Planning Commission - Regular Meeting

Alright, good evening and thank you for joining us for our 04/21/2026 Planning Commission and Architectural Advisory Committee joint meeting. As a reminder, items will be taken in order. They are listed on the agenda. Before we get started, I wanted to briefly go over public comment procedures for the meeting for those who may be joining us for the first time. Public comments on the matters of commission and committee interest and items not on the agenda will be taken during item number three.

Comments on the agenda items will be taken only when that item is called. In person speakers will be called first followed by virtual attendees. For in person speakers, please fill out one of these speaker cards in the front and from the council chamber and bring it to staff on the side. For those joining us virtually, you may be able to raise hand feature on Zoom to speak. If you're joining us via teleconference by phone, you may raise your hand by dialing 9 and 6 to unmute your microphone when prompted.

Please only raise your hand at a time when the item on which you are speaking is called. Each speaker will be allotted two minutes, but the time may be adjusted if there are many speakers. For in person speakers, there will be a light on the podium to let you know how much time you have left and a buzzer when the time is up. For virtual speakers, there will be a timer on the screen. Lastly, we want to know so sorry.

Lastly, we know that each person brings a different perspective to the discussion, and we want to be sure that everyone has a chance to be heard without interruption. Planning Commission welcomes public comment on items within our purview. Any speaker whose comments are on topics not under Commission's purview will be warned and then removed if necessary in order to allow for the Planning Commission to conduct their business. Thank you for your attention and coordination during this process. I will now turn it over to staff for the roll call.

Commissioner Bath?

Present.

Commissioner Cornejo? Here. Commissioner Finch? Here. Commissioner Hunter?

Here.

Commissioner Robinson is joining virtually, but he has not yet joined as far as I can tell. I'll just do one more check. Commissioner Robinson, are you online? Okay. Vice Chair Coke is absent. And Chair Sir Nakoretz.

Present.

And for the Architectural Advisory Committee. Committee member Davidowitz?

He's not here.

Here? No, he's not here.

He's not here.

Committee member Jenkins? Here. Committee member King?

He's not here.

Not here. Absent. And vice chair Stuart?

Here.

And Chair Tanaka Tsubo? Present. And Youth Committee Member Paredes is absent. For the purpose of this meeting, I'm Sue Exline. I'm the assistant community development director and staff liaison to the commit to planning commission. Other staff attending this evening, Rick Jarvis is our consultant city attorney. Evelyn Garcia is the associate planner and the AAC liaison. William Chu is our senior planner. Lindy Chan, principal planner. And Christina Matteo, administrative secretary and meeting host.

Thank you, miss Exline. Item number two, the next item on the agenda is AB 2,449, notifications and considerations. Do we have any remote participation notifications or requests from the commission to consider?

No. We do not. And I did wanna just note that I failed to mention that Barbara Kautz is also here. She's our consultant city attorney as well. Thank you.

Thank you. All right. Let's move on to the next item on the agenda. Item number three is public comments. So public comments on the approval of minutes, consent items, matters of commission interest and items not on the agenda. We will take time to take public comments from those joining us in person or through Zoom. As a reminder, public comments should be on topics within Planning Commission's purview. Let's see. Do we have any in person cards for items not on the agenda? Are there any Zoom speakers who would wish to speak and raise their hand at this time?

No, there are not.

Thank Thank you. So if there's no objection, seeing there are no speakers, I will now close the public comment for the items not on the agenda. And move straight into item number four, which is a public hearing. It's a request for a study session on the proposed site and building design for the 910 Marshall project, a downtown plan community permit application for a state licensed senior residential care facility with a total of 222 units consisting of a 188 market rate independent living units, 19 assisted living units, and 15 memory care units, a 210 square foot of retail and 95 parking spaces. The applicant is seeking waivers under the state density bonus law, including the height, 234 feet to the roof and 21 stories, and several other developmental standards in the downtown precise plan.

This is informational only and no action will be taken tonight. William Chuy, our senior planner, will give a presentation on this item.

Thank you, Chair Cervantes. Good evening to the Planning Commission. Good evening to the Architectural Advisory Committee. My name is William Chu, and I'll be giving the staff presentation tonight. So to reiterate, the purpose of tonight's meeting is a Planning Commission and AAC study session.

