HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-07 Architectural Review Board Summary MinutesCity of Palo Alto Page 1
Call to Order/Roll Call
Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew, David
Hirsch and Grace Lee.
Absent: None.
Chair Baltay: … November 7, 2019, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Could we have a
roll call, please?
[Roll Call]
Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Thank you. All present.
Chair Baltay: Thank you.
Oral Communications
Chair Baltay: First order of business is oral communications, if there’s any member of the public who wishes
to speak to an item not on our agenda. Seeing and hearing no one, we’ll go on.
Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions
Chair Baltay: Are there any changes to the agenda, deletions? Jodie? No, no changes.
City Official Reports
1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future
Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions
Chair Baltay: City Official Reports.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. For the next hearing, November 21st, we actually do not have any items, so we’re
recommending cancelling that meeting. We do have items that are in the queue for both of the December
hearings, December 5th and December 19th. I do want to make sure that everyone is going to be available
on those dates.
Board Member Hirsch: December 19th…?
Ms. Gerhardt: The 5th and the 19th, yes.
Chair Baltay: I think so. I will.
Board Member Lee: I will not be here on the 19th.
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
MINUTES: November 7, 2019
City Hall/City Council Chambers
250 Hamilton Avenue
8:30 AM
6.a
Packet Pg. 198
City of Palo Alto Page 2
Chair Baltay: Anyone else? Okay, thank you.
Action Items
2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN00110]: Continuation of the
October 3, 2019 Hearing for Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition
of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Building Located in the Stanford Shopping Center
and the Construction of (1) a Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 sf, (2) two Retail Buildings,
Approximately 3,500 sf each, and (3) a Retail Building, Approximately 28,000 sf (78,500 sf in total).
Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning
District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel
Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay: We’ll move on to our first action
item, which is
Chair Baltay: We’ll move on to our first action item, which is a public hearing for 180 El Camino Real.
Continuation of the October 3, 2019 hearing for consideration of a major architectural review to allow the
demolition of the existing 94,300 square foot Macy’s Men’s building located in the Stanford Shopping
Center, and the construction of (1) a retail building, approximately 43,500 square feet, (2) two retail
buildings, approximately 3,500 square feet each, and (3) a retail building, approximately 28,000 square
feet. I understand that this is going to be continued to the next, or to some unknown date in the future.
Is that right?
Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Staff is asking to continue this to a date uncertain. We hope to bring it back fairly
quickly. We just don’t know exactly what date that will be.
Chair Baltay: Do you know what the status is, or what they’re going to be bringing back? Are they making
the changes we worked out in our last meeting on that project?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think we agreed that the speed table was the preferred option for that one drive aisle.
Related to the Wilkes Bashford building, they are potentially bringing back a project that just shows a pad
building, not a building, a pad, for the Wilkes Bashford, so that you could just look at both the Restoration
Hardware, the two other retail establishments, and just the parking lot area for Wilkes Bashford. They are
working on a second option that would have the entire Wilkes Bashford building included with some
updated architecture. We just weren’t sure if we could… We weren’t going to meet this timeframe, so
maybe at a later date, they will have all of it together.
Chair Baltay: Okay, great, thank you.
MOTION
Chair Baltay: You’re asking us to just continue this project, so I’ll look for a motion to continue.
Vice Chair Thompson: I move that we continue this to a date uncertain.
Board Member Hirsch: I’ll second that.
Chair Baltay: Okay, moved and seconded. All those in favor?
Board Member Lew: Aye.
Vice Chair Thompson: Aye.
Board Member Hirsch: Aye.
Chair Baltay: Aye.
6.a
Packet Pg. 199
City of Palo Alto Page 3
Board Member Lee: Sorry, I will recuse myself from this item, so I’m not sure if I should…?
Chair Baltay: Motion carries 4 ayes, no opposed, one recusal.
MOTION PASSES 4-0.
3. Discussion of Potential Topics for Joint Study Session with City Council.
Chair Baltay: Okay, moving on to the next item, number 2 [sic]. This is a discussion of potential topics for
the joint study with City Council. We are going to be having a joint meeting with City Council to go over
items of interest to them, and us, potentially. The purpose of the discussion today is to try to outline what
we hope to talk about and accomplish at that meeting. Later on today, myself and Vice Chair Thompson
are going to be meeting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor to try to firm up an agenda for that meeting, as
well. What I’d like to put to my colleagues now is, I’ve never participated, and when I watch these types
of meetings in the past, they have the potential to become a, sort of a rambling series of people speaking
at almost cross-purposes. It’s really in our interest if we can try to focus ourselves collectively to a series
of ideas and issues that we feel are important and can all support together, and then, make a little bit of
effort to be cogent, succinct, prepared, and then, present something to the Council so they can get their
teeth around it. We’re fortunate to get a chunk of their time collectively, and we should respect that. With
that, I think the way to start is to ask Amy French and Alex, who have both some institutional memory of
what past meetings like this have been about, and maybe we could ask them to just bring us up to speed,
what we might expect. And then, I’d like to go through as a group and see if we can identify some topics
and issues that we all feel are important, and ideally, even break it out so one of us each might be in
charge of presenting to the Council, one idea. With that, Amy, why don’t you tell us what you know. Thank
you.
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning. You mentioned each board member having a role in
the joint meeting, and I think that seems to have been a formula that was helpful. Alex may want to weigh
in on that, but I thought it was a great way for presentation, perhaps a PowerPoint, where each board
member has a role in presenting a piece of that presentation, a topic of interest to the entire Board, and
of interest to the Council. Yes, in the past, staff has attended, and they will again this year. Jodie, I believe,
is attending today’s meeting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor and Chair and Vice Chair, to get a feel for what
Council – the Mayor and Vice Mayor – have as well, to request of the ARB to come and talk about. That
would be informative. And then, this year, it looks nice, there’s an annual report that was delivered to the
City Council in their packet a couple weeks ago, maybe two meetings ago, three meetings ago, perhaps,
to the City Council. They received that in their packet. Whether they looked at it…? It’s an opportunity to
chat about that. It’s an opportunity to chat about the Architectural Review Board awards that are coming
up in 2020, just so they’re aware of that. It’s an opportunity for other potential big projects, housing
projects to be highlighted. And whatever else the Board is thinking they would like to discuss with the
Council, if there’s direction requested, purpose. That’s all I have to say about that.
Chair Baltay: Thanks, Amy. Alex, you’ve been through these. Actually, before you start, Grace, have you,
in the past, been through one? Maybe both of you could just tell us what you saw and heard, and what
advice you might give us before we get started.
Board Member Lew: Sure. I would say that I think I agree with you about the joint meetings. It’s actually
very hard to have a discussion with the two boards, or a board and City Council, just because there’s so
many people involved. I would say one of the more, in my opinion, one of the more successful joint
meetings that we’ve had with the Council is, one year there was a PowerPoint presentation, and the Board
had discussed which topic each board member would discuss. The PowerPoint did try to address maybe
key projects, certain aspects of key projects. Like, at one point, Council was really concerned about, say,
the entrances, like, the lack of permanent entrances for buildings on El Camino, so we did use one of those
projects as an example. We also used a project downtown on University Avenue as an example of how a
project changed during the ARB process for the better, and how it was more contextual. I think that’s a
good approach. And then, I would think, too, is that, since this is supposed to be annual, I know we haven’t
had it for a while, but I think we should look back at last year’s projects. And I might suggest looking at
6.a
Packet Pg. 200
City of Palo Alto Page 4
the controversial ones, if there was something the Board was unresolved. You know, say it’s 429 University,
or maybe it’s the Mercedes-Benz dealer on Embarcadero Road. If there’s one where we really struggled,
then let’s just take it up and just discuss what we think did well, what we think may need to be changed
or modified to make it better in the future.
Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Grace, what can you add?
Board Member Lee: It was one a few years back, and it was a different council. I do recall that there was
a lack of structure, no PowerPoint, and we didn’t have significant discussion about what we were going to
talk about as a group. I would say that it actually contrasted greatly from what Alex presented, and I think
it was before, Alex, you joined the board. I did want to note that, you know, I appreciate this effort in
terms of a PowerPoint and each with a topic, and assessing ARB process and last year’s projects. I do
caution against opening up a large discussion on a project with minutia detail. I think that a summary in
terms of something that has been discussed and has moved forward, whatever the outcome is, is best to
treat as a summary. The other piece that I just want to mention, in thinking back on how the other joint
meeting went, the other piece that I hope that we can talk about today is just how our board speaks to
planning issues where there’s another entity – a planning commission, as well as staff – to speak on those
planning issues. I did want to talk about our mission and our purview as Architectural Review Board
members. If you’re comfortable, maybe we could move to that later in our discussion.
Chair Baltay: That would be great, thank you. That’s a good idea. Okay. You asked if the rest of us have
comments. Of course. What I’m trying to do is structured, and right now, gather as much information as
we can from how past meetings have gone. If you’ve been to a past Architectural Review Board/City Council
meeting…
Board Member Hirsch: No.
Chair Baltay: … I’d love to hear your opinion.
Board Member Hirsch: No.
Chair Baltay: If not, then what I’d like to do, before we start discussing more, taking this letter to Council
we wrote as a starting point, I’m going to just list a series of the topics, and I’m hoping we can all try to
focus in on a couple of these that we feel are important, with the understanding that our objective is to
find items that we think we’ve observed, things through the ARB review process that the Council might be
interested in. It’s not stuff that we’re personally feeling important about, but we’re trying to convey to
Council information that Council should know. That’s the objective. Grace, I don’t know if you were part of
this letter we wrote, but over the summer, we put this together, and more or less came to agreement on
all of these things. At the end, we finally just said we have to get it out. The first item was trees. We were
pointing out that some construction projects with underground garages limit the size of trees, and our
request was that, we said these issues can be addressed in part through design review, but more explicit
landscaping standards would be beneficial. I think we all agreed that is a little bit vague sometimes.
The second item we called curb management. It has to do with the increase in use of ride shares, and also
deliveries for businesses in town, and not having… What we said is: Updated standards for commercial
delivery areas and more explicit standards for ride share pickup and drop-off zones would be beneficial.
Again, when we’re reviewing projects, it’s often an issue that comes up, and there’s really a lack of
guidelines for applicants, what to do.
The third item was one that we see over and over again. It’s displacement of small businesses. That’s, I
think, a planning type issue, Grace, you were just alluding to. Over and over again, we see larger
developments kicking out small businesses, which form the backbone of this community of ours. I don’t
think we had a recommendation or anything necessarily to do about it, but we’re just pointing it out. I think
we had in here; Alex had brought up some examples of what’s being done in San Francisco.
6.a
Packet Pg. 201
City of Palo Alto Page 5
The fourth item we put out here was parking issues at the Stanford Shopping Center. I think we’re all pretty
familiar with that. Another item is pedestrian mobility. This is related to the width of sidewalks and outdoor
seating areas in front of various businesses. This is something I know Wynne Furth was passionate about.
We’ve had benches in front of a lot of projects that have been reviewed recently. Another item was El
Camino Real: Revised parking standards for developments along El Camino Real would promote the
development of neighborhood retail and restaurant businesses. The last item was just the Architectural
Review Board findings, and sort of the Architectural Review Board process. With that, there’s eight items
on this list, so why don’t we each talk about a couple of these that we think are important. I think we need
to pare it down. That’s too many. What’s important out of all of this? What do we still feel? This is now a
few months after we talked about it. David, do you want to start? Or whomever. We don’t need this to be
that formal.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. I think, in general, what I kind of see is that we’ve had some significant
comments to make about landscaping. I’m concerned that, in some sense, we don’t have on the Board
enough capability to review landscaping issues. I would suggest that we ask that when there’s a possibility
of a new member on the board, that we ask the Council to consider having a person of landscape ability
greater than what we have on the board right now, to help us in regard to review of these projects that
involve landscaping. I usually turn to Alex and ask him. He has quite a lot of knowledge about it, but I think
we could use even more, in some way, on the board. That was kind of a general comment I have about
that. I think there are other areas of interest that are beyond what are mentioned here. San Antonio Road
now has become kind of a new area for us, and it seems to me, having looked at the hotel, this monster
item coming up on San Antonio Road, that now we’re dealing with other sites on San Antonio, and we
should be questioning how that zoning will affect the look of San Antonio Road. I have a few others. Those
are two of the major. I’d like to come back maybe and continue…
Chair Baltay: That’s fine. Who else wants to chime in? Grace?
