The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2020-07-02 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: July 2, 2020 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 937 9255 2500 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. Members of the public may comment by sending an email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of this agenda. 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 _______________________ 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. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4260 El Camino Real [19PLN-00142]: Consideration of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Façade Renovation to an Existing Structure. Scope of Work Includes Removing Existing Wood Siding and Replacing it With new Stucco and Metal Siding, new Paint and Metal Cable Railing Along all Stairways. Environmental Assessment: Exempt. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@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 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 7, 2020 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2020 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Meeting Minutes for June 4, 2020 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment Subcommittee Items Vice Chair Thompson & Boardmember Lew (620 Emerson Street) Vice Chair Thompson & Boardmember Hirsch (3215 Porter Drive) 6.620 Emerson Street (19PLN-0326): Subcommittee Review of Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return with Details on the Design, Pattern, and Material Samples for the Bronze Metal Gates and Grate Proposed Along the Front Façade. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 7.3215 Porter Drive [19PLN-00220]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Additional Details Related to Building Facade Materials and the Rear Stairway/Balcony. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Zoning District: RP (Research Park). For More _______________________ 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. Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@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. 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. _______________________ 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. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 937 9255 2500 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11456) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 7/2/2020 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. 6 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: x Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) x Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 7 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 Cancelled 4/2/2020 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled 4/16/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular Lee excused 5/7/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 5/21/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 6/4/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Subcommittee 6/18/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 7/2/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 7/16/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 8/6/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 8/20/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 9/3/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 9/17/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 10/1/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 10/15/2020 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting 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 – Baltay/Lew 4/16 – Hirsch/Lew 5/21 – Thompson/Lew 6/4 – Thompson/Hirsch July August September October November December 7/2 – Thompson/Hirsch /Lew 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board 2020 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics July 16, 2020 x 656 and 649 Lytton Ave (1st Formal): Façade Renovation 1.b Packet Pg. 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11215) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/2/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4260 El Camino Real: Facade Change to Existing Office Building Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4260 El Camino Real [19PLN-00142]: Consideration of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Façade Renovation to an Existing Structure. Scope of Work Includes Removing Existing Wood Siding and Replacing it With new Stucco and Metal Siding, new Paint and Metal Cable Railing Along all Stairways. Environmental Assessment: Exempt. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Background Project Information Owner: Juliana Lee Architect: Kanler Architects: Rajiv Agarwal and Rucha Shah Representative: N/A Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 4260 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Palo Alto Orchards Lot Dimensions & Area: 49.9 feet wide, 150 feet deep, 7,490 square feet Housing Inventory Site: No 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: No Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): 4,854 sf; 2 stories; 33 feet; built 1987 Existing Land Use(s): Office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Restaurant, approved hotel (18PLN-00096) (CS) West: Restaurant/Hotel (CS) East: Multiple-Family Residential (CS(L)) South: Hotel (CS) 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Service Commercial Comp. Plan Designation: Service Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes 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): Yes, Hotel District Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: No Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Project Description The applicant proposes to renovate the building façade with metal panels and new stair railing. The metal panels are gray and slightly metallic. They are smaller on the front façade and larger on the sides. The railing is proposed to be open, to soften massing and allow visibility for cars entering and exiting the ground-level parking garage. No changes to floor area, height, circulation, or use are proposed. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The applicant requests approval an Architectural Review – Minor (AR) – application. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the ARB’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if an appeal is filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The existing building is located adjacent to 4256 El Camino, the site of a recently approved five- story hotel. The Palo Alto Redwoods condominium complex is located directly behind the building. The surrounding buildings generally incorporate traditional materials such as siding, shingles, or stucco. The existing building is a rusty brown color with yellow accents. It is two blocks away from the Palo Alto Event Center, which also uses metal panels. The proposed changes do not affect the existing height or setbacks, or existing defining architectural features of the building, such as the roof gable or front façade windows. The existing stairwells will be modified to have open metal railings to improve visibility for cars and pedestrians. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that 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 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. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires designs to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Service Commercial. This designation allows auto services and dealerships, appliance stores, motels, and restaurants. The project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. Zoning Compliance3 The applicant is not proposing changes to the footprint or height of the building, nor any change that would impact Zoning compliance. The metal panels are 7/8” thick, which may slightly increase the thickness of the wall which is counted towards the FAR. Additionally, the current office use is existing non-conforming for the CS zone. Color and Materials The applicant proposes to completely cover the building exterior in metal panels. The panels are smaller and darker on the front façade and tower element, and larger and lighter on the sides and rear. There is also corrugated metal siding to accent the front and rear gables. The metal panels fit at the corners with a flat outside corner trim. Adjacent panels sit flush with little relief between panels. The proposed railing is a black post and cable system, with wide spacing for increased visibility through the railing. Existing doors and windows, which are black, will remain. The existing gable trusses will be painted black. The proposed color scheme is shades of gray, with red accents for the roof and gables, and black for the windows and other architectural elements. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site includes 19 existing parking spaces in the garage, which meets the minimum automobile parking space requirements. The garage also has adequate bicycle storage. Consistency with Architectural Review (AR) Findings The project is consistent with most of the AR Findings. Based on the nature of this project, Finding #3 (regarding use of high quality materials and details) is the most relevant finding to consider. The change from horizontal wood siding to metal panels is substantial and affects the cohesiveness of the architectural style. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Application Findings is provided in Attachment B. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is Categorically Exempt per 15301 (Existing Facilities). Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires publication of a notice of this public hearing in a local paper and mailing of notices to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on June 19, 2020, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 18, 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 Emily Foley, AICP, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2575 emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) x Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) x Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 15 Cro w n e Pla za C a b a n a H otel P alo Alto _R e d w o o d s Dinah's Garden HotelB800 Dinah's_ Poolside Grill S k y R a n c h M otel 113.2' 57.0' 71.6' 108.4'75.0' 108.9' 60.0' 50.4' 110.9' 9.6' 49.6' 10.4' 110.4' 110.9' 60.0' 109.9'60.0' 110.4' 60.0' 109.4'60.0' 109.9' 6 0.0' 108.9' 60.0' 109.4' 389.6' 131.2' 378.9' 13.0' 5 9.8' 11.3' 29.1' 173.5' 16.2'14.0' 20.0'14.0' 83.0' 14.0' 93.9' 19.3' 45.0' 19.3'30.0' 318.8' 20.2' 32.5' 162.5' 380.0' 19.7' 147.3' 163.5' 29.0' 95.2' 29.0' 78.3' 15.7' 80.0' 60.0' 125.0' 60.0' 125.0' 204.0' 306 50.9' 50.0' 185.7' 50.4' 179.6' 179. 160.4' 109.0' 50.8' 162.5' 172.2' 58.0' 21.9' 172.2' 32.5' 1 10.0' 58.0' 134.8' 104.3' 55.7' 81.8' 20.2' 358.7 55.7' 188.7' 607.4' 27.9' 173.5' 16.2' 14.0' 20.0'14.0' 83.0' 14.0' 93.9' 19.3' 45.0' 19.3'30.0' 318.8' 188.7' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 22.2' 160.4' 21.9' 48.3' 98.7' 90.4' 74.6' 71.0' 100.0' 57.7' 168.3' 65.3' 30.5' 32.5' 48.4' 28.5' 16.3' 13.6' 12.2' 15.2' 10.0' 35.7' 45.2' 34.2' 21.8' 22.7' 120.0' 7.0'6.5'7.5'7.1' 47.0' 17.4' 15.3' 17.0' 15.2' 30.6' 28.1' 51.8' 9.6' 10.4' 10.3' 4' 60.6' 51.3'51.3' 101.6' 72.7'72.7' 6 7.2' 82.7' 6' 34.8' 87.7' 102.0' 67.4' 72.4' 4' 34.3' 189.9' 189.9'120.0' 189.9' 189.9' 1 89.9' 189.9' 189.9' 189.9' 189.9' 149.5' 149.9' 112.1' 100.0' 100.0' 112.1' 45.2' 203.3' 197.9' 50.4' 204.0' 45.6' 191.8' 50.4' 197.9' 185.7' 50.4' 191.8' 50.4' 50.4' 203.3' 255.7' 157.0' 49.2' 214.1' 13.2' 128.5' 267.7' 278.1' 3 142.9' 6.1' 13.1' 396.4 5 6 3 550 4 2 4 5 553 4 2 7 5 4 2 6 5 4 2 5 7 4 2 5 1 4 2 3 8 4 2 34 4232 429 0 4 2 5 6 42 6 0 4291 460466 470 4301 474 4269 450 4261 4279 42 3 0 4292A-P 4249 4 2 50 4 294 A-P 431 4260 4273 4251 428 5 4300 11 9 3 1194 1192 1 1 8 8 432 412 416 418 4 4290 4294 4 2 2 8 E L C A M I N O R E A L DIN A H'S C OU RT E L C A MI N O R E A L M O NR OE DRIVE E L C A MIN O R E A L C T E L C A MIN O R E A L R Y A N C OLECO AdobeCreek RM-30CS C S ( L ) PC-4448 RM-30 CS RM CS(H) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 157' Attachment A 4260 El Camino Real CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2020-06-23 14:28:39Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 16 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 4260 El Camino Real 19PLN-00142 In order for the ARB to make a recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The design is consistent with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan to the extent possible. Most aspects of the building, with regard to setbacks, height, and site planning, are not changing from the current conditions. The project is consistent with many elements of the El Camino Design Guidelines. Many items, such as the ground floor being defined by its parking garage entrance, are not proposed to change. One aspect of the proposed project that is not consistent is the Guidelines discourage brightly colored roofs. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project will not impact the ability to meet this finding. Existing landscaping will be preserved. The project is generally consistent with the context-based design criteria of the CS district, as described in greater detail below. The existing building has a contemporary style, with wood siding, a tower element near the street, large street-facing windows, and a large gable with beam detail. Most of these elements are remaining as is, with the change in siding from wood to metal panels. It is generally compatible with the context. The hotel on the left is so far back from the front property line it is not a notable part of the streetscape. To the right is 4256 El Camino, a project recently approved by the ARB (18PLN-00096). This building is contemporary/modern in style with wood-look composite siding and black metal accents. It will 2.b Packet Pg. 17 enhance the area to update the existing building. 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 metal panels would be generally compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed building to the right contains a significant quantity of metal screens, railings, and window frames with extended face caps. The project’s metal panels fit at the corners with a flat outside corner trim. Adjacent panels sit flush with little relief between panels. The panels are smaller on the front façade and tower element, and larger on the sides and rear. There is also accent corrugated metal siding in the front and rear gable. The existing building is a rusty brown color with yellow accents. The proposed color scheme is shades of gray, with red accents for the roof and gable. The adjacent site, 4256 El Camino, includes the recently approved hotel project. The materials for that building includes wood-look siding, beige stucco, and bronze, dark gold, and black metal accents. One of the most defining features is the thick black metal frames around the windows. The proposed improvements to 4260 El Camino will fit with the new building as the gray color scheme is more neutral than the existing brown and yellow. The design also emphasizes the upper front windows. 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.). No changes to the site plan or layout of the building are proposed. The ground level parking is conveniently accessed from El Camino Real with an entrance at the center of the building. Bicycle storage is also provided within this garage area. Pedestrian access to the building is through two exterior stairways or the exterior elevator that are located at the front of the building. 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. There is limited opportunity for landscaping on the site. The adjacent properties contain mature landscaping along the project site’s left and rear property lines, which are to remain and be protected during construction. There are also two planters at the front with mature ornamental trees and shrubs, and one planter on the second floor of the front façade to 2.b Packet Pg. 18 remain. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. This project does not plan to incorporate any additional design principles, beyond the requirements for Green Building and Title 24. 2.b Packet Pg. 19 CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA 4260 El Camino Real 19PLN-00142 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 The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The proposed project provides adequate sidewalk in front of the building, as well as adequate bicycle parking. 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 existing stair railings are solid. The proposed stair railings are proposed to be open to increase visibility, safety, and ease of access for pedestrians and motorists. No other changes are proposed that would change the building’s relationship with the street. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. No changes to the building’s overall massing or setbacks are proposed. 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 property does not abut low density residential. 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. This building currently contains usable balconies on the left side and in the rear. No changes are proposed to the existing balcony spaces. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 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 Parking is located in a covered garage on the first floor of the building. There is no change from the existing proposed. 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 N/A. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The building will conform to Title 24 and Green Building requirements, as necessary. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 4260 El Camino Real, 19PLN-00401 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None .17 acres 60 feet wide, 125 feet long .17 acres 60 feet wide, 125 feet long Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) 0’ to stairs, 11’ at the elevator tower and 21’3” to the building 0’ to stairs, 11’ at the elevator tower and 21’3” to the building Rear Yard None 0 0 Interior Side Yard None 0 0 Street Side Yard None N/A N/A Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) Rear abuts Palo Alto Redwoods, which is CS district No change from existing Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback on El Camino Real Stairways are built near to setback on El Camino, however the building is setback 11’ at the elevator tower and 21’3” to the building No change from existing Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps N/A N/A Max. Site Coverage None 82.1% (6,152.33 sf) 82.1% (6,152.33 sf) 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 33’10” 33’10” Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.4:1 (2,998 sf) 18.18.060(e) 64.8% (4,853 sf) 64.8% (4,853 sf) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) (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.. 2.c Packet Pg. 22 (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (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)) 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 late hours proposed, typical office use. 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. Existing non-conforming office use exceeds 25% of lot area. 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 General Business Office Use* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/250 sf of gross floor area for a total of 19 parking spaces 20 spaces 20 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf equals 2 spaces 14’8” x 8’6” area of designated bike storage 14’8” x 8’6” area of designated bike storage Loading Space Not Required * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 2.c Packet Pg. 23 Attachment C 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 “4260 El Camino 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=4867&Targetid=319 Materials Boards: During Shelter-in-Place, color and material boards will be available to view in the display case outside of City Hall, on the exterior elevator near the corner of Hamilton Ave. and Bryant St. 2.d Packet Pg. 24 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11457) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 7/2/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of May 7, 2020 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 7, 2020 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the May 7, 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 Attachments: x Attachment A: May 7, 2020 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 25 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew, Grace Lee and David Hirsch. Absent: None. Chair Baltay: Welcome to the May 7, 2020, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. Prior to calling role, I’d like to read a statement. [Reading] 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. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26 and live at Midpen Media Center at midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate may do so by email, phone, or computer. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting on line 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on at cityofpaloalto.org. Spoken comments via a computer will be accepted through the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address the Board, go to zoom.us/join. Meeting ID is 97006510481. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name. This will be visible on line and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “Raise Hand.” The moderator will activate and unmute speakers in turn. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your time. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App store or Google Play store and enter the Meeting ID 97006510481. Please follow the steps a through d. Spoken public comments using a phone. Call 1-669-900-6833, and enter Meeting ID 97006510481. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. To better facilitate public comments at the beginning of the meeting, our meeting host, Vinh Nguyen, will identify each person with a raised hand by name or last four digits of your phone number, and request that you state your name and agenda item you wish to speak on. If you wish to speak on any item not on the agenda, please state your intent to speak under oral communications. When it is your time to speak during public comment, you will be identified and provided three minutes to speak. Any callers with blocked numbers will wait until the end of the speaker’s portion. The host will unmute them one at a time. All will be asked to speak. With that, can we have a roll call, please? [Roll Call] Mr. Nguyen: Thank you. We have a quorum. Chair Baltay: Thank you. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 7, 2020 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 3.a Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Oral Communications Chair Baltay: With that, next item is oral communications. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak to any item not on the agenda? Vinh, have we heard anyone who wants to address us that way? Mr. Nguyen: We don’t have anyone who wants to speak for oral communications yet. Let’s give them a chance to raise their hand now if they wish to speak. Please use the “Raise Hand” feature to indicate that you have public comment. The “Raise Hand” button is located at the bottom of your Zoom screen. And if you’re dialing in from a phone, you can press *9. Does anyone have any oral communications? Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you, Vinh. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Let’s move on to agenda changes, additions and deletions. Jodie, staff, do we have anything to add, change or delete? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No changes at this time. Chair Baltay: Very good. 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, staff, could we have a discussion of our schedule, please? And tentative future items. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. We’re having our virtual meeting today, and we’ll probably continue in this fashion, at least in the near future. As far as future agendas, the next meeting would be May 21st. We do have three items on the agenda there. There we go, perfect. Thank you. We have 3585 El Camino Real, which is a mixed-use project, and actually would be our first housing incentive project, if approved. We also have the second round of the bus shelters in the Stanford Research Park. They have come up with a more modern design. And then, 486 Hamilton. This would be a first formal review for them. And then, subcommittee for a hotel on El Camino. For the subcommittee, I had in my notes that Board Member Thompson and Board Member Lew would be on that subcommittee, but Chair, if you could please confirm that for me. Chair Baltay: Yes, I believe that’s correct. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project [19PLN-00130]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Demolition of an Existing Two-Way Bridge On Newell Road Between Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto and Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto and Construction of a New Bridge Along the Same Alignment That Meets Caltrans Standards for Multi-Modal Access. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Assessment (EA) was Circulated on May 31, 2019 for a 60 Day Comment Period That Ended on July 30, 2019 in Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of Palo Alto and Caltrans Published the Final EIR/EA on April 24, 2020. Zoning District: Not Applicable (Public Right-of-Way) Adjacent Single-Family Residential (R-1[10,000]). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. 3.a Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Chair Baltay: Okay, with that, we’ll move on to our first action item. This is item number 2, Newell Road Bridge Replacement Project. Recommendation on Applicant's request for approval of a major architectural review to allow for demolition of an existing two-way bridge on Newell Road between Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto and Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto, and construction of a new bridge along the same alignment that meets Caltrans standards for multi-modal access. Environmental Assessment: An Environmental Impact Report (EIR)/Environmental Assessment (EA) was circulated on May 31, 2019, for a 60 day comment period that ended on July 30, 2019, in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The City of Palo Alto and Caltrans published the final EIR/EA on April 24, 2020. Before we get started, do we have any disclosures on that item? I don’t have anything to disclose myself. Board members, any disclosures? Alex, disclosures? Board Member Lew: No disclosures. Chair Baltay: David, disclosures? Board Member Hirsch: No, no disclosures. Chair Baltay: Grace, any disclosures? Board Member Lee: I’ll just simply disclose that I visited the site. Chair Baltay: That’s exactly right, thank you very much. Osma, disclosures? Vice Chair Thompson: No disclosures. Chair Baltay: Thank you, everybody. With that, I believe we’re ready for a staff report. Claire Raybould, Project Planner: Thank you. [Setting up presentation.] Ms. Gerhardt: Claire Raybould is a senior planner on my team, and she’ll be presenting the project. We also have Michel Jeremias from Public Works, should you have any questions. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Ms. Raybould: Good morning, board members. Hold on one second. Give me one second, I’m sorry. [Setting up presentation.] Good morning, Board Members, Claire Raybould, project planner. The project before you today is the Newell Road bridge replacement. This is located along Newell Road, between Edgewood Drive and Palo Alto, and Woodland Avenue in East Palo Alto, and it spans the county line across San Francisquito Creek. You can see the location right here. Just a brief overview of the project. The project would replace an existing two-lane bridge, bi-directional bridge, with a two-lane bi-directional bridge along the same alignment. It includes sharrows, which are shared vehicle/bicycle lanes, with a four-foot shoulder for bicycles, as well as a sidewalk on each side of the bridge that would be five feet on each side. It raises the existing bridge to allow for increased flow capacity beneath, and it also a raises a portion of Woodland Avenue and East Palo Alto, as well as Newell Road in both Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. It includes retaining walls in some locations to support that raised road. This is just a view of what the proposed project would look like from Palo Alto. This is a quick view of what it would look like from East Palo Alto. I just wanted to briefly discuss something that was considered as part of the final EIR in response to comments. I think we heard a lot of different comments from the Architectural Review Board, our Planning Commission, and members of the public, about bicycle lanes and bicycle safety. We did do some additional counts to obtain more information, updated information about bicycles in the area. The results of that additional analysis concluded that what was proposed was valid, that we didn’t need to do additional width for dedicated Class II bicycle lanes. But we did explore a couple different options for the striping. In the end, we are proposing the original Option A, which was the five-foot-wide sidewalk, four-foot-wide striped shoulder for bicycle use, and then, 10-foot-wide sharrows for shared vehicle/bicycle use. We did consider an Option B, which was a raised nine-foot-wide shared pedestrian/bicycle path, and 10-foot wide vehicle lanes. Ultimately, both our transportation division as well as East Palo Alto’s Public Works division concluded that they would 3.a Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Page 4 prefer Option A because it integrates better with the existing bicycle path in Palo Alto and along Newell Road in East Palo Alto, and future planned bicycle paths for East Palo Alto along Woodland Avenue. You can kind of see that on Option B, the bicycle path would end up running into the sidewalk, and there would be nowhere to go from there under Option B, so Option A is preferred and what we are recommending today. Just a brief update, responding to ARB comments. As outlined in the staff report, I think key comments that we heard last July from the Architectural Review Board was more information on the landscaping plan. We are presenting a landscaping as part of the plans today, which was not provided previously. I do just want to note, again, that these show all work in the public right-of-way and outside the creek. We do anticipate being able to do additional plantings in the creek and on private property. Those aren’t presented in the landscaping plan because there are still details that will be worked out through final encroachment permits with the different water resources board and the different wildlife agencies for work in the creek, as well as with private property owners. We also heard from the Architectural Review Board that they’d like to see a plaque of some sort. We did think about a couple different options for that. We’ve left it open to still explore what that plaque is going to entail, but we have added a condition of approval that will add a plaque to commemorate the bridge and all the different agencies involved in this bridge, and the flood control work that this associated with this project. I spoke briefly about the pedestrian/bicycle safety. As I noted, that was a key issue that was raised early in the process. In terms of next steps following this recommendation, we would be seeking a decision from Council on the project, and certification of the Environmental Impact Report. Following that decision, we would then seek NEPA certification from Caltrans, and then, continued coordination with wildlife and water resource agencies for applicable permits. Continue coordination with East Palo Alto, Caltrans, and San Francisquito Creek joint powers authority members, and procure the final right-of-way and easements that we need for the project. We anticipate that construction would begin in 2021. The recommended motion today is to consider the final Environmental Impact Report/Environmental Assessment included in Attachment D of the staff report, and to recommend approval of the proposed project alternative to Option A to the Council based on findings and subject to conditions of approval as outlined in the draft Record of Land Use Action in Attachment B. With that, I will turn it back to you for any questions. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Claire. Do we have any questions of staff? Any review board members with questions? Board Member Lew: I have one question. Chair Baltay: Okay, Alex, go ahead. Board Member Lew: Claire, on the landscape plan, is there anything proposed, any ground cover proposed along the curb on Newell? Like, under the proposed coast live oak street trees? Ms. Raybould: Michel, do you recall the answer to that? I believe there was going to be some under those oak trees. Let me try to pull up the plans. Hold on. Board Member Lew: I don’t need an answer immediately. Ms. Raybould: I can look into it and get back to you. Chair Baltay: That may be covered, Alex, when we get through the applicant’s report as well. Any other questions of staff? David, did you have a question? Board Member Hirsch: I do. Chair Baltay: Go ahead, David. Board Member Hirsch: Woodland Road, is there any plan for it to have a bike lane at some point? Or crossing Woodland Road? Would there be any…? Is that included in any…? 3.a Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Ms. Raybould: Yes, there’s planned bicycle lanes on Woodland Avenue as part of, I believe as part of East Palo Alto future planning, as part of their… I don’t know if it’s in their general plan. I think it’s in their general plan, that they hope to have future bike lanes along that road. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Very well. Do we have a presentation from the applicant for this? Michel Jeremias, Public Works: No, we did not present. Chair Baltay: Okay, you’re afforded 10 minutes to speak if you’d like to, but I guess you’re saying that you don’t want to. Ms. Gerhardt: The City is the applicant, so Claire did that presentation. Chair Baltay: I see, okay, it’s all wrapped into one thing. Okay. Are there any other questions of the City or the applicant before we open it up to public comment from anyone? Okay, very well then. Are there any members of the public who wish to address us on this matter? Vinh, didn’t we have some speakers on this? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we do have a couple speakers. First will be Hamilton, followed by Paul, then followed by Yang. If there’s anyone else who wants to speak on this item whose name I did not call, please raise your hand now, and you will speak after these other people. I see Su-Ye-Shan [phonetic] just raised their hand, so I will put you down as our fourth speaker, after Yang. First, we have Hamilton. Hamilton Hitchings: Hello, can you hear me? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can hear you. Please speak. Mr. Hamilton: Great. My name is Hamilton Hitchings, I live in the Duveneck/St. Francis neighborhood. I am strongly in favor of moving forward with this project for the City’s recommended alternative 2A. As a homeowner who experienced the 1998 flood that caused over-the-floor flooding of over 400 Palo Alto homes in my neighborhood, I’ve seen how much damage can be caused. The creek currently only has a 22-year flood capacity. This is because both the Newell and Chaucer bridges significantly narrow the creek flow because their design unnecessarily fills in a portion of the creek channel with concrete. For the Chaucer bridge to be replaced by the JPA, the City must first replace the downstream Newell bridge. This bridge is under the shared jurisdiction of Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. The Palo Alto staff did a good job in collaborating with East Palo Alto staff to come up with a mutually acceptable solution, Alternative 2A. Some residents have expressed concern about the potential for increased traffic. The City of Palo Alto has agreed with East Palo Alto to conduct a traffic study after completion of the bridge. I would encourage Palo Alto to do full traffic calming measures if they find a significant increase in traffic or speeds. The local proposed Alternative 2 maintains the current bridge alignment, which acts as a natural traffic-calming feature. In addition, the synchronization of the University Avenue traffic lights has increased the flow of traffic on University Avenue and reduced the cut-through traffic to Newell bridge. In addition, the traffic study for this project found that they do not anticipate an increase in traffic. I’d also like to point out that the bridge dramatically improves bicycle and pedestrian safety. This bridge would be paid 88.5% by Caltrain and 11 percent of the cost of the bridge would be paid for by the Santa Clara Valley water district. It only requires Palo Alto to provide a project manager. Thank you for your consideration, and I hope the committee will endorse the staff recommendation to our City Council. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Hamilton. Next speaker. Vinh, could you introduce them, please? Mr. Nguyen: Okay, our next speaker is Paul, and Paul, I believe you are calling in from a phone, last four digits 3410. I have unmuted you. You can speak now. Paul: That’s correct. Can you hear me okay? 3.a Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can hear you. Paul: My name is Paul Goomunuh [phonetic], I am an attorney for Mr. Yang Shen, who will be speaking next. He is the owner of the single-family home located at 1499 Edgewood Drive in Palo Alto. He lives there with his family in that home. It’s the property nearest to the Newell bridge, and it’s the property that will bear the brunt of the negative impacts from this project, which he opposes. As you may know, to accomplish the bridge removal, the City proposes to use the land immediately adjacent to his back yard as the construction site and staging area for the project. That means his property and his family will bear the brunt of the negative impacts and real harm from the project more than any other family in Palo Alto, both during and after the project is completed. He opposes the City’s adoption of the DEIR as a final for the reasons stated in my email that I sent yesterday to this board. I wanted to supplement that email with the following comments. First, there’s no assurance from the City that they’ll take any meaningful mitigation efforts to reduce the expected level of noise, dust, soot, noxious fumes, vehicle traffic, foot traffic, lights and security projects inherent in having a heavy construction site within a few feet of this home. Literally, the staging will be within 30 to 40 feet of his home, directly in his back yard. The DEIR did not address how to keep the construction site secure, giving that this is going to attract nuisance, nor did it address what happens if the construction is begun but interrupted due to the economic impacts of the current corona virus emergency. Second, I urge the Board to carefully consider the email dated June 19, 2019, from Ben Ball. It’s DEIR comment response I-2. And the email dated July 24, 2019, from Ben Ball that’s I- 3. Mr. Ball’s information shows that the City’s traffic estimates in the DEIR were inadequate because they underestimated the impact widening the bridge will have on thru traffic on the immediate neighborhood near the bridge. The studies that Mr. Ball cities proves that. The authors of the DEIR really need to go back to the drawing board to address that information, and in particular, our concern is, given the current corona virus emergency, is there going to be enough funding to complete the project? We fear that what will happen is the project will be begun, the construction equipment will be staged, and then, for one reason or another, whether it’s lack of workers or lack of funding, the project will be stalled, and my client will be stuck with a construction site in its back yard with no completion date in site. Mr. [crosstalk] …. Chair Baltay: Paul, thank you. We’re running out of time for you, can you please wrap it up? Paul: Yes. I would ask that you grant Mr. Yang some additional time because his comments will need to be translated. Chair Baltay: Very well. Thank you, Paul. Vinh, could you bring us to the next speaker, please? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, absolutely. Our next speaker is Yang, and FYI, I do see another member of the public with a hand raised. A Xenia Hammer. You will be our last speaker on this item. Next is Mr. Yang Shen. I have unmuted you. You can speak now. Yang Shen: Hi, this Shen Yang, Mr. Shen. [Speaking foreign language] Translator: Again, my name is Yang Shen, and I live at 1499 Edgewood Drive. My friend, Mike, will help me with translation, which he adamantly against the expansion of this bridge, Newell Bridge. The first one is about safety. At this time period before the construction, there is already very heavy traffic due to 101 and University Avenue congestion. There is already a lot of traffic diverting through Newell and Edgewood Drive. It’s also a noise nuisance. One thing that we are worried about is that even during the construction, plus after the construction, our property value will definitely diminish. And then, the other problems are, obviously the pollution, air pollution, and then, the privacy issue during construction. He’s also concerned about his youngest daughter, who has very strong asthma issue, and during the construction, that’s a major concern for her. And then, during our last year July meeting with the City, those questions were never answered. And then, also, currently, even without the construction or without widening the bridge, there is already a lot of traffic at nighttime going through the area, because, again, there’s a lot of car screeching, a lot of high-speed. But if we widen the bridge, it’s going to increase even more, because not only our family, but the surrounding neighbors. After we already spoke with them, they are also against the project because there’s a lot of children and elderly on the Palo Alto side of Edgewood Street and Newell. Again, we just want to reiterate that we’re strongly against this project. 3.a Packet Pg. 31 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Mr. Shen. Is that all? Translator: Yes. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Vinh, we have one last person. Could you introduce them, please? Mr. Nguyen: We actually have two more speakers. Up next – and I apologize if I mispronounce your name – Soo Ye Shen [phonetic]. I have unmuted you, and you can unmute yourself on your computer as well, and you can speak. Soo Ye Shen: I’m [inaudible] daughter, and I’d like to speak my objection to the project. The construction project will cause great damage to our privacy as the construction will enter our back yard, cause damage to our house from air pollution, noise pollution, and light pollution, since the construction site is merely a few feet away from our bedroom. And even drive safety concern to my family during the two year long construction process. My younger sister has asthma that can be reduced by air pollution, and my father has an afternoon nap routine. Basically, our daily activity and peace of mind are all under the influence of the construction. Furthermore, the construction will also raise safety concern from the faster and denser traffic to nearby residents, which are composed of elder and children. I just want to say, from both personal and sociological standpoint, I object to the project. That’s it. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Ms. Shen. Vinh, could you introduce the next speaker, please? Mr. Nguyen: Yes. Our next and final speaker for this item will be Xenia Hammer. You are unmuted; you can speak. Xenia, are you there? I have unmuted you from my end, but you have to unmute yourself as well. Okay, it looks like they just left. They are no longer… Okay, they are back. [Connecting with speaker.] Xenia Hammer: Thank you so much. I would like to speak in strong support of this project, and the urgency of it. I live on Sharon Court, close to Newell Road bridge. Also, in the flood zone of San Francisquito Creek. The creek flooded, as you know, in 1998, and the work has been in discussion since then, so this project is long overdue. The replacement of Newell Road bridge is a required part of flood control on San Francisquito Creek, and it needs to be done as soon as possible. Pope Chaucer bridge is a major, major flood hazard, and before that can be replaced, Newell Road bridge can be replaced, because it is downstream of Chaucer. The planning through this project has been detailed and extensive. The current proposal is a wonderful compromise. It meets the flood control needs on the creek, and the proposed bridge is as small as can be, meeting Caltrans requirements and transportation requirements for pedestrians and bicycles and cars. The City has taken extensive community input, and the current design incorporates that community input. This project has been scaled down as much as possible in response to the community. There are legitimate [distortion] considerations. The City will need to take care of traffic calming on the road to meet those requirements, and I think the plan addresses that. Bottom line, please, go ahead with this project as quickly as possible. There have been speakers who live next to the bridge who spoke against this project, and it is important, with all due respect to the inconvenience the construction will cause, it is, from a City perspective, you need to take the whole community’s interests into account, rather than people who live right next to the bridge. Basically, please move forward with this project as soon as possible. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Ms. Hammer. With that, we will close the meeting to public comment, assuming, Vinh, we don’t have anyone else. Mr. Nguyen: That’s correct. We have no more public comments. Chair Baltay: Okay, I’ll bring the item back to the Board. Perhaps Grace could start out our comments today, if that’s okay. 3.a Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Lee: Sure, I’m happy to do so. Thank you, Peter. I’ll just begin with, thank you to all of the five public community members who spoke, as well as staff for a very complete staff presentation. I was not on the board at the time that this item came in the summer. I find the application is very complete, I [distortion]. I fully [distortion] the project. I do see it as a great improvement in terms of pedestrian and bike safety. I also appreciate the gestures that were requested, really from this board, in terms of more information regarding the landscape plane, which gives us a much better idea in terms of the context and how that project is actually going to be really an improvement on the overall site in terms of infrastructure systems, landscape, circulation, and the experience of many community members. The two speakers who spoke to the flood control and the need for this since 1998, I really appreciate the thinking from the City in terms of how we solve these problems. Perhaps they take quite a long time. This project probably will not be constructed until 2023. Thank you for everyone who has been involved in this project, has contributed to it. I did want to note that, I believe, Claire, planning staff, you know, I was [distortion], I understand why it is [distortion] regarding how it [distortion] perhaps East Palo Alto [distortion]. An improvement, I think, in this application would have been… I did some research of my own, was just in terms of the regional bike network of trails and planning by [distortion] jurisdictions. East Palo Alto [inaudible] I think my colleague, Board Member Hirsch, asked about the bikes on Woodland. How does this sit [distortion] this brief period in time, and I understand that this is part of a gesture of connecting a larger bike network, a larger regional thinking in terms of pedestrian safety, linking East Palo Alto to Palo Alto, considering just how all of those pieces play together. I guess my last comments are regarding the landscape. I understand that the City is very well staffed and will be reviewing this as it moves forward in the next years. I’m just wondering, and maybe the Board can comment in terms of moving forward, and their thoughts on the landscape and how this is all coming together, if there is a need or even a desire to have some ARB representative working with staff in collaboration, since this is, you know, this is a significant project for the community, and it will take some time moving forward, and what that kind of ushering through with some representation on our board might be, or if there’s even a need. I mean, I’m happy to [distortion] to move to Council, and I thank you for the forum today. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. David, do you want to go next, please? Board Member Hirsch: Okay, yep, fine. Grace, that was a nice presentation. I don’t want to step on your toes. You said it all nicely. I think my biggest concern at the moment is the objections that were raised by the immediate neighbors and whatever measures might be taken to mitigate those issues that they raised. Of course, you know, the staging of machinery, etc., really ought to be a part of this. I haven’t really looked at our documents to see how that’s going to be done. I’m sorry I didn’t ask the question earlier, but perhaps, Claire, you could respond to some of that issue. Because it seems to be relatively serious. I’m not sure about the health issue, how that is addressed, but certainly the staging and where the equipment is held at the time of construction, because it will be a long period of time. Again, also I agree with Grace, an excellent presentation, and I accept your desire to use the scheme you prefer. The landscaping, I’ll leave to others to talk about, but the fact that this bridge is now going to be a less solid element and have a much better feeling and openness towards the creek is going to be appreciated. In terms of traffic, I’m not sure how to answer that either [inaudible] consideration. I’m very much in favor of the project. I mention the fact that it would be nice if it were coordinated somehow with bike passage on the other side. It seems like a shame that it isn’t connected in some way, or that East Palo Alto couldn’t have pushed their program up to meet this. I’m sorry that’s not done, because all of a sudden, you’re going to get to the bridge and there’s nowhere to go, as a bicyclist. But, from the point of view of the Palo Alto side, I think it’s very well done, and I encourage the project to start right away, in particular because I happen to live upstream, closer to Chaucer bridge, and I’d like to see the project continue onward upstream so that the whole of the Palo Alto San Francisquito Creek is handled for future flood issues. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, David. Alex? Board Member Lew: Yes. I do support the project. I would disclose that I own property nearby, and that house flooded in 1998. For new owners, you do not understand how traumatic that was. That handled in the middle of the night and people, like my neighbors, were fleeing their house in the middle of the night to go to a hotel. It took weeks – weeks – to clean up the damage. We’ve been waiting over 20 years for this, and I think we’re ready for it. We need it. Typically, there is a construction management plan that will 3.a Packet Pg. 33 City of Palo Alto Page 9 happen later. Typically, the ARB does not address the construction impact, normally. [inaudible]. Some other board members have mentioned regional bike connections, and I think [distortion] happening. You can actually see there’s a new segment of, the Ravenswood [inaudible] space has a new segment of the Bay trail that’s just about to open. I went over there last week, and it actually looks great. The new Newell Road bridge over 101 opened, maybe it was a few years ago, and I’ve been really encouraged by how much pedestrian traffic that I see going over that. I do see there are people from East Palo Alto going over, and I also see people from Palo Alto heading over there to do, like, long endurance runs along Bay Trail. I actually think that’s all working pretty nicely. I have [distortion] on the project. One that I was asking about before was just the landscaping along the curb. I mean, typically, the City lets the neighbors plant and maintain that area, so, my question was, is that the plan for this? Or is the City going to plant along there. My second concern is, along Newell and Palo Alto, is, you are proposing coast live oaks. Pretty tight spacing of [distortion] on center. My only concern is that it has a very dense canopy, and it has a very low canopy, and the street lights are tall. I think they’re, like, 25 foot [distortion] lights. I think it’s going to create a very dark sidewalk when the trees are at medium maturity. It won’t be a problem initially, and it won’t be a problem when the trees get really old and the canopy thins out, but that’s a long-term concern. That’s all I have. Oh, one last comment. Somebody else on the board mentioned the guardrails previously. I think it was Peter. I think that there is a big difference in impact, visual impact if they’re black or if they’re galvanized, and I think there are maintenance issues associated with having them black. I think it’s maybe up for discussion with the Board. I was also curious if we were going to bid that out maybe as options. That’s all that I have. I do support the project. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Claire, did you have a comment? Ms. Raybould: I would just ask if you’d like staff to comment on a couple of things that Board Member Lew brought up. In particular, we would be interested in your consideration of the black versus galvanized. Chair Baltay: Let’s let everybody go through this, then we’ll come back. Ms. Raybould: Okay. Okay. Chair Baltay: There are a few things I think we want further detail. First, let’s hear from Osma. Ms. Raybould: Sounds great. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I feel pretty similarly with my other members. I also had that concern that Board Member Lew mentioned, about the tree canopy on the bridge. It might just be the picture that shows that. It does seem like it will be pretty heavily shaded. A lighter tree might be an option. It’s a comment, though. I don’t know if it’s something that we should… I’m not sure if we should consider it to review later. The black galvanized, now I’m really thinking about this. I’d like to hear more about the maintenance issues. Obviously, we want something that will look good long term. I’m sure Claire had something to say about that, but that’s okay. We’ll circle back on that later. Otherwise, I’m in support of this project. I understand the sacrifice that the neighbors will have to make, and I also understand that it’s important for the City long term, especially when there are natural things that happen that make it difficult to live. I will end my comments there for now, and then, we’ll circle back later. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. I also am in support of this project, and I support the comments everybody else has made, and I don’t want to add to them. What I would like to do, though, is have staff cover three things for us quickly, if we could. One is, could you please go through what construction logistics and regulations are required so that the neighbor’s concerns can be alleviated, and hopefully mitigated. Secondly, I’d like if we could walk through what the landscaping plan is, particularly regarding the trees along Newell. And then, let’s get Alex’s question about the landscaping answered. Lastly, let’s discuss the color of the guardrail. Claire, could you take us through those three things, please? Ms. Raybould: Sure. Starting with the comments from the neighbor. There were quite a variety of comments. I just want to start out by saying that these are the same comments that were raised during the draft EIR comment period, and there are formal responses to comments included in, I believe it’s 3.a Packet Pg. 34 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Appendix F of the final EIR. There are more details related to this. I’ll keep my comments at a high level and speak to a few of the key things they raised. Related to, I think, air quality, the EIR did identify impacts related to NOx and identified typical mitigation measures to reduce that impact to a less-than-significant level. The EIR did not identify any significant impacts related to fugitive dust, additional dust that may be present. Standard measures are always required for every project under the Bay Area Air Quality Management District, just standardized measures to reduce dust and ensure that that’s not impacting adjacent neighbors. I do want to be clear that the area adjacent [distortion] their residence is a staging area. It’s not the area where all construction would occur. I do want to [distortion] as well. I [distortion] to the long-term impacts of traffic, and I just [distortion] that the analysis, the data and analysis that was completed does not [distortion] conclusion that this have an impact on traffic, or would in any way induce capacity on the roadway. This is replacing a two-lane bi-directional bridge with a two-lane bi-directional bridge, and the majority of the width that is provided is for additional bicycle safety and bicycle access and pedestrian access, encouraging multimodal transportation. A lot of the policies and the comprehensive plan that were noted in this commenter’s email from earlier, all speak to the reasons why we are looking to do this project, which is to encourage multimodal transportation, and to provide better pedestrian and bicycle access, in addition to the flood control benefits as well. Chair Baltay: Let me jump in for a second, Claire. What I’m hoping to hear from staff, from Public Works, is some of the more concrete measures that will be taken to mitigate the impact on the neighbors. What are we going to do to control the dust, the noise, security, staging? Is there anything in the plans now that they can hear and [distortion]? That’s what I really want staff to address right now so we have it in the record. What are we doing? Michel Jeremias, Public Works: Sure, no problem, thank you. Right now, the plans don’t show that level of detail for construction. Typically, that is provided once we advance the project into design. Currently, we’re only at the environmental stage, and due to Caltrans [distortion], we can’t commence the design component. When we do commence, [distortion] is a [distortion] logistics plan, a plan that identifies where the construction fence will be located, where the trailer, if necessary for equipment, the trailer will be staged on site. It will address any [distortion] we need to dampen any noise that may be carried out. We’ll also have strict measures for our consultants, our contractors, to sweep, to maintain a street clean, keep the level of dust down, making sure elements are [distortion]. One of the items I want to make clear is the construction of the bridge is only three months, but we need to do all the work around it. It’s not a two- year project. It’s probably going to be three months in the creek, and then, the rest of it is going to be outside of it. It’s not as long-term as expected. Does that answer your question? Chair Baltay: That does very much. David, do you have other questions about the construction logistics? You were most concerned. Board Member Hirsch: No, I think that was well answered. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Claire, could you then switch on to the landscaping issues? What are we doing with that? Ms. Raybould: I think the question was raised about the oak trees. Staff can certainly explore some alternative options to using oak if we feel that that’s going to, at certain stages in the life cycle of the tree, maybe present maybe too dark of an area. We can definitely look into some alternative options for trees. We are looking to use only native species in this area, so we would look to some other native species. I’m using California [distortion] and Catalina ironwood, are the other planned trees in this area. I don’t know, Michel, if there’s anything you want to add to that, or…? Ms. Jeremias: The landscape plan was prepared by one of our consultants, Colander [phonetic]. We discussed the plan with them, the intent. We’ve also talked with landscape architect [distortion] City. They have reviewed, and this is what they recommend as far as spacing. If you feel like we need to reduce the spacing for the canopy, we can. I think one of the comments we tried to address was the public’s concerns regarding providing the [inaudible] exists today. We’re trying to also create more shading since that’s 3.a Packet Pg. 35 City of Palo Alto Page 11 what’s out there as well, but we’re open to any of your comments. We can try to address those as well as we advance the project, and then to the design. Chair Baltay: Do you think this is going to be a committee-type thing to come back to us, or is it something we should [distortion]? Comments make sense. What’s your take on it, what they’re saying? Board Member Lew: Everything I’ve seen so far in the landscape looks fine. It looks like they’re on track to do a good job. I do support the oak trees. To me, it’s really more spacing of those oak trees with the street light. In [inaudible], I would rather have, like, [distortion] scaled street lights, but I do understand that Newell doesn’t have that along its length. Ms. Jeremias: The photometric plan shows that we have probably more lights than necessary. There’s more light in that area for the intended purposes. Chair Baltay: Osma, did you have any response issue about the trees as well? You were concerned about them. Vice Chair Thompson: I see one, because I guess we increased the spacing, then we’re [distortion] some trees, and I’m sure that that’s also not desired. It’s fine. I think it’s okay. It’s one of those things where it’s a concern, but it’s also one of those, it’s not so large of a concern. Unless Alex wanted to take it to subcommittee. I would be okay with that, if Board Member Lew wanted to. But, if Board Member Lew is not in favor, I’m also willing to let it go. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Osma. Let me [distortion] I [distortion] as possible. [distortion] to subcommittee is [distortion] further along. It’s been 20 years in the making. I strongly support letting [distortion] trees, taking Alex [distortion] into account. Ms. Gerhardt: Can I…? Is it a matter of maintenance? Maybe the trees [distortion] certain way, where it’s still able…? Chair Baltay: It would probably come up on the next question, guardrail painting, because it’s something that doesn’t always happen. [distortion] pointing out that very overgrown [distortion] are not maintained. The City’s going to [distortion] regular [distortion]. Go over this [distortion]. Is that a choice? Something that’s already been standard? Ms. Raybould: Michel, you can speak a little bit more to that. I think both [distortion] as possible. I don’t know [distortion] more maintenance for [distortion] and maybe you can [distortion] that there would be a maintenance agreement with these. Ms. Jeremias. I think galvanized is the standard color, is a standard [distortion] Caltrans. The guardrail, the bridge railing, is standard. This is a rail that we have to use for this bridge. It’s the one [distortion] test. Otherwise, if we try to use something different, we have to take it through and run [distortion] labs and test the rails. What we’re trying to use is a rail that’s been approved. It would [distortion] galvanized. Try to add color to it, so [distortion], and that would require [distortion] I would say every couple years’ maintenance. But if that’s something that the Board [distortion], we can try to go down that path. It’s something that we try to provide, an option and alternative, knowing that we have [distortion] on the actual guardrail. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Okay, let’s just take a straw poll. I [distortion] it’s worth painting. It seems to me that’s maintenance dollars not as well spent as other places. Everybody else, just on that one issue. David, how do you feel about the painting of the guardrails? Board Member Hirsch: Agreed. Chair Baltay: Alex? 3.a Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Board Member Lew: I think using a color, somebody will want to change it. And then, it starts chipping and flaking, and so you see multiple colors on the railing. And then, I think [distortion] for the guardrails on the retaining walls, is that we have them in different cities, and the [distortion] property owners, and it seems to me that that’s going to become problematic if, you know, in trying to keep it in one color. Even though it may look [distortion], a colored railing may look better than the galvanized. I think over the long haul, I think the galvanized would be better. Chair Baltay: Grace, what’s your take? Board Member Lee: I support galvanized. I assume that actually painted was a standard for Caltrans, but I’m happy to hear we can just go with the galvanized, no need for paint. Chair Baltay: Osma, what do you think? Vice Chair Thompson: I’m outnumbered, regardless. Galvanized is fine. Chair Baltay: Okay good. I think the galvanized railing issue is okay. Do we have…? Anyone want to make a motion to put this through? I think we’re all in support of Item 2A. Can I call for a motion? MOTION Chair Baltay: Very well. I move that we recommend approval of this project with Option 2A, as presented by staff. Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: Moved and seconded. Vinh, how do we do votes again? Mr. Nguyen: I’ll read everyone’s name in alphabetic order and you can declare whether you’re for or against. Chair Baltay: The motion is made and seconded. Please have a vote, Vinh. Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5) No: (0) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 5-0. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, everybody. Ms. Raybould: Thank you. Chair Baltay: Grace, you’re going to be leaving us now – Is that right? Board Member Lee: Yes, apologies. I will need to leave the meeting at this time. I will recuse given [distortion] with Stanford on the next items. I’m sorry I’m unable to attend for the final item. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. Thanks for your participation today. [Board Member Lee left the meeting.] 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3215 Porter Drive [19PLN00237]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow Construction of a new 22,029 Square Foot Office/ R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration was Circulated for Public Comment From April 10, 2020 to May 11, 2020. 3.a Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Zoning District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay: I’d like to move on to the next one right away. Item number 3 is a public hearing, quasi- judicial, for 3215 Porter Drive Recommendation on Applicant’s request for approval of a major architectural review to allow construction of a new 22,029 square foot office/R&D building. Environmental impact is a negative, an initial study/mitigated negative declaration was circulated for public comment from April 10th to May 11, 2020. With that, do we have any disclosures for this item? I have nothing to disclose. Alex, disclosures? Board Member Lew: No disclosures. Chair Baltay: Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: No disclosures. Chair Baltay: David. Board Member Hirsch: No disclosures. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Can we have a staff report, please? Garrett Sauls, Project Planner: [Setting up presentation.] Good morning, Board. My name is Garrett, I am the project planner for this application. The project site is 3215 Porter Drive. As mentioned before, it is a new 22,000 square foot office building in the Stanford Research Park. This is a quick overview from the previous hearing. This is a new two-story R&D office building that is providing around 70 parking spaces. We have an above-grade parking facility, as well as a below-grade parking structure, which respectively are providing 32 spaces above ground and 38 spaces below ground. They are also providing 52 bicycle spaces on the site, with 18 long-term spaces, mostly in the below-grade parking structure, and partially on the back of the property, which will be shown on the next slide, on the site plan. There are also 32 short- term spaces along the front of the property near Porter Drive. They are including around 1,100 square feet of traffic amenity space in the site, which they intend to utilize as some form of café space. They are also providing around 55 percent of canopy over the parking area, which is exceeding the 50 percent requirement that the state has. Back in the 1980’s, there was a Remedial Action Order on this site that was provided to HP’s Building 15. The uses that were provided at the site previously had a number of volatile organic compounds that had seeped into the ground [inaudible] a water at this location, and DTSC has been working with Stanford since then to enact this Remedial Action Order to deal with the volatile organic compounds on this site. With that, they are going to be requiring a vapor intrusion mitigation system underneath system. That will be helping to protect occupants of the site from any sort of vapors that would be protruding from the ground, as well as during construction, they would have mitigation measures to protect against those who are constructing the building. As mentioned by Board Member Baltay, we have mitigated negative declaration that has been in circulation since April 10th of this year, and is finishing the following Monday. We have not received any current comments from any member of the public as to recommended suggestions or changes to the document, and all the mitigation measures proposed to the building are in Exhibit A in the conditions of approval. With that, from the analysis we have done, we have now recognized that there will be a significant impact that could not be mitigated, but many of them are fairly standard, related to project-specific construction issues related to birds or nesting avian during construction, as well as the previously-mentioned vapor mitigation system. From the previous comments from the Board, there were about six categories dealing with landscape, architectural details, openings, windows, lighting, and other such things that we’ll talk about. As noted here, the previous plans did not show the planters on the space between 3215 porter and the substation. That is actually currently now shown on the plans on the site plan, and in the rendering drawing, which you see on the cover page, as well as on page A1.7 and A1.10 within the document. They also did provide more soil volumes for the trees at the garage ramp, and that is shown on L1.15 of the plant. That was soil volume guidance that they received from the City’s Urban Forestry Department previously, that they were trying to protect for those trees to have an adequate capability to grow to a mature size and not create conflict on the site. Others 3.a Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Page 14 were considering relocation of the oak tree along the front right side of the property. Stanford has proposed to maintain the existing condition proposal, which was it would be on the left hand side so it could still maintain a warm, opening, appealing, curbside appeal. That will be shown on the elevations as well. They also had some ground floor planters that David had commented on previously, to have those raised, and those are shown on the elevation drawings as well. The architectural details that have been talked about were for additional louver attachments and bike channel, entry awnings. Those are shown now on pages A2.13, 2.14, and L1.7. That is currently also addressed in the staff report. There is was also an ask to better integrate the rear balcony, and to have transformers be screened, and to use other additional sidings on the site. Those items have also been addressed in the staff report as well. With the window and doorframes they have shown – and I’ll show in a couple slides in a second – they have brought those doorways up to the soffit for the building so that they can have a more consistent look across the site. The other items were about lighting and structural support of the façade, and the organization of the uses with the building. With the lighting, they have reduced the number of 14-foot-tall lights that they proposed, but they haven’t utilized the step lighting that was suggested by the Board previously, as they found that that’s been a maintenance issue for them over time. They have consulted with their structural designer to confirm that there shouldn’t be any issue with changing the front façade as it was shown. Currently, they are going to be using a moment frame along the front so that it would be more able to manage what the design is showing currently. They are also looking to organize the uses more collectively along the side of the property that is facing towards Porter Drive. This was the previous site plan where they showed, you can see the mouse cursor moving around. They had their traffic mitigating amenity space along here. This is where their potted plants will be, and it will be shown on the next slide, here, where you can see the difference. They had co-located their traffic amenity space over to here, which is in combination of where they propose to have their bike repair facility, to activate this frontage space over here. Additionally, you see these landscape planters here, and you can see those on the elevation drawings on the photo renderings of the site. They are proposing to place an area resource center container, which is going to be holding a number of safety equipment, so they would be able to access the building in the event of any sort of emergency. If they were not able to get into the building, this is where that information would be stored, like walkie-talkies and first aid kits. That is a new change to the site. On the elevation drawings, you will see that they did try to highlight more, kind of this contrast between the first and the ground floor. You can also see on this rear balcony over on this left-hand side that they have changed the window paneling along here to be glass, which will call more attention to a [inaudible] in between the rear balcony and the front balcony, and they have removed this band here to showcase the stairs, which will help to identify more of the building in an angular [inaudible]. On the right-hand side, you see that with the existing, the comment related to bringing the doorways up to the underside, has been addressed by bringing the material closer up. They’re showing that continuation up to the bottom side of the soffit of the second floor. Staff feels that that has been adequately addressed. One item that was brought, again, to attention was this rear balcony. You see on the left-hand side an existing condition or existing proposal, and a new proposal, which is where we have an additional use of glass paneling on the back, and we have the staircase steps being more angular in nature, pulled towards more of the east [inaudible] paneling that they’re using on the site. Previously, due to the fact that we aren’t able to share physically the material samples, we have been sharing the front dimensional photos of the materials that you see here. This is the curtain wall glazing. This is the balcony taper. You have the material for the wood soffit. And we have the material for the silver metal panels and mullions, accent metal, and other metals to be used on the site. With that, staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project, and we would be working to, once the project has been approved, then we will be waiting until the M&D public hearing process is finished. That concludes my presentation. Ms. Gerhardt: Garrett, do we know who from the applicant’s team would be speaking, so that Vinh can let them in? Mr. Sauls: It should be Kevin McCarthy and James Winstead, are the ones who would be presenting from Stanford. We also have David J. Powers, the City’s consultant, available if there are any questions the Board has about the document. Mr. Nguyen: I’ve admitted James, and I’m sorry, who else? 3.a Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Mr. Sauls: Kevin McCarthy. Jason McCarthy: It’s Jason McCarthy. Mr. Sauls: Jason McCarthy, sorry. Jason McCarthy. Chair Baltay: Let’s move into the applicant’s presentation. You’ll have 10 minutes to speak to us. You can go ahead any time you like. Thank you. Mr. Nguyen: Jason and James are both unmuted. [Connecting with Jason and James.] Jason McCarthy, Studios Architecture: Good morning. My name is Jason McCarthy with Studios Architecture. It’s a pleasure to be here with you, albeit virtually this morning, but a pleasure to be back and presenting some of the updates to the project since our conversation with all of you earlier this year in January. I’ll just mention, the Stanford client is also on the call, if there’s any questions we need to let them address in the conversation that follows. Just to refresh, I think Garrett did an excellent job to frame the project, but just to refresh some of the early drivers of the design and what our thinking was as we approached the project. We really wanted to celebrate this very important intersection in the Research Park – Porter Drive, Hillview Avenue and Hanover Street, all coming to this intersection. Three iconic addresses in the Research Park. And then, geographically, just being located at this sort of heart of the Research Park. We wanted to address that and bring the building forward to the intersection, create an identity of welcome for the project, and really create what could become a social hub for the research park at large. Next slide please. On the site plan, I’m sure you all remember, but the project has this wonderful series of plaza spaces or outdoor amenity areas that wrap the building on three sides towards the south, east and west. As Garrett mentioned, we’ve been able to relocate the traffic mitigating amenity – a planned café – toward the Porter Drive façade, so that, together with the bike repair, we feel will really help frame the entrance and animate the project to the Porter Drive frontage. Next slide, please. Here is the Porter Drive image of the building. Really, that sense of welcome and identity of community that we’re trying to develop with this project. The architecture is very much articulated to be pedestrian-friendly, and we wanted the building to, in a sense, engage with that intersection, engage with the pedestrian, the bicycle access and transit access, onto the property. The architecture here is articulated and has a level of detail that we think is going to help give this building a very warm and inviting feel. That’s going to be attractive to the smaller technology, early- stage companies that we envision coming to work in this building as a multitenant facility. Next slide, please. Here along the entry drive, you can start to see where we begin to tailor the building a little bit in response to some of the discussion we had in the earlier hearing. As Garrett mentioned, we were able to bring the doorways and metal panel accents at the base up to that datum that wraps the building now, all the way around, in a more consistent manner. We think that’s been a good improvement to the design and really helps, in a sense, simplify this façade so that you can appreciate the dynamic pattern of the windows around the building. Next slide, please. Here at the west and south plaza, you can see that we also modified the fenestration or window pattern. We made the second level windows a little less symmetrical, so it’s more in keeping with that dynamic rhythm of openings along the entry drive. Again, we were able to bring ground floor openings up to that datum line on the second floor. Further, as Garrett mentioned, we did revisit the stair and balcony design here, and we propose now an all-glass guardrail with a very minimalist detail for the balcony itself, which is, again, in keeping with that front balcony design. And then, in complement with that, we decided to express the tread and riser of the stair by using an underslung structural strainer, and that added detail, we think, adds a nice complement to the simplicity and elegance of the balcony, as well. Next slide. The material palette here hasn’t changed, but we have it here for reference. Still very warm and inviting. Very friendly and modern and forward looking, we think. Next slide. With that, I’ll transition over to James to speak to more of the open space updates to the design. Next slide. James, please. James Winstead, Guzzardo Partnership: Thanks, Jason. Good morning. First, thank you, Board members, for your thoughtful comments last time we presented this project. I’ll take the remaining time here to walk you through changes that we’ve made in response to what we heard. First, while we’re on this slide showing 3.a Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Page 16 the site plan for the project, just a reminder of some of the guiding concepts for site design of this. Again, somewhat unique to the Research Park is the really strong front door presence that this project has to Porter Drive. We use that to bring a very open, welcoming entry experience, bringing pedestrians into the project, feeling like it’s an open place that you could come visit. The plaza around the south side of the building is furnished with comfortable outdoor work spaces, warm materials such as wood seating elements and the like, and there’s an extremely strong indoor/outdoor relationship between that plaza and the ground floor of the building, offering a lot of interaction possibilities there. And then, lastly, this project embraced transit connections with the Research Park transit opportunities, and then, bicycle circulation, providing ample bike parking, and then, the bike amenity within the building itself. Next slide, please. The first item that we looked at based on comments was this entry stairway and the bike channels that we’re providing to bring you up [distortion]. One of the changes that you can see here is that we’ve actually split that flight of stairs into two sections with a middle landing, which creates a little bit more of a generous, welcome, comfortable approach up into the site. And then, with the bike channel itself, we’ve added one, so there’s one on each side, comfortable [distortion] to bring your bike up and down, or if two people are using it at the same time. And then, with those channels, we’ve carefully studied spacing for pedals and handlebars and things like that, that they would be easy to use in that area. We have reviewed this with Planning and Transportation staff, and they were both very happy with what we’re proposing here. Next slide, please. We also have some comments about some of the planting areas in some relatively narrow spaces around the project. What we’re highlighting here is the cyan color you see, is where we’re proposing to use structural soil for trees and planting areas that are adjacent to paving. And then, the green highlighted raised planter at the back of the building is the built-up planter that’s over the garage lid underneath, where we’re proposing the oak tree. We’re providing roughly 1,000 cubic feet of soil there. Both of these approaches – the soil volume in that planter and the structural soil – are consistent with recommendations we’ve received from urban forestry on similar projects with similar conditions, and we are working with [inaudible] Science on this project, who is a consultant, to ensure that we are providing really good growing conditions for these plants. And then, as far as the plant material itself, we reviewed what we’re proposing, and we’re very comfortable with the actual plant species, that they are suitable for these planting conditions. Next slide, please. The next couple of slides, we’d like to show you some of the screening approaches that we’re using throughout the site. First, as Garrett mentioned, the potted trees along the north property line. We’ve confirmed that those are allowed. The pots themselves are fitted with forklift skids so they can be easily moved out of the way in case there needs to be any service done to utilities in that easement. Those are along that north property line. The second piece is we’ve introduced an architectural wood screen around the transformer, which is just off the northwest corner of the building. This is using the same Kebony wood material that we’ve already proposed for use on the seating elements in the plaza, so there’s a cohesive material palette throughout the site where we’re using that. It’s a really elegant way to provide a visual buffer to that utility. The last piece on this slide is at the back of the property line where we have that screen wall for the ground treatment facility. We are proposing an evergreen hedge along there. We think that’s an important feature, just to create a soft, a little warmer environment in the parking lot area. And then, we’ll show a little more about lighting in a couple slides, but there was a comment. Previously, we had a parking lot pole light on that wall, and we’ve been able to remove that in favor of bollards. It’s a little bit more of a simple expression all the way along that back property line. Next slide, please. As Garrett mentioned, the introduction of the area response center structure at the back of the site. We’re using a similar, again, the architectural wood fence to provide screening there. In this case, we also have a little more space around it, so there’s some really nice foreground planting leading up to. Again, it’s that same Kebony wood material, so it’s cohesive throughout the site. Next slide, please. Here you can see that in context. We think that’s a really elegant way to provide this, sort of essential function, and it really ties into the rest of the site here. Next slide, please. This will be the final one. We took a very close look at the site lighting based on some comments we heard, with a specific look at trying to reduce the pole light fixtures where we were able to. We have been successful, as I mentioned, along the back property line. We were able to eliminate one of the parking lot lights in favor of bollards for that walkway. And then, throughout the plaza areas, taking a really close look at the photometrics and where we can use efficiency there to eliminate a picture or two, and substituting bollards in a couple of cases. We’ve been able to, like in the pedestrian plaza areas, we’ve reduced the poles by five. We’re very happy with where we’ve ended up on the lighting design. Next slide, please. That concludes our presentation. We’re all available on line, and as Jason mentioned, the Stanford team is also here, and our civil engineer is available if you guys have any questions. Thank you. 3.a Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. A very nice presentation. Do we have any questions of the applicant? I have three relating to materials. I wonder if you could just walk us through. Is it possible to get back to that material board you flashed on the screen? This is just unfortunate because we don’t have a material board in front of us. I just want to understand better what they really are. Mr. Sauls: Would you like the…? Chair Baltay: The applicant showed a fairly nice put-together of materials. Mr. Sauls: Okay. Chair Baltay: If it’s possible to get back to that. To the applicant, I’d like to have you explain to us what the metal slat, the vertical elements that make up the majority of the façade, are, if I were putting my hands on them. And then, the wood slats on the soffit, are those an actual wood? Is that the Kebony wood that you’re talking about? Mr. McCarthy: Thank you, Chair Baltay. This is Jason again. I’ll start with the silver metal panel. It’s a profiled metal panel that we’re developing, and the image that’s on the slide here is representative. It’s not the actual sample. In essence, we’re developing a series of varying width profiles of sort of, you could call it a board-and-batten look. They are, I think, three inch, six inch, and 12 inch width sections of profile and recess, and they’re in a varying, sort of randomized, if you will, pattern, so there will be three standard panels that are repeated in a sequence that creates a random look. It’s got a little deeper profile, so it has a nice depth to it. It has a sense of relief and shadow to it. We wanted it to have a texture and a sense of refinement, but also being, in a sense, a simple material, elegant and simple, but in a sense, humble as well. Chair Baltay: Can I ask, for each individual board and bat, so to speak, are they individual pieces, or is it one larger rolled sheet? Mr. McCarthy: They are formed metal panels, similar to the image that’s on the screen. They interlock in a way that has a concealed fastening. They have sort of a lap that locks them together and keeps a very consistent profile. It’s a finished project, and it’s a custom, if you will, pattern. But it’s a manufactured product that’s designed for this interlock without any exposed fasteners. Chair Baltay: Is it a material like zinc, or naturally finished thing that weathers, or is it a painted steel? What is the material? Mr. McCarthy: In this case, it’s a painted steel. The silver coloring that you see in the image here is, in fact, the proposed finish, so it’s a high-performance metallic paint. Chair Baltay: I guess it’s impossible to answer this, but how reflective is it? Mr. McCarthy: It has a relatively satin finish. It’s not a high-gloss panel. Like a metallic, it has some amount of reflectivity to it. It has a sparkle to it, but it’s not a glossy finish. Chair Baltay: Do samples exist of this thing, or is it still in development? Mr. McCarthy: We do have them in our office, back in quarantine-land. Chair Baltay: That’s why the questions are coming. Mr. McCarthy: We’re also going to be developing larger-scale mock-ups as we get into construction. Chair Baltay: Okay. And the soffit, that’s natural wood? 3.a Packet Pg. 42 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Mr. McCarthy: Yes, it’s a natural wood, although we’re not proposing the Kebony for the soffits because they’re somewhat more protected and overhanging. We wanted a lighter color for those soffit materials, so we’re proposing a cedar, which is weather resistant, but can be very handsome and a little bit lighter than [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: Those would be individual tongue-and-groove boards, or lap boards, or…? Mr. McCarthy: Yes. Chair Baltay: It’s not a plywood sheet that’s been [crosstalk]. Mr. McCarthy: Correct, correct. Chair Baltay: Okay, great. Any other questions? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I have one. Did Garrett have…? I remember him showing material samples of the project, but it wasn’t the metal panel, right? We were looking at a balcony paver. Is that right? Mr. McCarthy: That’s right. That was also in the… He had an image of the metal, again, the sample that was provided on the board was more for the finish of metal, rather than the actual profile of the metal panel. That was shown in Garrett’s earlier slides as well. Mr. Sauls: I can show that right now. Hold on. Vice Chair Thompson: That would be great. Mr. Sauls: This is the one you were talking about, Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Okay, so, this is just a… Okay, I see. It’s just an example of the finish. Mr. Sauls: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: I have a question, too. What’s the material of the fascia of the balcony in the back? I think it’s more than one area that has it. Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, you can see that in the image here, the white accent metal. We have a number of elements of the design that are actually going to be painted white, and that includes those balcony fascia, as well as the exposed steel columns along the front façade, where we’ve got the ground floor colonnade expressed. Mr. Sauls: This one right here. Mr. McCarthy: And then, the dark gray accents are for the window reveals, if you will, the trim around the window punches, as well as those ground-floor metal panel openings and doors. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you very much for that quick discussion about the materials. I think it points out, at least in my mind, that it’s really hard to make a real evaluation without seeing these things. But, let’s keep moving forward. Board Member Lew: I have one question. Chair Baltay: Sure, go ahead, Alex. Board Member Lew: I have a question about the, there’s an existing stair and pathway to the Hewett- Packard site. I think I’ve seen in the drawings, you mention that there could be a future connection, and I was wondering what the status is of that. 3.a Packet Pg. 43 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Mr. Sauls: Sure. Are you talking about the side that is closer to the substation, or the 3181 Porter Drive location? Board Member Lew: Oh, I’m not sure. I just, I saw it when I was visiting the site. Chair Baltay: It’s next to the substation, on the right as you’re facing… Board Member Lew: On the right side, yeah, near the substation. Mr. Sauls: Okay. Currently, there isn’t a proposal to maintain any sort of connection between the spaces, so that would be, there’s that kind of off-road/dirt road that’s up along this side that you’re talking about? Board Member Lew: Right. Mr. Sauls: Right. Currently, there isn’t a proposal to maintain that as a vehicle passageway between the site, and I spoke with the fire department and there’s no requirement for it to be maintained. Effectively, it would be cut off at this point and become unusable in terms of having a vehicle passing through the space. We could obviously have one do so anyway and drive over whatever curbs may be there, and over this kind of [inaudible] bike pathway that they’ve got going on along the back here. But there isn’t any expectation that that would be kept. Chair Baltay: I believe there’s also a pedestrian staircase that… [crosstalk] Board Member Lew: Yeah, I recall a staircase, but… Chair Baltay: …somebody put a lot of effort into it at one point. There’s even a small landscaped area, maybe 20, 50 feet up from the property line. It may be worth having the applicant consider how they’re going to incorporate that because people will use it. Mr. McCarthy: Currently, it’s not maintained. As I understand it, that’s on the HP parcel and we couldn’t force them to upgrade all of that to what we would like it to be. To become an accessible pathway, it would be quite an investment, so I don’t know what the long-term prospects are for them improving that side of the berm there. Chair Baltay: It might just be a matter of putting a pathway for you branching to that, so at least people could [crosstalk]… Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, we sort of expect that could connect in here over time if they were to update their side of the fence. I think Stanford would welcome that, to increase the pedestrian friendliness of the Research Park. Chair Baltay: If we move on, do we have any public comments on this project, Vinh? I’d like to open it to public comment if we have anything. Mr. Nguyen: We do not have any public comments for this item. Chair Baltay: Okay, is there anyone out there who wishes to address us on this item? Okay, I don’t see, hear, nobody has their digital hand raised up. Mr. Sauls: Sorry, one last little thing on that. There is a pedestrian pathway connecting 3181 Porter Drive and 3215. It’s a little more difficult to see because of this overcast in the tree, but there is a proposal to have an allowance to connect – you see the mouse moving through – from one site to the next, with this proposal. It’s not on the HP side, it’s connecting towards 3181 Porter. 3.a Packet Pg. 44 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Baltay: Great. Thank you, Garrett. Why don’t we go back to the street view of this building? It’s very nice looking. David, why don’t you start us off with your comments? Board Member Hirsch: Okay, thank you. Well, there are some significant improvements here that I think that you’ve made on the design, both of the building and of the site. I appreciate in particular the lighting changes that were made because I felt that, certainly the poles seemed a lot higher and interrupted the building, and certainly you see it, in this case, that the lighting is brought down to a more pedestrian level. I think it’s a significant improvement in the project on the lighting side. Of course, the little details were we, it’s wonderful, the fact that, you know, the way the bicycle can be brought up to the plaza level there on the side. Never seen that before. I think it’s a wonderful idea. One other plus… It would be good if we could switch to the site plan. The fact that you’ve found a way to keep those trees alive as a creative order to the ramp going downstairs, and the other parking on that level, by expanding the amount of open paving area where they can be watered properly, so we know they’re going to live. I think that allows us to agree that it’s possible to have trees on that perimeter. I am assuming that you really looked at that in enough detail, you know, that those trees would last in our dry season here. Because it’s an issue – Are they going to be watered? I suppose that would work, expect that there is such a drought that you can’t water. I would hope that you could answer a question as to what would be done. Will those trees really last? Or do they need to be, especially on the ramp level, does it need some other kind of planting? It would be nice to have the trees, but I’m not sure they’re going to make it. Your choice as to how you make sure that will stay just as it has been drawn. Personally, I love that back wall. I think that somebody spent a lot of time in it, and I sort of hate to see us kind of gussy it up with planting in front of it. I expressed that before. I think the bollards actually add something to it, but I would wish that there were almost no planting in front of that piece because it’s sort of an art piece of its own. And maybe lower planting rather than more planting, which is what you seem to have done here. You know, a building like this is really, it’s one of those buildings that [inaudible] in the detail. I maybe didn’t look at the detail; it’s so hard when you don’t have the drawings in front of you, to really ask yourself the question, how is this handled, that handled? Digital set in order to see it all. And I didn’t do that. Metal paneling, I happen to know a little bit about this because I have a house that’s made out of zinc. The detail of how you end a vertical piece when it comes down to the bottom, and how does it turn in under, and how does it turn into the window – all of those kind of details are really quite critical, and I don’t think I’ve seen enough of that detail yet. I sort of trust that the quality of everything that’s been here is really quite nice. Elevation and perspectives are beautiful. But sometimes the extra detail is really necessary when you’re dealing with materials like that. The corrugated metal, you know, what happens with it underneath as you need another surface? What creates the joint at that point? How does water flow off of that? I sort of expect Osma will get into this more than I would, but I’m a little concerned with the fascia materials on that deck. I think the rear deck in particular. I think that is a big improvement over what was shown before, in reaction to some of the comments that were made. And yet, I still am not too sure about the detail of the face metal material, how that’s going to work relative to the paving above, and how the water gets off of that deck. I’m not sure if I looked at the front deck and whether it has a similar problem, but the rear one sort of sticks out to me as an issue of detailing, once again. But from the beginning, the landscape and the idea of an inside/outside building like this, it’s quite wonderful. The whole building, its casualness, and in a setting of, kind of rigid, industrial look to the rest of the whole Research Park, this is a pleasant relief from those [inaudible] to a building that is quite friendly, and the landscaping, which is really wonderful, all around it. It’s sort of too bad that it has to be pots on the other side, but it’s better to have the trees than not to have the trees. In a sense, that’s all my comments. The step lighting, which I did suggest, I think it’s reasonable to say that it’s more difficult to maintain than what you’ve shown, so I accept that point of view. Other than that, I would say that if this were to have to go to committee at all, it would be because of the detailing of the materials on the outside, more than anything else that I would comment on here today. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Alex, do you want to pick it up from there, please? Board Member Lew: Sure. I actually don’t have very many comments. I do support the project. I think the community center-like design, the indoor/outdoor design, the low height light fixtures, native plants, and the structural soil, are all really well designed, and I can support the project. I do understand David’s comments about all the joints and details on the metal panels. I did not review those. If you want that to come back to subcommittee, I will support that. I will say that Studios has done several buildings in the 3.a Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Research Park and they’ve all turned out really well, so I do trust that they can do the job on this project as well. That’s all that I have. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Osma, what are your thoughts? Vice Chair Thompson: I can support this project. It’s very, very handsome, and I think the improvements are mostly good. Really appreciate the bike stair channel. I think that’s a huge benefit to the project. I am very concerned about the metal panel. Throughout the course of this meeting, I thought I knew what it was, and then it became very evident I did not know at all what it was. And the fact that, I guess the material sample isn’t really what it really will be, I’m sort of strongly in favor of going to subcommittee just to review that material specifically. Not that I don’t trust the applicant at all; it’s really just that, you know, the color sample really isn’t enough to understand exactly what’s going on with that wall. I do see some of the details that you provided, but they’re very minimal. It’s not enough to really know what this whole thing is getting cladded in. So, I would like to see that go to subcommittee. But the design of the back stair, the exit stair that goes up to the second floor on the back side of the building, I’ve been struggling with that a little bit. Seeing the before and after, initially I sort of preferred seeing that stringer on the sides. To understand the design intent, is to go for something minimal, sort of looking at it. It seems like there’s a glass guardrail that sort of extends, become a wire guardrail, sort of a wire infill guardrail. I’m a little nervous about the detailing of that. I didn’t see any details of that stair in the drawing set to really kind of understand, like, are we going for a floating stair kind of thing? I’m struggling with the stair design a little bit. Otherwise, it’s nothing that would stop me from improving the project. It would basically be a subcommittee item. Those are my comments. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. I share my colleagues’ sentiments. In general, I’m ready to support this building. I think it’s an excellent design. They’ve done a lot of good things. A lot of thought has gone into this, and almost everything they’ve described and explained what they’ve been thinking, I’ve been impressed with, from the bike channel, to the wood covering of the transformer, to the landscaping, to the light fixtures. My sole concern – and I think this should come back to subcommittee because of this – is the materials. Unfortunately, I just think that without a material board in front of us, it’s really tough to know what it’s really going to be like. That metal paneling is, in particular, important to me. If that’s a very rounded edge where they’ve formed those board and bats, it won’t look like that. It will look like a corrugated metal piece that they screwed up the spacing on. If it’s too reflective, it will just be awful. It will be really shiny and bright. Those are both things you just have to see firsthand. It’s not that I don’t have confidence. These guys are really good architects and they’ve done some great buildings, but I think it’s incumbent upon us to be careful, and to see that kind of stuff. I don’t really have anything else to add to the discussion, but I would like to see us in some way come back and review the material samples as real samples, and perhaps see a few details of things like the stairs, as Osma mentioned, and the edge of the balcony railings, the fascia, how that drainage is handled. I’m sure that they’re going to come up with great solutions, but we just don’t see it now. It’s just too hard to dive into that level of detail on the screen. With that, are there any other comments from anybody else? Mr. Sauls: Yeah, if I may, I would like to share the details that we all are talking about on the screen. Stanford did provide these items based on you guys’ request previously, so I wouldn’t want it to seem as though they haven’t tried to address the comments. Here, we have detailing of the inside corner of the balcony, and your other connection details, how this material is coming together. Jason, I think will be able to talk in more detail about these, and I can sift through the two or three different details that you guys are looking at. There’s information about the balcony as well. Mr. McCarthy: Thank you, Garrett. If you could go back to that plan view, the detail of the metal panel. Before I try and respond, I just want to say we are totally in agreement of the importance of the detailing on this project, and the simplicity, and a sense of the diagram puts more pressure on all of the detailing being really well thought through. It’s what we’re working on right now in developing the package for permit submission. A lot of the details that you pointed out in terms of how we transition at the datum line where the building steps back, the detail at the window inset, the detailing of these stairs, and so forth, these are all… We totally agree and appreciate the importance of them, and to some degree, that’s our favorite part of the project, is making sure those look good. I appreciate everyone’s comments and concerns 3.a Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Page 22 on those, and if we do need to go to subcommittee, happy to help reassure all of you of that further. As far as the metal panel goes, I was trying to see if I have… We have photos of those. They’re not really great photos of the samples that are in the office, but we probably have enough samples that we could ship one to each of you for your, you know look and feel over. But if you’d just zoom in on that plan detail of the corner there, Garrett, for a moment, you can see essentially the profile, which is a deeper leg return. It is a relatively crisp corner, Peter, to your comment. Sorry, Chair member Baltay. And it’s a system that is developed by Centreea [phonetic], and they… [crosstalk] Board Member Hirsch: [inaudible] Mr. McCarthy: …metal panel buildings with the concealed fastening. We’re pretty comfortable with the profile, but agree that the transitions to other surfaces are going to be critical. Chair Baltay: The detail of the edge of the balcony as water rolls off, or doesn’t. Do you have that…? Mr. McCarthy: It’s not a very large-scale detail. If you could go back, Garrett, to the section through the balcony. There you go. Back up on. That’s the overview, but if you back up one. Other way, sorry. There’s the detail, if you zoom in on that. There’s actually going to be a glass shoe, you know, that’s concealed in the metal panel fascia. The wood plank soffit is trimmed on the underside of that balcony. The pedestal system will conceal the drainage that’s happening below, so we’re not running any water over the edge of the balcony. We’re trying to treat this as elegantly and minimally as possible. There will be some reveals to the metal panels that aren’t really evident in the renderings, that there is a, you know, occasional reveal. We’re treating all of that and considering all of that carefully. But we’ve been, again, just trying to reassure all of you, we’re trying to develop these details as consistently as we can with the rendering and the intent, which is to keep this a very simple and elegant façade at the balcony edge. That’s one example to illustrate there, but there’s more detail to be developed, but hopefully that gives you a sense of the assembly that’s involved. Chair Baltay: David, what’s your take? This looks like a pretty good [crosstalk]. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, this is significant information for us. Mr. McCarthy: And actually, if I could go back to Board Member Hirsch’s earlier comments about the question on the trees on the soil on the plaza, just to… I’m not sure if James mentioned this in his presentation, but we are working with Hort Science as part of our design team, and have a pretty robust team in terms of trying to make sure we’ve got the health of the species cared for, and the irrigation design to support all of that. I think we’re bringing the best minds to all of these components as these projects are very much a labor of love and pride for all of us. Mr. Winstead: Thanks, Jason. That’s right, we are [crosstalk]… Board Member Hirsch: [Laughing] Mr. Winstead: … plans for the project. There’s a substantial amount of natives, and even the ones that are non-native are all selected for drought tolerance and good water efficiency for the irrigation system. Those are totally valid concerns, but we have taken that into account in our design. Chair Baltay: That’s great. Thank you, guys, for the comments about the trees. Can we back up a sec? Do you have similar details about the staircase, especially the one in the back? Osma had some concerns about that. It might be reassuring if you have the same thing. Mr. McCarthy: I don’t know if we included the section detail here. I think the rendering, if you go back to that view, Garrett, maybe where you compare the two in your presentation. 3.a Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Baltay: I think we all have in our mind the difference between the stringer and the steps. Showing the edge of the [crosstalk]. Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, I don’t think we included the railing detail in the stair, to answer your question. Chair Baltay: Osma, you’re feeling like you’d like to see that at a subcommittee level, that kind of detail for the rails and the stairs? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, it just took a little bit of digging to really figure out… It sounds like it’s a cable wire rail, a cable wire guardrail for the stair. Mr. McCarthy: We’re actually proposing that as a rod on the exterior. We’ve had issues where the cable tends to create rust over time where it penetrates the stanchions, and no matter how good a job you do painting it, eventually the wire abrades and there’s some kind of corrosion that happens. We’ve transitioned our thinking for that stair to be a thinner rod element instead of a wire, so it would be, you know, a half- inch diameter rod. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. The drawing on page 23 says wire infill. Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, I think we, you know, that’s an update since we submitted this package to you. Mr. Sauls: Let me just show… We do have some information on it; maybe not enough. On this section of the plan, we do have some more… Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, if you could zoom in on that a little bit further, Garrett, I think that’s helpful. There’s more detail to be developed than what’s demonstrated by this drawing, in terms of how those stanchions will connect back to the structure. Again, these are pieces of the project that we’re still developing further in detail for constructability purposes. Again, we’re passionate about getting it right and making it look wonderful. We think we’ve got a good start on it, but again, we’d be happy to present further development on that with all of you. Or in committee. Chair Baltay: Thanks for those explanations, guys. That’s helpful. I’m feeling like the detailing is probably going to come into place pretty nicely. They seem to know what they’re doing, and what we’re seeing… Everything we see looks good, and it’s pretty reasonable that it’s taking time to do all of this. I’m still concerned, though, that the materials themselves, especially that metal panel, what is it going to look like? It’s really unfortunate for you that you just can’t show us the panel. It might be that in the next month or two, we’re able to have a formal meeting together where we can see it. Do I have any consensus with the rest of the Board that we still want to see some of these things back on subcommittee, or should we just let this go? Other people, what do you think? Alex, you haven’t spoken. Board Member Lew: If the rest of the Board wants to see the metal panel at subcommittee, I will support that. I’m generally okay with all of the details as far as they’ve been developed so far. Chair Baltay: Osma, how do you feel about the panels and the detailing so far? Vice Chair Thompson: Certainly, I think I would definitely support seeing the material board at subcommittee. And I would also like to see how the stair progresses and how that detail evolves as well. Is the Board okay with reviewing that as well? Board Member Hirsch: David, are you in the same frame of mind? Board Member Hirsch: Well, I’m much encouraged by the other details that I’ve seen. I should have maybe looked a little further into it. It seems like some are missing, but that their capability to do them properly is here. I’m right down the middle. I could let this one go and trust in the designers to put it together. 3.a Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Baltay: Let’s get Jodie, help us out here. Are we likely to be able to see physical samples in the next month or two? And to the applicant, what timeline is it that it becomes an issue for you if we want to see back the details as you’re evolving them, but also see real samples? How can we work with you and still want to see this? Ms. Gerhardt: At this moment, we’re not anticipating physical meetings in the near future, but I think we could ask the applicant, you know, somehow we could figure out how to mail those to you, especially if it’s a subcommittee that’s two members, so it’s not too many samples. Board Member Hirsch: The other thing you might consider is just asking the samples be kept at City Planning and we go visit them ourselves. Chair Baltay: I’m not sure there’s anybody there, David. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, City Hall isn’t open, but we can certainly figure out a common location if that’s needed, as well… Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I think also – going back to the stair thing – just the fact that the drawing [distortion] wire infill and it’s evolving to cable rods, like, I think, given that that design isn’t complete, it would be worth… I’m going to encourage the Board to consider that it would be worth seeing at subcommittee. Chair Baltay: Okay, and to the applicant, does this hurt your timeline, if we want to see one more go- around at a subcommittee level? What’s your timeframe? Mr. McCarthy: Well, we’re trying to wrap up our detailing so that we can submit drawings for permit near the end of this month. Early June, actually. I don’t know what timeframe or how quickly you’d be able to reconvene to present… I mean, I think we’d be ready to do that relatively immediately. In terms of getting samples to you, we could probably get that done relatively shortly. If it can be scheduled in short order, I think that’s better for our scheduling impacts. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, and to be clear, I mean, you can submit for building permits before subcommittee. Mr. McCarthy: Oh, okay. Then it shouldn’t really matter. If for some reason you were to not like our railing design and we had submitted drawings for permit, and you said, oh, we really want you to go back to a cable infill, then we have to revise drawings. It does have some impact to us, Jodie, but it’s possible, sure. Chair Baltay: It sounds like you’re moving along fairly quickly, though. Mr. McCarthy: Yes. That’s the intent. Chair Baltay: Then, to the Board, I think we can put this on a subcommittee, but let’s identify who that committee is now, and let’s just let them get these things by mail worked out. Does anyone want to try and make a motion? MOTION Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. I’ll move that we approve the project subject to the conditions, with two items going to subcommittee. One is a review of materials, and another is to look at the details of the exit stair. Chair Baltay: Are there any other details you want to see? We might as well just be clear with them what we wanted to see. David, you had some thoughts. Board Member Hirsch: Well, nobody has picked up on my thought about the back wall there, that’s a piece of artwork by itself. 3.a Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Baltay: Yeah, we’re trying to make a motion on subcommittee items, so I think that one… Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Baltay: I’ll second that motion. Do we have any friendly amendments on the details? Other details you’d like to see. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I have a friendly amendment. I’d like to see less planting at the back wall. Chair Baltay: Do we have a second on that friendly amendment? Okay, the motion fails for lack of a second. David, I’m sorry. I’m trying to be formal here. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT MOTION FAILS FOR LACK OF SECOND Chair Baltay: The other details for the building. For example, the edge of the metal panels at top and bottom. Did you want to see that kind of thing? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I do. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION Chair Baltay: Okay, so, I’d like to make a friendly amendment to add the detailing to the top and the bottom panels. Although I’m the seconder anyway. Vice Chair Thompson: I accept that. Chair Baltay: You accept that. Anything else? Board Member Hirsch: I didn’t see quite enough of the fascia versus the window connecting elements of the projecting metal screening either. Chair Baltay: Can you clarify that and make it into an amendment? FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION Board Member Hirsch: I propose that see more details of the way in which the recesses and the connections of materials, other materials, are shown. Chair Baltay: That’s a friendly amendment. Osma, what do you think? Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, I didn’t follow. Where is this detail? Board Member Hirsch: As the recess of the projecting elements as they meet window bays and flat material behind the projections. Vice Chair Thompson: The louvers? Board Member Hirsch: I don’t think we’ve seen enough there yet. Vice Chair Thompson: I just want to be clear. Board Member Hirsch: They’re in progress, but they’re not there yet. Ms. Gerhardt: Are we talking about joints where two different materials come together? 3.a Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Board Member Hirsch: Yes, correct. Ms. Gerhardt: Just seeing all those details where the two materials come together. Board Member Hirsch: Mm-hmm. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. I’m fine with that. Chair Baltay: Okay. It’s moved and seconded, and there’s been some amendments that have been accepted, and as the seconder, I accept them as well. Are we ready for a vote? Vinh, could we have a vote, please? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lew, Thompson (4) No: (0) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-0. Chair Baltay: Okay, the motion carries. Before we finish that, I’d like to appoint Osma and David to that subcommittee, right up front so it’s clear to staff and the applicant. I think you two have been very focused on this, so it would be good to have you handle the subcommittee, unless there’s an issue with that. Vice Chair Thompson: That’s fine. Chair Baltay: Okay. With that, we’re done with item 3. Jodie, typically we would take a break at some point. Is that something we can do right now? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, that would be perfect. We can take a five minute break, or something. Chair Baltay: Vinh, can you give us a time that we can re-adjourn exactly, so we’re all on the same level here? We’re going to take a five or 10 minute break. What’s a good round number? Mr. Nguyen: How about we return at 10:45? Chair Baltay: Sounds perfect. [The Board took a short break.] Chair Baltay: Let’s re-adjourn. It’s now 10:45. We’re back in session, everybody. I’d like to shift our agenda, Jodie, if that’s allowed, and do the subcommittee appointment for objective standards after 411 Lytton. Is that permitted, to do that? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, at the pleasure of the Chair. Chair Baltay: I think that’s better for the applicant’s, to do that. Study Session/Preliminary Review 5. 411 Lytton Avenue [19PLN-00348]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of an Addition to an Existing Category 2 Historic Single-Family Residence. The Project Also Proposes the Expansion of an Existing Partial Basement to Construct two new Units and the Renovation and Rehabilitation of the Historic Structure. Zoning District: Downtown Commercial With Pedestrian Combining District (CD-C(P)). Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. For More Information Please Contact the Project Planner: Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@mgroup.us. 3.a Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Chair Baltay: With that, we’re going to move on to our study session item, a preliminary review. Item number 5 is 411 Lytton A, request for preliminary architectural review of an addition to an existing Category 2 historic single-family residence. The project also proposes the expansion of an existing partial basement to construct two new units and the renovation and rehabilitation of the historic structure. We don’t need to do disclosures because this is a study session. I have invited the chair of the Historic Resources Board, Dave Bower, to join us and discuss. The HRB has already reviewed this project as well. Maybe we’ll have the staff presentation, and then, David, you can talk to us. Does that work? David Bower, Chair, Historic Resources Board: Works for me, but I’d be happy to… It might be more useful for you to go through your presentation – I’ve seen it – and then, I can talk to you about it. Up to you. Chair Baltay: With my colleagues’ consent, I’d like to just have the HRB feel pretty represented on this. I think this is going to hinge on the historic nature of this building, so that’s why he’s here. With that, let’s start a staff presentation. Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. I’m taking over this project for Sheldon Ah Sing, as we’re trying to ramp down our use of consultants during this time period. I’m sorry if I don’t have all the answers, but I’m happy to see that Chair Bower is here to help with some of the historic questions. I believe you’re seeing the first slide here. The second slide, just explaining the project. This is a preliminary review, so we are not making any decisions at this point. This is more conversation with the applicant to see how they can improve their project before they do submit a formal application. The current project is to rehabilitate the existing structure to add approximately 200 square feet to the rear of the structure, and also add two units in a basement level. To do that, they will need a major ARB, which, again, will come back to the Board. They are also requesting off-site parking, and then, a bonus for doing the historic rehab. There are bonuses in the code allowed for that. The site currently includes the 854 square foot single-family home, which is a Category 2 that the HRB did recently review. They are proposing interior/exterior remodels of that structure, the addition to the back, as I said, and the two units underneath. There was a historic report conducted in 2012. It’s been peer reviewed more recently, and then, also reviewed by the HRB. It does discuss the character-defining features and the rehabilitation work that is going to be done. We can talk further about that. This just goes into a little bit about the rehab work, that it would include a structural engineer assessment to ensure that the foundation and the front porch are stable. Replacing that foundation, removal of any non-historic items, being some of the stairs, and then, rehabilitating the character-defining features. The new construction is located in the rear, and then, we do have the two units proposed below. This is some diagrams showing the view when you come down the stairs. There would be a below-grade patio to get to the entrance to the two units. This just shows you an overview of the project. We have a cross-section, again, just showing you the basement there and the addition. The HRB did take a look at this on April 9th. There were some differing opinions that I hope Chair Bower can speak to. This goes a little bit into the HRB compliance evaluation, and maybe I can go back to these slides in a minute. As far as the parking, they are required to have four parking spaces on site, and some of them need to be covered. The current proposal is to have three off-site spaces at the adjacent property, and also to do a director’s adjustment for one parking space. Regarding the floor area bonus, the project would be eligible for a bonus in the amount of $2,500 square feet, after they complete the rehabilitation work. It’s our understanding that the owner does not intend to use this on site, but it would be later transferred. Once they file a formal application and move forward with this project, the project would need to be found in conformance with the architectural review findings, the context-based design criteria, performance standards, and the Downtown Urban Design Guide. In conclusion, they are proposing rehabilitation of the existing structure and the two additional basement units. They are proposing to be consistent with Secretary of Interior standards, and we are just seeking direction from the Board to help them further their formal application. Chair Bower with the HRB, I can go back to some of these historic slides if that’s helpful. Chair Baltay: Okay, Jodie, that’s your staff report? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, sorry, thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay, so, we will hear from David. I wonder also, do we have the applicant on line to talk, to address this? 3.a Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, I believe Ken Hayes is here. My view right now, I can’t see. Chair Baltay: Vinh, do we have Ken Hayes on the line as well? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we do have Ken Hayes on the line. Would you like me to unmute him? Chair Baltay: Yes, please do. Hi, Ken, can you hear as, as well? Ken Hayes: Can you hear me? Chair Baltay: Hi, Ken, this is Peter Baltay. I’m not asking you to start your presentation now, but I’d like you to be aware that I’ve asked Dave Bower from the HRB to step in, and just chime in on how the meeting went with the HRB as well, so we have some background on all of this. Mr. Hayes: Great, thank you. Chair Baltay: I want to get your take, if you think… Would you rather we hear from David first, or hear your presentation? I’m trying to keep this… [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: Yeah, whatever makes sense for you. I’m prepared either way. I was going to briefly summarize the comments that I heard from HRB, but if David is here to do that, that’s fine. Chair Baltay: David, why don’t you carry us through this first, then. What went down at the meeting? Is that okay? Mr. Bower: Fine. Thank you, Peter. Chair Baltay: Please leave Ken on the line so he can hear and participate as well. Go ahead. Mr. Bower: Sure. Thanks for including me in your review. As you know, the HRB reviewed this project on April 9th, and I think, if you, in your enormous packet, have the HRB minutes, on pages 12 through 14 is the relevant discussion of the project by HRB board members. Let me start, if you will indulge me for a minute, just reviewing how the HRB does a review of a project like this. We use the Secretary of Interior standards for rehabilitation. They were first published in 1978 and revised in 1983. They are 10 different standards that describe how a board like ours will approach an evaluation of a project like this. Only three of those standards apply specifically to this project. Let me just read them, and I’ll describe how the board reacted to each of them. Under number 2, it says that the historic character of a property shall be retained and preserved, and in number 9, it says new additions, exterior alterations, or related new construction shall not destroy historic materials that characterize the property. The new work shall be differentiated from the old and shall be compatible with massing, size, scale and architectural features to protect the historical integrity of the property and its environment. Standard number 10 says new additions and adjacent or related new construction shall be undertaken in such a manner that if removed in the future, the essential form and integrity of the historic property in its environment would be unimpaired. Let me start with standard number 2. Well, I should say, I looked up, as we always do as board members, compatibility and differentiation are our major focuses here, and if you look up the definition of “compatibility,” it’s existing or living in harmony. This is the online Merriam-Webster definition. And to “differentiate” is to make different by modification or change in character. Standard number 2 was discussed, and the board had widespread agreement that this project meets that standard. The character- defining features of the existing building are by and large retained, except for the small space on the rear of the building where the addition is going to be constructed. And those same features will be upgraded with maintenance and improvements to their character. In standard number 9, which was the focus of most of our discussion, board members were concerned about the top of profile and orientation of the siding on the addition, the flat roof form that’s proposed, and the aluminum window material on the rear at-grade portion of the addition. In general, the board felt these features of the project were generally not 3.a Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Page 29 compatible with the existing building, and too differentiated to meet the Secretary of Interior standards. We didn’t talk about colors, and in all fairness, Ken, his firm will produce materials and color board when this comes back to, I assume both boards, for formal review. But it was suggested by one board member that maybe the color of the rendering made the addition seem more stark or different than it actually will be in its final form. Finally, standard 10 is less significant because you could, in theory, remove the first floor addition from the back of the building and replace the shingles, thus not damage existing material beyond repair. Although that’s extraordinarily unlikely it will ever be done, that’s a standard that we have to look at. I wanted to just make one more comment. This differentiation and compatibility issue is always difficult, and there are lots of different ways to achieve those two goals. An example that I think is a very good combination of compatibility and differentiation is the Peninsula art league building on the corner of Ramona Street and Forest Avenue. The original building has a heavy dash plaster finish on the outside, it has a gable roof, and it has somewhat unique divided light windows. The addition has the same cement plaster finish, but it’s a smooth finish. They have a modified gabled form on that addition, and the divided light windows on the addition are similar, but they are not identical. It’s the similarity identicality issue that we always struggle with. At any rate, it’s a very good example of how you can achieve an addition that is both differentiated and compatible. I’d be happy to answer any other questions. That’s basically the, a very brief overview of our meeting. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. That’s very helpful, to have that. Unless my colleagues on the Board think otherwise, I’d like to hear what the applicant has to say. Are there any questions, or any ideas otherwise? Mr. Hayes: Questions from the applicant? Chair Baltay: No, from the Board. From other Board members. I don’t want them to think I’m running roughshod over everybody here. Vice Chair Thompson: I kind of want to wait, to hear from the applicant before asking. Chair Baltay: Okay, Ken, why don’t you take it away. You have 10 minutes. Thank you. Mr. Hayes: Great. Good morning, everyone. I hope you’ve all been well and out of harm’s way, and thank you for continuing the work of the City here. It’s important that we continue to move forward, I think. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I’ll be making a presentation on behalf of our client, Brad Ehikian with the Ehikian Company. Brad should be on the call. I can’t see who the attendees are, but I’m pretty sure Brad is on the call, listening. I’m also joined this morning by our landscape architect, Laura Gerard [phonetic], and BKF Civil Engineers are here in case there’s questions about the excavation, and maybe water management, that sort of thing. Isaac Comtroski [phonetic] and Monica Cartehenus Bardo [phonetic] is also with us. Jodie, thank you for stepping in for Sheldon. I’m going to ask you to advance to the first slide, please. The next slide, rather. The site, as we know, is a mid-block site. It’s about 2,800 square feet. It’s a very small site. Next slide. There it is in yellow. It is surrounded on three sides by the CDC (P) pedestrian overlay, commercial district, and to the rear, the RMD, which is kind of a multi-family low-density district. Next slide. This is the existing view of the house. I think we’re all familiar with it if we’ve spent any time downtown. It is Category 2 Historic. We actually elevated it to that stature in 2014. It was built in 1901. It’s a great example of a square cottage. There’s actually a matching, a sister building to it, right around the corner on Waverly. They both used to occupy a single piece of property that has since been subdivided. It actually was part of the first residential subdivision of Palo Alto, so that was also part of the historic heritage of the property. As Chair Bower described, the proceedings at the HRB, I felt like they were generally in support of the concept. I wasn’t overly surprised. I knew there’d be discussion about differentiation and compatibility. They specifically took note of the vertical siding and wondered why the addition had vertical siding when the cottage itself has the horizontal shingles. You can go ahead and advance the next slide, too, while I’m talking. That’s the back of the building. That back porch was part of the character-defining features, but it’s on this secondary elevation. That will be removed, along with the window and the door to the left. Or the window to the left and the door at the porch itself. Next slide. These are just some shots of the neighborhood. This project at one point was part of a larger project, which included this corner parcel at 437. This is to the right of the property. This is the parking lot where we would be able to provide the parking. The two properties are under common ownership, meaning this 3.a Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Page 30 property and the subject property of today’s meeting. Next slide. This is the corner property. It’s a little retail shop. Next slide. It kind of shows the whole block in perspective. Next slide. This gives an idea of what the program is. I’m sorry about the formatting there; it looked fine on mine. Five key points. Add two living units to increase the number of units to three, thus transforming this building into a permitted use in the CDC zoning district because they don’t allow a single-family use in that zoning district. As a conforming use then, we’d be able to expand the existing house by adding one bedroom, which the owner has wanted to do for the last seven years, and develop two studios in the basement. Number three would be to create some outdoor landscaped areas so the new living units have a place outside that’s immediately adjacent to their space. Make it feel like it’s not in a basement. And, obviously, respect the historic integrity and comply with the Secretary of Interior standards, and the three that David had just outlined. M-Group had a historic review done of our application, and the historic consultant found that it was, in their opinion, in conformance with the Secretary of Interior standards. But I understand that we need to work with Palo Alto’s HRB and find a mutually beneficial and appropriate design. And then, provide parking. Right now, there’s a covered carport on the property where they park a car. We’d like to get rid of that. It’s a temporary, tent-type structure. And because of the co-ownership or the common ownership with the property next door, we would combine or use the parking lot there, which is a commercial office/bank, and hopefully get some synergy to be able to provide our parking during off hours and weekends at that property. I have a letter of agreement and a lease modification. Obviously, this would have to be codified and recorded, but that’s the intent, is to provide all the parking for this project next door. We would try to reduce the required number from four spaces using some of the director-approved parking accommodations, and have that reduced by 20 percent. So, we would have three spaces formally provided. Next slide shows some imagery. On the left, that’s kind of what we’re thinking in terms of vertical siding. Not sure about the color, but we thought that that clearly differentiated the addition. The slide in the middle is the underground living, or below-grade living, if you will. That’s the inside view. On the right-hand side is the exterior view of that same unit. We like the idea of sort of this inside/outside flowing of space to make the units feel bigger. Next slide gives us some material palette here. We have the shingles on the right-hand side, representing the existing. We have a lot of board form concrete that wouldn’t have been out of character for a period home like this, but that essentially defines everything below grade, foundation and down. We have some Corten metal panels on that picture, second from the left, and again, the vertical and, in this case, I guess that’s a cedar siding. Next slide. Next slide. This represents the existing home. The next slide should kind of give you a shading of that. It’s 853 square feet. Oh, we went the wrong way. Oh, okay, we skipped this one. This is some imagery for the landscape, the below-grade and at-grade areas. We’re thinking native grasses, pavers, ways for water to be able to infiltrate the soil below, and then, this sort of inside/outside living on the right-hand slide. I think it would be just a wonderful place to live and get the benefits of being downtown. Next slide shows the footprint of the existing house. It’s two bedroom, has a little living room, a kitchen and a bath, and not a whole lot else. It has the front porch that’s going to be rehabilitated. Next slide gives you kind of an idea… It should come up with the floor plan shaded. Jodie, if you could advance it to the next slide. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the computer is struggling a little. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. It looks like it loaded more than the next slide. There’s a 10-foot setback. There’s no setback required because we’re in the CDC, except where you abut residential properties. So, there’s a 10- foot setback at the rear. Next slide. On this left-hand side of the building, there will be great solar exposure. It’s kind of south-southwestern exposure, so we think that will be a nice place to live, essentially. Next slide gives you an idea at the bottom. We’re providing three different ways to get into the site: Traditional access to the front porch in the center; and then, on the right-hand side, you can go down that pathway, it will be helpful for maintenance of the plants and so on, but also provide identity for one of the units that’s downstairs. Perhaps there. On the left-hand side, we would provide access there, across some pavers. There’s some outdoor space for the tenants to enjoy. That would provide access to the other unit that’s downstairs. Next slide. The parking would be provided in this lot on the adjacent property. Like I said, it would be kind of a joint use parking facility, where the existing tenant would use it during the daytime for their operations, but after five o’clock – or whatever time is agreed to – it becomes the residential parking. We’d have a gate in the fence there. We would actually move the fence and try to bifurcate this landscape strip and get landscape on both sides of the fence, but have a gate through – if you go to the next slide – it shows the addition in the back of the building with a, it’s a single 223 square foot, kind of a master 3.a Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 31 bedroom with a deck off the back. Next slide. Open space down below, and then, you see the arrows on the two stairs. There’s a stair on the left and a stair at the top of the drawing. Those would be two individual stairs that would lead down to the sunken outdoor space. Next slide. Outdoor space is kind of highlighted there in the front of the building, so that would either be for all the tenants, or maybe for the tenant that occupies the existing house. But, of course, they have a private space in back on their deck, as well. Next slide. This just highlights where we proposed… There is no trash and recycling facility now on site, so we would, on the left-hand side there, provide an area for refuse. And I believe that’s where we’re using the Corten steel to kind of conceal that area on the left side of the building. The next slide I think shows the unit plans. This is down at the courtyard level. There are two unit plans. They are both studios, primarily because there’s really no, you know, we don’t want to have a rescue window and ladder out the front of the building because of the impacts that would have on the historic building. There are two studios. One is less than 500 square feet on the left-hand side, and the one on the right is, like 699 square feet. They both have separate toilet facilities. The back, kind of a dressing area, and then, sort of a common living/ kitchen area on the unit on the left, and a little larger one on the unit on the right. Thinking that sliding glass doors would open up and the units could then live to be outside, and try to use the landscaping to create some private space for each of them. One thing that is important to us is we’re trying to get some ventilation through these units, so there’s a window provided at the bottom of the page there. You see what looks like a… It is a light well, essentially, next to the porch at the front of the building. That light well would have a window that someone could actually walk through at the studio level, so opening that window and opening up your sliding doors would get cross ventilation, we believe, through those units, which would make them a little more habitable, as well as then introducing light in the back area of the building. Next slide. I think there’s some elevations. This is the elevation on the top, the west. This is a cross-section through the stair itself, and you can see how we’ve kind of established this horizontal line for the foundation. Everything below that would be the board formed concrete. And then, at the back left- hand side would be a wood structure, not unlike the historic building, built on top of the board formed concrete, but using a vertical siding, still wood. Could indeed be the same color as the historic home, but we felt like the vertical siding gave us that differentiation. We actually had a pitched roof on this building before, in the 2014 application for the larger mixed-use project. We, in the end, felt that was character defining… This is called a square cottage, and what’s really character-defining is the simple square hip roof, so we felt that the flat roof was the least impactful to the simplicity of that square hip roof. We felt that that was the appropriate direction to take, to respect that, but also be compatible with the rest of the building. Front of the building, there’s really no change. You do have the light wells on either side, but we’d be restoring the porch and the columns, and all the windows are going to be refurbished, etc. Next slide. Shows the east elevation, which is the parking lot side of the building next door. Again, refurbishing the existing historic building, and we’ve offset the addition at the back so that the addition on the right-hand side of that top elevation is set back about a foot. It’s not coplanar. Again, a move to help differentiate the new and the old. And then, you can see the bottom view there is a section through the other stair that goes, if you were to come in from the parking lot side of the building, that would take you down to the courtyard. The next slides I think are just some sections, pretty self-explanatory. We’re not changing the elevation of the historic building itself. It’s elevated about three feet above grade, which helps minimize some of the excavation at the back of the building. You will step down into the bedroom addition in order to get all of that built below the plate line of the existing square cottage. Next slide gives you some 3D views. We’re probably thinking that we would like to use a darker paint color, not too terribly dark, but something that might have deep grays with kind of green undertone to it. Wood horizontal fencing that would surround three sides of the property. Next slide. A view of the front. Now, I’m now showing landscaping in this, but there is a conceptual plan in your packet that we can talk about. I just realized I did not include that in the presentation. Maybe it’s at the end. Next slide. Again, this is from the sideway side. You can see where we’re starting to introduce some Corten steel panels that take you kind of into the site, and then, they begin to screen the trash enclosure, which is off to the right. Next slide. By the way, the picket fence is not historic, so we’ve elected to take the picket fence out to open the yard up a little bit more. Just a vertical, kind of an axon, so you can see what the composition looks like and the relationships, how the flat roof is below the iconic square hip, offset from the wall of the building and differentiated. Like I said earlier, there could be this move to actually, maybe use the same paint color, and that would help to integrate. I think color is one of the most important things, actually, in terms of compatibility, almost more than anything. And it shows the gate where the parking would be provided here in the foreground, and that gate does down to the unit below. This back balcony, we kind of like the idea that the upper 3.a Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 32 tenant can actually be on that balcony and overlook the space below, so that they could kind of have a community, so that they’re not trying to be completely isolated from one another. That was an amenity that I think I wanted to highlight. Next slide. This might be a view down in the courtyard, looking into the larger unit. Next slide. You can see the board formed concrete, all the way around. This is the stair that goes out towards Lytton, and it gives you an idea of how those Corten steel panels would be introduced to provide a lighter way of screening the trash. We really want to stop this sort of datum or reference line of the board formed concrete where we’re showing it at grade. And then, anything above that becomes a different material. Next slide. This is just the view from the opposite side, kind of axon. You see how the planters step down on the right-hand side for that entrance, and this gives you an overview of what the yard is below. The yard is about nine feet down from the existing grade, and the fence would probably be a six-foot fence, so we’re trying to get vines and vegetation that would grow on that. I know Heeta [phonetic], a neighbor that lives kind of right behind the property, was on the call earlier, and she had some concerns over noise. I mean, I think that this is pretty low impact usage with two studios below grade, and being that the yard is depressed nine feet down, I doubt if there would be any impact acoustically. The mechanical units are intended to be at the front of the building in those light wells. We’d have, like, little compressors in there for the residential units, and we’re still trying to figure out how we would handle it for the main unit itself. But no noise-generating equipment that we’re aware of yet, at the back of the building. I think this was the last slide. Jodie, I always put slides behind my logo slide that are supporting slides. If you wanted to see the landscape, I think it’s loaded in there somewhere. Unless everyone has the landscape plans in front of them. Chair Baltay: Ken, I think you’ve probably exceeded your 10 minutes. Mr. Hayes: I know, I know. Chair Baltay: [crosstalk] of your presentation, but let’s move on. Mr. Hayes: Okay. Chair Baltay: Do we have any questions of the applicant, or the HRB, or anything, from architecture board members. Vice Chair Thompson: I have a question. Chair Baltay: Yes, Osma. Vice Chair Thompson: The front porch design, is that going to be one of the additions that will not try to look different? Mr. Hayes: Board Member Thompson, the front porch is character defining, so we’re going to be rehabilitating and restoring the porch itself, and the columns. And it actually has a painted wood, probably redwood, T&G decking. There was some discussion about the stairs, and then, the pipe rail. The pipe hand rails, there’s been really no discussion about those in the historic report. I frankly don’t know when they were added, but we would like to propose new metal railings in place of the pipe fitted railings. And the brick steps are planned to be replaced because I believe they’re also failing, along with the porch. I want to look at the building around the corner that was the sister building to this, and I believe I said at the HRB that we would look at that building for understanding maybe how that porch, how those steps were built, maybe originally. I went and looked at that building and it actually has brick steps as well, so we may well be putting back brick steps at the front because it could be something that was part of the original, although I really felt that they were not. We wanted to put back wood steps, which you would find on many homes of this vintage. Chair Baltay: Any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: Question. Are the windows in the original house, are they going to be replaced? Are there any examples of windows? Were they replaced? 