Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-07 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: February 7, 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. 190 Channing Avenue [18PLN-00043]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 1,951 Square Foot Office Building and the Construction of a new three-Story 8,769 Square Foot Office / Residential Mixed- Use Building. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development). Zoning District: RT-35 (Residential Transition Zone District in the South of Forest Area Phase 2 Coordinated Area Plan). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL. 702 Clara Drive [18PLN-00068]: Consideration for a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, Four-Unit Apartment Building and Construction of Three Detached Single- Family Homes Totaling 5,000 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With _______________________ 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. Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 4. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00324]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,337 Square Foot (sf) Macy's Men's located the Stanford Shopping Center and Construction of a new three- story stand alone retail building, approximately 43,581 sf, two retail buildings, approximately 3,506 sf each and construction of a new stand alone retail building, approximate 28,000 sf. (Total of 78,593 sf) Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez @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 October 18, 2018. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 6, 2018. 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2018. Subcommittee Items 8. 3128 El Camino Real [17PLN-00462]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Trellis Design, Landscaping, Benches and Building Color. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us 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 # 9996) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 2/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Attachments:  Attachment A: ARB 2019 Meeting Schedule (DOCX)  Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 2019 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson 2/21/2019 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics February 21  AT&T: Prelim for Small Cell Nodes  695 Arastradero: New Mortuary Building at Alta Mesa Cemetery  2342 Yale Street: Duplex with Detached Garage (1st Formal)  1700 Embarcadero: Mercedes / Audi Dealerships (2nd Formal) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9876) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 190 Channing Avenue: Mixed Use Residential and Office in SOFA 2 CAP (1st formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 190 Channing Avenue [18PLN-00043]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 1,951 Square Foot Office Building and the Construction of a new three-Story 8,769 Square Foot Office / Residential Mixed-Use Building. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development). Zoning District: RT-35 (Residential Transition Zone District in the South of Forest Area Phase 2 Coordinated Area Plan). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action: 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval included in Attachments B and C, respectively. Report Summary The applicant is proposing a three story mixed-use project with a basement within the boundaries of the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Phase 2 (SOFA 2 CAP). The project would replace a small single-story building currently used as an office with a new mixed-use office and residential building. The project is subject to architectural review findings and compliance with the performance standards identified in the Coordinated Area 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Plan. As designed, the project meets the applicable zoning requirements. The Board is encouraged to review the project’s proposed open space on the site, which may require further refinement. Draft findings and conditions are included with this report, including a special project condition to require additional testing of the site to determine whether there are any elevated levels of volatile materials within the soil or soil vapor and if present, to remediate or mitigate for this contaminant. Background Project Information Owner: Cole Dawson Architect: Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Representative: Ken Hayes Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 190 Channing Avenue Neighborhood: University South Lot Dimensions & Area: 76.2 sf x 100.2 sf; 7,625 square feet Housing Inventory Site: Yes; Identified as having a realistic yield of five units Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: One protected Oak tree on adjacent property to be preserved; six regulated street trees to be replaced. Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 1,951 square feet; single-story; built in 1976 Existing Land Use(s): General Business Office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Jewish community center (RT-35 Zoning) West: Dentist Office; Bathhouse Spa (RT-35 Zoning; PC-4779 Zoning approximately 150 feet southwest) East: Vacant; dry cleaners (RT-35 Zoning; R-2 Zoning approximately 130 feet southeast) South: Vacant/Parking Lot for Peninsula Creamery Milkman trucks; (RT-35 Zoning) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: RT-35 (Residential Transition) Comp. Plan Designation: SOFA 2 CAP (South of Forest Area II Coordinated Area Plan) Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Applicable; See discussion below Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes; multi-family use approximately 130 feet southeast Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: A preliminary hearing for the project was held on June 16, 2016. Staff Report: https://tinyurl.com/Prelim-SR-190-Channing 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Minutes: https://tinyurl.com/Prelim-Minutes-190-Channing Video: https://tinyurl.com/Prelim-Video-190-Channing Project Description The project includes demolition of the existing office building and surface parking lot and would replace it with an 8,681 square foot (sf), three-story, mixed-use building that includes two office units on the ground floor and four residential units above. Parking would be provided below grade and accessed via an ingress/egress ramp on Emerson Street. Pedestrian access to the two proposed office units as well as the residential units is provided along Channing Avenue. The building is proposed to be 35 feet tall with mechanical equipment extending to a height of 38 feet. The project would replace all street trees within the public right-of-way adjacent the property, many of which are in poor condition, and improves the planting strips to allow for better growth of the new trees. A small patio area, planters, and short-term bicycle parking are provided in the southwestern corner of the site adjacent the large oak tree on the neighboring property. This adjacent oak tree would be preserved. Planters are provided along the Channing and Emerson frontages and a bench is provided along Channing. The ground floor office spaces have floor to ceiling windows along most of the two frontages, encouraging views in. The applicant’s project description is included in Attachment G and the project plans are included in Attachment I. The applicant has also filed a Vesting Tentative Map that will be reviewed by the Planning and Transportation Commission and City Council. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Coordinated Development Permit: New development governed by a coordinated area plan (CAP) requires a Coordinated Development Permit. For SOFA CAP Phase 2 this review process closely resembles the City’s Architecture Review process. Specifically, projects in the SOFA 2 area are subject to review by the ARB in a manner that is consistent with this Board’s review of any other project. 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. These projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve a CDP application are provided in Attachment B.  Vesting Tentative Map: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a subdivision is outlined in PAMC Sections 21.12.010 and 21.13.020. Vesting Tentative maps require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review. The PTC reviews whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular Government Code 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State Law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. All entitlements must be completed prior to formal review of the Vesting Tentative Map; therefore, the map will be processed separately from this application. The HRB’s role, as it relates to SOFA 2, generally extends to reviewing projects that involve a transfer of development rights, when related to historic rehabilitation; changes to the SOFA 2 historic resources list; the demolition or moving of historic resources; and, alterations and additions to Category 1 and 2 structures (and all structures in a historic district, but there are no districts in SOFA 2). This application does not include any of the triggers for HRB review. Analysis1 As discussed further below, staff finds the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning requirements but would recommend refinements to improve consistency with the performance criteria outlined in the SOFA 2 CAP for projects within the RT-35 zone. Neighborhood Context The proposed project site is surrounded by other sites within the RT-35 Zone District and the SOFA 2 CAP. Overall, massing within the vicinity varies. No buildings exist on the immediately abutting lots on either Emerson Street or on Channing Avenue. Most of the other buildings within the immediate vicinity are two-story structures and transition to one-story structures moving away from the site. The closest structures include the Jewish Family and Community Services Center across the street, which ranges from 29 feet to 34 feet in height; Emerson Cleaners, which is approximately 21 feet tall, and the medical/dental office, which is approximately 24 feet tall. New buildings within the SOFA 2 CAP are required to be compatible with the existing area. In accordance with Section 4.010(a) “compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings is consistent with that existing in the neighborhood, and when new construction shares general characteristics and establishes design linkages with surrounding existing buildings so that the visual unity of the street is maintained.” The massing and scale of the project at 35 feet is similar to other adjacent buildings, which range from 21 to 34 feet, and is consistent with the height requirements of the RT-35 zone district. The Watercourse Way building located at 165 Channing Avenue is identified as a Category 4 Historic Building and is the only historic building within the immediate vicinity of the site. The building is located approximately 100 feet from the project site on the opposite side of 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. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Channing Avenue. The proposed project is an improvement in comparison to the existing condition of the project site and adds to the pedestrian environment by providing landscaping, seating, and other amenities along the frontage to replace the existing chain link fence. It is compatible in scale with the existing two story historic building at 165 Channing. 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 and provides the basis for the City’s development regulations. ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The proposed project is located within the boundaries of the SOFA 2 Coordinated Area Plan; accordingly, the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is SOFA 2 CAP. The SOFA 2 CAP anticipated that the residential transition districts in SOFA 2 would become much more of a mixed use area with substantial residential development next to, or combined with, office and commercial uses. Therefore, the proposed use of the site for a mixed-use project with office and residential units is consistent with the land use designation for this site. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. The project is consistent with most elements of the Comprehensive Plan; however, staff notes that the project site is identified in the City’s Housing Element as a Housing Opportunity site with a potential maximum yield of six (6) units and a realistic capacity of five (5) dwelling units. The project proposes four units, which is less than the realistic capacity for the site. That said, it should be noted that mixed-uses are also encouraged in this area, and the ground floor office space impacts the total realistic housing capacity of the site. Although the third floor could accommodate more than one unit, the additional unit(s) would require more parking on the site. The applicant is already requesting an adjustment to allow for shared-use parking due to the small size of the lot. Therefore, although one less unit is identified, the addition of four units and improvements to the ground floor office space are consistent with the goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Compliance3 The site is zoned RT-35 by the SOFA 2 CAP. The RT-35 district is intended to promote the continuation of mixed use, walkable, areas with a wealth of older buildings. The proposed mixed-use project with residential and office uses is a permitted use within the RT-35 Zone. It should be noted that the original design included a mix of retail and office on the ground floor with residential above. During the preliminary ARB hearing, several members of the board expressed concerns about the proposed retail use at the site. Preservation of the retail use is no 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 longer required under the Ground Floor Retail Preservation Ordinance, as discussed further below; therefore, retail use is no longer planned for the site. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance and the SOFA 2 Coordinated Area Plan. Setbacks The SOFA 2 CAP prescribes setbacks for mixed use projects, with each use having a distinct setback requirement. Mixed use projects may have a 15 foot setback from property lines or may be up to the property line along any/all of the lot lines so long as the Director determines, after ARB review, that the project is consistent with the established building pattern in the area. Sheet A0.5 of the project plans shows the established building pattern within the project area, which typically includes small or no setbacks from the front and street side yards. Setbacks from rear lot lines vary, with several adjacent buildings having no setback from the rear lot line and others with up to a 41 foot setback. Typically, the interior side yard setback is greater than 15 feet. The proposed project includes small setbacks from the street, reinforcing the pedestrian environment, similar to other established buildings in the area. However, on the interior side yard the project includes a greater setback, consistent with general development pattern. Therefore, staff finds the project to be consistent with the RT-35 setback requirements for mixed-use projects, subject to ARB review and Director approval. The SOFA 2 CAP establishes setbacks for residential uses located on upper floors of mixed use projects when they are located adjacent to residential uses. The proposed project is not subject to those setback standards because it is not located adjacent to other property zoned for strictly residential purposes. Therefore, the setback of the residential uses on the second and third floors is consistent with SOFA 2 CAP. Ground Floor and Balcony Open Space The proposed project includes open, private balconies for all four of the residences, as well as a shared balcony at the second floor along the Channing Avenue frontage. In addition, ground floor open space is provided for the offices uses. There are several performance standards outlined in the SOFA II CAP related to open space requirements. Specifically, the following performance standards would apply to the property:  Performance standard 5.050(k): “Residential and Mixed Use development shall provide useable private open space in a yard, patio, porch, deck, balcony, french balcony at least two feet in depth, or loggia for each dwelling unit. The type and design of the useable private open space shall be appropriate to the architectural character of the building, and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy.”  Performance standard 5.050(l): “Residential and Mixed Use development in the RT-35 and RT-50 zones shall provide common useable open space. The design of the common 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 useable open space shall be suitable for a variety of user groups, including families with children. The common useable open space shall be intentionally designed for the use and enjoyment of the residents and as an integrated composition with the building, with particular attention to solar access, protection from wind, visibility both into and from the area, quality and durability of paving and furnishings, and use of appropriate and attractive plant materials.” During the preliminary review, members of the ARB expressed some concerns about the large balconies that were proposed. Since that preliminary review, the applicant has redesigned the project, including the balconies to address these concerns. Though the balconies still seem somewhat large, they are better integrated into the design of the building and do consider solar and wind access, consistent with the performance standards (Standard 5.050[k]). In addition, though the balconies could be better designed to reduce potential views into neighboring properties, the main view of concern would be views toward the interior lot line. Currently the site adjacent to this is vacant and the next lot is a dry cleaners. Therefore, this would not create any immediate privacy concern. Trees are proposed along the interior lot line in order to provide screening to ensure privacy from any future development. The existing oak tree provides screening from the smaller front facing balcony along Channing Avenue. Staff notes that the ground floor open space, which provides more suitable open space for families than the private or common balconies, is not accessible to the residential units. It would be preferable to have the ground floor open space be open to residents as this would be more consistent with Performance Standard 5.050(I); however, staff acknowledges that significant redesign of the building may be necessary to achieve that, which could negatively affect the design of the project along the streetscape. Staff encourages the ARB provide input on whether minor revisions or additional conditions of approval would be appropriate to better meet this performance criteria. Tree Preservation The existing, protected oak tree on the neighboring property is planned to be preserved. During the preliminary review process, the plans proposed a basement that extended out to the property line, within a few feet of the oak tree. Based on staff direction and comments from members of the ARB during the preliminary review process, the basement has been revised and is notched to provide a minimum 10 foot clearance. In addition, the design at grade was revised to set the trash enclosure more than 10 feet from the base of the tree and to remove the courtyard wall that originally enclosed a portion of this open area. All areas within the 10 foot radius of the tree will remain pervious. An arborist report is included in the project plans and outlines requirements for work within the tree protection zone in order to ensure the protection of the tree. Ground Floor Retail Preservation At the time of this project’s preliminary hearing with the Architectural Review Board, an Urgency Interim Ordinance (Ordinance No. 5325) prohibited the Conversion of Ground Floor Retail and “retail like” uses. Under this Ordinance, the site’s use was identified as automotive 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 service station, which was considered a “retail like” use. Therefore, in the preliminary review, both retail and office uses were proposed on the ground floor. Board members provided several comments about whether a retail use was appropriate at this site and expressed concerns about the use of lifts for retail parking. Under the Ordinance adopted in March 2017 (ordinance No. 5407), which permanently limited ground floor conversion of retail and retail like uses, automobile services stations were removed from the list of “retail like” uses that required preservation. In late 2017, the space was legally converted to an office use. Therefore, the project is not currently subject to the ground floor retail preservation ordinance. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed project is consistent with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Specifically, it maintains the sidewalk and improves the pedestrian area with landscaping, a bench, and bicycle parking where no benches or bike parking, only minimal vegetation, and a chain link fence exist. The proposed project would not impact goals to improve bicycle facilities within this area, particularly a potential Class III bike path along Emerson Street. The project would replace at grade, paved parking with underground parking, which the Comprehensive Plan encourages. Ingress/egress to the underground parking garage would be provided from Emerson Street. Based on the proposed uses (square footage of office and number/type of residential units), the project is anticipated to generate 2 new AM peak hour trips and 3 new PM peak hour trips in comparison to existing conditions. These additional trips would not decrease the levels of service on roadway segments and intersections in the project area and did not warrant the need for a Transportation Impact Analysis to be prepared. A long drive aisle provides sufficient space for queueing to ensure that there would be no back-up on to the street. The applicant requests a two space shared parking adjustment for shared use between the office and residential uses. Therefore, 17 spaces are proposed instead of 19 spaces. All spaces would be unassigned. Given the transit-oriented nature of the development and the type of development (mixed-use residential/office) this shared parking adjustment seems appropriate and is further encouraged in accordance with Comprehensive Plan 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 for shared use of parking areas.” A transportation demand management plan is proposed and included in Attachment E. The applicant proposes that most of these spaces be provided via a lift system. It should be noted that during the preliminary hearing, member of the ARB expressed concern about the use of a lift system for retail uses. The retail use has since been removed from the proposed project. Since that preliminary hearing, the City has also adopted code requirements related to the use of lift systems, which are allowed for office and residential uses. The proposed project complies with the adopted ordinance, which is codified in PAMC Section 18.54.020, Vehicle Parking Facilities. 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Consistency with Application Findings As detailed in Attachment B, staff finds that the project, on balance, is consistent with the findings for Architectural Review, including the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning requirements for the RT-35 Zone District and the performance criteria outlined in the SOFA II CAP. The project includes high quality materials designed to define the two story form of the building and provide a lighter third floor that is set back from the frontage. It retains the protected oak tree and improves the pedestrian environment along both the Channing Avenue and Emerson Street frontages through benches, sitting areas, vegetation, planters, trees, and large windows that provide views in. 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 was found to be exempt from the provisions of CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, exemptions for in-fill projects. A draft of the documented exemption is included in Attachment H, documenting how this project meets the requirements of the Category 32 exemption. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on January 25, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 28, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, one project-related, public comment was received. The public comment is included in Attachment F. The comment indicated concern primarily that the project is not compatible with the adjacent buildings, particularly historic buildings within the area. In addition, during the preliminary review in 2016, a member of the public commented on the height of proposed skylights, which at the time exceeded the height allowance. The commenter also expressed concerns about the use of lift system parking for a retail use, and noted that WaterCourse Way is a historic building and that the project should fit in with that building. The skylights have been revised to conform to the 35’ height limit. All retail has been removed and, as discussed previously in this staff report, the project’s massing, height and setbacks are compatible with existing development within the area, including WaterCourse Way, which is not located immediately adjacent or immediately across the street from the project site. 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 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 Claire.Hodgkins@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: Transit Demand Management Plan (PDF)  Attachment F: Public Comment (PDF)  Attachment G: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment H: Environmental Exemption (DOCX)  Attachment I: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 18 Peninsula Crea mery Heinichens_Garage 112.5' 50.0' 112.5 145.0' 112.5'145.0' 112.5' 112 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0' 125.0' 50.0' 124.8' 50.0' 124.8' 50.0' 100.2' 50.0' 100.2' 36.3' 100.2' 36.3' 100.2' 76.2' 100.2' 76.2' 100.2' 50.0' 225.0' 50.0' 225.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 112.5' 112.5' 112.5' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5'45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5'45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5'45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 75.0' 50.0'75.0' 50.0' 75.0' 48.0'75.0' 48.0'75.0' 41.0' 41.0'112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 8 34.0 112.5' 50.0' 1 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5'25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 1 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 1050 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 33.3' 05.0' 33.3' 105.0' 105.0' 33.3' 105.0' 33 105.0' 137.5' 112.5'137.5' 112.5' 75.0' 105.0' 75.0' 105.0' 52.0' 105.0' 105.0' 73.0' 105.0' 100.0'0' 100.0' 05.0' 105.0' 200.0' 105.0' 200.0' 105.0' 112.5' 124.8' 112.5' 124.8' 50.0' 105.0' 0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 187.5' 112.5' 187.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 112 50.0' 0 56.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 95.0' 112.5' 50.0' 28.0' 12.5'1.5' 000.0' 30.7' 100.0' 105.0' 80.3' 80.3' 80.3' 80.3' 50.0' 50. 0' 50. 0' 50.0' 934-944 927 933-937 0 1001 1005 1010 1004 930 975 945 929 931 948 181 940 960 900 925 901-907 909 917 921 925 849 847 842 825 829 833 839 882 165 895 926 190 934 942 948 203 209 21 929 20 0 240 904 904B 910 926 909 909 A848 918 903 903 A 919 A 919 64 920 949 943941 904 965 945 840 901 A RA M O NA ST R E ET E M E R S O N STR E ET E M E R S O N STR EET HIG H STREET C H A N NIN G AVE N U E LANE A W EST C H A N NIN G AVEN U E T-35 PC- 4389 RT-35 R RT- 50 9 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Dimensions (AP) 190 Channing 0' 92' 190 Channing Avenue CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2018-11-21 10:55:03 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 19 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 190 Channing Avenue 18PLN-00043 In order for the ARB to make a recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Section 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The existing building on the subject property was historically used as an automobile service station and has been used as an office since 2017. The proposed mixed residential/office use is a permitted use within the RT-35 zone district identified within the South of Forest Area 2 Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA II CAP). The SOFA II CAP, which is also the identified land use designation under the City’s Comprehensive Plan, encourages mixed-use development. The proposed project complies with all development standards outlined within the SOFA II CAP and, on balance, is consistent with the performance standards outlined in the SOFA II CAP, which identify design standards relating to noise, light, open space, and trash service. In accordance with the SOFA II CAP performance standards, the performance criteria outlined in PAMC Section 18.23 would also be applicable to the site. The project is consistent with the performance standards and performance criteria, as outlined in Tables 2 and 3 below. No other design guidelines are applicable to the proposed project. As shown in Table 1, the proposed improvements are consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies outlined in the Land Use and Design Element, Transportation Element, and Natural Element, and Housing Element. Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Consistency 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 SOFA II CAP Mixed-use development with office or retail uses on the ground floor and residential uses above are encouraged. Land Use and Community Design Element GOAL L-1: A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. The proposed project is a mixed-use development with a multi-family residential component in a transit-oriented area. This type of development and location encourages a compact City and is consistent with regional strategies to address the interaction of 2.b Packet Pg. 20 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. jobs, housing balance and transportation issues. It would not cause the City to exceed any identified office CAP. The project is designed to be pedestrian friendly, providing residents and visitors with an attractive streetscape and place to work and live. Policy L-1.9: Participate in regional strategies to address the interaction of jobs, housing balance and transportation issues. Policy L-1.10: Maintain a citywide cap of 1.7 million new square feet of office/R&D development, exempting medical office uses in the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) vicinity. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor development towards the cap on an annual basis. Require annual monitoring to assess the effectiveness of development requirements and determine whether the cap and the development requirements should be adjusted. Continue to exempt medical, governmental and institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Goal L-2: An enhanced sense of "community" with development designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principals of sustainability The proposed project includes four additional residential units on a Housing Opportunity Site to help meet the Citywide need for housing. It embraces the principals of sustainability through its transit-oriented location, as a mixed-use development, and as a building that will meet all Green Building Plus Tier 2 requirements. It also substantially improves the pedestrian environment along these frontages in a pedestrian-oriented area of the City, providing improvements to the street trees within this area. The City’s Comprehensive plan encourages mixed-use development that includes housing and also encourages the location of employment near transit. Policy L-2.3: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, co-housing, cottages, clustered housing, accessory dwelling units and senior housing. Policy L-2.6: Create opportunities for new mixed use development consisting of housing and retail. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The proposed project is compatible with the immediate neighborhood, providing mixed-use office/residential in an area near transit and near local retail services. The 35 foot tall building is compatible with nearby buildings which range from approximately 21 to 34 feet. The new mixed-use building is a substantial improvement from the existing at-grade parking lot and small office building surrounded by a chain-link fence. Both the office entrances and entrance to the residential units open onto Channing Avenue. The balconies create a sense of habitation and these, combined with small pockets of open areas and vegetation along the frontage, create a relationship with the public street. Policy L-3.4: ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. Policy L-5.1: Foster compact Employment Districts developed in a way that facilitates transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Provide mixed uses to reduce the number of auto trips. The project includes at-grade bicycle parking and substantially improves the pedestrian environment along these frontages in a key connection to the downtown area. It includes mixed-use development and shared parking to reduce auto trips. GOAL L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. The building is well designed and in keeping with adjacent buildings and uses. It enhances the streetscape in this area. The project is consistent with the Zoning for the RT-35 district and applicable design guidelines, as outlined in the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan for development in this location. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. Policy L-6.2: Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. GOAL L-9: Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the city. The project integrates into the project in an underground garage, replacing an at grade parking lot front Channing Avenue and Emerson Street. It 2.b Packet Pg. 22 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 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. includes shared parking, as encouraged by L-9.2 while still providing safe streets and sufficient parking to meet demand. It enhances the streetscape with vegetation and provides amenities such as a bench and bicycle parking, enhancing the public space at this corner lot. It maintains and enhances the sidewalk in this area. Policy L-9.3: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation. Transportation Element Goal T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single- occupancy motor vehicles. With approval of the shared parking for two spaces, the project provides for its auto parking needs. It is transit-oriented and walking and biking distance from a variety of amenities such as grocery stores, retail, and eating and drinking uses. Program T1.19.1: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. Policy T-3.7: Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details. Although the project includes removal of the existing street trees, these existing trees are mostly in poor or declining conditions. The project would include replacement of all of these street trees and improve the planting areas to allow for proper growth of the new street trees. It also significantly improves the pedestrian environment. Policy T-3.9: Support citywide sustainability efforts by preserving and enhancing the tree canopy where feasible within the public right- of-way, consistent with the Urban Forest Management Plan, as amended. Program T5.1.1: Evaluate the need to update parking standards in the municipal code, based on local conditions, different users’ needs and baseline parking need. Allow the use of parking lifts for office/R&D and multi- family housing as appropriate. The project incorporates parking lifts for office and multi-family housing, as encouraged by this Comprehensive Plan policy. It also includes below grade parking and removes an existing at-grade paved parking lot while still ensuring that proper landscaping is provided along the frontage and that 2.b Packet Pg. 23 Policy T-5.6: Strongly encourage the use of below-grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible. the underground garage is designed around the existing protected oak tree, which would be preserved. Natural Environment Element Policy N-2.10: Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto The proposed project includes protection of the existing oak tree on the neighboring property. The underground basement has been revised to provide more space between the tree and the underground garage. In addition, the current design includes permeable surfaces within the vicinity of this tree. It should be noted that the existing building is built up to the property line immediately adjacent to this tree. Therefore, having this permeable area immediately adjacent the tree in lieu of the existing building is an improvement from existing conditions. Housing Element Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. Policy H2.2: Continue to support the redevelopment of suitable lands for mixed uses containing housing to encourage compact, infill development. Optimize the use of existing urban services, and support transit use. Program H2.2.3: Use coordinated area plans and other tools to develop regulations that support the development of housing above and among commercial uses. The Housing Element strongly encourages the development of housing in transit rich locations, especially on underdeveloped sites. The Housing Element also identifies this site as a housing opportunity site. The proposed project implements the SOFA 2 CAP, which encourages mixed use buildings that include housing. The existing office use would be replaced with mixed-use office/residential building in a transit rich location, consistent with the Housing Element. Table 2: SOFA 2 CAP Performance Standards Consistency 5.050 (a) PAMC Performance Standards Residential, non-residential and mixed-use projects shall comply with PAMC Chapter 18.64. The performance standards that were previously outlined in PAMC Section 18.64 were revised and are now reflected in PAMC Section 18.23, Performance Criteria, in accordance with Ordinance 4933. 