Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-12-19 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: December 19, 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. 702 Clara Drive [18PLN-00068]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, Four-Unit Apartment Building and Construction of Three Detached Single-Family Homes Totaling 5,000 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: RM-20 (Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road [19PLN-00291]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Address Specific Issues Raised by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for a Previously Approved Project that Includes Two Automobile Dealerships. The Prior Approval Through Conditions of Approval Required the Project to Come Back to the ARB to Address Issues Related to Color, Landscaping, Parapets, Lighting, _______________________ 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. Transportation Demand Management Plan, County Airport Land Use Commission Review; and Floor Area Ratio. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Adopted for the Project on June 24, 2019. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 Hamilton Avenue [19PLN-00220]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Architectural Review Approval of Three New Bus Stops in the Public Rights-of-Way Located at 3380 Coyote Hill Road, 3223 Hanover Street and 1501 Page Mill Road and Surrounding Hardscape Improvements. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org Study Session/Preliminary Review Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2019. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 2019. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 7. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates - Boardmember Lew Adjournment Subcommittee Items _______________________ 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 # 10956) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 12/19/2019 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 Cancelled 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson 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 12/5 – Lew/ Thompson *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 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2020 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 1/16/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/6/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/20/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/5/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/19/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/16/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/7/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/21/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/4/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/18/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 7/16/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/6/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/20/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/3/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/17/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/1/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/15/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/5/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/19/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/3/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/17/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2020 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2020 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics January 16, 2020 • 4256 El Camino Real: 100 Room Hotel (3rd Formal) • 788 San Antonio Road (2nd Formal) • 3215 Porter Drive: New Commercial Office Building • Issues and Options for Objective Standards 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10859) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/19/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 702 Clara Drive: Three Detached Units (3rd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL. 702 Clara Drive [18PLN- 00068]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, Four-Unit Apartment Building and Construction of Three Detached Single-Family Homes Totaling 5,000 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: RM-20 (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. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning & Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB on two other occasions. The municipal code encourages the Director of Planning & Development Services to take action on projects after three public hearings. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the ARB and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in earlier reports and reflects recent project changes. Earlier staff reports include background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies. These reports are available online: 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 • February 7, 2019: bit.ly/37l5AFg • August 1, 2019: bit.ly/2OlYuYl The ARB is encouraged to make a final recommendation to approve, conditionally approve or deny the project. Background On February 7, 2019 and August 1, 2019, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the ARB’s meetings are available online: February 7, 2019 (bit.ly/2rVSUUY) and August 1, 2019 (bit.ly/2Ohpk3y). Verbatim minutes of August 1, 2019 are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/73231. The ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response • Review the circulation and use of side yards between the buildings. Home A: East elevation includes bicycle locker and trash bins. Air conditioning unit is proposed to be located at the rear. Home B: Exclusive access between Homes A and B includes bicycle locker, trash bins, and air conditioning equipment. Home C: Exclusive access between Homes B and C includes bicycle locker, trash bins, and air conditioning equipment. See Sheet A 6. See analysis section for more discussion. • Review the front yard paving in front of Home A. Additional landscaping added to the front yard and reduction of paving. See Sheet L-0. • Show down spouts & lighting on elevations. Down spouts and lighting are shown on plans. See rendering sheets. • Review the size of the Home B porch. Porch has a larger dimension of 12’-6” x 6’-8” than previously proposed. See Sheet A7. • Consider revising roof over laundry room at Home B. Roof is extended. See Sheet A 12. • Review Home A stair windows (frosted or high sill preferred). Used obscure glass. See Sheet A 12. • Landscaping—match renderings. Renderings match plans. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 See Sheets A 15 – A 20. • Consider separation of common open space area along Sutter Avenue with greenery. Updated plans with removal of fence, having a less defined walkway and added shrubbery. See sheets L-0 and L-2. • Review the corner of Home C for better connection to open space and front. Side door and porch added with direct access to street corner. See Sheets A 6, A 13 and A 17. • Consider the use of operable windows Most side elevation windows are high sill and fixed. See analysis section for further discussion. In addition, the applicant responded to the request by the Planning Department for the following: • Added divided light windows to Home A for consistency with other buildings (See Sheet A 11); Analysis1 The ARB commented on the use and circulation of the side yards between the buildings. Additionally, the ARB focused on the transitions between the buildings and the on-site open spaces along the streets. The ARB requested that the applicant provide additional detail on the plans, ensure consistency between the plans and the renderings, and present more detail on the fenestration. Proposed Revisions The revisions bolster the project’s compliance with Findings #2 and #5. The project now provides a better connection to the Sutter Avenue and Clara Drive streetscapes with landscaping, less paving and less fencing. The revised Home C front entry and wrap-around porch is oriented towards Sutter Avenue. The porch provides a focal point to the corner and purposefully incorporates the large landscaped area with a direct connection to the street corner. The plan details show proposed windowsill heights and translucency characteristics 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 (obscured or clear). These details demonstrate privacy would be maintained between the units and adjacent properties. Changes to the project comply with Finding #4 with the incorporation of larger porches and more efficient use of the side yards. The side yards would be used for service, convenience, and amenity related items such as bicycle lockers, air conditioning units, and trash/recycling bins. These changes enhance the on-site circulation and use of the areas that have limited space, while maintaining functionality. Responses to staff have positively affected the project’s compliance with Finding #3, with the addition of divided light windows for Home A. Other proposed revisions provide clarity and consistency within the plans. Overall, these project revisions ensure consistency with the required Architectural Review approval findings. The project will be consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan. Evaluated but not Changed The ARB commented on the availability of operable windows for the project. The applicant’s response is that there are many high-sill fixed windows on the side elevations. Where there are operable windows proposed, those would be opened by casement, slider, or single hung windows. If this response is not favorably received, staff suggests adding an approval condition requiring ARB subcommittee review of the windows. Alternatively, the ARB could recommend staff address the issue prior to issuance of a building permit. In that case, staff would seek sufficient direction as to the extent of operable windows on each building. Environmental Review City staff assessed the subject project in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is Categorically Exempt under Class 32 15332 In-Fill Developments and Class 3 for new small structures since three single family (up to four multi-family) structures are proposed. Additional information can be found on the project webpage at bit.ly/702Clara. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on December 6, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 3, 2019, which is 16 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 x 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: ARB Findings for Approval (DOCX) • Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment E: Applicant's Response Letter (PDF) • Attachment F: August 1, 2019 Excerpt Minutes (PDF) • Attachment G: Project Plans and Environmental Review (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 13 R-1 2.a Packet Pg. 14 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 702 Clara Drive 18PLN-00068 In order for the ARB to make a recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Land Use and Community Design Element Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Policy L-1.3 Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is surrounded by urban uses and is consistent in scale with adjacent buildings. Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodeled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and adjacent structures. The project includes similar materials and design as adjacent buildings in the area. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project uses a variety of materials and the site planning ensures that onsite circulation and open spaces are uses efficiently. Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and wellbeing; and to enhance a sense of community safety. The project is consistent in design with surrounding buildings. The project preserves mature trees and incorporates those into usable open spaces. Housing Element Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Policy H1.4 Ensure that new developments provide appropriate transitions from higher density development to single-family and low- density residential districts to preserve The project is designed as detached units on a small lot, which provides an adequate transition from the higher density to single- family zoning. 2.b Packet Pg. 15 neighborhood character. Policy H1.2 Support efforts to preserve multifamily housing units in existing neighborhoods. While the project proposes a decrease in one dwelling unit from the existing condition, on balance, the project is consistent with the City’s Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. The project is consistent with the applicable Zoning development standards. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project’s design including the placement of the structures and siting of open space complements the neighborhood, the streetscape and overall internal sense of order for the site. The project preserves and protects the existing large street trees along Sutter Avenue and Clara Drive. The project is subject to the following context-based findings contained with PAMC 18.13.060: Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a multi-family district. The purpose is to encourage development in a multi-family district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Massing and Building Facades Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with street(s) through elements. The project includes three individual plan types. The units share an architectural style using different color. Unit A includes a bay window, while Unit C includes a second floor balcony overlooking the open space along Sutter Avenue. The scale of the structures is in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. All of the units include materials and architectural elements that are consistent with the architectural style of the unit. 2.b Packet Pg. 16 2. Low Density Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. The project is consistent with the zoning code development standards. The transition, massing and orientation of the structures provide privacy and is compatible with neighboring properties and internally within the project. 3. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. The project provides adequate amount of open space in areas on the site that are most appropriate for use and privacy. The project provides private open space within fenced areas accessed only by each individual unit and provides a large common open space area protected by trees and shrubs along the street. 4. Parking Designs Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment. Each unit includes a street-facing garage and uncovered parking. 5. Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood. The project site does not meet the criteria to be considered a large site. 6. Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units (Figure 6-1), attached rowhouses/townhouses (Figure 6-2), and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development. The project includes three detached units on a single parcel. Each unit has an individual plan type with similar architectural elements used throughout. Multi-family and single- family developments surround the subject parcel and the proposed project serves as an appropriate transition between the two types of development. 7. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project. The project is consistent with the City’s Green Building Codes. 2.b Packet Pg. 17 Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project includes stucco finishes, a combination of gable and hip roof elements, porches, bay windows and balconies. The scale of the structures and the use of materials are in keeping with the surrounding neighborhood. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project will function similarly to a site with three detached units. Each unit will include its own garage and bicycle locker. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The plant palette on Sheet L-3 demonstrates that the majority of the plantings are native. The project maintains significant sized street trees. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with the City’s Green Building Code as detailed on Sheets GB-1 and GB- 2 of the plan set. 2.b Packet Pg. 18 Performance Criteria PAMC 18.23 Pursuant to PAMC 18.23, the following performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project proposes individual totes for recycling and garage pick up. 18.23.030 Lighting To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The project proposes light fixtures that are appropriate with the scale of the buildings and are typical for individual residential units. 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick- up. Not applicable. 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project is a residential project with three detached units. Landscaping is appropriate and complements the surrounding neighboring properties. 2.b Packet Pg. 19 Performance Criteria Project Consistency 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. It is expected that the operation and use of the residential units would be consistent with the neighboring properties. 18.23.070 Parking The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. Street-facing garages are proposed with uncovered parking in front of the garages. 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The project includes three detached units with independent garages and bicycle lockers located in the rear of each lot. 18.23.090 Air Quality The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. The project is a detached residential project and would its occupants would use typical household supplies and cleaners. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. It is not anticipated that the users of the units would store hazardous materials onsite. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 702 Clara Drive 18PLN-00068 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "702 Clara Dr Palo Alto, CA 94303,” stamped as received by the City on November 18, 2019 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 7. FENCES. Fences and walls shall comply with the applicable provisions of Chapter 16.24, Fences, of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). Heights of all new and existing fencing must be shown on the Building Permit plans. a. Where the existing fence is located off the subject property and/or where the existing fence is failing, a new Code compliant fence shall be constructed. 8. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the 2.c Packet Pg. 21 Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Since four existing units are being demolished and three new units are being constructed, no development impact fees are due. 10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 11. Public Utility Easement is shown on architectural sheet. Please verify and show PUE on civil sheets and topographic survey sheets. Structures, including garages and roof overhangs shall not be constructed in PUEs. 12. SUBDIVISION: If condominium units are proposed, a Preliminary Parcel Map and a Parcel Map, are required for the proposed development. The applicant shall submit a minor subdivision application to the Department of Planning and Development Services. Show all existing and proposed dedications and easements on the map submitted as part of the application. Please be advised that the Parcel map shall be recorded with the Santa Clara County Clerk Recorder prior to Building or Grading and Excavation Permit issuance. A digital copy of the Parcel Map, in AutoCAD format, shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering and shall conform to North American Datum 1983 State Plane Zone 3 for horizontal survey controls and NGVD88 for vertical survey controls. 13. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations and drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of five percent (5%). Downspouts and splashblocks should be shown on this plan, as well as any site drainage features such as swales, area drains, bubblers, etc. Grading that increases drainage onto, or blocks existing drainage from neighboring properties will not be allowed. Public Works generally does not allow rainwater to be collected and discharged into the street gutter but encourages the developer to keep rainwater onsite as much as feasible by directing runoff to landscaped and other pervious areas of the site. See the Grading & Drainage Plan Guidelines for New Single Family Residences: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 14. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 2.c Packet Pg. 22 15. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: This project creates or replaces 500 square feet or more of impervious area, the applicant needs to fill out the impervious area worksheet and submit it with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on our website. http://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2718 16. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and/or Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Construction phasing shall be coordinated to keep materials and equipment onsite. 17. SIDEWALK, CURB & GUTTER: As part of this project, the applicant must replace the sidewalks, curbs and gutters in the public right-of-way along both frontages of the property. The sidewalks associated with the new driveways must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the replacement work. 18. STREET: As part of this project, the applicant must resurface the full width of the streets along both frontages of the property. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the extent of the resurfacing work. 19. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the public right-of-way: “Any construction within the city’s public right-of-way must be done per Public Works’ standards by a licensed contractor. The contractor must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 20. STREET TREES: Show all existing street trees in the public right-of-way. Provide a note adjacent to street trees: “Any removal, relocation or planting of street trees; or excavation, trenching or pavement within 10 feet of street trees must be approved by Public Works' arborist (phone: 650- 496-5953).” Show construction protection of the trees per City requirements. 21. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor is required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work.” 22. RESIDENTIAL STORM WATER TREATMENT: This project triggers the California Regional Water Quality Control Board’s revised provision C.3 for storm water regulations (incorporated into the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Section 16.11) that apply to residential land development projects that create or replace between 2,500 and 10,000 square feet of impervious surface area. The applicant must implement one or more of the following site design measures: a. Direct roof runoff into cisterns or rain barrels for reuse. 2.c Packet Pg. 23 b. Direct roof runoff onto vegetated areas. c. Direct runoff from sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios onto vegetated areas. d. Direct runoff from driveways and/or uncovered parking lots onto vegetated areas. e. Construct sidewalks, walkways, and/or patios with permeable surfaces. f. Construct driveways, and/or uncovered parking lots with permeable surfaces. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY SECTION PRIOR TO DEMOLITION, BUILDING OR GRADING PERMIT ISSUANCE 23. Installation of bio-infiltration basins, landscape planting, and irrigation within tree protection zones of existing trees must be supervised by the project arborist. Excavation must be done with air, hydro, or hand tools to avoid damage to tree roots. Tree protection fencing may be temporarily removed for this purpose, but must be re-installed directly following completion of the basins. 24. Construction of driveways and pathways within tree protection zones of existing trees must be supervised by the project arborist. Excavation must be done with air, hydro, or hand tools to avoid damage to tree roots. A geo-grid or geo-textile material shall be installed as a base layer to minimize excavation and reduce underlying compaction of soil. Tree protection fencing may be temporarily removed for this purpose, but must be re-installed directly following completion. 25. Tree protection zones and tree protection fencing alignments shall be shown on the proposed site plan, sheet A.3. 26. The tree protection report shall be edited to note that maple trees identified as trees 1,2,6, and 7 are City-owned street trees. 27. All instructions/recommendations in the tree protection report found on pages AR1-AR5 shall be strictly adhered to 6. NEW TREES—PERFORMANCE MEASURES. New trees shall be shown on all relevant plans: site, utility, irrigation, landscape, etc. in a location 10’ clear radius from any (new or existing) underground utility or curb cut. a. Add note on the Planting Plan that states, “Tree Planting. Prior to in-ground installation, Urban Forestry inspection/approval required for tree stock, planting conditions and irrigation adequacy. Contact (650-496-5953).” b. Landscape Plan tree planting shall state the Urban Forestry approved species, size and using Standard Planting Dwg. #604 for street trees or those planted in a parking median, and shall note the tree pit dug at least twice the diameter of the root ball. 28. Wooden cross-brace is prohibited. a. Add note on the Planting & Irrigation Plan that states, “Irrigation and tree planting in the right- of-way requires a street work permit per CPA Public Works standards.” b. Landscape plan shall include planting preparation details for trees specifying digging the soil to at least 30-inches deep, backfilled with a quality topsoil and dressing with 2-inches of wood or bark mulch on top of the root ball keeping clear of the trunk by 1-inch. 2.c Packet Pg. 24 c. Automatic irrigation bubblers shall be provided for each tree. Standard Dwg. #513 shall be included on the irrigation plans and show two bubbler heads mounted on flexible tubing placed at the edge of the root ball. The tree irrigation system shall be connected to a separate valve from other shrubbery and ground cover, pursuant to the City's Landscape Water Efficiency Standards. Bubblers mounted inside an aeration tube are prohibited. 29. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 30. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 31. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20- 2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25.10. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 32. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) verified all his/her updated TPR mitigation measures and changes are incorporated in the plan set, (c) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (d) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 33. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 34. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with 2.c Packet Pg. 25 manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 35. OBLIGATION TO MONITOR AND PROTECT NEIGHBORING TREES. Project site arborist will protect and monitor neighboring trees/protected redwood/protected oak during construction and share information with the tree owner. All work shall be done in conformance with State regulations so as to ensure the long term health of the tree. Project site arborist will request access to the tree on the neighboring property as necessary to measure an exact diameter, assess condition, and/or perform treatment. If access is not granted, monitoring and any necessary treatment will be performed from the project site. UTILITILES - WATER, GAS, WASTEWATER 36. The applicant shall submit a completed Water-Gas-Wastewater Service Connection Application - Load Sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The applicant shall provide the existing (prior) loads, the new loads, and the combined/total loads (the new loads plus any existing loads to remain). 37. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, and any other required utilities. 38. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. 39. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 40. Each home shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. If this is a single parcel or Condominium Project, the development will be served with one water service with a manifold for individual water meters, and one sewer lateral and City cleanout connected to the public sewer collection system. 41. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 2.c Packet Pg. 26 FIRE DEPARTMENT 42. Install a NFPA 13-D fire sprinkler system in each house under separate permit BUILDING DIVISION 43. The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: a. A building permit is required for construction using the current applicable codes: CRC, CPC, CMC, CEC, CEnC, CalGreen and PAMC. b. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. STORM WATER PROTECTION 44. Stormwater treatment measures a. Shall meet all Bay Regional Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements. b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 c. Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. 45. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) a. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. b. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the BayFriendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bayfriendly-landscape-guidelines- sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. c. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 46. Stormwater quality protection a. Trash and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. b. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). c. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. 2.c Packet Pg. 27 UTILITIES ELECTRIC 47. The applicant shall comply with all the Electric Utility Engineering Department service requirements noted during plan review. 48. Only one electric service lateral is permitted per parcel. Utilities Rule & Regulation #18. 49. If this project requires padmount transformers, the location of the transformers shall be shown on the site plan and approved by the Utilities Department. Utilities Rule & Regulations #3 & #16 (see detail comments below). 50. The developer/owner shall provide space for installing padmount equipment (i.e. transformers, switches, and interrupters) and associated substructure as required by the City. 51. The customer shall install all electrical substructures (conduits, boxes and pads) required from the service point to the customer’s panel. The design and installation shall be according to the City standards and shown on plans. Utilities Rule & Regulations #16 & #18. 52. The applicant shall secure a Public Utilities Easement for facilities installed on private property for City use. 53. All three electric meters and main disconnect must be located at the same location. 2.c Packet Pg. 28 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 702 Clara Drive, 18PLN-00068 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-20 DISTRICT) Regulation Required/Allowed Proposed Unit A Unit B Unit C Minimum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70-foot width, 100-foot depth 10,018 sf, 80-foot width, 125-foot depth Maximum Residential Density 11 to 20 units per acre (4.6 units max.) 3 total units Minimum Front Yard 20 feet (Sutter Ave.) 20 feet (to the closest front exterior wall of Unit A) Min Street Rear Yard 16 feet (Clara Drive) 16 feet Min Interior Side Yard (for lots w/widths of > 70 feet 10 feet 12 feet Max. Building Height 30 feet 24’-9 ¼” 23’-8 ¼” 24’-1 ¾ “ Side Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at interior side lot line then 45-degree angle Compliant Rear Yard Daylight Plane 10 feet at rear setback line then 45-degree angle Compliant Max. Site Coverage 35% (plus an additional 5% for covered patios or overhangs) 33% (3,309 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 0.5:1 0.49:1 (4,960 sf) Minimum Site Open Space 35% (3,500 sf) 48.7% (4,880 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit 1,040 sf 830 sf 1,095 sf Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit 1,208 sf total = 402.66 sf per unit Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit 1,088 sf 656 sf (512 sf rear + 144 sf side) 715 sf (415 sf rear + 300 sf side) Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking Two (2) spaces per two-bedroom unit, of which at least one space per unit must be covered. Two (2) spaces per unit, with each unit providing one (1) covered parking space Bicycle Parking One (1) Long-term bicycle parking space Three (3) total; one (1) for each unit 2.d Packet Pg. 29 GILBERT FERNANDEZ III INTERIOR DESIGNER RE: City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board October 7, 2019 Architectural Review Board, This letter is to address the project description of the proposed improvements required for the design review of address 702 Clara Drive, Palo Alto CA 94303. -Nothing can fit in a 3 foot side yard. Mitigate privacy with high sill windows or frosting Proposed landscaping is enough to cover privacy issue Fencing is place between the walls where the window sills are lowered. Areas where there is no fence between the home have high sill windows. -Unit A - too much front yard paving. More landscape has been added to the front. -Need to show ventilation on sloped roofs (sub-comm) The bottom vents will be in the top plate blocking and the top will have ridge ventilation. This will not show on the roof. -Show down spouts Down spouts are now shown on the site plans -Unit B needs larger front porch Unit now has a 5’ front porch -Unit B laundry over porch - looks like mistake Laundry over porch is not a mistake. A roof is added to this area to make it look more presentable. -Stair windows - use either frost or high sill on Unit A, other Unit ok Stair window to be obscure glass. -Landscaping - rendering should match proposed See renderings on sheets A15-A20. Renderings match the plans. -Common open space should be separated by greenery See sheet L0 & L2 to see the greenery used for separation. -Doesn't like corner, divorced from Unit C, make this space public or add a door from Unit C (could be side door). Side door and porch has been added to the Sutter side of unit C as well as a redesign to compliment this change. 2.e Packet Pg. 30 -Any frosted windows would need to open from the top Almost all side windows are high sill and fixed. The operable windows are openable by casement, slider or single hung. Opening from the top would not match the designs.  -New roof materials for Unit A Unit A has the same material shingles, but different color (Light Beige). Show vents, downspouts and lighting -See previous answers on vents and downspouts. The lights are now shown on the renderings -Common open space private, but open See previous answers regarding the common space. -House C designed as corner unit, corner porch, but don't impact tree See previous answer regarding the Sutter side. Existing trees are not impacted. Regards, Gilbert Fernandez 408-722-0057 2.e Packet Pg. 31 4.a Packet Pg. 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: August 1, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew and David Hirsch. Absent: None Chair Baltay: …. 2019 meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Could we have a roll call, please? [Roll Call] Action Items 1. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI JUDICIAL. 702 Clara Drive [18PLN00068]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 3,560 Square Foot, Four-Unit Apartment Building and Construction of Three Detached Single-Family Homes Totaling 5,000 Square Feet. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (In-Fill Development Projects). Zoning District: RM-15 (Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us Chair Baltay: 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 Chair Baltay: Then we come to our first order of business, which is Action Item #2, a public hearing regarding 702 Clara Drive. It’s a recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of an existing 3,560 square foot, four-unit apartment building, and construction of three detached single-family homes totaling 5,000 square feet. Staff, do you have a report for us? Sheldon Ah Sing, Consultant Planner: Yes, thank you, Chair. Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner, and I have a presentation for you. The applicant is also here with their presentation. The site is located at the intersection of Sutter Avenue and Clara Drive. The site is zoned RM-20. The topography in the area is flat and there are a mix of single-family and multi-family residential in the area. This is actually at the edge of the multi-family zoning district where it transitions into single-family across the street. With the exception 2.f Packet Pg. 32 4.a Packet Pg. 2 of this property behind, the adjacent properties are single-family residential. There is an existing four-unit apartment building on the site there that would be demolished. That was constructed in 1954. It’s not deemed to be historic. And as mentioned, the proposal is to construct three detached units. It will just maintain the one parcel. They’re not splitting the parcel out, but I think the intention is to have a condominium placed on the property in the future. The project was before the Board this past February. There were a number of items that the Board wanted to see looked at and revised, and those had to do with the floor to ceiling on the second floor is too tall; I think the preference was to have an eight-foot height. Also, to provide good quality rendering from the street corner. That homes should be custom fit to the lot with high quality design and materials. At the previous meeting, there was just one floor plan for each, the same floor plan used throughout the project, maybe one was reversed, with different architectural styles. There was a common open space along Sutter, and the revision proposed was to reduce that fence. The Board thought that the porches were too shallow as proposed. Also, to take advantage of some of these open space areas more, so that would change the site plan around a little bit. Provide a better relationship with that street scape. The site has street scape along Sutter and Clara. Also, the property does have a utility easement on the rear of the property, opposite of Sutter, so there are some constraints there. The Board also thought that the trash receptacles on the side yards were not really working very well, in part because there were fences that were in between the buildings. And that Home B didn’t really have much exterior space for the occupants compared to the other units. In summary, the project is one lot for future condominium subdivision, three two-story detached dwellings, in total 5,000 square feet, which pretty much maxes out the floor-area ratio. There are three different floor plans this time around, with similar types of architectural styles. The materials board is on the dais there, near Board Member Hirsch. The private open space areas are in the rear of the buildings. There is a common area that’s along Sutter. The project is retaining the street trees, the mature redwood trees, as well as the maple trees along Clara. In response to those revisions that I mentioned in the previous slide, the second-floor ceiling height is now at eight feet. The front porch dimension on two of the units has increased by a foot. One of them still remains at four feet. The fences in between of the units were removed. However, that now created another privacy type of issue. The applicant, they do have an alternative they want to present. What we would recommend is putting those fences back, moving the condenser units that are in that area on the side yard to the rear, as well as the trash and eight bicycle lockers. There was a balcony that was added to the rear of Home C, which actually provides some variety, as well as a good amenity, but there’s another privacy issue there, so we recommended that they add another tree. The applicant has responded and will have an alternative plan to show you. The other issue is that there are windows that are adjacent to stairwells. They’re actually kind of big, and maybe we’re just looking to see if there are any comments on privacy issues from the Board on that. Regarding the zoning, there is a reduction of one dwelling unit overall, so that is kind of a concern, but there is not something in the code that would preclude them from doing that. The project is otherwise considered a multi-family unit project based on the amount of units. Three is the threshold. The project is consistent with development standards. They would have to pay an impact fee of $64,000. We would have to amend our condition of approval to include that in there, so make that part of the motion when you’re recommending. Otherwise, the project, we believe, is consistent with the findings. This is the site plan showing the layout, very similar to last time. The open spaces are more evenly distributed. Still Home B as probably a slightly smaller dimension there. There’s still that shared driveway. We believe that that helps with any type of conflict with pedestrians or cyclists. There is potential to separate those two. Maybe one of the street trees would have to be removed or relocated or replanted. These are the renderings. The one on the left is the older rendering from February, and the one on the right is the newer one. You can see some subtle differences there. The applicant will describe more of those. Again, here are some other elevations from the current. It shows no landscaping, then with landscaping. And then, some other comparisons from the past and the present here. The applicant will go more through these, but we believe this is an improvement from what was done in the past. And then, you can see here, on the right, those large windows on the second floor. Those are the ones that are next to the stairwell that we want some direction on. Regarding environmental determination, the project is considered infill development surrounded by urban uses, and the project does not create any significant impacts pursuant to CEQA, so we believe this category to be exempt. In conclusion, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan, the zoning ordinance with suggested modifications, and we recommend approval of the project to the Director, based on the findings and subject to the conditions, and also modifying the one condition regarding the affordable housing fee. That concludes my presentation. Be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. 2.f Packet Pg. 33 4.a Packet Pg. 3 Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sheldon. We’ll have questions in a second. I’d like to first ask my colleagues if we have any disclosures to make. I should have done that at the beginning. Rather than ask specifically if any of us have been to the site, I’ll just remind everyone that a site visit is something we need to disclose. Alex, any disclosures? Board Member Lew: I visited the site this morning. Chair Baltay: Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Nothing to disclose. Chair Baltay: David? Board Member Hirsch: Previous time only. Chair Baltay: Okay. I’d like to disclose I visited the site on Saturday, and I spent quite a bit of time talking with two of the tenants upstairs, a neighbor across the street, and one other neighbor walking around. I didn’t learn anything that’s not already in the staff report. Okay, questions of staff, anybody? Sheldon, could you explain for us the impact fee, what that’s for? Mr. Ah Sing: That is for the, when you’re going down in the units, there’s a certain percentage that then gets equated into a formula. The formula has to do with average size of the units, and a certain dollar amount that gets plugged in, and therefore, you get that number. Chair Baltay: It’s a fee that the applicant pays to the City for the privilege of reducing the number of housing units. Ms. Gerhardt: It’s based upon the housing elements. Program H1.2.1, talks about when a loss of rental housing occurs due to subdivision or condominium conversion, the project shall require 25 percent BMR units. After running that calculation, as Sheldon said, we come up with, I think it’s .75 of a unit. And fractions of units, you’re able to pay in lieu for. Chair Baltay: And that impact goes into the affordable housing fund? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Any other questions? David, go ahead. Board Member Hirsch: Sheldon, on a zoning like this where you have these tight areas between buildings, and as you’re suggesting that there should be some kind of fence separating them, is there any kind of a home ownership maintenance issue here that is possible? Or do they have an agreement between owners? Obviously, an area like that will either be cleaned or not be cleaned, you know, part of someone’s responsibility, or not part of it. But if it were kept open in some way and there were homeownership relationships, maybe that would be a method of not having a fence between them and constricting it for mechanical uses, or garbage, or whatever. As long as there was a maintenance agreement. Is there such a thing? Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, specifically with a condominium project, you would have the covenants and restrictions that gets built in, if that’s what you’re talking, regarding maintenance. That’s a requirement of having a condominium project. Board Member Hirsch: So, it would be a possibility for them to create a homeownership. Or could they be required to provide a home ownership maintenance agreement? Mr. Ah Sing: The maintenance would be required as part of the condominium map process. Chair Baltay: Okay. Applicant, do you have a presentation for us? You’ll have 10 minutes to speak and 10 2.f Packet Pg. 34 4.a Packet Pg. 4 minutes to rebut any public testimony. Please tell us when you’re ready. Gilbert Fernandez: Good morning, Board. Chair Baltay: If I could ask you to please state and spell you name for the record. Mr. Fernandez: My name is Gilbert Fernandez. [spells name] Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Go ahead. Mr. Fernandez: I’m here with my partner, Tony, and our land architect [sic], Dakotah. Just a little information about me. I am diagnosed with epilepsy, so, in case one occurs during my presentation, I’ll have Tony come up and take over for me. Here is the title page, taking a look at the rendering, just as Sheldon has already described, and who is involved in our work. This is the site plan. We did take into consideration the comments from before as far as, if I go into parking first, we did have it horizontal in the beginning. We did reduce them back as far as the garage to Home B and C, having the garage, the covered parking space, and also the uncovered parking space right in front, as tandem. We did use the easement, which was also a comment that was stated in the previous, to kind of utilize it. We did utilize it as far as for another parking space for Home A. Another thing we did, there was a comment as far as not having the floor plan be the same on all three, so we did change the floor plan for all homes, including Home B and C as far as they may look the same at first glance, but they are different. Other than that, we do have some pavers showing in the front, as well as the side facing Sutter. I think our landscape architect can go more into that. The pavers on the right side, which are close to the, that are within the drip line of the redwoods, they are going to be supervised by our arborist so they may not interfere with any roots that are more than four inch in diameter, to keep the redwoods there. We do have other trees, as well, and plants. Again, he can go more in depth in that if required. The issue with having before a fence in between each home was that there wasn’t enough space to walk through. We removed the fences, and we utilized that area for the trash, bicycle area, AC unit for each home. Currently, you do have enough space to walk through, and any maintenance that’s required for the machines, the AC units, again, as far as going into what Sheldon said, will be an agreement as far as the maintenance of those area. Other than that, we did keep the two curb cuts. There was a question as far as doing three separate ones. The comment was pretty much not having three, as far as there would be too many on that street, so we did keep it at two in this design. There was a comment also on moving, keeping two curb cuts – and when I say “curb cuts,” as far as driveways – doing none of the curb cut and driveway on Sutter. There would be little too much work to do on Sutter, and we believe it would impact the redwoods there as far as damaging any roots that would potentially harm them. Our concern is to keep them alive. Other than that, I can move forward to the next slide. In this area, on the area facing Sutter, is a common, it was common area for all homes. We have… The color is black. In the front we have red, which is facing Clara, and that area is more of an open area used for all three homes. They kind of have their own spaces in front. And then, on the rear, if you see the dash, which is in blue, those are all considered private. As you can see here, we do have the existing, which is now the apartment complex and what we would be proposing, which is reducing units. As we have a four-unit complex, we would be reducing it to three. That would be one point, as well. Again, this is just kind of going over, again, what we had before, and what we’re proposing now. One of the comments was that the designs of the previous homes were a little bit too, they were a little bit too… How would you say that? They’re too busy for the neighborhood, so we were asked to simplify them. We looked around the neighborhood, see what is existing, and we added to some of the homes. For example, the bay windows, we did see some of the homes had that. We did stick with stucco. As in the previous designs, we had some shingles, a lot of brick tile, so we just simplified it and went back to the stucco. Not back to stucco; we propose that all three homes stay stucco. We removed the brick tile, the columns, as well as we kept all proposed shingles, and we changed all the colors so that they look different, as well as the floor plan that we’re proposing. As well as the colors, we kind of kept them pretty simple. Another comment was that the roof planes were way too busy in the previous design, so we did simplify them as much as we could to accommodate the new floor plans. This is just a quick look at the surrounding neighborhood. You do have them in your packets, A-2 and A-3. Again, we just went around the neighborhood, just kind of took what we saw and simplified them to our proposed. As far as privacy for the second floor, we did reduce them to eight feet, as well as the first floor, which is eight. Previously, we did have nine on the second floor, so just also to reduce the height of the overall homes so that they’re not kind of sticking out from 2.f Packet Pg. 35 4.a Packet Pg. 5 the neighborhood. We do have, for the window design, we have high sills, that’s mostly on the second floor, as to not look into the neighbors or Homes A, B and C, to look into each other’s areas. We do have those windows as obscure glass. The landscape also has additional trees while keeping the existing trees, to kind of block the view from the areas that Homes A, B and C would be otherwise looking to, had there not be any of those. This is more of, from the second floor, where you’d be seeing from A, B and C if there had been no additional trees and trees that we’re proposing. That’s also in your packet, as well. This is just more of the simple materials that we’re proposing now. Again, stucco shingles, simple color on the windows and the doors, as well. Just kind of picking neutral colors, just kind of like what we saw in the neighborhood. Again, these are the elevations for that same home, Home A. As you can see on the sides, we do have the high sill on the second-floor windows. Those will be obscured. And we are considering the stairwell window being obscured as well, or possibly even reduce if it helps with the proposed overall design. Actually, let me go back to that. If you can see on the bottom, we do have some high sills as well in some areas. The dark area is just a double door for furnaces. This is Home B, again, just to kind of show what kind of colors and materials we’re going to have on Home B. Again, Home B, you can kind of see, we’re trying to keep the privacy and colors pretty neutral with shingles as well. Taking the divided light that we did see in one of the homes in the area. Again, Home C, kind of, again, showing the colors, keeping the shingles. And Home C, we did do a balcony on the rear. There was a concern, again, about the balcony, but there’s a slide talking about that. You can see the bay windows, as well, which, again, we did see in the neighborhood. Chair Baltay: Excuse me, you’re about a minute over your limit. Could you finish it up, please? Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. This is some of the planning comments that were given to us about, as far as putting a fence in the center, and having an issue with the balcony in the rear for Home C. This is just an alternate plan to place the fences back in and moving some of the AC units and the trash area items and the bicycle areas. This is just another option, if it works. This is just a rending just to show the balcony is being blocked by an additional tree. That’s all I have for you. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Any questions of the applicant? Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I had a couple questions. In your material boards, you have light fixtures associated with each of the buildings. However, in the elevations, it’s not really clear how many, or where they are. Could you clarify where these light fixtures occur? Mr. Fernandez: Oh, the light fixtures? The light fixtures would be, I don’t have them in the renderings, but they are going to be, in the rear sliding door, there will be one and one, on each side. The garage will have one and one photo… I forget the word. They turn off by light in the evening. And then, some on the columns in the front. Vice Chair Thompson: They will be visible from Clara and from Sutter? Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. Vice Chair Thompson: And it’s still kind of unclear how many you’re using, or have you already placed all of those? Mr. Fernandez: No, we already placed them. Yes. They should be in the electrical plan in your packet, as well. The location of these. Vice Chair Thompson: And then, of the windows that we’ve been seeing in these elevations, are they all operable? Can they all open? Or are they fixed? Mr. Fernandez: Let me verify that. I believe the ones on the sides, the smaller ones are fixed, and the operable ones are towards the rear. Vice Chair Thompson: The small square ones are all fixed? 2.f Packet Pg. 36 4.a Packet Pg. 6 Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I see there are a few that you can kind of open. Are the big picture windows also fixed, or do they slide? Mr. Fernandez: The ones for the stairwells? Vice Chair Thompson: I’m looking at Home C, front elevation, where the two chairs would be. There’s a window that’s kind of a big window behind that. Mr. Fernandez: In the front? We’re referring to the front elevation of Home C? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Mr. Fernandez: The one on the left of the front door will be a sliding window. Vice Chair Thompson: A sliding window? Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. That’s all my questions. Chair Baltay: Anyone else? David? Alex? Board Member Lew: I have a quick question. For water heaters, are you using tankless water heaters that are facing outside, or inside? Mr. Fernandez: They will be facing outside. Board Member Lew: Okay, and are those on the plans? Mr. Fernandez: They should be in the electrical. Board Member Lew: I didn’t see them, but that doesn’t mean… I could have missed it. I’ll take a look. Chair Baltay: David, go ahead. Board Member Hirsch: Are you making some changes to the location of the AC units? Is that part of the discussion as we go forward here? Mr. Fernandez: From the previous design? Yes. Board Member Hirsch: From what we’re looking at here. Mr. Fernandez: I’m sorry, say that again? Board Member Hirsch: Between A and B, for example, there’s four units. Two of them are in a recess and two of them are against the building. Aren’t you moving either one of those? Mr. Fernandez: As far as moving them from the planning comments? This one here. Yeah, so, the only one would be Home A, is the one that would be moved to the rear, left. Board Member Hirsch: To the rear left. Those two that are on the face of the wall would be moved to the… 2.f Packet Pg. 37 4.a Packet Pg. 7 Mr. Fernandez: Right. Board Member Hirsch: … left side of Building A. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. If we were to put a fence in the center, those AC units would… Board Member Hirsch: Have to move. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah, they would move to the rear left of Home A. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Are there any changes to the garbage locations that you have? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, those would be moved as well. They will be moved to the back corner of each area, each private area of each home. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, so then, between A and B, where’s the location for the trash for Building B? Mr. Fernandez: Home B is on the top left of its own area. Board Member Hirsch: In the area between the buildings? Between A and B? Trash stays there? Mr. Fernandez: Not in between. It would be in the top-left corner of where the fencing would be. For Home B and C. Chair Baltay: At the very rear of the property? Is that what that little space says? Mr. Fernandez: Yes, that would be the area there. Board Member Hirsch: Can you point at it? Mr. Fernandez: For Home C, it would be moved to here. Board Member Hirsch: To the rear of the property. Mr. Fernandez: Yeah. And then, for Home B, it would be here. And then, for Home A, it would not be moved because it’s within the easement area. Board Member Hirsch: You’re moving it to a location which is pretty far from the garbage truck. All the way in the back. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. We pretty much didn’t really have too many options as far as where to locate it. If we were to put the fences in the center. If we did move them to the front, they would interfere with the gas and electric. Chair Baltay: I’d like to come back to that in a second, but if we could, I’d like to have your landscape architect take two or three minutes to walk us through the proposed landscaping. If that’s okay with the landscape architect and the applicant. I think the landscaping is important and we haven’t discussed it at all. And Dakotah, if you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Dakotah Bertsch, Landscape Architect: My name is Dakotah Bertsch [spells name]. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Mr. Bertsch: The primary changes to the landscape from the previous plan, as you recall, previously, the main common use area was underneath the redwood trees along Sutter, and it was a mulched area. In this iteration, we’ve provided paver patios, with larger ones along Clara. One larger one shared between 2.f Packet Pg. 38 4.a Packet Pg. 8 A and B, and another one at the corner of Home C. Those would be the primary functional outdoor spaces for grilling or what-not. And then, additional areas underneath the redwoods that would be possibly used for one or two benches for a, sort of private sitting area. There’s screening from the street all along Sutter and Clara where there’s no driveway or existing street tree, provided by native shrubs, the Manzanitas. The landscape is still predominantly native and drought-tolerant, with a variety of shrubs and grasses and sub-shrubs such as irises and California fuchsia. Additionally, there’s screening along the fences on the left side, and along the rear of the properties, with larger hedging shrubs. And, each unit has small no-mow lawn area in the back yard. And then, along the driveways and entrances, there are… Well, first I should say, there are six new trees shown, one at the front of each house, a smaller redbud tree. And in the rear, arbutus trees, one for each unit, and more ornamental perennial plantings underneath them. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Let me follow up on the landscaping question. I’m looking at a rendering from the corner of Clara and Sutter. I’d like to know if that landscaping is accurate to what you’ve designed. Mr. Bertsch: I would say, in terms of the placement of plants, it’s fairly accurate, but visually, not very accurate. I think the shrubs shown there look columnar, whereas my intention with the manzanitas would be that they would be more naturalistic and hedge-like. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Any other questions for landscaping? At this point, we’ll open the meeting to public testimony. Any members of the public have anything to say? Do we have any speaker cards? Mimi Wolf: I don’t have a card, I’m sorry. Chair Baltay: Jodie, do we need a card for her? Ms. Gerhardt: We’ll get it out to her. Chair Baltay: Okay, if you could state and spell your name for the record. Ms. Wolf: Mimi Wolf [spells name]. Just like the animal that howls. Chair Baltay: Okay. You’ll have three minutes. Thank you. Ms. Wolf: I live on San Carlos Court, behind Safeway, the next street over, and I walk along Sutter, Clara, almost every day. There are, as you noted, apartments going from Clara to Middlefield, all along that right. And so, with all the multi-family units, this means there’s many cars that, during the day, those people go to work, but at the commute time, there are people cutting, not only from Sutter and Clara, but I assume from Ross as well, to avoid lights and such, and to get to Middlefield, and then to Oregon. During the commute time, people come around the corner at, from Middlefield to Sutter, at rapid speeds. And I’ve seen many close calls. My concern is that this may increase more, provide more cars and increase the traffic at Sutter. One concern is how you can go from four units to three, but my main concern is traffic. I’m wondering why the City is not addressing the traffic around this area. I know we have speed bumps on Ross. We’ve done a lot to improve Ross to slow traffic, but I’m thinking that this is causing Sutter and Clara to have more traffic to cut off from the, from between Sutter and Oregon. People are going down Sutter to get to Middlefield more quickly. Yes. I’m just concerned about the increase in drivers and traffic, and we’re not doing much to help with alternative transportation that should be more addressed. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Any other public comments? With that, we’ll close public testimony and bring it back to the Board. Before we start a discussion, I wonder if we could get a clear explanation of the two alternatives regarding the fence between the buildings. Sheldon, are you able to walk us through that? Or the applicant? 2.f Packet Pg. 39 Mr. Ah Sing: I think I just briefly, when I met with the applicant yesterday… Chair Baltay: Excuse me one second. I’ve been reminded that the applicant has an opportunity to rebut the public testimony. You may speak to her comments if you wish. Mr. Fernandez: Okay. If I understand, it’s mostly about traffic. Just as she also mentioned, we’re going from four to three units. If we were to talk about a unit, it would typically hold a husband, wife, both having their own car. I think that’s one point that I can make, that we would be reducing from, let’s say eight cars to six. Just a quick second point. The apartment complex now has four, but only has a three- car, three covered car, carport in the rear. You would see, whoever who is in the fourth unit would be pretty much parking on the street. Other than that, that would be my only… Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Mr. Fernandez: Thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay. I still would like to get an understanding of the options with or without the fence between units A and B and B and C, vise-a-vie the negative changes to privacy and functionality of trash/AC condensers. Sheldon, is that best for you to address, or the applicant? Mr. Ah Sing: Let me just start off, at least with the context, and I think the details can be followed up with Mr. Fernandez. The issue is that the homes, they have the minimum amount of required space between them for building and fire access and egress, and having… If you don’t have a fence there, then the issue is having the window placement, and people kind of being able to look into each other. Or if you’re in that area and you’re walking through, you maybe be able to see into the different units. That space in between is really not considered open space. It’s really a utility area to walk through for maintenance purposes. In this case, they wanted to put some AC condensers there. On a couple of the units, the AC condensers are actually tucked under the building a little bit, and one of the placements would have them place it between the buildings. The trash, as you know, trash bins have a certain dimension to them. And then, the bike lockers as well. Having all that in that area with the fences, it just doesn’t work. Our suggestion is to move some of those items out of that area into the rear. That’s where I think maybe we could have some discussion about. But it does appear in the plan that there is pavement areas, pavers that would make it easier for the movement of those bins, as well as bicycles. That does help a bit. With that, I’ll leave it to the applicant to describe further. Chair Baltay: To the applicant, then. Do you have a preference or a feeling? Can you guide us through this, whether you prefer to have a fence, or deal with privacy impacts differently? Mr. Fernandez: Just as a, kind of I mentioned before, most of the areas in, if you can see in the elevations here, most of the windows are high. The ones that are lower in that area, those square ones, it’s a garage, so I don’t think that’s a privacy concern. We did some in the living room and the dining area. You can also see those transom-looking windows. Those are more on the high side, high sill, and the bottom ones, the larger ones are living room. I know there’s a common area where most families would be. We are considering making those obscure glass. As far as [inaudible] back to the site. Having them centered is, as we mentioned, more maintenance. It was also a concern in the last ARB, that it’s way too tight for someone to walk through. That’s why we removed them. Once we removed them, we did feel like it was a larger space for the homes to kind of be separated, and almost feel like they kind of have their own privacy, instead of just having a fence in the center. Other than that, yes, they are currently proposed without fencing, I believe we would prefer. Chair Baltay: I’m unclear what your preference is. These are fences between your clients or tenants, and it’s their utility. Would you prefer to have the fences, or not have the fences? 