Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-11-07 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: November 7, 2019 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: 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. 3. Discussion of Potential Topics for Joint Study Session with City Council Study Session/Preliminary Review Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2019. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) - Boardmember Lew Adjournment 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@m-group.us _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Peter Baltay Vice Chair Osma Thompson Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember Grace Lee Boardmember Alex Lew Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Development Services Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by Noon two Wednesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10816) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 11/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects. Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments: • Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) • Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 2019 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/21/2019 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay/Hirsch 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 7/18/2019* 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson 8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 10/3/2019* 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Lee 11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers To Be Cancelled 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 1/17 – Furth/Lew 2/7 – Baltay/Lew 3/21 – Baltay/ Thompson 4/4 – Baltay/ Thompson 4/18 – Lew/ Hirsch 6/6 – Furth/ Baltay July August September October November December 7/18 – Baltay/Lew 8/1 - Baltay/Lew 10/17 – Baltay/ Thompson 11/7 – Lew/ Hirsch *Chair Furth’s last hearing was July 18, 2019. Grace Lee’s first hearing was October 3, 2019 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics November 21, 2019 • To be cancelled 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10823) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Continuation of Macy's Mens Redevelopment Title: PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN- 00110]: 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. From: Jonathan Lait Public Notification This project was reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) on October 3, 2019 and was continued to a date certain of November 7, 2019. This project will be continued to a future ARB hearing, and will be noticed accordingly, to give the applicant time to make the required changes and submit a revised arborist report. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10755) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 11/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Discuss Topics for Study Session with Council Title: Discussion of Potential Topics for Joint Study Session with City Council From: Jonathan Lait Discussion This report provides a draft agenda of potential items of discussion with the City Council during its joint meeting with the Architecture Review Board (ARB) scheduled for December 2, 2019. In general, the ARB will review its accomplishments for the past year as well as share information on current topics and seek feedback on its major initiatives for the upcoming year. Many of these topics are contained within the ARB’s recent Annual Report that the ARB approved on August 15, 2019. For this discussion, the Board may wish to add or remove items for the draft agenda (Attachment A). Board members may also wish to refer to the 2019 Annual Report (Attachment B). Attachments: • Attachment A: Draft Agenda for Joint Meeting with City Council (DOCX) • Attachment B: ARB's 2019 Annual Report (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 10 DRAFT Study Session Agenda Potential Topics for Discussion 1. Overview a. Annual Report/Year-in Review i. Trees ii. Curb Management iii. Displacement of Small Businesses iv. Parking v. Pedestrian Mobility vi. El Camino Real b. Purpose (Function and Findings) - See Annual Report item G c. Process (Staff and Board level review, Overlap/coordination: Planned Community, Site and Design, Tentative Maps) d. Policy Approaches (Direction, Clarity, Preferences) 2. Update a. 2020 Design Awards b. Upcoming Projects c. Study Sessions d. Council Priorities for the ARB 3. ARB/Council Questions and Comment 4. Public Comments 3.a Packet Pg. 11 1 To: City Council of the City of Palo Alto Planning and Transportation Commission of the City of Palo Alto From: Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto Re: Annual Report from the ARB Date: July 29, 2019 PAMC Section 2.21.030 directs the Architectural Review Board to report annually our “concerns… with respect to the city’s plans, policies, ordinances and procedures as these affect the projects which the board reviews.” Our reviews are site specific – we look at individual development proposals, not broad policies. At the same time, we are directed to look at each project in both its physical and regulatory context – how it will enhance its neighborhood (or not) and how it will implement the City’s polices, from the Comprehensive Plan to the various design guidelines the City uses. Because we look at many projects each year, and because many board members have years of experience in Palo Alto, patterns emerge and specific areas of concern have been identified. A. Trees. City policy calls for and the Board whole-heartedly supports the inclusion of appropriate, robust, and ample landscaping in all development projects. However, recent development trends towards underground parking and the replacement of single-story structures with multiple story buildings, which the board also generally supports, can cause conflict. We have observed the following: • Small commercial buildings surrounded by parking lots are being replaced with larger commercial/mixed use buildings with underground parking garages that extend beyond the building footprint. While the reduction of surface parking is generally a positive change, less space is available on-site for larger trees to grow and mature. • Replacement of single-story buildings with multiple story buildings can reduce the size of street trees as canopies are constrained by the upper stories. (A look down Lytton Avenue from Alma Street provides examples.) We understand that multiple story buildings are a positive response to urban growth, but strive to also maintain a vibrant and robust urban street canopy. • Higher density zoning for hotels discourages extensive landscaping. The setback of upper floors and use of roof gardens can help mitigate the impact of larger buildings. These issues can be addressed in part through design review but more explicit landscaping standards would be beneficial. B. Curb Management. Curbside traffic management is increasingly important, especially commercial areas. • Underground parking has many advantages over surface parking. However, the elimination of easily accessible surface parking shifts the demand for space for commercial deliveries and ride sharing services to the curb. New buildings need to be designed to accommodate these uses. This is especially true for buildings fronting on streets with no parking permitted and no possibility of temporary double parking for commercial and passenger loading and unloading. • A number of “smart curb” programs have been put in place in other Bay Area cities. Fehr and Peers prepared a Curb Study for Uber for San Francisco in 2018. Mountain View has provided ride service loading zones off Castro Street. Updated standards for commercial delivery areas and more explicit standards for ride sharing pick-up and drop-off zones would be beneficial. C. Displacement of Small Businesses. The redevelopment of commercial sites often eliminates small business spaces in favor of larger sites that appeal to tech companies. (The replacement of many small office spaces at 2600 El Camino Real is an example. This is also occurring in the Downtown and California Avenue business districts.) The displaced businesses typically provide personal and professional services to individuals – barber shops, therapists’ offices, accountancy firms, etc. The City’s current ordinances do not protect these uses. San Francisco’s Neighborhood Commercial zone requires new, large commercial 3.b Packet Pg. 12 2 ground floors to carve out street facing spaces (approximately 500 square feet minimum) for smaller tenants. The City of Palo Alto ought to consider the same—small businesses are an important part of the urban landscape and Palo Alto culture. D. Parking. Parking at the Stanford Shopping Center is increasingly congested. Transportation Demand Management programs allow parking requirements to be more carefully tailored to specific needs, but require careful monitoring. • The Stanford Shopping Center’s parking requirements allow the required parking to be provided anywhere on the site. The standard does not distinguish among uses. As a variety of uses (exercise studios, restaurants, etc.) replaces more conventional retail spaces, more users are drawn to the site. This may require new approaches to planning for and managing parking, whether through increased parking requirements, more proximate underground parking or employee parking management programs. • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) agreements are increasingly used by applicants who wish to meet their projects parking needs with fewer spaces than the code would otherwise require. The Board supports providing only the number of parking spaces actually needed. However, TDMs required regular and complaint- based monitoring to be effective. While aerial photos can be used to monitor parking lots, the City needs future access to underground garages to monitor their use. Board members have received comments that internal parking intended for customer or employee use is in fact not available at some sites. The Stanford Shopping Center parking requirements should be reviewed in light of the changing nature of shopping center uses. TDM program enforcement should be monitored and more strongly supported. E. Pedestrian Mobility. For people to move freely in our commercial districts and along El Camino Real, we need more seating available to pedestrians. The City should set and implement street furniture standards that combine public and private seating to make walking possible for those who need to rest. Specific standards, such as the VTA 2003 Pedestrian Technical Guidelines, which call for 13’-18’ wide sidewalks in order to have a furnishing zone, or the 2012 Rail Corridor Study, which recommends 15’ min sidewalks in Main Street areas for cafe seating and retail merchandising, may be helpful references. F. El Camino Real. There is a continuing loss of places to go along El Camino Real. • Zoning encouraging new hotels includes parking standards that discourage the addition of potential neighborhood social spaces such as coffee shops, restaurants, and bars. • Parking standard for El Camino Real development that make it difficult to add restaurant uses on small parcels. Revised parking standards for development along El Camino Real would promote the development of neighborhood retail and restaurant businesses. G. Architectural Review Board-required findings. The City Council modified the required findings for the Architectural Review process in 2017, resulting in six findings which must be made to recommend Architectural Review approval. The revised findings have resulted in an improved review process, as board members, staff and the public are more easily able to reference which finding is applicable and appropriate for any given project or situation. The result has been an increased focus on ensuring compliance with the findings. 3.b Packet Pg. 13 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10815) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 11/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of October 3, 2019 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2019. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the October 3, 2019 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB A hard copy of the minutes of the above referenced meeting will be made available at the ARB hearing in the Council Chambers at 8:30 am. Attachments: • Attachment A: October 3, 2019 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 14 City 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: …October 3, 2019, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Could we have a roll call, please? [Roll Call] Amy French, Chief Planning Official: And welcome to our newest member. Thank you. Oral Communications Chair Baltay: Okay. I would like to formally welcome Grace Lee, the newest member of the Architectural Review Board. Thank you. First item on our agenda is oral communications. Do we have any comments from the public for anything not on the agenda? Ms. French: Sorry, we didn’t hear what you said because we’re talking about the fact that we’re recording, but we’re not broadcasting live with the video. Chair Baltay: Should we be waiting, then? Ms. French: I think we should get an estimate... Chair Baltay: Okay, we’ll hold up. Sure. [Meeting paused while working on broadcasting video] Ms. French: Unfortunately, we’re not sure how long before we’re able to broadcast again, but we do have Caltrain here if we wanted to go forward. We are recording, so it would be available later to the public. Chair Baltay: Very well. Let’s continue our meeting, then. I had welcomed Grace Lee. We’re calling for oral communications; I see none. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Next item is agenda changes, additions and deletions. Just to make everyone is aware, we’re going to hear the Caltrain project first this morning. That’s a shift from the originally-published agenda. City Official Reports ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: October 3, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 4.a Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Page 2 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Chair Baltay: Official City Reports. Do we have anything? Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Yes. We just have the schedule, as usual. And then, on the other page, packet page 7, we do have the three items that will be heard on October 17th. We do have a subcommittee item. I believe that Chair Baltay and Vice Chair Thompson were on that subcommittee last time, so we will continue that again on October 17th. Chair Baltay: I would like to add that staff has arranged for City Council to receive our annual report, I believe it’s the October 17th meeting. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: And then, we also have the joint meeting with the Council on December 2nd. Chair Baltay: Wonderful, thank you. Vice Chair Thompson: Are we going to note absences for future meetings? Chair Baltay: If anyone has any absences or scheduling issues, they should bring it up. Board Member Lee: I’m sorry, I will be absent from the October 17th meeting. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay. On to action items. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Architectural Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Paralleling Station Design and Perimeter Landscaping for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Includes Removal of Existing Trees in JPB Right of Way Adjacent to Park Plaza and Planting of Shrubs and Vines Adjacent to the Station that Includes a Proposed 42’ Tall Gantry Structure. Separate from the Landscaping Adjacent to the Station Enclosure, the JPB will Evaluate the Feasibility of Planting Trees Along Alma Street as Part of the PCEP Palo Alto Tree Mitigation Plan to Provide Screening of a Gantry. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Baltay: First item we’re going to hear is a public hearing for the Architectural Review Board input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project paralleling station design and perimeter landscaping for installation with Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right-of-way in Palo Alto. Includes removal of existing trees in JPB right-of-way adjacent to Park Plaza, and planting of shrubs of vines adjacent to the station. That includes a proposed 42-foot-tall gantry structure. Separate from the landscaping adjacent to the station enclosure, the JPB will evaluate the feasibility of planting trees along Alma Street as part of the PCEP Palo Alto Tree Mitigation Plan, to provide screening of a gantry. That’s a mouthful. Before we get started, I’d like to go through disclosures. Just so Grace is aware, we’ve come to the policy that everyone discloses at the beginning of each item, and we consider a site visit something you need to disclose. I’ll start with Alex. Board Member Lew: Yes, I visited the site this morning. 4.a Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Baltay: Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I have nothing to disclose. Chair Baltay: David? Board Member Hirsch: No, I did not visit the site. Chair Baltay: Grace? Board Member Lee: I also visited the site this morning. Chair Baltay: Okay, and I’d like to disclose that I visited the site, as well. Okay, with that, do we have a staff report, please? Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Yes. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. I have with me, here to my right is Brent Tietjen from Caltrain JPB. I have a brief presentation that includes some images that I photographed myself from the Alma right-of-way, to give a picture for those who have not been out to the site, and looking from that vantage point. Here we are, October 3rd. The last time we were here was in January, before Grace began her tenure here. We had some slides that we showed at that time, showing what a typical paralleling station would look like with one of these gantries, in case… In this case, there’s two gantries, one within the site area. And then, there’s a control house, which is a metal house. At the January meeting, with the joint meeting of the ARB and Historic Resources Board, the color Juniper Green was selected as the appropriate color from among three potential choices for color. Color was the only thing decided. There was discussion about how there was existing vegetation next to the Park Plaza development at the back there, and that there was some opportunity for vegetation along the Alma right- of-way that would provide screening of this new development. Back in January, the gantry within the dashed yellow area was planned to go in this location, and the transformer in this location. What happened then, since that time, is… Oh, sorry, at this time as well, in January, we gave this overview of Caltrain’s proposal for planting, pruning, removal of trees along the corridor. And this is kind of a separate endeavor related to the EIR, to get plantings. In any case, what’s now proposed is to have the gantry – which is this 42-foot-tall metal structure – here, and then, a second gantry over here, near the Alma right-of-way and the transformer. They switched places. The control house is still in the same location. This is unmanned. There’s an image here on the screen, showing what that would look like – steel, aluminum 16 feet wide, 32 feet long, 12 feet tall. And the juniper green. Here is the… That was the old site plan from January. Okay. Because this came up in January, is, what about those existing plantings behind Park Plaza? This is an image of the as-built from the Park Plaza, so all of these trees here would be removed because this is the location of the paralleling station. Farther to the right over here, the trees in this part of the planting for Park Plaza would remain. This is the list of plantings there that would be removed. This shows the proposed landscaping. There are also four parking spaces proposed here for the staff. The plantings are showing these one-gallon vines and shrubs. There are no trees planted along here. I think Brent will be able to describe the safety reasons why that is the case. There’s a fence proposed parallel here to Park Plaza. And there’s a gate to ensure that folks are not getting between the fence. Here’s the gantry that is proposed. This is fairly tall, 30 feet at first, and then, another 15 feet in the future. I think we’ll just… We can go back to these slides when Brent is presenting. This is the security lighting, showing what’s proposed here. Some lighting around the control house and some lighting around the perimeter of the site. These are the images from Alma. This is all the landscaping that would remain. This is not to be removed as part of this project, so you will see that there are still some trees here that are next to the Park Plaza project that would remain. These are well viewed from Alma because these shrubs have been cut down, I guess. Here is a partial view of the site. There seems to be some larger trees in this location. This is, I think, where the site would be, so this is visible from this, at this point, from Alma. There is the northerly wall of the Park Plaza building, so this is the location of the paralleling station. The gantry would be seen somewhere around here. Now, this building is, I guess, close to 50 feet tall, I think, so it would be… I don’t think the gantry would pierce above this building in this view. 4.a Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Board Member Lew: Amy, it’s going to be storied, so it’s probably more like… Ms. French: Maybe less than 50? Board Member Lew: Yeah, it’s probably within, like 35 feet, maybe? Ms. French: Yeah. As I was talking, I was realizing I should know how tall that building is. Okay. Here are some other views. You can see the Park Plaza vegetation here, beyond Alma. So, yeah, maybe it would pierce the view above that roofline. I’m going to go ahead and let Brent talk about the project. Is this a slide show, or…? Brent Tietjen, Caltrain: I don’t have any slides. Ms. French: Okay. Do you want me to go back to…? Mr. Tietjen: I don’t have much to add. That’s pretty much…. Ms. French: You need to go to the mic. Mr. Tietjen: Thanks, Amy. I don’t have much to add on top of that. This is part of the overall electrification project. It’s all on Caltrain property. I’d be happy to answer any questions. Chair Baltay: Okay. I’d like to thank Amy French for making the effort to take those photographs for us. It’s really helpful to see the context, and I appreciate your making that extra effort. Does anyone have any questions of staff or JPB? Osma. Vice Chair Thompson: Could you discuss the hazard of having planting in there? I think Ms. French mentioned that there’s more to know about that. Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, so, for any electrified component of the system, we need to keep a 10-foot minimum clearance from any vegetation. That’s a CPUC requirement that we have to follow. Vice Chair Thompson: The height limit, as well? A lot of the vegetation proposed is low vegetation, so is there kind of a height…? Or is it just 10 feet, but it could be any height? Mr. Tietjen: Ten feet from the electrified component, yeah. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Chair Baltay: I wonder if staff could explain to us what the format limitations of our review are. I understand we’re allowed to provide input. Ms. French: Yes. Chair Baltay: What does that mean? Ms. French: This is the agreement that the City has with Caltrain JPB, is that, I mean, because Caltrain JPB is a higher authority as far as that goes, we’re not processing this as an application or project within the city. But there is the EIR, which had mitigation measures that specified that vegetation was to be installed to help with the screening of this paralleling station. That’s one of the areas that I think input is very helpful. And, the agreement does allow for input on other items, such as the color, and the paralleling station itself. “Input” means please speak your mind, say what you think would be helpful for the applicant, the proponent, Caltrain JPB, staff, to know, and that could factor into what happens next. This will not be going to Council or anything else. 4.a Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Tietjen: If I could add. As part of the EIR, we did a Tree Minimization and Avoidance Plan, which looked at 35 percent design for the whole project, looked at what trees we would need to trim or remove, and we came up for a number for each city, how many replacements that would require for mitigation. There were 15 trees that were identified that need to be mitigated on City property in Palo Alto. That’s where the mitigation could come in to help screen along Alma, and we would work with the City to look at exactly where those trees would be planted. Chair Baltay: I’m not sure if this is a question or not, but let me just go at it. My understanding is that when you came to us with your 35 percent design, these trees where the paralleling station are were slated to remain, and now they’re slated to be removed. Am I understanding that right? Mr. Tietjen: I don’t think we’ve identified the trees to be removed, but these trees are on JPB property, and I believe the agreement with the property owner who is leasing it currently and put those in, understood that they could have to be removed as part of electrification in the future. I don’t remember specifically saying they would or would not be removed back in January. Chair Baltay: One last question for you, then. In the staff report, it points out that the EIR essentially requires vegetative screening for the paralleling station as part of the EIR determination. What’s your interpretation of what that means? What do you mean by that? What do you think it means? Mr. Tietjen: There were examples included in the EIR. I’m happy to share those with Amy after. There were trees that were shown to screen the mitigation, so it’s… I’m not an environmental expert in terms of that. I can get back with our environmental staff to get you the actual definition of what that would mean for screening. But there were examples that I can share that were included in the EIR. Chair Baltay: For example, if we felt that trees on Alma Street, on the opposite of the tracks from your station, were required, would you agree that that would make a reasonable mitigation? Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, and as I mentioned, as part of the mitigation plan, we’re happy to work with the City to look at what trees could be planted there. Those 15 trees that were identified as part of mitigation requirements, if there is available space on Alma to plant the trees, which appears there could be, we’re happy to work with the City to see where exactly those could be planted. Chair Baltay: Great. Okay, so, back to the Board. Ms. French: Could I, sorry, jump in for just a second? Chair Baltay: Sure. Ms. French: Thanks to Jodie and her amazing research skills, she found that it was 40 feet, the Park Plaza building, from up to the parapet, to the top of the, you know, main roof. There’s other places where it goes higher, but the main roof is 40 feet tall. Chair Baltay: Is it possible to get that photo back on the screen as we discuss the project? I thought that was particularly appropriate. Okay. With that, I’d like to have Alex start us off on our discussion of this. Ms. French: Can you tell me which one? The images? Chair Baltay: That looks good. I think that’s a good photo. Osma, you have another question? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. For the lighting in the area, do you know if those lights are going to be on all the time? Mr. Tietjen: They will be on from dusk to dawn. 4.a Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, so, throughout the whole night? Mr. Tietjen: [No audible response.] Chair Baltay: Any other questions? Thoughts? Alex, where do we start? Board Member Lew: I have some comments on the planting plan. The first comment is it doesn’t seem like we have small perennials and shrubs along the Caltrain right-of-way, so it seems a little out of place here. I think I would support larger shrubs that were about the same height as the fence, just to screen the fence from the train. You’ve got some issues, I think, with the plant choices here. I think the artemisia californica is fine. The epilobium I think can work. I think it… It does normally require it to be cut down to the ground every year, like, down to the base of the plant, for it to do really well, and I was just wondering if somebody is actually going to do that here, in this case. Also, that one spreads underground, and it also self-seeds, so it can be invasive. But if you’re not irrigating any of this landscaping except for hand-watering, that might keep it under control. And then, the clematis lasiantha is a pretty wimpy plant. I had one by my front door for maybe five or more years and it really just is not a great… It’s not really doing much. There’s another one, another native clematis, the clematis ligusticifolia, which is a little bit more rigorous, but I saw it on the garden tour last month and it’s pretty wimpy compared to what we normally think of as vines. I think the other issue with them is that they normally grown in riparian locations, so they’re used to having a lot of water, and they’re used to being in a different type of soil I would imagine the conditions being, excuse me, than the conditions are here. Another thing about both of those is that they go, like, some are deciduous, so the leaves turn brown, and they stay on the stem, so it looks like it’s died. If you don’t know, you will take it out, thinking the plant is dead, but actually, they come back once it starts raining again in the wintertime. Overall, I don’t think you’re going to, even though you’ve got a whole bunch of them planted, I think the effect is not going to be worth the effort of putting them in. I’m thinking of, if you want a vine covered fence, then I would go non-native because I think you have more choices. Something like violet trumpet vine, or something, which looks good all year, and it does well in part sun conditions. And then, other than that, I think the most important thing that we do here on the project is to increase landscaping on Alma, because that’s the most visible piece of this, I think, from the public’s point of view. And the middle of the landscape strip for Park Plaza is sort of incredible, but there aren’t any windows or anything looking down into it, so I don’t know that that is going to have that much of an impact. Chair Baltay: Grace. Board Member Lee: I just want to thank the applicant for bringing this forward. It’s [inaudible], and it’s just helpful that you’re willing to take our comments to move forward. And thank you Jodie and Amy for the 40-foot height. That’s really helpful. I recall serving on the Board when we actually reviewed Park Plaza and did receive comments from the community regarding the elevation from the Alma Street side, so, I guess my comments will be directed more towards the potential for buffer in terms of visual. Having said that, and visiting the site, if you’re on the Park Plaza site, you really don’t see that much of those plants, that much of those plants. I ride Caltrain quite a bit and we’re moving at speeds and, you know, we think of these as dead corridors. However, from Alma, you can see what’s across. And Park Plaza is a rather tall building. I just want to really, my comments are really on the Alma Street side. I hope you work with the City well and provide a terrific plan for trees along that edge. When I look at the planting plan, I appreciate Alex’s comments regarding the choice. We live in an area where drought-tolerant succulents that grow quite mature, even to heights of five feet, six feet, there’s many to choose from. I encourage you, when I look at the dimension, the planting is six feet to seven-foot-10-inches. That’s quite a dimension for really rich choices that are drought tolerant, low maintenance, and will provide some height and buffer. That would be, I think, a positive direction to move in. Thank you for the comment regarding lighting. I’m encouraged to hear that it is dusk to dawn. And then, in terms of clearances from electrified components, completely understand that. I think that if you were to just draft what that 10-foot clearance is from those specified areas of electrification, there’s still ample room for terrific landscape buffer. Thank you. Chair Baltay: David, would you like to go next? 4.a Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Board Member Hirsch: Well, first, I’d like to comment a little bit about the presentation here, because without the photographs, it’s very hard to imagine what we as architects and people who are familiar with planting – and luckily we have some people here who are very good at that – are looking at here in this project. I’m sorry I didn’t visit the site because I would have some comments about Park Plaza, that the photographs are very helpful, but they really ought to be a part of our packet here. You know? In terms of your future presentations, maybe elsewhere you would consider more what we would like to be looking at here in these sets of drawings. With my compatriots here, I would agree about the plantings, and they are better informed about what really would work on the fence line there on the Alma Street side. You do have to sort of see this from the point of view of the car, of course, which is a lot lower, so lower plantings would help a lot to buffer what we’re looking at. But, after all, we’re looking at railroad construction here, and expect it to be engineered. And we’ve been looking at a lot of engineering drawings here, which are a little less useful to us than the specific architectural vision that we would like to look to see, of both the building, building color. The gantry is going to be a gantry, whatever it is, and you have to sort of accept it. In fact, it’s kind of fun to look at some elements like that. So, I’m not opposed to any of that. It does appear from that angled view that we’re looking at here, that there are some windows looking out the back of that building, so they’ll have to look at the railroad. There’s just no choice in the matter. What are they, Amy? Ms. French: I can you tell you, I put the one with the window next to the yellow wall here, you can see a window here. Everything along this edge at the upper level is hallways to get to the units, [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Ms. French: …because nobody’s, you know, bedroom or living room or anything. Board Member Hirsch: Not residential units looking out. Ms. French: It’s a residential hallway that… Board Member Hirsch: Oh, it is. Ms. French: …leads to the residences on the other side of the hallway. Board Member Hirsch: Oh, I see. Okay. Ms. French: They mostly provide light to the hallways. I would say light and probably not air. Board Member Hirsch: Well, you know, I just want to accept Alex’s comments about the kind of plantings that would work well, and I think everybody should, you should really consider those, and Grace’s comments, as well, about the plantings. The only question I would have, is it possible to get those more mature plants in some way? Or do they have to grow up from the ground and we’re going to wait for them to mature? That’s a question maybe Alex could answer more than… Board Member Lew: Alex, do you want to add on to that? Board Member Lew: Yeah, they’ve done tests where they’ve put in the low, small, like one-gallon plant, and then they’ll put in a large five-gallon plant. Usually, after five years, you can’t tell the difference because the younger plant gets better established roots. I think with the native plants, you also have an issue, which is availability. They tend to sell them as smaller plants and they’re just not available. I mean, even if they find a plant that’s perfect, like, it may just not be available at the time that they need it. You have to be willing to allow substitutions. Board Member Hirsch: You do, but you can also try another nursery, and really look around to try to find ones that, in fact, look ahead and see if you could work with the nurseries to get plantings more mature by the time you’re ready to plant them. And check your seasonal issues on that as well. I’ve had some experience with that, actually. Yes, you have to search around, and you maybe go a little further to get the 4.a Packet Pg. 21 City of Palo Alto Page 8 plantings. If you could insist upon your contractors, you know, really looking into that early on, that would be a good note on your drawing here. I have no specific comments beyond that. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Osma. Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. Thanks for your presentation. Thank you to my colleagues for their comments. I’ll save any of my landscape comments. They were all well-articulated by my colleagues. The only other comment I had was on the lighting. Fixture A looks like it could be pretty directional and point down, but Fixture C is more of a glowing orb that could shine out and up into the sky. That’s really the one that I would recommend finding something that’s more directional. Palo Alto doesn’t like to have lights shining up in the sky, for birds and for other reasons. And I understand for security, these need to be on all night, and if that’s the case, it would be great if they could be pointed down. The other note is 500 Kelvin is a pretty harsh color, and I know that Palo Alto has been changing the colors of their lights. BART recently re-did a lot of their elevator lobbies for security and chose 3,500 Kelvin, which is a bit easier on the eye. And given that you’re going to have such beautiful vegetation around that you’re going to be lighting all night, why not make it something that looks nice? Those are my only comments. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. I will echo and share the sentiments of my colleagues, and I’d like to add that I think from the, what’s called Page Mill, or from the Park Avenue side of the railroad tracks to the right of the entry gate as you come in, is an opportunity to put additional landscape screening. It struck me when I was walking on, I guess it’s called Page Mill Road, a little piece of road adjacent to this – where your cursor is, Amy, just to the down, to the right of that as you’re facing the gate. In that area, a couple of trees or something would really screen the view of this from the new building diagonally across Page Mill Road. And I think it would be entirely appropriate to do that. Right now, they don’t have this sort of facility, and it would be very easy to do. So, I would suggest that you see if that can happen. And I strongly support additional landscaping on Alma Street at the two gap areas Amy has mentioned. I think it’s essential to do that, actually. With that, does anyone else have anything to add to these folks? Board Member Lew: I have one last comment. On the pole lighting fixture, number A, which is mounted 25 feet high. Normally, in the city, we try to have the maximum height closer to 15 to 20 feet. It’s not a hard-and-fast rule, but we do that usually to reduce glare. It generally looks better. In this particular situation, where security is really key, maybe there’s an argument for the 25 feet, for the 25 foot height. And then, the trade-off, though, is if you go lower, you need more light fixtures typically, and it’s more expensive. I would just throw that out there, that normally we would look for something lower if it were in the city. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you very much. Good luck with the project, and we look forward to electric trains very soon. Thank you. Mr. Tietjen: Thank you for your comments and your attention. Thank you. Chair Baltay: With that, Grace, I believe, is going to recuse herself from the next item… Board Member Lee: I will recuse myself. Chair Baltay: … but I don’t see the need for taking a break or anything, so let’s just say goodbye to you and bring on the next item. [Short break while transitioning to the next item. Board Member Lee left the room.] 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: 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 4.a Packet Pg. 22 City of Palo Alto Page 9 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: Okay, let’s keep moving along here. Our next item is a public hearing, quasi-judicial, for 180 El Camino Real, 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, producing 78,500 square feet in total. Do we have any disclosures for this item? Alex? Board Member Lew: Yes, I haven’t been to the site since the last hearing, but I will disclose that I retrieved an old set of shopping center drawings from 2014, to look at the square footage spreadsheet. Chair Baltay: Osma, disclosures? Vice Chair Thompson: Nothing to disclose, thank you. Chair Baltay: David, any disclosures? Board Member Hirsch: No, I didn’t visit the site. Just spent a lot of time looking at the drawings. But I’ve been there before. Vice Chair Thompson: We’ve all been there before. Chair Baltay: I think everyone has been there. I visited the site actually twice on this issue, once on a Saturday to gauge the traffic, and then, once again on a Tuesday morning, to really look and think about the building itself. I also did meet with the applicant some months ago now, in my office. I didn’t learn anything that’s not in the public record. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, the applicant was in my office, as well, or my house, as well, and we had… Chair Baltay: You did…? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I’m sorry I didn’t say. Chair Baltay: Any other disclosures? Great. Staff report, please? Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning, Board. My name is Samuel Gutierrez. I’m the project planner for the Stanford Shopping Center. We’re presenting, again, the Macy’s Men’s redevelopment project, before you today. Here you can see an image of the updates. The Restoration Hardware building is on the top, and to the bottom left, you’ll see Wilkes Bashford. It’s been refined, and I’ll go into greater detail. And then, the bottom right is Building EE. That’s kind of the El Camino facing portion, and that has also been refined. Just to give you a quick overview on the project, of course, we are demolishing the Macy’s Men’s building and performing changes to the surrounding parking lot configuration to develop two new stand-alone buildings. Restoration Hardware, three stories, Wilkes Bashford, single story retail building with a mezzanine level, and two single-story tenant spaces directly adjacent to Building J. LaBelle Salon will be the one that abuts up against that one. The project did go before the ARB as a study session on February 7, 2019, and there was a formal hearing prior where the ARB provided formal comments on June 20, 2019. The comments are listed here. There were comments regarding the design of the Wilkes Bashford building, about the corners of the building that face El Camino; there was concern about opening that up, it looked too walled-off; and there were concerns about the green wall. Though the ARB felt that they liked the green wall, there were maybe some modifications that were needed there where it didn’t quite connect. The retail Building E has a drive aisle that is across from the Restoration Hardware building, and that was proposed at an elevated level at pedestrian, kind of a platform. There were concerns that that didn’t provide 4.a Packet Pg. 23 City of Palo Alto Page 10 any separation between pedestrians and traffic, so there are some options presented for that, with a traditional curb or the elevated platform drive aisle, but with more bollards and larger planter boxes to kind of form those barriers between pedestrians and the flow of traffic. There were also concerns about pedestrian pathways and details about those bollards and lighting. That has also been provided. There was comments towards the El Camino sidewalk. Previously, we had looked towards doing a much wider one to mimic the south El Camino guidelines, those comments regarding that width, so that has been revised. There were comments about Pistache Place having trees on both sides. I think that was just a reflection of the plan, that it didn’t accurately show what’s across the way towards the parking lot that isn’t in the scope, so we detailed that in the staff report. And then, there were concerns about the infilling landscape along El Camino, that cars could be shown. There’s kind of gaps in the landscaping, so maybe to berm that area up a bit and put more plantings. That’s also shown on the landscape sheets. And then, to study the use of the existing parking lot, there were concerns about the parking. There’s been some parking management policies put in place, along with some other parking treatments I’ll go into in a moment. To focus on Building EE, we made [inaudible] to be the same, but the larger changes were, of course, the walking path. The first option has a curb with a drive aisle. The second option, again, is elevated top with bollards. Both designs require more planters, more seating, more trees. That’s shown on the plan sheet L-200. Here, we can see one option. You can see here that now there is a curb, an actual curb. Before, there wasn’t. It was just flush with the walkway, so that’s changed. There’s actually a true representation of the planting that would be there, and then, the light posts, and so on. Here you can see the other option. This is without the curb, but it has these planter boxes, much larger, kind of form barriers, along with bollards. And then, this would be the, kind of elevated, level with pedestrians. That’s the other option for the drive aisle. Here, we can see Wilkes Bashford. It’s actually the corner of Pistache Place and El Camino. Previously, this was kind of a more solid corner. We could see that it’s been added with some storefront display windows to open that up a bit. The green wall was adjusted slightly, along with the planters there. You can see, this is the Pistache Place elevation, so as you’re entering towards the shopping center from El Camino, you’ll see that there has been some refinements there. There’s actually a little seating area behind the nice Audi, the white car, that has a trellised area. That’s a new public seating area that’s been treated with vines. Here, this is facing towards the inside of the shopping center, which is across from LaBelle and Building EE side of Wilkes Bashford. Again, it was refined, and then, there was more trellis features to mimic the one on Pistache Place. You can kind of see that one on the top, kind of center-right, I should say. And then, here is the bigger refinements to some of the primary entry features of the Wilkes Bashford building. This is facing the parking lot on Sand Hill. You can see that the trellis has been refined again, and it has, again, that kind of integration of the creeping vines, kind of having three sides of that on the building. And then, the Wilkes Bashford projection there has a darker material. That’s actually on the materials sample board. That was an updated material there. There were comments about the landscape plan and site plan, so, we looked at the non-native plants, and they were removed from the landscape plan. The current landscape plan has what we feel is a sufficient number of native, low-water use, and habitat-sustaining plants, which meet the ARB findings for approval. There were comments about utilities being screened in a greater way than there was previously at the shopping center. Those details are shown on Sheet LS-100, 600, 700 and 800. There are these kind of paneling systems that would have vegetation growing on them around the new utility boxes, to screen them much better from the public view. Essentially, you’ll get green walls around the new transformers and switch gears. There was also additional details provided for the pedestrian walkway. Again, that was Option 1 for the elevated walkway between Building EE and Restoration Hardware. There were more details provided for the landscape, hardscape and, of course, screening of utilities, but we feel that it meets some of the concerns of the ARB. However, we appreciate your feedback on that, and how that has achieved, you know, if that is satisfactory to the Board. And then, the planting strip along ECR, or El Camino Real. There is a planting strip between the sidewalk that’s existing and the curb and the street. That’s currently vacant for the greater portion of this block of El Camino, so that’s where we utilized that area that’s very small, to actually extend the sidewalk a bit to allow kind of a side- stepping ability for what we anticipate to be a lot more pedestrian traffic with this redevelopment along that portion of El Camino. This goes into detail for the El Camino sidewalk. There is a lot of trees near the corner of Sand Hill and El Camino Real, and at that portion, you have a few trees actually in that mini planting strip. And then, behind the sidewalk towards the site. So, a chicane kind of path needed to be formed for that, and that still was a little narrower than the greater portion, where we were able to take advantage of that planter strip I just spoke about. It’s kind of the intermediary, so rather than having a 4.a Packet Pg. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 11 four-foot, four-and-a-half foot wide sidewalk, we attained a six-and-a-half foot sidewalk, which is a greater walking area, and possibly biking area, because people do cut across from the trail that’s along San Francisquito Creek and Sand Hill, and cut across El Camino, and then, head back on to the Stanford University trails, back to the university. We have that. We do recommend, however, because there was an updated arborist report to see the impact of the chicane path, but it did come after the report. We do want to recommend that that item in particular, the sidewalk, be reviewed by the ARB subcommittee after we’ve had more time to detail that arborist report that has been updated. Here is a blow-up of the El Camino sidewalk that I’m talking about. You can see a bit of that wavy, kind of chicane path between those five trees. After that, it just widens out to that thin planter strip towards the curb. It essentially widens the sidewalk without encroaching into the existing tree areas, so that existing back of sidewalk would remain. Moving on to some of the concerns about the vehicle parking. There are parking lot areas that are removed. The Wilkes Bashford and Restoration Hardware buildings are proposed in areas that currently are occupied by drive aisles and parking stalls. The existing parking for the site is 5,218, and the proposed is 4,078 stalls that are standard, 111 accessible stalls, 29 EV, and 29 EV-ready. The total is 5,265, which is 47 over the code requirement. They are physically losing spaces, but there’s also a loss of square footage, which, of course, deducts from the required parking for the site. Here, you can see a blow-up of the site plan, and a little bit greater detail than the previous image of the parking lot. There were other means to address the concern about the parking occupancy on the prime areas, which is, basically, anyone visiting the site wants to park near where they’re going. If you’re going to Fleming’s, you want to park by Fleming’s; if you’re going to Bloomingdale’s, you want to park by Bloomingdale’s, and so forth. But there are difficulties with that because these are people coming from the city at large and the region at large. How do we control that flow? It’s not really possible, but one thing that’s more under the control of the shopping center management is the employee parking. They have a lot of employees that go there every day at fixed times, so to have a policy in place that moves the employees to the parking structures and the upper levels of the parking structures, which are the less-desirable parking areas for guests that go to the shopping center. It was implemented by Simon Property Management. That’s a display on this map. You can see the two parking structures on Quarry. The employees would park in the upper levels there. And they have a policy in place that I’m sure they’ll go into during their presentation, about having their employees park there, which frees up a lot of the parking that the customers would want to see as prime parking, which is the closest parking to their ideal destinations at the shopping center. The other side of the parking issue was bicycle parking. We did conduct a study of the shopping center and found that there was some deficiencies in bicycle parking, in particular the short-term parking. There was a study conducted of occupancy, for where people are actually parking their bikes. However, that was done during the summer, so we did have some concerns because Stanford University wasn’t in session. That would be potentially leaving out a huge population of cyclists. The university is very bike-able, it’s very bike-friendly, so people do bike. We asked for another study to be done while school is in session, and that’s still pending. That would dictate where we would place the most bicycle parking within the shopping center, so, the primary entry points, and where the most need is. That’s an item that we recommend go to the ARB subcommittee to be reviewed. Also, as part of the bicycle parking, we did acknowledge that people going to the shopping center, and to further encourage them to bike there rather than drive there, more consistent with our sustainability goals and our transportation goals for the city, people need actual cargo bikes. If you’re going to the shopping center and going to make large purchases, a cargo bike or a bike with a trailer is what you need. To actually allocate a larger area for these types of bikes is needed. In reviewing with Transportation staff, we’ve conditioned that six new bicycle areas are going to be proposed for cargo bikes. These would be striped larger and noted as cargo bicycle parking. Here, you can see we’re suggesting by the Nieman Marcus and Building N. I think Shreve & Co. is currently occupying that corner. Those would be locations for the cargo bikes, and then, towards where Fleming’s is, Vineyard Vines, Bloomingdale’s and L’Occitane, there would be some carbo bike parking there as well. These are the main entry, the back entry, and then, the front entry to the shopping center for these bikes. And for those who don’t know what a cargo bike is, this is what it is. It’s a much longer bicycle. There are different configurations, and you can see there’s basically a, kind of open chest or bin in front of the bike. This allows you to purchase more goods and transport more goods, or kids, or dogs, or what-have-you. You can see that it wouldn’t really be practical for a standard bicycle rack or stall. It really needs to have its own hatched-out area, similar to an accessible space. The other portion of this is the loading. We studied all the loading spaces. The site is what it is for the most part, and there are loading spaces throughout the site, all the way from Nordstrom’s to the 4.a Packet Pg. 25 City of Palo Alto Page 12 existing Macy’s Men’s building, and many of the spaces are legal non-conforming, for the most part, the legal non-conforming for the width, where the code requires 12 feet by 45 feet. Many of the spaces are actually 100 feet or more long, so they actually account for several spaces in length. When we broke down the math, we came up with the existing number of loading spaces at the shopping center at 24, and there are 25 proposed. There’s an additional loading space that you might see near the Wilkes Bashford building. The shopping center does require 29 total spaces. This is just a map, an overview of that that’s in the plan set. Lighting was also a concern for the ARB. There was additional details and photo-metrics included for this portion of the shopping center. We did notice that the El Camino portion did have some higher light outputs, but it wouldn’t increase the existing conditions as El Camino is really well lit. The higher light output is towards El Camino and not towards Sand Hill, which has more sensitivity due to the creek. The staff recommends the ARB takes the following action, which is to recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and Development Services, formerly Director of Planning and Community Environment, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval, with a requirement for ARB subcommittee to be reviewed and approved for the El Camino sidewalk design, and the bicycle parking for the site. One quick note. I did hand you the updated conditions. There were some edits to the standard conditions that you can see there on the sheet. There are two. There’s one pertaining to the trees, and one pertaining to the parking monitoring condition. That concludes the presentation. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Why don’t we see if anyone has questions of staff before we hear from the applicant? This was a comprehensive presentation. Thank you, Sam. Are there any questions of staff? Board Member Hirsch: The cargo bike idea here, is there any analysis that shows that there’s likely to be cargo bikes to the site? I mean, are they becoming prevalent enough so that you would provide for them now, at this time? Mr. Gutierrez: That was reviewed with Transportation staff, and Transportation staff themselves actually utilize cargo bikes. We have a cargo bike for the City that we go to events for, say, for school events. Within that event sphere, the cycling community or greater biking community of Palo Alto. And in Palo Alto, there’s actually a fair number of people who have cargo bikes and do already take them to the shopping center and try to strap them to light posts, or wherever they can. Board Member Hirsch: I mean, I see them in my neighborhood. They’re usually taking kids to school with them. Those are safe neighborhoods for riding bicycles. I would wonder if people from the general community in Palo Alto are going to ride across, you know, busy traffic El Camino issues, you know, to get to the shopping center. I can understand… They can probably be used for regular bikes as well. Is that also a possibility? Mr. Gutierrez: The cargo bike parking would be more reserved for the cargo bike because they are so large, and that area would need to be hatched out. The spacing is larger than other bike rack parking, the inverted use, because they are wider and longer. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Alex, questions? Board Member Lew: Sam, I have a question about the square footage of the existing Macy’s Men’s building. If I look at the aerial photo and try to crunch the numbers, I don’t come up with the square footage that the City has on record for that building. Can you tell me, is there a basement, or a mezzanine? Is there something that I’m missing? Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, there are lower levels to the building, yes. Board Member Lew: Ah-hah. There’s a basement? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Board Member Lew: Ah-hah. Okay. Excellent. Thank you. 4.a Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Baltay: The basement of the Macy’s building below ground counts towards their FAR, of course. Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Chair Baltay: That’s being considered in this. Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Chair Baltay: By removing that basement, they’re reducing the square footage of the whole shopping center, reducing their parking load. Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Gutierrez: It’s the ratio of 275 per square foot. Chair Baltay: Any other questions of staff? Okay, the applicant, if you would care to make a presentation, you’ll have 10 minutes. Please, if you could state and spell your name for the record, for our transcriber. Thank you. Matt Klinzing, Simon Property Group: Hi, my name is Matt Klinzing [spells name]. I am an architect with Simon Property Group. Nice to see everybody again. Thank you, Samuel. We prepared kind of an intro for our newest member, but that’s not needed, so I think what we will do instead is reiterate what you know we said before. Overall intent for this project is to maintain the same high quality design standards that we have in the existing shopping center. Obviously, break down the scale of buildings so they are pedestrian friendly, and be sensitive to integration of all modes of transportation and pedestrians. I think you pretty much know the rest of our spiel, so we’ll go into some specifics. In our last ARB presentation we had here, some comments were brought up, and we were able to have some subsequent individual meetings to go over specific points. This page highlights in general what we have done since then that speaks to those, so I want to go over those real quickly. The number one that’s on the left side, there were some concerns last time as to the severity and the fact that we even have a bend in the road as it approaches eastbound from the west, seeing how there is an existing bend further up the west. We took that to heart; we understand it. We didn’t want to take out buildings to straighten the road, but what we have done is pulled that grade back a lot farther. About another 40 feet or so, the bend starts. The intent with that is to not have as a severe a turn, but to make that more gradual and more natural as part of it. The other bonus for that is it did increase just to the southeast – you can see there – more hardscape area for us, so that is more pedestrian occupied area, and made where you cross and go across into the parking field a little more, you know, user-friendly as well. Number two. We’ve had a lot of parking and loading concepts in this cross street. As you might remember, the very first presentation had a number of perpendicular stalls to the south side. We were concerned about that and passing cars. In a subsequent presentation, we changed that to parallel parking. We’re still concerned about that, so, what we’re showing instead now is one area in the center that’s really dedicated to loading. Loading obviously is limited to not-operational hours, before and after the operation of the center, but that would be where we would have loading primarily for those two users we’re calling Building EE, just south of there. That is right next to a service door that leads into those areas. That’s where the loading would occur. We hope with that change, that takes away any of those conflicts. The other added benefit of that is it allowed us to adjust somewhat the site dimensions in there. Actually, the Restoration Hardware building has pulled south a little bit, six, seven, eight feet – I can’t remember the exact dimension – from Sand Hill, which I know was another concern at one time. As you’ll see in some of the views later on, and as Mr. Gutierrez also mentioned, we have a couple options for the layout of that street whether it’s table-topped or not, because that was a previous discussion point. Number three speaks to really the pedestrian connectivity over to Wilkes Bashford. There was concern before as to its remoteness from the primary sidewalk and how it was connected back. We’ve indicated now is, both through the inner ring and across the parking drive there, as a table-topped condition, similar to what we have just south of Restoration Hardware. This, again, makes that area more 4.a Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto Page 14 pedestrian owned. There is a change in pavement material, there’s a tabletop; you actually have to take your car up, so that is more of a natural progression of pedestrians across there. Finally, number four indicates, there’s been some previous comments on the elevations, that this would be a great place for an entry because it kind of looks like one. So, what we have introduced at this point is a west entry from the Wilkes Bashford building that has direct site line, of course, from the primary sidewalk looking over. We hope that accommodates that issue. In this slide, we’re facing southward on El Camino, looking into the project. As we discussed prior, this is the first building you see as you come into Palo Alto, and the nature of northern Palo Alto is very bucolic and very lush. We certainly didn’t want to do anything that would be the detriment of that. All the existing trees are maintained as previously indicated. We do have bushes that would be replanted to provide a buffer that comes along there. Mr. Gutierrez mentioned the eight-foot sidewalk that goes along, and I must admit that one of our renderings is not updated because it still shows the empty planting strip along the curb here. I apologize, that should have been updated, but if you could use your imagination, that’s gone. That’s an eight foot wide sidewalk now. And then, we do have, as you go along with condition, you see the northeast corner there, we have glazing on that northeast corner, so it would be animated in the Wilkes Bashford building. We also want to take a close look at where we are putting the green walls, or the live walls. The comment last time is we like them, like them being part of the building, but weren’t kind of grooving on where they were. What we thought made more sense is we’ve now incorporated it a little more sensitively into the different pieces and plane-ings of the building. We used different materials to break down the scale, because it is a two-store façade along El Camino, and we’ve now partnered them in a frame of material, either brick or stone, that we have here, that puts them alongside the glazing that we think is a little more sensitive. Of course, you see centered on the west façade or east façade a storefront that, again, addresses El Camino. The southeast corner of the building as you enter Pistache, again, we have glazing on this corner to greet you as you come in, and there is a bio retention that takes storm run-off from the roof in this location. That’s something that Samuel talked about, so I don’t want to get into too much detail there. We wanted to include some more detailed views, though, for this time. Last time we discussed, there was concern about plain, or thin, or not having an architecture that would turn corners. That’s not the intent. We certainly would detail everything, so where materials turn back into storefronts, or where you see corners that turn around, we would return all materials so it doesn’t have a paper thin appearance; it really does have a higher design aesthetic. In addition to that, this is a picture of a patio area that’s on the south side of Wilkes Bashford that is along the sidewalk, that comes from El Camino, in, along the north side of Pistache Place. We think that will be an added detail. The view here is of the west side of Wilkes Bashford that shows the entrance and shows the tabletop walkway across that parking area that connects it back to the main pedestrian area. And then, this is a more detailed view at the north or primary entrance to Wilkes Bashford, which we’ll call their branded entrance. It shows our engineered wood on the right, a roof overhang, the signage and the trellis detail that is currently at the existing building, that we would carry over to this new building as well. We think it helps break down the scale. Now, we get over to Building EE, and this is where we get into the two different options for the table-topping. The last time we presented, we did show the tabletop, and it was pointed out by Board Member Lew that you do require a lot of pieces and parts when you do this to control cars and pedestrians. We have raised wells for trees, we do have bollards. We understood that, so we wanted to show, in addition, the option of, if that was not there. Obviously, they are two different conditions. Looking for your recommendation or your preference on which way to proceed. I think either one is useable from our standpoint. It really gets down to subjectivity and your understanding of Palo Alto and what would be appreciated here most. On the other view – this is now looking east, with Restoration Hardware to the left and Building EE to the right – again, the condition that is not table-topped, and the condition that would be table-topped. Obviously, it changes the character significantly in that area. Lastly, want to talk a little bit about what Samuel had mentioned in terms of our efforts to try to control, modify, manage a little bit, the parking, and the attendant. As he’s mentioned, we have put in place a policy for all employee parking, which you might remember in the attached study is a significant number. All employees now, we put out through memo to all of the managers of the stores, are asked to park in the upper levels of those decks that are down along Quarry Road. It was pretty dramatic the day that that went out. We saw a significant reduction, primarily in the parking lot that runs along Sand Hill to the north of there. To date, that has been the extent of that policy. Obviously, as part of our plan as we move forward, we’d like to put signage, we’d like to put other markers there to reinforce that, and we certainly would keep up on that. In addition to that, we were setting up some studies – haven’t enacted it yet – how we put into place geofencing for ride 4.a Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Page 15 sharing, and dedicate specific areas for Uber and Lyft, so you don’t end up with cars continually circling around parking spaces, leading to back up in other areas. There would be a definite, significant area that everyone would understand where to go through signage, through amenities, meaning furniture and other things, as well as digitally through geofencing that would be used for those. Those are some of the things in place, and I’d be happy to answer any other questions that you have. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you very much. I’d like to open the hearing to public comments. Do we have any speaker cards? Or any members of the public who would like to address this issue? Okay, seeing no one, I’ll bring it back to the Board. Do we have any questions of the applicant? Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. The rendering that you were showing had plantings on the trellis. Do we know what…? Sorry, I’m talking about the Wilkes Bashford building, that planting. Do we know what…? Mr. Klinzing: I knew you were going to ask that. I was sitting there, listening to the previous one, going, I do not know what that planting is. Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t see it in the plans. Mr. Klinzing: Yeah, I don’t either. You’re right. We have not selected a species for that. That’s something we need to do. I did hear the comments in the previous about not robust. I don’t know what we have out there today. I know it’s robust on the Wilkes Bashford, on the west side. My concern is that, if it is a sensitive and actually indigenous as opposed to invasive specifies, that we need to look into. If it is, and it’s something acceptable, we would re-use that because it does quite well. But I don’t have an answer for you right now. We need to identify that. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Chair Baltay: Any other questions? I have a couple for you then, if I could. On the Restoration Hardware building, on the third floor, I see a closed restaurant space, and then, a large outdoor seating area. What is the function of the outdoor seating area? Mr. Klinzing: I asked them to be here today, but they’re not, so I’ll go ahead and speak on their part because I believe I know, because I’ve been to these. But it’s two functions. Basically, they do have a café that’s up there that people would attend, so it’s outdoor seating. In addition to that, it is an extension of the outdoor sales area, so, they also market their furniture and use it for that. Chair Baltay: There will be some outdoor, informal dining? Mr. Klinzing: That is the intent, yes. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. My other two questions have to do with parking and loading. Could you walk me through the loading? Not Uber-type loading, but for merchandise coming into both of these facilities. How is it done? How do the trucks get to Wilkes Bashford and Restoration Hardware? Mr. Klinzing: I don’t have the circulation study up, which we provided in here, but for Wilkes Bashford, we dedicated this area over here for where trucks will come, and where they will leave. These are not large trucks. There are smaller deliveries that come quickly – FedEx, UPS. That is also where we would have, as you know, we have a system set up for trash collection and removal, where it involves a smaller cart-type system. That’s also where they would collect that and carry it back. For Building EE… Chair Baltay: Excuse me one second, could I interrupt? Is there actually a loading door on the Wilkes Bashford building for that area? Mr. Klinzing: There is, yeah. 4.a Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Baltay: You have a glass corner there now. Mr. Klinzing: Well, it’s located just in board here, so we’ve taken it off the corner and moved it farther to the west so that it wouldn’t be in primary view. But there is a loading door that will be pocketed into the finishes there. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay, continue. Mr. Klinzing: Yeah. And then, over on Building EE, as well as Restoration Hardware, this is where the primary service would occur, right here. Obviously, the restaurants would be more service intensive than Restoration Hardware. Believe it or not, the majority wants [inaudible] of their deliveries, again, are FedEx trucks, UPS. A lot of goods don’t come and go. But that would be the primary point of service for those. Chair Baltay: If I purchase a sofa at Restoration Hardware, how do I get it out of the door? Mr. Klinzing: I wish they were here to speak to it, but having purchased myself from them, I never take something from the store. What happens is you arrange a delivery, or you arrange a pickup, at a point that they have. It’s not walking out the front door with a sofa. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Mr. Klinzing: I should also mention, which I didn’t earlier, is that they have also organized their trash to be right inside of their service door, which is located here. That would be collected, again, in this area, via the cart-type method. Chair Baltay: On the question of parking, can you tell me how many employees park on the shopping center? I’m trying to get a sense of how many spaces are used for employees. Talk to that number. Mr. Klinzing: We have a range. We don’t have exact numbers. In order to get that data, we put out a survey to all of our stores, and we had, I think it was 80 percent responded. It wasn’t 100 percent; it was 80 percent responded. Of that, the calculator that we put in – and I don’t have the report right in front of me, but I believe it was between 400 and 600 on a daily basis that we have at any one time in the center. Chair Baltay: And the way you’re doing your parking program to incentivize employees to park at the roof of the garage nearby, what sort of mechanism or incentives are you giving? And what percentage of that…? How many of those 400 to 600 spaces do you expect are going to be shifted over there? Mr. Klinzing: Well, our hope would be all of them. I don’t have data to this date to show how many have been moved over there. As far as incentive, we don’t really offer an incentive to employees, other than the fact that it frees up more spaces for patrons. Therefore, the success of the store, you know, helps out. I will tell you that what we have done is research on, call it, not “enforcement,” but “monitoring,” because “enforcement” is a tricky word in the state of California. But in terms of monitoring, there are companies that we use at other facilities [inaudible] use here. What that involves is we have camera technology, where a vehicle drives around and can see plates that are normally parked in the employee area, and actually, they know if they are parked in an area they are not supposed to be. And that person would just receive a reminder from a notification to reinforce that point. But our hope would be all would go there. You never have 100 percent compliance, but we don’t have any data today at how successful it’s been. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. That’s a good answer. Any other questions? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I just wanted to point out that Board Member Lew was kind enough to point out the vines are California grape. It’s in the landscape plan. It’s very tiny. Mr. Klinzing: Thank you, Board Member Lew. 4.a Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Vice Chair Thompson: Found it. Mr. Klinzing: Is that an acceptable species? I should have asked our landscape… Vice Chair Thompson: I did have an extra question, while I have this. The mortar joint for the brick material samples, in the renderings, looks like it’s an extruded joint. I wanted to know if you guys have that decision. We don’t see the mortar… Mr. Klinzing: We have not spec’d that joint, so, you know, we would basically put in whatever is going to look the best and be the most effective and not… Which is usually just going to be a standard beveled joint. We wouldn’t look at doing anything typically in those kind of joints because we want it to last. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Just wanted to clarify. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Staff, do we have an arborist report regarding the trees along El Camino. I noticed that, I think it’s Tree 72, is slated to be removed. It’s a 16-inch live oak on the corner of Pistache Place and El Camino. Do you have any sort of formal feedback on that, on the trees? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Those arborists were done, and it was survey of all the trees that were in the project area. There are a number of trees that are being removed. Some are small oaks, this one being the larger one, and others being the kind of London plane and plum trees that you see along the drive aisles and planting strips. When we looked through the arborist’s report and looked with Urban Forestry, there is a replacement requirement per tree based on its size. That’s the updated condition that was on the conditions of approval for the replacement of several trees, per the study that was done and the City requirements, and the tree technical manual. The site is large and there are several areas to plant more trees. Specifically where the project area is, to plant all the trees there would be difficult, and it would eliminate a lot more parking and drive aisles or walkways. But there are a lot of areas of the shopping center that currently don’t have very many trees, or lack trees, so it could be spread cross the shopping center. Ms. Gerhardt: Also, for the specific oak tree that you’re talking about, I think our focus was on the opposite side of Wilkes Bashford. There’s a much larger oak tree that we were wanting to preserve, so, trying to work with the applicant, they have a certain location where they want Wilkes Bashford, trying to also focus on that one tree, to stay away from that. That’s unfortunately why I think that other oak tree was not able to be saved. You know, there is room to potentially move Wilkes Bashford closer to the shopping center. It would start eliminating more parking, though, in that area. It’s just a push-and-pull circumstance. Chair Baltay: Thank you. I can understand the complexity of those decisions. David, would you like to start off our discussion? Board Member Hirsch: Thank you for that presentation. It’s an excellent presentation, and the graphics are really, really nice. I’m almost getting familiar with some of the people who are walking on the street there, the ladies, you know? They are all beautifully dressed and carrying Wilkes Bashford bags, etc., so it’s a complete presentation, which allows us to get a really wonderful sense of how that all, the whole corner of new facilities is going to work there. I’m much more pleased with a transition to the tabletop, or whichever is chosen, between Restoration Hardware and the EE building. It seems like it would work now. I would comment that you really need to develop an idea for the corner area that that is a sidewalk, which needs to have some activities there, more activity seating, or whatever, and I don’t think the landscaping extends around the corner there. I would hope that the shopping center itself would have some new ideas for the extended area of sidewalk. Everything is sort of an east-west orientation with the entries. Well, that’s not true. Wilkes Bashford is very much a north entry. There is a bit of conflict there, actually. The transitional space that goes between the tabletop area, where the transitional area there, if it comes to the elevation of the sidewalk, it almost suggests that there should be a crosswalk, and then, the crosswalk really doesn’t have any meaning for Restoration Hardware. But I’m really quite ambivalent about what that is. I think it is more, in fact, a transition for traffic going around the corner there, which is so much better than what it is right now. I think I would, even if it becomes a tabletop, obviously, the cross-street is, on the corners, 4.a Packet Pg. 31 City of Palo Alto Page 18 the crosswalk patterning is on the corner, so that it leads you more to the Restoration Hardware entry points. Of course, the parking areas on the perimeter there also do the same. The pedestrian traffic pattern I think is from the parking lots, basically, into the stores, except for the walkway along the front of the EE building. That’s a vast improvement over the previous one, I think, where there was parking there, and it was misplaced in that area. Now it’s given over to pedestrians and eating establishments, hopefully [inaudible]. I think it’s a very, very successful transition at this point. But I am ambivalent as to whether it should be tabletop or not. I’ll wait for my compatriots here, too, to voice their opinion about that. I think Restoration Hardware, at a previous time, it was very well done, and I don’t have any concern about it. The south facing wall is the least interesting of them, and that’s a little unfortunate, but I’m not quite sure what you do with that. I only raise the issue to, maybe there would be more thought as to what happens with that particular wall. On the opposite side, however, I think the EE building is really nice with the extended areas of the lines of the space above, and the way you’ve shown the tile work, making that corner. But, of course, that’s not in the contract here the owner is to provide. I guess I could have asked the question before, but is there any control over what the owner does, or does that come back to us at a later date? You could answer that. Mr. Klinzing: You’re talking about the specific tenants for building EE? Board Member Hirsch: Yep, yeah. Mr. Klinzing: Yes, that would be an additional process where, right now, we’re showing both, you know, speculative tenant finishes as well as landlord finishes. We also have design criteria and design standards, but then, alternate storefronts would have to come in front of the ARB specifically for approval at a later point. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Look forward to something good coming, just the way you’ve shown it there. It’s very, very nice. I spent a lot more time on Wilkes Bashford, looking at it and trying to understand it as a building, because the other two elements of the threesome are very well designed as architecture. The Wilkes Bashford, I think, does a very good thing on El Camino, you know, that it’s two stories high at that time, and the scale is bigger. I think that’s excellent. The actual elevation sort of facing you straight on as your car is passing through the area there is less well defined, and it appears that it really isn’t something that’s going to attract you into that particular parking lot unless you know you want to go there. And there’s a kind of weakness of it at that end, to be honest with you. I like the way that building works, that you’ve taken a very long, skinny building and kind of divided it into different elements. I think you have clarified those elements that pull forward and back, and they are very clear and distinct. I think it’s kind of an interesting arrangement of the building, that you transition around it and actually, it’s kind of a walking path, and you keep on having window displays set back with plantings in front of them. And then, you have a canopy that you walk under and… a trellis, I should say. And then, you have the wall, the wooden wall, which is kind of defining an entry on one side, and it’s actually kind of closing it up on the other side. That building is really to be seen from the parking lot itself, and I think that elevation is quite good. I have concerns, though, about some of the aspects of the exterior of that building. I think that the side, as I said, towards El Camino is nicely scaled. Concerned that that particular elevation has planting walls and trees that are going to be there, and it’s the east side of the building. I don’t know if it’s due east or not, but will planting walls really work in that area? I think it’s nice to have that division because there’s plenty of corner display. And it’s nice to have the two-story display on that side of the building. Sorry. But I’m not positive that the planting walls are going to work there. I’m just concerned about it, so I’m going to leave it to you to work on that. Going down Pistache Place there, there’s an outdoor sitting area. It’s just a casual coffee sort of area that comes out from the building. Could you explain that a bit more? Mr. Klinzing: Yeah. Today, where Wilkes Bashford is located on the other side of the property, they have the same condition. It’s a small plaza area. It’s meant as a couple functions. Obviously, for their patrons to sit out and have coffee that would be provided inside, but as well, we wanted to provide, you know, a respite, a point as you pass along that sidewalk. We realized that the desire to tie El Camino back, pedestrian activity to the interior of the center is an important one. We obviously wanted to make that available as you walked down that sidewalk, to animate it. 4.a Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Hirsch: You know, you have the people coming out of the store to an area to sit, and it’s right there on the sidewalk. Probably there isn’t a lot of pedestrian traffic on Pistache Place coming from El Camino. I would imagine that the parking garages in that other direction is one… yeah, parking spaces adjacent would likely come on the inside, not inner-side. They don’t come across Pistache Place at that point. But it strikes me that there maybe should be some privacy between the sidewalk and that sitting area. It isn’t really an area where you’re looking to create an entry. Maybe there would be a planting divider with glass division, some way of creating a separation between the function of that area where you’re coming out, and the interior. We would want to see something like that, I think, you know, how it’s done. But the wooden wall is kind of a reflection of the wood on the opposite side. Those elements that you move around I think are really quite interesting. It doesn’t make a formal building out of that. It’s kind of a very casual building in which you’re sort of invited to wander around the outside of it almost, and get displays broken up between the masses of the forms that project. I’m kind of fascinated by it as a commercial building because it isn’t so definitive as a structure in itself. Kind of an interesting building to walk around, for the displays, which are at the corners, open up, interestingly, and the planting, etc. One of the materials, though, that really kind of bothers me is the brick. Not the color of the brick, but just the scale of a brick wall. I wondered if, you know, something more akin to a smaller-scale tile or larger brick format wouldn’t be better for that particular material. I’m bothered by it, by the scale of it being so small when the scale of the rest of the building are larger, larger pieces. But I’m going to wait and see if my cohorts here decide that they think that, too. Other than that, you know, the material boards on Restoration Hardware appear to me to be very successful. Let me just look over my list here. The plantings, you know, show developed plantings on the columns, and how that actually works is going to be a question for me. It’s a good rendering, but is it really going to work that way. We’ve got a few years to watch those things grow up. If you could get something that you could wind around them and get it started early, that would be good. But I think the idea of it as a softening of the trellis, of course, is a good idea. The planting wall on the east… Oh, that I’ve mentioned already. Those are my issues, basically. I think that parking lots, unfortunately you can’t get more trees in it because you really do need as many cars in there as you can possibly get. I find that the three very different elements to that corner will be quite an improvement to the shopping center. Thank you very much. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Osma, would you like to follow on? Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Hi. Thank you of your presentation. Thank you, Sam. I will try to keep this shorter. Restoration Hardware and Building EE, I don’t have any problems with. I’m not really going to comment on them. I think the palette you have for both are fine. For the raised curb issue between Restoration Hardware and Building EE, I’m a fan of the raised curb. As much as I love driving through there, I know that times are changing. Pedestrian activity is going to get more, and I think it could be a really nice space, potentially. So, I will voice that. I’m going to spend most of my time on the Wilkes Bashford building. I think that is the building that needs the most work. I’ll echo some of what David was saying about scale. I think we brought this up last time as well. It’s a big building. Building EE does a really good job of breaking down the scale into sort of these, like, five pretty easy to understand components, and almost, like, five, little micro spaces that it’s creating, because it’s probably going to be five different tenants. With Wilkes Bashford, you don’t have that because it’s one tenant, but that loss of scale is a little hard to swallow, I think. Visually, I’m really… I think last time I mentioned this; it feels a lot like a blank wall in some places. The palette is really nice. I like the material choice. But the way that it is portrayed in the elevations and the renderings do seem a bit too, too long of the same stuff for a while. That’s kind of why I was asking about the mortar joints and the small scale stuff, is because I think those are the places where it does get richer. The rendering of the wood paneling is showing a really big… It’s showing a big striation. The sample that we have is small. I’m assuming you’re going to go with the big one. I do think a smaller version… And again, the rendering is also not really reflecting the sample. Again, the rendering is showing a really honey-colored wood, and we’re seeing a really dark-colored wood here. The elevations are showing the right color, but the rendering is not. And the striations of that is really, really important. It will really affect how we perceive these building. I don’t know if this is, you know… I’m looking at the rendering on AWB-12, which is also the rendering on the front page. It’s hard to pick at any one thing on this rendering, but… It’s really [inaudible] building. I’m looking at the score lines of the stucco, and I think there can be more than just the score lines of the stucco to be the thing that defines the building. I think 4.a Packet Pg. 33 City of Palo Alto Page 20 more needs to happen with this building, so I would be open to approving Restoration Hardware and Building EE, but I think Wilkes Bashford, I think enough change needs to happen to it that I don’t know that it’s a subcommittee item. And it mainly has to do with the scale of the building and the amount of blank walls. The sidewalk problem is also a problem. I think, you know, we were looking at a couple of images where the drip line of the tree seems to encroach into the corner of the building, the one that we do want to save. I’m a fan of saving the trees and having less parking. May be a controversial opinion, but, you know, trees are really important, and that’s our urban canopy, and people are going to start parking less and less. That’s a reality of the future. I’m not in favor of what’s happening on the street. I don’t like that there’s less planning. We’re getting rid of that planting strip. We can do something better on that side. And I really want to commend the applicant. This is a lot better than what we saw last time. I appreciate that you added the green walls where you did. The wood trellis detail is, I didn’t find the wood trellis detail, but if you’re using this material, which you are in the elevations, that edge is still an issue. If you have a wood trellis, you will see sort of the black, you know, synthetic edge of this panel, so it doesn’t look like a wood trellis, it looks like a… I don’t really know what this is made of. It looks like a synthetic material. That detail is important. Okay. I think that’s the main… That’s the long and short of it. So, yes, I’m okay with Building EE and Restoration Hardware, but I do think Wilkes Bashford needs to come back. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Osma. Alex, your turn. Board Member Lew: Okay, so, thank you everybody. I think the packet looks good. I was inclined to recommend approval today, but we’ll see where the Board goes. Staff, thank you for the at-places square footage spread sheet. The comments that I made last… One of my comments was that that should have been in the packet, just because we have members of the community who actually check all the square footages on our projects, on City projects. That there was no way to really check the square footage in the drawing set. I found myself looking at aerial photos and measuring them, just to get a ballpark sense of the numbers. And I just want to say that this has appeared in previous shopping center submittals. On the previous hearing, I had mentioned the trees on Pistache Place, and I think my comment was that the new trees and the existing trees are on different locations, not that there aren’t any trees on the south side of Pistache Place. But your new trees are right along the curb, and then, the existing trees are inboard of the sidewalk. To me, that looked like a mistake. I don’t know. If they’re all the same species, maybe it’s fine. For my purposes today, I don’t think it affects my recommendation, or not, on the project. Previously, I mentioned tree number 93, which is near the porte-cochere at the Macy’s Men’s store. In the plans, it’s labeled as a privet, but to me, it’s an oak tree. It seems like staff has lots of conditions for new native trees, so maybe that’s covered under the tree replacement; maybe it’s not. But it seems like the general sense of the conditions of approval are to have more oak trees, so I think I support that. There’s a little bit of, I don’t call it confusion. It’s not clear in the landscape drawings. I think there are two T-1 trees. One is a cercis and one is a sultus [phonetic]. And my assumption is, after looking at all the drawings, is that the sultus [phonetic] are existing parking lot trees near Wilkes Bashford, and the cercis is just in the new connector street by Building EE. I can accept that if that is the way it is, but if it were sort of mixed up, and the cercis trees were in the parking lot, then it would not be acceptable because those aren’t really shade. They’re tiny little trees, they’re not parking lot shade trees. On the Restoration Hardware building, I have no comments. The building has always looked very handsome. On Building EE, I had some questions about the materials in my notes, about capstone and stucco, but I have samples here, so I think that clarifies that. I think this is precast concrete. It looks good. On the Wilkes Bashford building I think I do like the change. You changed the… What is it? The Trespa to Prodema, which I think is a really good change. I’ve seen it in buildings in San Francisco and in Berkeley, and I think it turns, when you have the corners exposed, it looks a lot better than the Trespa, at least from what I have seen. You’ve also added the brick. Is that a change? Maybe I missed it last time, but on the Wilkes Bashford building, I thought previously it was a porcelain tile, I think… Mr. Klinzing: Yeah, we did add brick and amend it to try to provide a little more detail. Board Member Lew: Yeah. And to me, the brick ties in with the existing PF Chang building and the existing Wilkes Bashford building. It seems to me a natural tie-in to the existing. 4.a Packet Pg. 34 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Mr. Klinzing: It’s a nod back to the [crosstalk]. Board Member Lew: Yeah. I think that that looks great, in my mind. Along the El Camino sidewalk, I think I can recommend staff’s [inaudible] in the planting strip. I just have a general comment, is that when you put the sidewalk all the way to the curb, you actually have to look at what’s happening in the street. For example, there are places elsewhere on El Camino where there may be cars going 40 miles an hour right next to the curb, you know, where you have double turn lanes and stuff. The traffic is right there. Other places on El Camino, there might be a parked car, so you have some sort of buffer in there. But generally, I think it’s not comfortable walking right along the curb when there is traffic right at the edge. I think in this case, it’s kind of in between, so I think it’s fine. I think the idea of the wider sidewalk was to allow, have enough space for pedestrians, and if there’s a bicyclist on the sidewalk, that they can all fit. I can support that. Okay. I can go along with, if there’s enough concern about the Wilkes Bashford building, I would support that. I’m not opposed to that. If we are moving towards approving the project, then I have some comments on findings. I would, on package page 32 and 33, I think they could be stronger. I think they could be written better, and I think there’s some typos in there. I won’t get into the specifics of all the language, but I think I would generally support locating buildings closer to the street. Generally, a shopping center was, like an island of buildings surrounded by huge parking lots and gas stations, originally, around the perimeter of the mall. I think we’re trying to get away from that and have something more urban, and I think this project gets us closer to that. I think also the connector street, to me, is a positive addition to the shopping center if you compare that to the existing sidewalk on the north side of the Macy’s Men’s store, which is just a blank white wall. It’s kind of like a no-man’s land. I think that’s desirable. Previously, the Board had some comments about the isolated parking, like a dead-end parking lot, just for Wilkes Bashford. But in the existing conditions, you already have a dead-end parking lot on the north side of the Macy’s Men’s store, so to me, it’s no worse, it’s not really any worse than the existing conditions. That’s where I am with the project. Okay. Chair Baltay: We’ll be sure to come back to you, Alex, on some of these findings, if we get to that point. I think all of us might want to contribute. Thank you. It’s nice to follow you all because you’ve made a lot of good points that I agree with. Certainly the Restoration Hardware building is a handsome building. I think Building EE is good, and I appreciate the subtle changes you’ve made to the way the drive aisle integrates to the rest of the shopping center to the west, I guess. It does somehow feel much better than my first look at it, and I like it better, so I think that will be very successful. However, I’m extremely concerned about the Wilkes Bashford building and the impact on the parking situation, so I’ll address this to my colleagues. I’ve been going over to the shopping center a lot, just to get a sense for the parking situation. This last Saturday, it took me about 15 minutes of jostling around to find a place. You’d wind up in one dead-end parking lot, and there’s nothing there, so you’re backing up, or turning around, and everybody is getting frustrated. I think the shopping center is at its maximum right now. This is at its maximum with this enormous square footage of the Macy’s Men’s store being offline. The applicant is proposing to remove 240 parking spaces. That’s a five percent reduction in what’s already, I think, frankly, a hazardous situation. Certainly can’t be helpful for your business. They’re proposing to create a parking area by the Wilkes Bashford building that will just exacerbate the problem. It’s another one of these dead-end drive aisles near a very attractive part of the shopping center, only more so with this new Building EE and Restoration Hardware. I can’t help but to see how people will be driving down that, and back up, and just not really functioning properly. I call our attention to Finding #4, which we’re required to make, which says that the design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic. I’m unable to make that finding because of the way the Wilkes Bashford building is situated and its impact on the parking in the shopping center. Area counts notwithstanding, I can’t make the finding that it’s a functional parking arrangement. My second concern has to do with the proximity of the Wilkes Bashford building to El Camino Real and the trees. Currently, there is a very strong presence of live oak canopy along El Camino, and that intentionally gives Palo Alto a bucolic feeling as you’re coming from the north. The Wilkes Bashford building, as best I can tell, goes into the drip line of the one tree we’re trying to save by at least five feet. When you stand out there, the drip line is 30 feet from the trunk. The drawings don’t all accurately represent that. Certainly the renderings don’t. But the branches of that tree will have to be trimmed back just for the building to fit, and I don’t understand how, in the long term, you’re going to have a commercial building of this status with branches of an oak tree bumping into the building. I mean, you just don’t do that. And 4.a Packet Pg. 35 City of Palo Alto Page 22 on the other corner where Pistache Drive comes in, there’s another lovely live oak tree. It’s been maintained beautifully over the years; it’s a real specimen piece. Now, we’re taking it out completely. Both of these things are happening because Wilkes Bashford is so close to El Camino. I think the answer is that the building is just too close to the street. What we really need to do is decide. If we want this to be an urban frontage where we have buildings to the street, to the sidewalk, as we’re doing in South Palo Alto, we ought to call a spade a