Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-02-21 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 21, 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. 695 Arastradero [18PLN-00333]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new Single-Story Approximately 5,400 Square Foot Building With a Partial Basement for Mortuary Use. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15303. Zoning District: RE (Residential Estate). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2342 Yale Street [18PLN-00233]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Residential Units and Construction of a new Two-Story Duplex Building and Detached Garage Building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RMD (NP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at efoley@m-group.us _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4.Various Sites (250 Hamilton Avenue in database) [17PLN-00398]: Request by Sure Site, on Behalf of AT&T, for a Preliminary Architectural Review of the Deployment of 17 Small Cell Wireless Communication Facilities on Utility Poles and Streetlights in the Public Right of Way, in Downtown North and University South neighborhoods and adjacent to Monroe Park, Green Acres and Town & Country. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. 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 January 10, 2019. 7.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 17, 2019. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment Retreat date and discussion topics _______________________ 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 # 9628) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 2/21/2019 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 Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)  Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 2019 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/21/2019 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2018 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics March 7  1700 Embarcadero: Mercedes/Audi Dealership (2nd Formal)  233 University: Seismic Rehab and Office Addition (1st Formal)  Master Sign Program  375 University: Renovation of Cheesecake Building (Prelim)  180 El Camino Real: Renovation for Pacific Catch (Prelim) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9796) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/21/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 695 Arastradero: Mortuary Building at Alta Mesa Cemetery (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 695 Arastradero [18PLN- 00333]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new Single-Story Approximately 5,400 Square Foot Building With a Partial Basement for Mortuary Use. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15303. Zoning District: RE (Residential Estate). 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): 1.Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Development based on findings in Attachment B and subject to conditions of approval in Attachment C. Report Summary The applicant requests approval for the construction of a new 5,444 square foot one-story building with a partial basement at the existing Alta Mesa Memorial Park. The project would be placed in a location served by existing drive aisles and utility services on a vacant area of land within the cemetery. Parallel parking would be provided along existing drive aisles to accommodate the proposed use. The project is not expected to generate any new traffic; the proposed pavilion would offer an alternative to the existing mortuary and small chapel buildings for funeral services. Multiple services would not be held on site simultaneously. Therefore, the project is not expected to generate additional traffic to and from the site. 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background Project Information Owner: Alta Mesa Improvement Company Architect: John Barksdale, Architect Representative: John Barksdale Legal Counsel: None Property Information Address: 695 Arastradero Road Neighborhood: Green Acres Lot Dimensions & Area: 2,064,003 square feet (approximately 47.38 acres) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Not Applicable (note that some protected trees are located at Alta Mesa Memorial Park; however, none would be impacted by the proposed project) Historic Resource(s): No existing buildings would be removed or altered as part of the proposed project. Existing Improvement(s): There are nine existing buildings on site totaling approximately 99,110 square feet, most are single story buildings of varying heights and constructed in various years. The Alta Mesa Funeral Home (office) is a two story building. Existing Land Use(s): Alta Mesa Memorial Park (cemetery) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 and RM-30 Zoning (school and multi-family residences) West: RM-40; R-2; and PF Zoning (Gunn High School and Multi- family residential land uses) East: Adobe Creek and City of Los Altos (single family residences) South: R-1 (1,000) and R-1 (2,000) Zoning (single family residences) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: RE (Residential Estate) District Comp. Plan Designation: Open Space/Controlled Development Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Applicable (see discussion below) Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 PTC: None HRB: None ARB: The ARB held a preliminary review of the application on April 5, 2018. A link to the previous staff report can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/Prelim-695-Arastradero. A video of the hearing can be found here: https://tinyurl.com/695-Arastradero-Prelim-Video Project Description The applicant proposes to construct a new 5,444 square foot one-story building with a partial basement at the existing Alta Mesa Memorial Park. The ground floor would be used for funeral services, similar to the existing administration/mortuary building or the existing chapel in the adjacent mausoleum; however, it provides the facilities (e.g. kitchen) necessary to host a reception following the service, if desired. It includes an entry foyer, bathrooms, a catering kitchen, a reception room, and two open courtyards contiguous to the main reception space. The basement level would be used for storage and would be constructed to a depth of less than 12 feet. A location map is provided in Attachment A, the applicant’s project description is included in Attachment F, and the project plans are included in Attachment G. 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. Draft findings for the proposed project provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The property line along Arastradero Road is approximately 150 feet from the nearest single family residence; however, the proposed project is located within the Alta Mesa Memorial Park and would not be visible from the public right-of-way. The new pavilion building would be well beyond 150 feet from the closest residence. There are several existing buildings (mausoleums and columbarium) on the project site. The mausoleums are single story poured-in-place concrete exterior walls with built-up membrane roofing. The columbarium is also single story 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. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 with granite slab exterior walls, poured-in-place concrete fascia and a natural slate pitched roof. The existing funeral home is two stories with stucco walls, wood windows and eaves, and a mission tile roof. The proposed project uses concrete masonry unit (CMU) walls, limestone plaster parapet, and includes extensive windows. There is no existing vegetation in the area of the proposed development. The proposed project would include landscaping around the proposed building, as shown on Sheet L1.1 of the plans provided in Attachment G. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The site is designated as Open Space/Controlled Development in accordance with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Map. Land designated as Open Space/Controlled Development is identified in the City’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Element as “land having all the characteristics of open space but where some development may be allowed on private properties…uses such as agricultural, recreational and non-residential uses may be allowed consistent with the protection and preservation of the inherent open space characteristics of the land.” The proposed building would provide additional space for services at the cemetery, while still leaving significant amounts of open space, consistent with this land use designation. The project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. A complete review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with the RE zoning standards has been performed and is included in Attachment D. The Alta Mesa Memorial Park is comprised of six parcels totaling approximately 72 acres. All of the cemetery buildings, including the proposed new Reception Pavilion, are located on parcel 167-03-019. Although the cemetery is comprised of all six parcels, which have been dedicated for cemetery use through a dedication with the County of Santa Clara, the zoning consistency analysis conservatively assesses the project information (e.g., lot coverage, FAR, etc.) in comparison only to the parcel (47.38 acres) on which the project is located. As shown in the consistency analysis, the proposed project is consistent with the zoning ordinance. The project is also consistent with the previously approved Conditional Use Permit (59-UP-14) for the site (Attachment E). In addition, Attachment E includes a letter dated May 10, 1974 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. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 provided by the Zoning Administrator at the time. This letter confirms that future improvements associated with the mortuary use at the site would not require amendments to the Conditional Use Permit but rather Architectural Review Board approval would be required. The project is being processed consistent with this requirement. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed on-site vehicle circulation would not change with the proposed project; all existing roads on the site would remain. Cemetery uses are required to provide one space for each four seats or four-person capacity, plus funeral procession queue capacity of five cars. There are several existing buildings on the 47.38 acre site totaling 99,110 square feet.The proposed building is 5,444 square feet; therefore, with the proposed development, all buildings on the parcel would total 104,554 square feet in floor area as summarized on sheet sk2 of the project plans. The total capacity of these buildings is 558 seats, including 304 seats for the existing funeral home and 254 seats for the proposed building. Note that the mausoleums count toward floor area but are used to house tombs and are not used for events; therefore, the floor area is not counted toward capacity for parking requirements. Accordingly, there are currently 76 parking spaces (one per every four seats) and one loading space provided for the existing funeral home. A total of 64 parking spaces are required for the proposed building. There are a total of 69 parking spaces shown on the site plan as proposed, including three additional Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) compliant spaces adjacent to the building. The proposed number of parking spaces and ADA spaces would be consistent with the requirements outlined in PAMC Chapter 18.52 for off-site parking. All new parking spaces comply with the dimensions and other design requirements outlined in PAMC Section 18.54. Two short-term bicycle parking spaces are also proposed for the building in accordance with PAMC requirements. There is a Class II bike lane along Arastradero Road at the entrance to 695 Arastradero and this area is identified as a walking and bicycle route as part of the City’s Safe Routes to School Program. The existing sidewalk and bicycle lane provide for appropriate path of travel in front of 695 Arastradero and the project would not impact the existing bicycle lane or sidewalk during construction or operations. All staging, stockpiling, etc. required for the new building would occur on site and there are no changes proposed to the project along the parcel frontage or within the City’s right-of-way. Consistency with Application Findings The project is consistent with the findings for architectural review in that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and all aspects of the Zoning Code, it is compatible with adjacent buildings at the site and with the adjacent neighborhoods, it provides a desirable and well-designed space for visitors, and it proposes low water use, native landscaping. A complete summary of the project’s consistency with the architectural review findings is included in Attachment B. Environmental Review 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 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 from the provisions of CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (New Construction of Small Structures). This exemption allows for new building construction up to 10,000 sf within an urban area. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on February 8, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 11, 2019, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. 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 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: Architectural Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Existing Conditional Use Permit for the Alta Mesa Cemetery (PDF)  Attachment F: Proponent's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 14 Mausoleum #2 Mausoleum #1 Adobe CreekMausoleum Terman Middle School Arastradero West Apartments Student Activities Center QUAD Math & Science Office (MS-6) World Languages &English- Social Studies Offices LOCKERS Bowman International School Science Arastradero Station TitanGym 47.7' 133.7' 68.9' 33.5' 156.4' 42.0' 156.4' 14.7' 94.9' 126.3' 58.0' 126.3' 78.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0'115.0' 83.4' 123.6' 68.2' 118.8' 92.0' 118.8' 77.0' 116.0' 92.0' 116.0' 77.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 11 33.0' 145.0' 43.1' 32.1' 63.8' 105.8' 20.0' 11.0' 34.6' 20.0' 105.8' 95.0' 114.2' 60.0' 114.2' 70.0' 116.7' 108.0' 83.0' 4.2'87.0'34.6' 22.6' 14.5' 32.9' 116.7' 70.0' 120.0' 60.0' 926.7' 233.7' 1177.1' 523.1' 225.4' 13.7' 567.8' 267.4' 31.1' 418.5' 62.0' 109.1' 65.1' 85.9' 38.7' 50.0' 115.0' 84.0' 133.7' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0'11.5' 114.2' 71.3' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 37.0'24.3' 115.0' 70.0' 110.3' 9.0'55.0' 110.3' 70.0'25.0' 116.9' 54.4' 116.9' 72.7' 42.0' 119.2' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 115.0' 70.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 27.8'23.6'9.4' 110.0' 102.2' 126.1' 52.0' 110.0' 77.0' 112.8' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 64.4' 126.1' 91.6' 34.0' 128.3' 47.3' 134.3' 72.0' 132.5' 65.7' 140.0' 19.5' 65.4' 134.3' 45.0' 143.9' 59.3' 53.4' 140.0'46.6' 112.8' 61.5'18.0'18.6' 143.9' 128.3' 108.0' 80.0' 108.8' 65.0' 109.1' 70.0' 109.5' 70.0' 108.8' 70.0' 110.2' 70.0' 109.5' 70.0' 110.9' 70.0' 110.2' 70.0' 111.7' 70.0' 110.9' 70.0' 112.4' 70.0' 111.7' 70.0' 113.1' 70.0' 112.4' 61.5'9.6'9.1' 113.3' 70.2' 113.1' 68.6' 16.4' 15.1' 77.6' 61.3' 113.3' 45.5' 58.0' 63.0' 33.7' 20.3'8.4'9.1'5.0' 20.0' 77.0' 66.0' 60.0' 58.0' 45.5' 5.0'24.9' 36.8' 13.8'14.5'100.0' 61.0' 115.8'7.0' 77.0' 20.0' 43.5' 7.4'115.8' 92.6' 97.1' 100.0' 30.5' 47.8' 80.2' 62.0' 100.0' 62.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 122.2' 61.5' 102.4' 14.6' 14.5'33.4' 49.4' 102.4' 73.3' 13.7' 78.5' 25.0' 36.5' 25.0' 78.5' 80.0' 15.0' 128.3' 16.6'15.3' 128.3' 65.0' 99.5' 32.7' 99.5' 120.0' 119.1' 38.9' 119.1' 59.0' 84.0' 114.6' 16.9' 14.5' 28.9' 114.6' 74.7' 120.4'36.7'120.4' 61.0' 99.6'36.0' 61.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 61.0' 100.0' 25.9'33.7' 100.0' 70.0' 102.8' 14.1'26.0' 102.8' 90.0' 108.0' 31.4' 12.3' 37.0' 70.7' 119.2'58.0' 108.0' 115.0' 115.0'62.4'7.6' 70.0' 132.5' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 87.0' 112.2' 65.0' 110.0' 82.8' 123.9' 62.0' 112.2' 70.0' 99.9' 31.4' 50.2' 123.9' 24.0'26.3'31.4' 98.9' 70.0' 113.9' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0' 70.0' 110.0'49.0'40.5' 113.9' 49.6' 110.0' 110.6' 66.0' 109.3109.3 70.0' 1 124.2' 62.0' 110.6' 126.8' 31.4' 50.2' 124.2' 75.0' 122.5' 54.5' 115.0' 34.2'40.5' 131.0' 50.0' 122.5' 50.3' 31.4' 98.0' 72.3' 131.0' 72.3' 111.4' 31.4' 50.2' 117.5' 93.0' 117.5' 62.0' 114.2' 96.9' 105.0' 86.9' 15.7' 95.0' 32.4' 24.9' 40.7' 92.2' 130.0' 96.9' 130.0' 70.0'70.0' 15.7' 86.9' 74.0' 121.9' 85.0' 47.0' 92.2' 47.0'85.0' 121.9' 74.0' 92.2' 128.5' 125.5' 244.7' 104.2' 71.6' 108.8' 36.6' 54.0' 21.0' 21.0' 177.7'263.5' 26.0' 77.0' 239.2' 157.7' 256.9' 125.5' 154.5' 263.5' 774.4' 247.9' 83.8' 58.7' 71.1' 133.8' 70.3' 61.4' 125.3' 75.0'125.3' 75.0' 125.3'75.0' 125.4' 75.0' 125.3'75.0' 125.5' 75.0' 125.4' 75.0' 75.0' 125.6' 75.0' 125.5'75.0' 125.7' 75.0' 125.6'75.0' 125.7' 75.0' 125.7'75.0' 125.8' 75.0' 125.7'29.2' 45.9' 127.3' 75.0' 125.8'60.6'14.9' 135.8' 75.0' 127.3' 142.5' 89.9' 46.5' 97.3' 65.0' 92.1' 28.5' 66.5' 9.6' 142.5' 70.8' 75.0'125.0' 75.0'125.0' 75.0' 125.0'75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0'75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 124.1' 54.3'113.1' 118.7' 73.0' 38.4' 82.3' 75.2'93.0' 118.7' 127.0' 16.5' 60.9' 124.1' 77.0' 81.7' 25.3' 83.7' 127.0' 84.2' 154.0'82.3' 44. 142.2' 94.4'170.0' 78.0' 159.2' 75.8'142.2' 9.9' 64.6' 156.9' 69.0'159.2' 75.4' 206.2' 46.0' 156.9' 70.7' 73.3' 206.2' 54.2' 40.1' 41.9' 18.1'49.7'52.1' 2'29.2' 31.6' 41.6'104.3'28.4' 49.0' 92.0' 28.0' 104.8' 27.8' 191.0' 62.2' 141.0'169.2'121.5' 567 131.6' 28.5' 79.2' 131.6' 230 96.7' 125.9' 40.8' 21.2'22.3' 29.2 31.6' 42.7' 47.2' 39.6'22.6' 90.8' 83.0' 48.0' 13.8' 136.8' 83.0' 90.8' 38.8' 81.2' 38.4' 191.0' 29.0' 92.4' 80.5' 114.7' 83.8' 114.7' 59.1' 31.4' 116.2' 80.5' 154.5' 134.4' 73.4' 53.7' 92.4' 120.0' 64.0' 120.0' 80.9' 83.5' 10.3'98.8' 124.2' 96.0' 124.2' 98.8' 148.1' 124.8' 41.6' 62.7' 70.6' 58.8' 117.5' 82.5' 110.9' 68.0' 82.5' 66.0' 76.6' 98.3' 83.2' 74.6' 96.4' 78.5' 70.6' 49.5' 87.8' 26.4' 79.2' 35.6'62.0' 40.3' 107.6' 85.8' 79.2' 166.3' 54.8' 84.5' 75.2' 161.0' 46.2' 102.3' 70.6' 33.0' 77.9' 85.1' 63.4' 178.2' 104.9' 37.0' 134.6' 147.2' 67.3' 1557.2' 66.7' 1451.0' 133.3' 300.0' 124.8' 41.6' 62.7' 70.6' 58.8' 117.5' 82.5' 110.9' 68.0' 82.5' 66.0' 76.6' 98.3' 83.2' 74.6' 96.4' 78.5' 70.6' 49.5' 87.8' 26.4' 79.2' 35.6'62.0' 40.3' 107.6' 85.8' 79.2' 166.3' 54.8' 84.5' 75.2' 161.0' 46.2' 102.3' 70.6' 33.0' 77.9' 85.1' 63.4' 178.2' 104.9' 37.0' 134.6' 147.2' 67.3' 1557.2' 66.7' 1451.0' 133.3' 300.0' 124.8' 41.6' 62.7' 70.6' 58.8' 117.5' 82.5' 110.9' 68.0' 82.5' 66.0' 76.6' 98.3' 83.2' 74.6' 96.4' 78.5' 70.6' 49.5' 87.8' 26.4' 79.2' 35.6'62.0' 40.3' 107.6' 85.8' 79.2' 166.3' 54.8' 84.5' 75.2' 161.0' 46.2' 102.3' 70.6' 33.0' 77.9' 85.1' 63.4' 178.2' 104.9' 37.0' 134.6' 147.2' 67.3' 1557.2' 66.7' 1451.0' 133.3' 300.0' 61.9'.3'.3'.2'62.1' 41.6' 62.7' 70.6' 58.8' 117.5' 82.5' 110.9' 68.0' 82.5' 66.0' 76.6' 98.3' 83.2' 74.6' 96.4' 78.5' 70.6' 49.5' 87.8' 26.4' 79.2' 35.6'62.0' 40.3' 107.6' 85.8' 79.2' 166.3' 54.8' 84.5' 75.2' 161.0' 46.2' 102.3' 70.6' 33.0' 77.9' 85.1' 63.4' 178.2' 104.9' 37.0' 134.6' 147.2' 67.3' 1557.2' 66.7' 1451.0' 133.3' 300.0' 124.8' 41.6' 62.7' 70.6' 58.8' 117.5' 82.5' 110.9' 68.0' 82.5' 66.0' 76.6' 98.3' 83.2' 74.6' 96.4' 78.5' 70.6' 49.5' 87.8' 26.4' 79.2' 35.6'62.0' 40.3' 107.6' 85.8' 79.2' 166.3' 54.8' 84.5' 75.2' 161.0' 46.2' 102.3' 70.6' 33.0' 77.9' 85.1' 63.4' 178.2' 104.9' 37.0' 134.6' 147.2' 67.3' 1557.2' 66.7' 1451.0' 133.3' 300.0' 129.7' 149.4'10.2'287.4' 139.9' 139.1'149.4' 129.7' 149.4' 129.7' 149.5' 97.4' 32.5'151.8' 129.7' 287.4' 10.2'149.5' 129.7' 136.9' 139.9' 389.4' 230.8' 41.0'251.0' 134.0' 36.2' 259.0' 87.3' 64.0'41.0'185.0' 91.0' 169.1' 121.0' 166.4' 30.6' 90.6' 102.9' 644.6' 15.9'270.0' 75.0' 330.0' 25.5' 75.0' 270.0' 63.6' 139.1'46.7'101.0' 80.6' 101.0' 46.7' 139.1' 86.3' 25.9'220.2'608.1' 102.9' 330.0' 106.1' 220.2'25.9'25.0' 40.0' 136.9' 114.6' 158.3' 45.8' 41.0' 230.8' 41.3' 103.4' 168.8' 137.7' 124.9' 155.5'152.4' 32.0' 109.4'96.7' 55.7' 31.0' 41.0' 22.9'20.9' 20.3' 649.0' 180.0' 91.2' 37.6' 107.3' 168.8' 92.5' 28.6'184.9' 314.5' 27.1' 243.9' 146.4' 143.2' 226.5' 226.1' 240.0' 95.1' 305.2' 20.0' 30.0' 20.0' 30.0' 20.0' 40.7' 161.6' 94.0' 157.3' 89.0' 161.6' 36.7' 214.1' 36.4'143.0' 50.4' 46.3' 69.7' 43.1' 214.1' 35.3'7.5'38.9' 143.0' 1.9'2.2' 76.8' 199.3'10.0'199.3' 76.8' 62.7' 125.4' 62.7' 66.0' 164.8' 312.3'10.0'312.3' 164.8' 104.3' 114.2' 564.5' 163.6' 27.0' 45.5'48.8' 136.7' 7.1'20.0'31.4' 160.8' 23.2' 243.5' 107.4' 10.3' 163.6' 7.2' 38.6' 134.4' 245.0' 160.0' 245.0' 160.0' 34.4' 238.9' 60.0' 157.2' 1.9'2.3' 26.3' 28.5' 180.0' 143.9' 87.0'36.4'31.4' 101.5' 92.3' 83.0' 155.4' 81.1' 143.9' 152.4' 5.0' 100.3' 155.4'123.4' 50.6' 132.0' 136.9'48.4' 24.6' 76.7' 152.4' 272.3' 437.6'515.4' 101.8' 131.0'102.4' 97.6' 193.4' 3.2' 130.7' 147.8' 131.0'23.1' 135.7' 15.0'186.6' 190.3' 45.0' 340.6' 102.4' 147.8' 130.7' 114.2' 186.7' 114.3' 186.6' 138.2' 102.5' 138.2' 102.5' 138.2' 109.7' 22.7'124.1' 123.8' 48.5' 226.3' 93.5' 150.2' 45.0' 76.0' 170.3' 115.4'32.6' 105.4' 135.5' 118.6' 153.2' 118.6' 153.0' 109.6' 170.3' 82.0' 179.9' 149.0' 167.0' 31.4'36.4' 219.6' 83.1' 110.0' 179.9' 77.0'9.2' 170.3' 7.9'8.2' 150.8' 150.2' 252.4' 412.8' 239.1' 351.3' 276.0' 283.8' 450.0' 212.0' 283.8' 494.1' 226.1' 300.0' 150.0' 300.0' 150.0' 692.6' 351.3' 276.0' 212.0' 450.0' 240.0' 1357.5' 48.7' 108.0' 62.0' 139.0'53.1' 193.4' 224.3' 268.9' 49.7' 134.0' 147.9' 121.0' 15.9'41.0'64.0' 31.6' 37.0' 7.3'32.1'1.2'1.9'16.0'11.5'10.5' 64.5' 16.0' 2.1'1.0'35.7'3.1'16.0'50.0' 16.0' 3.1'28.4'3.4'32.3' 14.2' 181.5' 44.2' 53.1' 7.4'8.5'9.4' 10.9' 33.7'17.0' 170.0' 35.0' 130.2' 178.0' 70.0' 82.2'136.2' 125.0' 110.0' 87.5' 93.0' 21.7' 120.0'51.0' 54.0'136.2' 27.8' 68.0' 31.1'14.1'31.4' 37.0'122.2' 41.0' 26.9' 309.0' 307.9'139.5' 140.1' 264.4' 100.0' 100.0'99.6'99.6' 44.4' 43.9' 264.0' 308.8' 68.8' 54.6' 265.0' 99.5' 189.5' 265.0' 327.6' 92.2' 40.7'24.9' 32.4' 96.9' 105.0' 96.9' 95.0' 307.3' 536.0' 438.4'438.4' 291.5' 7.6' 447.9' 204.1' 309.0' 358.9' 311.0' 203.2' DONALD DRIVE WILLMAR DRIVE ARASTRADERO ROAD YNIGO WAY HUBBARTT DRIVE GEORGIA AVENUE ARASTRADERO ROAD POMONA AVENUE O R OAD MIRANDA AVENUE GEORGIA AVENUE HUBBARTT DRIVE CROSBY PLACE GEORG IA AVENU E A RAST RADERO RO A D F O OTHIL L EXPRESSW A Y MIR AN D A AVENU E ELA COURT MANUELA AVENUE MESA AVENUE MANUELA AVENUE MANUELA AVENUE FO O T HILL EXPRESSW A Y MIRANDA AV E N U E F O OT HILL E X P R E S S WAY FO O THIL L E X P R ESSW A Y MIR A N DA GREEN ARROYO COURT WALLIS COURT GLENB R O O K D RIVE T E R M A N D R I V E A R A S T R ADERO ROAD M A N U E L A A V E N U E MESA C O U R T Adobe Creek R-2 PC-2666 PC-2666 R 1(10000) RE RM-40 R-1(20000) RM-30 R-1(10000) R-1 PF This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel abc Known Structures Zone Districts Project Site Water Feature 0'439' 695 Arastradero Road 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, 2018-02-12 21:15:23 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 15 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 695 Arastradero Road 18PLN-00333 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 project includes a small, single-story building with a partial basement that would not be visible from the public right-of-way. The project is designed to be compatible with adjacent single-story and two-story buildings on the project site. The project would not change the existing cemetery use of the site, which is a use consistent with the Comprehensive Land Use Designation of Open Space Controlled Development and conditionally permitted within the Residential Estate (RE) Zone District. The proposed building is consistent with the existing Conditional Use Permit for the site (59-UP-14). There are no coordinated area plans or relevant design guides applicable to the proposed project. The proposed project is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and Title 18, Zoning Ordinance, of the PAMC. 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 as discussed in Table 1. Table 1: Comprehensive Plan Analysis 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 Open Space Controlled Development This Land Use Designation is identified in the Land Use Element as “land having all the characteristics of open space but where some development may be allowed on private properties…uses such as agricultural, recreational and non-residential uses may be allowed consistent with the protection and preservation of the inherent open space characteristics of the land.” The proposed building would provide additional space for services at the cemetery, consistent with this land use designation and with the previously approved Conditional Use Permit (59-UP-14) for the site. 2.b Packet Pg. 16 Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-1.2: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low-intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. The project maintains the scale and character of the area by proposing only a single story building, similar to many of the other buildings on site and single- family residential uses across Arastradero Road. The project is proposed at an existing cemetery within an urbanized area where there are already several buildings on the site (e.g. columbariums). The proposed pavilion as it is intended to be used as an alternative option for funeral services rather than in addition to the mortuary. The materials proposed are of high quality, appropriate for the proposed use and consistent with several other existing buildings on the project site. 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. Transportation Element Policy T-1.4: Ensure that electric vehicle charging infrastructure, including infrastructure for charging e-bikes, is available citywide. Though the project is not located in a transit- oriented area, it is not anticipated to generate new traffic to this already urbanized area within the City because the site is already used for large funeral services and the building would be used as an alternative location on site for those services. It would improve the existing site by adding electrical vehicle parking to comply with City and state requirements and would bicycle parking to support increased bicycle trip mode share; both of which serve to encourage a reduction in greenhouse gas emissions. The project would not affect the public right-of-way as it would use existing site access and comply with all parking requirements through on- site parking, utilizing existing paved areas so that additional paving is not necessary. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. Natural Environment Element Goal N-4: Water Resources that are Prudently Managed to Sustain Plant and Animal Life, Support Urban Activities, and Protect Public Health and Safety. The project is required to route all rainwater and condensate from HVAC into landscaping in addition to providing low water use landscaping to prudently manage water resources. The project is also 2.b Packet Pg. 17 Policy N-21: Reduce non-point source pollution in urban runoff from residential, commercial, industrial, municipal, and transportation land uses and activities. required to comply with the Model Water Efficiency Landscape Ordinance and NPDES Stormwater Permit and includes bio-retention areas for stormwater management. During construction, the project is also required to implement short-term measures to reduce erosion and siltation to reduce runoff that may affect water quality. 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 design is appropriate for the proposed use as a reception pavilion for celebrations of life. The architect’s stated goal of the pavilion design is to use materials that convey a sense of permanence, similar to other buildings within the cemetery, but also to provide a more comfortable environment to celebrate the life of their loved ones, in comparison to the columbarium, which are intended more for private mourning. Therefore, the project includes limestone-clad exterior materials intended to convey a sense of permanence but also includes the use of full length windows leading to exterior courtyards on the east and west of the building, which create the feeling of openness and connectivity to the landscaping. Therefore, the project creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for visitors. There are no existing natural features in this area of the site; all existing trees across the site would be preserved. There are no historic resources located at the project site and no context based design criteria are applicable to the site. The proposed project includes a one story building with a partial basement, at a maximum height of 19 feet from grade, similar, if not smaller than nearby residents. The building would not be visible from the public right-of-way or adjacent residences. 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 design is of high aesthetic quality, using materials intended to convey a feeling of permanence on the exterior, but that encourages connection with nature on the interior. The textures and colors are compatible with other buildings on the project site and would not be visible from outside the property boundaries. 2.b Packet Pg. 18 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 design is functional with pedestrian access provided along the entire exterior and a clearly defined entrance. Bicycle parking is provided at the front entrance. The project is fully parked on the subject property. Because development on the site is limited by the location of existing grave sites, all parking, with the exception of ADA parking at the front of the new building, is provided along the existing drive aisles within the cemetery. The parallel parking spaces are consistent with code requirements for parking areas within a drive aisle. Access to the property would continue to be provided from Arastradero Road, no new streets or drive aisles would be required to accommodate the proposed project. Existing utility connections and a transformer are already provided at the site. The new building would tap into existing infrastructure running through the property to provide services to the new building with minimal excavation needed. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The landscaping design complements and enhances the building and its surroundings with small trees and low water use species that provide visitors with sense of openness and nature from the interior of the building (due to the floor to ceiling glass), from exterior courtyard areas, and as viewed from the exterior. The species are primarily native, are low water use, and provide desirable habitat for avian species and other species. No existing trees across the large, open site would be removed. The building is surrounded by existing oaks on the opposite side of the drive aisle from the proposed project. 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. The project will use low water-use, drought resistant plants and will comply with C3 and MWELO requirements 2.b Packet Pg. 19 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 695 Arastradero Road 18PLN-00333 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1.CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "A New Reception Pavilion for the Alta Mesa Cemetery and Funeral Home 695 Arastradero Road, Palo Alto, California,” dated January 3, 2019 and stamped as received by the City on January 7, 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.SERVICES. As described in the project description, the reception pavilion shall not be used in conjunction with other buildings in order to provide multiple memorial services at the site at a given time, and therefore is not expected to result in an increase in traffic to the site. If an increase in services is proposed in the future, this shall be evaluated through an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit for the project site. 6.PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 7.INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the 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 2.c Packet Pg. 20 and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 8. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $153,782.12 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 9. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 10. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 11. DEMOLITION PLAN. Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 12. GRADING PERMIT. Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 2.c Packet Pg. 21 13. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN. The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 14. GRADING. The project includes an underground structure. A rough grading plan will need to be present in the building permit submittal. 15. BASEMENT DRAINAGE. Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line and 3-feet from side an rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 16. BASEMENT SHORING. Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 17. DRAINAGE. The site drainage system that collects runoff from downspouts and landscape area shall be a separated from the pump system that discharges runoff from light wells. Plot and clearly label the two separate systems and including the separate outfalls for each system. 18. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT. Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide the following note on the Final Grading Plans. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. As a result, the proposed drainage system for the basement retaining wall will not encounter and pump groundwater during the life of this wall.” 19. DEPTH OF EXCAVATION. Indicate the deepest point of excavation on plan set with note and dimension on sections. If deepest excavation is found within 5 ft of groundwater level per geotechnical report, an updated groundwater test and groundwater level is required. 2.c Packet Pg. 22 20. ADDITIONAL DRAINAGE. If applicable to project any proposed trash enclosures shall be required to drain to sanitary sewer only. 21. DEWATERING. Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Grading Permit and Dewatering Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a Grading Permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 22. WATER FILLING STATION. applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 23. 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. 24. STAGING AND 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 coordinated to keep materials and equipment onsite. 25. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA. The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed 2.c Packet Pg. 23 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. 26. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS CONDITIONS. The City's full-sized "Standard Conditions" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67175.06&BlobID=66261 27. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION. The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 28. LOGISTICS PLAN. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public- right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” 29. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT. The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to building permit approval. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION 30. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees included in the landscape plans for the proposed project 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 WATERSHED PROTECTION 31. STORMWATER PERMIT. The project shall comply with all Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. 32. PESTICIDES AND FERTALIZERS. Add a note to the building plans indicating that “No chemical fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment shall be used. Only Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost.” Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices- landscape-professional for guidance. 2.c Packet Pg. 24 33. SOIL COMPACTION. Add a note to the building plans that states: “Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved.” 34. STORMWATER QUALITY PROTECTION. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. All downspouts shall drain to landscaping (outward from building as needed). HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas shall drain to landscaping. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 35. Prior to issuance 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.). 36. Prior to issuance 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. 37. Prior to issuance of a building permit, 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). 38. The property owner 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. 39. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free and RPDA for fire service. Show the location of the RPPA/RPDA on the plans submitted for building permit. 40. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 41. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 42. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 2.c Packet Pg. 25 43. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout by the building where the gas meter is to be installed. If applicable to this project, 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. 44. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas and wastewater. FIRE DEPARTMENT 45. SPRINKLER SYSTEM. Install a monitored NFPA 13 fire sprinkler system. 46. ELEVATOR. Elevator car shall be sized to accommodate a gurney and two attending medical personnel. GREEN BUILDING For design and construction of non-residential projects, the City requires compliance with the mandatory measures of Chapter 5, in addition to use of the Voluntary Tiers. (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The following conditions shall be addressed in the building permit plan set prior to Building permit Approval: 47. The project is a new nonresidential construction project greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must comply with California Green Building Standards Code Mandatory plus Tier 2 requirements, as applicable to the scope of work. PAMC 6.14.180 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined here: www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. 48. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The Energy Star Project Profile shall be submitted to the Building Department prior to permit issuance. Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 49. The project is a nonresidential new construction project with a landscape of any size included in the project scope and therefore must comply with Potable water reduction Tier 2. Documentation is required to demonstrate that the Estimated Total Water Use (ETWU) falls within a Maximum Applied Water Allowance (MAWA) using the appropriate evapotranspiration adjustment factor (ETAF) designated by the prescribed potable water reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.220 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. The submittal requirements are outlined on the following site: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/residents/resrebate/landscape.asp. 50. The project is either new construction or a rehabilitated landscape and is greater than 1,000 square feet and therefore must install a dedicated irrigation meter related to the recycled water infrastructure. PAMC 16.14.230 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 51. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore must be designed and installed to prevent water waste due to overspray, low head drainage, or other conditions where water flows onto adjacent property, non-irrigated areas, walks, roadways, parking lots, or structures. PA 16.14.300 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). 2.c Packet Pg. 26 52. The project includes a new or altered irrigation system and therefore the irrigation must be scheduled between 8:00 p.m. and 10:00 a.m. unless weather conditions prevent it. Operation of the irrigation system outside the normal watering window is allowed for auditing and system maintenance. Total annual applied water shall be less than or equal to maximum applied water allowance (MAWA) as calculated per the potable water use reduction tier. PAMC 16.14.310 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). ). The project applicant shall indicate the requirements on the Permit Plans. 53. The project is a nonresidential new construction project and has a value exceeding $25,000 and therefore must meet Enhanced Construction Waste Reduction Tier 2. PAMC 16.14.240 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). The project shall use the Green Halo System to document the requirements. 54. The project is a new non-residential structure and therefore must comply with the City of Palo Alto Electric Vehicle Charging Ordinance 5263. The project shall provide Conduit Only, EVSE-Ready Outlet, or EVSE Installed for at least 25% of parking spaces, among which at least 5% (and no fewer than one) shall be EVSE Installed. The requirements shall be applied separately to accessible parking spaces. See Ordinance 5263 for EVSE definitions, minimum circuit capacity, and design detail requirements. PAMC 16.14.380 (Ord. 5263 § 1 (part), 2013) See https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/43818 for additional details. 55. The project is a nonresidential projects exceeding $100,000 valuation and therefore must acquire an Energy STAR Portfolio Manager Rating and submit the rating to the City of Palo Alto once the project has been occupied after 12 months of occupancy. PAMC 16.14.250 (Ord. 5220 § 1 (part), 2013). Submittal info can be found at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/utl/business/benchmarking_your_building.asp. 2.c Packet Pg. 27 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 695 Arastradero Road, 18PLN-00333 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.10 (RE DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area (ft2) (2) None None No change All lots except flag lots (1) 1 acre 47 acres No change Site Width (ft.) 100 ft 70 ft No change Site Depth (ft.) 100 ft ~1,555 ft No change Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 of this code may also apply. 24 foot special setback on Arastradero Road No change Front Yard 30 ft ~375 ft No change (new building more than 650 ft from the front yard) Rear Yard 30 ft >30 ft No change (new building >630 ft from the rear yard) Interior Side Yard 15 ft 15 ft No change (new building 125 feet from interior side yard) Maximum Height (measured at peak) 30 ft varies 19 ft for new building Side Daylight Plane (side lot lines) Initial Height 10 feet, then 45 degree angle Complies Complies Front Daylight Plane (front setback line) Initial Height 16 feet, then 60 degree angle Complies Complies Rear Daylight Plane (rear setback line) Initial Height 16 feet, then 60 degree angle Complies Complies Maximum Site Coverage 25% 4.8% 5.1% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR)2 0.45 for first 5,000 sf, then 0.30 for square footage in excess of 5,000 sf (618,713.40 sf) 99,110 sf 104,510 sf (addition of 5,400 sf) Maximum house size (ft2) 6,0005 N/A N/A Residential Density Minimum Site area permitting two units 1 acre N/A N/A 2.d Packet Pg. 28 (1) Minimum Lot Size: Any lot less than the minimum lot size may be used in accordance with the provisions of Chapter 18.40. (5) Maximum House Size: The gross floor area of attached garages and attached accessory dwelling units and junior accessory dwelling units are included in the calculation of maximum house size. If there is no garage attached to the house, then the square footage of one detached covered parking space shall be included in the calculation. This provision applies only to single-family residences, not to duplexes allowed in the R-2 and RMD districts. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.12.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Mortuaries Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 space for each 4 seats or 4- person capacity, plus funeral procession queue capacity of 5 cars (140 spaces) 76 spaces 145 spaces Bicycle Parking 2 spaces (100% ST) None 2 Short term spaces Loading Space As determined by the Director (1 space) 1 space 1 space 2.d Packet Pg. 29 2.e Packet Pg. 30 2.e Packet Pg. 31 John Barksdale architect PROJECT DESCRIPTION FOR A NEW RECEPTION PAVILION AT ALTA MESA MEMORIAL PARK Revised 15 November 2018 THE PROJECT The proposed Project is a new one-story building with a partial storage basement to be used to conduct funeral services which cannot be accommodated in either the existing administration/mortuary building or the small existing chapel in the adjacent mausoleum. The new facility will be approximately 5,400 square feet with a 3,200 square foot storage basement and will have two partially covered exterior courtyards contiguous to the main reception space. In addition to the reception room, there will be a main public entrance and a service entrance, men’s and women’s restrooms, a catering kitchen and stairs and service elevator to the basement. The new building will be located approximately in the center of the cemetery on an undeveloped parcel of land adjacent to the cemetery’s original mausoleum. THE DESIGN CONCEPT Visitors come to Alta Mesa Cemetery to either visit their deceased family members or friends or to participate in ceremonies of laying them to rest. They appreciate that the cemetery and its facilities convey a feeling of permanence and eternity in that the existing cemetery buildings are mainly monolithic concrete and natural stone structures with minimal openings. However, many of the anticipated visitors to this proposed new building will be in a fragile state of mind and it is important to provide them with a comfortable environment while at the same time giving them a joyful and uplifting experience. To this end, the proposed architecture should portray a conservative feeling of solidity and permanence compatible with the existing surrounding cemetery buildings, primarily mausoleums and a columbarium, but also it needs to stand apart from these buildings in a way to facilitate a positive experience. 2.f Packet Pg. 32 Page 2 The design elements of this proposed reception pavilion are medium dark gray- brown solid limestone glad elements supporting a lighter cream-colored smooth limestone plaster roof parapet that is anchored to the ground with similar limestone plastered columns. This parapet and columns mimic and align with the top of the walls of the adjacent mausoleums while the limestone lower walls relate to the solid stone walls of the nearby columbarium. While these main architectural elements are similar to those of the other cemetery buildings, they differ in that the lower stone walls do not align, but meander in and out from the parapet above. Significantly recessed from the edge of the roof and between these stone-clad elements are full height glass walls with bronze colored mullion open from the main Reception Room to courtyards formed by low niche walls and corner columns. These exterior courtyards on the east and west sides of the building are open to the sky with trellised openings in the upper roof above. This Reception Room will feel protected and private yet allowing a feeling of openness and connectivity to the beautiful landscaping of the surrounding cemetery. Subsequent to our Preliminary ARB Review of this project and at the suggestion of the Board, we have created a more prominent entrance feature enabled with a taller porte-cochere type element with a pyramid skylight roof for drop-off visitors. A concrete traffic circle is added to the paving at this entrance in order to reinforce the drop-off concept. We have also downplayed any interpretation that the side courtyards are entrances with discreet walkways and landscape barriers. Pedestrian circulation is aided by the addition of a perimeter sidewalk around the entire project site leading to the main entrance. The addition of other sidewalks along the cemetery’s internal roads or the re- routing of these roadways is not possible due to the presence of existing grave sites adjacent to the curbs. PARKING REQUIREMENTS The entrance to the Pavilion faces the cemetery’s main entrance to welcome guests while a secondary entrance on the opposite side for service functions faces the adjacent mausoleum. The proposed building will primarily be used for memorial services. 80% of the funeral services at Alta Mesa are for internment of cremations, rather than burials, and therefore not requiring the traditional funeral processions. No other local funeral homes use Alta Mesa’s built facilities therefore further reducing the need for funeral processions. Visitor parking will be traditional cemetery parallel parking along the adjacent cemetery internal road system. On-site parking is calculated using the Palo Alto Zoning Code for mortuary uses. The building will seat 254 and will require a total of 64 parking spaces which includes accessible ninety-degree parking spaces at the front entrance to the building. 2.f Packet Pg. 33 Page 3 Alta Mesa provides “managed parking” by their employees on days of funeral services. All available employees wear safety vests and proactively direct traffic to specific parking areas and configurations. The intent is to keep the roadways clear and open at all times for the regular cemetery visitors and other cemetery operations. The locations of these designated parking spaces are shown on the Parking Site Plan. Further, Alta Mesa does not schedule dual services at any time and special consideration is given to visitors who need to leave a particular service in a timely manner. SITE IMPROVEMENTS The Project site is undeveloped and has no vegetation or other improvements and is encircled entirely with internal cemetery roadways and grave sites. The roadways and curbs will not be altered except for providing the perpendicular handicap parking. Existing utilities are underground within an adjacent internal roadway and new services to the building will all be underground. New landscaping will make an appropriate transition between the new building and the existing roadway and cemetery. See the attached Statement of Design Intent provided by the landscape architect. BUILDING USE The reception pavilion will be used for funeral services, memorial services and receptions with removable row seating or round tables with chairs. The guests using the pavilion can be as little as 50 and as many as 250. A service only has a 2-1/2 hours allotment, while a service with a reception has a 4 hour allotment. The use of this reception pavilion will be Monday thru Friday from 9:00am and concluding at 8:00pm, Saturday 10:00am, concluding at 4:00 pm, and no services on Sundays and holidays. No more than one service is scheduled at any one time. The frequency of the services is unknown at this time. 30 joaquin road portola valley california 94028 650.867.4228 john@woodsonbarksdale.com 2.f Packet Pg. 34 Attachment G Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to board members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1.Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2.Scroll down to find “695 Arastradero” 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://tinyurl.com/695-Arastadero-Major-AR 2.g Packet Pg. 35 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9995) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/21/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2342 Yale Street: Duplex with Detached Garage (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2342 Yale Street [18PLN- 00233]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Residential Units and Construction of a new Two- Story Duplex Building and Detached Garage Building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RMD (NP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at efoley@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Development based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary Applicant proposes a two-story, duplex building with detached garage on Yale Street in the College Terrace Neighborhood. The project replaces two single-family units on the same lot, built circa 1900-04 and 1930-49, respectively. Neither structure is a historic resource. The property is zoned RMD (NP) and is therefore subject to Architectural Review Findings and Individual Review Guidelines. As designed, the project meets the applicable zoning requirements. Draft findings and conditions are included in Attachment B and C. While staff recommends approval, the Board may continue the project or forward a recommendation to the Director based on the draft findings and conditions, or as modified by the Board. 3 Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Background Project Information Owner: Abdel Ismail Architect: Amer Ismail, Design Build Group Representative: Amer Ismail, Design Build Group Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 2342 Yale Street Neighborhood: College Terrace Lot Dimensions & Area: 50 x 125 feet, 6,250 square feet Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: One street tree Historic Resource(s): No, see analysis below Existing Improvement(s): Two residential buildings including a one-story built 1904, and a two story built 1938. Existing Land Use(s): Two single-family units Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: CN (two-story office building) West: RMD (NP) (single- and two-family uses) East: RMD (NP) (single- and two-family uses) South: RMD (NP) (single- and two-family uses) Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google, January 9, 2019 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: RMD (NP) Comp. Plan Designation: Multiple-Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action 3 Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed project includes demolition of two existing detached residential units and construction of a 2,899 square foot (sf) duplex building with 1,855 sf basement and detached 424 sf two-car garage building. The existing buildings were determined to have no historic significance, as further analyzed in the environmental section below. The proposed duplex building is two stories (22 feet one inch tall). The buildings are a contemporary style with stucco siding and asphalt shingle roof. Each unit has a minimum of 422 sf of ground-level lawn area open space, and two second-story decks (58.8 sf and a 99.2 sf). Unit one has a total of 643.36 sf of designated open space and unit two has 580.09 sf of open space. Access to the site is through a driveway along the right (west) property line, leading to the garage in the rear. There is one bike locker, with two individually accessible compartments for one bike each, available on-site for future tenants. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Minor (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 The project is located in a neighborhood with an eclectic mix of uses including single- and multiple-family housing in a Neighborhood Preservation overlay district and two-story office buildings across the street. The proposed building would be located between a two-story single-family house and a one-story single-family house. These houses have a more traditional style with horizontal siding and street-facing gables. Across the street is a somewhat more 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. 39 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 contemporary office building. The proposed building maintains a street-facing entrance to the front unit, which maintains the single-family character of the streetscape. The two-story building is closer to the two-story neighbor, built at the required minimum 6-foot setback, while the driveway creates a 14-foot buffer between the proposed building and the one-story neighbor. The one-story garage is not visible from the street and is located in the rear in keeping with the neighborhood character. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential, which prescribes a density range of eight to 40 dwelling units per acre. The project has a density of 14.29 dwelling units per acre, which complies with the intended multiple-family residential density. On balance, the project is consistent with other policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Further review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or will comply through Conditions of Approval, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Individual Review Guidelines As a two-family project adjacent to single-family houses, the project is subject to the Individual Review Guidelines. The Code goes on to state “The individual review criteria shall be applied only to the project’s effects on adjacent single-family and two-family uses.” (18.10.040(i)) Therefore, project was evaluated to meet Guidelines 1, 2, and 5, with Guidelines 3 and 4 being viewed as overlapping too closely with the Architectural Review Board Findings. Individual Review Guideline Comments are included as Attachment E. Multi-Modal Access & Parking Yale Street is a Safe Routes to School recommended walking path to Escondido Elementary. Per Condition #34, the project will repair or replace the sidewalk as needed. Public Works, through a construction logistics plan, will ensure a safe walking path around the construction zone. The project will have a similar number of vehicle trips from a single residential driveway as the 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 3 Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 existing use, though the driveway would be relocated to the opposite side of the property. The project will also provide two bike locker spaces. Consistency with Application Findings This project is consistent with the required findings, as demonstrated in Attachment B. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Historic Review The existing units were evaluated under the California criteria for historic significance by Page & Turnbull. It was determined neither building had any significance under any of the criteria for designation. A copy of the report can be found on the project webpage along with the plan set. 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 February 8, 2018, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 11, 2019 which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Foley, Project Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x111 (650) 329-2575 efoley@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7  Attachment C: Draft Conditions (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment E: Individual Review Guideline Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 42 3.a Packet Pg. 43 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2342 Yale Street 18PLN-00233 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project as conditioned complies with the zoning code and requires no exceptions to the development standards. The proposed project is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan, below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Multiple Family Residential (MF). The project consists of two duplex 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 is an urban infill development proposal in the urban service area of the city. Policy L-2.3 As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, integrated into neighborhoods and designed for greater affordability, particularly smaller housing types, such as studios, co-housing, cottages, clustered housing, accessory dwelling units and senior housing. The proposed project is a duplex building. Policy L-2.7: Support efforts to retain housing that is more affordable in existing neighborhoods, including a range of smaller housing types. The two existing single-family units are being replaced by two duplex units. 