Board Member Lee: Osma, would you like to go? Because you haven’t spoken.
Vice Chair Thompson: Sure, why not?
Board Member Lee: I’d be happy to…
Vice Chair Thompson: The items that stand out to me as important. The trees are a really big one. I think
we should definitely talk about the urban canopy and how… We have a lot of projects that come in front
of us that make some minor apologies for, “Sorry, we had to get rid of this tree,” kind of thing. And having
a bit more stronger attitude about what’s important for our ecosystem I think is important to stress. And
then, even on that vein, I think that’s kind of hand in hand with a stronger attitude towards sustainability
in projects. I think California is pretty good about sustainability, but making that more of our, something
that’s part of our mission, something that when we’re looking at a project, we should really look at that
lens a bit more closely. I think that kind of goes hand in hand with the trees. That was kind of the major
thing that started in front of me. I think when we were drafting this letter, kind of very late in the game, I
had a few things to add that never got in there, so I don’t know if this is the right time to talk about it.
Chair Baltay: This is the right time to talk about it.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Then the other item that’s not on this list but I think might be worth broaching,
and I’d be curious to hear my board members’ opinion, is the general aesthetics of things that we’re looking
at, and then, kind of an evaluation of, maybe even last year’s projects. The similarities of things that we’re
seeing, and kind of how that is going to change the face of the city, and also having an attitude about the
scale of things that come to us, and the types of materials that come to us. And then, forming an opinion
on if, if we feel like that’s good for Palo Alto in the future.
Chair Baltay: Those are such generalized… Osma, can you give me some examples of good and bad general
aesthetics?
6.a
Packet Pg. 202
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I would say, in general, the scale of items that we’re seeing, that a lot of the
times when we first see a project but usually don’t approve, it’s because the scale of the design is so broad
brush and large that it doesn’t have a smaller human pedestrian scale. I feel like a lot of the projects that
we have been able to approve through this process have been a result of pushing them to go to a smaller
scale. I think we can push even more than we have already. I think there are projects that have gone
through that I think could have even benefitted more from pushing down even more. So, I think scale is a
big item.
Chair Baltay: That’s a great observation. I agree.
Board Member Hirsch: Just a couple of comments. If I can remember what I was just thinking. I thought
about how to make a presentation, you know, PowerPoint, would be to start with a project that comes in,
you know, what it brought to us first, and then, show how we’ve managed to modify it with some of our
comments, you know? Would be an absolutely great way to do it. And the reason I’m suggesting that is,
you know, I think that we look at things visually, make our comments based on our experience that way,
and I don’t think the Council really are those kind of people. They need to be brought up to speed on how
we are thinking about projects, and this would be a good way to do it. That’s one. Amy, one thought is, I
have some concern about how cell towers were presented, but I don’t know if want to get in the middle of
that one. It’s into the weeds. But it’s been in our craw in a way for a while. Yours, too, I have a feeling,
and it’s been tough. You want to stay away from that one, right?
Ms. French: Yes, I would suggest that they’re such… Since I’m jumping in, one thing that will be coming
to the ARB, we are, because of state legislation that is advocating affordable housing projects and looking
at objective standards, we’re looking at objective standards for cell towers, but not as interested in that as
I am in the housing objective standards because we are going to be looking at our ARB findings, the context
base findings, and seeing if there are ways to have more objective standards for affordable housing
projects. This is, if you’re thinking about projects to talk about and how your influence, you know, improved
the projects, we might want to think the project that includes multi-family housing, and start thinking about
how our aesthetics are quantified somehow in the findings, or the context-based design criteria. That’s
going to be a big topic coming up, is how we can more objective.
Board Member Hirsch: Another one, as part of that, would be… What is it called? The small dwellings?
Chair Baltay: ADUs.
Board Member Hirsch: ADUs. To actually see a sample of how an ADU has actually worked in this
community here. I’m just curious because it’s so talked about in the entire state now, you know? What
have we done?
Ms. French: It’s a little off-topic just because ARB doesn’t look at the ADUs, and they are administerial, so
we don’t have a discretionary review aspect of those at all.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, that’s true.
Ms. French: I would just say that’s a topic for another day that we could talk about, but probably not good
for this meeting with the joint council, just because there’s so much else that the ARB is involved in
reviewing.
Chair Baltay: I want to remind us all that our goal is to find things that we think the Council needs to hear
from us.
Board Member Hirsch: Why wouldn’t something like the impact of an ADU on a residential area be
important?
Chair Baltay: Well, we don’t have any explicit experience with the ARB doing that. None whatsoever. That’s
where I think we want to be careful. It’s not my opinion as a practicing architect. I’ve designed many ADUs
6.a
Packet Pg. 203
City of Palo Alto Page 7
and I have strong opinions about it, but I want to be careful that we’re here as a board, taking City Council’s
time as a council to communicate to them things that we, I think, really have observed and can make
strong statements about. I think the cell tower ship has sailed, David, unfortunately. Council has heard
everybody’s opinion in multitudes on that. Alex, what are you thinking?
Board Member Lew: Okay, so, I think I do… I do think the tree issue is important, and I think I would
enlarge that topic to encompass…. I might incorporate that into, like, we have, like, a parking issue. I might
sort of enlarge it so it’s not just about trees, because it’s related to…
Chair Baltay: It’s all related, yeah.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, they’re all tied together. It’s not just the trees, the issue of bigger scale urban
buildings, and how does the city grow to the next larger scale but still keep true to its roots. I think I
support David’s comment about San Antonio Road and development happening there, although I’m thinking
that maybe we push that back a year, until maybe after the hotel is finished, so there is something to react
against. I think it’s important because San Antonio Road has the CS zoning, but we don’t have any El
Camino Design Guidelines for that street. And there’s no, based on the site facing on Mountain View, there’s
no, they typically don’t have residential behind there, so there potentially can be very large buildings on
one side of the street on San Antonio Road. I think that is a concern. Another comment on the pedestrian
mobility is that I think that we should mention, I think we should incorporate in there the percentage of
population that’s going to be over 65, is going to grow by 40 percent. It’s basically the Baby Boomers are
going to be retiring, and I think that’s a huge issue. I think that was part of Wynne’s thinking in adding
this. I think I might enlarge it. More of, like, aging in place, and how does the city adapt to that. It’s not
just about benches. I find that with my own parents. They’re used to living in the town, and now they’re
realizing that they have to sort of change their lifestyle for their age, and they’re not finding that the city
is working that well for them. I think that’s an interesting topic. If we bring that up at the Council, I don’t
know what comes of it, but I think that’s sort of on the radar. If you think about the road diet that we did
on Charleston and Arastradero. That was sort of with an eye towards that, with all of the build-out and
crosswalks. And then, I had a comment on the… On the El Camino issue. I think you say in there, the last
line is, “Revised parking standards for development on El Camino would promote development of
neighborhood retail and restaurant businesses.” And I do support that, and I think staff has tried to address
that. We do have a new exclusion, either the first 1,500 square feet of ground floor retail doesn’t have to
be parked. That’s new. I think maybe we could highlight that that’s in there. We don’t really have any
projects that have used it yet. I think the one on San Antonio Road is going to try to use it, even though
they’re on San Antonio Road. They’re not on El Camino. I think, in that one, we could probably mention
that. Many of the restaurants that people frequent don’t have enough parking. They’re grandfathered in.
There’s no incentive to improve your property if you’re already deficient on… You’re grandfathered in, right?
Don’t touch the parking lot because then you’d have to bring it up to code. It’s a really difficult situation,
where we’ve got things that don’t look good.
Chair Baltay: Well, we kind of have 1950’s suburban parking requirements for a growing city.
Board Member Lew: Yep.
Chair Baltay: Sooner or later, that conflicts.
Board Member Lew: Yep.
Chair Baltay: What we observe, you’re right, is when a restaurant comes in, or a building with a restaurant
on the ground floor. Parking drives everything. They can’t actually meet the parking to make the restaurant
fit. Costs go sky high to make it work with subterranean elevator parking spots, and it’s not really in the
city’s best interest. That’s precisely, I think, the kind of thing Council should be hearing from us, is the nuts
and bolts of why and how that code requirement impacts the inability to create things that we all want to
see in the town. That’s a good point, Alex.
6.a
Packet Pg. 204
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Board Member Lew: Yeah. And if we say that we really want to hold on to parking standards, you sort of
have to accept that it might be, we have to allow other uses – whatever it is, exercise place, other things
– because retail is sort of declining. I think there’s a huge demand for exercise places. It’s a tricky one.
And I think the difference is, like on El Camino, that the parking standards are specific to the use, whereas
downtown or the shopping center is all blended. I think that that one is more complicated. That one is,
like, really complicated. I think it’s kind of hard to have a discussion on that. As you guys know, the zoning
on El Camino is very site-specific.
Chair Baltay: Is there any support on the Board for the concept that parking standards as a whole are
driving a lot of development in the town, and perhaps really need all to be revised?
Board Member Lee: May I just make a few comments that relate to…?
Chair Baltay: Please do.
Board Member Lee: And I’m sorry, I feel like I’m the new person, and I am the new person, but I’m also
an old person. I did want to make some comments that might not sit well, and it’s because I’m joining the
Board so late, and I haven’t been a part of your process in the past year. I want to thank you so much for
all of the work that has been completed, and I’m not knowledgeable on the projects, all the details. That’s
why I have some hesitation in being a part of going through specific projects. I think there is a challenge
in that for myself, and I’m happy to kind of sit back if you all would like to do that. I see the ARB as really,
I feel more comfortable talking about all of these things. When we begin to structure in terms of our role
in, you know, context-based and contextual design, high-quality materials that age properly and, you know,
sit well in that context. Scale, and the need for recognition of landscape as something that often speaks to
scale. Looking at different cities in terms of learning from those precedents and examples of what may
occur in a similar sized growing place. I feel less comfortable in terms of talking because there may be
disagreement in terms of aesthetics on our board. Color is very subjective; aesthetics is very subjective. I
also think about these applications that come in as individual applications, and I’m wary of the Board
pushing an applicant to a certain spot. I’m also not comfortable with critiquing… I mean, parking standards
are totally, completely involved in design, but I’m wary of being a planner. I have a planning background,
I have worked on other design projects in my professional life, and I see the connection. But we have a
Planning Commission, we have City Council, we have an excellent staff, and I feel like our purview is to
review applications that come in, each separately. So, when we make these larger comments about
displacement of small businesses, even the comments regarding zoning, land use planning and designations
of zoning on El Camino Real. These TDMs are really important; I feel like that’s, again, not our purview,
still. I feel like that’s a staff, that they work with the applicant in that way. And maybe I’ve just not been
on the Board for the last 10 years, but I’m wary of me, as an applicant, as an architectural designer, going
to a city where there are large changes that are occurring and being suggested that are not architectural
design based. That has occurred. I’ve been on the other side, and it does create discomfort. And I’m not
sure that’s our purview.
Chair Baltay: I agree with you, Grace. I think all of us feel that we want to be very careful not to try to
become planners or staff reviewing projects, and we don’t want to be, for example, requiring more parking
than the code requires, or saying you can’t exceed or go to an FAR standard [crosstalk].
Board Member Lee: And I’m sure this Board is not doing that. My feeling is… And, sorry, not to jump in,
Peter, but I feel most comfortable with G, in terms of the findings that I saw that you have revised since
2017. I feel very comfortable with A, B and E as it relates to the public realm in terms of evaluating
applications. Not as comfortable with C, D and F as they are written. However, I believe, you know, there
should be a general discussion with Council on all of the issues that come up through these projects, and
if it works best, perhaps I can listen in terms of how the Board is presenting on work that they have
reviewed that, you know, I did not weigh in on.
Chair Baltay: Let me try to sway your thinking a little bit, because we’ve evolved, I think, since I’ve been
on the Board, at least, to I think realizing that there are trends that seem to be showing up over and over
again in projects, meeting current codes and planning conditions. What I think we’ve come to think is that
6.a
Packet Pg. 205
City of Palo Alto Page 9
we’re the ones, so to speak, in the trenches, observing the reality of what happens when a building is
designed to meet these standards. And my understanding, talking to architects, citizens, applicants and
council members, is that they don’t really see the ramification of some of these things. What I think we’re
advocating for is not how to change the code, but rather to say that some of these things are issues. We’ve
observed a clear one, is when you have underground parking, which we all think is good, the code
encourages it, it makes it very difficult to have above ground large trees on the perimeter of a property.