spade, remove those trees, design a building that’s intended to be seen from the street as an urban building. Or, do the opposite. Pull the building back. Let the plants remain and thrive. What we’re doing now is the worst of both. We’re going to just impact that old tree. No matter what anybody says, I promise you, when you’re building five feet into the drip line of a heritage tree, you’re going to impact the tree. Over time, you’re just going to cut away at those branches because of maintenance. The tree won’t make it. The other one, we’ve already agreed to lose. It doesn’t work. It’s too close. That landscaping is very heavily impacted. I also think we have an issue with the sidewalk. The sidewalk is about five feet now, and there is quite a bit of traffic on El Camino there. And people accelerate coming into town. As soon as you cross the bridge from up north, there’s about a quarter mile of a straight stretch, and traffic really is moving, as Alex said, at 40 miles an hour. There’s no parking along that street, so if you put the sidewalk to the curb, I think it’s a rather scary, hazardous situation. Yet, you have a tree on the other side, so it’s not clear to me what you should do. Probably the curve path, or maybe a narrowing and a widening of the sidewalk, but just saying we’re going to fill in the planter strip I don’t think is a solution. I just feel we’re squeezing ourselves on both sides, and really, it comes down to putting Wilkes Bashford just too close to El Camino. And it comes down to, I think, finding more parking for the shopping center somehow. I think there are other solutions that would be possible. Certainly, as I realize that the Macy’s building square footage is, part of it at least, being taken up in the basement there, it just seems reasonable that you should have a basement then in Wilkes Bashford. Maybe that’s a place to put more parking, solve your problem. Maybe if you pull Wilkes Bashford away from El Camino, you can get your parking lot to loop around. There are other solutions that come back to basic site planning. But I said this at the previous hearing, and I say this to my colleagues now, the Wilkes Bashford building is not working in its current location, for a couple of reasons. I cannot support this project as a whole. I can support the Restoration Hardware and Building EE. I think they are handsome, well-done, and that the process has worked well there. I don’t know that we have the liberty to do line item vetoes up here. A comment about the bicycle parking. I was a bit surprised to see the cargo bicycle parking request, and I spoke to my colleagues and staff, and I find myself convinced that, indeed, that is coming in the future. Osma is right. We’ll have less car parking and more bicycle parking, and we need to accommodate for that. So, as much as I’ve never driven a cargo bicycle before, I can see that actually being a real case. I can strongly support staff’s request to push a little more on that. Do we have any other comments on the group, or thoughts? David, I don’t think you addressed the sidewalk issue. Board Member Hirsch: No, I didn’t. But thanks for your observation on that because it raises the issue. And now that I have a feeling that it’s a good idea to go back and kind of take another look, and that there probably is more to be done on the building and the design of it here. Nonetheless, I still say that I like the kind of building that it is, with the exception of some of the brick material as a scale element. Nobody else seemed to be so concerned about that, but I do think that somehow the elevations should be drawn for us to be able to see what those materials would look like. And I get a little upset at the fact that we have to look at half-scale drawings, and we can’t really see exactly what those materials will be like from the scale of the drawing. But I think there should be somehow more… You know, you look at the corner rendering, which is on the corner, and the corner of the building that faces towards the shopping center really isn’t a strong element at all. I do think that there could be some improvements there. Maybe, again, it jumps up a smaller element at that time. You know, it kind of emphasizes the end of the building there. And there should be, maybe more contrast between the stucco and the brick. Everything is kind of monotone, and I think it would be a stronger design if there were more contrast between the forward element and the backward element. I’m not so sure that the forward-moving element, which is like the wooden wall, you know, could be darker tone, rather than a washed-out – my feeling – a washed-out brick. But as to Mr. Baltay’s comments, it’s hard for us to really, I think, comment on the parking of the whole of the shopping center at this point. Yes, it’s a very busy shopping center, yes, I’ve been one of those people who have wandered around for quite a long time, trying to find a parking space there. But that’s a larger topic, I think, how you solve the parking for the whole of the shopping center, and I don’t think it should be mixed 4.a Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Page 23 in with this particular building. In other words, I don’t think that every building has to try to solve that parking problem by providing, say, underground parking under the building. It’s something beyond, I think, our scope at this point, that we should be concerned with recommending that the shopping center solve the parking in some way, but not solve it by denying this building the use of this particular corner of the site. However, that said, I also feel it’s important to comment on what Mr. Baltay did say, which is correct – That the building is prominent on the El Camino side. Like no other building right there on that façade. And that if there is a… And that’s why I really want to take another look at the oak feeling of the street, because I think that if it is going to be intrusive that way, we should recommend that the building is redesigned to accommodate the proper feel of El Camino Real. One thing that I find really, really impressive about El Camino and Stanford and the whole open spaces of Palo Alto is this feeling of the trees as you go through town here. I’d hate to see any of that lost at this point. And so, I would say that there’s more design work. I would agree with my compatriots. There’s more design work to be done on this building, and I’d like to see it come back to us. I do want to say, however, that I like the way it’s presented as well, because those materials move around in a very interesting way between the parts that you pull forward and the parts that are back. And you know that the corners are not always the same. But my sense of it was that there should… The brick material would be better if it were scaled to a kind of terracotta brick element than the smaller-scale brick. Terracotta, you know, you’ve probably seen them. There’s some really wonderful designs of terracotta, kind of… European buildings in particular. The scale is just better. There’s just generally a large scale feel to this building, larger elements that pull forward, so to get to a small-scale brick just doesn’t work for me. Along with some formal changes to the façade that’s facing in towards the… I would recommend reconsideration of some of the materials and the colors and the contrast of the building. And, to take into consideration what Mr. Baltay was saying about the El Camino side. Vice Chair Thompson: I’m going to respond to that really quick. I think in terms of the massing of Wilkes Bashford, I kind of agree that the massing needs work. In terms of the scale of the material, however, I feel like once they change the massing, it might change the feel. So, your comment that a large scale is applicable to large-scale building might be true, but if the design intent is for it to not feel so massive, given that the shopping center is starting to get more granular and more small scale, but if the design intent were to change to make this a bit smaller scale, then potentially, the palette would reflect that accordingly. Right? Chair Baltay: Alex, you seem to be the most supportive. Do you want to take a crack at trying to get three votes to get this through right now? I want to give the applicant a fair chance. Clearly, I’ve made a strong statement, but I want to see if you can gather your colleagues and get them to a subcommittee. Or at least have a chance at doing that. Ms. Gerhardt: If you could in your motion, also clarify, for the drive aisle, I think I heard the ARB supporting the tabletop design, where it’s all elevated for that drive aisle between EE and Restoration Hardware. Chair Baltay: No, I think at least… Ms. Gerhardt: I just want to confirm that, if that could be part of the motion, because we do have Option 1 and 2. Chair Baltay: Let me hold off on that. Alex, I’m not asking you to make a motion. I’m saying, try to persuade us. Board Member Lew: Okay. Well, as I understand it, Peter, I don’t think we’re going to get a vote from you, unless there’s a significant change to Wilkes Bashford and the parking situation, right? Chair Baltay: That’s right, but I’m giving an opportunity for… [crosstalk] 4.a Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Lew: … opportunity to try to do a minor change, shifting the massing, or shifting the building and maybe modulate the massing. I’m throwing that to you guys. I guess what I think I would need, I think I would request more information from the arborist’s report on tree number…. Is it 27? No, 72. The one that is being removed. Is there another reason to remove the tree? I guess would be my question. And with regard to tree number 39, which is being retained, and I think there is concern about the five- foot encroachment, I would assume that we have arborist report conditions of approval for that. My understanding is that our City’s tree protection requirements is to not impact the tree within 10 feet of the trunk, so it seems like this is allowed, and we’ve done it before on other projects. Now, I understand that, like, California Native Plant Society, I mean, they have a stricter recommendation, which is no work at all underneath the drip line. Like, not even changing the irrigation or any existing landscaping. They’re saying, “Don’t touch it at all.” That’s a higher standard that’s not part of the City’s requirements. The other thing I would throw out there for the El Camino frontage is that when I worked at the Stanford planning office and the university architect’s office, they’ve always looked at the big idea, which is Frederick Law Olmsted, the master planner at Stanford, and it showed that area as just woods, like the arboretum. That was the big idea. It was just a narrow strip, and everything behind that was part of the farm and the winery. And it seems to me it makes sense to kind of honor the big idea there and not try to change it and make it something more urban. But that could be argued both ways. I didn’t weigh in on the tabletop thing. I don’t think I have a preference at this point. I think it could work either way. I did look at Santana Row, where they have a curbless condition, and I thought that actually was very nice. It helps facilitate cross-traffic. Okay, I think we have to have a discussion about the Wilkes Bashford building and how much change you want. And I don’t think that I’m in the middle. It seems like Osma is the one in the middle. Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Vice Chair Thompson: I’m not in the middle. Board Member Lew: You’re not? Vice Chair Thompson: Nope. Board Member Lew: I know you want change, but… the parking? Underground parking? Vice Chair Thompson: Underground parking? Board Member Lew: Well, that’s what Peter’s arguing. Vice Chair Thompson: Oh, I didn’t hear the word “underground.” [crosstalk] Chair Baltay: … I said they need to solve the parking problem, and I think it’s appropriate for buildings of this scale to be asked to help do that. And I think they are doing the opposite. There’s a five percent reduction in actual parking places with this project. Vice Chair Thompson: I’m going to… I don’t mind either way with the parking, but fundamentally, the design and the massing of the building façade is problematic. Just shifting the building around would not ease my concern about how this is. Ms. Gerhardt: Do we want to break this into pieces as far as the, you were talking about the setback of the building from El Camino? Can we maybe have a discussion about that, and have a proposed setback? You could increase that to preserve more of the oak trees. It would further reduce parking, though. If we can just hear about that. Chair Baltay: If the building became smaller, would that still reduce parking? 4.a Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Ms. Gerhardt: That’s not the applicant’s proposal, but that is an option. Mr. Gutierrez: There could be a reduction in the size of the building in the sense of the footprint, and then, there could be an expansion of the mezzanine. The footprint is small, but the square footage is essentially the same. That would [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: It’s not for us to get into that level of design, I’m afraid. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. I think we just… Chair Baltay: Jodie, do we have the option of approving the Restoration Hardware building and the EE building and the associated improvements and not the Wilkes Bashford? Ms. Gerhardt: The applicant would need to change their project description. Chair Baltay: That’s what I’m afraid of, yeah. Well, I don’t hear the support for approval right now. I’m sorry to continue this again. You’ve made a good effort; the design is moving in the right direction, but you don’t have the votes up here. I don’t know what to say. I think the Wilkes Bashford building needs work by most of us. I propose a motion to continue, is all we can do for you. Ms. Gerhardt: Can we talk about the setback, though? About what the desire is to set it back further and save more of the oak trees, or to leave it as is? Just from the front setback perspective? Vice Chair Thompson: That’s what I’m hearing. At least I’ll speak for my own, that would preferable, to preserve the trees and have the building further set back. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Just so we have some clearer direction from the applicant, that the ARB would like to see Wilkes Bashford further set back in order to protect additional trees. Vice Chair Thompson: Correct. Ms. Gerhardt: They could… With that information, they could just slide the building back, which would eliminate at least seven or so parking spaces. Then, maybe we can have a conversation about that. I would assume from previous discussions, the loss of parking is not a great idea. Board Member Lew: I think what’s going to be tricky is shifting the building and removing the parking, and then, there’s also a transformer there, so it may not be able to happen. I think it’s just going to have to… Yeah. Vice Chair Thompson: Like a different footprint. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Vice Chair Thompson: It doesn’t seem like sliding it would solve… Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so, just moving the building, we’d like the other end of the building to sort of stay as is. And then, you were talking about materials, and colors, and sort of the ins and outs of the building. It sounds like there’s a fair amount of conversation that needs to be had there. I don’t know if maybe the applicant, do they feel like they have a sense of what’s needed to fix that? It seems like the elevation on Pistache is maybe the elevation that needs the most work. Vice Chair Thompson: I would say it’s both the long elevation… Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, the elevation towards the shopping center, as well. 4.a Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Vice Chair Thompson: And the… Board Member Hirsch: The west elevation. Vice Chair Thompson: Three elevations. Mr. Gutierrez: To clarify, that’s the elevation facing the parking lot, facing Pistache, and facing the shopping center, not the El Camino elevation. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Facing the parking lot is fairly successful, you know, except maybe on the corner. Ms. Gerhardt: Basically, the front of Wilkes is facing the parking lot. Does the front of the building need additional work? Vice Chair Thompson: I believe it does. Board Member Hirsch: Probably does. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: If you’re changing the west elevation, then you change the parking lot side as well. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so, we think El Camino has, they’ve added some extra windows on El Camino, we think that’s reasonable. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: It’s the other three elevations that need work. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: Correct. Chair Baltay: Let’s get resolution to the drive aisle at Building EE and Restoration Hardware. Alex said he’s ambivalent. Osma said she supports a raised curb design. David, I didn’t get from you a clear direction. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I’ll support, you know, I deferred to others to comment on it, and the comment seems to be for a raised aisle and a tabletop idea. I think it’s a good one. Chair Baltay: So the drive surface is flush with the sidewalk. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Okay. And I support, for what it’s worth, Osma’s idea, that I think the curb is perhaps better, but I don’t have a strong opinion. So, you’re not going to get a clean recommendation from us, except that the applicant should propose what they think is the proper solution, and the architect… Vice Chair Thompson: I should clarify. I’m in favor of the raised drive aisle, so that it is flush with the sidewalk. Chair Baltay: Well then let’s just go with that. We recommend that it stay flush. Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry if that was unclear. 4.a Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Chair Baltay: The image right now on the screen. Vice Chair Thompson: Correct. I’m in favor of this option. Did I say, “raised curb?” I meant raised drive aisle. Chair Baltay: I wrote down “raised curb.” Vice Chair Thompson: I’m sorry. Chair Baltay: Okay, so, that’s fine with me then, too. That gives you an answer on that at least. To the applicant, you really have two-thirds of this project ready to go, if you want to find a way to make that happen with staff. Mr. Klinzing: Can the applicant ask a question? Chair Baltay: Absolutely. Please come forward. Mr. Klinzing: I honestly have no clarity on Wilkes Bashford, the design. I completely understand the site planning issues; that’s clear. We’ve heard a lot of different things. What I hear is, is that there is an issue with massing, so what I’m trying to understand is, is there a concern with the physical size of the building where the mass is located along El Camino? Is that the issue? And then, Mr. Hirsch, heard you, you’re concerned about a lack of a priority point or a higher point on the west façade, I think is what I heard. And then, I think the other thing I heard is we don’t like the standard modular brick, and that we would be in favor of a larger brick. And I guess the only other thing I’d say… Okay. That’s my confusion. The only other question I think is, I’ve used Prodema in a lot of places. It comes as a sheet good. You detail it so you don’t see the black edge. If you have a trellis piece, you miter the cuts and you don’t see it. I don’t want you to worry about that. I can show you plenty of examples where it’s detailed and not have that issue. I’m just looking for a little more clarity. The other thing I would say is that we have two different types of retail at the center. We have in-line, obviously, that’s got a lot of nothing, and then a store front, and then we have separate buildings. This perimeter is 40 percent glazed, which is more than any other freestanding building, or anything that it’s like in the center. I just want to get that out there as well. So, if you could give me any clarity on where I’m going, I’d really appreciate it. Vice Chair Thompson: In general, it would just be the breaking down of scale on the façade. At the moment, the façade is very flat and expansive. The material choices that you have, I understand that you’re using that to try and create visual stimulation along this wall, but I’m basically saying it’s not enough. It’s the ins and the outs. Yeah. It’s the ins and the outs. And the reason why El Camino façade, the reason why I think we all like that is because you have an inset where the green wall is, and the scale at which that is done is really nice. It feels cozy, and it feels like… It’s stimulating for someone that is walking along. But on the other three elevations, it feels too expansive, and it needs a bit more relief on the façade. Mr. Klinzing: Clear. Thank you. Vice Chair Thompson: And, sorry, just to follow that up. The scale of the brick, you heard me and Board Member Hirsch say sort of conflicting things. Board Member Hirsch was in favor of a larger scale, and my argument is, if you’re creating these ins and outs, the scales of the brick will have to match that, that scale of that in and out. Part of me doesn’t want to dictate what it is. I mean, you might come up with something, and then, whatever scale you show us, that’s appropriate to that inset or that relief that you’ve chosen to do. I was just going to encourage you to not necessarily take what we’re saying as gold, but it really depends on what you come up with. If you agree with that. Board Member Hirsch: That’s nicely stated. Yes, I think somewhat bigger scale to the material will relate better to the rest of the building. I’m not saying it shouldn’t be smaller thank, say, the stone façade, but the scale relationship there, for me, is critical. But as well, the façade issue of that corner is kind of important as well, facing… When you look at the overall picture from above, and you see it all kind of falls off facing 4.a Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Page 28 inward, it needs something at that west end of the building to tie it back in massing. I think that’s pretty clear somehow when you look at it from the top. I hope that’s what others here feel as well, but I can let them speak for themselves. But Osma’s points were very well put. Chair Baltay: Are we ready for a motion? Does anybody want to…? Ms. Gerhardt: One more item, sorry. Just some clarification on the sidewalk. I think we’re proposing, sort of an eight-foot sidewalk at this point. I think we, we certainly take your comments about having that eight-foot sidewalk right along El Camino. It is a pretty fast street, so I think we can work with the applicant to see about pulling that away. We do run into some trees, so if you could just talk about that for a second. Chair Baltay: I don’t think we have a good answer. The tree is there, and we want it saved, and the street is there, and we obviously want that. There’s only so much space between them. There might be some creative idea, the way you’re doing a wavy sidewalk further north of this. Maybe make it narrower just at the tree, and then, wider. Just think a little bit out of the box. That’s probably the best we’re going to get on that. I don’t think any of us want to see the tree removed, and I don’t think any of us really want to see, in spite of what Alex said, having this sidewalk right next to the curb. But I don’t see that as a deal- breaking issue for this project. That’s not they are creating this problem; they’re just trying to do what they need to do to help out. What I’m hearing is save the trees by pulling the building away, more ins and outs, think about the corners. If you have to have a three-word summary. Mr. Klinzing: That’s very clear. At the risk of testing your patience, can I ask one more question? Chair Baltay: Please, please. No, we want to provide whatever feedback we can. Mr. Klinzing: The only question, and this is really for staff, is, if we’re to revise the project description quickly, realize there’s a public notice process, could this come back quickly for solely EE and Restoration Hardware while the other is considered? Ms. Gerhardt: If we were to take Wilkes Bashford out, maybe we can… We’ll have to see about the sidewalk, too. But, yes, if we were able to take portions out, I think we could come back to November 7th, if we wanted to do a date certain for a smaller project. Chair Baltay: I’d be okay sending that to a subcommittee. Make it easy for them. If they just want to remove the Wilkes Bashford, so it’s Restoration Hardware and EE. I think all of us are in favor of letting that go forward. Anything we can do to help them get these buildings built, we want to do. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I think it might just be best to do it as a full board, just because the project description will… I mean, we want to ensure that it changes appropriately. Chair Baltay: Okay. Mr. Gutierrez: We would have to account for utility changes because that project would need to then be reflective of that new project, which eliminates Wilkes. So then, other pieces would need to move and shift and get confirmed. Chair Baltay: Fair enough. Does anyone want to make a motion to continue this? Vice Chair Thompson: Does staff prefer that we continue this to a date certain? Ms. Gerhardt: I’m assuming I’m hearing from the applicant that they’d like to move forward with the two buildings quickly, so it would be helpful if you could just, you know, that we would move forward with this smaller project on 11/7. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. 