2.b Packet Pg. 24 5.050 (b) Noises, Odors, and Clutter: Noises, odors, and clutter shall be screened effectively from streets and adjacent properties. There is nothing proposed as part of this project that would result in noises, odor, or clutter being visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent properties. 5.050(c) Trash and Service Equipment Trash and service equipment, including but not limited to satellite receiving dishes, dumpsters, recycling containers, and air conditioning units, shall be located on the rear of buildings or otherwise out of public view and shall be enclosed or screened with 100% opaque materials around all sides, including landscaping where permissible. The trash and recycling enclosure is screened from public view at the rear of the property and set back from the side property line, yet still accessible for service pick-up. 5.050(d) Trash Recycling Areas: Trash recycling areas and similar offensive areas shall be entirely enclosed (top and sides) and screened with 100% opaque materials when located adjacent to or in close proximity to existing residential uses, proposed residential uses, and residentially zoned properties. The trash recycling area is entirely enclosed and screened. Though it is not adjacent to any existing residential uses, adjacent sites are zoned to allow for residential uses and could eventually be developed for residential or mixed-use residential purposes. 5.050(e) Reduction of Noise and Visual Impacts: New commercial and mixed-use projects, including such noise generating uses as vehicle, automobile repair, automobile service station, and transportation centers, shall be designed to reduce potential noise and visual impacts on adjacent uses with particular attention to existing residential uses. There are no existing residential uses within the immediate vicinity of the project and the project does not include operational activities that would generate more extensive noise, such as an automobile service station, automobile repair, or transportation center. Noise from project operations would be typical of small multi-family residential uses and a small office use and are not anticipated to be impactful on existing uses within the vicinity or potential future uses within the vicinity, even if residential uses were to be proposed. 5.050(f) Reduction of External Noise Impacts All new development or substantial remodeling of existing uses, which might be impacted by such uses shall incorporate design features to minimize potential impacts from noise producing uses on future building tenants and users. The project design would include a stacker parking system and HVAC equipment that would generate noise. The stacker parking system is completely enclosed within the underground garage and would not result in noise impacts on adjacent properties. All HVAC equipment would be required to meet code requirements, including restrictions on the noise level and placement of such equipment to ensure compliance with Title 9 of the PAMC. 2.b Packet Pg. 25 5.050(g) Storage Yards: All commercial uses with outside service or storage yards, including vehicle storage yards, shall provide attractive, opaque screening around the entire perimeter of these yards. Screening shall include dense landscaping in combination with an opaque fence if feasible. This is not applicable to the proposed project. Regardless, the project still includes a wall along the perimeter landscaping to provide privacy between parcels for the rear open space area. Landscaping is also provided along the perimeter. 5.050(h) Elimination of Odors and Fumes All uses producing strong odors and fumes, which can be detected from off or adjacent to the property shall install equipment or containment areas in order to eliminate such detectable odors and fumes. The project does not include a use that is anticipated to generate any detectable odors or fumes that could be detected from off or adjacent to the property (e.g. a restaurant or industrial use). Standard trash, compost, and recycling carts would be provided and an enclosure would be constructed to house these. 5.050(i) Light Sources Interior and exterior light sources shall be shielded in such a manner as to prevent visibility of the light sources and to eliminate glare and light spillover beyond the perimeter of the development. The proposed project includes both interior and exterior lighting. The photometric study provided on Sheet A2.5 shows that there would be minimal lighting for the public right-of-way (small walkway lights at a maximum of .29 foot-candles). In most cases lighting would not extend beyond the property line. Staff notes that the extensive windows on the second and third floors are not anticipated to result in light spillover or glare; however the lighting for these interior spaces would make these spaces more visible to areas outside of the property line. 5.050(j) Prohibition of Nuisance All uses, whether permitted or conditional, shall be conducted in such a manner as to preclude any nuisance, hazard, or commonly recognized offensive conditions or characteristics, including creation or emission of dust, gas, smoke, noise, fumes, odors, vibrations, particulate matter, chemical compounds, electrical disturbance, humidity, heat, cold, glare, or night illumination. Prior to issuance of a building permit or occupancy permit, or at any other time, the chief building official may require evidence that adequate controls, measures, or devices have been provided to insure and protect the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition. There are no anticipated uses on the site that would result in nuisances or hazards that would impact the public interest, health, comfort, convenience, safety, and general welfare from such nuisance, hazard, or offensive condition. 2.b Packet Pg. 26 5.050(k) Private Useable Open Space Residential and Mixed Use development shall provide useable private open space in a yard, patio, porch, deck, balcony, French balcony at least two feet in depth, or loggia for each dwelling unit. The type and design of the useable private open space shall be appropriate to the architectural character of the building, and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy. Notwithstanding PAMC Section 18.04.030 (65)(A), loggias up to 80 square feet per dwelling unit shall be excluded from gross floor area. Spaces enclosed with windows are not open space. The proposed project includes extensive private open space in the form of both ground floor open space and balconies. The proposed private balconies are desirable open space that considers dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and fit in with the architectural character of the building. However, the balconies along the side lot line and facing Emerson Street do tend to provide more sweeping views into the neighboring property along Emerson. However, the balcony along the interior side lot line is set back and tall landscape screening is provided to screen views. Currently the adjacent property is not developed and therefore impacts would be minimal. No balconies are provided along the rear lot line where a potential multi-family residential project is proposed. 5.050(l) Common Useable Open Space Residential and Mixed Use development in the RT-35 and RT-50 zones shall provide common useable open space. The design of the common useable open space shall be suitable for a variety of user groups, including families with children. The common useable open space shall be intentionally designed for the use and enjoyment of the residents and as an integrated composition with the building, with particular attention to solar access, protection from wind, visibility both into and from the area, quality and durability of paving and furnishings, and use of appropriate and attractive plant materials. The size and dimensions of the common open space(s) shall be adequate and suitable for the number of units served by the open space(s). The proposed project is located within the RT-35 Zone district and provides common useable open space. The common useable open space is intentionally designed for the use and enjoyument of the residents and as an integrated composition with the building, with attention to solar access, protection from wind, and visibility into and from the area. It would be more desirable of the ground floor open space area were available for common use, rather than private use for the office tenant. However, on balance, staff finds the project to be consistent with this performance standard. Table 3: Performance Criteria Consistency 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 The project provides an enclosed trash facility that will be shared between each of the uses occupying the building. There are no abutting residences. 2.b Packet Pg. 27 Table 3: Performance Criteria Consistency Performance Criteria Project Consistency recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. There are no existing residential sites abutting or nearby the subject property. Regardless, the photometric study included in the project plans shows that lighting would be not be impactful at the property line. Only minimal small pathway lighting would be visible outside the property line along the frontage to provide lighting for the safe passage of pedestrians within the vicinity of the project site. 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 project would not include any operational uses between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. The office uses is expected to be open during regular business hours. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. All mechanical equipment is screened from public view and adjacent properties either within the rear of the building or on the roof. Landscaping is integrated into the project design and provides privacy screening between properties. 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 The project is designed to include all underground parking and the location of the garage ramp is located adjacent a vacant lot. No loading area is required for the proposed project. All heating and ventilation is provided in areas that would not be visible and this equipment would be required to comply with the noise ordinance, which would restrict the location and noise levels, ensuring that 2.b Packet Pg. 28 Table 3: Performance Criteria Consistency Performance Criteria Project Consistency 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. they would not be impactful on adjacent properties. 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. All parking would be provided underground, replacing the existing surface parking lot at the site. 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 proposed project includes bicycle parking both at grade and in the below-ground parking lot. Generally traffic to and from the site is not extensive and the project includes significant improvements to the pedestrian environment in comparison to existing conditions, which encourages walking and biking. Site clearance triangles are provided to ensure that views are not obstructed for drivers exiting the garage. 18.23.090 Air Quality The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 2.b Packet Pg. 29 Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors and the general community. Specifically, the office space on the ground floor is designed to reinforce the pedestrian environment, with large open windows that are inviting to visitors and the general public and provide natural light to occupants. The streetscape also includes quality vegetation and amenities that improve the area for pedestrians. The residential units above are designed to provide separation from the public but still reinforce the streetscape with balconies and large windows, which provide evidence of occupation as well as natural light and outdoor area for occupants. The project retains the existing natural features such as the nearby protected oak and replaces other street vegetation that is mostly in poor condition. The project is consistent with the applicable performance criteria of the site, as discussed under Finding #1. The project provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses. Other land uses in the area are primarily commercial uses such as a dental office, a day spa, dry cleaners, a family and children’s services center, or surface parking lots. The project is similar in height and setbacks to other adjacent uses and the use is consistent with the intended use of this transition district. It adds livable housing in on a site that currently only provides an office use. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is of high aesthetic quality, providing a unified design that is different from, but compatible in scale and character with the adjacent buildings, including the height, setbacks and massing. Materials include a cast in place integrally colored concrete base for the planters and stairwell, which support a two story limestone form, similar in form to other adjacent two story buildings. This then transitions to a metal, glass, and wood third floor. The railings are glass, adding to the transparency and reducing the perceived building height and massing. The materials are of high aesthetic quality and provide an appropriate transition from a heavier base form to a lighter upper floor that is set back from the frontage, helping the third story to visually recede from the pedestrian line of site. The large windows, vegetation, and amenities along the frontage enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle 2.b Packet Pg. 30 access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project design is functional, providing access to both the office and residential spaces along the Channing frontage. All parking is provided underground with a single ingress/egress from Emerson Street. The proposed vehicle access would not impact existing vehicle traffic or potential bicycle paths, providing sufficient space for queuing on site. Bicycle parking is provided both at grade and in the parking garage. Utilities are all easily accessible. The open space for residential uses is provided via pockets along the frontage and in private and common deck spaces. Sufficient open space is provided for the residential uses. Additional private open space is provided for the office space, which is not required but desirable to users. 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 preserves the existing, protected oak tree and has been designed to provide at least ten feet of space between the new development and this oak. Most of the other vegetation on-site or in the adjacent public right-of-way is in poor condition and would be replaced. The project includes improvements to the soil volume and quality to provide better planting area for new trees and other vegetation. It also includes planters along the project frontage and trees along interior lot lines. The vegetation is fitting and integrated into the project design and significantly improves the pedestrian environment at this corner. The proposed landscape is designed to provide year-round color and seasonal interest with plants such as the Chinese fringe flower, the golden breath of heaven, and several evergreen species. The majority of these plants are drought resistant, with only a few medium water use plants, such as vines in appropriate areas. It includes some indigenous plants where practical, as well as several plants that provide desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. For example, the pink flowering current is very attractive to bird species. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 along with the City’s Energy Reach Code requirements. The project will use low water-use, drought resistant plants. The project is designed to provide significant natural light to the interiors but also includes deep solar shading canopies to protect the extensive windows from excessive heat gain. 2.b Packet Pg. 31 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 190 Channing Avenue 18PLN-00043 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, “190 Channing Ave. Palo Alto, CA 94025” stamped as received by the City on January 25, 2019 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. PUZZLE PARKING SYSTEM. Up to fourteen (14) required parking spaces may be provided in a puzzle parking system and shall be made available to all users, including guests. There shall be no assigned parking. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit an analysis and report, prepared by a qualified professional, for review and approval by the Director of Planning and Community Environment that demonstrates the effectiveness of the proposed parking lift system with respect to operational details, regular and emergency maintenance schedule, and procedures and backup systems. 7. ADDITIONAL SITE TESTING. To ensure compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policy N-5.4 as well as Section 5.120(d) of the SOFA 2 CAP, the applicant shall hire a qualified professional to perform site testing to determine the presence or absence of the following contaminants that may be present at the site: volatile organic compounds, polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons, and metals. 2.c Packet Pg. 32 If any of these contaminants, which could affect future users, are found to be present during testing, cleanup of the materials to below environmental screening levels identified by state and regional agencies for these contaminants is required in accordance with Section 5.120(e) of the SOFA 2 CAP prior to issuance of a grading or building permit. 8. SIDEWALKS. The applicant shall coordinate with Caltrans, the County, and the City of Palo Alto Public Works Engineering Department, as appropriate, to reduce sidewalk closures during construction and ensure that a safe path of travel is maintained for pedestrians in this area. 9. NOISE. In accordance with PAMC Section 9.10.040 no person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine or device, or any combination of same, on commercial or industrial property, a noise level more than eight dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. The signage showing construction hours, as required under PAMC Section 9.10.040 shall include an emergency number for reporting noise concerns. 10. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES. Estimated Development Impact Fees, including housing impact fees, in the amount of $282,593.57 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, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. 13. 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 2.c Packet Pg. 33 action with attorneys of its own choice. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 14. MONITORING WELLS. Based on the City’s GIS there may be plume monitoring wells within the project site. Typically these wells are maintained by Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD). The proposed work shall not destroy any of the monitoring well or affect the function and use of these unless otherwise approved by the SCVWD. Contact SCVWD to verify the well location. Plot and label them on the plans and provide notes to protect wells as required by the district. 15. DRAINAGE. The proposed new building will be required to drain to pervious areas of the site within private property, no direct connection into the City storm system will be allowed. 16. SUBDIVISION. As condominium units are proposed, a Preliminary Parcel Map and a Parcel Map, or Tentative Map and a Final Map, are required for the proposed development. Map types and review procedures vary depending on the number of units proposed. Depending on the number of units proposed, the applicant shall submit a minor or major subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Parcel or Tentative map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. Tentative/Final maps are submitted under a Major Subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Community Environment. Public Works will review and provide comments on the documents provided as part of the submittal. Please be advised that under the provisions of the Subdivision Map Act, off-site improvement plans are processed as an extension of the subdivision application process and the applicant may be required to enter into a subdivision improvement agreement and provide security for work shown in the plans. 17. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER. As part of this project, the applicant must replace all of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. 18. STREET TREES. The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of- Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 19. 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 2.c Packet Pg. 34 10 feet from the property line, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 20. 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. 21. DEWATERING. The applicant shall be aware that the project site is locate over an known fuel leak, without an environmental study it is difficult to determine if the standard dewatering practices can be used at this site. Note that if groundwater can be treated and is directed to storm drain then the following applies: 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 22. GRADING & EXCAVATION PERMIT. An application for a grading & excavation permit must be submitted to Public Works when applying for a building permit. The application and guidelines are available at the Development Center and on our website. 23. 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 24. 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. 25. 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. 26. 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.c Packet Pg. 35 27. C.3 SMALL PROJECTS. This project triggers the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures:  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.  Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.  Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. 28. 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. 29. GRADING. 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. 30. STREET-WORK. 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.” 31. PAVEMENT. 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 Channing Avenue and Emerson Street, based the roadway surface condition after project completion and limits of trench work. At a minimum pavement resurfacing of the full street width along the two project frontages will be required.” Plot and label the area to be resurfaced as hatched on the site plan. 32. STOCKPILING. 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. BUILDING DIVISION 33. EMERGENCY ACCESS. The plans submitted for building permit shall show that the proposed 2.c Packet Pg. 36 residential unit “D” on the third floor has an emergency escape from the Study, which has access to an exterior yard that opens into a public way per CBC 1030.1. 34. EGRESS STAIRS. The plans submitted for building permit shall show that the interior egress stairs has a minimum width of 44”, unless it is required to be an access means of egress with a 48” minimum width. (CBC 1011.2, 1009.3) 35. ACCESSIBILITY. The four (4) residential units shall be considered as a covered multi-family dwelling and are required to be accessible and to comply with CBC Chapter 11A. (CBC 1102.A.1). The plans submitted for building permit shall show compliance with these requirements. OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION 36. TRANSPORTATION DEMAND MANAGEMENT. As part of the requested director’s adjustment to off- street parking supply standards, a performance-based transportation demand management (TDM) plan was required (PAMC 18.52.030(i)(1)(C)) and approved by the Office of Transportation on July 25, 2018. As part of the project and TDM plan, total net motor vehicle trips shall be reduced by at least 45% compared to baseline trip generation projections shown in the project’s Trip Generation and Access Study memorandum, prepared by Hexagon Transportation Consultants, and dated June 11, 2018. Required measures shall remain in full force for the life of the project unless altered by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Monitoring reports shall be submitted to the Director two years after building occupancy and again every year thereafter (PAMC 18.52.050(d)(2)). If, based on results of the monitoring program, the required 45% reduction in motor vehicle trips is not achieved, the Director of Planning and Community Environment may require changes to the TDM program to meet required targets or impose administrative penalties if identified deficiencies are not addressed within six months (PAMC 18.52.050(d)(4)). PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY DIVISION 37. ACTIVITIES WITHIN OAK TPZ. All activities within he tree protection zone for the protected Coast Live Oak on the neighboring property must be closely monitored by the project arborist. Techniques shall be used to minimize root loss. The use of vertical shoring or similar techniques is restricted unless otherwise approved by the CPA Urban Forestry Division. 38. TREE REMOVAL PERMIT. A separate tree removal permit must be issued with the building permit for removal and replacement of existing street trees. Root corridor shall be installed as described in the standard detail included on the planting notes sheet L-2.2. 39. 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, and shall also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. a) Protected tree removal request shall meet strict criteria of the tree ordinance and if demonstrated that targeted mitigation measures have been exhausted. b) The applicant is responsible to be informed with the Tree Preservation & Management Regulations, PAMC 8.10. Identify mitigation areas of the site to remain undeveloped as required by the Ordinance. 2.c Packet Pg. 37 c) Add a note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # ________________ separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” 40. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. The project site arborist will protect and monitor neighboring trees/protected redwood/protected oak during construction and share information with the tree owner. All work shall be done in conformance with State regulations so as to ensure the long term health of the tree. Project site arborist will request access to the tree on the neighboring property as necessary to measure an exact diameter, assess condition, and/or perform treatment. If access is not granted, monitoring and any necessary treatment will be performed from the project site. 41. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures as a condition of the building permit, Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. Tree fencing shall be adjusted after demolition if necessary to increase the tree protection zone as required by the project arborist. 42. 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. 43. 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. 44. 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. PUBLIC WORKS STORMWATER DIVISION 45. PESTICIDE RESTRICTIONS. Add as a note in the building plans that, “in accordance with the Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) no chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment shall be used on the site.” Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost shall be used in-lieu of these. 46. DRAINAGE TO LANDSCAPING. Downspouts shall drain to landscaping, outward from building as needed. HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas shall also drain to landscaping. PUBLIC WORKS WATER QUALITY 47. DISCHARGE OF GROUNDWATER. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.170 and 16.09.040, prior approval shall be obtained from the city engineer or designee to discharge water pumped from construction sites to the storm drain. The city engineer or designee may require gravity settling and filtration upon a determination 2.c Packet Pg. 38 that either or both would improve the water quality of the discharge. Contaminated ground water or water that exceeds state or federal requirements for discharge to navigable waters may not be discharged to the storm drain. Such water may be discharged to the sewer, provided that the requirements of Section 16.09.040 are met and the approval of the superintendent is obtained prior to discharge. The City shall be compensated for any costs it incurs in authorizing such discharge, at the rate set forth in the municipal fee schedule. Review the guidelines listed in City of Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.28 prior to discharge of any water from construction dewatering. 48. UNPOLLUTED WATER. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.055, unpolluted water shall not be discharged through direct or indirect connection to the sanitary sewer system. And PAMC 16.09.175 (b) General prohibitions and practices Exterior (outdoor) drains may be connected to the sanitary sewer system only if the area in which the drain is located is covered or protected from rainwater run-on by berms and/or grading, and appropriate wastewater treatment approved by the Superintendent is provided. For additional information regarding loading docks, see section 16.09.175(k) 49. CONDENSATE FROM HVAC. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(5), Condensate lines shall not be connected or allowed to drain to the storm drain system. 50. COPPER. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(6), Copper Piping, Copper, copper alloys, lead and lead alloys, including brass, shall not be used in sewer lines, connectors, or seals coming in contact with sewage except for domestic waste sink traps and short lengths of associated connecting pipes where alternate materials are not practical. The plans must specify that copper piping will not be used for wastewater plumbing. 51. COVERED PARKING. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(9), if installed, parking garage floor drains on interior levels shall be connected to an oil/water separator prior to discharging to the sanitary sewer system. The oil/water separator shall be cleaned at a frequency of at least once every twelve months or more frequently if recommended by the manufacturer or the Superintendent. Oil/water separators shall have a minimum capacity of 100 gallons. 52. MERCURY. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.180(b)(12) mercury switches shall not be installed in sewer or storm drain sumps. 53. COOLING TOWERS. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.205, no person shall discharge or add to the sanitary sewer system or storm drain system, or add to a cooling system, pool, spa, fountain, boiler or heat exchanger, any substance that contains any of the following: (1) Copper in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; (2) Any tri-butyl tin compound in excess of 0.10 mg/liter; (3) Chromium in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. (4) Zinc in excess of 2.0 mg/liter; or (5) Molybdenum in excess of 2.0 mg/liter. The above limits shall apply to any of the above-listed substances prior to dilution with the cooling system, pool, spa or fountain water. A flow meter shall be installed to measure the volume of blowdown water from 2.c Packet Pg. 39 the new cooling tower. Cooling systems discharging greater than 2,000 gallons per day are required to meet a copper discharge limit of 0.25 milligrams per liter. 54. STORM DRAIN LABELING. In accordance with PAMC 16.09.165(h) storm drain inlets shall be clearly marked with the words "No dumping - Flows to Bay," or equivalent. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 55. UTILITY DISCONNECT. Prior to submittal of a demolition permit, 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. (The existing water service and meter may remain during construction (RP is required), a new service is required if existing service is not meeting current WGW utilities standards prior to final inspection.) 56. LOADS. 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. 57. CONNECTION APPLICATION. Prior to approval of a building permit, 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). 58. UTILITY IMPROVEMENT PLANS. Prior to approval of a building permit, 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. 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). 59. RESPONSIBILITY. 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. 60. FLOW CALCULATIONS. Prior to approval of a building permit, 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 study shall meet the requirements and the approval of the WGW engineering section. No downstream overloading of existing sewer main will be permitted. 2.c Packet Pg. 40 61. CONTRACTOR INSTALLED IMPROVEMENTS. For contractor installed water and wastewater mains or services, the applicant shall submit to the WGW engineering section of the Utilities Department four copies of the installation of water and wastewater utilities off-site improvement plans in accordance with the utilities department design criteria. All utility work within the public right-of-way shall be clearly shown on the plans that are prepared, signed and stamped by a registered civil engineer. The contractor shall also submit a complete schedule of work, method of construction and the manufacture's literature on the materials to be used for approval by the utilities engineering section. The applicant's contractor will not be allowed to begin work until the improvement plan and other submittals have been approved by the water, gas and wastewater engineering section. After the work is complete but prior to sign off, the applicant shall provide record drawings (as-built) of the contractor installed water and wastewater mains and services per the City of Palo Alto Utilities record drawing procedures. For contractor installed services the contractor shall install 3M marker balls at each water or wastewater service tap to the main and at the City clean out for wastewater laterals. 62. RPPA. A 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 submitted for building permit. 63. RPDA. A 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 feet of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans submitted for building permit. 64. BACKFLOW PREVENTER. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the utilities/building inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. 65. WATER SERVICES. Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense per city standards. WGW Utilities Operations to video inspect the existing sewer lateral to verify if replacement is required. 66. CONNECTION FEES. 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. 67. WATER METER FOR LANDSCAPING. 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. 68. WATER SERVICE SPECIFICATIONS. A new water service line installation for domestic usage is required. For service connections of 4-inch through 8-inch sizes, the applicant's contractor must provide and install a concrete vault with meter reading lid covers for water meter and other required control equipment in 2.c Packet Pg. 41 accordance with the utilities standard detail. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans submitted for building permit. A new water service line installation for irrigation usage is also required. Show the location of the new water service and meter on the plans submitted for building permit. 