Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-03-05 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: March 5, 2020 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. 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road [19PLN-00291]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Address the Following Outstanding Issues for a Previously Approved Auto Dealership Project: Color, Landscaping, Parapets, Lighting, Transportation Demand Management Plan, County Airport Land Use Commission Review; and Floor Area Ratio. Environmental Assessment: Addendum to an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was Adopted for the Project on June 24, 2019. Zoning District: CS(D)(AD). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [20PLN-0003]: Consideration of an Application for Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a Two- Story Retail Building of 28,714 Square Feet Located in the Stanford Shopping Center. 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 _______________________ 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. More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@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 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2020 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2020 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment Subcommittee Items 6. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project that was Conditioned to Return with a Tree Replacement Plan and Details for the Location of New Bicycle Parking. 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). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org 7. 400 Channing Avenue [16PLN-00381]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That is Requesting Review of Facade Modifications Made in the Field. The Subject Site is Lot One and has a new Address of 909 Waverley Street. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (new construction). Zoning District: DHS District in the SOFA I CAP. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org _______________________ 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 # 11142) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 3/5/2020 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 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 1/30/2020 9:00 AM Palo Alto Art Center Retreat 2/6/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/20/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 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 1/16 – Hirsch/Lew 2/6 – Baltay/Lew 3/5 – TBD July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2020 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics March 19, 2020 • 620 Emerson: New Commercial Building (1st Formal) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11076) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/5/2020 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 (2nd Formal) 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 the Following Outstanding Issues for a Previously Approved Auto Dealership Project: Color, Landscaping, Parapets, Lighting, Transportation Demand Management Plan, County Airport Land Use Commission Review; and Floor Area Ratio. Environmental Assessment: Addendum to an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration that was Adopted for the Project on June 24, 2019. Zoning District: CS(D)(AD). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon 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 ARB previously reviewed the subject project. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: https://tinyurl.com/12-19-19-ARB-Staff-Report. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the ARB and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The following analysis section builds upon the information contained in the earlier report. The analysis reflects the recent project changes. 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Background On December 19, 2019 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the ARB’s meeting is available online: https://tinyurl.com/12-19-19-ARB-Video. The following table summarizes the ARB’s comments and the applicant’s response: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response • Car Wash Screening: Provide a different screening plant between the car wash and the property line. Recommend to use Italian Buckthorn (Rhamnus alaternus). Italian Buckthorn (Rhamnus alaternus) plants are proposed instead of the Coffee berry. Appears to resolve issue. See Sheets L-1 & L- 3. See Analysis section for further discussion. • Bayshore Road Trees: Provide California Lilac ‘Ray Hartman’ (Ceanothus ‘Ray Hartman’) trees along Bayshore Road as accents. The Western Redbuds are proposed only at the Embarcadero Road entrance to the site. The Ray Hartman Lilacs are introduced along Bayshore Road and within the parking areas between Bayshore Road and the building. In addition to the Lilacs, Chaste Trees are proposed along Bayshore Road. Appears to resolve issue. See Sheets L-1 & L- 3. See Analysis section for further discussion. • Elevations Depicting Lower Level Change: Provide elevation and rendering drawings that depict the reduction of floor area along Bayshore Road to meet the Floor Area Ratio requirement. Elevations and renderings are updated to depict the proposed changes. Appears to resolve issue. See Sheets ZA102, ZA200, ZA-203 & Bayshore Road renderings. See Analysis section for further discussion. • Bayshore Road Elevation: With the proposed change to the elevation, reducing the floor area, the Bayshore Road Elevation needs more continuity. The right side of the stairwell tower reads like the back of the building. The elevation on the right side of the stairwell tower now continues a similar design theme as on the other side of the tower. This design wraps around the rear of the building slightly. Appears to resolve issue. See Sheet ZA203 & ZA202. See Analysis section for further discussion. • Transportation Demand Management: Applicant submitted updated TDM. Office of Transportation approved the TDM. See Attachment E for approved TDM. 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Analysis1 At the prior meeting, the ARB’s comments and discussion focused on landscaping and the changes to the building that address the discrepancies with the project’s compliance with the Floor Area Ratio (FAR) development standard. Car Wash Screening The proposed detached car wash building located at the rear of the Audi property (1730 Embarcadero) would be placed five feet from the property line. The placement raised concern regarding noise and visual impact of the building on the neighboring property. As demonstrated in the adopted California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) documents for the project, noise is not expected to be an issue, given the required mitigations. However, the visual impact is an ongoing discussion. At the last ARB meeting, the applicant presented a proposal to plant coffee berry shrubs as screen vegetation. While the coffee berry would be considered low water use, native and bay-friendly, this shrub species would not grow to a height necessary to provide screening within the limited five-foot setback. At the prior meeting, the ARB recommended the Italian Buckthorn as an alternative. This species would be a better fit within the setback and grow to a height of 15 feet in a columnar profile. The plant produces berries that are wildlife friendly. Given the slope down from the car wash to the neighboring property, the additional height would provide additional screening. The revised plant palette and planting plan appear to resolve the ARB’s stated issue, and meet Architectural Review Finding #5, in that the landscaping is drought tolerant. Given the space constraints and the sensitivity of the car wash building placement, the use of non-native plantings for the purposes of screening outweighs the use of native plants. Bayshore Road Landscaping The Bayshore Road frontage of the project includes an easement to accommodate the high voltage electrical transmission lines and underground utilities. As part of the project, a separated new multi-use pedestrian and bicycle pathway will be installed along the Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road. The path will create a safer experience for its users. Implementing this amenity requires the removal of the existing mature trees along Bayshore Road. The easement includes limitations on the height of any proposed trees to 15 feet to reduce interference with the utilities. This has been a challenge for the project: to determine what tree species would best create a streetscape for the automobile dealership and the Baylands and enable the project to meet the required Architectural Review findings. 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. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 The prior iteration of the project included Western Redbuds within the easement area, which is a native tree with low water use. The Redbud is not very tall and is deciduous. In that sense, the species is compatible with the Baylands. However, the ARB was concerned these trees would not provide sufficient canopy to create a streetscape that is compatible with the building. The ARB recommended using California Lilac Ray Hartman trees. These are small evergreen trees that are fast growing and are considered native with low water use. The applicant reduced the number of Redbuds significantly to two trees along Embarcadero Road near the driveway. In the current proposal, California Lilac Ray Hartman trees dominate the planting palette with the addition of Chaste Trees interspersed. The Chaste Tree is a deciduous, quick growing tree with low water use; however, it is not native. Both the lilac and Chaste trees will have purple blooms. The City’s Urban Forester concurs with the proposed plant palette and locations with the exception of one of the fruitless olive trees. The fruitless olive tree proposed adjacent to an equipment enclosure along the Bayshore Road elevation (See Figure 1) would not be likely to survive. The wall is a part of an enclosure screening a back-up power generator for the facility. The alternative location includes an underground electrical line. Staff recommends that the underground electrical utility be routed in such a way to avoid conflicts with the relocated tree. Figure 1: Shade Tree Conflict The revised plant palette and planting plan appear to resolve the ARB issue and meets Architectural Review Finding #5 in that the landscaping is drought resistant and mostly native. Given the constraints of the overhead utility easement, the selected plants would have the canopy and variation to provide the appropriate contrast and visual interest along Bayshore Road. Bayshore Road Elevations Elevation Showing Reduction in Floor Area The prior iteration of the proposed Mercedes Benz building exceeded the maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) by 887 square feet. At that time, the applicant proposed removing two service bays and moving the lower floor footprint of the building. That proposal included leaving the upper floor in place and reducing the floor area sufficiently to meet the FAR requirement. An elevation showing the change was not available at the ARB meeting. With the current proposal, the applicant provides new elevations and renderings showing the changes. The change appears to be consistent with Architectural Review Finding #2 in that the change in depth in the elevation plane in combination with the proposed landscaping create appropriate transitions and sense of mass that complements its surrounding environment. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Design & Materials on Right Side of Stair Tower At the prior ARB meeting, board members noted that the Embarcadero Road elevation had a lot of variety in massing and materials used. In contrast, the uncertainty of the design of the Bayshore Road elevation with the recessed first floor resulted in mixed ARB comments on the elevation. The portion of the elevation on the left side of the stairwell tower showed a stronger relationship to Embarcadero Road. The right side of the stairwell tower was designed with more relationship to the rear of the building. Given the visibility of the elevation, and coupled with the proposed change to the elevation, the ARB encouraged greater consideration for continuity of the Bayshore Road elevation. The ARB wanted that elevation to be like the left side, where those materials would wrap around the corner to the rear of the building. Figure 2: Comparison of Bayshore Road Elevation December 2019 Source: YSM Design March 2020 Source: YSM Design 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 The updated elevation repeats the louvers and ribbed metal paneling to the right of the stairwell. The ribbed metal paneling wraps around the rear slightly. The opaque glass panels also continue on both sides of the stairwell tower. The revisions make the project more consistent with Architectural Review Finding #2. For instance, the revisions provide a better transition in character from Embarcadero Road to Bayshore Road. Environmental Review 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 City’s environmental regulations. 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 G). 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. This project is a result of fulfilling a condition of approval to address specific issues of the originally approved project. None of the proposed revisions to the project create any new impacts beyond those identified. Therefore, no new analysis is necessary and an Addendum documents the minor changes. 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 February 21, 2020, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 25, 2020, which is 10 days 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 ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 X 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) • Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment E: Transportation Demand Management Plan (PDF) • Attachment F: Airport Land Use Commission Minutes (PDF) • Attachment G: Project Plans and CEQA Documents (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 14 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 Legend Zone Districts Assessment Parcel abc Zone District Labels Project Site 0'347' 1700 & 1730 Embarcadero Road19PLN-00291 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 This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2020 City of Palo Alto (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 15 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 and is designed to be compatible with 2.b Packet Pg. 16 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 some are regionally indigenous and are 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. Project includes a variety of materials such as stucco, metal, glass, and green screens. All of which complement the surrounding buildings in the area. The Bayshore Road elevation is consistent in material and design providing visual interest. 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 The project includes very little surface parking and most parking is located within a unique above-ground parking lift structure. 2.b Packet Pg. 17 sufficient parking to meet demand. 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. 2.b Packet Pg. 18 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, changes in elevation planes 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. The Bayshore Road elevation includes a continuous and cohesive design. 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 2.b Packet Pg. 19 The project does not abut lower scale residential development. 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. Visual interest is maintained along both Embarcadero Road and Bayshore Road with the use of changes in planes along elevations and use of different types of materials. The rear of the buildings provide the appropriate transition from urban to natural with the use of green screen walls and plantings. The detached car wash is screened with tall plantings to reduce visual impacts from adjacent properties. 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.). 2.b Packet Pg. 20 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 for bicyclists in the Baylands area. This also creates the necessary buffer between the street and the project site. 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. Given the constraints of the overhead utility easement, the plants chosen have the canopy and variation that would provide the appropriate contrast and visual interest along Bayshore Road. 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. Given the space constraints and the sensitivity of the placement of the car wash building, the use of non-native plantings for the purposes of screening outweighs using native plants. 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. The project includes a checklist for non-residential CalGreen and Tier 2 requirements such as electric vehicle charging and parking spaces; water efficiency; energy reach and material conservation and resource efficiency. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 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, February 5, 2020” stamped as received by the City on February 6, 2020 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 Architectural Review Board (ARB) approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. The conditions contained with Record of Land Use Action 2019-09 (18PLN-00186) shall also be printed on the plans submitted for building permits. 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. COUNTY AVIGATION EASEMENT: The owner or designee shall fulfill the requirement of the avigation easement dedicated to the City of Palo Alto on behalf of the applicant as required by the County of Santa Clara Airport Land Use Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit. 6. RELOCATION OF TREE: The owner or designee shall demonstrate the relocation of the fruitless olive tree in front of the generator enclosure of the Mercedes Benz building to the adjacent landscape finger area between the enclosure wall where the California Mountain Liliac plants are located and the Chaste Trees on plans prior to the issuance of building permits. 7. 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. 2.c Packet Pg. 22 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 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: 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. 10. 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. 11. 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 12. 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 building permit review. 13. 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. 2.c Packet Pg. 23 PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY 14. 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. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. 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. 18. 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. 19. 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. 20. 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 2.c Packet Pg. 24 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 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. 21. 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. 2.c Packet Pg. 25 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) Width: 255’ Depth: 342’ (MB) Width: 180’ Depth: 540’ (Audi) 2.54 acres (MB) 2.28 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 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) 45.5% (50,277 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) 0.40:1 Dealership (FAR) 0.2:1 Additional FAR for Automobile Dealership Showrooms on the first floor. 0.10:1 Showroom (MB) 0.40:1 Dealership 0.10:1 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. 2.d Packet Pg. 26 (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 2.d Packet Pg. 27 2.e Packet Pg. 28 2.e Packet Pg. 29 2.e Packet Pg. 30 2.e Packet Pg. 31 2.e Packet Pg. 32 2.e Packet Pg. 33 2.e Packet Pg. 34 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) 2.f Packet Pg. 35 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; 2.f Packet Pg. 36 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). 2.f Packet Pg. 37 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: 2.f Packet Pg. 38 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. 2.f Packet Pg. 39 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. 2.f Packet Pg. 40 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. 2.f Packet Pg. 41 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 2.f Packet Pg. 42 Attachment G Project Plans an CEQA Documentation Hardcopies of project plans and Pertinent CEQA documents 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 2.g Packet Pg. 43 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11091) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/5/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Wilkes Bashford (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [20PLN-0003]: Consideration of an Application for Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a Two-Story Retail Building of 28,714 Square Feet Located in the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation The Architectural Review Board (ARB) can take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings in Attachment B and subject to conditions of approval in Attachment C. Report Summary The applicant seeks to develop a two-story building on a previously approved building pad area located at the corner of Pistache Place and El Camino Real in the Stanford Shopping Center. The applicant proposes 28,741 square feet (sf) of retail floor area. The design of new building does not change the previously approved parking lot and surrounding site plan; that is, the total number of parking and loading spaces for the Shopping Center are not impacted by this application. The design includes the interior sidewalks adjacent to the building, included with this application for ARB review. Background 3 Packet Pg. 44 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Architect: Kimley Horn Representative: Matt Klimzing – Simon Property Group Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 180 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area: Various & 2,300,402 square feet (sf); 52.8 acres Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: N/A Protected/Heritage Trees: Various throughout the site, with seven Oaks near the building footprint Historic Resource(s): N/A Existing Improvement(s): 1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s): Retail, Personal Service, Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): El Camino Real Design Guidelines 1976 only 3 Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Hearing on December 5, 2019 Application file 19PLN-00110 Staff report - http://bit.ly/ARB12_5_2019 Minutes - http://bit.ly/ARB12_5_2019MINUTES; The ARB recommended approval of “Option 1” – the pad option, but not approving the two interior sidewalks adjacent to the pad, noting that those sidewalks would come back with the Wilkes Bashford building. Project Description The ARB reviewed Phase 1 of this project (19PLN-0110), the redevelopment of this portion of the Shopping Center, at three prior hearings. The ARB found that the previous project was approvable without the Wilkes Bashford building. The ARB recommended approval of Phase 1 Option 1, which provided only a building pad as a placeholder for a future application for the Wilkes Bashford building (noted as Building FF). The proposed project is Phase 2 of the Macy’s Men’s remodel at the Stanford Shopping Center and includes construction of a 28,741 sf two-story retail building on a pad location that was approved as part of Phase 1. The design review for this application includes the two interior sidewalks adjacent to the proposed building, as indicated on the site plan (sheet A-WB1). 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. The ARB reviews AR applications for major projects and 3 Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 recommends action on the application by the Planning & Development Services Director. The Director is tasked to take action on the application within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council; appeals must be filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The site is located within the Stanford Shopping Center (Center) on the northwestern portion of the site, near El Camino Real. The overall Center is 52.8 acres and the proposed development focuses on an approximately 0.83 acre (36,154 sf) portion of the property. The Stanford Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The applicant seeks to develop a two-story building on the approved building pad, which is currently a parking lot area, located near the intersection of El Camino Real and Pistache Place. The building would house retail tenant Wilkes Bashford, which is currently located in its own building fronting Arboretum Road at the intersection with Orchard Lane. The Director previously approved the improvements outside of the building pad, such as the parking lot configuration, walkways, utility locations, and landscaping. The site plan sheet C-2 shows the focused area of work for this project, within the bold dashed line (see the image below). 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 change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 3 Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Building Design During the Phase 1 hearings, the ARB had some concern over the design of the building. The concerns included the mixture of colors and materials, as well as the proposed massing in relation to the parapet line on the long facades (north and the south). Additionally, there were concerns regarding the location of the building in relationship to the canopy of several large protected Oaks along El Camino Real (trees 39, 71, 72). After some discussion at the December 5, 2019 hearing, the ARB still had reservations regarding the canopy impacts of the proposal on tree 39 (Coast Live Oak, 40 in dimeter trunk) and concerns regarding the width and usability of the interior walkways around the proposed Wilkes Bashford building. For these reasons, the ARB did not select option 2 which included the previously proposed Wilkes Bashord building, and instead recommended approval of option 1. With this recommendation, the Director approved Phase 1 of the project with a building pad (land reserve) for the Wilkes Bashord building to be developed within a separate application. This project before the ARB now is that separate application where a modified Wilkes Bashford building designed within the previously approved building pad area is proposed. The Wilkes Bashford building is a contemporary design and includes a raised central inlet that frames the building entry. In response to ARB comments, the applicant has increased the 3 Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 amount of glazing on each façade, limestone, textured brick (revised), warm colored stucco, champagne tinted metals, and wood materials (see plan sheet A-WB4). The El Camino Real street façade (east elevation) features a large central display window with the corners edged with large stone material and live green walls. the building also features additional greenery via vertical and horizontal vines along the proposed trellis and has raised planter beds along Pistache Place (sheet A-WB1). The building massing is shown articulated on all four sides and the building would have various heights that segment the building to break up the mass. Sheets A-WB-1 to A-WB-6 show elevations, while plan sheets A-WB7 to A-WB-13 provide detailed perspective renderings of the 3 Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 proposed building design. The proposed architectural features (large storefront windows, trellis, outdoor seating, planter beds) are indicative of the Shopping Center character, along with high-quality materials and several large yet scaled storefront windows on each building section. Additionally, the use of materials and colors, and variable building heights, give identifiable sections that emphasize each face of the building, with material and articulation contrasts. The building design includes green walls on the east facing façade along El Camino Real. This provides additional greenery to the building while complementing the adjacent Oak trees. Overall, the building appears to have a rhythm in the scale and proportions starting at the El Camino Real façade (east elevation, sheet A-WB5) where the building massing is taller at 33’ 6” and 25 feet (west elevation, A-WB4). Zoning Compliance2 Staff performed a review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards; the evaluation included a review of the Shopping Center’s floor area. The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.060(e)(3) states the maximum net floor area for the Stanford Shopping Center is 1,412,362 square feet. The applicant proposes a new two-story retail building with a floor area of 28,741 sf (1st floor 22,268 sf, 2nd floor 6,473 sf). Staff determined the proposed project complies with all applicable zoning codes. Attachment D provides a summary table of the project’s compliance with zoning regulations. Site Plan, Access, and Parking The Wilkes Bashford building would be placed 40 feet from El Camino Real frontage, in order to preserve the Oak trees along El Camino Real. The walkways around the building would range in width from eight feet to 15-plus feet at the north entrance of the building. The total number of automobile parking spaces, bicycle spaces, and loading spaces otherwise remains unchanged from the previous Director’s approval; the prior AR application met the applicable parking facility design standards and ARB findings for site circulation. Revised Arborist Report At prior hearings for Phase 1 on the project, the ARB noted concerns regarding the removal of three protected oak (trees #70-73) at the intersection of Pistache Place and El Camino Real. The revised design sets the building further back from El Camino Real to better accommodate the oaks trees’ canopy. The arborist report also provides specific measures for preservation of the El Camino Real oaks. The report’s findings address Urban Forestry requirements for preservation. The conditions of approval further describe how construction within the TPZ will take place to preserve the oaks, which includes hand and pneumatic excavation only when working within the TPZ. Building Footprint & Oak Trees 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 As part of Phase 1, the ARB expressed concerns about the Wilkes Bashford building footprint that was in close proximity to the existing oak trees along El Camino Real. The current design proposes a building footprint that is further away from Trees 70, 71, 72, and tree 39 (sheet T3), to ensure the long term viability of these protected Oak Trees. Specifically, the building footprint relative to the trees in question is indicated in the table below. The building's footprint would not encroach into any of the listed trees canopy or the required Tree Protection Zones (TPZ). After reviewing the projects’ proposed separation between the building footprint and the trees listed above, Staff believes that the project will have very minimal impacts on the health of these trees. 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 and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Stanford Shopping Center as a regional center with a land use designation of Community Commercial. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Attachment B provides a detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with Application Findings The proposed design meets the ARB required findings for approval by having a unified and coherent design that fits in with the context of the Shopping Center. The design provides ordered scale and massing characteristics, transitioning from each end of the building. The proposed building materials are of high quality and form a compatible high aesthetic design for 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Tree Trunk Size BLDG to Trunk BLDG to TPZ BLDG to Canopy 39 40 36.5’ 4’ 12.6’ 70 8 34’ 24’ 16.3’ 71 6 21.4’ 11.7’ 11.7’ 72 16 21.3’ 8.4’ 8.4’ 3 Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 the exterior of the building. The design provides wide walkways around the building and includes architectural features that frame the three entrances to the building. The building also includes designs that allow for onsite water treatment (C3 bio retention areas) and proposes a landscape plan that include a majority of native plants, low to medium water use plants, and some plants that are suitable habitats for wildlife. Overall, the project meets the required findings. For specific details on the projects consistency with the applicable findings refer to Attachment B. Environmental Review The City has 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. The project is a continuation of project 19PLN-00110 “Macy’s Men’s Redevelopment” and is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA. The project falls under a Class 2 exemption in accordance with Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). The project meets this exemption as it is the replacement of existing structures and facilities where the new structures will be located on the same site as the existing structures and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity. More specifically, the existing Macy’s Men’s building is a commercial retail building of greater floor area than the total proposed floor area of the new commercial retail buildings in the same general location on the project site. 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 February 21, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 20, 2020, which is 14 days 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 ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) • Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment E: Applicant's Project Description (DOCX) • Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 54 3.a Packet Pg. 55 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 20PLN-00010 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 would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional/Community Commercial. Larger shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. They rely on larger trade areas and include such uses as department stores, bookstores, … and non-retail services such as offices and banks. Examples include Stanford Shopping Center… Non-residential FARs range from 0.35 to 2.0… The project continues the Regional Commercial land use in that the project is for a retail use in the Stanford Shopping Center. Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high quality regional shopping center. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to This project will add to the exclusive mixture of tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center making it a distinctive regional shopping center. The project proposes a new building with a design that meet the approved standards for the Shopping Center by utilizing high quality materials. 3.b Packet Pg. 56 maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project includes a new building that is fronting the El Camino Real Corridor and has a design that includes store display areas and new planter areas that call attention to the Pistache Place and El Camino Real Corner and defining this intersection. The project has also incorporated three existing mature Oak trees. Policy L-4.3: Encourage street frontages that contribute to retail vitality in all Centers. Reinforce street corners in a way that enhances the pedestrian realm or that form corner plazas. Include trees and landscaping. Policy L-4.4: Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. The project will enhance a portion of the Shopping Center through redevelopment which includes new outdoor seating areas, and provides larger walking path areas for pedestrians. Policy L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premier regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. The northern portion of the El Camino Real frontage will see a new high-quality retail building and new landscaping, pedestrian, and bicycle improvements, increasing the quality of the site. Specifically, the building includes pedestrian amenities such as exterior covered seating areas open to the public and new bicycle racks in close proximity to the building entrances, promoting both pedestrian and bicycle activity. Program L4.9.1: While preserving adequate parking to meet demand, identify strategies to reuse surface parking lots. Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The project does not change the parking layout as the surrounding parking was preapproved in the larger development application for Macy’s Men’s in this portion of the Shopping Center. The proposed building compliments the site design enhancing the Stanford Shopping Center’s open pedestrian environment and access to the site overall by maintaining pedestrian walkways that are approximately eight feet wide. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are The proposed changes to the site with this project are consistent with the size scale of the 3.b Packet Pg. 57 overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Shopping Center overall as the site has several multi-story and single-story buildings throughout the site. Policy T-1.16 Promote personal transportation vehicles an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. Policy T-1.19 Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. Program T3.10.3 Provide safe, convenient pedestrian, bicycle and transit connections between the Stanford Shopping Center/Medical Center areas and housing along the Sand Hill Road/Quarry Road corridors to Palo Alto Transit Center, Downtown Palo Alto and other primary destinations. Program T5.12.1 Work with employers, merchants, schools and community service providers, to identify ways to provide more bicycle parking, including e-bike parking with charging stations, near existing shops, services and places of employment. The project and the related redevelopment of the Macy’s Men’s project will add new bicycle facilities on-site to bring the site into conformance in terms of short term bicycle parking (public use) and further into conformance in terms of long term bicycle parking (lockers). This is consistent with the goals of the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan by improving the bicycle parking capacity of the site and which incentivizes the use of bicycles as a mode of transportation to the site. Furthermore, a bicycle occupancy study is being conducted to properly located new bicycle parking in locations throughout the Shopping Center where demand is highest to provide more convenience and capacity as the Shopping Center is in an of high employment with the Medical Center and Stanford University nearby. The project would remain consistent with the zoning requirements and Master Façade & Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. The project will not increase the development area of the site regarding height, floor area ratio (net loss of FAR), and setbacks. However, physical parking spaces overall for the site is reduced with the preapproved site plan from the Macys Mens redevelopment approval where this application seeks to infill the preapproved building pad area. However, the site overall does remains code compliant per the required parking of 1/275 gross sf. Additionally, the project will bring the site into greater compliance regarding the loading spaces on site and the overall bicycle parking spaces provide on-site. 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, 3.b Packet Pg. 58 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. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(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 commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle-friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project will improve the conditions along the pedestrian walkway by rearranging the exterior seating areas for pedestrians, widening the walkway, and adding new bicycle racks for cyclists. 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 projects proposed a new planter boxes, widen pathways and sidewalks, new pedestrian seating, and new pedestrian scale lighting within the project area. All of these new features improve the pedestrian environment within the project area. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed building massing is well scaled to the pedestrian environment with the articulation of massing and different façade materials, the combination of which are fitting within the Shopping Center. The buildings site planning conforms to the required setbacks of the site. 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 This finding does not apply. 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 provides new exterior seating areas that are publicly accessible along the Pistache Place under the proposed covered patio area. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or This project is an infill project that has a previously approved parking lot design and 3.b Packet Pg. 59 detract from the pedestrian environment building pad area. However, the proposed buildings site planning within the previously approved building pad area provides wide pedestrian walkways that allow for the mixture of Shopping Center guests to comfortably access the proposed building and the rest of the Shopping Center. 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 This finding does not apply 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 utilize energy-efficient LED lighting and will comply with Green Building Energy codes for commercial businesses along with construction debris diversion rates. 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 materials which are durable and have high-quality finishes. The new façade will consist of cast concrete, stucco, metal, brick, greenwall panels, and wood cladding. The design will enhance the character of the site and a new building that fits within the greater Shopping Center character which has been significantly upgraded through tenant facade changes. This project will continue the modernization of the Sand Hill Rd and El Camino Real frontage of the Shopping Center creating a bridge from the greater Shopping Center massing to the El Camino Real frontage. 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 improve circulation for pedestrians via the proposed site improvements around the new building maintaining approximately eight-foot-wide pathways. The modifications to the preapproved building pad area include wide pedestrian paths from El Camino Real to the new building and beyond to the center of the Shopping Center. 3.b Packet Pg. 60 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 site planning of the new building takes into consideration the existing Oak Trees along El Camino Real, siting the building footprint out of the Tree Protection Zones (TPZ) of the trees. In addition, new ornamental trees are proposed that are consistent with existing trees in portion of the Shopping Center along with new landscaping areas that consistent of native or low to moderate water usage plants. A majority of the proposed plants provide suitable habitats for wild life as they either are flowering plants/trees which promote wild life. 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 will utilize energy-efficient LED lighting and will comply with green building energy code requirements along with the local construction debris diversion rates. Additionally, the proposed landscaping includes a significant amount of native or low to moderate water usage plants along with on-site water treatment (C3) that will reduce storm water runoff and allow water to enter the local water aquafer. 3.b Packet Pg. 61 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real, “BUILDING FF” Wilkes Bashford 20PLN-00003 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD PLANS FOR STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER BUILDING FF,” stamped as received by the City on February 26, 2020, 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. LANDSCAPE PLAN: Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 6. 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. The extension request shall be done by submitting a written request directly to the Planning and Development Services Department. 7. SIGNAGE: The submitted plans only reference signage for the new buildings to show the relationship between the buildings design and possible new signage. This approval does not include an approval for signage. Signage will require a separate approval from the Planning and Development Services Department. 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 3.c Packet Pg. 62 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. 9. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE: Given the proposed project along with the related redevelopment of the Macy’s Men’s site (File No. 19PLN-00110) results in a net loss of FAR, no additional impact fees are due. 10. REQUIRED PUBLIC ART. In conformance with PAMC 16.61, and to the satisfaction of the Public Art Commission, the property owner and/or applicant shall pay the in-lieu art fee equivalent to 1% of the estimated construction valuation, prior to obtaining a Building permit. The estimated total in-lieu fee for this portion of development is approximately $55,750. 11. 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. 12. 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, colors, parking, landscaping, and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DEPARTMENT At time of building permit, please include the following information/clarifications shall be provided: 3.c Packet Pg. 63 13. Green building compliance shall comply with the CALgreen code as amended by the City of Palo Alto and effective at time of building permit submittal, please complete the required CALGREEN +TIER2 CHECKLIST and explain how each green measure will be implemented for the project. 14. Accessible path of travel to all common areas, entrances, exits, restaurant, retail, and all public functions per Chapter 11B, CBC. 15. T24 Energy calculations for envelope, lighting, mechanical, and electrical shall be provided for each building. 16. Structural design shall comply with CBC, ASCE7-10, and other applicable codes based on materials specifications. New building and existing building shall have a seismic gap required. 17. Bike parking counts shall meet CALgreen as amended by CPA. 18. Onsite pavement design shall meet the TI per soil report and PW standards. 19. Onsite storm drainage shall meet CPC, CBC, and PW standards. 20. Provide roof access by means of stair or ladder type. 21. Mechanical, Electrical, and Plumbing design shall comply with applicable codes. All onsite sanitary lines shall have a minimum 2% slope with adequate cleanouts and backflow valves at appropriate locations per CPC and PAMC. UTILITIES ELECTRICAL ENGINEERING 22. Customer shall provide 10’X10’ for the pad mount transformer for the new Building. 23. Where needed, the applicant/property owner shall grant the City easements for maintenance of facilities, such as switch gear and transformers. 24. Location of new switch and new transformers must be approved by ARB. 25. The location of the customer’s switchboard shall be shown on the layout drawing. 26. All substructure work to be completed by the applicant. Fiber conduits shall be relocated. 27. A complete Utility Electric Application must be submitted, and advanced engineering fee shall be paid. 28. Detailed comments shall be given only after field verification from City Crew on existing Utilities and advanced engineering fee is paid. 3.c Packet Pg. 64 UTILITIES WASTE GAS WATER 29. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater service connection application - loadsheet per unit 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 new total loads 30. 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. 31. 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, sewer lift stations and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater lateral need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities especially storm drain pipes electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the ductbank to verify cross section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. Plans for new storm drain mains and laterals need to include profiles showing existing potential conflicts with sewer, water and gas. 32. The applicant shall be responsible for upgrading the existing utility mains and/or services as necessary to handle anticipated peak loads. This responsibility includes all costs associated with the design and construction for the installation/upgrade of the utility mains and/or services. 33. The gas service, meters, and meter location must meet WGW standards and requirements 34. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and 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. 35. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly is required for the new water connection for the fire system to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. Reduced pressure detector assemblies shall be installed on the owner's property adjacent to the property line, within 5’ of the property line. Show the location of the reduced pressure detector assembly on the plans. 36. 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, 3.c Packet Pg. 65 meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 37. Each unit or place of business shall have its own water and gas meter shown on the plans. Each parcel shall have its own water service, gas service and sewer lateral connection shown on the plans. 38. All existing water and wastewater services that will not be reused shall be abandoned at the main per WGW utilities procedures. 39. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 1’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. Trees may not be planted within 10 feet of existing water, gas or wastewater mains/services or meters. New water, gas or wastewater services/meters may not be installed within 10’ or existing trees. Maintain 10’ between new trees and new water, gas and wastewater services/mains/meters. 40. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the City of Palo Alto current utility standards for water, gas & wastewater. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 41. STORMDRAIN: a. Drainage from the proposed structure shall not be directly connected to the City’s storm drain system. b. Plot and label the C3 treatment measures associated with this work to verify that no direct connection will be required. (not applicable on privately maintained streets) c. Plot and label a 15-foot wide easement for the proposed and existing storm drain line within private property. Pipe shall be centered on easement. d. If the retail building will have a basement, provide a minimum 10-foot separation between building/foundation edge and easement edge. e. Provide Qex versus Qprop from the project site, to verify no net increase. (provide clarification calculations with the building permit submittal with respect to drainage area) f. Relocate manholes to avoid proposed trees and shall be placed within one stall. Manhole shall not be aligned with the stall striping and for future utility clean-up, this will reduce the number of stalls affected. Manhole shall not be placed within tree root zone. g. Plot and label the utility crossings invert and top of pipe. 3.c Packet Pg. 66 h. Revised City specs allow the use of HDPE pipe, applicant shall review and verify why RCP is proposed. Please note this in the plan set. Additional comments and review provided by Storm Drain group during Building permit review stage. 42. STREET TREES: The applicant may be required to replace existing and/or add new street trees in the public right-of-way along the property’s frontage(s). Call the Public Works’ arborist at 650-496-5953 to arrange a site visit so he/she can determine what street tree work, if any, will be required for this project. The site plan submitted with the building permit plan set must show the street tree work that the arborist has determined, including the tree species, size, location, staking and irrigation requirements, or include a note that Public Works’ arborist has determined no street tree work is required. The plan must note that in order to do street tree work, the applicant must first obtain a Permit for Street Tree Work in the Public Right-of-Way from Public Works’ arborist (650-496-5953). 43. GRADING PERMIT: Separate Excavation and Grading Permit will be required for grading activities on private property that fill, excavate, store or dispose of 100 cubic yards or more based on PAMC Section 16.28.060. Applicant shall prepare and submit an excavation and grading permit to Public Works separately from the building permit set. The permit application and instructions are available at the Development Center and on our website. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/depts/pwd/forms_and_permits.asp 44. GRADING & DRAINAGE PLAN: The plan set must include a grading & drainage plan prepared by a licensed professional that includes existing and proposed spot elevations, earthwork volumes, finished floor elevations, area drain and bubbler locations, drainage flow arrows to demonstrate proper drainage of the site. Adjacent grades must slope away from the house a minimum of 2% or 5% for 10-feet per 2013 CBC section 1804.3. 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. http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2717 45. RETAIL SPACE: If any proposed food service is planned a grease trap will be required. 46. WORK IN THE RIGHT-OF-WAY: The building permit 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 3.c Packet Pg. 67 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. 47. 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.” 48. Provide the following note on the Site Plan and 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. This includes job site trailers, dumpsters, storage containers and portable restrooms. 49. Provide following note on Site Plan and Grading and Drainage Plan: “Contractor shall contact Public Works Engineering Inspectors to inspect and approve the storm drain system (pipes, area drains, inlets, bubblers, dry wells, etc.) associated with the project prior to backfill. Contractor shall schedule an inspection, at a minimum 48-hours in advance by calling (650)496- 6929.” 50. OFF-SITE IMPROVEMENTS: Sidewalk, curb & gutter replacement shall be required for both Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real frontage of project. Street resurfacing may also be required for the property frontage along East bound portion of Sand Hill Rd. 51. Any existing driveway to be abandoned shall be replaced with standard curb & gutter. This work must be included within a Permit for Construction in the Public Street from the Public Works Department. A note of this requirement shall be placed on the plans adjacent to the area on the Site Plan. 52. IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA: The project will be creating or replacing 500 square feet or more of impervious surface. Accordingly, the applicant shall provide calculations of the existing and proposed impervious surface areas with the building permit application. The Impervious Area Worksheet for Land Developments form and instructions are available at the Development Center or on City Public Works’ website. 53. 