You have this big concrete vault underneath. And that’s a conflict we’re seeing that hasn’t been really well
thought through. I think if I were a policymaker, I would appreciate getting that feedback. That’s what I
think we’re trying to do here, is be specific in the feedback we give, ideally relative to projects that have
gone through our process. But I think we are trying to say that there are policy issues, code issues, that
can be addressed. We’ve observed that. A lot of these projects chase out small businesses, and I don’t
know that… I guess that one is seen by everybody in the political process, when there’s a string of small
businesses upset about something. But to see it the way we do, the way the design chases it out, when
they’re forced to build, when the story height of a building are lower, it makes the spaces a little bit less
attractive to large commercial clients and more to small businesses, still. That’s a subtle nuance design
thing that Council may want to hear.
Board Member Lee: I agree. I think, you know, perhaps the way to frame it is that there are challenges
that, you know, there’s interlinking parts, and here’s some challenges. I go to what Amy suggested, in
terms of talking about objective standards in projects that involve multi-family housing or larger-scale
developments, and for those specific uses, I struggle, because there are issues in terms of land use, and
planning, and small businesses, for example, and small-scale buildings within a context, and development
that’s going to occur later. It opens a can of worms for me when we do this, and maybe the way to frame
it is just as you’re saying, that here’s some trends and challenges that we’ve seen this last year.
Chair Baltay: We want to put the worms in the can so they’re not all over the place. But I think they’re
there, and we have to face up to that, using that metaphor. Anybody else have other thoughts? We’re
trying to narrow down a list of things that we can discuss. After that, I want to see if we can get individuals
to agree to be behind one or two of these. One of these, hopefully.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I want to respond to your comment about aesthetics being subjective. I feel
like maybe there might be a way to reframe what I mean when I’m wanting to talk about this issue, because
it’s true, it’s kind of dangerous to talk about taste. We’re not really talking about architecture taste at all
because you’re right, that is subjective. But I think there are some basic… And maybe “aesthetic” is the
wrong word for this, so I’d be curious to see if you could help me try to drive at what I’m trying to get at.
But oftentimes, we’ll see, like, the first iteration of a project we’ll see will be very blocky and boxy, and I
have no other way to describe that that is just aesthetically unattractive and not what we want the future
of Palo Alto to be. Something that has no scale, that feels very massive and overbearing in the city. If
“aesthetic” is not the right word, I’m not sure what is. I do think we need to talk about scale and architecture
as it relates to improving the environment, because I think those projects that do come in front of us that
don’t have a regard, at least the initial stages don’t have a regard for that scale, there has to be something
where we where we can say this is not acceptable for Palo Alto. And context alone, I don’t know if it’s
enough.
Board Member Lee: I totally appreciate it, thank you. I think scale and massing and context are interlinked,
and aesthetics, if Board feels is important to retain, is a little more of a subjective term in my mind, but I
completely understand what you’re discussing.
Chair Baltay: Let’s take that topic, Osma. How do we phrase that to the Council? What are we actually
trying to tell them they should be aware of? Scale and design aesthetics are important? I’m having a tough
time understanding what we’re actually trying to say as an example. You want to take a particular building
and…? As David mentioned, we can show how a design evolves. Generally, as you’re saying, it breaks down
in finer, higher-quality design details and scale and massing and stuff. But I guess what I’m concerned
about is that’s kind of telling them something they already know, in a way, that we work hard to get
buildings better. What’s the takeaway from them as far as what they should do, how they should react to
it?
6.a
Packet Pg. 206
City of Palo Alto Page 10
Vice Chair Thompson: There are projects that have passed our review, and I don’t, honestly, I don’t know
the whole history of them. But there are projects that, you know, when they can’t get through us, they go
to Council, because they can’t get through us because aesthetically, we can’t approve them. And then,
Council goes ahead and approves them. That’s partially why I bring this up. And it’s not entirely why. Like,
there’s also just a good discussion to have about what the future face of Palo Alto is going to look at.
Should we bring up individual projects that we’re thinking of talking about?
Chair Baltay: Absolutely. I think the more we can be concrete and visual, the stronger our presentations
will be.
Vice Chair Thompson: There is an affordable housing project that came in front of us; I’m forgetting the
name, actually. It was…
Board Member Lew: Wilton Court.
Vice Chair Thompson: It came twice, right? They had a prelim where we were just giving feedback, and
then they had a first quasi that we passed on, that we approved them. And I think their improvement, from
what they showed us in the prelim to what we ended up approving, is a good example of something that
had some aesthetic flaws, let’s say, or some things that could be improved on, that they took our feedback,
and what we ended up improving was better.
Chair Baltay: You’re talking about, I think it’s Wilton Court. It was down in south Palo Alto on El Camino?
Vice Chair Thompson: Sure, yes.
Chair Baltay: A really large, boxy building, and they made substantial improvements on the design.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I think we’ve only had two affordable housing projects.
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the only other one would be the VTA property that was workforce housing.
Chair Baltay: Take that project as an example. The Council was overly enthusiastic…well, not overly, but
highly enthusiastic to get that approved and pushed through. It was a great project for many reasons,
above and beyond the architecture. We felt the architecture was good, as well. What’s the takeaway from
Council? What are we trying to tell them about that project? That we made it better?
Vice Chair Thompson: Just that it’s coming ahead of time, just coming before the quasi-judicial, I think
help it pass, a lot. Because if it had come in the state that it was when we saw it in prelim, if that had been
the quasi-judicial hearing, I don’t know that all of us would have been as enthusiastic.
Chair Baltay: The informal process was invaluable.
Vice Chair Thompson: I think so.
Chair Baltay: I think we can all get behind that.
Board Member Lew: We’re looking at maybe not being able to have discretionary review for affordable
housing projects. I think that we should really look at, yeah, what the Board did, what the findings, what
were the findings. And I think maybe we should make a recommendation or a suggestion that, you know,
if we don’t have discretionary review for these projects, what should be added in our findings, or codes or
findings, or design guidelines?
Chair Baltay: I think that’s great, Alex.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, because the reality is that, even if we don’t have discretionary review for
affordable housing projects, they still may have to follow a guideline, or try to follow a guideline. I think it
6.a
Packet Pg. 207
City of Palo Alto Page 11
should be something, if there’s something missing in the El Camino Design Guidelines, or whatever
guideline, Downtown Guidelines, that we think it should be in there in the event that the Board isn’t
reviewing those projects in the future, that the City is comfortable with doing that.
Chair Baltay: A takeaway to the Council may be then – along the lines of what you were saying, Osma – in
the event that we’re talking about affordable housing projects, where our discretionary review may not
exist in the future, demonstrating to them the benefit that our discretionary review offers, maybe they
need to be cognizant of that when crafting objective standards in the future, is really important. We could
demonstrate to them that this review process made a huge difference, and that they really need to have
something in place. I think we want to keep that standard up.
Board Member Lee: I’m so sorry. Isn’t there already something in place, though?
Ms. French: Yes, so, we will be visiting with the ARB soon. Staff is in, you know, weekly meetings, basically.
We have a consultant… Sorry? December 5th, we’re going to be talking about this topic. It’s just going to
be after the joint meeting with the Council. Your awareness that this is a topic is a good one to acknowledge
in your meeting with the Council, that you’re looking forward to being part of that process.
Chair Baltay: By bringing it up, we’re just asking the Council for further support behind this process. We
maybe even should say that the ARB should be appointing a subcommittee to be integrating with staff as
you guys are starting to develop these policies, and two of us could be at the table with you, doing that.
It’s independent of what we’re here for directly, but I think Osma is bringing up some good points about
scale and the detail of design that we want to… Do we all agree that it doesn’t hurt to bring it to Council’s
attention?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: You do, Osma. What do we all think about that? If we say that’s one of our topics, is this
affordable housing design standards?
Board Member Lee: May I understand a little bit better in terms of what process there is in terms of design
review? Currently?
Ms. French: All projects are subject to architectural review, discretionary review, over a certain number of
5,000 square feet, but then there’s also the units. There’s a site and design review process that’s been on
the books, and that’s over nine units now, something…? We’ve increased the numbers for site and design.
Three units comes to ARB. Site and design, which then involves the Planning Commission and Council, is
when it’s over nine units. For affordable housing, I think that’s going to be changing as well. Yeah, we have
a lot of affordable housing projects in the wings. Actually, very recently, there’s been an influx of money
from private companies and all of this, so it’s kind of exciting. I got lost in answering your question, but
basically, we do have requirements for design review over three units that goes to the ARB, currently.
Board Member Lee: I’m just confused. Are we…? Since there already is design review in place for these
projects, and preliminary is often encouraged, what exactly are we…?
Chair Baltay: Our concern is that design review may be going away. State laws are now coming out where
we don’t have the option of getting discretionary design review on projects.
Board Member Lee: It’s basically for discussion on December 5th how the City might address this.
Ms. French: Yes, so that will be the first opportunity for the ARB to be involved in those conversations, and
there’s probably an opportunity – I think it’s a good idea, always – to have a subcommittee of members.
Ms. French: Now I understand. Thanks.
6.a
Packet Pg. 208
City of Palo Alto Page 12
Chair Baltay: I think, provided we keep this focused on the subject of affordable housing, we can make a
very strong statement about design review being important, and if there is no discretionary design review,
the City should be sure to supply something else, which would be some set of standards. And getting
Council aware of that is a good thing, and the kind of thing they wouldn’t ordinarily know about directly.
They’re not experienced in this. Does that sync with you, Grace? I can’t tell what you’re…
Board Member Lee: I’m just thinking about it, and I’m wondering if there’s a, you know, the subcommittee
might be the way to accomplish that kind of design review.
Chair Baltay: I think that’s right, it would be a subcommittee. It would be great interfacing with staff as
they develop these standards. But do you think it’s a good thing to bring to the attention of the Council?
Board Member Hirsch: Well, I think you’re right in pointing out that it’s a trend that the state regulations
now are sort of over our heads, looking like they’re pushing so hard that they’re pushing us right out. I feel
that pretty strongly as well. It also involves kind of general planning. Where’s all this housing going to really
happen in the city? And it seems to me that there should be some similar thought coming from Planning
and Transportation about where all this will be happening. In some way, I think we ought to be coordinating
with Planning and Transportation because our aesthetic is important to these aspects of change.
Chair Baltay: Absolutely. To Grace’s point, however, we want to not be the Planning Commission here, so
we just focus on the aesthetic issues that Osma is pointing out. That’s what we’re observing, and there is
a strong need to have some standards for how these buildings are being built. I think that’s a legitimate
point to make to Council, but I’m asking if everybody else here shares that opinion. Is this a good thing to
bring to the Council’s attention? Deafening silence here.
Vice Chair Thompson: Are you looking for a vote?
Chair Baltay: No, I’m not looking for a vote. It’s just a, do we all agree? What I don’t want to do is get
front of Council, and then, have two of us speak up, saying the opposite, and then they get nothing. Better
to all agree now, what we do agree on, and strongly say something. If we don’t have a majority in favor
of that idea, we should put it off the table. But as I understand it, the idea is that we want to bring to
them, one topic would be affordable housing design standards and the importance of having something be
objective or subjective. Can we all get behind that idea?
Board Member Lew: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yes.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes.
Board Member Lee: I would agree. The reason why I’m cautious is because, having worked on affordable
housing, there’s significant hoops for those groups in terms of how they receive review. I just don’t want
to give the impression that we are going to add a hefty review process in addition to all of those hoops.
Perhaps we could talk about some type of liaison with staff to be a part of that process.
Chair Baltay: Absolutely. Those are very strongly taken points. Okay. Let’s try to pick another one that’s
easy here. We have the issue of the trees. I think I hear a consensus that, just continuing protection of
trees, and perhaps more explicit design standards regarding trees and parking, and perhaps… I don’t know
how you would do this, David, but clearly the Board benefits from having an experienced landscape
architect or capable person up here. I’m not sure that we can say much about that, except just to point
out the importance of it. Is there any consensus behind that vague set of ideas? Alex, can you maybe
phrase that better? What would our topic really be?