69. ABANDONEMENT OF EXISTING SERVICES. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 70. LOCATION OF UTILITIES. Utility vaults, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services and gas service may not be placed over a podium or basement. 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 unless otherwise approved by the utilities division. 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 unless otherwise approved by the utilities division. 71. SEWER CLEANOUT. 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. 72. PUBLIC UTILITIES EASEMENT. The applicant shall secure a public utilities easement for the gas meters installed in private property prior to approval of final occupancy. The applicant's engineer shall obtain, prepare, record with the county of Santa Clara, and provide the utilities engineering division with copies of the public utilities easement on the parcel. UTILITIES-ELECTRIC ENGINEERING DIVISION 73. USA DIG ALERT. The applicant shall be responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. Prior to any excavation work at the site, the applicant shall contact Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600, at least 48 hours prior to beginning work. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 74. UTILITY DISCONNECT. The applicant shall submit a request to disconnect all existing utility services and/or meters including a signed affidavit of vacancy, on the form provided by the Building Inspection Division. Utilities will be disconnected or removed within 10 working days after receipt of request. The demolition permit will be issued after all utility services and/or meters have been disconnected and removed. 75. LOAD CALCULATIONS. The completed Electric Load Sheet and a full set of plans must be included with all applications involving electrical work. The load sheet must be included with the preliminary submittal. 76. ELECTRICAL SERVICE DESIGN. Industrial and large commercial customers must allow sufficient lead-time for Electric Utility Engineering and Operations (typically 8-12 weeks after advance engineering fees have been paid) to design and construct the electric service requested. 77. SUBSTRUCTURE. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear and any underground electrical service conductors, bus 2.c Packet Pg. 42 duct, transition cabinets or other equipment. The design and installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to National Electric Code requirements and no 1/2 – inch size conduits are permitted. All off-site substructure work will be constructed by the City at the customer’s expense. Where mutually agreed upon by the City and the Applicant, all or part of the off-site substructure work may be constructed by the Applicant. 78. ELECTRICAL PANEL. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 79. SCREENING AND PLACEMENT. All utility meters, lines, transformers, backflow preventers, and any other required equipment shall be shown on the landscape and irrigation plans and shall show that no conflict will occur between the utilities and landscape materials. In addition, all aboveground equipment shall be screened in a manner that is consistent with the building design and setback requirements. 80. TRANSITION CABINET. For services larger than 1600 amps, the customer will be required to provide a transition cabinet as the interconnection point between the utility’s pad mount transformer and the customer’s main switchgear. The cabinet design drawings must be submitted to the Electric Utility Engineering Department for review and approval. 81. UNDERGROUND SERVICES. For underground services, no more than four (4) 750 MCM conductors per phase can be connected to the transformer secondary terminals; otherwise, bus duct must be used for connections to pad mount transformers. If customer installs a bus duct directly between the transformer secondary terminals and the main switchgear, the installation of a transition cabinet will not be required. 82. Projects that require the extension of high voltage primary distribution lines or reinforcement of offsite electric facilities will be at the customer’s expense and must be coordinated with the Electric Utility. 83. CONCRETE ENCASEMENT. All primary electric conduits shall be concrete encased with the top of the encasement at the depth of 30 inches. No more than 180 degrees of bends are allowed in a primary conduit run. Conduit runs over 500 feet in length require additional pull boxes. 84. INSPECTION. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. 85. METER AND SWITCHBOARD. Meter and switchboard requirements shall be in accordance with Electric Utility Service Equipment Requirements Committee (EUSERC) drawings accepted by Utility and CPA standards for meter installations. Shop/factory drawings for switchboards (400A and greater) and associated hardware must be submitted for review and approval prior to installing the switchgear to: Gregory McKernan, P.E. Power Engineer Utilities Engineering (Electrical) 1007 Elwell Court Palo Alto, CA 94303 Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 2.c Packet Pg. 43 86. AS-BUILT DRAWINGS. Following construction and prior to final occupancy, the customer shall provide as- built drawings showing the location of all switchboards, conduits (number and size), conductors (number and size), splice boxes, vaults and switch/transformer pads. 87. FINAL INSPECTION. Prior to occupancy, all required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector, all fees must be paid and all Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. FIRE DEPARTMENT 88. FIRE SPRINKLERS. The building permit shall show installation of a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe, and NFPA 72 fire alarm system. 89. ELEVATOR. The elevator shown on the building permit shall be sized for a gurney and two attending medical personnel. The building shall be evaluated for an Emergency Responder Radio System. 90. EGRESS SECOND FLOOR. The second floor bedroom emergency escape window opens over the driveway ramp to the below grade parking. The Fire Department cannot access this window with a ground ladder. Provide means for Fire Department access to the bedroom escape window. 91. EGRESS THIRD FLOOR. The third floor study room meets the definition of a sleeping area. Configure the study room so it does not meet the CBC definition of a sleeping area or otherwise provide ground ladder access to the emergency egress window. GREEN BUILDING 92. The project is required to comply with all Green Building requirements for both the residential and non- residential portions of the project, as applicable to those uses, as required in accordance with the California Green Building Code and PAMC Section 16.14. 2.c Packet Pg. 44 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 190 Channing Avenue, 18PLN-00043 Table 1: Compliance with SOFA II CAP RT-35 District Regulations Regulation Requirement Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area No minimum 7,625 sf No Change Min. Site Width No minimum 76.25 feet No Change Min. Site Depth No minimum 100 feet No Change Front Setback (Emerson Street) (For mixed use without residential uses on the first floor) 15 feet, which may be reduced to zero by the Director, following ARB review, if consistent with the established building pattern of the area ~50 feet 1’ 5 ½” Side Yard Setback (Channing Avenue) 0 feet 2’ 4” to 8’ 6” Interior Side Yard 2 to 5 feet 6’ below grade; 15’ 9” above grade to balcony; 24’ to building Rear Setback 0 feet 1’ to trash enclosure; 10’ to building Daylight Plane None N/A N/A Floor Area Ratio 1.15:1 (for mixed use projects); Maximum commercial FAR 0.4:1 0.25:1 1.13:1; commercial FAR 0.3:1 Site Coverage No maximum 26% 52% Building Height 35 feet maximum; mechanical equipment may exceed the height limit by up to 15 feet (Per PAMC Section 18.40.090) 16 feet 8 inches 35 feet; mechanical equipment to 38 feet Maximum density (standard) (du/acre) None N/A (4/0.18 acre) =22 du/acre Maximum Average Unit Size 1,250 sf average N/A 1,138 sf average 2.d Packet Pg. 45 CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (parking) Type Requirement Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking Office @1/250 sf= 11.9 space Residential 3 X (1- bedroom @1.5)= 4.5 spaces Residential 1x1.25= 1.25 space Total spaces: 19 8 spaces (at grade) 17 spaces (below grade); requests 10% shared parking (1.9 spaces) Accessible Parking One accessible parking stall for 17 spaces None 1 space EV Charging One EV Charging space None 1 space Bicycle Parking 10% of auto parking = 1 space 1 short-term and 5 long-term 5 long term; 2 short term 2.d Packet Pg. 46 January 15, 2018 January 15, 2018 Updated: June 13, 2018 2.e Packet Pg. 47 190 Channing Avenue Transportation Demand Management (Parking Reduction Plan) Prepared for: 190 Channing Avenue, LLC Prepared by: (408) 420-2411 January 15, 2018 Updated: June 13, 2018 2.e Packet Pg. 48 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................. i 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE .......................................................................................... 1 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION ........................................................................................................ 1 190 Channing Avenue Project Location Map ..................................................................... 2 SECTION I – EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS ........................................................... 4 3.0 COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY .............................................................................................. 4 Infill Development ............................................................................................................... 4 Pedestrian Systems ............................................................................................................. 4 Bicycle Systems ................................................................................................................... 4 Santa Clara County Bikeways Map ..................................................................................... 6 Mid-Peninsula Bicycle Map ................................................................................................. 7 Transit Systems ................................................................................................................... 8 190 Channing Avenue Transit Resources ........................................................................... 8 First-mile San Francisco Chariot Shuttle to Caltrain ......................................................... 10 SECTION II – TDM INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSICAL MEASURES ........................................... 11 4.0 PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES ................................................................................................... 11 5.0 BICYCLE AMENITIES ........................................................................................................... 12 Bicycle Storage – Long-Term and Short-Term .................................................................. 12 Long-Term Bicycle Parking ................................................................................................ 12 Short-Term Bicycle Parking ............................................................................................... 12 6.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT .................................................................................................. 13 Reduced Parking Supply .................................................................................................... 13 Shared Parking .................................................................................................................. 13 7.0 TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTE INFORMATION KIOSK ............................................. 14 8.0 PROJECT AMENITIES ......................................................................................................... 14 SECTION III – PROGRAMMATIC TDM MEASURES ................................................................... 15 9.0 PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCATION ......................................... 15 Membership in the Palo Alto TMA ................................................................................... 15 10.0 TENANT SERVICES AND COMMUTER OUTREACH ............................................................. 15 TDM Program Manager .................................................................................................... 15 Tenant Performance and Lease Language – TDM Requirements .................................... 16 Emergency Ride Home Program ....................................................................................... 17 Initial Tenant/Employer Commute Program Training ...................................................... 17 Employee Commuter Flier ................................................................................................ 17 11.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDE-MATCHING PROMOTIONS ............................................. 19 Palo Alto Scoop Carpool Promotions ................................................................................ 19 Regional Ridematching Resources .................................................................................... 19 12.0 LYFT FOR SHORT TRIPS RESOURCES ................................................................................. 20 13.0 BICYCLE RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 21 14.0 TRANSIT RESOURCES ......................................................................................................... 21 Palo Alto Free Transit Passes ............................................................................................ 21 2.e Packet Pg. 49 Transit Trip Planning ......................................................................................................... 22 SECTION IV – MONITORING AND REPORTING ........................................................................ 23 Internal Employee Commute Survey ................................................................................ 23 Annual Driveway Hose Count ........................................................................................... 24 SECTION V – RESIDENTIAL TDM MEASURES ........................................................................... 24 15.0 RESIDENTIAL TDM MEASURES .......................................................................................... 24 TDM Disclosure in Sales/Rental Materials ........................................................................ 25 Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions .......................................................................... 25 Resident Welcome Commuter Resource Packet .............................................................. 26 Resident Bicycle Parking ................................................................................................... 26 Electronic Resident Transportation Resource Flier .......................................................... 26 Transportation and Commute Kiosk ................................................................................. 26 16.0 CONCLUSION ..................................................................................................................... 26 ATTACHMENTS Embarcadero Shuttle Map VTA Bus Route 35 Map List of Nearby Amenities – 0.25 miles or less from 190 Channing Avenue (Personal services, restaurants, coffee, retail/sundry, banking, etc.) TDM SPECIALISTS QUALIFICATIONS 2.e Packet Pg. 50 Page i 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project known as 190 Channing Avenue, LLC has prepared a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Parking Reduction Plan for its proposed Palo Alto mixed-use development at 190 Channing Avenue. The design of the 190 Channing Avenue project meets commute-sustainable standards and justifies a parking reduction by incorporating select TDM elements. Project-wide parking demand is anticipated to be reduced by 10 percent. Outcomes from these TDM actions and activities will eliminate potential spill over parking in the neighborhood. 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. Also, the TDM Plan is required as part of this project (PAMC 18.52.030(i)(1)(C)). This TDM plan identifies measures and programs to achieve the target of reducing weekday evening peak period motor vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 45 percent, consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan trip reduction goals for the Downtown area. This TDM Plan addresses alternatives to on-site parking needs as well as employee and resident commuter activities that reduce non-drive-alone transportation. This document provides supporting justification for the reduced parking proposed for 190 Channing Avenue. Also, this plan supports 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 other well-performing employee TDM plans and commute programs in Palo Alto. Locational advantages make the 190 Channing Avenue project very well suited for residential use. It has access to transit, bicycle, and pedestrian facilities. 2.e Packet Pg. 51 Page 1 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 1.0 INTRODUCTION AND PURPOSE The comprehensive plan of commute options and on-site measures identified in this report are essential to realizing the vehicle trip and parking reduction benefits of the project. These factors will provide the momentum to achieve desired trip reduction needs for the project. TDM is a combination off services, incentives, facilities, and actions that reduce single occupant vehicle (SOV) trips to help relieve traffic congestion, parking demand, and air pollution. The TDM measures outlined herein are anticipated to result in a reduction in commuter and day- time trips. 2.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The 190 Channing Avenue project is a proposed new three-story, mixed-use building with one level of below-grade parking. Office space is planned at 2,981 square feet. There are four planned residential condominiums. The 190 Channing Avenue project will provide urban design features, is close mass to transit, shopping, and recreation, and incorporates air quality features such as electric charging stations, and expanded bicycle storage. A project location map is shown on page 2. 2.e Packet Pg. 52 Page 2 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 190 Channing Avenue Project Location Map This quarter-mile radius map shows the proximity of nearby retail, personal services, and restaurants near the project site. 2.e Packet Pg. 53 Page 3 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 This TDM Plan is designed to address office employee, and resident vehicle trips associated with a mixed-use project and contains the appropriate measures and elements that are consistent with other Palo Alto commute programs. The following document includes a summary of the project’s trip reduction efforts designed to support a ten percent parking reduction. It also contains an overview of existing local and regional transportation services and programs and project-specific transportation measures. A comprehensive array of alternative transportation mode-use strategies is presented in the remaining report as outlined in four sections: I. Existing Transportation Conditions II. TDM Infrastructure and Physical Measures III. Programmatic TDM Measures IV. Residential TDM Measures This TDM/Parking Reduction Plan defines the measures proposed for the 190 Channing Avenue project. 1 2.e Packet Pg. 54 Page 4 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 SECTION I – EXISTING TRANSPORTATION CONDITIONS 3.0 COMMUNITY CONNECTIVITY 190 Channing Avenue location is designed as a pedestrian and bike-friendly mixed-use project that embraces Palo Alto’s goals and policies. Some of the design features include orienting the building toward adjacent bicycle and pedestrian circulation facilities. Infill Development The proposed project will develop an under-used parcel within the existing urban area. The area surrounding this project is largely developed. Under these conditions, the project will be considered infill development which contributes to trip reduction outcomes. Trip reduction benefits from infill development have been cited as a supporting and acceptable TDM practice (based on research of TDM practices around the nation and reported on the Internet)1 reducing nearly two percent of all peak-hour trips. Pedestrian Systems According to WalkScore.com, the 190 Channing Avenue project is a “Very Walkable” site, scoring 84 out of 100. This score means that most errands can be accomplished on foot. The creation of a pedestrian-oriented environment ensures access between public areas and private development while strengthening pedestrian and bicycle connections. Bicycle Systems The project is surrounded by significant bicycle facilities in the City of Palo Alto. This location enjoys bicycle connections to regional bicycle facilities along Bryant Street, El Camino Real, and California Avenue. Class II bicycle lanes are marked on California Avenue for easy access to the California Avenue Caltrain Station. The Palo Alto Caltrain Station is a four-minute bicycle ride from the project. The California Avenue Caltrain Station is an eight-minute bicycle ride. The City of Palo Alto supports a wide- range of bicycle facilities; however, some sections of El Camino Real are rated for extreme caution. A copy of the Santa Clara County Bikeways Map is shown on page 6, and the Mid- Peninsula Bicycle Map is provided on page 7. 1 City/County Association of Governments (CCAG) of San Mateo County’s Congestion Management Program. 2.e Packet Pg. 55 Page 5 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 2.e Packet Pg. 56 Page 6 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 Santa Clara County Bikeways Map 2.e Packet Pg. 57 Page 7 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 Mid-Peninsula Bicycle Map 2.e Packet Pg. 58 Page 8 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 Transit Systems Transit services total more than 91 trips per day providing good transit connectivity for future employees and residents at the project site. A transit access resource table, shown below, identifies the number of transit trips provided at this project. A VTA transit map is displayed on page 9, and the free Embarcadero Shuttle and VTA Bus Route 35 maps are provided as an attachment. 190 Channing Avenue Transit Resources Route #Span of Service # of Trips per Weekday Communities Served 35 VTA 7 Days/Week 5:59 a.m. - 9:38 p.m.59 Mountain View Station, San Antonio Transit Center, San Antonio & California, Middlefield & Charleston, Middlefield & Colorado, Middlefield & Embarcadero, Palo Alto Transit Center, and Stanford Shopping Center Embarcadero Shuttle 7 Days/Week 6:50 a.m. - 7:02 p.m.32 Palo Alto Caltrain Station, Palo Alto High School, Middlefield/ Embarcadero, N California/Embarcadero, and Palo Alto Tech Center Total VTA Bus Trips/Weekday 91 * All buses and trains are lift equipped for handicapped, elderly, or those in need. 2.e Packet Pg. 59 Page 9 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 Santa Clara VTA Transit Map 2.e Packet Pg. 60 Page 10 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 First-mile San Francisco Chariot Shuttle to Caltrain2 A new pilot shuttle, sponsored by the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA), now connects people who live in the Castro, Noe Valley and the Mission to the 22nd St. Caltrain station. The goal is to provide first-mile shuttle resources to connect Palo Alto employees to the Caltrain station. Shuttle rides are currently free. Rides are provided in Chariot 14-passenger vans, with WiFi and bike racks. Routes, schedules, participation guidelines, instructions for creating an account, and a link to the survey to participate can be found here: bit.ly/gfl-shuttle 2 https://sites.google.com/view/greenfield-labs-shuttle/home 2.e Packet Pg. 61 Page 11 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 SECTION II – TDM INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSICAL MEASURES The following physical infrastructure measures are designed within the project to support alternative transportation commuters. These measures are TDM components that will be installed or built during the construction of the project. 4.0 PEDESTRIAN AMENITIES Safe, convenient and well-lit pedestrian paths surround the project and will provide the most direct route, to the nearest shuttle or transit connection from the project. Lighting, landscaping and building orientation will be designed to enhance pedestrian safety. Pedestrian continuity will also be enhanced by: • Locating the parking below grade. • Recessing door and window features of the building to further the walkable area of the sidewalks. • Constructing new curb, gutter, driveway approach and planter strip in the public right-of-way along the property frontage. • Courtyard is accessible to public and passersby and public benches and art. • There will also be “in ground” plantings and sidewalks. • Planting new street trees, decorative paving, planter pots and improved lighting. 2.e Packet Pg. 62 Page 12 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 5.0 BICYCLE AMENITIES Bicycle Storage – Long-Term and Short-Term Free Class I and Class II bicycle parking facilities will be provided on- site for bicycle commuters. Long-Term Bicycle Parking Class I (long-term) secure and covered bicycle parking will include bicycle lockers or a bicycle room. Current plans indicate eight Class I parking facilities which exceed code requirements by 60 percent. Short-Term Bicycle Parking Two Class II bicycle racks will be provided at the project which exceeds code requirements by 100 percent. Below are examples of Class II (short-term) racks. Class II bicycle racks will be “U racks,” or equivalent and must secure the frame and both wheels. Racks will be located near the building entrance within constant visual range; unless it is demonstrated that they create a public hazard or is otherwise infeasible. If space is unavailable near building entrances, the racks must be designed so that the lock is protected from physical assault. 2.e Packet Pg. 63 Page 13 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 6.0 PARKING MANAGEMENT The willingness to participate in and the actual level of, employee ridesharing is directly linked to parking convenience, availability and parking cost. Reduced Parking Supply There will be a total of 17 parking spaces at the 190 Channing Avenue project site. This represents a ten percent reduction of vehicle parking spaces. The City of Palo Alto’s Zoning Ordinance number 4964 allows consideration for reduced parking when TDM programs are incorporated into the project. Also, reduced or constrained parking supports trip reduction and TDM efforts and discourages single-occupant vehicle (SOV) commuting by limiting an abundance of easy and convenient parking options. Reduced parking availability enhances other alternative transportation mode options. The project proposes reduced on-site parking to further enhance its TDM efforts. Shared Parking The project has identified three garage parking spaces which can be shared during the day with residents or office employees. A shared parking arrangement helps to reduce overbuilding of parking facilities and reduces congestion in the parking lot of the project. Since the residential and commercial uses have different peak hours of parking demand, then they can share the some of the same parking spaces and create a more sustainable project. 2.e Packet Pg. 64 Page 14 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 7.0 TRANSPORTATION AND COMMUTE INFORMATION KIOSK An information board or kiosk will be provided to the commercial and retail tenants for use by their employees. The kiosk will contain transportation information, such as transit schedules for VTA, Caltrain, shuttles; bike maps, City of Palo Alto TMA resources, and 511 ride-matching. Information will be updated periodically by the project Commute Coordinator. The kiosk may be a counter stand, wall-mounted or freestanding. 8.0 PROJECT 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 they must carry 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 nearby amenities for the 190 Channing Avenue project includes: • Restaurants, cafes/delis, coffee • Shipping and postal services • Daycare and preschool • Car sharing opportunities • Bike sharing opportunities • Retail, grocery, personal services, and gifts • Fitness, entertainment, health, and 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. 2.e Packet Pg. 65 Page 15 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 SECTION III – PROGRAMMATIC TDM MEASURES 9.0 PALO ALTO TRANSPORTATION MANAGEMENT ASSOCATION Membership in the Palo Alto TMA The project may participate in TMA programs and resources. When memberships are offered, the project may join the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) as an affiliate member. This will show community engagement and provide support for the TMA as it develops to serve employers and residents in the city. The TMA3 has many free employer services available, including: • Personalized commute planning • Print and digital information about commute alternatives • Consultation about free and low-cost programs that can be offered to employees Employee resources include: • Free Transit program • Free Lyft for Short Trips program • Subsidized Carpool program via Scoop 10.0 TENANT SERVICES AND COMMUTER OUTREACH Commute programs and benefits will 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 postings, employee newsletters, management bulletins, e-mails, etc. TDM Program Manager Before occupancy, the project will designate a TDM Program Manager who will have the primary responsibility for implementing alternative commute programs and the elements outlined in this Plan. The TDM Program Manager may be a property manager, or an out- sourced TDM coordinator, who manages the TDM programs and annual reporting. The TDM Program Manager will be responsible for; providing commute program assistance to employees, producing on-site transportation fairs and promotional events, collaborating with transit and rideshare organizations to maximize on-site resource, conducting the annual survey and producing the annual summary report. Commute industry data supports the notion that a 3 http://www.paloaltotma.org/app_pages/view/136 2.e Packet Pg. 66 Page 16 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 TDM Program Manager has a very positive impact on increasing and maintaining alternative mode use. The TDM Program Manager will provide the following services: • Promote trip reduction and air quality strategies to employees at the project site; • Conduct new 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 Caltrain, BART, SamTrans, 511 Rideshare, Silicon Valley Bicycle Coalition, and the Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD); • Develop and manage employee transportation and commute information, resources, and links, promotions, incentives, prizes or awards, spare the air notices, transit links, 511 ride matching, and other related information. • Post informational materials in 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 GRH program, monthly rewards, car and vanpool registration, and bike locker assignment. Tenant Performance and Lease Language – TDM Requirements For all tenants, the applicant will draft lease language or side agreements that require the identification of a designated employer contact responsible for compliance and implementation of the TDM program (including offering transit subsidies to all employees, annual survey and reporting, and the emergency ride home program). The applicant will require tenants to provide one point of contact for implementation of this plan. The tenant/employer designated contact will coordinate closely with the project Commute Coordinator; maintain on-site TDM programs, employee education, and marketing; administer the annual surveys; and provide information continuity for the building owner/landlord and the City of Palo Alto. Features identified in the lease will also include the following TDM components: • Tenant-driven TDM measures – required per lease o Transit subsidies made available to all employees 2.e Packet Pg. 67 Page 17 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 o Participation in the annual commute survey o Provide an emergency ride home program for commuters o Employee Commute Coordinator o Participation in the Palo Alto Downtown TMA The lease agreement language may also identify the tenant’s share of potential penalties for failure to achieve an acceptable alternative mode-use rate, failure to participate in the annual employee commute survey, or failure to submit the annual report. The building management will be responsible for the project-wide tenant performance. The lease language may be worded as follows: Tenant hereby agrees to designate one of its employees to act as a liaison with the Landlord to facilitate and coordinate such programs as may be required by governmental agencies to reduce the traffic generated by the 190 Channing Avenue project as required by the City of Palo Alto as part of conditions of approval and to encourage the use of public transportation and ridesharing. Emergency Ride Home Program Tenants of the 190 Channing Avenue project will implement a free guaranteed emergency ride home (GRH) program. This program will be designed for employees who use alternative forms of transportation. All employees who commute to work using transit, bicycle, walking, carpool or vanpool will be guaranteed a free ride home in case of a personal emergency or when they unexpectedly must work late, thereby missing the last bus or their normal carpool home. Rides may be provided via a choice of taxi, Uber or Lyft. Tenants will be able to set up corporate accounts with a vendor of their choice to offer this service to commuters. Initial Tenant/Employer Commute Program Training As needed, the applicant or property management will provide 190 Channing Avenue TDM and commute program training and commute program start-up assistance for their tenants. A TDM resource representative will provide tenant training and commute program planning assistance. The overarching goals of this support function are to reduce commute trips for employees, formalize tenant commute programs and assist with employee marketing and outreach. The TDM resource representative may assist building management in the preparation of tenant materials for new employee orientation, production of marketing events, development of commuter e-news articles, and support with employee assistance. Employee Commuter Flier All future employees will be provided with an employee commuter flier. This flier will include (but is not limited to) information about carpool subsidies, transit opportunities, bicycle routes 2.e Packet Pg. 68 Page 18 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 and on-site amenities and resources. Fliers will be made available at the commute resources kiosks and integrated with tenant/employer information. A sample flier is provided below. 2.e Packet Pg. 69 Page 19 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 11.0 CARPOOL AND VANPOOL RIDE-MATCHING PROMOTIONS Carpooling and vanpooling will be strongly encouraged at the project. Palo Alto Scoop Carpool Promotions The City of Palo Alto’s TMA offers employees a discounted carpool incentive for those who find a ride match through the Scoop app. The City’s program provides a $2 per trip incentive for both a drive and passenger. Drivers receive extra reward payment, and passengers receive a per-trip discount. Regional Ridematching Resources 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 commuters 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. A sample of ridematching apps include the following: 2.e Packet Pg. 70 Page 20 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 12.0 LYFT FOR SHORT TRIPS RESOURCES The Palo Alto TMA offers a monthly subsidy for commuters to use Lyft for rider directly to their worksite in downtown or to the Caltrain station. The goal is to provide mobility for those without vehicles or to encourage commuters to leave their vehicles parked. This program is only available to commuters who live in and work in Palo Alto and earn less than $50,000 per year. More information can be found at http://www.paloaltotma.org/first-mile/. 