2.f Packet Pg. 40 Mr. Fernandez: Not have the fences. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Okay, any other questions? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. The plan that we’re looking at on the screen is not the same plan in our drawings, right? Mr. Fernandez: Right. Vice Chair Thompson: Are we…? I just want to clarify what we’re talking about here because in our plan I see something older. Are we talking about a fence that’s kind of going all the way through between each building, that that is the proposal right now? Or is the proposal not to have the fence? And just have a change in paving between…? Mr. Ah Sing: I’ll take a swing at it. Actually, in your packet, there are conditions of approval that would require them to put the fences in. This is in response to that, or kind of getting you some early views of what that would look like. Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, can you repeat that? Mr. Ah Sing: In the packet, we have conditions of approval to address these issues that we brought up today regarding the privacy, to include the fence down the middle of these units. A lot of times, you wouldn’t be able to see a drawing of that at the meeting, but they took the time to do that, to show you that today. Vice Chair Thompson: All right, so, the plan that we’re looking at is showing the fence going all the way. And the plan that we have in our packet is showing that open space in between. And the fence is really just from the back of the building to the property line behind it. Mr. Ah Sing: Right. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Board Member Lew: Okay, which condition of approval was it? Mr. Ah Sing: Number 8. Chair Baltay: Are you okay with that, Alex? Board Member Lew: No, but we can talk about that. Chair Baltay: Okay. David, why don’t you start us off with your feelings about the project? Board Member Hirsch: In the first place, I think it’s a big improvement over the last submission. I like the fact that the houses kind of open onto the street, that they move back towards the corner, kind of an inviting gesture towards the street, and that the masses pull forward as you move into the street. I like the fact that you’ve changed the style of the houses to be different, each one of them. I think they’re not exciting, so exciting as pieces of architecture, but they’re fairly consistent in the way you’ve approached them. It’s an improvement. My major concern here is the site planning and this area that’s between the buildings. I’m not quite sure where we end up with zoning that allows for that kind of 7 ½ foot distance between buildings and creates problems with windows having to being obscured, etc. It just doesn’t seem all that logical to me when other zones have six-foot side yards, minimum, you know, so that there’s a bigger space definitely between houses. Even there, there are always questions about privacy and windows that face each other. But I think the issues that need to be addressed here are the ones we’ve pretty much raised already, about the air conditioning, which maybe you have solved, and 2.f Packet Pg. 41 the maintenance of those machines. But the garbage locations and the bicycle locations somehow really, ought to be very convenient to the people who are using those houses, and to be able to be taken to the street quite easily. Locating them in the back yard doesn’t seem sensible to me at all. How to treat that area between buildings. You’ve been showing it as a paved path, kind of down the middle. I don’t know why it couldn’t be a paved area between buildings so that it would handle issues like garbage. It needs to be cleaned, and areas that are going to get dirty, so that the whole front is a recess up to a point where then it becomes maybe private. That it’s a more public open, but not necessarily unfenced. Still, it could be fenced and not be garbage cans in the front yard but would allow you to locate the garbage between the buildings. That doesn’t apply so much in A, but definitely between B and C. The same thing is true of the bicycles, why they should be remote in the back of the house. If you have enough of a recess there, you could locate them. Admittedly, I’d rather see a greater distance between the buildings so that each one of those could feel private. And then, you still have issues of maintenance. Now, that’s something I think you should work out with the owners in the future and write it into their lease in some way. Or however your arrangement is going to be. But I think there needs to be some official arrangement that takes care of those particular issues between owners when they’re so close to each other. Everybody else who has a private house on a larger piece of land takes care of their own and is responsible for it. But, there’s a little overlap here if you have a single door and you need access to that area all the way through. Those are simple, could be sort of a simple answer physically to get them in that location. I’m kind of at a loss with how this landscaping is really working. We have an outside-the-fence area that’s all paved and facing the street, and I’m not sure who that belongs to. Is it a community gesture? Could you get to it from the community? Is it a private gesture? How do you use it? What’s the function of all of the paved areas along Sutter? Will anybody in this group decide to use it, or are they going to use their back yards? Why would they ever use it? It seems to me there’s an opportunity there to make a, sort of a public gesture, with something very public. And it’s behind, beyond a fence line, you know? And maybe that would be a very nice thing for the whole cul-de-sac there, to come out and participate in. I’m not sure if that could work. And then, who is responsible for it? Who cleans up for that? That has to be something discussed with the whole street? I don’t know how that would be done, but it is kind of semi- private, semi-public, open trees, etc., inviting people to come, step over the landscape and walk in there, and become a part of it. It’s confusing to me how it is possible to use that. Other issues. Let me look for a moment. Well, of course, the deck on Unit B is still too small. I mean, you enlarged, I think, deck C, so that it’s a five-foot dimension. Is that correct? In front? The deck on Building C? Mr. Fernandez: The porch on the first floor, is what you’re referring to? Board Member Hirsch: The deck in the front. The depth of the deck in the front of Building C. Mr. Fernandez: Yes. Where the one entrance is. Board Member Hirsch: What about the deck on B? Mr. Ah Sing: Are you referring to the porch on the front? Board Member Hirsch: There’s a front deck, and furniture on it, right? Mr. Sing: Yeah, that is the one that remains at four feet. Board Member Hirsch: It’s four feet? Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: But that’s pretty much what it was. So, it hasn’t been increased any. Mr. Fernandez: Before, I believe we had it at three. 2.f Packet Pg. 42 Board Member Hirsch: I’m just saying that two decks should be made useful. It’s kind of a thing, a Palo Alto item. Everybody has decks, or most everybody seems to have, of houses of a certain era. If that’s what you’re saying there, that that’s kind of a socializing thing, and people are out there. Then, if you think about that, those are decks that are kind of open to the neighborhood, and usually they are, but the landscaping here is unbelievably dense and private. I don’t think that’s a nice thing in a neighborhood, socially, to make a landscaping so dense that you sort of cut out the entire neighborhood. It’s just ringed with trees, front and back. I can understand maybe with an apartment house behind, how you want to sort of block off some of that, but this is a neighborhood, and it ought to feel like a neighborhood, and I don’t think it does with the landscaping at all. Those are my major concerns. I will leave it up to you to answer how you could address some of those issues. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Alex? Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you for your revisions. I think they generally look good. I do have several concerns, although generally I’m supportive of the project. Okay, so, with regard to the site planning and the issue that staff has brought up about the side yard fences, I think I prefer what you have in your drawings, and I don’t support the staff alternative. You know, I think in Palo Alto, we’re used to six-foot side yard setbacks for private houses, but if you go to other parts of the country, say if you go to, like, Newport Beach, or even… I lived in St. Louis for a while. In Newport Beach, it’s just a three-foot side yard, and what you get with a three-foot side yard is nothing. You have a fence, and there’s no room for any landscaping at all. It’s just nothing. It’s just a fence, and it’s really not very attractive. In some parts of St. Louis, in the better, nicer neighborhoods, they actually don’t allow any fences at all in the side yards, but generally they have larger lots. It actually looks better. Also, I would say, in new developments here and around the Bay area, I think we’re pretty used to narrow side yards with zero lot lines, and generally it’s like a condominium, so one neighbor gets to landscape the side yard. Which is what I think they’re trying to do here, and I think is actually better. They’re not showing any landscaping currently in the side yards, but they could. If you have six or seven feet, or eight feet, you can get the path in from landscaping in there. I think it’s actually better. And then, the privacy issues can be mitigated with clerestory windows and clear glass and window shading. On the architecture… Let me just stay with landscaping for a minute. I do have a concern about the staff recommendation about adding one more tree in the back yard, like, the madrone trees. They’re showing them at, maybe like a 10-year growth. They’re really, ultimately, they would be twice the size that’s shown on the plan. My general thought is that three is enough if they’re actually at a mature size. I drew them out at full size on my set of plans, and I think that’s enough. I do understand balcony issues with regard to privacy and apartment buildings, and I did look at the site again today, and I did see that the apartment building has no landscaping whatsoever. Also, on landscaping, I am concerned about Unit A, the front yard, that it really has too much paving between the driveway and the paver area. It may be just too much, so I’d maybe ask for reconsideration of the paved patio area in the front yard of Unit A. On the architecture, I have three concerns. Four concerns. One is you’re not showing any roof ventilation for the hip roofs, and it’s really hard to get all the ventilation to work on a hip roof unless you add, like, dormer vents. I think maybe it would be, ideally it would be great if something is shown. It doesn’t have to come from me. It could be to a subcommittee. Also, you’re not showing any downspouts. Any time you break a roof, you’re adding a downspout, and we’ve typically required that on other comparable projects. Again, that could go to the subcommittee. Unit B, the front porch, which has not changed, the depth has not changed. I have a scaling at less than four feet. Like maybe, like, three-foot-nine, or something. And I think that’s actually too narrow. I’m willing to accept a narrower porch if you can access it directly, like, front on. You’re showing it only coming in through the side, and you’ve got landscaping in front of it. I don’t think that that works. Again, I think that’s a revision that could go to the subcommittee. Also, in Unit B, you have, like, the laundry room is cantilevered over the front of the house. I’m thinking that’s going to look like a mistake. I’ll let my other Board members weigh in on that. I have some concerns about that. And staff asked for comments on the stair, the large picture windows at the staircases, about privacy with regards to those. I think in previous comparable projects, we’ve required either obscure glazing, or have a windowsill that’s high enough that you can’t 2.f Packet Pg. 43 really look down into the neighbor’s property. And I think that that’s an issue for me on Unit A. I’m not so worried about it on the other units. That is all of my comments, and I will let you follow up. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Thank you. Thank you for your updated revisions, and thank you to my fellow Board members for their insightful insight. I do agree with the comments about the roof that Board Member Lew made, about the vents and the downspouts. Also, looking at the material board, I’m concerned that the roof for House A is too dark. Probably make the house pretty hot, unless there’s something about the solar reflective index in there that I can’t see. That information is not available to me, so, at the moment, roof A’s roof is just way too dark, and that’s a problem. The other two seem like they should be okay in terms of reflections, but that information would be really helpful. If we do go to subcommittee, I’d like to see that. With the site plan and the fencing, I think it would have been really helpful to see what we have on our screen kind of bigger. There was a lot of stuff that I was looking for; it’s a little hard to find at that scale. Initially, before I was hearing my Board members’ feedback, I actually was preferring this option with the fence all the way down, and the bike sort of tucked away. I’ve had my bike stolen twice out of my back yard, so it’s kind of nice that that bike storage is tucked away. I understand that there’s no landscaping in between because I presume it’s not really going to live because of the amount of shading. I kind of thought the fence was a nice way to break that up, given that landscaping. And we have a chance between there. But I always see the other side, that having more space can potentially have more opportunities for other things. I could go either way on the fence in between. Landscaping notes, I agree with Board Member Lew about the paving in front of Home A. Home A does seem a bit deprived. It’s a little upsetting that the rendering is not really true to what the landscaping design intent is. I kind of agree that when I looked at the rendering, it seemed that none of this looked native, and it looked a bit… I don’t know. Excessive. But if there was a better chance to get a better understanding of what that is. In general, I’m a big fan of densely landscaped areas. I think the world needs more plants in this world, so, not to totally contradict what Board Member Hirsch said, but I do like that there is a lot of landscaping on this site. I wish I just had a better idea of what that really would be, in real life. I also had another note, that for the elevations… Oh, sorry. In the electrical plan, it sort of contradicts what’s in the material board, showing that House B has the light that would be on House C in the material board. I’ll just say that I prefer what’s in the material board, for House B to have the cylindrical light, and for House C to have this other light that is a bit more decorative. The material board makes more sense in that way. Other than that, I can support this project. There’s obviously a lot of stuff that would have to go to subcommittee that we would have to keep track of. I wonder if it’s enough to come back; maybe it’s not. We’ll kind of see what the Board thinks. That’s all I have. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. Well, I’d like to chime in as well, and I’m, I think, less sanguine about the project. I really have an issue with the way you’re treating the corner of Clara and Sutter, and the way you’ve taken the 16-foot zone where the redwoods are and essentially completely divorced that, both from the people living in House C. There’s just a wood fence three feet from the house, and there’s really no visual or physical connection to that space. And then, as I look at the landscaping plan, you’ve divorced that space from the public, too. You’ve done everything you can to landscape that away from the public. And what I think I see you trying to do is meet an open space requirement by putting public spaces there, or spaces tenants of the buildings are going to use. But, as one member of the public said to me, that space will be nothing but a place for dogs to defecate. And I think that’s true. I don’t think that’s a good use of that space either. Do as David suggested and make it genuinely public. I think you had started that way, and we had an issue with that as far as it just being not the houses. Or, reshape House C. Put a French door. Use that as their garden. It’s a lovely space, and with land being at the premium it is in Palo Alto, it’s really a shame not to take advantage of that. It’s a significant amount of space, and I can see, there’s no restriction from you landscaping that to be an open side yard for the tenants, the occupants of House C, or somehow configuring it to be partially that and partially open space. I just find it very bothersome that I see these corner renderings, and the building is not designed 2.f Packet Pg. 44 to be on a corner. It’s still facing one street. The Sutter Street side is entirely just the yard of a house. It could be flipped around and not have any change. As I walk up and down Sutter, there’s a myriad of lovely homes with real front yards facing that street. The next building up, the apartment building, has done a nice job landscaping their front yard as a public, beautiful space. It’s full of grass and palms and it creates a nice vista. And what you’ve done will just be sort of a forest, and I very much doubt anybody will go in there for a picnic or a barbecue. I don’t believe the tenants of these buildings would go in there either. I really have an issue with that space planning. I think it takes a pretty good-sized change on the design of the buildings and the use of the property to really make sense out of that. I’m sorry, but I have a significant concern about the use of that space. Regarding the space between Buildings A and B and B and C, I do agree with Alex Lew ultimately, that a three-foot side yard is just a waste. It can’t be landscaped; it can’t be used in any way. It can’t even be used functionally. If you put an air conditioning unit there or a trash bin there, then you can’t get through. It doesn’t work. It becomes a hazard in the event of an emergency. And yet, that’s exactly where the garbage can is going to be placed, where the bicycle will be stored. What we’ve done is let this, the way our zoning code is playing out, create a really negative space. I think, maybe it was David, alluded to a different idea of, perhaps create half of the space as a six-foot-wide useful space for one of the houses or the other. Address the privacy issues with the windows, as Alex was mentioning, with obscured glass or placement of the windows. And then, on the back half of it, you could do the opposite for the other family, or maybe put a fence in part of it. But, essentially, be a little more creative. It’s not all or nothing. You don’t have to have either a fence down the middle, or no fence. I think both of those options aren’t really good enough. I don’t support what staff is recommending, but I’d like to see more detail as to how you would address the privacy issue, which staff rightly brings to our attention. They are significant and real. How will they be addressed? I just think that needs more work as well. I would also like to just step through quickly. Staff very nicely provides us a list of our previous comments. Usually, I read through the list, and it’s a series of checks. Aside from lowering the plate height, though, I just have a bunch of “no’s” here. I don’t think the rendering from the street is a good-quality rendering. In fact, as your landscape architect pointed out, it’s not accurate to the plants. That’s the whole point of seeing that, and I’m afraid it’s important to make the effort to get it right. Like I just mentioned earlier, I don’t think the homes are custom fit to the lots. What we’re really asking for is not to just change the floor plan for the sake of changing the floor plan, but rather to address the varying conditions. I just think we recall saying, a corner lot is different than a mid- lot. And the case where you have a corner lot, I don’t see an architectural response to the building being on a corner, both functionally related to that open space on the side, and visually – What does it look like from the corner? I think you need to modify your landscape so it sets off the building on the corner. You need to design the building to have, for example, the front porch could wrap around the corner. That’s a beautiful effect of making it integrate to the corner, making it attractive to the public and the front street. The lower fence along Sutter Avenue, you’ve done the opposite with the landscaping. You’ve blocked it off. The front porch on Unit B is still the same. We didn’t get any change on that. Taking advantage of the open space areas. I see you putting the air conditioner unit back in the open space on Unit C. I don’t see much with Unit B. I don’t want to keep going through it, but I think it still needs more work. I’m of the opinion that this needs to come back to us, at best. Those are my opinions about it. I’ve heard David and Alex both say they’re thinking the building is going in the right direction. I don’t know if we’re… Board Member Lew: I think, yeah, I think I’m in agreement with David. It’s not great architecture. I guess I was thinking that it meets, like, the minimum standards. But I would support, if you want this to come back another time, I would actually support that. And I think the idea of, like, a corner porch, and improving the corner, I think is very important. And that’s something that I’ve done on all my other projects. I think that’s a critical thing, and I think that’s something that we’ve always tried to do on other projects, to try to enforce that. I don’t think that’s really… I think that’s acceptable. The only thing I would push back on is trying to make the landscaping along Sutter public. I think that’s just way out of bounds. I don’t recall any other project where we have property to be taken for public use. I think that that’s… Yeah, I think that’s just way out there. But I do, I don’t disagree with you guys about the design of it, so if that needs to come back, then that’s fine. 2.f Packet Pg. 45 Chair Baltay: Any comments on that, David, or thoughts about…? Board Member Hirsch: I accept both points of view. I think Alex has some good comments there. But I also accept your idea that you could wrap the back yard around for Unit C and make it private. I really like the idea of wrapping a porch around. That’s an incredibly good idea here, if it’s possible. It may change the shape of the building a little bit, too, but make it a corner building. I definitely agree it’s a special building and needs to be addressed differently. I think the setback porch on the top floor helps a lot with that, but not enough yet. You need to do some more. And I’m still ambivalent about how you use the public areas, but maybe somehow paving from the sidewalk to it a little bit more, or relating it somehow to the sidewalk, would kind of make it work better than to simply wall it off. I think the project could come back to committee, that there’s a number of things that have been done that do improve it, but I think it’s pretty clear that the areas between the buildings aren’t working the way they are. I don’t know if I agree with Alex, that there’s much to landscape there once you’ve built your buildings and you don’t have much sunlight, and it’s really just a few windows that are going to face each other. I think it’s a zoning issue, really, not your issue, and if you’ve used all the zoning and it’s acceptable to Planning, then make it work functionally. Access to it for the fire department obviously has got to be pretty important. And moving the air conditioning I think is a significant improvement for that purpose, as well. Maybe paving the whole things. I don’t see it as a useful space that really can be landscaped. But I do accept Peter’s comments about the corner, absolutely. I think you need to create a better rendition of the landscaping, with an idea to opening it up to the street the way I suggested. It shouldn’t be a wall in the front of that building but should relate to the neighborhood. And one other issue that was mentioned a lot earlier but wasn’t brought up again is the operable windows. You can’t get by today without having a lot of operable windows, and this is a great climate for opening windows and not using your air conditioning. I think you better take a very serious look at your kind of windows that you’re providing here. And I feel that’s really something Palo Alto-wise. Because I’m new here, and I love the air, and I feel that it should be respected. And it’s part of our observation of our energy requirements here as well. I think with those comments, I would say it could come back to committee. Chair Baltay: If we could follow through on that Sutter Street 16-foot landscaping buffer. I think, David, when you said “public,” you weren’t meaning they should make it, like, a public park. Rather, it should be visually more open to the public. Osma, I heard you say the opposite, that it should be landscaped. Can you address that? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I guess… And maybe it’s just because of the way that this is laid out, there’s an air handling unit that’s facing Sutter Avenue. It seemed like if they were going to leave it there, you wouldn’t want to advertise that to the whole street. In general, I think, like, a wall of green is really nice to look at, if it’s a nice wall of green. I have no opposition with a densely landscaped area if it’s still useable. I don’t think that’s a detriment to the area. In fact, I think it’s a really nice thing. Chair Baltay: If I recall, just across Sutter Street is a home with a dense green hedge up at the street. It also has wonderful arched opening through it, and another break that you can see through. It does, I would say, meet both requirements, in the sense that it is densely private landscaped space. But there’s something about the opening through it that you see through, a pedestrian realizes that’s somebody’s front yard, and it’s an attractive space. I’ll maintain that that’s the case because the home opens to that yard, so they maintain and use that space. And I think that would meet what David and what Osma are saying. Unfortunately, I don’t think that’s in the design in front of us right now. Not saying to do that, but that’s an example of where I think we’re asking you to go with it. Do Board members agree with that comment? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Lew: I had actually put in my notes, put a gate on the side yard, but I didn’t say it 2.f Packet Pg. 46 because I thought that was being too nitpicky, but I actually have it down here, so I think I agree with you. Chair Baltay: Okay, well, I think at least three of us are looking to see this come back to us. Are you clear, Mr. Fernandez, as to what we’re talking about here? Should we try to summarize some of our points? Mr. Fernandez: I wanted to ask about the fencing. Are you all in favor of fencing in the center? Is that what I’m understanding? Chair Baltay: I think we’re in favor of neither, and we’re asking you to get a better solution. I think we believe that you will be able to design something that clearly meets the privacy issues and allows for a wider side yard. My colleagues agree with that? Vice Chair Thompson: It sounded like we were not in favor of the fencing in front of us, in this image. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I think from a staff perceptive, we understand that the three-foot side yard is not what we’re looking for. We can do six foot side yards, either splitting it down the middle the opposite direction, or not having a fence at all and only having that side yard for one house. If we do the side yard for one house, we would just have to frost the windows or do high sill windows, something of that degree. I think we have enough direction. From a staff perspective, we have enough direction on the side yard. I do think we should summarize any other comments. Chair Baltay: Along that line, the way you would accomplish that is by providing a detailed window schedule. That would explain Board Member Thompson’s concerns about operable windows, and frosting, and things like that. I’m afraid the drawings are just a little bit unclear on some of those details, and they are important. MOTION Chair Baltay: Does anybody what to try a motion? Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll give it a go. Chair Baltay: Okay, Osma. See what you can do. Maybe just make a list for us, and then we can… Vice Chair Thompson: I saw Alex write a list over there. I’ll give it go, anyway. I’ll move that we continue this project to a date uncertain, addressing the concerns that we’ve discussed, which I’ll try to summarize here. That the roof material for House A come back with a different material that has a higher solar reflective index. That the roof in the elevations show vents and downspouts, and that the elevations show materiality and lighting. That the landscape be better communicated in a better rendering, so that we have a better understanding of how the landscape works. That the side yard on Sutter Avenue have a level of privacy that is also pleasing to see from the outside, based off of what we discussed earlier. That the side yards between the houses be revised…? I need some help here. Chair Baltay: The side yards need to both meet privacy concerns and functionality of trash and bicycle and AC locations. Vice Chair Thompson: Right. What Board Member Baltay said. I’ll stop there. Ms. Gerhardt: The less paving in front of Unit A? Vice Chair Thompson: Yes, that there be more landscaping in front of Unit A. 2.f Packet Pg. 47 Chair Baltay: Do you want to talk about the corner? Vice Chair Thompson: That House B be sufficiently redesigned to address a corner unit layout, so that it addresses both corners on Clara and Sutter. Chair Baltay: [off-microphone] There’s a tree in the backyard there… Vice Chair Thompson: [Laughs] I don’t remember the tree in the back yard. Chair Baltay: If you don’t say these things in detail, it doesn’t happen. Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll take a friendly amendment if someone wants to take over. Chair Baltay: Before you do that, if that’s the motion, we need it seconded, and then we can put amendments to it. Board Member Lew: I think with the tree, the tree is not in the plans, right? And staff is recommending to add a tree. I’m not opposed to adding a tree, but I think as it is, it’s not in there. Or is there a condition of approval to add a tree? Mr. Ah Sing: Right, that was just something we had in our presentation. Board Member Lew: Okay. Vice Chair Thompson: Oh, and that the applicant include the impact fee for affordable housing. Is there a second? Chair Baltay: Do we have a second for that motion? Board Member Lew: I will second the motion. Chair Baltay: Okay, the motion is seconded. Any amendments or changes? Okay. Board Member Lew: I just wanted to weigh in on item number 7, which is the corner of House C. Board Member Baltay, you were recommending a corner porch, and I think that’s a good idea. And then, I think I just want to comment that there is a redwood tree and tree production zone, so there could be an issue. But they also have some flexibility on the placement of the house. The previous design had that house moved towards Clara, and in that case, there would be more room to put a corner porch on there without impacting the redwood tree. I think that’s potentially a major… I think as you mentioned, that’s a major design change. I think in that kind of situation, it should come back to the Board. And then, on the motion, yeah, I think the motion is for it to come back to the Board, right? Okay. Then I think it’s fine as it stands. Chair Baltay: Okay, so, the motion is made and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? Okay, the motion passes 4-0. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: We’ll take a five-minute break for Sheldon to set up for the next item. 2.f Packet Pg. 48 Attachment G Project Plans and In-Fill Exemption Hardcopies of project plans and the Initial Study are provided to Board members. These plans and environmental documents are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “702 Clara” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial Study and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4230 2.g Packet Pg. 49 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10860) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/19/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road: Mercedes and Audi Dealerships Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road [19PLN-00291]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Address Specific Issues Raised by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) for a Previously Approved Project that Includes Two Automobile Dealerships. The Prior Approval Through Conditions of Approval Required the Project to Come Back to the ARB to Address Issues Related to Color, Landscaping, Parapets, Lighting, Transportation Demand Management Plan, County Airport Land Use Commission Review; and Floor Area Ratio. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Adopted for the Project on June 24, 2019. 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. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The purpose of this report is to describe the applicant’s responses to and restate the issues the ARB previously identified. The City Council conditionally approved applications for Site and Design Review, Design Enhancement Exception, Architectural Review (AR), and a Zoning Amendment (18PLN-00186). The Background section below provides links to prior staff reports. The City Council adopted Record of Land Use Action (RLUA) 2019-09 on June 24, 2019. RLUA 3 Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Condition of Approval #14 required the applicant to return to the ARB to address several specific issues with a new AR application. The application is subject to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) procedures. The first formal ARB report for the project provides detailed project information. Background The following is a summary of and links to prior staff reports: ARB: September 20, 2018: 1st Formal www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=66721 Continued item. April 4, 2019: 2nd Formal www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=70111 Continued item. June 6, 2019: 3rd Formal www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=71733 No recommendation. PTC: March 27, 2019 www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=70015 Recommend approval to City Council. City Council: June 24, 2019 www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=72062 Introduction of Ordinance and adoption of ROLUA A video recording of the June 24, 2019 City Council meeting is available online: www.youtube.com/watch?v=f69cQ7b3ue8&start=10700&width=420&height=315. Discussion Record of Land Use Action 2019-09 Condition #14 and the applicant’s responses are summarized in the following table: Condition #14 Applicant Response1 • Colors: The project shall adhere to the Baylands Design Guidelines muted colors by providing alternatives to the proposed colors shown to the ARB on June 6, 2019. In particular, black and shiny colors shall be avoided. Use charcoal or a rich brown for darker accents. Colors have been revised and updated per discussion. The applicant proposes the charcoal base color and color scheme as the ARB previously indicated. The ACM colors are now a matte finish and not glossy. Appears to resolve issue. See Sheets ZA202 – ZA204; ZA222 – ZA224; ZA230 & ZA231; ZA400 – ZA409. 1 Italicized text is staff’s annotation of applicant’s response. 3 Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 • Floor Area Ratio: Provide staff with updated floor area diagrams to confirm the proposed square footage. The proposed project is currently 887 square foot over the allowed FAR. See Analysis section for a full discussion. • GL-2 Parapet: The material should match the transparent qualities depicted in the plans/photos and not the opaque material sample that was presented to the ARB. Special attention should be made to avoid light emission from behind the material. Staff reviewed the top of wall; the applicant revised the material to frosted glass panels that will be inset in the wall. The revised building elevations and renderings show this change. There will be minimal light transmittance through the frosted glass. The applicant intends only a minimal glow through the glass at night. Appears to resolve issue. See Sheets ZA400 – ZA409. • Trees: Add more trees to the base of the building to soften the Bayshore Road side of the building. It was suggested to consider another option instead of the Western Redbud plantings along Bayshore. The alternative trees should continue to provide shading. Secondly, the applicant shall specify larger trees at key locations on the landscape plan. Species planted along Bayshore need to comply with the height restrictions set by the overhead utility easement. Appropriate species are noted on the revised planting plan sheet L-3. There are alternate species for the ARB’s consideration (Sheet L-9). Shade trees have been added along the western elevation of the Mercedes-Benz building. Appears to resolve issue. See Sheets L-2 and L-3. • Curb Ramp at Corner: The applicant shall work with City Transportation staff regarding the transition at the Bayshore/Embarcadero Road intersection for the bicycle path. Submitted information. See Analysis section for more discussion. • Green Screen: The project shall keep the same amount of greenery along the building elevations, however, the project should look at other solutions and/or provide details on the screens to ensure they are high quality, can be maintained over time, and better integrated into the project. Green screens have been modified to be simple, large sections of wall areas. The green screens are noted on the building elevations. Landscape sheet L-8 shows details of the green screen system and provides direction on maintaining the planted materials. The green screens are now larger than the previous ARB submittal. Appears to resolve issue. See Sheets ZA202, ZA203 & ZA223 and L-8. 3 Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 • Perimeter Landscape: The project should provide at least 10 feet of setback between the carwash and the property line. Demonstrate removal of any existing barbed wire. • The planting along the car wash was revised to provide for a higher and denser hedge to shield the carwash elevation. The 5’ setback is per code and complies. A 10’ setback is not needed and would compromise any vehicular circulation needed for large trucks and fire department equipment. We have noted the removal of any existing barbed wire if it exists. See Sheets L-2, L-4 & L-9 and also Analysis section for more discussion. • Lighting: All lighting specifications shall be provided to the ARB including detailed specifications that define security levels of lighting and which lighting locations/fixtures would utilize this feature, including bollard style fixtures, and the impacts of lighting on the Baylands. • The applicant prepared a full photometric study and had presented this to the ARB previously (sheets 8-11 of the Lighting Report). The study shows that the lighting levels are consistent with the city standards and limitations established at the Baylands. After Hours Lighting is the minimum level of lighting required by code. These minimal levels are a reduction in light levels and will occur after hours and will have no adverse effect on the Baylands. Fixtures are located on the lighting report sheet 8 and lighting fixture cut sheets follows. A new photometric study was done to illustrate what the after-hours level lighting would be. This after-hours light level would occur after 10 PM. After Hours Light will be from 10 PM to 6 AM Daily. Appears to resolve issue. See Sheets 8-12 of Applicant’s Lighting Plan. • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program: The applicant shall submit a TDM plan in accordance with the City’s procedures for review and approval by City staff. • Submitted information. No reduction in vehicular trips quantified. • County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission: The applicant shall provide the Director of Planning and Community Environment or designee response documentation from the Airport Land Use • Submitted information. See Attachment F. 3 Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Commission. • Context Drawings: The applicant shall provide context drawings as part of the submittal for ARB. • Sheet ZA050: Contextual site plan. Sheets ZA051, ZA052, ZA053 & ZA054: Contextual photos. Sheets ZA055 & ZA056: Street elevations, Site plan with New plan superimposed and photos. ZA057 Contextual view of Project from Baylands showing vegetation screen. Sheet ZA058: Contextual rendering and photo stich, view from intersection. Sheet ZA059: Contextual rendering and photo stich, view from Embarcadero. Appears to resolve issue. Analysis2 This application is atypical in that the City Council approved a project in part (its site plan, massing, etc.), however, directed the applicant to return with specific information submitted as part of a new Architectural Review application (see previous table). This review may change certain aspects of the approved project and supersede the prior approval. Attachment H provides the applicant’s responses to RLUA Condition #14 in detail. Proposed Revisions The applicant’s revisions to the color palette, parapet treatment, and the inclusion of the green screen system appear to be consistent with the ARB’s discussion. These changes are also consistent with Findings #2 and #3 and the Baylands Master Plan. The revisions include muted colors, and reduced massing where possible, and provide a better relationship with the Baylands. The project was subject to review by the County’s Airport Land Use Commission because of the properties’ proximity to the Palo Alto Airport. A copy of the County’s Airport Land Use Commission minutes is included in Attachment F. This satisfies the Condition of Approval. Lighting Plan and parapet treatment revisions reduce the likelihood of excessive light pollution. The lights for the site are not proposed to be completely off after business hours, for security and safety reasons. The photometric plan (Lighting Plan page 10) shows lighting levels will be 2 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 very low along the Baylands boundary and Embarcadero Road, and low along Bayshore Road. The numbers shown in the blue zone would be reduced by 50% for after-hours lighting. This makes the project consistent with the Baylands Master Plan. The condition required the planting of additional trees at the base of the building. In response, the project includes two olive trees in front of the Mercedes Benz building (see the clouded area on Sheet L-3). These trees do not show well in the renderings because they are obscured behind the street trees. However, they do have greater height than the street trees; the street trees are limited to 15 feet due to the overhead utility easement restrictions. These tree canopies should mask a portion of the building, reducing its mass on the street. However, the olive is not native or drought tolerant and slow growing; therefore, the olive trees will not completely meet Finding #5. The species was chosen to provide additional shade. Context drawings were updated to provide a better depiction of the project and its relationship with its surroundings. The revised imagery enforces the project’s consistency with the findings. Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan Pursuant to PAMC 18.52.030(i)(A), the project requires a TDM to reduce and manage the number of single-occupant motor vehicle trips generated by the project. The City’s Comprehensive Plan Program T1.2.2 establishes reduction goals for peak hour trips. The project is located within an area that has a 20% reduction goal. The applicant submitted a TDM Plan that provides a technical summary of the requirements (Attachment E). The Plan, however, does not quantify any reductions that would be made by implementing the TDM Plan. Thus, the applicant’s submittal to date does not illustrate compliance with the required 20% trip reduction. Further evaluation of the TDM Plan by Planning and Transportation staff is necessary prior to the Director’s action on the revised project. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) FAR was discussed in detail in prior staff reports and was the subject of public comment and discussion at the public hearings. The Automobile Dealership (AD) combining district allows for different treatment of gross floor area for automobile dealerships than for other commercial uses. At the June 24, 2019 City Council hearing, Council viewed the project’s automated vehicle stacking system proposed in the Mercedes Benz building as unique and akin to stacking merchandise in a retail store. The first floor of the stacking system is to be counted once; the upper volume of the space is not counted again. There is a cantilevered portion of the system towards the front of the building located over ground floor offices that needs to be counted; that is because this area represents the first counted floor area in that portion of the system. The Condition of Approval was to address inconsistencies in the measurement of gross floor area and FAR. The applicant proposes revisions to the floor area to address these inconsistencies. The latest plan shows that the applicant requests discounts for a portion of the stacking system that rests on the ground floor of the building. The portion represents the aisle space for moving vehicles within the system. This is contrary to Council direction regarding the way the floor area should 3 Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 be accounted for. Counting both the aisle and the cantilevered portion of the stacking system towards gross floor area, the project exceeds the maximum FAR by 887 square feet. Staff directed the applicant to find possible locations to remove this same amount of floor area and present those to the ARB. Evaluated and Not Changed Perimeter Landscaping The condition states that the project should have a 10-foot setback between the car wash building located on the Audi property and the property line. This setback is to provide a visual buffer between the building and the adjacent property. In addition, the condition requires removal of any barbed wire fencing. The plans indicate (Sheet ZA003) that the existing chain- link fence is to remain and that any barbed wire fencing is to be removed. Although there is no zoning requirement for a setback, the proposed setback is five feet. On the opposite side of the car wash building is a 25-foot wide driveway connecting the Audi site with the Mercedes Benz site. This driveway is critical in the on-site circulation for deliveries, trash servicing, and on-site vehicle circulation. The driveway width is the minimum for this type of driveway. In lieu of a greater setback, the applicant proposes a dense screening hedge of coffeeberry plants along the car wash building within the setback (see Sheet L-2 and L-4). The coffeeberry plant can reach heights of up to 10 feet. This issue directly affects the project’s consistency with Finding #5. The car wash building includes wing walls at the entrance and exit to the tunnel to attenuate sound. The existing chain link fence will remain because there are existing mature trees on and near the boundary that are being protected. Curb Ramp The condition considers the transition with the bicycle path and the Embarcadero Road/East Bayshore Road intersection. The issue is that the multi-use pathway converges at the intersection and as proposed includes an awkward transition for cyclists. The applicant provides the following response to the request: The pathway needs to remain as developed with the city engineer. The space under the power lines is excluded from the building of permanent structures. We are not allowed to build a retaining wall so the make up for the grade changes while respecting the accessibility of the pathway. The proposed pathway was previously reviewed and accepted by the city’s traffic engineer and correspondence to support the decision has been provided. We have extended the ramp at the corner of Bayshore and Embarcadero by roughly five feet. Please see Sheet C02.00 and Sheet C05.00 for the modification. 3 Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 The applicant’s response does not provide any alternative solution to the issue raised in the condition. The Office of Transportation reviewed the applicant’s proposal and response and proposes the following Condition of Approval to alleviate the transition concern: The curb ramp at Embarcadero Road/East Bayshore Road shall be the full width of the multi-use path not including any side flares. The ramp shall connect seamlessly to the multi-use path with no obstructions. The implementation of the proposed condition would ensure that the project is consistent with Finding #4. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is covered by the previous Initial Study and Mitigated Negative Declaration prepared for the prior application (File No. 18PLN- 00186) adopted on June 24, 2019 (Attachment H). The Mitigated Negative Declaration identifies that the project would create significant impacts to the following topics: Biological resources, cultural resources, geology and soils and transportation/traffic. Each significant impact can be reduced to less than significant with the implementation of mitigation measures. None of the revisions to the project create any new impacts beyond those identified. Therefore, no new analysis is necessary. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires (1) publication of public hearing notices in a local paper and (2) mailing of notices to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on December 6, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 3, 2019, which is 16 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 (408) 340-5642 X 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) • Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment E: Draft TDM Plan (PDF) • Attachment F: May 22, 2019 Airport Land Use Commission Minutes (PDF) • Attachment G: June 24, 2019 City Council Final Minutes (PDF) • Attachment H: Applicant's Response Letter (DOCX) • Attachment I: Project Plans and CEQA (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 58 24 Gas Station #1 Club House_& Pro Shop PA Flying Club The Airport Shoppe EMB 4 EMB-3 EMB-2 EMB-1 U.S. Post Office 7 8 . 8 ' 2 5 3 . 4 ' 5 1 . 5 ' 8 4 . 5 ' 2 2 8 . 5 ' 8 3 . 0 ' 9 1 . 5 ' 9 8 . 6 ' 1 0 6 . 0 ' 1 4 0 . 5 ' 2 6 3 . 5 ' 6 8 . 5 ' 7 5 . 8 ' 2 9 2 . 5 '3 3 1 . 9 '1 0 2 . 5 '1 5 5 . 0 ' 1 4 6 . 0 ' 1 0 2 . 5 '1 7 2 . 5 '2 7 8 . 5 '1 7 5 . 0 '1 3 2 . 5 '1 8 2 . 6 ' 1 4 3 . 4 ' 1 2 8 . 5 '1 8 8 . 0 '1 7 7 . 5 '1 2 5 . 0 '1 2 6 . 0 '2 4 1 . 0 '3 3 2 . 5 '3 3 4 . 0 '2 5 6 . 5 '2 3 7 . 5 '2 0 2 . 0 '2 0 0 . 5 '2 0 2 . 5 '2 4 5 . 0 '1 5 3 . 0 '1 8 7 . 5 ' 3 2 . 8 '. 0 '2 6 . 0 '5 4 7 . 8 '3 4 3 . 2 '4 5 9 . 4 '1 6 2 . 7 ' 4 7 7 . 5 '2 9 . 3 ' 1 1 2 . 6 ' 3 3 7 . 9 '1 6 6 3 . 5 '1 1 7 1 . 1 '5 1 5 9 . 9 '3 5 0 . 0 '7 7 2 . 0 '2 1 1 . 0 '1 6 9 . 8 '2 3 6 . 0 '1 6 7 . 7 '3 2 9 . 7 '1 1 2 4 . 0 '3 4 3 . 4 '1 0 7 5 . 3 '2 0 2 . 9 '2 9 5 . 0 '2 2 4 . 3 '3 6 7 . 5 '7 1 7 . 7 ' 4 0 4 . 1 ' 9 8 . 4 ' 1 5 3 . 7 ' 5 . 2 '1 9 . 5 ' 2 6 . 6 ' 3 7 7 . 7 ' 6 9 3 . 0 ' 3 0 3 . 6 ' 3 3 0 . 0 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 1 9 8 . 0 ' 4 7 5 . 0 ' 2 9 0 . 4 ' 2 7 3 . 9 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 2 1 1 . 9 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 5 . 7 ' 2 . 8 ' 6 0 . 2 ' 1 3 2 . 0 ' 4 2 8 . 3 ' 1 1 . 3 ' 1 5 2 . 5 ' 2 4 0 . 2 ' 1 0 6 . 7 ' 1 4 1 . 7 ' 1 7 9 . 9 ' 1 1 2 . 1 ' 2 0 3 . 6 ' 5 1 5 . 9 ' 3 3 . 2 ' . 2 ' 5 6 4 . 0 ' 2 6 9 1 . 4 ' 3 5 3 . 6 ' 9 3 . 1 ' 1 4 5 . 2 ' 1 3 2 . 0 ' 1 3 0 9 . 3 ' 8 . 3 ' 1 0 0 3 . 3 ' 7 0 9 . 3 ' 3 5 5 . 0 ' 2 6 6 . 0 ' 9 8 . 9 ' 3 9 . 0 ' 1 2 2 . 0 ' 8 3 . 3 ' 1 5 . 0 ' 1 9 5 . 7 ' 2 1 9 . 1 ' 1 6 5 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 9 5 . 7 ' 1 2 7 . 4 ' 1 7 5 . 0 ' 2 0 . 1 ' 3 4 5 . 2 ' 7 . 6 ' 1 7 2 . 1 ' 1 7 . 8 ' 2 7 7 . 5 ' 3 6 7 . 8 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 2 5 . 3 ' 1 6 . 8 ' 2 7 . 9 ' 8 1 . 0 ' 7 4 . 0 ' 3 8 . 0 ' 1 7 . 5 ' 3 0 . 8 ' 5 6 . 0 ' 6 3 . 1 ' 8 1 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 1 ' 6 9 . 4 ' 1 9 . 3 ' 7 5 . 1 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 7 8 . 0 ' 7 2 . 1 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 2 ' 2 1 . 6 9 . 1 ' 7 . 5 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 4 5 . 0 ' 2 3 . 6 ' 8 5 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 2 4 . 0 '2 8 . 1 ' 1 6 0 . 4 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 4 6 . 9 ' 5 2 . 1 ' 1 4 6 . 9 ' 2 6 . 0 ' 2 4 . 0 ' 1 3 2 . 2 ' 6 0 . 5 ' 8 5 . 0 ' 2 3 . 6 ' 4 5 . 6 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 8 5 . 0 ' 2 3 . 6 ' 4 5 . 4 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 4 ' 1 0 2 . 1 ' 1 2 6 . 2 ' 7 6 . 4 ' 4 0 . 1 ' 1 4 8 . 0 ' 5 5 . 4 ' 9 2 . 9 ' 1 0 2 . 1 ' 1 7 . 6 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 1 1 3 . 9 ' 8 0 . 1 ' 1 4 8 . 0 ' 5 7 . 4 ' 6 0 . 7 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 7 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 9 2 . 7 ' 1 9 . 4 ' 4 1 . 7 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 8 1 . 7 ' 1 0 6 . 2 ' 1 4 . 3 ' 8 7 . 9 ' 9 6 . 5 ' 3 8 . 1 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 5 2 . 3 ' 5 0 . 3 ' 1 5 7 . 9 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 5 5 . 0 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 5 5 . 0 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 1 5 . 0 ' 4 6 . 9 ' 4 . 5 ' 1 2 5 . 3 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 3 ' 5 2 . 6 ' 1 4 1 . 6 ' 5 0 . 0 ' 1 4 1 . 6 ' 5 1 . 2 ' 1 5 2 . 3 ' 7 6 . 4 ' 1 1 4 . 7 ' 1 0 3 . 4 ' 4 0 . 0 ' 4 1 . 4 ' 1 0 3 . 4 ' 7 1 . 2 ' 1 6 . 2 '8 9 . 7 ' 9 3 . 7 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 2 0 . 9 ' 2 8 . 4 ' 9 3 . 7 ' 7 0 . 9 ' 1 0 6 . 6 ' 7 . 7 ' 5 0 . 4 ' 1 0 6 . 6 ' 1 3 . 9 ' 5 4 . 1 ' 1 0 0 . 1 ' 4 3 . 2 ' 1 0 0 . 1 ' 9 9 . 8 ' 7 . 3 ' 1 2 2 . 0 ' 9 1 . 3 ' 4 5 . 4 ' 1 2 2 . 0 ' 6 0 . 5 ' 2 1 . 7 ' 1 7 . 1 ' 3 8 . 5 ' 3 2 . 9 ' 8 5 . 3 ' 4 5 . 5 ' 1 5 . 5 ' 9 1 . 3 ' 1 3 1 . 3 ' 8 . 9 ' 2 7 . 8 ' 8 4 . 1 ' 8 5 . 3 ' 6 6 . 8 ' 1 1 3 . 9 ' 3 4 . 9 ' 4 1 . 9 ' 5 9 . 9 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 2 9 0 . 6 ' 5 2 . 3 ' 1 7 . 9 ' 2 0 7 . 4 ' 2 5 . 0 ' 1 0 3 . 7 ' 3 1 8 . 4 ' 2 0 . 4 ' 4 7 . 8 ' 5 . 0 ' 1 6 8 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 1 9 1 . 2 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 7 3 . 2 ' 6 8 . 3 '7 7 . 6 '5 . 2 '1 9 . 5 ' 1 2 4 . 0 ' 5 8 7 . 5 ' 3 4 9 . 6 ' 2 5 . 0 ' 2 7 8 . 9 ' 9 4 . 8 ' 3 4 9 . 6 ' 1 1 9 . 7 ' 5 8 . 3 ' 1 6 3 . 8 ' 1 8 7 . 2 '4 5 . 7 '2 5 . 0 ' 1 0 3 . 7 ' 1 3 2 . 8 ' 3 1 2 . 2 ' 2 7 2 . 9 ' 2 7 8 . 9 ' 3 2 2 . 5 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 3 2 2 . 5 ' 1 0 0 . 0 ' 1 0 6 . 5 ' 6 2 . 5 ' 4 0 . 1 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 4 1 . 5 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 4 6 . 6 ' 1 4 . 8 ' 1 1 . 7 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 1 0 9 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 7 5 . 0 ' 8 4 . 0 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 2 6 2 . 6 ' 2 0 . 3 ' 2 3 6 . 4 ' 1 7 5 . 1 ' 1 6 7 . 3 ' 1 6 9 . 0 ' 2 0 4 . 2 ' 1 2 8 . 1 ' 1 0 5 2 . 7 ' 5 8 7 . 5 ' 9 4 . 8 ' 3 0 . 0 ' 2 8 . 0 ' 7 0 9 . 7 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 5 1 3 . 2 ' 2 8 0 . 0 ' 7 1 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 6 ' 6 7 . 9 ' 2 4 5 . 9 ' 3 5 2 . 3 ' 4 1 . 2 ' 6 0 3 . 5 ' 3 0 1 . 2 ' 5 9 3 . 0 ' 2 8 . 4 ' 1 9 3 . 2 ' 5 2 . 3 ' 2 6 . 8 ' 3 5 . 2 ' 2 7 . 3 ' 6 1 . 6 ' 1 4 . 8 ' 1 8 7 . 5 ' 6 . 3 ' 2 4 8 . 8 ' 2 3 6 . 4 ' 1 3 9 . 0 ' 1 8 . 7 ' 1 3 9 . 8 ' 1 6 2 . 5 ' 2 0 7 . 7 ' 1 6 8 . 3 ' 2 7 9 . 4 ' 2 4 0 . 6 ' 7 2 . 8 ' 4 6 . 7 ' 1 2 3 . 8 ' 1 7 6 . 0 ' 1 2 5 . 7 ' 2 1 8 . 1 ' 2 5 6 . 0 ' 1 3 8 . 1 ' 2 6 5 . 3 ' 2 1 9 . 1 ' 1 9 5 . 7 ' ' 5 . 1 08 3 . 3 ' 1 6 5 . 0 ' 1 7 9 . 8 ' 2 5 . 4 ' 6 0 . 0 ' 1 6 5 . 0 ' 1 4 8 . 0 ' 2 7 6 . 4 ' 1 2 7 . 4 ' 1 7 5 . 0 ' 2 0 . 1 ' 4 1 8 . 5 ' 2 0 . 0 ' 4 5 2 . 1 ' 4 2 0 . 5 ' 3 4 5 . 2 ' 7 . 6 ' 2 4 1 . 3 ' 3 9 3 . 7 ' 2 3 0 . 0 ' 4 7 . 1 ' 1 2 9 . 2 ' 2 5 . 1 ' 8 4 . 3 ' 1 8 . 7 ' 1 3 9 . 0 ' 2 0 6 . 3 ' 6 6 5 . 7 ' 2 0 5 . 8 ' 4 4 . 8 ' 6 9 . 0 ' 1 5 3 . 7 ' 2 0 5 . 1 ' 2 3 0 . 7 ' 3 6 7 . 4 ' 2 9 3 . 4 ' 3 4 8 . 4 ' 1 8 2 . 3 ' 1 7 9 . 8 ' 2 5 . 4 ' 1 9 5 . 7 ' 1 3 6 . 9 ' 1 9 0 . 7 ' 2 0 5 . 8 ' 4 4 . 8 ' 6 9 . 0 ' 1 5 3 . 7 ' 3 1 2 . 7 ' 3 4 1 . 8 ' 2 2 9 . 3 ' 3 5 . 4 ' 1 4 7 . 8 ' 4 . 9 ' 3 9 6 . 4 ' 3 0 . 1 ' 3 5 8 . 7 ' 5 9 . 7 ' 1 1 5 . 1 ' 4 3 7 . 7 ' 1 4 9 . 5 ' 1 5 9 . 5 ' 5 7 . 6 ' 1 5 3 . 2 ' 2 8 1 . 9 ' 1 . 9 ' 8 9 . 8 ' 4 8 . 4 ' 3 9 . 5 ' 1 6 . 4 ' 3 8 6 . 6 ' 1 6 7 . 3 ' 5 6 . 5 ' 1 4 8 . 0 ' . 3 ' . 5 ' 1 1 . 0 ' 1 2 3 . 2 ' 1 2 9 . 3 ' 2 7 7 . 5 ' 3 6 7 . 8 ' 1 7 1 . 5 ' 1 1 5 . 1 ' 5 9 . 7 ' 3 8 6 . 6 ' 1 6 9 . 1 ' 3 6 8 . 1 ' 2 3 8 . 2 ' 1 0 1 . 5 ' 1 1 . 0 ' 1 2 3 . 2 ' 1 2 9 . 3 ' 9 8 . 9 ' 1 3 1 . 7 ' 1 4 8 . 0 ' 5 6 . 5 ' 4 3 . 4 ' 2 5 . 9 ' 7 8 9 . 6 ' 5 1 5 . 9 ' 2 0 3 . 6 ' 1 1 2 . 1 ' 1 7 9 . 9 ' 1 4 1 . 7 ' 4 4 1 . 4 ' 3 9 8 . 0 ' 3 2 . 7 ' 5 3 8 . 4 ' 3 7 5 . 0 ' 4 0 0 . 0 ' 5 2 6 . 8 ' 1 2 9 . 0 ' 2 0 6 . 0 ' 6 2 6 . 2 ' 1 6 8 . 2 ' 2 0 1 . 2 ' . 2 ' 3 3 . 2 ' 2 6 5 . 6 ' 1 7 5 . 1 ' 2 4 8 . 8 ' 2 4 . 4 ' 7 6 . 5 ' 1 5 3 . 7 ' 7 7 . 6 '6 8 . 3 '3 . 0 ' 1 0 8 . 7 ' 2 6 1 . 9 ' 1 6 0 . 1 ' 1 7 . 0 ' 2 5 3 . 2 ' 2 0 6 . 0 ' 5 . 0 ' 2 2 6 . 0 ' 3 1 . 4 ' 1 9 1 . 0 ' 2 0 0 . 0 ' 1 2 9 . 0 ' 2 4 6 . 0 ' 2 0 0 . 0 ' 3 7 5 . 0 ' 2 0 0 . 0 ' 3 7 5 . 0 ' 2 0 0 . 0 ' 6 6 . 5 ' 5 7 2 . 4 ' 1 2 8 . 1 ' 1 0 5 2 . 7 ' 1 5 0 . 6 ' 3 7 7 . 7 ' 6 9 3 . 0 ' 3 0 3 . 6 ' 3 3 0 . 0 ' 1 1 7 . 5 ' 1 9 8 . 0 ' 4 7 5 . 0 ' 2 9 0 . 4 ' 2 7 3 . 9 ' 1 1 8 . 8 ' 2 1 1 . 9 ' 1 7 8 . 2 ' 1 0 5 . 7 ' 1 0 2 . 1 ' 6 2 1 . 5 ' 1 8 8 . 6 ' 1 5 9 . 5 ' 5 7 . 6 ' 1 5 3 . 2 ' 2 8 1 . 9 ' 4 3 8 . 6 ' 7 1 . 9 ' 2 3 8 . 2 ' 1 0 1 . 5 ' . 5 ' . 3 ' 1 3 1 . 7 ' 2 0 9 . 3 ' 1 4 7 . 8 ' 3 5 . 4 ' 1 6 2 . 5 ' 2 0 7 . 7 ' 2 0 4 . 1 ' 8 9 . 1 ' 2 7 9 . 8 ' 4 7 . 1 ' 1 2 9 . 2 ' 2 5 . 1 ' 3 9 3 . 7 ' 2 5 1 . 5 ' 4 2 . 8 ' 3 . 5 ' 1 7 . 8 ' 1 7 2 . 1 ' 5 8 9 . 5 ' 1 8 0 . 0 ' OREG O N E X P R E S S W A Y AS T B A Y S H O R E R O A D E EMBA R C A D E R O R O A D FA B E R P L A C E EMBA R C A D E R O R O A D OREGON E X P R E S S W A Y WEST BAY S H O R E R O A D SI E R R A C O U R T CH A B O T T E R R A C E WE S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D BA Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y EAST BAYSHORE ROAD BA Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y EMBARCADERO RO A D EA S T B A Y S H O R E R O A D WATSON COUR T GE N G R O A D OREG O N A V E N U E BA Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y BA Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y BA Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y B A Y S H O R E F R E E W A Y O'BRINE LA N E ST FRANCIS D R I V E WEST BAYSHORE ROAD ROLM(E)(D)(AD) ROLM(E)(D)(AD)ROLM(E)(D)(AD) RM-15 PC- 1752 PC-2962 PF(D) ROLM (E)(D)(AD) ROLM (E)(D)(AD) PC-4847 CS(D) P C - 4 8 4 6 ROW BaylandsAthletic Center E m i l y R e n z e l W e t l a n d s Tom CaseyField This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts Assessment Parcel abc Zone District Labels Project Site 0'347' 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road18PLN-00186 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O RAT E D C ALIFOR N I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3.a Packet Pg. 59 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road 19PLN-00291 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the project is consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan goals and policies: Land Use and Community Design Element Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Service Commercial: Facilities providing citywide and regional services and relying on customers arriving by car. These uses do not necessarily benefit from being in high volume pedestrian areas such as shopping centers or Downtown. Typical uses include auto services and dealerships, motels, lumberyards, appliance stores and restaurants, including fast service types. In almost all cases, these uses require good automobile and service access so that customers can safely load and unload without impeding traffic. In some locations, residential and mixed-use projects may be appropriate in this land use category. Examples of Service Commercial areas include San Antonio Road, El Camino Real and Embarcadero Road northeast of the Bayshore Freeway. Non-residential FARs will range up to 0.4. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations. The project proposes two automobile dealerships located at Embarcadero Road northeast of Bayshore Freeway. Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is surrounded by established urban uses and is designed to be consistent with the surrounding structures. A portion of the project is adjacent to the Baylands area 3.b Packet Pg. 60 and is designed to be compatible with the open space area. Policy L-5.1 Foster compact Employment Districts developed in a way that facilitates transit, pedestrian and bicycle travel. Provide mixed uses to reduce the number of auto trips. The project provides a multi-use path that would facilitate pedestrian and bicycle users. This path closes a gap in the city’s planned bicycle network. Policy L-5.2 Provide landscaping, trees, sidewalks, pedestrian path and connections to the citywide bikeway system within Employment Districts. Pursue opportunities to include sidewalks, paths, low water use landscaping, recycled water and trees and remove grass turf in renovation and expansion projects. The project includes updates the pedestrian and bicycle circulation adjacent to the subject property. Proposed plantings are generally drought-tolerant. Trees along Bayshore Road will be consistent with the utility easement requirements and are regionally indigenous and drought tolerant. Policy L-5.3 Design paths and sidewalks to be attractive and comfortable and consistent with the character of the area where they are located. The project proposes a multi-use pathway that will close the gap in the City’s planned bicycle network and provide a safer alternative for cyclists. Policy L-5.4 Maintain the East Bayshore and San Antonio Road/Bayshore Corridor areas as diverse business and light industrial districts. The project maintains an automobile dealership and adds another automobile dealership. These will continue the vitality of the district. Policy L-6.1 Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The project includes a variety of materials such as stucco, metal, glass, and green screens. All of which complement the surrounding buildings in the area. Policy L-6.3 Encourage bird-friendly design. Bird friendly glass is included in the project design. Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and wellbeing; and to enhance a sense of community safety. The design of the buildings are sensitive to the streetscape, its surroundings and are consistent with the Baylands Master Plan design guidelines. Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. The project includes very little surface parking and most parking is located within above-ground parking structures. 3.b Packet Pg. 61 Transportation Element Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Program T-1.2.3: Formalize TDM requirements by ordinance and require new developments above a certain size threshold to prepare and implement a TDM Plan to meet specific performance standards. Require regular monitoring/reporting and provide for enforcement with meaningful penalties for non- compliance. The ordinance should also:  Establish a list of effective TDM measures that include transit promotion, prepaid transit passes, commuter checks, car sharing, carpooling, parking cash-out, bicycle lockers and showers, shuttles to Caltrain, requiring TMA membership and education and outreach to support the use of these modes. …  Establish a mechanism to monitor the success of TDM measures and track the cumulative reduction of peak hour motor vehicle trips. TDM measures should at a minimum achieve the following reduction in peak hour motor vehicle trips, with a focus on single-occupant vehicle trips. Reductions should be based on the rates included in the Institute of Transportation Engineers’ Trip Generation Manual for the appropriate land use category and size: - 20 percent reduction The project submitted a TDM (November 27, 2019) for consideration by the City. Policy T-1.17 Require new office, commercial and multi-family residential developments to provide improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as called for in the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan.] The project provides a multi-use path that will improve the pedestrian and bicycle circulation within the area, consistent with the goals of the Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Policy T-5.6 Strongly encourage the use of below- grade or structured parking, and explore mechanized parking instead of surface parking for new developments of all types while minimizing negative impacts including on groundwater and landscaping where feasible. The project provides structured parking integrated into the building. This is atypical for automobile dealerships. The site includes very little surface parking. 