Board Member Lew: Just to follow up on David’s point. I don’t think we’ve ever had a landscape architect
apply to the Board. I’ve debated about that several times when we’ve had recruitment projects, or
recruitments. And then, I think the other thing, too, is that we have a whole urban forestry division, we
6.a
Packet Pg. 209
City of Palo Alto Page 13
have Peter Jensen, we have resources. You don’t have to rely fully on your knowledge, or lack of. I really
don’t have that much knowledge about landscape. You know, I think the issue with the trees and stuff, I
think is really very difficult to grasp unless you’re really looking at a plan or example. I think it’s very
specific. I think it, it may be difficult to talk about it generally. I could say, like, I know when the basements
are extending under all the buildings when I see a tree in a pot, and I start looking around and realize,
like, oh, like, this entire thing that I’m walking on is all concrete. So, I know. I hear comments from people
in the public saying, “I don’t like that project,” but they can’t really explain it. But then, when I go digging
around, I sort of figure out why they don’t like it. But I think this is something really difficult to discuss
unless we have an example, or examples, or photos of that. That’s, like, our new reality. We’ve got these
new hotels. They really only have shrubs around their perimeter. There’s no trees. I think we’re going to
face that pretty soon, when those buildings are built.
Chair Baltay: Same question to Osma. What’s the Council’s takeaway from those comments that trees are
impacted by underground parking?
Board Member Lew: So, [crosstalk]…
Vice Chair Thompson: That’s not okay.
Board Member Lew: Well, so, this came up with houses, and we don’t allow basements to extend beyond
the footprint of the house above ground. There are some exceptions, but…
Chair Baltay: Even under a front porch, they won’t let us do that now.
Board Member Lew: Yeah. Yeah, so, I don’t know. It seems to me an issue, I think it’s kind of difficult…
It’s a tricky one to discuss with the Council, I would think.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so, I agree, it’s a difficult issue. It’s tricky to explain. I think that could be done. I think
Osma’s jumping to say that it’s really important, which I think we all agree as well. David and Grace, what’s
your opinion about this tree question?
Board Member Hirsch: You know, the word “trees,” it seems that landscape is much grander than just
trees. Osma, you’re doing some landscaping kinds of things when you do urban improvements to
transportation. These things happen. Streets and trees are all kind of interconnected. There are trees and
streets, you know? I just think the topic of trees by itself is too amendable a description. It’s really, the
landscaping involves so many other aspects. Having kind of worked on urban street improvements, that
has to do with trees, as well.
Board Member Lew: For me, it’s not about streets. This is really about having a 50-foot building maybe
only, like 10 feet from the property line. Right? It’s very close to neighbors, and there’s no trees. That’s
what we have now in our current projects. We don’t have any landscape… Like, we have, if you put a
parking lot in, you have to put in perimeter landscaping. But if you have a basement that goes to the
property line or, say, like, five feet to the property line, you don’t have to do anything. There really isn’t a
standard in any of our zones because, especially in the CS zone, because we have zero setback. I think
that’s the issue. You mentioned the San Antonio hotel project, so that’s one of them. There are no trees
on the sides of the property. We just have shrubs and things in pots.
Chair Baltay: That’s because that basement goes right to the property line.
Board Member Lew: The garage extends…
Chair Baltay: Maybe three feet or something. [crosstalk]
Board Member Lew: Maybe it’s, like, five feet. And then, this parking, because they’re trying to fit in all the
parking so that they can maximize the floor area, as they are allowed to. They did come in with a parking
6.a
Packet Pg. 210
City of Palo Alto Page 14
reduction later. So, it’s not about trees; it’s about trees and parking, and underground parking, and floor
area. And it’s really just how, how does the city grow?
Chair Baltay: Okay, trees and parking. Grace, what’s your opinion.
Board Member Lee: I do think trees are important, I think landscape is important. I read here these issues,
“More explicit landscaping standards would be beneficial.” Is that something that we are requesting, that
there would be more explicit landscaping standards that the City would [crosstalk]?
Chair Baltay: I think Alex has phrased it a lot better than that.
Board Member Lee: Because I think that…
Chair Baltay: That statement seems a little vague.
Board Member Lee: Yes, and I’m not sure that’s what we’re requesting as a group. The ARB may weigh in
on requests for more landscaping, right? That’s something that we can weigh in on. And I wonder if, you
know, if you did want to highlight some of the terrific examples where you did weigh in and there was a
positive outcome. I think the joint meeting is a terrific opportunity to showcase a few projects where there
are challenges the city is facing, and here is some examples where the project that was approved was
improved for the benefit of all regarding to scale, context and massing. I understand that approach might
be helpful for Council to see, and maybe bring up those challenges.
Chair Baltay: You’re absolutely right. I think some of us are feeling that it hasn’t always been successful,
and we’ve had our hands tied by code and applicants who insist on the parking up to the parking line, and
then, we’re forced to accept less landscaping and trees at the perimeter than we know are necessary, but
we have…
Board Member Lee: Absolutely. I guess my feeling is, you know, sometimes a reduction of surface parking
is a positive change, and sometimes a parking garage where non-mature trees need to go away is, that
has to be weighed by the applicant and the City and ourselves. I guess I caution against these sentences
that sound like the Council might take away as, “Well, we just need to keep more surface parking with this
kind of tree request.” And since it’s such a short period of time, I wonder if we could provide examples of
projects where there was a positive recommendation and it worked out well.
Chair Baltay: Osma, what do you think?
Vice Chair Thompson: Oh, I have too many strong opinions.
Chair Baltay: That’s good, no, we want… This is the time to have them.
Vice Chair Thompson: So, it’s true. Obviously, it depends on the project, it depends on the trees. The tree
is unwell? Of course. It totally makes sense not to fight for something that’s already on its way out, say,
for example. But we have a lot of… I feel like we have projects that have very healthy trees, and it’s just
inconvenient. It seems like applicants, you know, the property line is like their hard, you know, we obviously
can’t go past the property line. But these beautiful trees that are extremely robust and healthy, we can get
rid of them because they’re not as important as that property line. I think that attitude is a problem.
Because I think our urban canopy should be a priority, and I think there should be something to say to the
City Council that it should be their priority, as well. Because it’s true, our hands are tied in a lot of ways.
We have applicants that are like, we want all these things, and the sacrifice is trees, and we have nothing
in our wheelhouse to say that’s… I mean, we’ve tried. I think with our last review, where we were saying…
Chair Baltay: [inaudible]
6.a
Packet Pg. 211
City of Palo Alto Page 15
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Well, never mind. But, you know, there’s still… I don’t know. This is about
priorities. We have a list of findings that explain our priorities, and at the moment, our priorities are
summarized in landscaping. Right?
Board Member Lew: I’m sorry, when we revise findings, I make sure that we kept a provision in there
about existing, I think, like, existing resources, like an existing tree. It’s in the findings, so we can use it.
I’m just saying we have to use the findings when we don’t have an explicit landscape standard. It sort of
begs the question then, like…. It goes back to this, why don’t we have a landscape…? You know, what is
our landscape standard, and where is it deficient?
Vice Chair Thompson: And to be fair, you’re right, we have an urban forestry division. You know, I think
maybe the goal is really just to explain to the Council that these are trends that we are seeing, and so, not
necessarily that we have to reinvent anything. It’s just alerting them to, this is what’s coming up, our way.
Chair Baltay: Is it fair, Grace, to paraphrase what you’re saying by saying that the standards already exist;
our job is to enforce them, and we’ve been doing that, and we don’t need to change the standards as much
as we need to be firm in enforcement? And as projects go through, if we want to save these trees, we
have the authority to do that, we should be doing it?
Board Member Lee: I’m sorry. I guess I go back to what Alex said in terms of the findings, which we have
improved, is the direction that we go in terms of making those findings, and we have able-bodied staff
who… specialists who guide us. So, in my mind, it would be good to point out the trends and point out
some successful projects. Maybe that would illustrate that the trees and the public realm, the curb
management as it relates to parking, is very important to us, and we see this in many projects that come
our way.
Board Member Lew: Also, I think, Osma, it seems to me when we look at projects in our project packets,
that sometimes applications will review the tree removal in the arborist’s report, and sometimes they don’t.
It may be that we ask staff to include that in every project. We have a member of the public who is also
interested in the tree issue, so, if we could make that recommendation, as well. If you want more discussion
and review of the tree removal.
Board Member Hirsch: I want to point out that on the Wilkes Bashford, you know, we…
Chair Baltay: David, please don’t discuss projects currently being reviewed.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay. On a recent project, we had that issue, and decided that actually, even though
it was a recommendation that we consider a tree removal, that we ourselves decided it would be better to
try to retain the tree. So, I think if there is a significant project issue, that we address it in that manner
when it is part of our standards to do so, even if the staff recommendation is different.
Ms. French: Can we jump in for just a second? I just want to make sure that we remember what we’re
aiming towards, is an hour-long meeting with Council, with seven council members and five of you. There’s
going to be a desire for feel-good moments with, you know, pictures and, you know, what’s working well
will be part of that. I think we’ll want to feel that connection over with the Council. To go down a road of,
you know, touching base with them and asking them to weigh in and confirm concerns, you know, that
should have, you know, Council direct staff, I mean, we definitely won’t have the kind of time during that
hour to have that happen. I’m just kind of calling that out. I wouldn’t expect this to result in Council directs
staff to go work on X, do code change, or whatever. Just wanted to bring that up. Make sure we’re not
thinking that’s going to be part of that meeting.
Chair Baltay: Well, I’m hearing that the issue of trees and parking is complex, and perhaps we already have
what we need from Council on those issues. We need to focus on it a little bit harder, maybe, if it’s
something we’re concerned about. I see Grace nodding her head with that statement. Does everybody
else…? That’s sort of taking it off the table. Are we resigned to that? Amy’s point is well taken. We spend
20 minutes discussing trees like we just did, and we’ve gotten nowhere.
6.a
Packet Pg. 212
City of Palo Alto Page 16
Board Member Hirsch: I like the way Grace put it before, that we could address through an example rather
quickly and save a lot of time on it.
Chair Baltay: Let’s jump then to something else. We were talking about design standards on San Antonio
Road, or the need thereof, and perhaps relating that even to design standards along El Camino. Is there
any way we can give them a clear sense of something about that? I know we feel that way. Building on
San Antonio, there’s a contextual requirement, and we can’t figure out what the context is. I think we could
use some guidance on that myself. Who else wants to say something?
Board Member Lew: Maybe that’s not appropriate for the Council at this time. Maybe we should discuss
that at a retreat, and then, let staff discuss it, and then, maybe bring it to the Council next time. I’m not
sure it’s ready for primetime. I think we should discuss it internally, and then, bring it to the Council.
Vice Chair Thompson: I would be fine with that.
Board Member Hirsch: Yes, but you could bring it up to the joint meeting as an issue that we are concerned
about.
Board Member Lew: I think I would maybe put it in the letter as an issue, but not necessarily for the actual
meeting.
Chair Baltay: Are we agreed, then? Perhaps hold off on…?
Board Member Lee: I was just going to suggest that it would be terrific to see it written, that they could
read. Is there a way to talk about, not in terms of published design standards or a process, but we see
projects that benefit from some kind of collective thinking from a diverse group of stakeholders? The City
is growing, there are significant challenges ahead in many different areas in terms of uses along San
Antonio and El Camino Real. We would support working with Council on how to joint collaborate on this
effort in terms of some kind of guidelines that might benefit the City. I mean, is that general enough? I
feel like a lot of what’s written in your letter here, all these things relate to San Antonio and El Camino
Real. I know in my interview with the Council, I brought up our main boulevards and growth of the city,
and I feel like that’s a lot of what we’re going to be reviewing in the future. So, I don’t know. I feel like
maybe that is something to say.
Chair Baltay: The question, I think, is whether we do it now, or we wait until that hotel is finished. And
then, it will be glaringly obvious, I think.
Board Member Lee: Okay, yes, if you have a project in process that you’re weighing in on, I understand
why you might want to wait.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, I think I agree with Alex’s concept, that maybe this needs a little more time to gestate.
Vice Chair Thompson: I just had a thought of, so, in terms of the plan of how we’re going to formulate this
PowerPoint, assuming that’s going to be what we do this time, presumably there will be slides that don’t
require much dwelling on. It could just be like, “Hey, we talked about this,” but obviously we’re not going
to go in depth. Maybe we could have some of these smaller… I say “smaller;” I just mean, you know, other
topics that potentially aren’t ready for primetime. That could just be kind of in one of those, like, these are
observations, we’re seeing this, we’re seeing this, and then… Sorry. Just going back to the structure of the
PowerPoint, that we could be like, you know, “Here’s an example of a project that went through,” and that
could give us, allow us to end on something that shows them our value, and also talk about the things that
we’ve seen that are trends, that we don’t necessarily need to fix right now, but just that we’re seeing them,
and we can look forward to seeing them later, as well. Since we’re obviously not trying to fix them right
now.
