The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-02-17 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: February 17, 2022 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 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 live on Cable TV Channel 26 or 29 of the Midpen Media Center at bit.ly/MidPenwatchnow. 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. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Call to Order / Roll Call 1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency 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 2.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3.525 E. Charleston Road [21PLN-00329]: Study Session on a Proposed Mixed-Use Project That Includes 2,750 Square Feet of Ground Floor Office for Non-Profit Use _______________________ 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. and 50 Units of 100 Percent Affordable Rental Housing, 50 Percent of Which Will be for Residents with Special Needs, on a 0.78-Acre Site. Environmental Assessment: The project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guideline Section 15268. Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Stan Ketchum, at sketchum@m-group.us. 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 4. ARB Awards: Consider Seven (7) Additional Eligible Projects and Reaffirm/Decide on the Award Winners Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2021 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2022 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 7. California Avenue Street Improvements / Parklets 8. Objective Standards Checklist and Update Adjournment _______________________ 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 Osma Thompson Vice Chair David Hirsch Boardmember Peter Baltay 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. Please read the following instructions carefully. • 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. • 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. • 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. • 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 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. 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. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 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 # 14021) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/17/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board Meetings Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency. Background In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act, effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days. AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances: (A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. (B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B) (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).) In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider the state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1, 2021, and at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances exists: 1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person. 2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. 1 Packet Pg. 6 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Discussion At this time, the circumstances in Section 54953(e)( 1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. (See August 2, 2021 Order.) In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other social distancing measures. Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing are protected. To comply with public health directives and promote public safety, Palo Alto policy bodies have been meeting via teleconference since March 2020. On September 27, 2021, the City Council considered the format for future Council, committee, and Board and Commission meetings. Council determined that beginning November 1, 2021, Council meetings would be conducted using a hybrid format that allows Council Members and the public to decide whether to attend in person, following masking and distancing protocols, or participate via teleconference. Council directed that Council standing and ad-hoc committees and Boards and Commissions would continue meeting via teleconference until January 2022. On December 13, 2021, Council directed that Council committees and Boards and Commissions would continue meeting via teleconference through February 2022. Adoption of the Resolution at Attachment A will make the findings required by Section 54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees. Attachments: • Attachment A: Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing Under Government Code Section 54953(e) for Meetings of Architectural Review Board (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 7 NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. ____ Resolution Making Findings to Allow Teleconferenced Meetings Under California Government Code Section 54953(e) R E C I T A L S A. California Government Code Section 54953(e) empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act so long as certain conditions are met; and B. In March 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency in California in connection with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, and that state of emergency remains in effect; and C. In February 2020, the Santa Clara County Director of Emergency Services and the Santa Clara County Health Officer declared a local emergency, which declarations were subsequently ratified and extended by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and those declarations also remain in effect; and D. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days; and E. While federal, State, and local health officials emphasize the critical importance of vaccination and consistent mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Santa Clara County Health Officer has issued at least one order, on August 2, 2021 (available online at here), that continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts; and F. The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other social distancing measures; and G. The Architectural Review Board has met remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and can continue to do so in a manner that allows public participation and transparency while minimizing health risks to members, staff, and the public that would be present with in-person meetings while this emergency continues; now, therefore, 1.a Packet Pg. 8 NOT YET APPROVED The Architectural Review Board RESOLVES as follows: 1. As described above, the State of California remains in a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At this meeting, the Architectural Review Board has considered the circumstances of the state of emergency. 2. As described above, State and County officials continue to recommend measures to promote physical distancing and other social distancing measures, in some settings. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That for at least the next 30 days, meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees will occur using teleconferencing technology. Such meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees that occur using teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who wish to address the body and its committees and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Architectural Review Board staff liaison is directed to place a resolution substantially similar to this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of the Architectural Review Board within the next 30 days. If the Architectural Review Board does not meet within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place a such resolution on the agenda of the immediately following meeting of the Architectural Review Board. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Staff Liaison Chair of Architectural Review Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney Department Head 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 14023) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 2/17/2022 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 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments: • Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) • Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 11 Architectural Review Board 2022 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2022 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 01/20/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 02/03/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 02/17/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 03/03/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 03/17/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 04/07/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 04/21/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 05/05/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 05/19/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 05/20/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 06/02/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 06/16/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 07/07/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 07/21/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 08/04/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 08/18/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 09/01/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 09/15/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/06/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/20/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/03/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/17/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/01/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/15/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2022 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June July August September October November December 2.a Packet Pg. 12 Architectural Review Board 2022 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics March 3, 2022 • 901 South California Avenue: Replacement Office/R&D Building • 250 Cambridge Avenue: Façade Improvements & DEE • ARB Feedback on Objective Design Standards • ARB Workplan and Annual Report 2.b Packet Pg. 13 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13938) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 2/17/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 525 E Charleston: Mixed Use, Affordable Housing and Office Uses Title: 525 E. Charleston Road [21PLN-00329]: Study Session on a Proposed Mixed-Use Project That Includes 2,750 Square Feet of Ground Floor Office for Non-Profit Use and 50 Units of 100 Percent Affordable Rental Housing, 50 Percent of Which Will be for Residents with Special Needs, on a 0.78-Acre Site. Environmental Assessment: The project exempt from CEQA pursuant to Guideline Section 15268. Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Stan Ketchum, at sketchum@m-group.us. From: Jonathan Lait Report Summary This study session is provided as a courtesy to share with the ARB and community the proposed 100% affordable housing project at the subject address. The project includes 50 deed-restricted low- and very low-income units (30% and 60% of area median income), including 25 units reserved for special needs housing, otherwise known as supportive housing. A nonprofit space (for AbilityPath) of 2,750 square feet will also provide community support services to developmentally and intellectually disabled residents living on-site and to other clients living off-site. The application has been submitted consistent with State Housing Law AB2162, also known as the Supportive Housing Act, that requires streamlined application review for certain qualifying housing projects. As a result, the City is allowed only ‘ministerial’ review, and the ARB’s role is advisory only. The ARB is encouraged to provide comments regarding the proposed design for consideration by the applicant. The affordable project qualifies for up to four concessions, or changes to the objective development standards, to accommodate the development in accordance with the State 3 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Density Bonus allowances. The applicant has requested three concessions to allow for increases to height, lot coverage, and floor area. Existing State law also exempts the project from any residential parking requirements. The project will provide 11 spaces for the non-profit office space, consistent with City standards, and nine additional spaces on the 0.78-acre site. City staff is in discussion with the developer about providing financial assistance to the project. An initial figure of $2 million has been discussed but has not been finalized. In the interim, City staff is looking at state and federal funding programs to maximize the City’s potential contribution. Background Project Information Owner: County of Santa Clara Architect: Kate Conley, AIA, Architects FORA Representative: Kate Blessing-Kawamura, Eden Housing Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 525 E. Charleston Road Neighborhood: Near Meadow Park and Greenmeadow Lot Dimensions & Area: 222.97 ft x 153 ft (34,114 sf/0.78 acres) Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Not applicable Historic Resource(s): Not applicable Existing Improvement(s): Single-story office building; constructed 1954; approx. 4,400 sf Existing Land Use(s): office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Challenger School (PF Zoning) West: Multi-use trail & Universal Unitarian Church of Palo Alto (R-1 Zoning East: Challenger School (PF Zoning) South: Single-family residential (R-1 Zoning) Charleston Shopping Center (CN Zoning) Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Google Maps, 2021 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: PF (Public Facilities) Comp. Plan Designation: Major Institutions, Special Facilities (MISP) Context-Based Design Criteria: Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable 3 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: September 27, 2021 Study Session with Council Agenda/Staff Report: https://bit.ly/092721Council (see page 7) Minutes: https://bit.ly/092721Minutes PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Background The State of California and the County of Santa Clara have identified housing, particularly affordable housing, as one of its highest priorities. Consistent with these state and regional goals, one of Council’s identified priorities for 2021 includes “housing for social and economic balance,” which includes a focus on affordable and workforce housing, funding, and achievable plans. The proposed project addresses both lower income and special needs housing, consistent with this identified priority. Project Description The applicant proposes to utilize existing state regulations to streamline the processing of the proposed project and to allow for increased development opportunities to support the proposed density. Relevant legislation that the applicant may utilize includes AB 2162, AB 1763, and SB 330. Attachment E includes a summary of these bills. Under AB2162, the City has 60 days from the date the project application is deemed complete to complete its review of the application. CA Government Code Section 65653(a) states: “The local government shall approve a supportive housing development that complies with the applicable requirements of this article”. Staff analysis has confirmed that the project does comply with such provisions. Eden Housing, in coordination with the County, is proposing a single mixed-use structure, which would replace one existing approximately 4,000 sf non-profit office building. The 45,360 square foot (sf) proposed development would include 2,750 sf of non-profit office space as well as 50 residential rental units (further described in Attachment B). The three upper levels would be exclusively residential, while the ground floor would be non-profit office and residential. The site includes a single parcel with a site area of 34,114 sf (0.78 acres). The non-profit office space would continue to be occupied by AbilityPath, a local non-profit that provides services to children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. All the residential rental units (except for one manager’s unit) would be restricted to be affordable to lower income households earning between 30% and 60% of Area Median Income (AMI). The project would meet the Health and Safety Code definition of “special needs housing”, meaning that it would include dedicated units and supportive services to benefit the target populations of special needs housing. Fifty percent (50%) of the units would be dedicated for special needs housing and AbilityPath would provide supportive services for residents with special needs. 3 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 The proposed building is predominantly four stories with a height of 49 feet, with a three-story portion reaching a height of 37 feet facing E. Charleston Road. The building includes at-grade parking facilities (20 spaces) on the eastern side of the property, adjacent to Challenger School. The site currently has two driveway curb cuts providing a separate entrance and exit; the curb cut on the westerly side of the site would be removed while the other curb cut would be widened to provide a single point of entry and exit on the eastern side of the property from E. Charleston Road. Location and Surrounding Uses The subject property is about 300 feet from the channelized Adobe Creek. The nearest single- family residential neighborhoods are Greenmeadow (at 85 feet), and Charleston Terrace (at 330 feet). The site is surrounded on three sides (north, east, and west) by the Challenger School campus. A bike path adjacent on the west side of the site connects E. Charleston Road to the school campus. The path continues through to the Magical Bridge Playground (a playground specifically designed to be inclusive for those with intellectual and development disabilities), Mitchell Park, and the Mitchell Park Community Center and Library. On the opposite side of this bike path is parcel with a single-story church on the site. The Stevenson House senior independent living (Planned Community) is located on the other side of the church property, approximately 340 feet away from the subject property. Across E. Charleston Road is the Charleston Shopping Center at the corner of Middlefield and East Charleston. At the corners of Nelson Drive and E. Charleston Road are single-family residences. These properties and others along Nelson are part of the National Register-listed Greenmeadow Eichler tract. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The proposed project is a qualifying affordable housing project under AB2162 and is eligible for streamlined, ministerial review by the City. As a result, the ARB may provide comments on the project’s conformance with objective standards. All other comments will be advisory and for the applicant’s consideration. No discretionary action by the ARB is allowed. City Staff have performed design review and provided comments to the applicants based on Objective Standards. Subsequent to the ARB meeting, and following any final revisions submitted by the applicants, the Director of Planning and Development Services will issue a letter to the applicant documenting the final acceptance of the project. The applicant will be required to enter into a regulatory agreement with the City documenting the basis for the Density Bonus concessions incorporated into the project. Analysis1 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Major Institutions, Special Facilities (MISP), which allows: 3 Packet Pg. 18 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 “Institutional, academic, governmental and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as non-profit organizations. Examples are hospitals and City facilities. Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s encouragement of housing near transit centers, higher density multi-family housing may be allowed in specific locations”. The proposed project is considered consistent with this Comprehensive Plan designation, in that the land is publicly owned and intended to be leased to two non-profit entities to provide community services. Eden Housing would manage the affordable units and AbilityPath would provide services for special needs housing. There are no specific plans or coordinated area plans that apply to the project site. While only discretionary review projects must comply with the following Comprehensive Plan policies and programs, it should be noted, the proposed project is consistent with the following policies or programs: • A Sustainable Community Program L2.4.8 – Identify development opportunities for BMR (Below Market Rate) and more affordable market rate housing on publicly-owned properties in a way that is integrated with and enhances existing neighborhoods. The proposed project is located across E. Charleston Road from single-family residential uses. The properties are approximately 85 feet apart. The proposed building would be located approximately 125 feet from the nearest single-family dwelling. The building is four stories high with a three-story frontage facing E. Charleston Road. While larger in scale, the proposed building has several design features intended to help integrate with the surrounding uses, particularly the adjacent Eichler single-family neighborhood. These include the sloping roof lines, exposed beams, clerestory windows, vertical siding, use of tile and muted colors. In addition, angled walls are proposed to orient views away from the neighborhood, and large trees proposed in the 24-foot front setback would help further screen views from the upper story windows. On this basis, the project is consistent with Program L2.4.8. • Residential Design Policy L-3.4 – Ensure that new multi-family buildings, entries and outdoor spaces are designed and arranged so that each development has a clear relationship to a public street. T The proposed building has a clear path of travel to access the building entrance and well-designed, sustainable landscaping incorporating required stormwater bio-retention areas. • Bicycle and Walking Policy T-1.17 – Require new office, commercial and multi-family residential developments to provide improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as called for in the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. 3 Packet Pg. 19 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 The project site is adjacent to the Bicycle/Pedestrian Path linking E. Charleston Road with Mitchell Park and the Magical Bridge Playground. Gated access will be provided from the project site to the Bike/Pedestrian Path. Zoning Compliance The project site is zoned PF (Public Facilities). Consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation for MISP, which applies to most PF-zoned parcels within the City, the PF zone district permits, by-right, public/quasi-public uses. These include “All facilities owned or leased, and operated or used, by the City of Palo Alto, the County of Santa Clara, the State of California, the government of the United States, the Palo Alto Unified School District, or any other governmental agency, or leased by any such agency to another party.” The project is on land owned by the County of Santa Clara that will be leased to Eden Housing and AbilityPath, non- profit organizations, for a use that qualifies under Health and Safety Code as special needs housing or supportive housing. Therefore, the use is a permitted use under Chapter 18.28. An analysis of the project’s consistency with objective standards for the PF Zone district is included in Attachment C. As noted, the subject property abuts the PF zone district on three sides, and public right of way (E. Charleston Road) on the fourth side. The subject property is located within 150 feet of R-1 zone district, but the R-1 zone is not abutting the site. Because the R-1 zone district does not abut the subject property, staff interprets the code to mean that the R-1 zone setbacks would not apply. This interpretation only affects the rear property line abutting Challenger School (R-1 - 20 feet vs. PF – 10 feet because the project already complies with the PF zone setbacks in the front and side yards (see discussion of transformer location, below). The applicant is proposing to utilize three development standard concessions in accordance with the state density bonus law and AB 1763 to allow increases to building height, lot coverage, and floor area. Existing State law also exempts the project from any residential parking requirements. The project will provide 11 spaces for the non-profit office space, consistent with City standards, and nine additional spaces on the 0.78-acre site. Further discussion of these concessions is provided below. The project complies with all other objective standards contained in the PF Zoning District. Context-Based Design Criteria The project is subject to the Context-Based Design Criteria outlined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.13, Section 18.13.060. A list of these standards is included in Attachment D. As part of the ARB’s advisory review of the project, members may provide comments based on the context-based design criteria for consideration by the applicants. Location of Power Transformer Unresolved One site design issue still unresolved at the writing of this report is the location of the power transformer for the project, currently placed in the front setback adjacent to the westerly end of the building. PAMC Section 20.08.020 establishes setback lines along major thoroughfares 3 Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 on the City’s zoning maps. Section 20.08.030, Buildings Between Street Line and Setback Line Prohibited, states as follows: “It shall be unlawful for any person, firm or corporation to erect or locate any building or structure within the space between the street line and setback line. (Ord. 1896 § 3, 1959)”. Based on section 20.08.030, the proposed transformer cannot be located within the 24’ front setback area. City staff and the applicants have discussed alternate locations for the transformer and their respective ramifications. At this point, two locations in the parking lot are under consideration, each of which would result in the loss of one parking space. Additional information regarding this issue will be presented at the ARB meeting. Requested Concessions under State Density Bonus The project is a qualifying project in accordance with AB 1763 (amending State Density Bonus Law for 100% affordable projects) because it includes a housing development in which 100 percent of the total units, exclusive of manager’s unit, are for lower income households. In accordance with AB 1763 and PAMC Section 18.15.050(c)(iv), as a housing project providing 100 percent of the units, exclusive of manager’s unit, as affordable to lower income households, the project is eligible for four concessions. The applicant requests the following concessions, under the state density bonus law. Requirement Requested Concession Building Height: 50 feet or 35 feet within 150 feet of residential zone. Increase of 35-foot height limit that affects a portion of the subject property: The heights of the two flat rooflines are 34’ and 44’. The height of the two sloped rooflines (at midpoints) are 39’ and 49’ (relevant to the maximum height definition) Lot Coverage: 30% maximum See PAMC 18.15.050(d)(vi) Concession to allow a 9% increase in lot coverage for a total lot coverage of 39% of the subject property Floor Area Ratio (FAR): 1:1 maximum Exceed FAR limitation for a proposed FAR of 1.35:1 Parking: Non-profit office use: 11 spaces Government Code Section 65915(p)(4) allows for no residential parking: 20 spaces are provided Building Height The objective standards under the PF zone district restrict height to a maximum of 35 feet within 150 feet of an R-1 zone district and otherwise allow for a maximum height of 50 feet. A portion of the project site is located within 150 feet of parcels zoned R-1; therefore, part of the building would be subject to the 35-foot height requirements. The applicant requests a 3 Packet Pg. 21 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 concession from this height requirement to allow for a portion of the building within 150 feet of an R-1 zone to be 49 feet tall. Lot/Site Coverage The objective standards under the PF zoning restrict lot coverage to a maximum of 30% of the site. The applicant requests a concession to allow for increased lot coverage of 39%. In accordance with PAMC Section 18.15.050(d)(vi), the applicant may request “up to [a] fifty percent (50%) increase over the maximum site coverage requirement or up to the square footage of the restricted affordable units, whichever is less.” Therefore, the requested concession is well within the concessions allowed under the code. Floor Area Ratio The applicant requests a concession to exceed the required 1:1 Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and is proposing a FAR of 1:35:1. This is an increase in approximately 12,000 sf of floor area. Parking Ratio Government Code Section 65915(p)(4) states that if: “a development consists solely of rental units, exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, with an affordable housing cost to lower income families, as provided in Section 50052.5 of the Health and Safety Code, and the development is either a special needs housing development, as defined in Section 51312 of the Health and Safety Code, or a supportive housing development, as defined in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code, then, upon the request of the developer, a city, county, or city and county shall not impose any minimum vehicular parking requirement. A development that is a special needs housing development shall have either paratransit service or unobstructed access, within one-half mile, to fixed bus route service that operates at least eight times per day.” The project is a special needs housing development and the Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) Line 21 operates along the project frontage, providing bus service every 30 minutes. The project includes 11 spaces for the non-profit offices, consistent with Zoning Code requirements, and an additional nine spaces, for a total of 20 spaces. Residents in the Greenmeadow neighborhood across E. Charleston Road expressed concerns that the project does not provide adequate parking. The issue is the combined demand from both the residential and the office portions of the project, and potential for overflow parking on Nelson drive by project residents, visitors and employees. A study of parking demand in supportive housing projects in San Jose identified an average demand of 0.43 parking spaces per bedroom. Applying this factor together with PAMC requirements for affordable housing, staff calculated that approximately 41 spaces would be needed to accommodate the housing portion of the project. As described above, however, the project satisfies state housing law criteria and qualifies to have no minimum parking requirement for the residential component of the project. 3 Packet Pg. 22 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 Documentation of Requested Concessions PAMC 18.15.080 (b) Application Requirements, states as follows, regarding projects requesting Density Bonus concessions: “If a concession or incentive is requested, the following information must be included in the application: (i) A brief explanation as to the actual cost reduction achieved through the concession or incentive.” The applicants provided the following information in response to this requirement: “The project seeks three concessions, with the remaining incentive or concession unused at this time. Together, these three concessions result in actual, identifiable cost reductions by allowing for a more efficient building type that results in a net reduction in the cost per dwelling unit of construction. As currently configured with the requested concessions, the project’s 50 units would cost approximately $600,000/unit to develop. Without the requested concessions, the project would need to be configured to a less efficient development style, which would reduce the unit count to as few as 35 units and increasing construction costs to approximately $635,000/unit. Accordingly, the requested concessions reduce the per unit development cost by approximately 6%, which cost savings is essential to providing the units at affordable rents.” Requested Secondary Access Route At the September 27, 2021 City Council Study Session for the project, Council members directed staff to perform a study. The study was to explore a possible secondary access route from the project site that would utilize an existing drive aisle along the adjacent Challenger School site and the AbilityPath office site north of the school connecting to Middlefield Road (see map, below). This concept was proposed by Greenmeadow residents who expressed concerns about the potential impacts from project traffic on the already congested traffic pattern in the area. A particular concern is that drivers desiring to travel east on E. Charleston Road towards Highway 101 would have to turn left across multiple travel lanes; instead, the drivers would turn right onto E. Charleston Road, make a quick left turn onto Nelson Drive into the neighborhood, make u-turns and then make right turns onto E. Charleston Road and proceed east. The proposed secondary access would, instead, allow drivers to turn right onto Middlefield Road and left onto E. Charleston Road towards Highway 101. The route is currently used by Challenger School parent vehicles to leave the site via Middlefield Road. The Palo Alto Fire Department has confirmed that this route is no longer required for fire vehicle access. The City Transportation Department review of the traffic issues in the project area and the proposed secondary access route resulted in the following recommendations: 1. City staff recommended the County explore the feasibility of the use of the fire lane as an additional exit path for the project. The fire lane route for additional egress is an elegant solution for 525 E. Charleston as it leads to a right turn onto Middlefield Road for those who want to access Highway 101. This routing would likely require fence installation along the Challenger School site and County collaboration to adjust leases or issue easements. However, this approach would provide an easier option to access 3 Packet Pg. 23 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 11 Highway 101 than turning left out of the project driveway or turning right and making a left into Nelson Drive in order to make a U-turn to access eastbound Charleston. 2. In addition, staff recommended the County/Applicants provide a transportation memo documenting trip generation for the site for the AM, PM, and school PM peak hour traffic in the vicinity that accounts for the trips required for the supportive housing (personal aides, therapists, visitors, etc.), affordable housing, and office uses. Once the trip generation is known, further transportation analysis may be required per the City’s objective standards. Attachment F to this report includes the report prepared by the Applicant’s traffic consultant. The report includes the following conclusions: 1. The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 172 more trips per day when compared with the current office building. This estimate includes increases of 12 trips during the weekday a.m. peak-hour and 16 during the p.m. peak hour. 2. Given the nominal number of peak-hour trips the project would be expected to generate, it is reasonable to conclude that it would have an imperceptible effect on traffic operation and further analysis is therefore not warranted. This is consistent with City Policy noting the preparation of a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) is not required for development projects expected to generate fewer than 50 a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips. 3. Existing and proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities would be adequate to serve the project. As discussed elsewhere in this report, the ministerial nature of the City review process does not allow the City to require the Applicants to incorporate the secondary access route into the project. The County of Santa Clara, as property owner of the project site and adjacent property traversed by the access route, will make a decision regarding the proposed secondary access route. 3 Packet Pg. 24 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 12 Secondary Access Route Image Eligibility for Streamlining State law AB 2162 makes certain residential development projects a use ‘by right’ in all zones where multi-family housing and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. The PF zone is primarily a nonresidential zone, but it permits mixed uses, and as noted above, the multi-family component of the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning designation. And although the project has an office component and integrated social services that make it consistent with the PF zoning designation, the project also meets the definition of a “residential development project” under the Housing Accountability Act, because at least two-thirds of the project’s square footage would be devoted to residential uses. The proposed project satisfies the requirements of AB 2162, as follows: • 100% percent of the units, excluding the manager’s unit, are affordable to lower income households, will be receiving public funding to ensure affordability, and will be subject to recorded affordability restrictions for at least 55 years. • At least 25% of the units are restricted to residents in supportive housing that meet the definition of “target population” as defined in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code (which includes persons with disabilities). Here, 50% of the units (25 units) will be restricted to residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. • More than three percent of the nonresidential floor area of the project is dedicated for onsite supportive services, and supportive services will be available to meet the needs of the target population. A Supportive Services Plan is included in Attachment B Applicant’s Project Description. • No residential units currently exist on the site, so replacement of dwelling units is not required. • The project does not contain more than 50 units. • Each unit contains a bathroom and kitchen. Policy Implications This project qualifies under a variety of local and state laws for streamlined, ministerial review of a new 50-unit affordable housing project that includes special needs housing and Non-profit office space to support this population. The location of this project in proximity to the Magical Bridge playground, Mitchell Park, the Mitchell Park Community Center and Library and access to regular bus service is also noteworthy. As noted above, the City’s is afforded only ministerial review and the ARB role is advisory. Through the study session, the ARB may ask questions of the applicant and offer any informal, non-binding comments Resource Impact The processing of the project application is a service paid for by fees from the applicant. City staff is in discussion with the developer about providing financial assistance for the project and is looking at state and federal funding programs to maximize the City’s potential contribution. 3 Packet Pg. 25 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 13 Timeline After the ARB meeting, staff and the applicant will have the opportunity to consider comments received from the ARB and the public. Due to the ministerial review process prescribed by AB2162, such comments are advisory only. Prior to the end of the 60-day review period, which ends on March 8, 2022, the Planning and Development Services Director will issue a letter to the applicant documenting the final acceptance of the project. In conformance with PAMC 18.15.100, the applicant will be required to enter into a Regulatory Agreement with the City documenting the Density Bonus concessions incorporated into the project. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on February 4, 2022, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 1, 2022, which is 16 in advance of the meeting. The applicant hosted three community workshops prior to submittal of the application. A summary of those three meetings and feedback received at those meetings is provided in the Applicant’s project description in Attachment B. In addition, as noted in the Applicant’s project description, the project team presented at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Greenmeadow Community Association Board and a series of one-on-one interviews with key members of the surrounding neighborhood and the Intellectually and Developmentally Disabled (IDD) community. As of the writing of this report, the City received one letter, included as Attachment G, from the Greenmeadow Community Association. The letter addresses traffic issues in the area surrounding the project and proposes a secondary access route to be considered for inclusion in the project. On January 9, 2022, a Zoom meeting was held with members of the Greenmeadow neighborhood, project representatives and County staff to discuss this proposal. Environmental Review The project is a qualifying affordable housing project eligible for streamlined, ministerial review, and is exempt from CEQA pursuant to CEQA Guidelines Section 15268. The traffic report prepared January 19, 2022, is attached to this staff report as part of Attachment A. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 14 Stan Ketchum, Principal Planner (contract) Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (408) 802-5800 (650) 329-2575 sketchum@m-group.us jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description and Traffic Memo (PDF) • Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment D: Multi-Family Context-Based Design Criteria (PDF) • Attachment E: Summary of Relevant State Legislation (PDF) • Attachment F: Greenmeadow Community Association Letter (PDF) • Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 27 4 ouse Pia zz a's M ark et E D C G P B U nitaria n C h urc h F A 57.6' 58.7' 262.3' 32.2' 289.2' 40.8' 100.0' 62.7' 62.2'43.6' 49.6' 28.6' 100.0' 100.0' 132.2' 115.7' 74.1' 100.0' 70.0' 0 0' 0.0' 58.0' 42.2' 108.0' 61.1' 50.8' 67.0' 161.9' 462.9' 289.2' 362.8' 74.0' 37.9' 332.9' 58.7' 5.7' 284.0' 13.6' 437.3' 3.6' 57.6' 362.8' 74.0' 37.9' 49.5' 67.0' 50.8' 61.1' 5' 437.3' 64.0' 1 04.0' 64.0' 104.0' 62.0' 10 4.0' 62.0' 104.0' 62.0' 104.0' 104.0' 60.0' 104.0'14.5'3.3' 80.7' 33.0' 51.8' 102.0' 65.5' 82.0' 102.0' 18.5' 14.5'28.8' 49.6' 43.6' 60.0' 102.0' 60.0' 102.0' 70.0' 102.0' 70.0' 102.0' 60.5' 1 02.0' 60.5' 102.0' 1 02.0' 66.0' 102.0' 66.0' 58.7' 29.9' 81.8' 85.0' 100.0' 94.0' 100.0' 62.8' 104.7' 80.0' 104.7' 111.1' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 136.0' 60.0' 136.0' 60.0' 80.7' 21.0' 104.0' 78.0' 31.4' 60.0' 99.2' 48.0' 1 02.0' 6 0.0' 102.0' 66.0' 60.0' 62.0' 1 05.0'62.0' 105.0' 65.5' 105.0' 18.8' 46.7' 106.4' 62.0' 106.4' 15.6' 46.6' 111.0' 60.0' 111.0' 60.2' 115.7' 65.5' 105.0' 1.1' 64.4' 105.0' 74.0' 11 5.7' 52.6' 33.0' 99.8' 93.0' 103.3' 55.0' 8.4' 1 05.0' 101.0' 155.6' 30.8' 103.3' 8.5'31.0' 28.0' 155.6' 69.3' 49.9' 24.4' 99.2' 80.7' 72.6' 31.1' 100.5' 106.0' 106.0'125.1' 350.7' 265.0' 583.0' 187.5' 263.1' 31.4' 435.6' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 333.9' 390.4' 17.0' 136.0' 60.0' 136.0' 60.0' 136.0' 60.0' 136.0' 60.0'81.5' 109.1' 73.0' 14.6' 91.3' 67.0' 116.3' 67.4' 109.1' 63.4' 32.5' 76.0' 79.5' 101.3' 66.0' 101.3' 36.8' 12.5' 37.0' 116.5' 7.1' 41.2' 7.4' 116.5' 109.0' 127.8' 87.4' 33.0' 127.8' 34.0' 96.5' 1 72.0' 113.2' 30. 53.9' 71.0' 71.0' 11 262.3' 32.2' 462.9' 458.1' 15.7' 716.0' 1 13.6' 284.0' 2 65.0' 52.1' 92.7' 31.8' 53.3' 53.8'116.9' 42.3' 87.4' 151.0' 116.9' 53.3' 53.8' 113.2'59.6' 82.1 455 520 5 1 3 5 2 1 5 01 495 4 8 5 4 8 4 5 0 0 5 1 0 5 2 0 3 9 1 8 3 9 0 2 3 9 1 0 5 0 5 713 711 7 1 7 7 1 9 3 8 6 5 3917 3 9 1 3 3921 3925 3 9 0 1 3907 3905 5 25 3950 3 9 0 4 3906 3 9 0 8 3946 3962 3966 3 465 478 4 7 5 4 6 8 45 8 3885 38 9 5 540 3 9 01 390 7 3 9 3 4 3 5 0 4 496 4 90 4 8 3912 388 0 3864 3 9 1 8 3 8 8 5 3 8 8 7 3 8 8 9 3891 3 8 9 3 3 8 9 5 70 1 7 0 33897 7 0 5 7 0 7 709 3 9 0 0 3920 3 9 2 2 39 39 4 2 715MI D D L E F I E L D R O A D E A S T C H A R L E S T O N R O A D N E L S O N D RIV E E L C A P IT A N P L A C E C H A R L E S T O N C T E A S T C H A R L E S R-2 RM- 36 R-1(7000) CN (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 Project Site 0'156' Attachment A: Project Location 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 chodgki, 2021-08-30 16:06:57 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) PF R-1(7000)(S) 3.a Packet Pg. 28 22645 Grand Street | Hayward, CA 94541 | Tel: 510-582-1460 | edenhousing.org Broker License No. 872400 November 18, 2021 Mr. Jonathan Lait Planning Director Planning & Development Department City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Mitchell Park Place AB 2162 Planning Application Submittal Dear Mr. Lait: Eden Housing is pleased to submit this AB 2162 Planning Application for the development of Mitchell Park Place at 525 E Charleston Road in Palo Alto. The proposed project will consist of: (1) office space that will be leased to AbilityPath; and (2) 50 units of affordable housing, including special needs housing. With the exception of one manager’s unit, 100% of the units will be affordable to lower income households. The project will be developed on land owned by the County of Santa Clara and ground leased to the developer, Eden Housing. The project seeks approvals under the Supportive Housing Act (AB 2162) and utilizes the State Density Bonus Law and preliminary application process from the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330). Mitchell Park Place satisfies the requirements of AB 2162, as detailed in Section 4 of the enclosed Project Description. A Supportive Services Plan, as required by AB 2162, and an Affordable Housing Plan, as required by PAMC 16.65, are also included. To date, we have conducted a robust community engagement process, which included 20 one-on-one interviews with key stakeholders; three community workshops with participants representing nearby neighborhoods, members of the intellectually and/or developmentally disabled community, and City staff; and presentations at meetings of neighborhood groups. We are excited to move forward with our proposal and are submitting our full entitlements application. Please find enclosed the designs and supporting documentation submitted through the City’s online permitting system. Please note that we have received a comment from the community related to circulation on the project site that we are continuing to explore, and we will also continue to solicit additional feedback from the community on our submittal. We have also submitted an SB 330 Preliminary Application by email to the City of Palo Alto’s Manager of Current Planning, Jodie Gerhardt. We look forward to continuing to work with the City on this new project. Should you have any questions or need additional information, please feel free to contact Kate Blessing-Kawamura, at (510) 329-5102 or kate.blessing-kawamura@edenhousing.org. Sincerely, Andrea Osgood Senior Vice President of Real Estate Development 3.b Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto | 525 East Charleston Road Mitchell Park Place Submitted by: Eden Housing 22645 Grand St. Hayward, CA 94541 November 2021 3.b Packet Pg. 30 Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 2 Table of Contents 1. Introduction..................................................................................................p. 3 a. Project Description b. Project Team c. Community Outreach 2. About Eden Housing …………………………………………………….……………p. 8 a. Eden Housing Mission and History b. Eden Housing Management and Resident Services c. Eden Housing in Palo Alto 3. Project Details………………………………………………………………………………..p. 11 a. Site b. Design c. Environmental Sustainability and Green Building d. Residential - Affordability e. Population and Leasing Preferences 4. Zoning and Development Standards………………………………….p. 16 a. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code b. Modifications under State Density Bonus Law 5. Community Benefits of the Project............................................p. 20 6. Environmental Information...............................................................p. 21 3.b Packet Pg. 31 Section 1. Introduction Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 3 1. Introduction A. Project Description Located at 525 East Charleston Road near Mitchell Park in Palo Alto, Mitchell Park Place (MPP) is a new mixed-use development that will contribute to the vibrant neighborhood around Mitchell Park with a new office space for public social services as well high-quality affordable housing for lower-income households, including special needs housing for the intellectually and developmentally disabled (IDD) community. In this excellent location, we propose to build a 2,750-square-foot office space and 50 rental apartments for individuals and households earning at or below 80% of the area median income. In particular, the abundant amenities in the area surrounding the project site make it an ideal location for housing for members of the IDD community and will enable residents to lead independent lives. The 2015-2023 Palo Alto Housing Element states that “people with developmental disabilities often have difficulty finding affordable, accessible, and appropriate housing that is inclusive in the local community.” This site offers the opportunity to do precisely that as it is close to resources like AbilityPath’s Middlefield site, Mitchell Park Community Center, Magical Bridge playground, Ada’s Café, Vista Center for the Blind and Visually Impaired, Jackson Hearing Center, and South Palo Alto Food Closet. The project meets a great need for deeply affordable housing that is only expected to grow in coming years. Over the past decade, apartment rents have escalated at an unprecedented clip that threatens to price out certain segments of the population that are essential to a strong and diverse community, such as people with disabilities, lower-income workforce, and seniors on fixed incomes. Mitchell Park Place will keep vital services for the IDD community at the site while also providing new affordable homes that will help ensure Left: Mitchell Park Community Center, which includes a library and Ada’s Café, which employs adults with developmental disabilities. Right: Magical Bridge Playground 3.b Packet Pg. 32 Section 1. Introduction Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 4 that these vital members of the community are able to live and work in the City of Palo Alto. The site currently includes a building that serves as office space for the nonprofit, AbilityPath. Mitchell Park Place will replace this building with a single four-story building. The ground floor will include 2,750 square feet of office space to be leased to AbilityPath. The property will have 50 apartments, which include a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. One of the units will be set aside for a live-in property manager, which will help ensure that the property is well managed every day and night. Additionally, the ground level of the building will include a property management office for the full-time property manager, as well as an office for a resident services coordinator who will provide myriad services – such as wellness, career, education, and financial literacy programming – to help ensure our residents succeed. The building will be designed with sustainability in mind, with solar panels on the roof, low-flow water fixtures, Energy Star appliances, and dedicated bike parking, and will be LEED or Green Point Rated certified. The property also includes amenities for its residents such as a computer learning center, community room, laundry facilities, and an outdoor courtyard with planters for growing fruits and vegetables. B. Project Team x Eden Housing, Inc. (EHI) is a mission-driven affordable housing nonprofit organization. Eden leads the development team and is the primary entity responsible for coordinating with the City and managing the entire development process from design and approvals, through financing, and construction. Eden Housing has a long and successful track record building and operating affordable housing in the Bay Area. x County of Santa Clara Office of Supportive Housing (OSH) is dedicated to increasing the supply of housing and supportive housing that is affordable and available to extremely low income and/or special needs households. OSH supports the County mission of promoting a healthy, safe, and prosperous community by ending and preventing homelessness. The County of Santa Clara is the property owner and selected Eden in a competitive process to develop affordable housing on this site. x Under the Eden Housing umbrella, Eden Housing Management, Inc. (EHMI) will provide quality onsite management and maintenance for the property and Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. (EHRSI) will provide supportive services to residents. 