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 the Public Works website http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 54. LOGISTICS PLAN: The project contractor must 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 3.c Packet Pg. 68 deliveries, contractor’s parking, concrete pours, crane lifts, work hours, noise control, dust control, storm water pollution prevention, contractor’s contact, noticing of affected businesses, and schedule of work. Include a copy in resubmittal. Guidelines are attached at: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?BlobID=2719 55. STORMWATER MAINTENANCE AGREEMENT: The applicant shall designate a party to maintain the control measures for the life of the improvements and must enter into a maintenance agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent C.3 storm water discharge compliance measures. The maintenance agreement shall be executed prior to Building permit approval. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. There is a C.3 plan check fee that will be collected upon submittal for a grading or building permit. 56. Include a note on the civil set of plans that the project is subject to C.3 Storm Water Treatment along with 3rd party review. 57. Proposed storm drain items will require new easement and/or modifications of existing easements. 58. Coverage is required to be obtained under the State Construction General Permit for projects that disturb one acre or more. 59. CALTRANS: Caltrans review and approval of this project may be required. Caltrans right-of- way across El Camino Real extends from back-of-walk to back-of walk. The City has a maintenance agreement with Caltrans that requires the City to maintain the sidewalk and to issue Street Work and Encroachment Permits for work done on the sidewalks by private contractors. Caltrans has retained the right to review and permit new ingress/egress driveways off El Camino Real as well as the installation of Traffic Control devices as part of this project. 60. PUBLIC ACCESS EASEMENT: The property owner shall provide a public access easement for the additional feet of sidewalk between the property line and back of walk and/or building edge on the El Camino Real frontage. Alternatively, the property owner may dedicate the space to the City of Palo Alto. The easement or dedication shall be shown on the Tentative and Final maps, or if the applicant chooses not to subdivide the property, show the future easement on plans submitted for a building permit and note that the easement must be recorded prior to building permit final. PUBLIC WORKS URBAN FORESTRY The following conditions 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. as further described below. 61. The applicant shall provide bio retention fabric-type detail at building permit phase. Please 3.c Packet Pg. 69 be advised that the type of fabric is determined by the water table level of the site. 62. Tree protection must be shown on plan drawings at building permit phase. 63. 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. 64. 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. 65. 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. 66. 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. 67. 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) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (c) 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. 68. 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. 3.c Packet Pg. 70 69. 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. 70. 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 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. PUBLIC WORKS WATERSHED PROTECTION 71. Stormwater treatment measures o All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. o Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurppp-w2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. o For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at pamela.boylerodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. o Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, 3.c Packet Pg. 71 Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. 72. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) o Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay- Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay- friendly-landscape-guidelines-sustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. o Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 73. Stormwater quality protection o Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. o Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). o Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. 3.c Packet Pg. 72 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real, 20PLN-00010 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 52.8 Acres No Change Minimum Front Yard 15 feet Varied 40 feet Rear Yard No Requirement N/A N/A Interior Side Yard (right) No Requirement N/A N/A Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied No Change Special Setback 24 feet along Sand Hill, Arboretum and Quarry Roads Varied No Change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) N/A N/A Max. Building Height 50 feet or 37 feet maximum within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site (4) Varied Up to 33.5 feet tall Max. Site Coverage No Requirement No Change Max. Floor Area per 18.16.060 (e) for Stanford Shopping Center 1,412,362 net sf max 1,361,751 net sf (94,337 sf Macy’s Mens, Phase 1) 1,345,104 net sf (28,741 sf for this project, Phase 2) (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. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. 3.d Packet Pg. 73 Table 2: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. 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 No Change Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. N/A Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.060 (h)) (2) In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage: (A) Except in shopping centers… (B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 sf shall be subject to a conditional use permit. (C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) … Stanford Shopping Center is a “shopping center” as defined in Title 18, therefore this regulation does not apply. Recycling Storage (18.16.060 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. The project includes new interior trash rooms for each building that are Code compliant. 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. 3.d Packet Pg. 74 Table 3: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area. 5,241 Required after loss of sf from Macy’s Men’s Demo 5,446 spaces 5,265 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf, 40% long term and 60% short term) equals 526* spaces for the site overall (210 ST, 315 LT). 341 spaces 3 short term bicycle racks (6 spaces) Loading Space 3/70,000 -120,000 sf with 1 additional space per 50,000 sf over 120,000 sf. Total of 29 loading spaces required. (1,345,104 sf) 24 loading spaces 25 loading spaces *number rounded up due to fractional space ≥ 0.5. 3.d Packet Pg. 75 Page 1 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925.398.4840 MEMORANDUM Subject: Project Description for Stanford Shopping Center Macy’s Men’s Redevelopment From: Mike Mowery, P.E. Date: January 9, 2019 Introduction SPG Center, LLC proposes the redevelopment of the existing Macy's Men’s department store located at the Stanford Shopping Center in Palo Alto, California. Following is a summary of the project description for the proposed project. Stanford Shopping Center Stanford Shopping Center is bordered by El Camino Real to the north, Arboretum Road to the south, Orchard Lane to the east and Sand Hill Road to the west. Stanford Shopping Center is zoned CC and has the Comprehensive Plan Designation of Regional/Community Commercial. The existing Macy’s Men’s building is located within the Stanford Shopping Center at 180 El Camino Real, Building B, as shown in Figure 1. Figure 1 – Project Area 3.e Packet Pg. 76 Page 2 kimley-horn.com 4637 Chabot Drive, Suite 300, Pleasanton, CA 94588 925.398.4840 Project Description The proposed project proposes to redevelop the Macy’s Men’s building, located in the northwest portion of the site, near the intersection Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real. The redevelopment of this section of the site will include the following: • Demolition of the existing Macy's Men’s building – 94,337 SF • Removal of some surface parking • Construction of four (4) buildings: o Restoration Hardware (RH) – 41,850 SF o Wilkes Bashford (W-B) – 28,741 SF o Building EE (two (2) small shops buildings) – 7,503 SF (total); 3,571 SF (each) • Relocation of utilities in the proposed project area • Update vehicle, pedestrian, and bicycle circulation The building demolition, proposed site, Restoration Hardware, and Building EE were approved by the Architectural Review Board in December 2019. This application is for the WILKES BASHFORD (W-B) Situated at the north end of the Stanford Shopping Center, the proposed Wilkes Bashford retail building is the first to greet patrons to the center. The California Modern aesthetic encompasses a total of 28,741 SF split between the main retail floor at 22,268 SF and an ancillary mezzanine space of 6,473 SF. A raised central bay highlights the building entry, clad in floor to ceiling curtain wall on the north end with clerestory glazing on the other three facades, providing ample daylighting to the retail store’s interior. In addition to ample glazing throughout, materials of natural limestone, textured brick in various sizes, warm hues of stucco, champagne metals and warm woods provide a dynamic façade that is engaging to the pedestrian on all sides. The primary street façade (east elevation) along El Camino Real showcases a large central show window with the building corners having a large stone, live wall, and storefront mass expressions to greet patrons along the El Camino Real approach. Wilkes Bashford’s long building mass (north and south elevations) is broken down into clean material planes of various heights that highlight individual show windows with branded canopies, large areas of glazing, and extended open air trellises. The additional layer of greenery softens the building facade with a living green wall, vertical and horizontal vines along the trellis, integral raised planting beds and free-standing planters. The close integration of landscape allows the Wilkes Bashford building and indoor/outdoor experience complementing the existing context of mature trees and landscaping. Lastly, the western façade greets pedestrians walking from the shopping center with a secondary entry portal and canopy anchored by two large corner show windows expressions. The visual connection is strengthened by site improvements of trees, refined hardscape finishes, and ample amenities provide a comfortable walk from the primary center to the Wilkes Bashford building. 3.e Packet Pg. 77 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 to find “180 El Camino Real – Wilkes Bashford” 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: http://bit.ly/2Ta2nC1 3.f Packet Pg. 78 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11143) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 3/5/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of January 16, 2020 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 16, 2020 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the January 16, 2020 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: January 16, 2020 Draft Minutes (PDF) 4 Packet Pg. 79 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: Good morning. Welcome to the January 16, 2020, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Can 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: Next item is oral communications. Are there any members of the public who wish to address us on any item not on our agenda? We don’t have anyone for that. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Next item is agenda changes, additions and deletions. Staff, can you go through that, please? Do you have anything? Okay. 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: Next item is City Official Reports. Again, what do we have coming up, Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: Our next hearing would be February 6th, and we do have the objective standards, we will start that discussion. There will be, I believe three different hearings, so this will not be the last discussion, but it will be a good start for us. Thank you. Chair Baltay: That will be at the beginning or the end of any other items? Ms. Gerhardt: So far, it is the only item. The other thing is, we might need to start just a little bit late, around nine o’clock, so it can allow the consultants to arrive. Chair Baltay: Okay, great, thank you. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: January 16, 2020 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 4.a Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Hirsch: Can I ask a question? Chair Baltay: Sure. Board Member Hirsch: Jodie, we have it in the book, you know, the documents that were submitted to us, do we have that separately, or should we bring our old book that has it bound in? Ms. Gerhardt: You’re asking about the packet, or the zoning code, or…? Board Member Hirsch: Well, the new packet will include probably the same as what we had already. We had it in a previous… Ms. Gerhardt: No. We will have a staff report, and we will have a fairly lengthy attachment talking about objective standards. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, yes. Ms. Gerhardt: Although the first hearing, we might just be talking about process, you know, how do we want to organize our way forward. We wouldn’t be getting into details quite yet. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, fine. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 788 San Antonio Avenue [19PLN-00079]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Existing 12,000 Square Feet of Commercial Space and the Construction of a Four-Story Mixed Use Building that Includes 102 Residential Units and 1,780 Square Feet of Commercial Space. Sixteen of the Residential Units Would be Below Market Rate. The Project Also Requires a Zoning Amendment to Apply the Housing Incentive Program at this Location. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report is Being Prepared in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Baltay: We’re going to move on to our action items. Item number 2 is a public hearing for 788 San Antonio Avenue, consideration of a Major Architectural Review to allow the demolition of existing 12,000 square feet of commercial space and the construction of a four-story mixed-use building that includes 102 residential units and 1,780 square feet of commercial space. Sixteen of the residential units would be below market rate. The project also requires a zoning amendment to apply the Housing Incentive Program at this location. Can we have a staff report, please? Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, good morning, I’m Sheldon Ah Sing, contract planner, and I have a PowerPoint presentation. The applicant is also here with a presentation. Chair Baltay: One second, Sheldon, please. I keep forgetting this. I’d like to go through any disclosures we may have. Does anyone have anything to disclose about this project? Grace? Board Member Lee: Just simply that I visited the site. Chair Baltay: Thank you. David? Board Member Hirsch: Same, visited the site. Chair Baltay: I also visited the site. Osma? 4.a Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Vice Chair Thompson: I also visited the site. Chair Baltay: And Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited the site. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Okay, Sheldon, thank you. Mr. Sing: Okay, so, here we are with our second ARB meeting, formal, for this project. As mentioned, it’s the development of a four-story mixed-use building, approximately 1,800 square feet of commercial space and 102 dwelling units on a one-acre site. The requests for the project include a major architecture review. There’s also a zoning amendment, and there’s a partial waiver of a retail space. No recommendations are sought at this time. Really, the purpose of this hearing is to evaluate the revisions to the project based on the prior comments from the Board, and we request that you look at this project with the lens of, that the proposed zoning amendments would be adopted. Think of it that way. It’s still discretionary, but we want you to think of it in terms of, why is it before us? Well, this is accompanying a zoning amendment application. In terms of where it’s located, the project site is at Leghorn and San Antonio Road. It serves as the boundary between Palo Alto and Mountain View. The surroundings include industrial buildings. The site is relatively level, some commercial in the area, as well as multi-family residential. An overview of the project. It’s a 102 residential mixed-use project. We’ve been in discussions with the applicant about whether it’s to be ownership or rental. The last time I spoke with the applicant, it was leaning toward rental because of the smaller size units of the project. There’s an underground garage containing the required parking, which includes a mixture of parking lifts and surface parking, and 1,800 square feet of ground floor commercial space. That’s at the corner, at Leghorn. And then, as mentioned, there’s the amendments to the zoning code, which is to extend the adopted housing incentive program to the subject property, and more broadly, to the other CS zoned property adjacent to San Antonio Road, between Middlefield and Charleston. And not to really delve too much into that, but just the next couple slides about, more of the context, but this is the general area where the housing program code would apply. Some of it includes elimination of the maximum density and creates a waiver for lot coverage; allows rooftop gardens to account towards open space; excludes the first 1,500 square feet of retail, retail-like project floor area from parking requirements. These are things that are going through the process. The Planning Commission will make a recommendation on that, and that will go forward to the Council, ultimately. This slide just shows kind of what is existing, and then, what is the proposed project in general. This is a table taken from the packet already. Now, we get to sort of the crux of the debate here. At the August 2019 ARB meeting, there were a number of comments that the Board made regarding the project, and the applicant did respond and made some changes. Some of the comments that were made, was to simplify the design; the façade needed some offsets; consider adding an additional elevator, there’s only one elevator in the project; and then, it needs to respond to the context of the neighborhood. The applicant’s response was to break down the mass more, and the materials palette is more simplified. The corner is still generally designed the same way. It does include tower element over a retail space. The other side had a tower, the other side of that same elevation along San Antonio had a tower. That portion is eliminated and replaced with an upper floor terrace. There are a variety of… In the façade offsets and framed recesses are included in the façade. The project does include two elevators now. The materials relate more to the other buildings in the vicinity. The plaza and the courtyard area now include references to former use of the site, as well as the plaza area is extended out towards that corner more. There was a separation with landscaping. Now, you can actually walk from the corner directly into that space. The project also includes publicly-accessible bike wash area, and that’s something that the applicant has proposed being a public accessible area. To continue on with more of the comments. The project did include glass corners on the towers, and the Board thought that this does not convey a residential project and design. To consider transportation network company drop-offs. These are Uber, Lyft. And then, the courtyard doesn’t function well, so the glass reduced at the south corner, and the northern glass tower element was removed. There was a duck-out added along Leghorn that would have two spaces there, and that would also serve as a temporary staging area for trash pickup, as well as any loading or unloading for tenants. The courtyard area wasn’t really thought out in some of the diagrams that were in the previous submittal. This time around, you have much more thought- out design. Plants are chosen to adapt to lower light levels. The interior balconies also allow some additional light, and in the plans, they show some design, and potentially there could be a water feature and other 4.a Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Page 4 elements that would make it more enticing. And then, the last part of the comments were to consider alternative landscaping treatment on the terrace. The last, there were these palm trees that were protruding through a roof element there. The roof terrace had no function. And then, consider alternative entry. The palm trees were eliminated. The terrace now includes some low-scale plantings that really takes advantage more of that view towards the bay. That space is still partially covered and includes some seating. The project did consider the location and entries, but decided to maintain the location of entry, the main entry into the building for the residents, and maintain the location for the retail at the corner. As I mentioned, the plaza has expanded. Then, we just had some comparisons. The applicant, in their presentation, will go through in a little more detail here, but you can see the changes that they’ve made. It’s fairly significant. The massing is still relatively there. They still maintained 102 units, but the materials and the forms changed slightly. And then, here on Leghorn Street, you can see that that’s gotten a little lighter. The same has happened, treatment for the rear elevation as well. On that corner, you can see where there’s more emphasis on the corner, and pedestrians have the ability now to walk from that intersection straight into the plaza area. It’s much more inviting. And then, this is the courtyard. The first drawing, I think, just wasn’t really drawn all the way through, the concept, and now they have something that they’ve thought through more. And the roof cut, the terrace, you can see where that’s changed a little bit, too. It’s a little lighter in color. The project is subject to CEQA. There is a building on site at 788 San Antonio that is eligible for listing in the California registry, so demolition of that structure would constitute a significant and unavoidable impact, and necessitates the drafting of an environmental impact report. That is ongoing right now. We would expect to circulate that document in the spring. There are certain elements of the project that staff hasn’t reviewed, but we’re continuing to work on that. In conclusion, we do want this Board to stay focused on design of the project. There are other issues that are going on with the zoning amendment. That’s something we take, those policies issues are to be taken up by the Planning Commission and the Council, typically. And we are seeking further comment on the revisions, and we do believe that the revisions are more consistent with the required architectural review findings. Some of the next steps here. We’ve had a number of meetings already, including this one, and the next milestone would be the public draft of the EIR in the spring. We’ve come back during that 45-day period to this Board with a recommendation. At the same time, it would go to the Planning Commission with a recommendation, and ultimately to the City Council. Other issue, consider the proposed project and provide feedback on the project design to staff and the applicant, and continue the item to a date uncertain. That concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may have. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sheldon. Does anyone have any questions of staff on this project? Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Do we have a material board? Mr. Sing: We do have materials, yes. Chair Baltay: Any other questions? If not, is the applicant here? Okay, you’ll have 10 minutes to make a presentation, if you’d like to. If you could, please state and spell your name for the record. You’ll have 10 minutes. Sean Rinde, Studio S Squared Architecture: Good morning. My name is Sean Rinde [spells name]. I’m here representing the architectural firm, Studio S Squared Architecture. First and foremost, we’d like to thank the Board for the feedback that you provided to us at the last ARB meeting last year. There were a lot of really impactful comments that you gave us, and I think, to be quite candid and not too humble, the design is a lot more compelling this time around. We’ve had more time to think about a lot of critical elements, especially some elements that were sort of rushed through at the end, like that inner courtyard, of course. What I’d like to do right now is use my time to sort of run through the most impactful comments and how we’ve addressed them. One of the comments that we got at our last ARB hearing was that the design was a four-story building that goes straight up from the street to the roof. What we’ve done now is really broken up the massing, especially at the northern-most corner on San Antonio, and we’ve introduced a lot of these, what we are calling framed elements – the framed balconies, the framed element at the roof terrace. You can see this red line here is meant to introduce the actual roofline at the street elevation, so hopefully with this line denounced here, it becomes a little clearer that we’re not going from the street straight up to the roof in an unbroken or unarticulated fashion. Here, while the red line does go up above the roof line here, 4.a Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Page 5 this is actually an open element, so I think it could be considered that the top of the parapet might actually read along this line here instead. Mr. Sing: Try to expand it. Mr. Rinde: Sorry? Mr. Sing: Try to expand this out. Mr. Rinde: Oh. That’s a little better. Thank you. Another comment that we had last time we were here was that we should think about how we would do street drop-offs and Uber and Lyft and things like that. And what we’ve done now along Leghorn is create a little duck-out for two cars to be able to park here. This would be great for UPS trucks, FedEx, of course Uber, Lyft – A lot of different uses could be utilized here along Leghorn. Another comment we received was that there were too many architectural styles or too many materials in play. And I think, looking at this now, I see where you guys are coming from. It was a little bit too busy. What we’ve done now is significantly simplified the material palette. The main materials that are in play now are some given, such as glass. Each of these framed elements is made out of stucco, painted in different paint colors, but still just smooth stucco. The main field material would be James Hardie Artisan siding, and the shiplap siding. We have… And a couple accent materials that are used consistently throughout the building. These materials here and here, and even down here in red, are meant to be metal paneling that’s laser cut. We haven’t finalized the exact pattern that we’re going to go with yet, but the idea is it’s supposed to be a high-end material that’s visually interesting and helps articulate the massing and the elevation. And then, the final material that we have is what we’re terming the ribbon. There’s a red ribbon that integrates with the landscape and forms the roof elements of the main entry, and the retail is made out of, it’s tiled, with a metallic-looking tile from Daltile. It’s a very nice-looking material and I think it’s really going to tie the entire elevation along San Antonio, and it turns the corner and goes along Leghorn as well, and forms the garage entry. Basically, every entry point into the building is framed with this red tile material. We received comments that our vertical circulation needed to be rethought, and looking at the floor plan, it proved true. We did need a little more time there. We have added additional elevator shafts, we’ve added additional vertical circulation, to better integrate the entire plan and allow a little more flexibility for the end users. New stair towers closer to the trash chutes. New elevator shaft at the… This is the northwest corner of the building. One of the more interesting comments was that the design was a victim of its own symmetry, which at the time we thought, oh, this is looking great, it’s nice and symmetrical. But hearing the comment from you guys, it did get us to look at this a bit more critically and say, well, what if we broke that symmetry as suggested? And we’re really quite happy with the end result, so, thank you for that comment. As you can see, while the main sort of problematic areas might still be in the same place, i.e., the residential entry is still more or less in the central portion of the elevation here, it feels a lot less symmetrical now. We might still have the retail at the corner here, some tall, nicer apartments at the corner here, but at the far corner, we’ve really broken the massing down. We’ve incorporated a community space, a community room, at the roof terrace level. We’ve also got more of these framed portals to take in the views from the roof terrace. And, we’re doing a different sort of balcony and unit treatment here at the corner to help prevent that symmetrical issue. We received a comment that the roof terrace had no function. We certainly had an intended function, but ran out of time to really document what we had intended. This time around, we really had a lot more thought put into the plans for review. The roof terrace is meant to have multiple different seating areas. We are considering some sort of movie viewing area, but we are, of course, aware of the concerns about light and noise being a nuisance for the neighborhood, so we want to make sure that we are thinking about that critically as we move forward into design development. This area is meant to be partially covered as well, with a community space that opens out through a series of bi-folding doors onto this open-air space that’s at the northwestern corner. Sorry, I misspoke before. I got my directions wrong. This is at the northwestern corner, so looking out in this direction here, you’re looking out towards the talb-corret [phonetic] campus, and beyond that as well, given the height that we’re at on the fourth floor. I mentioned this already, that one elevator was not sufficient. That’s quite true for a building of this scale, so we have now added an additional elevator shaft here at the opposite corner of the one that’s serving the residential lobby. The ground floor glass at the previously very symmetrical design was overdone. We have really refined this balcony. I’m really quite happy with how this looks now, relative to the still glassy corner here above the retail corner. Palm trees 4.a Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto Page 6 on the roof terrace weren’t making sense. Fair enough. We worked with the landscape architect to come up with a more appropriate planting scheme for up there, because we still want to soften this parapet edge with some planting so that it doesn’t quite feel like just your standard building wall going all the way up to a flashing cap. We want to soften that, so, I would envision that some overhanging plants here might be really nice to sort of soften this edge at the roof terrace. The bike room could not open into lobby, so we have actually really revamped the way we’re treating the bike room. It’s now one larger space. It is partitioned off into 20 bikes per room individually to meet the transportation code. However, this is something we’d like to reconsider and get your initial feedback on. We’d like this to be more of an open space, and given that this isn’t down in a subterranean parking garage, but it’s instead right at the street elevation, and it’s really sort of, besides the residential entry itself, it’s one of the primary elements on the San Antonio elevation, we’d like this to be a more open and more communal space. Not just somewhere where you go and meet with 20 of your neighbors, but instead, everyone can be in there together. We have a design here that complies with the 20 bikes max per room requirement, but if we can get your feedback on that, that’s something that we’d like to pursue perhaps re-envisioning slightly, just to create more of a celebration of the bike. The bike room is also served by this sloped walkway leading up, and at this sort of intermediate landing… This isn’t exactly a ramp. I’m hesitant to call this a landing… I’m out of time. Okay. Chair Baltay: Thirty seconds. Mr. Rinde: Thirty seconds, all right, let’s keep going. Responding to context and site. We have more carefully studied the larger buildings within the immediate context and have tried to pull in certain elements from those, to be more appropriate to the context. And overly glassy corners, again, we’ve reduced that quite a bit. We still want some floor to ceiling glass, we think that’s going to be a special feature, but taking into account the use here and being appropriately scaled with some solid walls to provide some privacy for those units as well, we thought was very appropriate. The inner courtyard needs development. I’m not quite sure why you guys were saying that, but okay. Fine. What we’re showing now is really showing how we intend for it to be used… Chair Baltay: We’re out of time. Wrap it up. One sentence. Mr. Rinde: Okay, sorry about that. Sure. We are, of course, eager to hear you guys’ feedback on the new proposal. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Okay. Let’s move on to hear if we have any comments from the public. You can sit down. Mr. Rinde: Thank you. Chair Baltay: We have three speaker cards. Joan Larrabee, to be followed by Pat Stewart. You’ll have three minutes. Please, if you could state and spell your name for the record. Thank you. Joan Larrabee: Good morning. My name is Joan Larrabee [spells name]. I live at 777 San Antonio Road, across the street from this proposal. I’ve lived there for a number of years. While we all welcome more residential property to our neighborhood, we’re quite concerned about how this has just kept leapfrogging, from 20 condos, to 40-something, to 50-something, and now, it’s 102 rentals, mostly studios. We’re concerned that San Antonio Road is only four lanes wide. Most of the stretch in the city of Palo Alto, which is from the railroad tracks and Alma Street over to the bay shore and to the bay, only has about 100 parking places. If this has those mechanical lifts, which are very prone to break down, those people who are going to be living there are going to be having to park and walk and do something, some place. This has not been taken into account. Another comment that was made in an earlier meeting was that people who live in studios are fairly low income, and therefore, they won’t have automobiles, and they’ll be taking the bus. There is no bus traffic on San Antonio Road. The County took the bus traffic off years ago because it’s just too congested. It’s too congested to have bike lanes. There are no bike lanes, and we keep seeing all of these bike rooms. Nobody can ride a bike on San Antonio Road. I never see a bike on San Antonio Road, and I’m in and out on San Antonio Road all the time. The traffic congestion. This is going to be like a 4.a Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Page 7 domino, because there are more properties that will be going and turning residential. And now you’ve made a 50-foot program for all of San Antonio Road. We haven’t seen the traffic counts. The hotel isn’t open yet, with almost 300 rooms. Most of the people having to go all these different places are going to have to be making U-turns. This was not taken into account when we had traffic counts for the hotel. It was already at Middlefield at San Antonio Service Level C, which means you’re waiting three traffic signal times to go. And it’s just going to get worse. And you’re all smart people. I don’t understand why you’re going along with this. I don’t understand this at all. Anyway, I think it’s too much, too much. But again, when it was only 20-something condos, I supported that. But I’m having a hard time with all of this. And saying that people are going to ride their bikes. They’re not going to ride bikes. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Next, we have Pat Starrett, to be followed by Rita… Sorry, I can’t read your name right. Pat, you’ll have three minutes, if you could state and spell your name, please. Pat Starrett: Okay, yes. The last name is Starrett [spells name]. Barrett, Garrett, Starrett. I would like to first start out with a little visual comparison. If you haven’t lived in Palo Alto very long, you may not know, years ago, there was a proposal for three 10-story apartment buildings on Skyline. Now, that’s what… That didn’t happen, fortunately. Can you imagine? Now, one acre equals 100-plus units. Now, I have a quick question about the interior, about those elevated parking. I’d like to know who makes the decision, or what company. Did they do a lot of research? What’s the safety record as far as injuries? What’s the length of time it takes for someone to get there to repair it? I know that’s not the outside, but I think the inside bears some thought. I’ve lived at the other side of town in old Palo Alto, and then I moved here. Of course, all along, I knew what was happening. Trucks, and whatever else, goes to San Antonio Road, with no thought of traffic congestion, the people that already live there. I’d like those things to be admitted to consideration. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Next, we have Rita… Rita Vrhel: Vrhel [spells name]. Chair Baltay: And you’ll be followed by Chris Brennan [sic], and you’ll have three minutes to speak. Ms. Vrhel: Okay. I live over on Channing, so this doesn’t concern me, except for the fact that I do most of my shopping over on the San Antonio area. And I know that apartments can look beautiful on San Antonio. But I think there is a tipping point where it becomes a problem. I was on Middlefield Road yesterday around ten o’clock, and when I came to San Antonio, it was backed up all the way, almost up to the San Antonio shopping center. I shopped at the San Antonio shopping center and I thought, well, I’m not going to go down San Antonio Road, I’ll go down Rengstorff. Rengstorff was backed up all the way to California. I think what you’re seeing is what we have with the Dumbarton bridge. There are only so many ways to get to 101. And when you keep piling up apartments or businesses, or whatever, where people do have cars, you’re going to run into gridlock. Now, you’re talking about Lyft and Uber. A Lyft or Uber ride takes two trips, one to get there, and one to go back, so, actually, you’re actually increasing the traffic by two. The second thing that I really wanted to mention is that I think residents are getting really tired of the City – i.e. taxes – paying for parking structures. When we’re doing parking structures now, it’s around $65,000 a parking spot. If you bond it, it turns out to be about $110,000. I think this building is inadequately parked. I don’t care what they use, but you need more parking spaces. The City voters put together a referendum, which was then passed by the City Council, regarding limiting office space. And I would hope that the city voters didn’t have to stand out in front of Safeway, etc., and get enough signatures so that there would be a referendum demanding that all private buildings be adequately parked at the cost of the landowner and/or the developer. These are my thoughts. Again, I don’t live there, I don’t have to look at no bus service, and honestly, I have never seen a bicycle on San Antonio Road either. I think you need to really think about what you’re doing there. There will be dewatering for this building, and of course, the water level is about seven feet, so that will be taken care of hopefully by the City Council. As a founding member of SavePaloAlto’sGroundwater.org, I am concerned about the amount of groundwater that we are pulling out for private buildings. Thank you. 4.a Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Lastly, we have Chris Brennan [sic]. You’ll have three minutes. If you could state and spell your name, please. Chris Brosnan: Yeah, I’m Chris Brosnan [spells name]. Thanks, wow, three minutes, that’s great. I’d also like to talk about the building underground here. If you’ll notice, most of the buildings in the area don’t build underground, or aren’t underground, and that’s because the water level is so low. You’re basically talking about filling in the bay that you can’t see. It’s just kind of like a river of water that feeds into the bay, and it’s really kind of concerning. I haven’t really heard much about that, unfortunately, you know, in the discussion that I’ve heard about this topic. Another thing people talk a lot about is traffic, and obviously nobody wants to wade anywhere. You know, for me, also, the traffic is really problematic. You’ve got a lot of vehicles that basically are shooting out gas that is not good to breathe at all, especially when you’ve got cars just sitting there at the light for hours. I mean, it’s really not a good situation for your health. And if you see this property on the picture here, it really doesn’t fit in with the ideas that most people have in Palo Alto, about being healthy, and walking around outside. I mean, there’s not very many plants, as you see. I think the problem really, for me, is, it’s a fine place to develop a residential place, or whatever you really want to do there. Development is fine, but wow, five stories? I mean, there’s no way you could fit this many people into this community very easily. Obviously, you see that problem with the over-parking. We’re seeing that a lot with these developments, that there’s just not enough parking spaces. There’s really no parking spaces in the area because, you know, this has kind of been going on for a while. I just wonder, you know, five stories, underground, not a lot of trees – It’s just kind of like, well… Like, I understand you want to have more houses. That seems like a good idea. But is it really worth people’s health? I mean, I don’t think people really understand how bad it is to breath car exhaust all day. You really need a lot of trees and plants to filter that out for you, to live a healthy life in Palo Alto and be able to walk around, which is a really nice part about this area. You can walk to the grocery store. There’s a lot of things to do, really, if you could just walk there. But, yeah, that’s just what I would like to see more of, is more talk about, you know, the dewatering, and underground, and also, you know, just the general health of the area. Does this really make this a better place for other people? Or is it just, you know, let’s try to get as many people in here as we can, you know? I think my time is almost up, so I’ll take that. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. To the applicant, you have an opportunity to rebut the public’s comments if you wish. You don’t need to speak. No? Very well. Thank you. Bringing this back to the Board, we’ll close the public testimony. I’d like to remind my colleagues of two things. Staff has asked us to be focused not on the zoning amendment changes. This project requires changes to the zoning code, but that’s not directly in our purview, and I don’t think we should spend time today on that unless someone strongly feels otherwise. Secondly, I believe we had a discussion last time about the entrance to the building being in the middle of the block or the corner, and we decided that it was appropriate to leave it at the middle. Discussion otherwise is not going to help us keep on track on our time today, just so everybody is aware. With that, Grace, could you start us off, please? What do you think? Board Member Lee: Thank you, Peter. I would like to thank our staff for such a complete staff report, and I’m just making sure that we know everything that has occurred on this project. And I want to thank the community members who have spoken today. I appreciate your comments. I would just like to make a few comments regarding this process and where we are. If you did want to consult, just is at the front there, if you look at the report summary, there is an Environmental Impact Report that will be ready in February. I understand this will be shared. Our purview here at the Architectural Review Board is really, we are directed by the City staff, as well as City Council, to weigh in on the architectural aspects that have been submitted to us from the applicant. I just want to tell you just briefly, if you’re unaware, what happens in a draft EIR, and just that it will be public; that there is everything from all that you’ve raised in terms of transportation, and congestion, and water, and mitigation measures, and just the summary of the environmental aspects in terms of health of the community. I just want to let you know that. And then, to proceed to respond to the package that was submitted today. Thank you for the application, and also your presentation. I found it to be very complete. One thing that I wanted to do is just to go straight down the list of what I see here in terms of how you’ve responded. My comments will generally be more on, kind of the more community and public aspects of the improvements. And I want to thank our Architectural Review Board. There are four members here, and one who is not here… No, it was just the four of you, sorry, who responded, and gave these really terrific comments to the applicant. I believe the applicant has 4.a Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Page 9 acknowledged their impact, and I see the design is remarkably improved in many ways. I think there are more to do, as always, in design. If I just start with some of the comments from the Board regarding symmetry and design palette, kind of breaking down the scale in terms of offsets. I see dramatic improvement in terms of that front elevation. One of the things I would want to talk about, just the scale of San Antonio. I’m very familiar with this area. I’ve worked in this area, family has lived in this area. I think that it is something to acknowledge that San Antonio Road has very vast scale as a boulevard and as a high-traffic area that is seen from a vehicular and a pedestrian a very different way. When I look at your overall elevation, I feel like we never see that large, you never see a large front elevation when it’s that big, except in the renderings. Right? You actually see pieces of the building. I’m going to talk about it in terms of the pieces, in terms of pedestrian scale, but also on the vehicular. While I appreciate the red ribbon, how it’s beginning to work with the framed elements, issues of contrast in terms of material palette, I think that’s something that could be refined. One of the great things working well, I think, is that the framed elements begin to create kind of this rhythm, and then, that you actually begin to break down the scale. I think when you talk about things like, again, it goes to the details in terms of a metal screen that matches a painted stucco, for example – Those are going to need to read together in terms of an element that is a volume that repeats. It would be terrific, if we see it again, with a real materials board. Because when we see things like this, and then the other pieces that are passed around, it’s terrific to see the actual materials and colors, but I don’t have a sense of the high contrast. I see, just in terms of how those are working together, A7O is your color materials board, but when you color xerox it, again, it would be just great to get a real materials board to us to review. There is something in the red ribbon that is really quite compelling when you see it in a rendering as a full elevation in a small set. However, I see that your red ribbon actually is a planter wall, I think, that comes down on the street, and I just want to point again to the massive scale of that, the length of that elevation. I’m not sure that it needs to be a continuous red ribbon, which is a graphic. It’s really a line that’s colored, that we see in renderings. But really, to think about what the red ribbon is in terms of actual architecture and space making. So, there’s an entrance that has a red, it’s right above my head, I see it, and it’s a wayfinding, so maybe there, the ribbon becomes important. There’s something that marks a corner at Leghorn, which is really the most visible place that you actually see and want to kind of participate with that kind of semi-public corner. There, the red ribbon makes sense. I just encourage you to think more about that red ribbon and what it’s doing in terms of actual space making. I’m just going to keep going down the list. In terms of these excellent comments from the Board and your response, I’m so glad to see the elevator, and that you actually have thought about the glass corners. And the drop-off seems to be working well. The courtyard does not function well. I think the courtyard is now working a lot better. I believe that you can break down the scale further. I encourage you to think about the courtyard not as one space, but as a potential to be separate zones of activity or places of quiet. The interior courtyard could actually begin to incorporate some outdoor rooms, zones of planting that, I know that will be largely shaded, but there is a need for a focal point to activate the space. So often in these kind of housing developments, there is a need for quiet spaces, and more public spaces. It just looks like a very conceptual sketch at this point in my mind. I feel like maybe there could be careful thought in terms of how one person inhabits the courtyard versus a family, or two families, or four people, eight people. Does the courtyard become a place where a community member could actually, you know, take that courtyard for the afternoon, and it could actually be a meaningful place for a gathering? So glad to see that palm trees are eliminated from the roof terrace design. Thank you, Alex, and thank you, applicants. There, again, I’ll just go the roof terrace. There was a comment that landscape planning needing more native species, and then, there was a comment of the roof terrace has no function, consider open space on the upper level. Previously, you had one big, it looks like a big roof element with palm trees that are piercing the element. I’m so glad that you’re beginning to think how that space breaks down and have redesigned it to consider views. It’s large enough space where, again, separate zones, thinking about elements of shade. Also, acoustically, just in terms of perception, sometimes roof terraces on El Camino can be uncomfortable, so how do you begin…? I mean, it’s a terrific design problem for you to consider that open space a little bit more carefully, and even in terms of separate areas where it’s not one large space at all times, so that you just walk around and look out and then leave, but is it a place where you can actually inhabit? Similarly, I wanted to talk about, on that corner… Maybe we’ll just skip down to that, and then come back to some of the interior elements. Let’s see. On the corner, there was the comment about, on Leghorn… First of all, the glass corners do not convey on residential project. I see that you reduced the amount of glass, but at the street level, at Leghorn… And also the height of that corner. I’m curious to see what the Board thinks about this corner there. Again, when you look at a 4.a Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto Page 10 rendering in an 11 x 17 set, we see the difference there on the corner, that it’s slightly higher. The corner at Leghorn and San Antonio, it’s not an El Camino corner of San Antonio-El Camino, for example. However, it’s an opportunity there, with the retail space, to differentiate in a way that it might… I’m not sure, I’m on the fence there, but that might need a little bit more. And perhaps it isn’t actually the height of that corner of the building, but again, at the street scale. I encourage you to think about that corner a little bit more, in my mind. I also wanted to look at the, if you go to the set, I think it’s on that exterior perspective you see. As you go down Leghorn, there’s this large planting area, and I wonder if there’s… You know, you show the café kind of seating, but I feel like Leghorn is a place of relief for the community. It’s off of San Antonio. There’s a very large landscape area, and maybe that’s where you actually design some kind of a landscape and formal seating area, or something that gives to that community, which will largely be… That’s north. That would be morning light, so it will be in shade, and will give a place of, another landscaped community, zoned for the community there. So, I encourage you to think about informal seating further down on Leghorn, not at the corner, but maybe there’s a way to transition between those two landscape spaces. Okay, to go back into the building, you asked us for input regarding the bicycle room that could be more, you know, has partitioned bicycle rooms, but has potential to be more open. Look forward to hearing comments from the Board on this. My feeling is to absolutely celebrate the opportunities for community and the bike. It is true that biking along San Antonio is a challenge. I’m so happy to see that this might go to apartments or rental, and that they would provide more housing for this area. I do think that it would be unfortunate if the bike room is a place of lockers that’s dark, that doesn’t contribute to the ground floor lobby, and also the potential for some acknowledgment on the exterior, on San Antonio. So, I encourage you to move in that direction, and look forward to hearing comments from my colleagues here. And then, quickly, a last few things. It looks like I’m going to… I believe that you’ve answered it. I’m curious to hear more from the Board regarding other aspects like the trash chutes and a few other things that I’ve missed. But I think I’ll just stop there and pass it off to the next Board member. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. David, why don’t you continue, please? Board Member Hirsch: I was really, I’m really still disappointed with this building, with this concept, actually. I feel that buildings ought to begin with the people who are going to be in them, and scaled to residential feelings that are not here. I find that the whole scheme is kind of developed on the basis of, about 40 percent of the units are looking out on roofs. And the environment there in the back of the building and one side of the building, if it remains that way, is going to not be a very attractive place to live. Ground floor is up against a wall of another kind of a use, neighboring use. And up above, you’re looking down on a roof line. You develop a scheme on the basis of how the people are going to live in it, and I don’t think this is a livable building. I hope I can talk a little more to that in a minute. Everything here, to me, is overdone, out of scale, unnecessarily huge. Too far to go. The entry in the middle of this building, a big, long building, to get there, how do you get there as a pedestrian? Who is going to walk along San Antonio Road? I was asked not to talk about the Leghorn end of the building, but I still feel very strongly that more should be done, and an entry should be there. And even if it moves the store and the retail down the block further, it should be an emphasis on Leghorn because it’s an area where you have access, and because it’s the only crossing road here. Leghorn, again, I think is kind of the head of the building, and I have to say that because it’s what I believe. And it really ought to be emphasized a lot more. I didn’t really mind the glassy corner in the first scheme. I thought it was kind of the head of the building, and therefore, was defining it. But then, to have a second one at the other end, where you really can’t… it isn’t public access, is a wrong idea. I would have preferred an asymmetrical building where there’s kind of an entry head and way to get into it, and to rise vertically in the building. But to walk along the front of this building and get to the middle of it, and then, you’re at a very, very oversized entry leading to a very, very oversized courtyard in a building which everybody… a lot of people’s apartments are looking out onto roofs, etc., is a misjudgment in where to put the emphasis and scale on a building like this. So, I’ve said it about the corner, anyhow. Who’s going to use this commercial? Who is it really for? Are people going to walk across the street from the housing development and actually shop here? Is this a place for people to shop? I know this is a decision that was made at the Council level, but I think that if you think of it, that this commercial really is useful to this building, and therefore, somehow it ought to relate to the interior courtyard, which would provide a usage that could work well for the people in the building, is a better idea. And maybe there should be more than one court, which is a totally different scheme. Because if you had more courtyards, then people could be looking into them, rather than looking out of this building at these roof lines. You 4.a Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Page 11 know, I want to say that it follows through that the out-of-scale sense of the front of this building and the Leghorn side is demonstrated in the way in which the front is treated as well, and I just don’t feel comfortable with very large, rectangular enframements of certain numbers of building, in order to use that as a foil to break up the front of the building. In some way, I think that the ground floor continuous red piece might be fun, but then, where is the scale? The scale, it’s just out of scale. I’d rather not have a roof deck showing on the front of the building and bring the scale of it down to a human level. Unfortunately, nobody ever did a really good study of San Antonio Road, and we’ve made that comment before. And I think it really is, kind of a packaging of bedroom units to get more residential into this city that has forced this building to become out of scale and unacceptable to me. I have a few more comments. Just a minute. Well, others will speak to this, but I don’t find these materials to be particularly warm and cozy and friendly. The red material is kind of muddled, and the tile material doesn’t seem to relate. There’s no joy in these materials. I think that people who are going to live here would be happier with a different choice of materials that were just simply more friendly materials to live in. And also, the back of the building and the side of the building, the end of the building, are… There’s very little thought given to it, and it has no relationship – the sides or the back – to the front, the way the front is done. So, my comments are that I think the building is definitely out of scale. I think that the courtyard and the entry are way too large. I think access to the building isn’t properly thought out. So, I would recommend that it goes back to the drawing board, and a more appropriate scheme is developed. Sorry to have to say this, but this is my feeling. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Alex. Board Member Lew: Very interesting comments from the Board members. And I’m actually, I think, somewhere in between Grace and David, to make it simple. I think my first reaction was more similar to David’s. When I was looking at it more carefully, I think I understand what the architects are trying to do, and I was encouraged by the revisions you’re making. Just for the record, I’m not opposed to the palm trees, and I wanted to point out a project that I like down in Los Angeles, near Los Angeles. There’s the Americana in Glendale. It’s kind of like a Santana Row project, and they do have high-density residential on top of ground-floor retail. And they have one section that is all planted, that’s like a pool deck that’s planted with palm trees, and also sort of tropical foliage that you can see from the street. And I think it looks great. It adds a lot of greenery to that, and I’m not opposed to that. I think the previous scheme just wasn’t working, that particular configuration wasn’t working for me. But I’m not opposed to the palm trees. I say that because palm trees are useful because they don’t really require a lot of soil volume. You can look at the Canary Island palms at the Jewish Community Center. They’re in relatively small planters. There’s a risk when you put them in a small planter that they won’t live, and some of the ones at the JCC have died and have been replaced with a crane. So, there are issues with them. But I think it is a way to get a lot of green up on the roof decks, and I think that’s important for making the roof decks desirable. Okay, so, I will focus on architecture. I have a couple comments just on urban design and planning. One is, I think we have to acknowledge that this block in Palo Alto/Mountain View is a super block. It’s 750 feet by about 1,200 feet. It’s not downtown, it’s not El Camino. It’s gridlocked, even in the middle of the day. I visited the site in the middle of the day and the traffic was backed up. And if you try to go at, like, five o’clock on a Friday, it’s good luck. I actually do bicycle on it. I do errands at Crossroads, and REI, and all that. I do it by bicycle. A lot of times I’ll ride in the street, and then, when the traffic backed up and the cars are parked along the curb, I’ll ride on the sidewalk. It’s not desirable. I think we need to, if we are going to look at doing housing incentive program on San Antonio Road, I think we really need to have a heart to heart about all of that stuff. And if that happens at the PTC and Council, I think that’s fine, but I think we need to really, seriously discuss all of those issues. Okay, so, on architecture. It’s not really working for me yet. I think I could get there if you maybe modified the middle section of the building along San Antonio Road, where the lobby is. Maybe break that and make that almost a separate building, or just a separate design element. That will help break down the long façade. Grace was saying that you don’t really see a long façade, and that’s true. But all the architects that I’ve worked for have always worked in elevation. If you get it to work in elevation, it will work in perspective. I think you’re saying, we have street trees and everything, and you don’t see it. But I’ve always been taught you have to get that scale broken down first, then all the other things will fall into place. And I think, for me, it’s not working yet. There are too many things that are sort of repeating along the length of the façade. I’m not opposed to any one of those things that you have there, but… Yeah. It’s not really working for me. And when I see things like, in the staff report, it’s saying, like, the bike washing thing will provide visual interest, and the bikes in the lobby will 4.a Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Page 12 provide interest. That does not cut it for me. I don’t want to see that in the staff report. It’s all about the architecture and the landscape. It’s the first five feet of the building. It’s all the balconies, your metal screens, the red ribbon – all of that. The street trees. That’s what the visual interest is, and it’s not any one little element. That’s where I think the project is not really working. You’re not showing all the landscape and all the trees in the rendering, so it very well could be there, but I’m not seeing it in the drawings yet. On the lobby and the bicycle room, I think some of these things are interior elements that are not the purview of the ARB. And, like, the elevator, having one or two elevators, is not really the ARB’s purview. I will just point out there’s a project, I don’t know if I mentioned it last time, but there’s a project that I do like in Berkeley, called The Parker, where they have a really nice bike room on the side street. And then, there’s the main entrance on Shattuck. I think it’s really well done. To me, it’s livable, it’s approachable. There’s indoor/outdoor space. It’s useable. And there are community spaces. But it’s not trying to make it all one thing. And the only thing that I object to about the bikes in the lobby is security. Like, my friends have $10,000 bikes. They’re not going to leave it in an open lobby. That’s just too dangerous. If you read online reviews of big apartment complexes in San Jose that have open garages and open bike rooms, there are lots of thefts, so I think we really have to be serious about it and not just try to make some pretty picture. It really just needs to work, and I think we’ll let the Transportation Department sort of weigh in on what they think is appropriate. I do appreciate the effort for putting it on the ground floor. I think that’s very important. I don’t want to discourage you from that at all. On the facades, I won’t say too much, other than, like, most of the architects that I know who work in affordable housing do tricks with proportions to make them look better, and I think you’re doing that in some places – say, like at the glass corner – but you’re not doing it at the bedroom windows. And I want to encourage you to sort of explore that a little bit. It really makes a difference with the windows. We’re saying flush header windows going all the way up to the ceiling, or going all the way down to the floor. It causes all sorts of problems with furniture and structure and what-not. But all the architects that I’ve worked for who do affordable housing have done those things, and it really makes a difference, especially in small studio units. It’s really critical. You’re living in a little shoebox, that you get as much light and space as possible. It makes a huge difference. You can see it at the MOLA [phonetic] housing and the Jewish Community Centers. The living rooms have glass corners, floor to ceiling. It makes all the difference in the world, so, I really do want to encourage you to try to break the box a little bit on the units. I think that’s all I’m going to say for now. I do want to encourage you to pursue the project. I think we have a lot of big issues to discuss. For the community, on traffic and all of that, I think we do maybe need to do a, maybe Planning could do some sort of seminar or something, but the state has required us to change how we look at traffic, and we’ve done that in our comp plan. We have it in our first EIR for the hotel, but it’s completely different, like, how we have to process the traffic, and measuring delays at stop lights. And it’s our new reality, like it or now. And I think maybe, Planning staff, maybe there’s a way for us to sort of explain that better. I think it would be very useful. Maybe that’s a PTC item and not an ARB item. My last comment is on the garage entrance. A lot of the projects that I see in Mountain View and Sunnydale sort of use a bright color inside the portal, the driveway frame, and lots of LED lighting, make it bright and light, so people know where it is. Also, some of the projects that I’m seeing now in Mountain View, big mixed-use apartment buildings on El Camino and Mountain View, they have figured out a way to have some retail parking behind the retail space. I know we have in our exception for El Camino sites. I think it’s desirable to have some retail parking behind there, to make it viable. It also allows residential parking to be secure, and the retail parking can be open. And then, I think we have to acknowledge that some of businesses, like Starbucks on El Camino, that half of their customers are just drive-by. They’re not… Some of them may be walking or something, but half of it could be drive-by, and they really need to be able to pull in and park. And we have a super block, like, on this site, it’s going to make it very difficult for the business. That was all that I have. Thank you, Peter. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Osma, what’s your thought? Vice Chair Thompson: Alrighty. Well, thank you for the applicant, thank you to the members of the public for expressing your concerns, and also, thanks to the Board members, the interesting discussion that we’re having. I also sort of, kind of fall into sort of a middle ground. It’s true, initially, when I first saw this update, I was a little concerned that our comments hadn’t really been interpreted in a way that was beneficial to the design. It is true, on closer look, there is a lot to like about the design. I think the main issue could be that in the previous proposal, there was a lot of warm colors, and a warm palette, and this palette that 4.a Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Page 13 we’re looking at here is a lot colder in its colors. The material samples that we looked at are really inadequate, and I agree with Board Member Lee, that there’s a slew of colors here on this façade, and we’re only given two to really evaluate. Now, there’s sort of a charcoal color, a taupe, a light blue color, beige, and then… There’s just so much on this façade. And it makes sense, it’s a big façade, but really, all we have is this picture, this rendering that we’re looking at, to evaluate if this scheme and palette works. And unfortunately, it does not. It looks very dreary just by the colors, and that really does the architecture a disservice. Because the laser-cut panels that you have add such a richness to the façade that’s very beneficial. As soon as I saw that, I was like, oh, there’s actually way more to this than I realized. I really like that you guys are including that because I do think that that will add a lot of scale and relief that the building needs. Unfortunately, the north façade and the west façade seem to sort of been left behind in favor of the Leghorn façade and the San Antonio façade. But that west façade will be seen. You know, it’s a tall building, and that will be seen by a lot of traffic coming from the highway, and it really, you know, for people who don’t live in Palo Alto, that’s a huge access road for outsiders, and for anyone that’s visiting. That façade is really important, and needs to be given a bit more love. Also, the color, which I don’t believe we have, of that façade, and the north façade, and the inner courtyards, are this very dark color, and it looks like it’s way too dark. It almost looks like black in the drawings, which I don’t believe is appropriate at all for this area. That just needs a bit more work and refinement. I appreciate that you guys responded to the glassy corners looking a little bit like office buildings. I think what you’ve done by adding balconies and providing a bit more relief is successful. The soffits, especially of your roof deck, are going to be very visible on the ground level, and I think a bit more material thought, having the soffits just be stucco is probably not going to be as visually appealing since a lot of people will be seeing that from the ground floor. And to the comment for the windows, you know, the way that you’ve done the floor-to-ceiling glass on that important corner of Leghorn, and living space, makes a lot of sense. And you have it in a lot of other areas for the living spaces, the floor-to-ceiling makes sense, especially when it’s paired with a balcony. That really gives a residential feel. And it’s true. The other windows could maybe use a different treatment or something, to sort of give them a bit more scale. I mean, windows are really great because those can provide relief, you can punch them in and give your façade some relief. Board Member Lew’s suggestion of the middle area, potentially scaling that in, and sort of breaking up this sort of wall, is not a bad idea, actually. I think that could be really interesting, and give you some more relief as well. I mean, at this moment, really, your frames and your balconies are giving you that depth, but maybe like a step back in that lobby, which is pretty extensive, could help break down your façade a bit. And the bike room, I also agree with Board Member Lew. I bike a lot, and I would not feel comfortable keeping that open to the public. Security is really important for your bikes. I’ve had three stolen in Palo Alto. And I have biked down San Antonio, and it’s true. Right now, at this moment, it is not a very walkable or bikeable road. But that doesn’t mean it shouldn’t ever be, and that doesn’t mean that we shouldn’t try and push for something that we want. So, I’m very much in support of having bicycle facilities here. And Baylands are just a hop, skip and a jump, and so many times I’ve wanted to bike to the Baylands down San Antonio. And I have in the past, but it’s dodgy. But that doesn’t mean that in the future, it won’t be, and that it won’t be really great. I do appreciate that you guys are pushing for that, and that’s important. Okay. That’s it for me. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. I’ll chime in as well, but I share the sentiments of my colleagues here. On the site planning, however, I think you really need a drop-off along San Antonio, seeing that the Uber driver is going to turn onto Leghorn, then make a U-turn somehow to come back out again before they drop somebody off. I don’t buy that. They’re just going to stop on San Antonio anyway and block traffic. The question for staff, I suppose, in the same vein is that, right now on Leghorn, there’s curbside parking. Is that going to be eliminated with this project, or will there be both curbside parking, and then, losing two spots for this drop-off area? The drawing implies that there’s no parking and the curb drops in. Maybe we can come back to that in a second, but I think that… We all know that San Antonio has a real traffic problem, and without being real about what’s happening on the ground and addressing how this building is impacted by it and how people get in and out is a real issue. I think you need to have something along San Antonio. That’s where people will stop, where deliveries will be made. Especially with the traffic. Nobody wants to get out of that traffic flow. The design is improved from the initial version that we saw. I don’t think it’s there yet. I find that there’s just too many frames moving around and not a cohesive enough sense of the design. I think a couple places where you have the large red frame, say, over the parking garage, and then there’s a frame for the windows right above it, it just seems overkill. It’s not integrated and thought through enough. I’ve noted that I think they are too monumental in feeling, still. I think Board 4.a Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Member Hirsch’s comments about it, to somehow seeming to start from the frames, not from the life of the people inside, just seems to be the wrong approach on a residential project like this. You’d be wiser to think about how it works as a residence, and then, try to give it some sense of larger presence on the street, rather than the other way around. It seems – to me, at least – like you’ve started with an idea of frames, and then, worked backwards from that into an apartment building. I’ve noted that they’re both too monumental, too busy looking. There’s just too many of them. And I find them sort of dissonant. There’s no relationship between these elements that seem appropriate to a residential project. I think that the bicycle parking needs to function, obviously. What perhaps my colleagues are missing is that the bicycle room is an opportunity to enliven the street scape of the building. People are going in and out a lot, there’s a lot of activity there, and that’s visible from the street. And that’s a good thing. We need that along San Antonio. We need that everywhere where we have these large apartment buildings. So, there’s an opportunity to make the bicycle room, perhaps the front half of it, visible, open, glassed, where you see it, but then, have secure places for the bicycles themselves to be stored. It’s not the bicycles that are interesting, it’s the people using their bicycles. If you can find a way to do that, I think it will be successful. And just keep in mind, the idea is to enliven the street scape by putting the bicycle parking there. I’ll be quick. My last thing is that I can’t tell that if the materials are going to work or not because we just don’t know what they are yet. I’m concerned. When I look at this strong, rust-colored red next to these gray Hardie board things, those don’t work. I imagine they will, but I’d really like to see what you guys are thinking about. Put it together in a proper material board that we can really digest. I think in the action of doing that, you’ll find that you give it some more thought yourselves. Right now, it feels like it just hasn’t been cut through yet. These are just samples from your stock room in your office. We need to see more than that. I’m afraid it’s hard to say much of anything about the materials. What I see is not enough to even make a judgment. I’m concerned that they are not… We have to make a finding that they are of high quality. I have an inherent bias against Hardie board siding as being a, not really a high-quality material for what’s an intensely large, high-quality building. The burden is on you to really show me how that… What are you going to do at the corners? How does the Hardie board meet a window? Because we don’t want to see these little metal trims that they push on you, or just a big caulk joint that fails after five years. It’s really important to get those details right. As the architects, you need to think that stuff through. Right now, it just hasn’t been done yet. I’ll leave my comments at that. Maybe I can summarize what I’ve heard from I think most of the Board, is that the design is improved, but it’s not quite there. The scale is perhaps still a bit off. What else did we have to say? Grace, can you add on to that? Board Member Lee: Sorry, Peter, may I just jump in on your last comment? I forgot to mention – I’m so sorry – A7O, there is a color materials board, and I just wanted to make a simple suggestion that, on my tired, older eyes, I have a hard time with fonts that are smaller than, you know, something on [inaudible], civil set [phonetic] in terms of a legend. It’s just so small. And I do want to give the applicant a lot of credit. I see that you actually are painting your jet cut panels the same colors as the stucco. I mean, these things just didn’t come out in the review because it’s just poorly presented. I think perhaps there has been thought those materials, but unfortunately at this meeting, we didn’t receive it. And then, I did want to just offer a suggestion and see what you all thought. Sometimes on these longer elevations, which, you know, this is a long building, sometimes applicants actually – and I know it’s more expensive – but you do a fold-out. And you see the elevations, and just do pieces of the building, at least, on a larger scale, so that we’re actually able to read it and digest it for your comments. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Grace. That’s helpful. Ms. Gerhardt: Chair Baltay, if I may. Sorry, I moved locations. Chair Baltay: There you are, Jodie. Ms. Gerhardt: We do have our second screen up here if we want to try and summarize some of the main points. Chair Baltay: Yes, that’s what I was hoping we would try to do. I want to be sure that, to my colleagues, that we give them clear direction. This is going to be coming back a third time, it seems. I’d really like to get it nailed. How do we want to phrase our questions about scale and the overall window frames and 4.a Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Page 15 things? I’ve written down, to me, the frames of the building leave it to feel slightly too monumental, too busy, and dissonant. Anybody add on or clarify that more? David, you want to try? So we can summarize in a sentence [crosstalk]. Board Member Hirsch: No, but I want to go back a little bit, because I really think that an important statement that you made before about lay-by on San Antonio is really critical to the project here, and will affect the massing, and will potentially affect the entry. I feel it’s an important addition to comments on the building as a whole. And relative to the scale issue, I think that one should also consider the possibility of a more asymmetrical building, which could be quite significant here. Chair Baltay: Okay, so we can add “asymmetry” as another adjective. Vice Chair Thompson: Question. It is already asymmetrical. How much more asymmetrical are you thinking? It sort of steps down from, like… Board Member Hirsch: I think it could be then more asymmetrical. Board Member Lee: Sorry. My concern is, you know, I think giving the applicant more specific and directional feedback would be helpful. “Asymmetry” is a large word. It’s not something that I feel strongly about. I wonder if there’s maybe some comments that relate to the frame, what they are describing as how the frames… We have that, right? A system of frames. I heard the words “over-scaled” or “monumental.” That’s not something that I feel strongly about. However, maybe we could make one or two sentences relating to the framing system, the ribbon system, and the main elevations. I think you had something on the west elevation. But that might be more productive for the applicant to be able to move forward. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I also, I also don’t feel that strongly about the frames. I really think it’s the color palette that is doing the building a disservice. Honestly, if this color palette went from something that, you know, to something a bit more warm, I think the frames would actually read quite positively. Like, if you can imagine the frames reading as these warm things against sort of a warm background, it may not feel as monumental or overbearing. Board Member Lee: I agree, and I’m not sure I feel strongly about the word “asymmetry.” Maybe Alex and Peter, you want to weigh in? Board Member Lew: I don’t want to weigh in on that. I would say, if David’s looking to change the partee of the building – right? If I understand your previous comments correctly, then I don’t necessarily agree with that. I’m okay with the courtyard scheme, corner retail, mid-block entrance on San Antonio, back door to Leghorn. And then, whatever they come up with on the façade. That’s fine. Chair Baltay: I think that’s clear. We’ve essentially given the green light to the basic partee of this building. Board Member Lew: If we want to do a straw vote, we can do that. Chair Baltay: We did that at the last meeting, and we’re done with that. The question now, we’re talking about the appearance on the façade, if it’s asymmetrical, or monumental, etc. I can say that maybe there’s just one frame type too many. To me, what really caught my eye was the interaction of the frame around the entry, with the window frame, or the frame that goes up to the upstairs patio above it, the two of them just colliding with each other. And the same thing happens over the parking structure, the parking entrance. I think if you refined a little bit, and then, got your materials right, it probably would be okay. It’s not that you need a total rethink of the process, but a little more refinement on the frames. Board Member Lew: On scale, on the human scale, I would just point to the street scape elevations on Sheet AO.2B. I think that’s where the frames need to work with the, the frames and the colors need to work with existing context. The context may change, but our findings require us to make it work with existing buildings. I don’t think it’s there yet. 4.a Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Page 16 Chair Baltay: Let’s shift on to one comment that’s been made about the side and the back of the building. The back of the building, we all agree, is right on the city line, and faces Mountain View. I think we care, but the most important one is the west elevation. I’ve been amazed, when I’ve seen the hotel going up on San Antonio, because of the curve in the road, the way you approach it, you really see the side of the building. I believe that will be the same with this building. That west elevation, Osma pointed out, will be very visible, and it needs to be carefully designed along its entire length. I believe. Does the Board support that? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Chair Baltay: Let’s all chime in. Grace? Board Member Lee: [No audible response.] Chair Baltay: Alex, do you have any opinion about those elevations as well? Board Member Lew: Yes. Well, this goes back to another issue, which I have not brought up, that I’ve mentioned before. I mentioned it before on the hotels, right? You have a 50-foot-high building and you only have shrugs, and there are no trees, and I think… But our zoning for CS is zero setback. No landscaping required in this particular configuration. The commercial next door is not low-density residential, so there’s nothing required. I just throw that out there. That’s my issue, is that I think there are holes in the zoning code. But I think you’re saying to address it in the façade, and I will support that. Chair Baltay: I don’t know whether you’d address it with more landscaping, or more detailing, or better design of the façade, but, to me, it’s sort of like the back two sides of the building haven’t really been designed. Board Member Lew: I don’t disagree. Chair Baltay: I’d like to see more effort put on that. Board Member Lew: I will support if you want to [crosstalk]. I will support that. Chair Baltay: The Board feels that way consistently. David, you said that you think that the drop-off on San Antonio is important. Did I understand you right? I’d like to give them clear direction again, if we think that that’s essentially, or if it’s just one person. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, no, I think I’ll take back my comment about such an entry on Leghorn. Because I think that if you have a lay-by or drop-off area on San Antonio, the whole entry aspect of this building is vastly improved. Chair Baltay: What do the rest of the Board think about more of a drop-off area on San Antonio, by the main entrance to the building? I’d like to give them clear direction if that’s something they need to do, or not. Board Member Lew: Could you use the word, like, “explore?” Chair Baltay: Of course, of course. Board Member Lew: I think we have things like Lytton Gardens in downtown Palo Alto, has a small driveway off of Lytton. I think Hamilton senior housing has a very small drop-off thing on one of the side streets. I think we can consider it. You understand, though, it’s two curb cuts. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. 4.a Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Lew: We don’t allow parking in the front setback, typically. So, there are issues. Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Lew, are you asking for a porte-cochere type of…? Board Member Lew: No, no. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. We’re just talking about a drop-off for… Board Member Lew: It’s a special setback, so they can’t build anything in the special setback. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. Board Member Lew: Right? It’s just a drop-off. Ms. Gerhardt: It’s just a duck-out for the Ubers and Lyfts, right. Board Member Lew: And then, yeah, I think the other thing, too, that I’ve seen with apartment buildings, if it’s apartments, there’s usually a lot of move-ins/move-outs, at least in Mountain View. The residents have issues with moving trucks at the end of the month. Ms. Gerhardt: So, if we make that drop-off large enough for moving trucks. Board Member Lew: I just throw that out there for consideration. Chair Baltay: Yeah, I don’t want us to be prescribing a solution, but I want to be pointing out a problem. The problem is the traffic situation, and the problem is that there’s a hundred apartments. That means there’s always somebody moving in and out, there’s always a Door Dash or an Uber stopping, there’s always a FedEx truck. You need both curb cuts, really, but it needs to be thought about, how is it going to function, and then show us. What have I missed from the basic comments everybody has made? Osma. Vice Chair Thompson: I’m looking at the notes that are getting noted up there. For the west elevation, do we agree that it could be west and north elevation? I’m just concerned if we don’t mention the north elevation, that it will be forgotten, still. Chair Baltay: I don’t know that we have the findings when it’s not visible whatsoever from Palo Alto. But, sure, all elevations of a building should be designed as well as possible. I’m okay saying west and north elevations should be more carefully designed. I don’t see any harm in that. Does anybody else? Board Member Lew: It’s one of our subjective discretionary standards, that all facades have to be treated with the same level, at the same level of design. Chair Baltay: You support including the north elevation on that? Board Member Lew: Sure. Chair Baltay: Sure, okay. Anybody else? Okay, so, we’d like to see both west and north elevations. Ms. Gerhardt: Another topic we have is the courtyard. There was discussion about breaking down the scale of that. Is that a…? Chair Baltay: Well, I had written in my notes here, and I decided not to bring it up, but I think that the planters and just the way they are relating to the apartment windows, looking out to the courtyard, needs more thought about how people live and use it. What Grace was saying about perhaps breaking down the scale and being more discreet about the areas of it. I think that could be worked on. I’m not sure I feel as strongly about that myself. Anybody else want to make a comment about the courtyards? Grace, what do you think? 4.a Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Board Member Lee: I think the word “explore” would be fine, or, in terms of provide a drawing that shows how these… Maybe provide people in the drawings would also be helpful. Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s get… Board Member Lew: I would actually argue that the courtyard is already broken up into zones. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I would like some more clarification. The courtyard does seem pretty well broken up. Board Member Lew: In plan. Maybe not in actuality. Board Member Lee: There might be just disagreement. I feel like the design of both the courtyard and the roof garden, as well as the areas of planting along Leghorn, could be further developed in terms of landscape design. Chair Baltay: Yes. My concern had been mostly just, having apartments or private terraces and balconies right on the courtyard requires very careful detailing to ensure that you have privacy next to the public courtyard. And I just really didn’t see how that was working exactly when I looked at the plans here. I guess I didn’t feel like it was worth it for us to try to insist on some of grade separation, and then, it just has to be landscaped carefully. But I don’t think it’s as important as other things we’re looking at. I’ll put it that way. I would like to get this wrapped up, folks. Do we have any other significant comments to add to this list? Ms. Gerhardt: We have the bike parking here, just ensuring that it is a secure area, but also maybe, you know, visible from the street to enhance that environment. Chair Baltay: I think everybody supports that basic need for security and keeping some sort of visibility at the same time. Yes, Alex? Board Member Lew: I think we should weigh in on the corner plaza, because I think that’s a major landscape element. I don’t think the Board has really weighed in on it. Chair Baltay: Corner plaza? Which drawing are you looking at? Vice Chair Thompson: This is the plaza that’s by the retail? Board Member Lee: A3.3H is an exterior perspective. Chair Baltay: It’s lovely if it actually comes out like that. That depends on who’s running that business. Vice Chair Thompson: I’m in support of the corner plaza. Board Member Lee: A3.3G as well. I’m in support as well. Chair Baltay: I’d like to see resolution. If there’s going to be curbside parking along Leghorn, that needs to be shown. I think that would be really critical if you have an in-and-out kind of coffee shop there, or something. Right now, it’s really tough for a retail when people can’t actually stop their cars to get there and it’s on a busy car road. It’s a nice looking image, and again, is it really going to function that way? Any other comments about it? Board Member Lew: I agree with you, Peter. Chair Baltay: Okay, before we make a motion, does the applicant have any questions, very quickly? Are we being clear enough for you? You’re nodding your heads. Okay. 4.a Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Page 19 MOTION Chair Baltay: Okay, I’m looking for a motion from somebody on the Board to support the comments up there. Alex? Board Member Lew: I will make a motion that we continue the project to a date uncertain. Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: Any comments about that motion? Okay, then we’re going to vote on that. All those in favor? Opposed? Okay. Motion carries 5-0. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Chair Baltay: We have quite a crowd here for the next thing. Shall we take a five-minute break before we get started? Board Member Lew: Sure. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Five minutes, please. [The Board took a short break.] 3. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 4256 El Camino Real: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building for the Development of a New 51,900 Square Foot Five-Story Hotel Including 97 Guest Rooms and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: A Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was Prepared Pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and is Circulating for Public Comment Between December 20, 2019 and February 3, 2020. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay: Okay, everybody, let’s get started again, please. Okay, we’re on air. We’re going to move on to the next item, which is number 3 on our list here. This is a public hearing for 4256 El Camino Real, a recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of a major architectural review to allow for the demolition of an existing commercial building for the development of a new 51,900 square foot five-story hotel, including 97 guest rooms and below-grade parking. Do we have a staff report, please? Oh, before we do that, I’d like to go through disclosures. I keep forgetting. What do we have to disclose today? Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday, and I took the color board with me. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I visited the site, and also visited the neighboring Palo Alto Redwoods. Chair Baltay: Thank you. I have also visited the site, and on past occasions, visited several apartments in the back. David? Board Member Hirsch: I didn’t visit the site this time, but I remember it very well from the previous. Chair Baltay: And Grace? Board Member Lee: I recently visited the site, as well as the neighboring Redwoods. Chair Baltay: Thank you, everybody. Sam, go ahead, please. 4.a Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner: Good morning to the Architectural Review Board. I am Samuel Gutierrez, the project planner for this project, located here at 4256 El Camino Real. Jumping into a bit of the project history since this project has been in file for some time with the City, and it’s been a while since we’ve had a hearing. I want to remind people that this previously went before the Board – first formal hearing – November 15, 2018. And then, the second formal hearing took place January 19, 2019. At that time, we had an initial study and Mitigated Negative Declaration out and circulating. However, it was determined later that an EIR would be required, so the environmental study was elevated to EIR, and currently there is a draft EIR in circulation. Which is available on the City website and City libraries. Going back to the ARB comments from the last hearing back in January 2019, almost a year ago, the ARB had several comments. One pertained to shadows. The applicant had previously submitted in their plan set a shadow study that wasn’t quite clear to the ARB. There were concerns about shadows being cast, you know, that would adversely impact the adjacent open space for the Palo Alto Redwoods, also known as PAR. Then, we, the City had our City environmental consultant, who was working on the initial study, the MND and now the EIR, prepare an independent study, and that is going to be presented, and also available in the staff report in an attachment. Moving on, there are details about the garage. There was concern about garage drop- off activity and how that would function. The application did revise that, and initially had removed it from the plan set, but then, they have another revised sheet that indicates that it would be located in the garage A level again. But that was a bit further around, and staff recommended a previous design to be integrated into the garage layout. There is also the stair tower. This is the stair tower on the west elevation, I believe, that was a concern around that corner of the building for the ARB throughout all of the hearings, and that’s been revised in the plan set. There was also concern about the traffic signage and the porte-cochere. That was revised. There was concern about the lighting plan and the photometrics. That was also updated in the plan set that was submitted. The window details, and doing a study of the equipment screening – The plans have been revised to address those comments from the ARB. There was a comment about the design and fitment of the ceiling of the porte-cochere, but staff recommends that that would go to an ARB subcommittee since it’s not that visible from the street, and it would be looking at fit and finish joints and whatever service vents or panels need to be integrated into that design. There is also a question about the clarify of the tree protection plan, which actually is a tree preservation program that we developed with the EIR, with the City consultant, under the supervision of the urban forester at the City. We do discuss that in the staff report, as well as the urban forester will present a small portion during the staff presentation. Then, there was finally a concern about the El Camino loading area or parking area, and that area between the two driveways was going to be painted red. It’s a mitigation measure in the EIR, and also suggested in the technical report for the EIR as well, to paint that red for lines of sight. There would not be additional loading and blocking of driveways on El Camino, in front of the project site. Just to go over the project details, this is, again, a five-story hotel with approximately a 2.0 FAR, 97 guest rooms. Previous iterations had it up to 100. Those guest rooms were reduced by swapping out for some larger suites, so there’s less guest rooms. There were some changes, as you can see in the plan set. There was kind of this orange-y tone/hue to the paneling on the façade. There was a different type of materials selected, and now there are new materials that are a darker brown color. As well as trim colors have been darkened. There was silver trim colors throughout, and now they’re darker, kind of a black matte finish. There’s also some rear mass changes. Again, the stairs are better integrated into the design. That’s that stair tower I mentioned earlier. There is the addition of balconies, which is a new feature onto the project, and the interior garden has been revised to now include exterior seating for the restaurant/café. So, to go over the valet changes, on the left here on this projection, you can see, this is the staff recommendation – it’s mentioned in the staff report – to position the valet at that location as you enter into the garage, circle down, and then, right after the accessible spaces, that’s where the valet would greet you. This is the design that the consulting engineer and the City engineers found to be appropriate and to avoid queuing issues on El Camino. On the right is the design that the applicant proposed, but we did not condition to be included in the project. Going to the elevations of the project, here you can see the previous design. Again, it was this reddish-orangey hue and silver accent tones throughout, along with the seafoam feature at the ground level of El Camino. Now we have this darker-brown façade with this matte black finish, moving away from the silver pieces. With the integration of this interesting paneling that’s been laser cut, I believe, for the windows, to give them a bit more detail. As we move along here, here is the east elevation. That’s a previous east elevation. Here, you can see the current east elevation. This is the progress of that stair tower that has been constantly commented on by the ARB. The left is the first iteration; the right is the second. And then, this is a blow-up of another submittal of that area. Here is what we currently have. The 4.a Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Page 21 stair tower is better integrated, staff feels, into the design now, as you see that there’s three panels and that interior vertical plane of the courtyard. You have the stair tower followed by another towering feature, almost like a column, and then another one, subsequent after that. Here is the previous south elevation, the rear view, if you will, of the property. Here is the current. Again, here is the west elevation previously, and here is the current. This is the previous site plan. Most notably, you can see this wave river pattern that was the Zen garden theme that the site plan had. Here, you can see the current proposal. Still has a bit of that wave thing here, but it circles this outdoor patio area for the restaurant café. Looking at it for more of a schematic detail, you can see how the rear elevation has changed on some heights. This lower feature here has been modified to have this feature, which actually is set back a little further from the rear property, but is a bit taller. The El Camino frontage for the pedestrian experience, this was the previous experience on El Camino. There was a proposal for, as you enter from the north to the south towards this property, there will be two benches and this glass seafoam feature with some planters, and then, in between the porte-cochere, there was this feature again, but much larger, with bench seating for the public. Now, the El Camino experience has been revised in accordance with the new color palette. You’ll see that the El Camino fence, for example – if I go back – there used to be this kind of oxidized metal slatted feature to kind of complement the old wood paneling that was here. Now, this is a different paneling that goes more with the color palette of the current proposal. Again, it has this organic kind of wave to it, and this would be the service gates that open for the, for utility inspectors to service the transformer that’s hidden behind it, and also, the double doors for the refuse collection on the street. The other feature you’ll see here – it’s a little dark, I do apologize, but it is noted in the staff report – there’s this slotted bench design for this first area of El Camino that you would encounter as a pedestrian. It’s a wood slotted bench design, mimicking kind of this wave pattern here. Now, between the porte-cochere, there is a proposal for public art to go into this area now. This is a reference from the plan set. It is a little dark in the color plan set, but I did brighten it up a bit to make it more clear. This is just a concept. This is not what is going before the Art Commission, but I do want the ARB to note that this area has an earmark for public art there. The applicant can speak more to that, but it seems that the theme is some type of function art. Like, this would be some type of bench that could be utilized as well. As we move on, the shadow study that was prepared by the consulting environmental group that staff hired for this project. These are the images of the shadow study, which is attached to the staff report, showing the shadows cast by this project at different times of day during the December months. As you can see, in the morning, it’s a bit more on this side, and then, as you go later in the evening, the shadow starts going away, waning a bit more towards the pool. And then, it moves away from that pool again at 10:00 a.m. during the December time period. And then, once you get into the afternoon, the shadows are fully cast on El Camino. Looking at another study from the more spring…excuse me, comparing December to more of the spring months, in June, towards the summer, you can see that there are different shadows being cast at different times of day. Based on the time of year, at 7:00 a.m., there are more shadows cast in this direction, here towards the Palo Alto Redwoods, but then, as we see here, at 10:00 a.m. – which is different for the 10:00 for December, where the shadows are casting towards the Palo Alto Redwoods clubhouse – here, the shadow is a bit more focused on the, actually on-site property. So, of course, with the changing seasons, the daylight positioning of the sun is different. Going into a bit of discussion about CEQA and how shadows play into it, there isn’t a provision for CEQA for private open space here in Palo Alto. It is something that we look at for public open space, which is a public facility like a park, for example, or public pools. With that, the initial study does speak to that, and talks about no significant impacts per CEQA in that instance. And then, based on the shadow studies that were prepared by the City consultant, and looking at the different times of day that that outdoor facility at the adjacent condominium complex, staff feels that the design of the project minimizes the impact of shadows cast on their adjacent property. As for the tree preservation portion of this presentation, I would like to ask that Walter Passmore, the City urban forester, to come and speak on this. Walter Passmore, Urban Forester: Good morning, Board members. Walter Passmore, urban forester for the City. I’m going to give you just a brief overview of what we have done with tree protection assessment and practices to retain trees in good condition through the construction process. We did a traditional survey assessment and preservation report to initiate evaluation of the project, and due to the number of comments that we’re receiving, we advanced that with hiring a third-party arborist to provide an unbiased opinion. We also employed a sub-consultant to utilize ground penetrating radar to assess potential impacts on the root systems, due to the underground portions of the project. We found that what is being proposed 4.a Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Page 22 would be a less-than-significant impact, recognizing that all construction has some form of impact on existing trees. In this case, it is quite a bit less than our standard thresholds. The trees are in good condition, so we would suspect that there is going to be unobservable differences if the tree protection report and practices are followed throughout the construction process. Conditions of approval have been issued. One of those will require that the applicant submit a deposit, so that if there is any significant decline in condition, the City could correct those if the applicant fails to do so. So, a standard kind of performance bond that we collect for large projects. I think those are the highlights. Mr. Gutierrez: Thank you, Walter. Moving on in the presentation here. We did receive a large number of comments, as has been consistent with this project, and we still continue to receive comments, some even this morning. I know that those comments have also been copied and forwarded to the ARB. It’s difficult to process all comments as, you know, minutes, or even an hour before a public hearing, but staff has them as part of the record and will add them to the file. According to our review of the comments, they seem to focus on the following items: The height of the proposal in relation to the adjacent multi-family complex. They are condos, the Palo Alto Redwoods complex, also known as PAR. Again, the potential shadows cast on the open space pool area and the residential units; the proposal’s overall design and compatibility with the surrounding area. There have also been comments that it doesn’t meet the findings for either the El Camino design guidelines, or just the standard contextual findings. And then, the impacts of the proposal related to traffic, noise, and the adjacent redwood trees. I believe in this presentation, we’ve touched on some of these factors here, and also, the EIR touches on these key points with technical reports. I do want to, since it has been some time, since a lot of the comments were speaking to the adjacent context around this property, on the upper right, you can see in the highlighted rectangular figure, this is the project site. Here is an adjacent office building, an office use at 4260 El Camino. And then, here to the north of the project site, is the entry to the Palo Alto Redwoods complex, which circles the property almost entirely, except for where the 4260 parcel is located on El Camino. It goes further back to the single- family residential neighborhood that’s further set back from this project site. I do want to remind people of the complex’s details, and that was this breakdown here. There are a number of parcels there, and depending on how the parcels play out, these are the unit density for the parcels located here. It was developed at a time when the CS zone allowed for pure residential development, which now it currently allows mixed-use development. It was a different time. Circling back, one point that wasn’t addressed here, but we do recommend for subcommittee, is the details of the ceiling of the porte-cochere. Again, that would be the fit and finish of materials and the lighting for that. Now, the recommendation that staff has for the ARB to take is: Recommend approval of the proposed project, with a requirement for subcommittee review, to the Director of Planning and Community Environment, based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Now, I do want to note that because the EIR is still circulating, we do not have an action to take until the EIR process has been completed. The ARB would, if they feel is appropriate, if they were to recommend approval to the Director, the Director’s decision would hold until the EIR process has completed. That is something that is very important to know. And there are a few things I should mention in the staff report. There are a few corrections. It has to do with the lift references. There’s one in the findings. When we have the comp plan tables, it mentions puzzle lifts. That was a previous system that was going to be used in this project. They’re using standard lifts. And that’s also referenced in the condition of approval regarding the lifts. So, that needs to be tweaked a little to reference only standard lifts, not puzzle lifts. There are no puzzle lifts. Also, there is a condition that Walter Passmore just spoke about – the bond measure. It says 1.5 times; that’s an error. It is 1.0 times per the tree technical manual. That’s another condition that we will tweak. And then, there is a slight error in formatting for some of the C3 information from Public Works that needs to be amended, because the bullet points actually run into a sentence there. That’s conditions in the 52 to 58, I believe. That concludes staff’s presentation. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Sam. Do we have a material board for this project? Could you bring it up? Mr. Gutierrez: It’s directly behind you. Chair Baltay: Wonderful, thank you. Mr. Gutierrez: I apologize, it’s a little large. 4.a Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Baltay: Do we have any questions of staff? Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Chair Baltay: Osma, go ahead. Vice Chair Thompson: For the recommendation to subcommittee, what items do staff recommend that we would recommend to subcommittee? Mr. Gutierrez: It was the design of the porte-cochere ceiling. The ceiling of the porte-cochere. Vice Chair Thompson: Ceiling. Okay. Thanks. Chair Baltay: Sam, could you clarify for me and the general public, why is a 35-foot height limit not required on this site when it’s adjacent to residential? Mr. Gutierrez: That requirement in the zoning code that pertains to the CS zone is for properties that are zoned residential low-density. That would be single-family residential, or RM-20 now – the code changed; it used to be RM-15 – and RM-30. But the adjacent residential complex is zoned CS, which is the same zoning that this site is, so it doesn’t have that protection. If it were to be zoned some multi-family zoning, it would actually exceed our current highest zoning of RM-40 because of the unit density there. It would have to be some type of different zoning. It wouldn’t impact the… It wouldn’t restrict the height of this development, is what that gets to. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Okay, to the applicant… Oh, one more question. Board Member Lew: I have a question for you, Sam. The EIR looked at alternatives, and Alternative 2 is no exterior balconies or outdoor restaurant seating, or exterior balconies along the rear of the project site. And it says that Alternative 2 is determined to be environmentally superior, to be the superior alternative. Is the project plans, is that what we’re looking at now? Is that Alternative 2, or is it the original one? Mr. Gutierrez: No, that is not Alternative 2. Board Member Lew: What’s before the Board is what? Like, this set of plans, this is not Alternative 2? Is that what you’re saying? Mr. Gutierrez: This proposal includes balconies, but there was another proposal with more balconies facing, more intensely. Board Member Lew: Is it balconies just on the rear of most facing? Because there are rear facing parts on the main building, right? Say, like… Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Board Member Lew: … on the five-story part of the building, and then there’s the two-story part of the [crosstalk]. Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Board Member Lew: And what about the outdoor restaurant seating? Because I see restaurant patio seating, I guess, in the courtyard. Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. In the draft EIR, there is a discussion about the sound mitigation. It goes into that design, and the alternative that that mentions doesn’t go into that discussion. So, if you look at the project as analyzed, we found that with the sound walls that were added, it’s within the thresholds to be acceptable. 4.a Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Board Member Lew: About the mitigations, and distance… Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Board Member Lew: … to that? Okay. Thank you. Vice Chair Thompson: [off-microphone] This is Alternative 2? Board Member Lew: This is not Alternative 2, right? Chair Baltay: Any other questions of staff? Then, to the applicant, you’ll have 10 minutes to make a presentation, if you care to. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Randy Popp: Hello. My name is Randy Popp [spells name]. I am the owner’s representative on this project. I am here today with my fantastic design team: From Greenwood & Black, Rebecca and Ron; I’ve got David from MPA Design; and from Aaronson, Dickerson, Cohn & Lanzone, Camas Steinmetz is here as part of our legal advisory team. Katherine, our client, unfortunately is not able to attend. I think she is watching from Hong Kong today. Thank you for taking the time to look at this again. I appreciate you all doing this building on the staff report. Our goal today is really to just review the changes since our last hearing, discuss any things that you feel need more explanation, help evaluate any areas that might need further study, hopefully going to subcommittee, and advance the project according to the staff recommendation. I want to just briefly touch on the timeline because, I think Sam has done a great job in his report here today, but it actually goes back to an initial study session that was August 2017. That’s taken us to this point. And as Sam mentioned, you know, the year of delay since January was really due to converting the MND to a full EIR, to really fully study the project. I wanted to share with you, having sat in your seats, that I think that this is a great example of a project that has benefitted from the ARB process. The change that’s occurred in this project over the course of those years has been pretty dramatic, both in terms of site partee and organization of the massing, the design of the building overall, and even the amenities that are part of it. We had a very deeply u-shaped building directly facing the neighbors that had a pool and a very active courtyard. Today, as you’ve seen, the project is quite a bit different. Sam has already run through all of these items, but I’ll touch on these as I progress through the presentation. I wanted to start by giving you an illustration that’s in your packet that shows you really how little the massing has changed for this project since the last time you saw it. Sam had a good description in a couple of sections that he blew up, but really, the overall shape and scale of this building has not changed since the last time you saw it, in a significant way. What we’ve done is we’ve retooled the design of the exterior. I won’t read this whole thing, but what we’re shooting for here in terms of our alignment with brands and a potential flag for this hotel is that it be a boutique. It’s really characterized by good design, idiosyncratic, something that’s based on a motif. Our thought for a brand for this particular hotel, a style for this hotel, is aligned with the term analog. It’s something that is very human, very organic, and it’s the way we all experience life. We’ve used that as a touchstone for the design. Our goal here was to really simplify the material palette. We’ve organized the pattern of windows to calm and balance the building. We’ve added details around the windows to create elegance and interest, and the analog wave is used as a design motif throughout. We’ve tried to create a very consistent treatment of the surfaces, the underside of the roof, eave, metal accents, wall areas, balcony panels. We’ve created operable windows and doors to promote good indoor air quality. As was mentioned in the staff report, we really did redesign what we call the north stair tower, with a vertical application of a compressed analog wave, articulating the movement it screens. The courtyard has been redesigned with a change to the building layout that creates a more enclosed and controlled environment, further protecting the neighbors from sound and activity that will occur there during the limited hours of use. And more specifically, what we’ve done is we’ve rotated the two-story rooms that are at the back of the building to extend them further towards the neighbors’ outdoor recreation area and create more protection along that edge, both visually and acoustically. While we have the exact same number of outdoor seats, we’ve gathered them closer to our lobby and farther from the neighbors. Through conversation with representatives, we know we cannot reduce this further in proportion to room count. Large umbrellas will create a containment area for sound, and at the same time, provide protection from mid and late-day sun. Seating is arranged behind a sculptural living wall and fountain feature, blocking and masking noise, and creating a limit point for activity. Quieter seating and walking paths will occur on the other side. Wooden 4.a Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Page 25 decks, thoughtful decorative and native drought-resistant planting materials will be placed throughout, with particular attention to the redwood under canopy areas. Activity including background music or events will be limited to very specific hours. This is not a place for large gatherings or major outdoor functions. It’s an amenity for the enjoyment of the guests, and we believe a significant aesthetic over the existing parking lot that occurs there now. We have lowered the height of the roof screen to be at the minimum needed to enclose the equipment we have conceptually evaluated. And as I mentioned, consistent applicant of materials has been a focus. We will have natural appearance for the underside of the soffits, wherever they occur, and you can see again how organized and consistent the window pattern has become as a result of the careful coordination with the interior. At the rear elevation, we’ve limited the windows to a minimum to enhance privacy for both our guests and our neighbors nearby. The shortest distance between our windows and the closest on the neighboring property is more than 37 feet. This is approximately 10 foot more than a typical multi-family design would require. We worked hard over the past two years to adjust the building massing and design to be respectful of the adjacent neighbors, while maintaining the necessary efficiency and coordination our building needs to be functional. At this point, we believe we’ve reached the best balance that can be achieved. In response to staff comments, and with direction from soft brand [phonetic] representatives we’ve shared the design with, we’ve added balconies where feasible. Functional space that expands the area of the guest room and allows access to the outdoors is a benefit we feel adds great value and character to the building. We’ve carefully studied the placement of these, and the shortest distance from balcony to neighbor’s window is more than 58 feet. We are consistent with zoning regulations for height, and these sections further illustrate the terraced nature of the building. We’ve included details in your packet to help explain how we intend to apply the exterior materials and transition between elements. Happy to discuss that further. We have physical material samples in front of you, and I’m happy to have my team help with any follow-up discussion you would like to have about the character or the design. The City has studied the shade and shadow and confirm the information we showed earlier. Our diagrams go just a bit further and represent the impact the existing trees have on the neighbor’s site, in addition to the shadows our building will create. Other than the extreme points of the seasons, as stated, our new construction is shown to have no significant impact. In the EIR, at pages 4.5 through 11, explains the estimated project trips will only be 31 during the 7:00 to 9:00 a.m. peak hour, and 32 inbound trips during the 4:00 to 6:00 p.m. peak hour. That means we’re only seeing a car about every four minutes. We believe that the stacking is not going to be an issue. Valets move cars along at about a pace of three minutes each. The goal is just to scoot them right down into the garage quickly. And the constraint that staff is suggesting we believe is overly conservative and onerous, and will not serve our hotel well. So, we would like to potentially have some discussion about that. We can go through how the circulation works a little bit more, but we do have enough room in our circulation under the porte-cochere to allow for an SU 30 truck, in addition to three cars, stacked at any time. In regard to the lighting details, you had asked for some additional information, and staff has been supportive of the gentle and controlled approach we’ve submitted. And although you can’t read it in this slide, in your packet hopefully you can see that the photometric levels dwindle to nothing at the property lines. Along El Camino, trying to activate that frontage, you know, we’ve talked quite a bit about the Grand boulevard and how this project associates with that. But there was definitely some concern about some of the elements that were out there. This playful fencing illustrates a motif and character that we’ve added to create interest. Again, something staff was supportive of. We’d like to hear your thoughts about the current porte-cochere concept. We feel it’s complete and capable, but staff had some reservations. Circulation space. Illuminated well, maintaining a focus on the interior and the entry sequence. Decorative, but not overworked. Plenty of other interest in the vicinity of this, and a goal of leading your eye and motion to the interior. Walter was quite capable in his explanation of the tree protection zone, so I won’t go into that. I’ll just end here briefly by saying that the art is something that we’re definitely focused on. It will be a great amenity and add to this project, and we will be discussing that further with the Palo Alto Art Committee. We’ve been in touch with Elise about that quite a bit. To end, I want to just state that our goal here today is to respond to your questions and discuss any areas you feel need further explanation; assist you in evaluating anything that might need to go to the subcommittee; and close today’s hearing with a Board recommendation for the project to be approved by the Director. Thank you for your time. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Does anyone have a question of the applicant? 4.a Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, hi. I had a question about the material application on the building. Is the soffit the same material as the siding? Mr. Popp: It’s not. We’re hoping to find some type of a wood material, wood-look material, that’s consistent with that, but we haven’t decided exactly what that material would be. Vice Chair Thompson: The intention would be to match the color? Mr. Popp: Very consistent. Vice Chair Thompson: And then, in the back courtyard, there’s sort of a black applique for some parts of the façade. Is that the soft black metal element? Mr. Popp: It is. Vice Chair Thompson: And that takes the whole wall…? Mr. Popp: It is. Vice Chair Thompson: And the soft metal black elements, is that also the railing? Mr. Popp: Correct. Vice Chair Thompson: I see. Okay. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Vice Chair Thompson: Those are my questions. Board Member Lee: I had a quick follow-up to Osma’s question on the materials board. Just saw that for the first time today. I’m wondering if the soft black relates to that gate then, with the undulating wave. Is that the color for that gate? Mr. Popp: It does. You know, Grace, what happened in the last hearing – and I appreciate that you’re here today – we had a lot of comment about too many materials, too many different things going on, too busy, intersections that were difficult. So, one of the ways we’ve addressed that is to and just quiet all of that down. We have a very limited material palette. We’re trying to use just a very small selection of colors and apply them carefully. Our goal here really was to have a lot of consistency across this building, and to create some decoration around the windows and other places, but use a really limited palette to do that. Board Member Lee: I appreciate that. And then, I believe I can see it in the drawings, and estimating 15 to 20 feet, but could you, for the whole room, describe what the setback is in terms of that screening of the chiller, boiler, that’s eight-foot-two-inch high? How far is that set back from the edge of the building? Mr. Popp: Give me one second and I’ll get an answer for you on that. Board Member Lee: I think it’s 15 to 20 feet, but I thought that might be helpful, to pull out what that dimension is. Mr. Popp: You’re asking how far the roof screen is set back from the frontage on El Camino? Board Member Lee: That’s right. Oh, sorry, from the building perimeter wall along the adjacent neighbors. Mr. Popp: Okay. [Short pause while applicant looks for answer.] 4.a Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Mr. Popp: From the property line, not the neighbor’s building, but from the property line, it’s about 35 feet, we believe. Board Member Lee: Thank you. Chair Baltay: Alex, you said you had one follow-up question as well? Board Member Lew: A dimensional question. Randy, I don’t need an answer immediately, I’ll let you look at the drawings. But for the two-story portion of the building, I’m seeing different dimensions in your plans and sections. I’m seeing 16 feet, and I’m also seeing 20 feet. That’s in Section A6.1, or in the plans, on A3.0, something-16 feet. If you could get back to me later about the dimension from the rear-most portion of the building to the fence, to the Palo Alto Redwoods. Mr. Popp: Great. When I come back up for other questions, I’ll be happy to address that. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you very much. With that, we’d like to open the hearing to any public testimony. We have quite a few speaker cards here. We’ll still stick to three minutes each, but we’d appreciate as much efficiency as we can. We’re going to start with Josephine Shuster, to be followed by Julie Baskind. You’ll have… Sharlene Carlson: [off-microphone] May I make a request? Chair Baltay: You may. Ms. Carlson: I’m Sharlene Carlson, and I’m a board member for the Palo Alto Redwoods. We have had a request that we have three board members make a 15-minute or less presentation and have others cede time, and that we could begin with that. Chair Baltay: That’s reasonable. Can you tell me which people are ceding their time to you? We’d like to get this organized. Ms. Carlson: Can people raise hands who are ceding their time? Angel Rocha, Anna Rubin, Doug Schwan, Mary Sylvester… Chair Baltay: Go slower, please. Ms. Carlson: Angel Rocha. Evangeline Rocha. Chair Baltay: Okay. And who else? Ms. Carlson: Anna Rubin. Did you sign a card, Anna? Mary Sylvester. Jean Kvasnica. Chair Baltay: Okay, fine. Let’s get you started here. Ms. Carlson: Thank you. I am Sharlene Carlson [spells name]. Julie, would you mind coming up and scrolling this for me, because I don’t know how to do this. I’m Sharlene Carlson [spells name], and I am president of Palo Alto Redwoods Home Owners Association. I have here with me letters from 120-plus residents, and I think you’ve probably seen many of these. And they are all opposing this project. And we have residents in the chamber today who are also opposing, and I’m going to ask them if they’d raise their hands. They don’t have to necessarily stand up… Just get a sense that there is a lot of opposition from our community. We are a multi-family residential condominium community of 117 units, most in buildings three stories tall. We have approximately 275 residents living in a 2 2/3 acre property next to and behind the proposed site. Even though PAR – we sometimes reference ourselves as PAR, Sam said – is zoned commercial CS, it is critical to note that we have been a residential neighborhood since this was built around 1982, and we should be afforded the priority protections and considerations required by the Comprehensive Plan. For the past three years, at two preliminary hearings and two formal ARB hearings, Palo Alto Redwoods has 4.a Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Page 28 provided written and oral comments, and basically, of the various design changes, and they basically have objected to the massive height and density, we feel is out of character with neighboring properties. The risk of damage to our redwood trees and to the structures of our buildings and infrastructures. And, the possible reductions in light and views of sky, noise increases, traffic safety, risks of parking challenges, environmental and public health impacts, just to name a few things. We have repeatedly urged the developer, City, and the ARB to hear our appeals for reasonableness, and little has changed. This project has been through multiple revisions. We count 10 different submissions, each with a transformed concept and associated goals. It started with a 69-room boutique hotel plus eight townhouses, plus one level of underground stacked parking. It is now a 97-room high-end boutique hotel with large glass patio doors and balconies, and a bar-restaurant patio abutting our property, with amplified music, plus two levels of underground parking. And I should say that a year ago, it was to be a Zen courtyard. We have gone from Zen to bar, from meditation to libation, from bad to worse, in our opinion. Two things throughout all of the changes that have been made to this project have remained, and one is that the developer has tried to make it as massive as possible on a small parcel. The second is the Palo Alto Redwoods has objected to that massiveness. Remember, all hotels are not built to ordinance maximums of 2.0 FAR. The two hotels recently built on El Camino are four stories tall with a FAR of about 1.75. They are on much larger parcels. A lower FAR is more appropriate for the hotel on this rather small site. The current design adds large sliding glass patio doors, which are kind of the full height and width of the rooms, and balconies; an outdoor restaurant/patio with a firepit and a proposed patio facing our property; amplified music, which will be allowed from one hour after sunrise until 10 p.m. This moves the entire structure closer to our property with these balconies, increases noise, and decreases privacy. Hotel guests sitting on patios will look into PAR residents’ homes, down on the clubhouse and pool area. Our beautiful trees and property will become the hotel’s free view. Interior lights from the literal walls of glass windows may be on at all hours of the day and night, and the intrusiveness in the latest design is in so many ways worse than previous designs. The draft Environmental Impact Report notes that the proposed design is not the environmentally superior option, which member Lew mentioned previously. It is not. The staff report does not mention the negative impacts on neighbors detailed in the DEIR, but instead claims that accommodations were made to protect neighbors’ privacy, and this is inaccurate and needs to be changed. Does the City really need more hotels for any reason but for hotel tax? Recent reports indicate that hotel occupancy has declined in Palo Alto, while the City has a desperate need for housing. And more hotels are under construction, including expansion of the Parmani Hotel on El Camino, and the two Marriotts that are being built down on San Antonio. Don’t forget the Su Hong parcel is designated as a housing inventory site in the Palo Alto housing element of the recent Comprehensive Plan. The staff report needs to note this and state what other site is identified as a swap so the hotel can be considered. Particularly since the Fry site no longer seems to be available as an option for housing. We do not believe the ARB can find that the project has a unified and coherent design that meets the requirements of Finding 2, specifically that it provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, or that it enhances living conditions on the site if it includes residential uses, and in adjacent residential areas. The hotel will not provide harmonious transitions in scale as it will tower over the properties around it and appear many times larger than adjacent structures. The tall but narrow street façade will be unprecedented in the area and will appear out of proportion to buildings around it in aspect ratio. The hotel does not enhance living conditions on our residential community, and it does not meet any of the criteria for harmonious co- existence with the adjacent residential neighborhood. Palo Alto Redwoods has revised the DEIR and staff report and its appendices and finds a number of irregularities. We will provide detailed written comments before the end of the DEIR comment period, but we do want to highlight a few things. Some proposed conditions in the staff report are problematic or incomplete, including but not limited to: The tree protection and preservation plan only protects trees on the 4256 side and not on the PAR side. This needs to be changed to include trees in PAR. Noise from amplified music is allowed between one hour after sunrise to 10 p.m., and this should not be allowed. And there are no protections of PAR property from excavation or over-excavation, and this needs to be added. Again, I said we will be submitting comments. In conclusion, based on all these salient points, we urge the ARB to reject the proposal outright. I will now turn it over to board member Peter Mills, who will make a few comments. [light applause] Chair Baltay: Please, please, let’s hold the applause. If you could state and spell your name. 4.a Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Page 29 Peter Mills: Good morning, my name is Peter Mills [spells name]. I’m a Palo Alto resident, Palo Alto Redwoods homeowner, and member of the board of the home owners association. I’d like to make four comments. First, the DEIR is incomplete, and I believe we should have a more thorough daylight study, which is missing from the report. The current study seems to cherry pick times of day and doesn’t reveal the extent of the lost direct sunlight and lost views of the sky. Second, the project does not respect our privacy and quiet enjoyment. The second, third and fourth floors of PAR look out at sky now. If this project is completed, it will look directly into a building that is 62 feet tall. The outdoor Zen garden has become an outdoor bar and restaurant. We all know restaurants and bars are not quiet. The noise will be a permanent blight for our residents. We request to move the bar and restaurant indoors and have it open onto the Grand boulevard in the front, rather than in the back, which would make it truly a grand boulevard. The privacy invasion is extreme and unfair. The current design means 56 windows of PAR residents will face an expanse of 70 windows and sliding glass doors, making it look like a Manhattan building. And we don’t want to live in Manhattan. We should also have accurate measurements and resulting renderings of the views looking at the hotel rooms that will result from having such a massive building next door. The project will likely damage our property. There’s tree damage that we expect based on digging and draining of the water table. The trees will lose morning sunlight, and that combination of less water and less sun, we believe will be very damaging. The architectural submissions misrepresent the scale and mass of the project. Some of the renderings that you saw this morning exclude trees and show instead big brown walls, which are not visible and don’t exist, and thus, those renderings misrepresent the scale and impact and real size of the project. I’d like to turn it over now to Neil Murphy, another resident of the Redwoods, who will discuss the traffic problems that will be generated by the current project design. The hotel’s primary business is loading and unloading people in and out of their facility 24 hours a day, seven days a week. The current plan must not be built because it pushes their primary business off of their private property and into the public street, and does not accommodate peak loads. We have pictures of this exact activity of private business being transacted on public property at the Hilton Hotel just up the street, to the detriments of the residents of Palo Alto and people driving on El Camino. The grand boulevard vision will instead become an unsafe grand traffic jam reality. I’ll turn it over to Neil Murphy. Chair Baltay: If you could state and spell your name as well, please. You have about four minutes left on your time allotment. Neil Murphy: Thank you. My name is Neil Murphy [spells name]. Good morning. Your recommendations here should be fully informed. For this reason, I’ve sent you links to 188 photos illustrating the exact problems this project is going to install immediately in front of our driveway. Based on that evidence, the DEIR finding that this project will have no significant impact is demonstrably wrong. Please consider. You now have evidence – I don’t know if you’ve had a chance to take a look at it, but I sent you the links – you have evidence that vehicles existing the hotel will have less than 100 feet to cross three lanes of traffic to make this U-turn. This is a significant impact. You have evidence that rideshares park illegally wherever it’s most convenient, and they jut into traffic in a valley, and making a toothless suggestion to please move is not going to stop them. That’s a significant impact. This project is intentionally under-parked by 15 percent. No hotel parking is allocated for employees, who then have to park on ECR or at the cabana. Foisting responsibility for this load onto the public or neighboring properties is a significant impact. If the justification is under-parking is a projected increase in rideshares, shouldn’t the porte-cochere be larger to accommodate this increase? You have evidence that porte-cocheres back up onto ECR and block traffic. This is a significant impact. What exactly is supposed to happen in the porte-cochere when a UPS and FedEx truck arrive at the same time? These accommodations are inadequate. You have evidence of the problem of buses. There. This is the Su Hong site. You have evidence of the problem of buses, for which this project makes zero accommodation. The only place the buses can park is where they will park – immediately next to our driveway, blocking visibility of pedestrians, like our children walking to school, and obstructing traffic, despite a red curb. This is also exactly where the garbage truck is supposed to park for this plan. You have evidence that red curbs are ineffective as a deterrent to illegal parking. In fact, the City staff report takes the position that we, the neighbors, will have to assume the obligation of initiating police enforcement, for whom this is not a priority. We haven’t asked for this obligation, and we don’t want it. Calling the policy doesn’t work. We have, and they don’t come. Speaking with drivers directly doesn’t work. This is a significant impact. This over-massed project is a square peg and the plot is a round hole. These traffic and parking issues are symptoms of bad design. A project should be self-contained, not dependent 4.a Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Page 30 on consumption of public resources like curb space to compensate for its shortcomings. A project should not depend on free, involuntary labor from the neighbors to compensate for design flaws. It’s wrong to force the public to assume responsibility for the negative impacts of a problem which is too massive for the site and cannot make adequate accommodations. Clearly, this is the antithesis of enhancing living conditions in adjacent residential areas, one of the findings you must make, which does not include caveats. The permanent problems this project will install for us are self-evident. For these reasons, we strongly urge you to consider rejecting this proposal. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. [light applause] Chair Baltay: Please, please, we want to get through all of this. We have a few more speaker cards here. Irene Kane, to be followed by Humul Richine…? I’m sorry, I can’t read the writing here. Irene Kane, if you could state and spell your name, please, for the record. Irene Kane: Hi, my name is Irene Kane [spells name]. I’ve been a Palo Alto resident for decades now. I have a good friend who lives in the Redwoods, and when she first told me that they were going to tear down the restaurant and build a five-story hotel, I was stunned. I was like, what are you talking about? That parcel is tiny. How can they build a giant hotel there? When they explained that they were going to dig down two stories for underground parking, I was like, wow, that’s really going to affect your trees, your landscaping, and everything else. She said the original proposal didn’t have balconies; now it does have balconies. Balconies are a horrible idea for the people who live around there, because once people are outside, they think they can talk much louder, which they do; the sound carries much farther outdoors, and especially at night. The restaurant obviously doesn’t operate 24 hours, it’s only open until a certain time, and then they had their nights free. Well, now that’s not going to happen. Traffic there is already terrible, trying to get in and out of that area is just… It’s not great now, and it’s going to be way, way worse with this. Also, redwoods are extremely hard to plant anything underneath them. I have a redwood tree right next door to me. It’s ginormous, and almost nothing grows under there. So, if they think they’re going to have this great landscaping around, if it’s near those redwoods, that’s not going to happen. I think this project is just way too massive for the area. In general, overall, I think this under parking, of all these massive places that you want to build, it’s just horrible. People can’t easily walk around here, and they can’t easily bike. I’m sorry, but you need to stop this under parking of buildings. Sorry. You’re dreaming if you think it’s going to force more people out of their cars. That would be wonderful, but sorry, that is a joke. It’s just not going to happen. This area is not that walkable. It’s just too big, places are too far away. People are not going to give up their cars. The whole Bay area just does not have enough public transportation, they don’t have safe bike areas. Walking around El Camino, I never see anybody walking El Camino. I never see people crossing El Camino. It’s dangerous. It doesn’t happen. It’s unpleasant. This project is too big. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Next, we have Humul… I’m sorry, I just can’t read your name here. Vice Chair Thompson: HHR initials? Chair Baltay: HR? Okay, we’ll go on to Stephanie Tramz, to be followed by James Waskey. Stephanie, please. You’ll have three minutes. If you could state and spell your name. Stephanie Tramz: Stephanie Tramz [spells name]. I am an owner and resident at Palo Alto Redwoods condominiums. I’m glad that it’s now clear that these are condominiums because I’ve been at the prior hearings before the ARB and City staff referred to our units as apartments. They are not apartments. They are very valuable condominiums, $1 million-plus each market value, so we have over $117 million worth of residential real property surrounding this proposed hotel. I think that there has to be some concern about our well-being. We are substantial tax payers and residents in the city of Palo Alto, and I think this project, which maxes out every idiosyncrasy of the zoning laws… I belatedly found out that due to some historical irony, our residential condominiums are zoned as some sort of a commercial. Therefore, we don’t benefit from the City of Palo Alto plain [phonetic] for light and air. That pertains to residential areas, 4.a Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Page 31 generally. But there is no question that if this project is built out, it is going to severely, negatively impact the lives of our 117 condominium units, way to our detriment. It will plunge our units into darkness. Also, due to its excessive height, it will interfere with the free movement of air. It will make our units hot and dark. And I want to say something about the five-story height. It’s not just five stories. I just looked at the drawings out in the hallway. There is a sixth story which is surrounded by some sort of metallic shield because there’s going to be a whole bunch of equipment on the top of the building. So, in terms of interfering with light and air, that will be even more severe than depicted on the drawings. I’m just chagrined that this project has been foisted on us, and I am concerned about the fact that the architect for this project is a prior member of this board, as I understand it. I myself feel that there is an appearance of impropriety in that close relationship. We are asking, please, to reject approval of this project. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. James Wang, to be followed by Josephine Shuster. James Wang? James Wang is up next, please. ??: [off-microphone] [inaudible] Chair Baltay: Not yet. James, have a seat. Let’s let Josephine go first. [Determining next speaker.] Chair Baltay: Please address us. James Wang: My name is James Wang [spells name]. I agree with all my neighbors and the president’s presentation. I emphasize the massive things. I just want to emphasize. I’m the resident in unit [inaudible]. You notice [inaudible]… Chair Baltay: Please speak into the microphone. Mr. Wang: Yeah, this angles, okay? It’s angle. So, my unit and this angle, the approximate distance is very, very close to the proposed hotel. I just notice. They still view the very high, at least the four stories, actually the height is five stories, immediately in front of my unit. I’m already 64 years old. I’m going to retire and spend the rest of my time in this [inaudible]…. My wife and my children is [inaudible] So, suddenly, a wall in front of your windows. Two windows [inaudible]. It’s completely broke our views and the light. The morning, we wake up. Instead of the beautiful redwood trees with the sun shining, what we see is a big wall, like in a jail. And also, I noticed, when the back corner at the rear, they built high, and also, it’s a stairs. Stare at the window. Everyone at the public can walk in there [inaudible] to look [inaudible] privacy. My children is minors, okay? It’s affecting our whole lives and the privacy. I really urge you to [inaudible] reject that. It’s suffering our interests [inaudible] for their profit. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Josephine Shuster, to be followed by Rita Vrhel. Josephine Shuster: [spells last name]. I assume you know how to spell Josephine. Anyway, I’m the oldest thing in that building. I’ll be 90 years old in September, and I really do not want to live out my last days in a dark, gloomy place. I live on the fourth floor, and I will be impacted. I can’t imagine how the three floors below me are going to feel, having no light and no air, because that’s exactly what will happen. The project is simply too massive for the property, and as I’ve said before, I will not be living in the black hole of Calcutta; I’ll be living in the black hole of Palo Alto. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Rita… I’m sorry, I can’t read your last name. To be followed by Julie Baskind. Rita Vrhel: [spells name]. Again, I live on Channing Avenue. I’ve got no dog in this fight, except that the Redwoods is a really beautiful community. It was planned with extreme care. I think there is redwood tree planted for each unit, if I’m correct. Now, you have the choice of putting profit over long-term residents. The lot is very small. I spoke to this Board several weeks ago on the Castaley [phonetic] DEIR. We know 4.a Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Page 32 that the City right now seems to be putting out what I would consider – and what other people consider – really crummy DEIRs that seem to modify or minimize traffic and noise, both of which you are going to have with this project. I would ask you to really look, and for everyone here to make comments on those two issues. I think one of the things that the City needs to do – and you as a board – is to not degrade existing buildings or communities in Palo Alto as you are approving new projects. The Redwoods are extremely important, and even though Mr. Passmore said that a bond will be put in place, we all know from the Edgewood project that it’s very easy for a developer – like Sand Hill Properties – to tear down one of the most important parts of the Edgewood project, meaning the Eichler building, and say, “Whoops, okay, we’ll pay that $75,000 fine.” Money right now is not an issue for any of the developers. I think the project is way too massive. It could be cut back. I’m not saying don’t build anything, but build something that is more appropriate. And how it looks from the street really is the least amount of problem with this project. No balconies. Set back way far from the residents. Do not degrade the Palo Alto Redwoods. One last comment. I don’t know if you’ve gone into any of the units at the Palo Alto Redwoods that would be degraded by this project. I would really encourage Sharlene and you to work that out. The last question is, would you want to live here, in the Palo Alto Redwoods after this project is built? And if you can say no problem, then I probably have somebody in that unit who will sell you their unit, because it’s going to be horrible. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Julie Baskind, to be followed by Jeff Levinsky. Julie Baskind: My name is Julie Baskind [spells name]. I’ve been a homeowner at the Redwoods since 1988. Sam, he has pictures from the second floor inside unit, which, to Rita’s point. So, as I get started, you can see what it looks like now, today. In preparing my remarks, I reviewed the official minutes from January of 2019 hearing, and concluded that the ARB members’ comments are way more persuasive than anything I could have written. So, with brevity, here it goes. Skeptical sun study. Concerns over circulation and parking. Stair tower looks taller over the pool. Concerns about street and sidewalk elevation. Massing. Needs better relationship to nature. Skeptical shadow study. Blocks skylight. Still too many issues. Too tall and vertical. More than Homewood Suites and the Hilton. A FAR of 1.75, better than 2.0. It’s too close to the Redwoods. Tree protection concerns. Not confident of a light study. The restaurant should be available to the public. Are we designing projects that meet the reality of the situation? Separately, this is a general quote by an ARB member that was made to the Palo Alto Weekly, but not specific to this project: “The content of developers’ presentations must demonstrate and emphasize sun angle studies, massing considerations, perspective street views, neighborhood context modeling, and pedestrian impact. Well before façade designs, unit plans and construction materials are presented. This feasibility study is when the 50-foot height limitation is either justifiable or not.” Another ARB member recently, in the Weekly, not specific to 4256: “There are numerous instances cited where garages interfered with the root systems of the trees and at times requiring the board to recommend revisions. While the reduction of surface parking is generally a positive change, less space is available on site for large trees to grow and mature.” In concluding, it’s worth pointing out that the current design differs from earlier ones only in the marginal details. It retains all the mass and the scale, with trivial cosmetic changes. It’s certainly darker and more somber, which only emphasizes its bulk and density. This proposed hotel project blocks virtually all daylight from homes on that side, including mine, as well as the 12 BMR units, which is why we keep asking for that daylight study. I agree with the concerns expressly quoted by you, the members of the ARB, and request using your own criteria and objections, the proposal be rejected today. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Jeff Levinsky, to be followed by Douglas Schwandt. Jeff Levinsky: Good morning, Board members and staff. It’s Jeff Levinsky [spells name]. I’m not a resident of the Palo Alto Redwoods. Rather, I am part of the community organization PAN, which standards for Palo Alto Neighborhood. We are concerned about the deterioration of our town’s quality of life due to development. As you may now, the City’s scientific annual survey shows a year after year decline in public opinion of the quality of the city development, and overall resident satisfaction. Our organization’s own survey shows a similar decline. Today’s hearing is a perfect example of why Palo Alto residents and their attorneys sent the City a letter on February 6, 2019, detailing how this project does not comply with various laws, including the Municipal Code and the Comprehensive Plan. For example, that letter lists six absolutely relevant Comprehensive Plan policies. Not a single one of those is in the staff report before you. One of 4.a Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Page 33 those policies is L-1.1, which says: Maintain and prioritize Palo Alto’s varied residential neighborhoods while sustaining the vitality of its commercial areas and public facilities.” The hotel project does not maintain the Palo Alto Redwoods’ residential neighborhood. It instead undermines that neighborhood by creating deep shadows and a massive loss of privacy. The policy says to prioritize residential neighborhoods, so when there is a conflict between what might be best for a commercial development and an adjoining residential neighborhood, you are to give the neighborhood the priority. Where is that policy mentioned in your staff report? Nowhere. At the very beginning of the Comprehensive Plan, there’s an overriding principle intended to guide you. It states that the Comprehensive Plan, “…encourages commercial enterprise, but not at the expense of the City’s residential neighborhoods.” Everyone here knows that commercial development being proposed will be at the expense of a residential neighborhood. It is, thus, not consistent with the plan. But where is that principle in your staff report? Nowhere. I hope this explains while residents feel our development process is getting worse. Dozens volunteered long hours over multiple years to create that new Comprehensive Plan that balances interests between its residents and development. It was a Herculean effort. For their hard work to be selectively omitted from the staff report is tragic. It sends a terrible message. Please, please, look at those policies that were in that letter and include those when you think about your findings. Thank you. [light applause] Chair Baltay: Thank you. Please, please, hold the applause. Douglas Schwandt, to be followed by Anna… ??: [inaudible] [off-microphone] Chair Baltay: Very well. The next person there is Anna…? ??: [inaudible] [off-microphone] Chair Baltay: Very well. With that, we’ll close the public testimony. The applicant has an opportunity to rebut what’s been stated, if you wish. You’ll have 10 minutes. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Thank you for allowing us to come back up and speak to some of the comments you’ve heard. I want to start by just saying that gathering supporters for a project like this, to come and speak to you about the benefits of a hotel, is difficult. Right? People are at work. They are entertaining the guests that would be using these hotels. They are businesses that are seeking places for interviewees. They are families that are looking for places to have guests come and stay with them. And locating those people and having them come and speak in force is not something that is realistic. But I can tell you that the benefits of this hotel are numerous, and it doesn’t stop with the enormous amount of TOT that this project generates, somewhere in the neighborhood of close to $1.5 to $1.8 million worth of tax revenue for the city each year, which goes directly to helping to fund housing projects and other city amenities. There are so many benefits to building a project like this. It’s really difficult for me to stand up here and not say this to you. It’s a fully compliant project. This use was intended for this site by the Comprehensive Plan, and the people who bought units next to this site knew the zoning at the time. I don’t mean to sound abrupt about that, or flip about it in any way. But the fact is, everybody knew what this site was capable of being developed as. That has not changed. I want to just run through a couple of the items that we’ve talked about. First of all, in regard to the impact to the redwood trees, you heard from the urban forester for the City of Palo Alto, chief arborist for the City of Palo Alto. This project preserves all four of the redwoods on site. The garage boundary was carefully adjusted to avoid impacts to the tree roots. The conditions of approval, 59 through 70, ensure that these trees will be protected during the construction and hotel operation, and we’re committed to that. This is confirmed by the extensive root survey and the EIR. The adverse impacts on the traffic, safety, noise, air quality, etc., the EIR confirms that all of these impacts will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The construction process will be managed to mitigate noise and impacts to the neighbors. The EIR confirms that these impacts would be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. The bulk of the buildings do not cast shadows upon the Palo Alto Redwoods homes or the pool area. The City commissioned its own shadow study, confirming what the project team had done, that shows that this project is designed to limit shadows cast on neighboring residential properties and recreational spaces. The shadows will only be cast during very limited times, and they are 4.a Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Page 34 not significant. We have minimized the massing in respect to the privacy of the Palo Alto Redwoods homes. We’ve reduced the number and size of rear windows significantly. The changes to the project have been made over time, and you’ve watched all of that evolve. The reduction from 100 to 97 rooms, terracing the building, reorganization of the overall plan to move massing toward El Camino and farther from Palo Alto Redwoods, and special room plans designed to limit window interaction. We are consistent with all provisions of the zoning code, and specifically height. The project fully conforms to all of the requirements. The hotel is a permitted use on this site, and the only discretionary approval for this project that’s required is yours. We are consistent with the comp plan. We have assurances that noise from the HVAC and outdoor spaces will not be heard. This has been studied in the EIR, which concluded that those will be mitigated to a less-than-significant level. In regard to draining and run-off or flooding of the Palo Alto Redwoods area, the conditions all ensure that the project will have adequate drainage to avoid that. And, in consideration of converting the project to mixed use or housing, I’ll just say that, again, hotels are a permitted use here. This applicant considered other uses on the site and determined that the hotel is the highest and best use. Specifically addressing Mr. Murphy’s comments, the Hilton that he’s showing you so many pictures of has room for 800 people to come and meet in that hotel. The balconies are a standard amenity that people expect with a hotel of this character and this style. It’s something that we heard clearly from the soft brands that we have been addressing. Same is true of the courtyard. As a full-service hotel, they expect to have some outdoor seating and outdoor dining area in this climate. The parking is fully climate at a 1.0. We know from studies that we’ve been doing… I think you’re all aware that I’m involved in the Marriott hotels that are on San Antonio Road, and we’ve evaluated this pretty carefully. In this local area, there are recent studies that show that the correct parking for a hotel of this scale and this style is .65. We are overparked, dramatically. In terms of circulation and drop-off, the EIR shows that we are fully contained in the project site, that there is no expected spill-over, and this should not be a problem. We have a full-time valet to deal with it. The other point that’d like to bring up really quickly is, I think, Alex, you had asked what the dimensions were. That two-story portion that’s in the rear of the property is 16 feet from the property, where there is currently a non-conforming 12-foot-high wall at the rear. The closest dimension from that building to a Palo Alto Redwoods building is 38-foot-seven in one direction, and 42-foot-eight in the other direction. So, significant space behind a tall wall. I’ll just close by saying that the floor area ratio for this site, at a 2.0, makes sense. It’s a small site. Hotels need to be 100 rooms to be successful. It’s a constant across the nation. We backed that down to 97 because of a need to add some amenity spaces and some other things that we just couldn’t fit in without dropping some rooms. And part of that was in response to the neighbors, who were asking us to try and minimize the size. But we just don’t have flexibility to reduce this further. We’ve crafted the shape of the building, we’ve organized the spaces in a way we feel is responsive and respectful, but, at this point, we’d like you to consider the project that’s before you. Thank you very much. Chair Baltay: Thank you. With that, we’re going to move on to Board comments, but I would like to thank the community for coming out. Your comments have been heard, and speaking for all of us here, we appreciate that you make the effort to come tell us what you think. With that, Alex, Lew is going to start us off on our discussion today. Board Member Lew: Sure. Thank you for all the members of the public who spoke. This is the third hearing, so the Board has to make a recommendation today. It is only a recommendation to the Planning Director, who will make the decision, and then, that decision can be appealed to the Council if an appeal is filed. And then, it does take… Does it still take three council members to pull an appeal on consent, now that we have a smaller council? Mr. Gutierrez: I believe it’s the same number as before. Board Member Lew: Same number as before. Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Mr. Gutierrez: Thank you to the design team for the revised project. I think there are several improvements, particularly the materials. I think the railings really do add a lot of character to the project. I have a couple concerns, and I hate to have to do this at the third hearing, but I do have some issues with the massing. 