3.b Packet Pg. 44 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. One of the unit’s front door faces the street to interact similarly to a single-family home. The other unit has a covered entry that this perpendicular to the street and visible along the driveway. 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. The project is well-designed and maintains the residential streetscape and scale. The project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance because it maintains building setbacks, height, parking standards. Further, the project is subject to the City’s design review process, which ensures a high-quality appearance. Policy L-7.2: If a proposed project would substantially affect the exterior of a potential historic resource that has not been evaluated for inclusion into the City’s Historic Resources Inventory, City staff shall consider whether it is eligible for inclusion in State or federal registers prior to the issuance of a demolition or alterations permit. Minor exterior improvements that do not affect the architectural integrity of potentially historic buildings shall be exempt from consideration. Examples of minor improvements may include repair or replacement of features in kind, or other changes that do not alter character- defining features of the building This property was reviewed by Page and Turnbull and determined to have no historic significance. The project is not a part of an Area Plan. This project is in the Neighborhood Preservation Combining District (NP). It is subject to Design Review per PAMC 18.10.140 (b). It is not seeking any exceptions to Development Standards. This project is subject to the Individual Review Guidelines. Guideline 1: The driveway, garage and house shall be placed and configured to reinforce the neighborhood’s existing site patterns (i.e., building footprint configuration and location, setbacks, and yard areas) and the garage and driveway shall be subordinate to the house, landscaping and pedestrian entry as seen from the street. The project proposes a duplex with one unit with street frontage. This is consistent with other unit configurations where one unit is on the street frontage and the other unit is in the rear. The garage is in the rear and generally not visible from the street. The site plan generally fits the neighborhood patterns, limits the impact of the garage and driveway, and adds landscape along the interior lot lines. 3.b Packet Pg. 45 Guideline 2: The scale (perceived size), mass (bulk or volume) and height (vertical profile) of a new house or upper story addition shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern with special attention to adapting to the height and massing of adjacent homes. The proposed scale is appropriate for a two- dwelling building. The second floor has a separate roof form for each unit, which breaks up the horizontal massing. The overall height of 22 feet and one inch is appropriate, as there is a predominately 2-story context. The proposed height, mass, and scale of the duplex responds to conditions of directly adjacent homes, which includes a taller two- story house to the right and a moderately scale cottage/house to the right as well as the overall height, mass, and scale patterns along this street. The driveway is placed on the right side of the house to shift the mass of the house to the left side of the lot, which helps adapt height and massing to the cottage style house at 2330 Yale Street. The proposal also includes some first floor roof edges to soften any height transition to the 2330 Yale Street home. Guideline 3: The architectural form and massing shall be carefully crafted to reduce visual mass, and distinguish the house’s architectural lines or style. Roof profiles shall enhance the form, scale and proportion of primary and secondary house volumes, while rendering garage and entry forms subordinate in mass and scale to principal building forms. Upper floor additions shall also be balanced and integrated with the existing building. Guideline 4: Publicly viewed facades shall be composed with a clear and cohesive architectural expression (i.e., the composition and articulation of walls, fenestrations and eave lines), and include visual focal point(s) and the supportive use of materials and detailing. Entries shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern and integrated with the home in composition, scale and design character. The carport or garage and garage door design shall be consistent with the selected architectural style of the home. Guideline 5: The size, placement and orientation of second story windows and decks shall limit direct sight lines into windows and patios located at the rear and sides of adjacent properties in close proximity. The sides of all outdoor decks contain 5 foot metal screens to limit privacy impacts. 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. 3.b Packet Pg. 46 Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The neighborhood area is comprised of various commercial and residential buildings one to two stories in height. The project proposes to construct a two story duplex building, similar in use to the existing. The building is easily accessed by pedestrians, bicyclists, and cars. The driveway and parking is arranged in the rear. The proposed project is consistent with the findings to provide high quality materials and finishes in a neutral color palette. The building height and scale fits with the one and two story neighborhood. The shrub is being preserved while two other non-protected trees are being removed. Each unit has a minimum of 422 sf of ground-level lawn area open space, and two second-story decks (58.8 sf and a 99.2 sf). Unit one has 643.36 sf of designated open space and unit two has 580.09 sf of open space. This project is not subject to context-based design criteria. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project proposes a contemporary style, which is different from the other residences in the area, but still a recognizable architectural style. The mix of residential and office uses allow for greater variety without looking out of place. The project uses quality materials including stucco siding, metal railings and screen walls, and an asphalt shingle roof. The windows have stone sills and are recessed three inches from the face of the wall. As conditioned, the stucco surfaces will be a smooth finish texture. The proposed colors are gray tones and are compatible with surrounding color schemes. The project is subject to the Individual Review Guidelines. The proposal meets these guidelines as summarized under Finding #1. 3.b Packet Pg. 47 Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The project includes a detached two car garage and bike lockers as required by the Zoning Code. The entrance to the front unit is accessible from the street. The rear unit has its front door facing the side driveway and also has a rear sliding door. Each unit has at least 400 sf of ground level designated open space. The bike locker is located in a convenient and unobtrusive location. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project provides a variety of trees, shrubs, and groundcover. The majority of the landscaping is low water usage, and the species selected are typical for residential areas. There will be a row of ten Carolina laurel cherry trees providing privacy between the duplex and the single-family house to the right, and there is additional low planting between the driveway and the property line. The front yard open space is delineated by shrubs, similar to the existing front landscaping. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. This is demonstrated on the GB sheets in the plan set. 3.b Packet Pg. 48 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 2342 Yale Street 18PLN-00233 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1.CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "2342 Yale St Duplex, 2342 Yale St. Palo Alto, CA” stamped as received by the City on January 16, 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. Project plans submitted for Building permits shall incorporate the following changes: a.Driveway shall have 10 feet of clear space between the lightwells and the planting strip. b.Confirm the stucco will be smooth texture. 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.REQUIRED PARKING: All residential units in the RMD zone shall be provided with a minimum of one covered parking space (10 foot by 20 foot interior dimensions) and one additional guest parking space for the project. 7.UTILITY LOCATIONS: In no case shall utilities be placed in a location that requires equipment and/or bollards to encroach into a required parking space. In no case shall a pipeline be placed within 10 feet of a proposed tree and/or tree designated to remain. 3.c Packet Pg. 49 8. NOISE PRODUCING EQUIPMENT: All noise producing equipment shall be located outside of required setbacks, except they may project 6 feet into the required street side setbacks. In accordance with Section 9.10.030, No person shall produce, suffer or allow to be produced by any machine, animal or device, or any combination of same, on residential property, a noise level more than six dB above the local ambient at any point outside of the property plane. 9. DAYLIGHT PLANE: The daylight plane must clear the point where the wall plane intersects the top of the roof material. 10. REQUIRED LANDSCAPING/TREES. The following landscaping is required to ensure the project’s conformance with the City’s IR Guidelines and therefore must remain for the life of the structure. Required screening trees and shrubs shall be maintained at a height no less than the height required at the time of planting. a. The existing shrubs along the left property line shall be supplemented by new shrubs capable of screening the Unit 1 Bedroom 2 windows, such as Carolina Laurel Cherry trees. b. Carolina Laurel Cherry trees shall be planted and maintained along the right and left property lines as shown on the Landscape Plan. c. The Crepe Myrtle trees shall be planted and maintained in the rear yard as shown on the Landscape Plan. 11. LANDSCAPING. The thirteen (13) proposed Carolina Laurel Cherry trees shown on sheet L1 (landscape plan) along the right side lot line (10) and left side lot line (3) must be planted and measure at least 8 feet tall as shown on the plans prior to Planning Division signing-off the final inspection for the building permit. a. See the Green Building Section for water efficiency requirements. 12. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall hire a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to landscaping/trees. 13. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. Tree protection fencing shall be required for the front street tree. 14. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. 15. LIGHT WELLS. Railings around light wells shall be screened from street view. Screening may consist of plant material or fencing. 16. BASEMENT WALLS: Basement retaining walls shall not extend beyond the exterior wall plane of the first floor of the house, excluding lightwells, below grade patios and approved extensions, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. Approved extensions included a maximum of two basement areas under a roofed entry to the unit that complete the square. 3.c Packet Pg. 50 17. BASEMENT CONSTRUCTION WALLS: Any walls, temporary or otherwise, installed to facilitate construction of a basement shall be removed or constructed in such a way as to not significantly restrict the growth of required landscaping, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning. 18. DECONSTRUCTION SURVEY: A Deconstruction Survey is required for demolition permit applications submitted on or after January 1, 2017. This survey submittal shall include a list of materials that are salvageable from the project as well as the values of such materials. At this time, the City’s only approved vendor for this service is The ReUse People. Contact them to schedule this FREE service by phone (888)588-9490 or e-mail info@thereusepeople.org. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org. Contact Scott McKay for questions or to be considered as an approved third-party vendor at scott.mckay@cityofpaloalto.org. 19. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 20. 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, Emily Foley at efoley@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 21. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 22. GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 23. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate 3.c Packet Pg. 51 proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences on the City’s website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 24. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line and 3-feet from side an rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 25. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 26. The site drainage system that collects runoff from downspouts and landscape area shall be a separated from the pump system that discharges runoff from light wells. Plot and clearly label the two separate systems and including the separate outfalls for each system. 27. UTILITIES: Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 28. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide the following note on the Final Grading Plans. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. As a result, the proposed drainage system for the basement retaining wall will not encounter and pump groundwater during the life of this wall.” 3.c Packet Pg. 52 29. DEWATERING: Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Grading Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a Grading Permit prior to dewatering. Alternatively, the applicant must include the above dewatering requirements in a note on the site plan. Public Works has dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. See link below: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 30. WATER FILLING STATION: applicant shall install a water station for the non-potable reuse of the dewatering water. This water station shall be constructed within private property, next to the right-of-way, (typically, behind the sidewalk). The station shall be accessible 24 hours a day for the filling of water carrying vehicles (i.e. street sweepers, etc.). The water station may also be used for onsite dust control. Before a discharge permit can be issued, the water supply station shall be installed, ready for operational and inspected by Public Works. The groundwater will also need to be tested for contaminants and chemical properties for the non-potable use. The discharge permit cannot be issued until the test results are received. Additional information regarding the station will be made available on the City’s website under Public Works. 31. 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. 32. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right- of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF 3.c Packet Pg. 53 THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 33. 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. 34. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant shall replace those portions of the existing sidewalks, curbs, gutters or driveway approaches in the public right-of-way along the frontage(s) of the property. Contact Public Works’ inspector at 650-496-6929 to arrange a site visit so that the inspector can discuss the extent of replacement work along the public road. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. The plan must note that any work in the right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor who must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. A scan copy of the Site Inspection Directive shall be included in the plan set. Site plan shall reference required work. 35. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 36. 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. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2718 37. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 38. 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 residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures on the grading and drainage plan:  Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse.  Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas.  Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas.  Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces.  Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces 3.c Packet Pg. 54 39. LOGISTICS PLAN. The applicant/property owner shall ensure there is sufficient walkway for this school route. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 40. TREE PROTECTION FENCING. On drawing A1, please include the following two items: a. Outline of type 2 tree protection fencing around the 4" Crataegus. b. Outline of tree protection fencing around the 5" Crape myrtle at property line.” 41. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE: On drawing A1, please include the following two items: Outline of type 2 tree protection fencing around the 4" Crataegus. Outline of tree protection fencing around the 5" Crape myrtle at property line. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 42. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 43. TREE 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. 44. 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 3.c Packet Pg. 55 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. 45. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (c) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 46. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 47. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 48. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full- sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. UTILITIES – ELECTRICITY GENERAL 3.c Packet Pg. 56 49. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 50. 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. 51. 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. THE FOLLOWING SHALL BE INCORPORATED IN SUBMITTALS FOR ELECTRIC SERVICE 52. A 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. 53. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 54. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s switchgear. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 55. Location of the electric panel/switchboard shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Architectural Review Board and Utilities Department. 56. 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. 57. The customer is responsible for sizing the service conductors and other required equipment according to the National Electric Code requirements and the City standards. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. Any additional facilities and services requested by the Applicant that are beyond what the utility deems standard facilities will be subject to Special Facilities charges. The Special Facilities charges include the cost of installing the additional facilities as well as the cost of ownership. Utilities Rule & Regulation #20. 58. 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. 3.c Packet Pg. 57 DURING CONSTRUCTION 59. Contractors and developers shall obtain permit from the Department of Public Works before digging in the street right-of-way. This includes sidewalks, driveways and planter strips. 60. At least 48 hours prior to starting any excavation, the customer must call Underground Service Alert (USA) at 1-800-227-2600 to have existing underground utilities located and marked. The areas to be check by USA shall be delineated with white paint. All USA markings shall be removed by the customer or contractor when construction is complete. 61. The customer is responsible for installing all on-site substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required for the electric service. No more than 270 degrees of bends are allowed in a secondary conduit run. All conduits must be sized according to 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. 62. All new underground conduits and substructures shall be installed per City standards and shall be inspected by the Electrical Underground Inspector before backfilling. 63. The customer is responsible for installing all underground electric service conductors and other required equipment. The installation shall meet the National Electric Code and the City Standards. 64. 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. 65. 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 66. Catalog cut sheets may not be substituted for factory drawing submittal. 67. All new underground electric services shall be inspected and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector before energizing. AFTER CONSTRUCTION & PRIOR TO FINALIZATION 68. 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. PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF BUILDING OCCUPANCY PERMIT 3.c Packet Pg. 58 69. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 70. All required inspections have been completed and approved by both the Building Inspection Division and the Electrical Underground Inspector. 71. All fees must be paid. 72. All Special Facilities contracts or other agreements need to be signed by the City and applicant. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER FOR BUILDING PERMIT (new duplex units) 73. 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). 74. 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. 75. 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). 76. 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. 77. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 78. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 3.c Packet Pg. 59 79. 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. 80. Existing water services that are not a currently standard material shall be replaced at the applicant’s expense. 81. 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. 82. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. (Duplexes shall have single (1) water service, gas service, and sewer lateral to the front property for multiple meters per WGW current standards). 83. A new water service line installation for fire system & domestic usage is required. Show the location of the new water service on the plans. The applicant shall provide to the engineering department a copy of the plans for fire system including all fire department's requirements. 84. A new gas service line installation is required. Show the new gas meter location on the plans. The gas meter location must conform with utilities standard details. 85. Show the location of the new sewer lateral on the plans if different than the existing sewer lateral location. 86. Where public mains are installed in private streets/PUEs for condominium and town home projects the CC&Rs and final map shall include the statement: “Public Utility Easements: If the City’s reasonable use of the Public Utility Easements, which are shown as P.U.E on the Map, results in any damage to the Common Area, then it shall be the responsibility of the Association, and not of the City, to Restore the affected portion(s) of the Common Area. This Section may not be amended without the prior written consent of the City”. 87. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 88. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 3.c Packet Pg. 60 89. 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. 90. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. FIRE DEPARTMENT 91. Install a NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system in each building. GREEN BUILDING 92. GREEN BUILDING CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project is a new construction residential building of any size and therefore must meet the California Green Building Code mandatory requirements outlined in Chapter 4, (with local amendments) plus Tier 2 minimum pre-requisites and electives outlined in Appendix A4* (with local amendments). The project must hire a Green Building Special Inspector for a pre-permit third-party design review and a third-party green building inspection process. The project must select a Green Building Special Inspector from the City’s list of approved inspectors. PAMC 16.14.080 (Ord. 5393 § 1, 2016) (1) *Note: Projects subject to Tier 1 or Tier 2 shall not be required to fulfill any requirements outlined in Appendix A4.2 Energy Efficiency. All energy efficiency measures are found in the 2016 California Energy Code and the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code PAMC 16.17 & 16.18 as described in the Energy Reach Code section of this letter. b) Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO): The project is a residential new construction project with an aggregate landscape area of 500 square feet or more included in the project scope of work and therefore shall comply with the requirements of the Landscape Documentation Package (§492.3). Please see the Outdoor Water Efficiency Webpage for compliance documentation. (MWELO Title 23, Chapter 2.7) c) The project is a residential construction project of any size and therefore must meet the enhanced construction waste reduction at Tier 2 (80% construction waste reduction). PAMC 16.14.260 (Ord. 5393 § 1 (part), 2016) d) The project is a new detached single-family dwelling and therefore shall comply with the following requirements for electric vehicle supply equipment (EVSE): (a) The property owner shall provide as minimum a panel capable to accommodate a dedicated branch circuit and service capacity to install at least a 208/240V, 50 amperes grounded AC outlet (Level 2 EVSE). The raceway shall terminate in close proximity to the proposed location of the charging system into a listed cabinet, box, enclosure, or receptacle. The raceway shall be installed so that minimal removal of materials is necessary to complete the final installation. The raceway shall have capacity to accommodate a 100-ampere circuit. 3.c Packet Pg. 61 (b) Design. The proposed location of a charging station may be internal or external to the dwelling, and shall be in close proximity to an on-site parking space. The proposed design must comply with all applicable design guidelines, setbacks and other code requirements. PAMC 16.14.420 (Ord. 5393 §2, 2016) 93. LOCAL ENERGY REACH CODE CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL a) The project includes new residential construction of any size and therefore triggers the Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. For all new single-family residential there are two compliance options and one all-electric exception. i) Single-Family Residential Options: (1) OPTION 1: Performance: New single- family residential construction projects without a solar photovoltaic (PV) system, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of the proposed building is at least 10% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, if the proposed building does not include a PV systems. (a) Solar Ready Infrastructure: A dedicated solar zone shall be located on the rood or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. Install a conduit extending from the roofline and terminating at the electrical panel. (2) OPTION 2: Performance: New single- family residential construction projects with a solar photovoltaic (PV) system, the performance approach specified within the 2016 California Energy Code shall be used to demonstrate that the TDV Energy of proposed single-family residential construction is at least 20% less than the TDV Energy of the Standard Design, if the proposed building includes a photovoltaic system. (a) Solar Ready Infrastructure: A dedicated solar zone shall be located on the rood or overhang of the building and have a total area no less than 500 square feet. Install a conduit extending from the roofline and terminating at the electrical panel. b) All Electric Exemption: i) All- Electric Exception to the Local Energy Reach Code: New single-family residential construction that is designed and built to be all-electric shall be exempt from the requirements of Section 100.3. Local Energy Efficiency Reach Code. 94. Additional Green Building and Energy Reach Code information, ordinances and applications can be found at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/ds/green_building/default.asp. If you have any questions regarding Green Building requirements please call the Green Building Consultant at (650) 329-2179. 3.c Packet Pg. 62 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2342 Yale Street, 18PLN-00233 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.10 (RMD DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 5,000-9,999 sf area, 50 foot width, 100 foot depth 6,250 sf area, 50 foot width, 125 foot depth 6,250 sf area, 50 foot width, 125 foot depth Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet 30 feet 20 feet Rear Yard 20 feet unknown 42 feet 2 inches, detached garage located in rear yard setback Interior Side Yard 6 feet 0 feet right 6 feet left, 14 feet right Street Side Yard 16 feet N/A N/A Special Setback 30 feet or n/a – (Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps) N/A N/A Max. Building Height 35 feet as measured to the peak of the roof Two-story 22 feet 1 inch Side Yard Daylight Plane 15 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle unknown complies Rear Yard Daylight Plane 15 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle unknown complies Max. Site Coverage 40% (2,500 sf) unknown 36.99% (2,312 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 50% for first 5,000 sf lot size and 50% for lot size in excess of 5,000 sf + 200 sf additional area permitted for the covering of one parking space (3,325 sf) (4) unknown 53.17% (3,322.5 sf) 1449.4 sf per unit plus 423.67 sf shared garage Max. House Size 6,000 sf (5) N/A N/A Minimum Usable Open Space 450 sf per unit N/A 643 and 580 sf, respectively Residential Density, minimum site area permitting two units 5,000 sf Complies at 6,250 sf Complies at 6,250 sf (4) Exemption from Floor Area for Covered Parking Required for Two-Family Uses: In the R-2 and RMD districts, for two-family uses, floor area limits may be exceeded by a maximum of two hundred square feet, for purposes of providing one required covered parking space. (5) Maximum House Size: This provision applies only to single-family residences, not to duplexes allowed in the R-2 and RMD districts. 3.d Packet Pg. 63 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH SECTION 18.10.060 and CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Two-Family Residential Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1.5 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. Tandem Parking Allowed, with one tandem space per unit, associated directly with another parking space for the same unit = 3 spaces 4 spaces (two in garage, two tandem to garage spaces) 3 spaces (two in garage, one uncovered) Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) = 2 spaces 0 spaces 2 spaces (bike lockers) 3.d Packet Pg. 64 Page 1 of 6 Development Review - Department Comments City Department: Planning Staff Contact: Arnold Mammarella (Consulting Architect) Date: 2/14/2019 Project Address/File #: 2342 Yale Street INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES — GENERAL INFORMATION: The Individual Review Guidelines are broadly intended to preserve the unique character of existing individual Palo Alto neighborhoods and maintain privacy between adjacent properties. There are five specific guidelines that must be met for a project to be approved. Each guideline has an approval criterion as well as “key points” that staff reviews the proposal against. Illustrations are also provided to provide visual clarification of intent and examples of situations, which would or would not meet the guideline. The proposed project, however, is a two-unit development in the RMD zone and the property is bounded across interior side and rear lot lines by properties used for single or two-family dwellings. Therefore, per the zoning code, Individual Review Guidelines apply related to those properties. Planning Management has determined this to mean that Guidelines 1, 2, and 5 shall apply to this type of project and require staff level evaluation similar to single family homes in the R-1 district. Comments related to meeting Guideline 1, 2, and 5 are not intended to limit evaluation or comments from the Architectural Review Board on content related to these guidelines (site planning, height, mass, and scale, and privacy) nor related to other project content, such as building form and massing, façade design, materials, detailing, landscaping, etc. For additional information about the goals and requirements of the guidelines, the property owner and designer are directed to review the updated Palo Alto Single-Family Individual Review Guidelines booklet dated June 10, 2005. Additionally, the Individual Review Process allows for neighbor input on a proposed project. Please note that while staff is not aware of any neighbor comments at this time, neighbors may comment at any time during an open application. INDIVIDUAL REVIEW GUIDELINES — EVALUATION 3.e Packet Pg. 65 Staff has reviewed the revised plans filed November 19, 2018 for the proposed project related to compliance with the Individual Review Guidelines 1, 2, and 5. Evaluation comments and related information are provided below. Site and Neighborhood Context The subject property is a 50’ wide by 125’ deep lot with two structures and a moderate amount of landscape in the form of a couple of trees and tall shrubs along the side lot lines and one street tree. The existing driveway is along the left side lot line with parking at the rear of the lot. The existing structures are non-conforming in that the front residence is located in both the front yard and right, side yard setbacks and that the rear residence is located in the rear yard setback. As these structures are to be removed, their nonconforming status would not have any impact on proposed development. Properties along this side of Yale Street are mostly similar in size to the subject lot and contain one or two units per property. The buildings appear as one or two-story single-family homes as seen from the street with second homes place to the rear of some lots. Parking is set generally to the rear of the lots and minimally visible from the street as well as accessed from driveways along interior lot lines. Existing homes have traditional hip and gable roof forms with shingle roofing and are typically clad in horizontal siding. Most homes could be described as having a “cottage” aesthetic with the two-story home to lots to the right at 2130 Yale Street being Victorian in its architectural style. Properties across have Yale Street are two-story commercial and multi-family structures. To the right of the subject lot is 2330/2324 Yale Street. At the front of this property is a one-story cottage like residence with a moderately steep gable facing the street and a wing with a lower roof ridge to the right of the gable. The house high ridge at the gable appears to be about 17 feet above grade but the ridge height is not shown on the survey. The first floor is set close to the grade as there are just 2 steps up from the walkway to the front door. The eave appears to be about 9.5 to 10 feet above grade as it faces the subject lot. The unique feature of this structure is that it is set directly adjacent the side lot line shared with the subject lot. Behind this cottage structure is a two-story detached residence. This residence is set about 7 feet off the side lot line and 20 back from the rear lot line with its second floor set another 8 to 10 feet back from the first floor as seen from the subject lot. Both units are access from a driveway along the right side of this lot. To the left of the subject lot as seen from the street is a two-story house with a one-story detached garage with an address shown as 2346 Yale Street on the parcel map. The house is set in the rear portion of the lot shared with 610 California Avenue, which has a one-story home. These homes sit on one lot but are visually treated as two separate homes on small, almost square lots. The driveway and garage of the 2346 Yale Street home faces the subject lot. The house itself is set about 20 feet back from the side lot line shared with the subject lot and features a two-story narrow form with the rake side of a low pitch gable roof facing the street. Information is not provided on the survey for this home’s high ridge height the ridge at the gable appears to be about 22 to 24 feet above grade and the eave about 17 to 19 feet above grade as viewed from the street. The house has horizontal siding and generally traditional architectural façade treatment and detailing. It also has several side facing windows. The subject lot’s left side lot line also faces the rear yard and one-story structure along the rear lot line of 3.e Packet Pg. 66 624 California Avenue. Further back towards the subject lot’s rear lot line on the left side is a two-story structure set near the rear lot line of the 642, 644 California Avenue property. Google overhead views show existing landscape that may be dense along the yard areas of these two properties that abut the subject lot’s side lot line. The project plans, however, do not document any of this landscaping. To the rear of the subject lot there appears to be a split level one/two-story structure set about 8 feet back from the rear lot line on the 2343-2347 William’s Street property. The residence appears to have some windows facing the subject lot above landscape (at least on the second floor as seen on Google images). Information is provided on the survey about the footprint of this structure but not about windows or landscape. G1 — Site Planning: Placement of Driveway, Garage, and House Approval Criterion: The driveway, garage, and house shall be placed and configured to reinforce the neighborhood’s existing site patterns (i.e. Building footprint, configuration and location, setbacks, and yard areas) and the garage and driveway shall be subordinate to the house, landscaping and pedestrian entry as seen from the street. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Minimize the driveway’s presence and paving; 2. Locate the garage to be subordinate to the house; 3. Configure the house footprint to fit the neighborhood pattern; 4. Create landscaped open spaces between homes; 5. Locate the upper floor back from the front facade and/or away from side lot lines when next to one-story homes; and 6. Do not place the second floor so that it emphasizes the garage.] Comments: The site plan generally fits the neighborhood patterns, limits the impact of the garage and driveway, and adds landscape along the interior lot lines. For these reasons staff generally finds major aspects of guideline one would be met by the proposal. The general site plan configuration places both units within one building form with the front unit’s entry facing the street. The garage is set at the left-rear corner of the site and the rear yard is used as a parking court. This configuration would be responsive to development patterns on the adjacent lots. The proposed driveway location to the right side of the house switches the entry point from the street from the left to the right side of the lot. Given that placing the driveway to the right side establishes as consistent pattern for this side of the block (i.e. house to left and driveway to right as seen from the street) and given the location of the house to the right abutting the shared lot line, the driveway location would appear to fit this guideline well. The amount of paving has been reduced with the use of Hollywood strips at the portion of the driveway visible from the street, and there is landscape along the edge of the fence and house to soften its appearance. To create landscaped open space between the proposed homes and adjacent structures a row of Carolina Laurel Cherry has been proposed along the right, side lot line. Additionally, to fill landscape gaps at the existing hedges along the left side lot line three Carolina Laurel Cherry trees have been 3.e Packet Pg. 67 proposed. The garage and parking court limit landscape options at the far rear of the lot, but three Crepe Myrtle have been proposed behind the units. G2 — Neighborhood Compatibility for Height, Mass, and Scale Approval Criterion: The scale (perceived size), mass (bulk or volume) and height (vertical profile) of a new house or upper story addition shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern with special attention to adapting to the height and massing of adjacent homes. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Do not overwhelm an adjacent one-story home; 2. Do not accentuate mass and scale with high first floor level relative to grade, tall wall planes, etc.; 3. Minimize height offsets to adjacent neighbors’ roof edges, including adjacent one-story roof edges; 4. Place floor area within roof forms to mitigate mass and scale; 5. Locate smaller forms forward of larger forms to manage perceived height; and 6. Use roof volume rather than wall plate height to achieve interior volume.] Comments: The proposed height, mass, and scale of the duplex would respond to conditions of directly adjacent homes, which includes a taller two-story house to the left and a moderately scale cottage/house to the right. It would also fit with overall height, mass, and scale patterns of buildings along this street. The driveway would be placed on the right side of the house to shift the mass of the house to the left side of the lot, which would help adapt height and massing to the cottage style house at 2330 Yale Street. The proposal also includes some first-floor roof edges to soften any height transition to the 2330 Yale Street home. For these reasons the proposal appears to be consistent with this guideline. G3 — Resolution of Architectural Form, Massing, and Rooflines Approval Criterion: The architectural form and massing shall be carefully crafted to reduce visual mass and distinguish the house’s architectural lines or style. Roof profiles shall enhance the form, scale, and proportion of primary and secondary house volumes, while rendering garage and entry forms subordinate in mass and scale to principal building forms. Upper floor additions shall also be balanced and integrated with the existing building. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Adjust floor plans to work for building form; 2. Use the vocabulary of a particular style to compose forms and rooflines; 3. Avoid awkwardly placed additions; 4. Use a few well- proportioned masses to avoid a cluttered appearance of too many elements; and 5. Adjust roof layouts, ridge orientations, eave lines, etc. to reduce mass and enhance form.] Comments: Adjustments have been made to the initially proposed design, which improve the massing, however, comments are not provided in this evaluation given the zoning district. G4 — Visual Character of Street Facing Facades and Entries Approval Criterion: Publicly viewed facades shall be composed with a clear and cohesive architectural 3.e Packet Pg. 68 expression (i.e. The composition and articulation of walls, fenestration, and eave lines), and include visual focal point(s) and supportive use of materials and detailing. Entries shall be consistent with the existing neighborhood pattern and integrated with the home in composition, scale and design character. The carport or garage and garage door shall be consistent with the selected architectural style of the home. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Compose facades to have a unified/cohesive character; 2. Use stylistically consistent windows and proportion and adequate spacing between focal points; 3. Add visual character with architecturally distinctive eaves, window patterns and materials; 4. Do not use monumental entries/ relate entry type and scale to neighborhood patterns; and 5. Design garage openings and door panels to be modest in scale and architecturally consistent with the home.] Comments: Adjustments to the design and clarifications to materials and detailing have been made from the initially proposed design, which improve the façade treatment, however, comments are not provided in this evaluation given the zoning district. G5 — Placement of Second-Story Windows and Decks for Privacy Approval Criterion: The size, placement and orientation of second story windows and decks shall limit direct sight lines into windows and patios located at the rear and sides of adjacent properties in close proximity. [Guideline Key Points: 1. Gather information on neighbors’ privacy sensitive windows, patios, yards; 2. Mitigate privacy impacts with obscure glazing, high sill windows, permanent architectural screens or by relocating/reorienting windows; 3. Avoid windowless/unarticulated building walls, especially where visible from the street; and 4. Limit upper story deck size and locate decks to result in minimal loss of privacy to side or rear facing property.] Comments: The proposal would meet this guideline with some adjustments for obscure glazing at windows on the second floor, left building side as noted below. The proposal includes upper floor decks between the units and at the building corners. Sideways views are screened by 5-foot tall perforated metal panels. The proposed landscape should also help screen views from these decks. Along the rear property line on the 2345 Williams Street property there is existing tall landscape screening that appears to mostly block views to the one second floor window. Along the right, side lot line there are few neighbor windows facing the subject lot from the two cottages at 2330 Yale Street. Carolina Laurel Cherry trees planted along the driveway side will also provide screening from views towards that property. Along the left, side lot line, the existing landscape shrub grove within the left side yard and the landscape along the rear lot line on the 624 California Avenue property mostly provide some privacy 3.e Packet Pg. 69 screening for the left side neighbors. There are a few possible gaps in the landscape that could allow views from second floor windows. Bedroom 2 on the front unit, which has a private deck with a sliding glass door, has two 3' wide windows that appear to have views towards the second story bedroom windows at 2346 Yale Street at about 20 feet distance. Obscure glazing to at least 5 feet above finish floor level would be appropriate to limit casual viewing. Alternatively, the windows could be replaced with windows with sills at 5 feet above finish floor. Bedroom 3 on the rear unit, which has windows facing the rear lot line and a deck with a glazed door facing the project site's driveway, also has two 3' wide windows, which face the rear yard of the 624 California Avenue house. While there is an existing tree that should screen some of the view into this neighbor's rear yard, there appears to be a view corridor over the 10 foot or so tall hedge into the rear yard/patio area of this house along with at least one large window on the rear wall of this house. Given that there would be potentially privacy sensitive areas of the neighbor's house exposed to casual viewing as well as that this bedroom has clear glazed windows/doors on two other walls, using obscured glazing on these windows appears appropriate to meet the privacy guideline. Alternatively, the windows could be replaced with windows with sills at 5 feet above finish floor. 3.e Packet Pg. 70 Attachment F 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 “2342 Yale Street” and click the address link 3.On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.htm?NewsID=4502&TargetID=319 3.f Packet Pg. 71 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 8731) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 2/21/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: AT&T: Prelim for Small Cell Nodes Title: Various Sites (250 Hamilton Avenue in database) [17PLN- 00398]: Request by Sure Site, on Behalf of AT&T, for a Preliminary Architectural Review of the Deployment of 17 Small Cell Wireless Communication Facilities on Utility Poles and Streetlights in the Public Right of Way, in Downtown North and University South neighborhoods and adjacent to Monroe Park, Green Acres and Town & Country. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1.Conduct a Preliminary Review and provide comments on AT&T’s preliminary designs for wireless communication facilities (WCF) in public rights of way. 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 this is a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the WCF nodes for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of the WCF nodes in relation to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. 4 Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project in relation to the Comprehensive Plan (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915), the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), and other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the ARB and receive initial comments. ARB members may identify aspects of the designs that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies, and areas of concern the applicant may want to address in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input regarding the proposed locations and designs. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto owns the streetlights and wood utility poles in the public rights-of-way (ROW) Applicant Sure Site on behalf of AT&T Representative: Laura Meiners Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 17 ROW locations adjacent to private property having addresses as noted Neighborhood: Downtown North, University South, and adjacent to Monroe Park, adjacent to Green Acres, and adjacent to Town & Country Lot Dimensions & Area: Not applicable Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Trees are adjacent to some node locations Historic Resource(s): Historic Inventory properties are adjacent to some locations Existing Improvement(s): Existing streetlights and one existing wood utility pole in the public right-of-way Existing Land Use(s): Existing streetlights and one existing wood utility pole in the public right-of-way Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Adjacent to various zone districts, including residential and commercial zones Location Map: See Attachment A for maps of WCF node locations Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Downtown Commercial (CD-C, CD-N (P), CD-C (P), and CD-C (P)(GF), and CD-S(GF)(P)), Public Facility (PF), Planned Community (PC), Service Commercial (CS), and Low Density Residential Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial, Neighborhood Commercial, Service Commercial, Public Park, Single Family Residential, and Open 4 Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Space/Controlled Development Context-Based Design Criteria: Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not applicable Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: April 9, 2012: Council approved (and executed) a Master License Agreement (MLA) between the City of Palo Alto and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility. The April 9, 2012 reportcan be found at the following weblink: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/28100. PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Staff Level Architectural Review: None Project Description The application includes conceptual designs for 17 WCF node locations within the Downtown North and University South neighborhoods, and adjacent to Monroe Park, Green Acres, and Town & Country Village Shopping Center.1 Attachment A contains detailed maps of WCF node locations. AT&T intends to install sixteen (16) WCF nodes using micro or “pico” radios and one (1) WCF node (adjacent to 75 Encina Avenue) using larger radios in order to expand coverage and capacity in these high demand areas. The applicant’s description (Attachment B) identifies alternate sites (ROW adjacent to 430 Bryant St, 227 Forest Ave, and 163 Everett Ave) in addition to the primary sites, and outlines potential design options. The applicant has provided conceptual plans, a preliminary noise report, and a preliminary planned Federal Communications Commission (FCC) guidelines compliance report (Attachment C). The proposed seventeen (17) WCF node locations are identified in Table 1. 1 The address for this application 17PLN-000398 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. 4 Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Table 1: Seventeen (17) WCF Node Locations: Site ID Configuration Adjacent Address Pole ID Adjacent APN Adjacent Zone Neighborhood Node 05 4G only 695 Arastradero Rd 71 167-03-019 OS (Park) Adjacent to Green Acres Node 13 4G only 4345 El Camino Real 457 148-09-011 CS Adjacent to Monroe Park Node 24 4G plus 5G 135 University Ave 46 120-26-037 CD-C (GF)(P) Downtown North Node 25 4G plus 5G 200 University Ave 51 120-26-099 PF University South Node 26 4G plus 5G 250 University Ave 51 120-26-103 PC-3872 University South Node 27 4G plus 5G 300 University Ave 51 120-15-057 CD-C (GF)(P) University South Node 28 4G plus 5G 431 Florence St 43 120-15-046 CD-C (P) Downtown North Node 29 4G plus 5G 383 University Ave 44 120-15-041 CD-C (GF)(P) Downtown North Node 30 4G plus 5G 552 Emerson St 54 120-26-084 CD-C (GF)(P) University South Node 31 4G plus 5G 550 High St 54 120-26-111 CD-C (GF)(P) University South Node 032 4G plus 5G 131 Lytton Ave 13 120-25-109 CD-C (P) Downtown North Node 33 4G plus 5G 251 Lytton Ave 25 120-74-002 CD-C (P) Downtown North Node 34 4G plus 5G 203 Forest Ave 21 120-27-018 CD-C (GF)(P) University South Node 35 4G only 301 High St 31 120-25-062 CD-N (P) Downtown North Node 36 4G plus 5G 325 Hamilton Ave 33 120-15-102 PF University South Node 37 4G plus 5G 500 Alma St 49 120-32-015 PF Adjacent to Town & Country Node 38 4G plus 5G (wood pole with larger radios) 75 Encina Ave 7406 120-33-003 CS Adjacent to Town & Country 4 Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Anticipated Entitlements: AT&T intends to submit the following formal, discretionary applications in batches or “clusters”:  Tier 3 WCF Permits as outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.42.110(h). Each WCF node proposed in a formal application must comply with or meet:  Development Standards, subsection (i) of PAMC Section 18.42.110 (Attachment C)  Conditions of Approval in PAMC Section 18.42.110(j),  Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d),  Conditional Use Permit (CUP) findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c), Each WCF node proposed in a formal application must be consistent with the following plans, guidelines, and requirements to the extent that they are applicable to one or all nodes:  Comprehensive Plan (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/62915)  Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31928)  Urban Forest Master Plan (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/36187)  South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan Phase 1 and Phase 2 (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pln/advance/area/sofa.asp)  Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/6514)  Pedestrian Shopping (P) Combining District Regulations in PAMC Chapter 18.30(B), and  Context-Based Design Criteria in PAMC Section 18.18.110. As part of the formal application review, all findings must be made in the affirmative to approve each Tier 3 WCF permit. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Federal Telecommunications Act of 1996: Material Inhibition, Significant Coverage Gap, and Least Intrusive Means The Telecommunications Act of 1996 recognizes the traditional zoning authority of local governments, while also precluding local governments from prohibiting, or having the effect of prohibiting the provision of wireless services. The FCC’s September 2018 Small Cell Order interprets this law expansively to preclude cities from “materially inhibiting” the provision of wireless services, including inhibitions on “densifying a wireless network, introducing new services, or otherwise improving service.” Although it is unclear how the courts will apply this standard, it likely provides carriers with broader rights than the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals’ “significant gap” standard described below. Prior to issuance of the FCC’s order, the Ninth Circuit had interpreted federal law to mean that a local government may not deny an application that proposes to (1) close a significant gap in services using (2) the least intrusive means available. In the Ninth Circuit, the least intrusive means refers to the technically feasible and potentially available alternative design and location 4 Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 that most closely conforms to the local values a permit denial would otherwise serve. In other words, while local governments may enforce local values, they have limited authority to deny an application where alternative means of providing wireless service are technically infeasible or otherwise unavailable. Alongside the City’s Comprehensive Plan and associated plans and policies, the Architectural Review findings in PAMC Section 18.76.020(d), and the conditional use permit findings in PAMC Section 18.76.010(c) express the local values that guide consideration of WCF applications. Local governments are not to regulate the specific equipment to be used by an applicant, but may evaluate how the physical characteristics of a proposal comply with local values concerning issues like aesthetics, noise, and safety. Prohibition of Unreasonable Discrimination The Telecommunications Act also precludes a local agency’s wireless facility siting decisions from unreasonably discriminating among wireless service providers. The Ninth Circuit has held that discrimination is unreasonable if a city treats one provider differently from another that is similarly situated with respect to the structure, placement, or impact of the proposed facilities. In other words, if the City wishes to impose different requirements on similarly situated applications, it must be able to explain a reasonable basis for why such differential treatment is necessary. Preemption Regarding Radio Frequency (RF) Emissions The FCC established comprehensive rules for human exposure to RF emissions (the “FCC Guidelines”). Under the Telecommunications Act of 1996, federal regulations preempt state and local governments from regulating RF emissions generated by wireless communications facilities; state and local governments cannot regulate wireless facilities based on environmental effects from RF emissions to the extent that the emissions comply with the FCC Guidelines. Although localities cannot establish their own standards for RF exposure, local officials may require wireless applicants to demonstrate compliance with the FCC Guidelines. The applicant intends to submit a detailed report that discusses the WCF node designs at each location in comparison with the FCC’s radio frequency emission standards. AT&T provided preliminary and example reports (Attachment C) for this preliminary review. The City will utilize an independent peer review process during the analysis of the formal application to address questions regarding radio frequency emissions/health and safety. The FCC Shot Clock and Tolling Agreements WCF permit applications have a unique application process involving a “shot clock” timeline, whereby a decision on each node must take place within a “reasonable” timeframe. Under the September 2018 FCC Small Cell Order, the presumptively reasonable timeframe for a small cell application is 60 days for all applicable permits (including any appeals), unless extended by mutual agreement. This timeline will be applicable when AT&T submits formal applications. Master License Agreement (MLA) 4 Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Each WCF node utilizing City utility poles or streetlight poles must comply at all times with the terms and conditions in the Master License Agreement for Use of City-Controlled Space on Utility Poles and Streetlight Poles and in Conduits (“MLA”) between the City of Palo Alto and New Cingular Wireless PCS, LLC dba AT&T Mobility executed on April 9, 2012. A security instrument, such as a Performance Bond or Letter of Credit, shall be provided in accordance with the MLA prior to encroachment or street work permit issuance. The City Manager’s Report to Council for the MLA can be found at the following weblink: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/28100. The MLA contains agreement terms, obligations, prohibitions, and expiration parameters. 