS UN I V E R S I T Y CI RCLE EVERETT C OURT LA NE 7 EAST LANE 5 EAST LANE 6 EAST LANE 20 EAST LANE 30 LAN E 20 W EST LANE 21 MITC HELL LA NE LA NE 33 LAN E 15 EAST BRYANT C OURT PAULSEN LANE LANE 12 W EST LANE 11 W EST CENTENNIAL W ALK P E A R LA N E EL C A MIN O R E AL PALO A PENINSULA C O R RID O R JOINT PO W ERS BOAR D SULA C O R RID O R JOINT PO W ERS BO A RD P A HIGH STREET ALM A STREET FOREST AVENUE URBAN LANE LAN E 7 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels 6 Proposed Node Locations (17PLN 00450) City Jurisdictional Limits 0' 400' 17PLN-00450 Location Map and Zoning Districts Area Map v20181121 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2018-11-21 13:01:17Cell Application Noticing 17PLN 00450 REV 20180628 ZoneLocMap (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 4.a Packet Pg. 267 ARB Submittal for Major Project PROJECT DESCRIPTION 17PLN‐00450 RE: Crown Castle – Cluster 3 of 3 for 16 Small Cell Node Expansion Project in Downtown Palo Alto. Cluster 3: Six small cell nodes on wood utility poles within the Downtown North Neighborhood. Introduction Crown Castle (formerly NextG Networks) is seeking approval of a Crown Castle node expansion project in the core area of Palo Alto. This project will utilize the similar designs as approved in the previous project in 2015 (15PLN‐00140). As with the 2015 small cell project, the 2017 expansion project proposes sixteen (16) nodes overall to provide capacity coverage to the macro cell at 525 University Avenue. This application seeks approval for six (6) nodes within the Downtown North Neighborhood. Crown Castle has a Master License Agreement with the City of Palo Alto that allows for use of city‐controlled space on utility poles and streetlight poles and in conduits owned by CPAU. This Crown Castle project small cell project is designed to be installed in the public right of way on existing utility poles, including wood poles and streetlights. The small cell wireless sites provide capacity coverage to the larger cell site or cell tower in the area. Verizon Wireless is the carrier is the identified tenant in these Crown Castle expansion nodes. As stated above, this application requests approval for Cluster 3 consisting of six (6) nodes of the 16 nodes in proposed expansion project. To summarize the overall expansion 16 node project, Verizon Wireless and Crown Castle Radio Frequency (RF) engineers have identified locations throughout the city that require service. Sixteen (16) installations are currently planned to be co‐located on wood utility poles and metal streetlights. Six (6) of these small cells are proposed to be co‐located on new and existing city street light poles, one (1) new streetlight, and the remaining nine (9) small cells are proposed to be installed on existing wood utility poles. These small cells will provide the City of Palo Alto much needed improvements in network capacity and coverage. Small cells are currently proposed in three (3) configurations that are dependent on the design opportunities and constraints of specific pole locations within the City of Palo Alto. The six (6) nodes in this application are distributed within the Downtown North Neighborhood. Please see Vicinity Map. 4.b Packet Pg. 268 Coverage Needs The unprecedented current and future demand for wireless service requires the densification of existing cellular networks. More people are using a wireless connection for personal and professional needs, both in home and in transit. As a result, wireless communication facilities are diminishing in height and being located closer to the user to meet both daily needs as well as provide essential coverage for emergency personnel. The coverage map below demonstrates the current need. Blue indicates poor coverage and green indicates good coverage. Diagram 1 shows the area identified for the six (6) nodes is limited green and yellow. On the following page, Diagram 2 shows the improvement in capacity where green is consistent. 4.b Packet Pg. 269 Diagram 1 ‐ Current level of capacity for 700 MHz: Diagram 2 ‐ Proposed Improvement in capacity for 700 MHz: 4.b Packet Pg. 270 Diagram 3 ‐ Current level of coverage for 1900 MHz: Diagram 4 ‐ Proposed Improvement in coverage for 1900 MHz: 4.b Packet Pg. 271 Diagram 5 – Current level of coverage for 2100 MHz: Diagram 6 – Proposed improvement in coverage for 2100 MHz: 4.b Packet Pg. 272 Site Locations The process for site selection by Crown Castle aim to meet the need for service coverage, while at the same time locating poles that will have the least impact. With high demand of wireless services, the small facilities need to be located within a relatively narrow area as compared to a ‘macro’ or traditional larger wireless facility. The sites were initially chosen based upon the greatest needs in coverage in the area identified. Each site was walked by a team that included RF (radio frequency) engineers, a construction manager, A&E (architectural and engineering) professionals and government relations consultants in order to make on the spot decisions of the best pole in the neighborhood that could accommodate the wireless equipment within the City’s criteria and with sensitivity to the neighborhood. Pole location proximity to a residence and sidewalk, orientation of the placement of the equipment on the pole and general visibility were taken into account as to which pole in any given area was finally chosen. There are typically only one or two poles that are viable candidates due to the small size design of the sites and limited range of the signal. Pole selection in determined in the field ensuring the RF need for the facility and constructability are met while meeting zoning and other requirements by the City, including sensitivity to the community needs. The team also walked the sites with staff from Compliance to confirm which locations were feasible. The pole top design with antenna and extension was determined by staff on joint site walk to be the only allowable space on the specific six (6) nodes in this proposal, as opposed to locating lower on the pole. It is a clean design that accommodates the needs of the utility operations while providing space for the needed small cell equipment. During the application resubmittal process, a new location has been identified for Node 22 (Node 22m2). The new location is at the corner of Bryant Ct and Waverley Street, adjacent to 258 Waverley St. During the process between the original submittal and the Preliminary ARB hearing on September 21, 2017, an alternative location to the original Node 22 (22m1) was included in the original Formal ARB application. The original node was proposed to be collocated on the wood utility pole adjacent to 386 Everett Avenue. The alternative proposed location to the ARB was directly across the street adjacent to 311 Waverley (also identified as 404 Everett). Upon further review, the RF engineer was able to determine that coverage and capacity needs of the network could be accommodated on the alternative pole now identified as Node 22m2, thereby further mitigating visual impacts and concerns of proximity to the units on higher floors. 4.b Packet Pg. 273 Site information on each node: Node Closest address for identity purposes Assessor's address based on location in plans Adjacent APN Pole # Adjacent Zone Overlay Zone 20 251 Emerson St (near 205 Everett St) 205 Everett St 12025024 6474 RM‐30 MF 21 301 Bryant ( across from 311 Everett Ave) 301 Bryant St 12014045 6362 RMD (NP) MF 22m2 258 Waverley (corner of Waverley & Bryant Ct) 258 Waverley St 12013005 6288 RM‐30 MF 23 482 Everett Ave (across from 305 Cowper St) 482 Everett Ave 12014057 6350 RMD (NP) MF 24 243 Hawthorne Ave 221 Hawthorne Ave 12024002 6378 RM‐30 MF 32 201 High St 201 High St 12025049 6492 RM‐15 MF 4.b Packet Pg. 274 Elevation of example of the installation. Please see site plans for specific elevation of each Node and accompanying radio equipment. 4.b Packet Pg. 275 Minimizing Visual Impacts To minimize the visual impact, the antenna and extension bracket will be enclosed within a shroud at the top of the wood utility pole. Where feasible, wood utility poles near trees were chosen to further mitigate visual impacts. The radio equipment will be attached to the side of the wood utility pole in a manner that keeps the distance between the radios and the wooden pole as close as possible. All equipment and shrouds will be painted to match in order to blend with the wood pole. Colors identified at this time are Sherwin Williams Fairfax Brown and Well‐Bred Brown. Final colors choice subject to direction by staff. Example of shroud and equipment on Node 22m2. See site plans for specifics on each node. 4.b Packet Pg. 276 Scope of Work The scope of work includes the installation includes adding a 48” antenna and extension mount enclosed within a shroud on the top of six existing wood utility poles with additional radio equipment to be mounted on the side of the pole. Any disturbance to landscaping or the asphalt in the street to accommodate the work will also be completely repaired and restored. Project information can be found at http://www.crowncastle.com/projects/palo‐alto_ca.aspx Respectfully submitted, Rochelle Swanson Government Relations Consultant for Crown Castle r.swanson@sure‐site.com 916‐801‐3178 4.b Packet Pg. 277 ATTACHMENT C PROJECT PLANS File No. 17PLN-00450 Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: Project Webpage https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4192 Permit Tracking System 1. Go to Citizen Portal: https://aca.accela.com/PALOALTO/Cap/CapHome.aspx?module=Planning&TabN ame=Planning&TabList=Home%7C0%7CBuilding%7C1%7CPlanning%7C2%7CFire %7C3%7CPublicWorks%7C4%7CCurrentTabIndex%7C2 2. Go to the Planning tab within Palo Alto Citizen Portal and type in the application number 17PLN-00450. 3. Both current and superseded files are listed under Record Info and Attachments 4. The current and latest project plans are named: “17PLN-00450 Cluster 3 Resubmittal Plans 10-30-18 PART 1of2” “17PLN-00450 Cluster 3 Resubmittal Plans 10-30-18 PART 1of2” Note: The address for this application 17PLN-00450 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles and streetlights that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. 4.c Packet Pg. 278 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 1 of 7 ATTACHMENT D PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.42.110 WIRELESS COMMUNICATION FACILITIES File No. 17PLN-00450 18.42.110 Wireless Communication Facilities (a) Purpose and Interpretation The purpose of this section is two-fold: (A) to implement within the jurisdictional boundaries of the city the applicable zoning, land use and other laws, rules, regulations and policies and procedures applicable to siting applications filed with the city by wireless communications facilities infrastructure owners and operators and wireless communications service providers, which seek to install or attach their facilities at locations in Palo Alto; and (B) to accommodate new wireless technologies and continued improvements to existing wireless communications facilities while minimizing their adverse visual and structural health and safety impacts. Consistent with that purpose, the provisions of this section are to be construed in a manner that is consistent with (1) the interest of consumers in receiving the benefits of the deployment of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communication facilities technology and innovations and the delivery of ultra-high-speed and -capacity broadband wireless communications facilities services, (2) the interest in safeguarding the environment, preserving historic properties, and addressing aesthetics and other local values, and (3) the interest in promoting the public health, safety and welfare in Palo Alto. A wireless communications facility is permitted to be sited in Palo Alto subject to applicable requirements imposed by this chapter, which may include an architectural review process, a conditional use permit application process, or both. These processes are intended to permit wireless communications facilities that blend with their existing surroundings and do not negatively impact the environment, historic properties, or public safety. The procedures prescribed by this chapter are tailored to the type of wireless communication facility that is sought. Building-mounted wireless communications facilities and collocation of facilities are preferred and encouraged, subject to all other provisions of this section. (b) Definitions The following abbreviations, phrases, terms and words shall have the meanings assigned in this section or, as appropriate, in Section 18.04.030 and Section 1.04.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, as may be amended from time to time, unless the context indicates otherwise. Words that are not defined in this section or other chapters or sections of the Palo Alto Municipal Code shall have the meanings as set forth in Chapter 6 of Title 47 of the United States Code, Part 1 of Title 47 of the Code of Federal Regulations, and, if not defined therein, their common and ordinary meaning. (1) "Antenna" means a wireless antenna and its associated equipment. The term includes a macrocell antenna and a microcell antenna. (2) "Associated equipment" means any and all on-site equipment, including, without limitation, back- up generators and power supply units, cabinets, coaxial and fiber optic cables, connections, shelters, radio transceivers, regular power supply units, and wiring, to which a wireless antenna is attached in order to facilitate mobile broadband service and personal wireless service delivered on mobile broadband devices. 4.d Packet Pg. 279 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 2 of 7 (3) "Base Station" means a structure or equipment at a fixed location that enables FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communications between user equipment and a communications network. The term does not encompass a tower as defined herein or any equipment associated with a tower. Base Station includes, without limitation: (i) Equipment associated with wireless communications services such as private, broadcast, and public safety services, as well as unlicensed wireless services and fixed wireless services such as microwave backhaul. (ii) Radio transceivers, antennas, coaxial or fiber-optic cable, regular and backup power supplies, and comparable equipment, regardless of technological configuration (including Distributed Antenna Systems ("DAS") and small-cell networks). (iii) Any structure other than a tower that, at the time the relevant application is filed with the city under this section, supports or houses equipment described in paragraphs (i)-(ii) above and has been previously reviewed and approved by the city. (4) "Collocation" means the mounting or installation of transmission equipment on an eligible support structure for the purpose of transmitting and/or receiving radio frequency signals for communications purposes. (5) "Eligible Facilities Request" means any request for modification of an existing tower or base station that, within the meaning of the Spectrum Act, does not substantially change the physical dimensions of that tower or base station, and involves (a) the collocation of new transmission equipment, (b) the removal of transmission equipment, or (c) the replacement of transmission equipment. (6) "Eligible Support Structure" means any existing tower or base station that exists at the time the application is filed with the city. (7) "Existing" for a constructed tower or base station, means that the tower or base station has been previously reviewed and approved under the applicable city zoning or siting process, or under another applicable state or local regulatory review process, provided that a tower that has not been reviewed and approved because it was not in a zoned area when it was built, but was lawfully constructed, is "Existing" for purposes of this definition. (8) "FCC" means the Federal Communications Commission or successor agency. (9) "Project" means a WCF to be located in Palo Alto for which a permit is required by the city. (10) "RF" means radio frequency on the radio spectrum. (11) "Spectrum Act" means Section 6409(a) of the Middle Class Tax Relief Act and Job Creation Act of 2012, 47 U.S.C. § 1455(a) (providing, in part, "… a State or local government may not deny, and shall approve, any Eligible Facilities Request for a modification of any existing wireless Tower or Base Station that does not substantially change the physical dimensions of such Tower or Base Station."). (12) "Substantially Changes" means, in the context of an eligible support structure, a modification of an existing tower or base station where any of the following criteria is met: (i) For a tower not located in the public rights-of-way: (a) The height of the tower is increased by (I) more than ten (10) percent, or (II) by the height of one additional antenna array with separation from the nearest existing antenna not to exceed twenty (20) feet, whichever is greater; or (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of the tower that would protrude from the edge of the tower by (I) more than twenty (20) feet, or (II) more than the width of the tower at the level of the appurtenance, whichever is greater. (ii) For a tower located in the public rights-of-way and for all base stations: (a) The height of the tower or base station is increased by more than ten (10) percent or ten (10) feet, whichever is greater; or 4.d Packet Pg. 280 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 3 of 7 (b) There is added an appurtenance to the body of that structure that would protrude from the edge of that structure by more than six (6) feet; or (c) It involves the installation of ground cabinets that are more than ten (10) percent larger in height or overall volume than any other ground cabinets associated with the structure; or (d) It involves the installation of any new equipment cabinets on the ground if there is no pre- existing ground cabinet associated with that structure. (iii) For any eligible support structure: (a) It involves the installation of more than the standard number of new equipment cabinets for the technology involved, but not to exceed four (4) cabinets; or (b) There is entailed in the proposed modification any excavation or deployment outside of the current site of the tower or base station; or (c) The proposed modification would cause the concealment/camouflage elements of the tower or base station to be defeated; or (d) The proposed modification would not comply with the conditions associated with the prior siting approval of construction or modification of the tower or base station, unless the non-compliance is due to an increase in height, increase in width, addition of cabinets, or new excavation that does not exceed the corresponding thresholds in this section. (iv) To measure changes in height for the purposes of this section, the baseline is: (a) For deployments that are or will be separated horizontally, measured from the original support structure; (b) For all others, measured from the dimensions of the tower or base station, inclusive of originally approved appurtenances and any modifications that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (v) To measure changes for the purposes of this section, the baseline is the dimensions that were approved by the city prior to February 22, 2012. (13) "Tower" means any structure built for the sole or primary purpose of supporting any FCC- licensed or -authorized antenna, including any structure that is constructed for wireless communications service. This term does not include a base station. (14) "Transmission Equipment" means equipment that facilitates transmission of any FCC-licensed or authorized wireless communication service. (15) "Wireless Communications Facility" or "WCF" means any antenna, associated equipment, base station, small cell system, tower, and/or transmission equipment located in Palo Alto. (16) "Wireless Communications Service" means, without limitation, all FCC-licensed back-haul and other fixed wireless services, broadcast, private, and public safety communication services, and unlicensed wireless services. (c) Types of WCF Permits Required (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be required for an eligible facilities request, as defined in this section. (2) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be required for: (i) Any modification of an eligible support structure, including the collocation of new equipment, that substantially changes the physical dimensions of the eligible support structure on which it is mounted; or (ii) Any collocation not eligible for a Tier 1 WCF Permit. (3) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be required for the siting of any WCF that is not a collocation subject to a Tier 1 or 2 WCF Permit. (d) WCF Application Requirements All applications for a WCF Permit shall include the following items: 4.d Packet Pg. 281 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 4 of 7 (1) Any applicant for a WCF Permit shall participate in an intake meeting with the Planning and Community Environment Department to file an application; (2) The applicant must specify in writing whether the applicant believes the application is for an eligible facilities request subject to the Spectrum Act, and if so, provide a detailed written explanation as to why the applicant believes that the application qualifies as an eligible facilities request; (3) The applicant shall complete the city's standard application form, as may be amended from time to time; (4) The applicant shall include a completed and signed application checklist available from the city, including all information required by the application checklist; (5) Payment of the fee prescribed by the Municipal Fee Schedule; (6) The application must be accompanied by all permit applications with all required application materials for each separate permit required by the city for the proposed WCF, including a building permit, an encroachment permit (if applicable) and an electrical permit (if applicable); (7) For Tier 2 and 3 WCF Permits, the applicant must host a community meeting at a time and location designed to maximize attendance by persons receiving notice under this subparagraph to provide outreach to the neighborhood around the project site. The applicant shall give notice of the community meeting to all residents and property owners within 600 feet of the project site at least 14 days in advance of the community meeting. The applicant shall provide a proof of notice affidavit to the city that contains: (i) Proof that the applicant noticed and hosted the community meeting before filing the application; (ii) A summary of comments received at the community meeting and what, if any, changes were made to the application as a result of the meeting; (8) For Tier 3 WCF Permits, the plans shall include a scaled depiction of the maximum permitted increase in the physical dimensions of the proposed project that would be permitted by the Spectrum Act, using the proposed project as a baseline; and (9) Satisfy other such requirements as may be, from time to time, required by the Planning and Community Environment Department Director ("Director"), as publically stated in the application checklist. (e) Permit Review ("Shot Clock") Time Periods (1) City review of application materials. The timeframe for review of an application shall begin to run when the application is submitted, but shall be tolled if the city finds the application incomplete and provides notice of incompleteness that delineates the missing information in writing. Such requests shall be made within 30 days of submission of the application. After submission of additional information, the city will notify the applicant within 10 days of this submission if the additional information failed to complete the application. If the city makes a determination pursuant to Section 18.42.110(e)(2)(i) that an application submitted as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request should be processed as a Tier 2 or Tier 3, then the Tier 2 or Tier 3 processing time, as applicable, shall begin to run when the city issues this decision. (2) Tier 1 processing time. For Tier 1 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the WCF application, together with any other city permits required for a proposed WCF modification, within 60 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (i) If the city determines that the application does not qualify as a Tier 1 eligible facilities request, the city will notify the applicant of that determination in writing and will process the application as a Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF Permit application, as applicable. (ii) To the extent federal law provides a "deemed granted" remedy for Tier 1 WCF Permit applications not timely acted upon by the city, no such application shall be deemed granted until the applicant provides notice to the city, in writing, that the application has been deemed granted after the 4.d Packet Pg. 282 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 5 of 7 time period provided in Section (e)(2) above has expired. (iii) Any Tier 1 WCF Permit application that the city grants or that is deemed granted by operation of federal law shall be subject to all requirements of Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7) and 18.42.110(j)(1), (2), (3), (4), (5) and (6). (3) Tier 2 processing time. For Tier 2 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 90 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (4) Tier 3 processing time. For Tier 3 WCF Permit applications, the city will act on the application within 150 days, adjusted for any tolling due to requests for additional information or mutually agreed upon extensions of time. (5) Denial of application. If the city denies a WCF application, the city will notify the applicant of the denial in writing of the reasons for the denial. (f) Tier 1 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 1 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be final and shall not be appealable pursuant to the procedures set forth in Chapters 18.77 or 18.78; (2) The Director shall grant a Tier 1 WCF Permit provided that the Director finds that the applicant proposes an eligible facilities request; (3) The Director shall impose the following conditions on the grant of a Tier 1 WCF Permit: (i) The proposed collocation or modification shall not defeat any existing concealment elements of the support structure; and (ii) The proposed WCF shall comply with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i)(3), (5), (6) and (7), and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j). (g) Tier 2 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 2 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070. (2) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall grant a Tier 2 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 2 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. (h) Tier 3 WCF Permit Process and Findings (1) A Tier 3 WCF Permit shall be reviewed by the Director. The Director's decision shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (2) The Director or Council on appeal shall grant a Tier 3 WCF Permit provided the proposed WCF complies with the development standards in Section 18.42.110(i) and the conditions of approval in Section 18.42.110(j), and all of the architectural review findings in Section 18.76.020(d) and the conditional use permit findings in Section18.76.010(c) can be made. (3) The Director, or Council on appeal, shall deny a Tier 3 WCF Permit if the above findings cannot be made. 4.d Packet Pg. 283 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 6 of 7 (i) Development Standards Except as otherwise provided in this section, a proposed WCF Project shall comply with the following standards: (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible; (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure; (3) Shall be screened from public view; (4) Shall be architecturally compatible with the existing site; (5) Shall be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code; (6) An antenna, base station, or tower shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the antenna, base station, or tower into the surrounding area; (7) A building-mounted antenna, base station, or tower shall be architecturally compatible with the existing building on which the antenna, base station, or tower is attached; (8) For any Tier 2 or Tier 3 WCF proposed to be attached on an historic structure/site, as designated by Chapter 16.49, historic review shall also be required; (9) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a building-mounted WCF may extend fifteen (15) feet beyond the permitted height of the building in the zone district; (10) Except as otherwise permitted by the Spectrum Act, a tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF Project shall not exceed sixty-five (65) feet in height; and (11) A tower or other stand-alone Tier 3 WCF may encroach into the interior/street side and rear setback. (j) Conditions of Approval In addition to any other conditions of approval permitted under federal and state law and this Code that the Director deems appropriate or required under this Code, all WCF Projects approved under this chapter, whether approved by the Director or deemed granted by operation of law, shall be subject to the following conditions of approval: (1) Permit conditions. The grant or approval of a WCF Tier 1 Permit shall be subject to the conditions of approval of the underlying permit, except as may be preempted by the Spectrum Act. (2) As-built plans. The applicant shall submit to the Director an as-built set of plans and photographs depicting the entire WCF as modified, including all transmission equipment and all utilities, within ninety (90) days after the completion of construction. (3) Applicant shall hire a radio engineer licensed by the State of California to measure the actual radio frequency emission of the WCF and determine if it meets FCC's standards. A report, certified by the engineer, of all calculations, required measurements, and the engineer's findings with respect to compliance with the FCC's radio frequency emission standards shall be submitted to the Planning Division within one year of commencement of operation. (4) Indemnification. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the city, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the "indemnified parties") from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the city for its actual attorneys' fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The city may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant's expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 4.d Packet Pg. 284 17PLN-00033 City of Palo Alto Page 7 of 7 (5) Compliance with applicable laws. The applicant shall comply with all applicable provisions of the Code, any permit issued under this Code, and all other applicable federal, state and local laws (including without limitation all building code, electrical code and other public safety requirements). Any failure by the City to enforce compliance with any applicable laws shall not relieve any applicant of its obligations under this code, any permit issued under this code, or all other applicable laws and regulations. (6) Compliance with approved plans. The proposed Project shall be built in compliance with the approved plans on file with the Planning Division. (k) Removal of Abandoned Equipment A WCF (Tier 1, Tier 2, or Tier 3) or a component of that WCF that ceases to be in use for more than ninety (90) days shall be removed by the applicant, wireless communications service provider, or property owner within ninety (90) days of the cessation of use of that WCF. A new conditional use permit shall not be issued to an owner or operator of a WCF or a wireless communications service provider until the abandoned WCF or its component is removed. (l) Revocation The Director may revoke any WCF Permit if the permit holder fails to comply with any condition of the permit. The Director's decision to revoke a Permit shall be appealable pursuant to the process for architectural review set forth in Section 18.77.070 and the process for conditional use permits set forth in Section 18.77.060. (Ord. 5340 § 1 (part), 2015) 4.d Packet Pg. 285 ATTACHMENT E PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE SECTION 18.76.020(d) ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW FINDINGS The below approval findings must be made with approval of Architectural Review applications: 1. The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan; Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility criteria), and any relevant design guides. 2. The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, and e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. 3. The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. 4. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). 5. The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat, and that can be appropriately maintained. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 4.e Packet Pg. 286 Review of Small Cell Wireless Applications – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) Prepared for the City of Palo Alto December 2018 4.f Packet Pg. 287 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 Contents 1 Executive Summary 1 1.1 Overview of Analysis 2 1.2 Findings 2 2 Brief Background on Cellular Antenna Issues 3 2.1 Wireless Coverage and Target Signal Levels 3 2.2 FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields 3 3 Overview of Current and Planned Verizon Service in the City 6 3.1 Crown Castle’s Stated Intent for New Sites 6 3.2 On-Site Field Tests 6 4 Summary of the Small Cell Applications 8 4.1 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 20 8 4.2 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 21m1 12 4.3 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 22m2 16 4.4 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 23 20 4.5 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 24 24 4.6 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 32 28 5 Options for Minimizing Visual Obtrusiveness 33 5.1 Reduce the Size of the Antennas and Related Equipment 33 5.2 Camouflage the Equipment Cabinets 33 5.3 Place Equipment in Underground Vaults 33 5.3.1 Crown Castle’s Proposed Equipment 34 5.3.2 Considerations for Installing Underground Vaults 35 5.4 Consider a Microcell Architecture 37 Sources 42 4.f Packet Pg. 288 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 Tables Table 1: Verizon Capacity by Wireless Band 6 Table 2: Data Transmission Test Measurements at Proposed Site 20 7 Table 3: Data Transmission Test Measurements at Proposed Site 24 7 Table 4: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 20 (Source: Crown Castle) 11 Table 5: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 21m1 (Source: Crown Castle) 15 Table 6: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 22m2 (Source: Crown Castle) 19 Table 7: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 23 (Source: Crown Castle) 23 Table 8: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 24 (Source: Crown Castle) 27 Table 9: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 32 (Source: Crown Castle) 31 4.f Packet Pg. 289 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 Figures Figure 1: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (mW/cm2) 4 Figure 2: Most Critical Areas for Consideration of RF Exposure 5 Figure 3: Drive Test Results for Cluster 3 7 Figure 4: Site 20 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 9 Figure 5: Site 20 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 10 Figure 6: Site 20 Antenna Radiation Pattern 12 Figure 7: Site 21m1 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 13 Figure 8: Site 21m1 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 14 Figure 9: Site 21m1 Antenna Radiation Pattern 16 Figure 10: Site 22m2 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 17 Figure 11: Site 22m2 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 18 Figure 12: Site 22m2 Antenna Radiation Pattern 20 Figure 13: Site 23 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 21 Figure 14: Site 23 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 22 Figure 15: Site 23 Antenna Radiation Pattern 24 Figure 16: Site 24 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 25 Figure 17: Site 24 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 26 Figure 18: Site 24 Antenna Radiation Pattern 28 Figure 19: Site 32 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) 29 Figure 20: Site 32 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) 30 Figure 21: Site 32 Antenna Radiation Pattern 32 Figure 22: Remote Radio Units 34 Figure 23: Dual RRU Mounting Package 35 Figure 24: Underground Vault for Radio Equipment 36 Figure 25: Issues Related to Placing Underground Vault for Radio Equipment 37 Figure 26: RRU-32 Radio Configuration 38 Figure 27: Ericsson 2203 Microcell 39 Figure 28: Utility Pole Microsite Architecture – Option A 40 Figure 29: Utility Pole Microsite Architecture – Option B 41 4.f Packet Pg. 290 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 1 1 Executive Summary The City received six applications from Crown Castle (the applicant) on behalf of Verizon Wireless (Verizon) to mount wireless access facilities on existing utility poles. The small cell wireless facility siting applications, known formally as “17PLN-00450 Cluster 3 (Downtown North) Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility (WCF) Permit,” represent cellular sites that have been designed to serve customers in targeted areas of the City. Columbia Telecommunications Corporation (CTC) is an independent telecommunications consulting firm that has been retained by the City to perform a technical review of the applications. CTC has performed a technical review and analysis of the applications with respect to Crown Castle’s communications engineering materials, its justification for the sites, and the overall functionality of this site in relation to other existing and proposed Verizon transmission facilities. This report describes the information that we received and documents our analysis and conclusions related to the applications. Our analysis does not include a review or evaluation of the appropriateness of the proposed facilities or sites. Rather, our analysis is confined to the technical aspects of the applications and includes: 1. A review of the technical equipment that is being proposed by the applications and the suitability of such equipment to meet the purposes set forth by the applications 2. A review of the RF emissions studies submitted by the applicant to confirm that the proposal would not exceed the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) RF emissions guidelines 3. An evaluation of the coverage and network maps submitted by the applicant to determine whether such existing and potential coverage can be confirmed 4. An evaluation of technically feasible alternative locations and equipment design configurations that would meet the purposes set forth by the applications Accordingly, our recommendation is based on an evaluation of the technical characteristics of the proposal being made and does not intend to address the traffic, public safety, or various other potential impacts of the proposal upon the surrounding area, the public, or the City as a whole. While this report describes alternative locations and designs that may affect the visual impact and aesthetics of the proposal, it does not provide a recommendation on these matters. 4.f Packet Pg. 291 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 2 1.1 Overview of Analysis This report documents CTC’s findings relative to Crown Castle’s proposed sites. In November 2018, CTC’s engineers performed the following tasks: • Reviewed all application materials submitted by Crown Castle, including: o Coverage maps (showing the target area and vicinity) o Equipment specifications o RF level analysis o Photo simulations • Conducted a site visit to inspect the proposed locations and vicinity, and to verify the documentation provided in the applications • Conducted on-site coverage and capacity tests at and near the proposed locations • Conducted an independent review of the applications for compliance with FCC guidelines on Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Electromagnetic Fields • Examined the area around the proposed sites to seek to identify suitable alternative locations • Identified potential site design changes that may enhance the aesthetics of the infrastructure in the City’s judgment 1.2 Findings We recommend these applications from a technical standpoint. In summary: • Our review of the technical equipment being proposed finds that the equipment is suitable to meet the purposes set forth by the applications. • Our review of the RF emissions studies submitted by the applicant (prepared by Jerrold T. Bushberg, Ph.D.) and the independent analysis of our team (under the supervision of Lee Afflerbach, P.E.) confirm that at each site, the total calculated RF emissions would not exceed the FCC’s guidelines at ground level or at the antenna’s horizontal planes. • Our on-site testing of Verizon’s current network performance at the six sites found that Verizon’s network delivers a strong signal, but throughput levels vary greatly. In all cases, our measurements recorded wireless signal levels of sufficient amplitude to support the high-speed transfer of data—but user demand had a clear effect on network throughput. • Alternative designs and configurations for each of the proposed sites may enhance the aesthetics of the infrastructure in the City’s judgment. 4.f Packet Pg. 292 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 3 2 Brief Background on Cellular Antenna Issues The following brief discussion presents a framework for understanding our analysis of Verizon’s application and our findings. 2.1 Wireless Coverage and Target Signal Levels Wireless coverage for modern 4G technology broadband services is determined by a carrier’s radio frequency (RF) signal amplitude and signal quality within a desired service area. Signals need to be at a minimum amplitude to override noise and, in many cases, interference from other wireless facilities. Signal levels also need to be maintained at a power level such that user devices are not constantly connecting and reconnecting (either because of a loss of signal or because an existing connection is overpowered by another wireless access point). Handing off a user from one access site to another is part of the mechanics of dealing with users who are in motion—particularly in an urbanized area with multiple signal paths and tower sites. Further, modern 4G technologies as employed by Verizon and other carriers operate with sophisticated encoding technology that permit higher transmission speeds in areas where signal levels are higher than those required for minimum data rate transfers. While the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) has no technical standards for the services provided by commercial wireless carriers, the industry and equipment manufacturers have generally established target signal levels for various service environments. Typically referenced service environments include outdoor coverage, in-vehicle coverage, and in-building coverage. For 4G technology, target levels are specified in terms of the ratio of decibels (dB) to milliwatts (mW) of signal power, with a reference level of 0 dBm being equal to 1 milliwatt of signal power. Modern cellular equipment is extremely sensitive and can operate at signal levels as low as -120 dBm RSRP.1 2.2 FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radio Frequency Fields The FCC’s guidelines for evaluating human exposure to RF signals were first established in 1985. The current guidelines were adopted in August 1997in FCC OET Bulletin 65.2 The guidelines are expressed in terms of Maximum Permissible Exposure (MPE) to electric and magnetic field strength and power density. The guidelines cover the frequency range of 300 kHz to 100 GHz. The guidelines cover two separate tiers of exposure: 1. Occupational/controlled exposure limits apply to situations in which persons are exposed as a consequence of their employment and in which those persons who are exposed have 1 Reference Signals Received Power, measured in dBm, indicates the power of an LTE cellular signal. 2 “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields,” OET Bulletin 65, edition 97-01. https://www.fcc.gov/general/oet-bulletins-line#65 4.f Packet Pg. 293 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 4 been made fully aware of the potential for exposure and can exercise control over their exposure. 2. General population/uncontrolled exposure limits apply to situations in which the general public may be exposed or in which persons who are exposed as a consequence of their employment may not be made fully aware of the potential for exposure or cannot exercise control over their exposure. Figure 1 is a plot of MPE as a function of RF. Figure 1: FCC Limits for Maximum Permissible Exposure (mW/cm2) Figure 2 illustrates the areas where the greatest RF exposure is present—specifically, at or near the base of the antenna mounting structure and horizontally at an elevated location near the antenna. 4.f Packet Pg. 294 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 5 Figure 2: Most Critical Areas for Consideration of RF Exposure Area where an occupied structure might be adjacent to the antenna Area where a pedestrian might be near the pole’s base 4.f Packet Pg. 295 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 6 3 Overview of Current and Planned Verizon Service in the City Verizon currently provides commercial wireless service throughout the City with antennas mounted on buildings and towers. These traditional wireless facilities, which are designed to serve users in a 1- to 2-mile radius, are often referred to as “macro” sites. Verizon delivers service in three wireless bands (Table 1). However, while Verizon’s existing sites cover the City, most areas of the City receive only 700 MHz service. Coverage in the higher- frequency PCS and AWS bands—which account for 75 percent of Verizon’s total bandwidth—are limited to areas within one-half mile or less from the macro sites. Table 1: Verizon Capacity by Wireless Band Band FCC Spectrum Service Frequency LTE Bandwidth % of Total Bandwidth 700 MHz UHF low band 700 MHz 10 MHz 25 PCS Personal Communications Service 1,900 MHz 10 MHz 25 AWS Advanced Wireless Service 2,100 MHz 20 MHz 50 3.1 Crown Castle’s Stated Intent for New Sites Crown Castle’s proposed “small cell” antenna sitings are intended to enhance the performance of Verizon’s Long-Term Evolution (LTE) service. LTE is the standard behind today’s top-of-the-line 4G (fourth-generation wireless) smartphones and tablets. (We note, too, that future 5G deployment is expected to build upon ongoing upgrades of existing 4G infrastructure.) The proposed small cells, placed at targeted locations, would provide additional capacity and increased signal strength to serve users in areas that do not currently have access to Verizon PCS and AWS signal coverage. The small cells would also reduce the net load on the macro sites. 3.2 On-Site Field Tests Our signal intensity measurements confirm that Verizon’s existing network delivers a signal level that is adequate to support a high level of service (i.e., the network provides adequate coverage). This finding matches our experience in other communities in California where Verizon LTE sites that are not subjected to the demands of a large concurrent user base (i.e., user demand does not overwhelm the network’s capacity) consistently deliver reliable download speeds in the range of 30 Mbps to 40 Mbps and upload speeds ranging from 10 Mbps to 25 Mbps (i.e., performance typically achievable with the current generation of 4G LTE transmission equipment). That said, data transmission rates varied widely at the six sites at the time of our sampling. For example, our measurements at Site 20 fell only slightly out of the low end of the 4G LTE ranges on average (Table 2), while Site 24 exhibited an average data download speed of less than one- third the rate achievable with 4G LTE—and extremely low upload speeds (Table 3). 4.f Packet Pg. 296 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 7 Table 2: Data Transmission Test Measurements at Proposed Site 20 Table 3: Data Transmission Test Measurements at Proposed Site 24 In addition to the on-site speed tests, we conducted drive test measurements of signal levels on primary roads in and near the proposed small cell deployment areas. Figure 3 is a map illustrating the signal levels recorded. During the day in which testing was conducted, we experienced no disconnects and no interruption in the connection to the 4G LTE network service. Figure 3: Drive Test Results for Cluster 3 4.f Packet Pg. 297 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 8 4 Summary of the Small Cell Applications The Cluster 3 applications comprise six individual sites. • Site 20 (pole #6474) adjacent to 205 Everett Ave. and near 251 Emerson St. • Site 21m1 (pole #6263) adjacent to 301 Bryant St. and near 311 Everett Ave. • Site 22m2 (pole #6288) adjacent to 258 Waverley St. • Site 23 (pole #6350) adjacent to 482 Everett Ave. • Site 24 (pole #6378) adjacent to 243 Hawthorne Ave. • Site 32 (pole #6492) adjacent to 201 High St. We describe each site below. 4.1 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 20 The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on an existing 34′ 4″ utility pole adjacent to 251 Emerson Street that will be extended 5′ 6″ in order to comply with the safety code for clearance from power lines. The overall height of the extended pole will be 45′ 8″. Figure 4 is a photograph of the existing pole. 4.f Packet Pg. 298 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 9 Figure 4: Site 20 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e., voice and data) to and from the network users. All equipment will be pole-mounted and fully visible. Figure 5 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the wireless equipment installed. The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. The associated equipment to be mounted wholly on the pole includes three LTE remote radios, coaxial cabling, antenna coupling devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch. 4.f Packet Pg. 299 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 10 Figure 5: Site 20 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the proposed site (Table 4). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout the wireless industry. 4.f Packet Pg. 300 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 11 Table 4: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 20 (Source: Crown Castle) Item 700 MHz PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz) Antenna Amphenol CUUT360X12Fxyz0 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360 360 Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni Omni Gain (dB) 8.6 11.7 10.9 Vertical Beamwidth (°) 20.9 9.5 9.4 RAD Above Ground (feet) 43’-8″ 43’-8″ 43’-8″ Dimensions (inches) 48.0″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Coordinates 37.446393/-122.165395 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Remote Radio Units (RRU) Ericson RRUS-11 RRUS-32 RRUS-32 Power (Watts) 80 160 160 ERP (Watts) 110 545 613 Dimensions (inches) 17.8″ H x 17.0″ W x 7.2″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure (both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site 20. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation will be 0.0059 mW/cm², which is 0.59 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 18 feet away and will have an exposure level less than 20 percent of the MPE. As part of our assignment we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure levels at Site 20. Figure 6 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is essentially omni-directional with minor nodes due to the various fabrication components. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the utility pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 10 dB (1/10th) below the radiation in the horizontal plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 301 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 12 Figure 6: Site 20 Antenna Radiation Pattern3 Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE. 4.2 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 21m1 The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on an existing 43′ 9″ utility pole adjacent to 301 Bryant Street that will be extended 5′ 7″ in order to comply with the safety code for clearance from power lines. The overall height of the extended pole will be 55′ 1″. Figure 7 is a photograph of the existing pole. 3 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 302 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 13 Figure 7: Site 21m1 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e., voice and data) to and from the network users. All equipment will be pole-mounted and fully visible. Figure 8 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the wireless equipment installed. The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. The associated equipment to be mounted wholly on the pole includes three LTE remote radios, coaxial cabling, antenna coupling devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch. 4.f Packet Pg. 303 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 14 Figure 8: Site 21m1 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the proposed site (Table 5). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout the wireless industry. 4.f Packet Pg. 304 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 15 Table 5: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 21m1 (Source: Crown Castle) Item 700 MHz PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz) Antenna Amphenol CUUT360X12Fxyz0 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360 360 Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni Omni Gain (dB) 8.6 11.7 10.9 Vertical Beamwidth (°) 20.9 9.5 9.4 RAD Above Ground (feet) 53’-1″ 53’-1″ 53’-1″ Dimensions (inches) 48.0″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Coordinates 37.447663/-122.163879 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Remote Radio Units (RRU) Ericson RRUS-11 RRUS-32 RRUS-32 Power (Watts) 80 160 160 ERP (Watts) 110 545 613 Dimensions (inches) 17.8″ H x 17.0″ W x 7.2″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure (both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site 21m1. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation will be 0.0039 mW/cm², which is 0.39 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 22 feet away and will have an exposure level less than 20 percent of the MPE. As part of our assignment we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure levels at Site 21m1. Figure 9 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is essentially omni-directional with minor nodes due to the various fabrication components. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the utility pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 10 dB (1/10th) below the radiation in the horizontal plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 305 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 16 Figure 9: Site 21m1 Antenna Radiation Pattern4 Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE. 4.3 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 22m2 The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on an existing 43′ 6″ utility pole adjacent to 258 Waverly Street at the corner of Bryant Court that will be extended 3′ 6″ in order to comply with the safety code for clearance from power lines. The overall height of the extended pole will be 52′11″. Figure 10 is a photograph of the existing pole. 4 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 306 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 17 Figure 10: Site 22m2 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e., voice and data) to and from the network users. All equipment will be pole-mounted and fully visible. Figure 11 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the wireless equipment installed. The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. The associated equipment to be mounted wholly on the pole includes three LTE remote radios, coaxial cabling, antenna coupling devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch. 4.f Packet Pg. 307 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 18 Figure 11: Site 22m2 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the proposed site (Table 6). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout the wireless industry. 4.f Packet Pg. 308 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 19 Table 6: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 22m2 (Source: Crown Castle) Item 700 MHz PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz) Antenna Amphenol CUUT360X12Fxyz0 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 70 70 70 Bearing Azimuth (°) 130, 310 130, 310 130, 310 Gain (dB) 8.6 11.7 10.9 Vertical Beamwidth (°) 20.0 7.5 6.5 RAD Above Ground (feet) 50’ 11″ 50’ 11″ 50’ 11″ Dimensions (inches) 48.0″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Coordinates 37.449003/-122.163551 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Remote Radio Units (RRU) Ericson RRUS-11 RRUS-32 RRUS-32 Power (Watts) 80 160 160 ERP (Watts) 110 545 613 Dimensions (inches) 17.8″ H x 17.0″ W x 7.2″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure (both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site 22m2. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation will be 0.012 mW/cm², which is 1.2 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 32 feet away and will have an exposure level less than 1 percent of the MPE. As part of our assignment we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure levels at Site 22m2. Figure 12 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is essentially bi-directional with major lobes at 130⁰ and 310⁰. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the utility pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 20 dB (1/100th) of the radiation in the horizontal plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 309 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 20 Figure 12: Site 22m2 Antenna Radiation Pattern5 Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE. 4.4 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 23 The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on an existing 52′ 9″ utility pole adjacent to 482 Everett Avenue that will be extended 3′ 6″ in order to comply with the safety code for clearance from power lines. The overall height of the extended pole will be 62′ 1″. Figure 13 is a photograph of the existing pole. 5 2,100 MHz, (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 310 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 21 Figure 13: Site 23 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e., voice and data) to and from the network users. All equipment will be pole-mounted and fully visible. Figure 14 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the wireless equipment installed. The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. The associated equipment to be mounted wholly on the pole includes three LTE remote radios, coaxial cabling, antenna coupling devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch. 4.f Packet Pg. 311 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 22 Figure 14: Site 23 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the proposed site (Table 7). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout the wireless industry. 4.f Packet Pg. 312 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 23 Table 7: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 23 (Source: Crown Castle) Item 700 MHz PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz) Antenna Amphenol CUUT360X12Fxyz0 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360 360 Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni Omni Gain (dB) 8.6 11.7 10.9 Vertical Beamwidth (°) 20.9 9.5 9.4 RAD Above Ground (feet) 60’ 1″ 60’ 1″ 60’ 1″ Dimensions (inches) 48.0″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Coordinates 37.449822/-122.161708 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Remote Radio Units (RRU) Ericson RRUS-11 RRUS-32 RRUS-32 Power (Watts) 80 160 160 ERP (Watts) 110 545 613 Dimensions (inches) 17.8″ H x 17.0″ W x 7.2″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure (both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site 23. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation will be 0.0031 mW/cm², which is 0.31 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 27 feet away and will have an exposure level less than 20 percent of the MPE. As part of our assignment we performed an independent analysis of the calculated RF exposure levels at Site 23. Figure 15 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is essentially omni-directional with minor nodes due to the various fabrication components. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the utility pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 10 dB (1/10th) below the radiation in the horizontal plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 313 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 24 Figure 15: Site 23 Antenna Radiation Pattern6 Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE. 4.5 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 24 The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on an existing 33′ 10″ utility pole adjacent to 243 Hawthorne Avenue that will be extended 3′ 6″ in order to comply with the safety code for clearance from power lines. The overall height of the extended pole will be 42′ 10″. Figure 16 is a photograph of the existing pole. 6 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 314 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 25 Figure 16: Site 24 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e., voice and data) to and from the network users. All equipment will be pole-mounted and fully visible. Figure 17 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the wireless equipment installed. The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. The associated equipment to be mounted wholly on the pole includes three LTE remote radios, coaxial cabling, antenna coupling devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch. 4.f Packet Pg. 315 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 26 Figure 17: Site 24 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the proposed site (Table 8). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout the wireless industry. 4.f Packet Pg. 316 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 27 Table 8: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 24 (Source: Crown Castle) Item 700 MHz PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz) Antenna Amphenol CUUT360X12Fxyz0 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360 360 Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni Omni Gain (dB) 8.6 11.7 10.9 Vertical Beamwidth (°) 20.9 9.5 9.4 RAD Above Ground (feet) 40’ 10″ 40’ 10″ 40’ 10″ Dimensions (inches) 48.0″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Coordinates 37.447698/-122.166022 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Remote Radio Units (RRU) Ericson RRUS-11 RRUS-32 RRUS-32 Power (Watts) 80 160 160 ERP (Watts) 110 545 613 Dimensions (inches) 17.8″ H x 17.0″ W x 7.2″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure (both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site 24. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation will be 0.007 mW/cm², which is 0.7 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 27 away and will have an exposure level less than 20 percent of the MPE. As part of our assignment we performed an independent analysis of the expected RF exposure levels at Site 24. Figure 18 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is essentially omni-directional with minor nodes due to the various fabrication components. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the utility pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 10 dB (1/10th) below the radiation in the horizontal plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 317 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 28 Figure 18: Site 24 Antenna Radiation Pattern7 Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE. 4.6 Summary of Small Cell Application for Site 32 The applicant proposes to install a wireless access facility on an existing 32′ 4″ utility pole adjacent to 201 High Street that will be extended 4′ 8″ in order to comply with the safety code for clearance from power lines. The overall height of the extended pole will be 42′ 8″. Figure 19 is a photograph of the existing pole. 7 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 318 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 29 Figure 19: Site 32 Existing Photo (Source: Crown Castle) The site will be connected to the client network through a dedicated fiber optic communications link. The link will monitor and control the site and will transport the communications traffic (i.e., voice and data) to and from the network users. All equipment will be pole-mounted and fully visible. Figure 20 (below) is a photo simulation of the site as it will look with the wireless equipment installed. The canister antenna will be mounted on the top of the pole. The associated equipment to be mounted wholly on the pole includes three LTE remote radios, coaxial cabling, antenna coupling devices, fiber network interface housing, and a power disconnect switch. 4.f Packet Pg. 319 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 30 Figure 20: Site 32 Photo Simulation (Source: Crown Castle) Crown Castle’s application included specifications for the equipment that will be installed at the proposed site (Table 9). This equipment is consistent with small cell hardware used throughout the wireless industry. 4.f Packet Pg. 320 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 31 Table 9: Communications Equipment Specifications – Site 32 (Source: Crown Castle) Item 700 MHz PCS (1900 MHz) AWS (2100 MHz) Antenna Amphenol CUUT360X12Fxyz0 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Horizontal Beamwidth (°) 360 360 360 Bearing Azimuth (°) Omni Omni Omni Gain (dB) 8.6 11.7 10.9 Vertical Beamwidth (°) 20.9 9.5 9.4 RAD Above Ground (feet) 40’ 8″ 40’ 8″ 40’ 8″ Dimensions (inches) 48.0″ H X 14.6″ Diameter Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Coordinates 37.446405/-122.166941 Shared Antenna Shared Antenna Remote Radio Units (RRU) Ericson RRUS-11 RRUS-32 RRUS-32 Power (Watts) 80 160 160 ERP (Watts) 110 545 613 Dimensions (inches) 17.8″ H x 17.0″ W x 7.2″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D 27.2″ H x 12.1″ W x 7.0″ D Crown Castle submitted an independent engineering study of the level of RF emission exposure (both at ground level and antenna height level) for the small cell equipment to be located at Site 32. The study was prepared by the consulting firm of Jerrold T. Bushberg, a firm that specializes in RF emission analysis consistent with the guidelines established by the FCC. The consultant calculated that the maximum ground-level RF exposure level due to the proposed Verizon operation will be 0.007 mW/cm², which is 0.7 percent of the applicable public exposure limit. The consultant calculated that at antenna height level, the nearest building is 19 feet away and will have an exposure level less than 20 percent of the MPE. As part of our assignment we performed an independent analysis of the expected RF exposure levels at Site 32. Figure 21 provides graphs of the RF energy emitted by the proposed antenna in the horizontal and vertical planes. Note that in the horizontal plane, the radiation pattern is essentially omni-directional with minor nodes due to the various fabrication components. In the vertical plane, the maximum radiation is focused outward, perpendicular to the utility pole. In the downward direction (toward the ground at the pole) the radiation is at least 10 dB (1/10th) below the radiation in the horizontal plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 321 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 32 Figure 21: Site 32 Antenna Radiation Pattern8 Horizontal Radiation Pattern Vertical Radiation Pattern Based on the specifications of the proposed antenna and transmission equipment, we concur with the applicant’s findings that the maximum general-population RF exposure calculated for the site at both the base and at the antenna’s horizontal plane is within the FCC’s MPE. 8 2,100 MHz (AWS band) amplitude in dB relative to maximum value in the respective plane. 4.f Packet Pg. 322 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 33 5 Options for Minimizing Visual Obtrusiveness As part of our assignment, we have been asked to provide input on options whereby the applicant's design might be modified to deploy the equipment in a less visually intrusive manner. The six sites comprising Cluster 3 are existing utility poles. The applicant proposes to place antennas on top of the poles and to mount all equipment on the poles below the electrical lines. Visual impact might be reduced by reducing the size of the components, camouflaging the equipment cabinets in some way, or placing equipment in underground vaults. 5.1 Reduce the Size of the Antennas and Related Equipment The physical size of an antenna has an almost direct, inverse correlation to its operating frequency. Because the proposed sites are intended to function in all three of Verizon’s wireless bands (700 MHz, 1900 MHz PCS, and 2100 MHz AWS), the lowest frequency dictates the antenna’s minimum size. Given that Verizon already has consistent 700 MHz service across the City, and that these applications are to enable PCS and AWS service, it seems feasible that Verizon could eliminate the 700 MHz technology from these sites. If Verizon were to deploy just the PCS and AWS bands, it would be able to reduce the size of its proposed antenna while maintaining similar performance characteristics in the higher frequency bands. The proposed antennas are 4 feet in height; by comparison, a variety of antennas suitable for the PCS and AWS bands range in size from 2 to 3 feet in height. Eliminating the 700 MHz operation would also permit a reduction in the number of remote radio units (from three to two), as well as a reduction in wiring and coaxial cabling. 5.2 Camouflage the Equipment Cabinets These applications specify equipment mounted directly on the utility pole. One alternative would be to add a painted metal shroud over the pole-mounted equipment; vertical in-line placement of equipment could yield a more vertically trim deployment. Another alternative would be to place the equipment in cabinets at either the base of the pole or nearby—as is the case with the faux mailboxes currently deployed in downtown Palo Alto. Beyond (or instead of) camouflaging the equipment cabinets, other options include landscaping traditional right-of-way utility cabinets to blend with the environment using shrubs or stone or brick barrier walls. 5.3 Place Equipment in Underground Vaults Under certain situations, underground vaulting of equipment is possible. Generally, the industry refrains from this type of deployment due to the difficulties in construction created by the 4.f Packet Pg. 323 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 34 general overcrowding of the right-of-way in urban environments, the need for cooling fans, and the need for plumbing and pumps to control rainwater runoff. Additionally, equipment placed underground typically is more difficult to service because doing so often requires more staff and additional maintenance tools. In the sections below, we describe the modifications that might be required to the applicant’s proposed equipment if it were to be installed in an underground vault—as well as additional considerations for the applicant and the City. 5.3.1 Crown Castle’s Proposed Equipment Crown Castle proposes to place three Ericsson remote radio units (RRU) at each of the sites in this cluster; two RRU-32s would serve the AWS/PCS bands, while one 1-RRU-11 would serve the 700 MHz band. The Ericsson radios were originally designed for deployment in a convection- cooled environment, either on top of or at the base of traditional wireless macro towers; the enclosure for the radio housing includes aluminum cooling fins (Figure 22). Figure 22: Remote Radio Units In each of the applications, Crown Castle proposes to mount the three radio in a convection- cooled cabinet on the pole. The three units together would generate 480 Watts of radio frequency energy and would continuously generate 2,000 Watts of heat energy that must be dissipated. The largest element or the pole-mounted design is the dual RRU-32s’ package configuration (Figure 23). This component is about the size of a transformer used by the power utility to provide residential power services. 4.f Packet Pg. 324 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 35 Figure 23: Dual RRU Mounting Package 5.3.2 Considerations for Installing Underground Vaults Typically, underground communications vaults are designed for placement in the public right-of- way and are sufficiently sturdy to withstand a vehicle driving over it. The vaults are constructed with a polymer concrete top and corrugated fiberglass sidewalls. An underground vault suitable for installing the radio equipment proposed by Crown Castle would need to be at least 3 feet (W) x 6 feet (L) x 3 feet (D) to provide adequate space for the equipment and adequate air flow to support cooling.9 The vault area will also need to include space for drainage and space required for additional radio equipment to support planned future 5G services. Figure 24 is an example of a vault that is suitable for the applicant’s proposed RRUs. 9 See, for example: MacLean Highline, http://www.highlineproducts.com/pdfs/PHG367236X0004%20REV-B%2011- 2-17.PDF 4.f Packet Pg. 325 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 36 Figure 24: Underground Vault for Radio Equipment Due to its large size, the installation of a vault will present construction challenges—especially given the location of existing infrastructure above and below ground in the vicinity of the proposed sites. Crown Castle would need to comply with the following requirements: 1. The vault would need to be located within approximately 90 feet of the antenna due to signal loss limitations in the length of the coaxial cable connecting the radios to the antenna. For a 50-foot-high pole, the vault’s horizontal distance from the pole could not exceed roughly 40 feet. 2. City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) requires that vaults be placed no closer than 5 feet from a utility pole. 3. The vault cannot be installed in the path of lateral storm drains, water or sewer lines, or other existing utility infrastructure (e.g., electric, telephone, CATV). Existing (conflicting) utilities at a site could potentially be rerouted to accommodate a vault at the applicant’s expense. 4. The vault construction would need to comply with the City’s requirements related to the removal or endangerment of protected trees. Figure 25 illustrates some of the pertinent issues and challenges for installing underground vaults in the Palo Alto right-of-way. 4.f Packet Pg. 326 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 37 Figure 25: Issues Related to Placing Underground Vault for Radio Equipment 5.4 Consider a Microcell Architecture A viable alternative to the current design (which employs traditional high-power remote radios) would be to substitute the proposed radios with a lower-power radio. The smaller radios would reduce visual impact at individual sites by reducing the volume of equipment—and would potentially offer other benefits: • Reduced the RF Emission from the site • Higher data throughput capability (increased segmentation) • Greater compatibility with future 5G architecture deployment strategies The Ericsson type RRU-32 radios proposed for both the AWS and PCS bands were originally designed for use in traditional macro cell sites; they weigh 55 pounds each and have a volume of 1.46 cubic feet. (See Figure 26.) 4.f Packet Pg. 327 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 38 Figure 26: RRU-32 Radio Configuration 4.f Packet Pg. 328 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 39 Ericsson manufactures significantly smaller radio units that are marketed to address the metro- area microsite market (see Figure 27). Figure 27: Ericsson 2203 Microcell The model 2203 microcell radio units emit far less power per radio (10 W) than does the RRU-32 (160 W), however, so there would be tradeoffs if the applicant were to use the smaller radios. Achieving the same coverage as the currently proposed design with microcell radios would likely require deploying wireless facilities at up to twice as many locations. In addition, while the applicant would be able to use the same type of antenna as specified in the current design, shifting to a microsite deployment would involve a total redesign for this cluster. All existing site designs would have to be redesigned and new site locations would have to be added to the exiting six sites in order to provide a coverage footprint similar to that of the current proposal. The figures below illustrate two approaches to microcell deployment. Under option A, the radio equipment would be mounted in multi-radio assembly (up to six radios) shrouded to appear as an extension of the 24-inch Amphenol antenna. 4.f Packet Pg. 329 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 40 Figure 28: Utility Pole Microsite Architecture – Option A 4.f Packet Pg. 330 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 41 Option B would have the same antenna mounted on the top of the utility pole with the radio housing (up to five radios) mounted mid-pole on a stand-off bracket. The radios would connect to the antenna enclosed in a riser conduit. Figure 29: Utility Pole Microsite Architecture – Option B 4.f Packet Pg. 331 Review of Small Cell Wireless Application – Crown Castle Cluster 3 (17PLN-00450) | December 2018 42 Sources • “17PLN-00450 Cluster 3 Resubmittal Project Description 11-02-18” – Crown Castle. • “17PLN-00450 Cluster 3 Resubmittal Plans 10-30-18” – Crown Castle. • RF emission reports prepared on behalf of Crown Castle for each proposed site – Jerrold T. Bushberg, Ph.D., DABMP, DABSNM, FAAPM, FHPS. Health and Medical Physics Consulting, Sacramento, CA. • “Evaluating Compliance with FCC Guidelines for Human Exposure to Radiofrequency Electromagnetic Fields” – OET Bulletin 65, edition 97-01, Federal Communications Commission, Office of Engineering & Technology, Washington, D.C. https://www.fcc.gov/general/oet-bulletins-line#65 • Antenna Specifications – Amphenol Industries, Danbury, CT. http://www.amphenolrf.com • Coaxial Cable & Antenna Mounting – CommScope, Hickory, NC. https://www.commscope.com/ • Wireless Radio Equipment – Ericsson, Global Headquarters, Stockholm. https://www.ericsson.com/ourportfolio/radio-system/radio • Underground Vault – MacLean Highline, Sweetwater, TN. http://www.highlineproducts.com/pdfs/PHG367236X0004%20REV-B%2011-2-17.PDF 4.f Packet Pg. 332 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9971) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of December 6, 2018 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 6, 2018. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the December 6, 2018 Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting were made available to Board members prior to this hearing. A hard copy of the minutes of the above referenced meeting(s) will be made available at the ARB hearing in the Council Chambers at 8:30 am. Approved Minutes will be made available on the ARB webpage at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp 5 Packet Pg. 333 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9972) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of December 20, 2018 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2018. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the December 20, 2018 Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting were made available to Board members prior to this hearing. A hard copy of the minutes of the above referenced meeting(s) will be made available at the ARB hearing in the Council Chambers at 8:30 am. Approved Minutes will be made available on the ARB webpage at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp 6 Packet Pg. 334 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: I'd like to call to order the December 6, 2018, meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. May we have the roll call, please? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: The first item on our agenda is oral communications. This is the time for any member of the public to speak on a matter that is not on our itemized agenda but is within the scope of our concerns. We don't have any cards, I believe. We have no speaker cards. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on an item not on the agenda? Seeing no one, we'll go to the next item. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No changes to today's agenda. Chair Furth: In an earlier discussion, you indicated that we should remind people that the parking in the City Hall basement, in fact, in the Coral zone, is for three hours. We have a heavy agenda. We will try to move expeditiously, but if your item is going to be later in the agenda, you may want to talk to the City staff in the lobby about your parking options that will carry you through long enough. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. And actually, did we want to talk about the cell projects? We said we wouldn't hear those before 10 a.m. Chair Furth: Oh, right. We will not begin hearing the cell projects before 10 o'clock this morning. It may be even later, but we promise not to hear them before then. If you are here for one of the cell applications and you'd like to do something else for the next hour and a half, you're free to do. If you'd like to stay and watch, that's fine, too. All right. We will not be holding a meeting on January 2nd. That meeting will be postponed a week. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 6, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, January 3rd, will be... Chair Furth: Sorry, 3rd. Ms. Gerhardt: ...postponed to January 10th, so it will be delayed a week. On January 17th, we will have our standard hearing. Also, related to the future agenda on the 20th, we have had a few items drop off, so we will just be hearing 2321 Wellesley, 3200 El Camino, and the Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2. Those will be the three items that we will have on that agenda. We will also have elections for the Chair and the Vice-Chair of the ARB. Chair Furth: Okay. And one other announcement related to other people's agendas, there will be... This Board recently reviewed and recommended approval of a new public safety building, and there will be a meeting at five o'clock today with the artist, Peter Wegner, about the public art element of that building. It's going to be in the Palo Alto Commons homeowner's association community room at 122 Sherman Avenue. I'm sure it will be of interest. All right. Action Items Chair Furth: We are ready to proceed with item number 2, which is: 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3128 El Camino Real [17PLN-00462]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow the Remodel of an Existing McDonalds Restaurant. Scope of Work Includes: Remodel of Exterior Facade, Landscaping, Signage, and Outdoor Seating. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15301a (Existing Facilities) Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us Chair Furth: Concerns the McDonald's at 3128 El Camino Real. It is a request that we review a minor architectural change, the remodeling of the existing McDonald's restaurant includes remodeling of the exterior façade, landscape, signage and outdoor seating. It's exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The property owner is Stanford University. The architect is Stantec Architecture, Inc. They are listed as landscape architects, as well. Has everybody visited the site? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Thompson: I did not have a chance to. I know that place pretty well. Chair Furth: Pardon me? Board Member Thompson: I pass by it all the time. Chair Furth: Yes, okay. All of us have seen it, and everybody but Board Member Thompson has viewed it specifically for this application. Does anybody have any conversations to disclose in connection with this project? Seeing none, staff? Adam Petersen, Project Planner: Good morning, Chair Furth, members of the Architectural Review Board. I'm Adam Petersen from the Planning and Community Environment Department. I'm here today to present the project at 3128 El Camino Real. This is minor architectural review related to the McDonald's there. This item was heard by the Architectural Review Board at the November 1, 2018, hearing. The Board had comments related to enhancing the landscaping on the site, providing additional shading, bringing the building to the build-to line at the back of the sidewalk, enhancing the pedestrian City of Palo Alto Page 3 environment along El Camino Real, giving details about the seating area and configuration, the railings and the trash can on site, and also, use of the corrugated metal siding around the building. As was noted, the project is located at 3128 El Camino Real. It's surrounded by a mixture of uses, commercial and office uses. You can see the project is circled here, squared in red. The landscaping plans that the applicant has proposed, again, as you can see, the previous landscape plan consisted primarily of a lawn area at the front of the building with a Japanese maple. This is the seating area, about four tables here. The applicant has made some changes to the landscape plan. They have retained the Japanese maple. They've removed the lawn area and they've replaced the lawn with succulents, flax and blue grama plants. They've also, in the initial plans, proposed planters along the edge of the sidewalk, and then, planters adjacent to this side dining area on the side of the building. The applicant did extend a covered walkway trellis to the back of the sidewalk. They brought this out. And then, the trellis is also over the two dining areas, one in front of the building, and then, one on the non-drive-through side of the building. The trellis does have a covering on the top. It's an aluminum covering with perforated metal panels to allow for some light filtration and some shading. The reason why it's semi-covered, or I refer it to as semi-permeable, is because if you cover it, it would count to floor area, and it would increase their parking requirement on the site. And the site is under-parked, given the City's parking standard for drive- through uses. This slide shows the covered trellis, again, extended to the back of the sidewalk. It's aluminum. We have landscaping on the edge of this. This brings it, allows people to enter the site. This slide shows the dining area and the bike parking. In the upper left, we have the railings that are used consistently throughout the site. These are used down the pedestrian walkway from El Camino Real. They are also used around the pedestrian seating area on the non-drive-through side of the building. There is bike parking. There is a six-foot-wide access area to park your bikes. There's space for six bike parking places. These are located about 11 feet and 20 feet from building entries. The applicant also provided trash containers. There are two types of trash containers proposed to this site. The first is an aluminum bin, and that's number 6 on the board, or on your screen. That's proposed in the dining areas, or in the outside dining areas. The concrete is proposed more along the drive-through areas of the site. As you can see, this is the original proposal that the Board evaluated, with the corrugated metal siding. The applicant did extend that siding all the way down the edge of the building. And then, the other thing the applicant did is that they extended that to all elevations of the building. After publication of the staff report and some conversations with the applicant, there were some changes to the plans that were provided to the Board as a desk item. What the applicant did is that they did add benches along El Camino Real. You're going to see that in the applicant's presentation. They also widened the covered walkway that you're seeing here, the trellis over the walkway. They also increased the amount of coverage in the ceiling screen, I would say, in the covered trellis walkway, and there were some changes to the landscape plans that the applicant is proposing. With that, I would be happy to answer questions, or turn it over to the applicant. Chair Furth: Any questions of staff? Seeing none, may we hear from the applicant? Jim Shively, Stantec Architecture: Good morning, Chair Furth and board members and staff. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: If you could introduce yourself, spell your name for our transcriber, and you will have 10 minutes. Mr. Shively: Jim Shively, Stantec Architecture. [spells name] I've also got with me today Conrad Freeman, who is the owner/operator, and I've got Zorah Mariano, who is the project manager, and has a real good understanding of the hard numbers for the project. With that, I would like to start with, there were two issues that were brought to our attention shortly after noon yesterday. One was the benches and enhancing the pedestrian experience out front, and also, the landscaping was cited as an issue, the fact that they weren't incorporating the native landscaping. Both issues have been addressed, and as I go through the slides, I'll speak to those. If we look at this, okay, you're going to see on this landscape plan the two benches that are out front. We've centered those on the three flag poles. We also wanted to soften the surface there, so we've left decomposed granite around the benches there. We did continue the landscaping out on this adjacent side in front of the McDonald's placard, so the landscaping was City of Palo Alto Page 4 removed from this area, just knowing that we would have pedestrian traffic and children playing around the benches. The other thing we wanted to take advantage of... And I'm here to say that we are keeping those brick walls. All the walls that are there will remain. But there was a real seating opportunity in front, and our landscape architect was having some issues with the sliver of space that was left between the back of walking that wall. What we felt as a design team the best thing to do would be to add concrete. We don't like adding more concrete as a general rule, and I don't think you probably do either, but the reality of the situation is that that wall will be used for seating, and we encourage it. But, anything that I'm presenting here is open for discussion, and landscape in particular because I know there are concerns that we have. As far as the trellis goes, the two issues I heard yesterday were the height of them, the proportions of them, and the coverage of areas were concerns. The PowerPoint that you were shown earlier had the -- and bear with me, my vision here -- this is the primary outdoor dining area. What we had originally shown in your PowerPoint, it was bound by these two beam areas right here. What we've done now is added this element, and this element, which pretty much puts these side by side here. The existing wood trellis, which you've all seen, bottom clear height is 8-foot-6. What we are proposing for this front dining canopy area out here is 9 foot to bottom of structure, as well as 9 foot to bottom of structure over on the side one here. This, we're leaving at...No, it's actually been dropped. It's been dropped to 10 foot clear. That's what we... There's really a different purpose for this, this trellis. I took to heart last time I left here and discussed with the design team the fact that we were kind of divorced from the front here. It was important to make a connection from the building to the front and enhance our pedestrian experience on the project. What we've done is we used this linear, intentionally kept it narrow just for the...let me get my leader again here...intentionally narrow, just to define and mark that and accentuate the path that goes in there. Now, what we've got is a ramp condition here. We drop about two feet from back here, so inherently, it gets taller as it gets to the street. As I get to the perspectives, you'll see that it has been lowered, and it has been brought out to the front here. Also in the package that Adam handed out, there were two options as far as the grid goes. I call it the lid for the trellises. You're seeing right now, and it graphically is incorrect. It shows more of a translucent type material. There are two materials that I presented and handed out, that were in the handouts you got. One is a 55 percent open element. It's more of a traditional grid. You might find it in cadlocks, but it absolutely...I believe it's an inch and a half tall, and the orientation, we've intentionally run it parallel to the path of travel, will significantly block the sun. The other one is more of an architectural. Now, it's 75 percent open. It is used more in architectural settings. That, the detailing, you can just see the detailing in it that makes it more architectural. I spoke at great length with McNichols, they are a perforated metal manufacturer, and talked extensively about them. That product, the 75 percent perforated or open element, is being used on a lot of projects, exterior skins of buildings. Most recently, they installed the Denver Botanical Garden structure, is clad in the element. But we are open. I just wanted to provide the options and the percentages that were available there. This right here is the brick wall, and you can see where the planter has been taken out. It runs up the side here, and there is no planter there. We've got the two benches we've added. Here's the decomposed granite. You can see that the landscaping has been deleted. And then, we've got the wall on the other side over here that also will provide that wall. Right now, we're plus or minus 21 inches high, so it's a comfortable bench height. You can see on this, we did lower it, the corrugated metal, and this was plaster before. We've wrapped the corrugated metal around for the continuity on it. You can see right here that the trellis was dropped. We felt that it was important to maintain the height of that so it slips just over the awning on the building. That was our spring point for that trellis. This trellis beyond you can see is set at the lower elevation and matches the awning element. That's from the interior there, you can see it. And this one is not dropped. It will come down, and this edge of this canopy has been added to slide over. These, although it looks like they are separated by a greater distance, the distance is plus or minus 18 inches from edge to edge, so there will be continuity of shadows cast in this entire area. Here is the drive-through. You can see the enlarged canopy here. And another view of it. We did put the bike racks in, took that to heart. We have two lockers in back, and we have the six racks out front that are right here. We've got a total capacity of eight for the bicycles. We have this railing. Last time, we were retaining some of the pipe rail. We have modified that. All of it will be consistent on site. All railing will be this style right here. And I believe that's the highlight of the revisions. I have to leave you with this statement. We appreciate your comments, and we want to work with you. We're not digging in here at all. Thank you very much for your time. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Furth: Thank you. I believe we have no public comment cards. Anybody wish to speak on this matter? Okay, if you could stay for just a minute. Oh, would you like to speak on the McDonald's matter? No? All right. Does staff [sic] have any questions of the applicant? Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. I have a quick question for you about the patio area outside the dining room. When I went out there the other day, it seems to me there's about a 12-inch grade difference between the landscaped area, what's underneath the majority of the new trellis, and the actual seating area. And when I'm looking at your perspectives, it seems to show that it's all the same level. Are you raising the patio outside, the landscaped area? I just don't understand what I'm missing. Mr. Shively: I'm going to refer to the project manager on this. Vice Chair Baltay: Please do. Thank you. Chair Furth: Excuse me, could you re-introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber? Zorah Mariano, Stantec Architecture: My name is Zorah Mariano. [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Mariano: The intent was to keep two different levels of patio areas. We do have a section, if you go back to the site plan, the (inaudible) site plan...? [locating slide] There are two paths of travel from the sidewalk, and they are right at that.... This immediate point is the access to here, and anyone that would want to come from this area would have to come back down to the ramp and over to this section here. Vice Chair Baltay: Excuse me. Okay. I understand that. When I'm looking at this image presented to us, and several of these images here, I don't know if I'm missing something, but it sure looks to me like it's all intended to be one level. I want to just understand what your intent really is. Ms. Mariano: It is not. It is intended to be two levels. Vice Chair Baltay: In this image, there are two different seating planes? Ms. Mariano: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant? Board Member Thompson: I do. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Going back to the trellis material, there is no sample here for the trellis, what that shading is, correct? And you said... Chair Furth: The applicant is indicating that indeed there are no samples. Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, yes. Sorry. Could you go back and just explain the ones that you are thinking about, that are translucent, and then, a certain percentage perforated. Mr. Shively: In the handout that Adam distributed, it should be after the renderings. There should be six renderings. Then there will be two sheets of a McNichols cut sheet, the specifications, as well as an isometric of those materials. City of Palo Alto Page 6 ??: (inaudible) Mr. Shively: Yes. There's two of those. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so, they are both metal. Mr. Shively: Yes. Board Member Thompson: And what was the reason to go from wood to aluminum? Was it for the height? Mr. Shively: More of a contemporary look. Board Member Thompson: I see. Mr. Shively: Right now, it's a heavy timber, and we wanted to go with a more contemporary line on the building. It seemed appropriate. Board Member Thompson: Sorry, I just have one more question. These two cut sheets kind of talk about the structure that it is, but is there a flat element that is going to go on top of that? Mr. Shively: That... Ms. Mariano: Those are actually the, the elements for the top of the structure. The main structure of the trellis will be steel posts with aluminum frame, and aluminum grating, or the architectural grating. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so these are the infill, even though... Mr. Shively: Yes. Board Member Thompson: ...they kind of look like... Mr. Shively: They'll set on top. What you're seeing up there is there are intermediate members that in the photo run right-left, that are smaller steel tubes. We're thinking they're going to be probably 3 by 4 inches deep. The larger ones are going to be at the posts structurally. A structural engineer is obviously going to look at this. The design, though, was intended, you can see the c-channel on the trellis element itself, the outboard steel members. If you look at the white awning in the background, you'll see that that's a c-channel also. We were playing up the forms, but wanted to make it a different element, so painted it the gray that you'll find on other portions of the building. Board Member Thompson: Sorry, a few more questions. Sorry, I apologize I wasn't here for the last time this was reviewed, so, a couple more questions. The awnings, the white awnings and the metal trellis, those are all new and added to this part? Or was the white awning already...? Mr. Shively: No, the white awning is new. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Okay. Mr. Shively: The complete exterior is new, with the exception of some of the surfaces, which receive paint or the new materials. That would be on the elevations that were submitted. Board Member Thompson: Okay, thank you. Sorry, one last question. You said you added more concrete in your presentation. Could you explain exactly where that is? City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Shively: The concrete we added was out front, and it was a maintenance issue. It wasn't a strong- arm, let's concrete this site. We wanted to soften it up. In Adam's PowerPoint, there would have been a landscaped strip here. It was about 12 inches deep, so the planting, unlike the planting back here, it doesn't get the heavy traffic, so we've maintained that thin planter there with the native grasses, which was our landscape architect's suggestion. This one, we've removed it. We felt it would have taken a beating and would have been a maintenance issue. But if the Board would like to see landscaping in there, we can do it. We could put the decomposed granite in there, pretty much like we've got over here at the benches, if we wanted a variation in materials. We are open for suggestions on that one. But that was the intent behind removing that and adding the concrete. Board Member Thompson: All right, thank you. That is all my questions. Chair Furth: Anybody else have questions? Just to clarify, then. The proposal is to put concrete between the brick wall and the sidewalk... Mr. Shively: Yes. Chair Furth: ...and still retain landscaping behind it. Mr. Shively: Yes, absolutely. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions of staff or anybody else before we start deliberating? Does staff have any comments you wish to make? Seeing none, all right. Board Member Lew, why don't you start? Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I can recommend approval of the project. And I did want to follow up on the corrugated metal. Last time, I think you mentioned another McDonald's project that was near a cannery district, and I did want to add that your project, this project, is actually across the street from Palo Alto's cannery, old cannery district, which has lots of corrugated metal. I think it actually will help fit in with the existing context of the neighborhood. I can support the project. I think the trellises look good. And I did want to point out, I think that there is an electrical vault along the sidewalk. It's in the planter now, so you may have issues with putting in the 12-foot effective sidewalk. I would encourage you to work with staff to see if, you know, there may be issues, and you may need to make it transition there, down to a narrow sidewalk, depending on the cost. Because this is a minor project, right? Ms. Gerhardt: It is a minor project. Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager. It is a minor remodel project, but on the Midas Tires further down El Camino, we have a similar situation, and we required them to move any utilities or redo Christy boxes and things of that nature. I think we've been pretty strict on the 12 feet. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you for that. Okay. And then, so, I can recommend approval. I'll see what my other board members think about the project. I would say, there are a couple comments for staff. On page 24 of the packet, which is on Findings, #2, I think you've got something there on plants, and the plants should go under #5. You've got some plant stuff under #5 already. I think it's just a cut-and-paste issue there. Yeah, page 24. In the first paragraph. And then, my second comment is that, I think I would like the concrete paving color and texture, (inaudible) finish, or whatever, to be submitted to staff. Chair Furth: Board Member Gooyer. Board Member Gooyer: Yes. I agree. I can approve the project the way it's presented. I think the trellises help a great deal. I'm also glad to see that apparently you dropped the trellises to the 9 and the 10 feet. At least in the renderings, they looked awfully tall, which I was going to recommend you lower those. The way it's shown like this, I can approve it as shown. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Hi there. Again, I apologize for not being here on the first hearing, so, sort of getting used to this a little bit more. In terms of the project, I feel like there are a few things that could maybe be improved on. Currently, when it comes to the trellis, a wayfinding, the way that it's laid out right now, if I'm looking at the render that we're all looking at right now, it looks like the front door is right at the end of that first run of the trellis, and it seems like that's not the case. You actually have to sort of take a right, and then take a left, and then take another left to get to the door. I wonder that, in terms of wayfinding, it might be better suited to the building to actually have that trellis run all the way from street to door, so that there is a very clear path of travel for people who are trying to get to the front door. I can sort of imagine people coming to the end of that first trellis and not really knowing where they need to go spatially, just because the architecture stops and changes material. I would recommend that that path of travel from start to entry...Because I feel like that could cause a lot of confusion, to get in and out. Also regarding the trellis, these cut sheets that you've provided are helpful, but the renders that are accompanying them look basically identical. I realize that that won't be the case, so, if this project were to come back, you know, either formally or as a subcommittee, I feel like this material that you're using for the trellis is not really well-defined. It's sort of hard to understand exactly what the feel will be underneath there. I did see an image really briefly of the first one, where there was a wood trellis. In terms of the feel, with everything, it almost felt like it had a better aesthetic than this metal trellis. I understand you're going for something contemporary. There are a lot of wood contemporary trellis styles, as well. You are using a, I guess, what is it called? E-wood, on the front of the building. It might have a nice relationship to continue that motif. Okay, that's on the trellis. The other wayfinding elements, like the location of the bike parking, also seems not intuitive. Unless I had already seen a bike parked over there, I wouldn't know that that's where I would need to put my bicycle. I do appreciate having the bike parking, something that's in public view, and I think that front plaza is a good place, but I wonder if there might be a more intuitive location, rather than something that's sort of tucked against the side. You know, we're not seeing signage. Maybe there's wayfinding, or something. It's kind of, a little hard to find the bike parking, so, something that might be more in clear view, something where everybody's eyes are on it, but also visible from the street. It might just be a simple rotation of what you're looking at. I think that could be improved on. In general, I mean, aesthetically, I don't know how critical to be. A McDonald's has so many different shapes and forms, sort of all over the states. I can really only judge this for what it is, and in the area that I know it to be. In general, the colors, in my opinion, seem too dark. A darker building accumulates more heat. It's sort of less efficient for the building. Again, I would recommend having something that's maybe, that considers different colors. I know dark is contemporary, and the accents are nice. I like the wood material that you have there. But for the gray that is otherwise extremely pervasive for the rest of the building, I think energy efficiency-wise, I don't know that it's the best solution. And even aesthetically, I don't know that it's the best solution. Those are all my comments for now. Chair Furth: Board Member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for your presentation. I have two concerns at present that prevent me from recommending approval on this project. Big picture. The building really should be pedestrian-friendly and welcoming from El Camino, and I don't find that I can see either of those in this project. My concern has to do with the landscaping and the trellis design relating to the patio. In more detail, there is a grade change of about 2 1/2 feet, at least according to your grading drawings, between the street and the restaurant building entrance, which will affect how the trellis works. If it's 10 feet at one point, it will be over 12 feet at the other, which is, in my opinion, too tall at the street. It's not welcoming, it's forbidding. If it's 10 feet or 9 feet at the street, it will be too low at the entrance. What this strikes me as, is that you, it was designed more as a flat plain, and that wasn't really considered, and I think it has to be. It struck me very strongly, standing out there, that the grade change between the two dining areas -- the smaller one next to the building and the larger one in the landscape area in front of it -- are separate spaces, and they are by fact that you have about a 12-inch grade change there. When I look at your rendering, I'm sorry, but I don't see that. I see one flat area, which looks lovely, but it's not real. And it needs to be. I'm afraid I think the trellis needs to be thought about in enough detail City of Palo Alto Page 9 that it really functions as an outdoor area. And that's important because that's what makes the restaurant look attractive from the street, which is what we're after with our El Camino Real guidelines. Additionally, as Board Member Thompson was alluding to, I think the detailing of the trellis is not as attractive as it could be. I don't find it integrated with the building. It seems to come in higher than the other canopy on the edge of the building. It doesn't really connect you all the way to the entrance. It seems more like an afterthought, or like something the design board told you to do, rather than an integrated part of the building. Maybe that would be okay if it were on the side or it weren't so critical, but this is the face of your building. This is what you see as you walk by, as you drive by, as the community interacts with this McDonald's. This trellis, this landscaped area in the front, what we see, and it doesn't feel like it's been designed as tightly as it ought to be. I'm still confused also whether you have a perforated metal screening at the top, where you have the series of bar slats, which I think would be preferable because they provide better shade while still remaining open. But, to me, what's important is that the area underneath this trellis be comfortable to dine on and be attractive to look at, and I think certainly with perforated metal, it won't be comfortable underneath in the summer. It will be uncomfortable. And I think this industrial aesthetic doesn't quite cut it either. It just doesn't look right. On the landscaping, I also find that at least what's been presented to us seems to be too many succulents, too many dry grasses, and it's just not attractive. I think the idea of a decomposed granite bench area, at the foot of the bench on El Camino Real, also is, it just doesn't seem right somehow. That's what you put in a garden back in the woods more, and this should have maybe a different paving surface. I also think it's a shame to lose any kind of landscaping along the front of the bench, along the front of an existing brick wall. All these things are small, little things, or any one of them or two of them we can look past or try to get through a subcommittee, but in total, it feels to me, again, that the landscaping just isn't really put together as well. You have a really beautiful Japanese maple in the front, and I don't see any of these plants relating to that, or being part of the character of that tree or that plant. So, on those two counts, I found I just don't think this project is ready for being put forward. I think the trellis and outdoor dining areas need more work, and the landscaping needs more work. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation, thank you for your revisions. First, I'd like to say that I think that this proposal is better looking than your existing building and use of the site. The site is interesting because it's framed by tall trees on the back, and you have significant, you do have a significant tree on the site. I'm pleased that you're not proposing to maintain lawn, and myself, I would support eliminating that little theoretical landscaping strip between the sidewalk and the low wall. But, as part of that, I think you need significant landscaping that will show over the wall from the street. Because one of the things we're concerned about is how does this look as you drive by, as well as how does it look when you walk by. I'm pleased with the benches, that does address our concern that we're trying to make the street more friendly to pedestrians, more attractive to them. I do think that we need some seating which has, if not backs, arms, so that people who have difficulty standing up and sitting down can lever themselves up. But that's a minor matter. I'd like to hear more from my colleagues on the issue...And I think it's pretty clear, even if it wasn't communicated clearly, that we're not talking about perforated metal. The proposals that you're showing us are grates. Is that...? Applicant is nodding and indicating that's correct. I'd like to hear a little bit more from my colleagues on the, on the trellis. Looking at the drawings, they look pretty good to me, but I understand the drawings aren't necessarily accurate. And this is not a new building. This is a minor aesthetic remodel, so... But, we don't want something that could be better and isn't, and we don't want anything that doesn't meet our basic standards. If I could hear a little bit more on that fact from my colleagues, I'd appreciate it. Board Member Thompson: I was just going to chime in here. I've already spoken about the trellis, and I know we want to hear about what Board Member Lew and Gooyer have to say. While Board Member Baltay was speaking, I kind of noticed that the awnings that you have definitely do compete with the trellis, and there might be a really nice opportunity to have a really clean, contemporary look, where you have this horizontal element that kind of floats above you, and that is your wayfinding that goes around the building. There's kind of a real nice opportunity, you don't have to have all these bits and pieces that kind of change plane and cut into each other. That maybe there is something that can respond to the grade change, but also act as this kind of horizontal element that people will use to get around and be City of Palo Alto Page 10 under and move through and around your building. As it's designed right now, it does not work like that. I think there is an opportunity to make that work really well for the building. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? Alex or Robert? Vice Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Chair Furth. Could I ask the applicant a question about the height of the trellis? Chair Furth: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Is it possible -- to the applicant -- to tell us, what is the headroom height of the trellis, both at the street and at the entrance to the building? Mr. Shively: The bottom of the trellis at the building, the arterial one, the long linear one? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, the one showing on this image right now. Mr. Shively: That is 10 foot to the bottom of it, and if we've got a 2-foot-6 grade, 12-6. Vice Chair Baltay: This elevation showing the street view, that's 12-foot-6 high right there. Mr. Shively: Yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Shively: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: I put that to my colleagues, to be aware that this is twelve and a half feet tall out at the street. Board Member Gooyer: Which I think is too tall. Vice Chair Baltay: I do, too. And as I point it out, Robert, if you make it shorter at the street, you have a real problem at the entrance. It's not a simple, come-back-and-tweak-it kind of design. Mr. Shively: Well, the first thing that jumps out at me would be -- and based on Board Member Thompson -- is that if we wanted to connect that outdoor dining awning to the main street awning, we could split that. Drop the one out front, and then, once you got to the landing and the ramp, then that trellis would transition higher at that point. We could step that, and as a way of wayfinding, the trellis would come into the structure -- there you see it. Once it gets past the bikes, it transitions to the left underneath the outdoor dining canopy, so it would be a contiguous trellis there at the same level. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Gooyer: If you go with a set of floating trellises, then you can get away with doing that, having some variation on the various portions of it. Vice Chair Baltay: Absolutely. I could see many ways it could be designed. Board Member Gooyer: Right. Chair Furth: I'm going to suggest that I think these are matters that could be resolved in subcommittee. I don't think that the trellis redesign needs to come before the entire Board, nor do I think any landscape tweaking needs to come before the entire Board. Is that acceptable? City of Palo Alto Page 11 Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, I'd go along with that. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I think the trellis could probably come back. How do you and the other Board members feel about the color of the building being too dark? Chair Furth: My concern is really the one you raised about energy efficiency. I don't have an aesthetic problem with it. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm okay with it the way it is, Osma. Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, me, too. Chair Furth: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Okay, so, there are two gray colors, and I think one of them is very dark. I would maybe suggest that the subcommittee could compare the colors to the dark gray on the Equinox across the street, which I think actually looks handsome. You might think it's too dark, but it's something to compare it to. Also, with gray colors and stucco, the texture of the stucco affects the color. Because the heavier the texture that you get, the darker the color looks. It actually is significant when I've done tests on buildings. I'm okay if the trellis comes back to the subcommittee. Board Member Thompson, you had mentioned the bike parking location. I've gone to the site several times, and people are already parking where they are proposing the bike racks. That's where people...I've seen lots of people go in, and they actually...I've gone there twice by bike and I park my bike exactly where they are proposing the racks, so I think that people have figured out where they need to go. And the heat gain is a huge issue. I've tested it out on my house. The darker colors really do make a difference, but I think on this one, yeah, I'm not sure that I...Yeah, I'm actually okay with the gray. It's a very good point, though, on the heat gain. (inaudible) make a motion? Chair Furth: The notes I have are that we recommend approval with referral to subcommittee on the redesign of the trellis, to reduce the height at street level, and better design the two dining areas. Redesign the trellises? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I think it's important that the dining areas outside be integrated with the trellis design, so it's both the design of the dining areas and the trellis. Board Member Thompson: And also the entry to the building. Chair Furth: I think I said that. Board Member Thompson: Okay, sorry, I missed that. Chair Furth: If I didn't get...It doesn't matter what I said if it didn't get heard the way I intended. Okay. It would be redesign of trellis to better define and complement -- I can't think without writing -- the outdoor dining areas, lower the height at curb/sidewalk, and integrate with the main building. Review the stucco color in the context of the building, meaning structures across the way. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, and on that... Chair Furth: And to minimize solar gain with the palette they're working on. Go ahead. Board Member Thompson: I guess a question for the rest of the board is, if that color...Would the Board be open to that color changing if there was a better, more energy efficient color solution out there? Chair Furth: I'm fine with that. I trust the Board [crosstalk]. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Lew: The most energy-efficient color would be white. Board Member Thompson: Well, there's grades, right? It could be... Board Member Lew: Right, but, I mean... Board Member Thompson: ...off-white... Board Member Lew: If you're going to the point of saying what is efficient, most efficient, then we would say pure titanium dioxide, right? And I don't think we want every building in Palo Alto to be white. It's beautiful in Greece. I don't know. I just find it, it's a difficult one. I think it's a valid point. Board Member Thompson: At least I can be open to other colors. Board Member Lew: If you actually look at the...I have two points. One is, for cool roofs, we don't get tax credits here for that. If you're in the central valley, you can get it, but you don't qualify here because it's not that hot. To me, that informs us that it's not a critical issue as if we were in, like, the central valley. And then, two, if you look at the solar heating, there's a huge jump when you go to grays and reds and whatever. You really do have to get a lighter beige to really get the big impact. I think we're going to run into some branding problems with their corporate stuff, which is fine. We can battle that if we need to. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: I don't know where we go. Should we take a straw poll? Chair Furth: Well... Sure. How many would be in favor of asking that the stucco color be changed to white or a similarly heat-effective...? Board Member Thompson: I don't know that it has to be white. I mean... Chair Furth: Right. I think that's what Alex was just saying. Board Member Thompson: I understand, but I don't fully agree. I mean, with all due respect, there are... Chair Furth: That is what we always say before we disagree, right? Board Member Thompson: There's jumps, right? Black is the worst, and then, gray is better, and then, there are gradients that are incrementally better. And just because we don't get a tax credit on our white roofs doesn't mean we don't deserve it. I don't know. There are other sides to this. Chair Furth: All right, let's do something simpler. We can refer this to subcommittee to review the stucco color generally, and we'll let the subcommittee figure out what that means. Or, we can do it in a more limited way. What would you all like...? Alex, you proposed a straw vote. Board Member Lew: I would just say another thing. The reason why we don't get tax incentives is because we are in a half heating and half cooling climate. Chair Furth: Part of the year, it's useful. Board Member Lew: We use half...Yeah. Half the time, like, November to April is heating months, May to October is cooling months. To me, it's kind of a wash. I'm not crunching energy numbers... Chair Furth: Okay, so, I myself am not going to support a whiter change of color option. I think if we had addressed this at the beginning, I might feel differently, but we have not. What do the rest of you feel about this? City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Gooyer: I'm actually okay with the darker color. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex? Board Member Lew: I would support something, if there's something, we're talking about an incremental change to a lighter gray, I would be willing to support that. Chair Furth: (inaudible) out there, wondering where we're going. Yes, Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: I share Alex's statement. Chair Furth: All right. Then the second item on our referral to subcommittee would be review of stucco color, both for suitability for the context and to see if there is a modification that would achieve the applicant's goals and increase energy efficiency on the building. Is that right? And I would ask that we also add review the bench design for suitability for universal access, and the paving color and texture, and the paving material under the bench, right? We're talking about? And, revisions to the landscaping behind the brick wall so that it is, it compensates for the loss of landscaping in front of it. Anything else? On the referral? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to express concern to my colleagues that this is a lot of stuff to put on a subcommittee. We've been finding subcommittee is, is having a hard time being effective on small things. This is a big thing. A lot of pieces going into this, and to me, collectively, there's too many things to make this really work on a subcommittee level. Board Member Gooyer: I would agree. If it was just the elevation of the trellis, that's one thing, but now we're getting into color choices, which could affect the entire appearance of the building. Board Member Lew: I think these are all very minor issues. Chair Furth: I think they are small. MOTION Chair Furth: Okay, would somebody make a motion? Board Member Lew: Well, I think you made a motion, and I will second it. Chair Furth: Okay. I have my notes. Board Member Thompson: Um...Okay. Chair Furth: Yes. Before we vote does anybody wish to offer an amendment? Board Member Thompson: I was just going to mention, in terms of whether the subcommittee would be effective in this matter or not, it's true, it's a lot. I do think a more formal review would be necessary, but I could be swayed to believing a subcommittee would be okay. Chair Furth: Well, it looks like we're going to put it to an empirical test. We'll see. All those... Board Member Lew: I think we know who we can put on the subcommittee. Chair Furth: Absolutely. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? All right. That passes, 4-to-Baltay. No abstentions. And I will appoint a subcommittee to look into these matters. MOTION PASSES 4-1, with Board Member Baltay voting in opposition to the motion. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Furth: Thank you very much, to the applicant and to everybody else involved. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3705 El Camino Real [18PLN-00136]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for the Demolition of two Existing Retail Buildings and Construction of a 100% Affordable Housing Project. The Project Consists of a Four Story Building Containing 59 Residential Units, Two Levels of Garage Parking, and Associated Site Improvements. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Apply the Affordable Housing Combining District Regulations to the Site, and a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Garage and Ground Level Encroachments into a Required Rear and Street Side Yards. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15194 (Affordable Housing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Furth: Now we will hear item 3, for which we have a large number of speaks. That's a public hearing on 3705 El Camino Real, which is a recommendation on the applicant's request for major architectural review to allow the demolition of two existing retail buildings and construction of 100 percent affordable housing project. The project consists of a four-story building containing 59 residential units, two levels of garage parking, and associated site improvements. The applicant is also requesting of other bodies -- not us -- a zone change to apply the Affordable Housing Combining District regulations to the site, and they are also requesting a design enhancement exception to allow for garage and ground-level encroachments into a required rear yard and street side yards. The project is exempt...wait a minute. The project is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act per Guideline 15194 pertaining to affordable housing. The project applicant is Palo Alto Housing Corporation. The architect is Pyatok, and the landscape architect is The Guzzardo Partnership. How many speaker cards do we have? We have about 10 speaker cards, so we may reduce the time for speaking to two minutes. But first, let's hear from staff. Staff? Oh, I'm sorry. This is a quasi-judicial matter. Has everybody visited the site? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Gooyer: Yes. Board Member Thompson: No. Chair Furth: Everybody but Board Member Thompson has visited the site. Does anybody have any conversations, ex parte communications to report with others about this project? Board Member Lew: No. Board Member Thompson: No. Chair Furth: No, nobody does. All right. Staff report, please. Graham Owen, Project Planner: Thank you, Chair Furth. This is the second hearing that we've had with the Architectural Review Board on this particular item. As you mentioned, this is 3703 through 3709 El Camino Real, better known as Wilton Court. It is an application for architectural review for a four-story, 59-unit, 100 percent affordable housing project, located at the corner of El Camino Real and Wilton Avenue. As a bit of background, we've gone through the background before, but just to reiterate kind of City of Palo Alto Page 15 where we are and how we got there. This is kind of a, about a year, year and a half in the making, or so. The applicant submitted an application for prescreening with the City Council last year, and based on the results of that prescreening application, the City worked on an ordinance to create the Affordable Housing Combining District. That ordinance went through Planning Commission and City Council review earlier this year and was approved. Following that, the applicant did submit an application to rezone the property to do the Affordable Housing Combining District overlay, as well as the architectural review that you have before you today. The first hearing for this with the Architectural Review Board was in October, and this is the second hearing. Just to reiterate, the site is two parcels, 3703 and 3709 El Camino Real, located at the northeast corner of Wilton Avenue and El Camino. The existing site is zoned CN Neighborhood Commercial, and has a corresponding Neighborhood Commercial comprehensive land use designation, as well. The site is just under half of an acre and it's been used for retail and auto services in the past. There were a number of changes that were requested at the first hearing of the Architectural Review Board, and the staff report includes a list of the requested items that were to come back, as well as the applicant's response to those comments. First and foremost, one of them was to provide a formal site plan and landscape plan, and that's what you have before you today. This is showing the building in relation to the corner, as well as the street trees, the sidewalk, the pedestrian realm, as well as the rear courtyard, which is kind of in the L-shaped section of the building towards the end of the alleyway that's abutting the site. It also shows in the upper corner an area for a bioretention stormwater facility, and an oak tree that's existing on the site that would be retained. The basic orientation of the building has not changed. However, there have been a couple of important changes that have taken place since the first hearing. The first is that the number of units has been dropped from 65 down to 59. This is owing to a rear yard required setback for the second, third and fourth levels of the building. The number of parking spaces has remained essentially the same, gone from 42 to 41. One of the other, kind of larger ticket items that the Architectural Review Board had requested was to enhance the pedestrian experience as you're coming into the site by relocating the lobby, which was previously kind of at the center, center point of the building along the El Camino Real frontage, to the corner at El Camino and Wilton Avenue. There are a number of other changes that were requested to the cladding, to the architectural cladding, as well as looking at ways to make the building more imaginative. The architect will review the architectural changes with you momentarily, but I just wanted to give you a brief preview of what's to come. This is a couple of other additional items that have been included. I think a number of the, the neighbors that are adjacent to the site had some concerns about the building as it relates to shading, so the applicant has provided a shade study, which is included in the packet, in your project plans. We also have lighting plans with foot candle readings, which are preliminary, but those are included with the resubmittal. This is the building. As I said, it is essentially the same program with some modifications to the ground floor program. It's an L-shaped building. You have some differentiation between the materials on the ground level, which are board-formed concrete for the most part, and then, the upper levels of the building are terra cotta, as well as some stucco, stucco sections in different colors. These are the renderings from the rear elevation, or the east, as well as the alley elevation. There are a couple critical issues, key issues with the application that need to be taken under consideration. First and foremost, the site is located on El Camino Real, so the El Camino Real design guidelines and the South El Camino Real design guidelines apply in this case, and we have included in the draft record of (inaudible) action a number of the policies that are applicable and should be evaluated relative to the project. The other is the Affordable Housing Combining District development standards. As I mentioned, this is being tied in with a concurrent review of a rezoning to apply the overlay. Some of the underlying CN District regulations apply in this case, but the AH modifies the number of those standards. The second, one of the things that was also of importance to a number of the folks who live in the vicinity are the, the potential for parking spillover impacts, traffic impacts. The applicant has provided a Transportation Demand Management and Parking Analysis for the site. I have included a number of the measures that are included with the TDM plan in the actual staff report, to kind of give you an understanding of what they are hoping to do to reduce the number of peak hour trips that are associated with the project. They've also included analysis from GreenTRIP, which is a, they are basically a metrics entity that looks at a number of different variables and how they could be computed to approximate parking demand as opposed to trip demand. The GreenTRIP model suggested that 0.5 per unit would be sufficient for the project in terms of number of parking spaces. In this case, the parking that is provided is in excess of that standard. Lastly, design enhancement exceptions. There is a request to modify the setbacks for the City of Palo Alto Page 16 rear and the alley side, setbacks for the ground level, as well as for the below-grade garage level. Essentially, those are areas that are dedicated for garage and for vehicle and bicycle parking, and the request is to modify those, the strict application of those standards to allow for those features. Lastly, landscaping and street trees. We do have, the landscape architect is here and can speak to the landscaping intent. One thing that staff has been interested in seeing with the final iteration of the plans are some street trees along El Camino Real, something like a California plane, a London plane, or something that would be, kind of a broadleaf that would help to, certainly not hide the building, but to kind of shade it, and also provide for a better pedestrian experience. What's proposed now is some planters, so the intent with our comments there -- and the urban forester concurs -- is to get something that's in the ground, if possible, and if utility conflicts aren't present. Environmental review. The project does qualify for the Affordable Housing exemption under CEQA guideline, Section 15194. There are two sections to the guidelines that are applied. One of them is also 15192, which provides a number of criteria that need to be evaluated for this particular exemption. The project meets all of the standards for the Affordable Housing exemption, so we have considered it exempt from CEQA. With that, we are recommending approval of the project as presented, with a number of conditions of approval that are included in the project staff report, as well as the plans, and with the findings that we have in the staff report, as well. We are recommending that the Architectural Review Board find the project exempt from CEQA and recommend approval of the architectural review and design enhancement exception to the City Council. I'm happy to answer any questions, after that. Chair Furth: Thank you. I'd like to go straight to the applicant and the public, unless we have questions that really need to be asked now. We don't, so, if we could hear from the applicant, please. We do have one question. Is there a sample board, for material samples? Adrianne Steichen, Pyatok Architects: Yeah. We also have some physical samples, as well as... Chair Furth: Great. Want to give them to staff, so we can be looking at them? That would be great. [Staff distributing/setting up material samples.] Chair Furth: Thank you. You can go ahead. Ms. Steichen: Sure. Chair Furth: And if you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber. Probably your firm's name, too. Ms. Steichen: Sure. I'm going to wait for the presentation to... Chair Furth: Sure. Sorry. Ms. Steichen: That's okay. My name is Adrianne Steichen [spells name]. With Pyatok Architects [spells name]. This is actually the third project we've come to the City of Palo Alto with, with Palo Alto Housing. Graham has described a lot of this, so I won't go into great detail on my first couple slides. Existing conditions, and the aerial. The existing single-story commercial properties that are on the two primary parcels. Again, this project is a 30-60 percent AMI, 100 percent affordable rental project. Up to 25 percent of the units are targeted to adults with developmental disabilities. Fifty-nine dwelling units, a majority of which are studio apartments. The height varies from 35 feet to 48, 49 feet, with a typical top height of 48 feet. Forty-one parking spaces remain, and we did increase the bicycle parking since you last saw this, from 70 to 86. And, the ground floor residential amenities remain. The site boundaries, we are commercial, Neighborhood Commercial along El Camino Real, abutting RM-30 behind us to the north. And then, of course, across El Camino is Neighborhood Commercial. Again, we're asking for the Affordable Housing Combining District overlay. Those two combine to setbacks as you see here, with a 50-foot height. The rear yard was determined to be actually an interior property line, with the front yard on Wilton. We're providing setbacks on both Wilton and El Camino to improve the effective sidewalk City of Palo Alto Page 17 width and add landscaping. That would be street trees and additional drought-tolerant landscaping, as well as street furniture in all of the street and side street frontages. In the massing, we decided to hold the street wall as you've seen prior, carve out a back yard in the interior of the property, step down to the neighborhood in accordance with the RM-30 abutting setbacks. Accentuate the corner by lifting it slightly, and define an entry on the corner based on some of your recommendations and comments. We also added significant solar shading. Previously, you had seen only top-floor solar shading. The south- facing facades are getting both vertical and horizontal sun shading. The west façade is getting vertical sun shading. That all combines together to the proposed design. Garage level remains largely unchanged since you last saw it. Ground floor, 17 parking spaces on the upper level of the garage. Bike parking took over a repurposed storage space next to the adjacent property line. We also moved the lobby to the corner to give it priority and emphasis. We moved the management office and laundry at your recommendation to accommodate that reorganization. We also cleaned up some interior circulation on the ground floor to improve pedestrian access in and out of the garage, but also to the upper floors. On the podium level, there is a similar organization of the units. We've pulled back from the interior property line to accommodate the rear yard setback. The courtyard space on the podium has large trees that are providing screening to the neighborhood. We've also added a vertical wall that provides some additional screening and trellis to really make a place on that podium for residents to have small gatherings, intimate gatherings. And then, have landscaped most of the podium to sort of limit the occupancy of that podium. Some demonstrative sections here of the trellis and the landscaping wall, the larger street trees and podium planters, as well as the landscaping buffer on the alley for access to the garage, and really screening the garage. Upper floor of the plan, very straightforward. Building materials. The materials that you have been looking at and the material board that was in your packet. We're proposing a terra cotta tile in some variated colors. We have a book that has some additional color options, and we're looking at more of the terra cotta, there's three terra cotta colors in there, adds the variation. The sunscreen with a perforated panel would be both the vertical and the horizontal sunscreens shown in the elevations. A thin parapet cap to give a top to the architecture. Two colors, mostly in a light body, to offset the terra cotta tile color, and then, a dark accent color that would be used on the residential portion on Wilton to step down the architecture. Capless storefront and board-formed concrete primarily for the ground floor. Provided for comparison, we're showing the current proposal and the previous proposal, which we had not color rendered. That's why you're seeing the difference there. But, accentuated the corner, really made more of a mass on the corner, but reduced the mass on Wilton, including the actual mass and the perceived mass. Instead of the terra cotta tile going all the way up and actually extending farther into Wilton, we've reduced the parapet height at the street level and really set that back with a stucco edge. That's reducing apparent height of the building along Wilton, as well as the setback step-down along Wilton toward the RM-30 zone. It's a little clearer once we get to the elevations, what I'm talking about. Again, on El Camino Real, really, we're leaving that corner piece available for public art. It could wrap the corner -- there's plenty of wall there -- to really make a real corner to that end of the building, and it will be exposed with the additional setback. The main building entry, there's bicycle parking for visitors at the main building entry, very visible to people coming and going, but also people inside the building, so it can be monitored and safely stored. A place to wait for car pickup or car service or a friend to come get you, or to just sit and be a part of the street life at the building entry. It really, we've also planned for building signage at that corner, and down lights so that it's a safe place to be at all times of the day. Here is an additional rendering that we had not shown you prior, of Wilton Avenue looking south towards El Camino Real, showing here with the tree that exists, and without. You can see the step-down of the mass, starting from the corner at El Camino, stepping down to, towards the alley, Lane 66. The units on the corner of Wilton Avenue and the alley are actually oriented towards Wilton alley, or towards the podium, so that they're keeping as much privacy for the adjacent neighbors as possible. Again, the elevation comparison for El Camino Real. We pulled together the windows for the units so that they are a little closer together. The space between now is an opportunity for an accent panel between the windows and the vertical mullions. It also allows for more recognizable, sort of residential pattern of the architecture. The frontage...We also then pulled the residential entry to the corner to give it a little bit more prominence. One of the things that was also mentioned last time was to actually raise the height of the ground floor, so we did do that by a foot and took it out of the upper floors, three inches or so out of the upper floors to accommodate it. Again, here is that elevation comparison on Wilton. That shows the perceived mass of the building stepping down. We also did a little bit of clean-up on the ground floor, City of Palo Alto Page 18 accessing around the existing transformer that's there, to clean up that architecture. Again, the landscaping along the alleyway to screen the elevation of the garage. We added a little trellis above the garage that will support additional landscaping climbing up and over, to really provide as much armature as we can for lush landscaping along that façade. Again, the interior property lines. And then, I want to actually give this over to the landscape architect to talk more in detail about the landscaping intervention. If I can. Chair Furth: There's only 21 seconds left, but I think it would be important to hear from the landscaping architect, if the Board is willing to extend an additional two minutes to the applicant? Board Member Lew: The other thing is, they will have a rebuttal period, as well. Chair Furth: I realize they will, but I figure the public would probably like to hear what they have to say before the public presents its comments. I'm not going to cut the public time down from three minutes to two minutes, so, I think we should be equally generous to you. Ms. Steichen: Thank you. Chair Furth: Will two minutes do, or do you need three? Gary Laymon, The Guzzardo Partnership: Good morning. My name is Gary Laymon, I'm with The Guzzardo Partnership [spells name]. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Laymon: Thanks for hearing us this morning. We're excited to be a part of this project. Had an opportunity to work in a very collaborative way with the development team to create a really wonderful space for this community that's coming to the site. We started with thinking about the pedestrian experience along the public streetscape, thinking along El Camino in particular. There were opportunities there to be able to enhance that to make it a more pedestrian-friendly environment, primarily by introducing street furniture, additional planting areas, both at grade as well as in elevated planters. Our initial thought when we saw the project was we should put some additional street trees, large-scale canopy street trees like you'd want to see along El Camino, and then, we went to the site and found that there were significant existing utilities in place that would preclude putting new trees in the ground. We looked at creating a new solution where we have elevated pots instead, which are compatible to utilities, and giving us some scale and canopy and separation, and making that a more pedestrian-friendly environment. We carried that idea around the corner on Wilton, as well, again, to help create a comfortable space to be able to work there. We were also cognizant that there's going to be parking both on El Camino and on Wilton, so that the landscape is going to have a tendency to get walked on. When we were encountered with that, we wanted to have green living material there, but wanted it to survive. We didn't want to put lawn in, which would be, kind of the go-to answer of yesterday. We have an actual ground cover material that is actually foot-tolerant, foot traffic-tolerant, and that's the carupa [phonetic] ground cover that's there. We've introduced some native plants in this area. I understand there's an interest to have more, and we're definitely up for doing that. We have salvia as one of our primary shrubs there. We have crepe myrtle trees in the pots. We think we can go to a western redbud, which would be California native, where we could actually include native plantings within those pots, as well, and probably substitute some of the planting along the foundation. Some of the grasses could become more native grasses, that sort of thing. We would be happy to work with staff in sort of fine-tuning that, to make sure we accomplish a greater percentage of native plants throughout the site. We had an interesting challenge in the upper-right-hand corner, with the large significant oak tree, which is basically growing in asphalt today, is very happy, for some reason that we can't understand. But we are improving it. We're taking the asphalt out, we're putting in, you know, soil. We've worked with the arborist to make sure that the stormwater treatment that we have in that area is outside of the canopy and it is compatible with preservation of that tree, and keeping that tree happy. It was important also for us to create a new good neighbor fence along the two property lines there, to be able to create a nice City of Palo Alto Page 19 transition to benefit both the neighbors and ourselves in keeping that area secure and clear. One of the other aspects that we were charged with was to really look at the alleyway itself, and to look at the paving material, which needs to be replaced and improved, and that's being done. We also wanted to make sure that that was a very secure feeling space, without introducing light that was going to be obtrusive to the neighbors, and to ourselves, for that matter. We worked very hard with our lighting consultants to develop a very crisp lighting plan that, as you can see on the photo-metrics, keeps the light from spilling beyond the property line. Chair Furth: Thank you, and I'm sure we will have additional questions, but let's hear from the public now. Mr. Laymon: Very good. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any essential questions to ask before the public hearing, or shall we proceed? Board Member Thompson: Are we going to get a chance to ask questions of the applicant afterward, or...? Chair Furth: Yep. Afterward. Board Member Thompson: Afterward, okay. Chair Furth: If it's the pleasure of the Board to do it now, we can. I just would like to proceed with the newest public speakers who have been waiting a long time. Not that they won't stay for our deliberations. The first speaker is Nicole Ventre, to be followed by Todd Lewis. Thank you. Nicole Ventre: Hi, good morning. Thanks for having me this morning. Nicole Ventre [spells name]. I'm the manager of the property on the other side of the alleyway, to this proposal. First, I want... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I just re-read our rules. I'm supposed to ask you for your address, too. Ms. Ventre: Four-six-one Wilton Avenue. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Ventre: First, I want to say I absolutely support housing in Palo Alto, and I certainly agree that this site could afford to have a few improvements. But, as someone who lives immediately behind this building, I have grave concerns about, one, how large it is. This is a humongous four-story building with - - if I can be so blunt -- a sardine can of people. And I still haven't heard how many is going to be the maximum occupancy of this building. I do know it has 59 units, so potentially up to 120 occupants, is what's in my mind. But, secondly, not only the mass of this building, it is absolutely encroaching on that very small alleyway. This is not a street. This is an alley. It is 19 1/2 feet from my bedroom window. That is including now bi-directional traffic, so, if you put two cars into this bi-directional traffic, it is now four feet from my apartment, my bedroom, as well as the bedroom of three of my other tenants. I have humungous concerns here. I feel like if this is an El Camino Real project, parking, entrance, and the building should remain on El Camino Real. I have plenty of documents I'm happy to hand out to you of a recent building that was once the Terrace Market for Stanford, is now the First Republic. They have a gigantic entrance to their parking garage on El Camino Real. This is a bi-directional entrance and exit. We already have a driveway carved out onto El Camino, so it's escaping me as to why we can't change this from alleyway entrance to El Camino entrance. This would remove a tremendous amount of grievance that I have with this project. If we're not having this 50 unit, 60 unit parking structure with access to parking, plus the 10 spots that I have on my own property. Seven, you know...Well, I know it's 40-some- odd, so let's say 50 cars up and down, four feet from my bedroom. Can we please just reconsider having this entrance from El Camino Real? It would absolutely reduce the encroachment that this building is having on my property. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Furth: Thank you. Our next speaker is Todd Lewis, to be followed by Anita Lusebrink. Todd Lewis: Hi, I'm Todd Lewis [spells name]. I own the two four-plexes across the street from the project. Chair Furth: And your address, Mr. Lewis? Mr. Lewis: Seven-zero Tulip Lane in Palo Alto. Chair Furth: That's your residential address? Mr. Lewis: Yeah. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Lewis: And my property is 482 to 488 Wilton. Right next to the Hong Kong restaurant. A huge impact on the corner of El Camino and a very small residential street, Wilton Avenue, highly impacted by traffic and parking. This project, we all support the project, we support the idea of low-income housing. No doubt about that. What we have a problem with is the height, the density, the number of people, the number of cars, the competing bicycles and pedestrians in our alleyways. I'm adjacent to the alley, too. And up and down the street, on all of the neighbors. It's double the size of anything built on El Camino because the emergency ordinance now allows a 2 to 1 FAR, as opposed to a 1 to 1 FAR. You now have a 49-foot building where, I think it was 30 or 40 feet max on El Camino before. It's very imposing. I would really like to see this, for many, many reasons, brought down in scale and number of residents, number of bicycles, and people with cars, from four stories to three stories, from 59 units to 40 units, and come into scale for our neighborhood, and impact the neighborhood a little less than it is. I've come off my previous remarks. Thanks a lot. Chair Furth: Thanks. Anita Lusebrink, to be followed by, I think it's Jan Stokeley. Anita Lusebrink: Hi, my name is Anita Lusebrink, and I'm voting in favor of this project. Our family home, I'm representing our family, is at 428 Ruthven in Palo Alto. It is a one-story home built in 1924 that borders an alley, four feet away. My mother has her bedroom right on that alley, for 40 years. On the other side, a new home was built and approved by the architectural board, I guess. It has two stories, a basement and a peaked roof that obviously holds an attic. On either side of this home, things have been built and approved, and this is the way things are heading, I'm afraid, because of modern life here in Palo Alto. Thank you for taking time for hearing stories of the people in the trenches that have family members with developmental disabilities that were raised in Palo Alto. I attended the meeting with the neighbors in Wilton Court and I found it very productive, and I also know that there are other outreach, you know, communications that are happening. Just two days ago, I took my niece to Housing Choices to get a below market rate housing wait list for...in Santa Clara County. The housing list that she is getting on typically have openings for her, will have openings for her in three to five years. She's on the autism spectrum and unable to work at a typical job, dependent on SSDI benefits from my sister, who died in 2004. My niece has been living with a roommate for two years in a studio apartment near Spartan Stadium in San Jose. The situation is becoming unacceptable due to occurrences of both financial and physical abuse. It is a well-known fact that people with disabilities are often taken advantage of due to their condition. This is why I hoped very strongly that my niece will be able to move into a location that she can be both independent and nearer to the support of her family network here on the Peninsula. My niece does not drive because of her condition and does not need her parking space, as is the case with many people with disabilities. But she does need to be near easily-accessible public transportation. People that, through some circumstance or another, have a disability that prevents them from competing economically should not be cut out from living near their family and community of origin. Let's level the playing field one tiny step at a time with new developments like the proposed Wilton Court project at 3705 El Camino Real. Thank you so much. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: Thank you, and before you leave, would you mind spelling your name? I'm sorry. Ms. Lusebrink: I tried to write it very clearly on the card, but it is...My first name is Anita [spells name], the last name is Lusebrink [spells name]. And the name of the street, our family home is on Ruthven [spells name]. Chair Furth: Thank you, and we don't pronounce it "Ruthven" here. Our next speaker is Jan Stokeley, to be followed by Katie Talbot. Jan Stokeley: Good morning, I'm Jan Stokeley [spells name]. I'm the executive director of Housing Choices. We're a non-profit organization, with our main office in San Jose. We work with cities and developers across the county to create inclusive and affordable housing for people with developmental disabilities, and we're here today to speak in support of the project. For more than four years, there's a group of families in Palo Alto who have been going to City Council, Planning Commission, many meetings, looking for opportunities with developers and the City to create more inclusive housing here in Palo Alto. Right now, there are more than 400 adults with developmental disabilities living in Palo Alto. Only 40 of them are living in their own apartment. Most of them are living at home with aging parents who would like to see them live in Palo Alto where they can be close to family and use public transit and shop in all the places they are already familiar with. We have supported residents with developmental disabilities to live in inclusive housing for more than 20 years. We've supported residents in studio apartments. Our residents who live in studio apartments tend to be very independent. They do not drive, but they use public transit. There's a focus on employment first, so many of the residents are working and using public transit to get to work. They do not have live-in caregivers, they do not have frequent visits from caregivers, so the parking reduction and the parking impact of this project is significantly benefitted by the inclusive nature of the population that will live there. We appreciate all the work that Palo Alto has done, of the many -- Palo Alto housing has done on this project -- of the developers that we reached out to, this was the only developer who really said, "We want to work with you, we want to overcome the barriers, and we want to make something happen." The project here today is a culmination of more than four years of advocacy by Palo Alto residents, and I appreciate everyone's comments, and I hope we can work together to create a wonderful design that will lead to a wonderful community that makes Palo Alto a more inclusive place. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. The next speaker is Katie Talbot, to be followed by Linnea Wickstrom. Katie Talbot: Good morning. My name is Katie Talbot [spells name]. And you want my address? Chair Furth: We do. Ms. Talbot: Okay, 600 Junipero Serra, Stanford. I am here to ask you to please support the Wilton Court development. It provides critically-needed housing for two underserved, less-visible communities in Palo Alto. The low-income and developmentally disabled communities need your support to continue to live in their home community, to contribute to the diversity and vibrancy of Palo Alto. I am impressed... I'm going to be very brief. I just want to have another statement of support for the plans that I've seen. I'm impressed with how far the architects have gone to make this, to respond to neighborhood comments, and make this building step down in the back so that it can blend in with the community. The front of the building looks very friendly and it looks like a really great place to be, and it looks like it will really contribute to El Camino's streetscape with the friendly seating in the front. The one comment that I have about the parking is that traditionally in low-income, and particularly in housing developments with developmentally disabled populations, the parking requirement is quite small. It would be a real shame if Wilton Court is, this Wilton Court development is required to have more parking spots than are needed, and that, if there is a lot of empty parking capacity under there. So, if you could consider that carefully. Thank you very much for your time. Chair Furth: Thank you. Linnea Wickstrom, to be followed by Per Maresca. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Linnea Wickstrom: Good morning. My name is Linnea Wickstrom [spells name]. I live at 450 Monroe Drive in Palo Alto. I'm a 50-plus-year resident of Palo Alto and the parent of a young adult with a developmental disability, and I'm here to urge you to do everything you can to bring Wilton Court to fruition, with the AH zoning overlay and the design enhancement. Though my son may never be one who gains a residence in this proposed development, there are hundreds like him in Palo Alto. With the paucity of affordable housing in Palo Alto, the intellectually and developmentally disabled are much in need of exactly the kind of opportunity that Wilton Court presents. I hope that the number of units will be kept as is to accommodate the greatest number of renters of all types. Because parking is also an issue, I want to reiterate what Jan said. The developmentally disabled generally, almost none of them drive or own cars. They don't have licenses. My son currently lives in a studio apartment in Mountainview that is parked at .25, and that is entirely adequate. I'm there once in a while, quite often, sometimes at day, night -- It's fine. I also happen to live 200 yards off El Camino, 100 yards from a new development of the Hilton Residence Inn, with 157 or 200 rooms and 26 four-bedroom houses built behind that. It was a step down from the commercial district on El Camino to RM-15/RM-30, that now holds 26 four-bedroom units, parked at .5. And it's been fine. The step-down was fine, from the commercial to the three-story, four-bedroom units to RM-1. And it all worked out. There are probably five cars that additionally park on our street from that development. I want to emphasize that inclusive housing is a goal for our kids, and the design of Wilton Court is excellent for that. It's got a common room, bike storage -- All the things that people that don't use cars need. And, to join in with a community of, you might call them "abled" or "neurologically usual" people. They are very social, they want to hang out with people. Wilton Court will provide an inclusive community inside Palo Alto, where all their supports all, and inside an actual development where they can mingle with people. Thank you for your contribution to making Wilton Court happen. Chair Furth: Thank you. The next speaker is Per Maresca, to be followed by John Ma. Per Maresca: As my mother would say, good morning. Chair Furth: Good morning. Mr. Maresca: My name is Per Maresca [spells name]. I am currently 27 years old and was born and raised in Palo Alto. I'm here to speak for hundreds of others in Palo Alto who are intellectually or developmentally disabled and who need or will need housing we can afford. We want to be full members of our community. Wilton Court is the kind of housing that will meet our needs for affordable and inclusive housing. Housing in part of a diverse community of residents right in a town we know, and where all our support systems are. Wilton Court has features that everyone can use and that are really important to people like myself. There are bike storage lockers, laundry, and a patio and common use for get-togethers, like I have a community room at my complex where I hang out with my friends. And the location on El Camino is right next to the buses that we use all the time to get to shopping, entertainment, and our jobs. We will be good neighbors to the other residents and to the Ventura neighborhood, and we hope that they all want to be our neighbors. Please help Wilton Court become a reality. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Maresca. John Ma, to be followed by.... This one I'm really having trouble... Ramkee A. I'm sure you know who you are. Mr. Ma. John Ma: Good morning. My name is John Ma [spells name]. My address is 1257-B Oakmead Parkway, Sunnyvale. I am the owner of the four units directly behind the proposed project, APN #13235024. Okay? I am actually quite pleased with the way the, what the architects have presented on the project. My primary concern is the alley behind the building. It is rather narrow, and I presented to the Board several pictures, of which Picture #1 is a commercial vehicle going down the alley, directly across from us. As you will see in the picture, this commercial vehicle will occupy more than 75 percent of the alley, which is the, like, for example, delivery vehicles or garbage trucks, which basically will impede any in- and-out of the residents of this project and my residence from accessing Wilton Avenue and exiting the property. There is basically 100 feet of, from the alley to El Camino, going down Wilton Avenue, which is City of Palo Alto Page 23 currently right now very congested, especially during commute times. You know, as you can see in pictures 2 and 3. And what this basically...The location of the garage is really severely add to that congestion, and as a result, it would just lead to a lot of frustration on residents of this project, and my residents. You have here basically a picture of what the alley currently looks like. As Nicole has pointed out, there is barely 18 feet between the fence and this, and the current fence, and there is a proposal to decrease the setback from 10 feet to 5 feet. Which basically is one of my other concerns, is the safety of bicyclists and pedestrians accessing the property. With the blockage of, you know, two-way vehicular traffic, there really is no room for cyclists. Okay? If you take a typical width of a vehicle, plus the, you know, plus the distance that you need for safe passage, there really is no room for bicycles. I mean, California law says they should provide cyclists three feet of leeway when you're going around, you know, as you pass a cyclist going down this alley. There is no three feet. I really am not in favor of reducing that setback. My proposal would be to take that, you know, part of that 10-foot setback and make it a sidewalk or a bike way for the cyclists that are... Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Ma. Mr. Ma: Okay. Chair Furth: If there's anything else you want to give the Board, give it to staff, but I think we do have your photographs. I am having trouble reading this -- Ramkee? Handwriting not as bad as mine, but... Ramki Anandhakrishnan: My full name, Ramki Anandhakrishnan [spells name]. I live in John's property. I am one of the tenants. Chair Furth: And your address? I'm sorry. Mr. Anandhakrishnan: Four-fifty-five Wilton Avenue. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Anandhakrishnan: Yeah. My concern is the same, about the size of the project and the impact to the parking because I have a parking spot in that alleyway. That's the only access I have to park and come... And then, there's another resident who is trying to get in or out, one of us has to wait for the other person. So, right now, there are only four spots, and then, there's another four spots, trying to get through another, to another entrance, which actually goes into a courtyard. That's like eight cars right now, so you're going to double it, triple it, whatever. That's one big problem. And then, there's the time during the construction, during which all the heavy vehicles are going to be preventing me from leaving for work and getting back. And I work from home a lot, as well. And the size of this project, it's absolutely going to tower and cut out all the light, any air, any hope of that, completely off. I'm going to keep it short. I just want to second what John and Nicole have said. If you could move the regular access to El Camino away from the alleyway, and reduce the size, not make it such a big, imposing structure, that would be great. Thanks. Chair Furth: Thank you. Is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Then it's time, the applicant, you have an additional 10 minutes to respond. Ms. Steichen: Hi. Again, Adrianne Steichen with Pyatok Architects. Thank you for all of the feedback so far. We really appreciate all of the interest from the community about this project. One thing that I would like to point out is that we are moving trash access for our site onto Wilton Court, onto Wilton Avenue. That should reduce the trash service impact on the alley from this particular project. It would not change trash service to the other properties, but it would change trash service to this property, and that should have some reduction. I also want to point out, bike parking is accessed both from within the building, as well as directly from the street. Bicyclists who arrive at this site who live here are able to take their bikes directly into the bike parking on El Camino Real. There are actually two bike parking rooms that front onto El Camino Real. I also want to add, the current driveway access is on El Camino Real. By moving it City of Palo Alto Page 24 to the alley, we are going to add probably one to two spaces on El Camino Real as public parking, in the replacement of that sidewalk. It's a small add, but it's something, and it all starts to add up. I also would like to add, the location of the driveway entrance or the driveway access to the upper-level parking is very close to the intersection of the alley and Wilton Court. It should limit traffic on the alleyway. Not all 41 cars are going the entire length of the alleyway. It should also assist in limiting double parking on that side of the street because of the garage access. I'm open to additional comments or questions. Thanks. Chair Furth: Any questions of the applicant? Board Member Thompson: Are we done with the public...? Okay. Chair Furth: They...Yes. I'll close the public hearing, though we may reopen it if needed during the course of this meeting. Osma, you had a question of the applicant? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I had some questions on the elevation. Ms. Steichen: Sure. Board Member Thompson: Are the windows punched at all? Do they recess into that tile? Or is it sort of flush with the tile, and then we have the shading? Ms. Steichen: No, so, we did not pass around these example, sample window corners that we have here. There are two different windows here. What we included in the proposal is actually the black frame, which is a self-panning window, so it has some shadow depth to it that will create more of a punched look and a more of a recessed and additional architectural interest to the façade. Board Member Thompson: And what's the other one? Ms. Steichen: The other one is actually a vinyl window that...Let me flip it around for you. [moving display around] It's a vinyl window option, which has less of a profile to it, less of a recess to it, but has similar aesthetic quality. Vinyl windows are slightly better performing than aluminum. We will have to run our energy models to really make sure, but they tend to be slightly better performing. You can get similar sizes in them, and the exterior finish material can be made to look like it's aluminum. I actually tricked my construction administration director last week on a site. He thought that vinyl windows on a project that I have in construction were actually aluminum windows. The color match to the aluminum frame was...And he was standing right next to it. There has been quite a leap in that technology, and improvement in, sort of the color range and choices that you get to the aesthetics of vinyl window. We're presenting just as a financial option for the project, but our primary interest is in the self-panning recessed frame. Board Member Thompson: And then, in the elevation on the south side, I notice there was a little different coloration in the windows, so, is there spandrel glass in between those, sort of in the main...? Not this elevation, but the other one. Ms. Steichen: This one? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Is there spandrel in those...? Ms. Steichen: There are two primary window sizes. There's the large window, and a smaller window that's, like, three feet wide. And then there is... And the smaller window, we're proposing to have a, not exactly spandrel glass, but some opacity to it, to provide some additional variation. And then, there is a trim piece between the two windows at the structural support to provide an additional accent. It probably would match the window frame color. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Board Member Thompson: Okay, so, we kind of have, like, a rhythm of two, two open, and then the trim, and then one open. Ms. Steichen: Correct. Board Member Thompson: But there's no spandrel in there. Ms. Steichen: No. Board Member Thompson: I thought I read that wrong. Ms. Steichen: We do have an example of it in our little materials page in the packet that you should have received. And it's also on this material board. Board Member Thompson: Okay, great. Just a couple more questions. The board-formed concrete, in some images it's running horizontally, in other images it's running vertically. Ms. Steichen: We're intending to run it vertically. Board Member Thompson: Vertically, okay. And then, in terms of the terra cotta façade, it didn't...You said three colors. Ms. Steichen: Up to three colors, yes. Board Member Thompson: Up to three colors? And is it going to be something that's, sort of really prescriptive, like the patterning of these colors? Or is it...? Ms. Steichen: I think we will do a design for the patterning of the colors. I think we will want to control that and not fully randomize it because the pieces are larger than, say, a brick that you might want to randomize. I think this, we will want to have a little bit more control over. Board Member Thompson: And that is the size? Ms. Steichen: That's the size. Board Member Thompson: True scale. Okay. Ms. Steichen: That's the size, and that's the intended, sort of heft in weight of the material. And then, the book that we were passing around, there's a -- I should have tagged them -- there's three colors that are sort of a variation of that, that I think work quite nicely with each other. Yeah. The second two that you're pointing, and... Yeah. And then, the one below it, there. Yes. Sorry, I should have tagged them. I apologize. Board Member Thompson: Okay, thank you. Those were my questions. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to follow up on the terra cotta cladding, if you could. Ms. Steichen: Sure. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm only passingly familiar with this, but it seems to me that the detailing of the mitered corners where the windows are all come into play. Can you elucidate me a little bit further, how cleanly that can be done? City of Palo Alto Page 26 Ms. Steichen: Yeah. We're quite familiar with detailing a little metal jamb piece that will receive the open end of the terra cotta tile. They can be detailed so that the terra cotta tile looks as if it's mitered together, but there is actually a little metal piece that's pulling them together at an outside corner. And then, against the window jamb, a J-mold piece would be sufficient. Vice Chair Baltay: I see. You need additional metal trim... Ms. Steichen: Yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: ...at all edges of these things. Ms. Steichen: We do. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the architect? I have a question of the landscape architect. Looking at sheet L-3-1, and particularly on the section of the sidewalk, you seem to be showing a plant that would be about 10 to 12 feet tall in the planter. Mr. Laymon: That's right. Chair Furth: And you're thinking of...? Mr. Laymon: What's shown on the plans are crepe myrtle trees. It's sort of a standard form of a tree, and we were thinking, if we wanted to increase our native component there, we could use a western redbud that would have a similar sort of scale to it. Chair Furth: And these are both deciduous, in this climate? Mr. Laymon: They are both deciduous, yes. Chair Furth: This is just a little bit above the first story, the ground floor. Is that right? Mr. Laymon: That's right. Chair Furth: My concern is that when we have a building of significantly more stories, it's nice to have...it's good to have higher landscaping. Of course, our first request is street trees. But, is it correct that staff has advised you that that's not possible on this block, this frontage? Mr. Laymon: It's what we... Chair Furth: That was kind of a complicated way of saying that. Did staff say you can't do that? Mr. Laymon: No. That was not a staff comment. We observed that when we were on site, walking the site with our engineers, and found that the existing utilities, both the utility boxes and the...Actually, it had been USA'd already to indicate where the underground lines were. In fact, the existing trees there wouldn't comply with where the utilities are. We're obviously leaving those in place, but we're looking for ways to be able to increase the tree canopy and create that separation on El Camino, make that a pedestrian-friendly environment. Having the planters of the size we're showing, we're expecting to get the trees up there, you know, as we're showing here, and give us some shade, particularly on that ground level. Chair Furth: But that's essentially the height you can, the maximum height you can hit reasonably using a planter strategy like this? City of Palo Alto Page 27 Mr. Laymon: Yeah, the trees could probably...I'm being a bit conservative in terms of what I can deliver. Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Laymon: The trees themselves, you know, if they are happy, can get to be bigger. They can be taller. But I don't want to overstate. Chair Furth: Right. Not a lot of these particular crepe trees in my life. Okay. Any other... Oh, and I had one question for the architect. I understood what you were saying about, by removing an entrance on El Camino, there will be additional curbside parking. I understood what you said about relocating the trash collection and bicycle traffic out of the alley. I missed what you were saying about reducing double parking. Ms. Steichen: We've observed, and we have heard, concerns about double parking in the alley, and that... Chair Furth: Oh, in the alley itself. Ms. Steichen: In the alley itself, constricting flow there. I do think that having that active garage entrance will assist in reducing the double parking, particularly near the intersection. That was the comment. Chair Furth: Got it. Ms. Steichen: Thank you. Chair Furth: Does staff have anything they wish to add? Mr. Owen: Just a bit of clarification on, kind of the City's take on the tree situation, and the street trees. Our urban forestry division, looking at the latest iteration of the plans, they are removing some trees that are existing on the site, that a lot of them are in pretty rough shape, given that they're growing, essentially in asphalt. The urban forester looked at the plans and included a condition of approval, which is in your packet, to install street trees that are better in the ground. What we're hearing from the landscape architect is that that might not be feasible given the layout of the utilities. I think what we would want to do is likely have some sort of caveat where, if we do an investigation into the sidewalks, to look and see what's actually under there, if anything can be moved, and if it can't, we might need to have some sort of backup in terms of allowing for a planter or some sort of, something that's not as permanently in the ground. If it's not possible to... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: How are the planters watered or irrigated? Mr. Owen: That would be a good question for the landscape architect. Chair Furth: The applicant. Mr. Laymon: The existing trees are not watered, and we would be adding water to them. The new trees would have irrigation brought up through the planter pots, so we would come through the sidewalk and pop up to make sure they are irrigated. Chair Furth: Okay, and those are on the City's property? Mr. Laymon: Yes. Chair Furth: And who maintains them? City of Palo Alto Page 28 Mr. Laymon: Mostly the buses. No, they are taken care of by the property owner, typically. We would be taking care of the irrigation system, making sure that's viable. Chair Furth: Okay, thank you. Anything else? Anything else before we start discussing this among ourselves? Board Member Thompson: Is that a stucco sample, paint sample, over there? Chair Furth: That's Board Member Osma, pointing at something. Board Member Thompson: No? Okay. Do we have a paint sample of what the stucco would be? Ms. Steichen: We do not. We only have the rendered and the color samples on the board. Board Member Thompson: Okay, thanks. Chair Furth: Thank you. Who would like to begin? Robert? Board Member Gooyer: Sure. Okay. I think the presentation today is greatly improved over what we saw the last time, but the problem I still have with this project is that it's still, is a very tall, flat, you know, elevation, that there's really no undulation, no nothing on the two sides. And, in fact, the two sides that are the most attractive are the two that face El Camino and not the side that faces the residents and the community behind it. That is a stucco elevation, which has even less fenestration on it. Just seems like a very large building, just too large for the location. I was hoping to say, like I said, a little bit more detailing to the, to make it a little bit more visually appealing than it is now. The entrance has been shifted to the corner, but still, when you drive by, it's still tough to see. It's a single door in a glass wall that, to me, isn't really an entry point. It's still sort of, the door is somewhere near the corner, but it really doesn't enhance that location. Considering, also, because you mention that a lot of the people are going to be coming in through the front door rather than the traditional, everybody pulls into the parking lot and never sees the front door. With the occupants in this, they will, so I would like to see that enhanced. It's not really doing anything for that. I do like the possibility of having some artwork on the side there, which I know is not part of this purview, but I like the possibility of that. Like I said, the materials are greatly enhanced, and I think do a lot for the building, but I'm just still not...It just still looks like a very large, four-story shoebox to me. Chair Furth: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. This is the first project that the Board has reviewed with the new proposed Affordable Housing overlay, so I'm struggling with it a little bit. I would say on the massing, I would normally, if it was like market-rate housing, I would normally try to step down more towards the existing apartments on Wilton Avenue. If you're doing market rate, like, townhouses, you can do more with the units because, like, the third floor could be in an attic or something, and you could bring the scale down to match the neighborhood. I think that this project, it seems like you're meeting the zoning requirement, and they are studios, so you don't really have that much flexibility with the unit design because they're so small. There are very few options with that. Normally, I would try to get, if it was, like, a townhouse, it would have an entrance there on the corner of Wilton Court and Wilton Avenue, to really try to tie it into the neighborhood. But it seems like that's not possible on this particular project. I think also, in looking over the dimensions, I would ideally like more space in the, in that alley area. Like, the planting, planting area. I did look at your plans. You don't have a lot of, you don't have a lot of fat in the floor plan now, so I'm not sure that that's actually feasible. On the building design, I do like all of the changes that you've made to the windows and the sun shades and the materials. I think that that looks good. On the public art component, I know we have our whole process for that. I would ask, maybe consider having artwork at the street level and not up high on the wall, to make it more pedestrian-oriented. It will depend on the public art process, as well as the artist. But I would cite one project that I just saw recently. There's the, it's called Bayside Park. It's a senior housing project in City of Palo Alto Page 29 Emeryville, along 40th Street. They have a sculpture, and it's, like, a three-piece sculpture, and one is in each structural bay along the sidewalk. As you're walking down the street, you see this thing evolve. In that particular one, they have a deeper arcade. They have a... You don't have quite as much space in here, so it may not, something like that may not work in this particular case. But I think that the location that you're showing tentatively now looks good. I'm not sure how many people are going to see it if you're driving by, or if you're walking by. It may not be as noticeable as it is, as we're looking at it in the drawings. On the street trees, I think that was probably the first thing that I, sort of popped out at me on the drawings, that I really would prefer to have the London planes at 25 feet on center, as our guidelines call out. Even if there's a way to get one in, one more, and then, the rest are crepe myrtles, or something. Or your alternate species. I would really encourage you to try to figure out if there's a way to get even one more London plane. On the sun study, thank you for doing the sun study. I just wanted to point out one little, minor thing, is that I think that the north arrow is incorrect. I think the sun shades, the sun...The model itself I think was calculated correctly, but the north arrow is off, so it did make me question everything. But I think it was all done accurately. On the windows, I think our guidelines call out for recessed windows or trimmed windows. And then, we haven't always, I think, enforced that for affordable housing projects. My recollection is that the Mayfield housing that Stanford built on El Camino had some sort of projecting fin to make it look like trim, but it was really part of the window. I think you're proposing sort of opposite, something recessed, and I think that's fine. I think my only other suggestion is maybe on the terra cotta, that the corner element has some slight difference in color or texture. I'm open to... I'm flexible on that. But generally, I could recommend approval of the project. Thank you. Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for your nice presentation. I find myself generally in favor of recommending approval of this project. I have two smallish, functional questions on the inside, which I'll just put out there. I don't think they're really part of our purview, but I think the parking ramp is exceptionally steep. It seems to me that if you just increased the size of the underground area to go under the entire building, you would have more room for the ramp, and more comfort making the parking function better inside. It seems actually very obvious to me that that would make sense. I can see there's probably an economic reason not to do that, but I would leave that determination to our transportation division. If they feel the ramp works, it works, but 22 percent is really steep, especially around a curve. I just throw that out there. Secondly, your bicycle parking, the way you have it in the front right corner of the building, at least as I see it you have to come... Say I come in from the street and park my bicycle. Then, I walk into the garage and upper ramp, down the length of the garage, and if I want to go get my mail or go back into the lobby, I have to go back down a ramp again. It seems to me that you could probably just organize it a little bit better internally so that it's more friendly. The only reason I bring it up, really, is that it's important that we make citizens using bicycles feel as first-rate citizens and not have to be off in a corner where the parking is difficult at the end of a corridor, or something. If you could change that, that's fine. My critique would really be that I think the corner is still not quite strong enough. The treatment is improved, and having the entrance to the building underneath it is good. But the pattern of the windows, the exact same material, the treatment of the detailing, is all identical to the other terra cotta pieces. To me, it doesn't quite have a strong enough corner feeling. As well, the top of the parapet there is only a foot, maybe, above the rest of the building. It seems to me, if you get a little more difference, make the corner taller or the rest of the building just a little bit lower, that would serve to strengthen a little bit more that corner element. Somehow change the way the windows are done, or the shading, perhaps. Aside from that, I think you've got a handsome-looking building here, and I can support approval. Let me comment to my colleagues that this is a big building. It is a FAR 2.0 box, and the only other way to reduce the mass is to push it further into the back. I just don't see a whole lot architectural ways to cut it back. And this is what the council wants us to be building in this town, this kind of density, so this is the shape of it. I just put that out there to the public, to hear. This is what FAR 2.0 housing looks like. Thank you. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. City of Palo Alto Page 30 Board Member Thompson: Hi. Thank you so much for your presentation. I agree that it's much improved from what we saw last time. I really appreciate the use of your light-colored stucco. I appreciate that you are using a terra cotta that is a good thermal mass. I appreciate that you will spend some time to make sure that that pattern of the different colors reads the way that you're trying to show this in the renderings. I saw some pictures in this little pamphlet here of just singular colors all the way in a running, kind of grid bond, and it's way more impressive than what you're showing here. I like that you're using the different colors to soften it. I think it will help with the big massiveness of this building, which is really what you have to deal with. In that sense, I appreciate all those changes. I think my first... When I first saw this, I had a similar reaction to Board Member Gooyer, that it still is quite boxy in terms of its massing. I understand the struggle because in order to make this less boxy, you might need to lift a corner, or something, or do things that could potentially take up more space, and you're under a lot of pressure to keep this thing looking small. But, at the end of the day, Board Member Baltay is right. This is what it is, and what you have is, I think, what you should try to make as beautiful as you can. I agree that that corner element... I don't know that I would support changing the color necessarily, but it seems like there is something more that could be done there in terms of adding an extra layer of textural element, or detail, or something that could make that special. It almost seems like it's, it's just kind of one step away from being what it really wants to be. I also appreciate that you added shading elements into the building. There's something that makes me a little nervous, in that somebody could just VE it out, and it could be just be like... You know, we're here with the budget, what can we take out? Well, those shading things could just be popped off. And that would be really terrible. Part of me was asking about the bunches because that recess would give you some inherent shading. It would definitely add a bit more depth and dimension to your façade that might otherwise be quite flat. I don't necessarily oppose this element. Actually, the more that I'm playing with it, the more I like it. But I do worry that it's something that could just be taken off, so, I don't know if there's a way to integrate the shading a bit more into the design, into something that is less-easily knocked off. Because I think it's important, and I think it speaks well to the other, sort of sustainable elements that you've added to the building. The north elevation, is there a way that we could change the slide to the north side? [change slide] Yeah. Your previous proposal had much more interest than this current one, and it's really just because you're adding swaths of color. I would encourage you to bring that back in a little way. Not necessarily the darker gray. I like the lighter color that you have, but something just to add more color, or something. You don't need to dress it up all too much, right? Because kind of, there's this, you know, multifamily housing thing where, you put the money where most people will see it in terms of the façade. And it's true, on the north side, not many people will see it, so you don't want to spend as much there, but you can use things like paint and other things to make that more interesting. I would definitely... I think that's actually a really important part. This north side, as it stands, to me, is kind of unacceptable. A few tweaks, I think it could be a little bit better. In general, I'm very supportive of the project. These elements that I've spoken about, I don't know if those are things that could come back to subcommittee. There are very important things, and some of these other things that we've spoken about, I would like to see an update, in general. But, in general, it's going in a really good direction. Okay, yeah, that's all for me. Thanks. Chair Furth: Thank you. Staff, what's the residential density on this project, as it's revised? Mr. Owen: I believe it's 127 to the acre. Chair Furth: Does that sound right to the applicant? You can check that out. Ms. Steichen: Roughly 59 over .46 acres. Chair Furth: Okay, thanks. And the property across the alley, which is zoned RM-30, is it? Mr. Owen: Correct. Chair Furth: And what density is it developed to, currently? City of Palo Alto Page 31 Mr. Owen: I'm not entirely positive on the unit count, so I would have to double-check that. Chair Furth: Seven, or four? I've heard both. Is it seven units? Eight units. [someone responding off-microphone, inaudible] Chair Furth: And the total acreage? Do we know? [someone responding off-microphone, inaudible] Chair Furth: So, that's a fourth of a commercial acre. Just about developed to the max already. Is that right? Thank you. Well, thank you to everybody who came and spoke to us. It's all helpful. Thank you to the applicants. I really appreciated the analytic presentation by the architect. It helped me make sense of what you're doing in a way that these presentations sometimes don't. I would say that generally, I think that the changes are an improvement. It's interesting that it's true that when you relocate the windows, you do get a more residential feel, and this is a residential building. Just to the members of the public, this board does not review individual single-family homes, so we don't review very large personal structures being built in neighborhood, but we do review multiple family housing in commercial buildings. Let me look at my notes. It seems that the neighborhood concerns take several shapes. One of them is shading. One of them is increased traffic on the alley. One of them is that this is simply a very large building and a very big change. One of the requests is that we instead ask for a project which has an entrance on El Camino Real. It is a large project. That is both our general plan, a comprehensive plan, and our zoning and our City Council have been moving in this direction. The general plan is for higher buildings along El Camino Real. Making them not damage buildings behind them is a tricky proposition. Usually, when we are looking at large, tall buildings next to residential, which is essentially half a block from El Camino Real, we're looking at hotels. And from our point of view, I think it's a very, it's much better to be looking at housing. I think it contributes more to our community. I think it contributes more to a neighborhood. I don't think that this is a location... And it also, our plan also basically says, let's try to make El Camino a more attractive place to walk; let's change from our pattern of asphalt parking lots with a building in it, to something which pulls buildings up to the front. You're right that some of these buildings have access from El Camino Real. I don't think that works in this particular site. This site has a lot of constraints on it because it does have both an alley frontage and an El Camino frontage, because we define the front of it as being on Wilton Court, which is not, sort of intuitively what you think about buildings on El Camino. I think that it doesn't have too many units. I regret that we lost the ones that we had to lose. I think they are well-designed. I think that they have good ancillary functions. I think that the applicant has worked hard to provide a better experience along El Camino and along its own section of Wilton. I had a question for staff. It's hard to get access onto these small streets, both from El Camino Real and to El Camino Real. There's a whole series of these small streets that debauch onto El Camino. When I was trying to look at the buildings, setting again today, and was trying to make a right-hand turn off El Camino, I couldn't because there was a car parked right on the corner, and there was a large personal vehicle waiting to make a right-hand turn. So, I blocked traffic in the curbside lane of El Camino. What is the thought about that corner parking? Mr. Owen: I think that there's a couple of different factors at play. You have, as Adrienne was mentioning, the trash that's going to be off of the Wilton Avenue frontage, so, that location for additional street side parking might not be the best location, given that there's limited, as you were saying, radius, basically, to turn. One thing that we could look at before the City Council meeting and provide a recommendation on is looking at having a loading, some sort of loading zone or other sort of restricted... Chair Furth: Well, I'm actually thinking of having some "No Parking" space, so that one can make that turn. Mr. Owen: Right, exactly. Chair Furth: Having a larger vehicle, that wouldn't help. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Mr. Owen: Right. Doing some sort of red curb or "Loading Zone Only," some sort of access and parking management in that area, we could certainly take a look at. I would want to get the recommendation from the traffic engineer before we make a specific recommendation. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thinking about parking, I think the problem with this project isn't that it doesn't have enough parking. I'm confident that it has plenty of parking for its users, and that means the people who live there, their guests, the people who provide services to the building. The problem is that we have an existing parking deficit in the neighborhood and this building can't solve that problem. I think we have a duty not to make it worse, and I think you'll have a better sidewalk, I think you'll have a better interface with El Camino. I think you'll find it's a bit quieter. That's my experience with a large building between me and a more heavily-trafficked building. I think there will be better landscaping, I think there will be better maintenance, I think there will be better lightning. Sorry -- lighting. Hope there's no better lightning. And I think it will be good to have more people in the neighborhood. I think it's good to have more people walking and biking. It tends to make drivers a little more aware of what's going on. Staff, what's our take -- or colleagues -- what's your take on what the shadow studies show? And I'm glad to know that what was puzzling me was that north arrow. I kept trying to make it make sense. What does it show? Does it show excessive shading? Vice Chair Baltay: It shows that in the winter, the apartment building across the alley will be in shade. All the time. Chair Furth: Okay. That is regrettable. I will say that this is... Because there is an alley there instead of just a side-yard setback, you end up with more open space between the buildings than you would if this went straight to the edge of the property, right? If there were no... These were simply adjacent lots. So, the alley is actually a bigger setback, combined with the building setback, than most buildings, than most residences in that area can expect. It's not a plus, it doesn't make things better in the winter, but it's within the realm of the acceptable. I think that the removal of the upper-story open space gives better privacy and quiet to the neighbors. I think that the preservation of that oak tree area is a benefit to everybody in that area, and perhaps particularly to the users of the alley. And I think that the podium level -- I hate that phrase -- slightly elevated outdoor space is going to be very attractive, both for the people who live there, and for the people who are nearby. And if they become friends, then it's going to be a pleasant place to assemble. I am delighted to see this project. All of us know that we're all in favor of affordable housing, and we find particular proposals difficult. And the question is always: What about the real proposal in front of us? Does this meet our standards? And I believe it does. I very much would like... I think it's going to be very important to have the best possible landscaping on the alley, it's going to be very important to have the best possible landscaping on the street. I am particularly concerned that we may not have street trees, so, I would like to refer landscaping to a subcommittee. Other than that, I'm ready to vote yes. I am interested in my colleagues' comments. Board Member Lew: And also, for staff, do you want us to comment on the DEE? Chair Furth: Good point, Alex. This is a classic situation for design enhancement exception. The orientation of this lot, strange, in this case, strange definition of front, all makes this an appropriate case for a DEE. This is not about some architectural frivolity. Mr. Owen: We would like recommendations on both the major architectural review and the DEE. Chair Furth: Does anybody want to make a motion? Vice Chair Baltay: I can support the DEE comfortably. I share Osma's concern, and I think Robert also, about the back of the building just not having the same quality of appearance. I would like... I think the corner of the building could use a little more work on it. I don't know if that's something we can do in subcommittee. I'd certainly like to push this forward. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board Member Gooyer: I think a lot of that is going to depend if the corner just means changing the pattern of the brick or something like that, or actually doing a redesign. If we're talking about just changing the texture, then it can go to subcommittee. But, if you're actually talking about changing the design of the corner or doing something on the other side of the building, I think it might need to come back. Vice Chair Baltay: If you had an increase of one foot difference in elevation between the corner piece and the rest of the parapet, that's, I think, a subcommittee-level thing. Board Member Gooyer: Absolutely. That's true. Vice Chair Baltay: I don't quite know what the architect will do. That's sort of why it's hard to guess. Chair Furth: Would the architect care to comment? Ms. Steichen: We would support going another foot taller on that corner. We tried to keep the height as low as possible, hearing comments of concern about the height of the building. I do agree that a slight more separation between the primary roof height and the corner would help emphasize that corner architecturally. We also, between October 1st and today, studied turning that corner, trying to change its orientation to the street, change the parapet edge -- None of it looked good, so we did not bring it to your, to this for review. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to be very clear that I'm not saying you must change the elevation. I would like to see the architect think hard about what to do. That's just an idea. Ms. Steichen: Understood. Thank you. Board Member Thompson: I had a quick question. Ms. Steichen: Sure. Board Member Thompson: Are these renders, like, these elevations we're looking at, do those include the PV's, or is it...? Ms. Steichen: They do. Board Member Thompson: You don't see the PV's at all? Ms. Steichen: The parapet height is set so that we don't need an additional OSHA guardrail, so that we are meeting a 42-inch height edge at the parapet edge of the building. And because of that, it prevents the projection of, we think will prevent the projection of the solar panels from being seen. I think we will, we will continue to do that, but the perspective that you saw, and these renderings all have model objects for solar panels in them. We'll just have to continue to study that. I think if we do see them, they won't be very much more over the height of that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Steichen: Thanks. Board Member Lew: Okay, so, I can support the design enhancement exception. And I think Mr. Ma, I think I just wanted to clarify, to make sure that he understands that your setback is on the...how do I say this? Is on the side yard, what we would think is the side yard, between the properties on El Camino. It's not along the alley. Right? The narrow frontage on Wilton is considered the front of the building. And I think, I would say, in support of the DEE, is that the original intent of rear setbacks was to provide light and air into units. If you go back a long time, developers would build on 100 percent of the lot, and there City of Palo Alto Page 34 wouldn't be windows, and bedrooms, and things like that. The intent of the setback was to provide light and air, so, I think all the units here have adequate light and air. And then, neighboring building is commercial and doesn't have windows on the side property line. I think that that's all okay. And with regard to subcommittee coming back to the Board, I'm willing to do subcommittee. If the subcommittee thinks it's too much, or thinks there's too big of a change, you can always bump it back up to the Board. If you feel like it's really just not, you don't feel comfortable making that decision, it can come back to the Board. We've done that in the past, on occasion. That's where I'm at on this one. Chair Furth: That's two of us in favor of recommending approval with referral to subcommittee. What else? What are the other views? Board Member Thompson: Can we list out all the items we would review on subcommittee? Chair Furth: The ones I have so far are: A redesign, a modest redesign of the corner element between Wilton and El Camino Real, to make that a more visible and distinctive part of the building; modifications, probably in terms of color and/or texture and landscaping on the alley. Vice Chair Baltay: On the building (inaudible). Chair Furth: Building façade facing the alley. I think the matter of the curb striping is a referral to staff, right? That's...? That's something we'd like you to address because I think it's a concern in the neighborhood, and certainly that was my experience, trying to get there. Anything else? Vice Chair Baltay: The street trees. Chair Furth: Oh, yes. And landscaping generally, street trees in particular, with the goal of having significant street trees, if at all possible, along the sidewalk, on El Camino Real. And if not, other significant landscaping. Vice Chair Baltay: Why don't you make that into a motion? MOTION Chair Furth: I move that we recommend approval of this project, and including the design enhancement exception, in this case, to the City Council...? Is that where this goes? To the City Council...? Mr. Owen: Correct. Chair Furth: ...of the City of Palo Alto. On the condition that the matter also be referred to a Architectural Review Board subcommittee to address the issues just discussed. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second that motion. Chair Furth: Just itemize. That's a motion and second. Is there any other discussion before we vote? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed? MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: That's a unanimous recommendation. Best of luck. I trust you will continue to work with your neighbors and do everything possible to make it all work well for everyone. Thank you. Ms. Steichen: Thank you. Chair Furth: We will take a five-minute break. City of Palo Alto Page 35 [The Board took a short break.] Chair Furth: If all of you could take your seats, we will proceed to item number 4, which is 4115 El Camino Real. That is still not the Verizon applications. We regret that we have a heavy agenda and that many of you are waiting long periods of time, but we, as you can tell, we have important things, and twitchy applicants, and we will proceed as expeditiously and fairly as we can. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4115 El Camino Real (17PLN-00280): Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review for a Proposed Three-Story, 16,725 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Retail, Second Floor Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (Seven Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Being Circulated for Public Comment Between November 30, 2018 and January 2, 2018. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Furth: Item number 4, 4115 El Camino Real. Recommendation on a major architectural review for a proposed three-story, 16,725 square foot mixed-use development, comprised of ground-floor retail, second floor office and residential, third floor residential, seven residential units in total, below-grade parking. There is a mitigated negative declaration that is still open for public comment until January 2, 2018 [sic]. First of all, has everybody inspected the site? Vice Chair Baltay: I have. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson? Board Member Thompson: No. Not in a while. Chair Furth: We're going to publicly shame her so that next time she's [crosstalk] Board Member Thompson: I'm ready. Chair Furth: She did, however, grow up here, and is intimately familiar with almost every business involved in these applications. She's patronized them all. Board Member Thompson: I know it very well. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Are there any conversations to be disclosed on this project? Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I had a telephone conversation with Randy Popp on Tuesday, mostly discussing the previous day's council meeting. But he did mention that this project would be coming before the Board, but we did not discuss it. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: I have talked with Randy Popp in the past about this project. Several months ago, I believe, now. Chair Furth: And what did you discuss? City of Palo Alto Page 36 Vice Chair Baltay: He just presented to me that he was getting involved in it, actually. It was more when he was coming on board, helping the architects. We didn't discuss anything in particular about the design. Chair Furth: Okay. It sounds like the public is well informed about what we're relying on in making this decision. May we hear from staff? Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, thank you, good morning. I'm Sheldon Ah Sing, contract planner. I have a presentation for you. The applicant is also here with their presentation, and the materials board is also available for you to look at. Behind you, I believe. There's already been a good overview and introduction of the project there, but moving on to some background. The project was before this Board back in June, at that time identified some issues. One was, parking was insufficient. The project at the time did request a parking modification. That the materials of the building should be reorganized to be more pedestrian-friendly and have a more residential feeling to it, and that the signage should not be located on the second floor/upper floors of the building, and also, to make the building more pedestrian- oriented. Since that time, the applicant has revised their project and elevations, and they will go into a little bit more detail about it, but you can just notice, first off, that definitely the signs have moved from the upper levels and focused more on the pedestrian side. Some of the other materials are more pedestrian-oriented and provide that more residential feeling to it. Here is the real elevation. The project does include frontage on two streets, El Camino Real as well as El Camino Way in the back, so the rear is an important elevation for the building. Also, going four-sided architecture. The right side of the building was also changed. Some of the wood massing was revised to feel more organized, and landscape was added to the garage screen to soften that edge. And then, this is the left elevation, as well. Some of the context in area, a lot of low, kind of low-intensity type of development. Some change-over into more modern types of buildings coming on line, but definitely in the direct vicinity. You've got some commercial, some residential. For the site plan, one thing to consider here, that from the early project description of the project, there was interest from the developer and applicant to include the breezeway that would have some public access from the residents. That residential portion or community that's in the back that has access from El Camino Way to get to El Camino Real. The project does include retail, so it's important to have that feature in there. There is a desire from the applicant to have that. It is a desire for the City to make sure that access is provided in the future for the project. We did include a condition of approval for you to consider, and it was to require an easement. However, the applicant did object to having an easement, and in further conversations with the applicant recently, this is for discussion, but we are considering a modification to that condition, something to the effect that would preclude any types of gates or structures that could be put in place to hinder public access in that breezeway for the life of the project. We want to put that kind of open-ended at this point, have a discussion about that. But if an easement is off the table, then something, so then, it would be a condition of approval if a future owner of the property were to put gates, and that could be a complaint by the community, the City could enforce something. The basement has been modified to accommodate puzzle lift system, and the puzzle lift system would be for residential and office parking. Also in the basement, you have the bike lockers. The project does include some affordable housing -- one unit, actually -- and that's a requirement. There's a little bit of in-lieu fee that would be paid at the building permit stage. The project is eligible for concessions or incentives, and part of that is by-right parking reduction for the residential. It streamlines that a bit. Otherwise, the residential component would require 15 spaces, but under the affordable housing, streamline reduction for parking there, 11 spaces are required for residential. The office and retail would still be to the full maximum. The total parking would be 47 spaces for the site. They are providing all of those on the site, so no parking reduction is requested. And then, some additional square footage for the BMR unit is allowed pursuant to the municipal code. That's, again, another incentive to allow more housing production in the city. The project is consistent with a number of the architectural review findings. The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are included in attachments for you, as well as the South El Camino design guidelines, the context design criteria, and performance standards. The site does include some amenities for the residents, as well as for the public. There is a little outdoor area for seats if an eatery goes into the retail space. As mentioned previously, an environmental document is being circulated at this point. There were some topics that would have potential for physical environmental impacts, and mitigation measures were provided. Those were City of Palo Alto Page 37 deemed to be feasible to be implemented by the applicant. This is for biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, and noise. These were just real basic ones that come up for most projects anyway. The recommendation is that the Board recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and provide comment on the environmental document that's currently in circulation, as well as mention the condition regarding the breezeway. Just need to hear any feedback on that. That concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? May we hear from the applicant, please? Name, spelling and address, please. Randy Popp, Architect: Hello. You got it. My name is Randy Popp. I'm an architect here in Palo Alto. I'm supporting this project as a consultant in the entitlement stage. Chair Furth: And your address? Mr. Popp: And my address is 210 High Street. [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: All right, thank you. Let me just restate our agenda, and I appreciate the really excellent staff report on this project. Our goal here is to review the changes made since our last review, and to clarify, as Sheldon mentioned, the conditions of approval that were drafted. Our goal here today -- and I'll state this clearly -- is to move the project forward, if we're able to. I want to start by looking at the front elevation along El Camino. We've made some significant progress, I think, when you compare the last version you saw and the version we have before us today. I'll use this format a number of times in the presentation so you can be familiar with it. Generally, we refined the placement of materials, using them as really subtle organizing elements in the façade to break up the massing and to add interest. We removed the flying beams. I think a lot of this is easier to see in the rendering itself because a portion of the building is oblique in the 2-D elevation. So, I'll focus on this, but if you'd like me to switch back and forth at any time, I'm happy to. You can see that the column base material has changed to settle the building into the site. We have alignment of the windows with the retail below. We have office balcony railings now that are revised. A third-level horizontal plane that strikes to...Let me see if I can get my cursor to work. Chair Furth: (inaudible) for the material board. You can have a gap while we look for it. Mr. Popp: Yeah, so, there's a .... Chair Furth: Do we have it where we can see it? Mr. Popp: It's up there. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...put it over there, looking at us, then? Mr. Popp: Mr. Gooyer has it there, yeah. The residential balcony glass railing has been raised to create a bit more definition for the massing in itself. The retail storefront rhythm matches that of the office above as it wraps the corners, and we've got a subtle refinement of the metal canopies at the breezeway and at the third level residential area. Moving on to a slightly different view of the front of the building where you can see the right side. I'll note that we made some changes to the garage ramp screening so that aligns with the elements that are above. We've adjusted the placement and the scale of the windows on this side of the building so that they are, again, more aligned and centered and consistent with the scale of the other windows around the building. The wood material has been extended across the recess for consistency. We have landscape materials that have been added along the screens at the edge of the City of Palo Alto Page 38 garage to soften that. The projection of the balcony at the third level has been reduced to enhance the terracing design, and material placement has been adjusted at the office for consistency overall. Here at the rear elevation of the building -- again, tricky to get all of this in one shot, so we'll look a little bit at the 2-D elevations here, and then I'll flip to a larger view of the, the perspective. Along the breezeway, we've added planters. It's easier to see that on the plan, so I'll get to that in a moment. At the second level, the railing has been replaced with a planter, with materials that will spill over the wall. Planter depth has been sized to sustain a large tree or a small shrub. The shrubbery that we've selected will grow to 15 to 20 feet in height once mature. The vertical trellis element has been aligned with the window sills as a datum. We have wood materials that are extending on the right side to overlap the balcony and the garage. The balconies have been shifted to remove the cantilever that was there previously. It was a little distracting, and I think this is a cleaner expression of the massing. The balcony separation walls have been shifted to coordinate with the updated material placement and the plan, and the residential windows have been adjusted and organized for consistency. Again, you'll notice that the breezeway is a dominant feature here in these elevations that you can see, but it's a little difficult in this perspective. But, hold that image for me, and we'll get to that. I'll also just note that the landscaping in these renderings is meant to sort of express about a one-year maturity, but at 10 to 15 years, it will be much more significant. As we get to the left side of the building, again, paying attention all the way around, this is the most simple side. Much of this visible from the other views, and we've talked about many of those elements already, but you can see more clearly here how the vertical trellis element aligns with the window sill datum. And I'll only point out that we adjusted the wood screen color on this side to blend in with the wall color a bit more. In regard to the plan, the through breezeway for pedestrian access is a significant feature of the diagram for us. As promised, we want to talk about that with you, and as Sheldon mentioned, there's a desire for us to maintain an openness to that for the neighborhood, and for users to access that. But, we need to maintain control of that overall. The public open space feature on El Camino Way and the common open space feature on El Camino Real bracket that at either end, welcoming people in and through. The resident parking access from El Camino Way is pretty clear to see, with the eight spaces, four in the garage and four at grade. Public parking access to the underground garage from El Camino Real can be seen at the lower left of the diagram. The retail at grade is the predominant space on this plan. Bike storage and shower have been maintained, and the trash room -- which is essentially at the center -- is still under discussion with the City of Palo Alto's trash team. We're talking about whether we'll pull the cans to the front or the rear, but they have agreed that having the maintenance team who manages the building for us do that would be acceptable. Very minor changes in the garage for us, primarily at the El Camino Real edge of the building, where we have altered the profile of the garage in order to avoid conflicts with El Camino and Caltrans as we are shoring and building this garage. As you note, there is 47 total spaces provided, which is conforming. Nineteen of those are in a puzzle lift that are for the use of the office and the residents, and the remainder is for office and retail use. Moving upstairs, I'm sure you've already made yourselves familiar with these plans, but just noting quickly at the second floor, we have office area along El Camino Real and four residential units that wrap around, and at the third floor, the final three residential units are in place. Just briefly touching on the landscape materials. I'll say, it's a very simple palette of planting material, durable, drought-tolerant, easy to maintain, and rapid to mature. We have varying contrast in both color and texture. The landscape furnishings on the site are high-quality materials and provide very nice amenities, we believe. As we go to the upper level for the office, and then, the resident decks, you'll see that we're suggesting wood decking at those areas on raised standards. The railings will be raised in the right areas to provide privacy and control site lines into those balconies, and in other areas, very open and glassy to allow for the building to showcase the activity that's happening up above. Sheldon did a great job catching a parapet height that we drew a bit too high, so I'll just note here on the building sections that the 40 foot, 9 inch parapet height that we've shown will be revised to be 40 feet tall. With that, I want to just touch on the draft conditions of approval. Condition #6 was related to the stucco surfaces, and I'll confirm that we will be a 20/30 or smoother finish to the stucco. Chair Furth: I'm sorry. Could we have the page number, please, staff? Mr. Popp: And I don't have that, I apologize. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Chair Furth: That's why I'm asking staff. Ms. Gerhardt: That would be packet page 131. Chair Furth: Thank you. Go ahead. Mr. Popp: Thank you. That is Condition #6. And then, for Condition #7, you know... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I...You can have another 30 seconds, but Condition #6 is about stucco finish. What did you want to say? Mr. Popp: I wanted...So, Condition #6 reads: "The owner or designee, prior to issuance of building permit, shall demonstrate on the construction plans and elevations and in details that the project's stucco surfaces shall be a 20/30 or smoother finish." That's a designation of a stucco finish. I'm here to say we're going to commit to that. That's no problem for us. Chair Furth: That's acceptable. Mr. Popp: That's acceptable. Number 7, however, is not acceptable to us. I'll just say that the project ownership needs to maintain control of that space for safety and security reasons. Staff has provided no nexus between the project and the requirement for the easement, and there is no legal obligation for us to be compelled to provide it. We request that be deleted. We want to maintain an open and through access for people to move between Meadow and El Camino, through our site. You know, for years, people have been riding their bikes or walking through the Pizza Chicago parking lot in just that way, and we're formalizing that. We're open to the idea of a condition that would say no gates in that accessway. I think the likelihood is that because it's an egress path anyway, we couldn’t do that. But we do need the ability to put those little plaques at either end of it that said, "Right to pass by permission of owner." So that we can control vagrants, we can control trash, we can control maintenance -- All of those things. It's akin to saying to your neighbors that, you know, "I'm going to give you all rights to my front yard, and you can come here whenever you want." Right? We just wouldn't do that. And there's really no reason for us to do that, so we ask that this condition be struck. And if you have a suggestion for something else, be happy to discuss that with you, but this particular one is not something that we can agree to. Chair Furth: To summarize, you believe that's in excess of the City's legal rights to ask for that? Or demand it? Mr. Popp: I believe it is. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: Thank you. That's it. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: The awnings, the sun-shading elements, what are those, materially? Mr. Popp: Materially, they are a steel frame with a wood slat in the field of the awning. Exactly. Just like that. It does show up in a number of the renderings. It's probably a little small on this screen, but we can look at that larger, if you'd like to. Board Member Thompson: It looks white. Like, the fill of the... Mr. Popp: The light's coming through it. Board Member Thompson: Hmm? City of Palo Alto Page 40 Mr. Popp: The intent is that it filters the light, the light comes through it, but the material itself is the wood material that we have on the building. Board Member Thompson: It's the same cedar? Mr. Popp: Yeah, exactly. Board Member Thompson: And that's for all awnings, on the top and on the pedestrian level? Mr. Popp: Correct. That's correct. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And while we're on this, the privacy screen, there's...It looks like there's two, but maybe they are the same. I just wanted to confirm the vertical screen. Are they the same? Mr. Popp: Same wood material, yes. Board Member Thompson: And what is the material? Mr. Popp: Cedar, correct? Yeah, the same cedar wood. Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, I'm talking about the white vertical perforated screen. Male?: [off microphone, inaudible]. Mr. Popp: All right, it's a flawed... Chair Furth: Could you use the microphone to... Mr. Popp: Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm going to repeat what Jeff, who is the architect is saying. It's a flaw in the renderings, it sounds like, and the intent is that we will have the same cedar wood material in those positions. Board Member Thompson: Okay, and that's on the side, that's kind of wrapping around that left elevation? Mr. Popp: In all those [crosstalk] right there. Yeah. That's correct. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so, that wouldn't be white, it would be wood. Mr. Popp: Sounds like that's the, that's the intent. I apologize for the flaw in the rendering. Here, this is Jeff Potts from SDG. Jeff Potts, SDG Architects: Yeah, the intent for the vertical and the horizontal screening is that it would be the same material, but a lighter stain, so not so dark over those areas. It would be a lighter stain, but the same material, instead of applying the dark stain to it. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so, the lighter stain... When you were saying that that left elevation changed, that was just changing the stain on that? Mr. Popp: I apologize. It was a communication error between myself and Jeff. The rendering shows on the left hand side there, those panels that I thought were going to be matching the wall color, it sounds like it would just be a lighter stain of the wood. Board Member Thompson: And we don't have a sample of what that is. City of Palo Alto Page 41 Mr. Popp: We do not. We can provide that, if you like. We can do that to staff, or a subcommittee, or something, if you'd like us to do that. Board Member Thompson: Okay, thank you. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Chair Furth: Could one of you spell your architect's name? Mr. Popp: [spells Jeff Potts' name]. Chair Furth: Thank you. I meant to announce the architects and the landscape designers earlier and forgot. Oh, and we have an anonymous LLC as the applicant. Is there a name for the owners? Mircea Voskerician: My name is Mircea Voskerician [spells name]. I represent 4115 ECR LLC. Chair Furth: Thank you. Part of the reason we ask is because we're required to not participate in matters involving people that we have shared financial interests with, and when we have an anonymous LLC, we can't know whether we're doing that or not. Thank you. We have raised this with staff before. Board Member Thompson: Sorry, if I could confirm one more thing about the materials. Chair Furth: Sure, go ahead. Board Member Thompson: This vertical screen is also the lighter-stained wood, also happens at the garage level when you're entering on the street? From El Camino? Chair Furth: Could you tell us which page you're looking at, sheet you're looking at? Board Member Thompson: Sorry. I'm looking at Sheet A017. Mr. Popp: Right. It's in that rendering that's on the upper right-hand side. There, you can see it. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Okay. And the...Okay, so, it's happening in, sort of three places -- the garage, the left side, and then on the top. Mr. Popp: Yes, three places. Exactly. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And the green walls, that framing, is that...? What material is that framing? Mr. Popp: It's just green screen. It's a landscape material that you purchase, and it's a framework that... Board Member Thompson: Okay, it's just the... Mr. Popp: ...plants grow in. The intent is it just disappears. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Popp: It's a three-dimensional mesh of welded wire. Very common. It's used all the time. And it stands off of the building so it doesn't damage the building surface, but is... It's just meant to be a framework that the plants grow within. Board Member Thompson: Gotcha. Okay. Thanks. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Chair Furth: Anybody else have questions? Board Member Baltay, Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, a question for staff, please. It concerns the pedestrian passageway through the property and whether or not, I guess, we have an easement of some kind. I want to know what options we have, or what is typically done. There's many passageways such as that one, this one, throughout town. Do they all have an access easement? Is there some other legal security we can get that allows the public to pass and still respects the owner's concerns about private property? Do we have any choices? Ms. Gerhardt: I think we need to explore this a little bit more with the attorneys, and we don’t have as much experience with past projects. But there was a concern because the applicant had offered this as a public way, so, the offer was made, and we wanted to then condition the project to make sure that that was going to happen. But, at the same time, I don't know that that's, you know, that we have a guideline or a code requirement that mandates this. We can speak to the attorneys, though, and see if there is a, some midpoint that both parties could agree to and still allow the public to walk through this accessway. It is leading to a commercial space, you know, so between parking and commercial space, so it does have to remain open. There's just the legality of, you know, truly being able to walk through there. Board Member Gooyer: I'm just curious about this. The... I mean, I can see his point, that they really, you know, if for some reason, sometime in the future, they want to put a gate in there, or whatever, I can understand that. Now, I was looking at the site plan, and there's 2 foot 3 1/2 inches from the face of the building to the property line. What if they shift that a foot eight inches to leave a 44-inch or 48-inch area there that, let's say 99 percent of the time, everybody uses the public access, so the public access may need to shrink a little bit, or whatever. And then, if somebody after hours, or if the owner decides later to lock that during, you know... I don't know, from midnight to 6:00, or something, someone could still pass through in that area on the side. I mean, it's not a big, wide area, but if you want to cross from... You know, it's one of these things that, if we're looking at just an ability to do that... First of all, I agree with the applicant, I think. I don't see any code requirement that would be mandate having an access there. But, if there is something, then at least doing the, shifting that, like I said, a foot and a half, or whatever, would allow a passageway between the two streets. Board Member Thompson: Do you mean on the east side, or the west side? Of the building? Board Member Gooyer: I'm talking, on Sheet A009... Chair Furth: The Honey Baked Ham sign. Board Member Gooyer: If you look at the top of the site, it shows 2 foot 3 1/2 inches from the face of the building to the property line. If that gets shifted slightly, enough to leave a 44 inch walkway or a 48 inch walkway between that... Or, I don't know. You could have it compacted... You know, some sort of a finish that is walkable, but... And that would be something that somebody could walk through. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: Would you like me to address that? Ms. Gerhardt: I do want to say that... Chair Furth: No. Mr. Popp: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the applicant has said that they would be willing to accept a condition that no gates be put on that breezeway. You know, I think... City of Palo Alto Page 43 Chair Furth: Well, before (inaudible) that, I've got a number of questions, so maybe we'll get all the questions out, and then, we can start looking towards answers. This is a mixed residential and commercial building. What's the ownership structure going to be? Are these condominiums? Are they apartments? Are there two condominium associations? What's it going to be? Mr. Voskerician: It will be condominiums for sale. Chair Furth: I beg your pardon. Mr. Voskerician: Condominiums for sale. Chair Furth: The residential space and the commercial space? Mr. Voskerician: No. Commercial space will be retail for rent or for sale. We don't know that yet, right now. Chair Furth: There will be an entity that owns the retail portion of the building. You're going to sell the individual residential units? Mr. Voskerician: We will sell the, we will sell the residential units, and it's possible that the retail and office would be maintained as a rental, or sold. We have not made a decision at this time yet. Chair Furth: Well, what I'm trying to get at is, who is going to be responsible for maintaining the common spaces, the garage, the building, this walkway, the parking lot. How is it going to be governed? Mr. Voskerician: Probably through an HOA association that's going to have to deal with all the trash, make sure the trash is taken on, on the street, and maintenance, and everything else, is going to be part of an HOA. Chair Furth: But what about...? A lot of this building isn't going to be... I mean, you usually can't make a housing HOA responsible for the maintenance of the non-housing portions of a building. Mr. Voskerician: Yeah, so, in my experience... Chair Furth: See how the department of real estate is going to figure this one out. Mr. Popp: Yeah. Let me try... Chair Furth: ... [crosstalk] on us. Mr. Popp: To clarify this a little bit, and I'll look to staff to confirm this. But, in my experience working on mixed-use buildings like this in Palo Alto, when we get farther down the road here, we'll get a series of conditions that come from public works, building depart -- All these other groups, that very clearly specify things like how the management of the building, the maintenance of the building, all of those aspects, will be handled. There will be an HOA that manages the relationship between the homeowners and the building, and then, there will definitely be an ownership component that interacts with that HOA. And in the multifamily projects that I've worked on, those interfaces are where you do things like manage the trash, manage the landscaping, clean the garage -- All of those things happen as part of those legal agreements between the ownership components of the project. Chair Furth: Thank you. Not quite sure I understand what you're proposing. And, of course, I'm asking these questions because it has to do with the continuing availability and maintenance of that walkway and the garage. We made need some further discussion on this. I had one other question of the applicants, which is one I've raised before. I am living in a residential unit, I come home late at night. Where do I park, and how is it secure? City of Palo Alto Page 44 Mr. Voskerician: Yes. Obviously, because we have retail and office, so, we have to put a condition that during the day, the gate, the rolling gate that's going to the ramp, it's going to have to be open. And then, for... Male?: (inaudible) Mr. Voskerician: Yeah, for the below-grade garage, it's going to have to be open until a certain time, and then, it's going to be key card access for the residents that are going to park underground. That's for the underground. Chair Furth: Do you have hours of operation in mind? Mr. Voskerician: Well, the retail and the office, I mean, obviously... Chair Furth: Office obviously can use key cards. Mr. Voskerician: Yeah, they use key cards, too, but, I mean, depending on what retail is going to go in there, we assume they're going to be there until, maybe six o'clock at night. But this was just an assumption for the time being. Chair Furth: So, there is a gate, and there is a key card system. Mr. Voskerician: We want to put a gate and a ... Chair Furth: Do the plans show that? Mr. Sing: There's no gate presently. Mr. Voskerician: I don't think it shows at this time. Chair Furth: Yeah, I think it's not on the plans. Mr. Voskerician: Yeah. Chair Furth: Thank you. That's helpful. Does anybody else have any questions of the owner's representative? Okay. Mr. Popp: I want to just clarify that. We had an email communication with Planning staff yesterday, or the day before, where they asked a specific question about the rolling gate, and whether that would be present, and whether it would be timed, etc. Perhaps it came from the conversation with you. And we... Chair Furth: We actually raised this at a previous hearing. Mr. Popp: Yeah, so, we made a commitment to staff in this email response to them that we would provide to them, we were intending to provide a rolling security gate that would be at the entrance, and that it would be on a timer control, so that it would shut when we are outside of operating hours, typical operating hours. Chair Furth: Thank you. That's helpful. Mr. Popp: All right, thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: And just to clarify, that's a condition that we would be adding. City of Palo Alto Page 45 Chair Furth: Good to know. I wasn't going to be able to make one of the required findings if you didn't. Discussion. Who would like to start? Board Member Lew: Do we have public speakers? Chair Furth: (inaudible), but I shall, of course, ask for them. Would anybody care to speak on this project, on this matter? No takers. All right, I'll bring it back to the Board. I'm sorry, Peter, did you have further questions? Vice Chair Baltay: [off microphone] No, but I want to go into the easement (inaudible). Chair Furth: Well, why don't we start deliberating? Peter, you can go first. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to further address the easement or the pedestrian passageway. We've seen this project several time and I've always been very excited by the ability for pedestrians to walk through from El Camino Way to El Camino. To me, that's been an integral part of my finding the design suitable and appropriate. And to be more specific, we make Finding #2 e., where the design has to enhance the living condition on the site and in adjacent residential areas. To me, that walkway through there is an integral and essential part of being able to make that finding. All along, you've been saying this is pedestrian, and I'm concerned now when I hear a stronger desire to assert your property rights, which means you can basically shut that pedestrian passageway off. When I hear that there's not a real clear understanding of how this passageway and the garden next to it is going to be maintained, I'm having doubts if this really will be the passageway, the beautiful picture that's been painted before us. That's bothering me. I wish we had a stronger sense of what can be done to preserve that without trying to step on your property rights. Nobody wants to take the land from you, but if there's not a way for people to comfortably be able to walk through there, then it changes my take on the whole project. I'd just like to leave that for now, so my fellow colleagues can hear that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. I guess, Osma, you haven't started a deliberation. Your turn. Mr. Popp: Excuse me. I thought we were going to have a 10-minute period... Chair Furth: Well, there's no public hearing to respond to. Mr. Popp: We don't do that? Okay. I did want to address the issue of this easement... Chair Furth: Go ahead. Mr. Popp: ...if you don't mind. I'll just take two minutes and do that. Maybe even less. Chair Furth: Have three. Mr. Popp: Thank you. I will try not to even use it. Commissioner Baltay, I want to just point out that we found out about this condition when the staff report was published. We had not heard about that previously. It was not a part of the project context until it was written in this draft agenda that came out for this hearing. We would have spoken earlier about the desire to provide open and clear access for the public to be able to move through this space freely in perpetuity. It's our intent to be able to do that. But the idea that we are obligated by a public easement to do that is something that's untenable to us. We need to be able to maintain control of our site. We need to be able to maintain the ability to manage who comes and goes through the middle of our site. And I don't see a way... I've spoken to counsel about this, capable counsel about this, and there is no nexus for the City to require an easement in this manner. And as a result of the discussion I had with Sheldon, we agreed that we would be happy to consider a condition that says something to the effect of no gates or, you know, open access. We've established furnishings and open space at either end of this breezeway to encourage people to come through. But we just can't agree to a condition that says that there is a requirement for an easement on City of Palo Alto Page 46 this. It's too difficult for us to manage the legality of that. It was a surprise to us, and we're just responding to it at this point because it just came up. But it's absolutely our intent to maintain this. We think it is an integral, and actually, one of the driving design elements of this project. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Hi. Based on...It's actually really nice to see this. In general, I would say it's a huge improvement from what we saw last time. I really appreciate your use of cedar in the many locations. I would like to see that sample eventually, of how that sort of interacts with your stucco and your other color. In general, it's funny. Even before knowing all of this about the breezeway, I did make a note that the breezeway itself does not architecturally seem very welcoming. I think there could be more done to that entrance, should you want people to come through there. That seems to be a, sort of interesting matter. Board Member Gooyer's suggestion of moving that sort of outer limit of your project a few feet south might be a way to solve that, but I see that there is landscaping there. So, if that were the case, there would sort of have to be, maybe a potentially different way to address that. So, yes. The other issue that I think still remains is what I think was labeled as the left elevation. I think it's actually a west elevation. That is pretty plain and blank, and you have a stair, so... On the page, it's just the top of the page. Chair Furth: What sheet are you looking at? Board Member Thompson: A009... Well, that's the plan, actually. The elevation is on, the elevation is on A14. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. It's that big, blank, wood wall. I think I remember last time expressing some concern about that wall just being a bit too massive and with too little visual interest, at least for those coming up El Camino. And given that it's a stair, I think there's a lot of opportunity to add daylight there. I see that you have glazing on the... I guess I'll say the plan left side, but you also have a big shading element there. I actually doubt that that stairwell in itself will be very well daylit. And there's a nice opportunity to add daylight there, and also make something more interesting happen on your façade. In general, I would say, though, it's a tricky site because you sort of have a funny trapezoid shape that you have to sort of address. I think this improvement is definitely a much better step in the right direction. I think there's a little bit more refinement when it comes to treating some of these big, massive surfaces, like the left side. But, in general, I would say that it's definitely coming along. That's all I'll say right now. Chair Furth: Board Member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, my concerns about the pedestrian passageway aside, I think this is a really nice building. I think it's been well-designed and -- let's see -- it's got a very nicely-organized façade, I find. The removal of the flying buttresses is very positive. I really like the floor plan, the basic arrangement and organization of it. It has to do with the pedestrian passageway, but even more than that, the way you've separated the residential from the commercial, the way the retail works, the parking -- I think that's very good. I think the materials are attractive and handsome and high-quality, durable, and they should prove to be a positive addition to the El Camino street frontage. Lastly, I very much like the small garden area on the side as you walk past it. Again, it seems like a nicely-designed garden, it's a nice idea, it's a good location. I think the tenants, the owners, are going to really enjoy using that. My sole concern is somehow finding a way to preserve that passageway. Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex. City of Palo Alto Page 47 Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you for the revisions. I can support the project today. I have a couple suggestions. One is to... For the Board, I think we should add a condition that there is parking signage to the underground garage. We have that College Terrace Centre that was mentioned earlier today, and there have been so many complaints that people don't know how to get down to the garage. To me, it seems obvious, but it's not. I think we should try to address that. Two, I would suggest more documentation on the materials in our packets. There really isn't a lot of detail in them. And then, in that, I do want to, if you would include the ground floor retail glazing. We do have projects like the College Terrace Centre that I mentioned, where they have, like, really dark glass. And they did it, like, they picked the glass based on the upper floors, and they just continued it down to the ground floor, which was a big mistake. Really huge, huge, huge mistake. I just want to make sure that you guys pay attention to the glass spec at the ground level. Third, on the lighting plan, you've got some poles lights on El Camino Way, and there's no height specified. The manufacturer gives a wide range of heights, so, I would like to see that come back there. And thank you for that, because I think it will help that intersection. And, on the findings, I think I would add that under Finding #2, for staff, I think I would add that they are retaining that elm tree at... Is it the Chinese Elm? On El Camino Way. They are preserving an existing feature. With regarding this easement, yeah, I think that we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. It's not like it's connecting two different streets. It's just connecting it to the retail space on El Camino. I don't know. We have other projects on El Camino Way that have these breezeways. We could look and see what they have on there. They've been kept open. I think, generally, I don't support a public easement here. I will say that we have products in the downtown area that have sort of indoor/outdoor spaces, and there have been problems. Like, after businesses close, the homeless move in, and make a lot of noise, and disturb the neighbors. And I think that they have to be able to have the flexibility to adapt to whatever situations arise. And it's going right through the building. They've got a building all the way around, on all four sides. It seems crazy to have a public easement through there. It seems like we're making another problem. I'm think of the design (inaudible) University Avenue, where there was... That was all private property, and then, the public... The alley was added later, so, somehow the owner agreed to have public access through there. But, there was no alley there to begin with. And then, we were struggling with what to do with it. Yeah, I just don't know where we're going. I don't really see... Even if it gets closed off, what are you really losing? I don't really get it. I'm in support of the project. I think that there are things that need to be followed up on, though. Chair Furth: Could you specify what those are, Alex? Board Member Lew: Well, I think I did, right? Signage down to the garage. More detail on the materials, including the ground floor glazing. The lighting plan needs to specify the pole heights, the fixtures, because that affects the photometrics. And then, Finding #2 on page 124, I think we would add... Chair Furth: We are retaining the Chinese Elm. Board Member Lew: Yes, they are retaining a tree as an existing feature. Chair Furth: Thank you. Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I'm quite happy with the changes that were made from the last presentation, and I can approve the project as it stands right now. And I have to agree with Alex. I don't see that... I think that item #7, the access, it just seems excessive, right through the middle of the building. Like I said, if we want to do something where it could go on the side if we need to, I can do something like that. But just running an easement right through the middle of the property, what if in, you know, 10 years, they want to redesign the thing? All of a sudden, they are stuck because there is an easement there, and they have to go through all kinds of hoops to get that changed. I agree with some of the various items that Alex indicated to be added to the conditions of approval, but I think 7 ought to be eliminated. I can accept it the way it is. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for the drawings, which I thought were very helpful. I like the way that this building plays with the different orientations, alignments of the City of Palo Alto Page 48 streets, so you have these spaces moving in and out. I think that will be enjoyable to experience, whether you're driving by or walking. Staff, if I forget, we need to add a condition that there will be a key card gate that will be closed outside of normal retail hours. And I actually think you should be more specific in that. I mean, if retail starts to go to 10:00 or 11:00 at night, I don't think that's okay for residential security. I don't know what hour is acceptable to the owner, but I think we need to specify it. Ms. Gerhardt: Ten to six would be our, or 6:00 to 10:00 would be our standard hours. The gate would be closed, you know, late-night hours usually start at 10:00. I don't know if that... Chair Furth: You've still got me lost. You need to put in AM and PM. Ms. Gerhardt: Sorry. Ten P.M. After 10:00 p.m., if a business stays open, that's considered late hours and would need additional permitting. Chair Furth: The parking garage would be secured at least between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., and longer if that's possible. I'm sure you're going to get pressure from your residents. That's a condition I would request and need to have before we made further findings. This site is a mess right now when viewed from the bay side. It's not designed to be viewed from the bay side. It's oriented exclusively to El Camino. The one thing that it does offer is you can walk from one side to the other. And it's important, I think, in making our findings that this proposal continues that. There are very few documents in law that are more flexible than access rights. It's not true to say that you can't have an access commitment to the public and the City that doesn't permit you to close things outside normal business hours. That doesn't permit it to terminate should the building be redesigned. That... I mean, I live next to a publicly- accessible, privately-owned public space, essentially, which is gated. It's got cameras. It's not open to the public on weekends, which is a big mistake. I regret that. And, it's not open after sunset or before dawn. I believe it's possible for the City and the applicant to fashion an agreement that is not a dedicated easement, that permits this building to operate in a way that facilitates that access when it makes sense. A lot of it has to do with design, but I think without some commitment, it's going to close tomorrow. You can shake your head at me, but residents typically, unless they are very well operated, don't normalize a public passageway until time has passed and they know it's well, and safely operated, well-lit and secure when it should be. So, I don't think we're ready for prime time on that one. I also think this shouldn't be approved until we have a condition fashioned that makes it clear that the entity that owns the bulk of the building outside of the condominium spaces is responsible for the maintenance of these other areas. I hesitate to... It's possible that you can get seven condominium owners who will take responsibility for the common open space and what not, of the rest of the building, but I've never seen it. And if we don't have that, then I feel we're going to lose the amenities that are so important for the success of this project. Guidance from staff would be appreciated. Board Member Gooyer: I have a question. Oh, sorry. Chair Furth: I was just going to say, it's because we're supposed to find that the building is well designed to operate effectively, blah, blah, blah. And this is a split ownership building. Sometimes you design those buildings so that they can ignore each other. You know, this is this part, this is that part. They don't really have to talk. Except when they re-roof every 30 years. But this isn't like that. This is an integrated project. Board Member Gooyer: I'm actually, about this whole access thing, does that mean, then, every property that gets developed on the island then is going to have to have some sort of easement through the middle of it? Chair Furth: No, and I didn't specify an easement, and they offered as an amenity this kind of passageway. I think that if we don't have any kind of commitment to keep it open, which, to my mind... Board Member Gooyer: What do you mean by a commitment, then? City of Palo Alto Page 49 Chair Furth: It could be a CC&R covenant with the City. We often do that. Because you're going to have to have CC&Rs. We have a lot of those, for example, over on the infill project, on the old Palo Alto Medical Foundation site. A lot of commitments on those spaces. Board Member Gooyer: That would be done, like, let's say, for example, through the HOA, or whatever. Chair Furth: Yeah. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Chair Furth: Whatever the management... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: I could accept something like that. Chair Furth: I'm not saying they should have something that shows up on their title report the way CC&Rs do. I also think that realistically, that they're probably going to want the ability to close it off during some hours. It just doesn't quite seem to be thought through. I'm trying to figure a situation in which people will want, the owners will want to be able to leave it open because it facilitates their own commercial developments and residential ease of passage. And, the neighborhood understands that it's available for a passing-through use and nothing else during reasonably-limited periods of the day. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I thought you were going... Chair Furth: I'm just struggling. Board Member Gooyer: ...back to the while idea of the easement, which I'm against. Chair Furth: I understand. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may. I did want to point out or clarify that we do have some policies related to this in the comp plan. Policy L2.2 talks about enhancing connections between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential by promoting walkable and bikeable connections. We also have context-based design guideline that talks about pedestrian and bicycle environment, designing new products that promote, you know, walkability, and connections. We definitely have some guidelines related to this. It definitely was a commitment made by the applicants, and I think in our latest conversations, the applicant is talking about potentially an access agreement. I don't know if that would be, sort of the happy medium. But I think we... Chair Furth: You know that we work with Stanford all the time, and they never grant anybody anything. Which is why we have a lot of public access easements. There are lots of documents that could probably let everybody live happily. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, I do think that, at least from a staff perspective, we feel like we could get to that happy medium. Chair Furth: Good. Does the applicant agree? Does what we say make sense to you? Mr. Voskerician: Yes. Chair Furth: We've said so many things. Let's see, is there anybody we haven't heard from? I've got Alex's list, but is there anybody else we haven't heard from? Everybody got their issues on the table? City of Palo Alto Page 50 Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I think I'm, just to reiterate one point that Alex made, and maybe one that I made earlier. There is a bit of clarification needed on the materials used and the material palette. And it's a little... I think there's some, like, kind of trump doy [phonetic] happening with the renders. I'm not sure if some materials are proud of other materials, or when the material changes, it happens in a plainer way. I think there's also a little... I don't know. I have more questions about what materials go where, but I don't want to... Chair Furth: Okay, so, we have three options. We can continue this matter for a further hearing by us. We can recommend approval without a subcommittee, just with referral to staff. Or, we can recommend approval with referral to a subcommittee. Without binding yourselves on the final motion, what are your thoughts on this. Us, subcommittee or staff? Board Member Thompson: I'd like to see some stuff again, so, whether that's in... Chair Furth: You either want it to be on subcommittee or come back to us. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm okay with it. To me, the issue is getting an access agreement. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Gooyer: But that could be done sort of, you know, by staff, and... Chair Furth: It should be done by staff. [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: ...the owner [crosstalk]... Chair Furth: It's not our area of competence. Board Member Gooyer: ...long as we put in there that some agreement... Chair Furth: You have to add a condition. Board Member Gooyer: ...needs to be made. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, I'm satisfied that, the way Wynne described it is fine. I don't think asking for a full-fledged easement across the property that gets put on title is appropriate. Board Member Gooyer: Right. Vice Chair Baltay: But, I would like to see something that also just grants the public... Puts in writing the applicant's intention.... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: And do it through, like, the HOA, or something. Vice Chair Baltay: Any sort of thing like that would be perfectly... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: Right. Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: I just want to see something. City of Palo Alto Page 51 Board Member Gooyer: If that's the case, I'd be willing to approve it with coming back to staff level, or something. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex? Board Member Lew: I am... Yes. I think that the... It seems to me that the outstanding issue, then, is, like what Osma pointed out, the blank west façade. And that if there are changes... Like, I think you were asking, if it's possible to do windows, and I think it's a, there may be fire rating issues, and two-hour enclosure issues. Chair Furth: The applicant's architect/representative is nodding. Board Member Lew: Yeah, so... Mr. Popp: Yeah, if I could just... I know this is out of procedure, but we're 2 feet, 3 inches from a property line. It's... Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: At five feet, you’re not... At less than five feet, you are not permitted to have any openings... Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: ... so we're trying to decorate the wall. Board Member Lew: It seems to me that that would be a big, if there were a change, that would be a big aesthetic thing that maybe the Board would need to see. My take on it is the wall isn't that long, and there is the Honey Baked Ham building in front of it. Board Member Gooyer: And it's only a three-story instead of a four-story. Board Member Lew: Yes, three stories, not four stories. And there's wood... Yeah. But I would guess that that would be one concern. I think generally I'm okay with subcommittee for these remaining items. Chair Furth: Okay. And I would support a subcommittee, so that's three of us. On this signage for the parking garage, I don't... Do we need a space counter sign? I mean, I'm sure it's tricky when you've got mixed use parking, but it seems to me those are the only ones that actually work. You know, I shop at a supermarket which has rooftop parking, and I can tell as I come down Hawthorne Avenue that there's zero, or 13, or 42 spaces, and that modifies my behavior. But just saying "parking garage" doesn't really tell me if I'm going to get lost in the bowels of a substructure. Applicant have any thoughts on this? Mr. Popp: We can definitely do what you're describing. I think the trick here is that the space counter is really just for the retail use, and there's mixed parking down there. It's going to be hard to gauge how many available spaces there are. Also, just aesthetically, having sat in your position, I'm not really in favor of having neon signs blinking how many spaces are available out on El Camino Real. Chair Furth: I'm sure you can design a tasteful one that doesn't blink. Mr. Popp: They look like what they look like. Chair Furth: I love them. Sort of the way I feel about solar panels. In certain circumstances. Not as designed by the City. Okay, so, I think we're moving towards a motion to recommend approval, with a new condition of approval requiring the installation of a key-controlled gate, card-controlled gate on the parking, that would be secured outside of normal business hours, which we will leave to staff to define before this goes for final approval. At the moment, we understand that they will be closed between 10:00 City of Palo Alto Page 52 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., or longer if the applicant wishes. That we would add a condition that there would be signage indicating availability of parking for retail or commercial uses somehow, possibly with a counter sign. But the design of that signage, in addition to... How do you want to describe it? Review of materials? For the review of materials? Is that what you're talking about, that you want? I mean, clarification... Board Member Lew: Especially if you're specifying the materials, right? I mean, it just says wood and stucco, which really could mean anything. Chair Furth: Okay, specification of, and materials to be reviewed by a subcommittee of the ARB after further details are provided by applicant? Right? You're going to have the right to say yes or no? Ms. Gerhardt: And that would include, like, material samples, and then, also, clear delineation of where materials start and stop. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...with sufficient specificity so that you can review it for approval or denial, recommending of approval of denial. Sorry, my computer just decided to go to sleep. Modifying finding... Oh, specification, lighting plan needs to specify pole heights. Do you want the subcommittee to further review the lighting plan based on that information? Board Member Lew: Yeah, or staff. MOTION Chair Furth: Okay. We'll just dump it all to committee at the moment. And, we need to modify, recommending modifying... Where are we? Condition #7? Six? What page? Seven. And we'll stop calling that public access easement and simply call it public access. And the owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that reasonable access will be available for pedestrian and bicycle use of the access way during normal business hours. And that the entity responsible for maintenance and operation of that will be capable of undertaking that task. Everybody...? They are nodding over in the applicant's bench. You know, we could have an interesting discussion about whether there's a null and dull and nexus here, because right now, there is access across the property. But we certainly don't have an interest in claiming a City property right in here as access that's available to the public. And it needs to be something more than good intentions. Buildings get transferred. The owner and operator of this building needs to be able to tell the people who think, "Oh, let's just close it off," that we can't. That we've made a commitment, and it's a binding commitment. Okay. Board Member Thompson: Could we add more element to maybe... Chair Furth: Subcommittee? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, to the subcommittee review? For that left elevation, even if it has to be without any fenestration? Chair Furth: We need to specify... Board Member Thompson: Oh, the west elevation. The one that has the fire barrier. Chair Furth: What's it face? The Honey Baked Ham elevation? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, that one. City of Palo Alto Page 53 Chair Furth: The one closer to downtown. The one as you proceed towards San Francisco on El Camino Real. Board Member Thompson: That one that, you know, is not allowed to have openings, but there could be more to be done aesthetically to make that less of a massive wall. Chair Furth: Okay, so, a review of the materials and detailing on the stairwell façade. Board Member Thompson: Right. Chair Furth: To see if they can have somewhat more interest, interest without, in light of the restrictions on openings. Okay. Everybody okay with that? It's a series of referrals to a yet-to-be-named subcommittee. Players to be named later. Great. That’s a motion by me. Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. Further discussion? Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to add that I did read the initial study of the EIR and I found it okay. Chair Furth: For the (inaudible). The mitigated negative declaration, right? Great. So, what that basically said was that this could have had adverse effects on the environment, but you were able to design around them and work around them. The applicant is looking at the clock; I'm sure so is everybody concerned with other projects. Did we vote? Board Member Thompson: Not yet. Chair Furth: All those in favor? All those opposed. Five to nothing. It is approved. MOTION TO APPROVED PASSED 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. We will have a three minute break, for everybody to get in space for the next item, which is Verizon. [The Board took a short break.] Chair Furth: Can I see a show of hands from members of the public who are here to speak on this matter? Three? I have both a question... Well, I have a question. We realize that you had to wait a long time to speak. So has the applicant, but they are mostly here on paid work. We have two items before us, two separate clusters. One is called 2, one is called 3; 3 is downtown north; 2 is not. Are you here on 2 or three? Male?: Two. Chair Furth: Two? [inaudible response from the audience] Chair Furth: Right. You're both... Okay, fine. Because if you were not, I was going to suggest that we merge public testimony of the two. But since everybody who wants to speak is here on the first one, we will just proceed. Thank you. Staff? Oh, go ahead, introduce the item. 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2, University South Multiple Addresses [17PLN-00433 File Uses 250 Hamilton Avenue Address]: Request by Sure Site (on behalf of Crown Castle to Lease to Verizon) for Seven Small City of Palo Alto Page 54 Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits in the Public Right of Way, Including Six Streetlight Nodes and One New Streetlight Node. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning of Node Locations is Public Facilities, Adjacent to These Zones: Public Facilities (275 Forest); Commercial Downtown CD-C (P): 345 Forest; Residential Transition (SOFA) RT-35: 248 Homer, 190 Channing; DHS (SOFA) - 385 Homer, 905 Waverley (formerly 400 Channing), 845 Ramona. For further background information, please refer to the City’s website under the project file number 17PLN-00433). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. Amy French, Chief Planning Officer: Okay. I'm Amy French, Chief Planning Officer, here to present the project called Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 2. It's some small-cell nodes for wireless communication facilities in the University South neighborhood. The address is noted on the ad that we've published in the newspaper, The Post, as well as what we sent out to the neighborhood with notice cards. They are wireless communication facilities in the right-of-way, in different zones, including the Commercial Downtown zone; the DHS, which is a SOFA zone; the RT-35, also a SOFA zone; and... I think that was it as far as the zones. This is the first hearing on Cluster 2 proposed by Crown Castle on behalf of Verizon. Rebecca Atkinson -- to my left -- is the project planner. I am here to deliver the report. Albert Yang, to my left as well, our City Attorney staff, here to represent. We have the applicants here. They do have, I just wanted to mention, a Dr. Bushberg, I think is his name. He is to teach a class at UC Davis at 2:00 p.m. today, so there was a request for earlier presentation by this gentleman. I will make my presentation, and then, possibly, they can reverse the order of their presentation to have him speak first. Okay. I'll begin. This is Cluster 2 in University South. There are six streetlight poles that are involved here, existing streetlight poles to be replaced by new streetlight poles, and there is one streetlight pole proposed that does not exist currently. The poles would receive canister antennas on the top, and their proposal is to install ground-mounted fake mailboxes containing radio units. They are large radio units. That is their proposal. They have, today, some alternate images, alternatives to where to put those radios, and they will show in their presentation that we saw last night at 7:00 p.m. I wanted to also note that at places, we have two reports, one for each of these clusters. Cluster 2 is what you are looking at now. We have the CTC technology and energy report at places. This is a consultant that the City hired to help us understand what the design alternatives are and the RF radio frequency emission technical matters. We have that. Also at places we have some comments from members of the public that the ARB should have received at places. On the screen, showing images of each of these nodes. You can count them. Did I say six? There are seven nodes proposed, six of them, again, existing locations for streetlights, with proposal to replace the streetlights, and one new streetlight in a place that does not exist. There's only one streetlight here that is not on a corner, and that's the one that's proposed where none exists. The other six are located near intersections. Staff recommends denial of three of those nodes, and the reasons are on the screen. I would note that the applicant would request feedback on alternatives that they are proposing today, in the presentation we saw last night, and our email. They will go through those for each of those nodes that staff recommends denial on. They are also showing alternatives for all the nodes as far as faux mailbox pedestal or side-mounted equipment. Staff is recommending approval on four of those nodes on the screen, and with alternatives that can be explored today, and conditioned. Again, the applicant is going to present some alternate images. Here are some images showing the mailbox problem. This is not a mailbox; it's an enclosure, and it's subject to vandalism, and there are issues with repair of these, and not happening in a timely manner. Here in the middle is the image of the size of the radio, the remote radio unit that is proposed. This is... Several of these radios going into an enclosure makes for a large enclosure. On the right is an image of other types of utility boxes in Palo Alto in the right-of-way, so that's showing an alternative not proposed by the applicant. We have some images here that are from this technology report, CTC report, regarding underground, being the size of vault would have to be for undergrounding, and some other considerations. We have construction challenges. You have this on the screen now that talk about, you know, how far you can put one of these enclosures from the antenna. There is a 90-foot requirement, there's a 70-foot requirement here. If anyone has questions, we can go back to this if the vaulting question comes up. Here is an image of a vault, showing the size that our consultant determined would City of Palo Alto Page 55 be required. This is not proposed by the applicant. Vaulting. On the right, there is an image of the AT&T proposals using these microcells that are much smaller than the radios proposed with this application. Here are, again, from our CTC report, consultant report, showing some examples of mounting on top of the pole, the conjunction of the antenna, and the radio or radios. And then, on the right, the images of a side-mounted sets of radios. Chair Furth: Amy? Ms. French: Again, these are the smaller, microcell radios. Chair Furth: Sure. I know you got a lot of information from them at the last minute, and from our consultant. I just wanted to clarify. When do you need to leave by? Ten minutes ago? Dr. Gerald Bushberg: Yeah. Ms. French: Do you want a break? Chair Furth: Well, if you would like to, with the permission of the Board, if you would like to take some of your applicant's time to make whatever brief presentation you can before you leave. I'd hate to have your trip be in vain. Ms. French: Okay. Chair Furth: We'll go back to staff report... Ms. French: Sure. Chair Furth: ...after that, and we'll just... Ms. French: Do you have a presentation to upload? Dr. Bushberg: No, I can speak from my notes here. Chair Furth: Okay, and this will count against the applicant's time. Dr. Bushberg: Thank you for your consideration. Chair Furth: If you could spell your name for the record. Dr. Bushberg: It's Gerald Bushberg [spells name]. Chair Furth: Thank you. Dr. Gerald Bushberg: I am a consultant retained by Crown Castle to do the analysis that's before you, and was reviewed by outside counsel, or outside experts. There's only just a few points that I'd like to make. My general background is I'm a clinical professor of radiology and radiation oncology at UC Davis. I’m also the chairman of the board and senior scientist at the National Council on Radiation Protection and Measurements in Washington. We study both ionized and radiational x-rays, as well as radiofrequency energy. The comments that I have today apply to both Clusters 2 and 3. I just want to make a few points. First of all, I know a lot of people think that this wireless technology is something new that we don't know much about, but actually, when you really think about it, it's really the coming together of three pretty old technologies. It's a combination of radio, computer and a telephone. We have over 100 years' experience with RF broadcast and have been studying biological effects of RF energy for over 60 years now. As shown in the reports, the maximum exposures at ground level are less than one percent of what is allowed by the FCC for continuous public exposure. And the thing that is City of Palo Alto Page 56 important to understand about that is that the exposure standards are not set right at the threshold of potential harm and safety. In fact, they are set 50 times below a level that is thought to be potentially harmful. That really represents a safety factor of over 5,000 times, and that is the maximum exposures that are anticipated. Finally -- and this is sort of a counterintuitive point, but -- for those people who are concerned about RF exposure, the vast majority of RF exposure today comes from uses over your cell phone. Because it's not so much that it's high-powered, but because it's close to your body. Both your exposure and the exposure to people next to you are the highest RF exposures that people typically experience. The other thing that people don't know about their phones usually is that the phones have, all phones have something called adaptive power control, which means that when they are really close to a cell site and have good coverage, like, all the bars, they're only operating at about one percent or one-tenth of a percent of their maximum. When they are far away and you only have one bar, the phone reaches out to its maximum. The difference between your exposure when you have good coverage and you have bad coverage can be 1,000 to 1. For those people who are really concerned about RF exposure and live in a community that has wireless service, the very best thing you could do to reduce the ambient levels of RF exposure would be to have really good coverage in the area that's being served, because then, the phones would be operating at extremely low power. And they do this not because of a safety issue. They do it to preserve battery life, and also to keep signals within the site that the cell sites want to see. For those that have a concern, it seems counterintuitive, but having really good coverage in an area is one way -- probably the most effective way -- to reduce the greatest public exposure. I will conclude my comments with that, and would be happy to answer any questions that you might have. Chair Furth: Does anybody have questions of the speaker? When thinking about radiation exposures of any kind, is it cumulative exposures we're concerned with? Or peak? Or both? Dr. Bushberg: Well, with x-rays, the answer is yes. With radio waves, the answer is no. Let me give you an example. With x-rays... Chair Furth: I'll take your answer. That's fine. Dr. Bushberg: Oh. Okay. It's no. The RF exposure is non-ionizing radiation, like visible light. For example, visible light does not accumulate in the body, so there's not an intensity that builds up and damages the optic nerve. The same thing is true with RF energy. You're exposed, the energy is dissipated. Chair Furth: So when my dermatologist is telling me to limit my sun exposure, cumulatively, she's wrong? Dr. Bushberg: No. They're talking then about ultraviolet radiation, which is right at the threshold of ionizing and non-ionizing. The RF radio waves are about a million times less energetic. In fact, they're less energetic than light waves. Chair Furth: Thank you. Dr. Bushberg: Okay. Chair Furth: Any other questions? Dr. Bushberg: Thank you for indulging me. Appreciate it. Chair Furth: Yes. Hope you make it to class. Dr. Bushberg: I will. Thank you. Chair Furth: Safely. (inaudible) for the disruption, but you did advise us of this necessity, so we will get back to the staff report. City of Palo Alto Page 57 Ms. French: Yes. And that was very nice. I'll move along here. The images that I had just finished describing on the screen are examples or concepts for placement of the radios between the top of the pole and the antenna that's proposed above the pole. That's on the left side. On the right side is a side- mounted set of radios. These radios here in this concept are really the micro or pico-size radios, which are much smaller than the radios that the applicant is proposing. Here are just some images of other poles that are nearby some of the proposed nodes. Again, the applicant's presentation will describe in detail how they came up on the node locations that they are proposing, but I'll just briefly blow through these images we took in the field, showing what else is out there. These are all relatively short poles, providing light, street lighting. I'm just going to... These are available if the ARB wishes to go back and look at some of these alternate possibilities. Again, the applicant would have some comments on these, I'm sure. Just showing, especially for the ones that the staff is recommending denial on. This is a situation where we have a historic building, Category 2 on our local historic inventory, and the options are several: To relocate to a different site entirely for a node; the image on the right shows a nearby streetlight. The applicant will show you today their proposal to put the mailbox in a different location but retain the location next to what's known as Staller Court today. This is the other recommended-for-denial location. The City does not want to have a new streetlight placed where there is none today. There is some analysis that would go with that. Those are the nearby poles on the right. The CTC report, not to bore you with details, but it is, we had quite a scope for them to look at. They had site visits, they did review of the capacity and on-site coverage -- All of these things related to the technical aspects of the project. And, they did propose these images of alternate design. Their findings related to the scientific, the RF's, are on the screen, and signal strength, etc. They believe that the proposal will provide the service that they are looking at providing to their customers. Again, here are just a couple images. Showing on the left, these are the radios that cause the large mailbox size to be proposed, two of these. They are longer, 27 inches tall, or long, and 12.5 inches wide, and a depth of seven inches. As opposed to the pico or microcell units on the right, which are 7.8 inches wide and 3.9 inches deep. More of a square shape. Again, here's our recommended motion. Conditional approval of four nodes, denial of three nodes, and comments on the potential alternative design locations that the applicant is showing. We have the generic standards that are in the staff report on these packet pages -- 200, and findings, 202. We have not crafted findings for approval of this project, nor conditions of approval at this time. We have... The next steps on the screen would be director's decision within 14 days of the ARB recommendation, and then, appealable to the City Council. That's the standard. Here on the screen, I'm going to remove this so the applicant can upload their presentation. And we have staff here for answers to questions, if we want, before their presentation. Or, hear next from the applicant. Chair Furth: I think we'll go ahead with hearing from the applicant first, and again, we have a transcriber, so if you would spell your name, give us your address. If you have a corporate affiliation and that needs spelling, do that, too. Applicant is entitled to 10 minutes at the beginning of the public hearing, and 10 minutes after you hear from the public, which you will. You have six minutes and 37 seconds left. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Okay. Ms. Swanson: If I may, Chairman Furth, is it possible to take Dr. Bushberg's time off of my Cluster 3 10 minutes, considering that is a shorter presentation? Chair Furth: We'll split it. Ms. Swanson: Thank you. I appreciate that. If I may, I ... [crosstalk] Ms. Swanson: ...timer on here. What shall I put my time for? Chair Furth: Eight. City of Palo Alto Page 58 Ms. Swanson: Eight minutes. Thank you so much. Chair Furth: Coordinate with her. She gets eight. Ms. Swanson: Hopefully you can see that; it's a little dark. First, I want to thank you again for having us here. This is our second appearance. We had a preliminary back in September of 2017. Hard to believe it's been that long, but it has. I want to start by introducing the change... Chair Furth: You need to remind us what your name is. Rochelle Swanson: I'm sorry. Rochelle Swanson. I work for SureSite Consulting. I'm doing government relations on behalf of Crown Castle International, who is the applicant in this matter. I know Verizon has been brought up a few times. However, they are a tenant. This is a Crown Castle project, Crown Castle being the nation's largest owner of fiber infrastructure and working through wireless deployment. I want to first, like I said, introduce the team. I'm sorry, you want my address. I live in Davis, California, another lovely college community. Do you need my street address, or is that adequate? Chair Furth: (inaudible, off microphone) Ms. Swanson: All right, 2780 Brentwood Place, Davis, California. Behind me I have Dick Stoddard, who is our construction manager; Morgan Hunt, who is our manager of RF engineering; Todd Threw, who is the CEO of Costal Communications, lead designer of their A&E, and helps us with compliance on all design issues, local, state and federal; Michael Shawnafell [phonetic], our legal counsel, as well as Sharon James, the director of government relations, and Reejay Redivarie [phonetic], who is the project manager. I share the titles and the depth because I believe that if you have questions that have to do with those subject matters, rather than to referring to an analysis of generalists like myself and staff, that they are really the go-to people to ask. Just a little bit of background. Crown Castle is a competitive local exchange carrier, also...Oh, this is not working. Hold on. It's not clicking through. [Technical difficulties with digital presentation.] All right. Going back to, explaining that Crown Castle is acelic [phonetic,] and what that means is that they qualify as public utility and have special status to the public right-of-way and poles and equipment, but also being regulated as a utility as opposed to a carrier. This project here is an expansion of a previous project of 19 sites, from 2015. This build-out here is an expansion, as mentioned before, and it really is about bolstering infrastructure. While everybody is very much excited and talking about smart cities and 5G, this is also for 4G infrastructure, which is important to have the ubiquitous coverage within communities and between communities. The real core of this is the need for coverage and capacity. Years back, it was really about coverages and holes in coverage, but now it's really about capacity because of the ubiquitous use of wireless devices. Not just phones, of course, but there's also tablets, laptops, and at some point, cars and other issues. As you can see here -- and I won't belabor going through -- the numbers, and they continue to grow, is the amount of people who are using data, it's rapid increase. What's interesting is that, going back to the need for infrastructure, we're 36th in the world for actually having the deployment, though we're probably some of the highest in demand there. Right here it says that 48 percent have wireless service only. Actually, that number has already climbed to nearly 53 percent just in the time since putting this together. I will note as I go through here, I'm going to try to address some of the other questions from CTC. We received that this morning, because I know that was just also received by staff last night, so, where possible, try to connect it, which is also why... And I apologize for the late submittal for our own report. We have been waiting on photo sims to address the staff report that came out on Friday night, so, to try to give you the most information that we have. The specific request that we have here is to take a look at all the nodes. As staff put out, as far as the different ways that we can house the equipment, as put into potential conditions of approval for those four nodes, and also, being able to use them as solutions for the remaining three. Specifically looking at Node 26 and the different options on the mailbox, which was discussed. The preference for the location for Node 28m1, if you'll recall, we came here with Node 28 in front of 370 Channing back in September 2017, and it was recommended then that while it is stated that it would be preferable to avoid corners, but to go ahead and go and look at the corner, especially what was explained there by our engineer, Ernesto, theorized that we have an ability to actually have greater coverage when we locate on City of Palo Alto Page 59 corners rather than mid-block. Because there's a line of sight for two different streets, and that allows for more efficient use of each site, potentially less sites, depending on the location. Node 25 of the request, while it's for denial, to allow us to move forward with a conditional approval, to continue to work with staff to address their concerns, considering the fact that that's the only viable node that we have there. And then, of course, any additional feedback from all of you, as well as, you know, looking forward to the landscaping proposed by the urban forester. No opposition to working there with staff and doing what is applicable and feasible in each one of those locations. Just quickly here for the history because I want to be able to recap those two minutes that were lost, is that we first walked the start sites in 2016, in November, and then, of course, was here in September 2017. I raise this, the whole history here, to kind of denote the way that Crown Castle does business when it comes to locating locations. It is not a desktop exercise, so, a node that gets proposed isn't throwing something on the wall. Whenever there is a sidewalk, there is a full team of people -- usually folks want to stop us on the street and know what we're doing -- anywhere from five, seven, sometimes 12 people. Everybody from every discipline, half of which are here, take into account, what does the code say, what is General Order 95, which is the regulations from the Utility Commission, as well as orientation of equipment, climbing space, proximity to balconies, to homes, to second stories; what's the proximity to the street; what's the least-intrusive piece? And that all goes into an account physically in the field before we even approach staff with doing the pre-application meeting. Which, of course, I did have a couple of pre-application meetings. We've had a number of community meetings, any time that we've made a change based on feedback. When we were here before and it was considered that we should look at an alternative to Node 26 because of the concerns with Staller Court, we held a public meeting. When we moved 28 to 400 Channing to replace an existing sign, we had another community meeting. We've actually erred on the side of caution, and when we come, we bring all the information in case there were members of public who wanted to discuss any of the other nodes, and have had only a handful of people who have shown up. And I'll discuss more on Cluster 3 some of the specific changes that we made. The main concerns that have come up have been RF noise and siting. I take that that I'm getting very close to the end. As was mentioned, the different options that we have are a side mount in relation to what staff had recommended. There is a pedestal mount. I want to point out the pedestal chosen here is from Cupertino, where all the carriers came together to agree on a design that would work for their equipment. While a pole-mounted/top-mounted was mentioned, that is not a solution for all carriers. That takes a very small footprint and a very specific kind of antenna. And then, beyond that -- and I'll read this for your specific questions about the nodes for denial -- is that our RF engineer will be able to go through... And I put these in the slide, not for my coverage, but for his ability to look and show the due diligence that was done, and why we have been, they are unable to have a feasible alternative on both Node 25, 26, and that 28 really is either the pole at 400, or at 370 Channing. With that, just, again, request that we can move forward with the conditions of approval, and we're here to answer any and every question that you have. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. We have speaker cards. Somewhere. The first speaker is Nicolas Flegel, to be followed by Don Jackson. Nick Flegel, Partner, Jorgensen, Siegel, McClure & Flegel: Good afternoon. Nick Flegel [spells name]. I'm a partner at the firm Jorgensen, Siegel, McClure & Flegel in Menlo Park. Our office address is 1100 Alma Street, Suite 210. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Flegel: I'm here speaking on behalf of my clients, Mike Midolo and Neil O'Sullivan. They are the owners of 362 Channing, which the original proposal was for a node to be put at 370 Channing. They came here during that original proposal and opposed it back in September 2017. They came here because they said, hey, it's an undergrounding district; number two, that there's absolutely no tree coverage for where that pole was, and there's no possibility for tree coverage because there are utility boxes right underneath where that pole is. And number three, the pole is, and where this node will go, are directly visible from their upstairs window. I brought some pictures, and this is the first picture. Chair Furth: We have those, thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 60 Mr. Flegel: This board suggested to the applicant, "You should look at alternatives." And they did look at alternatives, and we really appreciate that. And keep in mind, 362 Channing is mid-block, okay? They proposed this new pole, it's 28m1, and we really appreciate that proposal. We support that proposal. We think it meets a lot of the sitting criteria in terms of it being, having coverage there. There is a pole there. It would be replacing a pole. It's replacing a pole. I saw staff's report. I think that there are some issues that are not insurmountable, that applicant and staff can work together and make this pole at 400 Channing work. That's our request. Number two, alternatives we have, maybe this Board could give direction to look at other proposals, and another proposal might be, we think is a really good one, moving it basically one block west... I'm sorry, one lot west, to where there's the Mini Sharp [sic] Park. That's a location where there is not a light. There's a crosswalk there, there's tree coverage there. We think that that would be a benefit for the City, for safety reasons. Chair Furth: I beg your pardon - A mini shark park? Mr. Flegel: Mini... Male?: [off microphone, inaudible] Chair Furth: Oh, Scott Park. Mr. Flegel: Sorry, sorry. I apologize. And then... That's picture number two in my presentation. And then, number three, the last couple pages are four other alternative sites that we think that it would be nice if the Board could ask the applicant to look at. Our fourth request would be, the Board can just deny this node, Node 28. I don't think we really have any evidence that it's 100 percent needed for this coverage plan to work. We certainly just don't want it in front of our client's property. And if there is going to be a proposal for that, we don't want it... Our clients don't want it there. That's it. Thank you. Chair Furth: I have one question for you. Could you...? Your clients don't want it there because...? Mr. Flegel: Well, the main reason, there's zero coverage, tree coverage. Chair Furth: Visibility. You're talking about the appearance. Mr. Flegel: The pole is right there. You can see it right from outside their upstairs room. There's just no way to make it look nice, in our mind. Chair Furth: Thank you. That testimony pertained to site, which is now 28M1, right? No? Formerly...? Which...? Board Member Lew: It was the original 28. And then, they approved an alternate, which is 28m1. Chair Furth: Staff, which of the ones you presented to us today are we talking about? Ms. French: Twenty-eight-m-1 is the 400 Channing, also known as 905 Waverley. That's the alternate node for the node at 370 that was originally proposed. Rebecca Atkinson, Project Planner: And was removed from the plan set. Board Member Thompson: Sorry, what page is that? [inaudible response] Chair Furth: Let's just talk about today. Actually, we can talk about recent history. The applicants came in 2017, or 2014? I forget. A while ago. City of Palo Alto Page 61 Ms. French: Twenty-seventeen. Chair Furth: Twenty-seventeen. And they asked that a proposed pole be moved from in front of their house. The applicant submitted an application, which is now our number 28m1? Which removed it from in front of the objectors' house. However, the City has objections to that proposed relocation, and the... Mr. Flegel, on behalf of his clients, is saying, "Don't put it back in front of our house." Is that correct? Is that a summary of what just happened? Ms. French: Yes. [crosstalk] Ms. French: ...accurate. Chair Furth: Thank you. I would just say that it's very helpful when people are talking to do as you did and address both the address, the street address, and the node number, because otherwise, we get quite easily confused. Thank you. We have another speaker, as soon as I find the cards I just buried. And that would be Don Jackson, to be followed by Michael Midolo. Yes? Don Jackson: Hello. I'm Don Jackson [spells name]. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Jackson: I reside at 845 Waverley Street. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Jackson: Yesterday, I sent an email to the Board, describing my interest in this project, which, to summarize, is to explore the feasibility of leveraging any associated street trenching, boring conduit, that are required to link these various cell nodes by a fiberoptic link, in order for me to use the same trenching to establish a fiberoptic link connecting between my house and either Packs [phonetic], which is at 529 Bryant, or an existing city fiber vault at the corner of Waverley and Channing, which is approximately 125 feet from my property. Obviously, if this were to happen, I would have to bear the cost of any additional work that would benefit only me. If this project goes forward, the City will be allowing the applicant to install communications equipment on City street lights, install and maintain associated cell site electronics at ground level on City property, and inside enclosures that look similar to postal relay boxes, and to link the cell sites by fiberoptic cables that will be installed underneath city streets. The space area underneath our city streets is a limited and finite resource and should be used as efficiently and cooperatively as possible. Additionally, trenching a city street is highly disruptive, leaving patches of replaced asphalt, and, as I recently discovered, it is incredibly expensive. And we should seek to minimize any such projects. My request is that if this project moves forward, that the applicant be encouraged to make a good faith effort to explore the possibility of leveraging any associated street trenching. Chair Furth: Could I ask a question? Mr. Jackson: Sure thing. Chair Furth: Familiar issue over the last 20 years, how to get this higher-speed connectivity. You're asking that they...? What are you envisioning, just briefly? Who would own...? Additional fiber? Or would other people have access to it. Mr. Jackson: As you know, there are numerous ideas and discussions about... Chair Furth: Twenty years, at least I remember. City of Palo Alto Page 62 Mr. Jackson: ...city... No, I'm talking about city, I'm talking about me getting fiber from Point A to Point B. Chair Furth: Right, and you're proposing to own that line? Mr. Jackson: Yeah, I would use that line. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Midolo. Mr. Midolo: Good afternoon, members of the Architectural Review Board. It's nice to see you again. I saw you last in September of 2017. At that time, I came before you to stress concerns that I and Neil O'Sullivan have for our home at 362 Channing. We have lived in Palo Alto for 25 years. We own our home. I'm here this afternoon in support of -- and I'm going to be very specific -- 28m1, which is the alternative site. This is not the one in front of our home. This is the one at 400, located at 400 Channing. The proposed location is a result of over a year of discussions with the City and Crown Castle, and I urge you to support it. There is currently just a street pole there. It is not a light pole, it's just a regular old street pole, right there. It's to indicate parking and such. At the same time, I also urge you to deny the placement of any node at this time, or in the future, on the light pole outside of our home. I believe you have in your exhibits very clear documentation of how visible that pole is from inside our home. And there will never be the ability to shade or shield in any way that pole because of the other utilities immediately surrounding it. It is also one of the exceptions that... I know Amy mentioned earlier that they are all on corners. This is the one exception. This is the one that's in the block, right in the middle of the block. We have been through a labor of love, remodeling our home. We retained the architect in 2013. It's taken three years to remodel it. You guys have seen the photos, you know that it's quite a big commitment. And we appreciate that Crown Castle is trying not to exacerbate the unattractive light pole outside of our house. Over a year ago, in September 2017, we came to the preliminary ARB board to oppose location on the pole outside our house. The architect showed you pictures of the home. The close proximity to the pole, to our windows, and the lack of tree screening. We identified how the pole at 370 does not meet the City's location and criteria for small nodes because the pole is in an undergrounding district. There is no tree screening. The node would be highly visible, again, through the windows. At the meeting, you encouraged, as a body, you encouraged Crown Castle to pursue alternative locations for the node. We anticipated that your indications would be followed. However, several months ago, we received notice from Crown Castle that, again, they were proposing to put Node 28 on the pole outside our house. So, we went to that community meeting and expressed our disappointment, and then, worked with them on alternatives again, pointing them towards the location at either 400, or multiple other sites. We provided at least six sites for them to consider. Our attorneys have followed up numerous times with the City staff and Crown Castle and still don't understand why any of these sites that were suggested aren't reasonable. We appreciate that Crown Castle is working with us in supporting an alternative location. If there is more information the staff needs to be comfortable with a new light pole at 400 Channing, we encourage you to direct the applicant to provide that information, and direct staff to work with them to make it work. One alternative that I think would be perfect would be to remove the pole at 370 Channing, the one that is right in front of my house. Remove it, move it just down the street to 346, at 346 Channing, at Scott Street. What I am suggesting here is the pole in front of our house at 370 be moved to 346. Why? Because after the Summerhill development, there was the new Heritage Park. There's a walkway, so, what people do, including myself and my 69-year-old dementia-affected aunt, do is we constantly cross that, at least three times a day, and there is no light there. None at all. That's the natural connector between Scott Park and Heritage Park, and everybody uses that, including pedestrians, elderly and young. No light there whatsoever. Yet, in front of our house, where we don't need a pole, there is a pole. Either 400 would be a great location for that node, or else, quite simply, if that pole, there could be a pole at 346 Channing, or if not, there is also one inside the park, or if not... "Inside the park," I'm referring to inside Scott Mini Park. Or if not, the other alternative is denial of it. You've got four different options, five different options there, for 28. Sorry? Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for coming to speak to us. Sorry we kept you waiting so long, and your time has elapsed. City of Palo Alto Page 63 Mr. Midolo: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any questions for Mr. Midolo? Other than M-I-D-O-L-O? Is that the spelling of your name? Mr. Midolo: M-I-D-O-L-O. Yeah. Again, it's... Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Midolo: ...since there's no light mid-block, it would be great to have a light mid-block. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Midolo: Thank you. Chair Furth: Okay, and then, we had a final speaker card from David Baumgarten [spells Baumgarten]. And he could not stay, so, he says: "Consistent with staff recommendation, no cell unit at 400 Channing/905 Waverley." We have a full range of public comments on that one. Anybody else wish to speak as a member of the public on this matter? Board Member Thompson: Wait, his note was not in favor of...? Chair Furth: He supports the staff recommendation. Board Member Thompson: To deny it? Okay. Chair Furth: To not approve that one. Applicant, you are entitled to another 10 minutes to respond to public comment. Ms. Swanson: At this time, I'd like to have Morgan Hunt address specifically those nodes, especially Nodes 28 and 28m1, as well as 26 and 25 respectively. And then, if time remains, I'll talk about the design between the pedestal and the side mount. Chair Furth: Thank you. Morgan Hunt: Hello. My name is Morgan Hunt, and I am the RF manager for Crown Castle. You want my address? Chair Furth: No, I don't. Mr. Hunt: Okay. All right. Great. And, you should... Chair Furth: Oh, I'm sorry, I do need your address. I though you said, did I know your address. Mr. Hunt: No, do you need it. Okay, is that your presentation up there? My address is 695 River Oaks Parkway in San Jose. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Hunt: All right. Ms. Swanson: You might ask them which node that is because it's hard to read. It's just the first one. Mr. Hunt: Yeah, I don't know what that is. That looks like 25, right? [Adjusting presentation] City of Palo Alto Page 64 Mr. Hunt: Okay, so, in this presentation, there are three locations presented with the alternatives analysis. This one is 25, right? This is adjacent to 200 Forest Avenue. The objective is to provide continuous coverage on Forest Avenue and Ramona Street. Look closer, the node location is to, the intersection is bare coverage. Once you start moving further away from the intersection, the coverage objective will start degrading. That's what causes some of these alternates to not be acceptable. This shows the 200 Forest Avenue, that meets the coverage objective. We looked at 688 Ramona Street, which we could not use it due to the close location to the balcony. And then, at 275 Forest, it's too far from the Forest Avenue/Ramona intersection, with no line of sight, so, it is not covering our objective. And then, we looked at two more locations that were further down the block, 720 Ramona and 223. Both those locations don't meet the coverage objective. That's 25. I'm on a time limit, right? Okay, so, I'm going to go to 28, try to... Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Hunt: Okay, thanks. Yes. What's up there now is 28. This is proposed 28m1 at 400 Channing, and the objective is to provide continuous coverage on Channing Avenue in both directions, and partial coverage on Waverley. The objective is to be closer to the Waverley intersection. We looked at a number of alternatives. The original location, which is acceptable for the coverage, 370 Channing. And as presented by the speakers, by the public speakers, what evolved is we chose the 400 as an alternate to the acceptable alternative, and being submitted, and is to replace an existing parking sign pole. And we also looked at, on the intersection, which has traffic signal poles, which are not allowed. We cannot go on city traffic light poles. And then, 425 Channing is farther from the intersection and has less line of sight. That impacts both Channing and Waverley Street. We looked at 346 Channing Avenue. That is closer, I believe that park that was mentioned, and there is no pole there, and it is a little bit further from the intersection, and closer to an existing site, SF Palo Alto 030. So, for a couple of reasons, this location is not acceptable. There's no existing infrastructure to replace, you know, an existing pole, and it is not quite meeting the coverage objective on Waverley. Nine-twenty-eight Waverley Street was also looked at. It is even... Let's see where that location is. Sorry, get my bearing. Oh, yes. That is down south, in a southern direction on Waverley from the intersection that is... We are losing the coverage on Channing, which is the objective. That is the same as the case for 842 Waverley. We can look at 26 real quickly, before I run out of time. Somehow... Okay. Is that 28...? I think that's 26. This is across from 675 Gilman, and it's objective to provide coverage on Forest Avenue and Gilman Street. Again, we want to be closest to the intersection to provided the best coverage. And clear line of sight provides the best coverage. There are existing nodes on Hamilton Avenue and Bryant Street that need to be considered in the placement of this node. We look at alternatives, and one of them is 332 Forest Avenue, is a viable location, but there.... in alternate to 26, but there is no existing pole there. It would be a new pole placement. Three-oh-three Forest, as you see, moves down. Stop? Chair Furth: Why don't you finish your sentence. Mr. Hunt: Okay, so, 303 Forest moves down to the middle of the block and is preventing, preventing the coverage objective not to be met. Chair Furth: Thank you. Staff? Any responses? Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney: Sure. Deputy City Attorney Albert Yang. I think the information about the applicant's coverage objectives is informative for the planning director, and he ultimately preps the City Council. But, from the ARB, we are primarily looking for your judgment on the aesthetics of the various options that are presented. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody have questions of staff? Or anybody else? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. In terms of the aesthetic options presented to us, it sounds like there's only one option for the actual, what's happening on top of the light pole. And then, seeing a photoshop City of Palo Alto Page 65 of the mailboxes with the side attachment is just in that diagram, we don't have any other documentation of what that looks like? And any other option? Okay. Chair Furth: Go ahead. Ms. Atkinson: Question of staff. On the staff report, there is a web link that points to some visual simulations that Crown produced for other cities, with their decorative pole and side mount. I believe the applicant has some preliminary visual simulations from other cities that have a side mount and a pedestal for associative support equipment. The faux mailbox was a design solution in the past that was large enough to accommodate two carriers' equipment, and right now, the second carrier is not in the existing faux mailbox. My third comment was that the faux mailbox solution potentially identified in the past is oversized relative to the equipment proposed on these individual nodes. Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, so, is there an image of the other types of mounting in our packet? Because I think I just saw the mailbox, but maybe I missed it. In our drawings. Ms. Atkinson: Sure. Yes, you can find that on page 13 of the staff report, and it's packet page 179. Those are existing side-mounted deployments in downtown Palo Alto, and the web link leads to other visual simulations, and the web link is on packet page 177. And then, the applicant presentation, there are a few visual simulations of side-mounted. Staff hasn't had the time to fully analyze, but nonetheless, they are there. The same with pedestal. I think with the side-mounted pole placement and pedestal, transportation and public works and planning would need to very carefully look at horizontal and vertical clearance implementation relative to curb lines, corners and sidewalks. The horizontal and vertical clearance are also important considerations. Ms. French: Board Member Thompson, would you like to have one of those images displayed on the screen for discussion? From the applicant's presentation? Board Member Thompson: I would prefer that. Probably ask permission of the Board to show that. Chair Furth: Yeah, let's take a look at them. Meanwhile, I have another question of counsel while you're finding that. Our recommendation, the recommendation to us is to deny a number of these nodes. Are you comfortable with that recommendation? Mr. Yang: Yes, and as noted, staff would like the ARB's comments on potential alternatives to the nodes that are recommended for denial. Chair Furth: Thank you. I have a minor question for staff. In looking at these not-mailboxes, are they reviewed to make sure that they don't eliminate a parking space? Because you can't open your curbside door anymore? Ms. Atkinson: That's one of the items that makes it important to have the 1.5 minimum clearance from curb lengths. You know, for any equipment. Chair Furth: You believe that there is enough space to open car doors and get out with these installations. Ms. Atkinson: Only if they are placed at a minimum of 1.5 from a curb line. Chair Furth: But that's what you are proposing, no? Ms. Atkinson: No. Right now, the...We're not proposing anything...? Chair Furth: They are, right? City of Palo Alto Page 66 Ms. Atkinson: Right, so, what I’m saying is, the applicant design, in order to meet clearance requirements, would have to be a minimum of 1.5. Ms. French: We are not recommending the faux mailboxes. Chair Furth: Counsel? You had a comment? Mr. Yang. I think, just to clarify, what staff is saying is that there may be some issues with what you've described. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Swanson: All right, thank you. If I may address that just briefly, is that, especially on the sites that are on the... Chair Furth: Yeah, let's try to get the hearing. We're at the deliberation section, and... [crosstalk] Ms. Swanson: Oh, I'm sorry. Chair Furth: ...raise your hand and I'll... Ms. Swanson: I'm sorry, when you looked at me, I thought you were ready for me to talk about the... Chair Furth: I'm staring into space. Sorry. We were looking for an image, right? Correct. Board Member Thompson: I think we just need to see the image. Chair Furth: From my point of view, it's invisible. Ms. Atkinson: It does tend to blend with the pole and with the color.... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: (inaudible). Board Member Thompson: I don't know that that image is satisfactory enough to describe exactly what's happening right there. Ms. Swanson: Let me see if I can get you a better... Chair Furth: Six feet up? Ms. Swanson: Yeah, let me go to 31, It might be a little bit clearer there for the side mount. Let me know... That's a little bit easier to see. Chair Furth: Why don't you just give us the rough dimensions of that. Is it cylindrical? Ms. Swanson: No. This shows, this would be square, and it would be 28 by 24 by 20.5. It's basically 8.7 cubic feet, and it would be on the side. Typically, we try to orient... Chair Furth: [inaudible and off-microphone] Ms. Swanson: I'm sorry. That would be 28 inches high and 24 inches wide, with a depth of 20.5 inches. City of Palo Alto Page 67 Chair Furth: [inaudible and off-microphone] Ms. Swanson: You're very welcome. I'm sorry. Chair Furth: Trying to visualize. Having a little trouble. Ms. Swanson: Yeah, feel free... And I apologize, with the copies, we have a black and white, I would have made more color copies for you guys. Normally these come up a little bit brighter on here. And that would be mounted on the side and oriented in the safest manner. When these sims were made, we kind of were trying, at the last minute, directly address the staff report. Because we've been talking off and on the last year and a half or so what are some options. Chair Furth: I'm going to cut you off just because... Ms. Swanson: That's okay. Chair Furth: ...it's such a complicated conversation. And I'll let you... Ms. Swanson: And I also have, like, the construction guys, who may... [crosstalk] Board Member Thompson: I just want to mention, I was handed this exhibit that I'll pass out, but the first page has the side-mounted, and the second page has the pedestal. It's a lot easier to look at. Mr. Yang: This is just a printout of what the applicant is trying to show on the screen. Chair Furth: And take us through what staff is recommending in terms of installation. I know we have a recommendation that, when you've recommended approval, it should be in an underground vault if technically and logistically feasible. To date, everybody has assured us that it never is, so, what are we thinking at this moment? What is staff recommending? Mr. Yang: Staff is seeking the ARB's recommendation among the alternative designs. That is not the mailbox. Chair Furth: [inaudible and off-microphone]. That would be the large object attached to the pole, or undergrounding? Are those the options? Mr. Yang: The box that is attached on the side of the pole, or the pedestal design that's on the next page. And then, staff's consultant on the last couple pages of the CTC report presents an alternative technology which may or may not (inaudible) doesn't work, but we would appreciate the ARB's feedback. Chair Furth: That's the CTC report. Mr. Yang: That's correct. Chair Furth: Okay, so, colleagues, these are very frustrating and complicated hearings because we are very constrained as to what we can do. There is a wealth of material, but sometimes not that much information. And we're also looking at multiple sites. And we have shot clocks, and we have federal legislation which is designed to minimize our discretion, and yet, we need to do what we can. I would suggest that we take perhaps the simpler ones first, and I'm going to... I'm going to suggest that we do it site by site because it's hard to generalize. You're disagreeing with me completely. But... Okay. We have a staff recommendation, which we can accept, or we can reject. They are different on each side. I would like to start, as a pilot project, with the one that is -- I keep losing my index there -- the one that is in front of what used to be Laning Chateau and is now something-or-other court. Staller Court. Which City of Palo Alto Page 68 apparently is the older name. And that is illustrated in the CTC report on pages 14 and 15. And the staff recommendation on that one, Amy, is...? Ms. French: Denial. Chair Furth: Because? Ms. French: It obstructs views of the historic resource. Chair Furth: I would like to say, from my point of view, I agree with staff on this one. This is a historic structure, it's catty-corner from a historic structure. We have spent a fortune in public money on restoration of this site, and it's frequently and heavily viewed. And to plop this little structure in front of it seems to me to conflict with everything we have done in terms of trying to keep that corner simple and open, because this is a building that orients towards the corner. I have two questions. One is, do my colleagues agree with me, and secondly, does our counsel think that's a valid basis for recommending that this be located somewhere else? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I'd like to talk, Wynne, to this, but to me, the issue is really not just site-by-site, yes or no, but rather the separation of the antennas from the rest of the ground-mounted equipment. I think in almost every case, the antennas are by far the less-noticeable, obtrusive, objectionable item on this. What I would like to focus our conversation on is the ground-mounted equipment, and whether we should be allowing that. In this particular case, I would say that the antenna is okay, but the ground- mounted equipment is absolutely not okay. Chair Furth: Let's here from everybody on the narrow issue of, do the antennas generally not offend the sensibilities? Do we think that they are part of a reasonable urban infrastructure that is no more objectionable than the light poles themselves? Board Member Gooyer: Let me ask a question, then. You'd be happier with a big box hanging on the pole than... Chair Furth: No, I'm not saying that. [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: Okay... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: The question is, right now, I'm just asking you about antenna, at the suggestion of Vice Chair Baltay. I'm trying to keep my blood sugar up here, too. Board Member Gooyer: I was talking to Peter when I asked that, but it... This antenna, as you said, isn't that bad, but what I usually have a problem with is this massive box hanging on the side of the pole. Chair Furth: Okay, we'll put that as our next item. Board Member Gooyer: I would rather it even have a full mailbox than a big box hanging on the pole, because the reality of it is the average person is going to notice the box hanging on the side of the pole much more readily than a faux mailbox. Chair Furth: Okay, I'm going to try to keep us confined to the issue of the antenna for a moment. Alex. Talking about these sites. Board Member Lew: I'm okay with the antenna. City of Palo Alto Page 69 Chair Furth: Osma. Board Member Thompson: I think in general, I'm okay with the antenna. Just isolated as its own element. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Thompson: Distinct from equipment. Chair Furth: Peter? You started out with saying you're generally okay with the antenna. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. I think in every case today the antennas are acceptable. I can make the necessary architectural review findings to allow the antennas to be placed on top of the light poles, as they are presented in the proposal in front of us. Chair Furth: So, they can have an antenna. The question is, can they communicate with anything or anybody? Yeah. Do you have any thing to say specifically on that point? Ms. Swanson: I do, I do, and thank you for giving me the opportunity. In this particular one, especially when we looked at the alternatives, even the neighbors didn't want to necessarily be moved closer. If you look at this particular slide that's on your monitor... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...you're talking about Site 26? Ms. Swanson: Site 26, right there, is that we can have the antennas alone on the node on the corner, and we propose to move the faux mailbox across the street, adjacent to two existing newsstands. It just requires a little bit longer of a trench, but that would protect the integrity of the viewpoints of installing, and still allow us to have our equipment that, in that particular environment, just blends with the existing street frontage. Chair Furth: Your response to this criticism is to suggest locating it across Gilman? Ms. Swanson: Correct. Chair Furth: Across Gilman. Thank you. Ms. Swanson: Correct. Thank you. Chair Furth: That's helpful. Okay. I think we have one piece of... You have one piece of feedback from the ARB. We're okay with antenna design. I think the next piece is that we are not okay with the associated equipment. I'm going to ask people to briefly state their position, if they have one. As I understand it, Robert, your belief is that whatever its intrinsic merit, something on the ground looking like a mailbox or some other box is preferable to a... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: I'm better with that than something hanging from the pole, yeah. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex. Board Member Lew: Yeah, so, I think I would prefer, in the situation of, for the faux mailbox across the street, the side-mounted equipment, I think does work on telephone poles. The telephone poles are larger. When they are streetlights, then there's more of a difference between the equipment and any City of Palo Alto Page 70 shroud in the light pole. I think that's my preference. My recollection is we went, in the past, went with the faux mailbox because on downtown corners, there were people on the second floors, and there were no trees screening them. And then...yeah. And there may be issues with the mailboxes and delivery trucks, say, like on Florence Street, but I think that would be less true on corners. Chair Furth: Which often have red curbs. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Furth: Except next to our new housing project. Osma? Board Member Thompson: Can I quickly ask staff what the reason is, why we're being asked to consider anything but the mailbox as an option? Chair Furth: Why is staff opposed to the mailbox option? Ms. Atkinson: The size of the mailbox being oversized, for one, relative to our development standards and findings. Secondarily, the maintenance issue. When they are hit, we even reported the faux mailbox damage, and it has yet to be repaired. Third, Transportation and Planning have been looking at the bicycle and pedestrian transportation plan, and on narrow sidewalks especially in the downtown, this is one more aspect of street furniture in the public realm that doesn't serve the public. And... In the way of pedestrian flow. And then, also, clearance regarding, excuse me, horizontal and vertical clearance, and ADA clearance. Chair Furth: To amplify on Osma's question, are you supporting smaller sidewalk-mounted facilities? Instead of faux mailboxes? Ms. Atkinson: That's something that hasn't been presented by the applicant. We've requested design options and alternatives. I would be happy to forward that to Transportation and Public Works for review. Chair Furth: As it stands now, they proposed mailboxes, you proposed not mailboxes. We're not looking at a series of alternatives. It's, our mailbox is acceptable. All right? Ms. French: Yeah, we do not like the mailboxes. If there had been a proposal, say, for a bench that would serve the pedestrians in an amenity sort of way, we could have evaluated that, but we didn't receive any such alternative. The other alternatives that have been presented today are the side mounted on the pole. We also would say mounting it on top of the pole, which, you know, the problem is the size of the radios. If you have smaller radios, it's a smaller footprint. And we have these large radios, so it's tough. Chair Furth: I have a question for the applicant, just briefly. It used to be that what we got was all these applications for antennas on buildings. Is it now the case that they must be installed on these smaller poles in our neighborhoods? Or is that that's what you have the right to do, and that's what you're pursuing? Ms. Swanson: It's a mix. They're called macro sites that are on buildings, and that services a larger area. And Mike may want to weigh in on this a little. And then, within the right-of-way, they can be smaller installations that are lower powered, that helps with capacity, and capacity's issue is you may have four bars, but you try to download something or make a call, and it fails. That's why we're able to do it, and it has a smaller footprint. One other option that wasn't mentioned is that there are pedestals also that go on the bottom of these if the side mount is not something that... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, that go on the bottom of what? City of Palo Alto Page 71 Ms. Swanson: Of the light pole. So, along with a side mount, we also have the pedestal option that we can do. And Amy is correct that for the top mount that's suggested in CTC, those work with the much smaller antennas and smaller radios. That doesn't necessarily accommodate everybody. The pedestal that we're proposing here, all four carriers came together over a number of months, working with the city of Cupertino, and agreed that this particular design is the one design they could all agree on. So, in that situation, it could be a ubiquitous design that there is no choice; you have to make it work in that one. That's why we scrambled to get this one in, once we saw that a pedestal or a side mount was an opportunity for us to be able to have a condition of approval. Chair Furth: Great, and could you show us a picture of the pedestal to remind us what it looks like? Ms. Swanson: Yes. I believe there is one right there. On the pedestal. A couple different viewpoints so you could see it from more than one site. Chair Furth: Do we have a picture where it's big enough to see? Ms. Swanson: Yeah, that's, I'm trying to get you one there, where you're able to see that. Is that one showing up on your screens better? Chair Furth: No. Ms. Swanson: Okay. If I may approach, I can show you the one in my particular printout. That might be a little easier. Unfortunately, these are... Yes. And it's one of the reasons why it was late, is that I had pushed back to be able to get larger sims for you to be able to see. But I do have it here in color if you would like to see it up close. Chair Furth: Does it go around all four sides? I'm looking at... Ms. Swanson: It does. Chair Furth: ... view 1, page 16, as it goes around all four sides of the post. Ms. Swanson: Correct. It actually sits... Chair Furth: It's like a large base. Ms. Swanson: Right. The light standard, the octo-flute [phonetic] matching, what staff has requested, it would just mount there. We would keep the luminaire at the existing height. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Swanson: And then have that... You're welcome. Chair Furth: Appreciate that. Well, we'll keep slogging our way through it, but one of the problems we have here is that we don't have good illustrations of options, we don't have the materials that would let us make the findings we need to make. We need better graphics. This is frustrating. I will say that I believe that Alex is correct when he says that the side, pole-mounted, in the air facilities are out of scale with these rather delicate street lights. They are not... It's a very different situation there. They are not full of wire connections, they don't have transformers on them. These are simple... Somebody gave a lot of thought to the design of these things, and they were designed to be simple. I do not think that... Personally, I don't think a problem is created by putting an antenna on top of it, but clearly, there are members of the public who feel strongly and differently and have come here to tell us that. Anybody have a thought that they want to express? City of Palo Alto Page 72 Vice Chair Baltay: I wanted to see if I could get staff to pull up a photograph taken yesterday of Node 29. That's the one across from St. Thomas Aquinas Church. Amy? You have this in your server. Could you put that on the screen for everybody? What I'd like to point out is this. I think that Alex is absolutely correct, that the pole-mounted boxes on the side of the light poles is clearly way out of scale. My opinion, full mailboxes are often, almost all the time, inappropriate, out of scale, in the way of the sidewalk, causing traffic hazards, perhaps. I don't think they are a real solution most of the time. Obviously, when you move it across the street and put it next to a bunch of other items, it kind of fits. But, in general, it doesn't. And I have to say that we just haven't been shown alternatives that really work, that fit into the infrastructure that we have without being clumsy and heavy-handed. I think the same goes for the stuff mounted on the telephone poles. We'll come to that. But certainly, the light poles cannot withstand it being mounted on. The base that you show, as best I can tell on the three-quarter-of-a-inch square photo, is really clumsy looking. And what I'm pulling up then, if they can find the photo I took yesterday of the one across from the church. You guys conveniently cropped out, there's a very large underground vault for electric utilities right next to it. To me, that's an answer that works. You put the thing under the ground, in a vault. The photo shows you very clearly how, it's there, you don't notice it, you don't think about it. And what I'd like to really press my colleagues on is this: If we establish a firm standard of what this equipment has to be, or how it has to be put away, then we've done everybody a favor because we're not constantly going back and forth and arguing about these things. Board Member Gooyer: I think... Vice Chair Baltay: Come out and say the equipment has to be completely concealed within something existing, like the delicate base of the light pole. Or, put underground in a vault. Or, put next to a bunch of existing equipment. But all of the solutions you're showing us are not that. That's where we're struggling so hard, because we get such a sense of pushback, it can't be done, it's not technically possible, they're not going to give us anything but a tiny, postage stamp photo at 11 o'clock this morning. We're not getting a sense of cooperation to find answers. And what we really want is to find a standard that these things need to be concealed. Board Member Gooyer: I think the reality of it is, it's strictly a matter of money. Putting a box in is a heck of a lot more expensive than putting a faux mailbox or hanging something from a pole. It's as simple as that. Vice Chair Baltay: I take the photo I took yesterday of the, across the street from St. Thomas Aquinas Church, and I take your proposal here, and I look at the architectural findings we're required to apply, and I’m sorry, but what you're doing is required to enhance the living condition on the site. And if you ask me which one of these enhances the living condition, it is decided not the faux mailbox. I cannot make that finding based on the faux mailbox. On the second one, comparing it to the other vault that is right there, right now, I can easily make that finding. Thank you. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: I just wanted to mention that I also have, was brought this laptop, which has an image of the pedestal option. I would have to agree with a lot of what Board Member Baltay said. If there's an existing vault, there's no reason why we shouldn't be using it. And if there's existing infrastructure that allows for equipment like this, there's also no reason that we shouldn't be using it. In general, the pole-mounted, the pedestal options, are both extremely under-baked and not aesthetically acceptable in any way, shape or form. They are just detrimental, in fact, to the public experience on the street. There might be ways to make the pedestal option better. There might be ways to increase the functionality of the aesthetics of that. There could be ways to make that great. As it has been presented, it is unacceptable, in my opinion. The mailbox, as well, has a bunch of problems associated with it that are extremely understandable, and I can see why we're being encouraged to look at other options. So, I would support staff's analysis on why the mailbox option also does not work. There's also all this extra signage on these poles that will add to the visual clutter, in general, and some of these renders show them, which is good. But I think also an approach for how to reduce the visual clutter. I know these signs City of Palo Alto Page 73 are probably mandatory, but there could be ways to shape them. Maybe they're not just, like, flags on a pole. Maybe they're thinner and a bit better integrated with the pole. I think there's a lot of design work, honestly, that needs to get done, I think, before -- I'll just speak for myself -- before I can even think about approving this. Ms. Swanson: May I ask a question? Chair Furth: Just a minute, please. Okay, that's not a very favorable recommendation from us so far. Alex, did you have something you wanted to add? I have a question for staff and for counsel. I think there's a majority up here that believes we cannot make the normal architectural review findings with respect to these properties, these proposals. I will say that the pictures are, they're really illustrative of what the problem is. This is an area where we've undergrounded utilities, at great expense, to get this open, clear sidewalk and this open clear vista. So, what you see is trees, an open sidewalk that is easy for people with strollers, people proceeding slowly with canes, to maneuver. I think that across the street from -- I still think there's Laning Chateau -- is an example of a place where that's better, but generally, our streets and our corners are getting more and more crowded, and every piece of equipment makes it worse. Every piece of above-ground equipment makes it worse and less functional. We spend all our time here, trying to encourage more people to use the sidewalks, and then we plop all these objects in. And they are not, they're not what they should be. So, I have to agree with my colleague that they should be underground. Albert, counsel, what can you tell us about our ability...? This is what we believe. Is this what we can find? Mr. Yang: If that's the ARB's recommendation, that's what staff and the Planning Director will take into account. I guess I would ask for the ARB's thoughts on the micro cell configuration that's in the last two pages of the CTC report. Chair Furth: We are now picking up the CTC report, which is this document, for Cluster #2, and we're looking at the last two pages. Looking at 44 and 45? Is that right? What am I looking at? Ms. French: Yes. Chair Furth: I'm looking at this, right? Ms. French: Yes. Page 44-45. Using the small... Chair Furth: This is referenced by... Amy, I'm sorry, I'm just reduced to first names at this point. In her presentation, this is somewhat smaller equipment. It is 21 inches by 22 inches. Is that right? Ms. French: The small pico cells are seven inches square, and then, about four inches deep. Chair Furth: Which page are you on? Ms. French: Sorry, that's each radio, and that's not on this page. This shows, you know, a... [crosstalk] Ms. French: Shroud, thank you. That's what I was looking for. Board Member Gooyer: the problem with this, tough, is it shows 35 inches, and the drawing relates it to be about 12. Board Member Thompson: It's totally not to scale. Board Member Gooyer: I mean, this thing is so out of scale, it's not even close. City of Palo Alto Page 74 Board Member Thompson: I don't think we can evaluate those. Board Member Gooyer: I mean, this is not... I mean, luckily, you have the numbers there. If it wasn't, I would assume both of those were about a foot high. Based on the proportion of the light next to it. Rather than, you know, five feet. Chair Furth: It's two feet, I think. Board Member Thompson: Oh, the numbers say it is, but the actual drawing scale is... Chair Furth: Right, is wrong. Board Member Thompson: ...really deceptive. Chair Furth: I think to give you good commentary, we would need an accurate drawing, and perhaps a photo simulation. I think that we can at least... Board Member Gooyer: There you go. That's a better... Ms. French: If I may, on the screen now... Board Member Gooyer: ...reality. Ms. French: ... is an example of the Erickson 2203 micro or pico sell. That has been used in AT&T's proposal, which they stacked them vertical. Stacking vertical of smaller radios, it's easier to conceal. Board Member Thompson: Does this not have a mailbox option? This is everything in one? Ms. French: This is everything in one, correct. Mr. Yang: To clarify, this is not something that the applicant has... Chair Furth: Proposed. Mr. Yang: ...proposed at all, and it would require more sites overall. But we are interested in the ARB's thoughts. Chair Furth: What's the ratio of more to present? Twice as many? Three times as many? Mr. Yang: I believe our consultant has said about twice as many. Chair Furth: Twice as many. Board Member Thompson: And does it also come with this underground diagram to the right? Or the left? Mr. Yang: No, that's a separate... Board Member Thompson: It's separate? Mr. Yang: ...diagram. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: If we're trying to get consensus, we have no enthusiasm for large structures on the curb. We have... I guess none of us would object to underground facilities if they were feasible. Is that right? City of Palo Alto Page 75 Vice Chair Baltay: Can I try making a motion here? Chair Furth: Okay. And before we do that... Well, the other issue, let's address that issue later, but the other issue we haven't addressed is the location of the antenna in the vicinity of Scott Park. Let's do that later. Okay. Go ahead and make a motion. MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: What I'm thinking is that we can make a motion to approve this with a condition regarding the location of the equipment. Let me take a stab at this and see what you folks think. I recommend that we recommend approval of all of these nodes, conditional to all equipment and associated wiring, except the antenna, being located either underground, or concealed within, or camouflaged directly adjacent to existing infrastructure. Chair Furth: I’m sorry, what? Vice Chair Baltay: Let me try that... Chair Furth: Camouflaged adjacent to existing infrastructure? Board Member Gooyer: That is such a gray... Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, well, help me out. I'm trying to think of a way... Chair Furth: You could drive a truck through that one. Vice Chair Baltay: ... [crosstalk] say it has to be underground, but it has to have some way of concealing the equipment within something that's already there, or right next to something that's already there. Like the [crosstalk]. Board Member Gooyer: Well, that's actually an easier way to put it, is just to say conceal it in something that's already there, rather than adjacent to... Vice Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Chair Furth: I don't think that's going to help the applicant. Board Member Thompson: The one problem I think there is in that is that it's, it's vague enough that I think if we were to approve it with that condition, it would just be too... We would just not know what we would get. Vice Chair Baltay: How can we...? I'm trying... Chair Furth: Well, let's break it down into what is acceptable. Can we have a motion that it's the sense of the ARB that the antenna design itself is acceptable on the light pole? Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. Chair Furth: I so move. Is there a second? Vice Chair Baltay: I second that. Chair Furth: All those in favor? Vice Chair Baltay: Aye. City of Palo Alto Page 76 Chair Furth: Aye. Board Member Lew: Aye. Board Member Gooyer: Aye. Board Member Thompson: Nay. Chair Furth: Nay. Okay, 4 to 1 on... MOTION PASSES 4 TO 1, WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION. Board Member Gooyer: But what does that get us? Chair Furth: It gets a piece of clarity in a sea of confusion. Actually, in a fairly complex bunch of decisions. Board Member Thompson: Can I explain why I said, "nay?" Chair Furth: Mm? Board Member Thompson: Can I explain why I dissented? Board Member Gooyer: Sure, sure. Chair Furth: Yeah. Board Member Thompson: The only reason I did, because I do generally agree that it is on its own acceptable, but in case we wanted to push for something like an integrated system, that would change the design. Chair Furth: Right. We're simply saying that the aesthetics of your antenna looks good to us. Ms. Swanson: Understood. Thank you. Chair Furth: And it's not out of... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...destroying the aesthetics of the.... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: The other alternative is to say either underground, or if not underground, it has to come back to us. Vice Chair Baltay: That's a good way to do it, yeah. Board Member Gooyer: That way, it will be up to them. Is it more convenient for them to...? [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Okay, and that underground equipment installation is fine with us. That's another unanimous point of view up here. City of Palo Alto Page 77 Board Member Thompson: Well, I also have a caveat on that. Chair Furth: Okay, it's 4 to 1. Go. Board Member Thompson: If there is existing underground infrastructure and vaults, then I'm okay with it. But if we're... Vice Chair Baltay: It has to be a new vault. Chair Furth: You can't stick it in an existing vault. Board Member Thompson: Well, I guess what I mean is, if there is already existing vaults in the area, we... Chair Furth: That doesn't make any sense. Board Member Thompson: That they would put it adjacent to... Chair Furth: Doesn’t make any sense. Board Member Gooyer: [inaudible and off-microphone] Chair Furth: [inaudible and off-microphone] Board Member Thompson: So, I don't know if I support digging up the ground and putting a bunch of holes in it. Chair Furth: All right, so, there are four of us in support of undergrounding the equipment when feasible. I want to talk... I'm just trying to get off anything we can get consensus on, or at least three votes for. One of the things we were asked about specifically was the location of these particular proposals, and staff recommended denial of three of them. Do we disagree with staff? Board Member Lew: I'm having a harder time with the, the 28m1. Chair Furth: This is [crosstalk] up and down Channing, right? Channing [crosstalk]. Board Member Lew: In my mind, the 28m1 is good because there is a whole row of existing palm trees that provide screening from the new house that's being built. And the staff mentioned that there's an underground district, underground utility district, and there's issues of ownership and maintenance of the pole. But I don't really know any of the details of that, so that's not... I'm only judging it by the aesthetic. I don't... Chair Furth: Yeah, this is a proposal for a new not-currently-existing pole, right? And is this...? This is not in front of Scott Park, right? Ms. French: Correct. It's in front of a new home that the ARB approved. Chair Furth: That nobody occupies yet, so they can't come and object? Vice Chair Baltay: I think, Alex, the issue is that what they are proposing on that particular one is to put a new street pole, street light where it suits their needs. And I think there's a process in town for determining when and where we need new street lights, and the City basically has to pay for that. They pay for the power. There's, I'm sure, a process to decide how it should be. And I would think, if perhaps the applicant wanted to work with the City to pay for the street light, that would be reasonable. Because City of Palo Alto Page 78 it is a good location. But, to open up the Pandora's Box of allowing an applicant to just put the pole where they want it is very slippery. Chair Furth: Counsel, so, they have a license, or whatever, an agreement with the City about installing equipment on existing poles. Do they have any right to have new ones? Mr. Yang: Their right to create new structures would be based under federal law and, you know, California law. But, so, it's not necessary for them to have a license agreement with the City because they wouldn't be using any of our existing facilities. Chair Furth: They have no particular right to install a new pole except under the general, by agreement with us; it's simply their general rights under federal and state law to put their equipment in the city. Mr. Yang: Correct. Chair Furth: And under what circumstances would they be entitled to put in a new pole like this? I mean, is it the same set of findings we have right now? Mr. Yang: Yes. Chair Furth: What about the issue of providing power to this thing? Mr. Yang: The applicant would be responsible for paying for the power. There... Chair Furth: I'm dealing with a negative recommendation from staff, so I'm trying to understand. Mr. Yang: I think one of the primary objections of staff... I guess, actually, maybe you guys can speak to the problem with the new pole. Ms. Atkinson: I'd like to say that we, we do have electrical staff here if you have any questions in regard to the master license agreement and paying for power, and so forth. However, in terms of objections to a new location, it would be a typical Tier 3 wireless communication facility permit for a new pole in the right-of-way, just like it would be a new... Any new facility would be a new Tier 3 permit, like I say, on a private building, or anything like that. It's the same process as outlined in our municipal code. Objections include all the things that we mentioned before -- pedestrian flow, clearance issues, in general. As you mentioned also, the benefits of an underground utility district. Chair Furth: Even underground utility districts have over ground light poles, right? This process that you describe for locating poles in the city right-of-way, we don't ordinarily review, right? It's got nothing to do with us. It's only because these are telecommunication facilities that we're dealing with this. Large communication facilities. Mr. Yang: That's correct. It's because it's a third-party application to build a new structure. Chair Furth: But if the City decides to put in new light poles somewhere, that never comes to us. Mr. Yang: That's correct. Chair Furth: None of our business. Mr. Yang: Right. And in this instance, the City is not interested in having a new light pole in this location. And perhaps our utilities staff could speak to why. Chair Furth: I'm just trying to figure out what our role is here. If we think aesthetically its preferable to any of the other alternatives submitted to us, we can just tell you that and let it go? City of Palo Alto Page 79 Mr. Yang: That's correct. Chair Furth: Okay. Do we think it's preferable to the other alternatives? Board Member Lew: I think it's preferable because of the palm trees. I think there are three or four, and they are very dense, and they are large. And then, on the opposite side of the street, my recollection is that that's the side of somebody's house. It’s not like somebody's front porch. Chair Furth: It is the side. You're right. Board Member Lew: And I think that, to me, those are very important differences compared to the original 28 location, which is in front of somebody's front porch, or close to it. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. All we ever do around here is recommend anyway. We don't have any decision-making powers, so, it is the view of the ARB that this proposal is preferable to any of the others that we've seen, for the reasons discussed. I would add that we spend a lot of looking at this corner because we just worked on a problem of shoe-horning or placing four new residences in that corner, in an old, interesting neighborhood. Speaking purely from the aesthetic and functional aspects of the use of the sidewalk and the looks of the neighborhood, we favor that proposal. We have no comment on other City issues that might make it undesirable. That fair? Okay. Board Member Lew: There's an existing planting strip. It's not sidewalk there. Right? Chair Furth: Uh-huh. Board Member Lew: There's not... Chair Furth: We could not obstruct [crosstalk]... Board Member Lew: We're not... My recollection is we're not obstructing anything there. Chair Furth: We think it would be feasible from the point of view of the things that we look at. What about the recommendation for "no" on Site 25, which is adjacent to 275 Forest Avenue? Staff, why are you saying no? Board Member Thompson: Board Member Furth? Chair Furth: Yes? Board Member Thompson: I actually... Chair Furth: Sorry, I interrupted. Board Member Thompson: It's okay. I actually have to... I have to go. It's... Chair Furth: We all do. Board Member Thompson: If it seems like we won't be making a motion in the next five minutes or so, then I might have to... Chair Furth: [inaudible and off-microphone], and then we're going to have to adjourn. Staff, quickly, anything on Site 25? As to why you said no? Remind us. Ms. French: There are logistical aspects in conflict with the city parking garage. City of Palo Alto Page 80 Chair Furth: Okay, well, that's not an area in which we have expertise. If it's not feasible from an engineering technical point of view, we don't second-guess you on that. Site 26? You recommended no? Ms. French: That's the Laning Chateau, Stalling Court. Chair Furth: Okay. How do we feel about sticking the antenna on top of the...? It's only the ground equipment that we objected to on that one. Is that correct? [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I think we're [crosstalk]. Board Member Lew: I think the issue, I guess for me, is what is the historic standard? And then, if there's some historic standard about the corner view, I would think that's the HRB's input and not ours. Chair Furth: Yeah, talk to the HRB. Like that. The staff is recommending approval of locations subject to not having this above-ground equipment on 29, 30 and 31. I guess we could say that we find the other locations acceptable provided the equipment is underground. Somebody want to move that? MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. I'll move that we find the antennas and the locations for these nodes acceptable or recommend approval with the condition that all equipment and associated wiring be located underground. Or completely concealed within existing equipment. I think you need to have something (inaudible). Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Gooyer: I'll second that. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Thompson: Can I amend? Board Member Lew: Let me clarify. You're saying all nodes? All of the nodes in this...? Is it seven? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. I think what's been presented to us is a logical package of reasonable places. I don't think the historic stuff is really stuff that we can bite our teeth into. And whether or not the City can work out to get a new light pole with these guys, again, it's not really an architectural board issue. Chair Furth: We have no idea. Vice Chair Baltay: I would recommend strongly that the City cooperate with the applicant to the benefit of the citizens. You've made it abundantly clear that, a number of people who live around here all agree that this is the right place. Let's get Public Works to put a light pole there. Tell them to find a way to do it. I'm sure there's enough motivation to make that happen. But I think we need to keep our eye on the ball, that we want the equipment out of sight or underground. Chair Furth: Okay. And for the benefit of counsel, we're not making the extensive findings we might ordinarily make. Yes, Osma? AMENDMENT TO MOTION Board Member Thompson: I was wanting to amend the motion. That whatever the applicant's solution is for the equipment come back to us in a subcommittee. City of Palo Alto Page 81 Vice Chair Baltay: If it's underground, or if it, just in general? Chair Furth: I'm not going to support... Board Member Thompson: If it's not underground. Chair Furth: Okay. Any above-ground alternatives come back to us? Board Member Thompson: Anything that's visible on the [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Okay. I think they have it, too. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll accept that. Chair Furth: Okay. Did the seconder accept it? Who seconded? Board Member Gooyer: Yeah. I did. Chair Furth: All right. All those in favor say aye? Vice Chair Baltay: Aye. Chair Furth: Aye. Board Member Gooyer: Aye. Chair Furth: Opposed? Board Member Lew: I’m going to abstain. I've not considered undergrounding for any of these locations. It was not brought up in the packet and I never even thought about it. AMENDED MOTION PASSED 4-0-1, with Board Member Lew abstaining from the vote. Chair Furth: Okay. Staff, this is a highly-litigated and regulated area. We would ordinarily make extensive findings. We would ordinarily have much better information. We would not be looking at last-minute, on- the-wing proposals. I think we're only doing this because we have a sense that the City is in a hurry. But we would be happy to look at this matter again with better information, if that is useful to the City. Ms. French: Thank you. Chair Furth: And we are going to break. Now, the question is, shall we break, or adjourn? It's 2:14. I have to leave town in 40 minutes. Board Member Lew: We have the next item. Chair Furth: I know we do. We're losing Board Member Thompson. Would the few of you like to continue? We have been meeting now for almost five hours. Almost six. Ms. French: If you would like assistance from staff on logistics, we could offer that you consider continuing Cluster 3 to December 20th. Chair Furth: Is that acceptable to the applicant? Ms. Swanson: It is. I can tell you, though, it's a much shorter presentation than Cluster 2. It's... City of Palo Alto Page 82 Chair Furth: Fine. Ms. Swanson: ...much, much shorter. Chair Furth: Well, the problem is you don't have a quorum because I have a conflict of interest, and we're going to... [crosstalk] Ms. Swanson: Oh, that's correct. May I ask a clarifying, though, of your motion, if I may? Chair Furth: I doubt that we can be helpful, but sure. [Board Member Thompson left the meeting.] Ms. Swanson: Anything could help, so, thank you. Is that on Node 26, about the furniture being over by the newsstand and the antenna being in front of that, the first motion, it sounded like that was a recommendation of approval, by having the mailbox over by the newsstands. Vice Chair Baltay: [inaudible and off-microphone] Ms. Swanson: No? Okay. I just wanted to confirm. Vice Chair Baltay: [inaudible and off-microphone] Chair Furth: It should come back with the other one, thank you. Ms. Swanson: That's helpful. Thank you. Chair Furth: I know this is difficult for you, as it is for us, and frustrating for you, as it is for the neighbors. Thank you, staff, for the work on it. I know that when we get detailed information, it's often beyond your control. But all we can do is our best, and we have. We're going to adjourn this meeting. Anything else? MOTION Ms. French: Did you want to continue to a date certain? Chair Furth: We'll continue that item to... Ms. French: Cluster 3 to December 20th. Is that a motion? Chair Furth: Yes. Would somebody give me a motion to continue Cluster #3 to December 20th? Board Member Lew: I will move that we continue Cluster 3 to December 20th. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second that. Chair Furth: Motion by Lew, second by Baltay, to continue the item. All those in favor say aye? And we'll note that Board Member Thompson has left the meeting. MOTION TO CONTINUE CLUSTER 3 TO DECEMBER 20TH PASSED 4-0. Chair Furth: Now can we adjourn? City of Palo Alto Page 83 Ms. French: Yes, you may. Ms. Swanson: The unofficial question, could Cluster 2 improvements come back at that same time, since it's so recent? Chair Furth: It's up to staff. They can re-advertise it if they need to. Ms. French: [inaudible and off-microphone] Ms. Swanson: Perfect, okay. Thank you again. Chair Furth: [crosstalk] director. That's Jodie. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager. Before we turn off the microphones and everything, I just wanted to... This is going to be Mr. Gooyer's last meeting with us, so I just wanted to really thank him for his service. I think it's been about five years that you've been on the Board. You've served as a board member, a chair, and a vice-chair, and we just really appreciate all the work that you've done. Thank you. Ms. French: I will second that. Chair Furth: Second. Third, fourth and fifth. Shall we adjourn this meeting, then, in rousing tribute to our colleague, Robert Gooyer? Hearing no objection, so adjourned. Thank you. Study Session [not addressed] Approval of Minutes [not addressed] Subcommittee Items [not addressed] Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements [not addressed] 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 David Hirsch. Absent: None. Chair Furth: ... regular meeting, and I think last meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto for 2018. Would the staff please call the roll? [Roll Call] Chair Furth: You will learn more about David Hirsch when you read the biography that he's going to post on our website, along with the rest of us, including Board Member Thompson. He is a native of Brooklyn, and he went west about seven years ago to settle here. He is an architect, has been one for 50 years, and we look forward to his participation. He's already been following architecture and development in the city closely over the past few years. Oral Communications Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions? I would note for us all that we will get to the minutes this month because we haven't, and as a member of the public pointed out, when we don't approve them, they don't go up, and then they can't see what we did. And I apologize for letting those slide. And I plead long agendas in my defense. And we will not do a reorganization when we elect our new officers until our next meeting in January. We have to get our work done, if we're going to have a full complement here, by noon. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: Any comments on the transmittal of the ARB meeting schedule, attendance record, and tentative future agendas? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Related to the schedule for January 10th, it looks like the... Let's see. We've got the electrification project, is definitely going forward. The Crown Castle, though -- and let me make sure because there's too many wireless projects. Crown Castle Cluster 3 that's on the 10th is actually also, that's the same action item number 2, and in all cases, that project is going to be on the January 17th agenda. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 20, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Furth: January 17th will be new telecommunication facilities, and then, there is a new building, which we have seen once before, at 380 Cambridge Avenue, coming before us. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, and I believe 380 Cambridge is also delayed until January 17th. It looks like it might just be electrification at this point. Chair Furth: Okay. Thank you. Sorry. All right. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3, Downtown North Multiple Addresses [17PLN-00450 File Uses 250 Hamilton Address]: Request by Sure Site (on behalf of Crown Castle to Lease to Verizon) for Six Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits Poles in the Public Right of Way on Six (6) Wood Utility Poles. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning of Node Locations is Public Facilities, Adjacent to These Zones: RM-30 (205 Everett/251 Emerson, 243 Hawthorne and 258 Waverley); RM-D (NP) 482 Everett and 301 Bryant; RM-15 (201 High). For further background information, please refer to the City’s website under the project file number 17PLN-00450). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Furth: The first item on our agenda is actually a matter to be continued. This is a public hearing on Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3, downtown north, multiple addresses. We need a motion to continue this matter at the request of the applicant. Is this to a date certain? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. The day would be January 17th. MOTION Chair Furth: Could I have a motion to continue item 2 to January 17th? Vice Chair Baltay: Move that we do so. Chair Furth: Second from somebody? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Motion from Vice Chair Baltay, second from Board Member Lew, to continue this matter to January 17th. All those in favor say aye. Any opposition? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH A 5-0 VOTE. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3200 El Camino Real [18PLN-00045] Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition for the Existing 16,603 Square Foot Motel and Construction of a new Four-Story Approximately 53,599 Square Foot Hotel. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Remove the Existing 50 Foot Special Setback Along Hansen Way. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is Circulating Between December 5, 2018 and January 4, 2019. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Furth: Okay, now we get to the (inaudible) hotel. Item number 3. This is a proposed major architecture review to allow the demolition of an existing 16,000 square foot motel and construction of a new four-story, approximately 54,000 square foot motel on the same site, which is 3200 El Camino Real. That's the corner of Hansen, is it? Staff? The applicant has also requested from the City Council a zone change to remove the existing 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way. We have an initial study on this, which I trust we've all reviewed. Before we hear our staff report, has everybody had an opportunity to visit the site? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Not in a while. Board Member Lew: I visited the site two times previously but not this time. Chair Furth: All of us with the exception of Board Member Thompson have been able to visit the site recently. Does anybody have any conversations, ex parte conversations to report? No one does. I beg your pardon? Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Yes and no. I don't know if it would be considered that at all. I received a call from Mr. Heilbronner the day after I found out, the evening before, that I was going to be a member of this committee. It was just a call that was requesting a meeting by me with the architect, to inform me about the project. I wrote him back, and I have a copy of this here to submit, and said that I knew nothing about it yet, but would be doing due diligence, and would probably not have an opportunity to meet with him prior to this meeting. Chair Furth: Thank you. Staff, this does bring up collaterally the fact that after our workshop on ex parte communications, the City Attorney's office and staff are going to get back to us with further recommendations. Maybe the January light agenda meeting would be a good time to do that. Okay. Staff report, please. Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, thank you, good morning. Happy holidays, Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner. Welcome, Board Member Hirsch. Thanks for the introduction. I'm going to skip a slide there because you did a good job with the overview. But with the site characteristics, the subject property is within the CS Service Commercial District, surrounded by very similar-zoned property. The topography is flat. The surrounding also includes mostly low-intensity development, although there are some projects that have been approved quite recently and will be constructed in the future, or have been constructed, so it is in transition and changing. The image on the screen does show the street context of the hotel. This project has had some prior meetings with the City in the past. There was a preliminary board meeting back in 2015 for the project, as well as two pre-screening meetings with the council regarding the special setback and the elimination of that setback. Then there was another preliminary board meeting back in 2017, and then, the last board meeting was in October of this year. And just last week, the Planning and Transportation Commission did review the project, and specifically, they looked at the special setback elimination. Some issues identified by the Board included: To provide some sunscreen on the southern side of the building; converting some of the rooftop space -- or two balconies -- where there are views; also some elevations, adding some balconies; reducing the number of materials used at the café corner; ensure that the café is visually inviting; increasing the use of some native plants to the landscape palette; and reducing the visual impact of the dark color of the eyebrows. The applicant is here with their presentation and they will go into detail about how they've addressed those issues. Those are also identified in the staff report and the plans. But what staff can summarize is that we believe that they have addressed these issues by the Board, and therefore, we do have a recommendation for approval to the Council. These are just some perspectives of the changes, kind of City of Palo Alto Page 4 what they've done. I think, most notably, they do have that curved and glass curtain wall feature at the corner. One thing to be maybe concerned about would be some privacy. We talked to the applicant about how to address that and they have some ways of how to deal with that. With the Planning Commission, at their meeting, they did recommend approval of the setback elimination, with some conditions, to the council. Some of these, just for your information, because they kind of dovetail a little bit into what the Board looks at. There was some concern about TNC, those are transportation network companies, those like your Ubers and Lyfts, that drop-off and pick-up along El Camino Real, because that curb cut would be eliminated there. Now, you have a little more curb space. Also, with the "pork chop" being eliminated there, you have additional curb space that would be red curb. We'll talk about how to address that. There also was concern about bicycle and pedestrian safety with the loss of that pork chop, how the bike lane would interface with the street and vehicles. They also wanted to ensure the project follows the context-based criteria, so that's right up your alley here, what the Board does. And then, there's a condition that you guys really deal with here, is that this setback elimination would be tied to a mixed-use project or hotel use project for the site. That's something that Council can take up and consider. Specifically, for the bicycle lanes, to show you what's there now, and then, what's being proposed. Really, the lane doesn't change and the striping on the roadway doesn't change. That intersection will change because the slip lane, the free right onto Hansen from El Camino, would be eliminated. That would just cause vehicles and drivers to be more cautious and turn more slowly, so that, we believe, we be a more safer condition. The other addition is where there is striping now, a thin buffer between the travel lane and the bike lane itself, there would be some physical vertical posts added. These are not metal or anything like that that would damage cars severely but would just add more tension for drivers to be careful of the bike lanes. More awareness there. It would also cause... This is for the entire length of that property. But we do want to include some conditions for the Board to consider, because of what the Planning Commission did bring up, was the owner designee shall demonstrate on the project's improvement plans, because they think it's the most appropriate place, are the locations of "No Stopping" signs along El Camino Real. The intent of these is to deter drop-offs and pick-ups on El Camino Real. Tied to that, we're also thinking another condition for you to consider is the owner designee shall, as part of the project's traffic management plan, include provisions to work with these transportation network companies to require drop-off/pick-ups at the Hansen Way entry of the project site. That's something that they can do. And we did speak to the applicant and they've agreed to these in concept. As part of the project, it's subject to CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, so we do have an initial study in circulation presently. So far, we have received no comments. That circulation period will end on January 3rd. The potential significant impacts that were identified were to air quality, biological, cultural and geological, and hazardous resources. Mitigation measures for temporary air pollution for construction, nesting birds, accidental cultural materials found during construction because we are digging two levels of basement, implement geotechnical report recommendations, as well as construction of this plan for potential hazardous materials they may uncover. After review of the project and the initial study, the Board shall recommend adoption, provide comments, or recommend changes as it may be necessary. Some topics of interest for you guys to consider. The top one has already been considered by the Commission, the elimination of the setback. But as well as elimination of that pork chop at the intersection; the consistency with the context-based criteria and architectural review findings; and compatibility with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. In addition, the parking does include a parking reduction. The project intends to provide valet service, and that will allow for the more efficient parking on site, and that type of parking alternative is really consistent with... It works well with hotel uses, so we are supporting that. Some next steps here is to complete the environmental process, and then, once we get through the Board's review, we would bring the project forward to the City Council for their consideration of the entire project. With that, our recommendation is to recommend approval of the proposed project to City Council based on the findings and subject to any conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Again, the applicant is here with their presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Could we have the materials board, please? If there is one. Does anyone have any questions of staff that they need to ask before we hear from the applicant? Hearing none, if the applicant could address us? You have 10 minutes once you are set up. And if you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Yatin Patel: Okay. Good morning, Chair Furth, Vice Chair Baltay, Board Members. My name is Yatin Patel [spells name]. I just want to be brief in my own introductory remarks. Thank you again for the board members who have taken a look at this. We appreciate your feedback. Welcome to Board Member Hirsch. Personally, as the applicant, I really appreciate the last hearing and the comments that came out of it because I think, as you'll see, the project is much improved as a direct result of your feedback. I sincerely believe that. James Heilbronner is here to walk you through sort of the details of what we have done and made changes to. I will pass it over to him now. James Heilbronner: Good morning. Happy holidays. I'm James Heilbronner [spells name]. Hi. We churned the comments from last time and I have a few slides to go through where we actually made some changes. The comparative renderings are before, previous and today. The primary changes are on the corner, which I'm trying to emphasize more vertically the elements and crystalize the proportions and the use of materials and distinguish them more. We've also done that throughout the building on the windows, incorporating that screen metal material we've discussed in the past between windows, so the windows are more, I'll say a vertical slot in the building, giving them more distinction and articulation of the façade. We've used the screen material throughout the building in a spot way to emphasize the use of that, and in-setting it with the windows works well. On the corner itself, the big change we made is opening up the podium deck behind the curved panel here. The metal material actually goes all the way to the ground, as does the glass, so you get a more vertical look without swapping out materials from the first floor to the second. It's more pure, and it will create some interesting shadows with the sun coming around the corner. The glass, same way. I think we were fighting for a long time the squareness of the building on the corner, considering that everything else is sort of rounded - the plaza, the corner itself -- and we always had a curved element going around the corner, but we were stuck sort of on the squareness in resolving the windows. We still have windows on the corner. That's always been the case. There's three rooms here. The glass is the same as we're using in all the windows. All the windows have blackout curtains and sheer drapes, so there's no issue of controlling sun or privacy on these windows any differently than all the other windows in the project. We still have the sign element posted out from the metal screening. We've emphasized the pilasters a little more and setback the eyebrows. I'll show you in another slide how we did that. And, of course, we've activated the balconies with landscaping, so all four floors have landscaping, although only three of the sections are balconies for people. They are all balconies for landscaping but limited for people, and we added the fourth floor on El Camino as private balconies and there's four rooms up there. Similar issues in the back. I think we've enhanced the greenery along the back wall, the north, I call it the north wall. You can see the slot windows here a little better. We've eliminated the bigger windows over the smaller windows in elevation so there's more consistency and there's verticality that we're trying to emphasize because the building is very spread out horizontally. This slide, this sort of isometric slide, demonstrates the landscaping. The second floor, then it's stepped back to the third, stepped back to the fourth, so every balcony on Hansen has landscaping, and the same on El Camino. Although these are people private balconies, as are all the ones on the second floor, that's the step-back solution for more activity and greenery on the building. This might be a little difficult to see but we've moved this eyebrow down to a line more with, end at the pilaster as this one is doing, and we also shrunk the eyebrow on El Camino. That's what these two red circles are. This shows the eyebrow stopping here, which is similar to how it stops on El Camino. The big conversation last time was the proximity of the café to the street and wanting to keep, of course, the plaza, which is seating for the public using the café or not along the street. We pulled the café out, so this shows the, in red where the café is now, compared to where we had it originally. We pulled it out more, closer to the street. There's signage on the street to get to it. There's two entrances in and out of the café, one on the El Camino side, one on the Hansen side, so that all kind of blends in with the outdoor seating. We've incorporated benches along the frontage on El Camino in these landscape pockets. That was a comment from Ms. Furth last time. Landscaping, we've changed some of the plant material to more native species. And I've got a large landscape plan if you want to see it closer because it's difficult to read. But the street trees dictated pretty much by the City -- or by the City, I should say -- in the tree wells, and we don't have a ton of in-ground landscaping, but a fair amount up on the balconies, which we took out the palms and changed the species there to be a little more native. And of course, those pots and plants get more attention from a maintenance standpoint than a ground scenario. These are just to show the changes of the plants on the second floor. And, last but not least, there was conversation or request for how the City of Palo Alto Page 6 thing is detailed. Generally speaking, all the windows and vertical elements are set in from the face of the façade. They are not flush, which I don't like, but they are recessed four, four and a half inches, consistently. The bigger elements on the corner, the screen material and the curved glass, is actually recessed about eight inches, so you have more depth because you're dealing with a larger mass of material from afar. As the building steps up, you have consistency, and the windows being set back, and this is an example of perhaps one of the ribbon windows on Hansen, or on the north side. You have that, what I've been calling a slot in the façade, a vertical element that distinguishes that element, which also has a metal screen element between windows. Instead of using spandrel glass, we're using the screen material. I think Mr. Baltay, you questioned a cap detail. We're using Alucobond or a similar product as a metal panel, and that comes with a cap piece that has the same reveal nomenclature as all the panels do here. And on the back side, that would be stucco on the balcony side where it's occupied. Those are sort of a summary of responses to the discussion last time, which was very helpful to sort of drive the pencil a little further into where we are now. I'm happy to answer any questions. I've got the large landscape plan if you want to see that. Chair Furth: Thank you. I would like to see the large landscape plan. I don't have any speaker cards. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on this project? Seeing nobody, I will... Perhaps you could stay at the podium and I'll see if people have questions of you. Any questions of the architect? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, good morning. Thank you for the nice presentation. Could you clarify, please, on the fourth floor, the terrace or balconies facing El Camino, are those pedestrian-accessible? Mr. Heilbronner: The second floor? Or fourth? Vice Chair Baltay: Fourth floor. The top. Mr. Heilbronner: Right. And then the third floor on El Camino is just the landscape balcony with access for maintenance of the plants. Vice Chair Baltay: I didn't understand you, I'm sorry. On the fourth floor... Mr. Heilbronner: Is guest access. Vice Chair Baltay: Those balconies are accessible to guests. Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. Chair Furth: Second and fourth floors are accessible. Three is not. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: And I forgot to ask our new member, David Hirsch, have you had an opportunity to review the minutes or the records of our previous hearing on this matter? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: You have. Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, but I would like to speak to the project. Chair Furth: We're still at questions at the moment, of the architect. Does anybody else have any questions of the architect? Board Member Lew: I have one quick question. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Furth: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: You have the low screen wall near the corner of Hansen and El Camino. Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. Board Member Lew: What is that? What is the wall made out of? Mr. Heilbronner: Basically, that would be a masonry wall, stuccoed, and on top we have a glass panel to block sound, but not be as opaque from seeing the plaza. Board Member Lew: Good. Thank you. Board Member Thompson: I have a question. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Chair Furth: I'm just saying that for the transcriber, not that she can't recognize our voices. Board Member Thompson: Oh, that's right. In our packet, we had a note here that said, "Provide sun screening on the southern side," and the applicant's response is, "Screen element extends from plaza floor to roof parapet." I was just hoping you could kind of show us exactly what you meant by that response. Mr. Heilbronner: Perhaps the term "screening" is, we're not using the metal panel screens, if you will. We're using, really, as a decorative element, not as a sun screening device. We were talking about this large screen element, which used to stop here at the second level. Now, it projects all the way down to the ground, so, again, behind this strip of wall here, it's open. You could throw something over that wall and it would hit. If it's screening material, again, it's all decorative, not sun screening, so maybe it was a little confusing, what we wrote there. Board Member Thompson: Okay. But this is not the south side, right? This is the north, like, northeast? Mr. Heilbronner: Yeah, the back.... Sorry, I'll go back. The back, I call it the north side facing the fish restaurant, has, we had a vine screen wall here for growing greenery up against the building, and we're using that screen material again in the window, between windows along the whole back façade. Is that...? Board Member Thompson: I think the note here is about the south, the southern side. These are both the north sides? Chair Furth: Which side are you calling the...? You mean true southern, for screening purposes, right? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Chair Furth: Identify it on this plan. What does it say? Do you mean Hansen, or do you mean the rear of the property? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I guess it's the Hansen Way, kind of looking at the, where the porte- cochere, the Uber drop-off. Mr. Heilbronner: Further down the street, right. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Thompson: Yeah, in that direction. Mr. Heilbronner: Right. Board Member Thompson: There's a view, I think, that was in our packet. Mr. Heilbronner: There's an elevation in your packet, yeah. Board Member Thompson: I think it's [crosstalk]. Mr. Heilbronner: I think it's VR 4.... Oh, the back wall, right. Board Member Thompson: This is the southern side? Mr. Heilbronner: Yeah, next to the business park. That's showing it without the trees, which you won't even, realistically, with the redwoods that are there, you won't see that elevation. But yes, we changed the windows there to be more consistent with the whole building. They were just individual slot windows previously in the last.... We've taken that... Board Member Thompson: Okay, thank you. Mr. Heilbronner: Thanks. Chair Furth: Any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: The floating element that's in front as you look at the previous design, or the present design, is there a reason that that is so close to the, turns a corner and is so close to the existing building, versus connecting the restaurant around the corner, more on the outside of the, closer to the property line? Mr. Heilbronner: You mean, is this particular element here being further...? Why is it so close to the building? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Mr. Heilbronner: We were trying to partially screen areas up against the building from a seating, so you have a choice in seating. More protected nearby versus out in the open. We're out of room on the El Camino side. We're really at the property line right there. But as it turns the corner, there's more property, if you will. Board Member Hirsch: Does it have anything to do with the property line itself? Is there a reason why it's [crosstalk]? Mr. Heilbronner: No, not really. On El Camino, yes. I can't go any further towards the street because we're on the property line. But right where it turns the corner and heads down in this area, there's room in the plaza. It's not a property line issue. Chair Furth: I think if you look at Sheet DR2-2, you get a pretty good sense of it. Board Member Hirsch: DR2. Well, I'm looking... City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: [off microphone, inaudible.] Mr. Heilbronner: Right. Yeah, that's a good depiction of the property line and, of course, the El Camino requirement for a 12-foot sidewalk, and other objects that push the building on El Camino to where it is. On the Hansen side, the property line, there's probably, there's a little bit of room in the plaza where you could push out things to the property line. Not a lot. It is a big swath of land along Hansen that's City- owned, so the property line... The building on Hansen is really up against the property line except when you get to the plaza. There's a little space there for... Board Member Hirsch: Are you saying in the area that shows with seating right now is City-owned? Mr. Heilbronner: No. A piece of that seating area is still on the property. That doesn't have the panel wall over it. I think that's what you're asking about. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, because, I'll speak to it a little later, but my concern is that it's columns and obstructions close to the building there, and it kind of obscures the sense of the building being there at all by being a rather massive piece of cloaking element right in front of it. You look at it from certain perspectives and you kind of lose the sense of continuity of the façade. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant? All right, then we'll bring it back to the Board. Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Heilbronner: Thank you. Chair Furth: I would also, you know, we often critique the documents we get and the presentations we hear, and I would like to thank you for the large-sized landscape plan, for the marking, identifying of native and non-native plants on your landscape. Generally a very readable and approachable set of plans. Thank you. All right. Who would like to begin the discussion? Alex? Board Member Hirsch: I would. Since I'm... Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Hirsch: ...new to the project, I've looked at it very carefully and found it to be a very interesting one at that. But I have some opinions about it that I'd just like to express today, both for my fellow board members and for the architects. I find it a very successful building in numerous ways. It adds layers of stepped structure both on Hansen and the El Camino side of the building. These effectively relate this long, horizontal mass to the street on Hansen and narrow width on El Camino. The window pattern on this stepped elements are varied and successful, but the dramatic cantilever corners extending horizontally beyond the projections and integrate comfortable -- these are the eyebrows -- comfortably with the mass. I like the way those elements are related to the mass of the building itself. Each of the projecting stepped floors has an exterior deck with planters, a generous amenity for a hotel, and as fellow board members have said, it really should be able to be used by the hotel guests. The other plan decisions appear to work very well. The entry at the rear of the lot under the porte-cochere. But I note that some proper signage somewhere on El Camino will be necessary to direct clients to that particular access point. First, the front exterior corner reserved for an open café and inviting the neighborhood in is a great amenity for El Camino. And the respect for the sidewalk design and change of the pork chop intersection is an excellent idea, I think, too. The sidewalk planning is, I think, very good, you know, separating the pedestrian and bike traffic at that point. It improves the Hansen Way crossing. From this point on, the most recent design begins to run counter, in my opinion, to the overriding concept of projecting stepped elements, modifying the longitudinal shoebox shape of the building. At the corner of Hansen Place, the horizontal possibility is broken by the vertical advertising wall metal screen. I want to explain that a little bit more. A major glass curve is introduced at the corner that bears no relation to the hotel function within, and I personally don't like to see buildings that have some relation, and that is an apartment, a specific unit in the building. And the fact that it's all glass in the corner, a massive amount City of Palo Alto Page 10 of glass, isn't in any way related to the function of the interior. The element that we were just discussing before, that free-floating mass over the café below and merges into the building, causes you to... I just think it's an uncomfortable relationship, and it's why I brought it up. I mean, I'm not opposed to the idea of something that sort of completes the corner and makes interior space and exterior space very clear, but I don't think that's very successful at it. I think, in fact, despite the fact that there is a problem perhaps with the ownership of the corner, or whatever, and the property line, I think that's something that could have been -- or could still be -- negotiated in some way with the City. Because after all, you've done some major improvements to that corner and the way in which you moved around it and into the dining area there, outdoor dining, you could, in some way, enclose the whole thing and make it feel like it's part of one return of the building to the outside line, rather than to align or devise that space into kind of two areas. In terms of your response to that, I find that there really ought not to be a separation that way, and that umbrellas or whatever you use for shading work very well on the outside. You could continue that if necessary for the, whatever is closer to the building. And I would rather have seen a perimeter wall in some way, and in fact, a lesser massive wall at that corner. The lesser wall would reflect the way in which you treat the porte-cochere in the back by a module less than the vertical dimension of that. And you could eliminate a lot of columns, as well. It's a constricted area and I don't think it really works very well. Less-important southwest and west and north facades with the recessed stucco panel at the vertical window line begins to look more like a -- to me, at least -- to a rather bad federal office building somehow. I find that it could be improved, and that the horizontality of this building should be improved by adding perhaps another stucco level horizontally in the same band as the metal. That reflects the color of the metal and would then tie the building together, the actual step areas where this would direct your eye to those most-important aspects of your design. You might bring the metal panels between the windows forward to that line and make that horizontal connection. To discuss these in a little bit more detail at Hansen Place corner, if you can refer to the drawing close-up illustration -- Can we get to that? The very first one, called "New Version 11-14-2018." It's a close-up version. Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member, are you looking at the perspective drawings? Chair Furth: Which plan set are you looking at, and which sheet? Board Member Hirsch: I'm looking at the illustration plan. Ms. Gerhardt: I don't know that we have those drawings loaded up. We'll see what we can find. Board Member Hirsch: Comparative perspective. Board Member Thompson: Is it this one? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. No, no. Here. [Locating drawing Board Member Hirsch is referring to.] Mr. Heilbronner: On this elevation, there's a blade sign out on El Camino for the café. Board Member Hirsch: Do you have a slide of...? [Locating drawing Board Member Hirsch is referring to.] Board Member Hirsch: Well, if that's difficult to get, okay. Let's just... We can all... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...and staff knows which drawing we're looking at. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Board Member Hirsch: Right. But you know what I’m talking about, this area we're talking about. The close-up, right? Obviously, you're not going to have glass there. It's going to be planted, right? Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. And that's in your planting plan, I'm sure. Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: I'd like to... Actually, I'd like to also ask staff, is that an important area on the outside of that planting where you have benches shown? Ms. Gerhardt: I think we do try and have some public benches where people can feel comfortable sitting down, even if they are not patrons of the café. We do want some greenery, giving a little bit of a buffer between the street and the building. But there is no regulation on the exact size and things of that nature. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, so, my opinion is, in the first place, it's funny that you don't, you show people walking on the outside, but you don't show people sitting in that recessed area there. That is part of the café, right? Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. This slide shows the café is back here. This is the plaza with the umbrellas and... Board Member Hirsch: I'm talking about the area where the exercise room is on one side and there's a conference room on the other side. Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. There's an entrance to the café directly off the sidewalk, and there could be small tables... Board Member Hirsch: There could be tables there, right? Mr. Heilbronner: We show.... Board Member Hirsch: Access to the coffee area. If the dining area and café, as well, is filled up, people will go there. Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. We show tables... Board Member Hirsch: Tables in the plan. Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. It functions basically the same way as the other side, with the dining room. There needs to be some form of privacy in that area, and separation, and sound barrier, just as you had it on the other side. Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, so, I don't see why -- or perhaps I disagree with other board members here -- why there isn't a barrier of the same nature right there, whatever you call that wall, with glass above it. Mr. Heilbronner: In a prior design, we had another screen wall on the El Camino side. We looked at that again carefully and we're trying to open up visual back to the building, more open to the café so you see City of Palo Alto Page 12 it, and we were focused that most people would sit in the plaza area, not on the El Camino side where it's noisier. That was our... Board Member Hirsch: That was your first concept, which I liked. Mr. Heilbronner: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: Okay? I mean, I think that... Chair Furth: I don't think we need to argue it, but if you could present your point of view, and... [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: Yes... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ... to have a chance to speak. Board Member Hirsch: The other aspect that I like, that I guess I disagree with my board members on here is that you turn the corner with that wall, so it sort of defines the planting area, the entry area. You don't do that in this drawing, so you've removed it because of previous criticism of that aspect. Okay. Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Also, let me get to what concerns me the most, actually, about this building, is this very corner, this very corner on El Camino and the verticality of it. My personal preference, again, is that you keep some of that horizontal line moving through the area here. I liked, for example, the way in which you dealt with the ground floor with a planting wall on that side. Sort of all of these elements, to me, don't come together as well as they could. I don't see the sense of a rounded corner at that point because it doesn't relate to the function, except perhaps at the cafeteria level itself, and the coffee shop. But I don't, I don't see the reason for that kind of a vertical expression when the basic building here is like a shoebox, and it's horizontal. That comment, we could discuss more. I know that would require some façade redesign, and I'm aware of that, but I think that it's worth considering. If the building were squared off and the proportions were nicely done, the window corner related more horizontally with the rest of the building, and in a squared-off corner, I think you'd have a unit inside that relates more to the function of what's behind it. It's just one unit in that whole building. The other aspect of that -- and I'll finish up with this -- is that the balcony on the second floor extends around the corner now, not just over the dining room, and is supported by the columns that are outside. I understand why you would turn the corner rectangularly further out because the dining room is there below, so there's no reason in my mind why that couldn't be a planting deck, just as the rest of the facades are on that level. The façade that faces towards Hansen Place is a planting deck. Is that correct? Mr. Heilbronner: Yes, this balcony deck here is guest room balconies over the dining area, correct. Board Member Hirsch: So, it could extend around the corner and simply go back into the building, but there's no real reason why anybody would really, although you show people out on that deck, is there a real reason why people would use a deck like that on a second floor over a dining area? Mr. Heilbronner: Frankly, we cut a lot of the... We cut the podium out in this curved area. We left a small area here for hotel guests to use the balcony as a public area. I'm not sure that would be a highly-used area. Could be used for photo-taking, or just to go out and sit, but it's not a huge area. It's a small, urban, kind of plaza area. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Furth: I'm going to stop this discussion at this point so we can hear from other board members and hear each other's comments. And then, if the Board has a second round of comments, we can do that. Yes? Ms. Gerhardt: Related to this discussion, I just wanted to let board members know that covered canopies, canopies that cover these dining tables, are considered FAR, even when they don't have walls around them. Chair Furth: They would exceed the allow floor area for the project? Ms. Gerhardt: It would change the FAR of the project, yes. Chair Furth: And is the FAR already close to the limit, or do they have extra space left? Mr. Heilbronner: Yeah, it is close. Very close. Chair Furth: Thank you. We could calculate that if this was the consensus of the board. Alex. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation and thank you for the very clear set of drawings. It was very useful. I can recommend approval of the project today. I have, I think, as we've talked before, I think the project is exemplary. I think the building top, middle and base are all done very well. I think you've included a lot of ground floor uses that are very attractive and will attract pedestrians. Staff had some comments about, from the PTC. I also had a concern about a car drop-off on El Camino. I actually had noticed that before you had mentioned that. Sometimes we've done continuous planter strips in those locations. I know that Transportation wants a minimum sidewalk width, walking width, so I do understand that is an issue. You have cars going by at 40 miles as hour close to the curb, making a right- hand turn, you know, having more landscaping can be better. I think the other thing I think about, too, is just the way the intersection is configured, you know, the crosswalk isn't anywhere near that section. The actual crosswalk is way up closer to The Fish Market. It's just because the intersections are kind of offset. I think regarding compatibility, I think that the new building will work with a lot of the new buildings that are under design and construction in the vicinity. And then, I think, my only main concerns is, one is, like, the stucco color is white, and my main concern would be on your northwest façade late in the day during the summertime, that we might get a lot of glare at that time. I did look at the solar angles and I think that could be an issue. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Alex, which...? Board Member Lew: This would be facing The Fish Market. Chair Furth: The Fish Market façade? Board Member Lew: Yeah, so, I'm thinking.... I looked at the sun angles and it might be an issue. There are large trees on El Camino and also on the back of the property that may help mitigate that. And then, I think my other concern was just that the L3 wall sconce, it's like a Kichler fixture, and I was wondering if there was a better option for that. I do like that that fixture is a downlight, but I was wondering if there was maybe something, if there's a higher-quality fixture than that. That's all that I have. Chair Furth: To be clear, are you recommending changes with respect to the glare problem on the northwest façade? Board Member Lew: I'm just putting it out there for the other board members. Chair Furth: Okay. You raised a concern. Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Lew: White buildings have come up before. We get comments from people in Portola Valley, and they can see our buildings. They can see our buildings, and they were saying, "We don't paint our buildings white. Why are you allowing all of these white buildings in Palo Alto?" People can see it, even though we may not. Chair Furth: I think it's fascinating that they think we should look like them. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: We don't say that to them. Board Member Thompson. But I understand the concern. Board Member Thompson: For the record, I'm a fan of white buildings, as I'm sure you know. In general, I would say that there are elements of this building that have improved greatly. I think there are other changes that could potentially be controversial, but I'll start with the good stuff. I actually really like this lot that you have introduced in sort of the southern areas. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Osma, could you translate that for me? What are you saying you like? Board Member Thompson: Oh. In this image of the southern façade, I think the original comment was actually about adding shading to the southern façade because it's exposed to sunlight. However, you have recessed the... I think the slot I'm talking about is the vertical stacking of the windows and recessing it four inches. Board Member Hirsch mentioned it looked like a federal building. I think it looks nice. I think it's better than what you had before. I think the recessing will help. Obviously more shading is better, so I wouldn't oppose if you decided to add some dimensionality on that side to actually protect your building from sun. But what you have is still an improvement over what you had before. I actually appreciate that order, I appreciate the terracing that you've done on that side. Appreciate the colors being lighter. I think mainly the controversial element is probably your corner. And also, sorry, I'll just mention... Yeah. The protected bike path is appreciated, in general. But, yeah, so, going back to the corner, the glass element. In general, I'm not a fan of spandrel glass or glassy things, usually for environmental reasons. But you actually, on the north side here, so, if you're going to have glass anywhere, this is probably a fine place to have it. What I actually kind of miss from the older drawings was that deck that wrapped around the corner. I understand that you've taken it out to sort of add more verticality to the corner. That deck could be a really nice spot for parties, or people who want to hang out on the hotel but not actually be on the street. I actually miss that. It's funny, I think we're sort of getting into the nuances of preference here. In general, I would say that, yes, in terms of meeting the design guidelines, your base, middle and top are fairly well defined. This particular corner is sort of missing that top element. You sort of intentionally deleted it. You've kept your top element elsewhere on the building and deleted it from the corner. You could argue that that's okay, that you still have it as part of the building. It could be nice, though, to keep it in the corner. In general, though, again, I would say, mostly it's more improved. Again, the loss of the green wall on the ground because of, I guess the change in that corner, is something to be missed. There are some things in your old plan that I think were nice that I don't think we asked you to get rid of, that are gone now. But it seems like easy things that could be resolved in a subcommittee. Unless, of course, this element of that corner façade, if we were discussing sort of more heavily, that could potentially become controversial and not solvable in a subcommittee. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. I do want to thank the applicant for the really detailed and useful color and material board, the numerous 3D presentation images. It really helps a lot for us when we're trying to evaluate the design. Staff, if you could take note that this type of presentation is much appreciated. I support Alex's comments strongly. I think he's got his finger on the right direction for this building and I can make the findings to recommend approval. I have a couple of things that I'd like to really emphasize, especially to staff when this gets to a further level of review. The curved window wall on the corner is complex and expensive to build, especially when you have curved pieces of glass. That's what these are, is curved. If they come back and say, well, it turns out it's too difficult to build, we want to make it City of Palo Alto Page 15 square, or change the shape, or something like that, that's a distinct architectural change and will need to come back to the board if they're going to change that. Assuming that what they are presenting is something they intend to build, and it's important, in my opinion, that it be built as to what we see here. I'm just putting that note of caution out there, that it has to be this way. The same thing goes, in my opinion, for the balconies on the fourth floor facing El Camino. I think it's really important to have those be pedestrian-accessible balconies that guests can actually go out on. That really enlivens the street experience for the public and it's very important. I just can't really make sense looking at the plans whether there's really doors there, or whether these balconies are intended to be that way. The applicant says they are, that's great, let's make sure that's in the record, and it remains that way throughout the development of this project. Same comment, again, applies to the depth of the window reveals. We're talking four inches and eight inches on the major elements at the corner. Those are great design features that I don't see supported in this application. In other words, there's no real clear details documenting that. I'll take you at face value that's what you intend to do, but I’m mentioning it to staff again. Let's be sure we check. To recess a window four inches into a wall means the wall has to get thicker somehow. It's not that easy to do. It’s not just write that on the window spec and you're done. And again, if it comes back and it's only two inches, that's a significant change to the design, and we are, in part, approving this because of those details. So, it's important that we follow through. The last detail that I don't see an answer on -- and maybe if this comes back to a subcommittee -- would be the top of the, I'll call it the vertical decorative wall with the Hotel Parmani round sign on it. It's to the left of the curved glass. The top of that decorative element, as I understand it, that's a perforated metal screen of some kind. You'll need some kind of detail or cap or something to practically terminate it, and visually, too. I think it's important that it be thought about. I'm sure it can be done. I just don't see any evidence of what you intend to do, and I think it's important that we see that. Those are really a series of comments that are just things that I want to be sure that we focus on as the building gets further developed. Lastly, I agree with Alex, that the white plaster is, I think, too bright. When I look at the sample over here, it's extremely reflective, and over The Fish Market building, and probably on Hansen Way, it really could be toned down. Just be a little bit less reflective in the sunlight. But I can support the building as its shown. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I have a question. Staff has a comment. Ms. Gerhardt: I have a question, as well. Board Member Baltay, you were asking about the balconies on the fourth floor, those being accessible, but when I'm looking at the drawings, those are actually roof elements (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: Precisely. Thank you, Jodie. That's why I'm bringing this up. I believe I asked the applicant that question already, and they affirmed that those are intended to be pedestrian-accessible balconies for the guests in the hotel. I'd like very much to make sure that that stays in the record, and that's what gets built. Chair Furth: Could the applicant confirm that the fourth floor balconies facing El Camino and Hansen are accessible? To guests? Mr. Heilbronner: Yes, absolutely, the fourth floor El Camino side, which in plan reads like a... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, just on El Camino. Mr. Heilbronner: I'm sorry. Fourth floor, El Camino, yes, they are private balconies for each of the... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: You can step out onto them. Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. Absolutely. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Furth: Thank you Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, I just want to clarify. Sheet DR3.3, we have the fourth floor. It's currently shown as a roof on El Camino, and then, there is also some space on Hansen. I just want to be clear what we're asking for. We're just asking for the El Camino side to be balconies? Vice Chair Baltay: I feel the El Camino side must be balconies, yes. Chair Furth: Discrepancy in the illustrations of the plans, not... Does not reflect the applicant's intention. Okay? Staff can make a note of that so that we don't have to put it in our motion, should we arrive at one. I have a question about the screening material above the fourth floor. I guess it's on the roof. Is that right? This? That's mechanical screen? I'm looking at this. A setback mechanical screen quite a ways back, is not visible from the sidewalk? Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. It would... The sidewalks immediately around the building... Chair Furth: Well, obviously. Mr. Heilbronner: ...mechanical screening is 10 feet tall under the allowance of 15 feet. Chair Furth: Okay. Mr. Heilbronner: Sorry. And... Chair Furth: And it's set in from the edge of the building. Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. You wouldn't see it from the surrounding streets. You would see it coming down El Camino from far away... Chair Furth: Okay. Mr. Heilbronner: ...as an image. Chair Furth: Thank you. The reason I'm asking staff is we just had a big discussion on a hotel on San Antonio about an overly visible mechanical screen that was much bigger than it needed to be. Made the building to be... How do you say this? Appear to be much taller than we had originally approved. I don't have a... We talked about doghouse screens versus comprehensive screens, and I don't have problems with a large screen if it's sufficiently recessed. I'm going to propose that if we do a subcommittee, this go to subcommittee to... I think it's clear on what our intent is with regard to... Did you have a comment? Mr. Heilbronner: The exact height of the screen needed is a function of the height of the mechanical equipment? Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Heilbronner: We're totally open to a condition that the screen be as tall as the mechanical equipment... Chair Furth: Be minimized. Mr. Heilbronner: ...it might be eight feet, 7-foot-8 instead of, right now... [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Furth: Yeah, it's the difference between the approach of having a large, sort of simple screened rectangle, and having smaller.... Yes, staff? Ms. Gerhardt: Just to clarify, the screen doesn't need to be as tall as the equipment. We've many times done line of site diagrams, so it can be... Chair Furth: I think we are all clear and don't have any disagreement about what our goal is here. Everybody is nodding. All right. Thank you for your presentations, and thanks to everybody for their careful reading of the plans and the project and their comments. I'm trying to read my notes. I had a question for staff. Where would the red curb be on El Camino? The entire frontage? Mr. Sing: Presently, that's the condition, so the only change would be eliminating the pork chops for the additional curb space, as well as the elimination of the existing curb cut. Chair Furth: You're telling me it's red all the way now and it would continue to be red? Mr. Sing: It's red now where there is curb. Chair Furth: The entire frontage would be red. No parking. Mr. Sing: Right. That's correct. Chair Furth: I’m interested with, I think Alex or somebody mentioned the idea of having high landscaping along there, along the edge of curb. This is a state highway. Can we do that? Making up three foot highway landscaping along the edge of the curb there? Ms. Gerhardt: We would obviously need to confirm, but the only thing that we usually run into trouble with is additional trees near the street. Board Member Lew: If you look at, like, you know, Arbor Real project at El Camino and (inaudible) or Charleston, it actually has a continuous planter, and I don't know how tall the plants are. Maybe not three feet. Maybe two feet. But, like, in that particular location, there's no on-street parking, and you have traffic right at the curb. It's nicer to have a buffer... Chair Furth: Yeah, I think this is a... Board Member Lew: ...in that kind of location. Chair Furth: I think this is a really good idea. I think you all know that I like planted pedestrian barriers that subtly explain to people that, no, you're not going to walk through here. They need to be tall enough and heavy enough. I mean, a classic one is pittosporum tobira, which is not my favorite plant for this site, but I would be in favor of having the landscape revised to have a planted pedestrian barrier to make it perfectly clear that this is not where you drop anybody off, or catch a cab. I think that would be much more effective than any amount of signage or red curbs. That would be one thing I would suggest. Alex, you'd like further review of lighting, at least one light fixture. Board Member Lew: I threw that out to the other board members. Chair Furth: I doubt that any of us disagree with you. Board Member Thompson: Which light fixture was that? Chair Furth: Um... I'm sorry, go ahead. Board Member Lew: L3. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Furth: There is some discussion about color. I know that Board Member Thompson emphasizes the importance of light-reflective colors for low electricity use, whereas others are concerned that it will be so reflective that will perhaps generate more electricity use next door. Is it possible to move towards a less- reflective and still environmental-effective shade of white? Query? Comment? Board Member Lew: My thought is... My comment about the white is only for the west, sort of that northwest wall. And it is northwest, not true west, so I'm a little bit more flexible on the... And then, the other thing, the other issue with white, it does show... Chair Furth: Grime. Board Member Lew: ...it shows dirt more, and also, if they're proposing a smooth texture, a smooth white texture will show all of the stucco cracks more so than a rougher, more textured and darker color. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Thompson: We keep the color and add more texture on that side. That could help with glare. Chair Furth: Okay. From my notes... Let's see, what else did I want to say. Oh, I'm so grateful for the wider sidewalk, for the protected pedestrian... Sorry, bicycle path. It's always complicated when dealing with the California Department of Transportation, with their road here, and I appreciate that we've been able to get much more pedestrian space. I think the sharper corner will lead to slower turns, so that we'll have improved pedestrian and bicycle situations. And I think you have made the most neighborhood- friendly hotel design in the city that we have seen. So, congratulations. We really appreciate what you have done. We probably have some very friendly hotels downtown, but actually, I don't even think they do as well. This is really, really impressive. Thank you. Perhaps we need to have a bit... First of all, is there support for...? I heard differing opinions on the design. I only heard David's -- Board Member Hirsch's -- critique of the fenestration and design elements along Hansen, but I heard... Would anybody other than David care to revisit the design of the floating element? Board Member Thompson: You mean the...? Chair Furth: The curve. Board Member Thompson: The curve. Yeah. Chair Furth: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: Are we discussing the canopy? Chair Furth: It's the vertical thing that goes like this. Board Member Thompson: The podium? Is it a podium, actually? Chair Furth: It's a line. Board Member Thompson: Kind of a skirt that comes along the front. [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: ... a lot of Izo-zahki [phonetic], in the Museum of Contemporary Arts. He always has the, he calls it the Marilyn Monroe curve. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: Well, I vote no. Is this curve...? This is really a stupid question, but better answer it. Is this a free-floating curve, or does it have a floor connected to it? It's a free-floating curve. It's a free-floating curve. Board Member Thompson: It's only free-floating for part of the corner, and then it becomes a floor... Chair Furth: Well, I'm looking at this. Board Member Thompson: ...just after the... Chair Furth: It's all the way around the corner, it's free-floating. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, but if you look at the plan DR3.2... Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Thompson: ...and you're looking at the second floor plan... Chair Furth: Yep. Board Member Thompson: ...you can kind of see that it sort of joins up with the floor, right where that planter starts on the plan... Chair Furth: Yeah. Board Member Thompson: I think in the previous proposal, that whole... Chair Furth: It was balcony all the way. Board Member Thompson: ...the whole thing was deck. Chair Furth: Right. Now they're proposing it as... Board Member Thompson: Which was (inaudible). Chair Furth: ...free-floating vertical wall. Straw poll. How many of you are satisfied with the applicant's most recent proposal, on that regard? Vice Chair Baltay: I'm satisfied. Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: Yeah, and I think.... Yes. I would just say that, in my mind, it meets the findings. Chair Furth: Right. In other words, they get to choose if we can make the findings. It's not whether we would design it that way, but does it meet the standards of the City. It's your building. Board Member Lew: And then, also, if it were a deck, then it would impact the privacy of that, of the second-floor room right there. Chair Furth: Okay. And David, you would like it to be revisited? Board Member Hirsch: I would, yes. Chair Furth: Okay. Peter? City of Palo Alto Page 20 Vice Chair Baltay: No, I'm fine with it. If I could, through the Chair, just address the Board. I think all of us as a whole feels this is a pretty good building. We've been through it three or four or five times. They've had this curved element for months, if not years. I think we need to stop just going over and over and hammering away at it. This meets the findings. It may not... Chair Furth: In your opinion. Vice Chair Baltay: In my opinion. The curved glass, David, you're right, it doesn't reflect what's inside. It's not what I would like to do myself, but... Chair Furth: Well, before we... That's fine. Vice Chair Baltay: It meets the findings. I think... Chair Furth: I'm going to keep driving you guys to a decision here today. I think I have your point. I had one other question, which was the other highly-discussed element seemed to be the rounded glass tower. My only concern about that, I mean, it does surprise me. I'm not sure why it's a choice, but I can't say that it shouldn't be. It does relate to the very curved corner and the curved element. The problem we usually have when these are hotel rooms is that the odd placement of curtains leads to a certain amount of visual chaos. What we usually do when we have highly-visible windows like this is we have a condition about curtains and automated screens. I don't know if that works here. Thoughts, please. Alex. Board Member Lew: On this one, it's not just a regular hotel room. This is a one-bedroom, so, the bedroom is not on the curve. That's just living area. I don't think there's nearly as much issues with curtains and what-not than a typical room. Board Member Thompson: The bedroom is on the curve. If you look at the drawings. Board Member Lew: I was looking at the plans and I thought the bedroom was on... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Is the bedroom in the corner? On these? I'm asking the applicant here. Mr. Heilbronner: Just quick clarification. The curve is three rooms, second, third and fourth floors. Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Heilbronner: They are guest rooms with beds. The plan shows that they are king bedrooms. And the glass is probably 25, the width of the glass, probably 20 percent wider than a normal window. We'll have blackout curtains on the radius with sheer drapes on them, just like every other window in the building has. Chair Furth: They'd have to have really good-looking outsides to those blackout curtains. Mr. Heilbronner: Okay. Chair Furth: Yes. They typically aren't that good-looking on the outside. All right. Because otherwise, you wouldn't want to mess up your lovely building. What else have I forgotten here, folks? Any other matters that we should discuss as a group? Board Member Thompson: Do we want to talk about that light fixture? I finally managed to pull up the lighting plan. It's E4.0. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: Well, I'm anticipating that this goes to a subcommittee, so I would let the subcommittee deal with it. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: But that may not be the consensus. Okay. MOTION Chair Furth: Could I have a motion please? And then we can debate that motion if necessary. Board Member Thompson: I'll move that we approve this project subject to findings and conditions to a subcommittee, where we can revisit the lighting fixture, the treatment of the northwest wall in terms of...; Chair Furth: Materials. Board Member Thompson: ... material. Chair Furth: Color and texture. Board Member Thompson: And... Chair Furth: I think staff asked for a condition that the Transportation Demand Management Plan include a provision that -- What's the technical term for Uber and Lyft? Board Member Thompson: TNC. Mr. Sing: Transportation Network Company. Chair Furth: That transportation network companies be advised that pick-up and drop-off must take place in the Hansen porte-cochere? Is that what it is? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Chair Furth: And I would like to add that the subcommittee review landscaping. Board Member Thompson: (inaudible) Chair Furth: We're still composing a motion here. It's not a friendly amendment. It's a collaboration. Board Member Thompson: It's very helpful. Chair Furth: I'm just trying to list everything we have here. To provide landscaping along El Camino Real designed to discourage pedestrians from crossing that sidewalk into the street. Ms. Gerhardt: Mechanical screen? Chair Furth: And mechanical screening be reviewed, and I'm getting a note here, details at the top of the wall which contains the sign for these buildings. It's the wall that would be reviewed as to details at the top of it, not the sign. Mr. Sing: Chair? Sorry. Chair Furth: Yes. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Mr. Sing: There was that condition that staff had suggested regarding no stopping signs on El Camino. Was that something that...? Chair Furth: And consider no stopping signs on El Camino. Because I think if you landscape it adequately, you may not need to do that, but you may need to. That would be something for the subcommittee and engineering, traffic engineers. Yes? Board Member Thompson: And could we also add that maybe the applicant consider keeping that deck as we've seen it so far along the corner? Just to consider if... Because I think in all the previous applications, that deck turned the corner around. Chair Furth: Is there a majority of support for that point of view? Would anybody back that? Vice Chair Baltay: No, I don't think that's a good idea to ask for that at this point, Osma. I think it starts to affect FAR calculations and things like that. Board Member Thompson: But it's been there in all the previous.... Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: It just feels late to me. Chair Furth: I don't think you're going to get support for that one. Board Member Thompson: It is my motion. Chair Furth: It is your motion. Go for it. Board Member Thompson: Just that they consider it. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Thompson: You know, it doesn't have to be something that... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Consider with the [crosstalk]. Board Member Thompson: I mean, it could be the subcommittee takes a look and it doesn't work architecturally. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Vice Chair Baltay: I will second the motion, including the considerations you mentioned. Chair Furth: Thank you, Peter. Is there brief discussion? It's only because you people want to catch your airplanes and do justice to the other matter. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed? You have to say it audibly. The motion.... Oh, I'm sorry, after a while it gets automatic to hit the microphone button. All right. Well, the vote is... Board Member Hirsch: On the record, I'm voting against. Chair Furth: Thank you. The vote is 4 in favor, 1 against, the 1 against being Board Member Hirsch. And the matter is referred to subcommittee. MOTION PASSED 4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER HIRSCH VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Furth: Thank you very much for your application. Thank you to staff for your work on this project. We will have a two-minute break before we go on to the next item, which is a public hearing on 2321 Wellesley Street. [The Board took a short break.] 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2321 Wellesley Street [18PLN-00178]: Request for Architectural Review of a Two-Family Residential Project. This Application Will Also be Heard by the PTC on December 12, 2018 for a Zoning Map Amendment to Change the Subject Property From R-1 to RMD(NP). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of CEQA per Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: R-1 (Single-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez (samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org) Chair Furth: This hearing is, I would note that it is ten o'clock and we are on item number 4, which is 2321 Wellesley Street. This is an unusual request for us. It's a request for architectural review of a two- family residential project. It will also go to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Wait a minute, will go? That's not right. That's earlier. It's been to the Planning and Transportation Commission. Is that correct? Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. It went last week. Chair Furth: Right. For their recommendation on a zoning map amendment to change the property from R-1 to RMD with a neighborhood preservation overlay. It is exempt from CEQA. Mr. Gutierrez. Oh, first of all, has everybody visited the site? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Nope. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Chair Furth: Yes, yes, everybody with the exception of Architect Thompson. I will note that I had never been down this little stub of Wellesley, which dead-ends into the College Terrace Library and small park. Thank you. Staff? Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning to the Board. Happy holidays, and happy new year, after this last hearing of the year. I am the project planner for this project, as Chair Furth indicated. This project is a little unique in that the requested zoning change that comes along with this project requires ARB review of the design. Let's start here. The site correction here on this first slide, it's the wrong date. Of course, today is the 20th, so that's a small correction there. This is a sketch of the proposed design for the new home on the site, 2321 Wellesley. As we move forward, we can see that this is an application involving a zone change and design review for a new two-story, two-family duplex with a detached carport. The existing zoning, just to discuss that briefly, is R-1, and the requested zone change is to change to the Residential two-unit, multiple family district, the RMD. But there is also a combining district in this location, and that's the Neighborhood Preservation combining district, sorted as NP. That's the mechanism, or the combining district has a, as a trigger for the ARB review, and that's why we're before you today. Here, you can see that the zoning of this site is actually with the R-1. It's highlighted in that yellow band there. It's the little appendix of the R-1 District directly adjacent to the College Terrace Library. As you can see, the RMD(NP) zone surrounds it, so it is the only R-1 parcel on this side of the street. That's what went before PTC last week. The Neighborhood Preservation Combining District, per the Code Section 18.10.140, requires review by the ARB to maintain the visual and historic character of the existing neighborhood, maintaining existing structures, and to assure that compatibility of design of new residential units with existing structure on the same or surrounding properties. If the site were to be bigger with this zone, they actually could have more units, but because of the size of the site, they only City of Palo Alto Page 24 could actually produce two. That's some of that language there, where they say, you know, more units. If the site was much larger and only had two units, perhaps it could add another third or fourth, and the ARB at that point would review its compatibility with existing units there. These are the existing conditions. This is, again, a satellite view. You can see that the lot is empty. Adjacent to it you'll see the apartment structure on the left, and then, on the right side of this image, you'll see the College Terrace Library. And then, across the street, the single-family homes. This is the site. It's been vacant for approximately 30 years. There's the College Terrace Library. The home directly across the street, single-family, single story. Further down the street we have a mixture of partial two-story and full two-story. And this is the adjacent apartment complex to the site. The zoning difference, I wanted to touch briefly on that. The R-1 zone has different allowances for FAR and coverage than the RMD, as well as the ability to move... Excuse me. The ability to have two units is on, is allowed per each zone. The R-1 would allow two units with a single-family home and an ADU, which has size restrictions attached to it and associated with it. Also, the ADU would have laxed parking regulations, but the RMD zone, which is a requested zone change, you actually have more stringent parking requirements because you have to have additional parking for that. And then, the distribution of square footages is more lenient in the RMD. You can do more of a proper duplex rather than a single-family with an attached small ADU. This is the proposed design here. You can see it's a two-story Craftsman-like house. The secondary unit would be located in the basement, with the primary unit located above on the first floor and the second floor. This is just a cross-section, so you can see the light wells leading to either side of the basement unit and how that relates to the upper floors above. You can see the kind of sketch of the carport structure that was proposed in the rear. This is a layout of the proposed landscape plan. There is a redwood located at the far rear corner of the property. There isn't very much construction going on in the critical root zone. That was much of a concern to staff when we reviewed this application. There are some more extensive landscaping proposed in the front yard area that you can see there on the left. And just to go over the timeline for this application. You are aware, this did go to Council on pre-screening on October 2, 2017, where they were mostly supportive of this moving forward. This went to PTC hearing on December 12, last week. The PTC did support the project, and before the application could move on to its next phase, which would be formally to the City Council for a decision on the zone change, the PTC, which already made a recommendation, but the ARB also would need to make a recommendation to Council before we can move to that stage. Some key considerations would be the, the existing neighborhood has a mixture of architectural styles and densities, so how is this compatible, this proposal is compatible with that. The site is, of course, directly adjacent to the College Terrace Library. It's the larger parcel, and the architecture is different as a public facility. And its use is different, of course. And it is next to the apartment building, which is far more dense and large in massing than the proposed structure itself on the site. Another consideration would be submitted landscaping, as it has some local and native plants, along with some non-native plants. The recommendation for the Board is that the Board recommend approval of the proposed project to the City Council based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Thank you. That concludes the presentation. Chair Furth: Thank you. Could you show us those slides of the buildings and the vicinity again, a little more slowly? Mr. Gutierrez: Sure. This is the College Terrace Library. Chair Furth: The site is over to the right in this slide. Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. It would be located here, where this vehicle is. That's the empty lot there. And this is directly across the street from the site, so, if you were standing here where this vehicle is, directly behind you would be the subject site. You can see a single-story home there, and adjacent is another single-story home. As we move further down the street, so, this is further down the street to the left, this is the... I'm not sure quite what that architecture is. It's kind of Craftsman-y, mixed... Chair Furth: It's a larger house. Mr. Gutierrez: It's a larger house, exactly. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Furth: With a (inaudible). Mr. Gutierrez: And then, to the furthest end of the little street here, on the corner is a newer home, two story. And then we have the apartment building that's directly adjacent to the site. A little difficult to get a clear image of what it looks like because there is a lot of tree cover there. Taking it from this angle rather than at the angle directly adjacent to the site was a better vantage point of the architecture of that building. Chair Furth: And then, behind that, there is another apartment building, which sort of backs up to this, to the rear portion of this lot? When you walk on this lot, you see rear balconies or something, from that building behind it? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, and that's why I included the aerial. Chair Furth: Yeah. Mr. Gutierrez: It's a larger site in the back, and there's kind of the carports here that you can see in the image for this apartment building. There's another apartment building here, as well. It kind of backs up to this end of the site. Chair Furth: And those buildings front on California? Or whatever that street is. California, right? Mr. Gutierrez: I believe so, yeah. That's California. Chair Furth: And so, the apartment building that is to the left, that's parking, basically, and driveways adjacent to the site. Is that right? Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. If you were looking at the site here, you could actually see where they store their trash bins for that site, and it's a driveway right here that leads to the rear where the carports are. Chair Furth: Not what we would permit in the current code for trash storage. Mr. Gutierrez: No, no. It's an existing condition. Of course, if they were to... Chair Furth: And the extensive greenery on the other side, adjacent to the City park, is that on this parcel, or is it on the park parcel? Or both? Mr. Gutierrez: It's a mixture of both. It's a little hard to tell. I've actually visited the site and it's a little dense under there, so I'm not quite sure... Chair Furth: It is dense. Mr. Gutierrez: ...how... Chair Furth: A lot of happy birds. Mr. Gutierrez: ...how it all is located there. It seems like it is a mixture of the two, or goes along the property line. Chair Furth: Okay, thank you. Any other questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Seeing none, if we could hear from the applicant. You'll have 10 minutes for your presentation. And if you could identify yourself and spell your name for our transcriber. Jack Culpepper: Thank you. Good morning, Chair Furth, and Vice Chair Baltay, and members of the Board. My name is Jack Culpepper [spells name]. I'm the owner. I grew up in College Terrace and have a City of Palo Alto Page 26 once-in-a-lifetime opportunity to move back. That's why I'm here. Looking to build a really high-quality house. Looking for high-quality design. With that, I'd like to introduce architect Glen Jarvis and discuss the design. Thanks very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Jarvis? Glen Jarvis, Jarvis Architects: Yes. This is our third hearing. We first had an informational hearing with City Council about the zoning change, and that was October 2017. And they said they liked the building, and they recommended we proceed with the application. And then, last week, we were before the Planning Commission, and they thought that this was, this zoning remnant would be better in the RMD zone, and it would be a more consistent block face and fit better on that side of Wellesley. What the difference in this proposal is, is that we get two good units instead of a house and an in-law unit. We get an extra 500 square feet. It's an increase in parking requirements, and it's a more detailed review, but probably most importantly for this house is the daylight plane. We get an extra five feet of daylight plane in the RMD zone, and what that does is it allows to have a full second story without dormers because you don't have to sit down from the property line, the roof plane, so much. That big roof plane allows us to have a good solar array. We can get enough solar panels in to make this a zero net energy project, and it will be carbon-free, too. Let's see. We have a good basic Craftsman house here, good story, traditional Craftsman house that fits in a historic neighborhood quite well. It's a house that has many signature features. It's designed to be of fine quality, good materials. It will be nice. It will be wood on the inside, besides shingles on the outside. I mean, wood trim on the inside. The landscape is designed with minimal watering, native plants. It will exceed the landscape requirements. We will exceed the green building requirements. And, we are requesting no variances. We just feel that this design meets and exceeds everything that Palo Alto is asking for. Do you have any questions? Chair Furth: I'll find out. Any questions of the applicant from staff, or from board members? Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Just a quick clarification. In the render that we're looking at, basically that part that's kind of in shadow, that's all glass, right? Mr. Jarvis: Pardon? Board Member Thompson: Is that all glass, the...? Mr. Jarvis: There is a carport in the back corner. Board Member Thompson: No, sorry. The front elevation of the building, you have a, sort of a bay window pop-out, and then, there's a window above it, and then, that triangle...? Mr. Jarvis: Oh, that, up in the triangle is wood paneling. Board Member Thompson: This is all glass? Mr. Jarvis: No, that's wood paneling. Board Member Thompson: This is all wood paneling. Mr. Jarvis: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Okay. It was kind of shaded a little differently, so I wasn't sure. Mr. Jarvis: Yeah, sometimes it's hard to get the, you know, when we color the rendering, it... Chair Furth: I think we've got it now. City of Palo Alto Page 27 Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: It's wood. Any other questions? Board Member Thompson: Wait, sorry, just to... Chair Furth: That's all right. Board Member Thompson: ...be clear. The shingles, do they continue, or do they stop? Mr. Jarvis: The shingles go up to the top of the window. And then we have the wood paneling above it. And that's a pretty traditional feature. Often you see it as vertical boards and batten, that type of an idea. Chair Furth: That's Mr. Maybeck [phonetic] saving money. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Thank you for that. Chair Furth: Other questions? Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Thank you for a nice rendering here. Nice to get off the computer and use your hand and pencil. Really wonderful. I'm wondering whether this zone -- and maybe this is more a question for staff -- requires building department issues. How have you addressed them? I'm thinking about full bathrooms in cellar areas. I might be a little confused here because what's called the cellar in New York is different than what is here. Chair Furth: Are you asking if this is code compliant? Are you asking if this conforms to code? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, whether it conforms to code. Is that a question I should address...? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Yes. This, if the rezoning goes through, then two units, two full units would be allowed on this property. They are proposing the second unit to be in the basement, which means that as a full unit, that basement could have a full kitchen, bathroom, and would be required to have that, as well. Board Member Hirsch: The new zone takes care of those issues, right? Chair Furth: The building code permits all those things to be built at this level. Staff is nodding their heads. Any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, one more. In such a determination, how do you decide what level the first floor is versus the cellar plan? You have it three steps up at this point. Ms. Gerhardt: Basements are allowed to be... Or, actually, the first floor is allowed to be three feet off of the ground, off the grade level, so, as long as it stays that three feet, then the lower level is still considered a basement. Board Member Hirsch: To continue with that a little bit further, does that require any outdoor light and air requirements that are specific to that? Ms. Gerhardt: The Building Department is going to have access requirements. That's why we do allow the excavated features, intervening lightwells or below-grade patios. You're seeing those on the plans. Board Member Hirsch: And just one final one. The lightwell, the lightwells, then, every lightwell has to follow that requirement? City of Palo Alto Page 28 Ms. Gerhardt: Lightwells can be three feet wide, so some of these could be potentially smaller, but the Building Department has reviewed this project and... Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: ...feels that it, at least at this point, meets the code. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. How about ventilation in rooms below grade? A requirement for amount of ventilation? Ms. Gerhardt: We're getting a little deep into the building code and it's not my specialty. But again, the Building Department has reviewed it and believes that it's... Board Member Hirsch: And they approved...Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: But just very briefly, these bedrooms require exterior access, and we do require a certain amount of light and air. Any other questions? I had a question. I'm very glad that this lot is being reconfigured. You are speaking to a lot of experienced Craftsman residents. Not in this town. Tell me about the light and air in the lower level unit. I know that you have a patio, I know that you have a staircase. I understand that it will have to have, the excavations will have to have protective railings around them. What I want is reassurance that there will be enough light and air -- primarily light -- in the lower level. Could you explain the fenestration to me and how the light is going to get there? Mr. Jarvis: Most certainly. We're limited by having the main floor at three feet above grade. We're doing... Chair Furth: We're sorry about that. Mr. Jarvis: ... We're doing the very best within the allowed lightwell areas to provide the light and air to the lower unit. We have maximized the allowable lightwells that the building code allows, or the planning code allows. And in that, we have lightwells on both sides of the living space that are at the level of the basement. One is six feet deep, the other one is seven feet deep. The full width of the living space, so we have light on both sides of that. One of the bedrooms has a window facing into that lightwell. Another one, a high window up on the driveway. That window in that bedroom meets the egress requirements for the fire department. And the bedroom on the other side has, we have a lightwell that is not all the way down. We could put it down as far as we're allowed, but that meets the egress requirements for that bedroom and gives it its privacy. And the railings was the other question, and we're looking to have an open iron railing. We want them to be as airy as possible and it's not just going to be an extension of the wall. The lightwells face, both of them face the side yards and not the rear yard, which can be used by both parties. When you're in this basement unit, you do have privacy. There's privacy also because the library has a hedge row going right along the property line, so that's giving us a lot of separation between the public and the private space in both, you know, both in the basement and above. And the apartment house on the right-hand side as you look from the street has about 25 feet of driveway, plus our 10 feet. So, it's 35, 40 feet of separation on that side, and we're looking to see what we can do to make that fence nice. They store their dumpsters against that fence. Chair Furth: They do. We wouldn't allow that now, but they do. Mr. Jarvis: Yeah, and... Anyway. We're doing our best... Chair Furth: You don't have landscape that out. Mr. Jarvis: ... with what's there. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Chair Furth: I understand that you're doing your best, so, will I need to have the lights on all the time if I lived down there? We don't have a long tradition of basement apartments in this town. And I'm used to basement apartments in areas where, you know, it's five or six or seven feet to the first floor. Mr. Jarvis: Right, right. You normally get four or five feet in a Craftsman house. You get... They're normally, like, three feet of crawl space under them, so, this is just down a foot from normal. But I think that we, you know, I think this basement unit is going to be pretty nice. Chair Furth: Thank you. Of course, Mr. Hirsch, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: The first floor is required to be at least four feet? Is that what you're saying? Or could it be five feet off of grade, or...? At least three feet. Now, could it be four feet...? Chair Furth: No, it's the other way around. We only allow them three feet. Board Member Hirsch: We only allow...Okay. Mr. Jarvis: Yeah, we're stuck with a three-foot requirement.... Board Member Hirsch: You're stuck with that. Mr. Jarvis: ... and if you were to lift it a foot, we would be in the daylight plane on the library side. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: David, if they do the first floor higher than three feet, then all of the basement counts as square footage. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: These regulations were adopted when there was a lot of concern about perceived mass of buildings. Generally speaking, semi subterranean living spaces only became popular here starting about 30 years ago. Maybe even less. I came here 20 years ago, and they were just beginning to cause a controversy, so the regulations have been designed to lower it, basically. Any other questions of the applicant or the owner? Seeing none, we'll come back here. Comments? Public comments? I have no speaker cards. Does anybody care to comment? Seeing no one, we'll bring the deliberations up here. Staff have any comments at this point? They do not. Osma, why don't you start. Board Member Thompson: You pick the person that hasn't seen the site. Chair Furth: Okay. Peter, why don't you start. Vice Chair Baltay: Sure, glad to. Glad to start out. I can make the findings to recommend approval. It's a handsome Craftsman-style house in a neighborhood full of Craftsman-style houses, amongst other things. I did scratch my head for a second that it's next to a fairly, what Palo Alto would consider a historic building, a library, and should it be the same architectural style. But I just don't think you could make the finding that that contextualism would need that. It's similar to the houses in the neighborhood and it certainly looks residential, so I think it's quite contextual. Osma beat me to the question about the gable end treatment above the shingles, and I agree that that's a traditional detail. I'm not sure it's executed as traditionally as it ought to be. Perhaps you could just take a suggestion and think about it once more, whether it needs that grid pattern of solid wood pieces, and if it's not a little bit too low down on the façade. But either way, it's going to be fine. The only other design issue I had was that the carport is really out of character with the rest of the house, and I understand you're facing severe daylight plane restrictions with two back sides of the carport, where the property line abuts. Typically, we build a gable end facing the public and leave the back end of it hipped. It's maybe not the perfect architectural City of Palo Alto Page 30 solution, but it meets the daylight plane requirements and stays within the character of the house. Lastly, I'll comment to the staff that there is a live oak tree on the adjacent property to the right, which leans over quite a bit on the property. I suggest that we have an arborist verify that the new construction of the basement will not impact the neighbor's live oak tree. The canopy was not shown on the survey, but it extends, clearly, over this property. I just can't say whether it will be harmed or not, but we should be careful about that. Chair Furth: Board Member Baltay, you're talking about which property? Vice Chair Baltay: The property to the right... Chair Furth: As you face the house from Wellesley. Vice Chair Baltay: ...as you face the house. There is a live oak tree. The trunk of the tree is shown on the plans... Chair Furth: Oh, got it. Vice Chair Baltay: ... but there's no canopy indicated. But on visiting the site, the canopy clearly overhangs this property. I don't believe it goes as far as where the basement will be, but we should be careful about that. It's a simple matter. Other than that, I think it's a handsome design, and I see no reason it shouldn't go forward. Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: I used to live in Lockridge [phonetic] and I used to walk by a lot of houses that looked just like this in Lockridge and Elmwood, and I think you've done an exemplary job of matching the styles. And I think I can make the findings, as well. I would say my main issue is that the basement unit, I think is sort of undesirable, but I don't really see that that's... I don't quite see that in our findings. I would just point out, like, in Boston, like in Cambridge and other towns in New England, they would take the traditional form that you have, and they would do all sorts of interesting interlocking units. Like, my grandparents' house had a three-bedroom house on the top two floors, and then there was a two-bedroom apartment below their house, mostly on the first floor, and then, like, it had one bedroom up on the second floor. And then, the upper part of the house actually had a very steep staircase that connected down to the basement. A really crazy, you know, very steep staircases and what-not, but it allowed all of the units, both units, to get natural light and have porches that faced the back yard or the front yard. And then, the basement was mostly mechanical and utilities-based. I think this is a missed opportunity here, but I will support the project. Thank you. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Well, thank you for your application. It's definitely really charming to look at hand-drawn things. Sort of, not new for me, but definitely unusual. But it's nice to see. I can see that a lot of elements are really well thought out. I apologize, I haven't had a chance to see the site, but I looked on Google Earth and staff report, and it does seem that with the other varying architectural styles that still look very residential, that this would work in that context. I will echo Board Member Baltay's note about the treatment under the gable. I think it's just a... The one downside of showing plans like this is that there is a big of vagueness as to what's actually happening. There's no keynotes on the elevations to indicate what material is actually happening there, which is why I had that question. But in general, I would say that this is a really exciting project. I can recommend approval, but... yeah. Just saying, in the future, it would be helpful to have more keynotes just in terms of understanding exactly what's happening on these exterior elevations. There's still some other hatches here that I can guess. Like, I think I know what that is, but I'm not 100 percent sure. I mean, I thought that was glazing for a second because that's how it was rendered in this print here. So, yeah, in general, I would say I'm pretty supportive. Yeah. Just a few little caveats here and there. That's all. That's all from me. City of Palo Alto Page 31 Chair Furth: Thank you. Who hasn't spoken? David? Board Member Hirsch: Well, I agree with fellow board members on most of what was stated. I have one specific concern. I'm not at all happy with the fact that you can't go up another foot and somehow... Which would make that cellar unit certainly a lot better. The left/west side elevation. I'm wondering if it isn't possible, since you duplicate the window pattern on the floor, of the floor above, you might change the stairway access to the ground so that it provided a bit more light and air in the primary bedroom. I think I'd ask you to look at that. That's on page 3. I know you've solved all the issues of light and air as you described them. I think it's kind of a shame that on the east elevation, you don't have another small window facing out towards the driveway, sort of make that a symmetrical room. On that elevation, it would be possible to do so. Just one moment. It's a little unfortunate that the owners of this house will have to go quite so far to get to the garbage collection, which is on the, kind of opposite side. But I don't think there's an easy way to solve that one, so you've probably done as best you can. Unless there's some way to do it to the back yard, and then it's a long pull for the pails to get out to the street. It's a little far to go around the face of the building there, and I hope the paving would allow you to get there easily. I note that you don't have any plantings shown above the, that strip that's next to the recessed area and the cellar there, the outdoor deck. Although you have a fence, and you said there is planting all along there, I’m not sure that's consistent, so, I'm concerned that whatever fence design -- which is really rather minimally shown in these drawings -- has a way to create privacy to that cellar open space. I think you might look at that, how to detail some of that. I think those are pretty much my concerns. I might have one more. Yes, I have one more item, but it has nothing to do with the ARB. I didn't find a way to get to the cellar from your first-floor plan. It seems to have two closets and no door to the cellar. I'm sure you're going to be correcting that on your own. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for your project. It's good that the lot, which has been without housing for 30 years, will have two units on it. I was interested that you chose a style that is very different from the library that dominates this court, this court, but I think it's an eclectic neighborhood, and this is certainly an acceptable style. I am very concerned about the quality of life in the basement unit. I understand from hearing previous discussions of this and from my colleagues that it's very difficult to get adequate light into a basement unit given our codes. And I think -- this is to staff -- I think you need to rethink that with respect to second units at the lower level. It's not okay to say we're encouraging second units, and then, encourage second units which are too dark. And it's one thing to say we don't want your fifth and sixth bedrooms in your very large house to push your building up high, but this house does not have particularly high floor plates. I mean, you haven't done 12-foot ground floors. Sometimes we see houses where they've been extended to the next. These are moderately-sized first and second stories and an inadequately-sized basement. However, I don't think that it's enough to make me vote no. I took a look at the NP findings which, of course, it's interesting, because they are mostly designed to keep downtown north and -- which is my neighborhood -- and College Terrace, they're designed to discourage the tearing-down of structures. When you tore it down 30 years ago, that's a done deal. So, we are required -- it says here -- to foster retention of existing single-family structures; not going to go. Maintain existing historic and general character of the neighborhood -- I think I'm okay with that. And, we're supposed to review the design... Let's see. We could have design guidelines for College Terrace, but I gather we do not. Is that correct? Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. There are no design guidelines. That code section in particular says that the ARB, at its discretion could come up with... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Right... Mr. Gutierrez: For each area where the NP is overlaying. Chair Furth: Exactly, but it's never happened, so really, the hurdle for this building to go over are the ones that we generally use when we're doing design review. I can make all the findings except the one City of Palo Alto Page 32 with regard to landscaping. I appreciate the California wax myrtle -- the Myrica -- which grows like a proverbial weed. I spend a lot of time whacking it down. But I think you've got it in a good location. I appreciate, I guess it's the ceanothus and a few other things that you have, but I think predominantly the landscaping is what you would see 30's, 40's, 50's, 60's Craftsman, which is charming but doesn't meet the code. In my opinion. I have three concerns, all of which are relatively minor. One is I think the landscaping needs to be addressed a little further so that we do have significant more volume of native plants. I do understand that some of these are good habitat plants, though I don't think Cecile Brunner is particularly. But I don't know. And I would like staff probably to be looking at the landscaping and railings around the lightwells to assure that they are done in a style that maximizes light and air and privacy -- that's going to be a trade-off -- to the basement unit. And then, I had a question about the... The reason I asked the question about the interaction between this house and the park is that, at some point, that park may be more intensively developed and/or used. We have the trash enclosures adjacent to the park, but they are enclosures, so that shouldn't be an aesthetic problem. Is that correct? Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. And also, the trash enclosures for this property, you're going to have landscaping, as well. Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Gutierrez: And then a fence, as well. Chair Furth: Staff, can you take me through what's on the border between...? I'm having trouble reading the landscaping and lighting plan. What's between this property and the park in terms of landscaping and fencing? Mr. Gutierrez: When I visited the site, I could just see a lot of overgrown landscaping, so it was difficult to tell... Chair Furth: Why don't I ask the applicant, then? Mr. Gutierrez: Okay. Chair Furth: Could you explain how the border is going to be? I'm sure you want good visual and privacy screening, as well. Mr. Jarvis: We have the trash enclosure against the building, and then, we have a walkway... Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Jarvis: ...and then a fence, and then a hedge row that's on the library property. Chair Furth: And tell me about the fence. Mr. Jarvis: I'm thinking it's a six-foot board fence. We're trying... I think that finalizing the design of that is really standing out there and looking at how transparent the hedge row is. Because we would... We're trying to make it feel as natural as possible. But the park is, the open part of the park is towards the rear of the property, and this hedge row extends down the length of the building. And so, from the park side, you're not going to see much of this building. You might see the roof. Chair Furth: Yeah, I mean, I... Sometimes we use fencing, which is basically board frame with good-looking, heavy mesh in between that lets the plants grow through and light and air circulate and doesn't present your basement tenant or yourselves with an abrupt view of a fence. Thank you. Okay. Any further discussion. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board Member Lew: Yeah. On the native plants finding, I tend to disagree with you because I think they have enough representation of native plants. And then, the ones where they've departed, things like wisteria, the climbing rose, honeysuckle -- They aren't native options. Chair Furth: But they've been around a long time. Board Member Lew: But there aren't native, there aren't... I've tried some of them, like there's a native clematis that I've been testing out, and it's just not... Chair Furth: Vines are not our strong point. Board Member Lew: Yeah. It's just not there. I would say things like star jasmine and stuff, like, yeah, that could be replaced. Also, things like lavender, which isn't native, is... Chair Furth: Very popular. [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: ... with hummingbirds and what-not. I don't know. Is there a particular...? Chair Furth: Well, I don't really understand the point of, um, pittosporum. Board Member Lew: Yeah, that could be replaced. Pittosporum and star jasmine. But I think the list is generally good. Chair Furth: Like a lot of things aren't. And I do agree that our local butterflies and bees and birds are very fond of lavender. Okay. I had fun looking up some of these plants, actually. They are very interesting. Okay. Would anybody like to make a motion? Board Member Lew: I have one last comment. Chair Furth: Yes? Board Member Lew: Or two last comments. One is, you've got the trash on the left side, and we have these rolling carts, and you've got all these stepping stones, so I don't think that that works very well. And then, I think the other, my last comment is, normally we don't allow air conditioning units in the setbacks, and if you're doing net zero, I'm presuming you're not doing air conditioning, but normally we will have some sort of condition that there's no mechanical equipment in the setback areas. Because sometimes on houses like this, it's tough to find a location for them. Vice Chair Baltay: May I offer a word of advice to you? The Board is concerned about the basement units being habitable. I've designed dozens of basement houses in Palo Alto. If you add a foot to the depth of the basement, you're stuck making two more treads, but you're left with a nine-foot ceiling, which gives you a lot more flexibility to make the rooms more habitable. You'll be fighting plumbing drain lines and any kind of air ducts in the ceilings, and having that extra foot, you will be really happy later when you have to drop some soffits. It just gives a quality to the space that is really lacking because of the daylight, which you (inaudible). Just advice. Board Member Lew: I completely agree with that. That's very well... I think that's really important. Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Lew: And then, I think the other thing, too, on basement lighting, and from the basements that I've seen in Palo Alto, having... If you look on the basement unit, having the living room on Sheet 2 of the basement plan, having the living room and dining room, having windows on both sides, City of Palo Alto Page 34 and having things go down... Like, having doors going all the way to the ground. That actually helps a lot with the light. The basements that I've seen that have done that are actually pretty, they are pretty nice. Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we recommend... Chair Furth: I think the applicant had a comment. Mr. Jarvis: I really looked at that having a nine-foot ceiling, and what I was concerned about was that I was trying to keep the top of the wall in the courtyard as low to your eye level as possible. Trying to find a way to pull that, even pull that courtyard wall down a little bit, so when you're in the room, the proportion of that courtyard wall looked as low as possible. And by giving... We have a beam that goes through the middle of this living space, so I'm trying to break it up into two rooms, but they are totally open on both sides as a way to make that work. But I just wanted to say I thought about that, and I'm happy to review it, too. Thank you. Chair Furth: Okay. Would someone care to make a motion? MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I'll move that we recommend approval of this project as submitted. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Hirsch: I'll second that. Chair Furth: Any comment? I think... Could we add a condition that staff will review access to the trash enclosure? Because I don't... I agree that they don't go very well over stepping stones. The access path to the trash enclosure? And work with the applicant for an increase in native plant materials. I think our conversation made it clear that we think, generally, it's a lovely design. And no mechanical equipment in the setbacks. Ms. Gerhardt: Is this a friendly amendment? Chair Furth: I'm trying it as a friendly amendment. We'll see what happens. Vice Chair Baltay: That's friendly. I'll receive it. Chair Furth: Does the seconder agree? Board Member Hirsch: I agree. Chair Furth: Okay. Anything else? All those in favor say aye. Aye. Well, our first unanimous vote of the day. Thank you very much for your proposal. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH A 5-0 VOTE. Mr. Jarvis: Thank you. Thanks for your comments. Chair Furth: And we'll take a three-minute break before we go on to the major item of the morning. Which they are all major for the applicants and for the City, but this one is Verizon. [The Board took a short break.] 5. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 2 in Barron Park, Palo Alto Orchards, and Charleston Meadows Neighborhoods, and Next to Stanford City of Palo Alto Page 35 Shopping Center [17PLN-00170 File Uses 250 Hamilton Address]: Request by Vinculums (for GTE Mobilnet dba Verizon Wireless) for Seven Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits on Existing Wood Utility Poles in the Public Right of Way. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303. Zoning Districts: Node Locations are Adjacent to R-1 Zones and CC Zone. R-1 Zone: 4206 Suzanne Dr, 3715 Whitsell Av, 785 Barron Av, 792 Los Robles Av, and 3993 Laguna Av; R-1(S) Zone: 4193 Wilkie Wy; CC Zone: Across from 213 Quarry Road Next to Stanford Shopping Center Parking Structure (180 El Camino Real). Alternative Node Locations for Three Primary Node Locations are Adjacent to R-1(S) Zone (362 Carolina Ln, Alternate for 4193 Wilkie Wy Node), R-1 Zone (4013 Amaranta Av, Alternate for 792 Los Robles Av Node, and R-1(10,000) Zone (904 Los Robles Av, Alternate for 3993 Laguna Av Node). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org Chair Furth: We are on our last major hearing item of the day. This is a public hearing. It's a quasi- judicial public hearing on the proposed Vinculums, on behalf of Verizon, Cluster 2 in Barron Park, Palo Alto Orchards, and Charleston Meadows Neighborhoods, and also one next to the shopping center. What these are, are seven small cell node Tier 3 wireless communication facility permits on existing wood utility poles in the public right-of-way. This action is exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act, in accordance with guideline section 15303. The specific locations are 4206 Suzanne Drive, 3715 Whitsell Avenue, 785 Barron Avenue, 792 Los Robles Avenue, 3993 Laguna Avenue, 4193 Wilkie Way, and across from 213 Quarry Road, next to Stanford Shopping Center, a/k/a 180 El Camino Real. There are also proposed telecom installations at 4193 Wilkie Way, 4013 Amaranta Avenue, as an alternate for the 792 Los Robles Avenue node, and 904 Los Robles Avenue, alternate for 3993 Laguna Avenue. And I should warn you that this seems to be a moving, moving proposition as the applicant seeks to find acceptable locations in these neighborhoods. I understand that we have one member of the public, Andrew Mellows, who needs to leave in a few minutes. In the past we have, with the permission of the applicant, let that person speak first so they can be on their way. The applicant is indicating consent, so, Mr. Mellows, if you could come, give us your name and spell it for our transcriber, and you will have three minutes for your comments. Andrew Mellows: Thank you very much for making accommodation for me. My name is Andrew Mellows [spells name]. I reside at 791 Coastland Drive. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Mellows: I reside at 791 Coastland Drive. Chair Furth: Thanks. Mr. Mellows: I've been a Verizon customer for over 20 years. I stuck with Verizon because coverage was so good wherever I went while traveling for work. Meanwhile, my cellphone service at home in Palo Alto required moving out to the front yard to avoid dropping calls. The situation has improved in the last three years. According to the recent article in the Bay Area News Group, written by Kevin Kelly, the current debate involves antennas that will be mounted on light poles. From what you've just said, I think that may not be true, but I'll continue. I asked the representative of the applicant if there had been any discussion about replacing the light poles with more robust structures that would house the equipment safely and support the lights. His reply was that it is complicated because of coordination with other utilities using the same poles. It is not clear if this means lights are hanging from utility poles, or if utilities are hanging from light poles, but the latter seems unlikely. My question, the crux of my point: Has anyone considered just replacing light poles with combined appliances that have cell structures inside them? It seems like, you know, the space is already there. There's no conflict with other utilities. And it seems like a sort of universal solution. I don't know if that's been considered. Anyway, obviously, Verizon does not want to use vaulting because of the cost, although my monthly contribution should be helping City of Palo Alto Page 36 with that. Finally, my feeling is that whatever we allow is a stopgap measure. We want good service, but we think cell towers are ugly and dangerous. We accept the incredibly ugly utility poles and wires over most of our city without question, and I believe the fear of radiation from cell towers has been proved to be unfounded. I wish I could simply fess up to the necessity of installing a robust and dedicated system of tires [phonetic] that could be shared by various providers and accept the aesthetic cost of supporting the cell service we want. You can certainly put a cell tower in my back yard if it was permitted. Thank you very much. I appreciate it. Chair Furth: Thank you. I'm sure they all made note of your address. Thank you very much. All right. Staff? Oh, first of all. Has everybody...? I'll put it the other way. Who has had the opportunity to go visit the sites? Vice Chair Baltay: I have. Chair Furth: I have. Board Member Lew: I visited the sites, but I missed one of them. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Thompson: I have not. Chair Furth: Osma has not. David? Board Member Hirsch: No, I have not. Chair Furth: David has not. Board Member Thompson: I'll be better in the new year. Chair Furth: Okay. It's not easy. This is a lovely, rambling, twisting, well-planted neighborhood. And I found myself frequently lost. But it was enjoyable. Staff? Oh, and I have not had any.... Oh, I've had two conversations during the course of this. I came across Mrs. Song [phonetic], whose correspondence is in our packet, who expressed her regret that she could not take time away from work to come to our hearing, and her letter is in opposition to the installations. And I also ran into an unnamed member of the public who was in favor of more telecommunications facilities, though he understood they were unsightly. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to disclose that I disclosed the project with the city attorney, Albert Yang, yesterday, though I didn't learn anything that's not already on the public record. Chair Furth: All right. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Okay. Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. With me is the project planner, Rebecca Atkinson, who has been a dedicated member, speaking with public citizens who call in and write in about this project. On the screen... There we go. The map on the screen shows the location of the proposed small cell nodes that are to be installed by the company, Vinculums, so that Verizon, the carrier of wireless, can locate there. This is not a co-location of multiple carriers, just one carrier. The description of the project is on the screen. Basically, seven wood utility poles that exist would receive antennas and equipment to provide for LTE service and future 5G service. Verizon seeks additional capacity and increased signal strength in areas that do not have such access to PCS and AWS signal coverage. They can describe that if they would like to. The applicant has provided a detailed alternatives and vaulting analysis. They will go over that in their presentation. The applicant also removed three nodes earlier on in the process. Those are noted on the screen. The five nodes that staff has set up for approval are on the screen - Node 101, 153, the alternative Node 155-F, the alternative Node 157-E, and Node 163. We are seeking comments on Node 104 and Node 154. We are not resolved City of Palo Alto Page 37 with those two as far as recommendation. The aesthetic conditions that we are looking at are focused on the clearances, providing additional street trees -- or amenity trees, as they are called -- and possibly eliminating equipment, or slim lining the equipment, as far as that goes. Those are the types of conditions we look to add to approvals of such projects. We are also interested in comments on possible alternative designs. This is the first of the seven nodes that we are recommending. Sorry, first of the seven nodes that we are talking about today. The midblock node at 4193 Wilkie is the one that staff believes is approvable, and the node at 101-B is also midblock. The one on the left we believe we can add some trees to increase the screening. One-fifty-five, we are suggesting 155-F as the alternative, would be the better of the two. Both of these are midblock locations, but we think 155-F has more screening from existing mature trees. Then, 157, we are suggesting 157-E, the image on the right. There are no trees really needed to be added at this node. Then, 153, this node has no alternative that's proposed. We believe a new amenity tree could be added to improve the screening. Node 163, this is kind of the outlier node at Stanford Shopping Center, not in a residential area. There is one issue, which is the electrical step-down equipment, which is above grade, ground-mounted. And because it is an underground area as laid out in the SUMC Design Guidelines, we are looking to have a different setup for that electrical cabinet. And we also kind of question whether this wood bayonet needs to be this tall because there are no clearance issues, we think there are no clearance issues on this one. And here is Node 104. We have... This is Suzanne, so this is one of the ones that we're not, it's not fully vetted here with their proposal. They are proposing a tree across the street, and it doesn't really screen the tree very well. Chair Furth: Excuse me, are you saying you do want a recommendation from us on 104, or you do not? Ms. French: We would accept comments on this. The applicant has indicated -- and they will discuss this in their presentation -- they indicated that they are thinking to continue these, these two, the 104 and 154. We present it here because the ARB may wish to comment on these anyways. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. French: Node 104, we don't think the screening is working on that one. The Node 150.... Sorry, that was 104. Node 154, we think a tree could be added here and this equipment could be rotated counter- clockwise 90 degrees, and in that way improve matters. You're familiar, with the last meeting we had on December 6th, we had discussion about our consultant. We hired a consultant firm, CTC, and they prepared reports for the Crown Castle project. They are currently preparing a report for this project. We do not have it available today, timelines being what they are. The scope is on the screen. They are preparing a report to meet these scope items. They... Chair Furth: Amy, could you go back? Ms. French: Yes. Chair Furth: I couldn't read that that fast. Ms. French: Okay. I'm happy to go through these. The scope of the CTC is to conduct site visits and inspect the proposed locations; to verify documentation provided in the application; to look at the onsite coverage and capacity tests; to conduct an independent review of the applications for compliance with FCC guidelines on human exposure to radiofrequency and electromagnetic fields. And, examining the area around a proposed site to identify suitable alternative locations; and, identifying potential site design changes to enhance the aesthetics. That's what they are looking at. Their findings are anticipated to be similar to those that they came up with for Crown Castle. Those are on the screen. And of course we don't have those yet, but they are anticipated to be similar to the Crown Castle findings. Their recommendation is likely, again, to be to try to reduce the size of the components, camouflaging the equipment, the cabinets, and to potentially eliminate the 700 megahertz technology from these sites. There are other methods available that are smaller in size, but of course, as we learned at the last ARB meeting, when you introduce the smaller technology, smaller size radios and antennas, the likelihood is City of Palo Alto Page 38 you have to increase the number of poles. So, less radio units are needed, shorter antennas are needed, when you go with that other technology. Also, with the recommendation is... That's basically Design Alternative 1, is to consider these smaller, lower-power antennas, and those could be mounted on the pole top. Design Alternative 2 would be the ground-mounted cabinets, potentially, you know, traditional, more traditional-looking utility cabinets that are not mailboxes, or fake mailboxes. And then, those would lend themselves to shrubs, etc., to disguise them. And then, the Alternative 3 would be vaults. The applicant is going to present to you the feasibility study that they have done node by node, so you can understand that they have done that work to examine vaulting for each site. Here's the images we presented at the last ARB meeting, showing the micro cell design, where the smaller antennas can be on the top of the pole with the radios just underneath. Or, they can be mounted on the side. The radios in the next slide are much smaller in dimension. The comparison here on the left is the proposed RRU 32 radios, and those are 27 inches long. The ones on the right are the Erickson 2203 micro cell units, and those are, you know, much smaller. As far as the size, they're square, seven inches, 7.8 inches. Chair Furth: Amy, could you go back to the previous slide? Ms. French: Yep. Chair Furth: The design on the left is a staff proposal? Ms. French: No, it's not a staff proposal, and it's not an applicant proposal. It's the CTC report, prepared these images as a, kind of a diagram, a cartoon diagram, if you will, to kind of illustrate what that would look like if we were to, you know... Chair Furth: And the image on the left shows nothing attached to the pole except the antenna radio installation at the top of the pole. Is that right? Ms. French: Yeah, so, these are not showing the type of shrouding or anything else. Just kind of the general location of the antenna and [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: But this would be it, right? Would there be other equipment on the pole, as well? Rebecca Atkinson, Project Planner: It's my understanding there would be a need for an electrical disconnect, but in general, it would be slim and clean, as represented in the [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: This drawing doesn't show us anything on the pole as far as I can tell, except something on the top of it. Is that what it would be? The cable, perhaps? Ms. Atkinson: Generally, yes. Board Member Lew: Wynne, if you read through all the documents... Chair Furth: I've got nine-tenths of them. Board Member Lew: Yeah, but I think that the.... I think Vinculum is saying that there would be, at least with, if there were... Maybe I'm mixing (inaudible). With the vault system, I think that they were larger cables. I'm not sure.... There's no shrouding shown at the moment, right? [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Just keep this in mind. Ms. French: Okay, sure. We can continue with the presentation... [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 39 Chair Furth: ... point of view of the public, in particular, what their poles would look like. This is very different than what we [crosstalk]. Ms. French: Right. Just, again, the applicant is not proposing this solution. This is alternatives that our consultant has put out there for the City to wrestle with as we look at these applications. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. French: The goal of today's meeting is for the ARB to recommend the conditional approval of five nodes, and using the architectural review standards, we have these wireless communication facility permit development standards, we have not put findings in front of you. We just have the generic findings, and those are in the packet. We also have two conditional use permit findings we have to make, weaving the planning and community environment director... The conditions of approval are in process. Again, here we are. Next steps for the public. Today is our discussing of the proposal, hearing from members of the public, public testimony. We've received quite a bit of comment, and we do have at places some of these comments. In fact, they are as recent as Tuesday of this week. And then, there would be a request for a recommendation to the director, and the director would, you know, try to make a decision following the ARB hearing. Or, the Director could refer this to the Council to make the decision. If the Director makes the decision, then there is a 14-day appeal period which could be individually for each node, appeals. Rebecca's contact is listed on the screen. And we do maintain a website, the City Manager maintains a website, and we try to keep those updated with the most recent information. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we go on? All right, we do have a number of speaker cards, but first, we should hear from the applicant. You have 10 minutes, and please introduce yourself, and spell your name for the record. Jeremy Stroup: Good morning, Board members. My name is Jeremy Stroup [spells name]. I'm with Vinculums Services, and today, I'll be representing Verizon Wireless. The 10 applications before the Architectural Review Board represent Cluster 2 of the Verizon Small Cell Project. These include seven proposed primary nodes, with three proposed alternate nodes, located on wood utility proles. Because more than one viable candidate was found for three of our applications, these three alternate nodes have been made available for the ARB to choose the most appropriate pole location in relation to their primary pole candidates. If the ARB chooses an alternate, the primary pole would be removed from project consideration. Three nodes were removed from the original Cluster 2 submittal due to insufficient vaulting solutions at these locations. The staff report includes a copy of our project description. In this document, we described our pole selection process, and we're prepared to address any questions you may have prior to choosing which of the three alternative poles are most appropriate. Cluster 2 nodes are located within the Barron Park, Charleston Meadows, Palo Alto Orchards, Fairmeadow, and Stanford Shopping Center neighborhoods. Just a little background for our newest ARB member. This project began in June 2016 when the Palo Alto City Council voted in favor of a master license agreement, allowing Verizon Wireless to attach its equipment to City-owned utility poles. After the agreement was signed, Verizon worked with multiple city departments to understand the City's ordinances, and to best facilitate the Palo Alto small cell project. After three ARB hearings, this Board recommended approval of our Cluster 1 design. These included shrouding the pole-mounted equipment and cabling to offer a more streamlined, cohesive look; removal of ground-mounted radio equipment; shrouding the wooden bayonet installed between the top of the wood utility poles and the antennas; reducing the standoff distance from equipment to pole; and, working with the Urban Forestry department and a city-approved arborist to identify opportunities for Verizon to provide amenity trees near poles to screen equipment. Because this is the recommended design by this Board, Cluster 2 incorporates all these elements. The Board also requested that future nodes be undergrounded to the greatest extent feasible. We exhaustively explored this option, and I'd like to share those findings with you today. Placing radios in an underground vault requires a great deal of engineering review. Because of this, Verizon has a limited number of approved vault designs for in-field usage. The interior dimension of the vault you see on your screen is approximately four foot by six foot, which requires an excavation dimension of approximately 10 foot by 18 feet. This is the smallest approved vault capable of holding our proposed equipment in Palo Alto. This City of Palo Alto Page 40 photo spotlights one of the biggest fundamental challenges we face when attempting to underground equipment in the right-of-way -- Limited space. Underground vaults require a significant amount of equipment, more than just the approved pole-mounted equipment. They must include noise generating fans to keep equipment cooled; venting to allow hot air to escape the vault; water pumps to expel accumulated water from within the vault; and, most importantly, they must be large enough to fit a technician to work safely in and around the vault per OSHA standards. In order to install underground vaults in Cluster 2, we also worked with City staff to establish parameters for feasible vaulting locations. If any of these parameters were present at a location, the location would be deemed infeasible. These include interference with existing underground utilities such as residential sewer laterals, city sewers, natural gas mains, underground high-voltage power lines, and city storm drains. Excavating within drip lines of protected trees such as coast redwood and coast live oak trees is prohibited. Private property such as driveways or residential walkways cannot be encroached upon. Finally, CPAU requires excavation setbacks of five feet from any utility pole and guywire anchors in order to maintain the structural integrity of the pole. There are conditions that would significantly interfere but do not necessarily preclude vaulting. They are excavation within the drop lines of private and city trees, necessitating their removal; extensive redesigns to residential landscapes such as re-routing private fences, and the reclamation of perceived residential front yards located within the right-of-way; residential gas and water lines; and the installation of bollards to prevent cars parking on top of the vault where no such bollards currently exist today, sometimes in perceived residential front yards located within the right-of-way. We also have Verizon and (inaudible) parameters. Small cell technology was designed to place antennas and radios closely together to improve uplink performance. In your packets we have provided vault feasibility reports for each node, detailing these specifics. These reports have concluded that none of our proposed node locations are feasible to place underground vaults. And once again, just to reiterate, we've removed three nodes from the original Cluster 2 submittal due to those insufficient vaulting solutions at those locations. We are prepared to address any questions about our vaulting analysis today. Verizon has also performed community outreach efforts to better inform the public of our project. These include posting an informational website, holding community meetings, and fielding phone calls and emails from the public. We also constructed a mock site at 1350 Newell Road for public viewing. This Board directed Verizon Wireless to explore the option of placing equipment underground to the greatest extent feasible. As we have demonstrated by our analysis, this is not feasible for our seven primary node locations, nor the three alternate node locations. Staff recommends conditional approval of Node 101 at 4193 Wilkie Way; Node 153 at 3715 Whitsell Avenue; Node 155-F at 4013 Amaranta Avenue; and Node 157-E at 904 Los Robles Avenue. We concur with staff and request this Board affirm these recommendations to the Planning Director. Staff also recommends conditional approval of Node 163 at 180 El Camino Real, requiring that any proposed ground-mounted equipment be eliminated or placed underground with proper tree protection, and without impacting the tree scape outlined in the Stanford Medical University Center design guidelines. Because undergrounding the ground-mounted electrical transformer would not impact Verizon's radio equipment, Verizon is requesting the Board recommend conditional approval to underground all ground-mounted equipment, to the greatest extent feasible. Verizon will work with staff and CPAU to identify an appropriate location. Staff recommends the denial of both Node 104 at 4206 Suzanne Drive, and Node 154 at 785 Barron Avenue, due to visual prominence or lack of screening, visibility at an intersection without screening, proximity to curbs and existing driveways, reduction of sidewalk clearances, and equipment facing the street. Because Verizon received approval of a corner pole location at an intersection in Cluster 1, Verizon is requesting clarification from the Board today about visibility and appropriate screening from intersections and request a continuance for those two applications in order to implement ARB guidance, unless ARB finds them to be satisfactory. These sites are an accumulation of over two years of collaboration between Verizon, City staff, the ARB, City Council, and the residents of Palo Alto, to create custom designs that meet the unique needs of this community, while also meeting Verizon's network needs to increase coverage and capacity. They also represent the previously-recommended ARB design of our Cluster 1 sites, and the approved design of both Planning Director and the City Council. This collaboration has produced a state-of-the-art small cell network designed specifically for the residents of Palo Alto. Lastly, I'd like to just note that the alternative designs that were presented today by staff are for a different project and do not apply to these applications. They are not part of our proposal. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 41 Chair Furth: Thank you. For the record, could you give me the node numbers on the two items that you wish to have continued? Mr. Stroup: Yes. They are Node 104 and Node 154. Chair Furth: One-oh-four and 105. Mr. Stroup: One-fifty-four. Chair Furth: One-fifty-four. Glad I tried that one. One-oh-four and 154. That matches my previous notes. Thank you. We won't continue that until after we hear from the public, but let's remember to do that as a first thing when we start discussing. Thank you for your presentation. I have four speaker cards. Everybody is entitled to three minutes. I should tell you that Board Member Baltay has to leave at noon, and some of us have to leave shortly thereafter, but we will do our best. We do have a lot of written communications. I should also remind you that we have no jurisdiction or expertise, particularly with regard to the issue of safety of this equipment, with respect to human health. We do have a letter from the public, which encloses a copy of a local congress person's letter to the FCC, stating that the research that purports to show the safety of this equipment does not perhaps... Does not, in their opinion, adequately address 5G technology. But, again, we have no expertise on this. We are limited to discussing aesthetics. The first speaker is Jerry Fan at 3715 Whitsell, to be followed by Michele Pridmore Brown, perhaps. Mr. Fan. Jerry Fan: Thank you. My name is Jerry Fan. [spells name]. I live at 3715 Whitsell, and I, together with our neighbors Saeid on 3810 Whitsell, Grady on 3818 Magnolia, oppose the proposed antenna equipment, and request alternatives solutions like undergrounding or moving to another site. Chair Furth: For the record, you're Node 153. Mr. Fan: Right. Thank you. The first thing I want to mention is that the pole actually sits well within the drip line of two Coastal redwood trees. If you'll look at the slide, I've included an image there. That's taken directly from the bottom. The picture that Verizon showed in their simulations is not an accurate representation of what is actually there. The pole is also, it's really close to a tree. I think the branches would be endangered, and the tree, which is a protected tree, would be a hazard to that tree. Power poles have been proven to show, responsible for past fires in Napa, Sonoma, and most recently, the devastating Camp Fire in Paradise that basically destroyed the town. The pole is in full view from our windows, and also front door. Our neighbor at 3810, directly from the front and the bedroom windows. It's also in full view from the house across the street from us. I think it's also... Lastly, it is also visible from the intersection, the four-way intersection, because our property is on the corner. There is no issue currently with coverage because Saeid, at 3810, is a Verizon customer. He's never had an issue with cellphone or data. He's gone as far as pole -- sorry -- Bol Park, which is, like, half a mile away, no issue with coverage. So I'm not sure I believe Verizon's claim that they need to improve that. Lastly, the equipment is ugly, and it's intrusive, and I think is more suitable to an industrial zone and not suitable for a quiet residential neighborhood. I mentioned before that the simulated image is really nothing less than an attempt to minimize the ugly equipment because they simply chose the best side to represent the simulation. If they had chosen, you know, this side, it would be a lot more intrusive, so, I don't think their simulation is accurate. I just want to point out that I mentioned that it's within the drip line of the Coastal redwood trees. I don't want to damage those trees. Our city's name -- Palo Alto -- means "Tall Tree." I think it's important to note that in my, in my proposal. Lastly, you know, if you do a cursory, just a cursory Google search about undergrounding equipment, you'll find examples in Europe from Ericsson and Swisscom, where they were able to put an under-grounded vault within a manhole. So, I think it's inaccurate to say, like, it's not, not feasible, based on their current guidelines and recommendations. Chair Furth: Okay, thank you Mr. Fan. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Mr. Fan: Sorry, one last point. Andrew Mellow, who proposed that he wants an antenna in his back yard, I will take that trade. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Fan: Thank you. Chair Furth: And our next speaker is Michele Pridmore Brown, to be followed by Tina Chow. Tina Chow: Hi, I'm actually Tina, but Michele had to leave. She gave me a print-out of what she wanted to read. Can I read it and give you guys a copy? Chair Furth: You're speaking on behalf of Tina, or do you have remarks of your own? Ms. Chow: I am Tina. Michele, who had... Chair Furth: Why don't you do your remarks first. Ms. Chow: Okay. Chair Furth: Sorry. And with respect to Tina Chow's comments, you can submit them to staff, but... Vice Chair Baltay: She's Tina. Chair Furth: You're Tina. Michele's comments. Yes. You can submit them to staff. They can make copies available and we'll read them if we can. I'm typically one speaker behind on names, so I apologize. In this case, I was ahead. Ms. Chow: All right. So, my name is Tina Chow. [spells name]. I live in Barron Park neighborhood. I have a PhD in civil and environmental engineering, and I’m a professor at UC Berkeley. I care a lot about creating cities which are safe, resilient and beautiful, and inclusive to all. I'd like, with my comments, to re-emphasize that Verizon should put all ancillary equipment underground. Undergrounding makes sense, and it's feasible for all of Palo Alto, not just downtown. Verizon can do this. It's just more expensive to them. I think we should consider many issues. First is to consider safety. Fire risk is increased, as we just heard, with heavy equipment mounted on utility poles. We know that utility poles have been implicated in the recent devastating California fire. Second, neighborhood aesthetics. Cell towers are not pretty, and it looks even worse with equipment hanging off the poles. Just as an example, the alternate Node 157-E, which is shown now, would be completely visible from inside the properties at 899, 900, 904 Los Robles, and at 4008 Laguna Way, in addition to being visible from the two nearby intersections. And then, Node 154, which was just mentioned by Verizon, is easily visible at the stop sign across the street, as an example. So, for aesthetic and various other reasons. In addition, home values will decrease if cell towers are placed so close to homes. And there are alternatives where cell towers could be limited to specific setbacks, which is 200 feet from residences. Then, next is the increased noise. Even if Verizon says that they will use quiet equipment in their initial pole-mounted insulation by not including batteries, there is nothing to prevent Verizon from installing back-up batteries with loud fans at a later date, and they have done this before in Palo Alto. Finally, our city needs to be inclusive to all. Electro magnet hypersensitivity -- EHS -- is a recognized disability under the Americans with Disabilities Act. Greater setbacks from homes will help. Electro sensitive people also fare better when ancillary equipment is vaulted. Vaulted equipment is flush to the ground and is not a problem for people in wheelchairs or for people using bicycles or strollers. I've studied the vaulting reports that Verizon has submitted, where they say that there are sewer and gas lines, yet they have done undergrounding in other communities like ours. So, doing the vaulting is feasible. Cables can be longer to consider different vault locations, for example. The staff has kindly requested input from the community, and I say that if the proposed sites do not allow for vaulting, then new locations must be found. There is no reason to compromise our neighborhoods for the convenience of Verizon. Finally, the cell service from Verizon is presumably for us City of Palo Alto Page 43 residents. If you go to Verizon's website to sign up for their cell phone service, it shows full coverage over Palo Alto. It's unclear what they're trying to communicate if you zoom in and see if the maps are showing full coverage. It's a little deceiving when you're trying to figure out what they're talking about. Over the past year, you -- the ARB -- and the City Council have received hundreds of letters from residents who object to Verizon's plan. Very few letters have been on the other side, and I would argue that those people have been unaware of what Verizon really wants to do in our neighborhoods. I'm asking you to please continue to protect and enhance the quality of life in our beautiful city by directing Verizon to put all equipment underground for all the cell towers it wants to install in Barron Park. I think you for listening, and for all that you do to support Palo Alto residents. Chair Furth: Thank you, and if staff would make a copy of the other material and distribute it to us and the public, we'll be able to take a look at it. The next speaker is not Michele Pridmore Brown. There is no next speaker. Anybody else wish to speak? ??: [inaudible and off microphone] Chair Furth: Our rules only permit people to speak in larger groups or for themselves. I'm sorry about that. ??: [inaudible and off microphone] Chair Furth: I've asked staff to make copies and they will do that now, and distribute it to us and leave it at the public comment table. They can find somebody to do that. Our rules... Basic rules on this are things that we receive before the meeting starts, we make copies of and distribute if we don't already have them on the website or some other form of distribution. But, I'm sorry, we didn't know that we would be running this late, and she didn't have an opportunity to submit it earlier. Or speak earlier. All right. Applicant, would you care to respond? You have 10 minutes. Paul Albritton: Good morning, Paul Albritton, outside counsel for Verizon Wireless. Good to see you again, and thank you for all... Chair Furth: You still need to spell your name. Mr. Albritton: Okay. See if I can do that. Chair Furth: And give us an address, actually, under our rules. Mr. Albritton: It's Albritton [spells name], and I'm at 155 Sansome Street in San Francisco. Outside counsel for Verizon Wireless, and again, thank you for your time today. As you heard, this has been a Verizon Wireless project that's been in process for two years, over two years, in fact, so I want to reiterate that we have now, with these additional five nodes now, a total of 16 nodes that are before you, of the 93 that are being proposed by Verizon. And we are actively looking at vaulting solutions, but these are the sites where underground utilities, adjacency to trees, lack of space, required bollards, and phasing into front yards and so forth, preclude vaulting, and I think staff agrees in their recommendations that these are the sites that can go forward without vaulting. And I want to reiterate that we have a unique design that we worked over a year with your board to come up with a shroud that's narrow, covers all the radios, hides all the cables. If you've been to the mock site -- and I hope you've been to the mock site -- it includes a shroud for the bayonet itself that tapers up to the antenna, and we believe of all the facilities -- and I've been involved in these facilities up and down California -- is the best concealed and most aesthetically acceptable of this type of wireless facility that's being put forward by Verizon Wireless. You saw some early pictures from CTC. That's related to another project, not our project. And the low-powered radios that may have been suggested there require three to four more radios than what Verizon is proposing. We put 400 of that type of small cell in San Francisco, in addition to 70 of the slightly higher power, middle power radios. The benefit of the radios that Verizon is City of Palo Alto Page 44 proposing for these poles, and they've been designed to fit the verticality of the pole within that shroud, is that we need fewer poles by a factor of four. So, that's... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, a factor of four, did you say? Mr. Albritton: Yeah, it takes three to four times as... If I may, the wattage of the radios, of the smaller radios, is about five watts. The wattage per channel of the radios that we're prosing today is about 40 watts. We're covering an area of approximately 1,500 feet radius as opposed to 500 feet, which is the smaller radios. If you go to the smaller radios, then you just need many more of them. On my block in San Francisco, there are three small cells on light standards around my block to provide service to a very dense urban situation, which is actually, you've got some smaller radios in downtown Palo Alto right now. They fit in in certain circumstances, but that's not the technology that we are proposing. That's we propose the technology that we are proposing. And I don't want to get legal, but I will for a moment, to say that case law is that you can't dictate the technology that we use. In other words, you can't tell us that we have to put in a tower, a macro tower instead of small cell, so that we have to put in small cells instead of a macro tower, that we have to use little radios instead of big radios. That aside, this is the technology that Verizon believes is best for Palo Alto to provide the service is needed in 4G. There was a mention of 5G by the staff. This is 4G, and there are no present plans to upgrade these to 5G. This is a 4G proposal. We can speak to any of those suggestions that were made. The CTC report for Verizon has not been released. I have to say that two years ago, Verizon agreed with the City Attorney's office and we have a written agreement that CTC will not be looking at the coverage and availability of different frequencies and megahertz with respect to this application. That, again, is because of a legal position that, as a telephone corporation, Verizon has rights to put telephone equipment on telephone poles without the evaluation of what the necessity is. All that aside, this is a two-year process to come up with a design. We spent quite a bit of time getting permits and building the mock-up, revising the mock-up, to come up with a design that was acceptable to your Board, and I have to say, to the City Council. We think that if you have been to the mock-up, it is an aesthetically-acceptable design for utility telephone equipment on a telephone pole. We strongly believe that vaulting creates many impediments to what we do now and in the future. Vaults don't have a future. The radios are getting smaller, as I've described, as we densify a network, and the smaller the radios, the closer they have to be to the antennas so that there's less signal loss in a vault. These are 10-year permits. They are apt to be obsolete, certainly to be obsolete within that timeframe. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Albritton: We encourage you to follow the staff's recommendation, and we're here to answer any questions you may have. Chair Furth: Does anybody have any questions of the applicant? Mr. Albritton: Last footnote is we did submit over 400 Verizon customers who had sent a text message of support for the facilities. Thank you. Chair Furth: I have a question for you. But, before I ask it, does anybody else have any questions of the applicant? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I do have one, but... Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Thompson: ...I can wait, actually. Or do you want me to go now. Chair Furth: We need to be focused if we can, but... City of Palo Alto Page 45 Board Member Thompson: Yeah. In terms of structural analysis of pole mounting, so, the proposal that you have right now, you've done a thorough structural analysis that this is feasible and will not compromise the structural integrity of the existing pole? Mr. Albritton: Yeah, that's a great question. We have. The structural analysis is called an oak-out [phonetic], and we've done one, performed one on each of these nodes. They are included in the construction drawings. Just to note, the oak-outs themselves, what's considered maximum load is 38 percent of what that pole can hold. That includes all existing infrastructure, so it's going to be cable, cable lines, power lines, and any other equipment that's located on it. It can only go to a maximum of 38 percent and we are well under that. If there's any new poles, actually the threshold goes down to 25 percent, so we are well within what oak-outs deem safe. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Thanks. Chair Furth: The question I have is that we have a letter, we have a lot of letters, but this one is from Dan Adams at 3550 Whitsell, who complains about the noise from pole-mounted equipment, that he says based on what's out there already, is audible within 50 feet, and it's within 25 feet of the... He's talking about particularly his situation next to number 153. These things are noisy, you can always hear them. Not necessarily code-violating noisy, but disruptive-noisy. Can you tell us about when and how they make noise? Mr. Albritton: I hope you all don't remember that when I was before you six years ago, five or six years ago with the AT&T project that was approved for nine of these nodes in Palo Alto, that your board removed the battery backup, and the City Council required battery backup for the AT&T system. The AT&T system has two by two foot battery backup boxes that have fans... Chair Furth: Not lovely. Mr. Albritton: ...that keep them cool. No. In fact, the Verizon design is far superior to that AT&T design. Chair Furth: You have a better client now? Mr. Albritton: In fact, I don't represent AT&T anymore. But the point here is that Verizon is removed the battery back up from this design, sot here are no moving parts in this facility. There are the radios that have no moving parts. They have fins in the back that keep them cool. And then there is the antenna. There is no moving part and no noise from these facilities. Unlike the AT&T facility, unlike the Comcast boxes which have battery backups, and unlike other battery backup units for AT&T and the light speed project, there is no mechanical parts, no noise from these facilities. They've been designed... Chair Furth: So, our letter writers also say Verizon says there are no batteries, but once we approve these, there's nothing we can do to keep them from adding batteries at a later date. Could you comment? Mr. Albritton: Yes. That's addressed actually in your staff report. They reference a federal law that allows wireless companies to modify existing facilities. It's generically called Section 6409 of the Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. But because we have... That laws says that we can't defeat the concealment elements of our project, and we have put a shroud, we have carefully shrouded all the parts of it. I've described to you how it's vertically integrated into the pole. Anything that deviated... Even if it qualified for that, it would have to go through a review by the department, but we can't do anything that's going to modify the look of what we have now, and I think that carefully restricts what we're able to do. But we'd have to go through permits, we'd have to comply with noise ordinances and all sorts of things. You've also -- sorry to go on so long -- you've changed your law since AT&T was approved, so that now we have to get a conditional use authorization, which means we have to comply with the City of Palo Alto Page 46 general plan LDN noise levels. The problem we're having with vaulting is we cannot comply with the LDN noise levels that are now applied under your general plan... Chair Furth: With respect to adding batteries to your installations on the pole, are you saying that this would not be possible without further City discretionary review. Mr. Albritton: It would not be possible without further City review. If we were able to actually come up with something that was... Chair Furth: Both invisible and inaudible? Mr. Albritton: Yeah. Then we might be able to have an administrative review, but it would still require... Chair Furth: Well, we're not particularly interested in building permit-style review. What they want reassurance about is that they will not find themselves listening to fan noise because the City had to approve it based on your approval today. Mr. Albritton: Right. We have no plans to do that, and... Chair Furth: They don't find that reassuring. Mr. Albritton: ... and given the battery technology of today, I don't know how we do that and remain within our current concealment. Chair Furth: Do you believe both sound and visible appearance are covered by the shroud, you know, the stealth rules? In other words, the rules say that you can't -- according to our city attorney -- the rules say that you can't go ahead with a cell, a hidden approach, an aesthetic approach, and then, modify it in a way that eliminates that stealthiness. Mr. Albritton: That's correct. You can't defeat the concealment elements. Chair Furth: Exactly. And are you saying that applies to sound as well as visible? Mr. Albritton: Noise is not referenced in that act that I mentioned to you. Chair Furth: What I hear is that they are correct, that there could be batteries at a future date that could create noise that might not be subject to City discretionary review. Mr. Albritton: And my response is that because conditional use authorization is now required for a Tier 3 wireless facility, we have to comply with the general plan day/night average noise standard, which is approximately 53.6 dB at the property line. That's an almost impossible standard to meet. If we were able to meet that 53 dB at the residential property line, that would be a pretty quiet battery. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant before we bring this back to the Board? Mr. Albritton: And we don't think any vault can meet that standard. Chair Furth: I beg...? Mr. Albritton: I'm sorry. We don't think any vault can meet that noise standard. That's our problem right now. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. Well, we have 15 minutes before we lose a board member. I just want to note that we do not have our consultant's report, and we do not make any determinations about adequacy of cell coverage, and we do not make any determinations about radiation or any of those City of Palo Alto Page 47 things. We are making recommendations on issues of aesthetics and whether this is minimally intrusive. But CTC does make recommendations about location of equipment and alternatives that are based on aesthetic judgments, right? That's why we had that series of photographs last time. Ms. French: That's correct. Chair Furth: We're missing part of the reporting that we would generally have. And the other thing... This is just an observation for my fellow board members. It's been going on for four years, that we have not managed to make neighborhoods feel very good about this, at all. One of the things that really struck me in looking at Barron Park is what a different environment it is for installing equipment than any of the other ones that we've looked at. They are the reverse of an undergrounded neighborhood. They have more than an average number of poles. They have lots of equipment dangling from them. They have no sidewalks, generally, so it's a completely different street-side environment. And I find it pretty confusing. I also find it unfortunate that when we have a clean utility environment, when we have undergrounded utilities and light poles, it's pretty easy to determine that typically-proposed equipment doesn't meet the standards, because the standard is a very clean environment. When we get to Barron Park where they are already coping with a tremendous number of wires and were really damaged by the advent of cable television and those low-hanging, thick, heavy cables that loop through their trees, it's harder to be protective. I simply say that. I am open to comments. Do you want to talk about these node by node? Do you want to talk about the project generally? Peter, first of all, what do you have to say? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to start, Wynne. I'd like to pick up where you just left off because I think us as a board, the city as a whole, the City Council even, when they upheld the appeal, I think did the opposite. Didn't really address. We have to make findings here. They're predominantly affected with the aesthetics. In our findings, I'm going to refer to Finding #2e. Chair Furth: Page? Vice Chair Baltay: I'm reading Architectural Review Board findings. Chair Furth: Packet page? Vice Chair Baltay: I'm reading from page 22 of our packet. This is just printed on a previous application, but these findings are part of the statute which we operate under. Says that we have to find that the project has a unified and coherent design that enhances living conditions on the site. I call special attention to the word "enhances." "Enhances" means to make it better. I'll turn to the next finding, Finding #3. We're required to find that the design is of a high aesthetic quality, etc., etc. The last phrase says that enhance the surrounding area. With those in mind, I think all of us have had the approach that these utility poles are ugly. These equipment mountings on the poles are okay because they're just making it a little bit more ugly. It's a bad situation, we're just making it a little bit worse. It's okay because it's already bad. And that's where I cannot make that finding. They're supposed to enhance the living conditions, enhance the situation for the community, for the aesthetics in our area. I put that to my colleagues on the board. We're starting a slippery slope of allowing just incrementally worse. Nobody is arguing that these are an improvement, and that's what we're expected to find. That's what our findings require. That's what we need to be doing here. I think we should be putting forth a standard requiring that all pole-mounted equipment, or all ancillary equipment to these antennas needs to be concealed. It needs to be somehow out of sight. Obviously, it could be underground. It might also be concealed in some existing infrastructure that is already in place, perhaps. Or concealed by some existing landscaping. The City needs to come up with a clear definition of "concealed" needs to be, but in general, it probably means vaulting these things. And I think we have to say that that's the only way to meet the findings we have. I'm comfortable coming around, saying that the antennas on top of the poles do enhance the living condition. They don't detract aesthetically from these poles, I think, and I think my colleagues have found that repeatedly over applications. The antennas are not the problem, be it on street lights or on wood utility poles. The pole-mounted equipment does not enhance the condition. I'll refer you to photo simulation of Node 104 or Node 101. Both have very nice photo simulations showing what it will look like, City of Palo Alto Page 48 and I do not think you can argue that this is an enhancement of the neighborhood, which is what is required in our findings. I'd like to comment on the applicant's statements about vaulting. If they are allowed to define the parameters such that you need a vault that is four foot by six foot inside, and then state that you need a space that, I heard one of the dimensions was 18 feet on the exterior to put that in place, when they define the parameters that are being required, it does make it next to impossible to do. I've seen many other examples of underground equipment that could be vaulted in much smaller situations. Could it be such that a technician doesn't need to get into it? How can it be that the staff is showing us antennas that are the size of a small traveling suitcase? I think there's far too much uncertain with what the technical requirements really are to be putting forth such stringent stipulations regarding vaulting. What I feel is that the applicant is not seriously making an effort to conceal this equipment by other means, of which vaulting is one of them. Lastly, I've been cautioned by the attorney, and I think it makes sense to include some sort of caveat that whatever we require of the applicant has to be feasible. We're not out to stipulate something that's not possible. I think the applicant has used that term before, and we had on a previous application that we approved that it had to be concealed to the greatest extent feasible. I think we have to expand the concept that "feasible" means maybe that particular location, that particular pole is not feasible because the equipment can't be concealed. In that case, finding another pole where concealment options are feasible. If we allow ourselves to define "feasible" as only within a given location, we severely limit what can be done. Our definition of "feasible" has to be such that other locations are considered as well, so that the concealment of the equipment is possible. Again, I point to my colleagues that Findings 2.e. and 3 require us to find that this be an enhancement of the area, and I don't think that's possible, what we're showing today. Thank you. Chair Furth: Peter, just for the record, so that somebody reviewing our discussion would understand why they're not an enhancement, give me a few words. Vice Chair Baltay: Very well. I'm looking at photo simulations showing the pole having a slender, tapered effect with strictly wires on it, and yet I see this brown metal box approximately 10 feet tall, maybe eight feet above the sidewalk. I don't think that looks better. I think it looks part of an ugly utility pole. It's only a little bit worse. Chair Furth: But it's worse. Vice Chair Baltay: Unfortunately, that's not the finding we have to make. And I think you can make that for every one of these simulations. I think that's even the case on the very nice test case that's been put in place for us in town. There’s certainly been an effort to show that. I just can't find that it's an enhancement. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you for the presentation, and I think that the photo simulations were actually very well done. I think also your vaulting and alternative report was actually very well done. I do have a criticism of the site plans, and I had that same criticism from the last application. The site plans, there are a lot of out-of-date things on the plans, and in some cases, they are actually incomplete. I'll just give you an example. Like on Node 101, there is an addition in a garage at 381 Carolina that are not shown on your plans. They are shown in some of the photos. Node 155, the house is not shown. You're just showing trees, but somebody's house is actually there. Node 155-F, there is a new house under construction, and I think you're showing the old house. And on Node 163, this is on Quarry Road, there are some existing vaults that are shown on your, you are showing them on your utility plan, but then they don't show up on your site plan. I think there could be some coordination issues with the new and existing vaults. I'm generally supportive of the staff recommendation. I think the most troubling ones were, to me, were 104 and 154, and that's just because the sites are more visible. There are less street trees. There are driveways where new screening trees cannot be added because of the existing driveways, so I do think that those are more problematic. My hunch is that on 104, there might not be a better location. I looked at the alternative report. One-fifty-four, I think I'm in agreement with staff. I think that maybe that could work somehow. And I think to Peter's comments, I haven't really thought City of Palo Alto Page 49 about the findings in detail, but I think that you're trying to change the policy. The staff policy is stealth and minimize size, right? And you're actually taking it one more step and saying "concealed," and I think that's where you lose me on that. And then, we'll have to debate with staff on the issue about enhancements, enhancing the sites, so I haven't really thought about it. Maybe, Rebecca, if you have any thoughts about that. Ms. Atkinson: I think at that point, the development standards are in your packet as an attachment, and the development standards from our wireless code specifically talk about concealment, stealth and camouflage screening. I'm looking specifically at Development Standard (i)(6). Chair Furth: What page of the packet are you on? Ms. Atkinson: Packet page 178. And at the same time, Board Member Baltay is exactly correct in regard to Architectural Review findings, packet page 180, 2.e. and 3. You can just compare the language. Again, just to reiterate, concealment, screening, camouflage, stealth, are all words that are important to the development standards. Board Member Lew: My take on it is that "stealth" does not mean concealed or hidden. It means unobtrusive. And I think, the way that I've been thinking about it is that the proposals, that the mock-up that they've shown, has met the definition of "stealth"' in many locations. Because at least in the previous locations that we've seen, you know, we've had more street trees, more landscaping. I do think that Barron Park is more challenging. We don't really have the same level of street trees. The street widths are different. They are definitely more visible than in previous applications, so I do think that that is a concern. Anyway, that's all that I have. I do support the staff recommendation at this time. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson, have we heard from you? No. Board Member Thompson: Not yet. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you to the public for reaching out to us. It's quite clear there are a lot of opinions on this. I think the place where I'm at right now is, is that it seems that there are several options at bay. There are possibilities of potentially making this even more stealth in the sense that we're seeing potentially that there could be smaller antennas, smaller equipment. Some of these other things that we've looked at look like they could be, you know, better meeting the stealth criteria. I wrote a note here that depending... I don't know. After having seen the Crown Castle proposal that had the smaller antennas, these big ones now seem a lot more bigger. I'm at a place right now where I'd almost rather smaller ones and have more of them, rather than have these gigantic ones, just in order to maintain that stealth element. And to your point, Board Member Baltay, I think you are right. I think that it is not enhancing our surroundings. And it's true, I think we've been looking at this as, you know, just kind of how do we make this just a little less worse than it is. But at the end of the day, it really should be making things better. I appreciate your point, and I'll echo that as well. I think there are a lot of opportunities, a lot of kind of interesting design options. Not that I'm thinking of things. Like there is, there's options, I think, to make this better than what it is right now. I think that's what's clear to me, at least after this presentation and this hearing, that there are alternatives that are better than what we're looking at right now. And for that reason, I don't know that I'm ready to support what we're looking at right now. I'll leave it right there right now because I know we are pressed on time. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: We seem to be living in a world in which everything gets more cluttered. This effect is shown here, as well. These light poles, you know, used to start out with just a light on top of them, and now they have all kinds of garbage. Keep it simple. I agree with my cohort to the left here. To research this more and find better equipment, smaller equipment. You're a great big company. You have the capability of doing some more in-depth research. I know the effect of building vaults. I've seen that with Con-Ed in New York, how it disrupts the street and affects all other kinds of relations. But you should consider research to find places where vaults can work. I really think we're not also looking at City of Palo Alto Page 50 some other aspects of this that, the cabling that you put on the poles ultimately is going to be very large in diameter. Doesn't show up in a lot of the illustrations. But I'm particularly concerned about the boxes that are located much lower down on the pole and why they need to be there. Eight feet is ridiculously low and those are going to be extremely visible, and they are very big. I would say that I think this needs more study for those aspects described. Chair Furth: Thank you. I've been thinking about this application and I appreciate that Verizon works in a lot of different settings. Of course, it's always difficult for us because the telecommunications companies have been very effective in removing most discretion from us, ever since we had telephone companies. Because they have licenses and powers to do things in city rights-of-way that other kinds of organizations don't. And part of the City's problem is that the City ordinances direct us to make a set of findings, which I don't think Verizon can meet here. And the City can change its rules, and reasonable people can differ. You may recall that when we did approve a project, it was 3-2. But I think part of the problem in Barron Park... One of the things about Palo Alto is there is a great deal of diversity between and among neighborhoods. Barron Park is a small-scale, intimate neighborhood. They have narrow streets, they have no sidewalks, and they are heavily wooded in most places. And one of the results is that houses are quite close to this incredible array of telephone poles, utility poles of other sorts, cables, etc., etc. And as you drive through, you see a lot of telecom equipment already hanging in various places. I think that the neighborhood might very well choose lots more little radios. I don't know. But the fact is I can't... If this was the only way to do it, then I would have to look at our findings in light of what's possible. Because it's our job not to pick out one rule, like the sound standard, and say, "Well, we can't meet that, so therefore, we're going to violate five others in order to meet that one." If they had to be this way, I might say, well, this is the best color paint, or something like that. But I'm not... The record doesn't support that. There are alternatives. We can't pick your technology, but we can tell you what the standards are. And in this neighborhood, in most of these sites, these are too visible and too big for me to make the findings. And we also have some slightly-less-than-ready-for-prime-time plans here. We can vote if somebody wants to make a motion, or we can ask if the applicant is willing to continue it. Or whatever is the Board's pleasure. Staff? Ms. French: Well, a continuance is problematic because we have a shot clock that forces us into a decision. Chair Furth: By problematic you mean impossible? Ms. French: Well, no, not impossible. That word would refer to if the applicant were unwilling to extend the shot clock. This is something we don't have clarity on at this moment. Chair Furth: We are a recommending body. What would you like from us? Ms. French: Well, I would think you'd vote on this application that's in front of you and... Chair Furth: Well, let's do the easy thing first. Let's vote to continue.... Which two nodes? One-fifty-four and 104? To a date uncertain? Can I have a motion to that effect? MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. I move that we continue 154 and 104 to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: At the request of the applicant. Is there a second? Board Member Thompson: I'll second that. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye. Okay, that takes care of two of them. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH A 5-0 VOTE. City of Palo Alto Page 51 Chair Furth: All right. That leaves us with the rest of them, and we have recommendations... Let's start with the outlier. Let's start with the Stanford request, which is in an area subject to the, to a particular plan. There is undergrounding, so, where are we now? I heard something about underground vault is possible there. Where are we on that one? Ms. Atkinson: In this case, we have the Stanford University Medical Center design guidelines, which call for a tree scape and other aesthetic parameters designed for a boulevard environment. Staff and private developers and so forth have not approved above-ground equipment since the design guidelines were put in place. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, what is staff's recommendation on this one? Ms. Atkinson: This is, there are... It's possible to recommend conditions of approval. We think that would be applicable in this case, such as in regard to placing the electric, the electrical-related equipment underground, or eliminating it altogether. The applicant indicated that it's impossible to put it underground. That is different than the proposed pole-mounted equipment that would still remain on the pole. Staff is also investigating the possibility of not having the wooden bayonet extension because the reason for the extension, typically clearance for power lines, is not applicable in this particular location. That's still another point of analysis. Chair Furth: The applicant, is your design final on this one now? We're talking about 153...? Is that right? Ms. French: One-sixty-three. Chair Furth: One-sixty-three. It's very small print. Mr. Stroup: On 163, we are... So, to clarify, the ground-mounted electrical step-down transformer is what's above ground, and what staff is recommending that we either remove or place underground. We agree with staff that we could get conditional approval that would allow us to work with staff and CPAU to find a spot in that area next to the mall where we could place an underground vault for that step-down transformer. Chair Furth: All right. I would entertain a motion on Node 163, to recommend approval with the relocation of -- make sure I get this right -- the transformer to an underground vault. Is that what's being proposed? I'm getting a nod out there. Is there a motion to that effect? Board Member Thompson: I have a question. Would it be worth discussing if we wanted to move, for the rest of these nodes, that we ask the applicant to look at... Chair Furth: I think it would. I just wanted to see if we could get this outlier dealt with first. Board Member Thompson: Okay, I think it's relevant, though. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so, you're proposing to... Chair Furth: I'm looking at the Stanford campus proposal. Staff believes it should be shorter. Is that correct? [crosstalk] Ms. French: Staff believes the antenna on the pole top is obviously necessary, but the extension between the antenna and the pole is not necessary. Because of clearances. The applicant can verify that. City of Palo Alto Page 52 MOTION Chair Furth: Okay, well, I'll make a motion recommending approval upon the condition that the antenna height is minimized. That, of course, assumes it's still legal. Is this one of our City poles? Mr. Stroup: Yes. Chair Furth: Okay. Of course it is. That's why you're in front of us on this. Mr. Stroup: We'd also like to note that the language for conditional approval to underground the electrical step-down transformer be to the greater extent feasible. We are willing to work with staff and CPAU to locate. Chair Furth: I'm willing to accept that language but I'm hoping that I see some good results. Is there a second to my motion? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Motion by Furth, second by Lew. All those in favor? Board Member Lew: Aye. Board Member Hirsch: Aye. Vice Chair Baltay: Could I clarify, Wynne, before we vote? Chair Furth: Yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: Is the pole-mounted equipment still on the pole in this motion? Chair Furth: Go ahead. Vice Chair Baltay: As I see it, you're still allowing the pole-mounted radio equipment. All they are talking about is the transformer. There's a difference. Is that right? Chair Furth: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: So... Chair Furth: And the reason I'm saying it is, because of the location. I think it can handle it. But if you disagree, you vote note. Vice Chair Baltay: I find the same reasons I found before. Just clarifying. Chair Furth: Okay. Let's vote. Does staff have something they wanted to add? And the staff's recommendation is to approve with the shorter antenna and the undergrounded transformer? Ms. French: Correct. Chair Furth: Okay. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed. MOTION FAILS 2-3, WITH BOARD MEMBERS HIRSCH, BALTAY AND THOMPSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION Chair Furth: That motion fails 2-3. Would you like to make a counter motion? City of Palo Alto Page 53 Vice Chair Baltay: Let me make a motion because I'm about to leave. I recommend approval of all the remaining nodes, with the condition that all auxiliary equipment be completely concealed to the greatest extend feasible. Chair Furth: I think they're going to say that's what they already have done. I don't think that's going to get us anywhere. Vice Chair Baltay: Sorry, I'll withdraw... Chair Furth: That's a non-second. Appreciate the effort. Board Member Lew: Somebody could second his motion. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm trying to find a way that we can approve this, let them go forward, stop the shot clock business, but say what we want, which is for the equipment to be concealed. Chair Furth: Well, I don't think that that's an alternative. I think we're always going to have... Or at least I think it's, it's so indefinite that when we did this before, we got exactly what they proposed in the first place. The telecom community. Board Member Thompson: I'd like the applicant to explore an option that actually meets our criteria, where it seems like there are other options that can have more stealth and... I don't know what the wording of this motion is, but in general, I'd like to see a better site plan, one that's more up to date, one that we can actually trust, and a design, or even options of designs, that actually enhance the surroundings. And I think that is possible. Vice Chair Baltay: That's a motion to continue with that request? Board Member Thompson: I guess. Chair Furth: I guess I want to say...I mean, if the applicant doesn't wish to extend, we don't really have the option to... You know, you're going to have to proceed without our recommendation, so perhaps we should just give you a staff... We should tell the staff what we want, and the decision-makers can either reject our suggestion or not. But I think we have consensus that in these, I'm going to use the term Barron Park, though I gather there are more neighborhood names, that in the Barron Park neighborhood with its narrow streets, heavy vegetation, houses relatively close to the street, absence of sidewalks, the proposal does not meet the standards of the Architectural Review Board because it is too large, and too visible, and too intrusive. And that we recommend that the applicant and the City work to find alternatives which would reduce these negative effects, by undergrounding where possible, and perhaps by using smaller equipment, even if it's more frequently installed, as an alternative. I think all we can try to do with the information we have, and the complexity of the rules with which we and they deal, is to tell you what the sense of the Board is. If that's an accurate sense, then I'd say let's tell you that, and best of British luck as you proceed. Vice Chair Baltay: That's a motion to do what, exactly? Chair Furth: Advise staff that that's our recommendation. Vice Chair Baltay: We're moving to advise staff... MOTION Chair Furth: Yeah, because I don't think we have the... I mean, Alex has pointed out that the plans are incorrect. Several of us feel that the equipment that they are proposing, that the visual impact of the equipment they are proposing is not sufficiently unobtrusive or stealthy to allow us to make the permitted City of Palo Alto Page 54 findings. And that you should know that we would prefer it either underground or using a different configuration which substantially reduces these adverse impacts. We don't make decisions. All we ever do is recommend. Vice Chair Baltay: Let me try to put us out of our misery. I recommend that we recommend denial of this project based on the reasons Wynne just outlined. Board Member Thompson: I'll second that. Chair Furth: Any further comment? Okay. All those in favor of this recommendation say aye. All those opposed. Board Member Hirsch: Nay. Chair Furth: Four to one, we recommend denial of this project as proposed. MOTION PASSES 4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER HIRSCH VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, all. Chair Furth: Thank you, Peter. Merry Christmas, Happy New Year. [Vice Chair Baltay left the meeting] Chair Furth: You know, this is not a happy... We tend to be very unhappy with telecom communications companies because they are very powerful, that from our point of view, they're an arigopoly [phonetic]. They get to shape the rules, from our point of view, in their favor and against us. But we also all want the service they provide. And we certainly are... Thank you very much, Rebecca, for handling the tremendous number of public comments and variable factors that we deal with. I recommend to the neighborhood and to us that we keep struggling to find something that is livable. Thank you. Approval of Minutes 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 4, 2018. 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2018. 8. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 1, 2018 Chair Furth: I'm going to make us vote on minutes, hoping that somebody has read them. I have. Board Member Thompson: I have not read the minutes. I'm sorry. Chair Furth: Don't confess. The law actually, administrative law permits to act as if you had, so we're going to get these up on the record. Okay. MOTION Chair Furth: May I have a motion to approve the minutes of October 4th? I have some minor clerical errors I'll give to staff. Board Member Lew: I also had comments, I sent them to staff previously, regarding subcommittee, regarding subcommittee items. City of Palo Alto Page 55 Chair Furth: All those who were there -- David can't vote on this -- All those in favor say aye. Board Member Lew: You make... [crosstalk] Board Member Thompson: Am I allowed to...? I can't... Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: Were you there? Yes. Board Member Thompson: I was there. Chair Furth: I should not have asked if you'd read it. All those in favor say aye. MOTION PASSES 3-0-1, WITH FURTH, THOMPSON AND LEW VOTING TO APPROVE AND HIRSCH ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. Chair Furth: Okay. I hadn't realized that there's such a cost to the public on our not acting on these because they don't get up on the website. Ms. French: I'm sorry, was that both sets of minutes, or just the first set? Chair Furth: That was October 4th. October 18th? Any comments or corrections? Board Member Lew: I had previously sent a comment to staff about the subcommittee items. Chair Furth: Is that the one...? Which was the one where we had the study session? Board Member Thompson: I don't know that I was there for that one. Chair Furth: Okay. I think you weren't present for the study session, right? Or were you? This was on ex parte communications. Board Member Thompson: I was not there for that. Chair Furth: So we can't act on whichever one that one was. Which one? Ms. French: October 18th minutes are continued to the next hearing, meeting? Chair Furth: Yeah. And then, October...? November 1st? I would move approval of those. Board Member Thompson: I also don't think I was there for that one. Chair Furth: Can you check those? Let's see, I'll take a quick look. We may not be able to do this. I apologize. Board Member Thompson: Sorry, Chair. Chair Furth: Well, you couldn't... If you weren't there, you weren't there. That's not your fault. Ms. French: Okay, so, we can continue both of those to January 10th. City of Palo Alto Page 56 Chair Furth: I just want to confirm that... Are you confident you weren't here on November 1st? Board Member Thompson: Pretty confident. Chair Furth: All right. I'm sorry. We need to continue those. Ms. French: Okay. Chair Furth: Yes, all right. Subcommittee Items Chair Furth: Any subcommittee items? Ms. French: None. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: Board member questions, comments or announcements? Ms. French: No announcements from staff. Board Member Lew: I have an announcement. So, 429 University Avenue went to the Council on Monday. The applicant had appealed the Director's decision to partly deny the project and it was partly to approve the project. The Council voted 6-3 to approve the project, with Holman, Kou and DuBois opposed. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Lew: That ends a very long, long saga. Chair Furth: None of which I have had to follow. Since I have a conflict of interest with regard to that matter. Board Member Thompson: Thank you for that. Chair Furth: Well, welcome, Board Member Hirsch. Thank you. Look forward to the new year. Thank you so much to staff. Would you please particularly convey our thanks to Alicia Spotswood for her really good service as our support person. Thank you. Ms. French: Certainly. Will do. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Clerk's Office for getting our new member sworn in. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Adjournment Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9989) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 1/17/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4115 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review Title: 4115 El Camino Real [17PLN-00280]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes and Clarifications Regarding Details, Security, and Maintenance. 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: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background On December 6, 2018, the ARB conducted a public hearing and recommended approval of the project to the City’s Director of Planning & Community Environment. The Director approved the project on January 7, 2019 after the completion of the public circulation of the project’s Mitigated Negative Declaration document. At the Architectural Review Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that required certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee. The following is a discussion of the conditions, the applicant’s response and staff’s analysis. Architecture Review Condition The following items shall be reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee prior to approval of demolition, grading or building permit issuance: 7 Packet Pg. 335 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 1. Provide basement garage signage and security gate Applicant’s response: A parking sign was added that would indicate the number of available of spaces. The gate would be located at the driveway access to limit entry. The gate will remain open during business hours and controlled electronically by residents and their guests when the gates are closed. See Sheets A008 and AD2. Staff’s analysis: The revisions appear to address the Board’s concerns. However, staff would ask the sub-committee to review the design quality of the parking signs. 2. Colors, Materials and specifications for the project Applicant’s response: Sheets A013 and A014 were updated to include the color references for each material. An enhanced color and materials board will be provided at the ARB Subcommittee meeting. Details were added on Sheets AD1 and AD2 to show the interface and application of the proposed materials. Staff’s analysis: Staff seeks confirmation that the provided information meets the Board’s expectations. 3. Specify light pole heights Applicant’s response: Sheet PH2 indicates the height of the fixtures to be 10-feet. Staff’s analysis: The response addresses the Board’s question. 4. Describe the maintenance for the open space areas Applicant’s response: The project is a mixed-use condominium building. Every unit owner, whether retail, office, or residential will be required to contribute financially to the maintenance of the common areas and common open spaces. The retail condo owner will typically pass this cost onto the tenant. The homeowners association or their representative will oversee the maintenance of the entire project. The applicant will work on CCR's (which includes maintenance agreements for open spaces) and they will be in place before building permits are issued. Staff’s analysis: The response provides a summary of the obligation and proposed maintenance responsibility. The formal CC&Rs would be submitted with the tentative map project for review by the City. 5. Provide enhancement of the blank left/west wall 7 Packet Pg. 336 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Applicant’s response: The elevation was not revised because the wall is approximately two feet from the property line and is a fire wall. The revised plans show the outline of the adjacent building and more than 50% of the wall is covered by the adjacent building. The outline is included on Sheet A014. Staff’s analysis: Staff seeks direction from the Board whether the response is adequate or additional attention is necessary. A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-1262018/ The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: December 6, 2018 ARB Minutes (PDF) Attachment B: Applicant's Response to ARB (PDF) Attachment C: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 7 Packet Pg. 337 City of Palo Alto Page 35 ARB Meeting 12-6-2018 Minutes 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4115 El Camino Real (17PLN-00280): Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review for a Proposed Three-Story, 16,725 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Retail, Second Floor Office and Residential, Third Floor Residential (Seven Residential Units in Total) and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act(CEQA) and is Being Circulated for Public Comment Between November 30, 2018 and January 2, 2018. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information, Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Furth: Item number 4, 4115 El Camino Real. Recommendation on a major architectural review for a proposed three-story, 16,725 square foot mixed-use development, comprised of ground-floor retail, second floor office and residential, third floor residential, seven residential units in total, below-grade parking. There is a mitigated negative declaration that is still open for public comment until January 2, 2018 [sic]. First of all, has everybody inspected the site? Vice Chair Baltay: I have. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson? Board Member Thompson: No. Not in a while. Chair Furth: We're going to publicly shame her so that next time she's [crosstalk] Board Member Thompson: I'm ready. Chair Furth: She did, however, grow up here, and is intimately familiar with almost every businessinvolved in these applications. She's patronized them all. Board Member Thompson: I know it very well. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Are there any conversations to be disclosed on this project? Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I had a telephone conversation with Randy Popp on Tuesday, mostly discussing the previous day's council meeting. But he did mention that this project would be coming before the Board, but we did not discuss it. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: I have talked with Randy Popp in the past about this project. Several months ago, I believe, now. Chair Furth: And what did you discuss? 7.a Packet Pg. 338 City of Palo Alto Page 36 Vice Chair Baltay: He just presented to me that he was getting involved in it, actually. It was more when he was coming on board, helping the architects. We didn't discuss anything in particular about the design. Chair Furth: Okay. It sounds like the public is well informed about what we're relying on in making this decision. May we hear from staff? Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, thank you, good morning. I'm Sheldon Ah Sing, contract planner. I have a presentation for you. The applicant is also here with their presentation, and the materials board is also available for you to look at. Behind you, I believe. There's already been a good overview and introduction of the project there, but moving on to some background. The project was before this Board back in June, at that time identified some issues. One was, parking was insufficient. The project at the time did request a parking modification. That the materials of the building should be reorganized to be more pedestrian-friendly and have a more residential feeling to it, and that the signage should not be located on the second floor/upper floors of the building, and also, to make the building more pedestrian- oriented. Since that time, the applicant has revised their project and elevations, and they will go into a little bit more detail about it, but you can just notice, first off, that definitely the signs have moved from the upper levels and focused more on the pedestrian side. Some of the other materials are more pedestrian-oriented and provide that more residential feeling to it. Here is the real elevation. The project does include frontage on two streets, El Camino Real as well as El Camino Way in the back, so the rear is an important elevation for the building. Also, going four-sided architecture. The right side of the building was also changed. Some of the wood massing was revised to feel more organized, and landscape was added to the garage screen to soften that edge. And then, this is the left elevation, as well. Some of the context in area, a lot of low, kind of low-intensity type of development. Some change-over into more modern types of buildings coming on line, but definitely in the direct vicinity. You've got some commercial, some residential. For the site plan, one thing to consider here, that from the early project description of the project, there was interest from the developer and applicant to include the breezeway that would have some public access from the residents. That residential portion or community that's in the back that has access from El Camino Way to get to El Camino Real. The project does include retail, so it's important to have that feature in there. There is a desire from the applicant to have that. It is a desire for the City to make sure that access is provided in the future for the project. We did include a condition of approval for you to consider, and it was to require an easement. However, the applicant did object to having an easement, and in further conversations with the applicant recently, this is for discussion, but we are considering a modification to that condition, something to the effect that would preclude any types of gates or structures that could be put in place to hinder public access in that breezeway for the life of the project. We want to put that kind of open-ended at this point, have a discussion about that. But if an easement is off the table, then something, so then, it would be a condition of approval if a future owner of the property were to put gates, and that could be a complaint by the community, the City could enforce something. The basement has been modified to accommodate puzzle lift system, and the puzzle lift system would be for residential and office parking. Also in the basement, you have the bike lockers. The project does include some affordable housing -- one unit, actually -- and that's a requirement. There's a little bit of in-lieu fee that would be paid at the building permit stage. The project is eligible for concessions or incentives, and part of that is by-right parking reduction for the residential. It streamlines that a bit. Otherwise, the residential component would require 15 spaces, but under the affordable housing, streamline reduction for parking there, 11 spaces are required for residential. The office and retail would still be to the full maximum. The total parking would be 47 spaces for the site. They are providing all of those on the site, so no parking reduction is requested. And then, some additional square footage for the BMR unit is allowed pursuant to the municipal code. That's, again, another incentive to allow more housing production in the city. The project is consistent with a number of the architectural review findings. The Comprehensive Plan goals and policies are included in attachments for you, as well as the South El Camino design guidelines, the context design criteria, and performance standards. The site does include some amenities for the residents, as well as for the public. There is a little outdoor area for seats if an eatery goes into the retail space. As mentioned previously, an environmental document is being circulated at this point. There were some topics that would have potential for physical environmental impacts, and mitigation measures were provided. Those were 7.a Packet Pg. 339 City of Palo Alto Page 37 deemed to be feasible to be implemented by the applicant. This is for biological resources, cultural and tribal resources, geology and soils, and noise. These were just real basic ones that come up for most projects anyway. The recommendation is that the Board recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and provide comment on the environmental document that's currently in circulation, as well as mention the condition regarding the breezeway. Just need to hear any feedback on that. That concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? May we hear from the applicant, please? Name, spelling and address, please. Randy Popp, Architect: Hello. You got it. My name is Randy Popp. I'm an architect here in Palo Alto. I'm supporting this project as a consultant in the entitlement stage. Chair Furth: And your address? Mr. Popp: And my address is 210 High Street. [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: All right, thank you. Let me just restate our agenda, and I appreciate the really excellent staff report on this project. Our goal here is to review the changes made since our last review, and to clarify, as Sheldon mentioned, the conditions of approval that were drafted. Our goal here today -- and I'll state this clearly -- is to move the project forward, if we're able to. I want to start by looking at the front elevation along El Camino. We've made some significant progress, I think, when you compare the last version you saw and the version we have before us today. I'll use this format a number of times in the presentation so you can be familiar with it. Generally, we refined the placement of materials, using them as really subtle organizing elements in the façade to break up the massing and to add interest. We removed the flying beams. I think a lot of this is easier to see in the rendering itself because a portion of the building is oblique in the 2-D elevation. So, I'll focus on this, but if you'd like me to switch back and forth at any time, I'm happy to. You can see that the column base material has changed to settle the building into the site. We have alignment of the windows with the retail below. We have office balcony railings now that are revised. A third-level horizontal plane that strikes to...Let me see if I can get my cursor to work. Chair Furth: (inaudible) for the material board. You can have a gap while we look for it. Mr. Popp: Yeah, so, there's a .... Chair Furth: Do we have it where we can see it? Mr. Popp: It's up there. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...put it over there, looking at us, then? Mr. Popp: Mr. Gooyer has it there, yeah. The residential balcony glass railing has been raised to create a bit more definition for the massing in itself. The retail storefront rhythm matches that of the office above as it wraps the corners, and we've got a subtle refinement of the metal canopies at the breezeway and at the third level residential area. Moving on to a slightly different view of the front of the building where you can see the right side. I'll note that we made some changes to the garage ramp screening so that aligns with the elements that are above. We've adjusted the placement and the scale of the windows on this side of the building so that they are, again, more aligned and centered and consistent with the scale of the other windows around the building. The wood material has been extended across the recess for consistency. We have landscape materials that have been added along the screens at the edge of the 7.a Packet Pg. 340 City of Palo Alto Page 38 garage to soften that. The projection of the balcony at the third level has been reduced to enhance the terracing design, and material placement has been adjusted at the office for consistency overall. Here at the rear elevation of the building -- again, tricky to get all of this in one shot, so we'll look a little bit at the 2-D elevations here, and then I'll flip to a larger view of the, the perspective. Along the breezeway, we've added planters. It's easier to see that on the plan, so I'll get to that in a moment. At the second level, the railing has been replaced with a planter, with materials that will spill over the wall. Planter depth has been sized to sustain a large tree or a small shrub. The shrubbery that we've selected will grow to 15 to 20 feet in height once mature. The vertical trellis element has been aligned with the window sills as a datum. We have wood materials that are extending on the right side to overlap the balcony and the garage. The balconies have been shifted to remove the cantilever that was there previously. It was a little distracting, and I think this is a cleaner expression of the massing. The balcony separation walls have been shifted to coordinate with the updated material placement and the plan, and the residential windows have been adjusted and organized for consistency. Again, you'll notice that the breezeway is a dominant feature here in these elevations that you can see, but it's a little difficult in this perspective. But, hold that image for me, and we'll get to that. I'll also just note that the landscaping in these renderings is meant to sort of express about a one-year maturity, but at 10 to 15 years, it will be much more significant. As we get to the left side of the building, again, paying attention all the way around, this is the most simple side. Much of this visible from the other views, and we've talked about many of those elements already, but you can see more clearly here how the vertical trellis element aligns with the window sill datum. And I'll only point out that we adjusted the wood screen color on this side to blend in with the wall color a bit more. In regard to the plan, the through breezeway for pedestrian access is a significant feature of the diagram for us. As promised, we want to talk about that with you, and as Sheldon mentioned, there's a desire for us to maintain an openness to that for the neighborhood, and for users to access that. But, we need to maintain control of that overall. The public open space feature on El Camino Way and the common open space feature on El Camino Real bracket that at either end, welcoming people in and through. The resident parking access from El Camino Way is pretty clear to see, with the eight spaces, four in the garage and four at grade. Public parking access to the underground garage from El Camino Real can be seen at the lower left of the diagram. The retail at grade is the predominant space on this plan. Bike storage and shower have been maintained, and the trash room -- which is essentially at the center -- is still under discussion with the City of Palo Alto's trash team. We're talking about whether we'll pull the cans to the front or the rear, but they have agreed that having the maintenance team who manages the building for us do that would be acceptable. Very minor changes in the garage for us, primarily at the El Camino Real edge of the building, where we have altered the profile of the garage in order to avoid conflicts with El Camino and Caltrans as we are shoring and building this garage. As you note, there is 47 total spaces provided, which is conforming. Nineteen of those are in a puzzle lift that are for the use of the office and the residents, and the remainder is for office and retail use. Moving upstairs, I'm sure you've already made yourselves familiar with these plans, but just noting quickly at the second floor, we have office area along El Camino Real and four residential units that wrap around, and at the third floor, the final three residential units are in place. Just briefly touching on the landscape materials. I'll say, it's a very simple palette of planting material, durable, drought-tolerant, easy to maintain, and rapid to mature. We have varying contrast in both color and texture. The landscape furnishings on the site are high-quality materials and provide very nice amenities, we believe. As we go to the upper level for the office, and then, the resident decks, you'll see that we're suggesting wood decking at those areas on raised standards. The railings will be raised in the right areas to provide privacy and control site lines into those balconies, and in other areas, very open and glassy to allow for the building to showcase the activity that's happening up above. Sheldon did a great job catching a parapet height that we drew a bit too high, so I'll just note here on the building sections that the 40 foot, 9 inch parapet height that we've shown will be revised to be 40 feet tall. With that, I want to just touch on the draft conditions of approval. Condition #6 was related to the stucco surfaces, and I'll confirm that we will be a 20/30 or smoother finish to the stucco. Chair Furth: I'm sorry. Could we have the page number, please, staff? Mr. Popp: And I don't have that, I apologize. 7.a Packet Pg. 341 City of Palo Alto Page 39 Chair Furth: That's why I'm asking staff. Ms. Gerhardt: That would be packet page 131. Chair Furth: Thank you. Go ahead. Mr. Popp: Thank you. That is Condition #6. And then, for Condition #7, you know... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I...You can have another 30 seconds, but Condition #6 is about stucco finish. What did you want to say? Mr. Popp: I wanted...So, Condition #6 reads: "The owner or designee, prior to issuance of building permit, shall demonstrate on the construction plans and elevations and in details that the project's stucco surfaces shall be a 20/30 or smoother finish." That's a designation of a stucco finish. I'm here to say we're going to commit to that. That's no problem for us. Chair Furth: That's acceptable. Mr. Popp: That's acceptable. Number 7, however, is not acceptable to us. I'll just say that the project ownership needs to maintain control of that space for safety and security reasons. Staff has provided no nexus between the project and the requirement for the easement, and there is no legal obligation for us to be compelled to provide it. We request that be deleted. We want to maintain an open and through access for people to move between Meadow and El Camino, through our site. You know, for years, people have been riding their bikes or walking through the Pizza Chicago parking lot in just that way, and we're formalizing that. We're open to the idea of a condition that would say no gates in that accessway. I think the likelihood is that because it's an egress path anyway, we couldn’t do that. But we do need the ability to put those little plaques at either end of it that said, "Right to pass by permission of owner." So that we can control vagrants, we can control trash, we can control maintenance -- All of those things. It's akin to saying to your neighbors that, you know, "I'm going to give you all rights to my front yard, and you can come here whenever you want." Right? We just wouldn't do that. And there's really no reason for us to do that, so we ask that this condition be struck. And if you have a suggestion for something else, be happy to discuss that with you, but this particular one is not something that we can agree to. Chair Furth: To summarize, you believe that's in excess of the City's legal rights to ask for that? Or demand it? Mr. Popp: I believe it is. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: Thank you. That's it. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant? Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: The awnings, the sun-shading elements, what are those, materially? Mr. Popp: Materially, they are a steel frame with a wood slat in the field of the awning. Exactly. Just like that. It does show up in a number of the renderings. It's probably a little small on this screen, but we can look at that larger, if you'd like to. Board Member Thompson: It looks white. Like, the fill of the... Mr. Popp: The light's coming through it. Board Member Thompson: Hmm? 7.a Packet Pg. 342 City of Palo Alto Page 40 Mr. Popp: The intent is that it filters the light, the light comes through it, but the material itself is the wood material that we have on the building. Board Member Thompson: It's the same cedar? Mr. Popp: Yeah, exactly. Board Member Thompson: And that's for all awnings, on the top and on the pedestrian level? Mr. Popp: Correct. That's correct. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And while we're on this, the privacy screen, there's...It looks like there's two, but maybe they are the same. I just wanted to confirm the vertical screen. Are they the same? Mr. Popp: Same wood material, yes. Board Member Thompson: And what is the material? Mr. Popp: Cedar, correct? Yeah, the same cedar wood. Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, I'm talking about the white vertical perforated screen. Male?: [off microphone, inaudible]. Mr. Popp: All right, it's a flawed... Chair Furth: Could you use the microphone to... Mr. Popp: Yeah, I'm sorry, I'm going to repeat what Jeff, who is the architect is saying. It's a flaw in the renderings, it sounds like, and the intent is that we will have the same cedar wood material in those positions. Board Member Thompson: Okay, and that's on the side, that's kind of wrapping around that left elevation? Mr. Popp: In all those [crosstalk] right there. Yeah. That's correct. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so, that wouldn't be white, it would be wood. Mr. Popp: Sounds like that's the, that's the intent. I apologize for the flaw in the rendering. Here, this is Jeff Potts from SDG. Jeff Potts, SDG Architects: Yeah, the intent for the vertical and the horizontal screening is that it would be the same material, but a lighter stain, so not so dark over those areas. It would be a lighter stain, but the same material, instead of applying the dark stain to it. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so, the lighter stain... When you were saying that that left elevation changed, that was just changing the stain on that? Mr. Popp: I apologize. It was a communication error between myself and Jeff. The rendering shows on the left hand side there, those panels that I thought were going to be matching the wall color, it sounds like it would just be a lighter stain of the wood. Board Member Thompson: And we don't have a sample of what that is. 7.a Packet Pg. 343 City of Palo Alto Page 41 Mr. Popp: We do not. We can provide that, if you like. We can do that to staff, or a subcommittee, or something, if you'd like us to do that. Board Member Thompson: Okay, thank you. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Chair Furth: Could one of you spell your architect's name? Mr. Popp: [spells Jeff Potts' name]. Chair Furth: Thank you. I meant to announce the architects and the landscape designers earlier and forgot. Oh, and we have an anonymous LLC as the applicant. Is there a name for the owners? Mircea Voskerician: My name is Mircea Voskerician [spells name]. I represent 4115 ECR LLC. Chair Furth: Thank you. Part of the reason we ask is because we're required to not participate in matters involving people that we have shared financial interests with, and when we have an anonymous LLC, we can't know whether we're doing that or not. Thank you. We have raised this with staff before. Board Member Thompson: Sorry, if I could confirm one more thing about the materials. Chair Furth: Sure, go ahead. Board Member Thompson: This vertical screen is also the lighter-stained wood, also happens at the garage level when you're entering on the street? From El Camino? Chair Furth: Could you tell us which page you're looking at, sheet you're looking at? Board Member Thompson: Sorry. I'm looking at Sheet A017. Mr. Popp: Right. It's in that rendering that's on the upper right-hand side. There, you can see it. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Okay. And the...Okay, so, it's happening in, sort of three places -- the garage, the left side, and then on the top. Mr. Popp: Yes, three places. Exactly. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And the green walls, that framing, is that...? What material is that framing? Mr. Popp: It's just green screen. It's a landscape material that you purchase, and it's a framework that... Board Member Thompson: Okay, it's just the... Mr. Popp: ...plants grow in. The intent is it just disappears. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Popp: It's a three-dimensional mesh of welded wire. Very common. It's used all the time. And it stands off of the building so it doesn't damage the building surface, but is... It's just meant to be a framework that the plants grow within. Board Member Thompson: Gotcha. Okay. Thanks. 7.a Packet Pg. 344 City of Palo Alto Page 42 Chair Furth: Anybody else have questions? Board Member Baltay, Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, a question for staff, please. It concerns the pedestrian passageway through the property and whether or not, I guess, we have an easement of some kind. I want to know what options we have, or what is typically done. There's many passageways such as that one, this one, throughout town. Do they all have an access easement? Is there some other legal security we can get that allows the public to pass and still respects the owner's concerns about private property? Do we have any choices? Ms. Gerhardt: I think we need to explore this a little bit more with the attorneys, and we don’t have as much experience with past projects. But there was a concern because the applicant had offered this as a public way, so, the offer was made, and we wanted to then condition the project to make sure that that was going to happen. But, at the same time, I don't know that that's, you know, that we have a guideline or a code requirement that mandates this. We can speak to the attorneys, though, and see if there is a, some midpoint that both parties could agree to and still allow the public to walk through this accessway. It is leading to a commercial space, you know, so between parking and commercial space, so it does have to remain open. There's just the legality of, you know, truly being able to walk through there. Board Member Gooyer: I'm just curious about this. The... I mean, I can see his point, that they really, you know, if for some reason, sometime in the future, they want to put a gate in there, or whatever, I can understand that. Now, I was looking at the site plan, and there's 2 foot 3 1/2 inches from the face of the building to the property line. What if they shift that a foot eight inches to leave a 44-inch or 48-inch area there that, let's say 99 percent of the time, everybody uses the public access, so the public access may need to shrink a little bit, or whatever. And then, if somebody after hours, or if the owner decides later to lock that during, you know... I don't know, from midnight to 6:00, or something, someone could still pass through in that area on the side. I mean, it's not a big, wide area, but if you want to cross from... You know, it's one of these things that, if we're looking at just an ability to do that... First of all, I agree with the applicant, I think. I don't see any code requirement that would be mandate having an access there. But, if there is something, then at least doing the, shifting that, like I said, a foot and a half, or whatever, would allow a passageway between the two streets. Board Member Thompson: Do you mean on the east side, or the west side? Of the building? Board Member Gooyer: I'm talking, on Sheet A009... Chair Furth: The Honey Baked Ham sign. Board Member Gooyer: If you look at the top of the site, it shows 2 foot 3 1/2 inches from the face of the building to the property line. If that gets shifted slightly, enough to leave a 44 inch walkway or a 48 inch walkway between that... Or, I don't know. You could have it compacted... You know, some sort of a finish that is walkable, but... And that would be something that somebody could walk through. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: Would you like me to address that? Ms. Gerhardt: I do want to say that... Chair Furth: No. Mr. Popp: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the applicant has said that they would be willing to accept a condition that no gates be put on that breezeway. You know, I think... 7.a Packet Pg. 345 City of Palo Alto Page 43 Chair Furth: Well, before (inaudible) that, I've got a number of questions, so maybe we'll get all the questions out, and then, we can start looking towards answers. This is a mixed residential and commercial building. What's the ownership structure going to be? Are these condominiums? Are they apartments? Are there two condominium associations? What's it going to be? Mr. Voskerician: It will be condominiums for sale. Chair Furth: I beg your pardon. Mr. Voskerician: Condominiums for sale. Chair Furth: The residential space and the commercial space? Mr. Voskerician: No. Commercial space will be retail for rent or for sale. We don't know that yet, right now. Chair Furth: There will be an entity that owns the retail portion of the building. You're going to sell the individual residential units? Mr. Voskerician: We will sell the, we will sell the residential units, and it's possible that the retail and office would be maintained as a rental, or sold. We have not made a decision at this time yet. Chair Furth: Well, what I'm trying to get at is, who is going to be responsible for maintaining the common spaces, the garage, the building, this walkway, the parking lot. How is it going to be governed? Mr. Voskerician: Probably through an HOA association that's going to have to deal with all the trash, make sure the trash is taken on, on the street, and maintenance, and everything else, is going to be part of an HOA. Chair Furth: But what about...? A lot of this building isn't going to be... I mean, you usually can't make a housing HOA responsible for the maintenance of the non-housing portions of a building. Mr. Voskerician: Yeah, so, in my experience... Chair Furth: See how the department of real estate is going to figure this one out. Mr. Popp: Yeah. Let me try... Chair Furth: ... [crosstalk] on us. Mr. Popp: To clarify this a little bit, and I'll look to staff to confirm this. But, in my experience working on mixed-use buildings like this in Palo Alto, when we get farther down the road here, we'll get a series of conditions that come from public works, building depart -- All these other groups, that very clearly specify things like how the management of the building, the maintenance of the building, all of those aspects, will be handled. There will be an HOA that manages the relationship between the homeowners and the building, and then, there will definitely be an ownership component that interacts with that HOA. And in the multifamily projects that I've worked on, those interfaces are where you do things like manage the trash, manage the landscaping, clean the garage -- All of those things happen as part of those legal agreements between the ownership components of the project. Chair Furth: Thank you. Not quite sure I understand what you're proposing. And, of course, I'm asking these questions because it has to do with the continuing availability and maintenance of that walkway and the garage. We made need some further discussion on this. I had one other question of the applicants, which is one I've raised before. I am living in a residential unit, I come home late at night. Where do I park, and how is it secure? 7.a Packet Pg. 346 City of Palo Alto Page 44 Mr. Voskerician: Yes. Obviously, because we have retail and office, so, we have to put a condition that during the day, the gate, the rolling gate that's going to the ramp, it's going to have to be open. And then, for... Male?: (inaudible) Mr. Voskerician: Yeah, for the below-grade garage, it's going to have to be open until a certain time, and then, it's going to be key card access for the residents that are going to park underground. That's for the underground. Chair Furth: Do you have hours of operation in mind? Mr. Voskerician: Well, the retail and the office, I mean, obviously... Chair Furth: Office obviously can use key cards. Mr. Voskerician: Yeah, they use key cards, too, but, I mean, depending on what retail is going to go in there, we assume they're going to be there until, maybe six o'clock at night. But this was just an assumption for the time being. Chair Furth: So, there is a gate, and there is a key card system. Mr. Voskerician: We want to put a gate and a ... Chair Furth: Do the plans show that? Mr. Sing: There's no gate presently. Mr. Voskerician: I don't think it shows at this time. Chair Furth: Yeah, I think it's not on the plans. Mr. Voskerician: Yeah. Chair Furth: Thank you. That's helpful. Does anybody else have any questions of the owner's representative? Okay. Mr. Popp: I want to just clarify that. We had an email communication with Planning staff yesterday, or the day before, where they asked a specific question about the rolling gate, and whether that would be present, and whether it would be timed, etc. Perhaps it came from the conversation with you. And we... Chair Furth: We actually raised this at a previous hearing. Mr. Popp: Yeah, so, we made a commitment to staff in this email response to them that we would provide to them, we were intending to provide a rolling security gate that would be at the entrance, and that it would be on a timer control, so that it would shut when we are outside of operating hours, typical operating hours. Chair Furth: Thank you. That's helpful. Mr. Popp: All right, thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: And just to clarify, that's a condition that we would be adding. 7.a Packet Pg. 347 City of Palo Alto Page 45 Chair Furth: Good to know. I wasn't going to be able to make one of the required findings if you didn't. Discussion. Who would like to start? Board Member Lew: Do we have public speakers? Chair Furth: (inaudible), but I shall, of course, ask for them. Would anybody care to speak on this project, on this matter? No takers. All right, I'll bring it back to the Board. I'm sorry, Peter, did you have further questions? Vice Chair Baltay: [off microphone] No, but I want to go into the easement (inaudible). Chair Furth: Well, why don't we start deliberating? Peter, you can go first. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to further address the easement or the pedestrian passageway. We've seen this project several time and I've always been very excited by the ability for pedestrians to walk through from El Camino Way to El Camino. To me, that's been an integral part of my finding the design suitable and appropriate. And to be more specific, we make Finding #2 e., where the design has to enhance the living condition on the site and in adjacent residential areas. To me, that walkway through there is an integral and essential part of being able to make that finding. All along, you've been saying this is pedestrian, and I'm concerned now when I hear a stronger desire to assert your property rights, which means you can basically shut that pedestrian passageway off. When I hear that there's not a real clear understanding of how this passageway and the garden next to it is going to be maintained, I'm having doubts if this really will be the passageway, the beautiful picture that's been painted before us. That's bothering me. I wish we had a stronger sense of what can be done to preserve that without trying to step on your property rights. Nobody wants to take the land from you, but if there's not a way for people to comfortably be able to walk through there, then it changes my take on the whole project. I'd just like to leave that for now, so my fellow colleagues can hear that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. I guess, Osma, you haven't started a deliberation. Your turn. Mr. Popp: Excuse me. I thought we were going to have a 10-minute period... Chair Furth: Well, there's no public hearing to respond to. Mr. Popp: We don't do that? Okay. I did want to address the issue of this easement... Chair Furth: Go ahead. Mr. Popp: ...if you don't mind. I'll just take two minutes and do that. Maybe even less. Chair Furth: Have three. Mr. Popp: Thank you. I will try not to even use it. Commissioner Baltay, I want to just point out that we found out about this condition when the staff report was published. We had not heard about that previously. It was not a part of the project context until it was written in this draft agenda that came out for this hearing. We would have spoken earlier about the desire to provide open and clear access for the public to be able to move through this space freely in perpetuity. It's our intent to be able to do that. But the idea that we are obligated by a public easement to do that is something that's untenable to us. We need to be able to maintain control of our site. We need to be able to maintain the ability to manage who comes and goes through the middle of our site. And I don't see a way... I've spoken to counsel about this, capable counsel about this, and there is no nexus for the City to require an easement in this manner. And as a result of the discussion I had with Sheldon, we agreed that we would be happy to consider a condition that says something to the effect of no gates or, you know, open access. We've established furnishings and open space at either end of this breezeway to encourage people to come through. But we just can't agree to a condition that says that there is a requirement for an easement on 7.a Packet Pg. 348 City of Palo Alto Page 46 this. It's too difficult for us to manage the legality of that. It was a surprise to us, and we're just responding to it at this point because it just came up. But it's absolutely our intent to maintain this. We think it is an integral, and actually, one of the driving design elements of this project. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Hi. Based on...It's actually really nice to see this. In general, I would say it's a huge improvement from what we saw last time. I really appreciate your use of cedar in the many locations. I would like to see that sample eventually, of how that sort of interacts with your stucco and your other color. In general, it's funny. Even before knowing all of this about the breezeway, I did make a note that the breezeway itself does not architecturally seem very welcoming. I think there could be more done to that entrance, should you want people to come through there. That seems to be a, sort of interesting matter. Board Member Gooyer's suggestion of moving that sort of outer limit of your project a few feet south might be a way to solve that, but I see that there is landscaping there. So, if that were the case, there would sort of have to be, maybe a potentially different way to address that. So, yes. The other issue that I think still remains is what I think was labeled as the left elevation. I think it's actually a west elevation. That is pretty plain and blank, and you have a stair, so... On the page, it's just the top of the page. Chair Furth: What sheet are you looking at? Board Member Thompson: A009... Well, that's the plan, actually. The elevation is on, the elevation is on A14. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. It's that big, blank, wood wall. I think I remember last time expressing some concern about that wall just being a bit too massive and with too little visual interest, at least for those coming up El Camino. And given that it's a stair, I think there's a lot of opportunity to add daylight there. I see that you have glazing on the... I guess I'll say the plan left side, but you also have a big shading element there. I actually doubt that that stairwell in itself will be very well daylit. And there's a nice opportunity to add daylight there, and also make something more interesting happen on your façade. In general, I would say, though, it's a tricky site because you sort of have a funny trapezoid shape that you have to sort of address. I think this improvement is definitely a much better step in the right direction. I think there's a little bit more refinement when it comes to treating some of these big, massive surfaces, like the left side. But, in general, I would say that it's definitely coming along. That's all I'll say right now. Chair Furth: Board Member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, my concerns about the pedestrian passageway aside, I think this is a really nice building. I think it's been well-designed and -- let's see -- it's got a very nicely-organized façade, I find. The removal of the flying buttresses is very positive. I really like the floor plan, the basic arrangement and organization of it. It has to do with the pedestrian passageway, but even more than that, the way you've separated the residential from the commercial, the way the retail works, the parking -- I think that's very good. I think the materials are attractive and handsome and high-quality, durable, and they should prove to be a positive addition to the El Camino street frontage. Lastly, I very much like the small garden area on the side as you walk past it. Again, it seems like a nicely-designed garden, it's a nice idea, it's a good location. I think the tenants, the owners, are going to really enjoy using that. My sole concern is somehow finding a way to preserve that passageway. Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex. 7.a Packet Pg. 349 City of Palo Alto Page 47 Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you for the revisions. I can support the project today. I have a couple suggestions. One is to... For the Board, I think we should add a condition that there is parking signage to the underground garage. We have that College Terrace Centre that was mentioned earlier today, and there have been so many complaints that people don't know how to get down to the garage. To me, it seems obvious, but it's not. I think we should try to address that. Two, I would suggest more documentation on the materials in our packets. There really isn't a lot of detail in them. And then, in that, I do want to, if you would include the ground floor retail glazing. We do have projects like the College Terrace Centre that I mentioned, where they have, like, really dark glass. And they did it, like, they picked the glass based on the upper floors, and they just continued it down to the ground floor, which was a big mistake. Really huge, huge, huge mistake. I just want to make sure that you guys pay attention to the glass spec at the ground level. Third, on the lighting plan, you've got some poles lights on El Camino Way, and there's no height specified. The manufacturer gives a wide range of heights, so, I would like to see that come back there. And thank you for that, because I think it will help that intersection. And, on the findings, I think I would add that under Finding #2, for staff, I think I would add that they are retaining that elm tree at... Is it the Chinese Elm? On El Camino Way. They are preserving an existing feature. With regarding this easement, yeah, I think that we're making a mountain out of a molehill here. It's not like it's connecting two different streets. It's just connecting it to the retail space on El Camino. I don't know. We have other projects on El Camino Way that have these breezeways. We could look and see what they have on there. They've been kept open. I think, generally, I don't support a public easement here. I will say that we have products in the downtown area that have sort of indoor/outdoor spaces, and there have been problems. Like, after businesses close, the homeless move in, and make a lot of noise, and disturb the neighbors. And I think that they have to be able to have the flexibility to adapt to whatever situations arise. And it's going right through the building. They've got a building all the way around, on all four sides. It seems crazy to have a public easement through there. It seems like we're making another problem. I'm think of the design (inaudible) University Avenue, where there was... That was all private property, and then, the public... The alley was added later, so, somehow the owner agreed to have public access through there. But, there was no alley there to begin with. And then, we were struggling with what to do with it. Yeah, I just don't know where we're going. I don't really see... Even if it gets closed off, what are you really losing? I don't really get it. I'm in support of the project. I think that there are things that need to be followed up on, though. Chair Furth: Could you specify what those are, Alex? Board Member Lew: Well, I think I did, right? Signage down to the garage. More detail on the materials, including the ground floor glazing. The lighting plan needs to specify the pole heights, the fixtures, because that affects the photometrics. And then, Finding #2 on page 124, I think we would add... Chair Furth: We are retaining the Chinese Elm. Board Member Lew: Yes, they are retaining a tree as an existing feature. Chair Furth: Thank you. Robert. Board Member Gooyer: I'm quite happy with the changes that were made from the last presentation, and I can approve the project as it stands right now. And I have to agree with Alex. I don't see that... I think that item #7, the access, it just seems excessive, right through the middle of the building. Like I said, if we want to do something where it could go on the side if we need to, I can do something like that. But just running an easement right through the middle of the property, what if in, you know, 10 years, they want to redesign the thing? All of a sudden, they are stuck because there is an easement there, and they have to go through all kinds of hoops to get that changed. I agree with some of the various items that Alex indicated to be added to the conditions of approval, but I think 7 ought to be eliminated. I can accept it the way it is. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you for the drawings, which I thought were very helpful. I like the way that this building plays with the different orientations, alignments of the 7.a Packet Pg. 350 City of Palo Alto Page 48 streets, so you have these spaces moving in and out. I think that will be enjoyable to experience, whether you're driving by or walking. Staff, if I forget, we need to add a condition that there will be a key card gate that will be closed outside of normal retail hours. And I actually think you should be more specific in that. I mean, if retail starts to go to 10:00 or 11:00 at night, I don't think that's okay for residential security. I don't know what hour is acceptable to the owner, but I think we need to specify it. Ms. Gerhardt: Ten to six would be our, or 6:00 to 10:00 would be our standard hours. The gate would be closed, you know, late-night hours usually start at 10:00. I don't know if that... Chair Furth: You've still got me lost. You need to put in AM and PM. Ms. Gerhardt: Sorry. Ten P.M. After 10:00 p.m., if a business stays open, that's considered late hours and would need additional permitting. Chair Furth: The parking garage would be secured at least between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., and longer if that's possible. I'm sure you're going to get pressure from your residents. That's a condition I would request and need to have before we made further findings. This site is a mess right now when viewed from the bay side. It's not designed to be viewed from the bay side. It's oriented exclusively to El Camino. The one thing that it does offer is you can walk from one side to the other. And it's important, I think, in making our findings that this proposal continues that. There are very few documents in law that are more flexible than access rights. It's not true to say that you can't have an access commitment to the public and the City that doesn't permit you to close things outside normal business hours. That doesn't permit it to terminate should the building be redesigned. That... I mean, I live next to a publicly- accessible, privately-owned public space, essentially, which is gated. It's got cameras. It's not open to the public on weekends, which is a big mistake. I regret that. And, it's not open after sunset or before dawn. I believe it's possible for the City and the applicant to fashion an agreement that is not a dedicated easement, that permits this building to operate in a way that facilitates that access when it makes sense. A lot of it has to do with design, but I think without some commitment, it's going to close tomorrow. You can shake your head at me, but residents typically, unless they are very well operated, don't normalize a public passageway until time has passed and they know it's well, and safely operated, well-lit and secure when it should be. So, I don't think we're ready for prime time on that one. I also think this shouldn't be approved until we have a condition fashioned that makes it clear that the entity that owns the bulk of the building outside of the condominium spaces is responsible for the maintenance of these other areas. I hesitate to... It's possible that you can get seven condominium owners who will take responsibility for the common open space and what not, of the rest of the building, but I've never seen it. And if we don't have that, then I feel we're going to lose the amenities that are so important for the success of this project. Guidance from staff would be appreciated. Board Member Gooyer: I have a question. Oh, sorry. Chair Furth: I was just going to say, it's because we're supposed to find that the building is well designed to operate effectively, blah, blah, blah. And this is a split ownership building. Sometimes you design those buildings so that they can ignore each other. You know, this is this part, this is that part. They don't really have to talk. Except when they re-roof every 30 years. But this isn't like that. This is an integrated project. Board Member Gooyer: I'm actually, about this whole access thing, does that mean, then, every property that gets developed on the island then is going to have to have some sort of easement through the middle of it? Chair Furth: No, and I didn't specify an easement, and they offered as an amenity this kind of passageway. I think that if we don't have any kind of commitment to keep it open, which, to my mind... Board Member Gooyer: What do you mean by a commitment, then? 7.a Packet Pg. 351 City of Palo Alto Page 49 Chair Furth: It could be a CC&R covenant with the City. We often do that. Because you're going to have to have CC&Rs. We have a lot of those, for example, over on the infill project, on the old Palo Alto Medical Foundation site. A lot of commitments on those spaces. Board Member Gooyer: That would be done, like, let's say, for example, through the HOA, or whatever. Chair Furth: Yeah. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. Chair Furth: Whatever the management... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: I could accept something like that. Chair Furth: I'm not saying they should have something that shows up on their title report the way CC&Rs do. I also think that realistically, that they're probably going to want the ability to close it off during some hours. It just doesn't quite seem to be thought through. I'm trying to figure a situation in which people will want, the owners will want to be able to leave it open because it facilitates their own commercial developments and residential ease of passage. And, the neighborhood understands that it's available for a passing-through use and nothing else during reasonably-limited periods of the day. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. I thought you were going... Chair Furth: I'm just struggling. Board Member Gooyer: ...back to the while idea of the easement, which I'm against. Chair Furth: I understand. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may. I did want to point out or clarify that we do have some policies related to this in the comp plan. Policy L2.2 talks about enhancing connections between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential by promoting walkable and bikeable connections. We also have context-based design guideline that talks about pedestrian and bicycle environment, designing new products that promote, you know, walkability, and connections. We definitely have some guidelines related to this. It definitely was a commitment made by the applicants, and I think in our latest conversations, the applicant is talking about potentially an access agreement. I don't know if that would be, sort of the happy medium. But I think we... Chair Furth: You know that we work with Stanford all the time, and they never grant anybody anything. Which is why we have a lot of public access easements. There are lots of documents that could probably let everybody live happily. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, I do think that, at least from a staff perspective, we feel like we could get to that happy medium. Chair Furth: Good. Does the applicant agree? Does what we say make sense to you? Mr. Voskerician: Yes. Chair Furth: We've said so many things. Let's see, is there anybody we haven't heard from? I've got Alex's list, but is there anybody else we haven't heard from? Everybody got their issues on the table? 7.a Packet Pg. 352 City of Palo Alto Page 50 Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I think I'm, just to reiterate one point that Alex made, and maybe one that I made earlier. There is a bit of clarification needed on the materials used and the material palette. And it's a little... I think there's some, like, kind of trump doy [phonetic] happening with the renders. I'm not sure if some materials are proud of other materials, or when the material changes, it happens in a plainer way. I think there's also a little... I don't know. I have more questions about what materials go where, but I don't want to... Chair Furth: Okay, so, we have three options. We can continue this matter for a further hearing by us. We can recommend approval without a subcommittee, just with referral to staff. Or, we can recommend approval with referral to a subcommittee. Without binding yourselves on the final motion, what are your thoughts on this. Us, subcommittee or staff? Board Member Thompson: I'd like to see some stuff again, so, whether that's in... Chair Furth: You either want it to be on subcommittee or come back to us. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm okay with it. To me, the issue is getting an access agreement. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Gooyer: But that could be done sort of, you know, by staff, and... Chair Furth: It should be done by staff. [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: ...the owner [crosstalk]... Chair Furth: It's not our area of competence. Board Member Gooyer: ...long as we put in there that some agreement... Chair Furth: You have to add a condition. Board Member Gooyer: ...needs to be made. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, I'm satisfied that, the way Wynne described it is fine. I don't think asking for a full-fledged easement across the property that gets put on title is appropriate. Board Member Gooyer: Right. Vice Chair Baltay: But, I would like to see something that also just grants the public... Puts in writing the applicant's intention.... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: And do it through, like, the HOA, or something. Vice Chair Baltay: Any sort of thing like that would be perfectly... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: Right. Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: I just want to see something. 7.a Packet Pg. 353 City of Palo Alto Page 51 Board Member Gooyer: If that's the case, I'd be willing to approve it with coming back to staff level, or something. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex? Board Member Lew: I am... Yes. I think that the... It seems to me that the outstanding issue, then, is, like what Osma pointed out, the blank west façade. And that if there are changes... Like, I think you were asking, if it's possible to do windows, and I think it's a, there may be fire rating issues, and two-hour enclosure issues. Chair Furth: The applicant's architect/representative is nodding. Board Member Lew: Yeah, so... Mr. Popp: Yeah, if I could just... I know this is out of procedure, but we're 2 feet, 3 inches from a property line. It's... Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: At five feet, you’re not... At less than five feet, you are not permitted to have any openings... Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: ... so we're trying to decorate the wall. Board Member Lew: It seems to me that that would be a big, if there were a change, that would be a big aesthetic thing that maybe the Board would need to see. My take on it is the wall isn't that long, and there is the Honey Baked Ham building in front of it. Board Member Gooyer: And it's only a three-story instead of a four-story. Board Member Lew: Yes, three stories, not four stories. And there's wood... Yeah. But I would guess that that would be one concern. I think generally I'm okay with subcommittee for these remaining items. Chair Furth: Okay. And I would support a subcommittee, so that's three of us. On this signage for the parking garage, I don't... Do we need a space counter sign? I mean, I'm sure it's tricky when you've got mixed use parking, but it seems to me those are the only ones that actually work. You know, I shop at a supermarket which has rooftop parking, and I can tell as I come down Hawthorne Avenue that there's zero, or 13, or 42 spaces, and that modifies my behavior. But just saying "parking garage" doesn't really tell me if I'm going to get lost in the bowels of a substructure. Applicant have any thoughts on this? Mr. Popp: We can definitely do what you're describing. I think the trick here is that the space counter is really just for the retail use, and there's mixed parking down there. It's going to be hard to gauge how many available spaces there are. Also, just aesthetically, having sat in your position, I'm not really in favor of having neon signs blinking how many spaces are available out on El Camino Real. Chair Furth: I'm sure you can design a tasteful one that doesn't blink. Mr. Popp: They look like what they look like. Chair Furth: I love them. Sort of the way I feel about solar panels. In certain circumstances. Not as designed by the City. Okay, so, I think we're moving towards a motion to recommend approval, with a new condition of approval requiring the installation of a key-controlled gate, card-controlled gate on the parking, that would be secured outside of normal business hours, which we will leave to staff to define before this goes for final approval. At the moment, we understand that they will be closed between 10:00 7.a Packet Pg. 354 City of Palo Alto Page 52 p.m. and 6:00 a.m., or longer if the applicant wishes. That we would add a condition that there would be signage indicating availability of parking for retail or commercial uses somehow, possibly with a counter sign. But the design of that signage, in addition to... How do you want to describe it? Review of materials? For the review of materials? Is that what you're talking about, that you want? I mean, clarification... Board Member Lew: Especially if you're specifying the materials, right? I mean, it just says wood and stucco, which really could mean anything. Chair Furth: Okay, specification of, and materials to be reviewed by a subcommittee of the ARB after further details are provided by applicant? Right? You're going to have the right to say yes or no? Ms. Gerhardt: And that would include, like, material samples, and then, also, clear delineation of where materials start and stop. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...with sufficient specificity so that you can review it for approval or denial, recommending of approval of denial. Sorry, my computer just decided to go to sleep. Modifying finding... Oh, specification, lighting plan needs to specify pole heights. Do you want the subcommittee to further review the lighting plan based on that information? Board Member Lew: Yeah, or staff. MOTION Chair Furth: Okay. We'll just dump it all to committee at the moment. And, we need to modify, recommending modifying... Where are we? Condition #7? Six? What page? Seven. And we'll stop calling that public access easement and simply call it public access. And the owner shall demonstrate to the satisfaction of the City that reasonable access will be available for pedestrian and bicycle use of the access way during normal business hours. And that the entity responsible for maintenance and operation of that will be capable of undertaking that task. Everybody...? They are nodding over in the applicant's bench. You know, we could have an interesting discussion about whether there's a null and dull and nexus here, because right now, there is access across the property. But we certainly don't have an interest in claiming a City property right in here as access that's available to the public. And it needs to be something more than good intentions. Buildings get transferred. The owner and operator of this building needs to be able to tell the people who think, "Oh, let's just close it off," that we can't. That we've made a commitment, and it's a binding commitment. Okay. Board Member Thompson: Could we add more element to maybe... Chair Furth: Subcommittee? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, to the subcommittee review? For that left elevation, even if it has to be without any fenestration? Chair Furth: We need to specify... Board Member Thompson: Oh, the west elevation. The one that has the fire barrier. Chair Furth: What's it face? The Honey Baked Ham elevation? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, that one. 7.a Packet Pg. 355 City of Palo Alto Page 53 Chair Furth: The one closer to downtown. The one as you proceed towards San Francisco on El Camino Real. Board Member Thompson: That one that, you know, is not allowed to have openings, but there could be more to be done aesthetically to make that less of a massive wall. Chair Furth: Okay, so, a review of the materials and detailing on the stairwell façade. Board Member Thompson: Right. Chair Furth: To see if they can have somewhat more interest, interest without, in light of the restrictions on openings. Okay. Everybody okay with that? It's a series of referrals to a yet-to-be-namedsubcommittee. Players to be named later. Great. That’s a motion by me. Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. Further discussion? Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to add that I did read the initial study of the EIR and I found it okay. Chair Furth: For the (inaudible). The mitigated negative declaration, right? Great. So, what that basically said was that this could have had adverse effects on the environment, but you were able to design around them and work around them. The applicant is looking at the clock; I'm sure so is everybody concerned with other projects. Did we vote? Board Member Thompson: Not yet. Chair Furth: All those in favor? All those opposed. Five to nothing. It is approved. MOTION TO APPROVED PASSED 5-0. 7.a Packet Pg. 356 SHELDON S. AH SING, AICP | PRINCIPAL PLANNER M-GROUP A NEW DESIGN ON URBAN PLANNING POLICY · DESIGN · ENVIRONMENTAL · HISTORIC · ENGAGEMENT · STAFFING CAMPBELL | SANTA ROSA | NAPA | HAYWARD 307 ORCHARD CITY DR. SUITE 100 | CAMPBELL | CA | 95008 | 408.340.5642 ext. 109 4115 El Camino Real – Project Revisions ARB Condition: ARB SUB-COMMITTEE. The following items shall be reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee prior to approval of any demolition, grading or building permit issuance: a. Basement garage signage and security gates b. Colors, Materials and specifications for the project c. Specify light pole heights d. Describe the maintenance for the open space areas e. Provide enhancement of the blank left/west wall Response: a. Per the ARB comment we have added a parking sign that indicates the number of available spaces and a gate at the driveway access to the below grade parking. This gate will remain open during business hours for the Retail and Office spaces. The gate will be electronically controlled after business hours for the residents and their guests. The gate is show on the Floor Plan sheet A008 and a photograph is provided on the Detail sheet AD2. A cut sheet for the space available sign has been included in the submittal. b. We have updated the Elevations on sheets A013 and A014 to include the color references for each material. In addition an enhanced color and material board will be provided for the ARB Sub-Committee hearing. Details were also added to the set on sheets AD1 and AD2 to show the interface and application of the various materials. Those Details include: Siding applications Glass railings Soffit transitions Recess transitions of wood to stucco conditions Wood screens Awning details Window heads and sills at various materials Wall planter structures Mechanical screen 7.b Packet Pg. 357 c. Light Pole heights were previously specified on sheet PH 2. We are also including cut sheets for the actual light fixtures. d. This is a mixed-use condo building. Every unit owner, whether retail, office, or residential will be required to contribute financially to the maintenance of the common areas and common open spaces. The retail condo owner will typically pass this cost onto his tenant in the form of NNN charges. The homeowners association or their representative will oversee the maintenance of the entire project. Applicant will work on CCR's (which includes maintenance agreements for open spaces) and they will be in place before building permit is issued. e. We reviewed the comment regarding the Left Elevation of the building. After review the elevation was not revised because the wall in question is +/- 2 feet from the property line and is a fire wall. In addition we looked at this wall with the adjacent building outline and more than 50% of the wall is covered by the adjacent building. We have included the outline of the adjacent building on the Elevation Rendering on sheet A014. 7.b Packet Pg. 358 Ligman Lighting USA reserves the right to change specications without prior notice, please contact factory for latest information. Due to the continual improvements in LED technology data and components may change without notice. 7144 NE Progress Ct Hillsboro.Oregon 97124 Aluminum Less than 0.1% copper content – Marine Grade 6060 extruded & LM6 Aluminum High Pressure die casting provides excellent mechanical strength , clean detailed product lines and excellent heat dissipation. Pre paint8 step degrease and phosphate process that includes deoxidizing and etching as well as a zinc and nickel phosphate process before product painting. Memory Retentive -Silicon GasketProvided with special injection molded “fit for purpose” long life high temperature memory retentive silicon gaskets. Maintains the gaskets exact profile and seal over years of use and compression. Thermal managementLM6 Aluminum is used for its excellent mechanical strength and thermal dissipation properties in low and high ambient temperatures. The superior thermal heat sink design by Ligman used in conjunction with the driver, controls thermals below critical temperature range to ensure maximum luminous flux output, as well as providing long LED service life and ensuring less than 10% lumen depreciation at 50,000 hours. Surge SuppressionStandard 10kv surge suppressor provided with all fixtures. BUG RatingB1 - U0 - G1 Finishing All Ligman products go through an extensive finishing process that includes fettling to improve paint adherence. PaintUV Stabilized 4.9Mil thick powder coat paint and baked at 200 Deg C.This process ensures that Ligman products can withstand harsh environments.Rated for use in natatoriums. HardwareProvided Hardware is Marine grade 316 Stainless steel. Anti Seize Screw HolesTapped holes are infused with a special anti seize compound designed to prevent seizure of threaded connections, due to electrolysis from heat, corrosive atmospheres and moisture. Crystal Clear Low Iron Glass LensProvided with tempered, impact resistant crystal clear low iron glass ensuring no green glass tinge. Optics & LEDPrecise optic design provides exceptional light control and precise distribution of light. LED CRI > 80 Lumen - Maintenance LifeL80 /B10 at 50,000 hours (This means that at least 90% of the LED still achieve 80% of their original flux) Construction T:503.645.0500 F:503.645.8100 www.ligmanlightingusa.com Public realm contemporary column family. Stylish but technically precise area lighting solutions as part of a large flexible family. Light Linear PT is an elegant minimalistic lighting column that is suitable for both modern and classic architecture. Ideal for creating visual guidance with exceptional visual comfort. The dual sealed optical chamber with integrated heat sinks houses a range of field interchangeable optically controlled LED’s, providing Type II, III, IV & V distribution, as well as variations of this for precise light distribution requirements. An example of this, is using a combination of Type II and Type IV distribution optics inside the same fixture. This product range is available in 54w, 80w, 106w & 152w options, as a single & double head styles. Customer specific wattages can be provided, contact the factory for more information. This luminaire complies to Dark Sky requirements.The sleek and minimalistic shape provides distinctive lighting effects by night and decorative urban effect during the day. Suitable for use in pedestrian precincts, building surrounds, shopping centers, squares, parks and parking lots. This product range is complemented with high performance optics in the bollard and wall mounted luminaires, to provide a consistent range of design aesthetics for the project. See website for more information. Poles can be provided with GFCI boxes positioned to specific heights specified by the customer. A flat low profile hand hole cover with vandal resistant screws is provided for easy installation. Internal house side shields are available as an option. Available with a selection of integral electronic drivers and dimming electronic drivers as well as a provision to install wireless lighting controls to integrate with building management systems, as well as pole mounted occupancy sensors [contact the factory for more information] Easy access to the luminaire for mainte-nance. (WATT-ADJ) This luminaire is provided with a programma-ble driver so that specific wattage requirements can be achieved. These settings are done at the factory during assembly. (See options on page 2) Additional Options (Consult Factory For Pricing) POLE INCLUDED Mounting Detail A20891 Root Mount Kit LIGHTING USA Length - 39.3” Height - 8’ - 20’Heights above 20’, contact factory Weight 65 lbs IP65 Suitable for wet locations IK07Impact Resistant [Vandal Resistant] EPA - 1.20 ULI-21171 Light Linear PT 3 Single Head Streetlight TURTLE FRIENDLY OS Occupancy Sensor Light Linear PT Product Family ULI-30022ULI-30011 ULI-10021 ULI-21181ULI-10031 ULI-21231 ULI-21251 39.3” 3. 5 ” 4” 12.5” 11.82"8.27" 0.87x2.0" 8. 2 7 " 11 . 8 2 " 7.b Packet Pg. 359 DATE 7144 NE Progress Ct Hillsboro.Oregon 97124 T:503.645.0500 F:503.645.8100 www.ligmanlightingusa.com PROJECT QUANTITY TYPE NOTE ORDERING EXAMPLE || ULI - 21171 - 54w - T2 - W30 - 02 - 18’ - 120/277v - Options LAMP 54w LED 5669 Lumens WATT-ADJ Specify Watts (54w MAX) Ligman Lighting USA reserves the right to change specications without prior notice, please contact factory for latest information. Due to the continual improvements in LED technology data and components may change without notice. LED COLOR W27 - 2700K W30 - 3000K W35 - 3500K W40 - 4000K 8’ - 20’ (For over 20’, contact factory) ADDITIONAL OPTIONS DIM - 0-10v Dimming NAT - Natatorium Rated A20891 - Root Mount Kit OS - Occupancy Sensor AMB - Turtle Friendly Amber LED FINISH COLOR 01 - BLACK RAL 9011 02 - DARK GREY RAL 7043 03 - WHITE RAL 9003 04 - METALLIC SILVER RAL 9006 05 - MATTE SILVER RAL 9006 06 - LIGMAN BRONZE 07 - CUSTOM RAL LIGHTING USA BEAM T2 - Type II Distribution T3 - Type III Distribution T4 - Type IV Distribution GFCI - GFCI Box WLC - Wireless Lighting Controls HSS - House Side Shield F - Frosted Lens ULI-21171 Light Linear PT 3 Single Head Streetlight VOLTAGE 120/277v Other - Specify POLE HEIGHT 2" 4.65" Slot to be provided in groutto allow water to drain Grouting to be provided by contractor after leveling pole with the pole base plate Foundation and Design by Others 2" 4.65" Grouting to be provided by contractor after leveling pole Slot to be provided in groutto allow water to drainFoundation and Design by Others with the pole base plate Option A Option B MOUNTING OPTIONS 7.b Packet Pg. 360 Product Overview The FSP-221B is a family of passive infrared (PIR) outdoor sensors that raise or lower the electric lighting level to high, lo and/or daylight contribution. Typically, once the sensor stops detecting movement and the time delay elapses, lights will first fade to low mode, and eventually switch o . When motion is detected, the sensor ramps the light level to high mode unless the daylight contribution is sufficient. The integral photocell can also switch for dusk to dawn control, so that lighting remains on overnight even without motion detection. The sensors control 0-10VDC or nondimming LED drivers or ballasts. The low voltage FSP-201B may be used with dim-t vers or ballasts. Initial setup and subsequent sensor adjustments are made using a Wireless Handheld Configuration Tool (FSIR-100). This tool enables adjustment of sensor parameters including high/low mode, sensitivity, time delay re. The FSIR-100 can read current parameter settings, and stores up to six sensor parameter profiles to speed commissioning of multiple sensors. HIGH/LOW/OFF PIR OUTDOOR PHOTO/MOTION SENSOR IP66 - Models FSP-221B, 100-347 VAC Specifications and Features Three interchangeable lenses for mounting between 8’ and 40’ Remote setup and adjustment with handheld wireless configuration tool Adjustable high and low modes (high: 0 to 10V, lo to 9.8V) Adjustable time delay (30 seconds, 1 to 30 minutes) Adjustabl to 59 minutes, 1 to 5 hours) Adjustable sensitivity/service mode (lo Adjustabl(none, 1 to 250 fc, auto); photocell on/to 250 fc) Adjustable ramp and fade times (1 to 60 seconds) Operating temperature: -40°F to +167°F (-40°C to +75°C) IP66 rated Five year warranty Factory Defaults High mode: 10V Low mode: 1V Time delay: 5 minutes 1 hour Setpoint: Disabled Sensitivity: Max Ramp up time: Disabled Fade down time: Disabled Photoc Disabled FSP-211B Coverage Dimensions of Lens Options FSP-L3 top and side coverage patterns FSP-L2 top and side coverage patterns FSP-L2 dimensions FSP-L3 dimensions 2.33"59.2mm 0.78"19.7mm 2.33"59.2mm 0.78"19.7mm FSP-L7 top and side coverage patterns 20'10'0'10'20' 0' 20' 10' 10' 20' 40 ft 0'3'9'6'3'6'9'12'12' 10' 20' 0 15' Ceiling 5' 15'18'20'15'18'20' ' 30' 20' 10' 10' 20' 0' 8' 0' 10'0' 0'3'3'7'7'11'11'24'24' 10'20'20' 60 ft 30' 20' 10' 10' 20' 0' 8' 0' 10'0' 0'3'3'7'7'11'11'24'24' 10'20'20' 60 ft 0'10'10'20'20'30'30'40'40' 0' 27' 40'50'50' 15' 50'25'0'25'50' 0' 50' 25' 25' 50' 100 ft FSP-L7 dimensions 3.2"81.3mm 1.04"26.4mm Catalog #Color Description FSIR-100 Black Remote Handheld Configuration Tool FSP-L2 White/Grey/Black/BrownThe Trim color option will be selected to closest White/Grey/Black/BrownThe Trim color option will be selected to closest White/Grey/Black/BrownThe Trim color option will be selected to closest 360° lens, maximum coverage 48’ diameter from 8’ height FSP-L3 360° lens, maximum coverage 40’ diameter from 20’ height FSP-L7 360° lens, maximum coverage 100’ diameter from 40’ height Integrated photocell Ligman provides integrated photocell control using the wattstopper legrand FSP-211B. Home/Main Menu Up Select Down Right/NextLeft Back PowerOn/Off FSIR-100 Sensor Configuration New SettingCurrent SettingsTest ModeRecall Profiles The FSIR-100 is a convenient handheld remote tool for sensor setting. Adjustable settings can be changed as needed for specific applications. 7.b Packet Pg. 361 ULI-30012 Light Linear PT 12 Surface 7144 NE Progress Ct Hillsboro.Oregon 97124 T:503.645.0500 F:503.645.8100 www.ligmanlightingusa.com Length 19.8” | Height 16.7” | Weight 17 lbs IP65 • Suitable For Wet Locations IK07 • Impact Resistant (Vandal Resistant) Mounting Detail Light Linear PT Product Family ULI-10021ULI-30021 ULI-10031 Ligman Lighting USA reserves the right to change specications without prior notice, please contact factory for latest information. Due to the continual improvements in LED technology data and components may change without notice. ULI-21181ULI-21171 ULI-21231 ULI-21251 6” 16.7”13” 19.8” 3.5” ø .4” 6” 4” 16.7” 4.3” 15.1” Aluminum Less than 0.1% copper content – Marine Grade 6060 extruded & LM6 Aluminum High Pressure die casting provides excellent mechanical strength , clean detailed product lines and excellent heat dissipation. Pre paint8 step degrease and phosphate process that includes deoxidizing and etching as well as a zinc and nickel phosphate process before product painting. Memory Retentive -Silicon GasketProvided with special injection molded “fit for purpose” long life high temperature memory retentive silicon gaskets. Maintains the gaskets exact profile and seal over years of use and compression. Thermal managementLM6 Aluminum is used for its excellent mechanical strength and thermal dissipation properties in low and high ambient temperatures. The superior thermal heat sink design by Ligman used in conjunction with the driver, controls thermals below critical temperature range to ensure maximum luminous flux output, as well as providing long LED service life and ensuring less than 10% lumen depreciation at 50,000 hours. Surge SuppressionStandard 10kv surge suppressor provided with all fixtures. BUG RatingB1 - U0 - G1 Finishing All Ligman products go through an extensive finishing process that includes fettling to improve paint adherence. PaintUV Stabilized 4.9Mil thick powder coat paint and baked at 200 Deg C.This process ensures that Ligman products can withstand harsh environments.Rated for use in natatoriums. HardwareProvided Hardware is Marine grade 316 Stainless steel. Anti Seize Screw HolesTapped holes are infused with a special anti seize compound designed to prevent seizure of threaded connections, due to electrolysis from heat, corrosive atmospheres and moisture. Crystal Clear Low Iron Glass LensProvided with tempered, impact resistant crystal clear low iron glass ensuring no green glass tinge. Optics & LEDPrecise optic design provides exceptional light control and precise distribution of light. LED CRI > 80 Lumen - Maintenance LifeL80 /B10 at 50,000 hours (This means that at least 90% of the LED still achieve 80% of their original flux) Construction Area distribution wall-mounted projectors.Stylish but technically precise area lighting solutions as part of a large flexible family. Light Linear PT wall light is an elegant wall mount fixture suitable for both modern and classic architecture. Ideal for creating visual guidance, with exceptional visual comfort. The dual sealed optical chamber with integrated heat sinks houses a range of field interchangeable optically controlled LED’s, providing Type II, III, IV & V distribution, as well as variations of this for precise light distribution requirements. An example of this, is using a combination of Type II and Type IV distribution optics inside the same fixture. This fixture is uinique as it has a IP68 driver housing container that is housed within the IP65 rated light fixture. It is available in 39w and 54w options. This luminaire complies to Dark Sky requirements. This product range is complemented with high performance optics in the bollard and streetlight luminaires, to provide a consistent range of design aesthetics for any project. Additional Options (Consult Factory For Pricing) SAM Small Adjustable Arm 34.67” TURTLE FRIENDLY LIGHTING USA 7.b Packet Pg. 362 DATE 7144 NE Progress Ct Hillsboro.Oregon 97124 T:503.645.0500 F:503.645.8100 www.ligmanlightingusa.com PROJECT QUANTITY TYPE NOTE ORDERING EXAMPLE || ULI - 30012 - 54w - T2 - W30 - 02 - 120/277v - Options LAMP 54w LED Ligman Lighting USA reserves the right to change specications without prior notice, please contact factory for latest information. Due to the continual improvements in LED technology data and components may change without notice. LED COLOR W27 - 2700K W30 - 3000K W35 - 3500K W40 - 4000K VOLTAGE 120/277v Other - Specify BEAM T2 - Type II Distribution - 5545lm T3 - Type III Distribution - 5543lm T4 - Type IV Distribution - 5669lm Light Linear PT 12 Surface ULI-30012 LIGHTING USA ADDITIONAL OPTIONS NAT - Natatorium Rated F - Frosted Lens AMB - Turtle Friendly Amber LED FINISH COLOR 01 - BLACK RAL 9011 02 - DARK GREY RAL 7043 03 - WHITE RAL 9003 04 - METALLIC SILVER RAL 9006 05 - MATTE SILVER RAL 9006 06 - LIGMAN BRONZE 07 - CUSTOM RAL 7.b Packet Pg. 363 7.b Packet Pg. 364 Attachment C Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “4115 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4266 7.c Packet Pg. 365