The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-06-04 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 Subcommittee Meeting: June 4, 2020 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 994 1478 7737 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. Subcommittee Item Vice Chair Thompson and Boardmember Hirsch 1.380 Cambridge Avenue [15PLN-00249]: Subcommittee Review of a Revised Plan Submitted to Address an Approval Condition for a Previously Approved Project; Plan Revision Relates to the Backflow Preventer Location. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15332. Zoning District: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial with Retail Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@mgroup.us _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Peter Baltay Vice Chair Osma Thompson Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember Grace Lee Boardmember Alex Lew Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Public comment is encouraged. Email the ARB at: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at bit.ly/paloaltoARB. 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 # 11350) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 6/4/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 380 Cambridge: Subcommittee Review Title: 380 Cambridge Avenue [15PLN-00249]: Subcommittee Review of a Revised Plan Submitted to Address an Approval Condition for a Previously Approved Project; Plan Revision Relates to the Backflow Preventer Location. Environmental Assessment: Categorically Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15332. Zoning District: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial with Retail Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@mgroup.us From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Subcommittee take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or confirm the applicant’s response (project revisions) satisfies the relevant approval condition. Background On February 25, 2019 the Director of Planning and Development Services approved the subject project. At the ARB’s recommendation, the approval included a condition (Condition 11 (g)) to require the relocation of the backflow preventer to the rear of the property. If relocation was not possible, the applicant was to demonstrate the final location of the backflow preventer for the ARB Subcommittee to review. The January 17, 2019 ARB meeting video recording is available online: https://tinyurl.com/1-17-2019-ARB-Video. Staff requests the Subcommittee’s input confirming whether or not the proposed changes are sufficient to meet the approval condition. Further discussion below describes the applicant’s response: Architecture Review Condition 11 g: 1 Packet Pg. 3 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 • Relocate the backflow preventer to the rear of the building (if not, then demonstrate to ARB Subcommittee prior to building permit) Applicant’s Response: The applicant prepared technical drawings showing the backflow preventer set back at least 20’-0” from the sidewalk. The applicant submitted these drawings for a Building Permit, in response to the ARB’s approval condition. However, the Utilities Department staff could not accept the new location. Utilities staff required the device to be near the street, to make connections with the ‘wet’ utility lines. The location Utilities staff approves is typically within five feet of the front property line. The applicant now proposes an alternative location from the plans presented to the ARB previously. The new location is at the front right of the building within a landscaped area, to place two backflow preventers (domestic and irrigation water). The applicant cites the following advantages of this location: • The device will be completely shrouded by ornamental grasses, but accessible for maintenance; • The landscape plantings will anchor the corner of the building, provide a softened transition from the sidewalk, and provide relief from the hardscape of the outdoor patio; • The patio area can be expanded to where the device was previously proposed; • The new locations will comply with the Utilities Department location requirements. Staff’s Analysis The original location of the devices was in the rear of the outdoor patio area (See Figure 1). The ARB expressed concern that the location of the device, coupled with the location of the transformer pad, limited the potential for an active outdoor patio space. The proposed plan eliminates the transformer pad location and relocates the backflow preventer devices to the corner at the front of the patio (See Figure 1). The proposed location of the backflow preventers is acceptable to the Utilities Department. The devices are out of the primary path for users of the outdoor patio and would be screened by vegetation. This new layout for the patio is more conducive to outdoor gatherings given the potential foot traffic from the sidewalk into the tenant entry. The proposed revisions to the project appear to maintain the project’s consistency with Architectural Review findings 3, 4 and 5. Figure 1: Comparison of Backflow Preventer Locations 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Proposed location Previous approved location Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Sheldon S. Ah Sing, AICP, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 340-5642 X 109 (650) 329-2575 sahsing@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: January 17, 2019 ARB Excerpt Minutes (PDF) • Attachment B: Applicant's Response Letter (PDF) • Attachment C: Signed Approval Letter (PDF) • Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Palo Alto Page 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD EXCERPT MINUTES: January 17, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and David Hirsch. Absent: None. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 380 Cambridge [15PLN-00249]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of Three Existing Commercial Buildings Totaling 32,083 Square Feet and to Construct a New Three-Story Commercial Building Totaling 35,000 Square Feet. In Addition, There is a Request to Waive an Off-Street Loading Space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15332 (InFill Development Projects). Zoning District: CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial with Retail Shopping Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group. Chair Furth: Okay. Item 3 on our agenda is also quasi-judicial. The site is 380 Cambridge. It's a recommendation on the owner's request for approval of a major architectural review to allow demolition of three existing commercial buildings with a total area of about 32,000 square feet and constructing a new three-story commercial building totaling 35,000 square feet. There is also a request -- but not to us - - to waive an off-street loading space. The environmental assessment is that this is exempt from the provisions of CEQA because it is infill. I forgot last time to mention who the applicant was, and who the architects were. I'm sure the applicant will tell us that if the staff doesn't. Any disclosures? I will start out by saying that I visited this site previously and visited it again on Wednesday. 1.a Packet Pg. 6 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Lew: I also visited the site again yesterday, and I actually did go back to College Avenue and sort of peeked through all of the apartment, the gaps in the apartment buildings, towards the back of the proposed project site. Chair Furth: Anybody else? Vice Chair Baltay: Go ahead, David. Board Member Hirsch: Visited the site this past week. Chair Furth: Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I also visited the site, again, this past week. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Thompson: I was sick and could not visit. Chair Furth: Board Member Thompson is excused for illness. May we have the staff report? Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner: Yes, good morning. I'm Sheldon Ah Sing, Contract Planner, and I have a presentation. The applicant is also here with their presentation. The project is located at 380-400 Cambridge, three properties, three adjacent buildings. The request is as stated - to demolish all of those and to create a new building. The project has been around for a few years now, it seems like, and the code has changed a couple of times, as well as we have been to the Board, last in December 2017. This image here shows that the project is in the context of a California commercial district, as well as showing some of the properties adjacent along Cambridge Avenue. At that meeting with the Board last, there were some comments, and the applicant has had some revisions or responses to those. Some of the big ones here are mentioned, the others are included in the staff report. But the ones here worth noting would be the massing needs to be broken up, and the applicant has responded to that with some revised elevations and some significant changes to the materials. Another one is to provide or look into providing the loading space on site, and the applicant has explored those options. We'll go into more detail about that later in this presentation. Some other things would be, how does the project be more pedestrian- friendly? On the north side of the building now, adjacent to the City's parking lot, there are opportunities there for outdoor seating, as well as a balcony on the second floor for the tenants. Also, notches are on the façade on the first floor, at the sidewalk, to provide more landscaping opportunities, places to put bike racks, as well. Another issue was to address the neighbors. There were neighbor concerns on the south side with the residential building there, as well as the existing residences to the rear of the property. The applicant has made a lot of outreach effort in addressing those issues, and the applicant will explain some of those. And then, there's some concern about having large floor plates, and the plans were revised to demonstrate that those plate spaces could be demised in ways that are more flexible. Chair Furth: And just to be clear, for those of us who aren't specialists, "demised" often refers to death. You mean leased, right? Mr. Ah Sing: Yes. Separated, so, in a way that they're not just the single type of large floor plates. I think the concern was to have (inaudible). These could be subleased or... Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Ah Sing: ...in smaller spaces. The project is consistent with the zoning code. There is a request for a waiver of the loading space, and that is included in the zoning code. The project does maximize the floor area. The majority of it, the office space, 30,000 square feet, that's on the second and third story, and then there is retail that they are actually keeping on the first floor and expanding upon, and they are providing 15 parking spaces. A little more detail on that. They're adding just over 2,400 square feet of 1.a Packet Pg. 7 City of Palo Alto Page 3 new commercial space on the ground floor and just 512 square feet of office space. The height limit is being maintained. Last time, they were trying to get an exception to that. As I mentioned, they are maximizing the FAR. The total addition of the square footage of this project, demolishing everything and adding new, is 2,817 square feet. It is within the California Avenue Parking District, so they did pay into that district. In all, they just have to provide 15 additional parking spaces, so that's what they are providing on the site. The daylight plane applies to the project, and that is at the rear. They are compliant with that. And then, these are some of the renderings of the building. I'll let the applicant go into more details, but you can see the changes from the previous iteration on the top to the bottom, and they've recessed some portions of the building. They've added some more pedestrian-friendly outdoor spaces on the ground floor, as well as on the upper floor along the City's parking lot. They've introduced some warmer colors and materials, as well. Here's another rendering of that. This elevation, again, shows kind of differences between the first iteration that you saw and the second iteration. This was the iteration. Both had the 35-foot height. And then, the ground level shows you some of the differences. There was more landscaping along the north side of the building in the first iteration, but you will see that now, more of that open space is toward the street, so it does make the street scape a little more pedestrian-friendly, but still provides access for the bike lockers and garage in the back. Moving on to the loading space, this was one issue where, the Board had some concern about it and asked the applicant to go back and look at it more. The existing condition now for the property, there's a curb cut along the north side of the property, and that's adjacent to the City lot. That would be eliminated with this project and create a new curb cut on the south side. But, in all, the amount of parking spaces along the street would remain the same. Lose one, gain one. Per the code, one loading space is required to be on site. However, a waiver is permitted by the Director of Planning. It's either a whole space or some kind of dimensional space change - width/length/height. The applicant has looked at several options and those were included in your packet, as well as we have a summary in the staff report. In general, on that street there are nearby loading parking spaces. They're not necessarily adjacent to the site, but there is opportunity to do that. If you can see on the other drawings, if you do provide a loading space within the building, you would have to depress the garage for the control of the height. For a UPS truck, for instance. And in one instance, if you maintain just one curb cut, then that truck would have to back up in the garage and then go out. Or, if you wanted to make it a little more reasonable for the truck driver, then you would have to have two curb cuts. One of the findings for the waiver of a loading space is, does it conflict with any Comprehensive Plan goals and policies? There is one that encourages the expansion and retention of retail space, and also pedestrian-oriented street scape. In the case here of having two curb cuts, that obviously would change the design of the building, which is, as it is designed, more pedestrian-friendly. Also, maximizes the amount of retail that you would have. If you were to add the loading space on site, you would lose a little under 1,000 square feet of commercial space on the ground floor. For those reasons, staff is supporting the waiver of the loading space. Regarding the public comments -- and these were neighbor issues -- there has been a neighbor in the rear with some unique health issues. There's a speaker here today that will talk to you about that. Also, in front of you this morning, there was some correspondence that came in, a two-page Memorandum of Understanding between the owner, the resident, and the subject property owner, having to do with how to address construction impacts and operation impacts of the project. Those led to some of the constraints regarding, for instance, having native plants on the site. Part of it was this constraint. The other issue was neighbor to the south regarding shade from the building. In both instances, the applicant has been in contact with neighbors, resolved the issues, and design changes to the building have occurred. Regarding the environmental determination of CEQA, we are recommending determination that the project is exempt from CEQA because we believe it is an infill project. In conclusion, we believe that the project has responded to the Board's concerns and issues, and we also believe that it appears to have met the required findings for architectural review. The project does appear to have justified the reasons for the waiver of the parking space for loading. The project did meet findings for CEQA exception. With that, we recommend approval of the project subject to the Director of Planning, and based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions? Seeing none, if we could hear from the applicant. You'll have 10 minutes to speak after you spell your name. 1.a Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Steve Pierce, Applicant: Madam Chair, members of the Board, I'm Steve Pierce [spells name]. I am the project applicant. Just echo a couple of things. We have met with our neighbors to the south. There are four condominiums, two of which we share a common property line. And in deference to those, we've changed the massing along that wall, along that side of the building, as well as reduced the height of our building. Now it's about seven feet below the height of the condominiums to the left. Have continued our conversations with Robin Fath [phonetic] to the rear. You've got a letter there, so we've got an approach. We're going to build a, basically an air filtration system for her, so that will mitigate any kind of issues relative to our, to the construction. There's been pretty much wholesale changes to the building in response to the Board's comments last time we were before you. One of the things I'm excited about in particular is being able to kind of gather some of our open space on the front right of the building, to create space for a sidewalk café, to kind of animate what is now a pretty dead zone. Let me turn things over to our project architect, Michael Castro, who will fill in the details. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Michael Castro, Architect: Good morning, members of the Board. My name is Michael Castro [spells name]. We've been working on the project now for over two years and gave us a good opportunity to work with our client, but also gave us a chance to actually make this building right. We've presented the last time. We understood your comments, and I'm going to go through that generally, and then, get a little bit more into specifics that may not be ready, items that are brought up to date. Initially, the main comments were that the massing was too much. It was overwhelming. We wanted to break down that massing. We wanted to put materials that became a little bit more tangible and address the pedestrian level. The other thing at the pedestrian level, we wanted to create these ins-and-outs that would make that pedestrian experience a little bit more interesting. You'll see some nooks that are in between some of these massing elements that are in the elevation. That began itself in the first iteration but never really got to a level where we are today. The main thing that you're looking at from the original design is two primary masses with a transition space in between, and the entry was integral to one of the larger masses. Now, we're taking that entry, allowing that to be another separator, making it really two different buildings, but the one building to, I'll call it the west, or to the left of your screen, is actually broken down again in its massing. Done that with recesses and with balconies. Again, this building is brick all the way up, with the transitions being in metal and glass. The building on the right is brick up to the second story with an attic of metal and glass. Again, we're trying to give a little bit of variety. We're trying to break down the massing in different ways. Two things it does is try to create the apparent two- building look, than one large building. That was tried in the beginning, but as you can see, it was a little bit more uniform. I'm going to go through these relatively quickly. I'm just going to stop at some of the key points. These are our neighboring buildings, and as you see, our site is between a residential condo building and a commercial building across the parking lot. The existing buildings right now, we're feeling this is going to make a big impact in the neighborhood by improving the architecture. The main thing on the site plan is we had