3.a Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Page 33 Mr. Hayes: Board Member Hirsch, no, the originals are original, and, boy, I wish I could buy windows today that would last 120 years. We’re going to rehabilitate the windows. We have not inspected all of them. They’re not in terrible shape from a rot standpoint, but most likely the counterweights and so on are all going to have to be replaced and rehabilitated. But the idea is that we would keep those windows. We were actually using aluminum sash windows in the addition that would be painted. They would not be anodized, but they would be painted. And there was some discussion at the HRB about whether that was compatible or not. I thought that it was, especially if they were painted. Chair Baltay: Ken, can you confirm for me, there’s a single tree on the left side of the house. That has to go, I can see, right? Mr. Hayes: The avocado tree goes, yeah. Chair Baltay: Okay. And then, on your light wells in the front, are you going to need a railing around those? Mr. Hayes: No, actually, what we’re proposing is a metal grate, so you just walk on top of it. The idea is that… It’s not an escape/rescue situation. It’s ventilation, and obviously we don’t want a railing because that would just destroy the existing home. It’s a metal grate that you can walk on top of. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. Any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. On the access to the parking, it shows a parking spot there on the neighboring property. Is there a way to get out, into a car directly? Mr. Hayes: So that I’m clear to your question, we’re going to be capturing three existing parking spaces on the property next door, and then, providing a gate and a walkway, so that you would walk from the car towards the landscaped area, where we would make provisions for pavers or something, to be able to then maneuver to the gate and go in the gate. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Mr. Hayes: They are existing spaces, but we need to acknowledge the fact that someone is not going to walk towards the office building, but walk towards the gate to go into the residential project. Chair Baltay: Great. With that, do we have any public comments of any kind, Vinh? Has anybody asked to speak? Is there anyone out there who would like to address us? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we do have a couple public comments for this item. Chair Baltay: Let’s open this up to public comment at this point. Can you tell us the first person, please? Mr. Nguyen: Yes. Our first speaker will be Geetha, followed by Neilson, followed by Jeff. If there’s anyone else who wants to speak whose name I did not call, please raise your hand now. So, first would be Geetha. And Geetha, since you are using an older version of Zoom, I cannot unmute you. Instead, I will promote you to panelist so you can speak. Chair Baltay: Welcome Geetha. Go ahead, please. Geetha: Thank you for the time to speak. I think maybe I, since I live at 385 Waverly, which is on the adjoining property along the slatted fence that you see in the property line, and the rear straight line. My main concerns I think were about sound and light, and also about the density is going to increase with the addition of two units, right? Just want to see how the landscaping will help to mitigate any extra sound, light, and things like that. And one more concern I have is about security, just because of the location of our property close to the 7/11. I have many times seen people just wander over, especially late at night since the 7/11 is open all night, and hang out near the property [inaudible] gate. Just want to see how that will be mitigated. It’s a concern for both the 411 property as well as mine. That’s my second point. The 3.a Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Page 34 other point is just a correction in the drawings I saw in L.1. There is indication of screening on the side of 401 [distortion], but I think that doesn’t exist. I do have plants along the shared fence between 385 Waverly and 411. Just wanted to correct that. Those are my main concerns. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Vinh, could we have the next speaker, please? Mr. Nguyen: Yes. Our next speaker will be Neilson. Neilson, I have unmuted you, and if you can please unmute yourself as well, you can speak. Your unmute button should be at the bottom of your screen, towards the left. Neilson: Thank you. I live at 155 Bryant. Appreciate [inaudible] comment on several issues, but I only have time to talk about parking. I appreciate getting the alert in the staff report. In the future, I’d like to see more analysis accompany the alert, on what the impacts will be. Let me briefly enumerate. The parking impact is twofold. It will be in the neighborhoods, and the neighborhood streets, and it will also be within the commercial zone area. And particularly if the plan is to allow parking in the adjacent property, which happens to be owned by the same person, that there’s a massive displacement process that goes on. I’d like to work with the Office of Transportation, who should be present at these presentations to talk about the impact, and scarce parking the neighborhoods and the commercial zone. The idea of using adjacent property is the most concerning to me, and I will enumerate that in an email to you, and to Philip Kamhi. I think City policy is lacking on the cascading effect of parking such as this. The most important thing is to get the Office of Transportation to participate in sessions like this. Thank you very much for the opportunity to address this, and I will be able to try to get some analysis done by an amateur parking expert in the neighborhood, who have got now almost 10 years of experience. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Nielson. Vinh, could you introduce the next speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Yes, our next speaker is Jeff. Jeff, I have unmuted you. You have to unmute yourself as well to speak. Jeff: Okay, can you hear me? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, we can hear you. Jeff: Excellent. Good morning, Board members and staff, and thank you for holding this session. I do have a few comments and questions about the parking situation as well. Specifically, for parking to be moved to a different site, the staff report references the law 18.18.09 OC, and that law governs commercial uses in the downtown assessment district. This property, however, is residential, and it’s not in the downtown assessment district, so I don’t think the report is citing the right law. And then there’s a problem about adding three parking spaces, or using three parking spaces on the next property. That property appears currently to have 24 parking spaces, but the building, when it’s occupied as it currently is, needs 29 parking spaces. So, there’s already a shortfall of five spaces. If this comes back for another review, I think it would be good to have a good analysis of how that other site is parked and what its requirements are for that. I did try to find out what’s happening over there by looking for the use and occupancy permits for that building. For the upstairs tenant, I couldn’t find any occupancy permit at all, and for the downstairs tenant – that’s Alvin Bank – they have a permit, but it states the wrong sizes for the building. That’s also worrisome. Finally, if there’s going to be some kind of… If it turns out there’s going to have to be something to accommodate the parking issues, then it would be good to see all that, even though it’s on the [distortion] because that could have impact on the historic renovation and such for the house. That’s it. Thank you, all. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jeff. Vinh, could you introduce the next speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Jeff is our last speaker, so we may proceed with the agenda. Chair Baltay: Great. Okay, then we’re going to close this meeting to public comment and bring it back to the Board for discussion. Why don’t we have… Alex, do you want to start us off with some thoughts, please? 3.a Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Page 35 Board Member Lew: Sure. I do want to disclose that I did watch the HRB meeting yesterday, and I also, I did some separate research, looking at the [distortion] Sanborn fire insurance maps, to see how this property developed over time with the sister house that Ken has mentioned on Waverly, and the corner building next door [inaudible]. Generally, I’m supportive of the project. I do think there are a whole host of issues that have to be resolved. I think that Nielson and Jeff and have mentioned the parking. Also, I have some cautions for you, Ken. I vaguely recall that you can’t have sliding doors be the only door in a unit, and I don’t remember exactly where that is in the building code. I just want to caution you on that. Mr. Hayes: If there’s 10 occupants. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I thought there was something for houses as well. Anyway, it’s been a while since I’ve looked at the code. Just a heads up on that one. I’ve done a lot of three- and four-unit buildings on very small lots, and usually I have issues with getting all the meters in place. I think it helps if your project is all electric and you only have to deal with electric meters and not the gas meters, that that could help a lot. The other thing, too, if it were one ownership, I’ve done it where you have, like, third party sub meters in there, so you don’t have to follow all the City regulations for meters. That’s another option. On other multi-family units downtown, the City has required roofed trash enclosures, so I think that could be an issue there. I think we recently looked at a project in downtown north where the City didn’t require that. Also, bike storage, bike lockers. For the plants and the trees in the subterranean, in the basement patios, I’d just be concerned about the soil quality and soil volume, because it’s not topsoil. That’s something you’re digging down deep. I’m curious to see what you can do there. Also, in all the basements that I’ve done, there’s been, like, sewage pumps in the basement. And I think that’s maybe not the ARB’s purview, but I didn’t see anything in there. On color, I’ve done research on my own house, which is of the same vintage, and gray-green colors were actually very popular at that time, and it was actually monochrome, you know? It was not like the San Francisco Painted Ladies in the 60’s. The gray-green is really popular, and if you actually go to the Haas-Lilienthal house in San Francisco, they’ve restored it to its original gray- green color. That might be… Mr. Hayes: Okay. Board Member Lew: And they actually did the real, like, historic, the true historic research in that because those original paint colors can fade or change over time. So, there are ways, if you want to match what was existing there, the existing paint color, there are ways for specialists to figure out the actual color. But I do support the project because we did make the change to get rid of the penthouses, so we do have this tricky new rule for multi-family units. I think you’ve done a crafty job of trying to get three units in there. I myself wouldn’t really want to live in the basement units, but I think that there’s a need for smaller units. I think we do need to allow for some flexibility with parking standards on historic properties because, otherwise, we’re just going to, they’re going to get torn down. We have to allow some flexibility in there. I think that’s all of my comments. I’m curious to see what my other board members have to say. Mr. Hayes: Great. Thank you, Alex. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. Who wants to go next? David? Board Member Hirsch: I’ll wait till Osma goes. Chair Baltay: Osma, why don’t you take your turn. Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, I really appreciate the presentation. It actually helped a lot to understand all the things that are happening here. I appreciate the attention to detail. I’m actually a fan of the approach that you presented, where it is quite different, you know, this addition, but it’s nice. It sort of has… It has that thing that I like that they do in Europe, where you’ll have something old, and then you’ll have something modern that’s really beautiful that connects to it. Really, kudos on that. There are some questions. I notice the light well on the front with the metal grating. I’m a little concerned that, while that seems really necessary for the units at the bottom, it sort of would distract, I think, a little bit from the historical nature up above. Not really sure. I know you mentioned you’re not landscaping it too much, so 3.a Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Page 36 it’s sort of a tricky one on that one. I’m not sure how I feel about those light grates. I appreciate on the back addition to the top level, that there is this sort of pinch-in. I was a little concerned it looked quite massive in the elevation, and that’s… In the elevation, it’s actually hard to tell that it is [inaudible] comes out and you look at the plans closer, and the renderings. I wonder if there’s a way to sort of reduce the massiveness. I was thinking in elevation, you know, potentially. I don’t know if there is a way to… Are we allowed to share screen or…? I’m not sure how to describe this. There might be an option to sort of, the roofline having some sort of differentiation there, so that an elevation there looks like there’s a separation. And you have a closet there, so there might be a… I’m not sure how [inaudible] internally. Yeah, I mean, there’s like, sort of these so interesting things to focus on in such a small site. In general, I think it’s a nice idea. There is definitely more to unpack here, but conceptually, I’m on board with how this project is working. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. David, what are your thoughts? Board Member Hirsch: Not sure. I think that my cohorts have covered an awful lot of ground here on this one. I think it’s kind of amazing to be able to fit this much housing into this teeny little site. I guess we’re supposed to consider it from a historical point of view, but I accept the historical comments that have been made prior to. The comments of the neighbors are kind of interesting in that the question of security of the stairways that go down to the lower levels really impacts a bit the history. If you’re to provide some kind of a gate, it could then be at the front of the building there. I mean, how would that be coordinated? Mr. Hayes: There is a gate, yes. Board Member Hirsch: [crosstalk] issue. It’s amazing. I guess what I’m concerned most about is how you build all of that underneath the house there. By structural means, how is this done? How do you support the house above? Whether you tear out in the process of building that, all the foundation all around the whole perimeter of the house is gone. You know, it’s very tricky in terms of its construction. Holding up the house so you don’t lose it in the process of building is going to be probably the biggest issue in this whole construction. As well as the comments that Alex made about mechanical requirements that are not yet shown. The ejector pumps, all those kind of things that you need. Plumbing under grade, you know, that is down below, where there was nothing before. How do you deal with all that? I mean, the planning is clever as can be. The privacy issues, I think have been nicely addressed, so that you get these two dwellings in there, separate from each other enough so that you can use that, kind of minimal outdoor space. But leave it with the issue that, my concern is that let’s not lose the house for the increased value here. Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Hirsch: Make sure that we find a good way to retain it, and make sure that your engineers actually provide assurance that everything will be retained above. That’s my biggest concern. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thanks, David. I’d like to chime in with a couple of things, but at a high level, first, I think it’s wonderful that someone is trying to build small housing downtown. It’s a good thing to do, and we should be supportive of that, especially if it’s preserving an older part of our architectural history. I share strongly, then, Alex’s sentiment that we should be flexible regarding parking issues. It’s really a challenge to put that much parking. You just can’t fit it on that property and do everything else they need to do, and it’s a reasonable request, I believe, to give them some latitude to make the rest of this come together. I just want to put that out there. Ms. Gerhardt: I’m sorry, I had to walk away for a minute. This is the dangers from working from home, but I can answer some parking questions if need be. Chair Baltay: I’m not sure if we need to. My feeling, at least, is on the Board, this is really a staff, a Planning Department issue, to make a judgment call, and ultimately a Director’s decision on this kind of thing. I’m 3.a Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto Page 37 just giving you my opinion. Find a way to make it work if you can. We need the housing there, and they can’t do it if they have to add as much as parking as the code would require on site. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, and we will certainly get the appropriate reports and work with Transportation on that as part of a formal application. Chair Baltay: What I would like to do is talk about two things. One, just that below-grade patio out in the back, and how important it is for that to really be a successful space for this project to work. Whenever I’ve done, what I call basement houses, we try to put in large light wells, and we almost always try to step that tall wall at the back into two or even three pieces, with some kind of landscaping in between it. And I would encourage the architect Hayes to consider if there’s a way to do that. Rather than a single nine-foot- tall concrete wall, break it up, put some plants in there. And it looks like you might be able to, especially given the shoring requirements at grade or lower, but you could step it into two pieces somehow. We find even a foot of dirt in there can grow some vines or something, and it just softens it so much. Honestly, think about that nine-foot-tall concrete wall. I know it’s board formed concrete and architects love it. Well, not everybody does. A lot of people will just think it’s concrete, you know, when it’s wet. Mr. Hayes: The HRB loved it. Chair Baltay: I’m just throwing it out there. To me, it’s the quality of that space. And then, I don’t know if your consultant can address or not, but we found that there’s a free board requirement of about nine inches when you step out of a basement house into what’s a light well. Obviously, your patio wants to be same grade as the rest of the house, but I don’t quite know how all that plays out. It’s become a significant issue on other projects. Mr. Hayes: Yes, if I may…? Chair Baltay: Yes, please, go ahead. Mr. Hayes: We’ve had discussions about that, and both landscape and BKF are on the line, but the concept that we’re thinking about employing right now is some kind of pedestal concrete paver system, so that we can get the free board, but yet provide the paved surface at the floor line. Not unlike you might do a, you know, a roof pedestal paver. We’re looking for a paver system that is more robust and has longer spans, so bigger pavers. Chair Baltay: But you really want some landscaping in there, too, don’t you? Mr. Hayes: Absolutely. Chair Baltay: Like, some grass and stuff. That’s going to be harder to keep in there. I think, as Alex mentioned, there’s a myriad of technical issues you have to solve. That’s one, I’ve noticed that a lot, the landscaping down in those light wells, and if you can break up the walls, it really helps make them more palatable. The second thing, and I want to cycle back on this with Chair Bower, is it seems to me the question comes down to one of, what is the right amount of differentiation? And I find the new building attractive and clearly differentiated from the old one. I’m trying to understand, you know, is it possible to be too differentiated? You seemed to imply, David, that you want it to be different, but not too different. It's okay to have divided lights on your windows, but they shouldn’t be quite the same pattern. I’ve always understood it that you really want to be significantly different, so that it’s really clearly understood that this is new versus old. Can you comment on that? Because I think that’s what a lot of this is going to hinge on, ultimately. Mr. Bower: Yeah, it’s the focus of many, many seminars I’ve been to in the last 13 years as a board member. We’re required, as you may know, to go have inside training, like architects are required to have. And it’s a very, very difficult decision or architectural feature to be different, but you don’t want to be so different that you become some place example of exactly the wrong kind of differentiation. One of the really poor differentiation designs was at the Presidio. The Disney Museum is a glass and steel box on the 3.a Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto Page 38 back of the [distortion] year-old buildings. And every single seminar, those are pointed to as being inappropriately differentiated. The board felt that maybe horizontal siding would be appropriate. It was the verticality, I think, that several board members described. And there are many ways to do this. Ken does a lot of this, and this project is – as you pointed out - [distortion] he has done a huge and incredible job in trying to fit [distortion] make all of the details we’re talking about work on this little tiny space. It could be horizontal siding would work. We didn’t really have any details – because this is a study session – of what that siding is going to look like, and that would make a difference. Often in a building like this, in a residential space, you would put shingles on that new addition, but you would put a different pattern in the shingles. I don’t know if that answers your question, but if it gets too far away from what’s already there, it ceases to be compatible. And it’s an individual judgment decision, basically. Chair Baltay: I guess I’m just thinking of, I don’t know, the Pyramid at the Louvre in Paris. Couldn’t be more different, and yet, that’s a classic example of historic addition to a building. Just doing it so differently that it’s clear. Mr. Bower: You’re right, but it’s also, my recollection is that’s a very, very small piece of that huge building. It’s in a big courtyard… Chair Baltay: Visually, pretty important. Let’s not debate what your seminars do. I’m thinking we want to be sure to give the architect clear direction here on where to go. Jodie, the process for this is that it has to clear HRB, you need a formal recommendation from them, ultimately? Ms. Gerhardt: This is a preliminary review. The HRB has looked at it, and now, the ARB is doing that. This preliminary process will be done after this meeting. And then, the applicant can decide to apply for a formal application. Chair Baltay: If they go forward, does the HRB, will look at it formally, right? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Baltay: Okay. The HRB then makes a recommendation to the director, or they are part of the ARB process? How does the ARB evaluate the historic compatibility part of this? Ms. Gerhardt: The HRB hearing would be first so that the ARB would have that information to use in their recommendation. Chair Baltay: I see. Our job is to listen to what they’re suggesting, and then, take it from there. Mr. Bower: Jodie, if I could chime in here. I think the HRB has to approve the project in order for the transfer and development rights to kick into this. Am I wrong about that? Ms. Gerhardt: There is the bonus, and we need to make sure that they are rehabilitating the building to a significant standard before that bonus is accepted. There’s a few other pieces to the bonus because they really don’t give the bonus until the very end, after the rehab has been done. Mr. Bower: Yeah, it’s my understanding that the HRB has to approve the remediation and rehabilitation in order for the development rights to be available to the developer. Which is pretty important to this particular project, as I understand it. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, which would happen after the rehab. Chair Baltay: Okay, so, I’m just trying to get a sense of how we can give the applicant feedback on what’s going to be considered a, ultimately a compatible amount of differentiation. For lack of a better way to put it. Ken, are you feeling like you’re getting good input from us? 3.a Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto Page 39 Mr. Hayes: Thank you for the opportunity, Chair Baltay. You know, I think that we can clearly work with the cladding, you know, the siding material on the building, but, you know, I felt pretty strongly that the flat roof and making that, you know, subservient to the hip roof on the building was the way to go, just because this square cottage was known for the simple shape hip roof. The previous project that we had proposed had a hip roof on the addition out the back, and I go back, and I look at it and I think, What was I thinking? It starts to consume the beautiful, simple hip roof. I would really like consensus on the flat roof. I think I can work with other stuff, but it’s kind of where I was… Chair Baltay: You have my support on that. I think your logic is good. What does everybody else think? Who wants to take it up? Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll go next. I think the flat roof is fine. I think my issue is just how it connects to the main building. Is it okay if I share my screen? Is that weird? Chair Baltay: Can that be done? [Thompson sharing screen.] Vice Chair Thompson: I just want to point out this connection here. I think the flat roof… I’m okay with the flat roof. I just think the way that it’s connecting is a little too much. It almost seems like it needs to be separated so that there is some kind of break, so that there is that hierarchy. Actually, while we’re here, I had a question. And I think I might have missed it. I remember Board Member Lew talking about color. Is the color of this building changing to gray? Mr. Hayes: That is not representative of the color, but we will be changing the color of the building, yes. Vice Chair Thompson: Do you know what color you’re changing it to? Mr. Hayes: There’s been discussion about some kind of a darker gray-green color. Probably not that dark that we’re showing here. And one thing that I mention is that we could use that same color on the addition, and that would begin to pull that into the composition. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Yeah, because it’s, like, it’s yellow right now, right? Mr. Hayes: That was just natural wood. Although the existing house is yellow, correct. Vice Chair Thompson: The existing house is yellow, yeah. I mean, I think this foil is… Sorry, I know we’re not talking about colors and siding anymore. Maybe when there is a proposal for this. I think this foil is interesting to explore. I like that it’s different. But if the building stays yellow, or [distortion]. Those are my comments. Chair Baltay: Anybody else want to comment on the question of what’s a compatible form, per se? Alex or David? Board Member Hirsch: I’d like to jump in on the color change there. Chair Baltay: Okay, or the color. Board Member Lew: Can we stay on the roof? Chair Baltay: We’re trying to give them clear guidance on big things, like is the roof okay, and…? Board Member Lew: And there are no colors proposed. Right. Chair Baltay: Let’s focus on that and see if we can get guidance on it. Alex, what’s your thought about the flat roof and the massing? 3.a Packet Pg. 64 City of Palo Alto Page 40 Board Member Lew: I can support the flat roof. It seems to me that hip roofs have ventilation issues, given the code-required ventilation, requires adding more things on top of the roof. And then, another factor I think is if there’s any desire for photovoltaics, it seems to me that putting it on the flat roof would be much less…. You would much better screen than trying to fit it on a hip roof. Mr. Hayes: On the historic roof. Board Member Lew: Yeah, on the historic hip roof. If you have a flat roof, you can fit in roof relief vents on the flat part of the roof. It seems to me to have some advantages. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. Dave Hirsch, do you have an opinion on that? Board Member Hirsch: I think that the, although it’s a different style completely than the front of the building, that it doesn’t really have to look that different [inaudible] back to the perspective aerial, perspective drawing. I don’t really know why it has to stand out substantially from the main building. Chair Baltay: So you’re saying you think a hip or a gabled… Board Member Hirsch: No, no, I’m for the flat roof. Chair Baltay: Oh, you are for the flat roof. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Just color change. It seems like a start addition to the building. Chair Baltay: We’ll come back to the color in a second. David Bower, can you give us your take on what you think your HRB is going to land on this issue. Do you think you’ll be persuaded that the flat roof form will work? Mr. Bower: Speaking for the board and the comments, almost every board member commented about the roof, the starkness of the flat roof against the gable roof. I suspect that’s going to be a relatively significant issue here. One thing that you should know as ARB members is that we generally, in the HRB, don’t weigh in on color. Color is not part of the Secretary of Interior standards if you go with the color, as Alex suggested, that is reminiscent or appropriate for a building of that age. Color would pretty much be on you. But I think the board would probably feel that the whole building ought to be the same color. Chair Baltay: Okay, that’s clear advice to the applicant. Shall we have a round of comments on the color, too? Are we beating this to death? Ken Hayes, are you feeling like we’re giving you guidance here? Mr. Hayes: Yeah, well, the most important, I think, is the roof form itself. I think I can work with the HRB’s comments and your Board’s comments regarding the other elements. I actually like what Osma was talking about. We had a study like that, where we kind of created a separation joint between the new and the old, and also allow a better transition to horizontal siding. Because one of the concerns we have with horizontal siding is it is never going to line up with the contours of the shingles, so, how do you negate that kind of awkward juxtaposition? And maybe some kind of a notch would do that. Notch in the wall, notch in the roof, and as kind of wraps around. And maybe at that point, it would even make the hip a little bit more stand-alone and not look so crowded by the flat roof. I could get HRB support at that point, perhaps. Chair Baltay: Okay, I think you’ve heard that the ARB is generally supportive of the flat roof concept, but HRB doesn’t seem to be. That’s about as much as we can say on that for you. Any closing comments from any other Board members? I think we should wrap this up. No? Okay. I think we’ll finish that off and move on to the next item. Thank you very much, Ken Hayes and staff. Let’s get this meeting over. We’re going to move on to… Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you, Chair Bower. Mr. Bower: Thank you. I appreciate your listening to comments, and I will see you when this comes back. 3.a Packet Pg. 65 City of Palo Alto Page 41 Chair Baltay: Great. Thank you. Thank you, David. 4. Appoint Subcommittee for Objective Standards. Chair Baltay: We’re going to jump backwards to agenda item number 4, appoint subcommittee for objective standards. Jodie, could you tell us what that’s about, please? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, just one second, I need to find where I put that. Chair Baltay: Okay. I didn’t realize it’s already noon. We need to wrap up. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. I’m going to run without… I was just going to show you the staff reports. For the objective standards, you know, we’ve had the two meetings beforehand, the one in December and the one in January, where we’ve started the discussion of objective standards. As we move forward, we’re starting to dig further into the details, and this is where staff and the consultant could use some help from two of the Board members, to just sort of narrow down from the hundreds of options that we could come up with, you know, to a handful of options, that then the full board could weigh in on. We are looking for the Chair to appoint two people. We need some people who have a little bit of time to review all of this detailed information. We also need someone who is familiar with the code because we are talking about picking up pieces of the existing code and rearranging that, and thinking through the best way to do that. With that, I’ll turn it back. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Jodie, that makes sense. How much time commitment do think is involved? Are you able to assess? Ms. Gerhardt: We were not able to pin that down. I mean, there is a document, though, that is a good 30- some-odd pages long of all these objective standards that need to be converted. Forty-two pages, actually. You know, it is a little bit of a time commitment to read through the pages, to think through what the best options may be. There might be a meeting every one or two weeks that you could attend to with the consultants to discuss this as we go along, and then, some research ahead of that. Chair Baltay: Do any Board members have an expressed interest in doing this? Osma Thompson approached me that she would be willing to do this work. David and Alex, do you have a feeling? [crosstalk] already working on the Ventura project. David, this is dealing with local zoning that you may not be as familiar… Board Member Hirsch: I’m not… I’m very interested in this. I think it affects the city in a very big way. It affects our role in the city in an extremely big way as well. I’m quite concerned with turning back a process that is a part of us. We are involved in subjective comments all the time. I’m concerned that the wording of our zoning, if it’s changed to only objective, and somebody else is telling us now to do our work, I’m really quite concerned about how that is, how that is objectified. Chair Baltay: Do you feel you have the time to do this kind of thing, David? Board Member Hirsch: I do, yeah. Chair Baltay: I think it’s going to be somewhat time-intensive. Osma, how about you? Do you feel confident you can put in the time to do this? Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. I have a full-time job, but yes. Board Member Hirsch: You know, if I may say, I think it’s important to keep Alex in this one because, you know, I often depend upon Alex to correct me when I don’t know enough. And he’s very knowledgeable about, certainly all of the code. I do believe that Alex is important. Why does it need to be just two people? Chair Baltay: Well, we have this Brown Act issue, that three of us constitutes a…[crosstalk] 3.a Packet Pg. 66 City of Palo Alto Page 42 Board Member Hirsch: Oh, yeah. Chair Baltay: … can do it. Only two of us can [crosstalk]. Board Member Hirsch: Is it really representing the Board when it’s done that way? Ms. Gerhardt: This is just to get the process started. It absolutely would come back to the full Board to make any final decisions. And the subcommittee can help us decide when that time period is also. Chair Baltay: Alex, I haven’t heard from you on this. You’re obviously experienced and knowledgeable of the local code, but are you willing? And do you have time? Board Member Lew: I am interested. I would say, though, I don’t have time in the next month. On the North Ventura, we’ve had multiple delays, so we’re looking at having three meetings in the next, like, six weeks. And the number of alternates that we’ve been studying has gone from three to eight. So, I’m quite swamped at the moment. And I do understand that the objective standards is on a tight timeline, too, because of the state. I’ll be happy to help as much as I can, but it may be limited, just in the near term. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. Jodie, what I’d like to do, if we could, is not decide right now, but rather, talk to Grace Lee, who is not here with us now. And also, talk with you off line. We’ll have an answer by the end of the week. Would that work out okay? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. I’ll just need to confirm with the attorneys. I mean, they did want to make sure that we had agendized the item, but I don’t know if we have any comments from the public. But I think, ultimately, it is the Chair appointing two people, so I believe that will be okay. But I will double-check. Vice Chair Thompson: I also wanted to just also… I mean, ask you, Chair Baltay, if you’re also interested in this as well. Just so that, you know, the whole Board… You wanted to hear from the whole Board, but we didn’t hear from you. Chair Baltay: Well, I’m interested, of course, but I’m also very busy. I always feel if there’s other warm bodies willing to do the work, I need to stay a level back. I’m hearing that David and Osma are very interested, and I don’t know what Grace is thinking. And I’d like to speak to Jodie off line and get some feedback. I think this is something that will be fairly technical and detailed, and you want somebody who can really roll up their sleeves and work with the Planning Department to try to nail all this together. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Chair Baltay: Unless anybody has any other issues, I’d rather leave it not deciding right now. If anybody wants to talk to me off line, that’s fine, too. Are we all okay with that? Everybody is shaking their heads yes. Let’s leave it at that. We’ll have an answer by the end of the week for staff. 6. Discuss Procedures for Virtual Hearings. Chair Baltay: We’re going to move on to agenda item number 6, discuss procedures for virtual hearings. This is something that I put out there last meeting, and I think today, our meeting where we had the material board, pointed out, at least to me, the issue we’re facing, which is that without real samples, it’s awfully tough to make a final determination on some of these projects. Do we have any other opinions or ideas? What shall be do? Everybody turn on your microphone. Don’t be polite, just talk. Board Member Hirsch: Well, the material sample issue isn’t such a difficult one. I mean, the consultants can bring the samples to some place where we could get to see them. I can’t imagine that we can’t find some kind of a safe area. Maybe in the lobby of City Hall? That must still be open. Some area like that. 3.a Packet Pg. 67 City of Palo Alto Page 43 Chair Baltay: That’s one idea, deposit the samples someplace where we can all go to them. What we ended up with today is just assigning it to a subcommittee. It’s a small enough group, they can send that many samples out. Any other ideas or thoughts? How important is this, really? Vice Chair Thompson: I think it’s really important. I’d be willing to go somewhere and, you know, if it’s a location where the material samples can be viewed, just to see them, touch them, and then, wash my hands afterwards. I think it’s important. Chair Baltay: What’s your take, Alex? Board Member Lew: Yeah, it’s important. I was thinking maybe we could punt it. In the past, sometimes we’ve had, we’ve asked, or we’ve added a condition of approval, like a subcommittee could go out on site later, when construction is farther down the road, to approve colors and textures. Like textures of stucco, or mock-ups of cast concrete. And then you don’t get hung up now, before a contractor is selected and before the project has been bid. That’s one option. Chair Baltay: Okay. It sounds like we’re all in agreement that that’s an issue. Jodie, is there a way the City can put samples someplace where we can go look at them at some point? Is that something that’s viable? The lobby at City Hall? Ms. Gerhardt: Everything is sort of locked down at City Hall right now. There’s one or two people going into the building. I mean, it’s something where I could possibly go into the building, but I’d have to let you into the building. We would just have to have a set time period, or something like that. Chair Baltay: If I just used my office around the corner and find a way for people to access it there? Is that legitimate, or is that crossing the line? Ms. Gerhardt: I think if we, you would probably have to let the public into your office, would be the only thing. If someone wanted to stop by and see them. I mean, the same thing would be for City Hall. Chair Baltay: Well, the office is closed as well, but we have a shaded area in the back where somebody could go. But the idea of the general public being told to do there is probably not smart. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. Chair Baltay: How can it be that, on one hand, we can’t have the samples, and the other hand, everybody has to be able to see them uniformly. Ms. Gerhardt: Well, we’re presenting them on the screen, so everyone is able to see them in that fashion. Usually we would have them at the public hearing, where we’re passing them around, so the public could touch them and see them there if they wanted to. It’s just, how do we emulate that same sort of thing? Chair Baltay: I’m willing to take my conference room and put a passcode on the lock so any board member can go in there any time and look at them. We can just leave them there. The office isn’t open, but they could be left there without any trouble. That’s right downtown. I don’t want to put that to the general public. Ms. Gerhardt: Let me speak with the attorneys, if us showing us the materials on the screen during the actual hearing, if that’s sufficient for the public’s view, but then, the ARB could go to your office and be able to touch and feel the samples. I’ll just need to confirm that. Chair Baltay: Okay, why don’t you look into that? Any other thoughts about materials? Or anything else about having these meetings remotely? How else are we doing? Do we feel that we’re able to communicate well enough together? 3.a Packet Pg. 68 City of Palo Alto Page 44 Vice Chair Thompson: I have a question. When I was sharing my screen just a little bit ago, on the last item, I had this, like, itch to sketch over the drawing… Chair Baltay: I know you did. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Thompson: Am I allowed to do that? Chair Baltay: You can do anything you like, Osma. You’re [crosstalk]. Be careful. Board Member Hirsch: You don’t want to wreck your screen. Chair Baltay: Alex, explain [inaudible]. Ms. Gerhardt: I think it’s just, you know, it’s being recorded, it’s out to the public, so you just have to keep that in mind. Board Member Hirsch: I have a question about how it’s being presented to us. Because if we get all of the… If there is a presentation, we don’t quite know what’s new and… When you get a drawing, you know, you can compare it with what has gone before. But in this last case, on the last project, not the last one here, but the one… In the park… Ms. Gerhardt: Porter, on Porter Drive? The Research Park? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, Porter Drive. There were all of these versions of what was presented. How do you know which one is the very latest one? To get all the material that you really want to see, and what’s been changed since the last one. Ms. Gerhardt: You’re wanting to be able to compare plan sets from the first version to the second? Board Member Hirsch: Quickly, yes. Quickly. Yeah, yeah. I find that to be a problem, not to be able to really see that immediately. Ms. Gerhardt: We do have the project web pages that should have all of the different versions of the plan sets there, especially the versions that went to the Board. There is that web page. I don’t really want to offer this, but there is the potential to go back to paper. We as a department are actually trying to get away from paper. I mean, this is a great opportunity to save some trees. We do have our new online permitting system that we have to use right this minute, but we are going to continue to use into the future. That will reduce a lot of paper. But if it’s easier to review that way, we certainly could… I could talk to supporting staff. Board Member Hirsch: No, I’m not really suggesting back to paper. I’m just saying, how can you tell us which is the very latest without having to look through all the material on line? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, probably that project web page would be the best. In the staff reports, usually the very last attachment is the links to the project plans, and it links into the project web page as well. Maybe we can just better note that somehow. There’s also, in our emails to the Board, when we’re now sending you this electronic packet, maybe we can have some more direct links in there as well. Chair Baltay: Yeah, I felt today, again, during the Porter Drive building, it was clear, at least to me, that I hadn’t really reviewed those details as much as I should have. Honestly, the digital package was just more intimidating somehow to crack into. Just to figure out what I needed to see on paper, somehow I’m used to figuring out where it is. I think I’m not alone on that one. Board Member Hirsch: You’re not. 3.a Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto Page 45 Chair Baltay: I suspect that’s a matter of just changing process. Not saying we have to go back to paper, though. Any other thoughts on this subject? Board Member Lew: Peter, I have one concern. For example, at the next meeting, we’ve got that controversial hotel project coming to the subcommittee. In the past, in past meetings, it’s attracted a large number of neighbors from the Palo Alto Redwoods. I have some concern, if they are so interested in the project, that we don’t really have a process set up for subcommittee to handle a large number of [inaudible]. Chair Baltay: Do we have the option, Jodie, to re-escalate something back to the full board instead of the subcommittee? Doesn’t the subcommittee have the option to send it back to the Board? Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t think we’ve done that in many, many years. Chair Baltay: I think that’s the answer, Alex. If you think there’s a lot of people who are still speaking and you feel there’s more testimony that needs to be heard, or you can’t make the subcommittee decision. Board Member Lew: I don’t know if the neighbors are planning to come or not. Maybe we could find out. Ms. Gerhardt: The neighbors are still involved. I don’t know exactly if they’re wanting to come to the subcommittee. But that may be the ultimate answer, is that we have that subcommittee meeting, and if we’re not able to make decisions, we could send it back to the full board. Let me think about that a little bit more. But you’re right, if there’s a large interest… But there’s nothing that prevents, I mean, the subcommittee happens on the same Zoom channel, so they could still be attendees to that type of meeting. Vice Chair Thompson: They could raise their hand, potentially. Chair Baltay: Is your question, Alex, the logistics of having people involved in a subcommittee? Or is it whether it should stay a subcommittee? Did I understand you right? Board Member Lew: No, it’s mostly just a logistics, of trying to review it with a large number of people. Chair Baltay: Jodie, will Vinh be there for the subcommittee hearings? Do they have that support? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I think Vinh gets to be here with us all the time. Just to help in the background. We appreciate that. And Medina, as well. Chair Baltay: I would expect a subcommittee would take testimony from any interested members of the public, if they feel they want to chime in. It’s usually less formal. I think that’s the way it should work. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, we have not usually had comments on subcommittees, but, I mean, it’s certainly open for the public to attend. Board Member Lew: I’ll just give you, one example was the Lockheed site in the Stanford Research Park that was next to some of the neighbors in Barron Park. Chair Baltay: Yes, I remember that. Board Member Lew: And they came to the subcommittee, and it was a fairly heated debate there. It’s unusual, but it does happen, and I’m thinking that this project would be more likely than not to attract people. Chair Baltay: I wasn’t aware that was the case. To me, that means that we failed at putting something to subcommittee. If it’s still that controversial, it shouldn’t be at the subcommittee level. Subcommittee is supposed to be doing technical evaluation based on their understanding of the Board. 3.a Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto Page 46 Board Member Lew: My understanding is that this project is going to be appealed. I just want to make sure that everything is done properly. Chair Baltay: Absolutely. Jodie, could you check if there’s any way to bring this back to the Board instead, if Alex is concerned? Or what the process should be, so that the subcommittee has guidance? We don’t want to screw things up either. Ms. Gerhardt: I [crosstalk] the attorney right now, yes. Chair Baltay: That’s off the question of virtual hearings, which is what we were discussing. Is there anything else while we’re doing this, on virtual hearings? Okay, I just received a message from the City Attorney that we have to come back to the subcommittee. First, I’d like to work through the other two items on the agenda. Approval of Minutes Chair Baltay: Next one is approval of minutes. Do we have minutes to approve, Jodie? In our packet, is that right? Mr. Nguyen: We actually don’t have any minutes to approve because our early April meeting was cancelled. Chair Baltay: And the last meeting we had on line, we don’t have those minutes yet? Mr. Nguyen: We usually approve the minutes two meetings later, instead of the next meeting. Chair Baltay: I see, okay, so the minutes aren’t ready yet from the last meeting. Very well. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 7. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Working Group Updates Chair Baltay: I’m eager to hear if Alex has anything to report about the Ventura committee. Board Member Lew: Sure. The last meeting was cancelled, but there is going to be a Zoom meeting on May 26th, from 5:30 to 7:30. We’ve tentatively scheduled two more meetings in June, which would be June 9th and June 23rd, but those dates are still tentative. Chair Baltay: Okay, nothing more than that, though. Board Member Lew: Yeah, and I had mentioned briefly that the consultants did three alternative schemes, but members of the commission have done five additional alternates on their own. Those additional five schemes are going to be discussed at the next meeting. Chair Baltay: Okay, great. Thank you. That covers all of our agenda items. Let’s come back to agenda item number…. Okay, Jodie, yes? Ms. Gerhardt: Hi. I’m having conversations with the attorney as we speak. On the subcommittee item, we were being more specific about one project, but if people did want to speak on a subcommittee item, it is not subject to the Brown Act, but we would, of course, let them informally comment, within reason. And then, also, back on the subcommittee for the objective standards, I really would appreciate if we could do those appointments now. The attorney says that we need to do that during a public hearing, and if at all possible, I don’t want to wait until the next hearing. Chair Baltay: Okay, so we’re going to pick that up before we end. Here’s my thought on this. Alex, you’re currently on the Ventura committee. David, you’ve always been very interested in being on the Ventura committee. Alex, you would be great on this subcommittee for design standards. Are you willing to switch 3.a Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Page 47 it over? Change committees, Alex, so the City can benefit from you on the zoning instead. I don’t think you can do both. Board Member Lew: I think it’s possible to switch. The City Council only requires somebody from the ARB. It doesn’t have to be me. It’s not like they appointed me to be on it. Chair Baltay: David, what are your thoughts? Board Member Hirsch: Then [inaudible] to me. I’m not so interested in Ventura anymore. Chair Baltay: Oh, you’re not interested in Ventura. Board Member Hirsch: No, no. Frankly, I think it’s a dead horse. Chair Baltay: I thought I was trying to marshal our [crosstalk]. Board Member Hirsch: No, no, it doesn’t work. I think [inaudible] sort of really, for me, it sort of killed it now. Chair Baltay: Are you sure, David? I mean, it’s well suited to what your interests are. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, no. Chair Baltay: The zoning thing is going to require a lot of detailed knowledge of the code. Board Member Hirsch: I agree with that. Yep. Chair Baltay: I’m not sure you have that. You’ve only been in town a year or two. Board Member Hirsch: That’s correct. That is correct. I’m lacking in… Chair Baltay: You and Alex switch. Then we would have better resource allocation, I think. Board Member Hirsch: You’re pushing, Peter. You’re pushing. Chair Baltay: I’m pushing, that’s right. I want you guys to do what I think is best for Palo Alto. Board Member Hirsch: I really have no, no longer any interest in Ventura. I really don’t think it’s going anywhere for about 30 years. Chair Baltay: Okay. Well, then, Jodie, we’ll have to appoint David and Osma to the new subjective standards and leave Alex where he is. I don’t want to rock the boat beyond that. And Grace is just not here, so I can’t hear her input, and that’s all there is to it. Board Member Hirsch: Osma, do you feel good about all the zoning information? Where I’m weak? Vice Chair Thompson: I can’t claim Board Member Lew’s status in knowledge, but I’ve lived here a long time. Vice Chair Thompson: Are you interested, Osma, in switching with Alex? No, I think it’s fine. Leave it the way it is. Okay. Vice Chair Thompson: I do regret that Board Member Lee is not here. I wonder if she would have been interested. Chair Baltay: I just don’t think it’s fair to appoint her without asking her, right? 3.a Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Page 48 Vice Chair Thompson: True. Yeah. Chair Baltay: And if we have to decide now, what can we do? Right? Amy French: I should mention that the Planning and Transportation Commission will be talking about the objective standards next Wednesday night, so anyone who is interested or appointed should tune into that. I know Grace Lee was involved in the El Camino Real guidelines, which was partly the context-based design criteria in our code. Kind of mirror the El Camino guidelines in many ways, so that would be a consideration if Grace was interested. But certainly up to you. Vice Chair Thompson: Can we get her back on the call? Maybe she’s free now? I don’t know. Chair Baltay: No, the decision is made. Osma and David will be on the subjective standards committee, Alex will remain on the Ventura committee. I think that lets us adjourn. Are we all done? Have I missed anything? No subcommittee today, right? Thank you all for volunteering. Board Member Lew: Thank you, Peter. Chair Baltay: We’ll see you. Adjournment 3.a Packet Pg. 73 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11458) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 7/2/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of May 21, 2020 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 21, 2020 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the May 21, 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 Attachments: x Attachment A: May 21, 2020 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Osma Thompson, Board Members Alexander Lew, Grace Lee and David Hirsch. Absent: None. Chair Baltay: Good morning. I'm Peter Baltay. Welcome to the May 21, 2020, meeting of the Palo Alto Architectural Review Board. At the start of the meeting I’d to read a statement. [Reading] 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. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26 and live at Midpen Media Center at midpenmedia.org. Members of the public who wish to participate may do so by email, phone, or computer. To ensure participation in a particular item, we suggest calling in or connecting on line 15 minutes before the item you wish to speak on at Cityofpaloalto.org. Spoken comments via a computer will be accepted through the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address the Board, go to zoom.us/join. Meeting ID is 99919943549. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name. This will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “Raise Hand.” The moderator will activate and unmute speakers in turn. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your time. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App store or Google Play store and enter the Meeting ID 99919943549. Please follow the steps a through d. Spoken public comments using a phone. Call 1- 669-900-6833, and enter Meeting ID 99919943549. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. To better facilitate public comments at the beginning of the meeting, our meeting host, Vinh Nguyen, will identify each person with a raised hand by name or last four digits of your phone number, and request that you state your name and agenda item you wish to speak on. If you wish to speak on any item not on the agenda, please state your intent to speak under oral communications. When it is your time to speak during public comment, you will be identified and provided three minutes to speak. Any callers with blocked numbers will wait until the end of the speaker’s portion. The host will unmute them one at a time. All will be asked to speak. [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Baltay: The next item is Oral Communications. Is there any member of the public who wishes to speak or address any item that’s not on the agenda? Vinh, do we have anybody? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 21, 2020 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 4.a Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate: We do not have any raised hands at this time. I believe we may proceed with the agenda. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Baltay: Next item is Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions. I think we don’t have any changes. Jodie, do we have any changes? Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No changes at this time. 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 Report. Could you give us a report, please, Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: [Setting up presentation.] We’re continuing on with our virtual meetings that we will have today. For the next hearing, June 4th, we don’t have any action items. The only item that we have would be 380 Cambridge, which is a subcommittee review. I would just need from the chair which members would be attending that. Chair Baltay: You would have the subcommittee even though we don’t have a regular meeting? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. I have checked with the attorneys and it is fine to do it that way. We are announcing it now that we’re going to have such a subcommittee. We will have agendas posted online but that’s all that we need to do for subcommittees. Chair Baltay: And the staff is happy with that inefficiency of holding just a meeting for that purpose? Ms. Gerhardt: During these interesting times we are trying to move projects forward and we don’t have anything else for the agenda. Chair Baltay: I think the subcommittee for that should probably be composed of David and Osma if they’re willing to do that as a special meeting. David, does that interest you? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, fine by me. Chair Baltay: Osma, how do you feel about that one? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah, that’s fine. Chair Baltay: Okay. Let’s put those two down for the subcommittee so that’s decided for you, Jodie. That way we can [distortion] middle of the week. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. Chair Baltay: Okay, anything else on City Official Reports? Ms. Gerhardt: No. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3585 El Camino Real [17PLN-00305]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow The Demolition of a 800 Square Foot Commercial Building and the Construction of a New Three-Story Mixed- Use Project Including 2,400 Square Feet of 4.a Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Office Space, and Three Residential Units. This is a Housing Incentive Program Project with a Variance Request to Deviate From the Parking Lot Shading Requirement. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Baltay: Great. Then we move on to our first action item, which is public number 2 here. 3585 El Camino Real: consideration of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of a 800 square foot commercial building and the construction of a new three-story mixed-use project including 2,400 square feet of office space, and three residential units. This is a housing incentive program with a variance request to deviate from the parking lot shading requirement. Before we start, do we have any disclosures for this project? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Baltay: Okay, David. Board Member Hirsch: Had a meeting at the architectural office. We’re concerned mostly about the shading and the parking lot. [Phone Ringing] So that’s being checked. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. I'm sorry about that. Any other disclosures? Board Member Lee: I will also disclose that I did meet with the applicant and visited the site multiple times. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. Anybody else? Board Member Lew: Yeah, I will disclose that I visited the site and I looked at the lighting cut sheets online because I didn’t see them in the drawing set. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Osma, anything? Vice Chair Thompson: I visited the material board at City Hall. Chair Baltay: Okay, and I disclose I did visit the site as well, myself, to get a better understanding of the situation. Everybody, thank you for those disclosures. Before we get started, Vinh, do we have any public comments to expect for this one today so far? Mr. Nguyen: No one has indicated that they had public comments for this ordinance. Chair Baltay: Okay, then why don’t we get started with the staff report on this, please. Is that Sheldon? Sheldon Ah Sing: Yes, thank you. [Setting up presentation.] Mr. Nguyen: Chair Baltay, I just want to add that Timothy Maloney just raised his hand for this item. I guess we can call him as we get to public comments. Chair Baltay: Wonderful, thank you. Mr. Ah Sing: Okay, thank you. I'm Sheldon Ah Sing, and just to go over what we’re going to talk about, I have a project overview of what we’re… first, providing a little bit about the site context and it’s a small site. It’s on El Camino Real. A little different context than, say, a project in the downtown area and how the housing of the program has really benefited this project. This will be, I think, one of the first projects that we use this program on. And then going into a little more detail, the El Camino Real guidelines give more detail with the project plans and also the issue mentioned of the parking lot shade canopy issue and a topic of the variance. We will display some of the materials and then we’ll go through our recommendation. A little bit more about the project, it’s formal review of a mixed-use project located 4.a Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Page 4 within the Ventura neighborhood area. It’s on a small site. It’s just over 6,000 square feet. To kind of put that in perspective, that’s the same size lot as a typical single-family house. It is a new three-story mixed-use building. You have some offices on the first floor, office on the second floor as well as three residential units. And the project itself is community commercial, neighborhood commercial, and the project does use the Housing Incentive Program to get through some of the issues that we initially had for the project. It’s also subject to the Performance Criteria Standards at [distortion] the context space design criteria standards, and those support the request for architectural review as well as the variance and this, for clarification, recommendation for approval today. We have included findings in your packet. A little bit of background, as I mentioned, this project was submitted back in 2017, and ran into some hurdles. The site required that if you wanted to include residential mixed-use you had to have a minimum of three units. There were some site constraints given the small size of the lot and since that time the City adopted the housing CNDA Program. That’s helped alleviate some of these constraints but not all of them, as we’ll go through. The project did go through the ARB formal review back in October. It’s a three-story mixed-use project and at the time the Board had mentioned to demonstrate compliance South El Camino Real guidelines, provide some additional samples of materials. Also to discuss the relationship with the building that’s across the alley. The site does include three sides of it that basically are streets, essentially, and there’s existing two-story residential building behind. It also demonstrates some relief in the facades to also replacing the ground floor windows. Describe the pedestrian experience a little better along El Camino Real and Matadero Road. There was an issue with the perimeter parking lot landscaping and the Board wanted the project to retain that landscaping. And also it has some consideration for some signs. A bit more about the site context and… This project is also on the same agenda as another project that has a small site as well. And I think it unintentionally became, sort of, a study of micro lots. We do want to hit home, this is the current situation here along El Camino Real that it is a downtown [distortion] it sets back other site constraints, but this project also does have an alley in back, as you can see, and you have some overhead utilities that provide some additional design constraints. But the site does include the existing 800-square foot former automobile service building. The site was considered contaminated but has since been mediated and given closure by the oversight agencies. There are other two-story commercial buildings in the vicinity, as well as some vacant parcels. The Housing Incentive Program was adopted to amend the Comprehensive Plan Policies for both additional housing and production of the City. For residential mixed-use projects along El Camino Real, the director can waive the following requirement when the project is consistent with the Architectural Review findings. Those here applicable are the maximum FAR is not to exceed a total of 1.4:1. The base CN district allows 1.0:1 FAR. This project does take advantage of that. It’s at 1.0:1. Then the maximum lot coverage base CN allows up to 50 percent and I think this project is up to 60 percent. The applicant did revise a response to the Board’s initial comments on the following. They did reduce the office square footage. They put some of that square footage back into the residential units and in reducing the office space they were afforded to reduce the amount of parking on the site. In doing that they actually added some more landscaping in the rear. You can see that in the site plans, some permeable pavers and also two larger trees that could be accommodated in that rear parking area now. The project does formally include about 2,300/2,400 square feet of commercial space, about .38:1 FAR. That does include some shared space. The residential units totaling 4,500 square feet. It does include some shared space in its .72 FAR. The total FAR is 1.1 and the site coverage is 60 percent. Some of the notable development standards that are important to show is that in the CN District you have to -- where the other project as well is on El Camino Real show you have an effective 12-foot sidewalk and the first floor is probably being setback about 5 feet to accommodate that. There’s an initial 5-foot setback for the street side on Matadero, so You wouldn’t get that at a downtown area if you have a (inaudible) setback. Office space covers 35 percent and the parking lot shape canopy, we’ll get to more detail about that -- the requirement’s 50 percent with maturity at 15 years. In addition to these zoning requirements, you have the South El Camino Real design guidelines and for properties that are in this retail go district, 75 percent of the frontage needs to build to that setback for El Camino Real and then likewise, for the side street, 50 percent needs to be built for that setback. And those guidelines also encourage you to take access from the side street. It does mention that if you have an alley to consider that as well, and this project did look at having access of the alley and that was problematic for adding additional traffic and having sensitivity to that residential building behind. Also, the guidelines state you should have orientation of building towards El Camino Real.; this project does that. It includes the front, the building itself is frontage of El Camino Real. The back is the along the alleys where you have your parking and your other 4.a Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Page 5 service (inaudible). It also includes articulated base, body and roof guidelines. Some of the project comparisons from before, the left side shows you what was previously shown. The right side is what’s presently shown. And at the board meeting there want really a direct direction to change necessarily the architecture of the building. It just said to consider the El Camino Real guidelines, demonstrate compliance with those. The applicant didn’t change the front of the building but the rear of the site, as a result of removing some office square footage, are able to put in more landscaping. So you can notice there are a couple of trees that are on the opposite side of the driveway there. The two London Planes, those are actually street tree size type of trees. That should make a difference there. And then, here you can see in the site plan here of the changes that they made. Again, it’s to, really, the rear, but since they were able to remove one of the parking spaces in the puzzle lift, now you have that extra 8 feet or so of landscaping at the end of the driveway, and that’s where they can put the long-term bicycle parking spaces. They’ve moved that from fronting the alley, and they added the two trees there, as well. And you can see in the back where you have all the other utilities, such as the transformer pad, the [distortion], you have the trash area, you have the parking. The service parking is required; when you have mechanical lift parking, you need to have service parking. You can’t put accessible parking in mechanical lifts. We’d also provide for the pathways to these accessible parking spaces and, again, as I mentioned, you have the overhead utilities there, so you're limited at the size of the trees that you put along that alley. Here you can see the project is one story taller than the adjacent properties. The first floor, or base of the building, is consistent with the neighboring building. They piggyback [distortion] the pattern. The parking lot shading is a requirement in the parking code and specifically it states that surface parking area shall include tree canopy design to result 50 percent shading of that surface area within 15 years and does specify the size of the trees you need to put in there at the time of construction. This project began, showing the areas that needs to be shaded. That’s the driveway, the parking spaces there. With the revision of the project, the applicant was able to add some additional trees at the end of the driveway. These are London Plane trees, as I mentioned. They’re the same as the street trees that are proposed. So they’ll be really nice canopy trees and the other trees along the alley are Japanese Maples. They’re very slow-growing. They’re small canopy trees. Those are something that the utility department can allow underneath the power lines. The surface spaces are semi-covered spaces with vines that are growing on the structure. The applicant did look at some other alternatives here. It did look at a basement alternative in the past. You can see on the left, actually the project would take access over surface spaces along Matadero side street as well as the alley to get ramp down. And you can see with the ramp being to code, there’s not really sufficient backup space to the spaces. And then, even if you look on the surface, you still don’t even have 50 percent shading there on the site, so they’re still problematic even when you look at the basement alternative. Probably could’ve pushed him in different ways here to see different configurations, but it is challenging, given that on a basement that leads to an alley, the cars coming up that ramp have their headlights into the adjacent residential -- that’s pretty tough and the trash space here probably isn’t sufficient on the surface here. There are a lot of challenges for having this basement alternative. And just, kind of building on what the opposite building looks like across from the alley. You can see it’s a two-story residential building. There are some doors that access the alley. There’s a courtyard in the middle that you don’t really see here, and then the alley is 20-feet wide. You can see the utility pole in that picture. And then on the other side of the picture, the graphic, you can see, sort of, how the project puts all its massing on [distortion] consistent with the South El Camino Real guidelines. They bring the parking, stepping down to the alley, sort of having that buffer [distortion] units. This is really important if we go down the variance path. This is the first finding it’s made, and because of special circumstances applicable to the subject property, including but not limited to size, shape, topography, location, or surroundings. It’s not just the lot itself and maybe something that’s wrong with it. Like, if you go and there’s a huge row of trees or large boulders that we can’t move. I mean, it’s also its location and surroundings. The strict application of the requirement and regulations prescribed in this Title substantially deprives such property of privileges enjoyed by other property, and I think that’s where we’ve tried to make those findings in your packet today, and hopefully [distortion]. Some other things about the project is that we have below-market-rate housing. The project will make an in-lieu payment of that. That number is .45 units, so it is a fractional unit, therefore it was subject to the in-lieu payment. Mechanical lift parking also has an issue regarding the operations and maintenance in case there’s a breakdown. And then just pointing to some of the materials, and the applicant will probably go a little bit more into this. Hopefully, you’ve had a chance to look at the materials at the display case or they were available online as well. But they’re using some 4.a Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Page 6 concrete, which (inaudible) sort of a sustainable type of concrete and there’s 3form cladding. A different type of material, the glass railings, and the application of it here. There are some glass overhangs that are being used as well. The long term bicycle parking, you can see the picture on the right they’re using. It’s kind of a neat looking one. It looks pretty durable. This is some of the wood they’re using for the trellis over the parking as well as the bench that’s being provided along Matadero. And then some of the roofing material they used for the trash enclosure as well as the same material for part of the parking trellis cover. There’s a rock wall that’s on the side of Matadero as well going on the rear of the alley. And then some of the concrete masonry block that used for the structure of the trash enclosure and the concrete block wall. And then you have the mechanical equipment screen that’s being used on the roof, as well as some of the planters that are being used along the alley portion and also along the front of El Camino Real. And then, this is the materials for, I think the 3form cladding. I believe one of the applicants wants to show that in their presentation today. And then, this is just one of the findings of the architectural review is the sustainability of the project uses concrete that has a slag, which is a sustainable material. There are solar panels on the roof. It uses steel framing, it was a renewable resource. Operable doors and windows and the 3form cladding doesn’t require [distortion]. And then for CEQA we are currently in circulation with a mitigated negative declaration document being circulated from May 1st through June 1st and the impacted topics include -- they’re all construction-related, air quality, biological resources, cultural resources, some hazards, hazardous resources, and noise, more specifically the vibration. And all these mitigations proposed can reduce these impacts to less than significant. In conclusion, we want to conduct a public hearing. The body did respond to the ARB comments. The project is consistent with Architectural Review findings. We want to consider those variance requests by the applicant, and we want to complete the CEQA process. The recommendation is to review and consider the initial study and mitigate Negative Declaration and then recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the findings and subject to conditions of approval. That concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions. The applicant has (inaudible), which I will operate, and then we’ll go ahead and get to any questions you may have. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Sheldon. Does any board member have a question for staff? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, I have one. Chair Baltay: Go ahead, David. Board Member Hirsch: The enclosure for the long-term parking in the back. Is that a requirement for the retail or the residential portion of the building? Mr. Ah Sing: It’s for both. They’re both combined there. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Baltay: Any other questions? I would like to ask one question, then, Sheldon. When you’re measuring the shading as a percentage of the parking lot area are you including the area of the stacked parking that’s actually underneath the building? The code seems to say you should take the area of the surface parking and shade half of that. Which area are you including when you make that measurement? Mr. Ah Sing: We’re including the driveway and the surface parking areas. Chair Baltay: I ask this because on the applicant’s drawings it seemed that they were including a much larger area for what the surface parking area was. Can you say what percentage is actually shaded with the application right now? To what extent are we asking for a variance? Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, I think if we look at that sheet, we’re showing like 200 square feet of the parking lot being shaded. It’s a very small percentage. I know they have another exhibit, but basically, that 200 square feet are in this area here. These areas are not included. These other areas are not included, so, really it’s a very small area that’s included. 4.a Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Baltay: But can you say what the percentage is? The code says they have to be 50 percent shaded. What percent shaded are they right now? Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, I’d have to look at that sheet and I think while the applicant’s giving their presentation -- I’d just have to do the math here but, again, they’re only doing -- this is the only part that’s shaded. We just need to take this area here and, I mean, it’s very, very small. It’s not very much but I can get that for you. Chair Baltay: Okay, thanks. Any other questions? Board Member Hirsch: I have a question about that issue, Peter. I thought it was stated in the text somewhere that the shading is about 26 or 27 percent relative to the 50 percent requirement. Chair Baltay: That’s the number I'm looking for. Sheldon, (inaudible) would be 25 percent on this drawing in front of us. Ms. Gerhardt: I think if you give us a minute, we can find that number for you, maybe after the applicant presents. Chair Baltay: That’s great, Jodie. Just at some point as we discuss this. With that, can we move on to the applicant presentation? Do we have the applicant here, Vinh? Could you get them on board for us, please? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, so I think the applicant is Pratima and Joe. [Setting up presentation.] Board Member Hirsch: I hope they speak clear. And, Vinh, I can hardly understand you. [Adjusting Audio.] Chair Baltay: Welcome, Architect Pratima. Pratima Shah: [Setting up presentation.] This is what we will do. We will continue with our presentation and during question/answer session we’ll keep our camera on so we will be able to show you the markups of the material samples we made. [Setting up presentation.] Good morning, respected ARB Review Members, City Officers, and everybody who has joined us at this virtual hearing. My name is Pratima Shah, I’m the project architect. I would like to thank the officials and Sheldon Ah Sing with whom we worked closely on this project. We appreciate their detailed staff report and information -- Chair Baltay: Excuse me, could you state and spell your name for the record, please? Ms. Shah: Yes. (Spelled Name) Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Ms. Shah: We would like to thank ARB Members for (inaudible) design proposal, valuable comments and suggestions. We did appreciate them. We have reviewed and considered each and every suggestion by the Board and departments and have responded in our revised design proposal. I would like to begin my presentation with the existing site conditions. The size of the lot is 60 feet by 104 feet. That is about 6,252 square feet. It is a standard size of a lot for a single-family home and a substandard lot for a multi-family mixed-use building. The lot has been vacant for past 30 years and because the site was contaminated it had to go through the extensive process of remediation. Now the site has a clean title from County of Santa Clara. The design proposal that we are presenting today has evolved after considering different design programs and working with the consultants, City officials and (inaudible). I would like to summarize the design proposals we submitted previously. Our first formal design application was in August 2017 where we proposed three-story mixed-use building with two office spaces and two residential units. There was a conflicting requirement of the Zoning Code for this property. The 4.a Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Page 8 CN district only allowed multi-family residential districts. That means three or more units and the residential permitted residential density only permitted two residential units and we had proposed two. There was a conflict in the zoning requirements itself. We explored other design options for the program, like two-story office building only, but an office had more stringent setback requirements, such as 20 feet from Matadero Avenue. That’s approximately one-third of the site. And we also would have the opportunity to of adding (inaudible) housing in the City. We tried the option of a basement with a ramp, a third level of mechanical lift but both options were discarded because of the mediator saw a condition and to keep the excavation to minimum. At this time we had many constraints and we were really concerned about the ecumenical feasibility of the project and that’s when the housing Incentive Plan was announced by the City Council, which helped us a lot during this process. The following incentives -- like first one increase residential FAR, then reduced car parking requirement, like one car parking space for one-bedroom unit instead of 1.5 and more than 50 percent site coverage is permitted. We were able to take advantage of these incentives and propose a design which works for plans as well as City. There is no major change in the design program from the previous proposal. The proposal includes two office spaces, around 2,374 square feet, and three residential units around 4,500 square feet. In the previous proposal, a variance was requested for 5 feet perimeter landscaping along the parking lot. We have proven this requirement by adding 8-foot landscape straight at the end of the driveway along the neighboring property with two trees, shrubs, creepers on the boundary wall, and permeable pavers. This strip creates a beautiful landscape space and a visual relief in the parking area. In order to create this green oasis in the parking lot we had to reduce one car parking space from the mechanical car lift system, resulting in reduction in office square footage. The design proposal includes ten car parking spaces with mechanical vehicular lifts while three car parking spaces are on grid. On grid car parking spaces are mainly for commercial portion of the building. As David asked the question, residential will have designated parking in the car lifts. The bicycle parking has been relocated from the alley to the space in front of unused bay of the car lift system. During the previous ARB meeting there was a comment or discussion and concern expressed about the alley streetscape. Relocating bicycles at new position not only makes the bicycle parking safer but also provides a continuous landscape strip along the alley. There is a five-foot easement on the alley for overhead electrical lines. Though we have this restriction, we feel we have created a design solution which beautifies the alley: four Japanese Maple trees, remove both planters to market the boundary and beautify the alley. Thus creates a desirable (inaudible) between the alley and the parking area. Another change we are proposing for the shading of un-grayed surface parking. Our new design proposal included a continuous standing seam metal roof for the car parking area. In this proposal, we have a combination of standing seam metal roof over the parking area and (inaudible) wood trellis or pergola covered with creepers over the aisles. This combination roof will provide required shading for the parked cars. The trellis and vines, which is an interesting landscape element, will create beautiful views for the users and neighbors, as well as reduce the heat island effect. These are the pictures of the model which show the view from the alley and you will be able to see the difference this small little change we made in the alley streetscape. Now we have a continuous street of landscape. Next is the rendering which shows the corner view from Matadero Avenue and the alley. And if you have taken a drive through this alley you will agree with me that this will be one of the beautiful corners on that alley. The next couple of slides who the revisions we made to the floor plans. Since we reduced one car parking space, we had to reduce office square footage on the second floor by around 150 square feet. We have compensated this reduction in office square footage by adding more square footage to the residence on the second floor. On the third floor, we have reduced the size of the two trellises which were closer to the neighboring buildings and have increased the square footage of residence number three. We are still able to fulfill the requirement of 150 square feet of open space per residential unit and overall landscape, or open space, as we have added more landscaping on ground floor. Now I will proceed with response to the ARB comments. We have submitted a virtual material board which has pictures of the material samples, brief specifications, construction on details for a few materials, and pictures of the materials in use at our previous project. A physical material board was submitted at the previous ARB hearing and now at the Plaza. We have a mockup of 3form wall and a 3form H detail and a collection detail of steel frame and glass R-3form panel. I will show these mock ups once I connect to the camera. This is the picture of the mockup and the slacks. There was concern expressed on how building responds to its surrounding residential neighbors and location of the trash enclosure. As explained previously in the design, it has a beautiful landscape perimeter strip along the alley. The view of the parking is (inaudible) with removable planters, Japanese Maple trees and rock 4.a Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Page 9 walls. The standing seam metal roof and (inaudible) trellis with creepers form an interesting roof pattern. The entry of the trash location enclosure is in the front of the staircase of one of the residential building and is not right in front of the door. Trash enclosure is fully enclosed and with overhead rolling shutter. The vehicular entry and exit to the side is from Matadero Avenue, thus introduces impact on the alley traffic. As mentioned in the previous hearing by the City staff, today’s ARB discussion focuses on the South El Camino Real guidelines and complies with it. One of the main concerns was about guideline 4.1.5 articulated façade base, body, and roof. As per the guidelines, the building does have an articulated façade and expresses the use of its space. For ground floor office use the building has exposed concrete column frame and a concrete slab with glass walls. This maintains the rhythm of the neighboring storefronts. The middle floor office use has an overhanging balcony with solar screening landscape elements, a vertical garden, which is a distinct feature and relates to the building next to the neighboring building. The top floor residence is clattered with 3form and does not remove the structure existing. The residence is recessed 8 feet from El Camino Real and 16 feet in the corner to reduce the massing of the building and relate to the context. From the pedestrian view, the glass guardrail for the trellis is more visible and acts as a parapet and relates to the two-story neighboring building. The building uses singular architectural elements of the neighboring buildings, like storefront, balconies, parapets and forms a strong connection with them. As for ARB members -- Chair Baltay: Ms. Pratima, you're at ten minutes now. Could you wrap this up within a minute, please? Ms. Shah: Yes. I am on the second to the last slide, so I will be able to finish. Thank you. As for ARB member's suggestions, we explored a couple of design solutions and we think the proposed is the best one as it satisfies the intent of the guideline and forms a strong connection with the neighboring building. The very important variance issue about the site is 50 percent parking lot with trees is a requirement for surface parking. I feel we have a unique situation where 30 of 10 cars [sic], that is 75 percent of the cars, are parked in the vehicular system and three are parked on the grayed shared driveway. The code does not address this situation. If all 13 cars were parked on the surface it would have covered 3,800 square feet and we have reduced 50 percent of surface parking area requirement. The code intends to reduce heat island effect by providing shading in the parking with trees. 75 percent of the parking is under the building and remaining is covered with landscape elements and trees. Also, it is located on the North side of the property, so part of the driveway will always be shaded as shown in the picture (inaudible). With this, I would like to conclude my presentation. We tried our best to respond to each and every comment and we are really satisfied with the proposal we have, and we hope the ARB recommends this too. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much for the presentation. Do we have any questions from the Board of the applicant? Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Chair Baltay: Go ahead, Osma. Vice Chair Thompson: It sounded like there were some mock ups of the material that we were going to see via video. Is the Board interested in seeing that? I am. Ms. Shah: I’ll turn the video on and show it. Chair Baltay: Can you tell me how long this video is? Ms. Shah: It’s not long I'm just going to show the mock up by camera. Chair Baltay: Okay. At the request of Board Member Thompson, we will look at the video. Thank you. Vice Chair Thompson: It’s not a video. It’s just their video, like their camera, so we can see it. [Preparing Visual.] 4.a Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Ms. Shah: This is the mock up of the wall. We have the (inaudible). Vice Chair Thompson: Is that concrete color and that 3form brown color correct in terms of what will be used on this project? Ms. Shah: This mock up we made with the material that was available at the workshop. Because it’s a special order, a color sample of the 3form was submitted at the ARB meeting. Vice Chair Thompson: It looks very similar to the one that I saw on the material board. The material board one maybe looks little darker. Ms. Shah: My material sheet gives exact specifications of the color that matches with the true color if you see the virtual material sheet Vice Chair Thompson: I went and I saw the material board. Ms. Shah: Let me show the other mock ups, too. Vice Chair Thompson: I'm interested in seeing the corner. Ms. Shah: (Inaudible) this is one of the ways to (inaudible) and the third mock-up is the current glass steel frame and metal plates. Vice Chair Thompson: Can you get closer to the corner, please? Not that corner, the 3form mock up corner. Is that an edge banding of metal? Ms. Shah: No, it’s not metal its singleplex [phonetic]. It’s a caulking material. Joseph Bellomo, Architect: We’ve used this on several projects. I want to quickly say thank you for your time with the ARB. I served a couple terms and I understand the effort and I really appreciate that. I just wanted to interject that. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Joe Bellomo. Mr. Bellomo: And you're familiar with the corner at University, the City parking structure? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Chair Baltay: We’re asking questions. Osma, does that answer your question? Vice Chair Thompson: It does. I do have one more questions. A lot of my questions actually got answered by the staff report. Thank you, Sheldon, for your thorough report. I wanted to ask about the mechanical screen. I noticed on the material board there were two materials that were called mechanical screen and I just wanted to clarify why…? It was just a little confusing. I thought the sheet was the mechanical screen but there’s another, sort of, thicker -- Mr. Bellomo: Pratima is showing you an example. Can you see it? Vice Chair Thompson: Yeah. Ms. Shah: (Inaudible). Vice Chair Thompson: Okay, so is that other object just the attachment, then? Ms. Shaw: (Inaudible). 4.a Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Vice Chair Thompson: It just looked like two objects. Yeah, I can see that. Ms. Shaw: (Inaudible). Ms. Gerhardt: We’re not able to hear Patima’s voice clearly and I don’t know if we have a specific question for her. Vice Chair Thompson: I was just asking the architects, whoever can answer it. Chair Baltay: Maybe state that again, Osma. It’s not clear. I want to keep moving. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. I was just confused by the material board about the mechanic screen but if we can confirm that what we just saw will be the mechanic screen then that answers my question. Ms. Shaw: Quick explanation, there were two screen samples submitted. The perforated stainless is for bike enclosure and aluminum sheet with big perforated hole in the middle was for the mechanical screen. Vice Chair Thompson: I see. Okay. Thank you. That’s much clearer. Chair Baltay: Anything else? Vice Chair Thompson: No. Chair Baltay: Any other questions from other members of the Board? Very well. Vinh, don’t we have a public comment? At this point, I’d like to open the meeting to public comments. Vinh, what speaker cards do we have, please? Mr. Nguyen: We currently have three speakers. First will be Timothy Maloney followed by Shannon, and then followed Sorensen [phonetic]. If there’s anyone else who wishes to speak please raise your hand now. Up first will be Timothy. Chair Baltay: Welcome to our meeting. Please state and spell your name for the record. You'll have three minutes to speak. Go ahead. Timothy Maloney: I’m Timothy J. Maloney. (Spells Name) I live on Matadero, just a few doors down from this project. I’ve been on Matadero for over 40 years. My only question is to the Board, I guess, about what are the plans for the City in general in the neighborhood for regulating parking? I've watched the population of cars on my street increase over 40 tears and the population has gone way up. This project appears to be taking care of parking but, you know, there are going to be people visiting the property that will park in the neighborhood. The City has had to introduce signs not far away in this neighborhood restricting oversized vehicles, as you all know. And I wonder how long is it going to be before we have regulated parking limited times of, you know, residential permits and things like that. I assume that the Architectural Board knows things like this. I thought this was a good time to try to find out. I’ll yield the rest of my time. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Mr. Maloney. Our next speaker, Vinh, please. Mr. Nguyen: Next speaker will be Shannon. Shannon Marquardson: My name is Shannon Marquardson. (Spells Name) I live in the residential building just behind the alley, which is next to the proposed site. My big concern is given the noise report that was online, it seems like there will be nine to ten hours of construction six days a week for 18 months, particularly frustrating because all of us are working from home. I don’t know when this project is cited to start but that would be completely prohibitive to living so close to this construction site. I know the estimates are that the alley is very narrow and that indeed is true, and so I'm just very concerned about the noise during construction, again, given that we’re all home 24 hours a day. I’d love to understand 4.a Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Page 12 the clear mitigation for the noise impact and how we’ll be able to continue to work from home if this were to start soon. And also clarify, if we can, when this project would be planned to begin so that I have advanced notice to move out if need be. And that’s all I have to comment about. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Shannon. Vinh, our next speaker, please. Mr. Nguyen: Our last speaker will be Sorenson. If there’s anyone else who wants to speak, please raise your hand now. Chair Baltay: Welcome, Sorenson. If you could state and spell your name for the record, you’ll have three minutes, please. [Connecting with speaker.] Joseph Kung: Actually, it’s not Sorenson. Sorry. This is Joseph Kung. I probably have the Zoom label. I'm not familiar with Zoom. I'm actually one of the owners on the property. I don’t know if I'm allowed to speak at this moment because it’s a public -- Chair Baltay: Spell your name for the record. Mr. Kung: Joseph Kung. (Spells Name) I was a Palo Alto resident from 1984 to 1997 and I was a proud graduate from Gunn High School. I love this City, and we moved away in 1997 because my parents sold their properties. All of my parents are educators. I, myself, am an educator. I just love the City so much. Even though I'm living in Sunnyvale now I’m still involved a lot with a lot of activities in Palo Alto, including I'm a volunteer for the Boy Scout Troop 5 in Palo Alto. I also provide financial assistance for the Suicide Prevention Programs for the Palo Alto High School kids, as well as I do volunteer work for the Mitchell Park Library twice a week. I always want to get back to Palo Alto. I would like my daughter, who is ten years old now, to continue to be a Palo Alto resident and be a proud graduate from Gunn High School, as a Palo Titan. So for us, you know, it takes a long time. We own that land. Our family has owned that land since the late 1970s and I grew up from that spot. So I know how ugly the whole neighborhood was around that -- not ugly but in terms of old buildings. I’m not much of an artist. I don’t understand the architect. I just like to have an opportunity to come back to the City and be able to afford the lifestyle over there. That’s why I instruct Pratima to give me some commercial income and residential income -- we’re not professional land developer or anything like that. We’d just like to make the use of the land and develop it into something so that we can afford to live in the area. But, of course, we have a limited budget, but I think our architects did a very good job given the very limited resources they have and a very small plot of land to create this marvel, in my opinion. And I wish that the Board -- and I heard some concerned neighbors, you know -- after the project is complete will be great neighbors and it will be the most beautiful building on the block. Please do consider it, and I thank you and yield my time. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Joseph. To staff, I'm a little bit concerned. That last speaker was the applicant, it sounded to me. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, the property owner. Chair Baltay: That wasn’t correct, I don’t think. That’s not a member of the public at large then. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Baltay: Regardless, applicant, you are afforded an opportunity to rebut what members of the public said if you’d care to address any of those things. I'm not sure I heard a lot to rebut but if you’d like to you do have the opportunity. Ms. Gerhardt: Would you like staff to provide some answers initially? 4.a Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Chair Baltay: Sure. I think that would be fair, as well, Jodie. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Chair Baltay: Let’s see if the applicant first wants to make a statement. I mean, they’re legally required to have that opportunity. So they do. Mr. Bellomo: Quickly, this project is dear to me. I designed mixed-use building on El Camino, large shopping centers on El Camino. I grew up on El Camino, so this is just great. We also want to point out that a lot of the materials used you see are pallet. All of these materials we’ve used on our project -- on the University Circle, the parking structure are -- we really understand materials and the beauty they provide for concrete. Having said that, we’re excited just to -- first project to get approved under Housing Incentive Plan as well. Sheldon’s been super cool to work with. I’ll let you speak, Pratima. Ms. Shah: No, that’s all. We will proceed with question/answer sessions and if we need to explain more to we get time at the end? Chair Baltay: Not necessarily but here you're just afforded that opportunity to rebut anything anyone might have said about your project. I think you’ve done that/. Jodie, could you address the two public speakers, their concerns, briefly, if you could? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, related to the noise questions, I don’t have the construction schedule. I would need the architects to help with that answer. But related to the hours of construction hours are limited 8:00 to 6:00 Monday through Friday and then 9:00 to 6:00 on Saturday. No construction on Sunday’s and holidays. And I don’t know if the architect has the potential construction schedule. Ms. Shah: Potential construction will start… Chair Baltay: I think we say we’re going to meet the standards for construction. I want to keep our meeting moving along. Ms. Gerhardt: There was just a question about when construction might start. Chair Baltay: Sorry, yes. When will construction start? Ms. Shah: Spring 2021. Chair Baltay: Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: And then related to parking, Mr. Maloney’s question, so the Office of Transportation is really in charge of those sorts of things as well as Public Works. You know, on a 20-foot alley there would not be parking allowed because that’s just wide enough for two-way traffic. On the main street there is potentially room for parking, but we probably need to take that issue up later up as part of citywide question than a project question. If Mr. Maloney wanted to email me or something, I’d be happy to follow up on that. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Jodie. With that we’ll close the public testimony part of this meeting and we’ll bring the item back to the Board. And Osma is going to start out our discussion today. Osma, the floor is yours. Vice Chair Thompson: Now I kind of regret agreeing to that. Okay, well I appreciate all of the responses that we received from our comments before. It was a little concerning initially, that the project hadn’t changed at all because, and I still feel this way, that the base, middle, and top element of the El Camino design guidelines sort of is still missing and I took a lot of time to try and understand the analysis that was given for that. And I sort of see a little better now how you are defining the base, middle, and top. I don’t know. I'm trying to see how strongly I feel about this. And then the other concern that I 4.a Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Page 14 originally had was that the material board had this, sort of, dark color for the 3form resin and initially when I was looking at the elevations it looked like it was two colors of concrete. I realize now that it’s the 3form in the concrete and that the 3form would be a lot darker and there is a lot of it. And I don’t know that that color works in this area. I would ask the Board to, sort of, consider -- and I am looking at the other precedent buildings that were pointed out on University, you know, and those buildings it’s sort of less prevalent, I would say, than it is in this particular design. Again, in the renderings it looks really light but the color itself is actually really dark. I'm not sure about that choice as it relates to this context. Other than that I do like the terracing and I think that is effective and so I'm going to leave it there. I think there’s a lot of nice things that were done with the landscaping to, sort of, you know, deal with the some of the constraints and so I'm going to leave my comments there for now. I'm curious to hear what the rest of the Board has to say. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. David, would you like to follow up, please? Board Member Hirsch: Who’s next? Chair Baltay: David, you're next. Board Member Hirsch: I'm next? Okay. Yes, you know, I'm happy to respond at this point because Osma brings up the nature issue I think here. But first I’d like to say I think it’s really important that we as a Board here recognize what’s happening. This is a major, major project now, even tiny as it is, on El Camino. It’s happening in an area where we are hoping that they’ll be some development happening along with it and of the rest of the block can be significantly improved and, in fact, some of the whole area of South El Camino not particularly known and studied El Camino guidelines needs to be address. It’s a very weak area of Palo Alto. I, too, went back and looked at the guidelines and really found those guidelines to be lacking because they are, kind of, caught up in something that’s probably about 10-15 years old right now. Talking about buildings as base, middle, top. You know, base foundation and then the middle is the two-story middle and the top is a piece of a cornice. You know, if you look back in the examples that are given in that report, they have kind of a masonry building with a corner treatment element that projects forward. Well that absolutely wouldn’t work in a place like this. And that’s why I’m, kind of, totally intrigued by the way this design solves so many problems, especially on that El Camino corner. We’ve got narrow sidewalks and a turning issue that is difficult from Matadero into El Camino. And this building address that very directly. Some of the earlier schemes, which I really discovered for the first time, I didn’t realize in our previous review having seen the proviso scheme again, the improvement from an entry in the middle of the building to a corner entry is significant and if you think about that idea of what that corner should be I think this is a prime example of what it ought to be. I think we as a Board should recognize that this is a significant project to have now, not to put it off and wait for the future. I don’t mind reviewing, as Osma suggests, the colors and materials by committee but I’d like to see this project received because I’d like to see that part of El Camino have anew inviting description of what could happen to that part of the City. I've said it, pretty much, about the old guidelines. Let’s have new guidelines for what buildings should be and this is a good example. There’s purity about it. It even reminds me of Greek temples and the regularity and the column structure, except that it’s modern with the push and the pull. It answers all of those issues that I think that we had in the beginning about articulation of facade, balconies, terrace, the importance of the corner, and entry in the second-floor overhang relating to the buildings next to it by setting the residential on the top floor further back. Those are important statements being made on El Camino. And the material palette is very, very simple. Just A few elements of that construction are being expressed here and they set off that wonderful (inaudible) of the expressed framework, like having glass against those column structures or the slab structure. It’s a construction purity that I think, for me, is very important to express, without any frivolity to it, any extra pieces. It is what it is. It does what it does. It’s a structural expression that’s turned into a piece of architecture by the push and pull of the façade. And I hope that the rest of the board will go along with that idea. You know, when you look at our own findings I think (inaudible). I think this building, kind of, addresses all of our issues. I don’t find it missing on any of it, except, of course, there is the issue of the variance. And on a tiny little lot where are you going to place another tree. It’s just not possible. They’ve done as best they could. They’ve covered the parking, the outside rather well and yet light penetrates. I didn’t really even look at that until just now and I think it’s very 4.a Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto Page 15 nice the way the shadow line will work from the open areas of the cover over the parking. I think they’ve solved a lot of the problems with the very back of this site as best they could with the limitation of the electoral lines above. The garbage is very remote from where it might be for a residential building as well but it does work there. Small walk across the parking lot, I guess, to get that (inaudible). It satisfies. They made those changes to the back of the site that I think were absolutely necessary and they made the changes relative to the planting area. I don’t like the bicycle lot there. I wish it could be stuck somewhere. I’d hope that maybe it would be inside in the stairwell where you’d have plenty of extra since that long run of stairwells leaves a space below it and might be used for those bicycles. I d like to see that end up in some way. In fact, I don’t see why if you have that area back there it has to be an enclosure because that doesn’t enhance that part of the parking lot at all. I'm coming down very much in favor of this project. I'm hoping that the Board will agree with me and we can get something started on El Camino. Thank you. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, David. Grace, would you care to take us further, please? Board Member Lee: Yes, I just want to thank staff, Sheldon for the complete report. It is very clear to me that this is a project that I would recommend for approval to move forward. I want to just go over a few of the comments since I didn’t attend the first meeting, but I carefully reviewed what our group here had requested. I want to commend the applicant for the very careful study that has occurred for a number of years now and sharing those options with us. That was not required; however, my sense is that this is a site that has been studied very carefully. There have been multiple diagrams explored. At this last meeting what I heard was that there were some comments related to the alley adjacency and then discussion of the variance. And there was some about the materials and sight diagram. To go back to his first point, I believe this is a very high-quality application. I’ve sat on multiple terms with this Board and reviewed sets. I believe it's exemplary in terms of the site diagram and how it is treating a very much needed mixed-use design with housing along El Camino Boulevard, perhaps the main artery in Palo Alto. And this kind of project is very much needed. I do want to talk a little bit about the site diagram in terms of the alley adjacency. I have lived on service alleys in the past a few years back and I believe that the entry of Matadero, the treatment of the landscape, the addition of the trees, you know, they will be small in the beginning. There are Japanese Maples but the addition of those trees and a high-quality rock wall, the orientation of the trash enclosure as well as how they have actually comprised on the parking makes a lot of sense. On the variance, I do want to say that on previous terms we have had this issue of the 50 percent shading. This area of the parking lot is rather small. If you think about the parking lots exist and given the amount of shading that they are proposing and the orientation I agree that we should move forward and vote that this project progress. And the articulated base, body and roof, I think we’ve been calling this top, middle, bottom, and I think it is important to have a guideline for El Camino that does address articulation. I appreciate the response from the applicant and also staff in terms of recognizing that this design maintains the rhythm and pattern of the existing context. Related to the palette of materials but mostly in terms of the massing and how there is a stepping back, there is a recess on the upper floors. There’s a clear storefront that marks the bottom if we want to talk about it in this way, the middle, which again changes in the materials and the massing steps back. And then finally, that large step back on the third floor to me does the job in terms of really addressing that design guideline and I think that design guideline was really talking about an unarticulated single plane that sits flat along El Camino and doesn’t address what’s across the street and to either side. And I think in this situation applicant has done some work and really studied. I do appreciate that. To go to the question regarding materials, I believe that the palette is highly balanced. I am not challenged by that color. I don’t see it as too brown and I do appreciate also how the palette does have some translucence with the 3form and also the perforated metal in the screen. And I think when those come together -- I appreciate a color that is not so bright and will provide glare and increase the mass of a wall. Those are my comments. I just wanted to address what Osma had brought if we would like to discuss that further. But thank you for the application and I’ll go ahead and pass the baton now. Board Member Lew: Thank you, Sheldon, and also to Joe and Pratima. I think this is a really nice project. I'm generally supportive of the project but I do not think it meets several of the findings. I am just going to dive into that. I think that my biggest problem is, I think, with the parking. One of the 4.a Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Page 16 units is 1,300 square foot one-bedroom unit with just one parking space. I mean, typically, a one- bedroom unit is 700 to 800 square feet. A two-bedroom is typically 1,100 square feet. A two-bedroom would have two parking spaces. I think the other units are fine but I do have a problem with that one unit. I think you're short on parking. And I also think we have a comment from the public about visitor parking and I just wanted to mention that we changed the parking code I think it was last year or maybe two years ago to eliminate the visitor parking spaces. And that started at the state level and works its way down to the City level in an attempt to make housing development more feasible. If the planning director can make a reduction for mixed-use or if there is enough transit then that might be a possible fix or maybe there’s a different issue of a different size unit on that second floor. I think the second finding that I can’t meet is number five for native plants. I think that the landscaping plan is really completely unrealistic and it’s really not even complete. You're showing, like, bamboo. There are like several hundred varieties of bamboo. Some of them are like Timber Bamboo that grows 50 feet high. You have very small planters along El Camino. It seems completely undersized for most Bamboo. You're showing Japanese Maples on the back alley, which are not native. There are lots of options there that are utility friendly that are local native plants. Off the top of my head I thought of a couple. I'm not suggesting that you use them but just as an example there’s Ceanothus Ray Hartman. There’s possible a Rivese [phonetic], which is like a current. Possibly a Western Redbud or there’s a really nice Garrya Elliptica, which is the silk-tassel tree which actually looks really nice. It looks kind of like a Wisteria. That is sort of in between a shrub and a tree. It’s really not ready. It’s really not approvable at all. I think it would benefit with a landscape architect in there. The third item is with regard to our sustainable finding, number six. There are a couple things in there that I think we should strike out. I do support the overall use of the modified concrete but in the staff report you're saying that steel is a renewable material and it’s just not. You're using iron, or which is mined, and it is very energy intensive. If you want to include the steel I would just say it’s a desirable material for recycling. That’s partly because it’s so energy intensive to make. Also, the staff report says that the 3form is renewable and I think that is now true. There are some specific 3forms that are better than other but typically they’re using pre-consumer recycled content in there. Not post-consumer. It’s not exactly meeting standards, although I will acknowledge 3form does have some sustainable practices that make it better than other materials. And I think the other thing that I would mention, too, is it was mentioned there were foldable (inaudible) up on the roof and I just wanted to caution staff about that. We’ve had lots of other projects that have promised that and then when I go look at aerial photos of the completed projects there’s nothing on there. We’ve been burned in the past and so I would, sort of, prefer not to do that, if possible. And, let’s see. I think those are my three things. On design, I think we should require the actual perforated metal to be specified. We’ve had problems in the past where architects have specified perforated metal that is too open and you can actually see right through it into the mechanical equipment, so it sort of defeats the purpose of the screen. I think, in fact, a photo that showed a very low percentage opening and I think that’s fine but I didn’t see that in the set and I didn’t see anything specified in the drawing set. I think that does need to be followed up. That’s what I have. I think the variance findings are up to the Director. I don’t necessarily have any issues with that but I think the parking is a major issue for me. I do support the Housing Incentive Program and I do support reducing parking for units to make them more affordable, but this is just too much having a 1,300 square foot bedroom with one parking is too much for me. I can’t recommend the project today. That’s all that I have, Peter. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Thank you very much for this statement. I’d like to point out to my colleagues that our job is to enforce the codes and the guidelines as they stand and a reason for a variance is not that the application is complete or, David, that we like the building or the design. It is a beautiful design. I think all of us would agree with that, but I tend to share Alex’s opinion. I think that there are some serious issues with the parking on this project. Not even getting into the parking count, which is really up to the staff and the Transportation Department, I think it’s awfully tight the way you fit into the spaces. The last spot on the stackers requires you to, in a 25-foot wide space, make a complete 90 degree turn and pull into that fairly precisely with the stackers. And then to get out, I don’t see how you would be juggling back and forth several times. The result is really, yeah, the parking is there. Somebody spent the money on the lift but nobody uses it. They park on the street instead, which as we heard from the community is a problem. I think the answer is that the parking really should be underground, and I think it can be done. I think we’ll see in the next project a similar sized site where parking is being proposed underground. We’ve seen other projects where it fit. I think it really ought to 4.a Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Page 17 be underground. It ought to be coming in from the alley. A long ramp along the side, not as conservatively drawn as the applicant did but I sketch one out myself and I could easily fit 13 spaced at grade underground. And I've designed parking lots like this. So to my colleagues, I say that if you can imagine taking the parking taken off the surface so many of the issues that we’re struggling with: the surface shading of the parking lot for example, just wouldn’t be there. And it would give the building more space to fit on this site. I just think that that’s an issue and I can’t support it just based on the parking issue alone. And it comes back to, again, trying to fit surface parking on very small lots. I just think that that is very visible from the street and what we’re doing is essentially saying that we want to protect the few people who live in that one building off the alley in the back from the headlights of cars but for that the entire City sees a surface parking area from Matadero Street, which is quite visible to everybody driving back and forth there. I just don’t get it. Additionally, I had asked about the shading requirements not being meet and even without a number from staff it’s pretty obvious that there’s very, very little landscape shading. If we go back to the purpose of these codes, which is, you know, they exist and we need to follow them, we’re trying to avoid a heat island effect by giving landscape green shading on paved areas in town. And I just haven’t heard anybody give me a real reason why this project should be given a variance for that purpose. What is unique and special about this property that should justify that? And even to the extent that they have. They have maybe five or ten percent shading, at best. It seems to me the applicant prefers to have a metal or a built structure to provide shading, which is fine, but that’s not the intent of our code and it’s not for us to find ways to get around our code. A variance has to be something unique about the property; something special about this thing. A big Oak Tree in the middle and I don’t see it. It’s small and tight, I grant you that but many lots in Palo Alto are small and tight. And that’s not a reason for a variance. We go down a very slippery slope of we start letting variances be granted along these issues. And, Alex, the Board is asked to give an opinion on the variance. It’s just not up to the Director. And staff is very much looking to us to help them for guidance on these issues. Is this is a suitable case for a variance and I emphatically say no it is not. And I have not heard any presentation from staff or the applicant or my colleagues that would justify the variance on shading, unfortunately, because I think its beautiful building, but none the less, it’s just not there. I also feel as I think everyone does, it’s a beautiful work of architecture. Joe Bellomo is a very talented architect. We’re lucky to have him in town. He’s done great buildings here but I don’t see it having a base, middle, and top. I see the presentation the applicant giving us trying to stretch that as being farcical. You just put some lines on a drawing equating the top of the plane of windows and calling that a base, a middle, and a top. I think Grace’s logic’s perhaps the best we could came up with to try say that the top, that upper element of the building, is just set back and, therefore, the concrete frame takes over. But, again, I'm finding that, like it or not, we have this code and the effort is to make a grant urban development out of El Camino Real and we keep being pushed into trying to get away from that. If every building were like this we wouldn’t have an urban environment. We all know that. If you go to any number of old cities in the world a big part of why they’re successful is because they have urban development making the majority of buildings background buildings creating public spaces. This building is not doing that and we all know that and I find myself very torn but in the end I feel it’s our job to enforce the standards as they exist now. It’s not for us, David, to just say that we want to go beyond them because they’re 15 years out of date. And I’m really struggling with that. Board Member Hirsch: Give me a chance to respond. Chair Baltay: Absolutely. Absolutely. I just want to put out how I feel about it. I've given a lot of thought to this and I'm struggling with it because I respect the architect and I think the design is really quite good. It does so many things very nicely. I do have a small detail question about how the roof eave with zero parapets whatsoever, I’d just be very curious to see how that’s built at the back of the building. I’m concerned that the back and the side facing north of the massing is just not that attractively down. It seems like a flat plane, but I can’t tell if that’s the presentation or the real design. I'm not going to be that firm about that. And, lastly, I agree with Alex completely. There is no landscaping plan. What I see on the drawing is a flowering Cherry Tree along the back but now we say it’s Japanese Maples. I just see words like Bamboo and tiny planters. There is no landscaping plan here. It’s not approvable without that being thought through. It really leaves me to question, again, whether we’ve really tried hard to get the shading on the parking area, and I think a landscape architect would be 4.a Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Page 18 a good asset to this. I'm not able to recommend approval for this today. And why don’t we go back to anybody else who has anything they want to add to this. David, would you like to… Board Member Hirsch: I would like to come back. Chair Baltay: Please, go ahead. Board Member Hirsch: There were some things that Alex said that I do agree with. Specifically, the landscape issues should be addressed. Probably a landscape architect could add to the teamwork there and create more appropriate plantings. It seems like it’s mostly changing the type of tree and some of Alex’s recommendations would be workable there. But in particularly, I’d like to refer to some of the things that Grace said about the massing. Certainly the emphasis on the two-story grid of this building makes it work as a beautiful building. The set back on the third floor is very significant to emphasize that and create a context with the rest of the block to catch up at this point. I just really don’t agree that we go along with penalizing this particular property for a variance which they’re doing their very best to try to accommodate to. You know, the new landscape plan allows for more tree planting in the backyard as much as they possible could on this tiny little lot. To compare it with the regulation that really is meant for much larger lots where you can provide parking in between, and we’ve noted that successful or unsuccessful in some areas -- the shopping center. This one there’s no room and they’ve done the very best they could. And I think if you have to weigh one thing against another, I’d rather have this building there than defeat it and submit what it is right now remaining in that lot because of a tree, because of a little bit of shading. You're not going to notice it but the building would create shadows in the parking area. You may be correct about the difficulty of that getting into or out of the parking spaces. You know, it happens all over the place. You will look at another building and it doesn’t look like it’s going to be any much easier there than it is here and it’s a very shallow building as well. I just don’t buy that argument at all. People do get into tight parking spots and I hate the thought that every time we talk about a project, we talk about parking more than we talk about people. More than we talk about pedestrians walking on El Camino Real turning into Matadero in the corer that is meant for pedestrians to turn. And, you know, we’re talking about cars. Let’s get away from some of this obsession with our car. There are a lot of small cars, Peter, you know. And somebody who can’t get it can use a small car. We used to have a parking lot in Brooklyn, and we had limitations on the sizes of cars, and it worked. We made it work. I just don’t like this focus on car, car, car all the time. Let’s talk about people how they live in the City and how they can enjoy their experience of living here. I don’t accept the variance issue as being significant. Forget about it. We get variances all over the place all the time. Let’s not dwell on that. Osma made some points about materials and then Grace, kind of, responded to them. And I come down, kind of, on the side of Grace’s comments about the material. I think it's okay. It’s in the shadows. We’ve made appoint about the windows on the ground floor to allow visibility of what’s going on in the office space there. They’ve accommodated that. Aesthetics I think are really important here and setting up a standard for this block with a beautiful building, that’s important for us. Why not? I think we’d lost an opportunity if we don’t approve this project today because it’s going to sit just the way it is for years. And if you find all of these little reasons to pick at it then yes you'll be killing it and I don’t like the ARB taking that role and responsibility here. We should accept a slight modification of history at this particular corner and make it work. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. Board Member Lee: If I may, I’ll step up next. Chair Baltay: Sure. Board Member Lee: Osma, are you looking to speak after David? Vice Chair Thompson: I can go after you, Grace. No worries. Board Member Lee: Okay. Thanks so much for everybody’s comments. The one that I want to speak to first is the native plants and the need for a landscape plan. This is a site where there are landscape 4.a Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Page 19 opportunities. I do see my colleague Alex’s point regarding native plants and perhaps there might be an opportunity for the applicant to come back and actually walk through a small two-member subcommittee with the actual plants. I do see that as actually a kind of -- I would support that. Regarding the variance and the parking and the guidelines related to the articulation and then the two points about the PV and perforated metal. Let’s just go through those. My feeling is, and I am not recommending the applicant's approval for this to move forward per the staff’s recommendation. I agree with our planning staff because it’s a beautiful building. I do have some issues with the word beautiful, for example. I think that our role is really to work with our planning staff and to present a recommendation to the Director and it would move forward. In my mind, I feel like it should. On the variance, since our planning staff has agreed that the 50 percent shading is -- it’s okay for it to be less than that. I would just say we give the opportunity to the applicant to come back with some native plants or trees rather than the Maples, which, you know, I see they do quite well here but maybe in this situation and where they plant it there is a tree that might provide more shade, slight more shade. I think that the rock wall and the landscape treatment on the part of the applicant is a very positive gesture. I do think it’s attainable to recommend that it move forward for review of that variance perhaps with a landscape plant that would come through the subcommittee. On the parking, again, I agree with our planning staff that the parking requirements are sufficient here. This is a mixed-use building with housing on El Camino on a 60 by 100-foot lot. To achieve -- which is so much what we need along El Camino and this is a vast improvement to this site, I feel comfortable moving forward with the parking as it has been presented. And I do acknowledge the thinking behind the 1,500 square feet in one space. You know, to achieve housing on El Camino there does need to be an acknowledgment that we need to review each case by case and, in my opinion, I'm very comfortable with the parking as presented. I also acknowledge that sometimes it’s harder or slightly more challenging to move within parking lots and my feeling is this occurs in other sites, in other situations that I have seen and other sets that I've reviewed. I support the parking and the surface layout as presented. And then in terms of the PVs un-perforated metal, I think that’s further down the road and I have full confidence that our City staff will be able to work with an applicant and I appreciate the acknowledgment that in the past there have been challenges. And I don’t see that as a way to derail this approval or moving it forward. And then most importantly these whole guidelines of articulation and meeting that, again, I just want to maybe revisit that a little bit if we want to discuss it together. My feeling is that the storefront along the front does actually articulate a bottom. And then on the office at the second floor, there is a change in materials. There also is an in and out of the building. I think when we talk about articulation it is massing. It also has materials and how those actually work together in my mind. And then the top, I believe, is probably the most compelling, right? That there’s actually a recess. But if we want to talk about just how it works together, I actually felt what the applicant presented was compelling and did actually speak to that bottom, middle, and top. If we want to maybe discuss that together we could do that. I don’t know if that’s the main issue. I’d love to hear from other board members. I’ll go ahead and mute myself right now. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace. Vice Chair Thompson: My turn? Chair Baltay: Osma, why don’t you speak up? Vice Chair Thompson: I will try and go in order. With the parking notes, I'm sort of finding myself agreeing with Board Member Hirsch. It is a little frustrating to be talking about parking all the time when we really should be talking about architecture. I also think in terms of all the things that this Board looks into parking is sort of not one of the things that I like to focus on. I like to focus on materials and stuff. I do want to defer to my Board member's expertise and planning’s expertise, so I'm actually going to refrain on commenting on the parking. But I think that if Board Member Lew feels like it’s a problem and then doesn’t feel like its problem, we’ll see…I think that discussion is worth fleshing out a little bit more. It is extremely concerning about the landscape plan. That it’s not approvable and for that reason I also probably will no recommend approval. I don’t feel myself in a place where I could recommend approval for this project. And even the notes that Board Member Lew made on sustainability are pretty on point. I would agree with all of those changes. Going back to the parking, kind of pushing the project to park underground I think would benefit the streetscape and benefit the architecture greatly. I would support 4.a Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Page 20 pushing the applicant to consider that further, especially given as we’ll see in the next project, that there is also a tight situation and I do think the streetscape benefits from having less parking on site. I’m going to talk about materials really quick. Can I share my screen, Chair Baltay? Chair Baltay: Yes, that’s fine. Please do that. Vice Chair Thompson: [Preparing Screen.] I just want to point out this thing that I was talking about. This material here, this brown 3form material is what I believe makes up all of this stuff, all of this stuff and all of this stuff. I just want to point out how deceptive this rendering is. It really is going to be much more punchy rather than sandy. And I sort of disagree with Board Member Lee that the materials change from base to middle to up because these two materials are consistent the whole way. And I think it’s important even in the elevations these are really showing kinds of like a light sandy color but they’re not a light sandy color. And that’s not to say that sandy is better. I'm not saying that. I just would like a bit more transparency in this application as to what this material is and how it will really look on the street. To go back to the base, middle and top, I do appreciate Board Member Lee’s comments. It actually gave me a bit more perspective, but I do think the top, the roof is very unarticulated. And I appreciate this setback. I still really like the terracing effect. It does make the façade at El Camino seem smaller than it really is but I do think that there is some work to be down up here in terms of adding scale and articulation. I will stop there because I think that responded to all of the points that we’ve all been discussing. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Osma. I have to admit I find your comment about the 3form material spot on and I'm glad we shared your screen. It’s dramatic the difference from the rendering and I think you're right. We need to see something that shows that color being much browner and redder like that across the whole building will only tie the three floors together and that might be an issue. To Board Member Lee, I say that I think we have to be careful assuming staff will monitor a thing like the kind of metal perforations. I don’t think they look at that too much. It says perforated metal. They’ve submitted perforated metal. It goes through. It’s really up to us to do as Alex suggested and get a recommendation. Get a specification now that we can hang on. The staff is really looking to us for that kind of guidance. They’re repeatedly just asking, and we fail in our job if we don’t, at this point in a project, ask for more specificity. With that I guess, Alex, do you have anything you want to add to the conversation? I'm not looking for a motion now but I just want to makes sure everybody has a chance to talk. Board Member Lew: I don’t think I have anything else to add. I would just say that on the base, middle, top issue I do think it does meet the minimum requirements of the context based criteria and the El Camino design guidelines and I would say I think there’s room for improvement but I think at the end of the day if push came to shove I think that part is approvable. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Alex. I’d like to then chime in that I align most closely with Alex’s thought and I think the base, middle, top articulation thing somehow does work on this building ultimately, maybe with a few color issues that Osma was talking about. But I think Grace’s argument holds water, that there’s something to that setback on the top that really makes the railing on the second level the top of the building from that urban design standpoint, probably from a pedestrian point of view. It probably does work but I’d like to again push my colleagues that building a basement parking structure is not as difficult as everybody makes it out to be. It’s a deeper hole in the ground for the foundation that already needs a deep hole. It’s done all over the place. Almost every project we see now does that. I don’t want to be talking about parking, David. I want the parking out of sight, underground and solved. I want the politicians to decide what parking is necessary for town and applicants have to meet it so we don’t have to deal with this. We’re talking about it all the time because people are pushing against it all the time and it affects the architecture and in a negative way. That’s unfortunate and it’s really tough for us to always be put on that spot. Most likely we have codes that aren’t entirely realistic. That’s not for us to adjust. But in this case, I think, again, there’s a solution to this parking problem, which just makes all these issues much less important and that is to put it underground. And I feel strongly that’s what we should be asking for. With that, David, why don’t you try to make a motion? You want this approved 4.a Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Page 21 today. What don’t you see if you could craft something that would get you there? I want to give you the opportunity to we’re all being open here. Board Member Lee: And, Chair Baltay, may I also at some point just address some of the comments that came up? Board Member Hirsch: I would like to also. Chair Baltay: Okay, David, you speak first. Go ahead. I just want to be sure you have an opportunity to try to get this through today, which seems to be your strong desire. Board Member Hirsch: Before we do that in response to this whole issue of parking it’s very significant that were looking at another project that’s half of a City block just about in order to get parking more level. It can’t be done. In fact, I think it will ruin the ground level of this project and the way it is done on ground level if you put in a ramp down and it’s not going to really happen below grade. Once again, it has a lift in the recessed parking below and the small floor plate that’s you're going to be under whatever how that -- I think it’s very cavalier for us to say to an architect who’s been working on a project and hasn’t looked at that previously to ask them to go back and look at that again. I accept Grace’s comment about the way we should look at projects not because they’re beautiful but because they satisfy the rules and regulations as they exist. But we should also recognize that there are areas where we should loosen up and accept the limitations that certain sites require, and this is one of them. Certainly, a variance for a small amount of shading in a parking lot isn’t something that’s going to ruin the nature of Palo Alto in some grand way. And in terms of materials, I think this does reasonably (inaudible) saying about choice of materials here (inaudible) I'm looking at that material and saying if this material were here I think it might even widen this façade or if it were warmer in tone after all some of that is in the shadow line, and when you put something in the shadow, it goes toward the blue. Color is very important (inaudible), but understanding in the, like in the nature that you put it in as well because that affects it quite considerably. In terms of bottom, middle, top I think that’s the real issue here today and I saw the way Grace put it that it really does have a bottom, middle, top. The context relates to the two-story. It very strongly relates to the two-story aspect of the rest of the block and gives us something for the future because those buildings will definitely be changed at some point. But let’s not find all the ways in which we can shoot this one down. It’s reasonable to do so and I think it puts the ARB in a very bad light. I think that parking should not be the priority here. I know it can be made to work. As I said, I had an extremely ridiculously tight parking spot in a parking lot in New York and made it work. And I don’t think saying that it won’t work and people will park on the street is a fair way to judge it. We depend upon City planning to look at this issues. Transportation looks at these issues. They’ve approved it to happen; we should approve it. We shouldn’t use it because we don’t have a right to do that. It’s really their responsibility to say that the parking will work, and they tell us the parking will work. Shading they say that’s one of (inaudible) issue and, okay, then yes or no. So we accept it or not. I accept it because it’s such a small lot. Nothing’s going to make it miserable looking and the actual shading of the cars that are really open will have a wonderful pattern of light penetrating through them. So how can you object t it on that basis? Perhaps the only one that might be bottom, middle, top and I think at least two of us agree that it’s well done. And then if it is well done then it answers the issue of El Camino Real. I really think it’s important for us to approve this project today (inaudible). However, were at a limitation. Alex mentioned the fact that the City also accepts parking the way it is, Alex. It’s their job to do that, not ours. I’ll let Alex speak to it. Chair Baltay: Have you finished, David? I don’t want to cut you off, but Grace, did you want to chime in once more? Board Member Lee: Thank you. I don’t want to make this a longer meeting than it is, I just want to be productive and offer comments to the applicant that is productive. And also acknowledge the staff’s efforts in working for a while with this applicant. And I just want to say a couple of things, thank you for your discussion. I do think when I mentioned the perforated, absolutely. We should comment on these materials. I just simply wanted to note that there’s a materials board in the City. We’ll go back to the materials board and I believe there are samples that they’ve already shown in a few sets. My confidence 4.a Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Page 22 was there but I do not want to say in any way that board members should not actually specify and point out the materials and be that detailed oriented, just to clarify. The other piece is on the parking I'm very uncomfortable in laying out and designing underground parking for this applicant. I also just want to make sure because when I saw responses to ARB comments and reviewed the last meeting, I did not hear a lot of comments to the applicant to go back to an underground parking solution. And, so, I'm just wondering if that’s correct and are we a little bit unfair as a group now actually asking the applicant to go back to underground parking when that wasn’t what I saw from the notes and staff, I don’t believe, has directed or presented that. Just noting that this is not the first meeting, this is the second meeting, I believe and just how we actually offer feedback to an applicant there does nee dot be some consistency, right, in terms of layered comments to actually provide critical feedback where an applicant might improve their application per the review of the City staff. Are we comfortable just in terms of how this process has been in terms of our communication to the applicant with comments related to parking? And also just having said that maybe this isn’t our purview as much. I mean, it is in that we hear a lot about the comments on parking but I think we need to evaluate each application on what is presented and also acknowledge that City has standards that the staff has reviewed and discussed with the applicant. I’ll just leave it there. I'm not sure where we are in terms of a motion today. Chair Baltay: What I’d like to do is give David an opportunity to craft a motion that allows this building to go through today. See if you can get a second and get the vote on it, David, before we go the way I think it’s going to go. Does that seem fair to you? Board Member Hirsch: Mm-hmm. Chair Baltay: You feel strong about it. Here’s your chance to put something together. Hearing what everybody said, what do you think will be a passing motion? MOTION Board Member Hirsch: I would like to make a motion to approve the project with the following items to be handled through committee: a landscape plan for the building from the consultant; a new materials board for consideration based on comments by the Board. That’s the motion. Chair Baltay: Let’s repeat. The motion is to approve the building today with a landscape plan coming back to subcommittee and a revised material board coming back to subcommittee. That’s what I heard you say, right? Do we have a second for that motion? Board Member Lee: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: The motion has been made and seconded. Does anybody want to address that motion FRIENDLY AMENDMENT TO MOTION Vice Chair Thompson: I’m going to make a friendly amendment to accurately depict the building’s colors in the drawing set, and to accurately identify which perforated metal material goes where in the drawings; and to update the sustainability findings per Board Member Lew’s comments. That is my friendly amendment. Chair Baltay: David, is that amendment acceptable to you? Board Member Hirsch: Absolutely acceptable. Chair Baltay: Grace, how about you? Board Member Lee: Yes, acceptable. 4.a Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Baltay: Okay. Anybody else care to address that motion before we vote on it? Let’s do a roll call. Vinh, could you hold a roll call to vote motion, please. Ms. Gerhardt: I think staff will have some questions just on details and we want to make sure the architect understands what we’re asking for at the end, but we’ll let the motion go through first. Chair Baltay: I would like everybody to understand that I'm trying hard to get this through. I am very sensitive to the statements made about let’s get these buildings through. Let’s not overdo it. I’m afraid I just can’t support it myself, obviously, but I hope that everybody recognizes that this in the interest of moving forward. Let’s go ahead with the vote. Vinh, please call a roll call vote. Aye: Hirsch, Lee (2) No: Baltay, Lew, Thompson (3) MOTION TO APPROVE FAILS 2-3. Chair Baltay: Thanks, Osma. Okay. So we’re back to work then, right. The motion fails on a 3-2 vote. Let’s try to break out what issues are necessary to get this thing approved. I think we all agree it needs a landscape plan. Let’s do some straw poll votes and let’s make this quick. Who agrees we need a full landscape plan to come back to the Board? Don’t raise your hand, just speak. What do we need to do to make that articulation on the façade better? Anybody want to add things to that? The applicant needs to know from us what to do. This is our chance to be clear. As Grace said we want to be moving forward. Vice Chair Thompson: I think the Board might be split on this. I think I mentioned most of the elements in the friendly amendment but to accurately render the building per the material board or the desired design intent, whatever that is, whether it is the sandy color or the punchy color. I do think that the upper top roof needs a little bit more articulation. Chair Baltay: We’re hearing we want to see the materials better and perhaps make some adjustments as to what they are, the color or the perforations, but then you're also saying some architectural building changes, especially on the third floor. Who else is in agreement or opposed to that? I find myself fin agreement with that statement. David? Board Member Hirsch: I'm actually in agreement with that as well. Chair Baltay: Okay. Grace and Alex, how do you feel? Board Member Hirsch: What it is, I'm not sure. Chair Baltay: Well that we leave to the architects. Grace? Board Member Lee: I’m opposing because I’m not sure what we’re asking the applicant to do there. Chair Baltay: Osma, can you be more clear? Vice Chair Thompson: It’s lacking a scale. At this time it reads like a flat plane on that upper level. I’m asking the applicant to add some scale and architectural refinement to the third level. Chair Baltay: Adding scale and architectural refinement. Grace, does that answer your question? Board Member Lee: It’s open-ended there. I’m going to mute and listen for a while. Go ahead. Not the time to leave your microphones off so we can all speak. Alex, what do you think? Board Member Lew: I will support that. I think we’ve gone over this before on other projects… 4.a Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Baltay: We have. Board Member Lew: …regarding cornices. Chair Baltay: We have. There's a track record of all of this and so we’re not breaking new ground here to the applicants that care to look at other developments along El Camino. At least we have four and a half people behind that. That’s where we’re going with it. The next issue and probably the most contentious is the parking. Let me put it out there, I would like to see the applicants, at the very least, give a serious proposal of possible underground parking. Doesn’t say it has to be that way but I’d like to see it studied more carefully. Do I have any support from anybody else on the Board asking them to do that? Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, can you repeat that. Chair Baltay: I would like to see a detailed plan for what underground parking might look like even with the idea of getting a variance for a narrower ramp or steeper ramp, perhaps, to make the parking the place where we grant the variance because the lot is small. I think you can justify that, as we’ll see on the next application. But I think the answer lies in redoing the parking altogether. Board Member Lee: And, to be clear, was this asked at the previous review and just note in the notes. I'm not sure why (crosstalk). Chair Baltay: Grace, we had quite a bit of issue with the surface parking and I remember distinctly saying you should bring it in off the alley; you should look for other solutions. We didn’t give them answers and I'm reluctant to even be saying put it underground. But what we’re saying is the surface parking isn’t really working. Board Member Lee: To be clear, there was no asking for an underground parking study at the previous… Chair Baltay: It’s very hard to be doing that. We’re looking for applicants to come up with the solution. Board Member Lee: I'm going to pass on agreeing with this advice of the second review since it wasn’t discussed at the first review and the design was very similar. Chair Baltay: Fair enough. How about the rest of the Board members? Board Member Hirsch: I'm going to pass on that as well. Chair Baltay: Okay. Alex and Osma? Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll support it. Chair Baltay: Osma would be in favor of a look, at least, of underground parking. Remember were just giving the applicant’s guidance. They’re ultimately in charge of their project and they’re going to come back with whatever they want to do. Grace is asking us correctly that we should be clear. That’s pretty clear. Board Member Lew: I will support that, Peter. It seems to me it’s in the comp plan. It’s very clear in the comp plan about that. I will support that and I'm also open to any other alternatives they have for solving the parking ratio. Chair Baltay: That’s three of us out of five, 3-2 supporting at least a stronger look at the underground parking. I think that’s the best guidance, Jodie, were going to be able to give you on that issue. We’re a split Board on it and that’s where we stand. Can we do a quick poll on the variance? The variance is essential. The Director is looking for us to give them an up or down on that. How do we fell about the 4.a Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Page 25 justifications behind the shading variance right now? I don’t see it. I can’t recommend it on that ground. How about the rest of you? Board Member Lee: I’m comfortable. Chair Baltay: Grace is comfortable with it. Board Member Hirsch: I’m comfortable. Chair Baltay: David is comfortable with it. Osma and Alex? Board Member Lew: I think I’m comfortable with it. I think we should note that even though it may not meet the requirements of the parking lot shading, I mean, the project potentially has five Sycamore Trees around the street which is a substantial amount of shade. That’s all on City property. I don’t think that there is a bigger picture -- I don’t think there’s an issue. I think we’re just trying to meet the technicalities of the code. Chair Baltay: Yes, that’s right. Vice Chair Thompson: I have trouble with it. I have trouble with the variance just because the heat island effect is a real thing and I'm sure that code is in that place for that reason. Chair Baltay: Jodie, you're hearing a split Board on that. This time it’s 3-2 in favor of the variance. But I think if the applicant could come back with a better rationalization perhaps, something along the lines of what Alex just mentioned or maybe a little more landscaping and less trees maybe a better presentation that really showed us what the percentage really is you might have a chance of getting that one through if that’s where we end up going. What else are we missing here before we continue this? Jodie, do you have anything that we haven’t given you a straw poll on? Ms. Gerhardt: I see us coming back with landscape drawings. There were some questions about the materials. Just being more specific about the materials and the colors, which plays into the guidelines about base, middle, top. We want to make sure what those colors are. It sounds like for the base, middle, top guideline we’re focused on the top level and that it’s reading a little flat right now. It needs some more scale to it. There was conversations about a cornice, but I don’t know if cornice sort of fits in with this style. Vice Chair Thompson: I didn’t want to include that word in this necessarily. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Vice Chair Thompson: I think it’s really just about adding scale. Chair Baltay: I think Osma was talking about modifications to the third-floor element, the stepped back piece. To somehow make that work better within the overall articulation of the façade. I don’t think any of us want to see some cornice stuck on the second floor in spite or whatever that would (crosstalk). Vice Chair Thompson: And there’s no issue with the step back. I think we all kind of like that. Chair Baltay: Yeah, the overall fastening is fine. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. And then for the underground parking, there were at least three members in support of at least having a better study of that showing you the analysis that the architects have gone through because it would be the preference to have underground parking. So we’ll make a concerted effort towards that. Sustainability: Board Member Lew had some comments about that that we will incorporate. And then on the variance, we had at least three members in support of the variance and we’ll see how we can better craft some findings around that and give you some better numbers. 4.a Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Chair Baltay: If it’s necessary. Ms. Gerhardt: I think that’s most of it. I do know that Pratima, you know, maybe if the architect has any quick questions because I do want to make sure that they have clear direction going forward. Chair Baltay: Let’s hear from the architect. Ms. Gerhardt: And, also, too, we do have Ellison has a hand raised. I think we’ve closed the public comment period. Chair Baltay: I think we’ve made ourselves very clear on this, Jodie. To the architect, do you have any questions about what we’re putting out here, and if so ask them now, please? Ms. Shah: One important thing I want to clarify is the 3form sample. There is no deviation in the color. The main sample was submitted at the ARB hearing and the material board is at the City Hall. We had to make a new one when this meeting and the mock ups are from our previous samples we had here. The mock ups, color, and the new color does not match. We have given the specification and color sample to you in the previous meeting and you had no concern about the color in the previous meeting. Second thing about basement parking, the main reason we didn’t go for basement parking is the… Chair Baltay: Pratima, we asked if you had any questions about our motions. We don’t want to reargue the case now. I’ll ask you once more, do you have any questions about what we’re saying? Ms. Shah: The main question about the basement I just wanted to mention we cannot proceed with that option because the side is remediated and below 15 feet it is contaminated so we wanted to keep excavation to minimum. Ms. Gerhardt: I think we’ll study that. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Okay. Let’s leave the applicant muted again, please. Vice Chair Thompson: Also, just to clarify about the material, it’s more about the representation in the drawings that it doesn’t match the material board. MOTION Chair Baltay: I move that we continue this to a date on certain subject to straw poll comments that we’ve made previously. Can I have a second, please? Vice Chair Thompson: I’ll second. Board Member Lew: I second. Chair Baltay: Motion is moved and seconded. Can we have a roll call vote on that please, Vinh? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lew, Thompson (4) No: Lee, (1) MOTION TO CONTINUE PASSES 4-1. Chair Baltay: So the motion carries 4-1. Thank you very much to the applicant and to everybody. Let’s take a ten-minute break. We’ll come back to session at 10:55. Thank you, everybody. [The Board took a short break.] 4.a Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Page 27 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 486 Hamilton Avenue [19PLN-00347]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of a 2,500 Square Foot Commercial Building and the Construction of a New Three-Story Mixed- Use Project Including 2,500 Square Feet of Retail Space, 2,500 Square Feet of Office Space, and Four Residential Units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@Cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay: Okay. So the Architectural Review Board is back in session. We’re going to move to action item number 3. This is a Quasi-Judicial hearing on 486 Hamilton Avenue: consideration of a major architectural review to allow the demolition of a 2,500 square foot commercial building and the construction of a new three-story mixed-use project including 2,500 square feet of retail space, 2,500 square feet of office space, and four residential units. Before we get started, I’ll ask if we have any disclosures to make. I visited the site myself earlier this week, anybody else? Board Member Lew: I visited the site yesterday and I looked at the colors and material board at City Hall. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. Any other disclosures? No other disclosures from Grace, Osma, or David. Then we’re ready for a staff presentation. Sam, is that you? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, that’s me. I’m Samuel Gutierrez, the project planner for this project coming before you at 486 Hamilton Avenue. This is actually just down the street from City Hall, not very far. It is in the downtown context. [Setting up presentation.] Once again, this is 486 Hamilton Avenue. This is a photo of the proposed project. The project is before you for a formal review. In the past, this did come to you as a preliminary application but currently it is a mixed-use project located on 0.12 acres of land. On the corner there you can see the Google Map of Hamilton and Cowper in downtown Palo Alto. It is a new three-story mixed-use building, zoned CDC with a pedestrian combining district. And the application before you today is kind of a first run at formal. So we do request the Architectural Review Board to provide some feedback. There’s some discussion about design enhancement and I’ll go a little into the parking. And, again, we’re not looking for a recommendation at this time because this was a preliminary application. We want to see if they addressed the comments during the prelim to this formal before going further down in greater detail in reviewing the application. Just to show you the zoning in greater detail, here’s an overlay of the zoning district around it. Again, it’s a CDC with a P overlay in there. You can see the property identified. There is one of the downtown lots located nearby and there is a TC just down the street. A bit of background, as I mentioned before, this application, or this project, came before you as a preliminary application on August 1st, 2019. At that time it was a four-story mixed-use project and the ARB comments were to eliminate the fourth floor, reduce the height of the building, provide more landscaping, to address the blank walls that the preliminary application had presented. The details for mall scale needed to be provided and it needed a more residential feel. The ARB felt at the time that it was a bit more commercial. So that was where that comment was sourced. Here we have the proposed project. Once again, it’s a three-story mixed-use building. So they did eliminate one floor. They added basement parking because in the preliminary application there was surface-level parking that was accessed off of Hamilton. And then they did provide more landscaping through vines and potted plants. They added balconies and the upper floors appear more residential with better connection to the street. Her we can see t a comparison between the preliminary application on the left and then what’s proposed before you today on the right. We can see the differences there on the left versus the right for this application. Here, again, we have the elevation views as opposed to the rendering. You can see some of the changes on the projects. Hamilton elevation, again, left to right and the Cowper Street on elevation left to right; he left being the preliminary and the right the proposed project. The project breakdown, again we have a three-story building. One story offset from the adjacent busing on Cowper. The two-story offset from the adjacent building on Hamilton. If we go back here, you can see the Hamilton building is that small parasol building and then on the Cowper you can kind of see it on the upper right there’s the Victorian-style structure there. And that could be noticed here on the left. The ground floor has retail because the existing building does have retail space. The ground floor’s proposed to have 2,466 square feet in retail. The second-floor office space is proposed at about 2,538 and all four residential units averaging about 982 square feet on the second and third floors. The total FAR is 2.0:1. 4.a Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Page 28 The basement parking as configured does allow for 13 spaces. It’s a mixture of mechanical list parking and standard parking, which is non-mechanical lift parking for this purpose. Some of the issues that we do have is that the setback for the stairwell and the elevator shaft they encroach into that setback, as proposed. And the parking dimensions for the garage are unusual but functional. The Office of Transportation did review, of course, with planning staff and the parking does work but it is a little irregular and I will go into greater detail. And then, of course, the articulation along the elevations, before the ARB in the preliminary had mentioned it looked a little commercially and to add more residential feel so perhaps the articulation as presented might present further issues. Going into the setback discussion the South elevation has a stairwell, an elevator shaft that leads to the basement and the required setback is 10 feet for residential uses in the building, where the stairwell has a zero foot setback. And the elevator has a 5.5 setback. That’s where, perhaps, a DEE or a project revision would be needed to address that issue there. Also, the project the reduced the height from previous iterations, however, it just creates this massing issue for that stairwell and the elevator is a consequence of trying to address some of the ARBs previous comments. Going into the parking it has nine spaces and two mechanical lifts. We could see here a quick section view. It’s a three-stacker. This isn’t a puzzled lift as the Board has seen before in other projects. This is a full three-stacker fixed system that moves vertically up and down. And then there’s a center channel where the vehicle would come out as the proper vehicle that needs to come with a load up or exit. There are four standard spaces, again standard means non-mechanical lift spaces, proposed and you can see that here in the right corner layout of the parking. And the basement space does include parking for all the uses. There would be a shared parking situation going on to accommodate all of the different uses. Here’s the blowup of that basement layout and the design. Here you could see it is a ramp that comes down and it is not the standard size per required per the typical circulation but in reviewing with the Office of Transportation it does work. It has this bottleneck feature that you see. The driveway has a wider opening towards the Cowper side and then it narrows as you get into the garage and that allows for vehicle to pass each other as they enter and exit. It allows room to maneuver and the Office of Transportation did feel that this was acceptable. Also, the backup clearances for all the parking spaces and the turning radiances are pretty tight. There are some minor details that we do need to confirm would work, such as the type of EVSE equipment that would installed because if anything shifts here it would not make things pencil out as far as circulation. Those are some fine details but before we got into those details we just wanted to get the ABRs feedback on the overall project. Again, if things shift and move, then that would impact the design of the basement. We do want to know what the ARBs thoughts are before we get into those nitty-gritty details, but as is the project does work in terms of the parking. Elevation articulation. The Hamilton façade used additional balconies to convey residential use on the upper floors. Again, you could see here the comparison between the two proposals; the left being previous and then the right being the current. And then you can see that the project is also subject to public art requirements. One of the comments the ARB did have was, again, to reduce the blank walls of the project and there could be an opportunity on some of those blank walls for public art. But again, before we get into that discussion, we wanted to see what the ARBs thoughts and feedback was on this iteration of the project before we go down that road more. Here is the provided cross-section of the project. You can see how this would work. Again, on the longitude side you can see the parking stackers there and the driveway ramp and how that cuts down into the garage. And here you can clearly see how the parking stackers would go down another level for the lower parked car and then would go up a little higher for the top stacked car. And then the cross-section 2 would be the other side of the building just seeing the cross-section to the garage. The project does have a landscaping plan, but it is very preliminary. We didn’t go into deep discussion about it but that is something that we want some feedback from the ARB on. Of course, it is part of the ARB findings for landscaping. I did want to just briefly touch on some of the conceptual proposals the applicant has put forward for landscaping for this project. Again, it’s a little limited because they are building to the edges of the property. Something to be mindful of that if landscaping does go onto the building it would need to physically go onto the building rather than on the site or there would have to be some cut outs or planter boxes in there but it still limits where the landscaping can be. Again, this is a preliminary plant list that they’re looking at. You'll notice that there aren’t very many native plants but moving forward we can make adjustments and changes. The next steps is to incorporate the suggestions and direction from the ARB, complete the CEQA evaluation, which would also include a full evaluation and the historic status of the building and return to the ARB for a future hearing to integrate all those changes and provide all of the fine details. The recommendation before the ARB is for the ARB to 4.a Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Page 29 consider the proposed project and provide feedback on the project design to staff and the applicant and then to continue the public hearing to a date uncertain t enable the applicant to submit landscape plans and staff to review the project in accordance with CEQA. And this concludes staff’s presentation. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Sam. Do we have any questions of the staff from the Board? No one, very well. We’ll move on to the applicant presentation. Vinh, could you ask the applicant if they’d care to make a presentation, please? Mr. Nguyen: Sam, who’s the applicant for this? Mr. Gutierrez: Today I believe it would be Kim presenting. Mr. Nguyen: I see a Kim Tren [phonetic]. Is that right? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Mr. Nguyen: We have a phone user who raised their hand. Perhaps this might be one of the applicants. [Connecting with speaker.] Khoi Le: My name is Khoi Le, I’m the architect for 486 Hamilton Avenue. Chair Baltay: If you could hold on one second. Sam, is this the applicant? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, they’re a part of the applicant team. Chair Baltay: I just want to be sure. Last time we had somebody sneak in. I want to be sure we’re hearing the applicant. Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, we are the applicant, yes. Chair Baltay: You’ll have ten minutes. Go ahead. Mr. Le: Good morning, Board members, planners, and City officials. My name is Khoi Le (spells name) and we are the applicants for 486 Hamilton Avenue. Before we get started, I just want to thank the Board members and the planners, Samuel and Jodie, for helping us and guiding us through this project here and giving us awesome comments here, which we incorporated into the places as you'll see shortly. Samuel, do you mind showing your screen? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, I’m going to share the applicant’s presentation with everyone. Mr. Le: Okay, thank you. [Setting up presentation.] What you see before you, as Samuel has stated before, this is a perspective view of the proposed project at the corner of Cowper and Hamilton. I just want to talk to you folks about the site itself. It’s a wonderful site in a wonderful City. It’s a pretty interesting site but a very challenging site. If you notice it’s only 43 feet wide and I believe about 125 feet long here. It is very challenging to fit any sort of parking or anything like that or a garage in here. As you noted, Samuel, previously, the lot size is roughly about 5,300 square feet and there’s an existing one-story structure. I believe there’s about four retail establishments in there, which occupies roughly half of the property and the other half is just on-grade parking. I believe there are about 8 stalls there. And then in the lower left-hand corner you can see that image there of what is existing. What we propose here is a three-story mixed-use project and the ground floor being roughly about 2,100 square feet. We had roughly about 1,700 square feet of office space, which is located on the second floor. And then the remaining usable square feet goes to four three-bedroom residential units here. The total gross floor area is roughly 10,750 square feet. Again, this is just a view of the proposed project there at the corner of Cowper and Hamilton and in our initial preliminary presentation I guess we showed our renderings at the very last moment and one of your first comments was “hey, show it in the beginning. 4.a Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Page 30 Get us excited about it.” So, here we are. Many of the comments that came from that preliminary meeting were that I think Chairman Peter you stated it was a little bit too tall. You could not recommend for it to be passed if it was four-stories tall. We took a look at that. We dropped it one floor. And then Board Member David, you also mentioned that you don’t want to see the parking or the garage parking entrance along Hamilton. That should be for retail or some other commercial activity there. We took that into account, and what we did was we moved the parking and the parking entrance onto Cowper, and then you'll see on the right hand side the entry to the parking garage is right at the corner of Cowper and Hamilton. We did have to move a tree to make that happen but if you look at this perspective here, the comparison on the left hand side was existing. It was what we presented maybe almost a year ago and then the right hand side is what is proposed. Do you see how much larger it was? We just reduced the scale quite a bit here; the three-story verse the four-story product. What you see here is a view from the west of the property here looking down Hamilton. We broke up the façade quite a bit. On the next slide you see a comparison between what we had about a year ago on the left-hand side there. You see how the parking garage is there which dominated the Hamilton elevations and façade there. The whole experience was interrupted with that garage entry and whatnot there, so we went back to the drawing board and revised everything. Actually it was pretty fun doing all this stuff. And then we put the garage entrance, as I mention, along Cowper and put the building entrance along Hamilton there. And if you notice along the right-hand side you see how we stepped everything and made everything a little bit more residential scale there. What you see in front of you is a comparison before the old plan and the new plan. The proposed plan, which we’re proposing today, is on the bottom and the previous plan is up top there. As I mentioned before, previously there was parking along Hamilton Avenue and the garage entrance was on Hamilton Avenue. That was a huge experience as you walk past you can see just a garage and car entrance. What we did, per your advice, is we took the entrance and the garage and came off of Cowper, which is on the right-hand side and went down into a basement. One of the other comments I believe by Board Member David is you didn’t want to see all the trash and recycle as you walk along Hamilton Avenue. And if you look at the previous one that’s where we had it, along Hamilton Avenue and then you had the entrance to the parking garage. We took all that stuff and then we put it downstairs. It’s much more pleasant experience. As you walk along Hamilton what you find now is that you're going to walk passed a nice little garden and then the entry to the building and then the retail there. We managed to fit all the retail on one level. In the previous plan, it was split on two levels. It wasn’t a continuous retail experience. Right now the retail occupies pretty much 90 percent of the Hamilton walking experience here. And one of the things in our minds that we wanted to do was we wanted to open up Hamilton and Cowper as much as we can. In the original plan, it shows a lot more where we just opened up the corner with bi-fold doors and handle doors, a lot of landscaping, and whatnot. It just leads you right into that retail experience. We still have a hint of that on our proposed plans there. We have beautiful landscape stairs coming up into the retail experience. The rail has two entrances: one from the left-hand side and one from the right-hand side at the corner, which we think is really important. On the second level previously we had two-story retail and also a unit on one side and then an open void space for the parking lift system and whatnot. As you saw in the previous slides it just dominated the elevation and it was slightly unsightly. Again, we revised it and right now we have all office spaces on the second floor and a residential unit also on that same floor there too. And throughout the whole floor plans you also have planters and balconies just to soften the building a little bit. On the third level previously we had office space up here and one residential unit but in this current plan we have is three residential units. Again, we broke it up quite a bit in the previous plans it was quite monolithic and the faced was pretty straight. I think Board Member Osma made a comment about how we should chop it up a little bit and add more reveals and whatnot, so we did a lot of ins and outs into the facades. Within those ins and outs we have these outdoor balconies on all these three units there. In the corner of Hamilton and Cowper there’s a nice big balcony for that resident. In the middle there’s a nice balcony for them too and then the third on the left-hand side you see another nice balcony there. In the current plan this level would just be roof but the previous plan we had two residential units here but on this plan, as you can see, on the current plan we just have the roof plan here. We took the whole building down roughly, I believe, 11 feet. The previous building height was 50 feet. I think we’re down to about 39’ 10’’. As you can see the comparison, the previous section on the left-hand side and on the right-hand side you see the proposed section here and you see how we took the garage and we made that subterranean and then all the residential is on the third level and the second level I think is 50 feet for the previous project and then our current one is 39’10’’, I believe. Here is the comparison between 4.a Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Page 31 the previous view and the current view. And, again, we’re along Hamilton. We’re looking east here. We took one of your comments about trying to climate a lot of those blank walls and whatnot, so we did that. We chopped it up quite a bit right at the entry next to that existing retail building there. Mr. Nguyen: We’re starting to approach ten minutes. Mr. Le: I’m almost done. Again, this is another view from Cowper here showing you the differences between what we are proposing right now and what we had previously. And notice how much smaller it is. This is just some elevations of what we are currently proposing, and you see all the ins and outs of this building now. On the left-hand side, the middle, and the right-hand side. Again, this is a view from Cowper here. And this shows you the materials that we’re planning to use here. We’re thinking about some stucco here and also we want to add some eyebrows, aluminum arbors, and whatnot so we hang a lot of greenery along there just to soften up the building a little bit there. And then I think Board Member Osma, you mentioned before that our railing system looked a little bit too cheap. I think it was a grid system of mesh. We changed it out to a more stainless steel railing system. And I believe this is the last slide here. Chair Baltay: We’re running over 12 minutes now. Can you wrap it up in the next 20 second, please? Mr. Le: Perfect. This is the last slide. This shows you the car lift system which Samuel went over already and this concludes our presentation here. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. Wonderful. With that, do we have any questions of the applicant from the Board? Could you clarify for me then, please, the height of the third floor, the residential floor, and the second floor? When I look at the renderings it looks like the third floor is taller but on your sectional drawing its showing both as having a 12-foot floor to floor or floor to ceiling height. Is that correct? What are the relative heights of those two floors, please? Mr. Gutierrez: Chairman Peter, you're absolutely correct. They’re 12 feet each. Maybe it’s the perspective that the model builder built this at. It makes the top-level look a little bit taller but you’re absolutely correct. Its 12 feet. Chair Baltay: Okay. Thank you very much. Okay. Vinh, do we have any public comments for this? I’ll open the meeting to public comments right now. Mr. Nguyen: We do have a member who just raised their hand, Jeff Levinsky. If there’s anyone else who wishes to speak on this item please raise your hand now. Otherwise, Jeff will be the final speaker. Jeff Levinsky: This is Jeff Levinsky (spells name). Good morning, Board members and staff. Several of us neighborhood people sent in a letter pointing out some concerns that we had about the project. One of those is that the calculations for parking appear to have been done not including the shared commercial space and I heard different numbers even in the presentation and staff’s numbers for the size of some of the spaces that differ from what’s shown in the plans. When this comes back we hope that that would be considered. We also pointed out some concerns that aren’t addressed about how the parking will be assigned between the different uses because that has an impact on the floor area of the building. A point that was not in the letter and is not addressed in the study done by hexagon is that the parking for this building, and, in fact, the demand for parking for this building, is being reduced by the City’s -- the amount of parking the building has to provide is being reduced thanks to a 1,500 square feet reduction through a special provision of the City Code. But it doesn’t reduce the number of cars that will be looking to park. It’s simply a reduction of how much parking the building is required to provide. This neighborhood is heavily over parked. It is the source of enormous contention and has created huge, long City Council meetings over what to do about all of that. The mixed-use parking study that Hexagon presents does not take into account the higher demand for parking that will exist at this site. Roughly speaking, there will be 40 percent more cars trying to park than the study considered if you look at what the 1,500 square feet allowance generates. The study from Hexagon doesn’t explain how they determined which type of mixed-use building statistics to use. In other studies that have been presented 4.a Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Page 32 to the City, it is very explicit about well we used this kind of building, and the statistics were taken from this particular time and so forth. Because it would be good for us to understand whether or not when you're trying to fit these different uses in if you're considering buildings that are in heavily parked areas or under parked areas and then this building having its additional unique problems with under parking because of the extra 40 percent that’s not being handled by the underground parking. Those are my comments. Thank you very much. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Mr. Levinsky. Do we have any other public comments? Vinh, anything else? Mr. Nguyen: Chair Baltay, we have no further public comments for this item. Chair Baltay: Okay. To the applicant, you have an opportunity to rebut the public comments that were made. Would you care to do so? Mr. Le: Thank you, Jeff, for your concern about the parking and the parking requirements. We did do a study, as you mention, via Hexagon and whatnot and we’re asking for a 30 percent reduction and that is due to the fact that we’re close to a lot of the public transportations and also the train station. And we were just hoping that we would get that reduction there based on those conditions there and the parking study. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much. With that we’ll close the meeting to public testimony and bring the item back to the Board. Grace, you're going to lead us off. You could go ahead, please, whenever you’re ready. Thank you. Board Member Lee: Thank you. I just want to extend a thank you to our staff as well as out applicant in terms of this presentation and working with the ARB. I will start with the applicant’s presentation. Thank you for going through each of the comments that my fellow Board members had given and really showing us the changes that have been made since your preliminary. I think you're defiantly headed in the right direction and I'm happy to provide some additional comments for moving forward. I am very happy to see the three-story kind of response and particularly how the massing has changed on the corner I think is working quite well. There was a comment regarding blank walls and I think there’s still some room for improvement in terms of decreasing the blank length with some variation that I think was described previously as smaller-scale detail. Maybe if there's a way to look at three areas, I just wanted to point out, in terms of a finer grain or even a large grain, medium grain, and a fine grain. I leave that to you as the applicant in terms of how you might interpret that architecturally. I’m looking at the ground floor area that is rather long. I don’t have the exact dimension. That is kind of that blank wall office space that does not change. The rhythm kind of continues. As well as on the second floor I believe there's still some room also just to address the blank wall that is facing Hamilton Avenue. The other place that I saw that could be a place to kind of further refine your design is looking east at that very large stair. And, you know, again the adjacent parcel might change and we don’t know what’s going to happen in the future but when I'm walking down Hamilton towards Cowper I find that kind of great expanse of stucco to be a change in scale that’s a little bit drawing. And so maybe there is something to do there in terms of some design attention. What has worked quite well is your addition of balconies which introduces that, kind of, medium grain or finer grain. As you move forward it would be wonderful if the Board is able to review some kind of a sunshade study that really looks at how those balconies are shading and creating comfort for the users and also just the larger massing and how the sun is going to move around this building. The other piece that I just saw in terms of your set I always like to have north arrows and then also when you go to the materials board -- before I go there I just want to also talk about the public comment regarding neighborhood concerns on parking and also I believe Sam talked about the parking garage and the basement because that was a big change that you made. On the parking it would be wonderful -- I know that you're working with staff and they will be reviewing in terms of what those clearances are and how that parking garage is meeting the counts, and also in terms of how it works really in terms of service and clearances. I hope they spend a lot of attention to working with staff and hearing the comments of neighborhood concerns. And I think right now I'm not able to review it. I know that it’s in transition and you’re moving forward. I just want to make sure that the 4.a Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Page 33 parking flow and the clearances actually work given how tight those dimensions are. I think it’s ambitious and I applaud you and I think this is needed. Some really terrific solution to the parking; so just keep going. The other piece that I wanted to mention was the DEE in terms of the f foot on that third floor. I am comfortable in terms of the way that it is treated and moving that forward I look forward to hearing other colleagues here on the Board speak about that but I will leave it at that. The other piece that we should talk about is the landscape plan. In terms of drought tolerance and native plants I think there's probably another design iteration to go there as well and overall it seems like the right direction but again sunshade study, understanding just how as you refine the design that will affect your pant palette. Please do pay some attention there. And now we’ll go to the colors and the materials board. I did have a chance to go over to City Hall and review the display case. First off, there's a lot of Milano cotton and I think that’s that cream color that is the stucco color and my feeling is that it may want to be revisited in terms of glare and tone and perhaps there's another color in the palette that is added or another material as you begin to refine the design and introduce a fine medium, kind of, large scale grain treatment to the blank walls as well as the eastern stair. I think that covers everything that I wrote down. I’ll go ahead and pass it over, Peter, to who is going to speak next. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Grace, very thoughtful comments. Alex, would you care to go next? Board Member Lew: Okay, sure. I just want to say to the architect I think you're very crafty and I think you come up with a very ingenious scheme. I think you’ve made a number of huge improvements to the project. I am generally in support of the project. The issues that I have flagged here is I think on the exiting street trees. I think there’s one that’s labeled as an existing pair on Cowper and that’s actually the Liquidambar, I believe. And then, I think the larger point though is that if on this very small site, I mean, you're digging a basement that we’re really not going to be able to save… I'm doubtful that we’re going to be able to save any of the trees, so I think we actually need to look at how that all get replanted after construction of the building. I think we need to see something that’s realistic there. On the native plant finding, I think that this particular project has a lot of very unusual and very difficult circumstances. I think its fine to consider alternate plants, like non-native plants, that will actually work in very difficult situations. On the materials board I saw that you had the Starphire glass, like the low iron glass, and we do have that on some of our buildings downtown. It’s usually only the first floor because it doesn’t really meet the California Energy Code and there are ways to work around the code or work with the code, but it is pretty unusual just to see that on all floors of the building. I mention that because I think the Hamilton Avenue, at least that ground floor, is relatively flat. I guess I just want to see what you're thinking about there. If you're thinking about two different kinds of glass and then how do we break the building if it has two different kinds of glass on the façade. Regarding how it is compatible with the old house, which is actually an office building. What is the address? At 610 Cowper, I think you’ve made a lot of improvements by having some recessed areas on the first and second floor to make it a little bit more open to the neighbors and I think that’s all good. You are showing some cable screens right at the property line and I think we what to look at that very carefully to see how compatible it is with the old Victorian-era house and maybe there are ways of using a different material that’s a little more sympathetic with the old house next door. I consort the DEE. I think the narrow ramp can work. We’ve done it on one other project. I think the 636 Waverly project had a one aisle, or whatever you call it. One car width wide driveway, and I don’t know of any problems. Maybe staff can review that if there have been problems on that project. That’s all I have. I am generally in support of the project. It is going in the right direction and I look forward to seeing the next submission. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Alex. David, your turn. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, thank you. Thank you for the presentation. It is a significant improvement. Chair Baltay: David, it’s a bit quiet. If you could speak up or louder. Board Member Hirsch: I’ll try to. My voice seems to be going here. [Adjusts Audio.] Can we put up the perspective elevations from Hamilton? 4.a Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Page 34 Mr. Gutierrez: One moment, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: There’s one that shows both directions. Mr. Gutierrez: Is this the elevation you're looking for, sir? Board Member Hirsch: Okay, well that’s good enough for now. Certainly, this is an incredible improvement for Hamilton’s elevation. Mr. Gutierrez: Is this the elevation you’re looking for, sir? Board Member Hirsch: Okay, well, that’s good enough for now. Well, certainly, this is an incredible improvement for (inaudible). But on the parking – and Alex brings up a very good point – I think that the parking in the (inaudible) area there could use more work. I know it will affect things upstairs, but I still think that [distortion] straight down, and you have the recessed area for the lift on the other side of the building, or the other end of the building. You might come up with a better scheme. I think you need some additional work on the parking in the basement area. One particular reason is that you’re down in the cellar and now the parking can go further down, and it affects the structure of the neighboring house, the historic house. I would be concerned about that impact. Once you dig a foundation, I think there will be problems with the foundation of the neighboring building. At least you have to study that piece. But the fact that it also isn’t going straight down to the cellar really affects the plan of the commercial first floor and its entry there [distortion]. And kind of interrupts the commercial (inaudible) looking for further study about how it works. But it certainly is a significant improvement over what we saw in the first place. Reducing the level as we recommended was excellent. You know, one of my main concerns is the way in which garbage was collected in the previous scheme. Now, we have some of the garbage way to the other end of the cellar, way too far away. I don’t know why it isn’t possible to have that located somewhere off of a lobby, even if it steals a little space from commercial. But my biggest concern here, the mix of the second floor, if it’s a commercial space and a residential space. It really kind of bothers me, that it would be so much better if it were all residential. (inaudible…. (inaudible)….) I think the garbage removal needs to be studied somehow. The other aspect of it is this mix of commercial on the second floor. Access to it is through the main lobby, off the elevator, down a very long corridor. I think either you eliminate it as residential in that floor, following the plan on the top floor, or you find some way, flexing commercial on the ground floor so it works with upstairs. Using a larger single-use user. In some way, I find that to be a really confusing idea, is to have people getting to the commercial on the second floor via the residential [distortion]. You know, it’s true of the last building we looked at. And I would have had that same comment there as well. But this is for (inaudible) think about. You know, this elevation here that’s showing, the proposed scheme is (inaudible) better than what was there before. And then, if you flip back to the opposite [distortion]… Anyhow, what you’re looking at here is no differentiation between a commercial storefront look and a residential area. I find that to be a problem, that the scale… And that’s what we’ve talked about, I thought, the last time. The scale should change at some point, changing the use of the floor. (inaudible…) That seems to me [distortion]…. Vice Chair Thompson: Sorry, David, that last bit is hard to understand. Board Member Hirsch: Can you hear? Vice Chair Thompson: I think if you lean forward, you’re closer to your microphone. A little easier to hear you. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. There really should be quite a change in scale, I think. You know, I notice the building that’s on the corner of, next to City Hall, the new one on the corner. The whole of the top floor residential, quite substantially different than the commercial down below. I find that there’s ought to be a change in scale based on the change in use, significant change in use. But what it is, is exactly the same all the way through this building. That’s, to me, to make it monotonous. It would be so much more interesting if it were a change in scale. But there is a conflict on the second floor between commercial and residential, and they look exactly the same. I’m really bothered by that. Color. I’ll mention the color. 4.a Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Page 35 It certainly is a bright building. Perhaps overly bright, at least from neighborhoods. You have a brick building on one side, and then, a more muted (inaudible) building across the street. I think the color stands out too much, and there could be more variation [distortion] bases of the building that are one use (inaudible) core of the building, the stair tower, etc. Modulation in that respect. That’s the back of the building. I (inaudible) find that elevation of the area interesting. There is a lot of openness towards (inaudible). The amount of parking lots in the back (inaudible). Pretty much my concern is that especially… I question why it is that you have a second commercial with accessible (inaudible) elevator to a rear passageway that leads down a long passage to get to the entry of that building. Is that really going to work? Wouldn’t it be better to create a staircase (inaudible) upper floor, right from the street level, and keep the elevator only for the handicapped accessible…? I think there is a dichotomy here of uses that doesn’t function that well. That’s my, really my major concern. That and the scale of the residential versus commercial. Thanks. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, David. Very thoughtful comments. Osma, your turn. Vice Chair Thompson: Thanks. Thank you to the applicant and staff for the presentation, which gave us a really nice comparison of what was there before and what is now. I do agree with a lot of what the other board members have mentioned. I do think that what we’re seeing today is an improvement from what we had seen before. However, I do also agree with Board Member Lee, that there is still a little ways to go. Particularly, it’s on a few items that were mentioned last time, which were the blank walls, the small scale, and the residential feel. I mean, the addition of the balconies has helped a lot with the relief of the façade. But I concur with Board Member Hirsch, that the residential architectural style and the commercial architectural style blur very much. There’s a little bit over… I forget how big this parcel is. It’s, like, almost 100 feet long. At the bottom, there’s 85 feet of glass, and there can be more to be done to sort of add a bit more visual interest. I would encourage the architect to push a little bit more in terms of relief of the facade, and small scale. I do think having this differentiation and program actually adds to the reason why you can change up the scale a bit as you go up the building. I think the next time we see this, it would be really nice to get a better understanding of the building’s relationship with the adjacent house that Board Member Lew is referring to. Though the one view that we did see in the presentation is not very close up in detail. You know, there is actually a lot of that façade that’s going to be visible to the public that’s pretty blank, and I agree that the mesh wire gate might not be the best choice to interface with the adjacent building. A view from Cowper, sort of understanding that relationship between the building, sort of the two buildings, would be good. I also concur that the view from Hamilton still has a blank wall where the stair is. That needs to be worked on. So, yeah, I’ll just reiterate, it still needs a lot more articulation and smaller scale, and there’s still more to be done to sort of give that a residential feel and, differentiate from the commercial feel. As for the color, yeah, I did also look at the City Hall display case. Actually, the color looked a lot brighter than what I’m seeing on my screen. It looked a lot closer to a white, and what we’re seeing is that sandy beige. It’s definitely something to consider. Might consider having a bit more variety to the color palette. Right now, this is just kind of two materials, and the project might benefit from the… You know, added scale might come, potentially, with some more diversity in materials. I’ll leave it there. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Osma. I’m not going to belabor the point more. I think very similarly to my colleagues on the Board. You’ve made tremendous improvements. The building, I believe, can be approved at some point, but it’s not there yet. I agree completely with almost everything everyone said. I think Grace put it very nicely, talking about the sense of scale. It’s lacking. It doesn’t seem to have quite a refinement, and that’s a nice way to think about how to get that. I think David and Osma are correct, talking about the need to express residential versus commercial uses, and that’s probably where the answer lies in your design, is to study that. What I’d like to do is throw out to you that I think the problem lies perhaps with your basic partee of arrangements for the circulation, the vertical circulation. It’s the two stair towers that create a difficult parking situation downstairs. It’s the one stair tower on the east side that creates the need for the design enhancement exception. The stair tower has created a single-loaded hallway situation on the second and third floors, which creates some very uncomfortable bedrooms in the apartments. In apartment 1 and 2, and then, apartment number 3 in particular, has a bedroom with the only window looking out on a hallway. That’s even fronted on a piece of wall on the other side. It’s worse than a typical motel. That’s just not high-quality design. I think the answer lies in 4.a Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Page 36 rethinking how you integrate that vertical and horizontal circulation. That will also bring you around to the way you have the second floor horizontal circulation shared between commercial and residential. What it looks like now, honestly, is that that is going to be all office spaces. That whole second floor really is a commercial layout right now, and it’s very easy to make it that way in the future. We’re asking you to design sort of with integrity all the way through, that residential spaces are truly residential in a mixed-use building. I can understand how frustrating it is to hear that, and how challenging it is. It is truly a challenging design problem [distortion] worked out. But that’s mixed use on a tight lot. We’re asking you to make the mixed use genuinely mixed. Mix it up. I think that the answer, again, lies in how you reconfigure your circulation, and if you do that, you’ll get there even better, I believe. My last comment will be to do with the materials. I think the colors are going to be too bright. They are also just too monotonous right now, just that one plaster color. Finally, I would say that that acrylic plaster is not, in my book, what I call a really high-quality material. It’s sort of a basic building material you put on the back of a large building facing something that’s not important. And you’re using it an awful lot on the front, where I prefer to see some sort of panelized stone material, or tile, or something that’s a little bit more deftness/craftness to it. Just express more the nature of the building somehow. This just seems like it’s almost a paint color applied to everything. I’m having a hard time with that. That doesn’t work for me. I think also your green landscaping on the sunshades up on the second and third floors is something you can add in the computer, but I don’t quite see how you get that to actually grow. It gets awfully hot and dry in that environment, and I don’t think those will work the way you’ve got them. I’m not sure they actually help you any, either. No more need for me to belabor the point, though. I think what we’ve said is fairly consistent and accurate all around. Does anybody else have any further comments? If not, can someone make a motion for us, please? MOTION Vice Chair Thompson: I move that we continue the project to a date uncertain. Chair Baltay: Subject to the comments we’ve made? Vice Chair Thompson: Subjects to the comments that we’ve made and that are in the planning staff report. Chair Baltay: Do I have a second for that? Board Member Hirsch: I’ll second. Chair Baltay: David, you’re seconding that? Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Baltay: Okay. Anyone want to address that motion? Any questions from staff or the applicant? Jodie, are we clear enough? Ms. Gerhardt: I know that Board Member Thompson needs to leave soon, but I did want to ask the applicant if they have any questions. Again, not a rebuttal, but just questions. Chair Baltay: I’m open to that, if the applicant would care to address it. Vinh, could you unmute them? Any questions from the applicant, please? Mr. Le: No, I think you folks are very clear on the points that you folks have made, so no questions on our part. Chair Baltay: Thank you for the hard work and the changes you’ve made. It’s going in the right direction, and we very much look forward to this being a successful project. Mr. Le: No worries. Thank you. 4.a Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Page 37 Chair Baltay: Vinh, could we have a roll call, please? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (5) No: (0) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 5-0. Chair Baltay: Okay, we’re five in favor, none against. The motion carries. We’re going to move on to the next item. Before we do that, I believe Board Member Lee is going to excuse herself. Board Member Lee: Yes, I will excuse myself from this item and the rest of the meeting. Thank you, all. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much for your help today, Grace. Vice Chair Thompson: Thanks, Grace. Chair Baltay? Chair Baltay: Yes. Vice Chair Thompson: I have to go. I think we had all sort of budgeted this meeting to go till noon, and it has gone over. I have prior obligations I can’t get out of. I’m wondering if subcommittee could be postponed to another time. Chair Baltay: Let me understand this. We have the bus stop to do, and then we have the minutes of something, and then a subcommittee? Do we have a subcommittee? Vice Chair Thompson: Yes. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Baltay: Who are the subcommittee members right now? Can we just change the assignment? Board Member Lew: Yeah, I’m on [crosstalk]. Chair Baltay: Alex? Vice Chair Thompson: It’s me and Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: It’s the hotel on El Camino. Chair Baltay: Oh, that one, right. No, I don’t think we should do that, Osma. I’ll step in your place instead, if necessary. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Chair Baltay: Because I think you can, you can sign off. That’s fine. As long as we have a quorum, we’ll be okay. Alex and I will handle the subcommittee. Thanks, Osma. Vice Chair Thompson: Okay. Thank you. I’ll excuse myself from the rest of the meeting. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. [Vice Chair Thompson and Board Member Lee left the meeting.] 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 250 Hamilton Avenue [19PLN-00220]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review of Three New Bus Stops in the 4.a Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Page 38 Public Rights-of-Way Located at 3380 Coyote Hill Road, 3223 Hanover Street and 1501 Page Mill Road. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay: We’re going to move on to action item number 4. This is a public hearing, quasi-judicial, for 250 Hamilton Avenue. Recommendation on applicant’s request of minor board level architectural review of three new bus stops in the public rights-of-way located at 3380 Coyote Hill Road, 3223 Hanover Street and 1501 Page Mill Road. Can we have a staff report…? Do we have any disclosures to make? I will disclose that I went out and visited one of these sites. I can’t remember which, but I did one. Alex? Board Member Lew: Yeah, I visited the bus shelter on Quarry Road, and I looked at the trash cans at Palo Alto Square. Chair Baltay: Thank you, Alex. David, any disclosure? Board Member Hirsch: None, no. Chair Baltay: Okay. With that, can we have a staff report, please? Garrett Sauls, Project Planner: Good morning, board members. My name is Garrett Sauls, and I am the project planner for the Stanford Research Park Bus Shelter Program. This project came back to the Board today after receiving comments back in December of last year. To give a quick overview of the project, basically what it is, is Stanford is looking to establish bus shelters within the Research Park that would be providing a universal design that could be approved, kind of similar to a master sign program. There’s quite a number of stops that currently do not have either a bus shelter, or the structure is dilapidated or in poorer form, that they would like to upgrade for the community, you know, the workers within the Research Park. Each site within this proposal, each site would be upgraded to meet ADA and Public Works standards for clearance requirements and other sort of accessibility needs. Each site would include photovoltaic panels on the roof and include waste containment facilities. Just as an overview, there are over 60 stops – bus sites – within the Stanford Research Park, again, with varied levels of shelter service. With this approval, we would be looking at something that may be more like an over-the-counter review of a future bus shelter, or potentially a staff-level application if there were modifications needed to the site that would not conform with the designs that have been presented in the staff report. Here you see a summary of the comments of what were provided in December. Primarily, you’ll see that the concern was about maintaining sidewalks adjacent to the bus shelters, and that they would still be able to provide enough spacing for pedestrians to pass through the space. Public Works and Transportation have reviewed this and they have provided conditions of approval that will be protective of those measures. There was concern with the use of the IPE wood material on the trash enclosure structure, and that could have some weathering over time. That has now been replaced with a polyethylene or plastic material, so that overall has helped to make that change in the project. The bus shelter, the bigger comment that the Board had provided was that the bus shelter should try to complement and integrate its structure design into what some of the newer buildings or the type of modern or futuristic-looking buildings that we have within the Research Park, and we’ll have a comparison of the previous design and the new design later on. There was less concern about the color, which staff had raised previously. You’ll see in the plans that those have been addressed, those have been changed to be more of an aluminum silver metal panel color. The other significant comment the Board provided was that the structure before was a little darker and heavier, and they wanted to see more glass and transparency and light brought into the structure. Those will be shown shortly. Lastly, there’s some clarification that was needed about who will be maintaining these structures. Stanford has a third-party agreement with VTA Real Estate to be maintaining and installing these structures over the life of them. That is reflected in the conditions of approval, that that would be maintained, so you should be able to see that in the staff report as well. For the three sites that we’re talking about today, they are 3380 Coyote Hill Road, 3223 Hanover, and 1501 Page Mill. Thirty-three eighty Coyote Hill is the number one star that you see down; 3223 is number two; and 1501 Page Mill is number three. You can see here some of the older structures that are present out at the site right now on Coyote Hill. You can also see that there are other sites that either just have a 4.a Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Page 39 bench, or there are other additional sites within the Research Park that don’t have any sort of covering at all, or any sort of bench either. This shelter would instead serve to replace all of those and make the accommodations for bus travelers more inviting and welcoming and comfortable. Some key considerations for the design. This design will help inform staff in searching for or creating a consistent design to go throughout the city. Transportation has been working with VTA to figure out what are the opportunities within the city that this kind of design or concept could be implemented, so that we could have some updated shelters, because we do see a number of bus shelters within the city limits, outside of the Research Park, that are also in fairly similar conditions. As was mentioned before, the sites – all of them – would be upgraded ADA upgrades, photovoltaic panels, and include waste collection facilities, and would be maintained by Stanford so that there aren’t waste collecting in the area, or any sort of damage or graffiti or anything finding itself at these sites. Overall, the materials used are of high-quality and long- lasting nature. There’s a reduction in the IPE wood material and an increase in the glass used on the site to help make that structure more apparent. Since the original design was brought to the board, Stanford changed it so that there would be a silver aluminum metal material. Staff doesn’t have any concern about the color choice that has been presented. Our motion is that we’d recommend approval of the proposed project to the director, based on the findings and conditions of approval that are in the staff report. Here are a couple slides to show, some other structures that are out there currently in the world. On the left hand side you see more the standard VTA bus shelter that has been around in the area. On the right hand side we see what is called the landscape form 1.0 version, the bus shelter that you’ll be seeing in the second that isn’t available anymore, but was used along Quarry Road and near the hospital previously. With this design, you can see, on the left hand side was the previous design that the shelters include – and I’ll scroll in a little bit so it’s a little more apparent – on the left hand side you see these structural beams that are coming here, and this wood panel underneath. On the right hand side, you’ll see now that the structure presented is much more open. There’s a greater [distortion] amount of glass on each of the sides and on the roof material, to allow for more light and transparency, as the Board had asked for previously. We can also see a photo simulation of what the structures would be looking like at nighttime, as well. That concludes my presentation. Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Garrett. Any questions? Do we have a staff presentation, or was that the applicant presentation as well? Mr. Sauls: The applicant will be presenting as well. Vinh, if you could enable Jason McCarthy and Jamie Jarvis to present, and have their audio visible. Mr. Nguyen: Okay. If those two could unmute their microphone, you can speak. Chair Baltay: Welcome. Please state and spell your name for the record. You’ll have 10 minutes. Thank you. Jamie Jarvis: Hi, this is Jamie Jarvis, just confirming that you can hear me. Chair Baltay: Yes, we can hear you. Ms. Jarvis: All right. I hope I’m sharing my screen. Oh, Jason has his screen on, so that will work. Thank you for having us here today, and Garrett, thank you for that introduction. My name is Jamie Jarvis. Jason, if you could advance to the next screen. [spells name] I’m the Director of sustainable transportation programs for the Research Park. I’ve developed and managed the commuter transportation program for the Research Park the past four years, and would like to spend just a few minutes reacquainting you with the context for a bus shelter project. And then, Jason McCarthy will present our new shelter design. Next slide, Jason. The Stanford Research Park Transportation Program is known as SRPGO and provides comprehensive commuter transportation service to 140 companies and approximately 29,000 employees in the Research Park. To support transit use, Stanford and our tenant companies purchased discounted smart passes that provide free fair on all VTA and Dumbarton express buses. We also provide free shuttles from the Palo Alto and California Avenue Caltrans stations, and we fill gap in public transit service with SRPGO long distance commute buses. Next slide, Jason. Our efforts have reduced solo driving by 10 percentage points over three years, and nearly double transit use, from 4.a Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Page 40 6 percent to 11 percent. We’re very proud of these accomplishments and are committed to further increasing the use of alternatives. However, we feel the current state of the bus stops throughout the Research Park limits our ability to increase transit use. Next slide. We currently have a mishmash of aging and unattractive shelters, and some of our most well-used transit stops have no shelter at all. Next slide. We believe attractive, functional bus shelters are key to attracting new transit riders, and for this reason, we propose to install new high-quality bus shelters at three locations along interior roads in the Research Park. When we first presented this project to you last December, you were supportive of having new bus shelters in the Research Park, but weren’t thrilled with our custom design, and specifically asked for a lighter and more modern shelter. The shelter we’re proposing to you today is a landscape forms design that we believe reflects your guidance. The shelter is already installed in two locations in Palo Alto along Quarry Road, and has also been specified as a condition of approval for the 3223 Hanover project. We envision that this shelter will become the preferred option for future shelter replacements and additions in Stanford Research Park. I appreciate you allowing me to provide the context for our shelter project, and at this time, I’d like to introduce Jason McCarthy, Principal at Studios Architecture, to present the design. Jason McCarthy, Studios Architecture: Thank you, Jamie. It’s a pleasure to be with you and present this on behalf of Stanford. We’ve been working carefully with Stanford on the development of the design and essentially exploring options, following up on the conversation and the discussion that was held in the first hearing. What we’re coming forward with today we think addresses all of Stanford’s goals for the project in terms of the transportation goals that Jamie has outlined, and we think also really helps address all of the important topics that were raised in the initial hearing. Principally, what we think we’re proposing is a very light structure, something that is very elegant in design and engineering, very contemporary in feel, that’s a complement to the other buildings in the Research Park, or the buildings in the Research Park, in the sense that it’s appropriate to the context, and also, the material sensibility that you find in adjacent structures nearby. The structure itself is an aluminum frame, which is very thin design, very elegant, and that supports a glass surround and a glass canopy, which we think will really allow for a lot of light, a lot of transparency. A very welcoming design that we think ultimately will support and attract greater ridership in the Research Park, and ultimately, create a great addition to the street scape on the sites that are proposed here. A little bit more about the design that’s proposed. We are including a small photovoltaic array on the roof of the canopy, if you will, and that photovoltaic helps this shelter operate off-grid, so the lighting that’s integrated into the structure will be energized by this photovoltaic array. Very low energy consumption system, and very high sustainability in keeping with what we think are the goals of Palo Alto, and Stanford more broadly. Again, the glass surround is very transparent glazing with distraction dots for safety. We think that high transparency allows for a lot of natural light, but also provides safety from a visibility standpoint. We think it’s very functional in terms of ease of maintenance. The glass of the canopy has a translucency to it, so that provides a good amount of shade while still bringing a lot of natural light through, creating a comfort for the rider who is waiting for their bus. The materials proposed, again, are very simple and elegant, we think. Very forward-looking palette. The silver metallic frame and other metal components of the shelter is sort of a primary material, which we feel is timeless and consistent with the feel of the Research Park in general, and these sites. That metallic framing element is accented by the IPE that you see on the wood bench, and then, the black plastic trash and recycling containers in that receptacle design. There’s a couple of additional images we have of… This is the landscape 2.0 shelter design that we’re proposing, and the silver metallic frame. Just wanted to share these images to give you a better sense of the refined engineering that we find. We were just really drawn to this shelter design and felt that it was going to be a great addition to the Research Park. The materials that are proposed, the IPE gives a warmth to the overall design, making it very attractive and welcoming, but again, it’s a very durable material that can be maintained relatively simply. And then, further images reflecting the overall quality of the engineering behind these products and their specification. We hope that all of this is in keeping with the level of quality that you see more broadly in the Research Park, and ultimately, we hope that you’ll agree that what we’ve proposed is a very elegant solution for an important function in the Research Park, and beyond. With that, that concludes our presentation. We’re happy to address any questions that you may have. I’ll stop at that point. I’ll stop sharing, I suppose, so the staff can take back over. 4.a Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Page 41 Chair Baltay: Thank you very much, Jason. Any questions of the applicant from the Board members? No? Okay. Do we have any public comments? I’ll open the meeting to public comment. Vinh, anything? Mr. Nguyen: Chair Baltay, we do not have any public comment at this time? Chair Baltay: If anyone wishes to address us, now is the time. Okay, I’ll close the meeting to public comment and bring it back to the Board. Alex, why don’t you take us along, if we have to. I’m envisioning we can approve this fairly quickly, but go ahead, Alex. MOTION Board Member Lew: I’ll move that we recommend approval to the Director of Planning. Chair Baltay: Anyone care to second that? Board Member Hirsch: No comment, you mean, or what? Chair Baltay: That’s basically what he said, yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I want to just congratulate the team on what they presented before we vote it in. Chair Baltay: Why don’t you second the motion, and then, comment on it? Board Member Hirsch: All right, I’ll second the motion. Chair Baltay: Would you care to address the motion you just seconded? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I would. Chair Baltay: Go ahead. Board Member Hirsch: Well, I’m kind of thrilled by this one. (inaudible) the qualities that (inaudible). The detail of that shelter is really amazing (inaudible). I’m really concerned about the IPE and the structure (inaudible) if it’s in use, I’m okay with it. The glass panel isn’t really shown as being as transparent as it was shown in the rendering. Will it be more transparent in some (inaudible) than others? I don’t understand that. (inaudible) could respond (inaudible)…. Mr. McCarthy: The renderings that we shared, the computer renderings, you know, it’s a tricky thing to get the computer to show glass accurately sometimes, but it is a fairly transparent glass. The photos that we shared today I think are more representative. The renderings actually suggest something more translucent rather than clear. We just wanted you to know there is glass there, because if you make it go too clear on the computer, it kind of disappears from view. We may have over-tweaked the glass. The photos are a better representation. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. It’s just a very good choice. (inaudible…..) One question (inaudible). It looks like that’s a very steep site… (inaudible) …In which case it would look a little different than it does (inaudible). Can you answer that one, Jason? Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, it is a sloping site, and in each of these sites, there’s some slope to the hillside, as you find throughout the Research Park. But for each of these sites, we’re able to create a leveling, if you will, by addressing a little bit up hill and a little bit downhill. We’re able to create a level area for the shelter itself that allows us to meet the accessibility requirements and so forth. Board Member Hirsch: What happens with the supports that are around the perimeter (inaudible)? 4.a Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto Page 42 Mr. McCarthy: They’re generally within that leveled portion, so the area of the shelter and the surrounding sidewalk will be at a minimal cross-slope for drainage, for accessibility compliance. Is that answering your question? Board Member Hirsch: Inside (inaudible) size, basically you take (inaudible) accommodate the slope, is there some way to adjust the size of the slope? Mr. McCarthy: Yeah, there’s a detail for the footing that will allow them to level this in the field. I don’t think we have that detail shown, but I think they anticipate that there’s a certain amount of finessing this to fit to the contours of the slope. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. (inaudible) explore that (inaudible). Okay. I’m fine with it. Chair Baltay: Thank you, David. The motion has been made and seconded. Vinh, could we have a roll call vote, please? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lew (3) No: (0) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 3-0. Chair Baltay: Motion carries 3-0. Thank you very much. Congratulations. It’s a great design. Mr. McCarthy: Thank you. Study session/Preliminary review Chair Baltay: Okay, let’s move on to study session/preliminary review. I don’t think we have anything, do we, Jodie? Ms. Gerhardt: No. We have the minutes, which would be next. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 16, 2020 Chair Baltay: Okay, next is approval of minutes. Does anyone have any comments about the minutes from the meeting of April 16th of this year? Alex, you must have something. Board Member Lew: I’ve looked at the minutes, I have no comments. Chair Baltay: I have no comments. Board Member Hirsch: David, anything else? Board Member Hirsch: No comments. Chair Baltay: David, make us a motion. MOTION Board Member Hirsch: I make a motion that we adjourn. Chair Baltay: Your motion…? 4.a Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto Page 43 Board Member Hirsch: You want me to motion that we accept the minutes. (inaudible) Chair Baltay: I think I heard you say you move that we accept the minutes. I second that motion. Vinh, call the vote, please. Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lew (3) No: (0) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 3-0. Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you very much. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay: The North Ventura Plan, anything for us, Alex? Board Member Lew: The next meeting is on May 26th, this Tuesday, at 5:30. It will be via Zoom, and the agenda is available at PaloaltoNVCAP.org. Chair Baltay: Okay, so there’s nothing new. We’re waiting for that meeting to take place. Board Member Lew: Nothing has happened since the last ARB meeting. Chair Baltay: Great. Okay. Then we’re all set. The meeting is adjourned. We’re going to move to a subcommittee meeting. Thank you very much everybody. Adjournment Subcommittee Items 6. 4256 El Camino Real [18PLN-00096]: Subcommittee Review of a Project Previously Recommended for Approval, with a Recommendation that the Following Items Return: Enhanced Renderings, Consider a Lighter Color Palette, Provide Ceiling Details for the Porte-Cochere, Reduce the Stair Tower Height to the Lowest Feasible Point. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. 4.a Packet Pg. 117 City of Palo Alto Page 44 PLANNER’S SIGNATURE Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Review Memo Randy Popp/Randolph Popp ARCHITECT, 904 High Street, Palo Alto, CA 94301 4256 El Camino Real [18PLN-00096] New Hotel May 28, 2020 Samuel Gutierrez, Planner On January 16, 2020, the ARB recommended approval to the Director of Planning & Development Services for the subject project while conditioning that certain project elements return for review by a subcommittee of the ARB. Rather than waiting to respond to a potential condition of approval, the applicant submitted certain project elements for ARB subcommittee review prior to Director’s decision on the application. On May 21, 2020, ARB Subcommittee comprised of Board Chair Peter Balty and Board Member Alex Lew, reviewed the plans and material samples dated received on May 1, 2020, in accordance with ARB conditioned items below that were to return to the ARB Subcommittee: A. Provide updated renderings that more clearly indicate the color and materials for the project, while showing the required rear massing change. B. Revise the stair tower to be as low as possible (west elevation). C. Ceiling details for the Porte-Cochere design. At the meeting, the Subcommittee reviewed the following revisions presented by the applicant. A. The applicant has updated the plans (Sheet A5.4) to include photographs of similar projects using the materials that have been proposed. The applicant maintained the color and materials selection previously review by the ARB on January 16, 2020, as the updated plan set renderings better portrayed said color and materials selection, believe this would address the ARB concerns. The updated ARB subcommittee plans included rear massing change per the ARB’s recommendation of approval and the project now shows 96 rooms total. B. The applicant studied the stair tower, which is at the lowest height possible without visually exposing the stair and railings. The Subcommittee plans have been updated to included information about height on sheet A4.1. C. The Porte Cochere ceiling is illustrated in more detail within the Subcommittee on sheet A5.3 where reference to materials, lighting, and a diagrammatic detail are shown. The Subcommittee recommended approval of the changes and revision as presented by the applicant to the Director. The applicant shall ensure these changes are incorporated into the final construction design and this Subcommittee Review Memo shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s) along with the approval letter for the project. TO: SUBJECT: DATE: FROM: 4.a Packet Pg. 118 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11459) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 7/2/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of June 4, 2020 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Subcommittee Meeting Minutes for June 4, 2020 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the June 4, 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 Attachments: x Attachment A: June 4, 2020 Draft Minutes (PDF) 5 Packet Pg. 119 5.a Packet Pg. 120 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11432) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 7/2/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 620 Emerson Street: Subcommittee Review of Details for Metal Gates/Grates Title: 620 Emerson Street (19PLN-0326): Subcommittee Review of Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return with Details on the Design, Pattern, and Material Samples for the Bronze Metal Gates and Grate Proposed Along the Front Façade. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Guideline Section 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Downtown 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 take one of the following actions: 1. Discuss and recommend that the Director find the submittal meets Condition of Approval #5; or 2. Provide additional direction to the applicant and continue the item. Background On May 4, 2020, the Director of Planning & Development Services approved the subject project. At the ARB’s recommendation, staff imposed a condition that required review of certain project elements by the ARB subcommittee. Links to the April 16, 2020 staff report1, minutes2 and 1 Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76188 2 Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76706 6 Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 video3 are provided. The items for subcommittee review and the applicant’s response to the ARB’s comments are provided below. Discussion/Analysis Condition of Approval #5 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 & Development Services: a. A detailed design/pattern, and material samples, shall be provided for the bronze metal gates and grate proposed along the front façade. Applicant’s Response: The applicant has developed drawings and images to provide greater detail for the decorative bronze screen at the facade of 620 Emerson Street. Page 1 shows the approved overall view of the facade. Page 2 shows a rendering taken from the sidewalk that displays the depth and rhythm of the bronze screen. The planting images have been faded so the screen can more clearly be seen in the diagrammatic view. Page 3 is a drawing (A5.13) that offers more information on the layout and dimensions of the screen. Page 4 shows images of the proposed oil-rubbed bronze material. Included in the plan set are photographs of the bronze to show the materials in lieu of being physically present. Staff Analysis: With the additional details provided staff believes the design of the gates/grate is consistent with the quality and overall design of the approved project. The subcommittee is encouraged to affirm the submittal meet Approval Condition #5 and provide such a recommendation to the Director. Otherwise, the subcommittee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal requires further refinement. 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 Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Applicant Response Memo (PDF) x Attachment C: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-4162020/ 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 122 120-26-073 120-27-023 120-27-013 120-26-081 120-26-074 120-27-016 120-27-024 120-27-035 120-27-036 120-27-026 120-26-082 120-26-097 120-26-075 120-26-073 120-27-022 120-26-083 120-26-080 120-26-079 120-27-003 120-27-039 120-27-002 120-27-004 120-27-005 120-26-084 120-27-025 120-27-020 120-27-009 120-27-071 120-27-084 120-27-074 City Hall Peninsula Creamery Mac'sS mokeshop Wasson Building 100.0' 125.0' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 100.0' 12.5' 125.0' 112.5' 225.0' 100.0' 125.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 90.0' 25.0' 90.0' 25.0' 90.0' 50.0' 90.0' 50.0' 100.0' 2.5'10.0' 47.5' 90.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 112.5' 0' 50.0' 148.0' 100.0' 0' 0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 95.0' 20.5'5.0' 79.5' 90.0' 150.0' 105.0' 275.0' 275.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 100.0' 105.0' 37.5' 100.0' 37.5' 100.0' 62.5' 100.0' 62.5' 100.0' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 25.0' 102.5' 25.0' 102.5' 18.0' 102.5' 23.0' 97.5' 7.1' 45.0' 97.5' 7.1' 40.0' 102.5' 125.0' 102.5'125.0' 102.5' 40.0' 102.5' 25.0'2.5' 15.0' 100.0' 85.0' 100.0' 85.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 40.0' 102.5' 40.0' 102.5' 30.0' 102.5' 30.0' 102.5' 30.0' 102.5' 30.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 25.0'7.5' 40.0' 102.5' 65.0' 95.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 225.0' 218.0' 400.0' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 90.0' 225.0' 200.0' 102.5'110.0' 122.5' 25.0' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 25.0' 90.0' 12.5' 16.8' 101.2' 25.0' 101.3' 16.8'12.5' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 15.0' 112.5' 15.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 5040.0' 100.0'114.0' 50.0 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0'100.0' 150.0' 175.0' 112.5' 50.0' 37.5' 25.0' 25.0' 200.0' 2000 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 105.0' 50.0' 50.0' 22 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 200.0' 100.0' 12.5' 100.0' 125.0' 85.0' 59.0'85.0' 59.0' 85.0' 66.0'85.0' 66.0' E M ERSO N STR EET E M E RS O N STR EET R E ET HIGH STREETHAMI L T ON AVE N UE H AMI L T ON AVEN UE E M ER S O N STR EET F O REST AVE NU E R A M O NA ST REET LANE 7 EAST LA N E 5 EAST LANE 6 EA ST 12 W EST LA N E 11 W EST ALM A STRE ET VEN UE PC-29 CD-C (P) PF PF PF C D-S(P) RT-35RT-50 CD-C (P) CD-C(GF)(P) C D-S(GF)(P) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Historic Site Special Setback Near Creek (SCVWD) abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes Curb Edge Current Features 0' 111' 62 0 E m e r s o n S t r e e t CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sgutier, 2018-01-03 12:46:54 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) ( P H U V R Q 6.a Packet Pg. 123 www.montalbaarchitects.com MEMORANDUM DATE TO FROM PROJECT RE NOTE ENCL June 16th, 2020 City of Palo Alto – Architectural Review Board Kyle Engoian – Montalba Architects, Inc. NOBU GARDEN RESTAURANT – 620 EMERSON STREET, PALO ALTO, CA 94301 ARB SUBCOMMITTEE MEETING FOR APPROVED PROJECT (19PLN-00326) Please see below for our team’s response to the ARB’s condition of approval. Excerpt from Conditions of Approval / Planning Division: 5. 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 & Development Services: a. A detailed design/pattern, and material samples, shall be provided for the bronze metal gates and grate proposed along the front facade. Response from Montalba Architects, Inc.: In response to this condition, our team has developed drawings and images to provide greater detail for the decorative bronze screen at the facade of 620 Emerson Street. Page 1 of the enclosed PDF introduces the project as it was presented during the ARB hearing, with an overall view of the facade. Page 2 shows a rendering taken from the sidewalk that displays the depth and rhythm of the bronze screen. During the hearing, board members noted that it was difficult to see the screen through the plantings, so we’ve faded them out to create a more clear, diagrammatic view. Page 3 is a drawing (A5.13) from our recently submitted Plan Check set which offers more information on the layout and dimensions of the screen. Page 4 shows images of oil-rubbed bronze samples. As previously discussed with Samuel Gutierrez, due to the meeting likely being conducted over video conference, we are including photographs of the bronze as the best way to show the materials in lieu of being physically present. Thank you, Kyle Engoian Montalba Architects, Inc. 2020.06.05 NOBU PA620G_ arb subcommittee presentation.pdf 6.b Packet Pg. 124 Attachment C Project Plans During Shelter-in-Place plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “620 Emerson” 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://bit.ly/620EMERSON19 6.c Packet Pg. 125 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11427) Report Type: Subcommittee Items Meeting Date: 7/2/2020 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3215 Porter Drive: Subcommittee Review of Rear Balcony and Materials Title: 3215 Porter Drive [19PLN-00220]: Subcommittee Review of a Previously Approved Project That was Conditioned to Return With Additional Details Related to Building Facade Materials and the Rear Stairway/Balcony. Environmental Assessment: Mitigated Negative Declaration. Zoning District: RP (Research Park). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Subcommittee take one of the following action(s): 1. Discuss the details and revisions and recommend that the Director find that they meet the approval conditions and align with the approval findings; or 2. Provide additional direction to the project applicant and continue the item to a later date. Background On May 14, 2020, the Director of Planning and Development Services approved the subject project. On May 7, 2020, at the ARB’s recommendation during the second hearing for the project, staff included Condition of Approval #4 requiring certain project elements return to the ARB subcommittee.1 Condition of approval #4 required the submittal of details for ARB Subcommittee review noted below, along with the applicant’s responses. 1 ARB hearing May 7, 2020] x Link to Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76486. x Link to Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-572020/ 7 Packet Pg. 126 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Condition of Approval #4a Make the color and materials board available to the ARB Subcommittee and the public. Applicant’s Response: The applicant has provided photographs of the color and materials board. The five-panel “mock-up” of full-scale physical metal panel samples is provided to give a better sense of proposed silver metallic color and satin finish, quality of material, concealed fastener design, depth of profiled metal panel, etc. In addition to the photograph of the materials proposed, metal panel precedent images are included for reference. These are each different in scale and not the exact profile or color proposed. The applicant believes these images, together with project specific renderings, enable the ARB subcommittee to appreciate the nature of the proposed profiled metal panel layout. Staff Analysis: The photos enable a clear understanding of the color and finish materials proposed for this project. The applicant has also prepared a video to show how the materials react in light, and to illustrate their depth. In addition, staff will make the materials board available to the public by placing it in the King Plaza elevator display case. Staff believes this effort satisfies Condition of Approval #4a. Condition of Approval #4b: Provide additional details of the rear stairs, showing drainage details, railing detail, and connections between different materials. Applicant’s Response: Details are provided on sheets 11-14, which show an illustrated stair design developed in response to ARB Hearing comments. The design proposal includes: x a pre-cast concrete tread and riser with cantilevered edge over under-slung tube steel stringer design x a white, painted metal bar stanchion and top rail support x a stainless-steel handrail and stainless-steel cable rail infill for guardrails x stair guardrails with clean lines to transition smoothly with the glazed guardrail proposed at the balcony edge The applicant notes “the openness of the detailing is consistent with the overall building quality and aesthetic, and the lightness of the components proposed are an elegant compliment to the very simple balcony edge.” Staff Analysis: 7 Packet Pg. 127 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Staff believes the applicant has satisfied Condition of Approval #4b, by providing sufficient evidence showing how the railing will work and connect with the adjacent materials on site. Condition of Approval #4c: Provide a detail for the edge of the metal panels to show how they join together. Applicant’s Response: Details provided on sheets 5-9 illustrate metal panel joining together and concealed fastening to perimeter framing. In addition, the applicant provided a section through the soffit to illustrate metal panel transition between levels, and other transitions. Staff Analysis: Staff believes the applicant has satisfied Condition of Approval #4c, by providing sufficient evidence to demonstrate how the inner workings of the metal panels will not be visible at corners, nor visible where the panels join with dissimilar materials. Condition of Approval #4d: Provide details of how different materials join/come together, especially where the facia meets the windows. Applicant’s Response: The details illustrate dark grey metal window frames and trim panel at punched openings. Panels are detailed with flexibility to allow for a consistent reveal profile around metal frame transition. Staff Analysis: Staff believes the applicant has satisfied Condition of Approval #4d, by providing sufficient evidence to address the ARB members’ concerns. The ARB Subcommittee is encouraged to affirm these submittals meet Approval Condition #4. Otherwise, the ARB Subcommittee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal requires further refinement. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2471 (650) 329-2575 Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Applicant's Response to ARB Comments (PDF) x Attachment C: Materials Board Image (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 7 Packet Pg. 128 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 x Attachment D: Project Plans (DOCX) 7 Packet Pg. 129 319.7' 796.9' 396.3' 241.7' 379.9' 144.9' 46.6' 129.0' 382.7' 191.4' 383.3' 62.8' 329.5' 158.0' 360.3' 191.5' 77.5' 52.9' 62.8' 273.6' 360.3' 300.0'300.0' 15 21 8.4' 168.2' 158.0' 160.0' 198.0' 160.0' 198.0' 160.0' 198.0' 605.5' 382.7' 43.5' 3181 3221 3200 3 3350 3215 3183 3 2 0 1 HANOVERSTREET HILLVIE W AVENUE PO RTE R D RIV E PORTER DRIVE PFHanover Substation This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages abc Building Roof Outline abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels Tree Current Features 0' 91' 3215 Porter Drive CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2020-01-08 08:50:58 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 53 7.a Packet Pg. 130 June 4, 2020 To: Garrett Sauls City of Palo Alto, Planning Department 285 Hamilton Ave Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 3215 Porter Drive, Palo Alto California ARB Subcommittee Dear Garrett, The subcommittee items for review are noted below with a brief narrative summary of the design team response in support of the graphics package provided. We welcome any questions or suggestions and look forward to the ARB Subcommittee hearing coming up shortly. 1. Color and materials board – need better understanding of metal panel in particular. SA Response: Outdoor photograph of five-panel “mock-up” of full-scale physical metal panel samples provided to provide a better sense of proposed silver metallic color and satin finish, quality of material, concealed fastener design, depth of profiled metal panel, etc. In addition to the photograph of the materials proposed, a series of metal panel precedent images is included for reference. These are each different in scale and not the exact profile or color proposed, but we felt that these, together with our project specific renderings, could help the ARB to appreciate the nature of the proposed profiled metal panel layout. 2. Detail for edge of metal panels / how they join together SA Response: Details provided illustrate metal panel joining together and concealed fastening to perimeter framing. Section through soffit illustrate metal panel transition between levels, etc. 3. Details of how different materials join / come together, especially where fascia meets windows: SA Response: Details provided illustrate dark grey metal window frames and trim panel at punched openings. Panels are detailed with flexibility to allow for a consistent reveal profile around metal frame transition. 4. Details of Rear stairs - especially need railing detail, how different materials connect. SA Response: Details provided illustrating stair design developed in response to first ARB Hearing comments. The design proposed includes a pre-cast concrete tread and 350 California Street 21st Floor San Francisco, CA 94104 415 398 7575 www.studios.com 7.b Packet Pg. 131 riser with cantilevered edge over under-slung tube steel stringer design. White painted metal bar stanchion and top rail support stainless steel handrail and stainless steel cable rail infill for guardrails. Stair guardrails are developed with clean lines to transition smoothly with the glazed guardrail proposed at the balcony edge. We hope you will find the open-ness of the detailing is consistent with the overall building quality and aesthetic and that the lightness of the components proposed are an elegant compliment to the very simple balcony edge. Again, we sincerely appreciate your consideration of these responses and are looking forward to the Subcommittee review. Warm regards, Jason McCarthy, AIA Principal 7.b Packet Pg. 132 7/2/20203215 PORTER DRIVE ARB SUBCOMMITTEE PRESENTATION 23 GLASS P2 SILVER METAL ACCENT & MULLION WOOD SLAT SOFFITPAVERS AT BALCONY PEDESTRIAN TILE SILVER METAL PANEL P1 WHITE STRUCTURAL & ACCENT METAL VEHICULAR ACCENT PAVING PEDESTRIAN ACCENT PAVING P3 GREY METAL ACCENT 7.c Packet Pg. 133 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 “3215 Porter Drive” 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=4766&TargetID=319 7.d Packet Pg. 134