Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-03-21 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: March 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, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions 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. 700 Welch [18PLN-00331]: Request by Stanford Medicine for Major Architectural Review of a Stanford University Medical Center Master Wayfinding Sign Program for Sign Installations on Private Property Adjacent to Quarry Road, Welch Road, and Pasteur Drive, and Within the Public Rights of Way. Sign Exceptions are Requested for Some Signs. Zoning Districts: PC (1992), RM-40, MOR, and HD. Environmental Assessment: Pending. For more information, contact the Project Planner: Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. 3. ARB Review and Recommendation of Draft Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights of Way. For more information, contact Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 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. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 7, 2019. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2019. Subcommittee Items 6.3200 El Camino Real [17PLN-00156]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes to Address Architectural Details. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was Circulated Between December 5, 2018 and January 4, 2019. Zoning District: Service Commercial (CS). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements and Discussion Items Adjournment 1. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Update- Board member Lew. 2. Architectural Review Board Annual Report to City Council: Drafting and Proposed Contents. 3.Other questions, comments, or announcements. _______________________ 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 # 10195) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 3/21/2019 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, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions 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. Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects. 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 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 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. 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 Furth/Baltay 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay 7/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson 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 3/21 – Baltay/ Thompson July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics April 4, 2019  1700 Embarcadero Road- Mercedes/ Audi (2nd Formal)  190 Channing (Subcommittee) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9719) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/21/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Major Architectural Review of Master Sign Program and Sign Exceptions - SUMC Wayfinding Signs Title: 700 Welch [18PLN-00331]: Request by Stanford Medicine for Major Architectural Review of a Stanford University Medical Center Master Wayfinding Sign Program for Sign Installations on Private Property Adjacent to Quarry Road, Welch Road, and Pasteur Drive, and Within the Public Rights of Way. Sign Exceptions are Requested for Some Signs. Zoning Districts: PC (1992), RM-40, MOR, and HD. Environmental Assessment: Pending. For more information, contact the Project Planner: Rebecca Atkinson at Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on the attached findings (Attachment E) and subject to conditions of approval (Attachment F). REPORT SUMMARY This staff report describes the application received from Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) for establishment of a Master Wayfinding Sign Program for installation and management of visitor wayfinding signage throughout the Medical Center area. Wayfinding signage was anticipated during the entitlement process for the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement, Conditional Use Permit, SUMC Design Guidelines, and the Hospital District (HD) zoning district creation. BACKGROUND Project Information 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Owner: Stanford University Architect: Kate Keating Associates, Inc. Representative: Molly Swenson & Nanette Boerner Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: Multiple Addresses; see Table 1. Neighborhood: Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Lot Dimensions & Area: Not applicable Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes, Street Trees in Right-of-Way and Protected Trees on Private Property Historic Resource(s): None Existing Improvement(s): Medical Facilities, Offices, and Campus Grounds, Right-of-Way Improvements Existing Land Use(s): Medical Facilities, Offices, and Campus Grounds, Right-of-Way Improvements Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Multi-Family RM-30(D); Planned Community (PC); Community Commercial (CC) West: Santa Clara County; Campus Buildings and Grounds East: Santa Clara County; Campus Buildings and Grounds South: Santa Clara County; Campus Buildings and Grounds Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps, 2019. Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: PC (1992), RM-40, Medical Office Research (MOR), and Hospital District (HD). Some signs are also proposed on land in Santa Clara County subject to City of Palo Alto easements. Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institution/Special Facility, Research/Office Park, Multi-Family Residential; Regional/Community Commercial; Academic Campus 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 Not applicable 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, Multiple Family Residential (RM-40) on Welch Road near intersection with Pasteur Drive Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement and associated entitlements, 2011 PTC: Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement and associated entitlements, 2011 HRB: Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement and associated entitlements, 2011 ARB: Stanford University Medical Center Development Agreement and associated entitlements, 2011 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project is the creation of a Master Wayfinding Sign Program for the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) area. The application primarily involves the placement of freestanding vehicular-oriented and pedestrian-oriented signage on Stanford University-owned property (Attachment A). The applicant’s detailed project description outlines the genesis and goals for wayfinding in the Medical Center area (Attachment B). The application includes several types of sign exception requests, primarily driven by the desire to create signage locations on the outboard non-HD zoned properties along Welch Road to allow for wayfinding along Welch Road and facilitate vehicular turns exiting northbound Welch Road. The applicant also seeks to provide wayfinding assistance starting before vehicles arrive at key destinations. This application is timely, as the New Stanford Hospital facilities are anticipated to open in late 2019 with associated emergency services locations shifting in the Medical Center area. Wayfinding will be of high importance to visitors. The application is limited to wayfinding signage only and does not involve any changes to Medical Center area circulation and turning movements, property lighting, gross floor area, bicycle and auto parking spaces or tree removal. Master Wayfinding Sign Program Application Staff determined that a Master Sign Program option existed only because Stanford University owns all properties proposed for use, including those locations serving as rights-of-way through easements held by the City. A Master Sign Program application type allows for a more cohesive review of signs relative to their coordinated purpose, rather than having separate applications for each individual sign requiring architectural review and/or sign exception(s). The creation of a Master Wayfinding Sign Program also allows for signs beyond the HD zone to be included and coordinated with 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 those signs already within the HD zone. If approved, all wayfinding signs would be allowed to adjust sign copy in the future, if necessary, without the requirement for further architectural review (although the actual sign locations and sign sizes themselves may not be adjusted under Master Sign Program parameters). A Master Sign Program application type also allows for a more contextual review of those signs that require approval of sign exceptions. The types and number of exceptions requested are discussed in detail under the analysis section of the staff report. Most of the wall mounted, corner mounted, and freestanding wayfinding signs included in the Master Wayfinding Sign Program do not require architectural review, nor review of sign exceptions. These signs comply with previously identified location and size requirements outlined in the HD zone regulations. Some of the freestanding vehicular-oriented and pedestrian-oriented wayfinding signs require review, including in regard to:  proposed locations on non-HD zoning district properties or in the right-of-way,  proximity to driveways or intersections, and/or  overall sign size resulting from the height of letters needed for readability. Sign Materials, Sides and Illumination All freestanding vehicular-oriented and pedestrian-oriented signs are proposed as aluminum cabinets with a satin finish. Wall mounted and corner mounted signs would utilize the same materials. Applied vinyl letters and graphics would be reflective for night safety. Most vehicular-oriented signs are single sided. All pedestrian-oriented signs are double-sided. All signs are proposed as non-illuminated, except for two V.06 Emergency Directional Signs that are both internally illuminated and ground illuminated. Number of Signs Overall, SUMC proposes 27 pedestrian-oriented signs and 30 vehicular-oriented signs (Attachment C Page 2 and Attachment D Page 4), stating these are necessary for wayfinding in the Medical Center area. Table 1 outlines the assessor’s parcel numbers and addresses associated with the proposed sign locations. In order to explain their reasoning for this number of signs and support their application for sign exceptions, SUMC provided the complete copy messages for all signs in the project plans (Attachment D, beginning on Page 43). Proposed locations are shown in the project plans (Attachment D, beginning on Page 10) and are outlined in the sign matrix (Attachment C). Some signs are proposed for areas beyond Palo Alto city limits on land in Santa Clara County, but may still be under review due to City jurisdiction of easements in those locations (vehicular: #101, #135, #137). Other locations are shown for reference only (vehicular: #155, #159). 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Table 1: Parcel and Address List for SUMC Wayfinding Signs APN Jurisdiction Address 142-03-004 City of Palo Alto 700 Welch Road 142-03-005 City of Palo Alto 730 Welch Road 142-03-042 City of Palo Alto 780/800 Welch Road 142-03-036 City of Palo Alto 1000 Welch Road 142-03-038 City of Palo Alto 1180 Welch Road 142-23-026 City of Palo Alto 1190 Welch Road 142-05-045 Santa Clara County 1201 Welch Road 142-23-019 City of Palo Alto 200 Pasteur Drive 142-05-044 City of Palo Alto 240 Pasteur Drive 142-23-004 City of Palo Alto 500 Pasteur Drive/1189 Welch Road 142-23-005 City of Palo Alto 900 Blake Wilbur Drive 142-23-017 City of Palo Alto 500 Pasteur Drive/300 Pasteur Drive/875 Blake Wilbur Drive/870 Quarry Road Extension/900 Quarry Road Extension 142-23-007 City of Palo Alto 801 Welch Road 142-23-016 City of Palo Alto 725 Welch Road 142-23-024/142-23- 010/142-23-012 City of Palo Alto 701 Welch Road 142-05-045 Santa Clara County 473 Quarry Road Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are requested:  Architectural Review – Major (AR); Master Sign Program and Sign Exceptions: The process for evaluating creation of a Master Sign Program and review of sign exceptions is set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.070, PAMC Section 18.76.020, PAMC Section 16.20.040, and PAMC Section 16.20.030. The application is 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. ANALYSIS1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Neighborhood Setting and Character The Medical Center area has many destinations and is generally characterized by the presence of large one- to three-story buildings, with some taller buildings, separated by parking lots and landscaped areas. The area is accessed by automobile or employer-supported transit and significant efforts are also made to have visitors and employees arrive through transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. A series of photos within the project plans helps to show portions of the existing setting and character (Attachment D, beginning on Page 5). The design considerations outlined in the project plans also help to illustrate how the existing setting influenced signage placement, size, and color schemes (Attachment D, beginning on Page 26). Existing minimal wayfinding signage was installed along Welch Road, Quarry Road and other locations whereby the entitlement history is unclear and was possibly installed without permits. Consequently, the application should not be considered as replacing existing wayfinding signage. However, as previously noted, wayfinding signage was anticipated during the entitlement process for the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Development Agreement, Conditional Use Permit, SUMC Design Guidelines, and the Hospital District (HD) zoning district creation. Staff supports the general concept of placing freestanding wayfinding signage on properties adjacent to the HD zoning district in order to assist with overall area navigation and to help non-HD zoning district properties visually integrate into the Medical Center. 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. Land Use Designations The Comprehensive Plan land use designations for the properties are Major Institution/Special Facility, Research/Office Park, Multi-Family Residential; Regional/Community Commercial; Academic Campus. Wayfinding signage does not conflict with the use of the properties in a manner consistent with the aforementioned land use designations. Regarding Comprehensive Plan goals and policies, the project is consistent with Goal T-3, Policy T-3.5, Policy T-3.10, Goal B-7, and Policy B-7.6 in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore, on balance, helps to fulfill the goals of the Comprehensive Plan as well. may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Table 2: Key Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies pertaining to Stanford University Medical Center GOAL T-3 Maintain an efficient roadway network for all users. Policy T-3.5 When constructing or modifying roadways, plan for use of the roadway by all users. Policy T-3.10 Participate in the design and implementation of comprehensive solutions to traffic problems near Stanford Shopping Center and Stanford Medical Center. GOAL B-7 Thriving business employment districts at Stanford Research Park, Stanford Medical Center, East Bayshore/San Antonio Road Area and Bayshore Corridor that complement the City’s business and neighborhood centers. Policy B-7.6 Support the approved buildout of the SUMC and assist Stanford Medical Center in responding to changes in the delivery of health care services. Work with the Center to plan for changing facility needs within the context of City of Palo Alto planning goals and policies, as well as the goals and policies of other relevant jurisdictions. SUMC Design Guidelines Providing wayfinding signage is generally consistent with the SUMC Design Guidelines, adopted by the Architectural Review Board in 2011, which indicate that signage will serve to provide clarity, orientation and unification to aid in navigation of exterior spaces, and further state that “Medical Center Facilities staff will work with City staff to ensure that adequate signage exists in the public realm to facilitate access to these important public facilities.” Zoning Compliance3 The wayfinding signs proposed in the Master Wayfinding Sign Program and requested for Sign Exceptions either comply with applicable Palo Alto Municipal Code sections, or the applicant is seeking sign exceptions to deviate from PAMC Chapter 16.20 Signs in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. PAMC Section 16.20.040 allows the review of exceptions from any of the regulations in PAMC Chapter 16.20 Signs. Sign Exception Findings Key to the exception review procedure is the imposition of such reasonable conditions or restrictions as are deemed appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of PAMC Chapter 16.20 Signs. An exception(s) may be approved only if it is found that: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 (3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. Code Requirements According to PAMC Section 16.20.030, a Master Sign Program means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. According to PAMC Section 16.20.160, directional signs (on property other than in the HD zoning district) are to be oriented toward pedestrian and vehicle circulation directly on a property and shall be located on the property to which they pertain, shall not exceed an area of six square feet nor a height of three feet and shall be located at least twenty feet within the nearest property line, except that directional signs of not more than three square feet in area may be located not less than ten feet within any front property line. According to PAMC Section 16.20.100(a), signs on public property are prohibited. According to PAMC Section 16.20.100(f)(6), signs should be provided for in the ordinance approving a Planned Community (PC) development or otherwise in accordance with signs regulations in residential districts. According to PAMC Section 16.20.120(a), freestanding signs over five feet in height are limited in to the requirements in that section regarding zoning district, placement location, area/height, and number. According to PAMC Section 18.36.080, signs within the HD district shall comply with Chapter 16.20, except as modified to allow directory and directional signs to be up to twelve feet in height, thirty square feet in area, and located no less than two feet from the nearest public right-of-way unless an alternative location is approved by the planning director. According to PAMC Section 16.20.100(e), signs over three feet in height are prohibited at intersections within a triangular area formed by the curb lines, and their projection and a line connecting them at points thirty-five feet from the intersection of the projected curb lines, unless the sign, in compliance with the provisions of this chapter, has a clearance of at least ten feet above curb grade and no part of whose means of support has a single or combined horizontal cross-section exceeding eight inches. According to PAMC Section PAMC 18.54.050(b), the sight distance triangle and any public right of way shall not contain any wall, sign, berm or other obstruction greater than three feet above driveway grade unless its width is eighteen inches or less. In non-zero setback zones only, if a stop sign is provided at the driveway exit, the director may decrease the required dimensions of the sight distance triangles. 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Requested Sign Exceptions The sign exception requests in this application include:  to deviate from the definition of “Master sign program” and “directional signs” to allow freestanding directional signs on a series of separate properties under single ownership to create wayfinding within the larger Medical Center area (all signs in non-HD zoning districts),  to exclude the freestanding signs on private property from utilizing or from taking away from the total allowable sign coverage on the property for which the sign is located (all signs in non-HD zoning districts),  to exclude the freestanding signs on private property from the requirement to identify only destinations on the property on which the sign is located (all signs in non-HD zoning districts),  to exclude the freestanding signs on private property from counting toward the overall maximum number of freestanding signs on a property frontage (all signs in non-HD zoning districts),  to exclude the freestanding signs on private property from the size and placement location restrictions of not being more than three square feet in area within ten feet of any front property line (all signs in non-HD zoning districts),  to allow the freestanding signs on private property over five feet in height when they otherwise would be required to be less than five feet in height (all signs in the MOR and RM-40 zoning districts),  to allow the freestanding signs up to twelve feet in height when otherwise new directional signs are not addressed by the underlying PC ordinance or addressed by residential zoning district requirements (all signs in PC-1997),  to allow freestanding signs on private property in the HD zoning district to deviate from the placement location requirements outlined in PAMC 18.36.080 (Location 129 and Location 239),  to allow the freestanding signs on private property within proximity to intersections and driveways as described in PAMC 16.20.100(e) and PAMC 18.54.050(b) (Location 109, Location 121, Location 122, Location 125, Location 127, Location 147, and Location 203),  to allow specific freestanding signs in the right of way (as described in PAMC 16.20.100(a)) on Pasteur Drive (Location 129, Location 239, Location 253, and Location 255). Findings for Approval Overall, staff is generally supportive of the basic wayfinding sign designs, color, materiality, and the overall Master Wayfinding Sign Program approach. Staff is generally supportive of the outlined sign exceptions due to the presence of exceptional circumstances in the Medical Center area as outlined in the draft findings (Attachment E). However, each freestanding sign location and messaging should be reviewed on its own merits and staff questions if all signs are warranted. Staff requests ARB feedback on the overall wayfinding sign designs, visibility and copy readability, the merits of sign locations and the sign exception requests themselves, and 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 the presence or absence of any exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that might warrant approval of sign exceptions. To assist in this sign specific review, staff has outlined the following analysis items for consideration by members of the public, the ARB, the applicant, and the Director of Planning and Community Environment. Visibility Clearance for Pedestrians, Bicyclists, and Oncoming Traffic Best practices and requirements in the Municipal Code provide for visibility clearance for pedestrians, bicyclists, and oncoming traffic in order to ensure safety in vehicle turning movements. While sign exceptions to the Municipal Code are requested regarding proximity to intersections and driveways as described in PAMC 16.20.100(e) and PAMC 18.54.050(b), Transportation staff reviewed Location 109, Location 121, Location 122, Location 125, Location 127, Location 147, and Location 203 for visibility clearance and best practices. Transportation found that exceptions could be supported for these locations only. Actual visibility conflicts would not be created due to site specific considerations, such as presence of stop signs at driveways/sign distance from driveways, existing turning movement direction restrictions at driveway locations due to the Welch Road median and roadway striping, and due to one way travel lanes. Protected Trees Urban Forestry reviewed the proposed sign locations and determined that foundations and trenching can be conducted in a manner that protects existing street trees. Standard Urban Forestry conditions of approval would be required. Permits would also show protected tree locations, sign foundation designs and other details to reconfirm trees would be protected during construction. Public Utility Easements Any encroachment by signs into a public utility easement covered by the Welch Road COOMA agreement (Section 6a regarding No Interference) would require written consent from the City Engineer or designee(s). At this time, Electrical Engineering and WGW Engineering are not supportive of any signs in a public utility easement, so this consent might not be granted. The applicant team is reviewing proposed locations to see if signs can be further adjusted to be out of any easement. Only a few sign locations remain to adjust. Clearance to Utility Lines Some signs are potentially proposed within five feet of existing electrical, water, wastewater, and gas lines. At this time, Electrical Engineering and WGW Engineering are not supportive of any signs located within five feet of their lines. The applicant is currently exploring location adjustments to provide the clearance, including in regard to Location 145, Location 147, and Location 241. Planning 2 Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 The applicant team significantly adjusted their proposed sign designs, locations, and other factors in order to address early Transportation, Public Works, Urban Forestry, Electrical, WGW, and Planning comments. Planning staff concurs with the remaining issues outlined above and has encouraged the applicant to find modified placement locations to resolve these issues. Planning staff supports the overall Master Wayfinding Sign Program approach, the granting of sign exceptions to implement the wayfinding program, and the draft conditions of approval outlined in Attachment F. Specific conditions of approval include a requirement for the signs to employ a matte or otherwise a non-glare finish. Given the potential for visual clutter with more freestanding signs, Planning staff does not support having more freestanding signs along Welch Road than those that are proposed at this time. Staff appreciates that SUMC limited the number proposed, rather than proposing new signs on each property along Welch Road. A new location or a location adjustment might be found as warranted with the opening of Durand Way in the future, but a request for such would need to come at that time. Consistency with Application Findings An analysis of project consistency with Architectural Review findings and Sign Exception findings is provided in detail in Attachment E. Consistency can be found with incorporation of the recommended draft conditions of approval in Attachment F. Environmental Review This application is exempt from environmental review under provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per CEQA Section 15301 (Existing Facilities), Section 15303 (New Construction or Conversion of Small Structures), and Section 15304 (Minor Alterations to Land). 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 properties at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on March 8, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 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 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13 Rebecca Atkinson, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2596 (650) 329-2575 Rebecca.Atkinson @cityofpaloalto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A SUMC Wayfinding Signs Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B SUMC Wayfinding Signs Project Description (March 12, 2019) (PDF)  Attachment C SUMC Wayfinding Signs Project Description Sign Matrix (March 12, 2019) (PDF)  Attachment D SUMC Wayfinding Signs Project Plans (March 12, 2019) (DOCX)  Attachment E Draft Findings for Approval (DOC)  Attachment F Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 20 700 600 730 750 770 780 800 900 1000 801 851 777 725 1180 1100 1110 1140 115011601170 1120 1130 1189 701- 749 248- 288 751- 799 200- 216 249- 289 801- 849 201- 217 248- 288 851- 899 200- 216 249- 269 901- 949201- 217 248- 288 951- 999 200- 216 249- 289 1001- 1049 201- 217 248- 288 1051- 1099 200- 216 249- 289 1101- 1149 1201- 1249 1251- 1299 100- 148 850- 898150- 166 800- 848 875 625 300 300 620 900 700 900- 948151- 167 950- 998 66 901 650 200 398 200 000 198 470 778 870 575 1190 401 345 337 333 330 1201 1 2 15 150 26 9 265 2 83 287 279 291 299 1265 25 7 1291 3 1 8 321 327 277 319 732 311 354 371 780 31 9 500 240 455 293 300 1207 356 453 473 3 3 0 1 7 2 359 325 R M -4 0 H D P C -1 9 9 2 M O R M O R M -3 0 (D ) C C P F PC -4 4 2 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits abc Zone District Labels Zone Districts 0' 400' 18PLN-00331SUMC Master WayfindingSign ProgramwithZoning Districts 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, 2019-02-26 13:36:04SUMC Wayfinding ProjectNotification 600ft (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 21 0DUFK, 201 Rebecca Atkinson Department of Planning & Community Environment City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th Floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: REVISED Major Architectural Review Application for Stanford Medicine Exterior Wayfinding Signage Property Locations (Zoning Districts; APNs): 700 Welch (PC-1992; 142-03-004); 730 Welch (MOR; 142-03-005); 800 Welch (MOR; 142-03-008); 1000 Welch (MOR; 142-03-036); 1100 Welch (RM-40; 142-03-038) and Pasteur Drive right-of-way (HD) Dear Rebecca, Stanford Medicine has prepared the enclosed materials in support of its application for Major Architectural Review for a comprehensive exterior wayfinding system for its medical campus. Background Stanford Medicine Stanford Medicine—comprised of Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and the Stanford University School of Medicine—is recognized as a global leader in medical care and research, having pioneered advancements in transplantation medicine, cancer care, prenatal diagnosis and treatment, and diabetes and cholesterol treatments. The hospitals provide the only Level l Trauma Center between San Francisco and San Jose. The Trauma Center and the Emergency Department ensure critical community emergency preparedness and response resources for the community in the event of an earthquake, pandemic, or other major disaster. Stanford Medicine Renewal and Replacement Project Scope The Stanford Medicine Renewal and Replacement Project (“Renewal Project”), approved by the City of Palo Alto in 2011, is enabling Stanford Health Care and Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital to optimize the delivery of healthcare services to patients, and maintain their position as leading providers of world-class healthcare. The project approvals allow for the construction of approximately 1.3 million net new square footage of hospital facilities, clinics, medical offices, and medical research spaces, of which approximately 400,000 net new square feet has been constructed to date, with completion of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Expansion and the Hoover Neuroscience Health Center. Additional new and replacement square footage is currently under construction, with the new Stanford Hospital and School of Medicine’s Biomedical Innovations building underway. The Renewal Project has significantly altered the medical center landscape, and a need has been identified for a clear, rational wayfinding system to better serve the patient and visitor populations. More specifically, on the main Stanford Medicine campus, the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital Expansion recently opened to patient care, in response to growing community needs for specialized 2.b Packet Pg. 22 pediatric and obstetric care. The new Main building, located adjacent to the existing (West) Packard Children’s Hospital, has added 149 patient beds for a total of 361 within the LPCH complex, enabling the Hospital to serve a growing patient population. The two buildings, while connected, retain separate entrances, and house separate services; most notably, Labor & Delivery is located within the West building, and primary access is from the West entrance. Meanwhile, farther south on the Stanford Medicine campus, the new Stanford Hospital is under construction, and is anticipated to patient care in late 2019. Growth in patient volumes and rapidly changing medical technology have rendered much of the existing midcentury hospital infrastructure inadequate, while new seismic safety requirements have accelerated the need to construct replacement facilities. The opening of the new Stanford Hospital will increase capacity to 600 beds, and will also address a rapidly advancing medical landscape. Facilities will feature new patient rooms, surgical, diagnostic, and treatment rooms, and an enlarged Level-1 trauma center and Emergency Department. Emergency services will be relocated from their current site on Quarry Road Extension to the new facility, and will be accessed from Welch Road. The existing Hospital, located at 300 Pasteur Drive, will continue to provide both inpatient and outpatient services, in addition to the services provided at the new Hospital, located at 500 Pasteur Drive. Renewal Project Wayfinding Implications The significant changes to the Medical Center landscape that have recently completed and are currently underway have made navigation for patients and visitors decidedly more challenging. With two primary entrances to LPCH (Main and West), and separate parking structures for each; and two separate buildings for Stanford Hospital (300 and 500 Pasteur Drive), each with multiple entrances; an underground patient and visitor parking structure serving multiple SHC inpatient and outpatient locations; a new location for the Emergency Department, accessed from Welch Road rather than the main Hospital entrance on Pasteur Drive; the need for an enhanced exterior wayfinding program is clear. In order to ensure that the Medical Center remains navigable to the general public, many of whom are anxious and have never visited the medical campus before, it is essential that a legible, clear, rational, and consistent wayfinding signage program be implemented, with the goal of providing straightforward and simple directions to help patients and visitors reach the various destinations within the medical campus. Given the large number of destinations within the Medical Center, and signage legibility requirements (cap height), particularly at the vehicular level, signage size requirements in the vicinity of the Medical Center are greater than that of a “typical” setting. Further, in order to optimize visibility for the patient population, such signs must be located as close as possible to primary circulation routes, and thus location requirements are different from that of other types of settings. The Hospital District rezoning in 2011 anticipated the unique directional signage needs in the vicinity of the Hospitals, and at a policy level this was accounted for by allowing directory and directional signs within the Hospital District to be up to twelve feet in height, and thirty square feet in area, and located no less than two feet from the nearest public right-of-way unless an alternative location is approved by the planning director. (PAMC 18.36.080) This represents a significantly more generous allowance in terms of height, area, and location, than for other zoning districts in the City. As shown in the enclosed plan set, the majority of proposed Stanford Medicine wayfinding signage is consistent with the Hospital District allowances noted above for directional and directory signage, and accordingly is exempt from Architectural Review. (PAMC 18.36.100) However, the proposed signage at 2.b Packet Pg. 23 the periphery of the campus, which has been designed to be consistent with the balance of signage within the HD zoning district, requires Architectural Review as well as exceptions to the Sign Code (PAMC 16.20), by virtue of its location just outside the HD zone. In addition, certain proposed directional signs within the HD district itself require exceptions based on their proposed locations within the Pasteur Drive right-of-way easement; these locations have been identified to maximize visibility for pedestrians and vehicles. Sign Exceptions Requested The enclosed application includes sign exception requests for a total of sixteen (16) signs. The nature of the exception requests is summarized below, and detailed in the application materials: • Overall exception to request a Master Sign Program for wayfinding spanning multiple properties, rather than for a single property only; • Within the HD Zoning District: 2 location exceptions are requested to allow signage within the right-of-way easement on North Pasteur Drive; and 3 visibility triangle exceptions. • Outside of the HD Zoning District: o 9 location exceptions to allow signage to be placed within 20’ of the property line; o 2 location exceptions to allow signage within the right-of-way easement on South Pasteur Drive; o 9 size exceptions to allow signage size to exceed standards established in Chapter 16.20 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code; o 3 visibility triangle exceptions. Per PAMC 16.20.040, an application for exception to any of the Chapter 16 regulations may be made in conjunction with an application for architectural review approval, if it is found that: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; (3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The proposed Stanford Medicine exterior wayfinding signage meets these standards, as demonstrated below. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district. The properties included in this application are located in four zoning districts—PC (1992), RM-40, MOR, and HD. The PC (Planned Community) and RM-40 (High-Density Multiple Family Residence) districts are found throughout the City of Palo Alto, but the properties that are the subject of this application are unique in that they abut the 56- acre main Stanford Medicine campus, which provides critical inpatient and outpatient health care services to the community, and as articulated in the previous section, consequently has special signage requirements. As also noted previously, when the HD (Hospital District) zoning district was created in 2011, special provisions acknowledged the unique signage needs of the Medical Center; however, these provisions did not account for the fact that such unique needs actually extend to the periphery of the Medical Center. The MOR (Medical Office and Medical Research) district properties in question are exceptional in that they are located at key wayfinding junctures and decision points with respect to the Stanford Medicine campus; specifically pedestrian signs are proposed at key Welch Road pedestrian crossings to entry 2.b Packet Pg. 24 points of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (at 730 Welch Road), and to the Blake Wilbur Outpatient Clinic and Advanced Medicine Center (at 800 Welch Road). Similarly, vehicular directional signs are proposed on these same two properties, so that patients and visitors are appropriately directed to Labor & Delivery at LPCH, and to Blake Wilbur Drive for outpatient services. Finally, the HD district locations for which exceptions have been requested have unique conditions in that they lack sufficient clear property frontage to allow signage to be placed at least 2’ from the nearest public right-of-way. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships. In order for the three entities comprising Stanford Medicine (Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and the Stanford University School of Medicine) to preserve their ability to provide breakthrough research and world-class patient care to the public, it is critical that the public be able to successfully navigate the more densely built medical campus. If Stanford Medicine were to adhere to the applicable signage regulations outside the HD zoning district, the result would be a lack of signage at the primary gateways to the Medical Center. This in turn would result in unnecessary hardship for the public, which would not be able to successfully navigate the campus to reach their destinations. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The granting of the requested signage exceptions will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. To the contrary, the proposed signage program will improve the aesthetic in the vicinity of the Medical Center by replacing myriad temporary directional signs with a uniform, clean, consistent approach to wayfinding; and will improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the vicinity of the medical center by providing directional clarity to patients and visitors. Architectural Review Findings The proposed design meets the applicable findings for architectural review approval set forth in PAMC 18.76.020(d), as outlined below: 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. As outlined in the preceding section, the design is consistent with the Hospital District Zoning ordinance, and sign exceptions are requested only to allow the HD zoning standards to apply to the abutting properties outside the HD zoning district, or where site-specific circumstances require a minor deviation from the established HD standard. The design is also consistent with the Planning Principles, Goals, and Objectives established in the 2011 SUMC Area Plan Update, which included objectives of establishing and reinforcing a distinct identity for the Medical Center, conveying a sense of unity, and conveying a welcoming atmosphere. The design is also consistent with the SUMC Design Guidelines, adopted by the Architectural Review Board in 2011, which indicate that signage will serve to provide clarity, orientation and unification to aid in navigation of exterior spaces, and further state that “Medical Center Facilities staff will work with City staff to ensure that adequate signage exists in the public realm to facilitate access to these important public facilities.” 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. The proposed signage establishes one cohesive identity for the 2.b Packet Pg. 25 Medical Center, and allows for easier navigation and a more desirable environment for patients, visitors, and the general community. (B) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site. The proposed signage program takes into account existing natural features such as heritage trees, and signage locations are proposed so as not to disrupt or visually compete with these natural features. (C) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district. The proposed signage is consistent with the SUMC Design Guidelines, which were adopted by the Architectural Review Board in 2011. (D) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations. The design of the proposed signage draws upon the existing monumental and directional signage within the Medical Center, and as shown in the “Context Photos” section of the application materials, is complementary in scale, mass, and character to its surroundings. 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 proposed signage design is of high aesthetic quality, and knits together several distinct existing signage types found throughout the Medical Campus, incorporating textures, colors, and details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The materials proposed are of high quality, as described further in the “Colors and Materials” section of the application, and the construction techniques shown in the “Sample Construction Details” section are appropriate to these signage types. The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. The design facilitates the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists by providing clear direction along primary pedestrian and bicycle pathways / routes. Conclusion In support of our application, we have enclosed the following materials: 1. Signed Development Review Application form; 2. Plan sheets showing proposed sign locations, proposed signage design, explanation of design considerations, and individual sign exception requests; 3. Matrix of complete signage program, summarizing sign types, locations, and exceptions requested; 4. Materials board showing proposed signage colors; 5. Check in the amount of $13,494 to cover application fees. Please do not hesitate to contact me if any additional information is required. Sincerely, Molly Promes Swenson Sr. Project Manager Planning Design + Construction Stanford Medicine 2.b Packet Pg. 26 Stanford Medicine Exterior Wayfinding | Complete Signage Program Summary March 12, 2019 Sign Class Sign Description Single or Double-sided Sign Type Zoning District Sign Location Location Sort Location Description Private Property ROW easement or Private Property Exception Requested HD Size Exception HD Location Exception Non-HD Size Exception Non-HD Location Exception Encroachment Permit Requested Visibility Triangle Exception Exception Reason Illumination 18" min setback from curb? Is sign 5' clear of City utilities?Reason Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 Santa Clara County 101 Quarry Center for Academic Medicine Private Property Yes Private Property - Center for Academic Medicine No No No No No No No Located in County land. Not in CoPA jurisdiction.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Located in County land. 24" setback from PROW not applicable. Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 PC-1992 103 Quarry 700 Welch Private Property facing Quarry Road Yes Private Property - 700 Welch Yes No No Yes Yes No No Size exceeds allowance for directional in non-HD zone. Location is less than 20' from property line. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 HD 105 Inboard Welch Welch Road near LPCH Expansion Yes Private Property - 725 Welch No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 PC-1992 107 Outboard Welch 700 Welch Private Property Yes Private Property - 700 Welch Yes No No Yes Yes No No Size exceeds allowance for directional in non-HD zone. Location is less than 20' from property line. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 MOR 109 Outboard Welch 730 Welch Private Property Yes Private Property - 730 Welch Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Size exceeds allowance for directional in non-HD zone. Location is less than 20' from property line. Proposed location is the best option given site conditions, but it encroaches on the site visibility triangle. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 HD 111 Inboard Welch 725 Welch (West Building) Private Property Yes Private Property - 725 Welch No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 MOR 113 Outboard Welch 800 Welch Private Property Yes Private Property - 800 Welch Yes No No Yes Yes No No Size exceeds allowance for directional in non-HD zone. Location is less than 20' from property line. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.03 HD 117 Blake Wilbur Blake Wilbur Drive Outbound Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Located within private property. Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 HD 119 Inboard Welch 900 Blake Wilbur Private Property facing Welch Road Yes Private Property - 900 Blake Wilbur No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 MOR 121 Outboard Welch 1000 Welch Private Property Yes Private Property - 1000 Welch Yes No No Yes Yes No No Size exceeds allowance for directional in non-HD zone. Location is less than 20' from property line. Proposed location is 24" from sidewalk to provide driver visibility. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Specialty Directional Single-sided V.09 HD 122 Hospital Welch Road Ambulance Drive Yes Private Property - Hospital Yes No No No No No Yes Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.02 HD 123 Hospital Pasteur Staff Garage Exit Drive Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 RM40 125 Outboard Welch 1100-1180 Welch Private Property Yes Private Property - 1100-1180 Welch Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Size exceeds allowance for directional in non-HD zone. Location is less than 20' from property line. Proposed location is 24" from sidewalk to provide driver visibility, but it encroaches on the site visibility triangle. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Emergency Directional Double-sided V.06 HD 127 Inboard Welch Welch Road ED Drive Yes Private Property - Hospital Yes No No No No No Yes Signs meets all requirements for HD zone. Ground and Internally Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.02 HD 129 Hospital Exiting North pasteur No ROW easement Yes No Yes No No Yes No Located in Easement.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 RM40 131 North Pasteur 1100-1180 Welch Private Property facing North Pasteur Yes Private Property - 1100-1180 Welch Yes No No Yes Yes No No Size exceeds allowance for directional in non-HD zone. Location is less than 20' from property line. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 HD 133 Outboard Welch Pasteur "dog leg"Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 HD 134 Inboard Welch Pasteur Visitor Garage Private Property facing Welch Road Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 Santa Clara County 135 South Pasteur South Pasteur entering the Campus Yes Private Property - University No No No No No No No Located in County land. Not in CoPA jurisdiction.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Located in County land. 24" setback from PROW not applicable. Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 Santa Clara County 137 Inboard Welch Welch Road heading north into the Stanford Medicine Campus Yes Private Property - Lucas Center No No No No No No No Located in County land. Not in CoPA jurisdiction.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Located in County land. 24" setback from PROW not applicable. Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.02 HD 141 Hospital South Pasteur before the split for 300 and 500 Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Located within private property. Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.02 HD 143 Hospital Across from entrance to 500 Pasteur Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Located within private property. Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.02 HD 145 Hospital North Pasteur before 500 Pasteur entry Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes n/a Located within private property. To be coordinated by NSH team. Vehicular Directional Double-sided V.02 HD 147 Hospital Exit drive from 500 Pasteur Yes Private Property - Hospital Yes No No No No No Yes Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes n/a Located within private property. To be coordinated by NSH team. Vehicular Directional Double-sided V.01 HD 153 Quarry - Pediatric ED Quarry Road Extension Pediatric ED entrance Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes n/a Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.01 Santa Clara County 155 Quarry - Pediatric ED Quarry Road northbound before Quarry Road Extension Yes Private Property - University No No No No No No No Located in County land. Not in CoPA jurisdiction.Not Illuminated n/a n/a Located in County land. Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.02 HD 157 Quarry Ext - Pediatric ED Quarry Road Extension inbound off of Quarry Road Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Directional Single-sided V.02 Santa Clara County 159 Quarry Ext - Pediatric ED Quarry Road Extension outbound just before Quarry Road Yes Private Property - University No No No No No No No Located in County land. Not in CoPA jurisdiction.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Located in County land. Vehicular Emergency Directional Double-sided V.06 HD 161 Quarry Ext - Pediatric ED Pediatric ED parking lot entry Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone. Ground and Internally Illuminated Yes Yes Vehicular Specialty Directional Double-sided V.09 HD 163 Quarry Ext - Pediatric ED Pediatric ED parking lot exit Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 201 Inboard Welch Pedestrian path into LPCH Main Yes Private Property - 725 Welch No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Sign is located within 2' of PROW sidewalk to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map. Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 MOR 203 Outboard Welch 730 Welch Private Property Yes Private Property - 730 Welch Yes No No Yes Yes No Yes Size exceeds allowance for directional in non-HD zone. Sign is located within 20’ of property line to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map, but it encroaches on the site visibility triangle. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Sign is located within 2' of PROW sidewalk to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map. SIGN ADDITIONAL CITY CRITERIAEXCEPTIONS REQUESTEDLOCATION 2.c Packet Pg. 27 Stanford Medicine Exterior Wayfinding | Complete Signage Program Summary March 12, 2019 Sign Class Sign Description Single or Double-sided Sign Type Zoning District Sign Location Location Sort Location Description Private Property ROW easement or Private Property Exception Requested HD Size Exception HD Location Exception Non-HD Size Exception Non-HD Location Exception Encroachment Permit Requested Visibility Triangle Exception Exception Reason Illumination 18" min setback from curb? Is sign 5' clear of City utilities?Reason SIGN ADDITIONAL CITY CRITERIAEXCEPTIONS REQUESTEDLOCATION Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 205 Inboard Welch Welch Road entrance to pedestrian path to LPCH West and Promenade Yes Private Property - 725 Welch No No No No No No No Sign is located more than 2' from property line.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 MOR 207 Outboard Welch 800 Welch Private Property Yes Private Property - 800 Welch Yes No No Yes Yes No No Size exceeds allowance for directional in non-HD zone. Sign is located within 20’ of property line to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Sign is located within 2' of PROW sidewalk to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map. Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 209 Inboard Welch Pasteur Garage B bus stop on Welch Road Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 211 Blake Wilbur Entry to pedestrian path toward LPCH off of Blake Wilbur Drive Yes Private Property - 875 Blake Wilbur No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Wall-Mounted Directional Single-sided P.02 HD 213 Blake Wilbur Column mounted at entrance to covered drive of 875 Blake Wilbur Yes Private Property - 875 Blake Wilbur No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Corner-Mounted Directional Single-sided P.03 HD 215 Blake Wilbur Column mounted at west end of crosswalk under covered drive at 875 Blake Wilbur Yes Private Property - 900 Blake Wilbur No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 217 Blake Wilbur Main entrance to 900 Blake Wilbur Yes Private Property - 900 Blake Wilbur No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Corner-Mounted Directional Single-sided P.03 HD 219 Blake Wilbur Corner of 875 Blake Wilbur at crosswalk Yes Private Property - 875 Blake Wilbur No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Wall-Mounted Directional Single-sided P.02 HD 221 Blake Wilbur Between 875 Blake Wilbur main entrances Yes Private Property - 875 Blake Wilbur No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Corner-Mounted Directional Single-sided P.03 HD 223 North Promenade Utility structure between 900 Blake Wilbur and LPCH West Yes Private Property - 725 Welch No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Corner-Mounted Directional Single-sided P.03 HD 225 North Promenade Column mounted on LPCH West north of ADA ramp Yes Private Property - 725 Welch No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 227 North Promenade Bottom of LPCH West ADA ramp Yes Private Property - 725 Welch No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Corner-Mounted Directional Single-sided P.03 HD 229 Promenade Corner of 875 Blake Wilbur at Wang Plaza Yes Private Property - 875 Blake Wilbur No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 231 Promenade Southeastern corner of 875 Blake Wilbur Yes Private Property - 875 Blake Wilbur No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 233 Promenade Middle of Promenade Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 237 Promenade Southern end of Promenade, north eastern corner of 500 Pasteur entry plaza Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 239 Hospital North Pasteur at ED No ROW easement Yes No Yes No No Yes No Sign is located in right-of-way easement (sidewalk planting strip) to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Sign is located within 2' of PROW sidewalk to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map. Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 241 Hospital North Pasteur at south western corner of 500 Pasteur entry plaza Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes No Located within private property. To be coordinated by NSH team. Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 243 Hospital North of 300 Pasteur fountain Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 245 Hospital North of 300 Pasteur entrance Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 247 Hospital South of 300 Pasteur entrance Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 249 Hospital Northwest corner of Edwards Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 251 Hospital Pasteur Garage A entrance Yes Private Property - Hospital No No No No No No No Signs meets all requirements for HD zone.Not Illuminated Yes Yes Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 253 Hospital Northeast corner of Lucas Center No ROW easement Yes No No No No Yes No Sign is located within 2' of PROW sidewalk to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Sign is located within 2' of PROW sidewalk to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map. Pedestrian Freestanding Directional Double-sided P.01 HD 255 Hospital Northeast corner of Lucas Center No ROW easement Yes No No No No Yes No Sign is located within 2' of PROW sidewalk to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map. Not Illuminated Yes Yes Sign is located within 2' of PROW sidewalk to allow pedestrian visibility of wayfinding map. Total Signs 57 Total Vehicular Signs 30 Total Pedestrian Signs 27 Total Exceptions 16 Total by Sign Type HD Size Exceptions 0 V.01 Vehicular Directional, Large 17 HD Location Exception 2 V.02 Vehicular Directional, Medium 8 Non-HD Size Exception 9 V.03 Vehicular Directional, Small 1 Non-HD Location Exception 9 V.06 Emergency Directional 2 Encroachment Permit Requested 4 V.09 Specialty Directional 2 Visibility Triangle Exception 6 P.01 Pedestrian Directional, Freestanding 20 P.02 Pedestrian Directional, Wall-mounted 2 Total Vehicular Exceptions 11 P.03 Pedestrian Directional, Corner- mounted 5 Total Pedestrian Exceptions 5 53Total Private Property 2.c Packet Pg. 28 Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of the 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. Project Plans can be viewed online at the City’s project webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.htm?NewsID=4379&TargetID=319 2.d Packet Pg. 29 ATTACHMENT E DRAFT FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL Multiple Addresses; 700 Welch Road / File No. 17PLN-00331 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW The design of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. 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 in that the wayfinding sign design is consistent with the Hospital District Zoning ordinance; sign exceptions are requested only to allow the HD zoning standards to apply to the abutting properties outside the HD zoning district or where site-specific circumstances require a minor deviation from the established HD standard. The design is also consistent with the Planning Principles, Goals, and Objectives established in the 2011 SUMC Area Plan Update, which included objectives of establishing and reinforcing a distinct identity for the Medical Center, conveying a sense of unity, and conveying a welcoming atmosphere. The design is also consistent with the SUMC Design Guidelines, adopted by the Architectural Review Board in 2011, which indicate that signage will serve to provide clarity, orientation and unification to aid in navigation of exterior spaces, and further state that “Medical Center Facilities staff will work with City staff to ensure that adequate signage exists in the public realm to facilitate access to these important public facilities.” 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. The proposed signage establishes one cohesive identity for the Medical Center, and allows for easier navigation and a more desirable environment for patients, visitors, and the general community. (B) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site. The proposed signage program takes into account existing natural features such as heritage trees, and signage locations are proposed so as not to disrupt or visually compete with these natural features. (C) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district. The proposed signage is consistent with the SUMC Design Guidelines, which were adopted by the Architectural Review Board in 2011. (D) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations. The design of the proposed signage draws upon the existing monumental and directional signage within the Medical Center, and as shown in the “Context Photos” section of the application materials, is complementary in scale, mass, and character to its surroundings. (E) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. A few residential buildings are within the Medical Center area and the wayfinding signage program is anticipated to enhance living conditions in nearby areas by reducing congestion and promoting public safety through greater assistance with visitor navigation. 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 in that the wayfinding signage program design is of high 2.e Packet Pg. 30 aesthetic quality, and knits together several distinct existing signage types found throughout the Medical Campus, incorporating textures, colors, and details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The materials proposed are of high quality, as described further in the “Colors and Materials” section of the application, and the construction techniques shown in the “Sample Construction Details” section are appropriate to these signage types. 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.) in that the wayfinding signage program design facilitates the movement of pedestrians and bicyclists by providing clear direction along primary pedestrian and bicycle pathways / routes. 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. This finding is not applicable to the application, as the wayfinding signs do not involve installation of new landscaping. As conditioned, existing landscaping would be restored if damaged during construction. 6. The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning in that the majority of the wayfinding signs are non-illuminated and all are of durable materials. Sign copy can also be replaced without requiring a new sign to be installed. SIGN EXCEPTION FINDINGS The design of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Sign Exceptions found in the PAMC Section 16.20.040: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the project site is a uniquely large 56- acre Medical Center area which provides critical inpatient and outpatient health care services to the community and consequently, has special signage requirements. Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) is comprised of Stanford University-owned properties and includes three major entities (Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and the Stanford University School of Medicine), many smaller affiliates, many bicycle and auto parking spaces distributed throughout the properties, and many vehicular and other entrances to properties accessed off major surrounding thoroughfares: Welch Road, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and El Camino Real. Surrounding land uses, including the proximity to Downtown Palo Alto and the Caltrain station, Stanford University, and Stanford Shopping Center create a significant density of pedestrians, bicyclists, and drivers that navigate in the vicinity of the Medical Center. The concentration of facilities results in the need for visual queues from thoroughfares regarding locations of vehicular and pedestrian entrances to ease wayfinding onto the Medical Center properties. The properties included in this application are located in four zoning districts—PC (1992), RM-40, MOR, and HD. When the HD (Hospital District) zoning district was created in 2011, special provisions acknowledged the unique signage needs of the Medical Center; however, these provisions did not account for the fact that such unique needs actually extend to the periphery of the Medical Center. The MOR (Medical Office and Medical Research) district properties in question are exceptional in that they are located at key wayfinding junctures and decision points with respect to access to Medical Center facilities; specifically pedestrian signs are proposed at key Welch Road pedestrian crossings to entry points of the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital (at 730 Welch Road), and to the Blake Wilbur Outpatient Clinic and Advanced Medicine Center (at 2.e Packet Pg. 31 800 Welch Road). Similarly, vehicular directional signs are proposed on these same two properties, so that patients and visitors are appropriately directed to Labor & Delivery at LPCH, and to Blake Wilbur Drive for outpatient services. The HD district locations for which exceptions have been requested have unique conditions in that they lack sufficient clear property frontage to allow signage to be placed at least 2’ from the nearest public right-of-way. (2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships in that signage is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right to utilize the properties as a Medical Center. The height and legibility of signage is important for assisting vehicles, cyclists, and pedestrians with navigation to their desired destination. In order for the three entities comprising Stanford Medicine (Stanford Health Care, Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, and the Stanford University School of Medicine) to preserve their ability to provide breakthrough research and world-class patient care to the public, it is critical that the public be able to successfully navigate the more densely built medical campus. If Stanford Medicine were to adhere to the applicable signage regulations outside the HD zoning district, the result would be a lack of signage at the primary gateways to the Medical Center. This in turn would result in unnecessary navigation hardship for the public. (3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience in that the proposed signage program will improve the aesthetic in the vicinity of the Medical Center by replacing myriad temporary directional signs with a uniform, clean, consistent approach to wayfinding. The wayfinding signage will improve vehicular and pedestrian circulation in the vicinity of the medical center by providing directional clarity to patients and visitors. The signage is designed to assist vehicular, cyclist, and pedestrian navigation onto the properties from adjacent thoroughfares in a manner that promotes ease of reading and resultant navigation decision-making. Signage sizing can promote public safety by reducing the number of vehicles and cyclists slowing down to read illegible signs or recirculating around the properties due to missing the desired ingress location. The signs are sized in response to utilizing industry standard cap heights of 2¾-inches that would allow for legibility of up to 68-feet. As conditioned, the majority of the wayfinding signage will be located on private property and not in the public right of way, will not cause visibility obstructions, and will maintain existing protected trees during signage installation. 