Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-01-10 Architectural Review Board Summary Minutes City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Architectural Review Board: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Alexander Lew, Board Member David Hirsch Historic Resources Board: Chair David Bower, Vice Chair Brandon Corey, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Martin Bernstein Absent: Architectural Review Board: Board Member Osma Thompson Historic Resources Board: Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Board Member Roger Kohler, Board Member Deborah Shepherd Chair Furth: Welcome to a Special Meeting of the Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board on January 10, 2019 for the City of Palo Alto. Would staff please call the roll. [Roll Call] Chair Furth: Okay, we have four out and three present, four present, okay, so each Board has a quorum. Oral Communications Chair Furth: Are there any oral communications? I see no one in the audience, so I believe the answer is no. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Any agenda changes, additions or deletions staff? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: We have a City Official Report, the transmission of the ARB meeting schedules, etc. I think we had a subcommittee to schedule for the 17th for the project at the intersection of, what is it, Charleston, no, Charleston and El Camino, or Meadow and El Camino. Across the street from the Goodwill. East Meadow. There’s an actual address. Alex would you serve on that subcommittee with me? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD and HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MINUTES: January 10, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: So, Board Member Lew and I will serve on that subcommittee. Ms. Amy French: Thank you, so noted. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCP) Overhead Contact System Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@ityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Our first action item is a public hearing between, involving the Historic Resources Board and the Architectural Review Board for consultation with the Peninsula, on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, known as the PCP, overhead contact system foundation and pole layouts designed for installation within the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way in Palo Alto. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was certified in January 2015. Are there any comments before we begin? Board Member Bernstein. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Chair Furth. I received a ruling from the Fair Political Practice Commission, as I won property within five hundred feet of the railroad right of way, I won’t be able to participate in this item. Thank you. Chair Furth: We will miss you. So, we no longer have a quorum of the HRB, but we would ask them to sit with us and consult and deliberate with us, as we hear this report, those members who remain, in their individual capacities. Thank you. Staff? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you, good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. We visited with the HRB on November 8 and the ARB on November 15. The report captures the comments and questions of both Boards, with responses as received from the Project Team, who are here today. Three members of the Caltrain’s Electrification Project Team, and they will be giving a presentation. First, I’ll just give a brief overview and that is, again, we are here for color selection specifically, and what happened at the ARB meeting in November was a continuation to receive actual color samples. The color samples have been presented at the front. They are powder-coated metal in four different colors. The color selection, they have requested that we submit our color selection as a City by tomorrow, January 11, so we would appreciate kind of final comments from both Boards, or members of the HRB and the collective ARB. The color can be the same everywhere, or there an be differences. We had, with the HRB, a suggestion that the Downtown Station or Palo Alto Station near University, have, and this is very bright yellow but I don’t think that’s the intent, the color sample there shows a warm color in an attempt to mimic the color at the station there. So, that was one item that the HRB suggested, was to be compatible with the station there. The Stanford Station here on the screen shows a green color. I believe the HRB suggested that the rest of the poles be green throughout the City, so here’s an image showing that. And then the California Avenue Station here is showing a black color, I believe that’s black and that is another possibility certainly among the, these are three of the four samples that you have. Moving on, the paralleling station there near the Park Plaza Project, 195 Page Mill, is another place that color choices are available for discussion, and I’ll let the project team cover this. They have these slides as well in their presentation. One thing that came up was the letter, as mentioned, from Mr. Borock. We had presented this in November about the fact that pruning work had begun and that pruning work would resume and the team can say more about that, but this slide had been presented back in November, so we were aware that there was tree activity. And that concludes City of Palo Alto Page 3 staff’s presentation. I’m going to switch this to the applicant’s presentation. Are there questions of staff while we’re uploading? Chair Bower: In response to Herb Borock’s email to the HRB and the ARB, I’d like to point out for anyone who actually watches this that the Caltrain MOD.org website has a place where you can sign up for weekly updates on where the construction is occurring. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get those now and they’re pretty thorough and you can keep track of where construction and what kind of construction is going on in the corridor, throughout the entire corridor by signing up for that. Brent Tietjen, Government and Communications Relations Officer for Caltrain: Thanks for prefacing that Chair David, or Chair Bower, excuse me. Yes, you can sign up by calmod.org/get-involved. You can enter Palo Alto as your city of residence, and we do send weekly updates to all folks who interested about construction along the whole corridor, but we also send updates just to work that’s happening in Palo Alto. If a new phase of work is starting, we send out an update to the City as well. So, thank you all again for having us here today. Myself, I’m Brent Tietjen, here with Lynn Guan (phonetic) and Stacy Cocke from the Caltrain Electrification Project, here to give you an update on the pole color selection that was continued from the last ARB meeting in November. So, a quick reminder of what the Caltrain Electrification Project is, we are electrifying the 61 miles of track that JPB Caltrain owns from San Francisco to San Jose Tamien Station. The Electrification Project is really just an infrastructure project where we are electrifying the current tracks. We are installing concrete foundations in the ground, poles atop those foundations, and then connecting the poles to wires and the train, which will convert to electric from diesel. We are converting 75% of our fleet from diesel to electric. Our speed will remain the same at 79 miles per hours. The project, however, will allow us to increase from five train an hour currently to six trains an hour per direction. That will allow us to have more station stops, will reduce travel time or a mix of both. As part of the project, we are also committed to restoring both Atherton and Broadway service on the weekdays, and we will continue to have tenant service, ACE, capital corridor, Amtrak and freight operate on the corridor underneath the wires. A quick look at the schedule, this is a log time coming. Back in 1999 it was first introduced in this strategic plan for Caltrain. More than 20 years later we’re under construction. Groundbreaking happened in 2017 with quite a bit of work happening last year in 2018, and continuing until 2021 for construction. And then there will be some testing between 2021 and 2022 and we hope to have passenger service in early 2022. So, there was a request last time for renderings of the stations with poles. We do have color samples that Amy provided and I have additional ones here. I’ll bring one up for each different station. This will be Palo Alto Station. So, for Palo Alto station our architectural consultants suggested this warmer yellow/tan color to match the historic station at Palo Alto. Chair Furth: I just note that in this light, it’s a long way from yellow. Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, these slides don’t do it justice. I will also note that these chips are glossy; however, the poles will be matte, powder coat matte. Chair Furth: You’re proposing matte? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, although all the poles along the corridor will be matte to reduce glare. I don’t know if you want to take each station. I’ll defer to the Chairs, if you want to take each station? Chair Furth: I think if you’d tell us what the meaning of these various samples is, that would be helpful, and then we can have our discussion. Mr. Tietjen: Sure. These were recommended by our architectural consultants. The first one was… Chair Furth: The warmer one. Mr. Tietjen: The warmer, the tan, which was the recommended color based on the matching of the station. City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Furth: Right, and these don’t have names, these just have numbers. Is that right? Mr. Tietjen: They should have names. They should have Palo Alto Station recommended. Chair Furth: Oh, but the colors don’t have names. We have to refer to it as FS349, 3649? Mr. Tietjen: Correct. They don’t have names. I think you an refer to them as the tan, gray and brown for these… Chair Furth: So, you have three alternative proposed colors for the Palo Alto Stations? Mr. Tietjen: Correct, yes. And the tan is recommended per our architectural consultant and historical consultant. Chair Furth: And then the other selection that we had, the other group of, are these duplicates of the ones we had earlier, no? Mr. Tietjen: So, you have two sets of each. This is just for Palo Alto Station. Chair Furth: Not the green. Mr. Tietjen: The green is not recommended for Palo Alto Station. (crosstalk) Chair Furth: … downtown Palo Alto. Mr. Tietjen: I wasn’t sure if you wanted to talk about each station individually, and then… Chair Furth: Why don’t you give us the whole array, and then we’ll deliberate. Mr. Tietjen: I’ll keep going then. So, yeah, these are just renderings of what Palo Alto Station would look like, the center poles, as well as side track poles at Palo Alto Station. This is a photo simulation looking from the west platform facing south. Again, these yellows aren’t doing it justice, but the chips are much closer to reality. This is typical of what a center pole would look like, the center poles. Poles in general range from 30 to 45½ feet. Center poles are in the 35-foot range. And this is typical of the side pole on the platform. The side poles are the shorter ones, in the 30 to 35-foot range. This may be hard (recording skipped) Chair Furth: …the minutes of our last meeting at this meeting, so I think we’re pretty familiar with the (crosstalk) presentation. Mr. Tietjen: Sure. So, this is just the designs for Palo Alto Station. You can see, it might be hard to see, but hopefully you can see on your screen, the stations are kind of hatched out here. So, this is the first set of the Palo Alto Station, and then this is the second. These small dots here are the poles. These will be center poles. These would be side poles, yeah, side poles here as well and the center pole. And this is just a summary of the color recommendations for all the stations, but I’ll continue going through for the rest of the stations, and we are seeking the ARB, HRB recommendation on station area pole colors. That recommendation would go to the City and the City would have the final say. This is a rendering from Alma Street facing north of Stanford Station. The only color recommended for Stanford Station was the marine green. Again, typical side poles for Stanford Station and with the current design, they are only side poles at Stanford Station. I will note on all these designs, it is only 65% and it is subject to change as we move further along. Again, the only color recommended for Stanford Station was marine green. And then finally, the photo simulation of California Avenue Station. Mostly side poles at California Avenue City of Palo Alto Page 5 Station. Black was the recommended color with brown a second and green, marine green as third. And the black was