Chair Baltay: We could just point this out as an upcoming trend. I think we all agree this is an upcoming
thing. Maybe not get into the depths of it.
6.a
Packet Pg. 213
City of Palo Alto Page 17
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s similar with the trees issue.
Chair Baltay: Let’s try to go through a few more of these. What I’d like to do, actually, big picture, is to see
if we can identify no more than five topics. Then I’d like to take a break, both… Take a break. Also, if we
can adjust the agenda, let these folks have their subcommittee hearing so they don’t have to spend all
morning here. Then we can reconvene and finish who is going to tackle what, and how we’re going to do
it. Are we all agreed on that?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, that’s fine.
Chair Baltay: The next item I think we should discuss is this concept of curb management. It’s something
I feel strongly about, that I think it would be really great to have more explicit standards. Over and over
again, we see projects that don’t address these issues, and as they are built, you can see it’s not functioning
very well. Take the Epiphany Hotel downtown. It’s a constant block up in front of… Hamilton Avenue at
certain hours is just not passable. There’s too many people stopping there, and it’s because we don’t have
a standard of how that works. Really, again, it’s parking. We have parking all along the curbside, and we
shouldn’t have that. But I think Council really needs to hear from us. We’re the ones who observe it as they
go through the design process. Do I have any other ideas on that?
Board Member Lee: I thought it was encouraging to see this example of, you know, example in other cities
that we may point to as kind of a learning opportunity.
Chair Baltay: Anybody else have a…? Can we put that one on our list of things? What do we think about
it? Alex?
Board Member Lew: Well, it seems to me this is one of those really… Transportation Division and PTC. And
I think we put it on here because it’s an issue, right? It’s not necessarily our issue.
Chair Baltay: Well, we need to be careful not to suggest a solution, but we’re pointing out a problem.
Board Member Lew: Right. I’m fine with pointing something out. And just leave it at that.
Chair Baltay: Absolutely, I agree. We’re not out to tell how to do something. We just see an issue. Does
everybody else agree that this is an issue, and this is warranted to bring to the attention of Council? David?
Board Member Hirsch: Just the way it’s stated, commercial delivery, more explicit standards for ride share
pickup and drop-off zone. Yes, I agree.
Chair Baltay: Do you recollect that building down on Cambridge Avenue, down in the California Avenue
district? A fairly large commercial building. And the code required them to have something of a 40-foot
drop-off space, which just wasn’t physically feasible on the building. The result is they had nothing, and
we really didn’t have any way to get them to make a smaller-scale drop-off that really would serve that
building. If I remember right, it was just a…
Board Member Lew: You know, the planning code has changed with regard to the loading zone, so I think
we’ve fixed that.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so maybe it’s been fixed for loading, but I still think it’s an important think that we can
point out examples to and put out there. Let’s see. I think I see two more topics here that we haven’t, that
we might be able to agree on. One of them, which is dear to my heart, again, is the parking situation at
the Stanford Shopping Center. I will acknowledge that that very strongly veers away from the Architectural
Review Board provenance, but I would point out that what we’re observing is many restaurants going in
there that are using a higher parking count, and therefore, the parking demands aren’t being met, and
other restaurants in town have a different parking standard, and it just creates an inequity that’s
bothersome, at least to me. But I agree that perhaps this is not an ARB issue, but I want to hear what
everybody else thinks.
6.a
Packet Pg. 214
City of Palo Alto Page 18
Board Member Lew: To me, it’s a thorny issue, because there’s a cap, and they’ve been juggling around
square footage, square footages, and decreasing parking. It’s a tricky one, but they’re still within their cap,
and they’re within the zoning code. It seems to me we’ve had projects, there have been proposals in the
past where we’re proposing a change to the cap. You know, there was one at one point where they were
proposing a hotel on the site. It seems to me, I guess the way I’m thinking about it is that you modify the
parking the next time you try to do a big project. Because right now, they’re sort of working within the
existing restrictions, and it seems to me that they are allowed to do that, just under, you know, if you’re
reading a narrow interpretation of the code, they’re allowed to do it.
Chair Baltay: Let me try to make the same argument Grace is making with the trees, then, that it comes
down to an issue of us enforcing strongly what we see. They are within the count at the shopping center.
However, it’s really not functional. There’s just way too many dead-end parking aisles, there’s way too
much demand on one end of the parking center, and much of that count is a quarter-mile away on the
second floor of the garage on the other side of the shopping center. I’ve been making the argument that
it’s not a functional requirement, which is Finding #4. I think if we don’t want to endorse it strongly through
our findings in our hearing, then it’s legitimate to tell the Council that we need a stronger change in the
code. What I’m arguing is that we should at least point out to Council that this issue exists. I don’t think
they or anybody in the public sees it. All everyone sees is that it’s hard to find a parking space at the
shopping center on Saturday. Why is that? It’s because there’s an influx of personal use-type businesses,
restaurants, which have higher demands, and a decrease in parking.
Board Member Lee: I’ll just say that, you know, Peter, we saw this in Town & Country when Trader Joe’s
came in. This does come up to the Board, and then, at the same time, I’m comfortable recusing myself
from talking about Stanford as an employer. But I think if all of you feel as strongly as Peter does, I
understand that it’s a trend that you’re seeing. I don’t know.
Chair Baltay: I think I might be the only one who feels strongly about it.
Board Member Lee: Okay.
Chair Baltay: I keep bringing this up.
Board Member Lew: Peter, I think the trouble I have with making a big issue is, like, I think most people
understand that if you try to go to any shopping center on a Saturday afternoon, it’s going to be crazy. It’s
crazy at Santana Row, or Valley Fair, or wherever; it’s like that. And personally, I don’t go on those days,
or, if I do go to the shopping center on a Saturday afternoon, I know exactly where I’m going to park. I
know exactly where in the garage I’m going to park, and I have no issues finding a space, because I know
where the spaces are. And I don’t try to go to spots where you’re trying to go, right next to the restaurants.
The issue is peak. You’re trying to argue for, like, peak parking, as I understand it. Am I not? You’re trying
to have a convenient spot right next to the restaurant at the peak time, and I don’t think that… It seems
like everything that I read in planning is not to do that. That’s actually the wrong, that’s the wrong approach
to parking.
Chair Baltay: I guess what really gets my goat on this all is that it just seems to really go against building
other downtowns in the area, because we’re giving the shopping center this big incentive to put restaurants
in the shopping center, and then, restaurants [crosstalk]….
Board Member Lew: It’s the same issue with downtown. We have a blend of parking downtown as well.
Chair Baltay: But the parking ratios are such that it’s easier for it to fit in than at Stanford Shopping Center.
That’s why you see so many restaurants going in there, in part. It’s very hard to put a new restaurant
anywhere else because of the parking requirement. That’s where parking is required. Think of Protégé
restaurant on California Avenue and the trouble they had to go through to create parking, just to be allowed
to open up. Because it was a new building, they had to meet parking requirements, and they have these
elevator lifts in the back. The owner was telling me, you know, there’s hundreds of thousands of dollars’
worth of car lifts that nobody uses, to meet the code. If they put that restaurant in a shopping center, they
6.a
Packet Pg. 215
City of Palo Alto Page 19
would have no issue. Money would be saved. That’s what I’m really driving towards, and that’s what’s not
really an architectural board issue, but it’s something I feel [crosstalk].
Board Member Lee: I just want to mention that whenever you add parking to an agenda to an hour-long
meeting with 12 people, it will dominate, so maybe we could just be very strategic in how we talk about
parking, or introduce that subject.
Vice Chair Thompson: I would say my two cents. I sort of feel closer to how Board Member Lew feels about
this parking issue. I’m definitely not… I don’t feel as strongly about the issue at Stanford Shopping Center
also, mainly because I also don’t go there on peak hours, and I usually bike there. But it’s kind of, it’s
definitely not in our purview. I would be open to mentioning it briefly, but I wouldn’t want to make that a
focal part of our conversation.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, pretty much the same feeling about it. It’s true of all shopping centers, that
they’re very crowded at certain times. It’s kind of nice, the fact that Stanford Shopping Center has
restaurants in it, and they can last after hours when parking is less common there. It’s not a bad location
to have some major restaurants, the way it seems to be working. And there are ways to solve the parking
that Stanford could utilize, you know, to increase the size of the garages. And they’re also implementing
present programs to get staff and people who work there to park in the garages. So, while I agree it’s an
issue – it’s a significant issue – we shouldn’t emphasize it too much in this discussion with the Council.
Chair Baltay: Okay. I think that’s all fair, that we should just take parking out of the subject for now. It’s
correct that it will dominate the entire meeting if we bring it up. It’s in our letter; we’ll leave it at that. The
last thing that I think we do have to discuss, if only quickly, is item G, basically the process, the architectural
review process. I think the Council is entitled to feedback from us. They changed these findings two years
go. How has it been working? I think we all feel it’s been relatively positive, but just to put that out there
to them is a good thing. Is there anything else on the process of architectural review that the Council
should hear from us? For example, we mentioned that the informal review process was useful. I don’t know
if that’s Council or staff, but is there anything that Council would want to hear about the ARB process? For
example, several times they’ve, say 429 University and the Mercedes building, they, I wouldn’t say
overruled us, but they tie our hands by approving half the building, and then say to us, “fix it.” Do we want
to give them feedback on that?
Board Member Lew: And we shouldn’t discuss Mercedes because it’s still out there. It’s not approved yet.
Chair Baltay: Does anybody else have any…? The concept of the review process, I think, needs to be in
our meeting, even if only quickly. Is there anything else we can add to that, aside from findings?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. You know, I’m a first-year member here, the only first-year member, and as a
first-year member, I want to say that I thought the process has been working so damn well in certain areas
here that we’ve discussed. I can’t name the project, I guess.
Chair Baltay: I agree [crosstalk].
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, Peter will stop me right away. I just think, when I feel comfortable in going
back home and saying, after a day of spending long, early hours here, that we’ve done very well in certain
areas. Maybe not on every project, of course. I don’t feel that way. But I feel the consensus idea here, the
way it happens with a group like this is quite incredible, and I’m happy to be a part of it, and feel it’s quite
successful. And that ought to be expressed in some way here, about how these findings are important to
us, and when we all look at them, we try to make a project work better, and we think we’ve been successful.
That should be a bit of an introduction to the Council meeting.
Chair Baltay: Are we all in agreement that the reduced changed findings have been a beneficial thing to
us?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
6.a
Packet Pg. 216
City of Palo Alto Page 20
Chair Baltay: I don’t know if you remember. There was about 20 of them before, David, and it was pretty
tough to keep track of for anybody. Yes?
Board Member Lee: This is only my second meeting back, but I think my sixth or seventh year, and I do
want to acknowledge that less is more, and the staff has been instrumental. I think we should acknowledge
that definitely when we talk about the process.
Chair Baltay: Is there anything else about the review process we want to bring to Council’s attention?
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t think I have anything.
Chair Baltay: Okay. What I’ve heard is that we’d like to discuss affordable housing design standards;
perhaps trees and… I can’t use the word “parking,” maybe, but… San Antonio design standards; curb
management; and the ARB process.
Board Member Hirsch: I want to ask a question, though, at this point. Where is there a commercial building
that we have been working on that is part of this?
Chair Baltay: I’m sorry…?
Board Member Hirsch: Is there any specifically…? About commercial buildings that we have been dealing
with at all?
Chair Baltay: Relating to the five topics that I just mentioned?
Board Member Hirsch: Yes. When we’re talking about housing as a topic, why are we not talking about
commercial buildings?
Chair Baltay: What about commercial buildings?
Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible] and very successfully reviewed in part of the main piece of our work.
Chair Baltay: I’m sorry, David, I’m not understanding what you’re driving towards now. We want to discuss
with Council commercial buildings, in what regard?
Board Member Hirsch: Is there a mention of housing? Once again, we had housing that, you were bringing
up an issue of housing, specifically?
Chair Baltay: Yes, so, we’d like to discuss the potential need for some design standards for affordable
housing, and demonstrate how our review of other projects, with a discretionary review, has made a
benefit. That’s something…
Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, to Grace’s point, do we want to focus on affordable, or just housing in general? I
mean, I think the City as a whole is trying to encourage housing in general.