And the focus of the meeting is the proposed site and building design for the project, and we are not requesting any action tonight, only feedback. The outline of the presentation tonight, we will go over kind of the study session questions that staff has for the Planning Commission and AAC's consideration, a background on the project site, project description and then discussion on the current proposed design of the project. I do want to note that you may have seen a different looking or different larger project on this project site at some point, but that project was withdrawn. The project you're looking at tonight is the current and proposed project here. So these are the study session questions that staff wants to kind of pose in front as you have them just keep them in mind during the presentations.

One, general question just to weigh in on the overall thoughts on the building design and tower design. Two, your thoughts on the site design with the lobby setback, Port Co Share and the Spring Street design frontage. Three, should the applicant continue to kind of break up the length of the massing with different design approaches and then four, where are the opportunities to create a signature building. So this is the project site. Address is 910 Marshall, highlighted here approximately 1.08 acres.

It's located in the downtown precise plan. It has frontages on Marshall Street, Walnut and Spring, and then to the south is a one storey commercial building. The proposed project would demolish the existing one storey medical building on the site and construct a state licensed senior residential care facility with two twenty two units. The majority of those would be market rate independent living units, but there will be 19 assisted living units and 15 memory care units as well. There is 1,200 square feet of retail on the Ground Floor, and no affordable housing units are proposed at this time.

And under state law, senior care facilities the city cannot require senior care facilities provide affordable housing. But as a senior care facility, there would be a kind of a comprehensive care package that they would provide. It'd be things like meals, housekeeping, personal care and a wide range of amenities to support seniors. And then there'd be some parking in terms of 95 parking spaces that include some valet and some tandem and then 36 bicycle parking spaces. So this is a view from kind of Broadway and Maple Spring Street in the foreground here.

The proposed building is a 21 storey, two thirty four feet tower that but overall, two fifty eight feet to the top of the elevator overruns and mechanical equipment on top. The tower steps down to a two story, 35 foot approximately podium. This will be structured parking. And then on top of that podium, you can see there'll be a landscape terrace for common open space for the residents. As mentioned, the entitlement is a downtown planned community permit, but at the same time, there was also a request for state density bonus of additional 20% and then also state density bonus law waivers of development standards.

As of right now, the request includes approximately 14 waivers of development standards, including maximum height. As a senior housing project, the project is eligible for the requested density bonus of 20%, but staff are currently still evaluating whether the waivers meet state density bonus law and the key waiver being the height waiver to increase height from 92 feet maximum to two fifty eight feet approximately. City staff have also requested assistance from the California Housing Community Development Department on the height waiver, but the purpose of tonight's meeting to reiterate is the is for a robust design discussion on the proposed project at this stage. So looking at the site plan, the main component of the Marshall Street frontage is the aforementioned Porco share. It's over the recessed main lobby.

The retail space is on the corner of Marshall And Walnut. And then along Marshall Street, there would also be a two lane driveway to access the parking garage and an eight foot sidewalk. So the lobby itself is recessed approximately 42 feet from the sidewalk, exceeding the maximum 10 feet setback. And then the proposed sidewalk width is also less than the required 12 feet. This is kind of one of the areas staff is requesting feedback on.

We think the wider sidewalk could potentially provide more for pedestrian activity and also accessibility needs for the residents. And then similarly, the recess setback, the idea of the maximum setback in the precise plan is for buildings to be close to the sidewalk for a downtown urban environment. Along the String Street side, the frontage consists of the two story above ground parking podium it'd be currently proposed to be screened with perforated metal panels and in ground planters. Staff similarly request input here for additional consideration for more visual or pedestrian interests or kind of ideas to decrease the scale of the garage phase. Smooth Street is particularly challenging, so I just want to provide some context here.

The section that is on the screen is the new streets map in the Downtown Versailles plan, and the focus is on the project site and also the surrounding area. So you see the project site is highlighted in red there. You can see Spring Sheet to the west side of the site, and it's identified in gray. And what that means is that the TTPP calls for the street to be removed in order to establish a more standard street grid. In green, to the north of the site is the recently approved 1900 Broadway project, which was a gatekeeper project, and they are implementing part of that DTPB vision and will request that the portion of Spring Street that runs to their project site be vacated, and they will develop the entirety of that site and what is highlighted there.