4.a Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Page 29 MOTION Chair Baltay: I’ll make a motion, that we continue this project to a date certain, to allow for the applicant to submit a revised project with a smaller scope. I’ll leave it at that. And then, I’ll leave the record to stand for the comments regarding the design. I’ll need a second. Board Member Hirsch: Can we approve the project at this point for the two? Chair Baltay: No, we can’t. We’re trying to give them a fast way to do that. I made a motion; I need a second. Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: Okay. Does anybody have any comments, amendments, changes to that motion? Okay, so, motion is made and seconded. All in favor? All opposed? Motion carries 4-0. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Study Session Chair Baltay: Moving on, we don’t have a study session today. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 15, 2019. Chair Baltay: We have minutes to review and approve from the August 15th meeting. Do we have any comments on those minutes? Okay, can I get a motion, anybody? Board Member Hirsch: I move that we approve the minutes of the August meeting. Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Baltay: Okay, motion is made and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. MOTION PASSES 4-0. Subcommittee Items Chair Baltay: No subcommittee items. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay: Board questions, comments or announcements? With that, we are adjourned. Thank you very much. Adjournment 4.a Packet Pg. 43 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10775) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 11/7/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 565 Hamilton Avenue: Subcommittee Review Title: 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@m- group.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background On August 16, 2019, the Director of Planning and Development Services approved the subject project. At the ARB’s recommendation, the approval included a condition (condition 5) to require certain project elements return to the ARB Subcommittee. The July 18, 2019 ARB meeting video recording is available online: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fEoJxP99jbA&start=281&width=420&height=315. Staff requests the ARB’s input to staff and the applicant confirming whether or not the proposed changes are sufficient. Below are the items requested to return to the Subcommittee for review, followed by the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments. Architecture Review Condition #5a: • Colors/Materials: Make the project look more like the renderings, cool tone base (board formed concrete) with warm tone upper levels (fiber cement siding). 6 Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Applicant’s Response: The rendering is updated to provide a more realistic color for the board formed concrete and better represent materials. To provide a warmer tone material, the applicant proposes to: (1) Change the fiber cement panels (FRB-1) to a Taktl ribbed panel instead of the previously proposed Equitone panels. The proposed Dune 60 color in a mediablast finish would achieve both the contrast with the board formed concrete and better accentuate the textural qualities of the fiber cement board. The change would better represent the rendered views. (2) Adjust the MTL-1 metal panel color to provide a dark brown fascia, window and canopy, which is lighter than the original sample. This color change is consistent with the window manufacturers and will match the intent for a dark and rich brown coloration. (3) Change the fiber cement panel color to the MTL-2 color. It is slightly darker than the panels but would contrast with the MTL-1 material, as originally desired. (4) Adjust the plaster colors (PLAS-1 & PLAS-2) to work with the board formed concrete and updated fiber cement panels. Staff’s analysis: The revisions appear to address the Board’s concerns. However, staff seeks confirmation that the changes meet the Board’s expectations. Architecture Review Condition #5b: • Height: Reduce the height of the project by a minimum of two feet with the elevator that extends above. Applicant’s Response: The building height is reduced by 2 feet 3 ½ inches overall. This was done by removing: (1) Two inches from the second and third floor trim bands, (2) One foot from the third-floor ceiling height, (3) 11 ½ inches from the second-floor ceiling height. The windows on the second and third floor remain the same height and proportions with this change. The height reduction requires that the residential elevator overrun protrude above the roof. The view of the elevator overrun from the street would be shielded by the roof eave. Another change is needed to accommodate the office elevator overrun: (4) the third floor, two-bedroom unit is now changed to a one-bedroom unit (Sheet A2.3). Visually, this height reduction will be noticeable. The building will better relate to the building at 530 Webster, since the top of the third-floor trim band will be aligned with the parapet of 530 Webster. 6 Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Staff’s analysis: The change appears to address the Board’s direction. The ARB noted that a potential consequence of reducing the height would be the exposure of the elevator overruns. The location of the elevator overruns, set back from the roof edge along with the expected sight view angle from the street, would minimize any potential detrimental views. Architecture Review Condition #5c: • Trim Band: The project’s trim band shall better align with the adjacent 530 Webster building. Applicant’s Response: • The change to the building height lowers the third-floor trim band by a total of one foot- 3 ½ inches, to the point where it visually aligns with the top of the 530 Webster building. Staff’s analysis: The revisions appear to address the Board’s concerns. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Excerpt of July 18, 2019 Minutes (DOCX) • Attachment B: Applicant's Response to Subcommittee (PDF) • Attachment C: Director's Approval Letter (PDF) • Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, David Hirsch and Osma Thompson Absent: None 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 565 Hamilton Avenue [18PLN-00313]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing Structures and the Construction of a Mixed-Use Building Containing 19 Rental Apartments and up to 7,450 Square Feet of Office Space. Three Existing Parcels will be Merged. A Variance is Requested to Allow Protrusion of Roof Eaves, Fin Wall and First Floor Canopy Into the Hamilton Avenue Special Setback. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15332. Zoning District: CD-C(P) and RM-40 (Downtown Commercial and Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us Chair Furth: I believe that takes us to our first action item, which is a public hearing. It’s quasi-judicial. It concerns 565 Hamilton Avenue. It’s a recommendation on the applicant’s request for approval of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of existing structures and construction of a mixed-use building with 19 rental apartments, and up to 7,500 square feet of office space. Three existing parcels would be merged. A variance is requested to allow protrusion of the roof eaves, a fin wall, and a first- floor canopy into the Hamilton Avenue special setback. There’s been an environmental assessment, finding that this particular project is categorically exempt from the provisions of CEQA. This is infill housing, is that right? Yes. Sheldon, I forgot to make a note of who the applicant is. Mr. Ah Sing: The applicant is Brandy Bridges. Chair Furth: Thank you. My first question to my fellow board members is, has everybody seen the site? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I visited the site. Board Member Lew: Not since the last hearing. Chair Furth: Right, but we’re all familiar with the site. We have inspected it. Some of us more recently than others. My next question is, does anybody have any conversations or other research to report that pertains to what we’re hearing today? Board Member Thompson: No. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT DRAFT MINUTES: July 18, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 6.a Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Furth: Nobody does. Okay. Thank you. Well, having established that, could we hear the staff report, please? Sheldon Ah Sing, Consultant Planner: The applicant is also here with their presentation. To start off, I understand, Madam Chair, this is your last meeting with us, and just wanted to thank you for your guidance and levity on the issues. You are going to be missed. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Sing: This project is at the corner of Hamilton Avenue and Webster street. It’s an area of transition from the commercial area to residential area. What’s proposed are 19 rental dwelling units and about 7,500 square feet of office space. The site does include right now three properties in two different building districts. The properties will be merged. The office component will be confined to the CD portion, while the residential units will be on all levels of the site. The project as introduced includes a major architectural review, joint use parking, as well as a variance. The project did go before the Board previously on April 18th, a few months ago, and there were a number of items the Board wanted to see the applicant try to address and come back with. A lot of those have to do with the privacy and some of the daylight for these spaces on the interior. That had to do with residences that are along Webster, as well as the interface with the unit and the Redwood Terrace space at the back, which is solely for the use of the office space. And then, some of the other interior layouts for the upper level of Units 15 and 16. Also, it wanted to see some bicycle parking added at the grade where possible. Also, to review the overall height of the building in relation to some of the floor to ceiling heights, to consider adding an accessible ramp at Webster Street, and to finally review some of the lighting throughout the project. The applicant has a pretty extensive presentation on how they addressed each of those issues, but in summary, we believe that they have addressed those. A couple of them where – the height, for instance – there’s some constraints that the applicant has mentioned about the elevator, so maybe we could seek some other comments about that, how to further address that, or maybe it’s okay as is. In summary, the project is a three-story mixed-use project. There is an offset in the floor area ratio. That’s for efficiency of the project, that some of the utility spaces are, trash spaces are included more on the larger parcels, more access to Webster Street, versus having that on a smaller parcel. Trying to get access on Hamilton. Thought it was a good idea to do that. For a better project, there’s some offset in the FAR on the site that way. The project is proposed rental units, so, therefore, the project would pay just the impact fee for affordable housing. The project does include a level of basement parking, and it does include a lot of those in the mechanical types of lift spaces, and those are allowed by the code. The code does require 60 spaces; the project does provide 55. But with the project’s joint use parking request and their company transit demand management plan, we believe that the reduction is okay. This diagram shows what I mentioned previously about the FAR distribution. The shaded areas are the utility and trash rooms, so they’re accommodating both the office and the retail on that space. That just makes sense. There is access straight to Webster there. Otherwise, there is a courtyard in the middle of the project for open space, and as I mentioned, there is the terrace area in the back that preserves some of the on-site mature trees. That is for the sole use of the office space. There are a couple areas for the variance application. There’s a 17-foot setback, special setback along Hamilton. Any protrusion in there would require a variance of some kind if they want to do it. In this case, we believe that these are warranted, they are okay, there are canopies, as well as a fin wall that is designed, that can be detached if for some reason the City needs to use the space within that special setback area. The canopy, of course, is above ground, so we believe this variance is warranted given the restrictions in the area. This just provides a cross-section of the project and some of the floor plates that we were trying to describe. They are a bit generous, but I think the idea is to have a clean aesthetic for the roofline, as well as there’s some limitations with the elevator that shows it. It does have a low profile amongst other types of elevators, but again, the applicant can describe that. I’ll show one rendering here. This is along Webster and the changes that were proposed. They did add more landscaping there to add more privacy. The rendering above is the previous version that was shown in April, and below is the new one. In conclusion, the project does respond to the ARB’s comments, and the variance request is acceptable. The revisions proposed and implemented increase the consistency with the required findings. With that, we do recommend approval of the project to the Director, based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation; I’ll be happy to answer any questions. Thank you. 6.a Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of Sheldon before we hear from the applicant? Board Member Thompson: Is it possible to pass the material board up? [Staff hands materials board to Board Member Thompson.] Chair Furth: May be hear from the applicant? You’ll have 10 minutes once you have everything set up. And if you could, as always, spell your name for our transcriber. Roslyn Cole, Aidlin Darling Design: Yes. My name is Roslyn Cole [spells name]. Chair Furth: I’m afraid you need to speak even more closely to the mic. Ms. Cole: Okay. Is this better? Chair Furth: Yes. Ms. Cole: All right. Okay. I’m Roslyn Cole, Principle at Aidlin Darling Design, and I’m pleased to be here again with you today. We have looked at all of your comments and would like to run through that quickly, so I remember them. Also with me today is Lauren Ewald with Fletcher Studio; she can answer any landscape questions you might have. As Sheldon mentioned, we had a good deal of feedback from you, which is really helpful, and we’d like to walk through that one by one. The first item is the suggestion that we increase the privacy to the ground floor residences at Webster Street. We looked at this carefully. The image that you see up here is different from the one in your package. It was very hard for us to actually render it within the rendering we had. It got very muddy in the background, so we thought it better to start fresh with an image that would show you more of what it would look like. What we’re doing is we’re proposing a revised planting, which would provide a greater height and privacy for those residences, while still providing an openness. As you might recall, we started this project a year or so ago, providing fences along those units to provide privacy. At your suggestion, we pulled them away to really provide a more urban context. And I think we went a little too far by making it too low. In the last go-around we feel like we’ve achieved a balance here that allows for the privacy for the unit, as well as the openness that we would like to keep. One of your other items you suggested we look at relates to this. This is looking at those two units for the daylight and privacy from within the space. We have provided some images of what that looks like when you’re looking from the living out to that terrace area, and then, back to the courtyard. We recognize that there are different people, and people who look for very different things in the apartments that they choose. We think these are apartments that would be very applicable for the urban dweller who wants a direct connection to the outside, and more of a direct connection to the street. With that said, we have provided translucent glazing at the door, as well as shades at the windows for privacy, should that be desired. That is typical in all of the units. For Unit 3, which is the corner unit by the Redwood Garden, we have also shown you here a typical kitchen casework elevation. I think there was a comment on how the casework and the window might work together, so we’ve designed the casework to sit above the window at this location, which provides space for a shade pocket, to provide a direct connection to the exterior. At this unit, the kitchen – which is located here – has a landscape buffer of six to seven feet before the terrace starts. That landscape buffer provides a distance and some height of planting, and there’s also two magnolia trees there to allow for a little more privacy for that unit. For Units 16 and 15, we thought it was really helpful to actually re-look at this in terms of the privacy of the unit. We have relocated the window for Unit 16, and then, reoriented the planters to provide more privacy between Units 16 and 17. In addition, we’ve changed the landscape material to a taller chain fern, which basically will grow three to five feet, to provide additional privacy between those terraces and the walkway. We have taken your suggestion to add more parking at grade by adding two more spaces at the corner entry. This brings our short-term parking count up to six from four, and four is our required minimum. I’d like to spend a little more time on this one, so I’m trying to rush through some of these other ones, because obviously, looking at the height was something we did very carefully. It’s a little bit of a complicated issue. Chair Furth: We’re happy to give you a couple more minutes if you need it to make it clear to us what you’re doing. Ms. Cole: Okay, all right. I’ll slow down. There are a couple driving factors in setting the building height at its 40 feet. The first is that our first floor is set by being one foot above the base flood. We then have two 6.a Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 4 elevators in the buildings, each with their overruns, and that sets the height of the third floor at the residential unit, and then the second floor where the office elevator comes up. Now, what we’re specifying is a Schindler elevator, which has a 12-foot-7 overrun, and it’s the lowest that we’ve been able to find. Most are in the 13-2- or 14-5-foot height range. And even with these, we’re not bringing our typical floor plate over. We’re having a very special acoustical separation at that location, where we have a residential unit. And then, at our roof, we’re popping up just a little bit but still where you’re not able to see it from the street. The last floor basically in this sandwich is our first floor, and that right now has a clear space of 10-foot-4 in the office, but that is before the mechanical ductwork. That mechanical ductwork will add at least 12 inches to that, to lower down in those locations. We feel that’s as really low as we can go with an office space. For these reasons, we are asking to keep the height where it is. We’ve also taken a step back and looked at the project. We haven’t looked at these images for a while. They’re in your package, but they have not been part of your presentation. Just to look at this building in the context of its neighbors. And it is truly, as Sheldon said, a transition building. It transitions from these taller buildings. All of the neighbors are taller than it. Obviously, the church is 70 feet, but our adjacent neighbors and the neighbor across Hamilton. And then, we have our lower residential neighbors. We’re addressing that by opening the building at the top floor, creating a glazed corner, and then, bringing that third-floor line to align with that roofline of that building. We feel like the building, with this 40-foot height, still really deals with the transition at this corner. You suggested that we look at adding an accessible ramp to the Webster Street entry, and we think this is a very good suggestion. We have added this in. It’s a straight ramp, a 1:12 ramp, but added it in by adding another planter and layering it in, so we still have the cascading steps that come to that corner. We think that is an improvement to this corner, for many reasons. Accessibility, of course, being the primary one. Here, you asked us to look at the central terrace and the light levels. We think that this space is going to be quite nice. It’s 30 feet by 32 feet. We have two analogous spaces that we’d like to show you. Here is the Stanford Central Energy facility, and that space is scaled very smoothly. You can see the courtyard through the center of the space here. And then, the Oakland Museum and it’s front entry canopy. This is much longer, but daylight appears along the side, and then in the back, and in a similar proportion for this space here. I think both show that this space can feel light and not dark. At the third floor, we looked at the lighting, and thought it was actually very helpful. We went back and looked at finding a new fixture for this, and this fixture has brought down the lighting level significantly, but it still provides an even level. We haven’t changed the number of fixtures, but the lighting level is even. In looking at the controllability, we’re proposing to provide that through both a photocell, and then, through the ability to have it dimmer for occupant use. The intention is to keep it low, and then, if an occupant needs to use it higher, then it would be set higher. We were concerned about the on-off occupancy sensor and the flickering of that through time. We have also looked at the landscape buffer going north, and after meeting with our neighbor, we have added two additional trees along this boundary property. We have a utility line that runs into our utility space here, so we’re unable to add any more trees along this area. But the coffeeberry shrub that is located and proposed here can grow up to 15 feet, so we think that it itself will also be a good buffer along that northern neighbor. There are a couple of planning requested changes. As Sheldon has mentioned, we now have updated things to show how we meet the new ordinance, between lowering the stall count from 67 to 60. Then, increasing the open area. The increase for the RM-40 parcels includes from 1,300 to 1,950 square feet, but I think it’s important to note that we have 2 ½ times that amount for this project, so we’re well within that. Lastly, we have pulled the building back a foot from the property line. Originally, the building itself sat at the property line and we had window projections, as well as eaves, moving into that to provide depth of the building. We’ve worked with Planning. We feel like that depth is really important to the façade, so we have taken a foot out of the courtyard and a couple inches out of the units to pull the building back, so those windows are no longer in the setback. We have also worked very closely with Planning to allow for the fin to extend, but basically have separate rebar cages, and be able to be cut off if it needed to be in the future and still be structurally sound. The remaining images are just the elevations. Here is the street elevation; the elevation with the new ramp. The Webster Street elevation. And that elevation with the new ramp. And planting. And then, a view from Hamilton; a view from Webster; the central terrace; and then the corner. With that, I look forward to hearing your comments. 6.a Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Furth: Thank you. Are there any questions of the applicant’s architect before we go on? Do we have any speaker cards? Yes. Just one? John Carl Fredrick, [phonetic] please. You have three minutes, Mr. Fredrick. John Carl Fredrick: Thank you. John Carl Fredrick. I live in Barron Park, but in the last 50 years that I’ve lived in Palo Alto, I’ve lived about half of that time on the north side. I’m here to speak in opposition to this project, and a denial of the approval for demolition, for a number of reasons. Number one, I think the work to this point by City staff is inadequate in describing the historical character of the building and the attending landscaping. I think this project is way too invasive. I think there’s no reason to grant a variance for the 17-foot setback on Hamilton. I also don’t think that the inventory of the trees is adequate, and I’m sort of surprised it’s not contained in this report. Especially Tree #4 next to the existing building to the west, which is unique in Palo Alto. And even in the elevations, I did not see evidence of what the problem of removing all the magnolias on the street will be. And then, the fruit trees that are going – three orange trees, a fig tree – many bulb plants, and even the redwoods, which this report claims to protect, I would doubt that finding given what’s happened to the redwoods at the corner of Ravenswood and El Camino in Menlo Park. And to build unground parking, in truth, that closely the property line or the public parking area, it’s going to create problems in the future there. I also think that the character of the building itself on the corner, if you had elevation pictures of it, you would see that this is a remarkable change. It’s a magnificent building. I have an affection for quads because I grew up in one, back in Milwaukee. This might be the only one left in town, and it’s beautiful inside. Clear hard redwood, hardwood floors, a foyer… I mean, I don’t think any of you maybe even went inside the building there on the corner. And the loss then of nine units of affordable housing – and I would put it at higher than that because of the little brown shingle house that is scheduled for demotion if this permit is granted easily holds two people, two families. The garages alone are substantial pieces of property. What I think was lacking in this plan, and your review of it, is the fact that this property has a large amount of space without demolishing the corner building, in which 16 units of housing could go in there. Now, I don’t know how you could find, given the environmental problems, a negative CEQA finding that there’s no impingement of the general welfare of the people of Palo Alto if this demolition permit goes forward, and I would recommend that you continue or deny. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you, Mr. Fredrick. Just to be clear, Tree #4… Mr. Fredrick: It’s a unique pine. It’s right up against the building there, behind the brown-shingle house. It’s the only tree other than the redwoods on the property line. Chair Furth: Any questions of Mr. Fredrick before we…? Mr. Fredrick: And the other tree is the big avocado. Go over there and sit in the back yard and see how much open space is going to be lost by the granting of demolition here. Chair Furth: Thank you. Does anybody else which to speak? The applicant has 10 minutes to respond. Brandy Bridges: Good morning. My name is Brandy Bridges [spells name]. I’d like to say thank you to the Board for hearing our project today, and thank you to members of the public who came to comment, and others we have heard from in preceding hearings. I understand the concerns that were just voiced. I think, though, that there’s a lot to like about the project that we’re proposing. The existing site holds nine units of housing. That’s true. They are in a state of disrepair, and we’ve had a property condition report done, and they’re not appropriate for long-term, ongoing occupancy. Our project proposes to replace those with 19 units of new housing, code compliant, energy efficient, and safe for occupancy. We have had the property also studied in terms of looking at the historic nature of the property. It’s been analyzed by multiple parties. In fact, the City’s historic planner looked at the project. A third-party historian was hired by the City to review the project, and the landowner also hired a consultant to review the project. All three of the reviewing entities agreed that the three properties were ineligible for listing on the registers, and also ineligible for listing not only on the California register, but the City’s register. So, they’re not considered historic resources for the purpose of CEQA or for permitting. All of this information was reflected in the minutes from the hearing that we attended on a voluntary basis with a historic review board back in 2018. 6.a Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Page 6 I don’t disagree that the buildings, they are quite lovely. I also have an affection for the nature and character of particularly the yellow building. But, I think that we have to acknowledge that there’s an existing life span for structures, and I think what we have to look at with these is that we have an opportunity to increase the housing supply, which, in a fashion that increases supply, I think is part of the equation to improving our housing crisis here in the Bay area. The landscaping that we proposed, that was another topic that was raised. The existing landscaping on the site, the front yard is primarily grass, which takes a lot of water consumption. Our project that we’re proposing will have primarily native and drought- tolerant planting. We actually are proposing to remove the trees. When we met with the City arborist, we looked at it in terms of asking them, “What is it that you think we should do?” We had an arborist who looked at it, the City’s arborist looked at it. The existing magnolias are in a state of decline, so their preference was for us to remove the trees. With the replacements that we’re proposing, we’ll actually have a net increase in the urban canopy, a significant net increase that’s reflected in the plan sets that you have before you today. I think replacing the water- hungry grass with some native plantings is, on balance, a good thing. I’m not sure about the numbering of that particular tree that was brought up in the comment, but I do have here before me the arborist’s report. I believe that the tree in question might be the Japanese black pine because that’s the only pine that I see listed. That tree was noted by the arborist as poor retention suitability due to poor structure, so that’s not one that we focused on much before because the arborist has already commented on that. The redwoods, preserving those redwoods is very important to us. We’ve made great effort to ensure that our building will not damage the redwoods. By pulling back the full garage, and then, we have in that area, the landscape plan shows wood planking. That’s to let the air reach the roots of the redwoods, and also to let the water kind of go down and reach the roots of those redwoods. We really want to protect those. We think it provides a great buffer between this project and the large city garage that’s next door, and does kind of a nice screening job, but also, they’re redwoods, and we just want to protect them because they are gorgeous. Other comments. I think I’ve addressed… Oh, the variance. The variance request, really, what we’re trying to achieve with that is getting some depth in the reading of the façade. This property does have some unusual characteristics that make a variance appropriate. Namely, we have the historic neighbor next door at 530 Webster, so, we wanted to make sure that we set our building back far enough that we’ll stay in alignment with 530 Webster, instead of stepping too far forward. We’ve compressed our building back along that Webster frontage more than is required by the City’s setbacks. And then, on the other corner of the building, we’ve pulled in to kind of get away from those redwood trees. So, with being pushed in on the Webster side, and then, also being pulled in on the redwood side, it just creates a condition where it’s hard for us to push the building any further back without getting closer to 530 Webster, which is something we don’t want to do. With the variance, we can let the roof eaves, and kind of extend out. And also, we can do a nice canopy over the commercial space, and I think that’s a good trade-off to make. With that, I guess I would close by saying that, you know, we first visited with the Board, I think it might have been just over a year ago, and I feel really good about the project that we have before you today. I think it’s very different than the project we originally presented. The feedback, the loop of the process has been great in terms of receiving the feedback. Each bit of feedback has helped us make this project better, so I’d just like to take this one last opportunity to say thank you. I think it’s been a good collaboration with the public, with the Board. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant before we bring it back to the Board? David? Seeing none, any comments from staff before we start discussing this project? Who would like to begin? Okay, we’ll skip Osma. David? Board Member Hirsch: Generally speaking, I do like the project, but I do have some reservations. A minor one was the suggestion I made last time, was to use the Hamilton side to provide a skylight, or possible light down to the parking lot, but I don’t see that that’s included in any way in the presentation right now. I just find that underground parking isn’t really pleasant. It’s a personal issue for me, to add as much light as you can get in. Now, I know, of course, the entryway is well lit because of the break in the platform of the deck, etc., allows the light to come through, but it was a suggestion that I thought would enhance the parking facility. But it’s a minor concern. My major concern here is that in order to maintain your parapet and your corniche look to the building, and because of the elevator, as you mentioned, it has to have an override. You have a humongous height to the top floor of this building. I frankly just don’t understand. I think if I were looking at this as a developer, I would think that somehow we’re spending an extra three 6.a Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Page 7 feet all around the entire building in order to allow for that elevator override being within the frame of the box of the building itself. It doesn’t seem logical to me, and actually, it makes some of those apartments uncomfortably high. Kitchens, bathrooms with ceilings quite that high don’t make any sense at all. And that’s a major concern, I think, for me, that the height of that floor is really ridiculously high. That’s speaking from the point of a person who owned a brownstone and had an 11-foot ceiling and thought that was quite adequate for a brownstone, but when you exceed that in a new building like this, I don’t think it’s sensible. Last time, I also mentioned Unit 14 and the ones above it, where the kitchen faces the courtyard in the rear. I simply don’t understand why, when you put a kitchen in most of your units closer to the front door, in this case, the kitchen is on the perimeter wall, where you could simply have windows, but you choose not to do so. If I understand the plan, that’s the plan I’m looking at, unless you’ve changed it and there is a new plan. That unit, those units, all of them that face the rear court have the kitchen misplaced on the outside wall. If I’m wrong, correct me, please. Ms. Bridge: Unit 14 has the kitchen on the outside wall, but it does also have windows. We could show an image of a similar condition if that would be helpful. Board Member Hirsch: No, I…. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Why don’t we hold that until we hear from everybody, if we need further enlightenment. Board Member Hirsch: All right. My personal objection is that the light that you get into the kitchen directly really isn’t the same as if you had a living room with a larger amount of window, and that the windows that you do have in the area of the living room, which are on the corridor, simply are not private windows, and you have to diffuse the glazing at that point. Let’s address it later on. In all other respects, I think you’ve answered the questions that we had at previous hearings. But those three issues, with a minor one being a skylight, have been well addressed here. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Thank you for this project. I am struggling a little bit with the renderings. I’m looking here at the material palette, and Metal 1 in the material palette is this sort of dark metal color. And in the renderings – I’m looking at Page A5.3E – it’s sort of the main fascia at the top and bottom, and it just looks brown. I think that’s actually kind of important, to not show it that way, because it’s not going to be brown, it’s going to be black according to this. And even your main panel boards, fiber cement board color 1, in the renderings are showing very brown. This is more of a taupe. It doesn’t have the warmth that I think that brown color would have when I’m looking at this material board. In terms of all the other items that you’ve addressed – the privacy on the ground floor, and the slew of other things you went through – I feel pretty good about that in terms of the revisions that you’ve made. But, just looking at this again, you know, the renderings look really nice, but I don’t buy that, with these materials that you’ve chosen, that it will actually look like this in real life. I kind of want to alert the rest of the Board to my concern on that because, you know, otherwise this project seems to otherwise be looking pretty good. I think this is an important item that we would actually have to look at later, just because, you know, the wood soffit batches, the renderings, the main panel board, which is the heart and soul of your project right now, that’s what everybody is going to look at, is this material that seems otherwise a lot like the concrete, and I don’t know that that’s the design intent. It sounds like you want that differentiation between your concrete at the base to kind of you give you that grounding, and then, something warmer and lighter above. And I don’t think this material is the right choice. That’s my only note right now. Otherwise, I think you guys have done a pretty good job in this package. I’ll leave it there. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex? Board Member Lew: I can recommend approval today. Thank you for the revisions. I think they look good. I think, on previous Board member comments, I think the, with regard to the height, I do understand the comment. I do think there’s a balance we have to strike because this is mixed use. You’re talking about, you know, that it’s too high for residential, but they have office on Hamilton, so there has to be some sort 6.a Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Page 8 of middle ground. And the heights that they are proposing are a little bit low, they’re on the low side for office. I think the architect has it correct, that if you look at the context-based street elevations, the building looks fine in context with the church and the office building across the street. I think that’s the main thing. And however many floors, or whatever, the height, and the interior configurations, interior elements relative to the windows and stuff, that’s all sort of internal, and to me, that’s not really part of the Board’s findings. I mean, I don’t disagree with you about all that, but it seems to me that that’s the architect’s problem. On the skylight to the garage, I think that’s all very nice. I think we’ve commented on that kind of thing before on other projects, on commercial projects, and I think that’s all desirable. I don’t know if it’s feasible on this particular project. And then, I think to Osma’s comments about the materials, I didn’t sort of pick that up until you brought it up. I think that the rendering… yeah. I get that. I was thinking that, when I look at the renderings, it seemed to me that the color that’s shown on the renderings looks like the church across the street, to me. I haven’t matched anything, but this one, I think you’re, I mean, when you point it out, I think the material here doesn’t really quite do that. Maybe if we come back to subcommittee, maybe there’s a different way of doing this. I don’t know. There may not be a lot of options of this as an integral color material. I would think having an integral color material is better than painting it. If you want to do one more rounds to subcommittee, I would be okay with that, but I would imagine that that’s… I mean, I do trust architects generally to pick the best color of the ones that are available, and I don’t have any better suggestion. Seems like this is better than, like, Hardie [inaudible] options, and the Hardie panel range. Anyway. And then, my last comments are clean-ups on the findings. For staff, on page 15, on item L3.1, it says, “second floor,” and I think you meant third floor. On page 19… skip that. Page 21, item number 6 mentions “Cambridge area,” and I think you mean Webster, or Hamilton. I think that was just a cut and paste issue. I can support the variance findings, although that’s really the purview of the planning director. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you for the excellent presentation, and thanks to my colleagues for their insightful comments. I’d like to focus on two things, I think. One is Osma’s comment about the materials, and the second one is about the height of the building, which I agree with David. I think what Osma was driving at is that the elevations don’t really depict the way these materials will play out on the building. And I think she’s right, that this fibrous cement has almost a pinkish-reddish tone to it. Which, you’re right, Alex. It’s like the church is now, but they just painted it. And unfortunately, they just painted away the beautiful textured, aged concrete, and now it’s got this pinkish hue I suspect they regret. Chair Furth: We know that you do, in any event. Vice Chair Baltay: I certainly do. The building was lovely for years and years with this aging character to it, and probably was leaking, so they had to do something. But it’s got this industrial-looking, pinkish concrete coating on it now. And I’d hate to see that happen to this building. Osma is correct that these side panels are large, and they would be very visible. I think what Alex is suggesting is right, that it might come back to a subcommittee to review that, and perhaps the architects may want to consider that. When you correct the coloring on your elevations, you may realize it’s a bit too pink, in my opinion. The same with the brown crim band. That’s the one color in this palette I find is not that rich-looking. It’s not typical of one of your buildings in your firm. The bigger issue for me is the height. You’re quite correct, Alex. I agree that it’s not for us to lay out the interior of the building or select the plate height. It is important for us to make sure the building is contextually compatible, and I find it really is not with 530 Webster. All the other buildings in town, it works great. It’s not too tall for Palo Alto; it’s not that the building is too massive. But perhaps you could pull up for me, someone, one of the elevations, the view from Webster. Is that possible to get that on the screen? [Staff looking for slide.] Vice Chair Baltay: Hold on a second. If you look at this image here, and look at the right-hand side of the building, compared to 530 Webster… Alex is holding up the actual architect’s rendering from the corner of 530 Webster, but if you also look at this one that’s on the screen now, very small, you can 530 Webster in 6.a Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 9 the background. And I think you can see that this building is substantially larger than 530 Webster. Visually, it really seems to overpower that building. And that building in particular to me has a real sense of presence on the street, a real character to it. And I think the building next to it is just a little bit too big. And then, when I hear the reason it’s a little bit too big is really to do with the technical thing about elevators, and it strikes me that it is possible to configure so that the elevator overrun goes through the roof, and you have a bump-out somehow. I would rather see a small bump-out on the roof, with the roof plate being lower, than I would see the entire building be substantially taller. To me, it seems that the building should come down maybe a foot from each of the two residential floors. And we can ask the architect to revise the way the elevator overrun on the roof works through the roof, and then, in the third floor, you have to find a way for your residential unit to accommodate that overrun somehow, if you can’t find a different elevator. But, to me, the building is just too tall vis-e-vie its relation to 530 Webster, and that is very much our province to solve that. I’d like to see us request that building get pushed down. I think we can still recommend approval with that condition. I can support the variance findings. I think it makes good sense, and the design itself is wonderful, I think. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you to the applicant for an interesting, attractive project, and for really clear documentation, which has perhaps made us more focused in our critique than we might be in less- clear work. Both have been an advantage and disadvantage for you, but we, of course, think it’s an advantage, because we think the truth will set us free, eventually. Thanks also to the members of the public who have spoken to us, both today and earlier. I wanted to talk briefly about Mr. Frederick’s comments. I took notes on them. And of course, we don’t disagree with you, that lovely gardens and existing buildings are lost with this project. Relatively affordable housing is lost with this project. We don’t have power to address those things. That’s beyond the scope of what we do. The City used to have ordinances that made it uneconomic to destroy existing rental units – although in this case, we’re actually getting new rental units rather than condos – and the State of California took away the authority that we were using. The City Council adopted a Historic Preservation Ordinance, and the Palo Alto electorate repealed it. Efforts to have more tree protection than we do have also failed, so we need to work within the context that we have. Our question really is: How is this building, in this context, as an aesthetic object itself, as a place to live, as a place to walk by? And I would say that I think, particularly if it’s designed to look like its elevations, it’s a very attractive building, and it will be a good place to live, and it will be a good place to walk by. Which is no small item here. I have been to a lot… I have heard Emma Kirkby sing in that cathedral-like church – for a Methodist church, it’s pretty cathedral-like – across the street. It’s a heavily traveled corridor, on foot and otherwise. I think this is a good building and a good use to put here. We’ve been very concerned about the effect that it will have on the buildings to its right on Webster. I do think that you’ve done a good job of addressing our concerns, which come up a lot in new residential projects, of how you have ground floor units that relate to the street, but yet have an adequate sense of privacy. I think you’ve done that well. I like your increased parking. I like that your parking is underground. I agree with David that some natural light in underground parking is great. We have some good examples, I’m thinking, at the corner of Lytton and Emerson, for example. And there are some counter examples on Everett. And I am concerned about minimizing the height while maintaining attractive uses. And I very much appreciate… I realize I’m easily seduced by beautiful drawings, and I appreciate Osma’s commentary on the materials board. I think this project is ready to… Oh, and I do find the variance findings compelling. You mentioned that the fin wall would be removable in the future if the City needed it to be. Is that a condition of approval of the variance? It needs to be? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. We’ll ensure that that is a condition. Chair Furth: You can’t just say we’re taking it back unless the applicant has agreed to leave that right with the City. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. The point is that it is going into a special setback, and should the City ever need to use that property…[crosstalk] Chair Furth: You will be sure that the approval documents, that the property owner needs to have a covenant that they will do so that runs with the land. 6.a Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you. Chair Furth: Okay. The applicant is indicating they are fine with that. I would suggest referring three items to a subcommittee. The first would be the materials, and as I understand it, we like the elevations more than the materials submitted, so the goal would be to come up with something that works. But, the guidance towards to the subcommittee from us would be that we… How would you phrase it? Board Member Thompson: I think mainly the design intent – and please correct me if I’m wrong – the design intent does seem that there’s kind of a cool base and a warm, you know, middle-upper. And at the moment, the materials palette, you know, it doesn’t seem to reflect that design intent. I don’t want to necessarily stipulate what that material should be, but it should be something warmer to reflect that design intent. Chair Furth: You’re describing the upper floors which, to me, look brownish, pale brown. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Chair Furth: And the bottom floor looks creamy? Board Member Thompson: Well, the bottom floor is all that board-form concrete. Chair Furth: Right, but when I’m looking at the elevation, that’s not what you see at all. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, it looks white. But in their precedent imagery, they’re showing a lot of wood for the wall panels. I remember first seeing this project and kind of believing that this would be a really heavy wood project, you know, because wood has that warmth. I don’t know. I think that was the contrast they were trying to make between the wood and the concrete, the heavy and the light, the warm and the cold. Chair Furth: Are you saying that one of the things you’d be looking for is contrast between the upper and lower floors? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. But I would say I don’t have a problem with the board form concrete. I think that’s good for the base for the cold [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: My only concern, one thing I know for sure is I know I’m not going to be on this subcommittee. But I think it would be useful for the… Maybe you can just decide that any two of you, working with a very skilled architect, have the capacity to do what needs to be done here and just say, “nothing further,” that we’ll just review the colors. It looks like you’re happy with that. Okay. For the subcommittee to review the materials, in light of the comments today; to review the height, with the goal to reducing that by a couple of feet, if possible, even with a preference for having an elevator that pokes through the basic form, if necessary. How would you say that? Vice Chair Baltay: Well, to get my vote, I’d like to say not review the height. We already asked them to do that and that didn’t get us anything. I’d like them to reduce the height by at least a foot on each floor of the upper two floors. It’s two feet total. Chair Furth: By two feet. Vice Chair Baltay: And again, I hate to be prescriptive on this, but we did… [crosstalk]… Chair Furth: Two feet or more. Vice Chair Baltay: … and we didn’t get much result. 