Vice Chair Thompson: I would say housing in general.
Chair Baltay: Housing in general, all right. What I’d like to do then is take a break, quickly, change our
agenda to let the subcommittee do its work; come back, and the objective will be to pick a member to help
with each one of these, to see if we can collectively come up with some examples of design standards. And
then, sort of set how we’re going to go about getting this all together. If everybody is agreed with that.
Can you wait a second, afterwards?
??: Yeah.
6.a
Packet Pg. 217
City of Palo Alto Page 21
Chair Baltay: Okay, so, let’s adjourn for a minute and let the subcommittee do their work. We’ll take 10
minutes.
[The Board took break and moved to subcommittee discussion off line.]
Subcommittee Items
6. 565 Hamilton Avenue [18PLN-00313]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That
was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Colors/Materials, Height and Trim
Band. 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 & Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project
Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@mgroup.us
[Board Member Lee left the meeting at 10:03 a.m.]
Chair Baltay: We’re going to pick up on agenda item number 3. We were just discussing our list of topics,
and I’d like to review that list once more and see if we are feeling good about it. As we had the break, I’ve
been thinking, we still have too many things here not…
Board Member Lew: And the Council may want to add to that.
Chair Baltay: Yes. And it is worth thinking that we are now going to be presenting this informally to Council
in advance. What do they want to see? And the Planning Director, too, perhaps. With that in mind, I think
that the concept of some sort of housing design standards, as Osma had been discussing, is important. I
think that the curb management issue is something we can specifically address that might work. And
maybe, Alex, you can make an argument about the way trees impact underground parking. I insist that we
put the ARB process out there as a very quick statement of how it’s working. The design standards for San
Antonio, probably just more than we can fit in an hour. Any sense on that?
Vice Chair Thompson: I just wonder how, on the PowerPoint, it’s going to get presented. I think we can
touch on even more than these things if it’s, like, a quick, “this is one of our observations; this is another
one of our observations; this is a third observation,” and then, we conclude. We can kind of, for example,
San Antonio design guidelines, or if we don’t, you know, we don’t have a solution for that at all yet, but we
can just mention that San Antonio is changing, and we might want to talk about what we want that to look
like.
Chair Baltay: Just a quick mention of it then. I’m just more and more leery that we have an hour with seven
council members who all like to speak. We can get lost really quickly. Or, we can really concretely focus on
something, get good examples of it.
Board Member Hirsch: I agree with Osma’s point of view. If you can weave the design, the ARB…
Chair Baltay: The ARB process.
Board Member Hirsch: … process in with specific projects somehow, you know, make that the beginning.
I’d rather put that first than any of the other topics that you’re discussing here. It’s the most important
one, in my mind, to really show how the process is working, how we work as a team, you know? And I
think it’s a highlight, and it will be very positive.
Chair Baltay: Yeah, that will be the feel-good moment, when we explain what we do. We all sort of enjoy
it, and we have made a difference. It’s quite concrete, and we can show that. This is our chance, though,
to tell them about things that need to be fixed as well. I think the more we can be concrete about that.
Vice Chair Thompson: [inaudible]
6.a
Packet Pg. 218
City of Palo Alto Page 22
Chair Baltay: Oh, yes, I’m sorry about that. Can we open the meeting to testimony from a member of the
public, if you’d like to say something?
??: [inaudible]
Chair Baltay: Oh, we didn’t see that. I tried.
??: [inaudible] much later, probably half an hour [inaudible].
Chair Baltay: So, for whoever is watching, we have a request from Mary Sylvester, and we’d love to hear
what you have to say. I’m sorry to be so formal, but you will have three minutes. If you could state and
spell your name for the record, please.
Mary Sylvester: Thank you, Chair and commissioners. My name is Mary Sylvester [spells name]. I’m a 41-
year resident of Palo Alto. I just have a few general comments to make about the study session topics. My
first comment, though, is to thank you all for your service, and to do this publicly, this thinking through
process of what you’re going to discuss with Council, I think it’s vitally important. And I want to thank staff
as well, to Ms. Gerhardt and Ms. French. They’re doing a lot of the hard work behind the scenes, and they
get a lot of grief from the public, myself being one at different times. So, thank you. I also think it’s
important to keep the study session in mind as to its goals. It’s to educate the Council, I believe, but also
the public. I’ve been to four study sessions over the last three years, and I have found them fascinating,
both for the degree of dedication that the commissioners show, but again, how they conceive of their
mission, and then, the interplay between the commissioners and the council. And sometimes topics have
gotten heated, particularly with the PTC and the Council. I was at one meeting where Asher Waldfogel –
and I’m sure he wouldn’t mind; he handled it beautifully – and Greg Sharp [phonetic] got into a rather
heated discussion, but, again, it gave the public a sense of their thinking. Okay. And I want to comment. I
want to thank Ms. French for her framing. One hour is not long, and I think it’s very important that you
both have the feel-good moments, as well as the challenges facing the community, and your
recommendations. Ms. Lee’s comment about coordination and how you work with the PTC, for instance,
the public wants that transparency. How does coordination go on between urban forestry, PTC, ARB, HRB?
And that’s a process issue, but it also goes to a larger mission, I believe, of the City. That was a vital part
of the planning meeting for the new Council this year, where they were talking about transparency being
integrated into every goal they adopt for this new year. And one of the key goals was sustainability and
climate change, so Commissioner Thompson’s comments about trees, scales, materials, fit in beautifully to
the sustainability and green goals the Council adopted in 2019 for the next year. Along with that scale,
materials. Aesthetics, maybe it went off to the side, but I think that’s where your refined eye comes in. I
caution you about endorsing underground garages. And I’m prejudice. I’m a neighbor of Castilleja school
that has one planned, but we know the Council this year rejected the downtown underground garage, for
a number of reasons. But there is an impact on groundwater, there’s foundational impacts on neighbors.
Commissioner Lew, I loved your comment on mobility. We have huge demographic changes. I’m turning
65 within a month. I feel the changes in the walkability and livability of this city. And lastly, the idea of a
case study that integrates your thinking and that feel-good movement, such as Wilton Court. It’s interesting
for the public to hear not only your thinking, your goals, but how the project was improved. Because many
of us, if you’re not involved with the actual project, you don’t know a lot about affordable housing and the
ARB process. I think it’s an interesting movement to integrate both affordable housing, housing issues
generally – and again, you have just a few minutes, but make mention of it – and then, how the ARB
process has made for a better project for the community. Thank you very much. It’s been a fascinating
opportunity to observe your thinking.
Chair Baltay: Thank you very much for your comments. Those are well thought through. Okay, gang,
affordable housing design standards. Seems to me the Wilton Court project is the posterchild you want to
talk about. Osma, you’ve been vocal about it. Do you want to take on…? You’ll have to work with staff to
collect images to do a before and after and show the effect of design review.
Vice Chair Thompson: Sure.
6.a
Packet Pg. 219
City of Palo Alto Page 23
Chair Baltay: Does that sound…? Are we in support of that idea? Alex, what do you think?
Board Member Lew: I wouldn’t limit it to Wilton Court.
Chair Baltay: Let’s think of some other projects, then. What other…?
Board Member Lew: There are a couple issues I think we want to just touch on. One is, so, with affordable
housing projects, it’s likely that we’re not going to get ground floor retail on them. Like, on Wilton Court,
we have, there are ground floor communal uses, right? But say, like on 801 Alma, it’s ground floor
residential, which is [inaudible]. At least in my mind, it’s not desirable to have, like, your bedroom window
on the sidewalk. I just want to bring up issues, just general issues like that, where the Board has struggled
in the past. Like 801 Alma, the children’s playground was put on the shady side of the building. You know,
there was a reason for that, but, you know, it’s not desirable, generally. You normally would put that in
the sun.
Chair Baltay: That’s something Osma might have been involved in. How about the one on the corner of
Page Mill and El Camino? There’s a large housing building.
Board Member Lew: I want to say workforce housing is a little different, it’s a different overlay. That’s, like,
a public facility with workforce housing overlay, so that’s a little different than affordable. But we can put
them together. I just want to make sure we understand there’s [crosstalk].
Chair Baltay: Well, just to give Osma some direction as to which projects we think you might want to be
looking at.
Vice Chair Thompson: Maybe I can work with Alex on this. We can kind of… Is it possible for us to tag
team?
Chair Baltay: Whatever you folks want to do. If the two of you want to tackle this together. I’m thinking
that we have too much stuff here. I want to get us to focus.
Board Member Lew: I agree.
Chair Baltay: The more we can just say, let’s just look at this housing issue and not try to stretch our
boundaries. So, if Alex and Osma together want to come up… What I envision is that each part of the
Board will work on part of this, and perhaps present a series of PowerPoint slides, or some other structure,
that we can then integrate into one thing that staff can help us be ready to present at the meeting. And
then, each Board member will speak regarding this topic that they’ve prepared.
Board Member Lew: I’m happy to help as much as I can. In the next, for that week in December, we have
the ARB, and I also have Ventura that same week, and our joint Council meeting. So, I may not be able to
help that much, but I will do as much as I an.
Chair Baltay: You should explain that to your partner, not to me. I’m going to expect the two of you to
come through on what was agreed.
Board Member Lew: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: I was going to suggest that we also loop in the trees thing because it’s sort of
related.
Board Member Lew: Umm….
Chair Baltay: Focus, focus, focus, Osma. It’s really important. You have seven council members in one
room; it’s just very hard to get things done.
6.a
Packet Pg. 220
City of Palo Alto Page 24
Board Member Lew: I think the affordable housing issue is sort of… I’m thinking that it’s on their mind, and
I think it’s on the community’s mind, and I think the tree thing could be pushed back to another meeting.
Vice Chair Thompson: You don’t think it could just be like guidelines, or just like, “Hey, by the way.”
Board Member Lew: I think it’s fine to highlight it as an issue, but I wouldn’t… I’m thinking, like, not
dwelling on it.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, no, not dwelling on it.
Board Member Lew: If you really want to discuss something, then I think it should be the housing.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, there could be mentions of topics, issues coming up, or something like that.
For consideration. One sentence long kind of comment about some other pieces that we’re concerned
about, without making it a topic.
Chair Baltay: Well, I would like to, myself, just bring to Council’s attention the ARB process. Make the
statement that I think the findings are working. I’d like to make a statement that the ARB awards are
coming up, and it’s been positively received in the past, and we’d still like to do that. It doesn’t have to be
a lot. In that same statement, I could also make a statement about the San Antonio design standards;
there’s going to be a need for that in the future. Not do any more than that. No discussion whatsoever, if
we feel that we want to have it mentioned someplace. But I don’t want that to become a big show.
Alternatively, we could make the ARB process about demonstrating our process and show one or two
design projects, with a couple of slides showing the improvement. That’s a feel-good kind of thing;
everybody likes to see it. If there’s a sense that we should be doing that, that’s the place to do it.
Board Member Lew: On San Antonio, I think maybe, I think there are a couple things that we should… I
think we should maybe consider enlarging…
Chair Baltay: Okay.
Board Member Lew: …that, mostly because we have, the Council’s sort of gone back and forth over the
years. For a while, they didn’t want the housing there, and then, they decided that they do want to put
housing there. It’s commercially zoned. The condominium neighbors want, you know, they have their own
opinion about wanting residential. So, I think maybe we just, it’s not just design, but I think it’s actually
planning. It seems to me it’s a planning issue. And then, we have projects that, like the Affordable Housing
Project, is trying to fit in pedestrian-friendly things, but it’s actually auto, you know, the zoning is automobile
based. I think I would just mention that and not make it a huge discussion point. Just say it’s out there.
There are big issues.
Chair Baltay: The more I think about it, the less I think there’s a value in just saying it’s out there. I mean,
it just dilutes the message. If we want to deal with this affordable housing design stuff, that’s a real,
legitimate, strong thing that we can make a good case for, and we can really get behind it. And we could
easily spend an hour talking about that. I think we should focus as much as we can on what we think is
really important. San Antonio is an enormous planning issue, something the City has been wrestling with,
and I don’t know that there’s too many design issues. I mean, that hotel is going to be a shining design
example of what happens with a 2.0 FAR hotel on that street. We could go through the design cases and
show how we stepped it back and we made it better. I’m not sure it’s good enough, and I’m not sure how
the policymakers in the City want to later reflect on San Antonio Road. But is now when we really want to
be bringing that up?