a remote transformer that was in front of the parking lot. We're bringing that closer to the building. We're trying to condense everything related to our building in our footprint. Again, you know, on the floor plans for the second floor and the third floor, we show it demised or broken up into smaller tenant spaces because this building can be demised. The idea of the core design was to give a lot of variety to what can happen in this building. The roof is screened, and we went through that before, but the main thing to see on the roof plan here is that the third floor up to the roof is set back, and this was the result of our meetings with adjoining neighbors, to allow the maximum light and air into their spaces that have windows. The location of these light wells were right in front of where the windows are into the units. The elevations, again, you can see how it's broken into the two major masses, and the undulations on the ground floor. The far right, we'll get into a little bit more later on. It's almost like a micro plaza. The façade that's facing the parking lot has one blank wall, which we think is an opportunity for artwork. We're hoping local artwork. But about one-half of that façade is actually decks recessed, giving covered open space as well as amenity space to the building. You'll see in the plan, too, that that deck is along Cambridge, as far away from the adjoining residential as possible. This is the rear elevation, and this is 10 foot setback from the adjoining residential buildings to the north. Okay. Materials, we have two material boards against the wall there, but primarily it's metal, it's aluminum panel, stucco, which is the back of the building, and brick veneer. And the brick veneer is 1.a Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Page 5 going to be on a, basically a stucco construction with the brick being the face of that, of the finish. Those materials were picked up from what we saw when we walked down Cambridge and adjoining buildings. We have examples of brick, we have examples of plaster, and examples of metal facades, just in, you know, a block radius. Again, what we're doing... This is taking a view, looking what I'm calling, we're calling west, the left side of the plan. Looking northwest. The attic is metal and glass, as I mentioned earlier. We broke down the scale of that with the size of our window pane, so you'll see some intermediate horizontal mullions to break down that scale even further. And, we detailed the brick so that there's interest in the detailing, it's not just a blank brick façade or a level brick façade. We have corbeling that happens around the arching, and we have some other steps and corniches that are implemented into brick to give it interest. This is a view looking at the Cambridge façade. Like the other scheme, we have a central commercial entry for the building, for the second and third floors. That is off of Cambridge. And, we have some retail entrances. The retail floors, ultra-clear glazing, and the upper floors are, right now it's z50, PPG z50, which is a light-gray glazing. The ground floor gives opportunities. We have sun shading devices, which give opportunities for signage. We also have a fascia of metal panel that's above the doors that allows another opportunity for signage or numbering of the doors, of the addresses. There's also opportunities with the columns for blade signs. We're showing some hoops out front for additional bicycle parking, and again, this is looking at the arches that are corbeled back to the metal façade that slides behind it. And then, we have the metal extending out to create these decks on the far east side, which today is more or less a driveway. We're trying to create a little micro plaza. This is a little bit detail of the entry into the main office building, and to the left is, again, retail at ground level with the office above, and decks and the other recesses created. This is a close-up image of where we're peeling back the building on the east side, on Cambridge, which allows for a possible tenant to extend out a coffee or a café. It is also an opportunity to put some more green and planting in there, so it's a buffer as well as an amenity. It's also a relief in the sidewalk. It gives a special event along the length of the building. This is just an overview, just to see how the relationship of our building is to its neighboring buildings. To the north, or to the back of our building, we have a daylight plane, which we are within. We have a 10-foot setback, as well as a setback from our neighbors to the north. And we're having a visual screen, which is a, I believe, a seven-foot wood fence with bamboo right now as a screen, a planted screen. Again, with our meetings with our adjoining neighbors to the west, we created light wells that are specifically related, as I mentioned before, to the windows of the units. These are some sections that indicate that. Some more three-dimensional views. The intent, too, as we were talking, what would they prefer... Chair Furth: Excuse me, you hit your time limit. Could you take about a minute to wind up? Mr. Castro: Sure. We're on the last slide. I just wanted to point out that these light wells could be also accentuated by planting walls of green. We gave that opportunity to the neighbors, asked them to tell us their preference, whether they want to do it with color and reflectivity to get more light in, or if they want to do it with planting. That's an open area, but right now, we're showing planting. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Castro: Okay. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any questions of the applicant's architect? Not at this time. Board Member Thompson: I got one. Chair Furth: Sorry. Board Member Thompson has a question for you. Board Member Thompson: Can we go back one slide really quick? Your neighborhood slide? What's the material that's facing the neighborhood? I kind of see that the brick stops at that corner. Mr. Castro: Yeah. The brick is a primary material on Cambridge. It returns to where it would potentially be visible, and then it turns into stucco. The back of the building is stucco up until where it converts to 1.a Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Page 6 brick again on the other side of the building, on the east side. Let me just go back on the elevation really fast. Stucco wraps the building and dies in this inside corner. You have stucco to... Board Member Thompson: I was talking about the other side, on the neighbors' side. Mr. Castro: Okay. This is the brick, turning the corner from Cambridge, and this is, it's hard to read, but it's actually doing something like this in profile. Which, this is a light well, this is a light well, these two rectangles, and this is all stucco. Board Member Thompson: Okay, so it's a little bit different than your render. Mr. Castro: No, the renderings are consistent. Board Member Hirsch: (inaudible) Board Member Thompson: Yeah, the brick doesn't turn the corner in the render all the way, as far as it's showing in this elevation. Next one. [Locating slide] Board Member Thompson: That one. Kind of see how that face of that building...? Yeah, where your mouse is right there. Mr. Castro: Yeah, the intent is the brick returns that one bay. Board Member Thompson: That whole wall is brick. Mr. Castro: Yes. And it goes up to our parapet and returns down. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: I have a question. Chair Furth: Yes, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: On the balconies, it's an aluminum covered steel structure that holds up the balconies in the front? Mr. Castro: Yes. On the east side it's a steel frame, exposed steel frame... Board Member Hirsch: Steel frame. Mr. Castro: ...painted the same as aluminum. Board Member Hirsch: But the cover is aluminum throughout on the... Mr. Castro: Correct. Board Member Hirsch: ...fascia. Mr. Castro: All the fascias, all the mullions, are aluminum. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. And the same is true of the pop-area on the right-hand side that's metallic? That will be a steel structure as well? And then, covered in aluminum? 1.a Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Castro: I thought you were talking about initially this... Board Member Hirsch: The area on the top. Well, no, not ... Mr. Castro: The area on top is, yeah, it's... The building itself is going to be a concrete building. Board Member Hirsch: It's a concrete building. Mr. Castro: It's going to be a concrete building. We're going to have the equivalent of a curtain wall on the front, a curtain wall wrapping the building. But you're going to have some type of light-gauge metal framing that's going to be behind the metal façade, which is going to be aluminum on the top attic. Board Member Hirsch: And then, just to continue that, the area that is the balcony is thinner dimension, so is it exposed steel? Mr. Castro: It's going to be concrete clad aluminum. Board Member Hirsch: Pardon? It's a concrete...? Mr. Castro: Yeah, so, it's going to be concrete deck extending out, and then, you're going to have a fascia of aluminum. Board Member Hirsch: Held up by a steel structure there, which is... Mr. Castro: Held by a concrete structure. Board Member Hirsch: Concrete? I'm sorry? Mr. Castro: Oh, not on the, on the decks on the far right? That's exposed steel, steel columns. Board Member Hirsch: That's exposed steel? Mr. Castro: Right, and exposed steel beams. That's the only exception to the concrete structure. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Furth: Okay. I have three speaker cards here. Larry Skarset, to be followed by Karen Price, to be followed by Birgit Werner. Larry Skarset: Hello. My name is Larry Skarset. I'm the owner of the.... [phone ringing]. My name is Larry Skarset, owner of the Cambridge Barber and Beauty Salon. I'd like to give thanks to the... [phone ringing]. This is awful. Chair Furth: Take your time. Mr. Skarset: I'd like to give thanks to the City for giving me a small independent owner doing business in the city. I started cutting hair in Palo Alto when I was 20 years old. I'm 72 in a few days. I've had a wonderful experience here. Met a lot of wonderful people. It's a diverse community, it's a great place to do business. I've been able to flourish, but have a lot of concerns as a small business owner, just to pay the rents and keep everything going. As you know, the retail business is going through a tough environment and small mom-and-pops just cannot make it in this valley anymore. People... The rents are just too high. I know that capitalism is, business is business. Times change, I know, and concerned, but I'm concerned, and a lot of people are, in the community is overbuilt, and the commercial buildings, and the rents, and the owners of the building. They think they can just build buildings up and everybody is going to flood in there. Dot-com startups. I've been here 50-some years, I can see them go up and 1.a Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Page 8 down, start-up, start-down. That's not my problem. When they get the building, I'm sure they'll get the tenants to come in. A question that I have, and I'm reading through these plans, is will the displaced tenants like me have a chance to come back into the building, and at what price? I know the rents will be higher. It's a concern for a lot of people in this valley right now. I love the area, but it is getting to be where the valley is looking like it's getting to be the people who have wealth, and the people who don't have. You're either going to have to go with the times, or not. I know this is probably going to be approved, but I’m looking right now to find another space, but it's not easy to find another thing to go to. But the Lord has been good to me, so I'll be able to, to go on. I don't like to see Palo Alto get too upscale and the average guy cannot... And I’m concerned about the younger people. Will they have the opportunity I had, to start up a little small business? A donut shop, or any kind of a business. Will they be able to do it? I don't know. And I thank the City for giving the opportunity to work here these many years. I've done very well. But it's a struggle for a small business right now. I think the City should give us some concern to some of those things. That's all I'd like to say. Chair Furth: Mr. Skarset, are you a tenant in the buildings that exist on the site right now? Mr. Skarset: Yes, I'm the owner of the barber and beauty salon. Chair Furth: Got it. And your name is S-k-a-r-s-e-t? Mr. Skarset: Correct. Chair Furth: All right. Thank you. The views you expressed are widely shared. Mr. Skarset: Thank you. Chair Furth: Karen Price? Karen Price: Hi. Good morning. Almost good afternoon. My name is Karen Price. [spells name] I have been renting my advanced rolfing studio at 378 Cambridge Avenue since the spring of 1979. I'm here to ask you to please not approve the demolition of the three office buildings known as the 380 Cambridge Avenue Project. The size and scope of this project does not fit Cambridge Avenue at all. It will destroy the character of the street and look like a fortress in comparison to the other buildings, no matter how you try to prettify it. The current three buildings are lovely, as you've all been there and seen, with inner atriums, skylights, and most importantly, small office spaces that adjoin to perfectly accommodate either a sole professional such as myself, or a growing small business. We desperately need to keep our rapidly- dwindling supply of affordable office space. Once it's gone, there will only be very expensive offices that only well-funded tech companies or financial institutions can afford. As we speak, there are three large office buildings under construction just around California Avenue, in addition to several recently completed. They will bring hundreds of workers and greatly increase our already overly crowded roads and strained parking, while denying valuable services to the community. As the population keeps increasing, the demand for services such as family law, accounting, psychotherapy, bodyworks such as rolfing, also keeps increasing. We simply cannot afford the rent in these new buildings. By forcing us and our practices out of affordable offices in Palo Alto and into increasingly remote communities, we not only increase traffic congestion and eliminate walkability, but end up denying the very services that people need, and that are truly the fabric of our community. These large buildings that are going up all over Palo Alto are like mushrooms after the rain, and just as toxic to our community. Please do not approve this project. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Our next speaker is Birgit Werner. Birgit Werner: Hello. That's Birgit Werner [spells name]. Good morning. I'm here today on behalf of Robin Foff [phonetic], who owns one of the properties directly behind the proposed development. She has an immune system disorder which makes her extremely vulnerable to air pollutants, both particulates and fumes especially. This prevents her from being here in person today, and also means that such a long 1.a Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Page 9 construction project so close to her presents a severe health challenge. Last year, we asked for your support for reasonable accommodation for Robin's disability. Today, we're happy to tell you that we have a Memorandum of Understanding with Greenhart [phonetic] that mitigates some of the air quality effects on Robin without impeding the progress of the project. Among other items, the MOU includes a significant upgrade to Robin's air filtration system for the duration of the construction, and the careful choice of some hypoallergenic landscaping plants. It also acknowledges the need for full communication and cooperation throughout the construction, and the ongoing operations of the building. The full text of the MOU is attached to the letter in your packet. In closing, we would like to thank you, the Board, for acknowledging Robin's concerns. Sheldon, thank you very much for your understanding and patience through this whole, very long process. Steve, we are most grateful for your generosity. Thank you to you and your team for working with us to address Robin's concerns in a meaningful way. You've really gone out of your way to be a good neighbor. Thank you, and thank you, all. Chair Furth: Thank you very much. Jeff Levinsky. Jeff Levinsky: I have just a few minutes to thank, to say "good morning" again, Board. [spells name] Paul Machado from Evergreen Park and I spoke at the previous hearing on this project, and a concern that we raised was about the parking calculations and such. That has not been fixed in what you have before you, so I'm going to walk you through it as carefully as I can. If you look at page 5 of your current plans, it has the parking calculations for the project. Right in the center of the middle column, it says that there is a common area of 1,716 square feet. That's all on the first floor and includes two regular bathrooms, two bathrooms with showers, a lobby to get to those, elevator and stairs, utility areas like electrical and trash. Further down in that column, the common area is all considered part of the office space. Well, if you're trying to lower your parking requirements, that's a great idea, because office space needs less parking than retail. But if the common area is only for the offices, then there's no restrooms and no showers for the first-floor tenants and customers. There's no utilities for them. That's not believable. Unless the City says it's okay now to have retail without bathrooms or utilities, please ask that the common area be apportioned between the retail and the office. That's problem number one. The other problem is that the calculations actually are ignoring the way the City has always done things for the Cal Ave assessment district. For every other new building or expansion I've seen in that district, the City totals up how much parking the entire new building needs. It then subtracts how many parking spaces the building paid in to the assessment district for in the final year that it was paying in. The new building must then provide the difference. They need so much, they paid in for such much, they have to provide the difference. But that's not the way these plans list. As far as I can tell, the buildings paid in for a total of 102 parking spaces. That's according to the most recent records I have for the district. That was for three different uses, not the two uses -- retail and office -- that are claimed in these plans. Instead, the plans are using a completely different calculation where they only are providing parking for the additional space, and they are assuming that the existing space is properly parked. Big shocker to everybody in this room. Not every building in Palo Alto is properly parked, so you can't assume going forward that the building you have is properly parked, especially when you know it has three uses in the assessment district, but now it only has two uses. It just doesn't match up. I think I'm getting through here. I'm going to ask you to have the calculation be corrected. One other really quick point. You saw a slide where they were talking about restaurant and outdoor café use. Well, they don't have enough parking for restaurant use because they are parking for retail, which needs less parking than restaurants. And that outdoor area is FAR, so it would need to be in there, in the calculation, too. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else? Applicant has 10 minutes to respond. Or provide any further information. Mr. Pierce: In responding to the parking question. First off, we're not going to be having a restaurant. It would be, at most, a coffee shop where you might warm things, but no full kitchen, etc., etc. With respect to the lobby area, that is indeed the entry to the office, which is why it is designated "office," and the... What was the other point I was going to make? Chair Furth: Bathrooms and showers? 