Staff currently is evaluating opportunities to close the additional segment of Spring Street, but wanted to note that that would be once the improvements to the 1900 Broadway project are completed and also noting that the closure of Spring Street is not proposed as part of the nine ten project. But that would be helpful context to guide the kind of Spring Street frontage design discussion. So this is the proposed project design. It mainly consists of a single tower on top of a two story podium. The podium covers the project site with the tower oriented on the east side of the site.

The tower is rectangular and spans the length of Marshall Street, and the staff has been working with the applicant on the proposed design. We had identified some concern with the initial submittal that it was emphasizing both the length and the height, suggested some vertical breaks in the massing. And similarly, as the tallest building in Redwood City, Steph also suggested that this may be an opportunity for unique landmark design providing kind of unique architecture and visual interest. So this in response, this is the applicant's resubmittal and is requesting feedback from the Planning Commission and AAC. Seth did find that the current design as proposed is starting to break up the massing vertically, horizontally.

Due to the height, it doesn't neatly align with some of the DTPPs kind of base, middle and top requirements, but you can see some of those elements are represented. The building base is the kind of vertical pilasters. The building middle is the primary building facade for the residential units, and it's kind of represented by those white precast elements that represents the frame around the windows, and this is repeated both vertically and horizontally. And those elements are also popped out slightly from the building base below. And then there's also a vertical circulation element that runs up the entirety of the tower.

And then the vertical breaks are recessed. They use different materials. They also have balconies. And then the sides of the tower are shown on the right here. They include kind of the same materials and approach.

However, they provide a little bit more architectural interest by vertically offsetting the separated massing elements. And the top is the it's glazing that's recessed from the building middle below, and that's capped by a metal flat roof on one side. I wanted to provide a couple of perspectives of the project from around the city. This is looking East on Jefferson and El Camino. This is a view of the project from veterans looking West.

There are additional perspectives as well as other parts of cities. Those are linked in your staff report. And lastly, so to conclude, staff is requesting input from the Planning Commission and AAC on the overall project design as proposed. As mentioned, staff is finding that the project is starting to respond to staff's comments, but we still think the design could be strengthened and improved. Some examples, we think the project could explore utilizing the same asymmetrical massing organization on the length of

the

massing, maybe other materials or color transitions, use of different patterns or maybe even to differentiate the popped out elements or circulation elements more distinctly. Similarly, with those questions, we were wondering if there's kind of improvements to both the Marshall Street and Spring Street at the ground level. And then lastly, on kind of landmark architecture, suggest there could be more done to set the building apart architecturally. So finally, again, no action requested tonight, only feedback. And that concludes staff's presentation. Happy to answer any clarifying questions.

Thank you, Mr. Chuy, for your presentation. Are there any clarifying questions that the commission or the committee members would like to ask staff Committee members, Stuart.

I don't have any questions right now.

Oh, I'm sorry. I saw your light. Oh, sorry. No worries. Committee member Tanaka Tsubo.

So this is to staff. The diagonal destruction of Spring Street and that massing of that beautiful block and the fact that 1900 is going to be asking for the removal and vacating Spring Street. Why at this point is this not a stronger element either from the city's direction to the applicant or as a mandate of this is gonna be dealt with as an entire block because we will be vacating Spring Street because going through a lot of serious design compromises in order to handle this diagonal that's created by Spring Street. And I'm curious as to why if there isn't a stronger move on part of the city to get rid of it.

Yeah. It's a very good question. I think we are, at this point, still evaluating options to close this segment of Spring Street. And yes, as you see, it's a very small segment of Spring Street. But we just want it's unfortunate it's not part of the project details at this time. But the city and staff and the applicant have been working and talking and discussing Spring Street. But what we know right now is that we have kind of right of way rights. That, we are still looking at options, and it's an ongoing discussion.

I also have a question related to that on Spring Street. I know that this particular potential closure of Spring Street was proposed in DTPB plans, which were passed more than fifteen years ago, so it's much before my time. Given that the wording is potential, I'm curious whether it currently stands as a street, does this frontage consider an active street and what has to and any implementation will have to follow the current DTPP standards in terms of development regulations on that particular frontage?

I'm sorry. Would you be able to repeat that question?

The DTPP proposes a potential closure of Spring Street, but currently, it's an active street with active users and active pedestrians on the sidewalk. So I'm curious, as it stands right now, any proposed projects on that remnant lot that's currently there that's being proposed by the applicant, does it currently have to follow all the relevant DTPP standards related to that frontage?