2.e Packet Pg. 71 Page 21 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 13.0 BICYCLE RESOURCES Bicycle commuters looking 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  Safe bicycle route mapping  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 14.0 TRANSIT RESOURCES Palo Alto Free Transit Passes Employees who earn less than $50,000 per year may qualify for a free transit pass through the Palo Alto TMA. This free transit pass offers commuters a monthly pass on Caltrain, SamTrans, VTA or the Dumbarton Express. More information can be found at http://www.paloaltotma.org/transit/. 2.e Packet Pg. 72 Page 22 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 Transit Trip Planning Employees who work at 190 Channing Avenue can utilize a variety of regional and local commuter resources. The following is a summary of commuter services and options for employees. Online transit trip planning services are a useful tool for planning public transit trips. The San Francisco Bay Area 511.org site is a useful tool for planning public transit trips that suit the needs of the transit user. This free service can be found online at www.511.org. Other Transit Resources include online applications and mobile device applications. The 511 Transit App, designed for iPhone and Android, provides door- to-door transit trip planning for more than 30 transit agencies and finds scheduled departure times for transit stops throughout the region. This app provides complete transit agency coverage for the San Francisco Bay Area. It quickly finds transit trip options based on selected start and end points. Third party apps can be found at 511.org/apps-3rd-party- apps.asp. Google has also collaborated with select regional transit agencies to provide a public transit planner for riders of VTA, AC Transit, and BART. This free service can be found online at www.google.com/transit. 2.e Packet Pg. 73 Page 23 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 SECTION IV – MONITORING AND REPORTING This TDM plan identifies measures and programs to achieve the target of reducing weekday evening peak period motor vehicle trips to the site by a minimum of 45 percent, consistent with the City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan trip reduction goals for the Downtown area. Internal Employee Commute Survey A five-day commute survey will be engaged each year to evaluate and ensure the success of the TDM measures. Survey data can be used to focus TDM marketing and the efforts of the TDM Program Manager and the Employee Commute Coordinator to maintain the project’s commitment to reduce vehicle trips at the site. Below is a sample of the survey that questions employees about their typical daily commute activities. The TDM survey report will include a determination of 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. Survey data may then be used to focus TDM marketing and the efforts of the TDM Program Manager and the ETC to maintain the project’s trip reduction commitment. If necessary, the TDM program could be re-tooled to change or enhance the project’s alternative commute mode-use engagement. The initial annual employee survey (and subsequent surveys) will be conducted in the second or fourth quarter of each year. 2.e Packet Pg. 74 Page 24 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 Annual Driveway Hose Count The project is required to conduct driveway counts. The counts must be prepared by an independent, licensed consultant, or qualified third party, and paid for by the property owner, or tenant. The driveway counts and resulting data will be submitted to the Chief Transportation Official two years after building occupancy and every year after that noting the effectiveness of proposed measures as compared to initial targets and, if necessary, modifications to the plan to meet the required performance target. At a minimum, the monitoring activities shall include driveway tube counts to determine project daily and peak hour vehicle trip generation by methods described in the current edition of the Trip Generation Manual published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE). The report should be compared to the baseline ITE estimated trips to determine if the 45 percent reduction of evening peak-hour vehicle trips was achieved. Where monitoring reports indicate the target was not met, the Director may require modifications or impose penalties if the deficiencies are not addressed within six months (PAMC 18.52.050(d)(4)). SECTION V – RESIDENTIAL TDM MEASURES 15.0 RESIDENTIAL TDM MEASURES The residential component of the project includes four condominium units. The location and features of the residential units are well-suited to meet the changing needs of today's commuter. The project is located within walking distance (one quarter mile) of four VTA bus routes. Combined, these transit resources provide more than 428 daily trips per day that serve residents leaving the site, including connectivity with the San Francisco International Airport. Also, the project is adjacent to Class II bike lanes along California Avenue, creating easy bicycle commuting access. Secure on-site bicycle parking will encourage bicycle commuting to and from the site. There are also significant on-site and nearby amenities (e.g., fitness center, restaurants, retail shopping, recreation, ATM/banking) located within an easy walk to provide residents and employees many conveniences – thereby alleviating the need to use a vehicle. Residents of this project will enjoy access to commuter and transportation resources within the commercial areas of the building. Residents may take advantage of the various commuter features that are offered to the office employees at the site. Before occupancy, the sales agent will provide alternative transportation information to homeowners. After occupancy, the HOA 2.e Packet Pg. 75 Page 25 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 representative (or outsourced TDM vendor) will maintain resident communications and information about transportation and alternative resources. Benefits include: • Resident commuter resource welcome packet • Secure on-site bicycle amenities and parking • Resident electronic commuter resource flier • Access to local City bikeshare opportunities Below are the details of resident TDM measures. TDM Disclosure in Sales/Rental Materials Sales agents for the residential units will disclose at the time of touring the facility, to prospective owners, the various trip reduction and green features of the project. Sales contracts will include disclosures regarding the TDM Plan and goals of the project for occupants to use alternative transportation modes. Covenants, Conditions, and Restrictions The 190 Channing Avenue project will include CC&Rs for the project that records the TDM Plan. In this manner, the CC&Rs will maintain the longevity of the program and the need for a designated HOA representative for all residents. CC&Rs will record the TDM Plan for the project to provide homeowners or their HOA with the responsibility for its ongoing implementation. Incorporating TDM programs into the CC&Rs of property ensures that the TDM goals remains a component of the site. Sample CC&R language is provided below: Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM). The Property (and each and every portion thereof) and every Owner and Occupant thereof shall be subject to and shall abide by and satisfy each and all of the provisions and obligations contained in that certain Transportation Demand Management Plan for the (190 Channing Avenue project) approved by the City of Palo Alto (Date, Year - to be provided by client), applicable to the Property and/or each Parcel therein, including any obligations to provide funding and resources to implement the Transportation Demand Management Plan, and compliance with any applicable requirements of any condition of approval enacted by the City of Palo Alto applicable to the Property or to Santa Clara County generally. Mutuality, Reciprocity: Runs with Land. All restrictions, conditions, and covenants contained herein, by reference or otherwise, are made for the direct mutual and reciprocal benefit of each and every portion of the Property; shall create mutual, equitable servitudes upon each portion of the Property in favor of every other portion; shall create reciprocal rights and obligations between the respective Owners of all portions of or interests in the Property and privity of 2.e Packet Pg. 76 Page 26 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 contract and estate between all grantees of said portions or interests therein and their Successors; and shall, as to each Owner and its Successors, operate as covenants running with the land for the benefit of all other portions of the Property. The Property, and every part thereof or interest therein, shall hereafter be held, transferred, sold, leased conveyed and occupied subject to the covenants, conditions and restrictions herein set forth, each and all of which is and are for, and shall ensure to the benefit of and shall apply to every Owner and/or Occupant thereof, and their Successors. Resident Welcome Commuter Resource Packet Before occupancy, all residents will receive an information packet containing on-site commuter amenities (electric vehicle parking spaces, bicycle parking, commuter kiosk, etc.) and alternative transportation opportunities. The Resident Commuter Packet will include transit and local shuttle maps and schedules, bicycle maps, and trip planning resources. Resident Bicycle Parking Condominium owners will be provided with a free Class I bicycle parking facility, within the project to accommodate their bicycles. Resident bicycle parking will use secure, covered, and caged area of the garage and within their units. Electronic Resident Transportation Resource Flier An electronic resident commuter resource flier, like the employee flier, will be created to highlight nearby transit opportunities, and resource links to ridesharing, bicycle, commuter, and car sharing resources. The property manager will email residents the electronic transportation flier for easy access to commuter links. Transportation and Commute Kiosk All residents/occupants will have access to the commuter kiosk located in the commercial section of the project. Access to rideshare, transit, and bicycle materials will be a key outreach tool for those who reside at the site. 16.0 CONCLUSION The 190 Channing Avenue TDM Plan was developed to meet the specific needs for the project, considering logistical resources and opportunities of the site. From conception, the applicant has been committed to an integrated project design that enhances pedestrian, bicycle and community opportunities. The orientation of TDM features for this project will increase opportunities for pedestrian, bicycle, carpool, transit, and shuttle uses. 2.e Packet Pg. 77 Page 27 190 Channing Avenue — TDM Parking Reduction January 15, 2018 The applicant is committed to reducing 45 percent of evening peak-hour vehicle trips and increasing alternative transportation mode-uses. This TDM Plan provides the details of the applicant’s commitment to the City of Palo Alto in support of a 10 percent reduction in parking. The 190 Channing Avenue project 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 190 Channing Avenue project 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.e Packet Pg. 78 ATTACHMENTS Embarcadero Shuttle Map VTA Bus Route 35 Map List of Nearby Amenities – 0.25 miles or less from 190 Channing Avenue (Personal services, restaurants, coffee, retail/sundry, banking, etc.) 2.e Packet Pg. 79 Embarcadero Shuttle Map VTA Bus Route 35 Map 2.e Packet Pg. 80 List of Nearby/Offsite Amenities Located 0.30 or Less Miles 190 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA Restaurants, Cafes/Delis, Coffee, and Bakeries Phone # Distance Away The Annex at Saint Michael’s Alley 806 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-326-2530 495 ft. Saint Michael’s Alley 140 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-326-2530 0.10 mile Peet’s Coffee 153 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-325-2091 0.10 mile La Morenita 800 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-329-1727 0.10 mile Buca di Beppo Italian Restaurant 643 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-329-0665 0.20 mile Pizzeria Delfina 651 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-353-2208 0.20 mile Dan Gordon’s 640 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-324-1960 0.20 mile Tacolicious 632 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-838-0500 0.20 mile Philz Coffee 101 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-321-2161 0.20 mile Reposado 236 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-833-3151 0.30 mile Fraiche Yogurt 200 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-838-9819 0.30 mile Coconuts 642 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-329-9533 0.30 mile Retail Phone # Distance Away Peninsula Creamery – Dairy Store & Grill 900 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-323-3175 276 ft. Hassett Ace Hardware 875 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-327-7222 0.10 mile Cassis 206 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-327-2997 0.10 mile Bryn Walker 212 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-322-9983 0.10 mile Whole Foods Market 774 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-326-8676 0.10 mile Ambiance Interiors 1027 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-494-0161 0.20 mile Romi 624 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-322-7664 0.20 mile Velo Tech 732 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-462-0789 0.20 mile McRoskey Mattress Company 220 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-327-1966 0.30 mile 2.e Packet Pg. 81 Tallman’s House of Foam 150 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-327-4300 0.30 mile Health, Beauty & Fitness Phone # Distance Away Watercourse Way Bath House Spa 165 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-462-2000 121 ft. Rocket Salon 933 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-326-4598 328 ft. BareBones Training 937 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-269-3748 344 ft. Reach Pilates Studio 833 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-289-9459 354 ft. Uforia Studios 819 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-329-8794 0.10 mile Reach Fitness Club 707 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-327-3224 0.20 mile Vivre 611 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-328-2820 0.30 mile YogaSource 158 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-328-9642 0.30 mile Service Phone # Distance Away Jacquie’s Sew & Sew 847 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-494-1935 243 ft. Emerson Laundry Cleaners 926 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-326-6926 266 ft. Village Cobbler 825 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-328-7698 404 ft. Palo Alto Speedometer 718 Emerson Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-323-0243 0.20 mile Entertainment Phone # Distance Away Palo Alto History Museum 300 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-322-3089 0.20 mile The Museum of American Heritage 351 Homer Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-321-1004 0.30 mile Downtown Library 270 Forest Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 650-329-2436 0.30 mile Transportation, Shipping & Storage Phone # Distance Away High Street Automotive 904 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-323-1137 476 ft. Heinichen’s Garage 960 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-328-4488 0.20 mile Palo Alto Bimmer 799 Alma Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-999-0631 0.20 mile Banks & ATM Phone # Distance Away San Mateo Credit Union 616 Ramona Street #3, Palo Alto, CA 650-363-1725 0.30 mile 2.e Packet Pg. 82 Daycare Phone # Distance Away Downtown Palo Alto KinderCare 848 Ramona Street, Palo Alto, CA 650-473-1100 469 ft. 2.e Packet Pg. 83 TDM SPECIALISTS, INC. QUALIFICATIONS 2.e Packet Pg. 84 2.e Packet Pg. 85 2.e Packet Pg. 86 From:Richard Brand To:Brennan, Phillip Cc:Shikada, Ed; Holman, Karen; Keene, James Subject:190 Channing Ave, file 18PLN-00043 Date:Monday, February 26, 2018 12:11:31 AM Phillip:Thanks for your notice. This letter is my family’s response to your request for feedback to this proposed newdevelopment structure which falls within the SoFA 2 Co-ordinated Area Plan (CAP) ordinance regulations. The zoning for the 190 Channing area is RT35, however the bindingrequirements for new structures in the area is detailed in this SoFA Planning document. In the introduction to that document (SoFA 2 Co-ordinated Area Plan) it states: “It is a documentthat is intended to preserve the primary features of the existing character of a unique area within the City of Palo Alto.” As a neighbor to this area, I attended many of the meetings andas such contributed to the wording of the CAP. So I can say with clarity that the structure for this location does not fit within the guidelines ofthe CAP and permission to construct must be denied. Here are some of the reasons for our recommendation. 1) Lack of compatibility. Sect 4.010 of the CAP details the compatibility requirements(emphasis mine) for “New and remodeled structures”. In para (a) it states “A compatible building design is one that supports and reinforces the shared architectural and site features ofneighboring properties.” This design has none of this reinforcement. 2) Policy CF-3 page 27, Compatibility with historic structures and other existing structures. It states that : “The design guidelines included in the CAP encourage the scale, bulk and massof buildings and their architectural components to be compatible with that of existing structures in the neighborhood.”Directly across Channing from this proposed development is a historic structure pictured in section 6.030 page 83. Clearly this new proposed structure has no compatibility with thesurrounding structures as listed in the SoFA 2 Co-ordinated Area Plan. As an affected neighbor, this is my initial response based on compatibility with the SoFA 2 planning district in which this development is proposed. There are other questionable livingarea/provided parking supply issues in the plan that need further study by Staff. Bottom line though is that this development is in no way in conformance with the CPA zoning ordinance that is the primary planning ordinance applicable to new buildings in this areaaround 190 Channing. Sincerely, Richard C. BrandCarol Malcolm Professorville Historic District 2.f Packet Pg. 87 September 18, 2018 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 190 Channing Avenue To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is Hayes Group Architect’s submittal package for 190 Channing for formal ARB review. The project applicant is Hayes Group Architects on behalf of our client, Cole Dawson. The site, located on the south corner of Emerson and Channing in the SOFA II area has an existing structure, the former DM Auto Service and parking lot. Across Channing is a medical office building and parking lot. Across Emerson is the Jewish Family and Children’s Services building. The adjacent site on Emerson is a vacant lot as is the lot behind fronting onto High Street. The existing, one-story building will be demolished. The existing floor area of 1,951 sf is occupied by an investment consulting office space. 1. PROPOSED PROJECT Mr. Dawson, our client, loves Palo Alto and wishes to make a home and office here. He bought the property three ago and hired Hayes Group Architects to design a mixed-use office and residential building for himself and his spouse. The three-story building proposes four residential condominiums comprised of three, one-bedroom units, and one studio. All the units live to the outside where each enjoys a rooftop terrace. The average size of the four units is 1,139 sf well below the maximum average of 1,250 sf for the SOFA II district. The ground floor accommodates 2,978.7 sf of office space, replacing the existing office space of 1,951 sf, an increase of 1,027.7 sf. The office space has abundant glass exposure to connect the inside to the outside patios, planters and pedestrian amenities. Access to the office areas is from the sidewalk on Channing either through the public patio space or directly from the sidewalk. Access to the residential units is from the sidewalk thru the same exterior patio. A centrally planned stair and elevator provide vertical access the units above. An additional stair connects the garage below to the ground floor. Having this stair serve only the basement reduces the height of the stair element and provides second floor outdoor common space for the tenants. The concept for the building is to define a simple, two-story, building form, not unlike other buildings in the neighborhood, that is carved out to define the living and working spaces on the first two floors. The third floor, the 2.g Packet Pg. 88 owner’s unit, sits atop this two-story form as a light and airy penthouse with outdoor roof terraces and lots of windows for enjoying the third-floor views. Most of the third floor is set back from the main building below, especially along Emerson as it enters a more residentially scaled neighborhood and the third floor virtually disappears. Deep solar shading canopies protect the extensive windows from excessive heat gain and provide covered outdoor spaces for the owner’s enjoyment. The total floor area is 8,681.7 sf, of which 2,978.7 sf is office and 5,703 sf residential. This area is below the 8,769 sf permitted under a 1.15 FAR of which 0.40 FAR is permitted for the commercial portions. The proposed building is 35’-0” tall and conforms to the height limit. There is no daylight plane as the site is not contiguous to a residential property. The proposed setbacks along the two street frontages vary in accordance with the immediate development pattern. Along Channing the setback is just enough for an integral planter buffer as this edge relates to the Jewish Family and Children’s Services Center across Emerson on Channing where there is no setback. The edge along Emerson is also setback, but the street corner is defined, and has a buffer of potted plants along its length. The buildings further down Emerson vary in setback and there is no defined edge. Materials include a CIP integrally colored concrete base for the planters and stairwell, which support a two-story limestone building form that transitions to a metal, glass and wood third floor penthouse. Railings are to be glass adding to the transparency and reducing the perceived building height. 2. PARKING & BICYCLE SPACES Parking for the project is provided in an underground garage accessed from Emerson Street. A total of 19 parking spaces are required. A parking reduction of 10% is being requested as is permitted for mixed-use projects so 17 spaces are being provided both in puzzler lifts and single spaces. All parking spaces would be unassigned. Two short-term bicycle spaces will be provided in front of the building on Channing. Five long-term bicycle lockers will be provided in the underground garage. Two EV spaces will be installed in the garage, one residential and one commercial, while six EVSE conduit ready spaces will be accommodated in the puzzler lift. We have been in discussions with Klaus, a manufacturer of lifts, and they have confirmed that EV spaces can be accommodated within their lift system. 3. TRASH/RECYCLING A combined trash and recycling enclosure is proposed at the western edge of the building that will be accessed from Channing Street. Due to the size of the project one combined enclosure is proposed instead of separate facilities for residential and commercial uses. The pavers outside of the trash enclosure are permeable pavers for the protection of the Oak tree. 2.g Packet Pg. 89 4. GREEN BUILDING STANDARD In accordance with the city’s Green Building Ordinance, the building will satisfy requirements for Cal Green-non Residential Tier 2 for the commercial as well as Cal Green-Residential Tier 2 for the multi-family along with the Energy Reach Code requirements. 5. PRELIMINARY HEARING COMMENTS At our preliminary hearing on June 16, 2016 we heard the following concerns: 1. Retail does not work in this area and puzzler lifts do not support retail well; 2. Create more landscaping and pedestrian amenities; 3. Reduce the perception of the large upper floor balconies; 4. Consider stepping the building back and giving it a two-story appearance as it transitions down Emerson street; 5. Pay more attention to the health of the existing Oak tree on the adjacent site at 901 High Street. We look forward to discussing the project at the ARB hearing and eventually proceeding with the development of this project. Please call me at (650)365-0600x15 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal cc: Mr. Cole Dawson 2.g Packet Pg. 90 Notice of Exemption Project Title: 190 Channing Avenue Mixed-Use Project Project Location (include county): 190 Channing Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (Santa Clara County) Project Description: The proposed project involves demolition of the existing 1,951-square-foot building and construction of ±2,980 square feet of commercial space and 4 residential rental units at 190 Channing Avenue. The project would result in a net increase of 1,029 square feet of commercial space. The proposed building has three stories above grade and one level of underground parking. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Palo Alto Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architecture (on behalf of Cole Dawson, property owner) Exempt Status: (check one) □ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); □ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); □ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));  Categorical Exemption: 15332 In-fill Exemption □ Statutory Exemptions. State code number Reasons why project is exempt: See attached documentation Project Planner: Claire Hodgkins, AICP E-mail: Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? □ Yes N/A Planner February 7, 2019 Signature (Public Agency) Title Date 2.h Packet Pg. 91 Documentation of Project’s Eligibility for Class 32 Categorical Exemption Under CEQA The City has determined that the proposed 190 Channing Avenue Mixed-Use Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 32 (In-fill Development Projects). CEQA Guidelines §15332 reads: “Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.” The information herein documents the project’s compliance with these conditions in addition to confirming that no exceptions to the exemptions, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, apply to the project. a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations The project site’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation is “SOFA II CAP”, which references the area covered under Phase 2 of the South of Forest Area (SOFA) Coordinated Area Plan (CAP). One goal of the SOFA II CAP was to “support mixed-use development with any additional floor area over and above that which is permitted under the existing zoning to be used for additional housing.” One of the most important considerations in the SOFA II CAP planning effort was an identified need to provide “a number of new residential units near the downtown to respond to the area’s housing shortage.” The project replaces the existing ground floor office use with a mixed-use development that includes four multi-family rental residential units above the ground floor office space, which is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan and SOFA II CAP. The project is consistent with the allowed use and density in the Comprehensive Plan for the SOFA II CAP land use designation as well as goals and policies outlined in the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, and Housing Element. The site is zoned RT-35 (Residential Transition). The proposed mixed-use of office and residential land uses is consistent with permitted uses within the RT-35 district. The maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) for mixed-use and exclusively residential projects is 1.15:1, with a limit of 0.4 FAR for commercial uses. The height limit for RT-35 is 35 feet; however, mechanical equipment is allowed to extend up to 15 feet beyond the height allowance in accordance with PAMC Section 18.40.090. The proposed project design meets these height and FAR development standards at 35 feet for the building and 38 feet for the elevator equipment. It also complies with all other zoning development standards as well as the performance standards outlined in Section 5.050 of the SOFA II CAP. The project is requesting a shared parking adjustment for shared office/residential use of two vehicle parking spaces. This shared use Class 32 Exemption Condition Complies? a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations ■ b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses ■ c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species ■ d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality ■ e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services ■ 2.h Packet Pg. 92 adjustment is allowed under the code requirements in the RT-35 district and under PAMC Section 18.52; it is also encouraged under the City’s Comprehensive Plan. With approval of the shared parking adjustment, in allowance with the code, the project is consistent with zoning. b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The proposed project is located on APN 120-28-051, which is a 7,625 square foot site (0.18 acres) that is located wholly within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. Surrounding uses are primarily commercial uses (including a dry cleaner, dental office, day spa, and a Family and Children’s Services building) as well as vacant, at-grade parking lots immediately adjacent to the site to the southeast and southwest. There are no open space areas or natural features (such as creeks) within the vicinity of the site. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species As noted above, there are no open space areas or natural features within the vicinity of the project site. The area is entirely urban in nature. The adopted Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes Map N-1, which identifies sensitive animal and plant species within the Palo Alto quadrangle, a large geographic area that includes the urban portions and portions along the bay and within the foothills, based on information in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Based on this map and the urban nature of the site, the subject property does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and has not historical supported any of these species. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality Traffic Valley Transit Authority (VTA) Traffic Impact Analysis (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 requires a focused traffic analysis that quantifies potential project impacts for projects generating more than 50 trips per peak hour. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual (9th Edition), the project would replace an existing office building, which generates 4 AM peak hour trips and 5 PM peak hour trips with a new mixed-use office/residential building that is anticipated to generate 8 AM peak hour trips and 9 PM peak hour trips. This results in 4 net new AM peak hour trips and 4 net new PM peak hour trips. Therefore, estimated net new peak hour trips would be well below both of these identified thresholds. Overall, this in-fill project is designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) based on its location in close proximity to existing transit service (Caltrain) and its proximity to neighborhood serving retail (grocery store, restaurants, retail, coffee shops, etc.). The project would not include new roads or intersections or any other features that may include hazardous design features. The project would be required to prepare a logistics plan for construction in accordance with Public Works Engineering requirements, which would ensure access for emergency vehicles during construction. The project would not affect any adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or decrease the performance or safety of these facilities. The proposed addition of bicycle parking on the site and more pedestrian friendly design of the project in comparison to the existing development would further City goals to encourage multi-modal transportation. For these reasons, the project would not result in any significant impact to traffic. Noise The ambient noise level at the site is estimated to be approximately 70 dBA. The façade of the nearest adjacent building is more than 50 feet from the property line at 190 Channing Avenue and the nearest sensitive receptor (a residence) is located approximately 145 feet east of the site. Demolition, grading, foundation work and the exterior of the building is anticipated to last approximately eleven months followed by one to three months of interior work. The project would be required to comply with the regulations outlined in Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) with respect to construction noise, which stipulates maximum allowed decibels and restricts construction hours. The noisiest activity is typically demolition, which generates noise levels of approximately 85 dBA at 50 feet (this assumes 2.h Packet Pg. 93 use of typical demolition equipment, including a concrete saw, dozer, tractor, and backhoe) and is expected to take only a few days. Given that existing developments are even further than 50 feet from the project site; the minimal timeframe for exterior construction; and because the project would be required to comply with Title 9 of the PAMC, the project, which would restrict noise levels and construction hours during temporary construction, the project would not have a significant effect on noise during construction. Operation of the proposed project, which includes office and residential use, would be similar to the noise levels for the existing use on the site and within the immediate vicinity of the site. Although there would be minimal additional trips to and from the site; these additional trips would not perceptibly change ambient noise levels at the site. HVAC equipment would also comply with all applicable code requirements for permanent noise producing equipment. Therefore, the project would not result in any significant impact to noise. Air Quality Construction activities would generate emissions from construction vehicle trips, equipment use, and ground disturbance. CalEEMOD modeling software was used to determine anticipated construction and operational emissions from the 190 Channing project. The results indicate that construction is expected to generate an average of 1.8 pounds per day of ROG, 10.3 pounds per day of NOx, 0.6 pound per day of PM10 and 0.5 pound per day of PM2.5. These emission rates are well below the BAAQMD thresholds of 54 pounds per day for ROG, NOX and PM2.5 and 82 pounds per day of PM10. Thus construction of the 190 Channing project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. With respect to project operation, the CalEEMod results indicate that the project would generate an average of 2.0 pounds per day of ROG and less than one pound per day of NOx, PM10 and PM2.5. These emission rates are well below the BAAQMD thresholds, thus operation of the 190 Channing project would result in less than significant air quality impacts. The CalEEMod modeling also includes an estimate of the GHG emissions associated with project construction and operation. The modeling results, indicate that construction of the project is expected to generate 86 metric tons of GHG (measured as carbon dioxide equivalents, or CO2e) while operation of the project is expected to generate 90 metric tons CO2e annually. The BAAQMD recommends that local lead agencies use a threshold of 1,100 metric tons CO2e when determining whether a project’s GHG emissions would be significant. The project’s GHG emissions would be substantially below the BAAQMD threshold and the impact would be less than significant. Water Quality The project site is not located in close proximity to any waterways. The closest water feature is San Francisquito Creek, which is located approximately 0.7 miles northwest of the project site; therefore, the project would not alter the course of a stream or river. The project is not located on a parcel that is located within the 100-year flood hazard area and would not expose people or structures to risk of loss involving flooding. The site is not close to any water bodies that could inundate the site by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The current project site is completely developed; therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage of the site. The project would follow public works engineering’s required standard practices to control erosion and siltation during construction activities so as not to degrade water quality. The project includes a basement feature; therefore, excavation could require dewatering. Any dewatering would be required to follow PAMC Section 16.28, to ensure that it would not impact water quality or the groundwater basin. Project operation would be serviced by existing utilities and would not affect groundwater supply. For these reasons, the project would not result in any significant impact to Water Quality. e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services The site is within an urban area that is already served by utilities and public services. Although new utility hook-ups would be required for the proposed building, the site would be adequately served by existing infrastructure within the immediate vicinity. The South of Forest Coordinated Area Plan process estimated that population per household within the SOFA planning area would be 1.6 people. At this rate, the proposed 190 Channing project could support a residential population of 6 people. As of 2017, the City has an average population per household of 2.51 persons (Census 2018). At this rate, the proposed project could support a residential population of 10 people. The 2.h Packet Pg. 94 coordinated area plan assumed that a maximum of 391 dwelling units would be constructed within the SOFA, which could support a population of approximately 630 people. The proposed project would not cause the residential population within the SOFA to exceed this estimate, and therefore the project would not cause the demand for public services within the SOFA to exceed the estimated demand evaluated under the SOFA CAP. Exceptions to the Exemptions The City is aware that there are six categories or exceptions that preclude the use of Categorical Exemptions, as listed in CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 These categories, followed by the reason(s) the City believes they are not applicable to this project, are as follows: 15300.2(a) Location. Classes 3,4,5,6 and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact may in a particularly sensitive environment By definition, this exception does not apply to Class 32 Exemptions. 