3.b Packet Pg. 33 Section 1. Introduction Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 5 x Leading the design efforts is OJK Architecture + Planning. OJK is an award- winning, women-owned architecture firm that designs commercial, retail, and residential buildings, including both market-rate and affordable developments. C. Community Outreach From our experience, we know that it is critical to involve stakeholders early in the process, to generate feedback and go through an iterative design process to ensure that our development is appropriate for its unique community context. Our goal is to create numerous opportunities for authentic public input and to keep the public informed on our process. To date, we have held three community workshops and conducted other extensive community engagement described below. Workshop #1 Workshop #1 took place virtually on June 30, 2021 and included a total of 48 non-project team participants representing nearby neighborhoods, the IDD community, and City of Palo Alto agencies. The goal of the first workshop was for the project team to learn from participants about their communities and general aesthetic preferences and gather participants' questions and concerns related to the project. Project team members used a combination of presentation slides, real-time Zoom polls, and the Miro virtual whiteboard tool to share project information and record written and verbal feedback from participants. Overview of community engagement process for Mitchell Park Project. 3.b Packet Pg. 34 Section 1. Introduction Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 6 Workshop #2 Workshop #2 took place virtually on July 28, 2021 and included a total of 20 non-project team participants representing nearby neighborhoods, the IDD community, and City of Palo Alto agencies. The goal of the second workshop was for participants and project team members to co-create design solutions based off of design topics generated in the first workshop while considering the interaction between design solutions and their effects on the many stakeholders touched by the project. Project team members used a combination of presentation slides and the Miro virtual whiteboard tool to share project information and record written and verbal feedback from participants. Workshop #3 Workshop #3 took place virtually on August 30, 2021 and included a total of 37 non-project team participants representing nearby neighborhoods, the IDD community, and City of Palo Alto agencies. The goal of this third and final workshop was for the project team to introduce participants to a design concept that incorporates design topics and preferences generated during the prior two workshops and gather initial feedback from the community on the design concept. Community members also have the opportunity to provide additional written feedback following the workshop. Other Community Engagement In addition to the three community workshops described above, the project team has conducted other community engagement activities as described below. 1. The project team has conducted a series of one-on-one interviews with key members of the surrounding neighborhood, the IDD community, and the City of Palo Alto. The goal of these interviews has been to gather input from neighbors and community members about the strengths of their community as well as any thoughts they may have about the project and its site. Interview questions focused on four key areas: (1) connection to the community; (2) knowledge and impressions of the project; (3) insights or suggestions for the community engagement plan; and (4) identification of additional resources or community members our team should connect with. 2. The project team presented at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Greenmeadow Community Association Board. A total of approximately 20-25 people attended the project team’s presentation and participated in a Q&A session on July 14, 2021. Project team members fielded questions about the project’s schedule, goals, and design. 3. On October 5, 2021, the project team presented at a regularly scheduled meeting of the Pedestrian and Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC), a citizen advisory committee that reports to the City of Palo Alto’s Chief Transportation Official. 3.b Packet Pg. 35 Section 1. Introduction Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 7 Project team members fielded questions and gathered feedback about the proposed site plan, with a particular focus on pedestrian and bicycle facilities and access. 4. The project team is also planning to conduct a focus group on unit interiors and building amenities with members of the IDD community. As the project progresses, we will continue our community engagement process to share more information, answer more specific questions as they arise, and inform the public about what is occurring on the site as the project continues to move forward. 3.b Packet Pg. 36 Section 2. About Eden Housing Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 8 2. About Eden Housing A. Eden Housing Mission and History Eden Housing creates and sustains high-quality affordable housing communities that advance equity and opportunity for all. Eden Housing is one of the oldest and most experienced affordable housing nonprofit organizations in the state of California. Since our inception in 1968, Eden has developed, acquired, or rehabilitated more than 10,600 affordable units and currently provides homes to more than 22,000 lower-income residents. As a mission-driven nonprofit, we serve low- and moderate-income families, seniors, and people living with disabilities. Incomes of our residents typically range from 20% to 60% of the area median income. In Palo Alto, Eden Housing is pleased to own and operate 801 Alma in downtown Palo Alto, an affordable housing development providing 50 affordable homes for families. Eden Housing is consistently named as one of the Top 50 affordable housing companies in the nation by Affordable Housing Finance Magazine, the leading national publication that ranks and reviews affordable housing. Eden Housing’s Activist Roots Eden Housing was founded in May of 1968 by six community activists who were greatly concerned about the lack of non-discriminatory, affordable housing in Alameda County. These pioneers, working out of makeshift "headquarters" such as local coffee shops, were initiated into affordable housing development by rehabilitating six older homes in Oakland for first time homebuyer families. Their next project was a new construction 150- unit development for seniors, Josephine Lum Lodge in Hayward. It is a development we still own today and renovated in 2010, including rehabilitation of the units, updates to the common spaces, and the addition of a new commercial kitchen. 3.b Packet Pg. 37 Section 2. About Eden Housing Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 9 B. Eden Housing Management and Resident Services Eden’s work goes beyond building high-quality buildings, as we strive to create strong and safe communities for the residents who live in our housing and a permanently affordable, high-quality asset for the cities we partner with. Eden achieves these long- term goals through its property management and resident services programs. Eden Housing Management, Inc. (EHMI) is a nonprofit Eden affiliate that has provided professional, quality management for Eden’s properties since its establishment in 1984. EHMI currently manages 10,268 units of rental housing in 154 properties. EHMI is recognized as a leader in affordable housing management and maintains a vacancy rate of 1 percent. Eden Housing Resident Services, Inc. (EHRSI) is a nonprofit Eden affiliate formed in 1995 and provides services at all of Eden’s properties. Through EHRSI, Eden links well-built and carefully managed housing with resources that support residents in their daily lives. EHRSI’s Resident Services staff work with residents one-on-one and in group settings and coordinates educational, financial literacy, wellness, and community-building activities. Together, the integrated company brings a combined package of experience and expertise which covers the spectrum of activities involved in developing, owning, managing, and servicing a high-quality housing development. This combined effort assures that the quality design and construction of the project is preserved through the careful long-term maintenance of the property and ongoing care and service to residents. 3.b Packet Pg. 38 Section 2. About Eden Housing Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 10 C. Eden Housing in Palo Alto 801 Alma 801 Alma Street, Palo Alto | Affordable Family Housing Developed in partnership with Community Work Group, Inc., 801 Alma is a transit-oriented affordable housing development for families in downtown Palo Alto. The City of Palo Alto is a critical partner in the project, donating one of the parcels as well as providing an affordable housing loan as gap financing. This development includes 50 units in a mix of one-, two-, and three-bedroom units. The development is three blocks from the Palo Alto Caltrain Station and the city’s central University Avenue commercial district, providing residents easy access to a number of neighborhood amenities including commercial stores (grocery store, pharmacy, hardware store), services (financial, restaurants, cleaners), and a major medical clinic. Residents are provided with free on-site supportive services including one-on-one support and access to group programs and trainings including afterschool programs, computer classes, financial literacy, art classes, parenting classes, and wellness and nutrition programs. YEAR COMPLETED: 2013 TOTAL DEVELOPMENT COST: $27.9 million UNITS: 50 TARGETED INCOMES: 30-50% of AMI 3.b Packet Pg. 39 Section 3. Project Details Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 11 3. Project Details A. Site The project site, 525 East Charleston Road, is owned by the County of Santa Clara and will be ground leased to Eden Housing. The site currently includes a building that serves as office space for the nonprofit service provider, AbilityPath. The site is located 0.1 mile from Mitchell Park and less than a half mile from the Mitchell Park Community Center and Library. Across the street is the Charleston Shopping Center, which includes a grocery store, cafes, and retail. The Greenmeadow neighborhood is across Charleston Road from the site. Greenmeadow is a residential development of homes built by Joseph Eichler. 3.b Packet Pg. 40 Section 3. Project Details Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 12 The project design seeks to encourage more walking, bicycling, and public transit as the primary means of travel. To this end, the project will include secure bike parking in the building to encourage bicycling. In addition, the VTA Route 21 bus line is within 0.1 mile and operates every 30-60 minutes (over 20 times a day). B. Design In designing this building, Eden Housing’s main goal was to ensure that the design is contextual to this location in Palo Alto and the building is a high-quality asset for the City for many years and decades to come. One of Eden Housing’s top requirements for the building’s design is that it look indistinguishable from – or better than – market-rate apartments. We chose to work with OJK, an award-winning architectural and planning firm whose mission is to create vibrant, healthy, and equitable housing at all scales. Mitchell Park Place is proposed to be a four-story building with a three-story frontage along Charleston Road. The ground floor will include a 2,750-square-foot office space to be leased to AbilityPath. The building will include 50 apartments, which will consist of a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. The building is shaped in an “L” configuration. Project amenities include a central courtyard space with seating areas and drought-tolerant planting as well as interior amenities such as a community room, computer learning center, on-site property management office, resident services coordinator office, and laundry room. Twenty spaces of surface parking are included on the ground level in a “shared parking” arrangement primarily for the office space’s use during peak daytime hours and for residential use during off-peak hours. Mitchell Park Place takes design cues directly from the surrounding neighborhood. The L- shaped building shields a protected courtyard from Charleston Road and from the surface parking spaces. The courtyard is oriented toward the multi-use path that connects pedestrian and bike traffic to nearby Mitchell Park and its amenities, including the library and community center, Ada’s Café, AbilityPath’s Middlefield site, and Magical Bridge playground. The building aesthetics reflect the Eichler neighborhoods that surround the project, featuring clean, orthogonal and angular lines. The Eichler Design Guidelines inspired several aesthetic choices in the design: low sloping roofs with dark bronze fascias and exposed beams, celerestory windows, vertical board and batten siding in dusty blue, vertical plank siding with the appearance of tongue and groove wood paneling, stacked bond tile with the appearance of CMU on the stair towers, all on a background of cocoa, charcoal, and dusty blue painted cement plaster. We note that the plans and designs submitted with this application include various revisions made based on input we received through the community engagement process. Contributions and suggestions from the community and neighbors are incorporated into several aspects of the building design. Along the Charleston façade, the building height is lowered to 3 stories, and angled walls have been introduced to orient views out of those apartments away from single-family homes across the street. Large 3.b Packet Pg. 41 Section 3. Project Details Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 13 trees planted in the 24-foot setback further screen views out of 2nd and 3rd floor units. The parking lot has a single ingress and egress point to minimize vehicular traffic crossing the bike path. A fence along the property line enhances resident safety and clearly delineates the multi-use path. A secure gate provides access from the multi-use path to an indoor bike room so residents may use the safer bike crossing at Nelson Road to access the site, maintaining a safe separation from vehicle traffic. The overall landscape design concept aims to accomplish the following: provide interesting and comfortable active- and passive-use outdoor spaces for the building residents; integrate stormwater management strategies as functioning and valuable components of the gardens; stylistically complement the proposed apartment building; and blend with the surrounding landscape typology as a visual amenity to the neighborhood. Drawing on neighbors’ input at community meetings, the perimeter of the site will be planted with semi-evergreen trees to buffer the residential units from the busy Charleston Road, screen on-site parking, and provide physical and visual separation from the adjacent multi-use path. Addressing concerns of safety and security, pedestrian and vehicular traffic will be separated, and entry points to the communal outdoor space will be gated. The protected gardens will offer ample seating area as an outdoor extension of the community room, accommodate raised vegetable beds for gardening by residents, and include a meditative sensory garden with a labyrinth. Plant species will be primarily California natives, as well as combination of low-water use adapted plants that provide year-round interest. Site lighting is comprised of Midcentury-inspired fixtures mounted on the building façade, bollards and step lights in low planter walls at egress paths, pole fixtures at surface parking, soffit-mounted fixtures at tuck-under parking, downlights mounted under the fan-shaped trellis at the courtyard, and linear accent lighting under the fronts of benches. In addition to incorporating feedback from the community, we are designing the project to be responsive to the City of Palo Alto’s draft Objective Design Standards and the final Palo Alto Eichler Neighborhood Design Guidelines. C. Environmental Sustainability and Green Building Environmental sustainability is a core design concept of Mitchell Park Place. Green design is not only important for environmental stewardship but is also vital in keeping utility costs and operating costs low throughout the life of the building. The development will be built to LEED or Green Point Rated standards, and the architecture, landscaping, construction techniques, and materials are designed and chosen with sustainability in mind. A sampling of features include: solar panels on the roof, low-flow water fixtures, Energy Star appliances, and durable high-quality materials that require less frequent replacement. The community gardens in the courtyard also 3.b Packet Pg. 42 Section 3. Project Details Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 14 present residents with the opportunity to grow their own fruits and vegetables, and the landscaping is drought-tolerant with a high-efficiency irrigation system. As an infill development, Mitchell Park Place inherently satisfies other core tenets of environmental sustainability. The site is located within walking/biking distance of public transit, services, and community amenities, which reduce car usage and greenhouse gas emissions. Providing dedicated and secure bike parking also encourages all residents, visitors, and office workers at the site to bike instead of drive. D. Residential - Affordability Mitchell Park Place will provide 50 rental apartments comprised of a mix of studios, one- bedroom apartments, and two-bedroom apartments. As required by PAMC 16.65, an Affordable Housing Plan is also included under separate cover. Type Size How many Studio apartment (including Junior 1- bedroom apartments) 400-440 s.f. 39 1-bedroom apartment 550 s.f. 6 2-bedroom apartment 880-920 s.f. 5 (including 1 manager’s unit) TOTAL 50 The apartments will be leased to lower-income households earning at or below 80% of the area median income (AMI). It is our intention and plan to provide the affordable units at lower income levels in practice (likely between 30% and 60% AM, as determined by California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC)), but as noted in the Affordable Housing Plan we request to use the maximum allowable income and rent limits in the Density Bonus and Supportive Housing Act Agreements in order to maintain flexibility. We may need to adjust affordability levels in order to ensure competitiveness in future funding applications and restricting to the maximum allowable income and rent levels will allow for this flexibility. The tables below show the current income limits of eligible households, based on household size, as determined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC). The 80% of AMI incomes according to California Housing and Community Development (CA HCD) are included for reference, as these figures are what the City of Palo Alto uses to define “low income.” 3.b Packet Pg. 43 Section 3. Project Details Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 15 2021 CTCAC Income Limits 1-person household 2-person household 3-person household 30% of AMI $34,800 $39,780 $44,760 40% of AMI $46,400 $53,040 $59,680 50% of AMI $58,000 $66,300 $74,600 60% of AMI $69,600 $79,560 $89,520 80% of AMI – HCD (for reference only) $82,450 $94,200 $106,000 The project’s monthly rents are determined by the California Tax Credit Allocation Committee (CTCAC) to ensure that the rents are affordable to the lower-income residents earning 30% to 60% of AMI. The following table shows the maximum gross rents (before utilities) that the project expects to charge households. We note that if the project were to receive project-based rental assistance, the rents paid by residents would be even lower, as they would only need to pay 30% of their income. Type Monthly Rent Studio apartment $870-1,740 1-bedroom apartment $932-1,864 2-bedroom apartment $1,119-2,238 E. Population and Leasing Preferences Mitchell Park Place will provide a leasing preference for 50% of the units to individuals with an intellectual or developmental disability. We are targeting 50% of the units with an IDD leasing preference based on consultations we’ve had with the IDD community and advocates. 50% strikes a balance between setting aside a large number of units and ensuring that the IDD individuals are living within an integrated community of people with all abilities. This will help the City and County meet their obligations to affirmatively further fair housing by increasing housing opportunities both for individuals with disabilities and also for other individuals in lower income households. 3.b Packet Pg. 44 Section 4. Zoning and Development Standards Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 16 4. Zoning and Development Standards A. Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code The Comprehensive Plan designates the site as “Major Institution/Special Facilities,” and the zoning designation is PF (Public Facilities). Among other uses, the Major Institution/Special Facilities designation allows institutional, governmental and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as nonprofit organizations. Likewise, the PF zone permits “Public/Quasi-Public Facility Uses” as a use by right, which applies to all facilities that are owned or leased by public entities and any facilities owned by a public entity and leased to another party. In addition, offices are permitted with a CUP in the PF zone. The approximately 0.78-acre lot is currently developed with quasi-public offices from which AbilityPath provides services to children and adults with intellectual and developmental disabilities. As detailed above, the project envisions redeveloping the County-owned land to create new offices for AbilityPath. In addition, the supportive services office would be complemented by 50 units of affordable rental housing that would include 25 dedicated units and supportive services in connection with AbilityPath to benefit the target population of “special needs housing” as defined by the Health and Safety Code section 51312. The project site would remain owned by the County. The County would control the leasing of the office component of the project to the nonprofit service provider, AbilityPath. It would also ground lease the project site to Eden Housing, a nonprofit organization that would use tax credit financing and public funds to develop special needs housing that would offer residential options to lessen the burdens of government by providing services and affordable housing for the target population, including those with special housing needs due to intellectual and developmental disabilities. Because the property would be owned by the County, a public agency, and leased to nonprofit organizations to provide community services and needed affordable special needs housing, it is consistent with the governmental and community service uses and lands that are either publicly owned or operated as nonprofit organizations uses allowed under the Comprehensive Plan and the PF zoning. Moreover, the residential component of the project can be viewed as an ancillary use to the existing quasi-public offices that would be redeveloped as part of the project and therefore the project is an allowable use under the office designation. Both the office use and quasi-public use designations demonstrate the project’s conformance with the PF zoning designation. 3.b Packet Pg. 45 Section 4. Zoning and Development Standards Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 17 Eligibility for Streamlining Because the project would be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning Code land use designations, it would be a use permitted by right under the Municipal Code. It qualifies for streamlined, ministerial review and approval under either AB 2162 or SB 35. The project team has decided to pursue entitlements approval under AB 2162. AB 2162 is also known as the Supportive Housing Act, and it makes certain residential development projects a use by right in all zones where multifamily housing and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. The PF zone is primarily a nonresidential zone, but it permits mixed uses, and as noted above, the multifamily component of the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the Zoning designation. And although the project has an office component and integrated social services that make it consistent with the PF zoning designation, the project also meets the definition of a “residential development project” under the Housing Accountability Act, because at least two-thirds of the project’s square footage would be devoted to residential uses. Mitchell Park Place satisfies the requirements of AB 2162, as detailed here: x 100% percent of the units, excluding the manager’s unit, are affordable to lower income households, will be receiving public funding to ensure affordability, and will be subject to recorded affordability restrictions for at least 55 years. x At least 25% of the units are restricted to residents in supportive housing that meet the definition of “target population” as defined in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code (which includes persons with disabilities). Here, 50% of the units (25 units) will be restricted to residents with intellectual and developmental disabilities. x More than three percent of the nonresidential floor area of the project is dedicated for onsite supportive services, and supportive services will be available to meet the needs of the target population. x A Supportive Services Plan is attached under separate cover. x No residential units currently exist on the site, so replacement of dwelling units is not required. x The project does not contain more than 50 units. x Each unit contains a bathroom and kitchen. 3.b Packet Pg. 46 Section 4. Zoning and Development Standards Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 18 B. Modifications under State Density Bonus Law Further analysis on the development standards and the project’s proposed attributes follows. Zoning code State Density Bonus This project Density No base density Up to 80% increase permitted 64 units/acre Height 50’ or 35’ if within 150’ of a residential zone Incentive/concession to exceed 35’ limit The two flat rooflines’ height are 34’ and 44’. The two sloped rooflines’ height (at midpoint) are 39’ and 49’. Building setbacks Front: 24’ Side – West: 10’ Side – East: 10’ Rear: 0’ -- Front: 24’ Side – West: 10’ Side – East: 10’ Rear: 0’ Lot coverage 30% maximum Incentive/concession to increase lot coverage 39% Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0 maximum Incentive/concession to increase FAR 1.33 Parking ratio Nonprofit Office Use: 11 spaces (2,750 sf office / 250 sf/stall) Residential use: 0 spaces (see explanation in “Density Bonus Law and AB 1763” section below) Exempt from all parking standards under Gov. Code Sec. 65915(p)(4) 20 spaces Since the residences will be 100% affordable for lower income households, the project qualifies for an 80% density bonus (although in this case, the underlying zoning does not have a density limit, so there is not a density bonus to apply), four incentives or concessions, and unlimited waivers under the State Density Bonus Law. The project seeks three concessions, with the remaining incentive or concession unused at this time. Together, these three concessions result in actual, identifiable cost reductions by allowing for a more efficient building type that results in a net reduction the cost per square foot of construction: 1. Concession #1 – Lot Coverage: A concession is requested for the City of Palo Alto’s development standard of 30% maximum lot coverage. As stated in Section 3.b Packet Pg. 47 Section 4. Zoning and Development Standards Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 19 18.15.050 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, an applicant may request “Up to fifty percent (50%) increase over the maximum site coverage requirement or up to the square footage of the restricted affordable units, whichever is less.” Our proposed lot coverage is 39%, a 30% increase over the maximum site coverage requirement. 2. Concession #2 – Building height: The proposed building has 4 main rooflines at different parts of the building at the following heights. The two flat rooflines’ height are 34’ and 44’. The two sloped rooflines’ height (at midpoint) are 39’ and 49’. The existing zoning code allows 35’ within 150’ of a residential zone and 50’ everywhere else. The project site is within approximately 100’ to 200’ of the residential zone across E. Charleston Rd. and nearby the Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto which is zoned as residential. 3. Concession #3 - Floor area ratio – the proposed building has an FAR of 1.33; 1.0 is allowed under the existing zoning code. 4. Concession #4 – Unused. Under the Density Bonus Law, the project also qualifies for unlimited waivers of development standards that would physically preclude the construction of the development. At this time, the project does not seek any waivers. In addition, the project qualifies for an exemption from parking requirements under the Density Bonus Law as it includes special needs housing and is located near frequent bus service. More specifically, the project qualifies for relief from all parking standards because approximately half of the units will have a set-aside or leasing preference for individuals with special needs. Also, the project is located within a half mile of unobstructed access to fixed route bus service operating at least eight times per day (VTA Route 21). As such, the project is not required to provide any minimum amount of parking. The conceptual design currently includes 20 spaces of surface parking in a “shared parking” arrangement primarily for the office space’s use during peak daytime hours and for residential use during off-peak hours. The zoning and density bonus law aside, Eden Housing also believes this is an appropriate number of parking spaces for this site. The leasing will be restricted to the lower-income residents and individuals with developmental and intellectual disabilities, who tend to have lower rates of car ownership. Additionally, given the project’s location near bus lines and within walking distance to grocery stores, restaurants, retail stores, banks, and the library, we are encouraging walking, bicycling, and public transit as the primary means of travel. We also note that the availability of Uber, Lyft, Zipcar, and other car- and ride- sharing services are leading more households to live car-free. 3.b Packet Pg. 48 Section 5. Community Benefits of the Project Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 20 5. Community Benefits of the Project In this amenity-rich location, Mitchell Park Project is a high-quality development that will expand upon the existing nonprofit office use of the site by adding 50 units of much- needed affordable housing. Community benefits of this project include: x Mitchell Park Project provides 50 units of affordable housing - a vital component of equitable and sustainable growth - and contributes to the diversity of housing available in the City. x AbilityPath will continue to provide invaluable services to individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities on the site. x Approximately 50% of the units will house individuals with intellectual and developmental disabilities, ensuring that individuals of all abilities have the opportunity to call Palo Alto home. x The development will be a green building with several sustainable energy and water features. x The project’s contextual and community-driven design improves the pedestrian environment and experience at this location. x The 50 units contribute toward meeting the City’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation in the very-low income and low-income categories. x Resident services programming connects residents to community resources. x High-quality property management by a local nonprofit ensures that the building remains a prominent asset for the City for years to come. 3.b Packet Pg. 49 Section 6. Environmental Information Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 21 6. Environmental Information As a qualifying supportive housing development, Mitchell Park Place is exempt from review under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Accordingly, the City’s “Environment Assessment Worksheet” is not required for the City to review or process the project application. Despite not being required, this section includes additional information regarding expected environmental characteristics of the project, to the extent currently known, as requested by the City of Palo Alto Planning Department in lieu of the Environmental Assessment Worksheet. A. Address of Project: 525 E Charleston Road B. Assessor’s Parcel Number: 132-06-039 C. Application Number: TBD D. Applicant: a. Kate Blessing-Kawamura Eden Housing 22645 Grand Street, Hayward, CA 94541 510-329-5102 Kate.Blessing-Kawamura@edenhousing.org E. Land Owner: a. County of Santa Clara 2310 N. First Street, Suite 201, San Jose, CA 95131 408-278-6400 Consuelo.hernandez@hhs.scc.gov.org F. Current Zoning: PF Comprehensive Plan Designation: MISP G. Application for: Site and Design H. Existing Site: County-owned land currently occupied by AbilityPath tenant I. Size of site: 34,119 sf J. Site ownership: Site is owned by County of Santa Clara and will be ground leased by applicant. K. Existing use of property: Nonprofit office space L. Number of existing structures: 1 office building M. Size of existing structures: Approximately 4,400 sf N. Will any structure by demolished for this project: Yes (County of Santa Clara will perform demolition) O. Total square footage to be demolished: Approximately 4,400 sf P. Project description: Mitchell Park Place is proposed to be a four-story building with a three-story frontage along Charleston Road. The ground floor will include a 2,750-square-foot office space to be leased to AbilityPath. The building will include 50 apartments, which will consist of a mix of studio, one-bedroom, and two-bedroom units. The building is shaped in an “L” configuration. Project 3.b Packet Pg. 50 Section 6. Environmental Information Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 22 amenities include a central courtyard space with seating areas and drought- tolerant planting as well as interior amenities such as a community room, computer learning center, on-site property management office, resident services coordinator office, and laundry room. Twenty spaces of surface parking are included on the ground level. Q. Future tenant if known: AbilityPath in nonprofit office and Eden Housing residents and support staff in residential areas. R. Number of structures proposed: 1 a. Size (in square feet): i. Per Palo Alto Municipal Code: 45,360 sf ii. Per California Building Code: 46,821 sf S. Number of floors and building height: 4 floors, 49’ FAR: 1.33 T. Percentage of site to be covered (including bricks and pavers): 44% U. If the proposed project is residential: a. Total number of units: 50 Number of units per acre: 62 b. Expected sales price or monthly rent per dwelling unit: Development is 100% affordable housing. See low/moderate section below. c. List kinds and size of community buildings: Amenities inside building square footage such as computer learning center, community room, laundry facilities, and an outdoor courtyard with planters for growing fruits and vegetables. d. Area of private open space: n/a e. Area of common open space: Approx. 8660 sf f. Provision of low/moderate income units: i. Number of units provided for: Sale: 0 Rent: 50 ii. Sale and/or rental price: Please see enclosed Project Description for estimated rent levels. V. Number of proposed parking spaces: 20 a. Percentage compact spaces: 0% b. Number of bicycle parking spaces: 50 long term, 7 short term W. Are there any toxic wastes to be discharged? No X. Has the facility in the past or will the operation of the proposed facility involve the storage or use of Hazardous Materials? No Y. Expected amount of water usage: a. Domestic: TBD gal/day Peak use: 130 gal/min, TBD gal/day b. Commercial: TBD gal/day Peak use: 30 gal/min, TBD gal/day Z. Daily sewer discharge (over 30 fixtures only) Peak: 250 gal/min, TBD gal/day AA. Expected energy use (annual): a. Gas: n/a Electric: 427,000 kWh Peak electric demand: 226 kW b. Uses and Equipment sizes: i. Space heating: 1. Gas: n/a BTUH: n/a Solar: n/a 3.b Packet Pg. 51 Section 6. Environmental Information Application | Mitchell Park Place November 2021 23 2. Electric: 60,000kWh kW: 27 Heat pump: qty 5 Tons: 126 3. Other: n/a ii. Air conditioning: 1. Number of units: qty 5 (same units as above) 2. Total tonnage: 126 (same units as above) iii. Water Heating: 1. Gas: n/a BTUH: 92,000 Solar: 0 2. Electric: 64,000 kWh kW: 142 Heat pump: qty 6 Tons: n/a 3. Other: n/a 4. Type: a. Central system? Yes b. Recirculating loop? Yes iv. Other: 1. Indoor lighting: 19 KW Outdoor lighting: 4 KW 2. Cooking: 84 KW Refrigeration: TBD Tons or ft 3. Motors: HP _____ x-ray _____ Computer 4 kW BB. Site drainage provisions: drainage provisions: The project will implement C.3 stormwater treatment measures to manage site drainage. Post construction peak flows are expected to be equal to or less than the pre-project condition due to site characteristics. CC. Amount of proposed grading (cubic yards): Cut: 500 Fill: 250 DD. Percent and direction of ground slope at site: The proposed site will generally slope form east to west towards East Charleston, at average grade of 0.5% EE. Is this site within a special flood hazard area? No FF. Detailed description of conditions and uses of adjacent properties: a. Refer to Neighborhood Context sheet in project plans. b. To east and north of site: Challenger School (Zone PF, Land use MISP) c. To west: Multi-use bike path (Zone PF, Land use MISP) and Unitarian Universalist Church of Palo Alto (Zone R-1, Land use SFR) d. To south: Charleston Road e. Across Charleston Road: Greenmeadow neighborhood (Zone R-1, Land use SFR) and Charleston Shopping Center (Zone CN, Land use Neighborhood Commercial) 3.b Packet Pg. 52 7/21 PALO ALTO FIRE DEPARTMENT FIRE PREVENTION BUREAU HAZARDOUS MATERIALS DISCLOSURE CHECKLIST Business or Facility Name Street Address, Suite or Bldg. # Hazardous Materials include but are not limited to: fuels, virgin or waste oil, chlorine, cosmetics, pharmaceuticals, waste perfume, solvents, paints, and liquefied petroleum gases (LPG). If the classification of Hazardous Materials is known, circle below: 1. Explosives 7. Highly Toxic/Toxic 2. Compressed Gases 8. Radioactives 3. Flammable & Combustible Liquids 9. Corrosives 4. Flammable Solids 10. Cryogenics 5. Oxidizers/Organic Peroxides 11. Water Reactives 6. Pyrophorics 12. Other Health Hazards YES NO Does the operation of this facility involve Hazardous Materials? Does this facility currently have a Hazardous Materials Storage permit? WILL THIS PROJECT: 1. Involve closures of present Hazardous Materials Storage Facilities? 2. Involve the storage or use of Hazardous Materials? 3. Generate Hazardous Materials waste? 4. Involve the disposal of transformers with oils or pressure treated wood? 5. Involve energy storage systems (ESS), uninterruptible power supply (UPS), backup batteries, generators, inverters, IT rooms, or beverage dispensing systems? 6. Involve EPA listed Extremely Hazardous Substances? 7. Require the installation or removal of aboveground or underground storage tanks or sumps? 8. Involve HazMat related improvements (ex: fume hoods, storage cabinets)? If YES, provide brief explanation in note section below and either complete attached HazMat Inventory, or submit electronically through CERS (https://cersbusiness.calepa.ca.gov/Account/SignIn?ReturnUrl=%2f). I hereby certify under penalty of perjury that the information presented is true and correct to the best of my knowledge and belief. Intentional exclusion of any relevant information may be punishable under provisions set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code, Title 17, Chapter 17.48. If you have any questions, please call the Palo Alto Fire Prevention Bureau at (650) 329-2184 or email fire@cityofpaloalto.org for further assistance. _________________________________________ ___________________ _______________________ Signature Date Phone Number _________________________________________ ________________________________________________ Print Name/Title Firm Name For more info visit https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Development-Services/Fire-Prevention-Bureau Notes: 11/18/2021 Mitchell Park Place 525 E Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 X X X X X X X X X X Andrea Osgood / Senior Vice President Eden Housing 510-247-8103 3.b Packet Pg. 53 UN-012A - 1/1 www.unidocs.org Rev. 07/24/06 Hazardous Materials Inventory Non-Waste Continuation Page Page of This continuation page is provided for use with the Unidocs Hazardous Materials Registration Form or Hazardous Materials BusinessPlan (HMBP) in jurisdictions where local ordinance or code requires disclosure of hazardous materials handled in quantities below State HMBP reporting thresholds. Do not list hazardous wastes or HMBP-reportable materials on this form. Site Address: City: Non-Waste Inventory Information (Continued) Hazard Class Chemical/Common Name Max. Qty. (at any one time) Container Size (single largest container) Location(s) (Same as on Site Plan/Storage Map) gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. 3.b Packet Pg. 54 UN-012B - 1/1 www.unidocs.org Rev. 07/24/06 Hazardous Materials Inventory Waste Continuation Page Page of This continuation page is provided for use with the Unidocs Hazardous Materials Registration Form or Hazardous Materials BusinessPlan (HMBP) in jurisdictions where local ordinance or code requires disclosure of hazardous materials handled in quantities below State HMBP reporting thresholds. Do not list non-waste materials or HMBP-reportable wastes on this form. Site Address: City: Hazardous Waste Inventory Information (Continued) Hazard Class Name of Hazardous Waste Treatment/Disposal Method(s) (Definitions provided on bottom of page) Max. Qty. (at any one time) Annual Qty. Generated Location(s) (Same as on Site Plan/Storage Map) Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. Recycled on-site Treated on-site Shipped off-site for recycling/treatment/disposal gal. lbs. cu. ft. gal. lbs. cu. ft. 3.b Packet Pg. 55 BB.1 Dusty blue vertical siding. Morin Matrix series panels CP.1 Dusty blue cement plasterCP.ALL “Sand” Cement Plaster finish(painted as indicated in CP.1-3) Inspiration / precedent Image Materials Key CP.2 Charcoal cement plaster CP.3 Cocoa cement plaster WP.1 Vertical tongue and groove wood-appearing siding, wood soffits SV.1 Drystack ledgestone veneer at entry T.1 “Stackbond” arrangement of 1’x2’ Morin Integrity series panels (XC-12); with profile for wider vertical shadow lines (XD-12) AB.1 Anodized bronze fascia at roof, beams, door and window trim CP1 CP3 CP2 WP1 SV1 AB1 T.1 BB1 3.b Packet Pg. 56 ReleasedJune2021 PLANNING&COMMUNITYENVIRONMENT 250HamiltonAvenue,5thFloor PaloAlto,CA94301 650Ͳ329Ͳ2441 www.cityofpaloalto.org HOUSINGPROJECTSͲInformationChecklistforDevelopment ProjectAddress:____________________________________________________________________________ ForanyprojectincreasingorremovingmultiͲfamilyhousingunits,thisformshallbecompletedandincludedin thesubmittalapplicationpackageforPlanningreview.Thehousingdevelopmentinformationrequiredhereis supplementaltothesubmittalchecklistrequirementsforotherplanningentitlements(e.g.Architectural ReviewandSiteandDesign). 1. SummaryofChangestoHousingUnits ExistingUnits UnitstobeRemoved NewUnitstobeAdded TotalProposedUnitinProject RentalUnits OwnershipUnits 2. IstheprojectlocatedonaHousingInventorySite(HIS)?YesNo Ifyes,includeintheprojectdescriptionletter(1)theprojectedunityieldasdeterminedintheHousing Element(lookfor“HIS”intheCommentssectiononsite’sParcelReportfordetails;if“HIS”isnoton thereport,theparcelisnotaHIS);(2)theproject’scompliancewiththisunityield;and(3),ifthe projectdoesnotincludeenoughunitstomeettheHousingElementprojections,provideadetailed explanationofwhyareducednumberofunitsisproposed. 3. Indicateproposedprojecttype,checkallthatapply: x 100%Residential Withownershipunits,numberofunits:_____________ Withrentalunits,numberofunits:_____________ x MixedͲUse Withownershipunits,numberofunits:_____________ Withrentalunits,numberofunits:_____________ x CondoConversion,numberofunits:_____________ x ResidentialDevelopmentis100%Affordable,numberofunits:_____________ 4. BasedontheBelowMarketRate(BMR)requirementsinPAMC16.65,howmanyBMRunitsare requiredforthisproject?________[Generally,whentheBMRrequirementresultsinafractionalunit, aninͲlieufeepaymentmaybemadeforthefractionalunitinsteadofprovidinganactualBMRunit.] 525 E Charleston Road, Palo Alto, CA 94306 50 50 50 X X 50 50 n/a 0 0 0 3.b Packet Pg. 57 ReleasedJune2021 5. DoestheprojectutilizetheDensityBonus/ConcessionsprovisionsasdescribedinPAMC18.15? YesNo Ifyes,includeintheprojectdescriptionletterdetailsofwhatisproposedfortheprojectandhowthe projectwouldqualifyforallrequesteddensityincreasesand/orconcessions.Whenrequesting concessions,clearlydescribewhichonesarebeingrequestedfortheproject.Pleasecomplete followingtable: TotalNumberProposedUnitsPriortoDensity Bonus %ofRestrictedBMRUnitsProposedandUnit Count IncomeLevelofProposedRestrictedBMRUnits %DensityBonusRequested TotalNumberProposedUnitswithDensityBonus NumberofConcessionsAllowed NumberofConcessionsRequested 6. Doestheproposedprojectutilizeanyofthefollowingprogramsorprocesseslistedbelow?Ifso,this shouldbehighlightedintheprojectdescriptionletteralongwithalltherelevantdetailsoftheproject’s eligibilitytodoso. HousingIncentiveProgram(HIP)[minimum3units;noteligibleforDensityBonus,SB35,or HAA] SenateBill35(SB35)[minimum3units;eligibleforDensityBonuswith5+units] CaliforniaHousingAccountabilityAct(HAA)[minimum3units;eligibleforDensityBonuswith 5+units] 7. AffordableHousingPlan:Alldevelopmentprojectsthatincludeaffordableresidentialunits,asdefined inPAMC16.65.080,shallsubmitanAffordableHousingPlanforreviewandapproval.Seethe “AffordableHousingPlanSpecifications”handoutfordetails. X No base density No base density 50 With the exception of 1 manager's units, 100% of the units will be affordable/BMR. 80% AMI and below 4 concessions 3 concessions requested allowed See enclosed Affordable Housing Plan. 3.b Packet Pg. 58 ǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺRȒɖɀǣȇǕ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ ׏ِȵȵǼǣƬƏɎǣȒȇ ِnƺǕƏǼ(ƺɀƬȸǣȵɎǣȒȇ «ƺƏǼ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵǣȇɎǝƺ!ǣɎɵȒǔ¨ƏǼȒǼɎȒً!ȒɖȇɎɵȒǔ³ƏȇɎƏ!ǼƏȸƏً³ɎƏɎƺȒǔ!ƏǼǣǔȒȸȇǣƏًƳƺɀƬȸǣƫƺƳ ƏɀǔȒǼǼȒɯɀي ¨«!0nÁá³³RázzÁRÁ!0«ÁXz«0!«(I³È«à0çIXn0(I««0!«( XzÁR0IIX!0IÁR0«0!«(0«IÁR0!ÈzÁçI³zÁ!n«ً³ÁÁ0 I !nXI«zXzzà0x 0«׏חً׏חו׎Xz kאודIx¨³ًÁ¨J0בהِ ¨zي׏באٮ׎הٮ׎בח ِ³ǣɎƺ¨ǼƏȇɀ ¨ǼƺƏɀƺȸƺǔƺȸɎȒɀǝƺƺɎ¨!׏ِ׎ǔȒȸɎǝƺɀǣɎƺȵǼƏȇƏȇƳɀǝƺƺɎɀ¨הِ׏ɎǝȸȒɖǕǝ¨הِגƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕǔǼȒȒȸ ȵǼƏȇɀِÁǝƺƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƫƺ׏׎׎ۏƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺɀȒɎǝƺȸƺǣɀȇȒȇƺƺƳɎȒƳƺɀǣǕȇƏɎƺɎǝƺ ƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺɖȇǣɎɀِȇƺȒǔɎǝƺɎɯȒٮƫƺƳȸȒȒȅɖȇǣɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȸƺɀƺȸɮƺƳǔȒȸƏȇȒȇٮɀǣɎƺȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ ȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɀɎƏǔǔȅƺȅƫƺȸِ !ِxȒƳǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇɀɖȇƳƺȸ³ɎƏɎƺ(ƺȇɀǣɎɵ ȒȇɖɀnƏɯ ³ǣȇƬƺɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇƬƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺ׏׎׎ۏƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺǔȒȸǼȒɯƺȸǣȇƬȒȅƺǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀًɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎ ȷɖƏǼǣǔǣƺɀǔȒȸƏȇז׎ۏƳƺȇɀǣɎɵƫȒȇɖɀ٢ƏǼɎǝȒɖǕǝǣȇɎǝǣɀƬƏɀƺًɎǝƺɖȇƳƺȸǼɵǣȇǕɿȒȇǣȇǕƳȒƺɀȇȒɎ ǝƏɮƺƏƳƺȇɀǣɎɵǼǣȅǣɎًɀȒɎǝƺȸƺǣɀȇȒɎƏƳƺȇɀǣɎɵƫȒȇɖɀɎȒƏȵȵǼɵ٣ً ǔȒɖȸ ǣȇƬƺȇɎǣɮƺɀ Ȓȸ ƬȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇɀًƏȇƳɖȇǼǣȅǣɎƺƳɯƏǣɮƺȸɀɖȇƳƺȸɎǝƺ³ɎƏɎƺ(ƺȇɀǣɎɵ ȒȇɖɀnƏɯِ³ƺƺɎǝƺɎƏƫǼƺɀ ƏȇƳɀƺƬɎǣȒȇɀƫƺǼȒɯǔȒȸȅȒȸƺƳǣɀƬɖɀɀǣȒȇِ !ǣɎɵȒǔ¨ƏǼȒǼɎȒ(ƺȇɀǣɎɵ ȒȇɖɀÁƏƫǼƺ dŽƚĂůhŶŝƚƐWƌŝŽƌƚŽĞŶƐŝƚǇŽŶƵƐ EŽďĂƐĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚйĞŶƐŝƚǇŽŶƵƐZĞƋƵĞƐƚ EŽďĂƐĞĚĞŶƐŝƚǇ EƵŵďĞƌŽĨZĞƐƚƌŝĐƚĞĚDZhŶŝƚƐ WƌŽƉŽƐĞĚ ϰϵ /ŶĐŽŵĞ>ĞǀĞůŽĨZĞƐƚƌŝĐƚĞĚDZhŶŝƚƐ ϴϬйD/ĂŶĚďĞůŽǁ dŽƚĂůhŶŝƚƐǁŝƚŚĞŶƐŝƚǇŽŶƵƐ ϱϬ 3.b Packet Pg. 59 ǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺRȒɖɀǣȇǕ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ ñȒȇǣȇǕƬȒƳƺ³ɎƏɎƺ(ƺȇɀǣɎɵ Ȓȇɖɀ ÁǝǣɀȵȸȒǴƺƬɎ (ƺȇɀǣɎɵzȒƫƏɀƺƳƺȇɀǣɎɵ ÈȵɎȒז׎ۏǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺ ȵƺȸȅǣɎɎƺƳ הגɖȇǣɎɀٖƏƬȸƺ RƺǣǕǝɎד׎ټȒȸבדټǣǔɯǣɎǝǣȇ׏ד׎ټ ȒǔƏȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǣƏǼɿȒȇƺ XȇƬƺȇɎǣɮƺٖƬȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇ ɎȒƺɴƬƺƺƳבדټǼǣȅǣɎ ÁǝƺɎɯȒǔǼƏɎȸȒȒǔǼǣȇƺɀټ ǝƺǣǕǝɎƏȸƺבגټƏȇƳגגټِÁǝƺ ɎɯȒɀǼȒȵƺƳȸȒȒǔǼǣȇƺɀټǝƺǣǕǝɎ ٢ƏɎȅǣƳȵȒǣȇɎ٣ƏȸƺבחټƏȇƳ גחټِ ɖǣǼƳǣȇǕ ɀƺɎƫƏƬǸɀ IȸȒȇɎيאגټ ³ǣƳƺ٫áƺɀɎي׏׎ټ ³ǣƳƺ٫0ƏɀɎي׏׎ټ «ƺƏȸي׎ټ ٮٮ IȸȒȇɎيאגټ ³ǣƳƺ٫áƺɀɎي׏׎ټ ³ǣƳƺ٫0ƏɀɎي׏׎ټ «ƺƏȸي׎ټ nȒɎƬȒɮƺȸƏǕƺב׎ۏȅƏɴǣȅɖȅ XȇƬƺȇɎǣɮƺٖƬȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇ ɎȒǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺǼȒɎ ƬȒɮƺȸƏǕƺ בחۏ IǼȒȒȸȸƺƏ «ƏɎǣȒ٢I«٣ ׏ِ׎ȅƏɴǣȅɖȅ XȇƬƺȇɎǣɮƺٖƬȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇ ɎȒǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺI« ׏ِבב ¨ƏȸǸǣȇǕȸƏɎǣȒzȒȇȵȸȒǔǣɎǔǔǣƬƺÈɀƺي ׏׏ɀȵƏƬƺɀ٢אًוד׎ɀǔ ȒǔǔǣƬƺٖאד׎ɀǔٖɀɎƏǼǼ٣ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǣƏǼɖɀƺي׎ ɀȵƏƬƺɀ 0ɴƺȅȵɎǔȸȒȅƏǼǼ ȵƏȸǸǣȇǕɀɎƏȇƳƏȸƳɀ ɖȇƳƺȸJȒɮِ!