Board Member Lew: We can [inaudible], because we have one… Well, there is one affordable housing
project on San Antonio Road, right? And we shouldn’t discuss it because it’s out there. But we could just
include that in the affordable housing… I would just maybe put it in there, saying that in addition to, like,
the affordable housing on El Camino, that we have one on San Antonio Road as well.
6.a
Packet Pg. 221
City of Palo Alto Page 25
Chair Baltay: Absolutely.
Board Member Lew: And just fold it in, that San Antonio is part of our El Camino, that we lumped it in
together with El Camino and affordable housing, and not have it as a separate topic.
Chair Baltay: I think if you could fold that in with any discussion of the housing design standards, that
would be successful. I’m becoming of the opinion that the subject of trees and parking and how they’re
related is just not going to work, and the San Antonio design standards on its own is just too much. But
I’d still like to see David give us some examples of where better curbside management and design can
make a difference. I think that’s a shortcoming that a lot of projects have that’s very solvable, and it’s very
current. Is there consensus on that? Let that be the second subject?
Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t know how much there is to talk about that.
Board Member Lew: I’m thinking that the, so, in addition to the transportation networking companies, that
we have had issues with the buses and the hotel projects. There are community concerns about the bus,
like…
Chair Baltay: Maybe we’re just adding our voice to something everybody is starting to see. That that’s
appropriate.
Board Member Lew: Right.
Chair Baltay: It seems to me it’s something we can concretely point out that we’ve observed.
Board Member Lew: I think we can point it out. I think the Council understands that there’s a transportation,
sort of revolution coming. I think they understand that. I think we could point out that it’s impacting
architectural projects.
Chair Baltay: You think it’s superfluous? Should we just not spend …
[crosstalk]
Board Member Lew: …I think you can mention it.
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s fine to mention.
Chair Baltay: David, are you okay taking that on, to find some examples? Give some advice on where to
go with it, then?
Board Member Hirsch: We discussed Cambridge Avenue, which was one of those areas where Peter in
particular was concerned about the issue of deliveries and curbside. And yes, I see the problem kind of
citywide, with the trucks that pull up, and delivery trucks, UPS kind of trucks. And even in the
neighborhoods, how mail delivery works with parking issues. In particular, I think that there are a number
of narrow streets that have problems that way, so I think a transportation study is important.
Chair Baltay: Can we suggest some projects that…? I think it was 400 Cambridge. Do I remember the
number right?
Board Member Hirsch: Cambridge, definitely.
Chair Baltay: It was a large office building.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Steve Pierce designed it.
6.a
Packet Pg. 222
City of Palo Alto Page 26
Board Member Hirsch: You know, to add to this, maybe the Council isn’t that aware of some of these issues,
and pointing it out is important.
Chair Baltay: That’s the purpose of this, as I see it, is to point out [crosstalk].
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I mean, I just think that they’re not aware.
Chair Baltay: What other projects?
Board Member Lew: Well, it’s come up a lot on quite a number of projects, but I’d mention, the zoning
code has been… It’s already been updated. And then, I think maybe on curbside management, I think you
do want to highlight is changing, and changing rapidly. As an example, we have, like, Amazon, and then
also, the post office is delivering Amazon packages, and they do it seven days a week, all hours of the day.
Chair Baltay: And [inaudible] control it. How about the Hotel Parmani? Didn’t they actually have a fairly
successful way to direct traffic visitors, guests, off the street? If I remember right, we worked with them
to get around, off Hansen Avenue, they had a pretty good-sized turnaround area that I thought worked
pretty well. But that was through our encouragement, not through the code. Am I remembering that
correct?
Board Member Lew: They have a porte-cochere, and I think there’s a way of… People are saying that you
can have a designated, you can designate a drop-off point for those companies.
Chair Baltay: Well, they’re even doing that down in Los Angeles now, at the airport. I’ve seen… Jodie and
Amy, do you have any ideas of what we might do if this topic is to go through?
Ms. Gerhardt: I think Hotel Parmani is a good one. That one has been already through the process. We
have another hotel that we’re working on, but that one is still pending, on El Camino. Yeah, others aren’t
coming to mind, but I can certainly look further into this. And also, too, don’t hesitate to ask us. We should
have the initial plan sets and the final plan sets for all of these projects, so just let us know what addresses
you’re looking at.
Vice Chair Thompson: How about, just because I want to move this along a little bit, maybe we just take
a stab at the slides that we’re kind of getting assigned, and then, I know we’re not meeting on the 21st,
but maybe we can… I don’t know. Are we allowed to share that by email to each other? Like, how can we
coordinate? What’s the protocol here?
Board Member Lew: It’s not a project. You know? That’s the issue. You don’t want to have, like, a private
meeting about it, you know, deciding on a project, but this is not… This is just…
Vice Chair Thompson: We’re making a PowerPoint.
Board Member Lew: Yeah.
Vice Chair Thompson: Should we all send our slides to Amy, or something? Or should we all send our slides
to one of us? Jodie? And then she’ll compile, kind of thing?
Board Member Lew: I think we still want to do it through staff because that way there is a record of it, so
if some member of the public wants to see it, that there is a way for staff to share it. If we send it privately,
there’s no way for the public to see it.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, so, how about we just all send our slides to Jodie, and then, maybe we get a
chance to review it? I don’t know if we can set up some kind of profile where we can mark up ideas, and
then, have, like an incorporation, having a…
6.a
Packet Pg. 223
City of Palo Alto Page 27
Chair Baltay: Let me come back to that in one second, Osma, because I’m trying to list projects first. I
want to do one more thing, and then we can get into the process. I’ll be very quick; I promise you.
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay.
Chair Baltay: But if we wanted to look at the ARB process itself and pick one or two projects where we
reviewed and made changes, felt it was suggested, what would we recommend? Which projects do we
think that we can feel good about the change in the design, and that we have good imagery?
Board Member Hirsch: Cambridge, for one. Cambridge Avenue.
Chair Baltay: Four Hundred Cambridge is one?
Board Member Hirsch: Hmm-hmm.
Chair Baltay: I don’t know that they have any changes though, David, from that design.
Vice Chair Thompson: No, they did.
Board Member Hirsch: You did.
Chair Baltay: They did?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, they had…
[crosstalk]
Board Member Hirsch: And certainly curb management…
Chair Baltay: Give me two others so we have something to choose from.
Vice Chair Thompson: Well, I think the affordable housing one that we talked about, Wilton Court…
Chair Baltay: Wilton Court was a good one, okay.
Vice Chair Thompson: …is a good example. Shall we just pick one more?
Board Member Hirsch: Alex, you have to come up with one now.
Board Member Lew: I made a list of projects, but I don’t have it in front of me at the moment.
Ms. Gerhardt: I can send you… Would it help to get a list of past projects? And how far back?
Chair Baltay: The best way to do this would be to not have a separate discussion of the ARB process, but
to have that be integrated into the discussion about the things we’re really trying to say. On Wilton Court,
we can use that as an example of not just the ARB process, but where we think design standards are
important. And 400 Cambridge, we can, again, use it as an example of the design process, but also this
need for curb management. If we can do it that way, that’s even better. If we’re all agreed that those two
projects are ones that we want to focus on, I’m happy we’re focused.
Board Member Hirsch: This is an hour, right? We have an hour, and we’re going to make a presentation
first, and then there’s going to be discussion, and Council…
[crosstalk]
Chair Baltay: I think we have, like, five minutes of presentation.
6.a
Packet Pg. 224
City of Palo Alto Page 28
Vice Chair Thompson: I think we’re probably good then.
Chair Baltay: Let me suggest that, one person needs to be the point person on the ARB to assemble – the
way we did the letter, sort of – to assemble everything into one presentation, and then, we could all
collectively keep reviewing it. Alex’s point about going through staff by email was important, and I think if
we just copy staff and ourselves, we can get that together. And then, Jodie can formally say, “Here’s the
draft,” so it’s going through the staff again. Does that make sense?
Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, so, just to clarify. We would work on our individual slides, and then, send that
to one person and cc Jodie?
Chair Baltay: Yes.
Vice Chair Thompson: And then, give ourselves a few days to review it and incorporate any changes, and
then, when we feel comfortable, we can publish that for public review?
Chair Baltay: I don’t think we need to publish for review. It will go on the agenda for the meeting, whenever
that’s noticed. The agenda packet will have the presentation in it, probably.
Vice Chair Thompson: Jodie, when do we have to be done with that?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, because the Council has a two week… Is it a two week lead time for Council
meeting packets? Yeah. It’s not far off.
Vice Chair Thompson: It’s, like, end of next week.
Ms. Gerhardt: Sorry, I’m looking that up. Just a second. This is for December 2nd, presentations, when staff
is doing presentations, they’re due 11/28. Because those are reviewed by the Director. I don’t know that…
But if we can do 11/28, that would be great.
Chair Baltay: Today is the 7th, so, in three weeks’ time, we have to have this completed. Why don’t we say
in one week’s time, Osma and Alex will put together 10 slides, and whatever verbiage supports…? About
three minutes of presentation? Does that seem about right? It’s not a lot, but you want to really focus and
narrow it down. Staff can help you dig up records. I have a pile of… I’m sure I have those drawings, but
that’s available for you, readily. And we’ve agreed that Wilton Court is the example we’re focusing on,
unless you come up with something better. David, same thing to you regarding 400 Cambridge and curb
management. Grace had to leave, but she offered to help wherever we thought best. Would you like her
to partner with you on that, or is that just more trouble than it’s worth? In one week’s time, you can barely
get anything together.
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, if… Yeah, I think Grace has limited time, frankly. She’s pretty busy.
Chair Baltay: Maybe we should switch it around then. Ask Grace to just address the issue of how our
findings have been successful. She’s one of us with experience with past findings; I’m sure she can, with
some legitimacy, just… I guess that’s not true, though, because she hasn’t worked with the ones we have
now.
Vice Chair Thompson: Maybe you can work with her on that.
Board Member Hirsch: You know, what impressed me today, first time I’ve heard Grace talk, is her
generality. She’s looking at things in a very broad picture, and her language is very, very good for that. I
would love to have her sum up in some way.
Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s get her to do that. Okay. David, you’re going to prepare another, a maximize of
10 slides and three minutes’ worth of verbiage for the issue of curb management and [crosstalk]…
6.a
Packet Pg. 225
City of Palo Alto Page 29
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I could weave it in, as I think Osma suggested, weave it in to Cambridge, you
know? And just say that curb management, and this is a specific problem that we see more generally in
the city.
Chair Baltay: And maybe we say that on these two project examples. We’re also, as you’re discussing it,
you mention the process of architectural review and how the changes occur in the project that you’re
presenting. We don’t do that separately.
Board Member Hirsch: Hmm-hmm.
Chair Baltay: Are we supportive of that?
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah.
Chair Baltay: Okay, so, one week from now, what I suggest is that you email to me and to Jodie. What I’ll
do is try to put it all together, or give feedback. The idea would be, after a week, we can prepare a
preliminary draft of the whole thing, and everybody can comment on it once more. Additionally, we may
have additional feedback from the Council this afternoon, so we’ll keep everybody abreast.
Vice Chair Thompson: Are we all comfortable using PowerPoint? Or should we use, like, PDF’s, send PDF’s,
or Word files? I’m just wanting to clarify the medium.
Board Member Lew: I’ve had problems in the past using different versions of PowerPoint with the City, like,
doing my own computer, and then, coming to the City’s, and it wasn’t 100 percent compatible. I don’t know
what the problem is, but there were different versions.
Chair Baltay: Hopefully, the last week is to…
Board Member Lew: Yeah. But the other option is just collecting images and letting… No? Staff? You guys
don’t have the manpower. Shall we make everything, make the entire presentation, like, graphics, on top
of the photos?
Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I mean, I’ve got Office 365. That’s the version of PowerPoint that I have, so if that’s
what others have. Or, usually if you have a little bit older than that, it should be okay. I think PowerPoint
would be fine, and even if you gave me PDF’s, I can move it to PowerPoint.
Chair Baltay: Let me suggest that, send in PDF’s, image files of any kind, text of any kind; I’ll put together
the PowerPoint slides for the start, so we have a consistent format and graphics. And then we can all
comment and change it as we like. The initial feedback within in a week is just the data, the content. After
that, it will be a PowerPoint file that we’re circulating, and we edit that directly. Do we all agree with that?
Vice Chair Thompson: But if we wanted to send you a PowerPoint, we could.