15300.2(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The project is a stand-alone, site specific construction project that would not be phased. No other projects are planned for this site in the foreseeable future. 15300.2(c) Significant Effect. There are no unusual circumstances creating the possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA. There are no unusual circumstances affecting the project or property such as archeological or cultural resources or anything unique about the location of the property or adjacent properties, or existing uses or features on the property or adjacent property. The project complies with zoning and the comprehensive plan in an area where the proposed use is highly encouraged. 15300.2(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, with a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. 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 190 Channing Avenue, which is immediately adjacent to the City’s commercial downtown area. 15300.2(e Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The City has reviewed the Phase I ESA and the Cortese List on the Envirostor databased to confirm that the project site is not on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Sec 65962.5 of the Government Code. 15300.2(f)Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. 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. The site was 2.h Packet Pg. 95 a subject of an historic evaluation completed in 2016 by Mark Hulburt, a Preservation Architect and peer reviewed by Dudek. The historic resource evaluation and subsequent peer review by a qualified third party of that evaluation concluded that the existing building was less than 50 years in age and did not meet any of the criteria for eligibility for the state or national register. Therefore, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource. 2.h Packet Pg. 96 Attachment I Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “190 Channing” 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=4477&TargetID=319 2.i Packet Pg. 97 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9950) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 702 Clara Drive: Three Detached Units (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL. 702 Clara Drive [18PLN- 00068]: Consideration for a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, Four- Unit Apartment Building and Construction of Three Detached Single-Family Homes Totaling 5,000 Square Feet. 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: RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the information presented, provide comment, and continue the item to a date certain. Report Summary The applicant requests Architectural Review (AR) approval of a three, detached unit condominium development. The condominium subdivision request will occur subsequent to the AR process conclusion. The project will demolish the existing four-unit, two-story apartment building constructed in 1954. The Zoning District for the property is RM-15, which permits multiple family projects. The project overall results in a loss of one existing dwelling unit. The project is subject to the architectural review findings and the multi-family context-based design criteria. The project did not have the benefit of a preliminary architectural review. This is the first instance that the project is being reviewed by the ARB. As such, staff recommends that the ARB 3 Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 review the project against the required findings (attached for reference), provide comment, and continue the item to a date certain. The project is compliant with the zoning development standards. The Board may also consider providing findings and direction to approve the project as presented if desired. The Board is encouraged to evaluate the architecture and provide comments on the diversity of the styles and the execution of the architectural styles, in particular Unit C. Background Project Information Owner: Clara J LLC, c/o Tony Shi Architect: Gilbert Fernandez Representative: Tony Shi Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 702 Clara Drive Neighborhood: Midtown Lot Dimensions & Area: 80’ x 125’ / 10,018 square feet (0.23 acres) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Three Redwoods Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): 3,560 sf; two-stories; 25 ft; 1954 Existing Land Use(s): Four-unit apartment building Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 (Single-family residences) West: RM-15 (multi-family residences) East: R-1 (Single-family residences) South: R-1 (Single-family residences) Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google 2018 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: RM-15 (Low Density Multiple-Family Residence District) Comp. Plan Designation: MF (Multi-Family Residential) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes, PAMC 18.13.060 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'): Yes Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None 3 Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Project Description The project is located at the corner of Clara Drive and Sutter Avenue. A 3,560 square foot two- story apartment building with four units currently exists onsite. Seven large trees are located along the street frontage (either on or adjacent to the site), including four maple trees and three redwood trees. The applicant requests to demolish the existing building and replace it with three, detached two-story dwelling units. All the trees mentioned would be retained. Each unit has an identical floor plan, with Units A and C having the same orientation. Each unit is three bedrooms with a porch and rear patio. Parking is provided in a one-car covered garage, with one uncovered space on the driveway in tandem with the garage space. The project’s open space plan includes usable, private and common space. Private spaces are accommodated in the rear yards and patio contiguous to the units. With the project having street-frontage on two sides, the common open spaces are located along the streets. The 720 square foot area along Sutter Avenue includes a grassy area with seating framed by shrubs and large boulders. The attached Zoning Comparison Table summarizes the project’s open space. The application anticipates applying for a condominium subdivision since the property is too small to be subdivided into separate lots. The condominium subdivision request would occur after the architectural review process is completed. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The project is located in the Midtown area, where there is a mix of multi-family and single- family residences. One and two-story buildings are located within the vicinity of the site. Street trees line both Sutter Avenue and Clara Drive. Setbacks are typical in the area and the multi- family buildings transition in size to the lower density development. Within the neighborhood it is apparent which buildings are multi-family and which ones are single-family. Since the proposed project is at the boundary of the multi-family and single-family zones, the design of the interface between the two types of development is important. The proposed development would be more akin to single-family development, albeit with smaller private areas delineated by wooden fences compared to standard single-family zoned parcels. The inclusion of the project would create a good transition between the larger single-structure multi-family sites and the single-family parcels. Unit A is located adjacent to an existing single-family residence. The second story fenestration is designed and treated in such a way to promote privacy with obscured glass treatment for the bathroom and closet windows and bedroom windows that include high sills. These techniques are also used internal to the site, with the inclusion of high-sill windows between Units A and B to promote privacy on the second floor. Likewise, similar designed windows and obscure glass treatment promote privacy between Units B and C for the second floor. 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. Attachment B also includes context-based criteria with which the project is expected to be consistent. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and 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 Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre. The project has a density of 13 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the intended multiple-family residential density. The Housing Element includes a policy to preserve the number of dwelling units (Policy H1.2). This project does result in a loss of one dwelling unit from what currently 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 exists. Therefore, staff has applied Program H1.2.1 to this site, which states that when a loss of rental housing occurs due to subdivision or condominium conversion approvals, the project shall require 25 percent of the units at below market rate. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Architectural Design The project includes three homes with each unit representing a different architectural style. Unit A is a Mediterranean style that includes red barrel tiles, stucco walls with some stone veneer accents along the front porch and garage. The front porch includes a shed roof that differentiates the design from the other two units. Unit B is a Craftsman style that includes composition shingles, siding and some stone veneer accents for the front porch columns and garage. Unit C is a Texas ranch style with flat tile roofing, stone cladding and stucco walls. Shutters are proposed for the windows. While staff requested the applicant enhance the project to fit in with the various surrounding architectural styles, it is possible the applicant has now provided too much variety. Staff requests the Board’s feedback on the design, the use of materials, and in particular the design of Unit C with the stone veneer. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site is near safe routes to schools (Middlefield, Ross and Colorado) but not directly connected to any routes. As noted above, the project site includes on-site parking (covered and uncovered) in a tandem configuration, as permitted by PAMC Section 18.54.020(d). Bicycle parking is located on the rear patio of the units within lockers. Consistency with Application Findings The project is subject to the Architectural Review findings as provided for in PAMC 18.76.020. The project is also subject to Performance Criteria in PAMC 18.23 because of the project’s proximity to R-1 properties. While, the project is not recommended for approval currently, draft findings for approval are included for the Board’s reference and consideration. 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 under Class 32 15332 In-Fill Developments and Class 3 for new small structures since three single family (up to four multi-family) structures are proposed (Attachment D). A historic resource evaluation was completed, given the existing building was constructed in 1954, to determine whether the building is eligible for historic listing under Federal, State or 3 Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 local significance. The evaluation concluded that the building does not meet the threshold criteria to be determined an historic resource. No other conditions exist that would preclude the project from being categorically exempt from CEQA. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on January 25, 2019, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 25, 2019, which is 12 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP contract planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Environmental Exemption (DOCX)  Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 104 R-1 3.a Packet Pg. 105 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 702 Clara Drive 18PLN-00068 In order for the ARB to make a recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The following are relevant Comprehensive 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 Multiple Family Residential (MF). The project consists of three multi family dwelling units. Land Use and Community Design 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 site is surrounded by urban uses and is served by existing utilities. Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The surrounding neighborhood includes a mixture of apartments and single-family detached units. The project proposes a similar use of three detached dwelling units on a single lot. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project includes three different types of architectural styles and proposes open space areas that are compatible with the surrounding development streetscapes. Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and wellbeing; and to enhance a sense of community safety. The project integrates common open space along the street and uses the existing large trees as shade canopies and additional landscaping to form areas that are private and compatible with the neighborhood. 3.b Packet Pg. 106 Housing H1.4 POLICY Ensure that new developments provide appropriate transitions from higher density development to single-family and low- density residential districts to preserve neighborhood character. The project is similar in scale to surrounding development, is at the edge of the multi- family land use designation area and provides a transition to adjacent single-family development. H1.2 POLICY Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods. H1.2.1 PROGRAM When a loss of rental housing occurs due to subdivision or condominium conversion approvals, the project shall require 25 percent BMR units. Implementation of the project results in a loss of one unit. Per Program H1.2.1, this requires that 25 percent of the units be affordable. Given 25 percent is a factional unit of 0.75, the project has the option to provide an in-lieu payment to satisfy this requirement. While the project proposes a decrease in one dwelling unit from the existing condition, it will provide either one below market rate unit or make an in-lieu payment to the Residential Housing Fund. Therefore, on balance, the project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the Zoning Code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project’s design including the placement of the structures and siting of open space complements the neighborhood, the streetscape and overall internal sense of order for the site. The project also preserves and protects the existing large street trees along Sutter Avenue and Clara Drive. Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings 3.b Packet Pg. 107 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 multi-family district. The purpose is to encourage development in a multi-family district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Massing and Building Facades Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with street(s) through elements. The project includes three identical floor plans with one plan type reversed. Each unit has a different architectural style. The scale of the structures is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Two of the units include materials and architectural elements that are consistent with the architectural style of the unit. In particular, the Spanish designed unit includes a shed roof, which is different than the gables used on the other two units. However, Unit C does not appear to provide consistency with the application of the materials proposed. While the massing of the units is consistent with the finding, the inconsistent facade of the one unit means that the finding cannot be made. 2. Low Density 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 Zoning Code development standards. The transition, massing and orientation of the structures provide privacy and is compatible with neighboring properties and internally within the project. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. The project provides an adequate amount of open space on the site in areas that are most appropriate for the use and privacy. The project provides private open space within fenced areas accessed only by each individual unit and provides a large common open space area protected by trees and shrubs along the street. 4. Parking Designs Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. Each unit includes a street-facing garage that is well integrated into the massing and architecture of the structure. 3.b Packet Pg. 108 5. Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. The project site is less than one acre, therefore, this criteria does not apply. 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units (Figure 6-1), attached rowhouses/townhouses (Figure 6-2), and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. The project includes three identical floor plans with one plan type reversed. Each unit has a different architectural style. The scale of the structures is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Two of the units include materials and architectural elements that are consistent with the architectural style of the unit. In particular, the Spanish designed unit includes a shed roof, which is different than the gables used on the other two units. The project is considered multi-family, which means that there will be areas that are shared. However, Unit C does not appear to be provide consistency with the finding. There appears to be variety in architectural styles, however, the units are very similar in design because they are an identical plan type. For these reasons, the project does not meet the finding. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. The project is consistent with the City’s Green Building Codes, as further described in Finding #6. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project includes three identical floor plans with one plan type reversed. Each unit has a different architectural style. The scale of the structures is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Two of the units include materials and architectural elements that are consistent with the architectural style of the unit. Unit A is a Mediterranean style that includes red barrel tiles, stucco walls with some stone veneer accents along the front porch and garage. The front porch includes a shed roof that differentiates the design from the other two units. 3.b Packet Pg. 109 Unit B is a craftsman style that includes composition shingles, siding and some stone veneer accents for the front porch columns and garage. Unit C is a Texas ranch style with flat tile roofing, stone cladding and stucco walls. Shutters are proposed for the windows. However, Unit C does not appear to provide consistency with a style. There appears to be variety in architectural styles for the project, however, the units are very similar in design because they are an identical plan type. For these reasons, the project does not meet the finding. 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 will function as three independent homes with one shared driveway for the first two units and one standard driveway for the third unit. The shared driveway reduces the amount of curb cuts, which improves pedestrian safety while still providing convenient vehicle access. Each unit will include its own garage and bicycle locker. 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 provides complementary landscaping with some native plantings. It is suggested that the project provide additional native plantings where practical. The project maintains the existing mature street trees that provide shade and enhance the neighborhood. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with the City’s Green Building Code as detailed on Sheets GB-1 and GB- 2 of the plan set. 3.b Packet Pg. 110 Performance Criteria PAMC 18.23 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 proposes individual totes for recycling and garage pick up that will be stored on the side of each unit under the eaves. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The project proposes light fixtures that are appropriate with the scale of the buildings and are typical for individual residential units. 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. Not applicable. 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 The project is a residential project with three detached units. Landscaping is appropriate and 3.b Packet Pg. 111 Performance Criteria Project Consistency protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. complements the surrounding neighboring properties. 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. It is expected that the operation and use of the residential units would be consistent with the neighboring properties. The air conditioning equipment is located on the side elevation in notched area. Fencing will block the view of these units. 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. Street-facing garages are proposed with uncovered parking in front of the garages. These garages are well integrated into the massing for the home. 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 includes three detached units with independent garages and bicycle lockers located in the rear of each lot. 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. The project is a detached residential project and its occupants would use typical household supplies and cleaners. 3.b Packet Pg. 112 Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. It is not anticipated that the users of the units would store hazardous materials onsite. 3.b Packet Pg. 113 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 702 Clara Drive, 18PLN-00068 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-15 DISTRICT) Regulation Required/Allowed Proposed Unit A Unit B Unit C Minimum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100-foot depth 10,000 sf, 80-foot width, 125-foot depth Maximum Residential Density 15 units per 1 acre (3.45 units) 3 total units Minimum Front Yard 20 feet (Sutter Ave.) 20 feet (to the closest front exterior wall of Unit C) Min Street Rear Yard 16 feet (Clara Drive) 16 feet Min Interior Side Yard (for lots w/widths of > 70 feet 10 feet 10 feet Max. Building Height 30 feet 26 feet, 2 ¼ inches Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45-degree angle Compliant Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45-degree angle Compliant Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs) 31% (3,117 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 0.49:1 (4,992 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 35% (3,500 sf) 49% (4,951 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 200 sf per unit 934 sf 1,039 sf 971 sf Minimum Common Open Space 100 sf per unit 315 sf (front) 240 sf (side) 386 sf (front) 240 sf (side) 318 sf (front) 240 (side) Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit 301 sf (yard) 78 sf (patio) 335 sf (yard) 78 sf (patio) 335 sf (yard) 78 sf (patio) Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking Two (2) spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. Two (2) spaces per unit, with each unit providing one (1) covered parking space Bicycle Parking One (1) Long-term bicycle parking space Three (3) total; one (1) for each unit 3.c Packet Pg. 114 NOTICE OF EXEMPTION Documentation of Project’s Eligibility for Class 32 Categorical Exemption Under CEQA The City has determined that the project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 32, In-fill Development Projects. CEQA Guidelines §15332 reads: “Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.” The information herein documents the project’s compliance with these conditions in addition to confirming that no exceptions to the exemptions, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, apply to the project. a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations The project is located with the Multi-Family Comprehensive Plan designation and the RM-15 multi- family residential zoning designation. The project is consistent with the density and development regulations with these designations. The project is consistent with the following comprehensive plan policies: Class 32 Exemption Condition Complies? a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations ■ b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses ■ c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species ■ d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality ■ e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services ■ 3.d Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 2 • Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. • Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. • Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. • Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and wellbeing; and to enhance a sense of community safety. • H1.4 POLICY Ensure that new developments provide appropriate transitions from higher density development to single-family and low-density residential districts to preserve neighborhood character. b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The proposed project is located on a site that is 10,000 square feet that is located wholly within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. Surrounding uses include multi-family residential, single-family residential. There are no open space areas or natural features (such as creeks) within the immediate vicinity of the site. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species As noted above, there are no open space areas or natural features within the vicinity of the project site. The area is entirely urban in nature. The recently adopted Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes Map N-1, which identifies sensitive animal and plant species within the Palo Alto quadrangle, a large geographic area that includes the urban portions and portions along the bay and within the foothills, based on information in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Based on this map and the urban nature of the site, the subject property does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and has not historical supported any of these species. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality Traffic 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 3.d Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 3 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. The project would have two trips in the AM peak hour and three trips in the PM peak hour. Considering the existing site use generates two trips in the AM peak hour and two trips in the PM peak hour, the project has one new net trip in the PM peak hour. Noise The project would be required to comply with the regulations outlined in Title 9 of the PAMC with respect to construction noise, which stipulate maximum allowed decibels and construction hours. Operation of the proposed project, which three residential units would be similar to the existing residential use at the site. For these reasons, the project would not result in any significant impact to noise. Air Quality Construction activities would generate emissions from construction vehicle trips, equipment use, and ground disturbance. However, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Policies and the City’s Municipal Code, the project would comply with standard Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommendations to reduce construction emissions such as limiting vehicle idling and implementing best management practices to reduce dust emissions. The project would also be required to comply with all standard BAAQMD regulations for demolition. Given the size of the project, the project would not generate emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants during construction. The project would demolish a residential building with four dwelling units and replace it with three detached dwelling units; therefore, changes in operational emissions would be nominal and would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Further, this in-fill development project would, by design, encourage reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled based on its location in proximity to public transit opportunities. For these reasons, the project would not result in any significant impact to Air Quality. Water Quality The project site is not located in close proximity to any waterways. The current project site is completely developed; therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage of the site. The project would follow public works engineering’s required standard practices to ensure to control erosion and siltation during construction activities so as not to degrade water quality. The project does not include a basement feature; therefore, extensive excavation that could require dewatering is not anticipated. Project operation would be serviced by existing utilities and would not affect groundwater supply. Therefore, the project would have no impact on groundwater. For these reasons, the project would not result in any significant impact to Water Quality. 3.d Packet Pg. 117 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 4 e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services The site is within an urban area that is already served by utilities and public services. While utility hook-ups will be required, no expansion in capacity or special services would be necessary. Exceptions to the Exemptions The City is aware that there are six categories or exceptions that preclude the use of Categorical Exemptions, as listed in CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 These categories followed by the reason(s) the City believes they are not applicable to this project, are as follows: 15300.2(a) Location. Classes 3,4,5,6 and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact may in a particularly sensitive environment By definition, this exception does not apply to Class 32 Exemptions. This project is also located in an urbanized area. 15300.2(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The project is a stand-alone, site specific construction project that would not be phased. No other projects are planned for this site in the foreseeable future. 15300.2(c) Significant Effect. There are no unusual circumstances creating the possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA. 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. There is nothing unusual about this project site such as any historic or archeological resources or natural features. 15300.2(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, with a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. 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. The project is designed to complement the surrounding buildings and also preserves the existing mature street trees. 3.d Packet Pg. 118 City of Palo Alto  Notice of Exemption P a g e | 5 15300.2(e Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The City has reviewed the Cortese List on the Envirostor database to confirm that the project site is not on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Sec 65962.5 of the Government Code. 15300.2(f)Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. 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. The site was the subject of a Historic Resource Evaluation completed in April 2018 by Richard Patenaude, AICP, a qualified historian with M-Group. The structures at 702 Clara Drive, in the City of Palo Alto, do not possess historical significance, are not strong examples of a style or type, were not designed by a master architect or builder, and are not associated with important events or persons. It is the professional opinion of M-Group that the structures are not individually eligible for California Register of Historical resources and do not qualify as historical resources under CEQA Guidelines §15064.5(a)(3). 3.d Packet Pg. 119 Attachment E 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 “702 Clara Drive” 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=4230 3.e Packet Pg. 120 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9929) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Macy's Mens Redevelopment (Prelim) Title: QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00324]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,337 Square Foot (sf) Macy's Men's located the Stanford Shopping Center and Construction of a new three- story stand alone retail building, approximately 43,581 sf, two retail buildings, approximately 3,506 sf each and construction of a new stand alone retail building, approximate 28,000 sf. (Total of 78,593 sf) Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CC (Community 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): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, 4 Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center, at the interaction of Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real. The proposed changes to this area of the Shopping Center includes the demolition of the existing Macy’s Men’s building to construct two new 3,500 sf tenant spaces directly adjacent to building J, along with two new standalone buildings, and reconfiguration of the parking lot in the project area. These changes require Board Level Architectural Review due to size of the project and visible from the public right of way. Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Architect: Kimley Horn Representative: Curt Tappendorf – Simon Property Group Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 180 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area: Various & 2,300,402 square feet Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: N/A Protected/Heritage Trees: Various throughout the site Historic Resource(s): N/A Existing Improvement(s): 1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s): Retail, Personal Service, Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: 4 Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial 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): El Camino Real Design Guidelines 1976 only Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None 4 Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Project Description The overall proposed project would demolish the existing 94,337 Square Foot (sf) Macy's Men's building and surrounding parking lots located in the Stanford Shopping Center, to construct three new buildings totaling 78,593 square feet. This would result in a net loss of floor area for the Shopping Center overall and includes parking lot design changes to accommodate the new buildings. These changes require Board Level Architectural Review due to the scope of work and visible changes from the public right of way. The first portion of this project involves a large standalone building that is proposed to be three stories with a rooftop glass surrounded restaurant, open roof top garden, second floor terraces, and new ground level landscaping. The building is designed by the future tenant, Restoration Hardware. The second portion of the proposal involves another standalone single-story retail building with a mezzanine level, located within the southern portion of the parking lot between Sand Hill Road and Pistache Place, with frontage on El Camino Real. This building is proposed to be the new location for Wilkes Bashford (retail store). The third portion of this project involves two 3,500 sf single story tenant spaces directly adjacent to building J (LaBelle Day Spas, Jeffrey, and Blue Bottle Coffee). These new tenant spaces will be located directly across from the new Restoration Hardware building and a new elevated parking area with two-way drive aisles. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  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 one finding requires a project to be redesigned or to be denied.  Conditional Use Permit (CUP): – A CUP is needed for alcoholic beverage service in association with eating & drinking uses. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.010 and 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by Planning staff and forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action. This aspect of the project is outside the purview of the ARB. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This 4 Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to:  Scale and mass  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Access to the site  Consideration to any applicable policy documents (Background Section)  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the northwestern portion of the site facing El Camino Real. The overall site is 52.8 acres with proposed development on a ~4.5 acres (196,300 sf) portion of the property. The Stanford Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The site is surrounded by hospital, retail, and multi-family uses. Site Constraints The project location has significant utilities that run under the existing parking lot. The proposed buildings are configured in a manner to avoid conflicts or minimize relocation of these underground utilities, in particular, the regional water line that runs perpendicular to Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real (see image). This water line greatly limits development at the corner of the site, as its relocation would be prohibitive and create significant construction impacts, and primary structures are not allowed to be constructed over it. Additionally, new supportive utilities will need to be installed for this project. This includes new transformers, switch gears, and backflow preventers. All of which would be required to be designed/located in a manner to minimize their visual impact to the site. This would be achieved by locating new utility equipment away from the public right of ways, Shopping Center open spaces and pedestrian paths, and the use of screening treatments. 4 Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Restoration Hardware (Proposed New Three-Story Building) The proposed Restoration Hardware building is an open design with large windows around all facades and includes new planting throughout the building. The massing is tiered with the front and rear façades (perpendicular to Sand Hill Road) having reduced massing on the upper floors. The third floor will include a new glass surrounded restaurant with access to a roof top garden. The second floor is proposed to have two outdoor terraces with overhead trellises, continuing the open outdoor theme of the third floor. The building is proposed to have black painted awnings above the ground floor window openings with a smooth stucco façade and colored cast stone accents. Also, the proposed design includes large lantern style lights placed along each corner of the building and large outdoor sales areas that are walled and gated, a feature that is not indicative to the Shopping Center (sheet RH 8). These monumental elements along with the large pillars at the main entrance, may not be fully in scale with the pedestrian environment of the Shopping Center. ARB’s feedback regarding the exterior lighting options, façade materials, perimeter wall, and colors are welcomed. While this is a preliminary design and little detail is provided as to the planting palette, the ARB’s comments on the compatibility of landscaping with the proposed design are sought. The roof top garden area design is minimal with only fruitless olive trees and bluestone paver walkways surround by decomposed granite. The roof top landscaping design concepts are shown on sheets RH9 and RH10. Correspondingly, the second level terraces have planters with medium size shrubs under covered trellises that are visible from the ground level. Lastly, there are small ground level planters that surround the buildings perimeter between window openings (sheet RH4). 4 Packet Pg. 126 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Existing Surface Parking Lot (Corner of El Camino Real and Pistache Place) Wilkes Bashford (Proposed New One-Story Building with Mezzanine) A second standalone building is set within the existing parking lot at the corner of El Camino Real and Pistache Place. This building is proposed to be 28,000 sf and includes a mezzanine level. While this proposed building has fewer windows than the Restoration Hardware proposal, the size and number of windows are similar to existing standalone buildings in this area of the Shopping Center, such as the Flemings building and Building W (Shake Shack & P.F Changs). The design along the El Camino frontage includes the required setback to accommodate a 12-foot wide sidewalk per the requirements of the El Camino Design Guidelines. The entire sidewalk on this portion of the site along El Camino Real will be upgraded to meet the El Camino Design Guidelines with the exception of the area near the existing heritage oak tree, which will require sidewalk improvements that are sensitive to the health and preservation of the oak. 4 Packet Pg. 127 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 New tenant spaces (Addition to Building J) The third portion of this proposal involves two new tenant spaces that are single story, directly adjacent to building J, and located directly across from the new Restoration Hardware Store. The tenants for these spaces are no yet known, but will be occupied by permitted land uses within the CC zone district. These spaces are proposed to be 3,500 sf each and are proposed to have large windows with metal awnings that extend over the pedestrian walkways along the corners of the buildings. Their design includes stucco and cast stone facades, along with a green wall located at the center where the tenant spaces meet (sheet J2). These tenant spaces will have new pedestrian walkways that are edged by new landscape areas, parking, and a new two-way drive aisle. The parking and drive aisle area is proposed to be elevated above the existing drive aisles in the area to make a flush walking pedestrian path between these buildings and the Restoration Hardware building. Additionally, the raised area would be a colored stone, rather than asphalt, to better frame this outdoor room. The applicant has suggested that this area would function as a pop-up retail space/ special event space. Special events would be reviewed by Planning Staff and could be approved through a Temporary Use Permit process. The massing and preliminary designs for these buildings are consistent with what is found within the Shopping Center, though these buildings would function as a transition point from the greater Shopping Center building mass to the new three-story Restoration Hardware Building. The ARB’s thoughts and feedback on the transition from these buildings which are proposed to be a maximum height of 30 feet at the parapet, to the 50 foot tall Restoration Hardware Building are desired. Shopping Center Façade and Signage Design Standards 4 Packet Pg. 128 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 The project involves the redevelopment of a sizeable portion of the Shopping Center and would change the character of this location. Though the design is not finalized, the exterior facades and any new proposed signage will need to be compatible with the requirements of the Stanford Shopping Centers “Master Tenant Sign and Façade Program” (MTSFP; 15PLN-00040) to maintain the Shopping Centers character. The MTSFP can be viewed in Attachment E for reference. Protected Trees and Shade Requirement The project area is bordered by protect Oaks along El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road. Changes to the site must consider the tree protection zone of the Oaks (sheets T1 and T2), in addition to placement of required C3 stormwater treatment areas that are required for a proposed project of this size. The proposed project would involve changes to the parking lot areas around the proposed development that would result in the loss of some of the on-site parking lot trees. These trees will be required to be replaced with tree species that better fit the site, to ensure conformance with the ARB findings and the Urban Forestry’s Master Plan Policy for no net loss of trees. The Palo Alto Municipal Code section 18.54.040 “Landscaping of Parking Areas” requires that perimeter landscaping for unenclosed parking facilities shall be at least a five-foot wide strip between the exterior boundary of the parking area and the nearest adjacent property line not separated by a building. This would be area between the parking lot and the public sidewalk along El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road. The plans specify (sheet LS100) that there will be new landscaping along a portion of El Camino Real, with the Sand Hill Road portion being lined with existing oak trees. Additionally, this Code section requires interior landscaping of unenclosed parking facilities to be at least 10% of the total area. This is achieved by providing landscaping islands for every ten spaces in a single row, planting trees for per every six parking stalls, with only 50% of the perimeter trees around the parking lot area counting for this requirement. Finally, the Code requires tree planting designs to result in 50% shading of parking lot surface area within 15 years. The formal submittal will require a landscape plan that provides greater detail and additional information indicating compliance with the landscaping requirements for exposed parking facilities. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site has extensive multi-modal access and parking. The site can be accessed by pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface parking lots and two multi-level parking structures located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. Throughout the site, there are pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. The proposed project would reduce the overall floor area of the site (a reduction in parking demand per FAR), however, the site planning of the proposal would also reduce the total number of physical parking space on site. The site is projected to have 62 additional spaces after development, however, this may not account for other pending projects and will need to be reviewed again with the formal application. 4 Packet Pg. 129 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Additionally, a project of this scale would trigger Building Code requirements for electric vehicle charging stations (EVSE). The EVSE equipment would need to be installed on site while meeting all Municipal Code required parking facility design standards (PAMC 18.54), as shown on Sheet P-1. Furthermore, required bicycle and loading areas for the project would need to be reviewed for compliance with Code requirements. As the applicant prepares and submits a formal application, Planning Staff will continue to work with the applicant and review revised plans to ensure that vehicle parking, bicycle parking and loading facilities meet code requirements or come as close as possible for this existing facility. Staff will also ensure the forthcoming formal Major ARB application maintains and/or improves multi-modal access to the site. Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. Forthcoming Shopping Center Board Level Projects The Shopping Center has one Board level review application (18PLN-00265) that will be coming before the ARB soon. This application involves a new restaurant tenant “Pacific Catch” moving into the space formerly occupied by “Max’s Opera Café”, located by the Plum Lane entrance to the Shopping Center. The project involves a new façade design, signage, landscaping, and two new covered outside dining patios. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment E: Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 130 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11  Attachment F: Applicant Project Description Letter (DOCX)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 131 4.a Packet Pg. 132 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 18PLN-00324 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project would need to 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 L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. Consistency will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. Policy B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high quality regional shopping center. GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The project would be required to be consistent with the zoning requirements, El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and the Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. 4.b Packet Pg. 133 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. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 4.b Packet Pg. 134 Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 4.b Packet Pg. 135 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real, 18PLN-00324 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 2,300,402 square feet (52.81 acres) Consistency will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varied Rear Yard No Requirement N/A Interior Side Yard No Requirement N/A Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied Special Setback (PAMC 20.08) 24 feet along Sand Hill and Arboretum Roads Varied Max. Site Coverage No Requirement N/A Max. Building Height 50 feet or 37 feet maximum (4) Within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site Varied, Max 37 feet Varied, Max 50 feet Max. Floor Area per 18.16.060 (e) for Stanford Shopping Center 1,412,362 sf 1,361,751 net sf 1,346,007 net sf (Proposed loss of 15,744 net sf) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 4.c Packet Pg. 136 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property Consistency will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) (2) In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage: (A) Except in shopping centers… (B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 sf shall be subject to a conditional use permit. (C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) … Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. Employee Showers (18.16.040 (j)) Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building ... 4 showers are required for 100,000 sf and above Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CC 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. 4.c Packet Pg. 137 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area (1,437,603 gross sf) for a total of 5,228 on-site parking spaces 5,448 spaces ~5,292 spaces Further analysis will be done with a formal application Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf 40% long term and 60% short term) equals 523 spaces for the site overall. 265 spaces (93 long term, 172 short term) ~261 spaces will remain (2 lockers with 4 spaces to be removed by the project) Loading Space 3/70,000 -120,000 sf with 1 additional space per 50,000 sf over 120,000 sf. Total of 29 loading spaces required. 2 loading space would be required for this portion of the site. ~15 loading spaces At least 1 new loading space is proposed on this portion of the site. Further analysis will be done with a formal application * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Table 1: Stanford Shopping Center Master Sign Program Sign Types, Number, and Locations Sign Requirement Number Maximum Size Location Primary sign (wall sign) Required 1 Maximum height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height; no sign closer to 24” from demising wall or building corner. Primary facade Banner or blade sign (Projecting sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” height Primary facade Canopy or Awning Sign (optional) 1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary facade Super- graphic (optional) Not limited None Flexible Secondary sign or Emblem (optional) 1 where applicable Secondary sign: Maximum height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: Maximum height is 24” in any direction. Secondary façade where applicable Advertising graphics and signs (optional) Not limited None Only on the inside plane of storefront window (s) Digital (optional) Not limited 42” measured diagonally Only in storefront 4.c Packet Pg. 138 images and digital signage window *Maximum Allowable Sign Area for Wall Signs. Wall signs and sign area are defined in PAMC 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. Logos are considered wall signs and can be utilized as a primary wall sign or can be a component of a primary wall sign. Logos shall not exceed the maximum height of a stacked sign, which is 36-inches. Logos shall be included in calculations of maximum wall sign area limits. 4.c Packet Pg. 139 ATTACHMENT E PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 18.23 180 El Camino Real, 18PLN-00324 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. Consistency will be finalized when a formal application is submitted. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. 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. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 4.d Packet Pg. 140 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 visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 4.d Packet Pg. 141 MASTER TENANT FAÇADE & SIGN PROGRAM Effective Date: April 23, 2015 Program Approval 15PLN-00040 Edited PCE 7/10/2018 4.e Packet Pg. 142 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Facades facing the right of way shall incorporate architectural design features in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk. Rooftop equipment, equipment enclosures, roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or structure shall be obscured from public view by a roof screen or through placement. Green Lines indicate tenant spaces which require City review •Storefront > 35ft in length require Architectural Board Review (Public Hearing) •Storefront ≤ 35ft in length require Staff Level Review Major tenants and free standing buildings (shaded) require City Review •The type of review (Board level or Staff level) will be determined based on the scope of work. 4.e Packet Pg. 143 For the Tenants whose elevation is located on facades other than those listed above, review by the Architectural Review Board might be required depending on if the storefront is visible from the public right of way. Tenants are required to receive Landlord’s approval prior to filing for ARB approval. However, approval by the Landlord does not guarantee ARB approval. Furthermore, all comments provided by the ARB must be addressed and Tenant shall file promptly for resubmittal. Any deviation from Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program must receive Landlord’s prior written approval prior to submitting drawings to the ARB or for Planning Approval. Architectural Review Processing Procedure. The architectural review processing procedure for Stanford Shopping Center tenants shall be as follows: 1.The Landlord and Stanford University conduct architectural review of non-anchor tenant signs and facades for those locations within the shopping center interior to ensure that they conform to the Tenant Design Manual. 2.Planning staff and/or the ARB shall conduct architectural review of tenant signs and facade applications for locations at the shopping center exterior. a.Any façades or architectural components that extend beyond the height of the existing parapet wall or increase gross or net floor area shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). b.Two-story tenant facades intended for single tenant occupancy shall have a façade that is continuous between the first and second stories. If separate tenants occupy the first and second stories, the design of each façade shall be reviewed by the ARB. c.Tenant facades that are 35-feet in width or greater are reviewed by the ARB. Architectural review for tenant facades that are less than 35-feet in width may be conducted by Planning Staff. d.If there are no tenant façade changes and the proposed tenant signs are consistent with the Master Tenant Sign Program, Planning review at the staff- level occurs as part of building permit applications. Any signs that require an exception to the Master Tenant Sign Program shall be reviewed by Planning staff or the ARB. Examples of tenants that have continuous façade vs those that do not have continuous facades 4.e Packet Pg. 144 STOREFONT ELEVATIONS GLOSSARY OF TERMS GENERAL: •Base Building: Base Building Shell construction, common and service areas, including all work that is the responsibility of the Landlord. •Design Control Zone: The area of the store extending from the storefront lease line into the store, at a minimum of five feet (5’-0”), in which the Landlord controls design components. The Design Control Zone shall extend across the entire width of the store. •Neutral Pier: An architectural element separating two adjacent Tenant storefronts or a Tenant storefront from a finish controlled by the Landlord. •Vitrine: Shallow wall mounted display cases on the exterior of the façade and can house vignette displays, merchandise or seasonal graphics. The illumination of any vitrine shall be similar in color and intensity to the remainder of the Tenant storefront displays. All vitrines must be incorporated into the design aesthetic of the storefront vocabulary. Stanford Shopping Center is an upscale Lifestyle Center and requires Tenants to create a unique and contemporary storefront design. Tenants shall take advantage of the garden setting by creating storefront designs that bring a sense of the outdoors into their space. Tenants are required to present their businesses with distinctive architectural designs using the highest quality of materials and workmanship, and with creative lighting and signage designs. Typical Tenant storefronts extend between adjacent storefront finishes and shall extend to the height of the roof parapet. STOREFRONT DESIGN CRITERIA General Design Criteria Storefront The Tenant’s entire storefront, as per Zone, shall be designed, fabricated, constructed, installed and maintained by the Tenant at the Tenant’s expense. The storefront design shall work in concert with, and be respectful of, the Landlord’s building façade, thematic architectural expression, and landscaping. Tenant storefronts shall meet the base building parapet height and shall not exceed the parapet in overall height. Storefronts shall maintain a consistent height on each building. Tenants are required to extend their storefront design along all building facades. Approved architectural finishes, façade details, and additional components such as lighting and graphics, will visually activate all side of each Building. At a minimum, Tenants shall extend their exterior color palette across the solid portions of the exterior wall. A combination of super-graphics, showcase windows and/or vitrines are required and shall be the foundation of the Tenant’s aesthetic interpretation of the exterior walls. Closed Doors Tenant spaces shall be designed for closed-door operation as this is an open-air center. Tenant storefront doors shall remain closed during normal mall hours. Landlord piers or columns in the Tenant’s storefront that are clad or otherwise designed as part of the Landlord building architecture shall be preserved without alteration by the Tenant. Unclad piers or columns in the Tenant’s storefront shall be incorporated into the Tenant’s storefront design. The Tenants storefront windows and other large glazed areas shall include provisions for mullion articulation beyond a basic extruded aluminum profile. This may be achieved through applying cap and pan elements to the basic window assembly to add relief and dimension. 4.e Packet Pg. 145 Doors within the storefront assembly may be articulated in a similar manner or may include further customized elements to enhance the overall design and building identity. No alterations, additions, changes, or modifications to the Base Building finishes or construction shall be permitted without obtaining Landlord’s prior written approval (such approval must be requested by Tenant under separate cover from Tenant’s drawings). If permitted, all work shall be performed by Landlord at Tenant’s expense. All Tenant construction, including storefronts, must be of non-combustible materials. Treated fire-resistive materials are permitted only with approval by local jurisdictional authorities. All Tenant storefronts and floors shall be watertight and must properly slope to drain and to meet flush with Landlord’s finishes and/or pavements at the storefront. All exterior Tenant storefront materials must be suitable to outdoor weather, use, and wear. Pedestrian and security lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and shall be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. Architectural lighting that project upward shall be directed so as not to affect abutting land uses. Floodlights on tenant facades are discouraged. Storefront Finishes Tenants shall maximize the use of glazing with the storefront area having a minimum of 70% transparency, measured across the width of the Premises. Full height opaque areas of the storefront shall be minimal. Where possible, a constant height opaque sign band, extending across the entire storefront width, is not acceptable. Varied glazed show window heights and/or projections should be incorporated. 4.e Packet Pg. 146 All storefront materials shall be high quality, durable, exterior grade finishes with minimal maintenance requirements. Acceptable Finishes:  Stainless Steel, Solid Brass and Copper  Wrought Iron, Cast Iron and Steel  Marble, Granite, Limestone, Brick, Textured Masonry  Finished/protected premium grade hardwoods  Precast Concrete, Cast Stone, GFRC, GFRG  Homogenous porcelain tile  Sandblasted, frosted, etched, textured, leaded glass, spandrel glass (in limited quantities)  Glazing (tempered) *Additional finishes not listed are subject to Planning Department review and approval Discouraged Finishes:  Simulated Brick, Wood, Stone  Plastic Laminates, Metal Laminates, Plastic Panels  Mill finish  EIFS  Plexiglas or plastics  Field painted metals  Ceramic, glass or quarry tile, used as a field or background. Note: Storefront canopies and marquees must conform to project location specifications and will be reviewed for conformance with material and color selection, location, projection and overall design effect. Fabric awnings are not generally permitted. 4.e Packet Pg. 147 Each Tenant shall provide a solid canopy above their entry. Canopies are to be a minimum of 3’-0” deep and must at lease cover the width of the entry alcove. The finish of the canopy is to compliment the Tenant’s overall storefront design aesthetic. Storefront and glazing graphics, film, animation techniques and projection techniques must be clearly shown on Tenant’s Drawings and are subject to Landlord’s approval. Entrance Alcoves & Closures Store closure is limited to hinged or pivoting doors only. Out-swinging or pivoting doors cannot extend beyond the storefront Lease Line. Coiling grilles and shutters are prohibited. Doors glazed with true divided slites are encouraged, as are doors or clear tempered glass and doors with decorative leaded or patterned glazing. Tall entrance doors of 8’-0” height or higher are encouraged; standard height doors with overhead transoms are also permitted. The following requirements shall apply without exception:  Tenant is responsible for exterior floor finish within the entry recess and must provide a minimum transition of less than ½ inches from the sidewalk elevation to Tenant floor finish.  Tenant is solely responsible for the design and construction of the slope in the recessed entry area, as well as compliance with any applicable code requirements for same. Exterior floor shall have positive drainage to the sidewalk at a minimum 1% and maximum 5% slope.  Tenant’s recessed entrance shall meet or exceed the finish specifications in the Design Criteria and Design Control Zone. The finish must be Tenant’s own material - matching Landlord’s sidewalk finish will not be permitted.  Recessed entrance location, presentation and temperature control are subject to Landlord approval. Tenant’s drawings shall include details for drainage, foundations, interior /exterior slab conditions, weatherproofing and finishes. Landlord shall not be responsible for ponding water in the recessed entry. All storefront doors must be framed. Frameless glass doors will not be allowed due to outdoor environment. Each Tenant shall display the space number posted in accordance per the local Fire Code and per City of Palo Alto Building Department Standards and shall install the mall standard ADA address plaque, provided by the Landlord’s designated vendor. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. Storefront Bases The storefront base shall be a minimum of six inches (6”) in height. The base shall be constructed from highly durable non-porous material appropriate for exterior use, such as stone, tile, substantial gauge metal with a powder-coated finish, stainless steel, or other material as approved by Landlord. Storefront base material must be specified to withstand contact with cleaning equipment and solutions as well as exposure to the elements. Entry Floor Floor finishes at the entry shall be hard, high-quality, durable materials. At the entry, the floor finish shall be a non-slip material. Vinyl and/or rubber-resilient flooring or sealed/stained concrete systems are not allowed in the design control zone. If carpeting is proposed, 32 oz. nylon fiber minimum specification is required. The finished elevations at the store entrance must align with Landlord’s finished and/or pavement elevation of the exterior walkway, with a weather-proofed threshold of minimal thickness (not to exceed ½”) provided at the doors. The use of vinyl or metal reducer strips is prohibited. Tenant should provide a metal-embedded transition strip flush with the hard surface flooring at all transitions to other flooring types. No trip hazards such as reducer strips, thresholds or other noticeable transition devices shall be permitted between different flooring materials. 4.e Packet Pg. 148 Storefront Lighting Tenant Interior Lighting – Tenant interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow visible from and/or intruding into nearby properties Tenant Exterior Lighting – Pedestrian and security lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and shall be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. Architectural lighting that project upward shall be directed so as not to affect abutting land uses. Floodlights on tenant facades are discouraged. Bird-Friendly Facades Tenant facades with glazing covering a large area shall utilize a bird-safe glazing treatment. The bird-friendly treatment can be invisible to the human eye. Typical treatments include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns are generally 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. Noise Producing Equipment Any noise producing equipment should be screened from public view and must comply with noise limits. Storefront Design Control Zone The Tenant Storefront Design Control Zone is the area of the store extending from the storefront lease line into the store at a minimum of five feet (5’-0”) across the entire width of the store. Since the appearance of this zone is critical to the overall store appearance, design solutions, and materials are expected to be of the highest quality and will be closely reviewed by Landlord. Tenant music systems, speakers and sound systems are not permitted to be installed within the Design Control Zone. Speakers/ sound systems located behind the first 5’-0” of the entry shall have a separate volume control that can be set to the Mall Managers’ specified level. The backs of Emergency Exit signage/lights (over the entry doors) shall not be visible from the exterior. Storefront security systems, if used, shall be unobtrusively incorporated into the Tenant’s Design Control Zone. Storefront security system design and installation details shall be included in the Tenant storefront design and drawings submitted to the Landlord for approval prior to installation. Security grilles or gates behind storefront show windows or entrance doors are strictly prohibited. All walls within the Design Control Zone shall be provided with high quality finish material – plain painted surfaces are not permitted. Materials such as stone, tile, wood panels, the use of trim and other decorated treatments shall be utilized. Slat wall and grid wall are not permitted. All plants shall be shown on Tenants drawings, and identified by species as well as whether living or artificial. Plants on storefronts shall have photographs submitted as part of Tenant’s drawing submission to Landlord for approval. Depressed or slab-level plantings are prohibited. All plants installed by Tenant shall be properly maintained by Tenant at Tenant’s expense. (Self-watering pots with a bladder system shall be used to ensure no leakage onto the hardscape). Gross Floor Area. Permanently covered tenant patio spaces count toward gross floor area, but uncovered tenant spaces do not. 4.e Packet Pg. 149 Store Display and Merchandising Within the Design Control Zone, the side walls and show windows shall be dedicated for use as a high-quality show window display. A creative display is required – standard merchandise racks, and wall finishing materials such as slat wall and prepackaged wall-mounted grid systems are prohibited. Distinctive, high-quality and appropriate display techniques which best showcase the Tenant’s merchandise must be used. At the storefront entry, display fixtures and merchandise must be placed at least 3’-0” behind the Tenant’s entry door/ closure line. Merchandise rack and display features must not block customer traffic flow in and out of the store. Television monitors proposed to be installed at the storefront or within the Design Control Zone require specific approval by the Landlord, and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If approved, monitors shall be incorporated into the overall storefront design and are to be encased within attractive display fixtures to conceal all surfaces except for the screen surface. They must be mounted a minimum of 3’-0” behind the storefront glass and must incorporate slow fade type graphics with no sound, animation is not permitted. Maximum screen size is 42” measured diagonally. All cables and wiring must be concealed from view. Show Window Safety Logos Repetitive safety symbols (graphically designed) or lettering may be applied to the inside face of storefront glazing as approved by Landlord for identifying transparent surfaces for customer safety purposes. Emblems, logos, and lettering must not exceed 3” in height and the font shall be Circular Pro, black vinyl, maximum letter is not to exceed 3” in height. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. Tenant shall provide signage at the exterior side of the service entrance. Font shall be Circular Pro, black vinyl, maximum letter is not to exceed 2” in height. The length of the sign shall be proportionate to the sign height limit. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. General Sign Criteria Building permits are required for all illuminated signs and the Tenant shall be responsible to obtain any and all permits as may be required by the local jurisdiction. 