ȒƳƺ ³ƺƬِהדח׏ד٢ȵ٣٢ג٣ א׎ɀȵƏƬƺɀ ÁǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎɀƺƺǸɀɎǝȸƺƺƬȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇɀًɯǣɎǝɎǝƺȸƺȅƏǣȇǣȇǕǣȇƬƺȇɎǣɮƺȒȸƬȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇɖȇɖɀƺƳ ƏɎɎǝǣɀɎǣȅƺِÁȒǕƺɎǝƺȸًɎǝƺɀƺɎǝȸƺƺƬȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇɀȸƺɀɖǼɎǣȇƏƬɎɖƏǼًǣƳƺȇɎǣǔǣƏƫǼƺƬȒɀɎȸƺƳɖƬɎǣȒȇɀ ƫɵƏǼǼȒɯǣȇǕǔȒȸƏȅȒȸƺƺǔǔǣƬǣƺȇɎƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕɎɵȵƺɎǝƏɎȸƺɀɖǼɎɀǣȇƏȇƺɎȸƺƳɖƬɎǣȒȇɎǝƺƬȒɀɎȵƺȸ ɀȷɖƏȸƺǔȒȒɎȒǔƬȒȇɀɎȸɖƬɎǣȒȇي ׏ِ !ȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇ٪תچnȒɎ!ȒɮƺȸƏǕƺيƬȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇǣɀȸƺȷɖƺɀɎƺƳǔȒȸɎǝƺ!ǣɎɵȒǔ¨ƏǼȒǼɎȒټɀ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎ ɀɎƏȇƳƏȸƳ Ȓǔ ב׎ۏ ȅƏɴǣȅɖȅ ǼȒɎ ƬȒɮƺȸƏǕƺِ ɀ ɀɎƏɎƺƳ ǣȇ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇ ׏זِ׏דِ׎ד׎ȒǔɎǝƺ¨ƏǼȒǼɎȒxɖȇǣƬǣȵƏǼ!ȒƳƺًƏȇƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎȅƏɵȸƺȷɖƺɀɎٹÈȵɎȒǔǣǔɎɵ ȵƺȸƬƺȇɎ٢ד׎ۏ٣ǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺȒɮƺȸɎǝƺȅƏɴǣȅɖȅɀǣɎƺƬȒɮƺȸƏǕƺȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎȒȸɖȵɎȒɎǝƺ ɀȷɖƏȸƺǔȒȒɎƏǕƺȒǔɎǝƺȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺɖȇǣɎɀًɯǝǣƬǝƺɮƺȸǣɀǼƺɀɀِٺɖȸȵȸȒȵȒɀƺƳ ǼȒɎƬȒɮƺȸƏǕƺǣɀבחۏًƏב׎ۏǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺȒɮƺȸɎǝƺȅƏɴǣȅɖȅɀǣɎƺƬȒɮƺȸƏǕƺȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎِ אِ !ȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇ٪׫چ ɖǣǼƳǣȇǕǝƺǣǕǝɎيÁǝƺȵȸȒȵȒɀƺƳƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕǝƏɀגȅƏǣȇȸȒȒǔǼǣȇƺɀƏɎ ƳǣǔǔƺȸƺȇɎȵƏȸɎɀȒǔɎǝƺƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕƏɎɎǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕǝƺǣǕǝɎɀِÁǝƺɎɯȒǔǼƏɎȸȒȒǔǼǣȇƺɀټǝƺǣǕǝɎ ƏȸƺבגټƏȇƳגגټِÁǝƺɎɯȒɀǼȒȵƺƳȸȒȒǔǼǣȇƺɀټǝƺǣǕǝɎ٢ƏɎȅǣƳȵȒǣȇɎ٣ƏȸƺבחټƏȇƳגחټِÁǝƺ ƺɴǣɀɎǣȇǕɿȒȇǣȇǕƬȒƳƺƏǼǼȒɯɀבדټɯǣɎǝǣȇ׏ד׎ټȒǔƏȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǣƏǼɿȒȇƺƏȇƳד׎ټƺɮƺȸɵɯǝƺȸƺ ƺǼɀƺِÁǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎɀǣɎƺǣɀɯǣɎǝǣȇƏȵȵȸȒɴǣȅƏɎƺǼɵ׏׎׎ټɎȒא׎׎ټȒǔɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǣƏǼɿȒȇƺ ƏƬȸȒɀɀ0ِ!ǝƏȸǼƺɀɎȒȇ«ƳِƏȇƳȇƺƏȸƫɵɎǝƺÈȇǣɎƏȸǣƏȇÈȇǣɮƺȸɀƏǼǣɀɎ!ǝɖȸƬǝȒǔ¨ƏǼȒǼɎȒ ɯǝǣƬǝǣɀɿȒȇƺƳƏɀȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǣƏǼِ 3.b Packet Pg. 60 ǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺRȒɖɀǣȇǕ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ בِ !ȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇ٪׬ډIǼȒȒȸƏȸƺƏȸƏɎǣȒ٫ɎǝƺȵȸȒȵȒɀƺƳƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕǝƏɀƏȇI«Ȓǔ׏ِבבٕ׏ِ׎ǣɀ ƏǼǼȒɯƺƳɖȇƳƺȸɎǝƺƺɴǣɀɎǣȇǕɿȒȇǣȇǕƬȒƳƺِ גِ !ȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇ٪׭٫ÈȇɖɀƺƳِ ÈȇƳƺȸ Ɏǝƺ (ƺȇɀǣɎɵ Ȓȇɖɀ nƏɯً Ɏǝƺ ȵȸȒǴƺƬɎ ƏǼɀȒ ȷɖƏǼǣǔǣƺɀ ǔȒȸ ɖȇǼǣȅǣɎƺƳɯƏǣɮƺȸɀȒǔ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎ ɀɎƏȇƳƏȸƳɀ ɎǝƏɎ ɯȒɖǼƳ ȵǝɵɀǣƬƏǼǼɵ ȵȸƺƬǼɖƳƺ Ɏǝƺ ƬȒȇɀɎȸɖƬɎǣȒȇ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎِɎɎǝǣɀɎǣȅƺًɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎƳȒƺɀȇȒɎɀƺƺǸƏȇɵɯƏǣɮƺȸɀِ XȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇًɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎȷɖƏǼǣǔǣƺɀǔȒȸƏȇƺɴƺȅȵɎǣȒȇǔȸȒȅȵƏȸǸǣȇǕȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀɖȇƳƺȸɎǝƺ (ƺȇɀǣɎɵ ȒȇɖɀnƏɯƏɀǣɎǣȇƬǼɖƳƺɀɀȵƺƬǣƏǼȇƺƺƳɀǝȒɖɀǣȇǕƏȇƳǣɀǼȒƬƏɎƺƳȇƺƏȸǔȸƺȷɖƺȇɎƫɖɀ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺِxȒȸƺɀȵƺƬǣǔǣƬƏǼǼɵًɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎȷɖƏǼǣǔǣƺɀǔȒȸȸƺǼǣƺǔǔȸȒȅƏǼǼȵƏȸǸǣȇǕɀɎƏȇƳƏȸƳɀƫƺƬƏɖɀƺ ƏȵȵȸȒɴǣȅƏɎƺǼɵǝƏǼǔȒǔɎǝƺɖȇǣɎɀɯǣǼǼǝƏɮƺƏɀƺɎٮƏɀǣƳƺȒȸǼƺƏɀǣȇǕȵȸƺǔƺȸƺȇƬƺǔȒȸǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼɀ ɯǣɎǝɀȵƺƬǣƏǼȇƺƺƳɀِǼɀȒًɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎǣɀǼȒƬƏɎƺƳɯǣɎǝǣȇƏǝƏǼǔȅǣǼƺȒǔɖȇȒƫɀɎȸɖƬɎƺƳƏƬƬƺɀɀɎȒ ǔǣɴƺƳȸȒɖɎƺƫɖɀɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕƏɎǼƺƏɀɎƺǣǕǝɎɎǣȅƺɀȵƺȸƳƏɵ٢àÁ«ȒɖɎƺא׏٣ِɀɀɖƬǝًɎǝƺ ȵȸȒǴƺƬɎǣɀȇȒɎȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƏȇɵȅǣȇǣȅɖȅƏȅȒɖȇɎȒǔȵƏȸǸǣȇǕِ Áǝƺ ƬȒȇƬƺȵɎɖƏǼ ƳƺɀǣǕȇƬɖȸȸƺȇɎǼɵǣȇƬǼɖƳƺɀא׎ɀȵƏƬƺɀȒǔɀɖȸǔƏƬƺȵƏȸǸǣȇǕǣȇƏٹɀǝƏȸƺƳȵƏȸǸǣȇǕٺƏȸȸƏȇǕƺȅƺȇɎ ȵȸǣȅƏȸǣǼɵǔȒȸɎǝƺȒǔǔǣƬƺɀȵƏƬƺټɀɖɀƺƳɖȸǣȇǕȵƺƏǸƳƏɵɎǣȅƺǝȒɖȸɀƏȇƳǔȒȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǣƏǼɖɀƺ ƳɖȸǣȇǕȒǔǔٮȵƺƏǸǝȒɖȸɀِ אِǔǔǣȸȅƏɎǣɮƺxƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕ ِ¨ȸƺǼǣȅǣȇƏȸɵxƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕ¨ǼƏȇ ³ƺƺƺȇƬǼȒɀƺƳ¨ȸƺǼǣȅǣȇƏȸɵxƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕ¨ǼƏȇِ ِ¨ȸƺǼǣȅǣȇƏȸɵxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ¨ǼƏȇ ³ƺƺƺȇƬǼȒɀƺƳ¨ȸƺǼǣȅǣȇƏȸɵxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ¨ǼƏȇِ בِǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǣǼǣɎɵ ِ(ƺɀƬȸǣȵɎǣȒȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺɯǣǼǼȵȸȒɮǣƳƺד׎ȸƺȇɎƏǼƏȵƏȸɎȅƺȇɎɀƬȒȅȵȸǣɀƺƳȒǔƏȅǣɴȒǔɀɎɖƳǣȒɀًȒȇƺٮ ƫƺƳȸȒȒȅƏȵƏȸɎȅƺȇɎɀًƏȇƳɎɯȒٮƫƺƳȸȒȒȅƏȵƏȸɎȅƺȇɎɀِǼǼȒǔɎǝƺɖȇǣɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳƏɀ ƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺɎȒǼȒɯƺȸǣȇƬȒȅƺǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀًƺɴƬƺȵɎǔȒȸȒȇƺɎɯȒٮƫƺƳȸȒȒȅȅƏȇƏǕƺȸټɀɖȇǣɎِ ÁǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕɎƏƫǼƺɀɖȅȅƏȸǣɿƺɀɎǝƺǣȇƬȒȅƺƏȇƳȸƺȇɎȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎǣȒȇɀɎǝƏɎɯǣǼǼƏȵȵǼɵɎȒɎǝǣɀ ȵȸȒǴƺƬɎɎȒȸƺƬƺǣɮƺɎǝƺɀɎƏɎƺƳƺȇɀǣɎɵƫȒȇɖɀِ 3.b Packet Pg. 61 ǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺRȒɖɀǣȇǕ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ «ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳÈȇǣɎ Áɵȵƺ zɖȅƫƺȸ Ȓǔ «ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳ ÈȇǣɎɀ ÈȇǣɎ ³ȷɖƏȸƺ IȒȒɎƏǕƺ xƏɴǣȅɖȅ ÁƺȇƏȇɎ RȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳ XȇƬȒȅƺ xƏɴǣȅɖȅȇȇɖƏǼ «ƺȇɎ ¨ǼƏȇ ³ǝƺƺɎ ¨ƏǕƺ ³ɎɖƳǣȒ ׏׎ ג׎׎ٮגג׎ɀǔ ז׎ۏȒǔxX ב׎ۏȒǔה׎ۏȒǔxX Wϲ͘ϭͲ Wϲ͘ϰ ³ɎɖƳǣȒ אח ג׎׎ٮגג׎ɀǔ ז׎ۏȒǔxX ב׎ۏȒǔז׎ۏȒǔxX Wϲ͘ϭͲ Wϲ͘ϰ ׏ ƺƳȸȒȒȅ ה דד׎ɀǔ ז׎ۏȒǔxX ב׎ۏȒǔז׎ۏȒǔxX Wϲ͘ϭͲ Wϲ͘ϰ א ƺƳȸȒȒȅ ג זז׎ٮחא׎ɀǔ ז׎ۏȒǔxX ב׎ۏȒǔז׎ۏȒǔxX Wϲ͘ϭͲ Wϲ͘ϰ ÁȒɎƏǼ«ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳ ÈȇǣɎɀגח ÁȒɎƏǼzȒȇٮ «ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳÈȇǣɎɀ ٢xƏȇƏǕƺȸÈȇǣɎɀ٣ ׏ ÁȒɎƏǼ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎ ÈȇǣɎɀד׎ JȒɮƺȸȇȅƺȇɎ!ȒƳƺۯהדח׏ד٢ƫ٣٢׏٣٢J٣ǼƏɵɀȒɖɎɎǝƺǣȇƬȒȅƺǼǣȅǣɎɀƏȵȵǼǣƬƏƫǼƺɎȒ׏׎׎ۏƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺ (ƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎɀɎǝƏɎȷɖƏǼǣǔɵǔȒȸƏƳƺȇɀǣɎɵƫȒȇɖɀي ȇƺǝɖȇƳȸƺƳȵƺȸƬƺȇɎȒǔɎǝƺɎȒɎƏǼɖȇǣɎɀ٦ƺɴƬǼɖɀǣɮƺȒǔƏȅƏȇƏǕƺȸڗɀɖȇǣɎȒȸɖȇǣɎɀ٦Əȸƺ ǔȒȸǼȒɯƺȸǣȇƬȒȅƺǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀ٦ƏɀƳƺǔǣȇƺƳƫɵ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇ׮ששװײ٫׮ȒǔɎǝƺRƺƏǼɎǝƏȇƳ ³ƏǔƺɎɵ!ȒƳƺ٦ƺɴƬƺȵɎɎǝƏɎɖȵɎȒ׫שȵƺȸƬƺȇɎȒǔɎǝƺɎȒɎƏǼɖȇǣɎɀǣȇɎǝƺƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎ ȅƏɵ ƫƺ ǔȒȸ ȅȒƳƺȸƏɎƺډǣȇƬȒȅƺ ǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀ٦ Əɀ ƳƺǔǣȇƺƳ ǣȇ ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇ ׮שש׮׬ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ RƺƏǼɎǝƏȇƳ³ƏǔƺɎɵ!ȒƳƺ٫ת nǣǸƺɯǣɀƺًJȒɮƺȸȇȅƺȇɎ!ȒƳƺۯהדהד׏٢Ə٣٢א٣ȸƺȷɖǣȸƺɀȵȸȒǴƺƬɎɀɎǝƏɎɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȸȒƬƺɀɀƺƳɖȇƳƺȸɎǝƺ ³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺRȒɖɀǣȇǕƬɎɎȒƳƺƳǣƬƏɎƺȒȇƺǝɖȇƳȸƺƳȵƺȸƬƺȇɎȒǔɎǝƺɖȇǣɎɀً ƺɴƬǼɖƳǣȇǕ ȅƏȇƏǕƺȸɀټɖȇǣɎɀًɯǣɎǝǣȇɎǝƺƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎɎȒǼȒɯƺȸǣȇƬȒȅƺǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀً Əɀ ƳƺǔǣȇƺƳ ǣȇ ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇד׎׎וחِדȒǔɎǝƺRƺƏǼɎǝƏȇƳ³ƏǔƺɎɵ!ȒƳƺِ ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇד׎׎וחِדȒǔɎǝƺRƺƏǼɎǝƏȇƳ³ƏǔƺɎɵ!ȒƳƺƳƺǔǣȇƺɀٹǼȒɯƺȸǣȇƬȒȅƺǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀٺƏɀ ǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀƺƏȸȇǣȇǕɖȵɎȒז׎ȵƺȸƬƺȇɎȒǔƏȸƺƏȅƺƳǣƏȇǣȇƬȒȅƺِאIȒȸɎǝƺȵɖȸȵȒɀƺɀȒǔɎǝƺ (ƺȇɀǣɎɵ ȒȇɖɀƏȇƳ³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺRȒɖɀǣȇǕƬɎRȒɖɀǣȇǕǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎɀًɯƺȵȸȒȵȒɀƺɎȒȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎ ׏׎׎ȵƺȸƬƺȇɎȒǔɖȇǣɎɀ٢ƺɴƬƺȵɎǔȒȸɎǝƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȸټɀɖȇǣɎ٣ƏɀǼȒɯƺȸٮǣȇƬȒȅƺƏɎז׎ȵƺȸƬƺȇɎȒǔƏȸƺƏ ȅƺƳǣƏȇǣȇƬȒȅƺِ ׏ǝɎɎȵɀيٖٖǼƺǕǣȇǔȒِǼƺǕǣɀǼƏɎɖȸƺِƬƏِǕȒɮٖǔƏƬƺɀٖƬȒƳƺɀٗƳǣɀȵǼƏɵ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇِɴǝɎȅǼّǼƏɯ!ȒƳƺڻJàۭɀƺƬɎǣȒȇzɖȅڻהדח׏ד אǝɎɎȵɀيٖٖǼƺǕǣȇǔȒِǼƺǕǣɀǼƏɎɖȸƺِƬƏِǕȒɮٖǔƏƬƺɀٖƬȒƳƺɀٗƳǣɀȵǼƏɵ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇِɴǝɎȅǼّǼƏɯ!ȒƳƺڻR³!ۭɀƺƬɎǣȒȇzɖȅڻד׎׎וחِד 3.b Packet Pg. 62 ǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺRȒɖɀǣȇǕ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ JȒɮƺȸȇȅƺȇɎ!ȒƳƺۯהדח׏ד٢Ƭ٣٢׏٣٢ ٣٢ǣǣ٣ǔɖȸɎǝƺȸǣƳƺȇɎǣǔǣƺɀɎǝƺȸƺȇɎɎǝƏɎȅɖɀɎƫƺƬǝƏȸǕƺƳɎȒɎǝƺ ǼȒɯٮǣȇƬȒȅƺȸƺȇɎƏǼɖȇǣɎɀِ!ǼƏɖɀƺ٢ǣǣ٣ƏȵȵǼǣƺɀɀǣȇƬƺɎǝǣɀȵȸȒǴƺƬɎɯǣǼǼȸƺƬƺǣɮƺƏȇƏǼǼȒƬƏɎǣȒȇȒǔ ɀɎƏɎƺȒȸǔƺƳƺȸƏǼǼȒɯٮǣȇƬȒȅƺǝȒɖɀǣȇǕɎƏɴƬȸƺƳǣɎɀǔȸȒȅɎǝƺ!ƏǼǣǔȒȸȇǣƏÁƏɴ!ȸƺƳǣɎǼǼȒƬƏɎǣȒȇ !ȒȅȅǣɎɎƺƺƏȇƳȸƺƏƳɀي ǣǣ٫ IȒȸǝȒɖɀǣȇǕƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎɀȅƺƺɎǣȇǕɎǝƺƬȸǣɎƺȸǣƏȒǔɀɖƫȵƏȸƏǕȸƏȵǝٽJپȒǔ ȵƏȸƏǕȸƏȵǝ ٽתپ Ȓǔ ɀɖƫƳǣɮǣɀǣȒȇ ٽƫپ٦ ȸƺȇɎɀ ǔȒȸ ƏǼǼ ɖȇǣɎɀ ǣȇ Ɏǝƺ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎ٦ ǣȇƬǼɖƳǣȇǕƫȒɎǝƫƏɀƺƳƺȇɀǣɎɵƏȇƳƳƺȇɀǣɎɵƫȒȇɖɀɖȇǣɎɀ٦ɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƏɀǔȒǼǼȒɯɀ٥ ٽXپ ÁǝƺȸƺȇɎǔȒȸƏɎǼƺƏɀɎ׫שȵƺȸƬƺȇɎȒǔɎǝƺɖȇǣɎɀǣȇɎǝƺƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ ɀƺɎƏɎƏȇ ƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺ ȸƺȇɎ٦Əɀ ƳƺǔǣȇƺƳ ǣȇ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇ ׮שש׮׬ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ RƺƏǼɎǝƏȇƳ³ƏǔƺɎɵ!ȒƳƺ٫ ٽXXپ ÁǝƺȸƺȇɎǔȒȸɎǝƺȸƺȅƏǣȇǣȇǕɖȇǣɎɀǣȇɎǝƺƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼƫƺɀƺɎƏɎ ƏȇƏȅȒɖȇɎƬȒȇɀǣɀɎƺȇɎɯǣɎǝɎǝƺȅƏɴǣȅɖȅȸƺȇɎǼƺɮƺǼɀǔȒȸƏǝȒɖɀǣȇǕ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎɎǝƏɎȸƺƬƺǣɮƺɀƏȇƏǼǼȒƬƏɎǣȒȇȒǔɀɎƏɎƺȒȸǔƺƳƺȸƏǼǼȒɯډ ǣȇƬȒȅƺǝȒɖɀǣȇǕɎƏɴƬȸƺƳǣɎɀǔȸȒȅɎǝƺ!ƏǼǣǔȒȸȇǣƏÁƏɴ!ȸƺƳǣɎǼǼȒƬƏɎǣȒȇ !ȒȅȅǣɎɎƺƺ٫ ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇד׎׎דבȒǔɎǝƺRƺƏǼɎǝƏȇƳ³ƏǔƺɎɵ!ȒƳƺƳƺǔǣȇƺɀɎǝƺٹƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺȸƺȇɎٺǔȒȸǼȒɯƺȸǣȇƬȒȅƺ ǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀƏɀɎǝƺȵȸȒƳɖƬɎȒǔב׎ȵƺȸƬƺȇɎɎǣȅƺɀה׎ȵƺȸƬƺȇɎȒǔɎǝƺƏȸƺƏȅƺƳǣƏȇǣȇƬȒȅƺ ƏƳǴɖɀɎƺƳǔȒȸǔƏȅǣǼɵɀǣɿƺƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺǔȒȸɎǝƺɖȇǣɎِבÁǝƺɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺƏƫȒɮƺȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎɀא׎ȵƺȸƬƺȇɎ ȒǔɖȇǣɎɀ٢׏׎ɖȇǣɎɀ٣ƏɎɎǝƺƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺȸƺȇɎِáƺȸƺȷɖƺɀɎɎȒȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎɎǝƺȸƺȅƏǣȇǣȇǕǼȒɯǣȇƬȒȅƺ ɖȇǣɎɀƏɎב׎ȵƺȸƬƺȇɎɎǣȅƺɀז׎ȵƺȸƬƺȇɎȒǔɎǝƺƏȸƺƏȅƺƳǣƏȇǣȇƬȒȅƺًɯǝǣƬǝǣɀɎǝƺȅƏɴǣȅɖȅ ȸƺȇɎǼƺɮƺǼƏǼǼȒɯƏƫǼƺǔȒȸǝȒɖɀǣȇǕƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎɎǝƏɎȸƺƬƺǣɮƺɀǼȒɯٮǣȇƬȒȅƺ ǝȒɖɀǣȇǕ ɎƏɴ ƬȸƺƳǣɎɀِÁǝƺ³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺRȒɖɀǣȇǕƬɎƳȒƺɀȇȒɎƳƺǔǣȇƺƏɀȵƺƬǣǔǣƬȸƺȇɎǼƺɮƺǼًȒɎǝƺȸɎǝƏȇɎȒ ƺȇɀɖȸƺɎǝƏɎɖȇǣɎɀƏȸƺƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺɎȒǼȒɯƺȸǣȇƬȒȅƺǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀِ XɎ ǣɀ Ȓɖȸ ǣȇɎƺȇɎǣȒȇ ƏȇƳ ȵǼƏȇ ɎȒ ȵȸȒɮǣƳƺ Ɏǝƺ ƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺ ɖȇǣɎɀ ƏɎǼȒɯƺȸǣȇƬȒȅƺǼƺɮƺǼɀǣȇ ȵȸƏƬɎǣƬƺ٢ǼǣǸƺǼɵƫƺɎɯƺƺȇב׎ۏƏȇƳה׎ۏxًƏɀƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇƺƳƫɵ!ƏǼǣǔȒȸȇǣƏ ÁƏɴ !ȸƺƳǣɎ ǼǼȒƬƏɎǣȒȇ!ȒȅȅǣɎɎƺƺ٢!Á!!٣٣ًƫɖɎɯƺȸƺȷɖƺɀɎɎȒɖɀƺɎǝƺȅƏɴǣȅɖȅƏǼǼȒɯƏƫǼƺǣȇƬȒȅƺ ƏȇƳȸƺȇɎǼǣȅǣɎɀǣȇɎǝƺ(ƺȇɀǣɎɵ ȒȇɖɀRȒɖɀǣȇǕǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎǣȇȒȸƳƺȸɎȒȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇǔǼƺɴǣƫǣǼǣɎɵِ áƺȅƏɵȇƺƺƳɎȒƏƳǴɖɀɎƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǣǼǣɎɵǼƺɮƺǼɀǣȇȒȸƳƺȸɎȒƺȇɀɖȸƺƬȒȅȵƺɎǣɎǣɮƺȇƺɀɀǣȇǔɖɎɖȸƺ ǔɖȇƳǣȇǕƏȵȵǼǣƬƏɎǣȒȇɀƏȇƳȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎǣȇǕɎȒɎǝƺȅƏɴǣȅɖȅƏǼǼȒɯƏƫǼƺǣȇƬȒȅƺƏȇƳȸƺȇɎǼƺɮƺǼɀ ɯǣǼǼƏǼǼȒɯǔȒȸɎǝǣɀǔǼƺɴǣƫǣǼǣɎɵِ ِ«ƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎ !ɖȸȸƺȇɎǼɵً Ɏǝƺȸƺ Əȸƺ ȇȒ ȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵ ƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎɀ Ȓȸ ȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎǣɮƺ ƬȒɮƺȇƏȇɎɀ ȸƺƬȒȸƳƺƳ ǔȒȸ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺِRȒɯƺɮƺȸً׏׎׎ۏȒǔɎǝƺɖȇǣɎɀًƺɴƬǼɖƳǣȇǕɎǝƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȸټɀɖȇǣɎًɯǣǼǼƫƺ ɀɖƫǴƺƬɎɎȒȸƺƬȒȸƳƺƳƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǣǼǣɎɵȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎǣȒȇɀǔȒȸƏɎǼƺƏɀɎדדɵƺƏȸɀِ בǝɎɎȵɀيٖٖǼƺǕǣȇǔȒِǼƺǕǣɀǼƏɎɖȸƺِƬƏِǕȒɮٖǔƏƬƺɀٖƬȒƳƺɀٗƳǣɀȵǼƏɵ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇِɴǝɎȅǼّɀƺƬɎǣȒȇzɖȅڻד׎׎דבِۭǼƏɯ!ȒƳƺڻR³! 3.b Packet Pg. 63 ǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺRȒɖɀǣȇǕ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ גِIǣȇƏȇƬǣȇǕ ÁǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎɀƺƺǸɀɎǝȸƺƺƬȒȇƬƺɀɀǣȒȇɀɎǝƏɎȸƺɀɖǼɎǣȇƏƬɎɖƏǼًǣƳƺȇɎǣǔǣƏƫǼƺƬȒɀɎȸƺƳɖƬɎǣȒȇɀƫɵ ƏǼǼȒɯǣȇǕǔȒȸƏȅȒȸƺƺǔǔǣƬǣƺȇɎƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕɎɵȵƺɎǝƏɎȸƺɀɖǼɎɀǣȇƏȇƺɎȸƺƳɖƬɎǣȒȇɎǝƺƬȒɀɎȵƺȸ ɀȷɖƏȸƺǔȒȒɎȒǔƬȒȇɀɎȸɖƬɎǣȒȇِ דِxȒȇǣɎȒȸǣȇǕ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺǣɀƏ׏׎׎ۏƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎɎǝƏɎɯǣǼǼǝƏɮƺȅɖǼɎǣȵǼƺȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵ ƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎɀِ0ƳƺȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕټɀȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎًƏɀɀƺɎȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎًƏȇƳƬȒȅȵǼǣƏȇƬƺ ɎƺƏȅɀ Əȸƺ ƺɴȵƺȸǣƺȇƬƺƳ ɯǣɎǝ ǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕ ȸƺǕɖǼƏɎǣȒȇɀ ɎǝƏɎ ƏȵȵǼɵ ɎȒȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳ ɖȇǣɎɀ ǣȇ ǣɎɀ ȵȒȸɎǔȒǼǣȒȒǔȒɮƺȸ׏׎ً׎׎׎ɖȇǣɎɀɀɎƏɎƺɯǣƳƺِ 0ƳƺȇټɀɀɎƏȇƳƏȸƳȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɯǣǼǼƫƺƏɀǔȒǼǼȒɯɀي Əِ ٓÁǣƬǸǼƺȸǔǣǼƺٓɯǣǼǼƫƺǸƺȵɎȒȇɎǝƺȅȒɮƺٮǣȇƏȇȇǣɮƺȸɀƏȸɵȅȒȇɎǝǔȒȸƏǼǼȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀِ ٢ȸƏȇȇɖƏǼȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇƳƏɎƺǔȒȸɯǝȒǼƺȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵِ٣ ƫِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼȸƺƬƺǣɮƺȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇȇȒɎǣƬƺɀƏɎ׏א׎ًח׎ًה׎ƏȇƳב׎ƳƏɵɀȵȸǣȒȸɎȒ ɎǝƺǣȸƏȇȇǣɮƺȸɀƏȸɵِ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼȸƺƬƺǣɮƺƏǼƺɎɎƺȸƏƳɮǣɀǣȇǕɎǝƺȅȒǔɎǝƺǣȸ ǣȅȵƺȇƳǣȇǕȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇƳƏɎƺًƏɀǸǣȇǕɎǝƺȅɎȒƬȒȅƺǣȇǔȒȸƏȵƺȸɀȒȇƏǼ ǣȇɎƺȸɮǣƺɯƏȇƳɀǣǕȇɎǝƺȸƺǼƺƏɀƺȵȒȸɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺɎǝǣȸƳٮȵƏȸɎɵɮƺȸǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇǔȒȸȅɀِ ÁǝƺɀƺɯǣǼǼƫƺǔȒȸɯƏȸƳƺƳɎȒɎǝƺƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺɎǝǣȸƳȵƏȸɎǣƺɀِ Ƭِ ɎɎǝƺɎǣȅƺȒǔȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇًǣǔƏǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳǣȇƬȒȅƺƺɴƬƺƺƳɀɎǝƺǼǣȅǣɎ ƳƺɀǣǕȇƏɎƺƳǔȒȸɎǝƏɎɖȇǣɎƫɵɎǝƺɖȇǣɎټɀƏɀɀǣǕȇƺƳȸƺƏxƺƳǣɖȅXȇƬȒȅƺ٢xX٣ǔȒȸ ɎǝƺǣȸǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀǣɿƺɎǝƺǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳȅƏɵƫƺƏɀɀǣǕȇƺƳƏȇƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺxXɖȇǣɎ ɯǝƺȇƏɖȇǣɎǣɀƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺًƏȇƳɎǝƺǔƏȅǣǼɵƫƺƬǝƏȸǕƺƳȸƺȇɎƏƬƬȒȸƳǣȇǕǼɵِÁǝƺȇƺɴɎ ƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺɖȇǣɎɯǣǼǼƫƺȸƺȇɎƺƳɎȒƏȇǣȇƬȒȅƺٮȷɖƏǼǣǔǣƺƳǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳƏɀȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳƫɵ ɎǝƺȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎِÁǝƺ«ƺǕǣȒȇƏǼxƏȇƏǕƺȸɯǣǼǼȅƏǸƺɎǝƺƳƺƬǣɀǣȒȇȒȇ ɎǝƺɀƺƬǝƏȇǕƺɀِ הِ«ƺǼȒƬƏɎǣȒȇƏȇƳ(ǣɀȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎ zȒȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǣƏǼƳǣɀȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎɯȒɖǼƳȒƬƬɖȸƏɀƏȸƺɀɖǼɎȒǔɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎًƏȇƳȇȒȸƺǼȒƬƏɎǣȒȇǣɀ ȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳِ 3.b Packet Pg. 64 Mitchell Park Place Affirmatively Further Fair Marketing Plan Eden Housing Inc. and Eden Housing Management, Inc. will strive to create a culturally diverse community at Mitchell Park Place. To this end, the ownership and its management agent will carry out an affirmative marketing plan for marketing and leasing of this property. The following outlines steps the ownership and its management agent will take to outreach to populations that are either: 1) unlikely to apply for housing; and/or 2) may have difficulty in learning of affordable housing opportunities such as Mitchell Park Place. The ownership will consider all applicants without regards to race, ethnicity, national origin, religion, creed, sex, martial or veteran status, actual or perceived gender identity, sexual orientation, medical condition or handicap. 1. Outreach to Target Group: People of all ethnicities, abilities, sexualities, genders, and minority communities will be targeted through community outreach and advertising. Approximately three months in advance of initial lease-up Eden will conduct a survey on www.census.gov in line with tools utilized to develop a HUD Affirmative Fair Housing Marketing Plan. Upon identifying appropriate communities to target we will implement outreach to the communities identified. Outreach to the community will reach a diverse ethnic and economic mix. Identified communities will be offered the same opportunity to complete an application to be included in the lottery for Mitchell Park Place. Community outreach will specifically be conducted through places of worship, community service organizations, local and regional newspapers and governmental agencies. The outreach will be neighborhood, based, city and county wide, and regional in focus. Advertising shall include use of newspaper advertisements in English, Spanish and Vietnamese, flyers to community organizations and resources, and notification of availability of rental units to public and private agencies. Banners will be prominently displayed at the site and three community meetings will be held to encourage members of community to engage in the process. 2. Advertising Media Media advertisement will also be used to specifically target the population least likely to apply for housing at Mitchell Park Place. Advertisements will be placed in the following publications and media: 1) TBD 2) Vietnamese and Spanish publications 3.b Packet Pg. 65 3. Marketing Plans and Procedures Units shall be marketed in accordance with Affirmative Fair Housing marketing guidelines as outlined in this plan. All advertising for the units in Mitchell Park Place will include prominent use of Equal Housing Opportunity logos, slogans and\or statements of intent affirmatively market the units. The font size will be no smaller than size 12. We anticipate that the surrounding community will become aware of the project during the construction phase. The Ownership will collect names and addresses of interested parties and inform them of application availability and a telephone “hotline” number will also be posted on the site when appropriate. An interest list will be maintained and updated on a regular basis. Those on the interest list will also be contacted prior to the application period via a flyer. 4. Grievance and Appeal Procedure Those applicants not selected for occupancy will be provided with written notification stating the reason for ineligibility. Such reasons might include, but not limited to the following: over income, insufficient income, poor landlord history, criminal background and credit that does not met the resident selection criteria. Those applicants denied for residency shall be provided with the opportunity to appeal. The appeal process shall allow for the applicant to provide supplemental information to the application including additional third party verification and\or testimony. 5. Community Organizations Contacted List to be determined approximately 6 months prior to lease-up. 6. Initial Lease-Up Lottery Eden will open the application period for a set amount of time (i.e. March 1, 2024 through March 30, 2024). Eden will review all applications for completeness and eliminate all incomplete applications. Eden will run a lottery on all applications received to give an order number. Eden will purge the list on a regular basis as identified in their Resident Selection Plan. After the initial lottery list is exhausted, rent up will be through public outreach and all vacancies will be advertised per this Affirmative Marketing Plan. 3.b Packet Pg. 66 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏1 xzJ0x0zÁ¨nz ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎzƏȅƺي xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎnȒƬƏɎǣȒȇي ¨ƏǼȒǼɎȒً!ƏǼǣǔȒȸȇǣƏ ¨ȸƺȵƏȸƺƳي zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸ׏׎ًא׎א׏ ³ÁÁ0x0zÁIxzJ0x0zÁ¨nX!ç ÁǝƺǕȒƏǼȒǔ0ƳƺȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎًXȇƬِǣɀɎȒƺȇɀɖȸƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƏɎǣɀǔƏƬɎǣȒȇًƏȇƳɎǝƺǼȒȇǕٮɎƺȸȅ ǔǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼƏȇƳȵǝɵɀǣƬƏǼɯƺǼǼٮƫƺǣȇǕȒǔxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺɎǝȸȒɖǕǝɎǝƺȵȸȒɮǣɀǣȒȇȒǔǝǣǕǝٮȷɖƏǼǣɎɵ ȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀِÁȒɯƏȸƳɎǝǣɀƺȇƳًɎǝǣɀȵǼƏȇǝƏɀƫƺƺȇƳƺɮƺǼȒȵƺƳɎȒɀƺɎǔȒȸɎǝɎǝƺȸƺǼƏɎǣȒȇɀǝǣȵ ƫƺɎɯƺƺȇ Ɏǝƺ ɯȇƺȸ ƏȇƳ Ɏǝƺ xƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ ǕƺȇɎ ƏȇƳ ɎȒ ƳƺɀƬȸǣƫƺ ǣȇ ƳƺɎƏǣǼ Ɏǝƺ ȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀ ƏȇƳ ȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀِ ³ȵƺƬǣǔǣƬƏǼǼɵًɎǝƺȵǼƏȇǣȇɎƺȇƳɀɎȒȒɖɎǼǣȇƺƏƳƺǔǣȇǣɎƺȵȸȒǕȸƏȅȒǔƏƬɎǣȒȇɎȒƏɀɀɖȸƺي ׏ِ ɯƺǼǼٮȅƏȇƏǕƺƳƏȇƳȵȸȒȵƺȸǼɵȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇƺƳȵȸȒǴƺƬɎ אِ ȵǼƺƏɀƏȇɎًǝƺƏǼɎǝɵًƏȇƳɀƺƬɖȸƺǼǣɮǣȇǕƺȇɮǣȸȒȇȅƺȇɎǔȒȸɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ בِ ȵǼƺƏɀƏȇɎȸƺǼƏɎǣȒȇɀǝǣȵƏȅȒȇǕɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎٔɀƺȅȵǼȒɵƺƺɀƏȇƳȅƺȅƫƺȸɀ ȒǔɎǝƺɀɖȸȸȒɖȇƳǣȇǕƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵ «ƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɀٖXȇɮƺɀɎȒȸɀ ÁǝǣɀxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ¨ǼƏȇǝƏɀƫƺƺȇɯȸǣɎɎƺȇɎȒƏƳƳȸƺɀɀȵȸȒǕȸƏȅȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀǔȒȸɎǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕ ȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɀٖǣȇɮƺɀɎȒȸɀƏȇƳȵƏȸɎȇƺȸɀًǣǔƏȇɵي • ³ɎƏɎƺȒǔ!ƏǼǣǔȒȸȇǣƏÁƏɴ!ȸƺƳǣɎǼǼȒƬƏɎǣȒȇ!ȒȅȅǣɎɎƺƺ ÁǝƺȅȒɀɎɀɎȸǣȇǕƺȇɎƬȒȅȵǼǣƏȇƬƺȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƬȒȇɎȸȒǼɎǝƺȸƺȇɎǣȇǕȒǔɖȇǣɎɀɎȒƺȇɀɖȸƺ ƬȒȅȵǼǣƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝƏǼǼȒǔɎǝƺȸƺǕɖǼƏɎǣȇǕƫȒƳǣƺɀِ ÈȇǼƺɀɀȒɎǝƺȸɯǣɀƺɀɎƏɎƺƳǣȇɎǝƺȵǼƏȇًɎǝƺɎƺȸȅٹɯȇƺȸٺɯǣǼǼȸƺǔƺȸɎȒ0ƳƺȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕًXȇƬِ0Ƴƺȇ RȒɖɀǣȇǕًXȇƬِȅƏɵƏɀɀǣǕȇɎǝǣɀ¨ǼƏȇɎȒƏȇƺɯǼƺǕƏǼƺȇɎǣɎɵƬȸƺƏɎƺƳǔȒȸɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎِÁǝƺɎƺȸȅٹǕƺȇɎٺ ɯǣǼǼȸƺǔƺȸɎȒ0ƳƺȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎًXȇƬِƏȇƳɎǝƺɎƺȸȅٹ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎٺɯǣǼǼȸƺǔƺȸɎȒxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ ¨ǼƏƬƺِ (ƺɀƬȸǣȵɎǣȒȇȒǔ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺǣɀƏד׎ٮɖȇǣɎƬȒȅȵǼƺɴǼȒƬƏɎƺƳƏɎדאד0!ǝƏȸǼƺɀɎȒȇ«ȒƏƳً¨ƏǼȒǼɎȒً!חגב׎הِ ÁǝǣɀȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵȒǔǔƺȸɀɎǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕƏȅƺȇǣɎǣƺɀيƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵȸȒȒȅɯǣɎǝƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵǸǣɎƬǝƺȇƺɎɎƺً ǼƏɖȇƳȸɵȸȒȒȅًȵƏȸǸǣȇǕًƏƬȒɖȸɎɵƏȸƳًƏȇƳȒȇٮɀǣɎƺȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎƏȇƳȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀِ 3.b Packet Pg. 67 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏2 xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ٢¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎ٣ɯǣǼǼǣȇƬǼɖƳƺيגחȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳɖȇǣɎɀƏȇƳ׏ɖȇȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳȅƏȇƏǕƺȸټɀɖȇǣɎِ «ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳÈȇǣɎ Áɵȵƺ zɖȅƫƺȸ Ȓǔ «ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳ ÈȇǣɎɀ xƏɴǣȅɖȅ ÁƺȇƏȇɎ RȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳ XȇƬȒȅƺ xƏɴǣȅɖȅ ȇȇɖƏǼ«ƺȇɎ ³ɎɖƳǣȒ ׏׎ ז׎ۏȒǔxX ב׎ۏȒǔה׎ۏȒǔ xX ³ɎɖƳǣȒ אח ז׎ۏȒǔxX ב׎ۏȒǔז׎ۏȒǔ xX ׏ ƺƳȸȒȒȅ ה ז׎ۏȒǔxX ב׎ۏȒǔז׎ۏȒǔ xX א ƺƳȸȒȒȅ ג ז׎ۏȒǔxX ב׎ۏȒǔז׎ۏȒǔ xX ÁȒɎƏǼ«ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳ ÈȇǣɎɀגח ÁȒɎƏǼzȒȇٮ «ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳÈȇǣɎɀ ٢xƏȇƏǕƺȸÈȇǣɎɀ٣ ׏ ÁȒɎƏǼ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎ ÈȇǣɎɀד׎ Xِ xzJ0x0zÁ ِ «ȒǼƺƏȇƳȸƺɀȵȒȇɀǣƫǣǼǣɎɵȒǔɎǝƺȒɯȇƺȸƏȇƳٖȒȸƳƺǼƺǕƏɎǣȒȇȒǔƏɖɎǝȒȸǣɎɵɎȒɎǝƺȅƏȇƏǕǣȇǕ ƏǕƺȇɎ ׏ِ XɎɀǝƏǼǼƫƺɎǝƺȸƺɀȵȒȇɀǣƫǣǼǣɎɵȒǔɎǝƺǕƺȇɎɎȒƺɀɎƏƫǼǣɀǝɎǝƺǕƺȇƺȸƏǼȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀɖȇƳƺȸ ɯǝǣƬǝxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺɯǣǼǼȒȵƺȸƏɎƺِÁǝƺǕƺȇɎًƫƏɀƺƳȒȇȵȸƺɮǣȒɖɀƺɴȵƺȸǣƺȇƬƺ ɯǣɎǝƺǔǔƺƬɎǣɮƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎȵȸƏƬɎǣƬƺًɀǝƏǼǼȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƏƳɮǣƬƺƏȇƳȸƺƬȒȅȅƺȇƳƏɎǣȒȇɀ ǣȇɎǝǣɀȸƺǕƏȸƳِ³ɖƬǝȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀɀǝƏǼǼǣȇƬǼɖƳƺƫɖɎƏȸƺȇȒɎǼǣȅǣɎƺƳɎȒٕȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƺǼƺƬɎǣȒȇ ƬȸǣɎƺȸǣƏ ƏȇƳ ȵȸǣȒȸǣɎɵ ǕɖǣƳƺǼǣȇƺɀٕ ƺɮǣƬɎǣȒȇ ȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀٕ ǝȒɖɀƺ ȸɖǼƺɀٕ ɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵ ƏȇƳ ƺȅƺȸǕƺȇƬɵɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀٕɀȒƬǣƏǼɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀٕƏȇƳƏǼǼȒƬƏɎǣȒȇȒǔȵƏȸǸǣȇǕɀȵƏƬƺɀِ ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼًƫɵȅƺƏȇɀȒǔȵƺȸǣȒƳǣƬƫɖƳǕƺɎɀًǔǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼɀɎƏɎƺȅƺȇɎɀًƏȇƳɀɎƏɎɖɀ ȸƺȵȒȸɎɀƏƳɮǣɀƺɎǝƺɯȇƺȸȒȇɎǝƺȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎِXȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇًɎǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕ ȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀ ɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ ǔȒǼǼȒɯƺƳ ɎȒ ƺȇɀɖȸƺ ƺǔǔƺƬɎǣɮƺ ƳƏɵٮɎȒٮƳƏɵ ȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȒȇɀ ƏȇƳ ƬȒȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȒȇƫƺɎɯƺƺȇɎǝƺɯȇƺȸƏȇƳǕƺȇɎي Əِ (ƏɵٮɎȒٮƳƏɵȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎɯǣǼǼƫƺɖȇƳƺȸɎǝƺƳǣȸƺƬɎɀɖȵƺȸɮǣɀǣȒȇȒǔ Ɏǝƺ!ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸɯǝȒɯǣǼǼȸƺȵȒȸɎɎȒɎǝƺ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀȒȸȒǔɎǝƺ ǕƺȇɎِ ƫِ ³ƺȇǣȒȸȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼƫƺɎǝƺǕƺȇɎټɀȸƺȵȸƺɀƺȇɎƏɎǣɮƺǣȇȸƺȵȒȸɎǣȇǕɎȒ Ɏǝƺɯȇƺȸِ Ƭِ ÁǝƺɯȇƺȸɀǝƏǼǼƏȵȵȒǣȇɎƏǸƺɵƬȒȇɎƏƬɎȵƺȸɀȒȇȒȸǼǣƏǣɀȒȇɎȒȸƺȵȸƺɀƺȇɎɎǝƺ ɯȇƺȸǣȇȸƺǕɖǼƏȸƬȒȅȅɖȇǣƬƏɎǣȒȇɀɯǣɎǝɎǝƺǕƺȇɎِ Ƴِ ÁǝƺȸƺɯǣǼǼƫƺȸƺǕɖǼƏȸȅƺƺɎǣȇǕɎǣȅƺɀƫƺɎɯƺƺȇɎǝƺɯȇƺȸƏȇƳǕƺȇɎǔȒȸɎǝƺ ȵɖȸȵȒɀƺȒǔȸƺɮǣƺɯǣȇǕȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀًȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀًȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȸƺǼƏɎǣȒȇɀً ƏȇƳƫɖƳǕƺɎƬȒȇɎȸȒǼِǕƺȇɎƫƺƏȸɀɎǝƺȸƺɀȵȒȇɀǣƫǣǼǣɎɵȒǔɖȵƳƏɎǣȇǕٖȅȒƳǣǔɵǣȇǕ 3.b Packet Pg. 68 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏3 ȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀƏɀȇƺƺƳƺƳǣȇƬȒȅȵǼǣƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝǼƺǕƏǼƏȇƳȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀِ ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎƏǕȸƺƺɀɎȒȇȒɎǣǔɵɎǝƺɯȇƺȸȒǔƬǝƏȇǕƺɀƏȇƳȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƏƬȒȵɵȒǔɎǝƺ ɖȵƳƏɎƺƳƳȒƬɖȅƺȇɎȇȒǼƏɎƺȸɎǝƏȇב׎ƳƏɵɀǔȸȒȅɎǝƺƳƏɵƬǝƏȇǕƺɀƏȸƺȅƏƳƺِ ƺِ ɎȇȒɎǣȅƺɀǝƏǼǼɎǝƺɯȇƺȸȒȸǣɎɀȸƺȵȸƺɀƺȇɎƏɎǣɮƺǣɀɀɖƺǣȇɀɎȸɖƬɎǣȒȇɀɎȒƏȇɵȒȇٮ ɀǣɎƺȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼِɯȇƺȸƬȒȇƬƺȸȇɀƏȇƳɀɖǕǕƺɀɎǣȒȇɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƬȒȅȅɖȇǣƬƏɎƺƳ ɎȒɎǝƺǕƺȇɎټɀ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀȒȸɯǝȒɀǝƏǼǼǣɀɀɖƺǣȇɀɎȸɖƬɎǣȒȇɀɎȒɎǝƺ !ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸِ ɀƳƺɀƬȸǣƫƺƳǣȇɎǝƺxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎًɎǝƺȇȇɖƏǼȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕ ɖƳǕƺɎǔȒȸ Ɏǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȸƺȵƏȸƺƳƫɵɎǝƺǕƺȇɎƏȇƳƏȵȵȸȒɮƺƳƫɵɎǝƺɯȇƺȸِXȇɎǝƺƺɮƺȇɎ ɎǝƏɎǣɎƺȅɀȇƺƺƳɎȒƫƺȵɖȸƬǝƏɀƺƳɎǝƏɎƺǣɎǝƺȸɯƺȸƺȇȒɎƫɖƳǕƺɎƺƳȒȸɎǝƏɎɯȒɖǼƳ ƫȸǣȇǕɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎȒɮƺȸƫɖƳǕƺɎًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼȵȸȒȅȵɎǼɵǣȇǔȒȸȅɎǝƺɯȇƺȸƫɵɯƏɵ ȒǔȸƺǕɖǼƏȸȸƺȵȒȸɎɀِ XȇɎǝƺƺɮƺȇɎɎǝƏɎɎǝƺǕƺȇɎȅɖɀɎƏȸȸƏȇǕƺǔȒȸƺȅƺȸǕƺȇƬɵȸƺȵƏǣȸɀǣȇɮȒǼɮǣȇǕȅƏȇǣǔƺɀɎ ƳƏȇǕƺȸɎȒȵƺȸɀȒȇɀȒȸȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵًȒȸȅƏǸƺȵƏɵȅƺȇɎɀȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳɎȒƏɮȒǣƳɀɖɀȵƺȇɀǣȒȇȒǔ ƏȇɵȇƺƬƺɀɀƏȸɵɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɎȒɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼǣȇǔȒȸȅɎǝƺɯȇƺȸȒǔɎǝƺǔƏƬɎɀ ƏɀȵȸȒȅȵɎǼɵƏɀȵȒɀɀǣƫǼƺِ ِ ¨ƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼȵȒǼǣƬɵƏȇƳɀɎƏǔǔǣȇǕƏȸȸƏȇǕƺȅƺȇɎɀ ȇƬƺɎǝƺȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼƏȇƳɀɎƏǔǔǣȇǕȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀǝƏɮƺƫƺƺȇƺɀɎƏƫǼǣɀǝƺƳƫɵɎǝƺɯȇƺȸƏȇƳ ǕƺȇɎًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼǝǣȸƺًɎȸƏǣȇًȵƏɵًƏȇƳɀɖȵƺȸɮǣɀƺƏǼǼȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼًǣȇƬǼɖƳǣȇǕǣȇƳƺȵƺȇƳƺȇɎ ƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎȒȸɀƏȇƳȒɎǝƺȸɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸɀِ ȒɎǝ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀȒȸƏȇƳȒȇٮɀǣɎƺȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼɯǣǼǼƫƺ ɎȸƏǣȇƺƳǣȇɎǝƺƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺǝȒɖɀǣȇǕƬȒȅȵȒȇƺȇɎǔȒȸɎǝǣɀȵȸȒǴƺƬɎًƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀIƺƳƺȸƏǼً³ɎƏɎƺًƏȇƳ !ǣɎɵȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀِ ³ȵƺƬǣǔǣƬ ȸƺɀȵȒȇɀǣƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀ ǔȒȸ ƏǼǼ ȵȸȒǴƺƬɎ ȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼ Əȸƺ ƳƺɎƏǣǼƺƳǣȇɎǝƺǴȒƫƳƺɀƬȸǣȵɎǣȒȇɀِ RȒɯƺɮƺȸًɎǝƺǸƺɵȸȒǼƺɀǔȒȸƺƏƬǝɀɎƏǔǔȅƺȅƫƺȸǣɀƏɀǔȒǼǼȒɯɀي ÁǣɎǼƺ kƺɵ«ƺɀȵȒȇɀǣƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀ !ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸ ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎƏȇƳɖȇǣɎǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɀًȒɮƺȸƏǼǼ ȵȸȒǴƺƬɎȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎًȵȒɀɎɀȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀٖ ƏȇȇȒɖȇƬƺȅƺȇɎɀًɎȒɯȇǝƏǼǼȅƺƺɎǣȇǕɀً ɀɖȵƺȸɮǣɀƺɀɀɀǣɀɎƏȇɎ!ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸ ƏȇƳȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺٖǴƏȇǣɎȒȸǣƏǼɀɎƏǔǔِ ɀɀǣɀɎƏȇɎ!ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸ ȇȇɖƏǼȸƺƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇɀƏȇƳǣȇɎƺȸɮǣƺɯɀً ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȇȒɎǣƬƺɀًǼƺƏɀǣȇǕِ ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀȒȸ ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀƺɀ!ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸًȸƺɮǣƺɯɀ ȵƺȸǔȒȸȅƏȇƬƺȅƺɎȸǣƬɀًǝǣȸƺɀȵȸȒǴƺƬɎ ȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼ ɀɀȒƬǣƏɎƺ(ǣȸƺƬɎȒȸȒǔ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵȵƺȸƏɎǣȒȇɀ ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀƺɀ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀȒȸًƬƏȵǣɎƏǼ ǣȅȵȸȒɮƺȅƺȇɎƺɴȵƺȇƳǣɎɖȸƺƏȵȵȸȒɮƏǼً ƺɀƬƏǼƏɎǣȒȇɀƏȇƳǼƺǕƏǼȸƺǔƺȸȸƏǼɀ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎxƏȇƏǕƺȸ !ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵƺɮƺȇɎɀƏȇƳȒɖɎȸƺƏƬǝًƫȸȒǸƺȸɀ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƏȇƳȅƏǸƺɀȸƺǔƺȸȸƏǼɀɎȒƏǕƺȇƬǣƺɀ ǣȇɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɎȒȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎټɀȇƺƺƳɀ 3.b Packet Pg. 69 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏4 xƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺÁƺƬǝȇǣƬǣƏȇ «ƺɀȵȒȇɀǣƫǼƺǔȒȸȵȸƺɮƺȇɎƏɎǣɮƺ ȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺƏȇƳȒȇǕȒǣȇǕɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɯȒȸǸ ȒȸƳƺȸɀِ ÁǝƺƏȇɎǣƬǣȵƏɎƺƳɀɎƏǔǔǣȇǕȵƏɎɎƺȸȇɯǣǼǼƫƺƏɀǔȒǼǼȒɯɀي zɖȅƫƺȸ Ȓǔ ¨ȒɀǣɎǣȒȇɀ ÁǣɎǼƺ ƳƳǣɎǣȒȇƏǼǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇ תIÁ0 !ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸ «ƺȵȒȸɎɀɎȒƏ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀȒȸٰɯǣǼǼǼǣɮƺȒȇ ɀǣɎƺƏȇƳƏƬɎƏɀɎǝƺzǣǕǝɎxƏȇƏǕƺȸ תIÁ0 xƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺÁƺƬǝȇǣƬǣƏȇ «ƺȵȒȸɎɀɎȒ!ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸ אِ RǣȸǣȇǕ¨ȒǼǣƬǣƺɀ Əِ ǼǼǝǣȸǣȇǕȒǔȒȇٮɀǣɎƺȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼɀǝƏǼǼƬȒȇǔȒȸȅɎȒ0ȷɖƏǼ0ȅȵǼȒɵȅƺȇɎȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎɵ ǕɖǣƳƺǼǣȇƺɀɯǣɎǝȒɖɎȸƺǕƏȸƳɎȒȸƏƬƺًƬȒǼȒȸًƬȸƺƺƳًƏȇƬƺɀɎȸɵًƏǕƺًȸƺǼǣǕǣȒȇًȇƏɎǣȒȇƏǼ ȒȸǣǕǣȇً ɀƺɴً ɀƺɴɖƏǼ ȒȸǣƺȇɎƏɎǣȒȇً ȅƏȸǣɎƏǼ ɀɎƏɎɖɀً ȵȸƺǕȇƏȇƬɵً ƬǝǣǼƳȸƺȇً ƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎɵً X(³ٮ«ƺǼƏɎƺƳ!ȒȇƳǣɎǣȒȇɀ٢«!٣ً ƫِ ³ȵƺƬǣƏǼƺǔǔȒȸɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȅƏƳƺɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇȸƺǕƏȸƳǣȇǕǴȒƫȒȵƺȇǣȇǕɀɎȒ ȅǣȇȒȸǣɎɵ ƬƏȇƳǣƳƏɎƺɀ ƏȇƳ ƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎȒȸɀ ɎǝȸȒɖǕǝ ȒɖɎȸƺƏƬǝ ɎȒ ƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵ ȒȸǕƏȇǣɿƏɎǣȒȇɀًɀȒƬǣƏǼȅƺƳǣƏƬȒȅȅɖȇǣƬƏɎǣȒȇȅƺƏȇɀِǼǼǝǣȸǣȇǕȅƏɎƺȸǣƏǼɀɯǣǼǼ ǣȇƳǣƬƏɎƺɎǝƏɎxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺǣɀƏȇٓ0ȷɖƏǼȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎɵ0ȅȵǼȒɵƺȸٓƏȇƳɯǣǼǼ ƳǣɀȵǼƏɵɎǝƺƳǣɀƏƫǼƺƳǼȒǕȒِ Ƭِ ÁǝƺȅǣȇǣȅɖȅȷɖƏǼǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇɀǔȒȸƺƏƬǝȵȒɀǣɎǣȒȇƏȸƺƳƺɎƏǣǼƺƳǣȇɎǝƺǴȒƫ ƳƺɀƬȸǣȵɎǣȒȇɀِÁǝƺǴȒƫƳƺɀƬȸǣȵɎǣȒȇɀƏȸƺƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺǔȸȒȅRɖȅƏȇ«ƺɀȒɖȸƬƺɀِ בِ 0Ƴƺȇ RȒɖɀǣȇǕ xƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎً XȇƬِ ƫƺǼǣƺɮƺɀ ǣȇ ǝǣȸǣȇǕ ȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼ ɯǣɎǝ ȵȸƺɮǣȒɖɀ ƺɴȵƺȸǣƺȇƬƺǣȇɎǝƺǣȸȵƏȸɎǣƬɖǼƏȸǔǣƺǼƳِzƺɮƺȸɎǝƺǼƺɀɀًƏǼǼȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼɯǣǼǼȸƺƬƺǣɮƺɎȸƏǣȇǣȇǕ ɀȵƺƬǣǔǣƬɎȒɎǝƺ0ƳƺȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕِÁǝǣɀɎȸƏǣȇǣȇǕɯǣǼǼƬȒȇɀǣɀɎȒǔɎǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕي Əِ ȇƺٮɎȒٮȒȇƺƬȒɖȇɀƺǼǣȇǕƏȇƳɀɖȵƺȸɮǣɀǣȒȇȒȇɎǝƺȵƏȸɎȒǔɎǝƺ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀȒȸ ȒǔɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎِ ƫِ áȸǣɎɎƺȇǕɖǣƳƺǼǣȇƺɀًȅƏȇɖƏǼɀًƏȇƳȅƏɎƺȸǣƏǼɀِ Ƭِ ¨ƺȸǣȒƳǣƬƏɎɎƺȇƳƏȇƬƺƏɎɀȵƺƬǣƏǼɎȸƏǣȇǣȇǕɯȒȸǸɀǝȒȵɀɀȵȒȇɀȒȸƺƳƫɵɮƏȸǣȒɖɀ ȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎƏɀɀȒƬǣƏɎǣȒȇɀǔȒȸɎǝƺȵɖȸȵȒɀƺȒǔɖȵƳƏɎǣȇǕƏȇƳȸƺȇƺɯǣȇǕ ɯȒȸǸٮȸƺǼƏɎƺƳɀǸǣǼǼɀِ Ƴِ ¨ƺȸǣȒƳǣƬƏɎɎƺȇƳƏȇƬƺƏɎɎȸƏǣȇǣȇǕɀȒȇƫƺǝƏɮǣȒȸƏǼǝƺƏǼɎǝًɀɖƬǝƏɀxƺȇɎƏǼRƺƏǼɎǝ ׏׎׏ًƏȇƳÁȸƏɖȅƏXȇǔȒȸȅƺƳ!ƏȸƺǔȒȸɎǝƺȵɖȸȵȒɀƺȒǔɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣȇǕɎǝƺƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵ ǣȇǕƺȇƺȸƏǼƏȇƳɀȵƺƬǣƏǼȇƺƺƳɀȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȒǔƏɀɀǣɀɎƺƳɖȇǣɎɀǣȇȵƏȸɎǣƬɖǼƏȸِ גِ ɀ ǣȇƳǣƬƏɎƺƳ ǣȇ Ɏǝƺ xƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ ǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎً ƏǼǼ ȒȇٮɀǣɎƺ ȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼ ɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ ƺȅȵǼȒɵƺƺɀ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ ǕƺȇɎِ RȒɯƺɮƺȸً Ɏǝƺ ɯȇƺȸ ɯǣǼǼ ȸƺǣȅƫɖȸɀƺ ɎǝƺǕƺȇɎ ǔȒȸ ƬȒȅȵƺȇɀƏɎǣȒȇȵƏɵƏƫǼƺɎȒȒȇٮɀǣɎƺɀɎƏǔǔƏȇƳɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸɀًƏȇƳǔȒȸƏǼǼɎƏɴƺɀƏȇƳ ƏɀɀƺɀɀȅƺȇɎɀ ǣȇƬǣƳƺȇɎ ɎȒ Ɏǝƺ ƺȅȵǼȒɵȅƺȇɎ Ȓǔ ɀɖƬǝ ȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼِ Áǝƺɀƺ ȸƺǣȅƫɖȸɀƺȅƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺɎȸƺƏɎƺƳƏɀ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎƺɴȵƺȇɀƺɀƏȇƳȵƏǣƳȒɖɎȒǔɎǝƺxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ 3.b Packet Pg. 70 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏5 ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕƬƬȒɖȇɎِ דِ 0ȅȵǼȒɵȅƺȇɎǕȸǣƺɮƏȇƬƺɀًɎƺȸȅǣȇƏɎǣȒȇ ȒǔƺȅȵǼȒɵȅƺȇɎًƏȇƳȵȸȒȅȒɎǣȒȇɀɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ ƬȒȇƳɖƬɎƺƳ ƏƬƬȒȸƳǣȇǕ ɎȒ Ɏǝƺ ǕƺȇɎٔɀȵƺȸɀȒȇȇƺǼȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀƏȇƳȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀً ɯǝǣƬǝ ƬȒȇǔȒȸȅɎȒƺȷɖƏǼȒȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎɵƏȇƳƏǔǔǣȸȅƏɎǣɮƺƏƬɎǣȒȇǕȒƏǼɀƏȇƳȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀِ !ِ ¨ǼƏȇǔȒȸȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇǣȇǕƏƳƺȷɖƏɎƺƏƬƬȒɖȇɎǣȇǕȸƺƬȒȸƳɀƏȇƳǝƏȇƳǼǣȇǕȇƺƬƺɀɀƏȸɵǔȒȸȅɀƏȇƳ ɮȒɖƬǝƺȸɀ ׏ِ IǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼƏƬƬȒɖȇɎǣȇǕȸƺȵȒȸɎɀƏȇƳȸƺƬȒȸƳɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺǣȇƬȒȇǔȒȸȅƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝɀɎƏȇƳƏȸƳ ƏƬƬȸɖƏǼƫƏɀǣɀƏƬƬȒɖȇɎǣȇǕȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀƏȇƳȸƺɀȵȒȇɀǣɮƺɎȒɎǝƺǕɖǣƳƺǼǣȇƺɀȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳƫɵ ɎǝƺȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕƺȇƬǣƺɀƬȒȇȇƺƬɎƺƳɯǣɎǝɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎِ ƬƬȒȸƳǣȇǕǼɵً Ɏǝƺ ǕƺȇɎ ɯǣǼǼ ȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇ ƏƬƬɖȸƏɎƺ ǔǣǼƺɀ Ȓǔ ƏǼǼ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ ɎȸƏȇɀƏƬɎǣȒȇɀً ȸƺɮƺȇɖƺً ƏȇƳ ƺɴȵƺȇƳǣɎɖȸƺɀ ƏȇƳ ȵȸƺȵƏȸƺ Ɏǝƺ ǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕ ȅȒȇɎǝǼɵ ȸƺȵȒȸɎɀǔȒȸɎǝƺ ɯȇƺȸٔɀȸƺɮǣƺɯي Əِ ǔǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼɀɖȅȅƏȸɵɯǣɎǝɮƏƬƏȇƬɵȸƺȵȒȸɎ ƫِ xȒȇɎǝǼɵƏȇƳɵƺƏȸٮɎȒٮƳƏɎƺƫɖƳǕƺɎƬȒȅȵƏȸǣɀȒȇɀ Ƭِ nǣɀɎȒǔƳǣɀƫɖȸɀƺȅƺȇɎɀ٢!ǝƺƬǸɀɖȅȅƏȸɵ٣ Ƴِ nǣɀɎȒǔƏƬƬȒɖȇɎɀȵƏɵƏƫǼƺ٢¨ƏɵƏƫǼƺǕǣȇǕ«ƺȵȒȸɎ٣ ƺِ ƏǼƏȇƬƺɀǝƺƺɎ אِ ǣǼǼɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȵƏǣƳًƏȇƳƏƬƬȒɖȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺǔɖȇƳƺƳȵɖȸɀɖƏȇɎɎȒɎǝƺȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀȒǔɎǝƺ ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎټɀ«ƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎِ³ȵƺƬǣǔǣƬƏǼǼɵي Əِ ȵɖȸƬǝƏɀƺȒȸƳƺȸɀɵɀɎƺȅɯǣǼǼƫƺɖɎǣǼǣɿƺƳɎȒƳȒƬɖȅƺȇɎȵȸȒǴƺƬɎƺɴȵƺȇɀƺɀƏƫȒɮƺ ڟ׏ً׎׎׎ ɯǣɎǝ Ɏǝƺ ƺɴƬƺȵɎǣȒȇ Ȓǔ ǣɎƺȅɀ ƏȇƳ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ ȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳ Ȓȇ Ə ȸƺǕɖǼƏȸ ƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎɖƏǼƫƏɀǣɀ٢ɖɎǣǼǣɎǣƺɀًɎȸƏɀǝȸƺȅȒɮƏǼًɀƺȸɮǣƬƺƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎɀًƺɎƬِ٣ِ ƫِ ¨ɖȸƬǝƏɀƺɀȒɮƺȸڟ׏ً׎׎׎ɀǝƏǼǼƫƺȵȸƺٮƏȵȵȸȒɮƺƳƫɵɎǝƺǕƺȇɎټɀ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀȒȸِ Ƭِ XȇɮȒǣƬƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȅƏɎƬǝƺƳɯǣɎǝȒɖɎɀɎƏȇƳǣȇǕȵɖȸƬǝƏɀƺȒȸƳƺȸɀًȸƺɮǣƺɯƺƳǔȒȸ ƏƬƬɖȸƏƬɵًƏȇƳɮȒɖƬǝƺƳǔȒȸȵƏɵȅƺȇɎƫɵɎǝƺƬƬȒɖȇɎɀ¨ƏɵƏƫǼƺ(ƺȵƏȸɎȅƺȇɎِ !ǝƺƬǸɀƏȸƺȵȸȒƬƺɀɀƺƳɯƺƺǸǼɵǔȒȸƏȵȵȸȒɮƺƳȵƏɵƏƫǼƺȒȇǝƏȇƳِ Ƴِ ÁǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕɀƺȵƏȸƏɎƺƏƬƬȒɖȇɎɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƺɀɎƏƫǼǣɀǝƺƳي ׏٣ JƺȇƺȸƏǼ ȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕ ƬƬȒɖȇɎ ǣȇɎȒ ɯǝǣƬǝ ȸƺȇɎƏǼ ƏȇƳ ȒɎǝƺȸ ȅǣɀƬƺǼǼƏȇƺȒɖɀ ǣȇƬȒȅƺ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ƳƺȵȒɀǣɎƺƳ ƏȇƳ ǔȸȒȅ ɯǝǣƬǝ Ɏǝƺ ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎټɀȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕƺɴȵƺȇɀƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȵƏǣƳِ א٣ «ƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎ «ƺɀƺȸɮƺ ƬƬȒɖȇɎ ɎȒ ƫƺ ǔɖȇƳƺƳ ɎǝȸȒɖǕǝ ȸƺǕɖǼƏȸ ƬȒȇɎȸǣƫɖɎǣȒȇɀǔȸȒȅɎǝƺȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕƫɖƳǕƺɎًƫƏɀƺƳȒȇƏƬƏȵǣɎƏǼ ǣȅȵȸȒɮƺȅƺȇɎɀɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺȒǔƏȇɎǣƬǣȵƏɎƺƳɖɀƺǔɖǼǼǣǔƺƏȇƳȸƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎ ȇƺƺƳɀ ǔȒȸ ȅƏǴȒȸ ǣɎƺȅɀِ ǼǼ ǣȇɎƺȸƺɀɎ Ȓȸ ǣȇƬȒȅƺ ƺƏȸȇƺƳ ƫɵ Ɏǝƺ «ƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎ «ƺɀƺȸɮƺ ƬƬȒɖȇɎ ɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ ƏȵȵǼǣƺƳ ɀȒǼƺǼɵ ǔȒȸ ȅƏǴȒȸ ȸƺȵƏǣȸɀً ȸƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎɀ Ȓȸ ƬƏȵǣɎƏǼ Ȓȸ ɀɎȸɖƬɎɖȸƏǼ ǣȅȵȸȒɮƺȅƺȇɎɀً ƏȇƳ ɯȸǣɎɎƺȇƏȵȵȸȒɮƏǼȒǔɎǝƺȒɯȇƺȸǣɀȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳǔȒȸƏȇɵƳǣɀƫɖȸɀƺȅƺȇɎǔȸȒȅ ɎǝǣɀƏƬƬȒɖȇɎِ ב٣ ³ƺƬɖȸǣɎɵ(ƺȵȒɀǣɎƬƬȒɖȇɎɎȒƫƺǔɖȇƳƺƳƫɵɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀټɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵ 3.b Packet Pg. 71 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏6 ƳƺȵȒɀǣɎɀِ¨ȒǼǣƬǣƺɀƏȇƳȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀǔȒȸƏƳȅǣȇǣɀɎƺȸǣȇǕɎǝǣɀƏƬƬȒɖȇɎƏȸƺ ȇȒɎƺƳǣȇ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇX٢!٣٢ה٣ƫƺǼȒɯِ ג٣ ȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕ«ƺɀƺȸɮƺƬƬȒɖȇɎɎȒƫƺǔɖȇƳƺƳǣȇƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝɯȇƺȸ Ȓȸ«ƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕƺȇƬɵȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎِȇɵƳǣɀƫɖȸɀƺȅƺȇɎǔȸȒȅɎǝǣɀ ƏƬƬȒɖȇɎȸƺȷɖǣȸƺɀɯȸǣɎɎƺȇȒɯȇƺȸƏȵȵȸȒɮƏǼِÁǝǣɀƏƬƬȒɖȇɎɯǣǼǼȒȇǼɵƫƺ ȒȵƺȇƺƳƏɎɎǝƺȸƺȷɖƺɀɎȒǔɎǝƺɯȇƺȸȒȸƏ«ƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƫȒƳɵِ בِ ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇɀƏƬȒȅȵɖɎƺȸǣɿƺƳJƺȇƺȸƏǼnƺƳǕƺȸȵȸȒǕȸƏȅًɯǝǣƬǝɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ ƬȒȇɎǣȇɖƏǼǼɵɖȵƳƏɎƺƳɎȒȅƺƺɎɎǝƺƏƬƬȒɖȇɎǣȇǕƏȇƳȸƺȵȒȸɎǣȇǕȇƺƺƳɀȒǔɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎ ƏȇƳɎȒȵȸȒƳɖƬƺƏȷɖƏǼǣɎɵƏɖƳǣɎɎȸƏǣǼِ Əِ !ƏȸƺǔɖǼȅȒȇɎǝǼɵȅȒȇǣɎȒȸǣȇǕɀǝƏǼǼƏǼǼȒɯǔȒȸƬȒɀɎƬȒȇɎȸȒǼًȵȸȒȅȵɎ ǣƳƺȇɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇ Ȓǔ ȵȒɎƺȇɎǣƏǼ ȵȸȒƫǼƺȅɀ ƏȇƳ ɀɖǔǔǣƬǣƺȇɎ ǼƺƏƳٮɎǣȅƺ ɎȒ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵ ȵǼƏȇɀɎȒȅƺƺɎȵȸȒǴƺƬɎȇƺƺƳɀِ ƫِ ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼȸƺɮǣƺɯȅƏǴȒȸƫɖƳǕƺɎɮƏȸǣƏȇƬƺɀƏȇƳƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺƏƬɎǣȒȇɀ ɀǝƏǼǼƫƺɎƏǸƺȇɎȒƺȇɀɖȸƺɎǝƏɎȅȒȇɎǝǼɵƬƏɀǝǔǼȒɯǣɀɀɖǔǔǣƬǣƺȇɎɎȒȅƺƺɎɎǝƺ ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎٔɀȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕƺɴȵƺȇɀƺɀƏȇƳƳƺȵȒɀǣɎɀɎȒɎǝƺȸƺɀƺȸɮƺƏƬƬȒɖȇɎɀȇȒɎƺƳ ƏƫȒɮƺِàƏȸǣƏȇƬƺȸƺȵȒȸɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳɎȒɎǝƺɯȇƺȸɖȵȒȇȸƺȷɖƺɀɎِ Ƭِ ¨ȸȒƬɖȸƺȅƺȇɎȒǔƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ ׏٣ ǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼȒƫɎƏǣȇƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎɀًȅƏɎƺȸǣƏǼɀًɀɖȵȵǼǣƺɀًƏȇƳɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀȒȇɎǝƺ ȅȒɀɎƏƳɮƏȇɎƏǕƺȒɖɀɎƺȸȅɀƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺɎȒɎǝƺ(ƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏȇƳɀǝƏǼǼ ɀȒǼǣƬǣɎƫǣƳɀِIȒȸƺɴȵƺȇƳǣɎɖȸƺɀɎǝƏɎƺɴƬƺƺƳÁǝȸƺƺÁǝȒɖɀƏȇƳ(ȒǼǼƏȸɀ ٢ڟבً׎׎׎٣ًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼȒƫɎƏǣȇƏɎǼƺƏɀɎɎǝȸƺƺ٢ב٣ƫǣƳɀǣȇɯȸǣɎǣȇǕِ ÁǝƺɯȇƺȸȅɖɀɎƏȵȵȸȒɮƺƫǣƳɀƺɴƬƺƺƳǣȇǕIǣɮƺÁǝȒɖɀƏȇƳ(ȒǼǼƏȸɀ ٢ڟדً׎׎׎٣ɯǝǣƬǝƏȸƺȇȒɎǣȇɎǝƺƏȵȵȸȒɮƺƳƫɖƳǕƺɎِ0ɴǣǕƺȇɎًǝƺƏǼɎǝƏȇƳ ɀƏǔƺɎɵȸƺȵƏǣȸɀƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀƫɖƳǕƺɎƺƳȸƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎȸƺɀƺȸɮƺǣɎƺȅɀƳȒȇȒɎ ȸƺȷɖǣȸƺ Ȓɯȇƺȸ ƏȵȵȸȒɮƏǼِ ǕƺȇɎ ɀǝƏǼǼ ɀƺƬɖȸƺ ƏȇƳ ƬȸƺƳǣɎ ɎȒ Ɏǝƺ JƺȇƺȸƏǼȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕƬƬȒɖȇɎƏǼǼƳǣɀƬȒɖȇɎɀًȸƺƫƏɎƺɀًȒȸƬȒȅȅǣɀɀǣȒȇɀ ȒƫɎƏǣȇƏƫǼƺɯǣɎǝȸƺɀȵƺƬɎɎȒȵɖȸƬǝƏɀƺɀًɀƺȸɮǣƬƺƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎɀًƏȇƳƏǼǼȒɎǝƺȸ ɎȸƏȇɀƏƬɎǣȒȇɀȒȇɯȇƺȸټɀƫƺǝƏǼǔِÁǝƺǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼɀɎȸǣɮƺɎȒƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎ ɯǣɎǝȅǣȇȒȸǣɎɵɮƺȇƳȒȸɀƏȇƳƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎȒȸɀǣȇɎǝƺƏȸƺƏِ א٣ ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼȵȸƺȵƏȸƺɀɖƬǝƫǣƳɀȵƺƬǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇɀƏȇƳɀɖȵƺȸɮǣɀƺɎǝƺ ƫǣƳȵȸȒȵȒɀƏǼɀƏȇƳƏƬƬƺȵɎƏȇƬƺȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀِ Ƴِ Xȇ Ɏǝƺ ƺɮƺȇɎ ɎǝƏɎ ǣɎƺȅɀ ȇƺƺƳ ɎȒ ƫƺ ȵɖȸƬǝƏɀƺƳ ɎǝƏɎ ƺǣɎǝƺȸ ɯƺȸƺ ȇȒɎ ƫɖƳǕƺɎƺƳً Ȓȸ ɎǝƏɎ ɯȒɖǼƳ ƫȸǣȇǕ Ɏǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎȒɮƺȸƫɖƳǕƺɎًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎ ɯǣǼǼ ȵȸȒȅȵɎǼɵǣȇǔȒȸȅɎǝƺɯȇƺȸِ ƺِ ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼɯȒȸǸɯǣɎǝɎǝƺɯȇƺȸɎȒƳƺɮƺǼȒȵƏɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺȒǔȵȸȒǴƺƬɎƺƳ ȸƺɮƺȇɖƺɀ ǔȸȒȅ ȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕ ƏȇƳ ɎƏɴ ƬȸƺƳǣɎ ǣȇƬȒȅƺ ɎȒ ƫƺ ɖɀƺƳ ǔȒȸ ɀȵȒȇɀȒȸ ƳǣɀɎȸǣƫɖɎǣȒȇɀƏȇƳǼȒƏȇȵƏɵȅƺȇɎȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀِ ǔِ ǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼƺɀɎƏƫǼǣɀǝƏȇƳȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇƏƬȒȅȵȸƺǝƺȇɀǣɮƺɀɵɀɎƺȅȒǔȸƺƬȒȸƳɀً ƫȒȒǸɀًƏȇƳƏƬƬȒɖȇɎɀǣȇƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝJƺȇƺȸƏǼǼɵƬƬƺȵɎƺƳƬƬȒɖȇɎǣȇǕ ¨ȸǣȇƬǣȵǼƺɀ٢J¨٣ِǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇɀɖƬǝƫȒȒǸɀƏȇƳȸƺƬȒȸƳɀƏɀɎȒ ɀƏɎǣɀǔɵ Ɏǝƺ ȸƺȵȒȸɎǣȇǕ ȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀ ƺɀɎƏƫǼǣɀǝƺƳ ɖȇƳƺȸ Ɏǝƺ ƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǣǼǣɎɵ ȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎǣȒȇɀِǼǼȸƺƬȒȸƳɀًƫȒȒǸɀًƏȇƳƏƬƬȒɖȇɎɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺɀɖƫǴƺƬɎ ɎȒ 3.b Packet Pg. 72 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏7 ƺɴƏȅǣȇƏɎǣȒȇƳɖȸǣȇǕȸƺǕɖǼƏȸƫɖɀǣȇƺɀɀǝȒɖȸɀɯǣɎǝƏɎǼƺƏɀɎ׏׎ƳƏɵɀټȇȒɎǣƬƺِ גِ XȇȒȸƳƺȸɎȒƺȇɀɖȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƬȒȅȵǼǣƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝɎǝƺȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀȇȒɎƺƳƏƫȒɮƺǣȇ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇ X٢!٣٢ב٣٢ǔ٣ًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼɀɵɀɎƺȅƏɎǣƬƏǼǼɵȸƺɮǣƺɯƏǼǼȵƺȸɎǣȇƺȇɎ«ƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎɀ ƏȇƳ ƳȒƬɖȅƺȇɎ ȸƺǼƺɮƏȇɎ ƳƺƏƳǼǣȇƺɀً ȸƺȵȒȸɎǣȇǕ ǔȒȸȅƏɎɀً ƺɎƬِ àƏƬƏȇƬǣƺɀ ƏȇƳ ȸƺȇɎ ǼȒɀɀƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȇȒɎƺƳƏȇƳȸƺƬȒȸƳƺƳȒȇɎǝƺȅȒȇɎǝǼɵǔǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼɀɖȅȅƏȸɵȸƺȵȒȸɎǔȒȸɎǝƺ ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎِ٢³ƺƺ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇX٢!٣٢׏٣ƏƫȒɮƺ٣ِ דِ ³ƺƬɖȸǣɎɵ(ƺȵȒɀǣɎɀ Əِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ ȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳ ɎȒ ȅƏǸƺ Ə ȸƺǔɖȇƳƏƫǼƺ ɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵ ƳƺȵȒɀǣɎ ǣȇ ƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝƏȵȵǼǣƬƏƫǼƺɀɎƏɎƺƏȇƳǼȒƬƏǼǼƏɯɀِÁǝƺƳƺȵȒɀǣɎɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƺȷɖƏǼ ɎȒȒȇƺȅȒȇɎǝȒǔɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎٔɀɀǝƏȸƺȒǔɎǝƺȸƺȇɎِÁǝƺɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵƳƺȵȒɀǣɎɀɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺǝƺǼƳǣȇƏɀƺȵƏȸƏɎƺɎȸɖɀɎƏƬƬȒɖȇɎɯǣɎǝƏƳƺȵȒɀǣɎȒȸɵǣȇɀɖȸƺƳƫɵƏȇƏǕƺȇƬɵ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ ǔƺƳƺȸƏǼ ǕȒɮƺȸȇȅƺȇɎ Ȓȸ Ə ƬȒȅȵƏȸƏƫǼƺ ǔƺƳƺȸƏǼ ƳƺȵȒɀǣɎ ǣȇɀɖȸƏȇƬƺ ȵȸȒǕȸƏȅِÁǝƺƫƏǼƏȇƬƺȒǔɎǝǣɀƏƬƬȒɖȇɎɀǝƏǼǼƏǼɯƏɵɀƺȷɖƏǼȒȸƺɴƬƺƺƳɎǝƺ ƏǕǕȸƺǕƏɎƺȒǔƏǼǼȒɖɎɀɎƏȇƳǣȇǕƳƺȵȒɀǣɎɀًȵǼɖɀƏƬƬȸɖƺƳǣȇɎƺȸƺɀɎِ ƫِ ȅȒɮƺٮȒɖɎǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɯǣǼǼƫƺȵƺȸǔȒȸȅƺƳɯǝƺȇƏɖȇǣɎǝƏɀƫƺƺȇɮƏƬƏɎƺƳًɎȒ ǣƳƺȇɎǣǔɵȸƺȵƏǣȸɀƏȇƳƬǼƺƏȇǣȇǕɎǝƏɎƏȸƺƏƫȒɮƺƏȇƳƫƺɵȒȇƳȇȒȸȅƏǼɯƺƏȸƏȇƳ ɎƺƏȸًɯǝǣƬǝɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƬǝƏȸǕƺƳƏǕƏǣȇɀɎɎǝƺɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵƳƺȵȒɀǣɎِÁǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǝƏɀ Ɏǝƺ ȸǣǕǝɎ ɎȒ ƫƺ ȵȸƺɀƺȇɎ ƏȇƳ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ƺȇƬȒɖȸƏǕƺƳ ɎȒ ȵƏȸɎǣƬǣȵƏɎƺ ǣȇ Ɏǝǣɀ ǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇِÁǝƺȅȒɮƺٮȒɖɎǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇǔȒȸȅɯǣǼǼƫƺƬȒȅȵƏȸƺƳɎȒɎǝƺȅȒɮƺٮ ǣȇǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇǔȒȸȅɎȒƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇƺɎǝƺƺɴɎƺȇɎȒǔȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎٮƬƏɖɀƺƳƳƏȅƏǕƺɀِ Ƭِ áǣɎǝǣȇɎɯƺȇɎɵٮȒȇƺ٢א׏٣ƳƏɵɀǔȸȒȅɎǝƺƳƏɎƺȒǔȅȒɮƺٮȒɖɎًƏɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵƳƺȵȒɀǣɎ ȸƺǔɖȇƳǔȒȸȅɯǣǼǼƫƺƬȒȅȵǼƺɎƺƳًǣȇƳǣƬƏɎǣȇǕي ׏٣ ³ƺƬɖȸǣɎɵƳƺȵȒɀǣɎȒȇǝƏȇƳِ א٣ ȅȒɖȇɎȒǔȸƺȇɎȒȸɖȇȵƏǣƳƬǝƏȸǕƺɀȒɯǣȇǕƏɀȒǔɎǝƺƳƏɎƺȒǔɎǝƺȅȒɮƺٮ ȒɖɎِ ב٣ ȅȒɖȇɎȒǔƳƏȅƏǕƺƏȇƳٖȒȸƬǼƺƏȇǣȇǕƬǝƏȸǕƺɀɎȒƫƺƏɀɀƺɀɀƺƳِȇ ǣɎƺȅǣɿƺƳǼǣɀɎȒǔɯȒȸǸƏȇƳƏƬɎɖƏǼƬȒɀɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƏɎɎƏƬǝƺƳɎȒɎǝƺǔȒȸȅɀ ǔȒȸȸƺȵƏǣȸًƬǼƺƏȇǣȇǕًȒȸȸƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎȒǔǣɎƺȅɀƏƫȒɮƺȇȒȸȅƏǼɯƺƏȸƏȇƳ ɎƺƏȸِ«ƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎȒǔǣɎƺȅɀƬǝƏȸǕƺƳɎȒɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǣɀƫƏɀƺƳȒȇɎǝƺ ǼǣǔƺȒǔɎǝƺǣɎƺȅƏȇƳɎǝƺƏȅȒɖȇɎȒǔƳƏȅƏǕƺِÁǝƺƫƏǼƏȇƬƺȒǔɎǝƺ ɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵ ƳƺȵȒɀǣɎ ƏǔɎƺȸ ƳƺƳɖƬɎǣȒȇɀ ǔȒȸ ȒɖɎɀɎƏȇƳǣȇǕ ȸƺȇɎً ƬǝƏȸǕƺɀً ƬǼƺƏȇǣȇǕًƏȇƳƳƏȅƏǕƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȸƺǔɖȇƳƺƳɎȒɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɯǣɎǝɎǝǣɀ ǔȒȸȅƏȇƳǣɎƺȅǣɿƏɎǣȒȇȒǔƬȒɀɎɀِ Ƴِ ɀ ȵƏȸɎ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ ȒȸǣƺȇɎƏɎǣȒȇ ǣȇɎƺȸɮǣƺɯɀً ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ɀǝƏǼǼ ȸƺƬƺǣɮƺ Əȇ ƺɴȵǼƏȇƏɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺɖɀƺȒǔɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵƳƺȵȒɀǣɎɀِ הِ ɎǝƺȸȸƺȵȒȸɎɀ ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼƏǼɀȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸƺȵȒȸɎɀȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳƫɵȒɎǝƺȸȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕƺȇƬǣƺɀƏȇƳ ǔɖȇƳǣȇǕɀȒɖȸƬƺɀƏɀȒɖɎǼǣȇƺƳǣȇɎǝƺȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎɀɯǣɎǝɎǝȒɀƺƺȇɎǣɎǣƺɀِ (ِ XȇɀɖȸƏȇƬƺ ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎًɯǣɎǝɎǝƺɯȇƺȸټɀƏȵȵȸȒɮƏǼًɀǝƏǼǼƏȸȸƏȇǕƺǔȒȸɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎɎȒƫƺǣȇɀɖȸƺƳƏǕƏǣȇɀɎ 3.b Packet Pg. 73 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏8 ǼȒɀɀƫɵǔǣȸƺƏȇƳɀɖƬǝȒɎǝƺȸǝƏɿƏȸƳɀًƬƏɀɖƏǼɎǣƺɀًǼǣƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀًƏȇƳƬȒȇɎǣȇǕƺȇƬǣƺɀًƏȇƳǣȇɀɖƬǝ ƏȅȒɖȇɎɀƏȇƳǔȒȸɀɖƬǝȵƺȸǣȒƳɀƏɀȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳƫɵƏȇɵǼȒƏȇƏȇƳٖȒȸȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎِÁǝƺ ǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƺȇɀɖȸƺɎǝƏɎɀɖƬǝǣȇɀɖȸƏȇƬƺƫƺǸƺȵɎǣȇƺǔǔƺƬɎƏɎƏǼǼɎǣȅƺɀِ !ȒȅȵƺɎǣɎǣɮƺƫǣƳɀɯǣǼǼƫƺɀȒɖǕǝɎɎȒƺȇɀɖȸƺɎǝƺȅȒɀɎƬȒɀɎٮƺǔǔƺƬɎǣɮƺƬȒɮƺȸƏǕƺƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺِ ȒɎǝ Ɏǝƺ ƬȒɮƺȸƏǕƺ ƏȇƳ Ɏǝƺ ƬƏȸȸǣƺȸ٢ɀ٣ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ȸƺɮǣƺɯƺƳ ȸƺǕɖǼƏȸǼɵِ ǼǼ ǣȇɀɖȸƏȇƬƺ ȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀ ƏȇƳ ȸƺȇƺɯƏǼɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺǣɀɀɖƺƳƫɵƏƬƏȸȸǣƺȸƏȇƳǣȇƏǔȒȸȅƏƬƬƺȵɎƏƫǼƺɎȒɎǝƺȒɯȇƺȸƏȇƳƏȇɵ ȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕƺȇƬɵِ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵǣȇɀɖȸƏȇƬƺȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀɀǝƏǼǼȇƏȅƺɎǝƺȒɯȇƺȸƏȇƳƏȇɵȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵ ƏǕƺȇƬɵƏɀƏȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇƏǼǼȒɀɀȵƏɵƺƺƏȇƳǼǣƏƫǣǼǣɎɵǣȇɀɖȸƏȇƬƺȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀɀǝƏǼǼȇƏȅƺɎǝƺȒɯȇƺȸƏɀ ƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇƏǼǣȇɀɖȸƺƳِ ¨ƺȸɎǝƺxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƏǼɀȒȸƺȵȒȸɎًǣȇɮƺɀɎǣǕƏɎƺًƏȇƳȵɖȸɀɖƺɎǝƺ ȸƺɀȒǼɖɎǣȒȇȒǔƏǼǼƏƬƬǣƳƺȇɎɀȒȸƬǼƏǣȅɀǣȇƬȒȇȇƺƬɎǣȒȇɯǣɎǝɎǝƺȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎِ Áǝƺ ǕƺȇɎ ɀǝƏǼǼ ƏǼɀȒ ƏȸȸƏȇǕƺ ǔȒȸ Ɏǝƺ ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎ ɎȒ ƫƺ ǣȇɀɖȸƺƳ ƏǕƏǣȇɀɎ Əȇɵ ǼȒɀɀƺɀ Ƴɖƺ ɎȒ ƺȅȵǼȒɵƺƺƳǣɀǝȒȇƺɀɎɵɎǝȸȒɖǕǝɎǝƺȵɖȸƬǝƏɀƺȒǔƏIǣƳƺǼǣɎɵ ȒȇƳِÁǝƺIǣƳƺǼǣɎɵ ȒȇƳɯǣǼǼ ƬȒɮƺȸǼȒɀɀƺɀɖȵɎȒƏɎǼƺƏɀɎɎɯȒȅȒȇɎǝɀټɯȒȸɎǝȒǔɎǝƺɎȒɎƏǼȸƺȇɎȵȒɎƺȇɎǣƏǼِ XXِ !!È¨z!ç ِ ¨ǼƏȇɀƏȇƳȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀǔȒȸƏƬǝǣƺɮǣȇǕǔɖǼǼȒƬƬɖȵƏȇƬɵ ׏ِ ÈȇǣɎɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺȅƏȸǸƺɎƺƳǣȇƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝǔǔǣȸȅƏɎǣɮƺIƏǣȸRȒɖɀǣȇǕȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕ ǕɖǣƳƺǼǣȇƺɀًƏȇƳɎǝƺxƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕƏȇƳÁƺȇƏȇɎ³ƺǼƺƬɎǣȒȇ¨ǼƏȇِ «ƺǔƺȸ ɎȒ Ɏǝǣɀ ȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵټɀ ǔǔǣȸȅƏɎǣɮƺ IƏǣȸ RȒɖɀǣȇǕ xƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕ ¨ǼƏȇ ƏɎɎƏƬǝƺƳ Əɀ ȵȵƺȇƳǣɴ׏ًǔȒȸȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕƏƬɎǣɮǣɎɵƳƺɎƏǣǼɀِƳƳǣɎǣȒȇƏǼǼɵًɎǝƺÁƺȇƏȇɎ³ƺǼƺƬɎǣȒȇ¨ǼƏȇ ٢Á³¨٣ǣɀƏɎɎƏƬǝƺƳƏɀȵȵƺȇƳǣɴאِÁǝƺÁ³¨ǣȇƬǼɖƳƺɀǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇȒȇɎƺȇƏȇɎƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵً ǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀǣɿƺƏȇƳɎǝƺɀƺǼƺƬɎǣȒȇȵȸȒƬƺɀɀِÁǝǣɀƳȒƬɖȅƺȇɎǣɀƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺ ɎȒ ȵȸȒɀȵƺƬɎǣɮƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɖȵȒȇȸƺȷɖƺɀɎƏȇƳƏɎɎǣȅƺȒǔǝȒɖɀǣȇǕƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵǣȇɎƺȸɮǣƺɯِÁǝƺ ȵȵƺƏǼƏȇƳJȸǣƺɮƏȇƬƺ¨ȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺًȵȵƺȇƳǣɴבɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳɎȒƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎɀƏɎɎǝƺ ɎǣȅƺȒǔȅȒɮƺٮǣȇȒȸǣƺȇɎƏɎǣȒȇِ Əِ ¨ȸȒɀȵƺƬɎǣɮƺȸƺȇɎƺȸɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺȸƺƬȸɖǣɎƺƳɎǝȸȒɖǕǝƏȇƏǔǔǣȸȅƏɎǣɮƺȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕ ɀɎȸƏɎƺǕɵƳƺɀǣǕȇƺƳɎȒƺȇɀɖȸƺƺȷɖƏǼƏƬƬƺɀɀɎȒƏǼǼƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺٮɀǣɿƺƳǝȒɖɀǣȇǕɖȇǣɎɀ ƏɎɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎǔȒȸƏǼǼȵƺȸɀȒȇɀǣȇƏȇɵƬƏɎƺǕȒȸɵȵȸȒɎƺƬɎƺƳƫɵǔƺƳƺȸƏǼًɀɎƏɎƺًȒȸǼȒƬƏǼ ǼƏɯɀǕȒɮƺȸȇǣȇǕƳǣɀƬȸǣȅǣȇƏɎǣȒȇِ ƫِ ¨ɖƫǼǣƬƏǕƺȇƬǣƺɀًɀȒƬǣƏǼɀƺȸɮǣƬƺƏǕƺȇƬǣƺɀًƏȇƳǼȒƬƏǼƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵǕȸȒɖȵɀɯǣǼǼƫƺ ƬȒȇɎƏƬɎƺƳǣȇƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝɎǝƺ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵټɀxƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕ¨ǼƏȇِ Ƭِ ǼǼƏƳɮƺȸɎǣɀǣȇǕǔȒȸɎǝǣɀ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎɀǝƏǼǼǣȇƬǼɖƳƺȵȸȒȅǣȇƺȇɎɖɀƺȒǔ0ȷɖƏǼRȒɖɀǣȇǕ ȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎɵǼȒǕȒɀًɀǼȒǕƏȇɀƏȇƳٖȒȸɀɎƏɎƺȅƺȇɎɀȒǔǣȇɎƺȇɎɎȒƏǔǔǣȸȅƏɎǣɮƺǼɵȅƏȸǸƺɎ ɎǝƺɖȇǣɎɀِxƏɎƺȸǣƏǼɎȒƫƺɖɀƺƳǣȇɎǝƺƏǔǔǣȸȅƏɎǣɮƺȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕȵǼƏȇǣȇƬǼɖƳƺي׏٣ƏǔƏǣȸ ǝȒɖɀǣȇǕȵȒɀɎƺȸɎȒƫƺƳǣɀȵǼƏɵƺƳǣȇɎǝƺȸƺȇɎƏǼȒǔǔǣƬƺًȒȸɯǝƺȸƺɮƺȸȵȸȒɀȵƺƬɎǣɮƺ ȸƺȇɎƺȸ ǣȇɎƺȸɮǣƺɯɀ ɎƏǸƺ ȵǼƏƬƺٕ א٣ Əȇ 0ȷɖƏǼ RȒɖɀǣȇǕ ȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎɵ ǼȒǕȒ ɎȒ ƫƺ ƳǣɀȵǼƏɵƺƳȒȇɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎɀǣǕȇٕב٣Áǝƺ0ȷɖƏǼRȒɖɀǣȇǕȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎɵǼȒǕȒƏȇƳɎǝƺ (ǼȒǕȒƏȸƺɎȒƫƺƳǣɀȵǼƏɵƺƳȒȇɎǝƺȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕƫȸȒƬǝɖȸƺًǔǼɵƺȸɀƏȇƳ ȒɎǝƺȸ ȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕȅƏɎƺȸǣƏǼɀِ ȒɎǝɎǝƺ0ȷɖƏǼRȒɖɀǣȇǕȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎɵƏȇƳ(ǼȒǕȒɀɯǣǼǼ ƫƺȵȸȒȅǣȇƺȇɎǼɵƳǣɀȵǼƏɵƺƳǣȇɎǝƺȸƺȇɎƏǼȒǔǔǣƬƺِ Ƴِ ÁǝƺƺǔǔƺƬɎǣɮƺȇƺɀɀȒǔɎǝƺƏǔǔǣȸȅƏɎǣɮƺȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕɯǣǼǼƫƺƏɀɀƺɀɀƺƳƏȇȇɖƏǼǼɵǔȒȸ ǔƏƬɎȒȸɀɀɖƬǝƏɀيɎǝƺǔȸƺȷɖƺȇƬɵƏȇƳȷɖƏȇɎǣɎɵȒǔƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎɀǼƺƏɀɎǼǣǸƺǼɵɎȒƏȵȵǼɵ 3.b Packet Pg. 74 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏9 ƏȇƳɎǝƺƏɎɎȸǣɎǣȒȇȸƏɎƺȒǔƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎɀِXȇɎǝƺƺɮƺȇɎɎǝƏɎȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀƏȸƺȇȒɎȅƺɎً Ɏǝƺ ȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕ ȵǼƏȇ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ȸƺɮǣɀƺ ƏǔɎƺȸ ȸƺɮǣƺɯǣȇǕ Ƭƺȇɀɖɀ ƳƏɎƏًȸƺɀƺƏȸƬǝǣȇǕ ȷɖƏǼǣɎɵƏȇƳƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇƏǼȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕɀȒɖȸƬƺɀƏȇƳȅƺɎǝȒƳɀƏȇƳɀƺƺǸǣȇǕȵƏȸɎȇƺȸ ȸƺǔƺȸȸƏǼɀɎȒƏƳƳȸƺɀɀɎǝƺǔǣȇƳǣȇǕɀȒǔɎǝƺɀɎƏɎǣɀɎǣƬɀƏȇƳȅƏȸǸƺɎɀɎɖƳǣƺɀِ אِ ɀǣȇƳǣƬƏɎƺƳƏƫȒɮƺǣȇ ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇXX ٢٣٢׏٣ ٢ƫ٣ًƫȒɎǝȵɖƫǼǣƬƏȇƳȵȸǣɮƏɎƺƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵ ƏǕƺȇƬǣƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺɖɀƺƳƏɀȸƺǔƺȸȸƏǼɀȒɖȸƬƺɀǔȒȸȇȒɎǣǔɵǣȇǕƏȸƺȵȸƺɀƺȇɎƏɎǣɮƺȇɖȅƫƺȸȒǔ ɎǝƺƏȸƺƏٔɀǕƺȇƺȸƏǼȵȒȵɖǼƏɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǣǼǣɎɵȒǔɎǝƺǝȒɖɀǣȇǕِXȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇًǼȒƬƏǼ ȇƺɯɀȵƏȵƺȸɀًƏȇƳȒɎǝƺȸȅƺƳǣƏɯǣǼǼƫƺɀƺȇɎȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕȅƏɎƺȸǣƏǼƏȇƳƫƺɖɀƺƳɎȒȵǼƏƬƺ ƬǼƏɀɀǣǔǣƺƳƏƳɮƺȸɎǣɀǣȇǕƏɀȇƺƬƺɀɀƏȸɵƏȇƳǣȇƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝɎǝǣɀȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵټɀƏȵȵȸȒɮƺƳ ȅƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕȵǼƏȇِ בِ ¨ȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ǔȒǼǼȒɯƺƳ ɎȒ Əɀɀɖȸƺ ɎǝƏɎ ɯƏǣɎǣȇǕ ǼǣɀɎɀ Əȸƺ ƬɖȸȸƺȇɎ ƏȇƳ ǝƏɮƺ ƏƳƺȷɖƏɎƺȇɖȅƫƺȸɀȒǔƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎɀǔȒȸƺƏƬǝǣȇƬȒȅƺƬƏɎƺǕȒȸɵِ³ɖƬǝȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀɀǝƏǼǼ ǣȇƬǼɖƳƺɎǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕي Əِ ȇƺǼƺƬɎȸȒȇǣƬɯƏǣɎǣȇǕǼǣɀɎɯǣǼǼƫƺȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇƺƳƫɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎǣȇƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺ ɯǣɎǝɎǝƺ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ³ƺǼƺƬɎǣȒȇ¨ǼƏȇِ ƫِ ȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺǣȇɀɎȸɖƬɎƺƳɎȒȇȒɎǣǔɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȸȒǔɎǝƺǣȸƬǝƏȇǕƺɀɎȒɎǝƺǣȸ ƬȒȇɎƏƬɎ ǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇ ƏȇƳٖȒȸ ƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵ ǔƏƬɎȒȸɀ ɯǣɎǝǣȇ Ə ȸƺƏɀȒȇƏƫǼƺ Ɏǣȅƺ ǔȸƏȅƺ Ƭِ xƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƬȒȇɎƏƬɎƏǼǼƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎɀȒȇɎǝƺɯƏǣɎǣȇǕǼǣɀɎǣȇɯȸǣɎǣȇǕƏɎǼƺƏɀɎ ȒȇƬƺƏɵƺƏȸًƏɀǸǣȇǕɎǝƺȅɎȒƏƳɮǣɀƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎȒǔɎǝƺǣȸƬȒȇɎǣȇɖƺƳ ǣȇɎƺȸƺɀɎِ גِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȒȸǣƺȇɎƏɎǣȒȇɀǝƏǼǼǣȇƬǼɖƳƺي Əِ áȸǣɎɎƺȇ ȒȸǣƺȇɎƏɎǣȒȇ ȅƏɎƺȸǣƏǼ ǣȇƬǼɖƳǣȇǕ ǕƺȇƺȸƏǼ ǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇ ƏƫȒɖɎ Ɏǝƺ ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵًƏǼǣɀɎȒǔȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎٖȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺƬȒȇɎƏƬɎȇɖȅƫƺȸɀƏȇƳȒɎǝƺȸ ǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇȸƺǕƏȸƳǣȇǕƺȅƺȸǕƺȇƬɵȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀًƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ ƏȇƳƏȅƺȇǣɎǣƺɀِ ƫِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺǕǣɮƺȇƏɎȒɖȸɎȒƏƬȷɖƏǣȇɎɎǝƺȅɯǣɎǝɎǝƺȵǝɵɀǣƬƏǼǼƏɵȒɖɎȒǔ Ɏǝƺ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵƏȇƳɎǝƺǼȒƬƏɎǣȒȇًǔǣȸƺƺɴɎǣȇǕɖǣɀǝƺȸɀًƏȇƳǔǣȸƺƺɴǣɎɀًƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀƏ ȸƺɮǣƺɯȒǔǔǣȸƺȵȸƺƬƏɖɎǣȒȇɀƏȇƳƺɮƏƬɖƏɎǣȒȇȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀِ Ƭِ ɎǝȒȸȒɖǕǝȸƺɮǣƺɯȒǔɎǝƺRȒɖɀƺ«ɖǼƺɀƏȇƳ«ƺǕɖǼƏɎǣȒȇɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƬȒȇƳɖƬɎƺƳ ɯǣɎǝƺƏƬǝƏƳɖǼɎȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȒǔɎǝƺǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳِXȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇًƏɎɎǝƺɎǣȅƺɎǝƺ ȸƺȇɎƏǼƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎǣɀɀǣǕȇƺƳًƏǼǼȵȸȒɮǣɀǣȒȇɀȒǔɎǝƺȸƺȇɎƏǼƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƫƺ ƺɴȵǼƏǣȇƺƳًƏȇƳƺƏƬǝȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳɯǣɎǝƏƬȒȵɵȒǔɎǝƺƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎِ Əِ XȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇȒǔƺƏƬǝƳɯƺǼǼǣȇǕɖȇǣɎƫɵɎǝƺƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȸȒȸǝƺȸٖǝǣɀ ƏȵȵȒǣȇɎƺƺƏȇƳȇƺɯȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ٢ɀ٣ِɎɎǝǣɀɎǣȅƺƏxȒɮƺٮXȇٖxȒɮƺٮɖɎXɎƺȅǣɿƺƳ ³ɎƏɎƺȅƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƫƺɖɀƺƳɎȒƳȒƬɖȅƺȇɎɎǝƺɖȇǣɎٔɀƬȒȇƳǣɎǣȒȇƏȇƳɯǣǼǼƫƺ ɀǣǕȇƺƳƫɵƫȒɎǝȵƏȸɎǣƺɀِáȸǣɎɎƺȇǣȇɀɎȸɖƬɎǣȒȇɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳɎȒƏǼǼ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƺɴȵǼƏǣȇǣȇǕɎǝƺɖɀƺƏȇƳƬƏȸƺȒǔƏǼǼƏȵȵǼǣƏȇƬƺɀًȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺًƏȇƳ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȸƺȷɖƺɀɎȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀِȅȒɮƺٮȒɖɎǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɯǣǼǼƫƺƬȒȇƳɖƬɎƺƳƫɵ ɎǝƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȸƏȇƳɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎِ¨ȸǣȒȸɎȒɎǝƺȅȒɮƺٮȒɖɎǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɎǝƺ xƏȇƏǕƺȸɯǣǼǼȒǔǔƺȸɎȒɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺƏȵȸƺٮǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇƏȅǣȇǣȅɖȅȒǔɎɯȒɯƺƺǸɀ ƫƺǔȒȸƺɎǝƺɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺƳȅȒɮƺٮȒɖɎǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇِÁǝƺȒȸǣǕǣȇƏǼxȒɮƺٮǣȇٖxȒɮƺٮ 3.b Packet Pg. 75 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏10 ȒɖɎXɎƺȅǣɿƺƳ³ɎƏɎƺȅƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƫƺɖɀƺƳɎȒȇȒɎƺɎǝƺƬɖȸȸƺȇɎƬȒȇƳǣɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺ ɖȇǣɎƏɎȅȒɮƺٮȒɖɎƏȇƳɯǣǼǼƫƺɀǣǕȇƺƳƏȇƳƳƏɎƺƳƫɵƫȒɎǝȵƏȸɎǣƺɀِ ِ «ƺƏɀȒȇƏƫǼƺƬƬȒȅȅȒƳƏɎǣȒȇ¨ȒǼǣƬɵ ׏ِ ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼƏȵȵǼɵƏǼǼ!ǣɎɵً³ɎƏɎƺًƏȇƳIƺƳƺȸƏǼȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀǣȇƏƬƬȒȅȅȒƳƏɎǣȇǕ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣɎǝǼǣȅǣɎǣȇǕȵǝɵɀǣƬƏǼǣȅȵƏǣȸȅƺȇɎɀƏɀɎǝƺɀɎȸɖƬɎɖȸƺȒǔɎǝƺƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕɯǣǼǼ ƏǼǼȒɯِÁǝǣɀǣȇƬǼɖƳƺɀƫɖɎǣɀȇȒɎǼǣȅǣɎƺƳɎȒي Əِ ƳǴɖɀɎǣȇǕ ɖȇǣɎɀ ǔȸȒȅٺ ƏƳƏȵɎƏƫǼƺٺ ɎȒ ٹƏƬƬƺɀɀǣƫǼƺٺ ǔȒȸ Ɏǝƺ ȵɖȸȵȒɀƺ Ȓǔ ƏƬƬȒȅȅȒƳƏɎǣȇǕȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǝȒȅƏɵȇƺƺƳǕȸƏƫƫƏȸɀًǼȒɯƺȸƺƳƬȒɖȇɎƺȸɀًƺɎƬِǣȇ ɎǝƺǣȸɖȇǣɎɀِ ƫِ XȇɀɎƏǼǼǣȇǕɀȵƺƬǣƏǼƏƬƬȒȅȅȒƳƏɎǣȒȇɀǔȒȸǝƺƏȸǣȇǕǣȅȵƏǣȸƺƳȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀǣȇƬǼɖƳǣȇǕ ɀɎȸȒƫƺǼǣǕǝɎƳȒȒȸƫƺǼǼɀƏȇƳȵǝȒȇƺɀِ Ƭِ ɎǝƺȸƏƬƬȒȅȅȒƳƏɎǣȒȇɀƏɀȅƏɵƫƺƏǼǼȒɯƺƳɖȇƳƺȸɎǝƺƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕƬȒƳƺƏȇƳɯǣɎǝǣȇ ɎǝƺȵǝɵɀǣƬƏǼƏȇƳǔǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼƬƏȵƏƬǣɎɵȒǔɎǝƺƺɴǣɀɎǣȇǕƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕِ zȒȒɎǝƺȸɯǣɀƺƺǼǣǕǣƫǼƺƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƳƺȇǣƺƳȒȇɎǝƺƫƏɀǣɀȒǔƏȸƺȷɖƺɀɎǔȒȸƏȸƺƏɀȒȇƏƫǼƺ ƏƬƬȒȅȅȒƳƏɎǣȒȇِ C. ¨ȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀǔȒȸƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇǣȇǕƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵƏȇƳƏȇȇɖƏǼƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇ ׏ِ ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼƏȵȵǼɵƏǼǼ!ǣɎɵً³ɎƏɎƺًƏȇƳIƺƳƺȸƏǼȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀǣȇƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇǣȇǕ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ ƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵ ƏɎ ǣȇǣɎǣƏǼ ȸƺȇɎٮɖȵ ƏȇƳ ƳɖȸǣȇǕ ɀɖƫɀƺȷɖƺȇɎ ȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇɀ Ȓǔ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǣȇƬȒȅƺِáǝƺȇǔǣǼǼǣȇǕƏɮƏƬƏȇƬɵًǣȇǣɎǣƏǼƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵȒǔȵȸȒɀȵƺƬɎǣɮƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀً ɯǣɎǝɎǝƺƺɴƬƺȵɎǣȒȇȒǔɀȵƺƬǣƏǼȇƺƺƳɀɖȇǣɎɀًɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇƺƳƫɵɎǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕ ȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀي Əِ ƫȸǣƺǔƬȒȇɮƺȸɀƏɎǣȒȇƫɵȵǝȒȇƺɎȒƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇƺǣǔɎǝƺƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳ ȅƺƺɎɀȅǣȇǣȅɖȅƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵƬȸǣɎƺȸǣƏِ ƫِ ȵƺȸɀȒȇƏǼǣȇɎƺȸɮǣƺɯِ Ƭِ ¨ȸȒɀȵƺƬɎǣɮƺ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ɯǝȒ ǝƏɮƺ ƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇƺƳ ɎȒ ƫƺ ǣȇƺǼǣǕǣƫǼƺ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ɀȒ ȇȒɎǣǔǣƺƳǣȇɯȸǣɎǣȇǕِ(ƺȇǣƺƳƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎɀɯǣǼǼǝƏɮƺƏȇȒȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎɵ ǔǣǼƺ Əȇ ƏȵȵƺƏǼƏȇƳȵȸȒɮǣƳƺǔɖȸɎǝƺȸǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇǣǔɎǝƺɵǔƺƺǼƏȇƺȸȸȒȸǝƏɀƫƺƺȇȅƏƳƺ ǣȇƏɀɀƺɀɀǣȇǕɎǝƺǣȸƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵِ Ƴِ ƬɎɖƏǼƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵɯǣǼǼƫƺƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇƺƳƏɀǔȒǼǼȒɯɀي ׏٣ 0ƏƬǝȵȸȒɀȵƺƬɎǣɮƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼƬȒȅȵǼƺɎƺƏȇƏȵȵǼǣƬƏɎǣȒȇǔȒȸȅƏȇƳ ȸƺɎɖȸȇǣɎɎȒɎǝƺ!ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸɯǣɎǝɀǣǕȇƺƳȵƺȸȅǣɀɀǣȒȇǔȒȸ ɎǝǣȸƳȵƏȸɎɵɮƺȸǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇȒǔǣȇƬȒȅƺِ א٣ áǝƺȇƏȇƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎȇƏȅƺȇƺƏȸɀɎǝƺɎȒȵȒǔɎǝƺɯƏǣɎǣȇǕǼǣɀɎًȵƺȸɎǣȇƺȇɎ ǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇɯǣǼǼƫƺƬȒȇǔǣȸȅƺƳƏɀƬɖȸȸƺȇɎƏȇƳɎǝǣȸƳٮȵƏȸɎɵɮƺȸǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇ ǼƺɎɎƺȸɀƏȸƺɀƺȇɎِ¨ȸƺɮǣȒɖɀǼƏȇƳǼȒȸƳɮƺȸǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇًƬȸƺƳǣɎƬǝƺƬǸɀً ƬȸǣȅǣȇƏǼ ƬǝƺƬǸɀ ƏȇƳ ɀƺɴ ȒǔǔƺȇƳƺȸ ƬǝƺƬǸɀ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ȵƺȸǔȒȸȅƺƳ Əɀ ƏȵȵǼǣƬƏƫǼƺِ ב٣ ÁǝƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȸɀǝƏǼǼƬȒȇƳɖƬɎƏȵƺȸɀȒȇƏǼǣȇɎƺȸɮǣƺɯɯǣɎǝƏǼǼȅƺȅƫƺȸɀ 3.b Packet Pg. 76 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏11 ȒǔɎǝƺȵȸȒɀȵƺƬɎǣɮƺǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳِ ג٣ ÁǝǣȸƳ ȵƏȸɎɵ ɮƺȸǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇ ǔȒȸȅɀ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ɖɀƺƳ ɎȒ ƬȒȅȵɖɎƺ ǣȇƬȒȅƺ ƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵƏȇƳƏƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇƏɎǣȒȇɯǣǼǼƫƺȅƏƳƺƬȒȇƬƺȸȇǣȇǕƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎ ǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳٔɀƏƫǣǼǣɎɵɎȒǼǣɮƺǝƏȸȅȒȇǣȒɖɀǼɵɯǣɎǝǣȇxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ ƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵِ ד٣ ¨ȸƺɮǣȒɖɀǼƏȇƳǼȒȸƳɮƺȸǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇًƬȸƺƳǣɎƬǝƺƬǸɀًƬȸǣȅǣȇƏǼƬǝƺƬǸɀƏȇƳɀƺɴ ȒǔǔƺȇƳƺȸƬǝƺƬǸɀǔȒȸɀȵƺƬǣǔǣƬǝȒɖɀǣȇǕȵȸȒǕȸƏȅɀɎǝƏɎȸƺȷɖǣȸƺǣɎɯǣǼǼƫƺ ȵƺȸǔȒȸȅƺƳِ ה٣ áȸǣɎɎƺȇȇȒɎǣƬƺɯǣǼǼƫƺɀƺȇɎƏƳɮǣɀǣȇǕƏȵȵǼǣƬƏȇɎɀȒǔɎǝƺǣȸǔǣȇƏǼƺǼǣǕǣƫǣǼǣɎɵ ɀɎƏɎɖɀِ אِ IȒȸɎǝƺɀȵƺƬǣƏǼȇƺƺƳɀɖȇǣɎɀًɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎɯǣǼǼɖɀƺƏǼȒɯƫƏȸȸǣƺȸɎƺȇƏȇɎɀƺǼƺƬɎǣȒȇȵȸȒƬƺɀɀ ɎǝƏɎǝȒɖɀƺɀɎǝȒɀƺɯǣɎǝɎǝƺǝǣǕǝƺɀɎȇƺƺƳɀǔȒȸƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺƳƺɀǣǕȇƏɎƺƳ ɖȇǣɎɀً ǣȅȵǼƺȅƺȇɎɀ RȒɖɀǣȇǕ IǣȸɀɎ ȵȸƏƬɎǣƬƺɀً ƏȇƳ ǣȅȵǼƺȅƺȇɎɀ ȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀ ƏȇƳ ȵȸƏƬɎǣƬƺɀ ɎȒ ȵȸƺɮƺȇɎ ƺɮǣƬɎǣȒȇɀ Əɀ ƬȒƳǣǔǣƺƳ ǣȇ Ɏǝƺ ÁƺȇƏȇɎ ³ƺǼƺƬɎǣȒȇ ¨ǼƏȇ ƏɎɎƏƬǝƺƳ ǝƺȸƺɎȒ Əɀ ȵȵƺȇƳǣɴאِ בِÁǝƺƏȇȇɖƏǼ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɯǣǼǼƫƺƏɀǔȒǼǼȒɯɀي Əِ ٓÁǣƬǸǼƺȸǔǣǼƺٓɯǣǼǼƫƺǸƺȵɎȒȇɎǝƺȅȒɮƺٮǣȇƏȇȇǣɮƺȸɀƏȸɵȅȒȇɎǝǔȒȸƏǼǼ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀِ٢ȸƏȇȇɖƏǼȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇƳƏɎƺǔȒȸɯǝȒǼƺȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵِ٣ ƫِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼȸƺƬƺǣɮƺȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇȇȒɎǣƬƺɀƏɎ׏א׎ًח׎ًה׎ƏȇƳב׎ƳƏɵɀ ȵȸǣȒȸɎȒɎǝƺǣȸƏȇȇǣɮƺȸɀƏȸɵِ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼȸƺƬƺǣɮƺƏǼƺɎɎƺȸƏƳɮǣɀǣȇǕɎǝƺȅȒǔ ɎǝƺǣȸǣȅȵƺȇƳǣȇǕȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇƳƏɎƺًƏɀǸǣȇǕɎǝƺȅɎȒƬȒȅƺǣȇǔȒȸƏ ȵƺȸɀȒȇƏǼǣȇɎƺȸɮǣƺɯƏȇƳɀǣǕȇɎǝƺȸƺǼƺƏɀƺȵȒȸɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺɎǝǣȸƳٮȵƏȸɎɵ ɮƺȸǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇǔȒȸȅɀِÁǝƺɀƺɯǣǼǼƫƺǔȒȸɯƏȸƳƺƳɎȒɎǝƺƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺɎǝǣȸƳ ȵƏȸɎǣƺɀِ Ƭِ ɎɎǝƺɎǣȅƺȒǔȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇًǣǔƏǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳǣȇƬȒȅƺƺɴƬƺƺƳɀɎǝƺǼǣȅǣɎ ƳƺɀǣǕȇƏɎƺƳǔȒȸɎǝƏɎɖȇǣɎƫɵɎǝƺɖȇǣɎټɀƏɀɀǣǕȇƺƳȸƺƏxƺƳǣɖȅXȇƬȒȅƺ٢xX٣ ǔȒȸɎǝƺǣȸǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀǣɿƺɎǝƺǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳȅƏɵƫƺƏɀɀǣǕȇƺƳƏȇƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺ xXɖȇǣɎɯǝƺȇƏɖȇǣɎǣɀƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺًƏȇƳɎǝƺǔƏȅǣǼɵƫƺƬǝƏȸǕƺƳȸƺȇɎ ƏƬƬȒȸƳǣȇǕǼɵِÁǝƺȇƺɴɎƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺɖȇǣɎɯǣǼǼƫƺȸƺȇɎƺƳɎȒƏȇǣȇƬȒȅƺٮȷɖƏǼǣǔǣƺƳ ǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳƏɀȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳƫɵɎǝƺȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎِÁǝƺ«ƺǕǣȒȇƏǼ xƏȇƏǕƺȸɯǣǼǼȅƏǸƺɎǝƺƳƺƬǣɀǣȒȇȒȇɎǝƺɀƺƬǝƏȇǕƺɀِ גِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȒƬƬɖȵƏȇƬɵɀɎƏȇƳƏȸƳɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƺɀɎƏƫǼǣɀǝƺƳƏȇƳǣȅȵǼƺȅƺȇɎƺƳǣȇƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺ ɯǣɎǝȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀƺɀɎƏƫǼǣɀǝƺƳƫɵɎǝƺɯȇƺȸِ«ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳɖȇǣɎɀɀǝƏǼǼȇȒɎƳǣǔǔƺȸɀɖƫɀɎƏȇɎǣƏǼǼɵ ǣȇɀǣɿƺȒȸƏȅƺȇǣɎɵǼƺɮƺǼǔȸȒȅȇȒȇٮ«ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳÈȇǣɎɀɯǣɎǝɎǝƺɀƏȅƺȇɖȅƫƺȸȒǔƫƺƳȸȒȒȅɀِ «ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳÈȇǣɎɀɀǝƏǼǼȇȒɎƫƺɀƺǕȸƺǕƏɎƺƳǔȸȒȅȇȒȇٮ«ƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳÈȇǣɎɀًƏȇƳÈȇǣɎɀɀǝƏǼǼȇȒɎ ƫƺɀƺǕȸƺǕƏɎƺƳǔȸȒȅƺƏƬǝȒɎǝƺȸȒȇɎǝƺƫƏɀǣɀȒǔǣȇƬȒȅƺٮǼƺɮƺǼȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎǣȒȇɀِ דِnƺƏɀƺɀًRȒɖɀƺ«ɖǼƺɀƏȇƳȒɎǝƺȸȸƺȇɎƏǼƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎƳȒƬɖȅƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼȅƺƺɎȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀ ɀȵƺƬǣǔǣƺƳǣȇɎǝƺȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵټɀȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎɀِ (ِ «ƺȇɎƬȒǼǼƺƬɎǣȒȇȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀƏȇƳȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀ ÁǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȒȸǣƺȇɎƏɎǣȒȇǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇ٢ƫȒɎǝɯȸǣɎɎƺȇƏȇƳȒȸƏǼ٣ǔȒȸxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺɀǝƏǼǼ 3.b Packet Pg. 77 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏12 ƏƳƳȸƺɀɀȸƺȇɎƬȒǼǼƺƬɎǣȒȇȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀƏȇƳȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀِ³ɖƬǝȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀƏȇƳȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺ ɀɎȸǣƬɎًƬȒȇɀǣɀɎƺȇɎًƺƏɀǣǼɵɖȇƳƺȸɀɎȒȒƳًƏȇƳǔǣȸȅǼɵƺȇǔȒȸƬƺƳِÁǝǣɀǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳ ɎȒƏǼǼɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƏɎȅȒɮƺٮǣȇƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀɎȒƏǼǼȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɀɎƏǔǔƏȇƳɎǝƺɯȇƺȸِ ׏ِ ÁǝƺȒȇٮɀǣɎƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȸɀǝƏǼǼƬȒǼǼƺƬɎƏȇƳȸƺƬȒȸƳƏǼǼȸƺȇɎɀًȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǔƺƺɀƏȇƳƬǝƏȸǕƺɀ ƏȇƳɀǝƏǼǼȵȸȒȅȵɎǼɵƳƺȵȒɀǣɎƳƏǣǼɵȸƺƬƺǣȵɎɀɎȒɎǝƺƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎِǼǼȸƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƫƺ ƳɖƺƏȇƳȵƏɵƏƫǼƺȒȇɎǝƺǔǣȸɀɎƳƏɵȒǔɎǝƺȅȒȇɎǝƫɖɎǣȇȇȒƺɮƺȇɎǼƏɎƺȸɎǝƏȇǔǣɮƺ٢ד٣ ƬƏǼƺȇƳƏȸƳƏɵɀƏǔɎƺȸƳɖƺƳƏɎƺِxƺɎǝȒƳًɎǣȅƺƏȇƳȵǼƏƬƺɯǣǼǼƫƺȅƏƳƺƬǼƺƏȸɎȒɎǝƺ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƏȇƳɯǣǼǼɀȵƺƬǣǔɵɎǝƏɎȵƏɵȅƺȇɎǣɀɎȒƫƺȅƏƳƺȒȇٮɀǣɎƺƺǣɎǝƺȸƫɵƬǝƺƬǸȒȸ ȅȒȇƺɵȒȸƳƺȸِÈȵȒȇȸƺȷɖƺɀɎƫɵȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼȵȸȒɮǣƳƺɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɯǣɎǝƏ ȸƺȇɎȸƺƬƺǣȵɎِ אِ «ƺȇɎɀȇȒɎȸƺƬƺǣɮƺƳƫɵɎǝƺǔǣǔɎǝ٢דɎǝ٣ƳƏɵȒǔɎǝƺȅȒȇɎǝƏȸƺƬȒȇɀǣƳƺȸƺƳǼƏɎƺƏȇƳƏ ƳƺǼǣȇȷɖƺȇɎȸƺȇɎȇȒɎǣƬƺɯǣǼǼƫƺɀƺȇɎƫɵɎǝƺ!ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸِzȒɎǣƬƺɎȒ¨Əɵ ȸƺȇɎȒȸªɖǣɎɯǣǼǼƫƺɀƺȸɮƺƳȒȇɎǝƺǔǣȸɀɎƫɖɀǣȇƺɀɀƳƏɵǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕɎǝƺדɎǝȒǔɎǝƺȅȒȇɎǝِ XǔɎǝƺȸƺȇɎǣɀȇȒɎȸƺƬƺǣɮƺƳƳɖȸǣȇǕɎǝǣɀȵƺȸǣȒƳًɎǝƺ!ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸɯǣǼǼǣȇǔȒȸȅ Ɏǝƺ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀȒȸɯǝȒɯǣǼǼƏɖɎǝȒȸǣɿƺɎǝƺȸƺɎƺȇɎǣȒȇȒǔƏȇƏɎɎȒȸȇƺɵɎȒȵɖȸɀɖƺ ɖȇǼƏɯǔɖǼ ƳƺɎƏǣȇƺȸ ƏƬɎǣȒȇɀِ ǕƺȇɎ ɀǝƏǼǼ ȅƏǸƺ Ɏǝƺ ƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇƏɎǣȒȇɯǝƺȇ ɎȒ ƬȒȅȅƺȇƬƺƺɮǣƬɎǣȒȇȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀِ בِ ¨ƏȸɎǣƏǼȸƺȇɎȵƏɵȅƺȇɎɀ٢ƺɴƬƺȵɎǔȒȸȵȸȒٮȸƏɎƺƳȸƺȇɎɀǣȇɮȒǼɮǣȇǕƏȅǣƳٮȅȒȇɎǝȅȒɮƺǣȇ ƳƏɎƺ٣ɯǣǼǼȇȒɎƫƺƏƬƬƺȵɎƺƳِ גِ «ƺȇɎǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƏȇɎǣƬǣȵƏɎƺƳƏȇƳǣȅȵǼƺȅƺȇɎƺƳƏɀɎǝƺȇƺƺƳɀȒǔɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎ ƳǣƬɎƏɎƺًǣȇƬȒȇǴɖȇƬɎǣȒȇɯǣɎǝɎǝƺȵȸƺȵƏȸƏɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺȇȇɖƏǼȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕ ɖƳǕƺɎِÁǝƺ ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎٔɀ ɀƺȇǣȒȸ ȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ ȸƺȵȸƺɀƺȇɎƏɎǣɮƺً ǣȇ ƬȒȇɀɖǼɎƏɎǣȒȇ ɯǣɎǝ Ɏǝƺ ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎ ٻ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ³ɖȵƺȸɮǣɀȒȸًɀǝƏǼǼȵȸƺȵƏȸƺɎǝƺȇȇɖƏǼȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕ ɖƳǕƺɎǔȒȸɎǝƺƏȵȵȸȒɮƏǼ ȒǔɎǝƺɯȇƺȸِ Əِ «ƺȇɎǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺǣȅȵǼƺȅƺȇɎƺƳǣȇƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵ ȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀƏȇƳ³ɎƏɎƺƏȇƳǼȒƬƏǼǼƏɯِǼǼȸƺȇɎǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺɀƏȇƳƏƳǴɖɀɎȅƺȇɎɀ ǣȇɎǝƺɖɎǣǼǣɎɵƏǼǼȒɯƏȇƬƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȸƺɀƺȇɎƺƳɎȒɎǝƺɯȇƺȸِ ƫِ «ƺȇɎǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺɀǣȅȵǼƺȅƺȇɎƺƳƫɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ٢ƏȇƳȇȒɎƏɀɖƫɀǣƳɵɀȒɖȸƬƺ ɀɖƬǝƏɀ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇזÁƺȇƏȇɎ ƏɀƺàȒɖƬǝƺȸɀ٣ɯǣǼǼƫƺƫƏɀƺƳȒȇɎǝƺȅȒɀɎ ȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎǣɮƺȵȸȒǕȸƏȅǣȇƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝɎǝƺȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎɀǣȇ ȵǼƏƬƺǔȒȸxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺِ דِ ³ǝȒɖǼƳƏȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎƬƏɖɀƺƳƏȅƏǕƺɎȒɎǝƺȵȸƺȅǣɀƺɀǣȇɎǝƺƬȒɖȸɀƺȒǔǝǣɀٖǝƺȸɎƺȇƏȇƬɵً ɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƫƺƫǣǼǼƺƳǔȒȸɎǝƺȸƺȵƏǣȸȒǔɀɖƬǝƳƏȅƏǕƺɀɯǝƺȇɎǝƺɵȒƬƬɖȸِÁǝƺɀƺ ƳƏȅƏǕƺƬǝƏȸǕƺɀɯǣǼǼƏȵȵƺƏȸȒȇɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎٔɀȸƺȇɎǼƺƳǕƺȸƬƏȸƳƏȇƳɯǣǼǼɀǝȒɯƏɀƏ ƫƏǼƏȇƬƺƳɖƺɖȇɎǣǼȵƏǣƳǣȇǔɖǼǼِRȒɯƺɮƺȸًɀǝȒɖǼƳɎǝƺɀƺƬǝƏȸǕƺɀɀɎǣǼǼƫƺȒɯƺƳɯǝƺȇ ɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɮƏƬƏɎƺɀɎǝƺɖȇǣɎًɀɖƬǝƬǝƏȸǕƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƳƺƳɖƬɎƺƳǔȸȒȅɎǝƺɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵ ƳƺȵȒɀǣɎȸƺǔɖȇƳِ«ƺȅƏǣȇǣȇǕƬǝƏȸǕƺɀǔȒȸƳƏȅƏǕƺɀǣȇƺɴƬƺɀɀȒǔɎǝƺɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵƳƺȵȒɀǣɎ ɯǣǼǼƫƺȸƺƬȒɮƺȸƺƳƫɵȸƺǔƺȸȸǣȇǕɎǝƺƬƏɀƺɎȒƏȵȸȒǔƺɀɀǣȒȇƏǼƬȒǼǼƺƬɎǣȒȇɀƺȸɮǣƬƺِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƬǝƏȸǕƺƳǔȒȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎٮƬƏɖɀƺƳȒȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎٮȸƺȷɖƺɀɎƺƳȸƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎɀ ƏȇƳȸƺȵƏǣȸɀِ!ǝƏȸǕƺɀǔȒȸɎǝƺɀƺǣɎƺȅɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƏɎƏȸƏɎƺɎǝƏɎƳȒƺɀȇȒɎƺɴƬƺƺƳɎǝƺ ƏƬɎɖƏǼƬȒɀɎȵƏǣƳƫɵɎǝƺǕƺȇɎǔȒȸǼƏƫȒȸƏȇƳȅƏɎƺȸǣƏǼɀِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ǝƏɮǣȇǕ ǔǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼ ȵȸȒƫǼƺȅɀ ɎǝƏɎ ƏǔǔƺƬɎ ȵƏɵȅƺȇɎ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺǣȸ ȸƺȇɎ ȅƏɵ ƫƺ ȸƺǔƺȸȸƺƳɎȒƏȇƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺɀȒƬǣƏǼƏǕƺȇƬɵǔȒȸƏɀɀǣɀɎƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝȸƺȅƺƳɵǣȇǕ Ɏǝƺǣȸ ȵȸȒƫǼƺȅɀِxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎƏȇƳٖȒȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɯǣǼǼƺȇǕƏǕƺɎǝƺƏɀɀǣǕȇƺƳƬƏɀƺ 3.b Packet Pg. 78 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏13 ȅƏȇƏǕƺȸȒǔƏȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɯǣɎǝɀȵƺƬǣƏǼȇƺƺƳɀɎȒƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇƺƏǼɎƺȸȇƏɎƺɀȒǼɖɎǣȒȇɀɎȒ ƺɮǣƬɎǣȒȇǣǔɎǝƺɵƏȸƺƺɴȵƺȸǣƺȇƬǣȇǕǔǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎƬǝƏǼǼƺȇǕƺɀƏȇƳٖȒȸȅƏǸǣȇǕ ǼƏɎƺȸƺȇɎȵƏɵȅƺȇɎɀِ וِ nƺǕƏǼƬȒɀɎɀǣȇƬɖȸȸƺƳǣȇȵɖȸɀɖǣȇǕƬȒǼǼƺƬɎǣȒȇɀȒǔȸƺȇɎɀƏȇƳٖȒȸƺɮǣƬɎǣȒȇȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀ ɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƫȒȸȇƺƫɵɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎƏȇƳɀǝƏǼǼƫƺȵƏǣƳǔȒȸȒɖɎȒǔɎǝƺJƺȇƺȸƏǼȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕ ƬƬȒɖȇɎِ זِ «ƺȇɎ ƬȒǼǼƺƬɎǣȒȇɀ ɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ ȸƺƬȒȸƳƺƳ ǣȇ Ə ƬȒȅȵɖɎƺȸǣɿƺƳ ɀɵɀɎƺȅɎǝƏɎ ȵȸȒƳɖƬƺɀ Ə ȸƺƬƺǣȵɎǔȒȸɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎًƏȸƺƬȒȸƳȒȇɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎٔɀǼƺƳǕƺȸƬƏȸƳًƏȇƳƏȵƺȸȅƏȇƺȇɎ ǼƺƳǕƺȸƺȇɎȸɵِ חِ ȅƏɀɎƺȸٓȸƺȇɎٮȸȒǼǼٓɀǝƏǼǼƫƺȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇƺƳƏȇƳȸƺǕɖǼƏȸǼɵɖȵƳƏɎƺƳًǣȇƳǣƬƏɎǣȇǕȇɖȅƫƺȸً ȇƏȅƺ Ȓǔ ȒƬƬɖȵƏȇɎ٢ɀ٣ً ȸƺȇɎƏǼ ƏȅȒɖȇɎً Əȇɵ ɀɖƫɀǣƳɵ ȵƏɵȅƺȇɎ٢ɀ٣ً ƏȇƳƬɖȸȸƺȇɎ ȵƏɵȅƺȇɎɀɎƏɎɖɀǔȒȸƺƏƬǝȒǔɎǝƺɖȇǣɎɀǣȇɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎِ ׏׎ِ ǼƏɎƺǔƺƺɯǣǼǼƫƺƬǝƏȸǕƺƳǣȇƬȒȇȇƺƬɎǣȒȇɯǣɎǝƏȇɵȸƺȇɎȵƏɵȅƺȇɎȇȒɎȸƺƬƺǣɮƺƳƫɵɎǝƺ ǔǣǔɎǝ٢דɎǝ٣ƳƏɵȒǔɎǝƺȅȒȇɎǝƳɖȸǣȇǕɎǝƺȅȒȇɎǝǣɎǣɀƳɖƺِ ׏׏ِ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺǔƺƺɯǣǼǼƫƺƬǝƏȸǕƺƳǔȒȸȸƺɎɖȸȇƺƳƬǝƺƬǸɀِIȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕɎǝƺȒƬƬƏɀǣȒȇȒǔɎɯȒ ٢א٣ƬǝƺƬǸɀƫƺǣȇǕȸƺɎɖȸȇƺƳƫɵɎǝƺƫƏȇǸًȸƺȇɎȵƏɵȅƺȇɎƫɵƬƏɀǝǣƺȸټɀƬǝƺƬǸȒȸȅȒȇƺɵ ȒȸƳƺȸɯǣǼǼƫƺȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳǔȒȸɎǝƺɎƺȸȅȒǔȸƺɀǣƳƺȇƬɵِ 0ِ ¨ǼƏȇɀǔȒȸƺȇǝƏȇƬǣȇǕȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎٮȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎȸƺǼƏɎǣȒȇɀ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎٮȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ ȸƺǼƏɎǣȒȇɀ ɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ ƫƏɀƺƳ Ȓȇ Ə ȵȒǼǣƬɵ Ȓǔ ƬȒȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȒȇ ƏȇƳ ƬȒȅȅɖȇǣƬƏɎǣȒȇِIȒȸɎǝƏɎȸƺƏɀȒȇًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎȵȸȒɮǣƳƺɀȸƺǕɖǼƏȸ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ ȅƺƺɎǣȇǕɀِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƺȇƬȒɖȸƏǕƺƳɎȒɖȇƳƺȸɀɎƏȇƳɎǝƏɎɎǝƺǣȸǣȇɮȒǼɮƺȅƺȇɎɯǣɎǝxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ ¨ǼƏƬƺƏȇƳɎǝƺȸƺǔȒȸƺɎǝƺǣȸǣƳƺƏɀًȵȸǣȒȸǣɎǣƺɀًɀɖǕǕƺɀɎǣȒȇɀƏȇƳƬȒȇƬƺȸȇɀًƏȸƺƫȒɎǝɀȒɖǕǝɎƏȇƳ ɮƏǼɖƺƳِÁǝƺǕƺȇɎɀǝƏǼǼƺȇǼǣɀɎɎǝƺɀɖȵȵȒȸɎƏȇƳȵƏȸɎǣƬǣȵƏɎǣȒȇȒǔ Ɏǝƺ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ǣȇ Ɏǝƺ ǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕǔȒɖȸƏȸƺƏɀي ׏ِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎnƺƳƬɎǣɮǣɎǣƺɀي «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǣȇɮȒǼɮƺȅƺȇɎɯǣɎǝȒɎǝƺȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɎǝȸȒɖǕǝɮȒǼɖȇɎƺƺȸƏƬɎǣɮǣɎǣƺɀǣɀȇƺƺƳƺƳ ǣȇɎǝƺƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵِ0ɴƏȅȵǼƺɀǣȇƬǼɖƳƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǼƺƳƺɴƺȸƬǣɀƺƬǼƏɀɀƺɀًɯƺǼƬȒȅǣȇǕƏȇƳ ɀȒƬǣƏǼǕȸȒɖȵɀ٢ƬȒǔǔƺƺǝȒɖȸ٣ًƏȸɎƏȇƳƬȸƏǔɎɯȒȸǸɀǝȒȵɀًƺɎƬِÁǝƺɀƺƏƬɎǣɮǣɎǣƺɀǝƺǼȵ ɀɖȵȵȒȸɎɎǝƺȒȇǕȒǣȇǕɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳƫɵɎǝƺɀɎƏǔǔِ אِ ¨ȸȒƫǼƺȅ³ȒǼɮǣȇǕ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƏȸƺƺȇǕƏǕƺƳǣȇɀȒǼɮǣȇǕȵȸȒƫǼƺȅɀǕƺȇƺȸƏɎƺƳƫɵȒɎǝƺȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀًɀɖƬǝƏɀ ƺɴƬƺɀɀǣɮƺȇȒǣɀƺȒȸȒɎǝƺȸƳǣɀɎɖȸƫƏȇƬƺɀِÁǝƺǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƺȇƬȒɖȸƏǕƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɎȒƏƬɎ ƏɀƏƬȒǝƺɀǣɮƺƫȒƳɵɎȒɀƺƺɎǝȒɀƺȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀƏǔǔƺƬɎǣȇǕɎǝƺƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵƏɀƏɯǝȒǼƺƏȸƺ ƺȇǔȒȸƬƺƳِ !ȒȇɎǣȇɖƺƳ Ȓȸ ȵƺȸɀǣɀɎƺȇɎ ȵȸȒǕȸƏȅɀ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ƏƳƳȸƺɀɀƺƳ ɎǝȸȒɖǕǝ ǼƺƏɀƺ ƺȇǔȒȸƬƺȅƺȇɎِ בِ ȵȵƺƏǼƏȇƳJȸǣƺɮƏȇƬƺ¨ȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ɯǣɎǝ ƬȒȅȵǼƏǣȇɎɀ Ȓȸ ɀȵƺƬǣƏǼ ȸƺȷɖƺɀɎɀ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ƺȇƬȒɖȸƏǕƺƳ ɎȒ ƬȒȇɎƏƬɎ ȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɀɎƏǔǔǣȇɯȸǣɎǣȇǕِxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɯǣǼǼȅƏǸƺƺɮƺȸɵƏɎɎƺȅȵɎɎȒȸƺɀȵȒȇƳɎȒ ƬȒȅȵǼƏǣȇɎɀ ƫƺǔȒȸƺ Ɏǝƺɵ ƫƺƬȒȅƺ ǕȸǣƺɮƏȇƬƺɀ ƏȇƳ ɯǣǼǼ ȸƺɀȒǼɮƺ Əȇɵ ƬȒȅȵǼƏǣȇɎɀ Ȓȸ ǕȸǣƺɮƏȇƬƺƏɀȒɖɎǼǣȇƺƳǣȇɎǝƺȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵټɀǕȸǣƺɮƏȇƬƺȵȒǼǣƬɵِ 3.b Packet Pg. 79 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏14 גِ ȇǕȒǣȇǕ!ȒȅȅɖȇǣƬƏɎǣȒȇ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƺȇƬȒɖȸƏǕƺƳɎȒȒǔǔƺȸɀɖǕǕƺɀɎǣȒȇɀɎȒɎǝƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȸƏȇƳɀƺȇǣȒȸ ȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɀɎƏǔǔǣȇƏɮƏȸǣƺɎɵȒǔƏȸƺƏɀȒǔƬȒȇƬƺȸȇًɀɖƬǝƏɀɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵًȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺً ƏȇƳ ȸƺȇɎ ǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺɀً ƫȒɎǝ ǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼǼɵ Ȓȸ ƬȒǼǼƺƬɎǣɮƺǼɵ ƏɎ ƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵ ȅƺƺɎǣȇǕɀ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ ǣȇɮȒǼɮƺȅƺȇɎ ǣȇ ȵǼƏȇȇǣȇǕ ƬƏȇ ȸƺɀɖǼɎ ǣȇ ȅȒȸƺ ȸƺǼƺɮƏȇɎً ɀƺȇɀǣɎǣɮƺ ƏȇƳ ƺǔǔƺƬɎǣɮƺ ȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ ȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀ ƏȇƳ ƏǼɀȒ ȸƺƬȒǕȇǣɿƺɀ Ɏǝƺ ȵȸǣȇƬǣȵǼƺɎǝƏɎ ٓȵƏȸɎǣƬǣȵƏɎǣȒȇƫȸǣȇǕɀƬȒȅȅǣɎȅƺȇɎِٓIȒȸƺɴƏȅȵǼƺًǕǣɮƺȇƏȇȒȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎɵ ɎȒ ȵƏȸɎǣƬǣȵƏɎƺًȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƏƬɎɎȒǣȅȵȸȒɮƺɎǝƺȷɖƏǼǣɎɵȒǔǼǣǔƺǣȇɎǝƺǣȸƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵِ Əِ «ƺǕɖǼƏȸ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȅƺƺɎǣȇǕɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƬȒȇƳɖƬɎƺƳِ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳ ƬȒȵǣƺɀ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ ǝȒɖɀƺ ȸɖǼƺɀ ƏȇƳ ȒɎǝƺȸ ȅƏɎƺȸǣƏǼɀ ȵƺȸɎƏǣȇǣȇǕ ɎȒ ȵȒǼǣƬǣƺɀ ǕȒɮƺȸȇǣȇǕɎǝƺǣȸȒƬƬɖȵƏȇƬɵƏɎɎǝƺƏȵƏȸɎȅƺȇɎƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵِ ƫِ xƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɀɎƏǔǔɯǣǼǼƏǼɀȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣɎǝƏǼǣɀɎȒǔƺȅƺȸǕƺȇƬɵ ȇɖȅƫƺȸɀǔȒȸǝȒɀȵǣɎƏǼɀًƏȅƫɖǼƏȇƬƺًǔǣȸƺƳƺȵƏȸɎȅƺȇɎƏȇƳȵȒǼǣƬƺƳƺȵƏȸɎȅƺȇɎً ƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀɎǝƺȵǝȒȇƺȇɖȅƫƺȸȒǔɎǝƺȒȇٮɀǣɎƺȒǔǔǣƬƺƏȇƳƫƏƬǸٮɖȵǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇ ǣȇɎǝƺƺɮƺȇɎȒǔƺȅƺȸǕƺȇƬǣƺɀɯǝƺȇɎǝƺȒǔǔǣƬƺǣɀƬǼȒɀƺƳِ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƏǼɀȒ ȸƺƬƺǣɮƺǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇƏƫȒɖɎƺȇƺȸǕɵƏȇƳɯƏɎƺȸƬȒȇɀƺȸɮƏɎǣȒȇƏȇƳɯǝƏɎƺƏƬǝ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎƬƏȇƳȒɎȒȸƺƳɖƬƺƺȇƺȸǕɵƏȇƳɯƏɎƺȸɯƏɀɎƺِ Ƭِ ƬȒȵɵȒǔɎǝƺ0ȅƺȸǕƺȇƬɵ¨ȸƺȵƏȸƺƳȇƺɀɀ¨ǼƏȇǔȒȸxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺɯǣǼǼƫƺ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵƺƳƫɵɎǝƺǕƺȇɎƏȇƳȵȸȒȅɖǼǕƏɎƺƳɎȒȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀِÁǝǣɀȵǼƏȇǣɀ ƳƺɀǣǕȇƺƳɎȒȅƏɴǣȅǣɿƺɎǝƺǝƺƏǼɎǝƏȇƳɀƏǔƺɎɵȒǔɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀǣȇɎǝƺƺɮƺȇɎȒǔ ƏȇƺȅƺȸǕƺȇƬɵɀɖƬǝƏɀƏȇƺƏȸɎǝȷɖƏǸƺȒȸȵȒɯƺȸȒɖɎƏǕƺِÁǝƺȵǼƏȇɯǣǼǼƫƺ ƳǣɀɎȸǣƫɖɎƺƳɎȒƏǼǼȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƏɎɎǣȅƺȒǔǣȇǣɎǣƏǼȒƬƬɖȵƏȇƬɵƏȇƳȵƺȸǣȒƳǣƬƳȸǣǼǼɀ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺƳ ɎȒ Ǖǣɮƺ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ Ɏǝƺ ȒȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎɵ ɎȒ ȵȸƏƬɎǣƬƺɎǝƺǣȸ ȸƺɀȵȒȇɀƺɎȒƏȇƺȅƺȸǕƺȇƬɵɀǣɎɖƏɎǣȒȇِ דِ Áǝǣɀ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇȵȵǼǣƺɀɎȒ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎǣƺɀ³ɖƫǴƺƬɎɎȒRȒɖɀǣȇǕIǣȸɀɎxȒƳƺǼȇǼɵ RȒɖɀǣȇǕIǣȸɀɎ¨ȸƏƬɎǣƬƺɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺɀɖƫǴƺƬɎɎȒȵƺȸǣȒƳǣƬƬȒȅȵǼǣƏȇƬƺȅȒȇǣɎȒȸǣȇǕƫɵɎǝƺ ȵȸȒǴƺƬɎټɀȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɀِ ÁǝƺɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀȵȸȒɮǣɀǣȒȇɯǣǼǼƫƺƫƏɀƺƳȒȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕIǣȸɀɎȵȸǣȇƬǣȵƏǼɀƬȒɖȵǼƺƳ ɯǣɎǝȒȇǕȒǣȇǕƺƳɖƬƏɎǣȒȇƏȇƳɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɎǝƏɎǔȒƬɖɀȒȇǔȒȸȅƺȸǼɵɖȇǝȒɖɀƺƳ ȵƺȒȵǼƺِÁǝƺɖɀƺȒǔǝƏȸȅȸƺƳɖƬɎǣȒȇɀɎȸƏɎƺǕǣƺɀƏǼǼȒɯɀɀɎƏǔǔɎȒɀɎƏȸɎٹɯǝƺȸƺɎǝƺȵƺȸɀȒȇ ǣɀƏɎٺƏȇƳƏƳƳȸƺɀɀɎǝƺǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼǣƳƺȇɎǣǔǣƺƳȇƺƺƳɀًƏǼǼȒɯǣȇǕɎȸɖɀɎƏȇƳȸƏȵȵȒȸɎɎȒ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵِ «ƺǕɖǼƏȸ ƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǣǼǣɎɵ ƏȇƳ ɮǣɀǣƫǣǼǣɎɵ ȒȇٮɀǣɎƺ ɯǣǼǼ ȸƺƳɖƬƺɎǝƺƫƏȸȸǣƺȸȒǔ ƬȒȇȇƺƬɎǣȇǕɎȒƏɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸƏɀȇƺƺƳƺƳƏȇƳȸƺƳɖƬƺǼƺȇǕɎǝɵɎǣȅƺǼƏȵɀƺɀɎȒ ƬȒȇȇƺƬɎǣȇǕɎȒɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀِ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƏȸƺȇȒɎȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳɎȒƺȇȸȒǼǼȅƺȇɎǣȇɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƏɀƏ ƬȒȇƳǣɎǣȒȇǔȒȸǝȒɖɀǣȇǕِ XȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇɎȒRȒɖɀǣȇǕǔǣȸɀɎًɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎɯǣǼǼɎƏǸƺƏȇƏǕǣȇǕǣȇȵǼƏƬƺƏȵȵȸȒƏƬǝɎȒ ɀɖȵȵȒȸɎɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀِǼǼɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƺȅȵǝƏɀǣɿƺƺȇǝƏȇƬǣȇǕɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎټɀȷɖƏǼǣɎɵȒǔ Ǽǣǔƺ ƏȇƳ ǣȇƬǼɖƳƺ ƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵ ƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕ ƏƬɎǣɮǣɎǣƺɀ ƏȇƳ ƺɮƺȇɎɀ ɎȒ ǝƺǼȵ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵƏǼȒƬƏǼɀɖȵȵȒȸɎȇƺɎɯȒȸǸƏȇƳǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺɎǝƺǣȸɀƺȇɀƺȒǔɀƺǼǔٮɯȒȸɎǝِ RȒɖɀǣȇǕ IǣȸɀɎ ³ɎȸƏɎƺǕǣƺɀ ɀɖƬǝ Əɀ Əȇ 0ɮǣƬɎǣȒȇ ¨ȸƺɮƺȇɎǣȒȇ ȵȸȒǕȸƏȅ ɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ǣȅȵǼƺȅƺȇɎƺƳɯǝƺȸƺǣȇɎǝƺɯƏȸȇǣȇǕɀǣǕȇɀȒǔǼƺƏɀƺɮǣȒǼƏɎǣȒȇɀƏȸƺǣƳƺȇɎǣǔǣƺƳƺƏȸǼɵً ɎǝȸȒɖǕǝȸƺǕɖǼƏȸƬƏɀƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎȅƺƺɎǣȇǕɀًƬƏɀɖƏǼȒƫɀƺȸɮƏɎǣȒȇƏȇƳǣȇɎƺȸƏƬɎǣȒȇً ƏȇƳƬǼȒɀƺƬȒȒȸƳǣȇƏɎǣȒȇƫƺɎɯƺƺȇȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɀɎƏǔǔƏȇƳɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ 3.b Packet Pg. 80 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏15 ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸɀِÁǝƺɖɀƺȒǔƏǼƬȒǝȒǼȒȸƳȸɖǕɀǣȇƏȇƳǣɎɀƺǼǔًɯǣɎǝȒɖɎȒɎǝƺȸǼƺƏɀƺ ɮǣȒǼƏɎǣȒȇɀًǣɀȇȒɎƏȸƺƏɀȒȇǔȒȸƺɮǣƬɎǣȒȇِ áƺȸƺƬȒǕȇǣɿƺɎǝƺǣȅȵȒȸɎƏȇƬƺȒǔƳƺɮƺǼȒȵǣȇǕƏɮƺȸɵƬȒȅȵȸƺǝƺȇɀǣɮƺ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ¨ǼƏȇ ɎȒǣȇƬǼɖƳƺƫɖɎȇȒɎǼǣȅǣɎƺƳɎȒً0ƳɖƬƏɎǣȒȇƏǼ¨ȸȒǕȸƏȅɀًƺɎƬِXȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇɎȒɎǝƺƏƫȒɮƺًǕƺȇɎ ȅƏɵƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎɯǣɎǝȒɖɎɀǣƳƺɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸɀɎȒƏɀɀɖȸƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȇƺƺƳɀƏȸƺȅƺɎِ XXXِ xXzÁ0zz!0ٖ³0!È«XÁçي ِ ¨ǼƏȇɀǔȒȸƬƏȸȸɵǣȇǕȒɖɎƏȇƺǔǔƺƬɎǣɮƺȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺƏȇƳȸƺȵƏǣȸȵȸȒǕȸƏȅ ÁǝƺȇٮJȒǣȇǕxƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺ¨ȸȒǕȸƏȅɀǝƏǼǼǣȇƬǼɖƳƺɎǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕي ׏ِ ³ƬǝƺƳɖǼƺƳȵȸƺɮƺȇɎǣɮƺȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺƏȇƳȸƺȵƏǣȸȒǔǣȇɀɎƏǼǼƺƳƺȷɖǣȵȅƺȇɎǣȇ ƏƬƬȒȸƳƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝȅƏȇɖǔƏƬɎɖȸƺȸɀٔȸƺƬȒȅȅƺȇƳƏɎǣȒȇɀƏȇƳɎǝƺȸƺȷɖǣȸƺȅƺȇɎɀ ȒǔƺȷɖǣȵȅƺȇɎȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕȅƏȇɖƏǼɀِÁǝƺɀǸǣǼǼƺƳȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎȒȸɀɯǣǼǼ ȵƺȸǔȒȸȅɎǝǣɀɯȒȸǸِ אِ «ȒɖɎǣȇƺ ȸƺȵƏǣȸɀ ɎȒ ǸǣɎƬǝƺȇ ƏȵȵǼǣƏȇƬƺɀً ƺǼƺƬɎȸǣƬƏǼً ȵǼɖȅƫǣȇǕًƏȇƳǝƺƏɎǣȇǕ ƺȷɖǣȵȅƺȇɎِȇٮɀǣɎƺɀɎƏǔǔȒȸǣȇƳƺȵƺȇƳƺȇɎƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎȒȸɀɯǣǼǼȵƺȸǔȒȸȅɎǝǣɀɯȒȸǸِ בِ ¨ȸƺɮƺȇɎǣɮƺ ɀƺȅǣٮƏȇȇɖƏǼ ƏȵƏȸɎȅƺȇɎ ǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɀ ɎȒ ȸƺǕɖǼƏȸǼɵ ƏȇƳ ƬȒȇɀǣɀɎƺȇɎǼɵƏɀƬƺȸɎƏǣȇɎǝƺƬȒȇƳǣɎǣȒȇȒǔƺƏƬǝɖȇǣɎِxƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺȵȸȒƫǼƺȅɀ ƳǣɀƬȒɮƺȸƺƳ ƳɖȸǣȇǕ Ɏǝƺɀƺ ǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɀ ɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ ǝƏȇƳǼƺƳ ƏƬƬȒȸƳǣȇǕɎȒ Ɏǝƺ ɯȒȸǸȒȸƳƺȸȵȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺɀƏɀƳƺɀƬȸǣƫƺƳǣȇ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇXXX٢0٣ƫƺǼȒɯِ גِ ¨ȸƺɮƺȇɎǣɮƺ ȸƺǕɖǼƏȸ ǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɀ ƏȇƳ ǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɀ Ȓǔ ƬȒȅȅȒȇ ƏȸƺƏɀ ƏȇƳ ƺȷɖǣȵȅƺȇɎًƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀȸƺǕɖǼƏȸɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺɀ٢ƳƏǣǼɵًɯƺƺǸǼɵًȅȒȇɎǝǼɵًȷɖƏȸɎƺȸǼɵً ƏȇȇɖƏǼǼɵ٣ǔȒȸȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇǣȇǕɎǝƺɀƏȅƺِ Əِ xƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺȒǔƺɴɎƺȸǣȒȸƏȸƺƏɀɀǝƏǼǼǣȇƬǼɖƳƺǸƺƺȵǣȇǕǕȸȒɖȇƳɀǔȸƺƺȒǔ ǼǣɎɎƺȸًɎȸƏɀǝƏȇƳȵƏȵƺȸِ¨ƏȸǸǣȇǕƏȸƺƏɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇƺƳǣȇǕȒȒƳ ȸƺȵƏǣȸƏȇƳǔȸƺƺǔȸȒȅƳǣȸɎƏȇƳǼǣɎɎƺȸِ ƫِ !ȒȅȅȒȇƏȸƺƏɀɀɖƬǝƏɀǝƏǼǼɯƏɵɀƏȇƳǼƏɖȇƳȸɵȸȒȒȅɀɯǣǼǼƫƺɀɯƺȵɎ ƏȇƳƬǼƺƏȇƺƳƳƏǣǼɵƏȇƳǸƺȵɎǔȸƺƺȒǔɎȸƏɀǝƏȇƳȒɎǝƺȸƳƺƫȸǣɀِ דِ JƏȸƫƏǕƺƏȇƳȸƺƬɵƬǼǣȇǕȸƺȅȒɮƏǼɯǣǼǼƫƺƏǔǔƺƬɎƺƳɎǝȸȒɖǕǝƏȸȸƏȇǕƺȅƺȇɎɀ ɯǣɎǝƏƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎȒȸɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƬȒȅȵƏȇɵِÁǝƺɎȸƏɀǝƏȸƺƏɀɯǣǼǼƫƺɀɯƺȵɎƳƏǣǼɵƏȇƳ ɀƬȸɖƫƫƺƳɯǣɎǝƳǣɀǣȇǔƺƬɎƏȇɎɯǝƺȇȇƺƬƺɀɀƏȸɵِ הِ 0ɴɎƺȸȅǣȇƏɎǣȒȇɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎƺƳɀȒƏɀɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƏǝǣǕǝǼƺɮƺǼȒǔ ɀƏȇǣɎƏɎǣȒȇƏȇƳƬǼƺƏȇǼǣȇƺɀɀِ וِ Áǝƺ ȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ ǕȸȒɖȇƳɀ ɀǝƏǼǼ ƫƺ Ȓȇ Ə ƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎ ƫƏɀǣɀɯǣɎǝ Ə ǼƏȇƳɀƬƏȵƺǔǣȸȅِ ِ ¨ȸƺɮƺȇɎƏɎǣɮƺȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺ ¨ȸƺɮƺȇɎǣɮƺxƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺ³ƬǝƺƳɖǼƺɯǣǼǼƫƺƳƺɮƺǼȒȵƺƳƏȇƳǣȅȵǼƺȅƺȇɎƺƳِXȇɎƺȸǣȒȸ ȵƏǣȇɎǣȇǕƏȇƳȸƺƳƺƬȒȸƏɎǣȒȇȒǔǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼɖȇǣɎɀɀǝƏǼǼȒƬƬɖȸƺɮƺȸɵבɎȒדɵƺƏȸɀƫƏɀƺƳ Ȓȇ ȇƺƺƳ ɀɖƫɀɎƏȇɎǣƏɎƺƳ ƫɵ Ɏǝƺ ƏȇȇɖƏǼ ȵǝɵɀǣƬƏǼ ǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇً Ȓȸ ƏɀȒƬƬɖȵƏȇƬɵ ƬǝƏȇǕƺɀًȒȸƏɀɎǝƺǕƺȇɎƏȇƳɯȇƺȸȅƏɵȒɎǝƺȸɯǣɀƺƳƺƺȅȇƺƬƺɀɀƏȸɵِ 3.b Packet Pg. 81 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏16 !ِ xƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺɯȒȸǸȒȸƳƺȸɀ «ȒɖɎǣȇƺȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺȸƺȷɖƺɀɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƬȒȅȵǼƺɎƺƳɯǣɎǝǣȇɀƺɮƺȇɎɵٮɎɯȒ٢וא٣ǝȒɖȸɀِ ǼǼǣɎƺȅɀȇƺƺƳǣȇǕȸƺȵƏǣȸȒȸȸƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎًɯǝƺɎǝƺȸȸƺȵȒȸɎƺƳƫɵɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȒȸ ƳǣɀƬȒɮƺȸƺƳƫɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɀɎƏǔǔًɀǝƏǼǼƫƺȸƺƬȒȸƳƺƳȒȇƏȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺɯȒȸǸȒȸƳƺȸ ǔȒȸȅƫɵɎǝƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȸȒȸȅƏǣȇɎƺȇƏȇƬƺɀɎƏǔǔِ ׏ِ ÁǝƺǔȒȸȅɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƬȒȅȵǼƺɎƺƳِƬȒȵɵɀǝƏǼǼƫƺǕǣɮƺȇɎȒɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ ɖȵȒȇ ȸƺȷɖƺɀɎًƏȇƳƏƬȒȵɵɀǝƏǼǼƫƺȸƺɎƏǣȇƺƳǣȇƏɀɖǣɎƏƫǼƺǼƺƳǕƺȸǔȒȸǔȒǼǼȒɯٮɖȵƏɀɎǝƺ ɯȒȸǸȵȸȒƬƺƺƳɀِ אِ ÁǝƺɯȒȸǸȒȸƳƺȸǔȒȸȅɀǝƏǼǼǣȇƳǣƬƏɎƺɎǝƺƬȒɀɎɀȒǔǼƏƫȒȸƏȇƳȅƏɎƺȸǣƏǼɀƏȇƳɎǝƺ ȅƏȇƏǕƺȸɀǝƏǼǼƳƺɎƺȸȅǣȇƺƏȇɵƬǝƏȸǕƺɀɎȒȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀǔȒȸƳƏȅƏǕƺɀƫƺɵȒȇƳȇȒȸȅƏǼ ɯƺƏȸƏȇƳɎƺƏȸِ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƫǣǼǼƺƳȵȸȒȅȵɎǼɵǔȒȸƳƏȅƏǕƺɀɎǝƺɵƬƏɖɀƺًƏȇƳً ȵƺȸɎǝƺǼƺƏɀƺƏǕȸƺƺȅƺȇɎًƫƺȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳɎȒȸƺǣȅƫɖȸɀƺɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎɯǣɎǝǣȇɎǝǣȸɎɵ٢ב׎٣ ƳƏɵɀȒȸȒɎǝƺȸȸƺƏɀȒȇƏƫǼƺɎǣȅƺƏǕȸƺƺƳɖȵȒȇƫɵɎǝƺǕƺȇɎƏȇƳȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎِ בِ ȇƬƺɎǝƺɯȒȸǸǣɀƬȒȅȵǼƺɎƺƳƏȇƳɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎǝƏɀƏƬǸȇȒɯǼƺƳǕƺƳɎǝǣɀ ƫɵ ɀǣǕȇǣȇǕƏƬȒȵɵȒǔɎǝƺɯȒȸǸȒȸƳƺȸًɎǝƺǼƺƳǕƺȸƬȒȵɵɀǝƏǼǼƫƺȵǼƏƬƺƳ ǣȇ Ɏǝƺ ȵƺȸȅƏȇƺȇɎǔǣǼƺƏɀɀǣǕȇƺƳɎȒɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎٔɀɖȇǣɎِ גِ ǼǼ ƺȅƺȸǕƺȇƬɵ ȸƺȵƏǣȸɀ Ȓȸ ȸƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎɀً ȸƺǕƏȸƳǼƺɀɀ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ Ɏǣȅƺ Ȓǔ ƳƏɵ Ɏǝƺɵ ȒƬƬɖȸًɀǝƏǼǼƫƺǝƏȇƳǼƺƳȵȸȒȅȵɎǼɵِ 0ȅƺȸǕƺȇƬɵȇƺƺƳɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺƳƺǔǣȇƺƳƏɀɎǝȒɀƺɀǣɎɖƏɎǣȒȇɀȵȒɀɎǣȇǕǣȅȅƺƳǣƏɎƺɎǝȸƺƏɎ ɎȒɎǝƺǝƺƏǼɎǝƏȇƳɀƏǔƺɎɵȒǔȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƏȇƳٖȒȸɎǝƺǣȇɎƺǕȸǣɎɵȒǔɎǝƺǕȸȒɖȇƳɀًƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕɀً ƏȇƳƺȷɖǣȵȅƺȇɎًǣȇƬǼɖƳǣȇǕيɎǝƺǣȇɎƺȸȸɖȵɎǣȒȇȒǔɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀًǝȒɎȒȸƬȒǼƳȸɖȇȇǣȇǕɯƏɎƺȸ ƺǼƺƬɎȸǣƬǣɎɵً ǕƏɀً ƏƳƺȷɖƏɎƺ ǝƺƏȸ ƏȇƳ ȵǼɖȅƫǣȇǕي ǕǼƏɀɀ ƫȸƺƏǸƏǕƺ ɯǝǣƬǝ Ƴƺȵȸǣɮƺɀ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȒǔɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵȒȸǝƺƏɎٕȒȸȸƺȵƏǣȸɀɎǝƏɎǣǔȇȒɎȵƺȸǔȒȸȅƺƳɯȒɖǼƳƺɴȵȒɀƺ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɎȒǣȇǴɖȸɵِXȇƬƏɀƺȒǔƏȇƺȅƺȸǕƺȇƬɵƏǔɎƺȸƫɖɀǣȇƺɀɀǝȒɖȸɀً Ə אגٮǝȒɖȸ ƏȇɀɯƺȸǣȇǕɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɯǣǼǼƫƺȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇƺƳɎȒȇȒɎǣǔɵɎǝƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȸِ (ِ ÈȇǣɎǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɀ XȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺƳƏȇƳȵƺȸǔȒȸȅƺƳƫɵɎǝƺȒȇٮɀǣɎƺɀɎƏǔǔƏɎǼƺƏɀɎȒȇƏȇ ƏȇȇɖƏǼƫƏɀǣɀɖȇǼƺɀɀǣɎƫƺƬȒȅƺɀƺɮǣƳƺȇɎɎǝƏɎȅȒȸƺǔȸƺȷɖƺȇɎǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɀ Əȸƺ ȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳِáȒȸǸȒȸƳƺȸɀɯǣǼǼƫƺǕƺȇƺȸƏɎƺƳɎȒƏƳƳȸƺɀɀȸƺȵƏǣȸɀȇƺƺƳƺƳǣȇɎǝƺɖȇǣɎِnǣǔƺً ǝƺƏǼɎǝًƏȇƳɀƏǔƺɎɵȸƺȵƏǣȸɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƬȒȅȵǼƺɎƺƳǣȅȅƺƳǣƏɎƺǼɵِ«ȒɖɎǣȇƺɯȒȸǸȒȸƳƺȸɀɯǣǼǼ ƫƺ ƬȒȅȵǼƺɎƺƳ ɯǣɎǝǣȇ וא ǝȒɖȸɀ Ȓȸ Əɀ ɀȒȒȇ Əɀ ȒȸƳƺȸƺƳ ȸƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎȵƏȸɎɀ Əȸƺ ȸƺƬƺǣɮƺƳِ 0ِ !ƏȵǣɎƏǼǣȅȵȸȒɮƺȅƺȇɎɀ xƏǴȒȸ ǣȇɎƺȸǣȒȸ ȸƺƳƺƬȒȸƏɎǣȇǕ Ȓǔ ƬȒȅȅȒȇ ƏȸƺƏɀً ƺɴɎƺȸǣȒȸ ȵƏǣȇɎǣȇǕً ƏȇƳ ȵȸȒǴƺƬɎƺƳ ȸƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎɀɎȒƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕǣȇǔȸƏɀɎȸɖƬɎɖȸƺًǝƺƏɎǣȇǕƏȇƳɮƺȇɎǣǼƏɎǣȒȇɀɵɀɎƺȅɀɀǝƏǼǼƫƺ ǣȇɎƺǕȸƏɎƺƳǣȇɎȒƏƬƏȵǣɎƏǼǣȅȵȸȒɮƺȅƺȇɎɀɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺɯǝǣƬǝɀǝƏǼǼɀƺȸɮƺƏɀƏƫƏɀǣɀǔȒȸ ƬȒȅȵɖɎǣȇǕ ƏȇƳ ƺɀɎƏƫǼǣɀǝǣȇǕ Ɏǝƺ «ƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎ «ƺɀƺȸɮƺ IɖȇƳ ƏȇƳ ƏƳƺȷɖƏɎƺ ƬȒȇɎȸǣƫɖɎǣȒȇɀǔȸȒȅɎǝƺƏȇȇɖƏǼȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕƫɖƳǕƺɎِÁǝǣɀɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺɀǝƏǼǼȵȸȒǴƺƬɎɎǝƺ ƏȇɎǣƬǣȵƏɎƺƳɖɀƺǔɖǼǼǣǔƺƏȇƳȸƺȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎƬȒɀɎɀǔȒȸɀɖƬǝȅƏǴȒȸǣɎƺȅɀƏȇƳɯǣǼǼƫƺ ƬȒȅȵǣǼƺƳɖȵȒȇƬȒȅȵǼƺɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎِ Iِ ¨ȸȒɮǣɀǣȒȇɀǔȒȸȵƺȸǣȒƳǣƬɖȵƳƏɎƺȒǔxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ¨ǼƏȇِ 3.b Packet Pg. 82 IȒȸȅ«ƺɮ׎הٖא׎א׏17 ÁǝƺǕƺȇɎƏȇƳɯȇƺȸɀǝƏǼǼȸƺɮǣƺɯɎǝǣɀȵǼƏȇȒȇƏȇƏȇȇɖƏǼƫƏɀǣɀِ³ǝȒɖǼƳǣɎƫƺƬȒȅƺ ȇƺƬƺɀɀƏȸɵɎȒɖȵƳƏɎƺɎǝƺȵǼƏȇًɎǝƺǕƺȇɎƏȇƳɯȇƺȸɀǝƏǼǼɀɖƫȅǣɎɎǝƺȵȸȒȵȒɀƺƳ ƬǝƏȇǕƺɀɎȒƏȇɵȸƺǕɖǼƏɎȒȸɵƏǕƺȇƬǣƺɀǔȸȒȅɯǝǣƬǝƏȵȵȸȒɮƏǼǣɀȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳِ Jِ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ ¨ƏȸǸ ¨ǼƏƬƺ ǝƏɀ ƫƺƺȇ ƳƺɀǣǕȇƺƳ ɯǣɎǝ ƫƺɀɎ ȵȸƏƬɎǣƬƺɀ ǔȒȸ ɮɖǼȇƺȸƏƫǼƺ ȵȒȵɖǼƏɎǣȒȇɀǣȇȅǣȇƳƏɀǣɎǣɀȸƺƬȒǕȇǣɿƺƳɎǝƏɎȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵǣɀƏȇƺɀɀƺȇɎǣƏǼȵƏȸɎȒǔ ȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇǣȇǕƏɀƏǔƺƏȇƳɀɎƏƫǼƺƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵِXɎǣɀƏȇɎǣƬǣȵƏɎƺƳɎǝƏɎɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵȇƺƺƳɀɯǣǼǼ ƫƺȅƺɎɮǣƏɎǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕǔƺƏɎɖȸƺɀي ׏ِ ÁǝƺɖɀƺȒǔƫȒǼɎǼȒƬǸɀǔȒȸƳɯƺǼǼǣȇǕɖȇǣɎɀ אِ !ȒȅȅȒȇƏȸƺƏƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕƺȇɎȸƏȇƬƺƏȇƳƺɴǣɎȵȒǣȇɎɀɯǣǼǼȒȇǼɵƏǼǼȒɯƏƳȅǣɎɎƏȇƬƺɎȒ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȒȸǕɖƺɀɎɀɎǝƏɎȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƏƳȅǣɎɮǣƏǔȒƫƺȇɎȸɵȒȸɎƺǼƺٮƺȇɎȸɵɀɵɀɎƺȅِ בِ ƳƺȷɖƏɎƺɀƏǔƺɎɵǼǣǕǝɎƺȇǣȇǕƏȇƳɮǣɀǣƫǣǼǣɎɵɎǝȸȒɖǕǝȒɖɎɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎ ƏȇƳ ɀɖȸȸȒɖȇƳǣȇǕƏȸƺƏɀɎǝƏɎȸƺƳɖƬƺɀȒȸƺǼǣȅǣȇƏɎƺɀƫǼǣȇƳȒȸƳƏȸǸɀȵƏƬƺɀƏȇƳɎȸǣȵ ǝƏɿƏȸƳɀِ גِ ȇٮɀǣɎƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɀɎƏǔǔɎȒƏƳƳȸƺɀɀƺȅƺȸǕƺȇƬǣƺɀƏȇƳȸƺȵȸƺɀƺȇɎɀɎȸȒȇǕƏȇƳ ƬȒȇɀǣɀɎƺȇɎȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎȵȸƺɀƺȇƬƺƏɎɎǝƺ¨ȸȒǴƺƬɎِ דِ ÁǝƺƬȒȇɎƏƬɎǣȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇǔȒȸȒȇٮƬƏǼǼɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƏȇƳȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȒɀɎƺƳǣȇ ƬȒȅȅȒȇƏȸƺƏɀƏȇƳƏȇȇɖƏǼǼɵȸƺɮǣƺɯƺƳɯǣɎǝɎƺȇƏȇɎɀɎǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎټɀǕȸǣƺɮƏȇƬƺ ȵȒǼǣƬɵِ XȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇًɎǝƺȒɯȇƺȸɯǣǼǼƬȒȇɀɖǼɎȸƺǕɖǼƏȸǼɵɯǣɎǝɎǝƺǕƺȇɎɎȒƳǣɀƬɖɀɀɎǝƺȇƺƺƳǔȒȸ ƏȇɵɀȵƺƬǣƏǼɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵȵȸȒɮǣɀǣȒȇɀɎǝƏɎȅƏɵƏȸǣɀƺِ Rِ ¨ȸȒɮǣɀǣȒȇɀǔȒȸȵƺȸǣȒƳǣƬɖȵƳƏɎƺȒǔxƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ¨ǼƏȇ ÈȇǼƺɀɀɀǣǕȇǣǔǣƬƏȇɎȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȒȇƏǼƬǝƏȇǕƺɀȒƬƬɖȸًɎǝƺɯȇƺȸƏȇƳǕƺȇɎɯǣǼǼȸƺɮǣƺɯ ɎǝǣɀȵǼƏȇƺɮƺȸɵדɵƺƏȸɀƏȇƳɖȵƳƏɎƺƏɀȇƺƺƳƺƳɎȒƺȇɀɖȸƺƬȒȅȵǼǣƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝƏǼǼ ȵȸȒǕȸƏȅɀǕȒɮƺȸȇǣȇǕxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺِ ȵȵƺȇƳǣƬƺɀي ׏ِ ǔǔǣȸȅƏɎǣɮƺIƏǣȸRȒɖɀǣȇǕxƏȸǸƺɎǣȇǕ¨ǼƏȇ אِ ÁƺȇƏȇɎ³ƺǼƺƬɎǣȒȇ¨ǼƏȇ בِ ȵȵƺƏǼƏȇƳJȸǣƺɮƏȇƬƺ¨ȸȒƬƺƳɖȸƺ 3.b Packet Pg. 83 א׏הא³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ א׏הא³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ¨ǼƏȇ 0ƳƺȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀًXȇƬِ٢0R«³X٣ًƏȇȒȇȵȸȒǔǣɎƏǔǔǣǼǣƏɎƺȒǔ0ƳƺȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕًɯǣǼǼ ȵȸȒɮǣƳƺ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ ɎȒ Ɏǝƺ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ƏɎ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ ¨ƏȸǸ ¨ǼƏƬƺ ƏȇƳ ɯǣǼǼ ƬȒȒȸƳǣȇƏɎƺ ƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇƏǼɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȵȸȒɮǣɀǣȒȇɯǣɎǝɎǝƺ!ȒɖȇɎɵȒǔ³ƏȇɎƏ!ǼƏȸƏِ 0R«³XɯƏɀƺɀɎƏƫǼǣɀǝƺƳǣȇ׏חחדƏɀƏד׎׏٢Ƭ٣٢ב٣ȇȒȇȵȸȒǔǣɎƏǔǔǣǼǣƏɎƺȒǔ0ƳƺȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕًXȇƬِɎȒ ȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀȵȸȒǕȸƏȅȅǣȇǕɎȒȵȸȒȵƺȸɎǣƺɀǣȇɎǝƺ0ƳƺȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕȵȒȸɎǔȒǼǣȒِɎ 0ƳƺȇټɀȅƏȇƏǕƺƳȵȸȒȵƺȸɎǣƺɀً0R«³XȵȸȒɮǣƳƺɀƏɯǣƳƺȸƏȇǕƺȒǔɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƏȇƳƺȇȸǣƬǝȅƺȇɎ ȵȸȒǕȸƏȅɀƳƺɀǣǕȇƺƳɎȒȅƺƺɎɎǝƺȇƺƺƳɀȒǔƏƳǣɮƺȸɀƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎȵȒȵɖǼƏɎǣȒȇ٫ƏɎǝȒȅƺƏȇƳǔȸƺƺ ȒǔƬǝƏȸǕƺɎȒȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀِáƺƫƺǼǣƺɮƺɎǝƏɎǝȒɖɀǣȇǕǣɀƏǔȒɖȇƳƏɎǣȒȇǔȒȸǼǣǔƺƬǝƏȇǕƺِÁǝƺǕȒƏǼǣɀ ɎȒƬȸƺƏɎƺƏȵǼƏƬƺǔȒȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɎȒƏǕƺɯǣɎǝƳǣǕȇǣɎɵǣȇɎǝƺǣȸȒɯȇǝȒȅƺِIȒȸ0R«³XȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀً ȒɖȸǕȒƏǼǣɀɎȒƬȸƺƏɎƺȵƏɎǝɯƏɵɀȒɖɎȒǔȵȒɮƺȸɎɵƫɵȵȸȒɮǣƳǣȇǕɎǝƺȅɯǣɎǝǝȒɖɀǣȇǕɀɎƏƫǣǼǣɎɵƏȇƳ ȵȸȒǕȸƏȅȅǣȇǕɎȒǝƺǼȵɎǝƺȅȸƺƏƬǝɎǝƺǣȸǕȒƏǼɀِ 0R«³XɀɎȸǣɮƺɀɎȒǣȇɀȵǣȸƺǝȒȵƺƫɵȵȸȒɮǣƳǣȇǕǝǣǕǝٮȷɖƏǼǣɎɵًȸƺǼƺɮƏȇɎًƏȇƳǣȅȵƏƬɎǔɖǼɀƺȸɮǣƬƺ ƬȒȒȸƳǣȇƏɎǣȒȇƏȇƳȵȸȒǕȸƏȅȒǔǔƺȸǣȇǕɀɎǝƏɎƬȸƺƏɎƺɀɎƏƫǣǼǣɎɵƏȇƳƏȵƏɎǝ ɎȒ ƺƬȒȇȒȅǣƬ ƺȅȵȒɯƺȸȅƺȇɎ ǔȒȸ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀِ 0Ƴƺȇټɀ ȵȒȸɎǔȒǼǣȒ ǣȇƬǼɖƳƺɀ ׏דג ȅƏȇƏǕƺƳ ȵȸȒȵƺȸɎǣƺɀ ǔȒȸ ǔƏȅǣǼǣƺɀًɀƺȇǣȒȸɀًƏȇƳȵƺȸɀȒȇɀɯǣɎǝƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀِIȒȸƏǼǼɀǣɎƺɀًɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƏȸƺȒȸǕƏȇǣɿƺƳƏȸȒɖȇƳ ɀǣɴƬȒȸƺƏȸƺƏɀȒǔǔȒƬɖɀǣȇƬǼɖƳǣȇǕǝȒɖɀǣȇǕɀɎƏƫǣǼǣɎɵًƺƬȒȇȒȅǣƬƺȅȵȒɯƺȸȅƺȇɎًƺƳɖƬƏɎǣȒȇً ǝƺƏǼɎǝۭɯƺǼǼȇƺɀɀًƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵƺȇǕƏǕƺȅƺȇɎًƏȇƳɎƺƬǝȇȒǼȒǕɵƏƬƬƺɀɀِɖȸɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƏȸƺ ƬǼǣƺȇɎٮǔȒƬɖɀƺƳƏȇƳȸƺɀȵȒȇƳɎȒɎǝƺɀȵƺƬǣǔǣƬȇƺƺƳɀȒǔƺƏƬǝǝȒɖɀǣȇǕƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵِáƺǝƏɮƺ ƺɀɎƏƫǼǣɀǝƺƳǕȒƏǼɀǔȒȸƺƏƬǝȒǔɎǝƺǔȒƬɖɀƏȸƺƏɀƏɀǔȒǼǼȒɯɀِ IȒƬɖɀȸƺƏ ¨ȸǣȅƏȸɵJȒƏǼ RȒɖɀǣȇǕ³ɎƏƫǣǼǣɎɵxƏǣȇɎƏǣȇɎǝƺǣȸǝȒɖɀǣȇǕǔȒȸɎǝƺȸƺȅƏǣȇƳƺȸȒǔɎǝƺǣȸǼǣǔƺِ 0ƬȒȇȒȅǣƬ 0ȅȵȒɯƺȸȅƺȇɎ xƏǣȇɎƏǣȇƺɴǣɀɎǣȇǕǣȇƬȒȅƺƏȇƳƏɀɀƺɎɀƏȇƳǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺǣȇƬȒȅƺ ɯǝƺȇȵȒɀɀǣƫǼƺƫɵƏƬƬƺɀɀǣȇǕƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺǔǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼƫƺȇƺǔǣɎɀ ƏȇƳɎƏǸǣȇǕƏƳɮƏȇɎƏǕƺȒǔƳǣɀƬȒɖȇɎȵȸȒǕȸƏȅɀِ 0ƳɖƬƏɎǣȒȇXȅȵȸȒɮƺɎǝƺǣȸƏƫǣǼǣɎɵɎȒȇƏɮǣǕƏɎƺɎǝƺɀɵɀɎƺȅɀƏǔǔƺƬɎǣȇǕ ɎǝƺǣȸǼǣǔƺ٢ǝƺƏǼɎǝƬƏȸƺًɀȒƬǣƏǼɀƺƬɖȸǣɎɵًɎȸƏȇɀȵȒȸɎƏɎǣȒȇًƺɎƬِ٣ RƺƏǼɎǝۭáƺǼǼȇƺɀɀ XȇƬȸƺƏɀƺɎǝƺǣȸǸȇȒɯǼƺƳǕƺȒǔƏƬƬƺɀɀɎȒǝƺƏǼɎǝƬƏȸƺ ɀɵɀɎƺȅɀًȵȸƺɮƺȇɎƏɎǣɮƺǝƺƏǼɎǝȅƺƏɀɖȸƺɀًȇɖɎȸǣɎǣȒȇًƏȇƳ ȅƺȇɎƏǼǝƺƏǼɎǝȸƺɀȒɖȸƬƺɀِ !ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵ 0ȇǕƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ XȅȵȸȒɮƺƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵȵƏȸɎǣƬǣȵƏɎǣȒȇƏȇƳƺȇǕƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ ɯǣɎǝǣȇɎǝƺȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵƏȇƳɯǣɎǝɎǝƺǼƏȸǕƺȸƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵƏȇƳ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɎȒƫƺƏƳɮȒƬƏɎƺɀƏȇƳǼƺƏƳƺȸɀǣȇɎǝƺǣȸ ƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵِ ÁƺƬǝȇȒǼȒǕɵƬƬƺɀɀ XȅȵȸȒɮƺɎǝƺǣȸɖȇƳƺȸɀɎƏȇƳǣȇǕȒǔǝȒɯɎȒɖɎǣǼǣɿƺɎƺƬǝȇȒǼȒǕɵ ɎȒƏƬǝǣƺɮƺɀƺǼǔٮǣƳƺȇɎǣǔǣƺƳǕȒƏǼɀƏȇƳǣȇƬȸƺƏɀƺƏƬƬƺɀɀɎȒɎǝƺ ǣȇɎƺȸȇƺɎِ 3.b Packet Pg. 84 א׏הא³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀȸƏȇǕƺǔȸȒȅȒǔǔƺȸǣȇǕȒȇƺٮȒȇٮȒȇƺɀɖȵȵȒȸɎɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳǣȇǕɯȒȸǸɀǝȒȵɀƏȇƳǝȒɀɎǣȇǕ ƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵٮɯǣƳƺƺɮƺȇɎɀِÁǝƺȸƺƏȸƺɎǝȸƺƺȵȸǣȅƏȸɵǼƺɮƺǼɀȒǔɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƬȒȒȸƳǣȇƏɎǣȒȇɯǝǣƬǝ ǣȇƬǼɖƳƺ Əȇ ȒȇٮɀǣɎƺ «ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ !ȒȒȸƳǣȇƏɎȒȸً ɀȵƺƬǣƏǼ ȵȸȒǕȸƏȅɀ ȒȇǼɵ ɀɖƬǝ Əɀ Əȇ ƏǔɎƺȸɀƬǝȒȒǼ ȵȸȒǕȸƏȅ Ȓȸ ɎƺƬǝȇȒǼȒǕɵ ɎȸƏǣȇǣȇǕًȒȸ ƏƬƬƺɀɀɎȒ Əȇ XȇǔȒȸȅƏɎǣȒȇƏȇƳ«ƺǔƺȸȸƏǼ RȒɎǼǣȇƺɀɎƏǔǔƺƳƳɖȸǣȇǕȸƺǕɖǼƏȸƫɖɀǣȇƺɀɀǝȒɖȸɀِ 0R«³XټɀȅȒƳƺǼȒǔɀƺȸɮǣƬƺƳƺǼǣɮƺȸɵǣɀɖȇǣȷɖƺǣȇɎǝƏɎɯƺɖɎǣǼǣɿƺǣȇٮǝȒɖɀƺȵƏǣƳɀɎƏǔǔȅƺȅƫƺȸɀ ƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎɯǣɎǝȒɎǝƺȸɎǝǣȸƳٮȵƏȸɎɵȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸɀɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȷɖƏǼǣɎɵɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀِ0R«³X ƬɖȸȸƺȇɎǼɵ ƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎɀ ɯǣɎǝ ׏׏ ɎǝǣȸƳٮȵƏȸɎɵ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺ ȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸɀً ǣȇƬǼɖƳǣȇǕ RȒɖɀǣȇǕ !ǝȒǣƬƺɀ !ȒƏǼǣɎǣȒȇًƏȇƳǝƏɀƏȇǣȇٮǝȒɖɀƺɀɀȒƬǣƏɎƺ(ǣȸƺƬɎȒȸȒǔ!ȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵ¨ƏȸɎȇƺȸɀǝǣȵɀɎȒȒɮƺȸɀƺƺ ƏȇƳȅƏȇƏǕƺɎǝȒɀƺȸƺǼƏɎǣȒȇɀǝǣȵɀِáƺɀƺƺǸɎȒȵƏȸɎȇƺȸɯǣɎǝǼȒƬƏǼƺɴȵƺȸǣƺȇƬƺƳȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸɀ ɯǝƺȇƺɮƺȸ ȵȒɀɀǣƫǼƺً ɯǝƺɎǝƺȸ ɎǝȸȒɖǕǝ ƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎɖƏǼ ȸƺǼƏɎǣȒȇɀǝǣȵɀ ȒȸɎǝȸȒɖǕǝ ȅƺȅȒȸƏȇƳɖȅɀȒǔɖȇƳƺȸɀɎƏȇƳǣȇǕِ0R«³XɯȒȸǸɀɯǣɎǝƏǼƏȸǕƺȸƏȇǕƺȒǔǼȒƬƏǼƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȵƏȸɎȇƺȸɀ ɎȒ Ȓǔǔƺȸ ȵȸȒǕȸƏȅɀً ɯȒȸǸɀǝȒȵɀًƏȇƳȵȸƺɀƺȇɎƏɎǣȒȇɀɎȒȒɖȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȒȇ ɎȒȵǣƬɀȸƺǼƏɎƺƳɎȒɎǝƺɀǣɴǔȒƬɖɀƏȸƺƏɀِáƺƫƺǼǣƺɮƺǣɎǣɀƬȸǣɎǣƬƏǼɎȒǣȇɎƺǕȸƏɎƺȒɖȸɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɯǣɎǝ ɎǝȒɀƺƬɖȸȸƺȇɎǼɵȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳǣȇɎǝƺǼƏȸǕƺȸƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵƏȇƳɎȒǝƺǼȵȒɖȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȅƏǸƺɎǝȒɀƺ ƬȒȇȇƺƬɎǣȒȇɀɎȒƺȇɀɖȸƺƏɀɖƬƬƺɀɀǔɖǼɎȸƏȇɀǣɎǣȒȇȒɖɎȒǔȒɖȸǝȒɖɀǣȇǕǔȒȸǝȒɖɀƺǝȒǼƳɀɯǝƺȸƺ ɎǝƏɎǣɀƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺِ 0ƳƺȇǝƏɀƫƺƺȇƏɎɎǝƺǔȒȸƺǔȸȒȇɎȒǔɎǝƺȅȒɮƺȅƺȇɎɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺɎƺƬǝȇȒǼȒǕɵƏƬƬƺɀɀǔȒȸȒɖȸ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɀǣȇƬƺɎǝƺ׏חח׎ɀɯǝƺȇɯƺƫƺǕƏȇȒȵƺȇǣȇǕƬȒȅȵɖɎƺȸǼƺƏȸȇǣȇǕƬƺȇɎƺȸɀȒȇɀǣɎƺƏɎ ȒɖȸƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺǝȒɖɀǣȇǕƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎǣƺɀِÁȒƳƏɵًɯƺƏȸƺǼƺƏƳǣȇǕɎǝƺƬǝƏȸǕƺƏɎƫȸǣƳǕǣȇǕɎǝƺ ƳǣǕǣɎƏǼƳǣɮǣƳƺɯǣɎǝƏǕȒƏǼɎȒǝƏɮƺƏǼǼȒǔȒɖȸȵȸȒȵƺȸɎǣƺɀɯǣȸƺƳɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺǣȇɎƺȸȇƺɎƏƬƬƺɀɀɎȒ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀِ ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀǔȒȸǼǼ«ƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ɎxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺًɎǝƺǕȸȒɖȇƳǔǼȒȒȸȒǔɎǝƺƫɖǣǼƳǣȇǕɯǣǼǼƬȒȇɎƏǣȇȒǔǔǣƬƺɀƏȇƳȅƺƺɎǣȇǕ ɀȵƏƬƺ ǔȒȸ Ɏǝƺ ȒȇٮɀǣɎƺ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ ɀɎƏǔǔ ƏȇƳ ɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ ɀɎƏǔǔِ0R«³XɯǣǼǼ ȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƏǼǼȒǔǣɎɀȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣɎǝɎǝƺǔȒǼǼȒɯǣȇǕɮȒǼɖȇɎƏȸɵɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀًɯǝǣƬǝɯǣǼǼƫƺǔɖȇƳƺƳ ɎǝȸȒɖǕǝɎǝƺȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵټɀȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕƫɖƳǕƺɎي • ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺƬȒȒȸƳǣȇƏɎǣȒȇيáǣǼǼǣȇƬǼɖƳƺƏƳƺƳǣƬƏɎƺƳ0Ƴƺȇ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ!ȒȒȸƳǣȇƏɎȒȸɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣɎǝƏƬƬƺɀɀɎȒɮƏǼɖƏƫǼƺȸƺɀȒɖȸƬƺɀǣȇɎǝƺǣȸƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎǣƺɀƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀȒȇƺٮȒȇٮȒȇƺ ɀɖȵȵȒȸɎɎȒƏƳƳȸƺɀɀǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼȇƺƺƳɀِ • 0ƳɖƬƏɎǣȒȇƏǼȵȸƺɀƺȇɎƏɎǣȒȇɀƫƏɀƺƳȒȇȇƺƺƳ٫ÁǝƺɀƺȅƏɵǣȇƬǼɖƳƺي0ȇǕǼǣɀǝƏɀƏ³ƺƬȒȇƳ nƏȇǕɖƏǕƺًǔǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼƺƳɖƬƏɎǣȒȇًǴȒƫɀƺƏȸƬǝɀǸǣǼǼɀًǝƺƏǼɎǝٖɯƺǼǼȇƺɀɀٖȇɖɎȸǣɎǣȒȇًƏȸɎƬǼƏɀɀƺɀً ǕȸƺƺȇƺƳɖƬƏɎǣȒȇƏȇƳȵƏȸƺȇɎǣȇǕƬǼƏɀɀƺɀِ³ƺɀɀǣȒȇɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȒǔǔƺȸƺƳɎǝȸȒɖǕǝȒɖɎɎǝƺɵƺƏȸ ɎƏǸǣȇǕǣȇɎȒƬȒȇɀǣƳƺȸƏɎǣȒȇƫȒɎǝɎǝƺǣȇɎƺȸƺɀɎɀƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀɎǝƺɀƬǝƺƳɖǼƺɀȒǔȒɖȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀِ • «ƺǔƺȸȸƏǼɀɎȒȵɖƫǼǣƬƏȇƳȵȸǣɮƏɎƺƏǕƺȇƬǣƺɀȒǔǔƺȸǣȇǕƏȸƏȇǕƺȒǔȵȸȒƳɖƬɎɀƏȇƳɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀً ǣȇƬǼɖƳǣȇǕ ǔȒȒƳً ƬǼȒɎǝǣȇǕً ǔǣȇƏȇƬǣƏǼ ƏɀɀǣɀɎƏȇƬƺً ƺƳɖƬƏɎǣȒȇƏǼ ƏȇƳ ɮȒƬƏɎǣȒȇƏǼ ɎȸƏǣȇǣȇǕ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀًǝƺƏǼɎǝɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀًƬǝǣǼƳƬƏȸƺًƏȇƳƬȒɖȇɀƺǼǣȇǕɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀِ 3.b Packet Pg. 85 א׏הא³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ • áȒȸǸǣȇǕ ɯǣɎǝ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ɎȒ ƺȇƬȒɖȸƏǕƺ ƏȇƳ ȵǼƏȇ ƏƬɎǣɮǣɎǣƺɀ ɎȒ ƫɖǣǼƳ Ə ɀƺȇɀƺ Ȓǔ ƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵًƫȒɎǝȒȇٮɀǣɎƺƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀɯǣɎǝǣȇɎǝƺǼƏȸǕƺȸɀɖȸȸȒɖȇƳǣȇǕƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵِ ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀǔȒȸXȇɎƺǼǼƺƬɎɖƏǼǼɵȒȸ(ƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏǼǼɵ(ǣɀƏƫǼƺƳXȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼɀ IǣǔɎɵȵƺȸƬƺȇɎȒǔɎǝƺɖȇǣɎɀ٢אדɖȇǣɎɀ٣ƏɎxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺɯǣǼǼƫƺȸƺɀɎȸǣƬɎƺƳɎȒȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ɯǣɎǝ ǣȇɎƺǼǼƺƬɎɖƏǼ ƏȇƳ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏǼ ƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀً ȅƺƺɎǣȇǕ Ɏǝƺ ƳƺǔǣȇǣɎǣȒȇ Ȓǔ Ɏǝƺ ٹɎƏȸǕƺɎ ȵȒȵɖǼƏɎǣȒȇٺǣȇ³ƺƬɎǣȒȇד׎הודِ׏גȒǔɎǝƺRƺƏǼɎǝƏȇƳ³ƏǔƺɎɵ!ȒƳƺِ³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺ ȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸɀɯǣǼǼǣȇƬǼɖƳƺRȒɖɀǣȇǕ!ǝȒǣƬƺɀ!ȒƏǼǣɎǣȒȇ٢R!!