The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2019-05-16 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet1. 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. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 2. 3. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: May 16, 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. 567 Homer Avenue [18PLN-00145]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing 1,292 Square Feet Two-Family Residential Building and Construction of a Three-Story, Three-Unit Residential Project. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Project Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multiple Family Residential). 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 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2019. 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. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 2. 3. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2019. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP)- Board Member Lew 6. Architectural Review Board Annual Report to Council: Review Draft Letter Adjournment 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 2. 3. 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. Packet Pg. 4 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10359) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 5/16/2019 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 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 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 Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2019 Schedule Meeting Dates 1/10/2019 Time 8:30 AM Location Council Chambers Status Special Planned Absences 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/21/2019 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 Baltay 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 7/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson 8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March 3/21 - Baltay/ April 4/4 - Baltay/ May June Thompson Thompson 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 June 6, 2019 • 1700 Embarcadero: Mercedes and Audi Auto Dealerships (3rd Hearing) • 375 University: Renovation of former Cheesecake restaurant (1st Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10264) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/16/2019 Summary Title: 567 Homer Avenue: Three Dwelling Units (Prelim) Title: 567 Homer Avenue [18PLN-00145]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing 1,292 Square Feet Two-Family Residential Building and Construction of a Three-Story, Three-Unit Residential Project. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Project Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multiple Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the Zoning Code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: HESTIA 2 LLC Architect: Weiss Mar Representative: Jerrick Ann Legal Counsel: None Property Information Address: 567-569 Homer Avenue Neighborhood: University South Lot Dimensions & Area: 50 ’ x 150 ’ (7,5 00 squ are f ee t ) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: None Historic Resource(s): Deemed potentially eligible for listing in 1998 for the California Register of Historic Resources Existing Improvement(s): 1,290 square feet; one stories; 20 feet high; built in 1930 Existing Land Use(s): Two-family residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: Aerial View of Property: North: Multi-family Residential (RM-30) West: Multi-family Residential (RM-30) East: Multi-family Residential (RM-30) South: Channing House (life care/ assisted living) (PC-8659) 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google, 2019 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Medium Density Multiple-family Residence District (RM-30) Comp. Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable 2 Packet Pg. 11 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 applicant proposes to demolish the existing building at 567-569 Homer Avenue near the intersection of Webster Street. In the demolished building’s place, the applicant would construct a new three-story, three-unit building with covered and uncovered parking and open space amenities. The site is zoned RM-30 and is surrounded by multi-family type uses. Directly across the street from the project is Zoned Planned Community (PC) that includes a retirement community with different levels of lifestyle accommodations (assisted living to independent living). While most of the surrounding properties are one to two stories, the Channing House is 11 stories in height. There is also the First Lutheran Church at the northeast corner of the Homer/Webster intersection. The exterior of the proposed building would have a consistent contemporary style with three story units expressed in 10-foot plate heights. The exterior walls would include integral muted colored stucco, accented with wood paneling for the balcony rails as well as the surrounds for the windows fronting Homer Avenue. The windows are aluminum framed and uniformly arranged, either as squares or vertically oriented rectangles. The stairwells of each unit have full height glass exposing the volume space. Each unit would have three bedrooms in different configurations. Source: HESTIA #2, 2019 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Landscaping for the site includes a mixture of drought tolerant, native and ornamental plantings. The project includes Japanese Maples (tree), Podocarpus (screening), and groundcover bunch grasses. Homer Avenue is a two-lane one-way street in the southbound direction. A Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus stop (Route 35) is located near the site as well as a stop for the City’s Shuttle (Route C). The site currently includes one driveway and two curb cuts (on opposite sides of the frontage). As proposed, the current driveway access will be moved to the opposite location on the east side. Units A and C include single covered spaces, while Unit B includes a two-car garage. There are two additional uncovered parking spaces. All parking spaces have access from a single driveway. The site contains two existing units within a single building constructed in 1930. While the building is not designated historic, it was deemed potentially eligible for listing in 1998 for the California Register of Historic Resources. An updated evaluation would be necessary during the formal phase of the project. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated: • Architectural Review – Major (AR). In accordance with PAMC 18.76.020 (2)(B), the construction of a multiple-family project with three or more units require the approval of a 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. A summary of the project’s conformance with the RM-30 and parking development standards is included as Attachment B. Upon formal review, the project will be further evaluated for consistency with Chapter 18.23, Performance Criteria and context-based design criteria. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to: 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 • Scale and mass o The project has tall plate heights and some blank walls. The Board should comment on the appropriateness of the proposal (Finding #2). The Board should also take note that proposed building would need to be revised so as to not conflict with the side and/or rear daylight plane, as required by the Zoning Code (Finding #1). • Fenestration o Besides the large volume of glass used at the stairwells, the project uses narrow dimensioned fenestration. The Board should comment on the appropriateness of this design (Finding #3). • Privacy o The large volume of glass in the stairwells and the upper level decks will likely cause privacy impacts on surrounding properties, which may reduce living conditions for adjacent residential properties (Finding #2). • Transitions in scale to adjacent properties • Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context o As mentioned previously, the site is surrounded by a mix of tall and shorter buildings. The Board should comment on how the project could be improved to create a harmonious transition in scale, mass and character to adjacent uses (Finding #2). • Pedestrian-orientation and design • Open space plan and access throughout the site o The open space design should be revised for better orientation and access (Finding #4). The Board should provide some feedback on how this could be achieved. The Board is encouraged to provide some examples of projects they think worked well with this similar layout. • Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials • Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any o There is currently no extensive vegetation in the front of the property (Finding #5). Other City Department Review Since this is a preliminary review, other city departments have provided comments that would need to be addressed if the project progresses. Below is a summary of the primary comments: Transportation • Uncovered stall at the end of the driveway blocks access to open space area • Turn around space would need to be adjusted for better efficiency • Driveway approach would need to provide a five-foot setback from the property line at the street so that there is sufficient separation between the subject site and the adjoining property (i.e a minimum distance between driveways or curbcuts). Utilities Waste Gas Water 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 • Show meters and backflow devices Historic • Conduct a Historic Resource Evaluation Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX) • Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (RTF) • Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 $ 2.a PC- 9 c::::J Zone Districts c::::J Assessment Parcel I :nnnnn l Project Site T h e C i t y o f P a l o A l t o 567 Homer Avenue Architectural Review 18PLN-00145 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS O-' - 148• Packet Pg. 16 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 567 Homer, 18PLN-00145 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100-foot depth 7,500 sf (0.17 acres) 50 feet by 150 feet 7,500 sf (0.17 acres) 50 feet by 150 feet Minimum Front Yard 20 feet 65 feet 20 feet 10 inches Rear Yard 10 feet 13 feet 15 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet Parking lot 6 feet and 8 feet 8 inches Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Special Setback Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Setback from major roadways [18.13.040(b)(1)(A)] Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet 20 feet 30 feet and 34 feet Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Applicable Non-compliant Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Applicable Unknown Max. Site Coverage 40% (3,000 sf) 22% (1,715 sf) 34% (2,547 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 60% (4,500 sf) 17% (1,290 sf) 60% (4,500 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 30% (2,250 sf) 56% (4,225 sf) 66% (4,953.53 sf) Unit A: 1,510.1 sf Unit B: 1,482.92 sf Unit C: 1,506.38 sf Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (450 sf) 2,935 sf Conforms, breakdown on Sheet A3.0 will be updated in formal application Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (225 sf) 2,935 sf Conforms, breakdown on Sheet A3.0 will be updated in formal application Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (150 sf) 845 sf Conforms, breakdown on Sheet A3.0 will be updated in formal application 2.b Packet Pg. 17 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. 6 spaces 6 spaces (4 covered) Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) 3 required 3 spaces 2.b Packet Pg. 18 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. 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. 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. 2.c Packet Pg. 19 April 23, 2019 City of Palo Alto Department of planning & community environment 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 567-569 Homer Avenue ARB Preliminary Review Project Description To Planning staff and ARB Members: On behalf of Hestia #2, I am pleased to present the attached submittal package for the property located at 567-569 Homer Ave for Preliminary ARB review. We carefully considered and prepared this information along with our architect, development team, and other key consultants and design professionals. The package includes all of the required plan sets, project information, maps and site referenced in the checklist, ARB Submittal for Preliminary Review. Existing conditions The Property is currently comprised of 1 parcel with a total area of approximately .172 acres or 7,500 square feet. The Property has an area of approximately 1,292 square feet that is zoned RM-30 [Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential]. This area comprises roughly 75% of frontage of the Property on Homer Avenue with a depth of 35 feet from the property line. The remainder and majority of the Property is .142 acres or approximately 6,208 square feet and is zoned RM-30 [Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential]. Two sides of the Property are bordered by medium density housing. On the East side of the Property and adjacent are Multiple-Family Residential. West of the property is Two detached single family residence. Across Homer Avenue are higher density housing called, Channing House. Proposed Project The intent of Hestia #2 is to build high-quality homes that integrate appropriate into and complement the existing neighborhood. In designing the project, we studied previous proposals with solar path and site conditions along with the neighborhood's response to those site concepts, as well as preferences for the Property as expressed by the neighbors. Far from simply trying to maximize development on the ground level, we believe we have created an usable, attractive, and well pointed project that is respectful of the neighborhood in which the Property is located. The proposed project seeks to replace the attached multiple-family with two units on the Property with 2.d Packet Pg. 20 1 multiple-family residence with 3 new units attached. The new project will consist 3 units attached with 1,500 square feet on each unit. All of the units will have three above grade floors, with the required setbacks and required interior setbacks as well. Along Homer Avenue, the existing driveway will be relocated to the East side of the Property to allow more separation from existing buildings on East border. Applying driveway setback on East border will create more privacy and allow more daylight for existing buildings. We believe this further integrates the project into the neighborhood on Webster Street. Homer Avenue multiple-family development is intended to create open usable common area and parking on ground level in between each units. Usable open space will be located protected from the activities adjacent to public streets. Parking, driveways, and required parking lot landscaping will not be proposed as usable open space. Designated common area will be proposed in a development, for purposes of improved design, privacy, protection, and increased area for children. Overall, units will be sized approximately less than 1,500 square feet of above grade living space exclusive of garage. Up to 230 square feet of garage per unit will we exempt from the floor area under zoning RM-30 [Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential. All units will have space to park 2 vehicles with a mix of one car garage and one uncovered parking or two covered parking. For ingress and egress, our submittal includes one site plan showing main entrance to all three units. Unit A and B enter from West setback and unit C from East setback. We are open to reconsider safer ingress and egress plans working with the Planning and Transportation Committee to identify the most reasonable solution for the project and neighborhood. No less important than any other detail of the proposed project are the existing protected street. Hestia #2 intends to preserve as many tree as possible, if not all. Where trees pose an impediment to the proposed plan, the primary effort taken will be to transplant the trees within the Homer Avenue Property. In addition, landscape designs and plans also call for robust planting of attractive trees in the courtyard and throughout the Property. All in all, we look forward to City staff's review of the proposed plan, feedback from the Architectural Review Board as well as an open dialogue with the neighbors of the project, From there, we wish to advance to subsequent phases in the planning and application process for ARB approval and entitlements. Sincerely, Jerrick Ann Hestia #2 112935 Alcosta Blvd UNIT 194 San Ramon CA 94583 2.d Packet Pg. 21 Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “567 Homer Avenue” 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=4562&TargetID=319 2.e City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Packet Pg. 22 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10371) Report Type: Meeting Date: 5/16/2019 Summary Title: Minutes of April 4, 2019 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2019. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the April 4, 2019 Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting were made available to Board members prior to this hearing. A hard copy of the minutes of the above referenced meeting(s) will be made available at the ARB hearing in the Council Chambers at 8:30 am. Approved Minutes will be made available on the ARB webpage at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp 3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Packet Pg. 23 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10372) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 5/16/2019 Summary Title: Minutes of April 18, 2019 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2019. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the April 18, 2019 Architectural Review Board (ARB) meeting were made available to Board members prior to this hearing. A hard copy of the minutes of the above referenced meeting(s) will be made available at the ARB hearing in the Council Chambers at 8:30 am. Approved Minutes will be made available on the ARB webpage at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp 4 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10359) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 5/16/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects. Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments:  Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)  Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 2019 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/21/2019 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled egular 7/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson 8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 3/21 - Baltay/ Thompson 4/4 - Baltay/ Thompson 4/18 – Lew/ Hirsch July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics June 6, 2019  1700 Embarcadero: Mercedes and Audi Auto Dealerships (3rd Hearing)  375 University: Renovation of former Cheesecake restaurant (1st Hearing) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10264) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 5/16/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 567 Homer Avenue: Three Dwelling Units (Prelim) Title: 567 Homer Avenue [18PLN-00145]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing 1,292 Square Feet Two-Family Residential Building and Construction of a Three-Story, Three-Unit Residential Project. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Project Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multiple Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Boardmembers should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. As a preliminary review application, the Planning and Community Environment department has only performed a cursory review of the project for compliance with the Zoning Code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the comprehensive plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Boardmembers may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: HESTIA 2 LLC Architect: Weiss Mar Representative: Jerrick Ann Legal Counsel: None Property Information Address: 567-569 Homer Avenue Neighborhood: University South Lot Dimensions & Area: 50’ x 150’ (7,500 square feet) Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: None Historic Resource(s): Deemed potentially eligible for listing in 1998 for the California Register of Historic Resources Existing Improvement(s): 1,290 square feet; one stories; 20 feet high; built in 1930 Existing Land Use(s): Two-family residential Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Multi-family Residential (RM-30) West: Multi-family Residential (RM-30) East: Multi-family Residential (RM-30) South: Channing House (life care/ assisted living) (PC-8659) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google, 2019 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Medium Density Multiple-family Residence District (RM-30) Comp. Plan Designation: Multi-Family Residential Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable 2 Packet Pg. 10 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 applicant proposes to demolish the existing building at 567-569 Homer Avenue near the intersection of Webster Street. In the demolished building’s place, the applicant would construct a new three-story, three-unit building with covered and uncovered parking and open space amenities. The site is zoned RM-30 and is surrounded by multi-family type uses. Directly across the street from the project is Zoned Planned Community (PC) that includes a retirement community with different levels of lifestyle accommodations (assisted living to independent living). While most of the surrounding properties are one to two stories, the Channing House is 11 stories in height. There is also the First Lutheran Church at the northeast corner of the Homer/Webster intersection. The exterior of the proposed building would have a consistent contemporary style with three story units expressed in 10-foot plate heights. The exterior walls would include integral muted colored stucco, accented with wood paneling for the balcony rails as well as the surrounds for the windows fronting Homer Avenue. The windows are aluminum framed and uniformly arranged, either as squares or vertically oriented rectangles. The stairwells of each unit have full height glass exposing the volume space. Each unit would have three bedrooms in different configurations. Source: HESTIA #2, 2019 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Landscaping for the site includes a mixture of drought tolerant, native and ornamental plantings. The project includes Japanese Maples (tree), Podocarpus (screening), and groundcover bunch grasses. Homer Avenue is a two-lane one-way street in the southbound direction. A Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) bus stop (Route 35) is located near the site as well as a stop for the City’s Shuttle (Route C). The site currently includes one driveway and two curb cuts (on opposite sides of the frontage). As proposed, the current driveway access will be moved to the opposite location on the east side. Units A and C include single covered spaces, while Unit B includes a two-car garage. There are two additional uncovered parking spaces. All parking spaces have access from a single driveway. The site contains two existing units within a single building constructed in 1930. While the building is not designated historic, it was deemed potentially eligible for listing in 1998 for the California Register of Historic Resources. An updated evaluation would be necessary during the formal phase of the project. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR). In accordance with PAMC 18.76.020 (2)(B), the construction of a multiple-family project with three or more units require the approval of a 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. A summary of the project’s conformance with the RM-30 and parking development standards is included as Attachment B. Upon formal review, the project will be further evaluated for consistency with Chapter 18.23, Performance Criteria and context-based design criteria. Discussion Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to: 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6  Scale and mass o The project has tall plate heights and some blank walls. The Board should comment on the appropriateness of the proposal (Finding #2). The Board should also take note that proposed building would need to be revised so as to not conflict with the side and/or rear daylight plane, as required by the Zoning Code (Finding #1).  Fenestration o Besides the large volume of glass used at the stairwells, the project uses narrow dimensioned fenestration. The Board should comment on the appropriateness of this design (Finding #3).  Privacy o The large volume of glass in the stairwells and the upper level decks will likely cause privacy impacts on surrounding properties, which may reduce living conditions for adjacent residential properties (Finding #2).  Transitions in scale to adjacent properties  Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context o As mentioned previously, the site is surrounded by a mix of tall and shorter buildings. The Board should comment on how the project could be improved to create a harmonious transition in scale, mass and character to adjacent uses (Finding #2).  Pedestrian-orientation and design  Open space plan and access throughout the site o The open space design should be revised for better orientation and access (Finding #4). The Board should provide some feedback on how this could be achieved. The Board is encouraged to provide some examples of projects they think worked well with this similar layout.  Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials  Preservation of existing native or mature landscaping or features, if any o There is currently no extensive vegetation in the front of the property (Finding #5). Other City Department Review Since this is a preliminary review, other city departments have provided comments that would need to be addressed if the project progresses. Below is a summary of the primary comments: Transportation  Uncovered stall at the end of the driveway blocks access to open space area  Turn around space would need to be adjusted for better efficiency  Driveway approach would need to provide a five-foot setback from the property line at the street so that there is sufficient separation between the subject site and the adjoining property (i.e a minimum distance between driveways or curbcuts). Utilities Waste Gas Water 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7  Show meters and backflow devices Historic  Conduct a Historic Resource Evaluation Next Steps There is no further action required by the ARB after its discussion. The applicant may elect to file a formal application. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment C: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (RTF)  Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 14 2.a Packet Pg. 15 ATTACHMENT E ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 567 Homer, 18PLN-00145 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100-foot depth 7,500 sf (0.17 acres) 50 feet by 150 feet 7,500 sf (0.17 acres) 50 feet by 150 feet Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet 65 feet 20 feet 10 inches Rear Yard 10 feet 13 feet 15 feet Interior Side Yard 6 feet Parking lot 6 feet and 8 feet 8 inches Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Special Setback Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Setback from major roadways [18.13.040(b)(1)(A)] Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Max. Building Height 35 feet 20 feet 30 feet and 34 feet Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45 degree angle Applicable Non-compliant Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45 degree angle Applicable Unknown Max. Site Coverage 40% (3,000 sf) 22% (1,715 sf) 34% (2,547 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 60% (4,500 sf) 17% (1,290 sf) 60% (4,500 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 30% (2,250 sf) 56% (4,225 sf) 66% (4,953.53 sf) Unit A: 1,510.1 sf Unit B: 1,482.92 sf Unit C: 1,506.38 sf Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (450 sf) 2,935 sf Conforms, breakdown on Sheet A3.0 will be updated in formal application Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (225 sf) 2,935 sf Conforms, breakdown on Sheet A3.0 will be updated in formal application Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (150 sf) 845 sf Conforms, breakdown on Sheet A3.0 will be updated in formal application 2.b Packet Pg. 16 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 2 spaces per unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. 6 spaces 6 spaces (4 covered) Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) 3 required 3 spaces 2.b Packet Pg. 17 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. 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. 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. 2.c Packet Pg. 18 April 23, 2019 City of Palo Alto Department of planning & community environment 285 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94303 Re: 567-569 Homer Avenue ARB Preliminary Review Project Description To Planning staff and ARB Members: On behalf of Hestia #2, I am pleased to present the attached submittal package for the property located at 567-569 Homer Ave for Preliminary ARB review. We carefully considered and prepared this information along with our architect, development team, and other key consultants and design professionals. The package includes all of the required plan sets, project information, maps and site referenced in the checklist, ARB Submittal for Preliminary Review. Existing conditions The Property is currently comprised of 1 parcel with a total area of approximately .172 acres or 7,500 square feet. The Property has an area of approximately 1,292 square feet that is zoned RM-30 [Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential]. This area comprises roughly 75% of frontage of the Property on Homer Avenue with a depth of 35 feet from the property line. The remainder and majority of the Property is .142 acres or approximately 6,208 square feet and is zoned RM-30 [Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential]. Two sides of the Property are bordered by medium density housing. On the East side of the Property and adjacent are Multiple-Family Residential. West of the property is Two detached single family residence. Across Homer Avenue are higher density housing called, Channing House. Proposed Project The intent of Hestia #2 is to build high-quality homes that integrate appropriate into and complement the existing neighborhood. In designing the project, we studied previous proposals with solar path and site conditions along with the neighborhood's response to those site concepts, as well as preferences for the Property as expressed by the neighbors. Far from simply trying to maximize development on the ground level, we believe we have created an usable, attractive, and well pointed project that is respectful of the neighborhood in which the Property is located. The proposed project seeks to replace the attached multiple-family with two units on the Property with 2.d Packet Pg. 19 1 multiple-family residence with 3 new units attached. The new project will consist 3 units attached with 1,500 square feet on each unit. All of the units will have three above grade floors, with the required setbacks and required interior setbacks as well. Along Homer Avenue, the existing driveway will be relocated to the East side of the Property to allow more separation from existing buildings on East border. Applying driveway setback on East border will create more privacy and allow more daylight for existing buildings. We believe this further integrates the project into the neighborhood on Webster Street. Homer Avenue multiple-family development is intended to create open usable common area and parking on ground level in between each units. Usable open space will be located protected from the activities adjacent to public streets. Parking, driveways, and required parking lot landscaping will not be proposed as usable open space. Designated common area will be proposed in a development, for purposes of improved design, privacy, protection, and increased area for children. Overall, units will be sized approximately less than 1,500 square feet of above grade living space exclusive of garage. Up to 230 square feet of garage per unit will we exempt from the floor area under zoning RM-30 [Medium Density Multiple-Family Residential. All units will have space to park 2 vehicles with a mix of one car garage and one uncovered parking or two covered parking. For ingress and egress, our submittal includes one site plan showing main entrance to all three units. Unit A and B enter from West setback and unit C from East setback. We are open to reconsider safer ingress and egress plans working with the Planning and Transportation Committee to identify the most reasonable solution for the project and neighborhood. No less important than any other detail of the proposed project are the existing protected street. Hestia #2 intends to preserve as many tree as possible, if not all. Where trees pose an impediment to the proposed plan, the primary effort taken will be to transplant the trees within the Homer Avenue Property. In addition, landscape designs and plans also call for robust planting of attractive trees in the courtyard and throughout the Property. All in all, we look forward to City staff's review of the proposed plan, feedback from the Architectural Review Board as well as an open dialogue with the neighbors of the project, From there, we wish to advance to subsequent phases in the planning and application process for ARB approval and entitlements. Sincerely, Jerrick Ann Hestia #2 112935 Alcosta Blvd UNIT 194 San Ramon CA 94583 2.d Packet Pg. 20 Attachment E Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “567 Homer Avenue” 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=4562&TargetID=319 2.e Packet Pg. 21 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: ... City of Palo Alto. Could you call the roll, please? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: The first item on our agenda is oral communications. That's the time for people to talk to us about matters that are within our purview but not on today's agenda. Do we have any cards for oral communications? No? Is there anybody who wants to speak during oral communications? Seeing no one, agenda....Oh. Shani Kleinhaus: (inaudible) but since I’m here anyway. My name is Shani Kleinhaus, I'm the environmental advocate for Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. Chair Furth: Good morning. You need to spell your name for our... Ms. Kleinhaus: I have a card there. [spells name] Chair Furth: Great. You have three minutes. Ms. Kleinhaus: Okay. One of the things that the Audubon and the Sierra Club actually have been working on in this region is bird safety in terms of design of glass and other features, like suspension bridges. You maybe remember, there was one in Palo Alto a while ago. And other structure elements, and proximity to a natural area. And we have been working with a lot of different cities. I gave a presentation in Palo Alto a few years ago. One of the emerging issues are these coming in as... and we find that nationwide... And as Audubon, I participate in a lot of conversations about that, is the issue of lighting. Because LED, because of the wavelengths, because of the brightness, is causing huge problems for every living thing. The light interferes with our circadian rhythms, and those of all living things. Even trees, and even seeds in the ground. And it also attracts birds. What people don't usually know is that birds migrate at night, so most of the birds that we see around us come in at night. Light attracts them, and when they land in the places that are lit, they hit the buildings often, or they are attracted to very urban areas that are not good for them to be at. There's no food, and they can't refuel. So, we have seen quite a decline in (inaudible) and songbird populations everywhere. The biggest problem for birds are manmade structures and lighting. Obviously, habitat changes and loss of habitats, including loss of trees and loss of water resources, and then, cats. I think that the issue of lighting and what wavelength is used and when lights are on or off is really, really critical. One of the things that I would like you to always look at is what time can we turn the lights off, and how much light is really needed for security. And if ornamental ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: April 4, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 lights are included in any design, those should be off. Depends on where you are. If you're near the Baylands, early. If you're downtown, maybe midnight or 1:00 a.m. But really look at lights-out programs that turn the lights off when they're not really, really needed, and leave the minimum, and even control the wavelengths and the spread. Even if it doesn't project into the Baylands, the amount of light everywhere. Even nice trees. I go out at night, and there is no more night. I can't see the stars. And I live in Palo Alto. I didn't say that. But please start to look at that very deeply. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any questions of the speaker before she leaves? I have one. In your advocacy... Thank you for coming. We do have an earlier report from you, I recall. In your advocacy for turning lights off at night, what are you using as a criteria relative to sundown, say? Ms. Kleinhaus: I have basically referred people to the International Dark Sky Association and their recommendations. Chair Furth: Thank you Ms. Kleinhaus: Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else? Ms. Kleinhaus: Also, sorry. The National Audubon has, on their website, lights-out program recommendations, so that's another thing. Chair Furth: Anybody else I missed who wishes to speak at this point? This time really seeing no one. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions. I will say one thing. That if anybody wishes to speak on Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements and those two items that we have listed under there, which we are going to talk about, just write that specific thing - "ARB Annual Report" or "Review of Draft Letter to City Council" - on your speaker card. I've got a question, in that maybe in the future we can number that item so that it's clear to people. All right. 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. Staff? Ms. Gerhardt: We have, just on the schedule, we have noted when vacations are going to be, so if you could review that, that would be helpful. And then, as far as April 18th, just wanted to go over the schedule for that. And it looks like those items, it will be the same items. Seem to be still on schedule for the 18th. We do have... Actually, the 233 University will be continued to May 2nd. Chair Furth: Remind me what 233 University is. Ms. Gerhardt: The Mills Florist. Downtown. Chair Furth: We have Pacific Catch, the shopping center, a new proposal for 565 Hamilton for mixed use...? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Furth: And subcommittee meeting on 190 Channing Avenue. Have I appointed a subcommittee for that? Ms. Gerhardt: We have not, so, actually, that would be good to do. Chair Furth: Remind me what the project is? Ms. Gerhardt: One-ninety Channing is in the SOFA (South of Forest Area) area, the Ken Hayes mixed-use project. Chair Furth: Right. Alex, would you be willing to do that? Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: And David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: Thanks. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road [18PLN- 00186]: Consideration of a Site and Design Review, and Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 18,000 Square Foot Vacant Restaurant Building and a 15,700 Square Foot Audi Service Building and the Construction of a Two-Story 84,900 Square Foot Automobile Dealership That Combines two Brands (Mercedes/Audi). The Applicant has Also Requested Zoning Amendment to Change the Zoning of the Site From CS(D) and PC to CS(D)(AD). Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From March 15, 2019 to April 15, 2019. Zoning Districts: CS(D) & PC-4846. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us Chair Furth: Under Action Items, we have one hearing today. It's a quasi-judicial public hearing on 1700 and 1730 Embarcadero Road, better known as Ming's and the existing Audi dealership. It's a consideration of a site and design review and request for a design enhancement exception to allow the demolition of an existing 18,000 square foot vacant restaurant building and a 15,700 square foot Audi service building, and the construction of a two-story 85,000 square foot automobile dealership that combines two brands, Mercedes and Audi. The applicant has also requested a zoning amendment to change the zoning of the site from Commercial Service Design Overlay and PC to Commercial Service Design Overlay Auto Dealership. There is an initial study under CEQA that is being circulated for public comment until April 15th of this year. The Planner is Sheldon Ah Sing. Mr. Sing? Mr. Sing: Yes, good morning, and thank you for the introduction. This project's site does have a lot of history and background, so I'm going to go into that a little bit today, as well as talking about the site context and its relationship to the Baylands. And then, go into details about the project comparisons from what's proposed now versus the project that was through the City in 2016. And then... Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Sing: ... try to summarize that as much as possible. The 4.82-acre site, to put it into perspective, there are two separate parcels. It is not being combined. There will be two separate buildings. Obviously, City of Palo Alto Page 4 the perception is that it looks like one building but there are two separate parcels. There is an existing former restaurant at 1700 Embarcadero, the Ming's restaurant, with 17,000 square feet. It will be demolished. And there is an existing Audi dealership at 1730 Embarcadero, where the showroom -- which was recently built -- would remain, and the balance of the building would be demolished. The request included a zoning amendment for both sites. You have a CS District at the corner for the former Ming's property. They'll be adding the Automobile Dealership overlay. And then, the Audi dealership has a PC designation, and that's changed to be CS with the site design review, as well as the automobile dealership. Both sites would have the same zoning. Then you have a site and design review, and that's to look at the architecture and the sensitivity with the Baylands area. And you have design enhancement exception with respect to the build-to line setbacks that come with the CS District, as well as shading for parking lots. We'll go into more detail about that. The first site is 1730 Embarcadero. That is the Audi site, which has the planned community zoning that was established in 1970 for the dealership. And then, it was revamped several years ago to take into account the new Automobile Dealership overlay that was going into the zoning codes. With this new PC at that time, it brought over some of those standards. It does include the Audi dealership, which is also the showroom, which was recently constructed. The project at that time that established that PC-4846 did include a newer in the back, but they chose not to exercise that part of the project. The existing showroom is 18-19 foot setback there from Embarcadero. There's a 21-foot ceiling within that building. That building will not be changed, so that part of it with the zone change ends up being legally non-conforming. But they are not changing the actual room. With 1700 Embarcadero, the existing zoning is CS with a D, site and design. As I mentioned, it has an existing former restaurant with a surface parking lot around it. There's also a former plan for a hotel, and that was the change from the PC to a CS District. You'll see that design there. That approximately is 50 feet tall for that building. And then, there was also a prior attempt for the dealership prior to this one that went through the process in 2016, and the Council had a number of concerns here. But this is the site plan for that former proposal, as well as the elevations.... Chair Furth: Just a second, Sheldon. That's the one that the ARB recommended approval and the Council overturned it and said no. Mr. Sing: That is correct. Chair Furth: Thank you Mr. Sing: This orientation here does not include the Audi site at all. It is independent of that. The showroom is oriented towards Bayshore, with deliveries occurring along Embarcadero. The service entry was towards the rear, and the building was 50 feet tall. The three stories. The Council had concerns about compatibility, with surroundings, they thought it was too tall. They wanted to evaluate the FAR (Floor Area Ratio) more. They had concerns about bird-safe windows. They wanted TDM for the site - Transportation Demand Management. They were concerned about the landscaping palette. They wanted more Baylands type of plants. They were concerned about lighting. They also wanted to include the Baylands General Design Guidelines for evaluation. And then, they wanted to understand more about the cost implications of intersection improvements because the project had an impact at the adjacent intersection. With all that culminating, they said the direction was to bring it back to the ARB, and the applicant decided to give up on the project. Therefore, we have a new project. Here is the site context of the area. You can see 101 there. You can't see the project site from 101. There is an overpass, Embarcadero, as you go down, you can see in the distance the hills across the bay. But as you get down, it's very flat. When you're in that area, you can't see the horizon or anything. Surrounding the site are all LM, Limited Manufacturing. The buildings are 35 feet in height. They are large buildings surrounded by large surface lots. They have big setbacks. And then, also, in the area of the airport and Baylands, immediately is adjacent to the Audi site, and the Renzel Trail is there. You can see the property from there. Photographs that I took at the site, there are three eucalyptus trees that are, they are at the boundary of the Audi site. Those would be removed and replaced with nine oak trees, so there will be some screening there. As we go through the presentation, we are recommending that at the rear of the City of Palo Alto Page 5 building, there's more landscaping that's put on the building, or some other interface there. This is project summary. Now we're transitioning to the new project here. As I mentioned, the properties will remain separate. The major constraint of the site, especially with respect to 1700 Embarcadero, is an 80- foot utility easement along Bayshore. It includes overhead utilities from PG&E, as well as underground utilities from the City. The limitation is that no structure is permitted, and vegetation can't be taller than 15 feet within that. Part of the project, the first phase is that the Ming's building will be demolished and replaced, and the Audi showroom would remain. The service building will be demolished, and then, the new Audi service building and carwash would be constructed. There is a carwash that is five feet from the property line, and there are some public comments about that later, but there were some comments about that. The buildings are separate but there will be ability to drive between the buildings, so there is some synergy because the dealerships are adjacent to each other. With this design, the operations will be able to keep traffic on the site as they're trying to move cars around internally, rather than going onto the street and making a bunch of U-turns. That is why the circulation is set up the way it is. Except for, like, test drives, for instance. The ARB did ask the applicant to move the orientation of the building, the showroom, from Embarcadero to Bayshore. The applicant responded and will have a presentation later, but primarily, customers are coming from Embarcadero. The other dealerships are already facing Embarcadero, so it makes sense for their dealership to orient themselves towards Embarcadero. As part of the project, the project will have a bike path that's along Bayshore and Embarcadero Road. I'll go into more detail about that, but I just wanted to mention that's on the site plan here. There's some complications in the way it's proposed in that the trees that exist along Bayshore would need to be removed and the placement of those, of course, is limited by the easement. This is a comparison. The top is the project that went through in 2016. You can see that is a 50-foot tall dealership. And now, you see the building, the proposal at the bottom, which is about 40 feet; 35 feet is what's being proposed. Here, the rendering is between what you saw last time at the bottom, and then proposed today, and the changes there. The biggest change is changing some of those colors to more muted colors. The branding is more dark colors, but they limited those. The applicant will talk a little bit more about that. This is just from Embarcadero, and you can see again some of the color changes that they have done, as well as I mentioned that from the side, there were doors, and they wanted to make sure those were glass, and those are glass doors for the entry of the cars there. This is taken from Bayshore. On this drive here (inaudible) Bayshore, that's where you have some of your surface parking for the Mercedes site. You have some display. You have some customer parking. This is a direct shot taken from the Bayshore side. There was some comment about the horizontal band here being too thin. This is something the applicant looked into, but it is an integral brand feature that's consistent amongst Mercedes-Benz dealerships. But yet, you can see this along Embarcadero Road, so, there isn't a direct.... While there is an entry there, it's not a direct stairway that leads up from Embarcadero Road. Someone would have to walk from the Bayshore side to get there. This is taken from the intersection. That tower is there, it's not going to move, but that is the view that you would get. And then, this is the bike/pedestrian pathway that you'd see there. There is a rest area as well as a fountain there. Some site issues and constraints. The Audi site, as I mentioned, is adjacent to the Baylands, and there's sensitivity to that regarding wildlife, lighting, noise. There is an 80-foot utility easement that restricts any building to be located along Bayshore. The height limit of 50 feet, they can go up to 50 feet. As the concern was from the Council that that was too tall for this iteration, brought that down to around 40 feet. And the vicinity context, these buildings are limited manufacturing type of buildings, so a dealership or car dealership is going to look like a dealership, and it's going to operate like one. It is going to be different, and I think there's some consideration for that. It can't be something else. It's not going to look like a hotel or be a hotel. And then, we have the build-to line, which is something that makes a lot more sense in the context of having more pedestrians along El Camino Real. In this case, they can't meet the build-to line because of the easement, and that causes some issues along Embarcadero. Although they could meet the build-to setback along Embarcadero, but it does affect the operation of the site and in keeping some of the cars on site, if they're moving cars around. This went to the Planning and Transportation Commission last week. They had concerns. Their review was regarding the use, and they also had the site design and City of Palo Alto Page 6 looked at the Baylands. They had some concerns about the compatibility of the project. It was a 4-3 vote, so it was fairly close, to recommend the project to the Council. They added a condition regarding migratory birds and replacement of mature trees, and that affects the bike path. They didn't see the benefit of removing the trees for the sake of having the bike path. They had a condition on lighting, regarding light levels to be in comparison to existing levels, so there was some sensitivity there. As I mentioned, there was discussion about the appropriateness of the use. They thought maybe the ROLM was a better designation because of the height considerations. They kind of went on about other aspects like compatibility with the Baylands. We heard from members of the public, saying this was a gateway site and its designs didn't fit. Going to the bicycle path, there is a gap in the formal bicycle plan along the frontage of the project to Geng Road trail. This is a component that we think is very important. There are connections out there by the 101 overpass and it makes cyclists go out of their way to go north from the overpass. It's effectively penalizing them for choosing a, sort of cleaner way to go. This is a street view. This is there along Bayshore, on the right side there is a little stripe for the bike path, the bike lane. It kind of ends there, and then it kind of picks up again past the Audi site. There is definitely a gap here, and there are constraints to this corner. Depending on site design, the target design would include an eight-foot path, in some cases a two-foot shoulder, with a five- to 10-foot planter strip. It would cause at least some separation between the roadway and the bike path. The path would be on both right-of-way as well as establishing a public access easement. Board Member Thompson: I have a quick question. Mr. Sing: Sure. Board Member Thompson: Can you point out where the bike path is in this drawing? Mr. Sing: It's right here, this tan... Board Member Thompson: It's the tan thing? Mr. Sing: Yeah. Along both streets, and it kind of hugs the inside, as best as you can... Chair Furth: And it's a combined bike path/pedestrian way, right? Mr. Sing: That is correct. Yes. Chair Furth: Thanks. Board Member Thompson: I see. Mr. Sing: Yeah, there were other talks about having something go through the Audi dealership, but there were some problems with security. This is another alternative that staff had come up with. It was agreed to by the applicant. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Sing: This is in the packet of the plans, but there... Board Member Hirsch: (inaudible) Chair Furth: I’m sorry, David, we should probably let him finish. I set a bad precedent here. Board Member Hirsch: The bike path, how does...? That connects up to the bike bridge that crosses over? Is that what happens with it right there? I'm trying to remember where you get of the bridge on this...? Chair Furth: It doesn't. Mr. Sing: The bike bridge is further south. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Hirsch: Further south. Yes. But does this bike path continue to the bridge? Chair Furth: No. Board Member Lew: But there's a bike lane. Chair Furth: Why don't we continue that part of the discussion. I think we're going to have a lot of discussion about the bike paths. Mr. Sing: With the bicycle path, there's some opportunity to bring some elements of the Baylands to the site through the landscaping treatment of the rest area. That component, that was part of the 2016 project, so I think there's some, maybe opportunity here to bring that forward. The design has exception for two items. There's a build-to line, and the project simply can't comply with East Bayshore because of the easement. The project could comply with the Embarcadero side, but as proposed, there is some better on-site circulation with a larger setback, and we think that kind of makes sense. The other issue is with the parking lot tree canopy. By putting the bike path the way it's proposed, trees will be removed, and they can't replace those to the extent to have the canopy. If they didn't have the bike path, they would be able to meet the requirement. The PTC did not want to have the trees removed, but potentially there is an opportunity through further evaluation to get both. We just don't know what that looks like at this time. The Baylands Master Plan, these are some of the design considerations. To use muted colors, natural colors; preserve the horizon line with low and horizontal elements; mount fences and enclosures and signs, regulatory signs, and design for practicality. Some of these are really for, types of projects are within the preserve itself. Some of these do apply for projects that are in the private lands. But to make it very clear, this is within the private lands and not in the preserve property. And just provide a building there. And an example across the street from Bayshore, one that was cited in the design guidelines, something that included some on-site landscaping. There's some muted colors. This one happens to have a lot of glass. I don't know what was a consideration there. This project does, in its response to the Board's comments from last year, uses more muted colors. Has some darker colors just to keep the integrity of the brand. The height is consistent with the CS District. Understand, that's a 50-foot height limit; they brought it down to 40. It is taller than the surrounding buildings that are maximum 35 feet. The project does have integrated sales, inventory, and customer parking, so you kind of internalize a lot of things that you typically would think are part of an automobile dealership. You think of a smaller building with a sea of parking around it, so kind of internalized all that into a building. The lighting for the project are addressed through the conditions and further enhanced by the PTC. We think those are a good way to address the lighting issues. The project does include bird-safe windows, and we can have the applicant describe the exact applicability of how they're doing that. That's included in the plans. The project does include oak trees along the urbanized edge, which is the Audi dealership. The Mitigated Negative Declaration is being circulated. We've actually extended a week out for it, so we have from March 15th to April 22nd for people to provide comment. The document did identify potential significant impacts to biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils, noise and transportation. All those issues can be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. We are seeking some input from the Board on the document. We also have the consultant who drafted the document here, in case you have any questions for her. Chair Furth: Thank you. Before we hear from the public and the applicant... Mr. Sing: I have a couple more slides. Sorry. [crosstalk] Mr. Sing: It's important, and I think people would appreciate it. Chair Furth: Go for it. I just forgot to ask people to disclose before the... Go for it. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Mr. Sing: Thank you. We had some public comment. I don't want to forget that people have expressed interest in this. There was concern about massing, about it being too big for the area, about the FAR calculations, about the height being inappropriate. There was concern about noise from the carwash from the neighbor. Those are all good comments. The noise, we have a mitigation measure within the environmental document that would address that operation. We also heard about compatibility with the Baylands and the project site being the gateway. The next steps here is the ARB to review the architecture, review the design enhancement exception, provide comment, recommendations to the City Council. We want to complete environmental review, respond to any comments, and then, moving on to City Council. I think here, we're targeting going to the Council the end of June. Maybe that is aggressive, but understandably, if the Board is not feeling comfortable about moving the project forward today, we have an opportunity for another meeting to address some issues. I think what we're looking for here is some really clear direction, if that's the case, on whatever it is - the color's not right, the building is too big, whatever it is - I think it would be very helpful that we provide very clear comments to the applicant. With that, we want the Board to consider the environmental document, consider the draft record of land use action, and if you feel like you can make a recommendation, please do so to the Council, based on the findings and subject to the conditions in my presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Sheldon. My first question to my fellow board members is, have we all had an opportunity to visit the site? Board Member Thompson: Not recently, but I've been there, a bit ago. Chair Furth: Alex? Board Member Lew: I have visited the site twice, once at night and once at five o'clock. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I visited the site. I spent quite a bit of time in the Baylands side, looking at the building. Chair Furth: And I visited the site yesterday in the early evening, before sundown, actually. Does anybody have any conversations to disclose concerning this matter? Board Member Hirsch: No. Board Member Thompson: No. Vice Chair Baltay: Nothing outside the public record. Board Member Lew: I have had a phone call with Karen Holman, and also, I exchanged emails with Shani Kleinhaus over the past several... I'd say over the past three months. Chair Furth: All right. Both of those people have either spoken with us or filed a speaker card. We also received an email comment from former mayor Holman. Is that in our packet of materials that are available? I think so. Board Member Lew: It's on the top. Chair Furth: It's on the top. Well, what do you know? All right. Ms. Gerhardt: You do have a significant amount of comments. Many of those are for the wireless item. Chair Furth: Yes? Board Member Lew: (inaudible) was that I watched the PTC hearing regarding this item. Chair Furth: And I will disclose that when I tried to do it, it wasn't up yet. But that's good to know. And we have had a summary from staff, which is a little more extensive than the one in the newspaper. If we City of Palo Alto Page 9 could hear from the applicant. You have 10 minutes for your initial presentation, and then you will have time to respond after the public has spoken. Lyle Hutson, Architect: Good morning, Board Members. My name is Lyle Hutson [spells name]. I am the architect for the applicant, Holman Automotive. Very pleased to be here today. This is our second visit here with the ARB board. I realize that all the people that were here last time are here now, so we're going to treat this as getting you used to the project and understanding what we're doing. My apologies to the previous members if you have seen this before. I want to, again, start by saying thank you very much. This is a project that we extensively looked at, the previous approval, not only the hotel, but the previous automotive facility that was proposed here. Not this group. It is the same manufacturer, Mercedes-Benz, but now this owner is also the owner and dealer of the Audi dealership next door. They have been members of this community, they have been around for some time, and our goal here is to certainly be respectful to the existing architecture, the uniqueness of the brand for Mercedes-Benz, and tying that in with, certainly the use in the neighborhood and the Baylands, finally. Important to note that we've worked tirelessly with staff, and again, thanks to Sheldon and Jodie for putting on a very nice presentation today. I'm going to go a little bit further with this, so you understand a little more about what we're proposing to do. This is a facility that did not work for the previous applicant. We are proposing something very unique here, with an opportunity to have a modern automotive facility that does not have a sea of cars out in front, is not your typical automotive dealership, and combines the current use of, whether it's internet sales or specialty sales, that our new-car inventory is basically housed in our main building. The building is composed of the front area, which is the showroom, which is 20 feet tall at that point. We're no taller than 20 feet at our showroom. We have a second floor area that sits back behind that where we have office space and support restrooms and things like that, on the second floor. And then, the upper level is our car-vehicle stacking system. These vehicles are stacked between five and seven feet tall for each individual spot. We hold a significant number of cars which we anticipate to be the entire new-car inventory for this facility, so that there are no sea of cars out in front for either new or used vehicles. These are all housed inside the building, which gives us the opportunity to have just a single drive lane out in front and customer parking along Bayshore. I'm going to ask that Sheldon help me and let's play the main movie, just real quick. This is one that was played before. It does have the dark colors I think you've seen in Sheldon's presentation. We took to heart the Board's comments about the black materials and finishes and have muted those. We do have one area that has our Mercedes logo and sign on it, but this movie still has some of the black. But, I encourage you to look at the interior and how it functions with the exterior as we go through this. It's a very short movie. [The applicant played a short video, with Mr. Hutson making brief comments throughout.] Mr. Hutson: This black has been changed to a much more muted color and the white wall facing Embarcadero is now black. That's in your package and part of our submittal. This is the Bayshore elevation. Again, took to heart, making this more of an attractive elevation. The interior of the facility/showroom. As you can see, that's the maximum at 20 feet in our showroom. Stairs up to the second level, and you can see vehicles in the automotive stacking facility, but it's not accessible from the second floor at that point. I have another short movie that shows how the stacking system works and how it integrates with the retail environment for the automotive facility. And we've actually tried to be very realistic about our lighting levels and what we're showing. This has been of a major concern from the very beginning, even before we went to the Board and our discussions onsite with members of the public regarding the Baylands, the birds, and the lighting levels. And in the back of our presentation, there is a photometric that will basically lay out the fact that we have less than one foot candle at all property lines, including the Baylands. That's not including any shade that the trees that are on the site would provide. This is truly without any tree shading. Sometimes we do light level photometric studies with the tree canopy, and sometimes without. We chose in this situation not to utilize the trees at all and to give you a true calculation of what it would be. The upper deck, I think it's important to note as we saw in that last video, at the twilight hour, that our upper deck has no light poles on it. We did discuss City of Palo Alto Page 10 this last time with the Board. We had 15-foot short poles on the parking level up above, and that's been completely removed, and we are on wall-mounted four-foot-high-mounted wall pack units. It's not for displaying cars. It's purely for getting through the, circulating at night. We think that we can do it with that without having poles, so there is certainly no spillover from the upper deck onto either the building or to, certainly, the Baylands next door, or our adjacent neighbor. Sheldon, would you play the parking system movie? This is a simulation of how this parking system works, both onsite and within the building. [The applicant played a short video, with Mr. Hutson making brief comments throughout.] Mr. Hutson: We have this area on Bayshore that allows our vehicles to be off-loaded on site so they're not off-loading on site. They are off-loaded, they are brought into the building. There is a tag placed on the dashboard that gets scanned so the system knows what vehicle it is. The door closes. The vehicle is scanned again inside the bay to make sure nobody is in there, and that the car is off, and it's ready to be put away. The vehicle gets closed off. One more scan again to make sure. It rotates, if need be. Goes into the system. There's a center aisle that is for circulation only. It's a lift that goes up and over. It will slot the car in a predetermined spot. It will also move other cars out of the way like a puzzle if needed to be put in a deeper spot. To retrieve a vehicle is kind of the reverse of that. A salesman would be with a customer. They would select the vehicle that they want to look at or to test drive. This can be done prior to or directly at the entry and exit door for the vehicle system. The car gets requested. The sled will go - of which we have two. We have a redundant system in case one fails. We do have two lifts. Go grab the car, bring it down, deliver it to the bay for the customer to either go for a test drive, or into the showroom and ultimately for delivery. This system is unique in that it's never been done before in this retail environment. We've adapted this special for this facility and the way that this facility can and will operate for both selling and storing new vehicles. We certainly acknowledge that it does have challenges, but it also gives us the opportunity to make sure our cars aren't out on the lot, we're not washing cars every day, we're not wasting water. We do have a carwash on site for service vehicles, but these cars will stay clean, dry and preserved for customers. We don't have, again, a large sea of cars where you have to jump in a golf cart and go find a car for a customer to look at. We're responding not only to the site, but as well as the opportunity for the sales environment. I have a variety of slides addressing the issues that we had before, so I'm here to basically answer any comments, and try to work through this. Our goal here today certainly is to get comments from you. We ultimately want to get in front of City Council. We did have a meeting last week with the Planning Commission that we dealt with the planning aspects of it with regards to... Chair Furth: Great, thank you. Mr. Hutson: Okay. Chair Furth: Any questions of the applicant before we hear from other members of the public? Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Good morning. I'm noticing in your presentations that the car storage facility seems to be enclosed with glass. It's quite transparent. Mr. Hutson: That's correct. Vice Chair Baltay: And yet, when I look at your drawings, it seems that it's got some sort of firewall around it. Can you say for real, what is the enclosure? Mr. Hutson: The enclosure down below is fire protected in that loading bay, but there are other portions that are glass. And I do want to mention that I do have samples, both of our bird glass, the glass, the materials, the finishes, the plaster, as well as the... City of Palo Alto Page 11 Vice Chair Baltay: If I could stick to the question here. I'm looking at Drawing ZA502. My eyes aren't what they need to be, but your key seems to show a one-hour fire barrier, and that seems to be what's enclosing, that's the ground level corner. I just want to understand what your presentation really is. Mr. Hutson: Sure. Vice Chair Baltay: Because I would imagine there are some significant separation requirements. Mr. Hutson: ZA502 is the automated system. Vice Chair Baltay: If I'm reading your plans right, that corner, top-right corner of the automated system is that glass corner your video was showing us. Are those solid walls or transparent walls? Mr. Hutson: This is the ground floor, and it is solid. Vice Chair Baltay: And did I misunderstand the videos you showed earlier, then, that show it transparent? Mr. Hutson: That was the, I think you were looking at the second floor area that is not open to the showroom where we had... And I can call your attention to.... [looking for image]. Vice Chair Baltay: I don't mean to take up a lot of time in this. I just want to be clear as to what the enclosure really is. Mr. Hutson: The enclosure on the bottom level where you drive the cars, where the cars are driven into and off-loaded, that is not glass. Those are solid and need to be that to provide that enclosure. Similarly, the walls along the back of the showroom are not glass, as well. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I've got one. Can you clarify which light fixture you're planning to use on the roof level? I'm looking at the second to last page. There's pictures of four light fixtures. It's a little hard to read which one is going to be... Mr. Hutson: The picture for the... [looking for image.] Chair Furth: It's the next to the last sheet in the presentation you have. It's not labeled or numbered in a way that we can read. Mr. Hutson: The surface - and we provide two here - the TMWP and the XWM are both surface-mounted on the side of the wall. I'm sorry. Surface-mounted on the parapet wall. And it would be either one of those two. Board Member Thompson: It won't be both, it will be one or the other? Mr. Hutson: One or the other, unless we're trying to... We have a situation where we have aisles, that we're trying to light down the aisles, and that picture is different than right at the edge. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. This is a service facility, as well? Mr. Hutson: That's correct. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, and service for both Audi and Mercedes enters from that door in the middle between them? City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mr. Hutson: No. The service for Mercedes enters at that location, and the service for Audi is from the Audi service drive and the Audi entrance. The entrance to Mercedes is one; the entrance to Audi is adjacent, and it is the existing curb cut that is there now. We do have the opportunity to have a door between the two, deeper into the facility in case there needs to be some cross-circulation. Board Member Hirsch: Have you studied the number of vehicles you expect to come into that service area at any one time? Is there a rush period, or a time in which the cars might still be outside of the door? Mr. Hutson: If you look at the drawings, we have a deep service drive, not only for Audi and for... Excuse me, the queuing for Audi is outside, not inside. The queuing for Mercedes is intended to be entirely inside and not stack up on the outside. There's no projected number of stalls that would take us even close to having that many cars stacked up past the service drive. We have a number of lanes, and it's quite deep to go in. Board Member Hirsch: Got it. Chair Furth: I had a question, which is, could you take me through your plans for the Audi dealership? Mr. Hutson: Sure. Chair Furth: A couple minutes. Mr. Hutson: Certainly, at the request of the staff and the presentation, that we have this as two separate parcels, and it's divided between Audi and Mercedes. I'll ask Sheldon if he'll go through the, when we get to the Audi floor plans. Chair Furth: We are reviewing both of them today, Sheldon. Thank you. Mr. Hutson: Sheldon, if you would go to ZA101, that's the... Ms. Gerhardt: Just to clarify, there are two legal lots, but it is one project, so we are reviewing them together. But they will remain two legal lots. Mr. Hutson: The permit phase and phasing will be two separate projects, but we are here today to go through this as a single project, for expediency and for the ability to understand how this works together. It is important that we have the circulation, and we talked about this with the traffic commission last week, about circulation for fire trucks and for servicing the equipment in the back, and getting cars in and out, and not having that on the front of the building. So, all that's done... Chair Furth: We believe it is important. What is the proposal? Mr. Hutson: Okay, so, the proposal is the existing showroom that is there now, that you're seeing in the pink area. That is existing now. We are expanding to have a pre-owned portion of that showroom expand to the back a little bit. It's separated by the three-lane service drive that goes into the Audi dealership. That's the -- Sheldon, if you'd point to where the service drive is, right here -- we have two in and one out from that location. And then, as you go in, you're written up for service. That car is taken and delivered to a spot to be serviced on the ground level there. If you do keep going, you go into the service drive for Mercedes. That can either be closed or open, but we do have access at that point. If you go back again. The second floor is for, we have office space and support for the showroom that's existing, and to make a connection between the new service building that will be removed and replaced. The heights are exactly the same between Mercedes and the Audi so that they can share drive and parking on the upper level, if needed. There is a ramp in the back of both buildings. They don’t share a ramp. And each one of those goes up to the level, which would be at 40 feet above the ground. That's our parking deck. We basically, it's a two-store building. We have 20 foot floor to floor, essentially, on this. We have a higher area just for the convenience of connecting between the two, storing parts, and being able to City of Palo Alto Page 13 service vehicles on the ground level. I don't know if that answers your question or not on how Audi works. Chair Furth: And what's the phasing of this project? Mr. Hutson: Phasing is that the Mercedes dealership would be built first, in its entirety. There is no Mercedes here now, so there isn't the need to have ongoing service. Once the Mercedes dealership is complete, the shops will be shared for Audi as we tear down the Audi building and do it in its entirety. It is a two-phase project, Mercedes first, then Audi second. And Audi would utilize service bays in the completed Mercedes building to allow... Chair Furth: And what are you tearing down? Mr. Hutson: Tearing down, for the Mercedes, the main... Chair Furth: No, no, for the Audi site. Mr. Hutson: For the Audi site, it's the building that's behind. That's their existing service building now. There is a service drive that angles, very similar to the way it is now, and anything to the east of that towards the Baylands will be removed. It's a single-story [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: I have been on site, and I have backed up between two rows of brand-new Audis, and lived to tell the tale. Thank you. Thank you. Mr. Hutson: You're welcome. Ms. Gerhardt: Just to clarify, the front showroom, the new showroom for Audi, would remain, and all the back service areas would be demolished. Chair Furth: Right, and that will be the non-conforming use under the requested zoning. The non- conforming development facility. The showroom will now be non-conforming if you rezone. Mr. Sing: Yes, based on the build-to setback, and there's a ceiling height within the showroom, and... Chair Furth: It's too high and too far? From the street? Mr. Sing: Too far away by about eight feet or so. Nine feet. Chair Furth: Thank you. I don't think there are any more questions now. I have a number of cards. The first speaker Eric Hoo, to be followed by Shani Kleinhaus. Mr. Hoo: Good morning. Thank you very much for allowing me to speak. Chair Furth: Thank you. You have three minutes, and if you could spell your name for our transcriber. Mr. Hoo: My name is Eric Hoo, and I represent the owner of the building next door, 2479 East Bayshore Road. [Does not spell name] We have a concern of the carwash being built. We are concerned that it's too close to us, and also, the noise level and all of that. And on top of that, the back side of the building where the carwash is located, aesthetically, you know, it's not appealing, it's not good-looking, but it's also facing us, so that is a big concern to us. Chair Furth: Excuse me. You represent the adjacent property owner on East Bayshore? Mr. Hoo: Yes, 2479 East Bayshore Road. Chair Furth: Thank you. Right next door. Mr. Hoo: To the Mercedes dealership. Chair Furth: Got it. Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Mr. Hoo: So, yeah. The carwash being too close, and the back side is aesthetically, to our opinion, not very appealing. And wonder if they can change the design to make it nicer and see if there is anything they can do with the carwash. That is pretty much, you know, one of the big concerns for us. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any questions for Mr. Hoo? What's the current use of your property? Mr. Hoo. It's just office building. We have tenants, you know, law firms, accounting firms, start-up companies, software companies. Chair Furth: Office uses, basically. Mr. Hoo: Yes, office use, yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Shani Kleinhaus. Shani Kleinhaus: Thank you. Shani Kleinhaus with Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society and a resident of Palo Alto. I wasn't able to get into the actual plans. Somehow the link wasn't working for me, so I'm just going to say things in general. Embarcadero east of 101 is a scenic corridor and this site is the gateway to the Baylands. To some extent, to me, this looks incompatible with the Baylands Master Plan. One thing is that the Baylands Master Plan calls for a planting strip and a bike lane, so just choosing one over the other and putting little trees because of the PG&E in the corridor is not justified. They should be in a significant planting strip. And if it can't be under the power lines, then a little further. And may mean that this project needs to be a little smaller. Also, they are asking a lot of us. They are asking us to change zoning. They should give a lot in return. And the Master Plan calls for enhancement of the Baylands, if possible, so I would look at the back side of it and add another two layers of trees and create a barrier of trees between the Baylands and this project. The bird-safe glazing, I was unable to see where it applies, so I don't know how good it is. They provide some comment to look at the North Bayshore precise plan and see how they did that. Bird mitigation, bird surveys for nesting birds, are looking at only trees, but most of the birds in the Baylands, they nest on the ground. So, looking at the area behind the building, and really looking at ground-nesting birds and not only tree-nesting birds is really important here. And a general comment. The Baylands Master Plan calls for preserving the horizon line with low and horizontal elements. This looks a little too big. But I think it's an irony that in times that we're talking about sustainability and sea level rise, we're looking to put a car dealership as a gateway to our Baylands. This is an iconic building. This is going to be a gateway to the Baylands. First, there should be no sign indicating the Baylands on site because that would look like they're sponsoring our Baylands in some way. But to bring a car dealership to be the symbol of the Baylands is a little weird, especially if it increases the car traffic in the Baylands area, which is aimed to be minimal if you look at the Baylands Master Plan. I don't think this project mitigates all the impacts to below significant level. I will provide comments in writing. I think the deadline, though, is the 22nd and not the 15th. I think you said the 15th and I think the letter we got said the 22nd. Chair Furth: You are correct. Ms. Kleinhaus: Thank you. Chair Furth: (inaudible-off microphone) Wayne Kumagai, to be followed by Suzanne Keehn. I'm sure you know who you are. Wayne Kumagai: Hi, good morning. My name is Wayne Kumagai [spells name]. I'm a real estate broker with Newmark Commercial. I sold the building to the adjacent building owner, 2479, which is a 100,000 square foot office building. And they are very concerned about this project. Chair Furth: Excuse me, could you tell us, 2479...? Mr. Kumagai: East Bayshore. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Furth: East Bayshore, which is...? Which building? Mr. Kumagai: It's the adjacent building, 100,000 square foot building to the south. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I'm still lost. My colleagues are completely clear, but what building are we discussing? Ms. Gerhardt: This is the [crosstalk]... Board Member Lew: We're talking about the same neighbor as the previous... Chair Furth: Got it. Board Member Lew: ...speaker. Mr. Kumagai: And they are very concerned about this project, from the standpoint of devaluing their building, you know, and attracting tenants. They get rental income from tenants, as Eric mentioned, from attorneys, software developers, accountants, other professionals, and they are very concerned about the potential noise from the carwash. And where it's located on the site, they'd like it to be located to the east, more towards the other dealership, if possible, away from their site. Also concerned about the general aesthetics from the rear view because their tenants will be looking towards the building. That's all. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of the speaker? Now that I finally understand what he was saying. (inaudible-off microphone). Ms. Keehn: Yeah, it's Keehn, although it's kind of a funny spelling. Yes. Chair Furth: Could you spell your name for our transcriber? Ms. Keehn: [spells name]. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Keehn: From everything I've read and understand, this is spot zoning. That is different from all the other buildings in the area. I really think this property should be turned back to ROLM-E, and in alignment with what is there, and that we have said that's what we wanted. Apparently, I just read that there originally was supposed to be a hotel, which didn't work out. Well, I don't think this one should work out. I'm very concerned about climate change and all the things that the Audubon lady said, about the rising seawater, etc. But, first of all, I think we as humanity have to start putting nature as important as everything else. Actually, she's more important. Without nature, none of us would be here. Or able to survive. And one thing that we have done here in the West is just building over her, not listening, and not caring about our natural beauty. I truly believe that an area can only hold so many people, cars, etc., comfortably, and I think we've about reached that, if not more so. So, I really hope you'll put the Baylands first. I, too, think this is way out of bounds and pretty huge and obscene for what is already out there, and to have that as the gateway to our Baylands doesn't seem compatible at all. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Terry Holzemer, to be followed by Karen Holman, to be followed by Jeff Levinsky. Terry Holzemer: [spells name]. Board members, I'm here today as a Palo Alto citizen, someone who loves deeply the Baylands preserve. I visit this area often, and I love the environment. It is close to my home, but I feel like when I am there, I'm a hundred miles away. I'm here, not to be against an auto dealership on this site, but to express my concerns about this massive auto dealership development that is truly out of place and out of character with its surroundings, and that truly threatens the Baylands environment that surrounds it. The proposed CS zoning that the applicant is seeking is truly meant for commercial zones along El Camino and San Antonio Road, and it's not for a facility that, as other people have already City of Palo Alto Page 16 mentioned, is the gateway to one of Palo Alto's most important ecological and environmentally-sensitive areas. Ideally, the zoning should be changed to ROLM-E, which would allow for an auto dealership in this area, but be consistent with the zoning that already exists in the Baylands. It's also important to note that all developments in this area that are east of the Baylands freeway should be subject to the site and review provisions that are in Chapter 18-30G, and should include performance criteria that include, but are not limited to, lighting, noise and landscaping. The site assessment and guidelines that have been developed for the Baylands natural preserve, which were developed in 2005, are intended not only to review projects that are part of the Baylands, but include projects on privately-owned land that border the Baylands. I highly encourage you to look at the Baylands Master Plan, which advocates for unification of the Baylands. Recognizing and maintaining the relationship between the urbanized Embarcadero Road corridor and the area in the Baylands is very important. The design of new or redeveloped buildings and landscaping, particularly northeast of the Bayshore freeway, should reflect the area's location near the Baylands. I don't think that this project does that. I think this project is too massive, too large, and really is obscene for the gateway to the Baylands. I urge you to reexamine the site, help to redesign it so that it is more compatible and more ecologically sound for the Baylands. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Karen Holman? Karen Holman: Good morning, and thank you for hearing us. Chair Furth: Good morning. Ms. Holman: I provided four pages of just summary notes from the Baylands Master Plan that have to do with, really this location and the design components. The Baylands Master Plan does not distinguish between what's in the more natural area of the Baylands and the commercial area that's on Embarcadero, which all needs to be addressed as one unified vision. And it's very clearly stated in the Baylands Master Plan. The Baylands is so important, it's had a whole book written about its importance, and how important design is, and what the ecological and environmental mission is of that area. This site, as other people have mentioned, is the gateway to the Baylands. Embarcadero Road is a scenic route. The PTC, as was mentioned, this project just squeaked through the Planning Commission on a 4-3 vote, with one hedging. They had concerns about lighting, size, massing, the bike paths versus the trees. The zoning here really is an anomaly, and I know zoning isn't your purview, but it is an anomaly. It was changed, I think unfortunately, to CS to accommodate a hotel. CS is the zoning that's found on El Camino Real. So, I urge you not to address this site and the CS zoning as if this project were on El Camino Real because, indeed, it is at the gateway of the Baylands. Permeability -- I'm just going to hit some points here - permeability, I see no relief within the building footprint for permeability. The Baylands Master Plan talks about being able to restore the Baylands where possible. I think there is no permeability within... The large footprint of this building is counter to that. The carwash, I just did a little bit of looking last night on line, and DePaul University has a study about noise and dB, which I think is what this carwash is proposed to be, is consistent with a vacuum cleaner sound. A carwash, interestingly, was mentioned at 80 dB, which is two times 70 db. And at 20 feet... I’m sorry. At 20 feet, it's 80 dB, which actually, at eight hours -- and I don't know how much the operation is going to be. Maybe you want to condition it, whatever. Is actually potentially damaging with eight hours of exposure. What are the hours of the carwash? Are they going to use reclaimed water? Lighting is not an insignificant issue in the Baylands. I have a video that isn't quite ready for prime time yet that goes through the Baylands at night. The amount of glaring light in the Baylands is, from my personal perspective because I'm sensitive to this, is, like, it looks like a corporation yard. When you drive up 101 and get near Embarcadero, it really looks like a corporation yard or prison yard. There's so much inappropriate lighting out there, where the source of light is just glaring out at you. The Audi dealership, while I think it is a very handsome building, I think it's inappropriate for this location. But I think it's a very handsome building. But the Audi dealership itself is a source of great light intrusion. And I hope because this is such a discretionary project, you will be able to do something about the lighting at the Audi dealership. Dark Skies program is not something new. Light should always be downcast. The rear and side elevations, I agree with the City of Palo Alto Page 17 neighbor. Bike path versus trees. At the Planning Commission, it was said that PG&E could come along and make those trees be removed because they are under the power lines. I find that possible, but hardly likely, because it's not a big fire safety area. I think we could have both. The height of the buildings, it's unclear whether the height of the buildings are measured from four feet up because of the flood plain there, or if they're mentioned from grade. The bird-safe, I saw one of the board members trying to see the bird safety aspects of the glass. If you can't see it at the dais, birds aren't going to be able to see it at light. Chair Furth: Excuse me. Could you wind it up in a couple sentences? Ms. Holman: Oh, I'm sorry, yes, yes, yes. Okay. There's a lot of public interest in this project, as you can tell, so I hope that you won't rely overly on a subcommittee to do things. And the Baylands and the environment can't speak for themselves, so I'm hoping you will kind of be the Mama Bear for the Baylands and the environment in this case. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Levinsky. Jeff Levinsky: Good morning, Board Members. I hope you do decide to continue this project so there can be more public input and such. I sent you a letter with some information, but I want to point out some other things. Right in your description of the public hearing, it says that this building is 84,900 square feet, but the staff report itself shows larger numbers if you add up various things. Just adding up the things on Packet Page 17, it comes to about 104,000 square feet, and that still doesn't include all the garage space and other space they're not counting. One of the spaces they're not counting at all is that second floor part of the automated car area. And the explanation for not counting it that we've heard is, well, it's only automated there. So, apparently, if you have in your house an area that only a Roomba goes into, that's no longer floor area. This is a whole new concept in our city planning and I would like to see it stamped out. And I hope that you can help do that. As you probably all know, the rules for floor area is that if you have a floor and it's used for storage and there's a permanent roof above it, it's floor area. There's no robot exemption in our code. The showroom. There's lots of the showroom that exceeds 20 feet in height. The rule is you only get the extra showroom FAR if the showroom is 20 feet in height, or less. The argument that, well, it's grandfathered in, is incorrect, because they're switching zoning. You don't get grandfathering when you voluntarily switch zoning. No law has changed. You, the applicant, decided you wanted different zoning, so that area counts as floor area if it's over 20 feet high. It’s not showroom, it's regular floor area and should count against their limit. The building is too tall, it's too massive. Last time, I was the speaker here who asked for comparison charts so you could see the relative volume of this building versus others in the area. Because I think volume is a good way to understand what the public will perceive, what, frankly, birds will perceive, what anyone who goes out to the Baylands will perceive as the size of this building. We didn't get any of that, so I sent you my best attempt... And you can see that the building is approximately three times the mass of both of its neighboring buildings, including the folks who came here today. I'm hoping that somewhere in our City government, there are people who are going to stand up and say, "Let's apply the laws correctly. Let's not forget about thousands of square feet on the second floor just because the applicant doesn't want it counted." Let's look, when the words say a building has to be low to match the, you know, the Baylands nature, that that word "low" has a meaning, and it doesn't mean, oh, it can be the tallest building in the Baylands. So, I ask you today to please help guide our city back to following their laws, and insisting that when this comes back another time or goes on to City Council, that the numbers are right, and that we count all the areas of the building that we should. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? Applicant? Mr. Hutson: Again, Board Members, thank you very much. I appreciate the opportunity here to maybe rebut a little bit some of the concerns, and I'm going to do that. The first one regarding the carwash -- Sheldon, if you could show that last slide that shows the carwash, and the distances away? The carwash is required for us to meet the city requirement, which is the 70 dB at the property line, and we will City of Palo Alto Page 18 comply with that. We have some mitigating factors that will assist in that, but we absolutely intend not to be over the City guidelines. And if we can't meet that, we won't have a carwash. But I can tell you right now, what you're listening to is probably about 70 dB for us speaking and talking here, amplified. It's a significant chore for us to do that, and we will have to do a noise study, and to prove that. And I can certainly appreciate, this is some 81 feet away from the neighbor. That's not an excuse. That's just a fact, that we are quite a ways away. We're not counting that dimension, but I can assure our neighbors that we want to be good neighbors and do not want to affect the noise in their building. Regarding the Audubon Society, we have a, the City's consultant is here today to answer questions on some of those areas. I certainly will say that we are respectful of the birds. You have a sample of the bird glass that we intend to put in every glazing location, not just in the front or the sides, but everywhere where we have glazing, it's bird-safe glass, which has been noted to alleviate that. Regarding the real estate broker who does not want to have the value of their property reduced, I can absolutely respect that, and I can tell you that we're actually trying to do the opposite and increase his value. The main restaurant has been abandoned for a number of years, and by removing that and putting something in place, I think we're significantly going to increase the value of the property in that neighborhood. The zoning issue is exactly that. We've followed staff's recommendation on this to try to make sure that we're consistent with other buildings of the same type, the same car dealership, and absolutely want to be respectful of that, and what we've done previously with the CS zone. We're allowed to go up to 50 feet. We have a couple areas where we have a stair tower and an elevator tower that do reach the 50 feet. It constitutes one percent of our roof area. I can tell you that we have a 20-foot height limit, we have a 30-foot height limit for the second floor, and we have a 44-foot height limit at our highest point, other than the two stair towers. I think we are complying with what was discussed in previous projects, as well as trying to keep this as a CS project, to take advantage, certainly, of the automotive overlay that's allowed to us. I think that the Baylands, certainly where Audi is directly adjacent to the Baylands, we want to take particular care, and we did that on all the elevations towards, not only to our neighbor, but to the Baylands, where we have proposed new trees, a significant number of trees. We have above-podium planters that are on the wall that will capture all the water from our roof deck and treat that water before it even hits the ground. We're actually putting our BMPs (Best Management Practices) up higher, which you can actually partially see from the Baylands, to increase the green. There's no need for a green screen wall because the bulk of that is covered by trees, but we do have those up four feet from the top of our parapet so that the water can flow into the planter and be treated before it ever gets down. We've had extensive review with staff and with our consultants regarding the Baylands and the Baylands Master Plan, and while it is not indicated that the guidelines are for private property improvements, we certainly respect the lighting requirements and the site lines and things of that nature. But I think if you read thorough that document, a significant part of it is for projects being done in the Baylands itself regarding small structures, restrooms, things like that. But we absolutely are not turning our back to the Baylands and the significance it has to this are. Finally, regarding the volume of the building. I think that there's been some misrepresentation, treating these projects as one great big mass, which from the air it is, but we step back from the street. We're probably the most street-respectful height at that point, and certainly be able to provide our building volume, which isn't the way the code reflect, and evaluate its facilities. Finally, on the FAR issue, we are counting the ground floor as floor area. We are not counting subsequent levels, of which we have six other levels of wrapped parking. We are not counting those. They are not floors. People don't walk on them. There is no access to them other than a catwalk that we're providing around the outside for the fire department. That's something we're working with the fire department on, so that they have access to take care of any issues that would be inside. It is not a walkable surface. The ground floor is being counted, as it should be, regarding our FAR and our volume. With that, I'll answer any questions. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Hutson: We do have our landscape architect here as well, and I did want to show the Baylands visuals that didn't get shown. The very last pages of the document. I'm sorry about that. City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: All right. Mr. Hutson: Thanks again. Chair Furth: If you could introduce yourself for the record. Ken Puncerelli, LAI Design Group: Absolutely, Madam Chair, members of the ARB. My name is Ken Puncerelli with LAI Design Group. Chair Furth: Which you're going to spell for the transcriber. Mr. Puncerelli: Yes. [spells name] Thank you for the opportunity to speak. As part of the team, some of the commentary that I've heard today is not unusual on a site development type of applications. To that end, we have, once we pull up the site master plan, as well as landscape plan, one of the things that we've worked extremely hard to accomplish is to put in a very strong and intensified landscape buffer with canopy trees that are native, live oak, along with understory shrubs that are also native. And then, back adjacent to the Baylands area where the Audi dealership abuts, we have a much more intensified landscape treatment there, where we have not only shade trees, which are the live oak, and they get about 20 feet tall. And then, as an understory to those, we have western redbuds, and as an understory to that, we have large shrubs that grow to five to seven feet tall. And then, below that, we have grasses and sedges that are incorporated into our stormwater management plan. Those help filtrate any of the impervious surface runoff that's directed in that area. We have a number of those LID ponds around the site. But to that end, we spent probably about two to two-and-a-half hours on property with the City arborist and Sheldon, when we were talking the property to kind of learn what the City wanted and what was a concern about the Baylands. That's why everything that is proposed for landscape treatment within our property, that abuts the Baylands, is all native species, drought tolerant, and friendly to the wildlife species. If you could bring up, Sheldon, the site plan of the landscape. The colored one. [Locating slide] If you look along the right-hand side of the screen... Chair Furth: This is sheet L-2 in our packets. Is that right? Mr. Puncerelli: I believe it is. Yes, it is. If you look along the right-hand side of the drawing, what you'll notice is a tree buffer that is along the fence line there, between the dealership and the office building. That extends around to the northeast and wraps around the site adjacent to the carwash, and then, adjacent to the Baylands on the upper right-hand side of the screen. You can see the canopy trees, the large green circles. Now, the light-colored green or the lime green circles are existing trees that are on our neighbor's property. What we're doing is just adding to the canopy mix. Lastly, I think one other point that's important in everything here, relative to the Baylands, this Audi dealership, our property boundary is over 500 feet from the Baylands Trail itself, which is on an aerial slide, Sheldon, if you could bring that up. The neighboring office building is about 160-some-odd feet from the trail, and a number of the other office buildings are quite a bit closer to the trail. Chair Furth: Thank you. If we have more questions, we'll ask you. Mr. Puncerelli: Thank you very much, Madam Chair. Chair Furth: I do have a question before you leave. In going through the plant list, it seems to me I see a lot of non-native plants - a Chinese pistachio, (inaudible), callistemon. They go on and on. Are those plants that are not adjacent to the...? Mr. Puncerelli: That's correct, yes. Those would... Many of those are out in front along Embarcadero, but along... There are one or two Chinese flame that are adjacent to the office building, but all the rest that's along Baylands are all live oak, Western red bud. They are all natives. Chair Furth: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Mr. Puncerelli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair Furth: Okay. I will bring this back to the Board. Vice Chair Baltay: I just had a question for the landscape [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Okay, more questions for the landscape architect. If you could return. Sorry. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. When I was out at the Baylands side of the site, looking at all these trees, there's a number of, I guess they're old eucalyptus trees or something. They seem to provide a fairly decent amount of screening for the potential building. When I'm looking at your plan, though, it seem those are trees you're removing. Can you confirm if that's the case? At the back of the Audi dealer I see four [crosstalk].... Mr. Puncerelli: Yeah, so, a number of those are being removed, unfortunately, because of site grading and [crosstalk]. Vice Chair Baltay: I just wanted to confirm; those are indeed the big mature trees right [crosstalk] providing. Mr. Puncerelli: But there are a number of those also on the other side of the fence. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the landscape architect? Okay. Questions of staff? Mr. Puncerelli: Thank you, Madam Chair. Chair Furth: Thank you. First of all, I just had a clarifying question. Since we've had anxiety that we don't think about the Baylands-specific plan, we do have it, we do read it. And I read the document to say that the Baylands design guidelines are intended to be used when designing or reviewing projects located in any part of the Baylands, while the more specific guidelines are primarily applicable to the dedicated parkland. The design principles and concept should be applied in the service and commercial area when designing or reviewing projects for compatibility, with special aesthetic qualities and environmental conditions unique to the Baylands. So, we do not expect signage to be the same as within the park, but we are supposed to think about these things. In my view. It's not a question. I guess that's a statement. Does staff disagree? Staff does not disagree. Okay. Alex. Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff. Is a conditional use permit required? Mr. Sing: No. We have the site and design review. Chair Furth: Any other questions of staff? Board Member Thompson: Yes, I have a question. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Do we have a material board? Mr. Hutson: We had sent a very small materials board previously, but today I have actual physical samples that you can pull... One was the bird glass, and for the other pieces. I'll give those to staff for you to have. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions of staff? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Sheldon, could you explain, please, the logic in counting the automated vehicle storage system only once for floor area purposes? Why do we do that? It seems a very large, bulky thing. Mr. Sing: We did, early on, kind of look at how this is a unique system that they have. For instance, in the single-family zone, you would use a, for equivalency, for height over 17 feet, even though there is not a floor, you would say, "Well, everything over 17 feet will count." In commercial areas, you don't do that. It's for consideration of, say you have, like, a Costco building, and they have high-pile storage of merchandise. You're only going to count the ground floor. You're not going to count the space, the volume in between. And the case here, the cars are merchandise. There are no floors. Therefore, we didn't count those. Vice Chair Baltay: How tall is this space in volume? The vertical dimension of it? Mr. Sing: It's approximately 43 feet. Vice Chair Baltay: I want to be sure I understand this. It's a 43-foot-tall volume that's discounted once for the purpose of FAR. Is there anything else in town that's similar to that? Anything else that big that's only once? Ms. Gerhardt: We do have, in the Research Park, there are several lobby spaces that are vaulted in this same way. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions of staff? Okay. This is a complicated project. It's a site and design review. I wanted to put down the things that seem to come up. And maybe there are other issues that we could address as we speak. There's the issue of zoning propriety, the appropriateness of the zoning, FAR calculations -- not our call generally in terms of the zoning. The whole issue of environmental impacts, and if anybody has comments that are specific to the mitigated negative declaration, we should be sure to make them before the close of our remarks. I think we can do that separately. The identified impacts seem to be about noise, be about lighting, where the most sensitive receptors of the individuals flying over the structure, which is not our usual point of view. Plantings. Visibility from the Baylands park itself. When I was there, it seemed to me I could see water from the back of the Audi properties, so it's going to be visible the other way. Impacts on the neighboring property. Concerns particularly about the... What am I trying to say? Carwash. I will see, the existing one seems to be very noisy. And perhaps most of all, the location of the bicycle/pedestrian walkway in relationship and its impact on trees. Are there other things we should be sure to address? I'm not even dealing with the aesthetics of the design, which actually (inaudible). Board Member Thompson: I was just going to suggest that it seems like all the board members visited the site at really unique times, so just any observations that they noticed when they were there at certain times, given that other board members weren't there at that time. That might be helpful for us to know what you observed. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex, would you start? Since you observed it at more times of day than anybody else? Board Member Lew: Okay, so, like, at five o'clock, commute time, a lot of times, the traffic is backed up, trying to get to the Dumbarton Bridge, so you will see bicyclists riding on the sidewalk as it is currently configured. Because you can't, there isn't enough room to squeeze through between the cars and the sidewalk, so they ride on the sidewalk as it currently is. Also, I think at five o'clock, I did hear that the carwash, the existing carwash is outdoors, and it is very noisy, and it was going on relatively late for business hours. I did visit at night. I think that there is, in the vicinity, on the neighboring properties, City of Palo Alto Page 22 there's a lot of very unattractive lighting, like security wall-mounted lighting, up two stories high, shining outwards towards parking lots and Baylands. Some of the older dealers have very tall light pole fixtures that I don't think we would allow today. I think we would require them to be lower. Also at night, maybe like at eight o'clock, I've seen cars being unloaded from delivery trucks, at night. And then, I would also say, I don't completely understand what's going on, but there are people out there, like along East Bayshore, at night. I don't know what they're doing, but there are people out there. More than you would think, I guess I would characterize it. And I do go out by the, on the Renzel Trail, too, as well. And it seems like that, the renderings that they're showing are accurate. The existing buildings and the new buildings will be visible from one point on the trail, so we should pay attention to that. That's in the comp plan, you know, how the site looks from the Baylands side to the west, to the (inaudible) direction. Vice Chair Baltay: Osma had asked a question about perception of the site. Should we be addressing that? I think I can pick up on what Alex was just saying, that it astonishes me how many people are out there. You'd think this is a sparse, natural environment, but it's really, every parking space was full. I came into quite a few people walking on the trail and on the sidewalk, and I think we need to focus on the fact that this is very visible. It really is a gateway of sort. There's a lot of citizens walking past this building. More than you would think. Chair Furth: Okay. Alex, why don't you start off with your comments on the project. And if you want to do the mitigated negative declaration now, fine. If you want to do it later, also fine. Staff will, I'm sure, keep notes. Board Member Lew: Okay, so, I have some comments on zoning, even though that's not really our purview. But since the public has mentioned it. Some people are proposing that the zoning be the ROLM, which would be more consistent with the existing zoning. But when I look at the zoning map, many of the neighboring properties are ROLM with an Automotive overlay. I think their hope is to get the smaller building with the 35-foot height, but the Automotive overlay increases the height to 50 feet. So, we're back at the height limit for CS, right? It would be the same height limit. And I look at ROLM, it has 20- foot setbacks on side setbacks, street-side setbacks and rear setbacks. CS zone has zero setbacks, but it has context-based design criteria and build-to line requirements. It seems to me that having 20-foot setbacks makes more sense in the Baylands type of neighborhood. I think I understand that the applicant wants the zero setback so they can put the Audi and Mercedes dealer together. And my recollection is that when we had the previous hotel, we had a very awful-looking interior side yard, and it seems to me this proposed line helps reduce that sort of ugly, kind of alleyway aesthetic by putting the buildings together. I think I understand the logic there. The CS zone does require us to meet the context-based design criteria in the CS zone, and I don't see enough drawings in here to make the case that it's compatible with the neighbors. You're missing street elevations and any text to explain how the building window patterns, materials and massing sort of make design linkages to the neighboring buildings. That's something that we had mentioned on the previous Mercedes-Benz proposal, and they did do those street elevations. It helps give the public and the Board a sense for the scale of your building relative to the neighbors, so I think the drawings are not adequate at this point to move it forward to the Council. I'm concerned about the carwash noise, and I read the mitigation item in the analysis, and I think I do understand, if there are any solid fences that are proposed for the site, that might help reduce the noise levels to neighbors. On lighting, I did mention previously about the existing conditions in the Baylands, and I think that we need to address that, and I don't think the Baylands design guidelines actually talk about it all. We do have our performance standards in the zoning code. It seems to me when I look at the photometrics, I'm seeing foot candle levels around 60, 85, 105, which are way, way, way out of line. I think that's Fixture E along east Bayshore, and I'm seeing light spill on East Bayshore at, I think it seemed, like, a 17 foot candle. I think you're doing better along the back side of the property, but I do think we need to look at Fixture #E, which is near the sidewalk. Also, in the landscape plans, there's a note that says that in the PG&E easement, that the light fixtures also have to meet the 15-foot height requirement as the trees. And I think you're showing 20-foot-high light poles in the easement area. I City of Palo Alto Page 23 think we need to circle back and look at that again. I do appreciate the effort to remove the light poles on the parking roof deck. I think that helps. I think there's a light fixture cut sheet that is missing. It's the ones that are above the garage doors facing East Bayshore, so I'd like to see that come back to us. I do appreciate doing 100 percent bird-friendly glass, and I think my understanding is that this is etched. It's not any sort of film or anything like that. I think I do understand from reading the New York City Audubon guidelines that Shani Kleinhaus provided to the ARB on previous occasions that birds feed differently than humans. These patterns that are less than two inches apart can be detected by birds. Also, Shani did point me to Mountainview's North Bayshore specific plan, and it does have a chapter 5 on bird-safe design. Some of the things they've done in their plan is to limit the amount of untreated clear glazing to 10 percent of the building surface area, so I think I understand the applicant is proposing 100 percent. Using occupancy sensors on all non-emergency lighting at night. No glass skyways or freestanding glass or transparent corners. I do want to say that this project does have a transparent corner, so it will definitely need the bird-friendly glass. There's another item in there that talks about no funneling of the bird flight paths along buildings and trees into a building façade. I think I would like somebody with more qualifications than myself to see if this funneling effect is present in the proposed design. It's like an L-shaped building, and you've got a building façade and trees, and does that constitute a funnel where the birds will fly between the building and the birds [sic] into a blank wall. Also in the Mountainview-specific plan, they recommend window coverings on all windows, and that they are closed at the end of the day. On some other projects near residential areas, we've required the use of automatic window shades that close in the evening hours. That might be a way of bringing down the light levels to the neighboring Baylands. With regard to the bike path and the trees, ideally we should have both. I think staff wants us to weigh in on that. I think the bike path is important. We do understand that there is another path, there is the Renzel trail. The way I see it is that other cities have done more to get people out to the Baylands than Palo Alto, and I think we're a little bit behind. Do we want to make it useable for all sorts of bicyclists? There's the 20 percent die-hard cyclists, and then the 80 percent who might want to get on a bike with their kids. I do think we want to address that other 80 percent with the path in the sidewalk. In regard to landscape, I do see that there's a lot of bay-friendly and native plants in there. I think my take is I'd like to see it match more of what is happening at the other side of the street, at the Terry [phonetic] area of the building. I think that's all I have. Oh, on floor area, I do understand there is a lot of concern about the bulk of the building and the 43-foot-high height of the car stacking areas. There are other areas, too, that I would like staff's input on. Let's say the Audi dealer service area. That's covered, and it's walled and roofed, and would that not be counted as an equivalent area? It's adding bulk. Effectively, it's adding bulk. Technically, I don't know how the code reads, but it seems like there might be room to make this smaller. Mr. Sing: Specifically, I think you're referring to the service drive? Board Member Lew: Yeah, the service drive. Mr. Sing: Since the 2016 project, there was a code amendment that exempts that area. Board Member Lew: Interesting. Okay. Thank you for that. I will take a look at that. I think that's all the comments I have today. I'm thinking that the project is headed in the right direction, but it's not there yet. Chair Furth: Do you have any comments on the DEE (Design Enhancement Exception) request? Board Member Lew: Well, I can support that. I think trying to put the CS zone in here is for the wrong... It doesn't really make sense in the larger sense. Because it's making us do this DEE, right? I can support setting the building back further from the street. I think we've gone through that exercise in the City. I think generally the Council has already weighed in on that. I think generally we're okay with pushing buildings back in this kind of context. Board Member Thompson: I just have a quick question for Board Member Lew. City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Furth: Yes? Board Member Thompson: For the bird-safe glass, I missed a little bit of your comment. Did you feel like the sample that we saw is sufficient? Board Member Lew: I haven't analyzed this completely, but my understanding is that this is the right type of thing to do. Films can be removed. But the biggest issues is trying to get fairly small-spaced vertical lines, like, around two inches. So that the birds see it and they know they can't... They'll see the lines, and they're going to think that they can't get through it. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Chair Furth: For staff, before we see it again, it would be good to know that this is bird-friendly certified, or whatever the standards might be. Osma? Board Member Thompson: My turn? All right. So many things. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you to the public for your comments. There's a lot more to unpack here than I initially realized. I'll start with the aesthetics because I think that's sort of the first thing that I noticed about the design. While I appreciate that there was a change in color to do something more compatible, unfortunately it seems to somehow maximize bulk of the building, making the design a little difficult to swallow because of how massive it is. In the future, you know, after seeing your material samples, the bird-safe glass breaks down the scale of your elevations quite significantly, and what we're looking at is a big wall, would seem a lot more articulate and smaller with that smaller applied on there. It might make your renderings and the other representation that you've shown a bit more friendly to the environment. The main aesthetic issue I think with this project is that there isn't a lot of discussion about how this building relates to the environment and to the place around it, especially with something as wonderful as the Baylands. There's a lot of stuff to respond to. There's a lot of nature, there's a lot of aesthetic features that define that area that is ripe for good architecture, and something like choosing a sample that has a lot more articulate nature to it, something that has a tree, it kind of feels like there's a bunch of vines, or something... There's a specularity that kind of comes with that sample that's not being shown here. And you could make an argument that your building relates to the environment because you're using something small- scale, but I don't see that in your argument. I'm kind of making it for you. Design-wise, I think there needs to be a greater story about your partee and what relationships are you creating with the environment, with the people on the street. At the moment, it's this object that has no relationship to anything around it, and I think that's part of the reason that it is sort of difficult to swallow for the public, because it seems like there's very massive thing that's not doing anything to enhance the surrounding environment. I have a hard time making that finding because aesthetically, at the moment, I don't think the current design is actually palatable. And I understand that there are other automobile dealerships and other buildings around that have a modern aesthetic, but even those, I think, have a bit of design sway to them. Even the existing dealership has some nice slants and curves that I think is missing. Not saying that you should add curves, not saying that you should add slants, but just that the design intent of your building is missing for me in this story. And I think there's a lot of ripe material around you. There's nature, and there's no many things you can do. Even creating that pattern in your drawing, in your designs that kind of show that, yes, we're doing something small-scale, we're doing something really special. And given that there's so much pedestrian activity there, we're going to need something small- scale. And also, given that you're not going to expect a lot of cars out front because of the design, you're going to need architecture to make up for that lack of activity in the front. At the moment, design-wise, I'm having a really hard time with this project, and I don't know that just changing the color was enough. I think there's a bit more to be done. In terms of the mitigated negative declaration, there's an aesthetics chapter that I looked at, about how it's sort of compatible with the area. And I would say it’s not. It has a less-than-significant-impact noted, and I think it is a pretty significant impact. Lighting-wise, I agree with Board Member Lew. I think the foot candles are too high. I like the suggestion of automated shades to cover things up at night. But this thing looks like it's going to shine like a big bright lantern in the middle City of Palo Alto Page 25 of the night, just by the way it's being shown here. That's a bit of a problem, I think, especially because in a nature preserve, you want darkness, and you want to be able to see the stars as much as you can. Even if currently we don't have that, we're trying to go for something better, we're trying to make our future better. Even if what's existing is not great, there is an opportunity to do something better right now. In the staff report, there was a note about the planting on the back side. While I appreciate there being green, I think staff noted that staff feels that it's insufficient to screen, and I will agree with that. It does seem insufficient, and it seems quite small. It would be nice to integrate, again, more nature into the design. It's a good location to do it. There are other locations, as well. In terms of your material choices, I only had a quick second to look at the nature of your panels. In general, in terms of palette, ACM-2, which is the main light-colored metal panel -- this color? I think this color might not be right, just looking at it all together. I also couldn't find where this one STU shows up on the elevations. Probably a small part. I like the precast color, the concrete color. I don't think it's precast. But I think these need to match better in order for your palette to work. And at the moment, it seems like this is brighter, and this might be the better choice. This seems just a bit off in terms of palette. Just a little bit more to look at for the color. Have I covered everything? Chair Furth: We'll give you another round. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I'll stop there. Thanks. Chair Furth: Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I'm certainly more conflicted after hearing all the comments by fellow board members than I was prior to this, not so much because of the comments, because of the conflict that I see between the commercial zone and Baylands. I spent a good bit of time there this past week, noting that as you look at this site, you're coming over 101. You get to feel more of the mass of the building. And when you get down at the bottom and you're at the intersection, you're more concerned about safety and how to cross the intersection. And then, you pass a whole line of other commercial buildings before you really get to know that you're on your way to the Baylands. This is a real conflict, I think, in planning, but what can you do about that? You have so much already existing commercial usage of the part of the street on the way to the Baylands. It seemed to me that somehow our audience ought to consider this as well. Those who are interested in emphasizing the Baylands really ought to look to, I think, beyond this commercial zone as the beginning of the Baylands. Directional signs seem reasonable to me, but if we're going to be up here as architects and judges of a building like this, we shouldn't ask it to be the Baylands, after all. It isn't going to be the Baylands. It's part of the commercial zone. So, this is a larger subject, not having to do so much with the building, but with understanding the environment in which this is. I think there were some fantastic comments made about sensitivity to the Baylands, but is this the building on which you judge that? You get a very different building, I think, if that's where you have to go. Maybe you're asking the developer here, and the architect, to provide a building that is a natural building, some other kind of a building. I don't know where you go with all of that. Maybe the top of the building should be part of the Baylands and be planted in some way, rather than just a storage area for cars. I'm more concerned about the general environment and how you describe an area that's for everybody to go to, and where does it begin? I don't think it begins at this corner. I went into the middle of the Baylands and looked back, and I didn't see any trails leading close to this, but they might be there. I looked back and I saw a lot of trees, and I couldn't really see any of the building area behind them. I think it's a different kind of a corner that way. There's actually a lot of planting now, and whatever you're going to replace is going to enhance the separation between the Baylands and that commercial zone. In that respect, I don't think there's going to be a problem looking back. I think the bike path issue is a very serious one. I'm very concerned that you make that turn and find a better way to get across the 101 and the present bridge that's there, and that connections are going to be made with bike access to the Baylands, which is really very critical. I, too, spend a lot of time there, as well, and it's a wonderful environment. The plantings seem to be pretty adequate all the way around the building, in my opinion. But I agree with Alex; there are lighting issues. And I agree with comments that City of Palo Alto Page 26 have been made about the carwash. I was on-site, I walked on the Audi site, to the back of it, and it's a very noisy facility. I think technically, you can figure out something to moderate the sound of the carwash so it doesn't disturb the neighbors. I actually thought about the building. If you're going to accept the fact that that's kind of a dealership corner, then I really don't agree that somehow muting all the colors on the building and making them look like they might belong to some other kind of a facility, like the Baylands nature preserve, that's a non-sequitur there. There's no relation between that building and the Baylands. It's a car service building, it's a car sales building, and technically, it's quite exciting to imagine all those cars moving insider of it. And it's certainly a grand improvement over a restaurant surrounded by vehicles. I think it gets the car out of the public view, and a tremendous improvement to that neighborhood for both of those facilities that are there. But, my major concern is really planning for the Baylands. Should there be some kind of an indication, a monument to say, "You're here. You are in the Baylands now." And then, all of those other issues about doing things that, within the Baylands that relate to it, will make some sense. But to ascribe those requirements to this particular building, to me, doesn't make any sense. In fact, just to state my concern, if it's going to be a car corner, as it seems to be, then it really ought to emphasize that in some way. Frankly, I like the first way because the massing, with the black around the top of it, was certainly much better than a washed-out-looking building the way it is now. You pick up the element, the Mercedes elements at the bottom, it's beautifully detailed. I think I would have preferred the first scheme that you put together. But it isn't going to be Baylands scheme. There's going to be a Mercedes/Audi kind of look to it, and it's going to be high-tech. I think that's a better way to treat that corner, frankly, but we seem to be beyond that because we're more concerned about the Baylands than we are about what the architecture of this particular building looks like. I think you've actually made good relationship in staging the massing along Bayshore there, and I would have appreciated it more if it were a stronger building. It would say something about that commercial piece, rather than watered down as it is now with the colors. Once again, if it's not going to be that -- because the Board appears to be interested in a different view of it -- I don't object to the massing because it takes the car and turns it inside the building. I do think that the issue is really not that corner. Just to add one note to that. It's a very busy corner. It's a car corner, whether you like it or not, because all of the access roads off of 101 seem to end up right there at that corner. Very, very busy and hard to manipulate it, even in a vehicle. And certainly as a pedestrian. Therefore, I think that it's an appropriate building for the commercial part of that zone, and that the Baylands should be a separate issue. Chair Furth: Thank you. Peter. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I find myself in agreement and appreciate the intelligent comments Alex made about the zoning, that it's not just a matter of which zoning. It should be, the ROLM zoning would also allow this height. It's more nuanced than that. I appreciate those comments. I certainly appreciate what Osma is saying about the building not really being compatible, and find that’s quite true. It seems compatible with itself, but even then, there's some design inconsistencies. I'd like to address what David is talking about. Yes, this building does have a couple of masters. It needs to address this busy urban corner. It needs to address the fact that it's right off the freeway, and that certainly these Baylands design guidelines facing this inner part of it don't work so well. In fact, one of the earlier designs we had, I think even on a previous proposal, had a series of weathered timbers and rope barricades at the front, and a Baylands-looking, Baylands sign, and it looked ridiculous, frankly. At the same time, from the back side, from the Baylands, this building is visible. It's very much there. And I think it's not a matter of just saying it doesn't belong in the Baylands; it is in the Baylands. Additionally, we have laws to follow. We have design guidelines to follow. And this is part of that zone, and we just ignore that at our peril. Because other buildings have been allowed to develop outside of those guidelines doesn’t mean we should allow that to happen. I think the guidelines are real, and serious, and carefully documented. It's a real stretch to say that this is meeting the Baylands design guidelines. On the last building we approved, I remember distinctly that we were trying to rationalize this as having two faces. One face was the shiny Audi dealership in the Mercedes part of town, and the other side was the Baylands, and that architect City of Palo Alto Page 27 had managed to split the building and make it look more compatible with both sides. And, the architect should take note -- They went through quite a bit of trouble to demonstrate that to us, and to the public. I don't see that effort in this set of drawings. But I think that maybe what we need to say, David, is that, yes, this is a big building on a corner, facing Palo Alto area, but even then, just being quite this bulky and quite this tall seems inappropriate. Yes, it's not really the gateway to the Baylands in the sense that you go another quarter mile down the road. But still, it sets the tone. And every other building there has just a lower energy feel to it. It has a roof; it has muted colors. With the exception of the Audi dealership, they're all more low-key. And it seems to me that this is not. It's not low-key. It's very dramatic. And that's sort of what's missing, is some sense of, perhaps humility, as you come over the bridge and start to go into the Baylands. And even though we should allow brighter colors and a more contemporary finish on the side facing the city, it's just too bulky-looking. As I tried to parse out the design a bit, honestly, it looks like an automobile factory with a dealership plugged onto one side. If my colleagues were to look at renderings, Sheet ZA407, for example, there's a view from Baylands, right next to the neighbors property, of which they were so politely speaking about. And it's just wildly inappropriate for a frontage on a busy street in town. It's really quite busy and important. And it's not even a matter of Baylands here. It's just huge-looking. This is what I mean by a factory. And then, look at the entrance on, two pages further back. The front of the Audi dealership. ZA413. This is visible. This is very visible. This is a very tall wall with very little design enhancement to it. And it really could take some cues from Osma's concept of just finding something in the Baylands. And most of the buildings there have some kind of a corniche line, or a roof line. The bright color. The lightness of that color just enhances the bulk of it. I don't want to get too much deeper into it, but I don't think it's even close yet, honestly. It really needs a little more work on it. Okay. I remember being very excited at the first hearing about the vehicle stacking storage. The first time it's been done. It's a very clever idea, to fit a condensed car use, put the cars inside. Somehow, the first time around, it also looked a lot more exciting. You had the Mercedes logo right in front of this glass window where I can see all the stackers. As we get to a more finished design, it just seems to be lost now in the new renderings, as much as I can tell. You're not really celebrating it any more, and it seems to me the biggest thing you have going for you is this really neat idea of how to store the cars and put this thing into a dense, urban environment. The first ones doing it, but, boy, you need to really celebrate that. Make that the thing you see. You're just not doing it here. You're going backwards on your design. And maybe it's Mercedes, and the black colors, and the town wanting lighter colors, but you're an architect. You've got to solve those problems. And I don't see it happening here. Again, I find that problematic. I find your site circulation problematic, that the main front entrance, that big curved piece, also has a railing in front of it, and it's a foot or two above the ground. There's no way you can walk to that door without sort of sidling along the entire façade of the building. It's like it's made to be seen from a freeway, like the Mercedes dealer up the road a little bit. And it's not. This is a street with a lot of pedestrians and people, and yet, if I wanted to drop somebody off to go in the front door, well, I'm going to drop them off, walk 50 feet along the building before you get in. Doesn't make sense. The same kind of circulation thing at the back of the Audi dealership. You really need more landscaping and more buffering, and instead, you have a pretty substantial amount of space dedicated to some sort of drive lane for the cars. I'm sure there's detailed needs for how vehicles circulate on a site, but to give that much space to the automobiles and only leave, looks like less than 10 feet of landscaping buffer for the most critical buffer zone you have, it seems sort of insensitive, at best. The fact that you're just cutting all those trees down that are there, rather than just staying farther away from it, seems insensitive. It seems...I don't know. Not like you're really trying to pay attention to the back side of it, as well. And all of that just sort of comes out of the site development. I agree with my colleagues' comments about the noise from the carwash. I agree with the comments about the lighting. It's really important to get that really muted. I don't understand why we can't have both the existing trees along Bayshore and the bicycle path if we have an 80-foot-wide easement. You're asking for a change in zoning. You're asking for a building that the town is very delighted about. Why can't you also put a real bike path on your side of those trees, so that we have at least one amenity coming out of this large project? Again, I can see, you guys are pushing hard to maximize your space and efficiency, and City of Palo Alto Page 28 get your drive aisles and your parking up to the line. But say, okay, we're also going to give you a bike path by cutting down the trees. I mean, you're cutting down almost every tree on this site. You need to be more sensitive. That would be one way that I think would make a big difference. There's a genuine need for a real bike path there. It's obvious just walking around. You can't cut those trees down or you're really, just make yourself naked. It's even worse. I'd like to see that solution, or something like that, coming along. Lastly, if you could, please try to make a presentation for us in the future that's a little bit more coherent and organized. All of our comments are a bit disjointed, and I feel terrible about that, but your presentation was also so tough to figure out. What is it going to look like? What are the parts to it? So, if you could focus on that a little bit. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, and thank you to the applicant, and thank you to the public. This is one of those meetings where I learn a lot by listening. Thank you to my colleagues, each of whom focuses on particular aspects of the project and leaves me enlightened, dazed and confused. The City Council has indicated that they think this is a good place for an auto dealership. An auto dealership is not inherently what you think of when you think of Baylands compatible uses, but that is not our call. And one way of thinking about this building and its neighbors is that it provides a certain buffering of the Baylands Park from the freeway, and a huge PG&E overhead line, and a lot of other very intense, rather disruptive uses. If we think of you as a gateway in a protective sense, I find it easier to think about it. And I certainly agree with our earlier comments on an earlier project, that mock docks and what-not are not appropriate. This is a car dealership, and it's freeway-adjacent if not freeway-visible, and it's surrounded by what's really an office park. This is not light manufacturing. This is a bunch of lawyers and doctors and software engineers. And this is also a fairly intensively occupied area. This is one of the City's employment centers, right? Under the old general plan? Is it still? I don't even know if we have that designation. But it's heavily used, and it should be more heavily used because it's an access to a major local and regional recreational resource. When I think about, how would you be a good gateway? One of the things is, you'd have really clear, emphasized access for pedestrians and bicyclists around what's now a terrible corner. And I don't mean that necessarily in risk to life and limb, but I'm in the 80 percent of cyclists, and after I finally make it over that bicycle bridge, it's confusing as to figure out where do I go, how do I get around that corner, and am I willing to do this with my young grandchildren? I think if this site can be imagined as having this great auto dealership with this beautiful glass, and this really clever car storage facility, which I think is so much preferable to the quite ad-hoc arrangement there right now, with a really lovely bicycle and pedestrian way that the landscaping emphasizes. It's not something that's almost invisible, but it's something eye-catching that could work for both the Baylands and your project. If you think of "gateway" in terms of access and protection rather than invisibility, I think it works better. I spent a lot of time looking at the general design principles. The one that I think is most applicable to commercial things is design for practicality, design for the fact that you're near the bay, and there's going to be marine air. Think about materials that either weather well or... Well, that weather well. And I would say that are beautiful. I mean, it seems to me that your glass is going to be beautiful. That may be in conflict with seeing the... You know, originally, we thought, well, you bring your kids down to watch the lift work, sort of like watching airplanes take off. Maybe the glass makes that impossible. But the more beautiful materials, the better. Design principles, which are suggested, talk about using only muted natural colors. I agree that neon shades are not appropriate here, but I wouldn't particularly be wedded to the one identified Baylands color on the frontages that face the streets. I think it's more important to have a design that works. And I do think that your elevations aren't doing justice to your plan, and that most lay people -- which includes me -- put a lot of emphasis on what those drawings look like, and it takes somebody with more skill and talent and experience to understand what it would actually look like. I also think that we're doing design overlay because this is a very sensitive environment. That's why we're doing the mitigated negative declaration, which at the moment, I don't agree with. I think we need really good noise protection, really good light protection, and really thoughtful planting, to reflect the fact that the Audi parcel in particular -- Well, for the lighting, it's all of them -- backs up directly on the open space and is visible there. And we need better, more intense landscaping that is geared to the fact that this is adjacent to an open space preserve. And I really don't see a need for any non-native plants on this City of Palo Alto Page 29 site. You've got a lot of space; you've got a lot of options. Right now, there's very exuberant Ceanothus across the street that looks gorgeous, just to the, what I think of south of the office building. I think that this area needs big, visible, dramatic, flowering, carefully-thought-out, year-round, indigenous landscaping. It's a classy and fashionable thing to have, and I think it would enhance your brand. I think, staff, for lighting, I want to know that, if this deviates from the Dark Nights policy, why? When we get to a later agenda item I'm going to suggest to the Council that one of the items to be considered is the abatement of the existing light facilities on other sites in this area that we would never approve now. And we do not have an obligation to maintain them forever. We have the right to say phase those things out. And I think your application has made it clear why that would be desirable. In terms of FAR calculations, one of the things this demonstrates are that statutes or ordinances never keep up with reality. And what we have here is not a factory, but a very large parking structure, and a compressed very large parking structure. And it seems to me the environmental good things that come out of that are considerable. At the same time, if you think of floor area ratios, it's designed to limit perceived mass. This doesn't do that. That's going to be a call for the City Council. But that does mean that in design senses, you kind of need to minimize the mass. I don't think that the Audi facility in particular looks at all okay. I think it is going to be visible for a while, and it needs further greening, further landscaping, further something, and further detail. And I agree also that as you go down Embarcadero, and as you go down East Bayshore, you've got these big walls that are opportunities for something wonderful that relates to the Baylands. Probably some kind of art. We had earlier art proposals, and I think something may work. One of the things you pointed out is that you no longer have the sea of cars around your facility. Instead, you've sort of got this jewel box display of one car. I guess two. There's one in the window at Audi. But again, you're going to have (inaudible) glass. Maybe that doesn’t happen. That leaves room for other kinds of visual embellishment without being overly busy, and I think it would be a good idea for that to be about the Baylands and not about automotive wonderfulness. I've got some other notes here. I think the point about ground birds is important, but I don't know what it means. Staff, it would be helpful to have further information on that. It concerns me that the carwash, which appears to be a bit of a nuisance, is located so close to your neighbor and the Baylands. I'd like it more internalized to your own operations. I don't think that the 70 dB standard, I don't know if it's appropriate here, staff. This is a special design review, and what I'm concerned about is I don’t want to hear a carwash when I'm walking on those trails, if I have an option not to. And I don't know, you know, freeway and car noise is already so big that it won't be apparent, but generally, our ears are aware of different kinds of noise. So, if it's not drone- like, we're probably going to hear it, and that's not a good thing. One of the questions that Alex asked is whether there's a conditional use permit, and I don't know what he was thinking about, but what I'm thinking about is night operations. How late, and how long? What are the noise-producing things going to be going? I know that traditionally with auto service, we've been very worried about the sound of pneumatic guns and what-not. Are we right in thinking that won't be a problem in this facility? Because the main thing I think about in terms of thinking about the Baylands, thinking about compatibility, is how does it look and sound from the Baylands, and how does it affect its wildlife? And this site... I think one of the things the applicant has going for them is it's not a very happy site right now, so a lot of the things they do are bound to improve on existing reality. But, good access for pedestrians and bicyclists through the Baylands in a way that ways, "Here it is, come this way." Compatible planting that enhances the environment. And trapping the adverse consequences that emerge from light and sound on the site. I think this is actually a pretty good use for this site. This is a difficult, complicated piece of land. It's sort of sunk. It's got that huge electrical pylon on front of it. So, I don't think this is a bad use, per se. I think it's a good use. I also think you probably have relatively little traffic compared to a restaurant, a popular restaurant. I may be wrong; you're nodding your head. That's another thing that's desirable here. The other thing I'd say, you're going to get a lot of slow drive-by. You're on a very congested corner, so people have a lot of opportunity to study your site. And I think that that is something you can use to your advantage. I hope that this does succeed, and that you and staff can make sense of what we’re saying. Osma, did you have other comments? City of Palo Alto Page 30 Board Member Thompson: I didn't really conclude at the end, but I would say, just to agree with Vice Chair Baltay, that I don't think this project is close in terms of its design. And I agree with what you said, that there is a lot of good opportunity here, but I don’t think the current proposal is taking advantage of it. Chair Furth: Can you be a little more specific in telling people what you're looking for? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. I think, in general, it would be good to see a design that has a better relationship with the environment, with not just the Baylands, but also have a level of pedestrian-scale design elements. I'm okay with the setback, how far away you are from the sidewalk, but there's still a lot of blank walls, and a lot of, sort of plain corners that are not being buffered by landscape or any other kind of architectural embellishment. Whatever that may be. I think also, you know, you have this big rooftop parking lot. We didn’t talk about what that material is, but if it's a dark asphalt material up there, that's a heat island. That would need protection. I really like David's idea of planting part of the roof, but also having that kind of visibility at the top would soften your edges, soften your corners, and make this otherwise very massive building a bit more palatable. And I agree that providing a bike lane should be possible, you know, given the size of the site. Was that clear? Chair Furth: Thanks. Any other closing remarks? David. Board Member Hirsch: I've listened to a lot of very good comments from fellow board members. One of the ones was Peter's idea that we somehow see that machine inside. It would be great to actually express that somehow on the outside. It just seems to me, looking at the renderings here, that it's possible to do something with that. You know, it could be visible around the corner. You'd have to work hard on that one, I'm sure, but somehow if it could be brought out, or at least you indicate those car uses moving up and down within. Just like the computer museum, or one of those... The airplane museum further down 101. Kind of want to go there and see those things happen. Well, you're creating an incredible machine for moving cars, and it's not known, you just go into the sales department and... I don't think you even see it in there. I haven't looked at it that closely. And I think the bike ideas are very important, coming around that corner and making the turn. It should hopefully be improved on the way down, towards the Baylands. But moving it inboard I think is a terrific idea. And then you can save more of the trees, which I think is something that's missing on the front. It still needs some tree canopy, street-feel to that corner. That would be vastly improved if you managed to keep the oak trees and just moved the bike path around there. I've taken that trip by bike. I couldn't find the bridge the first time, had to ask a policeman who happened to be there. I'm hoping that Palo Alto someday will do a real bridge that connects. I think it's in the works, but who knows when it will be done? I kind of feel that maybe the idea of the front of this building could turn the corner better, and I'd like to ask you to study that a bit. It could make a softer corner to this building and start to begin to reduce the sense of mass. I like the step-back, both in the front and at the top, but I think something of turning the corner with a circular feel to it could be a vast improvement to reducing the sense of mass. And that might also take care of the entry issues, which Peter commented on. You know? Chair Furth: Anybody else before we...? Vice Chair Baltay: On the mitigated negative dec...? Chair Furth: Oh, mitigated negative dec. Anybody have any comments on that? You can, of course, submit them later. Vice Chair Baltay: I was hoping to point out, in my opinion, Category 10, Land Use and Planning, item B, does the project have any conflict with applicable land use, etc. I think the project has a potentially significant impact in its conflict with the Baylands design guidelines. It's not clear to me that it's a less- than-significant impact right now with the design we have, so I think that should be a potentially significant impact. That's item 10-B. It should be changed one column over. City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Lew: I previously commented on the carwash and the noise item in the report, and I didn't really see the follow-up in the drawings. Right? The issue was trying to reduce the carwash noise with use of fences, or what-not. Chair Furth: And I had an item, a comment -- and I don't know what the answer is, but -- this is in a 100-year flood plain, and it' s designed with six inches of freeboard, to the current federal level? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. The flood zone level is 11 feet, and the finished floor of the project will be 11 1/2 feet. Chair Furth: Okay, so, City Council has just, I believe, directed preparation of a (inaudible) study to implement the Comprehensive Plan, so I guess I'd like some discussion in the negative dec about why there's no risk to persons or property on this site, as it relates to this development. Which I think is still a CEQA finding because of sea level rise. But if it's not, that will be fine. But I think it is. That's it, I think. MOTION Chair Furth: Do you want this continued, to when? A date uncertain? Ms. Gerhardt: I think continued to a date uncertain is best. Chair Furth: All right. I will say, if we have to choose between seeing the car lift and not killing birds, I'd vote for not killing birds. Vice Chair Baltay: I want both. Chair Furth: If it's possible to square the circle, I'm sure they will. All right. A motion, please. Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this project to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Motion by Vice Chair Baltay, second by Board Members Lew and Hirsch, to continue this to a date uncertain. All those in favor say aye. All opposed? Hearing none, that motion passes 5-0. MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you all for coming. We will adjourn for five minutes. [The Board took a short break.] Subcommittee Items 3. 695 Arastradero Road [18PLN-00333]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to the Building Orientation, Bicycle Parking, and Landscaping. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Small Structures). Zoning District: RT-35 SOFA II CAP (Residential Transition). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins, at claire.hodgkins@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Furth: Okay, before we have our subcommittee go off to deal with 695 Arastradero Road - and that subcommittee is Peter and Osma - we have two discussion items. (See below for Subcommittee approval memo) Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements City of Palo Alto Page 32 Chair Furth: The first one is the Architectural Review Board Annual Report to City Council. The second was a review of the draft letter to City Council regarding small cell telecommunication facilities. Let's flip those and look at small cell telecommunications facilities first. 2. Review of Draft Letter to City Council Regarding Small Cell Telecommunication Facilities Chair Furth: You received an email of a revised version of... Board Member Lew: (inaudible-off microphone) Chair Furth: You don't need a bunch. There's only one version. And we have a member of the public, Jeff Hoel, who wishes to comment. And we also received a letter from Dr. Fleming, right? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd also like to disclose that I had a conversation with Mr. Hoel about our statement, and I also had several email requests for correspondence from various members of the community, which I did not engage in. Chair Furth: Okay. Mr. Hoel. Jeff Hoel: [spells last name] I had some comments, pretty much following from your discussion on March 21st. First, it seemed to me like staff was trying to say that the applicant wasn't even permitted to ask for an exception unless the objective rules said there were no available options. And I think that's too restrictive. I think the applicant should be allowed to ask for an exception, and that would get them back into the subjective aesthetic standards realm, which I think you're more comfortable with. Second. I would say don't worry about excluding some legitimate aesthetic designs if that's what you think is necessary to exclude designs that you think are not aesthetic. And then, third, don't allow staff to hijack the process for the sake of making life simpler for staff. This is what's important to the City. This is not what's important to staff. Next, I want to mention, staff construction of the objective aesthetic rules was in the form of a menu, where the applicant gets to select anything that's on the menu. And then, there's an undergrounded thing on the menu, but there's nothing that compels an applicant to select that. There was an experiment during your discussion last time about how, if an undergrounded solution is feasible, then you have to pick it. And only if undergrounded is not feasible are you allowed to look at the other things on the menu. Another thing you could think about is maybe, if a streetlight pole is feasible, then you're not allowed to look at any options on the menu that don't use streetlight poles. One reason to consider that is the City has this multi-decade program for undergrounding everything, and if they should ever completely execute that, then antennas on utility poles will not be possible anyhow. So, why start going in that direction? Finally, as a possible option, you could say if an integrated pole is feasible, don't allow anything that isn't an integrated pole. Thanks. Chair Furth: Thank you. Questions of Mr. Hoel? Thank you. No questions. At our last meeting, we had two items. One was commenting on the staff proposal and change regulations, and we did have comment, which Mr. Hoel's comments are addressing as well. And then, a statement drafted by Vice Chair Baltay to send to City Council, and what you have is a largely subjective... sorry, largely... It's a matter of form, not content. It deletes sections that we didn't get consensus on, with the hopes that this could be a consensus statement. There is a copy of it over at the table. We received at least one comment, saying please add to this that you think the ARB should be more central to the process. I myself am not, don't want to add that to this. Is it okay as it stands, or does anybody want to change it? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to express my gratitude to Chair Furth for revising the document. I think it's very good the way it is. Board Member Hirsch: Are you looking for comments on...? Chair Furth: No, I'm looking for "yes" votes. Board Member Hirsch: A "yes" vote on it, without comments? City of Palo Alto Page 33 Chair Furth: Yes, but you may comment. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, I will. On the issues, the 1 through 5, I think under "Antennas," it should say, "of a minimal size to perform their function." After "shroud." There's a lot of good comments made by City Planning, I think, about locations of and dimensions of things, but it would be important for us to state a minimal dimension size to perform their function. Under 3, I think it's a better word to say, "or not appropriate," rather than "adequate." Chair Furth: How about "good?" Board Member Hirsch: That's too subjective, in my mind. Why wouldn't "appropriate" be a good word for [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: [crosstalk] "adequate." [crosstalk] However, I'm not going to wordsmith. Board Member Hirsch: And then... Vice Chair Baltay: You're talking "appropriate" instead of "adequate?" Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. So... Vice Chair Baltay: Sure. Board Member Hirsch: Also, then under the equipment mounted horizontal cables, wires, are also not appropriate. Under 4... Just one moment. I have to look where I am here. Under 2, radio power equipment concealed by simple well-designed shroud and mounted at the top of either an existing streetlight pole, either within the antenna and... Chair Furth: I'm sorry, I'm lost. I'm looking... Board Member Hirsch: Okay, I'm going back up to 2 now. After utility pole... Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: ...either within the antenna enclosure or immediately below it, but also contained within a well-designed shroud. Insert it there. Chair Furth: I don't find that helpful. Vice Chair Baltay: It sounds like you're making that one more complicated, David. Say it again, please. Board Member Hirsch: Yup. Either within the antenna enclosure, so the radios would be either mounted within the antenna enclosure or immediately below it, but also contained within a well-designed shroud. Vice Chair Baltay: I think that's covered just by saying "concealed by." Don't you? That leaves you the option of mounting it inside or concealing it outside. We're trying to keep it simple. Board Member Hirsch: Mounted [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: Trying to make this very short. Board Member Hirsch: ...existing street (inaudible), or acceptable design. Chair Furth: What is it that you want to add? Board Member Hirsch: Well, the radio equipment, you know, depending upon the size of it, it either fits within the existing shroud... Chair Furth: Right. City of Palo Alto Page 34 Board Member Hirsch: ... or the antenna... Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Hirsch: ... or it's going to be separate from it in some way. Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Hirsch: Perhaps it might even be on the pole. But in that case, if it's somewhat bigger enclosure, whatever, without getting into the detail, it should be contained within a shroud. Chair Furth: That's what this says. Board Member Hirsch: But it should also... suppose it... It wouldn't be either in the same shroud, or in its own shroud. Which could be a different shape. Chair Furth: That's true. But I don't think that is precluded by what this sentence says. Board Member Hirsch: "Acceptable design." Well, all right. Okay. Moving on. I really have a problem with 4, talking about the underground issues. Reality is that they're not likely to be very many of those ever approved, because there is so much conflict between underground utilities. It's very expensive, and it's very disruptive, as well, in construction. So, if space and functionality permits it, what I would add here: "If space and functionality permits and the above conditions 1 or 2 cannot be met, then radio and power equipment can be located in the vault in the street.” Vice Chair Baltay: David, you're making it way too complicated. Board Member Hirsch: No, I don't think so. [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: You really can't state it the way it's stated there. Radio and power equipment should be, normally be installed below grade. You can't say that. Chair Furth: Well, we can, but if you believe that's poor policy, then I understand. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, no, I think we can't create that policy. In the first place, it's not physically possible in most locations, and secondly, I... Chair Furth: How about, "should be installed below grade where possible?" Board Member Hirsch: I'd go along with that. No, I don't know. I think that you're going to have... Chair Furth: Where feasible? Board Member Hirsch: ...tremendous backlash on that one from the company, installation companies. No, it's... Chair Furth: They have all said they would do it where feasible, but it's not feasible, so why are they going to backlash against this? Board Member Hirsch: If they cannot put it on the pole, then they can [crosstalk]... Chair Furth: That's a policy difference, so that's not the position Peter was taking at our last meeting. So, I think that's a policy difference between the two of you, but I could be wrong. Vice Chair Baltay: Aren't we saying, David, it can be either below the ground or up on the top? And why fight against putting it below the ground if they can find a way to do it? I mean, it seems to me there's plenty... This is very clearly saying it can also go on the top. City of Palo Alto Page 35 Board Member Hirsch: Well, I'm saying that if space and functionality permits and the above conditions cannot be met. Chair Furth: You're saying your preference is for putting it on the pole. Board Member Hirsch: My preference is that, if you put it underground, there's a whole lot of other things that happen, too. Chair Furth: I get that. You're saying your preference is [crosstalk]. Board Member Hirsch: [crosstalk] put it on the pole and... Chair Furth: Got it. Okay, so, that's a difference of opinion. Vice Chair Baltay: But we're looking for a compromise, David. My preference is that you put it underground, but we're trying to find a way to say something that leaves room for everybody and still puts all of us behind something. Isn't it fair to just leave both in there? Board Member Hirsch: No, I mean, you're making it as a... Vice Chair Baltay: Just put it down below [crosstalk].... Board Member Hirsch: ... requirement that it should be put in the ground, primarily. That's the... Chair Furth: Or making it as a preference, where it's feasible. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: It's an "or." Board Member Lew: It's an "or." Board Member Hirsch: "Or sufficiently above the ground." Vice Chair Baltay: It really doesn’t weight one over the other, I don't believe. Chair Furth: It doesn't. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: I think the Board has been clear that we don't agree [crosstalk]... Board Member Hirsch: ... line of site. Well, I mean, you said "out of the line of site." What's the "out of line of site?" What does that mean? Vice Chair Baltay: I've offered various ideas, but we don't have consensus on that. We're trying to at least [crosstalk] that we think there's an issue. Board Member Hirsch: If you want to say that radio and power equipment should be, normally would be installed below grade, which I don't agree it should normally be installed below grade. Chair Furth: But that's not what the sentence says, David. The sentence says it should normally be installed below grade or above ground. Ms. Gerhardt: What if we remove the word "normally?" Board Member Hirsch: I'm sorry? Chair Furth: I'm... "Normally," it would be fine. Ms. Gerhardt: We could remove the word "normally." City of Palo Alto Page 36 Chair Furth: That would probably make it read better. I always like removing words. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I certainly would take out [crosstalk]... Chair Furth: (inaudible) Board Member Hirsch: ... below grade, or I would say as per 1 or 2, you know? Because 2 or 2 says not just out of the line of sight, but it says at the top of the pole. Chair Furth: They're cumulative. Vice Chair Baltay: What if you flip the order, David. Should be installed sufficiently above the ground, etc., or below grade? The same meaning, but if you feel better about it. Chair Furth: And then, if you make that 1, and then 2, 1 becomes 2, and 2 becomes 3, and 3 becomes 4. Then that's probably a better way of thinking about it. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I go along with, but I'd like 1 or 2 to be the primary requirement here. Chair Furth: Yep. Board Member Hirsch: One and 2. Vice Chair Baltay: I agree. Those are the likely solutions, and that's why they are there. Board Member Hirsch: I don't like the word "sufficiently out of line of sight." As per 1. Chair Furth: You don't... I mean... You're sounding more (inaudible) than I. But you don't, if I'm trying to write a short document, I don’t want to reference things that are already true. Because these statements all have meaning. They're not contradictory. You have to meet all of them. At this point, I'm getting over- invested in [crosstalk]. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, well, those are my comments on that. There's also one other aspect of this. It's a disconnect switch. It's a small element, but it's not part of this at all, yet. Chair Furth: We did not address disconnect switches in this policy. I agree. Board Member Thompson: Does it not fall under equipment? Board Member Hirsch: Well, it shouldn't because the disconnect switch could be... Chair Furth: It's down low. Board Member Hirsch: ... down low, could be down low. There are some limitations, I gather, on it, as well. But it should be separate from the others. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I think the policy staff already put forth required the disconnect to be underground in almost every case. That wasn't something we even addressed. I hate to get into that level of detail in a letter to the Council. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I'm fine. Chair Furth: Which of the five statements would you like to have lead off, David? What's now 4? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, uh-huh. Chair Furth: Okay. I'll move it up. Okay. Board Member Thompson: I have a question. Is this...? We've been asked by the public repeatedly to insist that we continue to review. Is this letter going to talk about that? City of Palo Alto Page 37 Chair Furth: It's not designed to talk about that. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: On our next item, you might want to bring it up. Vice Chair Baltay: I've given thought to that, Osma, and I guess that's really a policy issue for City Council. And for us to weigh in as the ARB seems inappropriate. As citizens, we should have an opinion, but as the ARB, I’m not sure we should be... Chair Furth: Our job is what they want us to do. Vice Chair Baltay: ... discussing what we should do. That's why I didn't feel it was... That was sort of the beauty of the changes Wynne made, is that we got away from that. I think. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so you're saying that we shouldn't express a position on that? Vice Chair Baltay: As a board, officially, I think it's inappropriate for us to do that. It's like weighing in on the zoning on the previous project. We're not supposed to sit in on zoning. Chair Furth: One of the things.... Yeah. We'll talk about the other stuff later. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Do you have any comments, Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: I’m fine with the letter. MOTION Chair Furth: Could we have a motion, please? I have notes for staff. Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we accept this letter, as amended by our discussion, and direct staff to present it to Council. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Hirsch: I'll second that. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Chair Furth: All those in favor? All those opposed. Keep silent. Board Member Thompson: I'm going to abstain. Chair Furth: Thank you very much for your graciousness, and here for staff is a copy of the mark-up. Vice Chair Baltay: (inaudible). Board Member Thompson: I don't know... Chair Furth: Oh, I missed that. Board Member Thompson: I guess what I'll say is I... Chair Furth: (inaudible-off microphone) Board Member Thompson: Oh, did we all have to be unanimous on it? Chair Furth: Yes. Board Member Thompson: I guess I'm okay with it. I think it's one of those... I haven't had a chance to read the new one, up until it was just presented to me. It seems fine. City of Palo Alto Page 38 Chair Furth: (inaudible) your email. Sorry about the delay. Board Member Thompson: The only... Okay. Yeah. It seems fine as a letter. I don't know what it means in terms of... I feel like the important thing here is if we still have purview over this stuff. I know we're not supposed to talk about it, but it seems like this letter is sort of hinting at, if we did have purview, this would be our opinion. Right? Chair Furth: I think it's also, what have we learned through these long and painful hearings? We gave them a lot of comments in terms of comments on the staff proposal, and the proposed ordinance, and this is just some other stuff. Thank you. Board Member Thompson: Okay. You can change me to a "yes" then. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: So, that is [crosstalk] unanimously. Thank you very much for your graciousness. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY (5-0) AFTER BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON VOTED YES INSTEAD OF ABSTAINING FROM THE VOTE. 1. Architectural review Board Annual Report to City Council: Review of Draft Letter. Chair Furth: Okay. Next item is item 1 under this, which is the annual report. You should have a copy of some notes that were just distributed to you. Did everybody get a copy? This one sheet? Bullet points. Alex Lew and I met yesterday. Had a wide-ranging discussion. And the Architectural Review Board is supposed to send a report not less than once a year to the Planning Commission and City Council, for the purpose of communicating the concerns of the Board with respect to the City's plans, policies, ordinances and procedures, as these affect the projects which the Board reviews. We looked at a couple of things. We looked at a list that Alex had prepared of all of the items we covered in the last calendar year. We looked at some previous reports. And Peter also, you will recall, prepared a report on the projects we looked at, and their fate when they went on to City staff to review. And we tried to sort of group the kinds of issues we saw arising. Not everything is on this list that we thought about, but most of the things. And I propose that whatever we send, we attach an exhibit at the back with a little more detail about what we saw and what we did. In terms of uses, we thought we'd heard concern about the loss of spaces for small business services. Also, the loss of housing units as small apartment buildings become larger, detached structures. In terms of parking standards -- and I sometimes think every difficult decision we have is about, where do you put the cars? Certainly, we heard that today. One was the tree loss that happens when you have a CS District, and you replace surface parking lots, which, whatever their vices are, did have landscaping requirements, with underground parking, with no setback, which can lead to no space for significantly-sized trees. And the adequacy of shopping center-wide parking standards. This is a terrible sentence, but as they shift to more person and visit-intense, traffic-intense uses. Alex pointed out that there is probably a big decline in the demand for retail space throughout the country, as well as the region, so they replaced them with your-body-has-to-be-here uses. Restaurants, day spas, soul cycle, things that do two things. One, they create a big peak hour demand for restaurant seating, and they also create a continuing demand for getting your body there for other kinds of uses. I'm trying to think; how would you qualify (inaudible) can't be under that. Also, the importance of monitoring TDM plans that we're increasingly relying onto address parking issues, which takes significant City staff time. And City staff time is at a premium. They could spend their entire lives just doing things that Planning and Transportation and ARB brought up as interesting things to think about. If we shift to TDM plans that require a different kind of and more-intense monitoring than parking lot space requirements. I mean, it's sort of similar to when we've got a big inventory of below-market-rate units that weren't located in completely dedicated projects, then you have this big inventory of intangible assets that somebody has... You have to police the collateral, or they turn into something else when you're not looking. It's an expense that the City needs to figure out how to fund. Nothing is that easy. City of Palo Alto Page 39 Some issues were about curb management. Maybe there's a better way to put this, but one of the things that we've noticed is that when we look at designs, we have to think a lot more about accommodating ride service pick-ups and drop-offs. That can conflict with dedicated bike paths, for example. And also about accommodating new modes of transportation, scooters and things. Alex had some thoughts about places where they've done some thinking about it. Mobility. I'm mobility-impaired for the next two weeks, so, once again, this is basically the benches issue, about pedestrian mobility. And maybe there's a plea, basically, for thinking about setting and implementing street future standards that combine private and public seating, and that make possible walking for those who need to rest. Because often, it seems to me, we have a block on a downtown side street, for example, and there's no place to sit. And this may be true even though there's extensive city-owned parking lot perimeters. So, we wouldn't always have to impose this burden on a private building, but when we are doing these sidewalk-thinking, it would be good to have some kind of standard that staff and the public and we could work with. SOFA-2, we've had more projects that we've turned down in SOFA-2 than anywhere. Right? Vice Chair Baltay: (inaudible-off microphone) Chair Furth: Only one in the last year, but Corner Fourth, as well. Two projects that have not gotten through us. The old drive-through... Board Member Thompson: Which projects are these? Vice Chair Baltay: Dave Kleinman's project... Chair Furth: Dave Kleinman's project. Vice Chair Baltay: ...which we said no to. Chair Furth: We said no to. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Chair Furth: And then, the project adjacent to the recently-approved project. Vice Chair Baltay: I think they just stopped coming back to us. I don't think we gave them a no. Chair Furth: Well, we have not been able to recommend approval. How's that? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Chair Furth: And I don’t know what we could say about that, but it seems to be an issue that... To really look, meet the standards in that area. The height limit doesn't permit the kind of development that would sustain below-grade parking, and trying to meet the existing parking standards. That would give us a very bulky building when it's an interior. I don't know. And then, El Camino Real, I know we've had discussions about repetitive designs. I don't know if there's anything to say about that, but we do hear from the public about continuing loss of places to go. We know there's a disincentive for social spaces in new hotels, and once again, the zero setback lines and the higher FAR lead to no really significant landscaping. Might want to phrase that differently. This was an issue-spotting memo. I didn't mention the fact that, which I suppose we ought to say something about, which is that we get the biggest public turnout on telecom. If they want to know what we've been doing, that's what we notice. Vice Chair Baltay: Do you want everyone to talk? Chair Furth: Yeah? Comments about things to come off, things we should add? Vice Chair Baltay: I think [crosstalk] Alex for going through this list, it's great. If we can pair it down a bit... Chair Furth: Sure. What's important to you? City of Palo Alto Page 40 Vice Chair Baltay: ... it might help. As I go through the list, looking at it, the second one, loss of housing units as small apartment buildings, etc., I'm not sure that that's... Chair Furth: We're not ready to go on that one? Vice Chair Baltay: That's really something to say about that. I think the first comment is a very astute one, that we are observing that there are numerous small businesses being displaced, and the Council should be aware of that. They may not be seeing that. Chair Furth: And Alex has got some examples of approaches from other cities. Alex, is that right? Which we could include as a reference. Vice Chair Baltay: The second thing, parking standards. I think the bottom two are critically important. The first one is true, but I’m not sure there's much we can say or do about it. That's just... Chair Furth: I think it's important to tell them that this one of the byproducts that they probably weren't aiming for when they adopted the standard. Vice Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Fair enough. Chair Furth: That's my guess. Vice Chair Baltay: I think the second one, about the shopping center, is something that the Council really needs to be aware of. The fact that the parking ratios are based on strictly retail and the uses are changing. That's probably what's driving the parking, but it's pretty tight there. The third, curb management, the first item there is something, I was at a Council meeting the other night and they were starting to notice that, it was on the Parmani Hotel project, the guy was saying that almost everybody come to his hotel by Uber or Lyft. The hotel was sold out, and there were five cars in the parking lot. It's an astonishing number. The City needs to, the code needs to start thinking about how these drop-offs are going to take place. It's a good thing for us to point to, the county. The SOFA thing, I think those are so detailed, complicated projects. Chair Furth: Let it go? Vice Chair Baltay: Just let it go, yeah. On El Camino Real, I think the zero setback line and higher FAR leads to loss of landscaping is true, but the other two, to me, I don't know what you mean by that. Loss of places to go is just... Chair Furth: Well, the bowling alley is gone, Rickey's Hyatt is gone. As it redevelops, there are fewer social spaces. Vice Chair Baltay: But isn't that a planning issue, not an architectural review issue? Chair Furth: It's things that have come to our attention that we should think about when thinking about planning [crosstalk]. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, okay, coming to our attention, it's true. And then... Chair Furth: And one of the things... When the failed plan for the redevelopment of the Hyatt site went through years ago, one of the plusses was there was going to be a big, like, destination lobby. Not quite the Ahwahnee, but... First of all, there was a big public meeting room there, and many local social and community/public service groups met there. But, there was going to be practically a destination lobby, where you could go meet somebody. Have a drink, have some tea. And your kids could play in the playground to the rear. Didn't happen. And it seems that as it redevelops, we're getting fewer social spaces. We get complaints from neighbors that they're getting all these hotels, and they do nothing for us. And one of the ways that they could do something for them is if they have good places to meet somebody. You know, go get a cup of coffee, go sit with your kid in a stroller while you meet somebody City of Palo Alto Page 41 else with a kid in a stroller. But our zoning is so worried about traffic impacts that the owners don't have an incentive. In fact, they have a disincentive to provide those spaces. Maybe that needs more thought. Vice Chair Baltay: We should probably make it clear that it's probably coming about through parking requirements. Chair Furth: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Just to be clear. Chair Furth: It goes under parking. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, however you put it, but I think you're right. Because of parking, people don't want to put in a coffee shop. We want coffee shops. Chair Furth: And we want social spaces. At least we hear that. Vice Chair Baltay: Lastly, I don't know if it's the right place to put it, but I hear a lot of feedback, and as a practicing architect in town, just the review process, how is it going? How are we doing vis-à-vis getting feedback from people going through the ARB process? Are we doing sufficient public outreach so that people understand what we're doing? And should the ARB be involved in different ways? I have opinions about that, but I’m not sure if the annual letter to Council is the place to address that. I'm just throwing it out there as something on my mind. Chair Furth: I certainly have had people come, you know, make coffee dates to talk about our process. Vice Chair Baltay: I spoke to Chop Keenan, a big developer in town, the other day. He said he's not doing any more Palo Alto projects, period. He's too sick of the process. I don't know what to say to that, but that's just feedback. Chair Furth: Well, he didn't put a bench in front of the theater, but, didn't ask for it. Other people's comments? Something we left out that you think we should mention? Do you want to do something on process? One of the things that I heard was, you know, why don't we ever approve anything on first hearing? That's not true, that we don't. We get things that we say they did a great job. But they tend to be the simpler projects. Are there any statistical analyses that we want to put in? What I mainly hear is that it's a long time between iterations. I mean, the project this morning was particularly complicated and difficult. A difficult site, complex use. Board Member Lew: I think we should include some statement about how we, about the review process. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: Just brief. Right? Chair Furth: You can write it. Board Member Lew: Oh. Chair Furth: Seriously. Board Member Lew: And I think I would probably include outreach, as well. Just a statement that we're paying attention to it. Chair Furth: Yeah. And also that we are hoping, one of us has undertaken to create a kind of community workshop to help with it. If we put it in here, you'll have to do it. Vice Chair Baltay: Put it in there, yeah. Chair Furth: That would be Peter. City of Palo Alto Page 42 Board Member Thompson: Peter's is willing (inaudible-off microphone). Chair Furth: He's been willing for months. Is it next year we do architectural awards? You'll do architectural awards? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. On the... 2020. Chair Furth: Do we want to say anything about what worked really well? One of the things I really noticed about the Mayor's State of the City speech is it really cheered me up. He listed accomplishments. Anything we want to say? Do we really think it was great that you did thus-and-so because the process went well? Vice Chair Baltay: That's what the awards program does. Sort of pointing all that out. Chair Furth: Right. I just was wondering if we had anything else. Or we could say that the removal of the retail requirement in SOFA-2 made it possible to approve projects that formally couldn't be approved. But that may be very small. I mean, the fact that you now have discussions and not require on-site commercial loading zones in these small parcels. I mean, those were all minor things, but probably nothing we need, we don't need to tell them what a great job they're doing. We'll tell staff. Those are good changes. So, should Alex and I go back and...? Vice Chair Baltay: What's the next step? You guys draft up a real letter? Chair Furth: We go back and draft something, yes. And we will get it to you not 10 minutes before the meeting. Vice Chair Baltay: Thanks. I think this is great. We're going to get there with something that's useful. Chair Furth: Okay. And short. All right. Vice Chair Baltay: Wynne, I wanted to quickly add one last thing under this section here. This is to staff, really, but in my poking around for the Mercedes project, I happened to take a good look at the sewage treatment plant that we approved a few years back. I wonder if staff could check if that really is the way that we approved it. The building is entirely visible from the road. I remember going through a lot of trouble to get some landscape screening and stuff, and nothing whatsoever has been put in place. And the building is just a concrete box. Again, I remember doing quite a bit of thought about the design and the detailing, how the parapet was going to be done. Could staff investigate that and get back to us, what was actually built? Is that really what we approved? Ms. Gerhardt: We normally, on most projects, have a final inspection to do exactly what you're saying, so I will double-check if that's been done and get back to you with details. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Thanks. Board Member Lew: My recollection is that the Board deleted all of the trellises and that's why I voted against the motion. You're talking about the landscaping in front, like, at the gate? Vice Chair Baltay: No, no, on the other side. Whatever the main road is that goes between the airport and what used to be the landfill. As you drive by, there's just absolutely no landscaping whatsoever. And they had all kinds of renderings, showing, once we plant these trees, and how you're not going to see this building... Board Member Lew: Oh, I see. Chair Furth: If you could put it on our next agenda, we'll talk about it. I remember that project well, too. I'm always fascinated by Alex's extensive knowledge of Palo Alto history and procedure, including his City of Palo Alto Page 43 ability to remember every single "no" vote. None of which he regrets. Most of which we think, "Oh, yeah, you were right." Anything else? Thank you all. Let the record show we almost made it before noon, Osma, which is our goal. Thank you to the subcommittee. See you in two weeks. Adjournment City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Baltay, Board Member Alexander Lew, David Hirsch Absent: Osma Thompson Chair Furth: Good morning. Welcome to the April 18th, 2019 meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. Would the Staff please call the role? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Yes, good morning. [Roll Call] Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Thompson is absent and excused this morning. Chair Furth: Thank you. Oral Communications [The Board moved to Agenda Changes] Chair Furth: Oh sorry, oral communications. I didn’t – does anybody wish to speak to the Board on a matter not on our agenda but within the subject matter of our Board? No? Thank you. [The Board moved back down to City Official Reports] Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Are there any agenda changes, additions, or deletions? Is that a no? Ms. Gerhardt: That’s a no. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: Oh, I’m sorry, you can move it this way. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: April 18, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Furth: City official reports, transmittal of the ARB meeting schedule and attendance record, tentative future agenda items and recent project decisions. Staff, please? [The Board moved back up to oral communications] Chair Furth: Staff? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, so regarding the City official reports, we do have the schedule as Attachment A; again, showing vacations coming up. Also, today we have a subcommittee which will be Board Members Lew and Hirsch and then for the next agenda we show two items here. 233 University will continue onto the May 2nd agenda, the 4256 El Camino hotel project though will be delayed by one hearing to mid-May; May 16th I believe. Chair Furth: Just to confirm that we anticipate canceling the July 4th meeting? Rescheduling it, doing something, not meet on July 4th. It would be July 5th anyway since the City can’t conduct business on a holiday. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, we can. I will look at what items are coming up to see if we can just cancel it or if we need to think about a special meeting. Chair Furth: Great and if we could do that pretty soon it would be helpful because people have complicated summer schedules if they’re lucky. So, on May 2nd we only have the seismic rehabilitation and office addition at 233 University? That’s all that’s on the agenda? Ms. Gerhardt: That is correct. Chair Furth: Thanks. Any questions of Staff? Board Member Lew: Well, on that agenda we should put in the report to Council. Chair Furth: Yeah, the report to Council would be a good thing to add to that agenda. Ms. Gerhardt: I will do that. Chair Furth: Thank you, that will give us a deadline to meet. Action Items 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. Chari Furth: Alright, our first item is a public hearing, it’s quasi-judicial, 233 University Avenue, we’re going to continue the applicant’s request for approval of a Major Architectural Review. You said this to allow for seismic rehabilitation of an existing single-story building. I’m not going to read the rest of this. May I have a motion to continue? City of Palo Alto Page 3 MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this to May 2nd. Chair Furth: Is there a second? SECOND Board Member Lew: I’ll second. Chair Furth: Motion by Baltay, second by Lew. All those in favor say aye? Opposed? None, it’s continued at the request of the applicant. MOTION PASSES 4-0-1 WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON ABSENT 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 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) Chair Furth: Alright, next one is a public hearing, quasi-judicial, 180 El Camino Real which is otherwise known as the Stanford Shopping Center. This is a request for a recommendation on the request for approval of a Major Architectural Review for Pacific Catch restaurant to allow for exterior façade improvements to an existing tenant space, including a Sign Exception for one sign within Building E of the Stanford Shopping Center. Its category exempted from the California Environmental Quality Act because it’s basically redoing an existing building. Does anybody have any – first of all, has everybody visited the site? Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I visited the site. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Lew: I have not visited the site since the last go around but I did – I will disclose that I did review the signage at all of the other restaurants at the shopping center. Chair Furth: I look forward to hearing what you saw. Board Member Lew: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: I’d like to disclose that I did go out to the site and when I was there, I bumped into the planner and some members of the applicant Staff. I didn’t learn anything that’s not in the public record. Chair Furth: Ok. Board Member Hirsch: I also visited the site this morning just to measure entries and… Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: …and compare it to other entries into other restaurants – another restaurant in the mall. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Furth: And I will say I did see it again when it was not raining and the walls look much better when they’re not raining. I learned about the characteristics of that building material. Alright, Staff report, please? Ms. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning to the Architectural Review Board. My name is Samuel Gutierrez, I’m the project planner for this project here located at the Stanford Shopping Center. This is our second hearing and we received some comments at the previous hearing from the ARB regarding… Chair Furth: I’m sorry, Sam could you speak a little closer to the mic? Mr. Gutierrez: Sure, so I’ll just start over. Good morning to the Board, my name is Samuel Gutierrez, I’m the project planner for this project here at the Stanford Shopping Center. The – it’s a little crowded here. The Board previously reviewed this at the first hearing and there were some comments that were received and the applicant revised the plans according to those comments. In starting the presentation here, you can see the updated elevation views and the adjusted signage throughout. So, this is just a break down of the ARB’s comments, similar to what’s found in the Staff report. The ARB had comments regarding more accurate site plans with greater details in regards to the pedestrian access related to the outdoor patio areas that are proposed with this application. The concern was that pedestrian access should not be impeded. The site plan was updated with additional dimensions and that could be found on the plan sheets A-101 through A through 101-C. Also, the signage was a bit of a concern, the previous sign submittal included with the Packet had more signs and the applicant revised the number of signs and reduced their size. However, did include a Sign Exception for one sign that’s predominantly visible towards the Sand Hill – a broader elevation of the building. Then there was the concern for the common doorway, interior access, the – it was referred to the previous hearing as the rouge arch – between the Melt tenant space and the Pacific Catch tenant space. So, this submittal did include rendering elevation of the proposed design that the landlord, Simon Property Management, will be working on. There is an application in for that specific section of the building as well as the market area, the greater market area, adjacent to the Pacific Catch tenant space. Then there was a concern regarding the gas burning firepit and it should be revised to be energy efficient. The applicant did provide some spec sheets or information from the manufacturer regarding the energy efficiency. So, once again, this is the elevation view that was previously submitted. You can see that some of the signage was detached, there were some signs above the exterior patios, and then there was the logo sign on the façade. Then the signage has been revised to bring everything in line on the walls so the extra canopy signs have been removed though there is on facing the interior of the shopping center to identify the space. Here we can see the revised site plan. You’ll note that there’re more details about the furniture, trees, the existing light poles, and clearances to those objects. As well as there has been an updated or a proposed revision to the existing pathway that cuts into part of the loading space that’s located right at the opening of what we call the market area where all the exterior seating for the public and the trees. As you can see it kind of bulbs out and creates a great pedestrian path to allow greater access around the proposed patios. Here you’ll see a zoomed-in portion of the market area and again you can see how light poles will be adjusted and moved. So, we don’t create as much obstructions for pedestrian between the exterior patio and that light pole for example. The market area, in particular, there were comments about the exterior fruit displays and produce displays for Sigona’s. That was actually pulled in to their lease area now so if you were to visit you might have noticed some changes to that area so that’s noted as well on this plan there. This is the – kind of a blow-up and an example of the narrowest points of the exterior patio area and again, it’s just to demonstrate how the pedestrian path is going to be expanded by taking up a small portion of the loading area. Also, just demonstrating that these were mocked up in the field and there was some measurements taken for the clearances. Here’s a comparison of the existing façade, the revised proposed facades or excuse me the previous facades, yes and here’s the previous façade’s signage. We had six signs before, they were oversized, the logos again were a little disjointed from the namesake of the business and that has been revised to reduce it to four signs only with the Sign Exception for Sign A which is on the broader façade of this building for a larger dimension sign. There’s a break down of the dimension of each sign and here’s a zoom in of – in particular of the Sign Exception that’s requested. In reviewing this is actually was reduced from the previous submittal size but it’s still larger than the other signs and the Master Tenant Façade Program for the mall. However, in looking at this elevation it’s more auto-oriented so a larger sign does seem appropriate in this location. Especially when you’re coming into the shopping center towards the market areas with the trees, which are now starting City of Palo Alto Page 5 to have leaves on them and getting a little fuller. You can’t see some of the wall signs that this space has towards its kind of elbow, where it curves into the shopping center. So, this still gives it a presence and acknowledgment when cars are driving by in the parking lot area and it’s visible from Sand Hill. This is just a comparison of the signs and again, as you can see, two signs were removed from the previous submittal. Moving onto the common doorway access area between the Melt and the Pacific Catch tenant space. We can see that there’s a been a proposal to make this a neutral point, taking elements from both the Melt and Pacific Catch with the wood rectangular upper portion above the rectangular awning and kind of having a neutral tone painted façade there. You can see the existing condition on the top photo, that would be the arch in particular and again, that’s under a separate application that has been submitted to the City. That would be coming to the ARB at a later day. Just to help the ARB understand that I tried to mock this up a bit. It’s not exact, I am not an architect but it helps for the hearing purposes. As you can see the Melt elevation and then in the center would be this common archway and then this would be the Pacific Catch elevation. Then there was the fire pit question, there were concerns over its energy efficiency. So, the applicant looked to the manufacture and the manufacturer provided some information which is that this fire pit would not have a maximum burn flame and the manner in which the burner is designed with the air to gas mixture would actually make it burn more efficient than other burner types. I did learn that apparently, gas appliances don’t have full energy star ratings yet so it – that would be something for the future but based on that information Staff wasn’t quite sure if this updated information from the applicant was sufficient to meet the ARB’s concerns. So, we do welcome that conversation from the ARB regarding that item. Again, the key considerations for this would be the pedestrian access around the exterior patio areas, the sign design and Sign Exception, the design of the common corridor doorway in if this was sufficient to meet the ARB’s concern about what would happen there. Again, that’s under a separate application that’s forthcoming to the ARB and then the energy efficiency of the fit pit. The recommendation that Staff has for the ARB is to 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. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, any questions of Staff before we hear from the applicant? Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning, Sam. Could you address please the impact on parking at the shopping center that this project does or doesn’t cause? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, so the exterior patios do count as – toward parking, that area of the exterior patios and that is because it is covered service area. So, they are going to be serving people there and they do have covered patios with plastic solid type covers with a decorative kind of awnings that will roll back and forth for increased shading or more exposure to the sunlight. So, it does reduce the total or excuse me, it increases the required amount of parking for the shopping center but the shopping center does have excess parking per the code based on its square footage. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: I have a question. Chair Furth: Yes, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: The entry, main entry to the restaurant. Mr. Gutierrez: Yes? Board Member Hirsch: Has that been adjusted at all or just dimensioned or what? Mr. Gutierrez: I believe that has been slightly adjusted. Board Member Hirsch: I think you passed – that’s it, right there. City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, that lower photo here, that has been adjusted with this… Board Member Hirsch: Because of the additional… Mr. Gutierrez: …because of the additional extension, yes. Before you can see where the existing curve is and this have been brought open more. Board Member Hirsch: Right so that’s the attempt to make a change that would make it a more accessible space? Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: Nothing else? Mr. Gutierrez: No. Chair Furth: Any other questions before we hear from the applicant? If the applicant could come forward, you’ll have 10-minutes after you get set up. Mr. Jason Smith: Good morning Board. Chair Furth: Good morning and if you could once again spell your name for our transcriber. Mr. Smith: Yes, it’s Jason Smith, Land Shark Development Services Group, and pleasure to be back in front of you once again. Sam did a fantastic job going through the project. He really kind of left no stone unturned so I don’t know at this time that there’s a lot for us to go through other than to answer any further questions you may have of the applicant. I have here with as well Tom Fitzpatrick to – from the architect’s office to run through everything as well and I welcome your questions. Chair Furth: Thank you. Did anybody have any questions for the applicant? Alex? No. Peter? David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I’m most concerned about the entry issue to the – the main entry to the – and secondarily concerned about the second entry which is on the plaza there, on the other side of there. Mr. Smith: Sure. Board Member Hirsch: The main entry, what is the width dimension? You don’t have a dimension in this new drawing for the actual width of the two side exterior eating areas and the front door to the restaurant. Chair Furth: That’s Sheet A-101C David, that is the dimension drawing. I guess it’s on A-101B in a slightly larger… Mr. Tom Fitzpatrick: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Mr. Fitzpatrick: That’ll be better to look at. So, since our last meeting, we had gone back out and provided additional dimensioning identifying all the tree wells, all the hardscapes right up to those tree wells, curb faces, then relaying out our proposed patio. These dimensions have since been updated and provided additional dimensions as well. Really what we saw was an opportunity to have a nice wide entry into the building but also to have some circulation for the general flow on that outer edge of the tree well. So, you see that dimension that’s called out, I think its 4-foot 6? 4-foot 10 so that outer edge of that tree well to the curb face is at 4-foot 10 allows for all that circulation on the outside but then what we found was there was a little bit of bottlenecking as you get just past that tree to where the trunk aided domes where in that loading zone. So, we actually worked with the Simon Group who’s here today, Richard Wessels and we did City of Palo Alto Page 7 a full study from that portion on through the market. What we saw was an opportunity to remove the curb area that’s doted and have an additional platform and just a nice flow for people to circulate right through and on into the market place. In looking at that we also saw some obstacles, we had a bollard that we proposed to relocate, a light bollard and then a couple of light standards. We worked with the Simon Group and just wanted to see if there was an opportunity to relocate those just to get a nice big flow I think at our biggest spot where we’re almost 8-feet. That also brought up a discussion about the staging and that kind of grew. So, at the last meeting, I think when you guys were out at the site you saw that the tables encroached closer and closer to us. Some neighboring tenants had moved over and kind of made everything congested so I think Richard might be able to speak a little bit to that today and how he’s brought that back to that canopy line. Just an overall much better flow for that whole area so that’s all been studied and presented today. Board Member Hirsch: I had no specific problem with the improvements you made to the area between Sigona’s and your outdoor area. My concern is more about the actual entry into your restaurant and the width of it. I went there this morning just to kind of compare it with the True Food which has approximately a 12-foot area in front of the restaurant. Free and clear for people to mill around outside while waiting to get inside. It's not probably as big, I think you’re going to have a capacity of somewhere near 150 people inside of this restaurant when you’re full up. You have a single entering into the restaurant and then you have a door adjacent to it and exiting for the exterior. I don’t think it’s an adequate space for the size of this restaurant. I was hoping that that would be part of what we would be reviewing today but I don’t see any kind of improvement in that inner area between your two exterior eating areas and the entry to the restaurant. True Food has a double door into theirs and the space actually… Chair Furth: So, David, since we’re just doing questions at the moment. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Furth: Rather than telling them what we think is wrong what’s the question? Board Member Hirsch: The question is what’s the size? I haven’t heard the dimension. Chair Furth: The width of the entry. Ms. Gerhardt: So, if I may? We don’t have dimensions on it but it does look to be about 9-feet wide. Board Member Hirsch: 9-feet. Ms. Gerhardt: There is the planter there so there’s probably about 8-feet of walking space. Board Member Hirsch: Right, exactly, thank you. Mr. Fitzgerald: Part of the thing too is we have a great benefit of having the market place too. We brought that fire feature; we have this additional area of being able to be out there. We don’t really want people gathering at the front doors so our goal was to get them in the restaurant quickly. If they were to have parties that gather earlier, we’re fortunate enough to be at the market place and there’s seating out there. There’re areas to gather so we do have ability to, if there’s a large group, have some overflow and have them in that staging area. What we don’t want is the restaurant just clustered with people at the front – excuse me – and blocking that and creating any sort of challenge. So, we looked at is as that being an opportunity to have an open area and also tie it to our restaurant in that way. Does that answer… Chair Furth: And is – what sort of either Simon or Pacific Catch specific outdoor seating is there in that area if you’re waiting for friends before you get admitted or…? Mr. Fitzgerald: Yeah, there’s a combination of tables and loose chairs. City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Furth: But that – these seem to be reserved, right? I’m looking for accessible – I mean there’s the seating over by Sigona’s on the Melt side. Is any of that space – are there any benches or other places to sit or perch while you’re waiting for your friends or waiting for anything? Since you don’t want us milling around the entryway, where would we be hanging out? I’m completely sympathetic to not wanting people milling in your entryway. Mr. Fitzgerald: (inaudible) operations down too. Keith might even be able to offer some – Keith with Pacific Catch but we also have our own patio that is also is sometimes used as a place where they might get drinks and appetizers and then move on into the greater restaurant. As far as a proposal to anything between our patio and the Melt, no we don’t have anything proposed at this time. Chair Furth: Ok, thank you. Board Member – Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, good morning. Could you explain to me how it works when people want to pick-up take-out food or if you have one of these driver delivery services where a driver stops a car, get’s food and goes on? How does that – how do they flow through your building? Mr. Fitzgerald: I’ll let Keith with Pacific Catch take that one. Mr. Keith Cox: Hi again, Keith Cox, the founder of Pacific Catch. Chair Furth: Good morning. Mr. Cox: Good morning. We have a couple of different ways in which we handle take out and delivery. One of the things that we tried to do in that market area given that it is a market area where people are shopping for their meats and their groceries and their specialty farm markets style purchases. They can come in through that market door near our patio, that second door, and come in and order something and get some Poke to go and take it home and do that sort of take-out experience. Vice Chair Baltay: Excuse me, could you identify which door did you just refer too? Mr. Cox: The marked door that’s in the market area, that second door does provide another access and entry into the restaurant. So, we imagine that, especially for people coming from the mall, from the other side, not just from the parking lot, that that is the entry that they can use into the restaurant. So, it’s not just the front entry for people coming from the parking lot but that second entry is people come down into the restaurant. They will be able to come into the restaurant and be greeted at that area as well because if you look at the plan within the restaurant, which I’m not sure we’re starring at here, but there is a counter were people can come up and if they wanted a seat in the restaurant they can be directed there. In terms of delivery drivers, if they come to pick up food, they could come into the front door and be directed to the take-out counter or they can come in through that side door. They are welcome to come in through either entry. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Cox: In addition, there – one of the things we did go out to look at and study is there are seven short term parking areas that are in the parking lot that Simon recently isolated. So that there are areas for delivery drivers to come in and park and it's very short term and I watched as drivers came in and out of that sort of take-out and delivery zone. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you for the answer. Mr. Cox: And again, just one last comment, listening as we’ve – we’ve got areas inside of our restaurant for people to come in and wait at the bar which is a common thing. That whole market area where there are a whole series of tables and chairs in that big area. One of the benefits of having that is in that overflow or gathering area that is well seated and quite wide and has some area for people to wait. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: So, just to have you expand on that a minute. This is a place where people bring their families, you see a lot of small children in very expensive restaurants. Where would I wait with my grandchildren if I didn’t think the bar was a suitable spot? Mr. Cox: Well, in the market area next to us there, I’m just looking it at here… Chair Furth: When you say market area you mean Sigona? What are you referring too? Mr. Cox: Oh, I mean the whole open space area under the trees that are next to our patio. Chair Furth: Awe, the shared mall space or shopping center space. Mr. Cox: Yeah, the common area. (crosstalk) Mr. Gutierrez: That is what we refer to as the market area. Mr. Cox: Oh, sorry, the common… Mr. Gutierrez: It’s not specifically Sigona’s, it’s just we refer to that as the market area. Mr. Cox: Right, that’s shared common… Chair Furth: (inaudible) Mr. Cox: …shared common area seating and a big open area and walk up for everybody including our restaurant. Chair Furth: Ok, thank you. Any other questions? Could you tell me – this is for Simon’s representative, this is for you actually. Land Shark would be fine here I’m sure. Tell me a little bit – I’m glad to hear that you have a short term – your accommodating to short term delivery needs and uses. Could you tell us a little bit more about that program and how it works? Mr. Smith: Again there’s – I believe there’s five… Mr. Fitzgerald: Seven spaces. Mr. Smith: Oh, seven temporary spaces not specific to Pacific Catch but they’re for the general mall use. Any delivery or pick up drivers would be parking in that area. The loading area adjacent to the market area is for commercial vehicles only and it’s not for parking of short-term delivery vehicles and they will be cited. They get a notice of illegal parking, I actually got one yesterday. Chair Furth: Oh, I’m so sorry, what were you picking up? Mr. Smith: I was dropping off some blueprints to another location and so I know that it happens. Chair Furth: Thank you for field testing this. Mr. Smith: Yes, yes, and I have it so I can show it as proof but again, with those parking areas I think it will alleviate anybody parking in those areas and with the security that roams the mall, they’ll be able to identify anybody who parks there that’s not a licensed commercial vehicle. Chair Furth: Ok. Anything else? Alright, I think we’re ready to deliberate, thank you. Mr. Smith: Thank you. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Chair Furth: So, I have one preliminary question Sam which is… Mr. Gutierrez: Yes? Chair Furth: So, re-designation of some of the parking is short term space, is that somehow does that fit in with our parking requirements generally other than it’s a good idea? Mr. Gutierrez: So, we have had this happen in some cases but that was specific to a tenant. So, there were previous tenants like Pink Posey for example that was in the shopping center and had dedicated parking. In that case, we counted it as a reduction in overall parking because it’s not free to the public. Tesla, the boutique that’s there actually on this side of the shopping center just a little way down, may have… Chair Furth: Their car lot, yes. Mr. Gutierrez: Right, they have their vehicles there and those are the essential test drive vehicles for people. Those count as an elimination of parking because again they are specific to a tenant. Putting short term parking, 30-minutes, that’s not something that we’ve counted against parking because it’s still free and open to the public so, it’s not just limited to the Pacific Catch. Chair Furth: That’s helpful, thank you. Any other questions of Staff before we start talking? Vice Chair Baltay: I want to make a comment about parking independent of this. Chair Furth: Ok. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, I’d like to just a make a comment I guess about the parking situation and I understand that this is not directly applicable to this project but it really is in a way. As I understand it the mall has about 1, 469,000-square feet and by the one space per 275-square foot ratio that’s about 5,340 parking spaces and they have 5,430. So, they have a surplus of about 90 spaces, it’s pretty tight. This restaurant is I think it’s around 6,000 or something square feet and it results in a required parking space of 24 spaces. If I look at the City ordinance under a restaurant of this size, of this type of restaurant with a take-out service, they’d be required to have three spaces per 100-square feet. That would be a parking load of 198 spaces and we’re requiring 24 and this mall is flourishing with restaurants like this. There’s a noted and distinct parking problem out there and I think we need to all be aware of the fact that something has to change. The mall is under parked right now and it’s not working and this is why it’s not working. The difference between 24 spaces and 198 is big and we all know that 24 is not adequate for a restaurant of this size. It’s important – I think it’s just incumbent upon us to take note of that. Thank you. Chair Furth: Alright, thank you. That also suggests something about the economics that could drive tenants to the parking to shopping centers rather than else ware if we’re going to require vastly more parking. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, it’s just not right that a guy putting a restaurant over on El Camino of this scale and size would have to put in an enormous parking lot. Just because they are a part of the mall they don’t and yet we’re also disturbed that our downtown can’t flourish (inaudible)…. (crosstalk) Chair Furth: That’s a real advantage isn’t it? Vice Chair Baltay: … it’s just not balanced. Chair Furth: Alright, we will make a note, do a section in our annual report on parking. Alex, if you could start us off? Board Member Lew: Sure, thank you for your presentation and I think overall, I think the design is very elegant. I think the biggest improvement that you’ve made is in the indoor/outdoor design of the restaurant. City of Palo Alto Page 11 I think the weakest thing is on the existing building is the black glass at Max’s really – I think is really sort of kills that pedestrian experience along that part of the shopping center. I think this will be a big improvement. So, I think the only – I have two – I only have two concerns on this particular project. So, one is I think there’s one point where you just have a narrow 6-foot passage on the sidewalk. If I look at all of our – like the typical traffic engineers’ standards like NACTO, they would recommend 8 to 12-feet in that situation if it were a City sidewalk, so that’s one concern. I think in that particular location it may be fine. It’s not the – that one doesn’t have the most amount of pedestrian traffic relative to the rest of the shopping center. Then I think my second concern is the sign. So, I did review the signs for P.F Chang, Yucca de lac, California Pizza Kitchen, Flemings, True Food Kitchen, and I think they’re all – I think they’re following our 24-inch sign pretty strictly. I think the previous planners have enforced it very, very strictly and I think we – I think I would note, if I were opening a restaurant I would want a bigger sign. So, like I don’t have any – I don’t disagree with them for asking for a larger sign but I think we’ve been pretty strict about it and I think we should hold on to that. I don’t think we’re saying that this is like a mini anchor tenant and therefore gets a bigger sign. That doesn’t seem to pass – I don’t think that seems to pass with my sense of the frontages of storefronts. So, I’m thinking like on that same façade, on that same wall right, there’s like Brooks Brothers, that’s a fairly long façade. Yeah, it doesn’t seem to quite make sense to me how to justify a larger sign but I’m open to approving it if the other Board Members feel that we can meet the Sign Exception findings. That’s all that I have. Chair Furth: So, Alex, you have concerns about the narrow sidewalk. Is that the corner up – if you looking – I’m looking at 101C. That’s the upper left-hand corner of the upper left-hand patio? Is that the constriction point? Board Member Lew: Yea, the 6-foot 3. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: Or 6-foot 5. Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I guess it’s obvious what I’m concerned about here is the entry and the sidewalk width at the entry. The fact that there’s a tree as an obstruction in the sidewalk at that point and there’s a tree pit all around the tree that’s not very attractive. I don’t know, I don’t think you’ve really made any comments or any designs that we have seen on how you’re going to treat that tree pit. It seems to be me that there’s… [Unknown Female:] [speaking from the audience] Can’t hear you. Board Member Hirsch: Sorry, is that better? Ok. Chair Furth: You have to be very close with these mics. Board Member Hirsch: Ok. It seems to me that there has to be an alteration made to the eating – exterior eating area there that would allow the entry to be a double door. Even though you do have – and I noted it – some areas on the inside. I think they would fill up pretty quickly with some of the larger families that will be probably eating here and that it’s likely to spill out onto the sidewalk. I think that the expansion into the lay by area there is a big improvement but that’s not where the real constriction is going to happen. It’s going to happen around the front door and either I think you need to either chamfer the seating area there to open it up wider to the sidewalk. As like my cohort here on the Committee said, that there’s a required width for sidewalks and it’s really too tight when it gets to be closer to 5-feet than 6-feet. I would think that for this restaurant the particular density of population here requires that to be a much larger entry; a significantly larger let me say that. There’s already a 14-foot bay just about in the entryway area there and you’re using some of that as an exit to the outside. I don’t really – I see that as a conflict, just trying to squeeze too much into the bag in this area. I agree that I think this is a very attractive restaurant City of Palo Alto Page 12 and the textures and colors are going to be very enjoyable to visit for people but you really have to make – you have to spend some extra time on that entryway. Considering actually how you deal with the tree and how you deal with the overflow and people waiting. Just to ask them to wait around the corner doesn’t seem to me to be sufficient to wait in tables outside. The secondary entrance is also very tight, the pickup. I’m not sure how you improve that out without losing one of your cooking areas outside but that’s your problem. So, I think you should look into that a little bit more because that too is tight but in particular, the front entry just doesn’t look to me like a front entry at this point. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning, thank you for the presentation. I share my colleagues’ comments regarding the design of the building. It’s attractive and handsome and it’s a nicely selected pallet of materials. I think it will be a compliment to the mall. I share, echo, and probably go further with their concerns about the clearances on the sidewalk and the public right of way and the front door. If I could start at the top corner as I look at the drawing anyway there’s a… Chair Furth: What sheet are we on? Vice Chair Baltay: I’m looking at Sheet A-101B… Chair Furth: B? B as in boy? Vice Chair Baltay: B as in boy, yes. The top corner of sort of the outdoor area where its dimensions 6-feet 5-inches to the curb. I’m sure you have professional surveyors behind all this but when I quickly paced it out the other day there was more like 3-feet of space between the curb and the corner there. I think even 6-feet is really inadequate. There’s quite a flow of people along that sidewalk and to be jutting in that far and then especially when you have a fire hydrant and I noted one other bollard or something in there. You just – it’s just too much of a blockage to the public right of way along the sidewalk there and when you have a large flow of people. I think as you come further down in front of the entrance again, you have a tree with a light well there and it’s less than 4-feet really. It’s very tight around the front door and it’s not just going into the restaurant but the public flowing around here. Sigona’s, that little plaza is a very popular entrance area into the shopping center and there’s a steady flow of people in there. We’re really constricting it significantly. Even as you come around past Sigona’s where it’s improved if Sigona’s pulls their stuff back the way they’ve seemed to have done but even then, it just feels to me that you’ve – you’re being a little bit too aggressive with the size of your outdoor seating area. I think it needs to be reduced a little bit somehow by the entrance, by the sidewalk that’s pinched and even internally in the mall. My other concern, I don’t know how to address this, is the addition of what we called the lost arched last time, the design of that as proposed. I understand is not part of this application but it doesn’t seem to me to be a very good compromise yet. It’s 50 percent of one and 50 percent of the other which is not 100 percent of anything right now. So, I don’t know when we can see if we can work on that but the materials aren’t right yet. So, those are my comments, thank you. Chair Furth: So, Peter the constriction points and the service entry façade and what else did I miss on your concerns? Vice Chair Baltay: Well the constriction points and then the general nature of the front entrance. I support David’s concerns about that. Chair Furth: Tight, yeah. Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Oh, and I would like to say I support Alex’s concern about the Sign Enhancement and cannot – I cannot support a Sign Exception here. Thank you. Chair Furth: Well, starting with the most recently mentioned item I don’t support a Sign Exception either. We’ve had a lot of tenants who have complied with it, I’m sure all of them would have been happy with a City of Palo Alto Page 13 bigger sign, and I don’t think it’s appropriate to – I don’t think we can make the findings for an exception in this case. So, I would recommend against that. I think it’s a really attractive building, I think it’s going to take a frontage in an area of the shopping center which has, of course, looked quite sad ever since Max’s Opera Café left and it didn’t look that great from this side even when the Opera Café was there. So, this is a lovely building and will look a lot better. Having said that I think the patios are too big, I think that they have constricted the sidewalks to the point where they’re not functioning properly, and they need to be pulled back. First of all, in the – I think it was the upper left-hand corner on these drawings that’s – they need to be pulled back in so that there’s a wider – either the sidewalk goes out or the building comes in the parking… Vice Chair Baltay: It has to be bigger (inaudible) Chair Furth: Whatever it is, it needs to hit at least 8-feet on that side to meet reasonable standards for people to go by. I also think that we have it overly constricted on the market area side. I don’t know what the appropriate dimension is there. I can sort of see how you shortened the outdoor structure and these are structures. These are not just patios, it’s not just differently treated paving, and these are very attractive, highly desirable eating areas, and they are used enthusiastically all over the shopping center. We had the same issue over by Anthropology. We ended up pushing that one back too, to allow enough pedestrian circulation through there, pedestrian stroller, whatever, so I think both of those need a bit more space. I very much appreciate the more accurate site plan. I differ to my colleagues, my professional colleagues, on their – they’re the professionals, I’m not – on the width to – the width – the necessary width for the entrance from the parking lot to the building. It does look too crowded. I agree it probably should be a double door. I don’t know how you do that but it’s just not going to work the way people operate in real life. This is a very nice climate, people hang around doors, and then I will get back to my obsession which where am I going to sit down as I make my way from American Girl to Pacific Catch? I know we had a long discussion with the – by the way the applicant here, the property owner is Stanford University and the landlord for everybody is Simon and this is not simply a Pacific Catch application. This is an application for new use in an integrated area. I went by – I’ve done a lot of – a couple of field trips to see how Shake Shack is coming out and how the woodwork is holding up. Vice Chair Baltay: So far so good. Chair Furth: So far so good and I look at the benches that were installed on the diagonal walkway heading towards the main buildings and they’re well used and they’re attractive and they stop about 80-feet short of the corner. I see people sitting on the curb and I do not understand and I actually would like to hear from the applicant on this, from Simon on this. Why not more benches? Why not more places to sit when there’s an obvious need for it and good spaces for it? Why – I would like to, if my colleagues support me, ask for more – require more seating along this area. It doesn’t have to be right in front of Pacific Catch but it needs to be somewhere on that stretch because the demand is there and why not provide it? I’m dumbfounded because you’re very customer oriented operated. So, I would not support the sign applications, I would support pulling back the patios, I would support a wider entry, and I would support benches. At least one, probably two that did not require you to buy a drink to use them along that frontage and I do agree that the effort to figure out a good solution to that service entry still hasn’t made it. It’s a complicated wall and I suspect there is a design solution that would suffice but this isn’t it. So, does anybody want to make a motion or have further discussion or ask any questions of anybody? Vice Chair Baltay: I’d like to bounce to my colleagues an idea. I don’t want to be designing this but if we were to establish say a 10-foot requirement for the sidewalk circulation, just splitting the difference with Alex’s number and say that they just have to meet that number. Can we push this along if they come back on a subcommittee meeting at 10-foot clearance everywhere? Chair Furth: Oh, I would be in favor of a subcommittee; 10-feet’s fine with me. Vice Chair Baltay: Would you agree (crosstalk) with that Alex? You’re – this would – there’d be a lot of design involved to get that clearance. City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. Gerhardt: If I may just offer, along California Avenue and University when we’re talking about cafes on the public sidewalk, 8-feet would be the normal clearance that Public Works would require in those public instances. Chair Furth: And I will say that one of the – it’s crowded and one of the things that I think distinguishes the shopping center use is lots more strollers. Board Member Hirsch: Is that 8-feet clear or does that also include other street furniture; trees or whatever within that dimension? Ms. Gerhardt: That is 8-feet clear so yes, not including trees or anything else. Vice Chair Baltay: Or maybe we can hear from the applicant what they might suggest through the Chair? Chair Furth: Would the applicant like to comment? Mr. Fitzgerald: When we left the last hearing, it was certainly about circulation and that was definitely the focus. There’s wasn’t a big push at that last hearing to look at the actual scale or size of these patios but in looking at the plan I think we’re down to three pinch points if you will where we don’t meet that 8-feet. Chair Furth: Could you put up the other drawing Sam? Thanks. Mr. Fitzgerald: So, starting at the top of the page it appears that that would fall under that threshold of 8- feet. So, if we could work with Staff to address that corner and widen that to the minimum of 8-feet, I think we would take care of that portion. The main entrance, we want the single door, we want the design in place that we have with that. With the double doors, that just offers a whole other design factor or operational thing that we don’t desire but to your point, we also have a beautiful existing tree that we’ve planned around from day one. Never proposing to relocate it or remove it because it is a great feature. It’s part of the center and it’s full grown and everything else. Having said that, while we’ve improved the circulation to get to our front door, again, potentially we could work with Staff to just flare those corners of those patio entries and actually have chamfer corners. Make an adjustment to the seating and have good flow right into the store. Chair Furth: So, as the layperson here, chamfering means you’d put another – you’d cut the corner, right? Mr. Fitzgerald: Correct and I think that really addresses… Chair Furth: Same as in furniture? Mr. Fitzgerald: Correct and it just really would address the three pinch points that are being discussed today. You can see as you’d wrap the corner with a pretty sizeable improvement to remove the concrete, there’s some good money being spent here to fix this corner if you will, and to maintain the 8-feet proposed. Simon is on board with us relocating some of their lights so that when you do make that pass, you’re not in and out of patio chairs or tables. It’s a completely uninterrupted flow from that point on into the rest of the shop. So, I think with those three adjustments I don’t where maybe we… Chair Furth: Ok, so the first adjustment would be getting to 8-feet in the upper… Mr. Fitzgerald: Correct. Chair Furth: …left hand corner, the second would be chamfering the entry and what’s the third one? Mr. Fitzgerald: No, no those two chamfers at that location. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Furth: Ok. Mr. Fitzgerald: See so those two spots. Chair Furth: You’re right in terms of cost, I understand, thanks. Vice Chair Baltay: There’s still the question of the fire hydrant in the sidewalk that you’re reducing the width next to that and you still have over by the Sigona’s side. It says 7-foot 6 even with the relocated light pole. I’m afraid I’m not – to my colleagues – hearing an enormous amount of enthusiasm to address our concerns and maybe this just needs to come back as a redesign instead. I’m trying to work with you but I’m not hearing you working with us… Mr. Fitzgerald: No, absolutely… Vice Chair Baltay: … to really address what we’re doing. Mr. Fitzgerald: …and I’ll tell you… Vice Chair Baltay: I don’t want to discuss it with you anymore. Chair Furth: Any other questions of the applicant or comment? Ok, let’s – thank you. So, I have on my notes from people’s areas of concern the design of the service access, the accessibility of the main entry, the sidewalk constriction in the upper left-hand corner, the circulation – oh, I have a question for Staff. So, in terms of the tree, the existing tree which I’m sure nobody supports moving right? I presume none of us support moving? Ok. What is the tree well situation there? What’s the foot experience along there? Is there a cover or how does it work? Mr. Gutierrez: From what I recall there’s no cover. There’s just little, I believe, lights that up light it but there’s no cover. It’s a circular tree well and then around it there’s a little bit of dirt that is pretty close to level. Chair Furth: That seems like a bad idea to me. What else have I left out here of our summary of concerns? Ok, and I care about seating along that wall. Alright – along that frontage. Was there something adjacent? Mr. Smith: There is a cover around that tree currently. Chair Furth: There is? Mr. Smith: Yes. Chair Furth: Ok. Vice Chair Baltay: Can I try again with the Board? Could we try to come to some just minimum clear width required for circulation issues so that they can come back on a subcommittee? Chair Furth: I think it would be great to come back on a subcommittee. Vice Chair Baltay: If we say 8-feet minimum clear width everywhere, that means between fire hydrants and light poles and trees. Does that address the concerns about circulation? Chair Furth: It addresses mine. If you – if my more experienced colleagues think that works on the Sigona side. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, it’s a compromise. I had suggested 10 but 8 seems to be the City standard as much we have something. City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Furth: Ok. Vice Chair Baltay: Does Staff feel that’s something that can be reviewed in house? Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, we could review that, yes, I believe. Chair Furth: I do appreciate the reconfiguration of the sidewalk; I think that will be a big improvement. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, yeah, they have the option of reconfiguring the sidewalk too. It’s not – something has to change just so that the width is appropriate. We like the design of the building it seems so David, does that address your concerns about the front entry thought because it’s not… Chair Furth: The chamfering? Vice Chair Baltay: It would bigger because of the clearance from the tree but otherwise… Board Member Hirsch: I think there’s going to be an awful lot of in and out movement into this restaurant and I would still prefer they provide a double door at the entry. I just think this inaudible large, large restaurant and… Vice Chair Baltay: Do you think we could give them a minimum… Board Member Hirsch: … so I would widen the actual entry to allow for a double door unless they can squeeze it into the opening that are presently there. Vice Chair Baltay: I think you have me on board with you as far as making the area wider but I’m uncomfortable stipulating what kind of door they have to have. It seems to me that’s a chose they can make. Chair Furth: I figure that their expertise on the operation of their own restaurant is superior to ours and if they think a single door works well for their operation, I differ to them. Mr. Smith: Again, that width is 8-feet. Chair Furth: I’m more concerned about the fact – I believe the fact that there’s going to be lots of people outside that door. Vice Chair Baltay: But are we comfortable saying it needs to be a 12-foot width outside the entry… Board Member Hirsch: I would be comfortable with that. Vice Chair Baltay: … instead of 8-feet? Chair Furth: I’d support that. Vice Chair Baltay: Again, we’re really designing the thing here but we want to get you guys on your way and we’re looking for some way to meet everybody’s concerns a little bit. Alex, what do you…? Chair Furth: You happy? Board Member Lew: Ok, I would agree with David. When I look at the elevation of the entry, the single- entry door, between two patios, covered patios, it’s not just – if it where – the patios weren’t covered then it would seem more open. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Furth: Or you could step to the side. Board Member Lew: Right and so I think David’s right about that. I’m willing to give on that if they’re going to chamfer the patios. Chair Furth: So, Alex… Board Member Lew: I’m willing to meet halfway. Chair Furth: Excuse me, Alex, are you saying that you would also support a double door? You prefer a double door (inaudible) (crosstalk) Board Member Lew: I don’t want to say a double door; I’m just saying it looks narrow. Chair Furth: It’s too constricted. Board Member Lew: It’s narrow and it’s constricted by the covered patio. It doesn’t – it looks like to me that looks like a side door; it doesn’t look like an entry door. Chair Furth: That’s my biggest problem is it doesn’t look like an entry. Board Member Lew: But I do like the overall effect of the building with the indoor/outdoor effect and the garage -- the roll-up garage doors. In a way, the whole thing is an entrance so I’m willing to compromise on that. Chair Furth: Does anybody agree with me that we need seating on that side? Board Member Hirsch: I agree. Chair Furth: David agrees. Vice Chair Baltay: Oh sure, I agree with that, that’s fine to request as a subcommittee item. Mr. Smith: And we can address that with Simon as far as placing additional shopping center seating along – between (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Furth: That’s all I’m asking, thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: But that seating would not be able to impede on the clear width we’re talking about. Mr. Smith: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: In that 8-foot, I want to clear, is really clear width. It’s not two 4-foot spaces. Mr. Smith: Correct, this would be just on the opposite side of that bar patio. There would be some additional shopping center benches placed there as well so that the customers could then use the benches on both sides of the restaurant as seating area. Chair Furth: Every time you have a new popular restaurant this is a big issue. I’m assuming this will be a new popular restaurant. Mr. Smith: Yes. [Unknown Male:] [off mic] We’ll study that along with… City of Palo Alto Page 18 MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: Ok, so I’d like to make a motion that we approve this project subject to the following revisions being made and coming back to our subcommittee for a final review. The first being that there be a minimum clear width of 8-feet on all the public sidewalks or all the sidewalks around the exterior of the outdoor seating areas. Secondly, that additional benches be placed let’s say within 20-feet of the front entrance? Chair Furth: (inaudible – off mic) Vice Chair Baltay: Ok so additional benches be placed outdoors near the front of the entrance to the restaurant. Did I miss anything? Chair Furth: Yeah, you’re going to chamfer – you’re going to do something about the entry. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I think that the 8-foot – meeting that 8-foot is what requires that. Chair Furth: Oh, I thought we were going to chamfer the corners or something to widen the entry to the front door. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I was – in order to go 8-feet away from that tree… Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, so Staff (crosstalk) Mr. Smith: Well and then that will likely be a result of us going back…(crosstalk) Chair Furth: Ok fine. Mr. Smith: … to retain that 8-foot clearance. Vice Chair Baltay: To clarify, at the tree, I would measure the 8-feet from the edge of the circular opening in the sidewalk, not just the trunk of the tree. Someplace where people can walk… Mr. Smith: Understood. Vice Chair Baltay: … and we’re looking for an honest effort to meet that clearance requirement. I think that will require chamfering or something at the front entrance… Chair Furth: Fine. Vice Chair Baltay: … and giving them some design choice. Those were… Chair Furth: And you recommend denial of the request for Sign Exception. Vice Chair Baltay: And I recommend that we recommend denial of the Sign Exception request. SECOND Board Member Hirsch: I’ll second that. Chair Furth: Motion by Board Member Baltay – Vice Chair Baltay, second by Board Member Hirsch. Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye? All those opposed no? Hearing none, it passes 4 nothing. Congratulations, we look forward to seeing the project. MOTION PASSED 4-0 WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON ABSENT City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Furth: Who would like to serve on that subcommittee? We’ll appoint it right now. Don’t all leap up at once. David? Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll do it. Chair Furth: Peter and David, thank you. Mr. Smith: Would that be a date certain subcommittee or…? Chair Furth: It’s whenever you’re ready to come back with Staff. They don’t – that goes on our agenda but it’s -- that’s the only notice. Mr. Smith: Thank you. Chair Furth: You’re welcome, thank you. We’re going to take a 5-minute break while Staff sets up so we’ll be back at 9:45. [The Board took a short break] Chair Furth: We’re back in session. I forgot one thing in the previous matter -- hearing matter which won’t change the results at all. I had asked – I expressed my concern before about having conspicuous consumption of natural gases by having an outdoor fireplace in the patio. I went back and reread the Resolution 9649 of the City of Palo Alto about getting carbon-neutral gas supply and we are still in the era in which we are being carbon neutral with respect to natural gas by buying offsets. We are giving up our electric or gas ranges later in the future. So, I still think we have an interesting ethical and survival question about whether conspicuous consumption of natural gas is a good idea when we’re trying to reduce that. It’s sort of like do you turn off the fountains during a drought or do you leave them on because everybody should have the chance to look at that one little bit of water? I don’t know but I decided it wasn’t something that could be used – should be used right now to recommend against approval of a project. 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 Chair Furth: Alright, as soon as I find my agenda Packet, our next hearing item is a public hearing, quasi- judicial one on 565 Hamilton Avenue. It’s consideration of a Major Architectural Review to allow 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 set back, and the environmental assessment is that this project is categorically exempted from the provisions of CEQA per Guideline 153232. The zoning is CD which is Commercial Downtown, CP that’s a pedestrian overlay so a portion of its commercial and the rest of it is RM-40; Residential Multi-Family. The planner is Sheldon Ah Sing. Before we turn to Sheldon the property owners are Althea and Eric Andersen and Mark Frapwell, the architect is Aidlin Darling Design, and first of all are there any disclosures to be made either of visits to the site or conversations outside of this body which looked at this in a preliminary basis before. Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Vice Chair Baltay: I visited the site early this week. Board Member Hirsch: I’ve visited the site a couple of times now. Chair Furth: And I have as well. If we could have the Staff report, please? Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing, Project Planner: Yes, thank you. Sheldon Ah Sing, contract planner. I do have a presentation for you this morning. The applicant is also here with their presentation. As described in the introduction the project is a formal review of development of nearly 30,000-square feet mixed-use building on a half-acre size area and there will be three parcels that will be ultimately merged. However, the zoning districts would remain so there’s to be split zoning on the single parcel. It is at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street. It’s in an area that transitions from the commercial area into residential. The areas characterized by some taller buildings that have been built in recent times. There are also are some a sprinkle of smaller building such the ones that are on the site. Then across the street is the religious facility building that’s very dynamic and expressive. So, this project did receive the benefit of a preliminary ARB on May 3rd in 2018. So the comments at that time, and that is the picture of the previous submittal, to focus the building outward to address the street, to augment the landscaping on the ground, to provide a more urban and open connection to the street for ground-level residential units along Webster by removing some of those wood screens, study the massing to create a greater different orientation between the office and residential spaces, to break up the horizontal massing by adding more variation, look at using a warmer tone and color that’s more indicative of Palo Alto, and to aim to provide more parking on the site. So that is what’s being proposed here and also to strive to be a good neighbor to the building at 530 Webster. This is sort of like a comparison of the before and after along Hamilton Avenue. You can see that the colors are more warm, they’ve added more landscaping to the bottom, and I have more pictures of close-ups and renders as well as the applicate will go into more detail. Then you have the Webster Street elevation and changes there. You can see how the massing relates to the adjacent buildings. For the project summary, you have a three-story mixed-use project, 40-feet is the height limit and that’s what they’re hitting up against. There is an offset in the Floor Area Ratio. There are two zoning districts so in this case – I have a separate slide on this but just for the sake of having a better site plan that there is some space that’s offset such as circulation and utility area, trash area. I guess I have another slide that goes into detail about that. There are nine existing dwelling units on the site and with implementation of the project there will be a net of ten additional units and these are rental units. So, because the project does provide and proposal rental units to fulfill the City’s affordable housing requirements, the developer will need to pay an impact fee. So, there’s no on-site affordable unit that’s being proposed. The project does propose to have parking in the basement as suggested last time. They did add mechanical parking so of the 55 spaces that are proposed, 50 of those are within the mechanical lifts and they have five that are standard spaces and that meets the code. However, with that the requirement and based on the current code, 67 spaces are required for the projects. That’s both for the commercial and the residential. There’s a new code that’s going to be in effect that reduces that amount to 60 spaces so the reduction that they’re proposing now is 18 percent and that request would go down to 8 percent. How they’re meeting that is through a joint use reduction, so with the commercial uses and residential uses they have offset in peak demand times for parking. Commercial is typical during the day, they don’t operate at night, residential is more at nighttime. So, as it turns out the actual peak demand is around 10:00 am in the morning and that amount would be 52 parking spaces. The project provides 55 parking spaces. The project also proposed a pretty robust Transportation Demand Management Plan that demonstrates that joint-use parking would work on the site. The project also requires – also requests a Variance as I said and I have a separate slide for that for the special set back. So, for the FAR I thought this was probably one of the better exhibits to use just because it was fairly simple but as I show here there’s two – there’s a commercial district and then there’s the RM district and I have the zoning line that goes through there. There are other circulation areas that are being shared and offset. The offset between the commercial district site and the residential site is 816-square feet. So, the commercial site is lower by 816-square feet and the residential side is higher by 816-square feet. As there is – there you can see our – the utility rooms, trash rooms. If you had to separate those you really create a lot of inefficiencies to have separate utilities that include – for an entire site includes the parking City of Palo Alto Page 21 management and the electrical because there’s – the site is in a flood zone. So, if you had those split up it's just not really great, it’s not efficient for the City, it’s not efficient for the garbage hauler to pick things up. So, we thought that it was ok to arrange the FAR, Floor Area, in that way. Regarding the Variance, there are – it’s a 17-foot special setback and as described in other meetings there’s not a real reason for this special setback. Aside we’re thinking maybe it's for allocations of future right of way for turn lanes or more landscaping, utilities, but in this case, the 17-foot setback does exist in this area. The applicant proposed to protrude into that on – with several occasions here. The two big ones would be with the canopy that’s over the entry of the ground floor for the commercial and the residential on Hamilton as well as the roof eaves for the site. There are other protrusions such as there’s a concrete fin wall, there are also some window frames, Staff wasn’t really supportive of those elements. I think the key here and what makes sense are the canopies and the roof eave and those two are things that we think we can support for the site for the Variance. Chair Furth: Excuse me, did you say you could not support the other ones? I couldn’t hear what you were saying. Mr. Ah Sing: Could not. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Ah Sing: Right, could not support like the concrete fin as well as the protrusions for the window frames but the canopy and the eaves, those make sense for Staff. Here’s a cross section of you have the basement and how the site would be arranged. You have I think about 12-foot plates – 13-foot plates for the building and the mechanical lifts would be able to handle sport utility vehicles. Not the largest of vans, not the full-size ones necessarily but those are – would be consistent with the code. Then just showing some renderings here about the project and how they meet some of the recommendations from the Board previously about adding some landscaping along the streetscape and removing the wood screens. The applicant will go more into their objectives and design objectives for the site. Here’s a shot from that intersection and in conclusion we believe that the project responses to the preliminary ARB comments. We want to receive feedback on this proposal as stated, portions of the Variance request are acceptable but not all of them and we acknowledge that there will be a Zoning Code update that will change the parking requirement so just keep that in mind. So, for a recommended motion we do want you to consider the proposed project and provide feedback on the project design to Staff and applicant and continue the item to a date uncertain. Chari Furth: And remind us or tell us why you want it continued rather than having a recommendation? Because you’re waiting for the zone change or what? Mr. Ah Sing: I don’t know if it’s that really because – the request is either 18 percent which is under the 20 percent maximum for the parking. It does bring it down to 8 percent but we just – we don’t have the findings in the one… Chair Furth: We’re not ready to go. Mr. Ah Sing: So, you know that’s – we’re kind of thinking about it but we don’t have the findings before you today to make that recommendation. Chair Furth: Got it, thank you. Alright, any questions of Staff before we hear from the applicant? The applicant, please? You’ll have 10-minutes when we get you set up. If you could spell your name, your organization’s name for the transcriber if that’s necessary. Ms. Roslyn Cole: Sure, my name is Roslyn Cole with Aidlin Darling Design. [spells name] Thank you, yes, please. Ok, great. I’ll keep my timer, make sure I’m good. Great, good morning. As I mentioned I’m Roslyn Cole with Aidllin Darling Design and we’re the architects for this project. I’m pleased to be back here again presenting this to you. We have made a number of changes and we think they’re all for the City of Palo Alto Page 22 better. As Sheldon has mentioned the project is at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Webster Street, it’s at a point of transition between the commercial businesses along Hamilton and then the adjacent residential neighborhood. It’s really a nexus where there’s a change in character and height and then scale. This project is really trying to mitigate between all those pieces. There are a number of constraints that we worked with for the design of this project. Firstly, the 17-foot setback along Hamilton. Our neighboring building to our west is 10-feet forward of us which creates a very awkward transition at that location but we’re working to that 17-foot setback. We have a 0 to 16-foot setback along Webster but our adjacent neighbor at 530 Webster is set 20-feet back. So, we set a constraint for ourselves at matching them and being at that 20-foot setback to be respectful. Because of the nature of Hamilton Avenue, the request was to place the driveway on Webster so we’ve located it to (inaudible) existing utilities along that street. Then lastly, we have five mature Redwood Trees on the adjacent lot in the top left corner; the northwest side. So, we need to set our building back to provide enough space for the root growth and protect those trees. So, the design that we have come up with works to those constraints and creates an open courtyard building that is – that is rung by residential spaces and the offices. It provides a green center to the heart of the building. Rather than providing individual balconies for use as a gesture to outdoor living, we chose to aggregate the area into a more meaningful and useable space such as the central courtyard and the roof terrace. We have a number of project goals for this project that I just want to repeat briefly. To allow for the seamless transition between the commercial and residential neighbors, to integrate into the existing neighborhood and respect the privacy at 530 Webster, to enhance the existing nature environment and also provide new opportunities for connecting with nature, to construct a building with a strong sense of permanence and timelessness and use materials that are textured, honest, and natural in color. As you can see this was our preliminary ARB design, we came to you last May and received some very valuable feedback. We have changed the design significantly. We’re redesigned with your comments in mind and we think that it is a much better building for it. We feel like the building is nuances in its approach to the two streets and it just works well with the environment. I’d like to walk through a series of slides that represent each of the individual items we heard from you and how we responded and do this quickly. So, we heard from you to request to break up the horizontality, the massing and reduce the wrapper like effect of the building. So, we redesigned the facades by using floor to ceiling glazing and then partnered with ribbed panels at the upper two floors to create a vertical rhythm across the façade. The metal panel at the stair here basically is a counterpoint to the metal frame at the office which provides an additional visual relief. Then double height glazing that wraps the corner from Hamilton to Webster creates a welcoming and open corner. The three-stories are still clearly legible with our concrete base, the horizontal banding at the floor lines and a strong roof expression. We were asked to increase the differentiation between the office and the residential spaces and we’ve done so by adding a metal surround and a deeper canopy to clearly delineate the office space from the residential. You had noted the awkward offset between our 17-foot setback and our neighbor and suggested that we look at bridging that gap. So, we’ve done so by extending the canopy and the roof eaves to visually soften that transition and this is why we are asking for a Variance for these pieces to really try to resolve the awkwardness at the intersection here. In order to augment the landscape design to be more generous to the street, we have provided a great deal of layered and extensive landscaping throughout the project. We basically have 93 percent by area of drought tolerant and native species and we’re increasing the mature tree canopy by over 5,000-square feet. Lauren Ewald of Fletcher Studio, the landscape architect, is here today and she can answer any questions you have about the landscape design. In order to provide a more transparent view in the courtyard from the street, at the time it had been a classy lobby, we pulled the lobby away from the center of the space and created a clearly visual opening into the courtyard. In order to be a good neighbor to our neighbor at 530 Webster, we have amused the floor to ceiling glazing and the expression of the floor line to reduce – as well as the roof terrace which was apparent in our last submission – to decrease the apparent mass of the building as it comes to our neighbor. We’ve also studied the windows along the north side and looked at ways to make sure that we retain the visual privacy between the two buildings. We also have a privacy fence and a landscape buffer that benefit both properties. There was a suggestion that we try to activate the corner more and provide a stronger connection to the street for the residential units on Webster. So, we’ve done so by pulling the lobby away from the center and towards the east. We’ve also created a covered terrace at the corner which as stepped terraces that cascade down to the corner at Hamilton and Webster. Then we have a similar terrace, stepped terraces, at the City of Palo Alto Page 23 two residences that are clearly visible. There are private but visually open patios for the residential uses. We’re then augmenting this by adding public art within the entry terrace here with a viewing bench that basically welcomes the public to the corner. We think we’ve created a much more urban condition at this important corner. You had asked us to look at increasing our parking and we have work with the City to be able to use mechanical lifts for this space and for this project. So, we have been able to increase our parking count from 39 to 55 stalls. The plans themselves haven’t changed significantly with the exception of the move of the lobby over to create the open courtyard. We still have our Redwood grove garden in the upper corner to protect the roots of the trees and provide additional outdoor space. Really the heart of this project is the central courtyard which provides that biophilic space that benefits the residents and the users as well as the community who now have a direct visual access into the space. As we move up the office and the residential spaces stack around that central courtyard and then as you get to the third floor it’s all residential units ringing the courtyard. Then with our open terrace towards Webster Street which really helps reduce the mass along the side and provide that additional amenity for the occupants. The materials, as shown in this precedent, are similar to the ones that we had presented to you last spring. We still are proposing to use board formed concert, wood soffits, and trellis elements. A metal brise soleil at the office and the fiber cement board panels. However, the fiber cement board panels have changed significantly and we have looked at using a warmer color so it’s the warmer of these two colors and a material that has a ribbed texture. This ribbed texture is something that provides both kind of just a textural quality at the human scale but it also provides a shadow effect through the day as shown here. We think this brings kind of a subtle, dynamic façade – dynamic quality to the project. So lastly just to walk through these renderings quickly, you see the elevation here with the more vertical expression and the clear designation of the office. The open terrace and the open terraces at the residential level in the corner, that’s a view from Hamilton Avenue and how we fit within the neighboring environment; the church to the side and how we’re knitting ourselves to those heights. Along Webster and how we are working to the existing building at 530 Webster Street with the open terrace. A view into the courtyard that’s not fully visually open and then lastly a view from the corner where you see the lush landscaping within the two setbacks, the inviting entrance, and then the glazing opening above. With that, I look forward to your comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant’s architect? Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: Questions for Staff. Chair Furth: Any questions for Staff? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. They’re proposing mechanical parking lifts in the basement and yet this is an area within the flood zone. Those lifts would be below the base flood elevation, is that permitted? Mr. Ah Sing: We did work with Public Works regarding this issue and everything is to their satisfaction. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: I have five speaker cards. The first speaker is Jeff Levinsky to be followed by Kate Crane. You’ll have 3-minutes once you’re set up. Mr. Jeff Levinsky: Thank you. Good morning, Board Members. It’s Jeff [spells name], I’d like to talk about the parking issues. For a mixed-use parking exemption, there’s supposed to be a specific kind of parking study done but I didn’t find that in the materials available to the public. Among – they’re asking for the mixed-use parking, these are going to be expensive residences and the occupants are certainly going to have cars but they’re also touting here a TDM that’s going to tell people they don’t need to drive to work because they can use transit, bike, and walk. So that means that more cars will stay at the building during the day from the residents because they’re not moving their cars. So, the parking study ought to reflect that and of course, we don’t have the parking study to even look at that. It’s also going to rely heavily on the stacked parking as you’ve heard. A Palo Alto resident whose building on El Camino uses stacked parking came to the last Planning Commission meeting and described in horrible detail the City of Palo Alto Page 24 problems that she and her neighbors have. The stacking units break down frequently, it takes days to get the parts from Europe, peoples cars get stuck in the unit making it impossible for them to get to work or to school, if you have small children you have to -- you can’t use the stacker units basically because you can’t have the kid in the car when you go into the unit but you can’t leave the kid unattended next to the car. All of that should be reflected in the parking study, how’s this going to work? The City approved a mixed-use permit over at 636 Waverley, a building that also has offices on the lower floors and residences above. I checked this morning; it took literally seconds to find that someone in that building who works there got a residential parking permit so obviously that building is not properly parked. The parking study for this building ought to explain why our previous parking studies turned out to be wrong. This project also proposes to unbundle parking which raises another concern. Over at 101 Lytton, there’s the Chamber of Commerce and it has – there’s service and underground parking but the president of the Chamber was spotted parking her car in the neighborhood. When asked why she said well, it was the parking fee charged by the landlord was too high. So, unbundling let’s the owners earn more by charging extra rent for their parking but that encourages people in the building to park else ware. That too should be in the parking study, how’s that going to work? He’s a simple suggestion, why not add a condition to the TDM or to the project overall that the residents and the workers in this building will not be able to get parking permits? They’re not paying into the Assessment District so they’re not entitled for that reason and that way we can see if the owner really believes that the parking in this building will be adequate for the building. I also hope you’ll comment on the appearance of the building which to me still looks cold and soulless and not compliant with the character of other buildings that we have in that area. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Levinsky. Kate Crane to be followed by Roberta Ahlquist. Ms. Kate Crane: Hi there, I’m Kate Crane [spells name]. Palo Alto desperately needs affordable housing, this is not going to be affordable housing. I’m wondering why the City Council continues to approve projects like this? This is clearly out of step with the Comprehensive Plan. Where is the accountability? I feel like we’re saying one thing and continuing to approve projects where we’re saying one thing and doing another. Why is 7,400-square feet of office space included in this project? There was a ballot initiative that got 3,000 signatures, the City clearly – the citizens, people who live here, clearly do not want more office space and so much office space is included here. The current structures, these three little buildings, are low scale. I hear the designers talking about this being generous and keeping – it looks to me like its towering over the existing structures and I agree with the previous speaker who said this looks kind of cold and soulless. I completely agree with that. It’s so close to the street, why is it allowed to be so close to the curb? I hear that they made an improvement but to me, it does not seem like it’s far enough back from the street. One of the current buildings at least is historic, why is that just allowed to be knocked down? I don’t know if that’s been addressed already. Why is there no environmental impact? Am I misunderstanding something? Why are they exempted from an Environmental Impact Study? There’s a petition, just in the past week, that’s gotten 140 signatures. I couldn’t find contact information for this Council – for this Board. I would love to share that. There are many comments from people who live in Palo Alto expressing opposing. I can read one or two. Carol Kaparsky [phonetics] says, “It’s absolutely wrong and against PA’s Comprehensive Plan to replace a dozen or more affordable housing units with luxury apartments and office space. We need affordable housing; we do not need more office space.” Karen Uork [phonetics] says, “When will someone stop the destruction in Palo Alto and causing people to leave just so the wealthy can become more greedy and pack as many people in here as possible.” Thank you for your time. Chair Furth: Roberta Ahlquist to be followed by Marie-Louise Starling-Bell. Ms. Roberta Ahlquist: [spells name] I’m representing the Women’s International League for Peace and Freedom Low Income Housing Committee and I’m a neighbor in this – a block away from this very overdeveloped proposal. Many neighbors are going to be impacted by this. The scale and design does not fit within the neighborhood but I want to address parking first. If you look at the City Code, A-01, it doesn’t provide enough parking; 67 plus parking units are needed. It’s a 13.4 percent reduction to this, only 55 parking spaces; why? How will the mechanized parking work? The TDM parking reduction of City of Palo Alto Page 25 three spaces plus nine, 50 of 55 mechanized car park places under the area of A-2.0 and A-5.6. The below-grade garage levels headroom is 15-feet less before slab. You – how will mechanized parking work there? The street parking is now significantly tight day and night. The church doesn’t have enough parking, the residents around don’t have enough parking. How many workers are going to be in the office space and why are we having office space? Why not 7,400-square feet of below-market housing? The scale and design of this and the elevation are not compatible. It says it’s three stories but it’s higher than the three-story building on Hamilton across the street from it. It’s higher than – much higher than the two-story building which is not at all like this building in character and structure. It’s totally out of context. It sounds more like the proportion character -- oh, more than 100 wide glass windows, floor to ceiling; 130-foot overhang with eave lines. They’re out of context with our neighborhood. It’s a modernist building in a neighborhood that has peak traditional wood frame buildings with small windows, not floor to ceiling. This is horizontal, big giant windows going across it. This is very out of context in character. We hope that you will ask them to reconsider this building. They’re also going to take down 50-foot trees, Magnolia trees, that have been there forever. Why is there no environmental review? In the first proposal, they talked about it as being condos, now they’re talking about it as being rentals. Well, 14 low affordable rentals are going to down if this project gets approved and that’s going to be high-income housing and office space that we don’t need. If you look around the downtown there are all kinds of signs saying office space for rent. Please reconsider this project. Also, why not put solar if you’re going to be sustainable and put weeds and cactus and so on around the grounds? Why not solar? Thank you. Chair Furth: Marie-Louise Starling-Bell to be followed by Mary Sylvester. Ms. Marie-Louise Starling-Bell: (inaudible – off mic) spell my name, it’s so long. Chair Furth: We can wait. Ms. Starling-Bell: [spells name] Thank you. So, I’m a resident at 530 Webster and I’m home a great deal so I know a lot about what goes on with traffic and it is a very sorry sight often. There is a street light, as I’m sure you know, in the corner of Webster and Hamilton. That street light happens to be a very long- time lasting light before it switches. Now that can be changed, I’m sure, however, the traffic on Webster is really difficult because we have so many deliveries from FedEx and UPS. We do have the post office as well but these trucks come and they stop and park double. I think they figured they can park wherever they like for how long they like because it’s their job. Well, they hinder traffic very, very much. From this project description, I don’t know if the garage is going to have its entrance and exit toward Webster or towards Hamilton. Either way, I can see it as a huge problem because that part of Webster between Hamilton and University already has traffic that goes into the parking garage. So, it has traffic coming out to Webster, it also exits to Cowper, that’s true. This is a lot of traffic and I often see almost accidents there already because of trucks or vans parking and then people come out of the parking garage. So, I know I’m harping about this quite a bit but I think in a City in Palo Alto this is a very, very difficult thing. Anyway, beyond that, I wanted to only to quickly say that the space we’re in on 530, I believe the building is just about 100-years old now. So, I much agree, I’m not necessarily against a modern building but I am against it in our neighborhood which it really doesn’t fit. It’s going to be straight across from the church and also from other buildings actually. So, it says sum up, maybe that says I am done. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Ms. Starling-Bell: Thank you. Chair Furth: Mary Sylvester. Ms. Mary Sylvester: Good morning, Commissioners. My name is Mary Silvester and I’m a 40-year resident of Palo Alto. I’m here to speak primarily about the demolition of affordable housing at 565 Hamilton. I realize that is probably a bit outside your scope but there are some critical points I’d like to get on the record. I’ve spoken before at the PTC and City Council on behalf of renter protections for the last 18- months. As a community member, I was actively involved in trying to preserve 75 moderate-income City of Palo Alto Page 26 housing units at the President Hotel on University Avenue. Over 100 people were impacted by that eviction. It was a very diverse community of residents, many of whom have been public serving individuals. I know three teachers having worked in the school district for 17-years who were an elementary school teacher as well as a high school teacher here in Palo Alto and one private school teacher. Here we’re spending a lot of time trying to develop local teacher housing and we’ve just lost housing for three teachers who have had to leave this community. Finding replacement housing for these individuals has been a nightmare. I’ve been in touch with them, many have had to leave Palo Alto. This has to be taken into account, particularly when our Comprehensive Plan calls for the retention of affordable housing. Before demolishing any further housing, we need replacement housing in place. When is enough, enough? When are we going to back up our words with action? Then as to a couple of the design features about the project and traffic. Specifically, as to traffic, I agree with Mr. Levinsky, we need a comprehensive traffic study for this project. I know that corner well having worked at Hamilton and University for many years. I no longer ride my bike downtown because of the parking in that area. We have a church at Webster and Hamilton which is a wonderful member of our community. They’re an engaged member. They provide community child care, meeting space for non-profits, and that area is grossly under parked. Not only for the church, local residents, as well as people who work in the downtown business district. I’m not very concerned if the project calls for 67 parking spaces that we’re not looking at reduced spaces; perhaps down to 60. Call me a Luddite but I am not one to use mechanized lifts. Maybe the residents or tenants will. If the new landlord is serious about really having an effective TDM, offer train and Lyft passes. The bike facility is a non sequitur. Most cyclists have their own bike tools and they can always find a corner to – in the garage. I don’t think that should be touted as anything significant. Tree removal is a great concern and frankly, with this underground garage, I would like to see our wonderful groundwater non-profit, which is sponsoring a public forum next week on Wednesday, have a look at this project and study the impact on the aquifer. Thank you very much, I realize I went over. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else wish to speak? The applicant has time to respond; 10-minutes. Ms. Brandy Bridges: Hello, Brandy Bridges [spells name]. I’m Brandy Bridges with Wilson Meany and thank you to the Board for hearing our project today. Thank you to the members of the community who cared enough to show up and state their perspectives. It’s all super valuable input and much appreciated. I think we’ve made a truly earnest effort to propose a project that we think will be beneficial to Palo Alto. We all know that there’s a housing crisis in the Bay Area. I think one of the positive elements of this project is that it does increase the housing stock. There’s a net gain of 10 units. We’re not proposing penthouse apartments in Palo Alto, we’re not proposing luxury for-sale condos. These are smaller units in a downtown area that are within walking distance of the Caltrain and we think that’s the right kind of product that’s appropriate for this market. The proposed units will replace three buildings and they are quite lovely to look at as you walk and stroll down the street. Unfortunately, they’ve outlived their useful life. We did have an assessment done of the property, there’s foundation issues, other issues that really make the structures unsuitable for long-term, ongoing occupancy. I personally believe that as a community we can and show provide housing affordable to the lower or moderate – more moderate- income residents. It’s essential, we need that and this project does contribute to that goal in accordance with the Municipal Code. We’ll be paying a very large fee into the Affordable Housing Fund that will help provide the type of housing that’s needed in a fashion. The project also – in terms of the trees, we did talk with the City about whether we should keep the trees or replace them. The City Arborist visited the site and they would prefer that we replace the trees because some of them are in poor condition due to damage done over the years as different utility work was done in the area. Also due to the lack of the soil volume available for the growth and so they prefer that we actually replace the trees and do so with a different species that’s native to the area. In terms of parking, this project provides 55 parking stalls on site. That’s a huge improvement over when we were here last year. We – your feedback was great and did work with the City to find a way to make the lifts function. Under the new ordinance effective May 2nd, 60 parking stalls will be required for the site but we did do a study, similar to the one that was mentioned that’s been reviewed by the Transportation Department, that indicates that peak parking demand for the project is only 52 stalls. So, with the provision of 55, we’re providing three more than peak parking demand and I think it’s nice to have that kind of margin of protection there because City of Palo Alto Page 27 estimates are estimates. I think architecture is subjective. I would say that we are surrounded by buildings that are so different from each other. We have the little building in 530 Webster that’s historic and just gorgeous. We have the – I can’t quite remember how the planner phrased it but the unique architecture of the church and then on the other side kind of more modern structures with the office building adjacent. So, it’s a really tricky corner but we’ve done our best to try to smooth that along and kind of bridge the gap between our different neighbors. In terms of the TDM Plan, we are proposing a TDM Plan. The TDM Plan does include some Caltrain passes and there is annual monitoring of the plan so we would be required to measure the trips to and fro each year to make sure that we are providing the 45 percent net trip production that’s required. On the parking lifts, that came up several times, I think the attitudes towards parking lifts are shifting. Some people appreciate the protection that having their car up in a lift affords, some people aren’t quite there yet, and those people likely would not choose to live at this property frankly. In terms of the lifts, we did opt to not use the overseas manufacturer that’s commonly used in projects exactly for the reason stated by the member of the community. We chose to instead use a local provider. Most issues can be resolved within 1-hours because they’re typically software issues. If there is an issue and someone’s car is stuck, the company will reimburse -- as we’re having a service plan, the company will reimburse $50 for that resident to use a Lyft ride. So, I think that these – we’ve tried to be very thoughtful. I think the one piece of feedback that did not come up today or rather was kind of mentioned was the need to do extensive environmental analysis. Even though this project is an infill project, we have done extensive environmental analysis or rather I should say the City had done extensive environmental analysis. There was a traffic study and acoustic study, a noise study, and a historic study all done for this project, even though it’s an infill exempted project, just to kind of check the boxes and make sure that we meet all the criteria. That study is all available online, I downloaded it myself earlier this week, and so I hope that information can be located by the public so they can become informed about the project. I think that with that I’d like to leave plenty of time for you all in case you have questions so thank you. Chair Furth: I had one question which is really for the room as a whole. One of the questions that people have asked is why is this project not all residential? Could you take us through that analysis? Mr. Bridges: So sure, I think that – when we first looked at the project, we said to ourselves gee, we know Palo Alto is not in favor of more office product so we ran the numbers this way, that way, the other way. With an all residential project, we would have to basically be for sale luxury condominiums and we think that a better project for Palo Alto was smaller rental units. The office does provide a bit of an economic engine to kind of help make that happen. The other reason is that the parcel is – has mixed- zoning so one portion is CD-C(P) and then the other portion is residential. So, we’ve tried to just stick to the zoning that’s in accordance with the Comprehensive Plan and provide a project that exactly meets the requirement zone of the Zoning Ordinance and is kind of consistent with the Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations so I hope that’s answering the question. Chair Furth: Anybody else have any questions? Ms. Bridges: Thank you. Chair Furth: Any questions of Staff before we start discussing this project? Ok, Peter, why don’t you start? Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, yes. I think this is a handsome building. I think it will be an addition – a positive addition to the neighborhood and the community. I think it is different than the buildings around it but I find that acceptable and maybe even appropriate. This is sort of what’s created Palo Alto over the years is good, high quality, interesting design that takes us into the next century and onward for the next generation so I support that. I also support the Variance application including the small concrete fin wall down in the front. I think that’s a positive addition to the design and if the overhang is ok, that should be ok as well. I do feel that some of the housing units have less daylight and privacy than perhaps they should. Particularly Units Number One and Two, those are the two ground floors ones with the yards that open to the street. I’ll grant you, we asked you not to have fenced enclosures there but what you have City of Palo Alto Page 28 now is going to make them very tough to live in. I don’t know what the answer it but it’s a common problem with residential development having ground floor units on a busy street. As you’ve heard from the community there’s a lot of traffic and pedestrians on that road. Additional Units Number 15 and 16, upon the top, are the ones with really the only windows looking in on the open courtyard but they have, as I can read the plans, a fairly large roof overhang over them and pedestrian traffic in front. I think they’re going to feel like a single-loaded motel room kind of situation and I would agree that you have some skylights in the back but there might be a way to refine the design of that. Lastly, as I’m looking at the plans carefully it seems to me you have 13-foot floor to floor height on both residential floors; 13-foot 2 on the second and 13-foot 1 on the third which probably translates to a ceiling height inside of close to 12-feet which I can understand as the architects is really desirable. It certainly feels nice but it does contribute to making the building feel taller and more out of character and if you could just reduce that some, I think that would be beneficial. Most residences don’t need 13-foot floor to floor heights, especially for these smaller type apartments. Like you said they’re not luxury condos so I think that’s an issue to think about. With that I’d like to hear what my colleagues have to say, thank you. Chair Furth: David. Board Member Hirsch: I’m kind of looking for the elevation – sorry, looking for the elevation too – because I didn’t really see that it was 13-feet high. That – coming from a Brown Stone in New York where maybe 10 or 11-feet is the height of the (inaudible)(crosstalk) Chair Furth: Scoot a little closer, you have to be a little closer to the mic, David. Board Member Hirsch: Ok. 13-feet, I agree feels high. I also want to start by saying I think it’s a very handsome building and congratulate this Board for having pushed to change the original scheme to this one. I think it’s a vast improvement over the earlier scheme. I really like the materials a lot and the textured feelings of the building and the landscape relationship to the street. In terms of the relationship to the neighborhood, maybe it’s a bit unfortunate that we get this far away from the center of Hamilton and that it continues to develop as a mix of commercial and new residential but I think that’s the way the City is going. Hamilton is very much of the character of this building, the newer buildings on Hamilton. I think it’s very nice to have a corner building that really makes an incredible corner here and that it's quite so glassy and open at the top and a courtyard scheme all of which I think works to the advantage of the building. I have some other concerns though. I do not quite understand the patio next to the office wing. What’s its purpose? Just to provide handicap access to the building or does it have some other reason for being? I had a thought that isn’t really what we normally do is that maybe you could put some skylights in there and light some of the below-grade parking or whatever. It’s a bit of a waste of space if it’s just a minor entry into the building because the actual residential entry, after all, is at the corner of Hamilton and – what’s the adjacent block here? And Webster, Hamilton, and Webster so that’s where most people will come. They’ll come either from the garage I assume, up through a staircase where they come to the street or however; be picked up on the street. That’s the major entry to the building and I don’t quite see the purpose except as a kind of decorative element; an opening to the center space. There’s a couple of apartments that I think ought to be reconsidered and this isn’t really what we do but the one that’s next to the Redwoods courtyard in the back is a really badly planned unit. I would just ask you to consider how you could improve that. The actual light to the interior, which is more of a Building Department issue than ours, just isn’t adequately planned. You’re using windows that face a courtyard are over a kitchen which means that the 3-foot base is already taken up and what are you going to do? Have strip windows between the kitchen and the upper cabinets or no upper cabinets? It doesn’t – to me, it doesn’t work. On the ground floor maybe, you could switch some of the mechanicals to that corner and have a different unit at that corner. Those to me are kind of the runts of the liter and need some thinking but the rest of the apartments, of course, are beautifully planned. The exterior proportions are terrific I think and the choice of materials. I’m intrigued about the GFRC material. I’ve never seen one with ribs like this before so that’s a new find since I’ve been working on buildings. I think it’s an excellent possibility there to work with a vertical division more. It’s more like a reflection of board and baton so there might be some historical connection there with wood construction. I don’t see any area in this building for tenant storage and I’m looking forward to the possibility of there being less parking despite what many of the critics City of Palo Alto Page 29 here have said. At least enough to provide for some storage areas in the parking level. Let’s see, you know I just think that this is also something unmentioned but this is a kind of a new socializing kind of a building here which I think is a great addition to the way in which housing should be designed where the tenants have a space where they can gather on the top. That hasn’t been mentioned and I think it’s a really great thing. I’ve again seen that on some rooftops in New York City where they use the roof for not just seeing the view but to socialize and I see – I would hope that would be a trend in housing. It becomes like a family affair and certainly good for this generation. So, all told we’re not winding up at this point, I guess I’m allowed to say that it’s a very nice building. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex. Board Member Lew: Ok I do want to take a high-level pass at this at some of the comments made by the public. So, I think the Council is aware that we have a housing issue, particularly an affordable housing issue. The City is working on – currently working on the North Ventura Plan which is the area near Fry’s and El Camino and Page Mill Road and the City will be embarking on a Downtown Specific Plan. The primary focus of the two plans is to add housing. The City is aware that we are way behind on building affordable housing; way, way, way behind our regional housing needs. We’re doing ok on market-rate housing but we are desperately behind that. So, I think the Council is paying attention to that and we are working on it. On the building, I think the – I think is a very handsome design and I think you’re – the firm – the architect’s firms work is very sophisticated. It may not necessarily show in the drawings at this point but I think we can see a re-indication on like the materials board and the level of details that the drawings have been provided that this is going to be a great project. You’ve done -- the streetscape perspectives that you’ve done are actually I think the best that I’ve ever seen and I’ve been on the Board for like 10-years and this is really very well done. I think it shows that your cornice line is matching with the neighbors across the street on Hamilton and as well the two-story glass is matching the design of the building next door. I think that’s actually working really well. My only reservation on the massing is with the 530 Webster building and that is massing and also landscape. I was debating whether or not it needed to step down to meet 530 Webster and I think that I – but I do understand that you’re trying to do the third-floor terrace. The third-floor terrace is looking towards the church so I’ve been sort of bouncing that back and forth in my mind. I think maybe it’s just a landscaping issue and maybe the massing is fine. On the special setback, I will support the Variance that’s at the discretion of the Planning Director. I think I would also support the fin. I think my understanding of the special setback is that the 7-feet is for road – for the actual road width. Many, many streets downtown have been widened 7-feet for the roadway and my take on it is that the 17-feet is to provide a 10-foot landscape transition to the residential areas toward Middlefield. I don’t know if that’s true or not but that’s my interruption of it when I look at the zoning map. On the third floor terrace, the lighting seems to me to be pretty bright. I think it was like 25-foot candles. I do see notes on the Lighting Plan that its dimmable and that it’s going to turn off at 10:00 and I was just wondering is – can it be an occupancy – can it be – can some of the lighting be on an occupancy sensor? So, I understand if you’re doing certain kinds of things on the terrace you might want the 25-foot candles but there would be other times where I wouldn’t really want that on as a user. If you’re just hanging out, I really wouldn’t want a task level lighting there so I was wondering if there’s some flexibility in the controls for that? On Units One and Two I think there were some previous comments by the Board Member and I think we had – I think I had commented about the fence on the previous design. Since that time, I’ve had conversations with a couple of women, one on the Board, that they’re not comfortable in their own front yards which is crazy to me. I’m always working out in my front – you know landscaping and gardening in my front yard and I feel comfortable with that. I’m amazed about how many people aren’t and to have a patio door facing the street without some sort of little fence or hedge or something seems – something seems to me not quite right. I do support the three layers of landscaping that you have in there. I think that all is handsome and I think that all looks good but I’m really just concerned about the privacy because it’s a patio door and not a front door. On the neighboring building at 530 Webster, I think you’re proposing a Coffee Berry hedge and the new fence and I was wondering if the neighbors had reviewed that and commented on that and if you had considered trees in addition to the shrubs? I think we have Performance Standards and I’m not sure exactly how they would work with the apartment building but I think with houses we do require the trees and the shrubs. Maybe we – we may not require that for apartment buildings next door so if maybe Staff City of Palo Alto Page 30 could take a look at that and if the neighbors could weigh in as well. There is bike parking in the basement which is appreciated. I think it meets our code and I just wanted to throw out there that on some other projects in Palo Alto and some other projects that I’ve seen in Berkeley is that we’re putting— some developments are putting the bike parking at grade and that’s really to make it really convenient. That’s the easiest, most convenient, and accessible mode of transportation instead of going down to the basement, crossing the basement – right, if you go down the elevator you have to walk to the other side of the garage and then back out to go up the elevator. I would just throw that out there. I’m not going to require it because it’s not in our code but I would just say that other Cities are trying to do that at grade and provide windows and glass and repair stations that could be used just as common areas. Not just bike parking but it’s actually like nice lounge space. I think that’s all of the comments that I have. I can – I mean I would actually – I could probably support the project today if we were doing that. I know we don’t have our findings but I think it’s – I think you’re at that level. That you’re very, very close. Oh, and then one last thing, on the parking count so we do have – I think maybe Staff could look into this. We do have the City Loft Project on Forest Avenue that was completed by a former Board Member on the – here on the ARB. It was high-end townhouses like – you know like each townhouse had their own private elevator, that kind of high end, and my understanding is that they did not have two cars per unit. It was one car per unit maximum and my memory is fading but it may be that some of the units did not – some of the owners did not even have cars so I think we have to look at that. If you – if you’re living in a suburban part of Palo Alto you would probably have two cars but I think it’s a different – my hunch is that it’s a different kind of person who’s buying these units. I could be wrong about that but I think it’s, as you mentioned, it’s self-selecting. If you don’t want lifts, you’re not going to rent a unit in this kind of location in this building. Ok, Wynne, I will pass it back to you. Chair Furth: Thank you all for coming to speak to us, for thinking about the project. Thank you to the applicant, it’s a very responsive response from you all. Sometimes we speak up here and feel that nobody heard anything we said and this is not one of those occasions. You, of course, as we talked about, you have the problem that you are proposing to remove very attractive buildings and landscaping set way back further than the law presently requires. If you had come in to replace an eyesore you would get a different kind of reception but you’re not. You’re also part of a phenomenon where we’re losing people that we don’t want to lose and we’re losing housing units that we don’t want to lose and this has been a particularly very sad year for downtown Palo Alto. When I – I think Alex is right to say that the Council knows this, it’s sophisticated and thinking about it and is working seriously to address it. So, when I look at this project as a project, I generally find it a good and attractive project. I know it can sometimes feel that we’re rearranging deck chairs here but that is what we’re doing and well-placed deck chairs matter. Good places to live, good places to walk by, good places to work. I don’t mean to tribalize what we do. I like the fact that it’s much more open now. I like that the corner is glass. We often have concerns with floor to ceiling glass because it’s floor to ceiling in front of the back side of kitchen cabinets or something like that. You have not fallen into that trap; these seem to work which I appreciate. I like your open, private spaces. I live in downtown north, I live in infill housing that I could never to afford to buy now, and we have small private gardens. My backyard opens onto an alley which is frequently traversed and we actually took out our solid fence and put in one that you can get air and light through and see through if you’re walking by. So, we find that the plants and that kind of open fencing – I think it’s 50/50 – works well in terms of providing psychological privacy and keeping animals from moving faster than I can and I think it does work under those settings. There are a lot of times you just feel comfortable sitting out there having coffee in the sun and so I think there would be some kind of solution that would work. I think the idea of looking further at your landscaping and fencing and privacy with respect to your neighbor on Webster and getting specific responses would be good because for that it’s all about function. Does it deliver the kind of view and privacy that people want? It does seem to me that the building could be shorter and that would be a good thing. I really can’t say that I think that this architectural style is wrong. It’s a really – I actually think it’s good. It’s an incredibly complicated setting that the Methodist Church is certainly one of the more striking and idiosyncratic examples of church architecture in the town. It’s a very good setting for concerts and a lot of other good things. It is completely under parked. There is a major parking garage across the street but looking at that, at the not particularly distinguished architecture across Hamilton, at least I’ve never been able to figure out how it’s distinguished, and then looking at the charming building on Webster. I think this is a pretty good mix City of Palo Alto Page 31 of modern materials, clean design, and softness. This is not a building says we’re not really here, we’re going inside and closing the door and ignoring you. So, I think it makes forgiven the loss, starting with an empty lot, I think it makes for an attractive experience to walk by. I do agree with Alex that having some surface level bike level parking is good. I mean if I bike – I do bicycle downtown, I bicycle through this area, its admittedly challenging but if I go to visit a friend in this apartment I would like to be able to lock my bike without going to – you know people who are coming here by bike to the offices or the apartments will do more often if they can – otherwise we will lock our bikes to the street trees and that’s a bad thing. I worry when I see the lovely covered spaces with light flowing into them like on L-104, I keep thinking well is that at dawn but then it’s not dawn because that’s not the direction that this space – looking at cut Number Two on L-104. So, I’m going to be concerned about how light actually works there and how that becomes a welcoming and attractive space and not a tunnel or a cave in an undesirable way. That was a big issue when we were looking at Design Within Reach and the spaces they were building there. Note to Staff, there’s tons of garbage now in that public way through there. There’s trash littering there, there’s – never mind, I’ll talk about that later but it needs a look, it needs attention. That’s another way to make this very unattractive. That won’t happen here but I would like to know for sure how that is going to work in terms of light and materials. I agree on the setback and my final thought on the height, it’s going to depend on how the particular horizontal plans in this building relate to the other buildings but I do think it could be significantly shorter without a loss to the people living there. Anything else anybody wants to say and does the applicant have a question? Did we leave you confused about anything? Ok. Board Member Baltay – Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you, Chair Furth. I neglected to mention that I’m concerned about the location of your accessibility handicap ramp. It seems to me you come around into your covered terrace next to the office building off of Hamilton rather than coming in by the front door of the building; the way every able-bodied person enters. I just find that disturbing. It seems to me that you have adequate room and it’s not that high of a climb to integrate in a handicap ramp to the front door of the building so everybody’s going through the same door. Secondly and this is in response to Board Member Lew’s comment about Units One and Two on the street. I’m scratching my head wondering if those really are viable apartment units in that location? You have substantial green public spaces on both sides of those units and yet Alex’s comments really do hit a point with me. That a number of people will feel uncomfortable opening their unit to the street in that location. It’s an active, busy area and if the result is in a few years from now somebody puts up a wood fence to claim their garden, all of this has been for not. As I look at this and then consider Chair – David Hirsch’s comments about your Unit Number Three in the back where the Redwoods are. The ground level unit doesn’t seem to have any outdoor space but maybe there is a way to not have the two residential units on Webster at the ground floor. Instead, go for some more of that visual entrance into the yard. I find it very attractive what you have off of Hamilton, looking sort of past the sculpture under a covered area into a large garden area. That’s a motif that’s used throughout history with architects and it really can be quite successful. So, that’s just an idea of looking at this and thinking about those ground floor units again so I’m throwing those two thoughts out to you. Thank you. Chair Furth: So, you’d be removing two units from the frontage? Vice Chair Baltay: No, I think they would put two units else ware. Chair Furth: Oh, like where the mechanical… Vice Chair Baltay: Mechanical maybe or up on the third floor if you made that open area one unit smaller. I don’t – I’m not the architect here but. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: So, when I’ve worked on housing projects, we try to design them for a lot of different types of people and there are people who do want the ground floors units. It’s not – what do I say? I’m just saying it’s pretty complex but there is the kind of person who wants that ground floor unit City of Palo Alto Page 32 and they don’t want to walk up the stair or go up an elevator. They might like this unit but they might have issues with the privacy. I think – I guess I’m saying let’s try to – I would recommend keeping the units at the ground floor and then work on the design but I think it’s fine to do a study to relocate the units as well. I’m (inaudible)(crosstalk) Vice Chair Baltay: I’m by no means saying I think they have to be relocated, I’m rather just sort of mussing out loud. I mean reacting to what you said, I guess. Chair Furth: Ok. Any questions? Alright. Thank you, everybody. Are we continuing this to a date certain? Mr. Ah Sing: No. Chair Furth: Alright then I’ll close the public hearing and I guess – we don’t even need a motion, do we? Ms. Gerhardt: We – yeah it would be good to continue to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Ok, would somebody like to make a motion to continue this to a date uncertain. MOTION Board Member Lew: I will make a motion we continue this to a date uncertain. Chair Furth: Is there a second? SECOND Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll that second, sure. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye? All those opposed? Hearing none. It’s continued to a date uncertain. Thank you all. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON ABSENT Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 7, 2019. Chair Furth: Do we – we have two sets of minutes to approve. Are people ready to approve the minutes? Anybody have any comments on the minutes of February 7th? Vice Chair Baltay: There was one section where I was quoted saying something that they weren’t clear of and I confess I’m not clear of either looking at them so I’ll just leave it at that. Chair Furth: Ok, alright. Could I have a motion to approve the minutes of February 7th? MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we approve the minutes of February 7th. Chair Furth: Is there a second? SECOND Board Member Hirsch: Second. City of Palo Alto Page 33 Chair Furth: Second by Hirsch. All those in favor say aye? Hearing no opposition, it passed four nothing, one person absent. MOTION PASSED 4-0-1 WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON ABSENT 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 21, 2019. Chair Furth: Any comments on the minutes of February 21st, 2019. Vice Chair Baltay: no. Chair Furth: Ok, motion, please? MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: I move that we approve the minutes of February 21st. Chair Furth: Second? SECOND Board Member Hirsch: Second. Chair Furth: Motion by Baltay, second by Hirsch. All those in favor say aye? No opposition. It passed 4-0- 1. MOTION PASSES 4-0-1 WITH BOARD MEMBER THOMPSON ABSENT Subcommittee Item 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 Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements (See summary memo attached below) Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 8. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Update Chair Furth: Before we go to the subcommittee item, Board Member Lew do you have any reports on the North Forest – that’s Ventura right? Board Member Lew: Yeah, I noticed, it should be North Ventura. Chair Furth: North Ventura but the initials are right so go ahead. Board Member Lew: So, the Board – the Ventura – what do you call it – Committee met last night and the Committee was broken up into three different groups and they came up with three alternates which will be City of Palo Alto Page 34 studied by the consulting Staff. They’re going to condense it down to two alternates which will be forwarded to the Council for discussion. Vice Chair Baltay: Are those designs Alex available to the public? Board Member Lew: I think they will be and there is a dedicated website for the project. I don’t have the website in front of me but I will bring it next time but the intent is to have that all available. There has been some criticism that questions and comments aren’t really being responded too. So, I think the Staff is going to try to figure out a way to add feedback or responses on the website. Chair Furth: Thank you. 9. Regional Water Control Plant – Construction Status Chair Furth: Regional Water Quality Control – what’s this? Regional Water Control Plant? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Chair Furth: Water Quality Control Plant maybe? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I think there was just a questions last hearing… (Crosstalk) Chair Furth: Oh, from Board Member – Vice Chair Baltay. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct, about the landscaping being absent. There are two different permits on this property, none of them have been finished, and so I don’t have many details but we haven’t finalized the project. So, I assume that the planting will go in before the projects are finalized. We will require that. Chair Furth: Thank you. To finish my stuttered comment about Design with Reach, we spent a lot of time thinking about how to deal with that interesting covered area. I think they came up with a pretty design and it is literally being trashed. So, could Staff… Board Member Lew: I’ve noticed that too on… (crosstalk) Chair Furth: Repeatedly. Board Member Lew: …two or three separate occasions, it’s not a one-off problem. Chair Furth: No, it’s the new designated dumping zone. I mean there’s two things happening, one is somebody’s putting trash containers there and the other – who shouldn’t be and the other one is that people are dumping packing material. It needs to be addressed soon. Ms. Gerhardt: Ok, I will speak with Code Enforcement. There was a trash room for that project. Chair Furth: Yeah, I know, it’s nobody’s trash area. [Unknown Male:] (inaudible – spoke from the audience) Chair Furth: I don’t know who’s doing it, I doubt it but that space is not – it’s not moving towards a destination alley or whatever we call them. Except for a group of users, we maybe didn’t want to encourage. Board Member Lew: But can the -- the front façade and the glass and the storefront, it looks great. Chair Furth: It’s beautiful. City of Palo Alto Page 35 Board Member Lew: That’s really well done. [Unknown Male:] (inaudible – spoke from the audience) Chair Furth: Oh, well, details. [Unknown Male:] (inaudible- spoke from the audience) Chair Furth: You and falling water. That was a pun. Let’s see, anything else? Anybody – oh, so we’re not – Alex and I are not ready to bring back the annual report but we will be at a light agenda. I do hope that we get to see the TDM when we get the – this project we just listened to back because that’s one of the things that we’ve been requesting. Ms. Gerhardt: So yes, you’re saying annual report… Chair Furth: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: … to put that on the agenda for the next hearing and then yes, for 565 Hamilton. I believe we had the TDM report in the Packet but I believe there’s another report about the shared spaces so we’ll get that in there. Chair Furth: Great, thank you. Oh, and one other thing, what did the Council decide to do with the review of small cell wireless facilities? WCFs. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, the Wireless Facility Ordinance change was approved. I don’t have details on it and if anything was changed but I don’t believe so. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I was at the meeting as was David Hirsch and it’s true, the Council approved the ordinance as proposed. However, they also asked for some refinements or studies to be done of possible refinements. Quite an extensive list that was debated in detail but they wanted for it to come back within a period of 1-year. So, Staff essentially has 1-year to address a number of the issues that we and many other Boards and Commissions dealt with to see if they can come up with refinements. Board Member Hirsch: There was also mention about coming back to us informally, not as a required hearing of any sort but to bring back material to us. I think it would be useful if we had the minutes of the meeting to see what came from that; specifically, how it might relate to us. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, so the minutes of the Council meeting are available online or should be very soon so I can send those to everyone. Chair Furth: (inaudible – off mic) Ms. Gerhardt: We are adjourned. Chair Furth: Yes, we are adjourned. Adjournment