4.e Packet Pg. 150 Sign Requirement Number Max Size Location Primary Sign (Wall Sign) Required 1 Max Height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height. Signs discouraged closer than 24” to demising wall or building corner Primary Facade Banner or Blade Sign (Projecting Sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” in height Blade: 24” projection x 15” in height Primary Façade (Blade signs to be located either under an awning or a façade wall not directly adjacent to an existing sign) Canopy Sign Optional 1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary Facade Super Graphic Optional Not Limited None Flexible Secondary Sign or Emblem Optional 1 (where applicable) Secondary Sign: Max. height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: max. height is 24” in any direction Secondary Façade (where applicable) Advertising Graphics and Signs Optional Not Limited None Only on inside plane of storefront windows, Digital Images and Digital Signage Optional Not Limited 42” measured diagonally Only in storefront windows 4.e Packet Pg. 151 In additional to the criteria herein, Tenant signage shall comply with the current version of the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code and the City of Palo Alto’s Design Guidelines. All signage shall be of the highest quality design and construction. Tenant signage shall be designed to be proportionate in scale to the elevation to which it is affixed. Sign design and placement shall be well integrated with the tenant façade and hall be designed to complement the storefront design and general building design. Wall signs and sign area are defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PMAC) 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. When wall area exceeds 5,000 square feet, sign area may be increase by seven (7) square feet for each additional 500 square feet of wall area, but no sign shall exceed 203 square feet. All attachment hardware which supports and or powers the signage must be concealed from view and be weather resistant. Sign illumination must be connected to a 7-day / 24 hour time clock to be set to the hours specified by Mall Management Acceptable Primary Storefront Sign Types (required): Dimensional wood, metal, glass, or other material with a permanent appearance, internally illuminate only. Flood lights are prohibited. Reverse channel letter with halo illumination, opaque letter-sides and faces and non-reflective background. Internally illuminated individual channel letters with acrylic faces. Signs that are incised, cast into or carved out of an opaque material, indirectly illuminated. Sculptural iconographic elements contextual to the storefront design, internally illuminated. *Additional finishes not listed are subject to Planning Department review and approval Discouraged Primary Storefront Sign Types: Box or cabinet type signs. Signs employing audible equipment, and/or moving, flashing, or blinking lights Signs employing exposed raceways, ballast boxes, or transformers Luminous vacuum-formed type plastic letter signs Exposed neon Cloth, paper, cardboard signs or signs of other temporary or non-durable materials Signs using highly reflective finish materials (i.e. polished brass, chrome, etc.) 4.e Packet Pg. 152 Blade Signs Tenants can elect to use a variety of media for their signs; however, blade signs are required to meet the following criteria: Sign panels can be a maximum of 3” thick and constructed of wood, metal, glass or other solid surface material. Plastics are not permitted. Sign panel shall be supported by a bracket attached to the Tenant’s storefront or under an awning with a complimentary design, color and finish. At no time may the blade sign panel be attached to the Landlord’s neutral pier or building facade. Perimeter of the sign should fall within a 24” (h) x 15” (w) envelope, including the support bracket. Tenant shall determine a creative sign shape. Minimum clearance height to sidewalk is 9’-0” above the sidewalk plane. Wording of the blade sign is limited to the Tenant’s trade name (DBA) and logo. Tenant’s customary signature or logo, hallmark, insignia, or other trade identification will be respected and reviewed on a case by case basis for use as the blade sign design. The graphic element of the sign may be paint, enamel, appliqué, dimensional graphic/lettering or may be pushed out of the panel material for a three- dimensional appearance (routed or incised is also approved). Blade signs may be illuminated by concealed methods only. Building Mounted Banners and Projected Signs (optional – in lieu of Blade Sign) This type of sign is vertically oriented and is mounted high and perpendicular to the building and may or may not be illuminated. Maximum width or projection shall be 24” from the face of the Tenant storefront and the height cannot exceed 60”. Bottom of banner must be 9’’-0” clear ground plane. Signage of this type, if permitted, is usually restricted in number and location. Projecting banner signs shall not be placed in a manner that will allow the banner sign to exceed the adjacent parapet height. Canopy Signs (optional) Canopies are defined as heavy-framed protective and/or decorative structures over entrances. Tenant may elect to use the canopy sign as their primary storefront sign. The sign shall conform to the “Acceptable Primary Sign Types” as indicated above. The canopy sign may be illuminated internally only. The maximum height of any capital letter of a canopy sign shall not exceed 9” in height. Traditional fabric awnings are not permitted, however, taught contemporary awnings shall be allowed only with prior Landlord approval. Show Window Graphics (optional) Vinyl lettering and/or logos may be applied to the face of storefront glazing, provided that the sign communicates the Tenant Trade Name only. Advertising panels, banners or signs with opaque backdrops are prohibited. Signage Approval Process Landlord’s approval of Tenant’s storefront signage shall be based on the size and style of the sign and lettering, the location of the sign within the storefront, and the cohesive integration of the sign into the overall storefront design. Approval of the Tenant’s preliminary design or Working Drawings by the Landlord shall not constitute review and approval of the Tenant’s signage. Tenant shall submit one (1) set of the Tenant’s sign shop drawings for review and approval by Landlord. Fabrication or installation of the Tenant’s signage shall not commence before the Landlord’s approval of the sign shop drawings. 4.e Packet Pg. 153 SPG Center, LLC proposes the redevelopment of the existing Macy's Men’s department store located at the Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto, California. The project is located on the southwest corner of the intersection of El Camino Real and Sand Hill Road. The project calls for the demolition of the existing Macy's Men’s building (94,337 SF), relocation of utilities in the proposed project area, and removal of some surface parking. The new occupied spaces proposed for the redevelopment include the construction of a Restoration Hardware (RH), Wilkes Bashford (W-B), and two (2) small shops buildings. The vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation will be updated with the project to include a new elevated internal connecting roadway, a new right-out only driveway onto Sandhill Road, and redesigned parking areas to serve the proposed project. Following is a summary of the proposed buildings. Preliminary floor plans, elevations, and perspectives are included in this package. The proposed RH building is shown north of the existing Macy’s Men’s building to be constructed at 43,581 SF. The building is proposed as a 3-story building and will feature décor and distinctive home furnishings seamlessly integrated within a curated food and beverage program. The ground floor and second floor of the building will primarily be the display of furniture and décor in a series of rooms - complete living, bed and bathrooms. There will also be an interactive RH Design Atelier, an integrated interior design workspace that allows RH design consultants and customers to conceptualize one room or an entire home. The third floor will feature a roof-top café with approximately 120 seats. The main entries to the building are located on the west and east elevations, with adjacent outdoor patio areas to these entrances. The north elevation is facing Sand Hill Road where a required bioswale treatment area and planting will be provided for roof leaders from the RH building. The south elevation is facing a new elevated internal connecting roadway with the proposed utility connections at the southeast corner of the building. The existing Building J of the Shopping Center is immediately adjacent to the south of the Macy’s Men’s building. With the demolition of the Macy’s Men’s building, it is proposed that two new small shop spaces be constructed as a new northern edge to Building J. The two new spaces are proposed to measure 3,120 SF each. The entrances to these spaces will be located on the north elevation, facing the new elevated internal connecting roadway. The proposed utility connections for these spaces are proposed to be in a combined utility area on the east side of the new eastern space. In addition to the new interior spaces, a new exterior area is proposed centered between the two spaces adjacent to the north elevation. This area is proposed as flexible space for shorter-term retail or “pop-up” uses, as well as small event space accompanying a closure of the connecting roadway for safer pedestrian usage. The proposed Wilkes Bashford building is shown east/north-east of the Macy’s Men’s building. The Wilkes Bashford building is proposed to include 20,000 SF of ground floor sales area and 8,000 SF of mezzanine offices and sales support area. The removal of some existing surface parking immediately north of Pistache Place is required to construct the W-B building. The main entry to the building is located on the north elevation. A new parking area is proposed immediately west of the W-B building, and the utility connections are also proposed to enter the building at the west elevation. The east elevation faces El Camino Real (ECR), and a new widened 12’ sidewalk along ECR is proposed between Sand Hill Road and Pistache Place. The south elevation includes a courtyard area and raised planters to be utilized for the required bioswale treatment of the roof leaders from the W-B building. 4.f Packet Pg. 154 Attachment G 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 “180 El Camino Real – Macy’s Men’s” 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=4479&TargetID=319 4.g Packet Pg. 155 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and Robert Gooyer. Absent: None. Chair Furth: Good morning, and welcome to the October 18, 2018, meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. Would you call the roll, please? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications from any member of the public wishing to speak on a matter not on the agenda, but within the scope of our responsibilities. I have no cards, and I see no members of the public who aren't affiliated with item 2, so we will note that. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Any agenda changes, additions or deletions, staff? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: ARB meeting schedule and attendance record. That's item 1. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, on the schedule, we do have two subcommittee items after the hearing. Chair Furth: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: And then, you'll see for future agenda, we have the 3128 El Camino Real, which is exterior modifications to the McDonald's. That would be going forward. And then, we'll have a discussion on the comp plan policies as they relate to the ARB. There's also one other project, 744 San Antonio. There are some minor revisions to the approved Marriott that will be coming to you. The wireless projects shown here are not quite ready, so those will come on a different day. Thank you. Chair Furth: Great. And do you have a tentative date for our discussion of ex parte communications? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: October 18, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: I am still working with the attorneys and I will get you that date. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right, so, we have meetings scheduled on November 15th, December 6th and December 20th. Board Member Thompson: What's the study for? Chair Furth: Ex parte communications, talking to people outside the board meetings about their projects that are coming before the board or have already been heard by the board. Thanks. Board Member Thompson: Thanks. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1841 Page Mill Road [18PLN-00213]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Master Sign Program With Sign Exceptions to Allow for new Monument Signs, Directory Signs, and Directional Signs. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zone District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: All right. We have one full-board public hearing item this morning. It concerns 1841 Page Mill Road, the corner of Page Mill and, I guess, (inaudible), turning into Foothill. It's quasi-judicial. It's a request for a recommendation on the applicant's request for approval of a master sign program with sign exceptions to allow for new monument signs, directory signs and directional signs. The applicant is Stanford University. The project is exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The zoning district is the Research Park. Mr. Sauls? Garrett Sauls, Project Planner: Thank you, Chair Furth. My name is Garrett Sauls, I've been working with the City of Palo Alto Planning Department with Corporate Sign Company on this application. This application is here before you today. It's a roughly 10 1/2 acre site with about 185,000 square foot office and research and development park. The proposal is to improve and provide improvements to about 16 total signs on the site, as well as to modify an existing Master Sign Program that they have from 2003. On those applications are two existing monument signs, one along Page Mill Road, the other along Porter Drive, along the flagpole portion of the lot. There is one existing sign that has been approved through an exception on Page Mill Road that is adjacent to the vehicle entry sign. There are seven directory signs located within the complex that will serve to identify the tenant locations at the respective buildings, and there are six directional wayfinding signs that they are looking to provide improvements for, as well. The reason that we are here at the ARB for this application is that many of the signs that are proposed do not meet the sign code allowances. The challenges that really kind of impact this site is, given its size and nature, the sign code doesn't really accommodate for a lot of the signs that they are looking to do on the site that will provide more visibility for the tenants, as well as provide for better ability to travel through the site and be more noticeable, have better vehicular wayfinding signs. It ought to be easier to direct visitors to the site, throughout the site. Looking at the history of the site, back in 1985, the sign that was approved, the second tenant side along Page Mill Road was originally approved in 1985. In 1994, the site received its first Master Sign Program, and in 2003, they had modified that sign program to mostly what you're seeing here today in the packet. Looking at the site again, the biggest challenge -- like I mentioned earlier -- is that you have a very large sign, in the sign code, allows monument signs only about 27 square feet with a height of five feet in total. That makes it very difficult for vehicles passing along Porter Drive and Page Mill Road to notice the signs at that site. In addition, a lot of the adjacent properties have around two to three different tenants located on the site, whereas this one has more than a handful, so, fitting in all those different tenants on larger vehicular signs that are going to be visible from Page Mill Road and Porter Drive are going to be very challenging for those who are coming up to the site, to actually be able to notice what tenants are located there. Some of the key City of Palo Alto Page 3 considerations, again, is really just that the sign code, the reason that they're really applying for this application is that they're doing a site-wide change with multiple tenants. Usually, sign applications are respected to individual tenants. And then, in particular with this application, they are looking to exceed what is allowed within the Municipal Code for what you have in the sign code for directional signs, directory signs, and freestanding monument signs. The goals of what they are trying to establish here is to have standardized heights and dimensions for the sign, as well as to update the signage so that they can more accurately reflect some of the existing improvements that they are going to be doing on the site, to which the tenant and applicant can speak a little bit more to that. If you look here at the slides, you have some existing pictures of the site. Just kind of looking through, you see some of them, they vary in height and scale with what you have on the site today. That makes it challenging for people driving through to try and notice where the signs are, and where the tenant is located once they've gone into the complex. Looking along here, this is additionally the sign that is along Page Mill Road, the second tenant sign as you're driving up. Doesn't really have a whole lot of conflicts as you're driving into the site in terms of a line of sight as you're coming up to the turn-in. It was important to highlight some of the things they are doing. It's going to be very challenging to see as you're driving up. There's vegetation, there is a light pole, there's trees. There's also an electrical utility box further down that really obscures the visibility of the sign that is being proposed today. Just kind of looking through, you have a little bit more examples of how the size of the signs don't necessarily scale appropriately to the building, and they are providing the new sign, where that at least serves to identify the tenant more easily. Ultimately, the recommendation from staff is to approve the application as it has been proposed. Staff believes that the proposal does not, while it does exceed the sign code, it would more appropriately relate to the site as, again, it is a significantly large site, and what they have served to do is try to prevent more opportunities for people who are driving through the site to be able to notice the tenants, see where they are located at, and have better ability to understand which way to go. That's it. Chair Furth: Are there questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Alex. Board Member Lew: Yes. First off, I have a question. My recollection is that Stanford does not allow wall signs in the Research Park. If you could clarify that for me. Mr. Sauls: Yeah, so, none of the signs proposed in the application are going to be any wall signs. The only signs that they have are lettering, so address labeling is all they're doing. And those generally aren't reviewed under a planning application. Ms. Gerhardt: And also, to be clear that that's a Stanford policy, a landowner policy, but not a City regulation. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Chair Furth: If some of these...? Do they have unused wall sign allowances? Or have they used up all their square footage no matter where they put the sign? Mr. Sauls: Thank you. They don't, from when I looked at the site the other day, I didn't see any wall signs existing on the site. They effectively would have allowable wall sign square footage to use. What they are proposing to do right now is just exceeding individually those allowances within the sign code. For the freestanding signs and directory signs and directional signs, they are exceeding what is the allowable square footage for the area, and a number of them are exceeding the allowable height allowances. For directional and directory signs, there are no limitations indicated in the municipal code for how many signs there can be. Those were their special purpose signs, so they have somewhat of a different allowance. Chair Furth: How many extra square feet of signage, monument signage are they asking for? Mr. Sauls: Looking at what they are proposing, the sign along Porter Drive is 60 square feet. That's the one along the flagpole portion of the lot... City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Sauls: ...so, that is asking for a 33 square foot additional. The one along Page Mill Road is 104 square feet. You can see in the packet also that they have existing signs that they are actually reducing in total size, mostly from what is being proposed. Looking at the tenant ID sign, they're looking to propose a 58 square foot sign, and what is allowed is a 27 square foot sign. In addition, given that they are modifying that existing exception, how we generally treat a modification to a non-conforming structure is that it is essentially a brand-new structure, so they would be getting an exception for having an additional sign along Page Mill Road, which would modify the existing exception, basically. For directory signs, you're allowed four square feet in area and eight feet in height, and they are asking for 20 square feet. For directional signs, you're allowed six square feet and three feet in height, and they're asking for about a seven foot tall wayfinding sign and a roughly 12 to 15 square foot directional sign, based on how many panels are on those. Chair Furth: Thank you. May we hear from the applicant? You'll have 10 minutes to make your presentation. We won't start it until you've got your electronic materials up. Bryan Panian, Corporate Sign Systems: Hi, good morning. My name is Bryan, from Corporate Sign Systems. We are the... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Bryan, we need your first and last name, and we need the spelling for our transcriber. Mr. Panian: All right. [States and spells name.] We are the contractor for the project. We are a design- build shop out of Santa Clara. I think that Garrett did a great job covering our goals. I want to have a brief presentation that really...First point, before we even get into this, is that what we're trying to do is modify existing. We're not building anything new, and in many cases, we are asking for slightly larger or even reducing square footage. The goal is to update these old, dated signs to a more modern architectural sign appearance. We're trying to clean up and organize the layouts for better legibility and visibility, as Garrett said, for vehicle traffic and pedestrian traffic. We're trying to justify the tenant names, enlarge the address so that it's more visible for, you know, the purpose of these signs. We're trying to also create uniformity throughout the park. Many of these signs vary in size, height. We're trying to create a standard for the tenant so that everyone's sign is the same, everybody gets the same amount of square footage for their name. It's a little all over the place right now. We're trying to create a uniform appearance. It's both for the wayfinding of the pedestrians and the vehicles. Right now, the wayfinding signs are little ground monument signs that point directions. We're trying to replace those with a pole sign that can point people in different directions throughout the property. That gives us some flexibility. Rather than just a single face pointing left or right, we can use a four-axis system. Really, the whole goal is to...Updating the signage is one part in a larger effort to update and beautify the property. After me, Michelle from Hudson will come and speak to the additional things that they're trying to do on the property, making updates for beautifying it. This is a quick rendering I had for the existing sign. This is the primary monument along Page Mill. The existing sign is at the top. This is sort of my photoshop rendering of the intent for what the new sign would appear. You can sort of see how we're trying to increase the size of the address, justify the tenant names so they are more easily legible, readable, and just sort of clean it to a more updated and newer appearance. This is an example of all of the signage throughout the property. The goal, in general. That's really, I think, all I have to say. You know, we provided our drawings. I hope that they speak for themselves. The goal...I'm sorry, do you have a question for me, or...? Chair Furth: No, I was just going to say... Mr. Panian: Okay. Chair Furth: ...if that's the end of your presentation, if you would stay there for just a minute, do any members of the Board have questions? Board Member Thompson. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Thompson: For your signage type item F, which is the seven-foot-tall one... Mr. Panian: Yes. Board Member Thompson: ...I see in the site plan that it's not in the path of travel necessarily. Will it be located...? I just wanted to confirm if it's in the path of travel. Mr. Panian: Those are next to all the walkways on the, in the pedestrian...from the parking lot, it's on the pathways into the buildings. Board Member Thompson: It is? Mr. Panian: Yes. Board Member Thompson: People would have to pass under them. Mr. Panian: Well, it's going to be in the landscape adjacent to the walkway or the sidewalk. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Panian: And that was the reason for the seven foot, is to allow any clearance in case there would be any, you know, nobody bump their head on it. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Panian: But, it wouldn't be on or protruding into the walkway. It would be adjacent to, like, in the landscaping. Board Member Thompson: The sign wouldn't, if there was... Mr. Panian: You'd have to walk into the landscape to touch the sign, or bump the sign. Board Member Thompson: Sure, but the flag part that's rotated, that could potentially overhang onto the path of travel? Mr. Panian: Well, we would orient it in a way that it would not. We can control the direction of them. You can have it flag into the landscape but point the other direction. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Panian: With an arrow. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Panian: Does that kind of make sense? Board Member Thompson: It does. Mr. Panian: We would be sure not to put the flags out into the walkway. Let's put it that way. Board Member Thompson: You can, but there are height restrictions for that. Mr. Panian: Okay. Board Member Thompson: Accessibility height restrictions. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Panian: Right. Board Member Thompson: We can talk about that later. And then, so, reflective white vinyl, that doesn't happen in sign A or sign B. I was just wanting to confirm where that happens. Mr. Panian: Our plan is also to update the accessible parking signs in the property, the handicapped parking, and we pulled that from the package per Garrett's request. It really didn't account for, or, you know...It's just updating a code sign. It's replacing existing and it didn't count towards... Chair Furth: We don't usually do that, yes. Mr. Panian: ... square footage or anything. It didn't count. It's called out still as a usage, but we pulled that page. I'm sorry it's...It's a ghost sign, in a way. Board Member Thompson: Okay. The reflective white vinyl was only for the blue. Mr. Panian: That's correct. Board Member Thompson: It's not used anywhere else. Mr. Panian: That's correct. Board Member Thompson: Okay. That was my confusion. Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Chair Furth: Board member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: I don't see any provisions for lighting of these signs except what already exists on the site. I'm presuming that you're intending to leave the existing ground-mounted lights to illuminate these signs. Mr. Panian: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like you to clarify, and be really clear: Are any of these signs internally illuminated? Mr. Panian: None of the signs are internally illuminated, no. Vice Chair Baltay: Is there any change to the exterior illumination on the signs. Mr. Panian: Not per my scope. Maybe Michelle can answer that. No. The plan is, yes, to reuse the existing ground illumination. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant? Okay. Does anybody else wish to speak? Mr. Panian: Michelle? Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: You have seven minutes. Michelle Hernandez, Hudson Pacific Properties: Hi, I'm Michelle Hernandez [Spells name]. I'm with Hudson Pacific Properties. We manage the properties. I just wanted to explain that in addition to directional signage, this is part of a huge enhancement project for the buildings, and actually the project. I just wanted to kind of give you an idea of what we have been doing, and what we're going to continue City of Palo Alto Page 7 doing, and this is part of the project. We actually just did a renovation of the amenity area. We spent $2 million on that to enhance the property. We just got approval to upgrade the landscaping area throughout the property, as well, and we are painting the exterior of the building, as well. And then, this is part of that project, as well. We're spending probably, like, over $3 million on enhancing the project, so this is in addition to that scope, as well. As far as directional signage. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Ms. Hernandez? Okay, thank you very much. Ms. Hernandez: Thank you. Chair Furth: We'll let you know if we have further questions as we discuss this. Commissioner Baltay. Board member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Wynne. For the staff. I wonder if you could clarify for us what the findings are we need to make for the sign exception. I just want to put it out there as we discuss this. Mr. Sauls: Thank you. Finding #1 for the exception is there are exceptional, extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to the property in the same district. What I had indicated in that section was basically that given the size of the site and the number of tenants that are on the site, it would be very challenging to really provide adequate signage that's going to both meet the sign code allowances, as well as what the applicant is wanting to have. Do you have a question? Vice Chair Baltay: I'm just making sure I understand you clearly. You're saying that it's the number of tenants, is why we would justify the finding? Mr. Sauls: The number of tenants as well as the size of the site, based on what's allowed for the side code, yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, good, thank you. Mr. Sauls: The second finding is that the granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships. In that sense, again, it would be very challenging for the applicant to meet the sign code allowances and still provide adequate visibility for their tenants as people are moving throughout the site, as well as to more adequately provide directional understanding of where to go. Like Bryan had mentioned, it would be very challenging, or it gives them some flexibility with the new pole- mounted directional wayfinding signs, to more adequately or correctly point in the direction where someone might need to go. And then, the last finding is that the granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. All the signs that are proposed are going to be on the owners' property, so there's not going to be anything that's going to be projecting onto any of the public right-of-way or anything that's going to be obstructing visibility, as it's been proposed. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Okay. I would note that if you look at packet page 29, when these findings were made some years ago for the existing signs, it was -- I'm sorry, it's page 28 -- it was also noted that this property is next to the Hetch Hetchy right-of-way, so it has no visibility on that side, on that frontage. Most corner lots have at least two frontages, which gives them more opportunity for signage under our code, but this one is hidden by a lot of oleanders, or whatever it is they're planting out there these days. It's not oleanders, is it? Dense vegetation. Board Member Lew: I just looked at it this morning. It's a very dense grove of oak trees. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Furth: Sorry. I looked at it, too, but I was not paying enough attention to the vegetation. Anyway, it's obscured. You come around the corner and you come upon it very rapidly, and you don't, really, you don't even see the buildings. You don't even know there's going to be Page Mill Hill. I have a question for the applicants. Are you now de-emphasizing Page Mill Hill as the name of this parcel? Mr. Panian: It is going to become a bit more of a, just side note, as you can see. We're going to have a standard little branding, "Page Mill Hill," that's almost like a footnote now. I think it becomes less premiere as a title, if I’m right, Michelle...? Ms. Hernandez: Yes. Mr. Panian: Yeah. Chair Furth: I'm asking because when you have a multi-tenant property like this, you can emphasize the name of the building, which is what you would do in a high-rise, urban street. You know, you wouldn't...You don't have every tenant. You get the Pan-Am building, or whatever. The address, you tell people to go to the Pan-Am building. And you decided not to tell people to go to Page Mill Hill, that it's more effective to use addresses and names? Question? Ms. Hernandez: Sorry. We actually use Page Mill Hill. Yes, we do. We reference it as Page Mill Hill. Chair Furth: It's fine print now. Mr. Panian: It is reduced in size. That's right. But, it's still a branding deemed for the site, but maybe reduced from what's existing, yes. Chair Furth: But you do publicize the site as Page Mill Hill. Is that right? Ms. Hernandez: The site? Chair Furth: You do publicize the site as Page Mill Hill? Ms. Hernandez: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Who would like to start? Go ahead, Peter. Well, I'll say something briefly, which is, we have two issues before us. One is an aesthetic one concerning the design of your...primarily aesthetic, concerning the design of your proposed sign. The other one is the request to allow exceptions from our existing code, which we're only allowed to do if we can make these findings because the California courts have said, otherwise, we're being arbitrary and capricious and denying due process. So, we need to take those findings seriously. Okay. Who would like to begin? Robert. Board Member Gooyer: Okay. This one is, I don't know. I was having a...I like the monument signs, or I should say they're a big improvement as to what you've got there, so I don't really have that much of a problem with those. I guess where I get bogged down a bit is there just seemed to be so many of them. I mean, you've got areas for, just to show an address, you've got, you know, you've got a 15 square foot sign that shows five addresses. To me, that just seems excessive. I mean, I understand you said it's a large property, but still. On the monument signs, at the entry I can see when you're driving down Page Mill, where you have to catch it, you have to, you know, because you're looking for somebody. Once you're on the property, you pretty much know where you're going, so I don't see the need to have each individual address, for it to have its own sign. I mean, once you're on the campus and you're doing five miles an hour, it’s not like you have to quickly note what the address is. I just think it's overkill. And the exceptions, I don't know. The way they're written, they are just so vague, I have a hard time seeing the justification of those. At this point, I'm a little up in the air. Like I said, I can accept the larger two monument signs, but the rest of it, I have a problem with. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation, and I did look at the site today. I think I do agree that the monument signs on Page Mill Road are really too low, given that location and the speed of the traffic and the existing landscaping. I can support a larger sign there. I think the design of the existing primary monument sign is really, is very difficult to ready, so I think your proposed revision does help. In considering the exceptions, I did look at 1001 Page Mill Road, which is a comparable sized site, and looked at how they broke up the address. They just used one address for all four buildings on the site, so I did consider that project and compare that to your project. I am willing to support the project and exceptions. I think the language that staff had drafted here troubled me a little bit, just one part of it, which is I think justifying it, that the parcel is larger than the others. And when I looked at the zoning maps, I saw lots of large parcels, and parcels even larger, so I think I would...My inclination would be to use the old findings with the Hetch Hetchy reservoir, the dense planting of oak trees, and limited access points to the site as justifications for having the larger monument sign. The other signs, I don't feel...I'm not crazy about the directional signs, but they are internal to the site. I'm generally willing to support those. That's all that I have on this particular one. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for the presentation. I concur with Alex's comments and can support the project and make the necessary findings for it, including the sign enhancement exception. I had three items I would make recommendations on because I think they are internal and small. Sign D6 is a numerical sign on the side of a building and specified to be 24-inch letters. I just don't think that fits. When I was out there at least, I didn't see where it was going to go. Sign... Chair Furth: Excuse me, too big, too small? Vice Chair Baltay: Too big. The sign is, as I read your plans, D6 is listed at 24-inch tall letters, and I think that just doesn't fit. I thought 12 inches would fit. They have a spandrel panel there, it's about 15 inches tall, as best I can tell. You may just want to check that. It doesn't really affect my ability to make the findings. Sign D4, that's on the canopy of, what I would call the back building, the one you approach from the flagpole. There, you are showing the letters on your drawing mounted above the canopy, and I thought they would be better below canopy where they are currently. Just be more visible. Again, it doesn't really affect my findings, but it's a recommendation. The last one is sign D1. Again, it's numbers on the building to the left as you first enter from Page Mill, and they are listed at 18 inches, and again, they just seem too large. It might be worth reviewing those things. Otherwise, I can vote to recommend approval. Thank you. Chair Furth: Board member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Hi there. Yeah, I'm mostly in concurrence with my fellow board members. Signs E and F, because I did ask about sign F, if it was in the path of travel. I notice that E is also one of those that's sort of like a post with, kind of these flags come out. As you have them drawn, they are not compliant for accessibility. You need at least 6-foot-8 clearance underneath the lowest flag for accessibility reasons. And then, also, the base needs to be high enough for cane detection. As they are right now, they would not be okay. And I know it's not our job to check for accessibility, but these signs aren't typically supposed to be this tall, from what I understand. If you're going to make them tall, you have to make them compliant. That was the big outlier for me. And I was worried about the contrast of the letters with the coloring, but if you're not using the white vinyl on the stainless, I think you're fine. It's just black on the stainless. I think that's good enough contrast. I'd be willing to approve it so long as we make a condition that these also are accessible. Other than that, I have no other comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. I do think that the new...Thank you for your presentation. I do think the new 1801-1899 monument sign is a big improvement over what you have right now. It's much more visible. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Do we have a new fire department regulation? Is that why we have great big numbers on buildings all over town now? Is that a public safety issue? Mr. Sauls: Yeah, so, from what I've noticed in a lot of sign applications recently is that they are having larger address numbers on their side, so I wouldn't be surprised that Fire is having them... Chair Furth: Downtown, you see a lot of new signage. Mr. Sauls: Yeah, it is larger, and has numbers on each building, too. It's not just one whole campus number. Chair Furth: It is a complicated site plan. There was a time when law firms were seen as an unsuitable use for the research park, but that clearly is long gone. One of the things that I’m having trouble with is the relationship between the Gibson Dunn sign and the numeric sign. Right now, I don't feel that they look as if they were planned at the same time or by the same person, and I don't see that improving a lot here. Do any of my colleagues have any thoughts on that? They are nodding their heads. I'm looking at sheet number 5. And I understand that you probably have a principal tenant who is entitled to their own sign, and I don't have a problem with that. But, I do have a problem with relationship of these two signs. Is Gibson Dunn going to not appear then on the other sign? They're not one of the tenants listed in the directional sign? Mr. Panian: They are. I believe that...Like I say, we're updating existing, so this one, the larger Gibson Dunn, is the premiere... Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Panian: ...tenant sign. Chair Furth: They are your anchor tenant, they're your Macy's. Mr. Panian: Yes, exactly. And then, you're going to have one at their primary entry to the building that indicates, you know, the smaller tenant, so when you're at their front door, you know this is the building that you're entering for Gibson Dunn. Chair Furth: But they won't be listed on the 1801-1899 sign? Mr. Panian: Oh, I see what you mean. I see. For, like, redundancy on that road. That's a good question. That is yet to be determined. You can... Chair Furth: All right. I think it's not really...I was curious, but...I don't think as presented these signs match your intention to have an integrated sign program that shows that Page Mill Hill is a planned, thought-out, sign project. I don't know what my colleagues might suggest, if they agree with my concern, as a way to remedy that. But it doesn't work now. Or what thoughts you might have. Or why you did it the way you did it. Vice Chair Baltay: Can I ask? It seems to me that they are both on a stainless background with black letters of the same typeface and the material underneath is a concrete base. Is that right? Mr. Panian: You mean the Page Mill letters, or...? I'm sorry... Vice Chair Baltay: The two signs... Chair Furth: Signs A and B. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Vice Chair Baltay: I'm not (inaudible) when I see such a big difference in design. They are clearly different signs, but to me, if the materials are identical... Board Member Gooyer: But not really because the sign A, the 1801, for instance, is different than the D sign 1801. They're not coordinated. Chair Furth: I think it has to do with the size of the typeface, I think it has to do with the design. Right now, they look really... Board Member Gooyer: It's piecemeal. Chair Furth: ...uncoordinated, and this design, I agree with you, that it has materials that are the same, but it doesn't seem to have been designed by the same designer with the same assignment. Mr. Panian: We are using a consistent font for the address numbers throughout. We do have consistent materials for the white concrete base, the stainless steel. A consistent color scheme. Chair Furth: It seems to me, looking at it -- and I am the person up here with no design credentials -- a really strong feature of your new monument sign is that white border on the left. And it's missing here, and I think this would work better if it had a white border, or something. Board Member Lew: The sign B, I think is meant to coordinate with the C signs, the tenant signs. And I understand that there's an overlap. I get that. Chair Furth: Yeah. Board Member Gooyer: And B is a larger C sign. I understand that. Chair Furth: But that's not what you experience driving down Page Mill, and that's how this is going to be seen. Board Member Lew: If we could go back to, I think there's an existing photo with those signs in perspective from the sidewalk. Mr. Sauls: I can pull that up real quick. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Mr. Panian: Mr. Lew is correct, that D and C are more...I'm sorry, B and C correlate their tenant signs, not really... Chair Furth: This is an extended version... Mr. Panian: Correct, because it's your premiere tenant. It's just an enlargement of... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: It's a very distinguished law firm. I'm not arguing. Mr. Panian: Yes. But I understand how you're saying it varies from the primary monument, but that is because it... Board Member Gooyer: (inaudible) how close they are to each other. Chair Furth: You see them at the same time as you drive down. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Thompson: But what better relationship can you have if they're the same materials, and the same font, and the same lettering, and the same massing? Chair Furth: The same design...I mean, you don't see the text when you start down. You see the relative presence and shape of the signs. I think this is the problem. It's an extended version of sign C instead of something that is designed, not just choice of materials and font, but in relationship to sign A. In my view. Vice Chair Baltay: Respectfully, I don't see it. To me, if you started bringing the concrete up on one side or the other, giving it slight asymmetry like the front, you're just being a little bit derivative. I mean, the monument sign is a lesser sign. It's still not as much design as the main entry sign, comparing A and B. What gave me pause when I was out there and thinking about all of this is that the big monument sign on the road, sign B, is fully 15, 18 inches taller than what's there currently. And it does make it more dominant than sign A1 or A2. And that gave me pause. I thought about it for quite a while. Actually stood around and measured, and looked, and my opinion was that driving down the road, the main entry sign was still the more dominant sign, which is as it should be. I recognize what she's saying. It could be slightly different, but I think it's fine, ultimately. Chair Furth: Any other comments? Does somebody...? Board Member Thompson: I think that is a fair point that you bring up, Board member Baltay, that if you look at this view, the...As it exists currently, does the Gibson Dunn Crutcher sign, is that currently taller than the entry? The sort of A sign replacement? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd say they are about the same right now. When I was walking around, they both come up mid chest height. Board Member Thompson: Would you agree with that, applicant? Bryan? Mr. Panian: Let me check. We've got the existing measurements. The Gibson is taller than the primary monument currently. However, if you look at our package for sign type A2, the primary alignment -- excuse me -- the plan is to increase the height of the street-facing concrete, to raise that up and make it more premiere. We're going to build that concrete up. I'm looking at our page 11, so, we're going to go to a slightly higher...The Gibson is about 48 inches and this would be about 50 inches on the street side. Because when you look at this, the primary monument is very low, and it's a slanted entry on the landscape, so the left side is much taller than...I'm sorry, the right side, deeper down, is much taller. But, we're trying to bring the presence out closer to the street so that you do notice it as you're driving. That's where we want to put the large address numbers and bring the tenants out a little bit that way. We're going to build that up, and the idea is to cut the concrete back, move everything up toward the street a little bit more. Raise the concrete up so that it does become a little bit more premiere than the Gibson Dunn. You don't see the Gibson Dunn as, "Oh, this is the premiere," or "this is the monument sign." It just becomes, this is maybe the primary tenant, whereas the monument stands out more to address the property as a whole. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And then, the sign A replacement, that height is about the same. Mr. Panian: That's correct, yeah. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, if you take a look at page 9, there are measurements for the existing and the proposed sign A, and also, if you take a look at page 12, then you'll see the measurements for sign B. Vice Chair Baltay: Wynne, if I could, perhaps something to address your concern, Robert, is that the tenant monument sign B really should be about 12 or 18 inches lower. Should be really not taller than the... City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I mean, the reality of it is you've got 10 tenants on the primary sign A, yet the single premiere tenant -- if you want to call it -- sign is bigger than the other one. I mean, that just seems overkill. Vice Chair Baltay: That was my first reaction, looking at it. I'm just, thinking about it now, thinking about what Wynne was saying, by lowering it, you'll also enhance a horizontal proportion... Board Member Gooyer: Plus, I mean... Vice Chair Baltay: ...which would probably help tie these together from a design point of view. Board Member Gooyer: Usually, let's face it. From a signage standpoint, signage is designed to let people know where something is. And in most cases, you make it bigger because if someone is driving along and they're not sure if they want to come into your store, your business, or whatever the case, they go, "Oh, such-and-such, let's go there." This is a law office. I mean, you pretty much know you're going there. This is not a, "Hey, for the heck of it, let's just drop into the local law office and see what's going on." I mean, this just seems overkill also for the type of tenant that it is. And I mean, like I said, I like the initial sign, but this one is just way too big. And in fact, even the monument signs seem excessive. Again, like I said, you're on campus, you're doing five miles an hour, I don't think you need a monument sign for a -- as you call it -- a smaller tenant. That's why I said, this whole thing just seems overkill. Mr. Panian: You're right, and to address that, we're not building new or just modifying existing. For the Gibson Dunn sign, the idea was to pull that top off... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: ...not building new could also mean you can trim down and... Mr. Panian: Certainly yes. And I agree with you. Yes. Definitely. If that would be a provision that you would allow, we'd be happy to do that. The idea and the intent was just to modify existing. Board Member Gooyer: It's the same thing. Figure the, as you call it, the secondary sign is, by proportion to the person next to this, like, almost four feet high. That just seems awfully excessive, again, for, like I said, if you're driving 10 miles an hour between four buildings, or four... (inaudible) little one, for all intents and purposes, four buildings on campus, it just seems overkill to me. Mr. Panian: And I...I'm sorry. Chair Furth: Go ahead. Mr. Panian: I guess my comment to that is that there are, those signs are already there, so maybe it's already overkill, and maybe we're just trying to...We're not trying to add to those. We're just trying to update them, modify them. Chair Furth: Okay, so, I think that... Mr. Panian: Unify them. Chair Furth: ...I could say that...I think that my colleagues' comments have helped me because part of what bothers me is that this tenant sign is way too big compared to the Page Mill Hill sign. If you reduce its height, which will make it more horizontal, which will help with the proportions -- because that's one of the things that's not very lovely right now -- I would be happy. Vice Chair Baltay: If we said no more than 48 inches for all the signs B and C, that would change the proportion. Is there...? City of Palo Alto Page 14 Board Member Gooyer: Yeah, I'd be willing to see something like, for sign B, literally proportionately, two sign C's next to each other, or something. It's the same height, but it's twice as wide. Or something of that nature. It's still subservient to the A sign, which I think it should be. Vice Chair Baltay: If you just leave it no bigger than what's there now, it's now 48 inches at the high side. Board Member Gooyer: Well, but, I mean...Yeah. But, I mean, you could change the style slightly to make it look like the new one. But, yeah, something... Vice Chair Baltay: Well, the new design, except we're changing the 65 inch dimension to 48 inches. Board Member Gooyer: Right. Right. Vice Chair Baltay: And then, you might as well do the same thing on the other C signs if you're trying... [crosstalk] Board Member Gooyer: Oh, I agree. I think those are excessive, also. Vice Chair Baltay: One of them is 54, a couple of them are 48. But, just do them a favor and say no more than 48 inches anywhere. On signs B and [crosstalk]. Board Member Gooyer: I think that would be a big improvement. Chair Furth: I think that would work. Would that work for the applicant? Mr. Panian: Yeah. And, in a way, that is what we were trying to do with the sign type C. On our page 15, you can see one of the existing signs is 54 inches tall. We wanted to bring everything down to 48. Some are smaller; some are taller. We said, let's just cap it at 48 and make them all the same. Chair Furth: We support you in that effort, it looks like. Do we need to...? It sounds like we have a consensus to approve with that condition, and with slightly different findings. Do we need anything else about the redesign of sign E-F to comply with the disability requirements? Accessibility? Board Member Thompson: Accessibility. Yeah. Because Finding #3 discusses public safety, welfare, and currently... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Well, it's also, since you have caught it...I think staff wants to say something. Ms. Gerhardt: If that's going to raise the total height of the sign, is that okay? Would just be the question. I mean, it will be caught by our building department, ultimately. They will ensure that it is ADA accessible. But, if it raises up the whole sign, are we still okay with that? Chair Furth: Does that...? Does that increase the non-conformity of the existing sign plan? Male??: Yes, it will. Board Member Thompson: I mean, it's already four feet higher than what was allowed, so I guess it would be... Chair Furth: What's our justification for these high signs under our code? What's our justification for this? This isn't about visibility from the street on a difficult site. This is internal, why can't they do conforming directional signs? That's not a rhetorical question. It's a question we have to answer in order to grant the exception. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Sauls: The three foot tall sign that would be allowed would be very difficult to be seen as you're traveling through the site in a vehicle. As you're traveling through the site in a vehicle, having something that's a little taller up will be more appropriate and providing for better travel throughout the site. Chair Furth: Is this because of the grading, because of the way the parking lots are laid out? I mean, why doesn't everybody get a variance? Mr. Sauls: The other thing to note is that the site gradually slopes away from Page Mill Road towards the adjacent properties, so, as you're kind of going through, kind of driving in, almost at an angle -- like so -- rather than just kind of at a straight-facing direct... Chair Furth: One thing I notice is when you look at the parking lot, which is internal, the big, sort of u-shaped parking lot, the visibility is terrible. It would be very confusing to try and figure out where to go. I don't think it was designed to have principal access by strangers that way. Board Member Lew: Wynne, I think, to answer your question, I think it is the layout of the... Chair Furth: Of the site. Board Member Lew: ...of the site. And I think the code, the directional signs allowed by code, we see them elsewhere on the Research Park. Basically, there's a very small sign that says, like, "Deliveries," and that's all that they're trying to... Chair Furth: Because they don't want anybody on site. Board Member Lew: Right. Anyway, I think that the sign code doesn't really address a very complicated site like this. And it's come up before, say, like, with the shopping center. How do you navigate to find the right store? I think there is a rationale for that. Board Member Thompson: And I think it also doesn't have to be for all signs. I think it just has to be the signs that intrude on the path of travel. Mr. Panian: Okay. Board Member Thompson: I think your sign rendering on page 18 might be okay. I mean, I'm not the building department, I can't say that, but it doesn't look like it's intruding on the path of travel. But, in your site plan, you have a few in the parking lot where somebody could easily walk up to that, walk under it, and that would be a problem. Mr. Panian: I think, ideally, it would be best to create uniformity, though, and consistency. Make them all ADA compliant. Because that's the goal here. Rather than having varying heights, just create a standard so your eyes, you're always looking where the sign is. You know? Board Member Thompson: At the same place. That makes sense. Mr. Panian: And to address Mr. Gooyer again, is that the directional signs will help declutter the park. Right now, there are ground directional signs that are less than three feet that are rather large and bulky. The idea is maybe those are covered by landscape, difficult to see. The idea is to remove those and do a higher pole that is less intrusive or less... Board Member Gooyer: I don't mind them being off the ground a little bit. I understand you don't want them, you know, a foot off the ground. Mr. Panian: Yeah. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Board Member Gooyer: It just seems like an excessive amount of space to show, you know, five addresses. Mr. Panian: I understand. And... Board Member Gooyer: And you could also...I mean, you could easily say, whatever, you know, 1841, 1881, 1891, you know, 1, 2, 3, with one arrow, or something. Rather than individual placards for each one. That's what I was getting at. That it just seemed excessive in size. But it is an internal sign, so... Chair Furth: Okay, yeah. That's where I end up, too. MOTION Chair Furth: Would somebody like to make a motion, or is there further discussion? Board Member Lew: Okay, I will make a motion that we recommend approval of the project to the Planning Director, with the following requirements: One is that sign types B and C have a maximum height of 48 inches; that sign type...is it E? Is that the directional one? Board Member Thompson: It's E and F. Board Member Lew: E and F meet the accessibility requirements for height clearance. Board Member Thompson: And cane detection. Board Member Lew: And... Chair Furth: As drawn, it doesn't meet the cane detection. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you for that. And that we modify the findings. We're going to say, instead of, in the draft language for finding exception #1, the language says [reading] the project parcel is exceptionally large in comparison to the other RP-zoned parcel surrounding the site, that we change that to be more similar to the language used in existing finding, which references the Hetch Hetchy easement, and the dense oak woodland landscaping on the Junipero Serra frontage. Vice Chair Baltay: I will second that motion. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? All in favor say aye? All opposed? Hearing none, the project is recommended for approval. Thank you. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Mr. Panian: Thank you for your time today. Appreciate it. Study Session Chair Furth: There will be no study session. Approval of Minutes Chair Furth: The minutes were received so late that we will not try to act on them today, so that matter is continued. Subcommittee Items City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Furth: We now have two subcommittee items. One of them is 2609 Alma Street, which is a review of aspects of a previously-approved project. The second is 250 Sherman Avenue. We will adjourn as a board and...oh, I'm sorry. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: Board questions, comments or announcements? Board Member Lew: I want to announce that the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan met for the first time last night. Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Lew: They are going to have two community workshops next year for the broader public, and there are going to be four in-progress meetings with the Council over the initial part of the plan, to keep the Council updated on that. There will be lots of opportunities to share what's going on. And there were lots of members of the public who were not on the committee who are interested in the project, so there's pretty broad participation and interest in the project. Chair Furth: That's good news for all of us. We certainly hear from people in that neighborhood as we do this piece-by-piece review. Also, we received an invitation from V-Ware. Did you all get that? VMware? To a design workshop...? What is it? I couldn't quite figure out what it was. Board Member Lew: Yes, I thought that, too. I wasn't really sure where that was coming from. Chair Furth: Maybe staff could give us some guidance. I'll send you the invitation. It was sent to us as ARB members. At least some of us. Board Member Thompson: I did not get it. Chair Furth: We'll send it to you. Vice Chair Baltay: Maybe I can [crosstalk] thing of group interest, perhaps. I attended the preliminary hearing on 788... Board Member Lew: San Antonio. Vice Chair Baltay: ...San Antonio Road. That's a housing development. I took away one thing that's not related to that project, but the Council had a lot of discussion about parking and lift parking. I heard a clear consensus from the Council that stacking lift parking, things like that, shouldn't be considered for every parking use. They clearly said things we've been saying, about the need for quick, temporary parking, families with children coming home not being able to use the stacker lifts. They were really questioning and probing on what was the appropriate use of those stackers. Which is something we struggle with all the time. I found it reassuring to hear them not saying stackers are perfect for every situation. Chair Furth: Thank you. When you said "lift parking," I thought you meant as opposed to Uber drop-off. Ms. Gerhardt: Board members, related to the VMware invitation, it looks like it's a community event that they are putting on November 1st. Innovations for good, the opportunity and responsibility for tech, is the title of it. If people wanted to attend, we just need to make sure whether we have a quorum or not. Chair Furth: There is an exception for...One is allowed to attend meetings that have a majority of the Board, but there are conditions under which you do it. We should...If anybody is going to go, we should let staff know and be sure we know what those conditions are. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Board Member Lew: Staff, does VMware have any applications coming to the Board? Is there anything in the works? Ms. Gerhardt: I believe they had some smaller revisions that came in that, I want to say they are approved, and I can double-check that. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Then the Board as a whole is adjourned. Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, 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 # 9957) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 2/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3128 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Trellis, Landscaping, Benches and Building Color Title: 3128 El Camino Real [17PLN-00462]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Trellis Design, Landscaping, Benches and Building Color. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background and Analysis On December 20, 2018, the Director of Planning and Community Environment approved the subject project. At the Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that required certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee. Below are the items that were requested to return to the subcommittee and the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments: Architecture Review Condition: ARB Subcommittee: Prior to 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: 8 Packet Pg. 159 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 1. Bench Details – The applicant shall provide details of proposed benching in front of El Camino Real, including arms and backs of benches. 2. Landscape Plan – The applicant shall provide an updated landscape plan, with landscaping cresting the top of the low brick walls facing El Camino Real, paving details of the cement in front of the brick walls, paving material and texture of the surface under the proposed benches, and enhanced use of native indigenous, drought tolerant plantings. 3. Trellis Design – The applicant shall provide an updated trellis design that accounts for elevation changes from the sidewalk to the building, provides the necessary way- finding, and integrates with the building design. The applicant shall include a detail and material sample of the proposed covering on the top of the trellis. 4. Materials and Colors – The applicant shall provide a lighter building color on the stucco. Applicant’s Response – Bench Details:  The applicant has provided bench details in a cut sheet attached to the project plans. The benches, labeled as the Madison Bench, include arms and backs. The benches are comprised of ipe wood attached to a steel frame. The applicant also proposes installing scored concrete under the benches, with the same texture and color as the sidewalks. These areas measure approximately 10 feet in length and seven feet (7’) in width. The benches are six-feet (6’) in length and two-feet (2’) in width. They will be located one- and-a-half feet (1.5’) from the rear of the concrete pad and approximately three-feet (3’) from the back of the sidewalk, as shown in the plan set. Applicant’s Response – Landscape Plan:  The applicant has revised the landscape plan and now proposes Muhlenbergia Rigens (deer grass) behind the brick wall. With a wall height of 36-inches, the Muhlenbergia Rigens will exceed the height of the wall because the plan grows to a height of four feet (4’) to five feet (5’). The applicant has also revised the landscape plan by included California blue sage, blue grama, and monkey flower in the area between the patio dining and sidewalk. The landscape plan, stamped by a licensed Registered Landscape Architect, indicates plants are regional, indigenous, and drought resistant. The applicant proposes colored concrete paving beneath the brick walls. The colored concrete paving is proposed to be Scofield integral color SG 160-4 brick red, with a smooth finish. Staff would appreciate the ARB’s comments on this color choice. Applicant’s Response – Trellis Design:  The applicant has provided an updated trellis design that accounts for changes in elevations. The trellis from pathway leading from the sidewalk along El Camino Real to the building is broken into two components. The trellis at the edge of the street measures nine-feet six-inches (9’-6”) in height from the ground to the ceiling of the trellis. The end of the first trellis has a height of eight feet (8’) from the ceiling of the trellis to the pathway. This trellis is the same height as the trellis over the patio dining 8 Packet Pg. 160 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 area. The second trellis, closer to the building, is taller than the first portion of the trellis, and finishes with a height of nine feet at the rear of the pathway. To integrate the trellis and provide way-finding, the applicant proposes that the rear trellis over the pathway is the same height as the metal eyebrow around the building. This trellis also terminates over the edge of the patio dining area, which is adjacent to one of the two entrances as shown in the image below: The applicant has provided a detail of the covering on top of the trellis in the plan set. Applicant’s Response – Building Color:  The applicant has revised the building colors and proposes a taupe color on a majority of the stucco portions of the building. An “iron mountain” grey color is proposed as an accent around the drive through windows, and the corrugated metal siding on the upper portion of the building is a grey “cityscape” color. The project response letter includes photos of color schemes from adjacent buildings as a basis for compatibility with the proposed colors. A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-1262018/ End of trellis Entrance 8 Packet Pg. 161 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 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 Adam Petersen, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 (650) 329-2575 apetersen@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: December 6, 2018 ARB Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)  Attachment B: Applicant's Response Letter (PDF)  Attachment C: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 8 Packet Pg. 162 City of Palo Alto Page 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: December 6, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and Robert Gooyer. Absent: None. 1. 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 8.a Packet Pg. 163 City of Palo Alto Page 2 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 8.a Packet Pg. 164 City of Palo Alto Page 3 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. 8.a Packet Pg. 165 City of Palo Alto Page 4 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. 8.a Packet Pg. 166 City of Palo Alto Page 5 ??: (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? 8.a Packet Pg. 167 City of Palo Alto Page 6 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. 8.a Packet Pg. 168 City of Palo Alto Page 7 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 8.a Packet Pg. 169 City of Palo Alto Page 8 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 8.a Packet Pg. 170 City of Palo Alto Page 9 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? 8.a Packet Pg. 171 City of Palo Alto Page 10 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]. 8.a Packet Pg. 172 City of Palo Alto Page 11 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? 8.a Packet Pg. 173 City of Palo Alto Page 12 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. 8.a Packet Pg. 174 Stantec Architecture Inc. 555 Capitol Mall Suite 650, Sacramento CA 95814-4583 Doing business as: Stantec Architecture and Engineering (NY) Stantec Architecture P.C. (DC, MS, MO, NE) For a list of our registered architects, please visit www.stantec.com/registeredarchitects January 4, 2019 File: 2014046090 Attention: Adam Peterson City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Ave, Fifth Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Adam, Reference: 004-0359 - McDonald’s 3128 El Camino Real, Palo Alto – 17PLN-00462 In reference to the project above and the comments provided at the December 6th ARB meeting, please find our responses noted below along with our revised drawings attached, for your use in distribution to the Sub-Committee. • Trellis – reduce height at curb; define and compliment outdoor dining areas and integrate with the rest of the building. – We have reduced the height of the trellis at the ROW by stepping the trellis down at that section – and separated the walkway trellis in two sections. We have integrated part of the building canopy elements (white facia) onto the trellis system. The white facia will have a profile to allow for an LED strip to illuminate the face of the trellis system. The entry trellis has been repositioned be more in line with the front door of the building as best as we can. As this is an existing site, we need to work with the existing conditions both on the building and site. • Stucco Color – review incremental change of stucco color for suitability with the surrounding context. We have included additional photos of the surrounding area. The color we have chosen for our building compliments the Equonix building across the street and is within the McDonald’s color pallette. The color has been revised to Benjamin Moore – Waynesboro Taupe. Color sample has been included in the electronic version of the materials board and stucco sample will be provided at the sub-committee meeting. • Bench Design – arms for benches and material under bench. Bench will have back and arms (this will be included in the material board). Material below will be scored concrete with areas of gold decomposed granite. • Review paving color and texture at base of the wall. The paving color will be an integrated concrete color to match the existing brick wall, with a smooth finish. Color to be Scofield SG 160-4 – Red Brick. • Landscape Plan – bring back the landscape plan to reflect the update provided to the Board and ensure landscaping behind/over the brick wall. The landscape plans incorporate grasses behind the brick wall that are 36” max in order to meet the vision triangle requirement at the entry. Regards, Stantec Architecture Inc. Zorah Mariano Design Lead Phone: 916 669 5928 Zorah.Mariano@stantec.com Attachment: Planning Drawings c. C.C. mz document2 8.b Packet Pg. 175 8.b Packet Pg. 176 8.b Packet Pg. 177 8.b Packet Pg. 178 8.b Packet Pg. 179 Attachment C Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to ARB Subcommittee 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 “3128 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4244 8.c Packet Pg. 180