1.a Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Mr. Pierce: I'm sorry? Oh, yeah. Chair Furth: Questions about bathrooms and showers. Mr. Pierce: Bathrooms and showers, thank you. With our retail, which is true of all retail that goes up, the tenant improvements for those retail spaces would include bathrooms and so forth, so that they are properly served. The bathrooms that are included in the building are related to the office use and to meet all the standards with respect to that. But again, with retail, individual bathrooms would be added to retail units, depending on what tenants we ultimately have. Chair Furth: Any questions of the applicant? I have a question. In the Conditions of Approval, it says that the required bicycle parking has to be on your site as opposed to on the sidewalk. Where is it now? Mr. Pierce: There are two components... Chair Furth: I know it's here somewhere, but I got lost. Mr. Pierce: ...two components, one being the publicly-available bicycle parking, which is along the sidewalk where you have the hoops and so forth. And then, within the parking garage itself, there is a locker for what we call private parking, or basically private bicycle use. Maybe Michael can point this out. Chair Furth: Thank you. I thought that wasn't what we... I thought we required more [crosstalk]... Mr. Pierce: Yeah, if you look in the upper right-hand corner... Ms. Gerhardt: Sheet 13. Chair Furth: There's a lot of sheets. Mr. Pierce: That's designated for the tenants' bicycle use. Chair Furth: Okay, thank you. I have a question for staff about that. Take me through what the code requirement is for bicycle parking for this project. Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, so, for... Chair Furth: I think I'm too used to hearing Stanford Research Park standards, which are different. Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, so, there's a combination of long term, which are the ones that are in lockers, and there's also the short term. Chair Furth: Where's the on-site short-term parking? Mr. Ah Sing: As is proposed in the plans, those are drawn on the sidewalk, but they would have to be... Chair Furth: [Off microphone, partially inaudible] ...have to be moved. My question is, where are they going? Mr. Ah Sing: Right. Where they would go? They would go into the notches that are provided facing the street. For instance it looks like there's some room that's at the entry, the main entry to the lobby there. There also could be some opportunity where the micro plaza is, as well. Those are the places, the opportunities where they could put the bike racks. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anybody else have any questions. Peter? 1.a Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, to staff again. Sheldon, could you address the, the question was raised about the bathrooms counting towards retail or commercial or office space. As I look at the plans, each floor seems to have its own suite of bathrooms, presumably for the tenants of those floors. The ground floor bathrooms would seem to be for the ground-floor tenants. And if the applicant is stating that that's not going to be the case, do we have a mechanism to ensure that? Chair Furth: It's hard... Mr. Ah Sing: I think the only way to really ensure that is a Condition of Approval. Vice Chair Baltay: A Condition of Approval is only enforced by public complaint, though. Ms. Gerhardt: No, we're going out and inspecting these properties before they are occupied. If we're requiring bathrooms in that retail space, we would be able to verify that before it is occupied. Mr. Pierce: I might also add that the showers are in those ground-floor bathrooms, which are designated for the tenant bicyclists. Vice Chair Baltay: I have no problem with how you want to use your building. Mr. Levinsky made a good point about the parking calculations, and we have to be fair. Those are the rules. If that space is for the benefit of retail people, it changes the way you do the parking calculus. I'm asking staff if we have a means of making sure that is ultimately the case. I think what Jodie said is true. Then we have to make sure there are additional bathrooms put for your new tenants. Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else have questions? Sheldon, is there any seating for the public other than in the small plaza? Mr. Ah Sing: That would be the only place that's shown on at this time and really would have the most space for it. Chair Furth: So the answer is no. Thank you. Anybody else? Okay, Osma, why don't... Board Member Hirsch: I have a question. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: Access to this deck area, it's specific to that tenant that's adjacent to the upper floor? Mr. Castro: Yes, it is. Each floor would have, whatever adjoining tenant would be next to that deck area would spill out onto a deck area. Or have that opportunity. Chair Furth: For the benefit of the transcriber, that was the applicant's architect responding. I have one question, staff, while people are looking at their plans here. In the Conditions of Approval, it says that changes shall be submitted to the City for approval if the project is to be developed not according to this plan. It's passive voice. Who has the authority to alter the plans after the approval? Ms. Gerhardt: The applicant would propose modifications and City staff would review. Chair Furth: Any staff member can modify our, the official decision? Ms. Gerhardt: No. This would be, we normally keep the same project planner on a project the whole way through. 1.a Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Furth: So, if they came in and asked Sheldon for a change in we what we recommended approval, Sheldon would have the authority to do that, under this. Ms. Gerhardt: He would be reviewing those changes and making sure that they are in substantial conformance with what was approved. Chair Furth: Thank you. That part isn't in here. Though I was sure that's what you did. Board Member Lew: I have a question for staff. I was wondering if you could explain the zoning requirements in the CC-2 zone regarding, say, professional services versus office. Mr. Ah Sing: Give me a moment to look that up. Ms. Gerhardt: Was there a specific regulation that you were asking about? Board Member Lew: No, I just, I thought that we should address Karen Price's concerns about professional services being squeezed out of Palo Alto by office uses. I think it's come up before in other zones. I think we've talked about it in the, on other projects. Chair Furth: The most dramatic example was our high-rise brutalist [phonetic] building, which was full of small offices. Board Member Lew: Right. Yes. Chair Furth: Different zoning. Board Member Lew: I think, was there not CC...? That might be CC, too, as well. Ms. Gerhardt: We're looking this up, but I think the City, in all of our zones, you know, multiple uses are allowed, either permitted or with a conditional use permit. The City has limited ability to control the change between two permitted uses. Chair Furth: The question is, is there any... Personal services such as these two described by the people talking to us today are allowed, but is there any restriction on just straight office use? Or is it, is it not, is there not? Board Member Lew: Well, the office is also subject to the, to a cap, right? Chair Furth: Right. Ms. Gerhardt: In CC-2, administrative offices are not permitted. Professional and general business offices are permitted. Chair Furth: Remind me what a general business office is. Ms. Gerhardt: Travel agents, things of that nature. Chair Furth: Would a law office be permitted? Would a software designing firm be permitted? Ms. Gerhardt: Software designing is generally considered research and development, but it does fit into other categories as well. Sheldon is looking up some definitions right now. Chair Furth: Well, while you're looking into those, why don't we talk about design issues. As you know, this is a sore point in many projects that come before us. Osma, thoughts on the design of the building. 1.a Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Thompson: Sure. Thank you for your presentation, thank you for the material board. That's always really helpful. And thank you to the public for speaking. In general, this is a much bigger improvement from what we saw last time. I think the way that it breaks down the scale is definitely, it accomplishes it better than your previous design. I also think the palette is aesthetically sound. It has a nice consistency, it's not too complicated. In that sense, I appreciate the aesthetics of your project and your design a lot more than what we saw last time. I don't actually have too much to say on this one. I'd kind of defer to my colleagues about contextual elements. I'm curious about that back façade, if anybody is going to see that. In general, I would say this is a big improvement. I'm curious to hear what my other colleagues have to say. Chair Furth: Alex. Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you for your presentation. I think the packet was very clear. I think I agree with Osma, that the building design is much improved. I think I can recommend it today. I think the change to brick makes it compatible with other buildings on Cambridge, on the next block, at 350 Cambridge, as well as the parking garage, that are both clad in brick. I also think the addition of that corner porch on the side of the building, I think is a great addition, and I think that also makes design linkages to the building across the street at 375 Cambridge. The concerns that I have I think can be easily resolved. One is at the garage entrance, to maybe consider some sort of soffit or header to help screen all the fire sprinklers and what-not that usually pop down below the floor. The ceiling, rather. Second item is that maybe consider automatic timer window shades on the back windows on the second and third floors. That would help with light pollution to the neighbors on College Avenue. I did look at those units and it seems like they have exterior stairs and balconies facing the back, and they really don't have a lot of planting on their side of the property line. I think the bamboo will help, but it will take time for that to get established. Also, too, I've seen some new projects with underground garages, which is a little different than yours, but they use color inside, just in the entry area, to really help make it known that there is parking behind there. It's a minor comment, but I think that that might help. On the plantings, there's just one plant -- and being nitpicky -- and they are the heucheras. I think those are fine. They're mostly natives or hybrids of native plants. Minor concern is that they don't have a long life span. They usually peter out unless they're in the perfect location, where they'll multiple on their own. On the light fixture, I think my understanding is that there isn't a cut sheet yet submitted. Maybe it's here, I haven't seen it. I think I saw a note that it was in a separate, that would be in a separate submittal. I would say maybe consider a shielded fixture or a down light. I would say as an example, there is a new project at San Antonio, (inaudible), nearby Mountainview, where there are wall sconces all around the building, pointing out. To me, it adds a lot of visual clutter. I think it's nice to have accent lighting, but I think it's better to have it, I prefer to have it shielded. And then, my last comment is on findings. I think on Finding #2, which is on page 209 of our packet, is that I think we should mention that the proposed project has a new rear setback and planting along that property line, whereas the current building has a solid concrete block wall right at, right on the property line. I think that that is actually an improvement to the neighbors, even though the building is an extra story taller. That's all that I have. I think I can make a recommendation today. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. Peter? Vice Chair Baltay: Good morning. Thank you for the very clear presentation. I share many of Alex and Osma's comments. I'd like to jump right into a couple of items that I think are correctable, but still of concern to me. I'd like to direct my colleagues to Sheet 36, where I notice the second bay, the one to the left of the bay with the café sign, has a structural post in the middle of the open bay there. I call that out because several places, I see you just haven't aligned the architectural façade on the street with your structural grid. And I think it needs to be aligned. And I think that can be done. It may be giving your structural engineers a bit of a nudge, but having this post where it is here just caused me to look at the plan and there are three or four locations along the California Avenue façade where you have structural posts, which are not the visual structure of the building. And I think that is just unacceptable. I'm looking at your main floor plan where you're locating the transformer and backflow valves, and at least the backflow valves seem to be right in the café there. I'm looking at Sheet 12, on the right on side where 1.a Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Page 14 you have your covered terrace, and it says, "possible location for backflow valves." And your lovely rendering of that café clearly doesn't have backflow valves; it has people having coffee. And I think it should, and I think you should find another place to put these backflow valves, preferably even the transformer. My wondering is if you can't stick them in the two back corners of your parking lot because you can't use those spaces for parking. Right now, you have trash in one and bicycle storage in another, and maybe there's a way to tweak those around. My third comment has to do with the driveway entrance in, and you have, again, on the left, more backflow valves possibly there. On the right, you have an odd extension of the retail space. I'm sure that's just something to do with the floor area, trying to maximize it, but you really make a difficult parking lot even more difficult to get into. If you could just simplify and make it clear that that pathway is into the garage and not have to jog to the left, and then back to the right again. There's got to be a way to tweak that to get a more clear drive entrance into the garage. Those criticisms aside, I find it a very handsome building. I'm really excited about the way you've used the brick. You've used it in a way that feels like Palo Alto. I don't know how to quantify that, but it feels right. I've had an office downtown, California Avenue, and it really does fit that area. I'm very attracted to the details, the reveal at the edge of the window bays, is really nicely done. It's a very deft hand involved, and I really hope you are able to carry that through to the level of detail that I'm seeing in the renderings. It's really beautiful and will be a handsome addition. Okay. All that said, my biggest concern about this building has to do with the loading zone, or lack thereof. I don't know that that's a thing within the architecture board's purview, ultimately. I'd like to bring it to my colleagues' attention, however, that if a building this size in this area cannot find a way to accommodate a loading zone, which is mandated by the code, I don't see what building would. I think we're opening a Pandora's Box-type situation where every project is now going to use the same arguments they are for not being able to fit a loading zone. We've seen over and over again that lack of thinking about these sort of transportation issues and secondary issues to the functioning of the building just cause repeated headaches. In this case, you're going to see delivery trucks, and there will be many, many UPS, FedEx, Uber-type things on the curb in front of this building. There's a lot of people who will be working here, and there's just no accommodation for that, aside from, as I read the staff report, there's a public loading zone on the curb about 100 feet away. I just don't believe that that will be effectively used for this building. The trucks will park in front, they will double park. And I understand that you can't get a 15-foot-tall space for a tractor trailer to pull in here. That's not realistic. But I wonder if there's not a way to take that entry driveway, clean it up, make it a bit wider. Maybe you can tweak the height of it a foot or so. It seems to be 11 feet now. If you had about 12, you could fit UPS trucks and stuff. And then, with some signage, you might have a way to at least get some people to pull in there. Yes, they are blocking traffic, but you're finding a compromise that will make your building more livable. It will let us try to accommodate some of these things we're looking for within our code. But really, I put it to my colleagues that I don't see how, if we can go along with this exception to the loading zone here, if it can't be done, where will it be done. I leave it at that. Thank you very much. Chair Furth: David? Board Member Hirsch: I'm in 100 percent agreement that this is a terrific addition to the whole California street area, Cambridge street in particular. It's a beautiful building, and it's modest in a wonderful way here. I would hope that a lot of other commercial buildings would look just like this. But I differ a little bit with my colleague about the truck parking/loading issue here. On the size of this building, I just don't think you have the room to do anything. And I would say that that's something that City Planning and Transportation should get together on and make a loading time limit on the front of the building to allow for those things to occur, either... Well, I would say before normal parking hours in the area, something like that, to allow for some kind of a loading/unloading. I have a number of smaller items. I think the bikes that are part of the building layout in that far corner downstairs are way too far and won't attract bikers, and that your tenants in this building, that you could offer something on the wall of the back of the commercial space, some kind of wall hanging for bicycles. I give it to you, a challenge to design something that's more accessible to the bikers, to make it more easy for them to come to the building. Then you can have other uses in those spaces back there that are the end of the building, as my colleague suggested. That if you could take the backflow preventer down there. If it's not allowed to be down there because it has to be on the first floor, that might be another hang-up in providing for that. 1.a Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Page 15 But certainly, you could take some of the mechanicals and stick them in the basement space. That would improve the café a lot at that end of the building. There's a change in elevation between, on the right hand side of the building there as you face it, and there's no kind of recognition of that, either on the street side -- How do you get back up? A question I could have asked before when you were responding to questions, but I'm assuming, therefore, that there will be a way within the café or that area that's going to be commercial, and use the outdoor space, that you can step back up to the street level. Or do you step down into that plaza level? As I saw it, there's a step-down. You can answer the question after I'm finished. I'm curious as to why there are so many entries. I gather it's probably you have to stay flexible to allow for, maybe two tenants in each one of the spaces. But, what you haven't done is you haven't changed your rhythm on the ground floor, which I appreciate is a very useful thing in the design of this building. I'm okay with that idea, and assume that that is what you were thinking of. This is a, although it's asymmetrical lighting at the entry, I think should be symmetrical on the face of the building, so it points it out