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 information was previously transmitted to the applicant, including during Development Review Committee meetings. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. Streetlights The project plans (Attachment C), Figure 1, and Figure 2 show the proposed WCF node locations and the following above ground equipment within the primary design configurations (Sheet G-2/Detail 1 and Detail 2, Sheet G-3/Detail 2, Sheet G-4/Detail 3):  1 cylindrical 4G antenna facing all directions  4G remote radio units side mounted underneath the 4G antenna atop the streetlight within a louvered cylindrical shroud with a taper to match the tapering of the streetlight,  Multiple 5G antennas and 5G radios within a scalloped shroud (for those WCF nodes calling for 5G),  1 service disconnect,  Safety signage, and  Conduit within the streetlight. Other design alternatives might be presented at the ARB meeting. Traffic signs, parking signs, and banners would be retained. Fiber and power would be provided to streetlights through underground trenching. Anticipated configuration design changes for streetlights include:  placement of the disconnect box in a vault,  consistent placement of the 4G and 5G equipment on the pole,  updates with and without banners at five (5) nodes,  consistent tapering of the antenna skirt, and  use of decorative streetlight poles in the Downtown between Lytton Avenue and Channing Avenue and on El Camino Real. 4 Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Figure 1: Example of Elevation and Visual Simulation for AT&T Streetlight Deployment with 4G and 5G Equipment (Node 27) Source: AT&T, February 1, 2019. Figure 2: Example of Elevation and Visual Simulation for AT&T Streetlight Deployment with 4G Equipment (Node 35) Source: AT&T, February 1, 2019. 4 Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Staff requested that AT&T and Ericsson provide an example(s) of a decorative streetlight pole with the 4G radio equipment housed within the pole structure itself and the antenna either integrated into the pole design or incorporated within a shroud. It is staff understanding that manufacturers are now producing these decorative poles in both pedestrian lighting and roadway lighting styles, although they might be somewhat wider than the scalloped decorative poles used in the Downtown. Figure 3: AT&T Photos of 4G and 5G Equipment Mock-Up Location in San Francisco (4G Equipment Mounted on Pole Instead of Under Antenna) Source: AT&T, February 5, 2019. 4 Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Wood Utility Pole The project plans (Attachment C) and Figure 4 show the proposed WCF node location and show the following above ground equipment within the primary design configuration (Sheet G- 2/Detail 3 and Sheet G-7/Detail 1):  1 cylindrical 4G antenna facing all directions atop a new unshrouded wooden bayonet extension  Multiple 5G antennas and 5G radios within a scalloped shroud,  4G remote radio units side mounted to the pole,  2 unshrouded diplexers,  1 service disconnect,  Safety signage,  Conduit mounted to the side of the pole, and  Mounting brackets. The project plans also show an alternate design configuration on Sheet G-2.1/Detail 1 and other design alternatives might be presented by the applicant at the ARB meeting. The applicant intends to provide fiber and power to the wood utility pole through an aerial drop, although it is currently unclear from the project plans. The applicant also intends to make configuration design changes for the formal submittal, including:  updates to the design and orientation of the side mounted equipment and shrouding,  updates to show a top-mounted equipment design for 4G equipment,  updates to the placement of the 5G equipment, and  updates to the wooden bayonet shroud (and/or the proposal for a pole replacement or an alternative location altogether). Preliminary Location/Siting Criteria, Configuration Design Criteria and Options The applicant presents key questions within their description (Attachment B) and seeks feedback on the preliminary location/siting criteria, design criteria, and design options for the proposed WCF nodes. The City’s website contains ARB staff reports (from 2017) outlining preliminary location/siting criteria, design criteria, and design options, for two WCF project applications by Crown Castle and Vinculums/Verizon, found at the following weblinks:  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/61856 (Crown Castle)  https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/57840 (Vinculums) 4 Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Figure 4: Example of Elevation and Visual Simulation for AT&T Wood Utility Pole Deployment with 4G and 5G Equipment (Node 38) Source: AT&T, February 5, 2019. Department Comments Departments provided preliminary comments on the AT&T project plans. Below provides a general summary for further consideration:  Urban Forestry – Urban Forestry (UF) staff requires the submittal of a tree protection report(s) for formal applications that address both pruning of protected trees and any trenching associated with WCF node installation. It is anticipated that protected trees would present constraints on the siting of proposed nodes and should not be overlooked as a siting criteria. Planning is consulting with UF staff regarding nodes with sidewalk and/or roadway trenching in close proximity to street trees and within tree driplines (Node 24, Node 25, Node 28, Node 29, Node 30, Node 32, Node 33, Node 34, Node 36, Node 37, and Node 38). Some nodes will be reviewed for the proximity of fiber and/or power vaults next to tree wells. Planning noted to UF staff that the locations of tree wells do not appear accurate for Node 29 and some WCF nodes are adjacent to locations where street trees are missing and/or possibly reaching the end of their natural lifespan and scheduled for replacement. The applicant has been informed that these locations should be considered in order to appropriately analyze the potential for and the absence of vegetative screening for WCF nodes. 4 Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12  Public Works – Public Works (PW) staff is particularly interested in ensuring that all proposed nodes are in the public ROW and that the nodes avoid any sub-sidewalk basements. For example, there appears to be a sub-sidewalk basement near Node 27. In the future, PW staff (not the Building Division staff) would review plans for any ADA- related obstruction, grading and soil replacement, traffic logistics plans, and locations/constraints associated with trenching and vaulting for fiber and power connections. Fiber and power connection vaults should take into account building emergency exiting for adjacent buildings so that access is not impeded during maintenance events. Decorative paving is noted for some WCF nodes, including Node 24 and Node 36. Planning staff provided the applicant with the adopted Public Works Special Street Lighting Style Placement Guide (Guide). The Guide is the basis for identifying the WCF nodes that would need to employ a decorative street light (currently, WCF nodes in the Downtown on and between Lytton Avenue and Channing Avenue, and the WCF node on El Camino Real (Figure 5)). Note that this Guide is important to implementation of the Downtown Design Guidelines and South El Camino Design Guidelines. Figure 5: Decorative Roadway and Pedestrian Streetlights for El Camino Real and Downtown. Source: Public Works Special Street Lighting Style Placement Guide, Adopted June 4, 2015.  Transportation - Transportation staff indicated the need for high sensitivity to pedestrian and bicycle traffic at all proposed WCF node locations. This is a cohesive streetscape design and aesthetics topic, as well as a safety topic. Ground mounted cabinets and some side-mounted equipment designs present possible physical and visual obstructions, as well as pedestrian congestion points on existing sidewalks and inadequate vehicle door clearance. Equipment should remain clear of street and driveway sight lines per PAMC 18.54.050(b). Transportation staff previously indicated that further ground mounted cabinets in commercial areas, mixed use areas, and the South of Forest Area would present consistency difficulty relative to Comprehensive Plan policies and the Bicycle and Pedestrian plan. The AT&T team responded by 4 Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 adjusting previously proposed WCF node designs for streetlights to the currently proposed top-mounted 4G and side mounted 5G configurations. For all WCF nodes, at least 1.5-feet horizontal clearance must be provided between the base of any replacement streetlight and the adjacent face of curb or edge of traveled way for any public roadway, driveway, or alley. Unless 16-feet of vertical clearance is provided between equipment and the top of adjacent travel way, at least 1.5-feet horizontal clearance must be provided between any WCF equipment and the adjacent face of curb or edge of traveled way for any public roadway, driveway, or alley and at least a minimum of three foot horizontal clearance distance from corners and driveways. In no circumstance shall less than 10-feet vertical clearance be provided between adjacent sidewalk, path, or walkway grade from the WCF equipment.  Utilities-Electrical – Utilities-Electrical staff would impose a wide variety of siting and attachment requirements. These are based upon technical codes, as well as the MLA requirements. One example requirement from the MLA includes a prohibition of WCF node attachment on traffic signals. Utilities-Electrical is also responsible for reviewing the structural stability of WCF nodes on existing and replacement streetlights and wood utility poles. Utilities-Electrical staff review foundation design, power and fiber connections, power disconnect locations, safety clearances from power and communication lines, and other attachment requirements. Utilities-Electrical coordinates with Public Works regarding the design, operation and maintenance of streetlights and wood utility poles. Planning anticipates some WCF node design changes for the formal application(s) resulting from Utilities-Electrical comments. Electrical and PW Operations indicated that the tapered antenna skirts should not wrap around the light mast arms.  Utilities-Water, Gas, Wastewater - Utilities-Water, Gas, Wastewater staff reviews WCF node design relative to underground work to ensure proper separation and clearances from existing infrastructure and other similar topics. Planning anticipates the formal application(s) will include some WCF trenching changes resulting from Utilities-Water, Gas, Wastewater comments.  Planning – Planning staff previously indicated concerns with WCF nodes relative to: o locations on corners without screening, o the absence of stealth and a cohesive design for the attachments to existing wood utility poles, o the absence of any proposed amenity trees or landscaping for vegetative screening, o the presence of equipment within close view proximity of active living or working spaces, and o the presence of equipment on or above narrow sidewalks. Planning staff transmitted the locations of underground utility districts to the AT&T team, and emphasized the need for compliance with FCC emissions standards, and the 4 Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 14 City’s noise requirements. Among other topics, Planning staff also regularly emphasized the City’s various design guidelines, aesthetics and streetscape policies in the Comprehensive Plan and other plans, and requirements outlined by other departments. Generally, it appears that the wireless industry is moving in a direction to deploy the smallest facilities possible and to also move toward greater stealth and concealment. Deployment does not need to be visually intrusive and Palo Alto has outlined detailed WCF development standards. Planning staff encouraged AT&T to discuss equipment vaulting, equipment integration within a pole structure, and top-mounted equipment in a manner that employs the minimum height necessary. Noise Noise generation and compliance with noise policies and requirements will be evaluated in conjunction with any forthcoming formal Tier 3 application(s). The AT&T team submitted preliminary noise studies for the equipment proposed for the WCF nodes (Attachment C):  The preliminary noise study for the WCF node design for the wood utility pole states that the node would be silent because the equipment is passively cooled.  The preliminary noise study for the WCF node design for the streetlights states that the node would generate noise; the calculated noise level for two Dual 2203 Radios at a distance of 8 feet is 43.3 dBA Leq. Comprehensive Plan Gateways and View Corridors, Downtown Design Guidelines, and the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines  Node 05 is on Arastradero Road and is mapped as within a Major View Corridor on Map L-4 Community Design Features in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Node 05 is near, but just east of Foothill Expressway, which is listed as a Primary Gateway area and Scenic Route area. Node 05 could interfere with views on Arastradero Road.  Node 37 is in University Avenue Primary Gateway area and Scenic Route area as shown on Map L-4 Community Design Features in the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Node 37 could interfere with views on Alma Street, given its prominent location and the desire for an attractive visual terminus in this area.  Multiple WCF nodes are adjacent to the University Avenue Scenic Route area and areas discussed within in the University Avenue Downtown Design Guidelines. As noted below, consistency with the Downtown Design Guidelines would generally involve replacement streetlights, ensuring that the design of the WCF node equipment was compatible with the character of downtown, reviewing to ensure that nearby street trees were protected, healthy and/or replaced if necessary, and looking to see if there were any pedestrian amenities that were called for in the vicinity, and ensuring that the WCF node design did not impede pedestrian activity. The following WCF nodes are located within the following Design Guidelines Districts: o Node 37 is located at an anchor destination identified prominently in the Downtown Design Guidelines regarding Alma Street/University Avenue entry improvements and for Alma Street Boulevard improvements. 4 Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 15 o While not directly located on University Avenue proper, Node 24, Node 25, Node 26, Node 27, Node 28, Node 29, and Node 30 are located within the University Avenue District, which generally extends about 2/3 of a block from University Avenue. Replacement streetlights, street tree replacement or filling in and pedestrian amenities are called for in this District. o Node 28 is also in the Florence Street Secondary District and the location is identified for pedestrian activation and is near a pedestrian alley. o Node 32 and Node 33 are in the Lytton Avenue District. These locations are identified and replacement streetlights and healthy street trees are indicated as key to the design. o Node 26 is also near/on the same block as the Ramona Street Architectural District. Node 26 is within the Civic Cross Axis District, which the Downtown Design Guidelines identify as an area with a street rhythm of good human scale, appealing pedestrian character, and enclosure essential to creating an “outdoor room” on Ramona Street. o Node 31 and Node 36 are in the Hamilton Avenue District. These locations are identified and replacement streetlights, healthy street trees, and pedestrian amenities are key to the design. o Node 34 is in the South of Forest Commercial District and the Emerson Street Secondary District. This location is identified and replacement streetlights, healthy street trees, and improving landscaping are key to the design.  Node 13 is subject to the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The location is identified and replacement streetlights, healthy street trees, and pedestrian amenities are key to the design. Pedestrian Shopping and Ground Floor Combining Districts Given the AT&T’s currently proposed top-mounted design, staff would analyze any formal application(s) to ensure that WCF nodes continue to not block views of ground floor storefront windows, nor impede access to front doors for properties in the P-District and GF-District. Adjacency to Historical Buildings and Districts Several node locations in the plan set are near historical buildings or districts. WCF nodes are proposed within the right of way and are not proposed as attachments to buildings, so HRB review is not required. The ARB may provide feedback on the sensitivity of locations with the character of the adjacent building or district, relative to the Architectural Review findings, development standards, Comprehensive Plan policies, Downtown Design Guidelines, and other policies. The following nodes are of particular interest:  Node 26 (next to non-historic 250 University, a PC) is near but not within the Ramona Street Architectural District,  Node 33 abuts the newer construction and additions at 265 Lytton (the Inventory Category 4 building historically known as the Tinney & Sons Mortuary), and  Node 30 is adjacent to 566 Emerson (historically known as the Peninsula Creamery, Inventory Category 1 and 2 and deemed Eligible for National Register listing). The node 4 Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 16 would bestow visual clutter in the ROW next to a contiguous façade of historic properties on Emerson Street. Economic Development Planning staff notified the downtown banner program staff, jointly managed by the City’s Office of Economic Development and the Palo Alto Downtown Business & Professional Association, about the proposed AT&T WCF nodes. Five (5) of the proposed fifteen (15) streetlight locations currently have banners (Node 25, Node 26, Node 27, Node 30, and Node 33). Banner program staff members are reviewing the proposed locations relative to marketing downtown to see if banners could remain even if WCF nodes were installed and staff will communicate with AT&T regarding safety during periodic replacement of banners. Next Steps The applicant may elect to file formal Tier 3 WCF permit(s), which would then be followed by staff analysis and public hearing(s) before the ARB. Environmental Review The Preliminary Architectural Review discussion involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the CEQA. If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project under CEQA will be performed. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The PAMC does not require any particular form of notice for a Preliminary Architectural Review application. Nonetheless, as a practice, the City publishes notice of the review in a local paper and mails owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Daily Post on February 8, 2019, which is thirteen (13) days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 11, 2019. Public Comments Public correspondence up to February 13, 2019 is included on the project webpage here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4094&TargetID-319. Copies of any additional correspondence received after this date will be provided to the ARB at the hearing. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Rebecca Atkinson, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2596 (650) 329-2575 Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 17 Attachments:  Attachment A: WCF Node Locations and Zoning Maps (PDF)  Attachment B: Applicant Project Description and Key Questions (dated February 1, 2019) (PDF)  Attachment C: Preliminary Project Plans (dated February 1, 2019), Preliminary Noise Studies (dated February 1, 2019), and Preliminary Planned FCC Compliance Reports (dated February 5, 2019) (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 88 U Q uarry R oad Homer Avenue Lane 8 W est M e dic al F o u n d a t i o n Wa y Lane 7 W est Lane 7 East E n cin a A v e n u e El C a m in o R e al U r b a n L a n e W ell s A v e n u e Forest Avenue High Street Emerson Street Channing Ave Alma Street El C a mino Real Mitch ell Lane Hawthorne Avenue Everett Avenue Lytton Avenue Lane 15 E High Street Alma Street Bryant Street Lane 6 E Lane 11 W Lane 21 Gilm an Street Ha milton Avenue Lane 30 Flore nce Street Lane A W est Lane B W est Lane B East Lane D Addison Ave. Downing Lane Lane 39Hamilton Avenue KiplBryant Street Ram ona Street S Ra mona Street Paulsen Ln Lane 15 E Lane 20 W Lane 20 E University Avenue CalTrain RO W E merson Street W averley Street g Street Palo R oad Lane 12 W Lane 5 E Bryant Street E merson St Alma Street ter Street Forest Avenue University Avenue Palo Alto Avenue Addison Avenue Ho mer Ave Homer Avenue SJWE_024 SJWE_025 SJWE_026 SJWE_027 SJWE_028 SJWE_029 SJWE_030 SJWE_031 SJWE_032 SJWE_033 SJWE_034 SJWE_036 SJWE_037 SJWE_036 SJWE_038 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Proposed Sites for 17PLN-00398 Wireless Application 0'450' 17 P L N - 0 0 3 9 8 Lo c a t i o n A r e a M a p 1 o f 2 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2019-02-13 17:02:31 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 4.a Packet Pg. 89 SJWE_005 SJWE_013 Arastradero Wallis Ct Donald Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way D ri s c o ll C t ngArthur' Maybell Way Mayb Frandon Ct Ki sCourt Terman Drive Coulombe DriveCherry Oaks Place Pomona Avenue Arastradero Rd Glenbrook D Fairmede Avenue L o s P a l o s C irLosPalosPlace L o s P a l o s A v e S u z a n n e D ri v e n n e D r i v e rive S u z a n n e C tLorab M onroe Dinah's C e s a n o C t M onro sby Pl Hubbartt Drive D r iv e ald Dr G l e n b r o o k D riv e Willmar Drive This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Proposed Sites for 17PLN-00398 Wireless Application 0' 500' 17 P L N - 0 0 3 9 8 Lo c a t i o n A r e a M a p 2 o f 2 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2019-02-13 16:21:42 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 4.a Packet Pg. 90 Quarry Road ad E n cin a A v e U r b a n L a n e W e ll s A v e E merson Street Alma Street El C a min o R Mitchell Lane High Street Gilman Street University Ave Florence St Tasso St Ruthven Ave Hawthorne Ave Everett Ave Poe St Lytton Ave E m b a r c a d e r o R d Forest Ave Homer Ave Hamilton Ave W averley Street Kipling Street Bryant Street Ramona Street Scott Street By ron St Fulton Street Addison Ave Lincoln Ave Boyce Ave da Street Middlefield Road Channing Ave Kingsley Ave CalTrain R O W Kipling St Orchard Ln ane Palm Drive Palo Road Shopping Ctr W ay Shopping Ctr Way Shopping Ctr W ay London Plane Way S w ee t Olive W ay Pear Lane alvez St Arboretum Rd aus en St Pistache Place 40'7406 E l C a m U niversity PC-1992 CS CC R-2 R-2 RM-15 R-2 R-2 R-2 R-1(10000) PF PC-2967PC- 3266 PF RM-15 HD CN R-1 PC- 4182 PC-3707 PC-4283 PF RT-35 PC- 4389 CS CS PC-4465 CS CD-C (P)R-1(10000) RM-30 AMF (MUO) DHS R-2 CD-S(P)AMF PC-4612 PF CC CC RM-30 PFPF RM-30 PC-4063 PC-3872 PF PF PC-2130 PFCD-C (P) PC-4374 PF PF PF CD-C (P) CD-C (P) CD-N (P) PF PC-3111 PC-3007 PC-3974 PF PF PC-4262 PC-4243 PC-4195 RM-15 RMD(NP) RM- 40 PC-3429 CD-N (P) CD-C(GF)(P) RM-40 CD-C (P) CD-C (P) PFAMF DHS DHS PF PC-4611 CC(L) PC-4053 RMD (NP) RMD(NP) RM-30 PF PC-2049 PC-3102 R-2 RM-15 R-1 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 RM-30 PF PC-4052PF PC- 2545 RM-40 PC-2145 RM-30 PC-2968 PC-3995 PC-3753 PC-4782 CS RT-50 CD-S(P) RT-50 RT-35 RT-35 R-2 RT-50 RT-50 PC-4779 RM-30 CD-C (P) PC-2649 PC-4296 RM-15 PC-4173 PC-4436 PC- 3437 RM-15 PC-8659 PC- 2836 PC-2152 PF RM-15 RM-30 R-2 RM-30 R-2 R-2 CD-C(GF)(P) PC-4973 R-2PC-5158 CD-C (P)CD-C(GF)(P) CD-S(GF)(P) D) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Proposed Sites for 17PLN-00398 Wireless Application abc Zone District Labels Zone Districts 0'800' 17 P L N - 0 0 3 9 8 Lo c a t i o n a n d Z o n i n g Ar e a M a p 1 o f 2 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2019-02-11 12:56:57 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 4.a Packet Pg. 91 Cere Los R Georgia Ave Ynigo Way Maybell Way Maybell Ave Frandon Ct Florales D Georgia Ave Amaranta Ave T er m a n Dr Baker Ave Ct Coulombe Dr Cherry Oaks Pl Pomona Ave Arastradero Road Abel Ave Cle mo Ave Fairmede Ave Irve Alta Mesa Ave Kelly W a y L o s P a lo s A v e S u z a n n e D r E l C a m in o R e a l M c K ell a r L a n e Monroe DrDinah's Ct C esano Ct Monroe Dr Miller Ave Manuela Court Mesa Ave Oak Hill Ave Manuela Ave Ilima Way Il Paradise Way Laguna Way La Para Timl Manzana Ln Hubbartt Dr Willmar Dr Donald Dr M ir a n d a A v e n u e Orme St y S Silva Miller Ct Arroyo Court C errito W ayEl C errito R d Ri n con Ci r Glenbrook Dr S u z a n n e D r M e s a C t M ir anda Gr een ArastraderoPF R-2 PC-2666 PC-2666 R-1(10000) RP RE RM-40 R-1(20000) RE RM-30 R-1(10000) R-1 PC-2656 R-2 PC-2218 PF RM-15 PF PF R M -3 0 CS(H) RM-40 RM-30CS CS(L) PC-4448R-1 PC-3036 CS CS RM-30 R-1 CS RM-15 CS(H) R-1(10000) RM-15 R-1(8000) PF (AD) RM-15 CS(L)(D) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Proposed Sites for 17PLN-00398 Wireless Application abc Zone District Labels Zone Districts 0'800' 17 P L N - 0 0 3 9 8 Lo c a t i o n a n d Z o n i n g Ar e a M a p 2 o f 2 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto RRivera, 2019-02-11 12:51:36 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\RRivera.mdb) 4.a Packet Pg. 92 Page | 1 Project Description – AT&T Small Cell Wireless Project City of Palo Alto, CA Updated January 31, 2019 Project Overview AT&T Wireless is seeking a Preliminary Review from the Architectural Review Board for the design of proposed small cell attachments on seventeen (17) poles, including 16 street light poles and 1 wood utility pole, which are owned and operated by the City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU). AT&T has entered into a Master License Agreement (“MLA”) with the City of Palo Alto allowing the attachment of antennas and other equipment (“small cells”) on city owned infrastructure in the right-of-way (ROW). See informational website here: https://engage.att.com/paloalto/ Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, AT&T’s Radio Frequency (RF) engineers have identified locations throughout the city that require service. Seventeen (17) total such wireless communication facility (“WCF”) installations are currently planned to be located, including on one (1) existing wood utility pole, and on sixteen (16) existing city streetlights. These small cells will provide the City of Palo Alto much needed improvements in network capacity and coverage. A list of the proposed sites is presented as Attachment A – List of Proposed Sites. The list includes the adjacent Zoning, APN, Neighborhood Designation, and Configuration for each proposed site. An overall map of all the sites and zoomed in map of the proposed downtown sites are presented in Attachment B –Map of Proposed Sites. We are currently proposing three (3) sites that are located on corners of intersections. Per the Planning Considerations included in the Siting Guidelines (Attachment I), poles on the corner of an intersection are not ideally located. Therefore, we have selected three alternate poles to be considered, as presented in Attachment C – List and Map of Alternate Poles. Small Cell Node Design Options AT&T has engineered these small cells utilizing the most streamlined equipment available to meet the capacity and coverage requirements. We are proposing three Configurations, including 4G only, 4G plus 5G, and 4G plus 5G (wood pole). For each 4G only small cell, AT&T network engineering requires one (1) antenna, four (4) radios, one (1) emergency disconnect box, and associated conduit for fiber and electrical cabling. For the 4G plus 5G sites, the equipment is proposed to be the same as the 4G only configuration, with the addition of 5G equipment as discussed below. For the sixteen (16) light poles proposed, there are multiple options for proposed 4G equipment concealment design. However, due to site-specific constraints and to provide aesthetic consistency, we are proposing the Pole-Top Concealment Design for all street light poles. Details of the 4G only and 4G plus 5G design options are presented here for consideration and feedback by the Architectural Review Board as Attachment D1 – Primary Design Options. The primary design option for the one (1) wood pole is also detailed here. 4.b Packet Pg. 93 Page | 2 Presented in Attachment D2 – Alternate Primary Design Options are other concealment options that can also be considered for street light poles and the wood pole. The Alternate Primary Design Options for the 4G design include the following: •Side Arm Concealment •Holster Concealment There is also one Alternate Primary Design Option for the wood pole, presented in Attachment D2, which includes a back-to-back radio shroud design. This radio shroud is smaller than the “stacked” radio design option presented as the Primary Design Option for this site. Other alternate 4G design options that meet AT&T criteria, but will not meet City of Palo Alto design criteria, include the following, presented for ARB consideration as Attachment D3 – Secondary 4G Design Options for Street Light Poles: •Traditional pole-mounting of equipment (requires radios to be mounted to face of pole) •Pedestal wrap design (does not meet City code for bicycle and pedestrian access) •BigBelly/SmartBelly Trash Compactor (does not meet City code for bicycle and pedestrian access) •Art-wrapped utility box (does not meet City code for bicycle and pedestrian access) Equipment details of the primary designs for both the 4G and 5G street light and wood pole candidates are presented in Attachment E – Configuration Equipment Details, including spec sheets for the antennas, radios, and emergency disconnect switch proposed. We have also provided for ARB consideration Attachment F - Undergrounding/Vaulting Study, which explores the various reasons why undergrounding cannot be considered as a design option for AT&T’s small cell equipment, including safety reasons, noise generation, and aesthetics. We have proposed several design options for street light poles within this document that will avoid mounting equipment to the face of the pole, which meets the goal of the undergrounding preference – it conceals the equipment out of sight. A complete analysis of each site is presented in Attachment G – Site-Specific Opportunities and Constraints. This Attachment provides an analysis of the various design options available while applying site-specific constraints, such as proximity to street trees, proximity to retail shop windows, and proximity to existing curb cuts and hand holes, among other constraints. Community Need for Small Cells Small cell technology is critical to providing reliable wireless coverage in high-density areas. Nearly all Californians (92%) have a cell phone, and AT&T has experienced an increase in data traffic of over 150,000% from January 2007 to December 2015. Small cell technology can densify the network to meet customer demand while being far less obtrusive and more aesthetically appealing than traditional “macro” cells. The unprecedented current and future demand for wireless service requires the densification of existing cellular networks. As a result, wireless communication facilities are diminishing in height and being located closer to the user to meet both daily needs as well as provide essential coverage for emergency personnel. While terrain is relatively flat, the dense foliage of the tree canopy combined with difficulty in permitting macro wireless communication facilities presents unique challenges in the provision of 4.b Packet Pg. 94 Page | 3 coverage to the City of Palo Alto. AT&T must increase both coverage and capacity throughout the city to meet current and future customer demand. Attachment H – Coverage Maps contains coverage maps that depict this need for coverage in the city. As the map demonstrates, there are significant gaps in the coverage area where AT&T has proposed the seventeen (17) proposed small cells. Small cell technology is the least visually intrusive way to provide the City of Palo Alto with the required wireless network capacity and coverage. The miniaturization of the equipment used for cellular communications allows for these small cells to be located on existing infrastructure, reducing the need for new macro WCF structures and minimizing visual impact to the surrounding community. Additionally, this equipment is able to be located in areas where traditional “macro” wireless communication facilities cannot be located, so that essential communication services can be provided to critical areas, all while installed on existing infrastructure. Furthermore, the addition of these small cells will both meet the current coverage and capacity needs, as well as provide the road map to future technologies for the next generation of wireless capability to the community in Palo Alto. Introducing 5G to Palo Alto 5G brings three new aspects to the table: greater speed (to move more data), lower latency (to be more responsive), and the ability to connect a lot more devices at once (for sensors and smart devices). As 5G devices begin to be widely available on the market, devices in the US will initially need 4G capacity and coverage to make initial connections before trading up to 5G where it's available. Like other cellular networks, 5G networks use a system of cell sites that divide their territory into sectors and send encoded data through radio waves. Each cell site must be connected to a network backbone, whether through a wired or wireless backhaul connection. 5G networks need to be much smarter than previous systems, and will be able to boost capacity about four times over current systems by leveraging wider bandwidths and advanced antenna technologies. Siting Guidelines Small cells differ from traditional “macro” cells in that their miniature quality dictates that they cover only a very small area and therefore can only move a short distance (measured in feet) within an identified area of need. Each pole is linked to each other and to the network. The poles can’t be too far away from each other, or they lose coverage. The poles also can’t be too close together, or it creates interference. In selecting a specific pole to serve an area, AT&T performs a thorough analysis of the network and existing infrastructure, utilizing the Siting Guidelines from Attachment I – Siting Guidelines to determine the most appropriate location. In siting small cells, AT&T is required to adhere to the standards of the California Public Utilities Commission (General Order 95 Requirements, Rule 94); the engineering and real estate requirements of property owner City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU); Development Standards for wireless communication facility (WCF) locations from PAMC §18.42.110(i); and the Architectural Review Findings of PAMC §18.76.020. Criteria have been further adjusted as city staff from Planning, CPAU, and the Legal Department have all made time to attend meetings with AT&T teams in their siting efforts. Additionally, previous small cell installation applications to the City of Palo Alto were analyzed to take into account poles that have already been selected by other carriers. AT&T does not want to site equipment on a pole that another carrier has already chosen. 4.b Packet Pg. 95 Page | 4 Pole Selection / Alternative Site Analysis Based on the need to provide network coverage and capacity, AT&T Radio Frequency (RF) engineers identified locations or “nodes” throughout the city to improve and optimize network performance. Each proposed node is then visited by a team to identify existing city-owned structures available for colocation within the proposed coverage area. During the selection process, City of Palo Alto Planning and Utilities Engineering criteria and constraints are applied, as well as AT&T criteria and constraints, to determine the most suitable pole, subsequently identified as the “primary” location. Additional poles within the coverage area are either designated as viable alternatives or eliminated for the various reasons outlined in the guidelines. These criteria have been compiled into the Small Cell Siting Guidelines previously mentioned and contained in Attachment I – Siting Guidelines. Beyond the City’s Planning and Engineering Criteria, pole selection is based on a thoughtful consideration of the surrounding environment in which the proposed small cell is located. Poles with existing favorable site features such as landscaping and tree foliage are prioritized to provide natural screening to reduce the visual impact of small cell attachments. Poles are selected to reduce the impact on views from streets as well as adjacent residences. Site selection was further constrained to avoid poles located in private residential easements (e.g. backyards) and close proximity to second story windows. Because small cells have less flexibility in where they can be located, they can only be moved a short distance while maintaining the required performance. In Attachment J – Alternative Siting Analysis, AT&T has prepared three (3) examples for the Architectural Review Board to demonstrate some of the opportunities and constraints that determine which pole has been selected for a particular small cell location. For each node a map of poles considered has been provided, along with a detailed table outlining the reasons why the alternate poles were not feasible. As those alternative site analyses demonstrate, many seemingly suitable poles must be eliminated for engineering, code compliance, safety, or other reasons. Quite often, as these three (3) examples demonstrate, there is only one suitable pole for a small cell within a designated coverage area. The final list of primary candidates is presented in Attachment A – List of Proposed Sites, and a map of the locations of the final primary candidates is presented in Attachment B – Map of Proposed Sites. A list of questions for the ARB at the Preliminary Hearing include the following: 1. Which street light pole design option, as presented in Attachment D, is preferable? 2. Which wood pole radio shroud, as presented in Attachment D, is preferable? 3. Would the ARB prefer a uniform design for all sites, or are there certain site-specific criteria we should be considering for choosing the design for each site, utilizing all three primary design options? 4. We have included Alternate Site Locations for the three (3) proposed poles located on street corners in Attachment C, due to the Planning Guidelines. Please advise if it is important to the Board to relocate away from street corners. 5. There was a comment about how the shroud skirt fits over the mast arm. We can tailor the skirt in the field to go around the mast arm or end the skirt before it hits the mast arm. Do you have a preference? 4.b Packet Pg. 96 Page | A-1 ATTACHMENT A – LIST OF PROPOSED SITES Site ID Configuration Adjacent Address Pole ID Adjacent APN Adjacent Zone Neighborhood SJWE0_005 4G only 695 Arastradero Rd 71 167-03-019 OS (Park) Adjacent to Greater Miranda SJWE0_013 4G only 4345 El Camino Real 457 148-09-011 CS Monroe Park SJWE0_024 4G plus 5G 135 University Ave 46 120-26-037 CD-C (GF)(P) Downtown North SJWE0_025 4G plus 5G 200 University Ave 51 120-26-099 PF University South SJWE0_026 4G plus 5G 250 University Ave 51 120-26-103 PC-3872 University South SJWE0_027 4G plus 5G 300 University Ave 51 120-15-057 CD-C (GF)(P) University South SJWE0_028 4G plus 5G 431 Florence St 43 120-15-046 CD-C (P) Downtown North SJWE0_029 4G plus 5G 383 University Ave 44 120-15-041 CD-C (GF)(P) Downtown North SJWE0_030 4G plus 5G 552 Emerson St 54 120-26-084 CD-C (GF)(P) University South SJWE0_031 4G plus 5G 550 High St 54 120-26-111 CD-C (GF)(P) University South SJWE0_032 4G plus 5G 131 Lytton Ave 13 120-25-109 CD-C (P) Downtown North SJWE0_033 4G plus 5G 251 Lytton Ave 25 120-74-002 CD-C (P) Downtown North SJWE0_034 4G plus 5G 203 Forest Ave 21 120-27-018 CD-C (GF)(P) University South SJWE0_035 4G only 301 High St 31 120-25-062 CD-N (P) Downtown North SJWE0_036 4G plus 5G 325 Hamilton Ave 33 120-15-102 PF University South SJWE0_037 4G plus 5G 500 Alma St 49 120-32-015 PF Adjacent to Town & Country SJWE0_038 4G plus 5G (wood pole) 75 Encina Ave 7406 120-33-003 CS Adjacent to Town & Country At t a c h m e n t A 4.b Packet Pg. 97 Page | B-1 ATTACHMENT B – MAP OF PROPOSED SITES At t a c h m e n t B 4.b Packet Pg. 98 Page | C-1 ATTACHMENT C – LIST AND MAP OF ALTERNATE SITES CRAN Node Adjacent Address Pole ID Adjacent APN Adjacent Zone Neighborhood Corner pole Alternate 033 430 Bryant St No Tag 120-26-095 PF Downtown North Corner pole Alternate 034 227 Forest Ave 22 120-27-017 CD-C (P) University South Corner pole Alternate 035 163 Everett Ave No Tag 120-25-042 CD-N (P) Downtown North At t a c h m e n t C 4.b Packet Pg. 99 Page | D1-1 ATTACHMENT D1 – PRIMARY DESIGN OPTIONS 4G PRIMARY EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE DESIGN – STREET LIGHT POLES Pole-Top Concealment This design option encloses all of the necessary equipment on top of the pole in a single, cylindrical shroud. This option has been chosen to be the primary design option on all sites, where all other concealment designs are not an option due to various site-specific constraints, such as • Proximity to trees • Proximity to a retail shop window • Ground-mounted equipment would result in less than the required sidewalk width for ADA access • Proximity to hand holes • Proximity to curb cuts • Other site-specific constraints This design allows for the pole to have a continuous aesthetic look. The shroud and venting screens can be painted to match the color of the pole. See photo simulation below. At t a c h m e n t D -1 4.b Packet Pg. 100 Page | D1-2 At t a c h m e n t D -1 4.b Packet Pg. 101 Page | D1-3 5G PRIMARY EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE DESIGN – STREET LIGHT POLES This design option is proposed to be installed just below the 4G equipment at the top of the pole, below the mast arm. This design provides all the benefits of the 4G primary design solution regarding site- specific constraints, and also provides additional signal capacity and coverage. The miniaturized 5G radios and antennas fit within the shroud, which is about 20.5” H x 22” W x 10” D. The shroud can be painted to match the color of the pole. See photo simulation below. At t a c h m e n t D -1 4.b Packet Pg. 102 Page | D1-4 At t a c h m e n t D -1 4.b Packet Pg. 103 Page | D1-5 PRIMARY EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE DESIGN – WOOD UTILITY POLE Pole-Top Antenna with Micro Radio Concealment For wood utility poles in general, a pole-top extension is required to meet safety regulations and G.O. 95 separation distances. The 4G antenna will be installed inside a shroud atop a pole extension for the one (1) wood pole site we are proposing with this application. The 5G antenna will be side-mounted above the comm lines. See photo simulation below. At t a c h m e n t D -1 4.b Packet Pg. 104 Page | D1-6 The wood pole radios will be concealed in an Ericsson Macro Shroud, mounted to the face of the pole. See alternate design for the wood pole in the next section. At t a c h m e n t D -1 4.b Packet Pg. 105 Page | D2-1 ATTACHMENT D2 – ALTERNATE PRIMARY DESIGN OPTIONS ALTERNATE 4G EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE DESIGN – Side Arm Concealment This design is an alternate solution for any street light pole. The side-arm concealment design option is for radio concealment only. The enclosure does not contain space for the antenna. The antenna will be mounted separately to the top of the pole. At t a c h m e n t D -2 4.b Packet Pg. 106 Page | D2-2 ALTERNATE 4G EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE TYPE – Holster Concealment (Pole-mounted) This design is an alternate solution for any street light pole. See specifications below. The radios will be installed in the arm and the antenna is installed at the end of the arm. At t a c h m e n t D -2 4.b Packet Pg. 107 Page | D2-3 ALTERNATE WOOD POLE RADIO EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE TYPE This design is an alternate solution to the Micro Radio Shroud presented as the Primary Design for the one (1) wood pole proposed. While the “stacked” Micro Shroud solution is long and shallow in size at 53” H x 23” W x 16” D, the alternate “back-to-back” CommScope RRH Wood Pole Shroud is shorter and deeper at 28” H x 27.5” W x 26” D, which means it sticks out from the pole 10” more than the Micro Shroud, but is 25” shorter in height. See below specification. At t a c h m e n t D -2 4.b Packet Pg. 108 Page | D3-1 ATTACHMENT D3 – SECONDARY 4G DESIGN OPTIONS FOR STREET LIGHTS SECONDARY 4G EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE TYPE – Traditional Concealment (Pole-mounted) The traditional concealment design utilizes an antenna mounted to the top of the pole and the radios within the sun shield as described below. This option does not meet the City of Palo Alto’s Utilities Engineering, ARB, and City Council preference that, with the exception of the emergency disconnect switch, equipment should not be mounted to the face of the pole. Att a c h m e n t D -3 4.b Packet Pg. 109 Page | D3-2 SECONDARY 4G EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE TYPE – Pedestal Base Wrap Cabinet (Ground-mounted) This option wraps around the base of the pole and houses the radio units and emergency shut off. The dimensions are 32” wide x 32” deep x 52” tall. This option does not meet City of Palo Alto’s Comprehensive Plan Update (Our Palo Alto 2030) Policy T- 1.19, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.54.050(b), and Transportation Department policy, where ground-mounted equipment would block access and accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrians. At t a c h m e n t D -3 4.b Packet Pg. 110 Page | D3-3 At t a c h m e n t D -3 4.b Packet Pg. 111 Page | D3-4 SECONDARY 4G EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE TYPE – Art Wrapped Utility Box (Ground-mounted) The art-wrapped utility box is another enclosure type option for street light poles in the City of Palo Alto. The utility box also has a smaller footprint than the Big Belly/Smart Belly trash compactor/equipment enclosure option described below, but has the same difficulty meeting the City of Palo Alto’s policy as the previously discussed Pedestal Wrap design, specifically the Comprehensive Plan Update (Our Palo Alto 2030) Policy T-1.19, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.54.050(b), and Transportation Department policy, where ground-mounted equipment would block access and accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrians. The dimensions of the utility box are 30” wide x 30” deep x 54” tall. The art wraps can be commissioned from local artists and converted into vinyl wrap or ordered from websites such as https://scswraps.com/wrap-work/utility-box-wraps/. See examples of art wrapped utility boxes below. At t a c h m e n t D -3 4.b Packet Pg. 112 Page | D3-5 SECONDARY 4G EQUIPMENT ENCLOSURE TYPE – Big Belly / Smart Belly Trash Compactor (Ground-mounted) The Big Belly/ Smart Belly solution is a dual enclosure (double station) that has the equipment enclosure in one box (station) and a working trash compactor in the other station. The trash compactor runs on solar power, is connected to the internet, and will send the responsible agency an email and/or text message when the compactor is full and needs emptying. The double station is 50.6” wide x 26.8” deep and 49.8” tall. This design option also does not meet the City of Palo Alto’s policy, specifically the Comprehensive Plan Update (Our Palo Alto 2030) Policy T-1.19, Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.54.050(b), and Transportation Department policy, where ground-mounted equipment would block access and accessibility for bicyclists and pedestrians. At t a c h m e n t D -3 4.b Packet Pg. 113 Page | E-1 ATTACHMENT E – CONFIGURATION EQUIPMENT DETAILS FOR PRIMARY DESIGN OPTIONS 4G only - Street Light Pole Equipment (Configuration #1) Below are the specifications and details for the antenna, radios, and emergency shutoff switch to be installed at each street light pole site. Antenna – DKK DKOBDYKDP-7R45F At t a c h m e n t E 4.b Packet Pg. 114 Page | E-2 Radios – RRUS 2203/2205 At t a c h m e n t E 4.b Packet Pg. 115 Page | E-3 Emergency Disconnect – Eaton DG221URB At t a c h m e n t E 4.b Packet Pg. 116 Page | E-4 4G plus 5G Street Light Pole Equipment (Configuration #2) The 4G plus 5G street light pole equipment configuration includes all of the 4G equipment as noted above, plus the 5G equipment. Below are the specifications and details for the 5G equipment. 5G Antenna and Radio Unit – Samsung 39GHz 5G NR Pico At t a c h m e n t E 4.b Packet Pg. 117 Page | E-5 Wood Utility Pole Equipment (Configuration #3) Below are the specifications and details for the antenna, radios, and emergency shutoff switch to be installed at the wood utility pole site. Antenna – DKK Model DKOBDYKDP-7R45F At t a c h m e n t E 4.b Packet Pg. 118 Page | E-6 Radios – RRUS 32 The Eaton emergency disconnect box and 5G equipment as shown above will also be used for this configuration. At t a c h m e n t E 4.b Packet Pg. 119 Page | F-1 ATTACHMENT F – UNDERGROUNDING / VAULTING STUDY Due to various constraints, including safety, noise generation, and aesthetics, AT&T will not be proposing to underground/vault our proposed small cell equipment. Instead, we are proposing the pole- top design option as detailed above to meet the Utilities Engineering criteria that no equipment is allowed to be installed on the face of the pole. Per Product Descriptions for Radio 2203 and Radio 2205 presented in Attachment E, please refer respectively to sections 3.1.1 and 3.1.2 below. Though Vault locations are not specifically mentioned, it is recommended to avoid installing the Radio 2203 or 2205 in heat traps or microclimate locations where adequate air ventilation may not exist. If the Vault location follows this description, it should be avoided. 3.1.1 Indoor Locations to Avoid Although the unit is designed for outdoor use, it can be used indoors. For indoor locations Ericsson recommends to operate according to ETSI EN 300 19-1-3 class 3.1, 3.2, 3.3, and 3.6. This does not cover installation with heat traps or installation in lofts, where air ventilation does not exist. To ensure smooth performance, avoid installing the unit in a potential microclimate location, for example, places with unventilated lofts, with heat traps, or where the product is exposed to direct sunlight through windows. Avoid installing the equipment under glass covers or skylight windows without proper ventilation. 3.1.2 Outdoor Locations to Avoid Although Ericsson declares this product suitable for outdoor environments, avoid installing the unit in a potential microclimate location. Typical examples of microclimate locations are sites where the product is not only exposed to the actual surrounding temperature, but additional temperature as heat coming from dark colored planes, for example, reflections from the floor or walls. The additional temperature can generate heat traps with temperatures up to 10°C higher than expected. Avoid installing equipment in the following locations: • Near the exhaust of building ventilation systems • Near the exhaust of chimneys • Opposite large surfaces made of glass or new concrete Safety Concerns Note as well that these products are only rated IP 65 which is Dust Tight, Water Jet protected in the attached Product Data sheets. More information is available here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IP_Code As the product(s) requires cooling by convection air flow and are only rated for Water Jet protection (IP 65), the recommendation that it is NOT installed in Vaults (heat traps or micro-climate zones) where air flow may be restricted or the product could be subject to water immersion/flooding. At t a c h m e n t F 4.b Packet Pg. 120 Page | G-1 ATTACHMENT G – SITE-SPECIFIC OPPORTUNITIES AND CONSTRAINTS Site SJWE 005 – 695 Arastradero Rd (Park) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 2: N/A Site-Specific Constraints: - Utility box can’t block sidewalk - Sidewalk too narrow for pedestal wrap At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 121 Page | G-2 Site SJWE 013 – 4345 El Camino Real (Commercial) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: Replace existing trash can with Big Belly/ Smart Belly Site-Specific Constraints: - Will require separate Encroachment Permit with CalTrans if trenching in the street for connection to power, CalTrans Encroachment Permit info: http://www.dot.ca.gov/trafficops/ep/index.html At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 122 Page | G-3 Site SJWE 024 – 135 University Avenue (Retail) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 2: N/A Site-Specific Constraints: - 10’ to street trees - Utility box can’t block retail window - Sidewalk too narrow for pedestal wrap At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 123 Page | G-4 Site SJWE 025 – 200 University Ave (Public Use) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: Pedestal wrap Site-Specific Constraints: - 10’ to street trees prohibits the BigBelly and utility box At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 124 Page | G-5 Site SJWE 026 – 250 University Ave (Retail) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: Pedestal wrap Site-Specific Constraints: - No obstructions in front of retail windows - 10’ to street trees At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 125 Page | G-6 Site SJWE 027 – 300 University Ave (Retail) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: Pedestal wrap Site-Specific Constraints: - No obstructions in front of retail window - 10’ from street trees prohibits BigBelly and utility box At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 126 Page | G-7 Site SJWE 028 – 431 Florence St (Office/Retail) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: N/A Site-Specific Constraints: - No obstructions in front of retail window - 10’ from street trees prohibits BigBelly and utility box - Pole is located too close to the street tree planter and hand holes for the pedestal wrap At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 127 Page | G-8 Site SJWE 029 – 383 University Ave (Retail) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: N/A Site-Specific Constraints: - 10’ from street trees prohibits BigBelly and utility box - Pole is located too close to a hand hole for a pedestal wrap At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 128 Page | G-9 Site SJWE 030 – 552 Emerson Street (Retail) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: N/A Site-Specific Constraints: - No obstructions in front of retail window - 10’ from street trees - Pole is located too close to a hand hole for a pedestal wrap At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 129 Page | G-10 Site SJWE 031 – 550 High Street (Office) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: Utility box Site-Specific Constraints: - 10’ from street trees - 30” to driveway curb cut prohibits Big Belly - Too close to a hand hole for the pedestal wrap At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 130 Page | G-11 Site SJWE 032 – 131 Lytton Ave (Retail) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: N/A Site-Specific Constraints: - No obstructions in front of retail window - 10’ from street trees prohibits BigBelly and utility box - Too close to a hand hold for the pedestal wrap At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 131 Page | G-12 Site SJWE 033 – 251 Lytton Ave (Office) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: Utility box Site-Specific Constraints: - 10’ from street trees prohibits BigBelly - Too close to pedestrian ramp for pedestal wrap At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 132 Page | G-13 Site SJWE 034 – 203 Forest Ave (Office) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: Pedestal wrap Site-Specific Constraints: - Proximity to pedestrian ramp - Proximity to fire hydrant At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 133 Page | G-14 Site SJWE 035 – 301 High Street (Office) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: Pedestal wrap Site-Specific Constraints: - 10’ from street trees - Proximity to pedestrian ramp - Proximity to landscape planter At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 134 Page | G-15 Site SJWE 036 – 325 Hamilton Ave (Office) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: Pedestal wrap Site-Specific Constraints: - 10’ to street trees At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 135 Page | G-16 Site SJWE 037 – 500 Alma (Public Use) Design Options: Alt 1: Pole-top Concealment – radios and antenna above the pole Alt 2: Sidearm or Holster Concealment Alt 3: Utility box Site-Specific Constraints: - Narrow sidewalk prohibits pedestal wrap and BigBelly - 10’ from street trees At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 136 Page | G-17 Site SJWE 038 – 75 Encina Ave (Commercial) Design: Alt 1 – Pole mounted Alt 2 – N/A Site-Specific Constraints: - Narrow sidewalk prohibits all ground-mounted equipment options - Undergrounding districts http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/12029/ - This site is not included in any proposed undergrounding district At t a c h m e n t G 4.b Packet Pg. 137 Page | H-1 ATTACHMENT H – COVERAGE MAPS Site SJWE 013 – Existing Coverage Site SJWE 013 – Projected Coverage At t a c h m e n t H 4.b Packet Pg. 138 Page | H-2 Sites SJWE 024 thru SJWE 037 – Existing Coverage Sites SJWE 024 thru SJWE 037 – Projected Coverage At t a c h m e n t H 4.b Packet Pg. 139 Page | H-3 Site SJWE 038 – Existing Coverage Site SJWE 038 – Projected Coverage At t a c h m e n t H 4.b Packet Pg. 140 Page | I-1 ATTACHMENT I – SMALL CELL SITING GUIDELINES AT&T Engineering Criteria Nature of Small Cells--small cells differ from traditional “macro” cells in that their miniature quality dictates that they can only move a very small distance (measured in feet) and still serve their intended purpose. AT&T’s proposed locations are fielded using the criteria below to select a utility pole or streetlight from existing city infrastructure: 1. No decorative poles in the locations shown on the Special Street Lighting Style Placement Guide. 