Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-05-02 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: May 2, 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.PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 233 University Avenue [18PLN-00344]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Seismic Rehabilitation of an Existing Single-Story Structure, the Addition of a Second-Story for Office Use, and a Rooftop Terrace. Additional Floor Area Would be Added Using a Seismic Floor Area Bonus and Transferred Development Rights (TDRs). The Project Includes Alterations at the Ground Floor to Revise the Entrances, Revisions to the Walls Along the Interior and Rear Lot Lines, and Brick Details. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Commercial Downtown Community with Pedestrian and Ground Floor Combining District Overlays). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins, at Claire.hodgkins@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 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2019. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2019. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements: 5.North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP)- Board Member Lew 6.Architectural Review Board Annual Report to City Council: Review of Draft Letter Adjournment _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Wynne Furth Vice Chair Peter Baltay Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember Alex Lew Boardmember Osma Thompson Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by Noon two Wednesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10308) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 5/2/2019 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 Cancelled egular7/18/2019 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 4/4 - 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 May 2, 2019 4256 El Camino Real: New Hotel (3rd Hearing) 567 Homer: Three Dwelling Units (Prelim) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10184) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/2/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 233 University Avenue: Seismic Rehabilitation and Office Addition (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 233 University Avenue [18PLN-00344]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Seismic Rehabilitation of an Existing Single-Story Structure, the Addition of a Second-Story for Office Use, and a Rooftop Terrace. Additional Floor Area Would be Added Using a Seismic Floor Area Bonus and Transferred Development Rights (TDRs). The Project Includes Alterations at the Ground Floor to Revise the Entrances, Revisions to the Walls Along the Interior and Rear Lot Lines, and Brick Details. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: CD- C(GF)(P) (Commercial Downtown Community with Pedestrian and Ground Floor Combining District Overlays). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins, at Claire.hodgkins@Cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis, and evaluation to city codes and policies; 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 that report is available online: http://tinyurl.com/233-University-Staff-Report. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment E. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and is modified to reflect recent project changes. Background On March 7, 2019 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: http://tinyurl.com/233-University-ARB-Video. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Pedestrian Amenities: Multiple board members noted that the project should further enhance the pedestrian experience along Ramona. The board asked for consideration of seating, noting that there is currently no seating provided along Ramona Avenue leading up to University Avenue at this corner. A built-in concrete bench has been added into a recessed window area at the north corner of the subject property, along Ramona. As discussed further below, at the request of the Office of Transportation and Public Works Engineering Division, no benches were placed in the public right-of- way. Retail Entrances: The board noted that a better retail entrance along Ramona should be provided; stating that a sliding exit was not sufficient and recommending that the access to the retail be closer to the corner. As shown on Sheets A2.2 and A3.1, the revised design moves the retail entrance along Ramona closer to the Ramona Street/University Avenue corner. The applicant is proposing two side-by-side sliding doors but also provides an alternative option on Sheet A2.2 that would include swinging doors. An awning has been added to the doorway to further define the entrance. In addition, on University Avenue, another sliding glass opening has been added at the corner. However, because of a step between the interior floor and sidewalk, this will be for display only; a railing will be placed in front of this opening so that it can be opened but cannot be used as an entrance. Awning: At least one board member noted they would prefer for the awning design to continue around the building along the Ramona frontage Sheet A3.1, Elevation 2 shows new awnings at Ramona Street above each entrance. Signage: The proposed signage should be Possible locations and approximate sizes of 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 shown signage are shown on Sheet A3.1. No signage is proposed as part of this application; any future signage would be proposed by the future tenant(s) and would be assessed in accordance with the City’s municipal code and guidelines in effect at the time of application. Rear and Side Wall: The board noted that the wall on the rear of the building is very visible and that it should, accordingly, be more visually interesting. The board noted that the second floor wall and parapet facing the Stanford theater is too blank and some revisions are needed to provide more relief on this wall. At the northwest wall, about 500 square feet of metal panel is replaced with cement plaster ‘P1’. At the southwest wall, about 950 square feet of metal panel is replaced with cement plaster ‘P1’. This cement plaster will have a smooth finish and will be divided with a regular pattern of control joints. The thickness of the metal cladding is greater than the cement plaster, so there will be a visible step where the finishes meet. See elevations one and two on sheet A3.2, and detail seven on sheet A5.1. In addition, two glass panels have been added to the rear of the building and one glass panel has been added along the interior lot line, as shown on the elevation sheets. Brick Detail: The board noted that the brick detailing was somewhat plain and that there should be more treatment around the window/door details, such as more corbeling. The applicant proposes to retain and repair all existing brick details uncovered when the veneer arches are removed. Following the ARB hearing, the applicant removed interior finishes to examine the original wall. The brick column capitals flanking the doors along University and rounding the corner onto Ramona are proposed to remain and have a brick corbeling detail. In addition, a band of brick corbeling runs along the length of both facades above the doorways. These details are shown on the elevations and perspectives. See sheets A4.2 and A4.3 as well as Sheet A5.1, Details 1 and 2. Materials: At least one board member noted that the aluminum material is too glossy. They stated a preference for a matted material. In addition, at least one board member noted The extent of aluminum panel ‘M2’ is reduced, replaced in part with smooth cement plaster. However, no changes are proposed to the aluminum material proposed. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 concerns about false historicism due to reuse of the brick. The use/reuse of brick materials is discussed further below. Analysis1 Following is staff’s analysis of the proposed changes and the revised project’s consistency with applicable plans, regulations, and guidelines. It should also be noted that based on the ARB’s comments, a condition of approval (COA) has been included in Attachment C, which indicates that the door at the rear of the property may only remain if the applicant shows prescriptive rights or otherwise obtains the adjacent property owner’s agreement for access over their property to the door. The door is not required to meet fire safety requirements. A COA clarifying restrictions on the window blinds has also been added. Pedestrian experience Overall, the revisions, including the addition of a small window seat and changes to the proposed street trees improve the pedestrian experience along the public right-of-way on Ramona Street. The project includes repaving of the existing sidewalk along Ramona and new grates for the street trees. Bench The applicant has proposed a built-in concrete bench with a brick base in front of a recessed window area along Ramona Street in order to provide a small seating area, consistent with the ARB’s comments. Although a full-length bench outside one of the larger recessed areas may have been more desirable, it would have either required encroachment into the sidewalk or an increase in the recessed area in order to properly fit the bench, affecting the interior space. In addition, the property owner has expressed concerns that a full-length bench may attract people looking for shelter/sleeping area in front of the store. The applicant explored the idea of placing a bench within the public right-of-way. Given the area needed for street trees, proposed bicycle parking, other electrical equipment above and below grade, and the overall sidewalk width, both the Office of Transportation and the City’s Public Works Engineering indicated that the areas along Ramona and University in front of this building were not appropriate locations to place a bench within the public right-of-way. Trees Because the utilities along Ramona limit the available soil space for roots, the City’s arborist determined that trees of small to medium stature at maturity would perform better than multiple larger trees in this space. In addition, it was recommended that the mature street tree, which appears to be in good health, be protected instead of removed. Therefore, the mature street tree at the corner of Ramona and University will be protected during construction. The 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 other two street trees along Ramona would be replaced with two new catalina ironwood trees, which are a native, low water use species. Retail entrance The retail entrances have been revised. Previously, three entrances were provided, including one retail entrance (double swinging doors) along University, a retail entrance towards the rear of the retail space along Ramona (single sliding door), and an entrance to the office space at the rear of the building facing Ramona (double swinging doors). The revised plans include several changes. Along University, the main entrance would remain the same but the glass at the corner has been revised to a sliding glass opening that would only be opened when the weather is nice. Due to the grade along this frontage, this would not serve as a door; a railing is provided in front of the opening to ensure the safety of patrons when the doors are open (similar to the design provided in front of La Joya restaurant at 339 University). The plans have also been revised to move the retail entrance along Ramona closer to the University Avenue corner. The plans now show two sliding doors instead of a single sliding door. Although this revision addresses the ARB’s comment regarding the door placement, the sliding glass door is less desirable than a swinging door which is more typical of a retail entrance. Although, when opened, this design could provide a more open store area, the door may not be open to the public at all times and therefore may not be sufficient to address the ARB’s recommendation to provide better retail access along Ramona Avenue. The applicant has provided an alternative option, shown on the floor plan on Sheet A2.2, which would include double doors that swing in. This would remove slightly more area from the retail space in order to accommodate the doors, but would be a more traditional retail opening. The ARB may consider either option. In addition, the use of awnings along Ramona better define the entrances, consistent with the ARB’s comments about the use of awnings along Ramona. Rear and side wall In response to the board’s request for more visual interest on the rear wall and more relief on the second floor wall facing Stanford Theater, the applicant has revised both walls to break up the façade by using different materials. At the northwest wall, about 500 square feet of metal panel is replaced with cement plaster ‘P1’. At the southwest wall, about 950 square feet of metal panel is replaced with cement plaster ‘P1’. This cement plaster will have a smooth finish and will be divided with a regular pattern of control joints. The thickness of the metal cladding is greater than the cement plaster to provide a visible step where the finishes meet. On both facades the metal panel is used to differentiate the stair element from the rest of the wall. This is more visible on the side wall given the step down (approximately one foot, nine inches) between the top of the stair and the start of the mechanical screen at the rear. Windows cannot be used given the proximity of these walls to the property line and/or the purpose of the wall (mechanical screening for the side wall). However, the applicant shows two new inoperable windows at the rear and one along the interior lot line at the stair wells. Properly rated fire safe glass would be used for these glass openings. These openings would provide more light into the stairwell; provide some definition, along with the material change, to differentiate the stairwell space; and generally provide further visual interest. Overall these 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 material changes reduce the appearance of massing and provide more visual interest than the previous design. Brick detailing The applicant proposes to retain and repair all existing brick details uncovered when the veneer arches are removed, including brick column capitals with brick corbelling that flank the doors along University and round the two corners on Ramona, as shown on the elevation sheets and renderings (Sheets A3.1 and A4.1 through A4.3 as well as Details 1 and 2 on Sheet A5.1). In addition, a band of brick corbeling runs along the length of both facades above the doorways as shown on the elevation drawings. Therefore, the revised plans address the ARB’s comment regarding the need for more brick detailing on the façade. Materials Although no changes are proposed to the aluminum material to change it to a matted finish, the revised plans significantly reduce the extent of aluminum panel ‘M2’, replacing portions with a smooth cement plaster. The Board also commented on whether maintaining the existing brick would constitute false historicism. Though the existing building does not retain its integrity as a potential historic resource due to extensive revisions over time, the original brick from the early 1900s is planned to be used to maintain the original brick exterior along University and to clad the new façade along Ramona on the ground floor. The design of the proposed addition, including the modifications to the ground floor openings is very modern in style. It does not attempt to create the look and feel of the original building in a manner that creates a false sense of historic character. Rather, the reuse of the brick helps to retain a sense of the original design that is well-known to community members while still providing modern touches through the use of metal, glass and other materials to provide a more modern look and feel. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines As discussed in the previous staff report, the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Regional/Community Commercial. The Regional/Community Commercial land use designation is intended to provide a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theatres and non-retail services such as offices and banks. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. The project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Zoning Compliance As discussed in the previous staff report, the site is zoned Downtown Commercial-Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts (CD-C[GF][P]). The project is consistent with the uses, development standards, goals, and guidelines of the CD-C zone district as well as the GF and P combining districts. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is provided in Attachment C. The overall design would include the addition of more windows, particularly on the Ramona Street frontage that are slightly recessed 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 from the brick façade, and recessed entries along both Ramona and University, as encouraged in these pedestrian combining districts. The refined design, which includes the addition of a small bench, refinements to the street trees, revisions to the retail entrances, and the addition of awnings at the entrances along Ramona Street, all help to further improve the project’s consistency with the ground floor and pedestrian combining district goals and regulations by making the project more pedestrian friendly. Transferred Development Rights As discussed in further detail in the previous staff report, the applicant proposes to utilize 1,600 square feet of transferred development rights, which were previously purchased by Mills Family, LLC, as documented in an informational report to Council on June 6, 2016. The site meets the eligibility requirements outlined in PAMC Section 18.18.080(e) for an eligible receiver site and the project would meet all requirements for the use of TDRs as outlined in PAMC Section 18.18.080(f) and (g). Seismic Rehabilitation The existing building is an unreinforced masonry building constructed circa 1905 and has been deemed a Seismic Category I building. In accordance with PAMC Section 18.18.070(a)(2), “a building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic rehabilitation, but is not in Historic Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater.” In accordance with this Code section, the project proposes to seismically rehabilitate the existing building and use the 2,500 square foot bonus to construct a new second-story addition and access to a rooftop terrace. This bonus square footage would be combined with additional floor area obtained through TDRs, as discussed above. The total floor area ratio of the project with the use of both these allowances would be 2.63:1, and therefore would not cause the site to exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 as required in accordance with PAMC Section 18.18.070. The project proposes to park this additional square footage by paying in-lieu fees in accordance with PAMC Section 18.18.090. Per PAMC Section 18.18.070(b), the use of this floor area bonus is subject to restrictions. As detailed in the previous staff report, the proposed project would comply with all of these restrictions. Ground Floor Retail Preservation In accordance with the Ground Floor Retail Preservation Ordinance, as codified in PAMC Section 18.40.180, the proposed project would be required to preserve ground floor retail and retail- like uses on the site. The project proposes to retain the ground floor retail/retail-like use(s), as required in accordance with the code. Annual Office Limit and Downtown CAP The proposed project includes 4,400 sf of new office space, which includes access to the stairs and elevator on the ground floor, the second floor space, and covered areas for access to the rooftop terrace. Some of this office space would replace retail space provided on a mezzanine level; therefore the total new non-residential square footage being added totals 2,358 sf. 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.40.210, “no more than 50,000 net new square feet of office annual limit land uses per fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) shall be approved by the city in the office annual limit area.” Currently there are 23,650 sf of office proposed or approved for fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the proposed 4,400 sf would not cause the City to exceed its annual limit of 50,000 sf of new office space. On February 25, 2019 Council approved a second reading of an ordinance to amend the Palo Alto Municipal Code to remove the cap on new non-residential development in the downtown area. The code amendments became effective on March 25, 2019. Therefore, there is no cap on new non-residential development in the downtown area that would apply to this project. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed project does not include any vehicle access or on-site parking. The existing building is being retained and the site has paid into the downtown in-lieu parking for the existing gross floor area. Gross floor area added through both the seismic rehabilitation bonus and the TDR bonus is required to be parked but may be parked through in-lieu fees if parking on site is infeasible. As documented in the previous staff report, parking on this site would not be feasible. Because floor area on the mezzanine level is being removed, the total floor area being added is 2,358 square feet. At a ratio of one space per 250 square feet, a total of nine additional parking spaces are required to be paid in-lieu. No loading space is required for the proposed project. As discussed in the previous staff report, the project is consistent with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. The revisions to the retail entrances have improved pedestrian access to the site. Retail entrances are provided along both Ramona and University. The retail entrance along Ramona is better defined in the revised plans. The project would include repaving the sidewalk along the Ramona frontage and would include tree grates for the three tree wells to improve the area for pedestrians. Consistency with Application Findings As detailed in Attachment B, staff finds that the project, on balance, is consistent with the findings for Architectural Review, including the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning requirements for the CD-C Zone District as well as the Pedestrian (P) and Ground Floor (GF) combining districts and the Downtown Guidelines. The project includes high quality materials, including the existing brick, which will be salvaged in order to maintain the existing look and feel of the ground floor of this building. It retains the mature, existing street trees on University and at the corner of University and Ramona. Two other trees along Ramona would be replaced with native species (catalina ironwood). The project also improves the pedestrian environment along the Ramona Street frontage by adding large windows to provide views in, and provides for all three waste streams on site where trash was previously brought off-site to containers in a nearby alley. It also makes the building safer (both from seismic shaking and for fire) and improves American’s with Disabilities (ADA) compliance for the building as a whole. 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project was found to be exempt from the provisions of CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, exemptions for in-fill projects. A draft of the documented exemption is included in Attachment F, documenting how this project meets the requirements of the Category 32 exemption. Historic Evaluation As discussed in the previous staff report, the subject property is not listed on the National Register, California Register, or City’s Historic Inventory. The City’s Dames & Moore survey identified the property as potentially eligible for the California Register. However, a Historic Resource Evaluation was recently prepared for the site and concluded the building is not eligible for the California Register because it lacks integrity. A copy of the Historical Resource Evaluation for the proposed project was included in Attachment D of the previous staff report and can be found at this link: http://tinyurl.com/233-University-Staff-Report. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 19th, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 22nd, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments No additional public comments were received at the public hearing on March 7, 2019 or since that date. The single previous comment on this project was noted in the previous staff report and expressed that they did not like the style of the proposed project and felt that this style in general was inconsistent with the character of the City. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Hodgkins, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment D: Zoning Compliance Analysis (DOCX)  Attachment E: March 7, 2019 ARB Staff Report (1st Formal) (PDF)  Attachment F: Documentation of Exemption (DOCX)  Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 17 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 102.2' 50.0' 102.2' 50.0' 97.5' 40.1' .6'1.0'10.5' 33.8' 7.7' 35.6' 4.0' 6.4'4.8' 27.0' 11.5' 75.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 22.8' 50.0' 4.7' 50.0' 17.5' 41.5' 72.2' 50.0' 30.8' .6'10.5'1.0'.6' 40.1' 37.8' 33.2' 30.8'33.2' 30.8' 46.8' 27.0' 4.8' 6.4'4.0' 35.6' 23.2' 100 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 35.0' 100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 70.0'100.0' 50.0' 45.0' 90.0' 205 201 203 451449 209 219 221 233 235 450 460 470 442 444 0 441- 445 220 222 2 251 485 255 2 230 227 46 1 451 471 440 R A M O N A S T R E E T U NIVER SIT Y AVE N U E P A U LS E P C-4063 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes abc Dimensions (AP) abc Zone District Labels 0' 40' 233 and 235 University Avenue CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2019-01-29 16:02:03 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\chodgki.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 18 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 233 University Avenue 18PLN-00344 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project complies with the zoning code and requires no exceptions to the development standards. The project is subject to the Downtown Design Guidelines. The proposed project is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan, below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Community Commercial (CC). The Community Commercial land use designation includes uses such as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters and non-retail services such as offices and banks. The proposed project includes a ground floor retail use with office above, which is consistent with uses defined in the Community Commercial land use designation. Land Use and Community Design Goal L-1 A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, work places, shopping districts, public facilities and open spaces. The proposed project includes seismic rehabilitation of an existing structure within the City’s downtown area and a second floor office addition to the ground floor retail uses. This type of infill development is consistent with Goal L-1 and relevant policies to achieve that goal. Although the project adds office area within the City, the project stays within the citywide and annual office limit cap Policy L-1.2. Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open 2.b Packet Pg. 19 space, with allowances made for very low- intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. requirements. The project uses quality materials, including salvaging the brick façade along Ramona and University and reusing those bricks for the new development in order to retain the look and feel of the existing building. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. Policy L-1.10: Cap new square feet of office/R&D development citywide at 850,000 square feet, exempting medical office uses in the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) vicinity. Use January 1, 2015 as the baseline and monitor development towards the cap on an annual basis. Continue to exempt medical, governmental and institutional uses from the cap on office/R&D development; no other exemptions are allowed. Through December 31, 2030, this Policy L-1.10 may not be amended or repealed except by a vote of the people, provided, however, that the Palo Alto City Council may reduce the citywide cap of 850,000 new square feet of office/R&D development without a vote of the people. Policy L-1.11. Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Goal L-2 An enhanced sense of “community” with development designed to foster public life, meet citywide needs and embrace the principles of sustainability. The building would be required to meet green building standards both for the retrofitted space and the newly added space. The project includes a pedestrian friendly design, increasing visibility into the development by adding full length windows along the frontages and adding a bench along Ramona Street. The project also includes a new rooftop open space area and retains existing trees within the public right-of-way. Policy L-2.2 Enhance connections between commercial and mixed use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. Policy L-2.11. Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and 2.b Packet Pg. 20 natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. Policy L-4.2. Preserve ground-floor retail, limit the displacement of existing retail from neighborhood centers and explore opportunities to expand retail. The design maintains the ground floor retail space and provides more openings in the façade along Ramona Street to provide a more pedestrian friendly atmosphere along this right-of-way. It also adds bicycle parking within the right-of-way along Ramona to create an environment that is more friendly to bicyclists. The street trees along Ramona are also being revised to provide better soil volume and more appropriate trees to allow for better growth. 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-4.7. 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. Policy L-5.1. Foster compact Employment Districts developed in a way that facilitates transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Provide mixed uses to reduce the number of auto trips. The project includes additional office area in a transit-oriented employment district area and improves the pedestrian experience, especially along Ramona by adding more visibility into the space. Policy L-5.3. Design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the character of the area where they are located. Goal L-6: Well-designed buildings that create coherent development patterns and enhance city streets. The project is consistent with the development pattern of the area, which generally consists of one and two story buildings. The project would include two stories above grade with a roof top deck on top of the second floor. The project is consistent with the City’s Zoning Ordinance, including all development standards such as height. Further, the project is subject to the City’s design review process, which ensures a high- 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. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 quality appearance. Business and Economics Element Policy B-6.1: Support and enhance the University Avenue/ Downtown area as a vital mixed use area prioritizing retail, personal service, small office, start-ups, restaurant, residential and arts and entertainment uses. Recognize the importance of an appropriate retail mix, including small local businesses, to the continued vitality of Downtown. The project provides a mix of uses on University Avenue with retail on the level and office uses above. The retail use will enliven the area and add to the vibrancy of Downtown. Program B-6.1.1: Actively work with Downtown businesses, professional associations and the Palo Alto Chamber of Commerce to retain successful retail businesses that contribute to the City’s goals for Downtown. The project is also consistent with the Downtown Design Guidelines because it includes greater visibility into the retail area, consistent with the guidelines’ goal to create ground floor architectural interest with windows and displays. It is also consistent with the goal of encouraging the 25-50 foot storefront building rhythm and the goal for corner buildings within the University district to generate interest on side streets as well as the main street to foster linkage with the rest of the commercial core. The project has been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record as Attachment C to the March 7, 2019 staff report. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The area is comprised of various commercial and residential buildings mostly one to two stories in height. The project proposes to construct a building that is taller than many of the 2.b Packet Pg. 22 immediately adjacent buildings. However, across University and Ramona at the opposite corner is a five story tower reinforcing the corner. The building directly across Ramona is also a taller two story building that is similar in height to the proposed building. The proposed building also steps the second story back, reducing the perceived height of the building from the pedestrian perspective along University. The proposed project is consistent with the findings to provide high quality materials and finishes in a neutral color palette, including reuse of the salvaged brick from the existing building. Despite the fact that the building was not determined to be historic, the brick façade of the existing building is unique and reflects the history of the original building. The building will have retail on the first floor, which is accessible to residents within walking distance of the project site. The project also proposes a smaller-scale office space, which is also desired in this area. Adjacent historic buildings include the Stanford Theater two buildings down from the project along University and the Fidelity Bank building, both of which are included as Category 3 buildings in the City’s historic inventory. Although both of these buildings are within the immediate vicinity; neither is immediately adjacent the building. Each of these buildings, including the existing building at the project site, has a different style of architecture. Therefore, the proposed project does not attempt to mimic the architecture of either of these two buildings; rather it retains the original look of the brick first floor from the existing building at the project site, while adding modest modern touches. It steps the tallest portions of the façade back, away from these buildings, and preserves mature existing trees on the site. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project offers short term bike racks for commercial visitors and well as long-term bike lockers for employees. There is no vehicular access to the property. The project increases visibility into the retail area and includes slightly recessed entries to further activate the pedestrian environment. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 2.b Packet Pg. 23 The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project has its entries directly off the sidewalk to encourage pedestrians and allow for sidewalk uses such as storefront windows. There are existing mature street trees along both frontages, which would be maintained or otherwise replaced. The office decks also increase activity and views to the street. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project conforms to the required setbacks for the CD-C zone. Massing has been minimized by stepping back the second story from the frontage along University and utilizing clear glass railings to provide a lighter feel to the second story. The use of balconies and landscaping on the balconies helps break up the visual mass of the building. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The project does not directly abut a lower scale residential development. Therefore, this context-based criteria is not applicable. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site Although there are no open space requirements for the proposed project, the project provides both a deck at the second floor and a rooftop terrace to provide private open space for office employees. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment All parking is provided in-lieu as parking on site is infeasible. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This site is less than an acre. Therefore, this context-based criteria is not applicable. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 in accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations. This is 2.b Packet Pg. 24 demonstrated on the GB sheets in the plan set. Additionally, in accordance with PAMC Section 18.18.100, the project complies with the following performance criteria outlined in PAMC Section 18.23. The following performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project provides an enclosed trash facility, replacing the existing trash disposal area in a nearby ally. The trash facility is fully enclosed and out of clear sight from any public right-of-way or neighboring lots. There are no abutting residences. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The photometric study provided in the project plans shows that the project will minimize the visual impacts of lighting from adjacent roadways. All lights proposed are wall downlights. There are no nearby residential uses. 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick- up. The current project proposal does not include late night uses or activities. Future commercial tenants that would like this will need to file for a Conditional Use Permit, as required per the Zoning Code. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties While the project does not abut 2.b Packet Pg. 25 Performance Criteria Project Consistency with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. any residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within non-residential zones, the project is consistent with the stated performance criteria in that there is no mechanical equipment above grade existing or proposed along the project frontage. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. There are no residential uses or zones within the vicinity of the project area. 18.23.070 Parking The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. There is no parking proposed on site. Parking would be provided via in-lieu fees. 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. There are no curb cuts for the proposed project. No parking is provided on site and there would be no conflicts with pedestrian and bicycle uses of the site. 18.23.090 Air Quality The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to 2.b Packet Pg. 26 Performance Criteria Project Consistency comply with these performance standards. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project proposes to retain the brick façade of the ground floor of the building, including salvaging the original brick to the extent feasible for reuse on the façade. Above, the project has a more contemporary style, using balconies to step the second story back, glass railings to convey a lighter upper level, and landscaping to further break up the massing of the second level. The proposed colors are neutral and are compatible with surrounding color schemes. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The building provides access both along University and along Ramona Street and does not include any curb cuts on either frontage that could impact the safety of pedestrians or bicyclists. There are bicycle racks provided along the frontage and bicycle lockers provided in the garage. Although not required, ample open space is provided for the office employees and creates visual interest along the frontage. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: 2.b Packet Pg. 27 The project will provide a variety of drought-tolerant planting on the rooftop deck and terrace as well as in the street right-of-way. Some of the plantings were selected from a California native palette while others were selected to provide seasonal variety. The existing mature street trees along University and at the corner of University and Ramona would be maintained. Two trees along Ramona would be replaced and the soil area beneath would be designed to allow for better growth of the new, native trees. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. This is demonstrated on the GB sheets in the plan set. 2.b Packet Pg. 28 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 233 and 235 University Avenue 18PLN-00344 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "233 University Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 Major Architectural Review Submittal,” stamped as received by the City on April 22, 2019 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The Architectural Review (AR) approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval, if within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 6. TRANSFERRED DEVELOPMENT RIGHTS FLOOR AREA BONUS CERTIFICATION. Prior to final inspection, the property owner shall receive a written verification, issued by the Director of Planning and Community Environment, verifying development and construction has conformed to the approved plans dated April 22, 2019 except as otherwise modified and approved in the building permit. The project is eligible to receive 1,600 square feet of floor area from TDRs transferred from historic rehabilitation of the property at 2560 Embarcadero Road, of which 1,600 sf has been utilized at the site. 7. SEISMIC REHABILITATION FLOOR AREA BONUS. The building permit plan set shall show full implementation of the seismic rehabilitation strategies identified in the Memorandum (Memo # 2.c Packet Pg. 29 001) from Sierra Engineering Group, dated May 11, 2017, to the satisfaction of the Chief Building Official and the Planning Director prior to the release of building permits. Implementation of those strategies conform to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.42 and qualify the existing building to be eligible for a seismic rehabilitation floor area bonus. According to PAMC Section 18.18.070(a)(2) and based upon the existing 9,481 square feet of gross floor area in the existing 233 and 235 University Avenue building, the maximum bonus is 2,500 square feet. This seismic rehabilitation floor area bonus shall be fully utilized onsite and there shall be no remainder floor area that could be transferred to another property at a later date. 8. MAXIMUM PROJECT SIZE. Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.18.060(a) Table 1 and PAMC Section 18.18.070(b) limit the maximum size of a project in the Downtown Commercial zoning district. The increase in gross floor area at the parcel is 2,358 square feet (including 1,600 sf from TDRs and 2,500 sf of seismic floor area bonus minus 1,742 sf of existing gross floor area), for a total gross floor area at the parcel of 11,839 square feet, which excludes 16 square feet of exempt floor area attributed to first time ADA upgrades at 233 University Avenue. 9. BRICK PROTECTION AND REPAIR. The applicant shall maintain the existing, original brick on the front and interior side façade. In addition, any other existing brick will be salvaged, to the maximum extent feasible, and reused for the new brick wall areas along Ramona. The property owner or its designee shall prepare a brick protection and repair specifications prior to issuance of the building permit. 10. DUST AND VIBRTATION RELATED TO ADJACENT HISTORIC STRUCTURE. In accordance with the best practices recommended in the historic analysis, the applicant will prepare a dust minimization plan and a vibration monitoring plan to ensure that dust is minimized during construction and that vibrations from transient sources do no exceed 0.50 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV)(in/sec) and vibrations from continuous sources do not exceed .25 PPV (in/sec). 11. PERSCRIPTIVE EASEMENT. Either documentation of a prescriptive easement or an agreement with the adjacent property owner shall be provided to the Project Planner prior to planning approval of the building permit. If approval of access over this private property is not obtained, the door at the rear of the building must be removed prior to issuance of the building permit. 12. AGREEMENT FOR TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION ACCESS. If construction requires workers to encroach onto the adjacent private property, a signed agreement with the adjacent affected property owner that approves temporary construction access on their site shall be provided to the City prior to beginning such work. 13. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced if necessary, to the satisfaction of the Urban Forester and Director of Planning. 14. PROJECT ARBORIST. The property owner shall retain a certified arborist to ensure the project conforms to all Planning and Urban Forestry conditions related to the new trees along Ramona, as shown in the approved plan set. 2.c Packet Pg. 30 15. TREES. All public trees shall be retained and protected to the satisfaction of the City of Palo Alto arborist and in accordance with the Tree Technical Manual except as otherwise approved in the plan set. 16. CONSTRUCTION HOURS. All non-residential construction shall be subject to the requirements in the City’s Noise Ordinance contained in Palo Alto Municipal Code 9.10. 17. AUTO PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Auto parking requirements are based upon gross floor area for the parcel, minus exempt floor area. The gross floor area for determining auto parking requirements is 11,839 square feet and a minimum requirement for 47 auto parking spaces. Because parking is infeasible on site, as documented in the project plans, auto parking spaces shall be provided through participation in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. a. A total of 38 parking spaces were previously approved and purchased for the existing square footage. Nine (9) additional spaces shall be required to address the increase in gross floor area (2,358 sf) and fees shall be paid prior to issuance of the building permit. 18. BICYCLE PARKING REQUIREMENTS. Bicycle parking requirements are three (3) short term bicycle parking spaces and two (2) long term bicycle storage spaces to ensure compliance with PAMC Section 18.52.040 Table 2 and PAMC Section 18.54.060 Bicycle Parking Facilities. Short term bike parking spaces may be located within the right of way, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and the Chief Transportation Official, as approved on the plans. If located within the right- of-way, the rack model shall be a city-approved model and located to provide proper pedestrian clearances. 19. MANUFACTURERS SPECIFICATIONS AND PHOTOMETRICS. Manufacturer’s specifications shall be included in building permit plans for bicycle racks and light fixtures. Photometric information shall be included in building permit plans. 20. WINDOW DISPLAYS AND WINDOWS. Interior areas in front of first story windows are to remain free of storage or other interior-focused elements. All ground floor windows shall remain transparent to allow views into the tenant space, consistent with PAMC Section 18.30(A).055. In areas on the second floor where blinds are provided, all drapes, curtains, shutters, blinds or other window coverings visible from the street shall be beige, white, or off-white in color or lined in beige, white, or off-white unless otherwise approved by the Director of Planning. 21. SIGNAGE. Signage is not included or approved as part of this application. Any future signage will be subject to architectural review and must be pedestrian friendly, in accordance with the Downtown Design Guidelines. 22. PERFORMANCE CRITERIA AND STANDARDS - SCREENING. The mechanical equipment shall be screened from view from the public right-of-way. 2.c Packet Pg. 31 23. HOURS OF OPERATION. Approval of a Conditional Use Permit is required prior to conducting any use outside of the hours of 6:00 a.m. and 10:00 p.m. (PAMC 18.23.080(B)(i)). 24. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 25. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees in the amount of $766,068.39 plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 26. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 27. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 28. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496- 5953 to arrange a site visit so he can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and 2.c Packet Pg. 32 irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650- 496-5953). 29. Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same. 30. GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 31. EXCAVATION: Plans shall clearly identify the deepest point of excavation including below grade basement slab with note and appropriate dimensions. 32. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties, will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter, but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 33. UTILITIES: Note that all above ground utilities, such as transformer, backflow preventer, gas meters, etc., shall be located within project site but accessible from the street. Any new or relocated utilities will correspond with approved locations from City Utilities Department. 34. BASEMENT DRAINAGE: Due to high groundwater throughout much of the City and Public Works prohibiting the pumping and discharging of groundwater, perforated pipe drainage systems at the exterior of the basement walls or under the slab are not allowed for this site. A drainage system is, however, required for all exterior basement-level spaces, such as lightwells, patios or stairwells. This system consists of a sump, a sump pump, a backflow preventer, and a closed pipe from the pump to a dissipation device onsite at least 10-feet from the property line and 3-feet from side an rear property lines, such as a bubbler box in a landscaped area, so that water can percolate into the soil and/or sheet flow across the site. Include these dimensions on the plan. The device must not allow stagnant water that could become mosquito habitat. Additionally, the plans must show that 2.c Packet Pg. 33 exterior basement-level spaces are at least 7-3/4” below any adjacent windowsills or doorsills to minimize the potential for flooding the basement. Public Works recommends a waterproofing consultant be retained to design and inspect the vapor barrier and waterproofing systems for the basement. 35. BASEMENT SHORING: Shoring Plans prepared by a licensed professional are required for the Basement Excavation and shall be submitted with the Grading and Excavation Permit. Shoring for the basement excavation, including tiebacks, must not extend onto adjacent private property or into the City right-of-way without having first obtained written permission from the private property owners and/or an encroachment permit from Public Works. 36. GEOTECHNICAL REPORT: Shall clearly identify the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. Provide the following note on the Final Grading Plans. “In my professional judgement, the highest projected groundwater level to be encountered in the area of the proposed basement in the future will be ______ feet below existing grade. As a result, the proposed drainage system for the basement retaining wall will not encounter and pump groundwater during the life of this wall.” 37. DEWATERING: Excavation may require dewatering during construction. Public Works only allows groundwater drawdown well dewatering. Open pit groundwater dewatering is not allowed. Dewatering is only allowed from April through October due to inadequate capacity in our storm drain system. The geotechnical report for this site must list the highest anticipated groundwater level. We recommend that a piezometer be installed in the soil boring. The contractor shall determine the depth to groundwater immediately prior to excavation by using a piezometer or by drilling and exploratory hole. Based on the determined groundwater depth and season the contractor may be required to dewater the site or stop all grading and excavation work. In addition Public Works may require that all groundwater be tested for contaminants prior to initial discharge and at intervals during dewatering. If testing is required, the contractor must retain an independent testing firm to test the discharge water for contaminants Public Works specifies and submit the results to Public Works. Public Works reviews and approves dewatering plans as part of a Grading Permit. The applicant can include a dewatering plan in the building permit plan set in order to obtain approval of the plan during the building permit review, but the contractor will still be required to obtain a Grading Permit prior to dewatering. Public Works has dewatering guidelines available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 38. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the 2.c Packet Pg. 34 standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 39. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right- of-way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 40. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinate to keep materials and equipment onsite. 41. Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system (pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection, at a minimum 48-hours in advance by calling (650)496- 6929. 42. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Along with full sidewalk, curb & gutter replacement (University Ave and Ramona frontage), full width street resurfacing (grind and pave) is also required for the property frontage along Ramona St. The plans shall note this requirement. 43. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. 44. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 45. LOGISTICS PLAN: Prior to Building Permit issuance the contractor/designer must submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Include a copy in resubmittal. Guidelines are attached below: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2719 46. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the building permit plan set that says, “The contractor using the city sidewalk to work on an adjacent private building must do so in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the sidewalk. The work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving at 2.c Packet Pg. 35 least 4 feet of sidewalk for pedestrian use. If less than 4 feet of sidewalk is available for pedestrians, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to close the sidewalk.” BUILDING DIVISION 47. On the Roof Plan, there is a roof deck with a perimeter tempered glass guard on 3 sides. The guard facing the adjacent building at 227 University Ave is located 2’ from the property line. Non-bearing partitions located less than 30-ft for Type III-B buildings shall be constructed of one-hour fire- resistive construction per CBC Table 601 & 602. Please revise the guard along this wall line for compliance. 48. For the Basement Floor Plan (ref sheet A2.1), revise the occupant load factor for Retail Support to 60 sf/occupant from 100 sf/occupant or revise the use group of the space. (CBC Table 1004.1.2) PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION 37. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement. 38. PLANS--SHOW PROTECTIVE TREE FENCING. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show Type I or Type II fencing around each Regulated Trees, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone as shown on Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1, and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans; or using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 39. SITE PLAN REQUIREMENTS: Plans with Public Trees shall show Type II street tree fencing enclosing the entire parkway strip a. Add Site Plan Notes. i. Note #1. Apply to the site plan stating, "All tree protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations, watering and construction scheduling shall be implemented in full by owner and contractor, as stated on Sheet T-1, in the Tree Protection Report and the approved plans”. ii. Note #2. All civil plans, grading plans, irrigation plans, site plans and utility plans and relevant sheets shall add a note applying to the trees to be protected, including neighboring trees stating: "Regulated Tree--before working in this area contact the Project Site Arborist at 650-654-3351 "; iii. Note #3. Utility (sanitary sewer/gas/water/backflow/electric/storm drain) plan sheets shall include the following note: “Utility trenching shall not occur within the TPZ of the protected tree. Contractor shall be responsible for ensuring that no 2.c Packet Pg. 36 trenching occurs within the TPZ of the protected tree by contractors, City crews or final landscape workers. See sheet T-1 for instructions.” iv. Note #4. “Basement or foundation plan. Soils Report and Excavation for basement construction within the TPZ of a protected tree shall specify a vertical cut (stitch piers may be necessary) in order to avoid over-excavating into the tree root zone. Any variance from this procedure requires Urban Forestry approval, please call (650) 496-5953.” v. Note #5. “Pruning Restrictions. No pruning or clearance cutting of branches is permitted on City trees. Contractor shall obtain a Public Tree Permit from Urban Forestry (650-496-5953) for any work on Public Trees” 40. TREE REMOVAL—PROTECTED & RIGHT-OF-WAY TREES. Existing trees (Publicly-owned or Protected) to be removed, as shown accurately located on all site plans, require approval by the Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit prior to issuance of any building, demolition or grading permit. Must also be referenced in the required Street Work Permit from Public Works Engineering. a. Add plan note for each tree to be removed, “Tree Removal. Contractor shall obtain a completed Urban Forestry Tree Care Permit # _____________ (contractor to complete) separate from the Building or Street Work Permit. Permit notice hanger and conditions apply. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Copy the approval. The completed Tree Care Permit shall be printed on Sheet T-2, or specific approval communication from staff clearly copied directly on the relevant plan sheet. The same Form is used for public or private Protected tree removal requests available from the Urban Forestry webpage: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/trees/default.asp 41. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 42. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 43. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 2.c Packet Pg. 37 44. MAINTENANCE. All landscape and trees shall be maintained, watered, fertilized, and pruned according to Best Management Practices-Pruning (ANSI A300-2008 or current version) and the City Tree Technical Manual, Section 5.00. Any vegetation that dies shall be replaced or failed automatic irrigation repaired by the current property owner within 30 days of discovery. FIRE DEPARTMENT 45. Install a NFPA 13 fire sprinkler, NFPA 14 standpipe, NFPA 24 underground fire service and NFPA 72 fire alarm system. Note: Due to low water pressure a fire pump may be required for this project. 46. The building is required to have an Emergency Responder Radio System installed per the CA Fire Code section 510 unless the property owner submits an evaluation report stating the system is not required. UTILITIES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 47. Based on the final load calculations, if the existing transformer (transformer #6381) located adjacent to the project does not have sufficient capacity to accommodate the proposed project, a new vault shall be installed by the applicant per City’s standard and specifications. The vault would fall under “special facilities” and the applicant shall be billed accordingly. The applicant will be responsible for installing a new submersible transformer of adequate size to serve the new building. The Applicant shall install all substructure (boxes, vaults, conduits etc.) as required by the City. All the electric meters shall be located at one central location easily accessible to our Metering & Operational crews. The City will provide detailed comments and cost estimate when the plans are submitted to the Building Department for review and approval. WASTE-GAS-WATER UTILITIES 48. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, fire system load in gpm, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the new total loads. 49. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way, including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain 2.c Packet Pg. 38 mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 50. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 51. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements. 52. Installations parallel to new or existing WGW utilities to remain shall maintain 5ft minimum horizontal separation, unless specified otherwise by WGW Engineering . Crossings shall maintain minimum of one foot clear of any obstruction to WGW utilities. 53. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans submitted for building permit along with required drainage. 54. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans with required drainage. 55. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the upgrade or relocation. 56. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 57. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 58. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. 2.c Packet Pg. 39 59. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters; lesser distances require a permanent impermeable root-barrier a minimum of 3ft horizontal from water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 60. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. GREEN BUILDING 61. The project is required to comply with all Green Building requirements for non-residential uses, as required in accordance with the California Green Building Code and PAMC Section 16.14. 2.c Packet Pg. 40 Page 1 of 2 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 233 and 235 University Avenue, 18PLN-00034 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Setbacks Front Yard None Required the building currently encroaches into the PROW by a few inches 0 ft, once the newer layer(s) of facade is removed Rear Yard None Required 0 ft-6 in 0 ft-6 in Interior Side Yard None Required 0 ft 0 ft Street Side Yard None Required 0 ft 0 ft Special Setback Pursuant to Code Section 20.08 N/A N/A Minimum street setback for sites sharing a common block face with any abutting residential zone district Note 4 N/A N/A Minimum yard (ft) for lot lines abutting or opposite residential zone districts 10 feet (Note 1) N/A N/A Maximum Site Coverage None Required 100% 100% Maximum Height 50 feet 19 ft-3 in 45 ft-6 in Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 (4,500 sf) With TDR Bonus: 3.0:1 (Note 5); max increase of 1.0:1 (per PAMC Section 18.18.070 and 18.18.080) 2.107:1 (9,481 sf) 2.631:1 (11,839 sf, increase of 0.524) Maximum Size of New Non- Residential Construction or Expansion Projects 25,000 sf of gross floor area or 15,000 sf above the existing floor area, whichever is greater, provided the floor area limits set forth elsewhere in this chapter are not exceeded N/A 2,358 sf of new non- residential area; project conforms Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Initial Height at side or rear lot line (Note 2) N/A N/A Slope (Note 2) N/A N/A 2.d Packet Pg. 41 Page 2 of 2 Notes 1) The yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding area required for site access. 2) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the residential zone abutting the site line in question. 3) The maximum height within 150 feet of any abutting residential zone district shall not exceed the height limit of the abutting residential district. 4) The minimum street setback shall be equal to the residentially zoned setback for 150 feet from the abutting single-family or multiple family development. 5) FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts. 18.18.100 Performance Standards. In addition to the standards for development prescribed above, all development shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. All mixed-use development shall also comply with the provisions of Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District Type Required Existing Proposed Conforms? Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 2 All uses except residential: 1 space per 250 sf 47 spaces 38 spaces (in-lieu) 47 spaces (include 9 additional in- lieu parking spaces) Yes, with the purchase of 9 additional in-lieu parking spaces. Bicycle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 2 All uses except residential: 1 space per 2,500 sf 40% Long Term (LT) 60% Short Term (ST) 5 spaces 2 LT 3 ST None 2 Long Term 3 Short Term Yes Loading Space The project is not required to provide a loading space because it is less than 9,999 sf. Office projects greater than 10,000 sf are required to provide loading spaces. 2.d Packet Pg. 42 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9879) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 233 University Avenue: Seismic Rehabilitation and Office Addition (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 233 University [18PLN- 00344]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Seismic Rehabilitation of an Existing Single-story Structure, the Addition of a Second-story for Office Use, and Rooftop Terrace. Additional Floor Area Would be Added Using a Seismic Floor Area Bonus and Transferred Development Rights (TDRs). The Project Includes Alterations at the Ground Floor to Provide Pedestrian Amenities. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: CD-C(GP) (Commercial Downtown Pedestrian and Ground Flood Combining District Overlay). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Consider the proposed project, provide substantive comments, and continue the hearing to a date certain. Report Summary The applicant is proposing to seismically rehabilitate an existing, unreinforced masonry building that is currently used for retail and restaurant uses. The project will utilize square footage removed from an existing mezzanine level and add square footage in accordance with the seismic retrofit program as well as transferred development rights (TDRs) purchased from an 2 Packet Pg. 8 2.e Packet Pg. 43 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 eligible sender site, in order to construct a second-story for an office use as well as a rooftop terrace above the second level to be used by office employees. The ground floor would continue to be utilized for retail, in conformance with the Retail Preservation Ordinance. As designed, the project meets the applicable zoning requirements. Draft findings are included with this report in Attachments B. The applicant’s project description is included in Attachment E and the project plans are included in Attachment F. Background Project Information Owner: Mills Family, LLC Architect: Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Representative: Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 233 and 235 University Neighborhood: Downtown North (University Avenue Parking Assessment District) Lot Dimensions & Area: 45 feet x 100 feet (Area of 4,500 sf) Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: One street tree on University Avenue and two street trees on Ramona Street Historic Resource(s): The subject property is listed as potentially eligible for the California Register. A Historic Resource Evaluation was prepared for the site and concludes the building is not eligible for the California Register because it lacks integrity, as discussed further below. Existing Improvement(s): Single story flat roofed brick commercial corner building; approximately 9,481 sf of gross floor area (approximately 3,420 sf basement and 4,461 sf of ground floor, and 1,600 sf interior mezzanine); 19 feet 3 inches in height at top of parapet. Originally built circa 1905 Existing Land Use(s): Three existing retail tenant uses: The Tap Room (Restaurant; 233 University Avenue), Mills Florist (235 University Avenue); and Hookah Nights Lounge (235 University Avenue). Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Regional/Community Commercial) PC-4063 Zoning West: (Regional/Community Commercial) CD-C (GF)(P) Zoning East: (Regional/Community Commercial) CD-C (GF)(P) Zoning South: (Regional/Community Commercial) PC 3872, CD-C (GF)(P) Zoning Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 9 2.e Packet Pg. 44 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Commercial Downtown-Community with a Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining District overlay CD-C(GF)(P) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial (CC) Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Applicable, see discussion below South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action 2 Packet Pg. 10 2.e Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: The ARB held a preliminary hearing on the proposed project on December 15, 2016. Staff Report: https://tinyurl.com/233-University-Prelim-SR Minutes: https://tinyurl.com/233-University-Prelim-Minutes Video: https://tinyurl.com/233-University-Prelim-Video Project Description The project includes seismic rehabilitation of an existing structure and the addition of a second- story to the building along with a rooftop terrace. Floor area would be added to the building using a seismic floor area bonus and transferred development rights (TDRs). The project would also include alterations at the ground floor to provide pedestrian amenities and a new elevator that would provide access from the basement to all floors, including the rooftop terrace. The ground floor is currently utilized as retail and eating/drinking services and would continue to be a retail use. The second story and rooftop terrace would be part of the proposed office use. Pedestrian access to the retail space would continue to be provided from University Avenue. Pedestrian access to the proposed office would be provided along Ramona Street. The proposed building would be approximately 45 feet tall, below the allowable height limit of 50 feet. The ground floor façade would be renovated to include large windows along Ramona to increase pedestrian visibility into the retail area. Access for the second story office use would be provided at the rear of the building along Ramona Street and is the minimum necessary to provide appropriate lobby access to the office use above. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A 2 Packet Pg. 11 2.e Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 As discussed further below, staff finds the project to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and zoning requirements. Neighborhood Setting and Character The proposed project is located within the City’s core downtown area on University Avenue. Existing buildings within the vicinity include a one-story building immediately adjacent to the site along University, which serves as an extension to the Stanford Theater; adjacent to this is the two-story Stanford Theater, which is identified as a Category 3 historic building under the City’s historic inventory. Across Ramona is a larger two-story building (Fidelity Bank), which is also identified as a Category 3 historic building. Across University is primarily single-story retail (Nest bedding, and Juut) as well as a five-story tower and attached four-story building at 250 University, opposite the proposed project. The rooflines along University between Ramona and Emerson are generally flat-roofed designs with the exception of the historic Stanford Theater. Many of the buildings across Ramona and leading toward Hamilton Avenue have a Spanish influenced design with stucco facades and clay-tiled roofing. The proposed project would be a two-story building with a rooftop terrace. The flat-roofed design varies from the Spanish influenced designs along Ramona but is consistent with many of the other flat-roofed commercial developments along University Avenue, including the building abutting the site and those across the street. The project would be taller than the immediately adjacent building and those across the street. Although it would be taller than the Stanford Theater, the tallest portion of the façade is set to the rear of the building and away from the Stanford Theater. Most of the development within the vicinity is zero lot line development, consistent with the existing building at the site and the proposed project. 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. ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Regional/Community Commercial. The Regional/Community Commercial land use designation is intended to provide a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theatres and non-retail services such as offices and banks. 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. 12 2.e Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. The project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Zoning Compliance3 The site is zoned Downtown Commercial-Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts (CD-C[GF][P]). The Downtown Commercial-Community District is intended to “be a comprehensive zoning district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service needs.” The Ground Floor Combining District is intended to provide design guidelines and modify the uses allowed in the commercial districts and subdistricts to promote active, pedestrian-oriented uses, with a high level of transparency and visual interest at the ground level. The pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the commercial downtown district in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. The project would include the addition of more windows, particularly on the Ramona Street frontage that are slightly recessed from the brick façade, and recessed entries along both Ramona and University, as encouraged in the pedestrian combining district. The project is consistent with all other zoning requirements. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is provided in Attachment C. Transferred Development Rights On October 20, 2008, the City Council approved a resolution designating the former Sea Scout building at 2560 Embarcadero Road as an eligible sender site in the TDR program. The site was deemed eligible to transfer 2,500 square feet of development rights to an eligible receiver site. As documented in an informational report to Council on June 6, 2016, Mills Family, LLC purchased 1,600 square feet of these TDRs. The applicant proposes to utilize these 1,600 square feet of TDRs for the proposed development. The site meets the eligibility requirements outlined in PAMC Section 18.18.080(e) as it is located within the Downtown Commercial Zone District, there are no historic resources existing on site, and the site is not located within 150 feet of a residentially zoned district. In addition, the TDRs would be used on a site that is within the boundaries of the downtown parking assessment district. The use of these TDRs at this site would not cause the project to exceed a maximum floor area ratio addition of 1.0 to 1 above what exists (proposed addition of 0.524:1), would not result in additional floor area of 10,000 square feet or more (total addition of 2,358 sf), would not cause the development limitation project size limitation set forth in 18.18.040 to be exceeded, and would not cause the site to exceed 3.0 to 1 FAR in the CD-C subdistrict. The 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 13 2.e Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 1,600 square feet of TDRs would count toward gross floor area as well as the parking assessment requirements. Seismic Rehabilitation The existing building is an unreinforced masonry building constructed circa 1905 and has been deemed a Seismic Category I building. In accordance with PAMC Section 18.18.070(a)(2), “a building that is in Seismic Category I, II, or III, and is undergoing seismic rehabilitation, but is not in Historic Category 1 or 2, shall be allowed to increase its floor area by 2,500 square feet or 25% of the existing building, whichever is greater.” In accordance with this Code section, the project proposes to seismically rehabilitate the existing building and use the 2,500 square foot bonus to construct a new second-story addition and access to a rooftop terrace. This bonus square footage would be combined with additional floor area obtained through TDRs, as discussed above. The total floor area ratio of the project with the use of both these allowances would be 2.63:1, and therefore would not cause the site to exceed a FAR of 3.0:1 as required in accordance with the PAMC Section 18.18.070. The project proposes to park this additional square footage by paying in-lieu fees in accordance with PAMC Section 18.18.090. As noted in PAMC Section 18.18.070(b), the use of this floor area bonus is subject to restrictions. Table 1 below summarizes why the project would comply with these restrictions. Table 1: Consistency with Restrictions for Use of Floor Area Bonus for Seismic Rehabilitation 1. All bonus square footage shall be counted as square footage for the purposes of the 350,000 square foot limit on development specified in Section 18.18.040. Bonus square footage is included in the total assumed calculation of floor area for compliance with the Downtown restrictions on non-residential development, see further discussion below. 2. All bonus square footage shall be counted as square footage for the purposes of the project size limit specified in Section 18.18.060 (a). Taking into account all bonus square footage proposed for the project, the project would not exceed any project size limits specified in Section 18.18.060(a), which limits construction of new non-residential floor area to 25,000 square feet of gross floor area or 15,00 square feet above the existing floor area, whichever is greater. The project includes 4,400 sf of new office area and 2,358 sf of total new non-residential floor area. 3. In no event shall a building expand beyond a FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or a FAR of 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistrict. The total FAR of the proposed project would be 2.63:1, which would be less than 3.0:1. 4. The bonus shall be allowed on a site only once. The bonus will be applied only once to this site. Use of the bonus will be documented in the conditions of approval of the project. 2 Packet Pg. 14 2.e Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 5. For sites in Seismic Category I, II, or III, seismic rehabilitation shall conform to the analysis standards referenced in Chapter 16.42 of this code. The site will comply with the analysis standards for seismic rehabilitation as referenced in Chapter 16.42. 6. For sites in Historic Category 1 or 2, historic rehabilitation shall conform to the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CFR §67,7). The existing building on the site is not a historic structure. Therefore, these requirements are not applicable. 7. For sites in both Seismic Category I, II, or III and Historic Category 1 or 2, no bonus shall be granted unless the project includes both seismic and historic rehabilitation conforming to the standards in subsections (5) and (6). 8. For sites in both Seismic Category I, II, or III and Historic Category 1 or 2, a bonus granted under this section that will be used on-site is subject to the following requirements: (A) The city council must approve on-site use of such a FAR bonus. Such approval is discretionary, and may be granted only upon making both of the following findings: (i) The exterior modifications for the entire project comply with the U.S. Secretary of the Interior’s Standards for Rehabilitation and Guidelines for Rehabilitating Historic Buildings (36 CFR §67,7); and (ii) The on-site use of the FAR bonus would not otherwise be inconsistent with the historic character of the interior and exterior of the building and site. (B) The applicant for on-site use of a cumulative floor area bonus shall have the burden of demonstrating the facts necessary to support the findings required for council approval. Ground Floor Retail Preservation The existing building includes retail and retail-like uses on the ground floor, including Mills Florist, a hookah lounge, and the Tap Room. In accordance with the Ground Floor Retail 2 Packet Pg. 15 2.e Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Preservation Ordinance, as codified in PAMC Section 18.40.180, the proposed project would be required to preserve ground floor retail and retail-like uses on the site. The project proposes to retain the ground floor use(s), as required in accordance with the code. Staff notes that a small area of the ground floor that is currently used for retail would now be utilized to provide access to the office area. Consistent with the Ground Floor Combining District requirements, this entrance area and access is allowed in order to serve non-ground floor uses to the extent reasonably necessary, provided they do not interfere with the ground floor uses. The proposed entrance is at the rear of the building and is the minimum necessary to provide access to the office above. Annual Office Limit and Downtown CAP The proposed project includes 4,400 sf of new office space, which includes access to the stairs and elevator on the ground floor, the second floor space, and covered areas for access to the rooftop terrace. Some of this office space would replace retail space provided on a mezzanine level; therefore the total new non-residential square footage being added totals 2,358 sf. Pursuant to PAMC Section 18.40.210, “no more than 50,000 net new square feet of office annual limit land uses per fiscal year (July 1 to June 30) shall be approved by the city in the office annual limit area.” Currently there are 23,650 sf of office proposed or approved for fiscal year 2019. Therefore, the proposed 4,400 sf would not cause the City to exceed its annual limit of 50,000 sf of new office space. Currently under PAMC Section 18.18.040, there is a 350,000 square foot limit on non- residential development within the downtown area. At the time that this staff report was prepared, there was approximately 18,000 sf of non-residential area that could still be added within the downtown area without exceeding the downtown non-residential development cap. On February 11, 2019, City Council approved eliminating the limit provided under 18.18.040, which corresponded to policies set forth in the previous Comprehensive Plan but that were not included in the currently adopted Comprehensive Plan. Council approved a second reading of the ordinance on February 25, 2019. The code amendment will take effect 30 days from the date of the second reading. Regardless, the 2,358 sf of new non-residential development proposed as part of this project would not cause the downtown non-residential limit to be exceeded. Therefore, the project would not conflict with this requirement. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed project does not include any vehicle access or on-site parking. The existing building is being retained and the site has paid into the downtown in-lieu parking for the existing gross floor area. Gross floor area added through both the seismic rehabilitation bonus and the TDR bonus is required to be parked but may be parked through in-lieu fees, in accordance with PAMC Section 18.52. Because floor area on the mezzanine level is being removed, the total floor area being added is 2,358 square feet. At a ratio of one space per 250 square feet, a total of nine additional parking spaces are required to be paid in-lieu. No loading space is required for the proposed project. 2 Packet Pg. 16 2.e Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 Because parking may only be provided in-lieu if providing parking on-site is infeasible, the applicant prepared an analysis as shown on sheet A2.6 showing that a ramp meeting the code requirements could not feasibly be provided from Ramona Street to the basement level. Specifically, the ramp does not extend low enough for an accessible route below the first floor structure at the allowed slope under the PAMC. In addition, the ramp would affect the ability to provide the required access from the basement level. The City would not support a two-way ramp leading from University Avenue, as it would significantly impact the pedestrian environment along this main downtown frontage. The existing building would be rehabilitated and has a zero lot line construction, making at grade parking infeasible. Therefore, because on- site parking is infeasible, additional parking would be provided via in-lieu fees. The proposed project is consistent with the Pedestrian and Bicycle Master Plan. Specifically, it maintains the sidewalk as well as landscaping and bicycle parking along the project frontage. It would not affect any future plans, if proposed, to provide a bicycle lane along University or Ramona as there would be no changes to the curb location or width of the sidewalk as part of the proposed project. Access to the ground floor retail space continues to be provided from University Avenue but is no longer provided from Ramona Street. Access to the office space is provided along Ramona Street. Based on comments received from board members during the preliminary hearing, it would be more desirable to also have access from Ramona Street; possibly even a through access as is currently provided at the corner of University and Ramona. The project would include repaving the sidewalk along the Ramona frontage and, consistent with comments from at least one board member during the preliminary hearing, would include tree grates for the three tree wells to improve the area for pedestrians. Consistency with Application Findings As detailed in Attachment B, staff finds that the project, on balance, is consistent with the findings for Architectural Review, including the Comprehensive Plan, Zoning requirements for the CD-C Zone District as well as the Pedestrian (P) and Ground Floor (GF) combining districts and the Downtown Guidelines though staff notes that the project could be more consistent with the Architectural Review landscape requirements by providing more native and/or habitat supporting species on the terrace. The project includes high quality materials, including the existing brick, which will be salvaged in order to maintain the existing look and feel of the ground floor of this building. It retains the mature, existing street trees on University and at the corner of University and Ramona. Two other trees along Ramona would be replaced with native Oaks. The project also improves the pedestrian environment along the Ramona Street frontage by adding large windows to provide views in, and provides for all three waste streams on site where trash was previously brought off-site to containers in a nearby alley. It also makes the building safer (both from seismic shaking and for fire) and improves American’s with Disabilities (ADA) compliance for the building as a whole. 2 Packet Pg. 17 2.e Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Environmental Review The subject project is being assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is anticipated to be exempt from the provisions of CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332, exemptions for in- fill projects. Minor additional information about project construction and anticipated construction equipment is still being obtained and evaluated, in particular, to assess whether vibrations from construction equipment would have the potential to impact nearby historic resources to ensure that the findings for a Class 32 exemption can be made. Staff will return to the ARB once the CEQA evaluation is complete. Historic Review The subject property is not listed on the National Register, California Register, or City’s Historic Inventory. The City’s Dames & Moore survey identified the property as potentially eligible for the California Register. The existing building, constructed circa 1905, was the subject of a historic resource evaluation prepared by Joshua Samuels, an archaeologist and historical anthropologist, and Johanna Street, a qualified consultant for architectural history. The HRE is included in Attachment D of this staff report. This analysis was peer reviewed by the City’s consulting architect, Page & Turnbull. The HRE concluded that the project was not eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. The HRE concluded that the findings possibly could have been made under Criterion 3 (Architecture) due to the fact that the rarity of brick buildings within Palo Alto conform to its beginnings as a small town, with small town ambitions up to 1920s and because Birge M. Clarke, who is considered a Master architect of local and regional importance, designed the remodel of half of the front façade of the property in 1928. However, nothing of Birge M. Clarke’s design remains and despite its age, the building lacks integrity. Therefore, the findings under criterion 3 could not be made for this project. This initial HRE was peer reviewed by the City’s consulting historic architectural firm, Page & Turnbull. The peer review concurred with the conclusions of the HRE but noted that the HRE should include a summary of the project’s consistency with the adjacent historic buildings, particularly the historic Stanford Theater. The revised report included in Attachment D reflects this recommendation. Because the original height and rectangular plan on the ground floor is maintained, the new vertical addition is set back sufficiently from the front façade, and there is sufficient air space between the two buildings, which include different materials, the new building would not compete with the Stanford Theaters character defining exterior features. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on February 22, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 25, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments 2 Packet Pg. 18 2.e Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 One verbal public comment was received from a resident who expressed that they did not like the style of the proposed project and felt that this style in general was inconsistent with the character of the City. 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 Claire Hodgkins, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft Architectural Review Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Historic Resource Evaluation (PDF)  Attachment E: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 19 2.e Packet Pg. 54 Notice of Exemption Project Title: 233 University Avenue Project Project Location (include county): 233 University Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 (Santa Clara County) Project Description: The proposed project involves rehabilitation of an existing approximately 9,481 square foot (sf) commercial building and construction of a second-story addition and rooftop terrace for a proposed office use. The proposed project would total 11,839 sf on a 4,500 sf parcel. The project will utilize a seismic rehabilitation floor area bonus as well as transferred development rights. A new elevator would provide an accessible path between the existing basement, existing ground floor and the new addition above. No parking is provided on-site. All parking would be accommodated through in-lieu fees for the Downtown Parking Assessment District. Name of Public Agency Approving Project: City of Palo Alto Name of Person or Agency Carrying Out Project: Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architecture (on behalf of Leslie Mills, property owner) Exempt Status: (check one) □ Ministerial (Sec. 21080(b)(1); 15268); □ Declared Emergency (Sec. 21080(b)(3); 15269(a)); □ Emergency Project (Sec. 21080(b)(4); 15269(b)(c));  Categorical Exemption: 15332 In-fill Exemption □ Statutory Exemptions. State code number Reasons why project is exempt: See attached documentation Project Planner: Claire Hodgkins, AICP E-mail: Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org If filed by applicant: 1. Attach certified document of exemption finding. 2. Has a Notice of Exemption been filed by the public agency approving the project? □ Yes N/A Planner April 18, 2019 Signature (Public Agency) Title Date 2.f Packet Pg. 55 Documentation of Project’s Eligibility for Class 32 Categorical Exemption Under CEQA The City has determined that the proposed 233 University Avenue Project is categorically exempt from CEQA under Class 32 (In-fill Development Projects). CEQA Guidelines §15332 reads: “Class 32 consists of projects characterized as in-fill development meeting the conditions described in this section.” The information herein documents the project’s compliance with these conditions in addition to confirming that no exceptions to the exemptions, as outlined in CEQA Guidelines §15300.2, apply to the project. a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations The project site’s Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designation is “Regional/Community Commercial.” The Regional/Community Commercial land use designation is intended to provide a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas and includes such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theatres and non-retail services such as offices and banks. The proposed use of the site as office with ground floor retail is consistent with the allowed uses identified in the Comprehensive Plan for this land use. In addition, the Comprehensive plan encourages the provision of open space on sites, particularly rooftop balconies. The project is consistent with the policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Land Use Element, Transportation Element, Natural Environment Element, and the Business and Economic Element. The site is zoned Downtown Commercial-Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts (CD- C[GF][P]). The Downtown Commercial-Community District is intended to be “a comprehensive zoning district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service needs.” The Ground Floor Combining District is intended to provide design guidelines and modify the uses allowed in the commercial districts and subdistricts to promote active, pedestrian-oriented uses, with a high level of transparency and visual interest at the ground level. The pedestrian shopping combining district is intended to modify the regulations of the CD commercial downtown district in locations where it is deemed essential to foster the continuity of retail stores and Class 32 Exemption Condition Complies? a. The project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with applicable zoning designation and regulations ■ b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses ■ c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species ■ d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality, or water quality ■ e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services ■ 2.f Packet Pg. 56 display windows and to avoid a monotonous pedestrian environment in order to establish and maintain an economically healthy retail district. The project would include the addition of more windows, particularly on the Ramona Street frontage that are slightly recessed from the brick façade, as well as entries along both Ramona and University, as encouraged in the Downtown Design Guidelines and pedestrian combining district. The project is also consistent with all other zoning requirements, including but not limited to: height, floor area, setbacks, and parking. For commercial properties within this zone district, the floor area ratio (FAR) may not exceed 3.0:1 with the use of transferred development rights and other floor area bonuses (such as for seismic rehabilitation). The proposed project would have a FAR of 2.63:1, which is allowed in accordance with the PAMC. Therefore, the proposed project is consistent with the applicable general plan policies as well as with the applicable zoning designation and regulations. b. The proposed development occurs within city limits on a project site of no more than five acres substantially surrounded by urban uses. The proposed project is located on APN 120-26-018, which is a 4,500 square foot site (0.10 acres) that is located wholly within the City of Palo Alto’s jurisdiction. Surrounding uses are commercial uses, including a bank, retail stores, restaurants and a theater. There are no open space areas or natural features (such as creeks) within the vicinity of the site. c. The project site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species As noted above, there are no open space areas or natural features within the vicinity of the project site. The area is entirely urban in nature. The adopted Palo Alto 2030 Comprehensive Plan includes Map N-1, which identifies sensitive animal and plant species within the Palo Alto quadrangle, a large geographic area that includes the urban portions and portions along the bay and within the foothills, based on information in the California Natural Diversity Database (CNDDB). Based on this map and the urban nature of the site, the subject property does not contain any habitat for endangered, rare, or threatened species and has not historical supported any of these species. d. Approval of the project would not result in any significant effects relating to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality Traffic Valley Transit Authority (VTA) Traffic Impact Analysis (TIA) Guidelines suggest that projects generating less than 100 new trips per peak hour do not require quantitative analysis, subject to the Congestion Management Program requirements, because they are unlikely to result in noticeable changes in area traffic conditions, even where traffic conditions are already degraded [VTA Transportation Impact Analysis Guidelines, October 2014]. To be conservative, the City of Palo Alto requires a focused traffic analysis that quantifies potential project impacts for projects generating more than 50 trips per peak hour. Based on the ITE Trip Generation Manual (10th Edition), the project would replace an existing commercial building with retail and restaurant uses, which generates 23 AM peak hour trips and 128 PM peak hour trips with a new office/retail building that is anticipated to generate 38 AM peak hour trips and 82 PM peak hour trips. This results in 15 net new AM peak hour trips and 46 fewer PM peak hour trips in comparison to the existing use. Therefore, estimated net new peak hour trips would be less than the existing (due to the changes in types of retail use on the ground floor) and well below both of these identified thresholds. It should also be noted that because parking will be provided in-lieu, these trips would likely be dispersed to nearby public parking lots such as one of the three located along Emerson Street or the lot along High Street. Overall, this in-fill project is designed to reduce vehicle miles traveled (VMT) based on its location in close proximity to existing transit service (Caltrain). The project would not include new roads or intersections or any other features that may include hazardous design features. Access for both pedestrians and emergency vehicles would be maintained at all times during construction. The project would not affect any adopted policies, plans, or programs regarding public transit, bicycle, or pedestrian facilities or decrease the performance or safety of these facilities. The proposed addition of bicycle parking on the site and pedestrian friendly design of the project would further City goals to encourage multi- modal transportation. For these reasons, the project would not result in any significant impact to traffic. 2.f Packet Pg. 57 Noise The ambient noise level at the site is estimated to be approximately 54 dBA. The nearest sensitive receptor (a residential use) is located approximately 400 feet north of the site near the corner of Lytton and Ramona. Demolition work would occur for approximately 2-4 weeks. Excavation for the minor basement addition, rehabilitation of the walls, and construction of the second floor addition would last approximately 10-12 months, followed by interior work. The overall construction duration would be 12-14 months. The noisiest activity for in-fill construction projects is typically demolition; however, given that the existing building is being rehabilitated rather than completely demolished, the type of equipment being used would be smaller (e.g. mini excavator) and would generate less noise. Given that the nearest sensitive receptor is almost 400 feet northwest of the site and because the project would be required to comply with the regulations outlined in Title 9 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) with respect to construction noise, which stipulates maximum allowed decibels and restricts construction hours, the project would not result in a significant impact on noise during construction. Operation of the proposed project, which includes office and retail uses, would be similar to the noise levels for the existing use on the site (restaurant and retail) and within the immediate vicinity of the site. All HVAC equipment would be required to comply with applicable code requirements for permanent noise producing equipment. Therefore, the project would not result in any significant impact to noise. Air Quality Construction activities would generate emissions from construction vehicle trips, equipment use, and ground disturbance. However, consistent with Comprehensive Plan Program N5.1.2, the project would comply with standard Bay Area Air Quality Management District (BAAQMD) recommendations to reduce construction emissions such as limiting vehicle idling and implementing best management practices to reduce dust emissions. The project would also be required to comply with all standard BAAQMD regulations for demolition. The project includes rehabilitation of an existing retail space and the addition of approximately 4,000 square feet of office floor area. The rehabilitation and minor construction activities would not have the potential to result in a significant impact on air quality due to an exceedance of criteria pollutant emissions. This project is well below the BAAQMD screening levels for construction of office or retail spaces. Given the size of the project, the project would not generate emissions that would exceed the BAAQMD thresholds of significance for any criteria pollutants during construction. The project would rehabilitate an existing building for a similar use and construct only a small addition to the building for an office use. Overall the building would only be approximately 2,000 sf larger; therefore, changes in operational emissions would be nominal and would not exceed BAAQMD thresholds. Further, this in-fill development project would, by design, encourage reduced Vehicle Miles Traveled based on its location in proximity to public transit opportunities. For these reasons, the project would not result in any significant impact to Air Quality. Water Quality The project site is not located in close proximity to any waterways. The closest water feature is San Francisquito Creek, which is located approximately 0.33 miles northwest of the project site; therefore, the project would not alter the course of a stream or river. The project is not on a parcel that is located within the 100-year flood hazard area and would not expose people or structures to risk of loss involving flooding. The site is not close to any water bodies that could inundate the site by seiche, tsunami, or mudflow. The current project site is completely developed; therefore, the proposed project would not substantially alter the existing drainage of the site. The project would follow public works engineering’s required standard practices to control erosion and siltation during construction activities, as required in accordance with Title 16 of the PAMC, so as not to degrade water quality. The existing site includes a basement covering most of the site area; therefore, the additional basement feature, which is being added to accommodate accessible access (stairs and elevator) covers only a small portion of the site area (approximately 350 square feet). Though this excavation could require dewatering, because the area is so small and because any dewatering would be required to follow PAMC Section 16.28, to ensure that it would not impact water quality or the groundwater basin, there would be no impact on water quality as a result of this small amount of 2.f Packet Pg. 58 excavation. Project operation would be serviced by existing utilities and would not affect groundwater supply. For these reasons, the project would not result in any significant impact to Water Quality. e. The site can be adequately served by all required utilities and public services The site is within an urban area that is already served by utilities and public services. Although new utility hook-ups would be required for the proposed building, the site would be adequately served by existing infrastructure within the immediate vicinity. The proposed project would replace an existing building in the same location and with the same footprint. The proposed minor addition of floor area to this existing building would not affect public services within the City, including police or fire services. It would also have no impact on parks or schools as the proposed use would not induce population growth. Exceptions to the Exemptions The City is aware that there are six categories or exceptions that preclude the use of Categorical Exemptions, as listed in CEQA Guidelines 15300.2 These categories, followed by the reason(s) the City believes they are not applicable to this project, are as follows: 15300.2(a) Location. Classes 3,4,5,6 and 11 are qualified by consideration of where the project is to be located—a project that is ordinarily insignificant in its impact may in a particularly sensitive environment By definition, this exception does not apply to Class 32 Exemptions. 15300.2(b) Cumulative Impact. All exemptions for these classes are inapplicable when the cumulative impact of successive projects of the same type in the same place, over time is significant. The project is a stand-alone, site specific construction project that would not be phased. No other projects are planned for this site in the foreseeable future. 15300.2(c) Significant Effect. There are no unusual circumstances creating the possibility that the project will have a significant effect on the environment pursuant to CEQA. There are no unusual circumstances affecting the project or property or unique about the location of the property or adjacent properties. The project complies with zoning and the comprehensive plan in an area where the proposed use is encouraged. 15300.2(d) Scenic Highways. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may result in damage to scenic resources, including but not limited to, trees, historic buildings, rock outcroppings, or similar resources, with a highway officially designated as a state scenic highway. This does not apply to improvements which are required as mitigation by an adopted negative declaration or certified EIR. The project site is not visible from a scenic highway. I-280 and Skyline Blvd (HWY 35) are the only State scenic highways in Palo Alto and they are not visible from 233 University Avenue, which is within the City’s commercial downtown area. 15300.2(e Hazardous Waste Sites. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project located on a site which is included on any list compiled pursuant to Section 65962.5 of the Government Code. The City has reviewed the Cortese List on the Envirostor database to confirm that the project site is not on a list of hazardous waste sites compiled pursuant to Sec 65962.5 of the Government Code. 15300.2(f)Historical Resources. A categorical exemption shall not be used for a project which may cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of an historical resource. 2.f Packet Pg. 59 For purposes of this section, an historical resource is a resource listed in the National Register, California Register, or City’s Historic Inventory, or determined to be eligible for listing in, the California Register of Historical Resources or National Register. Historical resources included in a local register of historical resources, as defined in subdivision (k) of Section 5020.1, or deemed significant pursuant to criteria set forth in subdivision (g) of Section 5024.1, are presumed to be historically or culturally significant for purposes of this section, unless the preponderance of the evidence demonstrates that the resource is not historically or culturally significant. The subject property is not listed on the National Register, California Register, or City’s Historic Inventory. The site was a subject of an historic evaluation completed in 2018 by Joshua Samuels, an archeologist and historical anthropologist, and Johanna Street, a qualified consultant for architectural history. The City hired a third party expert, Page & Turnbull to peer review the analysis and to issue an independent determination of the project’s eligibility as a historic resource under the California or National Register. Both the historic resource evaluation and peer review concluded that the project was not eligible for either register. The historic evaluation also analyzed the project’s consistency with nearby historic buildings, including, in particular, the nearby Stanford Theater. The analysis concludes that because the original height and rectangular plan on the ground floor is maintained, the new vertical addition is set back sufficiently from the front façade, and there is sufficient air space between the two buildings, which include different materials, the new building would not compete with the Stanford Theaters character defining exterior features. In addition, given the proximity of historic buildings, an analysis was prepared by Charles M. Salter and associates to determine the anticipated level of vibrations from project construction and to determine whether those vibrations had the potential to impact nearby historic buildings. The California Department of Transportation provides vibration criteria to evaluate the potential for construction damage. Transient vibrations are classified as impulsive events that are short in duration (e.g., debris falling, blasting). Continuous vibrations are more sustained vibration events over longer periods of time (e.g. jackhammering, drilling). For historic buildings, Caltrans defines the threshold for transient sources as 0.50 Peak Particle Velocity (PPV)(in/sec) and continuous sources as .25 PPV (in/sec). The analysis concludes that project construction would result in vibrations at a maximum of 0.21 PPV in/sec for transient vibrations and 0.076 for continuous vibrations. Therefore, vibrations from construction would be well below the .50 and .25 PPV (in/sec) thresholds for transient and continuous sources, respectively, and would not significantly impact adjacent historic resources. For the reasons, the project would not cause a substantial adverse change in the significance of a historic resource either on or adjacent the project site. 2.f Packet Pg. 60 Attachment I Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “233 University” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4517 2.g Packet Pg. 61 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: Good morning, and welcome to the regular meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto for March 7, 2019. May be have the roll call, please? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: The first item on our agenda is oral communications, the time for any member of the public who wishes to speak to us on a matter not on the agenda. I have no speaker cards, and seeing no volunteers, we will go on our next item. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions? I had a question. We received a copy of draft minutes but they're not on the agenda, is that right? Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Yes, unfortunately that's true. We will delay those to the next hearing. Chair Furth: Okay. I have a bunch of clerical comments. I really liked hearing about the "perfunctory," "perfunctional" aspects of the building. I think "functional" is what we had in mind. No, they were really good minutes, really good transcription. Thank you. 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, etc., etc. Advance planning...? Is it current planning or...? Current planning. Sorry. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, current planning. Just looking at future agendas, all of these items will continue forward, at least as of right now. We have the Master Sign Program for the Medical Center, the Wireless Administrative Standards, and then, a subcommittee item for 3200 El Camino. We may want to... Chair Furth: Could you remind me what 3200 El Camino is? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: March 7, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: Parmani Hotel, on the corner of Hansen, I believe. Chair Furth: Can I have volunteers for that subcommittee? Don't all say yes at once. Peter? Board Member Thompson: I can do it. Chair Furth: All right. Peter and Osma. Board Members Baltay and Thompson. Vice Chair Baltay, Board Member Thompson. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Chair Furth. Chair Furth: You're so welcome. I did read somewhere that Alex likes subcommittees, but we'll save him for some others. We have a bunch coming up. Summer holiday schedules, we had one absence flagged in advance by Osma. Anybody else have anything to report on that topic? Vice Chair Baltay: I'll miss the June 20th meeting, it looks like. And do we really have a meeting on July 4th? Chair Furth: Yeah, that was my question, too. Vice Chair Baltay: Because I think I'll be out of the country then, as well. Chair Furth: You really want to get away. Maybe reschedule that July 4th meeting? I will miss the June 20th meeting, as well. Board Member Thompson: And I think I said it last time, but July 18th, I will not be available. Chair Furth: Next time, you could give an alternate date for that July meeting, perhaps? Or maybe we'll have a light summer... Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, especially if... Well, we may still have a quorum for June 20th, but it would be...yeah. Chair Furth: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: Also, too, on the agenda, we had added an additional item, being recent project decisions, and we had emailed some of those decisions out to the ARB. I just wanted to announce those being 380 Cambridge and 695 Arastradero, were recently approved. They both, one had subcommittee conditions, and the other one just had, I believe, staff conditions that needed to be addressed. Chair Furth: Thank you. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 233 University [18PLN-00344]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Seismic Rehabilitation of an Existing Singlestory Structure, the Addition of a Second-story for Office Use, and Rooftop Terrace. Additional Floor Area Would be Added Using a Seismic Floor Area Bonus and Transferred Development Rights (TDRs). The Project Includes Alterations at the Ground Floor to Provide Pedestrian Amenities. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: CD-C(GP) (Commercial Downtown Pedestrian and Ground Flood Combining District Overlay). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Furth: Our first public hearing item, which is quasi-judicial, is 233 University Avenue. And it's recommended for approval of a major architectural review to allow for seismic rehabilitation of an existing single-story structure, the addition of a second story for office use, and a rooftop terrace. This building would be entitled to additional floor area through a seismic rehabilitation bonus and transfer of development rights that were accrued in connection with the rehabilitation of the Sea Scout building. The owner is the Mills Family, LLC, and the architect is here. Mr. Hayes. Staff report, please. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good morning, board members. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner. The project before you today is 233 University Avenue. The project actually includes two addresses, 233 and 235 University. The site is located within the CD-C(GFP) zoned district, which is Commercial Downtown Community with a ground floor and pedestrian combining district. Existing uses of the site include Mills Florist, the Tap Room, and a hookah lounge. Just a quick summary again of the different project components. It includes rehabilitation of an existing brick masonry building to meet current seismic standards, use of the seismic rehabilitation bonus, transferred development rights, and existing mezzanine floor area, which would be removed from the existing building in order to construct a new second floor office addition, and an open terrace above the second floor. It also includes revisions to the façade on the ground floor to create more windows and to create an access to the office, and the addition of a trash enclosure on site and ADA compliance upgrades. I want to go into a little bit more detail today about a few considerations and note a couple of items before we start the hearing. Some of the key considerations staff asked for you to look at today include the pedestrian environment, including trees, entrances and windows. This came up a lot at the preliminary hearing for this project. The staff report had noted that there was no retail entrance along Ramona, and I just want to correct that statement, that there is a retail entrance proposed along Ramona adjacent to the office entrance. There were a lot of comments, as I noted, about the pedestrian environment in this area during the prelim, so staff is really interested in any additional feedback on ways that the environment could be improved. Building height and massing and the setback of the second level was another item that came up a lot at the preliminary hearing. There was a lot of talk about possibly setting back the second floor from University and Ramona a little bit more. The revised design does include a greater setback from University. It's not back much further from Ramona. The key reason why we were asking for changes to set the building back further from Ramona was related to the addition of potentially three oak trees along Ramona. I want to note that because we have been in discussions, staff has been in discussions with Utilities and Urban Forestry, and notes a few concerns about potentially having those new canopy and large oak trees along Ramona due to the extensive utilities along that area. We've asked for the applicant to retain the mature trees on Ramona. The plans still show replacement of two of the trees with new oak, and we are talking to Urban Forestry about whether there might be a better type of tree that's a little bit more compatible with the utilities for those additional two trees. I wanted to also touch base on the trash and bicycle parking because this came up during the prelim as well. There were some concerns about putting the trash and the bicycle parking, the long-term bicycle parking, below grade. We had discussed that pretty extensively with our Zero Waste Division and explored the different possibilities. Unfortunately, the trash enclosure, were it to be at grade, would take up a lot of the space along the Ramona frontage. This is really the only option if we did that. The benefit of having something at grade is also that it can be, the trash can be pulled out to the curb, but that would also require curb cuts, which would permanently remove the parking, and also potentially take away one of the street trees. The revised design does still show a trash enclosure in the basement, and then, everything would be brought out to the curb. One of the only concerns with that is just, when everything is brought out to the curb, you're temporarily taking away those parking spaces. So, as a condition of approval of this project should it be approved, we would want to see some sort of restriction on the timing that the trash could be out in the street, to get them kind of in and out as efficiently as possible. Staff has actually revised the recommended motion for today. We're actually asking for your consideration of the proposed project, for you to provide comments, and to continue the project to a date certain, instead of recommending approval. The key reason for that is that we are still looking for some information from the applicant in order to finalize the CEQA review. While we feel that the requirement for the exemption can be met, we just want to have the information at hand before we make that determination. With that, I'll turn it back to you. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Any questions of...? Oh. Any external conversations to disclose? None. Has everybody visited the site? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Thompson: I did. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: Probably many, many, many times. Okay, questions for staff? Vice Chair Baltay: Claire, if you could, please. You talked about the trees along Ramona affecting the setback on the second floor. Can you explain how those are related, please? Ms. Hodgkins: During the prelim, there were a few comments from board members about how we'd like to kind of revise the tree canopy and really allow for greater growth. The idea was that maybe we should be setting the second floor back from Ramona further to allow for greater tree growth. I guess my point is just that I think it might be unrealistic to think that they're going to grow that extensively in that area, just due to the restrictions of the utilities and the soil volume for that area. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions? I had a couple. The little alleyway, alley-like space behind the Mills Building, is that part of the theater property, or what's the situation there? There seems to be access and not access. Ms. Hodgkins: Unfortunately, it is part of a separate property. There are prescriptive rights I suppose to this, but we don't have an easement for that area. Chair Furth: And neither does this building. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. Chair Furth: It's not the dominant tenement. Okay. Any other questions for staff before we hear from the applicant? The applicant? Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good morning, Chair Furth, members of the Board. Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'll be making the presentation. Chair Furth: Good morning. You have 10 minutes. After spelling your name. Mr. Hayes: All right. My client, the Mills family. I'd like to thank Claire for her help in bringing the application before you this morning. It looks like we have an aspect ratio problem. That's supposed to be a square. I apologize. Chair Furth: It's square on our screens. Mr. Hayes: Oh, it is? Okay, good. Hopefully it's focused on your screen, too. The site is a corner parcel, we're familiar with it, on the corner of Ramona and University. It's not a big site, 4,500 square feet. It's in the CD-C zone with a GF and P overlay. Across Ramona is a Category 3 historic building, the old BFA building. And then, 25 feet away to the west on University is the Stanford Theater, right next door to us. An existing unreinforced building that's on the seismic hazard list, as staff said, and we'll be going for the seismic bonus because of the rehabilitation. The building was built in 1905. Some views of what it looks like today, although this is the Tap Room now. Mills Florist operates here, the hookah lounge back in here. You can see that the front of the building here and across the front here, at some point in the past City of Palo Alto Page 5 40 years, that brick overlay was added to the old façade, covering up windows that you see here, once existing. This is a great photograph. The building had already been remodeled in this photograph. This piece here was done by Birge Clark, which I found very interesting and unlike some of his architecture. The program included the seismic bonus upgrade of the existing building to mitigate the seismic hazard. There's not many left now in Palo Alto. Improve the ground floor retail space with higher ceilings, more windows, more connectivity to sidewalk. Lower the basement so it can be used better to support that retail space, perhaps. Provide second floor office, and then, consider a rooftop terrace for a building amenity. That program has been incorporated into what we have. These are two options that we showed at the preliminary hearing, which was in December of 2016. The Board generally supported the project. There were some comments. The Board specifically supported the second floor balcony setback on University Avenue to kind of give some deference to the theater two doors down. There was not really any consensus on arch versus lintel. We actually prefer the lintel concept, partly because that's what existed there. We're going to re-expose that old transom line in the building. It's about 12 feet above the sidewalk. There was some comment about the stair tower being reduced, seemed like it was a little bit too big. More openings on Ramona from what we're showing here, which was more than what are existing. And then, perhaps set the second floor back. We set the second floor back about three inches, so it's two feet back from the face of the brick, but the big move was we eliminated the awnings that were on that side, that stuck out three, three-and-a-half feet. That will give the trees more space, we think. This is the design today that we are presenting. We have increased retail openings all the way along Ramona Street. These are the two retail entrances, so the one on University Avenue next to the corner window, and then, further down Ramona. The one on Ramona is actually a sliding door, so it could slide open and sort of be open. That's next to the office entry. The windows running down, so they're all about the same size as those that predominantly occupy buildings along University Avenue and the Downtown. They're 12 feet high. The ones on University Avenue have canopies while the ones on Ramona do not. We've actually pushed the terrace back a little bit more, just from a, various reasons, one of which is structural. About a 20 percent increase in that terrace there. The building heights are similar to the Stanford pre-functioned building next door. And with the stair tower, has been reduced by more than 50 percent, so now it's really just what we need to be able to get up to the second floor and the roof terrace. And then, we eliminated the awnings that were along that side, so those awnings down that whole side had projected out. I think that there's plenty of room for the tree canopy. Remember the site is only 45 feet wide, so we've already moved the wall in two feet, so we've got 43 feet left over. We've got stairs, etc., on the blind wall, the far side wall, so we don't want that upstairs to get too constricted from a width standpoint. But we think this addressed your comments, hopefully. The ground floor, I wonder why the color's not showing up? I was going to say the retail is blue, but not this morning. This is the stair that is the active stair for the second floor and the retail entrance comes in here, or in here. There's a grade difference, so as Ramona Street heads to the north, it rises. Essentially, this is at grade here; this is probably four inches above grade, so we have to create ramps on the inside of the building. No ramp here, we've just decoupled that slab from this slab here. Stair, elevator, stair to the basement, a ramp that comes up so that now we can get out of what we hope is another door that we can claim prescriptively on the side. The second floor, generally open office. You see the terrace on the front, and then the two-foot setback running down that side. The two required stairs. We'll have other core functions down this wall. Then we have the roof terrace, so you come out of the stair or the elevator here. These are planters that run along the edge of the balcony, and then, this is all roof terrace. This is all roof screen, and our mechanical equipment is located in here. This is an additional sound wall recommended by the acoustical engineer to help mitigate any property line issues with Palo Alto ordinance. It's funny that the colors aren't showing up. Chair Furth: You're in a black and white [crosstalk]. Mr. Hayes: Every day's a new day. Right. The University Avenue façade, the large openings on the ground floor, keeping the brick façade. The coping of the brick wall is guardrail height, so the second floor is set down inside. We are trying to pick up a little bit of the character of the sort of art deco feel of the theater with how we're treating some of the façade elements of the addition above, and, in fact, even the elements beyond. I'll explain that a little more clearly in a minute. This is the Ramona Street façade with the rhythm of openings. We've got, this is metal detailing between the windows, so this is like a City of Palo Alto Page 6 wide flange beam. It's not a wide flange beam, it's actually part of the window system, but it will have that kind of relief, as will the window volumes themselves. Office entry down here on this side, and then, the second floor again has that sort of accent of the vertical wall elements between the windows, similar to what you might see in the theater. Glass guardrail at the terrace to help reduce the size of the building. These two views aren't too interesting, and there's a PowerPoint issue, it looks like. Hopefully it looks good on your screen. The idea is that we want to do a running bond of metal panel, but instead of running it horizontally, we want to run it vertically to denote that it's different, but also, it also accentuates kind of the verticality of some of the detail on the theater itself. This is the view of what the building will look like, the restored brick facades, the black detailing, the clear glass, the ACM panel wrapping the second floor, and the clear glass railing above on the balcony. We have some potted plants on the balcony. That's where staff has mentioned that there's non-native plants, but there's three-foot by three-foot planters at the roof. And then, this is the view from University Avenue. And that is my presentation. Look forward to your comments. I'm sorry that we couldn't move this forward today. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Are there any questions of the applicant's representative? Well, first of all, is there anybody else who wishes to speak? Seeing no one, are there any questions? David? Board Member Hirsch? Board Member Hirsch: I'm a little late to the party on this project, but I like it a lot, and I really like the fact that you're emphasizing the brick all the way along the ground floor. Chair Furth: It's questions at this point, not evaluations. Board Member Hirsch: What do we want? Questions...? Chair Furth: Of the applicant. Board Member Hirsch: Applicant, yes. I have them coming up. The only concern I really have is relative to the neighboring building and to the height of the ground floor openings. The clerestory above the doorway just seems a little scrunched in dimension to me, even relative to neighboring building 227. Chair Furth: The question is...? Board Member Hirsch: You have a ceiling height of around 12 feet. Maybe it's a little bit more. Mr. Hayes: Right, so, what we have done, Board Member Hirsch, this is the lintel of the existing openings that are there, that we'll be revealing. They've been in the attic. They're behind that brick façade that was put up with the arches. We just took that as a given, starting point. To go beyond that, then we're into demolishing this brick wall, and then we have issues with our seismic upgrade. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: You're not demolishing the brick wall as it is? Mr. Hayes: We are taking the arch, there's a double... There's a width of brick that was put up 40 years ago that concealed all of this. We're removing that, and then, hopefully being able to take any mortar off of the brick that's behind it. But we're hoping that we can reveal this. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, just for clarification, the proposed project is asking for a seismic bonus, and in order to receive that bonus, it does need to be a rehabilitation of an existing building. You see on Sheet A-1.0, you'll see what walls are remaining versus what walls are being removed. This is pretty much the minimum that's needed to remain in order to achieve that seismic bonus. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Furth: Any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: Well, I'm not quite finished there. Are you saying that you really cannot change the dimension of the front window bays there relative to the clerestory? Mr. Hayes: Well, I mean, aside from the practical structural issues associated with it, we've reached an agreement with staff and the Building Department that this is sort of the limit that we can remove. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Furth: Any other questions? Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Thanks. The metal panel that's going on the back, what's the size of those? Looks like the size of a typical tile for that. Mr. Hayes: In the drawing, on the elevation, I believe we have indicated... Go to 3.2... I'm sorry, I can't read it. Looks like it's 1 foot by 9. One foot by eight. You see it on Drawing 2, on A3.2, mid façade. Board Member Thompson: Okay, I see it now. Mr. Hayes: What does it say? Board Member Thompson: It says one by eight. Mr. Hayes: Okay, great. Board Member Thompson: And it looks like it's staggered... Mr. Hayes: Correct. Board Member Thompson: ...every three times? Mr. Hayes: Every three, yeah. For every one-third of the eight feet. Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, I have one more question. On the parking exhibit... Mr. Hayes: With the garage? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. In the section, it says "retail support," so I think that's the basement. I was just a little confused at where that is. Mr. Hayes: We were... Board Member Thompson: Which sheet, Osma? Mr. Hayes: Yeah, which sheet are you on? Board Member Thompson: The section is on A3.4, and then the exhibit is 2.6. Mr. Hayes: Right, so, 3.4 is the proposed building section, and 2.6 is just a diagrammatic representation of why on-site parking does not work for this site. That was something that staff asked us to provide. Board Member Thompson: I see. Okay. It's not part of the project. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Mr. Hayes: You can buy in-lieu parking provided you can't provide it on site, so, what is it about the site that makes it sort of, you know, difficult to provide on-site parking, aside from the fact that you have a curb cut on Ramona. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Thank you for the clarification. Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Two questions for you, Architect Hayes. You have an emergency egress going out onto the, what I'll call an alley at the back of your building. At least it seems to exit there. Mr. Hayes: Correct. We are in discussion... It's exactly where the existing door is, and of course, the new wall, so we are working with Packard, the Packard Foundation in terms of what our... We really would like to have that door. The building works without it. Vice Chair Baltay: I see. I guess I'm driving towards, why can't you also have the trash enclosure right there? Mr. Hayes: There's no trash there no. Our trash is actually kept down the street next to where Mandarin used to be. There's an alleyway there, so these businesses all have their trash there. There's no trash refuse facility use that we can claim prescriptive rights to in that little area. Vice Chair Baltay: You're in the process of trying to formalize your access easement across the neighbor's property there? Mr. Hayes: For just pedestrian. Vice Chair Baltay: Is it possible to allow them...? Mr. Hayes: No way. Vice Chair Baltay: You can't just get the trash to be carried out that way? Mr. Hayes: No way. They're probably not going to allow us to do what we're doing. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. My bigger question, and if I could look at Drawing A1.0, it's the diagram showing the front façade of the building in light blue being retained, but with these very large new openings. And when I look at the photo of the building, it has that overlay of the brick with the two arched openings, which you're removing. That's the new brick. Mr. Hayes: Right. We've established that that can come off, and it was not part of the original URM walls. Vice Chair Baltay: Right. Mr. Hayes: So, we're not taking anything away from the original URM walls that you see on this drawing, A1.0. Vice Chair Baltay: Then I'm looking at detail A5.1, or detail 1 on Sheet A5.1, and I guess I just want to be clear that I'm understanding you to be saying you're going to save the existing brick that's not part of the new openings, which is what's shown here, and somehow reinforce and structurally support all that without taking it down. Mr. Hayes: That's the objective. We have shotcrete walls you can see in that section that we're adding behind that to engage the brick, so it essentially becomes a veneer. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Vice Chair Baltay: And then, that brick finish is damaged brick. Mr. Hayes: We're going to see what it looks like, yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: And what if it doesn't look good? What if the brick just crumbles when you try to save it? What happens? Mr. Hayes: Well, we know the mortar is not in great shape, but the bricks are not bad. There have been a number of analyses done and the mortar is shot, so we've got to come in and re-point it all. We don't know exactly how the white, the brick, the single white, the brick that was put on in the 40's was or was not attached, so we're going to have to explore that. Once we pull the bricks off, if it needs to have the mortar chipped off, that's going to be a very, very laborious process. Vice Chair Baltay: But your intention is to preserve those existing bricks that remain...? Mr. Hayes: Behind it, right. Vice Chair Baltay: And that's... Okay, thank you. That's really what you're stating in public, that's what you're going to do. Mr. Hayes: That's right. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Do you have any questions? Okay. I think you may sit down. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Furth: All right, bringing it back to the Board. And David, I just wanted to say that this particular project is like walking in high heels wearing a corset and going backwards, or something, because... It's a very bad metaphor. This is unreinforced masonry, right? I think this and the House of Foam are two significant buildings downtown which are a hazard to life and limb in an earthquake, so the City tried to encourage property owners to seismically retrofit buildings by adding a flarry [phonetic] bonus. Plus, the Mills family graciously purchased transferrable development rights when the Sea Scout building was rehabilitated. I'm looking out there for nods to see if I got this right. And this building is not historic. It's a historic building in the sense that there's been a retail use on this site since 1903, but the Tidbury [phonetic] Entrepreneurial engaged owners who kept redoing it and transforming its appearance over time. Most recently in the 1970's. Actually, even more recently than that. The ordinance is a little bit, the seismic rehab bonus is a little perverse because how do you rehab a building while adding significant floor area to it and still qualify as a rehab? I usually am fairly unhappy about discovering only one small standing wall after something has been described as a remodel. In this case, I admit (inaudible)that go. We have two other City policies which we're trying to implement here. Okay. Who would like to start? Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you, Ken, for your presentation, and thank you for staff on this one. I think the staff report and the historic report were very well done. They were very interesting. And then, I would just say, one comment on the staff report is, it didn't really say why the recommendation was to continue. Just for the public, it was unclear. We're not making recommendation today but I'm in support of the project. I think the building design is very sophisticated. I think that the window details on the first and second floor, I think that adds a lot of character to the project. The concerns that I have are, one is the street tree planting. I think staff mentioned this. I think you mentioned oak trees, and I just want to clarify that. I think the trees that are proposed are Shumard oaks, which are different than a native oak. They have a very vertical trunk. They may not have a large canopy but it's a very vertical main trunk tree. That may help with the second floor setback issue. I did see all the utilities there, and that was one City of Palo Alto Page 10 of my other comments, was that the condition of the sidewalk is in bad shape, and I think we normally have a standard condition of approval to replace the sidewalks. Ms. Hodgkins: They do plan to. Board Member Lew: And on the... The street trees, one. A second comment is our native plant finding. I typically, in looking at rooftop planters, I'm willing to overlook the native plant requirement. Rooftop planters have specialized requirements because of the soil and the amount of sun and wind on there. I think what's being proposed is fine. It seems to me to be appropriate for that kind of condition. And then, my last concern is the metal. You've got a lot of metal. And the one that I'm much concerned about is the one facing the Varsity Theater access. There's a lot of it. I think my first thought was why don't we try to put a mural there on stucco, or something. I've been going to San Francisco a lot recently and looking at a lot of the street art, and I think that's something that would be interesting for people. And then, I did read in the staff report that you're not required to the public art project. But I would say that, that's an interesting place to try and do something and to avoid having a blank wall. My last comment is, because you have so many retail, you have a lot of ground-floor retail windows on Ramona Street, I think that will actually help a lot. I think if we look at something like the tyreebagat [phonetic], it made a huge difference just getting in one retail, large retail window on that building, that I think this will be a positive addition. And then, my only concern is, depending on the tenant, we don't necessarily know what's going to happen. Sometimes they've put vinyl graphics over the windows, or sometimes they build a wall behind the glass. I'm thinking of considering, I would ask the Board to consider adding a condition of approval like we did at the Walgreen's building on University Avenue, or maybe Equinox on El Camino. I think we're just trying not to have the glass covered on the outside by retail tenants. There has to be some clear glass, and then something else can happen behind it, but we just don't want it fully opaque. That's all of my comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. David? Board Member Hirsch: Well, aside from my comment about the canopies, the clerestory window proportion, I wonder why a building like this, which is very regular now all around the corner, doesn't have canopies on the east wall, as well as on the south wall. Seems to be a sort of typical bay. It, I guess, gets maybe wider around the corner. Are the canopies just simply saying this is the University façade, or are they useful functionally? This would be a question for the architect. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Ken Hayes. In the end, that's how we're justifying having them on the front, is that they are indeed announcing the front door of the building. We had them on the side on both levels I think at one point. We've had them on, we've had them off. We felt like, to address the comment about the trees and the building being close that we'll just take them off that side. They're really not needed from an environmental standpoint except maybe for rain. There's not going to be a whole lot of solar gain coming in from that side. But, we've removed them and just focused on the front. We did the same thing on the second floor. Chair Furth: While you're here, what's the depth of those protections? Mr. Hayes: I believe they're three feet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I would just say that my preference would have been to have continued them around the side. I can understand why you would run into problems with the planting and the trees, but I think I would have preferred to see them on all those sides. Planning, any comment about it? Ms. Hodgkins: No, we don't have any comments. I was just going to say, make sure you're speaking into the mic because it's hard to hear a little bit. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Mr. Hayes: We do have a canopy at the office entry. Board Member Hirsch: At the office entry, yeah. Okay. That will be all. Chair Furth: Thank you. Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, good morning. Thank you, Architect Hayes, it was a nice presentation and I appreciate your summary of the differences and design from the previous application. I find overall it's a handsome building, and I agree with Alex that it has a touch of sophistication in how it's put together, which I appreciate. I also agree with Alex that the blank wall facing the Varsity Theater is visible from University and I think it would be nicer if we could do something to make it more positive to the community. I wasn't sure if you'd be able to see that or not, but walking around, I think it is quite visible. Mr. Hayes: Can I ask for clarification? I'm sorry? Vice Chair Baltay: Through the Chair...? Chair Furth: Would you like to respond? Mr. Hayes: I just, when Alex was commenting, I was picturing the wall on the alley. Board Member Lew: Yeah, that's what I was... Vice Chair Baltay: Oh, I'm sorry. Okay. Board Member Lew: I actually don't necessarily disagree with Peter's comment about the Stanford Theater elevation, however. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Ken, for that. Chair Furth: We're now talking about two out of four. Let's say three out of four. You're doing fine on the front. Vice Chair Baltay: I looked at the building from both angles and the one coming up University Avenue, I thought at first you wouldn't be able to notice that wall, and all the other buildings had these big, blank walls, but I think it is visible, and it's an opportunity. We have on other buildings asked for something to be done there. I think something decorative is fine. On the wall Alex was talking about, then, I was also concerned about that. My conclusion was that that stair tower is a striking architectural feature, and I kind of liked the boldness of the vertical element. I thought it interacted well with the brick horizontal building, so I was okay. Actually, I would be loathe to decorate that. I'd rather see that celebrated as an architectural element. Maybe further back we could do something there, but just responding to that issue. I'm not sure I could support the building for a different reason, which I'll get to, but looking at it on its merits, one consistent thought I had is that if you continue to enliven the pedestrian experience along Ramona, that's for the better. You're doing that well by adding those windows, and with or without the canopies David was talking about, it's already a big improvement. To me, what would be a significant step better is to get at least one real retail entrance along there someplace that in the event there's two businesses in here, you really have that opportunity. That would go a long way also to mitigating the concern Alex has about the windows being closed off. I do agree, Alex, that it's better on the Walgreen's building that the windows are there, even if they are a foot in, boarded up, but I find it disappointing that there's not actually visibility into the life inside. And this is a smaller building. It would be really great if there was just a way to get that to happen. When I dive into your grading details in detail, it seems to me that you've pushed the floor of the building down quite a bit just to match the very lowest corner on University. If you just raise it up a few inches -- just talking inches here -- you could make this work where you might get entrances from both sides. It seems to me it's worth studying, it's worth a little bit City of Palo Alto Page 12 of effort, just to get a potential real entrance, not just a sliding exit door of some kind. I'd like to see if you could try that. A second thought I'll throw out to the Board is the building, as handsome as it is, but the second floor has, as best I can tell, about a 15 foot plate-to-plate height, which is pretty tall for a second floor. And I can see where, why not go for that? But if you just pushed it down, say, two feet, I think it would mitigate the height of the second floor on Ramona where you only have a two-foot setback. I think the two-foot setback is a nicely-detailed thing and it does emphasize the brick base, but still, having the upper floor be so tall. And I don't necessarily see a reason for that. Just by lowering the building down a little bit I think would help the massing, and I don't see any harm in it, so to speak. My last comment directly on the building is that the brick portion of the building, to me, just seems plain. It seems unfinished and undetailed. And if it were a real historic brick building, you would expect to see more brick detailing, more corbeling at the parapet top, more treatment around the window details. And I can understand that what you're doing is trying to keep it simple, but when I look at, there's one elevation showing... Sheet A4.2, for example, I think the University Avenue façade is just plain, at least in that image. The same, 4.3 shows it even better. But then, I'd like to segue from that into what my primary concern is with this building. I do not believe that the existing brick wall can be saved. It's an unreinforced masonry wall of which we're tearing off a finish on it, and then we're cutting very large openings in it, and we're re-doing the basement foundation underneath it to make it deeper. All those things just say to me that it's not practically feasible that that wall will be saved, and it will be rebuilt. And what we are building then is a new old brick building, and the design intent, as far as I can tell, is to make this brick building look like the original historic Palo Alto downtown storefront, on top of which we're adding a modern addition. Yet, the truth is it's a brand-new building. I'm looking at some of the detailing, wishing it were perhaps more historic. Or, I ask a question to the Board and to the City - Why aren't we just building a new building here? And I think the answer is that they're looking for the seismic upgrade extra square footage. So, I say to the owners, that's a big grab you're asking for, with the TDR's, plus the seismic upgrade, plus all of this... Mr. Hayes: [crosstalk] .... the TDR's. Vice Chair Baltay: plus... I understand. And I'm not saying that you're not entitled to that, but the package as a whole. That's what we're here for, is to look at the package as a whole. This building is a new building, and yet, we're building it to look like an old building. And the reason we're doing that is to get some sort of seismic upgrade benefit. This is one of our most talented architects, and why aren't we building a new building? That's what this is. Why aren't we doing that? Instead, we're building our impression of what an old building from 1905 was like. And yet, even then it's not right because then they put stucco all over it. I'm just really confused as to what we're actually trying to accomplish here. This is, to me, what I call false historicism, and for that reason, I really have an issue with this project. I think the design is attractive and handsome and most of our findings can be met, but the fact that it's a new building masquerading as an old building that's been restored is troublesome to me. Thank you. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Well, I wasn't expecting to follow that, but, all right. Well, I will try to be succinct. I'll start backwards, just to piggyback off of what Vice Chair Baltay mentioned. One of the first things I noticed about the design of what we're looking at here is that yes, the detailing of the brick façade is lacking, and there's definitely, you know, walking around the building, there are a lot of details in there that are either defunct, or going, you know, the little holes in there for the canopy that used to be there once, that still add to a lot of visual interest on the street. And I think if we do this the way that it's designed, there's more to be desired in terms of the brick detailing. But I think it's possible, and I think it could make this project that you have a lot richer. Things like more detailing around the openings, a bit more visual relief. Brick is such an exciting material for that reason, and I appreciate it for its granular level of detail. In that sense, I think there's something exciting about what could happen here. City of Palo Alto Page 13 With regard to false historicism, I would say that I come from a place that I see a lot of modern buildings, I've seen a lot of modern buildings growing up that are very blank and simple, very similar to what you're doing to the top story. If this whole building looks like the top story, it might be really, really rough. And I appreciate modern buildings. There's something really exciting about adding this level of detail and warmth in the brick, so, in that sense, even if it's a brand-new building in that sense, I kind of appreciate that there is a chance that you could get to a more exciting level of detail that modern architecture hasn't been able to afford in recent years. I agree that the entry on the Ramona side for the retail is just not there, really. It's really hard to see, and it could be really just to pump that up and do something to make that more of an entry. It doesn't seem like it would cost anything. It would definitely allow visitors to know where they're going. Another issue that I have with elevation is that the roof is really jagged. Again, I'm not saying you should have a clean line. A clean line is definitely what somebody who loves modern architecture would say, and it's not that that would be a bad idea, I could support that as well. But, if you are going to do all these changes in your roof elevation, make it really intentional and not like an accident. Like, this is just how our stairs and our elevator kind of cobble together, and this is what we're left with. But I think it could be... Because it's very visible, especially in all these images that you're showing us. There's a lot of popping. Mr. Hayes: It's kind of like the theater. Board Member Thompson: It could be if you did it intentionally, right? Mr. Hayes: Of course I did it intentionally. Board Member Thompson: It doesn't seem that way. Chair Furth: Let's have commentary, not discussion. Let's stipulate everybody in the room who is an architect is good. Board Member Thompson: The aluminum material, looking at the material board, is quite glossy, and has a foil to the brick that I'm, I wonder if it might be too much. I almost think that a more matte material would be more appropriate. As to the University blank wall and the alley blank wall, to do something artistic there, I would be in support of that, or something more interesting there. I don't think the material on its own is enough, essentially because it's... Yeah. It's just too similar everywhere. And I'll leave it at that for now. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Furth: Staff, what is the seismic bonus on this building? How many square feet? Ms. Hodgkins: Two thousand five hundred square feet. Chair Furth: Which is the maximum. Ms. Hodgkins: The maximum. Mr. Hayes: No... Chair Furth: Excuse me. And how many unreinforced masonry buildings eligible for this bonus do we have left downtown? Ms. Hodgkins: Say that one more time? Can you ask that one more time? Chair Furth: This building is eligible for that kind of bonus. What other buildings downtown are? City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. Hodgkins: My understanding was that this is actually the last unrefined masonry... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: House of Foam got fixed, or...? Ms. Hodgkins: You mentioned one other, but when I spoke to Building, they indicated that their understanding was that this is the last unrefined masonry.... Chair Furth: The reason I'm asking these questions is that this project is being badly compromised by trying to make it fit into an unrealistic set of expectations. And having watched more than one project turn out to be impossible to do, so, in fact, all the walls come down. How long would it take the City to change its ordinance to basically just give the 2,500 square foot bonus to these remaining buildings without making them fit in the reconstruction jacket? I don't know. But I want to think about it. Ms. Gerhardt: We can come back to you with an exact number of how many buildings are left downtown that would be eligible for this bonus. Related to the bonus itself, a couple years ago we were given direction by the City Council that new buildings were not to receive this sort of bonus. We could certainly, potentially go back and ask the Council to reconsider, but our current direction is that it must be a renovation. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thinking about our situation over on... Emerson, is it? That we just looked at? In SOFA 2? Where, when the project first came to us it wasn't feasible because of a retail preservation ordinance, and when the retail preservation ordinance disappeared, what do you know? You could build a good building. I'll give you my specific comments on this proposal, but I am... I think that, you know, these incentives have been in place for years. Instead of requiring the property owners upgrade their buildings because they're just a hazard to life and limb. And they have failed to induce people to move until the market is strong enough, I think. Who knows what other individual circumstances might apply? And if we're down to this very small group, I'm worried that it's both an illusion, and it's constraining the design in a way that's regrettable. Okay. First, very much in favor of eliminating a serious seismic hazard. This is my commute route to downtown. For years, it was my commute route to my job. So, I walked this street all the time. And having worked on the seismic upgrade inventory, I tend to use the other side of the street. Also because my husband works in Santa Cruz and I've seen the brick walls that fell down. Killing a person. It's an important and strong corner. I appreciate the big windows on either side. The Downtown Design Guidelines do ask that these corner buildings either have cutouts so you can walk across diagonally -- as I think is the case on a number of other corners -- or at least be able to see through. But I certainly agree with Alex that we need to be sure that these windows stay window and let you see through the building. I mean, we actually required the same thing of Victoria's Secret in the Stanford Shopping Center, to eliminate a blind alley. Sort of. Well, it was across the street from McDonalds, which is an interesting usage. Small children on one side. Thank you very much for the good staff report and the good historic study. It is interesting to realize that for a long time, for much of its life, this building was not brick. On the other hand, it has been for 50 years or so, which almost counts as history in the west. Staff, does the pedestrian overlay go down to the bank building on this block? It doesn't go all the way to Lytton, does it? Or does it? Ms. Hodgkins: I'd have to look. I can't recall. Chair Furth: I'm trying to read it from the planning map and couldn't figure it out. But it goes past this. And this is a, this access from City Hall over to, I guess Cogswell Plaza is the official name of the park, is supposed to be emphasized as a big pedestrian/bicycle way to connect Downtown North and the aspects of downtown. This is actually a moderately important retail access, mostly in the case of restaurants. Across the street we've got the Bank of America building, which I would say is Italianate, given Mr. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Gianni's [phonetic] preferences. Then we've got a not-very attractive alley. Then we've got a not-very attractive parking lot. And then, we've got a reasonably-attractive park that is not oriented to the sidewalk at all. There are spaces there but none of them provide seating oriented to the sidewalk, though the park itself is lovely. Though regrettably lacking bathrooms. And then, on this side we have the Mills Building, which has created quite a bit of nightlife interest as you walk down the block, and we have the alley entrance into the theater, which seems to be used by a lot of people, workers taking their breaks. And a lot of people line up along this sidewalk because they're waiting to get into the Christmas showings of classic movies, or the Harold Lloyd festival, or whatever. And then we have a kind of mix. We have some buildings, I can't remember if it's 420 or 470, that basically look like office entrances. We have an actual lively restaurant in the vegan restaurant. We have the optometrist, and we have the reworked Chinese restaurant, which is now Bird Dog. And when Bird Dog was redone, they put a big window into it so you could see into the bar. It made it much more lively. And they put in seating, and it, of course, is integrated into their design. It's partly useful for people waiting for a seat, but it is seating, even though it doesn't have backs and benches. But for something that's supposed to be a pedestrian accent, important pedestrian way, this pair of sidewalks doesn't work. I'm really pleased that the applicant proposes to improve the sidewalk and put in tree wells about whatever poor trees we can put in there. That will help. But I'm still going to make my basic point. One of the things it says in the Downtown Design Guidelines is that this is supposed to be accessible for everybody, not just the fit and able. And as somebody whose back went into spasm this morning and wanted to sit on my way over here, there's nowhere. Once I leave my front door, there is not a single place in those two block stretches except the Bird Dog -- two little round seats -- to sit. So, I think this place needs seating somewhere along the Ramona side, and if you tell me that we can't do that because it will destroy the reconstruction, I will be very frustrated. It does strike me that the old brick is, if anything, going to be a bit of veneer. I'm not at all sure about the material because I'm not quite sure how it works well with the stucco here and across the street. But I'm not so hostile that I would be opposed to it. I just don't think it's necessary. I think that other things that would help on the Ramona frontage, which I don't think has met the standard yet. I think that David's point about the arches is well taken. I think that the point about a real bona-fide entrance is important. I also would be interested in people's comments on signage. I know we like low-key signage, but signage really, clearly signals that a building wants my attention. I would think that some sort of retail signage on that side would help. But I still want to be able to sit down. And if that could be done with street furniture in the City right-of-way because there's enough space, great. But I do think it needs to be done. Is this the corner with the fake mailbox, or is that one block up? Ms. Hodgkins: I think it might have a mailbox on the Ramona side. Chair Furth: It's a... [crosstalk] Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. Chair Furth: ... because I tried to mail a letter there the other day, and what do you know? It's a telecom facility. If we have room for telecom facilities, we have room for benches. This is actually true. It was mortifying. I thought it was one of those old kind of army gray ones they used to have. On the rear wall, the two walls that... I'm more aware of the wall that you see, the rear wall that you see when you're walking down Ramona toward University. And incidentally, this is not the corner of University where the City has installed seating, as we did in some others. I think that wall is very visible. I do hope that the applicant is successful in maintaining their right to use that doorway into that space. I realize that's probably beyond their control, but it would certainly be helpful. And I would like it to be more visually interesting than it appears to be now. I haven't really thought through the other one. Those are my handwritten notes. Anybody else have any other comments while I look for my typed notes? City of Palo Alto Page 16 Vice Chair Baltay: Through the Chair, could I allow the applicant to address the comment I made about false historicism? It's a fairly significant comment and I'm sure he'd like to respond to that. And I'd like to be persuaded otherwise. Chair Furth: Sure. If you could define what you meant by "false historicism?" Vice Chair Baltay: What I meant by it? I think that was clear in my statement. Chair Furth: That means having something look old that isn't? Or references to the past that aren't well done. Vice Chair Baltay: That's right. I just think Ken Hayes deserves a chance to persuade us otherwise. Mr. Hayes: Well, so, the City Council a couple years ago... The public policy is, this whole program was set up by Fred Herman in the late 80's to rehabilitate, to mitigate the seismic hazard of all these buildings in downtown Palo Alto. And it only applies in the CD-C zone. Although you can have CD-N and CD-S projects. And we've done many projects where the mitigation was the demolition of the building. The Philz Coffee building, 278 University, 270 University, 317 University - All these buildings were demolished, and they earned either the, the (inaudible) and the seismic bonus basically through that demolition. Maybe four years ago, Council didn't think that was rehabilitation because the ordinance says rehabilitation." Since then, they have said that to earn the bonus, it needs to be considered rehabilitation. Now, we get into this dicing of what "rehabilitation" means because it's not defined in the ordinances. It's very poorly written. We've just come to interpret "rehabilitation" as saving at least over 50 percent of the existing brick walls in order to qualify for the bonus. So, I think it's a good thing. If this is the only way to mitigate a seismic hazard in Palo Alto in this day and age, then let's go ahead and do it, because in the end, we're supporting public policy, in my opinion, right? We're mitigating this hazard. I'm all for tearing the building down, and so was the owner. And, in fact, that would result in a better building, a safer building at least, right? But we're cobbling this building together through what we have to work with today, but still achieving the goal of mitigation. In terms of you comment about the building masquerading, you know, I've lived... I'm sorry, I never lived here. I felt like I did because I worked here as an architect for many years... Chair Furth: If you spend your daylight hours here, it... [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: Well, it was evening hours, too. And I've always thought of that Mills Building as this brick icon, right? I mean, you knew where you were in the Downtown if you were next to the Mills Building, right? It just sort of had this air about it that I found wanting to maintain. Now, if we're doing a new building and didn't have to work with this ordinance, you wouldn't see a brick building. But, because we have the ordinance to work with, we need to work with what's there. I feel like we're being genuine about the front of the building. We're not demolishing the main fabric of the building. We're basically taking off a shroud that was put up by her father 40 years ago on one afternoon, it sounds like in just talking to them about it. It's probably not well constructed, so it leaves me to believe it's mostly likely going to come off fairly easy. I'm sure there's no membrane or anything behind it that would aid in that removal. But once we take it off, it's a process of we've revealed what's behind there, and I think that's very genuine. It would have been there had her father not covered it up. And then, we have an opportunity on Ramona, because we're tearing the Ramona wall down. Well, we had to ask ourselves, do we want to see one brick wall facing University Avenue, or do we want to try to use the bricks from the old wall -- which is what we're doing. We're being sustainable about these bricks. They're not going to a landfill. We've re-used the bricks, and there's going to be plenty of bricks. Our openings are much bigger, and this is a double-width wall, so what's going back will be a veneer, but a real brick masonry veneer. My thinking, because going back to this idea of liking the appearance of the Mills iconic brick building on the corner, compelled us to say, "Let's wrap that brick around." If you go to drawing... Board Member Baltay, if you look at the face here, there is subtle corbeling at the top, and there's corbeling at the mid City of Palo Alto Page 17 parapet that wraps around the building. I would agree with you. When you see this, it's all washed out in the rendering. I mean, you are going to have this shadow line probably more pronounced on this wall -- depending on the time of day -- than it is here. But this does wrap around, so it's not intended to be... It's intended to be what's there behind that wall when we reveal it. And maybe it's not there, but when we look at the historic pictures, it looks like it is. I don't see this as something that is masquerading. It's basically taking its lead from what we are going to unveil, and then continuing around the corner. I like the fact that it's the Mills Building still, and so, the Mills Building has always been, and hopefully always will be, this brick masonry building that now we're modifying. Chair Furth: Or an art-deco treasure in San Francisco, right? One or the other. Mr. Hayes: All right. Thank you. Chair Furth: Okay. Have we heard from everybody but me? Okay. I had one other comment, which was in looking at the lighting on the building, that's another way of signaling that you are interested in people walking along that street. They look simple, and they look all right, but I'd be a little interested in further thought on that. Chair Furth: Okay. We're going to continue this to a date certain or uncertain? Ms. Gerhardt: We could do certain. We were thinking April 18th. Chair Furth: All right. I will say that in as much as the Ramona façade is not, is an entirely new wall, which gives the applicant the ability to modify it to meet our concerns, I think this approach can work. I'm also impressed by the comment that, the architect's comment that having this as a brick building does serve to orient us downtown. I think it's definitely true, and it sort of ties nicely with the redwood grove further down the block. Okay. MOTION Chair Furth: Anything else before we continue this? Would somebody like to make a motion? Board Member Lew: I'll make a motion that we continue the project to April 18th. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Thompson: I'll second. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye? That's five in favor, none opposed, nobody absent. Okay. MOTION TO CONTINUE TO APRIL 18TH PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00265]: Request for Architectural Review and for Pacific Catch Restaurant to Allow for Exterior Facade Improvements to an Existing Tenant Space in Building E at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Our next hearing is 180 El Camino [sic], request for architectural review of Pacific Catch restaurant to allow for exterior façade improvements to an existing tenant space in Building E at the Stanford Shopping Center, better known as, formerly Max's Opera Café. This category is exempt from the City of Palo Alto Page 18 provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act. The architect is... Who is the architect? We'll have to correct that from the record. The architect is Armet Davis Newlove Associates, and Simon Properties is here on behalf of Stanford University, the underlying landlords. All right. Has everybody visited the site? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Yes, I did. Chair Furth: Everybody visited the site. Does anybody have any ex parte communications to disclose? Board Member Lew: No. Vice Chair Baltay: No. No communications, but I would like to disclose, since the idea is to give additional information to the staff, I spent some time out there on Saturday afternoon, and I took it upon myself just to measure the flow of pedestrian traffic past this site into the market. To be precise, over a five- minute period, 40 pedestrians passed me by, which would translate into a flow of 480 people per hour. This was last Saturday at one o'clock in the afternoon. I'm just throwing that out there. It's something I measured. Thank you. Chair Furth: When it was raining? Vice Chair Baltay: It was rainy. Chair Furth: Thank you. Staff ready? Mr. Gutierrez: Just a moment. Chair Furth: Okay. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Okay, thank you. Good morning, Board. My name is Samuel Gutierrez, I'm the project planner for this project here, located at the Stanford Shopping Center, for the renovation of the previously-occupied space by Max's Opera House, and now to be the Pacific Catch location. Going into the presentation here, you can see there are renderings from the plans that were submitted of the façade changes. It is a three-sided building. Here you can see the existing conditions of the tenant space in question in Building B. You can see the arch features where the window openings are, the doorways, and these steel awnings that project out. I've tried to at least best show the different angles of the building because it is a three-sided building at this point. The overview, of course, it is in the Stanford Shopping Center. The façade is over 35 feet in length facing outward of the shopping center, which per the requirements at the Stanford Shopping Center, it does require Board-level review. That's why we're here. And, the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program for the shopping center does apply in this situation. Here is the site plan for the proposal. You can see again the three-side building, or this portion of the building that has three sides for this tenant space. You'll notice the new covered patios on the shorter façade portions, where the broader is not going to have any new patio areas. The changes for Pacific Catch here are new paint on the exterior with wood slats on portions of the façade; new tile as well on the lower half. There will be two new covered patios, as I mentioned earlier, one of them featuring a fireplace. There are new planter boxes along the edges of the façade and the covered patios as well. Blue-tone awnings. In the previous images you saw that there were these projecting metal awnings. Now there will be some blue fabric awnings that are triangular that project out from the new rectangular openings. Again, the archway forms have been changed to rectangular ones. Here is the proposed façade changes as a line-up so you can see the comparison of the existing condition versus the proposed new. City of Palo Alto Page 19 The arch forms are changing to rectangular ones once again, and the chosen materials seem to mesh well. They have good cohesion, and given that the tenant space is rather large, it does have a very broad side facing Sand Hill, a lot of the design elements seem in proportion to that building wall. And the material selection seems to work well. The colors and tones make that area stand out, but it doesn't seem to overpower the general area of the shopping center, where this is located. But, there was some concern with the compatibility of, for example, the planter boxes, which kind of have this composite concrete, stamped wood construction. Not too sure if that matches well with this and some feedback from the ARB on just some of that type of differences in materials, where the other materials are finished and that one isn't, how does the Board see that. Moving to the signage, there was six signs included in the packet. Though indicated on the map that you see here -- which is actually drawing from the plan set that was submitted -- the map only shows five that are called out, but there are actually six. Where you see Location B, there's another logo sign on the façade where the wood slat portion is on that shorter end of the facade before it makes that turn to the third side. There's another one there. The sign areas are indicated in that table here. Again, the Master Tenant Façade Program applies in this situation, so the signs are over the allowed areas for the Master Tenant Façade Program for the shopping center. There are some options here for the applicant, which is to reduce the sign area to conform with the requirements of the Master Tenant Façade Program for the shopping center, and/or come in with a separate application for signage, for a sign exception. Again, this is a broader tenant space area than other portions of the shopping center. It is really large at 175 feet long if you measure the length of the façade. Perhaps some modification of signs would be appropriate, but that remains to be seen. Here is a depiction of the signs from the plans that were submitted. You can see the lettering for Pacific Catch is on the awning in one photo, and above it you can see the Pacific Catch lettering and the fish logo are put together on the wood slat portion of the broader façade. Staff wanted some feedback from the ARB on the design of the signs. The quality of the design seems to fit with the shopping center. Internally illuminated, visual channel letters, so it does look to meet that quality. But there was concern with the total number of signs, and of course their size. I mean, it doesn't meet the Master Sign Program, but we just want that feedback from you and your thoughts on how that's compatible with the overall design and facades. Moving on to landscaping. There was a landscape plan that was submitted, and this is actually a portion of that from the submitted plans. You can see there are new planter boxes along the broader façade, and then there are some planter boxes at each end of the covered patio areas that are proposed. Staff, when reviewing, felt that these plants may not readily meet all of the ARB findings for landscaping, so there was a staff alternative landscaping plan that was suggested that hit the marks better in regards to habitat, low water usage, or native plants than the applicant's submitted landscape plan. And being that there was only a few plants altogether, because there is no broad landscaped area. All of this area is paved. It's limited to planter boxes, so the options are already limited by that fact, so we do seek some feedback from the ARB on this suggested alternative, as well as the applicant's submitted landscape plan. Once again, key considerations are the architectural design, cohesiveness, so, again, the planter box material versus some of the other finished material in the design of the same high quality. And then, the sign design and how that fits together with the overall proposal for the façade changes, and the landscaping plan, of course, the staff alternative versus the applicant. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project with staff's suggested landscape changes and the requirement to return to subcommittee with reduced signage, to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: A question? Okay. Yes, David. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: As you review projects like this, do you deal with this as a single building and the other façade work that has been done on this same building isn't part of the discussion, with the planning? That would be one. And in fact, also relative to the outside of the building facing the parking lot, and there's another entrance at the other end. What is the relationship between that entrance? I don't know what direction it is, but you know what I’m talking about. To this project. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Mr. Gutierrez: Sure. The way we review the shopping center, there are various tenants in the buildings. Each building is assigned a letter so we can kind of orient ourselves. We look at that individual tenant space and make sure that it complies with the Master Tenant Façade Program, if that's applicable. There are anchor tenants like the Bloomingdale's building, or Neiman Marcus, which are a little different because they are their own building. But when this type of project comes forward where it's a tenant space in a larger building, we look at that space first, and then see how that relates to the adjacent designs and tenant spaces. It's not too loud of a design where it overpowers the adjacent tenant spaces, but it's also not too, I guess, poorly thought out or designed where the other tenant spaces overpower that one. It's a good balance that we have some consistency throughout the shopping center. To your question of the adjacent entry, I think you're speaking of the last archway. That's actually a door that's an entry to the internal corridor area of that building. All these tenant spaces have a back-of-house, if you will, entry to this corridor space, and that's where you'll find other facilities, bathrooms or trash room facilities. That door happens to be, in this upper left photo here, you can see that door. That's actually not a tenant space. That's, again, leading to that common interior space. Does that answer your question? Board Member Hirsch: Yep. Chair Furth: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff on signage. Did the staff review the Pacific Catch trademark logo? I think in the staff report, I think you were mentioning something about the fish being artwork, but did you review the actual requirements of the trademark logo? Because there's the fish, and there's also the "West Coast Fish House," which is underlining that. Did staff review that? Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, we looked at the different spaces in the region. I've actually visited a different Pacific Catch in the area, and I looked at their corporate website. They associate that logo in different ways. This is just one orientation, with the fish logo and the "West Coast Fish House" on the bottom. There's other orientations where the fish logo is first in a line, and then it says, "Pacific Catch," and they're all roughly the same size. There's also a modification of that where the "West Coast House" language is below the fish logo and the "Pacific Catch." It's been reoriented a few times. Board Member Lew: Okay. My point is that I think we only allow a trademark logo. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but I think that we don't necessarily allow additional elements as part of the sign. I could be wrong about that. I think it's come up before with, like, Walgreen's and what-not. Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, we don't, but I viewed the "Pacific Catch West Coast Fish House" as being the true name of the business, and the logo is the fish logo. Board Member Lew: Thank you for that. Chair Furth: Yes, Vice Chair Baltay? Vice Chair Baltay: Quickly to staff. I'm noticing in your report, you're saying that there is an increase of 856 square feet, which equates into three additional parking spaces. Can you tell me what numbers you are using as the ratio for parking for this facility? Mr. Gutierrez: Sure. The parking center has a mixed blended ratio for parking. That's one per 275 square feet. And per the code requirements, if you reach more than a half space, parking space, then it gets pushed over into the next whole number. When we ran the numbers it didn't push it over into four. Vice Chair Baltay: I see that. I'm looking at the code now and it says eating and drinking services have a different ratio than shopping centers, so you're interpreting this as shopping center, not eating and drinking, even though it is a restaurant. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Mr. Gutierrez: It is by definition a shopping center. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Is the applicant ready? If you could introduce yourself, spell your name for our transcriber, and you will have 10 minutes. Jason Smith, LandShark Development Group: Thank you, Samuel, Chair, Vice Chair, Board Members. Pleasure to be back in front of you once again for another project at Stanford Shopping Center. My name is Jason Smith with LandShark Development Services Group. Today we have with us Keith Cox with Pacific Catch, as well as Paul Deppe and Tom Fitzgerald [sic] with the architectural team, and Mark Tasse with Hatch Design Group. We're going to go through, present the project, and look forward to receiving your feedback. Mark, if you'd like to come up right now. Tom Fitzpatrick, Armet Davis Newlove Architects: Good morning. Tom Fitzpatrick, Armet Davis Newlove Architects. Mark Tasse, Hatch Design Group: Mark Tasse with Hatch Design Group. Chair Furth: I beg your pardon, I missed your last name. Mr. Tasse: Mark Tasse. Chair Furth: Could you spell that? Mr. Tasse: [spells last name] Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Fitzpatrick: Thank you for having us this morning. I think I'll just start with an overview on the structure, then I'll pass it to Mark to speak to the details. We partnered up on this project... I'm the building architect, and Mark's from a design firm. Overlay the two, and he has the design aspects. As far as the structure goes, essentially the bones of the structure stay in place, with the roofline staying the same. There's some fabulous existing glazed openings that we wanted to utilize, so we actually kept those and built off of that, trying to keep a nice, bright, airy space. As far as structure goes, we didn't add any additional square footage. We're not adding to any height of the structure. Essentially, the interior platform is the same, with the kitchen being at the back of house in that existing common area where that door opening was. It's all staying the same, so, as far as the bones go of that, we didn't propose any major changes there. The existing rounded venting, the louvers that you see, those don't have any sort of mechanical benefit. Those were strictly a decorative item. In removing those, and what Mark will present, we were able to get a more contemporary feel by abandoning that and going with new canvas awnings. With that, I'll pass it to Mark, and he can speak to some of the design aspects. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Tasse: Thank you. Basically, what we have done is the owner's concept is, his cuisine is based on the seafood of the South Pacific region. With the design, we wanted to complement that with the color palette and the materials that we chose. On the exterior, what we've done is we've, we're using lighter tones. We wanted very bright, bright color palette, which we are also incorporating on the interior of the building. We're using light-tone paints, light beiges, sand tones, and then, splashes of color where appropriate. We've brought in on the exterior, down low, we've brought in a glazed brick tile in a blue color. The awnings, as Tom mentioned, we've incorporated... Where the existing arches of the façade were, we brought in some fabric awnings to also bring in some softness to the exterior, and some texture, and again, a little pop of color. Those area a subtle, kind of seafoam blue that works well with the overall palette. We're also incorporating warm woods into the overall palette, which you see in the City of Palo Alto Page 22 proposed wood slat screens. The wood slat screen also ties in with the owner's existing identity. It's an element that he's using in his existing restaurant, so we're bringing that over and continuing that look on this proposed location. We're also incorporating a blackened steel trellis, open trellis. We have two trellises, one on the market side, the open market side. That is a solid covered trellis for further dining area below. On the street side we have the smaller patio. That has a trellis above it as well. It's a combination. A portion of that is covered, and then, a portion of it has the ability to be open. It has some retractable fabric awnings that can be opened and closed. Those awnings will also add a little splash of color. What we really tried to do on the, especially the very long street façade, because that façade is so long and so tall, we really wanted to try to bring the level down to more of a pedestrian feel. The existing with the high arches and the very tall façade just made it seem like a large building. So, we're really focusing basically from the awnings, down. That's where our key finishes are. The existing openings along that street side, we're also proposing operable horizontal bifold doors. Most of the openings on that side will fully open up in nice weather so we get that indoor/outdoor feel, and we create a sense of energy and excitement for people when they're coming to the center. They'll be able to see the activity inside the restaurant. As Tom mentioned, we've incorporated some planters along that walls, as well. The planters achieve two things for us. One, it creates a little bit of a buffer between the diners and the pedestrians walking on that sidewalk, and it also adds a softness with the landscaping. On the large patio that's adjacent to the existing market, we're proposing a decorative firepit. It's an open firepit, it has a decorative hood above it, but basically it's open all around it. That has a decorative tile on the face of it. Again, that firepit is intended to be a visual piece not only for the diners in the restaurant, but it also will enhance the existing market seating experience. So, when general public is sitting in the regular marketplace, they can take advantage of the firepit as well. In general, that's the overall concept of the exterior design. If there's any questions. Chair Furth: Thank you. Would anybody like to ask questions of the applicant? Board Member Thompson: I have one. Board Member Thompson: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: I was just hoping you could clarify a little bit further the choice to not continue the arch. You said something about the height, but the height is the same all the way. I was just hoping you could clarify the choice of going from arch to [crosstalk]. Mr. Tasse: Sure. When we initially looked at the concept, we decided to change the... You're right. The height of the openings is the same, so, if you look at the rendering there. The top of the awnings where we're squared off, that is the top of the existing arches. We're using the existing height. We decided to go away from the arch because, one, the more rectangular look fits better with our concept. Changing the arches was also something that we heard early on from the landlord, that that was something that they were in favor of going away from. They felt the arched look was getting a little dated for the center, and I think in some other portions of the center, they had already started going away from the arched look. That was something that they were in favor of as well, so that's kind of the reasoning we did that. At the entry, at the corner of the building, right above where our main entry is, where the arches, the existing arches, we're taking the existing louvered slats out of those and we're replacing those with glazing. If you look at the third image down just above the entry, behind the wood slat screen, that will be glass windows. At night, you'll see the light coming through from the inside, so you'll get a little accent there, as well. Chair Furth: Any other questions? Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, one more. The yellow material, is that the retractable trellis material? I'm looking at page A4-5. Mr. Tasse: Yeah, that's on the shorter patio. That's the shade fabric. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Lew: Your microphone is not on. Chair Furth: You need to turn your mic on, and which sheet are you on? Board Member Thompson: I'm on Sheet A405, and I'm assuming it's what's being shown in images 3, 4 and 5, and that what's being shown in 1 and 2 is, like, a metal louver. Chair Furth: Nothing in the drawings look like that yellow. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, that's my question. Mr. Tasse: Yeah, in the renderings that are in the package, the renderings were, I believe were done before we settled on the color of the awnings. In that first picture on the left... Chair Furth: Image 1, that would be? Mr. Tasse: Yeah, it's reading as gray in the renderings, but that's actually that fabric. Chair Furth: That's the bright yellow. Mr. Tasse: Yeah. And those are the retractable awnings that are over the smaller patio and the front of the building. Board Member Thompson: So then, what is the material on the right, the three ridges on the right? There's also some sort of stub-straight material? Mr. Tasse: Yeah, so, on the big patio, the three images on the right, that's the main patio, the larger patio. What we're doing on that, the underside is a decorative reed type of material, again, tying back into the South Pacific concept. It's a reeded material, but above that we're doing a translucent Plexiglas that covers the top of the patio for, you know, the rain, or something. But it will let light filter through the reed. When you're sitting below, you get the sense that you're under an open reed patio, but it's technically covered above that. Board Member Thompson: Okay, thank you for that clarification. Chair Furth: Any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: Your choice of entry points into the restaurant, they're really two, is that correct? Mr. Tasse: There are two... Let me get back to the main plan. Chair Furth: I think they're shown on Sheet 405, among other things. Mr. Tasse: Well... Chair Furth: Or 201. Mr. Tasse: I'm trying to find our main floor plan. This is the main entry right here, from the street side. Then there's a secondary entry. This is the marketplace, the common marketplace and the patio, so if you come around, there's a secondary entrance on this back side. That entrance is primarily going to be used for to-go pick-up orders, Uber Easts, delivery pickups. As opposed to them coming into the main entry, they can come around this back side, and on the inside there's a small pick-up counter where they can pick up and go out that entrance. Chair Furth: The main entry is on the parking lot side and the secondary entry is on the pedestrian...? City of Palo Alto Page 24 Mr. Tasse: Correct. The main entry is on this angled... This is the main parking lot frontage here, and then we have that angle where the street kind of turns. The main entry is off the main parking lot side, yes. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: I have another question regarding the extent of the exterior seating area. Is that presently designated for outdoor seating the way it is designed, right out there? Mr. Tasse: Yeah, this main patio, the previous tenant, this is where their patio was previously, so this matches the existing. I believe it's a little, we've extended a little bit of square footage on this end, but the distance from the building out is the same as the existing tenant. This is a proposed new patio, the small patio on the front. Chair Furth: Could I follow up on that? There is no existing tenant. It's empty. What is in that space now? I spent a lot of time with the site plan and on the site, in the rain, trying to figure out how things went together. The area shown as the exterior seating, what's the current state of it? Is it just part of the passageway? Mr. Fitzpatrick: Yeah, it is. Mr. Tasse: Yeah. Mr. Fitzpatrick: Right now it's just common area, that market area. Basically, they had a concept where they had a perimeter in planters that they had removed in demolition, and they left a space. Now there are just pavers there that are an extension of that marketplace. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions of the applicant or the owner's representative, or the master tenants? Okay, we'll bring it back to us. Thank you. You can sit down if you'd like. Mr. Tasse: Thank you. Chair Furth: Who would like to start? Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. On the positive side, I find your design attractive and high-quality and very fitting for the tenant you have in mind. It's really beautiful. I have two significant, serious issues, however. When I asked the staff about the parking ratios it starts to make sense to me because it took me, on that Saturday I was referring to, about half an hour to find a place to park my car. I live here, I've been around a long time, and the parking lot is notoriously crowded at Stanford Shopping Center, to the point where it's really dangerous, I feel. People are getting aggressive, trying to find a parking place. It's uncomfortable. It just doesn’t work. I've said this in other applications, but my opinion, the parking is not functional, which comes back to our Finding #4 we have to make. It has to be functional, the design. What I'm seeing happening now that I hear from staff is that restaurants have a high intensity of use. The parking code we have says that that outdoor terrace would require three additional spaces. When I look at the plan, there's 20 or 30 seats there, certainly more than three car spaces of people coming in. Our code addresses that. The requirements for parking for eating establishments is much denser, and what's been going on at the shopping center is that increasingly there's a lot more dining establishments in the shopping center. The shopping center is changing into a destination attraction, which is full of eating and drinking establishments, which inevitably bring more people, which inevitably puts higher loads on the parking. It's doubly so on this particular corner of the shopping center back here, where there's a fairly narrow chunk of very nice parking, but what the shopping center will say is on the other side of the mall, fully a quarter mile away, is a parking structure with lots of parking. It just doesn't seem reasonable that people will walk that far to this establishment. And similar establishments in other parts of our city are not expected or allowed to have parking a quarter mile away meet their parking requirements. Something isn't working here. I say this to staff, I say this to the City as a whole. What's City of Palo Alto Page 25 going on in the shopping center is that it's now under-parked, under-parked to the point where it's going to be dangerous. Somebody is going to hit a small child as the person is frustrated, trying to sneak into a spot, or two people get into a fight. It's not functional. This restaurant is just pointing that out to me, but we just keep on adding away, chipping away at the parking numbers they have without addressing the real issue. And it's a serious issue. So, adding 700, 800 square feet of additional outdoor space is a real problem for me. Secondly, this restaurant is located at a point where there's significant pedestrian traffic into the mall. It's one of the major entrances in. Like I said, though, 480 people an hour is a significant flow of traffic. If the applicant had shown the Segona's Market facilities on the same plaza, you would realize that the distance between the Segona's Market facilities and the corner of their new outdoor dining area is approximately 10 feet. Ten feet is not enough width for this level of traffic to go through. In fact, as you walk out of the shopping center, this 16-foot additional thing is right in the way of that passageway. It will feel like a blockage. Additionally, there's a number of street lights, and the trees that are shown in that plaza aren't correctly shown in this. But if the plans were just showing what was actually there, I think it would be obvious, even to the applicant, that something is out of sync. You just can't put this big of an outdoor area in this location. It doesn't work. The additional extension towards the parking lot, also. There's a large tree very close to the edge of this, and it's got to be less than five feet now between that tree and the new outdoor dining area and the curb. And again, there's an awful lot of people going by here, and to think they're all going to squeeze into what's a five foot space between the building and the tree and the curb, and then there's all these drivers who are sort of frustrated and harried because of the parking deficiency. The pieces aren't adding up. We have a real issue here, and I think trying to claim this much outdoor space in this location is the core problem here. It's a beautiful design, it's a great idea, but it's not working in this location. And when I hear the applicant explain that Uber drivers are going to be coming to pick up food at the back of the restaurant, they're going to be double-parking right in front of this restaurant, which is what people do when they run into Segona's. It just further burdens the issue. The Uber restaurant pick-up ought to be some place else, right near the curb cut, back where the service entrance is. But the way they're doing it now, it's as though somehow we're not really looking at the existing situation on the site there. I say to my colleagues that there's some functional issues with the flow of this proposal that is not functional right now. Thank you. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: All right. Thank you for your presentation. Also, thanks, Vice Chair Baltay, for giving me a lot to respond to, as well. Initially, just to note on the signage, it does seem like a whole lot of signs, and it seems a little too much, so I would support that coming back to subcommittee to see how we can reduce the amount of verbiage everywhere. It seems a little overkill, so I will support that. I also had a note here about the arches transitioning to the rectangle. You know, adjacent is The Melt restaurant, and they kept the arches. They sort of buffed them up a little bit. What concerns me with the current proposal is that you have an entry on the property that's the service entry that you're keeping the arch, and so, there's this sort of inconsistency. You have The Melt arches, and then you have this rogue arch, and then... I think the trellis sign as you have it is a nice transition to a different architecture style, but that rogue arch is so strange and doesn't really... I don't know. It feels like there could be something a little bit more to integrate that style in there. Not saying I don't like the square arches, but I think in terms of cohesiveness of the architecture, there's something to be investigated there. And it may be keeping what you have, but treating the service arch differently. Right now it's being rendered as this sort of dark half-circle, so it's bringing a lot of attention to itself. I think that might be what it could be, but there's just something to be mitigated there. I don't think aesthetically that transition works at all. I was trying to imagine what your awnings would look like with arches instead of squares, and I think you have a point, that it sort of aesthetically it sort of doesn't work. But maybe there's something else we can do for that. For everyone else, I'm looking at the second image down on our main picture. With regard to the open space patio, I did not go out there and actually measure the congestion that could potentially be there. I didn't think to do that, so I appreciate Vice Chair Baltay for looking into that. I think at the same time, it's nice to have outdoor seating there, and there's something to be said about urbanization and everything getting a little cozier. There's a balance between what's cozy and what's just a bad idea. I could see studying that a little bit more, but I still support there being outside space. With regard to the City of Palo Alto Page 26 parking issue, I don't know, there's definitely something about the Stanford shopping mall as a whole. These days I bike, or Lyft, or Uber. I was there with my car, but I didn't actually have a hard time finding parking, but it could have been just I was there at a different time. In general, I would say that aesthetically, the building design is definitely, it's quite nice. My main issue would be the arches transition, and to re-look at the signage a little bit. But other than that, I could approve this. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex? Board Member Lew: I don't have a lot to say on this particular project. My main comment is similar to Peter's, which is about the existing trees and lights and the relationship of the patio versus, the terrace patio versus the public walkway. I don't think it's drawn correctly. I was out there and photographed it, and I looked at the drawings and they don't match. Also, the large tree at the corner near the entrance isn't quite shown correctly. I think there is a little bit more space to get in and out there based on the photos that I took. But I think that is also a concern. With regard to the signage, it's a little chaotic. I think I understand the restaurant's desire to try to have a sign on every different approach, and I'm okay with that. But I think staff should try to get them to work with the existing sizes of the neighboring tenants. I've had lots of discussions with previous planners who were in charge of the shopping center and it was a constant battle to try and get them all to toe the line. So, I think we should try to push on that. And then, I think staff can push on the fish logo, and also on the "West Coast Fish House" part. If it's not actually part of the trademark logo, I think we can edit those out if need be. And I think just the placement is a little chaotic, the relationship of the fish versus the "Pacific Catch." It's, like, different on each façade, so it makes it a little chaotic. Generally, I can support all the material changes, I can support changing the arches. I think most of those arches were added in the 80's and the shopping center has been removing them, trying to make it look more like the original shopping center, a little bit more modern. I can support all of that. In concept, I do support all the outdoor seating. I think that actually makes the shopping center more attractive. I would say it's an existing restaurant use, generally. And I think if we're talking about parking ratios, to me, that's a larger discussion. That's more than just this tenant improvement, so I'm not willing to... I would not, on this particular project, I would not say that it doesn't meet the findings with regard to functional parking, just for this one restaurant tenant. I think we need to have a larger discussion at a later time. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. Anything else? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Interesting comment about urbanization. I really like the use of that word because of what's happening here with an extreme number of people coming to that corner. It becomes a little place by itself, you know, and I kind of like the idea that there's more people kind of gathering or moving through that particular area. It does widen out as the trees, at the edge where you meet the street. It's a little bit more difficult to cross over to the parking lot, and I agree with Peter about the safety issues. They are in the parking lot more than they are as to the density of traffic in that tight area. But it's certainly possible that you could consider cutting the corner off of the outdoor area there and provide a little better access through to the inside of the mall. I really like this entry point here. It's one of my favorites to the mall itself, with the trees, with Segona's Market, with the coffee shop couple around the corner. What really bothers me most about the project is not the new design, but the fact that it isn't integrated better with the existing, the cupola design and the other new restaurant that's right around the corner. And it seems it's a single building and it ought to have been addressed by the owner of the whole place here, and in some way figured backwards from this particular design to how to make, integrate, or find a way to properly separate it from the other commercial establishments just around the corner. I'm really opposed to the entryway next to the tree that everybody is discussing on the sidewalk. I think it is a very constricted entry, and if it's going to be as popular as I imagine you want it to be, you should provide a better, more broader entry to it. And perhaps the motivation there seems that that's what the inside of the establishment has kind of created as your entry because there's, I believe, a raised area just inside the door on the left. You're maintaining that in some way? I don't understand why the entry has to be exactly at that point. I can understand your pick-up entry in that corner, but I just don't accept the fact that you have a tree right in front of the front door. There's just not enough space to get into the restaurant. I'm very much opposed to the last door not being City of Palo Alto Page 27 incorporated somehow, but if that's, again, with the owner, then there should be discussion about that with the owner so that it integrates the end of the building and the concept of the restaurant here to the rest of that building, rather than simply have a line at that point. What happens with the stucco color there? It just isn't answered at all here. I agree that squaring off the arches seems to be a reasonable idea, and the detail of the wood fabric is a nice addition here, and the character of the restaurant shows through pretty nicely here. But it doesn't end properly. It should go the full side of that building. I think that's mostly it. I think the materials are a pleasant change on the façade. It needs to be changed. I like the feel of the materials. Those are the comments that I have. They're mostly about the way it works with the existing building and the way it doesn't work with the existing building. Chair Furth: Thank you, David. Thank you for your presentation. It looks like it's going to be a really attractive place. I think it's going to vastly improve a really rather dreary section of the shopping center when you look at it either from the parking lot or from Sand Hill. I think most of my concerns have been raised by my colleagues. First of all, I can't really evaluate this without an accurate plan which shows Segona's, which shows the trees and the light poles, where they are, which shows Segona's produce stands out there. I literally could not figure out where everything fit. I paced some things off in an effort to figure it out, but we need a plan that's accurate, that shows Segona's, that shows Segona's external, you know, its racks and what-not. If you're planning to remove those, we need to know about that. I agree with both... We need that, first of all, to evaluate that pedestrian passageway. It is very population. I agree with Osma, you can get used to the charms of busy sidewalks. But this is a busy sidewalk that needs to accommodate the twin strollers, and the four junior high BFF's walking arm and arm, and an elderly couple leaning on each other, and it won't as far as I can tell. I need to see a plan that tells me how all those people move back and forth. We sometimes design things and implicitly tell some people not to come. I have a question of staff. Were bike racks removed from the front of this property? There's a bunch of holes punched in the sidewalk. Mr. Gutierrez: In the broader...? Chair Furth: No, right in front of the long side of the building, adjacent to the parking lot. Mr. Gutierrez: There were supposed to be bike racks by the corner area, where the transition is. Chair Furth: Well, something has been removed. I'm asking you, do we know what's been removed? Were they part of a plan to require a set of bike racks, or am I just completely confused? The applicant looks like he knows. Mr. Gutierrez: We'd have to investigate that. I'm not aware [crosstalk]. Mr. Smith: There were existing planters out there that were removed, as well as there was an existing patio area... Chair Furth: Got it. Mr. Smith ...that expands the area that we're proposing [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: So, the holes in the sidewalk were simply because that's where the planters were anchored. Mr. Smith: All part of those areas. Chair Furth: Thank you. That's very helpful. Mr. Smith: Bike racks were not removed from there. Chair Furth: Thanks. Very much. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Keith Cox, Pacific Catch: Would you mind if I answered? Chair Furth: Of course. Just introduce yourself for our transcriber. Mr. Cox: My name is Keith Cox and I'm the founder and CEO of Pacific Catch. Since I do know this answer... Chair Furth: Welcome to town. Mr. Cox: Thank you, and thanks for hearing this, and for your comments. There are bike racks along that long side, and they'll be going back in. They're removed because we're ready to do the barricades for construction. We haven't put anything up yet, but [crosstalk] Chair Furth: They did look like bike rack holes. Mr. Cox: Yeah, and they will be going back in. Chair Furth: Thank you. I agree that on the parking lot side, this building eve frontage is looking pretty dreary. I was going to ask my colleagues, is there something about the material that makes it particularly prone to soot staining? Because it looks like it's smoggier than it actually is here. Board Member Thompson: You mean the existing façade? Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Thompson: I think it's just [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Every horizontal element has its little outline of grime. I'd like to know more about how, when it's re-done, that won't be a problem. Board Member Lew: I don't know the specifics about this, but there are different ways of doing stucco. You can do interval color, or you can do panes, which is like a film of plastic. The downside with the... Well, the upside of interval color is you've got a very nice, soft, thick color, except when it rains. Then it turns it dark, and then it highlights all the dirt when it does that. Which is what I think I saw yesterday. Chair Furth: It looks particularly bad in the rain, may be the problem. Board Member Lew: Yeah... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: And it also, Max's is a very old tenant. They've been there for a long time. Chair Furth: It's been a while since this has been, as they say, refreshed. I do agree that the transition between the Pacific Catch restaurant and The Melt needs more work, and that seems to be property controlled, an area controlled by Simon. Is that correct? That's correct. And we need something to happen. I like the new horizontal, the new squared-off entries. I think that's lovely. You're quite right that the arches look rather tired and dated, but I think when this comes back, we need to see how there's going to be something other than a change in paint color to make that transition work. I have no idea how. To staff, I don't think the fish gets to be called "art." I think it's an integral part of their sign. We think of the difficulty we gave that poor man with his bicycle drawing on California Avenue; there's no way on earth. Plus, this is a self... City of Palo Alto Page 29 Mr. Gutierrez: It is signage. Chair Furth: ... [crosstalk] design code. Mr. Gutierrez: It is signage. Chair Furth: Staff is agreeing on that point. I do think it's important that the planters have plants in them that comply with our code, for two reasons. One is, it's inherently a good thing. The other one is, the shopping center is a trend center. People look at what they did and they think, "Oh, I'll go do that. You have great pot planters." Planter gardeners. Sorry. Gardeners. Container gardeners. So, I want to see 100 percent compliant landscaping. And I cannot support burning ornamental, burning natural gas for ornamental purposes and making our environmental findings. I mean, going to this workshop in Stanford that keeps telling me we have 10 years to the apocalypse, why are we burning gas ornamentally? I mean, you can run some numbers and tell me why you're not really burning gas, but until you see that, I’m going to oppose that. Board Member Thompson: You're referring to the firepit? Chair Furth: I am. If it's electric and we have 100 percent clean energy, fine. But again, it's a trend center. Why would we do this? I think that's all I have to say. Which is probably plenty from the applicant's point of view. Anything else? Okay. Staff, any questions? Mr. Gutierrez: No, none. Board Member Lew: I think we should have a discussion, though. The staff recommendation is for these things to come back to subcommittee, so I think we have to deliberate on what we want, how we want it to come back. Chair Furth: All right. I will tell you that I think it needs to come back to us. I do think with an accurate site plan, we would be better able, for example, to think about David's points about the entry. It does bother me that the main entry is at the parking lot, but the delivery entry point is in that heavily-traveled pedestrian area. That does not seem at all desirable. It might work, but I can't tell without an accurate site plan, so I want it to come back. Board Member Thompson: There is existing outdoor seating there right now, and I think that... There isn't? Google Earth tells me there is. There's a picture. In the site plan it shows existing patio to be demo'd, and it looks like the depth of that patio is, at least on the plans, right side, is about the same. It's really the stuff that's on the parking garage side that's extra, right? Mr. Tasse: Correct. That first patio that's in the market area, that was there for about 30 years. That was, the draw to Pacific Catch, of course, was to find a location where the patio furniture could be utilized, as well as for Simon Properties to get a tenant in there that would have patio uses, that being that primary, first entry point into the shopping center. I think some of the issues brought up this morning were some of the common area items, and I think originally we were moving alongside the same time as Simon with the improvements they are proposing, with some other alterations and improvement. We just need to probably re-engage with them and get their layers and show a little bit more of their project and that common area, so it's very clear how we overlay on top of that. I think we can work with staff to make sure that the committee is completely on board with all clearances, and the flow of traffic, certainly that would be a concern of Keith's as well, making sure that people can get to the restaurant and also continue on into the shopping center. Chair Furth: They need to be able to get to See's Candies. Mr. Tasse: The common area to the back of house, that might have been a mistake of mine, probably in being advantageous and keep, keep rendering and just extending that on. We can look at a lot of City of Palo Alto Page 30 different options. We did review that area with Simon group, and maybe it's just removing the arch and doing a whole different little detail there to have a transition point. Chair Furth: I think everybody up here is supportive of your outdoor uses. I literally cannot see how it works because of the plan. Mr. Tasse: You need to see the bigger... Board Member Thompson: Just for the transcriber, my phone has the old patio image on there. I don't know if you guys want to see it. But I think it's also in the A, 101-A, is kind of showing a really faint dash of how deep that went. Board Member Lew: Right, there is that, but then, also the trees are not in accurate locations, and then there are new light fixtures that aren't shown at all. We're not seeing, whatever it is, we're not seeing everything. Board Member Thompson: That's true. That's fair. Vice Chair Baltay: I want to be clear, I'm not opposed to outdoor dining in that location. I think it's a great spot for that dining to be, but I think it needs to be scaled back a bit to be more compatible with what was there. I think you need to really demonstrate to us that you're not impeding pedestrian traffic, and that it's safe and functional. I think you've pushed the boundaries another couple of feet into the public market area where Segona's is, and especially that corner where Segona's is. You're just cutting it too tight. And then, the corner by the front door where that tree is, you're just cutting it too tight again. It just isn't going to work, what you've planned, and once you look at the site plan correctly, you'll see that. But absolutely it's a great place for outdoor dining as a whole. Your concept is good. I don't think you should veer away from it completely, just tweak it. Chair Furth: And maybe the changes involve changes in the other uses of that space, but we need to see them. I just couldn't make the trees line up with the drawings, and so on and so forth. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll address the parking issue to my colleagues, that I think Alex is correct. It's not at all fair to hold one tenant improvement responsible for the parking issues at Stanford Shopping Center. But if I think the Board speaks firmly and clearly about this, and consistently, then we will see improvements and things being changed. If we're mute on it, we won't. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? Peter, you and I would like it to come back. Board Member Lew: Staff had commented on the concrete planters being incongruous with the rest of the materials. I don't think I've heard anybody comment on that. I think we mentioned, commented on the materials in general. Chair Furth: Would you agree with staff on that point? Board Member Lew: When I look, something seems, something seems... There seems to be something off. But it's a minor point. MOTION Chair Furth: All right. Could somebody make a motion to have this returned at a date certain? Uncertain? What's the preference? Mr. Smith: We'd like to have the date certain to come back. City of Palo Alto Page 31 Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, and so, April 4th would be the next possible hearing, but that's a very quick turnaround for the applicant. So, I think we should talk through maybe what the changes are that we're expecting and see if they are able to meet that. Otherwise, it will be April 18th. Chair Furth: What's your preference? Ms. Gerhardt: And I do have a summary of the issues. It sounds like we're wanting a more accurate site plan, and that goes to the point of, you know, there might be pinch points on that outdoor space on the plaza, and also there's another pinch point on the parking lot outdoor space, the conflicts maybe with the tree. A more accurate site plan would give us that information. There was also conversation about the entry and the proper location given the tree and other features. I didn't hear a conclusion on that topic. The other thing is the rogue arch, which I agree need to be incorporated. Chair Furth: Very special interest. Ms. Gerhardt: And so, you know, just some more details about how that's going to be, how that transition is going to work there. It sounds like the native planting materials... Chair Furth: Matters to me. Ms. Gerhardt: ...that we're in agreement with the staff changes. Chair Furth: Anybody opposed to that? Board Member Lew: No. Ms. Gerhardt: And then on the signage, there seems to be agreement of reducing the signage to meet the code and the design guidelines. Chair Furth: Yes, and I would say that I am very supportive of the notion of having a sign that reads well from Sand Hill, but the signage more interior to the project seems to me to be out of scale. Too big. Vice Chair Baltay: Very well. I'll move that we continue this project to April 18th, subject to the comments just outlined. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Vice Chair Baltay: The 18th. I believe they'll need more time to get the site plan information figured out and I don't want to see them rush on that. It's important. April 18th, subject to the comments made by Director Jodie Gerhardt. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, the applicant is urgently wishing to talk to us. Mr. Smith: If we met the April 4th, when would you need the documents? Ms. Gerhardt: Tomorrow. It would be tomorrow. Mr. Smith: Yeah, we couldn't do that. Chair Furth: The professionals up here, which do not include me, tend to have a really strong sense of what the planning turnaround is. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Mr. Smith: Okay. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Can you also add a note to Jodie's note? Just a more accurate site plan, but also have more information, like adjacent structures. Chair Furth: The adjacent uses, formal and informal, the light poles, all the things that are there. And if they plan to remove some of them, that would be good to know. Thank you. Did we have a motion and a second? I forget. Alex seconded it. All in favor say aye? Opposed, no? It passes 5-0, no absences. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Chair Furth: We're going to take a five-minute break, and then we'll hear our last item. [The Board took a short break.] 4. 375 University Avenue [18PLN-00408]. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of Facade Improvements and Associated Modifications to the Former Cheesecake Factory Building. Proposed Improvements Include Renovation of the University Avenue Facade, as well as Minor Renovations to the Side and Rear (Alley) Elevations to Remove and Replace Decorative Wall Elements. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial District (CD-C(GF)(P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Graham Owen at Graham.Owen@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Furth: And our last public hearing item is 375 University Avenue. It's a request for preliminary architectural review of façade improvements and associated modifications to the former Cheesecake Factory building. Proposed improvements include renovation of the University Avenue façade, as well as minor renovations to the side and rear alley elevations; to remove and replace decorative wall elements. This is not a project under CEQA. The architect is C2K and the client/property owner/applicant is Rapp Development, or some variation on that name. First of all, has everybody visited the site? Including eaten there? Male??: [off microphone] Yes. Board Member Thompson: Yes. So long ago. Chair Furth: Yes, we have all visited the site, internally and externally. Better known as the Cheesecake Factory. And some months ago I had a conversation with Mr. Rapp, and Mr. Rapp, the younger, and Steve Emsley [phonetic], to talk about the fact that they were going to re-do this building, and that they had hired architects they highly valued. I learned a lot about the history of this particular site. I couldn't tell them what the Board was going to think, but looked forward to hearing it. Board Member Thompson: I have a question. Chair Furth: Yes? I think you need to speak into your mic a little more. Board Member Thompson: Oh, sorry. Thank you. If we had communications with members of the public about this, do we need to disclose that? Chair Furth: It's a good idea to say that you had them, and if they gave you interesting or relevant information, say that. Say what it is. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Board Member Thompson: I did have a conversation with a member of the public who used to live in Palo Alto and used to frequent the Cheesecake Factory. They just told me what they thought about the design. Should I disclose that? Chair Furth: Sure. Board Member Thompson: They thought it was handsome. Chair Furth: They thought it was a handsome design, okay. I’m sure the applicant can handle that. Okay, staff. Graham Owen, Planning staff: Thank you, Chair. Graham Owen with City Planning staff. This is the Cheesecake Factory building, as you mentioned earlier, 375 University Avenue. This is a preliminary review, so it's an early look at a potential project on the site. The purpose of the hearing today is to just gather non-binding, objective feedback from the Board that can inform a future project that's submitted as formal architectural review application. This is primarily an exterior renovation of the former Cheesecake Factory building. The renovation would include a number of things - The wholesale replacement of the façade of the building on University Avenue; some interior modifications, of course, to prepare for prospective new tenants; new paint on the exterior sides and rear walls of the buildings; and the replacement of the decorative sidewalk that was put in place with the Cheesecake Factory back in 2003. Here's the site. As mentioned, you're all fairly familiar with it. It's in the CD-C(GF)(P) zone, which is the Downtown core. This is the primary retail core of downtown. Comprehensive Plan land use designation of Regional Community Commercial. About one-quarter of an acre of lot area. Previous use was the Cheesecake Factory restaurant, and the building is about 13,000 square feet. The architects discussed with me briefly before the presentation that they've actually made some modifications to the front façade of the building, so I'm going to be very brief in my remarks because there are some changes to the exterior. This is the streetscape elevation, some images from University Avenue showing the existing Cheesecake Factory building, which is the pink plaster building. That's right up against two one-story shorter sections, the Crepevine restaurant as well as the Paris Baguette restaurant on either side, flanking the building. The proposal would keep approximately the same mass as the building would significantly increase the amount of glazing on the site. It would have a new type of exterior, going from plaster to a stone veneer, with a marble-like base. The windows, as you can see, have a number of grids in the top sections, and a fully transparent pedestrian-level façade. I'll go through these fairly quickly, but these are the front and the right-hand facades showing the building. This is the rear, so these sections, as you can see, would just be painted to match or to be consistent with the overall design theme on the front. Again, this is a preliminary review. A couple key issues with regard to the proposal. Projects in the Downtown are evaluated for consistency with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines, which include a number of provisions about the treatment of facades, ensuring that especially on University Avenue, that the pedestrian realm is highlighted and expressed in a meaningful manner. The mass and scale of the building, in particular looking at the vertical fenestration pattern of the façade. The Downtown Design Guidelines really highlight the importance of having high-quality, durable materials, do encourage the use of overhangs, both for weather protection and also for framing the pedestrian realm and the sidewalk. They also include a number of provisions for increasing the use and friendliness of alleys. That's about it. I'll turn it over to the architect because they made some changes to the façade since I put this presentation together. The purpose of the hearing, again, is to provide feedback to the applicant so that they can take the feedback and form a formal presentation in the future. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Graham before we hear from the applicant? Applicant, please. Roxie Rapp, Owner: Thank you. My name is Roxie Rapp, the owner. I'm excited to be here. I've got to answer this young lady's question. Fifteen years ago, the Cheesecake Factory master leased the property and they had complete control of re-doing it. They did it all in this gingerbread, Las Vegas-style. Which every Christmas, every December, I get a letter. This last December, they weren't here. That was the only December I didn’t get a letter saying that this is the most ugliest building on University Avenue. So, that's the way I've started off Christmas every year, receiving this letter. I'm very excited about getting it City of Palo Alto Page 34 changed and having C2K redesign it. They did a beautiful building for my best friend and myself up in Portland, Oregon, and that's where I first met them, up there. They've done a lot of retail and buildings and are very talented. I'm going to turn it over to Steve, the architect from C2K. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Rapp, and that's with two "p's," right? For our transcriber, who probably already knows how to spell it. Mr. Rapp. Thank you. Steve Ohlhaber, C2K Architecture: Good morning. My name is Steve Ohlhaber, I'm with C2K Architecture. Chair Furth: You need to spell that for the transcriber. Mr. Ohlhaber: [spells name] One thing before we get started, you'll notice that the façade is a little bit different than what is in your packet. I brought a couple extra packets here for you to get a closer look at, as well as we have a little bit of our preliminary paint finish board and smaller samples of the stone body and the product we're looking for for the simulated wood underside of the soffits. Basically, what changed in the design was doing some preliminary demo on the interior of the building. We came across the fact that, at one point or another, it wasn't built per the drawings that we had, and the brace frame for the front of the building, it was actually moved into the front, not according to the drawings that we had. Since the intent isn't to tear down the main structure of the building, it's to work with the existing structure, work with the existing roofs, and really take a look at repositioning the front façade on University Avenue, we looked at, how can we work with the brace frame that's there, inside the building? It's basically a three-portal frame that comes up to approximately this height and spans across. It has large columns, 16 x 37, so they are of significant and significant foundation because this is basically the moment frame for the front of the building. It's basically a double-high space al the way through, so this is providing the stiffness at this side. That being said, we're looking at, the major goal is to reposition the Cheesecake Factory, remove the branded sort of appearance that is reminiscence of that retailer, and to find a way to create a new façade for the building that could promote a single- or multi-tenant function, and can accommodate tenants over the years to come. To do a design that is sort of classical in nature and proportion, but also helps try to bring the scale of the building down. It's roughly 33-foot-six to the parapet. We're keeping existing height. What we're trying to do is enhance the street scape feel by introducing the awning so that it matches up with the Crepevine and the Paris Baguette awning on the other side. Try to keep the feeling of stepping in the retail or the storefront glass elevations so that there's areas where people can take a pause before they walk by the building and do window shopping. And also, to provide glass for the interior of the space. It's a double-high space and the site is approximately, I think, 123 feet deep. So, provide a way that we can bring a lot of natural light deep into the building space, instead of it being a very cavernous space as it was in the Cheesecake days. Create a space that is very open and light and seemingly transparent with the street, and also welcoming to the pedestrians as they walk by. For materials, we're looking at, again, trying to do something that is sympathetic with the adjacent buildings, primarily Crepevine and Paris Baguette, but also, as we move up and down University, we wanted to fixate on a material that was durable, that was natural, that actually also, again, helps bring down the scale of the building. Therefore, we selected two stones. One stone is for the body of the building, and that's the Travertine. New Fango is the brand name for it. It's a fill Travertine, so it will have that smooth texture to it. And then, the base is a flamed granite, extends roughly about 3-foot-6 up on the base of the building to help equalize the proportions of the façade. That wall, we're working on the details for how we're going to transition it into the main stone, but at this point, we're looking at doing probably a chance run [phonetic], so the base sits a little proud, adds a little weight to the building, but also creates more of a smoother edge as it transitions up into the stone. For the openings, we wanted to introduce sort of a contrasting steel material to the nat... Well, it's natural. Either way, you'll get it. But to do more of a, sort of a stronger and very rectilinear design. Use the idea of warehouse windows to, again, help bring the proportion of the façade down, and keeping the main street scape to be just (inaudible) glazed and keep the pedestrian experience very open and very promoting of sidewalk shopping. The lighting on the building, we're proposing sconces at each one of the columns or pilasters, looking at doing an up/down light so that it helps accentuate at night the natural City of Palo Alto Page 35 stone finish of the building. Also proposing -- next iteration -- up lights in the sidewalk to, again, help highlight the texture of the building. The awnings themselves, we're proposing having dimmable lights in the awnings to help bring some light down to the sidewalk space, so at nighttime, as it gets darker out, it will be photosensitive timer and motion sensor according to the City code and ordinance. It helps activate the ground plane so as people come by, it doesn't seem like sort of a dark place. And then, an amount of glass also helps with the internal lighting of the retail spill out on to the street, so it's a very friendly, enticing building to walk by. These are a couple of the updated elevations. You can see it's a very symmetrical design right now, primarily driven by the portal frames. We are still in the process, we don't really have a tenant that we're designing this for, but the design as it stands right now is a two-tenant scenario, where there's an asymmetrical division of the tenant space, one on one side and one on the other side of this column. Therefore, the main door would be in the central division, and a secondary door for the secondary tenant in the smaller division. Again, the idea for the design is so that it can support a variety of different tenants as the building goes forward and as tenants move in and move out. We are redoing the coping on the front of the building. It will be a painted metal coping to match the warehouse-style windows and the metal awnings, front. As we move over to the sides of the building, what we're doing is transitioning to the existing coping, which will be refinished with a new paint look. We will be transitioning the stone around the side of the building, so from the streetscape, the feeling is that the stone actually extends back into and around the building. This is the other side. This is Crepevine right here. And then, as we move to the back of the building, the concept is basically keeping the shell of it as is, removing the lit medallion lights that are located along the back that are reminiscent of the Cheesecake. Repainting the building so that the paints are sympathetic with the stone on the front. Introducing a color for the base, so again, we're pulling from the front of the building around to the back to help create that same vision for, an identity for the building itself. And then, at each of the openings, like we were using the darker, almost black color to highlight the warehouse windows and the entries on the front. Again, we're doing that here on the back. However, we have the service entry door that houses all the recycling and trash. That is behind here. And then, we have two doors for entry into the building on either side. The idea is as those alcoves are about five feet deep or so, they'd be painted as well. So, it's easily identifiable where you enter the building from the back, but as far as overall clean-up, it's not just a pink façade as it is right now. It's got the same sort of ideas and concept as is happening at the front of the building. These are a couple of the updated renderings, looking from various angles of University Avenue. And then, this is a quick rendering of the back. You can see how the darker color does point out the entry points into the building here, and you can see how the continuous painting of the coping sort of extends all the way around the building. This is sort of street scape shot here, to give a look and feel from the sitting area that is opposite Paris Baguette. For the sidewalk treatments... Chair Furth: Excuse me, why don't you take another minute, and then we'll probably have a lot of questions for you. I forgot to tell you you had 10 minutes. Mr. Ohlhaber: Okay. I'll just wrap it up then. The last part really is the sidewalk treatments. Currently, right now, it is branded for the Cheesecake Factory. What we would like to do is basically use the street City standard street scape in the division of the concrete, with the brick border along the curb line. Per code, we're required to have four short-term bicycle places. There are two staple-style racks or inverted U racks that we are proposing at each of the prospective sides of the building. And again, it sort of replicates what is seen a little bit further on down the street in front of the Medallion Rug store. There's also additional short-term bike term parking around the corner here of Paris Baguette, but that's not really allocated to our project. I'm not just sure where that one (inaudible) to, but that was our proposed way to address short-term parking, and the street scape itself. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions? Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Is there a paint sample for the painted stucco? Mr. Ohlhaber: Yeah. You'll see on the board there, there's going to be two pairs of paint. They're paired vertically. The middle one is, yeah, the middle one, that would be the one that matches up with the stone, and the one right below it would be the base that's mimicked on the back of the building. The one City of Palo Alto Page 36 in the upper left-hand corner, the dark, almost black, is the accent that you'll see on the warehouse windows on the corniche molding. The two on the right were basically an alternate as the design - and even as the client - were not really happy about it too much because it has a lot more of the pink tones. They are more reminiscent of the Cheesecake Factory. And I think what we want to do is try to rebrand the building entirely and stick to something more in the taupes and the grays. The lighting is a little different in here, too. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant's architect? Apparently not. You can be seated. It's a study session, so we may ask you more questions. I forgot to say the other thing I said to the Rapp family when I was talking with them, was that when we had reviewed design within reach just up the block, which is actually part of the Masonic Temple's holding, we put a lot of emphasis on the alley side, because this is one of the alleys... Graham, what's this kind of alley called? A destination alley, or something weird. Mr. Owen: (inaudible) Chair Furth: A place alley. It's supposed to be pleasant to walk through, but also pleasant to stop and talk to somebody in. Okay, I get to start this time. I'm the only one left. I never thought of this building as "Las Vegas." I sort of thought of it as not-very-good Assyrian temple, but good to know. And I am so pleased that you are bringing this project to us. My first impressions from the elevations is that it's going to be a very good-looking building and fit well in this block. You have some advantages in this block. One is that the design within reach project recesses its second story, so that means maintaining your up-to- the-curb second story isn't too oppressive when you look at the context as a whole. We'll see what happens to Crepevine. And you have seating at the corner, so I'm not going to be saying, "Where's your bench?" I do think you should meet the code on bicycle. I am concerned about the back. If you look at the pictures of when it was the Cheesecake Factory, they didn't just use their internal trash room. They had trash bins back there. We're not going to accept that kind of usage of that alley anymore. Paris Baguette does have a trash room, but I understand you'll never do it... Mr. Rapp: We have [inaudible-off microphone] next door to the trash bin. Chair Furth: Right. Could you come to the mic and explain that? Mr. Rapp: We have the enclosed trash area, and it also houses the grease trap. It's next door, where the Paris Baguette is, that's their trash. Chair Furth: That's the problem. Mr. Rapp: That's theirs. And then, the other people, Crepevine, on their parking, has their trash area there. Ours is all enclosed. You don't see it at all. Chair Furth: And that would still work when it was a restaurant, or if it becomes a restaurant, that will be adequate space? Mr. Rapp: Oh, yeah, that's why we... Yeah. We're not ripping it out, no. Chair Furth: Okay. Thank you. And I had a question for staff. This is quite a patchwork sidewalk, isn't it? Along this block? It isn't just the custom Cheesecake Factory sidewalk there? Isn't there something odd between, beyond that? Ms. Gerhardt: I don't have the existing conditions in my head, but we certainly are trying Downtown to do just a standard gray sidewalk, but then to have that brick trim. And then, on the corners, to have brick corners. That is our standard that we are, as new projects come in... City of Palo Alto Page 37 Chair Furth: My question really is, is this going to leave a gap of unimproved sidewalk in front of somebody else's building? But you can answer that next time. I can't tell but it looks like Paris Baguette may have something odd, but maybe not. I can't remember. I just remember it's very varied, that block. Not really the applicant's responsibility. I believe that's all I have to say. Mr. Rapp: It's going to match design within reach. They put in a new sidewalk. Chair Furth: Great, thank you. Alex. Board Member Lew: Thank you. I think it looks great. I don't really have any comments. I think it will be able to meet the findings. The only thing that I noticed on the building, the existing building, there's a, like a metal slashing that goes around the building. I think maybe they are different wall thicknesses. It's like an angled metal slashing, and it seems to be in bad shape. I think what happens is when you paint, like, galvanized metal, it has to be prepared properly, and it doesn't seem like the Cheesecake Factory did that and all the paint peeled off. Mr. Ohlhaber: It's not metal. It's actually a fiberglass resin. Board Member Lew: Interesting. It's not holding the paint. Or is it just dirt? Anyway, whatever it is, it's not working. Chair Furth: It needs to be changed. Mr. Ohlhaber: It's probably bleached out, too, as most of the stuff up on the roof is. And one of the reasons for keeping it is that it is in place... Obviously, we'll have to replace it with the new metal one on the front to improve the design on it. But it's sort of thing where it's tied into the existing roof, so, since we're not redoing the existing roof, it... Board Member Lew: Okay. I'm not talking about the upper one. There's something lower down. Not the parapet cap. There's an angled [crosstalk] that's lower. Mr. Ohlhaber: Right, right. Board Member Lew: It looks to me to be metal. Anyway, it's a minor issue. Mr. Ohlhaber: You are correct in that one. That is metal, and what it is, it's basically the partee wall as it extends up, and it looks like when the Cheesecake Factory was built, the way the construction happened is that there is the outer firewall, and the inner wall actually comes up higher, so they're using this as the flashing. Board Member Lew: Right. Mr. Ohlhaber: But the thought is that all of that would be repainted. Board Member Lew: Right. I think my only comment is that galvanized metal has to be prepared properly. Otherwise the paint won't stick to it. Mr. Ohlhaber: Yeah, like a zinc primer. Chair Furth: David. Board Member Hirsch: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Osma. City of Palo Alto Page 38 Board Member Thompson: Okay. Thanks for your presentation. I actually wanted to clarify the note that I had from a member of the public. Actually, I have a text, so I'll, just to make sure I say... I'd like to retract what I said earlier and replace it with, "I like it better, a lot better, it fits well with what seems to be an increasingly popular two-story expression along University by most buildings." So, that's that. I had a couple of notes. I think it's great that you have the paint samples and the material samples. The renderings look a little cold. They look kind of gray and cold, and it's nice to see the Travertine. It's nice to see the paint, as well, that it's not as gray as I thought. There's warmth in here, and I think the choices that you made, the sanderling and the foothills, your primary choices I think are the correct ones. I think you're right that the alternates are definitely a bit incongruous with your Travertine and granite choices, so I would support that. The adjacent structures like Paris Baguette and Design Within Reach are starting to get colder as well in terms of their palette, so that was one concern of mine, that this would be another gray building. But it doesn't seem to be the case at all, so I appreciate that choice. I also notice that the awning height is not really aligned with Paris Baguette or Crepevine. Initially that was a point of concern for me, but after looking at your renderings a bit more, because your building is taller, it makes sense that your awning height would be higher. And so, even though they don't really match up, I think scale-wise it still works with the proportions of your building. I wanted to know, in your site plan, you noted the FDC, the fire department connection. The details for that was something I didn't see, but there's there danger that could become a protrusion more than four inches, and then you'd have to create cane detection, and that would be right in front of your building. I don't know how you plan to detail that, if you plan to recess that, but it would just be something that would, you know, this beautiful rendering is not showing the FDC, and it's not a very big thing, but it could become... It's one of the things where if you don’t think about it, it could just be this tacked-on thing, and then you have to add bollards, or something, cane detection. You don't want to have to do that. I just wanted to alert you to that, that detailing that would be an important element for this otherwise very simple and clean façade. The aesthetic is quite nice. It's something that's trendy, like industrial chic. I worked in an industrial building in San Francisco in Dogpatch that has very similar fenestration to this. I'm not sure you're familiar with it. It's the AI building that's on Third Street and 20th, and they have very similar, kind of large windows. One thing that's nice about those windows is that they operate in two directions, so when you open one from the bottom, the upper also lowers, so you get this really nice air circulation. That was one thing I had a note, that there could be a nice opportunity here, because you're already using that architectural expression, that there could be an opportunity to have your windows open from the top and allow some natural ventilation cycling through there. Especially if, you know, it's already kind of in your vocabulary, I feel like adding that would be a benefit to the building. I want to say that that's most of my notes. I do miss the Cheesecake Factory. I had cheesecake with a boy that I liked in my teenage years over there, so definitely some good memories. But I think this new, this new project is definitely, is quite good-looking, and I think it would fit well. Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, Osma, I have to say, I’m not going to miss the Cheesecake Factory. I think this is a great building. It's really going to look nice. I support what everybody said. Let me throw it to you, that what I'm seeing here is more of an idea than a bunch of details, and to me, it's all in the detailing. I caution you to really think through these windows, show us what they're going to look like, make some good scale drawings of it, and really push your client to spend money on the windows. It's going to matter. You've really got to do it right, and they're going to be there for a long time. That's what the whole building is about. Secondly, the detail of the way your base element transitions to the rest of the stone is important. And you mentioned maybe a little bevel there. You might want to really think that through. Just get it right. Those are small details that carry the whole thing through. Lastly, you mentioned the idea of lighting up and down, and if you can get internal lighting that illuminates that two- story space, it will be fantastic. I really encourage you to go for that. It's a great project. Thanks for bring it to us. Chair Furth: David. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Board Member Hirsch: Well, I agree with the term "industrial chic." I like the warehouse window concept. I wonder about the usage of this building on the street, though, sort of relative to enlivening the street and outdoor areas. I know you have to keep the options open for what is the retail within, but is there the possibility, or could there be the possibility, that if you get a restaurant, they'll actually want to open it more to the street, as so many other of the street services offer University. If it isn't that... By the way, the first rendering made it appear more to me as if it were a bank building, to be honest. And I would consider that to be kind of a limitation relative to the uses that might happen within. I think it's important to think about the interiors and how they might be used here, especially with the possibility of a second story that would enjoy the fact that they're looking out from those large industrial-looking windows above. Other than that, I think it really is an elegantly-proportioned building, and even better now that it's divided into three pieces. Definitely an improvement over the Cheesecake Factory. Which I did have a cheesecake, and it wasn't bad at all. Chair Furth: Thank you. I also would like to see a bit more about how the alley side is going to work. I'm particularly thinking about the lighting, which shouldn't just be for taking the trash in and out, it should be for people walking by, so that it's pleasant at night. I mean, it's the lighting to the rear of these buildings that determines how comfortable people feel walking through there, and they should feel comfortable. Anything else? And I definitely don't think you should grow any vines over the front of this. It looks good without it. Does this have the usual 18-inch recess for pedestrian overlay? Ms. Gerhardt: I don't know that it's 18 inches, but yes, there is the pedestrian overlay that requires the recessed [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: I think it's per linear foot, or something? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, 1.5... Board Member Lew: [crosstalk] linear footage. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. Chair Furth: I think we're done, unless there's anything else anybody wants. See, some of these are easy. Okay. Let us know when you... We're not done. We have the last items on the agenda. We don't need a motion on this because we're done, right? Would you like your...? What would you like? Is there a question? Oh, you want your stuff. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements and Discussion items. Chair Furth: Okay, first item, board member questions, comments, announcements and discussion items. Do you have any report on the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan? Alex? Board Member Lew: The next meeting is on Monday night at the Ventura Community Center, which is the old school, and it's a City Council meeting for the neighborhood. Chair Furth: Should be good. Anything else anybody wants to say about Ventura? Okay. Item 2, discussion of City response and decisions related to recent ARB recommendations. Peter and I met with Jodie and the Community Development Director, Jonathan Lait, to talk about what happens to our recommendations after they leave us. Peter, you want to talk about the research you did? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. To put this issue in context, over the past couple of years, it seems like a lot, but it was maybe half a dozen decisions or recommendations the Board has made have been overturned, or the Director has recommended otherwise. So, I went back through, back to 2015, and found that there was a fistful of projects where our recommendation was not followed. They were mostly public projects. The two parking garages over on California Avenue. There was a recommendation we made on the roof of the Junior Museum that was not followed. And then, a couple of these cell phone things. That's all City of Palo Alto Page 40 been in the newspapers lately. I did not find significant other issues where the Director did not take our recommendation. And that was back through 2015. I did notice that prior to that, it seemed there'd never been a case where the recommendation wasn't followed, but also had been very few cases where the Board had denied projects. There were two significant denials the Board had made, which the staff upheld. Two-oh-three Forest is the one that comes to mind. My conclusion was that the Director was taking our recommendations on the whole, and I think there's extenuating circumstances on the items that I did mention. I think that responds to your question, right, Wynne? Chair Furth: Anybody else have any comments in that area? Alex? Board Member Lew: I'm not going to say anything at this time. Chair Furth: Okay, fine. Two small items. We all got emails, we've should've gotten emails, telling us to get in our... Vice Chair Baltay: I did want to, on that same subject, I do feel that what has been lacking is a sense of feedback back to the Board of what is going on. I had to work very hard to find that information I just talked about, and I think a member of the public just wouldn't be able to do that. I was only helped because I had some memory of these projects. And we've talked to staff and they've agreed that there needs to be some mechanism to report back to the Board what the Director's decision is on our projects, which they've started doing already, I believe. Just so we have a sense of feedback. Board Member Lew: I think that's very important, and it should be easy to find. I think the main issue here is that if the public hears the ARB recommendation, they will think that that's the decision, even though it's not. Vice Chair Baltay: That's exactly right, Alex. Board Member Lew: Yeah. And then, the issue is, then what happens? And that's where I think everything gets murky. From the public's point of view. Like, it's hard to know what's going on. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, hopefully the Director, if the decision is otherwise, explains it in a way that people can understand. Chair Furth: And explains it at this meeting, which is where some people follow what's happening. Okay. Thank you for changing that. I'm also interested in hearing when projects don't get built. When we review something and it never happens. I don't know if that's feedback or not. In some cases, it may be. But if a project, if we work on something and then it goes away, I think it's interesting to know about that. Board Member Lew: Probably about money. Chair Furth: Well, it's interesting. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, for information. When projects are officially approved by the Director, or, you know, some projects go on to Council, those are noticed to neighbors. Most of these projects have a 600- foot radius that we notice to. We also have a web page, we have a web page for pending projects that are coming to ARB, and then, we also have an "Approved" page. So, projects are moved from "Pending" to "Approved." We can maybe be better about some of the details on those web pages. And then, the other thing, as you noted, we've started sending emails to the Board when we send the letter out to the mailing radius. We're also now emailing the Board and letting them know that we've done that. And then, lastly, the agenda has been updated to include these recent project decision so that we can discuss those in the future. So, hopefully, you know, if that sounds reasonable. And as far as when things are built, I know that Development Services used to have a newsletter. I don't know if they're still doing that, and I can look into that. City of Palo Alto Page 41 Chair Furth: Well, you do a lot already, and I think what you're proposing will make it even better. Thank you. I wanted to say that we should have all gotten an email, asking us to file our Form 700 electronically. We need to do that this month. It's gotten to the point where it's pretty easy. Of course, the less property you have, the easier it is. And less debt. Board Member Hirsch: I didn't get one of those. A 700 form? Board Member Thompson: Was it emailed? Chair Furth: It's an email. Board Member Lew: Form 700 is backwards-looking. You're reporting your previous year's financial disclosure. Board Member Hirsch: Maybe I had to do it for my first... Chair Furth: You would have had to do an assuming office statement, but you'll need... When did you assume office, David? Board Member Hirsch: December. Chair Furth: I think you're still going to have to file an updated form. It's just easier to file the form than explain to them why you didn't. Ms. Gerhardt: I'll talk to the Clerk's Office. Chair Furth: They have a fairly automated system of sending you nasty letters if they don't have the box checked. The other thing I wanted to say is that we owe the City Council an annual report on our activities and items that we think should be brought to their attention. I did look at one of the past reports. I wanted to suggest that we briefly think about what we want to have in here. In view of the charge to us, I would like to have short paragraphs on some issues that we've seen that might be of interest to them. I think an example of that is our perception or our question as to whether the Stanford Shopping Center parking standards are accurate. And I’m envisioning, you know, City Council attention span, because they have a lot to deal with, sort of short paragraphs on these issues. And I’m actually interested in something a little more complicated, which is, if you look at what we've looked at over the past year, what have those jobs done in terms of our jobs/housing balance. We don't look at single- family homes, but we look at multiple-family homes, and I think it's an interesting snapshot as to what, you know, how we're doing on our surplus of work spaces over... Board Member Lew: Well, the mayor just gave a very well-done talk on that on... Monday? Tuesday. Chair Furth: Which I didn't quite make it to, but I will look at the tape. I'm sure it was very pointed. And accurate. And analytic. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: It was actually very broad, statewide issues that he's concerned about. Chair Furth: Yeah. Jodie, could you let us know where that is available, the tape of that is available? Ms. Gerhardt: The State of the City [crosstalk]? Yeah. Chair Furth: Despite my best efforts I did not make it. Ms. Gerhardt: I can send that out. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Board Member Hirsch: Good review in Palo Alto on line. Chair Furth: Good. So, in support of the City Council's effort to address these things, I think it's useful to let them know other issues that we see that bubble up fairly frequently. I don't know if anybody can think of any other items they'd like to have a brief paragraph on? Or two paragraphs? Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I've struggled professionally, and I see it in applications all the time, when we get a, for example, a 10,000 square foot lot in a multifamily zone and we try to put three or four houses. Basically, we're maintaining the density, usually. Think of the one we just saw down on Clara Avenue. Chair Furth: Where we lost two. Lost one. Vice Chair Baltay: Right. Where they had four units in an apartment, rather run down, and the owner is now going to put in three. The owners would be glad to put in more, but because of, I believe because of our parking requirement of what they have to fit on site, it's just not possible. Board Member Lew: Can we not talk about a specific issue because it's not on the agenda? Vice Chair Baltay: Absolutely. I was just... Chair Furth: These are items to go on the [crosstalk]. Board Member Lew: [crosstalk]... going into more detail. Say what the issue is and then [crosstalk]. Vice Chair Baltay: The issue, I believe, Alex, is our parking requirements make it very difficult to do relatively small multifamily housing developments. My experience has been that our code is focused on large developments, and when they get ramped down to a 10,000 square foot lot, give or take... Chair Furth: Okay, I think we've got it as an item to elaborate on. And then, what about loading zones in certain districts? We always have to waive the requirement for the on-site... I’m thinking of Cambridge Avenue. Is that...? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, yes. Board Member Lew: I don't think we should do that because I think the staff has already adjusted the code. Chair Furth: Have you? That's been eliminated? Ms. Gerhardt: There is now an adjustment allowed to remove one loading space. The Director has the ability, you know, should the circumstances be right. Chair Furth: So we could support that. Ms. Gerhardt: And that's an existing code section. Chair Furth: All right. Did that change between the time we saw Cambridge Avenue and today? That's part of the brand-new...? Ms. Gerhardt: It is new, yeah. I don't have the date, but it is definitely newer. Chair Furth: Okay. Anything else? Board Member Lew: This was not on the agenda, so I had not thought about it at all. City of Palo Alto Page 43 Chair Furth: Fine. We could do a study session on this, we could draft things and send them to staff and then review it. I could appoint a subcommittee. Any preferences? To draft? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd be happy to draft a statement regarding the parking at Stanford Shopping Center. It's one I've been thinking about lately. Chair Furth: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: But if, if we were to do this form that you're talking about, Wynne, perhaps several of us can put pieces together and we can all just meet and see where it goes. Chair Furth: All right. Why don't we send topics to Jodie, to staff. Board Member Lew: It seems to me the Chair and Vice Chair meet with staff... Chair Furth: And we will. We will be the subcommittee, and we'll bring it back to you. Board Member Lew: And then, my other comment on the shopping center parking is that it seems to me that's a Planning Commission issue. Chair Furth: Well, these are things that... We'll take that into consideration. I view this annual report as something... It says, "matters that have come to our attention that would be of interest." So, City Council back to the Planning Commission, in my view. But we will [crosstalk]. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, to respond to your comment, absolutely. That's why we're pointing these things out, because they're not directly our responsibility. So, the parking or the code change, it's just pointing out that these are things that we see. Chair Furth: Okay, anything else that anybody wishes to announce? Okay. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I'm... Chair Furth: Sorry, David. Board Member Hirsch: You know, the priority for affordable, supportive -- whichever -- housing doesn't come to us as a planning topic, but it really is a major concern for the City in general. Isn't there an opportunity for us to become a part of that discussion? Chair Furth: I think that if we have suggestions or observations... We're really data collectors, in a sense, because we see just about every commercial and multiple family and mixed-use project in the city. We see details of projects and how they are shaped by our codes and our neighborhoods in a context and in a way that nobody else but staff does. And there's many, many staff members, and there's just five of us. My sense is that if there are specific issues that we either think we have a suggestion about, or would like the City Council to have staff or somebody else think about, then that would be a good time to alert staff to. And I agree with Alex, that staff's pretty alert already, but it's helpful to have us give them our opinion. Because we also hear from the public. Board Member Lew: David, I would just say, the type of project that you're talking about, historically we've used the Planning and Community process to do those projects, and the Council doesn’t want to use that process. So, staff has been coming up with alternatives for adding housing. And affordable housing. We have a process change, so we're not going to necessarily do it the way we've been doing it in the past. City of Palo Alto Page 44 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, and I would agree that staff has put in place a couple of different overlays to help with that issue. We also have moving forward currently some further changes that we hope will help with increased housing development. We can bring back those details to the Board. Chair Furth: That will be helpful. And at some point, it may be useful to have a presentation from you all on the changes in state law and how that would affect what we do, or don't do. If we ever knew what these changes in state law were going to be. All right. We done? Let the record show that it's not noon yet. It's 11:46, and we are adjourned. Thank you. Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and David Hirsch. Absent: None Chair Furth: ... March 21, 2019, meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. Rebecca, could you call the roll, please? Oh, Alicia, there you are. Hidden behind your screen. [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications. That's comments from anybody who wishes to talk about an item not on the agenda. I have no speaker cards. Is there anybody else present who wishes to do that? Seeing none, we will go on. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions. I'm going to make one change. Oh, first of all, we have an updated agenda which is not the one that's in our printed package. It includes another item under Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements, which is the Architectural Review Board's annual report to the City Council, drafting and proposed content. I propose -- actually, I'm just going to do it as Chair - move the Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements before the subcommittee item since the subcommittee only involves two of us. And you know who you are, right? Vice Chair Baltay and Board Member Thompson? Is that right? It's on the agenda somewhere. It is... Yeah, it is. Baltay and Thompson. Okay. 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. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Package page 6 shows the meeting schedule and assignments. It looks as if we're going to have a cancellation on July 4th. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson, I should say, if I am wrong about who is doing that hotel project subcommittee, somebody else thinks they're on that, let me now. And I have an announcement, which is that I am retiring from the Board as of the end of July, inasmuch as my family is leaving the city. There is a recruitment process underway, and anybody interested should apply. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: March 21, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. French: No other announcements. Chair Furth: We tentatively have the Mercedes-Audi dealership at 1700 Embarcadero Road scheduled for April 4th. Action Items 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. Chair Furth: Our first public hearing item is 700 Welch. It's a request by Stanford Medicine for a 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. They have requested sign exceptions for some signs. The zoning districts involved are HD, which is Hospital, RM-40, which is Residential, MOR which is - what? Medical Office Research? And a PC from our previous regimen. I think the important fact here is that although all this signage is about the hospital - at least I believe it is - some of the land is not zoned in the Hospital District. This is a quasi-judicial item. Does anybody have any...? First of all, have we all visited the site? Board Member Lew: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Thompson: No. Chair Furth: Yes. With the exception of Board Member Thompson we have all visited the site. I'm sure you're familiar with the area. Does anybody have any extra meeting discussions to report? Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: I do want to disclose that I exchanged emails with John Cohen from Stanford Healthcare. We talked about meeting, but I was not able to meet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Could we have the staff report, Rebecca? Rebecca Atkinson, Planner: Good morning, ARB members. I'm Rebecca Atkinson from Planning. The project description is as stated. Thank you. Staff determined that our municipal code and their sign ordinance allows for a Master Sign Program review of this type of application because all the properties involved are under one ownership with Stanford University. The locations of all the proposed wayfinding signs are in your project plans. Many signs within the overall program do not require architectural review nor review for sign exception requests. The materiality is largely aluminum cabinets. The wall-mounted signs are also aluminum with a satin finish and vinyl letters for reflectivity. Some freestanding vehicular and pedestrian-oriented signs do require review, including for the following examples: As mentioned before, some locations are not on HD - Hospital zoning district properties, and/or are in the right-of-way. Some of the signs require exceptions regarding the site visibility triangle as defined in our municipal code. It's defined very broadly and strictly at the same time, meaning that a lot of area is captured within a site visibility triangle, and yet, Transportation has reviewed all of these alongside traffic turning movements and other signalization that's in the area and has cleared the signs regarding site exceptions and site visibility. Also, an exception in regard to overall sign size resulting from the height of letters needed for City of Palo Alto Page 3 readability. There are 10 types of sign exceptions requested, outlined beginning on packet page 17. As mentioned before, site visibility questions were reviewed by Transportation and they are not opposed to the exception for sign visibility triangles. Tree protection items were also reviewed in the draft conditions of approval. Remaining items include the locations of signs in easements and locations near utility lines, so those locations will continue to be looked at. Right now, the draft conditions of approval say no work in an easement, or no work within five feet of an existing light. In effect, if they're not able to find a sign location that meets those clearance objectives, those signs would not be approved as drafted in the conditions of approval. Staff requests overall feedback on sign locations, design and materials relative to the detailed architectural review findings that we have, and the very detailed plan exception findings that we have. There are two attachments, including draft conditions of approval and draft findings. Staff does ultimately recommend approval of all of the plan exceptions, and looking forward to your feedback. Happy to answer any questions. The applicant has a detailed presentation, too. Chair Furth: Thanks. Any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? I have one question of staff. I think of the side of Welch Road toward the hospital as the inboard side and the other side as the outboard side. Where are the sign exception requests on the inboard side? In other words, not across the street. Ms. Atkinson: The best way to identify those signs is by looking in the project plans, I believe. It starts on page 11. The signs that request exception are highlighted in yellow. There's Sign #122, that one is basically a do-not-turn-into-here sign. It's about four feet high. The next one is an emergency... It's a higher sign, 137, that announces the entrance to the adult emergency entrance. And then, we have another one on, another sign, Sign 129 and 239, and so forth. Most of the sign exceptions on the inboard side are shown on page 12 of your project plan. Chair Furth: It's 12, right, that shows them? Okay, thank you. That's helpful. Could we hear from the applicant, please? Good morning. Could you introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber? And you will have 10 minutes after you finish that. Nikki San Miguel, Kate Keating Associates: Hello. I'm Nikki San Miguel. I am with Kate Keating Associates. We are the signage and wayfinding consultant for Stanford Medicine on this project, and we have been working with them to formalize this proposal for the past year and a half. Rebecca, is it possible to borrow the keyboard? Thank you, Rebecca, for your report and recommendation, and thank you Board Members for your time today. As mentioned in our application letter, our goal was to create a cohesive signage and wayfinding program for the hospital and the medical center, with the focus on patient safety, while establishing a consistent and distinct identity for the medical campus. The Master Sign Program includes 57 signs and spans multiple properties across the campus. Excuse me for a second. [Making adjustments...] For a first-time visitor or patient, arriving at any medical campus can be really daunting. Oftentimes people are already stressed upon arrival, whether they're late for an appointment, they are anxious about their upcoming surgery, or they're trying to get to the emergency room. Compound that with a campus that has an adult hospital, and coming at the end of this year, it will have two distinct buildings with two different entrances. A children's hospital recently opened last year with two buildings, two entrances. Emergency departments on opposite sides of campus, serving two very distinct patient populations. Outpatient services up Blake Wilbur Drive. All the parking and valet options that you can pick from to get to these various destinations. Your peripheral destinations that are also part of campus, so you've got the Hoover medical campus nearby, as well as the University campus as a whole. And you've got a series of decision points if you're driving, so those are highlighted in green on the screen. Those are at every intersection and driveway. You've also got a series of pedestrian decision points at intersections along pedestrian and bicycle paths. And what really connects all of that together is the main spine that runs through the campus, is Welch Road. However, Welch Road is divided into two very distinct districts. Actually, there are more in the red zone here, but we're grouping them together. We've got commercial, residential and medical districts in red here on outboard Welch, and we've got hospital district here in City of Palo Alto Page 4 inboard Welch, which has a much more generous signage allowance. Up on screen is what is currently allowed on outboard Welch. You can place a sign six square feet, but it has to have a 20 foot setback from the public right-of-way. This is not really ideal for a medical facility when you're trying to get people to more than one destination -- EDs, hospitals, outpatient clinics. We can get a little bit closer to the road, but it cuts our square footage in half to three square feet. On the other side of Welch, on inboard Welch, you've got the hospital district, which has a much larger allowance, so you can create a sign that's up to 30 square feet, 12 feet high, and the minimum setback is reduced to 24 inches, or two feet. This is much more ideal for a medical campus and the number of destinations that we need. Our pedestrian sign is also similar. Brings it closer to the sidewalk so that pedestrians can read the map more easily. What we are looking for today is trying to make the two sides of outboard and inboard Welch cohesive. Most patients arriving on campus will drive along Welch Road and they’ll never perceive that there are two separate zoning districts. Their experience needs to be consistent as they move through the space. We really want to prevent sudden U-turns, sudden stopping, and distracted, lost drivers, which are a risk to public safety. And although our list of exceptions seems extensive, most are rooted in increasing allowances on outboard Welch so they're equal to what's provided on inboard Welch. Our goal is to create a cohesive sign family, so this is the complete sign family up on screen. We have drawn inspiration from the signage already on site at the Packard, the Hoover medical campus, and the Stanford Medicine campus, so that we can create something that is cohesive on campus. We have a consistent red tower element that's consistent throughout the package, and that creates a distinct identity for the medical campus, so it's clear that you have arrived at Stanford Medicine versus the University campus. Today, we are requesting for exceptions specifically on outboard Welch. This location highlights those locations on outboard Welch that would require an increase in size and location allowances so that we can bring them up to the same size and distance as inboard Welch. As Rebecca mentioned, we do have a few more locations on the South and North Pasteur loop that are based on locations that will require encroachment permits because they hit public utilities or public easements. However, we've located these strategically so that they are five foot clear from the nearest utility. They also meet Transportation's requirements of the one-foot-six setback from the curb. Overall, we hope these exceptions can create a more seamless experience for all, improving public safety, and making sure people are able to find the emergency department, first and foremost. Board members, thank you again for your time. We hope this project will be a success for the City, Stanford Medicine, and the community. Let me know if you have any questions. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there any questions for the applicant's representative? Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning, thank you, I have a question for staff. Just crossing my mind. I'm concerned. We don't want to be setting precedent here with this many exceptions. If I take the case of one of the larger campuses up in the Sand Hill Road area, large corporate campuses we have up there. Is there any way this could be equated to that situation, and the applicant there could come back, requesting larger signs that are all on their campus area? I'm thinking, for example, of the law offices we just approved signage for on the corner of Alameda Los Pogus [phonetic] and Page Mill Road. Most of those signs were internal to their property, and it seems to me the same similar type of argument is being made here for exceptions to the sign ordinance. Is that the case? Or is this truly a different, unique situation? Chair Furth: We're referencing Page Mill and Foothill, by the way. Ms. French: I would say, generically, exceptions are like variances, and it's case-by-case, site-by-site, and one is not supposed to be a precedent for another because you're making tailored findings specific to that situation. Rebecca has something to say about that. Chair Furth: I think the question is, what about the findings are specific to the hospital and would not apply in the Research Park? City of Palo Alto Page 5 Ms. Atkinson: Thank you for the question. I do think that detailed draft findings were prepared about what are the exception circumstances here in this particular case, and what are the goal associated with this signage, and given the medical center, that in and of itself is a unique situation here in Palo Alto, the number of people coming here, the number of people that haven't been exposed to the site, the volume, at all times of day. There are a lot of unique circumstances. Destination density would be another aspect of a unique circumstance. Also, there is a sense here of trying to have a cohesive medical center, in general. Some of that also relates to creating a wider medical campus area, medical center area, so I think some of that also lends itself to somewhat showing cohesiveness, integration of the campus. Chair Furth: The sign exception findings are on packet pages 31 and 32, if we want to take a more detailed look at them. Are there any other questions of the applicant's representative? I'm sorry, I've lost your name. I didn't take notes. Ms. San Miguel: Nikki San Miguel. We are with Kate Keating Associates. Chair Furth: Thank you. Yes, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: On the location of the signs due to the setback requirements, are you confident in your statement of the visibility of those signs with the size letters that you're selecting? How you did this was really interesting, to see it from the distances for which it, where it will become evident to the viewer. And these easements really require quite a setback on that one side. Are you confident that they will be seen? From vehicles, you know. Ms. San Miguel: One of our original proposals for the sign design was actually located within a planting strip of the easement to maximize visibility, but to achieve that, we had to reduce the sign size a little bit because it needed to fit and hit the various clearances. However, through ongoing revisions and coordination with the Planning team, we revised our proposal so that it sat on the other side of the sidewalk, on the private property side, and meets the requirements. That's increased the size to the maximum allowed in that hospital district. We were able to gain about a quarter-inch cap size, so the text, it makes a difference, actually. It's a three-inch cap height right now throughout Welch, and the current signage there is also a three-inch cap height, but a less legible font. We've maintained the cap height of the existing signage, but we've adapted a more legible font that is much more easy to read, it's less condensed, and the design of the sign is much more visible in that it's lighter in color. If you look at the sign considerations outlined in... Let's see...pulling it up on the screen. Page 27 of our application package... Board Member Hirsch: I think it's 28. Ms. San Miguel: Twenty-seven shows the color... Board Member Hirsch: Okay, 27. Ms. San Miguel: ...so, we originally looked at the color of the sign, and the existing signage is a gray sign with white text. We're proposing a lighter sign with darker text so that it pops out more in the landscape. And on 28, these are the text type studies, and these are based on industry calculations for legibility and readability, so where we are with three inch of copy, you have 2.6 seconds of visibility at 20 miles per hour, and a little bit more at 15 miles per hour, which is about the average people are traveling along Welch Road. Board Member Hirsch: To add to the question, would the City explore the possibility of not living by the rules of the easement? Becoming closer... Chair Furth: I think that's not a question of the applicant right now, so let's see. Board Member Hirsch: More to the City, yeah. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Furth: Let's take that in our discussion. Any other questions from Board members? I had one question. You referenced a multi-modality of people here - bikes, cars, pedestrians, lots of strangers. Do you address bicycle parking, access, concierge services anywhere? My experience bicycling is no, you're on your own. There's no wayfinding for bicyclists. Am I wrong? Ms. San Miguel: Can I introduce the Stanford Medicine team to address that question? Chair Furth: Sure. I had a bad experience when I forgot my bicycle lock, and there were no bike concierges. I had to go home again, bicycle back with the lock, and then go visit my friend. Nanette Boerner, Stanford: Good morning. Chair Furth: Good morning. If you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber. Ms. Boerner: Sure. My name is Nanette Boerner [spells name]. I have been at Stanford for over a decade now, planning multiple phases of a variety of projects. In terms of bicycle wayfinding, much of that is coordinated with the University in terms of bike lockers, which may not be as available to the public. That's one consideration. I know we studied that in the new Stanford Hospital. They added a number of bike lockers across campus, that as the campus has become busier and busier, we're seeing more pedestrians, more bicycles, etc. Some of the work that we've done is to add the green bike lanes across... I know there's one on Quarry, I know there's one across the street right behind Welch, which is Vineyard. We're working on those elements, but what we wanted to begin with this particular wayfinding package is really focusing on getting pedestrians and vehicles to their location, and then, perhaps bicycle wayfinding to could be added onto that as a future phase. Chair Furth: Thank you. That might involve more street marking and... Well, we don't need to speculate on this. That's not the application in front of us. But, I'm correct in thinking that this one does not address that issue. Ms. Boerner: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Yes? Ms. San Miguel: Any more questions? Chair Furth: I think we're good. Board Member Hirsch: I have some detail questions about the construction of the signs. Chair Furth: Fine. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Furth: Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: I guess one of my biggest concerns on, these have panels all the way down to the ground and there are different elevations of the ground relative to the signs. What do you do at the base to protect it from, you know, maintenance around it, cutting grass? The element that's the lowest element, is that replaceable, or is that a permanent fixture on the bottom of the sign? Ms. San Miguel: Thank you for your question. On the screen we have the preliminary design. The final engineering details will be developed by the sign fabricator as part of the building permit process. Currently, we have, once it hits the concrete footer, we transition to the concrete material. The aluminum base only extends 14 inches below the actual message panel. The concrete is intended to rise or sink into the ground, depending on the conditions. If it's sloped, you'll expose a little bit of the concrete, a little bit, but that will take the brunt of any maintenance in terms of lawn mowers or landscaping maintenance. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Hirsch: In your drawings, you've separated the panel and its backup material. Is that intended to fit, to move into the...? You don’t have a dotted line indicating it's clipping in, but that's what's happening, right? I had to sort of imagine that. Ms. San Miguel: Correct. The... Chair Furth: We're looking at Sheet 22? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, yeah. Chair Furth: I can't see that. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, it's 22. Ms. San Miguel: The intended design is for the panels to be removeable, so as the messages get updated or damaged, you don't have to extract the whole sign and replace it. You can just unscrew - with vandal- resistant fasteners, of course - the message panels, and then it can be replaced on site. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, so that's the part that would come out, is one piece that comes out, get a new one, stick in back in place... Ms. San Miguel: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: ...in case there is damage. What is the issue of, how do you handle graffiti onto panels like this? Not that I hope we have graffiti artists here doing anything to these nice designs, but it's sometimes a problem. Ms. San Miguel: You can add an anti-graffiti coating to the paint as a clear coat. That will help with cleanability of the sign, but it depends on the level of vandalism. And if it does get excessively vandalized, at least the panel can come off. Board Member Hirsch: Come off. This Stanford script visual that identifies every one of them, the color strip, on the larger ones where it's along the edge, how is that fastened to the frame? It seems to be sort of in the center. Have you done this before, that piece? Ms. San Miguel: Not on Stanford campus, but we have developed similar signs that have this element that protrudes from the rest of the panel. It's just a matter of welding aluminum brackets and L-angels together. Board Member Hirsch: I accept that it has to go through shop drawing review at a later date. Ms. San Miguel: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Let's see...It's a separate element. Does it come all the way down to the ground? Ms. San Miguel: It does, and it terminates at the same point as the 14-inch base, and it will also hit the... Board Member Hirsch: There's a separate piece below it then, that continues it to the ground. Ms. San Miguel: Structurally, there will be... Let me pull up the sheet on 22... There will be a frame that's built that houses the main cabinet, and that's what that blade gets attached to. And that frame has support structure inside that clamps down onto a support and structural tube that goes into the concrete footer below. Final engineering and structural loads will be calculated by the engineering department for the sign fabricator, and they will determine how deep exactly it goes, and how thick that post needs to be. Board Member Hirsch: It's all one piece, that color element. Is that what you're saying? Ms. San Miguel: Mm-hmm. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Furth: Looking at page 27, which shows these signs installed in sloping land. That bottom piece we see is the aluminum piece in your drawing? Ms. San Miguel: Correct. Chair Furth: But there's also a concrete base? Where is it? Ms. San Miguel: It's underground. In this specific location it would be underground. And if the slope were in the opposite direction, it may be exposed. Chair Furth: Is it correct as shown in this drawing that, in this case, the soil abuts the aluminum panel, not the concrete base? Ms. San Miguel: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, that's my question, too. Chair Furth: Thank you. I think you're good to go. Ms. San Miguel: Thank you so much. Chair Furth: One question to staff. Rebecca, when you're calculating height -- I mean, obviously it's sloped, you have to pick somewhere -- where do you calculate height from? Ms. Atkinson: The base of the sign. Chair Furth: The exposed base, whatever is above ground. Ms. Atkinson: Yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. Bring it back to the Board. Alex, would you start us off, pleas? Board Member Lew: Sure. I can support the project. I think my only comment on the signs is that I think at the moment the locations are kind of wordy. I know we're not really reviewing that specifically today. This is more the Master Sign Program. But when I just look at it graphically, I find it... My thinking is that it could be simplified one more time to get it to be more readable. Things like having "Lucille Packard" in there, it just makes it harder to read. I just want to know if I'm going to the Children's Hospital or not, right? Or the visitor parking garage is the Pasteur visitor parking garage, and you're having to break up the text into two different lines. It just makes it harder to read. People are going by so quickly, you really only have like a second to take it all in, and when you have multiple stacks of text, it just makes it harder to absorb all of it. On the findings, I think that I would add a couple things. One is that the hospital is not located on a major arterial street. That's really important. If I go to Kaiser and Santa Clara, it's at the intersection of two big streets that are well known in South Bay. Here, from Sand Hill Road, you really don't see anything. You see shrubs. The signage from Sand Hill Road is pretty minimal at the moment. I think, too, is the hospital has changed since 1960. In the original Edward Durell Stone master plan, there was a whole hierarchy of streets, and they've all been filled in now. You actually have, the hospital is kind of inwardly-focused, whereas before, it used to be more mid-century modern, surrounded by parking lots, so you could actually see where you're going. Now, you don't really see the entrances nearly as well as the original master plan. And then, another thing I think is critical is Stanford has regional parking, so it's not like you're necessarily parking right in front of a building. You may be parking a couple blocks away, underground, underneath Pasteur Mall. It's a little bit harder to navigate, because you're trying to find parking, and then, you're also trying to find your destination. I think fourth is, because the hospital is really unique in that they had to keep the old hospital functioning while building the new hospital, and City of Palo Alto Page 9 that really drove the design of a new hospital. So, the entrance may not be exactly where I would put it if we were starting from scratch on a clean site. That's made it all very complicated. The Children's Hospital, we have two, right? One for neonatal, one for children, and they have separate entrances and separate garages. It just makes it all much more complicated. And then, I can support the design of the signs only if they are not internally illuminated, as they are not proposed, right? There are some reflective elements on the sign. But I think I've seen some new campus directory signs on, like Campus Drive, that are internally illuminated, and they're white, and they're... I think they are way too bright. I would not be supportive if a change were proposed for that. That's all that I have. Chair Furth: Thank you. Osma? Board Member Thompson? Board Member Thompson: I kind of agree with what Board Member Lew mentioned. In the past, it's always been a little confusing to get to the hospital, so I support having more signs. I think initially I had a little concern that, especially in the plan, it looks quite peppered and excessive in the plan. But, it seems like it's quite necessary for traffic coming in that direction. At the moment, I can support the project as it is. I don't really have too much to add to that. That's all. Chair Furth: Not needed? Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: I think the selection of messages is working here. The priority is working. The use of the color palette is working. The only major issue that I really have is that it, as mentioned, the signs are pretty far into the property, and even if they are readable, it would be so much better if they could be closer to the road. It's really a question of dealing with the easements, it seems, on the outboard side. I would wish that there were more of an effort to locate those signs closer to the edge of the sidewalk. Of course, it probably is, whatever the area is from the sidewalk to the street is... What's it called? Chair Furth: Parkway. Board Member Hirsch: Parkway, okay. Probably not big enough in dimension width, or safe enough to keep the signs secure. But certainly, coming closer to the inner edge of the sidewalk would be a significant improvement in the entire outboard area of Welch Road. The hospital is a very strong force in the area. I can't see why they wouldn't push hard for moving those signs closer and making them more visible. You see them against a sloping ground, ground shapes, and other things that are more of a problem as you move inboard. But definitely the visibility would be improved. Fight the fight to try to get into those easements. That's my major concern. Otherwise, I find the hierarchy, etc., method of choice in verbiage, etc., to be quite successful. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: I find this to be a very thoughtful and carefully put-together application, and I can support the project. I have no further comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you to my colleagues for their comments. Thank you, Stanford, for the nice, well-designed, easy-to-read, clear presentation. We appreciate it. I would echo Board Member Baltay's concerns about the findings. I think that Alex's suggestions for modifying them to make clear what's unusual about this -- in fact, unique in this town -- about this setting, is that these are medical facilities, that they are not located on major arterials, that many people come here as strangers to the area, and under circumstances of urgency. That the site design has been constrained by the need to expand existing facilities so that entrances are not located in particularly obvious places. I think all that is important to put in. Also, the fact that parking is regional, and also the fact, I believe in conditions that these signs should not be internally illuminated. Given the way that Welch Road is designed, and is curbed, and is landscaped, I'm fine with this proposed signage. I don't like things blocking the view of pedestrians, so by having the signs behind the pedestrians, I find it a little less unnerving, driving along there. I think they probably have such wordy text because the Lucille Packard Children's Hospital wants to be clear that it's primary benefactor was Lucille Packard. I don't think that applies to Pasteur Drive. I City of Palo Alto Page 10 don't think Louis Pasteur would have any objections if you didn't denominate the Pasteur parking garage. And personally, I find it confusing. I think, "Oh, that's the Pasteur parking garage. Where am I supposed to be?” You're not at the Children's Hospital; it's the parking garage. There's that little space behind Blake Wilbur, but not much. I agree that these are wordy, and I'm sure you've given it a lot of thought, but I don't know why it needs to say, we have an extra line saying "Stanford University" when it's the School of Medicine and it already says, "Stanford." My suggestion to staff is that you work with them to get fewer words and more clarity. All right. I think we're ready for a motion. Yes? Ms. Atkinson: Staff would request some clarification. Generally, the signs are non-illuminated. There are two signs associated with the emergency room entrances that have ground... Chair Furth: Could you show us on the plans, please? Ms. Atkinson: Sure. And also the emergency letters in the top panel are internally illuminated. Forgive me as I look for the actual page number. It's the V.06 sign type. Look on page 37 of the plans. It would be sign number 127, as an example. There are only two of these. Some further clarification regarding illumination. It's right at the new adult emergency room entrance. Chair Furth: (inaudible-off microphone) Ms. Atkinson: Welch. Chair Furth: (inaudible-off microphone) Ms. Atkinson: It's the driveway right above the north barrel [phonetic] of Pasteur. Page 37. Chair Furth: (inaudible-off microphone) and the plan is...? Sign number 137. Go back to page... Ms. Atkinson: Sign 127 on page 37. Board Member Lew: I don't have any issues with internally-illuminated signs with the push-through letters. I think my direction generally is illuminated cabinet box signs that are white or light-colored, so you actually have the whole sign glowing. They are too bright in those parts of Palo Alto. Chair Furth: Is that sufficient clarification for staff and the applicant? Everybody is nodding "yes." We have a speaker who needs to speak to us shortly, so, if someone could make a motion? On another matter. MOTION Board Member Lew: I would make a motion that we approve the project with the following suggestions for staff and Planning: To add, I think to Finding 1 - if I have the numbering correct - is that the project is not on an arterial street; that the original master plan of the medical center has evolved over time; a medical use that brings a lot of visitors to the site; and parking is regional. Also, the new addition had to be built while the existing hospital was still functioning, which resulted in entrances that are not in the optimal locations. Maybe more entrances than would be required otherwise. Okay. I think that's it. Chair Furth: Do you want to add a condition about illumination? Board Member Lew: No, because they're not really proposing any. Chair Furth: All right. And it's in the record, and it's clear. Is there a second? Vice Chair Baltay: I'll second that motion. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye? Opposed, none. It passes 5-0 with our recommendation for approval. Thank you. MOTION PASSED 5-0. City of Palo Alto Page 11 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 Chair Furth: While we're setting up for item 3, which is the ARB review and recommendation for draft objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for wireless communication facilities in public rights-of- way, I'm going to open the hearing now before we take a short break so that... I have a speaker card here from a speaker who needs to leave by 9:40, which is Tina Chow. If you'd like to come and make your remarks, you have three minutes from when you spell your name and start. Tina Chow: (off microphone, inaudible) Chair Furth: Oh, you can wait? Ms. Chow: (off microphone, inaudible) Chair Furth: Why don't you do it now because it's going to get a little jammed. Ms. Chow: Alright, good morning, everyone. Is this on? Chair Furth: Good morning. Ms. Chow: Okay. My name is Tina Chow, I live in Barron Park, and I'm a professor in civil and environmental engineering at UC Berkeley. I already sent you some written comments, but I just want to summarize those briefly and expand on one of them. My first point was that our neighborhoods are so distinct that I don't believe any menu of options would suffice in these decisions for the wireless communications facilities. Second, this ARB review process that we're having now allows for critical public input and discussion and should not be removed from the process. I ask that you please make a specific recommendation to City Council to keep the ARB public hearings, and ensure that every cell tower gets individual review. Third, I ask that you please continue to insist on undergrounding of equipment. My fourth point is that we need an updated wireless ordinance that safeguards residents and their interests. I wanted to take a few moments to expand on this. First, I want to just say that I urge you not to incorporate any of the specific FCC [Federal Communications Commission] standards into our standard because, according to independent law firms, current and future litigation may reverse these standards, and including such FCC standards into our ordinance language would bind the City to such standards, regardless of the outcomes of litigation. Instead, what I think we should do is work together to create a better ordinance, just like dozens of other cities are doing in the Bay Area, across California, and across the country. Some examples are Arinda, San Resall [phonetic], San Anselmo, Hillsborough, Danville - The list goes on and on of the cities in the Bay Areas that are working to improve the ordinance and include resident interest in them. Some examples of things that we can ask for are minimum spacing between towers. For example, 1,500 or 200 feet. We can ask for minimum setbacks from resident homes and schools. We can even ask for increased fees and revenue for the City. Yes, there are descriptions about this, but we can charge for actual cost of processing these applications. We can ask for requirements that, if they are less visually-intrusive facilities that become available, technology improves, that these be replaced. We can ask for liability and insurance for each node. We can ask for monitoring requirements of the radio frequency of some of these towers. We can ask for property value assessments, protection for trees, and compliance with the American Disabilities Act for electro hypersensitivity. The ADA - I want to expand on this one a little bit - as you know, is intended to protect disabled people from discrimination and provides general definitions for disability. The US Access Board and the Department of Labor recognize electromagnetic sensitivity as a disability, so I'd like to ask that you ask the City to add an ADA section and an ADA definition that describes disability as any physical impairment affecting a major life activity, including language in Title II, which requires public agencies to make all their services, programs and activities ADA accessibility. That would mean including language that indicates that ADA claims can be City of Palo Alto Page 12 made if some sort of discrimination... For example, that persons with disabilities are prevented from some activity can be shown. And, include language in the exceptions chapter and the compliance with law chapter, saying that the American Disabilities Act, which is a federal law...Sorry. The exception chapter should include the Americans With Disabilities Act as a federal law that is equal in authority to the Federal Communications Act. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any last sentence? Ms. Chow: The last sentence is that I ask that you consider making a taskforce where residents can actually work on this, because doing this in three minutes is really hard. We have a lot of ideas... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Thank you. I want to say, thank you for your presentation, but I want to say to you, and others, that the ordinance itself has not been formally provided to us. We did get a copy this morning, so the Planning and Transportation Commission will be reviewing it... What's the date, Albert? Mr. Yang: Next Thursday. Sorry, next Wednesday. Chair Furth: Next Wednesday, which is going to be the key hearing on that, followed by Council action. Thank you. We're going to take a five-minute break before we hear the rest of this, and then we'll be back. Thank you. [The Board took a short break.] Chair Furth: Before we go on to our next item, I meant to say as we concluded the last one, that I am very concerned about bicycle access. I have spent a lot of time recently going to appointments on Welch Road where there's no adequate car parking. I'd be happy to ride a bicycle, but there's not a lot of bike parking. Okay. 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 Chair Furth: Our next item, I already read it, but I'll read it again. It's the ARB review and recommendation of draft objective aesthetic, noise, and related standards for wireless communications facilities in the public rights of way. Staff report will be prepared by Rebecca Atkinson. This is not a quasi- judicial matter, I guess. We're commenting on a proposed regulation, so I won't ask anybody about external communications. I will note that we have all received a large number of emails on this, which staff has made available if they were received before 5:00 yesterday. What's the cutoff? Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Correct, 5:00 p.m., and we printed them out in hard copy. If they are emailed after 5:00, they were email-forwarded to you. We had some emails at 6:00 in the morning and... yeah. Chair Furth: Right. And they will be passed along -- will they? -- to Planning and Transportation Commission, which will be considering this next, and staff will of course read them. All right. Staff report, please. Ms. French: Good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, along with Rebecca Atkinson, and Albert Yang, our City Attorney. We also have Jim Fleming [phonetic] in the audience, and Dave Lund [phonetic] from the City, to help with questions. Chair Furth: Which departments are they? Ms. French: Utilities. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. French: As noted, at places and at the back table we have the ordinance that is going to go to the Planning and Transportation Commission next Wednesday, so members of the public who are interested in reading that can go to the back table. The packet comes out today and will be uploaded on line for those persons who wish to review the ordinance. Chair Furth: This is a proposed ordinance amending Section 18.42.110 on wireless telecommunication facilities. Ms. French: Correct. We have an existing ordinance, these are amendments that would clarify based on the FCC order. Chair Furth: I think "modify" is a more accurate term, thank you. Ms. French: Well, there's that. Just a brief background, then I'll turn it over to Albert. The existing wireless communication facilities in the Palo Alto public rights-of-way, we have 73 AT&T ODAS [Outside Distributed Antenna System] nodes, and these are on wood utility poles. Those were installed in 2012, before we created the ordinance we have today. So, yes, there has been some noise issues on those poles, just to be clear about that. Then, we have 19 small cell nodes on streetlight poles, and these were installed by Crown Castle in 2016. I believe those are the ones that use those faux mailboxes. We anticipate more coming. We have 93 from Verizon, 17 from AT&T Mobility, and 17 from Crown Castle that we anticipate being installed or submitted for review. There are others in the wings that have not come in yet. We have street lights, in Palo Alto, a total of 6,642. Of those, the City owns 6,500, and the State owns 142. Those are located on El Camino and near Highway 101. Then we have wood utility poles. We have a total of 6,000, again. Those are in the public right-of-way; 5,400 are jointly owned by the City and AT&T. Albert Yang, Deputy City Attorney: The reason that we are coming to you today with these draft objective standards is because the Federal Communications Commission -- the FCC -- in September adopted new regulations, that among several other changes, require any aesthetic regulation by local governments to be reasonable, non-discriminatory, objective and published in advanced. They gave us until April 15th of this year to work on and adopt these standards, and that's what we've prepared and brought before you today. The bottom line is that if we don't have reasonable and objective standards after April 15th, the City won't be able to enforce its current aesthetic regulations, which are based on the ARB's subjective architectural review findings. There is ongoing litigation over the validity of that FCC order. That is pending in the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals right now. The Court unfortunately denied a request by municipalities to stay the FCC order until that litigation is resolved, so, at the moment, we are required to comply with that regulation. In addition to the litigation, there is pending legislation in Congress introduced by Representative Ann Eshoo that would invalidate the FCC's order, as well. We will be tracking that in addition to litigation. There are a few different steps, just to give you a road map of how we're approaching our implementation of the FCC's order. The first meeting is today with the ARB, where we're reviewing draft objective standards. The next meeting will be on Wednesday the 27th with the Planning and Transportation Commission, to review updates to the ordinance to the wireless code. Finally, both the standards and the ordinance will be presented to the City Council on April 15th. We had a question from the Chair about what the ARB's role would be under the revised ordinance. Under the current language of the ordinance for Tier 2 and Tier 3 applications, which are what the majority of applications the City sees, fall into... the Planning Director is the designing authority, and the Director has the discretion to send any of these applications to the ARB for public hearing. Under the revised ordinance, that process and that authority remains. The Planning Director, if there is an issue or if there is a desire to have a public hearing on an application, can send it to the ARB. In addition, there is a new process that's created for any applications that are seeking exceptions from the objectives standards that City of Palo Alto Page 14 we adopt, for those applications also to be sent to the ARB for review. I'll turn it back over to Amy and Rebecca. Rebecca Atkinson, Planner: Thank you, all. The wireless ordinance is in effect city-wide. The standards in their current form focus on streetlight poles and wood utility poles. There are other wireless facilities designs that could be deployed in the public right-of-way, including using existing or proposed new street furniture, such as benches, bus shelters, and things like that. Even though some have been deployed in Europe, and maybe elsewhere, we're looking at including innovation in a forthcoming version of the administrative standards, but for the current April 15th timeframe, we're looking at focusing on streetlights and wood utility poles. To help promote feedback and discussion, staff put together Attachment D in your packets. Attachment D contains a wide variety of design images, be it elevations or visual simulations, site photos, and so forth, illustrating the types of different design options that are out there for wood poles and streetlight poles. There are also some designs that you have seen before that you have previously weighed in on as not preferred, so, just wanted to include those for you reference. In general, these are the types of designs that we really appreciate your feedback on, whether or not they're appropriate for the right-of-way, any comments, and the actual standards are included as an attachment, and actual draft standards are included in attachment to the staff report. Those are the draft standards that would be moved forward, so if you have any comments on siting criteria parameters, design options and equipment placement parameters, size parameters, screening through shrouds and vegetation, and so forth, we are looking forward to your feedback. Next steps: To receive public and ARB feedback today. Of course, as already mentioned, the forthcoming Planning and Transportation Commission review next week, and then, following also with City Council. There is contact information, as well as email addresses for the ARB and City Council. And then, just so you know, all of the Attachment D images are here in this presentation, so if you would like to discuss anything in particular, we can use this as a point of orientation. Thank you. I'm happy to answer any questions you might have. Chair Furth: I have an orientation question. And thank you for the marked-up copy of the ordinance, which I understand is hot off the press. One of the questions I have is that under the existing ordinance, when a project comes to the ARB, we review it under the ARB standards. Is that correct? Mr. Yang: That's correct. Chair Furth: And in the future, if something was referred to the ARB, what standards would we be applying? Mr. Yang: They would have to be reviewed against the objective standards that the City has gotten. Chair Furth: And those would be standards adopted by resolution. Mr. Yang: That's correct. Chair Furth: Which is immediately effective. And the proposed resolution, tell us more about that. The objective standards. It basically creates a safe harbor? Is that right? Mr. Yang: The proposed standards are attached to the staff report, and the City Council would adopt resolution, basically adopting those standards as mandatory design requirements for the various categories of wireless facilities they apply to. Right now, we have prepared standards that apply to streetlight and wood utility pole deployments. Chair Furth: If somebody had a proposal to locate something on a wood utility pole or a streetlight, I guess they would be a... We'll talk about underground later, but basically, that met one of these preferred or described designs, certain kind of antenna, certain kind of location, then that would be a City of Palo Alto Page 15 safe harbor. That would be the objective standard they would be held against. If they want to do something else, it might require a more complicated hearing, like use street frontage? Mr. Yang: That's correct. I guess I would say, even if there was a proposal that met all the various criteria, if there were reasons that staff felt it would, you know, that would benefit from a hearing before the ARB, either to provide a forum for the public to comment, or for any of the ARB's feedback on how these standards are playing out in the real world, the Director would still have that option. Chair Furth: Thanks. Looking at page 48 of Attachment B, which is the Draft Administrative Standards, they are not written in mandatory language. You may have a shroud, you should consider doing this. That's not correct. May be mounted, may be placed, may be enclosed. Why is it all written that way? Mr. Yang: We'll take another look at tightening up that language. I believe the intent was to... There are situations where there might be two different configurations that are permitted. For example, an antenna may be mounted either at the top of a pole, or integrated into the body of the pole. But we'll take another look through all these to make sure that it's clear that you have to choose among one of the various options that's set forth. Chair Furth: Because as it's written... You know what? We should ask if other people have other questions. I don't mean to overdo this. We'll get back to public comment. But we are looking at a series of standards which you asked us to comment on. We have a lot of speaker cards. Vice Chair Baltay: (inaudible) Chair Furth: The City is the applicant. Vice Chair Baltay: (inaudible) Chair Furth: They're not the applicant. The City is the moving party here. The City is asking us to consider this. All right. The name is perfectly clear, the spelling is a little awkward. Vijay Reddybari? To be followed by Sharon James. Vijay Reddybari: Hi, my name is Vijay Reddybari. I'm a project manager at Crown Castle. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I need to have you spell your name for our transcriber. Vijay Reddybari: Okay. [Transcription note, spells name, but still could not make out exact spelling.] Before I go to the presentation, I just wanted to (inaudible) Crown Castle. I'm a project manager at Crown Castle. Crown Castle is the largest provider of shared communication infrastructure. We have over 25 years of experience building and operating network infrastructure. We have a unique combination of towers. Small system fiber. We have about 40,000 towers, (inaudible) under contract small cell, both outdoor and indoor, and we have six (inaudible) microfiber. Coming to the small cells, we have a growing demand for data for residents, businesses and (inaudible). There is about (inaudible) trillion megabytes of data (inaudible) in 2017. (inaudible) increased, like, seven times in 2019. So, 47 percent of the total US is using wireless and (inaudible) percent of homebuyers are looking for strong cell communication when they're buying a home. And the average household has 13 devices connected at all times. And then, there's a growing demand for smart communities, and connector schools, and cloud, and (inaudible). There's a huge growing demand. What I have before you is the two flavors of designs that we have for streetlight poles and wood utility poles. Chair Furth: This is the material at places? Are there copies at the public table? Vijay Reddybari: Yeah. Chair Furth: The crowd is indicating yes. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Vijay Reddybari: [Setting up presentation.] What I have before you is the standard designs that we have for streetlight poles. These are already active, or in place, or under contract currently with Crown Castle. As you can see, we have different flavors, like integrated pole design, the top-mounted design, and additional design. Going to the integrated pole design, these are the traffic signal poles. This is in Santa Barbara. All equipment will be inside the poles, and we have used existing infrastructure of the traffic lights and incorporated all equipment inside the poles. This is a fairly new product, the trash can receptacle. We are currently using it in Piedmont, and I think I saw one in Palo Alto. I'm not sure who is the carrier. This is a brand-new product, the trash can receptacle. The faux mailbox design, you have already seen this in Palo Alto with our project, in 2016, I guess? Yeah. Adjacent to streetlights. We have a small mailbox with a smaller form factor. And you can see the dimensions here, actually. It's 24.75 by 48.63 inches, with integrated pole design. Coming to the next one is a top-mounted design. We have a couple of options here. With the wrapped- around, a combination of equipment and equipment on top of the pole. You can see the dimensions there - 31 inches by 27, which is a smaller form factor, again. All the small cells that we tried to build have a smaller form factor. The next one is a side-mounted design. Where we cannot achieve the top-mounted design, we try to connect it with the side-mounted design. Even this, we have seen a fair amount of success with the smaller form factor, being 14 by 16.5 inches wide by 113 inches. Again, it depends on the equipment and the requirement of our carrier with the coverage, what equipment we need, depending on (inaudible) designs. But we do have a lot of options here. I have put before you some additional design options with the pedestal design. A couple of options here for you, one in Piedmont and the other one in Cupertino. Again, these are proposals for Palo Alto, which we did for our project. I'm just putting the samples out there. And then, you can see the dimensions for the pedestal design, with the dimensions. Our additional design options, we can use existing streetlights or existing cabinets which are already there around the city, and you can use the space for putting equipment there. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Mr. Reddybari, but you have run out of time. Thank you for the written presentation, and we will ask you further questions later if we need more information on what you provided. Vijay Reddybari: Thank you. Chair Furth: Our next speaker is Sharon James, to be followed by Jeff Hoel. Sharon James: Good morning. I'm Sharon James, I'm a government affairs manager for Crown Castle. I wanted to speak today to let you know that, you know, as Vijay just showed you, there are a lot of different designs you can use to incorporate small cell wireless infrastructure. They are deployed all over the country in many different configurations. What I've seen happen that I want to share with you in other jurisdictions. Currently in San Francisco, they have a workshop going on where they're meeting every couple of weeks with all the carriers, with the CLEC, like Crown, ex-jeanette, modus, [phonetic] to come up with a design and a revised ordinance that works, that simplifies the process down the road, and includes 5G. It's also happened in Cupertino, where they worked with all the carriers to come up with - and the CLEC, too - to come up with a design that they could incorporate on their city poles throughout the city. And the city of Santa Barbara, the same thing has happened. I'm providing this information to you because I think you should think about -- and I recommend -- that even though you're revising your ordinance now to meet the April 15th date that the FCC has ordered, you probably will end up revising it, to some extent. We're sharing information with you today because we want you to be aware that there are a lot of options. We're more than happy to work with you. I would recommend that you set up some workshops with the industry and do some real, you know, make some real effort to come up with a design that works for all of you, that maybe you can include as part of your ordinance, that is a form factor that you've approved ahead of time. And then, it expedites the process with the carriers or the applicants. City of Palo Alto Page 17 I would also say that in that FCC order, the time you have to review has been shortened as well. Some of the process that we go through now that takes a little longer, you may have to cut out in your revised ordinance. You may have to address. Thank you. Chair Furth: I have one question for you. Your company is not a telecom provider, right? You are a permit-obtainer? What do you call your company? What kind of business are you in? Ms. James: We're a carrier's carrier, I think is simplifying it a little bit. We build infrastructure. We build fiber networks, all across the country. On that fiber network there are multiple opportunities to use that fiber. But we're called a CLEC. Chair Furth: That's the word I didn't know. Ms. James: Yeah, a CLEC. Chair Furth: Which stands for? Ms. James: It stands for California Licensed...? Male?: [off microphone, inaudible] Ms. James: Competitive Licensed Exchange Carrier. We basically build the infrastructure that the carriers can go on. So, when we come to you and we apply as Crown Castle, we're building a fiber network here. We have a contract with a customer, a carrier, to put their antennas and radios on that pole. Chair Furth: And do your antennas and radios accommodate more than one carrier, or are they exclusive to one carrier? Ms. James: Well, they are exclusive to one carrier, but it doesn't mean that you can't find opportunities, in a lot of cases, to co-locate a second carrier on that pole. The sites we built Downtown, the 19, with the mailboxes? Seventeen with mailboxes. We had a second antenna approved at the time that we processed those, and there is space in that mailbox for additional equipment. Those feasibly could be co-located sites. Chair Furth: Thank you. And to my colleagues, because there's a very tight timeline that we're under, and because of the complication of what we're doing, if you have a question to ask of a specific person while they're commenting now, please let me know, and feel free to do that. Thank you very much. Jeff Hoel, to be followed by Matt Digino. Good morning. Jeff Hoel: [spells name]. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Hoel: I think the FCC has overreached by requiring the City to make objective aesthetic standards. It's sort of an impossibility, so I hope it gets overturned by the courts or federal legislation eventually. In the meantime, I think we should do what we have to do, but not a lot more. Part of your advice to Council should be, "Absolutely we should rescind it if the federal situation allows us to rescind it." Meanwhile, I think probably the ARB should continue to meet just as if they had the authority to make the aesthetic standards in real time, although they wouldn't. Part of what they could do in that case is recommend when to change the objective standards when it looks like the objective standards have become silly. And, by the way, maybe Legal could comment now on, how often does the FCC currently allow us to change the standards? There's a specific thing about undergrounding. It seems to me like the residents want undergrounding. You wanted undergrounding. In the staff report, Huntington Beach had an underground vault that was approximately 8 by 10 by 7 feet. The staff report didn’t show dimension drawings, so I just measured it based on their dimension for the two-foot setback. That's twice as large in cubic feet as the objective standard is ready to say is the maximum we would allow. I think residents don't care if it's twice as big as long as it does the job of hiding equipment. In fact, I guess my question City of Palo Alto Page 18 is: What is size doing in this document anyhow? Is the size of an underground vault related to aesthetics in any way? And, by the way, the reason Verizon said they needed such a big vault was to comply with OSHA standards. I'm really suspicious of that, but I don't know if anybody has asked OSHA whether that is true. Okay. Thanks. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Hoel. Mr. Digino. To be followed by Rochelle Swanson. Matt Digino, Crown Castle: [spells name] I just want to follow up a little bit on what Sharon mentioned earlier, is that it would be great if the City of Palo Alto could pursue designs we can all agree on. I'm glad it stopped right here because, one thing I want to mention is that a lot of the designs we're showing right now are for the existing 4G networks that are being deployed. 5G is coming pretty quick. As an example of, you know, if you want to have a 5G city, it would be great to plan... Well, you can see here, on the right and left is an example of 5G integrated into an existing 4G pole, and the left, multiple operators. You asked about a CLEC earlier. Traditional operators go with ILEC - Incumbent. We're both licensed to distribute wireless infrastructure. But on the left, if the 5G applications are coming and the operators want their own poles, theirs a chance for (inaudible) to have, co-locate multiple operators on the same pole, and you extend the shrouding, the ray dome, in the picture on the left. Pretty much all I would share. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Digino? Rochelle Swanson, to be followed by Jeremy Stroup. [phonetic] Rochelle Swanson: Good morning, Chair and commissioners. First, I want to thank you for holding this, and I really wanted to take a moment to appreciate staff, who were able to come in and provide additional information. You see the information today. I'm the government affairs manager for Northern California for Crown Castle. I appreciate that we all have an opportunity to be part of the public comment because, you know, we're here, and we're working in the community. I wanted to follow up on the request for a workshop. I won't be able to be here on the 27th, and I would hope that you could include that as part of your recommendation. The workshop ideally would be made up of members of the Architectural Review Board, the Planning and Transportation Commission, the Council, carriers, both the CLECs and the ILECs, and ideally the public. I think the first public commenter who went before the break brought up some good points about being able to be included in the process. And what my colleagues have talked about between the 4G and 5G and the limitations of design, currently the way the ordinance is written, the envelopes are pretty small, which means most are going to fall outside an exception. Which is good. That means we're still going to be part of the public process. I think part of the concern is also recognizing the 60 to 90 day timeline for the new shot clocks under the order, as well as you've seen in previous applications, that the smaller form factor is going to result in additional poles. And there's only so much current vertical real estate within the city, and the potential to have to erect more poles so the carriers can actually do their deployment. I think one thing we can envision in the workshop is also being able to have an in-depth, iterative conversation also about maybe some co- location by design. That is (inaudible) Crown, is being a neutral host, and we're not the only ones, so, referring back to the pedestal design in Cupertino. Or, as Vijay mentioned, the trash can design. We are working on that with another city, and I actually drove past three of them on Hamilton, which is pretty much the exact same design except where it shares a trash and/or recyclable receptacle as well as the radio equipment. I completely respect that you guys are trying to meet the April 15th guideline to be able to have that incorporated, but being able to have a workshop maybe outside of that, I think could maybe help everyone feel like they're part of the conversation, and to have something that moves it forward. Because I think you guys have been clear, you're not trying to prohibit coverage, you’re just trying to make it to where it fits within the character of Palo Alto. And I've seen that work in other places, and I think it would be great if we could do it here. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Jeremy Stroup, to be followed by Mark Grabisch. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Jeremy Stroup: Good morning, staff and members of the Board. My name is Jeremy Stroup. I'm with Vinculum Services, here today... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, you're with whom? Mr. Stroup: Vinculum Services, on behalf of Verizon Wireless. We're here this morning just to show support of staff's direction to reward streamline designs within an administrative approval. We do believe the current proposed design standards require a revision to accommodate Verizon Wireless's minimum equipment requirements, and we are committed to working with staff moving forward to find common ground. We also encourage ARB members to provide staff with affirmative direction regarding the wide range of design options provided in the staff report today. Finally, Verizon Wireless would have the ARB reaffirm support for the Verizon Wireless Cluster 1 design approved by this ARB on March 18, 2018, as well as considering integrated pole designs like the Cupertino example, and the equipment shown in the San Francisco example. Thank you for your time. Chair Furth: I have a question for you. Would you support the concept of community workshops continuing to work on this, and maximizing co-location? Mr. Stroup: We would support a workshop. We've been working with City staff in that kind of respect in the last couple of weeks. We like that idea. Chair Furth: And what's your position on co-location? Mr. Stroup: Co-location is always something that we look for as opportunities, as long as it fits our equipment design and structurally, it's something we feel we could support. Chair Furth: Does Verizon have co-located facilities in Northern California? Mr. Stroup: We have many co-located facilities. Are you talking for small cell nodes? I think you're specifically meaning small cell? Chair Furth: What we're getting these days. Mr. Stroup: We don't have any co-located small cells at this time that I know about, but we do have macro sites that are co-located all the time. Chair Furth: Do you have any notion of, at full build-out, how many small cell sites you want in the city? Verizon would want in the city? Mr. Stroup: Well, we have a proposal right now of 93 nodes that we're working with. Chair Furth: Does that cover the entire city? Mr. Stroup: That's correct. Chair Furth: Ninety-three in the city. Mr. Stroup: Correct. Chair Furth: 4G or 5G? Mr. Stroup: Currently, right now, we're looking at 4G designs. Chair Furth: And if you went to 5G? Do you have any notion of what that number would be? Mr. Stroup: I don't have that information right now. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Stroup: Yep. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Furth: Mark Grabisch. Mark Grabisch: I'm Mark Grabisch, I work on, more directly, AT&T. As you know, we have preliminary Architectural Review Board on 17 applications that we proposed... Chair Furth: Could you spell your name for our transcriber? Mr. Grabisch: Sure. [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Grabisch: And we're supportive of the process the City is going through and appreciate all the staff time and effort that's gone into proposing the standards. We do have a few concerns in terms of, again, like Verizon mentioned, the standards as proposed would be restrictive to the minimum design standards that we have. Based on our equipment right now, I see that we have a 15-inch diameter restriction, and in our applications, our 5G equipment requires about a 22-inch diameter, and that's just based on the technical requirements for the radios themselves. I know that noise has been a concern for the city of Palo Alto, and for 4 or 5 radios, we really made sure we can reduce a noise factor by having passive cooling instead of active cooling. In order to have passive cooling, you need heat dissipation so that the wider radios are required to allow for passive heat dissipation versus having active fan units that produce noise. A minimum form factor would, from AT&T's perspective, needs to at least meet our minimum technical requirements, which is, really, a lot of it is a result of the noise complaints from our ODAS that we built here in Palo Alto. And to the extent that our networks are increasing in capacity demands by the hundreds of thousands of percent... As you know, we put the ODAS here in Palo Alto and that's still not sufficient... Chair Furth: Excuse me, could you explain for our transcriber and people generally what an ODAS is? Mr. Grabisch. It's an outdoor distributive antenna system. It was kind of a precursor to the small cell facilities that you see now. It's lower-powered radios that have smaller form factors so that we can blend into residential neighborhoods on wood utility poles in public rights-of-way. Obviously, the small cell technology is an evolution of that, essentially, that provides an even smaller form factor that would blend in within right-of-way infrastructure. We do obviously have a concern with the volume restrictions. If the preference is to go to the smaller form factor, as was mentioned, that means that we'd have to produce a larger number of site to get the same coverage, versus if we went with a larger, we call it a micro-sized radio. That, again, would give us more propagation, and either way, the propagation in terms of EME [phonetic] output is significantly reduced relative to a macro facility. I mean, we're talking in terms of... Chair Furth: (inaudible-off microphone) Mr. Grabisch: Okay. Okay. Well, the nature of these facilities is that they are much lower powered, they don't propagate as far as, say, a big tower that you're used to, right? And we're talking to the extent of these being within a percent or two of the FCC threshold, so we're anywhere between one and three percent of the allowable FCC threshold. Obviously, even though cities aren't able to make decisions based on EME output, the concerns that are out there on a residential perspective, I think they're not really understanding the difference between a full-blown macro tower and the facilities that we're placing in the rights-of-way now. From a co-location perspective, I know you had a specific question to that. AT&T would be supportive of co-location. It also depends on if that co-located facility is a match for the network need to where we have to place facilities. Other carriers have different network needs, so they're designing their networks based around where they need to fill the need, and that co-located facilities might not be a match, and we'd still have to put a facility where we need it. Chair Furth: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Hirsch: I have a question. You're selecting minimum number of pole locations, or can you maximize the pole locations and reduce the size of equipment? Mr. Grabisch: The size of the equipment is the smallest form factor. Particularly, what we're currently proposing in Palo Alto, that is the smallest form factor that we have available to us, to fill the capacity needs on our network. Chair Furth: And what's the typical spacing between them? I know there's lots of variables, but what's the typical space in between installation? Mr. Grabisch: Again, the variables here in Palo Alto, depending on... Chair Furth: Let's say a section of the city with low-rise housing and few trees. Mr. Grabisch: I would say our propagation goes to about 1,000 feet, 1,500 feet. Again, that's... There's very minimal instruction. Chair Furth: I understand. So, at the optimal, from our point of view, most distance between installations, 1,000 feet? Mr. Grabisch: About 1,000 feet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: I have another question. The size of your 5G, you didn't give us a size. You said it's width is wider, but the size is the vertical, horizontal, etc. Mr. Grabisch: The radios themselves, they're about 7 1/2 inches deep. They have another inch and a quarter, two inches of attachment bracket, so, when you add that together with the pole width, you're looking at about 22 inches in width off the pole. The height of the radios, again, is roughly 7 1/2 inches, as well. We do have a shroud that we've used, that we've proposed, to conceal the cabling for fiber and power. You can't see lights either that show the active components of the radio. The shroud itself is longer because it has to have ventilation to allow for the air flow, but it's roughly about 8 to 10 inches. Again, it's larger than the radios because we need to add for the ventilation. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Do the location of those 5G facilities, they're not included in the 4G portion of the...? Mr. Grabisch: That's correct. Our current proposal is for 4G equipment including radios and antenna to be mounted above the pole, above the mast arm, and the 5G would be an additional equipment component that's placed just below the mast arm. And in terms of the densification, which is the number of facilities, within the 4G standard that I mentioned right now is about 1,000 to 1,500 feet. With 5G and the standards and the latency and the capacity to meet a 5G standard, you will probably see that densification increase. Chair Furth: What do you think the spacing might be in those same optimal conditions we described earlier? Mr. Grabisch: I can't say that at the moment. I'm not clear because, again, this is brand-new technology and we're actually looking to test the equipment this year and deploy it this year. A lot of it... Chair Furth: It could be as low as 200 feet? Mr. Grabisch: It's really going to depend on the bandwidth and capacity that's available within the network. When we deploy these 4G facilities, it's going to have an impact on the further densification required for 5G. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Furth: The 5G equipment would be supplemental to the 4G, rather than replacing it? Mr. Grabisch: That's correct. In order for the 5G signal to propagate, currently it needs to work with a 4G layer of technology. Chair Furth: If we require more facilities to be installed, if you all require more facilities for 5G, you're going to be installing more 4G? Mr. Grabisch: Not... Chair Furth: No? Something. Mr. Grabisch: In the future, the expectation is that we can go with 5G-only facilities. It's all based on the core that we don't have built out yet for 5G, and currently it does require a 4G layer to work. Chair Furth: Thanks. Vice Chair Baltay: Can I ask...? I understood one of the applicants to say they're proposing 93 small cell nodes throughout Palo Alto to get coverage. I heard them just say of the entire city, 4G cells. I understand you've proposed 17. Does that mean that you're not having 4G coverage of the entire city with small cell nodes? Mr. Grabisch: Currently we have no small cell nodes deployed in Palo Alto. We do have, again, our ODAS facilities that are providing a 4G signal, and we do have our macro facilities. The small cell technology is really not to add coverage, it's to add capacity. It helps efficient use of our spectrum by offloading the macro facilities. These are the larger towers that could be on rooftops, or stand-alone monopoles. The small cell offload the capacity on those networks by bringing the signal to where the users are needing it most, so that they can get a better signal, increased capacity, and it offloads the network for the larger propagation needs in the area. Vice Chair Baltay: Another way to drive at what I’m after is to say you're going to need more of 4G facilities than the 17 you've currently proposed. Mr. Grabisch: We don't have more currently planned, but again, these demands increase as we look at the traffic, and as phones become more capable, as new apps get developed, it's really all dependent on how the users are utilizing and putting demands on our network. So, right now, this is what we have planned. If we start to see increased demand, we'll have to plan for more facilities. Vice Chair Baltay: If I could ask, how long have you been in this business? Mr. Grabisch: Personally, I've been in this business about 20 years. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, what's your guess? Are you going to need more facilities in the next five years? You've got 20 years of experience. Mr. Grabisch: My guess is, as soon as more 5G devices are out there, the internet of things, smart city devices - Yes, there's going to be a need for more facilities. Vice Chair Baltay: Can you quantify any way...? Right now you have 17. How many more? Another 17? Or 170? Mr. Grabisch: I couldn't... Vice Chair Baltay: Twenty years of experience, you can't give us a bit of a guess? Mr. Grabisch: When I started I was wondering if I was going to be putting myself out of business by putting up the towers that I did 20 years ago. I had no anticipation of seeing the need that's out there now. Again, we're talking exponential increases. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so it's complicated. Mr. Grabisch: It's complicated. Chair Furth: We only have 6,000 street lights, you do know that. Mr. Grabisch: Right. Board Member Thompson: I have a question also, and this is maybe for (inaudible). I didn't hear you mention the trash can solution, but if that were the case, would the City agree to maintain that part of it? The trash would be serviced by the City? Just curious about how that would work operationally. Mr. Grabisch: From our perspective, yes, that's not a service that we take on. As a carrier, you probably don't want us to take that on. One of the concerns... Chair Furth: You do visual blight, not trash collection. Anything else you'd like to say before you leave? Mr. Grabisch: Well, just the point that was made in terms of restriction on new poles. As a utility provider in California, we do have the right to, under 7901, to place new poles, and as you mentioned, there is a limited number of vertical, 6,000 streetlights in the city of Palo Alto. It would be, you know, whether it's through the workshop or other, but the consideration of new poles, integrated poles, are certainly things that we can do. Not being restrictive on where we can place facilities, like in a gateway, instead of it being categorically excluded, if we can work through a design that fits and blends in, that would be... Chair Furth: You would be in favor of participating in a design workshop. Mr. Grabisch: Absolutely. Yes. Chair Furth: I know you have rights to certain poles. You or Albert can answer this. Which poles do AT&T, in its category...? You know, it's a telco. Mr. Yang: I think the comment from Mark and from one of the earlier commenters had to do with placement of new poles that don't currently exist, and as drafted, standards just say if you want to place a new pole, you have to go through the City standard process for applying for that new site. We already have a process where our Public Works department and our Utilities department will consider those requests. You have to go through that process. Chair Furth: Is AT&T in a different position than other people who come to us with telecom facilities because of its traditional role in telecommunications? Mr. Yang: I can't answer that right now. Chair Furth: I can't remember either, but I know that the pole agreements are different for some of those folks, and their universal California rights to a franchise. Thank you. Mr. Grabisch: Thank you. Chair Furth: All right. Let's start with questions for staff. Alex, any questions? Peter, any questions? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, for staff. Three questions about the proposed ordinance. Is there any form of public notification or comment provided for in this ordinance? Ms. French: The Planning and Transportation Commission has advertised in the newspaper. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm sorry... Chair Furth: Under the ordinance. Vice Chair Baltay: Once the ordinance, if the ordinance is put into effect... City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Furth: Really a question to Albert. Vice Chair Baltay: ...is there a procedure by which the public is notified of an application and has an opportunity to comment on the application? Mr. Yang: Actually, I'm not sure. Maybe Amy can help with... Oh, that's right. There are notice cards that go out within a certain radius. We also require carriers, before they submit the application, to hold a meeting, a community meeting within a certain radius of all these sites. Vice Chair Baltay: Is that described in the ordinance that you propose? Mr. Yang: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Yang: That's a current feature and it's not changing. You won't see it in strike-out or underline. It's just already there. Chair Furth: It's part of the unmarked text in the draft ordinance. I'll see if I can find it. Vice Chair Baltay: That's good. I just want to be clear, I just received the draft ordinance this morning. Secondly, there's an exception process, I assume. Can you describe how that works, if the applicant proposes something that doesn't meet the requirements of the ordinance? Who reviews it? Mr. Yang: There's an exception process for situations where the applicant asserts that applying the standards strictly would violate federal law, essentially. In those cases, they are required to inform us that they're seeking an exception at the beginning of the application process, and supply us with all the evidence on which they are relying. There's a provision that allows the Planning Director to refer those applications to the ARB for finding that, I believe it's that the design deviates from our existing standards to the minimum extent that's technically required. And... Yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: Is the referral to the ARB mandatory or optional for the Planning Director? Mr. Yang: I believe it's optional. Chair Furth: And it's optional under the existing ordinance. Mr. Yang: That's correct. Vice Chair Baltay: I just want it to be clear. Thank you. Chair Furth: It's page 9, paragraph G. Vice Chair Baltay: And then, if someone wanted to appeal one of these approvals under this ordinance, how does the appeal process work? Mr. Yang: The appeals go directly to Council, and they can either be placed on consent as the current ARB process works, or they can go directly to a public hearing. That's likely going to depend on the timeframe that we have. In most cases, we'll probably go directly to a public hearing. Vice Chair Baltay: But anyone can appeal these under the same process as other decisions made by the Planning Director? Mr. Yang: That's correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. That's all my questions. Board Member Thompson: I don't have any questions. Chair Furth: Board Member Hirsch. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Board Member Hirsch: Questions to staff, or...? Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: I guess we found out that there's a limited number of small cell facilities within an area, and that increasing the small cells is a questioned I asked. Does it allow us to minimize the equipment sizes in any way? Is that your understanding? Mr. Yang: I don't think that's entirely correct. You were asking a question of a representative of AT&T who is already using the smallest form factor that's currently available, so AT&T in particular would not be able to go to an even smaller form factor. They are proposing the smaller form factor that requires more sites. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Let me come back to it. Chair Furth: Does staff have an estimate of how many of these small cell facilities we should anticipate in the next 10 years, seeing that these are good for 10 years? A range is fine. I mean, listening to the comments, I'm anticipating hundreds and hundreds. Is that unrealistic? Ms. Atkinson: Staff has asked our sub consultants and a wide, you know, we've been researching that particular question. We're interested in knowing that as well, and there isn't conclusive information. Also, our sub consultants have not given us a number, like a density per square mile, and things like that. But we are continuing to pursue that information. Chair Furth: The reason that the applications that we've approved or recommended denial, what kind of density of those small facilities proposed? Mr. Yang: I can take a stab at this. We're seeing from Verizon that they’re looking for 93 sites to cover the entire city for 4G. Those are using, for the most part, the larger form factor, so, if we were to require smaller form factors as staff is proposing in these standards, I think we've heard that that generally requires about twice as many sites. Actually, you know, perhaps Verizon would need almost 200 sites to cover the entire city. Chair Furth: And that's for 4G. Mr. Yang: And that's for 4G. AT&T has proposed 17 sites right now, but as we saw earlier in the presentation, I believe they have 72 existing ODAS sites, so we're also looking at about 100 sites there. Going forward, I don't think we can really project how many sites there are going to be, but that's the information that we have about what's currently proposed. Chair Furth: And do you anticipate more carriers wanting to file applications? I mean, is there an effective duopoly, or are there competitors? Mr. Yang: I don't think we have a way of really answering that question. Ms. Atkinson: I think we anticipate applications from those carriers that already have master licensing agreements, and any new carrier that doesn't have a master licensing agreement, the carriers have reached out to the utilities about that. Chair Furth: Who has master license agreements now? Ms. Atkinson: The name of the entity... Chair Furth: Just tell me how many. How many master license agreements do we have at the moment? Ms. Atkinson: Crown, AT&T and Verizon. Mr. Yang: As well as another carrier's carrier that (inaudible) with Sprint. City of Palo Alto Page 26 Chair Furth: So, AT&T and Verizon plus two CLECs? Crown and somebody else? Mr. Yang: That's right. I'm not sure if the other entity is a CLEC, but... Chair Furth: Something like that, perhaps. Okay, so, four, maybe eight hundred. Thank you. One of the things that Dr. Chow said in her presentation, was that she thought that if the City found itself approving facilities under these rules, under the hammer of this existing order, that carriers should be required to replace those facilities with less obtrusive or objectionable facilities if the rules changed. The draft agreement, in Section N on page 13 of the proposed ordinance, says that, except as provided in a lease or license agreement, these are good for 10 years. Is it possible, in your opinion, to do what she's suggesting? To make the entitlement shorter, and is 10 years the shortest period, and what do our license agreements say? With respect to time? Mr. Yang: I believe our master license agreements for right-of-way facilities have 10-year terms, but they're also renewable for a number of 10-year renewal terms. Chair Furth: And that's at the option of the...? Mr. Yang: Of the carrier, I believe. Chair Furth: Of the carrier, so, they could be infinite? Mr. Yang: There is a... It's not infinite. I can't remember exactly what the end date is. We also have leases and license agreements for micro sites that are on City property, and those may have other lengths. I'm not sure off the top of my head. In terms of whether it's feasible for us to require a replacement, you know, this is a condition that some other cities are imposing, and that our City Council, I believe, recently also imposed on a recent application. It's part of the recommended ordinance to include that as a standard condition. How exactly that will play out, I'm not sure. Chair Furth: So, an upgrade requirement is part of this ordinance in front of us, but it says they have a 10-year license? A 10-year permit? I'm confused how those go together. You don't need to answer that now, but were you saying that yes, the City Council is interested in requiring upgrades or modifications, should that become within our power to do? Mr. Yang: That's correct. Chair Furth: And you would draft this ordinance not to eliminate it. Mr. Yang: That's correct. Chair Furth: Thanks. I'm having trouble reconciling the two. Okay. Before we start discussing this, what staff has asked us for is comments on proposed designs that would be generally seen as okay. If a proposal came in that complied with those designs, they would be acceptable. They include installations on poles and light poles, right? Wooden electrical poles, utility poles, utility poles and light poles. They do not include street furniture. And public, in their comments, have mostly focused on the ordinance, which will actually be reviewed by the Planning Commission and the City Council. Does anybody have any comments on the proposed design standards that were in our packet? Board Member Thompson: I have a question, Chair Furth. The exhibits that were provided on packet page 52, onward, those are the designs we should be commenting on, correct? Chair Furth: Staff, you want to take us through your proposal? It starts on page 46, streetlight poles, and then on 48, it goes on to wooden utility poles. Rebecca, what's the relevance of the illustrations in Attachment D. Ms. Atkinson: Thank you very much. We're asking for comments on the actual standards and what types of design options might or might not be acceptable. In order to help work through the draft City of Palo Alto Page 27 administrative standards, in order to help understand what types of designs would fall into these categories, staff put together Attachment D with further comments and notes. If you're talking about the particular standards for streetlight poles, there are three proposed - underground, integrated pole, and top-mounted - so we're looking for comments on those particular design options, whether they should all be included, and so forth. Then there are some general standards for all. And then, for wood utility poles, there's the underground design, top-mounted design, side-mounted design, minimal sunshield, or minimal side-mount design, and the strand-mount design. We're looking for feedback on which of these might work. These are actual draft standards that will be going forward to Council, so we're hoping that the illustrations and graphics will help promote your discussion on the standards. Chair Furth: Well, my question is, are those illustrations part of the guidelines, the design guidelines? I didn't see that. Mr. Yang: They are not, and what staff will be pursuing is putting together standard drawings that are more like plans, to illustrate what the designs and the guidelines look like. Chair Furth: But those won't be part of the guidelines either. Mr. Yang: Not in the first iteration. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Yang: We'll work with our Public Works and our Utilities departments to put those together. Chair Furth: Okay, and I have one other question for the Board. We have members of the Utilities Department here. Any questions of them? Okay, seeing none... Board Member Thompson: I have a question of staff. I'm sorry. The trash can option, is that in the ordinance anywhere, or is that not desired by the City? Mr. Yang: That's something that we're looking for feedback from the ARB on, if that's something that we should be adding in. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Chair Furth: At present, you're only proposing design standards that would allow installations on utility poles, and streetlights, and perhaps underground. Is that right? Mr. Yang: That's right. We have much broader standards that will apply to proposals to locate on private property. On rooftops, for example. And as time permits, we'll be working on more detailed and specific standards for those types of applications, as well. But because almost all of our applications are for these right-of-way projects, we've always done those first. Chair Furth: Let's just quickly talk about streetlight poles. It says radio and other equipment may be placed in an underground vault where space permits. They never required it, correct? Undergrounding is never required. Mr. Yang: That's right. It's one of the options. Chair Furth: If they came to you and said, "We have a new silent thing that doesn't make noise," and it was a space where the Utilities Department wasn't feeling quite so expansive, it could be done, but it's never required. Mr. Yang: That's correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay, anybody got comments on the proposed designs? No comments on the proposal? Is that right? I understand that we might want to talk about the whole of proposals, but any comments on the proposed illustrations, designs, options? City of Palo Alto Page 28 Board Member Thompson: Yes. Chair Furth: Go ahead, Osma, Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: I went through the images in Attachment D and wrote little notes next to each of them. In general, the designs that were favorable, that were aesthetically superior to others, were ones that attempted to integrate within the existing pole designs. For example, on packet page 55, on the left-most image, there's an antenna that looks pretty well integrated with the light pole. There were other images on here that were... Chair Furth: Excuse me, are you referring to 12 4G or the photograph? Board Member Thompson: I'm referring to the photograph. It does not have a ... Chair Furth: Photograph on packet page 55. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, but even on these other ones, there were a few that were less successful. The 12 4G/5G multitenant, I felt like was not successful. Chair Furth: You're still on page 55? Board Member Thompson: I am, yeah. That would be the pole that's second from the right because it has these pieces of equipment that sort of stick out from the pole. But then again, the pole to the very right, the 16" smooth, seems like a better, more sleek choice. In that sense, that's sort of my observation. In general, there were some scenarios that seem more successful than others. In a busy scenario, like on packet page 59 where there is signage in front of the equipment, that's pretty clever. I don't know that Palo Alto has enough signage. Maybe. Maybe there might be a case one day where we become urban enough where that would be acceptable. I actually like the trash can solution. That's why I kept asking about it. I think it's nice to have something that's multifunctional, that blends in with the city, so I would be open to that as an option as long as the City is willing to service the trash. That's an important caveat that has to be agreed to. In general, I would say those are probably the most successful designs that I saw in Attachment D. There were a few others that came close, but I feel like those were probably the ones that exhibited the most sleek aesthetics. Chair Furth: Thank you. David. Board Member Hirsch: I partially agree with what was just said. I think all suppliers should provide an illustration along with what they're applying for, a 4G or a 5G, on each of the poles, on the assumption that we're going to get there at some point, and we better see it now. And as just indicated, it's likely to be a separate piece of equipment on the pole, so I would say it ought to be a requirement of the ordinance that the 5G is part of the presentation. It seems like there's a lot of different variations on the 4G arrangement and the shroud of it, and that there should be a limitation on the size of that. I have seen some that seem to be only five or six feet high, and others that are much, much higher. I guess 12" 4G/5G shown on the one that was mentioned, the second from the right, has them both. I'm assuming. I don't know where the 5G is. Is it in the top? I think in all cases, keeping the equipment on the top of the pole is essential. I think the only part that is down low is a disconnect switch, and that's the only piece we should allow at a lower level. I'm not really in favor of the trash can because I think that we have plenty of paraphernalia on the street. This is really in a downtown area, because it wouldn't be used, I think, in the community areas on the wooden poles. I would not want to have any more material out on the street where people need to use the full sidewalk. I also don't like the idea of the bases being larger than what we normally need to support the pole, because again, it's an obstruction on the sidewalk. I see there should be some variation in how we deal with the 5G because, in fact, there are other applications on the pole for signage and for banners, etc. There has to be flexibility in the location of the 5G. Not necessarily the 4G if it's going to be on the top of the pole. I don't understand... Actually, just noting in the street pole section on page 46, except provided the top-mounted designed poles and all attachments City of Palo Alto Page 29 would not exceed the height of the surrounding pole by more than three feet. Does that three feet represent...? That's in number 6 on page 46, under general standards? Does that three feet represent something there? Mr. Yang: That allows for an antenna to be placed at the top of the pole, except in the case of a top- mounted design, where everything is at the top. Then we need to allow for more space than that three feet. Board Member Hirsch: I just don't think there's a three-foot antenna exclusively used in most of these applications. Chair Furth: I believe that's what Albert is saying. He's saying all the equipment is up there. Not just the antenna. Mr. Yang: That's right. The application you most recently saw in a preliminary review had all the equipment at the top. I think that was about 5 1/2 or 6 feet that was added at that top. We're saying, unless you're doing that type of design, you need to keep your antenna to three feet from the top. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. That works. I haven't read through the ordinance, but are we including in the ordinance these regulations for sizes of equipment in any way? Or is it limited? Mr. Yang: I'm sorry, can you repeat that? Board Member Hirsch: The ordinance. Does it indicate other sizes that we're discussing here? Or are they going to be completely, separately presented? How is that? I don't understand the system here. Mr. Yang: These are standards that are going to be adopted by City Council resolution. The ordinance is going to say that you have to comply with the standards... Board Member Hirsch: Comply with the standards, okay. Mr. Yang: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: It's just going to reference... Mr. Yang: Exactly. In order for the standards to be more easily updated. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Will the standards talk about the vaults, for example, or the potential vault? Mr. Yang: Yes, they do. Board Member Hirsch: It does? It minimizes or provides for the size for the vault, location of the vault, and...? Or is this by ordinance, Department of Public Works? Mr. Yang: The standards include underground vaulting as one of the options that's permitted, and it sets for the size. We had a comment from a member of the public about, that we should be allowing larger vault sizes because that will make it easier to vault. And if that's the direction that the ARB recommends, that's what we'll take. Chair Furth: If I could interrupt. What size are you recommending? Ms. Atkinson: That is listed on packet page 46, and that dimension is the dimension included with the largest vault. That dimension was compiled from the vault that was the largest that we've seen thus far in our applications. Chair Furth: Two hundred and sixty cubic feet. Board Member Hirsch: I have an additional question here. Suppose we recommended the most minimum equipment should be used from all suppliers. If we recommended that the most minimal amount of City of Palo Alto Page 30 equipment should be used, meaning the smallest transmitters and the smallest antenna on the market today, is that legally allowed? Mr. Yang: I think we would need to be a little bit more directive than that, but that is along the lines of what the staff proposed as dimensions, allowable dimensions, at least for streetlight poles allowed. For streetlight poles, if you don't put it underground, you're allowed to integrate everything into the body of the pole itself, which is what those designs on package page 55, I believe, show. Or, you can place everything at the top, which is what the ARB recently reviewed. There is an exception that addresses one of the comments from one of the industry members that allows you to place 5G equipment which might not fit within that small shroud in another location. Board Member Hirsch: Where? Mr. Yang: Right now, I think we said none near the top of the pole, essentially. Board Member Hirsch: Near the top. Mr. Yang: As close to the top of the pole as... Board Member Hirsch: Yes, good. Aside from other parts of this discussion, we're not likely to select the actual supplier on any of this equipment. Mr. Yang: We're not, and that's also beyond the scope of the City's authority. Board Member Hirsch: In terms of the signage, is that included in the recommendation as to where the signs would be located? I understand they can be close to the equipment if possible. There is additional signage that comes along with requirements here. Okay. Mr. Yang: Yes, that's included. Board Member Hirsch: That's been also part of the... Mr. Yang: That's correct, yes. Location of signage is part of the standard. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. And it can also be as close as possible to the equipment? Rather than at the base of the pole? Ms. Atkinson: There's a need for signage to identify the site and have contact information in case there's any difficulty with the site. That would be the wood poles lower to the ground, and there would be safety signage closer to the antenna. In the case of streetlights, the signage would be closest to the antenna, and then, also, where the power disconnect is in the vault, in the street. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex, any comments on the proposed design standards? Or design proposal? Board Member Lew: I only have one comment, which is in, like, downtown areas where we have build-to line requirements for buildings, I think there should be some consideration of the upper floor tenants who are looking directly into the antennas. I think in one of the recent projects that we've seen, there were people on, say, on the second floor, second floor balconies, who are looking directly at the shroud. I think we've heard some statements that the shroud may or may not be possible, where they're open, or somehow it's screened, or louvers, or something on there. I think we haven't really seen any installations of that, so I'd be curious about that, if there are ways to minimize the impact on the upper floors. Vice Chair Baltay: I don't really have any specific design feedback on the proposals in front of us from the ordinance. Chair Furth: Okay, let's see (inaudible-off microphone) move on to broader issue of how we feel about this whole thing and our role in it. I had a question for Utilities, which is: Where in the city do you believe that there might be space for underground vaults? Let's assume that the noise issues are addressed, or City of Palo Alto Page 31 city citizens say they'll put up with the noise as long as they can have these facilities underground. Are there neighborhoods or streets or places where the City Utilities division and the rest of the City would say, "Yes, you can put in an underground vault." So far, we haven't seen any. We have, for example, been told that they would not be approved in an area with rolled curbs. Gregory McKernan, Electric Utilities: Gregory McKernan, Electric Utilities. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, you still have to spell your name. Even though we should know. Mr. McKernan: That's okay. [spells name] The question is, where would Utilities be looking to see the applicant find locations for underground vaults? It's really hard to say because it's a very case-by-case basis. A lot of the poles that the applicants are finding are already in public right-of-way but on more main streets than smaller streets. The larger streets have more infrastructure underground for gas, water, storm drain, and even some of the private fibers go down those routes, too. It's really a case-by- case basis. I don't know if we could really find a location and say, "Yeah, this is more of a recommendation." Chair Furth: Some of our most-concerned citizens live on smaller streets that do not have, they are not big streets. They're probably not major thoroughfares for large distribution facilities. And yet, even in those neighborhoods, we've never heard that an underground location would be feasible. Why is that? Mr. McKernan: I think that was from the applicant. I don't want to talk for the applicant, but what I recall from meeting with them is that they have a limited range for their conductors from the underground vault. Chair Furth: They need to be close to the pole. Mr. McKernan: Correct. And because that restriction, I think, allotted to either 30 or 40 feet, it's really impacted tree locations in other existing underground infrastructures. Chair Furth: It's possible that there is somewhere in the street where it would be possible to put in an underground vault? Mr. McKernan: Yes, it would be possible. Chair Furth: I know it's kind of a silly question, but... It's not an impossibility. Mr. McKernan: I don't think vaulting is an impossibility. I think it just has very tight constraints. I don’t want to talk for the applicant. Chair Furth: I don't want you to. Mr. McKernan: Yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: Do you have published maps of where your conduits are underground? Mr. McKernan: We don't publish those maps to the public. Chair Furth: After 9/11 those all went private. Mr. McKernan: Yes. Chair Furth: Would they be available to an applicant trying to design a vault, somehow? Mr. McKernan: Yes, we would provide those when part of the application process... And I know when Verizon went through their exercise for the first cluster, before it was approved, we got map requests showing, requesting for electric, water and gas. Wastewater, as well. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Vice Chair Baltay: Is it true that for one of these facilities, if the power is underground in the area, they need to tie into that power underground, regardless of whether or not they have a vault? Mr. McKernan: That's a recommendation, so, if there's no... There's a couple questions about that. If they're installing a vault in the ground with all their radio equipment, for a pole climbing space, it's easier if they source the power from an underground source of it's located next to the pole. But if it's not within that immediate pole, then we'd recommend them coming from the overhead. I hope that... Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I'm thinking more the case of a streetlight, for example, where it's fed from underground power. Chair Furth: We're thinking of districts where the City utilities are undergrounded. Mr. McKernan: Okay, in the districts where the utilities have already undergrounded, then we'd strictly be talking about streetlights. There wouldn't be any wooden utility poles. In those cases, we require the applicant to find a low-voltage source that's not tied into our streetlight circuits, because our streetlight circuits, in some cases, are master controlled, so they might not be able to have power 24/7. Vice Chair Baltay: But it's likely that they'll have to excavate and attach somehow to conduits under the ground. Mr. McKernan: They would have to because there would be no overhead poles to provide the power. Vice Chair Baltay: Staff, don't we have in this ordinance a requirement that a disconnect switch be placed in the vault, or in a connect box in the sidewalk, or underground? I saw that written someplace. Mr. Yang: Yes, that's correct for streetlight poles. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, some excavation work is going to be required. Mr. McKernan: For all streetlight poles, the utility requires that new foundations be created to allow the separation between the applicant, their fiber and their radio equipment conductors, and the utility streetlight conductors. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions? Peter, did you have any other comments on the design? Vice Chair Baltay: No, no comments. Chair Furth: My comments are, I think the point about second-story impacts are important. We had one person who testified that she went from her house that was right next to one of these, to her office a few blocks away, and in each case, she's within feet of these. I think that strand... What do you call them? Where you sling those from the wire? Strand mount brackets are very unappealing. I think it's regrettable that we have so many things of that kind with respect to our quite-unlovely cable television equipment. I myself think that relatively sleek street poles with wider bases could be effective. I prefer that to in-and- out clutter. I think that the guidelines should push undergrounding of equipment harder, and the City should consider whether its residents, in some cases, prefer noise to above-ground equipment. I think that's pretty clearly the case in some neighborhoods, and I think that should always be an option. We're going to have a public outreach process, so I suspect they'll get quieter in the future, but I think that should be an option. I think it's interesting that the people who work on providing these services to us - and I'm about to get a flip phone. Thinking of this rising demand... I just read an interesting Wall Street Journal article about the rise of the second hardly-does-anything phone. People don't usually take those to work, so that's not going to help with the demand issue. I think the City should look at the situations in which street furniture is appropriate. I agree with Osma that refuse cans could be fine. The City has to deal with a complicated new technology, and we have enormous public distress about it. And we'll talk about the overall aesthetic impact in a minute. And if that requires us to change the way that we collect trash, that that requires additional expenditures in order to have less-obtrusive and objectionable City of Palo Alto Page 33 equipment, I think that's a price we should consider very seriously paying. I would be in favor of it. I also think it's got to be possible to design useful benches that could work. Having tried, as my colleagues know, to mail a letter in my usual mailbox, only to discover it's now a fake mailbox and only had telecom equipment in it, I think it's a very bad idea to install this kind of street furniture -- it's not really furniture; obstruction, complication -- at the expense of other forms of communication, like the US mail. But I do think our city, in some neighborhoods, have a street future deficit, and we should be figuring out if there's a way that we can use those two situations to our advantage. I think that the ordinance should be clear that it's minimizing the rights to the extent permitted by law and the agreements the City has already signed, to keep equipment in place when better equipment that's less obtrusive, objectionable and frightening to people is available. I will say that I don't think the problem of the Palo Alto citizens who commented, is that they don't understand radiation, wavelengths or technology. I think their doctorates in civil and environmental engineer are an indication that they are serious scholars and scientists with serious issues. I think that's it for our comments on these proposals, right? And staff, was that at all helpful? Was there anything else specific you want to know, Rebecca. And these are interesting. I'm just sorry we got them this morning. I'm referring to the standard design wood utility poles from Crown Castle. Oh, and if I haven't already said so, I think also that the City, in moving forward with these on a slightly less shock clock basis, should distinguish among neighborhoods. That already happens to a certain extent when you have the streetlights versus wooden utility poles, but different... You know, David's concern about cluttered sidewalks and what-not is really important in some areas, but not in others. And I think the City standards should reflect that. Okay. Peter, I know you had something you wanted to say. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Chair Furth. I've given a lot of thought to this recently and over the past couple of months, and I just want to put out there -- to my colleagues, mostly -- that I think we should be making a stronger unified statement regarding what we think is an appropriate way to move forward with these designs. I want to start this by putting some grounding to this. In Palo Alto, architectural review of these small cell facilities is required by ordinance. I can't cite the statement, but it says very clearly, wireless communication facilities must receive architectural review. And I don't see anything in the proposed ordinance that changes that fundamental requirement. What I see is that the proposed ordinance is really a type of architectural review. It sort of makes it a minor review that goes through staff, and then, it tries to codify some standards to make it easier. Which makes sense given the FCC requirements we have. But I think fundamentally have to say that the basic requirement of architectural review still remains. I think it's very important for us to stand firm on that. The question really is, does this proposed codification of objectification of these things still meet the architectural review standards? That's what I want to then put forth to my colleagues. I've drafted a one-page statement, and I'd like to pass it out to you guys, and then, see if we can either agree to it, or modify it, or come to some stipulation, this is what we think. With that, I'd like to give this to everybody. I have one copy for staff. And I'm going to read it, also. [Passing out statement.] Vice Chair Baltay: This is based on the reviews we've been making over the past couple of months. I'll read this for the record: The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board's statement on small cell wireless communication facilities. It is the recommendation of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board that all small cell wireless communication facilities be installed either below grade, or sufficiently above the ground to be out of the direct line of site of pedestrians. I'm putting in parentheses there, Perhaps 20 feet above the ground, or somehow concealed within existing infrastructure. It's a definition we've struggled with. The Palo Alto Architectural Review Board has recently reviewed several applications for small cell wireless communication facilities. Each application has been reviewed for compliance with the Palo Alto ARB findings. Of note is Finding 2.e, which requires the proposal to enhance the living conditions on the site and in adjacent residential areas. And Finding 3, which requires the proposal to be of high aesthetic quality using high-quality integrated materials and appropriate construction technique, City of Palo Alto Page 34 and incorporating textures, colors and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. I've highlighted those two terms - "enhanced living conditions," and "enhance the surrounding area." Recently, the ARB has fond that antennas concealed in an integrated shroud and mounted at the top of either an existing streetlight or utility pole are acceptable design solutions and are in conformance with the required ARB findings. Two, radio and power equipment concealed by a shroud and mounted at the top of either an existing street or utility pole are acceptable design solutions and are in conformance with the required ARB findings. Three, radio and power equipment, either exposed or concealed by a shroud, and mounted on the side of an existing streetlight or utility pole, are not acceptable design solutions, and prevent the ARB from making Finding 2.e and Finding 3. Four, radio and power equipment located within new ground-mounted equipment enclosures are not acceptable design solutions and prevent the ARB from making Finding 2.e and 3. Applicants claim that their installations will be carefully integrated and represent a small, minor visual intrusion on the street scape. The Planning staff has noted, however, that there are an increasing number of similar applications, and that the number of proposed wireless communication applications and installations is likely to increase. As the quantity of wireless communication facilities installations increases, small negative visual impacts will be multiplied, resulting in a significant overall reduction in the aesthetic quality of the street scape. The Architectural Review Board exists to help safeguard the aesthetic quality of the built environment in Palo Alto, and it finds that wireless communication facility equipment mounted on the sides of streetlight and utility poles reduces the aesthetic quality of the street scape and is not in conformance with the design standards of the city. I don't know if that's exactly what we want to say, but I want to see if we can come together behind something that we put out there as a statement from the ARB. Chair Furth: Thank you. Albert, to be clear, under the revised ordinance, the ARB standards would no longer apply to these facilities. Is that correct? Mr. Yang: That's correct. Unless the FCC order is invalidated in some way and the City Council repeals these objective standards, the ARB standards would no longer apply. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Are we then changing the ARB ordinance that says otherwise? Mr. Yang: Can you point me to the section that you're citing? Chair Furth: I think the... The reason that we review these is because the wireless facility ordinance currently says that we do. Vice Chair Baltay: It's section... What? 1876.0.020, 3-D, regarding a description of which projects receive ARB review. Any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communication service equipment, etc. Mr. Yang: I believe that refers to cable equipment and not to these wireless communication facilities. Chair Furth: It's your intent... Sorry. It's the intent of this revised ordinance that the ARB not apply its standards because they are not objective standards within the meaning of the FCC order. Mr. Yang: That's correct. As a result of the FCC order, we're not permitted to apply our architectural review standards. Chair Furth: Okay. And there are a number of City ordinances outside the one that sets up the ARB... Sorry, I just lost that page. [Looking for correct page.] Okay. Any project relating to installation of cabinets. That's the cable cabinet, cable equipment that, as that applies to it. I'm looking at 1876.0.020 B-3-D. Mr. Yang: We'll take another look at this issue, but I think, Chair Furth, what you just read was correct. City of Palo Alto Page 35 [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Okay. I have one... Go ahead. Vice Chair Baltay: Again, to my colleagues, I don't want us to get wrangled up in what the legal requirements of our reviews are, and things like that. We have a city attorney and staff, and they're working very hard on this under a lot of tight conditions. But, I do want to remind the five of us that we are here to help safeguard the aesthetic quality of our town. And I think we've consistently felt that when you put this equipment down at eye level, it just doesn't do that. It looks worse, not better. And I think we need to state that. We need to say it very clearly so the staff and the public can hear us saying such. It's just not okay. And a small bit here and there adds up to be a lot. And I want us to just say that loud and clear, rather than get wrangled up in the details. And the City Council can, in their wisdom, decide how they want to legislate this. That's not our doing. Chair Furth: I just have one comment before we all talk, which is that I have felt it is very difficult for us to make the City's ARB findings on these facilities. They are not drawn up to consider these facilities, and while some applications are better than others, and certainly some people will consider the availability of more bandwidth in their neighborhoods a good thing, enhancing their residential living experience, it's hard for me to see any of these as an aesthetic improvement on existing conditions. I am interesting in having a statement independent of what... So, that having been said, I am grateful that we are no longer trying to shoehorn ARB standards into a place where they don't fit, which is FCC-mandated reviews. I appreciate that kind of contortion being removed. Okay. Comments. Board Member Thompson: I can start. I'm going to comment on the piece of paper you just sent out, Peter, and your statement. I have a few edits that I'd like to propose, and we can discuss it. And I'll go from bottom to up, actually. At the bottom, we have the four stipulations of what the ARB has recently found. Item #4 is about ground-mounted equipment enclosures. I'd like to talk about that because I think there are scenarios where that would be acceptable, in the case of trash cans, or even planters. If there's something that could improve the street scape or improve the aesthetic quality of that street, then I think it's something that we could... Vice Chair Baltay: I'm all with you. And benches, as Wynne pointed out, are another good example. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, if there could be a way that we could make an edit, that even though, in recent, we have found that, you know, blatantly un-designed ground-mounted equipment is not acceptable, designed ground-mounted equipment would be acceptable, so long as it enhances the surrounding landscape. And then, the other note that I would suggest is, this is in the first paragraph, about equipment should be installed either below grade or sufficiently above the ground to be out of the line of site of pedestrians. I think it might be worthwhile to add a note that, that if it is above ground, that it should be designed in a slim line, sleek, site-specific way. I have seen some of the pictures in Attachment D, where things are above the line of site, and they are gigantic. It's a big lollipop on a stick over there. I think to stress that we are looking for a sleek, small, slim line design, if it is, in fact, above ground. Vice Chair Baltay: I agree absolutely. I didn't want to get into trying to re-write again the proposals that staff has written. I think they've done a fairly good job, actually, of defining potential shrouds on top of the utility poles, and all that struck me as a pretty well-done process. I think we can just refer to or support that. It's the fact that they allow it in the middle area where you see it that bothered me. Board Member Thompson: Okay. And you're referring to the top-mounted node on page 46? Chair Furth: Do you have any other proposed edits? Board Member Thompson: Those are my two notes on this. City of Palo Alto Page 36 Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: The issue of other equipment on the street... Chair Furth: I think you have to be close to the mic, again. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. The trash can concept of including some of the equipment in ground items of that sort, I can understand that in a larger context. I don't see its a possibility in Palo Alto, except maybe in a few areas. I really think it shouldn't be an open possibility, but is a possibility in very specific areas where there is enough sidewalk and other amenities on the ground that would, and it wouldn't disturb the immediate surrounding. I absolutely agree with the minimizing of the facility at the top of the pole. I also want to comment that even if you state that, it really is important to state that it's symmetrical to the pole, we've seen different off-the-side kind of concepts or materials that really wouldn't enhance the look of the top of the pole. There are some that are symmetrical to the pole, or around the pole, the way it shows on the top. I think that's the only way in which the equipment should be placed, close to the top so it enhances the look of the top of the pole, not adds another element to the side of the pole. I'm very concerned about the way the electric comes up the pole. I'm wondering if there are other ways to bring the electric to the facilities that are on the top. That's not really discussed anywhere here in these standards. I don't have an easy answer, of course. The metal poles are great for that because everything goes up the middle, and there are hand holes that you can find your way into the pole and do whatever maintenance is necessary. But glomming those wires on the side of the wood pole certainly isn't delightful in the many communities that have the wood poles. I don't know what the answer might be, and I think it ought to be studied, maybe by Public Works, how that can be done more aesthetically. And I would add that item somehow to what Peter has written here. But, in general, I agree with all of what is stated here, except that installing vaults in the neighborhoods doesn't seem to be a reasonable alternative. An additional problem in the street, you know, things get stuck in vaults, they get filled up with garbage, maintenance is a problem. I can see maintenance in the downtown area certainly a better possibility, but not in the neighborhoods with the wooden poles. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex. Board Member Lew: Okay, so, I think in general I don’t support the letter because, really, the bulk of the letter is about Finding 2 and Finding 3, whichever (inaudible) way. To me, the letter is not relevant to the issue at hand today. I do support many of the things here, but, yeah, the letter, to me, just seems out of place. In some detail, for example, like item number 3 says radio and power equipment either exposed or concealed by a shroud, and then, on the side of an existing streetlight or utility pole, they're not acceptable sign solutions. But, for example, in the packet, there are photos of the Cesar Chavez cell sites. And that's actually, I looked at those even before this... Chair Furth: Would you mind giving us a page number? Board Member Lew: Packet page 58, and it's the image on the left. I've been stuck in traffic on Army Street before (inaudible) Cesar Chavez Street, and I've looked at them, and I thought that was attractive, and very nice. And the side equipment is tiny. I don't like these very broad statements, saying that there's really no situation where it is acceptable. I really don't like those blanket statements, generally. That's where I am on the letter. I think it's fine to send the letter to the Council, but I think it's something... I guess it would be backwards-looking, just commenting on previous proposals, because the findings really aren't relevant anymore. Vice Chair Baltay: If we were to remove the paragraph regarding the findings, Alex, would you be able to support it then? I think it would be great if we could be unanimous on something. Board Member Lew: I think generally the letter is still too broad. Like, there's comments about furniture in here, like there can be side-mounted things that are very small, that are very discreet. Yeah, and it seems to me, if you have issues with the design, then it should be put in the objective standards. I mean, City of Palo Alto Page 37 that's what's going to live on. Any letter that you send to the Council, that will go, and they will think about it. It won't go into any ordinance or code. It seems to me like the focus should be on the objective standards. I mean, that's where the energy should be put on and not on this letter. Chair Furth: I have a thought, I don't know if it helps. I'm generally in favor, I mean, I find this a very helpful summary of what we've done and what we've learned. When you think back to our first hearings, I mean, I wasn't here for the original AT&T hearings, but a lot of information has emerged over time, from the applicants, the citizens, and the City staff, who have all worked long and hard on this. And staff asked us for comments on a specific set of possible design standards, which will be adopted by resolution, which means they can be changed frequently. They can be updated relatively easily. They're not ordinances. And I just heard more from you in your comments to Peter's letter than I heard in our earlier rounds. For example... Board Member Lew: I have other comments, but they're not, they're more general. Chair Furth: Okay. But, I mean, it's helpful to know that the concealed fab dual sun shields, in your experience, can work quite well in some settings. I guess there are a couple points that I think it might be useful to make. One of them is to say... Do we have consensus that on the whole, the addition of the small cell wireless communication facilities does not...? Does have an adverse aesthetic impact on the neighborhood? In the city? Vice Chair Baltay: I think so. Board Member Hirsch: I think so, too. Chair Furth: Osma? Board Member Thompson: If it's done well, then it would be okay. Chair Furth: So you think it's possible. Board Member Thompson: I think it's possible to do it right. Yeah. Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: I have not thought about it. I would say that some have come to the Board, but not all of them, and I've gone out there and seen sites that haven't come to the Board, right? There are more out there than I am aware of. Chair Furth: [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: No, they are old... Chair Furth: AT&T? Board Member Lew: ... they are old AT&T sites that were, they were approved after the first batch. I think it was done by staff, is my guess. Chair Furth: Okay. At least two of us feel that... I guess I would say that I feel that the small cell wireless equipment installed in the city to date generally has an adverse effect on the street scape and neighborhoods. And, I would say that there's going to be greatly increased demand for these, for that, and I would say that the application of... That because these facilities as they have been proposed are difficult, typically do not visually enhance neighborhoods, the ARB standards are not, at present, likely to be consistent with the federal requirements that we're facing. That's not a very well put together sentence. What I would like to say is they don't look good, so reviewing them under ARB standards makes us go into contortions because we're trying to work within a federal overlay that requires approval of something, and we have not yet seen something that would meet our traditional ARB standards. I'd City of Palo Alto Page 38 like to say... I’m trying to find Peter's document again. I'd like to say that we're fine with Item 1, that those are generally the best design solutions we've found. I'd like to say that you can also design radio and power equipment concealed by a shroud and mounted at the top of an existing street or utility pole, and that's acceptable provided that it's a sleek, well-integrated design. I'd like to say that there may be situations in which equipment can be placed in well-designed street furniture that is otherwise desirable at that location. And, I'd like to say that there may be other designs that are unobtrusive, sleek, and well- integrated, that may be acceptable after further review. And that the Board believes that a workshop or other process to continue to explore these design standards after the urgency standards are placed into... After the first round are placed into effect, would be very valuable. Vice Chair Baltay: Let me try to, Alex, counter what you just said about the design of these things, because I don't actually disagree with you in practice. I think that good architects, good designers, could design this equipment to go in many places, even within the visual realm that we're talking about. I think what's missing from you is that that's not the condition that we have here. We're under a very tight approval process. These applications are generally being done by companies that don't have an interest in design. Their engineers are interested in the functionality of it. And I think we're not being realistic when we're saying... I agree, this box you show that's on page 58, the small pod-mounted box is fine. But that's not what we're receiving as applications, and we're not likely to receive that. And I think you're trying too hard for the very good rather than being willing to say a broader statement that will fit the needs right now of the city. And the risk is going to be that we're going to have many of these that are much worse than this, and we'll be allowing them, and we're giving it our stamp of approval as the ARB. That's where I'm concerned. Board Member Lew: If you don't...If we like this, then it should go in the objective standards, right? On packet page 58. And if there's an example that we've seen recently that we don't like, I would recommend putting that in the objective standards and saying that this is not acceptable. Vice Chair Baltay: I just think it's too complicated to try to make standards that are this detailed under something that's changing this much, with this much restriction from the government... Board Member Lew: What does your letter do? Nothing. That's... [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: I'm trying to give City Council the backup to say, "Look, we just have to make a broader statement of where these things are acceptable until we have a better process." If they want to remove the public review process, which is what we are, which is how we could ask for this kind of thing, then Council has to be aware of what they're doing. That's really the point of this letter. I'm not trying to stipulate how they have to design it, but rather just to say as the architecture board, I don't want to put our stamp of approval on something that I think is not going to be as attractive as what you're pointing to. Board Member Lew: If we don't like a particular thing, it should be in this document. When the public sees it, they'll complain, and the Planning Director can refer to the ARB. That's the way it should go. Then there's something on the table that the companies can see, the neighbors can see it, and staff has something to work with, and they have something to leverage. I think that's where I am on this. And I don't disagree with you that some of the recent 5G ones are a little funny-looking, what things will fit on the side, so I have no disagreement about that. And I'm fine with putting it in, saying that it's not acceptable. I also think it's fine to put in the letter, saying, like a summary of the issues we've faced. I have no issues with doing that. But I'm thinking that going forward, we should... What do I want to say? I think maybe we should separate. Like, there's one thing about going forward, and then, a second thing is just our view of the existing approval, approval process. Existing approval process for the cell sites. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Board Member Hirsch: I find this is a, it's kind of a general statement. We're not really talking specific equipment, and we shouldn't be. But it is important for us to present some generalizations here that will be directed at the Council, so that they hear us. It's important to be heard on this. I'm not sure that anybody is going to listen to this hearing and find out what we were saying here, but if we have something in writing that's general enough. I think we can't solve all the problems. For example, when we say no equipment should be lower than, so you have a disconnect switch on the pole. That's part of the equipment. I think someone will pick it up at some point and say, "Well, what about the disconnect switch?" But I do believe that the general comments made here are important for us to get out, and out to the Council and to the public people who will be reviewing this further on. So, I am in favor of presenting it this way, as some kind of a document. And I’m concerned that we shouldn't get hung up on all of the detail. Chair Furth: Albert, in the Planning Commission on Wednesday, is going to be considering the proposed design standards and the ordinance, or just the ordinance? Mr. Yang: Just the ordinance. If I can make a quick comment. I think what staff actually needs today from the ARB is specific direction on potential designs. As Board Member Lew said, these are the designs we are going to be directing applicants to provide us, so if there are things that we propose that the Board doesn't like, we need to know that. If there are things that aren't in here that the Board does like, like the sun shield, for example, or a trash can, maybe, you know, trash cans limited to the Downtown District. Chair Furth: But you haven't actually proposed all these things, right? You gave us a whole list of cuts, and a whole bunch of pictures. Are those all staff proposals? Mr. Yang: No. It should be noted, you know, on each of those slides which ones are actually proposed in the standards right now, and which ones are not. Board Member Thompson: Chair Furth, I think he's referring to attachment A and B. Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Thompson: Those are the... Chair Furth: That's the text. Board Member Thompson: ... that's the text that would be given to the applicant as direction for what we're looking for. Chair Furth: (inaudible-off microphone) I would strike item E. Board Member Thompson: On what page? Chair Furth: Strand-mount design on page 48. I don't know if anybody agrees with me, but I think they are hideous. Board Member Thompson: Is that what the, it's like running on the cables? Chair Furth: It's what you see on the cable. Board Member Thompson: Okay. I would concur with that. Board Member Hirsch: I concur, too. Chair Furth: They never look good. In my experience. Squirrels like them a lot. Is there a consensus on that? Page 48? Board Member Hirsch: Yes on that one. City of Palo Alto Page 40 Board Member Thompson: I would agree, as well. Chair Furth: That's three votes. Board Member Thompson: Could we go to what the sun shield looks like? Is there a picture of what the sun shield looks like? I wasn't sure. Chair Furth: Yes. That's the one Alex highlighted for us. I didn't know what the sun shield was either. Page 58, right? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Chair Furth: I'm in favor of that. I don't know, are we in favor of other...? And I would be in favor of a preference for placing things underground. Albert, what do you think our...? That's an objective standard. Placement underground unless you deem that it's unfeasible. Why are we not saying that? Mr. Yang: I think we can. You know, I guess with all these comments, I'd love to have the, not consensus necessarily, but an understanding from the Board. Chair Furth: I will try to get everybody. But my question to you is, first, is there a staff objection to saying radio equipment shall be placed underground where space permits, unless it's not feasible? Mr. Yang: No objection. Chair Furth: Okay with you guys? Vice Chair Baltay: That's okay. Chair Furth: Is there support for that change? Board Member Lew: What is it? Chair Furth: Page 48, wood utility poles, standard design, that now reads: Radio equipment may be placed underground where space permits...," and I would say "shall," unless not feasible. And feasibility is usually considered a reasonably objective standard. Albert does not object to that language. Board Member Hirsch: I object to it because I think that the, these small cell radios are getting smaller and smaller. The equipment is getting so much smaller. I can't imagine that you really need to say that for... Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: ...a number of locations [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Let's do a straw vote on this. Go ahead. Vice Chair Baltay: I support that statement. Wynne's statement. Board Member Thompson: I do not support that statement. Chair Furth: Okay, David does not support it. Alex, you are the decider. Board Member Lew: I think I'm okay with the language. Chair Furth: All right. Doesn't change. Anything about top-mounted design that we want to change? Board Member Thompson: I'm okay with the language. Chair Furth: Side-mounted design. This is separate from the sun shield design. Vice Chair Baltay: I think we should strike that altogether. City of Palo Alto Page 41 Board Member Thompson: Could we see a picture of that? Chair Furth: Talking about wood utility poles at the moment. Board Member Hirsch: Under C? Chair Furth: We're talking about... Mr. Yang: The dimensions in the standards are closest to the farthest right, kind of that gray... Chair Furth: Except that's on a light pole, right? Mr. Yang: Yes. But those are dimensionally closest to what we are identifying as standard. Chair Furth: The one on the...? What page, Albert? I'm sorry. Board Member Thompson: Forty-eight. Board Member Hirsch: It's in here. Chair Furth: I can't see that. Ms. Atkinson: Packet page 62. Chair Furth: Yes. Thank you. Ms. Atkinson: The two images on the right-hand side of the page, the first image is showing the dimension of the shroud that was previously approved in Vinculum's Cluster 1. The second image is on a streetlight, yes, but it's more dimensionally accurate to the dimensions that are listed in the draft standard. Chair Furth: That's a smaller segment and shroud, right? Which we rejected last time. Okay. Having seen that, these standards would not allow the larger shroud, which you show in the image, second from the right, on page 62. Mr. Yang: That's correct. And they would also require that image on the far right to be a continuous shroud as opposed to segmented. Board Member Hirsch: You know, it's hard to make a judgment on something like this, which has been confusing me quite a lot. Because you look at these shrouds, and you're not really looking at the number of transmitters that are in here to see what area they are serving. If it were possible to know exactly how many of these units are going to be in a community, and know how they cover that particular area... This isn't enough of an engineering presentation for us to make any judgment on it. I mean, in the first place, it's ugly, but secondly... Chair Furth: That's a judgment. Board Member Hirsch: That's my judgment. I can't imagine that we can really understand the intention here by looking at this image. Chair Furth: Our choice, because this is going to go forward by April 15th, our choice is to make no comment, or to comment on standards (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: I think we should strike that altogether. That's the kind of thing that, unless it's done exceptionally well, really looks well. It looks only a little bit bad on one pole, but there's 6,000 poles in town, and a good number of them eventually will have this kind of thing on them. Look at those images. Is that really what we want to put our name on? Chair Furth: Osma. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Board Member Thompson: I think it's true that the images we're looking at are not satisfactory. I think there are ways they could be better. Like, if it was... I don't know, covered in moss, or some kind of... I don't know. There's something that could make that pole look nicer, add landscaping, or something. It's true, most of the time side-mounted design looks bad. There is a way to do it right, I think, so I don't know if I would be in support of striking it altogether at the moment. Chair Furth: Remember, these are standard designs, these are safe harbors, these are, if you do this, you're going to get approval. Right, staff? Staff is nodding. We don't have to draft language, but we could tell staff that we believe it is possible to design an attractive side-mounted facility, but you haven't done it yet, you haven't shown it to us yet. So, in the short run, no safe harbor. Board Member Hirsch: Furthermore, it isn't symmetrical, which is an item I brought up before. Chair Furth: Symmetry matters to at least one board member. Alex? Board Member Lew: I don't understand that comment. What you're saying, if there are three...? Chair Furth: Which symmetry? Board Member Hirsch: Symmetry means both sides of the pole, in this case. If it were... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: I don't support that. Chair Furth: I don't support that. Board Member Thompson: I also would not support that. Board Member Hirsch: Not in this location, certainly, but if it were mounted closer to the top, and mounted symmetrically and minimized, it might look significantly different. It would relate at least to the antenna, and wouldn't be an obstruction lower down, which I think is part [crosstalk]. Board Member Lew: I think you use one side of the pole to climb up. I think that's why they don't.... Right? Board Member Hirsch: Excuse me? Chair Furth: They need to leave one side free for climbing. Board Member Lew: Yeah, one side is for climbing and the other side is for the equipment. Chair Furth: I find I'm not distressed by it only being on one side. I do think there are two approaches, you either try to make it disappear, or you try to make it something worth looking at. And at the moment, this one does neither. I mean, I can imagine... Board Member Hirsch: We're not designing... Chair Furth: ...streetlights... No. We're talking about both. Streetlights... There are good-looking electrical poles. There are good looking guardrails. Caltrans has a whole assortment. Some of them are basic and horrible, and some of them are really quite well designed. And some designs just attract your eye, and some designs... Well, they all are designed to be visible. But anyway, my request to staff would be that you tighten up the side, make side-mounted designs not, you don't have a safe harbor yet. And that you indicate that designs would be considered and reviewed, but that they would not be a safe harbor yet because we don't have a good enough design for us to sign off. Is there any objection to that approach? Vice Chair Baltay: That seems like a good compromise. Board Member Thompson: I'm okay with that. City of Palo Alto Page 43 Board Member Hirsch: I could go along with that redesign. Board Member Lew: I think I'm... I think, isn't that what the staff is trying to do with the fourth image? You're trying to make it even smaller than anything that we've seen before? Chair Furth: And uniform. Board Member Lew: Like, on 62, right? Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: I think, if I understand Albert's description, I think we're saying that that's the dimension that you wanted to be one continuous shroud. But this is something smaller than anything we've seen. Like, the things that we've seen before, it's, like, the third image. Chair Furth: It's 15 inches wide, still. Is that right? It's 15 inches wide. Okay, so, Alex, are you comfortable...? You would support the staff's recommendation as a safe harbor? Board Member Lew: I’m not opposed to what you're proposing. I'm thinking that... Chair Furth: I'm expecting that you'll get this back. Board Member Lew: That's fine. Chair Furth: So, that's our suggestion there. Board Member Hirsch: Are we asking that this safe harbor happens before... Chair Furth: They're going to put it in place... Board Member Hirsch: ...the application? Chair Furth: ...before April 14th. Board Member Hirsch: That's right. What is the sense of our asking [crosstalk]? Chair Furth: Staff has asked us to give them our thoughts on changes they might make in this proposal before they adopt it. Board Member Hirsch: But we're not going to review them. We don’t have time to review them. Is that right? Chair Furth: No, but frequently staff listens to our thoughts and implements them. Everything we do is a recommendation. And yes, we'd like to see further designs. That's a good point, David. Board Member Hirsch: Are we saying that height is not a problem here? Chair Furth: We're not saying anything on that score. Board Member Hirsch: I think we ought to. And it's part of... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: You want it shorter? Taller? Higher up? What's your thought? Board Member Thompson: I think the height limit is noted in Item C. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Oh, sorry, yes, 40 inches, or 50 inches if it's smaller. Forty by 15 by 12, or 50 by 13 by 7. Board Member Hirsch: Location on the pole. City of Palo Alto Page 44 Chair Furth: That's what I thought you meant. Ms. French: You're talking about height above grade. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, height above grade. Chair Furth: And what would you suggest as a minimum? Or maximum? Board Member Hirsch: Peter has it in his proposal. Chair Furth: Twenty feet? Board Member Lew: I don't support that. Because there's... I forgot the name of the, the diagram, where the utilities have to be separated by a certain amount, and I don't like throwing out a number like that based on nothing. There's no basis for the 20 feet. Chair Furth: Okay. Have staff look into the issue of height? Ms. Atkinson: Packet page 49. There's an item listing height, and there are items 7, 8, 9 and 10 that speak to height. Chair Furth: But they don't speak to where on a pole you would attach this side-mounted equipment. Is that right? Board Member Lew: That's the GO 95, it's that diagram. Chair Furth: Yeah. Mr. Yang: We understand that there is an interest in staff taking a look at where on the pole, to add some sort of height regulation. Chair Furth: [crosstalk] agreement. [crosstalk] Mr. Yang: And we'll take into account existing utilities when we look at that. Chair Furth: Thank you. Minimal sun shield designs? Do we agree that they are pretty good? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Chair Furth: We like those? Board Member Thompson: I think they're okay, yeah. Chair Furth: And we don't like the (inaudible) design. Okay. I don't have any comments myself on general standards for all WCFs (Wireless Communication Facilities) located on wood utility poles. Did I completely miss standard streetlights? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I think we should go back... Chair Furth: We should go back. Sorry. They're probably more important. Forty-six. Board Member Thompson: There's only three. Vice Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Wynne. General standard number 6 is the one regarding the 5G antenna stuff. I was uncomfortable with that when I read it earlier. Chair Furth: Which page are we on, Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Page 49. City of Palo Alto Page 45 Chair Furth: Equipment that cannot propagate an adequate signal? That one? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, that one. It just seems to me a pretty wide loophole. Chair Furth: Yeah, we don't want it strand-mounted. Do you have to? Board Member Thompson: Is it talking about strand-mounted? Chair Furth: Yeah. It's a loophole. Board Member Thompson: Oh, "may be strand-mounted." Got it. Mr. Yang: What we understand for 5G equipment on wood poles, they need to have a two-foot separation from the pole itself, so we're likely either looking at some sort of arm sticking out from the side of the pole, or, I guess in our estimation, strand mounting was for those 5G radios and antennas, a potentially superior alternative. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I suggest we should add that it should be added near the top of the pole if it's going to be sticking out from the pole that much. Mr. Yang: There are additional technical limitations about how high they can be because of signal propagation issues. Chair Furth: And personally, I would prefer a brace, a straight pole, rather than a sagging strand. I think they're particularly unfortunate. Vice Chair Baltay: Absolutely on the strand, but this basically invalidates a lot of what we're talking about, because as soon as we have 5G antennas, they can be anywhere, sticking two feet off the pole, and this allows almost any configuration. What's the point of all this, then? Unidentified??: (inaudible-off microphone) Chair Furth: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ...minimize the amount of this. Oh, I thought David's point about, if you're coming in with a 4G facility, tell us how you're going to modify it for 5G, is a good idea. I don't know, I think we all agree that would be a good idea to implement. Light poles, thank you. Board Member Thompson: Wait, hold on. The equipment would be sticking out two feet on a brace? Chair Furth: Mm-hmm. If you look at an existing wooden pole, you'll see lots of them. Board Member Thompson: Right. Okay. Chair Furth: If they're going to be two feet from the pole, they're either going to be out there on a brace or they're going to be out there on a wire. Board Member Thompson: And we're not okay if it's on the wire? Chair Furth: I'm not. I just think... Board Member Hirsch: I'm not. Chair Furth: ... they look terrible. Vice Chair Baltay: Again, we just have so little information of what it will really look like. City of Palo Alto Page 46 [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Okay... Vice Chair Baltay: The better answer is just to say no to most of it unless it comes back for review on a detailed level. Chair Furth: We can't... Anyway. So, you have a sense. We don't like this. Ms. French: There's a little confusion; we just want to clarify. Albert and I think that you are scratching the thing that says "strand-mounted" out of number 6, and Rebecca thinks that you're scratching all of 6. Which is it? Chair Furth: Just the "strand-mounted," at the moment. Ms. French: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: We would rather not have six, but I think Albert has indicated to us audibly that he need something that will allow this kind of equipment. Is that correct? Mr. Yang: Yes. Chair Furth: Yeah, he wants a two-foot separation. We can't do everything. I think some of the things we can do are better than nothing. That may not be the case. I will say on noise that the City should revisit its noise standards and find out which is actually worse, the noise or...? There should be some kind of neighborhood input into that. Some people I think do find the noise very troubling, and we may not have heard from them enough. Any comments on the streetlight poles, which start on page 46. Board Member Thompson: For both streetlight and wood utility poles, how does the Board feel about adding ground-mounted, to permit ground-mounted equipment, so long as it goes through review? Like in the form of a planter, or... Chair Furth: If it's located in otherwise-desirable street furniture? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Chair Furth: Yeah. I'm in favor of that. David? Vice Chair Baltay: I just don't see how you define it. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: We don't have to define it, but right now, they've eliminated it, so we're never going to see it. We're going to see all kinds of stuff attached to poles that perhaps, in a particular location, could go in subtle street planters, and that would be better. Why would we eliminate that at this point? Vice Chair Baltay: Because it's going to be not-so-subtle street planters we're going to see, and what we've seen, 90 percent of what we do see, the images in front of us are the not-so-subtle type. Chair Furth: Okay, so, we would want that to be reviewed. Ms. French: (inaudible-off microphone) Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Show us where the exceptions might be. Chair Furth: Actually, I've got another one for staff. It would be great if staff would present, would develop examples of suitable street furniture that could be used for these purposes in appropriate City of Palo Alto Page 47 neighborhoods. Then there is an incentive to the people sitting out there to do it. Is that made simple? Counsel says yes. Vice Chair Baltay: I think the trash can we saw earlier would be a really clever idea. It's hard to see arguing with a trash can that doubles-duty. Chair Furth: There are lots of frontages along city parking lots that have spaces that could be used this way. I mean, the city is littered with...sorry. Depends upon... large utility switching facilities, which are anything but lovely, and we would rather not... We put them up all the time, and we would rather not do that, but there are those spaces that could be better used. Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to add on a streetlight poles, Item C on page 46, that they should be stylistically consistent with the existing streetlight and pole. Chair Furth: Why would we not say that... Would we say that all equipment "shall" be enclosed in a shroud, rather than "may?" Mr. Yang: Yes, we'll make all of those changes. We already also have the requirement that the poles be stylistically consistent. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I didn't quite hear you, Albert. Mr. Yang: We already have a requirement that poles be stylistically consistent. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, what I see you say is that it shall match style and dimension of the existing public works standards. I'm talking about the existing pole itself. Because the standard is one thing, but some of the streetlight poles we have are quite attractive. I want to make sure that's what we're matching. Mr. Yang: We have adopted standards for three areas of the city, for Downtown, Cal Ave, and El Camino. And as we replace poles on their regular schedule, we bring them up to the standard. What we're saying is if, you know, any of the carriers are going to be replacing those poles, they need to be matching those standards in the places where we have them. The three areas. And if they're replacing a pole outside of those three areas, they have to match what's currently there. Vice Chair Baltay: And could we remove the phrase, "as closely as possible?" This is section B, I or 1. Poles shall match existing, etc., as closely as possible. Why do you constantly give them these outs? Mr. Yang: That's a question about whether or not the Board wants to support the integrated pole design. If you're in favor of the integrated pole design, where all the radio and maybe the antenna, or maybe not the antenna, but all the radios go inside the diameter of the pole, that's going to require a pole diameter, maybe the whole length, or maybe, depending on what the Board directs, just up to a certain height, five or six feet, that is wider than what we currently have out there. So, what we would be saying is, if you're going to do that design, you can't exactly match our existing standards for a narrow pole the whole length, but you have to add the fluting, match the color, and above the height, certain height, match the exact diameter, as well. Chair Furth: I'm guessing, based on previous hearings, that before the City opened that door again, we'd want to see a City-approved design that got reviewed by us, before it went off to become, rather than a, you know, here's what we're doing in Sunnyvale. Vice Chair Baltay: I mean, these "as closely as possible" things, Albert, what you're talking about is fine, but the level of review it gets is minimal. It's just staff under pressure from the applicant. And ultimately, that's just how you wind up with this hodge-podge of stuff. If the City has these three light pole standards, then... City of Palo Alto Page 48 Chair Furth: Does anybody else share my view that there may be acceptable streetlight designs that are not identical because they're designed to accommodate not just electrical lights in their switching? But before the City staff signed off on one, we think they should come by us? Apparently not. Board Member Thompson: Are we talking about something that's on page 54 of the packet? Ms. Atkinson: Fifty-four and 55. Mr. Yang: Yes. Yeah, that's right, 54 and 55. Chair Furth: My sense is that those are not poles that are as, you know... Okay, I guess I need to hear from everybody. Who supports this as written? Alex? Board Member Lew: You're talking about B-1? Chair Furth: Uh-huh. We're talking about integrated pole design where the equipment goes in the pole. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I understand. Chair Furth: Staff has informed us that they're going to need bigger poles to do this. Bigger diameters. Board Member Thompson: But it shall not exceed 18 inches. Mr. Yang: And we are really just looking for direction. If the Board doesn't like these, that's fine. Chair Furth: I guess it's a two-level question. Do you think that in some circumstances these might work? And, are you comfortable with delegating the definition of what those circumstances are to staff? Board Member Lew: I don't have any issues with the wording. Chair Furth: You're okay as it's written. Peter, no? Osma? Board Member Thompson: I'm okay with it as written, but I would also like to note that in what we're looking at here, they're all kind of different, and in the blue background image, 1, 3 and 6 are preferable to the others that otherwise have side-mounted equipment on them. Board Member Hirsch: My opinion, 18 inches is a huge, huge dimension. It's way out of scale with all of the light fixtures that are downtown. And we should not accept that dimension, even if it means that the equipment should be mounted differently on the pole. Chair Furth: What's the existing dimension? Utilities? Ms. Atkinson: I'm sorry, for the base, or the width of the pole? Chair Furth: The existing pole design downtown, for example. David was saying that 18 inches diameter is very big, and I'm asking what the existing diameter is. Mr. McKernan: I'm to quite sure, but I think it's between six and eight inches. Maybe... Chair Furth: I beg your pardon? Utilities: I believe between six and eight inches in diameter at the base. Ms. Atkinson: And I believe the most recent decorative streetlight pole downtown, the base, like, the widest part at the very base... Chair Furth: The part where it flares out. Ms. Atkinson: Right. Fifteen inches. At the widest point, at the base. Board Member Thompson: This would only be three more inches. City of Palo Alto Page 49 Chair Furth: But the base flares. Ms. Atkinson: Eighteen inches would be allowed continuously up from the... Chair Furth: That's your proposal? Mr. Yang: We need direction on how high it should be [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: But that's what you wrote. Mr. Yang: Yeah. Chair Furth: One of the things is we don't have a scale drawing, we don't know what they look like now, we don't know what the technical requirements are. I think you've heard that we believe that there are circumstances under which an integrated pole could work. Alex is happy with the language that you have. Peter is not. David is not. Ms. French: That image is 7.6 feet, is the pole base in that image to the left. Chair Furth: It's above my head. Ms. French: And the one to the right as well, 7.6 feet. Chair Furth: These are very tall streetlights. Ms. French: Yeah. Chair Furth: I mean, are streetlights that high? Board Member Lew: No. Well, they vary. Ms. French: Twenty-five feet (inaudible). Downtown. Board Member Lew: I think streetlights on University Avenue are very low. Maybe like... I don't know. I'm guessing, like, something like 12 feet. Chair Furth: That's what I'm thinking. I mean, they're not that far... Board Member Lew: But even on University Avenue, if you look on the corners, there's a different type that's much taller. Board Member Hirsch: You look at this traditional streetlight pole and you think that, well, you're going to change one dimension in there three inches? That's a huge change. It means you have to change the base, you have to change all the fittings. It isn't going to look like that pole anymore. I think there's good reason to keep traditions. Chair Furth: So, at this point, I'm trying to count votes here for staff. Alex supports the language as it stands. Peter does not. David does not. Osma, where are you? Board Member Thompson: I'm okay with the language. Chair Furth: You're okay with the language as it stands. Vice Chair Baltay: Can I...? Chair Furth: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: ...fly one more thought here? Is there a way we could say that the streetlights need to match the standards, or have some additional aesthetic review somehow? There must be a process by which the City has picked the three streetlight pole styles that we have now. It would be nice if we could, City of Palo Alto Page 50 if we're going to have a new design or a different style, that should also be reviewed the same way. Is there any way to put that in there instead? To allow the applicant, if they want to propose something that's different, it has to get additional review. Mr. Yang: The way to do that is just to not allow it in the standards. Then they could apply for something different, and we would [crosstalk]. Vice Chair Baltay: If we say it's not allowed here, it's still allowed as an exception and has to get reviewed specially. Mr. Yang: Correct. Chair Furth: Now that you've heard from all of us, you need to absorb... You haven't heard from me. I think that these may very well be a good idea, but I think the City needs to design the poles, and there needs to be some design review of the modified pole standard. Incidentally, doesn't that have to go to City Council, if you modify a Public Works standard? So, I would be in favor of punting this down the road a few months while you came up with a design, before you said, "Here, put up whatever pole you want that's more or less like this." Okay. I think that's as much direction as you're going to get from us on that. Top-mounted design. Straight streetlight poles. What picture should we be looking at? Board Member Thompson: Is the one where you wanted to add the word "stylistically," here? Vice Chair Baltay: (off microphone) Yes, at the bottom I wrote, "should be stylistically consistent with..." I said, "existing light pole," but based on what Albert said, (inaudible) design of the light pole. Board Member Thompson: I'm okay with that change. Chair Furth: That's fine with me. Somebody else say "yes" and we can move on. Board Member Hirsch: I just want to point out one thing about this illustration here, is it has... Chair Furth: What page are you on? Board Member Hirsch: I'm looking at the picture in front of you. Chair Furth: Okay, that is page 56. Board Member Hirsch: That shows a 5G under the 4G, 4G over the light and 5G below. And I'm very much in favor of the way that mounting works. If someone wants to add more radios, this seems to be kind of way to do it. And when I said "symmetrical" before, I really mean something exactly like this. Completely surrounds the pole as I see it. Is that true, staff? Is the 5G piece surrounding the entire pole? Clamps onto it. [crosstalk] Mr. Yang: Yes. In two-dimension, it's symmetrical. Board Member Hirsch: It's in two pieces. Mr. Yang: Yeah. Board Member Thompson: It's not like a cylinder around it. It's kind of like an oblong.... Board Member Hirsch: I think it's... Board Member Thompson: ... rectangle. Board Member Hirsch: ...an irregular kind of cylinder of some sort. City of Palo Alto Page 51 Mr. Yang: It's not symmetrical, like, a cylinder would be all the way around the pole. It is symmetrical on two sides of the pole. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, so, we're only looking at one part of it. The other part is attached to the opposite side. Mr. Yang: One of the... The rendering is a three-quarters view, and the plans are from the side. Chair Furth: Is any portion of the pole visible where this is installed? It completely surrounds the pole. Ms. Atkinson: Correct. With the shroud included. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: We're talking about the experience of the person on the street. It's completely surrounded. Got it. Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: I think it is, right? It's completely surrounding the pole? Chair Furth: Yes, it's completely surrounding, no, it is not completely round. Moving on. Any comments or changes desired to Standard C for WCFs located on streetlights, on page 46 at the top of the page? Hearing none. Any comments about the general standards that differ from those we did earlier? Ms. French: Has there been discussion about hiding behind the street signs? Chair Furth: What hiding behind...? Where is that? Where is that in the standards? Mr. Yang: It's not in the standards, but it's something that we'd like to know if we should add. Chair Furth: Page? Ms. Atkinson: Packet page 59. Chair Furth: I do remember. It's just I don't know where it is. Board Member Thompson: I said I was okay with that. Chair Furth: This is the one that Board Member Thompson said, if we ever got that urban, she thought it was a good approach. Meaning that we had signs. I don't think there's any support for putting up signs to do this. Seeing none. Any other comments on this? Board Member Thompson: I think that's everything. Chair Furth: I'm looking at the back view. I don't understand what I see if I look... They haven't quite given us a shot coming up from the opposite side of the sign. What do you see that way? Mr. Yang: Most likely it's a seven-by-seven box behind the sign. Chair Furth: That little thing in front of the sign. Mr. Yang: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Is the disconnect switch we're talking about? Chair Furth: That's the radio. I think behind is a complicated concept when people are working or driving both directions, but it could be useful in some circumstances. Any other comments on that? Board Member Hirsch: What number are we on? Chair Furth: We're not on any particular number, but they are asking for our comments on that approach. We're going to all need lunch, I can tell. City of Palo Alto Page 52 Board Member Hirsch: I'm opposed to that. I just think that these things should stand alone so they don't complicate other utility issues and signage issues. Chair Furth: Okay, that's one for, one against. Alex? Board Member Lew: I can support the signs. Chair Furth: Alex supports. Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I guess I'm fine with it. Chair Furth: I will say that I think if staff thinks it's useful under the appropriate circumstances, fine, but we don't think they should be installing signs in order to make it acceptable. Anything else? Ms. French: (inaudible-off microphone) Chair Furth: Okay, so, I would like both of these to indicate that street furniture that is otherwise City- approved street furniture designs, that are desirably located from the point of view of those using the streets and sidewalks, are an acceptable alternative. And I would add that the ARB should review those furniture designs. Vice Chair Baltay: I support that. Board Member Thompson: I'll support that also. Chair Furth: Okay, so, that's three. Thank you. I know this isn't easy. Is there a shorter statement that we can agree upon? Vice Chair Baltay: I made a few quick changes here. Maybe I'll try once more with...? At the first paragraph, at the end of where it says, "...direct line of site of pedestrians..." we add, "...all equipment shall be screened by a carefully-designed enclosure." That's responding to Osma's... Board Member Thompson: Where is this? Sorry. Oh, this is the letter? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Just adding a sentence that says: "All equipment shall be screened by a carefully- designed enclosure." Chair Furth: Fine. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: Then, I would put that same thing down on, "Recently, the ARB has found," number 2, "radio and power equipment concealed by..." Instead of a shroud, I just wrote, "carefully designed enclosure. Chair Furth: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Responding to that. I think we just strike line number 4 altogether. That's the one about ground-mounted stuff. There's no way to define that. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: The rest of it, I stand behind. Chair Furth: I think we had disagreement on side-mounted equipment. And because... How about just saying "radio and power equipment mounted on the side of existing streetlight or utility poles requires particularly careful design, and the proposals we have seen have not yet been adequate?" Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. That sounds... City of Palo Alto Page 53 Board Member Thompson: I'm sorry, I missed that. Can you say that again? Chair Furth: I never remember after I said it. "Radio and power equipment mounted on the side of an existing streetlight or utility pole requires particularly careful design, and the proposals we have seen to date have not yet been acceptable." Board Member Thompson: Okay. If we're not all unanimous on this letter, does it even...? I mean, is this...? I feel like this letter shouldn't really be a majority, right? It should be unanimous. We should all stand behind it. Vice Chair Baltay: I would like that very much. I think Alex is the one who is not so comfortable with it. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I would strike the sentence about applicant's claim that installation... I don't want to get in a claim that there will be no.... Planning staff has noted that there are an increasing number of applications. And then, as the number of proposed WCF installations is likely to increase, as the quantity of WCF noises increase, increase of small negative visual impacts will be multiplying, resulting in... Which could result in a significant reduction of the aesthetic quality... which is likely to result...? If significant overall reduction in the aesthetic quality of the street scape, you could say, "unless carefully managed," but I don't know if you want to do that. Go ahead. Board Member Thompson: I was just going to say, if we're not all unanimous on this, I wouldn't feel comfortable submitting this, just because it does represent us as a whole. But what I do think we've done is we've talked about everything that's on here, and it's made public record. So, in that sense, I don't know if that's enough for staff. Chair Furth: Alex, is there any kind of communication from the...? What's your point of view, Alex? Are you opposed to it? Board Member Lew: I’m not opposed to the letter. I think I said it before, is that what... It should be distinguished, what should be distinguished is what we've reviewed in the past, and what we are proposing, what we recommend going forward. To me, those are two separate things. This sort of puts it all together. Chair Furth: I would leave in that we recently reviewed several applications. I'd leave out the stuff about findings because they're moot. They have been mooted. I'd leave in, "Recently, the ARB has found..." and have these four observations, as edited here. And then, I'd leave in the stuff, that, Planning staff has noted there is going to be a lot of these, and small individual impacts can have a large cumulative adverse effect. Vice Chair Baltay: Do we have any mechanism through the Chair, that you, Wynne, could write this up and submit it on our behalf? I don't think we can do this kind of editing right now from here. I think you have a pretty good sense of what will work for us. Is there some mechanism you could circulate? Chair Furth: No, I can't circulate it. Ms. French: I think if you want to agendize it for your next meeting, you can wordsmith. April 4th. Chair Furth: I feel pretty comfortable with my markup, but if not... Yes, we can agendize it for April 4th. I don't know who our audience is here at this point. Vice Chair Baltay: This is a complicated issue. I think City Council will appreciate a concise statement from the ARB. That's who our audience is. Chair Furth: Okay, well, let's try to bring something back on the 4th. We'll bring it back on the 4th. City of Palo Alto Page 54 Vice Chair Baltay: Wynne, can you write up...? Chair Furth: I will draft something. We can bring it back on the 4th. Board Member Thompson: If you could maybe email to us... Chair Furth: No, because that's a Brown Act violation. Board Member Thompson: Oh. Chair Furth: But at least you get to read it ahead of time. And write your comments ahead of time. And send it to staff. Board Member Thompson: Okay, are we good then, or do we need to do anything else? Chair Furth: I think we've done everything. Board Member Thompson: Good. Great. Chair Furth: I think we're suffering from low blood sugar here. Sheldon, who are your...? Excuse me. Yes, we're finished with that discussion. 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 Chair Furth: Sheldon, who are the people who are on the subcommittee? Mr. Sing: (inaudible) Chair Furth: You don’t know? Board Member Thompson: I'll do it. It's fine. We just need to go right now. Chair Furth: Okay. It's Osma and Peter. Before you go... Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 7, 2019. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2019. Ms. French: What about the minutes? Chair Furth: (inaudible-off microphone) Ms. French: Okay, put the minutes on the next meeting? Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements and Discussion Items Chair Furth: We have another item, which was, we owe the City Council an annual report, on which we tell them about matters affecting City policy that come to our attention in our capacity as the ARB, meaning matters that we've noticed about our code. I can give you the exact language in a second. That City of Palo Alto Page 55 we believe should be brought to their attention. And I had hoped we would have time to discuss what you all thought should be brought to their attention so I could draft something. I know Alex has given some thought to protection of small businesses and provided information to staff. Alex is making a face. Board Member Lew: I was not thinking of it as an annual report. That's come up recently. Council has brought it up, and they and others have brought it up at the North Ventura plan meetings. Chair Furth: So, the language is, "The Architectural Review Board should send a report not less than once a year to the Planning Commission and CCC, for the purpose of communicating the concerns of the Board with respect to the City's plans, policies, ordinances and procedures, as these affect the projects which the Board reviews. I'm going to include that in the draft as an issue, Alex. We can see if everybody agrees or not. Which is the provision of accommodation of small businesses as the city redevelops. The other items that I recall that we have talked about have to do with small lot standards, have to do with parking standards. If you think of something, please send an email to staff. And I will bring back a draft, and you can tell me if it's adequate, inadequate, acceptable, or unacceptable. And I wish I could think of more of what we... Board Member Lew: I would just throw out there for the rest of the Board to think about. The architects in town are very alarmed at how long it takes to get a project approved in Palo Alto. There is a project on El Camino, and I think it was in the process for maybe four years. It's pretty long. In the past, we've looked at the number of times a project has come before the ARB, and it's been creeping up, by my estimation. Chair Furth: We had a (inaudible) study. Board Member Lew: I've not looked at, like, cumulative time, though. Cumulative time is sometimes because of the applicant, or there is a code change, or something. There's a whole number of reasons why projects get delayed. But it seems to me it's fairly long. If we continue a project, oftentimes it takes, like, a year or two to get back to the Board. And so much time goes by. I mean, it's hard to even remember what the original meeting was. Chair Furth: Right. And the question is, why would it be so long? Because it doesn't take that long to get on our agenda. Okay. I can add a section that we can do something on that. We have had big quantitative studies in many colors on those issues, showing, you know, how much of this time is the applicant not bringing the plans back, how much of it is City staff review, and how much of it is ARB review. And we could talk about that, and what we thought might help. Because certainly that is a widespread comment. I'm also interested in saying something about where we clearly seem to add value to the process. For me, that seems to be in public projects that we get early in their development, rather than later. Anybody else have any thoughts on that topic that I could include? Alex, do you want to be part of my subcommittee, writing this thing? I can talk to one person about this. Board Member Lew: Sure. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex and I are a subcommittee. Board Member Lew: I think you have to make it (inaudible). Chair Furth: I can appoint it. I just did. Alex and I are... Board Member Lew: (inaudible) Chair Furth: No. The Chair has the power to appointment subcommittees. Board Member Lew: Okay, well, I think in the past, we've, I think we... Chair Furth: Okay, Does it, would it... City of Palo Alto Page 56 Board Member Thompson: I'm fine with it. Chair Furth: David? You agree that Alex and I could write a draft for the rest of you to critique, improve, and otherwise...whatever? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: Is that okay with you, Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: It's fine with me. I'm just putting my head into this issue. What I think is that every year, the Chair should issue at the end of their term, and report to City staff. That's what we're doing right now. I think it's good if we can establish some kind of precedent or practice, that that's what happens. It's great for the Chair to pick one person to help them do it. That's what the subcommittee is. I've been on the Board for a couple of years now and it hasn't really happened so far at all. Chair Furth: If the Vice Chair would like to be... Vice Chair Baltay: Maybe that statement should be in the report, that this is a practice that we want to continue. Chair Furth: Well, the ordinance says we shall. Board Member Lew: Yeah, it's in our bylaws. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: But the Chair shall be responsible for doing it at the end of the year. Chair Furth: Well, whatever. It's in the code that we should do it, and we haven't been. Okay. Staff, same item on the agenda for the next regular meeting, please. Okay, we are adjourned. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Adjournment