٣ًƏǼȒƬƏǼȇȒȇȵȸȒǔǣɎɎǝƏɎǔȒƬɖɀƺɀȒȇ ƬȸƺƏɎǣȇǕƏǔǔȒȸƳƏƫǼƺǝȒɖɀǣȇǕȒȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎǣƺɀǔȒȸȵƺȒȵǼƺɯǣɎǝƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀًƏȇƳƫǣǼǣɎɵ¨ƏɎǝًɎǝƺ ȇȒȇȵȸȒǔǣɎɎǝƏɎƬɖȸȸƺȇɎǼɵɀƺȸɮƺɀȵƺȒȵǼƺɯǣɎǝƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏǼƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀȒȇɎǝƺɀǣɎƺƏȇƳɯǣǼǼ ƬȒȇɎǣȇɖƺɎȒɀƺȸɮƺƬǼǣƺȇɎƺǼƺǣȇɎǝƺȇƺɯȇȒȇȵȸȒǔǣɎȒǔǔǣƬƺɀȵƏƬƺȒȇɎǝƺǕȸȒɖȇƳǔǼȒȒȸȒǔxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺِ R!!ɯǣǼǼɯȒȸǸɯǣɎǝ³ƏȇȇƳȸƺƏɀ«ƺǕǣȒȇƏǼ!ƺȇɎƺȸ٢³«!٣ɎȒȸƺǔƺȸ³«!ƬǼǣƺȇɎɀɎȒƏȵȵǼɵǔȒȸ ɎǝƺɀƺɖȇǣɎɀِ ƺǼȒɯǣɀƏȇƺɴƬƺȸȵɎǔȸȒȅƏxƺȅȒȸƏȇƳɖȅȒǔÈȇƳƺȸɀɎƏȇƳǣȇǕ٢xÈ٣ǔȒȸƏȇȒɎǝƺȸ 0ƳƺȇRȒɖɀǣȇǕȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵɎǝƏɎǝƏɀƏǼƺƏɀǣȇǕȵȸƺǔƺȸƺȇƬƺǔȒȸȵƺȒȵǼƺɯǣɎǝ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏǼ ƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀɯǝȒȸƺȷɖǣȸƺɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀǔȸȒȅR!!ƏȇƳ³«!ǣȇȒȸƳƺȸɎȒǼǣɮƺ ǣȇƳƺȵƺȇƳƺȇɎǼɵǣȇƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵȸƺȇɎƏǼǝȒɖɀǣȇǕِÁǝƺȵȸȒǴƺƬɎɎƺƏȅɯǣǼǼɯȒȸǸɯǣɎǝR!!ƏȇƳ ³«!ɎȒƺɴƺƬɖɎƺƏɀǣȅǣǼƏȸxÈǔȒȸxǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺِ ³Əȇ ȇƳȸƺƏɀ «ƺǕǣȒȇƏǼ !ƺȇɎƺȸ ٽ³«!پ ǝƏɀ ƫƺƺȇ ɀƺȸɮǣȇǕ ǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼɀɯǣɎǝ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏǼƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀǔȒȸȅȒȸƺɎǝƏȇǔǣǔɎɵɵƺƏȸɀ٫³«!ǣɀǔɖȇƳƺƳƫɵɎǝƺ³ɎƏɎƺ Ȓǔ !ƏǼǣǔȒȸȇǣƏ ɎȒ ɀƺȸɮƺ Ɏǝǣɀ ȵȒȵɖǼƏɎǣȒȇ Əɀ ȸƺȷɖǣȸƺƳ ƫɵ Ɏǝƺ nƏȇɎƺȸȅƏȇ (ƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏǼ(ǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀƬɎ٫ÁǝƺnƏȇɎƺȸȅƏȇƬɎǣɀɎǝƺ!ƏǼǣǔȒȸȇǣƏǼƏɯɎǝƏɎɀƺɎɀ ȒɖɎɎǝƺȸǣǕǝɎɀƏȇƳȸƺɀȵȒȇɀǣƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀȒǔȵƺȸɀȒȇɀɯǣɎǝƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏǼƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀƏȇƳ ɎǝƺȒƫǼǣǕƏɎǣȒȇȒǔɎǝƺ«ƺǕǣȒȇƏǼ!ƺȇɎƺȸɎȒɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼɀɎȒȵɖȸɀɖƺɎǝƺǣȸǕȒƏǼɀ ǔȒȸƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵǼǣɮǣȇǕ٫³«!ɯȒȸǸɀɯǣɎǝƺƏƬǝȒǔǣɎɀƬǼǣƺȇɎɀɎȒƳƺɮƺǼȒȵƏȇǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȵǼƏȇƏȇƳƬȒȇɎȸƏƬɎɀɯǣɎǝȷɖƏǼǣǔǣƺƳƏǕƺȇƬǣƺɀɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƺƏƬǝƬǼǣƺȇɎɯǣɎǝɎǝƺ ƏȵȵȸȒȵȸǣƏɎƺǼƺɮƺǼȒǔXȇƳƺȵƺȇƳƺȇɎnǣɮǣȇǕ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀٽXn³پȒȸ³ɖȵȵȒȸɎƺƳnǣɮǣȇǕ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ ٽ³n³پ٦ƏɀɯƺǼǼƏɀȒɎǝƺȸɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɎȒȅƺƺɎǝǣɀȒȸǝƺȸɀȵƺƬǣǔǣƬȇƺƺƳɀ٦ǣȇƬǼɖƳǣȇǕƫɖɎȇȒɎ ǼǣȅǣɎƺƳɎȒƺȅȵǼȒɵȅƺȇɎƬȒɖȇɀƺǼǣȇǕƏȇƳǴȒƫƬȒƏƬǝǣȇǕ٦ǣȇɎƺǕȸƏɎƺƳƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵƳƏɵ ȵȸȒǕȸƏȅɀ٦ƫƺǝƏɮǣȒȸƏǼǝƺƏǼɎǝɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ٦ǝƺƏǼɎǝȇƏɮǣǕƏɎǣȒȇ٦ƏȇƳȒɎǝƺȸɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɎǝƏɎ ȅƏɴǣȅǣɿƺɎǝƺǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼڗɀƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵǣȇɎƺǕȸƏɎǣȒȇ٫ XȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳǣȇǕÁƺȇƏȇɎ«ƺǔƺȸȸƏǼ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀًR!!ɯǣǼǼƏǼɀȒȒǔǔƺȸÁƺȇƏȇƬɵٮ³ɖɀɎƏǣȇǣȇǕ ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɎǝƏɎǝƺǼȵȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɯǣɎǝƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀȅƏǣȇɎƏǣȇɀɎƏƫǼƺǝȒɖɀǣȇǕِ³ɖƬǝ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀȅƏɵǣȇƬǼɖƳƺي • ¨ȸȒɮǣƳǣȇǕƏɀǣȇǕǼƺȵȒǣȇɎȒǔƬȒȇɎƏƬɎǔȒȸǣȇƳƺȵƺȇƳƺȇɎǼǣɮǣȇǕɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƏȇƳɀɖȵȵȒȸɎƺƳǼǣɮǣȇǕ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ٢Xn³ٖ³n³٣ ƏǕƺȇƬǣƺɀً ǣȇǝȒȅƺƬƏȸƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸɀً³Əȇ ȇƳȸƺƏɀ «ƺǕǣȒȇƏǼ !ƺȇɎƺȸً ƬȒȇɀƺȸɮƏɎȒȸɀƏȇƳȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɯǣɎǝȸƺɀȵƺƬɎɎȒɎǝƺǝȒɖɀǣȇǕȇƺƺƳɀƏȇƳǣɀɀɖƺɀ ȒǔȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀǼǣɮǣȇǕǣȇɎǝƺɖȇǣɎɀƳƺɀǣǕȇƏɎƺƳǔȒȸȒƬƬɖȵƏȇƬɵƫɵ³«!ƬǼǣƺȇɎɀٕ • ɀɀǣɀɎǣȇǕȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȒǔɎǝƺƳƺɀǣǕȇƏɎƺƳɖȇǣɎɀǣȇɀƺƺǸǣȇǕȸƺƏɀȒȇƏƫǼƺƏƬƬȒȅȅȒƳƏɎǣȒȇɀȒȸ ȸƺƏɀȒȇƏƫǼƺȅȒƳǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇɀٕ • ɀɀǣɀɎǣȇǕȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȒǔɎǝƺƳƺɀǣǕȇƏɎƺƳɖȇǣɎɀǣȇȵȸƺȵƏȸǣȇǕǔȒȸɖȇǣɎǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɀƏȇƳƏȇȇɖƏǼ ȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇɀٕ 3.b Packet Pg. 86 א׏הא³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ • ɀɀǣɀɎǣȇǕȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȒǔɎǝƺƳƺɀǣǕȇƏɎƺƳɖȇǣɎɀǣȇɖȇƳƺȸɀɎƏȇƳǣȇǕƏȇƳƬȒȅȵǼɵǣȇǕɯǣɎǝǼƺƏɀƺ ɎƺȸȅɀƏȇƳȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵȸɖǼƺɀƏȇƳȸƺǕɖǼƏɎǣȒȇɀٕ • ɀɀǣɀɎǣȇǕ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ǣȇ ȸƺɀȵȒȇƳǣȇǕ ɎȒ ƏƳɮƺȸɀƺ ȇȒɎǣƬƺɀ ǔȸȒȅ ȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ ȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎ ȸƺɀɖǼɎǣȇǕ ǔȸȒȅ ɖȇɀƏɎǣɀǔƏƬɎȒȸɵ ǣȇɀȵƺƬɎǣȒȇɀً Ɏǝƺ ƏȇȇɖƏǼ ȸƺٮƬƺȸɎǣǔǣƬƏɎǣȒȇ ȵȸȒƬƺɀɀً Ȓȸ ƬȒȅȵǼƏǣȇɎɀƏƫȒɖɎɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀټƬȒȅȵǼǣƏȇƬƺɯǣɎǝǼƺƏɀƺɎƺȸȅɀƏȇƳȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵȸɖǼƺɀٕ • ɀɀǣɀɎǣȇǕǣȇȅƺƳǣƏɎǣȒȇȒǔƬȒȇǔǼǣƬɎɀǣȇɮȒǼɮǣȇǕȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȒƬƬɖȵɵǣȇǕɖȇǣɎɀƳƺɀǣǕȇƏɎƺƳǔȒȸ ³«!ƬǼǣƺȇɎɀ٫ƫƺɎɯƺƺȇȒɎǝƺȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀًȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎًɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸɀƏȇƳ ȒɎǝƺȸƬȒȇǔǼǣƬɎɀƏɀȇƺƬƺɀɀƏȸɵٕ • ƳɮȒƬƏɎǣȇǕȒȇƫƺǝƏǼǔȒǔƬǼǣƺȇɎɀɎȒƺȇɀɖȸƺɎǝƺɵƏȸƺȸƺƬƺǣɮǣȇǕƏǼǼȇƺƬƺɀɀƏȸɵɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀٕ • ɎɎƺȇƳǣȇǕ!ǣȸƬǼƺȒǔ³ɖȵȵȒȸɎƏȇƳXȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼ¨ȸȒǕȸƏȅ¨ǼƏȇȅƺƺɎǣȇǕɀƏɀǣȇɮǣɎƺƳɯǣɎǝɎǝƺ ƬǼǣƺȇɎټɀǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼɀƺȸɮǣƬƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȸٕ • áȒȸǸǣȇǕɎȒƬȸƺƏɎƺƏɀƺȇɀƺȒǔƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵƏȅȒȇǕȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀɀɖȵȵȒȸɎƺƳƫɵRȒɖɀǣȇǕ !ǝȒǣƬƺɀƏȇƳƺȇƬȒɖȸƏǕǣȇǕƏȇƺɎɯȒȸǸȒǔɀɖȵȵȒȸɎƏȅȒȇǕȇƺǣǕǝƫȒȸɀƏȇƳǔȸǣƺȇƳɀِÁǝǣɀ ǣȇƬǼɖƳƺɀي o !ȒȒȸƳǣȇƏɎǣȇǕȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎٖƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵȅƺƺɎǣȇǕɀٕ o ¨ȸȒɮǣƳǣȇǕɯȒȸǸɀǝȒȵɀǔȸȒȅɎǣȅƺɎȒɎǣȅƺȒȇɎƺȇƏȇɎٮȸƺǼƏɎƺƳǣɀɀɖƺɀٕ o IƏƬǣǼǣɎƏɎǣȇǕȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎƏƬɎǣɮǣɎǣƺɀȒȇƏȸƺǕɖǼƏȸƫƏɀǣɀٕ o !ȒǼǼƏƫȒȸƏɎǣȇǕ ɯǣɎǝ Ɏǝƺ ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵ xƏȇƏǕƺȸ ɎȒ ǣȇɎƺǕȸƏɎƺ ȵƺȒȵǼƺ ɯǣɎǝ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏǼƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀǔɖǼǼɵǣȇɎǝƺƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵƏƬɎǣɮǣɎǣƺɀȵǼƏȇȇƺƳǔȒȸɎƺȇƏȇɎɀ ƫɵɎǝƺ¨ȸȒȵƺȸɎɵxƏȇƏǕƺȸِ XȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇًƫǣǼǣɎɵ¨ƏɎǝɯǣǼǼȒǔǔƺȸɮȒǼɖȇɎƏȸɵȒȇٮɀǣɎƺɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀǔȒȸǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼɀɯǣɎǝǣȇɎƺǼǼƺƬɎɖƏǼ ȒȸƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏǼƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀًƏǼɀȒǔɖȇƳƺƳƫɵ³«!ِÁǝƺɀƺɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƏɮƏǣǼƏƫǼƺɎȒ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀǣȇɎǝƺǕȸȒɖȇƳǔǼȒȒȸȒǔǔǣƬƺɀȵƏƬƺƏȇƳȅƏɵǣȇƬǼɖƳƺي • 0ȅȵǼȒɵȅƺȇɎɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ٦ɀɖƬǝƏɀǣȇƳǣɮǣƳɖƏǼȵǼƏƬƺȅƺȇɎƏȇƳɀǸǣǼǼƏȇƳǴȒƫƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎِ • XȇƳƺȵƺȇƳƺȇɎ ǼǣɮǣȇǕ ɀǸǣǼǼɀ ƬǼƏɀɀƺɀɎȒ ƺȇƬȒɖȸƏǕƺ ǣȇƳƺȵƺȇƳƺȇƬƺ ǣȇ ƺȇǕƏǕǣȇǕ ɯǣɎǝ ƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵȸƺɀȒɖȸƬƺɀًȵɖƫǼǣƬɎȸƏȇɀȵȒȸɎƏɎǣȒȇًɀȒƬǣƏǼƏƬɎǣɮǣɎǣƺɀƏȇƳȸƺǼƏɎǣȒȇɀǝǣȵɀًƏȇƳ ǔǣȇƏȇƬƺɀِ • !ȒȅȵɖɎƺȸ ǼǣɎƺȸƏƬɵ ƬǼƏɀɀƺɀ٦ǣȇƬǼɖƳǣȇǕ ɎȸƏǣȇǣȇǕ Ȓȇ ƏɀɀǣɀɎǣɮƺ ɎƺƬǝȇȒǼȒǕɵًɎȒ ǣȅȵȸȒɮƺ ƏƬƬƺɀɀɎȒƺƳɖƬƏɎǣȒȇƏǼȒȵȵȒȸɎɖȇǣɎǣƺɀًȅȒȇƺɵȅƏȇƏǕƺȅƺȇɎɎȒȒǼɀًƏȇƳƬȒȅȅɖȇǣƬƏɎǣȒȇِ • ȸɎȵȸȒǕȸƏȅɀɎȒȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƏɮƺȇɖƺɀǔȒȸƬȸƺƏɎǣɮǣɎɵƏȇƳɀƺǼǔٮƺɴȵȸƺɀɀǣȒȇِ • ƬɎǣɮǣɎǣƺɀ ǣȇ Ɏǝƺ ƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵɎȒ ȵȸȒȅȒɎƺ ƺɴȵƺȸǣƺȇɎǣƏǼ ǼƺƏȸȇǣȇǕ ƏȇƳ ǣȇɎƺǕȸƏɎǣȒȇ ǣȇɎȒ ƫȸȒƏƳƺȸƬȒȅȅɖȇǣɎɵِ 3.b Packet Pg. 87 א׏הא³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀ¨ǼƏȇ xǣɎƬǝƺǼǼ¨ƏȸǸ¨ǼƏƬƺ zȒɮƺȅƫƺȸא׎א׏ ³ɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀIɖȇƳǣȇǕ³ȒɖȸƬƺ Áǝƺ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎ ǣȇƬǼɖƳƺɀ אד ɖȇǣɎɀ ǔȒȸ ȵƺȒȵǼƺ ɯǣɎǝ ǣȇɎƺǼǼƺƬɎɖƏǼƏȇƳ ƳƺɮƺǼȒȵȅƺȇɎƏǼ ƳǣɀƏƫǣǼǣɎǣƺɀِ ɀ ƳƺɀƬȸǣƫƺƳ ƏƫȒɮƺً RȒɖɀǣȇǕ !ǝȒǣƬƺɀ !ȒƏǼǣɎǣȒȇ ٢R!!٣ ƏȇƳ ƫǣǼǣɎɵ¨ƏɎǝ ɯǣǼǼ ȵȸȒɮǣƳƺȒȇٮɀǣɎƺɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀǔȒȸɎǝƺȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀȒǔɎǝƺɀƺɖȇǣɎɀِ¨ƺȸƏxƺȅȒȸƏȇƳɖȅ ƫƺɎɯƺƺȇɎǝƺ!ȒɖȇɎɵȒǔ³ƏȇɎƏ!ǼƏȸƏƏȇƳ³«!ƺɴƺƬɖɎƺƳǣȇhɖȇƺא׎א׎ً³«!ǣɀȸƺɀȵȒȇɀǣƫǼƺ ǔȒȸǔɖȇƳǣȇǕƏȇƳȵȸȒɮǣƳǣȇǕ٢ȒȸƺȇɀɖȸǣȇǕɎǝƺȵȸȒɮǣɀǣȒȇȒǔ٣ȒȇǕȒǣȇǕ ȒȇٮɀǣɎƺ ɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺ ɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀǔȒȸXٖ((ɖȇǣɎɀǔɖȇƳƺƳƫɵɎǝƺ!ȒɖȇɎɵِXȇƏƳƳǣɎǣȒȇًɎǝƺȵȸȒȵƺȸɎɵټɀȒȵƺȸƏɎǣȇǕƫɖƳǕƺɎ ǣȇƬǼɖƳƺɀǔɖȇƳǣȇǕǔȒȸȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀƬȒȒȸƳǣȇƏɎǣȒȇِ³ƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺȵȸȒɮǣƳƺƳƏɎȇȒƬȒɀɎɎȒ ȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀِ ¨ȸȒȵȒɀƺƳ³ɎƏǔǔǣȇǕnƺɮƺǼɀ !ƏɀƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȸɀȵȸȒɮǣƳǣȇǕɀɖȵȵȒȸɎǣɮƺɀƺȸɮǣƬƺɀɯǣǼǼƫƺƏɀɀǣǕȇƺƳɎȒɀȵƺƬǣƏǼȇƺƺƳɀȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀ ƏɎƏȸƏɎǣȒȒǔ׏ƬƏɀƺȅƏȇƏǕƺȸɎȒƏȵȵȸȒɴǣȅƏɎƺǼɵאדȸƺɀǣƳƺȇɎɀِ 3.b Packet Pg. 88 Robin J. Lee Senior Project Manager RCE 70040 MEMORANDUM TO: Ryan Hansen, CB&G DATE: 1/18/2022 Kate Blessing-Kawamura, Eden Housing FROM: Robin Lee, PE JOB#: EDNH.03.22 SUBJECT: Mitchell Park Place Preliminary SWMP Review and Conditional Approval At the request of Eden Housing, we have performed a third-party review of the Mitchell Park Place project C.3 Data form and preliminary SWMP Sheet dated October 29, 2021. The 0.78-acre development will include construction of fifty residential units with mixed office space at 525 East Charleston Road in Mountain View. The project includes onsite treatment using two bioretention areas and one self-retaining area. 100% of the treatment control measures are Low Impact Development (LID). Based on our review of the SWMP sheet and C.3 form, the plan complies conditionally with the requirements of the Municipal Regional Permit (MRP 2.0) Provision C.3, and the SCVURPPP C.3 Stormwater Handbook (June 2016), provided the items listed below are submitted with the Stormwater Management Plan at the final permitting stage. 1. Revised Utility Plan with the final design location of the inlet, outlet, and invert elevations of all subdrain/underdrains in the bioretention areas shown. 2. Revised Grading Plan/Utility Plan with the bioretention area finished grade and overflow drain rim elevation clearly shown. 3. Completed Stormwater Management Plan Report per City requirements. 4. Stormwater Treatment Measure Operation and Maintenance Inspection Reports for the Bioretention Area included as part of the Stormwater Management Plan. These templates can also be obtained at http://www.scvurppp-w2k.com/pdfs/1516/c3_handbook_2016/Appendix_G.pdf 5. A landscape planting plan and plant list/ planting palette for all bioretention areas being provided. 6. The geotechnical report including soils maps, borings and site specific recommendations, if available. 7. Sizing calculations for adequate overflow/bypass of larger storms or overland release for bioretention areas clearly shown on grading plans. If you require any additional information, please feel free to call me at the number above. Sincerely, Schaaf & Wheeler Schaaf & Wheeler CONSULTING CIVIL ENGINEERS 870 Market Street, Suite 1278 San Francisco, CA 94102-2906 t. 415-433-4848 f. 415-433-1029 rlee@swsv.com 3.b Packet Pg. 89 3.b Packet Pg. 90 3.b Packet Pg. 91 3.b Packet Pg. 92 3.b Packet Pg. 93 7901 Oakport Street, Suite 1500 Oakland, CA 94621 510.444.2600 w-trans.com SANTA ROSA • OAKLAND Memorandum Date: January 19, 2022 Project: PAL022 To: Kate Blessing-Kawamura Senior Project Developer Eden Housing From: Kenny Jeong kjeong@w-trans.com Mark Spencer mspencer@w-trans.com Subject: DRAFT Trip Generation Study for the 525 East Charleston Road Project in Palo Alto This memo summarizes the trip generation potential of the proposed affordable housing project proposed for 525 East Charleston Road in Palo Alto. Project Description The project would demolish the existing 4,000 square foot office building and would construct an affordable housing residential building with 50 dwelling units and 2,750 square feet of office space. While all dwelling units would be designated as affordable housing, 25 out of the 50 units would be operated as affordable supportive housing available for developmentally disabled individuals. Trip Generation The anticipated trip generation for the proposed project was estimated using standard rates published by the Institute of Transportation Engineers (ITE) in Trip Generation Manual, 11th Edition, 2021. A review of available land use descriptions contained in the ITE manual identified the rates most closely aligned with the existing and proposed uses would be “General Office Building” (ITE LU 710), “Assisted Living” (ITE LU 254) and “Affordable Housing” (ITE LU 223). The project is not anticipated to generate any internal capture, pass-by, or other trip reductions resulting from nearby land uses or transportation options. The expected trip generation potential of the proposed project is summarized in Table 1. The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 172 net-new trips per day, including 12 trips during the a.m. peak hour and 16 trips during the p.m. peak hour; these new trips represent the increase in traffic associated with the project. 3.b Packet Pg. 94 Kate Blessing-Kawamura Page 2 January 19, 2022 Table 1 – Trip Generation Summary Land Use Units Daily AM Peak Hour PM Peak Hour Rate Trips Rate Trips In Out Rate Trips In Out Existing General Office -4.00 ksf 10.84 -43 1.52 -6 -5 -1 1.44 -6 -5 -1 Proposed General Office 2.75 ksf 10.84 30 1.52 4 4 0 1.44 4 4 0 Assisted Living 25 beds 2.60 65 0.18 5 3 2 0.24 6 2 4 Affordable Housing 25 du 4.81 120 0.36 9 3 6 0.46 12 7 5 Total 172 12 5 7 16 8 8 Note: ksf = 1,000 square feet, du – dwelling unit Since the project site is located adjacent to the Challenger School, the trip generation potential during the afternoon school dismissal time (typically from 3:00 to 4:00 p.m. on weekdays) was also considered. A review of hourly travel patterns published by ITE for each of the project land uses suggests that the trip generation potential for the project during the afternoon school dismissal period is similar to that for the p.m. peak hour. Therefore, the trip generation potential during the school dismissal peak hour was not individually calculated since it would be anticipated to be equal to that estimated for the p.m. peak hour. Given the relatively small number of peak hour trips that the project would be expected to generate, it is reasonable to conclude that it would have an imperceptible effect on traffic operation and further analysis is therefore not necessary. This is consistent with the City of Palo Alto Local Transportation Analysis Policy, which states that the preparation of a Local Transportation Analysis (LTA) is not required for development projects anticipated to generate fewer than 50 a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips. Alternative Modes Pedestrian Facilities Pedestrian facilities include sidewalks, crosswalks, pedestrian signal phases, curb ramps, curb extensions, and various streetscape amenities such as lighting, benches, etc. A network of sidewalks, crosswalks and curb ramps are generally provided along East Charleston Road within the study area, including a network of walking paths within Mitchell Park. Project Summary – Internal pedestrian access within the site would be provided via a network of sidewalks and curb ramps. All pedestrian facilities would be built to satisfy current City of Palo Alto Public Works Department standards. Finding – Existing and proposed pedestrian facilities serving the project site would be adequate since current design standards would be satisfied, and pedestrian access would be provided between the building access points and the surrounding public street network. Bicycle Network The City of Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, 2012, classifies bikeways into four categories: 3.b Packet Pg. 95 Kate Blessing-Kawamura Page 3 January 19, 2022  Class I Bikeways/Multi-Use Paths – a completely separated right-of-way for the exclusive use of bicycles and pedestrians with cross flows of motorized traffic minimized.  Class II Bike Lane – a striped and signed lane for one-way bike travel on a street or highway.  Class III Bike Route – signing only for shared use with motor vehicles within the same travel lane on a street or highway.  Bicycle Boulevards – Bicycle boulevards are signed, shared roadways with especially low motor vehicle volumes such that motorists passing bicyclists can use the full width of the roadway. Bicycle boulevards prioritize convenient and safe bicycle travel through traffic calming strategies, wayfinding, and other measures. In the project vicinity, Class II bike lanes exist on East Charleston Road and Middlefield Road. Bicyclists ride in the roadway and/or on sidewalks along all other streets within the project study area. Table 2 summarizes the bicycle facilities in the project vicinity which are currently existing, proposed by the project, and planned as described in the City of Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, 2012. Table 2 – Bicycle Facility Summary Status Facility Type Length (miles) Begin Point End Point Existing East Charleston Road – Arastradero Road Class II 2.1 Alta Mesa Memorial Park Fabian Way Middlefield Road Class II 1.3 Loma Verde Road San Antonio Road Planned East Charleston Road – Arastradero Road Enhanced Bikeway 2.1 Alta Mesa Memorial Park Fabian Way Source: City of Palo Alto Bicycle & Pedestrian Transportation Plan, Alta Planning & Design, 2012 Finding – Existing, proposed, and planned bicycle facilities serving the project site would be adequate since the project would be in an area with a network of facilities that are available for bicycle users. Transit Facilities Development sites which are located within a one-half mile walk to a transit stop are generally considered to be adequately served by transit. Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) The Santa Clara Valley Transportation Authority (VTA) provides fixed-route bus service and light-rail train service in Santa Clara County. Two bicycles can be carried on most VTA buses. Bike rack space is on a first-come, first- served basis. Additional bicycles are allowed on VTA buses at the discretion of the driver. Within 500 feet of the project site there are bus stops for Routes 21 and 288. The combined service areas of these routes provide access between the project site and a variety of destinations such as the Santa Clara Transit Center, Stanford Shopping Center, San Antonio Shopping Center, Santa Clara University, Gunn High School, Ohlone Elementary School and Palo Verde Elementary School. Bus service for Route 21 is generally available on weekdays between 5:00 a.m. and 9:00 p.m. at 30-minute headways and on Saturdays from 8:00 a.m. to 7:00 p.m. at 1-hour headways. Buses for Route 288, as a special school service route, are generally available on weekdays only before and after school periods with three buses operating during each period. 3.b Packet Pg. 96 Kate Blessing-Kawamura Page 4 January 19, 2022 Dial-a-ride, also known as paratransit or door-to-door service, is available for those who are unable to independently use the transit system due to a physical or mental disability. VTA Paratransit is designed to serve the needs of individuals with disabilities within Palo Alto and Santa Clara County. Caltrain Caltrain is the commuter rail line serving the San Francisco Peninsula. It connects Palo Alto with San Francisco to the north and San Jose and Gilroy to the south. The San Antonio Caltrain Station is located at 190 Showers Drive which is approximately 1.2 miles from the project site. Both bicycle racks and lockers are provided at the train station. Bicycle racks are available on a first-come, first-served basis, while lockers must be reserved. Weekday train service is provided at this station with both northbound and southbound trains on one-hour headways from 8:00 a.m. to 11:00 p.m. On-Demand Transportation Services On-demand private taxi services are available in the study area 24 hours a day. Taxis can be used for trips both locally and to farther destinations, including nearby airports. Other ride-hailing applications are also available in the study area and provide transportation throughout the Bay Area. Project Summary – If 20 percent of peak hour trips were made by transit, there would be three additional transit riders during both the a.m. and p.m. peak hours, spread out over multiple buses and times. The volume of riders expected to be generated by the project would therefore be unlikely to exceed the carrying capacity of the existing transit services near the project site, especially when spread over several buses and headways. Finding – The project site is adequately served by transit since existing transit stops are less than one-half mile away. Conclusions and Recommendations  The proposed project is expected to generate an average of 172 more trips per day when compared with the current office building. This estimate includes increases of 12 trips during the weekday a.m. peak hour and 16 during the p.m. peak hour.  Given the nominal number of peak hour trips that the project would be expected to generate, it is reasonable to conclude that it would have an imperceptible effect on traffic operation and further analysis is therefore not warranted. This is consistent with City Policy which states that the preparation of an LTA is not required for development projects expected to generate fewer than 50 a.m. or p.m. peak hour trips  Existing and proposed pedestrian, bicycle, and transit facilities would be adequate to serve the project. Thank you for giving W-Trans the opportunity to provide these services. Please call if you have any questions. MES/kbj/PAL022.M1 3.b Packet Pg. 97 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 525 E Charleston, 21PLN-00329 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.208 (PF DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area Not Applicable No Change (.78 acres [34,114 sf]) Min. side yard setback (based on most restrictive abutting district-[PF] but no less than 10 feet) 10 feet Varies (No less than 10 feet, some areas 52 feet) Min. rear yard setback (based on most restrictive abutting district-[PF] but no less than 10 feet) 10 feet 10 feet Special Setback 24 feet (E Charleston) 24 feet Max. Site Coverage 30% (10,234) 39% (13,253 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 1:1 (34,114 sf) 1:35:1 (46,100 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft when located within 150 ft of residential zone (5) 44 feet tallest flat roof; 49’1” for tallest sloped roof Daylight Plane Initial height of 10 feet then slope of 1:2 No requirement (most restrictive district abutting site is PF) Employee Showers No requirement No requirement . Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Non-profit Office and Residential Uses* Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/250 sf of gross floor area for a total of 11 parking spaces; residential (no spaces required per government code) 20 spaces Bicycle Parking 1/2,500 sf (60% long term and 40% short term) equals 2 spaces for office; 1 long term space per unit; 1 short term guest per 10 units equals 55 spaces= 51 long term, 6 short term 57 (50 long term; 7 short term) * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 3.c Packet Pg. 98 18.13.060 Multiple Family Context-Based Design Criteria (a) Contextual and Compatibility Criteria Development in a multiple-family residential district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development. (1) Context (A) Context as used in this section is intended to indicate relationships between the site's development to adjacent street types, surrounding land uses, and on-site or nearby natural features, such as creeks or trees. Effective transitions to these adjacent uses and features are strongly reinforced by Comprehensive Plan policies. (B) The word "context" should not be construed as a desire to replicate existing surroundings, but rather to provide appropriate transitions to those surroundings. "Context" is also not specific to architectural style or design, though in some instances relationships may be reinforced by an architectural response. (2) Compatibility (A) Compatibility is achieved when the apparent scale and mass of new buildings share general characteristics and establishes design linkages with the overall pattern of buildings so that the visual unity of the neighborhood or street is maintained. For active streetscapes, compatibility is achieved when the scale and mass of new buildings are consistent with the pattern of achieving a pedestrian oriented design. (B) Compatibility goals may be accomplished through various means, including but not limited to: (i) the siting, scale, massing, and materials; (ii) the rhythmic pattern of the street established by the general width of the buildings and the spacing between them; (iii) the pattern of roof lines and projections; (iv) the sizes, proportions, and orientations of windows, bays and doorways; (v) the location and treatment of entryways; (vi) the shadow patterns from massing and decorative features; (vii) the siting and treatment of parking; and (viii) the treatment of landscaping. (b) Context-Based Design Considerations and Findings In addition to the findings for Architectural Review contained in Section 18.76.020(d) of the Zoning Ordinance, the following additional findings are applicable in the RM-20, RM-30, and RM-40 districts, as further illustrated on the accompanying diagrams: (1) Massing and Building Facades Massing and building facades shall be designed to create a residential scale in keeping with Palo Alto neighborhoods, and to provide a relationship with street(s) through elements such as: A. Articulation, setbacks, and materials that minimize massing, break down the scale of buildings, and provide visual interest (Figure 1-1); B. Rooflines that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies (Figure 1-1); C. Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, and landscape elements to create a relationship with the street (Figure 1-1); D. Facades that include projecting eaves and overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements that provide human scale and help break up building mass (Figure 1-1); Figure 1-1 3.d Packet Pg. 99 E. Entries that are clearly defined features of front facades, and that have a scale that is in proportion to the size and type of the building and number of units being accessed; larger buildings should have a more prominent building entrance, while maintaining a pedestrian scale; F. Residential units that have a presence on the street and are not walled-off or oriented exclusively inward; G. Elements that signal habitation such as entrances, stairs, porches, bays and balconies that are visible to people on the street (Figure 1-2); Figure 1-2 H. All exposed sides of a building designed with the same level of care and integrity (Figure 1-2). (2) 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 through: A. Transitions of development intensity from higher density development building types to building types that are compatible with the lower intensity surrounding uses, such as small-lot units and rowhouses (Figure 2-1); Figure 2-1 B. Massing and orientation of buildings that respect and mirror the massing of neighboring structures by stepping back upper stories to transition to smaller scale buildings, including setbacks and daylight planes that match abutting R-1 and R-2 zone requirements (Figure 2-2); Figure 2-2 3.d Packet Pg. 100 C. Respecting privacy of neighboring structures, with windows and upper floor balconies positioned so they minimize views into neighboring properties (Figure 2-3); D. Minimizing sight lines into and from neighboring properties (Figure 2-3); Figure 2-3 E. Limiting sun and shade impacts on abutting properties; and F. Providing pedestrian paseos and mews to create separation between uses. (3) Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of a site. A. The type and design of the usable private open space shall be appropriate to the character of the building(s), and shall consider dimensions, solar access, wind protection, views, and privacy; B. Open space should be sited and designed to accommodate different activities, groups, active and passive uses, and should be located convenient to the residents. C. Common open spaces should connect to the pedestrian pathways and existing natural amenities of the site and its surroundings (Figure 3-1); Figure 3-1 3.d Packet Pg. 101 D. Usable open space may be any combination of private and common spaces; E. Open space should be located to activate the street facade and increase "eyes on the street" when possible (Figure 3- 2); Figure 3-2 F. Usable open space does not need to be located on the ground and may be located in porches, decks, balconies and/or podiums (Figure 3-3); G. Both private and common open space areas should be buffered from noise where feasible through landscaping and building placement; H. Open space situated over a structural slab/podium or on a rooftop shall have a combination of landscaping and high quality paving materials, including elements such as planters, mature trees, and use of textured and/or colored paved surfaces (Figure 3-3); and I. Parking may not be counted as open space. Figure 3-3 (4) Parking Design Parking needs shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment, such that: A. Parking is located behind buildings, below grade or, where those options are not feasible, screened by landscaping, low walls, garages and carports, etc.; B. Structured parking is fronted or wrapped with habitable uses when possible (Figure 4-1); Figure 4-1 3.d Packet Pg. 102 C. Parking that is semi-depressed is screened with architectural elements that enhance the streetscape such as stoops, balcony overhangs, and/or art (Figure 4-2); D. Landscaping such as trees, shrubs, vines, or groundcover is incorporated into surface parking lots (Figure 4-2); Figure 4-2 E. For properties with parking access from the rear of the site (such as a rear alley or driveway) landscaping shall provide a visual buffer between vehicle circulation areas and abutting properties (Figure 4-3); Figure 4-3 F. Street parking is utilized for visitor or customer parking and is designed in a manner to enhance traffic calming; G. Parking is accessed from side streets or alleys when possible. (5) Large (multi-acre) Sites Large (in excess of one acre) sites shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those 3.d Packet Pg. 103 of the surrounding neighborhood, and such that: A. New development of large sites maintains and enhances connectivity with a hierarchy of public streets, private streets, walks and bike paths (integrated with Palo Alto's Bicycle Master Plan, when applicable); B. The diversity of building types increases with increased lot size (e.g., <1 acre = minimum 1 building type; 1-2 acres = minimum 2 housing types; greater than 2 acres = minimum 3 housing types) (Figures 5-1 through 5-3); and Figure 5-1 C. Where a site includes more than one housing type, each building type should respond to its immediate context in terms of scale, massing, and design (e.g., small lot units or rowhouse building types facing or abutting existing single-family residences) (Figures 5-2 and 5-3). Figure 5-2 Figure 5-3 (6) Housing Variety and Units on Individual Lots 3.d Packet Pg. 104 Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units (Figure 6-1), attached rowhouses/townhouses (Figure 6-2), and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development, provided that: Figure 6-1 Figure 6-2 A. Setbacks and daylight planes along the perimeter of the site shall conform to RM-20 zone standards; B. Overall development intensity (FAR, landscape coverage, open space) shall be calculated across the entire site to comply with the RM-20 zone standards; C. Individual detached units shall be spaced a minimum of 3 feet apart; D. For units on individual "fee simple" lots, units may be situated along the property line of the individual parcel (i.e., zero- lot line) to allow usable open space in the opposite side setback; E. Each detached unit shall have at least one usable side yard between the house and fence to provide outdoor passage between the front and rear yards; F. Spaces between buildings shall be landscaped and/or shall provide for usable hardscape (patios, decks, etc.); G. Sidewall windows should be designed with privacy features such as obscure glass or glass block; H. Windows on sidewalls opposite each other should be above eye level or should be offset to prevent views into adjacent units; and I. Architectural treatment shall be carried along the sidewalls of detached units, particularly sidewalls facing streets and pathways. (7) Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design shall be incorporated into the project. Green building design considers the environment during design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: 3.d Packet Pg. 105 A. Optimize building orientation for heat gain, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation (Figure 7-1); Figure 7-1 B. Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects (Figure 7-2); Figure 7-2 C. Design for easy pedestrian, bicycle, and transit access; D. Maximize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement (Figure 7-3); Figure 7-3 E. Use sustainable building materials. F. Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use; G. Create healthy indoor environments; H. Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements (Figure 7-2); and I. Provide protection for creeks and riparian vegetation and integrate stormwater management measures and open space to minimize water quality and erosion impacts to the creek environment. (Ord. 5460 § 15, 2019: Ord. 4964 § 2 (part), 2007) 3.d Packet Pg. 106 Attachment E: Summary of Relevant State Legislation Assembly Bill 2162: Adopted September 2018, this bill makes certain residential development projects a use by right in all zones where multi-family housing and mixed uses are permitted, including nonresidential zones permitting multifamily uses. AB 2162 requires that 100% of the units are affordable to lower income households, at least 25% of the units are restricted to residents in supportive housing that meet the definition of the “target population” as defined in Section 50675.14 of the Health and Safety Code (which includes persons with disabilities), a portion of the project is dedicated for onsite supportive services to meet the needs of the target population, no subdivision is required, the project does not contain more than 50 units and each unit contains a bathroom and kitchen. Assembly Bill 1763: Adopted October 2019, this bill requires that a density bonus be provided to a developer who agrees to construct a housing development in which 100% of the total units, exclusive of manager’s units, are for lower income households. The bill also requires that a housing development that meets these criteria receive four incentives or concessions under the density bonus law and prohibits imposing a minimum parking requirement for the residential component of a development where rental units are being provided for special needs and the site meets specific criteria with respect to adjacent transit (as discussed further below). Senate Bill 330: Among other requirements and allowances, some of which are not applicable to the proposal, SB 330 allows a qualifying project to freeze development standards based on the date that a complete pre-application is filed. Qualifying projects include a project in which at least two-thirds of the development is proposed as housing. 3.e Packet Pg. 107 3.f Packet Pg. 108 3.f Packet Pg. 109 Attachment G 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 “525 E. Charleston 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-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/525-E.- Charleston?transfer=6f4df6fc-55c6-48f2-a880-af3aa73620a8 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. 3.g Packet Pg. 110 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 14037) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 2/17/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: ARB Awards: Discuss Additional Eligible Projects Title: ARB Awards: Consider Seven (7) Additional Eligible Projects and Reaffirm/Decide on the Award Winners From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Discuss the seven (7) additional projects that were found to be eligible for an ARB award, 2. Review photographs of these eligible/completed projects, and 3. Reaffirm or Decide on additional award winners Background Over the course of several ARB hearings, the ARB reduced a list of 91 eligible projects to seven (7) award winning projects. 1. 1451 Middlefield Road – Junior Museum and Zoo 2. 799 Embarcadero Road - Fire Station #3 Replacement Project 3. 3223 Hanover Street – Office/R&D project 4. 4175 Manuela Avenue – Religious Assembly 5. 375 University Avenue – Retail façade renovation 6. 611 Cowper Street – New construction 7. 701 Welch Road – (Honorable Mention) Children’s Hospital However, in response to a question from former Board member Lew, staff found there was an error in the original eligibility list. The list was generated out of the City’s Minute Traq database. Given Palo Alto had just started using Minute Traq in 2014, not all staff reports were entered into the database with the department name. With this knowledge, staff found seven (7) additional projects that could be eligible for an ARB award. 4 Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Discussion Staff suggests boardmembers review the list of additional projects (below) and photos that were taken to determine if one or more of these projects should also receive an award. Next Steps 1. Staff will work with the ARB Chair to send out notices to all of the award winners. 2. Boardmembers will be assigned specific addresses for which they will create a description of why the project is receiving an ARB awards. They will also work with the project architect/team to obtain professional photos of the project. 3. Staff will work with the Board to determine the best time and location for an award ceremony. ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: 2020 ARB Award Eligibility List 1-12-22 (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 112 # File # Address Project Description Short Title Year Approved/ 2021 Status Type Planner Researcher Second Straw Poll Initial Straw poll Notes Proposed Category Architect Notes 22 19PLN-00103 375 University Avenue Modifications to a ex Exterior Renovations (Cheesecake) 2019 Commercial Emily Peter 5 Yes DH, ODT, PB Storefront good proportions, exterior façade, human scale, urban experience 15 15PLN-00129 4175 Manuela Avenue Request by CongregCongregation Kol Emeth 2016 Assembly Use Ranu Osma 4 Yes ODT, GL, DH, Institutional / Sustainability Leed Platinum 25 16PLN-00135 701 Welch Minor Architectural R Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Medical Alex 4 Yes AL, DH, GL Institutional / Human Scale large broken down/detailed bldg, honorable mention? 8 16PLN-00263 799 Embarcadero Road Request by Shah Ka Fire Station #3 Replacement Project 2017/Complete Public Facility Amy Osma 4 Yes Instutitional / Concept context, urban design, landscape, tree preservation, materials 17 17PLN-00147 1451 Middlefield Road Request by Sarah VJunior Museum and Zoo 2018/Complete Public Facility Amy David 4 Yes DH, PB, ODT Institutional / Site Planning street experience, site planning 13 16PLN-00190 17PLN-00225 3223-3251 Hanover Street Allow the ConstructioR&D Building 1 & 2 2018/Complete R&D Graham Grace 4 Yes ODT, DH, GL Commercial / Site Planning saved trees, sustainability, site planning, concept, bike path 19 13PLN-00188 1400 Page Mill Allow the constructioOffice 2013/Complete R&D Clare Grace 3.5 Yes AL, PB, ODT Sustainability - Net Zero net zero by Stanford, removed trees 3 13PLN-00213 611 Cowper Request by Ken HayFour story mixed use 2013/Const 2016 Mixed Use Clare David 3 Yes PB, AL, DH materials, concept realized Ken Hayes already got AIA award 20 14PLN-00074 1050 Page Mill Road Request by Allison K 287,000sf R&D/Office, Sand Hill Prop 2014/Const 2019 R&D Jodie Grace 3 Yes AL, GL, ODT Design Concept Form 4 nice courtyard 21 15PLN-00237 355 University Major Architectural R Design Within Reach (seismic/façade) 2016/Complete Commercial Rebecca Peter 2 Yes PB, DH, GL material, urban design Ken Hayes seimic bonus, open basement, storefront 11 17PLN-00171 180 Hamliton Avenue Allow for Exterior ImHotel / Nobu Facade Change 2017/Complete Hotel Samuel David 0 Yes PB, ODT, GL material, exterior renovation 2020 ARB Awards Eligibility - 1/12/22 Projects must have completed construction to be eligible 4.a Packet Pg. 113 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 14025) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 2/17/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of December 2, 2021 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 2, 2021 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the December 2, 2021 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: • Attachment A: Minutes of December 2, 2021 (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 114 Page 1 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES: December 2, 2021 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Participating Remotely: Chair Osma Thompson, Vice Chair Grace Lee, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Alex Lew Absent: Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, stated that the next hearing would normally be December 16th, but that would be cancelled and replaced by a meeting on December 9, 2021, to finalize the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Awards. That will be the final ARB meeting of the year. City Council will make three appointments to the ARB at their meeting on December 13, 2021. Boardmembers Hirsch and Baltay have reapplied. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI JUDICIAL: 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja School): Architectural Review Application Remanded by City Council for Review of Redesigned Academic Building That Does Not Increase Existing Campus Gross Floor Area as Directed by City Council, Alternative Parking Options with Associated Parking Adjustment Request, and Additional Tree Preservation Proposal. The ARB Previously Recommended Approval of the Architectural Review Application in Fall 2020. Zone District: R1(10,000). Environmental Review: Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) Published July 30, 2020; Draft EIR Published July 15, 2019. Chair Thompson introduced the item and called for ARB disclosures. 5.a Packet Pg. 115 Page 2 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Boardmember Baltay disclosed that he visited the site. Boardmember Hirsch disclosed that he visited the site several times over the past two months and walked the perimeter at various hours. Boardmember Lew disclosed that he researched the non-complying facility section of Code 18.70.100. He also looked at the Packard Foundation in downtown Los Altos, downloaded the plan, and reviewed the dimensions. He also reviewed the dimensions at Jane Lathrop Stanford (JLS) and Fairmeadow schools on East Meadow in Palo Alto and looked at several Stanford buildings that have portals. Vice Chair Lee disclosed that she visited the perimeter of the site. Chair Thompson disclosed she visited the site and rewatched the City Council meeting from the 29th. She called for the staff report. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, had technical issues and needed to log off and back on again. Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services, suggested a short break to address technical issues. The ARB took a break until 8:47 a.m. Ms. French shared her screen with the ARB. Chair Thompson called the meeting back to order and for the staff report. Ms. French explained that following the City Council’s meetings in March of 2021 the project was returning to the ARB. She planned to discuss the ARB’s 2020 action, the Council Motions, the trees, site revisions, building revisions, parking options/adjustment. Then the applicant will make a presentation and the ARB will move through its process. At the end of the hearing staff will request that the ARB continue the hearing to a date uncertain. In November 2020, the ARB recommended Project Alternative 4 as outlined in the Environmental impact Report (EIR). That alternative recommended 79 below grade and 26 above grade parking spaces. She showed the ARB Motion which included eight ad hoc review items. The purpose of the meeting is not to go through the ad hoc items, but to focus on higher level matters. She shared the Council Motion which called for an ARB re-review of the academic building due to the need to reduce Gross Floor Area (GFA). There was an error found which attributed basement area to above grade GFA in March 2021. The applicant remedied the error with a plan submittal in May and responses to staff requests. The Council’s Motion referred other items to staff and to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC). Staff requests ARB input on those items, specifically Option E, which is the option that protects Tree #155 and improves upon the Tree Protection Zone (TPZ) for Trees #87 and #89. Urban Forestry staff is present. The City hired an independent consultant to investigate additional tree protection measures. The City has also received construction phasing options. Constructing a temporary campus on the circle would add a lot of time to the timeline and delay construction. An independent consultant analyzed and provided summaries of the GFA. There are five options for parking other than the project. The parking adjustment preferred by the applicant was for 9% reduction, for Option D. The Director supports Option E. She reviewed the TPZ plan, including notable Tree #89. They need a better understanding of where the tree roots are, and Urban Forestry has proposed a condition that would use 5.a Packet Pg. 116 Page 3 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Ground Penetrating Radar (GPR) to determine the information. With respect to Tree #89 the revised plan relocates a stairway and a transformer from the TPZ. Tree #6 will be transplanted elsewhere leaving Tree #13 in the proposed planting place which addresses the crowding. The applicant will show additional plans for the academic building, but she showed two areas where the GFA was adjusted. The study staff prepared showed the existing campus had approximately 114,800 square feet (sf) GFA (not including volumetric area). The proposal is for about 111,300 sf GFA (also not including volumetric area). There has been no change to materials since the last ARB review in November 2020. With respect to parking, Alternative 4 with 104 total parking spaces was selected in November 2020. Option A does not require a parking adjustment. Option B shows 83 total spaces, Option C shows 83 total spaces, and both would require a parking adjustment of 20%. Option D shows 95 total spaces (and a 9% adjustment) and was the applicant’s preference, and Option E shows 89 total spaces and saves Tree #155 while helping two other trees (and a 14% adjustment). Option E also includes a soundwall to mitigate delivery and trash pickup noise. She showed the previously published construction phasing plans. Chair Thompson called for the applicant’s presentation. Nanci Kauffman, Castilleja Head of School, thanked the ARB and staff and indicated they were returning with a modified plan that they believe will bring the project to fruition after 5 ½ years in the City process and 9 years of planning. The project will benefit the school, neighborhood, City, and the world. The modernization is often referred to as an expansion, but the revised plan reduces the footprint and above grade square footage, increases setbacks, lowers rooflines, takes cars off the street, and reduces campus events and traffic. As directed by City Council they worked with architects and City staff to make reductions and modifications in parking, trees, and square footage. Castilleja wants cars off the road as much as the neighbors and agreed with the ARB that underground parking was the solution. There are five alternative parking configurations and a parking adjustment request for consideration. All options better protect trees and reduce construction impacts. Option A does not meet the project objectives as it eliminates a large portion of a playing field. They have clarified the TPZs and have two alternatives available. Both alternatives achieve greater tree protection and reduce delivery noise. Urban Forestry approves the tree protection plan. City Council requested they reduce the size of the buildings to comport with historic permits and they complied by eliminating 1,830 sf. City Council also requested the massing along Kellogg be reviewed. In response to ARB feedback, they made significant modifications by varying roof heights, adding balconies, and updating façade materials. They look forward to the ARB’s thoughts on the massing but were concerned that further reductions might create a porous campus. The proposal includes an additional 100 trees and a robust Transportation Demand Management (TDM) program. Adam Woltag, WRNS Studio, thanked the ARB for its time. They have worked on the massing of the building a lot and appreciate the ARB’s input. He showed slides of the Emerson Street, Kellogg Avenue, and Bryant Street views as originally proposed and revised. The massing is now better and more responsive to its neighborhood context. With GFA they adjusted the building’s area to match the historic record by reducing the footprint of the building, discounted level 2 decks as open space, and changed a level 2 meeting room from an interior space to a deck. He showed additional slides detailing those changes to the GFA. The proposed GFA of the project is less than that of the existing building. The Council requested the underground garage have a smaller footprint and that is reflected in Parking Options A – D. the area surrounding Tree #89 has been modified by moving the transformer over 70 feet. Upon request 5.a Packet Pg. 117 Page 4 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 from staff to protect Tree #155 they have developed Option E. Option E allows for more surface parking spaces with the area near Tree #89 being water permeable. To achieve Option E the pool must be shifted 20 feet and other areas such as trash must be modified. Noise impact will be addressed by an acoustic wall running along Emerson Street. He showed a series of slides on Option E. Throughout the process they have been able to focus on site sustainability. Everything meets or exceeds City standards. He thanked the ARB for their work, which has made the project better. Chair Thompson called for the public comment. Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, shared a list of the public speakers and a timer with the ARB. Rebecca Sanders, Co-chair of Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN), explained that PAN is an umbrella organization supporting residents and neighborhoods across the City. The community is interested in the project as the school is in a residential area, is requesting extraordinary amounts of extra floor area, and requesting other exceptions. When another applicant with an R-1 site went to City Council and requested unprecedented exceptions the Mayor told them to return with a compliant project. None of the five parking options comply because all add more floor area to the site than allowed. Council has not agreed to the extra floor area and there could be legal obstacles. PAN wants an alternative parking proposal that complies with the law. Currently there are 89 surface parking spots. If Castilleja adopts a TDM that earns the 20% reduction it would only need 83 parking spaces total. Therefore, they could remove six spaces and no underground garage would be necessary. That alternative would save millions in construction costs, is better for the environment, and gets rid of the need for driveways and easements. Eliminating the garage helps the neighbors and commuters on Embarcadero by lessening construction impacts. Without the garage the City does not have to grant an exemption for the underground facility at all. There has only been one objection to removing the garage and that is that surface parking is not attractive, but the neighbors are not objecting to the current surface parking. The ARB could come up with ways to screen the surface parking if necessary. She requested the ARB consider their alternative. Cath Garber, resident, explained she is an architect. Castilleja has worked with the City and its boards and commissions on the project for several years. She hoped that this would be the last iteration for the school. Castilleja is fully in compliance with the GFA requirements. As an architect the modifications proposed to Emerson Street and the pool are reasonable and thoughtful responses. She was disappointed the process took so long and hoped that the City would conclude its review and approve the project. Roger McCarthy, resident, thanked the ARB for their time and service. He noted he had no ties to Castilleja. His interest in the project stemmed from his technological leadership positions and as a resident. He is the Treasurer of the National Academy of Engineering, member of the Governing Board of the National Research Council, and is Director of the National Academies Corporation. As such he understands the acute shortage of women in the science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields. Studies have shown that women are more likely to enter STEM fields through an all-girls secondary school environment. Castilleja is one of the best. For years Palo Alto has traded the interests of a few dozen residents while denying at least 1,000 women a Castilleja education. This has been due to the nitpicky requirements of the R-1 zoning. R-1 zoning was created in Berkeley in 1916 solely to achieve racial segregation. He found it fitting that it was now being used to discriminate against women furthering their education. Further, Castilleja was established prior to the R-1 zoning yet they are still held to the 5.a Packet Pg. 118 Page 5 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 standard. He asked if the ARB would put the economic interests of a few over the many or if they would further the national interest in getting the project approved. Alan Cooper, resident, stated he was a neighbor of the school. He was concerned about construction phasing and the driveway design on Kellogg. He thanked City staff for their work on the project and preferred staff Option E. It is important to minimize the impact of the project on neighbors and surrounding roads during construction. He hoped the ARB supported the option for Castilleja to find a temporary off site campus during construction. That way total construction time might only last 21 months, and it would greatly improve traffic safety in the area. He asked the ARB to look at the driveway design on Kellogg. Earlier in the week he sent the ARB pictures of the dangerous traffic situations during student pickup. The problems will be worse with additional students. Two possible solutions would be to either extend the Kellogg driveway to a Bryant Street entrance or to paint the curb red on Kellogg so cars could wait outside of active trafficways. He thanked the ARB for its time and consideration. Tom Shannon, resident, said that the ARB hearing was the first chance for the neighbors of the project to review the revised plan. The project’s design and parking has changed substantially. He had three specific questions. The previous plan indicated all school buses would be used on the inner circle for student drop off and pickup. He asked if that was still the case. He also wanted to know how semis, large trucks, and garbage trucks would navigate the site. Current deliveries are a disturbance to the neighborhood, and they would like the City to prohibit big rigs, semis, and tractor-trailer trucks from making deliveries to the school. He noted that for a higher delivery charge companies could use step vans for the deliveries. Finally, he asked how GreenWaste would access the site. He requested that the ARB study the waste disposal system as revised on the Kellogg/Emerson corner. He thanked staff and elected officials for their work. Mary Sylvester, resident, said she has been a neighbor of Castilleja for 44 years. She has always supported Castilleja and their modernization plans; however, this is not a code compliant project, and it does not fit with the context of the neighborhood or protect enough trees. She understood that the ARB largely focuses on the visual elements of a plan, but she urged them to look at code compliance and the character of the neighborhood. Castilleja is largely surrounded by smaller bungalows and moderately sized homes. The architect’s renderings do not put the campus in the neighborhood context. Castilleja operates under a Conditional Use Permit (CUP) and therefore must consider their impact on the health, welfare, and quiet enjoyment of the neighbors. She thanked community members for their work to save trees and get the massing modified on Kellogg. She also thanked Urban Forestry and resident Robert Levitsky for saving several trees although there was more work to do. She suggested getting rid of the underground garage and did not believe it was environmentally superior option due to the greenhouse gasses produced by construction. She noted that many private schools in the area did not allow students to drive. Under the CUP driving should be a privilege and not an entitlement. Shuttling and public transportation should be used instead. Rob Levitsky, resident, said that after 5 years of Castilleja claiming that their design followed all rules there is a last minute submission of November 3rd attempting to back the pool away from Trees #89 and #87. It is labeled Scheme E. He wished that Castilleja, the Planning Department, and the EIR consultant had respected the protected trees over the last 5 years. He was particularly concerned about Oak Trees #87, #89, #102, #148, #155, and Redwood Trees #115 to #120. For 5 years the TPZs were not accurately placed on any of the drawings. That mislead everyone who looked at the drawings for impacts to trees. Castilleja, 5.a Packet Pg. 119 Page 6 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 the architects, the Planning Department, and the EIR consultant did not care that the TPZs were not drawn accurately for years. He was happy that through neighbor participation the trees were being respected, but simple TPZ circles are not enough to guarantee tree safety as many trees will have roots that extend beyond the TPZs. He thought a root mapping study using GPR was necessary. Andie Reed, resident, said that Castilleja was planning to replace five older buildings with a large new building. As a neighbor she supported modernization, but with a lower profile than proposed. She thanked the City for its work requiring the school retain housing stock and its ongoing work to save trees. The staff report compares the latest iteration of the project with one from a year ago rather than to the existing campus. The size of the proposed GFA is around 128,000 sf per the new proposal, which exceeds GFA allowed by code of 81,000 sf. Some buildings were built before the current code while others were built after, but not reviewed for GFA. To build the 111,000 sf proposed Castilleja submitted a variance. Castilleja claims that the large size of the site is a hardship, but they increased the size when they added the 200 block of Melville in 1992. Therefore, they do not qualify based on size. An amendment that would allow Castilleja to build the underground garage without adding the square footage sidestepped the issue. The school is asking for too much. She suggested reducing the footprint of the large building to satisfy the issues. With respect to parking when they discuss shifting the pool it is from iteration to iteration. Castilleja already has a pool and moving it loses 60 surface parking spaces. There are currently 89 parking spaces on site, but the plans show less. The school’s plans reduce surface parking by more than 60 spaces. By removing onsite parking to move the pool to accommodate a large building the school creates a need already satisfied in the current conditions. Dave Dockter stated that he was formerly the Planning Arborist with the City of Palo Alto. He commended staff for commissioning the cohesive tree report addendums. The staff report states that staff welcomes ARB feedback on additional measures that may be necessary to preserve protected trees. He proposed that the ARB direct staff to include a standard condition of approval for a tree security deposit requirement for important at risk trees. That will assure true mitigation for any trees lost by project construction. Palo Alto has used this condition on several projects. the language for the security deposit is available from Urban Forestry Staff and is contained in other project approvals. The security deposit is maintained by the Urban Forestry fund and should apply to significant trees to be transplanted and at risk trees subject to foreseeable root impact such as #89 and #155. The deposit is a financial incentive for contractors to responsibly care for the trees and for general contractors to avoid sloppy management. The amount of the deposit can vary from 100% to 200% value of the tree. If Tree #89 were lost to construction the gymnasium mass and scale would appear more imposing. At today’s meeting he suggested the ARB direct Urban Forestry staff to include as a condition of approval a tree security deposit for specific trees to be monitored over a specific period. He thanked the ARB. Hank Sousa, resident, stated he lived 185 feet from Castilleja School. He was concerned about parking spaces and enrollment. There are currently 86 parking spaces on campus which allows for the enrollment of 448 students. The current enrollment is 426. Many neighbors feel that an enrollment increase of 8% granted by the City is acceptable. There is historical precedence under the CUP. The current number of parking spaces is sufficient for an enrollment of 448 students. Additionally, the Head of School has previously stated that 448 was the optimum teaching number. Therefore, the underground garage and its associated problems are unnecessary. He pointed out that the underground garage could affect the 5.a Packet Pg. 120 Page 7 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 water table. No garage construction also reduces construction time by two years. The construction timetable is important to resident neighbors. He also suggested that parents could drop students off at satellite sites and be shuttled to school. They could also mandate that students are not allowed to drive to school other than seniors. These suggestions would help limit the number of cars in the neighborhood and is an environmentally superior alternative. He thanked the ARB. Kimberly Wong advised the ARB of a sign she read on the parking garage at the Stanford Shopping Center. The sign warned people of chemicals present in the garage which could be hazardous and cause cancer, birth defects, or other reproductive harm. It further warned people to stay only as long as necessary. Breathing fumes in an underground garage would be much worse so she questioned why Castilleja had not submitted a plan without the underground garage. She urged the ARB not to approve the underground garage for that reason as well as the other potential environmental impacts. She suggested a phased approach to the project with the classrooms being the priority. Castilleja does not need to build a garage for 30% increased enrollment until they prove they can manage their TDM. The underground parking would be easy to build, but difficult to remove later. Julia Ishiyama, resident, thanked the ARB for its time. She stated she was born and raised in Palo Alto and attended Castilleja for seven years. She lived in Colorado for a while but has returned. Palo Alto has grown and evolved and both Palo Alto High School and the Junior Museum and Zoo have been renovated to better serve the community. Castilleja deserves the same chance to modernize. She has followed the project since inception and has watched the plans evolve in response to neighborhood input. The project is ready for approval. The Bay Area is booming, but the residential blocks are as quiet as ever thanks to Castilleja’s rigorous TDM program to reduce car trips in the neighborhood. She urged the ARB to approve the proposed garage that maximizes the number of underground spaces to preserve neighborhood tranquility. The City Council has suggested 52 spaces be allowed underground and she hoped they would support at least that many. The ARB should consider the option that allows for 69 spaces below grade. That would not increase the size of the garage or the total number of spaces; it would keep more cars off the street level, which is in line with the Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan prefers underground parking to surface lots. The tree lined streets of Palo Alto are important, and she was happy that Castilleja worked to preserve and add trees to its neighborhood. She hoped the ARB would approve the pool proposal including the plans to relocate a stairway and transformer to responsibly protect another tree. New delivery plans also reduce street level impacts. She understood that the ARB already endorsed Castilleja’s prior plans, and she requested they do so again and move the project forward. Winter Dellenbach was relieved to hear that the Urban Forestry office has required that GPR be used to confirm the roots for Tree #89. Current plans might change depending on the GPR findings. She urged the extension of the GPR use for Oak Trees #102 and #155 and possibly others. She also asked the Urban Forester if they had formally signed off on the Tree Protection Plan and stated she would like to hear the answer during the meeting. She supported the idea of a street tree security deposit. It has been used in the City before and is reasonable. Regarding construction phasing Castilleja’s preferred option is to leave students on campus in temporary classrooms on the field. The project is vast, and students cannot be left on campus during both underground and aboveground construction. She practiced law for 20 years and it is not in the best interest of the children to be present during the construction for 34 to 58 months. It is 5.a Packet Pg. 121 Page 8 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 unreasonable and unhealthy for the students. Each student has been apportioned 20 sf in the temporary classrooms. She wanted to learn from today’s meeting if that met State standards. Cindy Chen, resident, thanked the ARB for its time and indicated she had spoken at a prior hearing in support of the project. She thanked the ARB for its vote in Fall 2020. The update to the campus will be a significant contribution to the neighborhood and City. She appreciates many options Castilleja has provided for review. The willingness to offer multiple solutions to choose from shows that the school is listening to feedback and is willing to compromise. She lives on Emerson and is invested in the modifications to the pool, preserving trees, and the loading options. By moving the pool the school is showing its commitment to the trees of Palo Alto. The overall tree plan increases the canopy by over 100 trees. Both choices on Emerson vastly improve upon current conditions. The existing building on Emerson desperately needs to be updated. She requested the ARB weigh the options and help the project move forward. Castilleja has reduced their square footage to place the new structure in line with previous permitted square footage. With the massing changes, increased setbacks, and lower roofline the building will be more suited to the scale of the neighborhood. As a neighbor she was ready for the project to begin and asked the ARB to help facilitate that. Ms. Klicheva stated that there were no more public speakers. Chair Thompson explained that the applicant would have 10 minutes to respond to the public comment. Mindie Romanowsky, Land Use Counsel for Castilleja, thanked the ARB for its time. She stated that the team would answer questions posed by the public. The question about the frequency of deliveries and trash pickup could be answered by Kathy Layendecker. Kathy Layendecker explained that the answer was nuanced, but she would try to make it clear. They have very little activity before 6:00 or 7:00 a.m. except for waste pickup. They have tried to move the time to no avail. It is difficult to get the trash agency to change its schedule. They would be pleased to receive help on this matter if anyone could offer it. In terms of large trucks, they do not have any tractor trailer or semi-trucks which come between 6:00 and 7:00 a.m.; the largest trucks come in the middle of the day and only a few times a week. Other deliveries do happen daily such as FedEx and the United States Postal Service (USPS). Ms. Romanowsky indicated she wanted to respond to a few comment themes. She was grateful to the interested parties over the past 5 ½ years who have given input to the project. The tree work was done at the neighbor’s request. They took at critical eye and did what they could to protect the trees. She would let staff reply to the question about if Urban Forestry had blessed the plan. With respect to the questions about the health and safety and environmental sanctity of the below grade parking she stressed that she was not an expert in water tables, air quality, and other concerns but they do have experts in the room. She asked that the environmental consultant speak to the issues for the public’s knowledge. The reason the below grade parking was deemed environmentally secure is because that work was done. The proposed acoustic fence in Scheme E was studied by the noise consultant, who is present for questions. The landscape and tree consultants are also present for questions regarding the GPR. She reminded the ARB that the project has been called many things, including an expansion. While Castilleja is looking to grow enrollment, it is not expanding. She encouraged members of the public to study Ms. French’s slide and the report on the website which shows the existing square footage on campus and the proposed 5.a Packet Pg. 122 Page 9 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 square footage, which is less. There is a variance requested to maintain above grade square footage, but they will build less than is currently in place. She thanked the consultants for their work. She asked the project team to add their thoughts. Mike Bellinger, BFS Landscape Architects, said he worked with Mick Bench during the early phases of the project on testing the tree conditions. Mr. Bench tried to verify the root conditions and feels very confident about it. GPR is a new advancement in technology and could be effective for a couple of trees of concern. Ms. Romanowsky explained that there were many options for the ARB to explore. They will comment on the massing and square footage. Based on prior ARB feedback they iterated several ways for consideration. They have heard from many neighbors on the Kellogg side who appreciate the design that the ARB informed. Any more porous iterations may cause neighbors to be more involved in campus than they want to be, so the ARB should keep that in mind. There are five parking options for consideration. They are in favor of keeping many of the functions below grade per the direction of original neighborhood feedback. It is important to remember that surface parking would impede on the school’s only athletic field. She requested the ARB remember the benefits of the below grade parking both environmentally and programmatically. The record and experts can speak to the benefits of the below grade parking. She thanked the ARB for its time and welcomed their feedback. Chair Thompson closed the public comment and called for a brief break. The ARB took a break Chair Thompson called the meeting back to order. She called for Boardmember questions of the applicant or staff. Vice Chair Lee requested clarification on the drawing set. She was looking at the bubbles and understood that was where the project was revised. Secondly, the staff report states that the preferred applicant option for parking is Option D; there was not much on Option D in the presentation, so she wanted to confirm that was the case. Chair Thompson asked if the applicant understood the questions. Mr. Woltag confirmed that the bubbles indicate where the project was revised. Regarding the parking preference he asked Kathy or Mindie to speak. Vice Chair Lee clarified that the ARB approved 78 underground parking spaces. She sees that Option D includes 69 spaces. She did not hear anything from the applicant in terms of a preference for an option. Ms. Layendecker explained that they were really looking to the ARB for its expertise. It has always been the objective to move the noisier activities to the center of campus and below grade as feasible. The City Council suggested the 50% be allowed below grade to reduce the construction impact and preserve the trees. They studied how far they needed to pull back the garage to be completely away from the trees and make a construction reduction and that is how they determined the 69 spaces. The applicant is open to Options D or E as its still the objective to move the noisy activities away from the neighbors. 5.a Packet Pg. 123 Page 10 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Vice Chair Lee said that the staff report on Packet Page 11 (report page 3) says that the ARB has the authority to make recommendations, but that the Planning Commission had authority on the TDM plan and other things. Thinking of the ARBs findings, the bubbles in the packet, and the presentation she requested clarification from staff on how to make their comments. Ms. French stated staff recommended Option E because of how it handled the trees. She asked the ARB to focus more on that option than the other parking options. In the parking options there are ARB focused issues such as the acoustic wall, the relocation of the transformer and the stairway. The subcommittee was supposed to address the stairway, but the item is now before the full ARB so they could discuss it. They should also look at the bubbles on the building plans. Council asked the ARB to reconsider and look at the compatibility of the new building with the neighborhood. Staff spent a lot of time on that and have items to go back to subcommittee. That would be a reason to continue the hearing. It does not need to be to a date certain. The next meeting would be in 2022 and the makeup of the ARB will have changed. Vice Chair Lee asked for Chair Thompson’s recommendations on how to structure comments. Ms. French said that the PTC report was published. The public has been advised that it is on the webpage. The report covers the TDM and other items that were in their purview. Chair Thompson said that Packet Page 9 had a list of six items the ARB has been asked to review. The TDM is not on the list, but Item F says, “other direction as the ARB determines appropriate,” which is open ended. She asked Boardmembers to discuss the six items in their comments. She asked if there were further questions for staff or the applicant. Boardmember Baltay stated he had three questions. He asked staff if the basement of the new building was included in the floor area calculations. Ms. French indicated she needed to address a thought first. She said that members of the public had made comments on the tree conditions. There is a security deposit condition. There are about 12 Urban Forestry conditions provided to Council and Urban Forester Peter Gollinger is present and prepared to speak to the conditions. Additionally, there were questions about the excavation. It is not as low as the water table. Katherine Waugh is available to discuss the EIR. She asked Boardmember Baltay to repeat his question. Boardmember Baltay said that the new building has a below grade lower level. He asked if the floor area of the lower level was included in the floor area calculations. Ms. French said it was not. Just as the existing basements on the site when the finished floor is less than three feet above grade in the residential zone is not counted as GFA. It is square footage of interest, but not GFA. Boardmember Baltay confirmed it was accurate to say that the school is increasing the size of its academic facilities substantially with the buildings. Otherwise, why would they do this? Ms. French said that the amount of below grade sf is increased, but the above grade sf is decreased from current conditions. Boardmember Baltay asked if it was viable for the ARB to suggest a tree security deposit. 5.a Packet Pg. 124 Page 11 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Peter Gollinger, Acting Urban Forester, stated it was something they could do. It has been done on many other projects and was already included in the original draft Conditions of Approval (CoA) from Urban Forestry. Boardmember Baltay inquired about the scope of the process. Mr. Gollinger said it was for specific trees, which are itemized. He believed it covered all the protected trees that would be potentially impacted or moved. Generally, 150% of the value of the tree is held in reserve. The applicant submits an annual tree report detailing the health of the trees and there are benchmarks that must be met. At the end of the monitoring program if the tree is in good health the deposit is refunded. He did not know the length of the agreement without looking at the CoA. Boardmember Baltay asked about the length of the monitoring program and the valuation process. Mr. Gollinger explained that the valuation was determined by standards laid out in the Guide for Plant Appraisal put out by the (International Society of Arboriculture) ISA and is specified in the Tree Technical Manual. Generally, for these projects the City has used 150% of the value. Other municipalities are using up to 200%, but Palo Alto has not done so previously. Generally, the time period is three to five years after completion of construction. He would have to review the draft CoA to determine the exact length for this project. Boardmember Baltay requested a ballpark valuation of Tree #89. Mr. Gollinger could not provide that number without further work. Boardmember Baltay indicated he wanted to know if they were talking about $1,000 or $10,000. He wanted a sense of how realistic the plan was. Mr. Gollinger apologized for being unable to provide the number. Boardmember Baltay asked if the tree deposits were common in Palo Alto. Mr. Gollinger said that Palo Alto does them, but he had not been involved in the setup of any. The most recent one was set up and monitored by his predecessor, Walter Passmore. Boardmember Baltay thanked Mr. Gollinger. He asked the architect to explain the changes made to the Kellogg elevation since the March 8, 2021, presentation to Council. Mr. Woltag stated that since the presentation to Council there were no changes to the façade design. The changes recapped earlier were the ones recommended by the ARB in Fall 2020. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that the changes were made before the drawings that Council requested changes on. Mr. Woltag said that was correct. Chair Thompson followed up by asking if there were any changes since the ARB approved the plan. Mr. Woltag said that the changes that were shared earlier were recommended and approved by the ARB. 5.a Packet Pg. 125 Page 12 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Chair Thompson confirmed Boardmember Baltay was finished with his questions and then called on Boardmember Hirsch. Boardmember Hirsch said he had no questions. Chair Thompson asked the applicant if the pool shift would happen regardless of the parking options. Mr. Woltag explained that the pool shift was in the response Option E with the (below grade) parking the same as in Options A and B. Chair Thompson said that there were discussions about the benefit to the trees from the shift of the pool. So, if an alternate parking suggestion happened she asked if the pool shift would happen independently for the other benefits. Mr. Woltag said that the pool shift was about preserving Tree #155. They are linked together. Chair Thompson clarified that the original proposal had a ramp going down and in the new proposal the garbage truck would be on grade and back out. Mr. Woltag stated that was correct. They would have to move all the services from below grade to surface to save Tree #155 because of the eliminated access ramp. The pool shift further protects Tree #89. Chair Thompson referenced Sheet AB808 Section Detail and requested dimension clarification on the wall near the pool. Mr. Woltag said the wall is 6 feet high. Chair Thompson noted that the person included for scale seems very tall. Mr. Woltag said they would adjust that. Ms. French said that Drawing AB808 did not contain the fence referenced by Mr. Woltag. Chair Thompson shared her screen and pointed out the dimension she was requesting. Mr. Woltag said that there may be a graphic issue, but that he understood the fence was 6 feet tall. Ms. French directed Mr. Woltag to the text on the page and questioned some language, but the misunderstanding was resolved. Ms. Romanowsky asked to address Boardmember Baltay’s and Chair Thompson’s questions on the massing. Chair Thompson clarified that she was addressing the Kellogg façade. Ms. Romanowsky explained that they took City Council direction to heart. Over the past 8 months they have reviewed the City Council Motion and tried to follow it. The Council moved that the matter be remanded to the ARB to reconsider massing. They did not make changes since it was remanded to the ARB. They are open to feedback on the massing. 5.a Packet Pg. 126 Page 13 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Chair Thompson thanked her for the clarification. She ended the questions portion of the discussion and called for Boardmember comments. Boardmember Hirsch was very impressed with the detail and study of the tree issues and commended the experts for their work. Castilleja is the most complex project the ARB has been asked to review due to the neighborhood, natural setting, and historical relevance. There are four major design decisions the school has made which will shape the future and their relationship to the neighborhood. The last evaluation focused on the aesthetics of the façades, but they should have deferred the evaluation and taken a broader view that looked at the commitments the school was making. The first priority is the school program which incorporates all classrooms, faculty, and dining facilities into one building that fills the whole site. Because of the low scale neighborhood, the planned expansion of the program and the zoning limitations the one building concept had to fit into three stories. The second decision was to strengthen and define the center courtyard space. The scheme separates the new structure from the historic 1926 existing buildings. The third decision was the selection of a design palette or modulation of the building’s forms for the entire façade. The next decision was to commit to the neighborhood and relieve them of the burden of the parking issue. Several the speakers mentioned that the parking was on grade. Castilleja decided to locate staff parking below grade in an area limited by several factors including significant trees at the border of Embarcadero Road. The Council has focused on this issue and expects the ARB to consider it. The ARB findings under CoA state that they must protect the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The education building program requires a three story structure with one story below grade. There are more classrooms and educational spaces on the lower level than there are on each of the two above grade floors. Most of the classrooms will be devoid of natural light and ventilation. Based on ARB findings all projects must create desirable environment and therefore they are obligated to recommend that the designers rectify the omission. The height of the building was limited to 30 feet, but 33 feet is the acceptable maximum height allowed by zoning. A basement can be an additional three feet above grade. If the building were raised by three feet there could be high windows in many of the basement classrooms. The code allows 30% of the perimeter to have light wells. For the ARB to ignore the opportunity to remedy this situation would be a dereliction of duty. In the past the ARB did not consider the issue and he felt strongly that they should. The center courtyard surrounded by building walls designed with a consistent architectural language would be a major improvement. The decks are also wonderful possibilities to modulate the space of the courtyard and for users to enjoy. The ARB would be remiss if they did not comment on the AstroTurf as the centerpiece. He asked if it was a meaningful symbol in a pluralistic society. He thought it would be better to fill the circle with different scaled activity areas that may permit class gatherings, extracurricular meetings, etcetera. This could be an exciting design challenge for the project team. He noted that was only a suggestion. The third and fourth design priorities, the parking garage and building modulation seem like separate elements, but they are related. If the garage were exclusively used for teachers and staff parking it would function efficiently and there would be no need for the TDM. The two entry lanes could be one and the additional at grade parking spaces could be reworked to avoid the visitors having to cross a traffic lane for the garage entry and to maintain similarity to its current condition. That would respond better to ARB Finding #5 and for ease and safety of pedestrian traffic. If the present two lane drop off scheme is retained then 50% of the parking garage for teachers is unusable from 8:00 to 8:30 a.m. He asked where the teachers would park during this period. Students are dropped off in traffic lanes in the garage and must cross one or more traffic lanes with a long 5.a Packet Pg. 127 Page 14 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 walk to the classroom. The ARB must question this under Finding #4. A proper analysis requires considering an alternate scheme for the student drop off line and the garage should be exclusively for teachers and staff. Without the student drop off the pedestrian access to and from the garage could be simplified and more amenities could be provided. The space saving would likely allow an increase in parking and fulfill Council’s tree preservation objectives. Relocating the drop off and pickup area may impact the neighborhood, but that is reasonable. Currently all pickup and drop off occurs on Bryant and is extremely congested. Kellogg is a significantly better location for drop off and pickup for multiple reasons. The entire building could be moved to increase the setback on Kellogg. The result would be a generous drop off/pickup area that is safe and efficient. The garage operation plan notes that the drop off and pickup take approximately 30 minutes. Students who bike or take other modes of transportation can enter or exit from other streets. Handicapped students could enter at Bryant Street. The architectural benefit of the altered scheme is the improvement to the length of the Kellogg façade. The interior façade has vastly improved, but the Kellogg façade has not. The new entry off Kellogg would allow for two or three discrete building volumes instead of one long structure. That was the directive both by the ARB and by Council. He repeated that locating the pickup and drop off on Kellogg is important to allow for convenient and safe entry to the midpoint of the school building while using the breaks in the façade to divide the building into volumes. He also noted that major facilities need a back door and service location. Placing it in a cellar ramp is not a good idea. The entry on Emerson needs to be an elegant entry and the landscaping is more important to move into the campus center. Where the vans are stored is behind tree cover and screened from neighborhood views. That is also a more appropriate area for a service entry. He understood that conflicted with the vans, but the service entry is not dealt with well in the new scheme and should be reconsidered. The transformer location needs further study due to noise and is not appropriate in the current location. Where the transformer is located is where the deliveries should be made to the building. If there needs to be a subcellar it should be under that part of the facility with an elevator to grade for access. Chair Thompson started to speak. Boardmember Hirsch indicated he was almost finished. He thought there were four principal items that he wants revised: 1) a program with a proper concern for base room classroom natural light and air, 2) the courtyard with more creative functional use of the design, 3) the Kellogg elevation with separate discreet building elements, and 4) the garage used exclusively for teachers and staff and surface area improvements and relocation of the vans. If those items are properly answered he would vote to move the project forward. He preferred the school to resolve the issues and for the ARB to leave the detailed façade considerations till later. Chair Thompson called for the next comment. Boardmember Baltay asked for Boardmember Lew’s findings related to his research. Boardmember Lew noted that he would be stepping down from the ARB in the next week and would not be around for future hearings on the project. He supports the staff’s recommended Parking Option E to save Tree #155. He was concerned about the trash being at grade and the acoustic wall. The long fence is a concern and not interesting. He is not opposed to Option D. Exceeding the 50% maximum set by the Council is workable and it does seem to be better to have the services underground with the additional 5.a Packet Pg. 128 Page 15 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 ramp. He did not have comments on the phasing other than it is shorter and better. He preferred not to have students at a construction site. There are also more impacts to the neighbors if the school is functioning during construction. Regarding the massing, he watched the Council meeting and noted that Council Member Burt was concerned about the 400 foot long façade. Accordingly, he rereviewed the decisions and recommendations made by the ARB. He normally preferred portals or breaks in the building, but due to the Kellogg neighbor’s concerns about noise he thought it was better the building was solid. Several Stanford buildings have portals and he looked at them. They vary a lot and are necessary for circulation. Castilleja does not have that need. The quality of the spaces is not great or conducive to students spending time together. He referenced the Packard Foundation in Los Altos which is a similar style to the proposed Castilleja building and explained its layout. He found the building “comfortable looking” and thought it would fit in the neighborhood. The proposed Castilleja project has similar dimensions, so he is comfortable with it. Previously Boardmember Baltay mentioned more variation in the roof and cornices, which he thought was difficult considering the height limit and the photovoltaics. If they want to do anything there it will require a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) or a variance. He also considered JLS and Fairmeadow as they are in residential areas and those façades are 300 and 500 feet long respectively. The key is that they have windows on the street to add interest. With façade design he is looking for windows and variation, benches and places to sit, and lighting all along the street. The landscaping looks good. The windows and wood are good. Improvements can still be made on the Embarcadero frontage. Boardmember Baltay thanked Boardmember Lew. With the parking Option E is the best choice because it does the best job of saving trees. The ARB must follow the City Council advice. City Council negotiated a political agreement that 50% underground parking is appropriate. Once a person accepts that fact Option E is the logical choice. He also supported Boardmember Hirsch’s comments about the drop off and pickup process. The proposed location in the underground garage will not function well and the current drop off on Bryant Street is too congested. The only long term solution is to utilize the Kellogg frontage. However, that issue is beyond ARB purview, so he just wanted to mention his thoughts. He thought parents would attempt to avoid the garage. If the drop off is moved to Kellogg then a portal on that façade would make more sense. He requested additional detail on how the new service areas would function. He noted that when trucks back up they emit a loud beeping noise which would be unacceptable to the neighborhood. Those details need to be worked out. Regarding tree preservation Option E is ideal. He supported the idea of the tree preservation security deposit and that could be left to staff to plan; 150% seems to be a good amount, but 200% may be better. He requested a ballpark figure for the security deposits and noted that some contractors prefer to pay the fines than deal with the hassle of protecting a tree. The current phasing plan for the project is correct; putting the students on top of a newly built garage made sense. Requiring the school to relocate off campus is beyond what he saw as reasonable but moving the students to the middle of the circle would increase the length of time and safety risks and is also not a good idea. His biggest issue remained the massing along Kellogg. He asked if Ms. French could show Elevation Slide #16. Chair Thompson asked if Boardmember Baltay preferred the shorter phasing scheme. Boardmember Baltay repeated he liked the middle scheme. He thought it was listed at 34 months. He thought that was what the ARB originally recommended and saw no cause to change it. He thanked Ms. 5.a Packet Pg. 129 Page 16 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 French for displaying the elevation. The issue he has is one of compatibility with the residential neighborhood. The façade is too long and not residential looking relative to the neighborhood. He was distressed that the applicant made no changes. Five and a half years is a long time, but the applicant is not helping its cause when the City Council asks them to address something and they do not. The consistent flat height of the roof does not work and must be modulated. He appreciated the challenges but wanted to see more effort from the architects. The same applies to the trim band at the middle level. It is a nice idea, but it does not work on this building. With the fenestration anyone would say that the windows do not help at a macro level. They do not help separate the buildings or reduce the sense of a 400 foot long façade. It is not sufficient that the design is better than what is there, it must be the best it can be and more compatible with the neighborhood. The project can be improved. Chair Thompson recognized Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee thanked Ms. French, Chair Thompson, and the ARB for their work with the applicant to move the project forward in a positive way. She also thanked the community for attending multiple meetings and being engaged. She also appreciated the Council and PTC for their thoughts and direction. The ARB provides recommendations to Council as experts in their fields and spends time with each application. She thanked the applicant for five and a half years of work. The site and neighborhood are beautiful, and Palo Alto wants this to be a meaningful project. The ARB has specific findings to meet and there are some challenges. Council remanded the project to the ARB for additional direction. She recalled that the ARB saw the project in November 2020 and spent a lot of time with the applicant requesting revisions. There was a break in the Kellogg façade and other discussions that went back and forth. She did not believe there was a need for refinement or modification in the massing. She is pleased with the refinement of the elevation. She felt strongly that no further modification or adjustments are needed to Kellogg. The material palette and the setbacks that exist with the preserved landscape and trees are wonderful. She is a strong proponent of the project. With respect to tree preservation and protections she had the utmost confidence in staff and Urban Forestry. She supported standard draft conditions like those used on other projects of this size. There has been a huge effort in protection measures, well beyond what the ARB had previously requested. She is comfortable with the tree preservation and protections cited in the packet. Regarding construction phasing, she agreed with Boardmember Baltay. She has been on campuses and at schools where they use the portable classrooms, and it is feasible. What the ARB previously approved remains her recommendation for the way forward. Boardmember Lew made comments about the fence, its length, and some landscaping opportunities and she thought that was something to explore. The acoustical fence along the pool is fine as presented. She appreciated Option E for preserving the trees and supported that option; however, Option D with more underground parking makes sense. Given the remand and the Council requesting the 50% Option E is the direction to go. Underground parking and a parking garage at the site are not negatives in her opinion. The underground parking and modernization of the school go hand in hand. She appreciated being able to review the application. Chair Thompson thanked the ARB, applicant, and staff. She also supported Option E but had concerns about the truck delivery. The long acoustic wall is not visually represented in the packet since it was a late addition. When the applicant returns they should include the information. She was concerned that it was very long and did not have enough visual interest. She suggested landscaping or using a material like that 5.a Packet Pg. 130 Page 17 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 which is proposed to surround the transformer. She agreed with Boardmember Hirsch that the transformer might be noisy and could require an acoustic fence. Boardmember Hirsch stated the fence was there. Chair Thompson clarified that it was a different fence. She was open to a different location for the transformer, but if it does stay in that position it needs mitigation measures. For the building façade she agreed with Vice Chair Lee. The changes the applicant made since the last round of recommendations are sufficient to mitigate the façade. She watched the City Council meeting and heard the comment about the long façade. She shared her screen and demonstrated the breaks in the façade. She disagreed with the comments on the rooflines. Changing the roofline interrupts the design intent and she wanted to emphasize that there were many breaks and voids in the façade. The applicant was very responsive to previous ARB comments. The material choice makes a large difference and she stressed there was more complexity to the project than a giant façade. There is a lot of in and out and nuance. The façade is sufficient in her opinion. If there is a desire to push it she would like to keep it in the parti. She did not want random roofs that do not relate to the overall design. She was pleased with the changes made to protect trees. She could support either construction period. She looked at the subcommittee items that were open from the last meeting and noted that many were addressed. She listed several and noted their resolution was acceptable. The items not fully addressed were related to the lighting plan so the applicant should review that prior to the next City meeting. The applicant was also asked to consider a transparent sound barrier at the Kellogg balcony. That is a considerate suggestion, but she thought it would damage the façade. She asked the applicant to focus on the Bryant Street elevation before they returned. She called for discussion or response to comments. Ms. French clarified that the acoustic wall was along Emerson, not Bryant. Chair Thompson agreed that she had meant to say Emerson. Ms. French said that she wanted a clear Motion from the ARB. If there can be direction that would be preferable to staff. Vice Chair Lee commented that the Council had asked for the ARB opinion on the construction phasing. She felt portable classrooms in the circle was not a proper direction. She noted that moving forward she and Boardmember Lew would not be on the ARB so she suggested if there would be an ad hoc subcommittee that it should consist of two Boardmembers who have seen the project historically. It benefits the process to have people involved who understand the history and community engagement. Chair Thompson stated that she heard support from four Boardmembers for Option E. She asked if Boardmember Hirsch supported Option E as well. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to make further comments. He felt that maximizing the underground parking was the objective and there is a conflict between the easement, trees, above grade parking. There is not total agreement on the idea of making Kellogg Street the main campus entrance for the pickup/drop off. He thought it would be important to include that in a Motion. With the drop off changed there would be a change in the parking design. He felt the project needed to return to the ARB with a capacity and if the Council insists on 50% then that is what should be used. The extra space that might be allowed if the 5.a Packet Pg. 131 Page 18 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 parking were decreased could be used for a better egress from the garage to the open space above. That should also be mentioned in the Motion. If the garbage pickup were moved then the fence was not necessary. The garbage could be accessed off the present location for van storage. That area needs more study. He disagreed that there should be fencing or other visual limitation at the Emerson entry to the courtyard. The van issue is a conflict as the proposed area could be the service area instead. Nobody discussed the basement classrooms, which are 20 out of a total of 26. They have no natural light or ventilation from the outside. He did not see how the ARB could approve a building with cellar classrooms, but no other Boardmember mentioned it. He put it to the parents to consider. There are possible alternatives to improve the classrooms as he previously discussed and that should be studied. Boardmember Lew mentioned that he had said there should be a break in the building. He thought there could be two breaks and they do not have to be passageways to the center, but rather an entry point to the property. The breaks are the things that could be of a completely different nature. They could be glassier, or the top floor could be setback. The Kellogg façade needs to be restudied. What the ARB suggested created a modest change but did not break up the volume appropriately. He was concerned that the vans were never discussed and were scattered throughout the site. The idea of the garage was to put vehicles below grade. The housing sites might be a better location since they are part of the campus. They could be used for van storage and to create a backdoor entrance to the courtyard. He was sorry to hear that his fellow Boardmembers were not focusing on the fact that there are classrooms in a cellar with no windows. Ms. French apologized for interrupting and indicated she needed to make some corrections. The classrooms have light and ventilation, and the applicant could share that information. Boardmember Hirsch stated he would like to hear from the applicant. Ms. French asked if the architect was able to describe light and ventilation. Mr. Woltag said that he appreciated Boardmember Hirsch bringing up the subject. He explained that the plan was covered previously at prior meetings. He stressed that not all classrooms are the same. Some are for music and other subjects which would benefit from acoustic separation from the rest of the environment. Sometimes they have to fight the light or sound in above-grade classrooms, and it is better for the subject to be taught bellow grade. These are the reasons why the applicant team wanted to locate those classrooms below grade. Some of the acoustics from those classrooms might bother the neighborhood if above grade. They did have lots of consideration about day lighting. Per Boardmember Hirsch’s suggesting there is clerestoried lighting along the Kellogg Street elevation. There are also skylights to bring daylight to the common spaces and lounge spaces in the lower level. They have completed daylight analysis and feel very strongly that the spaces will be wonderful. The rooms do not feel like they are in a cellar and there are many places with views to the outdoors. He agreed with Boardmember Hirsch that lighting was extremely important and noted that the design focused on making the lower level classrooms great places to be. Boardmember Hirsch asked to see the drawings. Mr. Woltag said he was looking for the drawings and would try to pull them up. 5.a Packet Pg. 132 Page 19 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Boardmember Hirsch said that from what he could see approximately 20 of the classrooms did not have either skylights or light wells. Chair Thompson suggested they hold their comments until they saw the applicant’s drawings. Ms. French said that Boardmember Hirsch mentioned using the two residential parcels for something other than the homes that are there. That was a contentious part of the prior application design. The homes are not part of the campus, they are part of the housing pattern on the street and neighborhood. The neighbors very much want the houses retained. She would not want to go backwards on the issue because its resolution took a while. Boardmember Hirsch said he understood that the neighbors wanted that, but the school has a need. To not use the properties as needed for the school did not make sense to him as the school has property rights. Chair Thompson noted that Urban Forestry had raised their hand. Mr. Gollinger explained he wanted to address Boardmember Baltay’s question. The ballpark appraisal for Tree #89 would be approximately $50,000 so the security deposit would be $75,000. He stressed the number was not official, only an estimate. The public had also asked if Urban Forestry had officially signed off on the project and they have not. They have accepted and approved the Arborist’s Report which was submitted by Dudek and are close to consolidating the conditions of approval. They have not officially signed off on the project yet. Chair Thompson thanked Mr. Gollinger for the clarification. Ms. French said that regarding the reimagining of the drop off/pickup line, involves the Tire Index, queuing, and other issues. If the ARB gives that direction it brings up a whole host of environmental review items. Vice Chair Lee stated she did not have any requests for further study of the drop off/pickup area. She asked Ms. French to clarify what was needed from the hearing. She thought they were just commenting on the project and that a summary would be provided to the applicant. Ms. French said that members leaving the ARB is a factor. She would appreciate getting an understanding from the current ARB on the project since it had worked on the project for two years. Straw polls or voting on site planning and Option E would be helpful. She suggested Chair Thompson run through all Items A through F. Chair Thompson said that the first item was the overall site planning refinements. That includes the new location for the transformer and stair. She called for a straw poll on those items. Vice Chair Lee said yes. Boardmember Lew said yes. Boardmember Baltay said he was in favor of those items and suggested that he heard an impassioned plea from Boardmember Hirsch to study the project at a higher level. He asked if the ARB could vote on 5.a Packet Pg. 133 Page 20 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 whether to pursue those issues for the record. He respected Boardmember Hirsch’s opinions but noted the ARB could not continue to argue the same items over and over. Chair Thompson explained she planned to take a straw poll. Boardmember Baltay supported that plan. Chair Thompson asked for Boardmember Hirsch’s vote on the original straw poll on the relocation of the stair and the transformer location. Boardmember Hirsch voted no and then requested clarification about which staircase they were speaking about. Chair Thompson explained it was the stair by the pool around Tree #9. Boardmember Hirsch said that he needed to change his vote. He voted yes on the relocation of the stair and no on the transformer. Chair Thompson said she wanted to redo the straw poll and split the items up. She asked if anyone wanted to change their vote on the transformer. Boardmember Baltay said he was amenable to moving it if there was a better place, but that he was also fine voting yes. Chair Thompson said that the majority of the ARB is fine with the two items as presented. Boardmember Hirsch suggested that they fatten the Kellogg pull in area and make it more prominent. She asked if that was correct. Boardmember Hirsch stated it was. Chair Thompson called for a straw poll on the issue. Vice Chair Lee was not in support. Boardmember Lew stated he was not clear on the issue. He recalled that there were no drop off plans in the initial schemes and then it was added back. Chair Thompson shared her screen and said the pull in area was added according to the comments made at the last ARB hearing. She showed the ARB how Boardmember Hirsch wanted the area widened and lengthened. Boardmember Lew said that Boardmember Hirsch had suggested running it down to Bryant, but that would not be possible due to the light well for the basement classrooms. Boardmember Hirsch said that was correct. Boardmember Lew said there were also existing trees and so he voted no on the straw poll. Boardmember Baltay abstained from the vote and repeated that Boardmember Hirsch was discussing a series of smaller items that lead to a redesign of the project. They could not take little pieces and straw 5.a Packet Pg. 134 Page 21 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 poll them because staff wants other issues addressed to finish their report. If the project is to be redesigned at a larger level then this could be part of that effort. Vice Chair Lee agreed with Boardmember Baltay and suggested straw polling the idea of a redesign. Further, she thought redesigning the project was incongruent with the ARB’s former approval. She did not feel comfortable going through the list. Chair Thompson thought a straw poll on a general redesign was too vague. She asked for a suggestion. Boardmember Baltay suggested Boardmember Hirsch could make a Motion of what he would like to see redesigned and see if he could get a second. Chair Thompson said she had a list of the items Boardmember Hirsch wanted to redesign which she would go through. Boardmember Baltay suggested Boardmember Hirsch make the Motion and cluster the items as he saw fit. If he could get a second then there would be a vote. If the Motion fails then the matter is put to rest. Vice Chair Lee said she was fine with going through Chair Thompson’s list. Boardmember Hirsch said he would be happy to make his own request. Chair Thompson said he was welcome to but thought he would get more support item by item. Boardmember Baltay suggested Boardmember Hirsch hear the list. Chair Thompson said that the items were Kellogg Drive, the clear story, raising the height of the building, and Option E. Boardmember Hirsch said the first one was to relocate the drop off/pickup area from the garage to the Kellogg Street side of the building. He had not voiced an opinion on it, but the phasing issue needed to be addressed. He was in favor of the school moving off site during construction for all the reasons mentioned by other people. It is unacceptable to have the children in the construction zone. Chair Thompson indicated that she had only listed the items Boardmember Hirsch brought up. She did have a longer list including the other issues. Boardmember Hirsch suggested they return to her list. Chair Thompson said that she would revisit the idea of making the Kellogg drive in larger. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to focus on that and making Kellogg the drop off/pickup spot. Chair Thompson called for the straw poll. Vice Chair Lee voted no. Boardmember Lew voted no. Boardmember Baltay supported the idea. 5.a Packet Pg. 135 Page 22 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Chair Thompson indicated she was a no and the straw poll failed. The next item for straw poll was the preferred parking layout Option E, as proposed. Vice Chair Lee supported Option E and asked if Chair Thompson would review the other options. Chair Thompson said no. Vice Chair Lee said she would support Option E or Option D. Chair Thompson indicated that Boardmembers were welcome to state other preferences in their comments. Boardmember Lew said he felt the same as Vice Chair Lee. Boardmember Baltay also agreed with Vice Chair Lee. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Vice Chair Lee as well. Chair Thompson stated she also agreed. The ARB could support Options D or E. Only one Boardmember discussed the roof deck changes to the plan. She asked if the ARB supported the change. Vice Chair Lee was in support as presented. Boardmember Lew voted yes. Boardmember Baltay stated he would like to see further changes to the cornice design. Chair Thompson clarified she was polling on the roof deck change. The applicant removed gross footage. Boardmember Baltay stated he was in favor. Boardmember Hirsch was in favor. Chair Thompson indicated she was also in favor. The next item is the Kellogg façade length and if the applicant should be encouraged to change what was previously approved. Vice Chair Lee did not desire any modification. Boardmember Lew supported additional modifications. Chair Thompson asked if there was anything specific he wanted. Boardmember Lew explained his vote was just generally supporting the Council’s direction. Boardmember Baltay said he supported further refinements to the Kellogg design. Boardmember Hirsch supported making changes to Kellogg’s elevation. Chair Thompson stated she did not support changes, but that changes won the straw poll. She asked the ARB what kind of changes they wanted the applicant to explore. 5.a Packet Pg. 136 Page 23 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Boardmember Lew said he was comfortable with the dimensions but was open to changes in the cornice line. He thought the middle portion of the building was a bit muddled and could be better. He thought he was in the middle on the issue but leaned toward making changes since that was Council’s direction. Boardmember Baltay thought there were three items to work on. First, the cornice line on the roof. Second, to question the trim band down the middle. Third, the fenestration patterning seems too consistent. At a higher level he did not think it was healthy for the ARB to have “camps” on the project. With new members coming in the applicant deserves feedback to act on. He wanted to be clear on the few things he wanted to see changed. The building has an elegant design and he agreed with Boardmember Lew’s assessment that the massing has been broken up sufficiently. The pieces will be okay. The material selections are wonderful. He just wanted the school to be more contextually compatible. Currently it is not compatible with the neighborhood so something must change. He asked Chair Thompson and Vice Chair Lee to consider the concept of compatibility so that they could give the applicant direction that the entire ARB could support. The project deserves to move forward. Vice Chair Lee said she was going to ask Boardmember Lew if he wanted to change his straw poll vote because it seemed as though he was conflicted. Council requested they look at the façade again, but he did not really have any comments. That could be seen as a vote on the other side. Secondly, there are no sides in the ARB. She felt that the design as presented and approved previously by the ARB was compatible with the neighborhood. Chair Thompson said that she was not trying to create division in the ARB and welcomed a debate. In one of the first presentations the applicant did for the ARB there was a diagram showing the elevation of the streetscape and used that to inform the rhythms of the new building. That was one of the most convincing diagrams she had seen about how the project is contextual. She asked why other Boardmembers felt it was not contextual. She thought there was a rhythm that felt small scale and made the façade nice. Vice Chair Lee thought it was clear where each Boardmember stood with their comments other than Boardmember Lew. Maybe it was enough to say that the ARB was split 3-2 on the issue. Boardmember Baltay said that ordinarily he would agree with Vice Chair Lee, but as Boardmember Lew was stepping down that leaves the applicant in an awkward position. Vice Chair Lee said that maybe Boardmember Lew needed to speak. Boardmember Hirsch said that he agreed with a lot of what Chair Thompson and Vice Chair Lee were saying, but that the distinction between the volumes was not strong enough. Chair Thompson asked specifically how it should be strengthened. Boardmember Hirsch said that the entry on the left was weak. The reality of what would happen is not just the outside of the building and he accepted that. The building was pretty well done above grade. The definition of the separation of the volume does not work with the entry on the left. The building needs work, but otherwise the texture is residential in feel and the window patterning works well. It does not emphasize the two in between entry points. He was not thrilled with the roofline and requested to see how the building would look at dusk. The façade should not be dramatized like the center courtyard. 5.a Packet Pg. 137 Page 24 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Ms. French suggested the applicant show the compatibility study. That was last shown in August 2020. Chair Thompson said that she would like to know if Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Baltay wanted to see it. Boardmember Hirsch said he would like to see it. Boardmember Baltay agreed. Mr. Woltag said that he found the presentation Chair Thompson had referenced and shared his screen. He explained it was previously presented. They walked through the neighborhood and took in the variety of the residences. There is a variety of materials, eaves, window sizes, and setbacks. The residences form a fabric that does not have a hierarchy of a grand gesture. They wanted to reflect that back on the longest façade of the project, Kellogg street. He displayed the diagrams they used to inform the design. He showed the ARB how the façade of the building overlaid the neighborhood context diagram. The façade meets the street with variation. There are eave and parapet conditions, there are outdoor balconies and garden spaces that they believe define a variety of conditions on Kellogg. Chair Thompson requested Mr. Woltag go back to the previous slide. Mr. Woltag showed the slide titled “Neighborhood Context.” Chair Thompson told Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Baltay that this was the parti diagram she had referred to and had remembered seeing. Boardmember Baltay did not find the diagram convincing as it was not the way the neighborhood was perceived; it was a clever graphic. He did not find it to be the context. Chair Thompson said that it was the parti, the design intent, not the context. If the ARB is going to suggest façade changes then it needs to be part of the parti. Boardmember Baltay pointed out that the second story plate line was dead flat over the length of the blocks. That is what is not true in the context and is what he objected to on the project. It should not all appear to be the same height. Chair Thompson said that she could not agree because she thought the façade was in response to the context. The context has the variation, and the façade is a calm, flat thing in the sea of varied heights. Boardmember Hirsch said that the applicant could raise the roofline and make breaks in the one long line. He thought that was what the Council Member was most concerned about. One could take the interior plan and express it differently on the outside and that would give variety and be more like the neighborhood. Vice Chair Lee requested the applicant show a 3D perspective and material palette. She did not want to continue the debate, only to point out that the ARB had approved the elevation. There was a lot of agreement in the past meetings. She again asked to hear from Boardmember Lew as it was clear how the other four Boardmembers felt and that would give Ms. French, the applicant, and the community direction. Then the ARB could move forward. 5.a Packet Pg. 138 Page 25 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Chair Thompson agreed. Mr. Woltag showed several slides illustrating the variation. He said it is not a consistent eave line across the whole façade. Chair Thompson showed the elevation. Mr. Woltag said that the eave line is not experienced in the elevation as it is broken multiple times across the length of Kellogg. There are openings that go through the whole façade. Elevations do not tell the whole story. Vice Chair Lee thought that was helpful and that everyone had given their thoughts on compatibility and context. She felt strongly that no modifications were needed. Chair Thompson asked if Boardmember Lew would like to speak. Boardmember Lew said he had nothing further to add. The project will be sent back to the Council, so they need to reexamine all the items again. There is room for improvement on the façade, but he had no specific recommendations. There are several issues with the height. Sending the project back to the Council as-is is not the correct decision. Chair Thompson said that they might need to meet with the Council to understand its concerns. She stated that the ARB seemed split on the issue, but many helpful comments were made. She called for a straw poll on Boardmember Hirsch’s recommendation to make the building taller and have more clerestory windows. She asked if that had support. Vice Chair Lee did not support it. Boardmember Lew supported it. Boardmember Baltay thought that was possibly a good idea. Boardmember Hirsch supported it. Chair Thompson said that she would support it if the applicant wanted to do it. She called a straw poll on if the ARB was pleased with the changes to the tree preservation protections. Vice Chair Lee supported it. Boardmember Lew supported it. Boardmember Baltay wanted to see the tree security deposit set at 200% replacement value and supported the changes. Boardmember Hirsch was very much in support of the changes made to protect the trees. Chair Thompson indicated her support. The next straw poll was related to the construction phasing. The middle length scheme of 34 months and the shorter scheme of 26 months were mentioned. She noted that the 34 month scheme was not in the packet and asked if it was still viable. 5.a Packet Pg. 139 Page 26 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Ms. French said that the 34-month was the project the ARB previously reviewed related to Speiker Field. The other options from the project are the 58 months in the circle and the off-site option of 26 months. Chair Thompson called for a straw poll on if the ARB supported 26 or 34 months. Ms. French added that the 34 month scheme was analyzed in the EIR. Vice Chair Lee supported the 34 month scheme. She did not see the proposal for 26 months. Chair Thompson explained that was where the students would be off site for the duration. Vice Chair Lee said there was no site or other context provided. If the applicant wanted to pursue going off campus she could support that as well. Otherwise, she deferred to what was previously reviewed. Boardmember Lew shared Vice Chair Lee’s opinion but held a slight preference for 26 months. Boardmember Baltay shared Vice Chair Lee’s opinion. Boardmember Hirsch preferred the 26-month plan to expedite the construction but would accept the 34 months if it was the only possibility. Chair Thompson agreed with Boardmembers Hirsch and Lew. She could accept either timeline but preferred 26 months. That concluded her list of straw polls. She called for further discussion and asked staff if they had enough direction. Ms. French indicated that she thought they did and appreciated the effort of the straw poll. Chair Thompson asked if the applicant had any questions. Ms. French thanked the ARB, applicant, public, and consultants. Chair Thompson also thanked everyone and closed the item. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Thompson called for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) report. Ms. Gerhardt said that NVCAP was removed as there should be no further updates. Chair Thompson remembered that they did not continue the prior item to a date uncertain and called for a Motion. MOTION: Vice Chair Lee moved, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch, to continue 1310 Bryant Street (Castilleja School) to a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED: 4-1 Chair Thompson asked if Boardmember Baltay wanted to speak to his no vote. 5.a Packet Pg. 140 Page 27 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 12/2/2021 Boardmember Baltay felt that the ARB was doing the applicant a disservice by not providing them more solutions. The four Boardmembers who will still be on the ARB when the project returns have not compromised internally enough to give the applicant a fair description of what they need to do. The result will be that the applicant will look to the new Boardmember for answers, especially with respect to massing and façade design. That was not appropriate, and the group should compromise and find something that they could all support rather than continuing an already drawn out process. Chair Thompson said that was a good point. She stated that Boardmember Baltay and the rest of the ARB want to be helpful. She took notes on the items discussed and what could be improved and assumed the applicant would take them into account. Boardmember Baltay did not want to be publicly critical of Chair Thompson and Vice Chair Lee, but neither suggested modifications to the façade along Kellogg. By doing so they refused to compromise. City Council asked the ARB to compromise, and he was disappointed they did not put out a possible solution. If changes have to be made they should tell the applicant where they think they could reach consensus. Vice Chair Lee said that she respected (interrupted) Jonathan Lait, Director of Planning and Development Services, apologized for interrupting and stated that the hearing was continued, and debate was over. It was appropriate to give Boardmember Baltay time to voice his dissenting perspective and it was time to move on. The item was closed. Boardmember Baltay apologized for continuing the debate. Chair Thompson asked if there was an NVCAP update as it was on her agenda. Boardmember Lew said he was not aware of any updates and the item could be removed from the agenda. Ms. Gerhardt said it was taken off the digital agenda but may have stayed on the paper version. Adjournment Chair Thompson adjourned the meeting. Ms. Gerhardt stated the next meeting would be December 9, 2021. 5.a Packet Pg. 141 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 14029) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 2/17/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of January 20, 2022 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 20, 2022 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the January 20, 2022 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: • Attachment A: Minutes of January 20, 2022 (DOCX) 6 Packet Pg. 142 Page 1 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES: January 20, 2022 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Participating Remotely: Chair Osma Thompson, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch Absent: Chair Thompson stated that they would reorder the meeting and take Item 2, the recognition of Boardmembers Lee and Lew, first. 1. Recognition of Board Member Lew and Board Member Lee for Their Service with the Architectural Review Board. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, shared her screen with the group and displayed two plaques for Boardmembers Lee and Lew. Boardmember Lee’s entire terms of service are listed. She stated appreciation for the work done and time spent. Chair Thompson said it was great to learn from and watch Boardmember Lew. She stated that when she started on the ARB she really looked to his leadership. She hoped he would continue his participation as a member of the public. She was grateful for Boardmember Lee’s service, insights, and observations. She was also thankful for Boardmember Lee’s support as Vice Chair. Ms. Gerhardt explained the Boardmember Lew had been on the ARB her entire time with the City of Palo Alto. She appreciated his service and how he kept the history of the ARB. Boardmember Hirsch said that he wished the ARB could somehow maintain and share Boardmember Lew’s knowledge for the future. Boardmember Lew knows the history of Palo Alto and approached his research diligently and would be greatly missed. He stated that Vice Chair Lee often spoke before him on projects and left him with little to say. They have often thought alike and will be missed. Boardmember Baltay thanked both Boardmembers Lew and Lee for their service on the ARB. He stated it was both fun and frustrating, agreeable, and contrary, but always sincere, well informed, and frequently persuasive. He further thanked Boardmember Lee for always thanking applicants and being such a positive person. He thanked Boardmember Lew for always adding unexpected additional intelligence to the discussions. Boardmember Lew has always been friendly, humble, inspiring, and never personal about business. 6.a Packet Pg. 143 Page 2 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Amy French, Chief Planning Official, agreed with what had been said and gave her heartfelt thanks from the City and community to Boardmembers Lee and Lew. They both participated in three ARB Awards, and they could not have occurred without their many years of service. There were many projects made better by Boardmembers Lee and Lew. Chair Thompson stated that they would be missed and asked them to stay in contact through all channels. Former Vice Chair Lee requested she be allowed to speak. She wished to properly thank everyone and see them in person. It was wonderful to be a part of the ARB and she sincerely thanked everyone. It was wonderful working with Chair Baltay, Chair Thompson, and Boardmembers Hirsch and Lew for years. She appreciated everyone’s desire to improve Palo Alto and thanked them for their service. She also thanked Ms. French and Ms. Gerhardt and past staff. She looked forward to emailing and getting coffee with her former colleagues without worrying about the Brown Act. Former Boardmember Lew thanked everyone for their kind words. He is considering continuing to research projects and then presenting his findings to the ARB before their hearings, as a former member of the Historic Resources Board used to do. He left them with a Jane Jacobs quote that applies to Palo Alto, “Dull, inert cities, it is true, do contain the seeds of their own destruction and little else. But lively, diverse, intense cities contain the seeds of their own regeneration, with energy enough to carry over for problems and needs outside themselves.” The key is regeneration, and the ARB sees that. He trusted the City would continue to make great decisions. He also hoped to spend time with his former colleagues following the pandemic. Ms. Gerhardt thanked both Boardmembers Lee and Lew and stated that they would receive their plaques shortly. 2. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency Chair Thompson introduced the item and explained it needed to be voted on. Ms. Gerhardt explained the item would have to happen monthly to meet 100% virtually. Council has requested that they remain virtual through the end of February. Chair Thompson called for a Motion. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Chair Thompson, that the ARB adopt a resolution authorizing use of teleconferencing during the Covid-19 State of Emergency as presented. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. 6.a Packet Pg. 144 Page 3 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 City Official Reports 3. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, shared her screen with the ARB. They will remain virtual through the end of February 2022. Hybrid meetings could potentially start in March. 300 Pasteur is likely to be the only item at the next hearing. Action Items 4. Discuss Revision to Objective Design Standards based on Feedback from City Council. Chair Thompson introduced the item and explained that the ARB needed to review the Motion and then provide preliminary direction on three parts listed in the packet. Ms. Gerhardt said that the consultant, Jean Eisberg, was in attendance to present the topic. Then the ARB will review the City Council’s Motion. City Council requested the project go to the ARB and community for refinements. There are three specific items that the ARB needs to focus on. Jean Eisberg, Lexington Consulting, explained she planned to recap the progress on the project since the last ARB hearing on it. The three topics the City Council requested the ARB focus on were related to privacy standards, the menu of options, and height transition standards. The Objective Design project is to prepare objective design standards to regulate housing development projects that are eligible for streamlined review. The second part of the ordinance was to clarify ambiguities, remove redundancies, and other standards in Title 18. The ARB worked on the project in 2020 and 2021 as both a full board and a subcommittee comprised of Chair Thompson and Boardmember Hirsch. Following ARB actions in April 2021 the matter when to the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) and in June 2021 they approved the design standards. City Council met in the fall. Chair Thompson attended the PTC and City Council meetings and explained the ARB’s role. City Council appreciated the ARB’s work. The Council acted in November with a Motion that she planned to review. She provided a summary of the project’s schedule starting with a January 24th City Council meeting which will be followed by two community meetings and an additional Council meeting in March or April. The Council’s November Motion Item B. is about the applicability of the new design standards. The design standards and intent statements would only apply to the housing development projects undergoing streamlined review. Motion Item B. requires staff to return with a detailed matrix comparing the existing context based design criteria and the new design standards and intent statements. Motion Item B. II needs ARB feedback on privacy standards and their application near higher density districts. In Motion Item E. the Council requested two additional community meetings. Motion Item F. instructs them to look at increasing the number of required choices per category. Motion Item G. is both about the height transition and having heights based on existing lower residential buildings. Motion Item H. was about language and the remaining items were cleanup. Topic one is related to privacy and sight lines. She provided an excerpt from the design standards and a copy of the Motion. The purpose of the meeting is for the ARB to brainstorm what they may want to add in response to the Motion. She showed the existing context-based design criteria. Standards in the Municipal Code also impact sun and shade impacts, such as the daylight plane. In the draft design standards, it is proposed to prohibit balconies in the daylight plane, provides a glazing standard for the 6.a Packet Pg. 145 Page 4 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 lowest density districts, and requires tree planting and landscape minimums for projects adjacent to lower density districts. The ARB could consider expanding the standards and make the privacy intent statement more robust. She provided an example of an offset window standard. With the menu of options, the Motion said that in the building massing/façade sections, where there is a menu of choices, increase the number of required choices per category. Council was interested in having more articulation and “dressing up the box more.” She provided examples of additional options. The third issue is related to the changes in the height transition standard that is in the development standard tables, but they need the ARB’s perspective on the idea of a contextual height transition standard. State Law, particularly SB 330 prevents the City from downzoning. The draft ordinance should clear up the ambiguities related to the existing height standards. There will be a community meeting on February 1, 2022, which is a project overview and listening session. There will be another community meeting in March to give feedback on the February meeting and discuss the proposed changes to the standards based on the Council Motion and the ARB hearing. Staff recommends the ARB provide feedback on the key topics from the Council’s action, which she shared on her screen. Chair Thompson called for the public comment, but there was none. She called for ARB questions of staff. Boardmember Baltay requested clarification on if an applicant did not want to meet the objective standards if they could propose something different and have a subjective review. Ms. Eisberg stated that was correct. Instead of meeting the design standards and intent statements they would have to meet the context based design criteria as they currently stand. There would be up to three meetings with the ARB and would be subject to its findings. Boardmember Baltay said that a 15% restriction on a façade was significant. They were being conservative as a City to require that or push someone to a different level of review. Ms. Eisberg stated that was correct. If someone wanted to do 20% they would remove themselves from the objective standards route back to the context-based design review. Boardmember Baltay explained that his high level thinking was rather than trying to perfect it would be better to be more conservative so long as applicants had the option to move to the other review process. He was uncomfortable with limiting the percentage of glazing. Boardmember Hirsch was unsure how to respond and indicated it was hard to keep up with the staff and consultants since they have such a high level of expertise and experience. He looked at the Council’s concerns and appreciated that they wanted more options. Chair Thompson asked if Boardmember Hirsch had a question for staff. Boardmember Hirsch asked if this was a question period with time for detail later. Chair Thompson stated that was correct. Boardmember Hirsch said he would hold his comment. Chair Thompson planned to go through each item individually for discussion. 6.a Packet Pg. 146 Page 5 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Boardmember Hirsch understood the ARB needed to address the specific items and questioned how much further they would need to go today. He wondered if it was better to submit the project to the committee. Ms. Gerhardt said that since there was only a three member ARB it made sense to come to the entire board. They want to focus on the three items in the staff report. On privacy there needs to be a floor or the minimum amount they were willing to accept. If a project can meet all objective standards it must be approved so that privacy issue is key. Boardmember Hirsch said that if a project was next to a neighboring lower density zone then certain rules and regulations might make the project unable to be developed. He asked if that was a bad idea in transitional zoning. Ms. Eisberg said that State law says they cannot reduce the density of a zone or change development standards that would have the effect of reducing density before January 1, 2020. They cannot make development infeasible and would need to be cautious and demonstrate nuance. It is less about height and more about allowing density to happen. Boardmember Hirsch stated that restricted them to physical changes like privacy windows. Ms. Eisberg thought that the draft standards already prepared it already works, the 15% limitation could be restrictive. The project cannot be made infeasible. Chair Thompson said that if they were limiting upper windows then it may limit bedrooms, but those need access to light and air. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they could be restrictive to the point where the windows only open top down. Diffuse glass is only as good as where the window opens. Chair Thompson suggested they focus on privacy. She heard Boardmember Hirsch discuss the distance from the side yard and the daylight plane. They discussed clear story windows as an option. Boardmember Baltay said balconies effected privacy as well and asked how that factored into window glazing areas. Do they need to regulate balconies separately or are they satisfied with the glazed glass inside the balcony? Ms. Eisberg said that the glazed surface inside the balcony applied and there is a draft design standard that states you cannot have a balcony in the daylight plane. So, the balcony would have to face the street or a yard where the daylight plane did not apply. Boardmember Baltay stated that the daylight plane only applied to R1 and lower RM zones. Ms. Eisberg believed that the daylight plane applied to all lower density residential districts as well as the RM districts. Boardmember Hirsch suggested where there was a deep site there could be a long building that would not be allowed to have balconies due to the daylight plane. He thought they needed to address issues like that as irregular lots could lead to real issues. 6.a Packet Pg. 147 Page 6 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Ms. Eisberg said that they were pushing toward more open space at the ground level or courtyard in a C shape or donut. The Council was concerned about sightlines from upper balconies. Ms. Gerhardt clarified that the standards as written say balconies shall not be in the daylight plane. They would have to be laid back; it does not mean that they are not allowed. There are daylight planes in the RM, but if it abutted a RM30, RM40, or Planned Community (PC) and the width was 70 feet or greater there is no daylight plane. Chair Thompson asked if the concern was mainly between higher density and lower density or if the standard was supposed to also be between high density lots. Ms. Eisberg said that right now the standards only apply next to lower density districts and the public comment to the PTC and Council was that the RM30 and RM40 districts should also have the privacy protection. Currently some of the draft standards only apply to lower density zones. Boardmember Hirsch stated that in New York there would be a minimum setback, rear yard setback between buildings. Boardmember Baltay thought the formalized subjective standards were pretty good and most architects understood what they were being asked to do. He gave an example of 5 foot windowsills as something that could be objectified. The Individual Review (IR) polices have not gotten into whether a window opens or not. Most of the time windows are kept closed, so while you could open one and violate privacy that is rare and may not be worth pushing. The glazed surface is more important. They also need to look at the difference between casual viewing opportunities like a bathroom or staircase window and a living room window. Outdoor surfaces and balconies and they way they are used have a large impact on privacy. A large balcony with a party has greater impact than a small one where a couple of people might sit. Privacy screening could also be used for balance. He suggested they pick up language from the IR guidelines and work them into regulations on windows and balconies. Ms. Gerhardt said that Boardmember Baltay noticed many of their ideas from the IR process. Many times on the sidewalls of a balcony there would be a 5 foot 6 inch screen wall. That idea could be utilized further. Chair Thompson said that a deep planter or other barrier could also limit visibility. That might make more sense for a larger balcony. Ms. Gerhardt stated they have done that for single family homes. In a multifamily situation a rim of planters could work well. Chair Thompson said that people like the planters or buffers for safety reasons as well. Boardmember Hirsch asked how they would objectify the IR standards. Ms. Gerhardt said that it was mostly done because of the SB 9 regulations. The information is on the website, and she stated she would forward it to the Boardmembers. Chair Thompson asked if staff wanted to process the ARB’s thoughts and return to another meeting. Ms. Gerhardt explained that for the objective standards process they have put one study session into the proposed ordinance. If an applicant follows the objective standards it’s supposed to be a ministerial 6.a Packet Pg. 148 Page 7 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 process. The City Council asked staff to return to the ARB for a second look and for the community to have another arena to voice concerns. There would be a study session and staff would demonstrate how the standards and zoning requirements were met and the ARB and community could voice its opinions with ultimately the staff making a ministerial decision. Chair Thompson asked if they discussed privacy enough or if staff needed more. Ms. Gerhardt asked Ms. Eisberg’s opinion. Ms. Eisberg said that if there was anything else about site lines she would like to hear it. They have received direction to look at the IR guidelines and the proposed SB 9 changes. That was helpful. Boardmember Baltay explained he was a practicing architect, and they are often told to align windows with neighbors, but it’s very unusual to have that information. It is not always possible to measure the windows of your neighbor. It is asking a lot of an applicant to figure out that information, but the standards the City is working toward request that level of specificity. He thought they should make statements about windows, glazed surfaces, and balconies and say that they need to meet a certain privacy standard. There should be an absolute standard about anything that has a potential privacy impact. There must be mitigation for all balconies and that should not be related to the neighbor’s size, height, or position. Architects want to understand the standards. He thought that using glazed surfaces and balcony services might be a way to develop the standard. Chair Thompson stated preference for Boardmember Baltay’s suggestion instead of a percentage requirement. She was concerned about limiting beds and units if they imposed a percentage requirement. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Chair Thompson and Boardmember Baltay that it is better to be general about window openings. Sight line issues should have requirements. The review process on his own home was very difficult because of an irregular lot. Those situations come up and therefore it is better to have a general concept. Chair Thompson said that landscape could also be used. Boardmember Hirsch said he was most concerned about landscape due to seasonal changes. Building elements are more specific. Chair Thompson agreed that was true. She said another strategy would be to kink the wall so the windows point to the side. In multifamily housing you kind of want people to see common areas such as central courtyards. That is done for safety. In R1 no one wants eyes on their yard, but in multifamily views of common areas are important to supervise children and create culture. They should determine if between multifamily housing if the standard was applicable. Boardmember Hirsch stated that was true. Boardmember Baltay suggested they should try to define a surface or façade that requires privacy. It could be done relative to the configuration of the neighboring lot. Not every adjacency requires privacy as demonstrated by Chair Thompson’s point about multifamily dwellings. First they should define what requires privacy and then make a standard for the glazing or balconies. Projects can always go for a subjective review. 6.a Packet Pg. 149 Page 8 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Ms. Gerhardt thanked the ARB. She asked if they could discuss the menu of options. Chair Thompson stated they could move on. Boardmember Hirsch called attention to the diagrams on Packet Page 24 and 25. Ms. Eisberg shared the diagram with the ARB and explained the standard was in the building orientation section and was talking about the location of the entrance. The standard for the purple box is not there. Boardmember Hirsch said that there could be an entrance into a similar element. Ms. Eisberg said that you could. Boardmember Hirsch thought the City Council’s comment that there should be a lot of options was good. Chair Thompson asked if the City Council wanted the ARB to create more menu options or that they wanted applicants to adhere to more than one option. The verbiage says in some places the applicant must adhere to two or more and sometimes it says, “at least one.” She thought Council wanted more things required to be followed. Ms. Eisberg thought it was the latter. The Motion was about increasing the number of required choices per category. Chair Thompson thought that was different than what Boardmember Hirsch was saying. Boardmember Hirsch said it was. There was nothing about entry on a recessed corner. Chair Thompson referred to Packet Page 35 about ground floor step back as part of massing. Ms. Eisberg said that the standards were isolated by themes. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he might be wrong. Chair Thompson said that part of the reason they kept it to a smaller number was to allow an architect flexibility. Potentially doing all the things at once would not make a tenable building. Boardmember Baltay recalled that what Council Members were asking for was a more restrictive standard by requiring more options be followed. That is what the ARB is being asked to do, but they have viewed it as very restrictive. If the City requires they conform to more options then they should be given a greater number of options to choose from. Otherwise, the standards are designing the buildings. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Boardmember Baltay thought they needed to do both. Some of the requirements are lax and easily manipulated. If there are twice as many options and they require conformance with half of them it’s a greater level of granularity and more work. Someone needs to sit down and sketch out what the options might be. Ms. Gerhardt said it would be helpful to staff and might warrant a second hearing, but perhaps Boardmember Hirsch could write down some general ideas of topics to be added. 6.a Packet Pg. 150 Page 9 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Boardmember Hirsch stated he could do so. Chair Thompson asked if they were thinking of adding to the list. Boardmember Baltay said they were increasing the level of options to be selected from otherwise the City is designing the buildings. Chair Thompson thought they could add a few things. It would be an interesting exercise to see what would happen if someone conformed to all the standards or if that was even possible. Ms. Gerhardt said that they did that exercise when Chris Sensenig was onboard. There are several types of buildings that would get though the objective standards. Boardmember Hirsch was concerned they were showing four story buildings. There is a 50 foot height limitation and he saw issues coming forward from the State related to density. Ms. Gerhardt explained staff was careful to show buildings that would be allowed in Palo Alto with the height limit. That is why they used four stories. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to allow for some flexibility. Ms. Gerhardt said that just because the diagram was four stories that was not a limiting factor. The height limit controls what happens. Boardmember Hirsch was concerned that the perception would be that the buildings were limited to four stories. If the height limit increases they could get five stories, so he questioned how the diagrams worked. Ms. Gerhardt explained many diagrams did not express the number of stories for that reason. Some show windows because of the nature of the criteria. The diagrams have been reviewed carefully to ensure that they were not forcing people into one direction. Chair Thompson thought it would be helpful to have a list of the menu without the diagrams for reference. Ms. Gerhardt said that the had been putting together a checklist. She suggested that would be helpful for the ARB. Chair Thompson agreed. The ARB is made up of architects so they could imagine adhering to the list. Ms. Gerhardt agreed to return with the checklist. She encouraged Boardmembers to write staff about any options they would like to add. Ms. Eisberg reminded them to focus on building massing and façade design. Boardmember Baltay said he was comfortable delegating Boardmember Hirsch the sketches. Chair Thompson thought everyone could draw up some sketches and Boardmember Hirsch was welcome to do so as well. Boardmember Baltay thought that was great but indicated he did not have the time. Boardmember Hirsch said he had time. 6.a Packet Pg. 151 Page 10 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Chair Thompson jokingly told Boardmember Baltay to give her a napkin sketch to work from. She suggested they move on to the height transition. Boardmember Baltay stated that Ms. Gerhardt had put a lot of work in on height limitations related to residential properties. Ms. Gerhardt said that she had, and that it was a matter of making the item clear so that everyone who reads it reaches the same conclusion. Boardmember Baltay remembered that Council was reluctant to be overly restrictive. Ms. Gerhardt referenced the Motion and explained that in the commercial zones there was the most ambiguity. Staff pushed for 50 feet and Council and some residents were uncomfortable with that. Now they are trying to compromise and use 150 feet in commercial zones with ARB review. Boardmember Hirsch was bothered because 150 feet is over a street dimension. He confirmed they had been discussing Wilton Court. Boardmember Baltay agreed. Ms. Gerhardt said Wilton Court was an affordable housing project that required 49 feet. It was a special case. The 150 feet is a fair distance and was not staff’s initial take. She needed an answer to take back to staff. Since 150 feet is in the code staff did not feel they were downzoning. Being able to go to the ARB provides additional flexibility to look at the context of a project. When they move forward with Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers and the Housing Element update they may have to have further discussions, but right now they need a starting point. Ms. Eisberg clarified that there were two parts to the Motion. The first were the development standards and the second was for a more contextual standard with neighboring properties. Boardmember Hirsch had a problem with the 150 feet and noted that if Wilton Court could not have been built as designed he would have been bothered by it. When there is a street dimension to refer to the neighbors because of a restrictive regulation bothered him. Boardmember Baltay said there was a 35 foot height limit adjacent to residential within 50 to 150 feet and beyond that it’s a 50 foot height limit. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed that was generally correct, but a bit different for each district. Boardmember Baltay said that 150 feet is too much. There is no contextual issue there. Staff had it right the first time, it was intended to be 50 feet in most circumstances. Given the desire to increase housing 150 feet is unreasonably restrictive and 50 feet is adequate in most circumstances. Many times the ARB reviews projects and the 50 feet seems to work well. The Council wants real advice, and the ARB should come out strongly for 50 feet. He wondered if there could be an additional overlay for the daylight plane in the case of a lower building. His general rule of thumb is that a two story step is sufficient, not three. If there were a daylight plane starting on the property line or the neighboring building that would be a trigger for a more subjective review. Daylight planes are the best way to regulate this issue. 6.a Packet Pg. 152 Page 11 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Boardmember Baltay. The daylight plane is the best objective way to do the zoning. If everything else can be done contextually and objectively as possible that would be preferable. With the side yard issues and setback they could also look at the daylight plane in mixed zone areas. Chair Thompson agreed that 50 feet would be more appropriate. When a property is zoned for a certain height a developer should be allowed to build what is zoned. She referenced a building in San Francisco that was next to a home and felt in context. Height alone does not need to dictate contextual based design. Boardmember Hirsch referred to Packet Page 31. Ms. Gerhardt shared her screen with the ARB. Boardmember Hirsch explained that the setback related to the building next door, but it would have been better if the total purple area was setback on the side yard as well. The diagram does not work, but it could demonstrate Chair Thompson’s point about massing. Chair Thompson said that it would help, but the way the diagram read worked. Boardmember Hirsch agreed it worked on the façade, but if the neighboring building was taller it would be an example of what she had said. Chair Thompson agreed. Boardmember Baltay said that if the ARB proposed to Council that rather than a setback distance and height restriction at the property line adjacent to other residential units you have a 10 foot up and a 45 degree daylight plane that allows a 50 foot building that’s 40 feet from the property line. It also restricts a 35 foot building 10 foot from the property line, which is currently allowed. It is a more restrictive requirement, but he believed that was what Council had asked the ARB to do. If an applicant wants to go into stepping they would need a different level of design review. The 10 foot 45 degree daylight plane is straightforward to enforce. This would also establish a daylight plane and a clear standard. It provides architects the opportunity to be creative. Boardmember Hirsch agreed completely about the daylight plane. Chair Thompson said that it could help for the diagrams to include that. Ms. Gerhardt said that there were daylight planes in the RM zones. Only when there is a larger parcel adjacent to higher densities would there not be a daylight plane. She asked if the ARB would like to add that. Chair Thompson said that they were talking about only when it was adjacent to smaller parcels/buildings Ms. Gerhardt said that they might need a daylight plane based on the size of the adjacent structure, not zoning. Chair Thompson asked if that was dictated by the zoning. 6.a Packet Pg. 153 Page 12 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Boardmember Baltay thought Council was concerned about the impact on all residential stuff. The ARB are the professionals, and they are advising Council that the daylight plane works better. It should be a Council decision which zones or housing it applies to, but this is the way it should be regulated. Ms. Gerhardt thanked Boardmember Baltay. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Boardmember Baltay. Chair Thompson said she was confused because she thought they were discussing transitioning to a lower density zone. Boardmember Baltay stated the item came up when Council was discussing RM zones, not just housing. The Council can make the clarification though. Chair Thompson explained that she was concerned about the buildings on El Camino all looking like pyramids. Boardmember Baltay agreed. RM40 next to RM40 would not work. Chair Thompson thought they needed to make that clear. Boardmember Baltay said that Chair Thompson should state that to Council when she is in front of them. The ARB would simply tell them how to do it. Ms. Gerhardt stated El Camino was a good example and thanked Boardmember Baltay. Chair Thompson said that either a Council member or a PTC Commissioner was concerned about pyramid shaped buildings. She suggested they move to the next action item unless there were further comments for Council. She further noted that on the Table Items B and C1 were about the relationship of objective standards to the context based design criteria. She understood the intent statements were close to the context based design criteria but asked why the City wanted to keep both B and C1 if they were redundant. Ms. Gerhardt thought Council was concerned that they were losing something because the intent statements are much shorter than the context based design criteria. Ms. Eisberg is working on producing a side by side comparison. If anything is missing they can add it back at that time. Staff is hopeful that Council will appreciate the side by side and continue with the intent statements. Chair Thompson asked if the ARB would see the matrix. Boardmember Hirsch thought they looked at that in the beginning and liked the way Ms. Eisberg handled it. It should not be lost in the final draft. Ms. Eisberg said that the crosswalk was available on the project website and organized with the context based design criteria and a reference to the code section. They plan to put the verbiage in, but it is challenging. The version has been modified over time. Chair Thompson thanked staff and Ms. Eisberg and closed the item. Recess 6.a Packet Pg. 154 Page 13 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 5. 2850 West Bayshore [21PLN-00177]: Request for Architectural Review of a Proposed 48-Unit Residential Townhome Development. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: ROLM (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing). Chair Thompson introduced the item and called for the staff report. Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner, explained the project was to develop a 48 townhome development at 2850 West Bayshore. Chair Thompson called for ARB disclosures. Boardmember Hirsch had no disclosures but did visit the site and other sites on the corridor. Boardmember Baltay disclosed that he visited the site and the park. He emailed staff and there were several things that came up, but he would leave it to Mr. Sauls to discuss the points. Chair Thompson stated that she had no disclosures but was familiar with the site and had been there multiple times. Mr. Sauls said he would touch on Boardmember Baltay’s points following the presentation. He shared his screen with the ARB. The hearing is the first formal review of the project. In April 2021 there was a preliminary application reviewed by the ARB. The site is adjacent to Greer Park, East Bayshore Road and the 101 Highway, the creek and Baylands. The site is zoned ROLM and follow the RM30 development standards. The proposal is to demolish a 32,000 square foot office building and replace it with 48 for sales units of a residential townhome project. The project is subject to SB 330 and the Housing Accountability Act (HAA) and is a density bonus project. He explained key points of SB 330 and the HAA which the ARB needed to adhere with. The surrounding uses to the property are Greer Park, Emerson School, and a preschool. The project qualifies for a density bonus based on its affordable units. Of the 48 units 7 are held aside for the 15% affordability requirements. Under State Density Bonus they receive one concession, and the applicant has requested additional Floor Area Ratio (FAR). RM30 typically allows a .6 to 1.0 FAR ratio, and the applicant has requested a 1.15 FAR ratio. The applicant has also proposed a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) for the tower elements, the use of private open space toward common open space, a sound wall between West Bayshore Road and Highway 101, and to record a right of way easement to expand and widen a bicycle lane. He showed the ARB the orientation of the 48 units and more detailed plans. The ARB previously requested the applicant save more street trees on West Bayshore road, so the project was realigned to do that. Under the current plans 8 of the 9 street trees are retained. The courtyard has been more detailed to show potential uses. He provided slides of the previous elevations which the ARB had commented on and an updated picture of the elevations. He also showed a slide listing the modifications made based on the comments from the preliminary ARB hearing. The ARB supported the DEE, but requested the towers have some function. The ARB also felt the tower elements were a bit excessive, that the project needed to incorporate three different building types and color schemes, that the project needed additional guest parking, and that the design should retain as many existing trees as possible. The applicant addressed each point by adding windows, removing the central tower and reducing the others, introducing different color schemes and materials, adding two guest parking spaces, and preserved 8 of 9 trees. Staff requested a widened bike lane, additional open space for units, that the applicant break up and landscape the Greer Park retaining wall, and that they plant more 6.a Packet Pg. 155 Page 14 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 around the garbage area. The applicant has addressed all the staff’s points. Staff requests the ARB provide input on the DEE for the towers, address Greer Park stairway access considerations, and review the landscape composition and privacy considerations. The ARB has advised other applicants that the majority of their landscape should be native species and the remainder should satisfy either drought tolerance needs or form habitat for wildlife. Staff is not seeking an ARB recommendation at this time as it needs to finish environmental review so there will need to be a Motion to continue to a date uncertain. Chair Thompson called for the applicant’s presentation. John Hickey, Summerhill Homes, thanked staff for their work and Mr. Sauls for his summary. The immediate neighbor is the school next door. They have met with the President of the school and the owner of the site. They hosted an open house for the neighborhood on October 27, 2021. They made private open space for each unit. Between the sound wall and the design of the site every unit will either have private open space at the ground level or on an interior space that utilizes shelter from the buildings. The wall is also for protection with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone. The units will have an elevation of at least 13 feet, so they are above the 100 year floodplain level. The retaining wall is necessary but will be tiered for plantings. There are two additional guest parking spaces and a new drop off delivery space. Onsite circulation has been improved and an additional street tree has been retained. There are plans to extend the southbound bike lane to Colorado Avenue. He provided a rendering of the bike lane and public sidewalk. They have discussed additional trees with the adjacent school and have determined that another four trees would be sufficient to provide additional screening. He introduced Jennifer from STG to discuss the architecture. Jennifer Mastro, STG, said that the townhomes are designed in a contemporary style with simple but refined materials. The project is a contemporary urban/suburban community with shared and private open space. She showed multiple views of the project to the ARB. Pursuant to the ARB’s suggestion they enhanced the end units that face the park in buildings 4, 5, 7, and 8. They also reduced the massing and rooflines closer to the park. She showed another graphic that illustrated the variety of form and color while still providing a cohesive design. Pursuant to the ARB’s suggestions they reduced the number of tower elements in each building and integrated them into the interior design. She showed another graphic and listed the various materials used in the project. She introduced Shari Van Dorn to discuss the landscape plans. Mr. Hickey explained that last week they learned about the STC ratings required and the various windows that might meet the requirements. The single hung windows in the current plans do not have sufficient STC ratings to address freeway noise, so they are proposing a switch to casements. He provided a side by side graphic and stated that the casements improve the elevations. Shari Van Dorn explained that one of their primary goals was to provide outdoor amenities for the residents in the heart of the community. Pedestrian circulation is improved. Outdoor rooms include a fireplace lounge, a ping pong space, a barbeque area, a dining court, a social space with a variety of seating, and a lawn. All plant material is native or Mediterranean species adapted to Palo Alto’s climate. Inside the project they utilize planting for specific purposes such as privacy. Views down the streets will be permeated by vines on guardrails and trees. They considered providing a pedestrian connection to the park from the west side of the project. They created terraced walls along the park frontage to bring the 6.a Packet Pg. 156 Page 15 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 scale of the grade change down. To achieve access to the southwest corner they would need a 52 foot long ramp and it would cut off pedestrian circulation on the southwest of Building 8. They looked to add a ramp further north, which would require a 100 foot long ramp. They felt both options created a canyon feeling and took up too much space. They opted for a path to the park at the southeast corner. Mr. Hickey thanked the ARB for its time and noted that their civil engineer and the Senior Vice President of Development were also available for questions. Chair Thompson asked Jennifer and Shari to state and spell their names for the record, which they did. Mr. Sauls explained he wanted to discuss the points brought up by Boardmember Baltay via email with the ARB. He shared the email which Boardmember Baltay sent to him and Ms. Gerhardt the day before. The questions were related to a section in the building code about setbacks from property lines. The Municipal Code references a figure but does not include it online. He is still working on getting a copy of the image, but Public Works advised him that Code Section 1628310(b) references the types of grades or setbacks needed when a major utility runs through the property to provide for safe access. Second, Boardmember Baltay inquired about Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 181340f8, which requires properties that do not have a neighborhood commercial service or use to provide a minimum of 1,500 sf of retail, personal service, or other neighborhood serving use. The neighboring school and preschool provide daycare and preschool and falls under the “retail like” classification. Since it is within 500 feet of the property staff determined that was an appropriate compatible use and the project did not need to include the 1,500 sf onsite. The final question was about the context based criteria and if the terminology of building type had been defined in the PAMC. He has been unable to find a definition, but the Echelon Apartments on Fabian Way tried to maintain a cohesive look while breaking up the facades, balconies, materials, and colors. Chair Thompson called for the public comment. Ms. Klicheva stated there was none although she had seen a raised hand earlier in the meeting. Chair Thompson called for ARB questions and indicated she would call for the public comment again after that. Boardmember Baltay said that they received a letter from the public the day prior questioning if the matter should be reviewed prior to the full Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and asked for staff input. Ms. Gerhardt explained that there will be architectural changes that need to be addressed which are irrelevant as far as the EIR. The standard practice is to do one hearing before the environmental review was completed. Boardmember Baltay thanked Ms. Gerhardt. He asked if the applicant had an arborist review the trees in the park adjacent to the retaining wall. Mr. Hickey stated that they had reviewed it and proposed the removal of two trees. They will work with Parks to identify an appropriate species for replacement of those trees. Boardmember Baltay asked if an arborist commented on the impact on the remaining trees. 6.a Packet Pg. 157 Page 16 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Mr. Hickey explained the remaining trees were far enough from the wall to escape impact. Chair Thompson asked if that included the four additional screening trees. Mr. Hickey stated that those trees would be planted after the installation of the wall. The retaining wall will be installed with initial grading and trees will be planted following that. There are a total of 12 trees that will be planted on the school property, all of which will be Coast Live Oaks per the school’s request. Boardmember Baltay requested the applicant show where the guest parking and drop off area was on the plans. Mr. Hickey shared his screen and identified the areas on the plans. There are now a total of four guest spaces, one of which is Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that a delivery vehicle or an Uber could utilize the drop off space. Mr. Hickey said that was what it was intended to do. Palo Alto requires all the private streets be 32 feet wide, which is wider than subdivisions in other cities. The wider space allows for ease of access. The drop off space is intended for services like Uber and DoorDash. Boardmember Baltay requested Mr. Hickey point out the guest parking again. Mr. Hickey said that there were two spaces at the end of B Street and two at the end of C Street. Boardmember Baltay requested clarification of the width of the streets. Mr. Hickey said that it was 32 feet width to width from building to building. Boardmember Baltay asked for the paved street width. Mr. Hickey stated that 26 feet is from the edge of one driveway to another. Boardmember Baltay confirmed there were three extra feet on both sides. Mr. Hickey said that in some cases it was more than three feet due to the variations of the building. The 32 feet from building to building is a Palo Alto requirement. Boardmember Baltay requested that the landscape architect discuss the possible ramp to the park and the 10 foot 6 inch wall it would require. Ms. Van Dorn said that would happen because there is no way to tier the wall near the entry to the park. She asked Mr. Hickey to show the appropriate elevation to the ARB. Boardmember Baltay asked how she arrived at the 10 foot 6 inch number. Ms. Van Dorn said that there was a grade change of about 7 feet 6 inches and then there is a 3 foot 6 inch guardrail on top. Boardmember Baltay confirmed there was 7.5 feet of fill at the point. Ms. Van Dorn stated there was at the top of the ramp. 6.a Packet Pg. 158 Page 17 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Boardmember Baltay confirmed that the plan currently shows a stepped series of walls. Ms. Van Dorn said that was correct. Boardmember Baltay said that the difference is that the full height of the height is exposed with the ramp. Ms. Van Dorn stated that was correct. Mr. Hickey noted that there would be no landscape screening between the edge of the property line and the top of the upper guardrail. Boardmember Baltay thanked the applicant. Chair Thompson requested an explanation of the thinking related to the color schemes of the buildings. Specifically, she wanted to understand which buildings were getting which color scheme and why. Ms. Mastro explained that the idea was to intersperse the color schemes throughout the community. From Bayshore each building is a different color scheme. The same thing can be seen in the view from the park. There is nothing that explicitly calls out the where the color schemes are at this point, but the idea is that no two buildings next to each other would have the same color scheme. Mr. Hickey advised the listening public that the colors on a computer screen may be different from the actual colors in the color deck. The ARB has the colors as presented by Sherwin Williams. Chair Thompson said that she wanted to know the design intent and that was that no two adjacent buildings would be the same color scheme. Boardmember Baltay requested the applicant provide additional information on the sound wall. Mr. Hickey referred to Sheet L2.1 of the set. Boardmember Baltay indicated that he had seen that page. Mr. Hickey said that it would be a precast concrete wall with a finished texture. The colors are indicated. Boardmember Baltay confirmed it would be 14 feet tall. Mr. Hickey said that it would be 14 feet. The drawing was just an example of the style of the wall. Boardmember Baltay asked if there were any proposed integrated landscaping. Mr. Hickey said that there would be, but he did not have it in the presentation. As per the letter they submitted to summary they are attaching vines at the base of the wall on the site side. They hoped it would resemble the sound wall on Amarillo. The sound wall by the Sterling Park community is also 14 foot tall. Mr. Sauls stated that Sheet L1.0 identifies where the vines will be placed. Boardmember Baltay understood that the tower elements were now vaulted interior spaces. He requested the architect explain which rooms have the vaulted spaces. 6.a Packet Pg. 159 Page 18 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Ms. Mastro explained that the towers contained the primary bedroom, formerly the master bedroom. It is a full height flat ceiling with the clear story windows. Boardmember Baltay thought that the tower was wider than the bedroom and asked how that could be. Ms. Mastro referred to Sheet A12 and Boardmember Baltay confirmed that he was looking at it. On the third floor the wall is wider, but the room is contained in the tower. Boardmember Baltay said that there was an interior wall of the bedroom that was not the same as the exterior wall. Ms. Mastro stated that was correct. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that the tower effectively sat on top of the closet and adjacent room. Chair Thompson requested they show A12 on the screen. Mr. Sauls shared his screen with the ARB and displayed the third floor and the walls they were discussing. Ms. Mastro indicated the bedroom would have the vaulted space and the master closet would have a standard ceiling. Boardmember Baltay thanked the applicant. Chair Thompson called for further ARB questions, but there were none. She called for the public comment, but there was none. She opened the item for ARB discussion. Boardmember Hirsch said that he looked at other projects along the 101 corridor and a few others that are inland. He provided a slide showing the setup of the Woodland Creek project and described it for the ARB. The project has underground parking but has natural light and ventilation. The balconies that face the street are unused. 101 is a noisy street that will impact any project in the area. Council needs to determine if against a freeway is a good place for housing. Personally, he did not think housing should be close to the 101. Even with the sound walls residents are going to be aware of the 101. He provided a picture of a project on Edgewood. He showed the amount of screening to the public street but noted that even given that the outdoor areas did not receive much use. He showed another project that had areas for guest or alternate parking near the unit. The next slide showed a garage to garage street from a project, and he requested to view a similar rendering for the project. He showed a slide of the Parker Apartments and its provided parking. He showed a picture of the Oak Court on Ramona/Channing/Bryant corner. The front gardens are not well used publicly, but there is access to the parking below. He believed the takeaway was that the applicant was trying to create a nicer environment on the private street side of the development, but the planting does not do much in a car centric environment. The present scheme is not desirable based on ARB Finding #2. Any project facing parking bays with minimum planters is a harsh car centric environment. Finding #4 states that guest and service parking cannot be appropriately accommodated on the adjacent public street. Even with meeting codes it is inadequate to satisfy the requirement because of the more isolated site. There is no street parking on West Bayshore and therefore the applicant must accommodate parking on the site and a limited amount of guest parking. The plan has inadequate and isolated guest parking. There is parking in Greer Park, but that is at capacity most of the time. Alternatives are suggested by other projects. The open space park could become an underground 6.a Packet Pg. 160 Page 19 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 parking lot. There would have to be flooding mitigation, but an underground lot provides opportunities for guest parking and moving other parking to free up space for gardens. C Street and D Street could be converted into ground floor gardens. The design has terrific potential, but if the site plan is changed significantly they would have a different building. He thought his suggestion made for a better dwelling, which was achieved by moving the cars to a center underground lot. The discussion of materiality of a building must follow an appropriate site plan. he did not mind the plans themselves if they work with a scheme as he described. He did not accept the idea that everything should be raised to the level of the inner court as reasonable. The ground floor home office/guestroom is an okay idea that could probably remain so long as there is enough light. He did not believe the project would be appropriately soundproofed and would have to be persuaded with an acoustical discussion. the ground level as described is not the best possibility. He praised the Woodmark and other projects done by the applicant. Boardmember Baltay remembered that the City Council had seen the project informally. Boardmember Hirsch also thought that Council had looked at it. Boardmember Baltay asked if they could have looked at it without a record. Mr. Sauls indicated he would look again. Ms. Gerhardt said that Mr. Hickey was shaking his head no, that they did not have contact with Council. There was a preliminary hearing with the ARB. The project did not need a prescreening, which would be heard by Council. Boardmember Baltay thanked staff for the clarification. Ms. Gerhardt said that Mr. Hickey had his hand up. Chair Thompson said they would return to the applicant after ARB discussion. Boardmember Baltay said that if Council had weighed in it should be included in the discussion, but it appeared they did not. Boardmember Hirsch knew that he heard the Council discussed the issue of housing adjacent to 101. It could have been in reference to another project. Boardmember Baltay said that he was sure he had just misunderstood something. With the project he was both in agreement and disagreement. Housing along the 101 is something that Palo Alto must do because they do not have enough available land. He found Boardmember Hirsch’s comments regarding the site planning to be spot on. He was uncomfortable with grading up the site and the idea of creating an underground garage provides many site planning and architectural benefits. He stated that he had a long list of items to discuss. He found it challenging to review the floor plans and understand the building design. He suggested that they provide the floor plans for each building. It was challenging to review Elevation 1 as it is so tiny. That is a graphics problem emblematic of a larger issue which is that how the development looks from the park has not been properly addressed. This is a 2 1/3 acre site, and the applicant proposes to raise the ground by about six feet on average. That is 850 large truckful’s of dirt. He questioned the environmental impact of that. There is nothing in the staff report about brining in that much dirt. He disagreed with Public Works on the Code. There is a guideline which needs to be reviewed 6.a Packet Pg. 161 Page 20 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 and considered. If they plan to do the grading it needs to be done more carefully. The applicant needs more space and should step the retaining wall and make room for more landscaping. The Tree Report shows at least a half dozen large trees in the park within 20 to 30 inches of the retaining wall. He could not imagine how the six feet of fill would not impact those trees and questioned whether they would survive construction. Dead trees in the park would be a large impact, especially because it would highlight the wall. The answer is to do the grading more carefully, which would require the architect to modify the buildings. There needs to be a connection to the park and everything else will have to give to make it work. The parking does not work at all as the guest parking is on the edge and practically an afterthought. For 48 apartments it is highly likely that there will be visitors who will park in the 26 foot street or block fire or emergency vehicle access. He could not find that it was a functional site plan without adequate guest and service parking. He supported Boardmember Hirsch’s suggestion to think about the parking in a different way, perhaps underground. The trash pickup is incredibly tight, and most people will leave the trash bins outdoors in front of garage doors, which is unsightly. They need to address what will happen with the trash bins. The Contextual Design Code is part of the PAMC, and it clearly states that for a site this size there should be three building types. The project provides for six identical building types. They buildings are well variegated but are not three building types. The ARB cannot veer from the Code that dramatically. The tower elements are nice, but the flat parapet elements appear added on and not well integrated. With respect to the floor plans he referenced Drawing 810 and the first floor plan. The stairs directly encroach on the headroom in the garage, which is not allowed. The 3rd floor plan has a closet in a bathroom such as the bathroom does not have a window and he would prefer that it did. Trash bins are proposed to be stored in the garage and most people do not leave them inside. Therefore, that does not seem reasonable. The material palette is made up of midrange quality materials but Finding #3 requires high quality materials so that should be adjusted. The white paint are extremely bright whites and too reflective. Otherwise, the colors work well enough together. He was concerned about the attempt to make Mediterranean plants a selection that meets the PAMC requirements. He did not want to establish the precedent as Palo Alto wants native plants planted. He found that less than half of the plan called for native plants. He requested additional native plants to meet the standard. The landscape plans were also very difficult to read and could be improved. The biggest concern is creating a stronger landscape buffer along the perimeter of the property. The sound wall is very important, and he would like to see more information going forward. He stated that he was concerned that with only three current Boardmembers they were leaving the applicant in a strange position. What Boardmember Hirsch requested and supported was a dramatic redesign. He wanted to make sure that the ARB gave the applicant straight advice. Chair Thompson said that she would provide her comments and then the ARB could try to give the applicant more direction. With the site planning she reminded the other Boardmembers that the site was in the floodplain and that is one of the reasons for the high grading. The site does seem car orientated, but she was not opposed to the parking being segregated from the living spaces. She would be open to different site planning and could support a design that was more pedestrian, but some of the recommendations made might not be feasible because of the floodplain. They could consider other options such as a parking garage to the side, but then they would also have to consider those aesthetics. She agreed with Boardmember Baltay about the elevations and plans. The retaining wall height was hard to understand because the images look small. She suggested the applicant provide an image on the park 6.a Packet Pg. 162 Page 21 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 side next to the retaining wall with a person for scale. She would also appreciate a section of the wall and through a building to allow them to see the bulk of the project against the park. She shared Boardmember Baltay’s concerns about the trees. The different building type point interested her as she had not noticed it before Boardmember Baltay pointed it out. She asked how type was defined and noted that she might not want the buildings to be terribly dissimilar. The current differentiation with the color palettes is nice. The white paint mentioned by Boardmember Baltay is too reflective. She was unable to view the material palette because she has been quarantined for COVID exposure. It is important to have a logic for how the colors are dispersed throughout the site. She suggested they go for more of a park feeling than a street feeling. In multifamily housing windows in bathrooms are a luxury, so if they are possible that would be great. She agreed with Boardmember Baltay that the materials are mid-grade. The colors do elevate the material, but she supported the comment. She also supported the comments about needing more native plants and a landscape buffer. For the sound wall she suggested they investigate art or an interesting pattern. If they choose to do the vaulted ceilings it may be nice for that to be expressed on the inside as well. She asked what the other Boardmembers thought about the floodplain issue. Boardmember Baltay said that he thought that you could put parking in the flood zone. They approved a project in Downtown with below grade parking and a floodplain issue. Ms. Gerhardt said that it could be done but the entrance of the garage had to be situated to hold back the water at the entrance. Boardmember Baltay asked to hear from the applicant on the idea. Chair Thompson said that if they wanted to open it to the applicant she would. Mr. Hickey asked Elaine to address the ARB. She had computer issues, so they waited a moment and she joined on Mr. Hickey’s computer. Elaine explained that with the floodplain they would not consider an underground garage. It would trigger a different construction type and require flood insurance. These are for sale houses and not an apartment building so while they appreciate the comments, they will not build an underground garage. Mr. Hickey stated that they looked at underground garages on other projects recently and it would not be feasible here. He asked to address some misconceptions he heard earlier. There is existing parking along West Bayshore which would have remained except Public Works and Transportation requested it be removed for a southbound sharrow. There is parking along Colorado as well. The north side of the road is approximately 30% open during the daytime. There should be space for 12 to 14 cars there at any time. On weekends when the park is crowed the parking tends to be on the Amarillo side. He apologized if the plans were difficult to read, but the building types were included and where they are located on the site is listed in the keymap. There are three distinct types. With respect to the section details they are shown in the civil sheets. Chair Thompson stated that she had seen them and that they did not have a figure for scale. Mr. Hickey stated that was true and that they could enhance and provide those materials. He shared his screen and showed the ARB the rear elevation. He noted that it did not show the existing trees so that they could see the elevation. He then showed the street scene which includes the outline of the tree 6.a Packet Pg. 163 Page 22 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 canopy. He understood there was concern about the visibility of the retaining wall, but it will be mostly covered by the existing canopy. He stated that he was happy to provide the information that did not come through in the initial presentation. Chair Thompson thanked Mr. Hickey and returned to the Board. Boardmember Baltay was concerned that parking on Colorado was too far from the project. People have guests, service people, and deliveries and that needs to be addressed in the design. There is a photograph on Page A04 showing the trees and is barely legible. The applicant needs to prove its arguments. He also noted that they had not addressed the 20 inch diameter trees only 30 inches from the retaining wall. They will not survive. With respect to Boardmember Hirsch’s point he noted that he would rather have the housing then have the applicant walk away because a subterranean garage was infeasible. He could support the application with the grading if they can prove the buffer edge was done more carefully. He hoped Boardmember Hirsch could support that as well. Boardmember Hirsch noted that Boardmember Baltay had already questioned the cost of bringing in all the fill. He questioned how much it would be to enclose a garage with a different landscaped scheme. The project shows the drawings from a distance to show the façades. The towers are important, but the rest of the façade is more visible. People do not see elevations; they see parts of buildings. He could not buy the fact that the applicant could not create a waterproof parking area. It could be built higher which would create a landscaping problem. That could be solved with other landscaping ideas. There are additional possibilities for landscape design which reduce the impact of the project on the trees. The site plan shows the trees adjacent to C Street rather than the center of the property. Boardmember Baltay stated that he did not believe the applicant would build the garage as it was outside how they built projects. the ARB has a choice to tell them to do the garage and kill the project or could flex so they could build what they could. Boardmember Hirsch said he would not go along with it and would like the applicant to show them how it was financially infeasible before they agreed to it. The ARB must receive the facts and those have not been presented. Ms. Gerhardt explained that she agreed with Boardmember Baltay that they needed to be careful of designing a project for an applicant. The applicant must adhere to the Code while designing their project. If they continue to push for an underground garage they must base it on a Comprehensive Plan Policy or ARB findings. Chair Thompson thanked Ms. Gerhardt for her point. She agreed that an underground garage would be nice and in keeping with the Comprehensive Plan, but projects have budgets they need to adhere to as well. She also understood the floodplain issues. She could be open to the current site plan or an alternate that keeps the grading but further separates the cars from living spaces. She appreciated how under the current plan the street along Bayshore becomes more pedestrian. Depending on the future of the area that could be good for the street. She also appreciated the bike lane and supported that over parking. She asked if Boardmember Hirsch could support an alternate site plan that did not include an underground garage. 6.a Packet Pg. 164 Page 23 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Boardmember Hirsch said that there would need to be significant rethinking of the design. The guest/service parking must be solved and must be convenient. If that means they need to reduce the park that might work. He suggested they make a Motion that the guest and service parking be provided in a more convenient place necessitating site plan changes. The only way he could accept the project is to make a major change in the site plan. He suggested some of the housing facing 101 be pulled back. He did not think the yard facing 101 would be used even with the sound wall. The site plan must accommodate service vehicles and reduce the impact of parking to allow a more landscaped streetscape. If that happened the scheme could possibly work. Chair Thompson said that she was working on a Motion. Ms. Gerhardt explained they did not need a Motion, but direction to the applicant would be helpful. Mr. Sauls said that he understood the ARB’s concerns about guest parking but noted the City does not have guest parking as a requirement. Obviously, people will have guests, but there are no guest vehicle parking requirements. There are guest bicycle parking requirements that the applicant has provided. Chair Thompson thanked Mr. Sauls and indicated they would do some straw polls. The ARB may ask the applicant to reconsider the site plan related to parking, to reconsider the reflective white paint choice, tree locations, increasing the landscape buffer on the perimeter of the site, and to consider varying the building type design more. Boardmember Baltay thought that what Chair Thompson stated was true but sounded mild. The parking, transportation service, and trash must function. That is Finding #4 in the ARB standards. It is not about requiring guest parking it is about Finding #4 and functionality. Secondly, it is not possible to have a 6 foot wall without an additional setback of buildings. The buildings will have to be pulled back from the park to make the landscape work. To earn his support they would have to pull the buildings back further. They may not be able to have 6 to 8 buildings of the planned size. The applicant could still have a greater FAR than the Code allows, but it might not be as much as they initially requested. He repeated that he was most concerned with the functionality of the parking, transportation service, deliveries, and a greater physical buffer with the park. Boardmember Hirsch added that he was concerned about exactly what was expressed although he was more concerned about altering the site plan so they could make Finding #4. The applicant could perhaps cut the outdoor space by the units that back up to 101 and West Bayshore to answer the service and provide a more attractive and broken up street façade. As discussed by Boardmember Baltay the park did not need to be as large and could be sculpted back so the ramp was further within the private park. That would break up the façade of a large wall and allow better access to the park for residents. Chair Thompson thought that was a good idea. She thought the ARB was mainly in agreement and agreed that the streets would be nicer if they felt more pedestrian. She asked if staff was clear or if they needed another summary. Ms. Gerhardt said that staff heard the site plan and parking concerns. she appreciated them relating that to Finding #4 and the functionality of the site. Finding #2 also discusses internal sense of order and a desirable environment. The ARB made it clear they are looking for major changes to the landscape buffer 6.a Packet Pg. 165 Page 24 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 because of the elevation change. The other issues such as the reflective white color were easily handled. She asked if the ARB thought different paint colors or unit sizes were enough to differentiate the three building types. Chair Thompson shared her screen and Slide A13 and A16. The edges were different, but the middle of the buildings were similar and that made up the bulk of the façade. If they are looking for differentiation they needed to see more of it. Boardmember Baltay said that the building type issue was not his primary concern. If his other concerns are addressed he was willing to be flexible. He understood the Code requirement but agreed with Chair Thompson’s earlier point about cohesiveness. Boardmember Hirsch thought that they were not taking advantage of their material opportunities. They could increase textures and colors to differentiate the buildings. The proportions of the front work as a modern detailed piece. the materials and facades are okay as designed. One of the problems is the main entry is opposite from the garage side. There are site plan issues related to the project’s limitations. He asked if the applicant could consider creating additional access to the upstairs. He noted that he raised the biggest issues with the underground parking but addressing the access could also improve the project. Chair Thompson thought the ARB conveyed Boardmember Hirsch’s points. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Chair Thompson to move the project to a date uncertain and subject to the ARB comments. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 6. ARB Awards: Consider the Eligible 11 Projects and Associated Photographs Taken by Board Members, and Decide on a List of Award Categories and Award Winners Chair Thompson suggested they move the ARB Awards to the next meeting as it only had one item on the Agenda and confirmed the other Boardmembers were comfortable with that. Ms. Gerhardt asked for a Motion with a specific date. The next ARB meeting is scheduled for February 2, 2022. MOTION: Chair Thompson moved, seconded by Boardmember Baltay, that Item #6 be moved to the February 2, 2022, ARB meeting. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Approval of Minutes 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2021 Chair Thompson called for the approval of the minutes. Boardmember Baltay noted that he read both sets of minutes carefully and would like to make the Motions. 6.a Packet Pg. 166 Page 25 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Chair Thompson, to approve the ARB meeting minutes for November 18, 2021. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 8. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 9, 2021 MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Chair Thompson, to approve the ARB meeting minutes for December 9, 2021. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Subcommittee Items None. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Thompson called for Boardmember questions, comments, and announcements. Boardmember Baltay suggested they consider appointing a Vice Chair even though staff thought it unnecessary. An important role of the Vice Chair is to be exposed to the experience of being a Chair. He suggested it be placed on a future agenda. Chair Thompson agreed that was a good thing and suggested anyone interested contact her. Boardmember Baltay asked if the discussion needed to be agendized. Ms. Gerhardt stated that it did need to be agendized. The nominations could be done at that point. Chair Thompson asked how it would work if both Boardmembers Hirsch and Baltay were nominated. Boardmember Baltay said he would not accept the nomination. Ms. Gerhardt stated they would have to play nice as there were no tiebreakers. Boardmember Baltay stated for the record he could not accept a nomination. Ms. Gerhardt indicated the item would be on the February 3, 2002, Agenda. Chair Thompson asked if there was anything further. Ms. Gerhardt reminded everyone that the Development Center was currently closed to appointments until at least February 1, 2022, due to COVID. On February 1st they will set up the community meeting for the objective standards, so more details are forthcoming on the website and via email. Adjournment 6.a Packet Pg. 167 Page 26 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 1/20/22 Chair Thompson adjourned the meeting. 6.a Packet Pg. 168