Along Spring Street for the project frontage?

Yes.

There no requirements in the precise plan specifically for Spring Street because of its contemplated I

mean, general requirements for all the streets within the DTPP.

Sorry, I'm not sure I'm understanding the question fully.

Yes. So for example, one of the requirements of the DTPP in terms of pedestrian activation of frontage of a particular building within DTPP. For example, we or at least the way I read the the the the standards is for a two story for for any parking structure, for example, it cannot be facing an active use on within the DPP because it's considered downtown and a highly activated pedestrian use. So in this particular case, would that requirement, which is for all streets within DPP be applicable to this block?

Good evening, Chair. Lindy Chan, principal planner. I'm just going to jump in on the question and working closely with William on this. The Downtown Precise Plan identifies different street types and then falls back on the street for the requirements in accordance to the street types. Because this is called out for a street to be removed, it doesn't call for any requirements because it's not establishes any particular street.

Mhmm. Therefore, it is not something that the city had even contemplated. But in terms of the requirement, I believe the applicant would be waiving the requirement for them to remove that portion of Spring Street from their proposal. So is a little bit difficult because it doesn't model the Downtown Precise Plan as it was adopted. We are also evaluating a greater downtown area plan, so this could be part of a larger consideration given the proposal that we have. All of these are considerations that we're thinking through.

Got it. Thank you, Mrs. Chen. Commissioner Hunter?

Were you done?

I have one more question, but

you can

go No, no,

After you. I guess I just I think hopefully a quicker question regarding Spring Street also. So now that Spring Street no longer all will no longer goes all the way through to Marshall because of the the the approved project on the Wells Fargo site, is is the plan unless the staff or the city does something else, is the current plan that that short block of Walnut would still be active as a street? So Spring Street would you know, you can go down Spring Street and then turn right onto Walnut to get to Marshall?

Yeah. Walnut Street would be a would be a new city street as part of the precise plan vision. But Walnut would run through both the project site for 1900 Broadway and then or sorry, would have a frontage on the 1900 Broadway site and then would also have a frontage on the 1900 project site.

Does Walnut continue on South, I guess? And it doesn't, does it? So there's only like a short block, right? Between Spring and Marshall?

It's a private property.

Yeah. Yeah. So it doesn't go anywhere. So really, that's all that's all Walnut would be is just a

More.

Little short block.

Oh, one sorry. One more. Do you mean this segment highlighted in orange there?

No. Yeah. So at the

bottom of that, I don't think Walmart goes through. Does it? Well, it shows it there, but there's a okay. Alright. Yeah. I'm looking at a picture here. It it doesn't doesn't look like that. Okay. Okay. That was just informational question.

This might be a question for the for the city attorney. So does this study session count toward that five meeting limit under the Housing Accountability Act?

It does.

It does. Oh, okay. Thank you. Oh, could you you you put up a list of four questions to get us to think about our our input for you. I don't understand the last question.

I think we

are Are there additional opportunities? Do you mean elsewhere in downtown?

No. For this project itself. You know, if if there's an opportunity to create a signature looking building for this proposed project, and where are those opportunities on, you know, the the tower or the the building itself to be really distinct and unique.

Okay. But but that's but but the the the the preface of the of the sentence is that's assuming that it's still gonna be a tower. Right. Tall tower. Right. Yes. Okay. Okay. That's all I had for

you, Anil. Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Hunter. Commissioner Cornejo.

Yeah. Thank you. Given that the the building is being proposed to be really, really tall, I'm trying to get an understanding of what does it compare to the tallest building in Downtown Redwood City? Which is that building now? I don't know if you have like a picture or something, but I want to see like a side by side.

Let's see here. Okay. Sorry. I think we think the tallest building at least is the county, like, dome, but that is in the, you know, the San Mateo County Building. But in terms of the downtown, the maximum height is 12 it's a 12 storey zone in different parts of the downtown. Potentially, I think the box building might be the The tallest. The tallest. Or the Indigo residential project is also, I think, in a 12 story zone.

So Indigo Box, and then you said the county building?

The the top of the dome for the the county courthouse.

Oh, the court. Okay. Got it. Okay. Thank you.

Indigo and Box are both 12 are both 10 stories. Correct. Okay.