as a place of entry. I think you only have a light on one side. I would suggest you incorporate one on the opposite side. The car gate and getting into the garage structure, the garage area there, I'm curious as to how you do that. It's always kind of tricky because you have to come up over the sidewalk and then down into the garage. A car pulling into that location, will they go up and then down? And is the gate automatic, or how does that really work? Is it open all day long and then closes at some hour? In which case it's difficult to plan on when someone is coming in or out. In particular, coming in if they have to pull out of the line of traffic or something to get... And you wouldn't want them over the sidewalk, so I think you should spend some time thinking about how that works with the gate there. Either they come in part way and the gate is further down, or... I don't know. One way or the other, figure that one out. I would like to suggest -- and I really forgot to say this in the previous project -- that you have some operable windows in the office spaces upstairs. I think, you know, we have wonderful air here in Palo Alto. Don’t lose the opportunity to open a window and get fresh air into those offices there. It would be nice, maybe, if you allowed that deck on the right-hand side to be useful to everybody. It would mean a little, maybe loss of card or area where you could access the deck for that whole floor. No reason why these people can't meet each other on that deck. It seems like it's a nice feature and you'd want to have some more public use by the tenants on that floor. I think that, you know, I'm a little surprised that my colleague didn't talk about how you detail the upper steel structure coming out, or upper lighter-weight structure coming out of the brick façade and that detail. Vice Chair Baltay: These architects seem exceptionally capable. Board Member Hirsch: I accept that. I absolutely accept that. I think that this is a beautiful... And that segues into my final, which is it's a beautiful building. It's a simple building, it's a nice commercial building. It has a rhythm that's really quite wonderful, and I'm looking forward to it. Chair Furth: Thank you. Thank you to the applicant. Thank you for the clear presentation. Thank you to the members of the public who came to speak to us. All right, you guys, you had your chance. My time. First, about the things that I think are serious concerns but we have no real ability to address. That's the loss of spaces suitable for small personal-service buildings. We sit up here and look at a very large number of new commercial proposals, almost all involving tear-downs, and they almost always replace smaller retail spaces, smaller office spaces, with big, large floor plates suitable for software manufacturing, or associated enterprises. And the applicant here has responded to our request to do a building that can at least be leased to smaller organizations and entities, and I don't know -- I'm only partly joking. I mean, you begin to see as we strive to accommodate personal services businesses, which require physical presence in the community, like the two that spoke this morning. You know, so, you end up with coffee shops where you can get your hair cut. I mean, you get these hybrid businesses, but we are not really able to address that concern, and it's probably best addressed to Planning and Transportation and the City Council, because we are more narrowly focused in our review of this project. But, thank you for coming to speak to us. The staff hears you, and they will filter your comments up. Okay, the building itself. It's very attractive. I really appreciate the work the applicant has done to work with his neighbors, whether they're immunologically vulnerable or aesthetically vulnerable, and I think this is impressive, and I appreciate it, and it's successful, and it's a good-looking building. I have a couple of questions. One is parking calculations, particularly involving assessment districts, are beyond my pay 1.a Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Page 16 grade. I do not find it reasonable to have four sets of bathrooms on the ground floor. I think it makes sense to have -- as you have them -- two sets, you know, one set of bathrooms on the ground floor accessible to all those businesses, and calculate the parking accordingly. It is not reasonable to have operating restrictions that make no sense and are counterintuitive in an effort to get to a particular parking result. If you need to do a parking variance, do a parking variance, or deviation. But I have not made these calculations. I don't know what your detailed standards are with respect to these, so I leave it to you to check them in light of the public comments. But I also believe that it's important to have interpretations of the plans that make sense as the building is likely to be used, and not some artificially- constrained analysis that's driven by a particular result. I like the... I'm concerned also about the public short-term bike parking. I could not remember the term "short term." That it needs to be at the front, it needs to be visible, it needs to be accessible. I have spent a lot of time looking for bike parking in this neighborhood while trying to track down an accountant who kept having to move in order to find a tenancy, and ended up bicycling to the Baylands, because I'm a little behind on Jack Morton's address. I think it's great to have them as street furniture if the City is willing to accept that. I do understand that's not the same thing as providing on-site parking, but it would be good to have the City consider the possibility of doing both. At several points... Am I confusing things over there? Ms. Gerhardt: No, sorry. There are times where the short-term bicycle parking can go on the sidewalk, so I think we're going to triple-check that. Chair Furth: Yeah, I think that it can be very accessible and useful there. At several points in the staff report and in the discussion of why this is an appropriate project in terms of pedestrians, it says that there will be seating, but it's not a condition of approval. I think the seating that meets that condition needs to be permanent, not the kind of chairs that get bundled up and taken in at night as part of a café use. I think a building of this length in this neighborhood needs permanent bench seating with arms so that you can stand up, even if you're a bit frail, that will be accessible at all times to the public, not just as part of buying a cup of coffee. On the plants, I understand you have particular constraints here because of the sensitivities of your neighbor. Alex, it seemed really short, I mean, I'm okay with replanting heuchera every five years if that's what you need to do. Coral bells, basically. But we seem to be pretty short of native plants or habitat plants, mostly because there are a lot of street trees. You're okay with what they presented? First I thought "N" stood for "Native," then I realized it stood for "No." Not native. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think I agree with the staff recommendation on this one. There are special circumstances on this one. Chair Furth: They are so constrained. Okay. I will defer to you and the staff on that one. Other than wanting permanent bench seating and good-faith parking calculations, which we don't do, loading space is 45 feet long? Is that right? What are the dimensions? Mr. Ah Sing: That sounds about right, the standard. Chair Furth: And the height? Mr. Ah Sing: The what? Chair Furth: The height? The minimum height for a loading space? Mr. Ah Sing: I'll have to check that, but it's... Male?: [Off microphone and inaudible] Chair Furth: Fifteen? Twelve? Male?: [Off microphone and inaudible] Fifteen by 48 by 12, (inaudible). 1.a Packet Pg. 21 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Furth: That's, a lot of trucks aren't going to get accommodated by that anyway. Or are they all under 12 feet, I just don't realize that? Male?: [Off microphone] I think I got it wrong. It's 15 vertical and 12... Chair Furth: I think so. Okay, 15 feet vertical, 12 feet by 45. I think Peter's point is well taken. Our loading zone standards seem to date back to a more suburban time when the typical commercial development was a building with a surface parking lot, higher ratio of asphalt to building. And this is a big building for this area, and it doesn’t reasonably accommodate it. I'm satisfied by the analysis presented by the applicant and the staff, to say that an on-site parking space radically changes the building. I mean, basically it knocks it over from one side or the other. Which you could require if you decide that a waiver is not appropriate. But it's a fiction to think that we're going to get any loading zones out of this code. So, the question to staff is, if not, what's the proposal? We have surface parking lots, we have curb, but we're going to have to manage our street sides differently if we're no longer going to, if the redeveloped buildings are not longer going to have loading zones. I'm also in favor of trying instead to have somewhat smaller spaces within the surface parking lot that's enclosed by this building, that would accommodate some of the smaller vehicles that come in to do deliveries. I'm bothered by that bowing-out section of the building that narrows the access into the parking lot. I think that makes it unnecessarily difficult, both for the people who are bound to walk in and out that way, and for somewhat larger vehicles that are likely to use that space, and who would like to use that space. And I don't quite understand why it's there. With respect to the opening into the garage, I think the big problem... I vastly prefer what you're doing now to what existed, but I think the challenge with these essentially two-lane width garage entrances is to have them not look menacing, gaping, unattractive. And I think it can be addressed with paint, and with light. In some cases we do it with plants, but