recommended to match the current poles and shelters at that station. Again, typical side poles for the station areas and design for California Avenue Station with side poles being highlighted about every 150 feet. So, that is it for the station areas. We do have color selection for the PS-5 paralleling station. I can go into that as well… Chair Furth: And what about the non-station poles? Mr. Tietjen: Those will all be marine green per the MMRP, the Monitoring and Mitigation Reporting Plan. Chair Furth: Well, we could change that. Okay, so to summarize, if it’s okay with the Board Members, I think it would be good to talk about the poles first, and then the paralleling station. Does that make sense? I’m seeing nodes. Mr. Tietjen: I’ll provide another set of chips as well, for both California and Stanford Station. Chair Furth: Great. So, marine green is the default color for poles in the City? This was described and defined in the Mitigation and Monitoring Report for the EIR. Mr. Tietjen: That’s correct. Chair Furth: (crosstalk) You’re also suggesting marine green for Stanford Station, which is sort of a wide place in the track, well not the track, the right of way. And black for California Avenue and what’s the name of the color at, that you’re recommending for the Palo Alto Station? Mr. Tietjen: I would say a tan to match the Palo Alto Station. Chair Furth: Okay. Who would like to begin? Alex. I was really impressed by Alex’s detailed review last time. Board Member Lew: Sure. I don’t think I have any comments today. I think we covered everything last time, and I don’t object to anything that’s been presented today. Chair Furth: So, you would second their recommendations as to color, or at least agree with them? Board Member Lew: Yeah. I mean I think, based on my previous comments, I think I would prefer the gray at University Avenue and then the others are all fine, but I don’t object to the tan at University Avenue Station and I think that’s more of a call for the HRB. Chair Furth: Do you want to call on your members, HRB members? Chair Bower: Are there any HRB members that want to comment on this, Brandon or Michael? Brandon, go ahead. Vice Chair Corey: Yeah, so just real quick, one question, the MMRP. So, is the pole for the City is the marine green? That’s decided, there’s no debate on that? Because, I don’t know if that would impact this decision. Mr. Tietjen: That’s correct, yeah. That’s per the MMRP for any visually sensitive area. That’s correct. Vice Chair Corey: Because at the last time we met at the HRB we had discussed it, and you know, then it was still up in the air and it wasn’t clear if you were looking for our input or not. Mr. Tietjen: I’m sorry that was unclear. We are not looking for input outside the station area. Those (crosstalk). City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Bower: The only comment I would make is that at our meeting, the HRB did feel strongly that the poles in front of the University Avenue Station match that station patina. You know, it’s a subjective thing, color is a subjective thing, but the tan here or something like that will certainly be more compatible with the building than green or gray or brown, or any of the any colors here. Vice Chair Corey: I would agree with that. Chair Bower: And I don’t think that would change if all the Board Members were here. Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, and our historical consultant for this project went out to the stations and actually brought the chips and tried to match the stations closely. Chair Bower: And our other comment, if I’m remembering correctly, is that all the rest of the poles could be green, just because they would be uniform throughout the City and most of the corridor through Palo Alto is lined with trees and the green would simply, again, be more compatible with that color scheme. I don’t have an objection personally to the suggestions that your consultant has made here, but it seems to me it would be less expensive over a long-term maintenance consideration to have one color over as many poles as possible. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other comments? Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I share with what Alex said earlier, I can make the findings to recommend a recommendation back to Caltrain. I’d like to reiterate that at least I feel that a single pole in the middle rather than a pair of them on the side is preferable throughout the City, given an aesthetic choice, that’s an aesthetic choice that’s preferable. Secondly, in my opinion any sort of a finish on these poles that does not need maintenance, either a galvanized or a weathering steel would be preferable in the long term. I remain concerned that these paints will wear and I doubt they will be maintained the way they would need to be. That said, I can support the project as presented. Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else? So, I’m generally supportive. I’m glad that you have a color that you’re happy with for, and the HRB is happy with for the Downtown Palo Alto Station. I was really struck by Alex’s careful analysis of all the different categories of colors that are used at these stations for the buildings, for the light poles, for the railings, for the other things that happen. And Alex you feel that black is suitable for the Caltrain, the California Avenue Station, the proposed color? Board Member Lew: Well, I think it’s possible. The metal that’s already out there and all the shelters is like a dark bronze anodized aluminum, but there is some black there, I think, I forgot what it is. There is an element there that is black, so I think it is workable. And I think the benches that are there are actually like this brown color, so there’s actually a range of stuff that’s out there, so generally darker would be better to help it blend in. Chair Furth: I don’t actually think, I very much support not changing colors for the Stanford Station. The Stanford Station is meaningful to Caltrain, but it’s not particularly visible if you’re not catching a game train. And so, I think it’s good to just have it, those poles blend in. I’m fine with changing them for the Downtown Station, and I’m fine with changing them for Caltrain. I don’t think, I think having a signal that you’re at that station is fine, so I wouldn’t object to the proposal. Yes, Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: I guess my thought here was, I don’t know if you’re going to do this, but are these going to be powder coated for longevity? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, they will be powder coated. Board Member Makinen: So, it’s going to be like a permanent coating and low maintenance. Mr. Tietjen: Yes. We have a ten-year life cycle for the paint. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Furth: And when you spoke to us last time, we had a question about fencing, newly installed fencing with wire that is otherwise prohibited in the City, and you were going to get back to us with information on that? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, that was installed at the request of the City for trespassing concerns. Chair Furth: Okay, in that form. Mr. Tietjen: Yes. The regular fence was installed per Caltrain standard. The additional three foot was installed in coordination with the City. (inaudible) Chair Furth: Right. All right. Any other questions before we go on on this. We did ask you for information about costs, but as I understand it, you are confident that matte finished color is your best bet in terms of maintenance, and we will hope that you are right. Any other questions? Well seeing none, shall we recommend approval? I don’t know exactly what we’re doing here. We’re no longer doing courtesy consultations, because they revised the agreement between the City. It’s now a real consultation, which means we tell you what we think and you do what you want. But, shall we advise the Calmod Project of Caltrain that we are supportive of their color recommendations for the poles? Board Member Lew: Do you want to reference their chart? (crosstalk) Chair Furth: Sure, go for it. Why don’t you make a motion? I can’t read this. MOTION Board Member Lew: Okay. I think I will make a recommendation that we recommend Option 1 of the three options. So, that is Palo Alto Station which is color FS23522; the California Avenue Station is color FS27040, which is black; and the Stanford Stadium Station which is color FS14052, which is the marine green. Chair Furth: Is there a second from the ARB Board Member? Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll second that motion. Chair Furth: Thank you for the discussion. All those in favor way aye. Any opposition? MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0 WITH ONE ABSENT Chair Furth: So, that is four votes in favor, one absent, Board Member Thompson, and consensus from the HRB, which has advised us particularly on the Palo Alto Station. Thank you. J Chair Furth: Would the ARB like to continue with us for the discussion of the paralleling station? Chair Bower: Oh, sure. Chair Furth: Okay, great, paralleling station. Mr. Tietjen: Before I jump into that, I did want to answer the question that we received via email. So, tree work has been about 35% complete in the City of Palo Alto, and the first pass of foundation potholings where you pothole for every utility, every foundation location, that should be done by the end City of Palo Alto Page 8 of this week. They will have to come back and do any resolutions if there are any other utilities, so they will do another pass at potholing, and utility potholing will continue from now until February. Chair Furth: Thank you. And I was just looking at my notes. We also had a question about were there any new lighting projects, and I believe the answer we got was that you are substituting LED lamps where they exist, but other than that, there’s no project online. Mr. Tietjen: Correct. Yeah, we don’t have any plans currently for Palo Alto Station, but we are updating our station lights. Chair Furth: We’re just asking, of course, because we’re thinking about what goes with what. Mr. Tietjen: Sure. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right, the paralleling station. Mr. Tietjen: I did want to show there are additional pole types in addition to the ones I showed for the details. There are some portholes which are a little bit wider for, a little bit for the wider tracks, and then some two-track cantilevered within the City of Palo Alto. And again, all poles outside of the station areas will be painted marine green in Palo Alto. So, there is a paralleling station being installed in Palo Alto. I’ll show a diagram of the location in a moment. The paralleling station, there are ten tracks for Palo Alto facilities throughout the corridor. Those help provide and distribute power to the new electrified system. The paralleling station in particular does not get power from PG&E. It gets power from the overhead lines and then helps redistribute it throughout the corridor. The facility components are the transformer gantries, which are up to 50 feet, and the control house which we will look for your recommendation on color selection. These are unmanned, secured and lighted facilities. Paralleling station number five in Palo Alto will be located just south of Page Mill Road on Caltrain property. We have coordinated with the City on location during the EIR phase. Vegetation screening will be implemented at this location with review and input from the City staff, and the control house is to be selected by the City, the color be selected by the City with input from HRB and ARB. This is the location of the paralleling station number five. You can see Page Mill Road right here going up and down on the page. These are the components of the paralleling station, the two gantries on either side of the tracks, the control house which we will ask for your color recommendation, and then the transformer. This is an example of the paralleling station from Amtrak Northeast Corridor. You can see the components here in green, or the point in green, is the transformer, the gantries, both this one in the foreground and then this one in the background, these A- frame steel structures, and then the control house is the one on the right here. An example again of a transformer and then the control house in the background. And I do have color samples as well for the paralleling station control house, and I’ll get up and pass these around. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Tietjen: And the colors highlighted in orange are the ones that are recommended per our architectural consultant. Chair Bower: So, can you clarify, so (not understood) Canyon is the control house color? Mr. Tietjen: Correct, yeah, it would be the control house. Chair Bower: And then the juniper green is the gantry color? Mr. Tietjen: These are all considerations for the control house color. Chair Bower: Oh, just control house color? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, correct. These are options for the control house color. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: And the gantry would be marine green? (Male): No, I don’t think so. Mr. Tietjen: We don’t believe so. Chair Furth: What do you believe that it would be? Mr. Tietjen: What was that? Chair Furth: What do you believe it would be? Mr. Tietjen: Just the galvanized steel. Chair Furth: Galvanized steel? Mr. Tietjen: Yes. Chair Bower: I’ll take a moment here to ask another question. So, is there a reason why we wouldn’t, the gantries, those towers, would not match the rest of the towers in the corridor? (Female): It’s just something that we had not included as the specifications in our contract. So, we had been focused on the poles and there wasn’t a consideration to not include it. It just, for kind of standard material purchase of the gantries went with the galvanized steel, didn’t specify a color. Chair Bower: Can I ask a related question to this? On the corridor there are switching towers apparatus that crosses the tracks that tell the trains, they are red or green lights, so that they move forward or not. The one I’m thinking of is near Woodside Road for instance. And I’m wondering how that, how the height of that particular signaling tower compares to the gantry at this station. Do you know? Roughly, I mean I’m not – just trying to get a sense of what 45 feet is going to look like at that site. That’s fairly large. (Male): I think overall the signal bridge that you’re referring to, the one at Woodside Road, they’re going to be about roughly the same, they’re roughly the same height, potentially even a little bit taller. So, our rough estimate, probably about 40 foot or so, 40 to 45 foot, in terms of height. Chair Bower: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: Any comments on the proposal for the paralleling station? We had a lot of comments last time, most of which I think were rejected. Any comments from anybody on this? Sure. Chair Bower: I can’t remember, Amy, what the HRB discussion was about this, but I think it was that they would just go away. I mean, so, you know, that the color not be white for instance. That it be an innocuous or blending color. That’s a better way of describing it maybe. So, from my perspective any of these colors would be acceptable, but I don’t have an opinion. I don’t know if the other HRB members do. Vice Chair Corey: That’s what we discussed. Chair Furth: Okay. And as I recall, one of the big issues was the location of this particular facility, and generally you’re satisfied with the proposed location. One of the more ardent commentators was Board Member Thompson. Alex, David? David. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Do you see the top of that facility when you’re in the train? You do. So, what is the roofing material and what color would it be? City of Palo Alto Page 10 (Male): To be honest, off the top of my head I do not know what the roofing material would be on top of the control houses, but that is something we could look into and get an answer back to you. I think it really will be the same, I think overall the control house is just a steel, just a single steel or whatever the material outside, the sheeting material is going to be for the entire house, but we can look into it. I’m not 100 percent sure. Board Member Hirsch: So, do you have any thought as to how that would be painted? Is that discussed by your consultant for this? (Male): That’s something we can double check. When I kind of just think about painting the house, I’m thinking about painting the outside, the four surrounding walls, but the top portion, it’s a good question. I’ll have to look into it. Chair Furth: When are you planning to build these paralleling stations? What is your timeline? Mr. Tietjen: So, three are currently under construction right now in South San Francisco and San Jose. We don’t have the final schedule with PS-5 yet, but I think we would expect late this year or early next year. Chair Furth: So, PS-5 is what you call ours? Mr. Tietjen: Correct, yes, paralleling station number five. Chair Furth: It’s like public school. Okay, paralleling station five. All right, so last time we had questions about how visible this was going to be. Board Member Hirsch has pointed out, quite visible from the train. Remind me what the feeling was about, what the conclusion was with regard to planting around this? To what extent it’s possible and to what extent you need to be so far away for safety reasons that it’s going to be visible? Mr. Tietjen: So, there will be vegetation around the paralleling station. We don’t have the vegetation plan currently. It’s not designed yet, but we will be working with the City on that. It will be surrounding the perimeter of the facility, and it’s generally trees and vines, what has been used in other areas. Chair Furth: Okay. So, the roof’s also going to be visible from the housing nearby, is that correct, or am I seeing this wrong? Is that a blank wall? (crosstalk) (Male): It’s a blank wall. There’s not a single window. Chair Furth: Right, I remember that. Board Member Lew: Between the paralleling station and 195 Page Mill Road, there is a row of newly planted redwood trees. Chair Furth: Right. That should do it. And then the next thing over is the train track and then there’s landscaping and then there’s Alma, is that right? So, there’s quite a few opportunities for screening. Mr. Tietjen: Correct, and the current thought is to do the screening around the perimeter of the facility with trees and vines. Chair Furth: But if you needed to do some more, you could also do it on the other side of the right of way, right, on the edge of Alma? Mr. Tietjen: Stacy. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: Is that correct City staff? Ms. French: Yes. Part of that is City right of way, and we are always amenable to increase the vegetation in our right of way. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I think it comes down to the color and to me the juniper green or the beetle would be the two preferable choices. Slightly darker would go better with the live oak colors. And it’s just really tough to put us in the spot in this light to make that call. I’d say that you guys, that your architects make that call. But I think a darker green is preferable. Chair Furth: Okay. My view is that darker is better. My view is that it does matter how it looks from the top. These are fairly large structures. People will see them, and one of the problems and one of the big… It makes a big difference what you see when you look outside of a train window, and often you have no control of it. Often cities show their most dilapidated faces to a railroad right of way. That’s less true now. And this is an opportunity for you to have something that looks trim and organized and well thought out all the way through. So, I think it does matter how it’s going to look for the top, how the edges are finished. Does somebody want to make a motion? And I will say that these colors can’t be read at all when you’re sitting inside. You can get some idea of them at the window. Would somebody on the ARB make a motion, or we can have further discussion. MOTION Board Member Lew: I will make a recommendation that the paralleling station be either juniper green or the beetle clay green. Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll second that motion, the recommendation. I’m sorry. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Hearing none, that’s unanimous from those of us who are here, ARB and HRB Members alike. MOTION CARRIES 4-0 WITH ONE ABSENT. Chair Furth: Is there anything else you would like from us? Mr. Tietjen: No. Thank you again for allowing us to present today. Chair Furth: Thank you for coming, and we know it’s a complicated project and we know we don’t necessarily make your life easier, but we hope we make the project better. Thank you. And we will say thank you to the HRB for coming and staff if you will keep an eye on the design of the paralleling station, we will not expect to see rooftop design unless you feel it’s necessary, but if you would keep that in mind as you continue to work collaboratively, we’d appreciate it. Thank you. Study Session Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2018. Chair Furth: We have minutes to approve. All right, we will now do the rest of our agenda, not the rest of my agenda, because my agenda didn’t include all the items, but I understand the public redistributed one did. Thank you. Okay, draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 1, 2018. City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mrs. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: I believe we have October 18 first. Chair Furth: Oops, sorry. Minutes for October 18, any comments or corrections? Board Member Lew: Yes, I have a comment. So, for the subcommittee there were two items, 2609 Alma, which is the three unit and also 250 Sherman, which was the Public Safety Building, and in the minutes – so they’re not listed in the – the action at that meeting I think was not, but in the minutes… Chair Furth: Could you report? Board Member Lew: We do have… Yeah, so on the next meeting on November 1 Peter Baltay gave a summary of what happened in the, for the Public Safety Building, and they changed the base to brick, and I don’t know, there may have been other changes as well. But I don’t think we have a record of what happened on 2609 Alma. I think we were just trying to change the back façade. Jodie Gerhardt: Okay. I think maybe we might want to bring the October 18 minutes back then so that we can add the subcommittee. Chair Furth: What was your question, because it’s not actually a meeting of the Board, but it does need to be recorded somehow. How do we do that normally? Do we report at the next meeting? Jodie Gerhardt: We do as far as the file is concerned, we do sort of a summary memo that we put in the file itself, and we have many times sort of put a short paragraph into the minutes. Chair Furth: Oh, the minutes of the meeting the day it happened or? Jodie Gerhardt: The day (crosstalk) Chair Furth: That’s probably the simplest way to do it, do you think Alex? Board Member Lew: I think the issue is that it’s something the transcriber can’t do, right? So, it’s something that staff has to actually do. Jodie Gerhardt: Correct, and that’s why I think it got missed this time is because, yeah, it’s not coming straight from the transcriber. Staff needs to add that piece. Chair Furth: Okay. I mean… Board Member Lew: I think it’s okay on this. If you wanted to come back. I think that’s fine. I think, I’m aware of these two particular projects, and I don’t have any issues with it. I do understand that people go back through minutes and stuff and it is good to have it in there. So, if it needs to go back, that’s fine. Chair Furth: So, from my point of view, I don’t care whether you add it to the material you present to us. I don’t care which meeting’s minutes it gets added to, but it does need to be recorded. What would you like to do staff? Come back with it? Jodie Gerhardt: I think that’s probably best. Chair Furth: All right. Then let’s… Board Member Lew: Would you like a motion? Chair Furth: Yes. MOTION City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Lew: I move that we continue the minutes for October 18, 2018 to a date uncertain. Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: All in favor say aye. Okay, that’s three in favor and one abstention and one absent. MOTION PASSED 3-1-1 WITH ONE ABSTENTION, ONE ABSENT. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 1, 2018. Chair Furth: November 1, 2018. It was very helpful to have these by the way. Board Member Lew: So, I think there’s only one correction that I would make, which is on page 53, there are multiple references to Caltran and I think that should be Caltrain, and I think those two are very different. I think we do want that corrected. And I had another just thought, and I think we’ve mentioned this before, but like on page 52 and 54 we used a lot of acronyms, and I’m wondering if it’s really, if we’re making it really confusing for people. Chair Furth: So, if we just spell them out the first time. Board Member Lew: Yeah, like we have TVM, TMA, VMT, LOS, MM, Los Loma… Chair Furth: It’s bad. We should probably clean up our presentations and conversation and probably in the minutes it should at least be spelled out once the way you would in a legal document. Board Member Lew: And then under, I think under subcommittee, oh, I think that’s the next item. So, that’s all that I had. Chair Furth: Any other comments on November 1st? Motion to approve. MOTION Board Member Lew: I’ll make a motion that we approve the minutes for November 1. Vice Chair Baltay: Second Chair Furth: Moved by Board Member Lew, seconded by Vice Chair Baltay. All those in favor say aye. So, that’s 3-1-1 with one abstention and one absent. MOTION APPROVED 3-1-1 WITH ONE ABSTENTION AND ONE ABSENT. Board Member Lew: Actually, Thompson would be, she was absent at that meeting so she should be recused as well. Chair Furth: But she is absent. That’s what we need to say, but good point. Actually, we had enough votes. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 15, 2018. Chair Furth: Minutes for November 18, 2018. Those were actually the ones I meant to say were helpful. Other than typos, I have… Board Member Lew: So, the same comment, just like under, I think under subcommittee, I think they are listing the items and then there is mention of 744 San Antonio, which was just the lighting at the terraces. And so, in the minutes it says like “insert email” I think from our consulting planner. But I would City of Palo Alto Page 14 just say except for the subcommittee, which was myself and Wynne approved the lighting fixture on the upper terraces. And for 3945 El Camino Real, which is the Comfort Inn, I think we approved the corner detail for the Trespa. And then I think that 3223 Hanover is fully described. Chair Furth: Any other comments? MOTION Board Member Lew: No. I would make a motion that we recommend, that we approve the minutes for the November 15, 2018. Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye. And was Osma there or not there? She was, wasn’t she? Yes, she commented. All right, so that is a 3-0-0 vote, one abstention, one absent. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0-0 with one abstention, one absent. Subcommittee Items Chair Furth: Subcommittee Items. We have one coming up for the 17th. Jodie Gerhardt: Yes, so related to the 17th, on the tentative future agenda you have the 702 Clara Drive is being deferred to a February hearing, and then Subcommittee Item 4115 El Camino has been added, and that is the Pizz’a Chicago location. Chair Furth: Pizz’a Chicago is what I couldn’t think of. It’s 4105? Jodie Gerhardt: 4115. Chair Furth: 4115, and Alex and I will do that one. Jodie Gerhardt: Okay. Chair Furth: So, that leaves us with a second round on 380 Cambridge Avenue, a second round on 4256 El Camino and Verizon Cluster, three small cells. Is that Downtown North? So, I will not be participating in that. Okay. And the item that… Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcement Chair Furth: Okay, questions, comments or announcements? Board Member Lew: The next North Ventura meeting is next, will be next Wednesday, January 16, here in City Hall. I think it’s in the front conference room. Chair Furth: Thank you. I wanted to ask, I wanted to say that when we make recommendations and when the Director or whoever the recommending body is, decides to modify those recommendations, it’s important for us to get that information back in a formal way from staff. So, is there a consensus on that? Vice Chair Baltay: Strongly so, yes. Several times I think decisions have been made through the system that we’re not aware of, and I think we should be made aware of what actions are actually taken. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Furth: So, if they have problems with our recommendations, it’s important for us to understand what the considerations are that, perhaps, we didn’t take into account. So that we’re not just spitting into the wind. Vice Chair Baltay: More importantly I feel that many members of the public look to us. They think we have a meeting and a recommendation is made, and then when a different action is actually taken, it leaves severe distrust in the system. It’s really important to emphasize clearly why a different action was taken. I think the case with these cellphone towers recently demonstrates that. Chair Furth: Any other comments. Board Member Lew: The previous Planning Director had a, like a monthly bulletin, and I thought it was useful because it summarized what each Board was doing, so it was very easy for us to follow what was happening with the HRB, PTC and the ARB, and then the Planning Director’s decision, and if there was a problem, we could sort of see what was happening. As we have it now, it is sort of left to us to sort of follow the other Boards on our own, and then we don’t really get – there is no physical communication between the Planning Director and the Boards. Chair Furth: I do agree. I miss that greatly because I feel often that I’m startled to find out that something involving a project that we’re also charged with dealing with is going before another Board or another body. The prime example is the recommendation on sidewalk treatment or, you know, bicycle lanes in front of the new housing at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill, and sending us project approvals, that was a very helpful document, and surely something similar must exist internally, and if there’s a way of modifying that for public use it would be great. Anything else? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. I would like to raise the question about the small cell telephone cell tone tower issue. The City Council, as I understand it, is reviewing a proposal by staff to change the ordinance of how these are reviewed. And I’d like to address my concern that the Architecture Board has not even been consulted as to what that ordinance contains, and at least I’ve received a tremendous amount of public correspondence regarding that ordinance, questioning what the ARB should be doing, and I’m, frankly, surprised that I don’t even – I haven’t even been told what’s in that ordinance. Nobody’s asked our opinion, yet we’re worked long and hard on that issue. And I would think we have good advice to offer, if we were only involved or asked about it. Then to the Board, I feel that we need to go to that Council hearing and be present for the Council to confer with us, if they would like regarding that issue again. I think one of the central questions that’s going to come up is what is the appropriate level of review for these towers, and clearly staff is trying to balance practical necessities of reviewing these things in a quick way. I think the Town has consistently expressed concern about the aesthetics of it. The Board has struggled with this issue. I think it’s negligent of us not to stay involved in