4.a Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Page 35 It seems like it’s inconsistent, to me, on the back. When I was looking at the dimensions and I was looking at the site, it seemed like the rear-most portion of the project is very, very close to the Palo Alto Redwoods. And I do acknowledge that the zoning doesn’t have any requirements, specific requirements for that. And then, also, too, it seems like you’ve changed the massing, the stepping, and I think I would prefer us to go back to the previous stepping, unless there’s a persuasive argument. I think Peter was actually pretty adamant about the stepping of the massing, and I think it was actually working better. I don’t know. We’ll see how he feels about the current one. Chair Baltay: Alex, let me interrupt you. Could you show us on the drawing where you’re talking about the massing? Just so we all have a clear understanding of that. Board Member Lew: Sure. Chair Baltay: Which elevation drawing? Let’s put a line on it. Board Member Lew: Well, I think probably the most useful one is the, I think he has the axon…? Let me get the page… With the highlighted changes – 3.16. Okay, so, the rear most portion of the building, which is the little two-story thing, I had not ever noticed it until yesterday, but it seems… I sort of paced the site and looked at where that was with relation to the Palo Alto Redwoods, and it seems like really close to the fence. That’s minor, though. I think it’s the fourth and fifth floor stepping, in blue, which is shown on the right. I think it’s adding massing, and my take on it is they’re trying to maximize the floor area up to the full 2.0. And I think the Board worked very hard to get the lower massing, and I’m not sure that we should go back to that, to go back up with regard to the stepping. On the findings, I do want to remind the Board we do have to meet all of the findings, and in the case of previous appeals, that we really have to address the context-based criteria. That’s really what the Council, they’re really looking at. They really want to make sure that the project fits into the neighborhood. And it’s a challenge because the hotel, we allow hotels to be twice as large as a mixed-use project. The Council had the opportunity to, and they debated lowering the floor area during the comp plan and zoning updates, and they had put that on the plate, and then, the Council changed, and they removed that floor area reduction, so it is 2.0. If you look at the context-based criteria, we do allow larger buildings to sit next to smaller buildings if they make design linkages. I think that’s really important. We don’t necessarily require that a new project meet the same height as the neighbors. They are allowed to step up. I actually think the other principle of the zoning is that it really has to be fair and equitable to all the property owners, and it’s sort of unfortunate in Palo Alto that, you know, hotel developers are more equal than others, but that’s the way the code is written. I would argue that the project meets the context-based criteria. Materials, I think the siding is a big upgrade from the previously proposed material. I did take the color board out to the site and photographed it against the neighboring buildings. I think it actually looks good. The color seems a little off to me. I wish it were a little bit more redwood-y, but I do understand the redwood color of that material is probably too red. It’s probably, like, too much. I think you’ve enhanced the window designs with additional molding. I think my previous concerns about the gates and metal works, I think have been addressed. I think that the sun study and the tree study have been done well. I don’t really have anything to contradict those. That leaves me with a couple items. One, as I mentioned, is massing. Two is the street trees, and I think there’s condition of approval number 63. The plans are saying that the London planes are going to be moved, which I think is unrealistic. I do think that the City staff has put in there a requirement for a suspended pavement system, so that the new trees would have more soil volume. But I think the plans are sort of contradicting each other at the moment. Right? The plans are showing something different than the conditions of approval. Two is the… Hold on a second. Oh, yeah, I previously mentioned, I had concerns about the balconies. It seems like the architect is going two things. One, it seems like you have actual balconies, and then, some of it you have, like, Romeo and Juliet balconies, like balconettes. They’re not actually balconies, but they look like balconies. I’m concerned about that. That seems to me to be a huge loss. It seems to me that’s going to be a real struggle with the neighbors. The Board has previously wanted them, like on Hotel Parmani, facing the street, and our zoning code does sort of argue for that as being, adding human scale, and adding eyes on the street. I will support those on the front of the building. I do have concerns about those on the rear and courtyard facing units. That being said, when I look at hotels, I usually pick older, like the older Marriott Courtyard hotels that have balconies. That’s my first choice when I’m looking for a 4.a Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Page 36 hotel, typically, so I do understand the desire to put them in. Okay, so, I think that’s all I have at the moment. Mr. Popp: Alex, can I respond to you? Board Member Lew: Yes. Thank you, Randy. If it’s quick. Mr. Popp: It will be very quick, yeah. I wanted to just address your question about the massing and why we made the change at the rear, and I wanted to just… Chair Baltay: Excuse me, guys. I don’t want you to come up now. Mr. Popp: Okay. Chair Baltay: I’d like to hear everybody’s comments first. Alex, please. Mr. Popp: Okay. I’d love an opportunity to just explain [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: You will have an opportunity. Let’s get the Board going through this first. I’m sorry, Alex. Anything else from…? Board Member Lew: That’s it for now. Chair Baltay: Okay. David, do you want to go next? Board Member Hirsch: I believe pretty much with everything Alex has just said. I think that the rear of the building would be better if the stepping was a previous one. I also wish that somehow the presentation was made so that we could see exactly where the section through the building to the neighboring housing, so you get a sense of exactly what that relationship is. Unfortunately, I don’t see that in any of the drawings here. Just giving a distance dimension from a point on the building to the neighboring buildings really doesn’t give us a clear idea what the perspective is going to be, and I’m afraid this is for the future, this comment. In terms of the back of the building, I think the idea of the way it steps down and creates an inner court is a good idea. I’m concern, as some of the community mentioned, that the areas under redwoods don’t really allow for much growth as all. I have a redwood two doors from my house and it’s a mess underneath. I would say that an alternate to that would be ground-level landscaping that doesn’t include planting particularly, but is attractive to the people in the building next door. Did I say the Romeo and Juliette balconies are…? I don’t see them as that. I think they are a larger dimension, and probably big enough for this project. And also that they face in a direction where I don’t think they’ll really impact by noise the neighborhood at all. It’s unfortunate that the lower portions of the building in the back yard have a kind of blank wall towards to the neighbors. I wish it would be more exciting, but I guess the way the planning works, you really have beds on certain walls. But you might consider, you know, I know there’s the question the community will ask, about light pollution towards their buildings, but I think that the actual look of that wall is also important, the back wall towards the residential neighborhood. And that’s the consideration of the back of the building. I think there’s a vast increase in the quality of the landscaping, and that kind of firepit I think is a really nice idea. I think that kind of looking from the neighborhood towards that kind of activity, as long as it’s not too late in the night, isn’t a bad thing. The areas that sort of concern me a little bit more are the front of the building. I’ve always really liked the way in which the window bay and the opening at the bottom there, the way the building sets back, and there’s kind of an outdoor bar – I’m not quite sure what happens out there. People waiting for people pick-up, or whatever, in there, or just outdoor coffee, or whatever, is a nice way of treating that volume and opening it towards the space in the middle of the building. And it seems it spans all the way across. I don’t see the sense in putting those kinds of, if that’s exactly what’s going to happen here, putting these chairs on the outside and dividing that into a two-part opening. The benches there kind of pick up the shape of the undulating wall. I understand that’s what it is, but it seems like pretty much on the street, and not a place where people would likely, really sit, off to the point where it’s so much closer to the sidewalk. I think that just a bar with perhaps a continuation of the undulation as a part of that would be a better way of treating that 4.a Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto Page 37 as a single opening for whatever happens there. I mean, I think that the roof lines are significantly better than they were on the front of the building. But my concern is that the smaller section here is really so nice, and you place the name of the hotel, and it chokes off the space to the first windows, and the texture of the whole front of the building, and yet, you have an opening below it. This is sort of a detail, but I think that somehow if the letters could be hung in the open space below, it would be even more effective. And then, the building would have simply a nicer look in that section. I’ve always had a problem, and the community certainly raised this, with the fact that it’s such a narrow site and you have to squeeze so much transportation into that area. I could see it clogging the street, causing a problem, traffic issue, especially when a bus arrives, or a van arrives. Or a van sits in the middle space there. I don’t know what you do. I think it’s been zoned as a hotel. We’ve looked at other hotels which there is much better treatment for vehicles entering and getting to the garage. Mention the Parmani, which has a side entry into the parking entry, and actually entry into the hotel itself. And then, the front is turned into something that is very community-oriented, with some dining and canopies and, you know, very attractive area in the front. I guess it’s not possible here, but I find it unfortunate that it’s not. You had a traffic study, but I’m sorry that, you know, those issues don’t get addressed. But if they did, what would happen is the whole hotel would have to move back, and there’s absolutely no room to do that. Going to the other side of the building, the proportions are not nearly as nice. The base of the window structures are right on top of a piece of steel structure that runs across. I would wish somehow that there were some space under the windows in proportion to the front. There is no large elevation that shows me what that’s going to look like. I really think it’s so tight up to the bottom of the window that the structure is in that section. This is a kind of aesthetic that, you know… Chair Baltay: Which elevation? Which other side of the building are you talking about? Board Member Hirsch: Okay, the wider… Chair Baltay: So, looking from El Camino, it’s the piece on the left. Board Member Hirsch: On the left. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: I would have liked to have seen some of the masonry carried below that window line. Thank you. Somehow that would be more consistent left to right. And I think it’s possible, even if the area where the driveway comes through to go down to the… yes? Mr. Popp: [off-microphone] I can’t tell what you’re talking about. Can you be more descriptive about what portion of the building [inaudible]? Chair Baltay: We’ll summarize for you, Randy, as we get closer to that. Thank you. Keep going, David. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I feel that that would be a masonry base under the windows on that level, on the left-hand side of the building. The problem with is it that, of course, you can’t use a pier the same way as you have the piers on the right. What I would prefer to see, something similar to that, even if the pier was in a vertical direction towards the parking. In terms of massing, I think it will just look better. And then, I think you could carry that around the corner to the front of the setback area of the building. And in that area, I don’t see why you need to have a full height, full height wooden partition, breaking up the… Why couldn’t that be similar to the undulating front fence? Why couldn’t that kind of connect across? There, you have a more reasonable place for your furniture. It’s set into the area, and seating seems reasonable there. You know, in response to the community’s big concern of the mass of the building, it’s a zoning issue. I can’t see how we can question that at all. It’s just one of those things the Council and so on has [inaudible] zoning, and this is what it is. I think that, to the sense that you have designed this building to respect that as best you could, by stepping it down in the back, it a tremendous plus here. If you went back to, as Alex suggested, the massing, the way it was in the original scheme, I think that would be an improvement in the back. I would hope that the community would also recognize that if this is done well enough, with care about material colors – which I haven’t mentioned yet, others probably will – that this 4.a Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto Page 38 is kind of an improvement over a big asphalt field in front of a one-story building, and they are looking at a roof. It’s not such a negative, really. Could be better. The lighting will be better. The planting will be better. I think the interesting thing is that it sort of, the redwoods will be seen over the top of the lower structures in the back yard. There’s some plusses here, from both the hotel side and community side. I don’t accept all of what either of you say, but it’s close. I would vote to approve it. As I said, I think it’s important to find something in the back yards there that… One other thought. And this is really off-base, I’m sure. Wouldn’t it be nice if somehow the redwoods had a stair down and could use the space of the dining room themselves? I’m sure there’s some way in which you could give them capability of using the dining, despite the fact that you’re [laughing]. Okay. Whatever. I just think it should be more of a feeling of an openness between the two of you as neighbors. That’s my comment. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Grace? Board Member Lee: I want to thank the staff for the complete staff report, and also the applicant for the presentation. But I really want to thank these community members who have spent the time to sit with us today. I also thank community members who have invited ARB members even to see from the Redwoods’ perspective. I did really appreciate being able to see from within the property, in terms of across the property lines. And I guess I just want to go back. I wholeheartedly agree with one comment that my colleague, Board Member Hirsch, just mentioned, regarding zoning. Given that this is an ARB application, this is the third, I unfortunately was not able to attend the first two, but I did want to just make some comments. This is a project, and its address, and its APN number, its zoning classification, really governs all the design standards, as you know, that are attached to this. Everything from the construction type, how many stories, the building height; even how high the screening of the equipment, how high it can be; lot coverage; the floor area ratio. These are all things that are constraints. We have a City zoning code. It is very much binding, and guides our approach in how we evaluate applications, how not only our board does… Which actually, all of these things, I just want to point out, are not in our purview so much. We are actually working under the constraints of a zoning code, and we have these able-bodied staff members. We also have a city council and consultants who are trying to work within those constraints. Parking is difficult, congestion is difficult, change is quite difficult. So, I’m going to speak to comments and recognize that our purview for the ARB is to respond to packages that are provided to us with an applicant, and know that we have a city process, and that this draft, the EIR, and the comments from the community, and that being under consultation by our City Council, is going to be very important for the planning director. Given that, let’s just jump into the comments. You know, one of the things that I saw in the staff report – and I really appreciated – that is missing, and I’m not sure… I just wanted to make sure. The materials board, did you all review that in the last meeting? Because I feel like it’s changed. Yes. I just want to point that out, that, you know, in the summary, that is the one thing that I saw that was missing. Materials and sample boards and the palette has changed. I’ll leave that comment to the end, but I wanted to just go through what the City has provided us here. One of the things that the city of Palo Alto has done, and I really appreciate it, is that you actually have thought about some of these challenges, and some of the communications, and that there was an ask to a third party for the shadow study. In addition, there was the report from our city arborist today, and also, just that effort in terms of going to the consultant to actually, I mean, to really think about the trees. I am going by this report, and what I see is that there are limited shadows during the morning hours. The shadow study does show that over the course of the year, the shadows are a little bit longer, but in, you know, I am seeing that there is a limited time period when it is on the adjacent property. I also, when I look at, in terms of the trees, I really appreciate this extra effort that is given to make sure about the health of those trees. What I see is that there is actually, in addition, conditions of approval where a term of five years after the certification of occupancy. To me, those extra controls are reassuring, and because we take our trees very seriously. I just want to acknowledge those two things, that the City has worked with the applicant. Those were concerns of mine after speaking with a few people. Also, walking the site myself, and knowing that adjacent site. The other piece I wanted to mention is just in terms of the efforts, in terms of lighting. I see that there’s been efforts on those. Those are kind of the main things that I wanted to look at first. And then, these asks in terms of access, and the edges. It sounds like there’s been an effort, and there will be a return to staff in terms of conditioning this whole garage valet area, that they will provide updated plan sheets. I see that as a positive. I also see there is an ask in terms of the ceiling of the porte-cochere, and how it be detailed. There, I am curious what my colleagues think on that side. When I see the renderings and the lighting and 4.a Packet Pg. 117 City of Palo Alto Page 39 the signage, I don’t think that there’s a need for more detail. However, perhaps that is something that was asked in a comment made by an ARB member in a previous meeting, or… Maybe we can talk about that together in terms of that ceiling of the porte-cochere. The other piece that I saw was the red curbs. That all seems to sit well. In terms of the edges, also, let’s talk about the stair tower. Well, that’s kind of inside, but I feel like overall… I’m not sure about the use of… Well, there’s been a dramatic change, so I just wanted to go through that, because when I look at my packet, and it’s pages 81, 2, 3, 4, 5…. I know this is just palette and materials. I understand, and I defer to my colleagues in terms of this more subdued palette. But I guess my concern is that, previously there was an effort in terms of the redwoods, and something along the El Camino façade. That was a little bit more celebratory in nature, in terms of that front pedestrian experience. Now, it’s very dark, and I do find the set to be printed very dark, so maybe it’s not full justice. But I look at the materials board and it also is very dark, and I’m concerned about the black color that is at the gate, and also the trim, and maybe this is something that my colleagues feel strongly it needs to move in that direction. The other pieces, I appreciate the Public Art Commission is going to be weighing in on some kind of functional bench. And then, the effort on the gate and the bench. But I do feel like those two need to speak together, so maybe that’s something that will occur with the Public Art Commission’s weigh-in on what is approved here. The stair tower, when I compare the two, maybe there was some issue regarding the design just in terms of its massing, or its weight, and how that held together. I guess I could go either way on that. When I look at the courtyard perspective and think about that stair tower, overall, I can be in agreement with the City that the stair tower is improved. The Board, I’d like to hear comments from Board members on that. Board Member Lew talked about the revised stepping. That is best seen… And I just want to point to the site section, so, on our packet, page 87, if you look at the east section view, that was previous, and then the current, on my side the stepping is probably something that occurred per programmatic design. The setback is 36 feet, it looks like, in both proposals. Maybe this is something that we’ll discuss as a group. I don’t have strong feelings regarding an ask to revisit the massing at this stage, given that the setback is significant. To go back to the perspective of the edges, one thing to consider are the setbacks. I feel like dimensions are very important when we evaluate this application, and when I heard that there’s 37 feet between window to window, 58 feet from a balcony to a neighbor, and that there’s a setback of that, you know, the building height is 50, but there’s actually a setback of the screen on the mechanical equipment of 35 feet to the property line, in addition from that property line to the neighboring wall. To me, that’s significant. I just want to pull out the dimensions that are related to how we evaluate this project. The signage seems like a proposal that I have seen, and that has been approved by the City. I do not see any issues on that end. And there was one other piece that Board Member Lew mentioned in terms of a tree that was related in our context-based criteria. And I’m just not clear on that, so maybe we can discuss that a little bit further. With that, I’ll pass on the baton. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. Osma, what do you think? Vice Chair Thompson: All right. Well, thanks again to the community, thank you to the applicant, staff, for helping break this all down for us. I’ll just jump right in. We’ll start with the mass because a lot of people have been talking about that. I would agree that it does still feel blocky. I do agree that this change that happened between this last application and the one that we’re seeing in front of us is not for the better. In general – and I think I remember mentioning this when we first saw this, not last hearing, but the hearing before – was that a relationship with nature is extremely important to your neighbors, the Palo Alto Redwoods, and it’s important to Palo Alto as well, And I remember encouraging the designer to integrate nature as part of the partee for the building. And in some ways, I would say that’s happened, and in other ways, I would say it has not happened. For example, the palette, choosing a wood material is actually, I think it’s a huge benefit to the project. I agree with Board Member Lew. The color is, it would be better if it could be more reddish, and a warmer color. At this moment, this sort of wood and black sort of feel like a tarantula on a block of wood. It’s very dark, and somber. And there was something kind of warmer about the previous choice, which was almost too red. It didn’t even look like wood in the previous. I don’t even remember if it was wood. It wasn’t, right? Wood is definitely something better to look at. It’s more complex. It has a lot of texture. That choice for cladding is in tune with including nature, but in terms of the actual mass of the building, I don’t see that happening. One thing that was nice about visiting Palo Alto Redwoods was to see how nature is integrated in the architecture. You’re walking around, there’s wells for trees, and circulation, and it really feels like it is designed about nature, and around nature, and the mass of this does not have that, to its detriment. I think there could be a really beautiful building here that has that, and has 4.a Packet Pg. 118 City of Palo Alto Page 40 some of the elements that you have in here, where you have some wood siding. I think the black laser-cut panels are nice and rich. Sparingly. The big massive walls of black that we’re looking at here is too much. It’s too dark, a little scary. And I would encourage… I’m not sure how it’s going to happen today, but I would encourage not to choose that. The palette would need to be updated. So, yeah, in terms of massing, there’s a lot of work to do, and I’m not sure the project is there. I don’t know how it could get there without some considerable redesign. The Juliette balconies are very nice. They sort of create nice relief, so I am a fan of the Juliette balconies. Again, the black is okay, sparingly. In general, the packet that we see in front of us presentation-wise has a lot of problems. A lot of the images are very dark, the elevations are very dark. And to note, there wasn’t a very comprehensive, like, there’s stucco here, and there’s Hardie board here, and all of that stuff that… It took a lot of guessing. And the renderings also, I think, were just very dark. In some of these, it almost look like you put them on shadow on purpose. I’m sure you didn’t, but it made it a little hard to imagine what this could be when there’s sunlight on it. Which I’m sure there is, in some ways. As far as the courtyard design goes, just looking at the before application and the one we see before us, the courtyard perspective in the application previously had a nice organization, and I think the one we see in front of us today is a bit scattered. I don’t see why you couldn’t have a bar and still have that organization that was there before. For the stair tower, I like that it had greenery and nature integrated into it. The one that we see in front of us doesn’t have that, so I’m not sure why that was deleted. As for the ceiling on the porte-cochere, we don’t really have much information about what that even looks like. I’m happy to look at it in subcommittee, but I don’t have much to comment on, other than those light fixtures. Which are fine, but I guess, really, the material of the ceiling soffit is really what matters, and I don’t know what that is. A lot of holes here, and a lot of problems here. I’m not sure I can recommend approval. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. I’d like to make a few quick comments, but then I’d like to give the applicant to address this question of massing we’ve all been talking about. I’d also like to be sure that all the Board members have chimed in on this issue regarding the valet parking at the front, and what happens when you drive down into the basement level. There’s been requests for us to put feedback on that from both the applicant and the staff. I find myself in agreement with Alex regarding the massing at the back. Or, he said he finds himself in agreement with me, but either way, I think the change is for the worse, and it was better to have the building stepped further at the back. It just minimizes the impact on the buildings behind, and I think that’s an important element. Otherwise, though, I think the building’s massing and basic partee is acceptable. I think it actually does a good job of balancing the residential facility at the back of the building and our desire to create a grand boulevard along the front, along El Camino. That’s a challenging design prospect, and I think they do a good job of pulling that together. I had been very critical about the shadow study in the past. I find it very helpful that the City commissioned an independent third-party shadow study, and it shows me that there’s no significant shading after about 10:30 in the morning on the swimming pool area, which has been my big concern. I believe that shadow study, and I think the community should feel reassured, that beyond about 10:30 in the morning, you should not have shadows in your swimming pool area from this building. I think that’s a good thing. They’ve made a lot of effort to position the building and pull it back so it doesn’t cast shadows there, and I think that’s good. This is the best tree report study I’ve ever seen in Palo Alto. They’ve gone to extraordinary lengths to document, protect, study and demonstrate, at least for me, that these trees will be protected and preserved. I believe that to be the case. The building really does step back from the trees. If any of us remember, the buildings were originally much closer to those redwoods. I commend Walter Passmore and the City staff for really being aggressive and firm about this, and I believe that the trees will be preserved if these reports are followed. Okay, so, with that, I want to ask Randy Popp if he’d like to address our concern about why we should not be requesting you to remove the massing you’ve just added. We worked hard to get you guys to change it, and now, you’ve put it back in at the last minute. Why is that okay? I’ll give you three minutes, Randy. Mr. Popp: Thank you. It will be very brief. I want to just describe that the architectural plans that we submitted in the last hearing were not coordinated with the elevations in the way that they needed to be, and through the process that Rebecca and Ron have gone through and coordinated room types and layout within the building, we found that there was a pretty serious error at that back corner of the building. We did drop from 100 to 97 rooms, but we did need to make a correction in the massing in order to allow the rooms to stack the way they need to for efficiency. And I regret that there was an inaccuracy in that 4.a Packet Pg. 119 City of Palo Alto Page 41 previous presentation, but we felt that the small – as we see it – change that we’ve made to the rear of the building is far enough away from the most adjacent residence that it is, in our minds, not problematic in regard to their views. The other thing I’ll offer, it’s associated with this, but separate, if you’d like to see it. We actually flew a drone. We have views from some of the balconies and some of the window locations, so, if you’d like to see that, I can show you some of those. I’ll come back up if you’d like to be aware of that. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay, thanks, Randy. We’ll come back to that in a second. Let’s quickly dive into this issue of whether… The current proposal is essentially saying that they’re going to do valet parking from the street level all the time. Staff has commented and said that they don’t believe that’s appropriate because it will cause backup onto El Camino. Therefore, they’ll change the design downstairs to have something of an entry lobby that functions. When I look at that, I believe that the proposed floor plan change does function properly if they make that change. I guess I just feel it’s not my purview from the ARB to decide whether or not traffic will be backed up. That’s what we have professional planners and traffic consultants for. But that’s an issue they’ve asked us to chime in on. Grace? Board Member Lee: I’ll just say I concur. I do not think that that’s something to come back to ARB. Perhaps that is something to come back to staff. Chair Baltay: Who else? Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll concur with what Board Member Lee said. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I do not have expertise to weigh in on that. I think we could look at, just for comparison, look at the Garden Court hotel, as well as the Clement [phonetic]. Those are urban hotels with valet parking. Look at that. And they’re also relatively small. It’s not like a Hilton Garden Inn, or the two Marriott hotels on San Antonio Road. They’re much smaller. Ms. Gerhardt: Board members, if I may, just to clarify for the residents. Our transportation department and our consulting engineer, traffic engineer, does not believe that having the valet at the surface level, under the porte-cochere, is advisable, because that would create backing up onto El Camino, and that’s obviously not good for anyone. Therefore, the valet does need to be located in the basement level. Sam has drafted up some ideas of how that could be done, and we’re, as staff members, we’re happy to take on the details of that. Also, too, the porte-cochere will be a good drop-off point for Ubers and Lyfts and other vehicles of that nature. Chair Baltay: I think you put it just right, Jodie, and what you’ve heard from the Board is that we won’t want to weigh in on that any further. We’ll accept the staff’s opinion, and the professionals within our department. The applicant asked us to address that; I believe that’s where we stand with that. I’d like us to, maybe just do a straw poll. I think the building should be, the massing in the back should be reverted to what it was in the previous application. It might lose another room or two, but I believe that’s the better solution. Do we have anybody else supporting that position? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I did, I do. I think it’s important to give the applicant a chance to show us in section, in model form, or whatever, whether or not we’re making the right decision, however. If that’s possible. Chair Baltay: Well, what I’m hoping for is to get this thing approved – or recommended approval – today. We don’t have time for more studies on it, then. Furthermore, honestly, David, they’ve had their chances. They’ve come back to us many times. We’ve been talking about this, over the past two years, quite a bit. Board Member Hirsch: Fine. Chair Baltay: Who else can support that? Board Member Lew: I will support that. 4.a Packet Pg. 120 City of Palo Alto Page 42 Vice Chair Thompson: I would support that, but also with the caveat that I don’t know that that fixes everything. So, yes, but also, there is more to be done, and I don’t know that the current design can get there. Also, David, on Sheet A6.1, there is a section that goes through the building and shows the trees for the neighborhood on the far right. If that’s helpful. Board Member Lew: Right, but that’s always where I think there are some dimensional discrepancy in plan and section. That’s labeling as 20 feet, but the plan is showing it as 16 feet. I think we need to look at that again. Chair Baltay: Let me be really clear, that we’re talking, on Sheet A3.16, Drawing #2, the two large elements shaded in blue at the right hand corner of that drawing, are the massing pieces we’re talking about. It’s not all the other blue elements there, but just those two large ones. It looks to me like it’s two hotel rooms that have been added in. Board Member Lee: I would just look in our packet, page 87, there’s an east section view, previous and proposed, that is dimensioned to the property line and shows the massing that has been advised. Chair Baltay: I’m sorry, Grace. You’re talking page 87. Those are building cross-sections. Board Member Lee: That’s right. What I say is east section view – previous, and east section view – current. And I think that the stepping occurs in the previous, which is what… Chair Baltay: That’s correct. Board Member Lee: Right. That is the drawing we should look at. And did everybody agree? I’m just confused now. It sounds like you, Peter, are advocating for, and Alex is in agreement, and Osma is saying there’s other massing issues in other parts of the building, or specifically this drawing? Chair Baltay: Well, I’m just trying to get consensus on this one particular issue, that we’re reverting back, as you say, on page 87, that upper, previous cross-section, I believe is the same thing as what is shown in the axon in metric view. Board Member Lew: Yeah, it is. Chair Baltay: Okay. I’d like to get the Board to at least, if we agree on that, let’s say so clearly, so that there’s no debate later. I’ve heard four members. I haven’t heard you support that, Grace. What is your feeling? Board Member Lee: I don’t have a strong opinion on that. Chair Baltay: Okay. Board Member Lee: I could go either way. It could go previous, but it also could go as proposed. Because the setback is the same. Chair Baltay: That’s there, at least with four members supporting that. I’ve heard… Osma, you had, I think, perhaps the strongest reaction against the building. Is there anything we can do to get you to come on board? Vice Chair Thompson: I’m sure the application… Well, I guess… I guess I’d like to ask the other Board members how they feel about the massing as a whole, as it relates to the neighbors. One of the neighbors said, you know, can you imagine yourself living on that other side, looking out here, and being proud of what you see? And as the massing stands, as the design stands, I could not say yes to that. Chair Baltay: Let me tackle that for you, because I can comfortably say yes. I believe the massing of the building does two things very well. On the El Camino side, it’s really a good urban building on the edge of 4.a Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Page 43 our grand boulevard. I believe that this really does complement and support our design intentions along the El Camino façade. Okay. On the back of the building, it steps back a lot from the Redwood buildings. It’s a long way away from the property line. It’s much farther from the boundary line than their buildings are, and it steps quite a bit. There’s no balconies actually facing their units. All the balconies are pulled in from that. And I believe it’s a very reasonable response to compromise. We’re trying to fit new buildings into old buildings. We’ve gone through, I would think of as a lot of design revisions, getting the applicant to pull the building further away from the back property line, to step it down significantly more than the code requires. Significantly more than we required other hotels to do. Randy Popp could tell you on the Hilton buildings over on San Antonio. We jammed it up tight against the back. Here, we had to really respond to residences in the back, and as much as we may not all be in agreement in the community, I believe that architecturally, we have worked hard to get the massing of the building to step away from the Redwoods in the back, to do as much as they can to mitigate the impact. The same thing applies for the area where the swimming pool is. We’ve worked really hard to minimize the shadow and pull it away so there’s not some hotel room looking into that swimming pool area. And if you remember earlier, it wasn’t always that way. So, yes, Osma, I think the massing is a good balance the way it is. I don’t know if I’m persuading you, but that’s what I think. Vice Chair Thompson: What do my other board members think? Board Member Lew: The drawing set is missing a really important drawing, which is a 3-D axon, or just a really good site plan. The site plan that they’re showing is really more of a floor plan with the Palo Alto Redwoods just barely drawn in. It’s very difficult to read, and it doesn’t really distinguish between balconies and rooms. And then, the context aerial photos don’t really show the building. It shows the neighbors, but the proposed massing of the project isn’t shown. I think we can infer, but I’m not sure it’s really shown properly. And say this goes to the Council; I think they’re going to have an even harder time understanding what the massing looks like. It may not be ready to go today. Board Member Lee: If I may, I was absent at the January 17th meeting, and I believe the applicant presented today that the massing has not changed significantly since the second and third. I’m curious why the Board did not ask for massing revisions at that time. Vice Chair Thompson: I believe we did, at the time. I think it’s in the notes. Chair Baltay: We have been pressing all along for changes to the massing at the back of the building, and I think at that point, they had stepped it sufficiently that the majority of us felt that it was close, it was getting there. And I believe it would be if we erased the changes they’ve just proposed, which is sort of a step in the wrong direction. Board Member Lee: Okay, that’s helpful. It sounds like your feedback and the report as summarized is accurate from staff in terms of, there is a note regarding massing. There have been significant changes in this package. The one small ask now is regarding that step on the back, which we’re discussing. That helps me to have a greater context since, when we say “massing,” that’s a big word. In terms of the project, it might be productive to actually talk about where and how and the changes since the second and third. Vice Chair Thompson: Another example is the stair tower got bigger, and I don’t remember us asking for that. Yeah, there’s kind of… That’s another example, perhaps, of a massing issue. I think like I said before, there are things that are improved in this new design, specifically the choice of using wood. But in terms of massing, the previous design was definitely closer. That said, the balconies and the courtyard of the new design seem to give that façade a little bit of a nicer relief. Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, we do have on the screen right now, showing the differences between the second and third design as far as the massing on the rear. Some portions of the building have not necessarily gotten closer, but they’ve gotten taller. Vice Chair Thompson: That’s right, yep. 4.a Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Page 44 Chair Baltay: You mean the stair tower, by that? Ms. Gerhardt: The stair tower I don’t believe has changed in size, but we could ask the applicant. ??: [off-microphone] It’s the same. Chair Baltay: I thought the building was still 50 feet all along. The building hasn’t gotten taller. Ms. Gerhardt: No, the building hasn’t gotten taller, but just the, the rear kind of stair steps, so, the steps have changed. Chair Baltay: But that’s what we’re proposing to push back on. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. I’m just making clear that there has been a change between the second and third design. Chair Baltay: Let me shift gears then for us, onto the materials, because at first, I was quite taken aback at how dark it looks. Looking at the material board and thinking about it, I really think this is more an issue of a less-than-perfect presentation, more than it is a design problem. I think the wood paneling will actually be a lot lighter in appearance, and I think a lot of this is just shadows, and then, poor Xerox technology here. It’s unfortunate, to the applicant, that you chose to present drawings that just don’t help your case. I’m still up here, thinking that we should… It will be okay. But [crosstalk] support that. Board Member Hirsch: Just a… I think that the comments that you’ve made concerning materials is appropriate. I didn’t speak up before about materials, but I think on the whole, they are all a little bit too dark. But we should see a sample board of a better quality than the one we have here. Because that’s what we’re judging by, at this point. Board Member Lew: What is wrong with the sample board that’s right here? Board Member Hirsch: The wood tone, I think is darker, not as… The comment was made, was darker, not enough reddishness in it. Chair Baltay: I’ve heard comments about the colors needing to be redder to match the redwood siding, perhaps, but my comment I just made is that I believe this color will actually look reasonably light. It’s a medium tone. It’s not a dark tone. And I think it will contrast well with these other matches. Board Member Lew: That product only comes in five colors. Chair Baltay: That’s right. Board Member Lew: I presume that the designers are talented enough to pick the best of the colors. Architects are usually good at that. Not always, but usually. Vice Chair Thompson: The product manufacturer’s [inaudible]. How does the rest of the Board feel about the expanses of black in the courtyard area? Chair Baltay: I just don’t know that there’s that many expanses of black. I think there are expanses of shadow. Show me where it’s black, Osma. Board Member Lee: It sounds like there’s consensus that the actual drawings, the colors that show up in the drawings, appear darker because the renderings are shown in shadow. But the actual materials board is correct, right? These are the materials. And I guess I share Osma’s comment regarding the black gate and the use of black as being heavy. However, perhaps, would we all feel comfortable if the color and materials discussion goes to a subcommittee? Which is a portion of our board, to weigh in with staff? 4.a Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Page 45 Chair Baltay: Okay, so, I’m not sure I’m hearing strong enough consensus, Grace, that this is ready for a subcommittee. What I’ve heard Osma saying is she’s uncomfortable with some elements of massing, and I don’t hear a consensus the color is okay. I’ve been advocating for that, and what I hear everybody saying is it’s still too dark. I think that it is really important that, when this gets in front of the City Council, they don’t have the discussion we’ve just had. If we’re going to put our stamp on this, it better be a good presentation, as well as a good design. Because I want to be standing in front of the Council actively supporting this project, if we think it’s good enough to be supported. I can’t do it with these presentations. Maybe it will have to come back again. Board Member Lee: Maybe the choices could be outlined in terms of which direction… What are our options, given that this is the third hearing? Maybe that’s something we could talk about as a group. Chair Baltay: We can say what we think, Grace. If we think it needs a fourth hearing, we’ll put it forward. We have no control ultimately over how the Planning Director acts on our recommendation. It’s a recommendation. I think that they want to work with us, and I think that everybody shared the goal that this be a strong design when it gets in front of City Council. So, yes, we can push… [crosstalk] Board Member Lee: In terms of direction… [crosstalk] Chair Baltay: I think a fourth hearing would be fine if that’s where we want to go. Board Member Lee: … four a fourth hearing, then I do think we need to have some clear direction for the applicant in terms of massing. And then, in terms of the color and materials board, can we discuss, should those colors and materials go back to the previously submitted? Or are we all advocating together to continue with this muted, neutral tones and the black? Chair Baltay: On the materials, I’ve heard everybody thinking it’s too dark. I haven’t heard anybody say they should revert back completely to the design. I think this design is actually better organized. It’s more coherent. If they’ve done all the things they said, it is a better design. Maybe it’s a little bit too dark. If we’re going to be pushing that we’re going to continue this one more time… Ms. Gerhardt: Board members, if I may. It is unusual to have a fourth hearing for a project. I would need to clear that with the Director. However, I believe, if we were able to limit to certain aspects, it’s possible that that would be a doable situation, because we do want to be able to have a good discussion about these items. Board Member Lew: Excuse me. I did want to also add that, you know, the Council, like, Councilmember DuBois has asked us to weigh in at the third hearing, so I think we should take votes or straw votes. If the fourth hearing happens, fine, but I think we have to be on the record today on these major items. Chair Baltay: What do you mean by “on the record,” Alex? That we should…? Board Member Lew: We vote, straw votes, on particular items. It has to be very clear. The Council has made it clear what they want. They want us to weigh in. ??: [off-microphone] May I say something? Chair Baltay: No, I’m sorry, please. We’re having enough trouble without additional input here. Thank you. Very well. I’m of the opinion that we could put this forward and have the materials covered in the subcommittee, and require that the massing be changed, point-blank. Do I have support to put that forward as a, not a continuation, but rather a conditional approval? Board Member Lee: I would support that. Board Member Lew: I would support that. 4.a Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Page 46 Board Member Hirsch: I would support it. Vice Chair Thompson: I would not support that. Chair Baltay: Okay, so it is 4 to 1. Osma, can you give me a reason, or what would you recommend we do instead? Looking for unanimity here. Vice Chair Thompson: I think perhaps a fourth hearing would be helpful if the presentation was much more clear about what materials go where. I think, you know, we both interpreted this elevation differently. You thought this whole thing was in shadow, and I believe the whole thing is painted in black. I still think I’m right. I think this is painted in black. But I think having that will be very helpful, just to know exactly what we are approving. I think that’s my main issue with the project that is in front of us here, that there is a lack of clarity in the design as it stands. I mentioned before, there are good things about this, but the lack of clarity is what gives me pause, and that’s probably why I can’t [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: If one of the conditions for the subcommittee was to see a series of very good-quality renderings, not only it showed the materials being slightly lighter and revised, but also presented in a very positive way, and you were on that subcommittee, can we earn your vote? Vice Chair Thompson: The only issue with that is I don’t know how I’ll feel once I see them, is the thing. The renderings would inform my decision whether I’m in support or not in support. So, I could not recommend approval… I mean, yeah, sure, that would be great, you know, if this happens anyway – which it seems like it might – that would be great. But I can’t… I hope you understand my opinion. The renderings are not going to fix everything. They’re going to inform me whether the design is [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: Well, I’m suggesting we do two things. One is we send it back to subcommittee with a request for the materials to be made lighter. To reconsider the look a little bit. I think that’s the consensus on the Board. The second thing is for the subcommittee to approve both the materials and the renderings of it, to be of a high enough quality that we feel it represents what we’re approving. You could reject it at the subcommittee level just because the renderings weren’t good enough. Even if you thought the design was good, you could still make them come back again with good renderings. Would that be…? Vice Chair Thompson: And if the materials are unsatisfactory? Chair Baltay: You reject it again at subcommittee. That’s what you do. You’re supposed to do that at subcommittee, right? Vice Chair Thompson: Sure, yeah. Chair Baltay: Yeah, yeah. Yeah. Three hearings, this has come a long way. It’s pretty darn close. I think the issue of massing, we’ve gone around on it a lot. The materials are close. The parking issue seems to be something we’re sending back to staff. We’re being fairly tough here. Who wants to make a motion? Vice Chair Thompson: Wait, can I add one more thing? Chair Baltay: Yes, of course you can. Vice Chair Thompson: To this list here, for the stair tower enclosure, I’m convinced it also got bigger for [inaudible] axon, the back of A3.16. Board Member Lee: Osma, as you look at, just to give you one perspective, if you look at packet page 83, I see that the courtyard perspective is taken at two different angles, so, when you do that, it does appear to look taller between those two renderings. I did take a second look, but I think that the actual angle of that perspective is higher, almost like a bird in the sky, versus lower, so the stair tower does appear to be higher, but it is, again, it is a graphic, unfortunate direction. Just simply in those two renderings. I don’t know if there’s an actual dimension, just an elevation that you could refer to. 4.a Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Page 47 Chair Baltay: Can we just put in a condition that the stair tower be as low as reasonably possible, and that the subcommittee take a look at it? Vice Chair Thompson: [inaudible]. Chair Baltay: Can we put that in there, Jodie? The height of the screening on the stair tower be made as low as reasonably possible. Vice Chair Thompson: How does the Board feel about the courtyard design? Chair Baltay: Any comments on the courtyard? Well, I guess that’s your answer, Osma. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Chair Baltay: There’s no more feedback on that. Vice Chair Thompson: I’ve made a note that the previous design had a better organization. But if no one else feels that way, that’s okay. Chair Baltay: Who can make a motion for us on this project? Board Member Lew: I will make a motion, but I think that we should, I think there are some things on the findings that maybe we should pay attention to. There were things that you had mentioned that are not in here. Say, like, grand boulevard, massing, top/middle/base, are not in here. It just says it meets… What does it say? It says the proposed project will substantially increase the existing massing. Chair Baltay: Be specific. Say… Board Member Lew: Well, I think it should be, we have to advocate for the project. Like, what are the elements that are good in the massing? Say, for example, in the front façade, that is broken up into three pieces. It’s not a long, continuous… Right? It’s broken up. And there are recesses and projections and overhangs. Lighting, and screens, and seating. And then, I think for massing, for the whole, I think I’ve seen previous sets, drawings in previous sets that showed the proposed project and the Palo Alto Redwoods, and my recollection is that the drawings showed that they were very similar. And I don’t really see that drawing in this particular set. I think that would be very important for the Council, to see that the sites are treated similarly with regard to setbacks. Chair Baltay: Would you like to have the findings also come back to us on subcommittee, to make a final review? Why not? Board Member Lew: Sure. I would say, I think there are some things in here, like, the findings reference dark wood panels, and they are not. It’s medium-colored cement board, simulated wood. I think there are a lot of [inaudible]. I would give some of those to the staff between now and the subcommittee. Chair Baltay: Well, the subcommittee can be the final arbiter of that, just [inaudible] happy with it. Vice Chair Thompson: And then, I think on the subcommittee list, we wanted to add that ceiling for the porte-cochere, or staff wanted to add the ceiling. I’m also going to ask one last question before we do the vote. Seeing the list of things that are going to subcommittee, do we feel comfortable that this is still a subcommittee level of stuff to decide things on? Just going to put it out there. Board Member Lew: Historically, massing has not been a subcommittee item. Typically we would leave it for more minor details. But I think you need to be on the record now of why something is not meeting… Like, for example, for massing and the stair tower, put out all your arguments now, and let the Planning Director weigh in on it. Then you’ll see, the Planning Director agrees, and the project owner agrees, then you might get a fourth hearing. But I think you have to put everything out now. The strongest arguments 4.a Packet Pg. 126 City of Palo Alto Page 48 need to be made now. The subcommittee is going to be… Yeah. I think you just have to assume, once it goes to subcommittee, that something is going to get approved. Board Member Lee: I agree, Alex. I think, you know, if we all agree that this should go to a subcommittee, it is a portion of our board that represents our board, right? It’s just a smaller number. It sounds like there is a clear directive to return to the massing that was presented previously. When I look down this list, there are actually pretty clear directives, and if the applicant is open to making those revisions, a subcommittee would be the part of the ARB to review. Chair Baltay: Yes, I believe that, we’re not asking for a redesign of the massing of the building, which would be inappropriate for the subcommittee. We’re asking them to return to something we’ve already seen, and that’s just a very simple, check it off, brought back to where it was. That, I think a subcommittee can handle. I’m still looking for one of you to make a motion. Alex? Please? MOTION Board Member Lew: Okay. I will make a motion that we recommend approval of the project to the Planning Director, with the following items to come back to the subcommittee: One is an improved drawing set with accurate renderings; two, reconsider the materials for a lighter color palette; three, return the massing to the previous scheme. And I have a set of drawings that was dated… This one may be older. I have a January 8, 2008 [sic] set. I think there’s one more recent than that. That the porte-cochere ceiling return to the subcommittee. I think that’s it, right? Oh, yes, and the stair tower. We’re trying to reduce the height of the stair tower, as low as feasibly possible. Ms. Gerhardt: And the findings? Board Member Lew: Yeah. I think we direct staff to review the findings. There are some inaccuracies with regard to the wood. Dark-colored siding. I think we want to add the South El Camino Design Guidelines massing for boulevard buildings in there. And then, I think we’re looking for some sort of statement about how the massing of the project is related to the existing massing of the Palo Alto Redwoods. Chair Baltay: [off-microphone] [inaudible] Board Member Lew: Well, I think that’s in the drawing set, right? I would lump everything in the first set. Like, a really good site plan. Proofing of the colors, of the printing. I understand. You sent a set of drawings, and every different printer, it will come out differently. It depends what kind of paper you use, if you turn the shadows on and off. I understand how complicated it is, but this is not presentable to the Council. Chair Baltay: Okay, the motion is made. Board Member Lee: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: And seconded. Do either of you want to address your motion? No? Okay, are we ready to vote? All those in favor, aye? All opposed? Motion carries 4-1. Thank you very much, everybody. MOTION PASSES 4-1, WITH VICE CHAIR THOMPSON VOTING IN OPPOSITION TO THE MOTION. Chair Baltay: With that, I think we’ll take a short break. Do we want to take a longer break? Grace, are we going to lose you after this, or…? [Discuss length of break.] Chair Baltay: Let’s take until 1:15. Take a quick break, shall we? Thank you very much. I’m sorry for the next applicant, to make you wait even more. We’ve been at this all morning. We’ll be adjourned until 1:15. Thank you very much. 4.a Packet Pg. 127 City of Palo Alto Page 49 [The Board took a short break.] [Board Member Lee is not present.] 