The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-04-18 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: April 18, 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]: Continue 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 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(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. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00265]: Recommendation on Applicant's (Pacific Catch Restaurant) Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Exterior Facade Improvements to an Existing _______________________ 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. Tenant Space, including a Sign Exception for one sign, within Building E at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. (Continued to a Date Certain from March 7, 2019) 4.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 565 Hamilton Avenue [18PLN-00313]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing Structures and the Construction of a Mixed-Use Building Containing 19 Rental Apartments and up to 7,450 Square Feet of Office Space. Three Existing Parcels will be Merged. A Variance is Requested to Allow Protrusion of Roof Eaves and First Floor Canopy Into the Hamilton Avenue Special Setback. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15332. Zoning District: CD-C(P) and RM-40 (Downtown Commercial and Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 7, 2019. 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2019. Subcommittee Items 7.190 Channing Avenue [18PLN-00043]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Landscaping and Revisions to the Third Floor Setback Along Channing Avenue, as Well as Other Clarifying Details on the Windows, Stone Pattern and Garage Security Gate. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: RT-35 SOFA II CAP (Residential Transition). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins, at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org _______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment 8.North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Update- Board member Lew 9. Regional Water Control Plant- Construction Status _______________________ 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 # 10279) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 4/18/2019 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. 5 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. 6 2019 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/21/2019 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Furth/Baltay 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay 7/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson 8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February May June March April 4/18 - Lew/ Hirsch July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics May 2, 2019 233 University: Seismic Rehabilitation and Office Addition (2nd Formal) 4256 El Camino Real: New Hotel (3rd Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10242) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/18/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 233 University Avenue: Continue to May 2, 2019 Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 233 University Avenue [18PLN-00344]: Continue 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 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(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.Continue project to the ARB’s May 2, 2019 hearing. Report Summary The subject application was first heard by the ARB on March 7, 2019, at which time it was continued to a date certain of April 18, 2019. The applicant has since asked for additional time to make project revisions and has requested that the project be continued to May 2, 2019. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 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 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 10 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10220) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/18/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Pacific Catch (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00265]: Recommendation on Applicant's (Pacific Catch Restaurant) Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Exterior Facade Improvements to an Existing Tenant Space, including a Sign Exception for one sign, within Building E at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. (Continued to a Date Certain from March 7, 2019) From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Recommend approval of the proposed project and the requested Sign Exception 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 on March 7, 2019. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online at http://bit.ly/PacificCatch030719. A copy of the report without prior attachments is available in Attachment E. 3 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and is modified to reflect recent project changes. Moreover, the project now includes a request for a Sign Exception, for one sign that exceeds the sign areas allowed per the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP; 15PLN-00040) for the Stanford Shopping Center. 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.  Conditional Use Permit (CUP): – Alcoholic beverage service in association with eating & drinking uses. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.010 and 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by Planning staff and forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action. This aspect of the project is outside the purview of the ARB. (File No. 19PLN-00036)  Sign Exception: An application for exception from any of the regulations of this PAMC 16.20 may be made in conjunction with an application for architectural review approval under Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), in such form and including such information as the Director of Planning and Community Environment may prescribe. An exception may be approved by the director of planning and community environment or city council, if on application and/or the facts presented, it is found that: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; (3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. In granting any such exception, such reasonable conditions or restrictions as are deemed appropriate or necessary to protect the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience, and to secure the purposes of this chapter may be imposed. Background 3 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 On March 7, 2019, the ARB reviewed this project and provided comments with the requirement for the project to return to the ARB on a date certain of April 18, 2019. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online at http://bit.ly/030719Video. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response More accurate site plan with dimensioned clearances from the outdoor patio areas and the pedestrian walkways that demonstrate pedestrian access will not be impeded. Updated site plan with dimensions of these areas were included, in addition the pedestrian walkways are increased in size (Sheet A101A - 101C) Signage was excessive in terms of number and size. Signage was adjusted to meet the standards for the Mall (MTFSP), with the addition of a sign exception for one larger wall sign visible from Sand Hill (sheet A403) The common doorway arch area design should be detailed on the plans to determine the compatibility of the adjacent designs Updated sheets include this common area to be renovated by the landlord (Sheet A601). One board member asked that the gas burning fire pit be revised to be energy efficient The applicant has provided manufacture information proposed fire pit speak to its its energy efficiency Analysis1 At the project’s first hearing, the ARB found the design overall to be of high quality and fitting the character of the Shopping Center. However, additional details and revisions to the submitted plans where required as noted in the “BACKGROUND” section of this report. The applicant has provided an updated site plan with additional information regarding the patio area, the common area tree locations, public seating 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 and the outdoor market stand area across from the subject tenant. Pedestrian Access At the narrow point of the plaza, the proposed patio would be 7’ 6” from a relocated lamp post and 18’ 8” from a reduced outdoor sales area for Sigona’s Farmers Market (Top image and Sheet A101C). As the plaza widens, there would be at least 8’ of clearance between the proposed patio area and a relocated lamp post, near public tables and chairs. Whereas, the sidewalk along the parking lot would generally have over 6’ of clearance with the exception of narrow points around an existing tree and fire hydrant. Additionally, the updated site plan includes changes to the sidewalk along the parking lot side of the tenant space. These changes include increasing the area of the walkway by infilling a small portion of the adjacent loading area. This change is also accompanied by relocating an existing light bollard approximately seven feet away from the proposed exterior patio. With the relocation of the existing lamp, bollard, expansion of the walkway, and the exterior sales area of the market tenant being pulled back to the designated lease area, Staff believes that the pedestrian access and flow in the area will not be hindered by this project and the changes address the ARB’s comments regarding pedestrian access. It should be noted that the changes to the loading areas does not result in a loss of a required loading space as the Code required dimensions are 12’ by 45’, and the existing loading area is approximately 110’ in length. The project is proposing to reduce this length by 10’ to widen the existing sidewalk. This loading area would remain long enough for two loading spaces of 45’ length each (total of 90’ in length). The existing width of these loading spaces are legal non- conforming, measuring approximately 8’ 4”, and no change in the width is proposed. Signage The applicant has revised the signage per the ARB’s feedback by reducing the number of signs proposed from six to four as well as reducing their sizes. Three of the four signs proposed comply with the Master Tenant Façade Sign Program for the Shopping Center. The applicant has request for a Sign Exemption for the remaining sign located on the longer façade facing Sand Hill Road (noted as “Sign A” on Page 1 of 5). A summary of the changes to the signage is shown on the table below. 7-Mar Dimensions Location 18-Apr Dimensions Location MTFSP Compliance Sign A 7’ x 12’; 84 sf Façade wall Sign A 6’ 7 ¾” x 12’;79.75 sf Façade wall No, Sign Exception Requested 3 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Sign B 3’ 5 5/8” x 12’; 41.6sf Above covered patio Sign B 3’ x 14’ 1”; 42.25 sf Façade wall Yes Sign C 3’ 5 5/8” x 12’; 41.6sf Façade wall Sign C 3’ x 14’ 1”; 42.25 sf Façade wall Yes Sign D1 3’ 5 5/8” x 12’; 41.6sf Above covered patio Sign D 9" x 5' 3 3/8"; 3.96sf Above covered patio Yes Sign D2 3’ 5 5/8” x 12’; 41.6sf Above covered patio Sign removed from project Wall Sign Above Sign B 3’ 5 5/8” x 12’; 41.6sf Façade wall Sign removed from project The request sign exception for Sign A, appears to be appropriate given the façade length and the overall size of the tenant space. The subject tenant space liken to an anchor tenant rather than a standard Shopping Center tenant, and the proposed sign along with the other three signs fit within the existing character of the Shopping Center and are compatible with the overall design of the tenant space. Staff is supportive of the proposed signage and the requested sign exception. Additional, findings for the sign exception can be viewed in Attachment B. Common Doorway Access The ARB had concerns over the common doorway access archway between the Pacific Catch and the Melt tenant spaces. This transition point will be included in the scope of work for another application that is soon to be filed with the City. This new application would also involve Landlord improvements to the outdoor sales areas of Sigona’s Farmers Market. The landlord has given the City a preview of the proposed design, which includes a façade that is neutral in nature and has elements from both adjacent tenant façades. The existing awning would be preserved, which matches those of The Melt. The design would also compliment the proposed Pacific Catch wooden slats and rectangular arch ways with a rectangular wooden slat façade feature above the common access door. The façade would also feature earth tones that work well as a transition point between The Melt and Pacific Catch. A mockup of the three façades are provided below by Staff for the ARB to reference. Though this portion of the 3 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 building will be done under a forthcoming application, Staff welcomes the ARBs feedback on the design and compatibility of this façade. Fire Pit The ARB stated concerns over the proposed fire pit and its energy usage. The applicant has provided a response from the manufacture regarding the gas operation of the fire pit (Attachment G). The manufacture states that the burner will not be set up for maximum flame output. It would instead be kept at a setting that produces a 14” flame. At this lower flame setting and the mixture of air to gas this system provides, the fire pit will operate at greater efficiency than other models. The ARB’s feedback on the provided information and how well it addresses the ARB’s concerns over energy usage is sought by Staff. Pending Shopping Center Projects For context, staff would like to make the ARB aware of three other pending applications at the Stanford Shopping Center. These projects are listed below and will be heard by the ARB in the near future: 1. 180 El Camino Real Bldg C #10B (19PLN-00114): Architectural Review to Allow for modifications of an exterior storefront for L'Occitane 2. 180 El Camino Real (19PLN-00110): Major Architectural Review to allow for demolition of the existing Macy's Men's building and allow for construction of three retail buildings. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 1 or an “Existing Facilities” exemption (Categorical Exemption 15301). This project meets this exemption due to the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade of an existing building and minor exterior additions for new covered patio areas. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments 3 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 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 2, 2019, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 4, 2019, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1.Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2.Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3.Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) Attachment B: ARB and Sign Exception Findings (DOCX) Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) Attachment E: March 7, 2019 ARB Staff Report w/o Attachments (PDF) Attachment F: Applicant Response Letter and Sign Exception Request (PDF) Attachment G: Fire Pit Information (DOCX) Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 17 Project Location 3.a Packet Pg. 18 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 18PLN-00265 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 would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The restaurant project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high quality regional shopping center. The projects new façade will add to the mixture of tenant façade design. The façade features a high end inviting design for casual eating consistent with other restaurant within the Shopping Center. This project will add to the exclusive mixture of tenants at the Stanford Shopping Center making it a distinctive regional shopping center. 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. Policy L-4.3: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. The proposal seeks to renovate the existing tenant space via a new façade design, adding outdoor seating under new covered patios, and new landscaping to support a new restaurant use that is compatible with the Stanford Shopping Center pedestrian friendly environment. Policy L-4.4: Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi- Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. 3.b Packet Pg. 19 POLICY L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The façade is well designed and enhances the Stanford Shopping Centers pedestrian friendly environment while providing additional outdoor dining opportunities. Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project would remain consistent with the zoning requirements and Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center, though a sign exception is requested for one sign. The requested sign exception appears to be consistent with the overall design of the façade and is compatible with the tenant environment of Shopping Center. The project will not increase the development area of the site in regards to height and setbacks. The parking ratio and gross FAR would change due to the increased covered patio area proposed in this project. 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 proposing façade improvements that will enhance the pedestrian and tenant environment within the Stanford Shopping Center. The proposal will maintain the existing footprint of the building and will not increase the massing or encroach on any setbacks, preserving the pedestrian scale and character of the Stanford Shopping Center area. 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. 3.b Packet Pg. 20 1.Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project will improve the conditions along the pedestrian walkway by adding new landscaping and creating a more pleasant pedestrian environment for pedestrians who visit the Shopping Center by increasing the size of existing walkway. 2.Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street(s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The project proposes a new façade with a well-designed mixture of colors and materials that would enliven the pedestrian entry for this portion of the Shopping Center. This project also includes exterior dining patios that are well designed and in scale with the pedestrian environment of the Shopping Center. These patios would help encourage pedestrian activity at this location of the Stanford Shopping Center while supporting a connection between the interior of the tenant space (restaurant) with pedestrians and patrons on the outside. 3.Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will maintain the existing building setbacks and massing. 4.Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding does not apply. 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 This finding does not apply. 6.Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The proposed project will change the existing parking total on site as the new outdoor dining areas increase the required parking total for the site by three parking spaces. However, the site is over parked based on the Code requirements for the Shopping Center and can easily accommodate the change in parking demand generated by the project. None of these changes modify the overall size and shape of the existing parking facilities (parking lots and garages), resulting in no impacts to the character of site or the pedestrian environment. 7.Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and This finding does not apply 3.b Packet Pg. 21 building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8.Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting and will include new plants that are low water usage. The project will also conform to Green Building Energy codes for commercial businesses. 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 new façade will consist of dark and light colors, with durable and high-quality finish materials that complement one another to form a cohesive design. The lightly painted upper stucco façade blends well with the darker tiled lower façade materials, both of which work well with the contrasting wooden slat features of the façade and covered patio areas. The design will enhance the character of the Shopping Center and update the existing tenant space. The proposed design will better fit a modern eating & drinking use and features a more extensive outdoor dining amenity that fits the outdoor pedestrian environment of the Stanford Shopping Center. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project will continue the existing circulation and access for many modes of transportation to the site. The modifications to the façade will expand the usable open space by providing new covered outdoor seating areas for visitors to the site. With incorporation of future signage, the proposed business will be readily located while being compatible with the Shopping Center. 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 will maintain the existing trees located around the tenant space. With incorporation of staff’s alternative/substitute native plants, the landscaping plan will include plants that are either regional indigenous, drought resistant, and/or provide habitat for wildlife (pollinators). The addition of landscaping within planter boxes also enhances the pedestrian environment of the Shopping Center and complements the design of the project. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 3.b Packet Pg. 22 The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting, and will be in compliance with green building energy code requirements along with the local construction debris diversion rates. In addition, the project also includes new landscaping that has plants which are moderate to low water usage. SIGN EXCEPTION PROCEDURE AND FINDINGS PAMC 16.20.040 Pursuant to PAMC 16.20.040 an application for exception from any of the regulations set forth for signage may be made in conjunction with an application for architectural review approval under Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), in such form and including such information as the director of planning and community environment may prescribe. An exception may be approved by the director of planning and community environment or city council, if on application and/or the facts presented, it is found that: FINDING #1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; The subject tenant space is located within the Stanford Shopping Center property (CC Zone) and is an unusually large tenant space for a non-anchor tenant. The exterior façade length is approximately 173 feet long and has three primary façades. The largest portion of the three-sided façade runs parallel with Sand Hill Road for a length of 95 feet. Due to the size, scale, and positioning of this Sand Hill Road facing façade, its primary view is from the parking lot and the public right of way. Additionally, the smaller façades have obstructed views due to the adjacent Market Plazas existing trees which during the spring through fall seasons would block the view of the other signs proposed with this application. This situation is not found with other exterior facing tenants at the Shopping Center which have signage that are fully visible by automobiles and pedestrians alike. The signage sizes per the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP) for the Shopping Center would not be appropriate for this tenant space, as the MTFSP sign areas are pedestrian in scale, while the subject façade wall is more auto oriented in nature. The requested sign exception seeks one sign (noted as sign A, at 79.75 sf) be larger in height than allowed in the MTFSP (3 ft tall for stacked signs). However, the requested sign would be well within the allowable signage area per the PAMC 16.20 (façade wall area would allow 266 sf). The proposed sign is larger but within an appropriate scale with the broader façade of the tenant space and does not appear to over power or excessively standout. FINDING #2: The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; Granting the request for increased signage area over the allowances per the MTFSP would allow this tenant to be identifiable to Shopping Center patrons enter the Shopping Center from the Sand Hill entrances. As explained above, the subject tenant space is an unusually large tenant space with circumstances that differs from the vast majority of other tenant spaces within the Shopping Center 3.b Packet Pg. 23 (excluding the anchor tenants) and to be limited to the allowed signage size per the MTFSP for the subject façade would allow this tenant to enjoy the same visibility as other exterior facing tenants. FINDING #3: The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The requested sign exception would comply with all applicable codes, including any structural requirements per building code requirements. There is no foreseeable impact to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience from the proposed signage. 3.b Packet Pg. 24 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real, 18PLN-00265 _______________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1.CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Except as modified by these conditions of approval, construction and development, and operation of “Pacific Catch” shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Pacific Catch” received by the City of Palo Alto on April 2, 2019. The approved plans are on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA, 94301. 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. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4.CODE COMPLIANCE: The current and proposed uses shall be comply with all applicable City codes, including Titles 9 (Public Peace, Moral and Safety) and 15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and 19 (Public Safety) of the State of California Administrative Code. 5.EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS: Any exterior alteration would require a separate Architectural Review application, including new lighting fixtures, changes to outdoor furniture, new seating barrier, and other outdoor improvements related to the food service area. 6.OCCUPANCY: Operator shall ensure building’s permitted occupancy is not exceeded at any time. 7.RECYCLING & GARBAGE: The businesses on site must ensure that all service areas have access to garbage, recycling, and compost as required in Municipal Code 5.20.108. 8.NUISANCES AND NOISE: The business shall be operated in a manner to protect any nearby residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during the business hours. Noise levels emanating from the restaurant use shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10. 9.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. 10.ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Given the proposed building increase FAR by less than 1,500 sf, no additional impact fees are due. 3.c Packet Pg. 25 11. 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)) 12. 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. 13. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ZERO WASTE 14. Public area restrooms must have color-coded labeled compost service for paper towels and garbage service for any diaper changing stations. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 15. Plans to show protective tree fencing. Relevant plan sheets must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I fencing on moveable bases around the Tree directly adjacent to the pedestrian walkway expansion area, using a bold dashed line enclosing as much of the Tree Protection Zone as feasible, using the information provided in Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans. Fencing should be shown as it is expected to be installed rather than a circular/bubble diagram. BUILDING DIVISION 16. The proposed restaurant will require Santa Clara County Health Department approval to be submitted to the Building Division prior to the Building Permit issuance. 17. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. 3.c Packet Pg. 26 18. All proposed exterior construction shall comply with Type III construction per CBC 602.3. Please note that this project is located in Building 5 (Building E) of the Stanford Mall and is of Type III Construction per CBC Chapter 6. Combustible exterior wall coverings, such as the proposed wood slats for this buildings shall comply with the requirements of CBC 1406.2.1, Combustible exterior wall coverings and 1405.5, Wood veneers for Type III construction and are permitted to be constructed of combustible materials, complying with the following:  Combustible exterior wall coverings shall be limited to 40 ft in height above grade plane.  Combustible exterior wall coverings constructed of fire-retardant–treated wood complying with CBC section 2303.2 shall not be limited in wall surface area where the fire separation distance is 5-ft or less and shall be permitted up to 60-ft above grade plane regardless of fire separation distance.  Wood veneers shall comply with CBC Section 1405.5. 19. For the propose patio dining area, there is counter seating in this section. Where food or drink is served for consumption at a counter exceeding 34-in in height, a portion of the main counter 60-in minimum in length shall be provided with a surface 34-in maximum in height. Please indicate on the plans the height of the proposed counter for compliance. (CBC 11B-226.3, 11B-902.3) 20. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. UTILITIES WASTE GAS WATER 21. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). 22. 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. 23. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc). 24. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 3.c Packet Pg. 27 25. 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. 26. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the existing or new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive (a double detector assembly may be allowed for existing fire sprinkler systems upon the CPAU’s approval). Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 27. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilties procedures. 28. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures can not be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 29. To install new gas service by directional boring, the applicant is required to have a sewer cleanout by the building where the gas meter to be installed. If applicable to this project, this cleanout is required so the sewer lateral can be videoed for verification of no damage after the gas service is installed by directional boring. 30. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. 3.c Packet Pg. 28 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real, 18PLN-00265 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 52.8 Acres No Change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varied No Change Rear Yard No Requirement N/A N/A Interior Side Yard (right) No Requirement N/A N/A Street Side Yard (left) No Requirement Varied No Change Special Setback 24 feet along Sand Hill and Arboretum Roads Varied No Change Max. Building Height 50 feet or 37 feet maximum within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site (4) Varied, 33 ft 2 inches at the subject tenant space No Change Max. Floor Area per 18.16.060 (e) for Stanford Shopping Center 1,412,362 net sf 1,361,751 net sf 1,362,607 net sf (includes new covered outdoor dining area 856 net sf increase) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property The proposed eating & drinking use will operate within the hours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm. Outdoor Sales and (2) In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the Stanford Shopping 3.d Packet Pg. 29 Storage (18.16.040 (h)) following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage: (A) Except in shopping centers… (B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 sf shall be subject to a conditional use permit. (C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) … Center is a “shopping center” as defined in Title 18, therefore this regulation does not apply. Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. The proposed eating & drinking use will be served by an interior trash room that is accessed via the rear of the kitchen area to the interior corridor of Building E. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CC district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 3: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area for a total of 5,446 parking spaces on site 5,442 spaces 5,348 (accounting for the additional 3 parking spaces associated with this project covered outdoor service areas) Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf 40% long term and 60% short term) equals 523 spaces for the site overall. 265 spaces (93 long term, 172 short term) No Change Loading Space 3/70,000 -120,000 sf with 1 additional space per 50,000 sf over 120,000 sf. Total of 29 loading spaces required. 2 loading space would be required for this portion of the site. ~15 loading spaces No Change 3.d Packet Pg. 30 Table 4: Allowed Signs per the Stanford Shopping Center Master Sign Program Sign Types, Number, and Locations table. Sign Requirement Number Maximum Size Location Primary sign (wall sign) Required 1 Maximum height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height; no sign closer to 24” from demising wall or building corner. Primary facade Banner or blade sign (Projecting sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” height Primary facade Canopy or Awning Sign (optional) 1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary facade Super-graphic (optional) Not limited None Flexible Secondary sign or Emblem (optional) 1 where applicable Secondary sign: Maximum height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: Maximum height is 24” in any direction. Secondary façade where applicable Advertising graphics and signs (optional) Not limited None Only on the inside plane of storefront window (s) Digital images and digital signage (optional) Not limited 42” measured diagonally Only in storefront window *Maximum Allowable Sign Area for Wall Signs. Wall signs and sign area are defined in PAMC 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. Logos are considered wall signs and can be utilized as a primary wall sign or can be a component of a primary wall sign. Logos shall not exceed the maximum height of a stacked sign, which is 36-inches. Logos shall be included in calculations of maximum wall sign area limits. Table 5: PROPOSED SIGN CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 16.20 (SIGNS) Sign Dimensions Location MTFSP Compliance Sign A 6’ 7 ¾” x 12’;79.75 sf Façade wall No, Sign Exception Requested Sign B 3’ x 14’ 1”; 42.25 sf Façade wall Yes Sign C 3’ x 14’ 1”; 42.25 sf Façade wall Yes Sign D 9" x 5' 3 3/8"; 3.96sf Above covered patio Yes 3.d Packet Pg. 31 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10013) 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: 180 El Camino Real: Pacific Catch (1st Formal) Title: 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. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Recommend approval of the proposed project, with staff’s suggested landscaping changes and a requirement to return to Sub-committee with reduced signage, to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The proposed project includes removal of the existing façade at the subject tenant space within Building E of the Stanford Shopping Center and construction of a new façade design, two new covered outdoor seating areas, and signage for a restaurant tenant, “Pacific Catch”. Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Darren Machulsky Architects Representative: Jason Smith – Land Shark Development Legal Counsel: N/A 3 Packet Pg. 67 3.e Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Property Information Address: 180 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area: Various & 52.8 Acres Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: N/A Protected/Heritage Trees: Various throughout the site, none will be removed with this project Historic Resource(s): N/A Existing Improvement(s): 1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s): Retail, Personal Service, General/Professional Offices, and Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 68 3.e Packet Pg. 33 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): 1976 El Camino Real Design Guidelines 3 Packet Pg. 69 3.e Packet Pg. 34 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The proposed project is a Board level Architectural Review application to allow for an exterior tenant improvement which includes a new exterior façade incorporating new horizontal wood slat board siding, two new covered patio areas, and space for future signage. The proposed patio would include custom seating, tables, planter boxes, and an exterior fireplace. The proposed facade includes six signs consisting of the tenants’ name and an associated fish logo mounted directly to the facade and over the new covered patio areas. The project is subject to the requirements outlined the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP, 15PLN-00040). The MTFSP for the Stanford Shopping requires a Planning entitlement if any standalone building or tenant space that faces a public right-of-way proposes exterior changes. The requirement for Board Level review involves tenant spaces with outward facing façades greater than 35 ft long, while tenant spaces with façades under 35 ft long are subject to staff level Architectural Review. Tenant spaces with façades not visible from the public right-of- way do not require Planning entitlements for renovation but are still required to comply with the Program for the Shopping Center and obtain any necessary Building permits. 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.  Conditional Use Permit (CUP): – Alcoholic beverage service in association with eating & drinking uses. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.010 and 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by Planning staff and forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action. This aspect of the project is outside the purview of the ARB. (Under a separate application) 3 Packet Pg. 70 3.e Packet Pg. 35 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the northwestern portion of the Shopping Center near the Sand Hill Road and Plum Lane intersection. The Stanford Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The site is surrounded by a hospital, retail, and multi-family uses. Stanford Shopping Center has an open- air pedestrian environment defined by a mixture of retail, dining, professional and general business offices, and personal service uses. The proposed restaurant would be located within an exterior facing tenant space within Building E of the Stanford Shopping Center. The proposed project involves a façade over 35 ft in length (total exterior facing façade length of 173 ft 6 ½ in) and facing Sand Hill Road, therefore, Board Level Architectural Review is required. Façade Changes The subject space, formerly occupied by Max’s Opera Café, is located on the western portion of the Shopping Center. The tenant space is three-sided, with the lengthier façade facing the Sand Hill and London Plane Way parking lot area, while the shorter façade is adjacent to the tree- filled pedestrian walkway that leads to the interior walkways of the Shopping Center. The existing tenant space has a rolled grey standing seam metal roof and series of arched windows that feature bisecting green metal awnings, with matching metal louvers on the upper portion of the arch and lower fenestration below the awnings. Existing Conditions 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 71 3.e Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 Proposed Design The project is proposing façade changes that include new paint, awnings, wood slats, covered outdoor dining areas, and planter boxes. The new façade design for “Pacific Catch” will maintain the same number of windows and doors, though the archways will be changed to rectangular wooden forms featuring new blue fabric awnings. The upper half of the stucco façade will be painted light grey, with the lower half being covered in a blue glazed tile. Treated wooden slats (Accoya Wood) up the side of the building will continue the angular wood theme, while matching the new covered outdoor seating area of the restaurant. The outdoor seating will be split into two sections, separated by an entry door pathway. Both patio areas have the wooden slat design framing the upper exterior portions of the patio structure. However, the smaller patio features a series of retractable fabric canopies in yellow, while the larger patio area has a hardcover roof structure with an exposed wooden slat design covering a Kingspan U- Lite white matte roof structure. The larger patio area wraps around the corner of the building and ends near the common wall with the adjacent tenant (Cocola Bakery). This patio will feature an outdoor fireplace that is tiled with decorative white and blue tile and features a detached hanging hood/flute that extends through the patio roof. The building façade and the exterior of the patio areas are lined with new planter boxes made of a wood pressed cement material. The materials, color, and design fit together in a cohesive manner while the scale of the façade design fits the tenant space size and the pedestrian character of the shopping center. However, staff would like the ARBs feedback on the choice of planter box material and color in relation to the overall design. Signage The submitted plans include six new exterior signs. Three of the six proposed signs are located on the façade of the building, while the other three signs are located above the exterior edge of the new canopies. One of the facade signs reads “Pacific Catch Westcoast Fish House” along with an associated fish logo and will be internally illuminated individual channel letters. The details for the sign are listed in the table below. 3 Packet Pg. 72 3.e Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Dimensions Location Sign A 7’ x 12’ ; 84 sf Façade wall Sign B 3” 5 5/8” x 12’; 41.6sf Above covered patio Sign C 3” 5 5/8” x 12’; 41.6sf Façade wall Sign D1 3” 5 5/8” x 12’; 41.6sf Above covered patio Sign D2 3” 5 5/8” x 12’; 41.6sf Above covered patio Wall Sign Above Sign B 3” 5 5/8” x 12’; 41.6sf Façade wall The Master Tenant Façade & Sign Program (MTFSP 15PLN-00040) details the sign limitations for the Shopping Center. The primary wall sign would be limited to 36” maximum heights which the current submittal exceeds. Additionally, the canopy signs (Signs B, D1, D2) would exceed the 9” height limit per the MTFSP limitations. To remedy this issue, the applicant could move the canopy signs to the facade wall(s), similar to sign A, and reduce the overall size to meet the 36” allowable sign heights for stacked walled signs and/or reduce the canopy signs height to meet the 9” height limitation for awning/canopy signs. Lastly, the applicant could apply for a sign exception to exceed the limitation of the MTFSP. On balance, the design and materials of the new signs are compatible with other signage found in the Shopping Center. However, the proposed signs would be taller than the adjacent tenants to the north, including The Melt, Yucca de Lac, and CPK. Similarly, the tenants located directly across the grove of trees (Schaubs and Sigona’s) have awning signs much smaller than those proposed in this project. Furthermore, the total number of signs is a point of concern for Staff as there seems to be an excessive number for this project size which results in the signs overpowering the tenant facade. The ARB’s feedback on the total number of signs, size of signs, and the relationship between the branding signage and the fish logos would be appreciated. If the tenant agrees to reduce the size of the signs to meet the requirements of the Sign Code and the MTFSP, the project could be found in conformance with the ARB Findings, and the ARB could recommend approval of the signage with a condition to bring revised plans back to the ARB Sub-Committee. If it remains the tenant’s desire to retain the scale of the signs, the project could be approved with no signage and be required to submit a sign exception at a later date. This sign exception application would need to be noticed and heard at a future ARB hearing. 3 Packet Pg. 73 3.e Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Planter Boxes/Landscaping As previously mentioned, the project includes new landscaping within planter boxes along both facades and the new covered patio areas. The landscaping will be planted inside of planter boxes made of unpainted wood stamped cement material. The Applicant’s planting schedule does not include any native plant species as required for conformance with the ARB Findings. Planning Staff has worked with the City’s Urban Forestry Team to develop an alternative planting schedule that includes local native plants. Being that a large portion of the planters will be in close proximately to an outdoor dining area, the alternative planting schedule has considered plants which do not attract pollinators, to minimize conflicts with the outdoor dining area, while still providing plants that will contribute to the pedestrian environment of the Shopping Center. The existing trees adjacent to the tenant space will remain, and tree protection will be provided during construction. With incorporation of staff’s recommended plantings, the project could be found in conformance with the ARB Findings (see table below). Staff Alternative Planting Schedule APPLICANT PROPOSAL NATIVE SPECIES STAFF PROPOSAL NATIVE SPECIES HABITAT WATER USAGE Bulbine frutescens No Aloe ‘blue elf’ No Yes Low Calandrinia spectabilis No Verbena lilacina 'De La Mina' Yes Yes Low Kniphofia galpinii No Juncus Patens Yes Yes Low 3 Packet Pg. 74 3.e Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Tradescantia padilla No Loropetalum ‘purple pixie’ No No Low Consistency with Application Findings The project is consistent with the required findings as shown in Attachment B. For example, the project will renovate an existing tenant space and provide new outdoor dining areas that will strengthen the Stanford Shopping Center position as a premier regional shopping center with distinctive businesses with an open and appealing pedestrian environment. Though the project will not increase the floor area of the site, it will increase the parking demand, as further described below. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site has multi-modal access and parking which can be accessed by pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface level parking lots with two multi-level parking structures located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. Throughout the site there are pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. The proposed project includes the addition of covered outdoor seating areas (totaling 856 sf) that count towards the gross floor area in term of parking. This results in an increase in the overall parking requirement for the Shopping Center by three (3) parking spaces. The Shopping Center currently is providing 5,442 parking spaces and this project would result in a requirement of 5,348 parking spaces for a surplus of 94 parking spaces. The supply of required parking on site exceeds the required parking standard and can accommodate the minor increase in required parking generated by this project. Zoning Compliance2 The Palo Alto Municipal Code states that the maximum floor area for the Stanford Shopping Center is limited to not add more than 80,000 square feet of floor area to the total amount of floor area of the shopping center existing as of June 14, 1996, 1,332,362 square feet, for a total square footage not to exceed 1,412,362 square feet per PAMC Section 18.16.060(e)(3). A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes within the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 75 3.e Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Stanford Shopping Center as a regional center with a land use designation for the project site is Community Commercial. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 1 or an “Existing Facilities” exemption (Categorical Exemption 15301). This project meets this exemption due to the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade of an existing building and minor exterior additions for new covered patio areas. 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 20, 2019, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 20, 2019, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 76 3.e Packet Pg. 41 LandShark Development Services Group 714∙235∙8235 - 1641 W. Collins Avenue, Orange, CA 92867 - jsmith@landsharkdevelopment.com April 5, 2019 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Community Environment Mr. Samuel Gutierrez 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Pacific Catch – Signage 180 El Camino Real, #711, Bldg. E Palo Alto, CA 94304 To Whom It May Concern: The proposed Pacific Catch restaurant is situated as such that it will occupy a three sided building and will include two separate outdoor dining areas. The proposed signage has been adjusted to be proportional to each individual elevation and all proposed signage meets the MTFSP criteria for the Stanford Shopping Center with the exception of the northwest elevation. The northwest elevation is approximately 350’ from the proposed signage wall sign location to the to the centerline of Sand Hill Road and exceeds 92 linear feet. We are requesting a sign exception for this elevation to exceed the allowable overall sign height to permit our fish logo to be situated atop the signage copy and to allow an increase in the maximum capital letter height. This exception will allow the sign to be proportional with the proposed architectural wood elements in size and scale and provide vehicular visibility for the restaurant. The signage would be as follows: Northwest Elevation- Primary Facade (Wall Sign): Sign “A” 6’-7-3/4” max height x12’ max - 79.75 SqFt. •Allowable: 36” Stack maximum, 24” maximum capital letter. •Proposed: 67-3/4” Stacked which includes the fish logo, main copy and tag line. •Justification: Signage is proportional to the elevation and will allow our costumer to easily identify the location and is within the scale of other approved signage on buildings with similar size frontages. West Elevation- Primary Facade (Wall Sign): Sign “B” 36”x14’-1”max. – 42.25 SqFt. •Allowable: 36” Stacked, 24” max capital letter. •Proposed: 36” Stacked Set, 24” maximum capital letter” Pacific Catch”, Fish Logo falls within the maximum capital letter height at 19-1/8”. Tag line “Westcoast Fish House” is 6”. •Justification: Signage meets the allowable signage per the MTFSP for a primary wall sign. South Elevation- Primary Facade (Wall Sign): Sign “C” 36”x14’-1”max. – 42.25 SqFt. •Allowable: 36” Stacked, 24” maximum capital letter. •Proposed: 36” Stacked Set, 24” maximum capital letter” Pacific Catch”, Fish Logo falls within the maximum capital letter height at 19-1/8”. Tag line “Westcoast Fish House” is 6”. •Justification: Signage meets the allowable signage per the MTFSP for a primary wall sign. East Elevation- Primary Facade (Patio Trellis/Canopy): Sign “D” 9”x5’-3-3/8” – 3.96 SqFt. •Allowable 9” maximum height signage. •Proposed: 9” maximum height internally illuminated letters.•Justification: Signage meets the allowable signage per the MTFSP for a canopy sign. Respectfully, Jason M. Smith LandShark Development Services Group 3.f Packet Pg. 42 At this stage, the Energy Star rating does not apply or available in the market for Decretive or Fire Features products. The advantage of the burner system we are using for the Pacific Catch Fire Table is that it is Certified and compliant with the following codes: 1. 2015, 2012, and 2009 International Fire Code® (IFC) 2. 2015, 2012, and 2009 International Fuel Gas Code® (IFGC) 3. 2012 and 2009 Uniform Mechanical Code® (UMC)* 4. 2010 Natural Gas and Propane Installation Code** The Burner System we are using is advance in the way it mixes the air with gas. It uses a specific air-to-gas ratio at the point of combustion to produce a taller, brighter, fuller flame that resembles a natural, wood burning fire. We call this the Venturi Effect. Venturi Jet Technology generates gas flow and pulls more oxygen into the jet chamber – feeding the combination into the flame at the point of combustion. This causes the gas and oxygen mixture to shoot out of the jet at a high velocity as a super-charged flame, like water out of a fire hose. The burner we will be using for Pacific Catch will not use more than 250K Btu’s Per Hour at the heights Possible Flame. That could be double if we to use a different less expensive H-Burner to produce half of the flame size. We will not setup this burner at the highest flame size. 250K Burner at full capacity, is not high consumption. We don’t recommend nor that we will setup the flame at full capacity. This burner at full capacity, will allow the flame to be as high as 36” high. The normal flame height we recommend is about 12” to 14” for most of our commercial applications. At 12” to 14” height, we are using less Gas/BTU’s. That is the advantage of mixing the air with gas at the point of combustion to produce a higher flame than it would be if we did not have this type of burner. Best Regards, Ayman Suleiman O: 877-531-9867 C: 760-455-8305 3.g Packet Pg. 43 ATTACHMENT H Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1.Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2.Scroll to find “180 El Camino Real, Pacific Catch” and click the address link 3.On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial Study and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.htm?NewsID=4481 3.h Packet Pg. 44 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10178) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 4/18/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 565 Hamilton Avenue: Mixed Use with Office and 19 units (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 565 Hamilton Avenue [18PLN-00313]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing Structures and the Construction of a Mixed-Use Building Containing 19 Rental Apartments and up to 7,450 Square Feet of Office Space. Three Existing Parcels will be Merged. A Variance is Requested to Allow Protrusion of Roof Eaves and First Floor Canopy Into the Hamilton Avenue Special Setback. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15332. Zoning District: CD-C(P) and RM-40 (Downtown Commercial and Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1.Consider the proposed project and provide feedback on the project design to staff and applicant, then continue it to a date certain. Report Summary The applicant proposes a three-story mixed-use project on Hamilton Avenue in the University South neighborhood. The project replaces existing structures on three separate parcels (built in 1899, 1922 and 1926), which are not historic resources. The three properties will be merged to accommodate the project, which is subject to architectural review findings, context-based design criteria and compliance with the Downtown Urban Design Guide. As designed, the 4 Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 project requires exceptions from the Zoning Code. This includes a request for a Variance to deviate from the 17-foot special setback along Hamilton Avenue to accommodate roof overhangs and a first-floor entry canopy. The project also requests an 18% parking adjustment to the required parking by use of Joint Use (Shared) facilities. Background Project Information Owner: Althea & Eric Andersen / Mark Frapwell Architect: Aiden Darling Design, 500 Third Street, Suite 410 San Francisco Representative: Brandy Bridges – Wilson Meany Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 565 Hamilton, 571 Hamilton & 542 Webster Neighborhood: University South Lot Dimensions & Area: 150’ x 150’, 22,450 sf Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes. Street trees in planter strip along Hamilton and Webster. Five (5) existing redwood trees on adjacent Cowper/Webster parking garage property. Historic Resource(s): No. 2016 Historic Resource Evaluations for each site have determined the individual buildings are not eligible for listing as a historic resource. Existing Improvement(s): 542 Webster: 1,944 sf; 1-story; 1926 (four units) 571 Hamilton: 5,242 sf; 2-story; 1922 (four units) 565 Hamilton: 1,827 sf; 1-story; 1899 (one unit) Existing Land Use(s): Three residential structures Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Multi-family residential) RM-40 West: (Webster/Cowper parking garage) PC-3995; (Office Building) CD-C (P) East: (Religious building) RM-40 South: (Office Building) PC-2545 Aerial View of Property: 4 Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Imagery and Data Google, 2019 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: CD-C (P) & RM-40 (Downtown Commercial with Pedestrian Overlay & High-density multiple family residential) Comp. Plan Designation: CC & MF (Community Commercial; Multiple Family Residential) Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Yes South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None 4 Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 HRB: April 26, 2018 – Study Session https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=64684 ARB: May 3, 2018 – Preliminary AR https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=64837 At the May 3, 2018 Preliminary Review meeting, the ARB had some suggestions and recommendations that included:  Focusing the building outward to address the street. Augmenting the landscaping on the ground plane within the setbacks to provide an experience that is generous to the community;  Provide a more urban and open connection to the street for the ground level residential units on Webster Street by removing the wood screens and adding lush landscaping, balconies, patios, and/or stoops;  Study the massing with the following suggestions: o Create a greater differentiation between the office and the residential spaces so that there is a visual cue of the transition in use. o Break up the horizontality of the massing by adding more variation. o Reduce the wrapper-like effect of the fiber cement board panels. Consider an alternate use of the material to reduce heaviness in the mid-section of the building.  Using warmer toned materials to be more ‘Palo Alto’.  Aim to provide more parking on site if mechanical lifts are feasible  Strive to be a good neighbor to the adjacent residential structure at 530 Webster Street. Project Description The proposed project would merge three existing parcels and redevelop the combined parcel with a three-story, mixed-use development that includes underground parking at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. The total lot area of the merged parcels would be 22,450 square feet (sf), approximately 0.5 acres. The image below illustrates the proposed project site with the zoning lines. An additional location map is provided in Attachment A. 4 Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 The resulting merged lot would have split zoning and would be regulated by Code Section 18.08.070, which state that “… the provisions of the zoning regulations applicable within each district shall apply to each portion of the site situated in a separate district.” The proposed building is a 40 feet tall, would include 19 residential rental units, and up to 7,450 square feet of office space. The project proposes the maximum residential density individually prescribed for the CD-C and RM-40 zoning districts; six (6) units on the CD-C(P) zoned portion and 13 units on the RM-40 zoned portion, for a total of 19 units. The project would have a contemporary design using wood, textured fiber cement board, board formed concrete, plaster, cedar wood soffits, glass, painted aluminum trellis and painted metal cladding. Private open space terraces are included on the first and third levels, as well as shared common open spaces on the third level (terrace) and a ground level open air central courtyard. General open space areas are provided in the rear (redwood terrace space) and side setback areas. 4 Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 The basement garage will include 55 parking spaces, with all but five of those spaces located within mechanical lifts and long-term bicycle parking with a single ingress/egress onto Webster Street. Since the project does not fully provide the required amount of parking spaces, the applicant proposes a parking adjustment pursuant to the PAMC (Joint Use Parking) and has submitted Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan to justify the parking reduction. An Ordinance updating certain development standards including parking is up for consideration by the City Council in April and will affect this project. Specifically, under the proposed changes, the amount of required parking would be reduced as further discussed later in this report. 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.  Variance: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.030. Variance applications are reviewed by the Planning & Community Environment Director. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires redesign or denial. The findings to approve a Variance application are provided in Attachment B.  Certificate of Compliance: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 21.44. Certificates of Compliance are reviewed by the Public Works Engineering Department and the Planning & Community Environment Department. This application will be applied for after the conclusion of the AR process. 4 Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 Analysis1 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Multiple-Family Residential and Community Commercial, which both prescribe a density range of up to 40 dwelling units per acre. The project would have a density of 37 dwelling units per acre (35 dwelling units per acre in the CD-C(P) portion and 38 dwelling units per acre within the RM-40 portion), which complies with the intended multiple-family residential density. The Housing Element includes a policy to preserve the number of dwelling units (Policy H1.2). The project site currently includes nine residential dwelling units. The project proposes 19 residential dwelling units for a net increase of 10 dwelling units. On balance, the project would be consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. A list of applicable goals and policies are included in Attachment B. Neighborhood Setting and Character The buildings surrounding the Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street corner parcel vary significantly in size, mass and character. To the west and south along Hamilton Avenue are three story office buildings of plaster and glass, each close to 50 feet in height. To the east across the intersection, the First United Methodist Church, with varying concrete planes, rises more than 70 feet from grade. In contrast, along Webster Street the adjacent two-story multi- family residence is approximately 24 feet in height. Along Webster Street, the project proposes 24 feet between the adjacent building and the proposed building. No side setback is provided along Hamilton Avenue. Adjacent buildings along Hamilton Avenue on the same block have similar front setback restrictions, however, most properties have less than 10 feet of setback. The project proposes a 40-foot tall building that would fit in with the neighborhood context and transition well with surrounding buildings. The proposed building’s contemporary design 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 4 Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 includes design elements that are similar with surrounding buildings. While the Church across from the project includes dynamic and exaggerated architecture, the proposed project includes a muted color palette that would complement the structure. With respect to the setbacks, the project provides greater setbacks than required along Webster Street consistent with the residential character of this block. The proposed building is consistent with the special setback along Hamilton, except for the roof-overhang and the first-floor entry canopy. Zoning Compliance3 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. The proposed project will comply with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Proposed Zoning Code Changes A City-initiated zoning text amendment updating various development standards for multiple family uses is currently in progress and is expected to be in effect in May 2019. For this project, the ordinance would affect the amount of required parking. Under the provisions of the new ordinance, the required number of parking is decreased to 60 spaces from 67. This leaves the project still five spaces short or eight percent of the required amount. Floor Area Ratio Because of the lot merger, the project site will have split zoning; including CD-C(P) and RM-40 districts and is therefore subject to different floor area regulations, as well as other development standards. Even though the project site has split zoning, the proposed development will be comprised of one building, which is permitted since it would not be straddling property lines. Each zoned portion of the lot would be developed based on the respective zoning development standards (PAMC 18.08.070). For instance, commercial office space is not allowed in a residential zone. However, when it comes to site access, refuse collection and circulation, staff has taken the position that these areas may be distributed regardless of the underlying base zoning district. This approach allows for better site planning, reduces the amount of space dedicated to circulation and attempts to address the intent of the zoning ordinance and technical ingress/egress requirements of the building code. Where ‘commercial’ circulation, refuse or similar areas are located on the residentially zoned portion of the lot, a commensurate reduction in the maximum office floor area is applied to the commercially zoned portion of the lot. A total of 816 square feet is taken from the CD-C portion and put into the RM-40 portion. This promotes the concept that site planning is designed best on appropriate location and function and not to advantage commercial floor area over residential. A breakdown of the proposed gross square footage is shown on Sheets A0.2 (FAR Diagrams) and A0.5 of the project’s plans. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 4 Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Pedestrian Shopping Combining District The mixed-use portion of the project on the CD-C(P) zoned portion of the site is required to comply with the Pedestrian Shopping Combining District (P), which requires new construction to provide design features intended to create pedestrian or shopper interest, to provide weather protection for pedestrians, and to preclude inappropriate or inharmonious building design and siting. The required features include; (1) display windows, or retail display areas; (2) pedestrian arcades, recessed entryways, or covered recessed areas designed for pedestrian use with an area not less than the length of the adjoining frontages times 1.5 feet; (3) landscaping or architectural design features intended to preclude blank walls or building faces, as further described in Attachment F. The CD-C(P) zone district also allows office space on the first floor but requires that the architectural design accommodate the possibility of retail on the first floor. Along the ground floor façade of the office space, the project proposes clear windows and an entry canopy. The entry canopy can accommodate signage that is pedestrian oriented. Placement of board formed concrete occurs along this same plane where a stairwell is located on the opposite side of the wall, which adds visual interest along the street. Downtown Urban Design Guide The Downtown Urban Design Guide (Guide) provides direction regarding development and design in the downtown area. The Guide divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The project site is in the Cowper Center District, which is anchored by the Palo Alto Office Center at 525 University Avenue and the less visible Cowper/Webster parking garage, which is directly adjacent to the proposed project site. The Cowper District, while on the outside of the Retail Core suggests the “encouragement of multi- family housing on the periphery of downtown”. The garage located in the center of the block serves as a main destination point and people generator for the area. The Guide calls for the Cowper Center District to “create a viable district that helps to define the eastern end of the downtown area.” The Guide also indicates that Hamilton Avenue is the beginning of the transition zone from downtown into residential areas. The transitions shall be further distinguished using appropriate sidewalk and landscaping treatments. Excerpts from the Guide and a map of the Cowper Center District in which the proposed project site is located are included as Attachment D. 4 Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 The project provides drought-tolerant landscaping from the base of the building to the sidewalk to establish this transition from the downtown into residential areas. The project’s design includes elements that are consistent with the surrounding development including color and materials. Context-Based Design Criteria and Performance Criteria Considerations and Findings In addition to Zoning Compliance and Architectural Review approval findings, Context-Based Design Consideration and Findings found in PAMC Chapter 18.18.110 are applicable to projects in the downtown commercial zone district and the multiple family context-based criteria found in PAMC Chapter 18.13.060 are applicable to projects in multiple family residential zone districts. The criteria and findings have been included as Attachment B. Variance The project is requesting a variance for encroachments into a 17-foot special setback on Hamilton Avenue. Encroachments are shown on the plan set and include the following:  A roof eave extends four feet into the special setback at approximately 40 feet above grade, providing articulation and visual interest to the elevation, and shading the third- floor residences.  An office canopy extends six feet into the special setback, designating a pedestrian entry point,  providing coverage from the elements and creating a location for future signage.  A concrete fin wall extends three feet into the 17-foot special setback, denoting residential entry.  A frame around the residential stair and a frame defining the office entry extend one foot into the setback, helping to define the different uses and enhancing the façade. 4 Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 As the neighboring property at 555 Hamilton Avenue is not subject to the same 17-foot special setback, there is a large shift that occurs at the transition between the two properties. The roof eave and the office canopy both serve to soften the abruptness of this transition, extending forward to welcome the pedestrians. For this reason, as well as the benefit the projections provide to the Hamilton Webster building itself, the applicant’s request a minor exception to the zoning regulation. The findings for a Variance are described in detail in Attachment B. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project proposes in a one-level underground parking garage with 50 parking spaces in a series of parking lifts and five standard spaces for a total of 55 spaces. Access to the garage is through a driveway on Webster Street. It is the City’s preference to have the access to the garage on Webster rather than Hamilton Avenue, which is categorized as an arterial road. Normally, 34 parking spaces would be required for the residential component, and 30 spaces would be required for the office component, for a total of 67 required parking spaces. The project proposes to use a 18% shared parking reduction to reduce the requirement by 12 spaces, and a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) plan parking reduction for an additional three spaces. This brings the requirement to the proposed 55. Noteworthy, is the City’s current effort to update the Zoning Code, which would change the parking requirement for multi-family residential uses. If the zoning amendment is adopted, the required parking for the project drops to 60 spaces. The project also includes 20 long-term bike parking spaces in the below ground garage in bike lockers, and four short-term bike parking spaces at the ground level. This meets the minimum requirements. Nineteen long term spaces are in a designated area for residents, the one for the office is in a separate area. The short-term spaces are in bike racks with two on the Hamilton Avenue frontage and two on the Webster Street frontage. A TDM plan was prepared to reduce new trips created by this project by at least 45%, which is included as Attachment G. This is achieved through several strategies for residential and office uses. Examples include location factors such as the project’s proximity to transit options, and site-specific factors such as unbundling residential parking, and compensating Caltrain passes for some of the office workers. Sheet A0.4 of the project plans shows the proximity of bicycle lanes and the downtown Caltrain station. This project is located along a Safe Route to School path on Webster Street for Addison Elementary. No project-specific conditions were needed from the Transportation Division. Consistency with Application Findings Based on the project’s application requests, findings are required for approval of the Architectural Review and Variance. Overall, findings are supportive of the new project. To facilitate this discussion, Attachment B includes the findings that need to be considered by the Board. 4 Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 12 Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt under CEQA pursuant to Section 15032 for Infill development projects in that the project is located within an urbanized area, the site has no value as habitat for endangered, rare or threatened species; and the project would have no significant effects related to traffic, noise, air quality or water quality. See Attachment H for more information. 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 5, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 5, 2019, which is 13 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. When the project was submitted initially, there were comments regarding construction impacts. 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 Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 X 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB and Variance Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Combined Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Downtown Urban Design Guide Excerpt (PDF)  Attachment E: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment F: Applicant response to Preliminary ARB Comments (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 13  Attachment G: Final TDM Memo (PDF)  Attachment H: Project Plans and Environmental Review (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 57 120-04-038 120-16-011 120-16-098 120-03-067 120-03-030 120-15-072 120-15-073 120-15-074 120-15-075 120-15-076 120-15-077 120-15-078 120-15-079 120-04-003 120-04-034 120-04-033 120-04-032 120-04-031 120-04-030 120-04-027 120-04-028 120-04-023 120-03-065 120-03-064 120-03-062 120-04-005 120-04-039 120-04-040 120-16-008 120-16-007 120-16-009 120-03-025 120-03-069 120-63-008 120-63-006 120-63-005 120-63-003 120-63-001 120-04-024 120-04-025 120-04-026 120-04-007 120-04-008 120-04-009 120-04-010 120-03-061 120-03-060 120-03-059 120-03-031 120-03-032 120-03-033 120-03-035 120-03-036 120-03-037 120-03-056 120-03-057 120-03-024 120-03-123 120-03-021 120-03-079 120-03-058 120-03-055 120-03-038 120-03-039 120-03-040 120-03-041 120-03-042 120-03-043 120-03-054 120-03-046120-03-045 120-03-020 120-03-082 120-03-083 120-03-105 120-03-106 120-03-087 120-03-107 120-03-108 120-03-109 120-03-110 120-03-114 120-03-115 120-03-113120-03-116 120-03-117 120-03-118 120-03-119 120-03-120 120-03-121 120-03-122 120-03-088 120-03-089 120-03-090 120-03-091 120-03-094 120-03-095 120-03-096 120-03-097 120-03-098 120-03-099 120-03-102 120-03-103 120-03-104 120-32-031 120-32-031 120-03 - 0 8 4 120-0 3 - 0 8 5 120- 3 2 - 0 2 8 120 - 3 2 - 0 2 8 120- 3 2 - 0 2 7 120 - 3 2 - 0 2 7 120-75-001 120-75-002 120-75-003 120-04-110 UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T HAM I L T O N A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T HAM I L T O N A V E N U E C O W P E R S T R E E T FOR E S T A V E N U E W E B S T E R S T R E E T UNI V E R S I T Y A V E N U E B Y R O N S T R E E T W E B S T E R S T R E E T HAM I L T O N A V E N U E L A N E 3 9 540 49 9 46 7 45 9 51 2 50 1 609 605 51 8 48 2 48 6 49 6 610 54 3 - 5 4 5 53 4 542 548 56 8 52 4 55 0 50 0 50 8 51 6 57 8 56 4 55 0 54 6 54 0 53 0 B 53 0 53 0 A 52 8 531 - 5 3 5 541 50 5 52 5 53 7 55 5 56 5 57 1 530 63 0 - 6 4 0 619 - 6 2 3 520 440 - 4 4 6 57 9 56 7 62 5 523 518 61 0 60 0 61 6 62 4 63 0 511 517 524 55 5 58 1 420 - 4 3 8 437 642636 - 6 3 8 56 7 55 5 555 530 611601 60 8 60 0 62 0 53 6 530 611 48 4 544 546 515 526 519 PC-2130 CD-C (P) PC- 4 0 5 2 PC- 2545 RM-40 PC-2968 PC-3995 PC-4173 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto abc Address Label (AP) Subject Property Zone Districts 0'68' Attachment ALocation Map 565 and 571 Hamilton, 542 Webster CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RATE D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto efoley2, 2019-03-20 14:28:00 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) CD-C-(P) 4.a Packet Pg. 58 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 565 Hamilton Avenue 18PLN-00313 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. Suggested are the following: Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Regional/Community Commercial: Larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, furniture stores, toy stores, apparel shops, restaurants, theaters and non-retail services such as offices and banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center, Town and Country Village and University venue/Downtown. Non-retail uses such as medical and dental offices may also locate in this designation; software development may also locate Downtown. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may also locate in this category. Non-residential FARs range from 0.35 to 2.0. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations. Multiple-Family Residential: The permitted number of housing units will vary by area, depending on existing land use, proximity to major streets and public transit, distance to shopping and environmental problems. Net densities will range from 8 to 40 units and 8 to 90 persons per acre. Density should be on the lower 4.b Packet Pg. 59 end of the scale next to single-family residential areas. Densities higher than what is permitted may be allowed where measurable community benefits will be derived, services and facilities are available, and the net effect will be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. Population densities will range up to 2.25 persons per unit by 2030. 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-1.11: 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. Policy L-3.1: Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures Policy L-3.4 Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. Policy L-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 H1.2: Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. 4.b Packet Pg. 60 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 the following Downtown (CD) context-based design criteria: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 4.b Packet Pg. 61 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project is consistent with the following Multi-Family (RM-40) context-based design criteria: 1. Massing and Building Facades Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with street(s). 2. 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 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 4. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 5. 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 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types as small-lot detached units, attached rowhouses/townhouses, and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 4.b Packet Pg. 62 Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 4.b Packet Pg. 63 Performance Criteria 565 Hamilton Avenue 18PLN-00313 Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. 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. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration 4.b Packet Pg. 64 Performance Criteria Project Consistency 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 4.b Packet Pg. 65 Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities For any site or sites with multiple uses where the application of this chapter requires a total of or more than ten (10) spaces, the total number of spaces otherwise required by application of Table 1 may be reduced when the joint facility will serve all existing, proposed, and potential uses as effectively and conveniently as would separate parking facilities for each use or site. In making such a determination, the director shall consider a parking analysis using criteria developed by the Urban Land Institute (ULI) or similar methodology to estimate the shared parking characteristics of the proposed land uses. The analysis shall employ the city's parking ratios as the basis for the calculation of the base parking requirement and for the determination of parking requirements for individual land uses. The director may also require submittal and approval of a TDM program to further assure parking reductions are achieved. The project submitted a TDM (December 6, 2018) that outlines a 45% trip reduction. See Attachment H. for details. Variance Findings (PAMC 18.76.030) (1) Because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including (but not limited to) size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings, the strict application of the requirements and regulations prescribed in Title 18 substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. (2) The granting of the application shall not affect substantial compliance with the regulations or constitute a grant of special privileges inconsistent with the limitations upon other properties in the vicinity and in the same zoning district as the subject property. (3) The granting of the application is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of Title 18 (Zoning). (4) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 4.b Packet Pg. 66 Page 1 of 3 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 565 Hamilton Avenue, 18PLN-00313 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) & RM-40 Combined Standards Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed CD-C Proposed RM-40 Lot Area CD-C = none RM-40 = 8,500 sf CD-C = 7,450 sf RM-40 = 15,000 sf 7,450 sf 15,000 sf Minimum Building Setback Front Yard (Hamilton) CD-C = None RM-40 = 0-25 (Arterial Road— Hamilton) CD-C = 20 feet RM-40 = 24 feet Building is at 17 feet Canopy is at 11 feet Roof overhang = 13 feet Building is at 17 feet Canopy is at 11 feet Roof overhang = 13 feet Special Setback (Hamilton) CD-C = 17 feet RM-40 = 17 feet CD-C = 20 feet RM-40 = 24 feet 17 feet Proposed protrusions: Eave = 4 feet Canopy = 6 feet Window frame = 1 foot 17 feet Proposed protrusions: Eave = 4 feet Window frame = 2” Concrete fin wall = 3’ Canopy = 6 feet Rear Yard CD-C = 10 feet for residential portion RM-40 = 10 feet CD-C = 33 feet RM-40 = 21 feet 10 feet 10 feet Interior Side RM-40 = 10 feet RM-40 = 5 feet 0 feet Not Applicable Street Side (Webster) RM-40 = 16 feet RM-40 = 15 feet Not Applicable 20 feet Residential Density (net) 40 units/acre max 22,450 sf/43,560 sf x 40 = 20 units CD-C = 1 unit RM-40 = 8 units 6 units (35 du/ac) Total project: 37 du/ac 13 units (38 du/ac) Total project: 37 du/ac Max. Total Floor a t i o 2.0:1 (14,900 sf) (CD-C) 1.0:1 (15,000 sf) (RM-40) = 29,900 sf 1,659 sf (CD-C) 7,132 sf (RM-40) = 8,791 sf 14,084 sf Total project = 29,900 sf 15,816 sf Total project = 29,900 sf Maximum Height CD-C = 50 feet RM-40 = 40 feet One to two stories 40 feet 40 feet Maximum Site Coverage (building footprint) CD-C = None Required RM-40 = 45% 6,689 sf (30%) 4,621 sf (62%) 8,379 sf (37%) total 3,758 sf (25%) 8,379 sf (37%) total 4.c Packet Pg. 67 Page 2 of 3 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) & RM-40 Combined Standards Mixed-Use Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed CD-C Proposed RM-40 Landscape Open Space Coverage CD-C = 20% (1,490 sf) RM-40 – 20% (3,000 sf) 12% 896 sf 33% 2,459 sf Not applicable Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (CD-C) (900 sf) 100 sf per unit (1,300 sf) = 2,200 sf CD-C = 1,666 sf RM-40 = 1,500 sf 1,219 sf 756 sf office open space 5,695 sf Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (RM- 40) (975 sf) 384 sf Not applicable 5,317 sf Private Open Space 150 sf per unit (CD-C) (900 sf) 50 - 80 sf per unit (RM-40) (650 sf) = 1,550 sf 500 sf 482 sf* (418 sf added to common open space) 378 sf* (1,172 sf added to common open space) * Subject to the limitations of Section 18.13.040(e). Usable open space is included as part of the minimum site open space; required usable open space in excess of the minimum required for common and private open space may be used as either common or private usable open space [18.13.040(e)(2)(B)]; landscaping may count towards total site open space after usable open space requirements are met. 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. 4.c Packet Pg. 68 Page 3 of 3 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Mixed-Use Projects Type Required Existing Proposed Commercial parking within the Downtown Parking Assessment District Office: 1/250 sf of gross floor area = 30 Two spaces 55 spaces and requested parking adjustment Residential parking both within and outside the Downtown Parking Assessment District Residential: Current Code: 1.25/studio (1) = 1.25 1.5/1-bedroom unit (7) = 10.5 2/2-bedroom unit (11) = 22 Sub-total: 34 Guest spaces: 1 space + 10% of total # of units = 3 Total Residential = 37 Total with Office = 67 Proposed with Code Change: 1/studio (1) = 1 1/1-bedroom unit (7) = 7 2/2-bedroom unit (11) = 22 Total Residential = 30 Total with Office = 60 Four spaces Bicycle Parking Residential: 1 per unit: 19 (Long term) 1 per 10 units for guest: 2 (Short term) Sub-Total = 21 Office: 1 per 2,500 sf 40% long term / 60 short term = 1 LT / 2 ST Sub-Total = 3 0 Residential: Long Term: 19 Short Term: 2 Office: Long Term: 1 Short Term: 2 Loading Space 0-9,999 sf = 0 None Not required 4.c Packet Pg. 69 The Commercial and Residential Edges Running parallel to University Avenue are Hamilton Avenue and Lytton Avenue. These parallel· streets, lying north and south of the University Avenue Retail core, each have a distinctive character. . Together with University Avenue, they comprise the Central Business District. From Lytton and Hamilton Avenues, the downtown transitions into residential areas. The definition of this commercial/residential. edge is very .critical north of Lytton Avenue since little room exists to buffer the downtown north neighborhood from the commercial downtown. South of Hamilton Avenue, the edge is softer due to the mix of residential uses with the transitional South of Forest Commercial area and the Palo Alto Medical Foundation. Appropriate sidewalk, landscaping, street sign and lighting treatments can help to more clearly distinguish the transition from downtown to the residential areas. The gradual change from downtown to the residential neighborhoods is partly recognizable by the increased landscaping and tree cover of the residential areas. These transitions can. be further distinguished through the use of appropriate sidewalk and landscaping treatments, as shown in figure 2 on the next page, and the use of special street signs and lighting (see the Conceptual Lighting Plan on page 65). The Pedestrian Ways In general, the pedestrian travel route in the Downtown synchronizes with that of the motorist, but it is a pleasant relief when a retreat can be discovered allowing those on foot to withdraw and· separate from · the vehicles. Many of those familiar with the Downtown know the short-cuts behind buildings, through public parking lots and along the system of alleys. Figure 7 on page 25 outlines the overall pedestrian way plan envisioned for downtown. As detailed in the figures 3, 4 and 5 The Basic Plan envisions improvements to existing downtown alleys to provide a continuous and apparent pedestrian corridor. beginning on page 18, service alleys are intended to primarily service the buildings which front onto them, but sufficiently cleaned up and reorganized, to be made more hospitable to pedestrians and to encourage occasional pedestrian passage. Shortcut alleys should be comfortable for use by pedestrians on a regular basis, while maintain4Jg their service functions. They are primarily to allow "shortcutting" from one location to ;mother. . Place alleys. are intended as true gathering places for pedestrians. They should be designed in such a way to allow and encourage pedestrian use, with service functions mostly not apparent. Here again, the involvement of artists and public art could prove most beneficial. The Plan envisions improvements to the existing alleys in order to provide a continuous and apparent pedestrian corridor, running parallel to and the entire length of University Avenue. Such improvements would include the conversion of some service alleys to place alleys, the most significant being the linkage between the Civic Center Plaza and Cogswell Plaza, completing the Civic Center Cross Axis. Urban Des1gn Plan -16-The Basic Pian 4.d Packet Pg. 70 Hamilton Webster Project Description – March 6, 2019 PROJECT OVERVIEW Hamilton Webster is a proposed mixed-use project to be located on 0.5 level acres in downtown Palo Alto, at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. The program for this project includes: multifamily rental housing (19 homes), office space (up to 7,450 square feet), and on-site parking (55 stalls). This program is achieved with a three-story building, and one level of below-grade parking. Massing and landscape setbacks have been carefully considered in an effort to achieve a subtle and sophisticated transition between Palo Alto’s central business district and an adjacent residential neighborhood, thereby binding the urban fabric. A biophilic design approach yields significant greenspace for the enjoyment of future tenants and the broader Palo Alto community. In keeping with this design approach, the proposed building materials are “natural” in color and provide significant warmth and texture. Materials proposed include: wood (cedar), textured fiber cement board, board formed concrete, plaster, glass, and painted metal. The resulting project, situated near abundant downtown retail and public transit, will be a dynamic mixed-use asset that encourages a pedestrian lifestyle. PROJECT GOALS The project sponsor has a number of goals for the Hamilton Webster project that have informed the architectural design. Primary goals include the following: To provide nineteen (19) residential rental units in downtown Palo Alto, in close proximity to retail, dining, and urban transit options, thereby promoting a pedestrian lifestyle. To provide a 7,450 square foot office space on Hamilton Avenue that creates an opportunity for a seamless, subtle, and sophisticated transition between the project’s commercial neighbors on Hamilton Avenue and the project’s residential neighbors on Webster Street. To be a good neighbor by respectfully integrating the design and massing of the Hamilton Webster project into the context of the existing neighborhood, with particular emphasis placed on respecting the privacy of residential neighbors at 530 Webster Street. To create a project that respects the existing natural environment (including the urban canopy) and creates new opportunities for residents and pedestrians to reconnect with nature in an urban context via a biophilic design approach. To construct a building that will have a strong sense of permanence and timelessness. To provide convenient onsite parking, thereby reducing the quantity of residents parking on street, as compared to existing conditions. PROJECT APPROACH The project site includes three separate parcels—one zoned CD-C (P) and two zoned RM-40. Existing site structures include three buildings (containing a total of 9 residential rental units) that have exceeded their useful life, that are not compliant with current building code, and that are largely reliant on street parking. To achieve the proposed project (containing 19 residential rental units and approximately 4.e Packet Pg. 71 7,450 square feet of office), all existing site structures would be removed, the three parcels would be merged to create a single lot via a Certificate of Compliance process, and a single mixed-use structure would be constructed. It should be noted that even though internal lot lines will be removed to create a single parcel, the underlying zoning designations for each parcel shall remain and shall be respected. EXISTING IMPROVEMENTS Existing improvements on the site include nine (9) residential rental units. The project site also includes a shed (~74SF) on the 542 Webster parcel, a parking garage for 4 cars on the 571 Hamilton parcel (~938 SF), and a parking garage for one or two small cars on the 565 Hamilton parcel (~427 SF). The combined total of all structures is +/- 9,013 square feet. Recent tenants have primarily parked in the street because of the smaller size and limited clearance in the existing garage units. All of the existing structures are at or nearing end-of-life, and none are considered historic resources. ADDRESS 542 WEBSTER 571 HAMILTON 565 HAMILTON TOTALS APN 120-03-060 120-03-061 120-03-062 Stories 1 2 1 Square Footage 1,944 +/- 5,242 +/- 1,827 +/- 9,013 +/- 1 Bedroom Units 4 3 0 7 2 Bedroom Units 0 1 1 2 Total Units 4 4 1 9 NEIGHBORHOOD CONTEXT The buildings surrounding the Hamilton Webster corner parcel vary significantly in size, mass and character. To the west and south along Hamilton Avenue are three story office buildings of stucco and glass, each close to 50 feet in height. To the east across the intersection, the First United Methodist Church, an iconic structure of concrete planes, rises more than 70 feet from grade. In contrast, along Webster Street the adjacent two story multi-family residence is approximately 24 feet in height. The Hamilton Webster project seeks to unify this street front by providing a single building that acknowledges the large mass of the adjacent commercial buildings along Hamilton Avenue, but which is scaled down to respect the smaller scaled residences along Webster Street through its massing and articulation. SITE CONSTRAINTS The Hamilton Webster project has a number of site constraints that have significantly informed the project design. These constraints include: (i) a 17 foot special setback along Hamilton Avenue, (ii) a variable 0-16 foot side setback along Webster Street, (iii) redwood trees on the adjacent Cowper- Webster Garage lot, (iv) a 50 foot height limit on the CD-C (P) parcel, (v) a 40 foot height limit on the RM-40 parcels, and (vi) an AH flood zone designation. Impacts of these constraints on the site design include the following:  The proposed building façade has been set back 20 feet along the Webster Street property line to align with an adjacent residential neighbor. While this 20 foot setback exceeds the 0-16 feet required, we believe the setback is “neighbor friendly” and creates an opportunity to provide significant front yard landscaping that is highly residential in character, and that can be enjoyed by the entire Palo Alto community. 4.e Packet Pg. 72  The proposed building has been set back significantly at the northwest corner to protect redwood trees on a neighboring lot. While this results in a significant loss of buildable area, it also creates a unique opportunity to provide private outdoor space for the office tenant.  While zoning allows for a 50 foot tall building on the CD-C (P) parcel and a 40 foot tall building on the RM-40 component, we are proposing a single 3 story, 40 foot tall building to fit within the neighborhood context. A 3 story structure helps bridge the massing differences between our 2 story residential neighbor, our commercial neighbor at 50’ above grade, and the nearby church at 70’ above grade.  Only car and bike parking have been provided below grade, as required by the codes regulating flood plain designation. PROJECT DESIGN Massing The project proposed features a three story courtyard building with deep landscape setbacks along each street frontage. The massing of the building has been tailored to subtly acknowledge a combination of uses on the site, to smoothly transition between commercial and residential use areas, to respect and respond to neighboring buildings, and to enhance the pedestrian experience. Notable highlights include the following:  At 40 feet tall, the proposed building is lower than the adjacent commercial buildings.  A lobby entrance fronting Hamilton Avenue provides a clear and unobstructed view into the central courtyard, thereby reducing the mass of the building and providing visual relief and interest along Hamilton Avenue.  A second lobby entrance on Webster activates the corner while further breaking down the mass of the building. A series of stepped terraces cascade from the entry as a welcoming gesture to the street.  A third floor terrace on Webster Street reduces the building mass and apparent height along the residential street.  The building is given scale through the creation of a strong distinction between the office and residential uses as well as variation across the façade. The office is set apart from the residential uses with a metal frame running both horizontally and vertically. At the residential units, vertically ribbed fiber cement board panels alternate with floor to ceiling glazing to create a vertical reading along the more public face of Hamilton Avenue. The residential stair, with a metal surround and vertical glazing, provides a visual break in the elevation and creates a counterpoint to the office glazing. Along Webster Street, the façade is further reduced with the introduction of the central third floor terrace. At this elevation, the windows are less formal in their organization, reflecting the residential nature of this street.  The glassy, transparent expression of the office façade allows it to read in context to its commercial neighbors. This transparent façade is given scale through the addition of horizontal metal brise-soleil which provide solar shading for this south facing façade. The projecting brow above and vertically to the east of the office space delineates the change in use and mitigates the transition from office to residential. A secondary canopy at the first floor provides a pedestrian scale entry element as well as future signage opportunities.  An extended eave wraps the project, providing articulation, shading and visual interest. This 4 foot eave extends 4 feet into the special setback on Hamilton, at a height of approximately 40 feet above grade. 4.e Packet Pg. 73 Materiality The proposed building materials have been selected to provide texture and warmth, to relate to the human scale, and to complement neighboring structures. The proposed materials are intended to be natural in color, primarily in warm tan, natural grey, and brown tones to fit within the Palo Alto context and to express the nature of the chosen materials. Proposed materials include:  Board Formed Concrete: Durable concrete walls at the base of the building and within the landscaping have texture provided by the formwork and are natural light grey in color.  Textured Fiber Cement Board Panels: These durable panels provide scale through the vertical textural ribbing. The panels at the second and third levels are proposed to be a natural taupe color to provide warmth and relate to the adjacent buildings. At the ground floor residences on Webster, the panels are a light grey color to accentuate their relationship to the adjacent concrete and to ground the building. The ribbed texture of the panels provides a texture that changes in tone throughout the day as the light moves across the surface, subtly activating the façade.  Cedar Wood Soffit: Natural cedar wood siding material is proposed at the underside of the eaves, on entry doors and on lobby walls viewed through the glazing. This material is welcoming in its color and texture and adds additional warmth and scale to the building.  Painted Aluminum Trellis: At the third floor terrace, a trellis extends over the space to provide shading. The trellis is proposed to be painted aluminum in a color tone similar to the cedar siding. From below, this material is visible, adding visual warmth to the elevation as well as a spatial relief.  Plaster: Plaster occurs along the north elevation with a warm beige integral color to be compatible with the adjacent textured panels. At the ground floor trash area, the plaster is an integral grey color to complement the adjacent concrete.  Glass: At the office, the curtain wall system is visually open at the ground floor with extended metal brise-soleil at the second floor for solar shading and visual relief. The window system is proposed as a full height window system with intermediate mullions and operable windows. All are proposed with dark bronze metal frames.  Metal Cladding: Painted metal occurs at the eave fascia, at the office frame & canopy, and at the floor delineation between glazing systems. The fascia and office projections are intended to be dark bronze in color while the floor panels are a lighter brown to harmonize with the adjacent ribbed panels.  Landscape: Throughout the building and along the elevations, the landscape materials of the courtyard, terrace and street provide an organic counterpoint to the built environment. Addressing Its Neighbors The Hamilton Webster project aims to provide a strong yet restrained presence to its historic neighbor at 530 Webster. The apparent scale of the Hamilton Webster project, along Webster Street, has been significantly reduced through introduction of a third floor terrace and full height windows. With a central large opening and full height glazing at the third floor corners, the mass at the third level recedes, allowing the building to read closer in scale to 530 Webster. In addition, the central shared terrace and building wings of Hamilton Webster have been proportioned carefully to complement the central courtyard of 530 Webster, which is similarly proportioned. Provision of a ten foot landscape setback and the addition of a full height privacy fence at the property line, coupled with careful window placement, all serve to improve the privacy afforded to tenants of 530 Webster. With a simple roofline and horizontal layering of its mass, the proposed Hamilton Webster building does not try to compete with the soaring form of the First United Methodist Church. Instead it works as a foil, allowing the verticality of the Church to read more strongly when viewed against the horizontality of the proposed building. The form of the board formed concrete planes at the first floor of the proposed building augment the strong reading of the concrete planes of the Church; along Webster, the rhythm 4.e Packet Pg. 74 of extended concrete planes of the proposed building reference the repetitive concrete fins of the First United Methodist Church. Materially, the taupe toned siding panels, cedar wood eaves and trellis of a matching brown color provide a warm hue that is sympathetic in tone to both the color of the First United Methodist Church and the clay tile roof of 530 Webster. Lot Coverage The proposed project features deep landscaped setbacks on all street frontages, resulting in very favorable lot coverage ratios. Lot coverage ratios for the proposed project are 25% and 62% on the RM-40 and CD-C (P) parcels, respectively. For context, the maximum lot coverage allowed by municipal code for the RM-40 parcel is 45%, and there is no maximum lot coverage requirement for the CD-C (P) parcel. Private and Shared Outdoor Space The project team has endeavored to create a biophilic design that reconnects people to nature. Throughout the site, the planting palette is varied to provide visual interest through the use of native and drought tolerant plantings. Redwood trees on an adjacent lot will be preserved. Moreover, nine non-native street trees, in poor condition, will be removed at the request of Urban Forestry and replaced with a Valley Oak street tree, which is both native and low water use. The canopy coverage of the trees proposed for this project will be 5,620 square feet greater than that of existing canopy coverage when measured at a 15 year projected growth. While only 2,200 square feet of open space is required for this project per the municipal code, more than 6,250 square feet has been provided. In accordance with Section 18.13.040(e) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, a portion of the required private usable open space has been added to the required common usable open space to improve the design and create spaces that can be meaningfully enjoyed by tenants. While the sheer quantity of open space provided is a meaningful differentiator for this project, the programming and placement of this open space is perhaps even more important in terms of achieving the project’s biophilic design objective. The contribution each space makes to the project is more fully described below. Central Courtyard The project features a central courtyard on the main floor. This courtyard is visually open to the street, while physically private for the building tenants through the discrete placement of a metal screen at the covered terrace. The office space provided on the CD-C (P) parcel will boast floor-to-ceiling glass, giving office tenants visual access to the greenery of the central courtyard as well as physical access from the first floor. The residential units access the courtyard from the residential lobby and will also enjoy courtyard views from their units which ring the courtyard on three levels. Shared Terrace The project design incorporates a shared terrace on the third floor fronting Webster Street. This provides a second outdoor space which is large enough to be meaningfully enjoyed by the apartment residents. This terrace also serves to visually reduce the mass of the building along Webster. The greenery of the terrace is visible to the street, providing additional views of landscape to the public, consistent with the biophilic design goal. Residential Terraces On Webster Street, the two Level 1 residential units have terraces that front the street, providing outdoor space for the units that is both private and visually connected to the street. With their generous size and adjacency to the residences, the central courtyard, shared terrace and 4.e Packet Pg. 75 private ground level terraces are able to provide the common and private open spaces required for the residential units. Redwood Garden An additional outdoor space has been provided on the CD-C (P) parcel for private use by the office tenant. While an outdoor space is not required by code for the office user, provision of such a space is consistent with the biophilic design goal. Good Neighbor Greenery A 10 foot landscape buffer and fencing has been provided at the rear property line to provide privacy to the neighboring residential building. This buffer is a significant visual enhancement to existing condition. Parking The single-level below-grade parking garage has its entry on Webster Street (as requested by the City) and provides parking for 55 vehicles. Per Palo Alto Municipal Code, 67 parking spaces are required for the project; however, ordinance changes currently under consideration by City Council could result in a reduced requirement for this project of only 60 parking spaces. The project is requesting a “Joint Use (Shared) Parking Facilities” reduction in accordance with Section 18.52.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and the project proposes to implement a Transportation Demand Management plan to reduce net new peak hour trips to the project by 45%. Variance Request The project is requesting a variance for encroachments into an unusual 17’ special setback on Hamilton Avenue, as more fully described in the Variance Request Letter submitted March 6, 2019. Encroachments are shown on the plan set and include the following:  A roof eave extends 4’ into the special setback at approximately 40’ above grade, providing articulation and visual interest to the elevation, and shading the third floor residences.  An office canopy extends 6’ into the special setback, designating a pedestrian entry point, providing coverage from the elements, and creating a location for future signage.  A concrete fin wall extends 3’ into the 17’ special setback, denoting residential entry.  A frame around the residential stair and a frame defining the office entry extend 12” into the setback, helping to define the different uses and enhancing the façade. As the neighboring property at 555 Hamilton Avenue is not subject to the same 17’ special setback, there is a large shift that occurs at the transition between the two properties. The roof eave and the office canopy both serve to soften the abruptness of this transition, extending forward to welcome the pedestrians. For this reason, as well as the benefit the projections provide to the Hamilton Webster building itself, we request a minor exception to the zoning regulation. CONCLUSION The Hamilton-Webster project seeks to create a biophilic environment unifying work and domestic living. This is an exciting and unique opportunity at an important nexus of Palo Alto. We look forward to receiving your input on the project. 4.e Packet Pg. 76 September 17, 2018 Jodie Gerhardt Manager of Current Planning City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Dear Ms. Gerhardt, We are pleased to submit the Hamilton Webster project for a Major Project Architectural Review. The drawings, renderings and project information submitted with our current application have undergone significant development since our Preliminary Architectural Review Board hearing on May 3rd of this year. At the May 3rd hearing, we received very constructive feedback from the Architectural Review Board, including the following suggestions and recommendations: •Focus the building outward to address the street. Augment the landscaping on the ground plane within the setbacks to provide an experience that is generous to the community. •Provide a more urban and open connection to the street for the ground level residential units on Webster Street by removing the wood screens and adding lush landscaping, balconies, patios, and/or stoops. •Study the massing with the following suggestions: o Create a greater differentiation between the office and the residential spaces so that there is a visual cue of the transition in use. o Break up the horizontality of the massing by adding more variation. o Reduce the wrapper-like effect of the fiber cement board panels. Consider an alternate use of the material to reduce heaviness in the mid-section of the building. •Look at warmer toned materials to be more ‘Palo Alto’. •Aim to provide more parking on site if mechanical lifts are feasible. •Strive to be a good neighbor to the adjacent residential structure at 530 Webster Street. With this feedback, we have made significant changes to the design that we believe have resulted in a building that is more responsive to its context and more generous to the street and the neighborhood. •At the Hamilton Avenue façade, we have pulled the lobby massing to the east and dedicated it to the Residential use, thereby creating a courtyard visually open to Hamilton Avenue. •The courtyard planting is fully visible from the street. Furthermore, it extends into the open covered terrace towards the street, augmenting abundant planting in the 17 foot setback. •A second covered terrace at the corner provides additional access to the Residential lobby from Webster Street, activating this important corner. A series of stepped terraces cascade from the terrace as a welcoming gesture to the street. 4.f Packet Pg. 77 • Similarly stepped terraces extend from the two residential units along Webster, providing private yet visually open terraces for the residences. Landscaping rings these terraces to add to the street experience. • With a strong base primarily of board formed concrete, the upper two floors have been re- conceived to reduce the horizontality of the building, increase differentiation across the façade, and heighten the distinction between the office and residential uses. o The two story glass office is set apart from the residential uses with a metal frame running both horizontally and vertically. A secondary canopy above the ground level provides a pedestrian scale entry element as well as a signage location. Integral metal brise-soleil run horizontally, providing additional differentiation as well as solar shading. o At the residential units, vertically ribbed fiber cement board panels alternate with floor to ceiling glazing to create a vertical reading along the more public face of Hamilton Avenue. The residential stair, with a metal surround and vertical glazing, provides a visual break in the elevation and creates a counterpoint to the office glazing. Along Webster Street, the façade is further reduced with the introduction of the central third floor terrace. At this elevation, the windows are less formal in their organization, reflecting the residential nature of this street. o The two story glazed southeast corner provides a visual openness to the street that is welcoming while allowing the mass to read as a singular vertical element. • The ribbed texture of the panels provides a texture that changes in tone throughout the day as light moves across the surface, subtly activating the façade. The panels are proposed to be a warm taupe color to augment the warm material palette established with the wood soffits and bronze metal. • With the approval of the Planning Department, we have continued to explore the use of mechanized parking within the Below Grade Parking to increase the parking count. By placing the controls and disconnects on Level One, these electrical elements are no longer below the base flood elevation. With the mechanized lifts we have increased the parking count from 39 to 55 on-site spaces. • Through the use of floor to ceiling glazing at the northeast corner of the building and the continuous expression of the Level 3 floor line, the apparent mass of the building is significantly reduced when viewed with 530 Webster Street. Generous landscaping within the shared setback and careful positioning of windows along the north elevation to eliminate privacy concerns are additional ways in which the project is respectful of its neighbor. We have provided further information in the Project Description. We look forward to hearing your input on the project. Sincerely, Roslyn Cole Principal, Aidlin Darling Design 4.f Packet Pg. 78 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 MEMORANDUM To:Brandy Bridges Wilson Meany From:Ben Huie, P.E. Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. Date:December 6, 2018 Subject:Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Memorandum for Hamilton Webster Project Kimley-Horn and Associates, Inc. (KHA) was retained by Wilson Meany to prepare a preliminary transportation demand management (TDM) plan for the proposed Hamilton Webster project. This project proposes to combine three parcels (565 Hamilton, 571 Hamilton, and 542-548 Webster) at the intersection of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street in downtown Palo Alto, CA. It should be noted that parcel 565 Hamilton is zoned as CD-C (P) and parcels 571 Hamilton and 542 Webster are zoned as RM-40. The project would create a mixed-use building containing 19 residential units and up to 7,450 square feet of office space. The project will remove nine (9) rental apartment units and the existing parking. Parking will be provided for 55 vehicles in a below level parking structure. Since the proposed parking is less than the parking required by the City, the City has requested a transportation demand management (TDM) plan. In addition, the City has required a 45 percent trip reduction for the project as part of their single occupancy vehicle trip reduction program. The following memorandum outlines a proposed TDM plan for the Hamilton Webster project. Required Parking The number of required parking spaces for the project is listed in the City’s Municipal Code and described in more detail in the Shared Parking Memorandum for the Hamilton Webster Project, dated December 6, 2018. The project is required to provide 67 total parking spaces. With a shared parking reduction, the adjusted parking required is 58 parking spaces. Proposed Parking The project is proposing to provide a total of 55 parking spaces for the project. With a shared parking reduction of 13 percent, the project would only need 58 parking spaces. Therefore, the project is three parking spaces short of the calculated parking demand. The proposed TDM plan is expected to reduce parking demand by more than three parking stalls, thereby ensuring demand does not exceed supply. 4.g Packet Pg. 79 Page 2 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Project Peak Hour Trips The number of project trips for the project site was estimated using the industry standard Institute of Transportation Engineer’s (ITE)Trip Generation Manual1. This reference estimates project trips based on land use from survey data. Since the proposed project is not a new project, but replacing an existing land use, trip rates were calculated for both the proposed use and the existing use.Table 1 summarizes the trip generation for the existing use. The existing use is nine (9) units of multifamily residential housing ranging from one- and two-story buildings. This is classified in the ITE Trip Generation Manual as low-rise multifamily housing land use (one to two floors). Table 1 – Trip Generation Summary – Existing Use Existing Use Vehicle Trips AM Peak PM Peak 9 units Multifamily Housing (Low-Rise)4 5 The existing land use results in 4 AM peak hour trips and 5 PM peak hour trips. No adjustments for trip reductions (e.g. pass-by trips or internal capture) were used in this calculation. The existing use trips will be used as a trip credit for determining the overall net change in proposed project trips. The proposed project is 19 units of multifamily residential housing (three floors) and 7,450 SF or 7.45 KSF of general office building. The residential use is classified in the ITE Trip Generation Manual as mid-rise multifamily housing land use (three to ten floors).Table 2 summarizes the trip generation for the proposed use. Table 2 – Trip Generation Summary – Proposed Use Proposed Use Vehicle Trips AM Peak PM Peak 19 units Multifamily Housing (Mid-rise)7 8 7.45 KSF General Office Building 9 9 Total 16 17 The proposed land uses result in 16 AM peak hour trips and 17 PM peak hour trips. Assuming a trip credit for the existing use, the project results in a net new 12 AM peak hour and 12 PM peak hour trips. A TDM program is proposed to reduce the net new vehicle trips by at least 45 percent for the proposed project or by 5 AM peak hour trips and by 5 PM peak hour trips. This reduction would result in a trip goal of 11 AM peak hour trips and 12 PM peak hour trips. 1 Trip Generation Manual, 10th Edition, Institute of Transportation Engineers, 2017. 4.g Packet Pg. 80 Page 3 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Transportation Demand Management Program The City has outlined the requirements of the TDM plan in Section 18.82.050(d). The TDM plan shall outline parking and traffic demand measures to be implemented. The program shall be proposed to the satisfaction of the director, shall include proposed performance targets for parking and/or trip reduction and indicate the basis for such estimates, and shall designate a single entity to implement the proposed measures. A TDM program is different for a residential land use versus an office land use. For office uses, the TDM program typically targets travel demand for office employees on their commute to and from work. For residential uses, the TDM program typically targets travel demand for residents for all types of trips, not just trips to and from work. Since the proposed project has both a residential component and an office component, the TDM program measures will be discussed separately. Residential Uses For multi-family residential projects, travel demand is dependent on a project’s proximity to complimentary land uses and transit, as well as being dependent on site design features. The following list summarizes features related to a project’s location that typically help to reduce the number of vehicle trips. · Proximity to bicycle and pedestrian facilities – a project’s proximity to bicycle and pedestrian facilities encourages biking and walking to nearby complimentary uses. This also highlights the importance of a connected pedestrian network and a connected bicycle network with no gaps. · Proximity to transit – a project’s proximity to transit facilities such as a major rail station, or a bus stop. It is recommended that the project be within 1-mile of a rail station or bus stop with two or more services operating at 15-mintue frequencies or better. · Proximity to complimentary uses – a project’s proximity to uses such as groceries, daycares, schools, retail, and employment locations. It is recommended that the project be within a 10- minute walk (or 1/2-mile radius) of these uses. The following list includes site-specific design features that typically help to reduce the number of vehicle trips. · Reduced minimum parking requirements – the City can reduce the minimum parking requirements. Having high minimum parking requirements may result in oversupply of private off-street parking. Reduced parking minimums reduce demand for single-occupant vehicle travel by making it more difficult to find parking for the tenant’s car. · Implement maximum parking requirements – the City can implement a maximum parking requirement. A maximum parking requirement would force the developer to reduce the amount of parking provided, thereby reducing the parking demand. · Unbundled or unassigned parking – providing unbundled parking separates out the cost of parking from rent. When parking spaces are assigned to units, the inherent cost of the parking space is included in the rent. Unbundled parking would allow the tenant the option of paying 4.g Packet Pg. 81 Page 4 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 for as much parking as needed. Overall for the development, this may result in reduced vehicle use. · Secure bicycle parking – On-site bicycle parking via bicycle lockers, bicycle cages, or indoor bicycle parking provides added security to bicycle parking as compared to typical bicycle racks. The increased safety promotes higher bicycle use. · On-site bicycle repair facilities – Bicycle repair facilities can range from do-it-yourself tools to a full service and staffed bicycle repair facility. These facilities promote the continued use of bicycles, even if they break. · TDM communication and coordination - This provides constant awareness of the TDM options available for the tenants. This may include marketing and distribution of materials to tenants. · Wayfinding – Signage is provided to show directions to important destinations via walking or bicycling. · Residential Guaranteed Ride Home – This program provides a subsidy for residents who choose to use the other TDM services, for emergency situations. This could be an annual allotment of up to four (4) rides via taxi or Uber/Lyft of $60 per ride. Proposed Residential Program Elements The following summarizes an initial approach to the proposed residential TDM program for the proposed project at Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. The Applicant/owner of the project would be implementing these proposed measures. It is assumed that the residential TDM program will be refined over time to adapt to changing transportation trends and to maximize the efficiency of the program. The residential TDM program is specifically designed to focus on incentives and rewards to encourage participation in the program rather than focusing on penalties for not participating. The initial set of residential TDM measures proposed for the Hamilton Webster project is summarized in Table 3. Table 3 – Proposed Residential TDM Measure Summary #TDM Measure Description Location-Based R1 Proximity to Pedestrian Facilities Sidewalks exist on the streets adjacent to the project (e.g. Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street). In addition, there are crosswalks at the nearby signalized intersections. Site development will improve the sidewalks and nearby landscaping, enhancing the pedestrian experience. R2 Proximity to Bicycle Facilities The nearest bicycle facilities to the project site are Class II bicycle lanes on Lytton Avenue to the north. R3 Proximity to Transit There are bus stops for Palo Alto Shuttle C on the opposite side of Webster Street to the project. There are also SamTrans bus stops on University Avenue within 750 feet from the project site. The nearest Caltrain station to project is the Palo Alto Station, which is approximately 0.5 miles away. 4.g Packet Pg. 82 Page 5 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 #TDM Measure Description R4 Proximity to Complimentary Uses There are various retail uses and restaurants within walking distance of the proposed project on University Avenue in downtown Palo Alto, which is one block away. Site Design-Based R5 On-site TDM Communication and Coordination The proposed project will provide information with regards to the available transportation options and benefits of reduced single occupancy vehicle usage. In addition, information will highlight the nearby retail and restaurant uses and the ease of access via walking or bicycling. Information will be provided to all new residents at lease signing and renewal. R6 Secure Bicycle Parking for Residents The proposed project is providing 19 long-term spaces below grade and two short-term spaces at grade for the residential uses. R7 Electric Vehicle Plug-in Stations Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations will be provided for one parking space, with 19 additional parking spaces being electric vehicle ready. One EV parking space will be van accessible, and the others will be located in the lift parking spaces. R8 Unbundled Parking Unbundled parking is proposed for all units. Effectiveness of Residential TDM Program The following resources were used to provide guidance on parking, trip, and vehicle-miles traveled (VMT) reductions. Victoria Transport Policy Institute Guidelines The Victoria Transport Policy Institute has a Parking Management Comprehensive Implementation Guide2 that discusses parking reductions. In Table 12 of the guide, parking requirement adjustment factors are listed, as shown in Table 4 below. 2 Parking Management Comprehensive Implementation Guide, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, August 28, 2018. 4.g Packet Pg. 83 Page 6 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 4 – Parking Requirement Adjustment Factors Factor Typical Adjustments Geographic Location.Vehicle ownership and use rates in an area. Adjust parking requirements to reflect variations identified in census and travel survey data. 40-60% reductions are often justified in Smart Growth neighborhoods. Residential Density.Number of residents or housing units per acre/hectare. Reduce requirements 1% for each resident per acre (e.g. 15% where at 15 residents per acre and 30% at 30 res. per acre). Employment Density.Number of employees per acre/hectare. Reduce requirements 10-15% in areas with 50 or more employees per gross acre. Land Use Mix.Land use mix located within convenient walking distance. Reduce requirements 5-15% in mixed-use developments. Additional reductions with shared parking. Transit Accessibility.Nearby transit service frequency and quality. Reduce requirements 10% within ¼ mile of frequent bus service, and 20-50% within ¼ mile of a rail transit station. Carsharing.Whether carsharing services are located within or nearby a building. Reduce residential requirements 10-20% if carshare vehicles are located onsite, or 5-10% if located nearby. Walkability and bikeability.Walking environment quality. Reduce requirements 5-15% in very walkable and bikeable areas, and substitute bike parking for up to 10% of car parking. Demographics.Age and physical ability of residents or commuters. Reduce requirements 20-40% for housing for young (under 30), elderly (over 65) or disabled people. Income.Average income of residents or commuters. Reduce requirements 10-20% for the 20% lowest income households, and 20-40% for the lowest 10%. Housing Tenure.Whether housing is owned or rented. Reduce requirements 20-40% for rental versus owner-occupied housing. Pricing.Parking that is priced, unbundled or cashed out. Reduce requirements 10-30% for cost-recovery pricing (i.e. fees that pay the full cost of parking facilities), and 10-20% for unbundling (parking rented separate from building space). Sharing/overflow.Ability to share parking facilities with other nearby land uses. Depends on the differences in peak demands with other land use. 20- 40% reductions are often possible. Management programs.Parking and mobility management programs implemented at a site. Reduce requirements 10-40% at worksites with effective parking and mobility management programs. Design Hour.Number of allowable annual hours a parking facility may fill. Reduce requirements 10-20% if a 10th annual design hour is replaced by a 30th annual peak hour. Requires overflow plan. Contingency-Based Planning.Use lower- bound requirements, and implement additional strategies if needed. Reduce requirements 10-30%, and more if a plan exists indicating the responses that will be deployed if the number of parking spaces initially built is insufficient in the future. Source:Parking Management Comprehensive Implementation Guide, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, August 28, 2018 4.g Packet Pg. 84 Page 7 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 In addition, Table 19 discusses typical reductions in vehicle traffic and parking requirements, as shown in Table 5 below. Table 5 – Typical Reductions in Vehicle Traffic and Parking Requirements Strategy Reduced Parking Requirements Traffic ReductionsLowMediumHigh Shared Parking 10%20%30% Parking Regulations 10%20%30% More accurate standards 10%20%30% Parking Maximums 10%20%30% Remote Parking 10%20%30% Smart Growth 10%20%30%X Walking and cycling improvements 5%10%15%X Increase capacity of existing facilities 5%10%15% Mobility management 10%20%30%X Parking pricing 10%20%30%X Unbundle parking 10%20%30%X Financial incentives 10%20%30%X Parking tax reform 5%10%15%X Bicycle facilities 5%10%15%X Improve user information 5%10%15%X Source:Parking Management Comprehensive Implementation Guide, Victoria Transport Policy Institute, August 28, 2018 Based on these two tables, a parking reduction can be estimated for the proposed residential TDM measures.Table 6 lists the estimated parking reductions. Based on the Parking Management Comprehensive Implementation Guide, the proposed TDM plan would reduce the residential parking required for the project by 40-70 percent using parking requirement adjustment factors, or by 30-90 percent using typical reductions in vehicle traffic and parking requirements. It should be noted that not all proposed TDM measures are listed in Tables 4 and 5, and therefore these TDM measures that are not listed would still provide a reduction in parking demand but is not quantified. In addition, the percentages listed in Tables 4 and 5 are approximations of reduced parking requirements when implemented on an individual basis, but do not account for the compounding of multiple measures or strategies implemented at the same time. With the reductions in parking, a reduction in vehicle trips is also anticipated. The unbundling of parking, addition of bicycle parking, and provision of information on alternative modes of transportation should all help to reduce the number of vehicle trips. 4.g Packet Pg. 85 Page 8 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 Table 6 – TDM Effectiveness Summary TDM Measure Parking Requirement Adjustment Factors Reduction1 Typical Reductions in Parking Requirements2 % Reduction Notes % Reduction Proximity to Pedestrian Facilities 5-15%Reduce requirements 5-15% in very walkable and bikeable areas. N/A Proximity to Bicycle Facilities 5-15% Proximity to Transit 10% Reduce requirements 10% within ¼ mile of frequent bus service or Caltrain. N/A Proximity to Complimentary Uses 5-15%Reduce requirements 5-15% in mixed-use developments.N/A On-site TDM Communication and Coordination N/A 5-15% Secure Bicycle Parking for Residents 10%Substitute bike parking for up to 10% of car parking (see above) Electric Vehicle Plug-in Stations N/A N/A Unbundled Parking 10-20%Reduce requirements 10-20% for unbundling 10-30% Parking Pricing N/A 10-30% Combined Total 40-70%30-90% 1 From Table 4 – Parking Requirement Adjustment Factors 2 From Table 5 – Typical Reductions in Vehicle Traffic and Parking Requirements N/A – No adjustment shown in Table 4 or Table 5 Office Uses For office uses, travel demand focuses on the commute for employees to travel to and from work. Below is a list of site-specific design features that typically help to reduce the number of office related vehicle trips. · Secure bicycle parking – On-site bicycle parking via bicycle lockers, bicycle cages, or indoor bicycle parking provides added security to bicycle parking as compared to typical bicycle racks. The increased safety promotes higher bicycle use. · Preferential carpool parking – Preferential carpool parking spaces provide an incentive for employees to carpool. The parking spaces are typically near the entrance to the office building or if in a parking garage, on the entry level floors to provide ease of access into and out of the parking garage. · TDM communication and coordination - This provides constant awareness of the TDM options available for the tenants. This may include marketing and distribution of materials to tenants. · Ridesharing and carpool matching services – The TDM coordinator will help employees find common destinations and meet-up points to carpool into work. 4.g Packet Pg. 86 Page 9 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 · Free or Discounted Transit Passes – Distribution of transit passes to employees would encourage the use of Caltrain. The transit passes can be distributed to employees that show interest in using Caltrain. A preliminary survey can be administered to determine the interest of transit passes. · Residential Guaranteed Ride Home – This program provides a subsidy for residents who choose to use the other TDM services, for emergency situations. This could be an annual allotment of up to four (4) rides via taxi or Uber/Lyft of $60 per ride. These potential TDM measures for office employees target the commute period travel demand. By encouraging bicycle travel, or incentivizing carpooling, these TDM measures reduce the demand for office employees to drive alone to work. The result of the TDM measures would reduce personal vehicle travel demand during the AM and PM peak hours, when congestion is typically the highest on the roadway network. Proposed Office Program Elements The following summarizes an initial approach to the proposed office TDM program for the proposed project. The Applicant/owner of the project would be implementing these proposed measures. It is assumed that the office TDM program will be refined over time to adapt to changing transportation trends and to maximize the efficiency of the program. The office TDM program is specifically designed to focus on incentives and rewards for employees to participate in the program rather than penalties for not participating. An initial set of office TDM measures proposed for the Hamilton Webster project is summarized in Table 7. Table 7 – Proposed Office TDM Measure Summary #TDM Measure Description O1 On-site TDM Communication and Coordination The proposed project will distribute information electronically to employees. Information may include available public transit services, bicycle maps, bike share information, rideshare/carpool program, Zipcar station locations, and ride matching services. O2 Secure Bicycle Parking for Employees The proposed project is providing one long-term bicycle parking locker in the south corner of the building for office users. In addition, two short-term bike parking racks will be provided at grade with view of the office front door. O3 Electric Vehicle Plug-in Stations Electric vehicle (EV) charging stations will be provided for two parking spaces, with six additional parking spaces being electric vehicle ready. O4 Ridesharing and Carpooling A pay-as-you-go program (SCOOP) via the Palo Alto Transportation Management Association (TMA) allows employees to pay $2 per ride from their home to any destination in downtown Palo Alto. There are no other fees or monthly charges. Included is also a Guaranteed Ride Home program which allots up to $50 a month for reimbursement to use Lyft or Uber. 4.g Packet Pg. 87 Page 10 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 #TDM Measure Description O5 Provide five (5) Caltrain Passes (or equivalent reimbursement) Caltrain passes (or an equivalent reimbursement) will be provided to five (5) office employees who are willing to commit to using Caltrain on a regular basis, in a quantity sufficient to achieve the Project’s overarching goal of a 45 percent reduction in net new trips. Periodic survey of office employees will help maximize the effectiveness of the program. Effectiveness of Office TDM Program The effectiveness of TDM programs developed for office uses can be estimated through the COMMUTER model developed by the United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). The COMMUTER model is a spreadsheet-based model that predicts the travel and emission effects resulting from an employer implemented transportation management program. The model allows for inputs to local work-trip mode shares, work trip lengths, vehicle occupancy, financial incentives for alternative modes of transportation, employer participation rates, and the level of each program to determine the predicted trip reduction rates. After inputting TDM measures O1 through O5, as mentioned in Table 7 for the proposed project, the anticipated trip reduction percentage is 29 percent. This percentage does not account for the project being close to Downtown Palo Alto and within walking distance from the Palo Alto Caltrain Station. A study about the effects of transit on development in transit-focused areas3 has shown a 13 percent trip reduction for office work trips in transit-focused development. In addition, the City mentioned that there are free shuttles within the downtown area that employees can take advantage of. Therefore, it is expected that the number of single-occupancy trips can be significantly reduced. Combined Residential and Office Trip Reduction With the combined residential and office TDM plans, it is expected that the project will achieve the 45 percent trip reduction, or five (5) AM and PM peak hour trips reduced. The Hamilton Webster project will be providing Caltrain passes to employees and the reduction of parking spaces should decrease the number of AM and PM peak hour trips by five (5) trips. Residential and Office Trip Goals After discussions with the City, the project goal is to achieve a 45 percent reduction in net new peak hour trips based on the estimated trip generation estimates. Since the project is expected to generate 12 net new AM peak hour trips and 12 net new PM peak hour trips, the 45 percent reduction would result in a trip reduction of 5 AM peak hour trips and 5 PM peak hour trips.Therefore, the Hamilton Webster project would have a trip goal of 11 AM peak hour trips and 12 PM peak hour trips. 3 Cervero, Robert. Ridership Impacts of Transit-Focused Development in California, Institute of Urban and Regional Development, 1993. 4.g Packet Pg. 88 Page 11 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925-398-4840 MONITORING AND EVALUATION To ensure that the project is meeting the trip goals, annual monitoring of the project trips and review of the TDM program is necessary. The annual monitoring will entail the following: ·Vehicle trip counts – The City will request that a third-party entity count the number of vehicle trips generated by the site during the peak hours on a typical weekday. The vehicle counts will be conducted for three separate days and the day with the 2nd highest number of trips will be used to compare with the trip goals. The counts will be taken on a typical Tuesday, Wednesday, and Thursday during a week while local schools are in session and unaffected by holidays. ·Refinements to existing TDM – If the project were to not meet the trip goals, then the project applicant has six (6) months to remedy the non-compliant TDM plan. This could include providing additional TDM measures or refinement of existing TDM measures. The project applicant will work with the City to determine the necessary changes and how they will be implemented. ·Travel survey – On an as needed basis, the project will perform a travel survey to assess the current use of each alternative transportation option by residents, staff, and office employees. The survey will also examine which, if any, new TDM measures would residents and staff be more likely to use to reduce the number of vehicle trips to and from the project. Results of the survey would be used to identify adjustments that could be made to sustain or increase the use of transit, carpool, bicycling, and walking. ·Penalties – If after six (6) months from the non-compliant TDM plan the project still does not meet the trip goals, then the City may impose administrative penalties. These penalties will be negotiated between the project applicant and the City during the Conditions of Approval. 4.g Packet Pg. 89 Attachment G Project Plans and In-Fill Exemption Hardcopies of project plans and the Initial Study are provided to Board members. These plans and environmental documents are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “565 Hamilton Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial Study and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4231 4.h Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew and David Hirsch. Absent: Osma Thompson Chair Furth: Welcome to the February 7th meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. Would you call the roll, please? [Roll Call] Jodi Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Board Member Thompson is absent. Chair Furth: That's correct. She advised us in advance that she would be unable to be here. Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications. Is there anybody who wishes to speak on an item not on the agenda? Seeing none, I will go on to the next item. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Are there any agenda changes, additions and deletions? Seeing none. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: City official reports? Transmittal of our schedule and attendance record and tentative future agendas. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Related to the future agenda, you'll see that we're going to have a prelim for AT&T. We'll have the 695 Arastradero, 2342 Yale, and 1700 Embarcadero is likely to fall off. There's some stormwater measures that we need to make sure are appropriate in the area they are proposed. We want to make sure those don't affect the site plan before we bring it forward. Chair Furth: Thank you, and... Go ahead. Ms. Gerhardt: There's also an addition that the Chair has asked for. Unfortunately, I wasn't able to get it on this agenda, so we'll talk about it next time, and that is a discussion with the Director about ARB recommendations versus actual decisions that the Director is making. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: February 7, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Furth: Thank you. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 190 Channing Avenue [18PLN-00043]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 1,951 Square Foot Office Building and the Construction of a new three-Story 8,769 Square Foot Office / Residential MixedUse Building. Environmental Assessment: The Project is Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-Fill Development). Zoning District: RT-35 (Residential Transition Zone District in the South of Forest Area Phase 2 Coordinated Area Plan). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: Okay, the first public hearing item we have today is a quasi-judicial item. It's 190 Channing Avenue. This is in the South of Forest Area Coordinated Area plan, Phase 2 district of the city, which has its own unique zoning. All 300 pages of it. And it is a request for approval of a major architectural review to allow demolition of an existing 1,950 square foot office building and the construction of a new three- story, 8,760 square foot office and residential mixed use building, which is a larger office footprint, but staff can tell us what that is. With regard to the environmental review, it is exempt as infill development. The zoning district is Residential Transition Zone District, RT-35. Before we hear anything further, does anybody have any extramural communications to report? I can tell you that I did go back and watch the tape of our 2016 hearing on this matter, preliminary hearing on this matter. I also, at the architect's request, met with him on site, and it was helpful to be able to identify the boundaries of the property. I think I told him about my feelings about Italian cypress, but otherwise there's nothing relevant to report. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to disclose that I visited the site and I met with the architect in my office at his request. I didn't learn anything that's not in the public information. Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I visited the site a few days ago. No discussion with the architect. Chair Furth: Thank you. Staff? Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good morning, Board Members. The project before you today is a mixed use development at 190 Channing Avenue. The project is located within the RT-35 zone district, as you noted, within the boundaries of the South of Forest Area 2 Coordinated Area Plan, which is often known as the SOFA 2 CAP. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for all parcels within these boundaries is SOFA 2 CAP. The project includes demolition of an existing building that was historically used for automobile repair services, D&M Motors, but that was legally converted through a tenant improvement and use and occupancy permit to an office use in 2017. The existing building is proposed to be replaced with a three-story mixed-use development that includes office on the first floor and four residential condominium units on the second and third floors. And the City will separately process a vesting tentative map for condominium subdivision that includes six condominium units on a single parcel. Some of the key considerations for the ARB today may include input on the project's consistency with the SOFA 2 CAP performance standards and the performance criteria outlined in 18.23 of the municipal code. Staff has concluded that the project is on balance, consistent with both of these. However, as noted in the staff report, there may be some opportunity areas to improve consistency, particularly with respect to the open space. We encourage your feedback on the parking and the setbacks as well. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on the findings and subject to conditions of City of Palo Alto Page 3 approval as outlined in the staff report. With that, I will turn it back to you and recommend that you hear from the applicant as well. Chair Furth: Any questions of staff before we begin? I have one question. What is the setback of this building from Emerson? Ms. Hodgkins: The setback along Emerson.... It's noted in here as 1.5, but I thought it was actually 3.3. Oh, yeah. On the site plan it shows 3.3. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions before we hear from the applicant? Okay, seeing none, we may hear from the applicant, who will have 10 minutes. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good morning, Chair Furth, members of the Board. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'll be making the presentation on behalf of my clients, Karla and Cole Dawson. Unfortunately they couldn't make it today, but I’m sure they're watching from wherever they are. Before I start, I'd like to thank Claire Hodgkins for helping us bring this application before you. I'm also joined by Gary Laymon with Guzzardo Partnership, the landscape architect, should you have questions for landscape. As Claire pointed out, the site is a corner site on Channing and Emerson. It's about one-sixth of an acre, not a big site, 7,600 square feet in the RT-35 sub district of the SOFA 2 CAP. It's surrounded completely by RT-35, so there's no setbacks imposed by a residential adjacent to it. The buildings, the use originally was protected, when I was here in 2016 it was a protected use because auto service was considered retail, retail-like. Council changed that in 2017, early 2017, and the owner wanted to convert it to office space, as Claire pointed out. Here are some pictures of the existing D&M auto shop. This is down Emerson looking, let's say north. This is from the corner looking across the asphalt parking lot. It's basically a 1,950 square foot concrete block building with surface parking. The program that we developed with the owner was to provide a mixed use building, residential and office, with an underground garage. The top floor would be a unit for Cole and Karla, their personal unit. On the second floor they would have three multifamily units, and on the ground floor would be Cole's... There's two office spaces on the ground floor. The small one would be Cole's private office with a garden for himself, and the larger one would be for rental. We also were charged with trying to get this to work as a single- exit building, so that was key on such a small site. We've been able to do that. When we were here in 2016, we had three options, and this was the option that we kind of had focused on that time. Just briefly, this is the underground garage. The entrance hasn't changed, in the same spot. We had two lift systems back then because the retail part required more parking. We have since eliminated this lift here. We still have this lift system over here. On the ground floor the building was closer to this oak tree than it is proposed to be now. It was also closer to Channing, and we've increased that setback by almost 50 percent. It was, like, six feet, and now it's 8 1/2 feet. And then, on the second floor, which is here, we had the three units. We still have three units. Large terraces on these units were discussed at the hearing in 2016, and on the upper floor is a unit for Cole and Karla. This is the imagery that we had back then, very modulated form, kind of layered. We're picking up on the cantilevered aspect of the roof of the Creamery building down the street, kind of in this moderne style. This is the view from the corner. This is the view from Channing. I think the comments obviously had to do with these large cantilevered balconies. At the hearing, your comments that we wrote down and have since discussed is: Is retail use appropriate? Well, that's kind of off the table at this point since it doesn't, it's not mandated, and your comment back then was the lifts don't really work for retail. You want to see more trees and site amenities, plantings, benches. Wanted us to address the oak tree, which is a nice asset in that SOFA area. The balconies seem large, and you had concern about neighborhood transition. I want to compare these side by side. This is the site plan, and walk you through what the changes were there. This was the retail space previously, and it was set back from the street, from the corner, and we've now proposed that that becomes office space. We've simplified the form at that location. This would be Cole's office; this is the office that would be for rent. More street trees, site amenities, so we have marina strawberry street trees. This is the oak tree that we're concerned about. We've created a site wall that is bench height and it's topped with a wood bench, so you're not sitting on a cold stone seat. We've created some seating area in the covered porch. The setback line, previously you can see on the left, it's much more the building was on the setback. We've now stepped the building back 8 1/2 feet, and then, created blue City of Palo Alto Page 4 stone paving as an accent feature around the building. And then, this planter here has a Chinese fringe flower, a colorful flower in it. Down below grade, the trees on the upper left-hand corner. This was a big move of, how do we address that? We basically eliminated parking, carved out the garage at that level, at the main ground floor level. The building used to come closer to the property line and the oak tree. We've pushed that building back now 10 feet, and created room for the canopy of the oak tree. That's open space there. Comparison perspectives from the corners. The concerns were, I think, just the shadows and the cantilevered balconies, a little bit overbearing for the community. What we've done is we've consolidated the program basically into a more defined form, a simplified form, yet we still have the cantilevered roof for solar protection, and also to tie it back in like we originally wanted to do with the Creamery building. Street transition, the upper drawing is the Emerson frontage, so kind of relating to the building. The dental building across Channing. Our building is about 22 feet high at that point. I think theirs is about, maybe the same, maybe 24. And then, along Channing itself we have the Jewish Life building here, and it's a block that has kind of punched openings, so we've done a similar fashion here, and again, consolidated that program and created openings within that block. We felt like that tied in pretty nicely, and again, like I said, we still have the cantilevered roof to relate to the Creamery building. Basement level, you can see that that lift is gone, circulation is the same. We still have this lift. The ground floor, simplified form. We're set back from Channing there. The garage entrance is in the same location. This is Cole's office and his garden. The second floor has one, two, three units. They range from about 600 square feet to just over 800 square feet, and they all have an individual balcony that's protected. And then, on the upper floor, we have Cole and Karla's unit with the outdoor balcony and the balcony off the study on the side. Just the elevation views of Channing. Very simple form with some nice accents. The building height I believe is 38 feet to the top of the elevator, and we're at 35 at the top of the parapet, which is the height limit. This is the view from Emerson. The materials include a cut limestone base to define that two-story block, western red cedar on the underside of the canopies up above. They do have kind of a residential feel. Smooth cement plaster, horizontal metal cladding that kind of relates to the old industrial aspect of the SOFA area. We have a decorative metal screen here at the stair, so that that stair becomes an open stair to the elements, but still protected from a security standpoint. And it adds a little bit of interest. Actually, it's probably easier to see here. I don't think we updated the rendering, so, we have that located there. And, of course, high-performance glass, solar, sun shading, clear glass rails to reduce the scale of the building. And then, this is the shot again from the corner. I'm happy to answer any questions that you have, and look forward to an approval of the project. Thank you. Chair Furth: Do we have a speaker card? Benjamin Cintz? Good morning. If you could spell your name for our transcriber, and then you'll have three minutes. Benjamin Cintz: Thank you. [spells name] Good morning, Board Chair, Vice Chair, and Board Members. I presently live in the Midtown area of Palo Alto. Prior to that I lived in University South near SOFA 2. My father operated an auto upholstery business in what is now called SOFA 2, and I lived in SOFA 2 as a child. As a teenager, I worked in a camera store in downtown Palo Alto, and my law office is presently located in Palo Alto. My family owns the medical dental building across the street known as 882 Emerson Street. I have seen many changes take place in Palo Alto. I consider the proposed project to be a very positive change to SOFA 2, for the following reasons: It adds housing units, which I think is sorely needed in Palo Alto. The project cleans up the site and removes what is primarily an asphalt parking lot and cinderblock building. I think it's great that the parking is underground, and that there are no issues with parking lifts. I like the idea that small office space is being provided. I think that augments SOFA 2 and Palo Alto, which I think has a reputation for being a very innovative place for businesses to start, and I think the small office space helps accomplish that. I also like the outdoor terraces and the activity they will provide, and the new street trees, landscaping and pedestrian amenities. I thank you for listening to my comments. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you very much, Mr. Cintz. Anybody else wish to speak? Applicant can rebut that if they wish. Applicant declines. All right. Are there questions from Board Members before we deliberate? David? This is questions, not comments yet. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Hirsch: Well, I like the building very much, and only some technical questions, really. The samples that you submitted don't actually have the screening, a screening sample, do they? Mr. Hayes: Mr. Hirsch, no, they do not. It would match the metal siding. It's not a manufactured screen, it will be a custom screen. It will... Board Member Hirsch: It's not a standard screen, in other words. Mr. Hayes: No, no. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, so you really couldn't make a sample. Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, thank you. I might have more on that, on other parts here. On the façade on Emerson, it will be a, sort of wide-opened glassed façade. How do you create privacy on that street as more population is likely to be in that area at some point? Mr. Hayes: Privacy for the ground floor, or...? Board Member Hirsch: Ground floor. Mr. Hayes: The ground floor? Because the upper floor, the actual living part of it is set back a little bit, so the terrace provides some screening. I would imagine on the interior, we typically would provide lines that would come down if they needed to have privacy. We've always tried to encourage our ground floor users to not have blinds because the whole idea is to want to be able to see in, to create some life and activity. I'm not real concerned about privacy in the office space, but if they have a conference room and they need to project something, I'm sure we would have blinds on the inside to come down. Board Member Hirsch: All right. I notice there was really no section through the driveway down to the parking that I could find. I'm just curious, if a car pulls in and is kind of in a waiting position at the top of that ramp without cutting off pedestrian traffic along Emerson, can it sit there? Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. There's about... There's probably 40 feet, so I would imagine you could have two cars... [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: .... turn. Mr. Hayes: No, you would be on the ramp. Board Member Hirsch: On the ramp. Mr. Hayes: You would be on the ramp, yes. Board Member Hirsch: How far in before the ramp begins from the...? Mr. Hayes: We're meeting the City's requirement, so it's five feet from the property line. If you take that and say how far is that from the sidewalk, it's about two to three more feet from the property line. Two and a half feet, I think, so you have seven and a half feet. A car would have to be on the sloping part of the ramp... Board Member Hirsch: The slope, okay. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Hayes: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Understood. Is that a likely condition, that somebody...? Mr. Hayes: The calculated peak morning trips per hour, the peak hour, is two in, and in the afternoon it's three out. I think it's unlikely with such a small building that you're going to have multiple cars waiting. I do want to point out, because you're likely to have questions about the puzzler lift, we have used them before for offices and for housing. The lift is in the most remote part of the garage, that if somebody drives down, they're have their fob and they'll notify the lift, and the lift will make open, you know, will make a space available, so that when they drive down, they can pull immediately into the space. If another car is coming right behind them and they need to park in the lift -- because that's how the protocol is going to be -- they would need to wait for that first car to be deposited, and then, for an open space to come. That takes about 44 seconds. That second car would be able to wait in the garage at the garage level because the lifts, if you look at the... The lifts are way off to the... The lifts are over here. A car could come down and wait here while a car is parking, and once that car is parked, they could pull in. But I'm not anticipating a lot of demand, people stacking. Board Member Hirsch: I guess another part of that answer could be that the car could pull down and let its passenger off down at the bottom and take the elevator up. Mr. Hayes: Right. True. Board Member Hirsch: You could do that. Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. Board Member Hirsch: There's the electrical... It's in the courtyard, behind the garbage there. Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Hirsch: How do you get to that? Suppose there's an emergency. Mr. Hayes: There's a path down... You can either come through the office space, so, the office space opens up to it, if they're open. Board Member Hirsch: Right. Mr. Hayes: Or, there is a path along here. This is a six-foot setback with a railing so you don't fall, and then the trees. You can come in that way, as well. Board Member Hirsch: That leaves you enough space to get through to that...? Mr. Hayes: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. The reason I question was to know if there was another access besides the office, should something happen when the office is closed and locked, etc. Mr. Hayes: Right. It might be that... This would be the only way, here, and it might be that when we get into the permit phase, the fire department is going to want us to provide a shunt trip in front of the building so they can shut the power off that way. Board Member Hirsch: That passes fire department...? Mr. Hayes: It has in the past, yes. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Mr. Hayes: We'll have the electrical equipment in the basement or in the garage, and we'll have a shunt trip at grade. It will be next to the Knox box. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I don't see a detail at the planter against the wall and how that really will work, especially in inclement weather, what happens... Mr. Hayes: You're talking about this planter here? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Mr. Hayes: Along Channing? Board Member Hirsch: Along Channing, yeah. Mr. Hayes: I think we might just have a section shown there. Yeah. That section is Section 2 on A3.3, but it's just an overall building section. But, of course, it will be a, a lined planter. Board Member Hirsch: Well, you know, it's a construction detail. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: I'll leave it up to you to solve that one. Mr. Hayes: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: Bikes on the site? Where are they? Mr. Hayes: There are two bike racks, one here and one here, if you want to look on your screen. There's one there and one there, so two bikes kind of at this main entry courtyard. And then, if you go below grade, there's a locker here and a locker here. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Terrific. Thank you, yes. One of the bigger issues is -- and we have better horticultural experts on this panel -- but you have some very solid trees on the neighbors' property there, next to the adjacent property on Emerson. Mr. Hayes: Uh-huh. Board Member Hirsch: It's almost like a solid wall there. Mr. Hayes: You're talking about these trees here? Board Member Hirsch: Yes? Mr. Hayes: The cypress? Board Member Hirsch: It looks like a solid wall in the drawing, too. I mean, my consideration would be, what about the neighbor who would put something up on that side, you know? And their light is cut off. It's as if there's a [crosstalk] building... Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Hirsch: ... at this location. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Mr. Hayes: Right. This building... Technically, this building could have been built on that setback. We are 25 feet back from that property line, for obvious reasons, with the ramp and all that. We do have a three-story building, so we were concerned about privacy. Board Member Hirsch: I know that's your concern. We're concerned about the neighbor. Mr. Hayes: Right. That parcel next door is 25 feet wide, so it's very narrow, a very narrow site. With the cypress that we have there, from the third floor, by the time anything would ever get built on that site next door, you wouldn't be able to see that site at all. You'd see the cleaners across the site if you're on the third floor looking out. We've only been addressing it from the standpoint of our occupants looking to the adjacent parcel and not the other way around. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, but I would recommend a lighter... Chair Furth: David, before we get to recommendations, can we finish our questions? Board Member Hirsch: I think that's about... Okay. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Otherwise, I'm quite pleased. I think it's vastly improved over the early rendition of it, and ... Chair Furth: Alex. I'm going to cut you off. Alex. Board Member Lew: I have one question for you, Ken. On Unit C on the second floor, you have a bedroom and a bathroom. I was wondering if you could explain the windows to me and how they work on the elevation, and with respect to the balcony on Unit A. The balcony on Unit A. And there is a window, there's a bedroom window that looks out to the neighbors' balcony. Mr. Hayes: That balcony, that window is going to need to be frosted. That was provided last minute as a response to Fire. Board Member Lew: It's an egress window, or...? Mr. Hayes: The windows that face the driveway ramp, we were going to use those for egress, but Fire doesn't want to have a ladder on the ramp. So, they asked that we provide that window, and I said that's kind of strange because there's a balcony there. And I said we'll just have to make that, it will just be frosted. Board Member Lew: Okay. And then, how does the...? You have a bathtub on the window wall, facing the driveway. Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Lew: And it looks like it's floor-to-ceiling glass. How is that going to work? Mr. Hayes: We have the same kind of condition on the, in Unit A, and we're thinking that we would treat the glass, basically hold the tub away. It's probably not going to be a built-in tub. Board Member Lew: It's a floating tub...? Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Lew: Okay. Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, for the architect, please. On the third floor, do you have any provision for blinds or valences on the inside of the glass walls? Mr. Hayes: We do. Vice Chair Baltay: Can you describe a little bit what that would be like? I think they will be visible most of the time when they're closed in the afternoon. Mr. Hayes: When the blinds are down, they'll... Vice Chair Baltay: Are they automatic blinds, recessed in the ceiling, or...? Mr. Hayes: Yes, they're recessed into the ceiling. And I think we have a detail of that. Vice Chair Baltay: Could you point me to that, please? Mr. Hayes: No, we do not have a detail of that. The idea would be we would create a cavity for the blinds to be up so we can have a clean screen. When they're up, you'll see the reveal. When they're down, you're going to see them, yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. That's it. Chair Furth: Thank you. What is the building setback from Emerson? Mr. Hayes: Well, I would contend it's 1 1/2 feet. Chair Furth: Eighteen inches. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. And I'm not sure if there's a discrepancy on the site plan. Chair Furth: On one of your plans it says 3.3. Mr. Hayes: Is it measuring from...? Chair Furth: I don't know. That's why I'm asking. Mr. Hayes: Do you know which one...? Ms. Hodgkin: I'm looking at it right now and I'm assuming that it was measuring to the very closest point. You can see kind of like... Chair Furth: Which sheet are you looking at, Claire? Ms. Hodgkins: Sorry. If you look at, for example, A2.2, you can see, you can see how the... Mr. Hayes: Oh, it's measuring to the glass. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. The 3.3 is measuring to the glass... Mr. Hayes: Right. Ms. Hodgkins: ...whereas the 2.2 is measuring to the, technically the closest point of the building. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Hayes: Chair Furth, this part of the façade, the stone is 18 inches back. The glass is three-foot-three back. Chair Furth: Oh, that's where the three... Mr. Hayes: That's what it is. Chair Furth: Okay, thank you. And how high is the face, the floor, of the upstairs balcony? Mr. Hayes: Twenty-two foot six inches. Chair Furth: The one that juts over the driveway is...? Mr. Hayes: Is 22, correct. Chair Furth: Okay, and you're planning to have the trees grow to...? Mr. Hayes: I did the section just because I had to convince myself, right? And I believe those trees grow four feet a year. Something like that. Right? And so, I think we were... I have it projected that they're at 18 feet in 2 1/2 years, so someone on the balcony... Because that site is 25 feet wide, if you have something 18 feet tall here and you draw the line, you basically don't see the parcel. You see the cleaners across that parcel. Chair Furth: Does it...? I'm worried about light and air that's left on that skinny parcel after you develop. It starts out looking great because you have your driveway over there, but then you put a vertical wall right on the property line, and that's what's concerning me. I realize that's not a question. Mr. Hayes: Of trees, you're saying. Chair Furth: Yeah. Which the need for which is driven by balcony. Okay. Where would the signage for the office be? These are neighborhood-serving offices. Mr. Hayes: I don't think Cole would have a sign. Chair Furth: That's partly my point. These buildings are supposed to read as neighborhood-serving office space. Where would it go? [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: If this was my office here, my entrance door is right there. Can you see my cursor? Chair Furth: I can. Mr. Hayes: Okay. I would put the sign right here. Chair Furth: Okay. Mr. Hayes: And that's not the entrance to Cole's office. Cole's office you can't see. It will be going in this way, so, if he has a sign, it would probably be in that courtyard, or at the courtyard. Chair Furth: Thank you. And then, this is a question for staff, but Ken may want to weigh in. What buildings were you looking at when you decided one feet eight inches was an appropriate setback? Ms. Hodgkins: We were looking at... City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: And I’m concerned with Emerson, not Channing. Ms. Hodgkins: Hold on one second. Chair Furth: I've got my magnifying glasses... [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: I'm sorry, your question was for staff, but... Ms. Hodgkins: I was looking... Chair Furth: Which sheet is it? You told us earlier and I... Mr. Hayes: Yeah, it's in there. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Hayes: Eight-zero-five. Chair Furth: Eight-zero-five, right? Ms. Hodgkins: I was considering this to be the front setback, so, looking at some of the other... Chair Furth: Considering what to be the front setback? Emerson? Ms. Hodgkins: Emerson to be the front setback. Chair Furth: Right. Ms. Hodgkins: The shorter side. In looking at that, I looked at the Jewish Family and Children Services, which has a front setback of three-ten. Chair Furth: It says 7.5 on this. Is that incorrect? Ms. Hodgkins: No, that's the side yard setback. Chair Furth: I’m talking about the setback as it exists on the street. Because when we're talking about context, it doesn't matter if it's front or side. Ms. Gerhardt: Can we ask what sheet you're looking at? Chair Furth: I'm looking at AO.5 [phonetic]. Ms. Hodgkins: Well, I would say that when I ... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: ....answer my question. You didn't look at the... Ms. Hodgkins: When I did my review, I was looking at front setbacks within the area for adjacent parcels, so I was looking in particular at the different corners and what the front setbacks were of those different corners, versus what the side setback was along Emerson. Chair Furth: And so, the next parcel down Emerson looks like it has, like, zero setback. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Ms. Hodgkins: The drycleaner, which is the closest adjacent along Emerson, has basically a zero setback. The dental office has a front setback of 8-7. Chair Furth: Sixty-seven feet, eighty-seven feet? I can't quite read... Ms. Hodgkins: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Eighty-seven. Ms. Hodgkins: Eight-seven. Chair Furth: Somebody's got a setback of 67 feet, six inches. Ms. Hodgkins: That's, again, the side yard setback, so when I was reviewing I was looking at what appropriate front setbacks were on the adjacent parcels. So... [crosstalk] Ms. Hodgkins: Oh, sorry.... No, she's talking about this one. Chair Furth: Okay, well, that answers my... So, across the street, I show fronting on Emerson -- meaning the building that you see as a pedestrian, walking down Emerson -- first we have seven feet, then we have 14 feet, then we have 7 feet 9, 7 feet 8 1/2, 7 feet 4. Is that right? Ms. Hodgkins: Correct. Chair Furth: And then when you get south of this, you get into a residential neighborhood. I guess we're in old Palo Alto, historic Palo Alto. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. Mr. Hayes: Could I chime in? Chair Furth: Not yet. Thank you. And that has a deeper setback, right? Ms. Hodgkins: Correct. Correct. Chair Furth: Okay. Yes, Mr. Hayes? Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Furth: Would you like to speak to this issue? Mr. Hayes: I would. Chair Furth: With my, with the forbearance of my colleagues up here. Mr. Hayes: There's a little confusion and inconsistency in how we have measured the setbacks. The Jewish Center across the street, Mr. Cintz's property across Channing, and the other properties there that all have those numbers listed, we're measuring from the sidewalk because we don't know exactly where the property line is. We don't have surveys for all those parcels, so we're measuring from the sidewalk. Chair Furth: From the sidewalk or the curb? City of Palo Alto Page 13 Mr. Hayes: The sidewalk. The back of sidewalk. Mr. Cintz's building says 8 foot 7 from the back of sidewalk, but there's at least 2 1/2 to 3 feet from the back of sidewalk to the property line. On our property, I'm assuming... Chair Furth: I’m sorry, you just lost me completely. We measure setbacks from property lines, but you're saying we don't have a survey, so we don’t know what the actual property lines are. Ms. Hodgkins: Exactly. What he's saying is he put in some extra because this property is set back three feet from the property line, so it may be... Chair Furth: Or 18 inches, depending. Ms. Hodgkins: No, it's... (inaudible). Yeah. What he's saying is that on a lot of these other properties, it may be that the property line is actually further in than where the back of walk is. Mr. Hayes: Right. Chair Furth: But they are still (inaudible) back from the sidewalk, which is what people perceive. People don't go around surveying... [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: Our building would be 4 1/2 feet back from the back of sidewalk, 4 1/2 feet to 6 1/2 feet. Chair Furth: This drawing did not advance your case. Mr. Hayes: Didn't help you, right. Chair Furth: However, so, when we look at 12 feet 9 inches for the u-shaped property further down the block, that's from the edge of sidewalk, right? Mr. Hayes: They're all from the edge of sidewalk, back of sidewalk. Ms. Hodgkins: I mean, I would also note that this is a corner property, so we would want to, in staff's opinion, we would want to encourage building up closer to the sidewalk on a corner property, whereas we might not be looking for that further down the block. Chair Furth: And why would you want it closer on a corner property? Ms. Hodgkins: To encourage the pedestrian atmosphere of the area. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: Take a look at the corner of St. Michael's alley, the old St. Michael's alley, Watercourse Way, House of Hardware... Chair Furth: Which are often... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: They're all on a diagonal. Board Member Lew: Not all of them. [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Furth: Now we're debating, so, let's... Mr. Hayes: If we went across the intersection that we're on, the building across the intersection is defining that corner on both places. Chair Furth: It sure is. No doubt about that. All right. Okay. I think it's... Okay. Peter, why don't you go through comments. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Thank you for the excellent presentation. On whole, I think this is an excellent proposal. The site planning is very thoughtfully done. It makes a lot of sense. The floor plan of the building is logical, it's very functional. I find the design is, on the whole, compatible to the neighborhood. It just fits right in. It feels good to me. I think having the underground parking is a real asset to the community. It's really the only way I see these type of projects working. It's really nice that you're out of the gate proposing this for us. I'm mildly concerned that we're relying so much on the stacked parking lifts and there's no... I don't see a provision for a quick in-and-out of my car, quick unloading of kids or groceries. There are families that might be living here, and I've always felt that you really need to have not just exclusively stacked parking. You just need some place for one or two people to pull in for 20 minutes while they run upstairs and get something. It would be really nice if there was a way to maybe change around. You have some electric vehicle stations that are dedicated to that, but if there were just one or two spots that were just open and useful, I think the overall functionality of the parking would be greatly enhanced. I also register a concern to the staff that this building has a very unique ownership structure, in the way that the owner of the building really will be living here and really controlling how the entire building functions. And it's very important that that parking be available to other tenants in the building and to the occupants of the retail or office spaces. I don’t think that's always the case under projects like this. The owner could just decide that that garage is really their space, and while that may not be to the letter of the law, that oftentimes, I think, happens. It's important that we keep an eye on it and be aware of it and put in conditions or what-not. The parking is intended to be for all of the occupants of the building. I find I like the overall style of the building. I appreciate the stone plinth and the glass up above. And I think that the balconies actually work quite well for the residents, having all those spaces outdoors. It provides eyes on the street, it enlivens the community, and the fact that you're providing four apartments I think is really a plus to the community. It's wonderful to have, especially three small units right downtown like that, up on the second floor with balconies overlooking the street. I just can't see where that won't be a wonderful place to sit on a summer evening. It will enliven and help the community quite a bit. With that said, I'd like to step on the architect's toes a little bit with one suggestion that I find could improve the building. Architect Hayes, if you could pull up your overall perspective view of the building. You had it up a few slides ago. Sort of what I would call your money shot. The very nice view from the corner of Emerson... [Locating slide] Vice Chair Baltay: While he's pulling that up, to my colleagues. My concern is that the façade of the building along Channing is really more or less plainer all the way up, and I'd like to see -- right there -- I'd like to see if we couldn't get them to push back on the third floor the large glass walls on the left and right of the elevator core. From my reading of the plans, it could be pushed back a couple of feet and the deck railing could wrap around that, to get that same stepping-back effect that you have on Emerson. You would push back the kitchen area some, and perhaps let it go out the other direction to make up the space. But I think it would be a big improvement on the Channing Street façade not to have the building read so plainer all the way up. Just the three stories. The second thing you could consider doing, Architect Hayes, would be to raise the height of the stone plinth, the element that makes up the first two floors, perhaps just another foot. I think that would help your proportions, and honestly, would make the balcony on the third floor more pleasant. You'd have, the first foot of railing would be a solid wall, not just glass to the floor. But the proportions of this just strike me as a little bit top-heavy. With all due respect, I get the same feeling on your recent building at 240 Hamilton. You have a very high glass thing on the very top. It's very close to the edge, and it's very tall. I understand why you want it so tall, but by City of Palo Alto Page 15 pushing it back a little bit, by raising the stone plinth just a little bit, you mitigate the height effect without really changing the functionality of the use of it inside. Mr. Hayes: Right now, the glass and the metal panel wall are 8 inches back from the stone, so that's not a flush relationship. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm saying put it back 4 of 5 feet. Wrap the balcony around it by just squeezing your floor plan a little bit. I understand that the elevator core in the middle, the refuse needs to stay that way, and it should. It looks attractive that way. But if you could step back the other piece from Channing, wrap the balcony around it, and then, change the massing portions of the stone, I think that would be an improvement to the overall massing of the building, especially as it's seen from Channing, or from the corner of Channing and Emerson. I throw that out to my colleagues to hear, for the architect to hear. Honestly, aside from that, I think this is just an excellent building and an excellent proposal. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation, and I think the revisions are all very well considered. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Board Member Lew: In general, I support the project. The things that I think we need to address are, one is the compatibility with the historic building, which I think you have a letter from Mr. Brand, who objected to this item. I think he's referring to Watercourse Way at the corner of Channing and High Street. I think we have to address that. My reading on your design is that you have recessed the windows on Channing, the lower floor windows, right? Mr. Hayes: Yeah, that's all recessed back, correct. Board Member Lew: It's recessed, and the... To me, Watercourse Way, one of the character-defining things of that building, one of them is that it has the deeply-recessed windows. It also has that kind of brick or terra cotta... Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Lew: ... and in front of it is landscaping, as well. I think that you've made... I think that you have a deep recess. I think the landscaping, like the coleonema, makes the design linkage to bamboo. It's all very vertical and bright green and lacy. I think potentially you have, you could have a design linkage in your stone pattern. It could be, or may not be. Like, if you had a very, like, a fake artificial stone, it's all one inch high... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: ...for example, if it were like that, it wouldn't really make a design linkage for Watercourse Way, but if you're using real stone, you have some say on the coursing of it, and that could make it... I'm just throwing it out there, that it could make a design linkage. And then, for the compatibility of all of that along Emerson Street, I think it matches very well, all of the massing and detail of the Emerson Street buildings. And then, I think my only other comment is... Or, I have two comments on landscaping. One is that I think here you're proposing new plantings underneath the existing oak tree. Everything that I know -- which is not a lot -- but like native plants like ivies, is to not put any new plants and irrigation underneath oak trees, like within 10 feet. I think you're showing that, so I was wondering what you're thinking about that. I think that maybe we should probably not do that. And then, I think there are native options for that, like... That do well under oak trees, like salvia spathacea, is native, indigenous, likes shade. Anyway, I was wondering about your thinking of that. Mr. Hayes: Sure. Thank you for the question. We were thinking about what the oak tree would want, and certainly we're taking a lot of care relative to how we were repositioning the building, and how the paving City of Palo Alto Page 16 was working underneath that canopy and everything. Today, that's actually a building right there on the property line, so we're giving it some room to breathe and to live in there. We do have native plantings in there that would take the shade well. Our thought was to just create a little bit of a buffer there so we're not looking so much at the trash enclosure behind. Although the trash enclosure is going to be nicely detailed, still we just wanted to scale that back a little bit, mitigate that a little bit. That was our thinking on why we wanted to have planting in there. Chair Furth: And there's no irrigation of that landscaping? Gary Laymon, Landscape Architect, Guzzardo Partnership: There would be irrigation for that. But it would be on its own valve, so it would be sort of micromanaged for... We're not overloading the oak tree. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you, Gary. Staff, do we have a new city arborist to replace Dave Dokkter? Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, I was going to say, this wasn't commented on, but before anything moved to final decision, I can discuss again with our arborist and get his recommendations, and maybe add a condition of approval related to what plantings, if any, should be allowed to go in that area. Board Member Lew: Okay, I would support having a condition of approval for that. And then... I would recommend, I can recommend approval today. And then, I think, so, with condition of approval. And then, I think we should, as a Board, address compatibility for the historic property, with respect to the historic property at Watercourse Way, which is Finding 2B. And I think there isn't anything in the draft staff language at this point. Chair Furth: David. Board Member Hirsch: I'm really not in agreement with a few of the other statements here. I think the building is very strong in terms of its defining the two-story elements to it, and I don't think any other additional setbacks are really needed. I really like the way it is set back at the corner. I think that's a nice way to turn that corner, and there will be a lot more things happening along Emerson at some point, and it's a nice soft relationship there to the corner. I like the deep recesses. I think that's really sufficient to animate that particular façade. I think maybe... I mean, you know, this is a building that's going to define the street development, and I find that it's a nice transition as a modern element there. Maybe somebody else will pick up some of that way of thinking along the block and make it quite consistent then, at that point. I hope that would happen. And I think that actual setback is sufficient at the corner. I don't think you really have to go any further than what you've done. Thanks a lot. Chair Furth: Okay. Thank you. Here comes the minority report. It is a very pretty building. It is going to be much more attractive than what's there. It's going to be much more attractive than a lot of other buildings in the area. I think the most important thing about your development from the point of view of review is how adequately you protect the oak tree. It's identified as one of the two most significant trees, and the plan says we should add more oaks and redwoods. Personally, I would not plant a redwood anywhere near my house, but the alternative is to... I wanted to ask you, is it going to be necessary to prune that oak tree to accommodate the upper stories? Or is it set back enough so it won't be necessary? Mr. Hayes: There would be a little bit of thinning on the building wall side, yes. Chair Furth: How many feet do you think? Mr. Hayes: It would be a very small percentage, in alignment with the arborist's recommendations. Probably in the order of five to seven feet. Chair Furth: Five to seven feet? And that will have to be maintained, right? City of Palo Alto Page 17 Mr. Hayes: Right. Chair Furth: Okay. I think it's crucial to add the condition that Alex mentioned. I would prefer that this was pulled back to not require taking five to seven feet off that side of the tree. That seems to me to be significant. I may be wrong. I haven't seen a drawing of it. I don't know what we're talking about. The idea is to have a healthy, well-shaped tree that doesn't look bonsai to accommodate new buildings. Because while there's a building on the site, it's not this tall. I am concerned about the floor-to-ceiling windows. When we've been concerned about them in other buildings designed by Mr. Hayes, when we have floor-to-ceiling windows in what is supposed to be office space or residential space, we all too often see floor-to-ceiling blinds or screens. We told some other projects in this neighborhood... I mean, the great thing about this, one of the great things about this proposal is it has underground parking, we're beginning to see something approval able. And we've had two other projects, three other reviews, in SOFA 2 that we have not been able to approve, and one of the things we've said to those other applicants is, "You've got bathtubs, you've got kitchen sinks, you've got all these things, backing up against floor-to-ceiling window? That's not functional design.” I don't think it should be either. I think if you're going to have those uses, we should not be permitting floor-to-ceiling windows. I don't know what to do exactly about the office space because we're looking at a drawing where it looks lovely. It’s not going to look half so lovely with opaque blinds there. One of the things I did ask staff was how many condominium units were going to be created. They said two for office and four for residential. Is that correct? The top floor is a one-bedroom flat. The bottom floor, as described by the applicant, is his private office, his personal office. That doesn't seem to be what we meant by neighborhood-service office. I'm not even sure if it's a permitted use. Depending on what his profession is. If it's a personal office or a household office, that's a residential use, and it should be reclassified as residential. I don't think that this project really meets the common open space requirement. I'm perplexed as to how that balcony meets the standards for a common open space. Board Member Lew: On the second floor? Chair Furth: Mm-hmm. How it's suitable for children, etc. But I just maybe don't get it. I'm sorry to take up time on the setback, but I think people are absolutely right, David's right, to say this is going to set the tone for development on this street. I find the staff's argument that having a building close to the curb enhances the pedestrian experience is a little confusing, depending upon the height of the building and how much setback you're talking about. We say that on El Camino Real because we have a six-lane street with a center divider, eight to 12 foot sidewalks, and what we're trying to get away from is cars on the edge of the street. But we're not trying to get... I don't think any of those things make sense here. I think that we have a lot of deep setbacks right now because we have all these automotive uses, which are going to change. And I do not think that the object should be to get things within three feet or 18 inches of the sidewalk. I don't think that is consistent with the development plan as it's emerging. It certainly shouldn't be less than the building across the street. I would think it should be more because I don't think that's the only building. That's the least-set-back building. I'm somewhat reassured by your saying that you would set corner buildings closer to the street than other buildings because if this is the pattern you're setting down this block, it's going to thud right into residential neighborhood. I think it's too close, under the Code. The underground parking is highly desirable. I have my usual question: Is it going to be gated so that somebody coming home at night has a secure access to their residential unit? Is that a nod from the applicant? Mr. Hayes: Yes, yeah, it will be secured. Chair Furth: It will be secured. Good. I tend to think that, you know, one of the things that this building definitely does that the SOFA CAP asks for is a variety of living units. You have a studio and three one bedrooms, right? One of the interesting things is that the staff report says that this helps our jobs/housing balance. I don't think it does. I think it adds more office demand. If you take this as straight office space instead of reclassifying that back office as residential, then it creates more space, more demand for housing than it’s applied. This project provides.... Three bedrooms and a studio, so let's say four bedrooms. Four small households. And we add enough office space to more than generate that City of Palo Alto Page 18 demand under our usual standards. I think the findings that say that it makes that better aren't supported by the evidence. I do think that, on the other hand, it certainly intensifies development on the site, which makes for a more intensively-used core area, and that's good. I think it's lovely. I think it's a bit too close. One of the things about this building is it's really tall. The virtue is that it's set back, and I think that saves us from the problems of a very tall building this close to the sidewalk. Because what other tall buildings are...? What other buildings that tall are there? How tall is the building across the street? I forget. You've told me...? Mr. Hayes: It's, like, 32 feet, and we're 35. Chair Furth: It's 32 feet. So, we're going to make this constriction in the block here, and that's probably okay as long as we don't continue that march down the block. I have a bunch of comments on the findings, but we can discuss those after. Does anybody agree with me about the all-glass or (inaudible)? Everywhere I see around town, I see wastebaskets, and... I don't see how this is going to work. Vice Chair Baltay: I made... Chair Furth: Who wants a floor-to-ceiling window office? Vice Chair Baltay: I made a comment that by recessing back that third floor of all glass, and then, by changing slightly the opaque edge to it, you really prevent seeing the bottom part of that glass from the street, which doesn't mitigate the interior functional problems of having a bathtub there, but at least you don't see it, which I think is our (inaudible). I agree with Wynne, that having floor-to-ceiling glass on a residential unit everywhere, those create functional problems on the interior and visual problems on the outside. I'm not sure that this design has a lot of that. There seems to be only one or two places that Alex pointed out and they are on the back side of the building. I don't think that's a make-or-break kind of issue. Board Member Lew: But I think to your point, say your, you made the recommendation for setting back the third floor glass, so, the upper unit has the kitchen there. We have the back of the kitchen cabinets facing Channing. Chair Furth: Not good. Board Member Lew: I think to your point, Peter, setting back the glass would allow more different design options. Vice Chair Baltay: I've made a sketch for myself. If I took where that kitchen is and just pull it back a few feet, wrap the deck around it, you've got a much more private situation. They can do whatever they want then. You can't see those counters. Board Member Lew: [crosstalk] Right. Vice Chair Baltay: And I believe that if you look at the rendering on the front page here, how strong that is on the vertical -- David Hirsch especially -- I think that's very severe. And by cutting that back as well seems to me a win/win in every regard. Wynne, I do want to be clear that this design style sort of needs these big pieces of glass to pull this off, so I'm inclined to give the architect the benefit of the doubt. They can solve perfunctional issues if their client is willing to go with that. That's what architecture is. Chair Furth: Well, Peter, the precedent for all of this, for this neighborhood, of an office space, privately owned by somebody, you know, is, of course, the ultimate in shut-off buildings. It's diagonally across from Whole Foods. Where all the windows have been opaque for -- what? -- 40 years? Ever since Mr. Jobs bought it. I agree. I will defer to you all as saying that you think this could work. I certainly see it as problematic in other buildings around town. I certainly think if we're allowing it here when we discourage it elsewhere, we need to be clear in our minds why we're doing that. The other thing I'd like to talk about City of Palo Alto Page 19 is the balcony extending over, the third floor balcony extending over to what I think of as the south, but I guess it's actually the east, or something. West? As you go down towards Professorville. That is... Board Member Lew: Over the driveway? Chair Furth: Over the driveway, towards the adjacent property. We know the adjacent property is narrow. We know it's not going to be able to set itself way back. And we're allowing a residential balcony on an upper floor, looking out on it. The plan does say that landscape screening... It anticipates that we want significant outdoor spaces. I don't think this one is short on outdoor spaces. And it says that landscaping can be used to screen it. It does seem to me that an all-glass railing makes it even more of an intrusion looking back. I don't think that cypress provide very good screening or habitat. I think you can grow a very high hedge that might be less of an exotic plant and more of a plant that meets our standards. This plan does have a lot of exotic plants in it, which I don't know that kangaroo paws are great for local habitat, but maybe they are. Because that's our alternative. I do not support the balcony, but if the rest of you do, I would ask that we ask for a different and better approach to.... Than the cedars. Or the cypress. Whatever they are. The Italian cemetery plants. Vice Chair Baltay: I wonder if I could chime in for a second, Wynne, because I also paused when I saw that balcony. It is large, and it's clearly looking out over the residential neighborhood from a distance. But this is a different zoning. The other people can also put, sort of apartment-style buildings, where we want life on the outside of the building, on balconies. And when I scratch my head and think, why do we have, in Palo Alto, there's very strong protections of privacy for R1 residential neighborhoods. It's very hard to put a balcony overlooking your neighbors' yard. And it's typically in a situation where you have rear and side yards. We don't want to have balconies from one neighbor looking into another neighbor's house, back yard, etc. But in the case where you have taller multifamily buildings, I don't think we want to start setting a precedent that you just can't have balconies on the back and side yard so they might look into other properties. What I'm hearing you say is, essentially, let's keep all the balconies on the street side only. I think that's... Chair Furth: No. Vice Chair Baltay: ... a limitation that I’m not sure is beneficial. Chair Furth: I agree that people have an expectation of social ability on their balconies rather than privacy. But it just seems like such a viewing deck. And I don't think that having this very tall planting of cypresses is a good solution. Vice Chair Baltay: The cypresses I find problematic. I think at four feet a year, they're very quickly going to overwhelm everything in the neighborhood, this building, as well. Male?: How (inaudible) again. Vice Chair Baltay: It may be that there's another plant that would give us 20 feet of hedge, or something. Board Member Lew: Regarding the cypress, we have them on a lot of projects, actually, in the California Avenue area. Chair Furth: Yep. Board Member Lew: All of the Hohbach properties have them, like along Park Boulevard and... Is it Sheridan or Grant? And I have questioned the landscape architect who put all those in, about that. His response is that when you plant them next to the driveway ramp, (inaudible) soil volume, and they stay smaller than they would otherwise. And I've gone back and looked at them, and I think he is correct about that. They may be, like, half as big as they would be otherwise. And then, there is something that we can do, is look at the spacing of them. It doesn't necessarily have to be wall-to-wall, 100 percent City of Palo Alto Page 20 green space in there. For native hedges, typically you're going to want, they're going to be wider than what they have here. And I'll let Gary chime in. Chair Furth: Specifically, how does this proposed row of cedars... Board Member Lew: Cypress. Chair Furth: Cypress, sorry. Meet this... Cedars would really be something. Meet the, let us make the finding that these are native plants when feasible, or other valuable habitat plants? Gary Laymon: We have looked at a number of different plants to try and provide a solution in that area. It's a very challenging space, as you say. And other things we were considering is we want to have something that is evergreen, want to have something that's very columnar. We didn't want to have a canopy that was going to spread over onto adjacent property and have to be pruned back. We needed to be able to maintain access, as you were saying, for the meter reading in that area, so a pathway that goes between the driveway and the property line there. We wanted to have something we could limb up a little bit so somebody could walk through that space. We wanted to have something that was available in size immediately because the need for that buffer is going to be immediate upon occupancy. So, we we're using something that is available in the nursery that is tall and columnar. And, something that is both drought tolerant, and also provides a dense screen, albeit it will be tapered towards the top so it will be more of a feathered view, if you will, at the tops as opposed to what's at the lower elevations. I would expect that the trees would grow about four feet a year for the first eight or 10 years, and probably slow down after that, for the reasons Alex mentioned. There's a limited amount of soil area there, and frankly, they don't need to be any bigger than that, so that's sort of an optimum outcome in terms of the form of the trees themselves. What we've done is looked at the other balance of the planting in terms of the opportunity to be able to create native planting opportunities, as well as plant materials that support habitat, whether that be pollinators or nesting areas. Habitat for bees, birds, butterflies, what-not. There's plenty of that opportunity within the planting palate, and that was something we adjusted to, specifically to achieve that objective. Chair Furth: Kangaroo paws are good habitat plants? Mr. Laymon: Good for birds and butterflies and bees, yes. Chair Furth: And you've got the right kind of milkweed? Mr. Laymon: Yes, I do. [Laughter] Chair Furth: I only got lectured about it the other day, so it's on my mind. Mr. Laymon: Actually, I got lectured about it, too, because ... Chair Furth: There's a lot of the wrong kind. Mr. Laymon: ... at the nursery, they don't want you to make the plant so attractive that they don't migrate, they stick around, which is not what we want. We want them to be in transition. So, yeah, there's a whole... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: It may become moot shortly. Mr. Laymon: I would like to clarify, Ken's brought up the image of the oak tree and its relative canopy. Five, seven feet is an over-statement of what the tree needs to be pruned. It would be less than that. Chair Furth: For the record, Mr. Hayes is showing us a picture of the oak tree. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Lew: I looked at it yesterday and I did not... Chair Furth: Yeah, I looked at it, too. [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: ...being an issue. Chair Furth: Yeah, I looked at it and couldn't tell. Because I didn't know how much higher it was going to go. Okay. Board Member Hirsch: Could I comment about the border on Emerson there, those trees that you're mentioning? I mean, look at the rendering here. Really, they are not, the corner rendering looking down Emerson, you don't show those trees at all. When did they occur in the process here? Mr. Laymon: I believe the other rendering does pick up those trees. Chair Furth: Yeah, it does. I think you have a problem showing us both the building and the landscaping. Mr. Laymon: There we go. There. Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Will it maintain? You know, I'm concerned. Does it...? You can promise us that it will maintain that amount of openness between the trees versus a solid wall? Mr. Laymon: What we have is denser than what is shown here. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Board Member Lew: If you want it to look like this, I think we should put that as a condition of approval. If you want wider spacing. Mr. Laymon: Yeah, we could thin out the trees. We'd be open to that. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: If the rest of you are satisfied with the plant, I would support the spacing. Mr. Laymon: Yeah, we could reduce them by 50 percent or so. That would provide more transparency. Chair Furth: (inaudible) do that. Vice Chair Baltay: Could you address, please, the height of those trees? Alex hinted that they might not grow so tall. How big should we expect the cypresses to become? Chair Furth: Ten years out, what are we going to see? Mr. Laymon: I would expect them to be in the 20-foot range, thereabouts. They will grow rather quickly initially, but as the roots sort of reach the limit of the amount of soil area, they'll tend to slow down. Chair Furth: We'll see. Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: I'm going to plug once more, Dave Hirsch. If you could look at this rendering right here on the screen. The third floor glass on the right facing Channing is what I'm saying could be set back a little bit. Do you have any sense about that? That's what I'm talking about, taking that third floor glass, pull it back, and wrap the balcony. City of Palo Alto Page 22 Board Member Hirsch: It's a smallish building. My sense of that top floor is it's kind of a nice transition when you look at the side wall versus looking at it from this position, you know? I see that wall with large openings cut into it from the Channing side. And then, this, admittedly, the rendering disappears it. That's clever, but... But, you know, because it's all pretty white up there in the other area. The other straight-on, I think, wherever that one is, the straight-on one, Channing elevation. Those two wings on the left and right of the solid area there are going to be right on line with, you know, at present. I think the choice of materials makes a difference there. Mr. Hayes: The glass at that third level above the limestone is set back eight inches. Board Member Hirsch: Eight inches, right. Mr. Hayes: And the reveal between the glass and the horizontal metal siding is two feet back. And then you have the metal siding eight inches back, and then you have two foot back reveal... Board Member Hirsch: Right. Mr. Hayes: ... and eight inches back. Board Member Hirsch: My preference is I like it that way. Vice Chair Baltay: What do you think about the concern Wynne raised, which I think I share, that on the left of these, that's a kitchen counter right behind that piece of glass there. That really is visible from the street. I mean, all the games you play, no matter what you do, that cabinet is right there. Chair Furth: I don't think we're applying our standards uniformly if we approve this as (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: And it's true that in the past we've pushed back fairly severely on that. But I think that is a very legitimate point, that having the kitchen right there, that close to the street with just glass, doesn't really work. Mr. Hayes: It will be a spandrel glass, right? So, we'll... It will be a single pane, but will have a PBV interlayer. It will be a laminated glass product that will be translucent up to the countertop, but that fleshy material on the outside would be able to extend from the ceiling to the floor. You won't know what's behind it, but yes, you'll see that it has a different tone. Chair Furth: I see, so, there's not going to be clear glass on the windows on...? Mr. Hayes: Not below the countertop, no. It will be... Chair Furth: Okay, well, show me the elevation which shows that. Mr. Hayes: Well, you're looking at it right here. I mean, it would... Chair Furth: I can't see a thing. What's the sheet number? Mr. Hayes: Oh, um... Wynne, I don't think we.... Or Chair Furth, I don't think we show a line. It would be A31. Chair Furth: A31? Mr. Hayes: Correct. The railing is at 42 inches. Chair Furth: Right. City of Palo Alto Page 23 Mr. Hayes: And I would imagine we'll continue that line as a laminated glass across the kitchen so that it would, it would hide the .... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Is that something that's in the plans that you submitted? Mr. Hayes: No, but that's what I've been thinking how we would... Chair Furth: This is a proposed... Mr. Hayes: ... that's how we would resolve it, right? Work with it. Chair Furth: Got it. It's not that it wasn't there. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. We do a spandrel all the time. I wouldn't want to see a mullion. Vice Chair Baltay: Architect Hayes, are you opposed to the concept of pulling the building back a bit from Emerson and perhaps pushing it out the other direction, just a couple of feet? Mr. Hayes: We've looked at a lot of different options, and early on, we had a balcony on that side of the building, and we got push back on too much balcony space, move it back. So, we responded to those comments at the first hearing. I don't think that from the owner's standpoint, Mr. Baltay, that he would want to lose that kind of useable space out of his kitchen/dining/living. We've already shrunk it some. Vice Chair Baltay: I think it would be the same square footage. Mr. Hayes: I... Vice Chair Baltay: Because you could push it the other direction to make... Mr. Hayes: Oh, you're saying push it back there and push it out this way. Yeah. We're trying to match the... Compositionally, as you I'm sure know, we're struggling... Not struggling, but we're trying to get that block to be similar to the master bedroom block. I would certainly be comfortable talking to him about pushing it back two feet, but not wrap the balcony around. That would give you more relief on that side. Then we'd shift his kitchen down. He wants a larger terrace, so I don't think that Cole is going to be receptive to wanting to have, you know, make up that area somewhere else. Vice Chair Baltay: Because we're sort of giving him the terrace hanging the other direction, which... Mr. Hayes: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: ...you said, I mean... A little bit of give and take here is good. Mr. Hayes: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: And if you could get that balcony to come around with the railing, it will make a big difference, at least from my point of view, about how much of this kitchen spandrel glass I have to look at. Which isn't described. And I don't think it's a big compensation, a big loss. I can easily see the layout of that kitchen/dining area being equally functional. Mr. Hayes: Well, it's certainly not something I would want to do on the opposite side, as well. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll grant you, that side has the large tree right there and it's not as important. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Mr. Hayes: No, I'm sorry, I'm talking... Well, there as well as... Chair Furth: You mean on your interior lot line, right? Mr. Hayes: Yeah, interior ramp side lot line. Chair Furth: I don't think we're asking for that there. Mr. Hayes: So, these units need to be accessible, right? The minimum balcony is going to be four feet on that side. So now, I'm going to be close to five feet back from the face of the stone. That's why I was starting to suggest that we don't wrap the balcony around, if you want to know my (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: On occasion, we put planters in that kind of space, make it three feet with something growing there. You don't need to physically walk there, but... Mr. Hayes: So you don't have to have access back to that, that space. Vice Chair Baltay: From the street, you get the continuous railing line, you get the sense of setback, you get the reduced modulation of the building. I don't really care whether somebody can physically walk to it. That's not our intention. Or my thought anyway. Chair Furth: I mean, one thing, you know, we talk a lot about wanting residential to look residential and mixed use buildings to look like they're mixed use. And one of the ways you signal that I think is with the decks you have, the balconies you have. We don't have the kind of multiple entries that we sometimes talk about. I think it would be very helpful if you pulled it back enough. I mean, planting up there would certainly solve the privacy issue. Mr. Hayes: I'm sorry that my client is not here today. I mean, this is something that he is very involved with. Chair Furth: I understand. Mr. Hayes: I'm reluctant to say yes without... Chair Furth: Of course not. Mr. Hayes: ...consulting him. Is it possible that this is something...? At the same time, we'd also love to see this project main forward. It was February of 2018 when we submitted for ARB review and this is our first hearing. Would it be possible to come back to a subcommittee and we could show you options on that component, and I could get my client's feedback. I just don't want... Yeah, I'd love to say, great, let's get it approved, but at the same time, I need his feedback. [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: Fair enough. Vice Chair Baltay: What I’m looking for you to tell me is not what your client wants, but you as the architect. Is this the kind of...? Mr. Hayes: Actually, it could work either way. Vice Chair Baltay: Perfect. That's what I wanted to hear. Board Member Hirsch: I'd like to chat a bit about what Peter has brought up here concerning that floor. Yes, it's correct. If you have a kitchen, then you really have to kind of find a way in which you deal with City of Palo Alto Page 25 the bottom of the glass that's different from the top of the glass. It gets pretty complicated, so it would see there are other possibilities. Maybe you could do a significant recess just at the line of your masonry wall below, up to the point of the kitchen cabinets, and just have low cabinets at that wall, and then... Mr. Hayes: That's all we have, are low cabinets [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: I have a suggestion. Board Member Hirsch: That would be like a large reveal at that point... Chair Furth: I have a suggestion. Board Member Hirsch: ...could work. Chair Furth: Let's try to fashion a motion and see if we can get this on its merry way. It's been an hour and a half and it's... It's a very large single-family house in some ways, and it's making it complicated. And it's also multiple units, and it's also... It's also the theme-setting project, and ... It's not that you're not worth the time, but I think we should get on with it. Mr. Hayes: Right. Let me just point out, it's not a big unit. It says 2,400 feet, but if you take the elevator, the stair, and the circulation around the stair out of it, it's an 1,800 square foot unit. Chair Furth: And it's a lovely place. And I'm not saying they're going to rattle around. I'm saying maybe they would stash their children down a floor, but... Vice Chair Baltay: To my colleagues, I'm okay sending this to a subcommittee for revisions [crosstalk].... Chair Furth: Everybody fine with a subcommittee? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, me, too. Board Member Lew: I am, too. MOTION Chair Furth: Oaky, good. All right, so, if somebody would make a motion to recommend approval on the condition that it be referred to subcommittee to deal with the irrigation, the planting and irrigation under the oak tree; modifying the Channing frontage of the third floor kitchen area to provide better privacy and appropriate integration of the wall material with the use; and... what else? Ms. Gerhardt: Is that just the kitchen or the bedroom, as well? Chair Furth: You want both sides? Board Member Lew: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Yeah. I guess it's going to subcommittee. Did anybody want it modified over on the oak tree side? Oak tree corner? Vice Chair Baltay: I feel strongest about the kitchen side, so I'll leave the request at that. Chair Furth: Well, why don't we say at the kitchen side, and the bedroom corner if desired by applicant. [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Hirsch: I would include it for the moment... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Oh, you would? Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: I was trying to respect your thoughts earlier, David. Chair Furth: Okay. And the bedroom. The Channing frontage on either side of the central core. I think we've had enough... The record will show what the concerns were. What am I forgetting that people brought up? Oh... Ms. Gerhardt: Any comments about setbacks or blinds? Chair Furth: I... I think I've lost the setback argument, so I'm not going to add that. The review of landscaping with regard to the spacing of the plants along the driveway, with a concern for the light and air in the neighbors property. That these not become overly dense or overly tall. I would like us to modify some findings. If you look at Comprehensive Plan consistency, I just think you're saying things that aren't true. It doesn't improve the Jobs house... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: Can you show us which page? Chair Furth: Yeah, I'm on... You know what? I don't have numbered pages here because I printed it out. I'll find it. Board Member Lew: Tell me which policy and I can tell you the (inaudible). Chair Furth: Great. It's Attachment B, second page, and this is the discussion of policy, Goal L-1. Board Member Lew: Okay, packet page 20, the first one, L-1...? Chair Furth: Yeah. And I think we're saying that... I just would like to make a note of the fact that while it provides... How much additional office space is there? I believe there's an increment of 3,400...? It's about 3,500 more square feet of office space than presently exists? Ms. Hodgkins: I think it's just under 1,000. Chair Furth: A thousand? Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Furth: I thought it was 1,950 before. Ms. Hodgkins: It's 1,950 before and... Chair Furth: Perfect. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. Maybe just over (inaudible). Chair Furth: Okay. I picked up the figures from somewhere else. And that's counting all the office space, right? Not including the private office space. Okay. And forget the whole thing. But where you talk about setbacks and wanting buildings closer to the sidewalk to enhance the pedestrian experience, that doesn't strike me as true in SOFA. But, do my colleagues disagree? City of Palo Alto Page 27 Vice Chair Baltay: I'm not sure what setback Comprehensive Plan thing you're talking about, Wynne, but I think it... Chair Furth: Let it go. Vice Chair Baltay: ...fits pretty nicely in that neighborhood. I walk around there all the time and it, this is just about how they are. Chair Furth: All right. Vice Chair Baltay: I think. I mean, when you go off into the residential area... Chair Furth: This is mostly a note to staff for future use. It's different when you're looking at this scale street than it is when you're looking at the.... Okay. Never mind my mutterings about findings. Vice Chair Baltay: Do you want me to make that motion? Chair Furth: Sure. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, so moved, what Wynne just said. [Laughter] Chair Furth: Is there a second? I'll second for purposes of debate. Any discussion? All those in... Board Member Lew: I would propose an amendment, that we add to finding number 2.b, about compatibility with respect to the before building. Chair Furth: Oh, right. Thank you. Board Member Lew: And I don't think there's any language in the draft findings. Chair Furth: All right, would you [crosstalk]? Board Member Lew: And then... well, I mentioned it. I think the recessed windows contribute, and I think the stone pattern may contribute, so maybe the stone pattern should be reviewed by the subcommittee. Chair Furth: Okay, so, review to subcommittee for enhancing the... Board Member Lew: Yeah, finding 2.b. Chair Furth: ... pursuant to finding 2.b. Fine. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll accept that amendment. Chair Furth: So will I. Anything else? Board Member Lew: To follow up on your comment, Wynne about blinds on the windows. I do agree with you about that. In the past, for example, on the Walgreens building on University Avenue, staff is required that whatever blind or wall goes behind the glass has to be set back. We did it there. I think we also did it on the Equinox gym on El Camino, although they've covered the windows, even though I think we have a condition of approval there. We've typically done it where ground-floor retail was required, so this is kind of a different, this would be something different, requiring, like, an office use to have a setback for blinds. I just want to say it's been an issue and we've tried to come up with solutions in the past, and sometimes they work, and sometimes they don't. If you want to do something, I'm saying we could try. City of Palo Alto Page 28 Chair Furth: Why don't we refer the question of whether there should be conditions as to blinds or window coverings, refer to the subcommittee? In this case, I tend to think it's an owner-occupied building and we're going to be at the mercy of the owner, who is probably going to be motivated to have a beautiful building.... [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to condition it that we see a detail of how the blinds are going to be installed, in some detail. What blinds are going to be used, on both the commercial and the residential portions of the building. Chair Furth: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Is that okay with you? Chair Furth: Yep. That's a better way to go. Okay. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Four-nothing. MOTION PASSES 4-0. Chair Furth: More or less (inaudible). First hearing in years. Mr. Hayes: First hearing in years, right. [Laughs] Chair Furth: We're going to take a 10-minute break (inaudible). [The Board took a short break.] 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL. 702 Clara Drive [18PLN-00068]: Consideration for a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, Four-Unit Apartment Building and Construction of Three Detached SingleFamily Homes Totaling 5,000 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us Chair Furth: Item number 2 [sic], also quasi-judicial, located at 702 Clara Drive. Consideration for a major architectural review to allow demolition of an existing 3,500 square foot, four-unit apartment building and construction of three detached single-family homes totaling 5,000 square feet. This is exempt from CEQA in accordance with Section 15332 for infill development. Planner is Sheldon Ah Sing. Sheldon, if you would remind us who the applicant and architect are. Sheldon Ah Sing, Project Planner: Sure. That is Tony Shi and Gilbert Fernandez. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Sing: They are here in the audience. Thank you for the introduction, and just a little overview here. Demolition of an existing four-unit apartment building and construction of three detached residential dwellings. The request is just for an architectural review. The project is located at the intersection of Sutter Avenue and Clara Drive. The site is zoned RM-15 multifamily. The topography of the area is flat, and there are a mix of single-family and multifamily residential. This property is actually at the boundary, the border between multifamily and single-family, so across from the project are single-family homes. The site does include, as I mentioned, a four-unit apartment building constructed in 1954. That would be demolished. For future, the project would be a one-lot condominium subdivision. That's the intent of the applicant. Three two-story detached dwellings... City of Palo Alto Page 29 Chair Furth: It would be a three-lot subdivision? Mr. Sing: Just a one-lot subdivision. For condominium purposes. Chair Furth: Got it. Mr. Sing: The lot's not big enough to separate to single-family. Total would be just under 5,000 square feet. Each of the units have the same floor plan. The one in the middle is reversed. Three different architectural styles for the project, and we'll go through those in a little bit. And then, there are private open spaces in the rear of the dwellings, as well as common open space areas in the front and along Sutter. For zoning overview here and consideration, there would be a reduction of one dwelling unit. As a result, the project would have to pay a housing in lieu fee for .75 dwelling unit equivalent. The project is considered multifamily based on the number of units and the definition in the code, and the project is consistent with the development standards, including the setback height, daylight plane, etc. This is the site plan for the project, and while the project has three units, there are two units that would share a driveway, so there would only be two curb cuts along Clara Drive. Street trees are being preserved along Sutter and the open space area includes some benches that are sheltered away from the street, and pathways that lead from the sidewalk there. The bicycle lockers are located in the patio areas in the back. The applicant will go through and describe more of the details of the architecture, but in general, one dwelling unit would be a Spanish type of design, the other would be Craftsman. The other, we had a harder time trying to characterize it, but there's a lot of stone that's used in the front. And then, we have here the proposed side elevations of the project. With respect to the environmental determination, the project is considered infill. The project does not create any significant impacts with respect to CEQA, and would be categorically exempt pursuant to Section 15332, which is for infill development projects. Again, the project is, we find, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Ordinance. We are seeking comment on the architectural design and site plan. The project did not have the benefit of going through a preliminary review, so this is really the first time that the Board is seeing this project. The recommendation is to consider the information presented and provide comment, and continue the item. That concludes my presentation. I'd be happy to answer any questions you may have. As I mentioned, the applicant is here with their presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Sheldon. Any specific questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Vice Chair Baltay: Could you define, please, or describe how the low-income housing, 25 percent reduction, works? What is the applicant required to do? Mr. Sing: There is a formula, and based on the number of dwelling units, there are .75 dwelling units that would be required, but since there's a fractional unit, they have to pay a fee, and that's an in-lieu fee. They would be responsible to do that at the building permit portion. Vice Chair Baltay: Approximately how much is the fee? Male?: It's $68 per square foot. Chair Furth: That was $68 per square foot? Mr. Sing: Yeah, I don't have that number, but I can say... Vice Chair Baltay: Staff, if you could answer that. Mr. Sing: ...just from experience where I had another project, it had .5 dwelling unit, it's not a high number. It's... Vice Chair Baltay: But just total dollar amount, ball park. City of Palo Alto Page 30 Ms. Gerhardt: We can find that for you in a minute. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: And if you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber. And if there's anybody who wants to comment on this article, this item, if you could submit a speaker card to the staff, that would be helpful. Gilbert Fernandez: Good morning. Hope the staff and the Board is doing okay. My name is Gilbert Fernandez. Do you want me to spell that for you? Chair Furth: Yes, and we (inaudible). Mr. Fernandez: [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you. If you could lift the microphone a little closer to your mouth, thanks. Mr. Fernandez: How's that? Okay. I'm representing the owner, Clara J LLC, and also the manager here, Tony Shi. Also we have here the landscape designer, Dakotah Bertsch. I'm destroying your last name. Let's move forward here. We have, kind of like a recap over Sheldon's.... Let's see, am I doing this right? We are in the multifamily RM-15, lot 10,018 square foot. We are conforming to the front setback, 20 feet, which would be facing Sutter, and the street side, 16 feet. Interior setback, 10; rear, 10 as well. And our intent is to demolish the existing four....? I believe it's four... Let's see. Two-story...? Is it four? Yeah, it's a four-unit two-story multifamily apartment building, and to construct three condominiums to look as if it was three single-family homes. We decided, since it's a corner lot right in the middle of multifamily and single-family residential, we decided to make them look as if they were single-family. Since they face, since this kind of faces more of the single-family area instead of facing the multifamily, which I, to kind of also... Do the architectural and blend it in instead of making it look like as they were all the same. Move forward from there. As you can see, right here on the bottom is the existing structure, again, looking like an apartment complex. We come up to our design, which is looking more of a single-family design. Here are the homes surrounding. This is from across the street. And again, more blending into what's surrounding this corner lot. As for the window design for the second story, we are looking at obscure glass, which are more of the larger windows that are facing the other homes in the area, but for the bedroom windows that would be facing the residential side, we have them as smaller windows with high sills. As for going into landscape design, we are adding additional trees as well, just to add more privacy to those single-family home areas. The (inaudible) redwoods are to remain untouched, and as part of construction, we will be adding the tree protection to make sure they remain in good condition. Again, you can see here, here is the site plan here. The rear is facing the multifamily apartment complexes, which from the second floor, they are about 40 feet back, but we will be adding new trees to minimize the privacy issue. As you can see on the interior setback, we do have, you can see we have the... You can see into these sides of the single-family homes, but on this side, we do have the high sill, which is about 66 inches from the finished floor. Those windows I believe are two by two, and those will be all along that side of this home here, which is Home A. In the front, you can see it's pretty far from the front portion of the homes. As far as the privacy part, I don't believe it's an issue. We are adding trees, but again, those are not really impacting the privacy. And also, kind of the same on the right side, on Sutter. Again, we do have existing redwoods that are adding to the privacy, the impact. Here is the right and left elevations. You can see on the very top, as I mentioned, we do have the smaller windows 66 inches from the finished floor. The larger windows are from the... let's see... I want to make sure I give you the right information. Those will be from.... Sorry, I want to give you the right information. [Looking for information] As you can see, the left elevation on the second floor, the larger windows, those are going to obscure glass as one will be in a master closet and one will be in a master bathroom. They will be obscure for privacy, privacy for the floor plan, and for the single-family homes on the outside. Here is the material we are using for all three homes. Again, they will be separate design so that, again, they don't match each other. Here we more have a stucco with a lighter finish. Here's the stone we will be using for the columns, and also for the entrance for the garage. That's going to be a round roofing tile, and the City of Palo Alto Page 31 windows and doors are going to be more of a darker brown fiberglass. For the Craftsman style, we're going to use more of a lighter, lighter gray-bluish color, and again, a more different stone for the columns, with a Class A shingle roofing. Again, the doors and windows are going to be fiberglass, the windows will be a different lighter off-white, with the doors being more of a darker gray. I know the rendering doesn't seem like that, but it comes out different in the rendering. Then we come to Home C, which is more, I would more call it, like a Texas-style home, adding the shutters to the windows, which will be a lighter gray wood finish. We are using stone more in the front. We do have stucco, which will be more of a darker bluish-gray, and it would have a flat tile gray roofing, tile roofing. The doors and windows will be more of, like a coffee brown. Other than that I appreciate your time, and hope you consider this project. Chair Furth: Thank you for your presentation. Are there any questions of the architect before he sits down? All right? Oh, Alex? Board Member Lew: One quick question for staff or the applicant. You have a 10-foot public utility easement along unit A, or House A. I was wondering what restrictions are there with regard to planting underneath the easement. I'm just thinking on the recent project that we had on Alma. I think there was a restriction on trees, or something. I just wanted to try to understand if the privacy between you and the neighbors, if it needs to be only in architecture, or can it be in architecture and landscape? Mr. Sing: I'll jump in. The restriction is that you have overhead power lines there. Trees are, for maintenance purposes, you want to have them lower. Shrubs probably are more preferable. Board Member Lew: Okay, and there is a, and this is an overhead, here? Mr. Sing: Yes, it is. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you. Mr. Sing: I guess this is a good time for us to respond to the Board Member's question about the affordable housing. When we did the calculation, it ended up being $64,584. Chair Furth: Not designed to replace the lost unit at all. This is simply a token amount. Vice Chair Baltay: So, $64,000? Thank you. Could I ask a question of the landscape architect, please? Chair Furth: Yes. If you could introduce yourself and spell your name for our transcriber. Dakotah Bertsch, Landscape Architect: Yes. [spells name] Vice Chair Baltay: Very simply put, the plant list seems to have quite a few native and low water usage plants. Could you address if that's correct or not? We have a policy here that we use native species. Mr. Bertsch: Yes, that is correct. The street scape is primarily meadow-style planting with a lot of native and drought-tolerant bunch grasses. The screening in between the units is myrica californica, a native shrub. Chair Furth: A very fast-growing hedge. Mr. Bertsch: Yeah. I included it there to provide privacy between the units. And then, other trees are redbud, semi-native, and arbutus, not native, but also drought-tolerant. And then other shrubs, including pineapple guava and pittosporum, are also drought-tolerant. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. A second question would be, on the redwood trees along... I forget the name of the street. Sutter. On Sutter street. Do you propose any landscaping in that buffer zone, I guess I'd say? Where you have the redwood trees? Mr. Bertsch: The area in between, or directly underneath the redwood trees and along the fence there, where the picnic tables are, is just a mulched common use area. Vice Chair Baltay: You said picnic tables. Could you tell me where those are? Mr. Bertsch: I'm not sure how to pull up this screen. Ms. Gerhardt: Sheet L-2. Chair Furth: (inaudible, off microphone) two square structures. Mr. Bertsch: Correct, yeah. That area is accessible from the front driveways as well as from the street via stepping stones. It's about 760 square feet of common use area. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: Could I ask a question? Are there...? Are there edging bushes between the sidewalk and the useable common area? I can't quite...? Mr. Bertsch: Not bushes, but tall grasses. Directly along the common use area is Calamagrostis, feather reed grass, which grows fairly tall, with the inflooretheses [phonetic] getting up to maybe five feet. And then there are large kay brush [phonetic] tundra petulum [phonetic]. Chair Furth: This is designed to give a certain amount of privacy and buffering from the sidewalk? Mr. Bertsch: Correct, yeah. The existing redwoods also grow pretty low, so they provide some screening down to probably five feet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you. Any other questions? Oh, I forgot to ask. Did we all go visit the site? Did anybody not visit the site? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to disclose that I visited the site. While I was there, I spoke with the neighbor who lives across the street, Clark, at 703 Clara, who expressed to me concern that this project would increase the parking demand on the street. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I visited the site. Chair Furth: David visited the site. I visited the site. Didn't talk to anybody. Okay. Does staff have anything they wish to add? You can sit down if you'd like. Mr. Sing: Nothing. Chair Furth: Okay. Anybody wishing to comment from the public? Seeing nobody, bring it back to the board. Who would like to start? City of Palo Alto Page 33 Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. Good morning. Thank you for the presentation. I have a pretty serious, basic problem with your design, which is the fact that you have the same design for three houses, yet each house goes on a different configuration of the property. The one on the left has a 10-foot easement, which is a potential space for outdoor usage of some kind, and yet, the configuration is such that that's where the garage and a study is. You can't easily access that space. The house in the middle is tightly constrained, and yet, your configuration leave you having no space on either side of that. The house on the right has potential to have enormous visual impact on the street corner and the potential usage of that space, and yet, it's the same design floor plan all three times. Each house needs to be designed individually for the conditions of the property, the area, the piece of space that it's on, and I just see you failed to do that. It's really just a fundamental issue to me. We're looking for high quality design, a high standard, and it means not using the same floor plan three times. It just doesn't work. There are so many issues that come out of that I don't want to go into, but I just see that as an absolute. You have to take each design and make it fit what's going on around it. I'm concerned that you have a nine-foot-tall second floor and it makes the houses look overly tall, at least as they are designed now. I'd like to see you either choose an architectural style or use a motif that accentuates and works with that height, or, just reduce it down to maybe eight feet on the second floor. What you have now, the houses are small and they're overly tall, especially the side along Sutter Street, where it's a nine foot first floor and a nine foot second floor, more or less stacked up. It's not attractive, and it's not appropriate to have that on the corner of a busy pedestrian street in a residential neighborhood. I'd like to see you provide us with a good quality rendering of what the building will look like from the corner. When I was out there walking around, it was quite obvious to me that that's how this building is perceived much of the time as people drive up and down Sutter or go in and out of Clara. I think you owe it to the community to show, what will this project look like from that corner? I'd also, I guess the same question applies to designing each house individually, if that's what your goal is. You've taken basically the same floor plan and put a different couple of materials on each one -- some shutters on a window, a different color stone on one or the other. I think it needs more thought and more design effort to really articulate what these things are. Architectural styles are not just changing shutters on a window or paint color or trim. It goes deeper than that, and I really would like to see you, if your goal is to have different style buildings, I can support that. It's an eclectic residential neighborhood with many different styles. But then, they really should be different styles. You might consider changing the roof pitch, changing the height of some pieces. Relocating how the front door works. All of these elements of architecture that just need to be designed. I'm afraid I just don't see that happening here. As it stands, nothing very positive, I'm afraid. I'm sorry, but... It's not even ready to be reviewed, really, in my opinion. It needs to be designed more carefully for all three buildings. Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Thank you, Peter. Those are my thoughts exactly when I visited the site. I don't think this is a desirable project, but I do support a three-unit project on this site. The only thing that I have in addition to what Peter has mentioned is that there's, I think the trash is not working. It's not coordinated right now with the landscaping. I think you're showing shrubs and trash together, all in a very small, like three and a half foot side yard. I don't think that that works yet. And I think, too, I think you really just need to simplify the design of the roof forms and the materials. There is something really nice about this neighborhood. It's actually very different than some of our more traditional neighborhoods in Palo Alto. There's a real nice simplicity and elegance there, and it's completely lost. I see the most minimal design linkages in your design to the buildings on the block, and I just want to encourage you to try to keep it simple. We have lots of three-unit projects in the downtown area that work really well. I think we can, if you ask staff, I can make a listing, give them to you, of things that went through the Board very easily. I think they've been built, they've turned out really well, they've aged well, with each owner making some changes to make it a little more personalized. I don't see any reason why that could not happen here at this location. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. David? City of Palo Alto Page 34 Board Member Hirsch: I think this project is going to look very interesting from a drone viewpoint, when you're looking down on these three exactly-identical roof plans. These are three identical plans except they are flipped. My biggest concern is that applying three different styles to these identical buildings isn't appropriate, especially when they are so close to each other. They really ought to look more like a single project somehow, in which case I would suggest you choose one of the styles and perhaps change colors, trims, make them individual in that respect. My preference would be whichever one comes closest to a Craftsman. Because that's wonderful housing in Palo Alto, in my opinion. And the Spanish. I don't say they don't exist nicely on a block, but they need to have air around them and space on the sides. These do not. They're identical houses. The planning is really pretty terrific on the inside. The side windows, yeah, you can do it with obscure glass, and then they might work. But they're awfully close to each other. It's too bad the site is just that tight, and if you're allowed by zoning to have three houses, then that's what will occur. In that case, you've done a pretty damn good job in the planning interior. I agree about the garbage, and I wonder why you couldn't switch the garbage and the electrical panel and gas so that you take advantage of the area of the staircase on the inside to recess it on the outside, so you can put the garbage pails out of the way of the two side, of the side yards. I'll admit the utilities will have further to go, but it's certainly possible to do that and provide a space for appropriate closer-to-the- front-door garbage collection. I'm particularly concerned about the condominium type of planning here and the liability of one owner to the next, and the cleanliness of the whole site. I hope that somebody reviews the condominium plan to see that you've taken into consideration that the actual access to the garage is very tight, and if your car isn't exactly placed, there's a lot of problems there. I think you better work on that aspect of it, and Planning should review that with you. I really also think that the front porch, at 3-feet-7 depth, isn't really a porch at all. It doesn't look like a porch. If you have any room to play with front yard or back yard, give it more space in the front so that's a reasonable entry. You have a few railings and details that I don't appreciate either. They don't really, from drawing to drawing, they don't seem to add up too well in terms of height requirements for rails. What is the area way in the back that's described? It's not described. Is that just ventilation to the crawl space? Architect, can you respond? Chair Furth: What sheet are you looking at? Board Member Hirsch: Looking at A-4. Below the window in the back yard. Board Member Lew: I think those are sliding doors. Board Member Hirsch: Is that a door and... [crosstalk]... from that one little room? Board Member Lew: My reading of that is a sliding door onto steps. Board Member Hirsch: That's a very small room to have an exit out of it. I don't understand what the purpose of that is. All right. Mr. Fernandez: I'm not sure which area you're looking at. Board Member Hirsch: Moving on. Moving on. Chair Furth: Could you put Sheet A-4 up? Board Member Hirsch: The roof lines, you know, that's another deck in the back yard. Mr. Fernandez: It's a sliding door for, to exit out to the back yard, and those are just, it's a landing with some steps. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I'm mean, it chops up the back yard, where you have some space you could use for outdoor cooking, or whatever. It doesn't really do anything for you there, that I can see. City of Palo Alto Page 35 Mr. Fernandez: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: I'm really concerned about the vehicle parking in the front. Has anybody in Planning looked at that as a transportation issue? Ms. Gerhardt: I guess if you could explain the concern that you're looking at. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, my concern is just getting in and out with cars to parking spaces without... And my concern is that the condominium plan and liabilities that might happen owner to owner here. And also cleanliness of the side yards that could be a problem. I'm also concerned about the water off the roof. You have an awful lot of roof lines and valleys and gutters. The drainage plan for the whole area where there are some side yard concrete pads that you have, I would hope that the issue would be addressed that you could for sure show us that swales, or whatever you're going to provide for drainage, would really be working in areas as tight as that, and that you don't simply drop water off the roofs into the air conditioning system in the center there. I think you need to look at that pretty carefully. Mr. Fernandez: Well, the plan would be that... Chair Furth: Excuse me. We're going to comment and then you can talk to staff later, but we won't have a dialog. Mr. Fernandez: My apologies. Board Member Hirsch: Now, my major concern is that, my major concern is the style idea here, and I think that, you know, it says, "each home to have its own design, all different from the others." Well, they are all the same, so, if this is allowed, this building, I would only approve it if my suggestion is taken, that you choose one of the styles that you have here and they all three are the same, the difference only being paint color, or stain color, or whatever. I would prefer the middle one, but you choose what you think is the best to sell condominiums with. I don't know. Chair Furth: Thank you for your presentation, thank you for your project. I agree that this is a good, a difficult but good location for three units. My comments are, to a certain extent, the same as my colleagues. I don't think the units are overly large. I think these are reasonably-sized houses. I think you've picked a good size and number of bedrooms and spaces like that. But, I have two big concerns, and they really flow from each other. By using the same plans where you have an interior lot next to somebody else, an interior lot within your own project and a corner lot, you're not taking advantage of the potential for open space, relating to those trees, thinking about the importance of looking at the Sutter frontage as one comes down frontage. You can sit if you'd like. You end up with not very useful open space. For example, I guess it's building A that was mentioned, you have some open space there. That could be landscaped. That could be beautiful. That could give you a sense of light and garden. But you're not orienting the interior of the house towards it. And when you look at the spaces... And the same, I think, might be true of this big asset you have with the landscaping and redwoods over on the outside. I don't know how much you can do. I live in what looks like a townhouse. They are technically single-family detached dwellings with zero lot lights and crosswalk easements. But the result is that we have private spaces outside that are wide enough to be useful. Whereas, what we have here is seven-foot fences next to two-story buildings in a very narrow area. I don't think you're getting useful space. I don't know, staff can work with you on this, but it would be much better off if somebody got half of that to themselves and somebody else got half of the back to themselves. You actually had useful, useable space. This just doesn't do that at all. With respect to the style of the buildings, the building that's there is actually a graceful building. It fits well on its site, you know, it kind of retreats, it has that nice symmetry. The colors are subtle, it has big trees behind it. The first impression isn't, "Oh, here's an apartment building in the midst of single-family houses," it's, "This is a nicely-designed building, a little old, but it doesn't push itself forward too far." These are small streets. These are tight, these are tight little streets, so I think it's important to have houses which, to a certain extent, recede rather than impose themselves unnecessarily on the front. I find these designs way too complicated. These are small City of Palo Alto Page 36 houses. I think they would be much better off much simpler, without so many ins-and-outs, and roof pitches, and what-not. I myself think that Board Member Lew's suggestion is good. We have a lot of good-looking infill housing, three units, that have a kind of integrated, simplified design that says these are well-designed, well-thought-out houses, they're good places to live. They were all built at the same time, but I'm not bored looking at them. I don't see an overly broad frontage. I really do not support having a Craftsman, and a Spanish, and a Texas ranch. It's too jarring. It doesn't give the opportunity for any kind of visual harmony and ease. I like the palette. I would want the planting along Sutter Street to be... I have to go out and look at those dimensions again, but to be significant enough so that's actually a useable space. Whether it's useable because it has beautiful plants in it with places to sit, or its useable in some other way. You know, there's a bit of a play structure... I don't know what's permitted. But not something that is so open to the street that nobody would ever feel comfortable sitting there. I mean, there's some optimal use of that space, building on the redwoods, the sidewalk, and the fact that you have a significant width there. I don't know what it is, but the open space can be much better in terms of usefulness, places to sit, places to see, places to look over -- with luck, places to cook and eat -- than it is now. Those are my comments. Anybody else have any comments? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to follow up on what you were just saying, Wynne, about the open space, because I was surprised to understand that there is a picnic table. This is but a 20-foot-wide area under these redwood trees along Sutter, and what they've created is essentially a mini public park. I'm not sure if that's what we want to be encouraging. The idea of the open space being common is for the residents in these houses, and having a public-type space, but that's clearly not a public park, and yet, the house itself is fenced off by a linear six-foot fence. They can't see it, they can't go to it, they can't tell who is hanging out there. It's not their space. They're not going to have any ownership of that. I know we've struggled with this idea of, what should these open spaces be? I guess I'm curious as to what we all think about that. Chair Furth: Do you have something to say, Alex? Board Member Lew: Well, here's what I’m thinking. Each house should be able to have, like, a patio with a table. And as they have it now, there's no way of actually doing that. So, I would say, start with that and get rid of the picnic tables. Whatever is left in that redwood area can be something else. It can be part of the street side setback and landscaping. But I wouldn't recommend putting tables like that out there. It should be private. And then, something else can happen in the remainder of the open space setback. Chair Furth: I have two thoughts about that. If it's possible not to have a six-foot-high fence between Home C and that area, it would be good. One of the banes of Palo Alto is the fences that back up to commonly-owned landscaped areas, so that the commonly-owned landscaped areas tend to be neglected and ignored and not well maintained. If they are part of their visual yard, then I think you tend to do a little better. I'm not sure what the point of that six-foot fence is. Because we ordinarily don't need to wall off street-side yards like that. Board Member Lew: Well, there are other places in Palo Alto where they put the fence right at the back of the sidewalk, on the street side setback. I see a lot of those. Chair Furth: Right, no, I... Well, you can't put it in the... Board Member Lew: People do it, I know that people do it. Chair Furth: Well, we're not going to encourage that, right? We allow three foot fences... [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: This space could be a wonderful front yard for the corner house. You could have their front door come in off of that, and you could get some typical front yard spaces that are common or open. City of Palo Alto Page 37 Chair Furth: And it would work. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah. Chair Furth: You can see what we're saying, is that the different phases, the different frontages, the different frontages of this parcel give you a chance to build much better houses with much better garden space than this proposal. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to also comment on David's comments about the parking and the driveways and stuff. And then, picking up on what I heard the neighbors tell me. I'm thinking about it, that right now, the condominium has a very large parking yard on the left where the people who live there park, for the most part. It seems to accommodate a half-dozen cars, at least. I think David is pointing out sort of a quirk to Palo Alto's regulations, doing residential. You really can do this tandem linear parking. You can share the driveway in a manner that makes it really challenging to actually park on it. And I think you're right, that it's unlikely you'd have two cars actually parked on each property, or six cars all on the property, the way it is currently working. So, the neighbor's point that the parking is going to be impacted is probably correct. I think this does meet our code right now. This is a legitimate parking arrangement, and those are rules that have been pretty carefully worked out through the City. This is what the citizens want. And I guess I'm also wanting to comment that it would be lovely to get at least one of the units coming in of Sutter, but those redwood trees are important, and I don't think you can drive underneath them with a driveway. And actually, as I look at this with the other street trees, it looks to me like there's only two places where you could put these driveways to begin with. So, I'm sympathetic to the applicant trying to meet many masters here. Looks like you only have two places and it jams it all together and makes it really challenging. Chair Furth: [off microphone] Yeah, (inaudible) redwoods, you're right. Vice Chair Baltay: What I can say to you, I've done many, many projects like this in Palo Alto. Get a little more creative. Push your arborist, your landscape architect, the City staff, a little bit, that sometimes a little more flexibility with how you deal with these trees makes for a much better project. And the reality right now is that you really haven't got good parking for these houses. They meet the code, it's true, but not much more than that. If you could find a better way to have each house have some extra space, a place to stop and pull off to the side, third car parking spot, you'll be a lot happier. The neighborhood will be a lot happier. It just takes some creative energy to pull that off. Chair Furth: All right, so, would you like this continued to a date uncertain, or...? Mr. Sing: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: I would like to make one additional comment here... Chair Furth: Yes? Board Member Hirsch: ... relative to Alex's comment about the back yard. I really don't see why you couldn't just eliminate the entire structures out there, provide stairs down directly from the living room area, and utilize the back yard in a much more effective way. You've sort of cut it off by having to have a formal deck in the back. Backs of buildings generally don't have to look like fronts of buildings, so columns and decks back there are really not necessary. I mean, it will take some additional design of the façade perhaps to make it work, but you do have the capability in the back to have a significant area which could be used as was described for various family gatherings. MOTION Chair Furth: I think... Can we get a motion to continue this matter to a date uncertain? City of Palo Alto Page 38 Vice Chair Baltay: I'll move that we continue this matter to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second that. Chair Furth: Motion by Vice Chair Baltay, second by Board Member Lew. All those in favor say aye. Hearing no opposition, it passes 4-0-1, with Board Member Thompson absent. MOTION PASSES 4-0-1. Chair Furth: Okay. Let's have our next item. [Setting up for item 4.] 4. QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [18PLN-00324]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,337 Square Foot (sf) Macy's Men's located the Stanford Shopping Center and Construction of a new three-story stand-alone retail building, approximately 43,581 sf, two retail buildings, approximately 3,506 sf each and construction of a new stand-alone retail building, approximate 28,000 sf. (Total of 78,593 sf) Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez @cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: All right. We are now on action item number 4. This is a quasi-judicial hearing. The address is 180 El Camino Real, meaning the Stanford Shopping Center. It's a request for preliminary architectural review... It's not quasi-judicial, is it? We're not making findings, etc., etc. It's not quasi-judicial, it's informal. To allow the demolition of existing 95,000 square foot Macy's Men's store, located at the Stanford Shopping Center, and construction of a new three-story stand-alone retail building of approximately 43,600 square feet, two retail buildings of approximately 3,500 square foot each, and the construction of another stand-alone retail building of approximately 28,000 square feet, for a total square footage of 78,600 square feet. That's a reduction, is it? In total square footage? Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Correct. Chair Furth: Okay. The planner is Sam Gutierrez. Mr. Gutierrez? Oh, does anybody have anything they want to disclose, even though we don't have to? We've all visited the site frequently, right? Vice Chair Baltay: I visited the site expressly for this project. Chair Furth: Okay, we've visited the site for this project, and we've spent a lot of time on the premises. And a lot of money, it's noted. All right, gentlemen. Gentleman. Sam. Mr. Gutierrez: Thank you. Once again, my name is Samuel Gutierrez, I'm the project planner... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, Sam, you need to be a little closer to the mic. Mr. Gutierrez: Okay. I'll start over. Samuel Gutierrez, project planner for this preliminary application, and planner assigned to the mall in general. Let's dive into the presentation here. This is just a montage of basically the proposal, the shopping center. Just to frame people's minds around this location, you can see a map here on the left, a larger photo of basically the project area within the shopping center. I've included some photos to reference where these entryways are to this project area. You have the El Camino frontage on the top, the Pistache entry to the shopping center off of El Camino in the middle City of Palo Alto Page 39 picture there. And then, on the lower picture on the right is the Sand Hill entrance to the mall, and the Macy's Men's building directly follow that entrance. Moving to the overview of the project, this project involves the demolition of the existing Macy's Men's retail building and changing the surrounding parking lot configuration to develop two new stand-alone buildings. One is the Restoration Hardware building, which would be three stories. Another is a Wilkes Bashford single-story retail building with a mezzanine level. And finally, two new single story tenant spaces directly adjacent to Building J. That would be the building that is directly adjacent to the Macy's Men's building now, and that's the location of Jeffery's and future Blue Bottle site, and a day spa. Chair Furth: (inaudible). Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. There are some site constraints that do modify the site plan as identified in the staff report. There are some significant utilities that run under this portion of the shopping center, and as a result, the site plan that you see before you is configured in a way to address some of those constraints because they cannot really be abated. If you go into that, this map here shows that there is a regional water line that runs through the parking lot of the project area, right there near the intersection of Sand Hill and El Camino. It is a major regional water line and it would be difficult to place a building there, or orient the building to fully front El Camino because of that line. That accounts for some of the site planning choices here. This is the existing Macy's Men's building, and below it is the proposed Restoration Hardware building. That would be the change that you would immediately see as you enter into the shopping center off of the Sand Hill entryway. Or driveway, excuse me. The Restoration Hardware building is, again, intended to be a three-story building with a rooftop glass-surrounded restaurant, rooftop garden that can be accessed from that restaurant, and second floor terraces. It has this kind of continued theme of rooftop activity as it tiers down, and then, new ground-level landscaping, as well an outdoor sales area on the ground level. It continues this kind of indoor/outdoor theme throughout the building. The second floor terraces continue that theme from the upper floor, and then, that ground floor area, which isn't clear in this rendering because it would block the facades, but that ground floor outdoor sales area would have a wall around it. In some of the plan sheets, you can actually see that wall kind of being referenced here and there, but it's not clearly shown in this rendering. Also, there was some concern about some of the massing on this building as it's proposed because it's not typical of other buildings in the shopping center. Now, we do have tall buildings, which is the Bloomingdale's building, for example, which is on the other end of the shopping center along El Camino. But, the walled features, some of the proposed lighting around it seems to be a larger scale, so that was a point of discussion that we'd like to see the ARB's focus on. The second component of this development is the Wilkes Bashford building. This would be the building that is in the current empty parking lot area fronting El Camino. Again, this was planned in a way to avoid that water line that's adjacent to it here. It will trigger El Camino Design Guideline requirements for the 12-foot sidewalk at this portion of the shopping center block, if you will. It also has a mezzanine located inside of it, so it's not a true two-story building, but it does have a mezzanine level proposed within it. And again, the El Camino Design Guidelines would trigger that requirement because it's not so far pulled off of El Camino; it's right in front of El Camino, and would modify that frontage. The final part of this proposal here is the new two-tenant spaces that would be adjacent to Building J. They are proposed to be retail tenant spaces, potentially small restaurants. There is a separation between these spaces and the restoration hardware proposal. There will be a new aisleway in between them -- excuse me, drive aisleway -- and that is proposed to be elevated, and will also have a different texture to the aisleway in the parking lot to identify it as a different area than the larger aisleways that have circulation for traffic there. This would be the transition point also from the greater shopping center massing to the Restoration Hardware building, which would be the biggest building at this end of the mall. That is another point that the, that we request the ARB look at and see how that transition forms and massing and scale would work. Just to focus in a bit on the site planning for this section because it would create a new drive aisle and parking in the pedestrian walkway that doesn't currently exist. You can see here that there is a proposed pop-up shopping area, and that's referenced in the staff report. Chair Furth: [off microphone, inaudible] City of Palo Alto Page 40 Mr. Gutierrez: This sheet? On the project plans? I'm sorry? Chair Furth: Which of our sheets is this? Mr. Gutierrez: This should be...? Chair Furth: J-1? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, I believe so. Let me double-check. Yes, J-1. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Gutierrez: On this sheet, you can see that this area is indicated to have a pop-up sales area that's located between the two new tenant spaces. The applicant will dive further into detail into that. We did discuss that pop-up sales area, or possibly events, or something, could be addressed through a temporary use permit for whichever events or sales they may have there. But it would be consistent with other retail operations at the mall. Again, this is a preliminary submittal, so there are some components of it that are not fully detailed out. For a formal submittal, we would require any code conflicts to be addressed prior to coming back to the Board, and some of these items -- but, of course, not limited to them -- would be parking, car and bicycle, lighting overall for this end of the mall, landscaping, C-3 planning, changes to the utilities on site, screening of those utilities, trees, and shading requirements. And loading for the parking. Again, just to reiterate some key considerations for the ARB to look for here. The scale, mass, transitions of the proposed buildings in relation to the shopping center; pedestrian orientation/scale of the proposal; access to the site for all modes of travel; consideration to apply from applicable policy documents; the El Camino Real Design Guidelines. There is also the Master Tenant Façade & Sign program that was approved for the shopping center. This involves new buildings that would be stand-alone. We would like to see some consistency, so with that document, it just has this cohesive feel at the shopping center. Of course, the architectural design, theme, and preservation of existing landscaping. Staff recommends that the Board provide informal comments, and no formal action is requested. That concludes the presentation. Chair Furth: Remind me again what the zoning is. Mr. Gutierrez: It's CC. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right. Any questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? Seeing none, if we could hear from the applicant, he'll have 10 minutes. If you would introduce yourself and spell your names. Matt Klinzing, Simon Property Group: My name is Matt Klinzing I'm with Simon Property Group. [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you. Matt Woods: My name is Matt Woods, I'm from GHA Design. [spells name] Jordan Brown: My name is Jordan Brown with Restoration Hardware. [spells name] Mr. Klinzing: We're going to diligently use our 10 minutes to reiterate a little more, go into a little more detail... Chair Furth: We don't time you for the spelling. Mr. Klinzing: Samuel just [crosstalk]... City of Palo Alto Page 41 Chair Furth: This is a (inaudible) building, so... And this is a preliminary review, so, why don't you take 15 if you need it. Don’t go too fast. Mr. Klinzing: Oh. Yeah, relax. All right. Well, just to highlight, we put our presentation together, kind of give you some of the... Since this is multiple building, some of it has to do with project planning. And if you've been to Stanford Shopping Center, outdoor center, we... Chair Furth: That's not an "if." You may assume that [crosstalk]... Mr. Klinzing: We take a lot of pride in how our common areas work. We see here in the view that we're over the view of Sand Hill/El Camino Real. You see the existing Macy's Men's building, the existing single-story Fleming's, and a run of single-story shops. Here, as proposed, the revised development from the same vantage point. You see now the new Restoration Hardware, the new Wilkes Bashford building, and what we're referring to as Building J because they all have letters. And a new internal street that would cut between those, so, for a juxtaposition of scale. This is our existing site plan at that corner. A large open lot along El Camino and Sand Hill. One of the things that has always, I thought, been a detriment to the center is that the majority of the anchors when you go there are pulled away and separated, so we have internal circulation. Macy's Men's in its existing configuration is one of those that does not. So, if you're coming east from a pedestrian standpoint, one has to walk around the Macy's building, vehicularly, or go around it, or make your way through that passage that was from the Ralph Lauren building that's now Jeffrey's. We think one of the advantages of now switching to this new proposal is that we bring a lot of those urban village planning principles back. By separating what is now Restoration Hardware and the two speculative retail spaces, we have really an internal pedestrian/vehicular street that we think connects the east and the west a lot more. In addition, the new Wilkes Bashford and the Restoration Hardware buildings provide a little more of that street edge, the urban wall that I know that the Board is interested in, I believe, for planning principles in this area. We think it picks up on, down south, we have PF Chang's, and now the new Shake Shack, and that whole edge, and how we're beginning to kind of anchor the site. I'm going to turn it over now to Ms. Brown, who is going to go into a little more detail on the Restoration Hardware design. Jordan Brown, Restoration Hardware: The proposed building design represents our next generation gallery design at the Stanford Shopping Center. Over the past several years, RH has reimagined our stores and transformed them into more inspiring furniture design galleries with a dynamic hospitality experience integrated into the footprint, with a full café offering. Our architectural designs follow basic principles of balance, proportion and symmetry, and the integration of an indoor/outdoor experience throughout the space. Our buildings incorporate large windows on all elevations, filling the rooms with natural light typically found more often in a home-like setting than a traditional box retail. This is a photo of our Melrose Avenue gallery in West Hollywood. It's actually the inspiration for our next generation galleries. The gallery shown on the screen showcases steel bi-folding doors that welcome the public, metal louvered awnings, and Juliette balconies that embrace the climate. And a one-story lo-ja [phonetic] at the front elevation, which helps break up the building's overall massing and give our stores a more pedestrian scale. You will also note that our rooftop gardens with heritage olive trees continues to carry the same language that we're proposing for here in Palo Alto. Here's a close-up of our courtyard garden entrance that showcases the architectural elements discussed previously, and highlights a fully transportation point of entry. You'll also note that the exterior metal material palette and color -- which you will see on the sample boards in front of you -- in West Hollywood, as well as our project here, we're proposing using our signature hand-troweled venetian plaster with complementary cast stone details. That's on the one board. Yeah. On that same board is also the black-painted metal sample. That would be representative of our awnings and our balcony details. The high-level craft of materials speaks to our attention to detail, as do other features, including a pedestrian-friendly mix of bluestone pavers and decomposed granite that you'll note on the second material board. I would also add the one detail here that I believe is called it, is the... Can I zoom in on this at all, or no? Probably not. Are the exterior light fixtures that are shown on this photo, that are also proposed for the Stanford Shopping Center here. The overall massing in elevation and drawing typically tends to look a lot larger than it is in actuality. The glass box is a fully-transparent glass box with a decorative chandelier inside that is a crystal chandelier City of Palo Alto Page 42 with nuanced candelabra 15-watt lamps. It reads typically in elevation like a much larger massing than it actually is in reality. Our new hospitality experiences within our next generation galleries embrace the outdoors with the glass conservatory rooftops, and bring in ample natural light and feature crystal chandeliers, a central stone fountain, and interior trees that help provide dappled light to our diners enjoying their refreshments below. You'll also note that the palette continues from the outdoors to the indoors as well for consistency of experience. This is another photo of our West Hollywood gallery that more closely shows the heritage olive rooftop garden that would be similar in feel to what we're proposing in Palo Alto. The café in Palo Alto will be the central focus of the rooftop, and these European-inspired rooftop gardens will be flanking the hospitality space, showcasing our outdoor furniture collections. Mr. Klinzing: Thank you. Next on the agenda is the Wilkes Bashford building. The material sample boards are between Ms. Furth and Mr. Baltay there. I won't go into a lot of detail; they are clearly labeled. Our goal in looking at this building, since it's a pretty big footprint, we wanted to break it down. We have complementary set of materials we tried to break down to scale along it, so where we have storefront, where we have entrances, and where we change in materials, we wanted to bring it down to size. The other thing we did is we have the introduction of trellis on the front. Well, really all front because it's a 360-degree building. But similar, again, to the building that currently houses Shake Shack and PF Chang's, or the current residence of Wilkes Bashford over on the other side of the property, we have those trellises. This is a view now looking as you would enter from -- and I always mispronounce this -- Pistache Place, as you come off El Camino and you're looking northwest now. Now, one of the factors that we realized is that with all the mature trees we have along El Camino, as well as along this run, that we really have a window of view that's 10 to 12 feet. That's really where you get the majority of the site corridors in. A lot of our detailing, be it storefront, front entries, signage, is really focused towards that. We wanted to create a broken-down façade that brought down the scale again of the mezzanine, while providing glazing up there and bringing it down to patron scale. This next view is now switching areas. We've got an overhead prospective view of Restoration Hardware to the north, and what we're calling Building J to the south. And as Mr. Gutierrez brought up, we see an opportunity here. Now, we have the introduction of an internal street. Well, we also want to make sure that we have pedestrian and patron safety, and we have, you know, the amicable integration of the vehicles and patrons in this area, so we're choosing to table-top the entire thing. Where you see the light strips that are on either the right or the left are actually ramps up. Where you see the patterned surface material that is where the cars are now, is really flush now with the adjacent sidewalk surfaces. We do this in a few areas. We want to make it feel more like a plaza and a little less like a sidewalk and a street, and it gives the pedestrian a little more control. At the same time, we are cognizant of the fact that we need to introduce either bollards or planters, or other material that keeps the safe separation of patrons and vehicles in this area. One of the things that's unique in the center, and you see rendered, kind of an Airstream trailer, because that's just one possible thing. But there are always trends in retail, and one of the trends that's currently coming about is the idea of pop-ups. This is where you would have retailers that may have brick-and-mortar elsewhere, may not have a significant brick and mortar, but want to have a physical presence. So, build an event around them being in place for a week or so. One of those trends is to be in Airstream trailers; others is other kind of build-out. We see a great potential here because it allows for this space to be used as that kind of space, as well. We don't just have an un-animated façade that runs along here. It would allow a point of interest from time to time. When those are not in place, this would be an area we would have moveable furniture where patrons could occupy as a small seating area. This is a view now looking at the corner of that. Restoration Hardware would be off to the right, so we've got the Building J in front of us. Kind of puts together what the entire concept is. If you think about two retail spaces, which in essence is what these are back to back, they have stock rooms and service towards the rear, and they have storefronts towards the front. We wanted to do that, but we also wanted to bring it around to one of the north corners. One of the opportunities here is to have these as cafes. These are speculative, so it's a fancy way of saying we don't know exactly what they're going to be yet. They could be retail, they could be food-related. But if they are food-related, we want to embrace that corner and allow outside dining areas to go. As we continue our planning, we're interested in having that happen. The other thing we wanted to do -- and it's kind of hard to see -- you see the green wall behind one of the trees there. We have a recess that is between the two buildings that happens mid-block. That's because typically City of Palo Alto Page 43 when you get to a side portion or a retailer, you can end up with some pretty solid walls, where they want to actually have merchandizing racks at back of house. We think by bringing that back, that broke down the scale somewhat and made it less un-animated. At the same time, the use of the seating area in the center or the pop-up retail help to animate that a little bit. That really concludes our presentation. What you have in front of you are some additional views, at Mr. Gutierrez's suggestion. We provided them because as we come forward to the formal review, there are a couple changes that we wanted to suggest. One of them is in this area. Just as I said, we're looking at speculative retail. What's shown on the current view is a pretty significant setback to that green wall. We're looking about eight to ten feet. Our leasing people looked into that and said, "Yeah, we might want to have a little more space actually to lease there." So, we've actually reduced that in that view to only about two feet. Not the eight to ten feet, but two feet, but it does give us more flexible lease space that they could use for different venues. The other two shots, one is of Wilkes Bashford in this shot, and currently we're showing storefront that's on the corner. As that tenant has been looking at the merchandising and the layout, they've really seen a great advantage to how they lay out the interior space to that corner for some of their sales floor. What they are suggesting, what they would really like to do, is to push that window up now to midblock, facing east. The last view you have there is a view from El Camino looking beyond the heritage oak, and that is the storefront that would look out onto El Camino. We offer those just as a precursor to coming back or the formal presentation. Chair Furth: Anything you want to ask before we let the applicant sit down? I think we'll talk for a while. Staff, could you put the site plan up? I just want to be sure I understand which building is where. Mr. Gutierrez: Sure. One moment. Chair Furth: And explain the wall around Restoration Hardware. [Putting up site plan] Chair Furth: And I think we'll focus first on site planning, and then we'll talk about buildings. Mr. Gutierrez: Sure. Just using the applicant's presentation... Chair Furth: Sure. Mr. Gutierrez: ... since it's up, conveniently, we can see the Restoration Hardware here in the upper left portion of the site plan. That is actually taking up part of what is an existing drive aisle and a parking lot. And then, the other half is actually taking up the existing footprint of the Macy's Men's building. That would extend down here, connecting to Building J, where these two new retail spaces are proposed. Chair Furth: Right now, we can drive around Macy's Men's store? Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Chair Furth: And after this, you couldn't, except in this table-raised thing. Mr. Gutierrez: So... I think I can do this now. [Adjusting slide] This is what the existing site plan looks like here. Chair Furth: Got it. Thank you. Mr. Gutierrez: As you can see, there's the drive aisle here, and then, the existing parking lot. Chair Furth: The exit ramp, mm-hmm. The place where you can usually find parking, yes. Do you have a comment? City of Palo Alto Page 44 Vice Chair Baltay: Same or the applicant, could you explain the wall around Restoration Hardware and the two ends? I'm confused. I'm looking at these very nice renderings of an elevation of a building... Ms. Brown: Thank you for asking. Vice Chair Baltay: ...and staff is telling us there's a 12-foot wall. Explain, please. Ms. Brown: I actually, I meant to note the clarification when I was up here previously. There are actually not walls around the entrances, they are hedges around the entrances, embracing the landscape. That's both the, on both sides of the gallery. Vice Chair Baltay: Are they solid? Are they transparent? Can you see through them? Ms. Brown: They are semi-permeable, obviously, in the form of any hedge that would be. Vice Chair Baltay: Would there be like a metal structure in the middle of it, or anything? Ms. Brown: No, it would just be a hedge. We typically do, like a very manicured, tailored boxwood hedge. If you're thinking... Yeah. Chair Furth: How high? Ms. Brown: The proposed height I believe is...? It's around nine feet. I apologize. I don't have that information. Chair Furth: Pretty good for boxwoods. Vice Chair Baltay: Nine feet. And what is the purpose of the hedge? Ms. Brown: Both entrances have outdoor merchandise, so when you're walking into the gallery from either direction, they enclose the outdoor merchandise space. They are semi-enclosed in terms of a welcoming façade, as well as if you look at, actually, like... This is the interior entrance courtyard here at our West Hollywood gallery, but they would serve as a similar purpose to this, where it would provide additional ground floor pedestrian access to seating and retail space. Chair Furth: They are outdoor sales space. Ms. Brown: Yes. Chair Furth: Looking at RH-4, west rendering... Mr. Klinzing: I just want to add in, sorry, just to make it clear when you talk about the walls, they do frame the outdoor sales space, kind of create their environment, but there is also that 20-foot opening that is open as you walk by it. Chair Furth: The 20-foot...? Mr. Klinzing: There's a 20-foot opening if we look back... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I'm looking at RH-4. Would anybody ever see this, or are there hedges in front of it? Ms. Brown: There will be partially a hedge in front of it, and partially it will be open. The middle section here that you would see, you would still see the 20-foot opening that Matt is referencing here. The hedge would just be in front of either wing. It would not be blocking off the entire façade. City of Palo Alto Page 45 Chair Furth: And how high would that be compared to the screens coming down? The wooden...? Ms. Brown: The awnings coming down? Chair Furth: Yeah. Ms. Brown: The awnings sit at about 12 feet, and the hedge sits below that. Chair Furth: The lower edge of the awning is 12 feet. Ms. Brown: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else before we go back to site plan? I'll start with a question to my colleagues. I appreciate, for years we've been asking Stanford to move its commercial activities closer to, you know, good-looking buildings closer to El Camino. Part of the idea was that we would have a pedestrian connection, so there's that diagonal where PF Chang's and Shake Shack are that, if you're really adventuresome, connects you to the transit center. And now, this is the other end of it. I still find this a very unfriendly place to bikes. Once I try to get on the campus, I mean, Stanford spent a great deal of design effort to make Sand Hill itself very bicycle-friendly. It's got dedicated turn pockets and all kinds of things, and it's fairly heavily used. And that's where, until the train comes in and we no longer have a level crossing, that's where there's a lot of access from, if you want to ride a bike from downtown Palo Alto, you're probably going to go on El Palo Alto and across there, which takes you to that exact corner of the shopping center. I would be wanting to know how that's going to welcome bicycle travel. I think it's going to be important. You're not going to take a lot of stuff home on your bike from Restoration Hardware, but they deliver. And so does Wilkes Bashford. That's one of the things that's in my mind. Similarly, I think it's great to relocate the pedestrian pass-through from the El Camino to the midway point. I like the idea of relocating the drive-through where it is, but I'm very concerned about having back-up parking conflicting with bicycles and what-not. It looks like the very worst of Bryant Avenue. Those are my questions to you about site design. Generally, I'm not hostile to having buildings out there, but I am concerned about the circulation. Site plan comments. Let's start with you, Peter. Board Member Hirsch: I could, I would... Chair Furth: Oh, start with you, David? Okay. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, sure. Yes, I've had the same kind of bicycle issues that you've had, but to be honest, I think it's almost more important to also focus on those who are coming to this mall and parking here and trying to make it around Macy's at present, which is a real pain in the butt. And I really appreciate the fact that you're improving that incredibly well here, and that the passage between two very attractive new facades there is going to be quite impressive. But I'm bothered by the parking that's in between, and the small piece of the parking overall on the lot. There's I think maybe 13 or 14 cars there, and they're backing out into traffic, and it's a main kind of passageway around the whole facility to get from one side to the other. Wouldn't it be possible to make that into more of a pop-out or some more active kind of pedestrian way, and to eliminate some of the parking? I know parking is critical to a shopping center, but it's a small amount of cars considering how important that passageway is around to the other side. Other than that, I think the placement of the new buildings is excellent. I'd have more to say about them specifically after we get off the site plan. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex. Board Member Lew: Yes. I have similar concerns that have been mentioned before about the site plan. I really don't like the parking in front of the building. It's very uncharacteristic of the shopping center, and I don't think we want to start going down that path. And then, too, I do like the connector street. I used to use the Macy's Men's connector thing a lot, and I don't do it anymore. I don't see that many people using it. City of Palo Alto Page 46 Chair Furth: It's abandoned. Board Member Lew: I think it used to be... Well, we used to have to do it before Sand Hill Road connected, right? It was actually... It was effectively a street. Chair Furth: Alex grew up here, and I first went to the shopping center in 1964. So. As a freshman. Board Member Lew: So, for the old-timers, it was a magnet, right? Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: And emporium. And those were the two anchors. The regular Macy's was not there. It was all just on this El Camino frontage. On the site planning, I don't object to anything that you're showing at the moment. In the back of my mind, I'm thinking the next project that comes along may make everything worse. Like, you've got... Like, I think this is fine. Chair Furth: Would you put the site plan back up, please? Board Member Lew: Yeah. I like having the Wilkes Bashford there, I think can work. At Christmastime, when you have parking, I think that's not quite so ideal to have, like, an isolated parking lot by itself in the corner. But, like, the rest of the year, it could be fine. Just in terms of the building planning, I think having pop-up restaurants at corners and stuff has worked really well at the shopping center. It brings in a lot of people. I do like to see, like, the kids come after school, in the front of the shopping center. I think that's nice. And I think the placement of the roof garden café on the Restoration Hardware at this location, on the site near the creek, and it has western views of the hills and sunset, I think is really ideal. And then, I think I emailed a question to staff. I do have some nitpicky things about the tree report, but we can get into that at the next hearing. I think it's too detailed at this point. In the back of my mind, I'm wondering if the raised street is... In the back of my mind, I'm thinking that maybe it's overkill, and maybe it's not necessary. But I throw that out. Elsewhere in the shopping center, like over by Bloomingdale's, you've done colored and textured pavement, and I don't know how the rest of the Board Members think, but it seems to me that that might be more in keeping with the rest of the shopping center. Chair Furth: Peter. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I have two overriding thoughts that have been going through my head as I've been looking at this. One is, I think both the Restoration Hardware and the Wilkes Bashford buildings are just too close to the Sand Hill and El Camino, vis-a-vie the trees. There's very healthy live oak trees that have been well maintained and are really important trees, and your Wilkes Bashford building is very close to those on El Camino. I think the Restoration Hardware is also pushing very close to those buildings, to those tree groves, and I think it's really important that we preserve those trees. My second thought, and this is from, for the past 25 years I've been driving around that Macy's Men's store, and what's going through my head is after I've gone around that and I want to get over to the produce place, I've got to go through this series of dogleg curves to work my way around the jagged edges of the shopping center. And the way you've placed this new drive aisle between Restoration Hardware and the LaBelle Day salon, I still have to do one of those dogleg turns. You're not taking the opportunity to straighten it out altogether, and you could if you just line it up. It's another 20 feet further back. What it would mean is that you couldn't build the new retail speculative spaces that you're talking about, or at least not at that location. But, the advantage I see in just basic driving functionality around the shopping center I think would be huge. If you could straighten out that drive aisle, you would just save having to, everybody having to do that quick turn. Many, many times, I've almost hit somebody. I've watched people talking to a kid, dropping somebody off -- There's a lot of commotion, and it's not a good place to have these kind of complex turns. So, if you have a chance to straighten it out -- which you do here -- I think you should look at that carefully. It also gives you the opportunity to have more of a visual connection all the way through to Wilkes Bashford, or even potentially out to El Camino. By moving that, City of Palo Alto Page 47 you'd be able to pull the Restoration Hardware building a little bit further from Sand Hill Road, which would give more buffer on the trees. Second big comment for you is that we have to make a finding that the place is functional. In my opinion, right now, the parking situation at the shopping center is not functional. I cannot tell you how many times on a Saturday, or any time in December, you really can't find a parking place. It's hard. It's really tough. And it's dangerous, and it's frustrating, when people are looking for something and just can't find a place to park. And it's not good for your shopping center either. And what I see you doing here is creating what I think will be more demand. A rooftop restaurant on Restoration Hardware, and Wilkes Bashford with its isolated parking area there. It may be that you have a lot of parking places maybe on the entire other end of the mall, or something like that. There is a whole process staff will go through, I'm sure, for counting how much space you have, but from my point of view -- and I will be evaluating it this way -- it has to be functional. And when you create isolated pockets of high-intensity demand like you have at Restoration Hardware, and clients who are going there who do not want to walk a quarter of a mile to get back to the store, and you don't really have, in my opinion, sufficient parking for, you've created an unfunctional situation. I bring this up because almost every commercial application we look at in Palo Alto, we're pushing hard for people to put underground parking, to go through the extra trouble to really provide appropriate and sufficient parking spaces. In my opinion, you should be considering doing that here. You have two new buildings. There's no reason you couldn't put additional parking under these buildings and solve the problem you have with not enough parking. Because I think this is just creating a problem on the parking side of things. Those are my thoughts. Parking is an issue, and straighten out the drive aisle. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: To continue the subject on parking, I'm not crazy about the north elevation of Wilkes Bashford and the parking [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: No kidding. Board Member Lew: That's a design detail maybe for the building, but I think that that's not really the most idea configuration. Especially with handicap parking and the design required for that. I think that I would lump that together with Peter's comment. Chair Furth: My turn. The most... You know, the shopping center is sort of our Disneyland. Ever since you started building the entire building as these signs of the store, it's had that wide range of fantasies going on. Sometimes bright pink. And the least-appealing photograph in all of this, drawing in all of this, is this view of Wilkes Bashford as you come down El Camino. And it looks terrible. Now, it wouldn't look that bad in real life because there would be landscaping, but it's going to have to be pretty dense. It looks like... I mean, I look at Restoration Hardware and I think, well, so much for mid-century modernism. And then, I look at Wilkes Bashford and I think, well, here it comes back a little bit, as if it were in the desert. But to have that façade fronted by cars, as what you see, it's this really unattractive view. This one, right? Where is this coming from? Exterior View 1? Where's that from. Board Member Lew: There's another view... Chair Furth: Anyway... Board Member Lew: ...with the (inaudible) in it, though. Chair Furth: Yeah. They're just... not good. Board Member Lew: This one, right? Chair Furth: Yah. This is not a look anybody wants. Board Member Lew: That's WB-7. City of Palo Alto Page 48 Chair Furth: Yeah. And partly, I don't... To get back to the site plan again, it is interesting to figure out what happens when you orient the building that way and you have all that parking over on the side. How do you get good-looking view from El Camino? And maybe you just plant the heck out of it, but that doesn't seem to be what we're seeing yet. I don't think there should be parking on this passageway between Restoration Hardware and Building J. I just think that's an invitation to bad things. It's so few parking spaces. I used to live near a place where Nordstrom had 20 really convenient parking spaces and then there was everything else, so everybody was always looking for those 20 spaces. You have even fewer here. And the amount of... I just don't envision that as being a well-functioning parking area at all, and I don't think it should be a parking area. I think it should be dedicated to getting pedestrians, cyclists, and if necessary, cars, through there, but not, um, at a very low speed. I’m sure we've all, I mean, we've all got all these wonderful examples of places we've experienced, but I have been in this, the section of Paris around the new library? Viva-tech? [phonetic] You know, really doesn't privilege cars; it really privileges pedestrians and bicycles. So, when you drive through there, the drive aisles are very constrained by low physical barriers, and you don't accidently run over somebody because you can't go that fast. I, at the moment, would not be supporting parking over there. The Wilkes Bashford parklet may have similar problems. I don't know. But I'm not supportive of that present proposal. Or a cut- through with parking. Board Member Hirsch: That's interesting comments you've made just now. It makes me kind of think that it would be possible. After all there are garages just to the south of here, so, I would think your encouraging people to use those garages and maybe could free up space at the, what is called the front of Wilkes Bashford. And the back isn't as attractive. It's kind of an attempt to look like the front, but the front is really on the parking, the major parking lot side. Regarding the link that's between Restoration Hardware and the other J building, which does a good job of keeping the courtyard behind it in the rest of the J building, the façade is really fun. I mean, it... Chair Furth: We're still on site plans here, David. Board Member Hirsch: Oh, we're still on site plans. Okay. I'll stick there, too. I just think it's possible to... Well, I wonder if it isn't possible to create a better façade and entry into Wilkes Bashford from the opposite side. It sort of is pretending to do that, and then, it doesn't really do it. I think you should really consider that, based on the comment that it should be accessible-looking, you know? And not just be loaded with cars in front of it. But I understand there is a utility issue there, but still in all, the access road that has a cute name to it there -- I can't read it -- I don't know how heavily that would be used that you couldn't create a crosswalk somehow across there, to get into it or to do some better landscape planning that allowed you to get to the center of Wilkes Bashford. Chair Furth: Alex, what were you saying about the Wilkes Bashford parking? Board Member Lew: On the north side... Chair Furth: And the north is...? Board Member Lew: The Sand Hill Road side. You've got parking... Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: ...and there's a walkway, right? Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: And the trellis. Chair Furth: Right. City of Palo Alto Page 49 Board Member Lew: With handicap parking, you're going to have... Chair Furth: Big blue signs. Board Member Lew: ...big blue signs right up against the trellis. Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: There's minimal trees because they're trying to squeeze in all the parking. Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: And it's just not really, it's not the best. I think what they're showing is workable, but it's not really the best design possible. Chair Furth: What about the parking spaces over at the Restoration Hardware end of Wilkes Bashford? That goes in from both sides. Is that right? Board Member Lew: I’m not sure where you're... Oh, I see. Right. If I understand it correctly, to the left of Wilkes Bashford, that's where the water line will be rerouted. Mr. Gutierrez: I'm sorry, which water line are you referring to? There's actually two. There's actually a main water line that comes near the intersection of Sand Hill and El Camino... Chair Furth: And that's a Hetch Hetchy line? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. That's the main one that... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: We're all grateful for the water. Mr. Gutierrez: And then, there's other water lines that currently exist that run diagonally through the site, but those are drainage lines, so those are more manageable and will be modified. Board Member Hirsch: Is it possible to move Wilkes Bashford at all? You take the same volume of building. Could it move more to the center of the...? Ms. Gerhardt: As long as its not closer to the corner. It's that very corner of El Camino and Sand Hill that has the Hetch Hetchy line. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, so you can't get any closer to that. Ms. Gerhardt: Not much. Vice Chair Baltay: To staff, do we have a build-to guideline for the El Camino Real part of this? I mean, are they supposed to put the building up at the property line in the front, along El Camino? Chair Furth: And are they going to have to widen the sidewalk? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, they would need to widen the sidewalk, and then, we do have that build-to requirement, which is a 12-foot setback, which creates that effective sidewalk. It does create that situation, but we do have that problem where we can't fully utilize that frontage because of that water line for the Hetch Hetchy. City of Palo Alto Page 50 Vice Chair Baltay: And what if building the sidewalk wider hurts the oak trees? Mr. Gutierrez: There are sidewalk treatments that could be done. There is a large oak. It's seen right there at that corner, the north corner of the Wilkes Bashford along El Camino. There's a large heritage oak there. And the sidewalk would be sensitive to that and make sure that it wouldn't, you know, somehow degrade the health and longevity of that tree. There's possible treatments for soft sidewalks, rubberized soft sidewalks, things of that nature. Vice Chair Baltay: But what if it turns out that the entire frontage, it's not just one oak tree, there's half a dozen pretty healthy live oak trees there, and they are all within, I'd say six feet of the sidewalk right now, which is a standard-width sidewalk. Are we just going to have 50 feet of rubberized sidewalk there to make it 12 feet wide? How can you build the building to that without taking the oak trees out? I'm just trying to elaborate. Board Member Lew: Can I push back on the staff, on the design guidelines? I think it's the South El Camino Design Guidelines. It was not originally intended to go all the way up. Historically, we've had a 25-foot special setback on this northern part along the campus, and I think that's gone away. But I think there's room for all of our concerns to be addressed and to get a wider sidewalk somehow. Chair Furth: Yes, we want good pedestrian access and really healthy trees and dense landscaping. Board Member Lew: Yeah, we want all of the above, and we'll figure out a way of making it work. Chair Furth: [inaudible, off microphone] The good thing is you've got a lot of space. Vice Chair Baltay: The reason I've been pressing this is I think the building is just too close to El Camino. It really needs to be another 25 feet further back to let the sidewalk and the trees really have space, and I believe, to just present a better image of Palo Alto coming into town. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: ...the design guidelines are important. We can't just ignore those. Like what Alex is saying, I think this is maybe not applying to this far north on El Camino. Chair Furth: Okay. Any other comments on site plan before we move on? Okay. Do we want to talk about landscaping and plants first, or do we want to talk about...? I have some generic comments on landscaping. Vice Chair Baltay: Can I give a...? With Chair's consent, before we move on on that, I'd like to see if we can't speak with one voice on the parking question. What I was throwing out there is that, to me, it's not just a matter of meeting the numerical requirements in the zoning code, but making the parking and the shopping center be functional. That might mean you have to do more work in this area than just meeting the numerical quantities. Like I suggested, putting in underground parking, or something. But I'd like to see if the Board supports that strong a statement or not, so the applicant has a clear sense of where to go with it. I've made it clear how I feel. Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: I actually was thinking similar things, although I didn't mention it when I was speaking beforehand. My take on it is, if you have underground parking, it would give them more, even if they don't need it numerically now, it actually gives them more flexibility in the future. Long term it's, to me, a better strategy. But it's more expensive. Vice Chair Baltay: You might say it's more functional. City of Palo Alto Page 51 Board Member Lew: Functional, yes. Chair Furth: David, do you have a position on that? Board Member Hirsch: Well, I'm... I find it's kind of frustrating... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I can't hear you. Board Member Hirsch: That's a whole other study, I'll admit, and maybe it's worth it at this point to suggest that that take place. Because what's happening here is this becomes a, sort of a private lot for Wilkes Bashford and RH. And that's a little different than where the car storage areas are for the rest of the mall. I'm bothered by that, just based on my comments made up here. Definitely, I think that the area, the connector between RH and the new J buildings should be without cars, and then that connection around to this site is going to be well improved. But Wilkes Bashford seems like a bit of an eyesore at that point. You're looking only at the side of it, not the front of it, when you're coming around the corner rom the inside, and you really are looking over the sea of cars to look at the real façade for it on the parking lot side. And then, there's sort of the pretense of a façade on the back side to make it look like a front. I just find it problematic. Although I like the building itself, I find those viewpoints problematic. And again, yes, it extends far towards El Camino, as far as it can go. It's a hard site to deal with and I just don't think it's been dealt with rather well here. Chair Furth: Staff, I have a question. I'm looking at the Stanford Shopping Center Master Tenant Façade and Sign program, and you can clearly see privileging, making clear the wayfinding for pedestrian, cyclists, people coming from downtown Palo Alto from the transit center, etc. Did we have any thought about what we wanted to do at the other end, or was it so not part of the building program when we thought about it earlier that we don't? Mr. Gutierrez: Could you...? Chair Furth: I mean, we drove that policy hard to get the connection, the pedestrian connection, so there is a pleasant way, without dodging cars, for a pedestrian to get from El Camino to the heart of the shopping center. It's a very deliberate, I would say successful -- now there's many places to stop and eat -- connection. At the other end, we have a different situation. I'd say it's more bicycle-oriented. I see a fair number of pedestrians, but not that many. But do we have any policy of having decent, inviting access from the street to the shopping center at this end? Mr. Gutierrez: The end you're referring to is the Neiman Marcus end? Chair Furth: Menlo Park end. No, the Menlo Park end. I'm staying on El Camino. Mr. Gutierrez: Oh, okay, I'm sorry. Chair Furth: I'm looking at the packet page 143. I'm looking at the bottom right-hand corner. Contrasting it with the bottom left-hand corner. Mr. Gutierrez: For that corner, we would just utilize the general policies that we have for multi modal connections, but there isn't a specific policy for that particular corner. Chair Furth: Okay. Fine. Okay. I do think we have a problem here. I don't think the parking is going to work. I mean, you're going to put a really attractive café on the roof of Restoration Hardware, you're going to put more next to J street. Those are big generators of presence. You're going to intensify the outdoor uses. And it's already clogged. You know, years ago, we moved all the major utilities from the middle of the shopping center around to the edges, to try to keep the gas lines from going where they shouldn't. And I like the fact that once you get over into the main body of the shopping center, you don't have to think about cars. You can just wander, and people do. And on the southern frontage, that works, City of Palo Alto Page 52 too, because you can make your way, one simple crossing over by Bloomingdale's, and you're good. We seem to be adding attractions without making it easy to get there except by driving, and then we don't have enough parking. I don't support parking along that little intersection between what was Macy's and the J building. I guess ideally I would prefer the cars still stayed on the periphery and the pedestrians went there. And I would prefer... I think we get much better results with underground parking. I sure don't think that this is any place for electrical charging parking. It's way too at a premium, and people stay when they do their electric car charging. Even if Wilkes Bashford is going to attract a lot of electric cars. Okay. Let's get on to... What do you want to talk about next? I want to talk about -- You gave me the opportunity -- I want to say something briefly about landscaping. Which I love this sort of hanging garden proposal for Restoration Hardware. I think, though, it should take, acknowledge the fact, as Alex mentioned, that this is right next to the only creek that runs to the bay anymore in San Mateo county. San Francisquito is a big deal, and Stanford has put a lot of energy into preserving that and enhancing the space along it. Formerly an Ohlone settlement and burial place. And the landscaping ought to acknowledge the presence of what's over there. And it's true that we've had, you know, olive trees here for, I don't know, almost 400 years, but we have a pretty strong policy in favor of using landscaping that's either native or can be shown to be a really good habitat. And you've got... You're going to have plenty of birds living up there. I think the indoor plants are your own business. Those are not really things we go to for habitat, but I think the other ones, you should be thinking a lot more about that. So, whatever it is, I think it needs to be tied to that creek front and that creek environment. There's a big bird population there, including some fairly unusual ones, and this could be... You're not going to get peregrine falcons, but this could be a real enhancement of that situation for birds. Anybody else on landscaping, generally? Okay, let's talk about the buildings. Who wants to start? Vice Chair Baltay: I'll start. I think the Restoration Hardware building is wonderful. I think it's really going to look neat. It's really exciting that we're part of what's a change in the way we do retail. It's a big change. I'm a high-end retail architect in Palo Alto. Restoration Hardware is a big player in our business these days. They really sell quality stuff that... I'm not trying to plug Restoration Hardware, but they're coming along, and if they want to put money and stuff into our town to build a real showcase, I think is great. And what I see here is high-quality design that is a really neat way to mix people shopping and dining and checking out their products. I can see my clients going there all the time. I love it. I think it really looks good. Kudos. Hats off to you. I'm not quite sure I understand why you need a nine-foot boxwood hedge around your wonderful-looking building. And maybe that's the kind of thing we can see as you refine your designs. It seems a shame to close it off like that. I'm much less sanguine about the Wilkes Bashford building. To me, it just looks like a, sort of a 20- or 30-year-old modern-styled box. It's got some elements that are trying to be nicer, but the basic corner that you come from El Camino is really big and forbidding-looking. I don't see it as being the first building I see when I drive into Palo Alto. I just don't get it. It's not working at all. I see all the windows are closed off, so they're strictly a merchandise display. There's no sense of what's going on inside the building. I think if you want to put buildings up on El Camino, they have to do a lot more, a lot more to show the life inside and to make it active, and not just have, the few windows are token display windows at best. You're showing even a service door of some kind as the very first door I see when I look into town. And obviously that can be changed, but it's indicative to me of the mentality I see a lot of with this kind of commercial architecture, which is designed from the inside-out. And I'm sure it's wonderful for the merchandising displays on the inside. You mentioned that you've already got questions about shifting windows for the merchandising, but when you want to put a large new building right on El Camino, and it's the first thing you see driving south from San Mateo county, it's really, really important that it looks really good, and just put our best foot forward. This is the shopping center, and this is Palo Alto. To me, it's not even close yet. I'll leave it at that. Thank you. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: I have the same comments as Peter, and I think I would add, is that I do like the material palette of the Wilkes Bashford store, as well. I think it reads very lightly in the renderings, but when I look at the materials and I think about the other new buildings at the shopping center, I think it actually fits in fairly well. And I think staff had asked about comments on the height and transitions. And City of Palo Alto Page 53 I think I would point to staff, maybe on the Bloomingdale store, I asked for a contextual street elevation of the shopping center. Maybe we can pull that up and we can re-use that. I found it was very hard to get a sense of the scale of the Bloomingdale's just looking at the plans in isolation. Maybe we need to do the same exercise on this one and get a street elevation of the shopping center. Generally, I think having a 30 to 40 foot corniche, and then stepping back the top floor works, and I think that's what they're showing. I think they're showing a 32-foot corniche on part of the Wilkes Bashford, and I think the Restoration Hardware is somewhere around 40 before it steps back. And so, just generically, that's what I normally look for on buildings elsewhere in town, so I think that that can work. And then, something that I noticed, too, which I think, I don't have a recommendation at this point, but I think that the lighting that's shown on the Restoration Hardware is very different than the new lighting elsewhere on the shopping center. And maybe it's far enough away where it doesn't really matter, but I would say, like, at the new entrance to the shopping center, you have lots of new pole lights, and it's a very different kind of lighting. I think it's probably all LED lighting. It seems to be completely different than what's being proposed around the Restoration Hardware. I could see an argument maybe that the Restoration Hardware thing is more appropriate at this location, closer to Sand Hill Road and the creek, but I think it will look very different. That's all I have on the buildings. I think generally it's, generally it's okay, although I do share the same criticism as Peter on the Wilkes Bashford. Chair Furth: David. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I certainly agree with everybody who likes the Restoration Hardware here. I think it's going to be a great asset to the mall. And although there has been so much comment about the Wilkes Bashford and the parking issue, and just access and movement around it, and what is the façade, I hope that doesn't get in the way of keeping Restoration Hardware exactly where it is. I think some ground-level views of the building, even with the hedge in front of it, might clear up the issue of how you do that, or maybe there's other ways to explore it, the perimeter to the Restoration Hardware. But this makes a nice addition, even if it isn't in an internal portion of the mall. If you do eliminate the parking in front between Restoration Hardware and the J building, I think the exterior pedestrian way around that corner will be, will work, certainly better than it does today with the Macy's there. But then, the Wilkes Bashford, I think it's really a question of working with, somehow, the parking/transportation issues for the rest of that end of the site, up against El Camino. And talking about the building itself, I like the way it moves, the variety of the front of it, that it's taller on the El Camino side, that it has, really, a real nice feel to it, which seems like it's repeated again in the new portion of the J building, and a little more clarity. Since it's such a long building and those are divisions that are very minimal in depth at the façade, I would have just suggested that somehow they are separated from each other slightly, and there was more integral lighting in the forms as they move out towards the parking lot. I'm concerned a bit about the fact that it looks to me like a building from the Southwest rather than somehow a building from this area. And that those light textures to the outer materials, the light tans, even with stripes on them as the recent rendering shows, doesn't distinguish the volumes as well as the elevation drawing does. The elevation is really very successful, but the separation of colors on the façades is better there than it really is in the rendering. It bothers me considerably because it's intent, the intent of the variety of materials on the façade seems to work well, certainly in the elevation and not in the rendering. But even more important, really, than that is the fact that access to it is more difficult except by going into a private parking area, and that's not the way the rest of the mall seems to work. So, I think it really has to be studied as to whether this is the best location for that facility. And I agree with the other comment about making it pedestrian-friendly and bike friendly at that corner because you're kind of caught at the other side of the street, and then, you want to come to this area, let's make it accessible to bicycles. I wonder if there's a better use for that whole corner as an inviting area of the mall, versus this Wilkes Bashford facility here. What seems to me it's done is, not just because of the easement issue, but because of emphasis on the different commercial uses that Restoration Hardware gets a good position against Sand Hill, Wilkes Bashford is sort of what's left over, in a way, at that corner. And I'm not convinced that that's the best location for that facility. That's about it. I think that the pop-up store and the new addition, the J, works really well, and is a nice counterpoint to the Restoration Hardware and its style and modernist look, versus a more traditional Restoration Hardware that is going to be quite delightful from pretty much City of Palo Alto Page 54 all sides, from Sand Hill side, as well as you're coming to the intersection of El Camino, a lot of traffic is going to see that and be intrigued by the beautiful design. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I think you brought us things that look like they're going to be very appealing. When you do that height diagram that Alex was asking for, if you could continue it north enough so that we understand how high the trees are over there as well, that would help me. So we see what happens from the Menlo Park side. I am very interested in what you do about the hedges around Restoration Hardware. In some of those sketches, the Restoration Hardware building, I guess because it has a certain amount of Venetian inspiration, is reminiscent of Terman, the Terman building. Stanford really got its, you know, it started out strong with Richardson and his big, massive, Romanesque design, and then it sort of wandered off in the wilderness. And then, Terman -- as in the engineering school -- commissioned a building that was, you know, it provided its own heat, didn't require extra heat, and didn't require fuel to heat it, and it used blinds for shading, and it used heavy stucco. And it was really very much like this. And sort of this beginning of the turnaround of architecture. It was built in 1968. Before... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: This is the one with the reflecting pond that was supposed to bring in the... Chair Furth: It wasn't entirely successful, but yes, it cooled the computers. One of the things that concerns me about the big entry into Restoration Hardware is that when we were having brown-outs, Restoration Hardware downtown insisted on leaving its doors open and air conditioning the great outdoors. So, I'm interested in knowing how you handle that, since that was a little frustrating. I'm sure you've got it all figured out, but we would need to know. I do think you need probably underground parking. You certainly need much smarter parking than we have now. You know, if a smart parking place tells you at every aisle there's going to be a parking place, where the space is, this is a very dumb parking lot. It could lead to very unhappy situations, and sometimes already does. One of the things that we look at is, you know, we're supposed to make sure this works for everybody, and that includes the people working in these buildings, and where do they take their breaks? You have some spaces way over towards PF Chang's where people can sit, get a lunch or coffee break and get some fresh air. It's a little more challenging if you're at Nordstrom. If you're going to build all this additional space here, I think we should be thinking about that as well. Other than that, look forward to seeing it when it comes back again. Thank you. So, continue... No, we're not going to continue this. We're done with the preliminary review. Does staff have any questions for us? You understand what we're trying to say? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, I believe so. Study Session - no items Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2018. Chair Furth: Minutes. Which some of us have read very carefully. The first item is minutes of November 11th, right? Not October 18th. Is that right? It's not what it says here, right? This is wrong? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, October 18th, we do need to bring back to you. There was a subcommittee language missing, and so we need to give that to you still. Chair Furth: November 11th, we do have? Board Member Lew: I didn't review it. Vice Chair Baltay: I didn't see them. City of Palo Alto Page 55 Chair Furth: Okay, it's not on the agenda, it's on... I thought it was going to be corrected on the agenda. All right, skip item 5. Item... Board Member Lew: Wait, wait, wait. It's on the agenda, so I will move that we continue the minutes for October 18th. Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: Okay, moved by Lew, second by Baltay, to continue item 5. Item 6, draft minutes... Board Member Lew: We should vote. Chair Furth: Oh, sorry. All those in favor say aye? All those opposed? It passes 4-0-1, with Board Member Thompson absent. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 6, 2018. Chair Furth: Item 6, draft minutes for December 6, 2018. I thought it was really good transcription, by the way. Board Member Lew: Yes. I will move that we approve the minutes for December 6th. Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye? Hearing no opposition and four yay votes, it passes 4-0-1. 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 20, 2018. Chair Furth: Minutes of December 20, 2018. Board Member Lew: Yes, this is a different story. Chair Furth: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Do you want to take this one, Alex? Board Member Lew: Well, okay, so, I will do it in order of importance. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: Item number 5, which was the cell phone towers, I think on page 54, it says Board Member Hirsch voted no. But I think that was me. Vice Chair Baltay: If I remember right, it's literally correct. Wynne asked David if he was voting for or against the cell phone tower. He said, "nay," which is recorded. The transcriber interpreted that to mean that he voted against the motion. Chair Furth: And he didn't. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex voted against the motion. David voted for the motion. That's my recollection. I think it's important that we all be very clear because it goes in the record on an important issue. Board Member Lew: Okay. And then, I have lots of smaller comments. Ms. Gerhardt: Can I just...? That was on item...? City of Palo Alto Page 56 Board Member Lew: Five. Page 54. And then, the other little things I'll give to you. It's just names, name spelling, and stuff like that. It's all highlighted, they're all items that were highlighted by the transcriber. Chair Furth: Thank you. Motion? Vice Chair Baltay: I'll move that we approve the minutes from December 20th, with the correction as noted about the vote, and small corrections Alex will give you. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Moved and seconded by Baltay and Lew. All those in favor say aye? Hearing no opposition, it passes 4-0-1. Subcommittee Items 8. 3128 El Camino Real [17PLN-00462]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Trellis Design, Landscaping, Benches and Building Color. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us At the meeting, the Subcommittee agreed with the revisions presented with the following conditions added: 1. The owner or designee shall use City standard concrete color and texture at the base of the brick wall fronting the project site along El Camino Real. 2. The owner or designee shall plant Nandina domestica behind the brick walls fronting El Camino Real as directed by the City Landscape Architect. 3. The owner or designee shall include planting alternatives that are native, indigenous, and drought tolerant, including, but not limited to buckwheat, ceanothus, and/or eriogonum. 4. The owner or designee shall employ the color scheme proposed at the December 6, 2018 ARB Hearing, comprised of Chelsea Gray HC-168 and Iron Mountain 2134-30, with aluminum trellis system a Cityscape color. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: Any Board Member questions, comments or announcements? Board Member Lew: There was a community meeting, first community meeting for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan on Tuesday night. And I'm guessing there were maybe 50 or 60 people in attendance. It was well-attended, but it was attended by one, kind of one set of demographic people. We didn't really get a broad cross-section of people. It went well. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to report that I attended the City Council meeting on Monday night -- I believe David Hirsch was with me -- where they discussed the appeal of the Crown Castle small cell node cluster in Downtown South. The Council upheld, or denied the appeal, and upheld the Director's ruling on that project. Chair Furth: Okay, and if we want to discuss that or any other matters further, that has been reviewed by us and then approved differently by staff, we can do that at our next meeting, when it will be on the City of Palo Alto Page 57 agenda. All right. Anything else before we adjourn this meeting? And just tell us at our subcommittee. Also, more than one person has requested that we move these meetings along faster. That requires everybody's efforts, and we will do that. Typically we want everybody else to be briefer, but we will do our best. What's your norm, Alex? Board Member Lew: One hour per major project. And I would say, like, shopping center could go longer because it's really two projects. But like the Channing, we spent way... We spent way too much time on that one, given the issues and the size of the project. Chair Furth: I would argue that as the first approvable thing in SOFA 2, it was an important project. But I agree that it took a while. All right. We'll do what we can. We are adjourned. Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and David Hirsch. Absent: None Chair Furth: ... 2019 meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. If you could call the roll, please? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: Now is the time for oral communications. That's a time for anybody in the audience who wishes to speak to an item that is not on the agenda. I have no cards. Does anybody wish to speak under oral communications? Seeing no none, we'll go on. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions? None of those? City Official Reports 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: City official reports. Transmittal of the ARB meeting schedule and attendance record and tentative future agenda items. Jodi Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Yes. Related to the future agenda, we're going to have three items on the March 7th agenda. Mercedes will not be heard quite yet. We will have the 233 University. We're not going to have the Master Sign Program. We will have 375 University, and then the 180 El Camino will be heard. Chair Furth: Those are both preliminaries. Whose Master Sign Program was that? That we're not hearing? Ms. Gerhardt: I believe that's the hospital. Chair Furth: Okay. Thank you. And then, we had talked about scheduling some other additional items at our future meeting, namely an item to discuss projects recently reviewed by the Board, and what has happened to them since. That will be on our next agenda, as well? In some format or another, which we will figure out? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD February 21, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. I will work with the Chair to figure out that agenda item. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else anybody wants to put on a future agenda? Board Member Thompson: I just wanted to note, I will have a planned absence on July 18th. July 18th. A long time from now, but... Ms. Gerhardt: You'll be absent that day? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: Yeah, we probably should start thinking about our summer schedules. Thank you, Osma. That's a good reminder. All right. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 695 Arastradero [18PLN-00333]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new Single-Story Approximately 5,400 Square Foot Building With a Partial Basement for Mortuary Use. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) pursuant to 15303. Zoning District: RE (Residential Estate). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Hodgkins at Claire.Hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: Our first public hearing item is a quasi-judicial matter. It's at 695 Arastradero. It's a request for a recommendation for approval of a major architectural review to allow the construction of a new single-story building of approximately 5,400 square feet, with a partial basement for mortuary use. The planner is Claire, and the applicant -- sorry, I meant to make a note of this -- the owner is the Alta Mesa Improvement Company, and the architect is John Barksdale. Could we have a staff report, please? Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good morning, board members. I'm Claire Hodgkins, and I'm the project planner. As you noted, the proposed project is located at 695 Arastradero Road, at the existing Alta Mesa Memorial Park. The entire cemetery is a 72-acre site comprised of six parcels, and the proposed project is located centrally within the park on a 47-acre parcel. The site is zoned RE Residential Estate, and the land use designation is Open Space Controlled Development. The project includes a new 5,400 square foot single-story building with a partial basement at the existing Memorial Park, and the building would be used for services and service receptions -- it's a reception pavilion -- and the building would not be visible from outside the Memorial Park. Some key considerations are just the proposed materials of the project, the proposed design, and the parking and circulation. In particular with respect to the proposed design and circulation, board members during the preliminary hearing had noted in particular some concerns about the front entrance not being defined enough, so it wasn't clear where the main entrance would be. And generally, about the circulation on the site. The applicant has added ADA [American Disabilities Act] parking at the front and a turnaround at the front to define that entrance. And then, also provided a more defined kind of entrance feature to really clarify where the entrance to the building is. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval of the project. With that, I'll turn it back to you and recommend you hear from the applicant as well. Chair Furth: Thank you. Before we do that, since this is a quasi-judicial matter -- we heard it before the study session -- has everybody visited the site? Board Member Lew: I visited the site on Tuesday. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, visited the site. Board Member Thompson: Yes, I did. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I visited the site several times. Chair Furth: As have I. We've all visited the site. Does anybody have any ex parte communications to report with the applicant or anybody else? Nobody does. Thank you. If we could hear from the applicant? John Barksdale, Applicant: Good morning. Chair Furth: Good morning. You have 10 minutes, and if you could spell your name for the transcriber. Mr. Barksdale: My name is John Barksdale [spells name]. I'm the architect on the project. At our last ARB hearing, two suggestions were brought up. One was a concern about the vehicular and pedestrian circulation, getting to any services in the new building. Secondly, it was unclear as to where the main entrance was. We had four possible candidates, only one which was to be the main. We were unable to change any of the roadway circulation because the established roadways have grave sites right up to the edges of them. That obviously cannot, they cannot be moved. The site as it is is what we have to work with. Normally visitors to the cemetery come in and they know where they're going, and they go directly there. If they don't, the first building they'll see is an administration building, they'll stop and get directions. But for services, what Alta Mesa does is their staff goes out and becomes traffic directors. They have specific plans as to where they want people to park so that the other parts of the cemetery are still freely accessible. They have them on site, and they also have some temporary signage. They'll be directed on past the administration building, and the next building that they will see is this one. They'll come directly into it. We've added this new entrance canopy to make the entrance more obvious, and we have a turnaround, a circular turnaround in front of it for people who want to drop people off and go on and park. Otherwise, they'll continue around this circular site and parallel park. If that parking is all full, they'll just continue on down into the cemetery roadways and parallel park otherwise. In addition, we've added a sidewalk around the perimeter of the site, leading in two directions to this new entrance statement, so that people can get on that as soon as possible and get off the road and get to the entrance. As far as the entrance goes, as I say, we added this canopy with a pyramid-shape skylight on it, which gives it some height and protection from the elements. It comes right up to this drop-off area. On the rear of the building, we have a service entrance which had glass side lights and a glass transom and a wood door. We have played that down with solid siding material and painted alloy metal doors so that won't be confused as an entrance. On the sides of the building, we have these courtyards which are integral with the design and function of the building, a very inviting.... But they are enclosed with these four-foot-high niche walls, which have a niches on the outside that are, people can visit without going into the building. There is a walkway to those. We have minimized that entrance to that area and screened them all with shrubbery to keep people, to discourage anybody from thinking that that is a way into the building. We hope that that satisfies the concerns of the Board. That's all I have to say. If there are any questions, I'd be happy to answer them. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Mr. Barksdale? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, if I could, please. Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: The circle you're engraving in the pavement in front of the proposed building, what is the diameter of that? Can you say? Mr. Barksdale: I don't have that off the top of my head. We made it fit a normal vehicle. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Vice Chair Baltay: That's my question, I guess, really, is that is it possible for a car to make that circular turnaround? Mr. Barksdale: Yeah, it is. We also wanted it centered... I mean, I could make it bigger, but it wouldn't be centered on the building access. Vice Chair Baltay: Would it be possible to get that measurement today somehow? If you could just scale it off the drawings for us, or something? It just seems to me that it looks a little bit tight and I'd like to check that. Thank you. Mr. Barksdale: Okay. Chair Furth: I had one question about the landscaping. I'm looking at Sheet L1-1, or L1.1. Of course, what I was trying to figure out was to what extent are these local indigenous drought-resistant plant materials capable of providing what you want. I think of plumbago and nandina and olives and many of these plants as not local. I was wondering if you could tell me a little bit more about that. It's not key as to which ones are local indigenous drought-resistant plant material and which ones aren't. Mr. Barksdale: No, I... The landscape architect recently moved his office from Palo Alto down to Monterrey. I discussed it with him, whether he should be here or not, and he suggested that if you had some concerns about the landscaping, that possibly we could make it a condition of approval and have whoever is concerned about it deal with it at a... Chair Furth: Thank you. Appreciate it. Any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I do. Chair Furth: Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: What are the possibilities that the area, that kind of columbarium area around the perimeter, will be used at the same time as a service that would be within the building? Mr. Barksdale: Is that...? You're not going to do that, or are you? Female?: [Off microphone, inaudible] Chair Furth: Could you repeat that into the microphone, please? Or introduce yourself? Again. Marilyn Talbot: I'm Marilyn Talbot, I'm the general manager. We generally coordinate services so they're not at the same time. So, other than visiting maybe those outside niche walls, people can still visit them, but we wouldn't have a service at the same time we have a service inside the building. Board Member Hirsch: In the area in the perimeter, the columbarium area where you have niches...? Ms. Talbot: The outside niches? Chair Furth: I’m sorry, could you lower the microphone so it's going to pick up your voice a little better? Thank you. Ms. Talbot: Are you talking about the niches that are proposed on this building? Board Member Hirsch: Niches area. Ms. Talbot: Yeah. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Hirsch: What are the possibilities that somebody would be visiting at the same time as the service? Ms. Talbot: Oh, that could be a possibility. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Ms. Talbot: Yeah. We have separate entrances to those niche walls. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Okay. What are the possibilities that there be a regular mausoleum service happening at the same time as this reception area? Ms. Talbot: We coordinate everything. We consider traffic control and coordinate where services are. We tend not to have services at the same time so people can have their privacy when they have their service. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. As it might affect parking, you would direct the traffic in such a way? Ms. Talbot: Yeah, we're pretty, we're very proactive in parking, just because it's difficult just getting there, trying to get up Arastradero Road, and people, by the time they're there, they're a tad agitated, so we're very proactive in parking. And we schedule services so they don't conflict with other people's services. Board Member Hirsch: Thank you, yeah. Thanks. Chair Furth: Claire, did you have something you wanted to add? Ms. Hodgkins: I do. I just want to note that I did put a condition of approval indicating that there wouldn't be multiple services happening at the same time, that the addition of this pavilion wouldn't mean more traffic for the area because the services would generally be coordinated, which was noted in the applicant's proposal. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions before the...? Board Member Thompson: I had a quick one. Chair Furth: Oh. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: For the niche wall that's in the four quadrants of the two sides, is that...? In the renders you don't actually see the cavities. Is that something that will be covered? Or will the urns be visible? Ms. Talbot: They're generally covered with a, right now, granite. They're covered with granite, so it is like little spaces that are covered. They are all covered. And then they've got little rosettes with a tamper- proof screw on it so nobody can mess with them. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so that will just kind of look like a wall from the outside. Ms. Talbot: Yes, it will look like a, you know, it's usually polished granite, so it looks reflective on there. It's all clean. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Chair Furth: Anything else? I'll bring it back to the Board for discussion, then. Osma, do you want to start? Oh, and we have a model to look at. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Vice Chair Baltay: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Sorry, Is there anybody in the public who would like to comment on this project or application? I have no cards, but does anybody else wish to speak? Seeing no one, I will close the public hearing part of this proceeding and let's start. Osma, do you want to go first? Board Member Thompson: Sure. Although.... Are the materials over there? Chair Furth: Is there a materials board? Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Thompson: In general, after visiting the site, it was quite evident that the design seems to sort of sit nicely in the landscape. The pyramid skylight seems like it will have a nice relationship with one of the other buildings that's further back in the site. I'm not actually sure which building that is, but there is a building that has a pyramid roof on there, so, in that sense, it's kind of thoughtful architecturally to do that. In general, I didn't see very many issues with the design. It seems like it will be a nice, quiet, thoughtful space. One concern I had is potentially in the back where the service entrance is as it abuts that adjacent building. That space could get kind of dark, potentially, but I don't know that that is anything that you can avoid, necessarily. And then, I did have some questions about the niche, which you answered for me. In general, I would say I'm pretty supportive of this project. I'm curious to hear what my other board members think. Chair Furth: Thank you. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Wynne. Thank you. I generally agree with Osma. It's a good project and I can recommend approval. I would like to discuss a little bit the turnaround in the middle there, in the front. By my scaling of your drawing, it's about 29 feet in radius, so just less than 60 feet in diameter. For a residence, that just barely works. For this type of service and building, I don't think it's quite big enough. I think just by twisting a building a bit and shifting it over, you probably can get that to work just a tad better, and I think it's probably important that it does comfortably accommodate even a larger vehicle turning around there. Or else you shouldn't have that circle and imply that that's what you do there. So, it's a small detail, but it's just not quite the right size yet. I think if you just rotate the building slightly, you can keep it centered on that while you add a few feet to the diameter. Other than that, I think the building planning, the way it fits on the site, is nicely done. It's logical, and clear, and practical. I have a second question or thought or concern, I guess, about the massing of the building. I have the building model here, and I'll point to my colleagues that it has four bump-outs, two bathrooms in the front and a kitchen and a service area in the back, that to my eye just fight the basic architecture. You have this clean, simple, high, white parapet defining the form, and it's clean, and simple, and timeless, and everything you would expect for a building of this function. But, having these bump-out below, it sort of violates that. They break the simplicity. And you can see that in the way you've detailed it. It's a tricky roof condition to work with. I guess I'm just wishing it wasn't that way, that it was all inside that clean, simple form. That said, it's well executed, so I don't suppose I can fight it too much, but it's just not as nice as I would like to see it. I do think the choice of materials is elegant and high quality and will fit very well where you're building this building, so that's all nice. My last thought -- and again, it's a nit-picking thought -- is that you have a bicycle rack right next to the front door under your pyramid-covered parapet entry area. It just seems the wrong place to put a bicycle rack. There must be someplace else on the site you could meet that code requirement for the few people who do ride a bicycle to one of these services. Those are my thoughts. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation, and thank you for the revisions of the project. I can recommend approval of the project today, with the exception of landscape. I think the landscape needs to come back to subcommittee. I don't think it meets the findings for native plants. I think there's City of Palo Alto Page 7 only one native plant... Yeah, and then, the budalooa [phonetic] grass is North America native. I think a couple changes, maybe to the ground covers and a few of the shrubs, I think you can easily meet the findings. Chair Furth: I was thinking trees, too. Board Member Lew: I was not thinking of trees. I think I would support Peter's comment about the turnaround, and Peter's comment about the massing. That did not pop out at me as being an issue. I didn't really see that at all when I was looking at the plans. Anyway, that's where I am. I can recommend approval. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: You answered my question about controlling the services. That was a primary concern because I thought it would impact the site quite considerable with double services, having so many more cars potentially. And I was a little.... No, that was fine. Your answer was good. You know, this is a very spiritual kind of building, and I think you shouldn't comment on it without giving credit to the architect for having created kind of a symmetrical building, which in this case I think works very well in the circle that it's enclosed in. And I think the massing is notable, that it maintains that symmetry throughout the building. I like the materials, with some exceptions. I think the stone materials are good, but there's a lay-in ceiling on the inside, and that's not an emotionally-appropriate kind of ceiling, with the recessed lighting in it. I would much rather see a wood ceiling, which I think would be a better feeling. I'm not so crazy about anodized aluminum oak coverings on the courtyard spaces. I would wish that they would be wood, and you have some examples of wood that you're using on the building which you could very well use as a canopy for those outside areas. I think, however, my biggest concern is the potential lack of privacy between people using the service area inside when they come out to the courtyard -- courtyards, two of them -- and if there were any, anybody having a private service outside in front of their own niche, family niche, there's a conflict there. I don't think the answer to that is by putting some planters around to create more privacy there. I think you need another visual separation between them, which could easily be accomplished with placing glass above to get to a level that's above eyesight, without changing the nature of that area at all. And then, if on the inside it was, you defined the area between the outside and the inside with some kind of a raised element, I think you would be able to create a better separation between the possible conflict between privacy outside, people visiting their personal niche, family niche, and activity on the inside, which is going to lead to people talking outside, meeting with each other. I don't know if you can do a separation that's scheduled so that nobody is outside. That might be an answer, but I think you really could do it with a better sense of privacy. With glass inserted, we look at this a lot, where it relates to people using outside dining areas where the street is nearby. And you could certainly use a glazing that isn't visible through, you know, that is decorative. I'd like to ask you to think about that. I would agree with... I think the planting, by the way, is very good. I looked at some of the plants and they seemed to be high enough to create the privacy for the, sort of columbarium use of the outside. Those are my concerns. I think this definitely could come back to committee because it's 90 percent of the way there. Thank you very much for the nice presentation. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for the presentation, thank you for the design. Thank you for taking into consideration our concerns at the earlier session. I think part of the reason this building fits in well is that some of the other buildings were also Mr. Barksdale's work. He's nodding, so he has a long experience of this space. I have a lot of confidence in the operation's ability to manage traffic flow and parking. I appreciate thinking about privacy. I think the materials are good. I like the design. From my notes, I have six items that have been raised. All of us thinking that if, at most, it needs to go to subcommittee. Is that correct? I'm getting nods. Osma? Board Member Thompson: I actually, I had a quick question. Chair Furth: Yes? City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Thompson: Of the applicant. Chair Furth: Yes? Board Member Thompson: I notice that in your model, the niche walls are curved, and in the plans they're faceted. Do you know what the design intent, or what the final...? Should we look at the model or should we look at the plans? Mr. Barksdale: They're faceted now. The problem is they're each, they are 12 by 12 niche covers, and they're three high. We found that if we try to do that on a curve, they would have to kind of miter the edges of these covers and they wouldn't go together very well. It would be difficult to fit them nicely, so we opted to do same shape, but in three facets, so we can get straight surfaces to put these 12 by 12 niche covers tightly together. Chair Furth: It's the plans that represent your current thinking, not the model. Mr. Barksdale: The plans are correct. The model is... Chair Furth: Thank you. An earlier phase. Mr. Barksdale: Earlier, yeah. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions? Okay, so, I think we have consensus that landscaping should be referred to subcommittee so that we can make the finding with respect to native drought- resistant plants. David raised a comment about the anodized aluminum covering. Does anybody share his desire for different material? Board Member Lew: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Isn't it exterior? I thought he was talking about courtyard coverings. Did I get confused? It's central courtyard. Which one are you concerned about, David? Board Member Hirsch: Is the metal on here? Chair Furth: Where is it on the...? I misunderstood where you were saying it was, perhaps. Board Member Hirsch: It's a medium bronze.... Oh, that's the storefront. Chair Furth: We don't generally look at interior materials. I was trying... I thought you were talking about something... Board Member Hirsch: Well, I did. That was a lay-in ceiling grid on the inside. Chair Furth: Right, which is probably not in our purview. But I thought the trellis was outside. [crosstalk] Ms. Hodgkins: Are you talking about the trellis at the entrance? Chair Furth: Yes, the entrance trellis. Ms. Hodgkins: I think the entrance trellis is... [crosstalk] City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: So it is an exterior material. Board Member Hirsch: And the sides, as well. Chair Furth: We're only talking about the exterior materials, right? Board Member Hirsch: Well, no, I talked about two. Chair Furth: Okay, so, with respect to the ceiling, I believe that's not within our jurisdiction because it is an interior feature and it's not... We can comment but we can't direct. Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah, I think you can comment on it. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Yes, it's a comment. That's fine. Just trying to make notes here and get clear. What about the materials for the exterior outside coverings, trellises? Were you suggesting they were inappropriate, David? Board Member Hirsch: I think they're using wood elsewhere. We have Ipe wood sliding service entrance doors. You could match up those elements with a wood ceiling. It would just feel better to me as a mix of materials. Chair Furth: Okay, well, that is an exterior material. Anybody else have comments on that? Vice Chair Baltay: I think you need to balance that, though, David, against the desire to have a very permanent-feeling building. And wood will wear and require constant maintenance. My experience is that after 10 years, a wood trellis never looks permanent. I'm not sure it's a fair burden to place on them. I could see perhaps suggesting that they consider some alternative metal material than an aluminum extrusion, but maybe make a suggestion. But I don't think wood would be a good choice. Just shooting from the hip here. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson, you had a comment? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, actually, it just made me notice, maybe another question potentially, just to clarify. The aluminum trellis that's on the sides, that's a different material than the structure that's holding the skylight? The skylight is the zinc? Chair Furth: That's a question for the applicant. Mr. Barksdale: No, I think it's all, it's all anodized aluminum. They have on other buildings tried to use brass, but the maintenance was too much to keep it up, so we chose aluminum for the window areas. I just carried that through to the trellis. I agree it would be great, but they are very concerned about maintenance. These buildings are... This building is not under the Cemetery Act, but all the other buildings have to be designed for an eternity, not have any combustible materials, or anything that won't wear forever. As I say, this is not required under that, but in keeping with that, they just are not... They don't want to get into a situation where there is constant maintenance to the materials on the building. That's why aluminum was chosen, and then, we just carried that through, consistently through all the metal elements on the outside of the building. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Yes, thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Furth: Okay. I don't hear a consensus for asking for a change in that material. Turnaround perhaps needs further study to make sure it works? Is that correct? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Oh, you mean whether I reacted that way? Chair Furth: No, no, I'm just asking, I'm trying to isolate the elements that might lead us to a motion that might pass, so I just wanted to find out on the turnaround. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, it would be nice if we could ask the applicant. It seems to me, looking at the site plan, if you rotated the building ever so slightly, you could shift the circle more into the middle of that Y-shaped existing roadway and get maybe five or 10 more feet in diameter, which I think would make all the difference. Unless I'm missing something.... Chair Furth: Could you respond to that, Mr. Barksdale? Vice Chair Baltay: ...it seems a very easy change to make. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Barksdale: I'm not entirely happy with the... Even with it centered on the building, it isn't centered on the roadway either. I would be more inclined to eliminate it and shape the curb to give us the full radius, which is probably about, I'm guess about 80 feet diameter. If we gave them the full area there to turn around and just shape the drop-off area to accommodate that and forget about the circle. The other option is just to make the circle bigger. What we have done is this building is on the same access as the mausoleum behind it. We could certainly turn the building, but then... Chair Furth: Are we looking at Sheet SK-4, basically? Mr. Barksdale: Yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Barksdale: You can see that the access of this building is perpendicular to the side of the columbarium behind it. That's the reason for that. And of course, that puts that turnaround off-center on the driveway fork there, where the road forks. If we were to turn the building, yes, we could make the turnaround bigger. That would all be fine. But then, the question is whether that would look odd at that slight angle off of the building behind it. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Is there any particular symbolic relationship to the mausoleum, or reason these buildings have to be on exactly the orthogonal grid? I don't think you'd notice it at all... [crosstalk] Mr. Barksdale: No. Just the proximity. And yeah, there isn't really a strong parallel access to that building anyway. Most of these elements are coming in at a 45 degrees. Vice Chair Baltay: I'll suggest to you that the way it is now with the entrance just every so slightly off center of the roadway, I think it might look like a mistake in the end, that the building is not centered on the road as you approach it. And I don't think anybody will notice whether it's relating exactly to the mausoleum behind it. And again, I don't think any of these affect my ability to recommend approval, but it just strikes me that it would be so easy to rotate or shift the building so that on direct approach, it would look good. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: Okay, let's... Bike racks. That's the first time I heard us requesting that the bike racks not be by the front door. I can just understand why that makes sense here. Any...? Board Member Lew: It's happened on other projects, as well. Chair Furth: I just wasn't paying attention. Okay. Board Member Lew: There are places like the country club... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Sure, where you really don't want it at the front door. Board Member Thompson: How does the rest of the board feel about that? Because I don't mind it being at the front door, as... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I have no opinion. Board Member Lew: I think the code is it has to be within 50 feet of the front door. Why don't we put the condition that it needs to be within 50 feet and they can...? Chair Furth: You can make your own decision about what you want. The applicant can. Would somebody like to make a motion? Oh, I didn't bring up the issue of additional walls to screen the niche areas, glass walls. Is there any support for that suggestion? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: David. But I don't see any... Board Member Hirsch: That's my major, major concern about the project. Chair Furth: Got it. Board Member Hirsch: And unless we can be assured that there's not going to be a conflict... If you look at a, what is it, four-foot-six, four-foot-nine niche wall there on each of the perimeter areas, somebody standing there would be a part of the event happening on the inside, I just don't see that as a good relationship at all. If those niches were to be used. If you can assure us that there's never going to be a conflict between the use of the perimeter area, and that would be scheduled not to conflict with the service on the service on the inside... Chair Furth: Okay, David, at this point, I'm really asking you to talk to us, not the applicant. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. [crosstalk] Board Member Thompson: Go ahead. Chair Furth: Okay, I'm trying to wind... I thought for once we could get through a project in less than an hour, since we all like it. But that's all right. I don't support additional wall space. I think the applicants are good at scheduling their events, and I think it cannot guarantee that somebody won't get the desire to go visit a niche at some point, but I am, in this case, completely willing to defer to the owners' judgment on this issue since they are successful operators of a memorial park. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Thompson: I also agree with you on that. I'm not supportive of changing the height of the niche wall. I kind of like the interplay. Chair Furth: I do support having the subcommittee look at this orientation issue. I do think it's important to have a good drop-off access point. I think that if it's possible to rotate it a bit so that you can get a bigger defined circular area, that's well worth it. Our biggest concern before was that we had this... I at least had this vision of women in high heels, tromping through the grass, trying to find out where they were going, and you addressed that. I like that, and I think by rotating it you can make it big enough to really work. So, unless the applicant objects to us asking the subcommittee to look at that, I think we're ready to make a motion. Board Member Thompson: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Was that a triple negative? MOTION Chair Furth: Osma's going to make a motion. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: I'll move that we approve the project subject to the conditions of approval, and revisit the turnaround radius, or referral to subcommittee with respect to the entrance driveway radius, and as it relates to the building orientation.... Was there something else on your list? Chair Furth: Landscaping. Board Member Thompson: Landscaping. Anything else? Chair Furth: And we were going to modify it to say that the bike racks could be anywhere within 50 feet of the entrance, as chosen by the property owner. Ms. Hodgkins: With relation to the landscaping as part of that motion, is there something specific such as... Chair Furth: Yeah, it doesn’t meet, we cannot meet the findings because of the shortage. Ms. Hodgkins: Okay.... [crosstalk] Ms. Hodgkins: Okay. Board Member Thompson: Need to see more appropriate landscaping to meet the findings. Chair Furth: We're not questioning the beauty or attractiveness, but we have a requirement that, to the extent possible, it use regional drought-tolerant materials that provide good habitat. Right? This park is a good habitat for a lot of birds and insects, I'm sure, which are all becoming in increasingly short supply in this world. Is there a second. Vice Chair Baltay: I will second that motion. Chair Furth: Motion by Board Member Thompson, second by Vice Chair Baltay. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed say no. Board Member Hirsch: No, with the comment that I think it could come to committee, but I'm very concerned about the perimeter walls as I've described them. City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Furth: Thank you. The motion to refer to subcommittee passes 4-1, with opposition by Board Member Hirsch, for the reasons stated. MOTION PASSES 4-1, WITH BOARD MEMBER HIRSCH VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION TO APPROVE. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Look forward to seeing the project. Mr. Barksdale: Thank you. Chair Furth: And David, thank you for explaining your reservations. I always forget to ask people to do that, and according to our procedures, we do that. Do we need a break before we go to the next item? Board Member Lew: (inaudible) Chair Furth: Okay, we're going to have a one-minute break for staff to reorganize themselves. [The Board took a short break.] 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2342 Yale Street [18PLN-00233]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Residential Units and Construction of a new Two-Story Duplex Building and Detached Garage Building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RMD (NP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at efoley@m-group.us Chair Furth: Applicant's request for approval of a minor architectural review to allow the demolition of two existing residential units and construction of a new two-story duplex building with a full, habitable garage, basement level and attached garage. It is exempt from CEQA. Small infill new construction. The zoning is RMD Neighborhood Preservation, which is why it's before us. First of all, has everybody visited the site? Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Chair Furth: Five out of five. I visited the site. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, if we could just change up for two seconds. We have a person who would like to speak to Item 4 but needs to leave very shortly. Could we just hear that comment and then move forward? Chair Furth: We can do that. Let me finish asking people if they've had any ex parte communications with anyone with regard to this project. Vice Chair Baltay: No. Board Member Thompson: No. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Furth: No one has had any communications with anyone with regard to this project. Okay. We will pause briefly on this and go to item number 4... Study Session 4. Various Sites (250 Hamilton Avenue in database) [17PLN-00398]: Request by Sure Site, on Behalf of AT&T, for a Preliminary Architectural Review of the Deployment of 17 Small Cell Wireless Communication Facilities on Utility Poles and Streetlights in the Public Right of Way, in Downtown North and University South neighborhoods and adjacent to Monroe Park, Green Acres and Town & Country. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Chair Furth: ...which is a study session. Okay. I have a conflict of interest on this one so I will step away -- because I live there -- and let the Vice Chair deal with this. [Chair Furth left the chamber] Vice Chair Baltay: Very well. We're going to open the agenda item number 4, just to take public comment. We have one speaker card from Mary Elizabeth Plowder [sic]. You'll have three minutes to speak. If you could spell your name, please. Mary Elizabeth Plowden: Yes, thank you. It's Mary Elizabeth Plowden. Vice Chair Baltay: Plowden, I'm sorry. Ms. Plowden: Sure. [spells last name]. Thank you. Sorry, I have to leave for work in a minute and I just wanted the opportunity to say a few words. I'm relatively new to Palo Alto. I've maybe lived here three years or so, so this whole process of understanding how to comment and how to participate is new to me. I tried to get up to speed around the last cell phone tower issue as it relates to Crown Castle and Sure Site. It was just approved a few weeks ago. I received another notice in the mail about these 17 nodes that are planned for parts of downtown. One of the approved sites in the last go-around with Crown Castle and Sure Site is across the street from my house. My bedroom is actually co-located with the height of the antenna. Which, for my husband and me, provides great discomfort. My husband is actually an oncology surgeon, so he helps people deal with cancer all day long. So, for us, it's a very deeply... It's a hard topic. The latest review of these 17 sites that I've taken a look at, one of the nodes is actually on a street lamp right outside the building where I work. When I say "right outside," I mean if I look out my window and look at where the node will go, my desk is co-located with that node." Now, I've got one across the street from where I sleep, and I'll have one right next to where I work. Speaking specifically about, you know, beyond just general concerns, I'd like to say that I did some work last go- around as it relates to the radius of the radio frequency of these towers, and there were different nodes of radiation within which you would not want to be collocated. Obviously, this is a new project. I don't have the specs for the new project, but it's surmisable that if you are within 15 feet of this node, it's probably not something you want to be exposed to on an ongoing basis every day. And I just want to bring up that the streetlight that has the sign on it right now that's on the map of these 17 is, again, right next to the office where I sit. And I have many other colleagues that also sit in that office day to day, within 15 feet, the wall of our office, of the streetlight. So, I just wanted to come out and say that for me, that's deeply concerning again. I also just wanted to mention that I'm getting these notices as a resident of Palo Alto. My colleagues, they live in Redwood City, they live south of Palo Alto, they're not getting notices like this, so they're going to be within 15 feet of these nodes. And it's not just my office. There are many other offices where that's probably the case. And I realize that there's maybe a public newspaper requirement to post meetings like this and findings, which is entirely insufficient in today's world and media, where people don't necessarily read the published paper version of the Palo Alto daily news, or wherever we put that. Notification to people that work next to these nodes I think is extremely important because if they don't get these things in the mail as downtown residents, they might also want the chance to comment and participate. Lastly, I would say that given... I have two of these now within City of Palo Alto Page 15 striking distance of my everyday life. As a mom, as a resident of Palo Alto, I think we should just think more broadly about what we're doing in the city as it relates to all these nodes. We just approved five, 17 more. When we talk about the health effects, do we think about the aggregate health impacts? I'm not talking about the ... Vice Chair Baltay: If you could wrap it up, you're 30 seconds over. Ms. Plowden: Sure, sure. Not just the radius right next to the streetlight, but if you think about the aggregate affect of people like me that live and work in downtown Palo Alto. Do we know what that means in the longer run health-wise as it relates to all of the RF emission? Thank you very much. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you for speaking. Okay, we'd like to close that portion of the meeting to public comment and return back to agenda item number 3. Thank you. [Chair Furth returned to the chamber and resumed discussion of item 3 regarding 2342 Yale Street.] Chair Furth: Thank you. To return to agenda item 2342, which is item number 3 on our agenda, the applicant... The owner is Abdel Ismail, and the architect is Amer Ismail Design Build Group. If we could have the staff report, please. And if our new planner could introduce herself. Emily Foley, Project Planner: Hi, good morning. My name is Emily Foley, and I'm the project planner. Chair Furth: And Emily, could you spell your name for our transcriber since you're new? Ms. Foley: Yeah. [spells name] Chair Furth: Thank you Ms. Foley: As we mentioned, this is for 2342 Yale Street. It is a duplex project, and this is the first time that it's come to the Architectural Review Board. The proposal is to demolish two existing residential units. It's a single-family home in the front and a second kind of apartment-style unit over the existing garage. The proposal is to construct two duplex units, so two attached units with the detached garage in the rear. Each unit is pretty much identical, so there are four bedrooms including a finished basement in each unit. The site context is in the College Terrace neighborhood. As previously mentioned, it's in the RMD NP zone, and the Neighborhood Preservation Overlay is why it is at the ARB meeting today. In the general neighborhood area, there are single and two-family and multiple-family residential on three sides of development, and neighborhood commercial small office buildings to the north across the street. For the site plan, it's a duplex, so the two units are attached, but the second floor roof forms are slightly separated with decks in between. The parking is in the two-car garage, and there's one uncovered space as required by the zoning. There is useable open space. Each unit has a 99 square foot deck and a 59 square foot deck. The front unit has 483 square feet of useable open space, and the rear unit has 422 square feet of kind of landscaped open space. These are the current elevations as shown in the project plans for the front and rear and for the two sides. The entrances are defined, as well as the two units being pretty much the same, so the two sides of the building look very similar. As previously mentioned, this project is not subject to CEQA, and staff is recommending approval at this time. Chair Furth: Is there a materials board? Ms. Foley: Yes. The applicant said that he was going to bring an updated materials board. Chair Furth: If we could have that, please. Thank you. Any questions from staff before we hear from the applicant? If we could hear from the applicant, please. And if you could, as everyone does, spell your name for our transcriber. When you introduce yourself. Amer Ismail: Sure: My name is Amer Ismail [spells name]. Our objective... City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Furth: Excuse me, I forgot to tell you, you have 10 minutes. Which we will now start. Mr. Ismail: Okay. Our objective is to build a duplex that will help improve the area. Currently, the existing building has kind of a zero lot line along with the adjacent buildings, so we think the building we're proposing improves that. Chair Furth: Could you speak a little closer to the mic? I'm sorry, our mics require that you be quite close. Mr. Ismail: Okay. We feel that the building we're proposing improves that by following the setback requirement on the left side, and the driveway on the right side separates this building from the current neighboring buildings. In the design, we tried to follow the guidelines as closely as possible. One was we placed the garage in the back of the property to mitigate its visibility, and also kind of match the neighborhood. The driveway, we tried to minimize the width of it as much as possible. We also proposed some Hollywood strips with landscaping in the middle, and providing a planting strip on the right side for screening landscape between this property and the neighboring property. Our original design, we had kind of a larger second floor, so we reduced that door by increasing the footprint of the building. That way, kind of minimizing the second floor walls. We also, also to meet the guidelines in terms of height and massing and scale, we set back the second floor walls from the first floor walls all around by about three feet. We located two upper floor balconies in the center of the building, that way separate the second floor from each unit, again, to kind of minimize its mass. Also, that helps with the roof scale, as well. And we took into consideration the windows, so they don't have direct sights, and are proposing screening landscape in the appropriate areas. Chair Furth: Does anybody have any questions before...? Of the applicant's architect? Doesn't look like it. I had one question. Do you know how many bedrooms there are in the existing buildings on the site? Total? Mr. Ismail: There are... I believe there is a total of, maybe six bedrooms. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. Board Member Thompson: I had a quick question. Chair Furth: A quick question before we hear from the rest of the public? Board Member Thompson: I just... Oh, well. It was a material question. Should I ask later? Chair Furth: Yeah. Why don't we ask questions later? The applicant will have a chance to respond to the public, so let's hear from them, and then we'll do a second round. You may be seated. I have one speaker card from Taylor Brady, professional engineer. And Mr. Brady, if you could spell your name and give us your address, if you would. Taylor Brady: Absolutely. Yes, my name is Taylor Brady. [spells name] I was already going to begin my speech this way, so, in the interest of full disclosure, I will say that I am a resident of 2342 Yale Street in the College Terrace neighborhood, occupied Mayfield. I'm also a licensed civil engineer in the state of California. My license number C-88568, in the event that any present here today would like to look it up through the Board of Professional Engineers, Land Surveyors and Geologists. I have practiced structural engineering since earning my bachelor's and master's degrees from Stanford University in June 2013 and March 2016, respectively. Germane to the discussion today, I've been the primary structural designer on numerous residential buildings of similar type and scope to the proposed project, as well as many more commercial, industrial and multifamily residential structures of significantly greater size. I'm here this morning to publicly express my opposition to the proposed demolition of 2342 Yale Street. Since my vested interest as a renting resident of the subject property is obvious, I will not belabor the point. However, I would like to focus my speech on three other points. The first is the incompleteness of the most recent drawings currently available to the public by Palo Alto's Accela citizen access portal as of City of Palo Alto Page 17 2200 hours on February 20, 2019, i.e. last night. The second point is regarding the historic nature of the property and its situation in the College Terrace neighborhood, and the third point is the impact of the demolition on the City's more broadly-stated goals of sustainability and affordable housing. The most recent set of drawings available for the project is a set dated November 19, 2018. While these drawings may meet basic requirements for an architectural set, in my professional experience the design reflects a project at the end of schematic design, with only the basic massing and architectural program established. Critical details such as wall and floor assembly, waterproofing fenestration, drainage for decks, and guardrail attachments are not present in this set. Moreover, while a building of this type is feasible to construct, no structural system has been designated either for gravity or lateral loads. Looking more closely at the presently-submitted drawings, it is possible to see that with buildings and different floor layout levels, the level, structural framing for discontinuance bearing elements -- that is, beams and columns -- will need to be specified. Additionally, no lateral system is proposed, and while myriad systems are possible for such a structure, perhaps timber sheer walls or steel moment frames, a careful inspection of the present architectural program and fenestration reveals that such critical structures are not accounted for. They are not continuous walls which could be used as sheer walls, no are their locations for frame elements fit. If the structural system is (inaudible) accommodating the present architectural program, then the gravity and lateral systems will require numerous discontinuous elements, each of which will have to be individually designed, and which is not, again, while feasible, an insignificant design task. This is to say nothing of the structural details that will be required for construction of the presumably truss roofs. The connection of discontinuous vertical (inaudible) elements to supporting members, and more. Chair Furth: Mr. Brady, I forgot to tell you that you have three minutes, so would you take another minute to address your other issues? Mr. Brady: I suppose so. I'll just sum up this section really quickly. I just think that it would be in the City's best interest to review and comment upon much more complete drawings before proceeding with a permitting process. Regarding the historic nature of the building, it is admittedly of amateur and local interest, but it is these footnotes of our neighborhood and our town's history that are, those that are being erased. Frank Miniker [phonetic], the builder of the building, was one of the earliest occupants of the College Terrace, or what became the College Terrace neighborhood, and Ranis Smithian [phonetic] Mayfield before it was annexed by the City Palo Alto. Individual structures such as this one may not have the polished cordials, the prettily-painted balustrades which draw the attention of architectural historians, who are mere decorative fetishes for the prominent styles in the neighborhood. Although I do happen to think that the periwinkle channel siding and elegantly-curved rafter tails of 2342 are worth noting. Nevertheless, the eccentricity of such lots and their placement, the way they permit access to thoroughfares in the neighborhood, is a unique aspect that cannot be discounted in assessment of the building's place in the neighborhood. Chair Furth: Thank you I'm going to stop you, but some people may have questions for you. And if there is any written material you want to submit, or drawings, please do. Does anybody have any questions of Mr. Brady before we go on? Okay, thank you. Anybody else wish to speak to this item? All right. Does the applicant have any responses to the comments? Or anything else you wish to say? Okay. Staff have any comments after hearing from the public? Ms. Gerhardt: I just wanted to comment on the adequacy of plan sets. It is a planning application. We do normally get schematic drawings at this stage. But one thing that I do hear the resident saying is that maybe the later structural design will be very complicated. So, we do ask, because we have architects on our ARB, I think you can speak to a little bit. Related to historic, we have done an historic analysis of this property and it was deemed to be not historic. Chair Furth: Who did the analysis and what were the standards used? Ms. Foley: It was a DPR -- Department of Parks and Recreation -- primary record report. It was probably Page and Turnbull, but I don't have that right in front of me. City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Furth: I think it's on page 112 of our packet. What's the page? Is it 112? We're using the state standards, right? Ms. Gerhardt: Absolutely. I don't know that we put the historic report in here, in the packet, because we weren't anticipating that that would be a major concern. Chair Furth: Was that done in house? Ms. Foley: It was done by Page and Turnbull. Chair Furth: An old survey or more recently? Ms. Foley: More recent. August 21, 2018. Chair Furth: Thank you. Is that available to the public if they want to see it? Ms. Foley: Yes, I believe it's uploaded to... Chair Furth: Thank you. We had another question of staff. When we went out to look at the site, we didn't see any project sign. And we're concerned... I mean, it's odd not to hear from neighbors on a project in College Terrace. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, Board Member Lew had brought that to our attention I believe yesterday -- actually maybe two days ago -- so yesterday, we made sure, spoke to the applicant, and Emily made sure that the sign was up again. They found the sign. It had just been maybe knocked over, or something. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right. Alex, why don't you start? Board Member Thompson: Can we do questions of the applicant? Chair Furth: Oh, questions, all right. You know what? I'm going to have us combine our questions with our comments, if that's all right. Go ahead. If it's a very basic question. Board Member Thompson: Just a clarification on the balustrade, the guard rails for the balconies. The drawings are showing a different kind of perforation than the material board. Mr. Ismail: Yeah, it was hard to model on the drawings the screening that we'll be using. That's why we included it on the material board. Board Member Thompson: It will be the [crosstalk].... Mr. Ismail: Yeah, yeah. Board Member Thompson: ... on the material board. And is that kind of a gold finish? Mr. Ismail: They have several finishes, but most likely we'll be picking a finish that will be matching the cladding on the windows and the doors, as well as the guard rails. Board Member Thompson: Is that the darker...? Mr. Ismail: The darker, yeah. Board Member Thompson: Ah, okay, so they will be dark guard rails. I see. Okay. All right. That's all my questions for now. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: People in the middle hardly ever start. Why don't you? Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I want to disclose to the Board that I've also looked at some additional information on this project with regard to the historic houses on Yale Street. They're on the PAST website. So, I think the City has picked out the ones that are truly historic, and one of them is on the national, one or two of them are on the National Register. I think the City is paying attention to that. We don't have an historic neighborhood here like in Professorville, where there would be design guidelines. We don't have that in this particular neighborhood, however. I think my main concerns on the project are the location of the trash because it's next to one of the bedrooms, and... Mr. Ismail: Actually, on the updated drawings, we actually relocated those to the back, behind the bike lockers. Board Member Lew: Great. Okay, excellent. That's one. Two is the, the driveway width is only eight feet, and that might be fine for the Hollywood strips, if you're only parking in the back, and if nobody is ever parked on the driveway itself. But, I mean, I think normally I would look to something more like 10 feet, so you can actually, if there's a car there, you can walk past the car. That's a concern. Also, in the landscape plan, I think you're showing lawn in between the Hollywood strip driveways. I think my comment is that I think that looks good, but it's really inefficient to irrigate, so you're wasting a lot of water for a very little bit of grass. There are some ground covers that are really tough and don't require a lot of irrigation, and I was trying to look it up in my notes I have for other projects, and I couldn't find it. But I think there are recommendations out there for that. And similarly with the turfstone in the back. I think of all of my neighbors, only maybe 10 percent park in the garage. So, if you've got turfstone in back and people have parked there, I don't think that's going to work very well with the irrigation. I think that's another concern of mine. I think I'm okay with the buildings. Generally, to get more compatibility with the neighbors, I would ideally prefer siding and a steeper-pitched roof, but I don't think that our zoning really requires that in this particular case. I was looking through the zoning carefully and I don't think that that's part of the requirements on this particular site, so I think I can recommend approval otherwise. I think that's all that I have. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. David. Oh, it should be Peter. Going from the middle, out. Vice Chair Baltay: Very well. Thank you for the proposal, the presentation, and thank you, Alex. I'm going to follow up on what you were saying, vis-a-vie the driveway being narrow. I have more fundamental issues with the basic site planning here. I don't think the garage the way it's oriented works, in the sense that certainly from the farther back space, it's next to impossible to get out of that without backing all the way down that driveway, and then the driveway only being eight feet wide makes it a very challenging task. It seems to me that you could rotate the garage and push it to the other side of the property where it is facing directly on the driveway, and then you might be able to back out in a hammerhead turn and turnaround and still use that space to accommodate your other parking. Then, when I was thinking about this more, I saw an earlier application you'd made with a totally different site plan, where you had in the middle between two separate buildings a whole parking arrangement, which seemed to make a lot more sense to me. And it just really left me scratching my head, thinking that you just fundamentally don't have a very good site plan here. You're covering up most of the property with this driveway, then trying to hide it as turfstone, and then, making it also function as the entrance to the back unit, pretty well ensuring that nobody is every going to actually drive back there because it's so tight to get back there, or to turn around, and to have to back back down the driveway. A lot of places just don't work, to my way of thinking. I’m sorry to have to say that to you, but at a core level, I don't think the site planning is really functioning well enough. I'd like to address a second comment I have, which again Alex touched on, and I think I draw a different conclusion. I don't think the building is compatible to the neighborhood. It's a neighborhood full of wood siding, detailed, more traditional-looking homes. And you have a very tall façade with not too many openings, and it's just plan plaster all the way through. You're saying it's a contemporary style, but I don't really see it that way. I just see it as being a big plaster box right now. That may be the case, as Alex points out, the zoning code doesn't explicitly prohibit that, but I think it does require us to find that the building is compatible with the neighborhood and fits into the character. City of Palo Alto Page 20 And I just don't think it does. I think it's... It's not a positive addition, the way it will look now as compared to what's there now. You don't have to copy what's there, but I think architecturally the style now is not fitting into anything. It's not really contemporary, and it certainly doesn't pick up on the cues from the charming buildings nearby. I think a wood siding, more detail around the windows, things like that would really help a lot to make it fit in. Or, if you wanted to be more contemporary, that's fine, but then really design it that way. Perhaps change your roof forms a little bit, accentuate the strength of the tall stucco facades. But right now, it's really not doing it for me that way. Last general comment I have is regarding privacy issues. This building is required to meet the individual review guidelines, and as I see it, you're proposing four generous-sized upstairs balconies, which are all... You're in a tight neighborhood, tight conditions here, looking over into our neighbors properties. So, your solution is to put a five-foot privacy screening in front of them. And certainly on the two middle balconies, the ones contained between your upstairs units, you have three solid walls, and then, all you have left on the fourth side facing out is now a five-foot metal screen. That's a very mean type of balcony. I can't imagine it being pleasant to sit there, even more so as the roof eves come in on both sides. The space is maybe seven feet wide and the eve comes in almost two feet on each side. You're left with almost no sunlight, very little view to the outside. I'm left thinking ultimately this will be closed in and made into another part of the living space, or that screening will be torn down, violating our privacy guidelines. It just seems to me an inappropriate place to be putting a balcony. Or, you should be articulating the massing of the buildings such that these are on corners or somehow fitting in better. Right now, they feel like leftover spaces between two upstairs buildings that you're doing to meet the FAR [Floor Area Ratio] or lot coverage requirements. I'll grant you those are onerous and challenging requirements to meet, but they shouldn't be thought of as leftover spaces, which is what I see those balconies doing. I'm going to summarize to my colleagues that I think the site planning doesn't work yet, the building really needs to be more contextually compatible or architecturally different, and I have serious issues about the privacy due to those upstairs balconies. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. David. Board Member Hirsch: I agree with a number of comments already made here. This is a block, it's kind of a unique and wonderful little block by itself. All these buildings on the block have quite an interesting character to them, especially the Painted Lady down the street, a Victorian honey of a building, you know? And I feel very strongly that you could have looked at your neighbors and picked up materials that would relate much better. I don't like the stucco particularly at all on the outside of this building. There are areas of Palo Alto, most of Palo Alto, in fact, where you have significant lots or space to work with, and the neighbors are a variety of styles. But this block is very consistent, and it should remain that way. You could very well have chosen to have a wooden look to the outside. I didn't realize, looking at the roof material color, that it wasn't a tile roof because it tends towards looking like a stucco-tile Spanish-style building, but doesn't make it into that category either. There's plenty of height capability here that you aren't using, and I think a lot of the possibility of making it a taller, more vertical building would give a much better dimension to this building idea. I'm impressed with the kind of planning of taking the same scheme in the front and rotating it around and making it work on both sides in planning. But, I agree with Peter that the question of how you deal with those outside areas on the roof don't seem to work well as an outside balcony, and how you would change that in planning, I'm not sure how you could do that, but I think you need to look seriously at that. This building cries out for a front porch. The proportions of the front of the building are really not pleasant at all. There's a lot of blank wall, one window over a kitchen counter, a corner window, change of window type at that point. I find the whole front to be unsatisfactory. If you look at precedents in all of Palo Alto, you'll find that a front porch and more generous kind of relationship to the street would be very important to this building and would work much better with a wood look to the building, as well. Wood siding, I would say, would be more appropriate to this building, and to this street. I would like you to study, I think, the outside proportions of the windows and bring back a better look to the whole building that way. In particular, when you make a decision to have an entry straight in from the front, and then the other one is in this rather narrow passageway for a vehicle, where perhaps vehicles would be stored -- In fact, you won't have any room to get in that door. But you do have an area in the back of the building where there's a yard between the building and the garage. I don't know why you don't really use that to create an entry City of Palo Alto Page 21 similar, with perhaps a porch as well, that related to that back unit. I really would like to see this building proportioned differently. A higher-pitched roofline would work much, much better in the scale of the street. You have recessed window frames in the stucco wall, whereas, as it was noted, there's a possibility for framing in such a way that you express the window better with a frame that you read on the outside. I think it would be a much preferred way of presenting this kind of a building on this block, and there's no other similar, kind of recessed window frame the way you're showing it. In general, I'm honestly not happy with the way the building looks at all, and I think more of a study of the Palo Alto housing would benefit this considerably, and in fact, more study on that very block, of the relationship to the neighborhood, would give you an opportunity to improve this project when it comes to us again. I'm not... Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: ...not in favor of... Chair Furth: Oh, sorry. Sorry. Board Member Hirsch: ...of voting for the project. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you to the tenant for coming to speak to us. Osma, I completely forgot you. So far to the left. Board Member Thompson: And I went and saw the site and everything. I'll try to keep it short. Mainly everybody said what I've written down here, but in general, I'll just reiterate the ones that I think are important. I agree the façade is lacking. While there is a bit of stucco in the neighborhood, the neighborhood is made interesting by the siding and the paneling, and that level of detail is important for a residential feel. Also, the drawings are a little confusing. It looks like there's two types of railing, but they don't match what's on the material board. And in general, that level of clarity is really important for us to evaluate if this building really works in this context. The rails are rendered as white and they are not going to be white. They are going to be black, or very dark. That's a problem. There's also these extra ornamental elements at the entries that aren't very well detailed. It's a little hard to know exactly what's happening there. I understand it's a level of detail and scale, but in the face of this otherwise very blank wall, I don't think that relationship is very clear, or that it's working. And the material board should also actually have the actual materials versus just pictures. That's important, as well. Agreed that the lawn choice, the choice of using lawn, is not a very good choice, that there are better choices out there that are for water use and aesthetic. I didn't have these notes before, but after having heard them, agree that the narrow driveway is a problem. And the privacy of the balconies is.... I'm an extrovert, so I don't mind hanging out with my neighbors as much, but I think it potentially could be a big problem, that people might try to board up or try to... yeah. People add, like, extra things, and they always keep their windows closed, and that space, while it looks great on plans, not working out in real life. That's all I've got. Chair Furth: Thank you, and apologies. I think part of the... I cannot support this project as submitted, and I'm sorry because I don't like to say no to proposals for housing, even when they're not increasing the housing. One of the interesting things about this is it seems... There are six bedrooms on site now? Seven, according to the audience. This one is eight, possibly ten, of the offices are actually used as bedrooms, which is a lot for a parcel with very little parking and very little bicycle space. My principle concerns are different. Our regulations doesn't protect the street as a historic neighborhood. It might well have been eligible, but College Terrace has not cared to be designated as a protected historic district like Ramona or Professorville. That was, in a sense, a neighborhood choice. The state standards are fairly explicit, and sometimes additional research turns up information that changes the results, but I’m going to defer to the study for the time being. I'll certainly go read it. But my big problem is this, the side of Yale that you're building is on is the boundary of the residential area that is College Terrace. The part of land that Stanford didn't get. Our historic holdout. And it's remarkably consistent. In fact, all those wood- front houses so tight together, it's almost looking like, you know, buildings on a wharf. They go one after City of Palo Alto Page 22 another, sometimes they almost touch. They have wood siding, they have framed windows, they are strongly vertical, and they're fairly simple. They stay in their boxes. They don't go off in odd directions. And to me, this building doesn't do any of those things. I will say the roofing material is consistent with the neighborhood, but in that neighborhood, stucco tends to signal multiple family or commercial across the street. On your side of the street, it's wood. This suggests to me the erosion of the residential neighborhood. It makes a hole. It's like there's a gap in the smile. I'll stop with the belabored metaphors. It doesn't meet our standards for requiring compatibility. I agree that we don't have the explicit requirements and neighborhood preservation standards that we do in some others for materials, but I think it fails to meet our other review standards. I think the driveway doesn’t work. I think the orientation of the door onto the driveway doesn't work. I think the... And when I say "work," I mean that I think people living there will have difficulty using them without conflicts with each other. You try to design so as to minimize the irritations. I'm concerned that the open space does not appear to be functional to me, and open space is not just supposed to be a square on a plan. It's supposed to be something that adds pleasure to the neighborhood and the users because it's beautifully planted, or you can sit there, or there's a significant tree, not just something that meets our minimum dimensions. I can't be more consistent with that. I can tell you that I spent a lot of time working with historic preservation rules and they don't require that new construction look like it's old. In fact, they prefer that it not look fake-old. So, I can imagine a building that uses wood siding, and wood-framed windows, and a better relationship to the street, and more clearly signifies we're in College Terrace, that looked very modern, but it was clearly done by a designer who respected what's there and tried to design a building that not only looked good for itself, but made its neighbors continue to look strong. I wonder if it's a little too big. When I hear that the driveway is too narrow to be functional, and this is a tight lot, I think that maybe it's a little too intense a development for what actually fits on this lot. Also, the landscaping as proposed doesn't meet our standards, which require, where possible, the use of regional native plant materials that provide good habitat. I can't see any reason why that's not possible on this site. Staff, since we are not prepared to recommend approval today, judging by the comments received, what kind of motion would you like? What would you like us to do? Ms. Gerhardt: I would ask that we continue to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Thank you. MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this project to a date uncertain. Board Member Hirsch: I second that. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye. Opposed, none. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY WITH A VOTE OF 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you. It's not unusual for us to be unable to approve a project on its first vision, and I hope that working with staff, you can come to a project that we will be able to approve. Thank you for coming to speak to us, and we will go on to our next item. Before we do that, I need to say that I will not participate in the next public hearing item because I live at 216 Everett, and therefore, live in the neighborhood. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2018. Chair Furth: Maybe while staff is getting ready for the next item, we could review the Architectural Review Board meeting minutes for October 18, 2018. Any comments? City of Palo Alto Page 23 Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I'll bite into that, sure. I think the minutes for the meeting itself are fine, but I'm quite concerned about the way the subcommittee hearing has been presented. This is the second time we've talked about it. Right now, it's very confusing which items are being discussed in the subcommittee meetings. If you read it, it states one of the projects and has a few comments about what happened. It doesn't say which committee members were involved in that hearing. And then, below that, it segues into comments which I think are about the police station project, but it doesn't say that it's that project. And again, it doesn't identify who is speaking. It seems to me just deficient. We need to have minutes that capture that stuff. Ms. Gerhardt: So, let me ask... [crosstalk] ... Board Member Lew: ... on page 17 of the minutes. Ms. Gerhardt: Page 17 of what minutes? Board Member Lew: And there are two subcommittee items, and one of them... Ms. Gerhardt: Are we talking about October 18th? Board Member Lew: October 18th. And one of them should be the public safety building, and it's not... There's no header for that public safety building. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, I can take a closer look at that. We don't normally list out... I mean, we can list who the subcommittee was. We don't normally list out who said what. It's meant to be more of a summary. But we can definitely put who was there. Vice Chair Baltay: I think it's important just to list which board members were making that decision. Ms. Gerhardt: Certainly. Chair Furth: Thank you. You can add those. Also, at one point in the sign discussion -- I'm sorry, I've lost it, I think it's on page 8 -- it says "ready" instead of "read." Talking about reading signs and it says "ready." I'll try to find that and let you know. That's just a clerical error. Board Member Lew: Peter, do you want to approve the minutes as corrected, or do you want them to come back? Vice Chair Baltay: I think we should approve them and let staff correct it because it's really been quite, quite late now. Chair Furth: Yeah, a long time. MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I'll move that we approve the minutes as corrected. Board Member Lew: I will second that. Chair Furth: Motion by Baltay, second by Lew. All those in favor say aye. Opposed, none. Thank you. Maybe we have time to do one more set? 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 10, 2019. Chair Furth: Okay, January 10th. Let's see, that was the one on 4256 El Camino and 380 Cambridge. That was a long meeting. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Thompson: I'll move that we approve the minutes. Oh, sorry. Chair Furth: Any comments or changes? Vice Chair Baltay: I noticed one thing, I think it was this meeting, where we were discussing with Randy Popp -- And fortunately, they only came to me yesterday, digitally, so I don't have a page to reference to, but there was a comment in there where Randy Popp and I were discussing something, and a whole paragraph was attributed to me when I think it was Randy speaking. I have to dig it up. Give me a few minutes to find it, I guess. Chair Furth: I think that's a clerical, which we can correct afterwards. Staff is nodding. Vice Chair Baltay: Then go ahead with your motion. MOTION Board Member Thompson: All right. I'll move that we approve those minutes for January 10th, with the correction by Baltay. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: Motion by Thompson, second by Baltay. All those in favor say aye. Okay. No opposition. MOTION PASSES 5-0. 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 17, 2019. Chair Furth: And the final set is January 17, 2018. Any comments, corrections, etc.? Board Member Thompson: I'll abstain. I was not present. Vice Chair Baltay: I believe we had a subcommittee item on that one as well, and again, there's no record of that in the minutes. Again, I think that could be corrected without coming back to us, but it is important. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Lew: The subcommittee item on page 63 of the minutes, the subcommittee reviewed the details, the driveway gate and the height of the light poles. And also, on page 56 of the minutes, which is with regards to one of the cell projects, David had referenced several times the CAC report. I think what he intended to say was the CTC report, which is Columbia Telecommunications Corporation, and they're a city independent consultant. That occurs multiple times. Chair Furth: And it should be spelled out the first time it occurs. Not by the speaker, but by the transcriber. MOTION Board Member Lew: I'll make a motion that we approve the minutes for January 17, 2019, as corrected. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Hirsch: Second it. City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Furth: All right. All those in favor say...? Let's see. Motion by Lew, second by Hirsch - Is that right? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye. We are caught up on our minutes, the first time in many months. Thank you. MOTION PASSES 4-0-1. Chair Furth: I am going to ask to be excused for the balance of the meeting. I will leave it to my colleagues to take care of everything else. We will have a five-minute break, and then we'll get to the rest of it. Apologize for the delay. All we can tell you is we're doing better than we usually do. [Chair Furth left the meeting.] [The Board took a short break.] STUDY SESSION 4. Various Sites (250 Hamilton Avenue in database) [17PLN-00398]: Request by Sure Site, on Behalf of AT&T, for a Preliminary Architectural Review of the Deployment of 17 Small Cell Wireless Communication Facilities on Utility Poles and Streetlights in the Public Right of Way, in Downtown North and University South neighborhoods and adjacent to Monroe Park, Green Acres and Town & Country. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Formal Application will be Subject to CEQA Review. Vice Chair Baltay: ... a preliminary study for small cell nodes at 250 Hamilton Avenue. It's a request by Sure Site on behalf of AT&T for a preliminary architectural review of the deployment of 17 small cell wireless communication facilities on utility poles and streetlights in the public right-of-way in Downtown North and University South neighborhoods, and adjacent to Monroe Park, Green Acres and Town & Country. Staff report, please. Rebecca Atkinson, Project Planner: Good morning, board members. The project description for this preliminary... Oh, Rebecca Atkinson, Planner. The project description for this preliminary architectural review is as described. I'd like to thank AT&T for filing a preliminary architectural review application, for many reasons, including the transparency notice and opportunity to provide early comment that this application provides to members of the public and the ARB, prior to the formal applications coming in. Thank you for that. In terms of a project overview, the number of nodes that you see in your project application and project plans are 17. It would be one or multiple clusters coming in at formal application. The locations are generally within the downtown area, University South and Downtown North, and adjacent to other neighborhoods, and adjacent to Town and Country. One node is on El Camino Real near Monroe Park, and another node is one Arastradero near Green Acres. There might be future phases -- we don't know -- potentially up to 33 nodes, and currently AT&T operates macro sites and has an existing DAS system. Here are a couple maps. These maps are also attachments to your staff report and it shows the basic location of the nodes and distribution. AT&T proposes to utilize existing streetlight and wood utility pole locations, and there are a variety of design configurations that they will review with you today. Please pay special attention to the specific equipment proposed for the purposes that the equipment differs in size and capacity, and as such, influences aesthetics. I'd like to highlight that this application will debut 5G to Palo Alto, in which case the majority of nodes would have both 4G and 5G antennas and radios. Staff outlined some anticipated design changes for streetlight and wood utility pole designs on packet pages 78 and 81. If you are interested in seeing the 5G design more closely than what is presented is the staff report on page 80 and in the project plans, we do have a photo in our site presentation of the San Francisco 5G mock-up that AT&T provided to us. I just showed in the staff presentation some of the basics of the proposed configurations, and AT&T will review these designs more specifically. While processing applications before us, staff is also continuing to look into the latest City of Palo Alto Page 26 technologies and designs elsewhere. Staff is beginning to see designs for streetlights with radios integrated into the pole, and access through panels with top-mounted antennas, as well as poles that also host the radios and antennas within the poles themselves. Staff also noticed emerging new radios that continue to become smaller than what we have seen in some other applications. Departments are reviewing the technical site constraints at each of the node locations, such as trenching relative to street trees, the presence of underground basement, and noise and compliance with FCC safety standards, will be reviewed with formal applications. What we hope to achieve today is to receive detailed early feedback from the public and Architectural Review Board members. We also hope to discuss the key questions from AT&T on siting, design configurations and screening. These questions will be posed in their presentation, as well as on packet page 96. We'd also like to discuss topics raised in the staff report, including node design and screening, nodes in scenic areas, nodes proposed near historic buildings and districts, and nodes with marketing banners. Please see packet pages 82 through 87 for identification of some of the specific nodes that intersect with each of the aforementioned topics. For further clarification, staff reviewed the alternative to the corner locations presented in the project plans and it appears that these alternative locations might be less visible in general and follow throughs on original ARB feedback on other applications that corners are not preferred. While these would be locations that were alternative to Node 33, Node 34 and Node 35, and AT&T will be outlining those alternatives in their presentation. Staff also had a question for ARB members, and primarily the AT&T team, staff had a question regarding the wood pole design on Encina: Given that the equipment orientation and placement does not currently comply with standard clearance and other requirements, is it possible to utilize the configurations similar to streetlights on this wood pole? For preliminary architecture review, it is an informal and non-binding application and there will be no motion that aggregates ARB member feedback. At places, I will provide you copies of correspondence that we've received since the staff report publication, as well as additional materials. And I'd be happy to answer any questions you might have. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Rebecca. Though this is not a quasi-judicial matter, I'd like to offer anyone a chance to disclose any communications, or tell us if you've visited the site. David? Board Member Hirsch: None. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited all but one of the sites on Tuesday. Vice Chair Baltay: Osma? Board Member Thompson: I've had no communications and I haven't had a chance to go to all the sites. Vice Chair Baltay: I visited the sites. I also received emails from, I guess engineering companies who proposed various kinds of vaults and ways of pushing forward other technologies for this, which I've asked Rebecca to photocopy and pass out to the Board, just so you can see. I also looked into some the radio equipment that's available from Ericsson, the company the applicant is proposing, and this is in response to information I saw in the packet, but there is an additional radio being manufactured now for underground use, which I thought interesting for the Board to see. I'd like to disclose that that information is out there. With that, the applicant can make a presentation. You'll have 10 minutes. If you could state and spell your name, please. Angela Kung, AT&T: Hi, Board Members, thank you very much. [Setting up presentation]. My name is Angela Kung. I'm a director of external affairs with AT&T. [spells name]. I'm here to give you a little bit of an overview first about just why we're here, and then we'll go into the most important part, which is obviously the design aspect of it. Right now, you all know, I'm sure, demand for wireless is on the rise. Everybody has a cell phone; 77 percent have smartphones now. We have households that rely primarily on wireless. There's no more landlines. Some houses still have them, but 60 percent of households are wireless, don't have landlines now. And 76 percent of 911 calls are on wireless phones. So, data and the ability for capacity is becoming more important than ever, and especially in a town like Palo Alto -- as you City of Palo Alto Page 27 guys know -- with small businesses, 98 percent of small businesses rely on wireless technology. What we have been able to do is provide this -- and you'll see here, it's a small cell. And what small cell -- just to give you an overview of it -- is basically, it's offloading from a macro. Macros are what you historically see on, they're kind of disguised as trees, or on top of buildings. What this is doing is this is taking off capacity from there so that more people can be on their phones, doing whatever, be it data, or be it calls. You'll see here a macro is much bigger, but it's a longer distance. And then, you'll see that a current small cell 4G is about, it's the light pole standard, and it goes up to 1,200 feet. Then, when we get down to 5G, it's still a light pole, so it's the height of a light pole, but then you're going have an even shorter distance, but it's able to do more with technology. This is kind of a comparison of the three different heights, next to a human being. You'll see here that, this is able to show you how it works, from the macro to the small cell to the user itself. We're really excited to unfold this technology here in Palo Alto, but also, 5G is part of this. The reason why this is so important is the new technology is going to be for internet. It uses things for AV, for all, kind of the next step. What 4G and 5G are able to do, because we're able to do it on small cell, this technology is able to be smaller, better, and also less intrusive. What we have been able to do here with our 17 sites is we're going to show you how the design we have and the options we have, and we're hoping that we get your feedback and thought on this actual design. I'm going to have Laura Meiners from Sure Site who is, on behalf of AT&T, is going to talk about the actual designs themselves. Laura Meiners, Sure Site Consulting: Thank you, Andrea. My name is Laura Meiners [spells name] with Sure Site Consulting, representing Ericsson and AT&T, to present this preliminary review application for the deployment of 17 small cell wireless sites. We have been following the progress of other wireless carriers and we are taking feedback from those hearings into consideration. We are looking forward to your recommendations and input on our preliminary design prior to moving forward with our formal application submittal. As we move through the following slides, please note that everything presented is also in the staff report. The slide showing now is the list of our 17 sites. Three are 4G only. Thirteen have 4G and 5G equipment on streetlight poles. We only have one wood pole with 4G and 5G proposed. As Rebecca mentioned earlier, these are mostly in the Downtown North and University South neighborhoods. We do not have any sites adjacent to residential zones or residences. This is a map of sites. Rebecca also showed you a map of the sites. This is presented to help visualize where the sites are located. This slide provides some history on how we came to our proposed design. We have received staff comments and recognize the constraints shown. Addressing the constraints, we recognize that we are presented with opportunities to improve our design, including providing a uniform, streamlined aesthetic design for all sites; concealing the 4G antennas and radios in one shroud on top of the pole; concealing the 5G antennas and radios also on one shroud just below the 4G antenna; and, installing all other equipment in underground vaults or pole boxes. This is the slide showing our corner pole alternates. For these three sites, the primary (inaudible) selected is a pole located on a corner. This is discouraged per planning guidelines, as Rebecca said, so the three alternate sites are presented for your consideration. This slide shows our most recent design configurations. I would like to point out that we have received comments from utility staff to remove the disconnect box on the face of the pole as shown on the most recently submitted plans. We are now proposing to install a fuse disconnect in the adjacent pole box. In the following slides, we have equipment specifications shown that call out the dimensions of the proposed equipment. We are happy to discuss the proposed equipment further with the Board. This is our Configuration #1, which is our light pole with just 4G equipment proposed on the top of the pole. The shroud seen in the photo contains the antenna and the radios. Here is the equipment specification for the shroud containing the radios and the antenna. Our primary design option for light poles Configuration #2 is our 4G plus our 5G equipment. This is the primary design option for 13 of our light pole sites. It includes all equipment and one 4G shroud on top of the pole, plus one 5G shroud located below the mast arm. Here is our equipment spec sheet for the 5G site. Configuration #3 is our wood pole. We are proposing 4G and 5G equipment on the pole, and enclosing all equipment in one 4G shroud on top of the pole, plus one 5G shroud side mounted to the pole. We have checked the clearances and we do believe they meet the current clearances, but we are happy to take any recommendations on the design of this wood pole. This is the equipment spec for the 4G antenna on the wood pole. This is our primary design option for the radio shroud on the wood pole. We do have an alternate radio shroud option presented on slide 23. For the light poles, we do have other alternate designs we would like to City of Palo Alto Page 28 present, including this Alternate Design #1, the side-arm design. This includes space for four radios and the radio will be mounted above the pole. Also, our holster design, which is our Light Pole Alternate Design #2. This includes space for five radios and the antenna mounted to the side as shown. Here is our alternate radio shroud for our wood pole. This shroud proposes a decreased height but increased depth and width. This slide presents some questions for the ARB, also shown in the project description. Thank you for your time and consideration. This concludes our presentation and we are open for questions and discussion. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Do we have any public speaker comments, or cards? Seeing that we have no public comments, I'd like to see if there are any questions from board members. Board Member Hirsch: On the alternatives on the wood pole, what are we being asked to review today? Your preference on those...? Could you go back and show us clearly which ones are the alternate? Ms. Meiners: Can someone help me with the slide? [Locating slide]. This is our primary design option. Board Member Hirsch: Where is that on the pole? Do you have the elevation somewhere? Ms. Meiners: I'm sorry, the presentation is being slow. The proposal is shown here on the photo sim. It's located below the power line. Is that the power line or the com line? I think it's a com line, actually. I believe the bottom is, the bottom of the shroud is proposed at, I think, 11 feet. I think we can move that a little bit closer to the com line if necessary. We also have this alternate radio shroud that could be mounted up to 16 feet or so. Board Member Hirsch: There are different elevations to other connections to wood poles. Is that correct to say? Or are they all standard elevations so that you can fit your radios into areas that are absolutely clear of other competition with other utilities? Ms. Meiners: If I'm understanding your question, you're asking about the clearances to the com line, or...? I'm not... Board Member Hirsch: I'm just curious about why you make a choice of one of these as your preference versus the others. Vice Chair Baltay: David, let's get to that as we have a discussion. I'm looking for more focused questions. Does anybody have... Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: ... anything specific? I would like then to ask you to address quickly because we did have a member of the public speaking regarding radiation from your cells. And that is not, I understand, our purview. Nonetheless, we had somebody make the effort to come here. Could you address, please, that public member's concern about having it close to them? Ms. Meiners: I can do that. We definitely want to address the concern to the public, and we did prepare some preliminary emissions reports and submitted them to staff. According to those reports, the emissions are less than one percent of the allowable public exposure limit, including 0.35 percent for a person standing on the ground, and 0.89 percent for a person directly adjacent on a second story area. Vice Chair Baltay: At what distance is it that amount? Ms. Meiners: I believe it's 10 feet. City of Palo Alto Page 29 Vice Chair Baltay: Ten feet, okay. Thank you. Last question I have, quickly, if you could tell us about the disconnect switches on the streetlight poles that are now being relocated in the ground. Is that absolutely correct? Ms. Meiners: Yes. Yeah. We had received initial comments from the utility staff that they wanted the disconnect box being mounted to the face of the pole consistently at eight feet. During a meeting subsequent to that -- I believe it was earlier this month, actually -- Utility staff said that they would prefer if we remove the disconnect box from the face of the pole and install it underground in the pole box. And we can do that. That's possible. It's called a fuse disconnect. And we will go forward with that. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Can I add a question to that? How big is that disconnect switch? Ms. Meiners: The one that we are no longer using? I'm not sure because we're not using it anymore. The fuse disconnect is very small in the box. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: The switch, David, was about six inches square that was mounted on the light pole. But I'm hearing you say that switch is not any longer part of the proposal, or will not be. Ms. Meiners: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, great. I'd like to bring this back to the Board. This is just an informational-type meeting so we're just offering comments. I'd like to, after everybody says their piece, see if we can get some clarity of direction for the applicant, if it's confusing. Lastly, I'd like to point out to my colleagues that on the applicant's description on page 96, there is a list of questions, 1 through 5. I think they are good questions and we should be cognizant and try to address our comments towards those, as well as anything else. With that said, David, why don't you give us a start? Board Member Hirsch: I mean, the clarity of this presentation is quite amazing to me. The consistency of each description is very clear in your.... It's why I didn't visit the site, because I think you told me enough information right here that one could say immediately that it answers most of your questions, most of a question one might have. Certainly my questions anyhow. I think this equipment is, may I say, considerably better than what we've seen before. I wish it would become a standard for Palo Alto. And this is really important to say because the City really has to speak up as to what is going to be placed on their streets in neighborhoods. In fact, that decision really should be made by the Council, I guess, and I would urge that that statement is underlined in our comments today. I think we need to get there soon because these are going to happen. This is an essential change in our technology to date. Undoubtedly, five years from now it will be very different, but right now, I think it's very, very important to make this decision. And so many other people had concerns in our last presentation. I would hope that the City would react to this right away. I urge Planning to make that happen. I really don't have too much to say. I think a disconnect switch is a very reasonable-sized element. Peter mentions that he has seen other equipment that might be even a little bit smaller than what you're presenting, and we would always look for the smallest possible to achieve what you need to achieve. But I'm incredibly pleased by the presentation. Obviously, you have a little bit of an advantage here because you have all these downtown poles that are steel poles that you can wire through the middle. You don't have exposed cabling on the outside of the wood pole. The wood pole is always going to be the question, I think, throughout the city, but I think we need to work very hard together to find minimal impact on the environments in our neighborhoods. That's really all I have to say. Vice Chair Baltay: David, could I get you to address some of these questions? They're talking about which arrangement on these light poles are we interested in. And I hear you being positive, but which one are you positive about? City of Palo Alto Page 30 Board Member Hirsch: Yes, okay, so, to repeat what I was saying before, there is such limited space on these poles when you have all these other facilities connecting to them. I would always say let's go for the most minimal one, minimal impact. Although aesthetically, I kind of like the technical ones that are more exposed. I think in the end, for this community, it would be better to minimize the impact on the pole with mass of radio enclosures. Probably I would say the simplest one of the three is the one to choose. It will just be less visible. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Alex? 2:02:15 Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I think many of the locations are good. I think a lot of those locations are mid-block with evergreen trees. I think many of the locations work well. The ones that I made notes of fall into, I guess I have four categories. One is, there are some that are next to three- and four-story buildings, so, for example, 26, 27 and 31. And the one that I will highlight is, for me, 27, which is the one at the Walgreens building at University and Bryant, that there's a balcony directly opposite the proposed pole. The balcony, I think, is at the height of the antenna, so, to me, that is a concern. There are some that are on very narrow sidewalks, and I think those are 24 and 31. Many places in Downtown, we have 12-foot sidewalks, so you're going to be 10 feet away from the building. But in some places, we only have... I don't know exact dimensions, maybe six or seven feet, or eight feet. Those are the old streets that have not been widened like some of the newer streets. I think that's a concern. And then, it presents the challenge of, like, what does this look like up close? If I'm six feet away from this shroud, what do I see? And I've been on the Board for a long time, we've never really looked at them that closely. Usually we looked at the mock-up and they're up at the top of the telephone pole, but I think that we would actually need to see something up close, especially if you've got ventilation screens on there. Like, what is that? It looks fine in the rendering, but I really want to see something up close. Third is that I think there were some that are on corners that were exposed. I think Rebecca mentioned that. I only looked at two... There are ones that are exposed, some of them on corners, and Rebecca mentioned those. The two that popped out at me were 34 and 35. I think, Rebecca, you mentioned 33, and I looked at 33 and thought that was okay. There are some that are just in open areas, like the one on Arastradero is very open. Without trees. And then, I think my last comment is on color. You're proposing things on new and existing, or on existing poles. And then, you have some streetlights in Palo Alto, it's a mix of all different things. And I like the ones that are generally, like, the dark green color, but, for example, 35, which is I think at High and Everett, is a brand-new pole. It's shiny aluminum. And then, the thought of adding a shiny aluminum shroud on top of that just seems to me, like, not appealing. You proposed alternate locations, but I haven't reviewed any of the alternate locations. I would just say that I think the color is a concern to me for the ones that are very bright and reflective. I did not look at number 38 on Encina in person. I would just say as a caution, I think the Board as a whole has a problem with the wood pole ones. Sometimes it's really the nitty-gritty things. Like, the rendering may be okay, but the amount of standoff from the pole, if there are exposed wires, or anything like that. Usually we've had trouble with those, but we've had some approved. Tried to minimize the amount of standoff, tried to all the wiring. I think that's where I am on there. I don't have a strong preference between the different types of, the different cabinet boxes that you have shown there. For me, it's more of the... I think I would have to see it in person. I think the issues that I've noticed before is, like, if it's overhanging a sidewalk, and then the clearance to pedestrians. The ones where I've seen, where you've trying to overhang something above the sidewalk, it's only like nine feet or so, seem way too low to me. I really do like to have them up taller if possible. I think that's all I have, prepared comments. And then, I didn't notice this list of questions on page 96, but I will take a look at that while some of the other Board members are speaking. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Osma? Board Member Thompson: Hi there. I was looking at the alternate location for 33, 34, 35. Based off of what I can see off of Google maps and how you've rendered them here, I think your original proposal location poles are furthest from adjacent buildings. The alternates that you've proposed seem to be a lot City of Palo Alto Page 31 closer to either residential or office buildings, so I would disagree with the alternate locations just based off of that quick analysis. That would be my response to one of your questions, question number 4 about the alternate. I don't like all three of the alternates, basically. Going to question 1 about which design option is preferable, Attachment D, and in your presentation, don't have renders of what your alternates would be. Is that right? You're showing me just this object, and I have to guess what this object is replacing in your render, rendering. I think that makes it hard. I think Board Member Hirsch was asking, for example, for the alternate wood pole equipment, what equipment is that piece replacing? It sounds like it's replacing the bigger one with the smaller one, so that wouldn't make sense to me. For the holster solution, I don't exactly understand where that goes on the pole. I don't know if the rest of the Board would be okay, but I was going to ask the applicant to explain exactly how that goes and where it goes on the pole because that could go anywhere. And I actually don't even know what scale this is at, if it's holding a bunch of stuff. If you could provide clarification on that and for the side-arm radios, what object... Vice Chair Baltay: Osma, could you finish anything else you have to comment on, and then we'll get to that. Board Member Thompson: Sure. Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to go over that in more detail. Board Member Thompson: Okay. For the wood pole shroud, it looks very messy as you proposed it. I'm not ready to approve that design, or not ready to believe that that's the best solution for that wood pole design. If you just look at the drawings, and the rendering is a little blurry. If you look at the drawings, it shows the equipment a bit more in detail. It looks like there's a lot of extra surface-mounted stuff in addition to the equipment, like the conduit. I thought that was extra structure for a second, but I think it's just conduit. I think that could be better resolved aesthetically. For the uniform design for all sites, in general, I think Alex has a point. If there's some poles that are extra shiny and that is not a good thing, I would say it makes more sense to do something that is site-specific, as a general thing. Your question on number 5 about shroud skirts over the mast arm, I'll need more clarification on that when we get the applicant to come back. And then, you have a secondary 4G equipment enclosure type, which is the art- wrapped utility box. I actually think that's pretty cool. In Los Angeles, they have a bunch of these in Downtown, and the art on them is incredible. It really makes the streetscape so interesting. I saw one that was, it looked like a stack of hundred dollar bills, but I didn't know it was a utility box. I just thought it was just a really cool piece of art. I think that's a nice opportunity, and if we're stuck with having to do something like that, that's a nice way to make lemonade out of lemons. Okay. I'll (inaudible) for now. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, what I'd like to do is, before I offer any comments of my own, is to step through with the Board. I see two different conditions here. One is antennas and radio equipment mounted on streetlight poles, and the other is a wood utility pole. On the streetlight pole, I see three different proposals of how to put the equipment and the antennas on it. I'd like to make sure we all understand which of those three options are and get each Board Member to express a preference. If I could, with the applicant coming forward, help you, my understanding is that the first option is a shroud on top of the streetlight which contains both the radios and the antenna. That's Alternate D-1. Am I reading that correctly? Ms. Meiners: Attachment D-1, I think. [Locating slide] Vice Chair Baltay: I'm looking, to my colleagues, on page 100 of our packet, has a black-and-white small image showing that shroud on top of a light pole. That is one of the options. Staff, is this...? We just want to get a really clear understanding of what's going on. Is that correct? Option D-1. Ms. Meiners: Right. City of Palo Alto Page 32 Board Member Thompson: Wait. My understanding is that D-1 is the 4G, and then, the other one is not an option. It's 4G and 5G. It's a different type altogether. Vice Chair Baltay: I think that's right. The 5G is a separate type of shroud and a different configuration. Board Member Thompson: Okay. I guess what we want clarification is, what is the alternate to 4G? Ms. Meiners: Okay. This is our 4G-only site, as proposed. This is our primary design option for our 4G- only site. If we go down here.... [navigating slides] ... Okay, so, here is our Light Pole Alternate Design #1 for our 4G radios. This basically would go on the side of the pole near the top, and the dimensions are... what site is it? Yeah, this is, basically it would be mounted on the side with the antenna mounted on the top, which would be a shorter antenna than what is proposed currently. If you're concerned about the height of our equipment, you'd probably prefer this option or the other alternate. Vice Chair Baltay: To clarify, option attachment D-2 has some sort of side-mounted radio equipment with an antenna still on top of the pole. Okay. And that includes this thing you call the "holster." That's just another way of side-mounting equipment? Ms. Meiners: Right. The holster design does include the 4G antenna, however. Vice Chair Baltay: I see, that's the 4G antenna as well as the equipment on one device. Ms. Meiners: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. You can see that lack of clear images, showing what these look like, is leaving us all befuddled. When you come back we would like to see... Ms. Meiners: You would like us... [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: Well, if we want to go with that. I'm going to try to give you clear direction of what you should put your time into. The third option, as I understand it, is some sort of street boxes. Am I reading that right? For 4G equipment? That's the art boxes? Board Member Thompson: Please, before we go away from this design option alternate on page 106, I just wanted to bring the Board's attention to this little tiny picture that's in the bottom-right corner. That looks like a little rendering of what that might be. Ms. Meiners: That was included in the spec sheet, and that is not an accurate representation of what that would look like because it would have an antenna also on the top. Board Member Thompson: And the side-holster one doesn't have a little render. Ms. Meiners: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. For 4G, the third option is ground-mounted equipment, and what you would be proposing is art-wrapped utility boxes. That's a... Ms. Meiners: We are calling the... excuse me. We are calling the design options that are acceptable to AT&T but not acceptable to staff the secondary design options. Anything under secondary design option is not acceptable by staff, including the art-wrapped utility boxes, which is not allowed per Transportation staff. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Then I'd like to point out, if we're still talking about street poles, the 5G equipment, which is the newer technology, is only being proposed as a different shape shrouded equipment with an antenna that's mounted near the top of the utility pole. What page is that image on? What would that look like? Amy French: Packet page 80. Vice Chair Baltay: Page 80. Yes, that's very good, Amy. On packet page 80, we can see what a 5G antenna looks like. It's mounted just below the mast of the arm holding the light head itself. And there is no option for 5G equipment? That's what the choice is? Ms. Meiners: Not at this time. However, we are amenable to receiving any recommendation from the Board. Board Member Thompson: Is this image 5G and 4G together or just 5G? Ms. Meiners: This specific antenna shroud is just for 4G. The image... Board Member Thompson: 5G. Ms. Meiners: I'm sorry, 5G. Oh, that is 5G and 4G. The 4G is on top and the 5G is around the pole. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, then, I'd like to state that, just to give an example for the rest of my colleagues, is that I prefer the pole-mounted equipment on top of the light pole in a shroud, even if it's a little bit taller. And I'm okay with the 5G antenna the way it's shown in the rendering there. I think that would be a good standard to show the City. I do not like the idea of a side-arm mounted radio, and I do not like the ground-mounted equipment. I don't think those meet our standards. I'd like the rest of us to comment on those choices, please. David? Board Member Hirsch: What are the boxes on that illustration 80? Those are down below. They have nothing to do with this particular equipment? Ms. Atkinson: I can answer that question. The photo on page 80 is of a mock-up from San Francisco of 4G. An antenna and radios, as well as 5G antennas and radios. And instead of having the radios and other equipment as proposed for Palo Alto underneath the 4G antenna, some of the equipment is actually mounted on the pole here. This was an actual mock-up that we wanted to show, you know, absent a mock-up here in Palo Alto. But it's my understanding from the visuals and the elevations in the preliminary project plans that the equipment that's shown in this photo as side-mounted to the pole would instead be top-mounted. Board Member Hirsch: Only on top. Okay. That's perfect. Vice Chair Baltay: What is your preference, David? Board Member Hirsch: On the top. Vice Chair Baltay: And are you okay with the 5G equipment and the shroud proposed? Board Member Hirsch: The way it's aligned below, absolutely. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: Now I'm confused. Most of these are supposed to be the 4G and 5G, right? You're saying 13 of them are 4G and 5G? But that doesn't seem to match up with the simulations, right? The simulations are showing mostly the 4G option. City of Palo Alto Page 34 Board Member Thompson: Yeah, it doesn't match up. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: Much of our work has been concerned with 4G installations at this meeting and in previous ones. Board Member Lew: I know, but the problem is that this project is really about the 5G, right? Most of the locations that we're looking at? Vice Chair Baltay: Most of the locations seem to have some 5G component, and all of those I think are that shroud-mounted near the top of the pole. Oval-shaped. Ms. Atkinson: I think what would be most helpful for the applicant and staff in regard to the bigger picture is any kind of feedback about the mounting of the 5G equipment because it is being debuted here in the preliminary for the first time in Palo Alto. And any comments that you might have about the projects planned as proposed, because the applicant team did select what their primary design configuration would be, and also wanted to show other design options that had been considered, in case you wanted to add and further supplement anything. Staff is very much interested in as much feedback as you could possibly provide, as well, because it will all go into formal applications that are anticipated to come quite soon. Thank you. And staff's questions are actually outlined in the staff report. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Okay, well, I'm generally okay with the pole top-mounted antenna, but it seems to me the San Francisco mock-up is a contemporary pole, cobra head pole, and most of the poles downtown are traditional, fluted poles. I think in the past, we've had some other operator, some other companies propose pole top-mounted equipment, but they would replace the whole pole. But I think this, as I read the plans, you're just attaching things to existing poles. I think the San Francisco model may be problematic. I think that I need to see some sort of mock-up or sample of the shroud that you're proposing with the vents because I've never seen anything with the vents before. And if there are screens or louvers on the vents, I am interested in that. And I have no other recommendations until I see that. I think I'm fine if City staff doesn't want to consider any of the secondary alternates. I'm fine with that. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Osma? Board Member Hirsch: Peter, sorry... (inaudible). Vice Chair Baltay: David, it's Osma's turn, please. Osma, I want to hear what you think about these. Sorry, everybody, I want to keep us focused on stepping through this. It's so confusing. I want to go piece by piece. The question now is these options for the 4G equipment and whether the 5G shroud is acceptable. Osma? Board Member Thompson: Okay, so, from what I understand, the image that we're looking at on page 80 of our report would be an alternate to everything that's in the drawings right now. As it's proposed. At the moment, I think the 5G equipment that sort of sticks out, I think could actually be better integrated into the pole. It's close, it's almost there. It's almost compact, but I actually think it could be even more compact and streamlined so that you could get a really simple partee of, like, a whole pole. And it sounds like from what we've seen that that's possible at other places. I would say I'm not yet satisfied with the image that we see on page 80, even though I would say that aesthetically it's the closely to anything... It's the closest to what I think it could be, out of all the other design options. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. David, what were you going to say? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, sorry. On your A.33.4, you indicate -- that's in our set of drawings -- you're indicating that in case there is a banner bracket and banners for a particular street, you're going to City of Palo Alto Page 35 mount some of your radios...? Can I say that's what they are? Below the banner. Which is a little different than what you would mount if you were doing it just underneath the... Ms. Meiners: If I could address that. We've had a recent meeting earlier this week with Dashed-up [phonetic], and they had some questions, which we are addressing, and we are hoping to be able to move the banners slightly down so we can put our 5G equipment on top. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. (inaudible, off-microphone) Ms. Meiners: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Thank you very much. That's good. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I'd like to bring up another question about the streetlight designs, which staff has brought up. We have in Palo Alto several different styles of streetlights. Some are clean, polished aluminum or steel, some are fluted with painted green. Should the applicant and should staff be pressing for a single design that's consistent through the city, or should we be looking for several designs that are more appropriate to each installation? And any detail questions we have regarding. Like Alex was mentioning the ventilation slots on the shroud, regarding how well that fits into the pole itself. What kind of feedback can we give staff and the applicant? David, why don't you start with that. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, well, I'm all for consistency here, with the whole city, if we could possibly do that. Make an aesthetic decision on a lot of this and be very consistent throughout the city. That seems to me the logical way to do it. Unfortunately, there are a number of companies sort of competing for their poles, I guess, and to me, that's very unfortunate, that we should make the aesthetic decision. It seems like there's a lot of variety in the manufacturer of some of these items. And some of them are obviously aesthetically better than others. And perhaps functionally, as well. I don't know. We can't speak to that. But aesthetically, absolutely. And I think if we could agree ourselves, we would present an idea for the Council to reconsider citywide materials like this. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, you've already touched on this a bit, but do you have anything to add? Board Member Lew: I think they need to be site specific because the poles are so different. I would say maybe one for traditional poles, the fluted ones; one for, sort of the more modern, cobra head type ones; and then, third would be the wood pole on Encina. Vice Chair Baltay: Osma, what's our thoughts on this? Board Member Thompson: I think I touched on it earlier, but I would agree with Board Member Lew on that front. I still think that, you know, amongst all the poles, there could be minimal design intent where, you know, it's not like we're seeing this one with the vents on one, and this one that's really small on the other. But if we could try and tailor the really small, minimal, compact design, and then alter it per the site specificity, I think that would be most appropriate. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. I agree with Osma and Alex, that we have existing -- unfortunately, David -- several styles of light poles in town, and I think these new installations should match the style of the poles that exist. I think it would be possible to come up with two or perhaps three standardized sets of details, how do you fit onto a fluted, traditional pole, or a modern steel one? I wish we could do it all as one standard, but I think you need to have at least two, if not three, different types of installations. Alex's comments about the detailing of how these shrouds fit and mount is critically important, and it needs to be carefully studied as the applicant brings forth an actual proposal. One last thing on the streetlights. Staff has asked us to look at some streetlight proposals that a manufacturer is making, integrating the equipment into the light. Rebecca, could you show us what that is again so we can give you feedback on that? This is not obviously a direct, something the applicant is requesting, but staff has asked for our feedback on this issue, and I'd like to see what we think about that. City of Palo Alto Page 36 Ms. Atkinson: Thank you very much. Let me go ahead and pull up an example slide from the staff presentation. But in general, thank you very much. Streetlights, you know, obviously the standard function, but also, streetlights are becoming used for other matters at this point. I think that we're seeing the marketplace evolve all the different functionality for streetlights. We'd like to get some feedback on that, so let me go ahead and find that portion of the staff presentation. [Locating slide] Vice Chair Baltay: While she's finding that, the question I think is that manufacturers are making poles that integrate this radio and antenna equipment into the streetlight, and I think staff is asking for our opinion, if that's something that the City should consider. Here we go, Rebecca. Ms. Atkinson: It also seems possible, I mean, these are just examples that we found on the web, but it seems possible that these poles come in designs that match our style placement guide for poles on El Camino, poles on Cal Ave, and poles downtown, as well as, of course, any number of more standard, you know, aluminum, maybe, bright and shiny. I think you can pretty much make a selection of any pole type. Vice Chair Baltay: And Rebecca, to be clear, these would be just replacements on specific locations, it's not a throughout-the-town location. We're not changing every light pole in town. These are just in addition to the ones we already have. Ms. Atkinson: The current policy identified by Public Works is wherever the style placement guide calls for a certain type of pole, those are replaced when work is done on a new pole. For example, any of the poles that are proposed on and between Lytton and Channing in the Downtown area would be called for, you know, streetlight replacement in order to cumulatively move our, you know, move the aesthetics forward in that direction, consistent with our policy. The downtown design guidelines also call for streetlight replacement, so that action is very consistent with our guiding documents. In any case, you would expect to see in a formal application streetlight replacement for those nodes downtown in an identified area. You'd also expect to see streetlights replaced on El Camino, and so forth. It's standard to this type of replacement as projects move forward. And, if you have a new pole, there might also be an option, instead of one that does not have the capability of incorporating the equipment into the pole, potentially choosing a pole that does have the ability to have the equipment integrated. From my early research, it appears that a pole with the integrated capability would be slightly wider than the more streamlined octagonal fluted design that we currently see downtown, so staff would be interested in feedback on that. It seems like a fair trade-off to get the more, to choose a pole that might have the capability of putting the equipment inside. Vice Chair Baltay: Thanks, Rebecca. Osma, what's your feedback on that, then? Board Member Thompson: The images that we're looking at on our screen right now are aesthetically a lot more coherent than anything else we've seen so far today, so I would be in favor of choosing a pole that would have this kind of integrated equipment. I wanted to clarify. In this image that we're looking at, would that integrate all the equipment that we have seen on these poles so far? Ms. Atkinson: Staff just gave these as examples, as opposed to... I mean, I could have put, like, four more, or, you know, a few... In this case, one example has the antenna top-mounted and the equipment inside the pole, radios, and in the others, the antenna is fully integrated within the pole. Now, these examples are for 4G only, it is my understanding. They don't necessarily have this yet for 5G, although it could be coming out any day. I'm not sure. But I guess in the case of the AT&T application, the idea could potentially be to still have the 5G equipment strapped and mounted to the outside of the streetlight pole, but have the more streamlined version for 4G. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, your thoughts on that? City of Palo Alto Page 37 Board Member Lew: Yes, thank you for doing the research, Rebecca. The last time that I looked at integrated types of poles they had really huge pedestal bases that were just ungainly. It seems like a lot of progress has been made on these designs, so thank you for that. I guess the thing I'm thinking about is that, that this kind of design may work where we have a very exposed corner without any landscaping. I think that could work well. I would think that the more traditional acorn type of light might be problematic in that, the light poles. For example, on University Avenue, are very low. They're pedestrian oriented. And I would imagine that, like, AT&T, their need for height would completely change the character of the street. We would have to look at the height of the traditional acorn-looking fixture. So, I would say yes, I think, if it can work, great. My last thought on that is that all this stuff is going to change, so tacking stuff onto existing poles may seem not so great now, but it may be actually the better option in the long run because these things will change, and presumably get smaller. And why get stuck with a chunky-looking light pole for a hundred years? I would imagine that the cell phone, that all of these antennas, the lifespan is going to be shorter than the light poles. Vice Chair Baltay: David. Board Member Hirsch: I'll backtrack a little and agree with what several have said about there being a number of varieties to solve the problem. I'm not suggesting that you don't have that option. But it seems to me that in the drawings I've been looking at, I'm noting two different types of higher streetlight fixtures already accounted for in the shroud system that's been presented here. It seems to me that there's been considerable thought by designers about the kind of light fixtures they will be placing the shroud and upper element on. I found that easy to read on the drawings. The acorn fixture is a light fixture. I think it's probably too low for what you're presenting and should be kept as a decorative light fixture. I think if it's that low, as Alex says, it really probably wouldn't suffice for your equipment on top of it, if I'm not mistaken. That's what I'm noting, that on University, for example, there are lower fixtures that are just light fixtures. They have no other equipment on them. And they are an older fixture, as well, so it's nice to keep them just as they are. In fact, it would be nice to have more of them rather than less. Lighting in Palo Alto is pretty bad. Again, I prefer as much at the top of the pole as possible, especially where a pole is a more modern pole. I don't think I... And again, the switching on the pole seems to me to be reasonable, and the idea of having to create a vault for a switch seems ridiculous to me because it has all kinds of other problems with switching that's like that. And the poles are easy, the metal poles are easy to cut a hole through and put a switch through and connect everything together. Again, I’m very pleased with the way it's been presented, except that somehow or other, between the applicant and City planning, we could be seeing these alternatives better described. Vice Chair Baltay: David, we're trying to discuss the manufactured light poles and whether we agree that they are a good option. Board Member Hirsch: Did I miss the point? Vice Chair Baltay: I think I hear you saying you're sort of okay with that? Rebecca pointed out a manufactured light pole that incorporates the antenna. Board Member Hirsch: And the manufactured light pole, which is the one on the left in this drawing? Vice Chair Baltay: I think this image on the screen is an example of a light pole that is manufactured outside of the town, outside of AT&T. Board Member Hirsch: Because, I mean... Vice Chair Baltay: Which has all these functions built into it, but it is a little bit heavier-looking. Board Member Hirsch: Oh. Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: What's your take on it? City of Palo Alto Page 38 Board Member Hirsch: Well, in a traditional setting, I would say that that's a really nice choice. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. I'd like to caution the.... I hear Alex's words of wisdom, I think, that this technology changes fast. Light poles don't. You want to be very careful, starting to introduce an additional light pole design which is maybe not great, and we're stuck with that. Even if the antennas and everything else changes. Not that it doesn't look better, it does, as Osma pointed out, but these are multifaceted decisions. If I could shift us now, if we're done with streetlight poles, we have one application, one proposal with a series of equipment mounted on a wood utility pole over near 75 Encina. And I don't understand how that incorporates the 4G and 5G equipment. Your proposal is just not clear to me. Maybe the applicant could explain to us again what is proposed to be mounted on that pole, and staff could tell us what sort of feedback you're looking for on that. Ms. Meiners: Happy to. If you look on the plans that you have, I believe it's... Vice Chair Baltay: If you could speak into the microphone directly. Thank you. Ms. Meiners: In your plans, it's in the 38-sheet series, site 38. The radio shroud is the lowest piece of equipment mounted on the pole. It's mounted to the face of the pole. And the radio shroud specifications were noted in our presentation this morning. Above that are the com lines. Above that is the 5G antenna and radios in one shroud, side-mounted to the pole. Above that is a power line, and above that is our 4G antenna. Now, there's a pole top extension there to meet the safety requirements of GO 95, which states that between the power line and the antenna on top, there must be a six-foot separation. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. That helps a lot. Osma, what's your take on that? Board Member Thompson: I think I mentioned it earlier. I think there's a way to integrate this design so that it looks less clunky. All this stuff is really tacked on, a lot of exposed brackets and structure... I think it can be designed better. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: My take on it is this one would not pass the ARB's vote, based on our previous proposals. Vice Chair Baltay: And your particular opinion, Alex. Board Member Lew: No, I think I would agree that, I think that the... I think the lower cabinet boxes, I actually think they need to be shrouded, just based on other projects that we've looked at. Ms. Meiners: That is the shroud. For our radios and our .... [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: Right, but I think you've got two, you're showing two or three different boxes on the lower part. Ms. Meiners: There is only one very large box below the com line. Board Member Lew: Okay. I thought I was looking at two. I think in the past, on other projects, there have been three, and we've required one shroud over all three boxes. And the shroud becomes really big, but it hides all of the different sized boxes and stuff. I thought I was looking at two. I could be wrong. Ms. Meiners: There are two rows of vents. That might be confusing to you. The two rows of vents. Board Member Lew: Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Ms. Atkinson: I think staff has a similar interpretation as Board Member Lew when looking at the elevations on Sheet A.38.4. Board Member Lew: There are two side-by-sides? Okay, well, I'm not sure what I’m looking at. I would say you've got a variety of different, between the 4G and 5G and the boxes, I think you're asking... Yeah, I think that's too much. I think we actually always tried to simplify. Just keep it simple. I think this would not be acceptable. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, and David, your opinion on this particular pole? Board Member Hirsch: I like it. Board Member Lew: You voted no on similar things that looked just like this. Board Member Hirsch: Well... Okay, maybe it's just my preference. But, you know, I don't think we can really create a shroud that takes care of everything here. This is a wood pole, is that right? Ms. Meiners: Yes, this is a wood pole, and there are three attachments, total. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Well, it's a hard problem to solve, the wood pole, and no doubt it's our hardest problem in the city, here. Ms. Atkinson: Staff would like... Board Member Hirsch: Somehow it cleans up some of the stuff that's just tacked onto the wood of the pole itself. The free-floating quality of the attachments seems to work, to me, here. I'm really confused by it all, but I know the problem is that this is going to be what we see all over the city. Right? Because only in certain areas do we have the metal poles. That being the case, there's no specific historic design to the pole and the connections like there are on metal poles. I prefer the B pole in New York City to all of the engineered poles that happened ever since the B pole, which is a very Victorian, wonderful pole. But when you get to modern technology, something has to give, and in my view, I think this would work in the communities because it actually is trying hard to keep all of the wires and all of those things close to the pole. I think there is a relationship there. Technically, it's more modern in that sense, that it makes those connections as minimal as possible, and just shows them the way they are. That's my preference. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Let me address this issue. It's something we've been struggling with on the Board for quite a few applications now, and in my opinion, the side-mounted equipment on the pole is absolutely unacceptable. I cannot recommend the findings that it's an aesthetic improvement in the town. And I believe the best way to do is either to put the equipment out of site, underground, or, as we've seen several times, staff is pushing now to somehow conceal the radio equipment within the shroud above the utility pole. If we all note that the antenna itself is some nine feet above the pole. We've seen applications on the streetlights where the radio equipment, which is smaller and smaller every cycle, is somehow concealed within that shroud up on the top. That just, to me, it's a visual extension of the pole, and in a metaphorical way, that is out of sight. It's so high up, it looks like a continuation of the pole and you just don't see it. Whereas what Alex has been pointing out, when you have these large boxes close to the street, they're really unsightly. They're not attractive. I don't think they are a technological advantage to our society, David. I just think they're ugly and we can do better. I strongly encourage staff and the applicant to find ways just not to mount stuff like this on the pole. I'm left wondering what you can do about the 5G equipment. Is it always this self-contained package of antennas and radios in a rectangular or square format? Or is there a way to streamline it more? I have opposed in the past shrouds mounted on the side of the pole, but Alex is pointing out -- I think very correctly -- that even a year ago, staff worked hard with other applicants to come up with shrouds that were long, and elongated along the side of the pole, that carefully sealed and integrated all of the equipment. I believe there's even a mock installation in town over near the library, which is obviously much better than this one. That would be a preferable solution, although I still think there's other things City of Palo Alto Page 40 we can do. But that's trying to give feedback to the applicant, and I'm not hearing strong support for pole-mounted equipment. Certainly not in this fashion. Alex? Board Member Lew: I'm (inaudible) on the wood pole. I think, if I'm reading this correctly, you're not showing any shroud around the bayonet, and I think we've asked for that on other projects. And I think that has worked well. So, if you do go with the wood pole route, I would ask for consideration of a shroud around the bayonet. Vice Chair Baltay: Osma, would you like to add something? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, this is actually... I would agree with Board Member Baltay and Board Member Lew. I also wanted to mention, I know we moved on to the wood pole, but just briefly, to respond to some of the comments that were made on the integrated pole where all the equipment was inside this new design for a pole, I think while it's true that equipment does get smaller, it's also true that there's very little desire to get rid of it. Sometimes it just stays there and accumulates, so, for that reason, having an integrated solution I think is preferable. Or aesthetically a better way to go. That's all. Board Member Hirsch: Can I go on a little? Vice Chair Baltay: A little. Help yourself, David. Board Member Hirsch: "A little." All right. You know, you have to take a look at the reality here. To run these wires up the side of a pole the way it's done now, they tack on a metal cover, or whatever it is, that shrouds the wire going up the pole, and it's absolutely ugly and doesn't relate to the equipment whatsoever. You know, I'm making a case here that you've made a case for, actually, it being more exposed and on its own, you know, and related to its own self. And could get rid of a lot of the wiring that's just attached to the pole. If you take the wiring at the pole and then you put something, other equipment, and then you shroud that in something else, you're hiding all the reality of these systems. So, aesthetically, there's something to be said for just exposing them and let them do their thing on the outside of the pole, free. Because they are tight connections the way you've designed them here, and I like it. I think it's very appropriate here. To shroud everything is to hide it for no reason. It just adds another layer. I think the piece on the top that you've done on all the metal poles is fine. It expresses what it is. And then, we should carry that idea on the wood pole, as well. It's going to be all over the city, and when they modernize and make it... And I agree, Peter, if all of that, a good piece of it could be held at the top, then that's perfect, you know? And then we won't have as much down below. But if we can't do that for the technical reasons you've described, I think we should just let it hang out there. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. To staff and the applicant, I think we're wrapping up here, but do you have any questions or last comments? From staff, perhaps? Anything? Ms. French: Just an announcement, I guess -- and Jodie can cover future meetings, generally - I just wanted to mention that March 21st, we are targeting coming to the ARB with prescriptive standards for wireless. We collectively as a team are approaching and working to get feedback from carriers on the various options and thoughts that the City is having about how we would prescriptively write an ordinance. This is going to be on your docket in the coming month. Vice Chair Baltay: Amy, do you feel that you have an understanding of the position of the various board members on these issues? Ms. Atkinson: I think everything is really worthwhile and food for thought. Thank you very much. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, now is your chance.... City of Palo Alto Page 41 Ms. French: That was Rebecca, and then, I would concur that we've gotten the full discussion today for a prelim. I think that was maybe even better than we expected to have, you know, kind of everybody weigh in on these specific things. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. And then, to the applicant, who is pushing us to all this. You have the last word. Any comments or questions? Ms. Kung: No, actually. Thank you so much. We're actually going to take everything you guys said, put a lot of thought into it, and see what we can do, work with staff to best propose the best option for you guys, so when we come with our permit, we're hoping that you guys will be very satisfied. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. With that, I'll close this agenda item. Board Member Hirsch: (inaudible).... Just one. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, David, one last... [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: How does it all work with the stop clock? Ms. French: This is a prelim ARB application, so as a rule, it's not a project under CEQA and it's not subject to permit streamlining. When they come in with a formal application for major architectural review for a Tier 3 application, there will be an associated shot clock. And we're looking at the 60-day rule that, in the past, and it became effective this January. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, everybody. This meeting is adjourned. Subcommittee Items - None Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10185) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 4/18/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 190 Channing Avenue: Subcommittee Review of Landscaping, Third Floor Setback, and Other Revisions Title: 190 Channing Avenue [18PLN-00043]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Landscaping and Revisions to the Third Floor Setback Along Channing Avenue, as Well as Other Clarifying Details on the Windows, Stone Pattern and Garage Security Gate. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: RT-35 SOFA II CAP (Residential Transition). 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) subcommittee take the following action: 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background On March 5, 2019, the Director of Planning and Community Environment’s approval of the subject project became effective. At the Board’s recommendation, a condition was imposed that required certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee. Below are the items that were requested to return to the subcommittee and the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments: Architecture Review Condition Number 5a states: 7 Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2  Show that the planting and any irrigation beneath the Oak tree is compatible with the Oak or otherwise modify the proposed planting and irrigation to ensure protection of the Oak tree. Applicant’s Response:  Based on discussions with the City’s arborist and the applicant’s landscape architect, the planting that was originally proposed beneath the oak tree was found to be compatible with the Oak. Both species are identified as native and low water use, as shown on Sheet L-2.3 of the revised plans in Attachment A. The proposed plans are an improvement in comparison to the existing conditions, which include a concrete slab with invasive species (Atlantis [Chinese tree of heaven] saplings). The project would remove the slab and invasive species and provide native, low water use plants and permeable pavers within this area, improving the soil condition and allowing water and air to infiltrate into the soil. The irrigation system is only four inches deep, more shallow than the existing slab, and is a slow release drip system with a separate control valve to allow for proper soil moisture management for the new plantings and the Oak. Given that the existing conditions include a thick concrete slab, any Oak roots within this area are anticipated to be deeper roots that are would not be impacted by the minimal moisture needed to establish the new planting. The selected plant species are known to be suitable for growing in the shade of oak trees. Therefore, the proposed planting and irrigation will ensure protection of the Oak tree. Architecture Review Condition 5b:  Modify the Channing frontage of the third floor kitchen area, to provide better privacy and an appropriate setback from the second floor below. If desired by the applicant, the third floor bedroom may also be setback further from the Channing frontage. Applicant’s Response:  Consistent with the ARB’s comment, the third floor kitchen wall has been set back further with the porch with the deck railing wrapping around. It has been set back two feet from the second floor wall below and about one foot, six inches from the railing. The layering of the glass and the offset of the façade provides more modulation along the third floor and makes the third floor less visible to pedestrians while providing better privacy for the residential space. The kitchen wall is pushed back far enough to allow maintenance and cleaning while not compromising the layout of the kitchen. The dining room remains centered on the opening into the stair hall. No changes were proposed to the third floor bedroom. Architecture Review Condition 5c:  Revise the proposed tree planting along the interior lot line to provide more spacing for light and air between trees. Applicant’s Response: 7 Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3  Sheet L-1.0 in Attachment A shows a revised planting plan. The plans have been revised to show more spacing between the trees along the interior lot line in order to provide for more light and air on the adjacent property. Architecture Review Condition 5d:  Provide a detail of how blinds and/or frosted glass will be installed on office and residential windows. Applicant’s Response:  Sheets A3.1 and A3.2 in revised plans show the areas where glazing is proposed (All areas labeled as GL2). In addition, a detail of the blinds is shown on Sheet A8.1, detail 6 of the revised plans. Architecture Review Condition 5e:  Show the location and a detail of the proposed garage security gate. Applicant’s Response:  Sheet A2.0 of the revised plans in Attachment A has been revised to show the location of a proposed security gate for the underground garage. A cut sheet of the proposed security gate is provided in Attachment B. As indicated on the plans, sufficient clearance space will be provided from the top of the gate when open. The security gate will be kept opened during business hours to allow office guests to access the garage. During non-business hours, residential guests can call in to have the residential tenants open the gate. This condition for gate hours will be formalized in the ARB sub-committee summary that will become part of the administrative record for this project. Architecture Review Condition 5f:  Provide further detail of the stone pattern/materials to show that they contribute to the compatibility of the project and the nearby historic building. Applicant’s Response:  Sheet A8.1, detail 7 of the revised plans provides a detail of the proposed stone pattern. A running bond is proposed for the stone pattern in order to relate to the existing pattern at the nearby historic building located at 165 Channing Avenue. A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://tinyurl.com/190-Channing-ARB-Video. The subcommittee is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or requires further refinement. 7 Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 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: Project Plans (DOCX)  Attachment B: Security Gate Cutsheet (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 7 Packet Pg. 96 Attachment A Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to subcommittee 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 “190 Channing” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4551&TargetID=319 7.a Packet Pg. 97 SECURITY GRILLE SYSTEMS 676 INDUSTRY LEADING COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS ADVANCED SECURITY. DURABILITY. HIGH PERFORMANCE. LOW MAINTENANCE. ADVANCED SECURITY. DURABILITY. HIGH PERFORMANCE. LOW MAINTENANCE. R APIDG RILLE® AP 7.b Packet Pg. 98 RAPIDGRILLE® SECURITY GRILLE SECURITY GRILLE SYSTEM 2 Standard features at a glance Max. standard width 30'4" (9,246 mm) Max. standard height 14’4" (4,369 mm) Max. total area* 240 ft² Curtain Galvanized steel links and rods with mill aluminum spacer tube Curtain pattern Straight lattice 9" center vertical links with 2" center rod spacing Door roll Directly driven, springless steel tube roll with integral shafts, keyed on the drive end and supported by self-aligning greaseable sealed bearings Hood 24 gauge black painted steel Guides Three structural steel angles with PowderGuard® Premium powder coat in black Bottom bar Tubular extruded aluminum with mill finish Standard mounting Face of wall Operation Direct drive, integrated gear/motor/brake assembly with hand chain override; Opening speed up to 24 inches/second 220/240V AC 1-phase; Horsepower is appropriate to size and weight of door Control panel NEMA 4X rated; variable frequency drive, self-diagnostics, built-in cycle counter, and timer to close Safety features Built-in braking mechanism, photoelectric sensors with commercial grade guards, wireless, monitored sensing edge, motor cover Limited warranty 60-month on motor; 24-month on door components Options • Curtain pattern: Brick 4.5" on center vertical links with 2" on center rods spacing • Curtain material: Mill aluminum link, galvanized steel rod, with mill aluminum spacer tube; Clear anodized aluminum link, galvanized steel rod, and clear anodized aluminum spacer tube; #4 or #2B stainless steel link, rod, and spacer tube • Guides: PowderGuard® Premium finish PowderGuard® Zinc or Textured finish • Hood: 24 gauge powder coated steel, stainless steel with brush finish, powder coated aluminum • Actuators: Loop detectors, radio control, push buttons, motion detectors and pull cords (wireless accessories available) * Dependent upon the curtain material and pattern. Consult factory for sizes not listed above. 7.b Packet Pg. 99 SECURITY GRILLE SYSTEM 3overheaddoor.com RAPIDGRILLE® SECURITY GRILLE MODELS 676 The solution that answers demanding application needs The RapidGrille® AP Security Grille System was developed to supply advanced performance in industrial, security and general commercial applications where tenants’ security, long term asset value and minimized interruption to facility access are primary concerns. Note: These products allow air infiltration and are not weather tight. Grille data and pattern Benefits The RapidGrille® AP system’s advanced performance design answers the demand for more in reliability, durability and efficiency. Ideal applications include the following: • Parking garage facilities • Industrial manufacturing facilities • Government facilities • Public facilities Straight Lattice Wall opening height Dimension A Thru 6' 14" Thru 10' 16" Thru 14' 18" The RapidGrille® Advanced Performance Security Grille provides facilities with maximized air movement and visual access while delivering more safety features than a standard security grille. The reliable springless design and operation provides reliable performance and asset longevity. The continuous rod design combined with the high strength curtain materials of the RapidGrille® AP increases the durability and security of this system. Staggered Brick 7.b Packet Pg. 100 2501 S. State Hwy. 121 Bus., Suite 200, Lewisville, TX 75067 1-800-929-DOOR • sales@overheaddoor.com overheaddoor.com INDUSTRY LEADING COMMERCIAL & INDUSTRIAL SOLUTIONS ©2018 Overhead Door Corporation. Overhead Door is a trademark and the Red Ribbon logo and RapidGrille are registered trademarks of Overhead Door Corporation. All other trademarks are property of their rightful owners. Consistent with our policy of continuing product improvement, we reserve the right to change product specifications without notice or obligation. C900-988 10/18 Architect's Corner A resource for architects, containing comprehensive technical and resource materials to support your project, including drawings and specifications for commercial doors. overheaddoor.com The original, innovative choice for unequalled quality and service. Overhead Door pioneered the upward-acting door industry, inventing the first upward-acting door in 1921 and the first electric door operator in 1926. Today, we continue to be the industry leader through the strength of our product innovation, superior craftsmanship and outstanding customer support, underscoring a legacy of quality, expertise and integrity. That’s why design and construction professionals specify Overhead Door products more often than any other brand. Our family of over 400 Overhead Door Distributors across the U.S. and Canada not only share our name and logo, but also our commitment to excellence. 7.b Packet Pg. 101