3.b Packet Pg. 62 Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. This finding can be made in the affirmative because the project provides specific design details such as matte color finishes, frosted glass parapets, green screens and landscaping that create appropriate transitions and sense of mass that complements its surrounding environment. The project’s proposed lighting plan will not adversely affect the adjacent Baylands during business operations. The lighting plan also demonstrates that during off-business hours, the lighting intensity would be reduced by 50% in certain areas. The project is consistent with the context-based design criteria: 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project includes a multi-use path that provides a connection in the Baylands area. The path will include a rest area. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The project includes improved design elements such as matte finish color, frosted glass parapets to limit light pollution, and green screens to provide transitions to the Baylands and break up building mass. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The project includes improved design elements that help with minimizing mass along Embarcadero and Bayshore Road. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The project does not abut lower scale residential development. 3.b Packet Pg. 63 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site The project includes a multi-use path at the perimeter of the project site along the streets. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The project includes parking in above ground parking structures. There is some surface level parking available to customers. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood The project is consistent with surrounding development patterns with large setbacks. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will be consistent with the City’s Green Building Ordinance. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project proposes a contemporary design using metal, stucco, glass and green screens. Colors are consistent with the retailer’s brand and complements the Baylands and surrounding buildings using a matte finish. Materials are integrated into a building design that minimizes mass and provides transitions with surrounding development. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project proposes a design that includes an internal merchandise stacking system that reduces the building’s footprint. This reduces the need for a large surface parking area. The project proposes a multi- use path that provides a connection bicyclists in the Baylands area. This also creates the necessary buffer between the street and the project site. 3.b Packet Pg. 64 Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Throughout the building and along the elevations, the landscape materials of the project take advantage of site constraints. The site includes an overhead utility easement where only trees with limited height are allowed. The project’s landscape palette includes the appropriate amount of indigenous drought tolerate plants. The building’s facades are covered in green screens where it interfaces with the Baylands. The project also includes off-site tree plants to provide better screening between the Audi building and the Baylands. Additional trees were added onsite between the Mercedes Benz building and Bayshore Road. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Per the City of Palo Alto planning goals, the project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The systems proposed for the building will be designed to meet to energy performance criteria of California Title 24 for Mechanical, Lighting, and Building Envelope. 3.b Packet Pg. 65 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road 19PLN-00291 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Mercedes Benz/Audi of Palo Alto, November 6, 2019” stamped as received by the City on November 6, 2019 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PROJECT EXPIRATION: The project approval shall be valid for through June 24, 2021 (consistent with Record of Land Use Action 2019-09). In the event a building permit(s), if applicable, is not secured for the project within the time limit specified above, the ARB approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. Application for extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the one year expiration. 6. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 7. DEVELOPMENT IMPACT FEES: Estimated Development Impact Fees ($3,834,694.42) plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 3.c Packet Pg. 66 8. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 9. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us to schedule this inspection. TRANSPORTATION 10. Vehicle stop line at driveways shall be eight (8) feet behind the multi-use path. Add stop signs at each exit with signage indicating the multi-use path crossing. Applicant to work with City staff on exit signage text/graphics during advanced design phase. 11. The curb ramp at Embarcadero Road/East Bayshore Road shall be the full width of the multi-use path not including any side flares. The ramp shall connect seamless to the multi-use path with no obstructions. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 12. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 3.c Packet Pg. 67 13. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 14. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 15. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 16. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 17. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 18. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold 3.c Packet Pg. 68 dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 19. STREET TREES. Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant or designee shall demonstrate that any street trees proposed for removal are replaced one-for-one with at least 24” box size and shall be drought tolerant. The applicant shall incorporate the street tree replacements into the overall replacement quantities and update the planting schedule accordingly. 3.c Packet Pg. 69 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road, 19PLN-00291 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT with AD Combining District) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 2.28 acres (MB) 2.54 acres (Audi) 2.28 acres (MB) 2.54 acres (Audi) Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 37 feet (MB) 18’-10” feet (Audi) 55-5” (MB) 45’-7” (MB) to the canopy 18’-10” (Audi) Rear Yard None 154 feet (MB) 200 feet (Audi) 33’-9” (MB) 92-8” (Audi) Interior Side Yard None 52 feet (MB) 48 feet/ 8 feet (Audi) 0 feet (MB) 31’-5” (Audi) Left 48’-6” (Audi) Right 5’-0” to carwash Street Side Yard None 87 feet (MB) Not Applicable (Audi) 83’-11” (MB) Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) Not Applicable Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to Unknown No Build-to proposed. setback Embarcadero Road Proposing DEE 33% of side street built to 83’-11” (MB) setback on East Bayshore (Embarcadero) Road (7) 47’-7” (MB) (Bayshore) Max. Site Coverage 50% 20% (43,408 sf) 49% (58,487 SF) MB 46% (45,551 SF) Audi Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 30 feet (MB) 22 feet (Audi Service) 27’-6” (Audi Showroom) 36-43 feet to top of roof deck. 50 feet to top of elevator shaft Max. Floor Area Ratio 0.4:1 18.18.060(e) 0.2:1 (43,408 sf) 0.45:1 Dealership (FAR) 0.2:1 Additional FAR for Automobile Dealership Showrooms on the first floor. 0.12:1 Showroom (MB) 0.36:1 Dealership 0.09:1 Showroom (Audi) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. 3.d Packet Pg. 70 (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property The proposed dealerships will operate between the hours of 6:00 am and 10:00 pm. Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) Not Applicable because the site is proposed to be subject to the AD combining district Not Applicable Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) Provide adequate and accessible recyclable collection. Recycling will be provided in the rear of the building 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Automobile Dealerships Type Required Proposed at Audi (1730 Embarcadero) Proposed at Mercedes (1700 Embarcadero) Vehicle Parking Automobile Dealership: 1 space per 400 SF Automotive Display: 1 space per 500 SF Surface: 23 2nd Floor: 49 Roof Deck: 128 207 spaces Surface: 18 2nd Floor: 59 Roof Deck: 92 169 spaces Audi Dealership: 123.4 Display: 2.21 MB Dealership: 136.5 Display: 4.45 103,984/400 = 260 3,330/500 = 6.66 Total: 266.66 Bicycle Parking 1/10 employees (Short- term) = 114/10 = 12 7 spaces 8 spaces Loading Space 30,000 – 69,000 sf = 2 spaces Audi: 2 spaces MB: 2 spaces Total: 4 spaces 2 spaces 2 spaces 3.d Packet Pg. 71 3.e Packet Pg. 72 3.e Packet Pg. 73 3.e Packet Pg. 74 3.e Packet Pg. 75 3.e Packet Pg. 76 3.e Packet Pg. 77 3.e Packet Pg. 78 3.e Packet Pg. 79 3.e Packet Pg. 80 3.e Packet Pg. 81 Page 1 of 8 County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission DATE: May 22, 2019, Regular Meeting TIME: 6:00 PM PLACE: Conference Room 157 County Government Center – 70 W. Hedding Street, 1st Floor San Jose, CA 95110 MINUTES Opening 1. Call to Order/Roll Call. Vice Chairperson Barragan called the meeting to order at 6:05 p.m. A quorum was present. Attendee Name Title Status Arrived Walter Windus Commissioner - Seat 1 Late 6:11 PM Diego Barragan Vice Chairperson - Seat 2 Present E. Ronald Blake Commissioner - Seat 3 Present Paul Donahue Chairperson - Seat 4 Absent Jamil Shaikh Proxy Commissioner - Seat 4 Absent Lisa Matichak Commissioner - Seat 6 Present Glenn Hendricks Commissioner - Seat 7 Present 2. Public Comment. No public comments were received. Regular Agenda - Items for Discussion 3. Approve minutes of the March 27, 2019 Regular Meeting. 3 RESULT: APPROVED [4 TO 0] MOVER: Glenn Hendricks, Commissioner - Seat 7 SECONDER: Lisa Matichak, Commissioner - Seat 6 AYES: Barragan, Blake, Matichak, Hendricks ABSENT: Windus, Donahue 4. Consider Referral from the City of San Jose for a Zoning Amendment to Title 20 of the City of San Jose Zoning Code affecting San Jose International and Reid- Hillview Airports to allow uses and permit requirements for a wide variety of uses throughout the Open Space/Agriculture, Residential, Commercial, Industrial, and Downtown Zoning Districts. (ID# 96707) 3.f Packet Pg. 82 Minutes Airport Land Use Commission, County of Santa Clara May 22, 2019 Page 2 of 8 Possible action: a. Find the Zoning Amendment consistent with the policies contained within the San Jose International Airport (SJC) and Reid-Hillview Airport (RHV) Comprehensive Land Use Plans (CLUPs). OR b. Find the Zoning Amendment inconsistent with the policies contained within the SJC and RHV CLUPs. Mark Connolly, Planner, Department of Planning and Development, reported that the rezoning affects lands in the Airport Influence Areas (AIAs) of RHV and SJC and highlighted the proposed uses from the written report that would have aviation impacts including light-medium manufacturing and assembly, which is a new category. He further stated that staff suggests that light-medium manufacturing and assembly not be a permitted use and adding language that requires an impact evaluation. Commissioner Windus took his seat at 6:11 p.m. Mr. Connolly further highlighted the fuel service or charging station use and noted that staff suggests adding CLUP policy S4 language to the rezoning language; outdoor and indoor theater or auditorium uses and noted that staff suggests adding language that this use may not be allowed in safety zones, or noise contours, and may not be a discretionary land use; certified farmers' market which would change to permitted use and noted that staff suggests removing this use from permitted classification and instead list it as a conditional or special permit to require review; post secondary school use to change public and quasi-public from special use to permitted use and noted that staff suggests that this maintain a special use permit allowance; botanical conservatories use to change to special use permit and noted that staff suggests language to restrict development in Inner and Turning Safety Zones; elementary and secondary public school to change to permitted use and noted that staff suggests classification continue as special use permit; and, indoor and outdoor theater or auditorium (other than movie theater) uses to change to be added to Downtown districts as permitted uses and noted that staff suggests they continue as special use permit. Mr. Connolly referred to a letter from the City of San Jose dated May 22, 2019 which adds retail bakery, retail and instructional art studio as uses and noted that staff recommends including these uses be included in the de minimis category. He further noted that post secondary school and elementary/secondary school uses have been removed from the scope of work. Finally, Mr. Connolly clarified that the only modified use indicated in the letter with potential aviation impacts is the fuel service station use for which a note will be included that use is subject to CLUP safety regulations. Discussion ensued relating to the need for project-specific plans to be reviewed for the manufacturing and light assembly use; the need to protect boarded animals from aviation impacts; Guadalupe River Park's current light industrial zoning designation; 3.f Packet Pg. 83 Minutes Airport Land Use Commission, County of Santa Clara May 22, 2019 Page 3 of 8 Airport Land Use Commission as the discretionary decision maker only for site development permit applications that include zoning; and, the possibility of defining recommendations for specific parcels that are in an Inner Safety Zone, Turning Safety, Sideline Safety Zone, or in a 70 to 75 decibel noise contour. Martina Davis, Supervising Planner, City of San Jose, clarified that both light and medium manufacturing uses are currently listed separately and are both permitted uses; and, that the request is to combine those two uses into one. Commissioner Hendricks expressed the need to include a requirement that all use cases for which the City is the discretionary decision maker, if the use does not conform to Policy S7 of the SJC CLUP, it must come to the ALUC for a consistency determination. Mr. Connolly noted that the noise policies in the CLUP states that in a manufacturing designated zone, noise levels are generally acceptable up to 75 decibels and conditionally acceptable up to 85 decibels. Discussion ensued relating to potential density and noise concerns with indoor and outdoor theater use. Approved finding the Zoning Amendment consistent with the policies contained within the SJC and RHV CLUPs as amended to include Department of Planning and Development staff recommendations as noted in the report, with a clarification that all use cases in the report indicating "Will be a Permitted use in AUA" should also indicate that they are not located within any AIA, including changes and comments listed on the letter from the City of San Jose dated May 22, 2019, with the addition of a requirement that all project specific development for light manufacturing/assembly, fuel service, and theater/auditorium uses located within Inner Safety Zones, Turning Safety Zones, or Sideline Safety Zones come to the ALUC for a consistency determination. 4 RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [5 TO 0] MOVER: Glenn Hendricks, Commissioner - Seat 7 SECONDER: Lisa Matichak, Commissioner - Seat 6 AYES: Windus, Barragan, Blake, Matichak, Hendricks ABSENT: Donahue 5. Consider Planned Development Zoning from A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to a new A(PD) Planned Development Zoning District to allow four 65-foot field lights on a 17.64 gross acre site, located at the west side of Stockton Avenue, southeast of the intersection of Emory and Laurel Streets and The site is located within the Airport Influence Area of San Jose International Airport (SJC). (ID# 96768) Possible action: a. Find the rezoning request consistent with the ALUC noise, height and safety policies for San Jose, as defined in the SJC Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). 3.f Packet Pg. 84 Minutes Airport Land Use Commission, County of Santa Clara May 22, 2019 Page 4 of 8 OR b. Find the rezoning request inconsistent with the ALUC noise, height and safety policies for San Jose, as defined in the SJC CLUP. Mr. Connolly reported that the request is for installing lights in the north field at Bellarmine Preparatory School in San Jose and noted that potential aviation land use impact is minimal. He further noted that a No Hazard Determination from the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) is currently pending. Regarding height, Mr. Connolly reported that the site lies beneath the 212 Above Mean Sea Level (AMSL) surface limit, with the plan indicating the lights will be 65 feet tall and the elevation at approximately 78 feet ASML, for a total height of 142 feet AMSL. He further noted that the project would be consistent with height policies. Regarding safety and noise, Mr. Connolly reported that the subject site is outside of all of the CLUP safety zones and noise contours, and would therefore be consistent with those policies. Finally, Mr. Connolly reported that there is no need to add an Avigation Easement as the school's current one is sufficient. In response to an inquiry relating to a possible requirement for downward shrouded lighting, Mr. Connolly stated that staff determined that would not be necessary as the site is not located in a flight pattern. Discussion ensued relating to past aviation issues with lighted screens at stadiums and the possibility to reference in the motion Policy G7 of the CLUP regarding exterior lighting conditions. Cary Greene, Airport Planner, SJC, stated that SJC has no concerns relating to this project. Approved finding the rezoning request consistent with the ALUC noise, height, and safety policies for San Jose, as defined in the SJC CLUP. 5 RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 0] MOVER: Walter Windus, Commissioner - Seat 1 SECONDER: Glenn Hendricks, Commissioner - Seat 7 AYES: Windus, Barragan, Blake, Matichak, Hendricks ABSENT: Donahue 6. Consider Referral from the City of Palo Alto to Rezone a parcel at 1730 Embarcadero from Planned Community (PC) to Commercial Service with a Design Review Overlay CS(D) and Automobile Dealership (AD) and to apply an overlay rezoning of Automobile Dealership (AD) at 1700 Embarcadero Road., within the Palo Alto Airport Influence Area. (ID# 96787) Possible action: 3.f Packet Pg. 85 Minutes Airport Land Use Commission, County of Santa Clara May 22, 2019 Page 5 of 8 a. Find the rezoning consistent with the policies contained within the Palo Alto Airport Comprehensive Land Use Plan (CLUP). OR b. Find the rezoning inconsistent with the policies contained within the Palo Alto CLUP. Mr. Connolly reported that the project involves demolishing and repurposing the former site and that two parcels would be rezoned as commercial service designation with an auto dealership overlay. He further noted that the rezoning has no conflict with any safety or noise policies. Regarding height, Mr. Connolly reported that the site lies beneath the 154 AMSL surface limit, with the tallest building at 50 feet tall and the elevation at approximately 30 feet ASML, for a total height of 80 feet AMSL. He further noted that the project would be consistent with height policies, however crane usage will require a permit from the FAA. Finally, Mr. Connolly reported that staff recommends the requirement of an avigation easement dedicated to the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the applicant. Approved as amended to find the rezoning consistent with the policies contained within the Palo Alto Airport CLUP with the condition that an avigation easement be dedicated to the Palo Alto Airport on behalf of the applicant. 6 RESULT: APPROVED AS AMENDED [5 TO 0] MOVER: E. Ronald Blake, Commissioner - Seat 3 SECONDER: Diego Barragan, Vice Chairperson - Seat 2 AYES: Windus, Barragan, Blake, Matichak, Hendricks ABSENT: Donahue 7. Discuss and approve forwarding a request to the Board of Supervisors for an exemption to the frequency of regular meetings under Category 1 of Board Policy 3.69, to allow a monthly meeting schedule for the Airport Land Use Commission, on an ongoing basis. (ID# 96202) The Deputy Clerk provided an overview of Ordinance Code A6-3 that limits the number of County Boards and Commissions meetings to once every two months and Board Policy 3.69 which provides an option to request an exemption to allow monthly meetings for Commissions that qualify. She further noted that the exemption request was reviewed by County Counsel and that following approval, the request will be forwarded to the Board of Supervisors. 3.f Packet Pg. 86 Minutes Airport Land Use Commission, County of Santa Clara May 22, 2019 Page 6 of 8 7 RESULT: APPROVED [5 TO 0] MOVER: Walter Windus, Commissioner - Seat 1 SECONDER: Glenn Hendricks, Commissioner - Seat 7 AYES: Windus, Barragan, Blake, Matichak, Hendricks ABSENT: Donahue 8. Receive verbal report from the Department of Planning and Development relating to the status of the implementation of the 2018 Comprehensive Land Use Plan amendments. (Mark Connolly) Mr. Connolly reported that implementation of the CLUP amendments that were approved in December 2018 is ongoing and that he will inform the Commissioners when the updated CLUPs are online. 8 RESULT: RECEIVED 9. Receive verbal report from the Department of Planning and Development relating to the status of the Hope Village homeless encampment. (Mark Connolly) Mr. Connolly reported that Hope Village has vacated from its temporary location in the Guadalupe River area in San Jose and noted that this matter no longer warrants consideration. 9 RESULT: RECEIVED 10. Receive verbal report from the Department of Planning and Development relating to proposed Diridon Station and Downtown Core development in San Jose. (Mark Connolly) Mr. Connolly reported that he is unaware of any development agreements made thus far. In response to an inquiry by Vice Chairperson Barragan, Mr. Greene stated that plans for Adobe North Tower in San Jose are currently pending a No Hazard Determination from the FAA. 10 RESULT: RECEIVED 11. Receive report from Chairperson relating to Commission activities. (Paul Donahue) No report was received. 12. Receive report from the Department of Planning and Development. (Mark Connolly) No report was received. 3.f Packet Pg. 87 Minutes Airport Land Use Commission, County of Santa Clara May 22, 2019 Page 7 of 8 13. Receive report from Airport Planner, San Jose International Airport. (Cary Greene) Mr. Greene reported that preparation of an Environmental Impact Report is currently underway for the proposed amendment to the Airport Master Plan and that the FAA is currently reviewing airport layout changes. He further advised of plans for SJC to construct a temporary expansion to Terminal B which is expected to be completed in June 2019. Discussion ensued relating to the impact of the increase of air operations and the improvement for passengers as a result of the Terminal B expansion. Commissioner Hendricks requested that Mr. Greene provide a report to the Commissioners which includes airport operations and projections over the past two years. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Windus, Mr. Greene advised of the master plan's minor changes to Runway 12R/30L and 12L/30R to conform with the latest FAA standards. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Blake, Mr. Greene advised of planned construction to build a fire station on the west side of the airport field. 13 RESULT: RECEIVED 14. Receive report from Director of County Airports. (Eric Peterson) Ken Betts, Assistant Director of County Airports, reported that relating to the future of RHV, current leases for Fixed Base Operators expire at the end of 2022 and that previous grants expire in 2031 and advised of plans to extend the leases to 2031, which will be presented to the Board of Supervisors (BOS) in September 2019. He further reported that phase one of the lead study indicates no ground contamination and that a study of lead in the air is underway. Mr. Betts reported that on May 21, 2019, the BOS approved engaging services of a consultant to study concepts for reuse of the airport and that a funding source will be identified in the near future. Finally, Mr. Betts advised of the new baseball field lights at the end of the RHV runway as a potential aviation issue as reflectors are installed on the light posts. Mr. Connolly noted that when the plans to construct the baseball field came to the ALUC, it was determined consistent with the condition that the lights are downward shrouded. In response to an inquiry by Commissioner Hendricks, Mr. Betts discussed the County's ownership of the RHV property and the legal process necessary to compensate for FAA's investment in the land. Discussion ensued relating to possible grant money for San Martin Airport and possible uses for the funding. 3.f Packet Pg. 88 Minutes Airport Land Use Commission, County of Santa Clara May 22, 2019 Page 8 of 8 14 RESULT: RECEIVED 15. Receive report from Moffett Federal Airfield representative. (David Satterfield) Mr. Connolly stated that David Satterfield, Chief, Aircraft Maintenance, NASA Ames Research Center, is currently attending a conference in Reno, Nevada relating to a NASA study regarding the issue of drones occupying airspace. Discussion ensued relating to future drone regulations. 15 RESULT: RECEIVED 16. Receive report relating to Palo Alto Airport. (Mark Connolly) Mr. Connolly advised of upcoming plans to meet with Andy Swanson, Airport Manager, Palo Alto Airport. 16 RESULT: RECEIVED Announcements 17. Announcements and correspondence: a. Commissioners' announcements. Commissioner Hendricks announced that the County of Santa Clara and County of Santa Cruz established an airport round table and expressed the desire for representation from San Jose. b. There is currently one vacancy on the Commission. For internet access to the vacancies list and applications, please visit http://www.sccgov.org/sites/bos/bnc. c. The County of Santa Clara provides reimbursement to appointed Commissioners for family care expenses incurred during the time spent performing their official County duties. For additional information please contact the Office of the Clerk of the Board at (408) 299-5001. Adjourn 18. Adjourn to the next regular meeting on Wednesday, June 26, 2019 at 6:00 p.m. in Room 157, County Government Center, 70 W. Hedding Street, San Jose. Vice Chairperson Barragan adjourned the meeting at 8:10 p.m. Respectfully submitted, Jean Anton Deputy Clerk 3.f Packet Pg. 89 Page 30 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 CITY OF PALO ALTO CITY COUNCIL FINAL MINUTES Special Meeting June 24, 2019 The City Council of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in the Council Chambers at 5:06 P.M. Present: Cormack, DuBois, Filseth, Fine, Kniss, Kou, Tanaka Absent: 35. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road [18PLN-00186]: Request for a Zoning Map Amendment, Site and Design Review and Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 18,000 Square Foot Vacant Restaurant Building and a 15,700 Square Foot Audi Service Building, and Construction of two new Automobile Dealerships Totaling 84,900 Square Feet. The Zoning Map Amendment Would Change the Zoning Designation From CS(D) and PC to CS(D)(AD) for Both Parcels. Environmental Assessment: Adoption of a Mitigated Negative Declaration, Including a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program. The Planning and Transportation Commission Reviewed and Made a Recommendation for Approval on March 27, 2019. Council Member Cormack disclosed she met one of the project's architect’s on a bird tour where she viewed a sample of bird-safe glazing. She and the architect did not discuss the project. Council Member DuBois disclosed he discussed the project with Karen Holman and Jeff Levinsky and had visited the site. Council Member Kniss disclosed she visited the site a couple of times and discussed the project with no one of note. Mayor Filseth disclosed he visited the site and spoken with Karen Holman, Jeff Levinsky, and members of the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and Architectural Review Board (ARB). Vice Mayor Fine disclosed that he occasionally passed the site. 3.g Packet Pg. 90 Page 30 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Council Member Kou disclosed she visited the site and spoke with Karen Holman and Jeff Levinsky. Council Member Tanaka disclosed he visited the site. While he had received many calls regarding the project, he did not speak with anyone about the project. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services reported the project included two properties. The proposed Mercedes dealership would be located at the corner of East Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road, which was 1700 Embarcadero Road. 1700 Embarcadero Road and the adjacent site were previously zoned Light Manufacturing (LM), which was approximately equivalent to Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM) zoning. The zoning was changed to Planned Community (PC) and subsequently to Commercial Service (CS) with a Site and Design Review (D) overlay. Approximately three years ago, the City Council reviewed an application for a different Mercedes dealership at the location and commented regarding the height, floor area, the Baylands Master Plan and additional refinements. The current zoning for the property was CS(D). The Comprehensive Plan contained a Land Use Designation for the property that matched CS. An Audi dealership was located on the adjacent Embarcadero Road property, which was originally zoned LM. Audi received PC zoning for the property and subsequently an amendment to the PC zoning to apply the Automobile Dealership (AD) overlay. More recently, the Audi dealership received administrative approvals to expand the showroom. The combined properties totaled approximately 5 acres. The total gross floor area as defined by the Municipal Code was approximately 100,000 square feet. The proposed building's height was mostly 43 feet and below; however, some areas of the building for stairs and elevator equipment extended to a height of 50 feet. The applicant proposed 369 parking spaces. The applicant sought to add the AD Combining District to the corner property and to change the PC zoning to CS(D)(AD) zoning for the adjacent property. With these changes, the two properties had consistent zoning. Site and Design Review was required because of the D overlay. The project included a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for relief from the City's build-to line requirement. A large utility easement on the property precluded compliance with the build-to line requirement. In reviewing the project, the ARB recommended modification of building colors. The application did not include signage, and signage required a separate approval. Staff worked with a consultant to prepare a Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) that identified a number of significant impacts. All of the impacts were able to be mitigated. The PTC reviewed the project on March 27, 2019 and commented regarding the size and mass of the building, compliance with the Baylands Master Plan, and the appropriateness of the zoning. The PTC included a number of conditions related to migrating birds and light levels in its recommendation. 3.g Packet Pg. 91 Page 30 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 The ARB held three hearings on the project. In the first two hearings, ARB comments related to building mass, colors and materials, and concern about the Baylands area. In the third hearing, ARB comments related to colors and materials, street trees, the curb ramp at the corner, the green screen and perimeter landscaping. Public comments raised concerns about the determination of floor area, size and mass, the appropriate Land Use Designation, tree removal, height, noise, and compatibility with the Baylands Master Plan. An At-Places Memorandum clarified the floor area issue. The correct total gross floor area was closer to 103,000 square feet. The total gross floor area was less than the allowed gross floor area. The Municipal Code stipulated parking facilities that served a permitted or conditional use were exempt from floor area. Two parking facilities, one on each property, provided customer and employee parking, and the second level of each parking facility was exempt from floor area. Mayor Filseth noted the numbers in the floor area chart did not add up correctly. Mr. Lait clarified that the exempt floor area of 121,000 square feet was incorrect. Staff believed an area containing approximately 2,000 square feet needed to be deducted from the overall project square footage. The vaulted portion of the Mercedes dealership contained a puzzle lift for storage of new car inventory. Based on definitions provided in the Municipal Code, the areas with the lifts were not considered floors of the building. Mayor Filseth asked if the explanation of the lift areas related to Mr. Levinsky's comments. Mr. Lait replied yes. Staff agreed that at least one level of the lift area needed to count toward floor area. This issue was able to be addressed without substantively affecting the overall design of the building. Council Member DuBois inquired whether this issue would increase the total gross floor area from 103,000 square feet to 105,000 square feet. Mr. Lait answered yes. The applicant was aware of the issue. The proposed office space in the Mercedes dealership was able to be converted to a showroom space to address the floor area discrepancy. The multiuse path was an important connection for the City and served a number of users. It was to be located on both private and public property and required the removal of some mature trees. The trees were located within an easement, which limited the height of vegetation to 15 feet. The project's compliance with the Baylands Master Plan was considered throughout the review process. The project needed additional work to attain consistency with the Baylands Master Plan, and that work was identified in the conditions of approval. The Municipal Code provided a process for Site and Design Review 3.g Packet Pg. 92 Page 30 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 applications. The first step in the process was PTC review. If the PTC supported the project, the ARB was to review the project and recommend further refinement. Under the Municipal Code process, the ARB had three opportunities to review a project before the project advanced for a decision. A Site and Design Review application advanced to the City Council for a decision. The ARB comments during the third hearing did not affect the size or placement of the buildings on the properties. Staff believed a Council discussion of policy concerns around the floor area was appropriate because the buildings contained a great deal of floor area. To address the ARB's concerns, Staff imposed a number of conditions of approval such that the applicant under a separate application had to resolve the issues through an ARB recommendation. This had the ability to be appealed by the City Council. The conditions related to colors, parapet material, street tree selection, the curb ramp, the green screen and perimeter landscaping. If the Council supported the project, these conditions allowed the applicant to proceed with construction drawings while addressing the conditions of approval. Steve Presson, Holman Automotive Company related that for the dealership to be successful, an innovative parking system was needed. The lift system allowed the storage of many vehicles in a small area. Lyle Hutson, YSM Design advised that the automated storage system allowed vehicles to be stored indoors. He kept the building height below 50 feet. The applicant proposed a variety of trees and layers of trees. There were 61 existing trees on the property, and the applicant proposed increasing the number of trees to 126. The trees complied with PG&E canopy requirements and City shade requirements. The two-way multiuse path removed bicycles from Bayshore and Embarcadero Roads. A Sound Study found noise from the carwash with mitigation measures complied with the City's Noise Ordinance. Proposed lighting reduced glare and limited overspill into the Baylands and street areas. Circulation around the entire site was available for emergency and private vehicles. Offloading of vehicles was accomplished onsite. The applicant proposed green screens or living walls to transition from the site to the Baylands. Water was to be treated before it reached the ground. The applicant met with the Parks and Recreation Commission and the Parks Department in an effort to add trees inside the Baylands area. The Audi dealership offered bicycles in place of rental cars. Cari Templeton, Planning and Transportation Commission indicated PTC concerns related to multiple changes in zoning, volume of the building, the suitability and compatibility of the project with the Baylands and bird migration. An advantage of the project was to increase City revenues. Alex Lew, Architectural Review Board believed a majority of the ARB 3.g Packet Pg. 93 Page 30 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 members supported the project. The ARB was hesitant to recommend approval of a project with many conditions of approval. The intent of the AD overlay was to retain existing dealerships and to attract new dealerships to Palo Alto. Mayor Filseth requested the ARB's opinion regarding scale and mass of the building. Mr. Lew suggested four members of the ARB supported the proposed scale and mass and one member opposed the scale and mass based on the Baylands design guidelines. Council Member Kniss inquired whether the ARB was willing to continue working on the project. Mr. Lew commented that the applicant was responsive to ARB comments. The project was moving in the right direction and was far better than the two prior projects proposed for the site. There were a few seemingly minor but important issues that had to be resolved. Council Member DuBois asked if the list of remaining ARB issues was correct or if there were additional issues to be resolved. Mr. Lew believed the list was complete. Council Member DuBois asked if the ARB needed further review of lighting. Mr. Lew reported the ARB was not in favor of a translucent material on the parapet as the lighting caused the parapet to glow. In this way, the lighting and the parapet material were related. Public Hearing opened at 8:51 P.M. Bill Ross speaking for Ian Irwin, Peter Rosenthal, Annette Ross and Ceci Kettendorf observed that the Staff Report was inconsistent and incomplete and, in some instances, did not fully inform the public regarding the proposed project. The Staff Report attachments were not labeled. Condition Numbers 12 and 31 in the Record of Land Use Action did not pertain to the topics stated in the Staff Report. The Floor Area Ratio (FAR) calculations were based on plans that were not available. The draft MND referred to a revised project description that was not available to the public. Three responsible agencies were not consulted. He suggested the draft MND be recirculated. Robert Moss remarked that many areas of the proposal were not adequately reviewed and evaluated. The Council needed to return the project to the ARB to resolve the ARB's outstanding issues. Not counting the car storage area as 3.g Packet Pg. 94 Page 30 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 part of floor area was bizarre and needed to be reconsidered. The exempt floor area had to be reconsidered because adding it to the proposed floor area resulted in more than twice the allowed floor area. The project needed to be scaled down to be more compatible with the Baylands environment. The proposed building was not compatible with nearby buildings. Herb Borock noted the sign program was not evaluated in the MND, but the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) required an environmental document to evaluate the whole project. At the final ARB hearing, the applicant agreed to a continuance of the hearing rather than the ARB taking action on the application. Staff's action to schedule the project before the City Council was a violation of Section 18.30(g) of the Municipal Code and, therefore, a violation of CEQA. The Council needed to remove the item from the Agenda. Mary Sylvester commented that the project was overly large and out of scale with regard to surrounding buildings and the proximity to the Baylands. She urged the Council to use the Baylands Master Plan as the guiding document for the project. Staff's proposal for security lighting needed to be defined. Becky Sanders felt Staff's review of the project and the Staff Report suffered from a staffing shortage in the Planning Department. The only advantage of this project was a likely increase in City revenues. Hamilton Hitchings related that the project clearly identified negative impacts on the Baylands, and some of those negative impacts were not mitigated. The proposed Mercedes dealership was 51 percent larger than the prior Mercedes dealership project, which the Council rejected because of it being too large. Staff had overlooked the fact that the project should comply with the Baylands Master Plan. The project was not ready to be in front of the Council. Elaine Meyer felt the gateway to the Baylands was not an appropriate location for such a huge commercial project. The public needed to know the actual floor area of the proposed building and the proposed building's size in comparison to nearby buildings. The Council or Staff was able to request the applicant to prepare a 3-D model of the site and install story poles at the project site. Carol Kiparsky encouraged the Council to deny the project because of its impact on birds. Carla Carvalho suggested the Council resolve all issues with the project before granting any zoning changes. 3.g Packet Pg. 95 Page 30 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Karen Holman believed the appropriate Council action was to deny the project. At the June 6, 2019 hearing, the number of ARB members supporting the project was not sufficient to approve the project. Alternatively, the Council needed to return the project to the ARB with direction for the project to comply with the Baylands Master Plan. The Record of Land Use Action contained errors. The ARB did not evaluate lighting for the project. Beth Rosenthal objected to the project because the rules were not being followed. Jeff Levinsky noted the applicant did not provide contextual drawings and massing information. Based on his calculations, the building was to be more than three times the mass of neighboring buildings. The ceiling height of the parking facilities was astoundingly high and not needed. The Council's Packet contained drawings that were not available to the public. Mr. Hutson clarified that the applicant was offered a fourth hearing before the ARB and did not object to a fourth hearing. The applicant submitted a 30-page lighting plan and adjusted landscaping many times in response to comments from Staff, PTC, and ARB. The ceiling heights needed to be taller to accommodate taller Mercedes vehicles. Public Hearing closed at 9:30 P.M. Mayor Filseth inquired regarding the public comment that the Council Packet contained drawings that were not available to the public. Mr. Lait understood the shading of plans to illustrate floor area had been updated following the June 6, 2019 ARB hearing and prior to the Council meeting. The plan set provided to the Council was available to the public through links on the City's website. Vice Mayor Fine inquired whether the multiuse path could be constructed without removing trees. Mr. Lait reported Planning and Transportation Staff and the applicant had not identified a solution that would allow the applicant to construct a path and retain trees. Vice Mayor Fine asked if the applicant proposed to plant trees along the path. Mr. Lait replied yes. Vice Mayor Fine inquired whether the lifts could store multiple cars within the same vertical space. 3.g Packet Pg. 96 Page 31 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Mr. Lait responded yes. Vice Mayor Fine requested the number of vehicles stored in one vertical space. Sheldon Ah Sing, Senior Planner answered five. Vice Mayor Fine asked if vehicles' lights were permitted to remain on during nighttime hours. Mr. Lait indicated the Council could impose a condition prohibiting that. Mr. Hutson reported the lights could remain on until the dealership closed at 10:00 P.M. Vice Mayor Fine inquired regarding conditions of approval limiting construction and excavation during peak traffic hours at the intersection. Mr. Lait advised that the Council could impose such a condition of approval. The Construction Management Plan routinely prohibited lane closures during peak travel times. Limiting construction hours typically caused an extension of the construction period. Vice Mayor Fine asked if the DEE pertained to a larger setback. Mr. Lait replied yes. The applicant proposed a larger setback than required by the Code. Vice Mayor Fine inquired whether the Council could impose as a condition of approval a stricter noise standard for the carwash. Mr. Hutson reported the Noise Study found the existing ambient noise level at the proposed location for the carwash was between 45 and 50 decibels. Molly Stump, City Attorney requested time for Staff to study the technical basis for imposing such a condition of approval. Vice Mayor Fine felt the back corner of the property was a sensitive area as it abutted the park. He inquired whether the ARB would review the green screen. Mr. Lait responded yes, as the green screen was conditioned. Vice Mayor Fine requested possible solutions to improve the green screen. 3.g Packet Pg. 97 Page 32 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Mr. Lait relayed the ARB was concerned about the green screen because it did not have sufficient information regarding the attachment and integration to the building. Vice Mayor Fine requested to know the 2016 Council direction. Council Member Kniss requested the size of the hotel proposed for the site. Mr. Lait recalled the proposed hotel contained four stories. A drawing of the proposed hotel was contained in the slide presentation. Council Member Kniss remarked that suggestions for the site included housing, a park and a school. She seemed to recall that the prior dealership application proposed a larger building than the current application. Mr. Lait explained that the building in the prior application was taller and contained more gross floor area. The prior building also contained more exempt floor area. Mayor Filseth inquired whether the volume of the current proposed building was greater than the prior application even though the height of the current building was less. Mr. Lait did not have the volumetric measurements to make a comparison. The current application pertained to two sites with a dealership on each site. The prior application pertained to a single dealership on a single site. Council Member Kniss felt a bike path was important. She inquired whether the ARB had reviewed the lighting plan. Mr. Hutson advised that the ARB had reviewed the lighting plan. Council Member Kniss estimated 500 to 1,000 vehicles were located on the sites of the Audi and Mercedes dealerships and an adjoining dealership. Mr. Hutson did not believe the sites would support even 500 vehicles. The automated storage system needed to eliminate a sea of vehicles parked and visible on the site. Council Member Kniss inquired whether lowering the ceiling heights eliminated the automated storage system. Mr. Lait responded that fewer vehicles could be placed in the puzzle lift. At some point, a lower ceiling height made the lift system infeasible. 3.g Packet Pg. 98 Page 33 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Council Member Kniss requested Staff comment regarding the allowable floor area for automobile dealerships. Mr. Lait explained that the allowed FAR for dealerships was 0.4 FAR. The AD overlay provided at most an additional 0.2 FAR for the showroom. Council Member Kniss commented that the area was not a gateway to the Baylands but to an industrial area. Mr. Ah Sing reported the hotel proposed in the prior application for the site contained 118,000 square feet. Mayor Filseth added that the current application proposed a 170,000 square- foot building. Mr. Lait stated that would be the total of proposed and exempt square footage. Mayor Filseth inquired regarding the square footage of the 2016 application for a dealership. Mr. Lait answered approximately 61,500 square feet in gross floor area. Council Member Kniss requested the correct allowed gross and exempt floor areas. Mr. Lait indicated the correct floor areas could be found in the At-Places Memo. The correct exempt floor area was 66,546 square feet for the Audi dealership and 86,264 square feet for the Mercedes dealership. He did not have the exempt floor area for the 2016 application, but believed it was more than 86,264 square feet. Mayor Filseth asked if the Mercedes dealership in the current application was smaller than the Mercedes dealership in the prior application. Mr. Lait responded yes. Council Member Kou asked if the PTC had contextual drawings for the application. Mr. Lait advised that the PTC received a packet similar to the one provided to the Council. The PTC received more detailed plans than the conceptual drawings referenced in the Site and Design Review regulations. Council Member Kou noted the ARB also received contextual drawings because the ARB received the same information the PTC received. The 3.g Packet Pg. 99 Page 34 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 project plans provided online did not contain the lighting report. She inquired whether the applicant agreed to utilize bird-safe glass rather than a film. Mr. Lait answered yes. Mr. Ah Sing advised that exterior finishes included bird-safe glass, frosted fiberglass and paint color. Council Member Kou requested clarification of nighttime lighting at security levels. Mr. Lait explained that lighting would be low level but sufficiently bright to deter individuals from accessing the property. Council Member Kou asked if interior lighting remained on during the night. Mr. Hutson advised that the Code required some night lighting in buildings. Francis Krahe, lighting engineer stated the California Building Code stipulated lighting of 1 foot candle minimum for emergency egress and circulation after hours. Once operations ceased at 10:00 P.M., lighting dimmed to approximately 10 percent of the illumination during business hours. Council Member DuBois asked if the display lights would remain lit after 10:00 P.M. Mr. Krahe indicated the display lights would shut off or remain on at a reduced level. Council Member DuBois asked if lighting designed to outline the building and roof would remain on throughout the night. Mr. Krahe advised that roof lighting would comply with requirements for egress lighting. If someone accessed the roof, lighting was going to brighten. Once the person left the roof, lighting returned to the reduced level. Mr. Lait reported conditions of approval could align Building Code requirements with Zoning Code interests. Following construction, Staff could work with the applicant to ensure the dimming system did not result in glare or unexpected light. Council Member Kou felt the lighting would be too bright for birds because the building was massive and covered with glass. Mitigation measures never 3.g Packet Pg. 100 Page 35 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 fully resolved negative impacts. She requested clarification of the statement that the proposed buildings would not be the largest in the area. The volume of the building was approximately 51 percent greater than the dealership in the previous application. Mr. Lait indicated Staff had not performed a volumetric calculation. Comparing the current application to the prior application for the site was problematic because the prior application proposed one building on one site while the current application proposed two buildings on two sites. Mr. Ah Sing related that the building to the south exceeded the FAR. In relation to the size of the lot, the building was larger than the proposed building. Council Member Kou asked if the project needed to be presented to the Santa Clara County Airport Land-Use Commission, PG&E and Caltrans. Mr. Ah Sing explained that correspondence from PG&E outlined its regulations for vegetation under its power lines. Council Member Kou asked if the Packet contained comments from the Santa Clara County Airport Land-Use Commission. Mr. Hutson reported the Airport Land-Use Commission approved the project. The project was not located within the Airport Land-Use Commission's jurisdiction, and the proposed heights of the buildings were well below the Airport Land-Use Commission's height requirement. Council Member Kou inquired about Caltrans approval of the project. Mr. Hutson indicated Caltrans did not have jurisdiction over any part of the applicant's property. Council Member Kou asked if the carwash would be monitored to ensure it complied with the City's noise standards. Mr. Hutson explained that the carwash was automatic. The doors closed after a vehicle entered the carwash and did not open until the dryer blowers shut off. Council Member Kou asked if water from the carwash was dumped into storm drains. Mr. Hutson replied no. The water was recirculated and filtered for sand and grease prior to its release into the sewer. 3.g Packet Pg. 101 Page 36 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Council Member Kou inquired about C-3 compliance. Mr. Lait reported the Public Works Department evaluated C-3 compliance. Mr. Hutson advised that all water was treated onsite. Austin Hunt, Civil Engineer clarified that all water on the site was treated before being discharged to the storm drain. If the project was constructed, there was to be no runoff into the Baylands. Council Member Kou requested clarification of CMR 9892 as she could not find it. Mr. Lait indicated CMR 9892 referenced a March, 2019 PTC meeting. Council Member Kou remarked that an automobile dealership was appropriate for the site; however, it needed to comply with Municipal Code requirements and the Baylands design guidelines. Traffic circulation at the intersection needed improvements. The Baylands Master Plan stated the site was a gateway to the Baylands. MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member XX to deny the project. MOTION FAILED DUE TO THE LACK OF A SECOND MOTION: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Direct Staff that the Council intention is to rezone the property to ROLM(E)(D) (AD) overlay to accommodate the Mercedes/Audi dealerships; B. Direct Staff and the ARB to better incorporate the Baylands Master Plan guidance for this sensitive location in the Baylands and as a gateway to the Baylands: low, horizontal development, muted colors, parklike qualities of Embarcadero Road, signage, lighting, etc.; C. Direct Staff and ARB to retain the existing trees along East Bayshore and also provide the bike/ped path (not specifying the location); D. Direct Staff and ARB to reduce the height and perceived height of the building by reducing floor heights and stepping in the parapet from the edge of the building; E. Direct the applicant to provide the context drawings as required; 3.g Packet Pg. 102 Page 37 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 F. Direct Staff and ARB to specify what security levels of lighting means and which lighting locations/fixtures would be utilizing this feature including bollard style fixtures and the impact on the Baylands; G. Direct Staff to confirm all lighting specs are provided to the ARB; H. Direct the ARB to address the list identified in the Staff Report as ARB concerns and any other considerations resulting from the changes directed by this Motion; I. Address FAR discrepancies that have been identified between and among various documents describing the project including the MND, Staff Report to Council, various; J. Direct Staff to provide responses from the Airport Land Use Committee; and K. Direct Staff to include a TDM program for the project as was requested of the prior auto dealership. Council Member Kou felt the ARB should reconsider the Site and Design Review and ensure compliance with the Baylands Master Plan. Zoning for the site needed to be consistent with other parcels in the area. Council Member DuBois advised that he supported the concept of remanding the project to the ARB but not many of the details of the Motion. He preferred providing the ARB with a framework for reviewing the project. Mr. Lait thought the Council's interests for reviewing the project should be explicitly stated if the Council chose to remand the project to the ARB. Council Member DuBois supported the Motion if Subpart A was deleted and a few of the other subparts were softened. Council Member Kou asked if Council Member DuBois preferred to approve CS zoning for the site. Council Member DuBois did not believe the Council was addressing the zoning by remanding the project to the ARB. He supported the Motion if Subparts A and D were deleted. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to delete from the Motion Parts A and D. Ms. Stump noted Staff would have comments regarding Subpart B of the Motion. 3.g Packet Pg. 103 Page 38 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Mayor Filseth requested the meaning of Subpart G. Council Member DuBois understood the discussion addressed the square footage. He inquired whether the Baylands Master Plan and design guidelines were considered throughout the review of the project. Mr. Lait responded yes. Any development in the area was evaluated to the Baylands Master Plan. In a number of aspects, the project attempted to conform to the Baylands Master Plan. Additional work on landscaping, walls, and signs was needed for the project to conform to the Master Plan. Council Member DuBois noted public comment regarding a showroom being located on the second floor. Mr. Lait clarified that showrooms were limited to a height of 20 feet. Council Member DuBois asked if the lighted stacker was considered a showcase. Mr. Lait did not consider the lift system a showroom component. If the lift system was considered a showroom, it needed to be removed. Council Member DuBois asked if the ARB recommended approval of the project at its June 6, 2019 hearing. Mr. Lait stated the ARB had not made a favorable recommendation for the project. Council Member DuBois asked if the ARB specified any conditions of approval. Mr. Lait replied no. Council Member DuBois asked if the ARB could recommend conditions of approval if the Council returned the project to the ARB. Mr. Lait answered yes. Council Member DuBois asked if the sign program was before the Council. Mr. Lait advised that consideration of a sign program at a later time was not unusual. Elements of signage shown in the project did not comply with the Sign Code. Council Member DuBois asked if zoning of ROLM(AD) was appropriate for the site. 3.g Packet Pg. 104 Page 39 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Mr. Lait indicated ROLM zoning was appropriate even though the applicant did not request it. However, the AD overlay was not applicable to ROLM zoning at the site. Council Member DuBois asked if the Audi site was zoned ROLM(AD) at some point. Mr. Lait responded no. The Audi site was zoned LM. Council Member DuBois requested clarification of which trees remained and which would be removed. Ken Puncerelli, LAI Design Group reported retaining the trees along the multiuse path created an awkward intersection of the path with Bayshore and Embarcadero. The applicant proposed removing ten mature trees along the multiuse path and planting 20 larger trees to prevent the loss of biomass. Council Member DuBois asked if the trees near the corner would be removed. Mr. Puncerelli answered no. The Chinese elm trees were located along the southern and eastern right-of-way. Council Member DuBois inquired whether the trees shown in purple on the plans were new trees. Mr. Puncerelli replied yes, native Western redbud trees. Council Member DuBois asked if the large tree near the corner could be saved. Mr. Puncerelli believed that tree was in poor health and grew larger than allowed by PG&E regulations. Council Member DuBois inquired whether the existing trees and shrubs between the two buildings would remain or be removed. Mr. Puncerelli indicated a number of trees along the fence line would be removed. The trees between the buildings were going to be removed. Council Member DuBois asked why trees along the property line would be removed. 3.g Packet Pg. 105 Page 40 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Mr. Puncerelli explained that the site had to be regraded for the bioswales. Three trees at the rear of the property were to be removed and replaced with six trees. Council Member DuBois inquired whether the applicant would be amenable to the Council specifying larger trees. Mr. Puncerelli answered yes. Council Member DuBois asked if the Council could request the environmental report be recirculated for 20 days. Mr. Lait reported the environmental analysis was studied at 106,000 square feet; therefore, Staff felt the project studied was consistent with the proposed project. The project description was not significantly different from the proposed project. If new information caused Staff to identify a new project impact or mitigation measure, the environmental analysis was going to have to be redone. That was not the case for this project. Staff submitted the environmental document to the clearinghouse for submission to Caltrans and PG&E. Council Member DuBois inquired regarding the process for an MND. Mr. Lait advised that Rincon Consulting had prepared the Initial Study. The MND, public comments and responses were posted to the website. Council Member DuBois believed a roundabout could improve traffic circulation, but changing some of the traffic lanes would not be helpful. Mr. Lait indicated the applicant could mitigate the impacts from the project, while the City was considering a roundabout to improve traffic circulation. Council Member DuBois noted the Baylands Master Plan stated the site was a gateway to the Baylands. An automobile dealership was a reasonable use for the site. The project had the potential to set a precedent for the area, which would result in an urban looking gateway to the Baylands. His concerns were the lighting conditions, mass and scale, findings, landscaping, traffic impacts, and construction impacts. He wanted the ARB to make a recommendation and review, in-depth, the conditions of approval. The applicant agreed to use larger replacement trees. Perhaps the applicant was able to submit contextual drawings. He asked if a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Program was needed for the project. Mr. Lait indicated imposing an effective TDM Program on an operation about automobiles was difficult. 3.g Packet Pg. 106 Page 41 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to the Motion new Part B, the language “work with the applicant on specifying the use of larger trees in key locations.” Mr. Hutson asked if the intent of using larger trees was to shield the view from the Baylands. Council Member DuBois related that the concern was the number and size of the new trees. Mr. Hutson requested clarification of the comment regarding Bayshore. Council Member Kou wanted to soften the view of the building from Bayshore. Mr. Hutson suggested the Council look at the renderings of the building in the Packet because they showed the bottom of the building would not be visible from Bayshore. The applicant discussed planting trees in the Baylands area in addition to those shown in the rendering and said the applicant had already addressed the two concerns. MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Kou moved, seconded by Council Member DuBois to: A. Direct Staff and the ARB to better incorporate the Baylands Master Plan guidance for this sensitive location in the Baylands and as a gateway to the Baylands: low, horizontal development, muted colors, parklike qualities of Embarcadero Road, signage, lighting, etc.; B. Direct Staff and ARB to work with the applicant on specifying the use of larger trees in key locations; C. Direct the applicant to provide the context drawings as required; D. Direct Staff and ARB to specify what security levels of lighting means and which lighting locations/fixtures would be utilizing this feature including bollard style fixtures and the impact on the Baylands; E. Direct Staff to confirm all lighting specs are provided to the ARB; F. Direct the ARB to address the list identified in the staff report as ARB concerns and any other considerations resulting from the changes directed by this Motion; 3.g Packet Pg. 107 Page 42 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 G. Address FAR discrepancies that have been identified between and among various documents describing the project including the MND, staff report to Council, various; H. Direct Staff to provide responses from the Airport Land Use Committee; and I. Direct Staff to include a TDM program for the project as was requested of the prior auto dealership. SUBSTITUTE MOTION: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to: A. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; B. Adopt the Ordinance changing the zoning district on the subject properties to CS(D)(AD); and C. Adopt the Record of Land Use Action approving the request for Site and Design and a Design Enhancement Exception based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval. D. Direct Staff and the ARB to better incorporate the Baylands Master Plan guidance for this sensitive location in the Baylands and as a gateway to the Baylands: low, horizontal development, muted colors, parklike qualities of Embarcadero Road, signage, lighting, etc.; E. Direct Staff and ARB to work with the applicant on specifying the use of larger trees in key locations; F. Direct the applicant to provide the context drawings as required; G. Direct Staff and ARB to specify what security levels of lighting means and which lighting locations/fixtures would be utilizing this feature including bollard style fixtures and the impact on the Baylands; H. Direct Staff to confirm all lighting specs are provided to the ARB; I. Direct the ARB to address the list identified in the staff report as ARB concerns and any other considerations resulting from the changes directed by this Motion; J. Address FAR discrepancies that have been identified between and among various documents describing the project including the MND, staff report to Council, various’ 3.g Packet Pg. 108 Page 43 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 K. Direct Staff to provide responses from the Airport Land Use Committee; L. Direct Staff to include a TDM program for the project as was requested of the prior auto dealership. Vice Mayor Fine commented that the project was within the zoning as proposed by the CS(D)(AD). The Motion approved the zoning change, the MND, and the Record of Land Use Action, but the Council continued to have many concerns about the project. He wanted to ensure Subparts A-C did not conflict with Subparts D-L. Council Member Kniss wanted the ARB to review the project within six months, even though the Motion did not require that. Council Member DuBois advised that adopting the conditions of approval conflicted with directing the ARB to review the conditions of approval. Vice Mayor Fine clarified that the conditions of approval required ARB evaluation of the project. Mr. Lait reported if the Council acted on the Record of Land Use Action, the applicant was going to have to file a new ARB application to address the outstanding issues. Vice Mayor Fine understood the Record of Land Use Action included a provision that the applicant needed to file a new ARB application and was able to meet with the ARB three times, in order to resolve the outstanding issues. He inquired whether Staff had any concerns regarding Subpart D. Mr. Lait interpreted Subpart D as the building footprint, size, height, and volume was approved. Implementation of the Baylands Master Plan involved further refinement of the landscape plan, a sign application, perimeter walls, and colors. Vice Mayor Fine reiterated that lighting was required by the Building Code; however, Council Member DuBois voiced other concerns about lighting. Mr. Lait added that Staff would verify FAR figures. Vice Mayor Fine inquired whether the Airport Land-Use Commission would comment on the project. Mr. Lait did not anticipate the Airport Land-Use Commission was going to issue anything determinative to the application. 3.g Packet Pg. 109 Page 44 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Vice Mayor Fine concurred with Mr. Lait's comment regarding imposing a TDM Program on the project. Council Member Kniss suggested Subpart L be deleted. Mr. Lait offered to explore a TDM Program with the applicant. Ms. Stump noted a conflict with Subpart D, with respect to "low horizontal development," as that pertained to mass and footprint. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to remove from the Motion Part D the words “… low, horizontal development … .” Council Member Kniss suggested "park-like qualities of Embarcadero Road" be deleted because Embarcadero Road was not park-like. Vice Mayor Fine commented that the DEE to set back the building could address park-like qualities. Council Member Kniss proposed adding that the project would return to the Council in six months. Mr. Lait advised that Staff had no control over when the applicant submitted an application. The application before the Council was not expected to return to the City Council except through an appeal. If the application advanced through the process correctly, the Council was not going to review the project again. Council Member Kniss asked if the applicant understood the Substitute Motion. Mr. Hutson answered yes. Council Member Cormack asked if the AD overlay specifically included a connection to Highway 101. Mr. Lait did not have information to respond to the question. Council Member Cormack inquired regarding the expected lifespan of the building. Mr. Ah Sing reported the ARB had reviewed the project in relation to sea level rise. The project complied with existing requirements. 3.g Packet Pg. 110 Page 45 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Council Member Cormack noted Staff was developing a plan for sea level rise. She asked if traffic improvements could be constructed prior to construction of the project. Mr. Lait suggested the Council could require the improvements to be completed prior to occupancy. Ms. Stump expressed concerns about such a requirement. Council Member Cormack asked if the applicant would pay the full cost of traffic improvements. Mr. Ah Sing indicated under the near-term scenario the applicant would pay for and implement traffic improvements. Council Member Cormack related that the proposed trees, Western redbud, were deciduous and would alter the appearance of the building for a portion of the year. She requested clarification of parking and storage on the roof deck. Mr. Lait clarified that vehicles on the roof deck would likely be screened from view from the sidewalk. A taller vehicle would be visible from the sidewalk. The new car inventory would be stored on the roof deck. Council Member Cormack inquired whether the second At-Places Memo resolved the issue of the new car inventory storage constituting floor area. Mr. Lait reported the Council's Motion affirmed Staff's interpretation of the issue. Council Member Cormack commented that the beige color was more compatible with the Baylands. She inquired whether public art was required for the project. Mr. Lait advised that the applicant elected to pay the In-Lieu Fee for public art. Council Member Cormack requested the height of the Stanford building across East Bayshore from the project. Mr. Ah Sing answered 35 feet. Council Member Cormack requested an explanation of context drawings. Mr. Lait believed context drawings would not be necessary as the Motion approved the height, size and footprint of the building. 3.g Packet Pg. 111 Page 46 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Council Member Cormack inquired whether Subpart G was a subset of Subpart H. Council Member Kniss was amenable to combining the two subparts. Vice Mayor Fine clarified that Subpart G pertained to security levels of lighting and where that was used. Subpart H required confirmation of all lighting specifications. Council Member Cormack asked if the project included any up-lighting. Mr. Ah Sing responded no. INCORPORATED INTO THE MOTION WITH THE CONSENT OF THE MAKER AND SECONDER to add to Motion Part C, “along with the correction as recommended by the Architectural Review Board.” Mayor Filseth remarked that the main difference between the Motion and Substitute Motion was whether the project returned to the Council. The public expressed concern regarding the accuracy of the MND; however, no one alleged anything that would materially change the MND. Changing the zoning to CS was not unreasonable. He questioned the necessity of context drawings if the Council approved the Site and Design Review. He asked if an ARB recommendation, subsequent to Council approval of Site and Design Review, was appealable, with regard to the project mass or scale and whether it should be revised. Mr. Lait explained that a subsequent ARB recommendation to alter, for instance, the building height was to be presented to the Director. The Director was to review the recommendation in light of the Council Motion and make a determination. It was possible for the Director's decision to be appealed. The ARB's recommendation was not consistent with Council direction and the applicant's Site and Design entitlement. Mayor Filseth asked if there should be conditions of approval for lighting. Mr. Lait indicated Subpart D gave the ARB broad discretion to examine the lighting plan to determine its consistency with the Baylands Master Plan and impose conditions of approval. Security lighting was able to be conditioned to comply with the minimum Building Code requirements. Mayor Filseth inquired whether there could be a condition of approval that the ARB was satisfied that security lighting would not have a negative impact on wildlife migration. 3.g Packet Pg. 112 Page 47 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Mr. Lait clarified that adoption of the MND meant the environmental impacts were fully analyzed and that the lighting plan contemplated the impacts to the Baylands. Council Member DuBois understood the applicant would submit a new application and asked if the lighting in the new application was subject to ARB review. Mr. Lait responded yes, but Staff would utilize the existing MND as the CEQA document for the new application. Council Member DuBois inquired whether conditions of approval could be applied to the new application. Mr. Lait replied yes. Mayor Filseth asked if Subpart D and/or Subpart G could be part of conditions of approval. Vice Mayor Fine interpreted the issue as whether lighting should be added to the list of ARB concerns. Mr. Lait indicated the Council could do that. Council Member Cormack suggested the language of Subpart I covered the lighting issue. Vice Mayor Fine concurred. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED RESTATED: Council Member Kniss moved, seconded by Vice Mayor Fine to: A. Adopt the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program; B. Adopt the Ordinance changing the zoning district on the subject properties to CS(D)(AD); C. Adopt the Record of Land Use Action approving the request for Site and Design and a Design Enhancement Exception based on findings and subject to the conditions of approval, along with the correction as recommended by the Architectural Review Board; D. Direct Staff and the ARB to better incorporate the Baylands Master Plan guidance for this sensitive location in the Baylands and as a gateway to the Baylands: muted colors, parklike qualities of 3.g Packet Pg. 113 Page 48 of 48 Sp. City Council Meeting Final Minutes: 06/24/2019 Embarcadero Road, signage, lighting, etc.; E. Direct Staff and ARB to work with the applicant on specifying larger trees in key locations; F. Direct the applicant to provide the context drawings as required; G. Direct Staff and ARB to specify what security levels of lighting means and which lighting locations/fixtures would be utilizing this feature including bollard style fixtures and the impact on the Baylands; H. Direct Staff to confirm all lighting specs are provided to the ARB; I. Direct the ARB to address the list identified in the Staff Report as ARB concerns and any other considerations resulting from the changes directed by this Motion; J. Address FAR discrepancies that have been identified between and among various documents describing the project including the MND, Staff Report to Council, various; K. Direct Staff to provide responses from the Airport Land Use Committee; and L. Direct Staff to include a TDM program for the project as was requested of the prior auto dealership. SUBSTITUTE MOTION AS AMENDED PASSED: 6-1 Kou no 3.g Packet Pg. 114 From: Lyle Hutson <lhutson@ysmdesign.com> Sent: Wednesday, November 6, 2019 11:45 AM To: Brian Stumph <bstumph@ysmdesign.com> Subject: FW: Palo Alto responses To assist Staff we are clouding the areas of revision on the plans. Some sheets have been renumbered to assist staff in reading the report. 1. ARB APPLICATION REQUIRED: Prior to issuance of a building permit, the applicant shall return to the ARB to address the following issues. This review shall require a new ARB application, subject to application fees and the City’s appeal procedures. The application shall include the following: • Colors: The project shall adhere to the Baylands Design Guidelines muted colors by providing alternatives to the proposed colors shown to the ARB on June 6, 2019. In particular, black and shiny colors shall be avoided. Use charcoal or a rich brown for darker accents. Colors have been revised and updated per discussion. We are using the charcoal base color as discussed. WE are using the color scheme as previously directed by ARB. The ACM colors have been revised to be matte finish and not gloss as presented previously. This will resolve the “shiny” comment from the Board. • Floor Area Ratio: Provide staff with updated floor area diagrams to confirm the proposed square footage. Additional information has been provided to staff for their use. Please see sheets sent separately from the submittal package identified as “FAR Package” The FAR package shows the two areas that were discussed at the meeting last month as needing to be revised. The area at the stairs has been reclassified as Dealership Services. The area at the cantilever (no actual floor area) has been added as Dealership services. • GL-2 Parapet: The material should match the transparent qualities depicted in the plans/photos and not the opaque material sample that was presented to the ARB. Special attention should be made to avoid light emission from behind the material. The top of wall has been reviewed with the planning department staff. Per their direction we have revised the material to be the frosted glass panel. These panels will be inset in the wall. The building elevations and renderings have been revised to reflect this change. There will be minimal 3.h Packet Pg. 115 light transmittance through the frosted glass and the intent is to provide a minimal glow from the glass at night. • Trees: Add more trees to the base of the building to soften the Bayshore Road side of the building. It was suggested to consider another option instead of the Western Redbud plantings along Bayshore. The alternative trees should continue to provide shading. Secondly, the applicant shall specify larger trees at key locations on the landscape plan. Species planted along Bayshore need to comply with the height restrictions set by the power line easement. Appropriate species are noted on the revised planting plan sheet L-3. There are alternates should the board decide to change the species. Additional trees have been added along the western elevation of the Mercedes-Benz building. These trees have been revised to be shade trees. See the colored site plan L-2 for reference. • Curb Ramp at Corner: The applicant shall work with City Transportation staff regarding the transition at the Bayshore/Embarcadero Road intersection for the bicycle path. The pathway needs to remain as developed with the city engineer. The space under the power lines is excluded from the building of permanent structures. We are not allowed to building retaining wall so the make up for the grade changes while respecting the accessibility of the pathway. The proposed pathway was previously reviewed and accepted by the city’s traffic engineer and correspondence to support the decision has been provided. We have extended the ramp at the corner of Bayshore and Embarcadero by roughly 5’. Please see Sheet C02.00 and Sheet C05.00 for the modification. • Green Screen: The project shall keep the same amount of greenery along the building elevations, however, the project should look at other solutions and/or provide details on the screens to ensure they are high quality, can be maintained over time, and better integrated into the project. Green screens have been modified to be simple, large sections of wall areas. The green screens are noted on the building elevations ZA202, ZA203 & ZA223. Landscape sheet L-8 shows details of the green screen system and provides direction on maintaining the planted materials. There is more green screen (based on SF) than the previous ARB submittal. 3.h Packet Pg. 116 • Perimeter Landscape: The project should provide at least 10 feet of setback between the carwash and the property line. Demonstrate removal of any existing barbed wire. The planting along the car wash was revised to provide for a higher and denser hedge to shield the carwash elevation. The 5’sertback is per code and complies. A 10’ setback is not needed and would compromise any vehicular circulation needed for large trucks and fire department equipment. We have noted the removal of any existing barbed wire if it exists. • Lighting. All lighting specifications shall be provided to the ARB including detailed specifications that define security levels of lighting and which lighting locations/fixtures would utilize this feature, including bollard style fixtures, and the impacts of lighting on the Baylands. A full photometric study was prepared and presented previously (sheets 8- 11 of the Lighting Report) . The study shows that the lighting levels are consistent with the city standards and limitations established at the Baylands. After Hours Lighting is the minimum level of lighting required by code. These minimal levels are a reduction in light levels and will occur after hours and will have no adverse effect on the Baylands. Fixtures are located on the lighting report sheet 8. Cut sheets for the lighting fixtures follows. A new photometric study was done to illustrate what the afterhours level lighting would be. This after hours light level would occur after 10 PM. After Hours Light will be from 10 PM to 6 AM Daily. • Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. The applicant shall submit a TDM plan in accordance with the City’s procedures for review and approval by City staff. Holman management has been working with traffic engineers and the city staff to determine the basis of the TDM program. This is in process and no reference is included in the ARB submittal. Per the City Council comment the applicant will complete a TDM Plan when the basis has been determined. • County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission. The applicant shall provide the Director of Planning and Community Environment or designee response documentation from the Airport Land Use Commission. Project was presented to the County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission, The City of Palo Alto was notified of the public hearing. 3.h Packet Pg. 117 Project was determined to be compliant with Airport requirements no concerns were raised. The minutes of this meeting were sent to Sheldon on 8-14-19 and is also attached. • Context Drawings. The applicant shall provide context drawings as part of the submittal for ARB. ZA050 Contextual site plan, Already in set. ZA051, ZA052, ZA053 & ZA054 Contextual Photos, Already in set. ZA055 & ZA056 Street elevations, Site plan with New plan superimposed and Photos. Already in set. ZA057 Contextual view of Project from Baylands showing vegetation screen. Already in set. ZA058 Contextual Rendering and photo stich, view from intersection. Added per planning direction. ZA059 Contextual Rendering and photo stich, view from Embarcadero. Added per planning direction. Lyle Hutson 305 N. Coast Highway,Suite L Laguna Beach, CA 92651 P: 949.715-4275 C: 949.887.9301 www.ysmdesign.com Share files with us! 3.h Packet Pg. 118 Attachment I Project Plans and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hardcopies of project plans and the Initial Study are provided to Board members. These plans and environmental documents are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “1700 Embarcadero Road” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial Study and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4367 3.i Packet Pg. 119 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10867) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 12/19/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 250 Hamilton Avenue: Bus Shelters in the Stanford Research Park Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 Hamilton Avenue [19PLN-00220]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Architectural Review Approval of Three New Bus Stops in the Public Rights-of-Way Located at 3380 Coyote Hill Road, 3223 Hanover Street and 1501 Page Mill Road and Surrounding Hardscape Improvements. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The applicant, Stanford University, is proposing a new bus shelter design that will become a standard throughout the Stanford Research Park. This standard will be used at existing bus stop locations. The newly designed shelters will either replace existing bus shelters or will be placed in new locations. As designed, the project meets the applicable zoning requirements and utilizes high quality materials to create an aesthetically pleasing structure. The applicant proposes installation at three address locations proposed at this time. Staff has noted concerns with the applicant’s color choice, as it may establish a precedent of branding structures in the public right of way. Specifically, staff’s concern is the use of colors 4 Packet Pg. 120 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 associated with a particular company or organization. In addition, if the design were duplicated outside of the Research Park, a unified branding through color would symbolize the cohesion between different areas of Palo Alto. The ARB is encouraged to review the project’s design and color selection, which may require further refinement. There has been no prior City action on this proposal. Background Project Information Owner: City of Palo Alto Architect: LMNOP Design Inc. Representative: Jamie Jarvis, Stanford University Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: Adjacent to 3380 Coyote Hill Road, 3223 Hanover Street, 1501 Page Mill Road Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area: N/A Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: Hillview-Porter Regional Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Oak and Redwood trees Historic Resource(s): None Existing Improvement(s): Improvements typical of a public right-of-way Existing Land Use(s): Public right-of-way Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R&D, Gen. Business Office, Prof. Office, Admin Office West: R&D, Gen. Business Office, Prof. Office, Admin Office East: R&D, Gen. Business Office, Prof. Office, Admin Office South: R&D, Gen. Business Office, Prof. Office, Admin Office Aerial View of Property: 4 Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: PF Comp. Plan Designation: PF Context-Based Design Criteria: N/A Downtown Urban Design Guide: N/A South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: N/A Baylands Master Plan: N/A El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): N/A Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): None Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: N/A 3223 Hanover Street 1501 Page Mill Road Road 3380 Coyote Hill Road 4 Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Project Description The applicant proposes to install three new bus shelters within the Stanford Research Park at this time. The application will replace existing bus shelters or build them at transit stops where shelters do not currently exist. The applicant will make site improvements, including landscape modifications, to accommodate the concrete pad for the bus shelter(s). The submittal consists of a site plan, structure elevations, material boards, and transit route maps for the Stanford Research Park. The proposed design will serve as the standard shelter design for installation throughout the Stanford Research Park. If the Architectural Review Board approves of the design concept, then future shelters would be processed either through a staff level or over the counter application. The bus shelters would be located on a mix of sites straddling private property and public right of way. The new shelters will enhance existing site conditions, where no shelters exist. The shelter design will appear as a uniform design within the Stanford Research Park, where there are currently a mix of old and new VTA bus shelters. The color choice is designed to create a sense of place and indicate to Research Park tenants the bus locations that are available to persons holding a Stanford Research Park Go Pass. The bus shelters will be constructed of steel columns painted ‘Bright Copper II’ with a steel roof painted ‘Off White Cardinal’. The benches, trash enclosures, and soffits will be constructed of IPE (a treated wood). The tempered glass panels will have a custom pattern on each side, adding visual appeal to the surface while not obscuring visibility through the space. Each site will follow the dimensions shown on sheet 1.15 in that the width of the facility will be 14 feet by 5 inches, the length will be 6 feet by 6 inches, and the height will be 9 feet by 5 inches. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: • Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment C. Analysis1 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A 4 Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Neighborhood Setting and Character The Stanford Research Park is located along the western border of the City of Palo Alto between Page Mill Road, Foothill Expressway, and Arastradero Road. The neighborhood is characterized by medium sized research/office buildings with single-family residential uses. Existing bus stops within the area are a mix of stops that currently have a shelter, and unsheltered stops. The designs of these existing shelters range from the newer blue or red SRP GO VTA bus shelter, to an older brown or gray shelter. Some of the older shelters are in disrepair and some of them do not currently meet ADA standards due to grading at their sites. Other bus stop locations do not have a shelter at all and are exposed to the elements, which could deter individuals from using the transit stop as it would expose them to the elements during harsher weather. Proposal Staff supports the design, materials and lighting as proposed, but not the proposed color. With the construction of the new shelters, these locations would become more user-friendly and would likely encourage more individuals to use them. The shelters meet Architectural Review Finding #2(A) because they will create an internal sense of order and a desirable environment for the general community that uses public transit within the Stanford Research Park. Materials and Lighting The proposed shelter materials have smooth textures and finishes, which give them a modern and polished appearance. The angular appearance and asymmetric enclosure design, coupled with the design on the clear glass panels, create visual points of interest on the shelter that look aesthetically pleasing. The clear glass design and down lighting will help to illuminate the interior of the shelter and therefore enhance security at night by providing views through the shelter. With the inclusion of solar panels on the roof and waste/recycling bins, each shelter will generate its own electricity, resulting in self-sufficiency in energy production and greenhouse gas reduction. The durable steel structure and roof will give each shelter an anticipated lifespan of 20 years. As a result, the project meets Architectural Review Findings #3 and #6: • the selected materials are of a high aesthetic quality and will be compatible with and enhance the surrounding area, and • the design incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency. It is worth noting that the construction and maintenance of the new shelters will be managed by Stanford instead of VTA. In a more typical scenario, VTA would be responsible for replacing shelters, but sites often need to be upgraded to meet ADA standards which can result in larger cost and site modifications than anticipated. After construction, Stanford will maintain the new shelters through a third-party maintenance agreement with VTA Real Estate. There are no change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 4 Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 agreements with Palo Alto Real Estate, Public Works, or the Office of Transportation to participate in the maintenance or construction of the facilities. Color Selection While staff supports the design of the proposed bus shelters, the choice of colors for the bus shelters is a concern. The applicant’s project description indicates that the color choice is influenced by a need for a “strong visual cue”. The color would indicate to employees who work within the Stanford Research Park (SRP) that they can use their SRP GO passes at the bus stops. There is no existing signage to indicate such information. While there is no such signage scattered throughout the Research Park, it is hard to imagine that employees do not know they are located in the Stanford Research Park, a well-known job center. Given the design of the shelter and the size of properties in the area, any proposed signage would need to be larger for employees to recognize that they can use their passes at the bus stops. Larger signs would be more legible and create a “strong visual cue” for SRP employees to recognize they can use their SRP GO bus passes at each stop. This is not currently included in the standard design for the shelters. The applicant may propose such signage in order to advertise the ability for employees to use their GO passes at each bus stop. While the ‘Bright Copper II’ color is not the trademarked Cardinal Red that Stanford uses, it is similar enough to allow the perception that this structure belongs to Stanford, and is influenced by its internationally recognizable color pattern. The color essentially brands a structure that is commonly considered to be managed by the local government for a private entity. Approval of this color could lead to other private organizations proposing similar designs reflecting their branding image or logos. Furthermore, if the City or other entities chose to duplicate the design elsewhere, a unified color would assist transit riders in identifying transit stops and promote cohesion between different parts of the city. Staff does not support creating the opportunity for private organizations to use public property for private benefit. In addition, the choice of color scheme is inconsistent with other bus stops presenting the blue VTA shelter design outside the SRP. Staff recommends use of the standard blue VTA bus shelter color or a Palo Alto green color scheme, rather than the branding of SRP bus shelters as Stanford University property. Zoning Compliance2 There are no specific zoning regulations that regulate the size or dimensions of bus shelters in the public right of way. This standard has mostly been managed by VTA, Public Works, and Transportation in the past. Given that some of the bus shelters project partially onto private property, these structures may be subject to Accessory Structure regulations of Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC). PAMC Section 18.40.060 allows certain accessory structures to encroach into street setbacks. Bus shelters must be close to the public right of way to be effectively used. Therefore, staff intends to allow an adjustment or exception as needed for the 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 4 Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 bus shelter design, to ensure the functionality of these improvements. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 The Comprehensive Plan Goals, Policies, and Programs guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations. City staff review these policies when making recommendations on development projects. ARB Approval Finding #1 requires designs to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Public Facilities, which is designed to accommodate governmental, public utility, educational, and community service facilities or recreational facilities. Each shelter takes up about 94 square feet per site, in compliance with the intended public facility allowance. With a different color choice for the structure, staff is confident that the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan goals and polices. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. Multi-Modal Access & Parking With the mix of locations that do or do not have shelters, the proposed project will help to support and increase transit ridership within the Stanford Research Park. These shelters will provide transit riders weather protection and increase nighttime safety. In addition, each site will become ADA compliant so the shelters are accessible to all individuals. Each shelter is designed to maintain a five-foot sidewalk width, clear of any vertical or horizontal obstruction. Shelters will also have a three-foot distance between the back edge of the sidewalk to the back wall of the structure. This will create an effective eight-foot sidewalk, clear of obstructions. This will help to maintain on-site access and circulation for each facility, so the shelters will not encroach into the public rights of way. Consistency with Application Findings Draft findings for approval are contained in Attachment B of this report. Future Bus Shelters Stanford is currently proposing to install three of the new bus shelters at the above locations. Once the design is approved, staff will review and approve future shelters at either a staff level or over the counter review without ARB involvement. To the greatest extent possible, the shelter installations would need to avoid removal of trees. Any deviations from the eight-foot effective sidewalk would require review by the Office of Transportation staff. Environmental Review 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 4 Packet Pg. 126 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on December 6, 2019, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on December 4, 2019, which is 14 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project review to a date uncertain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2471 (650) 329-2575 Garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX) • Attachment C: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment D: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) • Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 127 Matadero Creek Matadero Creek Barron Creek RP(L) RP(L) RP RP-5(D) RP RP RP-5 CS(AS1) RP-5(D) CN CS RP(L) CS CN RP CS RP-5 R P -5 (D )(L ) CN CN CS CS CS CS RP RPRP(AS2) CS M o a n a Court Wallis Ct Donald Drive Encina Grande Drive Cereza Drive Los Robles Avenue Villa Vera Verd Campana Dr Solana Drive Georgia Ave Ynigo Way D riscoll Ct ngArthur' Maybell Way Maybell Avenue Frandon Ct Flora Georgia A Amaranta Avenue Amaranta Ct Mir a n d a Green F o othill Ki s Ara Villa Rea Curtner Avenue Ventura Avenue Ventu Magnolia Dr South El Camino Real Cypress Lane L Waver South Court Bryant Street Ramona Street Alma Street El Carmelo Avenue Old Page Mill Road Deer Creek Road Coyo te Hill Road Hillview Avenue Porter Drive Hillview Avenue Hanover Street Foothill Expressway A ra strad ero R o a d Miranda Avenue Stanford Avenue Amherst Street Columbia Street Bowdoin Street Dartmouth Street Hanover Street College Avenue California Avenue Hanover Street Ramos Way (Private) Page Mill Road Hansen Way Hanover Street Old Adobe Road Old Trace Court Ara stradero R o a d Miranda Avenue Mo c ki n g birdLane Old TraceRoad Manuela Way RobbRoad Manuela Court Mesa Avenue Oak Hill Avenue Manuela Avenue Miranda Avenue Laguna Ct Barron AvenueJosina Avenue Kendall Avenue Tippawingo St Julie Ct Matadero Avenue Ilima Way Ilima Court Laguna Oaks Pl Carlitos Ct La Calle Laguna Avenue ElCerrit Paradise Way Roble Ridge (Priv ate ) LaMataWay Chimalus Drive Matadero Avenue oRoad Paul Avenue Kendall Avenu e Whitsell Avenue Barron Avenue Los Robles Avenue Laguna Way ShaunaLane La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue El Centro Street TimlottLa Jennifer Way Magnolia Dr North La Donna Avenue Los Robles Avenue Rinc Manzana Lane onCircle Mesa C o u r t Crosby Pl Georgia Avenue Hubbartt Drive Willmar Drive Donald Drive Arastra d ero Ro a d F o othill E xp re s sw a y Mira n d a A ve n u e La Para Avenue San Jude Avenue Magnolia Drive Military Way Arbol Drive Orme Street Fernando Avenue Matadero Avenue Lambert Avenue Hansen Way El Camino Real Margarita Avenue Matadero Avenue Wilton Avenue Harvard Street California Avenue Wellesley Street Princeton Street Oberlin Street Cornell Street Cambridge Avenue College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford Avenue El C a mino Real Grant Avenue Sheridan Avenue Jacaranda Lane El Camino Real Sherman Avenue Ash Street Page Mill Road Mimosa Lane Chestnut Avenue Portage Avenue Pepper Avenue Olive Avenue Acacia Avenue Emerson Street Park Boulevard Orinda Street Birch Street Ash Street Page Mill Road Ash Street Park Boulevard C Cambridge Ave New Mayfield LaneStreet California Avenue k Boulevard Emerson Street Ramona Street Alma Street Se dro Lane Peral Lane Mc Gregor Way Madeline Ct Arroyo Ct Sheridan Avenue Page Mill Road Page Mill Road Foothill Expressway Miranda Avenue Foothill Expressway Mira n d a A v e n u e Foothill Ex pre ssw ay Cerrito W ay Miranda Avenue Hillview Avenue Arastradero Road Lane 66 Lane 66 La Selva Drive Miranda Co Stanford Avenue Olmst e d Road El Dorado Avenue La Calle Matadero Ave Los Robles Avenue Timlott CtLane La Donna Avenue Cass Way Page Mill Road Chimalus Drive Hanover Street o Rd Emma Court Abrams Court Allardice Way o Ct Alvarado R ow Angell Court Ayrsh ire Farm Lane Bowdoin Street Campus Drive Campus Drive sanueva Place Cathcart Way Cedro Way Way Comstock Circle Blackwelder Court Cathcart Way Cottrell Way Cottrell Way Dud l ey Lan e Escondido Road Escondido Road Escondido Road Esplanada Way Hoskins Court Je n k i n s Cour t Junipero Serra Boulevard ive throp Drive Mayfield Av e n ue venue McFarland Court Mears Court Mears Court N Tolman Ln Oberlin St Comstock Circle Olmsted Road Ol Olmsted Road O lms ted Road Peter Cou t t s Circle Peter Coutts Road Peter Coutts Road Pine Hill Court Pine H i l l R o a d Quillen Ct Raim u ndo W ay R a i mu nd o W a y Raimundo W ay Rosse Lane Running Farm Lane Rya n Court S Tolman Ln San Francisco Court Santa Fe Avenue S erra Stre S o n oma Terra c e Stanford Avenue Stanford Avenue rt Tolman Drive Vernier Place Wellesley St Wing Place Yale St Birch Street This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Stanford Research Park Area Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels Marguerite Shuttle Stops AC Transit Bus Stops VTA Bus Stops City Jurisdictional Limits 0' 947' Stanford Research Park Bus Map CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2019-12-09 10:24:32 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) 4.a Packet Pg. 128 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 250 Hamilton Avenue/19PLN-00220 Bus Shelter Design The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. The bus shelter design makes use of steel and wood materials that are durable while also being simple, clean, and aesthetically pleasing. The inclusion of a shelter around existing sites that only accommodate a bench creates a more appealing environment for transit riders. Policy L-1.9: Participate in regional strategies to address the interaction of jobs, housing balance and transportation issues. Transportation Element GOAL T-1: Create a sustainable transportation system, complemented by a mix of land uses, that emphasizes walking, bicycling, use of public transportation and other methods to reduce GHG emissions and the use of single-occupancy motor vehicles. With the mix of locations that do or do not have shelters, the proposed project will help to support and increase transit ridership within the Stanford Research Park by creating a shelter from the elements for transit riders. In addition, the standard design includes upgrading each site to be ADA compliant which would make it accessible to all individuals. Each shelter is designed to maintain a minimum of a five foot sidewalk clear of any vertical or horizontal obstruction as well as a three foot distance between the back edge of the sidewalk to the back wall of the structure. This will Policy T-1.1: Take a comprehensive approach to reducing single-occupant vehicle trips by involving those who live, work and shop in Palo Alto in developing strategies that make it easier and more convenient not to drive. 4.b Packet Pg. 129 Policy T-1.2: Collaborate with Palo Alto employers and business owners to develop, implement and expand comprehensive programs like the TMA to reduce single-occupant vehicle commute trips, including through incentives. create an effective eight-foot setback from the curb that will help to maintain on-site access and circulation for each facility, as they will not be encroaching into the public right of way. By creating a uniform design throughout the Research Park, the shelters will be more recognizable and appealing to employees. This serves to enhance the facilities that are already present at each site that can encourage riders to use the facilities more often and reduce single occupancy vehicle trips to and from the Research Park. The proposed shelter materials have smooth textures and finishes which give them a more modern and polished appearance. The angular appearance and asymmetric enclosure design, coupled with the design on the clear glass panels create visual points of interest on the shelter that looks aesthetically pleasing. The clear glass design and down lighting will help to illuminate the interior of the shelter which will help to enhance security at night by providing views through the shelter. With the inclusion of solar panels on the roof and waste/recycling bins, each shelter will generate its own electricity and help the sites to become self-sufficient for their energy production and reduce waste around the facilities. Policy T-1.3: Reduce GHG and pollutant emissions associated with transportation by reducing VMT and per-mile emissions through increasing transit options, supporting biking and walking, and the use of zero-emission vehicle technologies to meet City and State goals for GHG reductions by 2030. Program T1.6.1: Collaborate with transit providers, including Caltrain, bus operators and rideshare companies, to develop first/last mile connection strategies that boost the use of transit and shuttle service for local errands and commuting. Policy T-1.9: Continue to encourage the provision of amenities such as seating, lighting and signage, including real-time arrival information, at bus and shuttle stops and train stations to increase rider comfort, safety and convenience. Policy T-1.13: Encourage services that complement and enhance the transportation options available to help Palo Alto residents and employees make first/last mile connections and travel within the city for daily needs without using a single-occupancy vehicle, including shuttle, taxi and ridesharing services Policy T-7.4: Collaborate with transit and shuttle providers including VTA, AC Transit, SamTrans, Stanford Marguerite Shuttle, Palo Alto Free Shuttle, Dumbarton Express Bus Service and Caltrain in the provision of service that is accessible to seniors and people with disabilities. 4.b Packet Pg. 130 Natural Environment Element Policy N-5.2: Support behavior changes to reduce emissions of particulates from automobiles The addition to, and upgrading of, bus stop locations with shelters in the Research Park will create a more inviting environment for employees. This can help encourage employees to more frequently use public transit knowing that a shelter exists to protect them from the elements. In turn, this could help reduce single-occupancy vehicle trips and GHG emissions. As discussed in the staff report, the project, with staff’s proposed changes to the color choice for the structure, is in conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. Finding #2: the project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The bus shelter design presents a framework for bus stop modifications for the purposes of creating a standard to be used within the Stanford Research Park. As conditioned, the proposed bus shelter design will use consistent materials and colors that are unified and coherent, and will assist in creating a sense of order on the site. As proposed, the bus shelter design is appropriately scaled for the site and reflects the character of the surrounding R&D park context. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. 4.b Packet Pg. 131 The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The bus shelter design makes use of steel and wood materials that are durable while also being simple, clean, and aesthetically pleasing. As conditioned, the proposed color palette for the shelter material will complement other bus stations commonly seen throughout the City and the Stanford Research Park. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The new bus shelters will have a uniform design that will be recognizable throughout the Stanford Research Park. Each site will be modified to be ADA compliant, which will allow for pedestrians with varying degrees of capability to access and use the site. Including lighting and clear glass panels to see through the shelter will enhance the site’s security at night which will encourage transit riders to use the facilities at any time of day. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. A landscaping plan was prepared and approved previously on adjacent sites to the bus shelters and will continue to be implemented outside the scope of work included this project. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The proposed bus shelters will include LED lighting and solar panels on top of the roof that are energy efficient and long lasting. 4.b Packet Pg. 132 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 250 Hamilton Avenue 19PLN-00220 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, “3223 Hanover Building 2” dated September 6, 2018 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Provide revisions to the proposed colors for the standard bus shelter design 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 6. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval if, within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 7. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 4.c Packet Pg. 133 8. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 9. DEMOLITION PLAN: Place the following note adjacent to an affected tree on the Site Plan and Demolition Plan: “Excavation activities associated with the proposed scope of work shall occur no closer than 10-feet from the existing street tree, or as approved by the Urban Forestry Division contact 650-496-5953. Any changes shall be approved by the same”. 10. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The plans must clearly indicate any work that is proposed in the public right-of-way, such as sidewalk replacement, driveway approach, or utility laterals. The plans must include notes that the work must be done per City standards and that the contractor performing this work must first obtain a Street Work Permit from Public Works at the Development Center. If a new driveway is in a different location than the existing driveway, then the sidewalk associated with the new driveway must be replaced with a thickened (6” thick instead of the standard 4” thick) section. Additionally, curb cuts and driveway approaches for abandoned driveways must be replaced with new curb, gutter and planter strip. 11. A street-work permit will be required for work within the public right-of-way. This permit will be routed for Departments comments. 12. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and adjacent to the work within the Public road right-of- way. “Any construction within the city’s public road right-of-way shall have an approved Permit for Construction in the Public Street prior to commencement of this work. THE PERFORMANCE OF THIS WORK IS NOT AUTHORIZED BY THE BUILDING PERMIT ISSUANCE BUT SHOWN ON THE BUILDING PERMIT FOR INFORMATION ONLY.” 13. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 14. PUBLIC WORKS STANDARDS CONDITIONS: The City's full-sized "Standard Conditions" sheet must be included in the plan set. Copies are available from Public Works on our website: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=67175.06&BlobID=66261 15. Provide the following as a note on the Site Plan: “The contractor may be required to submit a logistics plan to the Public Works Department prior to commencing work that addresses all impacts 4.c Packet Pg. 134 to the City’s right-of-way, including, but not limited to: pedestrian control, traffic control, truck routes, material deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected surrounding properties , and schedule of work. The requirement to submit a logistics plan will be dependent on the number of applications Public Works Engineering receives within close proximity to help mitigate and control the impact to the public-right-of-way. If necessary, Public Works may require a Logistics Plan during construction.” BUILDING DIVISION 16. At building permit submittal, please submit the following items for each bus shelter. a. Submit site plan for each bus shelter with dimensions b. Structural calculations/plans c. Soil report d. Provide accessible plan. i. Slope of site ii. Bus shelter shall not encroach into the required minimum 48 inches accessible sidewalk/aisle. iii. Show all accessible features in the bus shelter. e. Submit solar system design/plan/calculation. f. Submit electrical/lighting plan if applicable. OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION 17. Applicant shall provide a 5’ wide sidewalk clear of any horizontal and/or vertical obstructions. A minimum of 3’ shall be provided between the sidewalk and the back-wall of the bus shelter. 18. Deviation from the standards stated above shall be reviewed and approved by Transportation staff. 4.c Packet Pg. 135 1 PROJECT DESCRIPTION SRP Bus Shelter, Stanford Research Park Major Architectural Review September 16, 2019 The Stanford Research Park Bus Shelter project (“Project”) will replace an obsolete bus shelter with a high quality bus shelter in the public right-of-way along Hillview Avenue in Stanford Research Park (SRP). Two new shelters will be added at high-use transit stops on Hanover Street that currently do not have shelters. PROJECT GOALS The goal of the Project is to support and encourage transit use by providing safe and comfortable spaces for commuters to wait for bus and shuttle pick-ups. The Project will replace a worn, outdated and non-uniform bus shelter with an attractive and highly functional shelter that welcomes current and future transit riders. Two new shelters at high-use transit stops that currently do not have shelters will provide much needed protection from sun, wind and rain. The custom-designed shelter will signal to the employees of companies located throughout Stanford Research Park that they work in an area that is well-served by transit options and that these options are available to all employees in the Research Park. The bus shelters are envisioned to serve the strategic purpose of a strong visual cue, promoting the Stanford Research Park Transportation Programs, also known as SRPGO. Given there is no signage anywhere in Stanford Research Park to signal to employees where they work or that “SRPGO” is available to them, this investment in bus shelter infrastructure will make a significant impact in promoting SRPGO and transit ridership. Through thoughtful design, the Project will be compatible with a variety of surrounding built and natural environments. The custom-designed shelter will become the preferred option for future bus shelter replacements and additions along interior roads in Stanford Research Park resulting in a uniform shelter design where the majority of commuter bus and shuttle services operate. PROJECT CONTEXT The Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association (SRP TMA) provides commuter services to 140 companies and 29,000 employees. In just three years, the SRP TMA has reduced solo driving by 10 percentage points and increased transit ridership from 6% to 11%. This impressive growth in transit ridership has been accomplished by making existing public transit systems more affordable for SRP commuters, providing additional last-mile connections, and filling gaps in public transit service. Specifically, the SRP TMA purchases discounted VTA Smart Passes that provide free fare on all VTA and Dumbarton Express buses, operates 3 last-mile shuttle routes to provide convenient connections to Caltrain, and operates commuter buses from the west side of San Francisco and the Santana Row area of San Jose where transit options are lacking. Additional SRPGO program information at https://stanfordresearchpark.com/transportation. The Project is key to building on the success of the SRPGO program, and reflects a significant investment in infrastructure to support current transit users and attract new riders, as well as clearly convey that transit use is not only a safe, comfortable, convenient option, but a priority in Stanford Research Park. PROJECT METRICS The Project will replace 1 existing bus shelter located in the public right-of-way along Hillview Avenue in Stanford Research Park. In addition, the Project will add shelters at 2 highly used bus stops where shelters do not currently exist. The Project will replace existing shelters with a similarly sized shelter of 12 feet wide by 5 feet deep by 8 feet tall that complies with the VTA “Bus Stops and Passenger Facilities Standards – January 2019 Draft”. No gross floor area or FAR (floor area ratio) is associated with the Project. 4.d Packet Pg. 136 2 Implementation is planned in 3 phases, to be installed in 2019 and 2020 as follows: 1. Replacement of non-standard shelter on Hillview Avenue in conjunction with 3380 Coyote Hill project (voluntary) 2. Installation of new shelter at 3223 Hanover Street in conjunction with 3223 Hanover project (condition of approval) 3. Installation of new shelter on Hanover Street near the entrance to HP Inc. at 1501 Page Mill (voluntary) EXISTING CONDITIONS There are 68 total bus and shuttle stops in and adjacent to Stanford Research Park outfitted as follows: 29 stops with bus shelters 14 stops with benches, but no shelter 25 stops with a sign pole, but no shelter or bench Most of the existing shelters are a standard VTA bus shelter, composed of metal supports with a perforated metal skin, a metal bench, and in some cases an attached perforated metal garbage can, all painted blue-green. There are also non-standard shelters, composed of brown-black metal supports with a clear plastic skin. Shelter and paved surface size varies by location with typical shelter size of 12 feet wide by 5 feet deep by 8 feet tall. Slopes at each bus shelter location are typically less than 5% in the direction of travel with a cross slope less than 2%. SITE DESIGN AND ACCESS The guiding principles for each bus shelter site plan will be optimal placement of the shelter to maximize safe and convenient access by pedestrians, bicyclists and transit riders, and provide rational and safe access for transit vehicles. In most cases, shelters will be placed in the same location as an existing bus stop with proven access. Site plans will vary by location per the following three installation types: 1) existing paving to remain, 2) expand limits of existing paving, and 3) entirely new paving. New or replaced paving around the bus shelters could include asphalt, concrete, bricks, pavers, decomposed granite, etc., and would total approximately 700 sf maximum per shelter location. Minimal landscaping areas would be included in the limit of work, and so the percentage of site to be covered or paved would likely range from 80% to 100%. Minimal grading would be required at each shelter to maintain pedestrian walkway slopes. Slopes at each bus shelter location for walkways would typically be less than 5% in the direction of travel with a cross slope less than 2%. Maximum slope at steep sites would be 10%. Total cut and fill would range from 5 to 25 cubic yards. SHELTER DESIGN The guiding principles of the shelter design include creating a transit-oriented culture, enhancing the safety and comfort of transit riders, defining a place that is affiliated with the SRPGO transportation services, and blending with the outdoor beauty that exists in the Research Park. The design integrates high quality materials and rich finishes that are compatible with varied environments throughout Stanford Research Park. Shelters will be enhanced with lighting and informational displays. The steel supports, in a rust red finish, are a defining element, both traditional and timeless. The selected color, Bright Copper II, is not similar to Cardinal Red but instead resembles the rusty red supports commonly found in Butler-style buildings that inspired the bus shelter design. The artistic glass panels provide openness and a modern touch. The wood bench and ceiling add warmth and relate to the natural environmental. The combination of these elements results in a unique and striking design that will create a sense of place and purpose for those who use and view the shelters. 4.d Packet Pg. 137 3 Roof mounted photovoltaic (PV) panels will power LED lighting to make the shelters welcoming and especially delightful at night thanks to the play of light on the glass pattern. Display space will display VTA and SRPGO transit system maps to provide valuable information to current and future transit riders and will not display any advertising. Stanford agrees to maintain all aspects of the SRP bus shelters, including regular cleaning and waste collection, to ensure that the shelter appearance and environment exceeds the expectations of our commuters and strengthens our efforts to increase transit use. LANDSCAPE DESIGN The shelters have been designed to be compatible with existing landscaped and natural environments throughout the Research Park. No vegetation will be removed or replaced in locations where existing paving meets current requirements and can accommodate the new shelter. In locations where paving must be enlarged to meet current standards, grass and shrubs will be removed only as necessary and replaced with similar or more appropriate options. No trees will be removed. SUSTAINABILITY FEATURES AND GOALS The Project design incorporates sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency and waste reduction. The Project will be fully powered by self-contained, roof-mounted photovoltaic panels for the primary purpose of powering LED lighting at night. The Project will also include collection bins for both waste and mixed-recyclables. The Project design is projected to have a 20+ year lifespan. Stanford Research Park is currently served by 15 bus and shuttles routes, including 4 VTA Express bus routes, the Dumbarton Express, 2 SRPGO long-distance commuter buses, and 3 free Caltrain shuttles. Together, these routes comprise a robust set of transit options with the potential to serve many more commuters than currently use these services. The Project will increase the visibility and appeal of transit options, thus enabling the SRPGO program to further reduce solo driving, associated environmental impacts and traffic congestion around Stanford Research Park. 4.d Packet Pg. 138 SHEL- TER LOCATION DESCRIPTION 1 Hillview Avenue, west side 3380 Coyote Hill Road (formerly 3406 Hillview Avenue) Replacement of an existing non-standard shelter 2 Hanover Street, east side 3223 Hanover Street (Lockheed) Relocation/upgrade of a bench-only bus stop to a sheltered bus stop. Condition of Approval, separate project 3 Hanover Street, west side 1501 Page Mill Road (HP, Inc.) Upgrade of bench-only bus stop. Tenant request. Project Address and Location Map #1 #2 #3 4.d Packet Pg. 139 View from bus stop looking west at future 3380 Coyote Hill Road building (building under construction). View of existing bus stop looking west. Vicinity Map Aerial Views and Photos Shelter #1, Hillview Avenue, West Side (3380 Coyote Hill Road) View from bus stop looking east across Hillview Ave. at VMware. 4.d Packet Pg. 140 View from bus stop looking southeast at future 3223 Hanover Street building (building under construction). View of existing bus stop looking east. Aerial Views and Photos Shelter #2, Hanover Street, East Side (3223 Hanover Street) View from bus stop looking northwest across Hanover St. at HP, Inc. Vicinity Map 4.d Packet Pg. 141 View from bus stop looking southeast across Hanover Street at Lockheed building. View of existing bus stop looking southwest. Aerial Views and Photos Shelter #3, Hanover Street, West Side (1501 Page Mill Road) Vicinity Map 4.d Packet Pg. 142 ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT WORKSHEET City of Palo Alto Department of Planning and Community Environment GENERAL INFORMATION: 2.Assessor's Parcel Number: 4.Applicant: ________________________________________________ E-mail ________________________ Site 1 - 3380 Coyote Hill Road; Shelter on Hillvew Ave (address formerly 3406 Hillvew Ave)Site 2 - 3223 Hanover StreetSite 3 - 1501 Page Mill Road; Shelter on Hanover Street Note: Each Project site is within or primarily within CPA ROW adjacent to Stanford-owned land. The APN's and addresses shown herein are for the adjacent Stanford properties. 415 Broadway, 3rd Floor, MC 8873 Redwood City, CA 94063 Name____________________________________________ Telephone ______________________650-683-5418 Stanford Real EstateAddress__________________________________________ Fax # __________________________ jjarvis@stanford.edu (Each site is within or primarily within CPA ROW). Site 1: 142-16-053. Site 2: 142-17-039. Site 3: 142-18-007 None Address of Project: The Board of Trustees of The Leland Stanford Junior University Contact: Jamie Jarvis 5.Owner Name____________________________________________ Telephone _____________________ Address_________________________________________ Fax # __________________________ _________________________________________________ E-mail ________________________ 6.Current Zoning:___________________ Comprehensive Plan Designation ___________________ 7.Application for: RP Research Park Research/Office Park City of Palo Alto Sunny Tong, Real Property Manager Administrative Services Department 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 650-329-2264 sunny.tong@cityofpaloalto.org -- Site and Design____________ Parcel Map______________ ARB XReview_____________ Use Permit________________ Zone Change_____________ EIA, EIR________________ Date Filed_________________ 8 July 2019 17 Oct 2019 (resubmitted) 3.Application Number(s): ________ _ 19PLN-00220 4.d Packet Pg. 143 EXISTING SITE: 8.State all known or suspected prior uses, operations, or other activities on the site over the past 20 years 9. Size of site: Net_________________________ 12. Number of existing structures________ Current Use________________________________ 13. Size of existing structures_______________ Condition______________________________ 14. Will any structure be demolished for this project Yes_______ No________ 15. Total square footage to be demolished__________________________ 16. Total number of building occupants for existing use__________________________________ 17. Number of parking spaces ________ % compact spaces________ # Bicycle spaces________ 18. If current use is residential: Number of owner-occupied units ______________Number of renter-occupied units _______________ PROPOSED PROJECT: 19.Project description Each of the three proposed bus shelter sites is an existing bus stop in the Stanford Research Park ("SRP"). Each bus stop has been served by Valley Transportation Authority ("VTA") and Dumbarton Express public transit buses, and free Stanford Marguerite shuttles for the past 20 years. Since 2016, the SRP Transportation Program ("SRPGO") has added 2 long distance commuter buses, 2 California Avenue Caltrain shuttles and 1 lunchtime shuttle that also utilize these (and other) existing bus stops throughout the SRP. N/A N/AGross_______________________ 1 Transit Stop (Site 1 includes a bus shelter; there are no existing structures at Sites 2 & 3.) 14' wide; 6' deep; 9' tall Obsolete X 1 bus shelter, approx. 84 square feet None N/A N/A N/A Not residential N/A N/A The project consists of 3 new bus shelters in the SRP. Shelter #1 would replace an existing, obsolete shelter; Shelters 2 & 3 would be new. All three would be at existing, well-used transit stops. The project provides highly functional and attractive shelters that will provide safe and comfortable spaces for SRP transit riders to connect with current and future transit services. (See Item 19, attached.) 10. 11.Existing use of property:_________________________________________________________ *Attach photographs of project site, also include an aerial photo of the project site. Each bus shelter site is within or primarily within existing CPA ROW (Hanover St. and Hillview Ave.).Site is Xowned ____________ Rented ________________ by CPA and applicant. Each site is currently in use as a transit stop. Photos, see Item 11, attached. Project Description updated in Resubmittal, attached. 