2. No poles that are directly adjacent to 2nd story windows for emissions and aesthetic purposes. 3. No poles with equipment from other carriers proposed or already installed. Small cell equipment is not co-locatable with equipment from other carriers. 4. Prioritize poles that are as near to AT&T fiber as possible. 5. Candidates must be in the right-of-way. Planning and Residential Considerations • Prioritize poles which have tree foliage close to help camouflage the pole mounted equipment • Prioritize poles that are located near evergreen trees, rather than deciduous trees • Face the pole-mounted equipment away from direct views of the adjacent home, toward the street when no foliage is present to hide the equipment • Consolidate equipment to reduce the visual clutter • In general, prefer locations mid-block instead of at more visible corners/intersections • Determine the most advantageous height that is least disruptive to views from both pedestrian and the adjacent residences City of Palo Alto Utility (Pole Owner) Pole Attachment Mandates - All Attachments must meet California Public Utilities General Order 95 o Climbing space o Clearances between power and/or other attachments o Required distances for separation between pole and equipment o Required distances for separation between equipment - City of Palo Alto Utilities (CPAU) prioritizes the provision of service to its customers. The siting of attachments on poles is secondary and therefore: o No attachments allowed on poles with primary power risers o No attachments allowed on poles with transformers or other special equipment o Primary Line and Buck (primary power lines attaching to the pole at 90 degrees or in perpendicular fashion) situations have a modified climbing space requirement, requiring more pole real estate than otherwise required under State Public Utility Code o Various other situations where the provision of electrical service would be compromised by attachment City of Palo Alto Utility Preferences (in order of importance) 1. Guy stubs - Poles that do not have any electrical or communications; they simply provide a structural tie point for a guy wire for a neighboring pole. At t a c h m e n t I 4.b Packet Pg. 141 Page | I-2 2. Poles with overhead secondary power conductors only – Secondary power (typically) being the second from the top level of power on the pole and which provides residential power (120/240 Volts AC). 3. Primary dead-end poles – A pole at the end of a line of poles which no poles further down the line. 4. Primary poles with no transformers downstream on the poles to end of line of poles. 5. Primary poles with no electric utility equipment on the poles on either side of the proposed pole. Development Criteria Development Standards from PAMC §18.42.110(i) (1) Shall utilize the smallest footprint possible (2) Shall be designed to minimize the overall height, mass, and size of the cabinet and enclosure structure (3) Be screened from public view (4) Be architecturally compatible with the existing site (5) Be placed at a location that would not require the removal of any required landscaping or would reduce the quantity of landscaping to a level of noncompliance with the Zoning Code (6) An Antenna shall be designed to minimize its visibility from off-site locations and shall be of a "camouflaged" or "stealth" design, including concealment, screening, and other techniques to hide or blend the Antenna into the surrounding area At t a c h m e n t I 4.b Packet Pg. 142 Page | J-1 ATTACHMENT J – ALTERNATIVE SITING ANALYSIS Alternative Site Analysis follows for each of the following proposed nodes: Node ID Configuration Adjacent Address Zone Adjacent APN SJWE 026 Config #1 250 University Avenue CC 120-26-103 SJWE 032 (73) Config #1 131 Lytton Avenue CC 120-25-109 SJWE 038 Config #3 75 Encina Ave CS 120-33-003 Node SJWE 026 (63) Alternative Siting Analysis Alternate Candidate ID Pole Type Fallout Reason Pole # Fallout/Selection Note 26A Street light CPA Public Works 6 Decorative pole, too short 26B Street light Selected candidate 51 Closer to center of node 26C Street light AT&T RF 44 Crown Castle equipment already installed on pole At t a c h m e n t J 4.b Packet Pg. 143 Page | J-2 Node 32 Alternative Siting Analysis Alternate Candidate ID Pole Type Fallout Reason Pole # Fallout/Selection Note 32A Street light Selected candidate 13 Tallest pole , no 2nd story windows adjacent 32B Street light CPA Planning 16 Adjacent to 2nd story roof deck 32C Street light AT&T RF n/a Too short (17’), longest distance to center of node At t a c h m e n t J 4.b Packet Pg. 144 Page | J-3 Node 38 Alternative Siting Analysis Alternate Candidate ID Pole Type Fallout Reason Pole # Fallout/Selection Note 38A Wood pole CPAU 5831 Primary overhead, transformer on pole 38B Wood pole CPAU 7408 Primary overhead 38C Wood pole CPAU 5828 Primary overhead, transformer on pole 38D Wood pole Selected candidate 7406 Secondary overhead At t a c h m e n t J 4.b Packet Pg. 145 Attachment C Preliminary Project Plans, Preliminary Noise Studies, and Preliminary Planned FCC Compliance Reports Hardcopies of the preliminary project plans are provided to ARB Members. These plans are available to the public online and by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Preliminary Project Plans, Preliminary Noise Studies, and Preliminary Planned FCC Compliance Reports can be viewed online at the City’s project webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4094&TargetID-319 Note: The address for this application 17PLN-00398 is listed in the City’s permit tracking system under 250 Hamilton Avenue because the utility poles and streetlights that are proposed to host the small cell deployment nodes are identified by unique pole numbers and do not have specific property addresses. 4.c Packet Pg. 146 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Architectural Review Board: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Alexander Lew, Board Member David Hirsch Historic Resources Board: Chair David Bower, Vice Chair Brandon Corey, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Martin Bernstein Absent: Architectural Review Board: Board Member Osma Thompson Historic Resources Board: Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Board Member Roger Kohler, Board Member Deborah Shepherd Chair Furth: Welcome to a Special Meeting of the Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board on January 10, 2019 for the City of Palo Alto. Would staff please call the roll. [Roll Call] Chair Furth: Okay, we have four out and three present, four present, okay, so each Board has a quorum. Oral Communications Chair Furth: Are there any oral communications? I see no one in the audience, so I believe the answer is no. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Any agenda changes, additions or deletions staff? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: We have a City Official Report, the transmission of the ARB meeting schedules, etc. I think we had a subcommittee to schedule for the 17th for the project at the intersection of, what is it, Charleston, no, Charleston and El Camino, or Meadow and El Camino. Across the street from the Goodwill. East Meadow. There’s an actual address. Alex would you serve on that subcommittee with me? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD and HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: January 10, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: So, Board Member Lew and I will serve on that subcommittee. Ms. Amy French: Thank you, so noted. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCP) Overhead Contact System Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@ityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Our first action item is a public hearing between, involving the Historic Resources Board and the Architectural Review Board for consultation with the Peninsula, on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, known as the PCP, overhead contact system foundation and pole layouts designed for installation within the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way in Palo Alto. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was certified in January 2015. Are there any comments before we begin? Board Member Bernstein. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Chair Furth. I received a ruling from the Fair Political Practice Commission, as I won property within five hundred feet of the railroad right of way, I won’t be able to participate in this item. Thank you. Chair Furth: We will miss you. So, we no longer have a quorum of the HRB, but we would ask them to sit with us and consult and deliberate with us, as we hear this report, those members who remain, in their individual capacities. Thank you. Staff? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you, good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. We visited with the HRB on November 8 and the ARB on November 15. The report captures the comments and questions of both Boards, with responses as received from the Project Team, who are here today. Three members of the Caltrain’s Electrification Project Team, and they will be giving a presentation. First, I’ll just give a brief overview and that is, again, we are here for color selection specifically, and what happened at the ARB meeting in November was a continuation to receive actual color samples. The color samples have been presented at the front. They are powder-coated metal in four different colors. The color selection, they have requested that we submit our color selection as a City by tomorrow, January 11, so we would appreciate kind of final comments from both Boards, or members of the HRB and the collective ARB. The color can be the same everywhere, or there an be differences. We had, with the HRB, a suggestion that the Downtown Station or Palo Alto Station near University, have, and this is very bright yellow but I don’t think that’s the intent, the color sample there shows a warm color in an attempt to mimic the color at the station there. So, that was one item that the HRB suggested, was to be compatible with the station there. The Stanford Station here on the screen shows a green color. I believe the HRB suggested that the rest of the poles be green throughout the City, so here’s an image showing that. And then the California Avenue Station here is showing a black color, I believe that’s black and that is another possibility certainly among the, these are three of the four samples that you have. Moving on, the paralleling station there near the Park Plaza Project, 195 Page Mill, is another place that color choices are available for discussion, and I’ll let the project team cover this. They have these slides as well in their presentation. One thing that came up was the letter, as mentioned, from Mr. Borock. We had presented this in November about the fact that pruning work had begun and that pruning work would resume and the team can say more about that, but this slide had been presented back in November, so we were aware that there was tree activity. And that concludes City of Palo Alto Page 3 staff’s presentation. I’m going to switch this to the applicant’s presentation. Are there questions of staff while we’re uploading? Chair Bower: In response to Herb Borock’s email to the HRB and the ARB, I’d like to point out for anyone who actually watches this that the Caltrain MOD.org website has a place where you can sign up for weekly updates on where the construction is occurring. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get those now and they’re pretty thorough and you can keep track of where construction and what kind of construction is going on in the corridor, throughout the entire corridor by signing up for that. Brent Tietjen, Government and Communications Relations Officer for Caltrain: Thanks for prefacing that Chair David, or Chair Bower, excuse me. Yes, you can sign up by calmod.org/get-involved. You can enter Palo Alto as your city of residence, and we do send weekly updates to all folks who interested about construction along the whole corridor, but we also send updates just to work that’s happening in Palo Alto. If a new phase of work is starting, we send out an update to the City as well. So, thank you all again for having us here today. Myself, I’m Brent Tietjen, here with Lynn Guan (phonetic) and Stacy Cocke from the Caltrain Electrification Project, here to give you an update on the pole color selection that was continued from the last ARB meeting in November. So, a quick reminder of what the Caltrain Electrification Project is, we are electrifying the 61 miles of track that JPB Caltrain owns from San Francisco to San Jose Tamien Station. The Electrification Project is really just an infrastructure project where we are electrifying the current tracks. We are installing concrete foundations in the ground, poles atop those foundations, and then connecting the poles to wires and the train, which will convert to electric from diesel. We are converting 75% of our fleet from diesel to electric. Our speed will remain the same at 79 miles per hours. The project, however, will allow us to increase from five train an hour currently to six trains an hour per direction. That will allow us to have more station stops, will reduce travel time or a mix of both. As part of the project, we are also committed to restoring both Atherton and Broadway service on the weekdays, and we will continue to have tenant service, ACE, capital corridor, Amtrak and freight operate on the corridor underneath the wires. A quick look at the schedule, this is a log time coming. Back in 1999 it was first introduced in this strategic plan for Caltrain. More than 20 years later we’re under construction. Groundbreaking happened in 2017 with quite a bit of work happening last year in 2018, and continuing until 2021 for construction. And then there will be some testing between 2021 and 2022 and we hope to have passenger service in early 2022. So, there was a request last time for renderings of the stations with poles. We do have color samples that Amy provided and I have additional ones here. I’ll bring one up for each different station. This will be Palo Alto Station. So, for Palo Alto station our architectural consultants suggested this warmer yellow/tan color to match the historic station at Palo Alto. Chair Furth: I just note that in this light, it’s a long way from yellow. Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, these slides don’t do it justice. I will also note that these chips are glossy; however, the poles will be matte, powder coat matte. Chair Furth: You’re proposing matte? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, although all the poles along the corridor will be matte to reduce glare. I don’t know if you want to take each station. I’ll defer to the Chairs, if you want to take each station? Chair Furth: I think if you’d tell us what the meaning of these various samples is, that would be helpful, and then we can have our discussion. Mr. Tietjen: Sure. These were recommended by our architectural consultants. The first one was… Chair Furth: The warmer one. Mr. Tietjen: The warmer, the tan, which was the recommended color based on the matching of the station. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Furth: Right, and these don’t have names, these just have numbers. Is that right? Mr. Tietjen: They should have names. They should have Palo Alto Station recommended. Chair Furth: Oh, but the colors don’t have names. We have to refer to it as FS349, 3649? Mr. Tietjen: Correct. They don’t have names. I think you an refer to them as the tan, gray and brown for these… Chair Furth: So, you have three alternative proposed colors for the Palo Alto Stations? Mr. Tietjen: Correct, yes. And the tan is recommended per our architectural consultant and historical consultant. Chair Furth: And then the other selection that we had, the other group of, are these duplicates of the ones we had earlier, no? Mr. Tietjen: So, you have two sets of each. This is just for Palo Alto Station. Chair Furth: Not the green. Mr. Tietjen: The green is not recommended for Palo Alto Station. (crosstalk) Chair Furth: … downtown Palo Alto. Mr. Tietjen: I wasn’t sure if you wanted to talk about each station individually, and then… Chair Furth: Why don’t you give us the whole array, and then we’ll deliberate. Mr. Tietjen: I’ll keep going then. So, yeah, these are just renderings of what Palo Alto Station would look like, the center poles, as well as side track poles at Palo Alto Station. This is a photo simulation looking from the west platform facing south. Again, these yellows aren’t doing it justice, but the chips are much closer to reality. This is typical of what a center pole would look like, the center poles. Poles in general range from 30 to 45½ feet. Center poles are in the 35-foot range. And this is typical of the side pole on the platform. The side poles are the shorter ones, in the 30 to 35-foot range. This may be hard (recording skipped) Chair Furth: …the minutes of our last meeting at this meeting, so I think we’re pretty familiar with the (crosstalk) presentation. Mr. Tietjen: Sure. So, this is just the designs for Palo Alto Station. You can see, it might be hard to see, but hopefully you can see on your screen, the stations are kind of hatched out here. So, this is the first set of the Palo Alto Station, and then this is the second. These small dots here are the poles. These will be center poles. These would be side poles, yeah, side poles here as well and the center pole. And this is just a summary of the color recommendations for all the stations, but I’ll continue going through for the rest of the stations, and we are seeking the ARB, HRB recommendation on station area pole colors. That recommendation would go to the City and the City would have the final say. This is a rendering from Alma Street facing north of Stanford Station. The only color recommended for Stanford Station was the marine green. Again, typical side poles for Stanford Station and with the current design, they are only side poles at Stanford Station. I will note on all these designs, it is only 65% and it is subject to change as we move further along. Again, the only color recommended for Stanford Station was marine green. And then finally, the photo simulation of California Avenue Station. Mostly side poles at California Avenue City of Palo Alto Page 5 Station. Black was the recommended color with brown a second and green, marine green as third. And the black was recommended to match the current poles and shelters at that station. Again, typical side poles for the station areas and design for California Avenue Station with side poles being highlighted about every 150 feet. So, that is it for the station areas. We do have color selection for the PS-5 paralleling station. I can go into that as well… Chair Furth: And what about the non-station poles? Mr. Tietjen: Those will all be marine green per the MMRP, the Monitoring and Mitigation Reporting Plan. Chair Furth: Well, we could change that. Okay, so to summarize, if it’s okay with the Board Members, I think it would be good to talk about the poles first, and then the paralleling station. Does that make sense? I’m seeing nodes. Mr. Tietjen: I’ll provide another set of chips as well, for both California and Stanford Station. Chair Furth: Great. So, marine green is the default color for poles in the City? This was described and defined in the Mitigation and Monitoring Report for the EIR. Mr. Tietjen: That’s correct. Chair Furth: (crosstalk) You’re also suggesting marine green for Stanford Station, which is sort of a wide place in the track, well not the track, the right of way. And black for California Avenue and what’s the name of the color at, that you’re recommending for the Palo Alto Station? Mr. Tietjen: I would say a tan to match the Palo Alto Station. Chair Furth: Okay. Who would like to begin? Alex. I was really impressed by Alex’s detailed review last time. Board Member Lew: Sure. I don’t think I have any comments today. I think we covered everything last time, and I don’t object to anything that’s been presented today. Chair Furth: So, you would second their recommendations as to color, or at least agree with them? Board Member Lew: Yeah. I mean I think, based on my previous comments, I think I would prefer the gray at University Avenue and then the others are all fine, but I don’t object to the tan at University Avenue Station and I think that’s more of a call for the HRB. Chair Furth: Do you want to call on your members, HRB members? Chair Bower: Are there any HRB members that want to comment on this, Brandon or Michael? Brandon, go ahead. Vice Chair Corey: Yeah, so just real quick, one question, the MMRP. So, is the pole for the City is the marine green? That’s decided, there’s no debate on that? Because, I don’t know if that would impact this decision. Mr. Tietjen: That’s correct, yeah. That’s per the MMRP for any visually sensitive area. That’s correct. Vice Chair Corey: Because at the last time we met at the HRB we had discussed it, and you know, then it was still up in the air and it wasn’t clear if you were looking for our input or not. Mr. Tietjen: I’m sorry that was unclear. We are not looking for input outside the station area. Those (crosstalk). City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Bower: The only comment I would make is that at our meeting, the HRB did feel strongly that the poles in front of the University Avenue Station match that station patina. You know, it’s a subjective thing, color is a subjective thing, but the tan here or something like that will certainly be more compatible with the building than green or gray or brown, or any of the any colors here. Vice Chair Corey: I would agree with that. Chair Bower: And I don’t think that would change if all the Board Members were here. Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, and our historical consultant for this project went out to the stations and actually brought the chips and tried to match the stations closely. Chair Bower: And our other comment, if I’m remembering correctly, is that all the rest of the poles could be green, just because they would be uniform throughout the City and most of the corridor through Palo Alto is lined with trees and the green would simply, again, be more compatible with that color scheme. I don’t have an objection personally to the suggestions that your consultant has made here, but it seems to me it would be less expensive over a long-term maintenance consideration to have one color over as many poles as possible. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other comments? Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I share with what Alex said earlier, I can make the findings to recommend a recommendation back to Caltrain. I’d like to reiterate that at least I feel that a single pole in the middle rather than a pair of them on the side is preferable throughout the City, given an aesthetic choice, that’s an aesthetic choice that’s preferable. Secondly, in my opinion any sort of a finish on these poles that does not need maintenance, either a galvanized or a weathering steel would be preferable in the long term. I remain concerned that these paints will wear and I doubt they will be maintained the way they would need to be. That said, I can support the project as presented. Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else? So, I’m generally supportive. I’m glad that you have a color that you’re happy with for, and the HRB is happy with for the Downtown Palo Alto Station. I was really struck by Alex’s careful analysis of all the different categories of colors that are used at these stations for the buildings, for the light poles, for the railings, for the other things that happen. And Alex you feel that black is suitable for the Caltrain, the California Avenue Station, the proposed color? Board Member Lew: Well, I think it’s possible. The metal that’s already out there and all the shelters is like a dark bronze anodized aluminum, but there is some black there, I think, I forgot what it is. There is an element there that is black, so I think it is workable. And I think the benches that are there are actually like this brown color, so there’s actually a range of stuff that’s out there, so generally darker would be better to help it blend in. Chair Furth: I don’t actually think, I very much support not changing colors for the Stanford Station. The Stanford Station is meaningful to Caltrain, but it’s not particularly visible if you’re not catching a game train. And so, I think it’s good to just have it, those poles blend in. I’m fine with changing them for the Downtown Station, and I’m fine with changing them for Caltrain. I don’t think, I think having a signal that you’re at that station is fine, so I wouldn’t object to the proposal. Yes, Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: I guess my thought here was, I don’t know if you’re going to do this, but are these going to be powder coated for longevity? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, they will be powder coated. Board Member Makinen: So, it’s going to be like a permanent coating and low maintenance. Mr. Tietjen: Yes. We have a ten-year life cycle for the paint. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Furth: And when you spoke to us last time, we had a question about fencing, newly installed fencing with wire that is otherwise prohibited in the City, and you were going to get back to us with information on that? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, that was installed at the request of the City for trespassing concerns. Chair Furth: Okay, in that form. Mr. Tietjen: Yes. The regular fence was installed per Caltrain standard. The additional three foot was installed in coordination with the City. (inaudible) Chair Furth: Right. All right. Any other questions before we go on on this. We did ask you for information about costs, but as I understand it, you are confident that matte finished color is your best bet in terms of maintenance, and we will hope that you are right. Any other questions? Well seeing none, shall we recommend approval? I don’t know exactly what we’re doing here. We’re no longer doing courtesy consultations, because they revised the agreement between the City. It’s now a real consultation, which means we tell you what we think and you do what you want. But, shall we advise the Calmod Project of Caltrain that we are supportive of their color recommendations for the poles? Board Member Lew: Do you want to reference their chart? (crosstalk) Chair Furth: Sure, go for it. Why don’t you make a motion? I can’t read this. MOTION Board Member Lew: Okay. I think I will make a recommendation that we recommend Option 1 of the three options. So, that is Palo Alto Station which is color FS23522; the California Avenue Station is color FS27040, which is black; and the Stanford Stadium Station which is color FS14052, which is the marine green. Chair Furth: Is there a second from the ARB Board Member? Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll second that motion. Chair Furth: Thank you for the discussion. All those in favor way aye. Any opposition? MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0 WITH ONE ABSENT Chair Furth: So, that is four votes in favor, one absent, Board Member Thompson, and consensus from the HRB, which has advised us particularly on the Palo Alto Station. Thank you. J Chair Furth: Would the ARB like to continue with us for the discussion of the paralleling station? Chair Bower: Oh, sure. Chair Furth: Okay, great, paralleling station. Mr. Tietjen: Before I jump into that, I did want to answer the question that we received via email. So, tree work has been about 35% complete in the City of Palo Alto, and the first pass of foundation potholings where you pothole for every utility, every foundation location, that should be done by the end City of Palo Alto Page 8 of this week. They will have to come back and do any resolutions if there are any other utilities, so they will do another pass at potholing, and utility potholing will continue from now until February. Chair Furth: Thank you. And I was just looking at my notes. We also had a question about were there any new lighting projects, and I believe the answer we got was that you are substituting LED lamps where they exist, but other than that, there’s no project online. Mr. Tietjen: Correct. Yeah, we don’t have any plans currently for Palo Alto Station, but we are updating our station lights. Chair Furth: We’re just asking, of course, because we’re thinking about what goes with what. Mr. Tietjen: Sure. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right, the paralleling station. Mr. Tietjen: I did want to show there are additional pole types in addition to the ones I showed for the details. There are some portholes which are a little bit wider for, a little bit for the wider tracks, and then some two-track cantilevered within the City of Palo Alto. And again, all poles outside of the station areas will be painted marine green in Palo Alto. So, there is a paralleling station being installed in Palo Alto. I’ll show a diagram of the location in a moment. The paralleling station, there are ten tracks for Palo Alto facilities throughout the corridor. Those help provide and distribute power to the new electrified system. The paralleling station in particular does not get power from PG&E. It gets power from the overhead lines and then helps redistribute it throughout the corridor. The facility components are the transformer gantries, which are up to 50 feet, and the control house which we will look for your recommendation on color selection. These are unmanned, secured and lighted facilities. Paralleling station number five in Palo Alto will be located just south of Page Mill Road on Caltrain property. We have coordinated with the City on location during the EIR phase. Vegetation screening will be implemented at this location with review and input from the City staff, and the control house is to be selected by the City, the color be selected by the City with input from HRB and ARB. This is the location of the paralleling station number five. You can see Page Mill Road right here going up and down on the page. These are the components of the paralleling station, the two gantries on either side of the tracks, the control house which we will ask for your color recommendation, and then the transformer. This is an example of the paralleling station from Amtrak Northeast Corridor. You can see the components here in green, or the point in green, is the transformer, the gantries, both this one in the foreground and then this one in the background, these A- frame steel structures, and then the control house is the one on the right here. An example again of a transformer and then the control house in the background. And I do have color samples as well for the paralleling station control house, and I’ll get up and pass these around. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Tietjen: And the colors highlighted in orange are the ones that are recommended per our architectural consultant. Chair Bower: So, can you clarify, so (not understood) Canyon is the control house color? Mr. Tietjen: Correct, yeah, it would be the control house. Chair Bower: And then the juniper green is the gantry color? Mr. Tietjen: These are all considerations for the control house color. Chair Bower: Oh, just control house color? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, correct. These are options for the control house color. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: And the gantry would be marine green? (Male): No, I don’t think so. Mr. Tietjen: We don’t believe so. Chair Furth: What do you believe that it would be? Mr. Tietjen: What was that? Chair Furth: What do you believe it would be? Mr. Tietjen: Just the galvanized steel. Chair Furth: Galvanized steel? Mr. Tietjen: Yes. Chair Bower: I’ll take a moment here to ask another question. So, is there a reason why we wouldn’t, the gantries, those towers, would not match the rest of the towers in the corridor? (Female): It’s just something that we had not included as the specifications in our contract. So, we had been focused on the poles and there wasn’t a consideration to not include it. It just, for kind of standard material purchase of the gantries went with the galvanized steel, didn’t specify a color. Chair Bower: Can I ask a related question to this? On the corridor there are switching towers apparatus that crosses the tracks that tell the trains, they are red or green lights, so that they move forward or not. The one I’m thinking of is near Woodside Road for instance. And I’m wondering how that, how the height of that particular signaling tower compares to the gantry at this station. Do you know? Roughly, I mean I’m not – just trying to get a sense of what 45 feet is going to look like at that site. That’s fairly large. (Male): I think overall the signal bridge that you’re referring to, the one at Woodside Road, they’re going to be about roughly the same, they’re roughly the same height, potentially even a little bit taller. So, our rough estimate, probably about 40 foot or so, 40 to 45 foot, in terms of height. Chair Bower: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: Any comments on the proposal for the paralleling station? We had a lot of comments last time, most of which I think were rejected. Any comments from anybody on this? Sure. Chair Bower: I can’t remember, Amy, what the HRB discussion was about this, but I think it was that they would just go away. I mean, so, you know, that the color not be white for instance. That it be an innocuous or blending color. That’s a better way of describing it maybe. So, from my perspective any of these colors would be acceptable, but I don’t have an opinion. I don’t know if the other HRB members do. Vice Chair Corey: That’s what we discussed. Chair Furth: Okay. And as I recall, one of the big issues was the location of this particular facility, and generally you’re satisfied with the proposed location. One of the more ardent commentators was Board Member Thompson. Alex, David? David. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Do you see the top of that facility when you’re in the train? You do. So, what is the roofing material and what color would it be? City of Palo Alto Page 10 (Male): To be honest, off the top of my head I do not know what the roofing material would be on top of the control houses, but that is something we could look into and get an answer back to you. I think it really will be the same, I think overall the control house is just a steel, just a single steel or whatever the material outside, the sheeting material is going to be for the entire house, but we can look into it. I’m not 100 percent sure. Board Member Hirsch: So, do you have any thought as to how that would be painted? Is that discussed by your consultant for this? (Male): That’s something we can double check. When I kind of just think about painting the house, I’m thinking about painting the outside, the four surrounding walls, but the top portion, it’s a good question. I’ll have to look into it. Chair Furth: When are you planning to build these paralleling stations? What is your timeline? Mr. Tietjen: So, three are currently under construction right now in South San Francisco and San Jose. We don’t have the final schedule with PS-5 yet, but I think we would expect late this year or early next year. Chair Furth: So, PS-5 is what you call ours? Mr. Tietjen: Correct, yes, paralleling station number five. Chair Furth: It’s like public school. Okay, paralleling station five. All right, so last time we had questions about how visible this was going to be. Board Member Hirsch has pointed out, quite visible from the train. Remind me what the feeling was about, what the conclusion was with regard to planting around this? To what extent it’s possible and to what extent you need to be so far away for safety reasons that it’s going to be visible? Mr. Tietjen: So, there will be vegetation around the paralleling station. We don’t have the vegetation plan currently. It’s not designed yet, but we will be working with the City on that. It will be surrounding the perimeter of the facility, and it’s generally trees and vines, what has been used in other areas. Chair Furth: Okay. So, the roof’s also going to be visible from the housing nearby, is that correct, or am I seeing this wrong? Is that a blank wall? (crosstalk) (Male): It’s a blank wall. There’s not a single window. Chair Furth: Right, I remember that. Board Member Lew: Between the paralleling station and 195 Page Mill Road, there is a row of newly planted redwood trees. Chair Furth: Right. That should do it. And then the next thing over is the train track and then there’s landscaping and then there’s Alma, is that right? So, there’s quite a few opportunities for screening. Mr. Tietjen: Correct, and the current thought is to do the screening around the perimeter of the facility with trees and vines. Chair Furth: But if you needed to do some more, you could also do it on the other side of the right of way, right, on the edge of Alma? Mr. Tietjen: Stacy. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: Is that correct City staff? Ms. French: Yes. Part of that is City right of way, and we are always amenable to increase the vegetation in our right of way. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I think it comes down to the color and to me the juniper green or the beetle would be the two preferable choices. Slightly darker would go better with the live oak colors. And it’s just really tough to put us in the spot in this light to make that call. I’d say that you guys, that your architects make that call. But I think a darker green is preferable. Chair Furth: Okay. My view is that darker is better. My view is that it does matter how it looks from the top. These are fairly large structures. People will see them, and one of the problems and one of the big… It makes a big difference what you see when you look outside of a train window, and often you have no control of it. Often cities show their most dilapidated faces to a railroad right of way. That’s less true now. And this is an opportunity for you to have something that looks trim and organized and well thought out all the way through. So, I think it does matter how it’s going to look for the top, how the edges are finished. Does somebody want to make a motion? And I will say that these colors can’t be read at all when you’re sitting inside. You can get some idea of them at the window. Would somebody on the ARB make a motion, or we can have further discussion. MOTION Board Member Lew: I will make a recommendation that the paralleling station be either juniper green or the beetle clay green. Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll second that motion, the recommendation. I’m sorry. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Hearing none, that’s unanimous from those of us who are here, ARB and HRB Members alike. MOTION CARRIES 4-0 WITH ONE ABSENT. Chair Furth: Is there anything else you would like from us? Mr. Tietjen: No. Thank you again for allowing us to present today. Chair Furth: Thank you for coming, and we know it’s a complicated project and we know we don’t necessarily make your life easier, but we hope we make the project better. Thank you. And we will say thank you to the HRB for coming and staff if you will keep an eye on the design of the paralleling station, we will not expect to see rooftop design unless you feel it’s necessary, but if you would keep that in mind as you continue to work collaboratively, we’d appreciate it. Thank you. Study Session Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2018. Chair Furth: We have minutes to approve. All right, we will now do the rest of our agenda, not the rest of my agenda, because my agenda didn’t include all the items, but I understand the public redistributed one did. Thank you. Okay, draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 1, 2018. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mrs. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: I believe we have October 18 first. Chair Furth: Oops, sorry. Minutes for October 18, any comments or corrections? Board Member Lew: Yes, I have a comment. So, for the subcommittee there were two items, 2609 Alma, which is the three unit and also 250 Sherman, which was the Public Safety Building, and in the minutes – so they’re not listed in the – the action at that meeting I think was not, but in the minutes… Chair Furth: Could you report? Board Member Lew: We do have… Yeah, so on the next meeting on November 1 Peter Baltay gave a summary of what happened in the, for the Public Safety Building, and they changed the base to brick, and I don’t know, there may have been other changes as well. But I don’t think we have a record of what happened on 2609 Alma. I think we were just trying to change the back façade. Jodie Gerhardt: Okay. I think maybe we might want to bring the October 18 minutes back then so that we can add the subcommittee. Chair Furth: What was your question, because it’s not actually a meeting of the Board, but it does need to be recorded somehow. How do we do that normally? Do we report at the next meeting? Jodie Gerhardt: We do as far as the file is concerned, we do sort of a summary memo that we put in the file itself, and we have many times sort of put a short paragraph into the minutes. Chair Furth: Oh, the minutes of the meeting the day it happened or? Jodie Gerhardt: The day (crosstalk) Chair Furth: That’s probably the simplest way to do it, do you think Alex? Board Member Lew: I think the issue is that it’s something the transcriber can’t do, right? So, it’s something that staff has to actually do. Jodie Gerhardt: Correct, and that’s why I think it got missed this time is because, yeah, it’s not coming straight from the transcriber. Staff needs to add that piece. Chair Furth: Okay. I mean… Board Member Lew: I think it’s okay on this. If you wanted to come back. I think that’s fine. I think, I’m aware of these two particular projects, and I don’t have any issues with it. I do understand that people go back through minutes and stuff and it is good to have it in there. So, if it needs to go back, that’s fine. Chair Furth: So, from my point of view, I don’t care whether you add it to the material you present to us. I don’t care which meeting’s minutes it gets added to, but it does need to be recorded. What would you like to do staff? Come back with it? Jodie Gerhardt: I think that’s probably best. Chair Furth: All right. Then let’s… Board Member Lew: Would you like a motion? Chair Furth: Yes. MOTION City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Lew: I move that we continue the minutes for October 18, 2018 to a date uncertain. Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: All in favor say aye. Okay, that’s three in favor and one abstention and one absent. MOTION PASSED 3-1-1 WITH ONE ABSTENTION, ONE ABSENT. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 1, 2018. Chair Furth: November 1, 2018. It was very helpful to have these by the way. Board Member Lew: So, I think there’s only one correction that I would make, which is on page 53, there are multiple references to Caltran and I think that should be Caltrain, and I think those two are very different. I think we do want that corrected. And I had another just thought, and I think we’ve mentioned this before, but like on page 52 and 54 we used a lot of acronyms, and I’m wondering if it’s really, if we’re making it really confusing for people. Chair Furth: So, if we just spell them out the first time. Board Member Lew: Yeah, like we have TVM, TMA, VMT, LOS, MM, Los Loma… Chair Furth: It’s bad. We should probably clean up our presentations and conversation and probably in the minutes it should at least be spelled out once the way you would in a legal document. Board Member Lew: And then under, I think under subcommittee, oh, I think that’s the next item. So, that’s all that I had. Chair Furth: Any other comments on November 1st? Motion to approve. MOTION Board Member Lew: I’ll make a motion that we approve the minutes for November 1. Vice Chair Baltay: Second Chair Furth: Moved by Board Member Lew, seconded by Vice Chair Baltay. All those in favor say aye. So, that’s 3-1-1 with one abstention and one absent. MOTION APPROVED 3-1-1 WITH ONE ABSTENTION AND ONE ABSENT. Board Member Lew: Actually, Thompson would be, she was absent at that meeting so she should be recused as well. Chair Furth: But she is absent. That’s what we need to say, but good point. Actually, we had enough votes. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 15, 2018. Chair Furth: Minutes for November 18, 2018. Those were actually the ones I meant to say were helpful. Other than typos, I have… Board Member Lew: So, the same comment, just like under, I think under subcommittee, I think they are listing the items and then there is mention of 744 San Antonio, which was just the lighting at the terraces. And so, in the minutes it says like “insert email” I think from our consulting planner. But I would City of Palo Alto Page 14 just say except for the subcommittee, which was myself and Wynne approved the lighting fixture on the upper terraces. And for 3945 El Camino Real, which is the Comfort Inn, I think we approved the corner detail for the Trespa. And then I think that 3223 Hanover is fully described. Chair Furth: Any other comments? MOTION Board Member Lew: No. I would make a motion that we recommend, that we approve the minutes for the November 15, 2018. Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye. And was Osma there or not there? She was, wasn’t she? Yes, she commented. All right, so that is a 3-0-0 vote, one abstention, one absent. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0-0 with one abstention, one absent. Subcommittee Items Chair Furth: Subcommittee Items. We have one coming up for the 17th. Jodie Gerhardt: Yes, so related to the 17th, on the tentative future agenda you have the 702 Clara Drive is being deferred to a February hearing, and then Subcommittee Item 4115 El Camino has been added, and that is the Pizz’a Chicago location. Chair Furth: Pizz’a Chicago is what I couldn’t think of. It’s 4105? Jodie Gerhardt: 4115. Chair Furth: 4115, and Alex and I will do that one. Jodie Gerhardt: Okay. Chair Furth: So, that leaves us with a second round on 380 Cambridge Avenue, a second round on 4256 El Camino and Verizon Cluster, three small cells. Is that Downtown North? So, I will not be participating in that. Okay. And the item that… Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcement Chair Furth: Okay, questions, comments or announcements? Board Member Lew: The next North Ventura meeting is next, will be next Wednesday, January 16, here in City Hall. I think it’s in the front conference room. Chair Furth: Thank you. I wanted to ask, I wanted to say that when we make recommendations and when the Director or whoever the recommending body is, decides to modify those recommendations, it’s important for us to get that information back in a formal way from staff. So, is there a consensus on that? Vice Chair Baltay: Strongly so, yes. Several times I think decisions have been made through the system that we’re not aware of, and I think we should be made aware of what actions are actually taken. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Furth: So, if they have problems with our recommendations, it’s important for us to understand what the considerations are that, perhaps, we didn’t take into account. So that we’re not just spitting into the wind. Vice Chair Baltay: More importantly I feel that many members of the public look to us. They think we have a meeting and a recommendation is made, and then when a different action is actually taken, it leaves severe distrust in the system. It’s really important to emphasize clearly why a different action was taken. I think the case with these cellphone towers recently demonstrates that. Chair Furth: Any other comments. Board Member Lew: The previous Planning Director had a, like a monthly bulletin, and I thought it was useful because it summarized what each Board was doing, so it was very easy for us to follow what was happening with the HRB, PTC and the ARB, and then the Planning Director’s decision, and if there was a problem, we could sort of see what was happening. As we have it now, it is sort of left to us to sort of follow the other Boards on our own, and then we don’t really get – there is no physical communication between the Planning Director and the Boards. Chair Furth: I do agree. I miss that greatly because I feel often that I’m startled to find out that something involving a project that we’re also charged with dealing with is going before another Board or another body. The prime example is the recommendation on sidewalk treatment or, you know, bicycle lanes in front of the new housing at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill, and sending us project approvals, that was a very helpful document, and surely something similar must exist internally, and if there’s a way of modifying that for public use it would be great. Anything else? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. I would like to raise the question about the small cell telephone cell tone tower issue. The City Council, as I understand it, is reviewing a proposal by staff to change the ordinance of how these are reviewed. And I’d like to address my concern that the Architecture Board has not even been consulted as to what that ordinance contains, and at least I’ve received a tremendous amount of public correspondence regarding that ordinance, questioning what the ARB should be doing, and I’m, frankly, surprised that I don’t even – I haven’t even been told what’s in that ordinance. Nobody’s asked our opinion, yet we’re worked long and hard on that issue. And I would think we have good advice to offer, if we were only involved or asked about it. Then to the Board, I feel that we need to go to that Council hearing and be present for the Council to confer with us, if they would like regarding that issue again. I think one of the central questions that’s going to come up is what is the appropriate level of review for these towers, and clearly staff is trying to balance practical necessities of reviewing these things in a quick way. I think the Town has consistently expressed concern about the aesthetics of it. The Board has struggled with this issue. I think it’s negligent of us not to stay involved in that discussion, even if the Planning staff has not involved us. So, I’d like through the Chair, to have her appoint someone to be our representative at that hearing. Chair Furth: I’m happy to do that, and I’m happy to appoint you, unless somebody else wants that assignment? Seeing no volunteers… Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I think it might be better if the Chair were to represent us. Chair Furth: I think it would be best if you did it. Vice Chair Baltay: But mostly I think it’s important that the Board be acting with a voice on this. Not saying we all agree, but at least agree that we should (crosstalk) Chair Furth: I think it’s important to have a representative. I think we can’t discuss this very far, but I will say from the massive public correspondence that we have received, the charge and the correspondence, and I say this to staff, asking you to get back to us on this, is that the revised regulations take the ARB City of Palo Alto Page 16 out of the process, in terms of defining and applying standards. And if this is the case, this would be an appropriate thing to discuss or have discussed with us. So, that’s as far as we can go, direction to staff. Board Member Business And not on my agenda, but I understand on other people’s agendas, is reorganization, which we are due to do, and I think staff usually presides over that, unless you want to defer this till we have a full Board? Jodie Gerhardt: Yes. So, we do have the elections of the Chair and the Vice Chair on the agenda, and so I think it would be best – we’re already a little bit delayed on this, so I’m hoping that we could move forward. Are there any nominations for Chair of the ARB? Vice Chair Baltay: Can I make a comment first, please? Especially I’d like to get Alex’s opinion on this, but it seems to me in our particular circumstance I would be likely to be elevated to the Chair, and that leaves us then having a choice for the Vice Chair of being either Alex, who just recently was the Chair, or two new Board Members, who are both extremely new on the Board and may not feel comfortable to have the experience necessary. I would like to propose an option would be just to continue the current officer situation for the next year, and then go forward after that. But I very much would like to hear what Alex thinks about that. Board Member Lew: That’s unusual. So, normally we – normally we rotate through and then somewhere – so, I’ve been on the Board for ten years. Somewhere in the middle we had a lot of people who had to step off the Board for various different reasons and we did switch that around at that point where, I think, Clare Malone Prichard served on the Board a couple of times as Chair pretty close together, just because we didn’t really have the right mix of people. And so, it does happen, so we’re not tied to the rotation. But I think we should just rotate through, because I think you’ve been around – you’ve definitely been around long enough, and I think Osma, I think she should be ready to be Vice Chair, right? I think it would be useful to go through that. Chair Furth: I should add that I will be leaving the Board sometime in the fall, because my family is moving to, going north. I don’t know the date yet. I did discuss this with the previous Mayor. I haven’t discussed it with the new Mayor, but I will try to time my departure so that it leads to seamless continuity on the Board. Sorry, I’m not sharing this. Jodie Gerhardt: Sorry, I’ll ask, David, do you have any comments? Board Member Hirsh: I’m pretty new to make a comment on this, but I certainly like the way it’s been handled up to now, and it’s a conflict to see that when you’re not going to be more than another partial term here. I sort of agree with Peter. I think that it’s a good idea to continue as it is right now. It certainly is a lesson for me to hear you both. Although Alex has had plenty of experience in this, I sort of feel that I agree with the general idea that there’s more senior people here on the panel, really have a greater depth of understanding of how the process works and it would be useful to keep it just the way it is. That’s my opinion. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, in your broad experience on the Board, has there ever been a case where a Chair has repeated two times in a row? Board Member Lew: I don’t recall that, but I do recall that I think, like Clare Malone Prichard served as Chair maybe two times within three years, perhaps. So, we’ve definitely considered it before. And then I think like at that time, there was one time that I was supposed to be, it was like my turn to be Chair that I was mostly doing subcommittee stuff, because I actually like doing the subcommittee more than I like being Chair, so, yeah. I think it’s fine if you want to continue the way it is now, I think that is fine. And then we just realize that we will have to deal with an election in the mid-summer, which is kind of unusual. I would say maybe if we’re doing – if the Council is doing term realignments, they’re halfway through the term realignments, then we could maybe say, maybe be preemptive and say we’re going to City of Palo Alto Page 17 extend it until I think May 31st, or something, and then we can switch in June. Because they want to switch the term so that they’re not, so that you don’t have, what do you call it? Chair Furth: It works for me, but I think I would have to do a Nancy Pelosi and promise you that I would retire as Chair, but not from the Board. NOMINATION Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to nominate Wynne Furth to be the Chair for the next term. Board Member Lew: Okay, I will second. Jodie Gerhardt: So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Okay, so Chair Furth will continue. And so, then do we have a nomination for Vice Chair? NOMINATION Board Member Lew: I will nominate Peter Baltay for Vice Chair. Chair Furth: Second. Jodie Gerhardt: Okay, so we have a motion by Board Member Lew and a second by Board Member Furth. All those in favor? Okay, that’s four approved with Board Member Thompson absent on both of those votes. Thank you. Chair Furth: And I will say that for the next five months, knowing how much Alex enjoys subcommittees, I will be much less inhibited about appointing him to them. (no mic) …to come before this Board today at this special meeting, for which we all managed to show up practically. Then we are 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 David Hirsch. Absent: None. Chair Furth: Welcome to the January 17th, 2019, meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. If you could take your seats and cease other conversation, that would be helpful. Could you please call the roll? [Roll Call] Jodi Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Thank you. All present. Chair Furth: Thank you Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications. That is a time to address us on something that is not on today's agenda but is within the scope of what we do. I don't see any cards for oral communications, do I? Let's see. These are all for items 2 or 3. All right. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions. I know we have one. We will not be approving the minutes of December 6th and December 20th because of production delays. Anything else? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, that's correct. That's it. I have comments on official business. Chair Furth: All right. Anything from the board? No agendas changes, additions or deletions. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: Any official reports from staff? We have the transmittal of our schedule, and attendance record, and tentative future agenda items. Staff? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. I just wanted to update the tentative future agenda. Seventeen Hundred Embarcadero will be delayed one hearing. The other items will be going forward on that date. Chair Furth: Okay, thank you. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: January 17, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4256 El Camino Real (18PLN-00096): Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for a new 51,861Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 100 Guest Rooms and Below-Grade Parking. Director's Adjustment Requested for a Reduction in Required On-site Parking (15%) and Loading Space Dimensions. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Being Circulated for Public Comment Between January 7, 2018 and February 6, 2018. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Okay, our first public hearing item is a quasi-judicial matter. It's 4256 El Camino Real. We're asked for a recommendation on the property owner's request for approval of a major architectural review for a new approximately 52,000 square foot five-story hotel, which has 100 guest rooms and below-grade parking. The applicant is also requesting from the Director - not us - an adjustment for reduction in required on-site parking of 15 percent and loading space dimensions. The environmental assessment on this project is in the form of a Mitigated Negative Declaration that was prepared pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act and is being circulated for public comment between January 7, 2018, and February 6, 2018. The zoning district is Service Commercial, and before we hear from the project planner, Sam Gutierrez, I would ask that we disclose any outside communications or information- gathering outside this hearing. And I wanted to say that I made another site visit, extensive, this week to view the Palo Alto Redwoods from the, what's currently the Su Hong parking lot. Other than that, no discussions or information. Osma? Board Member Thompson: No, I haven't, other than to be invited to go to the Redwoods, which I haven't done yet. Chair Furth: Right. Oh, I should note that we have extensive correspondence from the public and the applicant which was emailed to us previously, and we have physical copies, as well. Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday. Chair Furth: In the rain. Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: I visited the site. I didn't speak to anybody else, no. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: I visited the site and didn't speak to anyone. Chair Furth: Thank you. Staff? Could we have the staff report, please? Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning, Board members. My name is Samuel Gutierrez, I'm the project planner for this project here, located at 4256 El Camino Real. This is the second formal hearing for this project. Let's dive in here. Just on the cover page is a quick note. You can see here in the presentation that this is a revised elevation per the Board's previous direction at the hearing in November. Should note that the Chair indicated the distribution date of the environmental. It's listed as 2018; that's actually an error in the staff report. It's 2019. It's January 7th to February 6, 2019. This year. It's still in circulation this year. Chair Furth: Thank you. Sorry for not catching that. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Mr. Gutierrez: Continuing on. The first ARB formal hearing for this project as it went through prelim months before that was on November 15th. The ARB provided comments on the project regarding the renderings and the submitted plans. They wanted more detail. The applicant provided that and revised the renderings and clarified the color changes on that. There were comments about the façade interconnection, and the frontage, the design of the stairs. There are two stairs. There was one on the south and one located closer to El Camino. They provided redesign of those stairs. The roof form edges were also something that the ARB commented on and the applicant provided some additional details on that. There were comments about pedestrian furniture, window details. There's a window sample floating up there. The lobby entrances, as well. Clarification on color material changes. Consistency with the samples and the renderings. And, additional landscaping information. Just quickly to go over the project here. The project was revised in accordance with some of the ARB comments, and that resulted in some shifting in massing, particularly at the rear. I'll go into future detail later in the presentation, but that resulted in some square footage changes to the project overall, so an increase in square feet from 51,300 square feet to 51,861. But there was no change in guest rooms. It's still 100 guest rooms, and the parking count didn't change. The mechanical lift systems did change. They just changed manufacturer, but they meet the requirements per code, and they are providing 17 aisle lay spaces. The rear stairs were further integrated into the building. Again, that accounted for some adjusting in massing, which then resulted in some change in square footage. The materials as well were revised, and you have another sample of that. Here you can see a nighttime view, which was one of the renderings that was requested, just to see how this would potentially look. You can see some lighting effects on the building. This is a daytime view of the revised design with... There was a question about the color variation of the material on the front, so this has been revised to show that there is no color variation, in particular with the paneling, the wood paneling. This is the site plan, just to show some of the changes. There's actually some seating added to the façade in the front along El Camino. I'll go into greater deal on that. In addition to some of the massing shifting on the inside, that resulted in some loss of conference rooms that were previously proposed, and reconfiguring of the café/restaurant area, along with some other changes on each floor. Here you can see the rear building massing changes. You can see the previous design towards the rear, which abuts the Palo Alto Redwoods condominium community. The design on the left, you can see that the rear form was taller, and they had the stair tower closer to the rear. And on the right, you can see on this section that that was revised, brought down lower, and the stair, the rear stairs was better integrated into the building's massing, further away from the rear property line. This is the other stair tower, and in particular, to the...Closer to the El Camino frontage, and that is adjacent to the common open space of the Palo Alto Redwoods property. Where the pool is, the ARB had some comments about this stair tower, and you could see the previous design on the left, and the new design. There were some material changes on the building to try to accentuate this piece better as a part of the building form, and there was some blue form changes. To note in the staff report, staff is not quite sure if this is what the ARB intended when they provided comments, so we welcome a conversation from the ARB if this meets and satisfies what you were looking to see as far as changes and better integration of this piece to the overall building form. This is the rear elevation of what I was previously talking about, how the building would appear when viewed from the Palo Alto Redwoods community. The roof forms have been brought down lower and the massing pushed further away from the rear property line. This is the site elevation. Again, it was revised to note the material changes on the sides of the building because the ARB did comment on making it a nice building among all four sides of the building, not just the front. That was some clarification. Again, not quite clear if that meets the intention of the ARB's comments, so we would welcome that to be discussed. Here, you can see the sidewalk treatments. There are two images there. You can see on the top image, that's the building façade directly adjacent to the outside - semi-outside, I should say - eating area of the café/restaurant. There are some new planters and bench seating integrated on the El Camino sidewalk. There is some concern because the planter bench area to the south, you can see on the top right, the distance is under eight feet from that planter box to the tree that's proposed there. That might cause problems as the tree grows, and we've lessened that sidewalk. We recommend that that might be modified, and we'd welcome the ARB's thoughts on how that should be changed or removed. The other bench seating near the porte-cochere is on the lower photo and the lower site plan section there. There's a lot of actual room there. The sidewalk clearance from the actual bench to the curb is over 12 feet, but again, that tree to the planter area of the bench seating is about nine foot, 10 inches. There is some leeway there for the tree to grow and still have a decent size City of Palo Alto Page 4 sidewalk. Again, perhaps the ARB might feel that we should cut that back. We would welcome that conversation. There was, in the submittal, some parts that we felt were lacking. The signage in particular lacked some details. That might be something to go to subcommittee, or to be a condition to go to its own individual, separate submittal for approval, as well as the landscaping and photometric plans. They don't seem to quite correlate correctly, so that might be something to go to subcommittee if the Board feels comfortable with recommending that. I'll turn this over to our environmental consultant to discuss the environmental documents. Karly Kaufman: Good morning, Board. My name is Karly Kaufman. I'm with Rincon Consultants. We help the City with the CEQA process for this project. Chair Furth: Excuse me, could you spell your name for our transcriber? Ms. Kaufman: Sure. [spells name]. Just a little overview of CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act. Its core purpose is really to disclose environmental impacts, and of course, to try and reduce those impacts through mitigation measures where feasible. And, to identify ways to avoid or reduce those effects. Also, to foster interagency coordination, in this case, for example, inviting Caltrans to weigh in on the environmental impacts. And also enhance public participation in the planning process. On the public participation, we are currently in the middle of a public comment period, the only comment period for this project. As Sam mentioned, it started a couple weeks ago and will be going through February 6th, and we are welcoming written comments on the draft MND. After the comment period closes, we will be preparing responses to those comments, and preparing the final initial study MND. These are the areas that we examined closely in the initial study, Mitigated Negative Declaration. The kind of blue-highlighted issue areas are ones where we do find that potentially significant impacts could occur and mitigation would be required. I know this isn't a lot of detail. It's just kind of an overview of the mitigation measures that we've identified for this project. But, as you can see, there are a couple related to biological resources, specifically nesting birds and tree protection. A few mitigation measures to address the discovery of potential archeological resources that might be buried beneath the site. And then, geotechnical design mitigation measure to reduce potential impacts related to unstable soils and seismic safety. We also have a construction-related noise mitigation measure, pretty extensive, to address construction noise since there are noise-sensitive receptors, the residences immediately adjacent to the site. And then, also, a mitigation measure related to some site access and circulation considerations, in order to reduce potential traffic safety hazards. As I mentioned, we are currently in the middle of a public comment period which will close on February 6th. This is the information for folks that are interested in providing written comments, to either mail them or email them to Sam Gutierrez. And then, the next steps after that are, as I mentioned, will be to prepare them for final IS-MND and responses to comments. Thank you. Mr. Gutierrez: Just to inform the Board, today you were handed additional copies of the public comments for this project. We did receive a number of comments, again, for this project, and they center on the height of the proposal to the adjacent multifamily complex, the Palo Alto Redwoods; the potential shadows cast on their common area, which is the pool, an open space area, and their individual units; and the overall design and compatibility with the surrounding area and there on El Camino; any impacts of the proposal regarding traffic noise and to the adjacent redwood trees. As far as many of these comments, they are similar from the previous comments that we did receive, and in particular to the Redwoods' concern. Included in the previous presentation in the packet, there was an extensive arborist tree preservation and protection plan submitted, and that was also included in this one. So, we believe we have covered the issue with the redwoods in the sense that we analyzed them, we saw any potential harm, and developed a mitigation plan for monitoring and mitigating any potential harm to the adjacent redwood trees, from the Palo Alto Redwoods community and the redwood trees that are on site as well. Just to circle back. Some key considerations for the ARB, just to summarize the presentation, is the façade integration; the stair tower changes and relocation; changes to the building roof forms and reduction in height massing towards the rear of the project; the pedestrian seating; material variation on all sides of the building; signage; landscape lighting of the exterior, exterior lighting. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board take the following actions: Recommend approval of the proposed City of Palo Alto Page 5 project with the requirement of subcommittee review for the items indicated earlier; to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Alternative actions over and in addition to the recommended action: The Board may recommend approval of the project with modified findings or conditions; continue the project to date uncertain; or, recommend project denial and revised findings. That ends my presentation. Chair Furth: Thank you both. Any questions of staff or the consultant? I have a question of the consultant. The last issue that you mentioned on your list was sort of a micro traffic analysis close to the site. Could you take me through what the problems are and what the mitigation measures were? Ms. Kaufman: Sure. We look at site access and circulation issues primarily as it relates to a question of potential operational safety hazards, as those are maybe considered a physical impact on the environment. The mitigation measure has two specific recommendations, and these were developed in consultation with the traffic consultant, Hexagon, who prepared the transportation analysis. One of them was to add a convex mirror at the bottom of the ramp, or... Sorry. Let me just make sure I'm doing it absolutely correctly. Okay, thank you. Down to the garage to assist drivers with the sharp turn. There was a concern that the turn at the bottom is a little sharp, and to avoid potential conflicts, convex at the bottom of the ramp. And the other recommendation has to do with site visibility from the driveways, so adding a red curb between the two painted driveways to provide parking there, such that there would not be any vehicles parked there that could block site visibility from vehicles exiting the driveways. Chair Furth: There would be no parking in front of the... This would be the porte-cochere, which is most of the frontage. Ms. Kaufman: Yeah, I believe so. Chair Furth: At least it would be posted, and it... Ms. Kaufman: Yes. Chair Furth: ...it would be marked for no parking. Ms. Kaufman: Yes. Chair Furth: And a lot of the correspondence we've received has been about concern for people entering and exiting the Palo Alto Redwoods drive. Did your analysis discuss that, or is that more a part of the traffic engineer's study? Ms. Kaufman: I believe that, that would have been covered in the traffic engineer's study but I’m not sure how much that was considered in their analysis. We can have them respond to that in writing. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Could I add to your comment? Chair Furth: Sure. Board Member Hirsch: Do you also study the size of the curb cut relative to the sidewalk? Is that part of your study? Ms. Kaufman: I know that they do look at those types or sizes to make sure that they are compliant with code. I can have them provide a more detailed response, but I believe that is something that they look at. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. Gerhardt: The traffic study was reviewed by the City transportation department -- our Office of Transportation, I should say -- and they do have standards for driveways widths, given certain sizes. Board Member Hirsch: Do they consider the amount of sidewalk and limited sight? Is that a part of that study? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, so, we do have vision sight triangle requirements on the parking design facility standards for commercial projects, so that was a consideration. And this project was revised to accommodate the required two lanes. The frontage is different and that frontage, that porte-cochere with the two driveways and curb cuts, is designed to fit a certain number of vehicles efficiently and safely. That was looked at by the Office of Transportation and analyzed. There is actually a turn-in radius study also included in the plan set. It was a part of that analysis. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Furth: Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant, please? Mircea Voskerician, Applicant: Hi, my name is Mircea Voskerician... Chair Furth: Good morning. You have 10 minutes, and once again, I need you to spell your name for our transcriber. Mr. Voskerician: Yes. [spells name]. I represent the owner. The owner is not here today due to some travel constraints, but we have the entire team here - the architects, and Randy Popp, and our hotel consultant, who will be available to answer any questions. And obviously any questions for me. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Randy Popp: Thank you, Mircea, and good morning to the Board Chair, Vice Chair, and members of the Board. Thank you for your time here today. I'll just jump in quickly and... That's awfully small. Sorry about that. Our agenda is to review the previous ARB hearing comments, and specifically what we're planning to do today is talk about the 12 items that were open discussion items that came out of the last hearing. Our goal for today, as Mr. Gutierrez has suggested, is to secure project approval consistent with staff recommendation. We're happy to finalize any details the ARB is not resolved with at subcommittee, but our goal is to move the project forward efficiently toward plan check submittal. There is lots of detail in your packet, obviously, and you've had some time with that, so I'll just go through this at a pretty high level and come back to any elements that you feel we need to discuss in more detail. You asked us to provide more context along El Camino. This is a site that is in the midst of an area that has a variety of building types and heights. Certainly within this area there are single-story structures along El Camino Real, plenty of examples of buildings that are touching the 50-foot height limit, or beyond. To our east is the office building, of course, and to the west is the Palo Alto Redwoods. It sounds like you all have had a chance to go out there, but I'll just describe that very briefly as a dense residential development, award- winning, very nice project. Make sure that you all understand that that is a four story over garage that is roughly touching the height limit as well. You asked us to revise the design along El Camino to make the building more consistent. Our goal and our mantra in this is similar, but not the same. We want to promote consistency in materials, and generally, in particular, the balcony, eve and horizontal datum lines have been adjusted to allow the two sides of the building to be more consistent. But we still want some variety to break down the massing and create a bit of interest. Again, the goal here is to be not repetitive, not cookie-cutter. You asked us to better integrate the rear stair element, and initially we just changed the color. We made that more muted. I think that was shown in the staff report very nicely. We determined that rather than making that a one-off, we wanted to better develop that as part of the building language. We've repeated that material at the stair that is on the east side of the building, as well. Again, our goal is to create interest and some controlled variety. You asked us to think about the roof edges and increase the fascia height. We've thought about that quite a bit and we've tapered our City of Palo Alto Page 7 overhangs a bit more than we had previously. But we believe there is enough fascia. It's slender and refined. It takes effort and control to achieve this look. It's intentional, and it's consistent. The deep shadow lines it creates as an edge against a sky we believe will be quite nice. In keeping with the topic of roofs, you asked us to revise the roof forms to be more consistent. It's pretty clear in the elevation I think how successful this is in bringing order and calming a portion of the building at the rear, where much change occurs, that two, to three, to four, to five-story elements come together very nicely. I'd actually like to just thank you for this comment. I think it was a great suggestion. All right, here's your night rendering. I'll just tell you, I'm not a fan of this. It's a marketing rendering, to me. Color is distorted, lighting is exaggerated in order to make it look right. I'll just tell you, you have staff to thank for this being a part of the packet. I was really resisting it. But, for what it's worth, I hope this helps your evaluation. You asked us to add more pedestrian benches along El Camino Real. We're struggling with that a little bit in terms of the dimensions, but we have integrated them with the front elements. The grand boulevard is not quite at critical mass yet along El Camino and Palo Alto, but hopefully each piece as it is added will begin to reinforce the ideas and goals in a positive way, and we are glad to be consistent with that. You asked us to better describe the windows and the detailing. We have a series of different concepts, with subtle changes between them in terms of depth of recess and how materials either wrap into or overlap the edges of the windows. But, again, promoting consistency and knitting the building together are one of our guiding principles. It's not a patchwork of greatly varying details, but rather a fine palette meant to integrate the whole. We had some discussion about revising and enhancing the lobby entrance. We removed some upper-level planting and refined the design of the entry and the transition through to the rear. I want to just point out that I think one of the really significant elements of what our entry will be about is some attention that we're going to be focusing on public art in this area, in the lobby, which will go through a public process of its own. It's not developed yet. We're working with Danielle Wohl Art consulting, who has a fabulous amount of experience developing murals all over the world, and she'll be working with artists to do something spectacular in our lobby. Okay, so, let's spend a little bit of time talking about the placement and type of exterior materials all around the building. The Trespa at the north wraps around the west now, expending into the courtyard. At the east, an organized collage of materials allowing for interplay between the Trespa and the cement plaster at the front and transitioning to a more residential cement lap siding at the rear. Groupings of windows varying within the material frames further break down the mass and scale. Within your packet are some very detailed elevations and some call-outs that show you exactly where the materials go, but we also brought samples for you to see what we've got, and colors that are accurate to reflect the materials that we've selected. If you have any questions about that, I'm happy to go through that with you. You asked us to clarify the landscape lighting. We have prepared a page here that shows you that we've got in-ground lighting that is defining the stream bed as it moves through the building. At the rear, we've got some overhead market lights that are adding twinkle to the courtyard. At the front there are bollards and sconces for safety and pathway lighting at the drop-off area, and in the far rear, within the area of the, what I'll call the Redwood path, we've got downlights and wooden bollards to allow you to move through that space safely at night without causing any disruption or glare. I'll close with the last of the items, which is the landscape palette. Our goal here was to create a variety of texture, color and scale. We've got materials that are low maintenance. Almost all of this over podium. It's compatible with the activity, the solar access, and the plantings that are already in place on the site. It's water-efficient and long- standing. That's all I have for today. We had a pretty compact list of things to address and I hope that we've covered those appropriately for you. As always, we're here to answer any questions that you have. Thank you for your time. Chair Furth: Thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions? We'll hold the bulk of them until after the hearing. Anybody have anything that can't wait until after we hear from the public? When we've had a chance to look at the materials board, if staff could put them over on the wall there so the public can take a look. And then, the sample window is over here. And there is a sample board here. Trespa, whatever. Okay. We have several speakers this morning. Our first speaker is Stephanie Tranz, to be followed by Jean Kvasnica. Female??: [off microphone, inaudible] City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Furth: Is there any objection? Female??: No. Chair Furth: Everybody is fine with that. Which speaker card are you under? Female??: [off microphone, inaudible] and Peter Mills. (inaudible) Chair Furth: Reitman? Female??: Reitman. R-e-i-t-m-a-n. Chair Furth: Yep. Do you have two more, so you can follow... One more, so you can... Two more, so you can follow our procedures? We have A Mason [phonetic] ceding. Sharlene Carlson: She's going to be ceding to another speaker. Chair Furth: Oops. Our rules require that we have, what? Five people? Groups of five. Sorry about that, but they do. How long is your presentation? Ms. Carlson: Peter and I have maybe... Peter: Five minutes. Ms. Carlson: With the letter, six...? Six to eight minutes. Chair Furth: You may have six minutes. Why don't you proceed? If you could introduce yourself and spell your names for our transcriber. Peter Mills: Good morning. My name is Peter Mills [spells name]. I'm an owner of a unit at the Redwoods and a member of the board of the homeowner's association. I have a few comments to make, and then, I want to read a letter from one of the residents. Chair Furth: All right. Mr. Mills: Today, we are only providing brief comments on behalf of our homeowner's association, consisting of 265 residents living in 107 units on a 2 2/3 acre residential parcel. A number of homeowners have written letters to the ARB and we will let them speak for themselves or have others read their concerns into the record. We have many concerns that have already been made part of the record, but we again state that our concerns have not been taken into account or adequately addressed as the project scope has expanded on this small half-acre lot to a 100-room hotel with two levels of underground parking. We are not against development, but we object to this project because of its massive scale and its inconsistency with the neighborhood. We've repeatedly stated that there is not one single thing about the development that will benefit residents of the Palo Alto Redwoods or the neighborhood overall, and there are many things that will cause harm. Today, we restate that nothing about the project benefits the neighborhood. The traffic, pedestrian safety, parking, loading zone, the potential to kill the redwood groves, are all primary concerns of ours. We've repeatedly asked that the project be scaled back and provide neighborhood benefits. Last session, we asked that the Director's exemptions for reduced parking and loading zone be denied. We again ask that the ARB require the developer to scale back the project, and that the Director's exemptions be denied. The project is simply too huge. We are not Manhattan. The reduction in parking and off-street loading area benefits no one but the developer, who doesn't have to suffer any of the bad consequences of this bad design. The neighbors and the commuters all suffer. It seems unusual to have the second formal ARB hearing shortly after the release of the environmental impact report but before the public comment period for that report ends on February 6th. We will provide comments on all environmental concerns as part of that comment City of Palo Alto Page 9 process and we will speak to them fully at the next ARB hearing. We are not ready to comment today. At this point, I'd like to read a letter from one of the residents... Ms. Carlson: Why don't you let me finish... Mr. Mills: Oh, you want to finish that. Fine. Sharlene Carlson: [spells name] I'm a board member of Palo Alto Redwoods. I want to make a few comments about ARB findings, because in order to recommend this, you have to make all of the findings that you have. We believe that you cannot make a finding under Finding #2, specifically a., creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants and visitors and the general community. The hotel absolutely does not create a sense of order or desirable environment for the general community, or our Palo Alto Redwoods community. B., preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant. Palo Alto Redwoods is a landmark in the neighborhood, with our towering redwood trees. The property was a former redwood tree farm, and for decades residents have enjoyed seeing the towering trees close up and from afar. We fear that by damaging tree roots and reducing sunlight, trees will decline and die. Also, views of the landmark trees from El Camino Real for pedestrians and drivers will be blocked by the development. C., is consistent with the context-based design criteria. Although the hotel is allowed on a commercially-zoned property, it does not have the proper context to be so dense adjacent to a residential neighborhood next door. D., provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations. The hotel absolutely does not provide harmonious transitions in scale as it will tower over properties around it and appear many times larger than adjacent structures. The tall but narrow street façade will be unprecedented in the area and will appear way out of proportion to buildings around it in aspect ratio. And finally, c. [sic], enhances living conditions on the site if it includes residential uses and in adjacent residential areas. The hotel absolutely does not enhance living conditions at Palo Alto Redwoods, the adjacent residential property. It is intrusive, it does not respect our privacy, blocks our views of the sky and sunlight, creates light pollution and noise at night, will damage our redwood trees, will create havoc for traffic flow, and post safety risks to children trying to get to school. The hotel meets none of the criteria for harmonious co-existence with the adjacent residents of Palo Alto. Chair Furth: Thank you. You have... You've run out of time. If you would give the letter to staff, we can have copies made and be sure that it is in the record, and that we all get a chance... I guess we have it already, do we? Ms. Carlson: Will... If another speaker comes up, will that person be able to cede several, cede time to...? Chair Furth: The rules are baroque [phonetic]. You need five people, a group of five, at which point you can have 15 minutes. I'm sorry that they are so complex, but those are the rules that we have to abide by. Board Member Lew: You still have 30 seconds. Chair Furth: And I will give you an extra 30 for my interruption. Ms. Carlson: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Sure, if you can... [crosstalk] Ms. Carlson: Can we ask five people to cede time? Chair Furth: Of course. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Ms. Carlson: Okay. We have Richard Reitman, who has ceded time. We have... Chair Furth: By a show of hands, they have enough people ceding. You can give your name to our staff and then we'll have it for the record. Ms. Carlson: And Ruben. Let's allow Peter to continue reading. Chair Furth: All right. Mr. Mills: Again, this is Peter Mills, and I'm reading a letter written by Angel Rocha, who is a resident of the Palo Alto Redwoods. Dear ARB members: I'm writing as a nearly 25-year resident of the Palo Alto Redwoods to express my deep concerns about the 100-room hotel proposed for the adjacent property at 4256 El Camino. These concerns are not motivated by Nit-be [phonetic]. This property has always been zoned commercial and our residential complex has lived as good neighbors with various occupants, including Denny's and Su Hong, over the years. This particular hotel project, however, is still extraordinarily massive and dense and will block all daylight for a great many of our units, including all of the BMR units, regardless of time of year. You cannot permit this. The sun angle studies have been laughable. Throughout this ARB process, considerations of massing and neighborhood context modeling have been given a back seat to trivial construction materials and façade design. ARB has guidelines, I believe, to prevent new buildings from being incompatible with existing ones to ensure respect for the scale and privacy of adjacent residential development, and to assure that abrupt transitions are not designed in. None of these guidelines have been observed here. The developer has taken advantage of the high floor-to-area ratio allowed for a hotel to build this one within an inch of what is legal site coverage, but with little regard for the context of the neighborhood. I strongly object to another hotel being built next door, bringing with it additional traffic to our already-congested neighborhood. There are already close to 1,700 hotel rooms in a short 2 1/2 mile stretch on El Camino itself. We have Dinah's across the street, the Cabana a couple doors down, and the Palo Alto Inn next door, but at least they were designed with sufficient setback to allow light. The hotel corridor concept has been mismanaged to allow our neighborhood to become a dumping ground for structures with massive 50-foot walls that are extremely unwelcoming and create defensive blocks against the outside world. Please do not allow the construction of yet another one. Sincerely, Evangeline Rocha. And just to support that last comment, the slide that showed the El Camino façade of the hotel clearly shows that to the west, all you see are redwoods. It's beautiful. You don't see any buildings. All the buildings are set way back from the street. And all of a sudden, you go from redwoods with a parklike feel to this massive 50-foot façade of glass and steel on the edge of the curb. It just isn't consistent with the neighborhood. Thank you. Ms. Carlson: I know that we have one other person that was going to cede time, so, do we need to do that as part of this? Chair Furth: Are you...? How are you doing for time on your presentation? Ms. Carlson: I really don't know. Chair Furth: I mean, other people who are not part of your group are welcome to speak. Ms. Carlson: We'll let the other speakers speak. Okay, thank you. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Carlson: I did want to, I want to make one comment. I heard on the news today that VTA is closing down the Hotel 22, which is the... I just find it really interesting. That's the bus that runs up and down El Camino and where the homeless people often live at night. They're going to shut down the overnight aspects of it. Any place that's relying upon that particular public transit to get people to work, it may be quite impacted by that. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: Thank you. All right, so, Mr. Reitman ceded his time, I believe. Is that correct? And Ann Mason ceded her time? Neil Murphy? Good morning. If you could tell our transcriber which way you spell Neil. Neil Murphy: Does it count for time? Chair Furth: No. Mr. Murphy: [spells first name]. "Murphy" is common. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Murphy: As a taxpaying citizen of Palo Alto, I place my trust in you to make decisions about whether a project is appropriate for the community. You make these decisions based on your stated findings, each of which you must make in good faith. This project does not meet Finding 2.e. - to enhance living conditions in adjacent residential areas. I live in the adjacent residential area. This project not only does not enhance our living conditions, but in fact, actively detracts from them. This project fails to enhance living conditions in adjacent residential areas by drastically reducing our sunlight. The photo you have in my email was taken at 7:30 a.m. two months ago. As you can see, we actually get quite a lot of bright, direct sunlight. Warm light floods my living room and bedroom for four hours each morning. The excessive height of this five-story structure means that I will personally be losing 50 to 70 percent of the sunlight I get to my home each day, as the sun will be blocked by the top stories of a hotel every morning. Even my shade plants will die, and I will no longer get to enjoy the warm, early-morning sun pouring into my home every morning. By robbing us of sunlight, this project does not enhance our living conditions in the adjacent residential area required to make Finding 2.e. This project also fails to enhance living conditions in our adjacent residential area by installing a permanent public nuisance in the form of illegally-parked ride share vehicles, double-parked delivery vehicles, and tour buses. You can see photos 2 through 5 in my packet. I've collected about 50 to 60 of these, demonstrating that this is what happens, whether a carport is provided or not. And that hotels in particular draw large amounts of this traffic. Inexplicably, the plans provide no accommodation for tour buses. Since the site is too small for appropriate accommodations, the only place for them to unload is the stretch of curb immediately in front of our exit. This is precisely where they will park. A red curb does not work, and I have extensive evidence. Exiting our facility will become less safe and maddening when we pull out and immediately run into a bus, truck or car blocking a lane of traffic. It makes circulation less safe for passing cars and does not enhance our living conditions. Your approval requires that you are able to make each finding in good faith. The City of Palo Alto has become addicted to hotel tax revenue and developed a perverse financial incentive to favor hotels over housing. I fear that this may distort otherwise rational decisions about development, which I voted for, by the way. I fully support the right project for this site. This isn't it. If you look at the first elevation, you can see that this hotel doesn't match the character at all. The one that shows the two surrounding properties. Please don't sell out my home and quality of life to fund an addiction to exploding city pensions. Thank you. Chair Furth: Our next speaker is, is it Julie Baskind? Or did you cede your time? Miss Baskind? Julie Baskind: [spells name] As a 30-year homeowner of the Palo Alto Redwoods, with a unit on the second floor facing the Su Hong parking lot, I am disheartened to see the proposed development progressing with neither adequate consideration of its 200-plus residents, nor the fully vetted packet of environmental documents. Attached, I have two pictures from my unit attached to my email. Where to unpack? We have an inadequate light and shade study, ongoing dewatering concerns, tree root destruction, a traffic study conducted on a Saturday in mid-June, with neither businesses, Stanford nor schools were in session, to the artificial benefit of the hotel. I must add my name to a specific concern for our collective residents. The sole reason we're not afforded suitable protection regarding light, height, privacy, density, noise, hours of operation, is that 4250 El Camino was randomly zoned CS - Commercial Services by the City of Palo Alto more than 35 years ago. We at the Redwoods were completely unaware of this. Diverse neighbors have lived in our residential complex since 1982, co-existing with a mix of City of Palo Alto Page 12 residential and businesses. To suddenly permit this incompatibility of dense project, massive project, inserting a proverbial square peg into a round hole, is an anathema to the detriment of a community that has lived peacefully in this neighborhood. ARB and the City have the discretion to make a reasonable and rational decision, and indeed, the obligation to its citizens -- ideally, with some compassion -- even if the developer has the legal right to exploit the situation to its maximum. We acknowledge the inevitability of change, but this decision affects more than 200 residents in an era where Palo Alto's major concern is housing. Chair Furth: Thank you. John Hutar, to be followed...I think that's it. Female??: No, I... Chair Furth: Stephanie Tramz. Got it. John Hutar: Good morning. John Hutar [spells name], Vice President and General Manager, Dinah's Garden Hotel. Palo Alto's reputation has long been in high regard for the inclusive and thoughtful manner in the way its public policy and development projects have evolved. Recently, this lens has come out of focus. We were pleased to see the applicant acknowledge publicly that the parking and traffic piece of this project still needs more thought. While it is true that the ride share economy has reduced the number of rental cars, alternatively, the ride shares generate more vehicular congestion. The applicant's traffic plan omits the reality of dealing with large motor coach buses, which are now a popular method of shuttling corporate guests to and from hotels and their corporate campuses. The motor coaches are arranged by the company hosting the meeting, not the hotel operator. Be assured, the buses will come regardless of whether the hotel can or cannot accommodate them. The review board also needs to incorporate the reality that hotel employees have been forced back into their cars and are now commuting much longer distances. A few years ago, having an employee commute to Palo Alto from Modesto or Stockton was an exception. In today's world, it is becoming the new normal. The work commute reality alone makes the thought of reducing the number of parking spaces a very bad idea. Any parking gained by fewer rental cars has been consumed by more employees being pushed back into their cars. One last point of the traffic study, which gave me a chuckle: Corporate guests who stay in Palo Alto hotels do not and will not use public transportation in any appreciable manner that would reduce traffic congestion in any noticeable way. Lastly, I'll close with a question for the review board. The applicant states that they will not market their restaurant/bar to outside patrons in order to reduce overall traffic congestion. What mechanism will be put in place to memorialize this promise, both for the current applicant should the project go through, and for future owners of the property? Will the City really take a position on mandating what portion of a business an operator can market, assuming it's a legal activity? Will the City really not allow an outside visitor from joining a hotel guest staying at the hotel for a drink or meal? I encourage you to stop paying homage to the growing of the transient occupancy tax. In the past 10 years, it has grown handsomely, from 5 million annually to over 25 million, some with increased inventory, but mostly due to the industry's efforts and growing average daily rate. I encourage you to return to using the thoughtful and forward-thinking processes that shaped Palo Alto into the stellar community it is. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Jean Kvasnica? Jean Kvasnica: Good morning, good morning. I'm back here again. Chair Furth: Could you place the mic a little closer to your mouth? Ms. Kvasnica: Yeah, right. Jean Kvasnica [spells name]. Okay, so, I live at the Palo Alto Redwoods and you've seen me before. I'm here regarding the redwood trees. Let me just read the letter that you have in front of you. [Reading] I'm writing this letter with concern of a proposed hotel project at 4256 El Camino Real. I'm a homeowner at the Palo Alto Redwoods for 20 years, and during that time, I have overseen the health and maintenance of 60-plus redwood trees in partnership with our arborist, Henry Ardalan, a City arborist. As we all know, redwood trees are majestic. They are vital to the neighborhood. City of Palo Alto Page 13 They are vital to Palo Alto and its residents. Our grove of redwood trees being overshadowed by a 60- foot-tall project will be impacted significantly, and I'm sure we all know that. These trees are large, currently healthy, tremendous value to the quality of life and the mental health of those people living there. The ability to see blue sky for the towering trees, the privacy they provide, the sense of well-being. This would be taken away from the residents with this tall, 60-foot-tall hotel, blocking light, air and breathing space for these redwood trees to survive and thrive. It is no small thing to shut out the amount of direct sunlight. The trees need a circulation of air to keep them healthy. The project also proposes a 20-foot-deep hole dug for a two-level garage. Roots will be cut. To think the redwood trees would not be affected by this deep disturbance is to not understand how the roots are intertwined with each other to provide stability and nourishment. How can the ARB, a board who has the obligation and the duty to ensure the enhancement of our neighborhoods with reasonable and community-supported architecture first and foremost, find the proposed project reasonable to its neighbors and community, and enhancing the quality of our life, the life of the citizens of Palo Alto. This project must be disapproved for a more reasonable design that will enhance the neighborhood and the community it surrounds. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Does Stephanie Tramz wish to speak? Stephanie Tramz: Yes, please. [spells name] I am a condominium owner and a resident at Palo Alto Redwoods. I've lived at Palo Alto Redwoods for 20 years. I am recently retired from Stanford, and my condominium is my retirement home. I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I am very, very concerned, and I want to be frank about offering my remarks to this Board. I am amazed that this has come so far, so fast. For two years, this matter was dormant, and then, all of a sudden, upon five days' notice by mail, which I received five days before the hearing in my mailbox, there was a hearing on November 15, 2018, where all of a sudden, we hear about 100 rooms and five stories of hotel, plus a sixth story necessary for HVAC, etc. Somewhere, loomed out of nowhere this massive structure. It is absolutely inconsistent with the neighborhood. Dinah's Garden Court, which is an iconic and beautiful and historic part of Palo Alto, is right across the street, and it's two stories, or three at the most, and fronted by a garden. There's the Alexander Sea restaurant, which is just a story, across the street. These, what end up being six stories, are going to loom over not only our beautiful development, but the entire neighborhood, and going to stick out like some sort of grotesque aberration. Even the Hilton Garden hotel that was built down the street, finished about a year ago or so, only has four stories. It's a mixture of three stories and four stories with some sort of a topknot, but it is nowhere near the consistent mass of five or six stories that's being visited here. In addition to that, I am concerned about the fact that there has been this condensed, minimum, if it, if the notice is adequate, it is minimally adequate, reviving this monster project in November. And then, apparently there was an additional attempt to curtail the comment period for the Environmental Impact Report and bring it in for final approval today before our, even anybody had a chance to view the results or some of the complexities in that. Again, I don't mean to be disrespectful, but I am very, very concerned about how this has evolved. And I am frankly amazed that design staff are recommending approval of this structure because it will dramatically for the negative this part of south Palo Alto. We already have five hotel properties within a two-block area. We have the Hilton Garden Inn, we have the, Dinah's Court is there, there's the Cabana, there's the Marriott Courtyard, and one other. Homewood Suites. Homewood Suites recently built, is four stories. This will be far in excess in height over Homewood Suites. I am asking the ARB, please take a second look at all of this information because I agree with the prior speakers. I do not believe that this Board is going to be able to make findings that, Finding #1 that it's consistent with zoning and design guides. Well, I understand that exceptions have to be made for parking, exceptions have to be made for the six-story HVAC -- whatever -- and actually, when the City Council was running for reelection in November, there were many statements made by City Council members -- now elected -- who said they wanted to stop making all of these exceptions in favor of developers, and just have the City's processes being a tool for the proclivities of developers. Those are my comments. The details of the damage to our redwood trees, lack of light, lack of air, have all been explored by my compatriots. Thank you very much for your attention. Chair Furth: Thank you for your comments. Anybody else wish to speak before the applicant responds? City of Palo Alto Page 14 Female??/Daughter: This is my mother, Anna Rubin, who is a resident at Palo Alto Redwoods since 2013, and this is her retirement home, and she lives in a condominium there, as well. She's a little hard of hearing, so I'll repeat her comments to you. She told me that she wants to convey to you that she is extremely concerned about the redwood trees. She lives in Unit 210-A in Palo Alto Redwoods, which overlooks the redwood trees. Some redwood trees, unfortunately, had to be removed a couple of years ago because of problems with the tree roots that came from adjacent properties, and also some internal property areas. That was incredibly unfortunate, and she just really wants to make sure that you help to take care of the rest of the redwood trees that are there. The sunshine would be completely gone from the redwood tree area based on the proposed development, and there would not be any sunshine in her unit either. Right now, her unit does not have a tremendous amount of light because that's the only façade that provides any real light. That's the only exposure, the one that's by the redwood trees. Her view of the sky and of the sun at all, which is only present in the morning, would be completely obliterated by the hotel. She's on the second floor. She is very concerned about the health of the trees, making sure to preserve the trees, and also what the façade from El Camino is going to look like for passing people, as well. Did I forget anything you said, mom? Mrs. Halberstam-Rubin: No. I just wanted to second everything that our president of the association, Charlotte [sic], spoke before me. And basically, what my daughter mentioned. I look out the window and the only thing I see is the trees and a little bit of the street, the cars, and the sky. And I’m afraid that this very tall building that is projected to come up is going to obliterate my view totally from my condo. I enjoy very much where I live now, and I would like the Board to consider those things. Also, the traffic is going to be so tremendously increased. Thank you very much for listening to me. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mrs. Rubin. Could you explain a little bit more about where your unit is, where the unit is? Daughter: It's facing the parking lot and Su Hong directly, so it's... Chair Furth: The building toward the City Hall site, or the San Jose side? There are two buildings that face Su Hong. Near the driveway to the Palo Alto Redwoods, or the other end? Mrs. Halberstam-Rubin: I'm facing the right-hand wall of Su Hong right now. Daughter: When you look out you see... Mrs. Halberstam-Rubin: When you look at Su Hong from the street, the right-hand wall is where... Chair Furth: Closer to the pool area, then. Mrs. Halberstam-Rubin: Right. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mrs. Halberstam-Rubin: And then, the... I imagine that this building is going to take away some of the parking space which is now available at Su Hong, and this is where my view is also. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mrs. Halberstam-Rubin: So instead of seeing the street and the car and the sky, I'm going to see a big tall wall. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mrs. Halberstam-Rubin: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Furth: And for the transcriber Anna Rubin spells her name A-n-n-a, last name R-u-b-e-n? Daughter: Yes, it's Anna, A-n-n-a, Halberstam, H-a-l-b-e-r-s-t-a-m, Rubin, R-u-b-i-n. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mrs. Halberstam-Rubin: Thank you. Chair Furth: Larry Skarset, to be followed by Jeff Levinsky. Male??: (inaudible) next project... (inaudible). Chair Furth: Jeff Levinsky. Mr. Levinsky: Thank you, Board members. [spells name] I'm here to speak on behalf of the PAN committee. PAN is Palo Alto Neighborhoods, and we've looked at this particular project, and I don't think I can really add a word to the wonderful comments that have been made by all the residents of the building. But what I would like to say is that as they brought out, the law does say very clearly that projects like this are supposed to respect the neighboring residences. It talks about sunlight, it talks about privacy, it talks about, you know, what you see, and such. And this is a problem that we see all over the city. There was another project that we participated in, where the City Council, on appeal, turned down the project because of its impact on neighboring homes. And we hear from people everywhere, and we think the laws that we have are really good laws. We would like to see them work and be upheld. And I appreciate that a design can come all this time to you and be so filled with details and everything, and yet it misses these fundamental aspects. I urge you to use your creativity and will to say, look, there's a better way to do this, we do want these projects to comply. I ask you to look at that today. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? Hearing none, the applicant has 10 minutes to respond. Mr. Popp: I don't want this to come off defensive, right? That's not... Chair Furth: That's an excellent idea. Mr. Popp: That's not my goal here. But I... Chair Furth: Mr. Popp is speaking, for the benefit of the transcriber. Mr. Popp: Yeah, sorry, Randy Popp. Entitlement Consultant. I do want to address a number of the comments that have been brought up, though, and I think the first thing to say is that the staff report indicates very clearly, and without any hesitation, that this is a fully-compliant project. We have done extensive outreach, which led to significant changes in the massing of the building. We have the same FAR that we have virtually always had, but we've sculpted the mass of this building in a very dramatic way to move it away from the neighbors. And our closest wall to the neighbors' building is more than 45 feet. I understand the comments Mr. Levinsky's making, but I have to say that in an R-1 neighborhood, you can have 12 feet between buildings and it's perfectly acceptable. Setbacks allow that. We're 45 feet away from our closest neighbor. We've oriented windows away from their building. We've controlled how light and glare and all sorts of elements have been organized to really think about how to exist next to this other site. We've shown that the risk to the redwoods is minimized in an almost unmeasurable way. It's less than two percent likelihood that there will be any damage to the redwoods at all. For those of you who weren't here or missed it earlier, the City arborist has confirmed this. He came and spoke at our last hearing and was quite clear about saying that he has no concerns with how this building is organized and designed relative to the health of the redwood trees. I'll jump here really quickly and just go one more time to my diagrams that show the shadow studies and remind you that graphically what we've described is anything that is in gray is existing shadows cast by either by the redwood trees or the Palo City of Palo Alto Page 16 Alto Redwoods buildings themselves. The blue is what we're adding. And other than the absolute extreme points of the solstice, there is very little impact that our building will have that does not already occur as a result of the redwood trees and other site characteristics. I'll ask staff to address the transportation issues, but cars parked along the curb do not block traffic. On a divided road, safety and controls are naturally enhanced. The traffic study commissioned not by us, but independently by the City, does not indicate any of the concerns that have been described. Our approach is consistent with the requirements and we are a fully-parked project. I think that's really all I have to say. If you have other questions, if there are other things you'd like us to address, happy to do that. Our team is here to answer any of your questions today, and to help hopefully move this along. Thank you. Chair Furth: I do have a question. Does anybody else before I ask mine? My question was about the landscaping on the upper terraces. Could you take me through the proposal? Mr. Popp: I'd be happy to. As we've shown, the landscaping at the upper terraces is in planters. It's [crosstalk]... Chair Furth: It's not going to be in soil. Mr. Popp: That's how it's going to be. We've elected to leave more of the glass railing exposed and allow for vision into the aspects of the building, visual access through the railings. An option for us would have been to put a lot of planting up there, but honestly, it's difficult to maintain it. It's hard to control it up at that level. It's really meant to just add a bit of variety at the upper edge of the building. I honestly can't remember exactly what the planting is in those, in those planters right now, but it's in the packet. Sorry. This is Chris Lee from Studio T Square. He's the architect. Chris Lee, Studio T Square: I’m the architect, not landscape designer. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: You need to be close to the mic. Mr. Lee: I understand the landscape designer has designed an irrigation system for those planters, to ensure the planter would be kept green and nice throughout the season. Mr. Popp: The answer to your question is, it's fairly minimal, and it was intentionally fairly minimal. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: Okay. Chair Furth: Yeah, Alex, you have a question? Board Member Lew: I have a question about the stormwater drainage. Old-school development, everything drained down to the storm drain. That's changed in recent years where it's retained on site. I was wondering if you could sort of describe what's happening with water on the site. Mr. Popp: I don't have the drawings in the packet here but there are a series of bio detention swales that are designed on the site. Water that strikes the building or other impervious areas is directed to those bioswale areas on the site. It's held in that area or filtered in that area where, some period of time, it will eventually seep into the groundwater system, and in some cases, it's connected to a subsurface drainage system that orients that out to the storm drain system. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Chair Furth: Peter, you had a question. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Vice Chair Baltay: I have several questions for the applicant, please. First one, if you could pull up one of the sun studies, perhaps the March or September. It relates to just understanding your diagram, I guess. When I was out there at the site in the morning, I noticed ample sunshine around the swimming pool area. And as I read this diagram, it seems to be saying that your building will not cast any shadow on the swimming pool. And I'm looking at a 50-foot stair tower adjacent to the swimming pool. Can you explain what I'm misreading here? Mr. Popp: I don't think you're misreading it. If you don't mind, would you clarify for me around what time you were out there? Vice Chair Baltay: I beg your pardon? Mr. Popp: What time were you out there? Vice Chair Baltay: About nine in the morning. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, so, I think that if you, if we study these diagrams here, and we've been careful to geolocate these and to orient these. It's not something that we actually construct. I mean, you're an architect, you're familiar with this. You put this information into sketch-up. It geolocates the site for you, it has all the solar angles, it predicts the solar angle at that particular date and at that particular time. It's our... Mr. Lee: I will say, our five-story massing is mostly on the north side and the east side, so when the sun casts shadow, it casts shadow on the north side. We catch more shadow on the El Camino Real instead of on the south side or west side. Mr. Popp: I think, you know, just to add to that, the orientation and sculpting of the building that we've done, you know, the placement of the massing, is quite intentional relative to the context around us. The cut-off point of our larger front block mass of the building is relatively consistent with where the Palo Alto Redwoods building elevates in height. And the gap where the pool area occurs is consistent with where our courtyard is. The intention here is that as the building -- which is oriented relatively east-west in that orientation -- occurs, the morning light streams through, the afternoon light streams through. And it's really only in the middle of the day that we're casting some more significant shadows. Vice Chair Baltay: I don't want to cut you off, Randy, but if I could just be clear, then. On March 21st at 10 in the morning, you're saying that your building will not cast any shadow on the swimming pool. When I look at this diagram, that's how I read it. I'd like you to confirm that that's the case, that on March 21st at 10 in the morning, there is no shadow cast by your building on the swimming pool area. Mr. Popp: That's what we understand based on our studies. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. My next question has to do with, I'm just continually confused about the sequence of how a guest comes into the building. I wonder if you could walk me through. If I do rent a car at the airport and drive to the building, how do I check into the hotel? Can you just walk me through the plan on that, please? Olivier Severin, Hospitality Consultant: Hi, my name is Olivier Severin [spells name]. I'm the hospitality consultant. Typically, when a hotel guest comes on, right? Whether they're being dropped off by a third-party service or if they're driving their own car or rented one, typically what they will do is they will drive into the porte-cochere if they're being dropped off, and they'll come straight into the reception that way. If by any means they have their own car and they want to go down into parking, we typically have valet. They'll receive their car at the entry. If it's by any chance no valet or valet has gone down, they can drive down to the lower level as well, where there is a second reception area, where they come up through an elevator directly into [crosstalk]. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Vice Chair Baltay: That's my question, if you don't mind. When I drive my car down to the valet booth and the valet drop-off -- as it's noted on the plans -- how do I then get back upstairs? Mr. Severin: There's an elevator right there. If you see, there are two elevator cores. Vice Chair Baltay: Could you pull up that floor plan, please, for me? I'm just trying to understand the plans and I'm having a tough time reading them. [Pulling up plans on overhead.] Mr. Severin: These elevators right here. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. I guess those are the elevators in question. And where do I drop off the car again? Mr. Severin: There is a valet stand both here, and there will be another valet stand somewhere in this proximity. Basically, the valet will receive the car here, they'll come down and enter the elevators here, going up into the reception. Vice Chair Baltay: As I drop my car off, I walk across the parking lot to the elevator? Mr. Severin: No. There is...You can't see it... Mr. Popp: Peter, the cars will come down this ramp, circulate around, and pull up in this spot. Right? Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, yeah. Mr. Popp: Then, you can exit your car. The valet will take it from you. You immediately go into this elevator that's immediately adjacent to that. Go into the elevator that's immediate adjacent to that and move up into the [crosstalk]. Vice Chair Baltay: Is that waiting lounge then for me to go into while I'm waiting for the elevator. Mr. Severin: It's just the space in front of the elevator. The elevator should be pretty quick, within... Mr. Popp: At that point, it's really a fire lobby in the garage, but yes, it's a waiting area. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. My third question has to do with just locating for me, please, where the roof details are. We've asked for some specific details of the design regarding that roof overhang. I just can't seem to find it in the drawings. I'm sure I’m missing, again, where it is, but could you point to me, please, the roof details we've asked for? The eaves? I'm particularly concerned with the large overhanging roofs facing El Camino, where it seems to be several feet of overhang. And you were eloquently describing the thickness of the fascia. Mr. Popp: I'll agree that on A4.3, we have the roof edge detail for the building. Vice Chair Baltay: Four-point-three is where the detail is? Mr. Popp: Four-point-three, yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: And that detail is the detail...? Mr. Popp: At the rear roofs of the building. If you're asking about the large overhang at the front. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Could you locate that for me, please? City of Palo Alto Page 19 Mr. Popp: Walking through my set here... I think we have that drawn in some sections, Peter, but there isn't a more at-scale detail of that. Vice Chair Baltay: I see. Okay, so, that explains why I couldn't find it. Thanks. Mr. Popp: That explains why you can't find it. Vice Chair Baltay: My last question -- I'll be quick, Wynne -- if you could pull up your landscaping, your tree samples drawing, it was the last one on your presentation. Right there. Which are the trees that are under the redwoods in the back? You have some proposed screening trees, and again, just the way your schedule was drawn, it was really tough for me to follow. I just couldn't relate. Which image of these trees is the one that's at the back of the property, under the redwoods? Please. Mr. Popp: Give me a second and I'll get that for you. [Locating slide.] Vice Chair Baltay: To the chair. I'm sorry to ask such a detailed question. Mr. Popp: Oh, no, it's fine. Vice Chair Baltay: It's just so important to get the trees under the redwoods [crosstalk]. Mr. Popp: I'm positive I'm going to be able to answer this for you as clearly as you're hoping because... Chair Furth: If you want to come back to it at a later moment, we can do that. Mr. Popp: Architectural imagery... Chair Furth: You've got your plant list on L3. Mr. Popp: Okay. Chair Furth: You've got your plant design, then you have your plant list. Why don't we let you think about that for a moment while we address some other issues, then we'll come back. Mr. Popp: All right, that's fine. Chair Furth: Any other questions about anything else? Vice Chair Baltay: That's it, thank you. Board Member Thompson: I actually have one. Mr. Popp: Just one second. Board Member Thompson: Shall I wait? Mr. Popp: Okay, we'll get you that answer. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. I just had a question about the exterior façade. You have oil- stained Hardie board and Trespa, and from what I understood, I just wanted to clarify, the Trespa is happening on the street side and on the east side, and then, the Hardie board is happening on the interior courtyard elevations? Is that correct? City of Palo Alto Page 20 Mr. Popp: Generally. Let me just walk you through that very briefly. If we look at the front elevation of the building, all the material that you're seeing that looks like wood on the front is the Trespa material. If we travel around the west side of the building, that Trespa material wraps around and just touches the corner here and is broken by that stair tower element. And at that point, we're going to transition to some of the more residential-focused siding, the Hardie siding. We've done that intentionally because it faces the Palo Alto Redwoods buildings. As you wrap around the rear of the building, all of that is the Hardie siding as it wraps around the south. And then, working our way back to the east again, the Hardie siding wraps here and tucks under. We've got a... This was that sort of collage of planes I was talking about earlier. We've got a panel of the cement plaster here that starts to create a break point, and then, the Trespa is slipping in, under and above the cement plaster that then transitions back out to the front of the building again. We've tried to really think about how we are wrapping this building, you know, applying that material in very specific places and for specific reasons, and having it stop and start at very logical points on the building. Board Member Thompson: Does the base of the stair tower on the west façade, that's Hardie board? Mr. Popp: That's correct. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so there is kind of a line where that... Mr. Popp: Right, it aligns with the edge of the stair tower, where that occurs. Board Member Thompson: Okay. That was my question. Mr. Popp: We don't want to stop that material at an outside corner, and if you look at the interior of the courtyard, having that wrap in and under would be, it sort of breaks down the language of having that on the front versus the back. We pulled the Hardie board around the front just a little bit, and the Trespa, and the two of them touch right where that stair tower element is. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I think that's it for questions. Mr. Popp: Underneath the redwoods, we have the madrone, the arbor vitae... Vice Chair Baltay: Could you show me the image of that, please. Mr. Popp: You're going to strain my landscape ability. Not in my presentation, but in your packet on L4.0. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm sorry, you had it on your presentation, an image... Mr. Popp: I did, but what I had in my presentation is the architectural image of the plants. If we're going to be specific about this, if you don't mind, I'd love to go to L4.0 in the landscape packet, since you're asking to specifically identify the... Chair Furth: Can staff get us the best possible image up there, please, so the public can follow this discussion? Mr. Gutierrez: I can get that up, sure. Chair Furth: You don't have L4? [Looking for image] Chair Furth: There you go. Thanks. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Mr. Popp: Okay, so, I don't know if you can really see my pointer here. Top row, second from the left is the arbor vitae. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm sorry, those are the plants you're putting under the redwood trees in the back? Mr. Popp: Underneath the redwoods, okay? Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you very much for explaining that. Mr. Popp: Oh, no, I'm sorry, it's not the entire top row. Chair Furth: It's a mix. Mr. Popp: Let me be specific about this, if you don't mind, if you'd like. The arbor vitae, which is second from the left on the top; the western redbud and Pacific madrone are the top two on the right. Second row, second in from the left, is the rosemary. Those are the plants that will be, those are the primary plantings that are under the redwoods in that area. Vice Chair Baltay: Great. Thank you for explaining that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Thanks for the time. Chair Furth: Okay, we'll bring it back to the Board. Ms. Gerhardt: Board members, if I may, before we go into discussion, I just had a few comments. Chair Furth: Yes, staff. Jodie. Ms. Gerhardt: Related to the valet, we do have a Condition #7, which states that valet shall be present on the site 24/7. That is due to the reduced parking, due to the mechanical lifts, things of that nature. That would always be there. There were some comments about the public notice. You'll see in the staff report, we do talk about the public notice. Those get sent out 10 days ahead as required in the code, and also 13 days ahead it gets posted in the local paper. Regarding the restaurants and the advertising, we would be happy to put a condition in the project, stating that there would be no signage related to the restaurant as this is meant to be a restaurant for patrons. But, of course, we're not requiring that no public enter the site. There was a question about the Redwoods being zoned CS and if they were zoned RM, what would the differences be. The major differences there -- sorry, let me get my notes. Chair Furth: If they were zoned RM 40-plus... Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Furth: ...which is residential multiple family density of more than 40 units per acre. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. The Redwoods property is over 40 dwelling units per acre, so it doesn't nicely fit into any of our zones, but it would... Chair Furth: I understand. It fits nicely into our city. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, yes. But it most closely fits into the RM-40 zone, so if I use that standard, there actually would be no difference, had the property been zoned that. The only potential difference would be height and daylight plane, but because... It would have to be zoned, like, RM-30 or RM-15. It would have to be a lower-density project in order to change the height and daylight plane regulations. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Furth: To summarize, they would be entitled to the same height, they would be entitled to essentially zero setback? The rear lot? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. It doesn't change the setbacks. Chair Furth: But what makes this special is that the hotel use increases the floor area ratio. Right? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct, and that's any hotel and any commercial property. Chair Furth: Got it. We had conversations about this back in 2017. The planner, Sam Gutierrez, provided me with copies of correspondence from 2017, in which we went through this issue and did establish that while the City has different standards for development near lower-density residential housing, it doesn't for something that's developed at the RM-40 density that Palo Alto Redwoods is. So, the anomalous zoning does not, in fact, provide less protection than an RM-40 would have. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. That's a great summary. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: Related to ride share, we would be happy to add a condition. It's our understanding that businesses can contact the ride share, the Ubers and the Lyfts of the world, and specify where they want their patrons picked up. We would be happy to include that condition, and that could be monitored through the TDM program. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else? Male?? [inaudible and off microphone] Ms. Gerhardt: Related to the tour buses, the porte-cochere is not designed to handle those. We have designed it to handle your standard FedEx-type truck, and we've done the circulation to do that. The curb in front of this property would be red zoned, so there would be no parking there. Tour buses, however, are allowed to park in parking areas along El Camino Real. We've started some discussions with police and Transportation Office. We are aware of the issue, but it really is more of a citywide issue that we need to handle at that level, versus a project issue. We are continuing to delve into that, but we don't have a whole lot of information from the community, so any information they can send us in about the issues, where it's happening, photos, things of that nature, would be helpful because we don't have a lot of that right now. Chair Furth: Mr. Murphy's correspondence will be helpful in that regard. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, if he could email us the photos. Chair Furth: I think he has. It's in our packet. Mr. Gutierrez: That was receive, I believe, yesterday. Chair Furth: You will find it in the packet. Caltrans [sic] is a state highway. Does that reduce our ability to make decisions about curb markings, or are we okay? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, El Camino is a state highway. I mean, that's something that we need to work out with them. We haven't quite gotten to that level quite yet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay, I'll bring this back to the Board. There's one thing I wanted to say first, which is that we are still in the environmental review public comment period. We know we're going to get more comments, and then we'll get response to comments from our consultant. We are an advisory City of Palo Alto Page 23 body. That's why we can make recommendations before the final environmental documentation is approved, and we do it frequently. But the environmental documentation we look at isn't usually as complex or contested as it is in this case. My point of view before we have our discussion is that I am not in favor of making a final recommendation on this until we have the complete environmental documents, which would be after February 7th. Is that right? That's when the public comment period closes? Ms. Gerhardt: That's not a hundred... The document is currently circulating. It is a draft document. It is only a draft because we are asking for comments. Chair Furth: That's right. That's the point. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. It closes on February 6th. And we did change... Thank you for bringing this up because we did change the circulation period on this. We had started circulation at the state before the holidays, but unfortunately, the rest of the circulation didn't quite get out with all of the holidays. We did receive communication from a Carmen Borg, a planner with a San Francisco attorneys' firm, asking about the circulation period, and we adjusted the circulation to give the full 30 days. That's why we have this new end date of February 6th. When we receive all the comments, then we will take time to respond to those. Chair Furth: Right. And I’m just telling you this because it's not my usual approach to this, but I do think in this case it's going to be in everybody's interest -- including the applicant's -- to have the full documentation before we make a final recommendation. Having said that, who would like to begin? Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Sure, great. Good morning. Thank you. I've got quite a few comments here. Some of them we've already touched on. I find that the site planning of the building, the basic location and the massing, actually to be quite logical. Over time, the design has really worked hard, I think, to mitigate the impact on the neighboring building in the back by stepping down the building at the back, by creating an L-shaped building that tries to stay away from casting shadows on the swimming pool area by putting the bulk of the building up on front, on El Camino. Certainly the high parts of it. I find that that does create an enhanced environment for the living area of the building if you consider that to also be the public face of it, along El Camino. This is the kind of building that the guidelines anticipate and say that we should be building on El Camino. Buildings of this mass and size up close to the El Camino Real frontage. I find it, on that regard, I can easily make that finding, that it's required. I want to be clear that on that sun study I was asking questions about, I am skeptical that this building will not be casting shadows on the swimming pool area, and I would find that unfortunate if that were the case, especially after being reassured that it's not. I just put that out to my colleagues, that perhaps some additional verification somehow. It's very hard to read these thumbprint-sized diagrams. I have some concerns about some of the circulation items that we have been addressing relating to the transportation. When I go to the valet drop-off down in the garage, which is, I think, almost anyone driving a car will have to do that. It's such a tight, tight, congested environment. It's really unfortunate that there's no easy and obvious way to get back up to the lobby. I'm checking into what will be a very high-end hotel, and I have to sort of find my way 25 feet through the garage to the back of the elevator standing next to the parking area. It seems to me there should be some sort of a staircase taking me up to the lobby and some obvious visual connection. To be honest, I expect that during the design process, at some point, that might be changed, but I really would like to see some effort made to make a real positive connection from the underground valet drop-off to the lobby of the building. And I really would hate to see something like this get built, where the guests... Certainly, I would just walk up the ramp. It's a tight and narrow ramp with a sharp turn. That would be dangerous. And yet, you've created a situation that really promotes that. I could easily see a way to get a staircase coming up and it would really be a graceful addition to the building, just to connect the lobby to the valet drop-off down there. If I look at the... Let me come back. The one massing item that I have a continuing problem with is the stair tower on the north elevation. It's visible on Drawing A4.3 or on A5.2. It seems that you've changed the roof of the piece of the building adjacent to the stair tower to make it flat and a little bit taller, and then, raised the height of the enclosure around the stair tower. Both of those may be good compositional design features City of Palo Alto Page 24 for the façade of the building, but I think if I were sunbathing in the neighbors' pool area, I would find that just to sort of add salt to the wound. This is already a tall part of your building that's overbearing. I'd like to see you make an effort to really mitigate that. I think that was our comments earlier about the stair tower, to somehow make that look less like a tall, dark object, which is what it is now. And I think you've even raised the height of it. There's got to be a way to make that look lighter and more open and take the piece of roof next to it and slope it down, or something. But really consider the experience from the neighbors and their pool area, looking up at your hotel. This will be visible, and it's unfortunate the way it is presented right now. I would expect and would really like to see the signage, especially the traffic signage, be much better integrated into the design. Right now, your renderings show a series of neon or electric signs -- which are essential for this building to function -- just sort of slapped on the side of various elements around the porte-cochere. It really needs to be shown better how that is going to work so its an integral part of the design, especially... And I think it's appropriate to see that now with the architectural review, not postponed as a signage thing, because it's so integrally part of the functioning of this hotel. For this circulation to work, you need these signs to direct people where to go. It would really be nice to see them integrated. I continue to struggle with the treatment of the windows on the façade. It seems to me there are three or four different kinds of window openings that are being put forth. On left side of the front they seem to be flush set somehow to the Trespa siding. On the right you have a plaster reveal with several inches of reveal there. On the back it seems altogether different, again. I understand that you don't want everything to be the same. We want some sense of texture to break up monotony, but this just seems to me sort of eclectic and haphazard. I just put that out there to see what my colleagues think about it. I have the same sense about the roof eaves, especially on the tall ones I was asking about earlier, at the top of the building. I see precious little detail, how they're really working. When I look at your renderings, if I describe the mass of the building on the left as I'm looking at it from El Camino, that roof piece seems to have almost no overhang on its right-hand side, where everywhere else it does. It's that lack of detail that I'm just finding painful to look at, and it really does need to be revised and thought through. I don't see any of the details in the plans again, and I understand you want to get this approved, but we've asked you once about it; I'm asking you twice about it. I think that when I approach the building, the porte-cochere has a very nice-looking soffit. It's an attractive surface with beautiful light fixtures. It's often the place where plumbers and fire sprinkler contractors run their pipes. I'd like to see some sense of how we're going to avoid having that surface be made less attractive. Again, I know that sounds detailed and fussy, but we're designing a hotel that's on a very compact site, and the transportation and the access and the integration of vehicles and people at these covered areas is critical. And making that ceiling at the entrance not attractive doesn't help get that to work better. Again, just some sense of detail and understanding that you guys have through it through would be appreciated. I find the mechanical screening on the top to be perhaps too tall. I'm wondering if you can't reduce that. As I read the plans, you have a 10-foot chilling unit, which is already pretty large, but you have an 11-foot screen around it. Is there any way to cut that back, or perhaps help me verify that it's really just not visible from the street frontage? Or from the back. I grant you that the code allows equipment to go some 15 feet above the 50-foot height limit, but the more we can reduce those screens, make them the absolute minimum to cover the equipment and... Just check your equipment. If you can cut it down to six feet, put the screen at six feet, you'll just so much reduce something. It's really not hard. It's not a big compromise. Perhaps just a little more thought at the moment. I'm concerned about the variety of materials and the changing of Trespa to Hardie board siding. When I look at your Hardie board sample there, that's the least expensive, the simplest Hardie board, and it is so sensitive to being installed correctly and detailed carefully at the corners, and at the windows. I don't see those details in the plans, and I don't see a sense of understanding of how that works. You're showing windows which have Hardie board siding not flush to the flange of the window, showing a sense of reveal. Which gives it a nice architectural character, but your choice of materials makes that extremely difficult to execute. I've had this nit-picking type of detail on other projects and I stand behind the sense that using things like fiber cement siding requires an exceptional level of detail in order to allow us to make findings that the building is of a high aesthetic quality. Right now, I'm not seeing the details, and I'm cautioning you that it's hard to do with such an inexpensive material. It's also unfortunate not to carry the same material around the building, especially when it has almost the same color and texture, appearance. Why not just use the same material? Lastly, on the landscaping, I have two concerns. One is the arbor vitae under the redwoods, I think is really a poor choice. It seems to me that the biggest thing it will do is further block City of Palo Alto Page 25 light for the neighbors. It's a dense, hedge-like plant. Secondly, I just don't understand how that is aesthetically compatible with redwoods, which have a light and gracious sense while still being tall and powerful, and a real sense of the bark. These just completely conceal that and fight it, in my mind. And then, you show images of some very attractive outdoor lighting on your patio out there, but it would be nice to understand how that's going to work, when they will be turned on. Again, if I were a guest at the hotel, I would find that wonderful. If I lived next door and those lights were on at 10 o'clock at night, I would find that really annoying. I think it's incumbent upon you to show us what you're thinking. There's no plan whatsoever for lighting design. And then, to really consider the impact on the neighbors. Again, that's not something that's hard to do. As a hotel operator, you can easily find accommodation. I'm ticking off many, many places that I'm still just not seeing full answers. I know you want to get approval, you want to get a recommendation today, but I'm finding that hard to do with so many places that aren't here, that we have been asking you for. That's the sum of my comments right now. Thank you. Chair Furth: David, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I certainly agree with a number of those comments just made, and like I said, would somewhat reduce my concerns. The materials, I would like to see uniformity of a material that is wood-like throughout the building. I don't see any reason for variation on that. And in terms of the other materials, I'm maybe not as detailed as has just been described, but I like the variety of it, and it isn't a, kind of a single material selection here that dominates, or window pattern that dominates. I find that to be appropriate to this kind of a use. I'm concerned, as I mentioned before, about the, really, the destruction of the sidewalk, with a double entry on one side, and then, parking as well. It's not a very wide site, and it seems to me that the sidewalk is pretty much destroyed by this entry. Not that I see any other way around it, but the scale of the hotel just requires this kind of drop-off entry. And in fact, that's the other problem with bus, buses at the front of the building, because it reduces the place that buses can park if they're dropping off at that location on the street. I think that the problems of valet parking could probably be solved, and that does relieve the front area somewhat. But it certainly isn't complete. Then you have the seating, which was recommended by this Board, and the seating, I guess, is useful for a bus. Will a bus really sit there? I think that needs to be studied from the City side a little bit more to see if it's possible to maybe eliminate one of the lanes that enter into the porte-cochere. You know, I have kind of an interesting comment about the hotel and the verity of it. I look at it on one side as a very symmetrical design, and the other side as a very, sort of causal design. It reminds me of the, sort of the Senate and the House of Representatives. Senate on the right, a smaller scale. House of Representatives on the left is a little different and its design more casual, with many more rooms on that side as well. But I’m confused about the roof lines, even so. It seems to me that there is a sloping roof line on the left and straight on the right, raising up towards the front, and I don't quite understand why, in fact, those two couldn't be the same kind of a roof line. And then, the same appears in the back. I know there is a series of kind of sloped lower roof elements that step up towards the hotel. In a sense, they're trying to make the scale change different in order to relate a little bit more to the Redwoods community behind. But it seems to me that, that doesn't look like it belongs on this building somehow here. There's a complete change in the nature of the rear projections, stepping down. One would have to go very far through the planning process earlier on -- before I certainly was a part of this project -- to see if maybe that could be pulled in closer to the building, and not have so many steps at a lower level. Again, I don't think it's possible really to make changes in the hotel design, basic design to accommodate that. I would look to try to do a different window pattern on the back that simply was similar to the rest of the hotel. Those are my major concerns. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. We'll come back to you, or anybody else who wants to add anything. Osma? Board Member Thompson: Hi, there. Thank you for your presentation. I also just wanted to say that, I want to thank all the members of the public that came and spoke. It's really great to hear everybody's opinions on this, and it's nice to see the turnout. Firstly, I'll say I do appreciate the night render, so thank you for that. I think it did help evaluate this building because I think it does bring things out. There are a lot of comments that Board Members Baltay and Hirsch have mentioned that I agree with. There is, I think, a struggle with the material, at least at this moment. The Trespa doesn't have that level of City of Palo Alto Page 26 complexity that your previous render had, from last time. I almost want to say that your project suffers a little bit more now by choosing a, sort of less-complex material, less higher-quality material. I appreciate that you're using it in a way that creates a lot of detail by creating a horizontal striation, but I don't now if it's enough. It's something that I'm struggling with a bit. I do agree that the building is very massive, and I remember some conversations the last, maybe not the last meeting, but the one before, about maybe considering having this building having a better relationship with nature and its surroundings. And while I see that in terms, at least in the back you've attempted to step down, there's still not a very good relationship the actual design of the building has with, with nature, I would say. In that sense, I think the project suffers a bit. The collage on the southeast side façade of the four different types of materials definitely, it seems more disjointed than harmonious, and it would be nice to see if there were ways that you could treat things that sort of has a bit higher level of harmony. That also goes to the different types of windows and such. There's sort of... It's a lot of different pieces, and I think we're looking for something a big more cohesive. I'll also echo Board Member Baltay's note on the shadow studies. It's true. This building is located on the northeast, so I don't know that it would cast shadows necessarily on the neighboring structures as much as it would just sort of block skylight. But, it's true. I'm not 100 percent convinced that those shadow studies are accurate. For example, there is an image that shows that it is creating a shadow on one of the adjacent buildings, but it's not showing that it would be creating a shadow on the floor of the adjacent building. I would agree that I’m not sold on the shadow studies. In general, though, I think there is still so many issues with this building that I don't know that I could approve or recommend approval for this. I'm not convinced the massing is doing everything it can, and contextually speaking, I don't know that it works very well. Not that it couldn't get there, but at the moment, I actually think this is a step back from what we saw last time in terms of the development of the design. I'll leave it there. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Okay, so, I have a lot of comments, and they are all over the map. I do have a whole... Chair Furth: Really? Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: You should see the back of his drawings. Board Member Lew: I have lots of comments on findings. I might, if the Board is thinking about not approving it, I might wait for the next meeting on that. Chair Furth: I think anything that's substantive is very important. Board Member Lew: Yeah. And I have some general thoughts on the project, and also a lot of little nitpicky things. I was thinking maybe just doing the, just mentioning the nitpicky things first, just to get them out of the way before I forget about them. One is the, I think you have some gates on the front for the transformer and the trash access, and I think I asked for consideration of a design for that, and I didn't see it today. I think I would lump that together with Peter's comments about eave details and that kind of stuff. On the exterior lighting. I think I do agree with the comments, previous comments about the, the twinkle lights in the courtyard. Also, in your lighting plans, you're showing new cobra headlights for the street lights. I just want to point out that the City has been changing the street lights on El Camino, so we actually have two different types of fixtures. There's a high, and a low. I didn't see that in the conditions of approval. They might be in there, but we normally... I've seen that on other projects, say, for the Mayfield housing at Stanford, on El Camino. That was put in there. I think maybe staff should, you could just double-check on that. The new light fixtures are on the recently-completed America's Tire on El Camino and Arastradero, so it's... Yeah, the intent is to implement it everywhere. Also on the plans, I think there are some inconsistencies regarding the street trees. Some of the plans say that the trees are going to be relocated, which I think is highly unusual for a London plane. And then, City of Palo Alto Page 27 the planting plans are showing new trees on the planting, on the planting list. I think that that needs to be reviewed. Also, on recent projects, we've changed the planting... What do you call it? The planting tree wells? We do have different designs in front of the Hilton Garden Inn, as well as the Mayfield housing. They chose to do something different to try and enhance the growing conditions for the trees. And those designs differ from the El Camino design guidelines, which I think recommend the tree grates. And we don't have tree grate detail in here. I don't know if it's absolutely required, but it's in the guidelines. On the signage, I think there is a traffic sign proposed for the porte-cochere, and it seems very confusing to me. It seems to me to point to people... You have to point people to drive on the sidewalk, as I read it. I think that's all of the nitpicky comments that I have that haven't been already mentioned by other Board members. In general, I think I can make the findings for compatibility. I looked at the site yesterday again, and I think the choice of materials and stepping of the building actually can fit into the site. I think it does look a little too, it looks a little too tall and a little too vertical. It is a little bit taller than the Hilton Garden Inn and the Homewood... Is it Homewood Suites? Both of those structures are slightly smaller. They were built under the allowable floor area. They were built at 1.75 floor area. That was their choice. Also, I'll just mention that in, like, Mountain View, their hotel floor area is 1.75. To me, that looks better. You get a little bit more stepping than a full 2.0 floor area. And I would say a 2.0 floor area hotel that was recently built was the Clement here, near University Avenue. But I do understand the 2.0 floor area was put in by the Council. They've approved them on other projects, so I will respect that. My personal choice is to have something slightly lower. On the building design, I think I can make the findings. I think all the suggestions, I think cumulatively will actually help make the design even more compatible. And I think we should mention that this project, like, far exceeds the zoning code minimum recommendations. In the CS zone, there is no setback requirement for the rear or the side yard. And if I look at the site plan of this project, it seems to me to be fairly close to the Palo Alto Redwoods, just in terms of site planning, and layout, and footprint. It doesn't seem that different. It is five floors, but they've squished the floors. They only have eight foot ceilings on, I think the first four floors. Most of the other hotels have taller ceilings, is my recollection. Especially on the first floor. I think the Hilton Homewood Suites has a very tall first floor. Yeah, so, I think I can get there. And then, I won't talk about the findings, but I will say, in general, I think we do need to address the resident's comment about number 2.3., which is enhancing living conditions in the vicinity. Maybe I'll go into more detail next time, but I would just... Chair Furth: I think now would be a good time. Board Member Lew: Well, I would say in general, maybe if we do it at the next meeting, I'll get into it in great detail, but for, like, 25 years, my grandparents lived on the top of Nob Hill, right next to all of those big, fancy hotels. And they purposely did that, and they purposely wanted to be there instead of down in Chinatown because it was a really attractive, safe environment. And that was because of the hotels. I mean, it really... I don't think having a high-end hotel district and housing are incompatible, just based on my experience in that area. I think it was actually nicer, having the two together. And I think that... I think I heard on other projects that residents don't like the idea of the hotel there because it brings in a lot of transient uses and people, but I actually think at the higher-end level of this type of design, I think it does not do that. If I look at the Hilton Homewood Suites, you know, it used to be this, kind of a run- down Motel 6. And now, there is a new hotel there. It actually looks very nice. I sort of zig-zag through there on my bicycle, on the new bike path back there, and it all seems very nice, and seems much nicer than it was before it was redeveloped. So, I think this project can actually enhance the site. And then, the other thing I wanted to mention, too, for staff, if maybe we have another, if we do have another meeting, is if we could review the arborist's report. There's something in there that I've never seen before, which is the tree root scan. And I don't actually know how to read that report. I've never seen one before. It seems very interesting. That may go a long way to placate concerns about the trees. Okay, so, I think that's all that I have at the moment. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you to the applicant for the thoughtful and large, generally large-scale presentation, drawings and packet, and member of the public for their comments and photographs and information about all of this. And to my colleagues for their careful thinking. Gone into full lawyer mode, yellow legal pad and everything. But first, I wanted to say that I do think that I would like to wait until City of Palo Alto Page 28 we have the completed Mitigated Negative Declaration. I say that for two reasons. One is, it addresses issues of concern at our level of approval, so I want that information. Secondly, this is a highly-contested project and site, and I think that when we prepare and think about our findings in this situation, they need to be ready for Prime Time. They need to be the kind of thing where a third party looking at them would look at them and say, "Yep. You made legally appropriate findings based on the evidence presented to you and the standards which you are to apply." And I feel much more secure doing that when I have the complete set of documents. I defer to my colleagues and their superior expertise on issues of how these various materials will work. And my concerns when we started the hearing were the following: First of all, I needed to be reminded that the Redwoods is not suffering from the fact that they are zoned CS rather than RM-40. You may disagree with the City's general approach to how commercial development should interface with higher-density residential, but this is our approach. And as Alex points out, the development pattern in the Redwoods shares a lot of elements with the proposal here. The City is moving away from our previous approach to El Camino, which I have watched since 1964, which was not very attractive. It was a sea of asphalt with a building plopped in it. Occasionally, a little landscaping. The Redwoods is a big exception to that, and so are some of the hotels, including some of those in the vicinity. But that was our overall design pattern for the last 15 years. We've been moving towards a plan which brings buildings closer to the sidewalk, seeks to have sidewalks which are attractive for pedestrians, and puts parking underground when we can. Having said that, the biggest issues for me in this project are, one, are we adequately guaranteeing the health of the trees? It really doesn't matter what else we get right if we get the trees wrong. Saying "I'm sorry" or "oops" is not going to address that loss, and I think we all understand that, and we need to be as secure as possible. I agree with Peter, that while some of the trees that you have proposed -- you, the applicants, have proposed -- under the redwoods seem really appropriate. Some of them do not. The arbor vitae, for example, seems to me too dense, the wrong aesthetic approach, and likely to cast additional shadows on what's already a very shady area in Palo Alto Redwoods. When it comes to light and shadow, I wish we were still back in the era when we had three-dimensional models we could pick up and turn and shine flashlights at. It's hard to understand the relationship of the Palo Alto Redwoods buildings, particularly the residential units, and this hotel. I think when I sit out there and pace off the distances and estimate the heights, that the step- backs are effective. That you are not creating the kind of really unacceptable darkness that you would have created if you had built what's permitted, if you proposed what's permitted -- which I don't think we would have allowed -- 35 feet at the rear yard setback, for example. But I’m not entirely confident in it. I don't know how staff can give us greater confidence in the shading and light studies, but clearly that's something some of my colleagues would like. If we have managed not to significantly reduce the quality of the open space for a use, and if we have managed not to cast residential units into darkness, then I think the light and shadow issues will be okay. The site is narrow. This is one of those many, many sites on El Camino where you think, "If only they got the next door parcel." But they didn't, and this is the one they propose to develop. This Board can't really address the issue of whether we have too many hotels, or if it's a good idea, or if we sold our birthright for more transient occupancy taxes. What we can address is how this building works in this setting for people who go by it, people who use it, people who live behind it. One of the things we learned is there already is an existing curb real estate problem here, that the City has not figured out how to deal with very large vehicles. Certainly, when I see a tour bus go down my skinny little street, I think, "Wow, we really have not designed our city for this." We have a different issue on a state highway. But I would like to know. One of the things that Mr. Murphy's presentation tell us is there's an existing problem without this hotel, and so, anything more that the City can tell us about curb management, not just in front of this building but a couple hundred feet in either direction, would help. It's interesting to have the Cabana Hotel next door, which is old school. I mean, it's built Las Vegas style, like Las Vegas used to be. And apparently, because it was going to be a card club. Great big parking lot in the front, building, high building set way back, big fountains. It's the antithesis of this, and I don't know how long its going to last in its present form. I'd like to see an analysis of how it might work from edge to edge. Can they go park the buses in the Cabana parking lot? In terms of pedestrian experience, hotels can, and higher buildings can, make residential experiences better. I have never lived at the top of Nob Hill. I do have a great-great aunt who impressed my father immensely by living in the upper stories of the St. Francis. He aspired to do that. Instead, he lived with us till the end of his life. But I do live behind an almost 50-foot building, which buffers my home from a heavily-trafficked area and makes it significantly quieter. It's well-designed, it has nice materials, and it's some number of City of Palo Alto Page 29 feet. It's about 45 feet away from the nearest residential unit, so it is possible. And the gardens it maintains have improved our neighborhood, even as the coffee shops and restaurants that are part of the high-rise office buildings in my neighborhood make it a better, livelier, safer street. And this could happen here. I do think the seating is important, both batches of seating. I think the one within the two driveways of the hotel is more part of the hotel experience, so I think both units are important, and I would like to see if there's a way we can have the eight-food clearance, as well as the appropriate trees. Because we asked for an eight- to 12-foot sidewalk in part because we want things other than open space there. We want trees, we want seating, we want a good experience, and I think those are both important to that experience. I would hope that at some point, that eating place in the hotel is a neighborhood amenity where I can go and meet a friend because I live nearby. This hotel does not have conference facilities on site. Is that right? That's correct, right? Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. It has one small room that could be used as a conference room. Chair Furth: Right. Right. I think we may be able to move towards better managing of Uber and Lyft and their ilk by a fairly vigorous crackdown on where they drop people off and on. For the hotel, we obviously already have a problem of where they drop people off and on for Palo Alto Redwoods and its other neighbors. That's going to take a culture change. Which we may move towards. But I want to hear more from staff on this bus issue because it's a big problem. And I don't know. It may not be particularly exacerbated by this hotel. It may be a wider problem, but I'd like to hear more about what's possible. I would like much tighter and more specific findings addressed to each of the issues raised by the public and the applicant. We try to give clear direction. I hear clarity on wanting more details in some areas. Staff, we're a little... The driveways, and I presume other facilities, lead to a kind of ragged street tree presence here. This may be the best we can do, but I'd be interested in knowing what the best we can do for street trees along this section is. You don't have to tell me today. I find the landscaping in the upper levels a little too much like vases on a mantlepiece. It's too small. I can understand that you made a choice to have not much, but I don't think it meets the need to tie this building into its setting, where you're surrounded with high-up vegetation. I think it would be much better to have more extensive, significant landscaping there. I know it's possible to do it at altitude, and I think it would be a better, more approvable project if that were done here. Osma, what were you saying when you said that this building didn't engage with nature very much? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. I think you're kind of hitting it a little bit. There's not a very good relationship the structure has with its surroundings in the same way that the adjacent buildings, I think, have with nature. I think you're right, that if there were increased vegetation on the upper floor, there would be a much more concrete relationship. And not just on this floor, but around the sides, and so on. Chair Furth: I will just say that I'm always struck by the beautiful green walls, old-school green walls in downtown Palo Alto, by which I mean the ficus that has been growing over on... two blocks that way. On Emerson. The next alleyway entry down from... What is our huge hotel? The Epiphany. I wouldn't mind seeing some significantly low-tech greening of this building. By which I mean indestructible, low water, sturdy plants growing up the walls. Board Member Thompson: I think it's possible the neighbors would also appreciate seeing more green and high-quality material next to the green, versus just a big mass of plaster. Chair Furth: It's very different, looking at green... Sometimes in my neighborhood, you also get birds nests. But it's a possibility that might work. Anybody else want to summarize, clarify, ask? Everybody is looking at their papers. Is that a no? Vice Chair Baltay: I could emphasize the importance of more details regarding the exterior finishes and materials. Everybody here has given you somewhat differing takes on the same problem. I think it really comes down to the architect. Think really carefully what materials you are using and how they fit together. How do they trim to the windows? How do you do the corners? When you take a material like Trespa or Hardie board and just show a corner of a building where it's beautifully wrapped around in a City of Palo Alto Page 30 computer, that's not what the craft of building is about, and that's not what we're trying to get here in Palo Alto. I really plead with you to please think about that. Don’t just give us the same thing and say, "Well, figure it out in subcommittee." Respect our request to try to really understand these details carefully. I know you're able to do it. I've seen it done on other projects on your team. Thank you. Chair Furth: Mr. Popp, are you asking for me to reopen the public hearing? Mr. Popp: If you don't mind. I'm just not... I don't have enough clarity on a particular item here. We're at the end of the second hearing, and ... Chair Furth: Could you just tell me what your item is? Mr. Popp: Yes. I'd like to speak about the exterior materials because we've gotten some very conflicting information about the direction we should take on that. Chair Furth: Let me see if I can get some clearer direction for you. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Chair Furth: Peter, your direction on this. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, you're showing a building with a series of horizontal siding boards, and yet you're using Trespa, which comes in large rectangular panels. It's not a horizontally-activated material. I think that's pretty clear that that doesn't fit the intent of your sketches here, unless I'm just not understanding how it's put together. And to be honest, I don’t understand how it's put together because you're not telling us how it's put together. You're showing Trespa next to Hardie board, which are very similar in appearance, and it looks to me like a budget-saving measure. And yet, we're asking for consistency. Pick one or the other. Or find a third material that gives all these things. There's loads of great stuff out there. I'm sorry its not clear, but I think I'm speaking for the group, saying that what your presenting is not doing it. I think a lot of us agree that idea of sort of horizontal siding gives it a slightly residential sense, which helps tie it into the Redwoods complex behind you. The color seems about right, but it just needs more thought. More in-house design revisions. Chair Furth: Does anybody else have any comments on this? Board Member Lew: I do. After one of the previous hearings, I did look at the Trespa site. My recollection is that they do have a siding version that's not only panels. Maybe if we can get more details from the architect on what they want, exactly are proposing, because it may be different than what you're thinking about. But I generally agree with you. Vice Chair Baltay: The Trespa sample over there is a 12-inch square. Chair Furth: Osma? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. In general... Chair Furth: Go ahead, Osma, then we'll address this. Board Member Thompson: In general, you have a massing that is quite big, okay? And could get on the shoebox level. And you're using a material to break down the scale, which I think is the right move, because when you have a mass like this, you need to make it digestible to the eye. When you do that, you're trying to break down scale. I don't want to speak for others, but I kind of agree with what Board Member Baltay was saying, that the use of Trespa in this scenario could be used in a way that does not break down the scale adequately. Could be used in a way where, depending on how you detail it, it wouldn't be of a high-quality aesthetic. I think what we're asking for is that the building as you have it City of Palo Alto Page 31 right now, as it's massed, in a poor material, would make it very hard to recommend. But if you were able to clad it in a material, maybe not Trespa, maybe something else that is authentic to the design intent, that would be nice to look at, that has complexity and scale and variation, that's detailed beautifully, then your big mass is much more easier to digest and a lot easier to accept. That's kind of where I stand on the Trespa. Chair Furth: That sounded pretty articulate to me. Board Member Thompson: And then, also the fence material. I don't think we have a sample of it. All we have is this render to look at. And I think there was also something in the packet that didn't have the right color. I think it had a silver version of the fence as a picture. I think better integrating also that design with your structure. I'm all about cool materials, but if they don't work with your building, then I think there's, there's something more to look into there. Chair Furth: Alex, do you want to add anything, or are you good? Board Member Lew: No, I have nothing else to add. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: Well, I'm still concerned about the street and the sidewalk, and I really wonder whether or not the whole building would be more, more open than just a car access point to a building. And whether or not it's worth our while to really think about the pedestrian. Although when I was there, it was close to noon and there was really nobody on the sidewalk. It was not particularly a pedestrian movement on that sidewalk. I wonder whether back when, we couldn't have created more of a lay-by and moved the sidewalk in the site and had a more generous plaza in front of the building. This may not be possible at this time. Structurally, it changes the building significantly. But in the future, maybe we should think a little bit more about how, how we integrate a, a smaller building where it impacts the street and the pedestrian access and guest movement. In particular, there's a conflict between buses, access of normal vehicles to the site, onto the site, parking, and those I don't think are adequately answered with the building. Aside from the materials and details which all other Board members are more concerned about here, I think that kind of an urban planning issue is a very significant one here and should be addressed in hotels in particular. I find it really a major issue, in my mind, on this building. Chair Furth: Thank you. I've heard two things. One is that the Board is generally supportive of your notion that you need visibly small and different. We don't want a big, uniform, monolithic mass. It needs to be beautiful. It needs to be a pleasure to look at. And, of course, it needs to last. And that the wall is perhaps an opportunity that's been missed so far, to be beautiful and pleasant. And some serious concerns about just the whole question of whether we are adequately designing buildings to accommodate the reality of transportation modes today. Which I think has come up in every single hotel we've dealt with. And you've heard the comments that generally our hotels have come in at less than a full 2.0, and some cities have a lower standard, but this is the standard that our City Council has adopted. MOTION Chair Furth: I would accept a motion to continue this to a date uncertain. Or do you have a date you want to specify? Board Member Lew: Isn't it better to specify the date? Chair Furth: They don't know when the EIR docs are going to be ready. [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 32 Board Member Lew: We can specify a date... Chair Furth: We can specify a date... Board Member Lew: ...and then they can, they can still post... Chair Furth: ...which the public will know about, the applicant will know about... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...and if we need to postpone, we can. Would that be a better move? Ms. Gerhardt: It's just a difference of noticing. It's not a huge difference. I think that the Board has asked for a lot of details and we'd like to get that right before we come back. I would actually recommend a date uncertain. Vice Chair Baltay: Very well. I move that we continue this project to a date uncertain, subject to the comments that have been previously made. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Thompson: I'll second. Chair Furth: Second by Board Member Thompson. All those in favor say aye. Hearing no opposition, this passes unanimously. MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you all for your participation. Thank you all for your hard work. We're going to take a 10-minute break before we hear our next matter. [The Board took a short break.] Chair Furth: We are back in session, if the applicant for item 3 would like to come talk to us. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 380 Cambridge [15PLN-00249]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings Totaling 32,083 Square Feet and to Construct a New Three-Story Commercial Building Totaling 35,000 Square Feet. In Addition, There is a Request to Waive an Off-Street Loading Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (InFill Development Projects). Zoning District: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial with Retail Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group. Chair Furth: Okay. Item 3 on our agenda is also quasi-judicial. The site is 380 Cambridge. It's a recommendation on the owner's request for approval of a major architectural review to allow demolition of three existing commercial buildings with a total area of about 32,000 square feet and constructing a new three-story commercial building totaling 35,000 square feet. There is also a request -- but not to us - - to waive an off-street loading space. The environmental assessment is that this is exempt from the provisions of CEQA because it is infill. I forgot last time to mention who the applicant was, and who the architects were. I'm sure the applicant will tell us that if the staff doesn't. Any disclosures? I will start out by saying that I visited this site previously and visited it again on Wednesday. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board Member Lew: I also visited the site again yesterday, and I actually did go back to College Avenue and sort of peeked through all of the apartment, the gaps in the apartment buildings, towards the back of the proposed project site. Chair Furth: Anybody else? Vice Chair Baltay: Go ahead, David. Board Member Hirsch: Visited the site this past week. Chair Furth: Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I also visited the site, again, this past week. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Thompson: I was sick and could not visit. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson is excused for illness. May we have the staff report? Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, good morning. I'm Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner, and I have a presentation. The applicant is also here with their presentation. The project is located at 380-400 Cambridge, three properties, three adjacent buildings. The request is as stated - to demolish all of those and to create a new building. The project has been around for a few years now, it seems like, and the code has changed a couple of times, as well as we have been to the Board, last in December 2017. This image here shows that the project is in the context of a California commercial district, as well as showing some of the properties adjacent along Cambridge Avenue. At that meeting with the Board last, there were some comments, and the applicant has had some revisions or responses to those. Some of the big ones here are mentioned, the others are included in the staff report. But the ones here worth noting would be the massing needs to be broken up, and the applicant has responded to that with some revised elevations and some significant changes to the materials. Another one is to provide or look into providing the loading space on site, and the applicant has explored those options. We'll go into more detail about that later in this presentation. Some other things would be, how does the project be more pedestrian-friendly? On the north side of the building now, adjacent to the City's parking lot, there are opportunities there for outdoor seating, as well as a balcony on the second floor for the tenants. Also, notches are on the façade on the first floor, at the sidewalk, to provide more landscaping opportunities, places to put bike racks, as well. Another issue was to address the neighbors. There were neighbor concerns on the south side with the residential building there, as well as the existing residences to the rear of the property. The applicant has made a lot of outreach effort in addressing those issues, and the applicant will explain some of those. And then, there's some concern about having large floor plates, and the plans were revised to demonstrate that those plate spaces could be demised in ways that are more flexible. Chair Furth: And just to be clear, for those of us who aren't specialists, "demised" often refers to death. You mean leased, right? Mr. Sing: Yes. Separated, so, in a way that they're not just the single type of large floor plates. I think the concern was to have (inaudible). These could be subleased or... Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Sing: ...in smaller spaces. The project is consistent with the zoning code. There is a request for a waiver of the loading space, and that is included in the zoning code. The project does maximize the floor area. The majority of it, the office space, 30,000 square feet, that's on the second and third story, and then there is retail that they are actually keeping on the first floor and expanding upon, and they are providing 15 parking spaces. A little more detail on that. They're adding just over 2,400 square feet of City of Palo Alto Page 34 new commercial space on the ground floor and just 512 square feet of office space. The height limit is being maintained. Last time, they were trying to get an exception to that. As I mentioned, they are maximizing the FAR. The total addition of the square footage of this project, demolishing everything and adding new, is 2,817 square feet. It is within the California Avenue Parking District, so they did pay into that district. In all, they just have to provide 15 additional parking spaces, so that's what they are providing on the site. The daylight plane applies to the project, and that is at the rear. They are compliant with that. And then, these are some of the renderings of the building. I'll let the applicant go into more details, but you can see the changes from the previous iteration on the top to the bottom, and they've recessed some portions of the building. They've added some more pedestrian-friendly outdoor spaces on the ground floor, as well as on the upper floor along the City's parking lot. They've introduced some warmer colors and materials, as well. Here's another rendering of that. This elevation, again, shows kind of differences between the first iteration that you saw and the second iteration. This was the iteration. Both had the 35-foot height. And then, the ground level shows you some of the differences. There was more landscaping along the north side of the building in the first iteration, but you will see that now, more of that open space is toward the street, so it does make the street scape a little more pedestrian-friendly, but still provides access for the bike lockers and garage in the back. Moving on to the loading space, this was one issue where, the Board had some concern about it and asked the applicant to go back and look at it more. The existing condition now for the property, there's a curb cut along the north side of the property, and that's adjacent to the City lot. That would be eliminated with this project and create a new curb cut on the south side. But, in all, the amount of parking spaces along the street would remain the same. Lose one, gain one. Per the code, one loading space is required to be on site. However, a waiver is permitted by the Director of Planning. It's either a whole space or some kind of dimensional space change - width/length/height. The applicant has looked at several options and those were included in your packet, as well as we have a summary in the staff report. In general, on that street there are nearby loading parking spaces. They're not necessarily adjacent to the site, but there is opportunity to do that. If you can see on the other drawings, if you do provide a loading space within the building, you would have to depress the garage for the control of the height. For a UPS truck, for instance. And in one instance, if you maintain just one curb cut, then that truck would have to back up in the garage and then go out. Or, if you wanted to make it a little more reasonable for the truck driver, then you would have to have two curb cuts. One of the findings for the waiver of a loading space is, does it conflict with any Comprehensive Plan goals and policies? There is one that encourages the expansion and retention of retail space, and also pedestrian-oriented street scape. In the case here of having two curb cuts, that obviously would change the design of the building, which is, as it is designed, more pedestrian-friendly. Also, maximizes the amount of retail that you would have. If you were to add the loading space on site, you would lose a little under 1,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. For those reasons, staff is supporting the waiver of the loading space. Regarding the public comments -- and these were neighbor issues -- there has been a neighbor in the rear with some unique health issues. There's a speaker here today that will talk to you about that. Also, in front of you this morning, there was some correspondence that came in, a two-page Memorandum of Understanding between the owner, the resident, and the subject property owner, having to do with how to address construction impacts and operation impacts of the project. Those led to some of the constraints regarding, for instance, having native plants on the site. Part of it was this constraint. The other issue was neighbor to the south regarding shade from the building. In both instances, the applicant has been in contact with neighbors, resolved the issues, and design changes to the building have occurred. Regarding the environmental determination of CEQA, we are recommending determination that the project is exempt from CEQA because we believe it is an infill project. In conclusion, we believe that the project has responded to the Board's concerns and issues, and we also believe that it appears to have met the required findings for architectural review. The project does appear to have justified the reasons for the waiver of the parking space for loading. The project did meet findings for CEQA exception. With that, we recommend approval of the project subject to the Director of Planning, and based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, if we could hear from the applicant. You'll have 10 minutes to speak after you spell your name. City of Palo Alto Page 35 Steve Pierce, Applicant: Madam Chair, members of the Board, I'm Steve Pierce [spells name]. I am the project applicant. Just echo a couple of things. We have met with our neighbors to the south. There are four condominiums, two of which we share a common property line. And in deference to those, we've changed the massing along that wall, along that side of the building, as well as reduced the height of our building. Now it's about seven feet below the height of the condominiums to the left. Have continued our conversations with Robin Fath [phonetic] to the rear. You've got a letter there, so we've got an approach. We're going to build a, basically an air filtration system for her, so that will mitigate any kind of issues relative to our, to the construction. There's been pretty much wholesale changes to the building in response to the Board's comments last time we were before you. One of the things I'm excited about in particular is being able to kind of gather some of our open space on the front right of the building, to create space for a sidewalk café, to kind of animate what is now a pretty dead zone. Let me turn things over to our project architect, Michael Castro, who will fill in the details. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Michael Castro, Architect: Good morning, members of the Board. My name is Michael Castro [spells name]. We've been working on the project now for over two years and gave us a good opportunity to work with our client, but also gave us a chance to actually make this building right. We've presented the last time. We understood your comments, and I'm going to go through that generally, and then, get a little bit more into specifics that may not be ready, items that are brought up to date. Initially, the main comments were that the massing was too much. It was overwhelming. We wanted to break down that massing. We wanted to put materials that became a little bit more tangible and address the pedestrian level. The other thing at the pedestrian level, we wanted to create these ins-and-outs that would make that pedestrian experience a little bit more interesting. You'll see some nooks that are in between some of these massing elements that are in the elevation. That began itself in the first iteration but never really got to a level where we are today. The main thing that you're looking at from the original design is two primary masses with a transition space in between, and the entry was integral to one of the larger masses. Now, we're taking that entry, allowing that to be another separator, making it really two different buildings, but the one building to, I'll call it the west, or to the left of your screen, is actually broken down again in its massing. Done that with recesses and with balconies. Again, this building is brick all the way up, with the transitions being in metal and glass. The building on the right is brick up to the second story with an attic of metal and glass. Again, we're trying to give a little bit of variety. We're trying to break down the massing in different ways. Two things it does is try to create the apparent two- building look, than one large building. That was tried in the beginning, but as you can see, it was a little bit more uniform. I'm going to go through these relatively quickly. I'm just going to stop at some of the key points. These are our neighboring buildings, and as you see, our site is between a residential condo building and a commercial building across the parking lot. The existing buildings right now, we're feeling this is going to make a big impact in the neighborhood by improving the architecture. The main thing on the site plan is we had a remote transformer that was in front of the parking lot. We're bringing that closer to the building. We're trying to condense everything related to our building in our footprint. Again, you know, on the floor plans for the second floor and the third floor, we show it demised or broken up into smaller tenant spaces because this building can be demised. The idea of the core design was to give a lot of variety to what can happen in this building. The roof is screened, and we went through that before, but the main thing to see on the roof plan here is that the third floor up to the roof is set back, and this was the result of our meetings with adjoining neighbors, to allow the maximum light and air into their spaces that have windows. The location of these light wells were right in front of where the windows are into the units. The elevations, again, you can see how it's broken into the two major masses, and the undulations on the ground floor. The far right, we'll get into a little bit more later on. It's almost like a micro plaza. The façade that's facing the parking lot has one blank wall, which we think is an opportunity for artwork. We're hoping local artwork. But about one-half of that façade is actually decks recessed, giving covered open space as well as amenity space to the building. You'll see in the plan, too, that that deck is along Cambridge, as far away from the adjoining residential as possible. This is the rear elevation, and this is 10 foot setback from the adjoining residential buildings to the north. Okay. Materials, we have two material boards against the wall there, but primarily it's metal, it's aluminum panel, stucco, which is the back of the building, and brick veneer. And the brick veneer is City of Palo Alto Page 36 going to be on a, basically a stucco construction with the brick being the face of that, of the finish. Those materials were picked up from what we saw when we walked down Cambridge and adjoining buildings. We have examples of brick, we have examples of plaster, and examples of metal facades, just in, you know, a block radius. Again, what we're doing... This is taking a view, looking what I'm calling, we're calling west, the left side of the plan. Looking northwest. The attic is metal and glass, as I mentioned earlier. We broke down the scale of that with the size of our window pane, so you'll see some intermediate horizontal mullions to break down that scale even further. And, we detailed the brick so that there's interest in the detailing, it's not just a blank brick façade or a level brick façade. We have corbeling that happens around the arching, and we have some other steps and corniches that are implemented into brick to give it interest. This is a view looking at the Cambridge façade. Like the other scheme, we have a central commercial entry for the building, for the second and third floors. That is off of Cambridge. And, we have some retail entrances. The retail floors, ultra-clear glazing, and the upper floors are, right now it's z50, PPG z50, which is a light-gray glazing. The ground floor gives opportunities. We have sun shading devices, which give opportunities for signage. We also have a fascia of metal panel that's above the doors that allows another opportunity for signage or numbering of the doors, of the addresses. There's also opportunities with the columns for blade signs. We're showing some hoops out front for additional bicycle parking, and again, this is looking at the arches that are corbeled back to the metal façade that slides behind it. And then, we have the metal extending out to create these decks on the far east side, which today is more or less a driveway. We're trying to create a little micro plaza. This is a little bit detail of the entry into the main office building, and to the left is, again, retail at ground level with the office above, and decks and the other recesses created. This is a close-up image of where we're peeling back the building on the east side, on Cambridge, which allows for a possible tenant to extend out a coffee or a café. It is also an opportunity to put some more green and planting in there, so it's a buffer as well as an amenity. It's also a relief in the sidewalk. It gives a special event along the length of the building. This is just an overview, just to see how the relationship of our building is to its neighboring buildings. To the north, or to the back of our building, we have a daylight plane, which we are within. We have a 10-foot setback, as well as a setback from our neighbors to the north. And we're having a visual screen, which is a, I believe, a seven-foot wood fence with bamboo right now as a screen, a planted screen. Again, with our meetings with our adjoining neighbors to the west, we created light wells that are specifically related, as I mentioned before, to the windows of the units. These are some sections that indicate that. Some more three-dimensional views. The intent, too, as we were talking, what would they prefer... Chair Furth: Excuse me, you hit your time limit. Could you take about a minute to wind up? Mr. Castro: Sure. We're on the last slide. I just wanted to point out that these light wells could be also accentuated by planting walls of green. We gave that opportunity to the neighbors, asked them to tell us their preference, whether they want to do it with color and reflectivity to get more light in, or if they want to do it with planting. That's an open area, but right now, we're showing planting. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Castro: Okay. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any questions of the applicant's architect? Not at this time. Board Member Thompson: I got one. Chair Furth: Sorry. Board Member Thompson has a question for you. Board Member Thompson: Can we go back one slide really quick? Your neighborhood slide? What's the material that's facing the neighborhood? I kind of see that the brick stops at that corner. Mr. Castro: Yeah. The brick is a primary material on Cambridge. It returns to where it would potentially be visible, and then it turns into stucco. The back of the building is stucco up until where it converts to City of Palo Alto Page 37 brick again on the other side of the building, on the east side. Let me just go back on the elevation really fast. Stucco wraps the building and dies in this inside corner. You have stucco to... Board Member Thompson: I was talking about the other side, on the neighbors' side. Mr. Castro: Okay. This is the brick, turning the corner from Cambridge, and this is, it's hard to read, but it's actually doing something like this in profile. Which, this is a light well, this is a light well, these two rectangles, and this is all stucco. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so it's a little bit different than your render. Mr. Castro: No, the renderings are consistent. Board Member Hirsch: (inaudible) Board Member Thompson: Yeah, the brick doesn't turn the corner in the render all the way, as far as it's showing in this elevation. Next one. [Locating slide] Board Member Thompson: That one. Kind of see how that face of that building...? Yeah, where your mouse is right there. Mr. Castro: Yeah, the intent is the brick returns that one bay. Board Member Thompson: That whole wall is brick. Mr. Castro: Yes. And it goes up to our parapet and returns down. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: I have a question. Chair Furth: Yes, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: On the balconies, it's an aluminum covered steel structure that holds up the balconies in the front? Mr. Castro: Yes. On the east side it's a steel frame, exposed steel frame... Board Member Hirsch: Steel frame. Mr. Castro: ...painted the same as aluminum. Board Member Hirsch: But the cover is aluminum throughout on the... Mr. Castro: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: ...fascia. Mr. Castro: All the fascias, all the mullions, are aluminum. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. And the same is true of the pop-area on the right-hand side that's metallic? That will be a steel structure as well? And then, covered in aluminum? City of Palo Alto Page 38 Mr. Castro: I thought you were talking about initially this... Board Member Hirsch: The area on the top. Well, no, not ... Mr. Castro: The area on top is, yeah, it's... The building itself is going to be a concrete building. Board Member Hirsch: It's a concrete building. Mr. Castro: It's going to be a concrete building. We're going to have the equivalent of a curtain wall on the front, a curtain wall wrapping the building. But you're going to have some type of light-gauge metal framing that's going to be behind the metal façade, which is going to be aluminum on the top attic. Board Member Hirsch: And then, just to continue that, the area that is the balcony is thinner dimension, so is it exposed steel? Mr. Castro: It's going to be concrete clad aluminum. Board Member Hirsch: Pardon? It's a concrete...? Mr. Castro: Yeah, so, it's going to be concrete deck extending out, and then, you're going to have a fascia of aluminum. Board Member Hirsch: Held up by a steel structure there, which is... Mr. Castro: Held by a concrete structure. Board Member Hirsch: Concrete? I'm sorry? Mr. Castro: Oh, not on the, on the decks on the far right? That's exposed steel, steel columns. Board Member Hirsch: That's exposed steel? Mr. Castro: Right, and exposed steel beams. That's the only exception to the concrete structure. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Furth: Okay. I have three speaker cards here. Larry Skarset, to be followed by Karen Price, to be followed by Birgit Werner. Larry Skarset: Hello. My name is Larry Skarset. I'm the owner of the.... [phone ringing]. My name is Larry Skarset, owner of the Cambridge Barber and Beauty Salon. I'd like to give thanks to the... [phone ringing]. This is awful. Chair Furth: Take your time. Mr. Skarset: I'd like to give thanks to the City for giving me a small independent owner doing business in the city. I started cutting hair in Palo Alto when I was 20 years old. I'm 72 in a few days. I've had a wonderful experience here. Met a lot of wonderful people. It's a diverse community, it's a great place to do business. I've been able to flourish, but have a lot of concerns as a small business owner, just to pay the rents and keep everything going. As you know, the retail business is going through a tough environment and small mom-and-pops just cannot make it in this valley anymore. People... The rents are just too high. I know that capitalism is, business is business. Times change, I know, and concerned, but I'm concerned, and a lot of people are, in the community is overbuilt, and the commercial buildings, and the rents, and the owners of the building. They think they can just build buildings up and everybody is going to flood in there. Dot-com startups. I've been here 50-some years, I can see them go up and City of Palo Alto Page 39 down, start-up, start-down. That's not my problem. When they get the building, I'm sure they'll get the tenants to come in. A question that I have, and I'm reading through these plans, is will the displaced tenants like me have a chance to come back into the building, and at what price? I know the rents will be higher. It's a concern for a lot of people in this valley right now. I love the area, but it is getting to be where the valley is looking like it's getting to be the people who have wealth, and the people who don't have. You're either going to have to go with the times, or not. I know this is probably going to be approved, but I’m looking right now to find another space, but it's not easy to find another thing to go to. But the Lord has been good to me, so I'll be able to, to go on. I don't like to see Palo Alto get too upscale and the average guy cannot... And I’m concerned about the younger people. Will they have the opportunity I had, to start up a little small business? A donut shop, or any kind of a business. Will they be able to do it? I don't know. And I thank the City for giving the opportunity to work here these many years. I've done very well. But it's a struggle for a small business right now. I think the City should give us some concern to some of those things. That's all I'd like to say. Chair Furth: Mr. Skarset, are you a tenant in the buildings that exist on the site right now? Mr. Skarset: Yes, I'm the owner of the barber and beauty salon. Chair Furth: Got it. And your name is S-k-a-r-s-e-t? Mr. Skarset: Correct. Chair Furth: All right. Thank you. The views you expressed are widely shared. Mr. Skarset: Thank you. Chair Furth: Karen Price? Karen Price: Hi. Good morning. Almost good afternoon. My name is Karen Price. [spells name] I have been renting my advanced rolfing studio at 378 Cambridge Avenue since the spring of 1979. I'm here to ask you to please not approve the demolition of the three office buildings known as the 380 Cambridge Avenue Project. The size and scope of this project does not fit Cambridge Avenue at all. It will destroy the character of the street and look like a fortress in comparison to the other buildings, no matter how you try to prettify it. The current three buildings are lovely, as you've all been there and seen, with inner atriums, skylights, and most importantly, small office spaces that adjoin to perfectly accommodate either a sole professional such as myself, or a growing small business. We desperately need to keep our rapidly- dwindling supply of affordable office space. Once it's gone, there will only be very expensive offices that only well-funded tech companies or financial institutions can afford. As we speak, there are three large office buildings under construction just around California Avenue, in addition to several recently completed. They will bring hundreds of workers and greatly increase our already overly crowded roads and strained parking, while denying valuable services to the community. As the population keeps increasing, the demand for services such as family law, accounting, psychotherapy, bodyworks such as rolfing, also keeps increasing. We simply cannot afford the rent in these new buildings. By forcing us and our practices out of affordable offices in Palo Alto and into increasingly remote communities, we not only increase traffic congestion and eliminate walkability, but end up denying the very services that people need, and that are truly the fabric of our community. These large buildings that are going up all over Palo Alto are like mushrooms after the rain, and just as toxic to our community. Please do not approve this project. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Our next speaker is Birgit Werner. Birgit Werner: Hello. That's Birgit Werner [spells name]. Good morning. I'm here today on behalf of Robin Foff [phonetic], who owns one of the properties directly behind the proposed development. She has an immune system disorder which makes her extremely vulnerable to air pollutants, both particulates and fumes especially. This prevents her from being here in person today, and also means that such a long City of Palo Alto Page 40 construction project so close to her presents a severe health challenge. Last year, we asked for your support for reasonable accommodation for Robin's disability. Today, we're happy to tell you that we have a Memorandum of Understanding with Greenhart [phonetic] that mitigates some of the air quality effects on Robin without impeding the progress of the project. Among other items, the MOU includes a significant upgrade to Robin's air filtration system for the duration of the construction, and the careful choice of some hypoallergenic landscaping plants. It also acknowledges the need for full communication and cooperation throughout the construction, and the ongoing operations of the building. The full text of the MOU is attached to the letter in your packet. In closing, we would like to thank you, the Board, for acknowledging Robin's concerns. Sheldon, thank you very much for your understanding and patience through this whole, very long process. Steve, we are most grateful for your generosity. Thank you to you and your team for working with us to address Robin's concerns in a meaningful way. You've really gone out of your way to be a good neighbor. Thank you, and thank you, all. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Jeff Levinsky. Jeff Levinsky: I have just a few minutes to thank, to say "good morning" again, Board. [spells name] Paul Machado from Evergreen Park and I spoke at the previous hearing on this project, and a concern that we raised was about the parking calculations and such. That has not been fixed in what you have before you, so I'm going to walk you through it as carefully as I can. If you look at page 5 of your current plans, it has the parking calculations for the project. Right in the center of the middle column, it says that there is a common area of 1,716 square feet. That's all on the first floor and includes two regular bathrooms, two bathrooms with showers, a lobby to get to those, elevator and stairs, utility areas like electrical and trash. Further down in that column, the common area is all considered part of the office space. Well, if you're trying to lower your parking requirements, that's a great idea, because office space needs less parking than retail. But if the common area is only for the offices, then there's no restrooms and no showers for the first-floor tenants and customers. There's no utilities for them. That's not believable. Unless the City says it's okay now to have retail without bathrooms or utilities, please ask that the common area be apportioned between the retail and the office. That's problem number one. The other problem is that the calculations actually are ignoring the way the City has always done things for the Cal Ave assessment district. For every other new building or expansion I've seen in that district, the City totals up how much parking the entire new building needs. It then subtracts how many parking spaces the building paid in to the assessment district for in the final year that it was paying in. The new building must then provide the difference. They need so much, they paid in for such much, they have to provide the difference. But that's not the way these plans list. As far as I can tell, the buildings paid in for a total of 102 parking spaces. That's according to the most recent records I have for the district. That was for three different uses, not the two uses -- retail and office -- that are claimed in these plans. Instead, the plans are using a completely different calculation where they only are providing parking for the additional space, and they are assuming that the existing space is properly parked. Big shocker to everybody in this room. Not every building in Palo Alto is properly parked, so you can't assume going forward that the building you have is properly parked, especially when you know it has three uses in the assessment district, but now it only has two uses. It just doesn't match up. I think I'm getting through here. I'm going to ask you to have the calculation be corrected. One other really quick point. You saw a slide where they were talking about restaurant and outdoor café use. Well, they don't have enough parking for restaurant use because they are parking for retail, which needs less parking than restaurants. And that outdoor area is FAR, so it would need to be in there, in the calculation, too. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? Applicant has 10 minutes to respond. Or provide any further information. Mr. Pierce: In responding to the parking question. First off, we're not going to be having a restaurant. It would be, at most, a coffee shop where you might warm things, but no full kitchen, etc., etc. With respect to the lobby area, that is indeed the entry to the office, which is why it is designated "office," and the... What was the other point I was going to make? Chair Furth: Bathrooms and showers? City of Palo Alto Page 41 Mr. Pierce: I'm sorry? Oh, yeah. Chair Furth: Questions about bathrooms and showers. Mr. Pierce: Bathrooms and showers, thank you. With our retail, which is true of all retail that goes up, the tenant improvements for those retail spaces would include bathrooms and so forth, so that they are properly served. The bathrooms that are included in the building are related to the office use and to meet all the standards with respect to that. But again, with retail, individual bathrooms would be added to retail units, depending on what tenants we ultimately have. Chair Furth: Any questions of the applicant? I have a question. In the Conditions of Approval, it says that the required bicycle parking has to be on your site as opposed to on the sidewalk. Where is it now? Mr. Pierce: There are two components... Chair Furth: I know it's here somewhere, but I got lost. Mr. Pierce: ...two components, one being the publicly-available bicycle parking, which is along the sidewalk where you have the hoops and so forth. And then, within the parking garage itself, there is a locker for what we call private parking, or basically private bicycle use. Maybe Michael can point this out. Chair Furth: Thank you. I thought that wasn't what we... I thought we required more [crosstalk]... Mr. Pierce: Yeah, if you look in the upper right-hand corner... Ms. Gerhardt: Sheet 13. Chair Furth: There's a lot of sheets. Mr. Pierce: That's designated for the tenants' bicycle use. Chair Furth: Okay, thank you. I have a question for staff about that. Take me through what the code requirement is for bicycle parking for this project. Mr. Sing: Yeah, so, for... Chair Furth: I think I'm too used to hearing Stanford Research Park standards, which are different. Mr. Sing: Yeah, so, there's a combination of long term, which are the ones that are in lockers, and there's also the short term. Chair Furth: Where's the on-site short-term parking? Mr. Sing: As is proposed in the plans, those are drawn on the sidewalk, but they would have to be... Chair Furth: [Off microphone, partially inaudible] ...have to be moved. My question is, where are they going? Mr. Sing: Right. Where they would go? They would go into the notches that are provided facing the street. For instance it looks like there's some room that's at the entry, the main entry to the lobby there. There also could be some opportunity where the micro plaza is, as well. Those are the places, the opportunities where they could put the bike racks. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions. Peter? City of Palo Alto Page 42 Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, to staff again. Sheldon, could you address the, the question was raised about the bathrooms counting towards retail or commercial or office space. As I look at the plans, each floor seems to have its own suite of bathrooms, presumably for the tenants of those floors. The ground floor bathrooms would seem to be for the ground-floor tenants. And if the applicant is stating that that's not going to be the case, do we have a mechanism to ensure that? Chair Furth: It's hard... Mr. Sing: I think the only way to really ensure that is a Condition of Approval. Vice Chair Baltay: A Condition of Approval is only enforced by public complaint, though. Ms. Gerhardt: No, we're going out and inspecting these properties before they are occupied. If we're requiring bathrooms in that retail space, we would be able to verify that before it is occupied. Mr. Pierce: I might also add that the showers are in those ground-floor bathrooms, which are designated for the tenant bicyclists. Vice Chair Baltay: I have no problem with how you want to use your building. Mr. Levinsky made a good point about the parking calculations, and we have to be fair. Those are the rules. If that space is for the benefit of retail people, it changes the way you do the parking calculus. I'm asking staff if we have a means of making sure that is ultimately the case. I think what Jodie said is true. Then we have to make sure there are additional bathrooms put for your new tenants. Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else have questions? Sheldon, is there any seating for the public other than in the small plaza? Mr. Sing: That would be the only place that's shown on at this time and really would have the most space for it. Chair Furth: So the answer is no. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, Osma, why don't... Board Member Hirsch: I have a question. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: Access to this deck area, it's specific to that tenant that's adjacent to the upper floor? Mr. Castro: Yes, it is. Each floor would have, whatever adjoining tenant would be next to that deck area would spill out onto a deck area. Or have that opportunity. Chair Furth: For the benefit of the transcriber, that was the applicant's architect responding. I have one question, staff, while people are looking at their plans here. In the Conditions of Approval, it says that changes shall be submitted to the City for approval if the project is to be developed not according to this plan. It's passive voice. Who has the authority to alter the plans after the approval? Ms. Gerhardt: The applicant would propose modifications and City staff would review. Chair Furth: Any staff member can modify our, the official decision? Ms. Gerhardt: No. This would be, we normally keep the same project planner on a project the whole way through. City of Palo Alto Page 43 Chair Furth: So, if they came in and asked Sheldon for a change in we what we recommended approval, Sheldon would have the authority to do that, under this. Ms. Gerhardt: He would be reviewing those changes and making sure that they are in substantial conformance with what was approved. Chair Furth: Thank you. That part isn't in here. Though I was sure that's what you did. Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff. I was wondering if you could explain the zoning requirements in the CC-2 zone regarding, say, professional services versus office. Mr. Sing: Give me a moment to look that up. Ms. Gerhardt: Was there a specific regulation that you were asking about? Board Member Lew: No, I just, I thought that we should address Karen Price's concerns about professional services being squeezed out of Palo Alto by office uses. I think it's come up before in other zones. I think we've talked about it in the, on other projects. Chair Furth: The most dramatic example was our high-rise brutalist [phonetic] building, which was full of small offices. Board Member Lew: Right. Yes. Chair Furth: Different zoning. Board Member Lew: I think, was there not CC...? That might be CC, too, as well. Ms. Gerhardt: We're looking this up, but I think the City, in all of our zones, you know, multiple uses are allowed, either permitted or with a conditional use permit. The City has limited ability to control the change between two permitted uses. Chair Furth: The question is, is there any... Personal services such as these two described by the people talking to us today are allowed, but is there any restriction on just straight office use? Or is it, is it not, is there not? Board Member Lew: Well, the office is also subject to the, to a cap, right? Chair Furth: Right. Ms. Gerhardt: In CC-2, administrative offices are not permitted. Professional and general business offices are permitted. Chair Furth: Remind me what a general business office is. Ms. Gerhardt: Travel agents, things of that nature. Chair Furth: Would a law office be permitted? Would a software designing firm be permitted? Ms. Gerhardt: Software designing is generally considered research and development, but it does fit into other categories as well. Sheldon is looking up some definitions right now. Chair Furth: Well, while you're looking into those, why don't we talk about design issues. As you know, this is a sore point in many projects that come before us. Osma, thoughts on the design of the building. City of Palo Alto Page 44 Board Member Thompson: Sure. Thank you for your presentation, thank you for the material board. That's always really helpful. And thank you to the public for speaking. In general, this is a much bigger improvement from what we saw last time. I think the way that it breaks down the scale is definitely, it accomplishes it better than your previous design. I also think the palette is aesthetically sound. It has a nice consistency, it's not too complicated. In that sense, I appreciate the aesthetics of your project and your design a lot more than what we saw last time. I don't actually have too much to say on this one. I'd kind of defer to my colleagues about contextual elements. I'm curious about that back façade, if anybody is going to see that. In general, I would say this is a big improvement. I'm curious to hear what my other colleagues have to say. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you for your presentation. I think the packet was very clear. I think I agree with Osma, that the building design is much improved. I think I can recommend it today. I think the change to brick makes it compatible with other buildings on Cambridge, on the next block, at 350 Cambridge, as well as the parking garage, that are both clad in brick. I also think the addition of that corner porch on the side of the building, I think is a great addition, and I think that also makes design linkages to the building across the street at 375 Cambridge. The concerns that I have I think can be easily resolved. One is at the garage entrance, to maybe consider some sort of soffit or header to help screen all the fire sprinklers and what-not that usually pop down below the floor. The ceiling, rather. Second item is that maybe consider automatic timer window shades on the back windows on the second and third floors. That would help with light pollution to the neighbors on College Avenue. I did look at those units and it seems like they have exterior stairs and balconies facing the back, and they really don't have a lot of planting on their side of the property line. I think the bamboo will help, but it will take time for that to get established. Also, too, I've seen some new projects with underground garages, which is a little different than yours, but they use color inside, just in the entry area, to really help make it known that there is parking behind there. It's a minor comment, but I think that that might help. On the plantings, there's just one plant -- and being nitpicky -- and they are the heucheras. I think those are fine. They're mostly natives or hybrids of native plants. Minor concern is that they don't have a long life span. They usually peter out unless they're in the perfect location, where they'll multiple on their own. On the light fixture, I think my understanding is that there isn't a cut sheet yet submitted. Maybe it's here, I haven't seen it. I think I saw a note that it was in a separate, that would be in a separate submittal. I would say maybe consider a shielded fixture or a down light. I would say as an example, there is a new project at San Antonio, (inaudible), nearby Mountainview, where there are wall sconces all around the building, pointing out. To me, it adds a lot of visual clutter. I think it's nice to have accent lighting, but I think it's better to have it, I prefer to have it shielded. And then, my last comment is on findings. I think on Finding #2, which is on page 209 of our packet, is that I think we should mention that the proposed project has a new rear setback and planting along that property line, whereas the current building has a solid concrete block wall right at, right on the property line. I think that that is actually an improvement to the neighbors, even though the building is an extra story taller. That's all that I have. I think I can make a recommendation today. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for the very clear presentation. I share many of Alex and Osma's comments. I'd like to jump right into a couple of items that I think are correctable, but still of concern to me. I'd like to direct my colleagues to Sheet 36, where I notice the second bay, the one to the left of the bay with the café sign, has a structural post in the middle of the open bay there. I call that out because several places, I see you just haven't aligned the architectural façade on the street with your structural grid. And I think it needs to be aligned. And I think that can be done. It may be giving your structural engineers a bit of a nudge, but having this post where it is here just caused me to look at the plan and there are three or four locations along the California Avenue façade where you have structural posts, which are not the visual structure of the building. And I think that is just unacceptable. I'm looking at your main floor plan where you're locating the transformer and backflow valves, and at least the backflow valves seem to be right in the café there. I'm looking at Sheet 12, on the right on side where City of Palo Alto Page 45 you have your covered terrace, and it says, "possible location for backflow valves." And your lovely rendering of that café clearly doesn't have backflow valves; it has people having coffee. And I think it should, and I think you should find another place to put these backflow valves, preferably even the transformer. My wondering is if you can't stick them in the two back corners of your parking lot because you can't use those spaces for parking. Right now, you have trash in one and bicycle storage in another, and maybe there's a way to tweak those around. My third comment has to do with the driveway entrance in, and you have, again, on the left, more backflow valves possibly there. On the right, you have an odd extension of the retail space. I'm sure that's just something to do with the floor area, trying to maximize it, but you really make a difficult parking lot even more difficult to get into. If you could just simplify and make it clear that that pathway is into the garage and not have to jog to the left, and then back to the right again. There's got to be a way to tweak that to get a more clear drive entrance into the garage. Those criticisms aside, I find it a very handsome building. I'm really excited about the way you've used the brick. You've used it in a way that feels like Palo Alto. I don't know how to quantify that, but it feels right. I've had an office downtown, California Avenue, and it really does fit that area. I'm very attracted to the details, the reveal at the edge of the window bays, is really nicely done. It's a very deft hand involved, and I really hope you are able to carry that through to the level of detail that I'm seeing in the renderings. It's really beautiful and will be a handsome addition. Okay. All that said, my biggest concern about this building has to do with the loading zone, or lack thereof. I don't know that that's a thing within the architecture board's purview, ultimately. I'd like to bring it to my colleagues' attention, however, that if a building this size in this area cannot find a way to accommodate a loading zone, which is mandated by the code, I don't see what building would. I think we're opening a Pandora's Box-type situation where every project is now going to use the same arguments they are for not being able to fit a loading zone. We've seen over and over again that lack of thinking about these sort of transportation issues and secondary issues to the functioning of the building just cause repeated headaches. In this case, you're going to see delivery trucks, and there will be many, many UPS, FedEx, Uber-type things on the curb in front of this building. There's a lot of people who will be working here, and there's just no accommodation for that, aside from, as I read the staff report, there's a public loading zone on the curb about 100 feet away. I just don't believe that that will be effectively used for this building. The trucks will park in front, they will double park. And I understand that you can't get a 15-foot-tall space for a tractor trailer to pull in here. That's not realistic. But I wonder if there's not a way to take that entry driveway, clean it up, make it a bit wider. Maybe you can tweak the height of it a foot or so. It seems to be 11 feet now. If you had about 12, you could fit UPS trucks and stuff. And then, with some signage, you might have a way to at least get some people to pull in there. Yes, they are blocking traffic, but you're finding a compromise that will make your building more livable. It will let us try to accommodate some of these things we're looking for within our code. But really, I put it to my colleagues that I don't see how, if we can go along with this exception to the loading zone here, if it can't be done, where will it be done. I leave it at that. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: I'm in 100 percent agreement that this is a terrific addition to the whole California street area, Cambridge street in particular. It's a beautiful building, and it's modest in a wonderful way here. I would hope that a lot of other commercial buildings would look just like this. But I differ a little bit with my colleague about the truck parking/loading issue here. On the size of this building, I just don't think you have the room to do anything. And I would say that that's something that City Planning and Transportation should get together on and make a loading time limit on the front of the building to allow for those things to occur, either... Well, I would say before normal parking hours in the area, something like that, to allow for some kind of a loading/unloading. I have a number of smaller items. I think the bikes that are part of the building layout in that far corner downstairs are way too far and won't attract bikers, and that your tenants in this building, that you could offer something on the wall of the back of the commercial space, some kind of wall hanging for bicycles. I give it to you, a challenge to design something that's more accessible to the bikers, to make it more easy for them to come to the building. Then you can have other uses in those spaces back there that are the end of the building, as my colleague suggested. That if you could take the backflow preventer down there. If it's not allowed to be down there because it has to be on the first floor, that might be another hang-up in providing for that. City of Palo Alto Page 46 But certainly, you could take some of the mechanicals and stick them in the basement space. That would improve the café a lot at that end of the building. There's a change in elevation between, on the right hand side of the building there as you face it, and there's no kind of recognition of that, either on the street side -- How do you get back up? A question I could have asked before when you were responding to questions, but I'm assuming, therefore, that there will be a way within the café or that area that's going to be commercial, and use the outdoor space, that you can step back up to the street level. Or do you step down into that plaza level? As I saw it, there's a step-down. You can answer the question after I'm finished. I'm curious as to why there are so many entries. I gather it's probably you have to stay flexible to allow for, maybe two tenants in each one of the spaces. But, what you haven't done is you haven't changed your rhythm on the ground floor, which I appreciate is a very useful thing in the design of this building. I'm okay with that idea, and assume that that is what you were thinking of. This is a, although it's asymmetrical lighting at the entry, I think should be symmetrical on the face of the building, so it points it out as a place of entry. I think you only have a light on one side. I would suggest you incorporate one on the opposite side. The car gate and getting into the garage structure, the garage area there, I'm curious as to how you do that. It's always kind of tricky because you have to come up over the sidewalk and then down into the garage. A car pulling into that location, will they go up and then down? And is the gate automatic, or how does that really work? Is it open all day long and then closes at some hour? In which case it's difficult to plan on when someone is coming in or out. In particular, coming in if they have to pull out of the line of traffic or something to get... And you wouldn't want them over the sidewalk, so I think you should spend some time thinking about how that works with the gate there. Either they come in part way and the gate is further down, or... I don't know. One way or the other, figure that one out. I would like to suggest -- and I really forgot to say this in the previous project -- that you have some operable windows in the office spaces upstairs. I think, you know, we have wonderful air here in Palo Alto. Don’t lose the opportunity to open a window and get fresh air into those offices there. It would be nice, maybe, if you allowed that deck on the right-hand side to be useful to everybody. It would mean a little, maybe loss of card or area where you could access the deck for that whole floor. No reason why these people can't meet each other on that deck. It seems like it's a nice feature and you'd want to have some more public use by the tenants on that floor. I think that, you know, I'm a little surprised that my colleague didn't talk about how you detail the upper steel structure coming out, or upper lighter-weight structure coming out of the brick façade and that detail. Vice Chair Baltay: These architects seem exceptionally capable. Board Member Hirsch: I accept that. I absolutely accept that. I think that this is a beautiful... And that segues into my final, which is it's a beautiful building. It's a simple building, it's a nice commercial building. It has a rhythm that's really quite wonderful, and I'm looking forward to it. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you to the applicant. Thank you for the clear presentation. Thank you to the members of the public who came to speak to us. All right, you guys, you had your chance. My time. First, about the things that I think are serious concerns but we have no real ability to address. That's the loss of spaces suitable for small personal-service buildings. We sit up here and look at a very large number of new commercial proposals, almost all involving tear-downs, and they almost always replace smaller retail spaces, smaller office spaces, with big, large floor plates suitable for software manufacturing, or associated enterprises. And the applicant here has responded to our request to do a building that can at least be leased to smaller organizations and entities, and I don't know -- I'm only partly joking. I mean, you begin to see as we strive to accommodate personal services businesses, which require physical presence in the community, like the two that spoke this morning. You know, so, you end up with coffee shops where you can get your hair cut. I mean, you get these hybrid businesses, but we are not really able to address that concern, and it's probably best addressed to Planning and Transportation and the City Council, because we are more narrowly focused in our review of this project. But, thank you for coming to speak to us. The staff hears you, and they will filter your comments up. Okay, the building itself. It's very attractive. I really appreciate the work the applicant has done to work with his neighbors, whether they're immunologically vulnerable or aesthetically vulnerable, and I think this is impressive, and I appreciate it, and it's successful, and it's a good-looking building. I have a couple of questions. One is parking calculations, particularly involving assessment districts, are beyond my pay City of Palo Alto Page 47 grade. I do not find it reasonable to have four sets of bathrooms on the ground floor. I think it makes sense to have -- as you have them -- two sets, you know, one set of bathrooms on the ground floor accessible to all those businesses, and calculate the parking accordingly. It is not reasonable to have operating restrictions that make no sense and are counterintuitive in an effort to get to a particular parking result. If you need to do a parking variance, do a parking variance, or deviation. But I have not made these calculations. I don't know what your detailed standards are with respect to these, so I leave it to you to check them in light of the public comments. But I also believe that it's important to have interpretations of the plans that make sense as the building is likely to be used, and not some artificially-constrained analysis that's driven by a particular result. I like the... I'm concerned also about the public short-term bike parking. I could not remember the term "short term." That it needs to be at the front, it needs to be visible, it needs to be accessible. I have spent a lot of time looking for bike parking in this neighborhood while trying to track down an accountant who kept having to move in order to find a tenancy, and ended up bicycling to the Baylands, because I'm a little behind on Jack Morton's address. I think it's great to have them as street furniture if the City is willing to accept that. I do understand that's not the same thing as providing on-site parking, but it would be good to have the City consider the possibility of doing both. At several points... Am I confusing things over there? Ms. Gerhardt: No, sorry. There are times where the short-term bicycle parking can go on the sidewalk, so I think we're going to triple-check that. Chair Furth: Yeah, I think that it can be very accessible and useful there. At several points in the staff report and in the discussion of why this is an appropriate project in terms of pedestrians, it says that there will be seating, but it's not a condition of approval. I think the seating that meets that condition needs to be permanent, not the kind of chairs that get bundled up and taken in at night as part of a café use. I think a building of this length in this neighborhood needs permanent bench seating with arms so that you can stand up, even if you're a bit frail, that will be accessible at all times to the public, not just as part of buying a cup of coffee. On the plants, I understand you have particular constraints here because of the sensitivities of your neighbor. Alex, it seemed really short, I mean, I'm okay with replanting heuchera every five years if that's what you need to do. Coral bells, basically. But we seem to be pretty short of native plants or habitat plants, mostly because there are a lot of street trees. You're okay with what they presented? First I thought "N" stood for "Native," then I realized it stood for "No." Not native. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think I agree with the staff recommendation on this one. There are special circumstances on this one. Chair Furth: They are so constrained. Okay. I will defer to you and the staff on that one. Other than wanting permanent bench seating and good-faith parking calculations, which we don't do, loading space is 45 feet long? Is that right? What are the dimensions? Mr. Sing: That sounds about right, the standard. Chair Furth: And the height? Mr. Sing: The what? Chair Furth: The height? The minimum height for a loading space? Mr. Sing: I'll have to check that, but it's... Male?: [Off microphone and inaudible] Chair Furth: Fifteen? Twelve? Male?: [Off microphone and inaudible] Fifteen by 48 by 12, (inaudible). City of Palo Alto Page 48 Chair Furth: That's, a lot of trucks aren't going to get accommodated by that anyway. Or are they all under 12 feet, I just don't realize that? Male?: [Off microphone] I think I got it wrong. It's 15 vertical and 12... Chair Furth: I think so. Okay, 15 feet vertical, 12 feet by 45. I think Peter's point is well taken. Our loading zone standards seem to date back to a more suburban time when the typical commercial development was a building with a surface parking lot, higher ratio of asphalt to building. And this is a big building for this area, and it doesn’t reasonably accommodate it. I'm satisfied by the analysis presented by the applicant and the staff, to say that an on-site parking space radically changes the building. I mean, basically it knocks it over from one side or the other. Which you could require if you decide that a waiver is not appropriate. But it's a fiction to think that we're going to get any loading zones out of this code. So, the question to staff is, if not, what's the proposal? We have surface parking lots, we have curb, but we're going to have to manage our street sides differently if we're no longer going to, if the redeveloped buildings are not longer going to have loading zones. I'm also in favor of trying instead to have somewhat smaller spaces within the surface parking lot that's enclosed by this building, that would accommodate some of the smaller vehicles that come in to do deliveries. I'm bothered by that bowing-out section of the building that narrows the access into the parking lot. I think that makes it unnecessarily difficult, both for the people who are bound to walk in and out that way, and for somewhat larger vehicles that are likely to use that space, and who would like to use that space. And I don't quite understand why it's there. With respect to the opening into the garage, I think the big problem... I vastly prefer what you're doing now to what existed, but I think the challenge with these essentially two-lane width garage entrances is to have them not look menacing, gaping, unattractive. And I think it can be addressed with paint, and with light. In some cases we do it with plants, but that's when they, you know, the first story is recessed. But I think this needs more work. LED lighting seems to give opportunities for really good illumination so that you don't look down into a dark... I realize that you're not looking down on this one, but you don't look back into a dark cavern. You can see all the way. And I think with paint and light, and for all I know, design details, you can do that, but I think it needs to be done, and should be done. Because one of the things that makes walking along a sidewalk less appealing is this sense of this dark, unknown space adjacent to it. Those are my thoughts. Anything I'm concerned about I think can be referred to a subcommittee, but I did not take notes on everybody's concerns, except to note there were some concerns about lighting. Would somebody like to make a motion? Board Member Lew: At the last... I just wanted to follow up on the discussion about the loading zone. I think at the last meeting, I mentioned what San Francisco does. On a street similar to Cambridge, on the first, the first two spaces on the block are yellow loading zones. There are two because that way a truck can fit into them. And that's only at certain times -- in the morning, when they're doing deliveries. At other periods of time when there really aren't very many deliveries, those spaces are just regular metered spaces that the public can use. I think that that's a smart way of doing curb management, where you don't really have... You don't have a lot of space. And you really don't want every... Does every building need to have its own loading zone? No. Sharing it where possible, and using it when it's not needed, is, to me, the smart way of doing it. Chair Furth: Smart curbs for the smart buildings. Board Member Lew: Yes. And then, I found the cut sheets, so, thank you for that. I found them in the set, so I retract my statement about that. Board Member Hirsch: I have one other comment. Chair Furth: Yes, David? Board Member Hirsch: Very minor, but you're using thinny-thin [phonetic] bricks on the outside here. Are they individual bricks or panels, by the way? City of Palo Alto Page 49 Mr. Castro: They're individual bricks. Board Member Hirsch: Individual bricks, okay. Chair Furth: Could you address your comments to the mic? Mr. Castro: Sorry. They are individual bricks. They are actually laid into the equivalent of a stucco construction, and then they are mortared. They're going to be hand-applied. Board Member Hirsch: I would just suggest, very minor, but I like, of course, the corbeling around the front, but couldn't you double that on the higher spaces when you come to the roof level? Just give it a little more heft at the top of that building. Consider that. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, what was the first...? They're what bricks? I didn't understand the first word you used. Mr. Castro: Face bricks. They are face bricks... Chair Furth: Got it. Mr. Castro: ...that are put onto a backing of stucco. Chair Furth: I heard it visual, and it was going to... Mr. Castro: Okay. Chair Furth: Brick veneer. Board Member Thompson: I think also, just really briefly... This is Board Member... Chair Furth: Sorry, Osma, I'm having trouble hearing you. Board Member Thompson: Oh. I just wanted to echo agreement on the loading curb idea. Also echo agreement about the structural post that Board Member Baltay noted. I did see it, and it would be nice to have that coordinated so it's not sticking out. I also echo Board Member Hirsch's note about operable windows, allowing air in, and automatic roller shades. It is a south-facing façade, and while you have, you know, nice recess on your windows, I think that would help greatly. And I'll also echo straightening up the driveway, just relocating that backflow preventer. Yeah, those are the notes I took. MOTION Chair Furth: Would somebody like to make a motion? Board Member Hirsch: Can I do the first one? Can it be my first? Vice Chair Baltay: Go for it, David. Chair Furth: Prepare for amendments. Board Member Hirsch: I propose that the ARB approve this project. Chair Furth: Recommend approval. Board Member Hirsch: Recommend approval. City of Palo Alto Page 50 Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to add to that, if I may, a friendly amendment. Board Member Lew: We need a second, second it first, then we can add to it. Vice Chair Baltay: I second the motion. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to add to my second a few conditions of approval. I'd like to have the structural posts on the California Avenue frontage to be aligned with the visual structural alignment of the building. Secondly, I'd like to see the drive aisle be straightened out by removing the notch in the retail portion of the building, and having the backflow valves located at the back side of the property someplace. And then, I agree that we should request some sort of automatic window shade system on the top two floors of the building, at the back. That's number three. What was...? Board Member Thompson: Operable windows? Vice Chair Baltay: No, you're going to have to make that one. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Those are my additions. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Vice Chair Baltay: Oh, yes, and that the parking entrance lighting and paint colors... You want that consent calendar, or just have it reviewed? Chair Furth: (inaudible) Vice Chair Baltay: Be sent back to subcommittee for final approval. Is that necessary? Chair Furth: Or just staff. Staff's fine with me. Staff, does that concept make sense to you? Staff is indicating they feel confident they could get the desired result. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, the paint colors and lighting at the automobile entrance to the parking be reviewed by staff, to meet Chair Furth's comments. Board Member Hirsch: What about (inaudible) cellar? Vice Chair Baltay: There's no cellar, David. Board Member Hirsch: No? Vice Chair Baltay: No, there's no cellar. Chair Furth: Surface area. Board Member Lew: Benches. Chair Furth: Benches. Vice Chair Baltay: And then, that permanent benches with arms be proposed along... Chair Furth: Provided. City of Palo Alto Page 51 Vice Chair Baltay: Provided on the sidewalk. Chair Furth: Or on the California Avenue frontage. Vice Chair Baltay: On the California Avenue frontage. Chair Furth: Sorry, Cambridge. Vice Chair Baltay: Cambridge. I keep saying California. It's Cambridge Avenue frontage. Chair Furth: You didn't say Oxford. Vice Chair Baltay: And lastly, that operable windows be investigated by the applicant if... Chair Furth: And used if feasible? Vice Chair Baltay: And used if feasible. You okay with that? Board Member Thompson: Sure. Yeah, that's fine. Vice Chair Baltay: Used if feasible. Mr. Sing: One clarification. Sorry. For the backflow preventers, on page 12 and 13 of the plan set, there's an Option 2 that's indicated. It's on the opposite side of the building. Would that be acceptable. Vice Chair Baltay: No. I'm afraid the backflow valves really need to be not next to the driveway or not in the café. We're talking about some place at the back side of the building. Ms. Gerhardt: I just... I don't know that that is 100 percent possible. We need to speak with Utilities and Fire to see where those can be located. Vice Chair Baltay: Then I would, what I would say is, to that restriction, if it's not possible, then it should come back to a subcommittee for approval. Chair Furth: Alex, (inaudible). Board Member Lew: Yes. I had a comment about the findings. Chair Furth: Okay, well, let's see if David accepts those friendly amendments. Board Member Hirsch: I accept. Chair Furth: All right, so, we have a motion and a second, and a group of friendly amendments accepted. Discussion? Alex, you had a comment about the findings as presented in the staff report? Board Member Lew: I previously mentioned that to staff. Chair Furth: Well, if we're going to make a change, we should make a change. What's the comment? Board Member Lew: Under Finding #2, I would add that there is a new setback along the rear, and planting, where there is currently a zero setback to a blank concrete wall. Chair Furth: Thereby enhancing living conditions and providing a more harmonious transition? Thank you. Anything else before we vote. Okay. Motion by Board Member Hirsch, second by Vice Chair Baltay, as previously stated. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. City of Palo Alto Page 52 MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you very much to you, the applicant, to the staff, and to the public speakers who came to address this, as well. This now goes to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to make a decision. Thanks. Just as a reminder, we have no study session today. We are not going to approve minutes because they are not ready. I'm going to recuse myself and not participate in public hearing item number 4, Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3, Downtown North, because I live in Downtown North. I will turn it over to Vice Chair Baltay. You want a five-minute break? [The Board took a short break.] [Chair Furth recused herself and left the room] Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, back in session. Chair Furth has excused herself. I'll be chairing the last item here. 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3, Downtown North Multiple Addresses [17PLN-00450 File Uses 250 Hamilton Address]: Request by Sure Site (on behalf of Crown Castle to Lease to Verizon) for Six Small Cell Node Tier 3 Wireless Communication Facility Permits Poles in the Public Right of Way on Six (6) Wood Utility Poles. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303. Zoning of Node Locations is Public Facilities, Adjacent to These Zones: RM-30 (205 Everett/251 Emerson, 243 Hawthorne and 258 Waverley); RM-D (NP) 482 Everett and 301 Bryant; RM-15 (201 High). For further background information, please refer to the City’s website under the project file number 17PLN-00450). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. Vice Chair Baltay: It's item number 4, a quasi-judicial application by Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3, Downtown North, multiple areas. A request by Sure Site on behalf of Crown Castle to least to Verizon for six small cell node Tier 3 wireless communication facility permits, poles in the right-of-way on six wood utility poles. Staff report, please. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes. Good morning, or is it good afternoon? Chief Planning Official Amy French. We're back today with Crown Castle Cluster 3, six wood pole small cell wireless communication nodes in Downtown North. This project is to expand 4G service with pole top antennas and equipment mounted to the sides of the existing poles. Verizon, the company that would lease the equipment from Crown Castle, seeks additional capacity and increased signal strength. Before we get into project specifics, I would like to note we forwarded public correspondence to the ARB yesterday by email. Rebecca just passed out additional public correspondence to ARB members at places. They're on the back table, as well. The City is tasked with making decisions on Tier 3 wireless node projects within a restricted timeline known as a shot clock, where a decision is due in short order. We are faced with a recent FCC order that will require a 60-day turnaround on these types of projects going forward. Our attorney, staff Albert Yang, is here with us today, and he can answer questions about the FCC legislation, and can provide a quick summary regarding the upcoming ordinance revisions. And then, I will resume the presentation on this specific project. Albert Yang, City Attorney: Thanks, Amy. Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney. Staff is currently working on an ordinance that responds to a recent FCC order. That order is being litigated by a number of municipalities, but the courts recently denied a request for the order to be stayed, so it is in effect now. It's likely to take some time before that litigation is resolved. Part of the big-picture vision in terms of bringing this ordinance is for the City to work with the carriers and try to develop a menu of design options that we can then use to avoid having all these case-by-case projects come to the Board. I'm sure we will be providing updates on that as it progresses. City of Palo Alto Page 53 Ms. French: Resuming now. All six small cell wireless communication nodes are next to residential structures in the Cluster 3 proposal. Here are the node numbers, pole numbers, and addresses on the screen, abutting the red way [phonetic] where the poles are located. Next. After the staff and applicant presentations, the ARB will take public testimony if there is anyone here from the public, and will be able to then consider the proposed approval of the six nodes. Packet pages 263 to 264 provide bulleted considerations for the ARB's discussion. Please note the City municipal code provides 11 wireless communication facility permit development standards, and a recommendation from the ARB is to be based on the six architectural review approval findings. In addition, the Planning and Community Environment Director must be able to make the two conditional use permit approval findings as well before approving the project. And then, staff is tasked with preparing conditions of approval to go along with the ARB recommendation and the Director's decision. On the screen are two recently-submitted visual simulations of Crown's equipment. The one on the left is the bare equipment painted, without a shroud. On the right is a shroud. In other words, a piece of metal that goes around the equipment, and there is space between the metal and the equipment. Staff hasn't received plans that correspond with the shroud. Now on the screen are six questions that staff has regarding the recent visual sim. We note the Planning Director will not be able to act on design until staff can perform a code compliance review of the equipment orientation, and to ensure safety. Now, we have proposed amenity trees on three nodes, and possibly one more, depending on feasibility. We note these tree opportunities on packet pages 255 to 258. We have orientation concerns for this equipment noted on packet pages 263 to 264. The findings of the City's consultant, CTC, are up on the screen. We can come back to those if you would like, later. Now, the existing wood pole for Node 20 is on the screen, without the proposed antenna and equipment. Just as-is today. The applicant will actually be showing the photo sims of each of the nodes. Staff believes a better screen tree is possible at this site to help with the screening. Then, now, Node 21m1, which is also another place where we imagine a street tree could be helpful. Next, we have Node 22m2. We have, yeah, another street is a possibility here, so, improving the tree coverage and screening. Then, Node 23 would be removing that transfer pole, the extra pole there. That would be a condition of approval. It's not needed. And Node 24, we would also condition to remove the transfer pole. We also think the holly oak that is there is rather small. It could be replaced with a more robust tree. Node 32. There isn't any room for a new tree because of the existing utility boxes there in the planting strip. Now, these drawings next up are images from the CTC consultant report that showed pole-top mounting and side mounting of equipment. The Board had previously recommended that all facilities be vaulted, but this has not been feasible in the past, and the CTC report does not include that vaulting has become any easier in the past year. As a result, if the Board is unable to make findings to recommend the proposed design, staff seeks Board input on the pole top alternative. The applicant and staff kind of disagree on whether the pole top design is a feasible alternative. We have our final slide. This provides the next steps and staff contact information. We'll let the applicant make their presentation, unless the Board has questions of staff. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Amy. Before that, I'd like to make sure, if there are any disclosures to be made. I will disclose that I visited the site several times over the past few weeks. Anybody else? Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I visited the site partially. Not all of it, but partially. Board Member Thompson: I haven't had a chance to go last week. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Then we have a staff, an applicant presentation. You have 10 minutes. Please spell your name for us. Rochelle Swanson, Sure Site Consulting: [spells name]. I'm the government relations consultant for Crown Castle. Thank you again for having us, and good afternoon. I do want to show, as before, I've brought the team so that you can ask direct questions of the subject matter experts. We have Ernesto Figarolo, [phonetic], who is our RF engineer. We have Todd Threw, who is our A&E designer, who will be speaking, I imagine, quite a bit about orientation, what the limitations can be with GO 95. We also have City of Palo Alto Page 54 the construction manager, Dick Stoddard, and our PM is VJ Ridavari [phonetic]. Our manager of government affairs is Sharon James [phonetic], and our legal counsel, Michael Shonafelt. As staff had noted we did provide some updated sims. We took advantage of the fact that the item was continued because the last time was so late in December, and I know that those previous sims were a little dark and hard to read. I apologize that it took kind of up to the last minute to actually get them all turned around, but I'm hoping that it will actually make it easier to be able to render a decision today. I do want to just remind everybody that Crown Castle is a C-lec [phonetic], which means that we qualify to be a public utility, and that, therefore, have special status in the public right-of-way. I'm a little bit different from a carrier, so while it is true that the intended tenant is Verizon Wireless, Crown is a C-lec and a separate entity. I also did want to note that I reviewed the packet of the community comments and the preponderance of them was really to other projects and not this one here in particular. And, some concern over the new FCC order, which is understandable. I know most cities and counties are very curious to see what's going to happen with that, as that's been moved back into the 9th Circuit. The reason, as before, same with the other clusters, is this is a coverage and capacity issue. As more and more people are using their phones for data, voice, it requires, of course, more facilities. And so, while it's true somebody may see four bars on their phone, it doesn't mean that they actually will be able to hold and carry a call, or especially download data. What we're really seeing now are more capacity than what used to be coverage. I won't belabor too much the fact that everybody has a phone. And I apologize... I'm sorry. I thought staff was moving this along. I forgot. As mentioned before, we do have updated sims. What I've done is I've put each one up here, so that with their specific questions, both Todd and Dick can come up and answer specific questions. There are two options. The first one is having the radio equipment on its own, painted, as Amy has said. The other one is to do a shroud because I know that that has also been raised as a preferred design. I know sometimes in other jurisdictions, when comparing the two, they actually see that the equipment just painted is a little bit smaller footprint. I wanted to make sure all of you had the opportunity to see them side by side. On this little slide here, it was handed out to you as the GO 95, which is General Order 95, which prescribes safety and distances that are required when mounting equipment on utility poles. And it doesn't just apply to wireless. This applies to anybody doing that. This close-up here is reflective of the simulations that are within your packet, within the drawings, where it does show the connectivity there between the shroud and the top of the pole. Under GO 95, that's required to be visible for inspection. I will let Todd speak to that a little bit more. And then, following there are all six nodes and the equipment, as you can see, like I said, either outside with it being painted, or with there being a shroud. And I know there is some concern from staff on orientation, and as noted in the handout that I know Rebecca gave you on GO 95, you can see the limitations of where those are located. I certainly understand the need for aesthetic impacts. There are safety requirements that dictate where the equipment can face on certain poles. And then, I will just quickly hit this. Really, what we're looking for is feedback from you as to the preference on the equipment being located within a shroud or without the shroud. I will let Todd go ahead and come up and quickly talk about GO 95 and what the limitations are for some of the equipment orientation, as well the covering of the shrouds. While it does show the photo sims it can come down and cover that equipment, that's not compliant necessarily with the state law, as well as the general order from the CPUC. Todd, if you want to come up. Todd Threw, Costal Communications: Good afternoon, Board members. I kind of wanted to say "this morning" as well, but that was more of a preference, you could say. Vice Chair Baltay: If you could state and spell your name. Mr. Threw: Absolutely. This is Todd Threw [spells name], from Coastal Communications. We are the design firm for Crown Castle on this project. As Rochelle was stating, the orientation of the equipment on the pole, there are different aspects that go into that. One is order GO 95, that states... It basically controls climbing space for access to the pole for anyone working on the pole. It needs to allow quadrants that are open. We also take into consideration safety factors. Not having the equipment out over the street, which would put anyone on, working on the pole to be in an unsafe work environment with vehicles coming down. We try as much as possible to not have them facing the homes as well, so, instead, putting them away from traffic where somebody would be working on the project. I believe on City of Palo Alto Page 55 each one of these -- are we scrolling through? Scrolling through -- on this instance where... Is this 20 right here? This is 20. We have called for the equipment to be on this position here, basically over this bush. Oncoming traffic would then not be an issue with safety for the, anybody working on the pole, away from traffic, out on the street, and away from the home, not facing directly towards the residence. As you can see, as Rochelle was pointing out, the two different types of equipment configurations, whether completely shrouded, bulkier box, but all enclosed, or without and all painted. This site, as well, we're able to put the equipment, again, basically over the shrub area on the side of the pole. Again, same configuration as 20. This is site 21, where it is away from the oncoming traffic to provide safety. Female??: (inaudible) Mr. Threw: Absolutely. As Rochelle was stating, with the pole shroud, where in the designs that you see in your design packet, we left a gap that shows the mounting bracket to the pole. That's for the visual inspection that the state requires, the California Public Utility Commission requires for visual inspections on an annual basis, to be able to, to make sure that everything is safely adhered to. By completely covering up that bracket, as was put into the sims basically as a request of staff members here at the City, to be able to give that representation, but what that does do is it prevents that visual inspection, which is a safety factor and would prove to be a liability. The shroud itself is 72 inches long. It's six foot tall by 24.5, 24 1/2 inches wide, and it is, proves to be a... All equipment can be enclosed in it, but at the same time, it is a bulkier situation. You know, the equipment without the shroud is an eight-foot-long configuration to be able to maintain the clearances as proposed. It is a longer overall design, but it is more, from a visual standpoint, a cleaner look. On this site here, again, we are proposing to place it away from traffic. It would be facing toward down the street, away from traffic, and again, not over the street, and adhering to the clearances for GO 95 for climbing space. As Rochelle pointed out, this pole, the transfer pole, I think, that was stated by Amy, is one where when the City replaced the existing pole, they did not have an opportunity to remove the old pole. I believe that probably the phone company has not done their transfer yet. That would come out; the equipment would be on the new pole. In this instance, this is one where we would be facing on this side of the pole, towards oncoming traffic, because of the restrictions on how the cables are all attached to it, the phone cables, the risers brackets. We are not able to put it on any of the other quadrants that we have in the previous sites. Again, on this site, it would be the same instance where the City has a pole that they would be removing. We would be placing it on a quadrant that would be on the side. Vice Chair Baltay: If you could take 30 seconds to finish up, please, I'd appreciate it. Mr. Threw: Absolutely. Pole number... The last site is the one site where we do have it facing towards the home because of the risers in question that are coming down the pole, because of the attachments on the pole, that there is no other quadrant where we could attach. Vice Chair Baltay: Finished? Mr. Threw: Thank you, Board members. Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. At this point, I'd like to open the meeting to any public comments or testimony. Do we have any speakers? Seeing no speakers, we'll close the meeting for public comments and testimony and bring it back to the Board. Do we have any questions for staff or the applicant? Osma. Board Member Thompson: You were mentioning that there was something that had to be visible for safety. Is that depicted in these drawings, this thing that would have to be visible? Or is that something that we have to imagine would be visible? Mr. Threw: If you look at the site that's up on the board right now, we show the bracket as it comes down to the pole. City of Palo Alto Page 56 Ms. Swanson: And it's also in every site in your plan set drawings. The photo sims that were actually included in the plan set itself shows that, that bracket as it reflects the design. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so, it would be the shroud, and then there would be a band that's kind of white and black? Mr. Threw: Right. It can be painted to match the pole. It can be painted the color that you want. But if you see the bracket that comes down from the shroud, that's actually the attachment to the pole itself. That's what needs to be visible for a visual inspection from the ground level. Board Member Thompson: Okay. All right. That was my question. Thanks. Vice Chair Baltay: David. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I have a question for staff. Has the CAC [sic] report been passed on to the consultants here? The applicant? Rebecca Atkinson, Planner: Yes, it has. Board Member Hirsch: It has? In December, or when was that done? We received it in December. Ms. Atkinson: All at the same time. Board Member Hirsch: Same time as we received it. Ms. Atkinson: Yeah, yeah. Everybody has received it. Board Member Hirsch: You are aware of what the planning consultant submitted to your...? Ms. Swanson: You're referring to the CTC report? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Ms. Swanson: Correct, where they were looking at size, and that if it were smaller, it would require more sites... Board Member Hirsch: okay. Ms. Swanson: ...to... That's the part you were addressing, correct? Board Member Hirsch: Uh-huh. Okay. Ms. Swanson: Thank you, yeah, we did receive it. Board Member Hirsch: Have we started board discussion, or no? Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, any questions? Board Member Lew: I have a question. I think this may be for staff. I think on previous wireless applications, I think staff has mentioned that you don't like equipment hanging over the sidewalks. In this particular one, like Node 32, it does. I was wondering, where does that concern come from? Ms. Atkinson: The concern regarding sidewalk...? City of Palo Alto Page 57 Board Member Lew: Of having equipment overhanging the sidewalk. Is that really a visual concern of the City's, or is...? I'm just trying to figure out where, what is the root of that previous comment. Ms. Atkinson: Generally, it comes from a couple different places, including Comprehensive Plan policies to, you know, enhance the site. Also, in regard to street scape design coherency, and so forth. In some instances, bicycles are allowed to ride on sidewalks, and in general, narrow sidewalks. It leads to a more compressed and enclosed environment. Board Member Lew: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: I also would like to clarify a couple of things with staff, I guess. We have quite a few pieces of information that have been and are being given to us. I want to understand quite clearly what the application actually is. We have a packet of design materials that was provided a few weeks ago. It's the formal submission. And then, there are a number of photo simulations that seem to go with that. Are they same design, just different renderings of it? Or are there changes to the design in the photo simulations? And if so, how are we supposed to evaluate that? Ms. Atkinson: The presentation, the project plans, and the project description, and all of those things that were sent with your packets for this meeting were also sent for your original December 6th meeting. All of that is the same. On January 8th, staff received updated visual simulations as described by the applicant team in their presentation. Correct. There was a cover memo saying that they analysis of these visual simulations is not included in the staff report, and that we would have remarks subsequent to that. We have received a question from ARB members, in which case we provided a staff response, which is in the correspondence before you, where we're acknowledging that staff found inconsistencies, and so did the applicant. The applicant provided additional updated visual sims, further updated visual sims on a couple of the nodes. And I think that the overall... I guess the point that staff was receiving from these visual simulations was that the applicant was showing that there was a possibility of having equipment shroud. It wasn't demonstrating what orientation it would be on any one particular, you know, but just the, the simple takeaway was just that the equipment could be shrouded. That was the basic takeaway. There wasn't any accompanying plan set, nor could we do any kind of co-compliance on the visual sims. Vice Chair Baltay: Are we then fair to assume that what we're reviewing here is not entirely defined? It's not clear whether, at least in the application, it's shrouded or not, or what orientation on the pole these, the equipment is amounted. Is that...? I'm just trying to understand clearly so we know what we're voting on. Ms. Atkinson: It's staff's understanding that the action or recommendation today would be on the project plans and project description as sent, as you saw on December 6th, as well as, you know, again, in your packet for this meeting. The project plans are, you know, reviewable, and staff provided the, you know, the topics of draft conditions, including in regard to equipment orientation, horizontal and vertical clearances for safety, and other aesthetics, and amenity trees, and so forth. So, the basis of a recommendation would be upon the orientations and so forth, and the project plans. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. And then, for the applicant, please. There have been a number of suggestions made throughout the community that the equipment could either be mounted in vaults underground, or be mounted on top of the pole, concealed in the same shroud that the antenna is concealed in. Can you address whether those are feasible? Because I notice that you do not put those in any of your applications. Ms. Swanson: I'm actually going to let my designer and construction person (inaudible) something you guys want to be able to weigh in on, on the size for feasibility. What we proposed is what we feel is feasible. Michael Shonafelt, Attorney, Crown Castle: Good afternoon, members of the Board. Michael Shonafelt. I'm legal counsel for Crown Castle. And it's more of a technical question you ask, but it might help to City of Palo Alto Page 58 have a bit of legal backdrop on this as well. Yeah, those two avenues are foreclosed under, as infeasible vaulting for a myriad of reasons that Todd can probably explain from the technical perspective. Also, with respect to the pole-mounted radios at the top, those are, by necessity, a smaller radio. I think it's an Ericsson 2203, if I am correct. The smaller radio does not allow for the same reach of the RF signal, and it also requires a dropping of a band of service. Really, what happens, roughly speaking, is you're reducing your RF coverage by almost half. We've been taking the position we did with the Director's decision on Cluster 2, that the requirement of those radios, yes, it produces a smaller form factor, but it also has a commensurate reduction in our ability to achieve the RF signals. It kind of amounts to a prohibition of service, and that is a term of art in the law, under the Telecom Act of 1996, that local regulations cannot result in a prohibition of service. But we consider that to be a prohibition. Roughly, when you reduce the size of the radios by that size, you're also requiring almost double the amount of nodes to achieve the same footprint. You're actually, ultimately, having a proliferation of vertical elements and nodes in cities when this happens. We are looking at the pole-mounted equipment as the viable option, and that's sort of the legal backdrop. It's kind of a technical and legal question. Vice Chair Baltay: I hope you can appreciate, that was a technical question, not a legal one. I'm asking if it's feasible to put vaults in the ground, or if it's feasible to put radios on top of the poles. Mr. Shonafelt: We can speak to that [crosstalk] ... Vice Chair Baltay: The answer I'm hearing you tell me is that the radios on top of the poles would have less range... Mr. Shonafelt: Right. Vice Chair Baltay: ...therefore, you would need more of them. Mr. Shonafelt: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: And regarding the vaults? Mr. Shonafelt: Todd can speak to some of the vault issues, But... Yeah, go ahead. Mr. Threw: Absolutely. The issue with vaulting the equipment would be the existing utilities would be underground, whether it be water, water laterals, sewer, sewer laterals, tree, tree roots -- Everything that would be impacted by that, for the excavation needed to place the vault for the equipment that would be planned. Vice Chair Baltay: And if I could ask, how many times have you explored vaulting this type of equipment, either here or in other communities? Has it been done before? Mr. Threw: Explored before, yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Has it been installed before by your company? Mr. Threw: By Crown Castle? There have been some, yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Well, thank you. That's my question for you. I'd like to bring it back to the Board, then. To my colleagues on the Board, I'd like to try to focus our discussion. It seems to me that the fact that we have antennas mounted on top of the poles concealed by a shroud is something that we can agree on. It seems to me that the location of these poles is something that we don't have a whole lot to discuss. Rather, the issue, I believe, is regarding the pole-mounted equipment, whether it's concealed by a shroud or not, whether it's painted, how it's oriented, or even whether we want pole-mounted equipment. If I can get consensus that that is the question, I'd like to discuss that question. Osma, what do you think? City of Palo Alto Page 59 Board Member Thompson: I was going to say, I think the antenna also is up for question, as well, at least on my end, given that we've seen smaller options, and also given that what is visual here versus what we have in our packet is not one and one. Even if what we're looking at on the screen is painted, it won't look like what's in these visual simulations. Or at least I’m not convinced that's the case. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm just trying to get us focused on what I think the real issue is, and it seems to me that all of these applications have an antenna mounted on top of the pole. I just want to see if we're all on board with that basic concept. Alex, do you have any sense about that? Just to focus on that first. Board Member Lew: I think I'm with you here on this one. I think we've gone through the antenna a lot on the, like, on the Vinculum one. I think staff gave us three different options, as I recall, on how the pole top antenna, you know, the options for that. I don't know, I think we've gone through that before, so I'm comfortable with where it is. Vice Chair Baltay: David, what's your take on it? Board Member Hirsch: Well, as I mentioned before, I went back to review the CAC comments that they made considering a micro cell system, versus the one that's being proposed, which would have a much, much smaller antenna and extremely smaller other pole-mounted equipment. I asked staff if this, if this consultant -- or actually applicant -- had reviewed that, and I'm sort of understanding that the legal response was just made on that system. I think it... Let me just answer your question. I think, therefore, it is important for us to review that possibility, as well. Vice Chair Baltay: But, to be clear, that's still... Equipment or antennas mounted on top of the pole. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, but it's a different size... Vice Chair Baltay: Different size. Very well. Board Member Hirsch: [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: And then, does anybody have questions or concerns regarding the actual poles that have been selected? There are six poles proposed throughout the community. Is there any dispute about the location or selection of those exact poles? Board Member Hirsch: Again, I have some questions because they don't have, as was sort of advertised by the company, they don't have tree, locations where they are really shaded by trees, or obscured by trees. Some of them are quite open. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Board Member Lew: Peter, to answer your question, I do have concerns about Node 32, which is the one on High Street. That's just because the radios would be overhanging the sidewalk. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, as I see it, the issue is one of pole-mounted equipment, primarily. Even, Alex, your comment here, the reason you're concerned about the location is because of the pole- mounted equipment. I'd like to put it out there front in center for myself that I don't think we should allow pole-mounted equipment. I don't think we can make Architectural Review Finding 2e. regarding "to enhance the general environment of the community." I want to throw that out there to my board members, and then we'll start a discussion on whether you buy that, or whether you think we should try to find changes that make pole-mounted equipment work. Osma, why don't you start? Board Member Thompson: With that on its own, I think the pole-mounted equipment as we've seen it, I'm with you on that. The option that we saw with staff where it's connected to the antenna, where the equipment is mounted on the pole but it's in the shroud of the antenna, I wouldn't be opposed to that City of Palo Alto Page 60 necessarily because it seems to have a bit more of a cohesive look. But the pole-mounted equipment that we've seen so far, the items that stick out that are sort of in the middle of the pole, I agree that it does not meet Finding 2e. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: I actually, I kind of disagree. I think that there are, some of the locations are better than others. But, I think that there are places that have enough screening where pole-mounted equipment is feasible. I would just say, as an example is the 22m2, which is the one on Bryant Court facing the park. There's existing pittosporum and existing magnolia trees, and those are both evergreen plants. I think that those help obscure the equipment. There are other locations, however, where they are really minimal, there's minimal landscaping, or the trees are deciduous and the equipment is much more visible. I would say that, yeah, the 22m2 that has the evergreen trees. And also... Which is the one with the oak tree? Is that 24? Vice Chair Baltay: Let’s try to be [crosstalk]. Board Member Lew: Hawthorne? There's one on Hawthorne that has an evergreen tree as well. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, I'm hearing you say that... Board Member Lew: Here, it's 23. 22m2 is the one on Bryant Court, or Bryant Lane, and there's a magnolia. Twenty-23 on Hawthorne, and there's a big oak tree. I'm comfortable with those two. The other ones, I have some reservations about, but it seems to me the, like, the worst one, the one that has no screening, is 20. And 21m1. There's a small deciduous tree, so it's fairly exposed. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. David? Board Member Hirsch: The reason I referred to the CAC recommendations for us to consider, or for the City to consider, is that the antenna is reduced in size significantly. Some parts of the transmittal machinery can be located in the upper portion of the pole. And I would probably agree with this consultant or this applicant that it will be very difficult because of the limitation of the run of the connectors to have successful use of any vaults in the street. I think one way or another, very few of the poles will be able to use the vaults for locating their equipment. This was one of the major concerns of a lot of the letters that we received about the system, is that they said put it in the street, and I think that's just going to be impractical. If you consider all of the recommendations of the CAC report, you get reduced RF emissions from this site; higher data throughput capability; greater compatibility with 5G architecture deployment strategies. With those improvements, I don't know why... And especially because the actual transmitters on the poles will be significantly reduced. I think that if you showed this committee that kind of a system, you would probably not even get any objection to where the location of those transmitters were on the pole. They are so reduced in size. It is the transmitters, in fact, either in a shroud or not in a shroud, that the location where they are, that's really the major concern here in the city. You can eliminate the issue of vaults and just understand the aesthetics -- which is what we deal with here -- will be so radically improved if you changed your system. Now, okay, it means you have to add additional locations with a smaller portion of these elements. I'd like to know why that's not reasonable. Vice Chair Baltay: David, I'm trying to keep us focused, not on telling them what to do, but rather... Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: ... We have an application in front of us which has pole-mounted equipment 10, 15 feet above the poles at six locations. How do you feel about that equipment as presented? City of Palo Alto Page 61 Board Member Hirsch: As presented, I... As presented, I don't accept that. And the last meeting, the same was true. At eight feet above ground level, they are there because you have interference at other areas, I gather. You can't put it anywhere else. You tell us that there's a maintenance issue here, and I don't really accept that. Usually you can locate them almost anywhere and go up in a lift and that becomes your way of repairing them, so they could be higher. Except they can't be higher now because you'll have interference with other lines on the pole, or there's no dimension that will allow for them to be moved up. I think the technology is there for doing a better job on this city, to locate more of them throughout neighborhoods where they will be less seen. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. What I’m hearing is that at least three members of the Board are not in favor of pole-mounted equipment due to Finding 2e. Alex, is there any way to get you on board with us? Board Member Lew: Based on my understanding from previous cell phone projects. I would say no. My understanding, we're not supposed to be changing the technology that they've selected, so if we have the CTC report, that's fine, the City can ask for it. But I'm not going to make any recommendations on that. Vice Chair Baltay: I don't think we're trying to recommend how to do what they want to do. I just want to make a clear statement about the pole-mounted equipment, which is what's in front of us in this package. Board Member Lew: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: And what I've heard you say is in four cases out of six, you also have concerns about it, but in two of them, you don't. Board Member Lew: Yes. I think my, my split with the rest of the Board is that you guys have said no pole-mounted equipment anywhere, and that's not my position. My position is it can work in locations where there's screening. It's just a difference that I have on this. And I think the Council has been clear as well on their position on this. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to ask the rest of the Board, then. Do we want to concur with Alex, in the sense that under conditions -- for example, with good landscape screening -- pole-mounted equipment should be considered? Or should we be categorical about it, that it's not? I'm trying to get us to speak with a voice, to come back to the staff with a clear recommendation, and this is sort of what the issue is coming down to. Osma, what do you think about Alex's take on it? Board Member Thompson: I think I might just disagree, in the sense that if there is a better design out there that is better suited for this application, regardless of if there is screening or not, I would be in favor of a better design, rather than potentially a clunkier design that had screening. Vice Chair Baltay: David? Board Member Hirsch: No, I'm pretty firm. I think there's legal issues here, too, so, I would really like to know if there's time on the shot clock to ask the additional proposal. When is the shot...? You know, this is separate from what you're asking me. What is the legal status of this project? Mr. Yang: The City has a shot clock that expires in early March. We can always seek additional time, but the applicant must agree to that. I guess I'd like to also just address one comment that Board Member Lew made, which was about whether or not the City or this Board should be dictating equipment. That's not what we are looking to do here, but it is certainly within the Board's purview to comment on design and size, which I think many of the comments have been directed at. City of Palo Alto Page 62 Board Member Hirsch: Well, now, as I say, I'm pretty firm about it. I don't think that... I mean, I've seen this kind of equipment in other neighborhoods as well. I don't find it acceptable on any... Even though I know the applicant here has tried hard to find good locations or workable locations, it's not good enough. The equipment is simply not attractive on street poles. The street poles, which are quite high in Palo Alto, are already an eyesore. Most upscale communities put them underground. I'm not saying that we should have that all over. It's unfortunate the City can't put, can't relocate everything underground there, all of the electrical services. But it's not going to happen, so I think it's up to the applicant here to find a better solution. And I think they might be out there, technically they're out there, and if it required us using more poles where there is less material on it, then it's something we should be considering. MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: So, then, to my colleagues. We're left with the choice of just recommending denial, or trying to recommend approval with a condition that does not allow pole-mounted equipment. At the last meeting, we tried to figure those, that verbiage out and weren't successful. Does anybody have any ideas how we could recommend approval but still require that, with the condition that the equipment not be pole-mounted? Hearing that nobody has an idea, I recommend that we... I move that we recommend denial of this project as presented. Board Member Thompson: I'll second. Board Member Hirsch: I'll second. Oh. Board Member Thompson: Oh. Beat you to it, David. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to address that motion, then, since I just made it. I think there are ways that this could be achieved with the equipment mounted elsewhere than on the pole, but we don't know enough of how to put that out there, and we don't want to be in the position of telling you what to do. The Board is concluding that the package as presented to us does not meet the Architectural Review Board Finding 2e in particular, regarding the aesthetics of pole-mounted equipment. For that... Ms. Swanson: May I ask you a question, Chair Baltay? Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. Ms. Swanson: I wanted to clarify something, Board Member Hirsch, is that we received the CTC report the morning of the last time we were here, December 6th. That's why you're not going to see anything reflected in, that's based on that. And because of the proliferation of the poles. When you're talking about the non-pole-mounted, I know when we were here before on another application, we had some pretty specific direction about it all being on the top of the pole, and what that would look like. And I recall, you were very open to the creativity of being able to move, like, the mailbox, over across the street. So, I appreciate the not being able, you know, giving us, you know, commandment and direction, and wanting a better design. We concur with staff about additional landscaping and trees where appropriate. Node 32 can go up to 9 feet, if it's the 8 feet that concerns you. That is a very limited orientation on that particular pole because of climbing space and risers that are coming up and not facing the street. I understand what you're saying, is even with elongated, smaller radio equipment just being painted, you still feel like that... Vice Chair Baltay: I'm sorry to cut you off, but we don't want to keep talk... We've been talking about this for months. [crosstalk] Ms. Swanson: I'm sorry, I was [crosstalk]. City of Palo Alto Page 63 Vice Chair Baltay: The position of the Board at this point is that pole-mounted equipment does not meet the architectural review findings. Ms. Swanson: Okay. Just... period. Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, let's call that to a vote then. All those in favor, aye? Opposed? Abstains? Okay, the motion carries 3 to 1. MOTION TO DENY PASSES 3-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER LEW VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Ms. Swanson: Thank you. Study Session Approval of Minutes - Not approved due to production delays. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 6, 2018. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2018. Vice Chair Baltay: Seeing that we have no minutes to review, and there's no further business, I close this meeting of the Architectural Review Board. Subcommittee Items 7. 4115 El Camino Real [17PLN-00280]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes and Clarifications Regarding Details, Security, and Maintenance. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Section 15061(b)(3) That the Project is not Subject to CEQA Because the Proposed Revisions Will not Have a Significant Effect on the Environment. Zoning Districts: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us Vice Chair Baltay: We do have a subcommittee hearing, which will take place after the meeting is closed. Thank you. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements - not addressed. Adjournment