2.e Packet Pg. 32 ATTACHMENT F DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL Multiple Addresses; 700 Welch Road / File No. 18PLN-00331 PLANNING 1. COMPLIANCE WITH APPROVED PLANS. The SUMC Master Wayfinding Sign Program shall be implemented as shown on the approved plans and associated application materials on file with the City of Palo Alto Planning Division dated March 12, 2019 and received on March 12, 2019, except as modified by these conditions of approval. The program does not involve adjustments to land uses, lot coverage, gross floor area, or parking requirements. 2. SCOPE OF SIGN EXCEPTIONS. Findings for approval of sign exceptions are not to be construed to future applications; the approved sign exceptions are for the signs evaluated in the approved plans only. Approval of a sign exception allows for the submittal of exception related building permit and/or encroachment permit applications, but does not guarantee approval of those permits based upon site specific circumstances, such as the location of easements and the location of underground utilities. The sign exception requests in this application are limited to as follows:  to deviate from the definition of “Master sign program” and “directional signs” to allow freestanding directional signs on a series of separate properties under single ownership to create wayfinding within the larger Medical Center area (all signs in non-HD zoning districts),  to exclude the freestanding signs on private property from utilizing or from taking away from the total allowable sign coverage on the property for which the sign is located (all signs in non- HD zoning districts),  to exclude the freestanding signs on private property from the requirement to identify only destinations on the property on which the sign is located (all signs in non-HD zoning districts),  to exclude the freestanding signs on private property from counting toward the overall maximum number of freestanding signs on a property frontage (all signs in non-HD zoning districts),  to exclude the freestanding signs on private property from the size and placement location restrictions of not being more than three square feet in area within ten feet of any front property line (all signs in non-HD zoning districts),  to allow the freestanding signs on private property over five feet in height when they otherwise would be required to be less than five feet in height (all signs in the MOR and RM-40 zoning districts),  to allow the freestanding signs up to twelve feet in height when otherwise new directional signs are not addressed by the underlying PC ordinance or addressed by residential zoning district requirements (all signs in PC-1997),  to allow freestanding signs on private property in the HD zoning district to deviate from the placement location requirements outlined in PAMC 18.36.080 (Location 129 and Location 239),  to allow the freestanding signs on private property within proximity to intersections and driveways as described in PAMC 16.20.100(e) and PAMC 18.54.050(b) (Location 109, Location 121, Location 122, Location 125, Location 127, Location 147, and Location 203),  to allow specific freestanding signs in the right of way (as described in PAMC 16.20.100(a)) on Pasteur Drive (Location 129, Location 239, Location 253, and Location 255). 2.f Packet Pg. 33 700 Welch Road 18PLN-00331 Page 2 of 5 3. PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this approval with conditions shall be printed on the second page of plans submitted for permits. Permits shall be submitted by parcel/address or as directed by the Building Department and Public Works Department. The permit plans shall include the City’s T-1 sheets and T-2 sheets, if applicable, to ensure tree protection for onsite trees and trees in the right of way relative to installation, including any trenching. The permit plans shall show the accessible paths of travel. The permit plans shall show that the signs employ a matte or otherwise a non-glare finish. 4. LIGHTING. With the exception of the illumination for the two V.06 signs, lighting is not included in this approval. 5. PAVING. Paving is not included in this approval. 6. EXISTING WAYFINDING SIGNAGE. All existing wayfinding signage in the project vicinity shall be removed. 7. EXISTING LANDSCAPING. Existing landscaping shall be restored if damaged during construction. 8. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced if necessary, to the satisfaction of the Urban Forester and Director of Planning. 9. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved program shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the 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. 10. PLANNING 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; signage, materials, fenestration and hard surface locations. Contact the Planning Department to schedule this inspection. 11. NOISE ORDINANCE. All non-residential construction shall be subject to the requirements in the City’s Noise Ordinance contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code 9.10. 12. PROJECT APPROVAL. The SUMC Master Wayfinding Sign Program approval shall be valid for a period of one year from the original date of approval. In the event that building permits and encroachment permits, if applicable, are not secured for the signs within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. A written request for a one-year extension shall be submitted prior to the expiration date in order to be considered by the Director of Planning and Community Environment. 13. INDEMNIFICATION. To the extent permitted by law, the applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion and at Applicant’s expense, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 2.f Packet Pg. 34 700 Welch Road 18PLN-00331 Page 3 of 5 PUBLIC WORKS 14. ENCROACHMENT: An encroachment permit is required for signs within the right-of-way and signs within 2 feet of a sidewalk. 15. PROPERTY LINES: Property lines must be shown on permit plans. 16. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 TRANSPORTATION 17. HORIZONTAL CLEARANCE. Signs or related structures shall not obstruct or reduce the horizontal clearances of any existing sidewalk, pedestrian pathway, bus or passenger boarding area, bicycle lane, or motor vehicle lane. a. At least 1.5-feet of horizontal clearance between the face of curb and any new freestanding sign shall be provided to meet the standards given in the Caltrans Highway Design Manual. b. At least 1.5-feet of horizontal clearance shall be provided between the edge of the sidewalk and the side of the sign, unless the clearance triggers additional paving requirements at the sign base that would in turn result in a loss of landscaping. 18. CLEAR SIGHT DISTANCE. All signs shall not create obstructions that block a driver’s view of vehicles, bicycles, or pedestrians near driveways, intersections, and crosswalks. Clear sight distance shall be provided at intersections between streets, driveways, crosswalks, and other locations as required by the Director. URBAN FORESTRY 19. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, 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. Tree damage that may occur shall be subject to $100 per inch of injured area paid by Contractor to the City Forestry Fund. 20. 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. 21. 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. 2.f Packet Pg. 35 700 Welch Road 18PLN-00331 Page 4 of 5 22. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 23. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Building permit and/or encroachment permit plans shall show trenching (if any) and the foundation design and depth of excavation for all freestanding signs near the dripline of protected trees so that the foundation design can be modified if necessary to protect tree roots. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit and/or encroachment permit 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. 24. PROJECT ARBORIST INSPECTION LETTER. The contractor shall call for a final inspection by the Project Arborist to evaluate all trees to be retained and protected, as indicated in the approved plans, of the activity, health, welfare, mitigation remedies for injuries, if any, and for the long term care of the trees for the new owner. The final project arborist letter report shall be provided to the Planning Department prior to written request for temporary or final occupancy. The final report may be used to navigate any outstanding issues, concerns or security guarantee return process, when applicable. 25. PLANNING INSPECTION. Prior to final sign off, contractor or owner shall contact the city planner (650- 329-2441) to inspect and verify that Special Conditions are present and adequate relating to structures, furniture, fixtures, colors and site plan accessories. 26. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2001 or current version). Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. UTILITIES – WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 27. The applicant shall comply with all the WGW Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 28. The applicant and contractor are responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. The contractor shall contact underground service alert (800) 227- 2600 one week in advance of starting construction to provide for marking of underground utilities. 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. 29. No work is allowed in the Palo Alto Utilities easement. 30. Signage or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 5’ horizontal clear separation to existing utilities as found in the field. 2.f Packet Pg. 36 700 Welch Road 18PLN-00331 Page 5 of 5 31. The applicant's contractor shall immediately notify the Utilities Department (650) 496-6982 or 650/329- 2413 if the existing water, wastewater or gas mains are disturbed or damaged. 32. No water or gas valves or other facilities owned by Utilities Department shall be operated for any purpose by the applicant's contractor. All required operation will only be performed by authorized utilities department personnel. The applicant's contractor shall notify the Utilities Department not less than forty-eight (48) hours in advance of the time that such operation is required. 33. The contractor shall not disconnect any part of the existing water, gas, or wastewater mains except by expressed permission of the WGW utilities inspector and shall submit a schedule of the estimated shutdown time to obtain said permission. 34. Only City forces can work on the City gas distribution system. UTILITIES – ELECTRICAL 35. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 36. The applicant and contractor are responsible for identification and location of all utilities, both public and private, within the work area. The contractor shall contact underground service alert (800) 227- 2600 one week in advance of starting construction to provide for marking of underground utilities. 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. 37. No work is allowed in the Palo Alto Utilities easement. 38. Customer shall immediately notify Electric Utilities 650-566-4500 if any construction is to occur within 5' of existing electric lines or boxes. BUILDING 39. Protection of pedestrians shall be provided for and during all construction. 40. A building permit is required for the construction of the monument and wall mounted signs using the current applicable codes: CBC, and PAMC. For the monument signs, the supporting foundation, framing and connection details are required for the building permit submittal. Structural connection details to the existing wall framing are required for the wall signs. For illuminated signs, plans shall show sign location, wiring sizes and type, disconnect size and location of panel, conduit type and size, and structural elements. 2.f Packet Pg. 37 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10104) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/21/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Wireless Administrative Standards Title: ARB Review and Recommendation of Draft Objective Aesthetic, Noise, and Related Standards for Wireless Communications Facilities in the Public Rights of Way. For more information, contact Rebecca.Atkinson@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and provide a recommendation to City Council on objective, aesthetic standards for Wireless Communication Facilities on streetlights (Attachment A) and wood utility poles (Attachment B) in the public rights-of-way. Report Summary The purpose of this meeting is to provide the ARB and the public an opportunity to review and provide comments and for the ARB to provide a recommendation on draft objective standards for aesthetics, noise, and related issues for Wireless Communications Facilities (WCF) in the public rights of way. The standards would be used instead of the Architectural Review findings and WCF development standards for review and approval of WCFs in the public rights of way. Background Over the past two years, the City of Palo Alto has received a large and increasing number of applications for “small cell” Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) in the public rights-of- way (PROW). Staff expects the high volume of PROW applications to continue or even increase as wireless carriers seek to improve capacity of existing networks and begin to roll out new 5G technologies. In particular, staff understands that equipment for 5G technologies will have lower power and shorter range, therefore requiring greater density of WCFs to support a network. The City’s discretion in reviewing WCF applications is significantly limited by state and federal laws, including the federal Telecommunications Act of 1996 and California Government Code 3 Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 sections 65850.6 and 65964.1. Federal law prohibits the City from discriminating among wireless services providers and from regulating certain issues such as electromagnetic radiation and other technical requirements of wireless services. In addition, under federal law, the City may not regulate WCF applications in a manner that would “prohibit or have the effect of prohibiting” an entity from providing telecommunications service or personal wireless services. Under state law, if the City fails to act within the timeframes established by the FCC, an applicant may assert that the application is deemed approved as proposed. On September 26, 2018, the Federal Communications Commission (FCC) adopted a declaratory order and ruling (the “FCC Order”) interpreting the Telecommunications Act and issuing additional regulations governing local review of WCF applications. There are two aspects of the FCC Order that are particularly pertinent to this discussion: First, the FCC defined a new subset of WCFs that it called “small wireless facilities,” upon which the City must act within 60 days. Previously, the City had either a 90- or 150-day “shot clock” to process these applications, depending on the nature of the application. Second, the FCC determined that local aesthetic regulations are preempted unless they are reasonable, non-discriminatory, and published in advance. The FCC order gives local governments until April 15, 2019 to adopt such regulations. The FCC 2018 Order has been challenged by several coalitions of municipalities and that litigation is pending in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. In January 2019, the courts denied a request by the municipalities to “stay” the FCC Order until the litigation was resolved. The FCC Order therefore went into effect on January 14, 2019. On the same day, Representative Anna Eshoo introduced a bill, H.R. 530, which would repeal the FCC’s September 2018 order. The bill has been referred to the House Committee on Energy and Commerce. On February 7, 2019, the City of Palo Alto sent a letter of support for H.R. 530 (Attachment C). Although the City’s effort to draft these standards is driven largely by need to comply with the FCC Order, the adoption of objective standards also represents an opportunity for the City. First, the standards allow the City to proactively define the types of WCF installations it deems appropriate in the PROW, rather than simply reacting to designs proposed by an applicant. Standards would also promote greater uniformity of WCF designs throughout the City. While carriers could still apply for alternative designs, approvals would be limited to unusual circumstances where an alternative design would result in greater camouflage (e.g. existing street furniture) or where strict application of the City’s standards would violate federal law. Second, adoption of objective standards would allow for more efficient review and help to alleviate the significant burden on staff resources and ARB agendas created by the influx of WCF applications. In the past, the City has struggled to schedule an ARB hearing and potential City Council appeal within a 150-day shot clock. Even in the absence of the new 60-day shot clock for “small wireless facilities,” the City would likely need to explore ways to streamline its review. Discussion 3 Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The proposed standards (Attachments A and B) represent staff’s effort to prepare a set of reasonable and objective aesthetic regulations that do not prohibit the provision of wireless services and that are capable of being applied within a 60-day timeframe. Each set of standards defines a number of different possible wireless communication facility designs that staff believes are among the smallest, least conspicuous, camouflaged, and/or stealth options available. Staff has compiled a number of photos, renderings, and visual simulations (Attachment D) in order to help illustrate the basic wireless communication facility designs for streetlight poles and wood utility poles. The standards would be used instead of the Architectural Review findings and WCF development standards for review and approval of Wireless Communication Facilities in the public rights of way. Relevant Comprehensive Plan goals and policies (Attachment E) are provided for easy reference. Staff seeks public and ARB feedback on designs for streetlight poles and wood utility poles to inform the development of objective standards. Specifically, staff seeks the ARB’s recommendation on whether each proposed design is appropriate for Palo Alto’s PROW, whether a design may be appropriate only in some neighborhoods or locations, or whether a design would not be appropriate in any context. In addition, staff seeks public and ARB feedback on pole siting criteria, including whether the standards should specify minimum distance between poles with WCF equipment. Staff welcomes the submittal of additional designs that members of the public, the ARB, wireless carriers, and others would like to send for consideration. Streetlight Pole Standards Design name Brief Description Notes Underground design Radio and ancillary equipment are placed in an underground vault, where space permits. Antennae are mounted within a shroud at the top of a nearby pole. Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.  All vault designs reviewed by staff require significant excavation and occupy underground space that the City may wish to use for utility purposes in the future.  Vaults are unlikely to comply with noise policies in residential neighborhoods. Integrated pole design Radio and ancillary equipment are internal to a streetlight pole with a wider diameter than the City’s existing streetlight standards. Antennae may also be internal or mounted at the top of the  Poles may be designed to have a uniform wide diameter or to transition to a narrower pole above approximately seven feet.  Replacement streetlights designed to house today’s technologies may be oversized compared to equipment designed in the future. Current integrated pole designs do not accommodate 5G equipment. 3 Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 pole. Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.  Unless streetlights are replaced en masse, use of integrated poles might result in an inconsistent streetscape. Top-mounted design All antenna, radio, and other ancillary equipment are housed in a single shroud mounted at the top of the pole. Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.  The top-mounted design preserves the existing streetlight standards, but results in taller overall installations.  The ARB recently reviewed this design in a preliminary review (17PLN-00398). Additional Design Options for Streetlight Poles The following designs are not included in the draft standards, but have been suggested by carriers for the City’s consideration. Pedestal Radio and ancillary equipment are placed in a pedestal underneath a streetlight pole. Similar to some integrated pole designs, but with a wider, squatter base. Antennae are mounted at the top of the pole. Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.  Occupies more sidewalk area than existing streetlight base and integrated pole designs.  Fewer overall locations required to support a wireless network due to accommodating larger, higher power radios.  Designs have been refined since last reviewed by the ARB in December 2018. Minimal sunshield Radio and other ancillary equipment are housed in small sun-shade boxes mounted directly on the pole. Antennae are mounted at the top of the pole. Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.  The smallest overall volume, but equipment is more visible. Existing street signs Radio and other ancillary equipment are placed entirely behind existing street signs, between the sign and pole. Antennae are mounted at the top of the pole. Conduit and cabling is inside the pole.  Similar overall volume to minimal side- mount.  Two sided signs can be used to screen equipment, but one sided signs only screen from one direction. 3 Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Existing street furniture Antenna, radio and ancillary equipment are housed within the envelope of existing street furniture (e.g. radios located under the seat of a street bench and antennas are mounted on a nearby pole; radios and antenna incorporated into a bus shelter). Conduit and cabling is routed underground and/or inside the street furniture.  There are limited locations in which this design could be deployed.  Staff has not seen this design in fully realized plans. Wood Utility Pole Standards Design name Brief Description Notes Underground design Radio and ancillary equipment are placed in an underground vault, where space permits. Antennae are mounted within a shroud on a nearby pole. Conduit is attached flush to the pole.  All vault designs reviewed by staff require significant excavation and occupy underground space that the City may wish to use for utility purposes in the future.  Vaults are unlikely to comply with noise policies in residential neighborhoods. Top-mounted design All antenna, radio, and other ancillary equipment are housed in a single shroud at the top of a wooden bayonet extension or at the top of a replacement pole. Conduit is attached flush to the pole.  This design requires approximately twice as many total nodes compared to the side- mount option.  On poles with power lines, total additional height is approximately 12 ft.  Staff has yet to confirm structural and technical feasibility; this design will likely require pole replacement.  Pole replacement results in greater short term impacts. Side-mounted design Radio and other ancillary equipment are housed in a shroud mounted to the side of the pole. Antenna mounted on a bayonet at the top of the pole.  Shroud dimensions continue to shrink as technology develops. Proposed dimensions are smaller than some designs previously reviewed by the ARB. Example dimensions include: o 40” height, 15” width, 12” depth 3 Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Conduit is attached flush to the pole. o 50” height, 13” width, 7” depth Minimal sunshield design Radio and other ancillary equipment are housed in small sun-shade boxes mounted directly on the pole. Antennae mounted on a bayonet at the top of the pole. Conduit is attached flush to the pole.  The smallest overall volume, but equipment is more visible.  This design requires approximately twice as many total nodes compared to the side- mount option. Strand-mount design Antenna, radio and other ancillary equipment are clamped to the steel cable strand that runs between poles that supports other telephone and cable company cables. The design would use one or two shrouds. Cabling and conduit would be closely attached the cable strand.  Equipment would be shrouded and would not occupy space on the pole. 5G Equipment The standard designs described above have been developed for 4G equipment, but some may not be feasible in combination with newer 5G technology. Staff understands that 5G equipment has been designed to integrate radios and antennae into a unit or units that are smaller than most 4G equipment. However, due to the nature of 5G technology, signals do not travel very far and are easily blocked by intervening material. Thus 5G networks will likely require a greater number of WCF nodes. In addition, several carriers have asserted that 5G equipment cannot be shrouded with the same materials typically used to shroud 4G equipment. The draft standards for both streetlight poles and wood utility poles attempt to accommodate the technical limitations of 5G equipment by allowing equipment that cannot be shrouded in one of the standard designs to occupy up to an additional 2.5 cubic feet on the pole. This is consistent with the recent preliminary architectural review application submitted by AT&T, which is the first application the City has received portraying both 4G and 5G equipment. Standards Prepared by Other Cities While Palo Alto is unusual in that it owns or jointly owns many of the utility structures, examples from other cities are instructive. Other cities have already or are in the process of creating standards. While not provided for their content, the standards from the City of Huntington Beach (Attachment F) are provided to simply illustrate the possibility of developing a short concise set of illustrated administrative standards. Otherwise, the following weblinks are provided to show recent examples of how other cities are approaching standard designs: 3 Packet Pg. 43 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7  City of Pasadena: January 14, 2019: First Reading of Proposed Amendments to Telecommunications Facilities Ordinance: (http://ww2.cityofpasadena.net/councilagendas/2019%20Agendas/Jan_14_19/AR%201 3.pdf)  City and County of Denver: April 2018: Small Cell Infrastructure Design Guidelines (https://www.denvergov.org/content/dam/denvergov/Portals/705/documents/guidelin es/PWES-016.0-Small_Cell_Infrastructure_Design_Guidelines.pdf) Resource Impact Staff anticipates that the adoption of objective aesthetic standards will reduce the amount of staff resources expended per wireless application. With known, objective standards designed to address multiple on-site conditions and with active involvement from carriers as to feasibility, applicants are more likely to submit compliant projects at the outset. Staff anticipates less iterative project modifications as a result of the adoption of such standards, which means less staff time reviewing multiple plans submittals. Policy Implications As discussed above, the City is required to adopt reasonable and objective aesthetic standards under the FCC’s September 2018 Order. Following the ARB’s recommendation, staff will present these standards to the City Council along with an ordinance updating the City’s wireless code. On December 12, 2018, the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) reviewed a draft ordinance. The PTC staff report is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68093 and meeting minutes are viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68690/. The PTC voted 4-1 to approve staff’s recommendation with additional direction. A draft ordinance with further revisions will return to the PTC on March 27, 2019. Following the PTC’s review, the City Council is tentatively scheduled to review the draft ordinance and adopt the ordinance on April 15, 2019. If so directed by the City Council, these standards may be repealed in the event the FCC Order is overturned by a court or by federal legislation. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the standards would be revised from time to time in order to remain current with the evolving designs. Environmental Review These objective aesthetic standards involve the construction of small wireless facilities, which are generally exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. The adoption of objective aesthetic standards and the associated ordinance revising the City’s wireless code represent minor alterations in land use limitation, which are exempt from environmental review under CEQA Guidelines Section 15305. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 44 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Rebecca Atkinson Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2596 (650) 329-2575 rebecca.atkinson@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A Draft Administrative Standards Streetlight Poles (DOCX)  Attachment B Draft Administrative Standards Wood Utility Poles (DOCX)  Attachment C Mayor's Letter in Support of HR 530 (PDF)  Attachment D Examples of Design Options for Reference (PPTX)  Attachment E Example Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies (DOCX)  Attachment F Huntington Beach Standards for Small Cell Installation Projects 2018 (PDF) 3 Packet Pg. 45 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS STREETLIGHT POLES (MARCH 13, 2019) Page 1 of 2 Streetlight Poles Standard designs for WCFs located on Streetlights a) Underground design: Radio and other equipment may be placed in an underground vault where space permits. The antennae may be placed in a shroud at the top of a nearby pole. i) Underground vaults shall be the minimum volume necessary to house WCF equipment. Application materials should explain why the proposed dimensions are required. In no event shall vault dimensions exceed 5 feet 8-inches x 8 feet 2-inches x 5 feet 7-inches or 260 cu. ft., excluding space required for ventilation or sump pump equipment. b) Integrated pole design: Radio and other equipment may be enclosed within the body of the pole. The antennae may be enclosed within the body of the pole or placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. i) Poles shall match style and dimensions of PWD standards or existing pole as closely as possible and shall not exceed 18” in pole diameter at their widest, excluding decorative elements. c) Top-mounted design: All equipment may be enclosed within a shroud at the top of the pole, including the antenna, radio, and other equipment. i) Top-mounted equipment shrouds shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the streetlight pole and shall taper to meet the pole above the mast arm. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. General standards for all WCFs located on Streetlights WCF equipment and shrouds 1) Antennae shall be the smallest antennae possible to achieve the coverage objective. Except as provided for top-mounted designs, antennae shall not exceed 3 feet from the top of the streetlight pole and the associated “antenna skirt” shall taper to meet the pole above the mast arm. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. 2) All shrouds and equipment shall be painted to match PWD standards or the existing pole, as applicable. 3) All shrouds and equipment shall be designed without gaps between materials or sky visible between component surfaces. 4) Venting grates or louvers shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. 5) Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal within the shrouding required by the standard designs may be attached to a streetlight pole as close as possible to other equipment at the top of the pole, but in no event below a height of 2 feet beneath the light mast or higher. Each instance of such equipment shall not exceed 0.85 cu. ft. nor shall the total volume of such equipment exceed 2.6 cu. ft. per streetlight pole. Height 6) Except as provided for top-mounted designs, poles and all attachments will not exceed the height of surrounding poles by more than 3 feet. 7) Replacement poles will conform to Public Works Department (PWD) style guidelines where the City has adopted standards and will match the pole being replaced where no standards exist. For integrated pole designs, poles shall incorporate decorative elements (e.g. fluting, decorative mast arm and luminaire, etc.) from PWD standards or existing poles, as applicable. Landscaping 3.a Packet Pg. 46 ATTACHMENT A DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS STREETLIGHT POLES (MARCH 13, 2019) Page 2 of 2 8) At the direction of the Urban Forestry division, Applicant shall provide street trees and/or smaller amenity trees that interrupt direct views of WCF equipment where Urban Forestry determines appropriate space exists within 35 feet of the pole. 9) Any existing landscaping removed or damaged by installation shall be replaced in kind. Noise 10) Noise shall comply with PAMC Chapter 9.10 and shall be consistent with noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. a) In residential areas with an average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) at or below 60 decibels (dB), noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the Ldn exceed 60dB or to increase by 5.0 dB or more, even if the resulting Ldn would remain below 60 dB. b) In residential areas with an Ldn above 60 dB, noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the average to increase by 3.0 decibels (dB) or more. Curb clearances 11) If placed below 16’ above ground level: a) Attachments shall be placed no closer than 18” to the curb and at least 3’ from a curb cut or a corner radius (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309). b) Attachments shall not extend over the sidewalk. c) Attachments shall be at least 10’ above ground level. Miscellaneous 12) WCF installations shall not require any changes in the City’s existing banner marketing program. 13) Safety signage shall be the smallest size possible to accomplish its purpose. 14) Power disconnects shall be placed in a vault near the base of the pole. 15) Except as provided in these standards, no equipment cabinets may be placed at grade. 16) Light mast orientation, height, color temperature and other photometric information shall comply with PWD standards. 17) Fiber and power connections and trenching shall be minimized and shall provide the required clearances from underground utilities, as defined by CPAU. 18) Vaults in sidewalks shall not be placed in a manner that obstructs building emergency access or egress during maintenance events. Pole location 19) Nodes shall utilize existing streetlight pole locations. Any new pole locations are prohibited unless approved through PWD/CPAU pole placement application. 20) Streetlight nodes at a designated gateway location or along a scenic corridor shall not utilize a top-mounted design. 21) Streetlight nodes shall not interfere with and shall provide the required clearance from underground structures, such as basements and existing utility vaults. 3.a Packet Pg. 47 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS WOOD UTILTIY POLES (MARCH 13, 2019) Page 1 of 3 Wood Utility Poles Standard designs for WCFs located on Wood Utility Poles a) Underground design: Radio equipment may be placed in an underground vault where space permits. The antennae may be placed in a shroud at the top of a nearby pole. i) Underground vaults shall be the minimum volume necessary to house WCF equipment. Application materials should explain why the proposed dimensions are required. In no event shall vault dimensions exceed 5 feet 8-inches x 8 feet 2-inches x 5 feet 7-inches or 260 cu. ft., excluding space required for ventilation or sump pump equipment. b) Top-mounted design: All equipment may be enclosed within a shroud at the top of the pole, including the antenna, radio, and other equipment. i) Top-mounted equipment shrouds shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the pole or top of the bayonet attachment, if one is used, and shall taper to meet the top of the pole. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. c) Side-mounted design: Radio and other equipment may be mounted on the side of a pole under the following conditions i) All equipment, except electric service connections, shall be contained within a continuous shroud of the smallest volume possible without exceeding the following dimensions: 40” height x 15” width x 12” depth or 50” height x 13” width x 7” depth. Venting grates or louvers, if necessary, shall be minimized to the greatest extent possible. ii) Mounting brackets shall not exceed the width of the shroud, nor exceed the height of the shroud by more than six inches. Mounting brackets shall not extend beyond the minimum required standoff distance of 4 inches. iii) Side mounted equipment shall be oriented to face either of the directions as the flow of traffic on the adjacent street. d) Minimal sunshield design: Radio and other equipment may be enclosed within one or two sunshields not exceeding 8 inches wide nor 0.75 cubic feet in volume each, mounted directly to the side of the pole. The antennae shall be placed in a shroud at the top of the pole. e) Strand-mount design: All equipment, including antennae, may be housed within a single shroud attached to a steel cable strand running between two wood utility poles. i) Shrouds shall not exceed the following dimensions 40” length x 15” width x 12” depth ii) Antennae may be placed in a separate strand-mounted shroud, so long as total volume of all strand-mounted equipment does not exceed 5.0 cu. ft. iii) Cabling and conduit would be attached tightly to the cable strand, instead of hanging loosely or in loops. General standards for all WCFs located on Wood Utility Poles WCF equipment and shrouds 1) Antennae shall be the smallest antennae possible to achieve the coverage objective. Antennae shall not exceed 5.5 feet from the top of the pole or bayonet attachment, if one is used. The diameter of the antenna and shroud shall not exceed 15” at their widest. 2) Bayonet attachments and equipment or antennae at the top of the shroud shall be covered by a single tapered integrated shroud and “antenna skirt” that shall meet the pole without any gaps. 3) All conduit shall be attached flush to the pole. 4) All shrouds and equipment shall be painted to match PWD standards or the existing pole, as 3.b Packet Pg. 48 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS WOOD UTILTIY POLES (MARCH 13, 2019) Page 2 of 3 applicable. Paint shall be maintained regularly and shrouds shall be repainted if necessary to match changes in pole color over time. 5) All shrouds and equipment shall be designed without gaps between materials or sky visible between component surfaces. 6) Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal within the shrouding required by the standard designs may be strand-mounted or, if permitted under by GO95, attached to a cross arm or brace protruding no further than 2.5 feet from the pole. Each instance of such equipment shall not exceed 0.85 cu. ft. nor shall the total volume of such equipment exceed 2.6 cu. ft. per wood utility pole. Height 7) For wood utility poles carrying power lines, replacement poles and pole-top bayonet attachments shall be the minimum height necessary to provide GO-95 mandated clearance between WCF equipment and power lines. 8) For wood utility poles without power lines, any pole top equipment shall not increase the height of the pole by more than six feet. 9) In no event shall the total height of a pole or replacement pole, including all equipment exceed 55 feet. 10) Replacement poles will conform to all standards adopted by CPAU. Landscaping 11) At the direction of the Urban Forestry division, Applicant shall provide street trees and/or smaller amenity trees that interrupt direct views of WCF equipment where Urban Forestry determines appropriate space exists within 35 feet of the pole. 12) Any existing landscaping removed or damaged by installation shall be replaced in kind. 13) Noise 14) Noise shall comply with PAMC Chapter 9.10 and shall be consistent with noise-related Comprehensive Plan goals and policies. a) In residential areas with an average 24-hour noise level (Ldn) at or below 60 decibels (dB), noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the Ldn exceed 60dB or to increase by 5.0 dB or more, even if the resulting Ldn would remain below 60 dB. b) In residential areas with an Ldn above 60 dB, noise generated by WCF equipment shall not cause the average to increase by 3.0 decibels (dB) or more. Curb clearances 15) If placed below 16’ above ground level: a) Attachments shall be placed no closer than 18” to the curb and at least 3’ from a curb cut or a corner radius (Caltrans Highway Design Manual Section 309). b) Attachments shall not extend over the sidewalk. c) Attachments shall be at least 10’ above ground level. Miscellaneous 16) Attachments shall not face private property. 17) Attachments shall provide the required climbing space. 18) All attachments for equipment shall be in the 12, 3, 6, or 9 o’clock positions. 19) Safety signage shall be the smallest size possible to accomplish its purpose. 20) Power disconnects shall be placed on the wood pole. 21) Except as provided in these standards, no equipment cabinets may be placed at grade. 22) If applicable, light mast orientation, height, color temperature and other photometric information shall comply with PWD standards. 3.b Packet Pg. 49 ATTACHMENT B DRAFT ADMINISTRATIVE STANDARDS WOOD UTILTIY POLES (MARCH 13, 2019) Page 3 of 3 23) Fiber and power connections and trenching shall be minimized and shall provide the required clearances from underground utilities, as defined by CPAU. 24) Vaults in sidewalks shall not be placed in a manner that obstructs building emergency access or egress during maintenance events. Pole location 25) Nodes shall utilize existing wood utility pole locations. Any new pole locations are prohibited unless approved through PWD/CPAU pole placement application. 26) Wood utility poles at a designated gateway location or along a scenic corridor shall utilize an underground design. 27) Wood utility pole nodes shall not interfere with and shall provide the required clearance from underground structures, such as basements and existing utility vaults. 3.b Packet Pg. 50 3.c Packet Pg. 51 Attachment D Examples of Design Options for Reference Table of Contents: •Streetlight Pole Underground Design Comments •Streetlight Pole Integrated Pole Design Comments 1 •Streetlight Pole Integrated Pole Design Comments 2 •Streetlight Pole Top-Mounted Design Comments •Streetlight Pole Pedestal Design Comments •Streetlight Pole Minimal Side Mount Design Comments •Streetlight Pole Street Signs Design Comments •Street Furniture Design Comments •Wood Utility Pole Underground Design Comments •Wood Utility Pole Side-Mounted Design Comments •Wood Utility Pole Top-Mounted Design Comments •Wood Utility Pole Strand-Mount Design Comments •Streetlight Pole Design Comments –Previous Review •Wood Utility Pole Design Comments –Previous Review 1 •Wood Utility Pole Design Comments –Previous Review 2 •Wood Utility Pole Design Comments –Previous Review 3 1 3.d Packet Pg. 52 2Source: Google Street View 2019 (Highridge Road in Rancho Palos Verdes) Streetlight Pole Underground Design Comments: Note radio and other ancillary equipment are placed in an underground vault ; in this case in a vault is visible behind the stop sign, surrounded by a decorative wall design. It will be difficult to find similar space in Palo Alto’s rights of way. This example does not show antennas mounted within a shroud at the top of a nearby pole, but instead shows side-mounted antennas. 3.d Packet Pg. 53 3Source: Smart Fusion Pole Streetlight Pole Integrated Pole Design Comments: Note that there are options for both roadway and pedestrian streetlight poles, poles come in decorative styles, and it is possible they could be adapted to match the City’s guidelines. Removable panels provide access to equipment inside the pole. Radio and other ancillary equipment are internal to a streetlight pole with a wider diameter than the City’s existing streetlight standards and conduit and cabling are inside the pole. This example shows antennas inside the pole as well. 3.d Packet Pg. 54 4Source: ConcealFab Product Catalog 2018 and 2019 Streetlight Pole Integrated Pole Design Comments: Note that there are options for both roadway and pedestrian streetlight poles, poles come in decorative styles and it is possible they could be adapted to match the City’s guidelines. Removable panels provide access to equipment inside the pole. Radio and other ancillary equipment are internal to a streetlight pole with a wider diameter than the City’s existing streetlight standards and conduit and cabling are inside the pole. Designs are emerging that accommodate both 4G and 5G technologies (4G equipment is housed inside the pole or in a wider base, while 5G equipment is attached to the exterior of the pole). 3.d Packet Pg. 55 5Source: AT&T Preliminary Architectural Review Draft Project Plans Streetlight Pole Top-Mounted Design Comments: Note all antenna, radio, and other ancillary equipment are housed in a single shroud mounted at the top of the pole, conduit and cabling are inside the pole, and the pole matches PW style guidelines. 3.d Packet Pg. 56 6 Source: Crown Castle Cluster 2 Visual Simulations (2018) Source: AT&T Preliminary Architectural Source: Verizon Site Photo of Review Draft Visual Simulations (2017) Node in Cupertino Streetlight Pole Pedestal Design Comments: Note the pedestal wrap around the base of the streetlight pole in the first two examples below. This was not preferred by the ARB or Utilities. However, the third example is the pedestal design proposed for consideration. Radio and other ancillary equipment are placed in a pedestal underneath the base of the streetlight pole and cabling and conduit are inside the pole. 3.d Packet Pg. 57 7 Streetlight Pole Minimal Side Mount Design Comments: Note radio and other ancillary equipment are housed in small sun-shade boxes mounted directly on the pole, the antenna is mounted at the top of the pole, and conduit and cabling are inside the pole. This example shows some cables looping from the underside of the radios, but this could be covered with a very minimal shroud. Source: Google Street View 2019 ConcealFab Dual SUP Sunshield (Caesar Chavez in San Francisco) 3.d Packet Pg. 58 8Source: Verizon Site Photo of Node in San Francisco (4G facility with (2) 5 watt pole mounted mRRUs and 2 foot pole top antenna) Streetlight Pole Street Signs Design Comments: Note radio and other ancillary equipment are placed entirely behind street signs, between the sign and pole, antennae are mounted at the top of the pole, conduit and cabling are inside the pole. 3.d Packet Pg. 59 9Source: Ericsson via the IEEE website: http://sites.ieee.org/connected-vehicles/2015/06/04/ericsson-unveils-connected-bus-stop Street Furniture Design Comments: Note antenna, radio and ancillary equipment are housed within the envelope of existing or new street furniture, such as a bus shelter. 3.d Packet Pg. 60 10Source: Google Street View 2018 Source: Crown Castle Preliminary Plans ASG53m1 Sheet P-2 via City of Rancho (Monero Drive in Rancho Palos Verdes) Palos Verdes website (https://www.rpvca.gov/DocumentCenter/View/8117/ASG53) Wood Utility Pole Underground Design Comments: This street view of a mock-up site shows use of a vault for radio and other equipment and shows a side-mounted antenna, instead of an antenna mounted to the top of the pole atop a wooden bayonet extension. This design was approved in 2018 in Rancho Palos Verdes with the vault and with a smaller antenna canister than what is shown in the mockup and in the draft project plans (excerpts below). 3.d Packet Pg. 61 11Source: Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 Visual Simulations Wood Utility Pole Side-Mounted Design Comments: Note tapered narrow shroud on wooden bayonet extension or cap-mount tapered shroud on a replacement pole. Radio and other ancillary equipment are housed in shroud mounted to the side of the pole, the antenna is mounted on a bayonet at the top of the pole and conduit is attached flush to the pole. The picture on the far right shows an example of newer equipment consistent with the proposed side-mount standards, approximately half the size of previous installations. Source: Verizon Visual Simulation of Node Proposed in Fremont 3.d Packet Pg. 62 12Source: ConcealFab 14” or 18” Pole Top Shroud Wood Utility Pole Top-Mounted Design Comments: Note all antenna, radio, and other ancillary equipment are housed in a single shroud at the top of a wooden bayonet extension or at the top of a replacement pole and conduit is attached flush to the pole. Equipment can be painted to match the pole. Pole top designs may not be compatible with all wood utility poles, specifically based on overall height and stability. 3.d Packet Pg. 63 13Source: Ericsson via Ericsson website Source: City and County of Denver (https://www.ericsson.com/en/networks/offerings/small-cells/small-cell-evolution) Figure 2-2 Small Cell Infrastructure Design Guidelines Wood Utility Pole Strand-Mount Design Comments: Note antenna, radio and other ancillary equipment are clamped to the steel cable strand that runs between poles that supports other telephone and cable company cables. The design would use one or two shrouds. Cabling and conduit would be closely attached the cable strand. 3.d Packet Pg. 64 14Source: Crown Castle Cluster 2 Visual Simulations Streetlight Pole Design Comments –Previous Review: Note equipment storage in faux mailbox close to curbline on a narrow sidewalk, note equipment in side-mounted shroud close to curbline over a narrow sidewalk, et cetera. (Design elements not preferred by the ARB) 3.d Packet Pg. 65 15Source: AT&T Preliminary Architectural Review Draft Project Plans Wood Utility Pole Design Comments –Previous Review: Note unshrouded wooden bayonet extension, unshrouded equipment on mounting bracket, mounting bracket longer than necessary, mounting bracket likely overextended from pole, equipment placed too close to curbline, et cetera. (Design elements not preferred by the ARB) 3.d Packet Pg. 66 16Source: Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 1 Visual Simulations Wood Utility Pole Design Comments –Previous Review: Note long wide shroud on wooden bayonet extension, unshrouded wooden bayonet extension, unshrouded equipment on mounting bracket, mounting bracket with equipment contained in shrouds of different size. (Design elements not preferred by the ARB) 3.d Packet Pg. 67 Source: Crown Castle Cluster 3 Visual Simulations Wood Utility Pole Design Comments –Previous Review: Note long wide shroud on wooden bayonet extension, unshrouded equipment on mounting bracket, shrouded equipment on mounting bracket, mounting bracket longer than necessary, mounting bracket likely overextended from pole, equipment facing private property and overhanging sidewalk, et cetera. (Design elements not preferred by the ARB) 17 3.d Packet Pg. 68 ATTACHMENT E EXAMPLE COMPREHENSIVE PLAN GOALS AND POLICIES PERTAINING TO WIRELESS IN THE RIGHT OF WAY DESIGN GOAL L-4 Inviting pedestrian scale centers that offer a variety of retail and commercial services and provide focal points and community gathering places for the city’s residential neighborhoods and employment districts. POLICY L-4.3 - Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. POLICY L-4.4 Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. POLICY L-4.7 Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. POLICY L-4.8 Ensure that University Avenue/Downtown is pedestrian-friendly and supports bicycle use. Use public art, trees, bicycle racks and other amenities to create an environment that is inviting to pedestrians and bicyclists. GOAL L-6 Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets and public spaces. POLICY L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. POLICY L-6.2 Use the Zoning Ordinance, design review process, design guidelines and Coordinated Area Plans to ensure high quality residential and commercial design and architectural compatibility. POLICY L-6.4 In areas of the City having a historic or consistent design character, encourage the design of new development to maintain and support the existing character. POLICY L-6.5 Guide development to respect views of the foothills and East Bay hills along public street corridors in the developed portions of the City. 3.e Packet Pg. 69 GOAL L-7 Conservation and preservation of Palo Alto’s historic buildings, sites and districts. POLICY L-7.1 Encourage public and private upkeep and preservation of resources that have historic merit, including residences listed in the City’s Historic Resource Inventory, the California Register of Historical Resources, or the National Register of Historic Places. GOAL L-9 Attractive, inviting public spaces and streets that enhance the image and character of the city. POLICY L-9.1 Recognize Sand Hill Road, University Avenue between Middlefield Road and San Francisquito Creek, Embarcadero Road, Page Mill Road, Oregon Expressway, Interstate 280, Arastradero Road (west of Foothill Expressway), Junipero Serra Boulevard/Foothill Expressway and Skyline Boulevard as scenic routes and preserve their scenic qualities. POLICY L-9.3 Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation. POLICY L-9.4 Maintain and enhance existing public gathering places and open spaces and integrate new public spaces at a variety of scales. POLICY L-9.5 Encourage use of data-driven, innovative design methods and tactics and use data to understand to evaluate how different community members use public space. POLICY L-9.7 Strengthen the identity of important community-wide gateways, including the entrances to the City at Highway 101, El Camino Real and Middlefield Road; the Caltrain stations; entries to commercial districts; Embarcadero Road at El Camino Real and between Palo Alto and Stanford. POLICY L-9.8 Incorporate the goals of the Urban Forest Master Plan, as periodically amended, into the Comprehensive Plan by reference in order to assure that new land uses recognize the many benefits of trees in the urban context and foster a healthy and robust tree canopy throughout the City. 3.e Packet Pg. 70 POLICY L-9.10 Design public infrastructure, including paving, signs, utility structures, parking garages and parking lots to meet high-quality urban design standards and embrace technological advances. Look for opportunities to use art and artists in the design of public infrastructure. Remove or mitigate elements of existing infrastructure that are unsightly or visually disruptive. Program L9.10.1 Continue the citywide undergrounding of utility wires. Minimize the impacts of undergrounding on street tree root systems and planting areas. Program L9.10.2 Encourage the use of compact and well-designed utility elements, such as transformers, switching devices, backflow preventers and telecommunications infrastructure. Place these elements in locations that will minimize their visual intrusion. POLICY L-9.11 Provide utilities and service systems to serve all urbanized areas of Palo Alto and plan infrastructure maintenance and improvements to adequately serve existing and planned development. Program L9.11.1 Implement the findings of the City’s Infrastructure Blue Ribbon Committee and its emphasis for rebuilding our civic spaces. Program L9.11.2 Identify City-owned properties where combinations of wireless facilities can be co-located, assuming appropriate lease agreements are in place. GOAL T-6 Provide a safe environment for motorists, pedestrians and bicyclists on Palo Alto streets. POLICY T-6.1 Continue to make safety the first priority of citywide transportation planning. Prioritize pedestrian, bicycle and automobile safety over motor vehicle level of service at intersections and motor vehicle parking.C 3.e Packet Pg. 71 3.f Packet Pg. 72 3.f Packet Pg. 73 3.f Packet Pg. 74 3.f Packet Pg. 75 3.f Packet Pg. 76 3.f Packet Pg. 77 3.f Packet Pg. 78 3.f Packet Pg. 79 3.f Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew and David Hirsch. Absent: Osma Thompson Chair Furth: Welcome to the February 7th meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. Would you call the roll, please? [Roll Call] Jodi Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Board Member Thompson is absent. Chair Furth: That's correct. She advised us in advance that she would be unable to be here. Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on an item not on the agenda? Seeing none, I will go on to the next item. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Are there any agenda changes, additions and deletions? Seeing none. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: City official reports? Transmittal of our schedule and attendance record and tentative future agendas. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Related to the future agenda, you'll see that we're going to have a prelim for AT&T. We'll have the 695 Arastradero, 2342 Yale, and 1700 Embarcadero is likely to fall off. There's some stormwater measures that we need to make sure are appropriate in the area they are proposed. We want to make sure those don't affect the site plan before we bring it forward. Chair Furth: Thank you, and... Go ahead. Ms. Gerhardt: There's also an addition that the Chair has asked for. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get it on this agenda, so we'll talk about it next time, and that is a discussion with the Director about ARB recommendations versus actual decisions that the Director is making. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: February 7, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Furth: Thank you. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 190 Channing Avenue [18PLN-00043]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 1,951 Square Foot Office Building and the Construction of a new three-Story 8,769 Square Foot Office / Residential MixedUse Building. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development). Zoning District: RT-35 (Residential Transition Zone District in the South of Forest Area Phase 2 Coordinated Area Plan). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: Okay, the first public hearing item we have today is a quasi-judicial item. It's 190 Channing Avenue. This is in the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area plan, Phase 2 district of the city, which has its own unique zoning. All 300 pages of it. And it is a request for approval of a major architectural review to allow demolition of an existing 1,950 square foot office building and the construction of a new three- story, 8,760 square foot office and residential mixed use building, which is a larger office footprint, but staff can tell us what that is. With regard to the environmental review, it is exempt as infill development. The zoning district is Residential Transition Zone District, RT-35. Before we hear anything further, does anybody have any extramural communications to report? I can tell you that I did go back and watch the tape of our 2016 hearing on this matter, preliminary hearing on this matter. I also, at the architect's request, met with him on site, and it was helpful to be able to identify the boundaries of the property. I think I told him about my feelings about Italian cypress, but otherwise there's nothing relevant to report. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to disclose that I visited the site and I met with the architect in my office at his request. I didn't learn anything that's not in the public information. Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I visited the site a few days ago. No discussion with the architect. Chair Furth: Thank you. Staff? Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good morning, Board Members. The project before you today is a mixed use development at 190 Channing Avenue. The project is located within the RT-35 zone district, as you noted, within the boundaries of the South of Forest Area 2 Coordinated Area Plan, which is often known as the SOFA 2 CAP. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for all parcels within these boundaries is SOFA 2 CAP. The project includes demolition of an existing building that was historically used for automobile repair services, D&M Motors, but that was legally converted through a tenant improvement and use and occupancy permit to an office use in 2017. The existing building is proposed to be replaced with a three-story mixed-use development that includes office on the first floor and four residential condominium units on the second and third floors. And the City will separately process a vesting tentative map for condominium subdivision that includes six condominium units on a single parcel. Some of the key considerations for the ARB today may include input on the project's consistency with the SOFA 2 CAP performance standards and the performance criteria outlined in 18.23 of the municipal code. Staff has concluded that the project is on balance, consistent with both of these. However, as noted in the staff report, there may be some opportunity areas to improve consistency, particularly with respect to the open space. We encourage your feedback on the parking and the setbacks as well. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on the findings and subject to conditions of City of Palo Alto Page 3 approval as outlined in the staff report. With that, I will turn it back to you and recommend that you hear from the applicant as well. Chair Furth: Any questions of staff before we begin? I have one question. What is the setback of this building from Emerson? Ms. Hodgkins: The setback along Emerson.... It's noted in here as 1.5, but I thought it was actually 3.3. Oh, yeah. On the site plan it shows 3.3. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions before we hear from the applicant? Okay, seeing none, we may hear from the applicant, who will have 10 minutes. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good morning, Chair Furth, members of the Board. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'll be making the presentation on behalf of my clients, Karla and Cole Dawson. Unfortunately they couldn't make it today, but I’m sure they're watching from wherever they are. Before I start, I'd like to thank Claire Hodgkins for helping us bring this application before you. I'm also joined by Gary Laymon with Guzzardo Partnership, the landscape architect, should you have questions for landscape. As Claire pointed out, the site is a corner site on Channing and Emerson. It's about one-sixth of an acre, not a big site, 7,600 square feet in the RT-35 sub district of the SOFA 2 CAP. It's surrounded completely by RT-35, so there's no setbacks imposed by a residential adjacent to it. The buildings, the use originally was protected, when I was here in 2016 it was a protected use because auto service was considered retail, retail-like. Council changed that in 2017, early 2017, and the owner wanted to convert it to office space, as Claire pointed out. Here are some pictures of the existing D&M auto shop. This is down Emerson looking, let's say north. This is from the corner looking across the asphalt parking lot. It's basically a 1,950 square foot concrete block building with surface parking. The program that we developed with the owner was to provide a mixed use building, residential and office, with an underground garage. The top floor would be a unit for Cole and Karla, their personal unit. On the second floor they would have three multifamily units, and on the ground floor would be Cole's... There's two office spaces on the ground floor. The small one would be Cole's private office with a garden for himself, and the larger one would be for rental. We also were charged with trying to get this to work as a single- exit building, so that was key on such a small site. We've been able to do that. When we were here in 2016, we had three options, and this was the option that we kind of had focused on that time. Just briefly, this is the underground garage. The entrance hasn't changed, in the same spot. We had two lift systems back then because the retail part required more parking. We have since eliminated this lift here. We still have this lift system over here. On the ground floor the building was closer to this oak tree than it is proposed to be now. It was also closer to Channing, and we've increased that setback by almost 50 percent. It was, like, six feet, and now it's 8 1/2 feet. And then, on the second floor, which is here, we had the three units. We still have three units. Large terraces on these units were discussed at the hearing in 2016, and on the upper floor is a unit for Cole and Karla. This is the imagery that we had back then, very modulated form, kind of layered. We're picking up on the cantilevered aspect of the roof of the Creamery building down the street, kind of in this moderne style. This is the view from the corner. This is the view from Channing. I think the comments obviously had to do with these large cantilevered balconies. At the hearing, your comments that we wrote down and have since discussed is: Is retail use appropriate? Well, that's kind of off the table at this point since it doesn't, it's not mandated, and your comment back then was the lifts don't really work for retail. You want to see more trees and site amenities, plantings, benches. Wanted us to address the oak tree, which is a nice asset in that SOFA area. The balconies seem large, and you had concern about neighborhood transition. I want to compare these side by side. This is the site plan, and walk you through what the changes were there. This was the retail space previously, and it was set back from the street, from the corner, and we've now proposed that that becomes office space. We've simplified the form at that location. This would be Cole's office; this is the office that would be for rent. More street trees, site amenities, so we have marina strawberry street trees. This is the oak tree that we're concerned about. We've created a site wall that is bench height and it's topped with a wood bench, so you're not sitting on a cold stone seat. We've created some seating area in the covered porch. The setback line, previously you can see on the left, it's much more the building was on the setback. We've now stepped the building back 8 1/2 feet, and then, created blue City of Palo Alto Page 4 stone paving as an accent feature around the building. And then, this planter here has a Chinese fringe flower, a colorful flower in it. Down below grade, the trees on the upper left-hand corner. This was a big move of, how do we address that? We basically eliminated parking, carved out the garage at that level, at the main ground floor level. The building used to come closer to the property line and the oak tree. We've pushed that building back now 10 feet, and created room for the canopy of the oak tree. That's open space there. Comparison perspectives from the corners. The concerns were, I think, just the shadows and the cantilevered balconies, a little bit overbearing for the community. What we've done is we've consolidated the program basically into a more defined form, a simplified form, yet we still have the cantilevered roof for solar protection, and also to tie it back in like we originally wanted to do with the Creamery building. Street transition, the upper drawing is the Emerson frontage, so kind of relating to the building. The dental building across Channing. Our building is about 22 feet high at that point. I think theirs is about, maybe the same, maybe 24. And then, along Channing itself we have the Jewish Life building here, and it's a block that has kind of punched openings, so we've done a similar fashion here, and again, consolidated that program and created openings within that block. We felt like that tied in pretty nicely, and again, like I said, we still have the cantilevered roof to relate to the Creamery building. Basement level, you can see that that lift is gone, circulation is the same. We still have this lift. The ground floor, simplified form. We're set back from Channing there. The garage entrance is in the same location. This is Cole's office and his garden. The second floor has one, two, three units. They range from about 600 square feet to just over 800 square feet, and they all have an individual balcony that's protected. And then, on the upper floor, we have Cole and Karla's unit with the outdoor balcony and the balcony off the study on the side. Just the elevation views of Channing. Very simple form with some nice accents. The building height I believe is 38 feet to the top of the elevator, and we're at 35 at the top of the parapet, which is the height limit. This is the view from Emerson. The materials include a cut limestone base to define that two-story block, western red cedar on the underside of the canopies up above. They do have kind of a residential feel. Smooth cement plaster, horizontal metal cladding that kind of relates to the old industrial aspect of the SOFA area. We have a decorative metal screen here at the stair, so that that stair becomes an open stair to the elements, but still protected from a security standpoint. And it adds a little bit of interest. Actually, it's probably easier to see here. I don't think we updated the rendering, so, we have that located there. And, of course, high-performance glass, solar, sun shading, clear glass rails to reduce the scale of the building. And then, this is the shot again from the corner. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have, and look forward to an approval of the project. Thank you. Chair Furth: Do we have a speaker card? Benjamin Cintz? Good morning. If you could spell your name for our transcriber, and then you'll have three minutes. Benjamin Cintz: Thank you. [spells name] Good morning, Board Chair, Vice Chair, and Board Members. I presently live in the Midtown area of Palo Alto. Prior to that I lived in University South near SOFA 2. My father operated an auto upholstery business in what is now called SOFA 2, and I lived in SOFA 2 as a child. As a teenager, I worked in a camera store in downtown Palo Alto, and my law office is presently located in Palo Alto. My family owns the medical dental building across the street known as 882 Emerson Street. I have seen many changes take place in Palo Alto. I consider the proposed project to be a very positive change to SOFA 2, for the following reasons: It adds housing units, which I think is sorely needed in Palo Alto. The project cleans up the site and removes what is primarily an asphalt parking lot and cinderblock building. I think it's great that the parking is underground, and that there are no issues with parking lifts. I like the idea that small office space is being provided. I think that augments SOFA 2 and Palo Alto, which I think has a reputation for being a very innovative place for businesses to start, and I think the small office space helps accomplish that. I also like the outdoor terraces and the activity they will provide, and the new street trees, landscaping and pedestrian amenities. I thank you for listening to my comments. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you very much, Mr. Cintz. Anybody else wish to speak? Applicant can rebut that if they wish. Applicant declines. All right. Are there questions from Board Members before we deliberate? David? This is questions, not comments yet. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Hirsch: Well, I like the building very much, and only some technical questions, really. The samples that you submitted don't actually have the screening, a screening sample, do they? Mr. Hayes: Mr. Hirsch, no, they do not. It would match the metal siding. It's not a manufactured screen, it will be a custom screen. It will... Board Member Hirsch: It's not a standard screen, in other words. Mr. Hayes: No, no. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, so you really couldn't make a sample. Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, thank you. I might have more on that, on other parts here. On the façade on Emerson, it will be a, sort of wide-opened glassed façade. How do you create privacy on that street as more population is likely to be in that area at some point? Mr. Hayes: Privacy for the ground floor, or...? Board Member Hirsch: Ground floor. Mr. Hayes: The ground floor? Because the upper floor, the actual living part of it is set back a little bit, so the terrace provides some screening. I would imagine on the interior, we typically would provide lines that would come down if they needed to have privacy. We've always tried to encourage our ground floor users to not have blinds because the whole idea is to want to be able to see in, to create some life and activity. I'm not real concerned about privacy in the office space, but if they have a conference room and they need to project something, I'm sure we would have blinds on the inside to come down. Board Member Hirsch: All right. I notice there was really no section through the driveway down to the parking that I could find. I'm just curious, if a car pulls in and is kind of in a waiting position at the top of that ramp without cutting off pedestrian traffic along Emerson, can it sit there? Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. There's about... There's probably 40 feet, so I would imagine you could have two cars... [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: .... turn. Mr. Hayes: No, you would be on the ramp. Board Member Hirsch: On the ramp. Mr. Hayes: You would be on the ramp, yes. Board Member Hirsch: How far in before the ramp begins from the...? Mr. Hayes: We're meeting the City's requirement, so it's five feet from the property line. If you take that and say how far is that from the sidewalk, it's about two to three more feet from the property line. Two and a half feet, I think, so you have seven and a half feet. A car would have to be on the sloping part of the ramp... Board Member Hirsch: The slope, okay. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Understood. Is that a likely condition, that somebody...? Mr. Hayes: The calculated peak morning trips per hour, the peak hour, is two in, and in the afternoon it's three out. I think it's unlikely with such a small building that you're going to have multiple cars waiting. I do want to point out, because you're likely to have questions about the puzzler lift, we have used them before for offices and for housing. The lift is in the most remote part of the garage, that if somebody drives down, they're have their fob and they'll notify the lift, and the lift will make open, you know, will make a space available, so that when they drive down, they can pull immediately into the space. If another car is coming right behind them and they need to park in the lift -- because that's how the protocol is going to be -- they would need to wait for that first car to be deposited, and then, for an open space to come. That takes about 44 seconds. That second car would be able to wait in the garage at the garage level because the lifts, if you look at the... The lifts are way off to the... The lifts are over here. A car could come down and wait here while a car is parking, and once that car is parked, they could pull in. But I'm not anticipating a lot of demand, people stacking. Board Member Hirsch: I guess another part of that answer could be that the car could pull down and let its passenger off down at the bottom and take the elevator up. Mr. Hayes: Right. True. Board Member Hirsch: You could do that. Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. Board Member Hirsch: There's the electrical... It's in the courtyard, behind the garbage there. Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Hirsch: How do you get to that? Suppose there's an emergency. Mr. Hayes: There's a path down... You can either come through the office space, so, the office space opens up to it, if they're open. Board Member Hirsch: Right. Mr. Hayes: Or, there is a path along here. This is a six-foot setback with a railing so you don't fall, and then the trees. You can come in that way, as well. Board Member Hirsch: That leaves you enough space to get through to that...? Mr. Hayes: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. The reason I question was to know if there was another access besides the office, should something happen when the office is closed and locked, etc. Mr. Hayes: Right. It might be that... This would be the only way, here, and it might be that when we get into the permit phase, the fire department is going to want us to provide a shunt trip in front of the building so they can shut the power off that way. Board Member Hirsch: That passes fire department...? Mr. Hayes: It has in the past, yes. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Mr. Hayes: We'll have the electrical equipment in the basement or in the garage, and we'll have a shunt trip at grade. It will be next to the Knox box. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I don't see a detail at the planter against the wall and how that really will work, especially in inclement weather, what happens... Mr. Hayes: You're talking about this planter here? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Mr. Hayes: Along Channing? Board Member Hirsch: Along Channing, yeah. Mr. Hayes: I think we might just have a section shown there. Yeah. That section is Section 2 on A3.3, but it's just an overall building section. But, of course, it will be a, a lined planter. Board Member Hirsch: Well, you know, it's a construction detail. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: I'll leave it up to you to solve that one. Mr. Hayes: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: Bikes on the site? Where are they? Mr. Hayes: There are two bike racks, one here and one here, if you want to look on your screen. There's one there and one there, so two bikes kind of at this main entry courtyard. And then, if you go below grade, there's a locker here and a locker here. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Terrific. Thank you, yes. One of the bigger issues is -- and we have better horticultural experts on this panel -- but you have some very solid trees on the neighbors' property there, next to the adjacent property on Emerson. Mr. Hayes: Uh-huh. Board Member Hirsch: It's almost like a solid wall there. Mr. Hayes: You're talking about these trees here? Board Member Hirsch: Yes? Mr. Hayes: The cypress? Board Member Hirsch: It looks like a solid wall in the drawing, too. I mean, my consideration would be, what about the neighbor who would put something up on that side, you know? And their light is cut off. It's as if there's a [crosstalk] building... Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Hirsch: ... at this location. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Mr. Hayes: Right. This building... Technically, this building could have been built on that setback. We are 25 feet back from that property line, for obvious reasons, with the ramp and all that. We do have a three-story building, so we were concerned about privacy. Board Member Hirsch: I know that's your concern. We're concerned about the neighbor. Mr. Hayes: Right. That parcel next door is 25 feet wide, so it's very narrow, a very narrow site. With the cypress that we have there, from the third floor, by the time anything would ever get built on that site next door, you wouldn't be able to see that site at all. You'd see the cleaners across the site if you're on the third floor looking out. We've only been addressing it from the standpoint of our occupants looking to the adjacent parcel and not the other way around. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, but I would recommend a lighter... Chair Furth: David, before we get to recommendations, can we finish our questions? Board Member Hirsch: I think that's about... Okay. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Otherwise, I'm quite pleased. I think it's vastly improved over the early rendition of it, and ... Chair Furth: Alex. I'm going to cut you off. Alex. Board Member Lew: I have one question for you, Ken. On Unit C on the second floor, you have a bedroom and a bathroom. I was wondering if you could explain the windows to me and how they work on the elevation, and with respect to the balcony on Unit A. The balcony on Unit A. And there is a window, there's a bedroom window that looks out to the neighbors' balcony. Mr. Hayes: That balcony, that window is going to need to be frosted. That was provided last minute as a response to Fire. Board Member Lew: It's an egress window, or...? Mr. Hayes: The windows that face the driveway ramp, we were going to use those for egress, but Fire doesn't want to have a ladder on the ramp. So, they asked that we provide that window, and I said that's kind of strange because there's a balcony there. And I said we'll just have to make that, it will just be frosted. Board Member Lew: Okay. And then, how does the...? You have a bathtub on the window wall, facing the driveway. Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Lew: And it looks like it's floor-to-ceiling glass. How is that going to work? Mr. Hayes: We have the same kind of condition on the, in Unit A, and we're thinking that we would treat the glass, basically hold the tub away. It's probably not going to be a built-in tub. Board Member Lew: It's a floating tub...? Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Lew: Okay. Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, for the architect, please. On the third floor, do you have any provision for blinds or valences on the inside of the glass walls? Mr. Hayes: We do. Vice Chair Baltay: Can you describe a little bit what that would be like? I think they will be visible most of the time when they're closed in the afternoon. Mr. Hayes: When the blinds are down, they'll... Vice Chair Baltay: Are they automatic blinds, recessed in the ceiling, or...? Mr. Hayes: Yes, they're recessed into the ceiling. And I think we have a detail of that. Vice Chair Baltay: Could you point me to that, please? Mr. Hayes: No, we do not have a detail of that. The idea would be we would create a cavity for the blinds to be up so we can have a clean screen. When they're up, you'll see the reveal. When they're down, you're going to see them, yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. That's it. Chair Furth: Thank you. What is the building setback from Emerson? Mr. Hayes: Well, I would contend it's 1 1/2 feet. Chair Furth: Eighteen inches. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. And I'm not sure if there's a discrepancy on the site plan. Chair Furth: On one of your plans it says 3.3. Mr. Hayes: Is it measuring from...? Chair Furth: I don't know. That's why I'm asking. Mr. Hayes: Do you know which one...? Ms. Hodgkin: I'm looking at it right now and I'm assuming that it was measuring to the very closest point. You can see kind of like... Chair Furth: Which sheet are you looking at, Claire? Ms. Hodgkins: Sorry. If you look at, for example, A2.2, you can see, you can see how the... Mr. Hayes: Oh, it's measuring to the glass. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. The 3.3 is measuring to the glass... Mr. Hayes: Right. Ms. Hodgkins: ...whereas the 2.2 is measuring to the, technically the closest point of the building. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Hayes: Chair Furth, this part of the façade, the stone is 18 inches back. The glass is three-foot-three back. Chair Furth: Oh, that's where the three... Mr. Hayes: That's what it is. Chair Furth: Okay, thank you. And how high is the face, the floor, of the upstairs balcony? Mr. Hayes: Twenty-two foot six inches. Chair Furth: The one that juts over the driveway is...? Mr. Hayes: Is 22, correct. Chair Furth: Okay, and you're planning to have the trees grow to...? Mr. Hayes: I did the section just because I had to convince myself, right? And I believe those trees grow four feet a year. Something like that. Right? And so, I think we were... I have it projected that they're at 18 feet in 2 1/2 years, so someone on the balcony... Because that site is 25 feet wide, if you have something 18 feet tall here and you draw the line, you basically don't see the parcel. You see the cleaners across that parcel. Chair Furth: Does it...? I'm worried about light and air that's left on that skinny parcel after you develop. It starts out looking great because you have your driveway over there, but then you put a vertical wall right on the property line, and that's what's concerning me. I realize that's not a question. Mr. Hayes: Of trees, you're saying. Chair Furth: Yeah. Which the need for which is driven by balcony. Okay. Where would the signage for the office be? These are neighborhood-serving offices. Mr. Hayes: I don't think Cole would have a sign. Chair Furth: That's partly my point. These buildings are supposed to read as neighborhood-serving office space. Where would it go? [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: If this was my office here, my entrance door is right there. Can you see my cursor? Chair Furth: I can. Mr. Hayes: Okay. I would put the sign right here. Chair Furth: Okay. Mr. Hayes: And that's not the entrance to Cole's office. Cole's office you can't see. It will be going in this way, so, if he has a sign, it would probably be in that courtyard, or at the courtyard. Chair Furth: Thank you. And then, this is a question for staff, but Ken may want to weigh in. What buildings were you looking at when you decided one feet eight inches was an appropriate setback? Ms. Hodgkins: We were looking at... City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: And I’m concerned with Emerson, not Channing. Ms. Hodgkins: Hold on one second. Chair Furth: I've got my magnifying glasses... [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: I'm sorry, your question was for staff, but... Ms. Hodgkins: I was looking... Chair Furth: Which sheet is it? You told us earlier and I... Mr. Hayes: Yeah, it's in there. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Hayes: Eight-zero-five. Chair Furth: Eight-zero-five, right? Ms. Hodgkins: I was considering this to be the front setback, so, looking at some of the other... Chair Furth: Considering what to be the front setback? Emerson? Ms. Hodgkins: Emerson to be the front setback. Chair Furth: Right. Ms. Hodgkins: The shorter side. In looking at that, I looked at the Jewish Family and Children Services, which has a front setback of three-ten. Chair Furth: It says 7.5 on this. Is that incorrect? Ms. Hodgkins: No, that's the side yard setback. Chair Furth: I’m talking about the setback as it exists on the street. Because when we're talking about context, it doesn't matter if it's front or side. Ms. Gerhardt: Can we ask what sheet you're looking at? Chair Furth: I'm looking at AO.5 [phonetic]. Ms. Hodgkins: Well, I would say that when I ... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ....answer my question. You didn't look at the... Ms. Hodgkins: When I did my review, I was looking at front setbacks within the area for adjacent parcels, so I was looking in particular at the different corners and what the front setbacks were of those different corners, versus what the side setback was along Emerson. Chair Furth: And so, the next parcel down Emerson looks like it has, like, zero setback. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Ms. Hodgkins: The drycleaner, which is the closest adjacent along Emerson, has basically a zero setback. The dental office has a front setback of 8-7. Chair Furth: Sixty-seven feet, eighty-seven feet? I can't quite read... Ms. Hodgkins: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Eighty-seven. Ms. Hodgkins: Eight-seven. Chair Furth: Somebody's got a setback of 67 feet, six inches. Ms. Hodgkins: That's, again, the side yard setback, so when I was reviewing I was looking at what appropriate front setbacks were on the adjacent parcels. So... [crosstalk] Ms. Hodgkins: Oh, sorry.... No, she's talking about this one. Chair Furth: Okay, well, that answers my... So, across the street, I show fronting on Emerson -- meaning the building that you see as a pedestrian, walking down Emerson -- first we have seven feet, then we have 14 feet, then we have 7 feet 9, 7 feet 8 1/2, 7 feet 4. Is that right? Ms. Hodgkins: Correct. Chair Furth: And then when you get south of this, you get into a residential neighborhood. I guess we're in old Palo Alto, historic Palo Alto. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. Mr. Hayes: Could I chime in? Chair Furth: Not yet. Thank you. And that has a deeper setback, right? Ms. Hodgkins: Correct. Correct. Chair Furth: Okay. Yes, Mr. Hayes? Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Furth: Would you like to speak to this issue? Mr. Hayes: I would. Chair Furth: With my, with the forbearance of my colleagues up here. Mr. Hayes: There's a little confusion and inconsistency in how we have measured the setbacks. The Jewish Center across the street, Mr. Cintz's property across Channing, and the other properties there that all have those numbers listed, we're measuring from the sidewalk because we don't know exactly where the property line is. We don't have surveys for all those parcels, so we're measuring from the sidewalk. Chair Furth: From the sidewalk or the curb? City of Palo Alto Page 13 Mr. Hayes: The sidewalk. The back of sidewalk. Mr. Cintz's building says 8 foot 7 from the back of sidewalk, but there's at least 2 1/2 to 3 feet from the back of sidewalk to the property line. On our property, I'm assuming... Chair Furth: I’m sorry, you just lost me completely. We measure setbacks from property lines, but you're saying we don't have a survey, so we don’t know what the actual property lines are. Ms. Hodgkins: Exactly. What he's saying is he put in some extra because this property is set back three feet from the property line, so it may be... Chair Furth: Or 18 inches, depending. Ms. Hodgkins: No, it's... (inaudible). Yeah. What he's saying is that on a lot of these other properties, it may be that the property line is actually further in than where the back of walk is. Mr. Hayes: Right. Chair Furth: But they are still (inaudible) back from the sidewalk, which is what people perceive. People don't go around surveying... [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: Our building would be 4 1/2 feet back from the back of sidewalk, 4 1/2 feet to 6 1/2 feet. Chair Furth: This drawing did not advance your case. Mr. Hayes: Didn't help you, right. Chair Furth: However, so, when we look at 12 feet 9 inches for the u-shaped property further down the block, that's from the edge of sidewalk, right? Mr. Hayes: They're all from the edge of sidewalk, back of sidewalk. Ms. Hodgkins: I mean, I would also note that this is a corner property, so we would want to, in staff's opinion, we would want to encourage building up closer to the sidewalk on a corner property, whereas we might not be looking for that further down the block. Chair Furth: And why would you want it closer on a corner property? Ms. Hodgkins: To encourage the pedestrian atmosphere of the area. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: Take a look at the corner of St. Michael's alley, the old St. Michael's alley, Watercourse Way, House of Hardware... Chair Furth: Which are often... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: They're all on a diagonal. Board Member Lew: Not all of them. [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Furth: Now we're debating, so, let's... Mr. Hayes: If we went across the intersection that we're on, the building across the intersection is defining that corner on both places. Chair Furth: It sure is. No doubt about that. All right. Okay. I think it's... Okay. Peter, why don't you go through comments. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Thank you for the excellent presentation. On whole, I think this is an excellent proposal. The site planning is very thoughtfully done. It makes a lot of sense. The floor plan of the building is logical, it's very functional. I find the design is, on the whole, compatible to the neighborhood. It just fits right in. It feels good to me. I think having the underground parking is a real asset to the community. It's really the only way I see these type of projects working. It's really nice that you're out of the gate proposing this for us. I'm mildly concerned that we're relying so much on the stacked parking lifts and there's no... I don't see a provision for a quick in-and-out of my car, quick unloading of kids or groceries. There are families that might be living here, and I've always felt that you really need to have not just exclusively stacked parking. You just need some place for one or two people to pull in for 20 minutes while they run upstairs and get something. It would be really nice if there was a way to maybe change around. You have some electric vehicle stations that are dedicated to that, but if there were just one or two spots that were just open and useful, I think the overall functionality of the parking would be greatly enhanced. I also register a concern to the staff that this building has a very unique ownership structure, in the way that the owner of the building really will be living here and really controlling how the entire building functions. And it's very important that that parking be available to other tenants in the building and to the occupants of the retail or office spaces. I don’t think that's always the case under projects like this. The owner could just decide that that garage is really their space, and while that may not be to the letter of the law, that oftentimes, I think, happens. It's important that we keep an eye on it and be aware of it and put in conditions or what-not. The parking is intended to be for all of the occupants of the building. I find I like the overall style of the building. I appreciate the stone plinth and the glass up above. And I think that the balconies actually work quite well for the residents, having all those spaces outdoors. It provides eyes on the street, it enlivens the community, and the fact that you're providing four apartments I think is really a plus to the community. It's wonderful to have, especially three small units right downtown like that, up on the second floor with balconies overlooking the street. I just can't see where that won't be a wonderful place to sit on a summer evening. It will enliven and help the community quite a bit. With that said, I'd like to step on the architect's toes a little bit with one suggestion that I find could improve the building. Architect Hayes, if you could pull up your overall perspective view of the building. You had it up a few slides ago. Sort of what I would call your money shot. The very nice view from the corner of Emerson... [Locating slide] Vice Chair Baltay: While he's pulling that up, to my colleagues. My concern is that the façade of the building along Channing is really more or less plainer all the way up, and I'd like to see -- right there -- I'd like to see if we couldn't get them to push back on the third floor the large glass walls on the left and right of the elevator core. From my reading of the plans, it could be pushed back a couple of feet and the deck railing could wrap around that, to get that same stepping-back effect that you have on Emerson. You would push back the kitchen area some, and perhaps let it go out the other direction to make up the space. But I think it would be a big improvement on the Channing Street façade not to have the building read so plainer all the way up. Just the three stories. The second thing you could consider doing, Architect Hayes, would be to raise the height of the stone plinth, the element that makes up the first two floors, perhaps just another foot. I think that would help your proportions, and honestly, would make the balcony on the third floor more pleasant. You'd have, the first foot of railing would be a solid wall, not just glass to the floor. But the proportions of this just strike me as a little bit top-heavy. With all due respect, I get the same feeling on your recent building at 240 Hamilton. You have a very high glass thing on the very top. It's very close to the edge, and it's very tall. I understand why you want it so tall, but by City of Palo Alto Page 15 pushing it back a little bit, by raising the stone plinth just a little bit, you mitigate the height effect without really changing the functionality of the use of it inside. Mr. Hayes: Right now, the glass and the metal panel wall are 8 inches back from the stone, so that's not a flush relationship. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm saying put it back 4 of 5 feet. Wrap the balcony around it by just squeezing your floor plan a little bit. I understand that the elevator core in the middle, the refuse needs to stay that way, and it should. It looks attractive that way. But if you could step back the other piece from Channing, wrap the balcony around it, and then, change the massing portions of the stone, I think that would be an improvement to the overall massing of the building, especially as it's seen from Channing, or from the corner of Channing and Emerson. I throw that out to my colleagues to hear, for the architect to hear. Honestly, aside from that, I think this is just an excellent building and an excellent proposal. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation, and I think the revisions are all very well considered. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Board Member Lew: In general, I support the project. The things that I think we need to address are, one is the compatibility with the historic building, which I think you have a letter from Mr. Brand, who objected to this item. I think he's referring to Watercourse Way at the corner of Channing and High Street. I think we have to address that. My reading on your design is that you have recessed the windows on Channing, the lower floor windows, right? Mr. Hayes: Yeah, that's all recessed back, correct. Board Member Lew: It's recessed, and the... To me, Watercourse Way, one of the character-defining things of that building, one of them is that it has the deeply-recessed windows. It also has that kind of brick or terra cotta... Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Lew: ... and in front of it is landscaping, as well. I think that you've made... I think that you have a deep recess. I think the landscaping, like the coleonema, makes the design linkage to bamboo. It's all very vertical and bright green and lacy. I think potentially you have, you could have a design linkage in your stone pattern. It could be, or may not be. Like, if you had a very, like, a fake artificial stone, it's all one inch high... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: ...for example, if it were like that, it wouldn't really make a design linkage for Watercourse Way, but if you're using real stone, you have some say on the coursing of it, and that could make it... I'm just throwing it out there, that it could make a design linkage. And then, for the compatibility of all of that along Emerson Street, I think it matches very well, all of the massing and detail of the Emerson Street buildings. And then, I think my only other comment is... Or, I have two comments on landscaping. One is that I think here you're proposing new plantings underneath the existing oak tree. Everything that I know -- which is not a lot -- but like native plants like ivies, is to not put any new plants and irrigation underneath oak trees, like within 10 feet. I think you're showing that, so I was wondering what you're thinking about that. I think that maybe we should probably not do that. And then, I think there are native options for that, like... That do well under oak trees, like salvia spathacea, is native, indigenous, likes shade. Anyway, I was wondering about your thinking of that. Mr. Hayes: Sure. Thank you for the question. We were thinking about what the oak tree would want, and certainly we're taking a lot of care relative to how we were repositioning the building, and how the paving City of Palo Alto Page 16 was working underneath that canopy and everything. Today, that's actually a building right there on the property line, so we're giving it some room to breathe and to live in there. We do have native plantings in there that would take the shade well. Our thought was to just create a little bit of a buffer there so we're not looking so much at the trash enclosure behind. Although the trash enclosure is going to be nicely detailed, still we just wanted to scale that back a little bit, mitigate that a little bit. That was our thinking on why we wanted to have planting in there. Chair Furth: And there's no irrigation of that landscaping? Gary Laymon, Landscape Architect, Guzzardo Partnership: There would be irrigation for that. But it would be on its own valve, so it would be sort of micromanaged for... We're not overloading the oak tree. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you, Gary. Staff, do we have a new city arborist to replace Dave Dokkter? Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, I was going to say, this wasn't commented on, but before anything moved to final decision, I can discuss again with our arborist and get his recommendations, and maybe add a condition of approval related to what plantings, if any, should be allowed to go in that area. Board Member Lew: Okay, I would support having a condition of approval for that. And then... I would recommend, I can recommend approval today. And then, I think, so, with condition of approval. And then, I think we should, as a Board, address compatibility for the historic property, with respect to the historic property at Watercourse Way, which is Finding 2B. And I think there isn't anything in the draft staff language at this point. Chair Furth: David. Board Member Hirsch: I'm really not in agreement with a few of the other statements here. I think the building is very strong in terms of its defining the two-story elements to it, and I don't think any other additional setbacks are really needed. I really like the way it is set back at the corner. I think that's a nice way to turn that corner, and there will be a lot more things happening along Emerson at some point, and it's a nice soft relationship there to the corner. I like the deep recesses. I think that's really sufficient to animate that particular façade. I think maybe... I mean, you know, this is a building that's going to define the street development, and I find that it's a nice transition as a modern element there. Maybe somebody else will pick up some of that way of thinking along the block and make it quite consistent then, at that point. I hope that would happen. And I think that actual setback is sufficient at the corner. I don't think you really have to go any further than what you've done. Thanks a lot. Chair Furth: Okay. Thank you. Here comes the minority report. It is a very pretty building. It is going to be much more attractive than what's there. It's going to be much more attractive than a lot of other buildings in the area. I think the most important thing about your development from the point of view of review is how adequately you protect the oak tree. It's identified as one of the two most significant trees, and the plan says we should add more oaks and redwoods. Personally, I would not plant a redwood anywhere near my house, but the alternative is to... I wanted to ask you, is it going to be necessary to prune that oak tree to accommodate the upper stories? Or is it set back enough so it won't be necessary? Mr. Hayes: There would be a little bit of thinning on the building wall side, yes. Chair Furth: How many feet do you think? Mr. Hayes: It would be a very small percentage, in alignment with the arborist's recommendations. Probably in the order of five to seven feet. Chair Furth: Five to seven feet? And that will have to be maintained, right? City of Palo Alto Page 17 Mr. Hayes: Right. Chair Furth: Okay. I think it's crucial to add the condition that Alex mentioned. I would prefer that this was pulled back to not require taking five to seven feet off that side of the tree. That seems to me to be significant. I may be wrong. I haven't seen a drawing of it. I don't know what we're talking about. The idea is to have a healthy, well-shaped tree that doesn't look bonsai to accommodate new buildings. Because while there's a building on the site, it's not this tall. I am concerned about the floor-to-ceiling windows. When we've been concerned about them in other buildings designed by Mr. Hayes, when we have floor-to-ceiling windows in what is supposed to be office space or residential space, we all too often see floor-to-ceiling blinds or screens. We told some other projects in this neighborhood... I mean, the great thing about this, one of the great things about this proposal is it has underground parking, we're beginning to see something approval able. And we've had two other projects, three other reviews, in SOFA 2 that we have not been able to approve, and one of the things we've said to those other applicants is, "You've got bathtubs, you've got kitchen sinks, you've got all these things, backing up against floor-to-ceiling window? That's not functional design.” I don't think it should be either. I think if you're going to have those uses, we should not be permitting floor-to-ceiling windows. I don't know what to do exactly about the office space because we're looking at a drawing where it looks lovely. It’s not going to look half so lovely with opaque blinds there. One of the things I did ask staff was how many condominium units were going to be created. They said two for office and four for residential. Is that correct? The top floor is a one-bedroom flat. The bottom floor, as described by the applicant, is his private office, his personal office. That doesn't seem to be what we meant by neighborhood-service office. I'm not even sure if it's a permitted use. Depending on what his profession is. If it's a personal office or a household office, that's a residential use, and it should be reclassified as residential. I don't think that this project really meets the common open space requirement. I'm perplexed as to how that balcony meets the standards for a common open space. Board Member Lew: On the second floor? Chair Furth: Mm-hmm. How it's suitable for children, etc. But I just maybe don't get it. I'm sorry to take up time on the setback, but I think people are absolutely right, David's right, to say this is going to set the tone for development on this street. I find the staff's argument that having a building close to the curb enhances the pedestrian experience is a little confusing, depending upon the height of the building and how much setback you're talking about. We say that on El Camino Real because we have a six-lane street with a center divider, eight to 12 foot sidewalks, and what we're trying to get away from is cars on the edge of the street. But we're not trying to get... I don't think any of those things make sense here. I think that we have a lot of deep setbacks right now because we have all these automotive uses, which are going to change. And I do not think that the object should be to get things within three feet or 18 inches of the sidewalk. I don't think that is consistent with the development plan as it's emerging. It certainly shouldn't be less than the building across the street. I would think it should be more because I don't think that's the only building. That's the least-set-back building. I'm somewhat reassured by your saying that you would set corner buildings closer to the street than other buildings because if this is the pattern you're setting down this block, it's going to thud right into residential neighborhood. I think it's too close, under the Code. The underground parking is highly desirable. I have my usual question: Is it going to be gated so that somebody coming home at night has a secure access to their residential unit? Is that a nod from the applicant? Mr. Hayes: Yes, yeah, it will be secured. Chair Furth: It will be secured. Good. I tend to think that, you know, one of the things that this building definitely does that the SOFA CAP asks for is a variety of living units. You have a studio and three one bedrooms, right? One of the interesting things is that the staff report says that this helps our jobs/housing balance. I don't think it does. I think it adds more office demand. If you take this as straight office space instead of reclassifying that back office as residential, then it creates more space, more demand for housing than it’s applied. This project provides.... Three bedrooms and a studio, so let's say four bedrooms. Four small households. And we add enough office space to more than generate that City of Palo Alto Page 18 demand under our usual standards. I think the findings that say that it makes that better aren't supported by the evidence. I do think that, on the other hand, it certainly intensifies development on the site, which makes for a more intensively-used core area, and that's good. I think it's lovely. I think it's a bit too close. One of the things about this building is it's really tall. The virtue is that it's set back, and I think that saves us from the problems of a very tall building this close to the sidewalk. Because what other tall buildings are...? What other buildings that tall are there? How tall is the building across the street? I forget. You've told me...? Mr. Hayes: It's, like, 32 feet, and we're 35. Chair Furth: It's 32 feet. So, we're going to make this constriction in the block here, and that's probably okay as long as we don't continue that march down the block. I have a bunch of comments on the findings, but we can discuss those after. Does anybody agree with me about the all-glass or (inaudible)? Everywhere I see around town, I see wastebaskets, and... I don't see how this is going to work. Vice Chair Baltay: I made... Chair Furth: Who wants a floor-to-ceiling window office? Vice Chair Baltay: I made a comment that by recessing back that third floor of all glass, and then, by changing slightly the opaque edge to it, you really prevent seeing the bottom part of that glass from the street, which doesn't mitigate the interior functional problems of having a bathtub there, but at least you don't see it, which I think is our (inaudible). I agree with Wynne, that having floor-to-ceiling glass on a residential unit everywhere, those create functional problems on the interior and visual problems on the outside. I'm not sure that this design has a lot of that. There seems to be only one or two places that Alex pointed out and they are on the back side of the building. I don't think that's a make-or-break kind of issue. Board Member Lew: But I think to your point, say your, you made the recommendation for setting back the third floor glass, so, the upper unit has the kitchen there. We have the back of the kitchen cabinets facing Channing. Chair Furth: Not good. Board Member Lew: I think to your point, Peter, setting back the glass would allow more different design options. Vice Chair Baltay: I've made a sketch for myself. If I took where that kitchen is and just pull it back a few feet, wrap the deck around it, you've got a much more private situation. They can do whatever they want then. You can't see those counters. Board Member Lew: [crosstalk] Right. Vice Chair Baltay: And I believe that if you look at the rendering on the front page here, how strong that is on the vertical -- David Hirsch especially -- I think that's very severe. And by cutting that back as well seems to me a win/win in every regard. Wynne, I do want to be clear that this design style sort of needs these big pieces of glass to pull this off, so I'm inclined to give the architect the benefit of the doubt. They can solve perfunctional issues if their client is willing to go with that. That's what architecture is. Chair Furth: Well, Peter, the precedent for all of this, for this neighborhood, of an office space, privately owned by somebody, you know, is, of course, the ultimate in shut-off buildings. It's diagonally across from Whole Foods. Where all the windows have been opaque for -- what? -- 40 years? Ever since Mr. Jobs bought it. I agree. I will defer to you all as saying that you think this could work. I certainly see it as problematic in other buildings around town. I certainly think if we're allowing it here when we discourage it elsewhere, we need to be clear in our minds why we're doing that. The other thing I'd like to talk about City of Palo Alto Page 19 is the balcony extending over, the third floor balcony extending over to what I think of as the south, but I guess it's actually the east, or something. West? As you go down towards Professorville. That is... Board Member Lew: Over the driveway? Chair Furth: Over the driveway, towards the adjacent property. We know the adjacent property is narrow. We know it's not going to be able to set itself way back. And we're allowing a residential balcony on an upper floor, looking out on it. The plan does say that landscape screening... It anticipates that we want significant outdoor spaces. I don't think this one is short on outdoor spaces. And it says that landscaping can be used to screen it. It does seem to me that an all-glass railing makes it even more of an intrusion looking back. I don't think that cypress provide very good screening or habitat. I think you can grow a very high hedge that might be less of an exotic plant and more of a plant that meets our standards. This plan does have a lot of exotic plants in it, which I don't know that kangaroo paws are great for local habitat, but maybe they are. Because that's our alternative. I do not support the balcony, but if the rest of you do, I would ask that we ask for a different and better approach to.... Than the cedars. Or the cypress. Whatever they are. The Italian cemetery plants. Vice Chair Baltay: I wonder if I could chime in for a second, Wynne, because I also paused when I saw that balcony. It is large, and it's clearly looking out over the residential neighborhood from a distance. But this is a different zoning. The other people can also put, sort of apartment-style buildings, where we want life on the outside of the building, on balconies. And when I scratch my head and think, why do we have, in Palo Alto, there's very strong protections of privacy for R1 residential neighborhoods. It's very hard to put a balcony overlooking your neighbors' yard. And it's typically in a situation where you have rear and side yards. We don't want to have balconies from one neighbor looking into another neighbor's house, back yard, etc. But in the case where you have taller multifamily buildings, I don't think we want to start setting a precedent that you just can't have balconies on the back and side yard so they might look into other properties. What I'm hearing you say is, essentially, let's keep all the balconies on the street side only. I think that's... Chair Furth: No. Vice Chair Baltay: ... a limitation that I’m not sure is beneficial. Chair Furth: I agree that people have an expectation of social ability on their balconies rather than privacy. But it just seems like such a viewing deck. And I don't think that having this very tall planting of cypresses is a good solution. Vice Chair Baltay: The cypresses I find problematic. I think at four feet a year, they're very quickly going to overwhelm everything in the neighborhood, this building, as well. Male?: How (inaudible) again. Vice Chair Baltay: It may be that there's another plant that would give us 20 feet of hedge, or something. Board Member Lew: Regarding the cypress, we have them on a lot of projects, actually, in the California Avenue area. Chair Furth: Yep. Board Member Lew: All of the Hohbach properties have them, like along Park Boulevard and... Is it Sheridan or Grant? And I have questioned the landscape architect who put all those in, about that. His response is that when you plant them next to the driveway ramp, (inaudible) soil volume, and they stay smaller than they would otherwise. And I've gone back and looked at them, and I think he is correct about that. They may be, like, half as big as they would be otherwise. And then, there is something that we can do, is look at the spacing of them. It doesn't necessarily have to be wall-to-wall, 100 percent City of Palo Alto Page 20 green space in there. For native hedges, typically you're going to want, they're going to be wider than what they have here. And I'll let Gary chime in. Chair Furth: Specifically, how does this proposed row of cedars... Board Member Lew: Cypress. Chair Furth: Cypress, sorry. Meet this... Cedars would really be something. Meet the, let us make the finding that these are native plants when feasible, or other valuable habitat plants? Gary Laymon: We have looked at a number of different plants to try and provide a solution in that area. It's a very challenging space, as you say. And other things we were considering is we want to have something that is evergreen, want to have something that's very columnar. We didn't want to have a canopy that was going to spread over onto adjacent property and have to be pruned back. We needed to be able to maintain access, as you were saying, for the meter reading in that area, so a pathway that goes between the driveway and the property line there. We wanted to have something we could limb up a little bit so somebody could walk through that space. We wanted to have something that was available in size immediately because the need for that buffer is going to be immediate upon occupancy. So, we we're using something that is available in the nursery that is tall and columnar. And, something that is both drought tolerant, and also provides a dense screen, albeit it will be tapered towards the top so it will be more of a feathered view, if you will, at the tops as opposed to what's at the lower elevations. I would expect that the trees would grow about four feet a year for the first eight or 10 years, and probably slow down after that, for the reasons Alex mentioned. There's a limited amount of soil area there, and frankly, they don't need to be any bigger than that, so that's sort of an optimum outcome in terms of the form of the trees themselves. What we've done is looked at the other balance of the planting in terms of the opportunity to be able to create native planting opportunities, as well as plant materials that support habitat, whether that be pollinators or nesting areas. Habitat for bees, birds, butterflies, what-not. There's plenty of that opportunity within the planting palate, and that was something we adjusted to, specifically to achieve that objective. Chair Furth: Kangaroo paws are good habitat plants? Mr. Laymon: Good for birds and butterflies and bees, yes. Chair Furth: And you've got the right kind of milkweed? Mr. Laymon: Yes, I do. [Laughter] Chair Furth: I only got lectured about it the other day, so it's on my mind. Mr. Laymon: Actually, I got lectured about it, too, because ... Chair Furth: There's a lot of the wrong kind. Mr. Laymon: ... at the nursery, they don't want you to make the plant so attractive that they don't migrate, they stick around, which is not what we want. We want them to be in transition. So, yeah, there's a whole... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: It may become moot shortly. Mr. Laymon: I would like to clarify, Ken's brought up the image of the oak tree and its relative canopy. Five, seven feet is an over-statement of what the tree needs to be pruned. It would be less than that. Chair Furth: For the record, Mr. Hayes is showing us a picture of the oak tree. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Lew: I looked at it yesterday and I did not... Chair Furth: Yeah, I looked at it, too. [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: ...being an issue. Chair Furth: Yeah, I looked at it and couldn't tell. Because I didn't know how much higher it was going to go. Okay. Board Member Hirsch: Could I comment about the border on Emerson there, those trees that you're mentioning? I mean, look at the rendering here. Really, they are not, the corner rendering looking down Emerson, you don't show those trees at all. When did they occur in the process here? Mr. Laymon: I believe the other rendering does pick up those trees. Chair Furth: Yeah, it does. I think you have a problem showing us both the building and the landscaping. Mr. Laymon: There we go. There. Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Will it maintain? You know, I'm concerned. Does it...? You can promise us that it will maintain that amount of openness between the trees versus a solid wall? Mr. Laymon: What we have is denser than what is shown here. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Board Member Lew: If you want it to look like this, I think we should put that as a condition of approval. If you want wider spacing. Mr. Laymon: Yeah, we could thin out the trees. We'd be open to that. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: If the rest of you are satisfied with the plant, I would support the spacing. Mr. Laymon: Yeah, we could reduce them by 50 percent or so. That would provide more transparency. Chair Furth: (inaudible) do that. Vice Chair Baltay: Could you address, please, the height of those trees? Alex hinted that they might not grow so tall. How big should we expect the cypresses to become? Chair Furth: Ten years out, what are we going to see? Mr. Laymon: I would expect them to be in the 20-foot range, thereabouts. They will grow rather quickly initially, but as the roots sort of reach the limit of the amount of soil area, they'll tend to slow down. Chair Furth: We'll see. Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm going to plug once more, Dave Hirsch. If you could look at this rendering right here on the screen. The third floor glass on the right facing Channing is what I'm saying could be set back a little bit. Do you have any sense about that? That's what I'm talking about, taking that third floor glass, pull it back, and wrap the balcony. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Hirsch: It's a smallish building. My sense of that top floor is it's kind of a nice transition when you look at the side wall versus looking at it from this position, you know? I see that wall with large openings cut into it from the Channing side. And then, this, admittedly, the rendering disappears it. That's clever, but... But, you know, because it's all pretty white up there in the other area. The other straight-on, I think, wherever that one is, the straight-on one, Channing elevation. Those two wings on the left and right of the solid area there are going to be right on line with, you know, at present. I think the choice of materials makes a difference there. Mr. Hayes: The glass at that third level above the limestone is set back eight inches. Board Member Hirsch: Eight inches, right. Mr. Hayes: And the reveal between the glass and the horizontal metal siding is two feet back. And then you have the metal siding eight inches back, and then you have two foot back reveal... Board Member Hirsch: Right. Mr. Hayes: ... and eight inches back. Board Member Hirsch: My preference is I like it that way. Vice Chair Baltay: What do you think about the concern Wynne raised, which I think I share, that on the left of these, that's a kitchen counter right behind that piece of glass there. That really is visible from the street. I mean, all the games you play, no matter what you do, that cabinet is right there. Chair Furth: I don't think we're applying our standards uniformly if we approve this as (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: And it's true that in the past we've pushed back fairly severely on that. But I think that is a very legitimate point, that having the kitchen right there, that close to the street with just glass, doesn't really work. Mr. Hayes: It will be a spandrel glass, right? So, we'll... It will be a single pane, but will have a PBV interlayer. It will be a laminated glass product that will be translucent up to the countertop, but that fleshy material on the outside would be able to extend from the ceiling to the floor. You won't know what's behind it, but yes, you'll see that it has a different tone. Chair Furth: I see, so, there's not going to be clear glass on the windows on...? Mr. Hayes: Not below the countertop, no. It will be... Chair Furth: Okay, well, show me the elevation which shows that. Mr. Hayes: Well, you're looking at it right here. I mean, it would... Chair Furth: I can't see a thing. What's the sheet number? Mr. Hayes: Oh, um... Wynne, I don't think we.... Or Chair Furth, I don't think we show a line. It would be A31. Chair Furth: A31? Mr. Hayes: Correct. The railing is at 42 inches. Chair Furth: Right. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Mr. Hayes: And I would imagine we'll continue that line as a laminated glass across the kitchen so that it would, it would hide the .... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Is that something that's in the plans that you submitted? Mr. Hayes: No, but that's what I've been thinking how we would... Chair Furth: This is a proposed... Mr. Hayes: ... that's how we would resolve it, right? Work with it. Chair Furth: Got it. It's not that it wasn't there. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. We do a spandrel all the time. I wouldn't want to see a mullion. Vice Chair Baltay: Architect Hayes, are you opposed to the concept of pulling the building back a bit from Emerson and perhaps pushing it out the other direction, just a couple of feet? Mr. Hayes: We've looked at a lot of different options, and early on, we had a balcony on that side of the building, and we got push back on too much balcony space, move it back. So, we responded to those comments at the first hearing. I don't think that from the owner's standpoint, Mr. Baltay, that he would want to lose that kind of useable space out of his kitchen/dining/living. We've already shrunk it some. Vice Chair Baltay: I think it would be the same square footage. Mr. Hayes: I... Vice Chair Baltay: Because you could push it the other direction to make... Mr. Hayes: Oh, you're saying push it back there and push it out this way. Yeah. We're trying to match the... Compositionally, as you I'm sure know, we're struggling... Not struggling, but we're trying to get that block to be similar to the master bedroom block. I would certainly be comfortable talking to him about pushing it back two feet, but not wrap the balcony around. That would give you more relief on that side. Then we'd shift his kitchen down. He wants a larger terrace, so I don't think that Cole is going to be receptive to wanting to have, you know, make up that area somewhere else. Vice Chair Baltay: Because we're sort of giving him the terrace hanging the other direction, which... Mr. Hayes: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: ...you said, I mean... A little bit of give and take here is good. Mr. Hayes: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: And if you could get that balcony to come around with the railing, it will make a big difference, at least from my point of view, about how much of this kitchen spandrel glass I have to look at. Which isn't described. And I don't think it's a big compensation, a big loss. I can easily see the layout of that kitchen/dining area being equally functional. Mr. Hayes: Well, it's certainly not something I would want to do on the opposite side, as well. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll grant you, that side has the large tree right there and it's not as important. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Mr. Hayes: No, I'm sorry, I'm talking... Well, there as well as... Chair Furth: You mean on your interior lot line, right? Mr. Hayes: Yeah, interior ramp side lot line. Chair Furth: I don't think we're asking for that there. Mr. Hayes: So, these units need to be accessible, right? The minimum balcony is going to be four feet on that side. So now, I'm going to be close to five feet back from the face of the stone. That's why I was starting to suggest that we don't wrap the balcony around, if you want to know my (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: On occasion, we put planters in that kind of space, make it three feet with something growing there. You don't need to physically walk there, but... Mr. Hayes: So you don't have to have access back to that, that space. Vice Chair Baltay: From the street, you get the continuous railing line, you get the sense of setback, you get the reduced modulation of the building. I don't really care whether somebody can physically walk to it. That's not our intention. Or my thought anyway. Chair Furth: I mean, one thing, you know, we talk a lot about wanting residential to look residential and mixed use buildings to look like they're mixed use. And one of the ways you signal that I think is with the decks you have, the balconies you have. We don't have the kind of multiple entries that we sometimes talk about. I think it would be very helpful if you pulled it back enough. I mean, planting up there would certainly solve the privacy issue. Mr. Hayes: I'm sorry that my client is not here today. I mean, this is something that he is very involved with. Chair Furth: I understand. Mr. Hayes: I'm reluctant to say yes without... Chair Furth: Of course not. Mr. Hayes: ...consulting him. Is it possible that this is something...? At the same time, we'd also love to see this project main forward. It was February of 2018 when we submitted for ARB review and this is our first hearing. Would it be possible to come back to a subcommittee and we could show you options on that component, and I could get my client's feedback. I just don't want... Yeah, I'd love to say, great, let's get it approved, but at the same time, I need his feedback. [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: Fair enough. Vice Chair Baltay: What I’m looking for you to tell me is not what your client wants, but you as the architect. Is this the kind of...? Mr. Hayes: Actually, it could work either way. Vice Chair Baltay: Perfect. That's what I wanted to hear. Board Member Hirsch: I'd like to chat a bit about what Peter has brought up here concerning that floor. Yes, it's correct. If you have a kitchen, then you really have to kind of find a way in which you deal with City of Palo Alto Page 25 the bottom of the glass that's different from the top of the glass. It gets pretty complicated, so it would see there are other possibilities. Maybe you could do a significant recess just at the line of your masonry wall below, up to the point of the kitchen cabinets, and just have low cabinets at that wall, and then... Mr. Hayes: That's all we have, are low cabinets [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: I have a suggestion. Board Member Hirsch: That would be like a large reveal at that point... Chair Furth: I have a suggestion. Board Member Hirsch: ...could work. Chair Furth: Let's try to fashion a motion and see if we can get this on its merry way. It's been an hour and a half and it's... It's a very large single-family house in some ways, and it's making it complicated. And it's also multiple units, and it's also... It's also the theme-setting project, and ... It's not that you're not worth the time, but I think we should get on with it. Mr. Hayes: Right. Let me just point out, it's not a big unit. It says 2,400 feet, but if you take the elevator, the stair, and the circulation around the stair out of it, it's an 1,800 square foot unit. Chair Furth: And it's a lovely place. And I'm not saying they're going to rattle around. I'm saying maybe they would stash their children down a floor, but... Vice Chair Baltay: To my colleagues, I'm okay sending this to a subcommittee for revisions [crosstalk].... Chair Furth: Everybody fine with a subcommittee? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, me, too. Board Member Lew: I am, too. MOTION Chair Furth: Oaky, good. All right, so, if somebody would make a motion to recommend approval on the condition that it be referred to subcommittee to deal with the irrigation, the planting and irrigation under the oak tree; modifying the Channing frontage of the third floor kitchen area to provide better privacy and appropriate integration of the wall material with the use; and... what else? Ms. Gerhardt: Is that just the kitchen or the bedroom, as well? Chair Furth: You want both sides? Board Member Lew: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Yeah. I guess it's going to subcommittee. Did anybody want it modified over on the oak tree side? Oak tree corner? Vice Chair Baltay: I feel strongest about the kitchen side, so I'll leave the request at that. Chair Furth: Well, why don't we say at the kitchen side, and the bedroom corner if desired by applicant. [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Hirsch: I would include it for the moment... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Oh, you would? Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: I was trying to respect your thoughts earlier, David. Chair Furth: Okay. And the bedroom. The Channing frontage on either side of the central core. I think we've had enough... The record will show what the concerns were. What am I forgetting that people brought up? Oh... Ms. Gerhardt: Any comments about setbacks or blinds? Chair Furth: I... I think I've lost the setback argument, so I'm not going to add that. The review of landscaping with regard to the spacing of the plants along the driveway, with a concern for the light and air in the neighbors property. That these not become overly dense or overly tall. I would like us to modify some findings. If you look at Comprehensive Plan consistency, I just think you're saying things that aren't true. It doesn't improve the Jobs house... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: Can you show us which page? Chair Furth: Yeah, I'm on... You know what? I don't have numbered pages here because I printed it out. I'll find it. Board Member Lew: Tell me which policy and I can tell you the (inaudible). Chair Furth: Great. It's Attachment B, second page, and this is the discussion of policy, Goal L-1. Board Member Lew: Okay, packet page 20, the first one, L-1...? Chair Furth: Yeah. And I think we're saying that... I just would like to make a note of the fact that while it provides... How much additional office space is there? I believe there's an increment of 3,400...? It's about 3,500 more square feet of office space than presently exists? Ms. Hodgkins: I think it's just under 1,000. Chair Furth: A thousand? Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Furth: I thought it was 1,950 before. Ms. Hodgkins: It's 1,950 before and... Chair Furth: Perfect. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. Maybe just over (inaudible). Chair Furth: Okay. I picked up the figures from somewhere else. And that's counting all the office space, right? Not including the private office space. Okay. And forget the whole thing. But where you talk about setbacks and wanting buildings closer to the sidewalk to enhance the pedestrian experience, that doesn't strike me as true in SOFA. But, do my colleagues disagree? City of Palo Alto Page 27 Vice Chair Baltay: I'm not sure what setback Comprehensive Plan thing you're talking about, Wynne, but I think it... Chair Furth: Let it go. Vice Chair Baltay: ...fits pretty nicely in that neighborhood. I walk around there all the time and it, this is just about how they are. Chair Furth: All right. Vice Chair Baltay: I think. I mean, when you go off into the residential area... Chair Furth: This is mostly a note to staff for future use. It's different when you're looking at this scale street than it is when you're looking at the.... Okay. Never mind my mutterings about findings. Vice Chair Baltay: Do you want me to make that motion? Chair Furth: Sure. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, so moved, what Wynne just said. [Laughter] Chair Furth: Is there a second? I'll second for purposes of debate. Any discussion? All those in... Board Member Lew: I would propose an amendment, that we add to finding number 2.b, about compatibility with respect to the before building. Chair Furth: Oh, right. Thank you. Board Member Lew: And I don't think there's any language in the draft findings. Chair Furth: All right, would you [crosstalk]? Board Member Lew: And then... well, I mentioned it. I think the recessed windows contribute, and I think the stone pattern may contribute, so maybe the stone pattern should be reviewed by the subcommittee. Chair Furth: Okay, so, review to subcommittee for enhancing the... Board Member Lew: Yeah, finding 2.b. Chair Furth: ... pursuant to finding 2.b. Fine. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll accept that amendment. Chair Furth: So will I. Anything else? Board Member Lew: To follow up on your comment, Wynne about blinds on the windows. I do agree with you about that. In the past, for example, on the Walgreens building on University Avenue, staff is required that whatever blind or wall goes behind the glass has to be set back. We did it there. I think we also did it on the Equinox gym on El Camino, although they've covered the windows, even though I think we have a condition of approval there. We've typically done it where ground-floor retail was required, so this is kind of a different, this would be something different, requiring, like, an office use to have a setback for blinds. I just want to say it's been an issue and we've tried to come up with solutions in the past, and sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. If you want to do something, I'm saying we could try. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Chair Furth: Why don't we refer the question of whether there should be conditions as to blinds or window coverings, refer to the subcommittee? In this case, I tend to think it's an owner-occupied building and we're going to be at the mercy of the owner, who is probably going to be motivated to have a beautiful building.... [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to condition it that we see a detail of how the blinds are going to be installed, in some detail. What blinds are going to be used, on both the commercial and the residential portions of the building. Chair Furth: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Is that okay with you? Chair Furth: Yep. That's a better way to go. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Four-nothing. MOTION PASSES 4-0. Chair Furth: More or less (inaudible). First hearing in years. Mr. Hayes: First hearing in years, right. [Laughs] Chair Furth: We're going to take a 10-minute break (inaudible). [The Board took a short break.] 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL. 702 Clara Drive [18PLN-00068]: Consideration for a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, Four-Unit Apartment Building and Construction of Three Detached SingleFamily Homes Totaling 5,000 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us Chair Furth: Item number 2 [sic], also quasi-judicial, located at 702 Clara Drive. Consideration for a major architectural review to allow demolition of an existing 3,500 square foot, four-unit apartment building and construction of three detached single-family homes totaling 5,000 square feet. This is exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15332 for infill development. Planner is Sheldon Ah Sing. Sheldon, if you would remind us who the applicant and architect are. Sheldon Ah Sing, Project Planner: Sure. That is Tony Shi and Gilbert Fernandez. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Sing: They are here in the audience. Thank you for the introduction, and just a little overview here. Demolition of an existing four-unit apartment building and construction of three detached residential dwellings. The request is just for an architectural review. The project is located at the intersection of Sutter Avenue and Clara Drive. The site is zoned RM-15 multifamily. The topography of the area is flat, and there are a mix of single-family and multifamily residential. This property is actually at the boundary, the border between multifamily and single-family, so across from the project are single-family homes. The site does include, as I mentioned, a four-unit apartment building constructed in 1954. That would be demolished. For future, the project would be a one-lot condominium subdivision. That's the intent of the applicant. Three two-story detached dwellings... City of Palo Alto Page 29 Chair Furth: It would be a three-lot subdivision? Mr. Sing: Just a one-lot subdivision. For condominium purposes. Chair Furth: Got it. Mr. Sing: The lot's not big enough to separate to single-family. Total would be just under 5,000 square feet. Each of the units have the same floor plan. The one in the middle is reversed. Three different architectural styles for the project, and we'll go through those in a little bit. And then, there are private open spaces in the rear of the dwellings, as well as common open space areas in the front and along Sutter. For zoning overview here and consideration, there would be a reduction of one dwelling unit. As a result, the project would have to pay a housing in lieu fee for .75 dwelling unit equivalent. The project is considered multifamily based on the number of units and the definition in the code, and the project is consistent with the development standards, including the setback height, daylight plane, etc. This is the site plan for the project, and while the project has three units, there are two units that would share a driveway, so there would only be two curb cuts along Clara Drive. Street trees are being preserved along Sutter and the open space area includes some benches that are sheltered away from the street, and pathways that lead from the sidewalk there. The bicycle lockers are located in the patio areas in the back. The applicant will go through and describe more of the details of the architecture, but in general, one dwelling unit would be a Spanish type of design, the other would be Craftsman. The other, we had a harder time trying to characterize it, but there's a lot of stone that's used in the front. And then, we have here the proposed side elevations of the project. With respect to the environmental determination, the project is considered infill. The project does not create any significant impacts with respect to CEQA, and would be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332, which is for infill development projects. Again, the project is, we find, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. We are seeking comment on the architectural design and site plan. The project did not have the benefit of going through a preliminary review, so this is really the first time that the Board is seeing this project. The recommendation is to consider the information presented and provide comment, and continue the item. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. As I mentioned, the applicant is here with their presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Sheldon. Any specific questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Vice Chair Baltay: Could you define, please, or describe how the low-income housing, 25 percent reduction, works? What is the applicant required to do? Mr. Sing: There is a formula, and based on the number of dwelling units, there are .75 dwelling units that would be required, but since there's a fractional unit, they have to pay a fee, and that's an in-lieu fee. They would be responsible to do that at the building permit portion. Vice Chair Baltay: Approximately how much is the fee? Male?: It's $68 per square foot. Chair Furth: That was $68 per square foot? Mr. Sing: Yeah, I don't have that number, but I can say... Vice Chair Baltay: Staff, if you could answer that. Mr. Sing: ...just from experience where I had another project, it had .5 dwelling unit, it's not a high number. It's... Vice Chair Baltay: But just total dollar amount, ball park. City of Palo Alto Page 30 Ms. Gerhardt: We can find that for you in a minute. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: And if you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber. And if there's anybody who wants to comment on this article, this item, if you could submit a speaker card to the staff, that would be helpful. Gilbert Fernandez: Good morning. Hope the staff and the Board is doing okay. My name is Gilbert Fernandez. Do you want me to spell that for you? Chair Furth: Yes, and we (inaudible). Mr. Fernandez: [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you. If you could lift the microphone a little closer to your mouth, thanks. Mr. Fernandez: How's that? Okay. I'm representing the owner, Clara J LLC, and also the manager here, Tony Shi. Also we have here the landscape designer, Dakotah Bertsch. I'm destroying your last name. Let's move forward here. We have, kind of like a recap over Sheldon's.... Let's see, am I doing this right? We are in the multifamily RM-15, lot 10,018 square foot. We are conforming to the front setback, 20 feet, which would be facing Sutter, and the street side, 16 feet. Interior setback, 10; rear, 10 as well. And our intent is to demolish the existing four....? I believe it's four... Let's see. Two-story...? Is it four? Yeah, it's a four-unit two-story multifamily apartment building, and to construct three condominiums to look as if it was three single-family homes. We decided, since it's a corner lot right in the middle of multifamily and single-family residential, we decided to make them look as if they were single-family. Since they face, since this kind of faces more of the single-family area instead of facing the multifamily, which I, to kind of also... Do the architectural and blend it in instead of making it look like as they were all the same. Move forward from there. As you can see, right here on the bottom is the existing structure, again, looking like an apartment complex. We come up to our design, which is looking more of a single-family design. Here are the homes surrounding. This is from across the street. And again, more blending into what's surrounding this corner lot. As for the window design for the second story, we are looking at obscure glass, which are more of the larger windows that are facing the other homes in the area, but for the bedroom windows that would be facing the residential side, we have them as smaller windows with high sills. As for going into landscape design, we are adding additional trees as well, just to add more privacy to those single-family home areas. The (inaudible) redwoods are to remain untouched, and as part of construction, we will be adding the tree protection to make sure they remain in good condition. Again, you can see here, here is the site plan here. The rear is facing the multifamily apartment complexes, which from the second floor, they are about 40 feet back, but we will be adding new trees to minimize the privacy issue. As you can see on the interior setback, we do have, you can see we have the... You can see into these sides of the single-family homes, but on this side, we do have the high sill, which is about 66 inches from the finished floor. Those windows I believe are two by two, and those will be all along that side of this home here, which is Home A. In the front, you can see it's pretty far from the front portion of the homes. As far as the privacy part, I don't believe it's an issue. We are adding trees, but again, those are not really impacting the privacy. And also, kind of the same on the right side, on Sutter. Again, we do have existing redwoods that are adding to the privacy, the impact. Here is the right and left elevations. You can see on the very top, as I mentioned, we do have the smaller windows 66 inches from the finished floor. The larger windows are from the... let's see... I want to make sure I give you the right information. Those will be from.... Sorry, I want to give you the right information. [Looking for information] As you can see, the left elevation on the second floor, the larger windows, those are going to obscure glass as one will be in a master closet and one will be in a master bathroom. They will be obscure for privacy, privacy for the floor plan, and for the single-family homes on the outside. Here is the material we are using for all three homes. Again, they will be separate design so that, again, they don't match each other. Here we more have a stucco with a lighter finish. Here's the stone we will be using for the columns, and also for the entrance for the garage. That's going to be a round roofing tile, and the City of Palo Alto Page 31 windows and doors are going to be more of a darker brown fiberglass. For the Craftsman style, we're going to use more of a lighter, lighter gray-bluish color, and again, a more different stone for the columns, with a Class A shingle roofing. Again, the doors and windows are going to be fiberglass, the windows will be a different lighter off-white, with the doors being more of a darker gray. I know the rendering doesn't seem like that, but it comes out different in the rendering. Then we come to Home C, which is more, I would more call it, like a Texas-style home, adding the shutters to the windows, which will be a lighter gray wood finish. We are using stone more in the front. We do have stucco, which will be more of a darker bluish-gray, and it would have a flat tile gray roofing, tile roofing. The doors and windows will be more of, like a coffee brown. Other than that I appreciate your time, and hope you consider this project. Chair Furth: Thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions of the architect before he sits down? All right? Oh, Alex? Board Member Lew: One quick question for staff or the applicant. You have a 10-foot public utility easement along unit A, or House A. I was wondering what restrictions are there with regard to planting underneath the easement. I'm just thinking on the recent project that we had on Alma. I think there was a restriction on trees, or something. I just wanted to try to understand if the privacy between you and the neighbors, if it needs to be only in architecture, or can it be in architecture and landscape? Mr. Sing: I'll jump in. The restriction is that you have overhead power lines there. Trees are, for maintenance purposes, you want to have them lower. Shrubs probably are more preferable. Board Member Lew: Okay, and there is a, and this is an overhead, here? Mr. Sing: Yes, it is. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Sing: I guess this is a good time for us to respond to the Board Member's question about the affordable housing. When we did the calculation, it ended up being $64,584. Chair Furth: Not designed to replace the lost unit at all. This is simply a token amount. Vice Chair Baltay: So, $64,000? Thank you. Could I ask a question of the landscape architect, please? Chair Furth: Yes. If you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber. Dakotah Bertsch, Landscape Architect: Yes. [spells name] Vice Chair Baltay: Very simply put, the plant list seems to have quite a few native and low water usage plants. Could you address if that's correct or not? We have a policy here that we use native species. Mr. Bertsch: Yes, that is correct. The street scape is primarily meadow-style planting with a lot of native and drought-tolerant bunch grasses. The screening in between the units is myrica californica, a native shrub. Chair Furth: A very fast-growing hedge. Mr. Bertsch: Yeah. I included it there to provide privacy between the units. And then, other trees are redbud, semi-native, and arbutus, not native, but also drought-tolerant. And then other shrubs, including pineapple guava and pittosporum, are also drought-tolerant. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. A second question would be, on the redwood trees along... I forget the name of the street. Sutter. On Sutter street. Do you propose any landscaping in that buffer zone, I guess I'd say? Where you have the redwood trees? Mr. Bertsch: The area in between, or directly underneath the redwood trees and along the fence there, where the picnic tables are, is just a mulched common use area. Vice Chair Baltay: You said picnic tables. Could you tell me where those are? Mr. Bertsch: I'm not sure how to pull up this screen. Ms. Gerhardt: Sheet L-2. Chair Furth: (inaudible, off microphone) two square structures. Mr. Bertsch: Correct, yeah. That area is accessible from the front driveways as well as from the street via stepping stones. It's about 760 square feet of common use area. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: Could I ask a question? Are there...? Are there edging bushes between the sidewalk and the useable common area? I can't quite...? Mr. Bertsch: Not bushes, but tall grasses. Directly along the common use area is Calamagrostis, feather reed grass, which grows fairly tall, with the inflooretheses [phonetic] getting up to maybe five feet. And then there are large kay brush [phonetic] tundra petulum [phonetic]. Chair Furth: This is designed to give a certain amount of privacy and buffering from the sidewalk? Mr. Bertsch: Correct, yeah. The existing redwoods also grow pretty low, so they provide some screening down to probably five feet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, I forgot to ask. Did we all go visit the site? Did anybody not visit the site? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to disclose that I visited the site. While I was there, I spoke with the neighbor who lives across the street, Clark, at 703 Clara, who expressed to me concern that this project would increase the parking demand on the street. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I visited the site. Chair Furth: David visited the site. I visited the site. Didn't talk to anybody. Okay. Does staff have anything they wish to add? You can sit down if you'd like. Mr. Sing: Nothing. Chair Furth: Okay. Anybody wishing to comment from the public? Seeing nobody, bring it back to the board. Who would like to start? City of Palo Alto Page 33 Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Good morning. Thank you for the presentation. I have a pretty serious, basic problem with your design, which is the fact that you have the same design for three houses, yet each house goes on a different configuration of the property. The one on the left has a 10-foot easement, which is a potential space for outdoor usage of some kind, and yet, the configuration is such that that's where the garage and a study is. You can't easily access that space. The house in the middle is tightly constrained, and yet, your configuration leave you having no space on either side of that. The house on the right has potential to have enormous visual impact on the street corner and the potential usage of that space, and yet, it's the same design floor plan all three times. Each house needs to be designed individually for the conditions of the property, the area, the piece of space that it's on, and I just see you failed to do that. It's really just a fundamental issue to me. We're looking for high quality design, a high standard, and it means not using the same floor plan three times. It just doesn't work. There are so many issues that come out of that I don't want to go into, but I just see that as an absolute. You have to take each design and make it fit what's going on around it. I'm concerned that you have a nine-foot-tall second floor and it makes the houses look overly tall, at least as they are designed now. I'd like to see you either choose an architectural style or use a motif that accentuates and works with that height, or, just reduce it down to maybe eight feet on the second floor. What you have now, the houses are small and they're overly tall, especially the side along Sutter Street, where it's a nine foot first floor and a nine foot second floor, more or less stacked up. It's not attractive, and it's not appropriate to have that on the corner of a busy pedestrian street in a residential neighborhood. I'd like to see you provide us with a good quality rendering of what the building will look like from the corner. When I was out there walking around, it was quite obvious to me that that's how this building is perceived much of the time as people drive up and down Sutter or go in and out of Clara. I think you owe it to the community to show, what will this project look like from that corner? I'd also, I guess the same question applies to designing each house individually, if that's what your goal is. You've taken basically the same floor plan and put a different couple of materials on each one -- some shutters on a window, a different color stone on one or the other. I think it needs more thought and more design effort to really articulate what these things are. Architectural styles are not just changing shutters on a window or paint color or trim. It goes deeper than that, and I really would like to see you, if your goal is to have different style buildings, I can support that. It's an eclectic residential neighborhood with many different styles. But then, they really should be different styles. You might consider changing the roof pitch, changing the height of some pieces. Relocating how the front door works. All of these elements of architecture that just need to be designed. I'm afraid I just don't see that happening here. As it stands, nothing very positive, I'm afraid. I'm sorry, but... It's not even ready to be reviewed, really, in my opinion. It needs to be designed more carefully for all three buildings. Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Thank you, Peter. Those are my thoughts exactly when I visited the site. I don't think this is a desirable project, but I do support a three-unit project on this site. The only thing that I have in addition to what Peter has mentioned is that there's, I think the trash is not working. It's not coordinated right now with the landscaping. I think you're showing shrubs and trash together, all in a very small, like three and a half foot side yard. I don't think that that works yet. And I think, too, I think you really just need to simplify the design of the roof forms and the materials. There is something really nice about this neighborhood. It's actually very different than some of our more traditional neighborhoods in Palo Alto. There's a real nice simplicity and elegance there, and it's completely lost. I see the most minimal design linkages in your design to the buildings on the block, and I just want to encourage you to try to keep it simple. We have lots of three-unit projects in the downtown area that work really well. I think we can, if you ask staff, I can make a listing, give them to you, of things that went through the Board very easily. I think they've been built, they've turned out really well, they've aged well, with each owner making some changes to make it a little more personalized. I don't see any reason why that could not happen here at this location. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. David? City of Palo Alto Page 34 Board Member Hirsch: I think this project is going to look very interesting from a drone viewpoint, when you're looking down on these three exactly-identical roof plans. These are three identical plans except they are flipped. My biggest concern is that applying three different styles to these identical buildings isn't appropriate, especially when they are so close to each other. They really ought to look more like a single project somehow, in which case I would suggest you choose one of the styles and perhaps change colors, trims, make them individual in that respect. My preference would be whichever one comes closest to a Craftsman. Because that's wonderful housing in Palo Alto, in my opinion. And the Spanish. I don't say they don't exist nicely on a block, but they need to have air around them and space on the sides. These do not. They're identical houses. The planning is really pretty terrific on the inside. The side windows, yeah, you can do it with obscure glass, and then they might work. But they're awfully close to each other. It's too bad the site is just that tight, and if you're allowed by zoning to have three houses, then that's what will occur. In that case, you've done a pretty damn good job in the planning interior. I agree about the garbage, and I wonder why you couldn't switch the garbage and the electrical panel and gas so that you take advantage of the area of the staircase on the inside to recess it on the outside, so you can put the garbage pails out of the way of the two side, of the side yards. I'll admit the utilities will have further to go, but it's certainly possible to do that and provide a space for appropriate closer-to-the- front-door garbage collection. I'm particularly concerned about the condominium type of planning here and the liability of one owner to the next, and the cleanliness of the whole site. I hope that somebody reviews the condominium plan to see that you've taken into consideration that the actual access to the garage is very tight, and if your car isn't exactly placed, there's a lot of problems there. I think you better work on that aspect of it, and Planning should review that with you. I really also think that the front porch, at 3-feet-7 depth, isn't really a porch at all. It doesn't look like a porch. If you have any room to play with front yard or back yard, give it more space in the front so that's a reasonable entry. You have a few railings and details that I don't appreciate either. They don't really, from drawing to drawing, they don't seem to add up too well in terms of height requirements for rails. What is the area way in the back that's described? It's not described. Is that just ventilation to the crawl space? Architect, can you respond? Chair Furth: What sheet are you looking at? Board Member Hirsch: Looking at A-4. Below the window in the back yard. Board Member Lew: I think those are sliding doors. Board Member Hirsch: Is that a door and... [crosstalk]... from that one little room? Board Member Lew: My reading of that is a sliding door onto steps. Board Member Hirsch: That's a very small room to have an exit out of it. I don't understand what the purpose of that is. All right. Mr. Fernandez: I'm not sure which area you're looking at. Board Member Hirsch: Moving on. Moving on. Chair Furth: Could you put Sheet A-4 up? Board Member Hirsch: The roof lines, you know, that's another deck in the back yard. Mr. Fernandez: It's a sliding door for, to exit out to the back yard, and those are just, it's a landing with some steps. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I'm mean, it chops up the back yard, where you have some space you could use for outdoor cooking, or whatever. It doesn't really do anything for you there, that I can see. City of Palo Alto Page 35 Mr. Fernandez: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: I'm really concerned about the vehicle parking in the front. Has anybody in Planning looked at that as a transportation issue? Ms. Gerhardt: I guess if you could explain the concern that you're looking at. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, my concern is just getting in and out with cars to parking spaces without... And my concern is that the condominium plan and liabilities that might happen owner to owner here. And also cleanliness of the side yards that could be a problem. I'm also concerned about the water off the roof. You have an awful lot of roof lines and valleys and gutters. The drainage plan for the whole area where there are some side yard concrete pads that you have, I would hope that the issue would be addressed that you could for sure show us that swales, or whatever you're going to provide for drainage, would really be working in areas as tight as that, and that you don't simply drop water off the roofs into the air conditioning system in the center there. I think you need to look at that pretty carefully. Mr. Fernandez: Well, the plan would be that... Chair Furth: Excuse me. We're going to comment and then you can talk to staff later, but we won't have a dialog. Mr. Fernandez: My apologies. Board Member Hirsch: Now, my major concern is that, my major concern is the style idea here, and I think that, you know, it says, "each home to have its own design, all different from the others." Well, they are all the same, so, if this is allowed, this building, I would only approve it if my suggestion is taken, that you choose one of the styles that you have here and they all three are the same, the difference only being paint color, or stain color, or whatever. I would prefer the middle one, but you choose what you think is the best to sell condominiums with. I don't know. Chair Furth: Thank you for your presentation, thank you for your project. I agree that this is a good, a difficult but good location for three units. My comments are, to a certain extent, the same as my colleagues. I don't think the units are overly large. I think these are reasonably-sized houses. I think you've picked a good size and number of bedrooms and spaces like that. But, I have two big concerns, and they really flow from each other. By using the same plans where you have an interior lot next to somebody else, an interior lot within your own project and a corner lot, you're not taking advantage of the potential for open space, relating to those trees, thinking about the importance of looking at the Sutter frontage as one comes down frontage. You can sit if you'd like. You end up with not very useful open space. For example, I guess it's building A that was mentioned, you have some open space there. That could be landscaped. That could be beautiful. That could give you a sense of light and garden. But you're not orienting the interior of the house towards it. And when you look at the spaces... And the same, I think, might be true of this big asset you have with the landscaping and redwoods over on the outside. I don't know how much you can do. I live in what looks like a townhouse. They are technically single-family detached dwellings with zero lot lights and crosswalk easements. But the result is that we have private spaces outside that are wide enough to be useful. Whereas, what we have here is seven-foot fences next to two-story buildings in a very narrow area. I don't think you're getting useful space. I don't know, staff can work with you on this, but it would be much better off if somebody got half of that to themselves and somebody else got half of the back to themselves. You actually had useful, useable space. This just doesn't do that at all. With respect to the style of the buildings, the building that's there is actually a graceful building. It fits well on its site, you know, it kind of retreats, it has that nice symmetry. The colors are subtle, it has big trees behind it. The first impression isn't, "Oh, here's an apartment building in the midst of single-family houses," it's, "This is a nicely-designed building, a little old, but it doesn't push itself forward too far." These are small streets. These are tight, these are tight little streets, so I think it's important to have houses which, to a certain extent, recede rather than impose themselves unnecessarily on the front. I find these designs way too complicated. These are small City of Palo Alto Page 36 houses. I think they would be much better off much simpler, without so many ins-and-outs, and roof pitches, and what-not. I myself think that Board Member Lew's suggestion is good. We have a lot of good-looking infill housing, three units, that have a kind of integrated, simplified design that says these are well-designed, well-thought-out houses, they're good places to live. They were all built at the same time, but I'm not bored looking at them. I don't see an overly broad frontage. I really do not support having a Craftsman, and a Spanish, and a Texas ranch. It's too jarring. It doesn't give the opportunity for any kind of visual harmony and ease. I like the palette. I would want the planting along Sutter Street to be... I have to go out and look at those dimensions again, but to be significant enough so that's actually a useable space. Whether it's useable because it has beautiful plants in it with places to sit, or its useable in some other way. You know, there's a bit of a play structure... I don't know what's permitted. But not something that is so open to the street that nobody would ever feel comfortable sitting there. I mean, there's some optimal use of that space, building on the redwoods, the sidewalk, and the fact that you have a significant width there. I don't know what it is, but the open space can be much better in terms of usefulness, places to sit, places to see, places to look over -- with luck, places to cook and eat -- than it is now. Those are my comments. Anybody else have any comments? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to follow up on what you were just saying, Wynne, about the open space, because I was surprised to understand that there is a picnic table. This is but a 20-foot-wide area under these redwood trees along Sutter, and what they've created is essentially a mini public park. I'm not sure if that's what we want to be encouraging. The idea of the open space being common is for the residents in these houses, and having a public-type space, but that's clearly not a public park, and yet, the house itself is fenced off by a linear six-foot fence. They can't see it, they can't go to it, they can't tell who is hanging out there. It's not their space. They're not going to have any ownership of that. I know we've struggled with this idea of, what should these open spaces be? I guess I'm curious as to what we all think about that. Chair Furth: Do you have something to say, Alex? Board Member Lew: Well, here's what I’m thinking. Each house should be able to have, like, a patio with a table. And as they have it now, there's no way of actually doing that. So, I would say, start with that and get rid of the picnic tables. Whatever is left in that redwood area can be something else. It can be part of the street side setback and landscaping. But I wouldn't recommend putting tables like that out there. It should be private. And then, something else can happen in the remainder of the open space setback. Chair Furth: I have two thoughts about that. If it's possible not to have a six-foot-high fence between Home C and that area, it would be good. One of the banes of Palo Alto is the fences that back up to commonly-owned landscaped areas, so that the commonly-owned landscaped areas tend to be neglected and ignored and not well maintained. If they are part of their visual yard, then I think you tend to do a little better. I'm not sure what the point of that six-foot fence is. Because we ordinarily don't need to wall off street-side yards like that. Board Member Lew: Well, there are other places in Palo Alto where they put the fence right at the back of the sidewalk, on the street side setback. I see a lot of those. Chair Furth: Right, no, I... Well, you can't put it in the... Board Member Lew: People do it, I know that people do it. Chair Furth: Well, we're not going to encourage that, right? We allow three foot fences... [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: This space could be a wonderful front yard for the corner house. You could have their front door come in off of that, and you could get some typical front yard spaces that are common or open. City of Palo Alto Page 37 Chair Furth: And it would work. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah. Chair Furth: You can see what we're saying, is that the different phases, the different frontages, the different frontages of this parcel give you a chance to build much better houses with much better garden space than this proposal. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to also comment on David's comments about the parking and the driveways and stuff. And then, picking up on what I heard the neighbors tell me. I'm thinking about it, that right now, the condominium has a very large parking yard on the left where the people who live there park, for the most part. It seems to accommodate a half-dozen cars, at least. I think David is pointing out sort of a quirk to Palo Alto's regulations, doing residential. You really can do this tandem linear parking. You can share the driveway in a manner that makes it really challenging to actually park on it. And I think you're right, that it's unlikely you'd have two cars actually parked on each property, or six cars all on the property, the way it is currently working. So, the neighbor's point that the parking is going to be impacted is probably correct. I think this does meet our code right now. This is a legitimate parking arrangement, and those are rules that have been pretty carefully worked out through the City. This is what the citizens want. And I guess I'm also wanting to comment that it would be lovely to get at least one of the units coming in of Sutter, but those redwood trees are important, and I don't think you can drive underneath them with a driveway. And actually, as I look at this with the other street trees, it looks to me like there's only two places where you could put these driveways to begin with. So, I'm sympathetic to the applicant trying to meet many masters here. Looks like you only have two places and it jams it all together and makes it really challenging. Chair Furth: [off microphone] Yeah, (inaudible) redwoods, you're right. Vice Chair Baltay: What I can say to you, I've done many, many projects like this in Palo Alto. Get a little more creative. Push your arborist, your landscape architect, the City staff, a little bit, that sometimes a little more flexibility with how you deal with these trees makes for a much better project. And the reality right now is that you really haven't got good parking for these houses. They meet the code, it's true, but not much more than that. If you could find a better way to have each house have some extra space, a place to stop and pull off to the side, third car parking spot, you'll be a lot happier. The neighborhood will be a lot happier. It just takes some creative energy to pull that off. Chair Furth: All right, so, would you like this continued to a date uncertain, or...? Mr. Sing: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: I would like to make one additional comment here... Chair Furth: Yes? Board Member Hirsch: ... relative to Alex's comment about the back yard. I really don't see why you couldn't just eliminate the entire structures out there, provide stairs down directly from the living room area, and utilize the back yard in a much more effective way. You've sort of cut it off by having to have a formal deck in the back. Backs of buildings generally don't have to look like fronts of buildings, so columns and decks back there are really not necessary. I mean, it will take some additional design of the façade perhaps to make it work, but you do have the capability in the back to have a significant area which could be used as was described for various family gatherings. MOTION Chair Furth: I think... Can we get a motion to continue this matter to a date uncertain? City of Palo Alto Page 38 Vice Chair Baltay: I'll move that we continue this matter to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second that. Chair Furth: Motion by Vice Chair Baltay, second by Board Member Lew. All those in favor say aye. Hearing no opposition, it passes 4-0-1, with Board Member Thompson absent. MOTION PASSES 4-0-1. Chair Furth: Okay. Let's have our next item. [Setting up for item 4.] 4. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00324]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,337 Square Foot (sf) Macy's Men's located the Stanford Shopping Center and Construction of a new three-story stand-alone retail building, approximately 43,581 sf, two retail buildings, approximately 3,506 sf each and construction of a new stand-alone retail building, approximate 28,000 sf. (Total of 78,593 sf) Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez @cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: All right. We are now on action item number 4. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. The address is 180 El Camino Real, meaning the Stanford Shopping Center. It's a request for preliminary architectural review... It's not quasi-judicial, is it? We're not making findings, etc., etc. It's not quasi-judicial, it's informal. To allow the demolition of existing 95,000 square foot Macy's Men's store, located at the Stanford Shopping Center, and construction of a new three-story stand-alone retail building of approximately 43,600 square feet, two retail buildings of approximately 3,500 square foot each, and the construction of another stand-alone retail building of approximately 28,000 square feet, for a total square footage of 78,600 square feet. That's a reduction, is it? In total square footage? Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Correct. Chair Furth: Okay. The planner is Sam Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez? Oh, does anybody have anything they want to disclose, even though we don't have to? We've all visited the site frequently, right? Vice Chair Baltay: I visited the site expressly for this project. Chair Furth: Okay, we've visited the site for this project, and we've spent a lot of time on the premises. And a lot of money, it's noted. All right, gentlemen. Gentleman. Sam. Mr. Gutierrez: Thank you. Once again, my name is Samuel Gutierrez, I'm the project planner... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Sam, you need to be a little closer to the mic. Mr. Gutierrez: Okay. I'll start over. Samuel Gutierrez, project planner for this preliminary application, and planner assigned to the mall in general. Let's dive into the presentation here. This is just a montage of basically the proposal, the shopping center. Just to frame people's minds around this location, you can see a map here on the left, a larger photo of basically the project area within the shopping center. I've included some photos to reference where these entryways are to this project area. You have the El Camino frontage on the top, the Pistache entry to the shopping center off of El Camino in the middle City of Palo Alto Page 39 picture there. And then, on the lower picture on the right is the Sand Hill entrance to the mall, and the Macy's Men's building directly follow that entrance. Moving to the overview of the project, this project involves the demolition of the existing Macy's Men's retail building and changing the surrounding parking lot configuration to develop two new stand-alone buildings. One is the Restoration Hardware building, which would be three stories. Another is a Wilkes Bashford single-story retail building with a mezzanine level. And finally, two new single story tenant spaces directly adjacent to Building J. That would be the building that is directly adjacent to the Macy's Men's building now, and that's the location of Jeffery's and future Blue Bottle site, and a day spa. Chair Furth: (inaudible). Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. There are some site constraints that do modify the site plan as identified in the staff report. There are some significant utilities that run under this portion of the shopping center, and as a result, the site plan that you see before you is configured in a way to address some of those constraints because they cannot really be abated. If you go into that, this map here shows that there is a regional water line that runs through the parking lot of the project area, right there near the intersection of Sand Hill and El Camino. It is a major regional water line and it would be difficult to place a building there, or orient the building to fully front El Camino because of that line. That accounts for some of the site planning choices here. This is the existing Macy's Men's building, and below it is the proposed Restoration Hardware building. That would be the change that you would immediately see as you enter into the shopping center off of the Sand Hill entryway. Or driveway, excuse me. The Restoration Hardware building is, again, intended to be a three-story building with a rooftop glass-surrounded restaurant, rooftop garden that can be accessed from that restaurant, and second floor terraces. It has this kind of continued theme of rooftop activity as it tiers down, and then, new ground-level landscaping, as well an outdoor sales area on the ground level. It continues this kind of indoor/outdoor theme throughout the building. The second floor terraces continue that theme from the upper floor, and then, that ground floor area, which isn't clear in this rendering because it would block the facades, but that ground floor outdoor sales area would have a wall around it. In some of the plan sheets, you can actually see that wall kind of being referenced here and there, but it's not clearly shown in this rendering. Also, there was some concern about some of the massing on this building as it's proposed because it's not typical of other buildings in the shopping center. Now, we do have tall buildings, which is the Bloomingdale's building, for example, which is on the other end of the shopping center along El Camino. But, the walled features, some of the proposed lighting around it seems to be a larger scale, so that was a point of discussion that we'd like to see the ARB's focus on. The second component of this development is the Wilkes Bashford building. This would be the building that is in the current empty parking lot area fronting El Camino. Again, this was planned in a way to avoid that water line that's adjacent to it here. It will trigger El Camino Design Guideline requirements for the 12-foot sidewalk at this portion of the shopping center block, if you will. It also has a mezzanine located inside of it, so it's not a true two-story building, but it does have a mezzanine level proposed within it. And again, the El Camino Design Guidelines would trigger that requirement because it's not so far pulled off of El Camino; it's right in front of El Camino, and would modify that frontage. The final part of this proposal here is the new two-tenant spaces that would be adjacent to Building J. They are proposed to be retail tenant spaces, potentially small restaurants. There is a separation between these spaces and the restoration hardware proposal. There will be a new aisleway in between them -- excuse me, drive aisleway -- and that is proposed to be elevated, and will also have a different texture to the aisleway in the parking lot to identify it as a different area than the larger aisleways that have circulation for traffic there. This would be the transition point also from the greater shopping center massing to the Restoration Hardware building, which would be the biggest building at this end of the mall. That is another point that the, that we request the ARB look at and see how that transition forms and massing and scale would work. Just to focus in a bit on the site planning for this section because it would create a new drive aisle and parking in the pedestrian walkway that doesn't currently exist. You can see here that there is a proposed pop-up shopping area, and that's referenced in the staff report. Chair Furth: [off microphone, inaudible] City of Palo Alto Page 40 Mr. Gutierrez: This sheet? On the project plans? I'm sorry? Chair Furth: Which of our sheets is this? Mr. Gutierrez: This should be...? Chair Furth: J-1? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, I believe so. Let me double-check. Yes, J-1. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Gutierrez: On this sheet, you can see that this area is indicated to have a pop-up sales area that's located between the two new tenant spaces. The applicant will dive further into detail into that. We did discuss that pop-up sales area, or possibly events, or something, could be addressed through a temporary use permit for whichever events or sales they may have there. But it would be consistent with other retail operations at the mall. Again, this is a preliminary submittal, so there are some components of it that are not fully detailed out. For a formal submittal, we would require any code conflicts to be addressed prior to coming back to the Board, and some of these items -- but, of course, not limited to them -- would be parking, car and bicycle, lighting overall for this end of the mall, landscaping, C-3 planning, changes to the utilities on site, screening of those utilities, trees, and shading requirements. And loading for the parking. Again, just to reiterate some key considerations for the ARB to look for here. The scale, mass, transitions of the proposed buildings in relation to the shopping center; pedestrian orientation/scale of the proposal; access to the site for all modes of travel; consideration to apply from applicable policy documents; the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. There is also the Master Tenant Façade & Sign program that was approved for the shopping center. This involves new buildings that would be stand-alone. We would like to see some consistency, so with that document, it just has this cohesive feel at the shopping center. Of course, the architectural design, theme, and preservation of existing landscaping. Staff recommends that the Board provide informal comments, and no formal action is requested. That concludes the presentation. Chair Furth: Remind me again what the zoning is. Mr. Gutierrez: It's CC. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right. Any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Seeing none, if we could hear from the applicant, he'll have 10 minutes. If you would introduce yourself and spell your names. Matt Klinzing, Simon Property Group: My name is Matt Klinzing I'm with Simon Property Group. [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you. Matt Woods: My name is Matt Woods, I'm from GHA Design. [spells name] Jordan Brown: My name is Jordan Brown with Restoration Hardware. [spells name] Mr. Klinzing: We're going to diligently use our 10 minutes to reiterate a little more, go into a little more detail... Chair Furth: We don't time you for the spelling. Mr. Klinzing: Samuel just [crosstalk]... City of Palo Alto Page 41 Chair Furth: This is a (inaudible) building, so... And this is a preliminary review, so, why don't you take 15 if you need it. Don’t go too fast. Mr. Klinzing: Oh. Yeah, relax. All right. Well, just to highlight, we put our presentation together, kind of give you some of the... Since this is multiple building, some of it has to do with project planning. And if you've been to Stanford Shopping Center, outdoor center, we... Chair Furth: That's not an "if." You may assume that [crosstalk]... Mr. Klinzing: We take a lot of pride in how our common areas work. We see here in the view that we're over the view of Sand Hill/El Camino Real. You see the existing Macy's Men's building, the existing single-story Fleming's, and a run of single-story shops. Here, as proposed, the revised development from the same vantage point. You see now the new Restoration Hardware, the new Wilkes Bashford building, and what we're referring to as Building J because they all have letters. And a new internal street that would cut between those, so, for a juxtaposition of scale. This is our existing site plan at that corner. A large open lot along El Camino and Sand Hill. One of the things that has always, I thought, been a detriment to the center is that the majority of the anchors when you go there are pulled away and separated, so we have internal circulation. Macy's Men's in its existing configuration is one of those that does not. So, if you're coming east from a pedestrian standpoint, one has to walk around the Macy's building, vehicularly, or go around it, or make your way through that passage that was from the Ralph Lauren building that's now Jeffrey's. We think one of the advantages of now switching to this new proposal is that we bring a lot of those urban village planning principles back. By separating what is now Restoration Hardware and the two speculative retail spaces, we have really an internal pedestrian/vehicular street that we think connects the east and the west a lot more. In addition, the new Wilkes Bashford and the Restoration Hardware buildings provide a little more of that street edge, the urban wall that I know that the Board is interested in, I believe, for planning principles in this area. We think it picks up on, down south, we have PF Chang's, and now the new Shake Shack, and that whole edge, and how we're beginning to kind of anchor the site. I'm going to turn it over now to Ms. Brown, who is going to go into a little more detail on the Restoration Hardware design. Jordan Brown, Restoration Hardware: The proposed building design represents our next generation gallery design at the Stanford Shopping Center. Over the past several years, RH has reimagined our stores and transformed them into more inspiring furniture design galleries with a dynamic hospitality experience integrated into the footprint, with a full café offering. Our architectural designs follow basic principles of balance, proportion and symmetry, and the integration of an indoor/outdoor experience throughout the space. Our buildings incorporate large windows on all elevations, filling the rooms with natural light typically found more often in a home-like setting than a traditional box retail. This is a photo of our Melrose Avenue gallery in West Hollywood. It's actually the inspiration for our next generation galleries. The gallery shown on the screen showcases steel bi-folding doors that welcome the public, metal louvered awnings, and Juliette balconies that embrace the climate. And a one-story lo-ja [phonetic] at the front elevation, which helps break up the building's overall massing and give our stores a more pedestrian scale. You will also note that our rooftop gardens with heritage olive trees continues to carry the same language that we're proposing for here in Palo Alto. Here's a close-up of our courtyard garden entrance that showcases the architectural elements discussed previously, and highlights a fully transportation point of entry. You'll also note that the exterior metal material palette and color -- which you will see on the sample boards in front of you -- in West Hollywood, as well as our project here, we're proposing using our signature hand-troweled venetian plaster with complementary cast stone details. That's on the one board. Yeah. On that same board is also the black-painted metal sample. That would be representative of our awnings and our balcony details. The high-level craft of materials speaks to our attention to detail, as do other features, including a pedestrian-friendly mix of bluestone pavers and decomposed granite that you'll note on the second material board. I would also add the one detail here that I believe is called it, is the... Can I zoom in on this at all, or no? Probably not. Are the exterior light fixtures that are shown on this photo, that are also proposed for the Stanford Shopping Center here. The overall massing in elevation and drawing typically tends to look a lot larger than it is in actuality. The glass box is a fully-transparent glass box with a decorative chandelier inside that is a crystal chandelier City of Palo Alto Page 42 with nuanced candelabra 15-watt lamps. It reads typically in elevation like a much larger massing than it actually is in reality. Our new hospitality experiences within our next generation galleries embrace the outdoors with the glass conservatory rooftops, and bring in ample natural light and feature crystal chandeliers, a central stone fountain, and interior trees that help provide dappled light to our diners enjoying their refreshments below. You'll also note that the palette continues from the outdoors to the indoors as well for consistency of experience. This is another photo of our West Hollywood gallery that more closely shows the heritage olive rooftop garden that would be similar in feel to what we're proposing in Palo Alto. The café in Palo Alto will be the central focus of the rooftop, and these European-inspired rooftop gardens will be flanking the hospitality space, showcasing our outdoor furniture collections. Mr. Klinzing: Thank you. Next on the agenda is the Wilkes Bashford building. The material sample boards are between Ms. Furth and Mr. Baltay there. I won't go into a lot of detail; they are clearly labeled. Our goal in looking at this building, since it's a pretty big footprint, we wanted to break it down. We have complementary set of materials we tried to break down to scale along it, so where we have storefront, where we have entrances, and where we change in materials, we wanted to bring it down to size. The other thing we did is we have the introduction of trellis on the front. Well, really all front because it's a 360-degree building. But similar, again, to the building that currently houses Shake Shack and PF Chang's, or the current residence of Wilkes Bashford over on the other side of the property, we have those trellises. This is a view now looking as you would enter from -- and I always mispronounce this -- Pistache Place, as you come off El Camino and you're looking northwest now. Now, one of the factors that we realized is that with all the mature trees we have along El Camino, as well as along this run, that we really have a window of view that's 10 to 12 feet. That's really where you get the majority of the site corridors in. A lot of our detailing, be it storefront, front entries, signage, is really focused towards that. We wanted to create a broken-down façade that brought down the scale again of the mezzanine, while providing glazing up there and bringing it down to patron scale. This next view is now switching areas. We've got an overhead prospective view of Restoration Hardware to the north, and what we're calling Building J to the south. And as Mr. Gutierrez brought up, we see an opportunity here. Now, we have the introduction of an internal street. Well, we also want to make sure that we have pedestrian and patron safety, and we have, you know, the amicable integration of the vehicles and patrons in this area, so we're choosing to table-top the entire thing. Where you see the light strips that are on either the right or the left are actually ramps up. Where you see the patterned surface material that is where the cars are now, is really flush now with the adjacent sidewalk surfaces. We do this in a few areas. We want to make it feel more like a plaza and a little less like a sidewalk and a street, and it gives the pedestrian a little more control. At the same time, we are cognizant of the fact that we need to introduce either bollards or planters, or other material that keeps the safe separation of patrons and vehicles in this area. One of the things that's unique in the center, and you see rendered, kind of an Airstream trailer, because that's just one possible thing. But there are always trends in retail, and one of the trends that's currently coming about is the idea of pop-ups. This is where you would have retailers that may have brick-and-mortar elsewhere, may not have a significant brick and mortar, but want to have a physical presence. So, build an event around them being in place for a week or so. One of those trends is to be in Airstream trailers; others is other kind of build-out. We see a great potential here because it allows for this space to be used as that kind of space, as well. We don't just have an un-animated façade that runs along here. It would allow a point of interest from time to time. When those are not in place, this would be an area we would have moveable furniture where patrons could occupy as a small seating area. This is a view now looking at the corner of that. Restoration Hardware would be off to the right, so we've got the Building J in front of us. Kind of puts together what the entire concept is. If you think about two retail spaces, which in essence is what these are back to back, they have stock rooms and service towards the rear, and they have storefronts towards the front. We wanted to do that, but we also wanted to bring it around to one of the north corners. One of the opportunities here is to have these as cafes. These are speculative, so it's a fancy way of saying we don't know exactly what they're going to be yet. They could be retail, they could be food-related. But if they are food-related, we want to embrace that corner and allow outside dining areas to go. As we continue our planning, we're interested in having that happen. The other thing we wanted to do -- and it's kind of hard to see -- you see the green wall behind one of the trees there. We have a recess that is between the two buildings that happens mid-block. That's because typically City of Palo Alto Page 43 when you get to a side portion or a retailer, you can end up with some pretty solid walls, where they want to actually have merchandizing racks at back of house. We think by bringing that back, that broke down the scale somewhat and made it less un-animated. At the same time, the use of the seating area in the center or the pop-up retail help to animate that a little bit. That really concludes our presentation. What you have in front of you are some additional views, at Mr. Gutierrez's suggestion. We provided them because as we come forward to the formal review, there are a couple changes that we wanted to suggest. One of them is in this area. Just as I said, we're looking at speculative retail. What's shown on the current view is a pretty significant setback to that green wall. We're looking about eight to ten feet. Our leasing people looked into that and said, "Yeah, we might want to have a little more space actually to lease there." So, we've actually reduced that in that view to only about two feet. Not the eight to ten feet, but two feet, but it does give us more flexible lease space that they could use for different venues. The other two shots, one is of Wilkes Bashford in this shot, and currently we're showing storefront that's on the corner. As that tenant has been looking at the merchandising and the layout, they've really seen a great advantage to how they lay out the interior space to that corner for some of their sales floor. What they are suggesting, what they would really like to do, is to push that window up now to midblock, facing east. The last view you have there is a view from El Camino looking beyond the heritage oak, and that is the storefront that would look out onto El Camino. We offer those just as a precursor to coming back or the formal presentation. Chair Furth: Anything you want to ask before we let the applicant sit down? I think we'll talk for a while. Staff, could you put the site plan up? I just want to be sure I understand which building is where. Mr. Gutierrez: Sure. One moment. Chair Furth: And explain the wall around Restoration Hardware. [Putting up site plan] Chair Furth: And I think we'll focus first on site planning, and then we'll talk about buildings. Mr. Gutierrez: Sure. Just using the applicant's presentation... Chair Furth: Sure. Mr. Gutierrez: ... since it's up, conveniently, we can see the Restoration Hardware here in the upper left portion of the site plan. That is actually taking up part of what is an existing drive aisle and a parking lot. And then, the other half is actually taking up the existing footprint of the Macy's Men's building. That would extend down here, connecting to Building J, where these two new retail spaces are proposed. Chair Furth: Right now, we can drive around Macy's Men's store? Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Chair Furth: And after this, you couldn't, except in this table-raised thing. Mr. Gutierrez: So... I think I can do this now. [Adjusting slide] This is what the existing site plan looks like here. Chair Furth: Got it. Thank you. Mr. Gutierrez: As you can see, there's the drive aisle here, and then, the existing parking lot. Chair Furth: The exit ramp, mm-hmm. The place where you can usually find parking, yes. Do you have a comment? City of Palo Alto Page 44 Vice Chair Baltay: Same or the applicant, could you explain the wall around Restoration Hardware and the two ends? I'm confused. I'm looking at these very nice renderings of an elevation of a building... Ms. Brown: Thank you for asking. Vice Chair Baltay: ...and staff is telling us there's a 12-foot wall. Explain, please. Ms. Brown: I actually, I meant to note the clarification when I was up here previously. There are actually not walls around the entrances, they are hedges around the entrances, embracing the landscape. That's both the, on both sides of the gallery. Vice Chair Baltay: Are they solid? Are they transparent? Can you see through them? Ms. Brown: They are semi-permeable, obviously, in the form of any hedge that would be. Vice Chair Baltay: Would there be like a metal structure in the middle of it, or anything? Ms. Brown: No, it would just be a hedge. We typically do, like a very manicured, tailored boxwood hedge. If you're thinking... Yeah. Chair Furth: How high? Ms. Brown: The proposed height I believe is...? It's around nine feet. I apologize. I don't have that information. Chair Furth: Pretty good for boxwoods. Vice Chair Baltay: Nine feet. And what is the purpose of the hedge? Ms. Brown: Both entrances have outdoor merchandise, so when you're walking into the gallery from either direction, they enclose the outdoor merchandise space. They are semi-enclosed in terms of a welcoming façade, as well as if you look at, actually, like... This is the interior entrance courtyard here at our West Hollywood gallery, but they would serve as a similar purpose to this, where it would provide additional ground floor pedestrian access to seating and retail space. Chair Furth: They are outdoor sales space. Ms. Brown: Yes. Chair Furth: Looking at RH-4, west rendering... Mr. Klinzing: I just want to add in, sorry, just to make it clear when you talk about the walls, they do frame the outdoor sales space, kind of create their environment, but there is also that 20-foot opening that is open as you walk by it. Chair Furth: The 20-foot...? Mr. Klinzing: There's a 20-foot opening if we look back... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I'm looking at RH-4. Would anybody ever see this, or are there hedges in front of it? Ms. Brown: There will be partially a hedge in front of it, and partially it will be open. The middle section here that you would see, you would still see the 20-foot opening that Matt is referencing here. The hedge would just be in front of either wing. It would not be blocking off the entire façade. City of Palo Alto Page 45 Chair Furth: And how high would that be compared to the screens coming down? The wooden...? Ms. Brown: The awnings coming down? Chair Furth: Yeah. Ms. Brown: The awnings sit at about 12 feet, and the hedge sits below that. Chair Furth: The lower edge of the awning is 12 feet. Ms. Brown: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else before we go back to site plan? I'll start with a question to my colleagues. I appreciate, for years we've been asking Stanford to move its commercial activities closer to, you know, good-looking buildings closer to El Camino. Part of the idea was that we would have a pedestrian connection, so there's that diagonal where PF Chang's and Shake Shack are that, if you're really adventuresome, connects you to the transit center. And now, this is the other end of it. I still find this a very unfriendly place to bikes. Once I try to get on the campus, I mean, Stanford spent a great deal of design effort to make Sand Hill itself very bicycle-friendly. It's got dedicated turn pockets and all kinds of things, and it's fairly heavily used. And that's where, until the train comes in and we no longer have a level crossing, that's where there's a lot of access from, if you want to ride a bike from downtown Palo Alto, you're probably going to go on El Palo Alto and across there, which takes you to that exact corner of the shopping center. I would be wanting to know how that's going to welcome bicycle travel. I think it's going to be important. You're not going to take a lot of stuff home on your bike from Restoration Hardware, but they deliver. And so does Wilkes Bashford. That's one of the things that's in my mind. Similarly, I think it's great to relocate the pedestrian pass-through from the El Camino to the midway point. I like the idea of relocating the drive-through where it is, but I'm very concerned about having back-up parking conflicting with bicycles and what-not. It looks like the very worst of Bryant Avenue. Those are my questions to you about site design. Generally, I'm not hostile to having buildings out there, but I am concerned about the circulation. Site plan comments. Let's start with you, Peter. Board Member Hirsch: I could, I would... Chair Furth: Oh, start with you, David? Okay. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, sure. Yes, I've had the same kind of bicycle issues that you've had, but to be honest, I think it's almost more important to also focus on those who are coming to this mall and parking here and trying to make it around Macy's at present, which is a real pain in the butt. And I really appreciate the fact that you're improving that incredibly well here, and that the passage between two very attractive new facades there is going to be quite impressive. But I'm bothered by the parking that's in between, and the small piece of the parking overall on the lot. There's I think maybe 13 or 14 cars there, and they're backing out into traffic, and it's a main kind of passageway around the whole facility to get from one side to the other. Wouldn't it be possible to make that into more of a pop-out or some more active kind of pedestrian way, and to eliminate some of the parking? I know parking is critical to a shopping center, but it's a small amount of cars considering how important that passageway is around to the other side. Other than that, I think the placement of the new buildings is excellent. I'd have more to say about them specifically after we get off the site plan. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex. Board Member Lew: Yes. I have similar concerns that have been mentioned before about the site plan. I really don't like the parking in front of the building. It's very uncharacteristic of the shopping center, and I don't think we want to start going down that path. And then, too, I do like the connector street. I used to use the Macy's Men's connector thing a lot, and I don't do it anymore. I don't see that many people using it. City of Palo Alto Page 46 Chair Furth: It's abandoned. Board Member Lew: I think it used to be... Well, we used to have to do it before Sand Hill Road connected, right? It was actually... It was effectively a street. Chair Furth: Alex grew up here, and I first went to the shopping center in 1964. So. As a freshman. Board Member Lew: So, for the old-timers, it was a magnet, right? Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: And emporium. And those were the two anchors. The regular Macy's was not there. It was all just on this El Camino frontage. On the site planning, I don't object to anything that you're showing at the moment. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking the next project that comes along may make everything worse. Like, you've got... Like, I think this is fine. Chair Furth: Would you put the site plan back up, please? Board Member Lew: Yeah. I like having the Wilkes Bashford there, I think can work. At Christmastime, when you have parking, I think that's not quite so ideal to have, like, an isolated parking lot by itself in the corner. But, like, the rest of the year, it could be fine. Just in terms of the building planning, I think having pop-up restaurants at corners and stuff has worked really well at the shopping center. It brings in a lot of people. I do like to see, like, the kids come after school, in the front of the shopping center. I think that's nice. And I think the placement of the roof garden café on the Restoration Hardware at this location, on the site near the creek, and it has western views of the hills and sunset, I think is really ideal. And then, I think I emailed a question to staff. I do have some nitpicky things about the tree report, but we can get into that at the next hearing. I think it's too detailed at this point. In the back of my mind, I'm wondering if the raised street is... In the back of my mind, I'm thinking that maybe it's overkill, and maybe it's not necessary. But I throw that out. Elsewhere in the shopping center, like over by Bloomingdale's, you've done colored and textured pavement, and I don't know how the rest of the Board Members think, but it seems to me that that might be more in keeping with the rest of the shopping center. Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I have two overriding thoughts that have been going through my head as I've been looking at this. One is, I think both the Restoration Hardware and the Wilkes Bashford buildings are just too close to the Sand Hill and El Camino, vis-a-vie the trees. There's very healthy live oak trees that have been well maintained and are really important trees, and your Wilkes Bashford building is very close to those on El Camino. I think the Restoration Hardware is also pushing very close to those buildings, to those tree groves, and I think it's really important that we preserve those trees. My second thought, and this is from, for the past 25 years I've been driving around that Macy's Men's store, and what's going through my head is after I've gone around that and I want to get over to the produce place, I've got to go through this series of dogleg curves to work my way around the jagged edges of the shopping center. And the way you've placed this new drive aisle between Restoration Hardware and the LaBelle Day salon, I still have to do one of those dogleg turns. You're not taking the opportunity to straighten it out altogether, and you could if you just line it up. It's another 20 feet further back. What it would mean is that you couldn't build the new retail speculative spaces that you're talking about, or at least not at that location. But, the advantage I see in just basic driving functionality around the shopping center I think would be huge. If you could straighten out that drive aisle, you would just save having to, everybody having to do that quick turn. Many, many times, I've almost hit somebody. I've watched people talking to a kid, dropping somebody off -- There's a lot of commotion, and it's not a good place to have these kind of complex turns. So, if you have a chance to straighten it out -- which you do here -- I think you should look at that carefully. It also gives you the opportunity to have more of a visual connection all the way through to Wilkes Bashford, or even potentially out to El Camino. By moving that, City of Palo Alto Page 47 you'd be able to pull the Restoration Hardware building a little bit further from Sand Hill Road, which would give more buffer on the trees. Second big comment for you is that we have to make a finding that the place is functional. In my opinion, right now, the parking situation at the shopping center is not functional. I cannot tell you how many times on a Saturday, or any time in December, you really can't find a parking place. It's hard. It's really tough. And it's dangerous, and it's frustrating, when people are looking for something and just can't find a place to park. And it's not good for your shopping center either. And what I see you doing here is creating what I think will be more demand. A rooftop restaurant on Restoration Hardware, and Wilkes Bashford with its isolated parking area there. It may be that you have a lot of parking places maybe on the entire other end of the mall, or something like that. There is a whole process staff will go through, I'm sure, for counting how much space you have, but from my point of view -- and I will be evaluating it this way -- it has to be functional. And when you create isolated pockets of high-intensity demand like you have at Restoration Hardware, and clients who are going there who do not want to walk a quarter of a mile to get back to the store, and you don't really have, in my opinion, sufficient parking for, you've created an unfunctional situation. I bring this up because almost every commercial application we look at in Palo Alto, we're pushing hard for people to put underground parking, to go through the extra trouble to really provide appropriate and sufficient parking spaces. In my opinion, you should be considering doing that here. You have two new buildings. There's no reason you couldn't put additional parking under these buildings and solve the problem you have with not enough parking. Because I think this is just creating a problem on the parking side of things. Those are my thoughts. Parking is an issue, and straighten out the drive aisle. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: To continue the subject on parking, I'm not crazy about the north elevation of Wilkes Bashford and the parking [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: No kidding. Board Member Lew: That's a design detail maybe for the building, but I think that that's not really the most idea configuration. Especially with handicap parking and the design required for that. I think that I would lump that together with Peter's comment. Chair Furth: My turn. The most... You know, the shopping center is sort of our Disneyland. Ever since you started building the entire building as these signs of the store, it's had that wide range of fantasies going on. Sometimes bright pink. And the least-appealing photograph in all of this, drawing in all of this, is this view of Wilkes Bashford as you come down El Camino. And it looks terrible. Now, it wouldn't look that bad in real life because there would be landscaping, but it's going to have to be pretty dense. It looks like... I mean, I look at Restoration Hardware and I think, well, so much for mid-century modernism. And then, I look at Wilkes Bashford and I think, well, here it comes back a little bit, as if it were in the desert. But to have that façade fronted by cars, as what you see, it's this really unattractive view. This one, right? Where is this coming from? Exterior View 1? Where's that from. Board Member Lew: There's another view... Chair Furth: Anyway... Board Member Lew: ...with the (inaudible) in it, though. Chair Furth: Yeah. They're just... not good. Board Member Lew: This one, right? Chair Furth: Yah. This is not a look anybody wants. Board Member Lew: That's WB-7. City of Palo Alto Page 48 Chair Furth: Yeah. And partly, I don't... To get back to the site plan again, it is interesting to figure out what happens when you orient the building that way and you have all that parking over on the side. How do you get good-looking view from El Camino? And maybe you just plant the heck out of it, but that doesn't seem to be what we're seeing yet. I don't think there should be parking on this passageway between Restoration Hardware and Building J. I just think that's an invitation to bad things. It's so few parking spaces. I used to live near a place where Nordstrom had 20 really convenient parking spaces and then there was everything else, so everybody was always looking for those 20 spaces. You have even fewer here. And the amount of... I just don't envision that as being a well-functioning parking area at all, and I don't think it should be a parking area. I think it should be dedicated to getting pedestrians, cyclists, and if necessary, cars, through there, but not, um, at a very low speed. I’m sure we've all, I mean, we've all got all these wonderful examples of places we've experienced, but I have been in this, the section of Paris around the new library? Viva-tech? [phonetic] You know, really doesn't privilege cars; it really privileges pedestrians and bicycles. So, when you drive through there, the drive aisles are very constrained by low physical barriers, and you don't accidently run over somebody because you can't go that fast. I, at the moment, would not be supporting parking over there. The Wilkes Bashford parklet may have similar problems. I don't know. But I'm not supportive of that present proposal. Or a cut- through with parking. Board Member Hirsch: That's interesting comments you've made just now. It makes me kind of think that it would be possible. After all there are garages just to the south of here, so, I would think your encouraging people to use those garages and maybe could free up space at the, what is called the front of Wilkes Bashford. And the back isn't as attractive. It's kind of an attempt to look like the front, but the front is really on the parking, the major parking lot side. Regarding the link that's between Restoration Hardware and the other J building, which does a good job of keeping the courtyard behind it in the rest of the J building, the façade is really fun. I mean, it... Chair Furth: We're still on site plans here, David. Board Member Hirsch: Oh, we're still on site plans. Okay. I'll stick there, too. I just think it's possible to... Well, I wonder if it isn't possible to create a better façade and entry into Wilkes Bashford from the opposite side. It sort of is pretending to do that, and then, it doesn't really do it. I think you should really consider that, based on the comment that it should be accessible-looking, you know? And not just be loaded with cars in front of it. But I understand there is a utility issue there, but still in all, the access road that has a cute name to it there -- I can't read it -- I don't know how heavily that would be used that you couldn't create a crosswalk somehow across there, to get into it or to do some better landscape planning that allowed you to get to the center of Wilkes Bashford. Chair Furth: Alex, what were you saying about the Wilkes Bashford parking? Board Member Lew: On the north side... Chair Furth: And the north is...? Board Member Lew: The Sand Hill Road side. You've got parking... Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: ...and there's a walkway, right? Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: And the trellis. Chair Furth: Right. City of Palo Alto Page 49 Board Member Lew: With handicap parking, you're going to have... Chair Furth: Big blue signs. Board Member Lew: ...big blue signs right up against the trellis. Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: There's minimal trees because they're trying to squeeze in all the parking. Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: And it's just not really, it's not the best. I think what they're showing is workable, but it's not really the best design possible. Chair Furth: What about the parking spaces over at the Restoration Hardware end of Wilkes Bashford? That goes in from both sides. Is that right? Board Member Lew: I’m not sure where you're... Oh, I see. Right. If I understand it correctly, to the left of Wilkes Bashford, that's where the water line will be rerouted. Mr. Gutierrez: I'm sorry, which water line are you referring to? There's actually two. There's actually a main water line that comes near the intersection of Sand Hill and El Camino... Chair Furth: And that's a Hetch Hetchy line? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. That's the main one that... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: We're all grateful for the water. Mr. Gutierrez: And then, there's other water lines that currently exist that run diagonally through the site, but those are drainage lines, so those are more manageable and will be modified. Board Member Hirsch: Is it possible to move Wilkes Bashford at all? You take the same volume of building. Could it move more to the center of the...? Ms. Gerhardt: As long as its not closer to the corner. It's that very corner of El Camino and Sand Hill that has the Hetch Hetchy line. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, so you can't get any closer to that. Ms. Gerhardt: Not much. Vice Chair Baltay: To staff, do we have a build-to guideline for the El Camino Real part of this? I mean, are they supposed to put the building up at the property line in the front, along El Camino? Chair Furth: And are they going to have to widen the sidewalk? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, they would need to widen the sidewalk, and then, we do have that build-to requirement, which is a 12-foot setback, which creates that effective sidewalk. It does create that situation, but we do have that problem where we can't fully utilize that frontage because of that water line for the Hetch Hetchy. City of Palo Alto Page 50 Vice Chair Baltay: And what if building the sidewalk wider hurts the oak trees? Mr. Gutierrez: There are sidewalk treatments that could be done. There is a large oak. It's seen right there at that corner, the north corner of the Wilkes Bashford along El Camino. There's a large heritage oak there. And the sidewalk would be sensitive to that and make sure that it wouldn't, you know, somehow degrade the health and longevity of that tree. There's possible treatments for soft sidewalks, rubberized soft sidewalks, things of that nature. Vice Chair Baltay: But what if it turns out that the entire frontage, it's not just one oak tree, there's half a dozen pretty healthy live oak trees there, and they are all within, I'd say six feet of the sidewalk right now, which is a standard-width sidewalk. Are we just going to have 50 feet of rubberized sidewalk there to make it 12 feet wide? How can you build the building to that without taking the oak trees out? I'm just trying to elaborate. Board Member Lew: Can I push back on the staff, on the design guidelines? I think it's the South El Camino Design Guidelines. It was not originally intended to go all the way up. Historically, we've had a 25-foot special setback on this northern part along the campus, and I think that's gone away. But I think there's room for all of our concerns to be addressed and to get a wider sidewalk somehow. Chair Furth: Yes, we want good pedestrian access and really healthy trees and dense landscaping. Board Member Lew: Yeah, we want all of the above, and we'll figure out a way of making it work. Chair Furth: [inaudible, off microphone] The good thing is you've got a lot of space. Vice Chair Baltay: The reason I've been pressing this is I think the building is just too close to El Camino. It really needs to be another 25 feet further back to let the sidewalk and the trees really have space, and I believe, to just present a better image of Palo Alto coming into town. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: ...the design guidelines are important. We can't just ignore those. Like what Alex is saying, I think this is maybe not applying to this far north on El Camino. Chair Furth: Okay. Any other comments on site plan before we move on? Okay. Do we want to talk about landscaping and plants first, or do we want to talk about...? I have some generic comments on landscaping. Vice Chair Baltay: Can I give a...? With Chair's consent, before we move on on that, I'd like to see if we can't speak with one voice on the parking question. What I was throwing out there is that, to me, it's not just a matter of meeting the numerical requirements in the zoning code, but making the parking and the shopping center be functional. That might mean you have to do more work in this area than just meeting the numerical quantities. Like I suggested, putting in underground parking, or something. But I'd like to see if the Board supports that strong a statement or not, so the applicant has a clear sense of where to go with it. I've made it clear how I feel. Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: I actually was thinking similar things, although I didn't mention it when I was speaking beforehand. My take on it is, if you have underground parking, it would give them more, even if they don't need it numerically now, it actually gives them more flexibility in the future. Long term it's, to me, a better strategy. But it's more expensive. Vice Chair Baltay: You might say it's more functional. City of Palo Alto Page 51 Board Member Lew: Functional, yes. Chair Furth: David, do you have a position on that? Board Member Hirsch: Well, I'm... I find it's kind of frustrating... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Board Member Hirsch: That's a whole other study, I'll admit, and maybe it's worth it at this point to suggest that that take place. Because what's happening here is this becomes a, sort of a private lot for Wilkes Bashford and RH. And that's a little different than where the car storage areas are for the rest of the mall. I'm bothered by that, just based on my comments made up here. Definitely, I think that the area, the connector between RH and the new J buildings should be without cars, and then that connection around to this site is going to be well improved. But Wilkes Bashford seems like a bit of an eyesore at that point. You're looking only at the side of it, not the front of it, when you're coming around the corner rom the inside, and you really are looking over the sea of cars to look at the real façade for it on the parking lot side. And then, there's sort of the pretense of a façade on the back side to make it look like a front. I just find it problematic. Although I like the building itself, I find those viewpoints problematic. And again, yes, it extends far towards El Camino, as far as it can go. It's a hard site to deal with and I just don't think it's been dealt with rather well here. Chair Furth: Staff, I have a question. I'm looking at the Stanford Shopping Center Master Tenant Façade and Sign program, and you can clearly see privileging, making clear the wayfinding for pedestrian, cyclists, people coming from downtown Palo Alto from the transit center, etc. Did we have any thought about what we wanted to do at the other end, or was it so not part of the building program when we thought about it earlier that we don't? Mr. Gutierrez: Could you...? Chair Furth: I mean, we drove that policy hard to get the connection, the pedestrian connection, so there is a pleasant way, without dodging cars, for a pedestrian to get from El Camino to the heart of the shopping center. It's a very deliberate, I would say successful -- now there's many places to stop and eat -- connection. At the other end, we have a different situation. I'd say it's more bicycle-oriented. I see a fair number of pedestrians, but not that many. But do we have any policy of having decent, inviting access from the street to the shopping center at this end? Mr. Gutierrez: The end you're referring to is the Neiman Marcus end? Chair Furth: Menlo Park end. No, the Menlo Park end. I'm staying on El Camino. Mr. Gutierrez: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. Chair Furth: I'm looking at the packet page 143. I'm looking at the bottom right-hand corner. Contrasting it with the bottom left-hand corner. Mr. Gutierrez: For that corner, we would just utilize the general policies that we have for multi modal connections, but there isn't a specific policy for that particular corner. Chair Furth: Okay. Fine. Okay. I do think we have a problem here. I don't think the parking is going to work. I mean, you're going to put a really attractive café on the roof of Restoration Hardware, you're going to put more next to J street. Those are big generators of presence. You're going to intensify the outdoor uses. And it's already clogged. You know, years ago, we moved all the major utilities from the middle of the shopping center around to the edges, to try to keep the gas lines from going where they shouldn't. And I like the fact that once you get over into the main body of the shopping center, you don't have to think about cars. You can just wander, and people do. And on the southern frontage, that works, City of Palo Alto Page 52 too, because you can make your way, one simple crossing over by Bloomingdale's, and you're good. We seem to be adding attractions without making it easy to get there except by driving, and then we don't have enough parking. I don't support parking along that little intersection between what was Macy's and the J building. I guess ideally I would prefer the cars still stayed on the periphery and the pedestrians went there. And I would prefer... I think we get much better results with underground parking. I sure don't think that this is any place for electrical charging parking. It's way too at a premium, and people stay when they do their electric car charging. Even if Wilkes Bashford is going to attract a lot of electric cars. Okay. Let's get on to... What do you want to talk about next? I want to talk about -- You gave me the opportunity -- I want to say something briefly about landscaping. Which I love this sort of hanging garden proposal for Restoration Hardware. I think, though, it should take, acknowledge the fact, as Alex mentioned, that this is right next to the only creek that runs to the bay anymore in San Mateo county. San Francisquito is a big deal, and Stanford has put a lot of energy into preserving that and enhancing the space along it. Formerly an Ohlone settlement and burial place. And the landscaping ought to acknowledge the presence of what's over there. And it's true that we've had, you know, olive trees here for, I don't know, almost 400 years, but we have a pretty strong policy in favor of using landscaping that's either native or can be shown to be a really good habitat. And you've got... You're going to have plenty of birds living up there. I think the indoor plants are your own business. Those are not really things we go to for habitat, but I think the other ones, you should be thinking a lot more about that. So, whatever it is, I think it needs to be tied to that creek front and that creek environment. There's a big bird population there, including some fairly unusual ones, and this could be... You're not going to get peregrine falcons, but this could be a real enhancement of that situation for birds. Anybody else on landscaping, generally? Okay, let's talk about the buildings. Who wants to start? Vice Chair Baltay: I'll start. I think the Restoration Hardware building is wonderful. I think it's really going to look neat. It's really exciting that we're part of what's a change in the way we do retail. It's a big change. I'm a high-end retail architect in Palo Alto. Restoration Hardware is a big player in our business these days. They really sell quality stuff that... I'm not trying to plug Restoration Hardware, but they're coming along, and if they want to put money and stuff into our town to build a real showcase, I think is great. And what I see here is high-quality design that is a really neat way to mix people shopping and dining and checking out their products. I can see my clients going there all the time. I love it. I think it really looks good. Kudos. Hats off to you. I'm not quite sure I understand why you need a nine-foot boxwood hedge around your wonderful-looking building. And maybe that's the kind of thing we can see as you refine your designs. It seems a shame to close it off like that. I'm much less sanguine about the Wilkes Bashford building. To me, it just looks like a, sort of a 20- or 30-year-old modern-styled box. It's got some elements that are trying to be nicer, but the basic corner that you come from El Camino is really big and forbidding-looking. I don't see it as being the first building I see when I drive into Palo Alto. I just don't get it. It's not working at all. I see all the windows are closed off, so they're strictly a merchandise display. There's no sense of what's going on inside the building. I think if you want to put buildings up on El Camino, they have to do a lot more, a lot more to show the life inside and to make it active, and not just have, the few windows are token display windows at best. You're showing even a service door of some kind as the very first door I see when I look into town. And obviously that can be changed, but it's indicative to me of the mentality I see a lot of with this kind of commercial architecture, which is designed from the inside-out. And I'm sure it's wonderful for the merchandising displays on the inside. You mentioned that you've already got questions about shifting windows for the merchandising, but when you want to put a large new building right on El Camino, and it's the first thing you see driving south from San Mateo county, it's really, really important that it looks really good, and just put our best foot forward. This is the shopping center, and this is Palo Alto. To me, it's not even close yet. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: I have the same comments as Peter, and I think I would add, is that I do like the material palette of the Wilkes Bashford store, as well. I think it reads very lightly in the renderings, but when I look at the materials and I think about the other new buildings at the shopping center, I think it actually fits in fairly well. And I think staff had asked about comments on the height and transitions. And City of Palo Alto Page 53 I think I would point to staff, maybe on the Bloomingdale store, I asked for a contextual street elevation of the shopping center. Maybe we can pull that up and we can re-use that. I found it was very hard to get a sense of the scale of the Bloomingdale's just looking at the plans in isolation. Maybe we need to do the same exercise on this one and get a street elevation of the shopping center. Generally, I think having a 30 to 40 foot corniche, and then stepping back the top floor works, and I think that's what they're showing. I think they're showing a 32-foot corniche on part of the Wilkes Bashford, and I think the Restoration Hardware is somewhere around 40 before it steps back. And so, just generically, that's what I normally look for on buildings elsewhere in town, so I think that that can work. And then, something that I noticed, too, which I think, I don't have a recommendation at this point, but I think that the lighting that's shown on the Restoration Hardware is very different than the new lighting elsewhere on the shopping center. And maybe it's far enough away where it doesn't really matter, but I would say, like, at the new entrance to the shopping center, you have lots of new pole lights, and it's a very different kind of lighting. I think it's probably all LED lighting. It seems to be completely different than what's being proposed around the Restoration Hardware. I could see an argument maybe that the Restoration Hardware thing is more appropriate at this location, closer to Sand Hill Road and the creek, but I think it will look very different. That's all I have on the buildings. I think generally it's, generally it's okay, although I do share the same criticism as Peter on the Wilkes Bashford. Chair Furth: David. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I certainly agree with everybody who likes the Restoration Hardware here. I think it's going to be a great asset to the mall. And although there has been so much comment about the Wilkes Bashford and the parking issue, and just access and movement around it, and what is the façade, I hope that doesn't get in the way of keeping Restoration Hardware exactly where it is. I think some ground-level views of the building, even with the hedge in front of it, might clear up the issue of how you do that, or maybe there's other ways to explore it, the perimeter to the Restoration Hardware. But this makes a nice addition, even if it isn't in an internal portion of the mall. If you do eliminate the parking in front between Restoration Hardware and the J building, I think the exterior pedestrian way around that corner will be, will work, certainly better than it does today with the Macy's there. But then, the Wilkes Bashford, I think it's really a question of working with, somehow, the parking/transportation issues for the rest of that end of the site, up against El Camino. And talking about the building itself, I like the way it moves, the variety of the front of it, that it's taller on the El Camino side, that it has, really, a real nice feel to it, which seems like it's repeated again in the new portion of the J building, and a little more clarity. Since it's such a long building and those are divisions that are very minimal in depth at the façade, I would have just suggested that somehow they are separated from each other slightly, and there was more integral lighting in the forms as they move out towards the parking lot. I'm concerned a bit about the fact that it looks to me like a building from the Southwest rather than somehow a building from this area. And that those light textures to the outer materials, the light tans, even with stripes on them as the recent rendering shows, doesn't distinguish the volumes as well as the elevation drawing does. The elevation is really very successful, but the separation of colors on the façades is better there than it really is in the rendering. It bothers me considerably because it's intent, the intent of the variety of materials on the façade seems to work well, certainly in the elevation and not in the rendering. But even more important, really, than that is the fact that access to it is more difficult except by going into a private parking area, and that's not the way the rest of the mall seems to work. So, I think it really has to be studied as to whether this is the best location for that facility. And I agree with the other comment about making it pedestrian-friendly and bike friendly at that corner because you're kind of caught at the other side of the street, and then, you want to come to this area, let's make it accessible to bicycles. I wonder if there's a better use for that whole corner as an inviting area of the mall, versus this Wilkes Bashford facility here. What seems to me it's done is, not just because of the easement issue, but because of emphasis on the different commercial uses that Restoration Hardware gets a good position against Sand Hill, Wilkes Bashford is sort of what's left over, in a way, at that corner. And I'm not convinced that that's the best location for that facility. That's about it. I think that the pop-up store and the new addition, the J, works really well, and is a nice counterpoint to the Restoration Hardware and its style and modernist look, versus a more traditional Restoration Hardware that is going to be quite delightful from pretty much City of Palo Alto Page 54 all sides, from Sand Hill side, as well as you're coming to the intersection of El Camino, a lot of traffic is going to see that and be intrigued by the beautiful design. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I think you brought us things that look like they're going to be very appealing. When you do that height diagram that Alex was asking for, if you could continue it north enough so that we understand how high the trees are over there as well, that would help me. So we see what happens from the Menlo Park side. I am very interested in what you do about the hedges around Restoration Hardware. In some of those sketches, the Restoration Hardware building, I guess because it has a certain amount of Venetian inspiration, is reminiscent of Terman, the Terman building. Stanford really got its, you know, it started out strong with Richardson and his big, massive, Romanesque design, and then it sort of wandered off in the wilderness. And then, Terman -- as in the engineering school -- commissioned a building that was, you know, it provided its own heat, didn't require extra heat, and didn't require fuel to heat it, and it used blinds for shading, and it used heavy stucco. And it was really very much like this. And sort of this beginning of the turnaround of architecture. It was built in 1968. Before... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: This is the one with the reflecting pond that was supposed to bring in the... Chair Furth: It wasn't entirely successful, but yes, it cooled the computers. One of the things that concerns me about the big entry into Restoration Hardware is that when we were having brown-outs, Restoration Hardware downtown insisted on leaving its doors open and air conditioning the great outdoors. So, I'm interested in knowing how you handle that, since that was a little frustrating. I'm sure you've got it all figured out, but we would need to know. I do think you need probably underground parking. You certainly need much smarter parking than we have now. You know, if a smart parking place tells you at every aisle there's going to be a parking place, where the space is, this is a very dumb parking lot. It could lead to very unhappy situations, and sometimes already does. One of the things that we look at is, you know, we're supposed to make sure this works for everybody, and that includes the people working in these buildings, and where do they take their breaks? You have some spaces way over towards PF Chang's where people can sit, get a lunch or coffee break and get some fresh air. It's a little more challenging if you're at Nordstrom. If you're going to build all this additional space here, I think we should be thinking about that as well. Other than that, look forward to seeing it when it comes back again. Thank you. So, continue... No, we're not going to continue this. We're done with the preliminary review. Does staff have any questions for us? You understand what we're trying to say? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, I believe so. Study Session - no items Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2018. Chair Furth: Minutes. Which some of us have read very carefully. The first item is minutes of November 11th, right? Not October 18th. Is that right? It's not what it says here, right? This is wrong? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, October 18th, we do need to bring back to you. There was a subcommittee language missing, and so we need to give that to you still. Chair Furth: November 11th, we do have? Board Member Lew: I didn't review it. Vice Chair Baltay: I didn't see them. City of Palo Alto Page 55 Chair Furth: Okay, it's not on the agenda, it's on... I thought it was going to be corrected on the agenda. All right, skip item 5. Item... Board Member Lew: Wait, wait, wait. It's on the agenda, so I will move that we continue the minutes for October 18th. Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: Okay, moved by Lew, second by Baltay, to continue item 5. Item 6, draft minutes... Board Member Lew: We should vote. Chair Furth: Oh, sorry. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed? It passes 4-0-1, with Board Member Thompson absent. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 6, 2018. Chair Furth: Item 6, draft minutes for December 6, 2018. I thought it was really good transcription, by the way. Board Member Lew: Yes. I will move that we approve the minutes for December 6th. Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye? Hearing no opposition and four yay votes, it passes 4-0-1. 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2018. Chair Furth: Minutes of December 20, 2018. Board Member Lew: Yes, this is a different story. Chair Furth: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Do you want to take this one, Alex? Board Member Lew: Well, okay, so, I will do it in order of importance. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: Item number 5, which was the cell phone towers, I think on page 54, it says Board Member Hirsch voted no. But I think that was me. Vice Chair Baltay: If I remember right, it's literally correct. Wynne asked David if he was voting for or against the cell phone tower. He said, "nay," which is recorded. The transcriber interpreted that to mean that he voted against the motion. Chair Furth: And he didn't. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex voted against the motion. David voted for the motion. That's my recollection. I think it's important that we all be very clear because it goes in the record on an important issue. Board Member Lew: Okay. And then, I have lots of smaller comments. Ms. Gerhardt: Can I just...? That was on item...? City of Palo Alto Page 56 Board Member Lew: Five. Page 54. And then, the other little things I'll give to you. It's just names, name spelling, and stuff like that. It's all highlighted, they're all items that were highlighted by the transcriber. Chair Furth: Thank you. Motion? Vice Chair Baltay: I'll move that we approve the minutes from December 20th, with the correction as noted about the vote, and small corrections Alex will give you. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Moved and seconded by Baltay and Lew. All those in favor say aye? Hearing no opposition, it passes 4-0-1. Subcommittee Items 8. 3128 El Camino Real [17PLN-00462]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Trellis Design, Landscaping, Benches and Building Color. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us At the meeting, the Subcommittee agreed with the revisions presented with the following conditions added: 1. The owner or designee shall use City standard concrete color and texture at the base of the brick wall fronting the project site along El Camino Real. 2. The owner or designee shall plant Nandina domestica behind the brick walls fronting El Camino Real as directed by the City Landscape Architect. 3. The owner or designee shall include planting alternatives that are native, indigenous, and drought tolerant, including, but not limited to buckwheat, ceanothus, and/or eriogonum. 4. The owner or designee shall employ the color scheme proposed at the December 6, 2018 ARB Hearing, comprised of Chelsea Gray HC-168 and Iron Mountain 2134-30, with aluminum trellis system a Cityscape color. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: Any Board Member questions, comments or announcements? Board Member Lew: There was a community meeting, first community meeting for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan on Tuesday night. And I'm guessing there were maybe 50 or 60 people in attendance. It was well-attended, but it was attended by one, kind of one set of demographic people. We didn't really get a broad cross-section of people. It went well. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to report that I attended the City Council meeting on Monday night -- I believe David Hirsch was with me -- where they discussed the appeal of the Crown Castle small cell node cluster in Downtown South. The Council upheld, or denied the appeal, and upheld the Director's ruling on that project. Chair Furth: Okay, and if we want to discuss that or any other matters further, that has been reviewed by us and then approved differently by staff, we can do that at our next meeting, when it will be on the City of Palo Alto Page 57 agenda. All right. Anything else before we adjourn this meeting? And just tell us at our subcommittee. Also, more than one person has requested that we move these meetings along faster. That requires everybody's efforts, and we will do that. Typically we want everybody else to be briefer, but we will do our best. What's your norm, Alex? Board Member Lew: One hour per major project. And I would say, like, shopping center could go longer because it's really two projects. But like the Channing, we spent way... We spent way too much time on that one, given the issues and the size of the project. Chair Furth: I would argue that as the first approvable thing in SOFA 2, it was an important project. But I agree that it took a while. All right. We'll do what we can. 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: ... 2019 meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. If you could call the roll, please? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications. That's a time for anybody in the audience who wishes to speak to an item that is not on the agenda. I have no cards. Does anybody wish to speak under oral communications? Seeing no none, we'll go on. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions? None of those? City Official Reports 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: City official reports. Transmittal of the ARB meeting schedule and attendance record and tentative future agenda items. Jodi Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Yes. Related to the future agenda, we're going to have three items on the March 7th agenda. Mercedes will not be heard quite yet. We will have the 233 University. We're not going to have the Master Sign Program. We will have 375 University, and then the 180 El Camino will be heard. Chair Furth: Those are both preliminaries. Whose Master Sign Program was that? That we're not hearing? Ms. Gerhardt: I believe that's the hospital. Chair Furth: Okay. Thank you. And then, we had talked about scheduling some other additional items at our future meeting, namely an item to discuss projects recently reviewed by the Board, and what has happened to them since. That will be on our next agenda, as well? In some format or another, which we will figure out? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD February 21, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. I will work with the Chair to figure out that agenda item. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else anybody wants to put on a future agenda? Board Member Thompson: I just wanted to note, I will have a planned absence on July 18th. July 18th. A long time from now, but... Ms. Gerhardt: You'll be absent that day? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: Yeah, we probably should start thinking about our summer schedules. Thank you, Osma. That's a good reminder. All right. Action Items 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 Chair Furth: Our first public hearing item is a quasi-judicial matter. It's at 695 Arastradero. It's a request for a recommendation for approval of a major architectural review to allow the construction of a new single-story building of approximately 5,400 square feet, with a partial basement for mortuary use. The planner is Claire, and the applicant -- sorry, I meant to make a note of this -- the owner is the Alta Mesa Improvement Company, and the architect is John Barksdale. Could we have a staff report, please? Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good morning, board members. I'm Claire Hodgkins, and I'm the project planner. As you noted, the proposed project is located at 695 Arastradero Road, at the existing Alta Mesa Memorial Park. The entire cemetery is a 72-acre site comprised of six parcels, and the proposed project is located centrally within the park on a 47-acre parcel. The site is zoned RE Residential Estate, and the land use designation is Open Space Controlled Development. The project includes a new 5,400 square foot single-story building with a partial basement at the existing Memorial Park, and the building would be used for services and service receptions -- it's a reception pavilion -- and the building would not be visible from outside the Memorial Park. Some key considerations are just the proposed materials of the project, the proposed design, and the parking and circulation. In particular with respect to the proposed design and circulation, board members during the preliminary hearing had noted in particular some concerns about the front entrance not being defined enough, so it wasn't clear where the main entrance would be. And generally, about the circulation on the site. The applicant has added ADA [American Disabilities Act] parking at the front and a turnaround at the front to define that entrance. And then, also provided a more defined kind of entrance feature to really clarify where the entrance to the building is. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval of the project. With that, I'll turn it back to you and recommend you hear from the applicant as well. Chair Furth: Thank you. Before we do that, since this is a quasi-judicial matter -- we heard it before the study session -- has everybody visited the site? Board Member Lew: I visited the site on Tuesday. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, visited the site. Board Member Thompson: Yes, I did. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I visited the site several times. Chair Furth: As have I. We've all visited the site. Does anybody have any ex parte communications to report with the applicant or anybody else? Nobody does. Thank you. If we could hear from the applicant? John Barksdale, Applicant: Good morning. Chair Furth: Good morning. You have 10 minutes, and if you could spell your name for the transcriber. Mr. Barksdale: My name is John Barksdale [spells name]. I'm the architect on the project. At our last ARB hearing, two suggestions were brought up. One was a concern about the vehicular and pedestrian circulation, getting to any services in the new building. Secondly, it was unclear as to where the main entrance was. We had four possible candidates, only one which was to be the main. We were unable to change any of the roadway circulation because the established roadways have grave sites right up to the edges of them. That obviously cannot, they cannot be moved. The site as it is is what we have to work with. Normally visitors to the cemetery come in and they know where they're going, and they go directly there. If they don't, the first building they'll see is an administration building, they'll stop and get directions. But for services, what Alta Mesa does is their staff goes out and becomes traffic directors. They have specific plans as to where they want people to park so that the other parts of the cemetery are still freely accessible. They have them on site, and they also have some temporary signage. They'll be directed on past the administration building, and the next building that they will see is this one. They'll come directly into it. We've added this new entrance canopy to make the entrance more obvious, and we have a turnaround, a circular turnaround in front of it for people who want to drop people off and go on and park. Otherwise, they'll continue around this circular site and parallel park. If that parking is all full, they'll just continue on down into the cemetery roadways and parallel park otherwise. In addition, we've added a sidewalk around the perimeter of the site, leading in two directions to this new entrance statement, so that people can get on that as soon as possible and get off the road and get to the entrance. As far as the entrance goes, as I say, we added this canopy with a pyramid-shape skylight on it, which gives it some height and protection from the elements. It comes right up to this drop-off area. On the rear of the building, we have a service entrance which had glass side lights and a glass transom and a wood door. We have played that down with solid siding material and painted alloy metal doors so that won't be confused as an entrance. On the sides of the building, we have these courtyards which are integral with the design and function of the building, a very inviting.... But they are enclosed with these four-foot-high niche walls, which have a niches on the outside that are, people can visit without going into the building. There is a walkway to those. We have minimized that entrance to that area and screened them all with shrubbery to keep people, to discourage anybody from thinking that that is a way into the building. We hope that that satisfies the concerns of the Board. That's all I have to say. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Barksdale? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, if I could, please. Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: The circle you're engraving in the pavement in front of the proposed building, what is the diameter of that? Can you say? Mr. Barksdale: I don't have that off the top of my head. We made it fit a normal vehicle. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Vice Chair Baltay: That's my question, I guess, really, is that is it possible for a car to make that circular turnaround? Mr. Barksdale: Yeah, it is. We also wanted it centered... I mean, I could make it bigger, but it wouldn't be centered on the building access. Vice Chair Baltay: Would it be possible to get that measurement today somehow? If you could just scale it off the drawings for us, or something? It just seems to me that it looks a little bit tight and I'd like to check that. Thank you. Mr. Barksdale: Okay. Chair Furth: I had one question about the landscaping. I'm looking at Sheet L1-1, or L1.1. Of course, what I was trying to figure out was to what extent are these local indigenous drought-resistant plant materials capable of providing what you want. I think of plumbago and nandina and olives and many of these plants as not local. I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit more about that. It's not key as to which ones are local indigenous drought-resistant plant material and which ones aren't. Mr. Barksdale: No, I... The landscape architect recently moved his office from Palo Alto down to Monterrey. I discussed it with him, whether he should be here or not, and he suggested that if you had some concerns about the landscaping, that possibly we could make it a condition of approval and have whoever is concerned about it deal with it at a... Chair Furth: Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I do. Chair Furth: Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: What are the possibilities that the area, that kind of columbarium area around the perimeter, will be used at the same time as a service that would be within the building? Mr. Barksdale: Is that...? You're not going to do that, or are you? Female?: [Off microphone, inaudible] Chair Furth: Could you repeat that into the microphone, please? Or introduce yourself? Again. Marilyn Talbot: I'm Marilyn Talbot, I'm the general manager. We generally coordinate services so they're not at the same time. So, other than visiting maybe those outside niche walls, people can still visit them, but we wouldn't have a service at the same time we have a service inside the building. Board Member Hirsch: In the area in the perimeter, the columbarium area where you have niches...? Ms. Talbot: The outside niches? Chair Furth: I’m sorry, could you lower the microphone so it's going to pick up your voice a little better? Thank you. Ms. Talbot: Are you talking about the niches that are proposed on this building? Board Member Hirsch: Niches area. Ms. Talbot: Yeah. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Hirsch: What are the possibilities that somebody would be visiting at the same time as the service? Ms. Talbot: Oh, that could be a possibility. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Ms. Talbot: Yeah. We have separate entrances to those niche walls. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Okay. What are the possibilities that there be a regular mausoleum service happening at the same time as this reception area? Ms. Talbot: We coordinate everything. We consider traffic control and coordinate where services are. We tend not to have services at the same time so people can have their privacy when they have their service. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. As it might affect parking, you would direct the traffic in such a way? Ms. Talbot: Yeah, we're pretty, we're very proactive in parking, just because it's difficult just getting there, trying to get up Arastradero Road, and people, by the time they're there, they're a tad agitated, so we're very proactive in parking. And we schedule services so they don't conflict with other people's services. Board Member Hirsch: Thank you, yeah. Thanks. Chair Furth: Claire, did you have something you wanted to add? Ms. Hodgkins: I do. I just want to note that I did put a condition of approval indicating that there wouldn't be multiple services happening at the same time, that the addition of this pavilion wouldn't mean more traffic for the area because the services would generally be coordinated, which was noted in the applicant's proposal. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions before the...? Board Member Thompson: I had a quick one. Chair Furth: Oh. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: For the niche wall that's in the four quadrants of the two sides, is that...? In the renders you don't actually see the cavities. Is that something that will be covered? Or will the urns be visible? Ms. Talbot: They're generally covered with a, right now, granite. They're covered with granite, so it is like little spaces that are covered. They are all covered. And then they've got little rosettes with a tamper- proof screw on it so nobody can mess with them. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so that will just kind of look like a wall from the outside. Ms. Talbot: Yes, it will look like a, you know, it's usually polished granite, so it looks reflective on there. It's all clean. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Chair Furth: Anything else? I'll bring it back to the Board for discussion, then. Osma, do you want to start? Oh, and we have a model to look at. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Vice Chair Baltay: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Sorry, Is there anybody in the public who would like to comment on this project or application? I have no cards, but does anybody else wish to speak? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing part of this proceeding and let's start. Osma, do you want to go first? Board Member Thompson: Sure. Although.... Are the materials over there? Chair Furth: Is there a materials board? Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Thompson: In general, after visiting the site, it was quite evident that the design seems to sort of sit nicely in the landscape. The pyramid skylight seems like it will have a nice relationship with one of the other buildings that's further back in the site. I'm not actually sure which building that is, but there is a building that has a pyramid roof on there, so, in that sense, it's kind of thoughtful architecturally to do that. In general, I didn't see very many issues with the design. It seems like it will be a nice, quiet, thoughtful space. One concern I had is potentially in the back where the service entrance is as it abuts that adjacent building. That space could get kind of dark, potentially, but I don't know that that is anything that you can avoid, necessarily. And then, I did have some questions about the niche, which you answered for me. In general, I would say I'm pretty supportive of this project. I'm curious to hear what my other board members think. Chair Furth: Thank you. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Wynne. Thank you. I generally agree with Osma. It's a good project and I can recommend approval. I would like to discuss a little bit the turnaround in the middle there, in the front. By my scaling of your drawing, it's about 29 feet in radius, so just less than 60 feet in diameter. For a residence, that just barely works. For this type of service and building, I don't think it's quite big enough. I think just by twisting a building a bit and shifting it over, you probably can get that to work just a tad better, and I think it's probably important that it does comfortably accommodate even a larger vehicle turning around there. Or else you shouldn't have that circle and imply that that's what you do there. So, it's a small detail, but it's just not quite the right size yet. I think if you just rotate the building slightly, you can keep it centered on that while you add a few feet to the diameter. Other than that, I think the building planning, the way it fits on the site, is nicely done. It's logical, and clear, and practical. I have a second question or thought or concern, I guess, about the massing of the building. I have the building model here, and I'll point to my colleagues that it has four bump-outs, two bathrooms in the front and a kitchen and a service area in the back, that to my eye just fight the basic architecture. You have this clean, simple, high, white parapet defining the form, and it's clean, and simple, and timeless, and everything you would expect for a building of this function. But, having these bump-out below, it sort of violates that. They break the simplicity. And you can see that in the way you've detailed it. It's a tricky roof condition to work with. I guess I'm just wishing it wasn't that way, that it was all inside that clean, simple form. That said, it's well executed, so I don't suppose I can fight it too much, but it's just not as nice as I would like to see it. I do think the choice of materials is elegant and high quality and will fit very well where you're building this building, so that's all nice. My last thought -- and again, it's a nit-picking thought -- is that you have a bicycle rack right next to the front door under your pyramid-covered parapet entry area. It just seems the wrong place to put a bicycle rack. There must be someplace else on the site you could meet that code requirement for the few people who do ride a bicycle to one of these services. Those are my thoughts. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for the revisions of the project. I can recommend approval of the project today, with the exception of landscape. I think the landscape needs to come back to subcommittee. I don't think it meets the findings for native plants. I think there's City of Palo Alto Page 7 only one native plant... Yeah, and then, the budalooa [phonetic] grass is North America native. I think a couple changes, maybe to the ground covers and a few of the shrubs, I think you can easily meet the findings. Chair Furth: I was thinking trees, too. Board Member Lew: I was not thinking of trees. I think I would support Peter's comment about the turnaround, and Peter's comment about the massing. That did not pop out at me as being an issue. I didn't really see that at all when I was looking at the plans. Anyway, that's where I am. I can recommend approval. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: You answered my question about controlling the services. That was a primary concern because I thought it would impact the site quite considerable with double services, having so many more cars potentially. And I was a little.... No, that was fine. Your answer was good. You know, this is a very spiritual kind of building, and I think you shouldn't comment on it without giving credit to the architect for having created kind of a symmetrical building, which in this case I think works very well in the circle that it's enclosed in. And I think the massing is notable, that it maintains that symmetry throughout the building. I like the materials, with some exceptions. I think the stone materials are good, but there's a lay-in ceiling on the inside, and that's not an emotionally-appropriate kind of ceiling, with the recessed lighting in it. I would much rather see a wood ceiling, which I think would be a better feeling. I'm not so crazy about anodized aluminum oak coverings on the courtyard spaces. I would wish that they would be wood, and you have some examples of wood that you're using on the building which you could very well use as a canopy for those outside areas. I think, however, my biggest concern is the potential lack of privacy between people using the service area inside when they come out to the courtyard -- courtyards, two of them -- and if there were any, anybody having a private service outside in front of their own niche, family niche, there's a conflict there. I don't think the answer to that is by putting some planters around to create more privacy there. I think you need another visual separation between them, which could easily be accomplished with placing glass above to get to a level that's above eyesight, without changing the nature of that area at all. And then, if on the inside it was, you defined the area between the outside and the inside with some kind of a raised element, I think you would be able to create a better separation between the possible conflict between privacy outside, people visiting their personal niche, family niche, and activity on the inside, which is going to lead to people talking outside, meeting with each other. I don't know if you can do a separation that's scheduled so that nobody is outside. That might be an answer, but I think you really could do it with a better sense of privacy. With glass inserted, we look at this a lot, where it relates to people using outside dining areas where the street is nearby. And you could certainly use a glazing that isn't visible through, you know, that is decorative. I'd like to ask you to think about that. I would agree with... I think the planting, by the way, is very good. I looked at some of the plants and they seemed to be high enough to create the privacy for the, sort of columbarium use of the outside. Those are my concerns. I think this definitely could come back to committee because it's 90 percent of the way there. Thank you very much for the nice presentation. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, thank you for the design. Thank you for taking into consideration our concerns at the earlier session. I think part of the reason this building fits in well is that some of the other buildings were also Mr. Barksdale's work. He's nodding, so he has a long experience of this space. I have a lot of confidence in the operation's ability to manage traffic flow and parking. I appreciate thinking about privacy. I think the materials are good. I like the design. From my notes, I have six items that have been raised. All of us thinking that if, at most, it needs to go to subcommittee. Is that correct? I'm getting nods. Osma? Board Member Thompson: I actually, I had a quick question. Chair Furth: Yes? City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Thompson: Of the applicant. Chair Furth: Yes? Board Member Thompson: I notice that in your model, the niche walls are curved, and in the plans they're faceted. Do you know what the design intent, or what the final...? Should we look at the model or should we look at the plans? Mr. Barksdale: They're faceted now. The problem is they're each, they are 12 by 12 niche covers, and they're three high. We found that if we try to do that on a curve, they would have to kind of miter the edges of these covers and they wouldn't go together very well. It would be difficult to fit them nicely, so we opted to do same shape, but in three facets, so we can get straight surfaces to put these 12 by 12 niche covers tightly together. Chair Furth: It's the plans that represent your current thinking, not the model. Mr. Barksdale: The plans are correct. The model is... Chair Furth: Thank you. An earlier phase. Mr. Barksdale: Earlier, yeah. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, so, I think we have consensus that landscaping should be referred to subcommittee so that we can make the finding with respect to native drought- resistant plants. David raised a comment about the anodized aluminum covering. Does anybody share his desire for different material? Board Member Lew: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Isn't it exterior? I thought he was talking about courtyard coverings. Did I get confused? It's central courtyard. Which one are you concerned about, David? Board Member Hirsch: Is the metal on here? Chair Furth: Where is it on the...? I misunderstood where you were saying it was, perhaps. Board Member Hirsch: It's a medium bronze.... Oh, that's the storefront. Chair Furth: We don't generally look at interior materials. I was trying... I thought you were talking about something... Board Member Hirsch: Well, I did. That was a lay-in ceiling grid on the inside. Chair Furth: Right, which is probably not in our purview. But I thought the trellis was outside. [crosstalk] Ms. Hodgkins: Are you talking about the trellis at the entrance? Chair Furth: Yes, the entrance trellis. Ms. Hodgkins: I think the entrance trellis is... [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: So it is an exterior material. Board Member Hirsch: And the sides, as well. Chair Furth: We're only talking about the exterior materials, right? Board Member Hirsch: Well, no, I talked about two. Chair Furth: Okay, so, with respect to the ceiling, I believe that's not within our jurisdiction because it is an interior feature and it's not... We can comment but we can't direct. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, I think you can comment on it. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Yes, it's a comment. That's fine. Just trying to make notes here and get clear. What about the materials for the exterior outside coverings, trellises? Were you suggesting they were inappropriate, David? Board Member Hirsch: I think they're using wood elsewhere. We have Ipe wood sliding service entrance doors. You could match up those elements with a wood ceiling. It would just feel better to me as a mix of materials. Chair Furth: Okay, well, that is an exterior material. Anybody else have comments on that? Vice Chair Baltay: I think you need to balance that, though, David, against the desire to have a very permanent-feeling building. And wood will wear and require constant maintenance. My experience is that after 10 years, a wood trellis never looks permanent. I'm not sure it's a fair burden to place on them. I could see perhaps suggesting that they consider some alternative metal material than an aluminum extrusion, but maybe make a suggestion. But I don't think wood would be a good choice. Just shooting from the hip here. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson, you had a comment? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, actually, it just made me notice, maybe another question potentially, just to clarify. The aluminum trellis that's on the sides, that's a different material than the structure that's holding the skylight? The skylight is the zinc? Chair Furth: That's a question for the applicant. Mr. Barksdale: No, I think it's all, it's all anodized aluminum. They have on other buildings tried to use brass, but the maintenance was too much to keep it up, so we chose aluminum for the window areas. I just carried that through to the trellis. I agree it would be great, but they are very concerned about maintenance. These buildings are... This building is not under the Cemetery Act, but all the other buildings have to be designed for an eternity, not have any combustible materials, or anything that won't wear forever. As I say, this is not required under that, but in keeping with that, they just are not... They don't want to get into a situation where there is constant maintenance to the materials on the building. That's why aluminum was chosen, and then, we just carried that through, consistently through all the metal elements on the outside of the building. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Yes, thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Furth: Okay. I don't hear a consensus for asking for a change in that material. Turnaround perhaps needs further study to make sure it works? Is that correct? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Oh, you mean whether I reacted that way? Chair Furth: No, no, I'm just asking, I'm trying to isolate the elements that might lead us to a motion that might pass, so I just wanted to find out on the turnaround. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, it would be nice if we could ask the applicant. It seems to me, looking at the site plan, if you rotated the building ever so slightly, you could shift the circle more into the middle of that Y-shaped existing roadway and get maybe five or 10 more feet in diameter, which I think would make all the difference. Unless I'm missing something.... Chair Furth: Could you respond to that, Mr. Barksdale? Vice Chair Baltay: ...it seems a very easy change to make. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Barksdale: I'm not entirely happy with the... Even with it centered on the building, it isn't centered on the roadway either. I would be more inclined to eliminate it and shape the curb to give us the full radius, which is probably about, I'm guess about 80 feet diameter. If we gave them the full area there to turn around and just shape the drop-off area to accommodate that and forget about the circle. The other option is just to make the circle bigger. What we have done is this building is on the same access as the mausoleum behind it. We could certainly turn the building, but then... Chair Furth: Are we looking at Sheet SK-4, basically? Mr. Barksdale: Yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Barksdale: You can see that the access of this building is perpendicular to the side of the columbarium behind it. That's the reason for that. And of course, that puts that turnaround off-center on the driveway fork there, where the road forks. If we were to turn the building, yes, we could make the turnaround bigger. That would all be fine. But then, the question is whether that would look odd at that slight angle off of the building behind it. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Is there any particular symbolic relationship to the mausoleum, or reason these buildings have to be on exactly the orthogonal grid? I don't think you'd notice it at all... [crosstalk] Mr. Barksdale: No. Just the proximity. And yeah, there isn't really a strong parallel access to that building anyway. Most of these elements are coming in at a 45 degrees. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll suggest to you that the way it is now with the entrance just every so slightly off center of the roadway, I think it might look like a mistake in the end, that the building is not centered on the road as you approach it. And I don't think anybody will notice whether it's relating exactly to the mausoleum behind it. And again, I don't think any of these affect my ability to recommend approval, but it just strikes me that it would be so easy to rotate or shift the building so that on direct approach, it would look good. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: Okay, let's... Bike racks. That's the first time I heard us requesting that the bike racks not be by the front door. I can just understand why that makes sense here. Any...? Board Member Lew: It's happened on other projects, as well. Chair Furth: I just wasn't paying attention. Okay. Board Member Lew: There are places like the country club... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Sure, where you really don't want it at the front door. Board Member Thompson: How does the rest of the board feel about that? Because I don't mind it being at the front door, as... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I have no opinion. Board Member Lew: I think the code is it has to be within 50 feet of the front door. Why don't we put the condition that it needs to be within 50 feet and they can...? Chair Furth: You can make your own decision about what you want. The applicant can. Would somebody like to make a motion? Oh, I didn't bring up the issue of additional walls to screen the niche areas, glass walls. Is there any support for that suggestion? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: David. But I don't see any... Board Member Hirsch: That's my major, major concern about the project. Chair Furth: Got it. Board Member Hirsch: And unless we can be assured that there's not going to be a conflict... If you look at a, what is it, four-foot-six, four-foot-nine niche wall there on each of the perimeter areas, somebody standing there would be a part of the event happening on the inside, I just don't see that as a good relationship at all. If those niches were to be used. If you can assure us that there's never going to be a conflict between the use of the perimeter area, and that would be scheduled not to conflict with the service on the service on the inside... Chair Furth: Okay, David, at this point, I'm really asking you to talk to us, not the applicant. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. [crosstalk] Board Member Thompson: Go ahead. Chair Furth: Okay, I'm trying to wind... I thought for once we could get through a project in less than an hour, since we all like it. But that's all right. I don't support additional wall space. I think the applicants are good at scheduling their events, and I think it cannot guarantee that somebody won't get the desire to go visit a niche at some point, but I am, in this case, completely willing to defer to the owners' judgment on this issue since they are successful operators of a memorial park. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Thompson: I also agree with you on that. I'm not supportive of changing the height of the niche wall. I kind of like the interplay. Chair Furth: I do support having the subcommittee look at this orientation issue. I do think it's important to have a good drop-off access point. I think that if it's possible to rotate it a bit so that you can get a bigger defined circular area, that's well worth it. Our biggest concern before was that we had this... I at least had this vision of women in high heels, tromping through the grass, trying to find out where they were going, and you addressed that. I like that, and I think by rotating it you can make it big enough to really work. So, unless the applicant objects to us asking the subcommittee to look at that, I think we're ready to make a motion. Board Member Thompson: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Was that a triple negative? MOTION Chair Furth: Osma's going to make a motion. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: I'll move that we approve the project subject to the conditions of approval, and revisit the turnaround radius, or referral to subcommittee with respect to the entrance driveway radius, and as it relates to the building orientation.... Was there something else on your list? Chair Furth: Landscaping. Board Member Thompson: Landscaping. Anything else? Chair Furth: And we were going to modify it to say that the bike racks could be anywhere within 50 feet of the entrance, as chosen by the property owner. Ms. Hodgkins: With relation to the landscaping as part of that motion, is there something specific such as... Chair Furth: Yeah, it doesn’t meet, we cannot meet the findings because of the shortage. Ms. Hodgkins: Okay.... [crosstalk] Ms. Hodgkins: Okay. Board Member Thompson: Need to see more appropriate landscaping to meet the findings. Chair Furth: We're not questioning the beauty or attractiveness, but we have a requirement that, to the extent possible, it use regional drought-tolerant materials that provide good habitat. Right? This park is a good habitat for a lot of birds and insects, I'm sure, which are all becoming in increasingly short supply in this world. Is there a second. Vice Chair Baltay: I will second that motion. Chair Furth: Motion by Board Member Thompson, second by Vice Chair Baltay. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. Board Member Hirsch: No, with the comment that I think it could come to committee, but I'm very concerned about the perimeter walls as I've described them. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Furth: Thank you. The motion to refer to subcommittee passes 4-1, with opposition by Board Member Hirsch, for the reasons stated. MOTION PASSES 4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER HIRSCH VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO APPROVE. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Look forward to seeing the project. Mr. Barksdale: Thank you. Chair Furth: And David, thank you for explaining your reservations. I always forget to ask people to do that, and according to our procedures, we do that. Do we need a break before we go to the next item? Board Member Lew: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Okay, we're going to have a one-minute break for staff to reorganize themselves. [The Board took a short break.] 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 Chair Furth: 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 with a full, habitable garage, basement level and attached garage. It is exempt from CEQA. Small infill new construction. The zoning is RMD Neighborhood Preservation, which is why it's before us. First of all, has everybody visited the site? Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Chair Furth: Five out of five. I visited the site. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, if we could just change up for two seconds. We have a person who would like to speak to Item 4 but needs to leave very shortly. Could we just hear that comment and then move forward? Chair Furth: We can do that. Let me finish asking people if they've had any ex parte communications with anyone with regard to this project. Vice Chair Baltay: No. Board Member Thompson: No. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Furth: No one has had any communications with anyone with regard to this project. Okay. We will pause briefly on this and go to item number 4... Study Session 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. Chair Furth: ...which is a study session. Okay. I have a conflict of interest on this one so I will step away -- because I live there -- and let the Vice Chair deal with this. [Chair Furth left the chamber] Vice Chair Baltay: Very well. We're going to open the agenda item number 4, just to take public comment. We have one speaker card from Mary Elizabeth Plowder [sic]. You'll have three minutes to speak. If you could spell your name, please. Mary Elizabeth Plowden: Yes, thank you. It's Mary Elizabeth Plowden. Vice Chair Baltay: Plowden, I'm sorry. Ms. Plowden: Sure. [spells last name]. Thank you. Sorry, I have to leave for work in a minute and I just wanted the opportunity to say a few words. I'm relatively new to Palo Alto. I've maybe lived here three years or so, so this whole process of understanding how to comment and how to participate is new to me. I tried to get up to speed around the last cell phone tower issue as it relates to Crown Castle and Sure Site. It was just approved a few weeks ago. I received another notice in the mail about these 17 nodes that are planned for parts of downtown. One of the approved sites in the last go-around with Crown Castle and Sure Site is across the street from my house. My bedroom is actually co-located with the height of the antenna. Which, for my husband and me, provides great discomfort. My husband is actually an oncology surgeon, so he helps people deal with cancer all day long. So, for us, it's a very deeply... It's a hard topic. The latest review of these 17 sites that I've taken a look at, one of the nodes is actually on a street lamp right outside the building where I work. When I say "right outside," I mean if I look out my window and look at where the node will go, my desk is co-located with that node." Now, I've got one across the street from where I sleep, and I'll have one right next to where I work. Speaking specifically about, you know, beyond just general concerns, I'd like to say that I did some work last go- around as it relates to the radius of the radio frequency of these towers, and there were different nodes of radiation within which you would not want to be collocated. Obviously, this is a new project. I don't have the specs for the new project, but it's surmisable that if you are within 15 feet of this node, it's probably not something you want to be exposed to on an ongoing basis every day. And I just want to bring up that the streetlight that has the sign on it right now that's on the map of these 17 is, again, right next to the office where I sit. And I have many other colleagues that also sit in that office day to day, within 15 feet, the wall of our office, of the streetlight. So, I just wanted to come out and say that for me, that's deeply concerning again. I also just wanted to mention that I'm getting these notices as a resident of Palo Alto. My colleagues, they live in Redwood City, they live south of Palo Alto, they're not getting notices like this, so they're going to be within 15 feet of these nodes. And it's not just my office. There are many other offices where that's probably the case. And I realize that there's maybe a public newspaper requirement to post meetings like this and findings, which is entirely insufficient in today's world and media, where people don't necessarily read the published paper version of the Palo Alto daily news, or wherever we put that. Notification to people that work next to these nodes I think is extremely important because if they don't get these things in the mail as downtown residents, they might also want the chance to comment and participate. Lastly, I would say that given... I have two of these now within City of Palo Alto Page 15 striking distance of my everyday life. As a mom, as a resident of Palo Alto, I think we should just think more broadly about what we're doing in the city as it relates to all these nodes. We just approved five, 17 more. When we talk about the health effects, do we think about the aggregate health impacts? I'm not talking about the ... Vice Chair Baltay: If you could wrap it up, you're 30 seconds over. Ms. Plowden: Sure, sure. Not just the radius right next to the streetlight, but if you think about the aggregate affect of people like me that live and work in downtown Palo Alto. Do we know what that means in the longer run health-wise as it relates to all of the RF emission? Thank you very much. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you for speaking. Okay, we'd like to close that portion of the meeting to public comment and return back to agenda item number 3. Thank you. [Chair Furth returned to the chamber and resumed discussion of item 3 regarding 2342 Yale Street.] Chair Furth: Thank you. To return to agenda item 2342, which is item number 3 on our agenda, the applicant... The owner is Abdel Ismail, and the architect is Amer Ismail Design Build Group. If we could have the staff report, please. And if our new planner could introduce herself. Emily Foley, Project Planner: Hi, good morning. My name is Emily Foley, and I'm the project planner. Chair Furth: And Emily, could you spell your name for our transcriber since you're new? Ms. Foley: Yeah. [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you Ms. Foley: As we mentioned, this is for 2342 Yale Street. It is a duplex project, and this is the first time that it's come to the Architectural Review Board. The proposal is to demolish two existing residential units. It's a single-family home in the front and a second kind of apartment-style unit over the existing garage. The proposal is to construct two duplex units, so two attached units with the detached garage in the rear. Each unit is pretty much identical, so there are four bedrooms including a finished basement in each unit. The site context is in the College Terrace neighborhood. As previously mentioned, it's in the RMD NP zone, and the Neighborhood Preservation Overlay is why it is at the ARB meeting today. In the general neighborhood area, there are single and two-family and multiple-family residential on three sides of development, and neighborhood commercial small office buildings to the north across the street. For the site plan, it's a duplex, so the two units are attached, but the second floor roof forms are slightly separated with decks in between. The parking is in the two-car garage, and there's one uncovered space as required by the zoning. There is useable open space. Each unit has a 99 square foot deck and a 59 square foot deck. The front unit has 483 square feet of useable open space, and the rear unit has 422 square feet of kind of landscaped open space. These are the current elevations as shown in the project plans for the front and rear and for the two sides. The entrances are defined, as well as the two units being pretty much the same, so the two sides of the building look very similar. As previously mentioned, this project is not subject to CEQA, and staff is recommending approval at this time. Chair Furth: Is there a materials board? Ms. Foley: Yes. The applicant said that he was going to bring an updated materials board. Chair Furth: If we could have that, please. Thank you. Any questions from staff before we hear from the applicant? If we could hear from the applicant, please. And if you could, as everyone does, spell your name for our transcriber. When you introduce yourself. Amer Ismail: Sure: My name is Amer Ismail [spells name]. Our objective... City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Furth: Excuse me, I forgot to tell you, you have 10 minutes. Which we will now start. Mr. Ismail: Okay. Our objective is to build a duplex that will help improve the area. Currently, the existing building has kind of a zero lot line along with the adjacent buildings, so we think the building we're proposing improves that. Chair Furth: Could you speak a little closer to the mic? I'm sorry, our mics require that you be quite close. Mr. Ismail: Okay. We feel that the building we're proposing improves that by following the setback requirement on the left side, and the driveway on the right side separates this building from the current neighboring buildings. In the design, we tried to follow the guidelines as closely as possible. One was we placed the garage in the back of the property to mitigate its visibility, and also kind of match the neighborhood. The driveway, we tried to minimize the width of it as much as possible. We also proposed some Hollywood strips with landscaping in the middle, and providing a planting strip on the right side for screening landscape between this property and the neighboring property. Our original design, we had kind of a larger second floor, so we reduced that door by increasing the footprint of the building. That way, kind of minimizing the second floor walls. We also, also to meet the guidelines in terms of height and massing and scale, we set back the second floor walls from the first floor walls all around by about three feet. We located two upper floor balconies in the center of the building, that way separate the second floor from each unit, again, to kind of minimize its mass. Also, that helps with the roof scale, as well. And we took into consideration the windows, so they don't have direct sights, and are proposing screening landscape in the appropriate areas. Chair Furth: Does anybody have any questions before...? Of the applicant's architect? Doesn't look like it. I had one question. Do you know how many bedrooms there are in the existing buildings on the site? Total? Mr. Ismail: There are... I believe there is a total of, maybe six bedrooms. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. Board Member Thompson: I had a quick question. Chair Furth: A quick question before we hear from the rest of the public? Board Member Thompson: I just... Oh, well. It was a material question. Should I ask later? Chair Furth: Yeah. Why don't we ask questions later? The applicant will have a chance to respond to the public, so let's hear from them, and then we'll do a second round. You may be seated. I have one speaker card from Taylor Brady, professional engineer. And Mr. Brady, if you could spell your name and give us your address, if you would. Taylor Brady: Absolutely. Yes, my name is Taylor Brady. [spells name] I was already going to begin my speech this way, so, in the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I am a resident of 2342 Yale Street in the College Terrace neighborhood, occupied Mayfield. I'm also a licensed civil engineer in the state of California. My license number C-88568, in the event that any present here today would like to look it up through the Board of Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists. I have practiced structural engineering since earning my bachelor's and master's degrees from Stanford University in June 2013 and March 2016, respectively. Germane to the discussion today, I've been the primary structural designer on numerous residential buildings of similar type and scope to the proposed project, as well as many more commercial, industrial and multifamily residential structures of significantly greater size. I'm here this morning to publicly express my opposition to the proposed demolition of 2342 Yale Street. Since my vested interest as a renting resident of the subject property is obvious, I will not belabor the point. However, I would like to focus my speech on three other points. The first is the incompleteness of the most recent drawings currently available to the public by Palo Alto's Accela citizen access portal as of City of Palo Alto Page 17 2200 hours on February 20, 2019, i.e. last night. The second point is regarding the historic nature of the property and its situation in the College Terrace neighborhood, and the third point is the impact of the demolition on the City's more broadly-stated goals of sustainability and affordable housing. The most recent set of drawings available for the project is a set dated November 19, 2018. While these drawings may meet basic requirements for an architectural set, in my professional experience the design reflects a project at the end of schematic design, with only the basic massing and architectural program established. Critical details such as wall and floor assembly, waterproofing fenestration, drainage for decks, and guardrail attachments are not present in this set. Moreover, while a building of this type is feasible to construct, no structural system has been designated either for gravity or lateral loads. Looking more closely at the presently-submitted drawings, it is possible to see that with buildings and different floor layout levels, the level, structural framing for discontinuance bearing elements -- that is, beams and columns -- will need to be specified. Additionally, no lateral system is proposed, and while myriad systems are possible for such a structure, perhaps timber sheer walls or steel moment frames, a careful inspection of the present architectural program and fenestration reveals that such critical structures are not accounted for. They are not continuous walls which could be used as sheer walls, no are their locations for frame elements fit. If the structural system is (inaudible) accommodating the present architectural program, then the gravity and lateral systems will require numerous discontinuous elements, each of which will have to be individually designed, and which is not, again, while feasible, an insignificant design task. This is to say nothing of the structural details that will be required for construction of the presumably truss roofs. The connection of discontinuous vertical (inaudible) elements to supporting members, and more. Chair Furth: Mr. Brady, I forgot to tell you that you have three minutes, so would you take another minute to address your other issues? Mr. Brady: I suppose so. I'll just sum up this section really quickly. I just think that it would be in the City's best interest to review and comment upon much more complete drawings before proceeding with a permitting process. Regarding the historic nature of the building, it is admittedly of amateur and local interest, but it is these footnotes of our neighborhood and our town's history that are, those that are being erased. Frank Miniker [phonetic], the builder of the building, was one of the earliest occupants of the College Terrace, or what became the College Terrace neighborhood, and Ranis Smithian [phonetic] Mayfield before it was annexed by the City Palo Alto. Individual structures such as this one may not have the polished cordials, the prettily-painted balustrades which draw the attention of architectural historians, who are mere decorative fetishes for the prominent styles in the neighborhood. Although I do happen to think that the periwinkle channel siding and elegantly-curved rafter tails of 2342 are worth noting. Nevertheless, the eccentricity of such lots and their placement, the way they permit access to thoroughfares in the neighborhood, is a unique aspect that cannot be discounted in assessment of the building's place in the neighborhood. Chair Furth: Thank you I'm going to stop you, but some people may have questions for you. And if there is any written material you want to submit, or drawings, please do. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Brady before we go on? Okay, thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to this item? All right. Does the applicant have any responses to the comments? Or anything else you wish to say? Okay. Staff have any comments after hearing from the public? Ms. Gerhardt: I just wanted to comment on the adequacy of plan sets. It is a planning application. We do normally get schematic drawings at this stage. But one thing that I do hear the resident saying is that maybe the later structural design will be very complicated. So, we do ask, because we have architects on our ARB, I think you can speak to a little bit. Related to historic, we have done an historic analysis of this property and it was deemed to be not historic. Chair Furth: Who did the analysis and what were the standards used? Ms. Foley: It was a DPR -- Department of Parks and Recreation -- primary record report. It was probably Page and Turnbull, but I don't have that right in front of me. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Furth: I think it's on page 112 of our packet. What's the page? Is it 112? We're using the state standards, right? Ms. Gerhardt: Absolutely. I don't know that we put the historic report in here, in the packet, because we weren't anticipating that that would be a major concern. Chair Furth: Was that done in house? Ms. Foley: It was done by Page and Turnbull. Chair Furth: An old survey or more recently? Ms. Foley: More recent. August 21, 2018. Chair Furth: Thank you. Is that available to the public if they want to see it? Ms. Foley: Yes, I believe it's uploaded to... Chair Furth: Thank you. We had another question of staff. When we went out to look at the site, we didn't see any project sign. And we're concerned... I mean, it's odd not to hear from neighbors on a project in College Terrace. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, Board Member Lew had brought that to our attention I believe yesterday -- actually maybe two days ago -- so yesterday, we made sure, spoke to the applicant, and Emily made sure that the sign was up again. They found the sign. It had just been maybe knocked over, or something. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right. Alex, why don't you start? Board Member Thompson: Can we do questions of the applicant? Chair Furth: Oh, questions, all right. You know what? I'm going to have us combine our questions with our comments, if that's all right. Go ahead. If it's a very basic question. Board Member Thompson: Just a clarification on the balustrade, the guard rails for the balconies. The drawings are showing a different kind of perforation than the material board. Mr. Ismail: Yeah, it was hard to model on the drawings the screening that we'll be using. That's why we included it on the material board. Board Member Thompson: It will be the [crosstalk].... Mr. Ismail: Yeah, yeah. Board Member Thompson: ... on the material board. And is that kind of a gold finish? Mr. Ismail: They have several finishes, but most likely we'll be picking a finish that will be matching the cladding on the windows and the doors, as well as the guard rails. Board Member Thompson: Is that the darker...? Mr. Ismail: The darker, yeah. Board Member Thompson: Ah, okay, so they will be dark guard rails. I see. Okay. All right. That's all my questions for now. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: People in the middle hardly ever start. Why don't you? Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I want to disclose to the Board that I've also looked at some additional information on this project with regard to the historic houses on Yale Street. They're on the PAST website. So, I think the City has picked out the ones that are truly historic, and one of them is on the national, one or two of them are on the National Register. I think the City is paying attention to that. We don't have an historic neighborhood here like in Professorville, where there would be design guidelines. We don't have that in this particular neighborhood, however. I think my main concerns on the project are the location of the trash because it's next to one of the bedrooms, and... Mr. Ismail: Actually, on the updated drawings, we actually relocated those to the back, behind the bike lockers. Board Member Lew: Great. Okay, excellent. That's one. Two is the, the driveway width is only eight feet, and that might be fine for the Hollywood strips, if you're only parking in the back, and if nobody is ever parked on the driveway itself. But, I mean, I think normally I would look to something more like 10 feet, so you can actually, if there's a car there, you can walk past the car. That's a concern. Also, in the landscape plan, I think you're showing lawn in between the Hollywood strip driveways. I think my comment is that I think that looks good, but it's really inefficient to irrigate, so you're wasting a lot of water for a very little bit of grass. There are some ground covers that are really tough and don't require a lot of irrigation, and I was trying to look it up in my notes I have for other projects, and I couldn't find it. But I think there are recommendations out there for that. And similarly with the turfstone in the back. I think of all of my neighbors, only maybe 10 percent park in the garage. So, if you've got turfstone in back and people have parked there, I don't think that's going to work very well with the irrigation. I think that's another concern of mine. I think I'm okay with the buildings. Generally, to get more compatibility with the neighbors, I would ideally prefer siding and a steeper-pitched roof, but I don't think that our zoning really requires that in this particular case. I was looking through the zoning carefully and I don't think that that's part of the requirements on this particular site, so I think I can recommend approval otherwise. I think that's all that I have. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. David. Oh, it should be Peter. Going from the middle, out. Vice Chair Baltay: Very well. Thank you for the proposal, the presentation, and thank you, Alex. I'm going to follow up on what you were saying, vis-a-vie the driveway being narrow. I have more fundamental issues with the basic site planning here. I don't think the garage the way it's oriented works, in the sense that certainly from the farther back space, it's next to impossible to get out of that without backing all the way down that driveway, and then the driveway only being eight feet wide makes it a very challenging task. It seems to me that you could rotate the garage and push it to the other side of the property where it is facing directly on the driveway, and then you might be able to back out in a hammerhead turn and turnaround and still use that space to accommodate your other parking. Then, when I was thinking about this more, I saw an earlier application you'd made with a totally different site plan, where you had in the middle between two separate buildings a whole parking arrangement, which seemed to make a lot more sense to me. And it just really left me scratching my head, thinking that you just fundamentally don't have a very good site plan here. You're covering up most of the property with this driveway, then trying to hide it as turfstone, and then, making it also function as the entrance to the back unit, pretty well ensuring that nobody is every going to actually drive back there because it's so tight to get back there, or to turn around, and to have to back back down the driveway. A lot of places just don't work, to my way of thinking. I’m sorry to have to say that to you, but at a core level, I don't think the site planning is really functioning well enough. I'd like to address a second comment I have, which again Alex touched on, and I think I draw a different conclusion. I don't think the building is compatible to the neighborhood. It's a neighborhood full of wood siding, detailed, more traditional-looking homes. And you have a very tall façade with not too many openings, and it's just plan plaster all the way through. You're saying it's a contemporary style, but I don't really see it that way. I just see it as being a big plaster box right now. That may be the case, as Alex points out, the zoning code doesn't explicitly prohibit that, but I think it does require us to find that the building is compatible with the neighborhood and fits into the character. City of Palo Alto Page 20 And I just don't think it does. I think it's... It's not a positive addition, the way it will look now as compared to what's there now. You don't have to copy what's there, but I think architecturally the style now is not fitting into anything. It's not really contemporary, and it certainly doesn't pick up on the cues from the charming buildings nearby. I think a wood siding, more detail around the windows, things like that would really help a lot to make it fit in. Or, if you wanted to be more contemporary, that's fine, but then really design it that way. Perhaps change your roof forms a little bit, accentuate the strength of the tall stucco facades. But right now, it's really not doing it for me that way. Last general comment I have is regarding privacy issues. This building is required to meet the individual review guidelines, and as I see it, you're proposing four generous-sized upstairs balconies, which are all... You're in a tight neighborhood, tight conditions here, looking over into our neighbors properties. So, your solution is to put a five-foot privacy screening in front of them. And certainly on the two middle balconies, the ones contained between your upstairs units, you have three solid walls, and then, all you have left on the fourth side facing out is now a five-foot metal screen. That's a very mean type of balcony. I can't imagine it being pleasant to sit there, even more so as the roof eves come in on both sides. The space is maybe seven feet wide and the eve comes in almost two feet on each side. You're left with almost no sunlight, very little view to the outside. I'm left thinking ultimately this will be closed in and made into another part of the living space, or that screening will be torn down, violating our privacy guidelines. It just seems to me an inappropriate place to be putting a balcony. Or, you should be articulating the massing of the buildings such that these are on corners or somehow fitting in better. Right now, they feel like leftover spaces between two upstairs buildings that you're doing to meet the FAR [Floor Area Ratio] or lot coverage requirements. I'll grant you those are onerous and challenging requirements to meet, but they shouldn't be thought of as leftover spaces, which is what I see those balconies doing. I'm going to summarize to my colleagues that I think the site planning doesn't work yet, the building really needs to be more contextually compatible or architecturally different, and I have serious issues about the privacy due to those upstairs balconies. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. David. Board Member Hirsch: I agree with a number of comments already made here. This is a block, it's kind of a unique and wonderful little block by itself. All these buildings on the block have quite an interesting character to them, especially the Painted Lady down the street, a Victorian honey of a building, you know? And I feel very strongly that you could have looked at your neighbors and picked up materials that would relate much better. I don't like the stucco particularly at all on the outside of this building. There are areas of Palo Alto, most of Palo Alto, in fact, where you have significant lots or space to work with, and the neighbors are a variety of styles. But this block is very consistent, and it should remain that way. You could very well have chosen to have a wooden look to the outside. I didn't realize, looking at the roof material color, that it wasn't a tile roof because it tends towards looking like a stucco-tile Spanish-style building, but doesn't make it into that category either. There's plenty of height capability here that you aren't using, and I think a lot of the possibility of making it a taller, more vertical building would give a much better dimension to this building idea. I'm impressed with the kind of planning of taking the same scheme in the front and rotating it around and making it work on both sides in planning. But, I agree with Peter that the question of how you deal with those outside areas on the roof don't seem to work well as an outside balcony, and how you would change that in planning, I'm not sure how you could do that, but I think you need to look seriously at that. This building cries out for a front porch. The proportions of the front of the building are really not pleasant at all. There's a lot of blank wall, one window over a kitchen counter, a corner window, change of window type at that point. I find the whole front to be unsatisfactory. If you look at precedents in all of Palo Alto, you'll find that a front porch and more generous kind of relationship to the street would be very important to this building and would work much better with a wood look to the building, as well. Wood siding, I would say, would be more appropriate to this building, and to this street. I would like you to study, I think, the outside proportions of the windows and bring back a better look to the whole building that way. In particular, when you make a decision to have an entry straight in from the front, and then the other one is in this rather narrow passageway for a vehicle, where perhaps vehicles would be stored -- In fact, you won't have any room to get in that door. But you do have an area in the back of the building where there's a yard between the building and the garage. I don't know why you don't really use that to create an entry City of Palo Alto Page 21 similar, with perhaps a porch as well, that related to that back unit. I really would like to see this building proportioned differently. A higher-pitched roofline would work much, much better in the scale of the street. You have recessed window frames in the stucco wall, whereas, as it was noted, there's a possibility for framing in such a way that you express the window better with a frame that you read on the outside. I think it would be a much preferred way of presenting this kind of a building on this block, and there's no other similar, kind of recessed window frame the way you're showing it. In general, I'm honestly not happy with the way the building looks at all, and I think more of a study of the Palo Alto housing would benefit this considerably, and in fact, more study on that very block, of the relationship to the neighborhood, would give you an opportunity to improve this project when it comes to us again. I'm not... Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: ...not in favor of... Chair Furth: Oh, sorry. Sorry. Board Member Hirsch: ...of voting for the project. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you to the tenant for coming to speak to us. Osma, I completely forgot you. So far to the left. Board Member Thompson: And I went and saw the site and everything. I'll try to keep it short. Mainly everybody said what I've written down here, but in general, I'll just reiterate the ones that I think are important. I agree the façade is lacking. While there is a bit of stucco in the neighborhood, the neighborhood is made interesting by the siding and the paneling, and that level of detail is important for a residential feel. Also, the drawings are a little confusing. It looks like there's two types of railing, but they don't match what's on the material board. And in general, that level of clarity is really important for us to evaluate if this building really works in this context. The rails are rendered as white and they are not going to be white. They are going to be black, or very dark. That's a problem. There's also these extra ornamental elements at the entries that aren't very well detailed. It's a little hard to know exactly what's happening there. I understand it's a level of detail and scale, but in the face of this otherwise very blank wall, I don't think that relationship is very clear, or that it's working. And the material board should also actually have the actual materials versus just pictures. That's important, as well. Agreed that the lawn choice, the choice of using lawn, is not a very good choice, that there are better choices out there that are for water use and aesthetic. I didn't have these notes before, but after having heard them, agree that the narrow driveway is a problem. And the privacy of the balconies is.... I'm an extrovert, so I don't mind hanging out with my neighbors as much, but I think it potentially could be a big problem, that people might try to board up or try to... yeah. People add, like, extra things, and they always keep their windows closed, and that space, while it looks great on plans, not working out in real life. That's all I've got. Chair Furth: Thank you, and apologies. I think part of the... I cannot support this project as submitted, and I'm sorry because I don't like to say no to proposals for housing, even when they're not increasing the housing. One of the interesting things about this is it seems... There are six bedrooms on site now? Seven, according to the audience. This one is eight, possibly ten, of the offices are actually used as bedrooms, which is a lot for a parcel with very little parking and very little bicycle space. My principle concerns are different. Our regulations doesn't protect the street as a historic neighborhood. It might well have been eligible, but College Terrace has not cared to be designated as a protected historic district like Ramona or Professorville. That was, in a sense, a neighborhood choice. The state standards are fairly explicit, and sometimes additional research turns up information that changes the results, but I’m going to defer to the study for the time being. I'll certainly go read it. But my big problem is this, the side of Yale that you're building is on is the boundary of the residential area that is College Terrace. The part of land that Stanford didn't get. Our historic holdout. And it's remarkably consistent. In fact, all those wood- front houses so tight together, it's almost looking like, you know, buildings on a wharf. They go one after City of Palo Alto Page 22 another, sometimes they almost touch. They have wood siding, they have framed windows, they are strongly vertical, and they're fairly simple. They stay in their boxes. They don't go off in odd directions. And to me, this building doesn't do any of those things. I will say the roofing material is consistent with the neighborhood, but in that neighborhood, stucco tends to signal multiple family or commercial across the street. On your side of the street, it's wood. This suggests to me the erosion of the residential neighborhood. It makes a hole. It's like there's a gap in the smile. I'll stop with the belabored metaphors. It doesn't meet our standards for requiring compatibility. I agree that we don't have the explicit requirements and neighborhood preservation standards that we do in some others for materials, but I think it fails to meet our other review standards. I think the driveway doesn’t work. I think the orientation of the door onto the driveway doesn't work. I think the... And when I say "work," I mean that I think people living there will have difficulty using them without conflicts with each other. You try to design so as to minimize the irritations. I'm concerned that the open space does not appear to be functional to me, and open space is not just supposed to be a square on a plan. It's supposed to be something that adds pleasure to the neighborhood and the users because it's beautifully planted, or you can sit there, or there's a significant tree, not just something that meets our minimum dimensions. I can't be more consistent with that. I can tell you that I spent a lot of time working with historic preservation rules and they don't require that new construction look like it's old. In fact, they prefer that it not look fake-old. So, I can imagine a building that uses wood siding, and wood-framed windows, and a better relationship to the street, and more clearly signifies we're in College Terrace, that looked very modern, but it was clearly done by a designer who respected what's there and tried to design a building that not only looked good for itself, but made its neighbors continue to look strong. I wonder if it's a little too big. When I hear that the driveway is too narrow to be functional, and this is a tight lot, I think that maybe it's a little too intense a development for what actually fits on this lot. Also, the landscaping as proposed doesn't meet our standards, which require, where possible, the use of regional native plant materials that provide good habitat. I can't see any reason why that's not possible on this site. Staff, since we are not prepared to recommend approval today, judging by the comments received, what kind of motion would you like? What would you like us to do? Ms. Gerhardt: I would ask that we continue to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Thank you. MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this project to a date uncertain. Board Member Hirsch: I second that. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye. Opposed, none. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you. It's not unusual for us to be unable to approve a project on its first vision, and I hope that working with staff, you can come to a project that we will be able to approve. Thank you for coming to speak to us, and we will go on to our next item. Before we do that, I need to say that I will not participate in the next public hearing item because I live at 216 Everett, and therefore, live in the neighborhood. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2018. Chair Furth: Maybe while staff is getting ready for the next item, we could review the Architectural Review Board meeting minutes for October 18, 2018. Any comments? City of Palo Alto Page 23 Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I'll bite into that, sure. I think the minutes for the meeting itself are fine, but I'm quite concerned about the way the subcommittee hearing has been presented. This is the second time we've talked about it. Right now, it's very confusing which items are being discussed in the subcommittee meetings. If you read it, it states one of the projects and has a few comments about what happened. It doesn't say which committee members were involved in that hearing. And then, below that, it segues into comments which I think are about the police station project, but it doesn't say that it's that project. And again, it doesn't identify who is speaking. It seems to me just deficient. We need to have minutes that capture that stuff. Ms. Gerhardt: So, let me ask... [crosstalk] ... Board Member Lew: ... on page 17 of the minutes. Ms. Gerhardt: Page 17 of what minutes? Board Member Lew: And there are two subcommittee items, and one of them... Ms. Gerhardt: Are we talking about October 18th? Board Member Lew: October 18th. And one of them should be the public safety building, and it's not... There's no header for that public safety building. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, I can take a closer look at that. We don't normally list out... I mean, we can list who the subcommittee was. We don't normally list out who said what. It's meant to be more of a summary. But we can definitely put who was there. Vice Chair Baltay: I think it's important just to list which board members were making that decision. Ms. Gerhardt: Certainly. Chair Furth: Thank you. You can add those. Also, at one point in the sign discussion -- I'm sorry, I've lost it, I think it's on page 8 -- it says "ready" instead of "read." Talking about reading signs and it says "ready." I'll try to find that and let you know. That's just a clerical error. Board Member Lew: Peter, do you want to approve the minutes as corrected, or do you want them to come back? Vice Chair Baltay: I think we should approve them and let staff correct it because it's really been quite, quite late now. Chair Furth: Yeah, a long time. MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I'll move that we approve the minutes as corrected. Board Member Lew: I will second that. Chair Furth: Motion by Baltay, second by Lew. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, none. Thank you. Maybe we have time to do one more set? 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 10, 2019. Chair Furth: Okay, January 10th. Let's see, that was the one on 4256 El Camino and 380 Cambridge. That was a long meeting. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Thompson: I'll move that we approve the minutes. Oh, sorry. Chair Furth: Any comments or changes? Vice Chair Baltay: I noticed one thing, I think it was this meeting, where we were discussing with Randy Popp -- And fortunately, they only came to me yesterday, digitally, so I don't have a page to reference to, but there was a comment in there where Randy Popp and I were discussing something, and a whole paragraph was attributed to me when I think it was Randy speaking. I have to dig it up. Give me a few minutes to find it, I guess. Chair Furth: I think that's a clerical, which we can correct afterwards. Staff is nodding. Vice Chair Baltay: Then go ahead with your motion. MOTION Board Member Thompson: All right. I'll move that we approve those minutes for January 10th, with the correction by Baltay. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: Motion by Thompson, second by Baltay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. No opposition. MOTION PASSES 5-0. 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 17, 2019. Chair Furth: And the final set is January 17, 2018. Any comments, corrections, etc.? Board Member Thompson: I'll abstain. I was not present. Vice Chair Baltay: I believe we had a subcommittee item on that one as well, and again, there's no record of that in the minutes. Again, I think that could be corrected without coming back to us, but it is important. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Lew: The subcommittee item on page 63 of the minutes, the subcommittee reviewed the details, the driveway gate and the height of the light poles. And also, on page 56 of the minutes, which is with regards to one of the cell projects, David had referenced several times the CAC report. I think what he intended to say was the CTC report, which is Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, and they're a city independent consultant. That occurs multiple times. Chair Furth: And it should be spelled out the first time it occurs. Not by the speaker, but by the transcriber. MOTION Board Member Lew: I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes for January 17, 2019, as corrected. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Hirsch: Second it. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Furth: All right. All those in favor say...? Let's see. Motion by Lew, second by Hirsch - Is that right? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye. We are caught up on our minutes, the first time in many months. Thank you. MOTION PASSES 4-0-1. Chair Furth: I am going to ask to be excused for the balance of the meeting. I will leave it to my colleagues to take care of everything else. We will have a five-minute break, and then we'll get to the rest of it. Apologize for the delay. All we can tell you is we're doing better than we usually do. [Chair Furth left the meeting.] [The Board took a short break.] STUDY SESSION 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. Vice Chair Baltay: ... a preliminary study for small cell nodes at 250 Hamilton Avenue. It's a 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. Staff report, please. Rebecca Atkinson, Project Planner: Good morning, board members. The project description for this preliminary... Oh, Rebecca Atkinson, Planner. The project description for this preliminary architectural review is as described. I'd like to thank AT&T for filing a preliminary architectural review application, for many reasons, including the transparency notice and opportunity to provide early comment that this application provides to members of the public and the ARB, prior to the formal applications coming in. Thank you for that. In terms of a project overview, the number of nodes that you see in your project application and project plans are 17. It would be one or multiple clusters coming in at formal application. The locations are generally within the downtown area, University South and Downtown North, and adjacent to other neighborhoods, and adjacent to Town and Country. One node is on El Camino Real near Monroe Park, and another node is one Arastradero near Green Acres. There might be future phases -- we don't know -- potentially up to 33 nodes, and currently AT&T operates macro sites and has an existing DAS system. Here are a couple maps. These maps are also attachments to your staff report and it shows the basic location of the nodes and distribution. AT&T proposes to utilize existing streetlight and wood utility pole locations, and there are a variety of design configurations that they will review with you today. Please pay special attention to the specific equipment proposed for the purposes that the equipment differs in size and capacity, and as such, influences aesthetics. I'd like to highlight that this application will debut 5G to Palo Alto, in which case the majority of nodes would have both 4G and 5G antennas and radios. Staff outlined some anticipated design changes for streetlight and wood utility pole designs on packet pages 78 and 81. If you are interested in seeing the 5G design more closely than what is presented is the staff report on page 80 and in the project plans, we do have a photo in our site presentation of the San Francisco 5G mock-up that AT&T provided to us. I just showed in the staff presentation some of the basics of the proposed configurations, and AT&T will review these designs more specifically. While processing applications before us, staff is also continuing to look into the latest City of Palo Alto Page 26 technologies and designs elsewhere. Staff is beginning to see designs for streetlights with radios integrated into the pole, and access through panels with top-mounted antennas, as well as poles that also host the radios and antennas within the poles themselves. Staff also noticed emerging new radios that continue to become smaller than what we have seen in some other applications. Departments are reviewing the technical site constraints at each of the node locations, such as trenching relative to street trees, the presence of underground basement, and noise and compliance with FCC safety standards, will be reviewed with formal applications. What we hope to achieve today is to receive detailed early feedback from the public and Architectural Review Board members. We also hope to discuss the key questions from AT&T on siting, design configurations and screening. These questions will be posed in their presentation, as well as on packet page 96. We'd also like to discuss topics raised in the staff report, including node design and screening, nodes in scenic areas, nodes proposed near historic buildings and districts, and nodes with marketing banners. Please see packet pages 82 through 87 for identification of some of the specific nodes that intersect with each of the aforementioned topics. For further clarification, staff reviewed the alternative to the corner locations presented in the project plans and it appears that these alternative locations might be less visible in general and follow throughs on original ARB feedback on other applications that corners are not preferred. While these would be locations that were alternative to Node 33, Node 34 and Node 35, and AT&T will be outlining those alternatives in their presentation. Staff also had a question for ARB members, and primarily the AT&T team, staff had a question regarding the wood pole design on Encina: Given that the equipment orientation and placement does not currently comply with standard clearance and other requirements, is it possible to utilize the configurations similar to streetlights on this wood pole? For preliminary architecture review, it is an informal and non-binding application and there will be no motion that aggregates ARB member feedback. At places, I will provide you copies of correspondence that we've received since the staff report publication, as well as additional materials. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Rebecca. Though this is not a quasi-judicial matter, I'd like to offer anyone a chance to disclose any communications, or tell us if you've visited the site. David? Board Member Hirsch: None. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited all but one of the sites on Tuesday. Vice Chair Baltay: Osma? Board Member Thompson: I've had no communications and I haven't had a chance to go to all the sites. Vice Chair Baltay: I visited the sites. I also received emails from, I guess engineering companies who proposed various kinds of vaults and ways of pushing forward other technologies for this, which I've asked Rebecca to photocopy and pass out to the Board, just so you can see. I also looked into some the radio equipment that's available from Ericsson, the company the applicant is proposing, and this is in response to information I saw in the packet, but there is an additional radio being manufactured now for underground use, which I thought interesting for the Board to see. I'd like to disclose that that information is out there. With that, the applicant can make a presentation. You'll have 10 minutes. If you could state and spell your name, please. Angela Kung, AT&T: Hi, Board Members, thank you very much. [Setting up presentation]. My name is Angela Kung. I'm a director of external affairs with AT&T. [spells name]. I'm here to give you a little bit of an overview first about just why we're here, and then we'll go into the most important part, which is obviously the design aspect of it. Right now, you all know, I'm sure, demand for wireless is on the rise. Everybody has a cell phone; 77 percent have smartphones now. We have households that rely primarily on wireless. There's no more landlines. Some houses still have them, but 60 percent of households are wireless, don't have landlines now. And 76 percent of 911 calls are on wireless phones. So, data and the ability for capacity is becoming more important than ever, and especially in a town like Palo Alto -- as you City of Palo Alto Page 27 guys know -- with small businesses, 98 percent of small businesses rely on wireless technology. What we have been able to do is provide this -- and you'll see here, it's a small cell. And what small cell -- just to give you an overview of it -- is basically, it's offloading from a macro. Macros are what you historically see on, they're kind of disguised as trees, or on top of buildings. What this is doing is this is taking off capacity from there so that more people can be on their phones, doing whatever, be it data, or be it calls. You'll see here a macro is much bigger, but it's a longer distance. And then, you'll see that a current small cell 4G is about, it's the light pole standard, and it goes up to 1,200 feet. Then, when we get down to 5G, it's still a light pole, so it's the height of a light pole, but then you're going have an even shorter distance, but it's able to do more with technology. This is kind of a comparison of the three different heights, next to a human being. You'll see here that, this is able to show you how it works, from the macro to the small cell to the user itself. We're really excited to unfold this technology here in Palo Alto, but also, 5G is part of this. The reason why this is so important is the new technology is going to be for internet. It uses things for AV, for all, kind of the next step. What 4G and 5G are able to do, because we're able to do it on small cell, this technology is able to be smaller, better, and also less intrusive. What we have been able to do here with our 17 sites is we're going to show you how the design we have and the options we have, and we're hoping that we get your feedback and thought on this actual design. I'm going to have Laura Meiners from Sure Site who is, on behalf of AT&T, is going to talk about the actual designs themselves. Laura Meiners, Sure Site Consulting: Thank you, Andrea. My name is Laura Meiners [spells name] with Sure Site Consulting, representing Ericsson and AT&T, to present this preliminary review application for the deployment of 17 small cell wireless sites. We have been following the progress of other wireless carriers and we are taking feedback from those hearings into consideration. We are looking forward to your recommendations and input on our preliminary design prior to moving forward with our formal application submittal. As we move through the following slides, please note that everything presented is also in the staff report. The slide showing now is the list of our 17 sites. Three are 4G only. Thirteen have 4G and 5G equipment on streetlight poles. We only have one wood pole with 4G and 5G proposed. As Rebecca mentioned earlier, these are mostly in the Downtown North and University South neighborhoods. We do not have any sites adjacent to residential zones or residences. This is a map of sites. Rebecca also showed you a map of the sites. This is presented to help visualize where the sites are located. This slide provides some history on how we came to our proposed design. We have received staff comments and recognize the constraints shown. Addressing the constraints, we recognize that we are presented with opportunities to improve our design, including providing a uniform, streamlined aesthetic design for all sites; concealing the 4G antennas and radios in one shroud on top of the pole; concealing the 5G antennas and radios also on one shroud just below the 4G antenna; and, installing all other equipment in underground vaults or pole boxes. This is the slide showing our corner pole alternates. For these three sites, the primary (inaudible) selected is a pole located on a corner. This is discouraged per planning guidelines, as Rebecca said, so the three alternate sites are presented for your consideration. This slide shows our most recent design configurations. I would like to point out that we have received comments from utility staff to remove the disconnect box on the face of the pole as shown on the most recently submitted plans. We are now proposing to install a fuse disconnect in the adjacent pole box. In the following slides, we have equipment specifications shown that call out the dimensions of the proposed equipment. We are happy to discuss the proposed equipment further with the Board. This is our Configuration #1, which is our light pole with just 4G equipment proposed on the top of the pole. The shroud seen in the photo contains the antenna and the radios. Here is the equipment specification for the shroud containing the radios and the antenna. Our primary design option for light poles Configuration #2 is our 4G plus our 5G equipment. This is the primary design option for 13 of our light pole sites. It includes all equipment and one 4G shroud on top of the pole, plus one 5G shroud located below the mast arm. Here is our equipment spec sheet for the 5G site. Configuration #3 is our wood pole. We are proposing 4G and 5G equipment on the pole, and enclosing all equipment in one 4G shroud on top of the pole, plus one 5G shroud side mounted to the pole. We have checked the clearances and we do believe they meet the current clearances, but we are happy to take any recommendations on the design of this wood pole. This is the equipment spec for the 4G antenna on the wood pole. This is our primary design option for the radio shroud on the wood pole. We do have an alternate radio shroud option presented on slide 23. For the light poles, we do have other alternate designs we would like to City of Palo Alto Page 28 present, including this Alternate Design #1, the side-arm design. This includes space for four radios and the radio will be mounted above the pole. Also, our holster design, which is our Light Pole Alternate Design #2. This includes space for five radios and the antenna mounted to the side as shown. Here is our alternate radio shroud for our wood pole. This shroud proposes a decreased height but increased depth and width. This slide presents some questions for the ARB, also shown in the project description. Thank you for your time and consideration. This concludes our presentation and we are open for questions and discussion. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Do we have any public speaker comments, or cards? Seeing that we have no public comments, I'd like to see if there are any questions from board members. Board Member Hirsch: On the alternatives on the wood pole, what are we being asked to review today? Your preference on those...? Could you go back and show us clearly which ones are the alternate? Ms. Meiners: Can someone help me with the slide? [Locating slide]. This is our primary design option. Board Member Hirsch: Where is that on the pole? Do you have the elevation somewhere? Ms. Meiners: I'm sorry, the presentation is being slow. The proposal is shown here on the photo sim. It's located below the power line. Is that the power line or the com line? I think it's a com line, actually. I believe the bottom is, the bottom of the shroud is proposed at, I think, 11 feet. I think we can move that a little bit closer to the com line if necessary. We also have this alternate radio shroud that could be mounted up to 16 feet or so. Board Member Hirsch: There are different elevations to other connections to wood poles. Is that correct to say? Or are they all standard elevations so that you can fit your radios into areas that are absolutely clear of other competition with other utilities? Ms. Meiners: If I'm understanding your question, you're asking about the clearances to the com line, or...? I'm not... Board Member Hirsch: I'm just curious about why you make a choice of one of these as your preference versus the others. Vice Chair Baltay: David, let's get to that as we have a discussion. I'm looking for more focused questions. Does anybody have... Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: ... anything specific? I would like then to ask you to address quickly because we did have a member of the public speaking regarding radiation from your cells. And that is not, I understand, our purview. Nonetheless, we had somebody make the effort to come here. Could you address, please, that public member's concern about having it close to them? Ms. Meiners: I can do that. We definitely want to address the concern to the public, and we did prepare some preliminary emissions reports and submitted them to staff. According to those reports, the emissions are less than one percent of the allowable public exposure limit, including 0.35 percent for a person standing on the ground, and 0.89 percent for a person directly adjacent on a second story area. Vice Chair Baltay: At what distance is it that amount? Ms. Meiners: I believe it's 10 feet. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Vice Chair Baltay: Ten feet, okay. Thank you. Last question I have, quickly, if you could tell us about the disconnect switches on the streetlight poles that are now being relocated in the ground. Is that absolutely correct? Ms. Meiners: Yes. Yeah. We had received initial comments from the utility staff that they wanted the disconnect box being mounted to the face of the pole consistently at eight feet. During a meeting subsequent to that -- I believe it was earlier this month, actually -- Utility staff said that they would prefer if we remove the disconnect box from the face of the pole and install it underground in the pole box. And we can do that. That's possible. It's called a fuse disconnect. And we will go forward with that. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Can I add a question to that? How big is that disconnect switch? Ms. Meiners: The one that we are no longer using? I'm not sure because we're not using it anymore. The fuse disconnect is very small in the box. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: The switch, David, was about six inches square that was mounted on the light pole. But I'm hearing you say that switch is not any longer part of the proposal, or will not be. Ms. Meiners: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, great. I'd like to bring this back to the Board. This is just an informational-type meeting so we're just offering comments. I'd like to, after everybody says their piece, see if we can get some clarity of direction for the applicant, if it's confusing. Lastly, I'd like to point out to my colleagues that on the applicant's description on page 96, there is a list of questions, 1 through 5. I think they are good questions and we should be cognizant and try to address our comments towards those, as well as anything else. With that said, David, why don't you give us a start? Board Member Hirsch: I mean, the clarity of this presentation is quite amazing to me. The consistency of each description is very clear in your.... It's why I didn't visit the site, because I think you told me enough information right here that one could say immediately that it answers most of your questions, most of a question one might have. Certainly my questions anyhow. I think this equipment is, may I say, considerably better than what we've seen before. I wish it would become a standard for Palo Alto. And this is really important to say because the City really has to speak up as to what is going to be placed on their streets in neighborhoods. In fact, that decision really should be made by the Council, I guess, and I would urge that that statement is underlined in our comments today. I think we need to get there soon because these are going to happen. This is an essential change in our technology to date. Undoubtedly, five years from now it will be very different, but right now, I think it's very, very important to make this decision. And so many other people had concerns in our last presentation. I would hope that the City would react to this right away. I urge Planning to make that happen. I really don't have too much to say. I think a disconnect switch is a very reasonable-sized element. Peter mentions that he has seen other equipment that might be even a little bit smaller than what you're presenting, and we would always look for the smallest possible to achieve what you need to achieve. But I'm incredibly pleased by the presentation. Obviously, you have a little bit of an advantage here because you have all these downtown poles that are steel poles that you can wire through the middle. You don't have exposed cabling on the outside of the wood pole. The wood pole is always going to be the question, I think, throughout the city, but I think we need to work very hard together to find minimal impact on the environments in our neighborhoods. That's really all I have to say. Vice Chair Baltay: David, could I get you to address some of these questions? They're talking about which arrangement on these light poles are we interested in. And I hear you being positive, but which one are you positive about? City of Palo Alto Page 30 Board Member Hirsch: Yes, okay, so, to repeat what I was saying before, there is such limited space on these poles when you have all these other facilities connecting to them. I would always say let's go for the most minimal one, minimal impact. Although aesthetically, I kind of like the technical ones that are more exposed. I think in the end, for this community, it would be better to minimize the impact on the pole with mass of radio enclosures. Probably I would say the simplest one of the three is the one to choose. It will just be less visible. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Alex? 2:02:15 Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I think many of the locations are good. I think a lot of those locations are mid-block with evergreen trees. I think many of the locations work well. The ones that I made notes of fall into, I guess I have four categories. One is, there are some that are next to three- and four-story buildings, so, for example, 26, 27 and 31. And the one that I will highlight is, for me, 27, which is the one at the Walgreens building at University and Bryant, that there's a balcony directly opposite the proposed pole. The balcony, I think, is at the height of the antenna, so, to me, that is a concern. There are some that are on very narrow sidewalks, and I think those are 24 and 31. Many places in Downtown, we have 12-foot sidewalks, so you're going to be 10 feet away from the building. But in some places, we only have... I don't know exact dimensions, maybe six or seven feet, or eight feet. Those are the old streets that have not been widened like some of the newer streets. I think that's a concern. And then, it presents the challenge of, like, what does this look like up close? If I'm six feet away from this shroud, what do I see? And I've been on the Board for a long time, we've never really looked at them that closely. Usually we looked at the mock-up and they're up at the top of the telephone pole, but I think that we would actually need to see something up close, especially if you've got ventilation screens on there. Like, what is that? It looks fine in the rendering, but I really want to see something up close. Third is that I think there were some that are on corners that were exposed. I think Rebecca mentioned that. I only looked at two... There are ones that are exposed, some of them on corners, and Rebecca mentioned those. The two that popped out at me were 34 and 35. I think, Rebecca, you mentioned 33, and I looked at 33 and thought that was okay. There are some that are just in open areas, like the one on Arastradero is very open. Without trees. And then, I think my last comment is on color. You're proposing things on new and existing, or on existing poles. And then, you have some streetlights in Palo Alto, it's a mix of all different things. And I like the ones that are generally, like, the dark green color, but, for example, 35, which is I think at High and Everett, is a brand-new pole. It's shiny aluminum. And then, the thought of adding a shiny aluminum shroud on top of that just seems to me, like, not appealing. You proposed alternate locations, but I haven't reviewed any of the alternate locations. I would just say that I think the color is a concern to me for the ones that are very bright and reflective. I did not look at number 38 on Encina in person. I would just say as a caution, I think the Board as a whole has a problem with the wood pole ones. Sometimes it's really the nitty-gritty things. Like, the rendering may be okay, but the amount of standoff from the pole, if there are exposed wires, or anything like that. Usually we've had trouble with those, but we've had some approved. Tried to minimize the amount of standoff, tried to all the wiring. I think that's where I am on there. I don't have a strong preference between the different types of, the different cabinet boxes that you have shown there. For me, it's more of the... I think I would have to see it in person. I think the issues that I've noticed before is, like, if it's overhanging a sidewalk, and then the clearance to pedestrians. The ones where I've seen, where you've trying to overhang something above the sidewalk, it's only like nine feet or so, seem way too low to me. I really do like to have them up taller if possible. I think that's all I have, prepared comments. And then, I didn't notice this list of questions on page 96, but I will take a look at that while some of the other Board members are speaking. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Osma? Board Member Thompson: Hi there. I was looking at the alternate location for 33, 34, 35. Based off of what I can see off of Google maps and how you've rendered them here, I think your original proposal location poles are furthest from adjacent buildings. The alternates that you've proposed seem to be a lot City of Palo Alto Page 31 closer to either residential or office buildings, so I would disagree with the alternate locations just based off of that quick analysis. That would be my response to one of your questions, question number 4 about the alternate. I don't like all three of the alternates, basically. Going to question 1 about which design option is preferable, Attachment D, and in your presentation, don't have renders of what your alternates would be. Is that right? You're showing me just this object, and I have to guess what this object is replacing in your render, rendering. I think that makes it hard. I think Board Member Hirsch was asking, for example, for the alternate wood pole equipment, what equipment is that piece replacing? It sounds like it's replacing the bigger one with the smaller one, so that wouldn't make sense to me. For the holster solution, I don't exactly understand where that goes on the pole. I don't know if the rest of the Board would be okay, but I was going to ask the applicant to explain exactly how that goes and where it goes on the pole because that could go anywhere. And I actually don't even know what scale this is at, if it's holding a bunch of stuff. If you could provide clarification on that and for the side-arm radios, what object... Vice Chair Baltay: Osma, could you finish anything else you have to comment on, and then we'll get to that. Board Member Thompson: Sure. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to go over that in more detail. Board Member Thompson: Okay. For the wood pole shroud, it looks very messy as you proposed it. I'm not ready to approve that design, or not ready to believe that that's the best solution for that wood pole design. If you just look at the drawings, and the rendering is a little blurry. If you look at the drawings, it shows the equipment a bit more in detail. It looks like there's a lot of extra surface-mounted stuff in addition to the equipment, like the conduit. I thought that was extra structure for a second, but I think it's just conduit. I think that could be better resolved aesthetically. For the uniform design for all sites, in general, I think Alex has a point. If there's some poles that are extra shiny and that is not a good thing, I would say it makes more sense to do something that is site-specific, as a general thing. Your question on number 5 about shroud skirts over the mast arm, I'll need more clarification on that when we get the applicant to come back. And then, you have a secondary 4G equipment enclosure type, which is the art- wrapped utility box. I actually think that's pretty cool. In Los Angeles, they have a bunch of these in Downtown, and the art on them is incredible. It really makes the streetscape so interesting. I saw one that was, it looked like a stack of hundred dollar bills, but I didn't know it was a utility box. I just thought it was just a really cool piece of art. I think that's a nice opportunity, and if we're stuck with having to do something like that, that's a nice way to make lemonade out of lemons. Okay. I'll (inaudible) for now. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, what I'd like to do is, before I offer any comments of my own, is to step through with the Board. I see two different conditions here. One is antennas and radio equipment mounted on streetlight poles, and the other is a wood utility pole. On the streetlight pole, I see three different proposals of how to put the equipment and the antennas on it. I'd like to make sure we all understand which of those three options are and get each Board Member to express a preference. If I could, with the applicant coming forward, help you, my understanding is that the first option is a shroud on top of the streetlight which contains both the radios and the antenna. That's Alternate D-1. Am I reading that correctly? Ms. Meiners: Attachment D-1, I think. [Locating slide] Vice Chair Baltay: I'm looking, to my colleagues, on page 100 of our packet, has a black-and-white small image showing that shroud on top of a light pole. That is one of the options. Staff, is this...? We just want to get a really clear understanding of what's going on. Is that correct? Option D-1. Ms. Meiners: Right. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Board Member Thompson: Wait. My understanding is that D-1 is the 4G, and then, the other one is not an option. It's 4G and 5G. It's a different type altogether. Vice Chair Baltay: I think that's right. The 5G is a separate type of shroud and a different configuration. Board Member Thompson: Okay. I guess what we want clarification is, what is the alternate to 4G? Ms. Meiners: Okay. This is our 4G-only site, as proposed. This is our primary design option for our 4G- only site. If we go down here.... [navigating slides] ... Okay, so, here is our Light Pole Alternate Design #1 for our 4G radios. This basically would go on the side of the pole near the top, and the dimensions are... what site is it? Yeah, this is, basically it would be mounted on the side with the antenna mounted on the top, which would be a shorter antenna than what is proposed currently. If you're concerned about the height of our equipment, you'd probably prefer this option or the other alternate. Vice Chair Baltay: To clarify, option attachment D-2 has some sort of side-mounted radio equipment with an antenna still on top of the pole. Okay. And that includes this thing you call the "holster." That's just another way of side-mounting equipment? Ms. Meiners: Right. The holster design does include the 4G antenna, however. Vice Chair Baltay: I see, that's the 4G antenna as well as the equipment on one device. Ms. Meiners: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. You can see that lack of clear images, showing what these look like, is leaving us all befuddled. When you come back we would like to see... Ms. Meiners: You would like us... [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: Well, if we want to go with that. I'm going to try to give you clear direction of what you should put your time into. The third option, as I understand it, is some sort of street boxes. Am I reading that right? For 4G equipment? That's the art boxes? Board Member Thompson: Please, before we go away from this design option alternate on page 106, I just wanted to bring the Board's attention to this little tiny picture that's in the bottom-right corner. That looks like a little rendering of what that might be. Ms. Meiners: That was included in the spec sheet, and that is not an accurate representation of what that would look like because it would have an antenna also on the top. Board Member Thompson: And the side-holster one doesn't have a little render. Ms. Meiners: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. For 4G, the third option is ground-mounted equipment, and what you would be proposing is art-wrapped utility boxes. That's a... Ms. Meiners: We are calling the... excuse me. We are calling the design options that are acceptable to AT&T but not acceptable to staff the secondary design options. Anything under secondary design option is not acceptable by staff, including the art-wrapped utility boxes, which is not allowed per Transportation staff. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Then I'd like to point out, if we're still talking about street poles, the 5G equipment, which is the newer technology, is only being proposed as a different shape shrouded equipment with an antenna that's mounted near the top of the utility pole. What page is that image on? What would that look like? Amy French: Packet page 80. Vice Chair Baltay: Page 80. Yes, that's very good, Amy. On packet page 80, we can see what a 5G antenna looks like. It's mounted just below the mast of the arm holding the light head itself. And there is no option for 5G equipment? That's what the choice is? Ms. Meiners: Not at this time. However, we are amenable to receiving any recommendation from the Board. Board Member Thompson: Is this image 5G and 4G together or just 5G? Ms. Meiners: This specific antenna shroud is just for 4G. The image... Board Member Thompson: 5G. Ms. Meiners: I'm sorry, 5G. Oh, that is 5G and 4G. The 4G is on top and the 5G is around the pole. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, then, I'd like to state that, just to give an example for the rest of my colleagues, is that I prefer the pole-mounted equipment on top of the light pole in a shroud, even if it's a little bit taller. And I'm okay with the 5G antenna the way it's shown in the rendering there. I think that would be a good standard to show the City. I do not like the idea of a side-arm mounted radio, and I do not like the ground-mounted equipment. I don't think those meet our standards. I'd like the rest of us to comment on those choices, please. David? Board Member Hirsch: What are the boxes on that illustration 80? Those are down below. They have nothing to do with this particular equipment? Ms. Atkinson: I can answer that question. The photo on page 80 is of a mock-up from San Francisco of 4G. An antenna and radios, as well as 5G antennas and radios. And instead of having the radios and other equipment as proposed for Palo Alto underneath the 4G antenna, some of the equipment is actually mounted on the pole here. This was an actual mock-up that we wanted to show, you know, absent a mock-up here in Palo Alto. But it's my understanding from the visuals and the elevations in the preliminary project plans that the equipment that's shown in this photo as side-mounted to the pole would instead be top-mounted. Board Member Hirsch: Only on top. Okay. That's perfect. Vice Chair Baltay: What is your preference, David? Board Member Hirsch: On the top. Vice Chair Baltay: And are you okay with the 5G equipment and the shroud proposed? Board Member Hirsch: The way it's aligned below, absolutely. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: Now I'm confused. Most of these are supposed to be the 4G and 5G, right? You're saying 13 of them are 4G and 5G? But that doesn't seem to match up with the simulations, right? The simulations are showing mostly the 4G option. City of Palo Alto Page 34 Board Member Thompson: Yeah, it doesn't match up. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: Much of our work has been concerned with 4G installations at this meeting and in previous ones. Board Member Lew: I know, but the problem is that this project is really about the 5G, right? Most of the locations that we're looking at? Vice Chair Baltay: Most of the locations seem to have some 5G component, and all of those I think are that shroud-mounted near the top of the pole. Oval-shaped. Ms. Atkinson: I think what would be most helpful for the applicant and staff in regard to the bigger picture is any kind of feedback about the mounting of the 5G equipment because it is being debuted here in the preliminary for the first time in Palo Alto. And any comments that you might have about the projects planned as proposed, because the applicant team did select what their primary design configuration would be, and also wanted to show other design options that had been considered, in case you wanted to add and further supplement anything. Staff is very much interested in as much feedback as you could possibly provide, as well, because it will all go into formal applications that are anticipated to come quite soon. Thank you. And staff's questions are actually outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Okay, well, I'm generally okay with the pole top-mounted antenna, but it seems to me the San Francisco mock-up is a contemporary pole, cobra head pole, and most of the poles downtown are traditional, fluted poles. I think in the past, we've had some other operator, some other companies propose pole top-mounted equipment, but they would replace the whole pole. But I think this, as I read the plans, you're just attaching things to existing poles. I think the San Francisco model may be problematic. I think that I need to see some sort of mock-up or sample of the shroud that you're proposing with the vents because I've never seen anything with the vents before. And if there are screens or louvers on the vents, I am interested in that. And I have no other recommendations until I see that. I think I'm fine if City staff doesn't want to consider any of the secondary alternates. I'm fine with that. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Osma? Board Member Hirsch: Peter, sorry... (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: David, it's Osma's turn, please. Osma, I want to hear what you think about these. Sorry, everybody, I want to keep us focused on stepping through this. It's so confusing. I want to go piece by piece. The question now is these options for the 4G equipment and whether the 5G shroud is acceptable. Osma? Board Member Thompson: Okay, so, from what I understand, the image that we're looking at on page 80 of our report would be an alternate to everything that's in the drawings right now. As it's proposed. At the moment, I think the 5G equipment that sort of sticks out, I think could actually be better integrated into the pole. It's close, it's almost there. It's almost compact, but I actually think it could be even more compact and streamlined so that you could get a really simple partee of, like, a whole pole. And it sounds like from what we've seen that that's possible at other places. I would say I'm not yet satisfied with the image that we see on page 80, even though I would say that aesthetically it's the closely to anything... It's the closest to what I think it could be, out of all the other design options. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. David, what were you going to say? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, sorry. On your A.33.4, you indicate -- that's in our set of drawings -- you're indicating that in case there is a banner bracket and banners for a particular street, you're going to City of Palo Alto Page 35 mount some of your radios...? Can I say that's what they are? Below the banner. Which is a little different than what you would mount if you were doing it just underneath the... Ms. Meiners: If I could address that. We've had a recent meeting earlier this week with Dashed-up [phonetic], and they had some questions, which we are addressing, and we are hoping to be able to move the banners slightly down so we can put our 5G equipment on top. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. (inaudible, off-microphone) Ms. Meiners: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Thank you very much. That's good. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I'd like to bring up another question about the streetlight designs, which staff has brought up. We have in Palo Alto several different styles of streetlights. Some are clean, polished aluminum or steel, some are fluted with painted green. Should the applicant and should staff be pressing for a single design that's consistent through the city, or should we be looking for several designs that are more appropriate to each installation? And any detail questions we have regarding. Like Alex was mentioning the ventilation slots on the shroud, regarding how well that fits into the pole itself. What kind of feedback can we give staff and the applicant? David, why don't you start with that. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, well, I'm all for consistency here, with the whole city, if we could possibly do that. Make an aesthetic decision on a lot of this and be very consistent throughout the city. That seems to me the logical way to do it. Unfortunately, there are a number of companies sort of competing for their poles, I guess, and to me, that's very unfortunate, that we should make the aesthetic decision. It seems like there's a lot of variety in the manufacturer of some of these items. And some of them are obviously aesthetically better than others. And perhaps functionally, as well. I don't know. We can't speak to that. But aesthetically, absolutely. And I think if we could agree ourselves, we would present an idea for the Council to reconsider citywide materials like this. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, you've already touched on this a bit, but do you have anything to add? Board Member Lew: I think they need to be site specific because the poles are so different. I would say maybe one for traditional poles, the fluted ones; one for, sort of the more modern, cobra head type ones; and then, third would be the wood pole on Encina. Vice Chair Baltay: Osma, what's our thoughts on this? Board Member Thompson: I think I touched on it earlier, but I would agree with Board Member Lew on that front. I still think that, you know, amongst all the poles, there could be minimal design intent where, you know, it's not like we're seeing this one with the vents on one, and this one that's really small on the other. But if we could try and tailor the really small, minimal, compact design, and then alter it per the site specificity, I think that would be most appropriate. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. I agree with Osma and Alex, that we have existing -- unfortunately, David -- several styles of light poles in town, and I think these new installations should match the style of the poles that exist. I think it would be possible to come up with two or perhaps three standardized sets of details, how do you fit onto a fluted, traditional pole, or a modern steel one? I wish we could do it all as one standard, but I think you need to have at least two, if not three, different types of installations. Alex's comments about the detailing of how these shrouds fit and mount is critically important, and it needs to be carefully studied as the applicant brings forth an actual proposal. One last thing on the streetlights. Staff has asked us to look at some streetlight proposals that a manufacturer is making, integrating the equipment into the light. Rebecca, could you show us what that is again so we can give you feedback on that? This is not obviously a direct, something the applicant is requesting, but staff has asked for our feedback on this issue, and I'd like to see what we think about that. City of Palo Alto Page 36 Ms. Atkinson: Thank you very much. Let me go ahead and pull up an example slide from the staff presentation. But in general, thank you very much. Streetlights, you know, obviously the standard function, but also, streetlights are becoming used for other matters at this point. I think that we're seeing the marketplace evolve all the different functionality for streetlights. We'd like to get some feedback on that, so let me go ahead and find that portion of the staff presentation. [Locating slide] Vice Chair Baltay: While she's finding that, the question I think is that manufacturers are making poles that integrate this radio and antenna equipment into the streetlight, and I think staff is asking for our opinion, if that's something that the City should consider. Here we go, Rebecca. Ms. Atkinson: It also seems possible, I mean, these are just examples that we found on the web, but it seems possible that these poles come in designs that match our style placement guide for poles on El Camino, poles on Cal Ave, and poles downtown, as well as, of course, any number of more standard, you know, aluminum, maybe, bright and shiny. I think you can pretty much make a selection of any pole type. Vice Chair Baltay: And Rebecca, to be clear, these would be just replacements on specific locations, it's not a throughout-the-town location. We're not changing every light pole in town. These are just in addition to the ones we already have. Ms. Atkinson: The current policy identified by Public Works is wherever the style placement guide calls for a certain type of pole, those are replaced when work is done on a new pole. For example, any of the poles that are proposed on and between Lytton and Channing in the Downtown area would be called for, you know, streetlight replacement in order to cumulatively move our, you know, move the aesthetics forward in that direction, consistent with our policy. The downtown design guidelines also call for streetlight replacement, so that action is very consistent with our guiding documents. In any case, you would expect to see in a formal application streetlight replacement for those nodes downtown in an identified area. You'd also expect to see streetlights replaced on El Camino, and so forth. It's standard to this type of replacement as projects move forward. And, if you have a new pole, there might also be an option, instead of one that does not have the capability of incorporating the equipment into the pole, potentially choosing a pole that does have the ability to have the equipment integrated. From my early research, it appears that a pole with the integrated capability would be slightly wider than the more streamlined octagonal fluted design that we currently see downtown, so staff would be interested in feedback on that. It seems like a fair trade-off to get the more, to choose a pole that might have the capability of putting the equipment inside. Vice Chair Baltay: Thanks, Rebecca. Osma, what's your feedback on that, then? Board Member Thompson: The images that we're looking at on our screen right now are aesthetically a lot more coherent than anything else we've seen so far today, so I would be in favor of choosing a pole that would have this kind of integrated equipment. I wanted to clarify. In this image that we're looking at, would that integrate all the equipment that we have seen on these poles so far? Ms. Atkinson: Staff just gave these as examples, as opposed to... I mean, I could have put, like, four more, or, you know, a few... In this case, one example has the antenna top-mounted and the equipment inside the pole, radios, and in the others, the antenna is fully integrated within the pole. Now, these examples are for 4G only, it is my understanding. They don't necessarily have this yet for 5G, although it could be coming out any day. I'm not sure. But I guess in the case of the AT&T application, the idea could potentially be to still have the 5G equipment strapped and mounted to the outside of the streetlight pole, but have the more streamlined version for 4G. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, your thoughts on that? City of Palo Alto Page 37 Board Member Lew: Yes, thank you for doing the research, Rebecca. The last time that I looked at integrated types of poles they had really huge pedestal bases that were just ungainly. It seems like a lot of progress has been made on these designs, so thank you for that. I guess the thing I'm thinking about is that, that this kind of design may work where we have a very exposed corner without any landscaping. I think that could work well. I would think that the more traditional acorn type of light might be problematic in that, the light poles. For example, on University Avenue, are very low. They're pedestrian oriented. And I would imagine that, like, AT&T, their need for height would completely change the character of the street. We would have to look at the height of the traditional acorn-looking fixture. So, I would say yes, I think, if it can work, great. My last thought on that is that all this stuff is going to change, so tacking stuff onto existing poles may seem not so great now, but it may be actually the better option in the long run because these things will change, and presumably get smaller. And why get stuck with a chunky-looking light pole for a hundred years? I would imagine that the cell phone, that all of these antennas, the lifespan is going to be shorter than the light poles. Vice Chair Baltay: David. Board Member Hirsch: I'll backtrack a little and agree with what several have said about there being a number of varieties to solve the problem. I'm not suggesting that you don't have that option. But it seems to me that in the drawings I've been looking at, I'm noting two different types of higher streetlight fixtures already accounted for in the shroud system that's been presented here. It seems to me that there's been considerable thought by designers about the kind of light fixtures they will be placing the shroud and upper element on. I found that easy to read on the drawings. The acorn fixture is a light fixture. I think it's probably too low for what you're presenting and should be kept as a decorative light fixture. I think if it's that low, as Alex says, it really probably wouldn't suffice for your equipment on top of it, if I'm not mistaken. That's what I'm noting, that on University, for example, there are lower fixtures that are just light fixtures. They have no other equipment on them. And they are an older fixture, as well, so it's nice to keep them just as they are. In fact, it would be nice to have more of them rather than less. Lighting in Palo Alto is pretty bad. Again, I prefer as much at the top of the pole as possible, especially where a pole is a more modern pole. I don't think I... And again, the switching on the pole seems to me to be reasonable, and the idea of having to create a vault for a switch seems ridiculous to me because it has all kinds of other problems with switching that's like that. And the poles are easy, the metal poles are easy to cut a hole through and put a switch through and connect everything together. Again, I’m very pleased with the way it's been presented, except that somehow or other, between the applicant and City planning, we could be seeing these alternatives better described. Vice Chair Baltay: David, we're trying to discuss the manufactured light poles and whether we agree that they are a good option. Board Member Hirsch: Did I miss the point? Vice Chair Baltay: I think I hear you saying you're sort of okay with that? Rebecca pointed out a manufactured light pole that incorporates the antenna. Board Member Hirsch: And the manufactured light pole, which is the one on the left in this drawing? Vice Chair Baltay: I think this image on the screen is an example of a light pole that is manufactured outside of the town, outside of AT&T. Board Member Hirsch: Because, I mean... Vice Chair Baltay: Which has all these functions built into it, but it is a little bit heavier-looking. Board Member Hirsch: Oh. Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: What's your take on it? City of Palo Alto Page 38 Board Member Hirsch: Well, in a traditional setting, I would say that that's a really nice choice. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. I'd like to caution the.... I hear Alex's words of wisdom, I think, that this technology changes fast. Light poles don't. You want to be very careful, starting to introduce an additional light pole design which is maybe not great, and we're stuck with that. Even if the antennas and everything else changes. Not that it doesn't look better, it does, as Osma pointed out, but these are multifaceted decisions. If I could shift us now, if we're done with streetlight poles, we have one application, one proposal with a series of equipment mounted on a wood utility pole over near 75 Encina. And I don't understand how that incorporates the 4G and 5G equipment. Your proposal is just not clear to me. Maybe the applicant could explain to us again what is proposed to be mounted on that pole, and staff could tell us what sort of feedback you're looking for on that. Ms. Meiners: Happy to. If you look on the plans that you have, I believe it's... Vice Chair Baltay: If you could speak into the microphone directly. Thank you. Ms. Meiners: In your plans, it's in the 38-sheet series, site 38. The radio shroud is the lowest piece of equipment mounted on the pole. It's mounted to the face of the pole. And the radio shroud specifications were noted in our presentation this morning. Above that are the com lines. Above that is the 5G antenna and radios in one shroud, side-mounted to the pole. Above that is a power line, and above that is our 4G antenna. Now, there's a pole top extension there to meet the safety requirements of GO 95, which states that between the power line and the antenna on top, there must be a six-foot separation. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. That helps a lot. Osma, what's your take on that? Board Member Thompson: I think I mentioned it earlier. I think there's a way to integrate this design so that it looks less clunky. All this stuff is really tacked on, a lot of exposed brackets and structure... I think it can be designed better. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: My take on it is this one would not pass the ARB's vote, based on our previous proposals. Vice Chair Baltay: And your particular opinion, Alex. Board Member Lew: No, I think I would agree that, I think that the... I think the lower cabinet boxes, I actually think they need to be shrouded, just based on other projects that we've looked at. Ms. Meiners: That is the shroud. For our radios and our .... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: Right, but I think you've got two, you're showing two or three different boxes on the lower part. Ms. Meiners: There is only one very large box below the com line. Board Member Lew: Okay. I thought I was looking at two. I think in the past, on other projects, there have been three, and we've required one shroud over all three boxes. And the shroud becomes really big, but it hides all of the different sized boxes and stuff. I thought I was looking at two. I could be wrong. Ms. Meiners: There are two rows of vents. That might be confusing to you. The two rows of vents. Board Member Lew: Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Ms. Atkinson: I think staff has a similar interpretation as Board Member Lew when looking at the elevations on Sheet A.38.4. Board Member Lew: There are two side-by-sides? Okay, well, I'm not sure what I’m looking at. I would say you've got a variety of different, between the 4G and 5G and the boxes, I think you're asking... Yeah, I think that's too much. I think we actually always tried to simplify. Just keep it simple. I think this would not be acceptable. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, and David, your opinion on this particular pole? Board Member Hirsch: I like it. Board Member Lew: You voted no on similar things that looked just like this. Board Member Hirsch: Well... Okay, maybe it's just my preference. But, you know, I don't think we can really create a shroud that takes care of everything here. This is a wood pole, is that right? Ms. Meiners: Yes, this is a wood pole, and there are three attachments, total. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Well, it's a hard problem to solve, the wood pole, and no doubt it's our hardest problem in the city, here. Ms. Atkinson: Staff would like... Board Member Hirsch: Somehow it cleans up some of the stuff that's just tacked onto the wood of the pole itself. The free-floating quality of the attachments seems to work, to me, here. I'm really confused by it all, but I know the problem is that this is going to be what we see all over the city. Right? Because only in certain areas do we have the metal poles. That being the case, there's no specific historic design to the pole and the connections like there are on metal poles. I prefer the B pole in New York City to all of the engineered poles that happened ever since the B pole, which is a very Victorian, wonderful pole. But when you get to modern technology, something has to give, and in my view, I think this would work in the communities because it actually is trying hard to keep all of the wires and all of those things close to the pole. I think there is a relationship there. Technically, it's more modern in that sense, that it makes those connections as minimal as possible, and just shows them the way they are. That's my preference. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Let me address this issue. It's something we've been struggling with on the Board for quite a few applications now, and in my opinion, the side-mounted equipment on the pole is absolutely unacceptable. I cannot recommend the findings that it's an aesthetic improvement in the town. And I believe the best way to do is either to put the equipment out of site, underground, or, as we've seen several times, staff is pushing now to somehow conceal the radio equipment within the shroud above the utility pole. If we all note that the antenna itself is some nine feet above the pole. We've seen applications on the streetlights where the radio equipment, which is smaller and smaller every cycle, is somehow concealed within that shroud up on the top. That just, to me, it's a visual extension of the pole, and in a metaphorical way, that is out of sight. It's so high up, it looks like a continuation of the pole and you just don't see it. Whereas what Alex has been pointing out, when you have these large boxes close to the street, they're really unsightly. They're not attractive. I don't think they are a technological advantage to our society, David. I just think they're ugly and we can do better. I strongly encourage staff and the applicant to find ways just not to mount stuff like this on the pole. I'm left wondering what you can do about the 5G equipment. Is it always this self-contained package of antennas and radios in a rectangular or square format? Or is there a way to streamline it more? I have opposed in the past shrouds mounted on the side of the pole, but Alex is pointing out -- I think very correctly -- that even a year ago, staff worked hard with other applicants to come up with shrouds that were long, and elongated along the side of the pole, that carefully sealed and integrated all of the equipment. I believe there's even a mock installation in town over near the library, which is obviously much better than this one. That would be a preferable solution, although I still think there's other things City of Palo Alto Page 40 we can do. But that's trying to give feedback to the applicant, and I'm not hearing strong support for pole-mounted equipment. Certainly not in this fashion. Alex? Board Member Lew: I'm (inaudible) on the wood pole. I think, if I'm reading this correctly, you're not showing any shroud around the bayonet, and I think we've asked for that on other projects. And I think that has worked well. So, if you do go with the wood pole route, I would ask for consideration of a shroud around the bayonet. Vice Chair Baltay: Osma, would you like to add something? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, this is actually... I would agree with Board Member Baltay and Board Member Lew. I also wanted to mention, I know we moved on to the wood pole, but just briefly, to respond to some of the comments that were made on the integrated pole where all the equipment was inside this new design for a pole, I think while it's true that equipment does get smaller, it's also true that there's very little desire to get rid of it. Sometimes it just stays there and accumulates, so, for that reason, having an integrated solution I think is preferable. Or aesthetically a better way to go. That's all. Board Member Hirsch: Can I go on a little? Vice Chair Baltay: A little. Help yourself, David. Board Member Hirsch: "A little." All right. You know, you have to take a look at the reality here. To run these wires up the side of a pole the way it's done now, they tack on a metal cover, or whatever it is, that shrouds the wire going up the pole, and it's absolutely ugly and doesn't relate to the equipment whatsoever. You know, I'm making a case here that you've made a case for, actually, it being more exposed and on its own, you know, and related to its own self. And could get rid of a lot of the wiring that's just attached to the pole. If you take the wiring at the pole and then you put something, other equipment, and then you shroud that in something else, you're hiding all the reality of these systems. So, aesthetically, there's something to be said for just exposing them and let them do their thing on the outside of the pole, free. Because they are tight connections the way you've designed them here, and I like it. I think it's very appropriate here. To shroud everything is to hide it for no reason. It just adds another layer. I think the piece on the top that you've done on all the metal poles is fine. It expresses what it is. And then, we should carry that idea on the wood pole, as well. It's going to be all over the city, and when they modernize and make it... And I agree, Peter, if all of that, a good piece of it could be held at the top, then that's perfect, you know? And then we won't have as much down below. But if we can't do that for the technical reasons you've described, I think we should just let it hang out there. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. To staff and the applicant, I think we're wrapping up here, but do you have any questions or last comments? From staff, perhaps? Anything? Ms. French: Just an announcement, I guess -- and Jodie can cover future meetings, generally - I just wanted to mention that March 21st, we are targeting coming to the ARB with prescriptive standards for wireless. We collectively as a team are approaching and working to get feedback from carriers on the various options and thoughts that the City is having about how we would prescriptively write an ordinance. This is going to be on your docket in the coming month. Vice Chair Baltay: Amy, do you feel that you have an understanding of the position of the various board members on these issues? Ms. Atkinson: I think everything is really worthwhile and food for thought. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, now is your chance.... City of Palo Alto Page 41 Ms. French: That was Rebecca, and then, I would concur that we've gotten the full discussion today for a prelim. I think that was maybe even better than we expected to have, you know, kind of everybody weigh in on these specific things. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. And then, to the applicant, who is pushing us to all this. You have the last word. Any comments or questions? Ms. Kung: No, actually. Thank you so much. We're actually going to take everything you guys said, put a lot of thought into it, and see what we can do, work with staff to best propose the best option for you guys, so when we come with our permit, we're hoping that you guys will be very satisfied. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. With that, I'll close this agenda item. Board Member Hirsch: (inaudible).... Just one. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, David, one last... [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: How does it all work with the stop clock? Ms. French: This is a prelim ARB application, so as a rule, it's not a project under CEQA and it's not subject to permit streamlining. When they come in with a formal application for major architectural review for a Tier 3 application, there will be an associated shot clock. And we're looking at the 60-day rule that, in the past, and it became effective this January. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, everybody. This meeting is adjourned. Subcommittee Items - None Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10068) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 3/21/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3200 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Architectural Details Title: 3200 El Camino Real [17PLN-00156]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes to Address Architectural Details. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) was Circulated Between December 5, 2018 and January 4, 2019. Zoning District: Service Commercial (CS). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background On December 20, 2018 the project was the subject of a public hearing by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). The ARB recommended approval of the project subject to conditions of approval. At the Board’s recommendation, the Director imposed conditions that required certain project elements return to the ARB Subcommittee. Below are the items that were requested to return to the Subcommittee and the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments: #1 Architecture Review Condition:  The Northwest side elevation shall include a darker shade of white and different texture of stucco. Applicant’s Response: 6 Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The applicant will bring multiple color and stucco samples for the Subcommittee to review and choose. Staff Analysis/Feedback: The Board had concerns that the light white color would create glare and that the smooth stucco finish would show dirt and cracks. As of the writing of this report, the applicant has not shared any stucco samples with staff to evaluate. These will be provided at the subcommittee meeting. #2 Architecture Review Condition:  Consider wrapping the deck around the corner Applicant’s Response: The design team considered the wrapping of the deck; however, it is not a necessary component of the project and would affect the design concept for the corner of the building to integrate vertical elements. Furthermore, having a deck at that location would affect the privacy of the rooms closest to the deck. Staff Analysis/Feedback: Staff concurs with the applicant’s design decision, since the plaza corner is an important element of the project and should remain open in appearance. #3 Architecture Review Condition:  Provide a landscape buffer along the sidewalk to separate El Camino Real Applicant’s Response: The applicant deferred the response to the City’s Transportation Department. Staff Analysis/Feedback: This issue arose to discourage drop-off and pick-up of people curbside. Upon further consultation with the City’s Transportation Department it was determined that a landscape buffer is not necessary. Other measures such as signage, red-curb painting and requiring Transportation Network Companies to conduct drop-off and pick ups under the Hansen Way porte-cochere will help to alleviate this issue. #4 Architecture Review Condition:  Provide detailing of vertical architectural screen element Applicant’s Response: The plans show a detail of the vertical screen element for consideration by the Subcommittee. These will be included in the construction documents for review and implementation. Staff Analysis/Feedback: 6 Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 The detail shows the relationship between the parapet and the screen wall. The screen wall may be visible from across El Camino Real or across Hansen Way, but not from the sidewalk adjacent to the project site. #5 Architecture Review Condition:  Provide clarification of mechanical roof screening. Applicant’s Response: The most current plans show a 10-foot tall screen to screen equipment that is 8-feet tall from the roof. The mechanical equipment is located in the center of the roof and the screening is recessed approximately 10-feet from the roof edge. Staff Analysis/Feedback: The concern from the Board was that the screening may be too tall. The screening need only to obscure the rooftop equipment from public view and that the screening is recessed where feasible. The screen wall height should not exceed the height of the equipment. It is possible that based on the line-of-sight a shorter wall would screen the equipment. Staff has asked the applicant to bring line-of-sight diagrams to the subcommittee hearing for review. #6 Architecture Review Condition:  Provide replacements and details of exterior light fixtures Applicant’s Response: Plans show updated fixtures and the locations of those fixtures. Staff Analysis/Feedback: The Board had concerns regarding the type of light fixtures used on the northwest elevation. The downlighting was good, but a higher-quality fixture was desired. New fixtures details have been provided. A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-12202018/ and the meeting minutes and proposed plan set are attached.. The ARB Subcommittee is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Consultant Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 X 109 (650) 329-2575 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: December 20, 2018 Excerpt Minutes (DOCX)  Attachment B: Applicant's Response to Comments (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 86 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: 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3200 El Camino Real [18PLN-00045] Recommendation on the Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition for the Existing 16,603 Square Foot Motel and Construction of a new Four-Story Approximately 53,599 Square Foot Hotel. The Applicant Also Requests a Zone Change to Remove the Existing 50 Foot Special Setback Along Hansen Way. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) is Circulating Between December 5, 2018 and January 4, 2019. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Furth: Okay, now we get to the (inaudible) hotel. Item number 3. This is a proposed major architecture review to allow the demolition of an existing 16,000 square foot motel and construction of a new four-story, approximately 54,000 square foot motel on the same site, which is 3200 El Camino Real. That's the corner of Hansen, is it? Staff? The applicant has also requested from the City Council a zone change to remove the existing 50-foot special setback along Hansen Way. We have an initial study on this, which I trust we've all reviewed. Before we hear our staff report, has everybody had an opportunity to visit the site? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Not in a while. Board Member Lew: I visited the site two times previously but not this time. Chair Furth: All of us with the exception of Board Member Thompson have been able to visit the site recently. Does anybody have any conversations, ex parte conversations to report? No one does. I beg your pardon? Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Yes and no. I don't know if it would be considered that at all. I received a call from Mr. Heilbronner the day after I found out, the evening before, that I was going to be a member of this committee. It was just a call that was requesting a meeting by me with the architect, to inform me ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: December 20, 2018 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 6.a Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Page 2 about the project. I wrote him back, and I have a copy of this here to submit, and said that I knew nothing about it yet, but would be doing due diligence, and would probably not have an opportunity to meet with him prior to this meeting. Chair Furth: Thank you. Staff, this does bring up collaterally the fact that after our workshop on ex parte communications, the City Attorney's office and staff are going to get back to us with further recommendations. Maybe the January light agenda meeting would be a good time to do that. Okay. Staff report, please. Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, thank you, good morning. Happy holidays, Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner. Welcome, Board Member Hirsch. Thanks for the introduction. I'm going to skip a slide there because you did a good job with the overview. But with the site characteristics, the subject property is within the CS Service Commercial District, surrounded by very similar-zoned property. The topography is flat. The surrounding also includes mostly low-intensity development, although there are some projects that have been approved quite recently and will be constructed in the future, or have been constructed, so it is in transition and changing. The image on the screen does show the street context of the hotel. This project has had some prior meetings with the City in the past. There was a preliminary board meeting back in 2015 for the project, as well as two pre-screening meetings with the council regarding the special setback and the elimination of that setback. Then there was another preliminary board meeting back in 2017, and then, the last board meeting was in October of this year. And just last week, the Planning and Transportation Commission did review the project, and specifically, they looked at the special setback elimination. Some issues identified by the Board included: To provide some sunscreen on the southern side of the building; converting some of the rooftop space -- or two balconies -- where there are views; also some elevations, adding some balconies; reducing the number of materials used at the café corner; ensure that the café is visually inviting; increasing the use of some native plants to the landscape palette; and reducing the visual impact of the dark color of the eyebrows. The applicant is here with their presentation and they will go into detail about how they've addressed those issues. Those are also identified in the staff report and the plans. But what staff can summarize is that we believe that they have addressed these issues by the Board, and therefore, we do have a recommendation for approval to the Council. These are just some perspectives of the changes, kind of what they've done. I think, most notably, they do have that curved and glass curtain wall feature at the corner. One thing to be maybe concerned about would be some privacy. We talked to the applicant about how to address that and they have some ways of how to deal with that. With the Planning Commission, at their meeting, they did recommend approval of the setback elimination, with some conditions, to the council. Some of these, just for your information, because they kind of dovetail a little bit into what the Board looks at. There was some concern about TNC, those are transportation network companies, those like your Ubers and Lyfts, that drop-off and pick-up along El Camino Real, because that curb cut would be eliminated there. Now, you have a little more curb space. Also, with the "pork chop" being eliminated there, you have additional curb space that would be red curb. We'll talk about how to address that. There also was concern about bicycle and pedestrian safety with the loss of that pork chop, how the bike lane would interface with the street and vehicles. They also wanted to ensure the project follows the context based criteria, so that's right up your alley here, what the Board does. And then, there's a condition that you guys really deal with here, is that this setback elimination would be tied to a mixed-use project or hotel use project for the site. That's something that Council can take up and consider. Specifically, for the bicycle lanes, to show you what's there now, and then, what's being proposed. Really, the lane doesn't change and the striping on the roadway doesn't change. That intersection will change because the slip lane, the free right onto Hansen from El Camino, would be eliminated. That would just cause vehicles and drivers to be more cautious and turn more slowly, so that, we believe, we be a more safer condition. The other addition is where there is striping now, a thin buffer between the travel lane and the bike lane itself, there would be some physical vertical posts added. These are not metal or anything like that that would damage cars severely but would just add more tension for drivers to be careful of the bike lanes. More awareness there. It would also cause... This is for the entire length of that property. But we do want to include some conditions for the Board to consider, because of what the Planning Commission did bring up, was the owner designee shall demonstrate on the project's improvement plans, because they think it's the most appropriate place, are the locations of "No Stopping" signs along El Camino Real. The 6.a Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto Page 3 intent of these is to deter drop-offs and pick-ups on El Camino Real. Tied to that, we're also thinking another condition for you to consider is the owner designee shall, as part of the project's traffic management plan, include provisions to work with these transportation network companies to require drop-off/pick-ups at the Hansen Way entry of the project site. That's something that they can do. And we did speak to the applicant and they've agreed to these in concept. As part of the project, it's subject to CEQA, the California Environmental Quality Act, so we do have an initial study in circulation presently. So far, we have received no comments. That circulation period will end on January 3rd. The potential significant impacts that were identified were to air quality, biological, cultural and geological, and hazardous resources. Mitigation measures for temporary air pollution for construction, nesting birds, accidental cultural materials found during construction because we are digging two levels of basement, implement geotechnical report recommendations, as well as construction of this plan for potential hazardous materials they may uncover. After review of the project and the initial study, the Board shall recommend adoption, provide comments, or recommend changes as it may be necessary. Some topics of interest for you guys to consider. The top one has already been considered by the Commission, the elimination of the setback. But as well as elimination of that pork chop at the intersection; the consistency with the context-based criteria and architectural review findings; and compatibility with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. In addition, the parking does include a parking reduction. The project intends to provide valet service, and that will allow for the more efficient parking on site, and that type of parking alternative is really consistent with... It works well with hotel uses, so we are supporting that. Some next steps here is to complete the environmental process, and then, once we get through the Board's review, we would bring the project forward to the City Council for their consideration of the entire project. With that, our recommendation is to recommend approval of the proposed project to City Council based on the findings and subject to any conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. Again, the applicant is here with their presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Could we have the materials board, please? If there is one. Does anyone have any questions of staff that they need to ask before we hear from the applicant? Hearing none, if the applicant could address us? You have 10 minutes once you are set up. And if you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber. Yatin Patel: Okay. Good morning, Chair Furth, Vice Chair Baltay, Board Members. My name is Yatin Patel [spells name]. I just want to be brief in my own introductory remarks. Thank you again for the board members who have taken a look at this. We appreciate your feedback. Welcome to Board Member Hirsch. Personally, as the applicant, I really appreciate the last hearing and the comments that came out of it because I think, as you'll see, the project is much improved as a direct result of your feedback. I sincerely believe that. James Heilbronner is here to walk you through sort of the details of what we have done and made changes to. I will pass it over to him now. James Heilbronner: Good morning. Happy holidays. I'm James Heilbronner [spells name]. Hi. We churned the comments from last time and I have a few slides to go through where we actually made some changes. The comparative renderings are before, previous and today. The primary changes are on the corner, which I'm trying to emphasize more vertically the elements and crystalize the proportions and the use of materials and distinguish them more. We've also done that throughout the building on the windows, incorporating that screen metal material we've discussed in the past between windows, so the windows are more, I'll say a vertical slot in the building, giving them more distinction and articulation of the façade. We've used the screen material throughout the building in a spot way to emphasize the use of that, and in-setting it with the windows works well. On the corner itself, the big change we made is opening up the podium deck behind the curved panel here. The metal material actually goes all the way to the ground, as does the glass, so you get a more vertical look without swapping out materials from the first floor to the second. It's more pure, and it will create some interesting shadows with the sun coming around the corner. The glass, same way. I think we were fighting for a long time the squareness of the building on the corner, considering that everything else is sort of rounded - the plaza, the corner itself -- and we always had a curved element going around the corner, but we were stuck sort of on the squareness in resolving the windows. We still have windows on the corner. That's always been the case. 6.a Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Page 4 There's three rooms here. The glass is the same as we're using in all the windows. All the windows have blackout curtains and sheer drapes, so there's no issue of controlling sun or privacy on these windows any differently than all the other windows in the project. We still have the sign element posted out from the metal screening. We've emphasized the pilasters a little more and setback the eyebrows. I'll show you in another slide how we did that. And, of course, we've activated the balconies with landscaping, so all four floors have landscaping, although only three of the sections are balconies for people. They are all balconies for landscaping but limited for people, and we added the fourth floor on El Camino as private balconies and there's four rooms up there. Similar issues in the back. I think we've enhanced the greenery along the back wall, the north, I call it the north wall. You can see the slot windows here a little better. We've eliminated the bigger windows over the smaller windows in elevation so there's more consistency and there's verticality that we're trying to emphasize because the building is very spread out horizontally. This slide, this sort of isometric slide, demonstrates the landscaping. The second floor, then it's stepped back to the third, stepped back to the fourth, so every balcony on Hansen has landscaping, and the same on El Camino. Although these are people private balconies, as are all the ones on the second floor, that's the step-back solution for more activity and greenery on the building. This might be a little difficult to see but we've moved this eyebrow down to a line more with, end at the pilaster as this one is doing, and we also shrunk the eyebrow on El Camino. That's what these two red circles are. This shows the eyebrow stopping here, which is similar to how it stops on El Camino. The big conversation last time was the proximity of the café to the street and wanting to keep, of course, the plaza, which is seating for the public using the café or not along the street. We pulled the café out, so this shows the, in red where the café is now, compared to where we had it originally. We pulled it out more, closer to the street. There's signage on the street to get to it. There's two entrances in and out of the café, one on the El Camino side, one on the Hansen side, so that all kind of blends in with the outdoor seating. We've incorporated benches along the frontage on El Camino in these landscape pockets. That was a comment from Ms. Furth last time. Landscaping, we've changed some of the plant material to more native species. And I've got a large landscape plan if you want to see it closer because it's difficult to read. But the street trees dictated pretty much by the City -- or by the City, I should say -- in the tree wells, and we don't have a ton of in-ground landscaping, but a fair amount up on the balconies, which we took out the palms and changed the species there to be a little more native. And of course, those pots and plants get more attention from a maintenance standpoint than a ground scenario. These are just to show the changes of the plants on the second floor. And, last but not least, there was conversation or request for how the thing is detailed. Generally speaking, all the windows and vertical elements are set in from the face of the façade. They are not flush, which I don't like, but they are recessed four, four and a half inches, consistently. The bigger elements on the corner, the screen material and the curved glass, is actually recessed about eight inches, so you have more depth because you're dealing with a larger mass of material from afar. As the building steps up, you have consistency, and the windows being set back, and this is an example of perhaps one of the ribbon windows on Hansen, or on the north side. You have that, what I've been calling a slot in the façade, a vertical element that distinguishes that element, which also has a metal screen element between windows. Instead of using spandrel glass, we're using the screen material. I think Mr. Baltay, you questioned a cap detail. We're using Alucobond or a similar product as a metal panel, and that comes with a cap piece that has the same reveal nomenclature as all the panels do here. And on the back side, that would be stucco on the balcony side where it's occupied. Those are sort of a summary of responses to the discussion last time, which was very helpful to sort of drive the pencil a little further into where we are now. I'm happy to answer any questions. I've got the large landscape plan if you want to see that. Chair Furth: Thank you. I would like to see the large landscape plan. I don't have any speaker cards. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak on this project? Seeing nobody, I will... Perhaps you could stay at the podium and I'll see if people have questions of you. Any questions of the architect? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, good morning. Thank you for the nice presentation. Could you clarify, please, on the fourth floor, the terrace or balconies facing El Camino, are those pedestrian-accessible? Mr. Heilbronner: The second floor? Or fourth? 6.a Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Vice Chair Baltay: Fourth floor. The top. Mr. Heilbronner: Right. And then the third floor on El Camino is just the landscape balcony with access for maintenance of the plants. Vice Chair Baltay: I didn't understand you, I'm sorry. On the fourth floor... Mr. Heilbronner: Is guest access. Vice Chair Baltay: Those balconies are accessible to guests. Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. Chair Furth: Second and fourth floors are accessible. Three is not. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: And I forgot to ask our new member, David Hirsch, have you had an opportunity to review the minutes or the records of our previous hearing on this matter? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: You have. Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, but I would like to speak to the project. Chair Furth: We're still at questions at the moment, of the architect. Does anybody else have any questions of the architect? Board Member Lew: I have one quick question. Chair Furth: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: You have the low screen wall near the corner of Hansen and El Camino. Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. Board Member Lew: What is that? What is the wall made out of? Mr. Heilbronner: Basically, that would be a masonry wall, stuccoed, and on top we have a glass panel to block sound, but not be as opaque from seeing the plaza. Board Member Lew: Good. Thank you. Board Member Thompson: I have a question. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Chair Furth: I'm just saying that for the transcriber, not that she can't recognize our voices. Board Member Thompson: Oh, that's right. In our packet, we had a note here that said, "Provide sun screening on the southern side," and the applicant's response is, "Screen element extends from plaza floor to roof parapet." I was just hoping you could kind of show us exactly what you meant by that 6.a Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Page 6 response. Mr. Heilbronner: Perhaps the term "screening" is, we're not using the metal panel screens, if you will. We're using, really, as a decorative element, not as a sun screening device. We were talking about this large screen element, which used to stop here at the second level. Now, it projects all the way down to the ground, so, again, behind this strip of wall here, it's open. You could throw something over that wall and it would hit. If it's screening material, again, it's all decorative, not sun screening, so maybe it was a little confusing, what we wrote there. Board Member Thompson: Okay. But this is not the south side, right? This is the north, like, northeast? Mr. Heilbronner: Yeah, the back.... Sorry, I'll go back. The back, I call it the north side facing the fish restaurant, has, we had a vine screen wall here for growing greenery up against the building, and we're using that screen material again in the window, between windows along the whole back façade. Is that...? Board Member Thompson: I think the note here is about the south, the southern side. These are both the north sides? Chair Furth: Which side are you calling the...? You mean true southern, for screening purposes, right? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Chair Furth: Identify it on this plan. What does it say? Do you mean Hansen, or do you mean the rear of the property? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I guess it's the Hansen Way, kind of looking at the, where the portecochere, the Uber drop-off. Mr. Heilbronner: Further down the street, right. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, in that direction. Mr. Heilbronner: Right. Board Member Thompson: There's a view, I think, that was in our packet. Mr. Heilbronner: There's an elevation in your packet, yeah. Board Member Thompson: I think it's [crosstalk]. Mr. Heilbronner: I think it's VR 4.... Oh, the back wall, right. Board Member Thompson: This is the southern side? Mr. Heilbronner: Yeah, next to the business park. That's showing it without the trees, which you won't even, realistically, with the redwoods that are there, you won't see that elevation. But yes, we changed the windows there to be more consistent with the whole building. They were just individual slot windows previously in the last.... We've taken that... Board Member Thompson: Okay, thank you. Mr. Heilbronner: Thanks. Chair Furth: Any other questions? 6.a Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: The floating element that's in front as you look at the previous design, or the present design, is there a reason that that is so close to the, turns a corner and is so close to the existing building, versus connecting the restaurant around the corner, more on the outside of the, closer to the property line? Mr. Heilbronner: You mean, is this particular element here being further...? Why is it so close to the building? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Mr. Heilbronner: We were trying to partially screen areas up against the building from a seating, so you have a choice in seating. More protected nearby versus out in the open. We're out of room on the El Camino side. We're really at the property line right there. But as it turns the corner, there's more property, if you will. Board Member Hirsch: Does it have anything to do with the property line itself? Is there a reason why it's [crosstalk]? Mr. Heilbronner: No, not really. On El Camino, yes. I can't go any further towards the street because we're on the property line. But right where it turns the corner and heads down in this area, there's room in the plaza. It's not a property line issue. Chair Furth: I think if you look at Sheet DR2-2, you get a pretty good sense of it. Board Member Hirsch: DR2. Well, I'm looking... Chair Furth: [off microphone, inaudible.] Mr. Heilbronner: Right. Yeah, that's a good depiction of the property line and, of course, the El Camino requirement for a 12-foot sidewalk, and other objects that push the building on El Camino to where it is. On the Hansen side, the property line, there's probably, there's a little bit of room in the plaza where you could push out things to the property line. Not a lot. It is a big swath of land along Hansen that's City owned, so the property line... The building on Hansen is really up against the property line except when you get to the plaza. There's a little space there for... Board Member Hirsch: Are you saying in the area that shows with seating right now is City-owned? Mr. Heilbronner: No. A piece of that seating area is still on the property. That doesn't have the panel wall over it. I think that's what you're asking about. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, because, I'll speak to it a little later, but my concern is that it's columns and obstructions close to the building there, and it kind of obscures the sense of the building being there at all by being a rather massive piece of cloaking element right in front of it. You look at it from certain perspectives and you kind of lose the sense of continuity of the façade. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant? All right, then we'll bring it back to the Board. Thank you very much for your presentation. Mr. Heilbronner: Thank you. Chair Furth: I would also, you know, we often critique the documents we get and the presentations we hear, and I would like to thank you for the large-sized landscape plan, for the marking, identifying of 6.a Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Page 8 native and non-native plants on your landscape. Generally a very readable and approachable set of plans. Thank you. All right. Who would like to begin the discussion? Alex? Board Member Hirsch: I would. Since I'm... Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Hirsch: ...new to the project, I've looked at it very carefully and found it to be a very interesting one at that. But I have some opinions about it that I'd just like to express today, both for my fellow board members and for the architects. I find it a very successful building in numerous ways. It adds layers of stepped structure both on Hansen and the El Camino side of the building. These effectively relate this long, horizontal mass to the street on Hansen and narrow width on El Camino. The window pattern on this stepped elements are varied and successful, but the dramatic cantilever corners extending horizontally beyond the projections and integrate comfortable -- these are the eyebrows -- comfortably with the mass. I like the way those elements are related to the mass of the building itself. Each of the projecting stepped floors has an exterior deck with planters, a generous amenity for a hotel, and as fellow board members have said, it really should be able to be used by the hotel guests. The other plan decisions appear to work very well. The entry at the rear of the lot under the porte-cochere. But I note that some proper signage somewhere on El Camino will be necessary to direct clients to that particular access point. First, the front exterior corner reserved for an open café and inviting the neighborhood in is a great amenity for El Camino. And the respect for the sidewalk design and change of the pork chop intersection is an excellent idea, I think, too. The sidewalk planning is, I think, very good, you know, separating the pedestrian and bike traffic at that point. It improves the Hansen Way crossing. From this point on, the most recent design begins to run counter, in my opinion, to the overriding concept of projecting stepped elements, modifying the longitudinal shoebox shape of the building. At the corner of Hansen Place, the horizontal possibility is broken by the vertical advertising wall metal screen. I want to explain that a little bit more. A major glass curve is introduced at the corner that bears no relation to the hotel function within, and I personally don't like to see buildings that have some relation, and that is an apartment, a specific unit in the building. And the fact that it's all glass in the corner, a massive amount of glass, isn't in any way related to the function of the interior. The element that we were just discussing before, that free-floating mass over the café below and merges into the building, causes you to... I just think it's an uncomfortable relationship, and it's why I brought it up. I mean, I'm not opposed to the idea of something that sort of completes the corner and makes interior space and exterior space very clear, but I don't think that's very successful at it. I think, in fact, despite the fact that there is a problem perhaps with the ownership of the corner, or whatever, and the property line, I think that's something that could have been -- or could still be -- negotiated in some way with the City. Because after all, you've done some major improvements to that corner and the way in which you moved around it and into the dining area there, outdoor dining, you could, in some way, enclose the whole thing and make it feel like it's part of one return of the building to the outside line, rather than to align or devise that space into kind of two areas. In terms of your response to that, I find that there really ought not to be a separation that way, and that umbrellas or whatever you use for shading work very well on the outside. You could continue that if necessary for the, whatever is closer to the building. And I would rather have seen a perimeter wall in some way, and in fact, a lesser massive wall at that corner. The lesser wall would reflect the way in which you treat the porte-cochere in the back by a module less than the vertical dimension of that. And you could eliminate a lot of columns, as well. It's a constricted area and I don't think it really works very well. Less-important southwest and west and north facades with the recessed stucco panel at the vertical window line begins to look more like a -- to me, at least -- to a rather bad federal office building somehow. I find that it could be improved, and that the horizontality of this building should be improved by adding perhaps another stucco level horizontally in the same band as the metal. That reflects the color of the metal and would then tie the building together, the actual step areas where this would direct your eye to those most-important aspects of your design. You might bring the metal panels between the windows forward to that line and make that horizontal connection. To discuss these in a little bit more detail at Hansen Place corner, if you can refer to the drawing close-up illustration -- Can we get to that? The very first one, called "New Version 11-14-2018." It's a close-up version. 6.a Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member, are you looking at the perspective drawings? Chair Furth: Which plan set are you looking at, and which sheet? Board Member Hirsch: I'm looking at the illustration plan. Ms. Gerhardt: I don't know that we have those drawings loaded up. We'll see what we can find. Board Member Hirsch: Comparative perspective. Board Member Thompson: Is it this one? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. No, no. Here. [Locating drawing Board Member Hirsch is referring to.] Mr. Heilbronner: On this elevation, there's a blade sign out on El Camino for the café. Board Member Hirsch: Do you have a slide of...? [Locating drawing Board Member Hirsch is referring to.] Board Member Hirsch: Well, if that's difficult to get, okay. Let's just... We can all... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...and staff knows which drawing we're looking at. Board Member Hirsch: Right. But you know what I’m talking about, this area we're talking about. The close-up, right? Obviously, you're not going to have glass there. It's going to be planted, right? Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. And that's in your planting plan, I'm sure. Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: I'd like to... Actually, I'd like to also ask staff, is that an important area on the outside of that planting where you have benches shown? Ms. Gerhardt: I think we do try and have some public benches where people can feel comfortable sitting down, even if they are not patrons of the café. We do want some greenery, giving a little bit of a buffer between the street and the building. But there is no regulation on the exact size and things of that nature. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, so, my opinion is, in the first place, it's funny that you don't, you show people walking on the outside, but you don't show people sitting in that recessed area there. That is part of the café, right? Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. This slide shows the café is back here. This is the plaza with the umbrellas and... Board Member Hirsch: I'm talking about the area where the exercise room is on one side and there's a conference room on the other side. Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. There's an entrance to the café directly off the sidewalk, and there could be small tables... Board Member Hirsch: There could be tables there, right? 6.a Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Heilbronner: We show.... Board Member Hirsch: Access to the coffee area. If the dining area and café, as well, is filled up, people will go there. Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. We show tables... Board Member Hirsch: Tables in the plan. Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. It functions basically the same way as the other side, with the dining room. There needs to be some form of privacy in that area, and separation, and sound barrier, just as you had it on the other side. Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, so, I don't see why -- or perhaps I disagree with other board members here -- why there isn't a barrier of the same nature right there, whatever you call that wall, with glass above it. Mr. Heilbronner: In a prior design, we had another screen wall on the El Camino side. We looked at that again carefully and we're trying to open up visual back to the building, more open to the café so you see it, and we were focused that most people would sit in the plaza area, not on the El Camino side where it's noisier. That was our... Board Member Hirsch: That was your first concept, which I liked. Mr. Heilbronner: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: Okay? I mean, I think that... Chair Furth: I don't think we need to argue it, but if you could present your point of view, and... [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: Yes... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ... to have a chance to speak. Board Member Hirsch: The other aspect that I like, that I guess I disagree with my board members on here is that you turn the corner with that wall, so it sort of defines the planting area, the entry area. You don't do that in this drawing, so you've removed it because of previous criticism of that aspect. Okay. Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Also, let me get to what concerns me the most, actually, about this building, is this very corner, this very corner on El Camino and the verticality of it. My personal preference, again, is that you keep some of that horizontal line moving through the area here. I liked, for example, the way in which you dealt with the ground floor with a planting wall on that side. Sort of all of these elements, to me, don't come together as well as they could. I don't see the sense of a rounded corner at that point because it doesn't relate to the function, except perhaps at the cafeteria level itself, and the coffee shop. But I don't, I don't see the reason for that kind of a vertical expression when the basic building here is like a shoebox, and it's horizontal. That comment, we could discuss more. I know that would require some façade redesign, and I'm aware of that, but I think that it's worth considering. If the building were squared off and the proportions were nicely done, the window corner related more horizontally with the 6.a Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Page 11 rest of the building, and in a squared-off corner, I think you'd have a unit inside that relates more to the function of what's behind it. It's just one unit in that whole building. The other aspect of that -- and I'll finish up with this -- is that the balcony on the second floor extends around the corner now, not just over the dining room, and is supported by the columns that are outside. I understand why you would turn the corner rectangularly further out because the dining room is there below, so there's no reason in my mind why that couldn't be a planting deck, just as the rest of the facades are on that level. The façade that faces towards Hansen Place is a planting deck. Is that correct? Mr. Heilbronner: Yes, this balcony deck here is guest room balconies over the dining area, correct. Board Member Hirsch: So, it could extend around the corner and simply go back into the building, but there's no real reason why anybody would really, although you show people out on that deck, is there a real reason why people would use a deck like that on a second floor over a dining area? Mr. Heilbronner: Frankly, we cut a lot of the... We cut the podium out in this curved area. We left a small area here for hotel guests to use the balcony as a public area. I'm not sure that would be a highly-used area. Could be used for photo-taking, or just to go out and sit, but it's not a huge area. It's a small, urban, kind of plaza area. Chair Furth: I'm going to stop this discussion at this point so we can hear from other board members and hear each other's comments. And then, if the Board has a second round of comments, we can do that. Yes? Ms. Gerhardt: Related to this discussion, I just wanted to let board members know that covered canopies, canopies that cover these dining tables, are considered FAR, even when they don't have walls around them. Chair Furth: They would exceed the allow floor area for the project? Ms. Gerhardt: It would change the FAR of the project, yes. Chair Furth: And is the FAR already close to the limit, or do they have extra space left? Mr. Heilbronner: Yeah, it is close. Very close. Chair Furth: Thank you. We could calculate that if this was the consensus of the board. Alex. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation and thank you for the very clear set of drawings. It was very useful. I can recommend approval of the project today. I have, I think, as we've talked before, I think the project is exemplary. I think the building top, middle and base are all done very well. I think you've included a lot of ground floor uses that are very attractive and will attract pedestrians. Staff had some comments about, from the PTC. I also had a concern about a car drop-off on El Camino. I actually had noticed that before you had mentioned that. Sometimes we've done continuous planter strips in those locations. I know that Transportation wants a minimum sidewalk width, walking width, so I do understand that is an issue. You have cars going by at 40 miles as hour close to the curb, making a righthand turn, you know, having more landscaping can be better. I think the other thing I think about, too, is just the way the intersection is configured, you know, the crosswalk isn't anywhere near that section. The actual crosswalk is way up closer to The Fish Market. It's just because the intersections are kind of offset. I think regarding compatibility, I think that the new building will work with a lot of the new buildings that are under design and construction in the vicinity. And then, I think, my only main concerns is, one is, like, the stucco color is white, and my main concern would be on your northwest façade late in the day during the summertime, that we might get a lot of glare at that time. I did look at the solar angles and I think that could be an issue. 6.a Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Alex, which...? Board Member Lew: This would be facing The Fish Market. Chair Furth: The Fish Market façade? Board Member Lew: Yeah, so, I'm thinking.... I looked at the sun angles and it might be an issue. There are large trees on El Camino and also on the back of the property that may help mitigate that. And then, I think my other concern was just that the L3 wall sconce, it's like a Kichler fixture, and I was wondering if there was a better option for that. I do like that that fixture is a downlight, but I was wondering if there was maybe something, if there's a higher-quality fixture than that. That's all that I have. Chair Furth: To be clear, are you recommending changes with respect to the glare problem on the northwest façade? Board Member Lew: I'm just putting it out there for the other board members. Chair Furth: Okay. You raised a concern. Okay. Board Member Lew: White buildings have come up before. We get comments from people in Portola Valley, and they can see our buildings. They can see our buildings, and they were saying, "We don't paint our buildings white. Why are you allowing all of these white buildings in Palo Alto?" People can see it, even though we may not. Chair Furth: I think it's fascinating that they think we should look like them. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: We don't say that to them. Board Member Thompson. But I understand the concern. Board Member Thompson: For the record, I'm a fan of white buildings, as I'm sure you know. In general, I would say that there are elements of this building that have improved greatly. I think there are other changes that could potentially be controversial, but I'll start with the good stuff. I actually really like this lot that you have introduced in sort of the southern areas. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Osma, could you translate that for me? What are you saying you like? Board Member Thompson: Oh. In this image of the southern façade, I think the original comment was actually about adding shading to the southern façade because it's exposed to sunlight. However, you have recessed the... I think the slot I'm talking about is the vertical stacking of the windows and recessing it four inches. Board Member Hirsch mentioned it looked like a federal building. I think it looks nice. I think it's better than what you had before. I think the recessing will help. Obviously more shading is better, so I wouldn't oppose if you decided to add some dimensionality on that side to actually protect your building from sun. But what you have is still an improvement over what you had before. I actually appreciate that order, I appreciate the terracing that you've done on that side. Appreciate the colors being lighter. I think mainly the controversial element is probably your corner. And also, sorry, I'll just mention... Yeah. The protected bike path is appreciated, in general. But, yeah, so, going back to the corner, the glass element. In general, I'm not a fan of spandrel glass or glassy things, usually for environmental reasons. But you actually, on the north side here, so, if you're going to have glass anywhere, this is probably a fine place to have it. What I actually kind of miss from the older drawings was that deck that wrapped around the corner. I understand that you've taken it out to sort of add more verticality to the corner. That deck could be a really nice spot for parties, or people who want to hang out on the hotel but not actually be on the street. I actually miss that. It's funny, I think we're sort of getting into the nuances of preference here. In general, I would say that, yes, in terms of meeting the design guidelines, your base, middle and top are fairly well defined. This particular corner is sort of missing that 6.a Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Page 13 top element. You sort of intentionally deleted it. You've kept your top element elsewhere on the building and deleted it from the corner. You could argue that that's okay, that you still have it as part of the building. It could be nice, though, to keep it in the corner. In general, though, again, I would say, mostly it's more improved. Again, the loss of the green wall on the ground because of, I guess the change in that corner, is something to be missed. There are some things in your old plan that I think were nice that I don't think we asked you to get rid of, that are gone now. But it seems like easy things that could be resolved in a subcommittee. Unless, of course, this element of that corner façade, if we were discussing sort of more heavily, that could potentially become controversial and not solvable in a subcommittee. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. I do want to thank the applicant for the really detailed and useful color and material board, the numerous 3D presentation images. It really helps a lot for us when we're trying to evaluate the design. Staff, if you could take note that this type of presentation is much appreciated. I support Alex's comments strongly. I think he's got his finger on the right direction for this building and I can make the findings to recommend approval. I have a couple of things that I'd like to really emphasize, especially to staff when this gets to a further level of review. The curved window wall on the corner is complex and expensive to build, especially when you have curved pieces of glass. That's what these are, is curved. If they come back and say, well, it turns out it's too difficult to build, we want to make it square, or change the shape, or something like that, that's a distinct architectural change and will need to come back to the board if they're going to change that. Assuming that what they are presenting is something they intend to build, and it's important, in my opinion, that it be built as to what we see here. I'm just putting that note of caution out there, that it has to be this way. The same thing goes, in my opinion, for the balconies on the fourth floor facing El Camino. I think it's really important to have those be pedestrian-accessible balconies that guests can actually go out on. That really enlivens the street experience for the public and it's very important. I just can't really make sense looking at the plans whether there's really doors there, or whether these balconies are intended to be that way. The applicant says they are, that's great, let's make sure that's in the record, and it remains that way throughout the development of this project. Same comment, again, applies to the depth of the window reveals. We're talking four inches and eight inches on the major elements at the corner. Those are great design features that I don't see supported in this application. In other words, there's no real clear details documenting that. I'll take you at face value that's what you intend to do, but I’m mentioning it to staff again. Let's be sure we check. To recess a window four inches into a wall means the wall has to get thicker somehow. It's not that easy to do. It’s not just write that on the window spec and you're done. And again, if it comes back and it's only two inches, that's a significant change to the design, and we are, in part, approving this because of those details. So, it's important that we follow through. The last detail that I don't see an answer on -- and maybe if this comes back to a subcommittee -- would be the top of the, I'll call it the vertical decorative wall with the Hotel Parmani round sign on it. It's to the left of the curved glass. The top of that decorative element, as I understand it, that's a perforated metal screen of some kind. You'll need some kind of detail or cap or something to practically terminate it, and visually, too. I think it's important that it be thought about. I'm sure it can be done. I just don't see any evidence of what you intend to do, and I think it's important that we see that. Those are really a series of comments that are just things that I want to be sure that we focus on as the building gets further developed. Lastly, I agree with Alex, that the white plaster is, I think, too bright. When I look at the sample over here, it's extremely reflective, and over The Fish Market building, and probably on Hansen Way, it really could be toned down. Just be a little bit less reflective in the sunlight. But I can support the building as its shown. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I have a question. Staff has a comment. Ms. Gerhardt: I have a question, as well. Board Member Baltay, you were asking about the balconies on the fourth floor, those being accessible, but when I'm looking at the drawings, those are actually roof elements (inaudible). 6.a Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Vice Chair Baltay: Precisely. Thank you, Jodie. That's why I'm bringing this up. I believe I asked the applicant that question already, and they affirmed that those are intended to be pedestrian-accessible balconies for the guests in the hotel. I'd like very much to make sure that that stays in the record, and that's what gets built. Chair Furth: Could the applicant confirm that the fourth floor balconies facing El Camino and Hansen are accessible? To guests? Mr. Heilbronner: Yes, absolutely, the fourth floor El Camino side, which in plan reads like a... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, just on El Camino. Mr. Heilbronner: I'm sorry. Fourth floor, El Camino, yes, they are private balconies for each of the... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: You can step out onto them. Mr. Heilbronner: Yes. Absolutely. Chair Furth: Thank you Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, I just want to clarify. Sheet DR3.3, we have the fourth floor. It's currently shown as a roof on El Camino, and then, there is also some space on Hansen. I just want to be clear what we're asking for. We're just asking for the El Camino side to be balconies? Vice Chair Baltay: I feel the El Camino side must be balconies, yes. Chair Furth: Discrepancy in the illustrations of the plans, not... Does not reflect the applicant's intention. Okay? Staff can make a note of that so that we don't have to put it in our motion, should we arrive at one. I have a question about the screening material above the fourth floor. I guess it's on the roof. Is that right? This? That's mechanical screen? I'm looking at this. A setback mechanical screen quite a ways back, is not visible from the sidewalk? Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. It would... The sidewalks immediately around the building... Chair Furth: Well, obviously. Mr. Heilbronner: ...mechanical screening is 10 feet tall under the allowance of 15 feet. Chair Furth: Okay. Mr. Heilbronner: Sorry. And... Chair Furth: And it's set in from the edge of the building. Mr. Heilbronner: Correct. You wouldn't see it from the surrounding streets. You would see it coming down El Camino from far away... Chair Furth: Okay. Mr. Heilbronner: ...as an image. Chair Furth: Thank you. The reason I'm asking staff is we just had a big discussion on a hotel on San Antonio about an overly visible mechanical screen that was much bigger than it needed to be. Made the building to be... How do you say this? Appear to be much taller than we had originally approved. I don't have a... We talked about doghouse screens versus comprehensive screens, and I don't have problems 6.a Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Page 15 with a large screen if it's sufficiently recessed. I'm going to propose that if we do a subcommittee, this go to subcommittee to... I think it's clear on what our intent is with regard to... Did you have a comment? Mr. Heilbronner: The exact height of the screen needed is a function of the height of the mechanical equipment? Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Heilbronner: We're totally open to a condition that the screen be as tall as the mechanical equipment... Chair Furth: Be minimized. Mr. Heilbronner: ...it might be eight feet, 7-foot-8 instead of, right now... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Yeah, it's the difference between the approach of having a large, sort of simple screened rectangle, and having smaller.... Yes, staff? Ms. Gerhardt: Just to clarify, the screen doesn't need to be as tall as the equipment. We've many times done line of sight diagrams, so it can be... Chair Furth: I think we are all clear and don't have any disagreement about what our goal is here. Everybody is nodding. All right. Thank you for your presentations, and thanks to everybody for their careful reading of the plans and the project and their comments. I'm trying to read my notes. I had a question for staff. Where would the red curb be on El Camino? The entire frontage? Mr. Sing: Presently, that's the condition, so the only change would be eliminating the pork chops for the additional curb space, as well as the elimination of the existing curb cut. Chair Furth: You're telling me it's red all the way now and it would continue to be red? Mr. Sing: It's red now where there is curb. Chair Furth: The entire frontage would be red. No parking. Mr. Sing: Right. That's correct. Chair Furth: I’m interested with, I think Alex or somebody mentioned the idea of having high landscaping along there, along the edge of curb. This is a state highway. Can we do that? Making up three foot highway landscaping along the edge of the curb there? Ms. Gerhardt: We would obviously need to confirm, but the only thing that we usually run into trouble with is additional trees near the street. Board Member Lew: If you look at, like, you know, Arbor Real project at El Camino and (inaudible) or Charleston, it actually has a continuous planter, and I don't know how tall the plants are. Maybe not three feet. Maybe two feet. But, like, in that particular location, there's no on-street parking, and you have traffic right at the curb. It's nicer to have a buffer... Chair Furth: Yeah, I think this is a... Board Member Lew: ...in that kind of location. Chair Furth: I think this is a really good idea. I think you all know that I like planted pedestrian barriers that subtly explain to people that, no, you're not going to walk through here. They need to be tall enough 6.a Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Page 16 and heavy enough. I mean, a classic one is pittosporum tobira, which is not my favorite plant for this site, but I would be in favor of having the landscape revised to have a planted pedestrian barrier to make it perfectly clear that this is not where you drop anybody off, or catch a cab. I think that would be much more effective than any amount of signage or red curbs. That would be one thing I would suggest. Alex, you'd like further review of lighting, at least one light fixture. Board Member Lew: I threw that out to the other board members. Chair Furth: I doubt that any of us disagree with you. Board Member Thompson: Which light fixture was that? Chair Furth: Um... I'm sorry, go ahead. Board Member Lew: L3. Chair Furth: There is some discussion about color. I know that Board Member Thompson emphasizes the importance of light-reflective colors for low electricity use, whereas others are concerned that it will be so reflective that will perhaps generate more electricity use next door. Is it possible to move towards a less reflective and still environmental-effective shade of white? Query? Comment? Board Member Lew: My thought is... My comment about the white is only for the west, sort of that northwest wall. And it is northwest, not true west, so I'm a little bit more flexible on the... And then, the other thing, the other issue with white, it does show... Chair Furth: Grime. Board Member Lew: ...it shows dirt more, and also, if they're proposing a smooth texture, a smooth white texture will show all of the stucco cracks more so than a rougher, more textured and darker color. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Thompson: We keep the color and add more texture on that side. That could help with glare. Chair Furth: Okay. From my notes... Let's see, what else did I want to say. Oh, I'm so grateful for the wider sidewalk, for the protected pedestrian... Sorry, bicycle path. It's always complicated when dealing with the California Department of Transportation, with their road here, and I appreciate that we've been able to get much more pedestrian space. I think the sharper corner will lead to slower turns, so that we'll have improved pedestrian and bicycle situations. And I think you have made the most neighborhood friendly hotel design in the city that we have seen. So, congratulations. We really appreciate what you have done. We probably have some very friendly hotels downtown, but actually, I don't even think they do as well. This is really, really impressive. Thank you. Perhaps we need to have a bit... First of all, is there support for...? I heard differing opinions on the design. I only heard David's -- Board Member Hirsch's -- critique of the fenestration and design elements along Hansen, but I heard... Would anybody other than David care to revisit the design of the floating element? Board Member Thompson: You mean the...? Chair Furth: The curve. Board Member Thompson: The curve. Yeah. Chair Furth: Okay. 6.a Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. Gerhardt: Are we discussing the canopy? Chair Furth: It's the vertical thing that goes like this. Board Member Thompson: The podium? Is it a podium, actually? Chair Furth: It's a line. Board Member Thompson: Kind of a skirt that comes along the front. [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: ... a lot of Izo-zahki [phonetic], in the Museum of Contemporary Arts. He always has the, he calls it the Marilyn Monroe curve. Chair Furth: Well, I vote no. Is this curve...? This is really a stupid question, but better answer it. Is this a free-floating curve, or does it have a floor connected to it? It's a free-floating curve. It's a free-floating curve. Board Member Thompson: It's only free-floating for part of the corner, and then it becomes a floor... Chair Furth: Well, I'm looking at this. Board Member Thompson: ...just after the... Chair Furth: It's all the way around the corner, it's free-floating. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, but if you look at the plan DR3.2... Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Thompson: ...and you're looking at the second floor plan... Chair Furth: Yep. Board Member Thompson: ...you can kind of see that it sort of joins up with the floor, right where that planter starts on the plan... Chair Furth: Yeah. Board Member Thompson: I think in the previous proposal, that whole... Chair Furth: It was balcony all the way. Board Member Thompson: ...the whole thing was deck. Chair Furth: Right. Now they're proposing it as... Board Member Thompson: Which was (inaudible). Chair Furth: ...free-floating vertical wall. Straw poll. How many of you are satisfied with the applicant's most recent proposal, on that regard? Vice Chair Baltay: I'm satisfied. 6.a Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: Yeah, and I think.... Yes. I would just say that, in my mind, it meets the findings. Chair Furth: Right. In other words, they get to choose if we can make the findings. It's not whether we would design it that way, but does it meet the standards of the City. It's your building. Board Member Lew: And then, also, if it were a deck, then it would impact the privacy of that, of the second-floor room right there. Chair Furth: Okay. And David, you would like it to be revisited? Board Member Hirsch: I would, yes. Chair Furth: Okay. Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: No, I'm fine with it. If I could, through the Chair, just address the Board. I think all of us as a whole feels this is a pretty good building. We've been through it three or four or five times. They've had this curved element for months, if not years. I think we need to stop just going over and over and hammering away at it. This meets the findings. It may not... Chair Furth: In your opinion. Vice Chair Baltay: In my opinion. The curved glass, David, you're right, it doesn't reflect what's inside. It's not what I would like to do myself, but... Chair Furth: Well, before we... That's fine. Vice Chair Baltay: It meets the findings. I think... Chair Furth: I'm going to keep driving you guys to a decision here today. I think I have your point. I had one other question, which was the other highly-discussed element seemed to be the rounded glass tower. My only concern about that, I mean, it does surprise me. I'm not sure why it's a choice, but I can't say that it shouldn't be. It does relate to the very curved corner and the curved element. The problem we usually have when these are hotel rooms is that the odd placement of curtains leads to a certain amount of visual chaos. What we usually do when we have highly-visible windows like this is we have a condition about curtains and automated screens. I don't know if that works here. Thoughts, please. Alex. Board Member Lew: On this one, it's not just a regular hotel room. This is a one-bedroom, so, the bedroom is not on the curve. That's just living area. I don't think there's nearly as much issues with curtains and what-not than a typical room. Board Member Thompson: The bedroom is on the curve. If you look at the drawings. Board Member Lew: I was looking at the plans and I thought the bedroom was on... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Is the bedroom in the corner? On these? I'm asking the applicant here. Mr. Heilbronner: Just quick clarification. The curve is three rooms, second, third and fourth floors. Chair Furth: Right. Mr. Heilbronner: They are guest rooms with beds. The plan shows that they are king bedrooms. And the glass is probably 25, the width of the glass, probably 20 percent wider than a normal window. We'll have blackout curtains on the radius with sheer drapes on them, just like every other window in the building 6.a Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Page 19 has. Chair Furth: They'd have to have really good-looking outsides to those blackout curtains. Mr. Heilbronner: Okay. Chair Furth: Yes. They typically aren't that good-looking on the outside. All right. Because otherwise, you wouldn't want to mess up your lovely building. What else have I forgotten here, folks? Any other matters that we should discuss as a group? Board Member Thompson: Do we want to talk about that light fixture? I finally managed to pull up the lighting plan. It's E4.0. Chair Furth: Well, I'm anticipating that this goes to a subcommittee, so I would let the subcommittee deal with it. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: But that may not be the consensus. Okay. MOTION Chair Furth: Could I have a motion please? And then we can debate that motion if necessary. Board Member Thompson: I'll move that we approve this project subject to findings and conditions to a subcommittee, where we can revisit the lighting fixture, the treatment of the northwest wall in terms of...; Chair Furth: Materials. Board Member Thompson: ... material. Chair Furth: Color and texture. Board Member Thompson: And... Chair Furth: I think staff asked for a condition that the Transportation Demand Management Plan include a provision that -- What's the technical term for Uber and Lyft? Board Member Thompson: TNC. Mr. Sing: Transportation Network Company. Chair Furth: That transportation network companies be advised that pick-up and drop-off must take place in the Hansen porte-cochere? Is that what it is? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Chair Furth: And I would like to add that the subcommittee review landscaping. Board Member Thompson: (inaudible) Chair Furth: We're still composing a motion here. It's not a friendly amendment. It's a collaboration. Board Member Thompson: It's very helpful. 6.a Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Furth: I'm just trying to list everything we have here. To provide landscaping along El Camino Real designed to discourage pedestrians from crossing that sidewalk into the street. Ms. Gerhardt: Mechanical screen? Chair Furth: And mechanical screening be reviewed, and I'm getting a note here, details at the top of the wall which contains the sign for these buildings. It's the wall that would be reviewed as to details at the top of it, not the sign. Mr. Sing: Chair? Sorry. Chair Furth: Yes. Mr. Sing: There was that condition that staff had suggested regarding no stopping signs on El Camino. Was that something that...? Chair Furth: And consider no stopping signs on El Camino. Because I think if you landscape it adequately, you may not need to do that, but you may need to. That would be something for the subcommittee and engineering, traffic engineers. Yes? Board Member Thompson: And could we also add that maybe the applicant consider keeping that deck as we've seen it so far along the corner? Just to consider if... Because I think in all the previous applications, that deck turned the corner around. Chair Furth: Is there a majority of support for that point of view? Would anybody back that? Vice Chair Baltay: No, I don't think that's a good idea to ask for that at this point, Osma. I think it starts to affect FAR calculations and things like that. Board Member Thompson: But it's been there in all the previous.... Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: It just feels late to me. Chair Furth: I don't think you're going to get support for that one. Board Member Thompson: It is my motion. Chair Furth: It is your motion. Go for it. Board Member Thompson: Just that they consider it. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Thompson: You know, it doesn't have to be something that... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Consider with the [crosstalk]. Board Member Thompson: I mean, it could be the subcommittee takes a look and it doesn't work architecturally. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Vice Chair Baltay: I will second the motion, including the considerations you mentioned. 6.a Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: Thank you, Peter. Is there brief discussion? It's only because you people want to catch your airplanes and do justice to the other matter. Any other discussion? Seeing none, all those in favor say aye. All those opposed? You have to say it audibly. The motion.... Oh, I'm sorry, after a while it gets automatic to hit the microphone button. All right. Well, the vote is... Board Member Hirsch: On the record, I'm voting against. Chair Furth: Thank you. The vote is 4 in favor, 1 against, the 1 against being Board Member Hirsch. And the matter is referred to subcommittee. MOTION PASSED 4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER HIRSCH VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION. 6.a Packet Pg. 107 6.b Packet Pg. 108 6.b Packet Pg. 109 6.b Packet Pg. 110 6.b Packet Pg. 111 6.b Packet Pg. 112 6.b Packet Pg. 113 6.b Packet Pg. 114 6.b Packet Pg. 115 6.b Packet Pg. 116 6.b Packet Pg. 117 6.b Packet Pg. 118 6.b Packet Pg. 119 6.b Packet Pg. 120 6.b Packet Pg. 121 6.b Packet Pg. 122 X-21.0 TRUE NORTH 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 375 Oakland, CA 94612 TEL. 510.463.8300 FAX. 510.463.8395 YP002HOTEL PARMANI 3200 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 03.01.2019 6.b Packet Pg. 123 X-21.1 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 375 Oakland, CA 94612 TEL. 510.463.8300 FAX. 510.463.8395 YP002HOTEL PARMANI 3200 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 03.01.2019 6.b Packet Pg. 124 X-21.2 300 Frank H. Ogawa Plaza, Suite 375 Oakland, CA 94612 TEL. 510.463.8300 FAX. 510.463.8395 YP002HOTEL PARMANI 3200 El Camino Real Palo Alto, CA 94306 03.01.2019 6.b Packet Pg. 125 6.b Packet Pg. 126