4.d Packet Pg. 144 20. Future tenant if known_____________________________________________________________ 21. Number of structures proposed____________ Size (in square feet)________________________ 22. Number of floors and building height_____________________ FAR_______________________ 23. Percentage of site to be covered (including bricks and pavers)______________________________ 24. Estimated number of employees per shift______________________________________________ 25. If the proposed project is residential: Total number of units_______________ Number of units per acre___________________ Expected sales price or monthly rent per dwelling unit_____________________________ List kinds and size of community buildings________________________________________ Area of private open space_____________ Area of common open space_______________ Provision of low/moderate income units: 1) Number of units provided for: Sale______________ Rent___________________ 2) Sale and / or rental price__________________________________________________ 26. Total number of vehicles expected daily for proposed project__________________________ 27. Number of proposed parking spaces_________ Percentage compact spaces______________ Number of bicycle spaces________________________________________________________ 28. Are there any toxic wastes to be discharged? Yes____________ No_____________ (If yes, please complete a Sewer Discharge Questionnaire, which is furnished by the Building Department) 29. Has the facility in the past or will the operation of the proposed facility involve the storage or use ofHazardous materials? Yes_____________ No_______________ (If yes, please complete a Hazardous Materials Disclosure checklist, which is furnished by the Fire Department) N/A 3 90 square feet (each) N/A N/A Typically 80% to 100% N/A Not Residential N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A X X 4.d Packet Pg. 145 30. Expected amount of water usage (except for residential developments of fewer than 4 units notlocated in the foothills) Domestic_____________ gal/day Peak use________________ gal/day Commercial___________ gal/day Peak use________________ gal/day 31. Daily sewer discharge (over 30 fixtures only) _____________________________________ 32. Expected energy use: Gas_________ therms Electric_________ KWH Peak electric demand_________ Uses and equipment sizes A. Space heating: Gas_______________ BTUH_________________ Solar____________________ Electric__________ KW________ Heat pump__________ Tons_____________ Other_____________________________________________________________________ B. Air conditioning: Number of units__________________ Total tonnage____________________________ C. Water heating: Gas________________ BTUH_________________ Solar_____________________ Electric___________ KW___________ Heat Pump__________ Tons_____________ Other_____________________________________________________________________ Type: Central system_______________ Individual system_______________________ Recirculating Loop? Yes___________ No______________ D. Other: Cooking_________ KW___________ Refrigeration__________ Tons or ft_________ Motors__________ HP_________ x-ray__________ Computer_________________ N/A N/A N/A N/A None N/A Net 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A Indoor lighting________ KWN/A N/A______ Outdoor lighting________ KWYES ____________ N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A **Resubmittal Note: Power for the lighting would be self-contained photovoltaic (PV) generated. Photometrics are included in the drawing package. **** 4.d Packet Pg. 146 33. Air pollution emissions (Check applicable BAAQMD regulations). Commercial / Industrial only: Source________________________________________________ Type_________________________________ Amount_________________________________ 34. Noise generation: eg. Generators, chitlers, HVAC, drive through speakers, etc. Source________________________________ Amount (dBa)__________________________ Please list outside noise sources that may affect the project: eg. Traffic, train etc.____________________________________________________________________________ Sound proofing/mitigation proposed__________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________________ 35. Site drainage provisions____________________________________________________________ 36.Amount of proposed grading (cubic yards) 37. Disposition of excavated material____________________________________________________ 38.Permits required from other agencies: Santa Clara Valley Water District____________________________________________________ Bay Area Air Quality Management District____________________________________________ Army Corps of Engineers___________________________________________________________ Other___________________________________________________________________________ Environmental Setting: 39.Percent and direction of ground slope at site 40.Is this site within a special flood hazard area? Yes____________ No______________ None N/A N/A None N/A There is outside noise from vehicular traffic on adjacent roads; it is not an issue. None Approximately 5 to 25 cubic yards of total cut and fill at each of the 3 Sites. (See Item 36, Civil Engineering description, BKF, attached.) N/A Surplus excavated materials will be offhauled from the project. No No No No Proposed grades will match existing. Existing walkways have slopes less than 5% with cross slopes less than 2%. Maximum slopes are about 10%. X 4.d Packet Pg. 147 *Arborist Reports and Tree Disclosure Statements updated with Resubmittal * 4.d Packet Pg. 148 TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM Date: March 21, 2019 BKF Job Number: 20181558 Deliver To: Jamie Jarvis – Director, Sustainable Transportation Programs Stanford Research Park From: Douglas Petersen, PE Subject: Stanford Research Park Bus Shelters – Civil Engineering Narrative Stanford proposes to install new bus shelters at several locations around the Stanford Research Park. Each location has slightly different existing conditions and the scope of work would include three (3) possible installation types: 1.Existing Paving to Remain – In this scenario the existing pavement condition is acceptable and no expanded limits of paving are required. Work would be limited to minimal cuts in the paving for installation of shelter footings/anchors and installation of the shelter. 2.Expand Limits of Existing Paving – In this scenario the existing pavement condition is acceptable, but additional paving is required to expand the bus shelter area. Work required would include minimal vegetation removal, grading, excavation for pavement, new paving, and installation of the shelter. 3.Entirely New Paving – In this scenario there is no existing pavement or the existing pavement condition is unacceptable. Work required would include minimal vegetation removal, grading, excavation for pavement, new paving, and installation of the shelter. Regardless of the three (3) installation types listed above, the typical and maximum amounts of site improvements associated with the new bus shelters would include the following: Paving - New or replaced paving around the bus shelters could include asphalt, concrete, bricks, pavers, decomposed granite, etc., and would total approximately 700 sf maximum per shelter location. Minimal landscaping areas would be included in the limit of work, so the percentage of site to be covered or paved would likely range from 80% to 100%. Grading - Minimal grading would be required at each shelter to maintain pedestrian walkway slopes. Slopes at each bus shelter location for walkways would typically be less than 5% in the direction of travel with a cross slope less than 2%. Maximum slope at steep sites would be 10%. Total cut + fill would range from 5 to 25 cubic yards. If there are additional questions to this narrative contact Douglas Petersen at (408) 467-9100 or dpetersen@bkf.com if you have any questions. Respectfully yours, BKF Engineers Douglas Petersen, PE Project Manager 1730 N. First Street, Suite 600, San Jose, CA 95112 | 408.467.9100 4.d Packet Pg. 149 SRP Bus Shelter Improvements Tree Preservation and Protection Plan HortScience | Bartlett Consulting September 5, 2019 Page 1 Tree Protection and Preservation Plan Stanford Research Park Bus Shelter Improvements PREPARED FOR Stanford Real Estate 415 Broadway, 3rd Floor Redwood City, CA 94063 PREPARED BY: HortScience | Bartlett Consulting 325 Ray St. Pleasanton, CA 94566 September 17, 2019 4.d Packet Pg. 150 Tree Protection and Preservation Plan Stanford Research Park Bus Shelter Improvements Palo Alto, CA Introduction and Overview Stanford Real Estate is planning to improve three bus stops in the Stanford Research Park: #1 Replacement of non-standard shelter at 3380 Coyote Hill Rd.; #2 Installation of a new bus stop and shelter near 3223 Hanover; #3 Installation of shelter to an existing bus stop near Hanover entrance to HP Inc. at 1501 Page Mill Rd. This report provides the following information: 1.An evaluation of the condition of the trees within the proposed project area based on a visual inspection from the ground. 2.A description of the anticipated impacts to trees from constructing the improvements. 3.Guidelines for tree preservation during the design and construction phases of development. Tree Assessment Methods Trees were assessed on September 4, 2019. The assessment included all trees located within the proposed project area and a distance of within ten times the trunk diameter. The assessment procedure consisted of the following steps: 1.Identifying the tree species; 2.Measuring the trunk diameter at a point 54” above grade; 3.Evaluating the health and structural condition using a scale of 1 to 5: 5 - A healthy, vigorous tree, reasonably free of signs and symptoms of disease, with good structure and form typical of the species. 4 - Tree with slight decline in vigor, small amount of twig dieback, minor structural defects that could be corrected. 3 - Tree with moderate vigor, moderate twig and small branch dieback, thinning of crown, poor leaf color, moderate structural defects that might be mitigated with regular care. 2 - Tree in decline, epicormic growth, extensive dieback of medium to large branches, significant structural defects that cannot be abated. 1 - Tree in severe decline, dieback of scaffold branches and/or trunk; most of foliage from epicormics; extensive structural defects that cannot be abated. 5.Rating the suitability for preservation as “high”, “moderate” or “low”. Suitability for preservation considers the health, age, and structural condition of the tree species and its potential to remain an asset to the site. High: Trees with good health and structural stability that have the potential for longevity at the site. Moderate: Trees with somewhat declining health and/or structural defects than can be abated with treatment. The tree will require more intense management and monitoring, and may have shorter life span than those in ‘high’ category. Low: Trees in poor health or with significant structural defects that cannot be mitigated. Tree is expected to continue to decline, regardless of treatment. The species or individual tree may have characteristics that are undesirable for landscapes, and generally are unsuited for use areas. 4.d Packet Pg. 151 SRP Bus Shelter Improvements Tree Preservation and Protection Plan HortScience | Bartlett Consulting September 17, 2019 Page 2 City of Palo Alto Regulated trees Palo Alto Municipal Code (8.10.020) defines regulated trees in three categories: Category 1 – Protected trees Protected trees are, “any tree of the species Quercus agrifolia (coast live oak) or Quercus lobata (Valley Oak) which is eleven and one-half inches in diameter (thirty-six inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade; and any Redwood tree (species Sequoia sempervirens) that is eighteen inches in diameter (fifty-seven inches in circumference) or more when measured four and one-half feet (fifty-four inches) above natural grade.” None of the trees at these sites met this criterion. Category 2 – Street trees Street trees are all trees growing within street right-of-way. A permit from the Public Works Department is required prior to any work on or within the dripline of any tree growing within the street right-of-way (publically owned). One tree was located in the public right-of-way in a planting strip between the street and the sidewalk; however it was a privately-owned tree. There were no city street trees at this site. Category 3 – Designated trees Designated trees are trees associated with development project that are specifically designated by City to be saved and protected. Designated trees have yet to be identified for this project. Description of Trees and Planned Construction In evalauting the impacts of the planned bus shelters, I reviewed the Improvement Plans, Sheets C2.0, C2.1 and C2.2 (BKF, 9/3/18),as well as the Stanford Research Park Bus Shelter Improvements, ARB Submittal Package (7/8/19). Bus Shelter #1 at 3380 Coyote Hill Rd.; No trees were present at this location, so there will be no impacts to trees. The adjacent property is under construction. Bus Shelter #2 at 3223 Hanover St. There are two trees at this location. Both are street trees, and are therefore Category 2 Regulated trees. Trunk diameters were estimated because trunk protection devices present prevented measurement. The trees had been tagged, probably in association with the adjacent property that is under construction. Both are a few feet behind the existing sidewalk, with canopies overhanging Hanover St. Neither is a Designated or Protected tree. Tree #52 Lemonwood tree (Pittosporum eugenioides) is approximately 16 inches in trunk diameter. This tree was in in fair condition (rated 3). Multiple branch attachments arose at approximately 5- and 7-feet height. Foliage color was Photo 1: No trees were present at Bus Shelter #1. 4.d Packet Pg. 152 SRP Bus Shelter Improvements Tree Preservation and Protection Plan HortScience | Bartlett Consulting September 5, 2019 Page 3 slightly chlorotic. The tree had a rounded canopy that was slightly thinner than normal for the species (photo 2). Tree #53 Holly oak (Quercus ilex) was approximately 20 inches in trunk diameter. The tree was in fair condition (rated 3). It had five stems arising at the same height, which compromises the structural stability of the tree. The crown was thinner than typical, and there was twig dieback present (photo 3). The planned construction includes replacing and widening the sidewalk, constructing the bus shelter and installing pavement around it. The west end of the sidewalk will encroach a few feet into the drip line of tree #52. The limits of the widened area is about 10 feet from the trunk. The east end of the widened area of the sidewalk will encroach slightly into the drip line of tree #53. The limits of the pavement will be approximately 20 feet from the trunk. Excavation to create the pavement section may encounter tree roots. I expect the root damage to be minor and within the tolerance of both trees. No pruning will be required to create vertical clearance for construction of the shelters. The tree canopies have been maintained to provide adequate clearance for pedestrians and traffic. Bus Shelter #3 near 1501 Page Mill Rd. There is a group of four mature redwoods north of site (photo 4). All were in good condition, although they had slightly thin crowns most likely due to water stress. Trunk diameters were 32” (A), 33” (B), 28” (C), and 38” (D). The construction will be approximately 10 feet outside of the dripline of tree A, the closest tree to the work area. It is, however, within 10 times the diameter of the trunk. It is unlikely that significant redwood tree roots will be encountered in excavation to create the pavement section. Because all work it outside the tree canopy, no pruning is required. Photo 2 (left) Lemonwood tree #52. Photo 3 (right) Holly oak tree #53. 4.d Packet Pg. 153 SRP Bus Shelter Improvements Tree Preservation and Protection Plan HortScience | Bartlett Consulting September 5, 2019 Page 4 Photo 4: Redwood trees north of bus shelter #3. Aerial photo from Google Earth. Tree Preservation Guidelines The goal of tree preservation is health, stable trees that will provide benefits to the site and community for many years. Coordinating any construction activity inside the TREE PROTECTION ZONE can minimize these impacts that could compromise tree health and stability. The following recommendations will help reduce impacts to trees during construction and maintain their health and vitality through the construction phase. Tree Protection Zone 1.A TREE PROTECTION ZONE has been identified for each tree to be preserved on the Tree Protection Plan (page 6). a.Fence trees identified on the Tree Protection Plan to enclose the TREE PROTECTION ZONE prior to any work being performed. Fences shall be 6 ft. chain link with posts sunk into the ground or equivalent as approved by the City. b.Fences must be installed prior to beginning demolition or site preparation and must remain until construction is complete. c.No grading, excavation, construction, storage or dumping of materials shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. No underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be placed in the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Design recommendations 1.All plans affecting trees shall be reviewed by the Project Arborist with regard to tree impacts. These include, but are not limited to, demolition plans, grading and utility plans, landscape, and irrigation plans. 2.Underground services including utilities, sub-drains, water or sewer shall be routed around the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Where encroachment cannot be avoided, special construction techniques such as hand digging or tunneling under roots shall be employed where necessary to minimize root injury. 3.Tree Preservation Guidelines, prepared by the Project Arborist, should be included on all plans. 4.Do not lime within 25’ of any tree. Lime is toxic to tree roots. A C B D A A B D C Bus Shelter #3 4.d Packet Pg. 154 SRP Bus Shelter Improvements Tree Preservation and Protection Plan HortScience | Bartlett Consulting September 5, 2019 Page 5 5.Any herbicides placed under paving materials must be safe for use around trees and labeled for that use. 6.Irrigation systems must be designed so that no trenching will occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Recommendations for tree protection during construction 1.The construction superintendent shall meet with the Project Arborist before beginning work to discuss work procedures and tree protection. 2.If roots 2” and greater in diameter are encountered during site work and must be cut to complete the construction, the Project Arborist must be consulted to evaluate effects on the health and stability of the tree and recommend treatment. 3.No grading, construction, demolition, or other work shall occur within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. Any modifications must be approved and monitored by the Project Arborist. 4.Fences have been erected to protect trees to be preserved. Fences define a specific TREE PROTECTION ZONE for each tree or group of trees. Fences are to remain until all site work has been completed. Fences may not be relocated or removed without permission of the Project Arborist. 5.Construction trailers, traffic and storage areas must remain outside fenced areas at all times. 6.If injury should occur to any tree during construction, it should be evaluated as soon as possible by the Project Arborist so that appropriate treatments can be applied. 7.No excess soil, chemicals, debris, equipment or other materials shall be dumped or stored within the TREE PROTECTION ZONE. 8.Any additional tree pruning needed for clearance during construction must be performed by a Project Arborist and not by construction personnel. Trees change over time. Our inspections represent the condition of the tree at the time of inspection. As trees age, the likelihood of failure of branches or entire trees increases. Annual tree inspections are recommended to identify changes to tree health and structure. In addition, trees should be inspected after storms of unusual severity to evaluate damage and structural changes. Initiating these inspections is the responsibility of the client and/or tree owner. HortScience | Bartlett Consulting Nelda Matheny Registered Consulting Arborist 4.d Packet Pg. 155 SRP Bus Shelter Improvements Tree Preservation and Protection Plan HortScience | Bartlett Consulting September 5, 2019 Page 6 Tree Protection Plan Bus Shelter #1 at 3380 Coyote Hill Rd.; No trees were present at this location, so no tree protection is needed. Base: Improvement Plan, BKF, 9/3/19 Bus Shelter #2 at 3223 Hanover St. Install Tree Protection fencing to protect trees #52 and 53. Base: Improvement Plan, BKF, 9/3/19 4.d Packet Pg. 156 SRP Bus Shelter Improvements Tree Preservation and Protection Plan HortScience | Bartlett Consulting September 5, 2019 Page 7 Bus Shelter #3 near 1501 Page Mill Rd. Install Type 1 Tree Protection fencing around the dripline of the group of redwoods. Base: Improvement Plan, BKF, 9/3/19 4.d Packet Pg. 157 4.d Packet Pg. 158 4.d Packet Pg. 159 29 May 2019 Ms. Jamie Jarvis Director, Sustainable Transportation Programs Stanford Research Park Stanford University 3160 Porter Drive, Suite 200 Palo Alto, CA 94304 Subject: Biological Review of Proposed SRP Bus Shelter Upgrade/Replacement Project Dear Ms. Jarvis; The locations of the three proposed Stanford Research Park bus shelter upgrades/replacements indicated in the project description sent to me on 10 April 2019 (updated on 28 May 2019) are on mostly concrete-covered areas (existing sidewalks), situated along busy roads, and are adjacent to actively managed landscaped areas. These sites are already modified and are actively maintained. No native species of plants or animals are expected to reside in these locations, although it is possible that birds could nest in the overhang present at one of existing bus shelters (the one located near 3380 Coyote Hill Road). Some of the more common native species in the area, such as western fence lizards, raccoons, or coyotes, may occasionally be found at these sites, but the sites do not provide suitable habitat for native species. Upgrading or replacing the existing bus shelters will not significantly impact native biodiversity. All of the sites are on Stanford property and are included in Stanford’s Habitat Conservation Plan/Incidental Take Permit (with California Consistency Determination). All of these sites are in areas classified as Zone 4. Zone 4 areas are considered to be of little or no value to the protected species which are the focus of the HCP. Even if the bus shelter upgrade/replacement in these sites requires slight expansion into the adjacent landscaped areas not currently covered with concrete, no appreciable impacts to native species are anticipated. The three sites are located ~1.0 miles from locations where the federally protected California red-legged frogs have been recently observed (California red-legged frogs are a Covered Species in Stanford’s Habitat Conservation Plan/Incidental Take Permit and are subject to extensive annual monitoring efforts). Given the road-side and exposed nature of the bus shelter locations, California red-legged frogs are not expected to inhabit or even traverse these three sites. The proposed work will not impact California red-legged frogs. 4.d Packet Pg. 160 As described, the three proposed bus shelter upgrade/replacement sites do not currently support a meaningful level of native biodiversity. The sites are located along busy roads and are mostly covered with concrete. Construction of the proposed upgrades/replacement bus shelters will not impact native biodiversity in any measureable way. If the work is scheduled during the local bird nesting season, however, surveys active bird nests will need to be conducted according to protocols stipulated by the federal Migratory Bird Treaty Act and California Fish and Wildlife Code. Alan Launer, Ph.D. Associate Director, Conservation Planning Land Use and Environmental Planning LBRE, Stanford University 4.d Packet Pg. 161 Attachment F 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 “250 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=4644 4.e Packet Pg. 162 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10951) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 12/19/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of October 17, 2019 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 17, 2019. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the October 17, 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 17, 2019 Draft Minutes (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 163 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew and David Hirsch. Absent: Grace Lee. Chair Baltay: Good morning. Welcome to the October 17, 2019, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Staff, could we have a roll call, please? [Roll Call] Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Board Member Lee is excused today, so all four are here. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Oral Communications Chair Baltay: First item on our agenda is oral communications, if any members of the public wish to address the Board on something not on the agenda. I believe we have one speaker card, for Mary Sylvester. Thank you. You’ll have three minutes for your comments, please. And if you could please spell your name for the record. Mary Sylvester: Sure. My name is Mary Sylvester, like the cat. [spells name] I live at 135 Melville, which has been my home for 42 years. My husband and I raised our two children there, and we and our grown daughters consider it our family home. I have the dubious pleasure, though, of living equal distance between Castilleja school and the Caltrain tracks, one-half block either way. We are looking at significant diluting of our urban canopy with both these projects over the next 10 to 15 years. Castilleja is proposing cutting down several old grove redwoods, along with mature oaks, to build an underground garage. Caltrain and the City are looking at taking up a significant amount of foliage on Alma Street for construction of whatever will be the new design for our high-speed railroad. One of the things I’ve always valued about living in Palo Alto is our urban forest, and I thank all of you for your report to the City Council for the October 21st meeting, particularly your comments on preservation of trees and inclusion of appropriate, robust and ample landscaping in all development projects. You go on to state that recent development trends towards underground parking and the replacement of single story structures with multiple story buildings can cause conflict with the preservation of trees. I would like to say that one of the values of trees is not only our community’s mental health, there are also measurable economic benefits for having our urban forest. Talk to any real estate agent and they will tell you the value of having a mature grove tree on your property. It also reduces the strain on infrastructure, and again, when we’re looking at traumatic climate change impacts, to have that canopy is significant for all of our health and quality of life. I have a number of other remarks, which I will make over the next few months. Thank you all for your service, it’s deeply appreciated, and for your commitment to preserving our urban canopy. Thank you. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: October 17, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 5.a Packet Pg. 164 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Baltay: Thank you. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Next item on our agenda is agenda changes, additions and deletions. Staff, do we have any changes? No. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Chair Baltay: Followed by City Official Reports. Do we an ARB schedule, coming up? Tentative future agenda items to discuss? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. As noted on the schedule, Board Member Lee knew that she was going to be absent today. We also have, for future items, on November 7th, we will be talking about the Macy’s Men’s redevelopment. That will be the third hearing. They are looking to take out the one building so that we can possibly approve the rest. And then, we also will be talking about, there’s going to be a joint meeting with City Council, so we will start to talk about topics that we want to speak with them about. Chair Baltay: Do we have any subcommittee items pending? Beyond today? Ms. Gerhardt: For today, we do have two subcommittee items, and then, for next hearing on November 7th, there would be the 565 Hamilton, would be on subcommittee. We will need people for that, as well. Five-six-five, yes, just up the street here. Chair Baltay: Oh, yes. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the housing with the small amount of office. Chair Baltay: Right. I wonder if I could appoint board members Lew and Hirsch to that subcommittee? Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay, on to our first action item. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 2342 Yale Street [18PLN00233]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Residential Units and Construction of a New Two-story Duplex Building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: RMD (NP). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley, AICP at efoley@m-group.us Chair Baltay: Number 2. It’s 2342 Yale Street, recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of two existing residential units and construction of a new two-story duplex building. Staff, do we have a report, please? Emily Foley, Project Planner: Good morning. Chair Baltay: Good morning. 5.a Packet Pg. 165 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Ms. Gerhardt: And before Emily starts, I did want to introduce her as now a full-time employee. We’re excited to have her on staff now. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Congratulations, Emily. Ms. Foley: Thank you. This is the hearing for 2342 Yale Street. Chair Baltay: Excuse me, Emily, could I halt you for one second? I’d like to do disclosures. I keep forgetting that. Do we have any disclosures to make on the Board regarding this project? David? Board Member Hirsch: No. Chair Baltay: I’ll disclose that I visited the site. Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I visited the site when the first formal hearing happened. Chair Baltay: Alex? Board Member Lew: Yes, I visited the site this morning. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay, Emily. Thank you. Ms. Foley: We’re here to do a second formal architectural review. This is a proposed duplex development that proposes two attached units with a shared attached garage. They would demolish two existing detached residential units, and in addition to the structures, there would be one shared uncovered parking space, as is required in the RMD zone. Each unit are three bedroom units in size. This is located in College Terrace, RMD Neighborhood Preservation Overlay. The surrounding neighborhood has a mix of single and two family uses, as well as neighborhood commercial offices and multiple family residential. As we noted, this is the second hearing. The first hearing was on February 21, 2019, and there were the following items that were identified to be revised. That includes the parking and circulation, the materials, the size of the unit as it related to the size of the lot, the definition of the entry features, landscaping, and open space, which I will touch on how those were improved as we continue. On the left is the previous site plan, and on the right is the proposed revised one. Chair Baltay: Emily, I’m afraid it’s not showing on the screen. Ms. Foley: Sorry. Got ahead of myself. The two units now have the shared garage in the middle, which improved circulation in the original plan. There wasn’t necessarily appropriate back-up or turnaround space for the parking spaces, especially the uncovered space. In the revised plans, the uncovered space is at the end of the driveway, and the entrance to the garage area can be used for turnaround space. With regards to the size of the units, the basement that was previously proposed has been removed, and the previous basement included a bedroom and an office. Now, each unit is three bedrooms with no basement proposed. With regards to circulation, the driveway has been widened and now fully paved with pavers, as opposed to the Hollywood strip idea. Overall, the open space is better defined. The front unit has a defined front yard area; the rear area has a defined back yard area. The perimeter has more full landscaping. And the entrances, as you’ll see when I get to the elevations, have more formal porch areas. One concern from the previous design was the materials. The applicant now proposes to have siding on the top floor and stucco on the bottom, as well as adding natural wood trellis to the front and rear deck areas. The proposed balconies are also more defined. In the previous design – which I included for reference later – the balconies were in the middle and more or less walled off. This way, the front one has view of the street. The rear one had limited views related to privacy, but it’s more of a useable space. These are the side views. As you can see the garage is in the middle, and the side entries are more defined. That was one of the concerns. The side entrance on the front unit is more of a secondary entrance. The one on the rear unit is more of a primary entrance, so the door is facing towards the street, so you can’t necessarily see the door in this view, but it’s to the right of the garage. These are the previous elevations, included for reference. In relation 5.a Packet Pg. 166 City of Palo Alto Page 4 to the findings, the project is generally in compliance with the required findings. However, the landscaping will need to be discussed because there is minimal California native species. However, most of the landscaping proposed is low water use, and the reason for this is because, because it’s in the RMD zone and there are adjacent single-family residential, it is required to be in compliance with the IR guidelines, and the individual review guidelines call for tall screening landscaping. We could not identify a native California species that would provide the appropriate level of screening. With regards to the CEQA, this project is exempt. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you for your presentation, Emily. Next, the applicant will have an opportunity to present, if you’d like to come up. You’ll have 10 minutes. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Amer Ismail: My name is Amer Ismail [spells name]. I think Emily pretty much covered all the modifications we did. The only thing I think she probably missed was that now the windows are framed in wood siding, in wood casing, in a white finish, both for the lower and upper windows and doors. And, we have increased the pitch of the upper roof to match more closely with the surrounding buildings. We definitely made the outdoor space more functional with the addition of the deck and trellises. And then, this wasn’t brought up last time, but one of the things we’re planning to do is construct the building as an all-electric building, to make it more efficient and environmentally responsible. That’s it. Everything else, she covered. Chair Baltay: Do we have any questions for staff or the applicant? Alex? Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I have two quick questions. These are nit-picky items. I think the trash and maybe the mechanical units are shown differently in the landscape plan versus the architectural site plan. I was wondering which one is correct. Mr. Ismail: The architectural site plan would be the correct one. Board Member Lew: Great, thank you. My second question is, I see that the City has a condition for above- ground backflow preventers, which is sort of unusual. I think normally they’re underground. I was wondering, what was the unique circumstances regarding that? Mr. Ismail: I’m not familiar with what you’re talking about. Board Member Lew: It’s on the… I’ll try to get to the page. It’s in your plans. Mr. Ismail: Oh, yeah. [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: … site plan. Mr. Ismail: Yeah, that was a note from Public Works, for us to add it there. The backflow preventer is for the domestic water, as well as the irrigation. Board Member Lew: Okay. I think it’s just unusual for me to see the above ground on a house-like project. Okay, so that’s coming from Public Works. Mr. Ismail: Yeah, they’re small units. I think on the spec, the way the… A-12 shows them. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Thank you for that. That’s all the questions I have. Chair Baltay: Any other questions? Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, I missed the resolution. Where does the trash live? Mr. Ismail: It’s in the back. 5.a Packet Pg. 167 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Board Member Lew: There’s the trash can here. In the landscape plan, they’re shown in a different place, a different location. Vice Chair Thompson: The landscape is correct? Board Member Lew: No, the architectural site plan is correct. Chair Baltay: Next, we have a… Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, I have one more question. Chair Baltay: Okay. Go ahead, David. Board Member Hirsch: There’s an element next to the front door that’s showing, sort of a step. I don’t understand what it is. Maybe you could explain? Mr. Ismail: It’s like a decorative roof bracket, just to kind of define the entrance. We have a detail of it on sheet A-11. Detail 4. Board Member Hirsch: A.-11? Oh, okay. Alex spoke about the garbage storage. There’s an area where the garbage is located? Is that on the site plan? Mr. Ismail: Yeah, it’s right next to where the uncovered parking spot is. Board Member Hirsch: What page, again? Mr. Ismail: It’s A-1. Towards the back. Chair Baltay: [inaudible] Board Member Hirsch: From the back of the lot? Chair Baltay: It says “trash enclosure” right there. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Baltay: [inaudible] Just to be clear, the trash enclosure is shown correctly on the site plan, Sheet A- 1. It’s in the back right-hand corner of the property. Mr. Ismail: Correct. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay. Are there more questions about the trash? All three of us see the same thing. Vice Chair Thompson: Not about the trash. Chair Baltay: Osma, another question? Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Do we have material samples? Mr. Ismail: No, we don’t. Ms. Foley: We had a previous one, but we didn’t have an updated one. Vice Chair Thompson: And the change mainly was the siding, and everything else was the same? 5.a Packet Pg. 168 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Ismail: Right. We have a picture of the siding on the elevations. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Mr. Ismail: Just a basic square channel profile. Vice Chair Thompson: And you mentioned that the windows, you said they were painted white, or black? Mr. Ismail: They’re white. The frame of the windows is black, but the casing around them will be white. Vice Chair Thompson: To match the siding and the stucco? Mr. Ismail: Correct. Chair Baltay: Okay. David? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. The windows, they’re awning windows? Is that what you’re showing? Mr. Ismail: They’re mostly casement. The only awning are the large windows in the stairway, where the bottom panel is an awning. Board Member Hirsch: So, the horizontals in the other windows represent what? Muntins, or…? Mr. Ismail: Yeah, exactly. Board Member Hirsch: The casement is a double-hung casement window? Is that what you’re saying? Mr. Ismail: No, just casement… Where, which…? Board Member Hirsch: Casement, they’re going to turn in, out? What happens? Mr. Ismail: They’ll turn out. Board Member Hirsch: Turn out. Okay. Fine. Mr. Ismail: They’ll swing out. Board Member Hirsch: Swing out. Chair Baltay: Are we all set there? I’d like to get to, we do have a member of the public who would like to address us. Taylor Brady? You will have three minutes. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Taylor Brady: Yes. My name is Taylor Brady. [spells name] I’ll also say for the record that I’m a resident of 2342 Yale Street, and a licensed professional civil engineer in the state of California. My license number is C-88968. Primarily, my biggest opposition to this project is its incompatibility with the City’s comp plan provisions for the maintenance of affordable housing. In the staff report even, there’s a critical little bit of information [inaudible]. It’s saying [reading]: As a key component of a diverse, inclusive community, allow and encourage a mix of housing types and sizes, integrated into neighborhoods and designed for greater affordability. That’s pretty much the main point of that. There are precedent projects in the neighborhood, actually one just down the block at 555 Oxford, which was completed in construction just earlier this year. It was a duplex, somewhat similar to this. Instead of two three-bedroom units, it was a four-bedroom unit, a two-bedroom unit. The four-bedroom unit went on the market for $12,000. The two-bedroom unit went on the market for $6,000. The two-bedroom unit was rented out, and the four-bedroom is now listed at $10,000 per month. If you contrast that with a unit like we have, which is currently rented out for $4,300 5.a Packet Pg. 169 City of Palo Alto Page 7 per month, it’s really difficult to understand how destruction of perfectly sound housing that might require some sort of retrofit constitutes maintenance of affordable housing, especially when in the RMD (NP) provisions, the City specifically created the RMD (NP) zone in which this project falls, in order to, let’s say, maintain visual and historic character of existing neighborhoods. And it was established to encourage the retention of existing single-family structures, inclusive of 2342 Yale, and to foster to addition to existing structures in lieu of complete demolitions. Especially given that the applicant has been given notice that, you know, most of the residents will, at a point in 2020, complete their terms in the city of Palo Alto, which is a perfect opportunity for renovations, I don’t see why the applicant shouldn’t be coming to the Board with something compliant with an RMD (NP) provision, i.e. something that doesn’t demolish an existing single-family structure, and something that instead maintains an affordable housing unit in the city of Palo Alto. Thanks. That’s my time. Also, I have a petition signed by 39 neighbors of the College Terrace Residents Association. Chair Baltay: If you could give that to staff, please. And thank you for your comments. We have one additional speaker card on this item. Pria Graves, please? I’m sorry, my eyesight… Pria Graves: Pria Graves [spells name]. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Ms. Graves: I live at 2130 Yale, a couple blocks down, and I’m very, very familiar with this piece of street. I want to echo what my neighbor said about the purpose of the RMD (NP) zoning. It is an extremely dense piece of the neighborhood, so we do have a lot of small houses in the area, and destroying, as he says, a perfectly useable house that maybe needs some updating and renovation, and sending that all off to landfill so they can build a big, new thing that strikes me as a bit stark compared to the neighboring houses. The color image on the plans is sort of not really black and white, which is what has been described. I think if you put a black and white house in that location, it will contrast too starkly with the neighboring houses, which are in softer tones and are smaller. I’d like to push back on this one, as my neighbor has. I don’t think it’s a good fit for the neighborhood. The design is not particularly bad for the neighborhood, and I appreciate the fact that it has been shrunk, but I still think it’s perhaps too much, and too stark in appearance. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you. To the applicant, you have an opportunity to rebut the comments that have been made, if you wish. Okay, if you’re not interested, it’s up to you, but we’re legally required to offer that. Very well, then. Let’s bring this issue back to the Board. Perhaps, Alex, you could start us off. No? Thank you, Alex. Board Member Lew: Okay, so, we have… I think the public speakers have raised a good issue with the RMD (NP) zone, and we’ve only had a couple projects come before the Board that have been presented to demolish existing structures. I think we had one here downtown on Ramona Street, and my recollection is there’s another one somewhere else. I can’t remember offhand, off the top of my head, where it is. The RMD (NP) also does allow replacement of buildings, and it’s up to the Board, and there aren’t really any standards for us to use, so it’s a tricky one. I would say, you guys are saying that the buildings could be retrofitted, and I think that’s probably correct. It seems to me, though, that the buildings are only, like, the existing building is only two feet away from the neighboring building. I’m guessing that that’s not built to any fire standards. I think there’s probably water draining between properties, which actually is not allowed. And then, the rear unit on the property is a soft story, like, a unit above a three-car garage, which is considered, seismically, hazardous, typically. I don’t know all the specifics of the existing building, but typically those are the ones that are the weakness in earthquakes. It’s a tough one. I can see your argument, but also, I think the proposed project is an improvement to the neighborhood. I can recommend, I’m thinking of recommending approval today. I would throw out to my Board members, I think there are a couple things that I think could be better, and I think maybe there’s some odds and ends that should come back to subcommittee. One is, I think where the garbage cans are, I think my recommendation would be to make the driveway wider and lose a little bit of the landscaping. It’s hard to get the garbage cans and the car and passageway through, the walkway through all of that, in 10 feet. You can do it, but it’s 5.a Packet Pg. 170 City of Palo Alto Page 8 really tight. I think 11 is better. Two, I think we should have more information on the colors and finishes, specifically for the wood trellis. I think it’s labeled as “natural.” I think I do want to see more information about that. Those are pretty high-maintenance items. Also, possibly consider finishing the eves on the project. And that’s a big “if,” I would say. I understand that it’s not normal in many new buildings, but it’s fairly typical in older buildings. And then, I think lastly, I would say your bracket detail at the rear unit, I’m not opposed to the bracket in the front unit, but I’m thinking that maybe the rear unit could have a better porch design, a stronger design element to that. But I do like that you’ve tried to do the bracket and tried to do something distinctive on your building. I think I can recommend the native plant, or the plant palette as proposed. There are lots of native plants that grow 10 feet high, but they are also 10 feet wide, and it’s hard to do skinny and tall. And under findings, I think under 2.e, I think I would recommend adding that the project is removing two hazardous conditions on the site. One is the proximity of the building, the existing building to its neighbors, and also the rear unit, which is a soft-story unit above a garage. That is all that I have. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I had a question, actually, about one of your comments, about the driveway width. Are you suggesting the entire driveway get wider, or just that top corner that’s shown on A-4? Board Member Lew: I don’t have actual dimensions. If it actually is wider than… Vice Chair Thompson: I think it’s only showing like that on A-4 because that’s where the trash goes, but… Board Member Lew: I was looking on a different sheet. Chair Baltay: A-4 seems to show an inconsistency. The driveway is wider, yet there is a tree planted in the driveway. Board Member Lew: Okay, well, okay, this is a detail. I would just say for my own house, I have, like, 11 feet, and there’s no landscaping, so it doesn’t look very good. And I need all of that to get the car and the big trash can… The little ones are fine. It’s the big composting one that’s hard to fit in there without having to move all the cars out of the driveway to get it through. If it actually can work with what is drawn, then I’m okay with it, but I don’t have any dimensions, and I didn’t scale it. Chair Baltay: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may clarify. The trash cans also need to be covered, and I think that might be missing from here. There’s going to need to be at least a little shed roof or something. Otherwise, the trash cans need to be in the garage because… For stormwater pollution prevention, is why that needs to be. Chair Baltay: I’m sorry, so, the requirement is that trash cans be covered, and the applicant in front of us doesn’t show them as being covered? Ms. Gerhardt: That’s correct. We can add that as a condition of approval. I think that’s something that staff can handle. We could handle it at a subcommittee also, if we needed to. Chair Baltay: Thank you. David, do you care to bring us along in this discussion? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Baltay: Please do. Board Member Hirsch: First, I just want to say that this is a considerable change from what was shown to us the first time, and I’m appreciative of that effort, however it was achieved, with staff, etc. In the driveway, there’s the AC, from the front entry, kind of right there on the side wall, and I’m wondering if 5.a Packet Pg. 171 City of Palo Alto Page 9 you could find a somewhat better place for that. The rear unit I think has a good location, and the front unit does not. The element over the door, it strikes me as a strange piece of construction. I think it’s kind of a leftover from an earlier scheme, as well, but I personally find it, you know, it’s a gesture that, I don’t know if it’s really necessary. That’s my personal comment. You’ve answered the question about the muntins of the windows, because I was inclined to look at those windows and say that they ought to be awning windows perhaps, rather than casement windows. To have those muntins there, I’m not sure that they are particularly useful. I understand they create a bit of scale, but if it’s a casement window, it could be just a single pane casement window. Again, that’s my personal preference. I don’t know what the rest of the Board would say. The garbage always at the rear of the lot, it’s always kind of a problem, but it looks like there isn’t any real choice in the matter on that, so the enclosure is… And using that piece of the rear yard seems like a reasonable idea. Stepping stones in the yard and access to the bicycle storage, those bicycle storage elements are usually pretty ugly as well, so neighbors are going to have to see something that’s just kind of an ugly box. But if that’s all that is available. I think we’ve seen, actually, in another project that’s being proposed for us today, somewhat better-looking bicycle storage. I would like to see you try to work on that a bit, just not an ugly box. The stucco and horizontal siding, I think is proportional, and a good idea on this project, you know, to separate the two levels. There don’t seem to be any railings on the porches. The porches are above grade, so, I don’t know if it’s required to have a railing on something that is two steps up. Maybe with planning, you could consider that, because if the porches are going to have a railing, that will be an element that we would probably want to look at. I’m a little concerned about lighting areas around the garage. I didn’t ask you to address that before, but I think just having appropriate lighting at the garage is kind of significant for cars coming in or going out. That’s a big garage door that covers the two. It’s a nice-looking entry to a garage, and I’m assuming that that’s an automatic garage door? Okay. I was even kind of wondering if it weren’t possible somehow to locate the actual garbage location within the garage, but there probably isn’t enough space. I think if you looked at that, could consider that, it’s kind of convenient to both units, rather than at the back of the lot, the way it was shown. Those are my considerations of the design elements. In terms of the comments that were made earlier, that kind of creates a dilemma for us, when a project is a, a sort of private sales of condos within a neighborhood that has a certain character. I think it’s, just speaking in general terms, with this opportunity to speak about it, it doesn’t seem to me that it’s always possible to answer those kind of community issues of affordability in a project like this. I don’t think a project like this should be held to that kind of restriction, in answer to the comment that was made. Neighbors will vary in the people who live there. You know, market rate people versus people who are renting. I would see that it’s a big issue that both the Council and the City have to address. I think they’re struggling with it at this point, but not successfully so far. Just a general comment about what you are requesting of this particular owner. I don’t see it as legitimate in all cases. Marketability, etc. And the prices of properties. That’s my comment. Chair Baltay: Before we go on, David, staff had expressly asked us to address the issue of the non-native plantings. Did you have an opinion about that? Board Member Hirsch: I usually leave that to Alex. Chair Baltay: Well, Alex expressed a non-opinion, so I’m wondering if the rest of us have a [crosstalk]. I just want to be sure we’ve addressed something they clearly want us to focus on. Board Member Hirsch: Well, as I say, I don’t look at it that carefully because I’m not knowledgeable enough. I really leave it up to Alex, who is. But I see the effort to do landscaping here and create certain privacy in the lot. I think it’s shown pretty well. I didn’t look at the detail of the plantings themselves. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: All right. Thank you for the application, thank you for your presentation, and thank you to members of the public for voicing your concerns. It seems like this has been going for a while. I’m noticing on this petition here, this is a date… This has kind of been since 2017. Well, you know, the design in front of us is certainly an improvement from what we saw previously, so, in that sense, I wanted to thank the applicant for listening to our feedback. I was actually ready to approve this project until we 5.a Packet Pg. 172 City of Palo Alto Page 10 realized there was no material board. Unfortunately, that’s a really important part of determining whether what you have here is appropriate for the neighborhood, and typically, we get that on the hearing day. In other projects that have been quite expansive, much bigger than this project, that’s sort of been a deal- breaker. Because this project is smaller, I guess I would like to ask the rest of my board how they feel about not knowing what materials are going to be here, if we feel like it could be a subcommittee item or if it’s so important that maybe it can’t be. Site planning-wise, I do think it’s an improvement. It’s nice that it sort of has a little bit of distance from neighbors. Landscaping, again, having sort of… I know Alex has more knowledge about landscape than I do, but if it seems that these plantings that are non-native are typical for screening that are low use… I saw there were a few medium water usage plants, but if they’re mainly low, then that’s okay. Maybe we can review the mediums as well, separately. That’s sort of a dilemma. I think otherwise, everything else that we’ve asked has been satisfied. If we’re going to talk about the bracket, about the entry for the roof, I’ll echo Board Member Lew’s note, that I do think it’s nice to add that level of detail. Any kind of small-scale detail is really important for a residential neighborhood like this. I’ll just leave it at that. I’m sort of conflicted at this moment. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Osma. I share your comments. I came into this meeting thinking this project was a slam dunk, and not seeing the materials board is just a big issue for us. I’m afraid that we start to set a precedent that isn’t a good one. I’ll say the same comment about the native plantings, that I’m sympathetic to the need to get good privacy planting. I’m in support of our code, which says that we need to follow native plantings, and I think that that’s a pretty wide-open door. If you just start to say that native plants can’t be used for privacy purposes, then half the applications we see are going to be looking for exceptions to that rule. And that concerns me deeply. That said, I do hear what Alex is saying about it being difficult to get some of these privacy requirements met with, when the planting set are native. That led me to start looking at the balcony in the back, on the second floor. It’s a fairly generous-sized balcony, which is 20 feet, 15 feet from the back property line, which across that fence is the neighbor’s back yard, albeit a small yard, but their only yard. My understanding in Palo Alto is that we take those privacy concerns seriously, and the only mitigating factor in this case is that they are proposing to put a bunch of strawberry trees back there to get privacy. It’s a real conflict, again. It’s a tight, confined neighborhood, but this balcony, I believe, will definitely impact the privacy, or require us to use non-native species for landscaping, which is a conundrum. Well, I guess we have to come up with an answer. I’m uncertain where to go with that. My opinion is that the non-native landscaping is going to be fine in this case. I don’t think they have a choice. I think the privacy issues will be okay with the non-native landscaping, so that will resolve itself that way. The material board is a significant issue, and I’m afraid we can’t approve it without the materials board, without seeing the full application here, at least in my opinion, so I think that just pushes us on to getting one more hearing with the full application in front of us. I’m sorry. Unless my colleagues feel that we should put this to a subcommittee. I’m just very concerned about precedent here. Does anybody else have any opinions on those issues? Alex? Board Member Lew: Just some follow-up. One, on the plant finding, native plant finding. Several of the plants, I would put in the category of wildlife-friendly, meaning they have berries, or they have flowers that are attractive to bees, so that would be the strawberry trees on the back. Also, the hedge, the prunus Carolina. And also, I think pittosporum tobira, which is like an Australian or New Zealand plant. But that’s actually fairly desirable by bees, and it’s fairly fragrant, too. And it’s used widely. These plants are all used frequently in our plant palettes that we see in town. I think they are fairly normal plants. And then, I think the materials should come back to subcommittee. To require a sample board for, like, wood or stucco, to have a whole third hearing for it, seems really excessive to me. What precedent are we…? We require all these things, and we can do it on a case-by-case basis. It doesn’t mean the next application is going to blow off the application requirement. I mean, it just seems crazy to me. We’re supposed to be trying to encourage housing, improving site conditions. I don’t know. I just don’t see what we get out of it. Do we not know what wood siding looks like? Ms. Gerhardt: Just from a staff perspective, I do appreciate, you know, we should have a materials board here. We certainly will make sure that’s known to all of our applicants in the future. I mean, that’s already been the case, but we will reemphasize that because it is an important thing. I think regarding the planting, as Board Member Lew said, you know, we certainly emphasize the natives, and where we can’t do the 5.a Packet Pg. 173 City of Palo Alto Page 11 natives, then we start emphasizing the habitat quality and the low water use of those plants. Those are the different, sort of levels of preference that we try and go through. All of these projects are also reviewed by the Urban Forestry team, so it has already sort of made it through their review. We just ask your opinions on that, to see if there’s anything that we have missed. We do appreciate, you always find things we’ve missed. Just the trash enclosure that we will get fixed up. But I do agree that subcommittee seems to be the right level for this type of project. Chair Baltay: Osma, any further thoughts about the material board? Vice Chair Thompson: I see Board Member Lew’s point. I think it’s true on a case-by-case basis, especially, like I mentioned, in gigantic, big projects where this material is getting used everywhere, it’s really important to know what it is. Because it’s smaller, I think a subcommittee would work. And I don’t know, it’s not that we don’t know what wood siding looks like, it’s just it’s always so subjective. Sometimes you’ll see something that really doesn’t work, and it’s good to know that beforehand, before knowing that we’re approving this. I’d be open to doing a subcommittee for materials and the trash enclosure. Chair Baltay: David? What do you feel about the material board? Board Member Hirsch: I agree with previous sentiments about it going to committee. I don’t see a small project like this having to be held up for those elements. But, of course, I think we need a materials board. As pointed out, that even from the community comment, that some of the colors are somewhat harsh, so there’s good reason to have a board to respond to that, to see just what those colors are. You can’t do it on these kind of drawings. Chair Baltay: Okay, so… Board Member Hirsch: But I have some other comments that my Board, the Board didn’t talk to the idea of the muntins. A lot of the detail here, the bicycle storage rack, which I commented on, the passage of the bicycles to the front of the house, which I really didn’t mention in detail, require some additional lighting so that you can get a bicycle in and out of that area. And the paving, I’m not so sure that the paving is going to be conducive to moving bicycles back and forth from that particular area. I think there’s a lot of little detail issues that should be addressed in our next meeting, and would hope that you would recognize some of those, including some of the comments I made about muntins and other details within the drawing, that don’t seem to me to respect the purpose of the drawings. I say that, saying that I think it is a vast improvement from the earlier design, and respects the neighbors in its scale and its proportions, and the proportions of the building itself are quite pleasing. I think it will fit in well in this community as a general design, so I’m not saying that I think anything is really terribly wrong with it, except some of those details mentioned. Thank you. Chair Baltay: David, we’re looking for a motion, and what I’ve heard so far is that the Board will be in support of sending this to subcommittee with a recommendation for approval, asking them to re-look at the trash area to make sure you can get pedestrian passage past it; to provide a material and color board with suitable materials. There’s two comments about Finding 2.3, which I don’t think anybody has an issue with. Do you want to try to crystalize what your other thoughts are, so we can all get a sense…? I’m afraid I feel it’s a little bit vague, and I want to understand more specifically what we’d like them to do. Can you do that? Board Member Hirsch: Motion? Chair Baltay: Well, just, how are we going to tell them about the muntins in the window, for example? What is it we’re trying to say? Ms. Gerhardt: I can list out some items, as well, because I did have, from Board Member Lew, there were details on the wood trellis. 5.a Packet Pg. 174 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: Is that…? Board Member Lew: I would put that in with finishes. Colors and materials? Ms. Gerhardt: With colors and materials? Board Member Lew: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: Colors and materials for the wood trellises, as long as everything else. There was a question about finishing the eves? Board Member Lew: That was to the Board. Board Member Hirsch: Mm-hmm. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so that’s one possibility. Vice Chair Thompson: I could be in support of that. Chair Baltay: For what it’s worth, gang, this is basically a house, and this kind of detailing is stuff that you generally leave to the owner, the applicant, the architect, to work through how they’re going to finish the detail over the front door. And I understand that it’s important sometimes, but is it really important in this case, to this design? That’s the question I ask you before we dive in too deep on this. I think the things that we did mention are important, the trash location and stuff, but I want to give them a really clear direction to go if we want additional changes on the exterior. Board Member Lew: On the windows, I don’t support removing the muntins because there are places where they are trying to do clear on the upper part and opaque on the lower part, for privacy to the neighbors. So, you do need somewhere to break it. They also showed, in the previous scheme, they had windows without any, and I think the Board thought it was too out of place in the neighborhood. I think this one fits in better. Also, the other issue is that we had bedroom window requirements, and awning windows don’t comply with that code requirement. Board Member Hirsch: I think I went along with casement windows. I wasn’t suggesting awning windows. Chair Baltay: Yeah, I didn’t hear anything about awnings. I’ve heard questions about the window muntins, about the trellis and brackets over the doors, and about the location of the air conditioning unit, and something about the bicycle location parking, David. Board Member Hirsch: No, it wasn’t. Chair Baltay: I’m sorry. Board Member Hirsch: It was just the quality of a box, of an element on the side of the building. It could be detailed… Chair Baltay: Oh, for bicycle storage on the back side, yeah. Okay. More detail on that. Vice Chair Thompson: I think that’s an off-the-shelf product. The bicycle storage. I don’t think it’s an architectural box, as such. I’ll also echo Board Member Lew. I’m not in favor of removing the muntins. I think it brings a necessary scale to the building. 