that discussion, even if the Planning staff has not involved us. So, I’d like through the Chair, to have her appoint someone to be our representative at that hearing. Chair Furth: I’m happy to do that, and I’m happy to appoint you, unless somebody else wants that assignment? Seeing no volunteers… Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I think it might be better if the Chair were to represent us. Chair Furth: I think it would be best if you did it. Vice Chair Baltay: But mostly I think it’s important that the Board be acting with a voice on this. Not saying we all agree, but at least agree that we should (crosstalk) Chair Furth: I think it’s important to have a representative. I think we can’t discuss this very far, but I will say from the massive public correspondence that we have received, the charge and the correspondence, and I say this to staff, asking you to get back to us on this, is that the revised regulations take the ARB City of Palo Alto Page 16 out of the process, in terms of defining and applying standards. And if this is the case, this would be an appropriate thing to discuss or have discussed with us. So, that’s as far as we can go, direction to staff. Board Member Business And not on my agenda, but I understand on other people’s agendas, is reorganization, which we are due to do, and I think staff usually presides over that, unless you want to defer this till we have a full Board? Jodie Gerhardt: Yes. So, we do have the elections of the Chair and the Vice Chair on the agenda, and so I think it would be best – we’re already a little bit delayed on this, so I’m hoping that we could move forward. Are there any nominations for Chair of the ARB? Vice Chair Baltay: Can I make a comment first, please? Especially I’d like to get Alex’s opinion on this, but it seems to me in our particular circumstance I would be likely to be elevated to the Chair, and that leaves us then having a choice for the Vice Chair of being either Alex, who just recently was the Chair, or two new Board Members, who are both extremely new on the Board and may not feel comfortable to have the experience necessary. I would like to propose an option would be just to continue the current officer situation for the next year, and then go forward after that. But I very much would like to hear what Alex thinks about that. Board Member Lew: That’s unusual. So, normally we – normally we rotate through and then somewhere – so, I’ve been on the Board for ten years. Somewhere in the middle we had a lot of people who had to step off the Board for various different reasons and we did switch that around at that point where, I think, Clare Malone Prichard served on the Board a couple of times as Chair pretty close together, just because we didn’t really have the right mix of people. And so, it does happen, so we’re not tied to the rotation. But I think we should just rotate through, because I think you’ve been around – you’ve definitely been around long enough, and I think Osma, I think she should be ready to be Vice Chair, right? I think it would be useful to go through that. Chair Furth: I should add that I will be leaving the Board sometime in the fall, because my family is moving to, going north. I don’t know the date yet. I did discuss this with the previous Mayor. I haven’t discussed it with the new Mayor, but I will try to time my departure so that it leads to seamless continuity on the Board. Sorry, I’m not sharing this. Jodie Gerhardt: Sorry, I’ll ask, David, do you have any comments? Board Member Hirsh: I’m pretty new to make a comment on this, but I certainly like the way it’s been handled up to now, and it’s a conflict to see that when you’re not going to be more than another partial term here. I sort of agree with Peter. I think that it’s a good idea to continue as it is right now. It certainly is a lesson for me to hear you both. Although Alex has had plenty of experience in this, I sort of feel that I agree with the general idea that there’s more senior people here on the panel, really have a greater depth of understanding of how the process works and it would be useful to keep it just the way it is. That’s my opinion. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, in your broad experience on the Board, has there ever been a case where a Chair has repeated two times in a row? Board Member Lew: I don’t recall that, but I do recall that I think, like Clare Malone Prichard served as Chair maybe two times within three years, perhaps. So, we’ve definitely considered it before. And then I think like at that time, there was one time that I was supposed to be, it was like my turn to be Chair that I was mostly doing subcommittee stuff, because I actually like doing the subcommittee more than I like being Chair, so, yeah. I think it’s fine if you want to continue the way it is now, I think that is fine. And then we just realize that we will have to deal with an election in the mid-summer, which is kind of unusual. I would say maybe if we’re doing – if the Council is doing term realignments, they’re halfway through the term realignments, then we could maybe say, maybe be preemptive and say we’re going to City of Palo Alto Page 17 extend it until I think May 31st, or something, and then we can switch in June. Because they want to switch the term so that they’re not, so that you don’t have, what do you call it? Chair Furth: It works for me, but I think I would have to do a Nancy Pelosi and promise you that I would retire as Chair, but not from the Board. NOMINATION Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to nominate Wynne Furth to be the Chair for the next term. Board Member Lew: Okay, I will second. Jodie Gerhardt: So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Okay, so Chair Furth will continue. And so, then do we have a nomination for Vice Chair? NOMINATION Board Member Lew: I will nominate Peter Baltay for Vice Chair. Chair Furth: Second. Jodie Gerhardt: Okay, so we have a motion by Board Member Lew and a second by Board Member Furth. All those in favor? Okay, that’s four approved with Board Member Thompson absent on both of those votes. Thank you. Chair Furth: And I will say that for the next five months, knowing how much Alex enjoys subcommittees, I will be much less inhibited about appointing him to them. (no mic) …to come before this Board today at this special meeting, for which we all managed to show up practically. Then we are adjourned. Adjournment