6.a Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: Okay. And then, to review the garage lighting. And I put it that way because I agree with David, that daylight is wonderful if you can do it. I’ve been really impressed in the last few years with the great basement-level, parking-level lighting that can be achieved with LED fixtures. I think the Medico… Is it the Medico-Dental building? Whatever. The building across the street from City Hall has a beautifully lit garage. Best I’ve ever seen. And that’s done without natural light except from the driveway. I don’t know what the solution is. I agree with David. It needs to be, basically shadow less. But garage lighting would be the third item for referral. Board Member Lew: No, that’s not a… I think that’s beyond our purview. Chair Furth: Well, if we can require exterior lighting. Vice Chair Baltay: I believe David was referring to skylights, natural lighting in the garage. Chair Furth: Right. I agree. Vice Chair Baltay: And that’s a rather large change for the architects to try and incorporate right now, I think. Chair Furth: Okay, so, what’s the consensus of the Board on that point? Vice Chair Baltay: And whether they brightly light it with electric lights or not… Chair Furth: None of our business. Vice Chair Baltay: I think David’s recommendation is wise, but maybe… Chair Furth: You don’t support it. Vice Chair Baltay: No, I just think it’s not reasonable to ask the architects to change something like that at this point. Chair Furth: I would call that not supporting it. Vice Chair Baltay: Not supporting it. Ms. Gerhardt: From a findings standpoint, we do have Finding #4, which is the design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic, providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operation. Chair Furth: Yeah, if I thought, I mean, we often comment on the interior design of garages if we don’t think they’re functional. I think I’m hearing from everybody but David that they think it’s good enough for the findings. I’m seeing some nods here. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, it meets the same standard we’ve applied to other similar buildings. Chair Furth: Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? Or comment? Ms. Bridges: Commissioner Furth, may I make a quick comment regarding the height? Chair Furth: Yes. You need to be a little closer to the mic, however. Ms. Bridges: Okay, I apologize. With regard to the height, the recommendation in terms of what the committee would be looking for, I was wondering if we could make it a bit less specific than saying one foot per floor. Because what’s challenging for us on the residential floors is that that middle floor. When the office elevator comes up, we kind of have to maintain that height, because we have looked at every elevator out there, all the major manufacturers, and we selected one with the lowest overrun. That middle floor, we really can’t play with that height much. If we need to reduce height, the place to do it is, as you were mentioning, would have to be at that top floor, by doing a bump-out. I think if we could leave it a bit more flexible in terms of how we look at that when we’re in committee, that might be helpful to… [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I think we were saying two feet overall. Ms. Bridges: I’m sorry, I’m just looking to the architect for direction in terms of… 6.a Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Lew: You can’t be demanding. They have to engineer the building. They have to work out… Chair Furth: I understand they do. One of your colleagues suggested a two-foot requirement. You don’t support it, right? Ms. Bridges: If we might say a goal of two feet and leave it to the folks in the subcommittee, and perhaps the people most concerned, maybe one of those could sit on the subcommittee. Just a suggestion. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: To my colleagues. By the time this gets to subcommittee, it’s pretty well fixed. I think we need to decide now. It is possible to eliminate a closet in that apartment and let the bump-out take the place of a closet. It’s possible to shift the four-story elevator slightly further into the building so it gets picked up with the mechanical screening. And I understand the architect is frustrated by that, but understand our frustration. We brought this issue to your attention, and it didn’t seem like we got more than just a bunch of elevator specifications on it. We understand and appreciate that. It’s technically complicated. I completely agree with Alex. The last thing we want to do is tell you specifically what to do. Our concern, my concern – and I believe the Board, the majority – is the relationship to 530 Webster. And the building now is just a little bit too tall to relate to that building. I think you can’t take two feet off the top floor and leave the middle floor that height. It will look wrong. We’re not the architects. Your architect needs to address this situation. Chair Furth: I think what we need to do is have somebody make a motion and see what the Board supports. Mr. Frederick: Excuse me, Madam Chair. As a point of information, could you clarify that, in fact, part of this is, in the approval for demolition, that the 17-foot variance is acceptable under CEQA? Chair Furth: Yes, we have said that. Thank you. Mr. Frederick: Thank you. Chair Furth: Did you have a comment, Osma? Board Member Thompson: Yeah… Board Member Lew: I think we should also comment, we’re not approving the demolition permit. Chair Furth: Right. Board Member Lew: This is ARB. Chair Furth: We’re just approving the design of the new building. Board Member Lew: Demolition is a separate… Chair Furth: And we’re asked to review the environmental documentation. Board Member Thompson: Do we know if the height… Chair Furth: I mean, one of the things that’s confusing to the public is that what the caption says is that we’re asked to approve a project which involves the demolition of buildings, but we don’t actually issue demolition permits. Go ahead, Osma. Did you have something? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, sorry. Chair Furth: I still want one of you to make a motion. Board Member Thompson: I’m not ready yet. Sorry. 6.a Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Furth: Go ahead. Board Member Thompson: I’m looking at A5.2C. Chair Furth: Could you put that up? Board Member Thompson: This is 530 Webster, right? This one? Do we know the height? Oh, it says it right here. Sorry. It’s 69 feet, .6, versus 85.1. Are you saying that lowering the height by two feet will make a difference in terms of how it relates to that building? Vice Chair Baltay: I believe so, yes, Osma. I think right now, the third-floor plate line itself is above the height of 530 Webster. And there’s that trim band that relates those two. Usually what we’re looking for is let the neighbor building go up a floor, but this one seems, to me, sort of aggressively more than a floor. The 13-foot floor on the second floor is a little bit too tall, and then, the whole thing pops up another 13 feet. Board Member Thompson: Your issue is not with the 85 total, it’s just where the datum for the top of the second floor is? Vice Chair Baltay: No, it’s both. I think the datum should line up better with 530 Webster, and then, the roof itself, having these very tall plates, I think sort of accentuates the situation. If we reduce the request from two feet to one foot, would that be more palatable to you? Board Member Thompson: I’m kind of in a place where it seems like the height difference is so much that I don’t know that it would make that much of a difference, whether it’s one foot, or two feet, or zero feet at that point. Because it’s so much further lower, it looks like it’s at least 15 feet lower. That whether it’s 14 feet or 13 feet, I think the main context that we’re seeing, like the bigger street, I guess… I don’t know. It seems that… I guess I just kind of accept that it will be a change. But I guess my bigger question was, I think in your original comments, you mentioned a change in massing, where it would step down. Or was that…? No? Vice Chair Baltay: No, absolutely not. No, no. Board Member Thompson: Okay, good, because I would not agree with that. MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: Okay. I’ll make a motion that we recommend approval of this project, including recommendations regarding approval of the variance, with two conditions. One, that the materials be returned to subcommittee, in particular the fiber cement siding selection. Two, that the overall height of the building be reduced by a minimum of one foot. With no stipulation how that gets done. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Furth: Would you like to speak to your motion? Vice Chair Baltay: No, I think we’ve said everything about it. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. My concern is that one foot really isn’t significant enough. I think that the second floor as well needs to be reduced more than that. When we actually see this building in construction, we’re going to regret the fact that we have been lenient about the heights here, and that they really are quite excessive in each of the floors. And that what’s ruling this whole decision is that the elevator overrun is an issue. As Mr. Baltay pointed out, planning could take care of the elevator for the office space, and a bump-out on the roof could take care of the elevator on the third floor. I think that actually we’re going to regret the look of this building, quite so massive, and that reducing it will not affect materially the exterior, the good image that the exterior has on the street. 6.a Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Page 14 AMENDED MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: Very well. I’d like to amend that motion and say the building height be reduced by two feet. I’ll need a new second, I think. Actually, am I allowed to…? The motion was made and seconded. Ms. Gerhardt: It would need to be seconded. Chair Furth: Feel free. You would like to amend your motion. Vice Chair Baltay: Let’s try for two feet and see if it flies. Chair Furth: I’ll second it for the purposes of debate. My question is, I agree with David, that this frontage on Webster shows a building which is much higher than its neighbor. And it’s the neighbor, incidentally, that I’m most concerned about its interaction with. I’m not concerned about what it’s going to do to the parking garage, the large office building, or the very large church. And it is true that generally when we add an additional floor, you can see the horizontal continuity between the top of the second floor and the adjacent second-floor building. One of the findings we’re required to make is about context. One of the biggest critiques we get from the general public – which don’t spend quite as much time thinking about this as we do; at least not individually – is that we don’t pay enough attention to context. I don’t know if two feet is enough to accomplish a sense of not looming. I also understand that whether this building makes 530 Webster look comfortable, or if it makes it look like the building that’s next scheduled for demolition, has a lot to do with the design of the edges. I would appreciate some guidance from my colleagues. Board Member Thompson: I was going to mention, I know we’re spending a lot of time on this, but… Chair Furth: It’s a big building. Board Member Thompson: … how do we know that that smaller building won’t be up for demolition and for a higher building height anyway? We’re spending all this time… Board Member Lew: That’s actually irrelevant. We have to… Chair Furth: Our job is to make it work. Board Member Lew: …make it work as-is. Board Member Thompson: Right. Board Member Lew: The context is what it is today. And what happens tomorrow is absolutely irrelevant. Chair Furth: Way beyond our control and not what we design for. Board Member Thompson: Sure. Chair Furth: Or review for. Ms. Gerhardt: However, the building is historic, so more likely to remain. I also, just from a factual standpoint, the parapet of the adjacent building is 69.6 feet. The finished floor for the third level would be 72 feet. That’s the finished floor versus the parapet. Board Member Thompson: That’s, I guess, above the metal panel fascia that we’re looking at? Chair Furth: When we look at that elevation A5.2C, could you point out what you’re talking about on the proposed building? Ms. Gerhardt: There’s an elevation on A5.4, and that’s where I’m getting those numbers from. Chair Furth: Right, but if you look at A5.2C, the lower drawing, there’s windows, there’s a horizontal element. Where’s the finished floor that you’re referencing? Ms. Gerhardt: The architect could probably help us with that. 6.a Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Vice Chair Baltay: This is the finished floor, at the top of the brown trim. Chair Furth: The top of the brown trim? Ms. Cole: The top of the trim is the floor height. Chair Furth: Thank you. Okay. Board Member Thompson: Do we know the depth of the trim? Like, what’s the bottom of that trim? I’m only asking because in the elevation on A5.4, it looks like it lines up with that parapet. Chair Furth: Yeah. Ms. Cole: It’s 1 foot, 8 ½. Chair Furth: One foot, 8.5 inches? Thank you. To confirm, the adjacent building is 69.64 feet high? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. The parapet of the adjacent building. Chair Furth: Sorry, above sea level. That would be a pretty high three-story building. Vice Chair Baltay: [inaudible]. Chair Furth: If you have a question of the architect… Board Member Thompson: That would make the bottom of that fascia at 70 foot, four. It would be about… Chair Furth: Could we have further clarification from the architect? Peter, why don’t you ask your question? Vice Chair Baltay: To the architect. You’re a very strong, design-oriented architecture firm, and we feel very resistant in telling you what to do. Do you have a response to how make the building integrate just a bit better with 530 Webster? Ms. Cole: I think that we have looked at that a lot, and I’m not trying to be defensive about it. I do think it’s an important condition, and I agree that that is what makes a project. I don’t know… We can look at it further as to what we could do to try to integrate more at that corner. The height, my fear of lowering the building and exposing the elevator is it has a much greater negative effect on the other elevation in terms of the feeling of the building and the consistency of it. I’m not saying I know what the solution would be, because I don’t think it’s really to bring that pop-up so close to the front edge, and then it’s constrained by the garage. I mean, this has been a puzzle of a building, so we’re trying to piece all these pieces together. I don’t have a solution for you here, so, if you’d like us to look at how to make this better contextually with 530, we can do that. Ms. Bridges: If I may just add to what Roslyn was commenting on. When they presented the images to us, one of the things that they kept emphasizing was the metal panel that you all were just asking about the dimension on, and pointing out how important that was to try to keep that, kind of close in line with the top of the 530 Webster building, because that kind of draws it together and helps it sit more contextually. I think that that’s pretty important, so, I think if we’re trying to look to a dimension, making sure that we don’t offset too much to lose that relationship. Another thing that, as we were playing with it and trying to flex on the issue over the last few months, one of the things that we were realizing is that, we felt it was pretty important to try to keep the relationship of the windows equal on the second and the third floor if at all possible, because the proportions matter. We were struggling with that a bit because as we, we actually did look at possibly having the office elevator run into, up into a closet, and kind of modifying that unit. If we bring that level down, then it changes the proportion of the windows. So, I think to keep it contextual, those are the things that we’ll have to play with as we work with the subcommittee, to make sure that we don’t lose the elegance of the architecture, and to make sure that we kind of keep that alignment of that metal panel somewhere near the top of the 530 Webster building. 6.a Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Furth: I have a question for you. How high is the landscaping supposed to be between those two buildings? How tall? Ms. Bridges: Are you speaking of the landscaping kind of along the privacy fence? Chair Furth: Uh-huh. Ms. Bridges: The coffeeberry can grow to 15 feet. And then, I’m going to look back to our landscape architect for the height on the… [crosstalk] Chair Furth: …how many feet above sea level? Since that’s the data [crosstalk]. Ms. Bridges: Oh, my gosh. [Laughs] Chair Furth: Where I’m going is, my solution is also plant it out, which is not very respectful of architecture. But what’s driving us are conflicting desires to have your building look well proportioned, have it respectful of the building next to it so that it doesn’t diminish that building as its experience, and I’m curious as to how high. I mean, I have coffeeberries, not very big ones, so I’m really asking you, is that landscaping intended to get as high as 530 Webster, or not? Ms. Bridges: The height on the 530 Webster building, again, is…? Roslyn, can you help me? Twenty-four feet. So, no, it would not be as tall as 530 Webster because we would only be 15 feet tall in the front area. In the back, we do have trees which would grow higher. It does bring up an interesting issue about privacy. One of the things that I liked about where the building landed in relation to 530 Webster is that at the… We’ve got the landscaping at the ground level hiding those windows. Then, we carefully placed the windows in the mid-tier. And then, where we have the top level, we’ve studied those angles, and if you look at those angles, because it’s high enough up, you don’t see down into the units at 530 Webster. And that’s something, I met with the 530 Webster owner, and we reviewed that in detail, and I think that they were quite happy with how that was turning out. Chair Furth: Thank you. We appreciate that. Ms. Bridges: Thank you. Chair Furth: These are all drawings and plans. Any consensus? Vice Chair Baltay: I was going to, with permission of the Chair, offer to the applicants, I think the votes are here to reduce the building by two feet, if not more. Or, I’m open to continuing the project, and you guys go back and work your magic and show us something that aligns better, height notwithstanding. Which would you rather do? Through the Chair. Chair Furth: At this point, would you like to come back to us one more time, or go to a subcommittee? With a condition of reducing the project height. Ms. Bridges: I think our preference would be to advance to the subcommittee and work through the issue there. I think that we can find a way to… We will find a way to reduce the height by the two feet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Ms. Bridges: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay: So then, I’d like to add to that motion one additional statement, which is to say that the trim band at the top of the second floor on the new building better align with 530 Webster. That is direction to the subcommittee. Chair Furth: Could you take me through your motion at this point? AMENDED MOTION Vice Chair Baltay: The motion is to recommend approval, with the condition that (a) the material selection come back to subcommittee, specifically the selection of fiber cement siding; and (2) that the overall height 6.a Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto Page 17 of the building be reduced by two feet, with the additional caveat that the trim band at the middle of the new building better align with 530 Webster. Chair Furth: Is there a second? Ms. Gerhardt: Chair Furth, you seconded last. Unless we’re starting over. Chair Furth: Right. I’ll second for the purposes of… Well, not for the purposes of discussion. Okay. Why don’t we vote on that one, and if that doesn’t pass, we’ll have another vote? All those in favor? Vice Chair Baltay: Aye. Board Member Lew: Aye. Chair Furth: Aye. Board Member Thompson: Aye. Board Member Hirsch: Nay. Chair Furth: Well, what do you know? Four to one. 6.a Packet Pg. 64 October 14. 2019 Sheldon Ah Sing Project Planner City of Palo Alto Planning and Community Environment Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: Hamilton Webster ARB Subcommittee Review Dear Mr. Ah Sing, We have studied the Hamilton Webster project in light of comments provided by the Architectural Review Board on July 18, 2019, and we have provided revised drawings that we hope fully address all concerns. The enclosed sheets convey the changes to the project. ARB Subcommittee Review items and Design Team Response: A. Colors/Materials: Make the project look more like the renderings, cool tone base (board form concrete) with warm tone upper levels (fiber cement siding). In order to provide a warmer toned material, we have changed the fiber cement panels (FRB-1) from the previously specified Equitone to a Taktl ribbed panel. We propose to use the Taktl Dune 60 color in a mediablast finish to achieve both the contrast with the board formed concrete as well as to provide a textural quality that conveys the materiality of the fiber cement board. The relief of the Taktl ribbed panel is more accentuated than the originally specified Equitone panel which we believe is an enhancement for the project and in line with the textural quality shown in the original rendered views. A mock up of the ribbed pattern is shown on the photographed material board (A5.2B). We are in the process of getting an actual sample from the manufacturer (demonstrating color, texture and ribbing in a single sample) that we will bring to our upcoming meeting for the subcommittee’s review. In addition to the change to the fiber cement panel, we have adjusted the MTL-1 metal panel color to provide a dark brown fascia, window and canopy which is lighter than the original sample. This dark bronze color has been chosen so that it can be consistent between window manufacturers as well as match the intent for a dark and rich brown coloration. With the change to the fiber cement panel color, we have also adjusted the MTL-2 color so that it is slightly darker than the panels but contrasts with the MTL-1 color as originally desired. The plaster colors (PLAS-1 & PLAS-2) have been adjusted to work with the anticipated board formed concrete color and updated fiber cement panels respectively. The proposed materials are shown on sheet A5.2B as well as the physical material board. The renderings have been updated to represent the materials better. For comparison, the original materials are shown on sheet A5.2B-X. B. Height: Reduce the project by a minimum of two feet with the elevator that extends above. We have reduced the height of the building by 2’-3 ½” overall. This has been achieved by taking 2” each out of the second and third floor trim bands, 12” out of the third floor ceiling height and 11 ½” out 6.b Packet Pg. 65 of the second floor ceiling height. These reductions allow the second and third floor windows to remain the same height and proportion to each other, which we believe is important for the vertical reading of the upper two stories. The height reduction requires that the residential elevator overrun pops above the roof. However, the elevator overrun is shielded from the street view by the roof eave. To accommodate the office elevator overrun, the third floor two bedroom unit has been changed to a one bedroom unit as shown in the clouded plan on A2.3. We believe that this 2’-3 ½” reduction best relates to the neighbor at 530 Webster, with the top of the third floor trim band visually aligned with the parapet of 530 Webster. This is shown in both the new elevations, rendered elevations and rendered view from Webster as well as the comparison views. C. Trim band: The project’s trim band shall better align with the adjacent 530 Webster building. The change in building height described above has lowered the third floor trim band by a total of 1’- 3½” such that it visually aligns with the top of 530 Webster building. This was the genesis of our decision to lower the building more than 2 feet. We feel that the two buildings relate much better with this change in height. The changes described above have been integrated into the appropriate sheets of the plan set which are enclosed for slip-sheeting. For the Planning Department and Subcommittee’s ease of review, we have provided additional sheets that compare views from the previous submission to views from the current submission, designated with the sheet numbers X. The provided sheets are as follows: A2.3 Level 3 Plan A5.2B Proposed Material Palette Samples A5.2B-X Original Material Palette Samples A5.2C Elevational Perspectives A5.3A Rendered View A5.3A-X Rendered View from Webster Street St: Height Comparison A5.4 Exterior Elevations A5.4-X Webster Street Elevation: Height Comparison Please call if you have any questions or need additional information. Sincerely, Roslyn Cole Principal 6.b Packet Pg. 66 6.c Packet Pg. 67 6.c Packet Pg. 68 6.c Packet Pg. 69 6.c Packet Pg. 70 6.c Packet Pg. 71 6.c Packet Pg. 72 6.c Packet Pg. 73 6.c Packet Pg. 74 6.c Packet Pg. 75 6.c Packet Pg. 76 6.c Packet Pg. 77 6.c Packet Pg. 78 6.c Packet Pg. 79 6.c Packet Pg. 80 6.c Packet Pg. 81 6.c Packet Pg. 82 6.c Packet Pg. 83 6.c Packet Pg. 84 6.c Packet Pg. 85 6.c Packet Pg. 86 6.c Packet Pg. 87 6.c Packet Pg. 88 Attachment C Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “565 Hamilton Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4231 6.d Packet Pg. 89