5.a Packet Pg. 175 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Ms. Gerhardt: I think on the bike locker, it is located behind the garage there, but there is a back door to the garage. I’m assuming maybe people would travel that way, but they could go around the house, as well. I mean, there’s no harm in bringing back some details on that, because I think you talked about lighting as well. That would certainly be a good thing to look at. Chair Baltay: Okay. Who wants to summarize this in a motion? Alex or David, one of you. Alex? MOTION Board Member Lew: I’ll make a motion, that we recommend approval of the project as conditioned in the staff report, with the following additions. One is that it return to subcommittee with the trash enclosure roof. Two, that we amend Finding 2.e. to mention the existing hazard on the site, which is the proximity of the existing building to the neighbors, as well as the soft-story construction of the rear unit. Three is for the colors and materials board to return to subcommittee. Four, that consideration be made to the bike lockers, access and lighting to the bicycle lockers. Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: Okay, moved and seconded. David, do you have any friendly amendments you want to squeeze in there? I want to be sure you have a chance to put your things through. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, yeah, thank you. I agree with this, but disagree with the muntins. However, I caved in. Chair Baltay: You don’t have the support on that one, David. But if you’d like to fit something in about some of these other items you mentioned, please do so now. Board Member Hirsch: I’m satisfied. Chair Baltay: Okay, so, the motion is moved and seconded. Before we vote, I want to come back and address the issue two members of the community brought up, about affordable housing. I don’t think that should affect this project, but this is a good chance for us all to say a piece if we’d like to. And I would like to say that I think it’s a real shame that we’re tearing down perfectly good housing – that’s what this is – just to make place for the exact same amount of housing that’s just more expensive. It’s not an issue the Architectural Review Board can address. It’s an issue the City Council is trying to address, as Board Member Hirsch said. And I think it’s important that we express a strong opinion, at least, about it. If anybody else would like to mount something, now is the time. David? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I like the fact that you’ve made a consideration to rehabilitation when it’s possible. It probably was possible here. Maybe didn’t pan out monetarily for the site, but we can’t go into that, as you noted. But I appreciate the fact that you added that piece to that discussion. Chair Baltay: Anybody else? Vice Chair Thompson: Not knowing the full details of the existing structure, it’s hard, personally, to form an opinion that this shouldn’t have been demolished. There could be other things that we don’t know, reasons, seismic reasons, other reasons why this building shouldn’t stay up. In that sense, I don’t want to express an opinion whether this building should be demolished, or not. Affordable housing is definitely something that City Council is trying to make a priority, and that is, you know, there are a lot of theories on how to amend prices and such, so, I’m all in favor of trying to make Palo Alto more livable. But it is a case-by-case analysis. Like you guys said, it’s not the purview of our board to know that. Board Member Lew: I think maybe at the Council, Planning Commission and Council level, they could review the RMD (NP) zoning requirement. If the intent is really to retain it, then we need to sort of put in a better mechanism for reviewing existing structures, and we don’t really have that in place now. We don’t really 5.a Packet Pg. 176 City of Palo Alto Page 14 know what to do because we’ve had no information and no way to judge it. Perhaps we need to, the Planning Commission could review it and see if there are other cities that are doing something to foster retention of existing buildings that are not historic. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you, Alex, and everybody. With that, we have a motion on the table, moved and seconded. All those in favor, aye. Opposed? Very well. The motion carries 4-0. MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. We will take a five-minute recess at this point. Thank you. [The Board took a short break.] Chair Baltay: Okay, we’re going to bring the Board back into session, please. Next item is number 3, an action item. However, before we start that, I’d like to put out to everyone, we have a scheduled earthquake drill at 10:17 this morning. What we will do is, the first half of this project where we take all the testimony, statements from the applicant and such, and then, we’ll just break for a recess while the earthquake drill is going on, so we can all comply with the safety requirements. It’s just something that’s been scheduled on us. Vice Chair Thompson: Do we know where we go for the earthquake…? Or do we just…? Is it duck and cover? Ms. Gerhardt: No, so, we do need to vacate the building. Staff will be headed towards the library. That’s where we need to meet up. I just need to make sure all of you get out of the building, but if you want to go to coffee after that, you probably could. Chair Baltay: Any idea, Jodie, how long the drill lasts, typically? Ms. Gerhardt: It’s usually only, you know, maybe 15 minutes or so. It’s just a matter of getting everyone out of the building, and then, getting everyone back, is usually… The fire department usually does a quick scan of the building, and that’s about it. Chair Baltay: Is it going to be possible to establish a time to re-adjourn in advance, do you think? I hate to see us start without somebody here, or be waiting. We just don’t know, do we? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, there’s no perfect timing. You could say half an hour and probably be safe, but that’s a fair amount of time, too. Chair Baltay: I’m going to say that we’re going to adjourn 20 minutes after the drill starts at 10:35. All else being equal, unless we can’t get into the building. Just so everybody has their own [crosstalk]. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so, we’ll be back at 10:35. Chair Baltay: It’s only a 20 minute break, essentially. Vice Chair Thompson: Can we get some…? Is duck and cover not a thing anymore? Do we not…? I don’t actually know what we do with the drills. Is there, like, a siren that goes off, and then we all go? Ms. Gerhardt: There’s a siren that goes off, and we need to vacate the building, yes. Chair Baltay: Okay. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3585 El Camino Real [17PLN-00305]: Consideration on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an 5.a Packet Pg. 177 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Existing Structure and Construction of a New Three-Story Mixed-Use Building. A Consideration of a Variance to the Parking Lot Perimeter Landscaping Requirement. Environmental Assessment: Pending Mitigated Negative Declaration in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CN. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP at sahsing@m-group.us Chair Baltay: Action item number 3 is a public hearing regarding 3585 El Camino Real, consideration on applicant’s request for approval of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of an existing structure and construction of a new three-story mixed-use building. A consideration of a variance to the parking lot perimeter landscaping requirement. At that, do we have any disclosures? Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday. Chair Baltay: Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I visited the site this morning. Chair Baltay: I have visited the site as well. David? Board Member Hirsch: I visited the site this past week. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Could we have a staff report, please? Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, thank you. Good morning, I’m Sheldon Ah Sing, contract planner. The applicant has brought in a model to observe. Also, there is a materials board. There is an updated actual color materials there that are essentially detached from the board. With that, I’ll start my presentation. This is a formal review of a development of a three-story mixed-use building with approximately 2,500 square feet of office space, three dwelling units, on a 6,000 square foot lot. The request includes a major architectural review and a variance. No recommendation is sought at this time because we are in the middle of doing environmental clearance of the project. The site is a corner lot that backs into an alley, a service alley, and it’s parallel with El Camino Real for about three blocks. Two other sides of the property are streets, El Camino Real and Matadero. The site was formerly an automobile use site and is subject to remediation for hazardous waste, although that has been cleared by the County of Santa Clara. Generally, buildings in the area are one to two stories. There’s vacant property across the street, so it is an area that is in transition. [inaudible], but this is truly one area. The Comprehensive Plan and zoning allows for mixed use. One thing, though. If they do mixed use, then they have to do multi- family, which under the definition is a minimum of three units. This is a photo of the site from the rear perspective, looking at the service alley and Matadero. This shows the service alley in the context of adjacent residential, is multi-family. There are some constraints that the site has, and I think this is a good photo. It will get to some of the various issues that we want to talk about later on. You can see there the overhead utility line, and there’s a guy wire that comes onto the property. You can see really how small this site is. It does include a major architectural review, which is demolition of the existing former structure that is set back pretty far on the property. Dwelling units are broken down into two one-bedroom units and one two-bedroom unit. The office space is located on the first and second floor. Residential is on the second and third floor. Parking is provided by two means. One is a mechanical puzzle lift that’s under the building, within the building, at grade, and also, covered service parking in the rear. There is a single driveway off of Matadero Avenue that would lead to the mechanical parking, as well as the covered parking space. The variance is for the perimeter parking lot landscaping. We’ll go a little bit into that. There’s a five-foot requirement for that, and the project can’t meet that as proposed. This just shows the site plan. Fifty percent of the site essentially is covered by the building and the other half is what supports the building with respect to the driveway, the covered parking spaces, the electrical transformer, the covered trash and recycling. There’s also some ADA surface parking requirements, and that access has to be paved in front of the parking spaces. All that takes up some of the potential areas for landscaping. You’ve got also the covered bike locker there that’s along the service alley. This project does use a contemporary design. I’ll let the applicant go into that in more detail. It is a floor above other structures in the area. It also helps to 5.a Packet Pg. 178 City of Palo Alto Page 16 look at Sheet A3.11 in your packet. That includes a context study with a three-dimensional proposed building, shows kind of how this would be in relation to everything else in the area, as it currently stands. This is your elevations of the building. It shows the adjacent building there that is one story above. Again, this is from Matadero, elevation. It’s taken from the gas station across the way. And then, you have the service alley view here. And this is the part that there is some concern because of the perimeter landscaping. The requirement is five feet, so there are limitations there. This is taken of the opposite side. You can see the cut-through of the adjacent building. That’s pretty much at the [inaudible] setback. These are the findings for variance, and these are typically for something that is unique about the property that’s causing the constraint, that’s not imposed by other properties in the area. A classic example is an irregular shape lot, or you have a creek that runs through it, or a large boulder. In this case here, really, the issues are, we have a small lot. There are other smaller lots within the area, but if you look at what is there now, and you have to quantify it, that it was an automobile use, I don’t think you could put that back today, just given everything else you’d have to do. You could certainly take into consideration the applicant needs something that will pencil [phonetic] out, probably not something that the City really looks like, but the consideration when you look at these properties [inaudible]. That’s a consideration of a small lot. It is bound by streets or alleys on three sides, so there are actually setbacks there. The service alley in the back, you have overhead utilities, and you’ve got a line that comes down onto the property, so there are some limitations with respect to the types of vegetation that you can put underneath those overhead lines. The electric department is not going to allow tall trees or trees with canopies that have to be maintained or worry about. Other issues you have, these trash enclosures have become really significant structures over time because of water quality regulations in and of itself, infrastructure that we have to look at to be compatible with the building. There are space requirements required for maintenance of these, including the electrical transformer, bicycle parking – all these things put into a site where, if you did have a multi- family project, you have to do at least three units, so that adds parking. So, they have a lot of considerations. There certainly are things that we’re open to hearing from the Board regarding how to get out of this, if the variance is something that’s not supported. I did bring that up to the applicant in terms of potentially moving the footprint of the building five feet towards El Camino Real. Maybe that might provide some benefit there. They would have a smaller office footprint, for instance. CEQA is currently underway. We are anticipating a mitigated negative declaration, so the next time we come back, I probably will have some draft of that. In conclusion… We do want to come back to, we want to complete the CEQA document, come back to the ARB, and we want to consider the proposed project and provide feedback on the project design to staff and applicant, and then, continue to a date uncertain. With that, I conclude my presentation. The applicant does have a PowerPoint or a PDF presentation. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sheldon. Any questions for staff? I have two, if I could, Sheldon. One is, I want to understand clearly, staff supports the request for a variance, the rationale being that the property is bounded on three sides by drive aisles, and that’s the reason that the property is unique? I just want to understand clearly what the logic is. Mr. Sing: I think we’re not entirely… I wouldn’t say we’re entirely support… I mean, we’re open to finding, maybe some other solutions that we can get out of a variance, but those are just some things that we noted that are potential means for considering the basis of approval of a variance. Chair Baltay: And then, maybe this is later, for the applicant, but what I’m seeing on the site survey is the public utility line seems to cross the private property, and yet, I don’t see any mention of an easement on the private property. Are you aware of that kind of conflict, or am I just missing something here? Mr. Sing: I’d have to look into those. Chair Baltay: You’re not aware of any…? Mr. Sing: Not off the top of my head, no. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? If not, the applicant, would you care to make a presentation? You will have 10 minutes. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. 5.a Packet Pg. 179 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Yan Sun, KSS Management: My name is Yen Sun. I am representing KSS Management, one of the owners for this… Chair Baltay: Could you please spell your name for the transcriber? Ms. Sun: [spells name] Chair Baltay: Thank you. Ms. Sun: Good morning, everyone. I’m representing KSS Management, and I’m very excited to be here. I also feel very lucky to have my architect here with me. We worked really hard, almost two years, to get to this point, and there are so many different revisions of the design, with variance, and with design, the size of the home, the property. We also feel really lucky to have Sheldon to be really supportive and responsive when we have any questions. As you see, this part of El Camino Real is really old, and a lot of businesses looks like not taking very good care of. I hope our project is the new look of the neighborhood and bring value to the neighborhood as well. I really appreciate your support, and hopefully we can work together to make the community better and better. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Good morning. Joseph Bellomo, Architect: Good morning. My name is Joseph Bellomo. I’m an architect on University Avenue. I’ve been in this town for more than 40 years. We’re just… Pratima Shah will be talking. She’s the project architect. We are just thrilled to be working on this project. I’ve designed quite a few projects on El Camino, shopping centers, hotels, mixed use. We actually did one of the first mixed-use buildings in Sunnyvale. If you have any questions for me, please let me know. And then, Pratima will be presenting. Thank you. Pratima Shah, Architect: Good morning, ARB members and city officials. My name is Pratima Shah, and as the project architect, it’s my pleasure to present the design proposal for 3585 El Camino Real. I just wanted to mention, the design proposal that you see today is not an overnight solution, but it has evolved after a work of over one and a half years. We did consider and explore different programs, worked with consultants and city officials, to fulfill all the requirements of the City of Palo Alto and building codes, and make the project viable for our clients on that 6,000 square foot micro [phonetic] site. With the possibility of one- story office building, two story office building with on-grade parking, three-story mixed-use building with parking on grade, and the traffic demand management plan to avoid conflicts, all other options were ruled out because they were not able to fulfill the code requirements, and needed a variance or are not financially feasible. The project has become feasible only after implementation of housing incentive plan, so we are taking advantage of the incentives the City of Palo Alto is offering. The site is located in CN District and Barron-Ventura area, with 60 foot frontage on El Camino Real and 105 foot on Matadero Avenue, served by alley [inaudible]. The property is neighboring two-story commercial building on El Camino Real, a gas station on Matadero Avenue, and a residential complex and alley. As mentioned in the South El Camino Design Guidelines, in Barron-Ventura area, the buildings do not have well-executed architectural design. This proposed building do not have any prominent architectural design context. We take this as an opportunity to revitalize the corner as neighborhood node, and enhance visual appearance. Here are pictures of the context, and it shows the alley. We have seen those as presented by Sheldon. The program. We proposed three-story mixed-use building with 1,250 square foot office space on first floor, 1,000 square foot office and a 12,000 [sic] square foot one-bedroom residence on the second floor, and two residential units on the third floor. The one-bedroom residence on the third floor is around 900 square feet, and two- bedroom is 1,200 square foot. The proposed office square footage is 2,500 square foot, which is 600 square foot less than the permitted, and the total residential square foot is around 4,200 square foot, which is, I strongly want to mention, is 5,000 less than proposed [inaudible] residential square footage. The site plan. The planning and siting of previous functions in the building on site create an intimate sense of order, and provide a desirable environment for occupants. Pedestrian activity and commercial uses are located in front along El Camino Real, and based on the entrance from Matadero Avenue, the service is located along the service alley. The building is set back four feet from the property line on El Camino Real and five feet on 5.a Packet Pg. 180 City of Palo Alto Page 18 the Matadero side, creating the desirable 12-foot sidewalk. The layout eliminates existing 30-foot [inaudible] entry and a curb cut on El Camino Real. It creates a cohesive street scape, as well as promotes pedestrian [inaudible]. The entry to the ground floor office space is on the corner of El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue, while the entrance to the stairway up to the second and third floor is on Matadero Avenue side. The pedestrian entrance to the building is located towards the corner of El Camino and Matadero, while vehicular entrance is on the Matadero side, providing good separation between pedestrian and vehicle environment. A 12,050 square foot office space on ground floor is enclosed by 10 foot glass door fronts on El Camino, maintaining the rhythm of the existing storefronts on the neighboring buildings. The building requires 14 car parking spaces, which are provided in the rear half corner, rear half part of the building. Out of 14 cars, 11 car parking spaces are provided on two level mechanical car lift system, manufactured by Klaus Parking. The residents and employees will have assigned car parking spaces, with charging stations if required. There will be three covered car parking spaces on grade, including van accessible parking space, and a charging station. Short-term bicycle parking provided near the ground- floor office building entrances as desired, and long-term bicycle parking provided towards the alley. The trash enclosure is located on the northwest corner of the property, with on-site access for the residents and access from the alley for the trash management company. There is existing utility pole on the northwest corner of the property, with a guy wire support and overhead power lines along the alley. On the second floor, the proposed office space is on the El Camino Real side, and one-bedroom residence on the alley side. The office has two landscape terraces, which can be used as break-out [phonetic] spaces and informal meetings. We are proposing a vertical screen garden in the balcony of the office of El Camino Real. The vertical garden screen can assist of a metal cable trellis, which will form a guide for the creepers. This garden screen has many advantages, and it will filter natural light, will act as a passive measure is reducing solar gain from southwest façade. It will mitigate noise and dust from six-lane El Camino Real. It will create beautiful view from inside and outside and will make urban space more livable. The one-bedroom residence on the second floor has covered landscape terrace and a balcony. Open floor plan, northeast frontage, operable doors and windows, and landscaped private terraces will make this unit desirable and livable space. The third floor has two residential units, two-bedroom residential units facing El Camino Real, while one-bedroom residence is facing the alley. The two-bedroom residence has been set back from El Camino, creating beautiful terraces for outdoor use and more privacy for interior spaces. Now, we’ll go through the pictures of the model, showing different views. The building design comprises of overhangs, recesses, balconies and terraces, which articulate the building façade. The play of light and shadow enhances the building composition, while 3form cladding accentuates the exposed concrete. The natural landscape elements like garden screen wall make the building more organic. The building has exposed structural composition. The first and second floor will have reinforced concrete structure system, and second and third floor slabs will be of reinforced concrete. The mechanical system will be placed on the roof. The building material is composed of sustainable building materials. Primary material of construction is concrete. The proposed concrete mix consists of 70 percent replacement of cement with slag, which is a byproduct of iron extraction process. It makes concrete mixture more stronger and more impermeable to water. The environmentally-friendly, as it reduces the use of cement, which is significant emission polluter during the refinement process. 3form coating XT is a human-made, renewable polycarbonate material. It is weatherable, durable, long-lasting, and recyclable translucent building material. The cladding avoids the paint on the exterior of the building, and thus reduces the required building maintenance. It also has a strong ultraviolet stabilization technology and maintains the aesthetic of the project. To conclude my presentation… Chair Baltay: Could you finish this up, please? We’ll give you one more minute, okay? Ms. Shah: Concluding, yes. I just wanted to mention that after working for one and a half years on this project, we, the owners and architects, are pleased and satisfied with the design proposal. The design solution has evolved with discussions with owner, consultant, city officials, and product vendors, contractors, possible future users. We think we have a win/win design situation. I request your support to proceed and not lose the opportunity to revitalize the corner, which has been empty for the last 27 years. Thank you. 5.a Packet Pg. 181 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Chair Baltay: Thank you for your presentation. I’d like to see if we have any questions from the Board of the applicant. I think we might. Osma, do you want to start us off? Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Question on your materials. Is this replacing the one on the left here? Ms. Shah: It is addition to that… Vice Chair Thompson: In addition? Ms. Shah: … it only shows the color of the 3form. The larger piece is the custom-made order, like, this is what the material will look like. Vice Chair Thompson: So, not this? Ms. Shah: No. That is just for the material, not the color, no. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. And is this the color of the concrete? Ms. Shah: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: The concrete is showing just in the floor plates and the columns, and this color is, what is…? Ms. Shah: Cladding on the wall, which is shown [crosstalk]… Vice Chair Thompson: Everywhere else. Ms. Shah: Yeah. On the model. Vice Chair Thompson: We don’t have a glass sample, correct? Ms. Shah: No. We are planning to use caramel exterior glazing, which is double insulated low-e glazing for energy efficiency. Vice Chair Thompson: And, so, the railings are like a frosted…? Ms. Shah: Frosted glass, yes. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Okay. That’s all my questions. Chair Baltay: I just want to follow up on the material. I’m just not understanding the paneling I see on the façade of the building, at the top. Is it this material…? Ms. Shah: Yes. Chair Baltay: … or is this color? Ms. Shah: Yes. Chair Baltay: This is a, like, sea glass of some kind? Ms. Shah: It is a polycarbonate material. Chair Baltay: And you’re showing sharply mitered corners. Is that something you can do with this material? 5.a Packet Pg. 182 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Ms. Shah: Yes. Chair Baltay: Without any issues on chipping or anything like that? Ms. Shah: We have used this material at 102 University Avenue, and used [inaudible] material in the back of the 3form, which allows for expansion and contraction of the material. And it is possible to have the edge of the [turns away from microphone, inaudible. Conversing with someone off-microphone.] Chair Baltay: I’ll give you some latitude, but I’m skeptical, and would like to see, as we really approve this, some evidence of how this stuff meets at corners and things. It shows very nicely in your renderings. Ms. Shah: May I send some existing pictures of the building cladding, like, the use, at a couple of our projects? Board Member Lew: Actually, you have the house, too, right near Hamilton, and I think after your University Avenue presentation, I actually did look at the house. There are local examples to look at. Chair Baltay: I believe Joe Bellomo when he says it, but I just want to see it, at the same time. Ms. Shah: Sure, we can make a sample, like, mock-up, too. Chair Baltay: One other question for you, before my colleagues. You’re showing a number of concrete structural floor plates, look like about 12 inches thick. You’re bound to have some sort of lights and other fixtures on that surface. Your intention will be to recess them into the surface, so it’s all poured in place, so there’s no surface conduits or any other finishes on that surface. Ms. Shah: Okay. Chair Baltay: Okay. I just want to be sure that’s the intent. We’ve seen other buildings of this design style by other architects where that detail wasn’t followed, and it doesn’t look so good. Okay. Any other questions? Mr. Bellomo: We’ve been doing exposed concrete for a while. Chair Baltay: I’m aware of that. Mr. Bellomo: Okay. Chair Baltay: I just want to be clear for the record what we’re looking for. That’s what makes this work, is that clean-looking frame. Alex? Board Member Lew: I have a question on the 3form as well. You’re showing it on the property line condition, like, a zero lot line. Is it fire rated? Ms. Shah: Yes, it has two Class B fire rating. Board Member Lew: Okay. I just want to… I’m sort of concerned about that. As long as the building department is okay with that, I’m okay with it. Ms. Shah: Okay. This Koda XT is for external use only, but there are other [inaudible]. But it has Class B fire rating. Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. I’ve looked into 3form, but not into the Koda. I’ve just looked at the regular 3form for interior uses. And then, on the perforated mechanical screen, perforated metal, do you have a particular one that you’re…? Like this? I’ll go into it later when we get to comments, but I do have 5.a Packet Pg. 183 City of Palo Alto Page 21 a concern that, when you select ones that are open, relatively open, versus closed, that you can actually see through the… Ms. Shah: Sixty percent of opening and 40 percent coverage, yeah. Board Member Lew: And have you used that one before? Ms. Shah: Yes, on 116 University Avenue roof, yeah. Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. I’ll take a look at that project. Chair Baltay: Any other questions? David? Board Member Hirsch: No. But the screening is used… Yeah, actually, okay. The screening is used on the top of the building, mechanical enclosure. There’s a bit of screening also used in the southeast corner, and it’s the same material for screening in that area? Against the aisle that’s adjacent to the…? Ms. Shah: No. Board Member Hirsch: Is that correct? Ms. Shah: It’s not the same screening. Board Member Hirsch: Same kind of screening. Ms. Shah: It’s not. Board Member Hirsch: It’s not? Ms. Shah: The main reason we have screening on the southeast corner is for visual… It’s a corner for vehicles to… yeah. For visual clarity. It will be more open screen than what we have for perforated. Board Member Hirsch: We don’t have a sample of that? Ms. Shah: We don’t, yeah. Board Member Lew: I have one more question. Are you planning to incorporate public art into this project, or are you thinking about paying the fee in lieu? Ms. Shah: I treat the whole building as public art. I we need additional features, we can really think of… Board Member Lew: We just have a City… [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: … Yeah, we have a City requirement, and I think usually the applicant, you can decide to pay the fee… Ms. Shah: [crosstalk]. Board Member Lew: … or to incorporate the art. And I think you have to… Ms. Shah: Actually, it’s for more than 10,000 square foot… Board Member Lew: Building? And this is under. Thank you for that. 5.a Packet Pg. 184 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Baltay: Can I then shift away from the building to the back of the property? I asked that question earlier about the power line. Do you have any further information for us about that? Ms. Shah: Overhead power line? Chair Baltay: Yeah. Staff seems to be pointing that a partial justification for your variance request might be the power lines being on your property as a unique condition. The survey, I believe, shows the power line crossing the back corner of your property. Ms. Shah: Yes. Chair Baltay: Is there an easement or some official…? Ms. Shah: There’s no easement recorded right now, but since there are lines, we will have to record these. Chair Baltay: Your intention – maybe this is more to the owner – is to grant the City an easement for existing power lines that are on your property? It seems unlikely. Ms. Shah: Yeah, we will have to, the electrical engineer from the City of Palo Alto mentioned we will have to record it if [inaudible]. Chair Baltay: You have to grant them an easement. Ms. Shah: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Okay, because then, that would start to be an issue that would speak to a variance. That’s certainly an unusual circumstance, to say the least. Any other questions from the group here? I have just one final question, then we’re going to take a break. And this is to the owner. You don’t have to answer this, but I’d like to know if your intention is to retain Bellomo Architects to finish this project through, to do the construction drawings. Could you speak to the microphone about that? Ms. Sun: That’s for sure. Chair Baltay: Thank you. That’s wonderful. I just wanted to hear that put into the record. Thank you. Ms. Sun: We have been working really hard. We’re super satisfied with their work, yeah. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Any other questions for staff? Any other comments? With that, we’re going to take a recess until 10:30 today, to allow for the earthquake drill. [Video and audio ceases briefly.] Chair Baltay: … the meeting. Seeing we have no one left. I just don’t think it makes sense to speak for seven minutes and get broken up on it. So, we will adjourn until 10:35 today. Thank you. [The Board took a short break for an earthquake drill.] Chair Baltay: Okay. Good morning. We’re going to reconvene back in session. Thank you everybody for your patience. We were discussing project 3585 El Camino Real. We had just finished taking public testimony and hearing from the applicant, so I’d like to bring the issue back to the Board for discussion. I’d like David to start us off with his comments about this project. David? Board Member Hirsch: Well, we usually start off by saying “thank you” to the applicants here, for their application. I spent a lot of time looking at the building as its drawn, looking at that corner and thinking this is a section of Palo Alto that’s desperately in need of blocks of work. And I want to thank you because 5.a Packet Pg. 185 City of Palo Alto Page 23 I think you created the high bar on which maybe some other developments along the street will catch fire and do something. I guess I’m a little concerned about some of the uses, which is not what we normally talk about here, because you have ground floor office space and upstairs office space. I know a little bit about the community’s desire for some retail commercial nearby because there isn’t much in their neighborhood. I didn’t ask the question before, but I would hope that maybe it’s possible somehow that some of that gets solved. It may not be this building. That’s an open question, I think. To typify what I feel about the building, it’s kind of a rough, high-tech building, kind of a wonderful mixture. I’m happy about that aspect of it. I think the scale of it is pretty terrific. I’m a little confused about the solar collectors on the roof. I’ve seen them up there, but I don’t know how far you’ve gone with that, so I would ask you to talk to that a little bit. It seemed to me that there were some at one end, the north end of the building, but not on the rest of the rooftop. What is the use of the solar collectors for this building? Ms. Shah: We will be using solar panels for solar energy. Right now, I have shown the indication of where we want to have the solar panels. We will make sure they are not visible from the pedestrian level, and after we do detailed calculation and find out how many panels we need, then we will show an accurate… Board Member Hirsch: It’s in progress, in other words. Ms. Shah: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, thanks. Ms. Shah: But we intend to use solar panels. Board Member Hirsch: Good. Ms. Shah: [inaudible] solar panels. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. While you’re up there, I have another question for you. What’s the use of the aisle in the southeast corner of the building, of the lot itself? It’s called an aisle, and it’s adjacent to van- accessible parking. There’s sort of two aisles. Chair Baltay: Which drawing are you looking at, David, please? Board Member Hirsch: Drawing A1.2. Ms. Shah: One is van accessible charging station, which needs aisle on their passenger side, and other is van accessible parking. That also has eight foot aisle on the passenger side. It also has access to the building [inaudible]. Board Member Hirsch: Is it sort of…? There’s some space in the southeast corner, and there’s a van accessible charging station. I see that written on that drawing, but I don’t understand exactly what’s happening either side of parking spot 14. What is…? Ms. Shah: That’s the aisle for accessible space. Like, loading/unloading zone for accessibility. Board Member Hirsch: Access. Ms. Shah: Yes. Mr. Sing: That would be the path of travel, part of the code. They need that to get around the vehicle safely, and that goes from the parking lot to the entrance of the building. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I know it’s a direct access to the building. I really don’t have all that many questions to ask about the building. I think the documents you provided are very thorough all the way 5.a Packet Pg. 186 City of Palo Alto Page 24 through, so there aren’t very many questions that I have that weren’t really answered in the drawings, in the presentation. I would like to say that I think that you notice right away in this lot that the sidewalk is pretty damn small, and I appreciate the fact that the building was set back a bit, and that it’s a gesture towards the street that I hope everybody will pick up on and do exactly the same kind of setback from El Camino. I think it is critical to make a softer corner so that squeezing trees in somehow is absolutely critical all the way around this property, including the alley, which, although it’s just an alley, has entrances to units, residential units, and is used by the community as a kind of through-way to get downtown, or whatever, because El Camino isn’t so friendly right now in that area. Hopefully in the future it will be. The best you can, with comments about the overhead being an issue with the trees, or whatever, the amount of trees in the back, I don’t know if you’ve been so specific about what kinds of trees, bushes, whatever, will be there, but the fact that you simply show them is important in the alley. I guess, you know, I struggled in looking at these drawings to figure out, is that the best place for the garbage? It’s so far from the front door to the building. But then, it’s not a big lot, and I guess people will just have to go there, and that’s it. It is kind of concealed in a building of some sort there, which is nice. It won’t be… Ms. Shah: Transformer size and position was the main constraint for the position of trash. Board Member Hirsch: It will be closed in with a door… Ms. Shah: Yeah. Trash enclosure. Board Member Hirsch: There’s a lot of different things happening in the back of the lot, all of which I can see are necessary. You did the best you could on that. It isn’t such a friendly area, but then again, you certainly made it friendlier towards the corner by plantings, etc. I really appreciate the fact that you have this kind of rough/smooth juxtaposition with the stone, stones within that graded wall. I’ve seen some good examples of that, you know, and they’re really a scale of themselves, you know, that provide a friendlier attitude, rather than simply a block wall, or even a stone wall. I think the scale is very nice when you break it down like that. And, of course, the lifts work well, to answer the issue of parking. They also do require you to have a very tall floor-to-floor on the first floor, but I guess one has to accept that. I would hope that the City could work with you and provide all of the approvals that are necessary to make this building work. And I really want to commend you on one aspect that I really liked a lot, and that’s the concrete frame itself, stopping at the second level, except when it turns the corner and provides entry to the upstairs floors. Setbacks are very nice off the street. So, I think it will be a very successful building, and as I say, I think it’s the high bar for the area. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Osma, do you want to bring us along? Vice Chair Thompson: Sure. All right. Thank you for your application, thank you for your presentation. Unfortunately, I have a bit more of a critical perspective than my fellow board member. I mean, we’re missing a few materials, like the fence on the back. It’s really important that we get the materials that we’re going to be experiencing, like the planters. What are the planters made of? I don’t need a stone sample from the gabion, but it’s good to know these things that are, like, standing out. Because this project is fairly minimal, the materials are so important. The rendering and the material board, the rendering is kind of showing the concrete having this texture, which I don’t foresee if this is the finish. It’s not really going to look like that. I have an issue with the way that… These renderings are percented. In general, I would say, like, this model is so beautiful, and thank you so much for making it. It’s so helpful in understanding what’s happening. When I’m looking at the renderings, the amount of relief in the façade doesn’t feel like it’s enough. It feels very smooth and slick, and I’m a little worried that it might feel like too much of a block as a result. I think there’s more detail you could put, and maybe that’s in how you treat the planters in the front. But in general, the design seems a little bit too… It needs a little bit more relief than it has right now. In general, though, in terms of the shape, I like that it’s compact. In terms of your site planning, it seems to make sense with what you have. It’s too bad the zoning only limits you to 35. You were talking about the affordable housing problem. This could be a high-rise, and that would solve a lot of stuff. This might not even be a bad spot for that, actually, given that it’s kind of in this sort of up- and-coming area that’s probably going to see a lot of change. In that vein, I wonder if there’s opportunities 5.a Packet Pg. 187 City of Palo Alto Page 25 here for kind of prepare for the future. I was learning a bit about mass timber a little bit ago, which is a building construction type, and with mass timber, you can build three stories, four stories, and then, later on, if you want to add another six stories, you can. It kind of has this design that’s ready for the future. Concrete is not as sustainable as wood. I’m not saying that you should change your material, but there’s a lot of opportunity here to be, like you said, the face of what the new, what this area is going to become, because it’s going to evolve. When you guys come back to us, actually, I think it would be really helpful to kind of understand your parti a little better. I thought your parti was these floating floor plates that kind of stick out, but I think the gloss… Sorry. What am I saying? Not the gloss. The frosted glass really kind of derail your floor plate parti, if that is your design intent, that you want these floating things. It kind of blurs it a little bit. Your floor plates aren’t reading as strong as it could, and you could use a different material to have that pop out. I do think it needs a little bit of work. I’ll stop there. Thanks. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. Alex. Board Member Lew: I’m generally in support of your project. We do get complaints from other property owners in the neighborhood that the zoning doesn’t allow them to build enough, and that’s why nothing has been happening there. I’m glad to see that you’re taking advantage of the housing incentive program here. I think everybody in the City is trying to figure out ways of adding more housing, so I will support the project in that vein. I think there are a couple things I’m looking for. One is, if the site plan could… Your contextual site plan. If it could show a little more information with regard to the multi-family building next door, across the street from the alley, which I think is 482 to 488 Matadero. When I was on the site visit, I did see four doors right on the alley, just maybe like four or five feet or something from the alley. I do want to know if those are, are those front doors? Or are those just back service doors? What’s happening? Because your project is going to affect the site. Terrible as it is now, the existing condition. I just want to know, what are we dealing with there with regard to privacy to those units? I think I echo some of Osma’s comments on the building. Some of them. I guess when I look at your existing project on University Circle, I do appreciate many of the things on those buildings. But I also do think that I’m looking for more. To me, one of the weaknesses I see in that one is maybe on the landscape and the vines growing up in the building, with the rebar. I am looking for the details on that. And you’re showing some with the vines, and I think I support what you’re showing at the moment. But, to me, I think that’s sort of the critical piece, the way I’m looking at it. I think the weakness in this project is we don’t have ground floor retail. We have office, and it’s allowed. Also, that the high-performance glazing, you know, with, like, the low-e glazing, it’s kind of dark, it’s kind of reflective, it’s not that great from a pedestrian point of view. Like, if I walk along University Circle, at least to my eye, it’s not that interesting, so I think all those planters and things that you’re doing are really critical. Any level of filigree and detail and interest, to me, is really critical. I think the staff report didn’t mention the South El Camino Design Guidelines, but we’ve talked about this before on other projects – the top, middle, base issue. There is sort of a guideline to not screen windows on the second floor. I think in this case, I think the planters that you’re doing are desirable. But I think the intent of the design guidelines was to prevent screening as in one of your neighbors. I think there’s one maybe two doors down. I think that’s sort of the thing that we’re trying to avoid. Like, shutter kinds of things on the windows. I think we’re also looking for pedestrian-friendly amenities. I think you’re showing a bench, but it’s also in bamboo, so I’m not sure if I’m reading the plans correctly. But I think we’re looking for more detail, you know, sophisticated design, to make it really attractive for people. And I think the project, you’ll get there. It’s just I want to see more. I’d like to see more information on that. I think that’s all that I have on this project. I think you’re off to a very good start, and I think the staff report is right, and I think we do have to look at the variance findings along the back property line, and the perimeter landscaping. Okay. That’s all that I have. And I do support Peter’s previous comments about recessing light fixtures and stuff. When you have these reinforced concrete buildings, everything has to be planned out in advance. And we have other projects – who will remain nameless – where stuff was tacked on. It was not thought about, it does not look good, and it’s just a shame because it just has to be… It’s just better design if you can integrate everything in from the beginning. Okay. I’ll pass it along. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Okay. I think this is an incredibly handsome building. I think it’s really beautiful. It’s one of the nicest things I’ve seen recently come in front of us as an artistic composition. It’s attractive, it’s logical, the scaling, the massing, all works. I’m very highly favored by it. I have a couple of 5.a Packet Pg. 188 City of Palo Alto Page 26 questions, and then, I’m not so positive about the parking and the whole situation in the back. But I really, as Osma was bringing up, I just need to understand better the materials. How is that concrete going to look next to the frosted glass railing, which is flush? How is this other material up on the roof level going to meet the concrete at the corners and stuff? I’ll grant, you guys have a great track record, you’ve done it before, but every time, we need to understand what’s going on. On the building design, I do have one significant concern, and it’s not so much, I think, to do with the artistry of your architecture, but rather the requirements of the zoning ordinance, and in this case, the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines, which require buildings to have a distinct base, middle and top. I don’t think this building has that. I’m sorry to say that in this case, but I do think that that’s the standard, that’s the rule, and that’s what we’re here to enforce. We’ve done that with other projects. I guess what I can say to you is to please try to take seriously that requirement. We’re trying to create urban boulevards with buildings that are background, creating large public space in front of it. Buildings then have this distinct bottom, middle and top to help create the walls of that outdoor space. We’re not looking for a series of sculptural, one-off masterpieces. We’re looking for buildings that create a better urban fabric. I’m just giving you the thought process behind that requirement. And we’re here not to debate the merits of that, but rather to enforce that, so I would ask you to take that to heart and show us how this building does have a base, a middle and a top. It’s a requirement; we need to see it. Right now, I’m afraid, as much as I like the concrete frame and the grid and all that, it doesn’t meet that requirement. I don’t know how much more I can say about it than that, but it’s there. If I could address the issue in the back. Alex put his finger on something I think is very important. Across the alley, you have a building with quite a few people living there, and their front door, so to speak, is right on the alley, and it’s more or less across from your garbage area. It seems to me little thought has been given as to how your building will impact other people in the alley. I’ll grant you, theirs is not the most beautiful situation. Nonetheless, they are there, and we do need to work with them. It leaves me wondering if you wouldn’t have been better off trying to bring in the traffic and the access from the alley, not from the street. I know that’s a big design shift, and I’m not trying to design for you, but I’m just thinking as a thought process that went through my head, that there might be a way to mess around with that. I am equally concerned about the requirement for a variance. I don’t see the justification for it here. I don’t think you have a unique and different situation. Just being a property with an alley in the back is not unique and special, at least not enough. And the variance requires that. If you can’t meet that, there must be some way you can meet this landscaping requirement and meet these parking requirements. Right now, I don’t think you’re meeting that requirement, and I think you have to. I’m sorry. It’s a tight lot; it’s a challenging situation. You’re trying to please a hundred masters here. I think the rules are the rules, and it’s not for us to say, “Well, it’s good enough.” Especially on things like variances. You’ve got to work with staff on that. That’s how I see it, at least, that we need to be able to make those findings. Right now, in the back, it seems that there might be other ways to configure that other parking business to meet the needs of the building and be a little better integrated on the alley, and not to need a variance. I don’t have any additional comments to those. Does anybody else want to chime in with anything else? I think we’ll be continuing your project because we need an environmental report anyway. And you’re hearing something of a mixed set of inputs, I think, from us up here. Does anybody want to add anything, given what everybody else has been saying? Board Member Hirsch: Well, you know, listening to Peter, I’d like to make a couple of comments on some of his comments. I really think it would be an error to have the entry to the parking from the alleyway, my reason being, for one, we’re talking about the adjacent buildings. That certainly will not improve them in any way. You’re going to be looking at an in-and-out situation on a very small, tight alley between a residential building and the back of this building. I don’t think it would help us to have an entry to the parking lot. I think the dimension of the area between the parking spaces provides an obvious entry to it from Matadero, rather than from that alleyway. You know, I looked long and hard at the back areas, which seemed to be the most problematic of this building. I would have wished somehow the trash were somehow rearranged, but to look at all the restrictions that are there to deal with all of that, it’s a tough problem at that point. That’s perhaps the toughest problem on this site. And thinking about alternates, I just couldn’t come up with any reasonable one. This seemed like the best solution, the way it’s drawn. And it’s also recognizing the fact that this is a pedestrian alleyway, so the corner of it has as much planting as you can manage to squeeze in. I agree that we need to see more about that. We really need to see what is going to be there in more detail. But I would think that you’ve already thought about it, so I think you can solve 5.a Packet Pg. 189 City of Palo Alto Page 27 it. The parking is what it is. I mean, I think City planning is accepting the parking at this point, are you not? Can I address that to Planning? It is what it is. You’ve made the best of it that you can, out the back. You know, in this day, with all the Ubers and what-not, you really wonder if all the parking is going to be necessary, especially if it’s adjacent to a commercial block and bus services, etc. Public transportation is there. I think you’ve done the best you can do with the back of this building, so I want to support the design effort here. I think it’s admirable. I would like to comment on, kind of the negative feeling about… And this idea of it requiring the design recommendations of El Camino, as it having a bottom, a middle and a top, not all buildings require bottom, middle, tops. This commercial block, I think, would be the wrong place to do that. I think it has to be a different kind of expression here. If I disagree with standards, I’m sorry, but I disagree with standards. Then let’s change the standards, because this particular demonstration here with a two-story frame is more in keeping with the scale of the block right now, so why not just continue with that idea? It’s strong enough by itself. I don’t see a bottom, a middle and a top having any meaningful relationship to El Camino here, at all. I want to emphasize that very strongly, that I think we shouldn’t be guided by that kind of a principle on this block. And that’s really my comment. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Would anybody else like to add anything? Osma. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Just to respond to that. I do understand the frustration sometimes to deal with those guidelines. However, I am more in keeping with Board Member Baltay’s assertion that the base, middle, top is something that we should enforce. The only reason I feel that way is mainly because, kind of what I was mentioning before. The building as it stands right now feels like it is lacking a little bit, and potentially adding that kind of structure would give it more visual interest. I say it’s potentially an opportunity to make the building better. I also agree with Board Member Baltay, that that landscaping, we should try to retain the landscaping that would be required along the perimeter. I don’t know that the variance is merited. Board Member Lew: I have nothing else. I would just comment that the variance findings are the purview of the Planning Director. You can always comment, but the Planning Director will be the arbiter of that. Chair Baltay: Absolutely. That’s right. Okay. With that, does the applicant have any questions of us? Our objective is to try to give as clear a set of directions as we can. I think, in this case, it’s a little bit uneven, what we’re saying to you. Can we help clarify anything for you? Ms. Shah: Do we get to respond to your comments right now, or…? Chair Baltay: Well, that’s sort of what I’m asking you, if you have any questions. We’re not looking for an argument; we’re looking for clarification. Please go ahead. Ms. Shah: No, yeah, to have a clear direction moving forward, I have some explanation regarding findings or variance, the entry from alley side, or landscaping on the rear. That’s what I want to mention. I’m not trying to defend or argue here. I’m trying to find solution for the next meeting. Sheldon has mentioned about the findings for variance. Here are my suggestions. We need to consider why this site is unique. One is the lot size… Chair Baltay: Excuse me. I do not want to go through again the arguments we just presented. I’m asking if you have questions about what we have said. We really don’t want to debate the points of the variance. As Alex mentioned, it’s up to staff anyway. Do you have any questions about the comments anybody up here has made? Ms. Gerhardt: Are there any questions about how to address the base, middle and top? Chair Baltay: Architect Bellomo, do you care to address this? I mean, we are torn by the requirement, but it is a requirement. Mr. Bellomo: I’m confused with base, middle and top. It’s a holistic building. 5.a Packet Pg. 190 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Chair Baltay: Surely you’ve looked at… Mr. Bellomo: There are obviously tops, and middles and bases, but I, you know, we’re trying to have an organic approach to the building. It’s cast in place concrete. It’s what we’re good at. Board Member Lew: Why don’t we go through that, for the next meeting, why don’t we list some of the El Camino Design Guideline….? And they’re guidelines, right? They are not zoning requirements. Why don’t we list them all out, and then we can actually rate them…? [crosstalk] Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, in the next staff report, we can certainly beef up the discussion about the El Camino guidelines. I’m just wondering about the, you know, usually it’s the base and the top that need to be emphasized to bring more of that character out. On the base here, there does seem to be, on the first floor, over the top of the windows is not actually windows. I don’t have the language for this; maybe you do. But maybe there’s a paint color that would help above the windows there, that would help enhance the base. I’m just trying to give them some direction on how to enhance the base. Vice Chair Thompson: Not sure quite what you were pointing to. Also not sure that the stuff is paintable, in general. There are El Camino guidelines, you can find them on line. We had a study session last year about a base/middle/top, what that means, what we’re looking for, which I think staff can probably provide you. In general, it’s just that there is a strong delineation between, like, architecturally between the base, middle and top, and right now, your top is kind of inset and in the back, kind of hidden, so when I’m looking at your building, I don’t see a top, basically. But, again, there are other ways to address it, and there’s kind of… I don’t know. I hope that’s helpful. Chair Baltay: Okay. Yes, Alex, please. Board Member Lew: Another thing that has come up on other project is, like, where do commercial tenants place their signs? We’re looking for things that where, in the future, different tenants, that they can actually add to the architecture of the project. Are there awnings, or some sort of sun shades, or canopies, or armatures? Or is there a sign program for the project where there are, like, small blade signs that are pedestrian-friendly? We’re looking at all those things that you see downtown. Things like that that can help the project. I want to make the distinction that, like, downtown, we have very specific regulations, and we don’t have them for El Camino. But I think the guidelines point to those things that we’re looking for, some of those elements, even if it’s not literally in the code. And it seems to me that, I think that Peter and Osma have it correct. I think there is room for improvement here. And I will acknowledge David’s point. We have mid-century buildings on this block, and I think the bottom two floors of your building do complement the neighborhood buildings. I get that. But, looking forward into the future, where many sites on El Camino, that they’re going to have, like, four-story buildings. We have a new hotel coming that’s actually five stories. In those cases, we really do need a base, middle and top to break up the monotony of the building. This building is only three stories, 35 feet high. It’s not quite as critical on this one as it is for the taller buildings, but I think we are still looking with an eye to the future, of bigger buildings. We just need more, more design and more detail looking ahead. I will make a motion that we… We’re done? No? Vice Chair Thompson: I just wanted to respond. I totally agree with what you’re saying, Alex. You just reminded me, there’s another point that I forgot to bring up, is that this elevation that we’re looking at here is the south elevation, where, you know, we’re in a temperate climate, so you have some overhangs on one side, but you have a full glass-enclosed circulation space here that’s not shaded. And in your top story, you’re showing glass shading, but I don’t really think that’s going to help you on a solar temperature thermal comfort perspective. As you’re kind of looking at how to address this top, maybe you’ll integrate something that will help thermally by integrating shading. It would probably satisfy the requirements that we’re asking for, and also make your building more ecological. 5.a Packet Pg. 191 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Board Member Hirsch: If I could jump back in for just a second. I thought Alex brought up some interesting points, that there’s enough good ways in which one could take that ground floor and distinguish it by imagining some future use of commercial, office, whatever, and emphasize somehow that it is the main floor. If you had an overlay of this particular building. And change the scale of it at the same time in order to… Well, it should be the same scale, but there could be other emphasis on the ground floor that would give it a distinct look as a ground floor. And it doesn’t mean that you have to, in my opinion, change the basic concrete frame of the building, which I think will carry through on this particular block, especially because of the neighbors as you show them, you know, which don’t have that strong personality, but certainly are two stories high and facing the street. There could be some improvements in that area, although I really do agree with the shape of this building. And as Alex points out, it’s a three-story building, so it’s not exactly the same as other buildings that do require a base, a middle and a top. Or a base, in any case, that’s emphasize. There are more things that you could do to answer the Board’s issues. I don’t think it should vary much in the frame, the way the frame is created here, but in the detail on the ground floor. MOTION Board Member Lew: Okay. If we’re done, I will make a motion that we continue this project to a date uncertain. Chair Baltay: Thank you. I’ll second that. Move and seconded. All those in favor, say aye. Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Study Session Chair Baltay: Moving right along, we have a study session on the agenda, but I don’t believe we have anything to study, do we? Perhaps that’s a good point where we could bring up a report from Board Member Lew regarding the Ventura design process. Board Member Lew: Do you want to do the minutes, too? For September 5th? But if we want to do the board member things, board member announcements, we can do that. Chair Baltay: Yes, I’m sorry, you’re right. I didn’t see that down at the bottom. Very well. Study session, we’re not going to do. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 5, 2019. Chair Baltay: Approval of minutes. We’d like to review the draft Architectural Review Board minutes from September 5th. Any comments, or can I have a motion, please? Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll move that we approve the minutes for September 5, 2019. Board Member Hirsch: I’ll send that. Chair Baltay: Moved and second. All those in favor? Opposed? Hearing none, motion carries 4-0. MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: On to subcommittee items. How can we do that? We’re going to shift the subcommittee items to after board member questions. 