that's when they, you know, the first story is recessed. But I think this needs more work. LED lighting seems to give opportunities for really good illumination so that you don't look down into a dark... I realize that you're not looking down on this one, but you don't look back into a dark cavern. You can see all the way. And I think with paint and light, and for all I know, design details, you can do that, but I think it needs to be done, and should be done. Because one of the things that makes walking along a sidewalk less appealing is this sense of this dark, unknown space adjacent to it. Those are my thoughts. Anything I'm concerned about I think can be referred to a subcommittee, but I did not take notes on everybody's concerns, except to note there were some concerns about lighting. Would somebody like to make a motion? Board Member Lew: At the last... I just wanted to follow up on the discussion about the loading zone. I think at the last meeting, I mentioned what San Francisco does. On a street similar to Cambridge, on the first, the first two spaces on the block are yellow loading zones. There are two because that way a truck can fit into them. And that's only at certain times -- in the morning, when they're doing deliveries. At other periods of time when there really aren't very many deliveries, those spaces are just regular metered spaces that the public can use. I think that that's a smart way of doing curb management, where you don't really have... You don't have a lot of space. And you really don't want every... Does every building need to have its own loading zone? No. Sharing it where possible, and using it when it's not needed, is, to me, the smart way of doing it. Chair Furth: Smart curbs for the smart buildings. Board Member Lew: Yes. And then, I found the cut sheets, so, thank you for that. I found them in the set, so I retract my statement about that. Board Member Hirsch: I have one other comment. Chair Furth: Yes, David? Board Member Hirsch: Very minor, but you're using thinny-thin [phonetic] bricks on the outside here. Are they individual bricks or panels, by the way? 1.a Packet Pg. 22 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Mr. Castro: They're individual bricks. Board Member Hirsch: Individual bricks, okay. Chair Furth: Could you address your comments to the mic? Mr. Castro: Sorry. They are individual bricks. They are actually laid into the equivalent of a stucco construction, and then they are mortared. They're going to be hand-applied. Board Member Hirsch: I would just suggest, very minor, but I like, of course, the corbeling around the front, but couldn't you double that on the higher spaces when you come to the roof level? Just give it a little more heft at the top of that building. Consider that. Chair Furth: I'm sorry, what was the first...? They're what bricks? I didn't understand the first word you used. Mr. Castro: Face bricks. They are face bricks... Chair Furth: Got it. Mr. Castro: ...that are put onto a backing of stucco. Chair Furth: I heard it visual, and it was going to... Mr. Castro: Okay. Chair Furth: Brick veneer. Board Member Thompson: I think also, just really briefly... This is Board Member... Chair Furth: Sorry, Osma, I'm having trouble hearing you. Board Member Thompson: Oh. I just wanted to echo agreement on the loading curb idea. Also echo agreement about the structural post that Board Member Baltay noted. I did see it, and it would be nice to have that coordinated so it's not sticking out. I also echo Board Member Hirsch's note about operable windows, allowing air in, and automatic roller shades. It is a south-facing façade, and while you have, you know, nice recess on your windows, I think that would help greatly. And I'll also echo straightening up the driveway, just relocating that backflow preventer. Yeah, those are the notes I took. MOTION Chair Furth: Would somebody like to make a motion? Board Member Hirsch: Can I do the first one? Can it be my first? Vice Chair Baltay: Go for it, David. Chair Furth: Prepare for amendments. Board Member Hirsch: I propose that the ARB approve this project. Chair Furth: Recommend approval. Board Member Hirsch: Recommend approval. 1.a Packet Pg. 23 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to add to that, if I may, a friendly amendment. Board Member Lew: We need a second, second it first, then we can add to it. Vice Chair Baltay: I second the motion. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? Vice Chair Baltay: I'd like to add to my second a few conditions of approval. I'd like to have the structural posts on the California Avenue frontage to be aligned with the visual structural alignment of the building. Secondly, I'd like to see the drive aisle be straightened out by removing the notch in the retail portion of the building, and having the backflow valves located at the back side of the property someplace. And then, I agree that we should request some sort of automatic window shade system on the top two floors of the building, at the back. That's number three. What was...? Board Member Thompson: Operable windows? Vice Chair Baltay: No, you're going to have to make that one. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Vice Chair Baltay: Those are my additions. Chair Furth: (inaudible) Vice Chair Baltay: Oh, yes, and that the parking entrance lighting and paint colors... You want that consent calendar, or just have it reviewed? Chair Furth: (inaudible) Vice Chair Baltay: Be sent back to subcommittee for final approval. Is that necessary? Chair Furth: Or just staff. Staff's fine with me. Staff, does that concept make sense to you? Staff is indicating they feel confident they could get the desired result. Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, so, the paint colors and lighting at the automobile entrance to the parking be reviewed by staff, to meet Chair Furth's comments. Board Member Hirsch: What about (inaudible) cellar? Vice Chair Baltay: There's no cellar, David. Board Member Hirsch: No? Vice Chair Baltay: No, there's no cellar. Chair Furth: Surface area. Board Member Lew: Benches. Chair Furth: Benches. Vice Chair Baltay: And then, that permanent benches with arms be proposed along... Chair Furth: Provided. 1.a Packet Pg. 24 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Vice Chair Baltay: Provided on the sidewalk. Chair Furth: Or on the California Avenue frontage. Vice Chair Baltay: On the California Avenue frontage. Chair Furth: Sorry, Cambridge. Vice Chair Baltay: Cambridge. I keep saying California. It's Cambridge Avenue frontage. Chair Furth: You didn't say Oxford. Vice Chair Baltay: And lastly, that operable windows be investigated by the applicant if... Chair Furth: And used if feasible? Vice Chair Baltay: And used if feasible. You okay with that? Board Member Thompson: Sure. Yeah, that's fine. Vice Chair Baltay: Used if feasible. Mr. Ah Sing: One clarification. Sorry. For the backflow preventers, on page 12 and 13 of the plan set, there's an Option 2 that's indicated. It's on the opposite side of the building. Would that be acceptable. Vice Chair Baltay: No. I'm afraid the backflow valves really need to be not next to the driveway or not in the café. We're talking about some place at the back side of the building. Ms. Gerhardt: I just... I don't know that that is 100 percent possible. We need to speak with Utilities and Fire to see where those can be located. Vice Chair Baltay: Then I would, what I would say is, to that restriction, if it's not possible, then it should come back to a subcommittee for approval. Chair Furth: Alex, (inaudible). Board Member Lew: Yes. I had a comment about the findings. Chair Furth: Okay, well, let's see if David accepts those friendly amendments. Board Member Hirsch: I accept. Chair Furth: All right, so, we have a motion and a second, and a group of friendly amendments accepted. Discussion? Alex, you had a comment about the findings as presented in the staff report? Board Member Lew: I previously mentioned that to staff. Chair Furth: Well, if we're going to make a change, we should make a change. What's the comment? Board Member Lew: Under Finding #2, I would add that there is a new setback along the rear, and planting, where there is currently a zero setback to a blank concrete wall. Chair Furth: Thereby enhancing living conditions and providing a more harmonious transition? Thank you. Anything else before we vote. Okay. Motion by Board Member Hirsch, second by Vice Chair Baltay, as previously stated. All those in favor say aye. All those opposed? Hearing none, it passes unanimously. 1.a Packet Pg. 25 MOTION PASSES 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you very much to you, the applicant, to the staff, and to the public speakers who came to address this, as well. This now goes to the Director of Planning and Community Environment to make a decision. Thanks. Just as a reminder, we have no study session today. We are not going to approve minutes because they are not ready. I'm going to recuse myself and not participate in public hearing item number 4, Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 3, Downtown North, because I live in Downtown North. I will turn it over to Vice Chair Baltay. You want a five- minute break? [The Board took a short break.] [Chair Furth recused herself and left the room] Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, back in session. Chair Furth has excused herself. I'll be chairing the last item here. 1.a Packet Pg. 26 1.b Packet Pg. 27 1.c Packet Pg. 28 1.c Packet Pg. 29 1.c Packet Pg. 30 1.c Packet Pg. 31 1.c Packet Pg. 32 1.c Packet Pg. 33 1.c Packet Pg. 34 1.c Packet Pg. 35 1.c Packet Pg. 36 1.c Packet Pg. 37 1.c Packet Pg. 38 1.c Packet Pg. 39 1.c Packet Pg. 40 1.c Packet Pg. 41 1.c Packet Pg. 42 1.c Packet Pg. 43 1.c Packet Pg. 44 1.c Packet Pg. 45 1.c Packet Pg. 46 1.c Packet Pg. 47 Attachment D Project Plans During Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “380 Cambridge Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=3291 1.d Packet Pg. 48