[crosstalk]
Chair Baltay: Whatever is easiest for you.
Vice Chair Thompson: All right.
Chair Baltay: We’re focusing on content the first week. The second week is editing and review. Third week
will be just to make sure we have it all together. Any other comments, Jodie? Have we covered this to
death?
Ms. Gerhardt: There was the parking and the trees. Is that just going to be, maybe wove them into the
housing discussion?
6.a
Packet Pg. 226
City of Palo Alto Page 30
Chair Baltay: I think we’re going try not to discuss it.
Vice Chair Thompson: And I think we’re going [inaudible].
Chair Baltay: Affordable housing.
Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Touch on it briefly.
Chair Baltay: Touch on it briefly.
Ms. Gerhardt: And then, so, did you have a time limit for your ARB process, sort of discussion you were
going to have? I have three minutes for housing, three minutes for curb management.
Chair Baltay: I’m envisioning the ARB making a presentation of less than 10 minutes total time with us
talking. After that, it’s up to the Council on how they want to run this. We might find more this afternoon.
I’d like us to be succinct, focused, prepared.
Board Member Hirsch: Do I assume, Peter, you’re going to do an intro to the whole thing to begin with?
How is that going to work?
Chair Baltay: I imagine so, but we’ll find out today how the mayor wants to run the meeting. It’s their call.
Vice Chair Thompson: The first week of December, we have two meetings. We have the one on the second,
and one on the fifth.
Board Member Hirsch: I would think you should start off, then, with how we use the findings, you know?
Some description of that. [inaudible] they understand exactly how we proceed with our meetings.
Chair Baltay: I was thinking to wrap up with that instead.
Board Member Hirsch: Oh, yeah? I think it’s better to start with it?
Chair Baltay: Better to start with that?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah.
Vice Chair Thompson: Once you get all the content…
Chair Baltay: As we put it together, we’ll realize when we all edit it together. It’s really important that it’s
something we can all support, that we’re not feeling compelled to say things outside of our presentation
when we’re talking to them. With that, agenda item number 3 is finished.
Approval of Minutes
4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2019.
Chair Baltay: We now have to move on to minutes of October 3, 2019.
Ms. Gerhardt: And I did just want to note for the record that Board Member Lee was excused at 10:03 this
morning.
Chair Baltay: That’s correct, thank you. Assuming everybody has reviewed and agreed with these minutes,
I’ll be looking for a motion to approve.
6.a
Packet Pg. 227
City of Palo Alto Page 31
Board Member Lew: I just have one correction. It’s on packet page 20. I was speaking, and there’s just
one word in the minutes, which is “rigorous,” and I said “vigorous.” That’s what I intended to say. I would
make a motion that we approve the minutes as corrected, if there aren’t any other corrections.
Chair Baltay: Well, if you’re into that level of detail, Alex, on page…
Board Member Hirsch: Now that you’re mentioning words, Alex, I have to go back into our…
[crosstalk]
Chair Baltay: … on page 34, Alex, the landscape architect, is bringing up, I think a “corsis” as an oak tree,
not a “cersis.” It’s halfway down. The transcriber just didn’t understand what you’re referring to on two
trees.
Ms. Gerhardt: Where is that?
Chair Baltay: Page 34, in the middle of the paragraph where Alex is talking about trees. It says, “I think
there are two T-1 trees. One is a cercis and one is a sultus.”
Board Member Lew: You know, I think that is…
Chair Baltay: Can you enlighten us what you really were referring to?
Ms. Gerhardt: Oh, there is a phonetic spelling there.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, if you’re going to be that…
Ms. Gerhardt: What are the tree names?
Board Member Hirsch: … I want to go back to packet page 13…
Ms. Gerhardt: Just a second, David.
Board Member Hirsch: On page 13, if you look down, there’s a word, “TDM require regular and complaint-
based monitoring,” rather than “compliant.”
Chair Baltay: That’s not in the minutes, David.
Board Member Hirsch: I know it’s not, but [laughing].
Chair Baltay: David, please hold on, hold on, hold on.
Board Member Lew: Okay, you’re correct. The “cercis” is correct, and the “sultus” is, I think probably… I’ll
double check. It’s probably c-e-l-t-u-s…? Or celtus…? I’d have to look tree name. But, yeah, the phonetic
one is not correct. It was saying there’s an oak tree, a [inaudible].
Chair Baltay: That’s what I assumed, yeah.
[crosstalk]
Board Member Lew: The oak tree comment I had was about the existing tree, and that was different than
the tree T-1 on the…
Chair Baltay: Okay, so, with those two…
Board Member Lew: … landscaping plan.
6.a
Packet Pg. 228
City of Palo Alto Page 32
Chair Baltay: … corrections from Board Member Lew, and a motion from Board Member Lew to approve,
do we have a second for that motion?
Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second.
Chair Baltay: Okay. It’s moved and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 4 to 0.
MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 4-0.
Chair Baltay: That’s the end of that item. Now, Board Member Hirsch, you were pointing out a typographic
or spelling mistake on a previous agenda item?
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, on packet page 13, I think that…
Chair Baltay: That’s on the item we just finished, right?
Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible]
Chair Baltay: Let’s take that off line…
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, if you’d like.
Chair Baltay: … between you and staff. I don’t think there’s any point to going back to that.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay, that’s fine.
Chair Baltay: I think, then, we finished the subcommittee, so we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody.
Board Member Lew: Uh, North Ventura [inaudible]?
Chair Baltay: I am sorry. We are not adjourned. We are not adjourned. So sorry; I apologize, Alex.
Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements
5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP)
Chair Baltay: A report from the Ventura…
Board Member Lew: Yes, so, there was a meeting on October 29th. The consultants are not back on the
project yet, but we did have a meeting, and we did hear from a new consultant on the scope of work
they’re going to do for naturalizing the creek in the area. And then, the committee did work on developing
three alternative schemes that will be developed later. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for
December 5th.
Chair Baltay: Are those schemes available to the public yet, or…?
Board Member Lew: No. The consultant’s not started working on the alternates. They’re just starting to
develop, you know, they haven’t been working on the project, but they are going to start developing three
alternatives.
Board Member Hirsch: Well, Alex and I have something to discuss, some thoughts that I had going forward
on the planning. If I come up with thoughts, I think it’s important that Alex take a look at it. He’s our
representative on this project, so, I’m not intending to interfere with the formal way in which we’re
presenting ideas, except that through Alex’s help, I sent him a number of ideas that I’m working on.
6.a
Packet Pg. 229
City of Palo Alto Page 33
Chair Baltay: Well, I would think what’s appropriate is that Alex is the representative of the ARB on this
committee, so his title then should be listening to comments the ARB has to make, and from that, form an
opinion of how he represents what we’re thinking. So, if you have comments to make, it would be wise of
you to…
Board Member Hirsch: Share them?
Chair Baltay: … share them with Alex, either now, or if it’s complex or detailed, somehow in advance of a
meeting, so we can all see it in writing.
Board Member Hirsch: Are you saying…? Are you saying I should share them with the other board members
here first?
Chair Baltay: Not necessarily first, but you should make known what you’d like the Board to be represented
with Alex, and I think the other board members would like to know what it is, because we want ultimately
Alex to be representing a majority of the opinion of the Board.
Board Member Hirsch: Excellent. Okay.
Chair Baltay: Is that correct?
Board Member Lew: Yeah, and then, I think my understanding is with the City Planning staff, is that the
North Ventura Plan will come to the Board for some comment, you know, on certain scope of the project,
but maybe not the entire scope. It would be the parts of the project that the Board would have purview
over. So, the Board will have an opportunity to comment on it.
Chair Baltay: Do you think it’s appropriate or useful, Alex, for David, for example, to offer suggestions or
comments regarding the way the process is going or what the content is now? Or is it best to give that to
you in writing, separately? What do you think is useful?
Board Member Lew: Okay, well, I think he already has, and that’s fine. I think a little bit of it is outside of
the scope of the planning process that is, that the Council has given us. But that’s fine.
Chair Baltay: David, you have offered suggestions to Alex and those have been offline of the Board, just
between the two of you?
Board Member Hirsch: Just between the two of us. I suppose I’d be prepared to share it with everybody if
Alex thinks it’s reasonable.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, so, David, I mean, it’s just, as an example, like, you’re proposing, like, bicycle
routes between Ventura and Barron Park, and that’s outside of the scope of the project boundaries that
the Council has given us. So, I think it’s important, but it’s not like we have any, we don’t necessarily have
any say over that. Unless it’s within the project boundaries.
Board Member Hirsch: In fact, the entire comments were probably outside the scope because I’m saying
influences that are outside the scope are influential on a particular project that’s been bounded and
presented to the group to study. And if you don’t look at the elements that affect it from the perimeter,
the fact that, you know, that Stanford Park is there, and all of the office development around it is impacting
this area, as well, and in fact, is kind of invading it in some ways right at this moment. The park housing
was a mix of retail, of offices and residential. Seems to me to be an influence of what is affecting the
project. Alex, if you agree that it’s okay to do so, I’d like to share it with the rest of the Board, these
thoughts, and let us as a group discuss it separately.
Chair Baltay: What I’d like to do is leave Board Member Lew in charge of how we discuss this topic, in the
sense that over the course of this committee being formed and functioning, we should be giving Board
Member Lew our comments and thoughts as we see appropriate. Each time we discuss this as a meeting,
6.a
Packet Pg. 230
City of Palo Alto Page 34
when it’s been agendized like this, it’s up to Alex to decide which things he thinks he should formalize
within the whole board. For example, Board Member Hirsch brought up this issue, “which I think is
important, I’d like to make you aware of what I’m thinking.” If he doesn’t feel it’s germane or relative to
his issue, I would rather not have us second guess that judgment right now, but rather leave it to Board
Member Lew to spearhead our representation on this other committee. And then, I don’t know. I think
that’s just the most practical way to bring that up. Alex, obviously David has some opinions you should be
sharing with us, but I’ll leave that to your judgment.
Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think it’s a tricky one, because I think the things that David brings up are
important. They are planning issues. But again, it goes back to the ARB’s purview and our scope, and that
we actually have a planning commission and city council that do address issues that he’s brought up. It’s
not necessarily our place. We can acknowledge them. I think we just… Just generally, I think I understand
that the City loves, the City and [inaudible] really love to study and plan everything, and we have huge,
enormous planning documents for some of the areas in Palo Alto, and I think really on the Ventura, it really
needs to, we really just need to focus on the task that the Council has given us. It’s difficult enough just
to address the issues that the Council wants us to do, which is housing, and a connected street grid, and
historic preservation. And to go beyond the scope of that in Ventura to, like, the relationship with the
Research Park and Barron Park and stuff, just seems to me like you’re… You’re just going really too far out
there.
Chair Baltay: Okay, Alex, if you could be sure, as a courtesy to members of the Board, to bring forth to
everybody opinions like what David is doing, even if you feel that that’s not appropriate to discuss, which
is what you’ve just explained right now, as we go forward. David, it’s important that you’re listened to, and
Alex is thinking about what you have. It’s important that we as a Board respect Alex’s judgment of what…
He’s the one at the meeting. He knows what that meeting is trying to accomplish. We don’t want to tie his
hands or second-guess what’s going on. Alex, if you could just acknowledge these things to the Board
when we discuss them, so that David feels he’s being heard on this issue. And then, also, if other members
of the Board feel that what David is saying is something we should discuss more carefully, we can bring it
up at that time. Is that something we can all work with?
Board Member Hirsch: I can work with it. I’m wondering, does that…? Are you saying that Alex should
share my, what I sent to him, to…?
Chair Baltay: Yes. Basically, Alex is the one who will bring back comments…
Board Member Hirsch: That’s fine.
Chair Baltay: … from everybody at these presentations every meeting.
Board Member Hirsch: Okay.
Chair Baltay: We should make whatever comments we have to Alex…
Board Member Hirsch: Which I did.
Chair Baltay: … which you did, and Alex will bring up as he sees fit, however it goes, what they are, and
what his reaction is, or how it’s relating to is work [crosstalk].
Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, no, I think it would be a good idea if Alex could make his comments on top
of it and present it to the rest of you.
Chair Baltay: Yeah. I think we’re all in agreement on that. Great. With that, we have finished agenda
number 5. Number 6, we already did. Now, are we adjourned? Alex, yes? Okay, we are adjourned. Thank
you everybody, very much.
Adjournment
6.a
Packet Pg. 231
6.a
Packet Pg. 232