5.a Packet Pg. 192 City of Palo Alto Page 30 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay: Now we’re going to go to Board Member questions, where we would like to have Board Member Lew give us a report on the process with the Ventura design review committee. Alex? Board Member Lew: Okay, so the next meeting for North Ventura is on October 29th at 5:30 in the lobby conference room at City Hall. My understanding is the agenda has not been announced yet, but my understanding is that discussion will be different, the different possibilities for housing density. I’m actually collecting images of projects in the Bay Area of different densities, like 40 units an acre, 60 units an acre, 100 units an acre. Berkeley, over the last 10 years, has been building projects in the 150 units per acre density, generally within the 50 to 55 foot height limit. Anyway, I’m collecting images on all of those, so if you have a particular project that you think is a good model for Palo Alto, please send them to me and I will try to get them into the presentation. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Board Member Lew. Any questions of Alex? Board Member Hirsch: Alex, could you talk a little bit [adjusting microphone]. Could you talk a little bit about what…? I was there, so, you know, just an observer at these meetings. There was a big, long discussion from Subrado [phonetic] about what their intentions are on the lot. Could you speak to that? Board Member Lew: Well, I’m not sure I should rephrase everything. I think it’s all captured on the recordings. Generally, they bought a building that is very expensive to bring up to current codes and standards, but the office rents are so high that they think that it’s, in the near term, that it’s okay to keep the Fry’s site, the Fry’s tenant in there empty, and the office rents will cover the cost of the building. They don’t necessarily have an incentive to tear down the building and build housing in the near term, at least at the densities that are allowed under the current zoning, which is… I’ve forgot if it’s RM30 or RM40. But they are long-term landowner, and they also do see residential, a residential use as a complement to their commercial real estate portfolio. There are different trade-offs if you’re doing, like, office development versus residential, and they are looking to balance their portfolio. Board Member Hirsch: Just one other aspect to that. I wonder if you could speak to the resistance they had to the thought of this being a significant residential site. In particular, they already, I think, have decided – Jodie, you might answer this one – decided not to go ahead with the other project that they have that’s adjacent, where’s Mike’s Bike is. Pull that back. Is that true? Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t know that there has been anything official, but I have not seen very much action on the 3001 El Camino project, correct. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. So, you know, I think they are resisting because of their discussion about marketability, right? Of housing. Could you talk about that? Board Member Lew: Well, they have very high construction costs now. And also, after he made that comment about the 3001 El Camino project, I did pull up the plans for that again, just to refresh my memory on it. And compared to what I’m seeing in other cities, it’s a very small project. It’s, like, 44 units on a huge site, and part of it is only two stories. And if you see the housing projects being built in our neighboring cities, they are doing seven stories of housing. I think it may point to the fact that it’s… It may not be penciling out now because there’s not enough covering their costs. I mean, that’s their business, not mine. I think it would be interesting to do a comparison of what’s happening elsewhere in the cities. And I will point you, I went to a lecture at, at spur [phonetic] and San Jose, and there’s an organization called the Turner Center for Housing Innovation at UC Berkeley, and they’ve done a white paper on building market rate housing, and they’re trying to do… They have a building prototype that they sent out to bid, and they’ve done it for Sacramento, the East Bay, and San Jose. They’re just trying to daylight all of the costs, including area housing costs, parking costs, and just give it daylight so that government officials understand what the private developers are actually dealing with. I can forward it to the Board. 5.a Packet Pg. 193 City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Hirsch: Thank you. Board Member Lew: Generally, I think the findings of the report is that changes in, like, affordable housing requirement and the parking, like, seemingly small things, if you add up several of those things, it will make a project infeasible. And it also gives some information on what the greedy developers are actually having to do. Like, they won’t get a project financed if there isn’t a profit incentive for the banks. It just won’t happen. It’s just trying to give information, you know, information and daylight about that. It’s an interesting report. I don’t have my notes in front of me, but I think it was coming up with $500,000 per unit in San Jose, not Palo Alto, and that’s with no extra fees, if the City has a special open space tax, any of that stuff. It’s free of all of that. Or infrastructure, off-site infrastructure requirements. That’s the bare minimum base prices. When we get to Palo Alto, we’re looking at something more like $800,000 per unit, minimum, so it’s expensive to build a unit. That’s why the rents are going to towards $6,000 a month for a two-bedroom. Board Member Hirsch: Right. Thank you. That’s illuminating comments there. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Okay, with that, our meeting is adjourned. We will reconvene with the subcommittee up front here. Thank you, everybody. Subcommittee Items 5. 3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Louvre Window and Stair Well Trellis Mesh. Environmental Assessment: Use of Mitigated Negative Declaration Prepared for 15PLN- 00312. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Adam Petersen at apetersen@m-group.us 6. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00114]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project for L'Occitane in Building C at the Stanford Shopping Center That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related Facade Plaster Sample, Relocation of Facade Camera, Column/Circular Planting Box Details, and Storefront Mullion Color. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Adjournment 5.a Packet Pg. 194 Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Review CITY OF TO: SUBJECT: DATE: FROM: Bob Iwerson, 444 Spear St # 105, San Francisco, CA 94105 3265 El Camino Real [15PLN-00312] October 24, 2019 Adam Petersen, Consultant Planner PLANNER'S SIGNATURE: The plans dated September 17, 2019 were reviewed and approved by the ARB Subcommittee on October 17, 2019 in accordance with condition of approval 2, as stated below. Board members Osma Thompson and Peter Baltay comprised the ARB Subcommittee. • The louvre window screen on the elevation fronting El Camino Real shall be designed to have a better opening and filtered light consistent with the El Camino Real Design Guideline Goals. • Rework the mesh around the stairs to make it less oppressive. The ARB Subcommittee approved the louvre window design at the August 1, 2019 hearing, and requested more information about the metal mesh around the stairs, including construction drawings and renderings. The applicant supplied construction drawings and renderings, which demonstrated the spacing of the metal railings, the material used in the stair enclosure, and illustrated the proposal in renderings. At the meeting, the Subcommittee discussed the proposed landscaping, coating on the metal mesh, and approved the proposal at the October 17, 2019 hearing. No conditions were added. The applicant shall ensure these changes are incorporated into the design and this Subcommittee Review letter shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s). Copies sent to: Project File 5.a Packet Pg. 195 Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Review Jason Smith, 122 N Harbor Blvd Ste 204, Fullerton, CA 92832 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00114] L’OCCITANE EN PROVENCE October 17, 2019 Samuel Gutierrez, Planner PLANNER’S SIGNATURE The application, and plans and material samples dated received on October 3, 2019, was reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee on October 17, 2019, in accordance with condition of approval #3 as stated below. The ARB Subcommittee comprised of Board members Peter Baltay (Chair) and Osma Thompson (Vice Chair). ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB Subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Community Environment: a. Relocation of the camera on the exterior façade. b. Provided a finished plaster sample with the proposed yellow paint for the upper façade c. An alternative design for the circular planter that increases the soil volume for a more viable environment to allow the proposed plants to thrive. d. Provide a storefront mullion material sample. At the meeting, the Subcommittee reviewed the following revisions presented by the applicant. • The updated plans note the removal of the façade camera. This camera was redundant will not be replaced on the subject façade. • The applicant provided material samples for the façade plaster and the storefront mullions and the plans were updated accordingly. • The revised plans include a larger planter box (8” width, 6” depth) around the exterior column. The Subcommittee agreed with these changes as presented. The applicant shall ensure these changes are incorporated into the design and this Subcommittee Review letter shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s) and that a reduced 6” x 6” material sample of the yellow plaster be provided for the application file. TO: SUBJECT: DATE: FROM: 5.a Packet Pg. 196 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10952) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 12/19/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of November 7, 2019 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 7, 2019. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the November 7, 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: November 7, 2019 Draft Minutes (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 197 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: … November 7, 2019, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Could we have a roll call, please? [Roll Call] Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Thank you. All present. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Oral Communications Chair Baltay: First order of business is oral communications, if there’s any member of the public who wishes to speak to an item not on our agenda. Seeing and hearing no one, we’ll go on. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Are there any changes to the agenda, deletions? Jodie? No, no changes. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Chair Baltay: City Official Reports. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. For the next hearing, November 21st, we actually do not have any items, so we’re recommending cancelling that meeting. We do have items that are in the queue for both of the December hearings, December 5th and December 19th. I do want to make sure that everyone is going to be available on those dates. Board Member Hirsch: December 19th…? Ms. Gerhardt: The 5th and the 19th, yes. Chair Baltay: I think so. I will. Board Member Lee: I will not be here on the 19th. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: November 7, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 6.a Packet Pg. 198 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Baltay: Anyone else? Okay, thank you. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN00110]: Continuation of the October 3, 2019 Hearing for Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Building Located in the Stanford Shopping Center and the Construction of (1) a Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 sf, (2) two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 sf each, and (3) a Retail Building, Approximately 28,000 sf (78,500 sf in total). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay: We’ll move on to our first action item, which is Chair Baltay: We’ll move on to our first action item, which is a public hearing for 180 El Camino Real. Continuation of the October 3, 2019 hearing for consideration of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of the existing 94,300 square foot Macy’s Men’s building located in the Stanford Shopping Center, and the construction of (1) a retail building, approximately 43,500 square feet, (2) two retail buildings, approximately 3,500 square feet each, and (3) a retail building, approximately 28,000 square feet. I understand that this is going to be continued to the next, or to some unknown date in the future. Is that right? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Staff is asking to continue this to a date uncertain. We hope to bring it back fairly quickly. We just don’t know exactly what date that will be. Chair Baltay: Do you know what the status is, or what they’re going to be bringing back? Are they making the changes we worked out in our last meeting on that project? Ms. Gerhardt: I think we agreed that the speed table was the preferred option for that one drive aisle. Related to the Wilkes Bashford building, they are potentially bringing back a project that just shows a pad building, not a building, a pad, for the Wilkes Bashford, so that you could just look at both the Restoration Hardware, the two other retail establishments, and just the parking lot area for Wilkes Bashford. They are working on a second option that would have the entire Wilkes Bashford building included with some updated architecture. We just weren’t sure if we could… We weren’t going to meet this timeframe, so maybe at a later date, they will have all of it together. Chair Baltay: Okay, great, thank you. MOTION Chair Baltay: You’re asking us to just continue this project, so I’ll look for a motion to continue. Vice Chair Thompson: I move that we continue this to a date uncertain. Board Member Hirsch: I’ll second that. Chair Baltay: Okay, moved and seconded. All those in favor? Board Member Lew: Aye. Vice Chair Thompson: Aye. Board Member Hirsch: Aye. Chair Baltay: Aye. 6.a Packet Pg. 199 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Board Member Lee: Sorry, I will recuse myself from this item, so I’m not sure if I should…? Chair Baltay: Motion carries 4 ayes, no opposed, one recusal. MOTION PASSES 4-0. 3. Discussion of Potential Topics for Joint Study Session with City Council. Chair Baltay: Okay, moving on to the next item, number 2 [sic]. This is a discussion of potential topics for the joint study with City Council. We are going to be having a joint meeting with City Council to go over items of interest to them, and us, potentially. The purpose of the discussion today is to try to outline what we hope to talk about and accomplish at that meeting. Later on today, myself and Vice Chair Thompson are going to be meeting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor to try to firm up an agenda for that meeting, as well. What I’d like to put to my colleagues now is, I’ve never participated, and when I watch these types of meetings in the past, they have the potential to become a, sort of a rambling series of people speaking at almost cross-purposes. It’s really in our interest if we can try to focus ourselves collectively to a series of ideas and issues that we feel are important and can all support together, and then, make a little bit of effort to be cogent, succinct, prepared, and then, present something to the Council so they can get their teeth around it. We’re fortunate to get a chunk of their time collectively, and we should respect that. With that, I think the way to start is to ask Amy French and Alex, who have both some institutional memory of what past meetings like this have been about, and maybe we could ask them to just bring us up to speed, what we might expect. And then, I’d like to go through as a group and see if we can identify some topics and issues that we all feel are important, and ideally, even break it out so one of us each might be in charge of presenting to the Council, one idea. With that, Amy, why don’t you tell us what you know. Thank you. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Good morning. You mentioned each board member having a role in the joint meeting, and I think that seems to have been a formula that was helpful. Alex may want to weigh in on that, but I thought it was a great way for presentation, perhaps a PowerPoint, where each board member has a role in presenting a piece of that presentation, a topic of interest to the entire Board, and of interest to the Council. Yes, in the past, staff has attended, and they will again this year. Jodie, I believe, is attending today’s meeting with the Mayor and Vice Mayor and Chair and Vice Chair, to get a feel for what Council – the Mayor and Vice Mayor – have as well, to request of the ARB to come and talk about. That would be informative. And then, this year, it looks nice, there’s an annual report that was delivered to the City Council in their packet a couple weeks ago, maybe two meetings ago, three meetings ago, perhaps, to the City Council. They received that in their packet. Whether they looked at it…? It’s an opportunity to chat about that. It’s an opportunity to chat about the Architectural Review Board awards that are coming up in 2020, just so they’re aware of that. It’s an opportunity for other potential big projects, housing projects to be highlighted. And whatever else the Board is thinking they would like to discuss with the Council, if there’s direction requested, purpose. That’s all I have to say about that. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Amy. Alex, you’ve been through these. Actually, before you start, Grace, have you, in the past, been through one? Maybe both of you could just tell us what you saw and heard, and what advice you might give us before we get started. Board Member Lew: Sure. I would say that I think I agree with you about the joint meetings. It’s actually very hard to have a discussion with the two boards, or a board and City Council, just because there’s so many people involved. I would say one of the more, in my opinion, one of the more successful joint meetings that we’ve had with the Council is, one year there was a PowerPoint presentation, and the Board had discussed which topic each board member would discuss. The PowerPoint did try to address maybe key projects, certain aspects of key projects. Like, at one point, Council was really concerned about, say, the entrances, like, the lack of permanent entrances for buildings on El Camino, so we did use one of those projects as an example. We also used a project downtown on University Avenue as an example of how a project changed during the ARB process for the better, and how it was more contextual. I think that’s a good approach. And then, I would think, too, is that, since this is supposed to be annual, I know we haven’t had it for a while, but I think we should look back at last year’s projects. And I might suggest looking at 6.a Packet Pg. 200 City of Palo Alto Page 4 the controversial ones, if there was something the Board was unresolved. You know, say it’s 429 University, or maybe it’s the Mercedes-Benz dealer on Embarcadero Road. If there’s one where we really struggled, then let’s just take it up and just discuss what we think did well, what we think may need to be changed or modified to make it better in the future. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Grace, what can you add? Board Member Lee: It was one a few years back, and it was a different council. I do recall that there was a lack of structure, no PowerPoint, and we didn’t have significant discussion about what we were going to talk about as a group. I would say that it actually contrasted greatly from what Alex presented, and I think it was before, Alex, you joined the board. I did want to note that, you know, I appreciate this effort in terms of a PowerPoint and each with a topic, and assessing ARB process and last year’s projects. I do caution against opening up a large discussion on a project with minutia detail. I think that a summary in terms of something that has been discussed and has moved forward, whatever the outcome is, is best to treat as a summary. The other piece that I just want to mention, in thinking back on how the other joint meeting went, the other piece that I hope that we can talk about today is just how our board speaks to planning issues where there’s another entity – a planning commission, as well as staff – to speak on those planning issues. I did want to talk about our mission and our purview as Architectural Review Board members. If you’re comfortable, maybe we could move to that later in our discussion. Chair Baltay: That would be great, thank you. That’s a good idea. Okay. You asked if the rest of us have comments. Of course. What I’m trying to do is structured, and right now, gather as much information as we can from how past meetings have gone. If you’ve been to a past Architectural Review Board/City Council meeting… Board Member Hirsch: No. Chair Baltay: … I’d love to hear your opinion. Board Member Hirsch: No. Chair Baltay: If not, then what I’d like to do, before we start discussing more, taking this letter to Council we wrote as a starting point, I’m going to just list a series of the topics, and I’m hoping we can all try to focus in on a couple of these that we feel are important, with the understanding that our objective is to find items that we think we’ve observed, things through the ARB review process that the Council might be interested in. It’s not stuff that we’re personally feeling important about, but we’re trying to convey to Council information that Council should know. That’s the objective. Grace, I don’t know if you were part of this letter we wrote, but over the summer, we put this together, and more or less came to agreement on all of these things. At the end, we finally just said we have to get it out. The first item was trees. We were pointing out that some construction projects with underground garages limit the size of trees, and our request was that, we said these issues can be addressed in part through design review, but more explicit landscaping standards would be beneficial. I think we all agreed that is a little bit vague sometimes. The second item we called curb management. It has to do with the increase in use of ride shares, and also deliveries for businesses in town, and not having… What we said is: Updated standards for commercial delivery areas and more explicit standards for ride share pickup and drop-off zones would be beneficial. Again, when we’re reviewing projects, it’s often an issue that comes up, and there’s really a lack of guidelines for applicants, what to do. The third item was one that we see over and over again. It’s displacement of small businesses. That’s, I think, a planning type issue, Grace, you were just alluding to. Over and over again, we see larger developments kicking out small businesses, which form the backbone of this community of ours. I don’t think we had a recommendation or anything necessarily to do about it, but we’re just pointing it out. I think we had in here; Alex had brought up some examples of what’s being done in San Francisco. 6.a Packet Pg. 201 City of Palo Alto Page 5 The fourth item we put out here was parking issues at the Stanford Shopping Center. I think we’re all pretty familiar with that. Another item is pedestrian mobility. This is related to the width of sidewalks and outdoor seating areas in front of various businesses. This is something I know Wynne Furth was passionate about. We’ve had benches in front of a lot of projects that have been reviewed recently. Another item was El Camino Real: Revised parking standards for developments along El Camino Real would promote the development of neighborhood retail and restaurant businesses. The last item was just the Architectural Review Board findings, and sort of the Architectural Review Board process. With that, there’s eight items on this list, so why don’t we each talk about a couple of these that we think are important. I think we need to pare it down. That’s too many. What’s important out of all of this? What do we still feel? This is now a few months after we talked about it. David, do you want to start? Or whomever. We don’t need this to be that formal. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. I think, in general, what I kind of see is that we’ve had some significant comments to make about landscaping. I’m concerned that, in some sense, we don’t have on the Board enough capability to review landscaping issues. I would suggest that we ask that when there’s a possibility of a new member on the board, that we ask the Council to consider having a person of landscape ability greater than what we have on the board right now, to help us in regard to review of these projects that involve landscaping. I usually turn to Alex and ask him. He has quite a lot of knowledge about it, but I think we could use even more, in some way, on the board. That was kind of a general comment I have about that. I think there are other areas of interest that are beyond what are mentioned here. San Antonio Road now has become kind of a new area for us, and it seems to me, having looked at the hotel, this monster item coming up on San Antonio Road, that now we’re dealing with other sites on San Antonio, and we should be questioning how that zoning will affect the look of San Antonio Road. I have a few others. Those are two of the major. I’d like to come back maybe and continue… Chair Baltay: That’s fine. Who else wants to chime in? Grace? Board Member Lee: Osma, would you like to go? Because you haven’t spoken. Vice Chair Thompson: Sure, why not? Board Member Lee: I’d be happy to… Vice Chair Thompson: The items that stand out to me as important. The trees are a really big one. I think we should definitely talk about the urban canopy and how… We have a lot of projects that come in front of us that make some minor apologies for, “Sorry, we had to get rid of this tree,” kind of thing. And having a bit more stronger attitude about what’s important for our ecosystem I think is important to stress. And then, even on that vein, I think that’s kind of hand in hand with a stronger attitude towards sustainability in projects. I think California is pretty good about sustainability, but making that more of our, something that’s part of our mission, something that when we’re looking at a project, we should really look at that lens a bit more closely. I think that kind of goes hand in hand with the trees. That was kind of the major thing that started in front of me. I think when we were drafting this letter, kind of very late in the game, I had a few things to add that never got in there, so I don’t know if this is the right time to talk about it. Chair Baltay: This is the right time to talk about it. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Then the other item that’s not on this list but I think might be worth broaching, and I’d be curious to hear my board members’ opinion, is the general aesthetics of things that we’re looking at, and then, kind of an evaluation of, maybe even last year’s projects. The similarities of things that we’re seeing, and kind of how that is going to change the face of the city, and also having an attitude about the scale of things that come to us, and the types of materials that come to us. And then, forming an opinion on if, if we feel like that’s good for Palo Alto in the future. Chair Baltay: Those are such generalized… Osma, can you give me some examples of good and bad general aesthetics? 6.a Packet Pg. 202 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I would say, in general, the scale of items that we’re seeing, that a lot of the times when we first see a project but usually don’t approve, it’s because the scale of the design is so broad brush and large that it doesn’t have a smaller human pedestrian scale. I feel like a lot of the projects that we have been able to approve through this process have been a result of pushing them to go to a smaller scale. I think we can push even more than we have already. I think there are projects that have gone through that I think could have even benefitted more from pushing down even more. So, I think scale is a big item. Chair Baltay: That’s a great observation. I agree. Board Member Hirsch: Just a couple of comments. If I can remember what I was just thinking. I thought about how to make a presentation, you know, PowerPoint, would be to start with a project that comes in, you know, what it brought to us first, and then, show how we’ve managed to modify it with some of our comments, you know? Would be an absolutely great way to do it. And the reason I’m suggesting that is, you know, I think that we look at things visually, make our comments based on our experience that way, and I don’t think the Council really are those kind of people. They need to be brought up to speed on how we are thinking about projects, and this would be a good way to do it. That’s one. Amy, one thought is, I have some concern about how cell towers were presented, but I don’t know if want to get in the middle of that one. It’s into the weeds. But it’s been in our craw in a way for a while. Yours, too, I have a feeling, and it’s been tough. You want to stay away from that one, right? Ms. French: Yes, I would suggest that they’re such… Since I’m jumping in, one thing that will be coming to the ARB, we are, because of state legislation that is advocating affordable housing projects and looking at objective standards, we’re looking at objective standards for cell towers, but not as interested in that as I am in the housing objective standards because we are going to be looking at our ARB findings, the context base findings, and seeing if there are ways to have more objective standards for affordable housing projects. This is, if you’re thinking about projects to talk about and how your influence, you know, improved the projects, we might want to think the project that includes multi-family housing, and start thinking about how our aesthetics are quantified somehow in the findings, or the context-based design criteria. That’s going to be a big topic coming up, is how we can more objective. Board Member Hirsch: Another one, as part of that, would be… What is it called? The small dwellings? Chair Baltay: ADUs. Board Member Hirsch: ADUs. To actually see a sample of how an ADU has actually worked in this community here. I’m just curious because it’s so talked about in the entire state now, you know? What have we done? Ms. French: It’s a little off-topic just because ARB doesn’t look at the ADUs, and they are administerial, so we don’t have a discretionary review aspect of those at all. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, that’s true. Ms. French: I would just say that’s a topic for another day that we could talk about, but probably not good for this meeting with the joint council, just because there’s so much else that the ARB is involved in reviewing. Chair Baltay: I want to remind us all that our goal is to find things that we think the Council needs to hear from us. Board Member Hirsch: Why wouldn’t something like the impact of an ADU on a residential area be important? Chair Baltay: Well, we don’t have any explicit experience with the ARB doing that. None whatsoever. That’s where I think we want to be careful. It’s not my opinion as a practicing architect. I’ve designed many ADUs 6.a Packet Pg. 203 City of Palo Alto Page 7 and I have strong opinions about it, but I want to be careful that we’re here as a board, taking City Council’s time as a council to communicate to them things that we, I think, really have observed and can make strong statements about. I think the cell tower ship has sailed, David, unfortunately. Council has heard everybody’s opinion in multitudes on that. Alex, what are you thinking? Board Member Lew: Okay, so, I think I do… I do think the tree issue is important, and I think I would enlarge that topic to encompass…. I might incorporate that into, like, we have, like, a parking issue. I might sort of enlarge it so it’s not just about trees, because it’s related to… Chair Baltay: It’s all related, yeah. Board Member Lew: Yeah, they’re all tied together. It’s not just the trees, the issue of bigger scale urban buildings, and how does the city grow to the next larger scale but still keep true to its roots. I think I support David’s comment about San Antonio Road and development happening there, although I’m thinking that maybe we push that back a year, until maybe after the hotel is finished, so there is something to react against. I think it’s important because San Antonio Road has the CS zoning, but we don’t have any El Camino Design Guidelines for that street. And there’s no, based on the site facing on Mountain View, there’s no, they typically don’t have residential behind there, so there potentially can be very large buildings on one side of the street on San Antonio Road. I think that is a concern. Another comment on the pedestrian mobility is that I think that we should mention, I think we should incorporate in there the percentage of population that’s going to be over 65, is going to grow by 40 percent. It’s basically the Baby Boomers are going to be retiring, and I think that’s a huge issue. I think that was part of Wynne’s thinking in adding this. I think I might enlarge it. More of, like, aging in place, and how does the city adapt to that. It’s not just about benches. I find that with my own parents. They’re used to living in the town, and now they’re realizing that they have to sort of change their lifestyle for their age, and they’re not finding that the city is working that well for them. I think that’s an interesting topic. If we bring that up at the Council, I don’t know what comes of it, but I think that’s sort of on the radar. If you think about the road diet that we did on Charleston and Arastradero. That was sort of with an eye towards that, with all of the build-out and crosswalks. And then, I had a comment on the… On the El Camino issue. I think you say in there, the last line is, “Revised parking standards for development on El Camino would promote development of neighborhood retail and restaurant businesses.” And I do support that, and I think staff has tried to address that. We do have a new exclusion, either the first 1,500 square feet of ground floor retail doesn’t have to be parked. That’s new. I think maybe we could highlight that that’s in there. We don’t really have any projects that have used it yet. I think the one on San Antonio Road is going to try to use it, even though they’re on San Antonio Road. They’re not on El Camino. I think, in that one, we could probably mention that. Many of the restaurants that people frequent don’t have enough parking. They’re grandfathered in. There’s no incentive to improve your property if you’re already deficient on… You’re grandfathered in, right? Don’t touch the parking lot because then you’d have to bring it up to code. It’s a really difficult situation, where we’ve got things that don’t look good. Chair Baltay: Well, we kind of have 1950’s suburban parking requirements for a growing city. Board Member Lew: Yep. Chair Baltay: Sooner or later, that conflicts. Board Member Lew: Yep. Chair Baltay: What we observe, you’re right, is when a restaurant comes in, or a building with a restaurant on the ground floor. Parking drives everything. They can’t actually meet the parking to make the restaurant fit. Costs go sky high to make it work with subterranean elevator parking spots, and it’s not really in the city’s best interest. That’s precisely, I think, the kind of thing Council should be hearing from us, is the nuts and bolts of why and how that code requirement impacts the inability to create things that we all want to see in the town. That’s a good point, Alex. 6.a Packet Pg. 204 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Lew: Yeah. And if we say that we really want to hold on to parking standards, you sort of have to accept that it might be, we have to allow other uses – whatever it is, exercise place, other things – because retail is sort of declining. I think there’s a huge demand for exercise places. It’s a tricky one. And I think the difference is, like on El Camino, that the parking standards are specific to the use, whereas downtown or the shopping center is all blended. I think that that one is more complicated. That one is, like, really complicated. I think it’s kind of hard to have a discussion on that. As you guys know, the zoning on El Camino is very site-specific. Chair Baltay: Is there any support on the Board for the concept that parking standards as a whole are driving a lot of development in the town, and perhaps really need all to be revised? Board Member Lee: May I just make a few comments that relate to…? Chair Baltay: Please do. Board Member Lee: And I’m sorry, I feel like I’m the new person, and I am the new person, but I’m also an old person. I did want to make some comments that might not sit well, and it’s because I’m joining the Board so late, and I haven’t been a part of your process in the past year. I want to thank you so much for all of the work that has been completed, and I’m not knowledgeable on the projects, all the details. That’s why I have some hesitation in being a part of going through specific projects. I think there is a challenge in that for myself, and I’m happy to kind of sit back if you all would like to do that. I see the ARB as really, I feel more comfortable talking about all of these things. When we begin to structure in terms of our role in, you know, context-based and contextual design, high-quality materials that age properly and, you know, sit well in that context. Scale, and the need for recognition of landscape as something that often speaks to scale. Looking at different cities in terms of learning from those precedents and examples of what may occur in a similar sized growing place. I feel less comfortable in terms of talking because there may be disagreement in terms of aesthetics on our board. Color is very subjective; aesthetics is very subjective. I also think about these applications that come in as individual applications, and I’m wary of the Board pushing an applicant to a certain spot. I’m also not comfortable with critiquing… I mean, parking standards are totally, completely involved in design, but I’m wary of being a planner. I have a planning background, I have worked on other design projects in my professional life, and I see the connection. But we have a Planning Commission, we have City Council, we have an excellent staff, and I feel like our purview is to review applications that come in, each separately. So, when we make these larger comments about displacement of small businesses, even the comments regarding zoning, land use planning and designations of zoning on El Camino Real. These TDMs are really important; I feel like that’s, again, not our purview, still. I feel like that’s a staff, that they work with the applicant in that way. And maybe I’ve just not been on the Board for the last 10 years, but I’m wary of me, as an applicant, as an architectural designer, going to a city where there are large changes that are occurring and being suggested that are not architectural design based. That has occurred. I’ve been on the other side, and it does create discomfort. And I’m not sure that’s our purview. Chair Baltay: I agree with you, Grace. I think all of us feel that we want to be very careful not to try to become planners or staff reviewing projects, and we don’t want to be, for example, requiring more parking than the code requires, or saying you can’t exceed or go to an FAR standard [crosstalk]. Board Member Lee: And I’m sure this Board is not doing that. My feeling is… And, sorry, not to jump in, Peter, but I feel most comfortable with G, in terms of the findings that I saw that you have revised since 2017. I feel very comfortable with A, B and E as it relates to the public realm in terms of evaluating applications. Not as comfortable with C, D and F as they are written. However, I believe, you know, there should be a general discussion with Council on all of the issues that come up through these projects, and if it works best, perhaps I can listen in terms of how the Board is presenting on work that they have reviewed that, you know, I did not weigh in on. Chair Baltay: Let me try to sway your thinking a little bit, because we’ve evolved, I think, since I’ve been on the Board, at least, to I think realizing that there are trends that seem to be showing up over and over again in projects, meeting current codes and planning conditions. What I think we’ve come to think is that 6.a Packet Pg. 205 City of Palo Alto Page 9 we’re the ones, so to speak, in the trenches, observing the reality of what happens when a building is designed to meet these standards. And my understanding, talking to architects, citizens, applicants and council members, is that they don’t really see the ramification of some of these things. What I think we’re advocating for is not how to change the code, but rather to say that some of these things are issues. We’ve observed a clear one, is when you have underground parking, which we all think is good, the code encourages it, it makes it very difficult to have above ground large trees on the perimeter of a property. You have this big concrete vault underneath. And that’s a conflict we’re seeing that hasn’t been really well thought through. I think if I were a policymaker, I would appreciate getting that feedback. That’s what I think we’re trying to do here, is be specific in the feedback we give, ideally relative to projects that have gone through our process. But I think we are trying to say that there are policy issues, code issues, that can be addressed. We’ve observed that. A lot of these projects chase out small businesses, and I don’t know that… I guess that one is seen by everybody in the political process, when there’s a string of small businesses upset about something. But to see it the way we do, the way the design chases it out, when they’re forced to build, when the story height of a building are lower, it makes the spaces a little bit less attractive to large commercial clients and more to small businesses, still. That’s a subtle nuance design thing that Council may want to hear. Board Member Lee: I agree. I think, you know, perhaps the way to frame it is that there are challenges that, you know, there’s interlinking parts, and here’s some challenges. I go to what Amy suggested, in terms of talking about objective standards in projects that involve multi-family housing or larger-scale developments, and for those specific uses, I struggle, because there are issues in terms of land use, and planning, and small businesses, for example, and small-scale buildings within a context, and development that’s going to occur later. It opens a can of worms for me when we do this, and maybe the way to frame it is just as you’re saying, that here’s some trends and challenges that we’ve seen this last year. Chair Baltay: We want to put the worms in the can so they’re not all over the place. But I think they’re there, and we have to face up to that, using that metaphor. Anybody else have other thoughts? We’re trying to narrow down a list of things that we can discuss. After that, I want to see if we can get individuals to agree to be behind one or two of these. One of these, hopefully. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I want to respond to your comment about aesthetics being subjective. I feel like maybe there might be a way to reframe what I mean when I’m wanting to talk about this issue, because it’s true, it’s kind of dangerous to talk about taste. We’re not really talking about architecture taste at all because you’re right, that is subjective. But I think there are some basic… And maybe “aesthetic” is the wrong word for this, so I’d be curious to see if you could help me try to drive at what I’m trying to get at. But oftentimes, we’ll see, like, the first iteration of a project we’ll see will be very blocky and boxy, and I have no other way to describe that that is just aesthetically unattractive and not what we want the future of Palo Alto to be. Something that has no scale, that feels very massive and overbearing in the city. If “aesthetic” is not the right word, I’m not sure what is. I do think we need to talk about scale and architecture as it relates to improving the environment, because I think those projects that do come in front of us that don’t have a regard, at least the initial stages don’t have a regard for that scale, there has to be something where we where we can say this is not acceptable for Palo Alto. And context alone, I don’t know if it’s enough. Board Member Lee: I totally appreciate it, thank you. I think scale and massing and context are interlinked, and aesthetics, if Board feels is important to retain, is a little more of a subjective term in my mind, but I completely understand what you’re discussing. Chair Baltay: Let’s take that topic, Osma. How do we phrase that to the Council? What are we actually trying to tell them they should be aware of? Scale and design aesthetics are important? I’m having a tough time understanding what we’re actually trying to say as an example. You want to take a particular building and…? As David mentioned, we can show how a design evolves. Generally, as you’re saying, it breaks down in finer, higher-quality design details and scale and massing and stuff. But I guess what I’m concerned about is that’s kind of telling them something they already know, in a way, that we work hard to get buildings better. What’s the takeaway from them as far as what they should do, how they should react to it? 6.a Packet Pg. 206 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Vice Chair Thompson: There are projects that have passed our review, and I don’t, honestly, I don’t know the whole history of them. But there are projects that, you know, when they can’t get through us, they go to Council, because they can’t get through us because aesthetically, we can’t approve them. And then, Council goes ahead and approves them. That’s partially why I bring this up. And it’s not entirely why. Like, there’s also just a good discussion to have about what the future face of Palo Alto is going to look at. Should we bring up individual projects that we’re thinking of talking about? Chair Baltay: Absolutely. I think the more we can be concrete and visual, the stronger our presentations will be. Vice Chair Thompson: There is an affordable housing project that came in front of us; I’m forgetting the name, actually. It was… Board Member Lew: Wilton Court. Vice Chair Thompson: It came twice, right? They had a prelim where we were just giving feedback, and then they had a first quasi that we passed on, that we approved them. And I think their improvement, from what they showed us in the prelim to what we ended up approving, is a good example of something that had some aesthetic flaws, let’s say, or some things that could be improved on, that they took our feedback, and what we ended up improving was better. Chair Baltay: You’re talking about, I think it’s Wilton Court. It was down in south Palo Alto on El Camino? Vice Chair Thompson: Sure, yes. Chair Baltay: A really large, boxy building, and they made substantial improvements on the design. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I think we’ve only had two affordable housing projects. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the only other one would be the VTA property that was workforce housing. Chair Baltay: Take that project as an example. The Council was overly enthusiastic…well, not overly, but highly enthusiastic to get that approved and pushed through. It was a great project for many reasons, above and beyond the architecture. We felt the architecture was good, as well. What’s the takeaway from Council? What are we trying to tell them about that project? That we made it better? Vice Chair Thompson: Just that it’s coming ahead of time, just coming before the quasi-judicial, I think help it pass, a lot. Because if it had come in the state that it was when we saw it in prelim, if that had been the quasi-judicial hearing, I don’t know that all of us would have been as enthusiastic. Chair Baltay: The informal process was invaluable. Vice Chair Thompson: I think so. Chair Baltay: I think we can all get behind that. Board Member Lew: We’re looking at maybe not being able to have discretionary review for affordable housing projects. I think that we should really look at, yeah, what the Board did, what the findings, what were the findings. And I think maybe we should make a recommendation or a suggestion that, you know, if we don’t have discretionary review for these projects, what should be added in our findings, or codes or findings, or design guidelines? Chair Baltay: I think that’s great, Alex. Board Member Lew: Yeah, because the reality is that, even if we don’t have discretionary review for affordable housing projects, they still may have to follow a guideline, or try to follow a guideline. I think it 6.a Packet Pg. 207 City of Palo Alto Page 11 should be something, if there’s something missing in the El Camino Design Guidelines, or whatever guideline, Downtown Guidelines, that we think it should be in there in the event that the Board isn’t reviewing those projects in the future, that the City is comfortable with doing that. Chair Baltay: A takeaway to the Council may be then – along the lines of what you were saying, Osma – in the event that we’re talking about affordable housing projects, where our discretionary review may not exist in the future, demonstrating to them the benefit that our discretionary review offers, maybe they need to be cognizant of that when crafting objective standards in the future, is really important. We could demonstrate to them that this review process made a huge difference, and that they really need to have something in place. I think we want to keep that standard up. Board Member Lee: I’m so sorry. Isn’t there already something in place, though? Ms. French: Yes, so, we will be visiting with the ARB soon. Staff is in, you know, weekly meetings, basically. We have a consultant… Sorry? December 5th, we’re going to be talking about this topic. It’s just going to be after the joint meeting with the Council. Your awareness that this is a topic is a good one to acknowledge in your meeting with the Council, that you’re looking forward to being part of that process. Chair Baltay: By bringing it up, we’re just asking the Council for further support behind this process. We maybe even should say that the ARB should be appointing a subcommittee to be integrating with staff as you guys are starting to develop these policies, and two of us could be at the table with you, doing that. It’s independent of what we’re here for directly, but I think Osma is bringing up some good points about scale and the detail of design that we want to… Do we all agree that it doesn’t hurt to bring it to Council’s attention? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Chair Baltay: You do, Osma. What do we all think about that? If we say that’s one of our topics, is this affordable housing design standards? Board Member Lee: May I understand a little bit better in terms of what process there is in terms of design review? Currently? Ms. French: All projects are subject to architectural review, discretionary review, over a certain number of 5,000 square feet, but then there’s also the units. There’s a site and design review process that’s been on the books, and that’s over nine units now, something…? We’ve increased the numbers for site and design. Three units comes to ARB. Site and design, which then involves the Planning Commission and Council, is when it’s over nine units. For affordable housing, I think that’s going to be changing as well. Yeah, we have a lot of affordable housing projects in the wings. Actually, very recently, there’s been an influx of money from private companies and all of this, so it’s kind of exciting. I got lost in answering your question, but basically, we do have requirements for design review over three units that goes to the ARB, currently. Board Member Lee: I’m just confused. Are we…? Since there already is design review in place for these projects, and preliminary is often encouraged, what exactly are we…? Chair Baltay: Our concern is that design review may be going away. State laws are now coming out where we don’t have the option of getting discretionary design review on projects. Board Member Lee: It’s basically for discussion on December 5th how the City might address this. Ms. French: Yes, so that will be the first opportunity for the ARB to be involved in those conversations, and there’s probably an opportunity – I think it’s a good idea, always – to have a subcommittee of members. Ms. French: Now I understand. Thanks. 6.a Packet Pg. 208 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Baltay: I think, provided we keep this focused on the subject of affordable housing, we can make a very strong statement about design review being important, and if there is no discretionary design review, the City should be sure to supply something else, which would be some set of standards. And getting Council aware of that is a good thing, and the kind of thing they wouldn’t ordinarily know about directly. They’re not experienced in this. Does that sync with you, Grace? I can’t tell what you’re… Board Member Lee: I’m just thinking about it, and I’m wondering if there’s a, you know, the subcommittee might be the way to accomplish that kind of design review. Chair Baltay: I think that’s right, it would be a subcommittee. It would be great interfacing with staff as they develop these standards. But do you think it’s a good thing to bring to the attention of the Council? Board Member Hirsch: Well, I think you’re right in pointing out that it’s a trend that the state regulations now are sort of over our heads, looking like they’re pushing so hard that they’re pushing us right out. I feel that pretty strongly as well. It also involves kind of general planning. Where’s all this housing going to really happen in the city? And it seems to me that there should be some similar thought coming from Planning and Transportation about where all this will be happening. In some way, I think we ought to be coordinating with Planning and Transportation because our aesthetic is important to these aspects of change. Chair Baltay: Absolutely. To Grace’s point, however, we want to not be the Planning Commission here, so we just focus on the aesthetic issues that Osma is pointing out. That’s what we’re observing, and there is a strong need to have some standards for how these buildings are being built. I think that’s a legitimate point to make to Council, but I’m asking if everybody else here shares that opinion. Is this a good thing to bring to the Council’s attention? Deafening silence here. Vice Chair Thompson: Are you looking for a vote? Chair Baltay: No, I’m not looking for a vote. It’s just a, do we all agree? What I don’t want to do is get front of Council, and then, have two of us speak up, saying the opposite, and then they get nothing. Better to all agree now, what we do agree on, and strongly say something. If we don’t have a majority in favor of that idea, we should put it off the table. But as I understand it, the idea is that we want to bring to them, one topic would be affordable housing design standards and the importance of having something be objective or subjective. Can we all get behind that idea? Board Member Lew: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Lee: I would agree. The reason why I’m cautious is because, having worked on affordable housing, there’s significant hoops for those groups in terms of how they receive review. I just don’t want to give the impression that we are going to add a hefty review process in addition to all of those hoops. Perhaps we could talk about some type of liaison with staff to be a part of that process. Chair Baltay: Absolutely. Those are very strongly taken points. Okay. Let’s try to pick another one that’s easy here. We have the issue of the trees. I think I hear a consensus that, just continuing protection of trees, and perhaps more explicit design standards regarding trees and parking, and perhaps… I don’t know how you would do this, David, but clearly the Board benefits from having an experienced landscape architect or capable person up here. I’m not sure that we can say much about that, except just to point out the importance of it. Is there any consensus behind that vague set of ideas? Alex, can you maybe phrase that better? What would our topic really be? Board Member Lew: Just to follow up on David’s point. I don’t think we’ve ever had a landscape architect apply to the Board. I’ve debated about that several times when we’ve had recruitment projects, or recruitments. And then, I think the other thing, too, is that we have a whole urban forestry division, we 6.a Packet Pg. 209 City of Palo Alto Page 13 have Peter Jensen, we have resources. You don’t have to rely fully on your knowledge, or lack of. I really don’t have that much knowledge about landscape. You know, I think the issue with the trees and stuff, I think is really very difficult to grasp unless you’re really looking at a plan or example. I think it’s very specific. I think it, it may be difficult to talk about it generally. I could say, like, I know when the basements are extending under all the buildings when I see a tree in a pot, and I start looking around and realize, like, oh, like, this entire thing that I’m walking on is all concrete. So, I know. I hear comments from people in the public saying, “I don’t like that project,” but they can’t really explain it. But then, when I go digging around, I sort of figure out why they don’t like it. But I think this is something really difficult to discuss unless we have an example, or examples, or photos of that. That’s, like, our new reality. We’ve got these new hotels. They really only have shrubs around their perimeter. There’s no trees. I think we’re going to face that pretty soon, when those buildings are built. Chair Baltay: Same question to Osma. What’s the Council’s takeaway from those comments that trees are impacted by underground parking? Board Member Lew: So, [crosstalk]… Vice Chair Thompson: That’s not okay. Board Member Lew: Well, so, this came up with houses, and we don’t allow basements to extend beyond the footprint of the house above ground. There are some exceptions, but… Chair Baltay: Even under a front porch, they won’t let us do that now. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Yeah, so, I don’t know. It seems to me an issue, I think it’s kind of difficult… It’s a tricky one to discuss with the Council, I would think. Chair Baltay: Okay, so, I agree, it’s a difficult issue. It’s tricky to explain. I think that could be done. I think Osma’s jumping to say that it’s really important, which I think we all agree as well. David and Grace, what’s your opinion about this tree question? Board Member Hirsch: You know, the word “trees,” it seems that landscape is much grander than just trees. Osma, you’re doing some landscaping kinds of things when you do urban improvements to transportation. These things happen. Streets and trees are all kind of interconnected. There are trees and streets, you know? I just think the topic of trees by itself is too amendable a description. It’s really, the landscaping involves so many other aspects. Having kind of worked on urban street improvements, that has to do with trees, as well. Board Member Lew: For me, it’s not about streets. This is really about having a 50-foot building maybe only, like 10 feet from the property line. Right? It’s very close to neighbors, and there’s no trees. That’s what we have now in our current projects. We don’t have any landscape… Like, we have, if you put a parking lot in, you have to put in perimeter landscaping. But if you have a basement that goes to the property line or, say, like, five feet to the property line, you don’t have to do anything. There really isn’t a standard in any of our zones because, especially in the CS zone, because we have zero setback. I think that’s the issue. You mentioned the San Antonio hotel project, so that’s one of them. There are no trees on the sides of the property. We just have shrubs and things in pots. Chair Baltay: That’s because that basement goes right to the property line. Board Member Lew: The garage extends… Chair Baltay: Maybe three feet or something. [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: Maybe it’s, like, five feet. And then, this parking, because they’re trying to fit in all the parking so that they can maximize the floor area, as they are allowed to. They did come in with a parking 6.a Packet Pg. 210 City of Palo Alto Page 14 reduction later. So, it’s not about trees; it’s about trees and parking, and underground parking, and floor area. And it’s really just how, how does the city grow? Chair Baltay: Okay, trees and parking. Grace, what’s your opinion. Board Member Lee: I do think trees are important, I think landscape is important. I read here these issues, “More explicit landscaping standards would be beneficial.” Is that something that we are requesting, that there would be more explicit landscaping standards that the City would [crosstalk]? Chair Baltay: I think Alex has phrased it a lot better than that. Board Member Lee: Because I think that… Chair Baltay: That statement seems a little vague. Board Member Lee: Yes, and I’m not sure that’s what we’re requesting as a group. The ARB may weigh in on requests for more landscaping, right? That’s something that we can weigh in on. And I wonder if, you know, if you did want to highlight some of the terrific examples where you did weigh in and there was a positive outcome. I think the joint meeting is a terrific opportunity to showcase a few projects where there are challenges the city is facing, and here is some examples where the project that was approved was improved for the benefit of all regarding to scale, context and massing. I understand that approach might be helpful for Council to see, and maybe bring up those challenges. Chair Baltay: You’re absolutely right. I think some of us are feeling that it hasn’t always been successful, and we’ve had our hands tied by code and applicants who insist on the parking up to the parking line, and then, we’re forced to accept less landscaping and trees at the perimeter than we know are necessary, but we have… Board Member Lee: Absolutely. I guess my feeling is, you know, sometimes a reduction of surface parking is a positive change, and sometimes a parking garage where non-mature trees need to go away is, that has to be weighed by the applicant and the City and ourselves. I guess I caution against these sentences that sound like the Council might take away as, “Well, we just need to keep more surface parking with this kind of tree request.” And since it’s such a short period of time, I wonder if we could provide examples of projects where there was a positive recommendation and it worked out well. Chair Baltay: Osma, what do you think? Vice Chair Thompson: Oh, I have too many strong opinions. Chair Baltay: That’s good, no, we want… This is the time to have them. Vice Chair Thompson: So, it’s true. Obviously, it depends on the project, it depends on the trees. The tree is unwell? Of course. It totally makes sense not to fight for something that’s already on its way out, say, for example. But we have a lot of… I feel like we have projects that have very healthy trees, and it’s just inconvenient. It seems like applicants, you know, the property line is like their hard, you know, we obviously can’t go past the property line. But these beautiful trees that are extremely robust and healthy, we can get rid of them because they’re not as important as that property line. I think that attitude is a problem. Because I think our urban canopy should be a priority, and I think there should be something to say to the City Council that it should be their priority, as well. Because it’s true, our hands are tied in a lot of ways. We have applicants that are like, we want all these things, and the sacrifice is trees, and we have nothing in our wheelhouse to say that’s… I mean, we’ve tried. I think with our last review, where we were saying… Chair Baltay: [inaudible] 6.a Packet Pg. 211 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Well, never mind. But, you know, there’s still… I don’t know. This is about priorities. We have a list of findings that explain our priorities, and at the moment, our priorities are summarized in landscaping. Right? Board Member Lew: I’m sorry, when we revise findings, I make sure that we kept a provision in there about existing, I think, like, existing resources, like an existing tree. It’s in the findings, so we can use it. I’m just saying we have to use the findings when we don’t have an explicit landscape standard. It sort of begs the question then, like…. It goes back to this, why don’t we have a landscape…? You know, what is our landscape standard, and where is it deficient? Vice Chair Thompson: And to be fair, you’re right, we have an urban forestry division. You know, I think maybe the goal is really just to explain to the Council that these are trends that we are seeing, and so, not necessarily that we have to reinvent anything. It’s just alerting them to, this is what’s coming up, our way. Chair Baltay: Is it fair, Grace, to paraphrase what you’re saying by saying that the standards already exist; our job is to enforce them, and we’ve been doing that, and we don’t need to change the standards as much as we need to be firm in enforcement? And as projects go through, if we want to save these trees, we have the authority to do that, we should be doing it? Board Member Lee: I’m sorry. I guess I go back to what Alex said in terms of the findings, which we have improved, is the direction that we go in terms of making those findings, and we have able-bodied staff who… specialists who guide us. So, in my mind, it would be good to point out the trends and point out some successful projects. Maybe that would illustrate that the trees and the public realm, the curb management as it relates to parking, is very important to us, and we see this in many projects that come our way. Board Member Lew: Also, I think, Osma, it seems to me when we look at projects in our project packets, that sometimes applications will review the tree removal in the arborist’s report, and sometimes they don’t. It may be that we ask staff to include that in every project. We have a member of the public who is also interested in the tree issue, so, if we could make that recommendation, as well. If you want more discussion and review of the tree removal. Board Member Hirsch: I want to point out that on the Wilkes Bashford, you know, we… Chair Baltay: David, please don’t discuss projects currently being reviewed. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. On a recent project, we had that issue, and decided that actually, even though it was a recommendation that we consider a tree removal, that we ourselves decided it would be better to try to retain the tree. So, I think if there is a significant project issue, that we address it in that manner when it is part of our standards to do so, even if the staff recommendation is different. Ms. French: Can we jump in for just a second? I just want to make sure that we remember what we’re aiming towards, is an hour-long meeting with Council, with seven council members and five of you. There’s going to be a desire for feel-good moments with, you know, pictures and, you know, what’s working well will be part of that. I think we’ll want to feel that connection over with the Council. To go down a road of, you know, touching base with them and asking them to weigh in and confirm concerns, you know, that should have, you know, Council direct staff, I mean, we definitely won’t have the kind of time during that hour to have that happen. I’m just kind of calling that out. I wouldn’t expect this to result in Council directs staff to go work on X, do code change, or whatever. Just wanted to bring that up. Make sure we’re not thinking that’s going to be part of that meeting. Chair Baltay: Well, I’m hearing that the issue of trees and parking is complex, and perhaps we already have what we need from Council on those issues. We need to focus on it a little bit harder, maybe, if it’s something we’re concerned about. I see Grace nodding her head with that statement. Does everybody else…? That’s sort of taking it off the table. Are we resigned to that? Amy’s point is well taken. We spend 20 minutes discussing trees like we just did, and we’ve gotten nowhere. 6.a Packet Pg. 212 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Board Member Hirsch: I like the way Grace put it before, that we could address through an example rather quickly and save a lot of time on it. Chair Baltay: Let’s jump then to something else. We were talking about design standards on San Antonio Road, or the need thereof, and perhaps relating that even to design standards along El Camino. Is there any way we can give them a clear sense of something about that? I know we feel that way. Building on San Antonio, there’s a contextual requirement, and we can’t figure out what the context is. I think we could use some guidance on that myself. Who else wants to say something? Board Member Lew: Maybe that’s not appropriate for the Council at this time. Maybe we should discuss that at a retreat, and then, let staff discuss it, and then, maybe bring it to the Council next time. I’m not sure it’s ready for primetime. I think we should discuss it internally, and then, bring it to the Council. Vice Chair Thompson: I would be fine with that. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, but you could bring it up to the joint meeting as an issue that we are concerned about. Board Member Lew: I think I would maybe put it in the letter as an issue, but not necessarily for the actual meeting. Chair Baltay: Are we agreed, then? Perhaps hold off on…? Board Member Lee: I was just going to suggest that it would be terrific to see it written, that they could read. Is there a way to talk about, not in terms of published design standards or a process, but we see projects that benefit from some kind of collective thinking from a diverse group of stakeholders? The City is growing, there are significant challenges ahead in many different areas in terms of uses along San Antonio and El Camino Real. We would support working with Council on how to joint collaborate on this effort in terms of some kind of guidelines that might benefit the City. I mean, is that general enough? I feel like a lot of what’s written in your letter here, all these things relate to San Antonio and El Camino Real. I know in my interview with the Council, I brought up our main boulevards and growth of the city, and I feel like that’s a lot of what we’re going to be reviewing in the future. So, I don’t know. I feel like maybe that is something to say. Chair Baltay: The question, I think, is whether we do it now, or we wait until that hotel is finished. And then, it will be glaringly obvious, I think. Board Member Lee: Okay, yes, if you have a project in process that you’re weighing in on, I understand why you might want to wait. Chair Baltay: Yeah, I think I agree with Alex’s concept, that maybe this needs a little more time to gestate. Vice Chair Thompson: I just had a thought of, so, in terms of the plan of how we’re going to formulate this PowerPoint, assuming that’s going to be what we do this time, presumably there will be slides that don’t require much dwelling on. It could just be like, “Hey, we talked about this,” but obviously we’re not going to go in depth. Maybe we could have some of these smaller… I say “smaller;” I just mean, you know, other topics that potentially aren’t ready for primetime. That could just be kind of in one of those, like, these are observations, we’re seeing this, we’re seeing this, and then… Sorry. Just going back to the structure of the PowerPoint, that we could be like, you know, “Here’s an example of a project that went through,” and that could give us, allow us to end on something that shows them our value, and also talk about the things that we’ve seen that are trends, that we don’t necessarily need to fix right now, but just that we’re seeing them, and we can look forward to seeing them later, as well. Since we’re obviously not trying to fix them right now. Chair Baltay: We could just point this out as an upcoming trend. I think we all agree this is an upcoming thing. Maybe not get into the depths of it. 6.a Packet Pg. 213 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Vice Chair Thompson: It’s similar with the trees issue. Chair Baltay: Let’s try to go through a few more of these. What I’d like to do, actually, big picture, is to see if we can identify no more than five topics. Then I’d like to take a break, both… Take a break. Also, if we can adjust the agenda, let these folks have their subcommittee hearing so they don’t have to spend all morning here. Then we can reconvene and finish who is going to tackle what, and how we’re going to do it. Are we all agreed on that? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, that’s fine. Chair Baltay: The next item I think we should discuss is this concept of curb management. It’s something I feel strongly about, that I think it would be really great to have more explicit standards. Over and over again, we see projects that don’t address these issues, and as they are built, you can see it’s not functioning very well. Take the Epiphany Hotel downtown. It’s a constant block up in front of… Hamilton Avenue at certain hours is just not passable. There’s too many people stopping there, and it’s because we don’t have a standard of how that works. Really, again, it’s parking. We have parking all along the curbside, and we shouldn’t have that. But I think Council really needs to hear from us. We’re the ones who observe it as they go through the design process. Do I have any other ideas on that? Board Member Lee: I thought it was encouraging to see this example of, you know, example in other cities that we may point to as kind of a learning opportunity. Chair Baltay: Anybody else have a…? Can we put that one on our list of things? What do we think about it? Alex? Board Member Lew: Well, it seems to me this is one of those really… Transportation Division and PTC. And I think we put it on here because it’s an issue, right? It’s not necessarily our issue. Chair Baltay: Well, we need to be careful not to suggest a solution, but we’re pointing out a problem. Board Member Lew: Right. I’m fine with pointing something out. And just leave it at that. Chair Baltay: Absolutely, I agree. We’re not out to tell how to do something. We just see an issue. Does everybody else agree that this is an issue, and this is warranted to bring to the attention of Council? David? Board Member Hirsch: Just the way it’s stated, commercial delivery, more explicit standards for ride share pickup and drop-off zone. Yes, I agree. Chair Baltay: Do you recollect that building down on Cambridge Avenue, down in the California Avenue district? A fairly large commercial building. And the code required them to have something of a 40-foot drop-off space, which just wasn’t physically feasible on the building. The result is they had nothing, and we really didn’t have any way to get them to make a smaller-scale drop-off that really would serve that building. If I remember right, it was just a… Board Member Lew: You know, the planning code has changed with regard to the loading zone, so I think we’ve fixed that. Chair Baltay: Okay, so maybe it’s been fixed for loading, but I still think it’s an important think that we can point out examples to and put out there. Let’s see. I think I see two more topics here that we haven’t, that we might be able to agree on. One of them, which is dear to my heart, again, is the parking situation at the Stanford Shopping Center. I will acknowledge that that very strongly veers away from the Architectural Review Board provenance, but I would point out that what we’re observing is many restaurants going in there that are using a higher parking count, and therefore, the parking demands aren’t being met, and other restaurants in town have a different parking standard, and it just creates an inequity that’s bothersome, at least to me. But I agree that perhaps this is not an ARB issue, but I want to hear what everybody else thinks. 6.a Packet Pg. 214 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Board Member Lew: To me, it’s a thorny issue, because there’s a cap, and they’ve been juggling around square footage, square footages, and decreasing parking. It’s a tricky one, but they’re still within their cap, and they’re within the zoning code. It seems to me we’ve had projects, there have been proposals in the past where we’re proposing a change to the cap. You know, there was one at one point where they were proposing a hotel on the site. It seems to me, I guess the way I’m thinking about it is that you modify the parking the next time you try to do a big project. Because right now, they’re sort of working within the existing restrictions, and it seems to me that they are allowed to do that, just under, you know, if you’re reading a narrow interpretation of the code, they’re allowed to do it. Chair Baltay: Let me try to make the same argument Grace is making with the trees, then, that it comes down to an issue of us enforcing strongly what we see. They are within the count at the shopping center. However, it’s really not functional. There’s just way too many dead-end parking aisles, there’s way too much demand on one end of the parking center, and much of that count is a quarter-mile away on the second floor of the garage on the other side of the shopping center. I’ve been making the argument that it’s not a functional requirement, which is Finding #4. I think if we don’t want to endorse it strongly through our findings in our hearing, then it’s legitimate to tell the Council that we need a stronger change in the code. What I’m arguing is that we should at least point out to Council that this issue exists. I don’t think they or anybody in the public sees it. All everyone sees is that it’s hard to find a parking space at the shopping center on Saturday. Why is that? It’s because there’s an influx of personal use-type businesses, restaurants, which have higher demands, and a decrease in parking. Board Member Lee: I’ll just say that, you know, Peter, we saw this in Town & Country when Trader Joe’s came in. This does come up to the Board, and then, at the same time, I’m comfortable recusing myself from talking about Stanford as an employer. But I think if all of you feel as strongly as Peter does, I understand that it’s a trend that you’re seeing. I don’t know. Chair Baltay: I think I might be the only one who feels strongly about it. Board Member Lee: Okay. Chair Baltay: I keep bringing this up. Board Member Lew: Peter, I think the trouble I have with making a big issue is, like, I think most people understand that if you try to go to any shopping center on a Saturday afternoon, it’s going to be crazy. It’s crazy at Santana Row, or Valley Fair, or wherever; it’s like that. And personally, I don’t go on those days, or, if I do go to the shopping center on a Saturday afternoon, I know exactly where I’m going to park. I know exactly where in the garage I’m going to park, and I have no issues finding a space, because I know where the spaces are. And I don’t try to go to spots where you’re trying to go, right next to the restaurants. The issue is peak. You’re trying to argue for, like, peak parking, as I understand it. Am I not? You’re trying to have a convenient spot right next to the restaurant at the peak time, and I don’t think that… It seems like everything that I read in planning is not to do that. That’s actually the wrong, that’s the wrong approach to parking. Chair Baltay: I guess what really gets my goat on this all is that it just seems to really go against building other downtowns in the area, because we’re giving the shopping center this big incentive to put restaurants in the shopping center, and then, restaurants [crosstalk]…. Board Member Lew: It’s the same issue with downtown. We have a blend of parking downtown as well. Chair Baltay: But the parking ratios are such that it’s easier for it to fit in than at Stanford Shopping Center. That’s why you see so many restaurants going in there, in part. It’s very hard to put a new restaurant anywhere else because of the parking requirement. That’s where parking is required. Think of Protégé restaurant on California Avenue and the trouble they had to go through to create parking, just to be allowed to open up. Because it was a new building, they had to meet parking requirements, and they have these elevator lifts in the back. The owner was telling me, you know, there’s hundreds of thousands of dollars’ worth of car lifts that nobody uses, to meet the code. If they put that restaurant in a shopping center, they 6.a Packet Pg. 215 City of Palo Alto Page 19 would have no issue. Money would be saved. That’s what I’m really driving towards, and that’s what’s not really an architectural board issue, but it’s something I feel [crosstalk]. Board Member Lee: I just want to mention that whenever you add parking to an agenda to an hour-long meeting with 12 people, it will dominate, so maybe we could just be very strategic in how we talk about parking, or introduce that subject. Vice Chair Thompson: I would say my two cents. I sort of feel closer to how Board Member Lew feels about this parking issue. I’m definitely not… I don’t feel as strongly about the issue at Stanford Shopping Center also, mainly because I also don’t go there on peak hours, and I usually bike there. But it’s kind of, it’s definitely not in our purview. I would be open to mentioning it briefly, but I wouldn’t want to make that a focal part of our conversation. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, pretty much the same feeling about it. It’s true of all shopping centers, that they’re very crowded at certain times. It’s kind of nice, the fact that Stanford Shopping Center has restaurants in it, and they can last after hours when parking is less common there. It’s not a bad location to have some major restaurants, the way it seems to be working. And there are ways to solve the parking that Stanford could utilize, you know, to increase the size of the garages. And they’re also implementing present programs to get staff and people who work there to park in the garages. So, while I agree it’s an issue – it’s a significant issue – we shouldn’t emphasize it too much in this discussion with the Council. Chair Baltay: Okay. I think that’s all fair, that we should just take parking out of the subject for now. It’s correct that it will dominate the entire meeting if we bring it up. It’s in our letter; we’ll leave it at that. The last thing that I think we do have to discuss, if only quickly, is item G, basically the process, the architectural review process. I think the Council is entitled to feedback from us. They changed these findings two years go. How has it been working? I think we all feel it’s been relatively positive, but just to put that out there to them is a good thing. Is there anything else on the process of architectural review that the Council should hear from us? For example, we mentioned that the informal review process was useful. I don’t know if that’s Council or staff, but is there anything that Council would want to hear about the ARB process? For example, several times they’ve, say 429 University and the Mercedes building, they, I wouldn’t say overruled us, but they tie our hands by approving half the building, and then say to us, “fix it.” Do we want to give them feedback on that? Board Member Lew: And we shouldn’t discuss Mercedes because it’s still out there. It’s not approved yet. Chair Baltay: Does anybody else have any…? The concept of the review process, I think, needs to be in our meeting, even if only quickly. Is there anything else we can add to that, aside from findings? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. You know, I’m a first-year member here, the only first-year member, and as a first-year member, I want to say that I thought the process has been working so damn well in certain areas here that we’ve discussed. I can’t name the project, I guess. Chair Baltay: I agree [crosstalk]. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, Peter will stop me right away. I just think, when I feel comfortable in going back home and saying, after a day of spending long, early hours here, that we’ve done very well in certain areas. Maybe not on every project, of course. I don’t feel that way. But I feel the consensus idea here, the way it happens with a group like this is quite incredible, and I’m happy to be a part of it, and feel it’s quite successful. And that ought to be expressed in some way here, about how these findings are important to us, and when we all look at them, we try to make a project work better, and we think we’ve been successful. That should be a bit of an introduction to the Council meeting. Chair Baltay: Are we all in agreement that the reduced changed findings have been a beneficial thing to us? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. 6.a Packet Pg. 216 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Baltay: I don’t know if you remember. There was about 20 of them before, David, and it was pretty tough to keep track of for anybody. Yes? Board Member Lee: This is only my second meeting back, but I think my sixth or seventh year, and I do want to acknowledge that less is more, and the staff has been instrumental. I think we should acknowledge that definitely when we talk about the process. Chair Baltay: Is there anything else about the review process we want to bring to Council’s attention? Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t think I have anything. Chair Baltay: Okay. What I’ve heard is that we’d like to discuss affordable housing design standards; perhaps trees and… I can’t use the word “parking,” maybe, but… San Antonio design standards; curb management; and the ARB process. Board Member Hirsch: I want to ask a question, though, at this point. Where is there a commercial building that we have been working on that is part of this? Chair Baltay: I’m sorry…? Board Member Hirsch: Is there any specifically…? About commercial buildings that we have been dealing with at all? Chair Baltay: Relating to the five topics that I just mentioned? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. When we’re talking about housing as a topic, why are we not talking about commercial buildings? Chair Baltay: What about commercial buildings? Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible] and very successfully reviewed in part of the main piece of our work. Chair Baltay: I’m sorry, David, I’m not understanding what you’re driving towards now. We want to discuss with Council commercial buildings, in what regard? Board Member Hirsch: Is there a mention of housing? Once again, we had housing that, you were bringing up an issue of housing, specifically? Chair Baltay: Yes, so, we’d like to discuss the potential need for some design standards for affordable housing, and demonstrate how our review of other projects, with a discretionary review, has made a benefit. That’s something… Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, to Grace’s point, do we want to focus on affordable, or just housing in general? I mean, I think the City as a whole is trying to encourage housing in general. Vice Chair Thompson: I would say housing in general. Chair Baltay: Housing in general, all right. What I’d like to do then is take a break, quickly, change our agenda to let the subcommittee do its work; come back, and the objective will be to pick a member to help with each one of these, to see if we can collectively come up with some examples of design standards. And then, sort of set how we’re going to go about getting this all together. If everybody is agreed with that. Can you wait a second, afterwards? ??: Yeah. 6.a Packet Pg. 217 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Baltay: Okay, so, let’s adjourn for a minute and let the subcommittee do their work. We’ll take 10 minutes. [The Board took break and moved to subcommittee discussion off line.] Subcommittee Items 6. 565 Hamilton Avenue [18PLN-00313]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Project Changes Related to Colors/Materials, Height and Trim Band. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15332. Zoning District: CD-C(P) and RM- 40 (Downtown Commercial & Residential Multi-Family). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@mgroup.us [Board Member Lee left the meeting at 10:03 a.m.] Chair Baltay: We’re going to pick up on agenda item number 3. We were just discussing our list of topics, and I’d like to review that list once more and see if we are feeling good about it. As we had the break, I’ve been thinking, we still have too many things here not… Board Member Lew: And the Council may want to add to that. Chair Baltay: Yes. And it is worth thinking that we are now going to be presenting this informally to Council in advance. What do they want to see? And the Planning Director, too, perhaps. With that in mind, I think that the concept of some sort of housing design standards, as Osma had been discussing, is important. I think that the curb management issue is something we can specifically address that might work. And maybe, Alex, you can make an argument about the way trees impact underground parking. I insist that we put the ARB process out there as a very quick statement of how it’s working. The design standards for San Antonio, probably just more than we can fit in an hour. Any sense on that? Vice Chair Thompson: I just wonder how, on the PowerPoint, it’s going to get presented. I think we can touch on even more than these things if it’s, like, a quick, “this is one of our observations; this is another one of our observations; this is a third observation,” and then, we conclude. We can kind of, for example, San Antonio design guidelines, or if we don’t, you know, we don’t have a solution for that at all yet, but we can just mention that San Antonio is changing, and we might want to talk about what we want that to look like. Chair Baltay: Just a quick mention of it then. I’m just more and more leery that we have an hour with seven council members who all like to speak. We can get lost really quickly. Or, we can really concretely focus on something, get good examples of it. Board Member Hirsch: I agree with Osma’s point of view. If you can weave the design, the ARB… Chair Baltay: The ARB process. Board Member Hirsch: … process in with specific projects somehow, you know, make that the beginning. I’d rather put that first than any of the other topics that you’re discussing here. It’s the most important one, in my mind, to really show how the process is working, how we work as a team, you know? And I think it’s a highlight, and it will be very positive. Chair Baltay: Yeah, that will be the feel-good moment, when we explain what we do. We all sort of enjoy it, and we have made a difference. It’s quite concrete, and we can show that. This is our chance, though, to tell them about things that need to be fixed as well. I think the more we can be concrete about that. Vice Chair Thompson: [inaudible] 6.a Packet Pg. 218 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Baltay: Oh, yes, I’m sorry about that. Can we open the meeting to testimony from a member of the public, if you’d like to say something? ??: [inaudible] Chair Baltay: Oh, we didn’t see that. I tried. ??: [inaudible] much later, probably half an hour [inaudible]. Chair Baltay: So, for whoever is watching, we have a request from Mary Sylvester, and we’d love to hear what you have to say. I’m sorry to be so formal, but you will have three minutes. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Mary Sylvester: Thank you, Chair and commissioners. My name is Mary Sylvester [spells name]. I’m a 41- year resident of Palo Alto. I just have a few general comments to make about the study session topics. My first comment, though, is to thank you all for your service, and to do this publicly, this thinking through process of what you’re going to discuss with Council, I think it’s vitally important. And I want to thank staff as well, to Ms. Gerhardt and Ms. French. They’re doing a lot of the hard work behind the scenes, and they get a lot of grief from the public, myself being one at different times. So, thank you. I also think it’s important to keep the study session in mind as to its goals. It’s to educate the Council, I believe, but also the public. I’ve been to four study sessions over the last three years, and I have found them fascinating, both for the degree of dedication that the commissioners show, but again, how they conceive of their mission, and then, the interplay between the commissioners and the council. And sometimes topics have gotten heated, particularly with the PTC and the Council. I was at one meeting where Asher Waldfogel – and I’m sure he wouldn’t mind; he handled it beautifully – and Greg Sharp [phonetic] got into a rather heated discussion, but, again, it gave the public a sense of their thinking. Okay. And I want to comment. I want to thank Ms. French for her framing. One hour is not long, and I think it’s very important that you both have the feel-good moments, as well as the challenges facing the community, and your recommendations. Ms. Lee’s comment about coordination and how you work with the PTC, for instance, the public wants that transparency. How does coordination go on between urban forestry, PTC, ARB, HRB? And that’s a process issue, but it also goes to a larger mission, I believe, of the City. That was a vital part of the planning meeting for the new Council this year, where they were talking about transparency being integrated into every goal they adopt for this new year. And one of the key goals was sustainability and climate change, so Commissioner Thompson’s comments about trees, scales, materials, fit in beautifully to the sustainability and green goals the Council adopted in 2019 for the next year. Along with that scale, materials. Aesthetics, maybe it went off to the side, but I think that’s where your refined eye comes in. I caution you about endorsing underground garages. And I’m prejudice. I’m a neighbor of Castilleja school that has one planned, but we know the Council this year rejected the downtown underground garage, for a number of reasons. But there is an impact on groundwater, there’s foundational impacts on neighbors. Commissioner Lew, I loved your comment on mobility. We have huge demographic changes. I’m turning 65 within a month. I feel the changes in the walkability and livability of this city. And lastly, the idea of a case study that integrates your thinking and that feel-good movement, such as Wilton Court. It’s interesting for the public to hear not only your thinking, your goals, but how the project was improved. Because many of us, if you’re not involved with the actual project, you don’t know a lot about affordable housing and the ARB process. I think it’s an interesting movement to integrate both affordable housing, housing issues generally – and again, you have just a few minutes, but make mention of it – and then, how the ARB process has made for a better project for the community. Thank you very much. It’s been a fascinating opportunity to observe your thinking. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much for your comments. Those are well thought through. Okay, gang, affordable housing design standards. Seems to me the Wilton Court project is the posterchild you want to talk about. Osma, you’ve been vocal about it. Do you want to take on…? You’ll have to work with staff to collect images to do a before and after and show the effect of design review. Vice Chair Thompson: Sure. 6.a Packet Pg. 219 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Baltay: Does that sound…? Are we in support of that idea? Alex, what do you think? Board Member Lew: I wouldn’t limit it to Wilton Court. Chair Baltay: Let’s think of some other projects, then. What other…? Board Member Lew: There are a couple issues I think we want to just touch on. One is, so, with affordable housing projects, it’s likely that we’re not going to get ground floor retail on them. Like, on Wilton Court, we have, there are ground floor communal uses, right? But say, like on 801 Alma, it’s ground floor residential, which is [inaudible]. At least in my mind, it’s not desirable to have, like, your bedroom window on the sidewalk. I just want to bring up issues, just general issues like that, where the Board has struggled in the past. Like 801 Alma, the children’s playground was put on the shady side of the building. You know, there was a reason for that, but, you know, it’s not desirable, generally. You normally would put that in the sun. Chair Baltay: That’s something Osma might have been involved in. How about the one on the corner of Page Mill and El Camino? There’s a large housing building. Board Member Lew: I want to say workforce housing is a little different, it’s a different overlay. That’s, like, a public facility with workforce housing overlay, so that’s a little different than affordable. But we can put them together. I just want to make sure we understand there’s [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: Well, just to give Osma some direction as to which projects we think you might want to be looking at. Vice Chair Thompson: Maybe I can work with Alex on this. We can kind of… Is it possible for us to tag team? Chair Baltay: Whatever you folks want to do. If the two of you want to tackle this together. I’m thinking that we have too much stuff here. I want to get us to focus. Board Member Lew: I agree. Chair Baltay: The more we can just say, let’s just look at this housing issue and not try to stretch our boundaries. So, if Alex and Osma together want to come up… What I envision is that each part of the Board will work on part of this, and perhaps present a series of PowerPoint slides, or some other structure, that we can then integrate into one thing that staff can help us be ready to present at the meeting. And then, each Board member will speak regarding this topic that they’ve prepared. Board Member Lew: I’m happy to help as much as I can. In the next, for that week in December, we have the ARB, and I also have Ventura that same week, and our joint Council meeting. So, I may not be able to help that much, but I will do as much as I an. Chair Baltay: You should explain that to your partner, not to me. I’m going to expect the two of you to come through on what was agreed. Board Member Lew: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: I was going to suggest that we also loop in the trees thing because it’s sort of related. Board Member Lew: Umm…. Chair Baltay: Focus, focus, focus, Osma. It’s really important. You have seven council members in one room; it’s just very hard to get things done. 6.a Packet Pg. 220 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Lew: I think the affordable housing issue is sort of… I’m thinking that it’s on their mind, and I think it’s on the community’s mind, and I think the tree thing could be pushed back to another meeting. Vice Chair Thompson: You don’t think it could just be like guidelines, or just like, “Hey, by the way.” Board Member Lew: I think it’s fine to highlight it as an issue, but I wouldn’t… I’m thinking, like, not dwelling on it. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, no, not dwelling on it. Board Member Lew: If you really want to discuss something, then I think it should be the housing. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, there could be mentions of topics, issues coming up, or something like that. For consideration. One sentence long kind of comment about some other pieces that we’re concerned about, without making it a topic. Chair Baltay: Well, I would like to, myself, just bring to Council’s attention the ARB process. Make the statement that I think the findings are working. I’d like to make a statement that the ARB awards are coming up, and it’s been positively received in the past, and we’d still like to do that. It doesn’t have to be a lot. In that same statement, I could also make a statement about the San Antonio design standards; there’s going to be a need for that in the future. Not do any more than that. No discussion whatsoever, if we feel that we want to have it mentioned someplace. But I don’t want that to become a big show. Alternatively, we could make the ARB process about demonstrating our process and show one or two design projects, with a couple of slides showing the improvement. That’s a feel-good kind of thing; everybody likes to see it. If there’s a sense that we should be doing that, that’s the place to do it. Board Member Lew: On San Antonio, I think maybe, I think there are a couple things that we should… I think we should maybe consider enlarging… Chair Baltay: Okay. Board Member Lew: …that, mostly because we have, the Council’s sort of gone back and forth over the years. For a while, they didn’t want the housing there, and then, they decided that they do want to put housing there. It’s commercially zoned. The condominium neighbors want, you know, they have their own opinion about wanting residential. So, I think maybe we just, it’s not just design, but I think it’s actually planning. It seems to me it’s a planning issue. And then, we have projects that, like the Affordable Housing Project, is trying to fit in pedestrian-friendly things, but it’s actually auto, you know, the zoning is automobile based. I think I would just mention that and not make it a huge discussion point. Just say it’s out there. There are big issues. Chair Baltay: The more I think about it, the less I think there’s a value in just saying it’s out there. I mean, it just dilutes the message. If we want to deal with this affordable housing design stuff, that’s a real, legitimate, strong thing that we can make a good case for, and we can really get behind it. And we could easily spend an hour talking about that. I think we should focus as much as we can on what we think is really important. San Antonio is an enormous planning issue, something the City has been wrestling with, and I don’t know that there’s too many design issues. I mean, that hotel is going to be a shining design example of what happens with a 2.0 FAR hotel on that street. We could go through the design cases and show how we stepped it back and we made it better. I’m not sure it’s good enough, and I’m not sure how the policymakers in the City want to later reflect on San Antonio Road. But is now when we really want to be bringing that up? Board Member Lew: We can [inaudible], because we have one… Well, there is one affordable housing project on San Antonio Road, right? And we shouldn’t discuss it because it’s out there. But we could just include that in the affordable housing… I would just maybe put it in there, saying that in addition to, like, the affordable housing on El Camino, that we have one on San Antonio Road as well. 6.a Packet Pg. 221 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Baltay: Absolutely. Board Member Lew: And just fold it in, that San Antonio is part of our El Camino, that we lumped it in together with El Camino and affordable housing, and not have it as a separate topic. Chair Baltay: I think if you could fold that in with any discussion of the housing design standards, that would be successful. I’m becoming of the opinion that the subject of trees and parking and how they’re related is just not going to work, and the San Antonio design standards on its own is just too much. But I’d still like to see David give us some examples of where better curbside management and design can make a difference. I think that’s a shortcoming that a lot of projects have that’s very solvable, and it’s very current. Is there consensus on that? Let that be the second subject? Vice Chair Thompson: I don’t know how much there is to talk about that. Board Member Lew: I’m thinking that the, so, in addition to the transportation networking companies, that we have had issues with the buses and the hotel projects. There are community concerns about the bus, like… Chair Baltay: Maybe we’re just adding our voice to something everybody is starting to see. That that’s appropriate. Board Member Lew: Right. Chair Baltay: It seems to me it’s something we can concretely point out that we’ve observed. Board Member Lew: I think we can point it out. I think the Council understands that there’s a transportation, sort of revolution coming. I think they understand that. I think we could point out that it’s impacting architectural projects. Chair Baltay: You think it’s superfluous? Should we just not spend … [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: …I think you can mention it. Vice Chair Thompson: It’s fine to mention. Chair Baltay: David, are you okay taking that on, to find some examples? Give some advice on where to go with it, then? Board Member Hirsch: We discussed Cambridge Avenue, which was one of those areas where Peter in particular was concerned about the issue of deliveries and curbside. And yes, I see the problem kind of citywide, with the trucks that pull up, and delivery trucks, UPS kind of trucks. And even in the neighborhoods, how mail delivery works with parking issues. In particular, I think that there are a number of narrow streets that have problems that way, so I think a transportation study is important. Chair Baltay: Can we suggest some projects that…? I think it was 400 Cambridge. Do I remember the number right? Board Member Hirsch: Cambridge, definitely. Chair Baltay: It was a large office building. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Steve Pierce designed it. 6.a Packet Pg. 222 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Hirsch: You know, to add to this, maybe the Council isn’t that aware of some of these issues, and pointing it out is important. Chair Baltay: That’s the purpose of this, as I see it, is to point out [crosstalk]. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I mean, I just think that they’re not aware. Chair Baltay: What other projects? Board Member Lew: Well, it’s come up a lot on quite a number of projects, but I’d mention, the zoning code has been… It’s already been updated. And then, I think maybe on curbside management, I think you do want to highlight is changing, and changing rapidly. As an example, we have, like, Amazon, and then also, the post office is delivering Amazon packages, and they do it seven days a week, all hours of the day. Chair Baltay: And [inaudible] control it. How about the Hotel Parmani? Didn’t they actually have a fairly successful way to direct traffic visitors, guests, off the street? If I remember right, we worked with them to get around, off Hansen Avenue, they had a pretty good-sized turnaround area that I thought worked pretty well. But that was through our encouragement, not through the code. Am I remembering that correct? Board Member Lew: They have a porte-cochere, and I think there’s a way of… People are saying that you can have a designated, you can designate a drop-off point for those companies. Chair Baltay: Well, they’re even doing that down in Los Angeles now, at the airport. I’ve seen… Jodie and Amy, do you have any ideas of what we might do if this topic is to go through? Ms. Gerhardt: I think Hotel Parmani is a good one. That one has been already through the process. We have another hotel that we’re working on, but that one is still pending, on El Camino. Yeah, others aren’t coming to mind, but I can certainly look further into this. And also, too, don’t hesitate to ask us. We should have the initial plan sets and the final plan sets for all of these projects, so just let us know what addresses you’re looking at. Vice Chair Thompson: How about, just because I want to move this along a little bit, maybe we just take a stab at the slides that we’re kind of getting assigned, and then, I know we’re not meeting on the 21st, but maybe we can… I don’t know. Are we allowed to share that by email to each other? Like, how can we coordinate? What’s the protocol here? Board Member Lew: It’s not a project. You know? That’s the issue. You don’t want to have, like, a private meeting about it, you know, deciding on a project, but this is not… This is just… Vice Chair Thompson: We’re making a PowerPoint. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Vice Chair Thompson: Should we all send our slides to Amy, or something? Or should we all send our slides to one of us? Jodie? And then she’ll compile, kind of thing? Board Member Lew: I think we still want to do it through staff because that way there is a record of it, so if some member of the public wants to see it, that there is a way for staff to share it. If we send it privately, there’s no way for the public to see it. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, so, how about we just all send our slides to Jodie, and then, maybe we get a chance to review it? I don’t know if we can set up some kind of profile where we can mark up ideas, and then, have, like an incorporation, having a… 6.a Packet Pg. 223 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Chair Baltay: Let me come back to that in one second, Osma, because I’m trying to list projects first. I want to do one more thing, and then we can get into the process. I’ll be very quick; I promise you. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Chair Baltay: But if we wanted to look at the ARB process itself and pick one or two projects where we reviewed and made changes, felt it was suggested, what would we recommend? Which projects do we think that we can feel good about the change in the design, and that we have good imagery? Board Member Hirsch: Cambridge, for one. Cambridge Avenue. Chair Baltay: Four Hundred Cambridge is one? Board Member Hirsch: Hmm-hmm. Chair Baltay: I don’t know that they have any changes though, David, from that design. Vice Chair Thompson: No, they did. Board Member Hirsch: You did. Chair Baltay: They did? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, they had… [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: And certainly curb management… Chair Baltay: Give me two others so we have something to choose from. Vice Chair Thompson: Well, I think the affordable housing one that we talked about, Wilton Court… Chair Baltay: Wilton Court was a good one, okay. Vice Chair Thompson: …is a good example. Shall we just pick one more? Board Member Hirsch: Alex, you have to come up with one now. Board Member Lew: I made a list of projects, but I don’t have it in front of me at the moment. Ms. Gerhardt: I can send you… Would it help to get a list of past projects? And how far back? Chair Baltay: The best way to do this would be to not have a separate discussion of the ARB process, but to have that be integrated into the discussion about the things we’re really trying to say. On Wilton Court, we can use that as an example of not just the ARB process, but where we think design standards are important. And 400 Cambridge, we can, again, use it as an example of the design process, but also this need for curb management. If we can do it that way, that’s even better. If we’re all agreed that those two projects are ones that we want to focus on, I’m happy we’re focused. Board Member Hirsch: This is an hour, right? We have an hour, and we’re going to make a presentation first, and then there’s going to be discussion, and Council… [crosstalk] Chair Baltay: I think we have, like, five minutes of presentation. 6.a Packet Pg. 224 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Vice Chair Thompson: I think we’re probably good then. Chair Baltay: Let me suggest that, one person needs to be the point person on the ARB to assemble – the way we did the letter, sort of – to assemble everything into one presentation, and then, we could all collectively keep reviewing it. Alex’s point about going through staff by email was important, and I think if we just copy staff and ourselves, we can get that together. And then, Jodie can formally say, “Here’s the draft,” so it’s going through the staff again. Does that make sense? Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, so, just to clarify. We would work on our individual slides, and then, send that to one person and cc Jodie? Chair Baltay: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: And then, give ourselves a few days to review it and incorporate any changes, and then, when we feel comfortable, we can publish that for public review? Chair Baltay: I don’t think we need to publish for review. It will go on the agenda for the meeting, whenever that’s noticed. The agenda packet will have the presentation in it, probably. Vice Chair Thompson: Jodie, when do we have to be done with that? Board Member Lew: Yeah, because the Council has a two week… Is it a two week lead time for Council meeting packets? Yeah. It’s not far off. Vice Chair Thompson: It’s, like, end of next week. Ms. Gerhardt: Sorry, I’m looking that up. Just a second. This is for December 2nd, presentations, when staff is doing presentations, they’re due 11/28. Because those are reviewed by the Director. I don’t know that… But if we can do 11/28, that would be great. Chair Baltay: Today is the 7th, so, in three weeks’ time, we have to have this completed. Why don’t we say in one week’s time, Osma and Alex will put together 10 slides, and whatever verbiage supports…? About three minutes of presentation? Does that seem about right? It’s not a lot, but you want to really focus and narrow it down. Staff can help you dig up records. I have a pile of… I’m sure I have those drawings, but that’s available for you, readily. And we’ve agreed that Wilton Court is the example we’re focusing on, unless you come up with something better. David, same thing to you regarding 400 Cambridge and curb management. Grace had to leave, but she offered to help wherever we thought best. Would you like her to partner with you on that, or is that just more trouble than it’s worth? In one week’s time, you can barely get anything together. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, if… Yeah, I think Grace has limited time, frankly. She’s pretty busy. Chair Baltay: Maybe we should switch it around then. Ask Grace to just address the issue of how our findings have been successful. She’s one of us with experience with past findings; I’m sure she can, with some legitimacy, just… I guess that’s not true, though, because she hasn’t worked with the ones we have now. Vice Chair Thompson: Maybe you can work with her on that. Board Member Hirsch: You know, what impressed me today, first time I’ve heard Grace talk, is her generality. She’s looking at things in a very broad picture, and her language is very, very good for that. I would love to have her sum up in some way. Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s get her to do that. Okay. David, you’re going to prepare another, a maximize of 10 slides and three minutes’ worth of verbiage for the issue of curb management and [crosstalk]… 6.a Packet Pg. 225 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I could weave it in, as I think Osma suggested, weave it in to Cambridge, you know? And just say that curb management, and this is a specific problem that we see more generally in the city. Chair Baltay: And maybe we say that on these two project examples. We’re also, as you’re discussing it, you mention the process of architectural review and how the changes occur in the project that you’re presenting. We don’t do that separately. Board Member Hirsch: Hmm-hmm. Chair Baltay: Are we supportive of that? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Chair Baltay: Okay, so, one week from now, what I suggest is that you email to me and to Jodie. What I’ll do is try to put it all together, or give feedback. The idea would be, after a week, we can prepare a preliminary draft of the whole thing, and everybody can comment on it once more. Additionally, we may have additional feedback from the Council this afternoon, so we’ll keep everybody abreast. Vice Chair Thompson: Are we all comfortable using PowerPoint? Or should we use, like, PDF’s, send PDF’s, or Word files? I’m just wanting to clarify the medium. Board Member Lew: I’ve had problems in the past using different versions of PowerPoint with the City, like, doing my own computer, and then, coming to the City’s, and it wasn’t 100 percent compatible. I don’t know what the problem is, but there were different versions. Chair Baltay: Hopefully, the last week is to… Board Member Lew: Yeah. But the other option is just collecting images and letting… No? Staff? You guys don’t have the manpower. Shall we make everything, make the entire presentation, like, graphics, on top of the photos? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I mean, I’ve got Office 365. That’s the version of PowerPoint that I have, so if that’s what others have. Or, usually if you have a little bit older than that, it should be okay. I think PowerPoint would be fine, and even if you gave me PDF’s, I can move it to PowerPoint. Chair Baltay: Let me suggest that, send in PDF’s, image files of any kind, text of any kind; I’ll put together the PowerPoint slides for the start, so we have a consistent format and graphics. And then we can all comment and change it as we like. The initial feedback within in a week is just the data, the content. After that, it will be a PowerPoint file that we’re circulating, and we edit that directly. Do we all agree with that? Vice Chair Thompson: But if we wanted to send you a PowerPoint, we could. [crosstalk] Chair Baltay: Whatever is easiest for you. Vice Chair Thompson: All right. Chair Baltay: We’re focusing on content the first week. The second week is editing and review. Third week will be just to make sure we have it all together. Any other comments, Jodie? Have we covered this to death? Ms. Gerhardt: There was the parking and the trees. Is that just going to be, maybe wove them into the housing discussion? 6.a Packet Pg. 226 City of Palo Alto Page 30 Chair Baltay: I think we’re going try not to discuss it. Vice Chair Thompson: And I think we’re going [inaudible]. Chair Baltay: Affordable housing. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Touch on it briefly. Chair Baltay: Touch on it briefly. Ms. Gerhardt: And then, so, did you have a time limit for your ARB process, sort of discussion you were going to have? I have three minutes for housing, three minutes for curb management. Chair Baltay: I’m envisioning the ARB making a presentation of less than 10 minutes total time with us talking. After that, it’s up to the Council on how they want to run this. We might find more this afternoon. I’d like us to be succinct, focused, prepared. Board Member Hirsch: Do I assume, Peter, you’re going to do an intro to the whole thing to begin with? How is that going to work? Chair Baltay: I imagine so, but we’ll find out today how the mayor wants to run the meeting. It’s their call. Vice Chair Thompson: The first week of December, we have two meetings. We have the one on the second, and one on the fifth. Board Member Hirsch: I would think you should start off, then, with how we use the findings, you know? Some description of that. [inaudible] they understand exactly how we proceed with our meetings. Chair Baltay: I was thinking to wrap up with that instead. Board Member Hirsch: Oh, yeah? I think it’s better to start with it? Chair Baltay: Better to start with that? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Vice Chair Thompson: Once you get all the content… Chair Baltay: As we put it together, we’ll realize when we all edit it together. It’s really important that it’s something we can all support, that we’re not feeling compelled to say things outside of our presentation when we’re talking to them. With that, agenda item number 3 is finished. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 3, 2019. Chair Baltay: We now have to move on to minutes of October 3, 2019. Ms. Gerhardt: And I did just want to note for the record that Board Member Lee was excused at 10:03 this morning. Chair Baltay: That’s correct, thank you. Assuming everybody has reviewed and agreed with these minutes, I’ll be looking for a motion to approve. 6.a Packet Pg. 227 City of Palo Alto Page 31 Board Member Lew: I just have one correction. It’s on packet page 20. I was speaking, and there’s just one word in the minutes, which is “rigorous,” and I said “vigorous.” That’s what I intended to say. I would make a motion that we approve the minutes as corrected, if there aren’t any other corrections. Chair Baltay: Well, if you’re into that level of detail, Alex, on page… Board Member Hirsch: Now that you’re mentioning words, Alex, I have to go back into our… [crosstalk] Chair Baltay: … on page 34, Alex, the landscape architect, is bringing up, I think a “corsis” as an oak tree, not a “cersis.” It’s halfway down. The transcriber just didn’t understand what you’re referring to on two trees. Ms. Gerhardt: Where is that? Chair Baltay: Page 34, in the middle of the paragraph where Alex is talking about trees. It says, “I think there are two T-1 trees. One is a cercis and one is a sultus.” Board Member Lew: You know, I think that is… Chair Baltay: Can you enlighten us what you really were referring to? Ms. Gerhardt: Oh, there is a phonetic spelling there. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, if you’re going to be that… Ms. Gerhardt: What are the tree names? Board Member Hirsch: … I want to go back to packet page 13… Ms. Gerhardt: Just a second, David. Board Member Hirsch: On page 13, if you look down, there’s a word, “TDM require regular and complaint- based monitoring,” rather than “compliant.” Chair Baltay: That’s not in the minutes, David. Board Member Hirsch: I know it’s not, but [laughing]. Chair Baltay: David, please hold on, hold on, hold on. Board Member Lew: Okay, you’re correct. The “cercis” is correct, and the “sultus” is, I think probably… I’ll double check. It’s probably c-e-l-t-u-s…? Or celtus…? I’d have to look tree name. But, yeah, the phonetic one is not correct. It was saying there’s an oak tree, a [inaudible]. Chair Baltay: That’s what I assumed, yeah. [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: The oak tree comment I had was about the existing tree, and that was different than the tree T-1 on the… Chair Baltay: Okay, so, with those two… Board Member Lew: … landscaping plan. 6.a Packet Pg. 228 City of Palo Alto Page 32 Chair Baltay: … corrections from Board Member Lew, and a motion from Board Member Lew to approve, do we have a second for that motion? Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: Okay. It’s moved and seconded. All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 4 to 0. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. Chair Baltay: That’s the end of that item. Now, Board Member Hirsch, you were pointing out a typographic or spelling mistake on a previous agenda item? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, on packet page 13, I think that… Chair Baltay: That’s on the item we just finished, right? Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible] Chair Baltay: Let’s take that off line… Board Member Hirsch: Okay, if you’d like. Chair Baltay: … between you and staff. I don’t think there’s any point to going back to that. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, that’s fine. Chair Baltay: I think, then, we finished the subcommittee, so we are adjourned. Thank you, everybody. Board Member Lew: Uh, North Ventura [inaudible]? Chair Baltay: I am sorry. We are not adjourned. We are not adjourned. So sorry; I apologize, Alex. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Chair Baltay: A report from the Ventura… Board Member Lew: Yes, so, there was a meeting on October 29th. The consultants are not back on the project yet, but we did have a meeting, and we did hear from a new consultant on the scope of work they’re going to do for naturalizing the creek in the area. And then, the committee did work on developing three alternative schemes that will be developed later. The next meeting is tentatively scheduled for December 5th. Chair Baltay: Are those schemes available to the public yet, or…? Board Member Lew: No. The consultant’s not started working on the alternates. They’re just starting to develop, you know, they haven’t been working on the project, but they are going to start developing three alternatives. Board Member Hirsch: Well, Alex and I have something to discuss, some thoughts that I had going forward on the planning. If I come up with thoughts, I think it’s important that Alex take a look at it. He’s our representative on this project, so, I’m not intending to interfere with the formal way in which we’re presenting ideas, except that through Alex’s help, I sent him a number of ideas that I’m working on. 6.a Packet Pg. 229 City of Palo Alto Page 33 Chair Baltay: Well, I would think what’s appropriate is that Alex is the representative of the ARB on this committee, so his title then should be listening to comments the ARB has to make, and from that, form an opinion of how he represents what we’re thinking. So, if you have comments to make, it would be wise of you to… Board Member Hirsch: Share them? Chair Baltay: … share them with Alex, either now, or if it’s complex or detailed, somehow in advance of a meeting, so we can all see it in writing. Board Member Hirsch: Are you saying…? Are you saying I should share them with the other board members here first? Chair Baltay: Not necessarily first, but you should make known what you’d like the Board to be represented with Alex, and I think the other board members would like to know what it is, because we want ultimately Alex to be representing a majority of the opinion of the Board. Board Member Hirsch: Excellent. Okay. Chair Baltay: Is that correct? Board Member Lew: Yeah, and then, I think my understanding is with the City Planning staff, is that the North Ventura Plan will come to the Board for some comment, you know, on certain scope of the project, but maybe not the entire scope. It would be the parts of the project that the Board would have purview over. So, the Board will have an opportunity to comment on it. Chair Baltay: Do you think it’s appropriate or useful, Alex, for David, for example, to offer suggestions or comments regarding the way the process is going or what the content is now? Or is it best to give that to you in writing, separately? What do you think is useful? Board Member Lew: Okay, well, I think he already has, and that’s fine. I think a little bit of it is outside of the scope of the planning process that is, that the Council has given us. But that’s fine. Chair Baltay: David, you have offered suggestions to Alex and those have been offline of the Board, just between the two of you? Board Member Hirsch: Just between the two of us. I suppose I’d be prepared to share it with everybody if Alex thinks it’s reasonable. Board Member Lew: Yeah, so, David, I mean, it’s just, as an example, like, you’re proposing, like, bicycle routes between Ventura and Barron Park, and that’s outside of the scope of the project boundaries that the Council has given us. So, I think it’s important, but it’s not like we have any, we don’t necessarily have any say over that. Unless it’s within the project boundaries. Board Member Hirsch: In fact, the entire comments were probably outside the scope because I’m saying influences that are outside the scope are influential on a particular project that’s been bounded and presented to the group to study. And if you don’t look at the elements that affect it from the perimeter, the fact that, you know, that Stanford Park is there, and all of the office development around it is impacting this area, as well, and in fact, is kind of invading it in some ways right at this moment. The park housing was a mix of retail, of offices and residential. Seems to me to be an influence of what is affecting the project. Alex, if you agree that it’s okay to do so, I’d like to share it with the rest of the Board, these thoughts, and let us as a group discuss it separately. Chair Baltay: What I’d like to do is leave Board Member Lew in charge of how we discuss this topic, in the sense that over the course of this committee being formed and functioning, we should be giving Board Member Lew our comments and thoughts as we see appropriate. Each time we discuss this as a meeting, 6.a Packet Pg. 230 City of Palo Alto Page 34 when it’s been agendized like this, it’s up to Alex to decide which things he thinks he should formalize within the whole board. For example, Board Member Hirsch brought up this issue, “which I think is important, I’d like to make you aware of what I’m thinking.” If he doesn’t feel it’s germane or relative to his issue, I would rather not have us second guess that judgment right now, but rather leave it to Board Member Lew to spearhead our representation on this other committee. And then, I don’t know. I think that’s just the most practical way to bring that up. Alex, obviously David has some opinions you should be sharing with us, but I’ll leave that to your judgment. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think it’s a tricky one, because I think the things that David brings up are important. They are planning issues. But again, it goes back to the ARB’s purview and our scope, and that we actually have a planning commission and city council that do address issues that he’s brought up. It’s not necessarily our place. We can acknowledge them. I think we just… Just generally, I think I understand that the City loves, the City and [inaudible] really love to study and plan everything, and we have huge, enormous planning documents for some of the areas in Palo Alto, and I think really on the Ventura, it really needs to, we really just need to focus on the task that the Council has given us. It’s difficult enough just to address the issues that the Council wants us to do, which is housing, and a connected street grid, and historic preservation. And to go beyond the scope of that in Ventura to, like, the relationship with the Research Park and Barron Park and stuff, just seems to me like you’re… You’re just going really too far out there. Chair Baltay: Okay, Alex, if you could be sure, as a courtesy to members of the Board, to bring forth to everybody opinions like what David is doing, even if you feel that that’s not appropriate to discuss, which is what you’ve just explained right now, as we go forward. David, it’s important that you’re listened to, and Alex is thinking about what you have. It’s important that we as a Board respect Alex’s judgment of what… He’s the one at the meeting. He knows what that meeting is trying to accomplish. We don’t want to tie his hands or second-guess what’s going on. Alex, if you could just acknowledge these things to the Board when we discuss them, so that David feels he’s being heard on this issue. And then, also, if other members of the Board feel that what David is saying is something we should discuss more carefully, we can bring it up at that time. Is that something we can all work with? Board Member Hirsch: I can work with it. I’m wondering, does that…? Are you saying that Alex should share my, what I sent to him, to…? Chair Baltay: Yes. Basically, Alex is the one who will bring back comments… Board Member Hirsch: That’s fine. Chair Baltay: … from everybody at these presentations every meeting. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Baltay: We should make whatever comments we have to Alex… Board Member Hirsch: Which I did. Chair Baltay: … which you did, and Alex will bring up as he sees fit, however it goes, what they are, and what his reaction is, or how it’s relating to is work [crosstalk]. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, no, I think it would be a good idea if Alex could make his comments on top of it and present it to the rest of you. Chair Baltay: Yeah. I think we’re all in agreement on that. Great. With that, we have finished agenda number 5. Number 6, we already did. Now, are we adjourned? Alex, yes? Okay, we are adjourned. Thank you everybody, very much. Adjournment 6.a Packet Pg. 231 6.a Packet Pg. 232