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3215 Porter Drive [19PLN00237]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a new 21,933 Square Foot Office/ R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study is Being Prepared in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay: …3215 Porter Drive, consideration of a major architectural review to allow the construction of a new 21,933 square foot office/research and development building. Do we have any disclosures from anybody? Alex? Board Member Lew: I visited the site twice. Vice Chair Thompson: I have nothing to disclose. Chair Baltay: I visited the site once. David? Board Member Hirsch: Also once. Chair Baltay: Thank you. With that, do we have a staff report, please? Ms. Gerhardt: Just to confirm that Board Member Lee has left, as she is recused from Stanford items, I believe. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jodie. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner: Thank you. My name is Garrett Sauls, I’m an associate planner with the current planning team. This project is a new commercial building within the Stanford Research Park. It is part of second phase to the 3181 Porter project that resulted in the demolition of the existing building that used to be on this lot in 2016. Currently, the lot is vacant. As I said before, this is a new two-story R&D office building within the Research Park. It is about 22,000 square feet in size. They are proposing to include an 1,100 square foot traffic amenity space, which would be some sort of either café or recreational area, which would effectively not require any sort of parking, per code. Additionally, there is an at-grade and below-grade parking structure. The at-grade parking space includes 32 parking spaces and 38 below- grade parking spaces. They also include 52 bike spaces. Eighteen of them are long-term bike storage facilities, and 32 of them are short-term bicycle parking facilities. Like I said before, the building that previously existed there was the HP building 15. The Department of Toxic Substances Control – DTSC – board had required a remedial action to clean up volatile organic compounds back in 1989, which has been continuing on this site since then. One of the things that the DTSC would be requiring most likely would a vapor intrusion mitigation system, as that continued cleanup is ongoing with the site. Lastly there is an initial study that is being prepared by our consultant, David J. Powers, for this project. The anticipation is that it be a mitigated negative declaration. They are currently in the process of preparing that document, and it would be available and provided at the second hearing, along with findings and conditions for approval of the project, or continuation. If you look at the presentation, there is also a site plan provided that shows where the building is to be located, which is closer to the front of the property, just beyond the 50-foot front yard setback that this site has. There is a special setback along this area that requires this 50-foot setback. They also have a ground water extraction and treatment facility that is on the very back of the site, which was also part of the requirement from DTSC to help with their cleanup efforts for the site, for the plume that is underneath it. One of the things that would be included in the project is a modification to the driveway entrance and the intersection that is right there. They would be extending the intersection where it currently is, which is just past the site, northwards of this image, where there is the 4.a Packet Pg. 128 City of Palo Alto Page 50 city substation adjacent to the site. This intersection now will be coming up and meeting, as you see on the plans, on the site plan, meeting up where this driveway is. It would be extended partially beyond where the current driveway is for the substation. There are also, you see in the presentation elevation drawings, which show the materials, they are using a material siding, rain screen siding along the building. They also have a substantial amount of glass along the front side, and portions of the left-hand side of the building. The inclusion of a large pedestrian area within the front of the space tries to activate the street and make it more of an interesting and inviting space. One of the other things that they are including within their project is a small area that they are looking to create a bike shop for maintenance area, within the building. This isn’t written on the plans explicitly, but it is one of the things that has been communicated to staff by Stanford. With the inclusion of the bike path that they have along the northern side of the property, as you see in the image on the presentation, this would be creating an upgrade space between the bike lane towards this area, where you see the loading space is currently being proposed. That would provide a little bit more of a direct connection to that area and make it easier for bicyclists who travel to the site to access their bike facility area. Some key considerations for the project is that, with the site, they are proposing to remove 10 trees that are currently on the site. None of them are regulated oak or redwood trees. They are proposing to place 33 trees on the site, and with this, they would be bringing the site up to providing more than 50 percent canopy coverage of the parking area, which is required by the City zoning code. The majority of the species in the landscape narrative is also native, so that is also helping to meet future findings for this project, that they are including more native species in this proposal. Three other things that staff is looking for the Board to provide feedback on: Previous architectural review boards had suggested that they were more interested in having long-term bike storage spaces closer to the front of the building. Currently, the long-term bike storage spaces are along the rear back of the property, and also in the garage. There is also a number of short-term spaces closer to the front. We’re looking to have some input as to whether or not you would be feeling that it should, that you should have the long-term bike storage spaces to the front, or if what they have shown in the plans is acceptable. Others are the treatment of the building with a mostly gray color, is one of the things that we wanted you to provide input on. Along the right and rear sides of the building, there are a substantial amount of metal material, metal siding, that isn’t broken up by the windows as you see on the front and the left-hand side. We’re also looking to get your input on that. Lastly, there is a transformer proposed on the site plan next to the four accessible parking spaces at the very back of the building. Typically, we would be wanting to see these types of transformers either put into an enclosure or screened significantly by landscaping. This is within the rear half of the property, but we are wanting to see if there are any strong opinions on how that should be placed for the site. Currently, we are not proposing to approve the project as we are still outstanding for the environmental documents, so we are looking to continue, get a recommendation to continue this project to a date uncertain. With that, I conclude my presentation. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Garrett. Do we have any questions of staff? Very well. The applicant has a chance to… Vice Chair Thompson: Alex. Chair Baltay: Alex, go ahead. Board Member Lew: Yes. Why are there so many short-term bike parking spaces proposed for the project? Like, in far excess of what is required. Mr. Sauls: The applicant can give a little more information about that, but what we’ve seen and what we’ve talked about with them is, what they’re trying to do with this bike facility, this bike maintenance facility, is trying to activate that space a little bit more. One of the things that this can at least provide a benefit to is for those individuals who are passing through the site, or passing by, will be able to pull off, park their vehicle, park their parks, in [inaudible] spaces, and give them a little more flexibility, and not have to hold onto it and move it around with them. Board Member Lew: Thank you. 4.a Packet Pg. 129 City of Palo Alto Page 51 Chair Baltay: Okay. To the applicant, you have a chance to address us, if you’d like. You’ll have 10 minutes. If you could state and spell your name for the record, please. Tiffany Griego, Managing Director, Stanford Research Park: Great. Good afternoon. Hope you’re full after a good lunch. My name is Tiffany Griego, managing director of Stanford Research Park. [spells name]. We are excited to present a new office building at 3215 Porter, and in particular, to share our goals for you, for how we plan to use this very small vacant site, located truly in the heart of the Research Park. The project has been designed with a community-oriented human scale, welcoming intention. The reason for that is we are planning to use a portion of this building to accommodate small start-ups that otherwise struggle to find space in the Research Park. We also want to use a portion of this building for the headquarters location for the Stanford Research Park Transportation Management Association. And from this building, we will facilitate and oversee the SRPGO transportation programs that we discussed with you last December, which have helped result in a 10 percentage point reduction in SOVs since four years ago. Anyway, 3215 Porter is an ideal location for pursuing these very specific goals. The site is currently served by eight public long-distance transit routes, three last-mile shuttles that serve the Research Park from the two different Palo Alto Caltrain stations, and this site falls within walking distance of currently 8,000 employees who work in the area. I’m going to turn it over to Jason McCarty from Studios Architecture to walk through our presentation, but I encourage you to invite me up if you have any questions. Chair Baltay: Welcome, Jason. If you could state and spell your name, please. Jason McCarthy, Studios Architecture: Thank you. Jason McCarthy [spells name]. Continuing on with Tiffany’s comments, we really do appreciate the significance of this site. It’s a very exciting opportunity, we feel, at an important crossroads, really at the heart of this precinct in the Research Park. Certainly three iconic street names coming through – Hanover, Hillview, and Porter Drive – coming to this focal point that this intersection fronts onto our site. Our first instinct really was to bring the building forward, as Garrett mentioned, really wanting to engage the architecture with that intersection, and connect to transportation and pedestrians in this part of the site, of the park. Bringing the building forward also had a very important benefit, which was that we could really enjoy the benefits of views across this really lovely glade that was developed as a part of the 3181 Porter project just to the south. And then, the tertiary benefit, of course, is that pulling the building forward helps to screen somewhat the Hanover substation, which is fairly prominent at the intersection today. A little bit more focused on the site itself. We’re trying to feature wayfinding very simply and clearly, both in the planning and in the architecture. We’ve developed a front entry plaza, as well as significant amenity space or ground-level plaza on the south and west sides of the building. These significant open spaces are really made possible by the first move, which is to push the parking toward the rear of the site, and the majority of the parking below the building in a one-level, below- grade parking structure. The footprint of that garage actually extends beyond the footprint of the building, so we’ve gone to some lengths to really try and get as much of the parking out of sight as possible, and leave ourselves room for some of these outdoor amenities that go along with those. The character of the building, as Tiffany was mentioning, we really wanted to express a notion of engagement and welcoming, and speak to a sense of community within the Research Park. Obviously, this is a continuation of Stanford’s modernization of the Research Park, and as a building that is servicing in a multitenant scenario, particularly trying to draw early stage innovation companies and really create a sort of hub or an incubator for those sorts of companies, it needed to have this feeling of community. So, we’re trying to tailor the architecture to be particularly welcoming, very clear for wayfinding, and then, also, celebrating these shared amenity spaces – outdoor balconies, shared lobbies, and obviously the significant plaza area around the site. As you enter the site, this is a view from the entry drive. You can see the silver metallic profiled metal panel siding. We’re trying to develop a siding patternation [phonetic] that’s variated widths of panel, very sophisticated window fenestration pattern, as well as just composing an elevation that helps to break down the scale of the building and create interest. As you head towards the back of the site, you can see again the significant plaza areas, outdoor space, available also on the second floor, and an elevated deck. Again, all of these sort of architectural amenities are made better by the fact that we don’t have so much parking on grade to contend with, obviously. The materials proposed, again, the silver metal is the primary silver metal profiled panel system as the primary cladding. And then, significant amount of highly transparent glass, so we’re using a very high visual light transmittance, low-reflectivity glass, in order to really make this building feel welcoming and open. And we want this to have a bright and fresh feeling, so there are complementing 4.a Packet Pg. 130 City of Palo Alto Page 52 accents in white metal at the balcony fronts, and exposed structural elements. And then, a darker gray metal accent is used where we have deeper recesses for window punched openings. And then, warmer elements such as the wood at the underside of the roof canopy overhangs, and then, obviously, in the landscape, there are other natural as well as bench elements that help to complement this more silver- colored building. And then, again, back to the view to the front and the south plaza area. We really wanted this building to be very articulated. We’ve used a lot of the elements of the design to help give the building scale, but really, this is demonstration of our sustainability in the project as well. Some obvious elements here in view are the deep roof overhangs and the horizontal sun shading elements, which help to create the facade design, but also really help our energy model and performance of the project overall. We’re using higher than minimums on all of our insulation, so we have a continuous out-sulation in the metal panel wall. We’re using a rock fiber metal wool for that out-sulation, and at the roof, we’re using an R-36 roof, so again, well above the minimum. And our most recent energy model, we’re close to 18 percent above Title 24. We’re very proud of the energy performance of the design, and all of the features architecturally are helping in that regard. Obviously, treating the sunlight helps us have a very open and bright interior, while still also mitigating for glare and enjoying those views out. More detail on the roof, which isn’t visible in this view, but we are proposing a standing seam metal roof, which would again be in that silver metallic finish. We’ve spent some time to condense all of the mechanical equipment on the roof into a smaller mechanical area, which we were able to organize towards the north of the building, such that this south slope of the roof could be reserved entirely for a photovoltaic array. Again, another significant measure that we’re very proud of, and that’s made all the more important for this project as we’re also pursuing this as an all-electric design. That includes the small cooking kitchen that’s anticipated with the café that’s proposed ultimately. With that, I’m going to pass the mic over to James Winstead with the Guzzardo Partnership, to speak just a couple minutes about the landscape and plaza design. Chair Baltay: Welcome. If you could state and spell your name. You’ve got less than two minutes. James Winstead, Guzzardo Partnership: Okay. That should be find. James Winstead [spells name]. Just to speak a little bit about the site plan while we have this slide on the page. As Jason mentioned, this project has been somewhat unique within the Research Park in the fact that we’ve been able to bring the building up to the front of the site, making the front door very prominent. And then, in the landscape, using wide stairs to bring the site down to the public sidewalk and provide very strong connections to pedestrian and bicycle circulation, as well as the variety of transit that serves this site. And given the site’s location on the intersection of Porter and Hanover there, it really is a prominent front door. And then, with the transparent ground floor and the prominent front, the openness of the site is very intentional, and we’re really trying to make this feel like it is the hub that we think it can be for the surrounding community. To speak a little bit about bicycle parking. Again, we brought visitor racks up front and center to that arrival area, making them, again, very convenient to the transit in the area, and as an amenity, connected to the bike repair service that we’re anticipating in the building. Secure bicycle lockers are provided both at grade near the entry of the building and in the garage, both of which are in excess of what is the requirement for this site. We think it more than satisfies the employee demand for secure bike parking, and then, we have the additional bike parking up front as a very open, welcoming move to try to bring people in here from the surrounding Research Park. To speak a little bit here about sustainability for the project. Stormwater treatment, we’ve brought up that to the front of the site as well and integrated it into the sort of terraced landscape that brings you up from the sidewalk into the site. Stormwater treatment planting would be part of the native drought-tolerant palette we have for the site. Also using a lot of habitat-friendly plant material. Again, it’s built into the site plan from the very beginning. It’s been part of our intentional approach to this project. For the amenity areas, we’ve brought them to the south and east side of the site there, so taking advantage of sun exposure there, offering a variety of sun and shade for people that would use this space. Scale-wise, at the front of the site, we’ve kept it very open, with a large accent focal tree, to tie it into that open glade at the adjacent site to the south. And then, as you transition a little bit deeper into the site, we transition into more of a screening approach at the property line as you start to have the office windows of the neighbor looking down on you. So, you’re a little more tucked in there. Chair Baltay: I’m afraid your time is about up. If you could wrap it up in another sentence. Mr. Winstead: Thirty more seconds should be… 4.a Packet Pg. 131 City of Palo Alto Page 53 Chair Baltay: One more sentence. Mr. Winstead: Okay, thank you. I guess just the closing thought there would be that the plaza is designed for comfort, and then, a very strong indoor/outdoor connection to the ground floor, including outdoor collaboration and work spaces for the building. Chair Baltay: Very nice sentence. Thank you very much. Mr. Winstead: We’re very happy to answer questions. Thank you, guys, very much. Chair Baltay: Okay, any questions from…? Alex, yes? Board Member Lew: I have a question about landscape. I was wondering if you could explain the constraints regarding the utility substation and the easement and the potted trees and the loading zone, and what’s possible and what’s not possible. Mr. Winstead: Sure, we explored screening as much as possible along that property line. There’s really two elements at play there. On our property, there’s existing utility easements pulling from the property line, I think about 15 feet into our site, that prevent planting in the ground and things like that. And then, on the other side, for the substation, Palo Alto Utilities is following a Homeland Security directive for open, clear transparency into the substation, to have eyes on potential bad guys and things like that. We’ve explored options for screening that, and I believe there’s still some possibility that we may be able to come to a negotiated settlement there. Mr. Sauls: I can speak a little bit more to that. In previous direction from other utilities groups before this meeting, have been that they wouldn’t be able to have any sort of screening between the site. When I spoke with them just yesterday, all three different groups of stormwater, electric and water/gas/ wastewater, they said that they were fine with putting moveable planter pots as a screening objective between those two sites, provided that there is a condition that obviously said, you know, they would need to be moved whenever maintenance would be needed. And obviously, we would require also that they be repaired if they are going to be a part of this project. You do see in the, on the front page of your plans, that they do actually show a planter pot on there. That, I think, was actually removed from these plans as a result of directives from the utilities before they ended up submitting this, so that will be in the next submittal. That was confirmed yesterday that it would still be okay for them to have those, provided that they were moveable. Chair Baltay: Any other questions? No? With that, we’ll open the meeting to any public testimony. I don’t see any speaker cards. Is there anyone who would like to address us? Okay, seeing no one, we’ll close the meeting to public testimony, and then begin our deliberations. Osma, you’re turn. Vice Chair Thompson: I get to start? All right. Well, thank you so much for this application. You know, upon first look, it’s just kind of a joy to look at. It’s very well designed. It has a really nice feel to it. I like how simple it is, I like that the material palette works really well with the warmth of the wood. I like that there is sustainability kind of written all over this, with a deep overhang and the louvers. That’s so important for future buildings in Palo Alto, so thank you so much for thinking for thoughtfully about your site. In a design like this, the details are everything. I don’t really have too many comments, other than details I’d like to see for the next go-around. The transition that you have with the entry awning and your metal – it’s not this image, it’s the front image – there’s a bit of a jog between the entry awning and the metal, the corrugated metal. I think that detail will be important. The detail for the louvers that cover in front of the glass, you know, those attachments are going to be important to hide. And then, even just the standing seam siding, those attachment details, sometimes you can see all the hardware and… yeah. I’m talking about that corner at that entry as it touches the metal siding. That’s going to be important. Also, the design of the bicycle channel as it goes up, so I guess that’s more of a landscape note. As you have it now, I’ve tried riding my bike up channels like these, and they’re not very pleasant. A raised channel with kind of like a curb so the tire doesn’t hit the stair tread is important. I would encourage you to look at that for the next time around. Actually, I did have a question of the applicant that I forgot to ask. Does this rendering that 4.a Packet Pg. 132 City of Palo Alto Page 54 we’re looking at, does that show the mechanical screening and the solar panel array? I’m wondering if you see those at this level, or are they hidden from this rendering? Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, they’re hidden. You wouldn’t see them. I’m sorry, they’re not hidden from the rendering, but in this view, you’d have to get quite a bit further back before you’d start to see the mechanical screening. And the photovoltaic itself, we’re planning a system that would clip directly to the standing seam ribs, so it’s actually very low profile. That would also be set back some distance from the edge of the roof, so it won’t be really visible except from very distance views or second level of adjacent property. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. I appreciate that you guys put a lot of thought into that. I would ask, the next time you guys come, to find that view that you can see it in, so that we just know what that looks like. It’s probably down the street, or something. But at this time, I don’t think we have a material for the mechanical screening. That’s the only reason I ask. Otherwise, very well done. Good job. It looks good. That’s all I got. Chair Baltay: David, do you want to go next? Board Member Hirsch: Sure. You know, I want to say the same thank-yous, and also, I think… You’ve already covered so much of it, didn’t leave much for me to talk about here. Because it’s a delightful building. Sort of a little bit like an Eichler blown big. Yeah. But it has its own character, and for an office building the way it is presented, it’s going to be quite a pleasing experience to work in this. And what might have been missing is the amount of socializing space that you have on the outside of it. Tremendous thought as to how these people can enjoy themselves, both inside and outside this building. Just a few, because, you know, they answered the question about looking at the planters on the other side of the street, which don’t appear in the plans, and now I know why. I hope you get the opportunity to put those there. Looking at the drawings, I have a few questions. I guess one of my major thoughts is, you have the aluminum siding or… It is aluminum, I guess, on the outside? It’s aluminum? Mr. McCarthy: It’s a bent metal, a bent steel panel that’s painted. It’s not a [crosstalk]…. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Mr. McCarthy: … kind of a composite. And this sample that Garrett is bringing over is not the actual profile that’s proposed. That’s more for the color. We’re still developing the particulars on the width of the panel. Board Member Hirsch: You’re showing this, you know, on both the upper level and the lower level, and along all of the – oh, it’s going to be hard for me to figure – the entry façade, which direction is that from, looking at the…? West, or…? Mr. McCarthy: The entry is southeast. The entrance is on the southeast. Board Member Hirsch: Southeast, okay. So, along the whole of the south side, and then, turning into the east side, glass turns the corner. And then, going the opposite way, on the west side, it comes around, and there’s a nice projection of the upper floor with the deep recesses in the black reveal. And all of that looks really terrific. But I don’t feel that the east side as you go beyond the door there, that operable door for the bicycle area, I don’t think that recessing the metal at that point is the best answer, at least not from my standpoint. Other board members can comment. Because of the fact that the window line goes all the way up, wouldn’t it be nicer to see some solid element different from the metal on the lower level. Ms. Gerhardt: Can we ask what page you’re taking a look at? Board Member Hirsch: I’m sorry? Ms. Gerhardt: What plan sheet are you looking at? Where is this comment directed to? Board Member Hirsch: I’m sorry, I can’t really hear. What was that? 4.a Packet Pg. 133 City of Palo Alto Page 55 Chair Baltay: Whereabouts in the drawings are you? Board Member Hirsch: Where? Okay. Which ones. It’s A1.14. Starting on that. And then, the next one… Let’s see… Vice Chair Thompson: Are you talking about the recessed between the ground floor and second floor? Board Member Hirsch: Between the ground floor, the recess. Yeah. Vice Chair Thompson: A little, sort of like a pop-out, the second floor pops out? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Yeah, the second floor pops out consistently all the way along, and then there are the recesses of the windows above. On that particular façade, actually you’re showing on A1.14, you’re showing a darker gray metal, and then it breaks to a darker gray. Which I assume is a stucco surface, or…? Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, that’s a metal panel. Board Member Hirsch: That’s another doorway, which isn’t defined as a door in the rendering. But that looks better to me somehow, that material, so that you’re not using the same material just set back a little bit from the face. I think it would emphasize the upper floor portion of the building better than presently where it’s shown. If you did a different material like a stucco, if that’s possible. Looking all the way along, and then you get to the opposite side, the northwest. And there… And we were asked to comment about the elevations here. There, I also feel that what you’re kind of missing is the possibility of the openings in there going all the way up to the soffit, all the way to the underside. Just the way they really do on the rest of the glassed areas around the building. With the proportions, you know, your front proportion of the large three-piece window and then a one-piece is a very elegant, wonderful break-up, but in the back of the building, you have two kind of equal windows next to the… And then there’s the door in the middle, which goes all the way up, and then you have more windows on the other side, which don’t look so bad on that side. I think proportionately, you could study that face a bit more. And what is happening down below, the glass comes all the way around that corner where the little shop is going to be, but then it stops, and then, the next door doesn’t go all the way up to the soffit. And the ones further along don’t do it, either. It seems to me you could be consistent and have them go all the way up. And then, consider changing that material below, because I’m not sure you want to really have the same material at the lower level as you have above. It certainly isn’t going to emphasize the way in which you’ve done the face of the building and the way you turn the west side of it. Other than those comments, my thought is that there’s some issues with some of the landscaping areas. Let’s see if I can find the landscape plan. Of course I like the planters in the containers. That would really make, certainly a more elegant way up than what’s there now. That’s just going to be an improvement. You know, there’s this wonderful wall in the back. It’s kind of surprising, right? The wall with those punctures in it. And I really like the look of that wall just the way it is, so I wouldn’t think you’re helping it by putting something at the bottom, planters along the bottom. My opinion is the way is great the way it is. I wouldn’t want to detract from that. But more importantly, actually, you’re putting some trees in the perimeter, a very narrow perimeter around the parking ramp to the cellar, to the basement. Do you expect that you can get trees…? A question, but maybe you want to answer it later. Do you expect to get trees to really grow in that very narrow area where the wall of the parking, going all the way down? I really don’t think that’s going to work. I was quite concerned about that. Of course, in the open areas where you have the parking divided there, and you have an island in the middle, there’s room for that. But I don’t see that the trees are really going to work. The one big tree, you have, kind of like the one in the front, you know, you have a major tree in that area. That’s an area that you probably can do that with. I’m hoping. Even there, you’re just above the parking below. It’s not much of a place for having a significant tree, it seems to me, so you’ll have to give some thought to that. Other than that… Well, I just thought, at the base of the corner where you have the store, and then adjacent to it, again, there’s a very narrow area of planting up against the building. Almost seems insignificant, and you wonder, will it be trampled in that area? What’s the real reason for that? You know, otherwise, the landscape around there is just wonderful. I mean, the thought of the way in which people can come out and have little committee meetings outside, you know, and use the outside-inside, almost interchangeably, is fantastic, in my mind. One other general comment, and that is that there’s an awful lot of lighting fixtures, 4.a Packet Pg. 134 City of Palo Alto Page 56 it seems to me. There are areas where I was… Let me see if I can get the lighting plan. I was wondering if you couldn’t put in some more step lights in the major step coming up. And perhaps look to not have quite as many… I don’t know if you’ve given us a study of the lumen output on the property. Is that yet to come? ??: [off-microphone] [inaudible] Board Member Hirsch: Is it… Oh, it is here. Mr. Sauls: There is one… Board Member Hirsch: I see it. Okay. But it just seemed to me that there’s an awful lot of sort of pink light fixtures shown on the site. I wonder if they are all necessary. They look small enough when you look at them in elevation. They’re about the most minimal kind of fixture that you can get. You don’t see it in the elevation. It doesn’t interrupt it very much at all. Just looks like a huge number of light fixtures overall. And in fact, there’s one on the parking lot area against the concrete wall there. I don’t like that one at all because it really breaks up the… Yeah, it just breaks up that wall. And the wall is a piece of artwork that somebody really spent some time on, I think. Proportions in the opening, and you look through, and you see the tank in there. Something not to be meddled with, I think. Those are really all my comments. The planting along that wall. My comments. And congratulations. I think it’s just going to be a great building. I love it. Chair Baltay: Thanks, David. Alex. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. Before, you had mentioned the startups and the TMA headquarters. Before I even knew anything about that, what struck me was that it seemed like the community center, before knowing anything about the drawing, I just said that this looks like a community center, not like a standard office building in the Research Park. So, I think you guys have met your objectives with the design on this one. I think my main concern is the entrance, and then, like, the removal of the trees on your property, as well as the substation property. If they’re going to be replaced with things in pots, my question is, would it make sense, does it make any sense, to have, like, a specimen valley oak on that side of the property instead of the, where you have it now on the…? I don’t know. The southern, or left side of the property. That’s just a what-if. Just to give it scale. Because I think that the Canary Island palm, pine trees, look great there, and they look to be healthy. I’m just really sorry to see those go, and I would like to see something of a similar scale, if it’s possible. I understand that there’s a stop light, and you want a large tree interfering with the sight lines into a stop light, and what-not. On the architecture, I support that. On some landscape details, I just had a couple cautionary notes for you. One is the clematis bossyentha [phonetic]. I have one, and some of my friends have them, too. It goes dormant, like July to December. It holds onto the leaves, and they’re brown, so it looks like it’s dead. I see that you’ve mixed it in with another vine, so maybe that’s fine, that will work, but in my mind, it’s not a great plant to try to cover a green screen. It’s very stringy. It’s not like a full vine that will cover a mesh panel. And then, too, I do have some concerns about the valley oak above the garage driveway. I think maybe staff can weigh in just on the amount of soil volume and minimum dimensions necessary for such a large tree. We don’t normally see valley oaks on any of our plans, just because it’s such a big tree. And then, staff had asked us to weigh in on the color of the siding. I don’t really have an opinion. I think what’s being proposed is fine. And I think staff had asked about the long-term bike locker locations, and I don’t really have an opinion. I mean, my recollection is that our code, at least it used to, asks that it be as close to the elevator as possible. And I don’t know if it’s still that way. I know that in a lot of our housing projects, we’ve allowed them to be in the corners of the parking garage, just because that’s space that’s not used that well, that much, for other things. But I would just say, usually the ramps are steep, so people would ideally prefer to use the elevator to get up and down with the bicycle. And also, staff had asked about the transformer. Maybe if there’s a detail that could be provided…? Because I think when we looked at some transformers in the shopping center, it seemed like there were tall ones and short ones, and different screening requirements for those. I guess I would just like to see what it is. I think it’s fine to have it in the back. I think you guys are off to a very good start. Do we need to make a…? Oh, Peter, you need to speak. Yes. 4.a Packet Pg. 135 City of Palo Alto Page 57 Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. Okay. Yeah, I look at perspective on A1.12, and I’m very impressed. It’s a genuinely handsome, contemporary, sustainable, dramatic building. It will be a real nice addition to campus and town, so I think it’s all very positive. I confess that my first notes on this were sort of a big question mark. Why make it look so residential? Hearing the building’s use, looking at it more carefully, really thinking about the scale and such, it’s not residential, but it has a feeling that’s different than other buildings in the Research Park, and I think that’s appropriate given the use you’re thinking about. And I think you’ve done a great job of anticipating and hopefully incorporating a lot of activity outside the building. In walking around there the other day, and other times, it really is the case, that there is a lot of people coming out for lunch, talking, riding bikes on the path. I think it will be very successful that way. But allow me to throw a few thoughts at you, just on my notes here. You seem to have this very dramatic corner with the architecture here, and there’s a lot of traffic walking past this corner on Sheet A1.2. But the café is put at the back corner of the building, and then the bicycle repair is on the right-hand corner of the building. It seems to me that you might be better to try to concentrate those things in one place. It’s very ambitious to think that three corners of this building are all going to be visibly populated all the time. But just a thought, that whatever that amenity space is might be better off up on the front. When I look at the staircase coming up from the basement, that’s seen again on this A1.12. Somehow, to my eye, that’s not integrated into the design. You lost an opportunity to do something better with it. It’s just sort of placed there in the middle of the plaza. Maybe it should be over where the bike repair area is, and you could integrate it somehow into the corner of the building more. Maybe if you take some of David’s comments about the way you’re treating the materials at the step of the building, it’s an opportunity to do that. I don’t have answers; I’m just shooting at it, looking at this. More strongly that, the staircase going up on the back of the building – that’s seen on rendering 1.13 – I think is not of the same caliber as the rest of the design. It could be improved, just how you choose to make that stair work. I’ll leave the comment at that. I think the transformer would be better if you could locate it further to the back of the property or in the garage, if that’s possible. Those are big, and you can hide them with plants, but not always successfully. It is out of sight of the front of the property and it’s not… I don’t know. That big of an Architectural Review Board issue. But certainly it’s advisable, if you can do something better with it. I did share David’s comments when he went around the building and looked with a finer eye about the way the windows meet the roof on the second floor, the way some of the materials step on Sheet A1.14. Having the corrugated siding step back just a little bit over the doors seems to me a lost opportunity to try to introduce a different material, or bring it out and not make everything step. Again, you seem to be very capable designers, and I’m sure you’ll, as you refine this, pick up things like that. My last thought was just that you have a beautiful looking façade of the building, but it’s just all glass on that first floor. I’d encourage you to consult with your structural engineers and make sure you’re not going to wind up with some big steel braces in the middle of that. Or, if you are, anticipate it, and be sure you’re controlling it. Don’t let the engineers at the last minute throw a big sheer wall at you, because that won’t look very good. But overall, a very attractive building. A pleasure to look at. I can wholly support this as we go forward. Any other comments about this? Board Member Hirsch: Well, the way these… Vice Chair Thompson: I have a question… Board Member Hirsch: …hearings work is that you listen to your cohorts here and learn a little bit about it, you know? You see other opportunities to emphasize, that you agree with them, or disagree with them. But in this case, I think studying that lower level with the metal all the way out is definitely a reasonable thought. And I agree about the staircase in the back, that there certainly could be much more detailing in that, as well. Of course, the issue about structure, which we all face at some point in the project, so you will obviously come up with that one at some point. Just to add to those notes that I agree, that those ought to be studied in the manner suggested. As to the stair from downstairs, I’m not as bothered by that location. It seems that you have the elevator, other than that, coming out on the other side, in the building. So, in terms of the relationship of that restaurant, or whatever it is, you know, the other corner, is on the plaza side, whereas the bike repair I think is appropriately towards the front of the building. That’s where I disagree with Peter on this one. But certainly you could study it. But I think it’s okay, from my opinion, where it’s located. Thank you. 4.a Packet Pg. 136 City of Palo Alto Page 58 Vice Chair Thompson: Just a couple things after listening to everyone give their feedback. For the material, initially when I saw it, I was a little worried it was a little too dull, but then I looked at it up against the window, and it has a really nice quality against the sunlight. So, I actually like the color that’s chosen over there. As for the bottom half, I don’t know. I think as they have it actually works pretty well for me. I’m not opposed if the applicant wants to study another option. I do like that it steps back. It kind of has a nice partee across the whole thing. I did want to express that. A quick question about site planning. Those trees that Alex mentioned that are going to be removed, can we get a little more clarity on if they’re healthy, and well? It seems like the site plan is pretty symmetrical. Why wouldn’t we flip it so that we could keep them and then have the driveway on the other side? That’s kind of a question for staff, if you have an answer to that. Ms. Gerhardt: You have a tree disposition plan, L1.21, showing which trees are coming out and which are to remain. And actually, this is showing new tree planting that was part of the 3181 project, also. Mr. Sauls: Furthermore, on L1.23, you do have an arborist report, which calls out a good bit of the trees that exist on the site are in a fair or good condition. But as a result of the development they are proposing, that is a result of them removing the trees that are shared or nearby the Porter substation. That is the 3350 Porter substation. Or Hanover. To echo a little bit of what Jason was saying earlier, there is also a separate application for those substations, that one as well as 950 Hanson, that is proposing to remove a number of trees around the edges of the property. The utility department had a study done by Homeland Security that had recommended them to increase the height of the fences, as well as remove a substantial amount of trees around the perimeter to make it more visible. Vice Chair Thompson: I see, so it’s the other application that’s sort of directing the removal of these trees? Mr. Sauls: The ones that are on the shared property line that is on the Hanover substation, yes. That is part of it, yes. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Chair Baltay: Any other comments, thoughts? We’re… Mr. Sauls: If I may provide a bit of clarification from earlier comments, for Board Members Thompson and Lew. To Board Member Thompson’s comments about the material for the roof screen, if you look on at Sheet A2.6, there is a call-out for the material roof screen on the elevation drawings, that showed that as P2. Which, when you look at the materials board, the one that’s sitting underneath the metal panel calls that out, or shows you which material is going to be used for that roof screen. Vice Chair Thompson: [inaudible]. Mr. Sauls: Okay. It’s actually, then it is on A2.14, where it does call that out as a silver metal accent and mullion. Board Member Hirsch: Yep. Mr. Sauls: And then, in addition to that, if you look on Sheet A1.10, you will see a rendering that shows a further-out image, like what you were asking for. That shows a little top-notch corner of the roof screen, but that’s taken across the street from the site. And then, if you flip to the next pages, you will see it along kind of that side angle, as well. On the driveway. Vice Chair Thompson: That’s very helpful. Thank you. Mr. Sauls: And then, to Board Member Lew’s comments about placing the long-term bicycle lockers in the garage, the code still is what it is before, like you were saying, in that we want to have it placed closer towards the elevator that they have. Which they have done. It was just previous direction that staff had received is that we wanted to have those a little closer to the front. If that’s changed, then that’s something 4.a Packet Pg. 137 City of Palo Alto Page 59 we would take into consideration. And you should be able to see that on A2.1, which shows the basement area, and it shows the long-term spaces nearby the elevator. Chair Baltay: Okay. With that, do we have any other comments? I think, staff, we’re saying that we cannot approve this today, regardless. Mr. Sauls: Correct, because we don’t have the environmental document prepared yet, and presented. Chair Baltay: Okay, well, that’s unfortunate for the applicant because we could otherwise, I think, push this along. We’ll need to make a motion to continue per the staff recommendation. Does the applicant have any questions of us? Do you understand? You’re okay. I just want to be sure. MOTION Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this to a date uncertain, based on the comments that we’ve proposed. Board Member Lew: I’ll second. And David. Chair Baltay: Okay, we have a second, and a third. Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible]. Chair Baltay: David seconded. Any comments? Okay, all those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Good luck with your project. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 5, 2019. Chair Baltay: We have item number 5, is the minutes from the meeting of December 5, 2019. Do we have any comments on those? Board Member Lew: Those minutes were delayed, so we only received the minutes for December 19th. Chair Baltay: I’m sorry. I’m looking at agenda item 5, Alex. Board Member Lew: Oh. We got an email saying that we were going to do it by email, the draft minutes. Ms. Gerhardt: We have stopped doing minutes by email. There was too much confusion with that method. We are now printing all minutes in the packet so that you have everything in one place. Board Member Lew: Well, we were doing… I’ve been on the Board [inaudible]. We did it email first, and then they were printing them in the packet for a long time, right? I just reviewed the last, like, I reviewed the minutes for the 19th by email. Right? Ms. Gerhardt: Not that I’m aware of. Board Member Lew: Well, I sent them my corrections previously. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. In your packet… Board Member Lew: His email said that the minutes for the 5th were delayed, so I didn’t look in the packet. 4.a Packet Pg. 138 City of Palo Alto Page 60 Chair Baltay: Would you like to push this off to next time? Board Member Lew: No, I’ll abstain. I will abstain from both. Chair Baltay: Well, what’s important I think on the minutes from the 5th is that there’s two subcommittee items, and we’ve been pushing hard that those get included and checked. Do you want to take a glance at them now so we’re making sure? I didn’t have any other… Vice Chair Thompson: It doesn’t look like the subcommittee has the disposition on there. Chair Baltay: [inaudible]. Board Member Lew: Jodie’s added the sheets at the end. Vice Chair Thompson: I see them now. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, at the very end, there’s the conclusion memos. Board Member Lew: Okay. I think those look correct. Chair Baltay: Okay. Any other comments on the minutes from December 5, 2019? I’ll move that we approve those minutes. Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 4-0. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 19, 2019. Chair Baltay: Item number 6 is the minutes from December 19th. Any comments on those? Board Member Lew: I previously sent comments directly to staff. Ms. Gerhardt: Were those just clerical error type corrections? Board Member Lew: Material names, product names. I have it written down somewhere. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, I will work with support staff to make those changes. Board Member Lew: Yeah, there’s one… I don’t have the notes in front of me, but it was like a Kebony, K- E-B-0-N-Y. Chair Baltay: Alex, would you like to send those… Board Member Lew: I’ve already sent them. Chair Baltay: Okay. I move that we approve these minutes with the notes Alex has sent to staff being included. [no audible second.] Chair Baltay: All those in favor? Opposed? Motion carries 4-0. Ms. Gerhardt: Who was second? 4.a Packet Pg. 139 City of Palo Alto Page 61 Chair Baltay: David. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Chair Baltay: With that, the meeting is adjourned. We have a subcommittee item following this with Board Members Hirsch and Lew. Thank you everybody. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates – Board Member Lew – not addressed. Adjournment Subcommittee Items Board member Hirsch and Board member Lew 7. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00129]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project that was Conditioned to Return with Project Changes Related to the Landscape Plan, Corner Markers for Outdoor Market/Seating Areas, Site-Plan Circulation Shown to Maintain 8 Foot Clearances, Facade Wooden Slats Details, Bicycle Rack Specifications, and Bollard Details. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org 4.a Packet Pg. 140 Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Review Jason Smith, 122 N Harbor Blvd Ste 204, Fullerton, CA 92832 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00129] Market Plaza January 24, 2019 Samuel Gutierrez, Planner PLANNER’S SIGNATURE: The application, and plans and material samples dated received on November 21, 2019, was reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee on January 16, 2019, in accordance with condition of approval #3 as stated below. The ARB Subcommittee comprised of Board members Alex Lew and David Hirsch. 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.The landscape plan for the project area. b.Corner markers for the outdoor market/seating areas that are artfully installed within the Market Plaza. c.The site-plan circulation shown to maintain an eight-foot clearance is maintained within the Market Plaza area walkways. d.The wooden slats details for the facades. e.Bicycle rack specifications and details. f.Bollard details and photometrics if illuminated. At the meeting, the Subcommittee reviewed the following revisions presented by the applicant. •The updated plans note the landscape plan, required clearance for circulation and corner markers, bicycle rack details, and bollard details as requested. •Details for the wood slates were also provided by the applicant for the subcommittee to review. 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). TO: SUBJECT: DATE: FROM: 4.a Packet Pg. 141 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11144) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 3/5/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of February 6, 2020 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2020 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the February 6, 2020 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: February 6, 2020 Draft Minutes (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 142 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members David Hirsch, Grace Lee, and Alexander Lew Absent: Vice Chair Osma Thompson Oral Communications Chair Baltay: The next item is Oral Communications. Do we have any members of the public who wish to address anything not on our agenda today? Good morning. We have one speaker from Lynn Chiapella. You'll have three minutes. If you could State and spell your name for the record, please. Lynn Chiapella: Lynn Chiapella, last name C-H-I-A-P-E-L-L-A. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Ms. Chiapella: I have a concern about the landscaping on many of our buildings, especially our larger projects. It seems to me more and more the landscaping is more like containerized landscaping in that the cement is 90 percent or some huge percent of the lot. We have little strips or little holes cut in the cement in the case of parking lots. Over and over, when you go out and look at these areas that have been approved, the trees are not thriving, and the shrubs and whatever the flowers were are often not maintained. This also relates to the City's area, which would be the park strips. They also have containers in these areas with lots of cement. Midtown is a very good example, and that's where I live. If you were to go to the Safeway, we've put in complaints for years and years about the fact that there's no water, that trees that live in containerized or holes cut in cement do not thrive with no water. One after the other, the trees have just plain died. Where there might have been eight trees, there might be now two trees, and they're not looking very healthy. The City in that area has a park strip. Cars tend to hit these because Middlefield is very narrow. They are not replaced because Middlefield is an exciting street to drive. The trees do not thrive next to it. Many cities have put in some kind of a barrier. Even though it's psychological, it seems to work quite well, whether you go to San Francisco or it doesn't really matter. The point being that you're dealing with these projects where the containerized situation exists. I think more care should be taken and there should be some way to enforce if these look good after five or ten years. I could give you examples. I have pictures of where there were trees, and now there are no trees. I know you don't deal with R-1, but I've noticed lately the new R-1 is that we cover the complete lot in front with grass that's artificial. There's not a living tree, a living shrub, a living anything to be seen, except for that funny looking thing that they put in the front yard now that looks like that. It seems like there should be some standards where some kind of greenery is left, particularly in the front yard. What you do with your backyard, I don't know. I would hope that you would consider that when you're looking at your projects. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much for your comments. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: February 6, 2020 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 5.a Packet Pg. 143 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Next item is Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions. Staff, can you take us through anything? Do you have any? Jodie Gerhardt, Current Planning Manager: Yes. Good morning. The item that we have for today, we're going to be talking about the objective standards. We have some new State regulations that are encouraging us to do these sorts of standards versus our current standards are very subject. We do have two consultants with us. We also have our Chief Planning Official here in case you have any questions. I will let Jeannie and Chris introduce themselves. They have a presentation ready for you. Chair Baltay: Jodie, before we do that, let's get through the first two items on this agenda though. Ms. Gerhardt: That's true. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Agenda changes, following that, assuming there's no changes to our agenda, City Official Reports, future meeting schedule. Do you have anything for us? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Thank you very much. Sorry for that. No changes to the agenda. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items, and 3) Recent Project Decisions Ms. Gerhardt: As far as the City Official Reports, you have in your packets the future dates, but you do see on the next page that February 20 has been canceled. Our next meeting would be in early March, being March 5th. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. Chair Baltay: Alex. Board Member Lew: I'm on subcommittee today, and Osma's out. I presume that she was also on the subcommittee. I just want to make sure we're all organized about the … Chair Baltay: I think I'm going to take the second spot on the subcommittee, Alex. I was looking to see if Osma wanted to do it, but she's not here so that answers that question. I think you and I were the only two that really reviewed that hotel project all the way through. Board Member Lew: Yeah, and I got the set of drawings. Study Session/preliminary Review 2. Review Issues, Options, and Recommendations for an Approach to Objective Standards in the Zoning Ordinance Chair Baltay: With that, let's jump into our study session. Before you start, I know there's no need for disclosures. If anybody feels the need to disclose anything? Thank you. Staff, let's get going. Jean Eisberg: Okay. Good morning, Chair Baltay and members of the Board. My name's Jean Eisberg with Lexington Planning. I'm here with Chris Sensenig with Raimi and Associates. We have a presentation for you today. I invite and encourage you to interrupt us as we go along. I know you were 5.a Packet Pg. 144 City of Palo Alto Page 3 introduced to this project in December. I want to clear up any confusion about State laws. It is pretty confusing. We have a small group, and I want to encourage this to be a discussion, and then we will lead you through an actual discussion once we get through the presentation. What we're going to review is the objectives and outcomes proposed for this project. I'm going to talk about the context under both State law as well as the City's adopted policies and ordinances, and then we're going to talk about some of the issues we've identified from reviewing your Code, some options for how to move forward, and our recommendations so far. What we're looking from you today is to provide feedback about how to translate the subjective criteria in the Code to objective standards. Our discussion will be based on what you see as the priorities within the subject standards, specifically the Context-Based Design Criteria and the ARB findings. The outcomes of the project. We are looking to prioritize and identify a selection of subjective guidelines in Title 18 of the Code as well as the South of Forest Area, potentially also the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the Downtown Design Guidelines. That is something that we're still scoping with staff. The goal is to revise as necessary to create objective standards for housing developments and for mixed-use residential. Second, to refine these design guidelines and design criteria, potentially by use, by housing type, and by zoning district. Right now, those are sometimes repeated across multiple Zoning Districts, and so potentially to pull those out of the Code altogether as a supplementary document. Third, to look for gaps and add new standards for housing and mixed-use projects to complement the existing standards and guidelines. Fourth, to add zoning graphics and revise the Architectural Review checklist specifically for residential and mixed-use projects to clarify objective standards for staff, for applicants, and for the Board. Lastly, to clarify SB 35, that's the SB 35 streamlining process, that application process, so just to create a form and a clear process if applicants are choosing to go through that route. How do these objective standards apply? We'll talk a little bit more about this throughout the presentation. Essentially, if you think of those standards in the Code and to the extent that there are objective standards in the Comp Plan and other coordinated area plans, they apply to all development projects, commercial, residential. Our focus here is on residential projects and on mixed-use projects that include residential. We're not really going to be looking so much at single- family homes, in part because this whole process is emanating out of State law that's encouraging multifamily housing production. For our purposes, we're not going to address commercial only projects. Part of that is this SB 2 grant is funded through a housing grant that I'll talk a little bit more about. Most of our amendments will be focused on Title 18. What is an objective standard? This is now narrowly defined by State law. I am going to read it verbatim so that we're all clear. What State law says is that standards that involve no personal or subjective judgment by a public official and are uniformly verifiably by reference to an external and uniform benchmark or criterion available and knowable by both the development applicant or proponent and the public official prior to submittal. That sounds like fun. That means it has to be knowable upfront. If you think about things like conditions of approval, that can be more challenging, things that aren't knowable upfront and maybe are added to a project at a later date. A simple example is a front setback shall be a minimum of 10 feet. A lot of the standards in the Code that are measurable, that have numeric values, that say shall or shall not, that list specific materials, things like that are objective. On the subjective side are many of the standards and guidelines that we see in the Context-Based Design Criteria as well as in some of the performance standards. Two examples here from the existing Code, parking should be broken up into smaller groups of spaces to avoid large expanses of parking. Generally, that makes sense, but what does that mean? Do you break it into two groups? Do you break it into four groups? How many cars in each area? It's not exactly precisely knowable. Second example, scale and massing should be compatible with the existing pattern of buildings. This is going to be a real challenge for us, how we address issues around compatibility, around context. A lot of you are professionals in this field. You really know it when you see it. That's not necessarily a clear and knowable standard. Before I move into State law, any questions, comments? Yes. Board Member Lew: You mentioned Title 18. I was wondering about our Subdivision Code because that's in a different title. I was looking at all of this, and I was thinking about the really big projects. Could we move things over there to break up a large site into smaller pieces? Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Just to be clear, this process modifying the Zoning Code will start with the Planning Commission as far as recommendation to Council. The Subdivision Code technically 5.a Packet Pg. 145 City of Palo Alto Page 4 doesn't have to go to the Planning Commission, but certainly any ideas that are brought up here could be, they'll be put out there. They could be considered. It's just a little bit different process. Board Member Lew: It's one that I'm not that familiar with. Ms. Gerhardt: I think we're open to ideas. There's also ways to break up a building and have it look like maybe five different buildings, but it's sitting on one piece of property. If that's something that we want to entertain, that could be said as well. Chair Baltay: I'm not sure I'm following, Alex, what your thought process is. Put these ordinances in the Subdivision Ordinance, you're saying? It would be a different way to regulate these things. Maybe you can expound on that. Board Member Lew: How do I want to say this? We don't have very many of the really large site projects in Palo Alto. If you go to the North First area in San Jose, you'll see lots of huge projects with a lot of repetitive buildings on them. We have some of the large projects in town. I think they're not that great; they could have been better. For me, it's when I see facades more than 400 feet long or see every building is sort of the same except for maybe one minor color change on it. We're used to putting it into our Title 18. My question is can we put some of that in the Subdivision Code, which would force a smaller block. Not to say it couldn't happen in Title 18 as well, but it's just a what-if question. Ms. Gerhardt: I think you could, but I think you'll find that a larger developer is going to have more opportunity to vary their buildings. I mean, Santana Row being a good example. That property is fairly large chunks of land, and yet the stores are very individual. That might be a better way to get at it. Board Member Lew: They also hired multiple architects. They didn't just hire one architecture firm like some other projects. Ms. Gerhardt: The main part was one architecture firm, but yeah. Board Member Lew: They broke it up in half, and now on the newer expansion there are different architects working on there. Chair Baltay: I think, Alex, the gist of what you're saying makes a lot of sense. On larger projects, if you can think of any way to just chunk it down a little bit, not so many, more architects, more development, it would really make a difference. Ms. French: One thing I would caution about this thinking about actual smaller lots is we often find that to do something like an underground parking lot, it's better to have consolidated lots to make something really happen. That's the flip side of this. Board Member Lew: I agree. In the case of say Santana Row, two buildings have a garage that connects below them. You can see that in Mountain View, on the new projects on San Antonio Road as well. That's a pretty common trend now to make a garage more efficient. Board Member Hirsch: Can I ask a question of your point? What properties in Palo Alto do you see that are going to be developed in any way similar to what you're describing here? Do we have any pieces of land that are available for that or are we a built-out City, which means there's really little change for that kind of thinking at all? Board Member Lew: We have Ventura. In Ventura, there are two large sites. If you read our Comp Plan, our Comp Plan calls for housing in the Research Park and the Shopping Center. We also have in south Palo Alto the Jewish Community Center that was all one big light industrial site. There are other large industrial sites out there. We don't get very many of them, but we do get them. I think it's important. 5.a Packet Pg. 146 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Chair Baltay: It's conceivable that housing could happen at the Stanford Shopping Center as well, and that's a very large site. It's not clear that we can try to subdivide that to do that. Board Member Lee: If I may. Since this is such a big, complicated one to put our arms around, I wonder if we could hear the full presentation? Just to keep going and then we can jump into these discussions. Ms. Eisberg: I just wanted to go through the State law context. I mentioned this project is funded by a State grant, which is SB 2. This is intended to provide local governments with funds and technical assistance to serve three purposes: to streamline housing approvals; facilitate housing affordability; and accelerate housing production. We're really focused on Item A, which is streamlining. The purpose from the State's perspective of enforcing objective standards is that it makes it more clear for the applicant and limits the ability of discretion from decision-makers to deny projects. Just as a reminder on Item C, accelerate housing production, the City actually really anticipated this the last couple of years, preparing the Housing Ordinance that was adopted last year that streamlined the multifamily approval process that projects are now just coming to the ARB and not going through Site Design Review. This new Housing Incentive Program allows for higher densities. That's just the context for the funding. One of the big items here that we need to think about is the Housing Accountability Act. This is not new State law. It's been in effect for several decades. It is not always well understood. Basically, what the HAA says is that it protects housing projects that comply with objective standards. A city cannot deny a project, make it infeasible, or reduce its density when it complies with objective standards unless the project has a very high threshold of a specific adverse impact. This Act applies to all housing development projects. The way the City interprets that, because the State law is written as residential units, is not applying to single- family homes. We're only talking about two or more units, residential projects, mixed-use development projects where at least two-thirds of the floor area is residential, and transitional and supportive housing. A few different examples of that. On the left, projects where the HAA would apply, a multifamily project that complies with all objective standards in an RM district. Second example, a mixed-use residential project in the Downtown District where you have ground-floor retail and two stories of residential above, where you'd be meeting that minimum two-thirds floor area threshold. Third, a State Density Bonus Law project that is eligible for waivers and concessions, a Density Bonus project where maybe they're asking for a waiver for setback, a waiver for height, a waiver for reduced parking. The State considers that all in compliance with objective standards. Lastly, an SB 35 streamlining project has to meet all objective standards, and the Housing Accountability Act applies. In the second column where the HAA doesn't apply, this means that the City can use more discretion and can at least use the findings to review a project and potentially deny a project based on those findings. First, we have a mixed-use residential project in a commercial district with ground-floor commercial and just one story of residential, so that's less than the two-thirds housing requirement. Second example, projects that are seeking a rezoning. If they're looking for an AH overlay, the workforce housing overlay, or otherwise rezoning the project and they're going through Architectural Review concurrently, that would still take it out of the Housing Accountability Act realm. Third, a project seeking additional FAR under the Housing Incentive Program, that is essentially an exception, and discretionary review is required. Lastly, a project requesting a reduction in the number of required parking spaces, and the Code makes exceptions for that where you submit a parking study, the Director reviews it, the ARB reviews it, and that takes it out of the HAA realm. Briefly, SB 35 project streamlining. Projects can be eligible for project streamlining if they're at least two-thirds residential floor area again, if a parcel does not have a historic resource or otherwise is not constrained environmentally in terms of fire hazards, flooding, and a list of environmental constraints that the State has. Chair Baltay: Jeannie, quick question. Is being in a flood zone considered an environmental constraint? Ms. Eisberg: Potentially under State law, yes. That could take you out of SB 35 unless you got a map amendment from FEMA. Chair Baltay: If somebody was proposing not to build below the floodplain, I'm thinking more of residential, say three houses. 5.a Packet Pg. 147 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Ms. Eisberg: Outside of SB 35? Chair Baltay: Yeah. I'm just looking at your streamlining here. Ms. Eisberg: This is the State's criteria if you're trying to pursue an SB 35 streamline project. Currently in Palo Alto, in order to qualify for SB 35, at least 50 percent of the units need to be allocated for low- income households. The other eligible criteria, the project must be consistent with zoning and other objective standards. If a project meets those thresholds, staff are required to review the project within 90 to 180 days depending on the size of the project. There's no CEQA review. There's no discretionary review with ARB. It's essentially an administrative decision. Now, unless an affordable housing developer is coming in with a project, it's unlikely that Palo Alto's going to see this type of proposal. It's going to be difficult for a market-rate developer to propose 50 percent affordable housing, but it is possible that threshold of 50 percent could change if the City doesn't meet it's Regional Housing Needs Allocation for market-rate units, if it failed to send the State its annual housing numbers. Just some examples. I mentioned this idea of it's possible an affordable housing developer could come in with a Density Bonus project in the Downtown, and that could be reviewed and approved administratively. A market-rate developer could maybe team with an affordable housing provider and propose a project that's got ground-floor retail, three stories of residential in this example in the CC-2 district at Cal Ave. Last item on State law. This is new and went into effect January of this year. This prohibits jurisdictions from imposing subjective design standards going forward. We can still use the guidelines that are in place. We could create new guidelines. Subjective standards cannot be used to deny, make infeasible, or reduce the density of a project that complies with the Housing Accountability Act. It also prohibits jurisdictions from creating policies that would change zoning or General Plan designations that would lessen the intensity of housing without increasing that somewhere else. Essentially, the City cannot down-zone unless they up-zone somewhere else. If we want to make changes, because you could make objective standards, you could make things more narrow, make things less dense in one place, but we'd have to show that we're making allowances elsewhere that would make things more dense. How does this tie into everything the City currently has? We've got the Comp Plan with a range of policies. Some are actually objective. There are FARs in the Comp Plan, but a lot of those policies are subjective, but it is the vision for the City, and it includes discussions of policies around encouraging and supporting high- quality design. We have the Housing Element. The Housing Element includes housing policies. It also identifies housing sites. We're not identifying specific housing sites as part of this project. The Housing Element will be updated in a couple of years with those new Regional Housing Need numbers when they come out. We also have the Housing Work Plan. The Housing Work Plan was adopted, I think, about two years ago now. I mentioned the Zoning Ordinance update that went into effect last year that made changes to some development standards with the intention of encouraging housing production. The Housing Work Plan also called for strengthening objective standards because it anticipated what has happened, which is that the State is relying more and more on compliance with objective standards as a tool to facilitate housing development. I've tried to break down what does this actually mean for the ARB. I mentioned that Site and Design Review is no longer done, the PTC, the Council are not reviewing residential projects outside of an appeal. This is putting more of the review of these types of projects on the ARB and on staff. Just a few examples here. The top row I mentioned. If a project is proposing rezoning or to have one of these overlay districts applied and its going through Architectural Review concurrently, that puts it in the discretionary category. We've got staff and ARB reviewing, the PTC and the Council are applying that rezoning and can use both the objective standards and the subjective Architectural Review findings and the Context-Based Design Criteria conceivably to make changes to the project, conceivably to deny the project, to deny the rezoning. That's all acceptable. The next row, if the Housing Accountability Act does not apply, they're seeking some exception, they're not consistent with all the standards, then the ARB and City staff are reviewing those objective standards for compliance but can apply those findings and criteria to modify or deny the project. This third row, when the Housing Accountability Act does apply, you're really limited to the objective standards. However, projects are still coming here, they're still coming to the Board, there's still this conversation that happens with you. That's part of our hope here—we're all professionals—that you can still use the findings to comment on the project, to encourage changes to the project in your professional opinions. The public still comes and comments on the project, and that conversation still happens. In this asterisk box, that's why we're 5.a Packet Pg. 148 City of Palo Alto Page 7 here. We're trying to strengthen the elements of the subjective criteria, make them objective where it makes sense, to give you a little bit more to chew on, and to give the applicant more direction about what the City's priorities are and intents behind the design guidelines. That is our context. I want to pause here before we go on or I'm happy to just continue. Any questions on State law? Maybe we'll start there before we move on. Board Member Hirsch: I do have one, and that is what happens if we don't meet our numbers on the RHNA? What if the City just doesn't do it? We're way behind now. Ms. Eisberg: In the short term, in this current RHNA period, the reason that the City of Palo Alto is at this 50 percent threshold for the purposes of SB 35 is because you've built enough market-rate housing. If the City prorated by year for the RHNA period—I believe it's eight years—if you no longer met that threshold for market-rate housing, it could push you into this 10-percent category where essentially someone is complying with your Inclusionary Housing Ordinance, and they can now be eligible for SB 35. That's one factor. Right now, I don't think there's too many penalties for not meeting your RHNA during this cycle. I think during the next phase, three years from now, I think it's going to be different, and the State is going to try to penalize jurisdictions for not meeting that. The numbers we're expecting to go up substantially the next round. Board Member Hirsch: That means density is going to go up somewhere as well. Ms. Eisberg: That next Housing Element, if we don't have the sites, we're going to need to find them, which means rezoning them before the Housing Element is adopted. In the past, you could have a program to rezone, and the State's not going to let you do that anymore. I just wanted to mention when we're going to come back. There's still some scoping that's happening with this project. This is really a staff-driven project. We're here to talk to you because you're also at the frontlines of reviewing a lot of these projects. I just wanted to talk about where we're going. We're going to be working on a framework for objective standards over the next couple of months. We're going to come back probably two times to talk to you about the framework and some specific ideas for objective standards. We also welcome your feedback on the specifics this morning. We will be going to the Planning Commission and the Council to finalize the ordinance. Ideally, this all happens this year. Getting into the meat of the Code. This is really how the Code and the development review process happens right now for residential and residential mixed-use projects. We've got objective standards in terms of use regulations in this district. Multifamily residential is allowed. Duplexes are allowed. Commercial's allowed, etc. That's objective. The development standards generally are objective, the FARs, the lot coverages, the daylight planes, the heights, all of that. Other regulations, things get a little bit more squishy. We've got outside- of-district standards. We've got the Retail Preservation Ordinance, which is generally pretty clear. We've got parking standards. Some performance standards get a little bit muddy sometimes around lighting, refuse, storage. They can be read as subjective, so we want to look at cleaning those up. Conditions of approval, sometimes those are tied to specific Code requirements. Some of them are just standard conditions that the City applies, and we may look at wanting to move some of those into the Code. It could be very specific things around nesting birds or other environmental factors. Things that we're seeing in conditions of approval, maybe we can move those into the Code. The area that we're going to be focused on is the Context-Based Design Criteria, seeing where we can make elements of those objective and the ARB findings. The legislative actions would continue to be subjective and have discretion. Looking at your Code, the staff report goes into a bunch of different issue areas. We're really going to be focused on one this morning, and that's going to be the Context-Based Design Criteria and the ARB findings. The real crux of the issue for us here is that Title 18 includes a bunch of subjective criteria that cannot be applied to projects that are covered by the Housing Accountability Act, besides the sort of conversation that I mentioned that occurs here every month when you're reviewing projects. We're proposing to revise the Context-Based Design Criteria. Potentially keep them, but revise them to have a matching set of standards, revising these other more subjective development regulations I mentioned around open space or lighting or refuse where they're not quite clear, and then consider objective standards related to the ARB findings. I'm going to shift gears to Chris, who is an urban designer/architect/planner, to talk about this key issue, which is how we balance the professionalism of 5.a Packet Pg. 149 City of Palo Alto Page 8 the ARB, the policies that are in the Comp Plan about supporting and encouraging high-quality design and variation across the community, and how do we make these very subjective, know-it-when-you-see- it criteria into objective standards. Chris is going to go through four different tools and options. We have reviewed these to some extent with staff, and we're moving towards Options 1 and 2, which are directly rewriting guidelines as objective standards where we can, and then also linking standards to guidelines so that there is this opt-out option. You either meet the standard or you move into the guidelines and you make your case for meeting the intent of the guidelines. I'm going to pass it onto Chris. Chris Sensenig: Hello. Welcome. I'm very happy to be here. I was actually here 15 years ago working on the Context-Based Design Criteria in what feels like another lifetime ago. I want to start with how we think about design. There's a continuum of design strategies from site design, which are often very objective. They're the development standards. As we get from massing to building modulation to facade articulation, over the past 20, 30 years as we wrote design guidelines for many cities, they were very much meant to be subjective and give people like yourselves great latitude in influencing the projects that happen in the community. As we begin to rewrite these to create objective standards, there are a few different options here. The first one is a direct rewrite. Here you see an example from the Context- Based Design Criteria that has a lot of subjective pieces to it. Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades and have a scale that is proportional to the size and type of building and the number of units being accessed. Here you could take out some of the subjectivity and provide very direct sizes that are objective. Now, this is just an idea. I'm not here to talk about these numbers. You can begin to prescribe very distinct sizes for how big an entry needs to be depending on its use. The second option— it's not exclusive—is linking standards and guidelines. The way this is done is all projects still need to meet all the guidelines, but there's a clear and objective way to meet those guidelines. If you meet the associated design standard, then you automatically meet the guideline. This allows a little bit of creativity if someone decides to go the discretionary route. It also provides an opportunity to put a little bit more context and intent into a design standard. Here you see a very simple design guideline, building shall reduce the overall scale and bulk of upper floors, create pedestrian-scale buildings and provide a variety of building heights. There's a very prescribed objective way to meet that, whether it's a 6-foot setback of the upper floors or a reduction in mass. I'm going to go over a few different examples of how these guidelines and standards can be linked. In this case, it's about creating a base, middle, and top of a building, which is very subjective of whether that happens, and then creating very distinct ways of meeting that. In this case, it's about a variation in a number of building components that allows you to clearly and objectively say, "Yes, there is a variation in the building material and color from the base to the middle. There is a change in the window pattern and material between the middle and top." Something that a staff-level person can check a box, yes, this occurs. Again, that can be applied in creating a facade rhythm and pattern where you want a human scale and rhythm and pattern that reflects the building use and again providing very distinct, objective numbers on how to do that. In this case, there is an option for a residential rhythm between 10-20 feet to express the room or 20-40 feet to express the unit. In a mixed-use building or in a commercial building, you can create that same set of objectivity that might be a little bit different or, in the case of Palo Alto, this might be different depending on where you are. Downtown might have a very different rhythm and pattern objective standard than El Camino Real or another neighborhood. There's different ways within building the objective Code that you can create distinctive districts that have a special character. The third way of doing this is creating a menu of options. This allows a little bit more flexibility potentially in how you might meet an objective standard. In this case, it's all ground-floor residential units shall be designed to be inviting, reduce the overall scale of the building, provide direct entry. You provide a menu of options. You can do this with a stoop, a front porch, a terrace, or a frontage court. Each one of these options has very objective dimensions to them. Again, this can change by which area in the City that you can be in. That can also happen with adjacencies and transitioning either across the street from a lower scale or back-to-back, and provide a number and range of opportunities to meet. The last option I'm going to go over is a system of building components. One of the things that can be very difficult in going from subjective to objective criteria is providing flexibility in design and not over-prescribing. One way to do that is you set up a system. I'm showing you Hunters Point Shipyard in San Francisco where you create a set of objective building modulations, whether that's upper-floor setbacks, bay windows. There's distinct criteria there. There's ways that you can articulate the building, fins, louvers. There's different 5.a Packet Pg. 150 City of Palo Alto Page 9 fenestration strategies, and there also might be different material and color strategies. Once you create that system of building components, you then can use that system of building components to regulate other things. In this case, in Hunters Point Shipyard it was about very big buildings, very big buildings. The objective standard was about how you may use the facade composition and changes in modulation, fenestration, and articulation to break down the scale of the building. As long as you had that variation, you met the standard. Sometimes the objective standard's not about a particular design aspect, but it's about something changing from one to the other. You alluded to buildings all looking the same or something. That is something that you can create an objective standard for by just noticing differences between and making sure that things are different. Ms. Eisberg: We're going to have another pause here. The next phase, we're really going to just talk about specific elements of the Code and try to get your feedback on areas of priority, things like "I'm concerned about everything looking the same." There's a lot for us to tackle, and having your ideas about where we should focus is going to be very helpful. Next, I was just going to take a look at the ARB findings and take a look at some of the design criteria that Jodie passed around. If you want to just start the discussion, if you've already got things you want to talk about, I'm happy to do that. Chair Baltay: At the risk of taking too long, you basically gave us four ways you think we could convert subjective standards to objective standards. We went through a similar process when we enacted green building standards, which are inherently fairly subjective. What we landed on there is something of a point system, a long list of things you can choose from, and you have to choose 75 points worth, and each one is weighted. Would that fit into this as a possibility as well? It seems it's sort of a hybrid of some of the things you're putting out there. Ms. Eisberg: I think so. Lafayette just did this for their downtown area plan, which was adopted a few years ago. They just went back and revised and created objective standards. It's about a three-page ordinance, and it's a point system. You have to get a certain number of points. To Chris' point, you can choose to do the change in fenestration or the change in materials. It's kind of the same idea. Yes, that's certainly possible. Chair Baltay: My concern about that then would be that it would require quite a bit of trial and error before you get it right. We're sort of forced to launch something. It seems hard to me to understand how you would do this out of the gate. Personally, I have a very hard time seeing what points should be where, but it seems to me that might be the most designer-friendly way to go. Mr. Sensenig: I think you're right on there, with that being a struggle, how many points do you require before it's not doing enough. The first place to look, I think, is can we hit on the real priorities for the City of Palo Alto and make those subjective guidelines objective first. Then, if that becomes difficult or feeling overly restrictive, then maybe thinking about how to apply a point system to it. The prioritization of what you all feel is important, even in a point system, is Step 1. Theoretically, you would want to weight those even in a point system to make sure a developer can't get around it. Chair Baltay. Okay. Why don't we keep going? Ms. Eisberg: The next two slides, I just listed out all of the ARB findings. These are essentially a synthesis of the Context-Based Design Criteria, elements of the Comp Plan, other elements of the Code. As I mentioned, you can still use these even for projects that are covered by the Housing Accountability Act. You just can't use them to deny, make infeasible, or reduce the density of a project. They still could be used to do those things for projects that are not compliant. Looking at these, they are subjective. Are there elements here that are really important for us to consider as we are trying to make some of these distinct objective standards out of these? Unified, coherent design, desirable environment, natural features that contribute positively, harmonious transitions, enhancing living conditions, high aesthetic quality, design being functional, landscape design that's complementary, and sustainability. Likewise, the Context-Based Design Criteria, you have the printout that Jodie sent in front of you. The hardest ones, I think, for us are related to context and related to compatibility. There are elements here around looking 5.a Packet Pg. 151 City of Palo Alto Page 10 at the siting, scale, and massing and materials. There are ways we can make some of those elements objective, but a lot of these are more challenging around compatibility. Jodie's teased out some of these criteria and shown how you could make them objective. Item Number 1 here or Letter C, streetscape or pedestrian amenities that contribute to the area's streetscape environment such as street trees, bulb- outs, benches. What we could actually say is a street tree every 30 feet, bulb-outs at crosswalks if you're at certain locations, benches every quarter mile. That turns a subjective criteria into something objective. Likewise on bicycle amenities. Item D includes things such as bike racks, storage or parking and to use the standards from the Code around the specifics for long-term bicycle storage, dedicating public access for future bike lanes. Making those kind of criteria objectives is something we can do, that direct translation, that Option 1 that Chris explained. This last item, E, vehicle access from alleys or side streets where they exist, encouraging vehicle access from alleys, not from the main street. We could actually say that it must be provided from the alley, no new curb cuts. I think we actually did that on the ordinance last year. We said no new curb cuts on University, on California Avenue. Require pedestrian access from the front of the property, a few ways that we could do that direct translation. Just looking at the findings, looking at the Context-Based Design Criteria, these are some of the key themes that struck me. These issues of context and compatibility, both within a project and with the adjacent uses and buildings; a desire for high-quality design, which can mean both materials, the construction, and the design; functionality with how the site plan works, with how circulation works and internal to the building; and then the issue of sustainability in terms of natural resources, green building materials, and low-water-use plants. Even when we were pre-meeting with Chair Baltay, he brought up some ideas about translating some of these specifically. In terms of sustainability, we do have this Build It Green checklist. It may not be perfect if you meet the certain points. Maybe you could do better if you met different points. It is one way to translate desire for sustainability into an objective standard. You've completed this checklist and achieved X number of points. I have come to the end of our presentation. I just wanted to reiterate the questions that were for you. What do you see as the most important Context-Based Design Criteria and ARB findings? Do you have other ideas for how we can make these more objective? The other item that's not here but that Chris alluded to, we are thinking about how these might be applied in different locations. There are some objective standards that may apply even Citywide. There are some that apply by use, and there are some that apply by location, whether you're Downtown or on El Camino. I realize this is rather broad, but I hope that helps guide things a little bit. Chair Baltay: Let me bring my colleagues up to speed on one thing. We have these preliminary meetings, so I met with Jean and the staff two or three days ago. I recommended to them that we try to keep our comments focused on specific design things that we can really sink our teeth into rather than broader discussions of the changing Zoning Codes and things. That was my sense at our retreat the other day, that we wanted to be focused that way. As well, I think that if we want to be practical in this manner, we really need to as quickly as possible delve into the nuts and bolts of what changes might be feasible and realistic. I'm saying that now to everybody just so you understand what I was telling the Planning staff. It's not what we have to do necessarily, but that's the information I imparted to them earlier this week. With that, why don't we just each give our reaction? Who wants to start? David, you're looking sort of chagrin, so why don't you go at it? Board Member Hirsch: The presentation was really quite fantastic. I hear somehow within it the questions that certainly I had, which is just how do you make it happen. It's a significant change for us, the ARB. I see that the difference here is really between those two words. What makes it one way or the other way? Clearly, our approach is not objective. It's personal, and it's collective. The end result of our meetings, which are really informative to me as the newest member here, is that we come to conclusions based more or less on subjective opinions collectively. It's important to maintain that principle, I think. I think it's the way we are set up because of those descriptions of what we do, how we should look at our City. I'm concerned where we get into those kind of specifics that really don't allow us that capability. I find that to be the case in several of the illustrations in this book here. For example, the use of base/middle/top idea, it's really not a contemporary idea at all. It really ought not to be emphasized too much. If you look around at most of the housing, etc., that's built, we should be talking about housing because that's what we're talking about here. Most of it is very contextual, what I like anyhow. When it is very contextual to the extent that it observes massing issues relative to its 5.a Packet Pg. 152 City of Palo Alto Page 11 neighboring structures, but it's not design wise. It's not that kind of base/middle/top idea. It just is an inappropriate idea to apply to anything right now specifically. When you look at a series of alternatives, like you did at the Courtyard—I saw one as an architect of housing in New York City—a major issue is you really should show handicapped accessibility. That's very important. All of those details didn't show any handicapped accessibility to those courts. To prescribe that does a couple of negatives. One, it doesn't solve all the problems. To put a number on the dimension of an entry is a dangerous idea. Also, to show those options as specifics, as prescribed ways of doing things isn't a good idea. You have to recognize that there's a few other people in the picture here. One of them is an architect who is designing something. You give him the opportunity to do what architects do and come up with a point of view on a particular site in a particular neighborhood. I think the answer of side entries on buildings on major blocks is very significant, but to be specific, that specific, your objective way of showing things isn't going to be productive. I don't know how you get there because your job on this one is to do that. I don't think that's the way. The other thing is in a general sense I feel that what is in the book is really, there are some good directions here. The last part of the book, where you showed those buildings that are created with a chapter on top of them, which says bulk and massing, facade composition, they're very good. They're very good. The fenestration, you see the subtitles, fenestration, facade composition. That's what we do. That's what we end up with here on this committee. I don't think you can call them objective particularly. They're subjective, and that's really my big problem. For the State to say to us, "Make it all objective," what are they really trying to say? I think they're really trying to say, "We don't want you to hold up these projects. These are housing projects, and we want to force them through, so you make everything objective so that you don't have to spend too much time thinking about it." I don't agree with that. I don't agree with that principle. I think we need to have the facility to get together and talk about these projects differently. As terms of the timing, getting the project through, we don't know exactly how long it takes to do your preliminaries. When it comes to us and we make a joint consideration here, we're pretty good at that. We lay over projects when we really have something significant to say. I think that's reasonable, but we don't know whether an architect can go and make those changes and adjust to whatever we say in a week, in two weeks, in three weeks, or how it comes back to us. I wouldn't call us the culprit in this one. I think we make our decision pretty effectively here. I think it's only fair to look at that whole process to see what happens through the rest of planning as planning looks at it. I have to say that when we get projects coming through from your analysis, you Planning Department, I'm very impressed. We use all of those sources that we have to present a review by Planning, and that's a pretty damn good plan to begin with. I accept pretty much every one of those when they're brought in that way. We look at it a little differently. My opinion is that that process is a good one. If you can objectify some of the things that are in that, I don't have any problem with that, but let us do the subjective portion of it. In general, that's my feeling. I think we do it effectively here. I'm concerned that the State doesn't understand what we're doing. You explained it beautifully, and you could definitely get into the way in which we can deal with it that gives us our ability to do what we do. Chair Baltay: Thanks, David. Grace. Board Member Lee: I just want to thank you all for presenting this to us. I know there's been a lot of work on this. I'm very happy to use these Context-Based Design Criteria in the commercial project. I appreciate the work was done 15 years ago. The presentation was very clear. I want to try to answer those three questions that you're asking of us. It says on the last slide—we can go back to that. I did want to make some general comments. I absolutely agree that per the funding we want to streamline these housing approvals, we want to accelerate housing production. Whether or not personally or as a group we feel this or as a City we are doing this. Thank you for the invitation to the ARB to work with us. I do believe that it's possible to make objectives where it makes sense or where we can. That might not be in every bullet point. I think we need to be strategic and really look at where we can. This whole issue regarding prescription or specific dimensions, that my colleague here has mentioned before me, I also feel the discomfort in terms of specific dimensions. Where that is coming from is just the reality of issues of time and character and identity and a place. I do think that it's important to recognize as we look at this. Maybe we all won't agree on this, but my feeling is that when you say let's talk about design guidelines for South of Forest or San Antonio or El Camino, one of the things that many cities and some people feel is that these boulevards or these areas can have a special character due to a diversity and a 5.a Packet Pg. 153 City of Palo Alto Page 12 special identity. Sometimes these design guidelines are difficult or challenging for an applicant when there are specific examples, whether they're photos, and that's much more qualitative. I really appreciate the Hunters Point examples. Even then, I see specific examples of fins on buildings, for example. These are just ways to provide actually more independence for the applicant to navigate or a menu of options. However, districts and buildings take time to complete. Unfortunately, our City process is very slow. I'm sorry, but it is very slow to codify and even to come up with design guidelines. These are sitting there and meanwhile time progresses, and our ideas about a district may change. The urgency may change, or we find that there's some other options in how we work or how we answer these regional challenges that we have. That's where I have the hard part. There's also the issue, I think, in some of these graphics. I'll just mention the whole top/middle/bottom and this issue of style. There are sometimes aspects of a site or a context that might suggest something. Just a few blocks down, it might be slightly different. That is something difficult. Having said that, I do see some positives in terms of possibly this menu of options. I wonder about also some kind of range of dimensions. That's hard too because you look at specific areas within our City, and you might point to two or three excellent examples that will have a different range of dimensions for an entryway or specific things there that wouldn't allow for that range even. I want to offer that maybe that's a way to get to the numerical value that is more objective. I also feel like, when I look through the system of building components with that whole discussion, maybe there are ways to—I appreciate my colleague, Peter, who mentioned that there was a meeting and he pulled out some ideas. I saw that there was a list, and it even said materials. I'm a little bit hesitant there because, given our building technologies and how things change, materials that have not been tested still may be a terrific material. I just want to hesitate when we are that prescriptive in terms of a list. What are the most important Context-Based Design Criteria? Frankly, this is difficult because I like the Context-Based Design Criteria when it relates to specifically housing, which we're trying to accelerate here, and our ARB findings. When I was looking at the ARB findings, I find that they're written for all the different typologies of buildings that we review. It's hard to pull one out or two or just three out of the five or 75 or 80 percent that relate just to what we're talking about here in terms of the kinds of housing. Maybe it is important that we look at all the findings and then think about how that does translate in some way to something a bit more objective. I just want to ask the question. Can objective standards be written in a way that offers examples or a menu to assist in an application, knowing that staff and we want to accelerate these projects so we don't want to have ARB involved? Is there a mechanism where we are still accelerating but there is some involvement by a subcommittee or one or the Chair, if that person is willing to take all that time? Maybe staff can have the discretion to invite a professional that is on a City board to sit and review. That might not accelerate the application. Can you let us know? What do you think? Ms. Eisberg: Yes, I think that is possible. I do want to be clear. Most projects are still going to come to you. I didn't mention that part of SB 330 limits the number of public meetings to five. That would be more of an issue for Palo Alto if we were in the situation two years ago when projects were going through PTC and Council as well, residential projects. Now, they're really only coming to you. The only projects right now that wouldn't come to you are the SB 35 streamlined projects. You mentioned the materials. Let's say we did create this comprehensive or exhaustive list of materials. If they wanted to propose something different, they could still do that. It's okay. The materials shall include X, Y, Z. If you want to use something else, it's at the discretion of the ARB, the discretion of the Director. There's still this out, and that's part of the linking of standards and guidelines that Chris described. You meet the standards. If you don't meet the standards for whatever reason, for certain desires by the architect you still need to meet the intent of the guideline, and you present that to the Board and staff. Board Member Lee: That's all very encouraging. I will go ahead and pass the baton. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Grace. Alex, why don't you tell us what you think? Board Member Lew: Thank you for the presentation. It was done very well. I guess the way that I've been thinking about it is—I'm trying to think about it holistically. One of the things that people tell me that they like about Palo Alto is that there's consistency, but there's still individuality in the buildings. That's pretty high up on the list, like after picking a school or something. It's up there, maybe Number 2. 5.a Packet Pg. 154 City of Palo Alto Page 13 With that in mind, I'm thinking in terms of hierarchy. I'm concerned about long facades. Two is connectivity in a large multi-acre site with a subdivision. Typically, we'll find that the existing neighbors won't want any connection whatsoever to a new project. Three is open space. I think we've had a couple of projects where there's been an issue with the open space and the placement of the open space relative to the neighbors. Sometimes they want the open space near them so that the building is farther away. Other times, they don't want the open space near them because they're afraid of noise. As I look at some of those projects, I'm sort of disappointed with the way the open space has turned out. Having prominent entrances has gotten better over time, especially on El Camino. It was something that we had to fight for on a lot of projects. The tendency is still to put the entrances on the back, wherever the parking is. With regard to neighbors, I think they're very concerned about shading and daylight planes and landscape screening. I guess the way that I look at our Codes is that we do have a lot of requirements for low-density residential. When it comes to other higher-density zones or commercial, we don't really have any requirements. We've run into some conflict with that. Our Performance Code is well intended, but it's like Swiss cheese. It's got big holes in it, and maybe we can address that. In particular, in the Performance Code there's a 10-foot landscape buffer abutting low-density residential. That's come up before on some projects. It's a thing that sometimes architects will miss when they're working on their projects. They're looking for setbacks in the development standards, and they miss that, the 10-foot buffer in the Performance Code. Lastly would be the architectural compatibility. In my mind, it's more important on a street like El Camino, where we have this build-to line. I think it's probably less important where we have large setbacks, where we have 25 or 50-foot special setbacks or landscape requirements. With regard to the approach, I think you were talking about trying to make all of the subjective things objective or to use a menu of options or whatever, those four choices. I've done it one way on a project where the firm that I worked at did the master plan as well as the buildings. We did the first approach, trying to make everything objective and quantitative, and it didn't really work. We wrote exceptions to our own rules just to get the project through. It was about really stupid things like something didn't meet one of the rules by a foot or two. We had to go through kind of like a variance process just for that. I just found that not really very productive. I think I like the two approaches you have after that because it shows the intent. If you're an architect and you're working on it, if I read through those two, then I get an idea of what the City wants. When you do the first one, it's like doing your taxes. It's so quantitative and so numerical based that you don't really always understand what the intent is. I think I prefer those two options. The fourth option with the building components, I have not really ever worked on a project like that. I'm kind of curious to go and look at Hunters Point to actually see the results. I think I would need to look at the Code and look at the results and try to see how well they've worked out. On doing standards by zone or neighborhood or building type, I think there's something there that we really should talk about. For example, in our CS zone we have it on El Camino, but we also have it on San Antonio, and then we have a spot rezoning in the Baylands. I think it doesn't really quite work. Trying to apply the standards in the Baylands, it's an urban standard, and putting it in the Baylands just didn't work. We've sort of ignored it or tried to say it's more about landscape than the building. We need to address that. I don't know if doing it by zone or street or building type—I don't know which way is the best way, but I think there's something there. It's also kind of strange to have it redundant in our Code. I've looked at it for so many years, but you don't really know where the differences are. It looks almost exactly the same, but it's not. We should look at that carefully. If we do it by building type, then I guess the question is if I have a housing project and I have a commercial project and they're sitting right next to each other, is it going to work. They're using different standards, and they're sitting next to each other. I guess we have to figure out how do they work together. It seems to me that might be a challenge. I think I do support overhauling our South El Camino Guidelines, especially our Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. They're both draft, unadopted documents. There's a lot of stuff in there that's now covered by our Code. I think some cleaning house in there is due. My last comment is on our landscape finding. This one is really different than the other ones. This one was a top-down. It came from the Council, way at the top, and is implemented without having anything in our Comp Plan to raise it up. It doesn't appear in any of our guidelines or context-based criteria. Trying to have some sort of threshold is tricky. I think (inaudible) as much as feasible and that can be maintained. It's very subjective. I would like to see some sort of statement of intent in the landscape finding. The main idea is that with climate change, we're trying to provide more habitat for wildlife. We do have to acknowledge that there are maintenance issues with that. For example, there's a native lupine plant. 5.a Packet Pg. 155 City of Palo Alto Page 14 The birds will eat all of the seedlings, and then after that the snails will come and eat the seedlings as well in the middle of the winter. The caterpillars will come and eat the plants to the ground. The bees like the flowers. It's a very desirable wildlife plant, but it's only appeared on one plant list. In the ten years that I've been looking at landscape plans, it's only appeared on one project because landscape architects know that they can't maintain it. If we put in a requirement for 50 percent native plants, that might not be that beneficial if they're just planning a whole bunch of little grasses to meet that 50- percent numerical requirement. It may actually be better to plant one oak tree conceptually. I find that really challenging. I don't have a better suggestion at the moment. It seems like we should have some sort of numerical requirement. It seems to me if you're trying to do something higher, like 75 percent, that might be too difficult to meet. That's my last comment. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. Thank you, everybody. My first thought about this whole thing was similar to what David's saying. I just don't think you can quantify, objectify many of these things that we're deciding up here. The width of an entrance of a building, you just can't tell the designer how wide it has to be and expect to get quality design out of that. The Robie House, Frank Lloyd Wright's masterpiece, has a front doorway on the side. You can't see it. At the time, it violated every objective standard of houses, and yet today it's a masterpiece. You just can't do it. I've been going through a lot of soul searching of do I even want to take part in this process, because I think the State's mandating something that will ultimately result in lower-quality design and a poorer built environment for all of us. All of us up here are struggling with that same issue. With that said, what I've come to think is we ought to create a carve-out in our Zoning Code for certain types of buildings that have an allowable exception to it, similar to the way we've done with hotels. A hotel can have a 2.0 FAR. It's no bearing on the design, the context, anything. It's just we want it to have the capacity to be bigger, so that's what's allowed. I think it's okay to have different kinds of regulations based on the use of the building as it's important for us to promote housing. Let's create a carve-out that says, if you're doing housing that complies with the HAA or these other regulations, whatever comes down the pike, let's create then a fairly objective set of standards that are also fairly strict. When in doubt, we'll make it tougher. An applicant has the option to comply with these very strict objective standards, get their project through quickly, which as David mentioned really is the objective here. The State's not trying to cheapen our built environment. They're just saying we're taking too long, and they're right. We are taking too long. If we give an applicant a path to go quickly, you want to build quick housing buildings, just follow these standards. If not, you go back through the regular process, the way we've been doing it. I think that will meet the requirements of the Code. Instead of having to rewrite our entire Zoning Code, we're creating an opt-out. If you follow this, if you build a hotel, you can go to 2.0. If you build housing per the HA Act requirements, you can follow these objective standards. I've come to the conclusion that I think it's okay for us to try to create objective standards under that very narrowly defined envelope. Then I said to myself, as the ARB we have to make six subjective findings, so how do we convert those findings into objective standards for this narrowly defined thing? I think Findings Number 1, 5, and 6 are already somewhat objective and can be more easily converted. Finding 1 is just compatibility with the other Codes and the Comprehensive Plan. From up here, we can just push it off to that. Five and six are regarding landscaping and green building environmental stuff. We have a very rigorous Green Building Code now, and most of us up here just refer back to that anyway. Landscaping, as Alex was mentioning, with some tweaks maybe in the number of local habitat plants or things like that, we probably can quantify that fairly easily. Really for me, it comes down to Findings 2, 3, and 4. Finding Number 4 really is about functionality. On that one, we just have to compromise and say if it meets the functional requirements of the Building Code and various Transportation Codes and things like that, it's good enough. Us fussing over whether the front door and the lobby is big enough, we just have to compromise and say if it's a housing project that meets these standards, we have to approve it quickly. We're not going to try to regulate that to greater depth. We're really coming down to Findings 2 and 3, which are really about the context, quality of materials, basic quality of design. What I'd like to try to do is get this Board, this body, to focus on a few items that I just made my own list of. What does define context? What about materials? What about design? Can we give them some concrete guidelines to make a fairly stringent set of requirements? What is required? To me, context is about four things: the massing of the building, the articulation of that mass, the materials that create that building, and I wrote down fenestration. It's a very important component of probably articulation. I would say that the massing of a 5.a Packet Pg. 156 City of Palo Alto Page 15 building in order to be contextually compatible, it can only be one story taller than anything that's near it. I would say that you can't have more than a two-story vertical wall component no matter what. Even if you could do a four-story building, you can't have a four-story, straight-up wall. I would say that step- backs have to be as far horizontally as they are vertically. If it's a one-story step-back, it has to go back the height of a story. That's about 10, 12 feet. I'm trying to come up with things that I think are fairly restrictive. As an architect, I would really chafe against these requirements. I want to have an elevator tower that goes all the way, four stories. Fine, then go through design review because it's too subjective. It's too important to not have it be reviewed. If you want to get it done fast, find a way to do it within the standard where you're only one story taller than anybody nearby because that's going to be more compatible. When I look at the issue of articulation, I think it really has to do with alignment of elements in the building, so roof eaves must align with adjacent roof eaves, the shape and configuration of a front porch or an awning or a cornice on the top, things like that. I think you can just write those things down. Again as an architect, I would really chafe at those things, but it is possible to work within that constraint. Contextual compatibility with materials essentially means matching the materials of the adjacent maybe two or three buildings on either side. You can match that kind of thing or you can selectively contrast in a way that complements them. It's hard to define perhaps, but it could be done. We could also say that you have to have some sort of historical reference or lack thereof won't work. You couldn't on University Avenue build a stone building. There's not too many stone buildings there. I'm just trying to find a way to objectify something. You meet this requirement, then you have a path towards quick review and approval. On fenestration, I would say that you have to have similar size with the windows of the buildings adjacent to you. Maybe no more than 20 percent difference in square footage, and it has to be the same type of horizontal or vertical orientation. Architects think of windows on a building as either a wall of windows or a window in a wall, that's a punched opening in a wall. It's two fairly discrete ways of treating windows. You might say, the way we do for garage setbacks now on residential, where you survey a block, see what the average is and then decide, you could survey a block, see whether the windows are ribbon windows or punched windows and require that design treatment to make the building compatible objectively. That's my thoughts on contextual compatibility. If we want to go down this road, I'm sure everybody else could contribute on what other things might help with that. On the materials for a building, the finding we have to make is that it's a high-quality material. That's sure tough. Maybe we come up with a list and say this is what we think is high quality. For example, high quality means natural stone materials, no artificial stone, cement stone, that kind of thing. I've worked at other districts where we're had planning requirements like that, and it sure is constraining. There are some very good artificial materials out there, but nonetheless you say the gold standard is real stone if you want it to look like stone. Otherwise, go back through design review and let them judge. There are some pretty bad materials out there too. You could do the same thing with wood siding, for example, and require at least a half-inch reveal or shadow line between each element or something like that. It's awfully restrictive, but I'm coming at this thinking we make just a minimum standard that can fly. Otherwise, it goes back through design review. On the design element of it, just quality of design, I think that's Finding Number 3. Alex's comments about long facades without articulation, so say no facade no more than 100 feet in length without articulation of at least 3 or 4 feet of depth. I think he's correct about open spaces. We have regulations about the amount of open space but not the location. We would have to say that it can't be in a location that affects or is within 50 feet of a neighboring property, something like that. Prominent entrances, I guess you have to go into the standards, the kind of things you were describing earlier in your report. I think that's as good as you can do. Again, try to make it restrictive enough that, if it's enacted, it will pass. Shading, Alex is correct again. We don't have a current enough standard, but if you just said that your building cannot cast a shadow on neighboring properties, point blank, that can be objectified pretty easily. If you are, then it has to go back through some sort of subjective review. I just don't see how else you can handle it. It is possible to design a building that doesn't cast a shadow on other people's property. If you set that as the standard, that's an objective standard. The neighbors would certainly appreciate that. Landscape buffers, you just say you have to have a 10-foot landscape buffer. You can define it as it has to be trees at least one story in height or something like that. To my colleagues on the Board, I suggest that we focus on something like this list of things I just went through and try to give back to the staff some other or additional ideas that they might use to create these objective standards. I think they're coming no matter what we do. We 5.a Packet Pg. 157 City of Palo Alto Page 16 might as well engage. Again, my feeling is that we should do something and make it a strict, single standard. Anybody else? Board Member Lee: I'll jump in. I appreciate your comments and how we might enable this process. I hesitate at drafting highly restrictive, so there's no choice to go to design review, in terms of our tone and how this is drafted. I think we need to think carefully about highly restrictive to force a direction by an applicant, particularly when there are applicants who are working on sites that are different from the neighboring site or in an area where there's high change or not a lot of change. It's hard for us to have the big hand of predicting the future. My issue also is that some applicants are going to be coming with—please correct me. This would affect mixed use in terms of two, three housing units you said, above three housing units. Ms. Eisberg: If there's more than two-thirds of residential floor area. Board Member Lee: That's what I thought. How do we make objective where it makes sense, again where we can? I believe, Chris, you worked in Hunters Point. I'm looking a little more closely at these. Maybe this is the way we can start because it does include some of what Peter—I'm sorry. Alex, you also did refer to specific dimensions. Again, what I heard from Jean was that here is a set of systems of building components or a menu that applicants can use as possibilities or guiding, with a range of dimension perhaps. It's not restrictive in the sense that it's this or nothing. I do think, given the kinds of projects that will be coming through, we don't want to be so restrictive that this is the one way to go. If you do not comply, you need to move in this direction. We do need to give applicants enough direction where there's a clear direction that we're trying to do exactly what the State is telling us to do but with a menu, for example. I just want to throw that out there for our discussion. Chair Baltay: Can we try to focus though? Say the issue is one of massing, and they're asking us how do you objectify massing. Throw out three ideas that you think that will objectify massing. Can you do that for them, for all of us? Give them something concrete to write down. Board Member Lee: I'm very comfortable with the way that we're talking about—I don't know if long facades are the right way to describe it, but facade composition and scale. Perhaps there's a range of dimensions that relate to a building block. However, we would need to look at El Camino and quantify what those building blocks are compared to another location. I do think this should be tied to looking at the City in a careful way. That is the difficulty with design guidelines by type and without a specific area. Chair Baltay: Anybody else on the question of massing? How would you objectify massing? Board Member Hirsch: For one, I think that there ought to be some—the zoning ought to answer a lot of those issues. I also believe that context is really important and scale relationship to neighboring buildings. There are some ways to quantify that relative to the way that buildings are designed. We have to leave a lot up to an architect to find ways to deal with that. I want to get to what Grace has just said. We shouldn't be so overly restrictive that we come up with a standard, and if you meet that standard, you zoom right through and don't even come here at all. I think it's critical that we maintain our input into projects as we go forward. Otherwise, everybody's going to try to squeeze into that program and use those materials. Then there is no creativity out there anymore. The samples in the back of the book are really very, very informative. I'd rather live with this way of agreeing with Grace that these are really an excellent way to begin this process. Board Member Lee: Just really quick, I just want to hop on. In this last page, 39, one of the great things is there is a discussion of variation in bulk and massing, in the facade, verticals and horizontals. There is a range of—not a range, but I think you have 100 feet or 150 feet. This is per Hunters Point, so this is a specific area in San Francisco. Maybe we can learn from this and not think that we have to do it exactly this week because we're talking about Palo Alto, we're talking about different types of buildings. There is still some objectivity here, but it is not restrictive and prescribed. There are examples. In my previous comments, I talked about photos that were too leading in terms of materials. Is there a way for 5.a Packet Pg. 158 City of Palo Alto Page 17 us to—like in these commercial, you have the Context-Based Design Criteria that are simple sketches but really speak to a scale with a range of dimensions. I'm just throwing it out there. Board Member Lew: I am with Grace and David. I think I'm opposed to being overly restrictive for affordable housing projects. I've built 500 affordable housing units. My projects would not meet Peter's test for quality of materials, but I think the projects are fine. If you were just walking down the street, most people would think they're fine. If you got up really close and looked at the vinyl siding and all the details, you would cringe. It's really difficult building at $100 a square foot. You just don't have the choice. I would go to the catalog or talk to a material supplier, and I would just ask them, "What is the cheapest thing in your product?" That's what would get put in the spec. You're just trying to make do with the most affordable thing. Most affordable housing projects have good architects. Affordable housing architects look at it differently. They actually consider that they do better work than the market- rate builders because they don't have to deal with the 20-percent profit margin of a commercial developer. If you're building 100 units, you often get a lot of economies of scale, but it's vinyl windows, it's vinyl siding, it's inexpensive detailing that can be built quickly. It's not having step-backs and changes in materials to make the construction less expensive. At least for the affordable housing projects, we can lower the standards for that. I'm actually comfortable with that. I wouldn't want to do that across the board. I'm saying it's just the affordable housing projects. Chair Baltay: But, Alex, this is across the board. This Housing Accountability Act is all housing, not just affordable housing. That's the big catch here, that it's not just affordable housing. It really isn't. That's Section I in this new Code. All housing's got to be in (crosstalk). Board Member Lew: It seems like we have two thresholds. We have SB 35 and then the other one, SB 330. I think I still stand by that, though, just generally. I think we do have to make it easier to build housing. Basically, what's happening now is with construction costs of over $400 a square foot, we're barely getting any housing as it is. I think there has to be some give and take on this. I want to throw one other thing out there. When we revised the findings last time around, a couple of years ago, we debated removing the sustainable design finding because the Building Code addresses that. I think staff had recommended removing it, and there was some pushback on the Board where the Board wanted to continue discussing things that were maybe beyond the Code. I'm thinking maybe now we should actually remove it. It seems crazy to me that there could be a no vote on the current Board because something doesn't have operable windows. That's our current Board. That seems to me not quite right. It'll have to meet the Building Code, the Cal Green Code, so why don't we just let that be the standard. The Board could still talk about sustainable design in a different context. If there are things that the Board wants to see improved with regard to sustainable design, we can lobby to have the Codes changed as the Board has done in the past. I'm sorry. Peter, you wanted to say something. Chair Baltay: Go ahead, David. Board Member Hirsch: Just to add one more to it. The streamlining issue, as much as the Code and other sources of review before we get a project can do it, I would hope it could be very much like the Building Department requirements of floor area ratio, height restrictions, daylight planes, yard requirements, courts, setbacks, exit requirements, corridor dimensions, light and ventilation, handicapped requirements. Those things are really all Code requirements and ought to be on the front sheet of any submission. We should know that they passed, and they will be reviewed by Planning who know everything about that as well. We will get them complete. Those are objective requirements and are really important. Another one, which I had to deal with a lot, is the setback and the fifth floor, sixth floor, whatever, which is in the diagram. You put it in a diagram like this, and you're going to eliminate other possibilities. For example, on that fifth and sixth floor, suppose the frontage is set back for an area and two apartments can look on an open middle court on that top floor, is that shown in this diagram or is the description of what happens on the top of building flexible enough so that an architect can use that language to create a form that suits their planning? You have to be very careful in doing a diagram like this, that you don't miss an opportunity like that. That would affect sort of a rear sky exposure plane if there is one. I was surprised by finding that in a project I had to adjust the project to a rear sky 5.a Packet Pg. 159 City of Palo Alto Page 18 exposure plane. I think it's very difficult, but you should look to all of those opportunities somehow, where a designer is going to get this and want to do whatever they want to do, so the language is very flexible in that way, so it isn't too prescriptive, an overly prescriptive diagram. Those two additions to whatever have been discussed today. Chair Baltay: Can we offer additional feedback as to how to objectify pieces that we've been talking about? Let me ask about materials, for example. How can we give them some guidance as to what would be an objective guideline promoting high-quality materials? Any ideas? Something has to get written down or else it's anything goes. We're the ones with the expertise, so let's give them something concrete to write down. Board Member Hirsch: I would like to see a lot of flexibility there because who knows what's coming down the pike in materials on the surface of buildings. A lot of different things are being used, and a lot of that technology is changing today. I don't think we should be too specific about it. It has to answer certain environmental issues, heating, and has to be properly insulated materials and whatnot. I don't think we should be overly specific about it. Chair Baltay: Any other ideas? Board Member Lee: I do agree in terms of new materials that are on the market and are attractive and high quality. In our findings, we try to talk about construction techniques that are appropriate, that will stand the test of time, for example. I think that's what we're worried about. I don't know if there's precedence. I'm curious what other cities are doing. I don't know if this is too prescriptive. Would it be too much to ask for evidence of use of those high-aesthetic-quality materials, to provide examples of where they have—is that too much work for us to review? I'm trying to think of ways where there is evidence. When we're talking about quality versus quantity or something that's criteria versus actual facts, just something that we can test. I'm wondering if we want to go that route. Is that asking too much of an applicant? Is that inappropriate given the new technologies and new ways of doing things that come on and are not tested? I do think that Palo Alto has some terrific examples of good work where they might be in the view that are using this material, and it's all gone quite well. Another brief discussion. I don't know if we have any examples of other cities doing this. Chair Baltay: Other cities, other places who have answered this better, any ideas? I'm just putting my head on the chopping block here. If you said something like all windows must be made with frames of metal or wood, you've immediately cut to what most architects would think of as high-quality windows. It excludes vinyl windows and fiberglass windows. I grant you that there's some manufacturers out there making good-quality products out of vinyl and fiberglass. If you're trying to get it objective, either we say anything flies or we have to give them something. We're making a tough choice here. I'm really feeling forced. I don't like to say that, but it's that or nothing. What do we do? Board Member Lee: Absolutely. I think prescribing specific materials would not be the direction to go. Chair Baltay: Other ideas? What direction is the direction to go? How do we do this, David, to get what you're saying without—I mean, the State law says you have to say something. We can't just say it has to be good. Ms. Eisberg: If I may interrupt. Just to be clear, one option is we don't do anything. We make no changes to the Code. It's just the understanding that with an SB 35 project or other streamlining that may come down the pike, there will not be an opportunity to use the Context-Based Design Criteria that is subjective or the findings to approve the project. As long as it meets all the standards that are currently in the Code, staff would have to approve it. We could do nothing. The State is not saying you have to adopt objective standards. It just says that a project only needs to comply with what you have. I'm just putting that out there. Also thinking about how your Code is set up now, there are standards, and then there are exceptions to that. Here's the parking standard. If you want to have an exception to that, you need to provide a parking study. The Director reviews it and says yes or no. You could have a 5.a Packet Pg. 160 City of Palo Alto Page 19 list of materials. All windows must be metal or wood frames unless you go through design review. Even an SB 35 project could not have vinyl windows. We can also have exceptions. Right now, as I recall, the Retail Protection Ordinance doesn't apply to a 100-percent affordable project. A 100-percent affordable project can be 100-percent residential in certain commercial districts, whereas market-rate projects need to be mixed-use. The thing that we can't do is create essentially a new class for projects that are trying to streamline. That's sort of this section of the Code only applies to SB 35 projects. I don't think we could do that under State law and meet the intent of SB 330. Do you have something else? Ms. Gerhardt: Just to drill down on the window topic, just because we can get our arms around it. Chair Baltay is saying that we could say that metal and wood windows are high quality if we can automatically agree to that. There may be some vinyl windows that are high quality. Depending how we write the guidelines, those vinyl windows would have to come before the ARB. The ARB would be able to make a subjective decision about are these particular vinyl windows high quality. It would give you that. There's still the freedom of vinyl windows happening, it's just that it would come before the Board, and there would be discretion. Board Member Lee: That's really helpful to know. I do think that works against our larger objective of accelerating the process. In my mind, that's not a direction that we would want to move towards since that would delay the projects in actually moving to completion, particularly SB 35 projects. Ms. Gerhardt: Very good point. In this change we're not actually changing the process necessarily. Even if a project met all of these new objective standards, we still have an ARB process. Projects are still going to come before you. In the effort of streamlining, because they've met all these objective standards, maybe we can do it in one hearing. That would be streamlining. They still all will come before you. Ms. French: Jeannie, you were getting to a point about you can't just say SB 35 or affordable housing projects, let's say, have this criteria. On Alex's point, let's say a 100-percent affordable housing project can use vinyl windows. Are you saying we're not able to just isolate and say those types of projects can follow these guidelines or are you not saying that? Ms. Eisberg: No, I think we could make exceptions for certain types of projects, like the 100-percent affordable projects. It's a little dicey if we're applying separate criteria to projects that qualify as Housing Accountability Act projects or as SB 35 projects. On that, we'd want to check with the (crosstalk). Ms. French: By that, you mean market-rate projects providing housing … Ms. Eisberg: Yes. That otherwise meet all objective standards but have this additional threshold that they also have to meet. Ms. French: When you say exceptions, I mean, we have an exception process, which kicks it into something. What we're saying is the Code or the objective standards as written could have exceptions for specific types of projects, like 100-percent affordable. If it's market rate, you don't get the exception for the vinyl window or what-have-you. That would be okay to consider? Ms. Eisberg: Right. I think so. As I mentioned, you have that now, as I recall, for the Retail Protection Ordinance, 100-percent affordable projects are exempt. That certainly meets the intent of these State laws. Mr. Sensenig: I just wanted to add something. On the windows, one of the things that we're doing in other cities, instead of restricting the material of the windows, is requiring that the window be punched or have trim that is in excess of 2 inches. Even though you might be using a lesser quality actual window, you're getting the reveal and the quality of construction and detailing that you may want in your city. 5.a Packet Pg. 161 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Baltay: That's a good idea. I know we've been at it a while, but I want to be sure we give them the feedback that we can. The issue of open space is something Alex brought up. Is there any way you could objectify not the amount of open space but where open space on a project is located? It's something I know on the Board we debate quite a bit, is it usable open space on the roof or in the back corner where there's no sunlight. Is there a way to objectify that to give them guidance on that? Anybody? Alex, what do you think? Grace? Anybody? Board Member Lee: I very much hesitate in prescribing location of open space in housing. I would really hesitate in doing that given the difficulties in how to achieve it. There is a percentage of open space that is required when you're doing an affordable project per your funding, but also for the City. It's amount of open space per occupant. I'm very comfortable with that. Chair Baltay: For example, we often encourage applicants to have private balconies on units as much as possible. I know with affordable housing that's very tough. It's something, again, if you don't put it down, we'd have no say in the process. Ms. French: If I can ask. Is that another item that could potentially be on a list of if it's affordable, then no balcony required or no private open space required, but you have to have, say, additional common open space or something? We have this family housing on Alma where they just don't have those balconies, but they do have homework area, a common area for the people to hangout and do their … Is that something that could be … Ms. Eisberg: Yes, I think we could do that. I remember as part of the Housing Ordinance last year, the ARB weighed in on some ideas about now rooftop open spaces are allowed in certain districts to qualify as common open spaces. We did include some setbacks of where that was located in terms of noise and light that would affect neighbors. As long as we're helping to generate housing and helping to generate affordable housing, we can make those types of exceptions. It's when we're going in the reverse and maybe creating a separate class for other uses (crosstalk). Ms. French: It seems a little sensitive too. If you're saying the market-rate units get to have private open space, but affordable—it's not that we're saying you can't do balconies on affordable housing, but it's just the notion of writing it so it's streamlined. If they don't provide the balconies, then it's looking like people that live in affordable housing don't get balconies. It's a sensitive dance. Ms. Eisberg: That architect and developer gets to choose whether it's balconies or common spaces. Sometimes I know they're required to have the play structures. Board Member Hirsch: I want to speak to that a little bit. Supportive housing, where you have a clientele that—let me put it bluntly—might jump, you give them balconies, and they might jump. Those agencies really resist using balconies at all. It's a warning here that there are other issues that affect the use of balconies. Chair Baltay: One more time, I'm going to ask everybody on a different topic of when it affects privacy around the community. When a building goes in, we have issues about shading. We can ask for a shadow study. Our Code just says it can't have too much of an impact. I forget the exact wording, but it's fairly vague. The same thing with asking for landscape buffers. Is there any way we can objectify or give them more clear guidance what might be a good idea regarding shading and landscape buffering? Any ideas again? Board Member Lew: On the shading requirement, I think the Code says to minimize the impacts of shading. My take on it is for the neighbors—even understanding the shading thing is difficult. My hunch is that just having a daylight plane is simple to understand and simple to enforce and set the standard. The daylight plane doesn't really take into account the solar orientation. It seems to me that to be easy to implement, the trick in the daylight plane will be—like on El Camino in our CS and CN zones where we have zero setback, on a small lot, on like a 50x100-foot lot on El Camino, a daylight plane could make a 5.a Packet Pg. 162 City of Palo Alto Page 21 project infeasible. I think we'll have to look at that really carefully or maybe set up a threshold, a standard where maybe it's only on lots of a certain size, like over an acre, then maybe the daylight plane is triggered. If it's a 5,000-square-foot lot, maybe there isn't a requirement. I think the landscape buffer is important. I think there may be a way of doing it less than 10 feet on a small lot. Chair Baltay: How would you specify what the landscape buffer is composed of? Board Member Lew: I think we already have that in our Performance Code of trees and shrubs. At the moment, we don't have any requirement for … Chair Baltay: How about something like it must be an evergreen tree, not a deciduous tree? Board Member Lew: I think we actually already have that in the Code. I think we actually have provisions for that. I think it's supposed to be mixed. On the open space, why don't I just cite two examples. We have Oak Court here in South of Forest, and then we have 801 Alma in SOFA II. I would argue that the Oak Court one, the playground is great. It's open to the street. It looks open so that any neighborhood child could use it. It's that inviting. It looks open and welcoming. You go the playground at 801 Alma. It's in the back. It's in the shade. The gate is sort of forbidding. It looks like a keep-out design to me. It's not that attractive. The times that I've gone by there, I haven't really seen anybody use it. It was put there to sort of appease the neighbors, so that there was some sort of playground between the market-rate and the affordable housing project. Maybe there's a way of saying that has to be visible to the street, that gates are visible from the street, that it is not walled off by high fences. Maybe there's a maximum height for the fence. Maybe it's an open fence and not a solid fence. I think there may be ways that we can address it in a small way. Chair Baltay: How about solar access on open space? Seventy-five percent of it has to have full sun access between 10:00 and 3:00 in the afternoon or something. Board Member Lee: I apologize, but I think both the comments that were just made are highly prescriptive and would be difficult to achieve for some applicants given a specific site. I really hesitate at those prescriptions. Chair Baltay: Grace, if they have the option to go through a design review instead, aren't those prescriptions better than nothing? Otherwise, you create … Board Member Lee: Again, we're trying to streamline housing approvals and accelerate housing. I'm worried that these very prescriptive treatments are going to deter housing proposals in our City. I'm sorry. That's how I feel. Chair Baltay: Let me throw at you, though, from a high level. Every affordable housing unit is required to have an ADA compatible bathroom. We've all agreed to that, even though we all know it dramatically increases the cost of the project. Yet, we're never questioning that. It's ADA; it still has to have it. Why would we say it's okay to have a playground in the shade at the back of the property, but they still have to have the ADA bathroom? It's the same type of thing. Board Member Lee: I'm just speaking for the 50-percent or more, 100-percent or more housing in terms of affordable housing. I just know those requirements per funding, that is grants, are highly prescriptive regarding the mix and how the open space is achieved. We won't be able to receive those projects from affordable housing developers with those restrictive guidelines. Those are not guidelines; those are restrictions. We will not receive applications. We're trying to enable that process, and that's why I'm hesitating. Mr. French: I keep asking the question if we can have that set for the market-rate projects as opposed to the affordable projects where you have to have more flexibility to get the grants and afford it. Again, without seeming like we're saying we're going to create substandard playgrounds for affordable projects, 5.a Packet Pg. 163 City of Palo Alto Page 22 if there's a delicate way to enable affordable projects to happen, that's what I keep coming back to. Is there a way to do that? Ms. Eisberg: I think we can exempt them from certain standards and criteria. That seems to be in line with the intent behind the State law. We would just check with the City Attorney. Chair Baltay: Is there anything else from staff, topics that we haven't tried to address? Maybe we've gone enough today on this. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I think it's been incredible, a good review. We have two sessions coming up, and we need to move forward. Chair Baltay: I will caution my colleagues. They're going to come back to us with some of these questions we've not addressed today. They're going to say, "What can we do with open space?" Now or the next meeting or the meeting after that, we have to either say, "Forget it. We're not going to put our stamp on it," or come to something that we can hold our noses and go at because it's going to be that kind of choice. This is an earlier opportunity to affect what comes later. Anything else from you, Jean? What are we missing? Ms. Eisberg: We've gotten a lot of great information. As you've struggled with it, this is really challenging. I know we have different opinions about approaches. We have a lot to chew on. When we do come back, I think we'll come back with actual Code sections, ideas maybe for just certain topic areas or certain locations. We're going to be doing work with staff over the next few months, as I mentioned, to potentially adjust some of the scoping related to some of the issues you brought up, that El Camino is different, that San Antonio is different, maybe reopening some of the design guidelines that exist in some of those locations. I think this has been really helpful. Hopefully, reacting to something concrete at the next meeting will be helpful for everybody and you can comment on if we've gone too prescriptive, too open-ended. Maybe we can also identify where some of those holes will be with what we lay out. Ms. French: I wonder if there's an advantage to having a subcommittee of members. If we don't come back until summer, because this is such a huge work effort, we might identify these areas of town and have discrete tasks that can involve focus on the SOFA area or where we do have these guidelines, Downtown or where we haven't yet cracked those open. If there's a subcommittee that's interested in forming to help us in the coming months before we do come back? Chair Baltay: I think we would all be more than happy to help in that manner. Why don't you see what committees or topics you'd like and, if you could just put it on one of our agendas, we can see who's suited or interested in addressing it. Is that a fair statement to everybody, that we're willing to help that way? Put extra time in as a subcommittee too. Board Member Lew: Yes. Ms. French: Another thing I heard was, is there a field trip to Hunters Point? Mr. Sensenig: Let me clarify those were just approved. There's nothing built. There's still potentially dangerous waste there, so there might not be anything built for a while. I would say the two projects that OCII in San Francisco over the past five to seven years has really been struggling with—not struggling with but trying to figure out how you create objective standards is the Pier 70 and Hunters Point are two documents to look at. Pier 70 uses a point-based system. Hunters Point took a different direction. I just also want to say I'm under no belief that creating objective standards makes good design. I understand that; I know that. What we're trying to do is preclude the worst offender and not step on the toes of architectural review boards and stuff like that and provide guidance. That's where we're coming from. As we present numbers and stuff and some options of how some of these design guidelines can be quantified, I expect it to be a big back-and-forth on what the dimensions are. Each city 5.a Packet Pg. 164 City of Palo Alto Page 23 is different. I look forward to working with you all on creating that balance and creating the right range and hopefully get to something where everyone feels comfortable that the City is getting what they want. Chair Baltay: We're going to close the hearing on the study session for today, on that one. Thank you very much, everybody. Action Items 3. Election of Chair and Vice Chair. Chair Baltay: We have one action item, which is election of Chair and Vice Chair. Does anybody have any comments, suggestions, concerns, make a motion? Board Member Lew: Which one are we going to do first? Chair first? Chair Baltay: Yes. NOMINATION Board Member Lew: I will nominate Peter Baltay to be Chair. Board Member Hirsch: Second. Board Member Lee: We both second. Chair Baltay: It's been moved and seconded. All those in favor. Very good. That motion passes 4-0 with Osma Thompson not here. NOMINATION APPROVED 4-0 NOMINATION Chair Baltay: I will make a motion to nominate Osma Thompson for Vice Chair. Board Member Hirsch: Second. Chair Baltay: Moved and seconded. All those in favor. Opposed. That motion passes as well 4-0 with Osma Thompson not being present. NOMINATION APPROVED 4-0 Approval of Minutes Chair Baltay: Next one is approval of Minutes. Do we have any Minutes? Ms. Gerhardt: We don't have any Minutes this time actually. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Chair Baltay: We have Board Member announcements. Alex, your announcement. Board Member Lew: On February 27 from 6:00 to 9:00, there's going to be a North Ventura community meeting for the public. It's at Gunn in the new Student Activity Center, Room P-16. The three alternatives that the design consultant has been working on will be up for comments. They're very different, so now's the time for the public to weigh in. 5.a Packet Pg. 165 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Baltay: Are those alternatives available for review in advance? Board Member Lew: There is a dedicated website for that. I think they're probably not up there yet, but I can alert the Board when they're posted to the website. Chair Baltay: Please do that. Anything else? Any other announcements? With that, we're adjourned. We have one subcommittee item. Let's resume for that in five minutes' time. Thank you, everybody. Subcommittee Items 4. 744 San Antonio Road (15PLN-00347): Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project with Applicant Request to Change the Color of the Former Courtyard Hotel (now Tribute) Wall Elevations. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with Section 15061(b)(3) (No Significant Effect on the Environment). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Sheldon S. Ah Sing, at sahsing@m-group.us. Adjournment 5.a Packet Pg. 166 Architectural Review Board CITY OF PALO ALTO Subcommittee Review TO:Randy Popp,904 High Street,Palo Alto,CA 94301 SUBJECT:788 San Antonio Road [5PLN-00314J DATE:February 6,2020 FROM:Sheldon S.Ah Sing,AICP,Consultant Planner PLANNER’S SIGNATURE c%i The application,and plans dated January 29,2020,was reviewed by the ARB Subcommittee on February 6,2020 as a request by the applicant to change the color scheme for a building under construction.The ARB Subcommittee comprised of Board members Baltay and Lew. At the meeting,the Subcommittee agreed with the revisions presented with no conditions added. The applicant shall ensure these changes are incorporated into the design. Copies sent to: Project File 5.a Packet Pg. 167 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11141) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 3/5/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Subcommittee Review of Bicycle & Tree Locations Title: 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project that was Conditioned to Return with a Tree Replacement Plan and Details for the Location of New Bicycle Parking. 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). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Subcommittee confirm the project revisions satisfy the two items of the Planning and Development Services Director’s Project Approval Condition #4. Background On February 20, 2020, the Director conditionally approved the subject project. At the ARB’s recommendation, the Director imposed Condition of Approval #4, requiring certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee. A video recording of the ARB’s last meeting on this project is available online: http://bit.ly/MACYSARB3. The ARB is encouraged to confirm that the proposed project changes satisfy Approval Condition #4. Below are the two items that are required to be review by the ARB Subcommittee: a. Final location of all bicycle parking (including 70 new spaces). Bicycle rack specifications and details, and final design of cargo bicycle parking. 6 Packet Pg. 168 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 b. To ensure a no net loss of canopy, the project is required to plant 249 trees throughout the site and/or make an in-lieu payment. Staff will work with the applicant to find suitable locations for these trees on site and adjacent to the site. The applicant will provide the ARB subcommittee with an updated tree map, showing the location of all “no net loss” trees to be planted and shall make an in-lieu payment for any trees that are not able to be placed on-site, per Condition #75. Item a, Bicycle Location and Design Plan The applicant submitted an updated site plan that details the locations of the proposed bicycle locations throughout the site, including 70 additional spaces. In addition, the submittal includes design details for site planning within the Shopping Center walkways and the design for the cargo bicycle parking spaces as detailed below. Item b, Tree Replanting Plan The applicant has provided a tree replacement plan that includes planting locations throughout the greater site. In combination with Staff and the project arborist, the applicant is proposing to plant a total of 64 trees within the redeveloped area and 59 additional trees within the greater Shopping Center site. Given 249 replacement trees are required, the applicant will pay an in- lieu payment for $650 per tree for the remaining trees, which will be planted by the City’s Urban Forestry Team throughout the City. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 169 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Samuel Gutierrez, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Project Plans (DOCX) 6 Packet Pg. 170 ATTACHMENT A 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 to find “180 El Camino Real – Macy’s Men’s” 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: http://bit.ly/180ECRMM 6.a Packet Pg. 171 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11140) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 3/5/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 400 Channing Ave and 909 Waverley Street: Subcommittee Review of Facade Changes Title: 400 Channing Avenue [16PLN-00381]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That is Requesting Review of Facade Modifications Made in the Field. The Subject Site is Lot One and has a new Address of 909 Waverley Street. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Guideline Section 15303 (new construction). Zoning District: DHS District in the SOFA I CAP. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. Background On July 27, 2017, the Director of Planning approved the subject project for the demolition of an existing one-story medical building and construction of two (2) two-story homes, each with full basement and accessory dwelling unit (ADU) above a detached two-car garage. A video recording of the Board’s last meeting on this project is available online: (https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-65/). Upon inspection of the site on February 7, 2020, it was discover that 909 Waverley Street (Lot One) had deviated away from the approved design. The modifications have been listed below: 1. Entry Door 2. Exterior Light Fixture 3. Vehicular Gate at Driveway City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 4. Eave Detailing and Color Changes (Soffit trim and Up-curl eave at Living Room and Right Building Corner) 5. Wall Vent at Living Room and Wall Trim Under Gables 6. Window Recess and Detailing Change on Front Facade 7. Bay Window Trim Color 8. Placement and number of corbels under bay window 9. Window Grid Changes and no grids at bay window 10. Chimney Shroud Style Staff is bringing these changes forward to the ARB Subcommittee to ensure they have a chance to review modification for a project for which they made a recommendation. Given the significant number of changes, Staff would appreciate the Subcommittee’s help in determining if the new façade details work together to create a complete style and if this new style is in keeping with the neighborhood. The Subcommittee is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether “as built” conditions are sufficient or requires further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Danielle Condit, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2242 (650) 329-2575 Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Applicant's Description Letter (PDF) • Attachment B: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org WEC & Associates 2625 Middlefield Rd, #658, Palo Alto, CA94306 Tel: (650) 387-2692 Fax: (650) 887-1294 1 February 21, 2020 To: Planning Department City of Palo Alto Re: Project Description – 909 Waverley Street, Palo Alto, CA This letter serves as a project description detailing changes were made during construction that deviate from the approved plan and the reasons of the changes. This project was approved by ARB in July 2017. During construction, the owner of 909 Waverley Street anticipates that the exterior of the house remain as English cottage style with some contemporary elements to reflect the current progress of the housing design. For this reason, we simplified certain exterior design features. The details are shown in the attached drawings. The list of the changes made to achieve this is as follow: 1. Eliminated decorative wood trims at front gables. See sheet A.1. 2. Eliminated curved eave at front gables. See sheet A.1. 3. Changed entry door style to be consistent with contemporary interior finishes. See sheet A.1. 4. Changed driveway gate to have a flat top. See sheet A.1. 5. Simplified window muntin patterns to have clean view from both inside and outside. See sheet A.1 to A.6. 6. Changed chimney shroud style to a clean profile. See sheet A.1. 7. Changed the exterior light fixture style. See attached material board. Another reason for the onsite change deviating from the original plan is the fact that the space is very limited in certain area. The below is a list of changes due to this reason: 1. Eliminated eave trims on first floor eave because there is not enough the space between top of the widow to eave for the eave trims. 2. Eliminated gable vents/decorative wood eave trims above living room baywindow because of the space limitation. 3. Installed two corbels at living room baywindow instead of four corbels because the baywindow is angled on both sides. There is no space for four corbels. We strive to provide quality construction for our project. And we appreciate your understanding and your support. Sincerely, Jing Quan Project Architect WEC & Associates Attachment B 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 “400 Channing Ave” 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=4832&TargetID=319