You, commissioner Cornejo. Commissioner Bott, where is yours?

Yeah. Thank you for the presentation. I also had a question about the the fourth question from staff questions. Is is this under consideration by the applicant to move the site? Or I guess I'm try what is the what is the purpose of that question? Are they looking to different locations?

No. No. Sorry for the confusion. I think the the intent of the question is that, the building itself, as proposed, would be the tallest building in Roadmood City, potentially the tallest building in the entire peninsula. So we thought there would be an opportunity for a unique design, a unique kind of landmark building. And so yes, the quest the intent behind the question is just if there are additional opportunities to push the architecture of the building more.

I'll get back to you if I have questions about that. I'm sort of processing that.

Thank you, Commissioner Blatt. Commissioner Finns?

Yes. I had following up on Commissioner Hunter's questions. Is the the section is redoing the section of Walnut Street from Spring Street to Broadway, would that would that would this developer be doing that or would that be the city doing that at a later time?

But some of the improvements are part of the 1900 Broadway project.

Oh, okay. Okay. Thank you. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Butt. Commissioners Committee Member Stuart.

Yes. I'm just wondering about the five meeting limit. There seem to be a lot of questions that you are going to look into with the state and the whole thing with Walnut. I'm just wondering if we're being too early and looking at a design because if you take Walnut out and I think that what's that other little triangle on the other side of Walnut? Is that a park or?

Small retail. What?

Street. It's pretty small little yes, that little triangle. But if you square the site off, this design really wouldn't apply and

That's an existing retail use that

No, but it could be part of this project too, right?

It would be it's under different ownership at this time. So not well. Well,

at least if you took Walnut, then the site would be bigger and maybe there would be a different design other than what we're looking at. And if there's only a five meeting limit, you know, we could propose a lot of questions here that need to be relooked at. And I don't know how you can do that in five meetings if we're already counting. One of them is a meeting here already. I'm just wondering if we're too early because I can't remember what the exact questions were.

But there were questions about state law and how it applies to, I think, the height and the elderly housing or something like that. So that's a question in my mind.

Thank you, commitment, Member Stewart.

Chair Sweeney, don't go

know have response.

UNIDENTIFIED

Can I just speak to the question from Commissioner Stuart? The it's a good question. There are five meetings limits for once the project's been incomplete. So this has already gone to a study session with the city council while it was reviewed and incomplete, so that did not count. One of the feedback from the council when they provided feedback, and if you've had a chance to an opportunity to review, was to really get broad community input on the project design.

And so this is why we're holding a joint meeting with both the AAC and the Planning Commission is an opportunity to really air this out in early fashion to really understand what the community's interest is in a building of this height and because it is so tall for the Redwood City and asking for such a large waiver. So this was a really good opportunity early on in the process just to make sure that we're getting input from the community and from both commissions this evening. So just wanted to put that there. And I don't know if Sue if you had anything else you wanted to add. No.

Great.

No, thank you. I did just want to add that Commissioner Robinson has joined us a few minutes ago now, and I don't know if you are able to see when he has his hand raised. And so

I can

know, so please do let me know.

No, that's fine.

I'll yield the floor to Commissioner Roberts.

Just wanted to

flag that for your attention.

Great. Thank you. Can

you hear me? Yes. Very well. I apologize for the technology security controls for all of you. I'm getting in promptly.

I just wanted to, talk about the paragraph at the bottom of page nine or page six depending on where you are in the package building design. So I I used to work in the Foster City Metro Tower, which I think is the tallest building on the Peninsula. And that is a completely planned area of the tower, which is office, additional office buildings around it, housing, commercial, and shopping, that kind of thing. And it's all a very cohesive design. Obviously, we can't do that in Downtown Redwood City, an old city.

And but I was so I'm I'm very focused on the design aspects, and it says that the architectural styles allowed Mediterranean, neoclassical, art deco, Victorian, but this appears to be contemporary. And I would assume that Indigo is also contemporary. Are there any examples of tall buildings that we would, you know, might look at that would constitute for the downtown historic character aspect that are Mediterranean or neoclassic, Polaroid, Deco? Because I can't personally think of any, but when I when I look at the proposed design, I think it's it'll be very important that we get this right because of how visible it is. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Robinson. Minister Chui, would you like to respond? Or

The yes, the Downtown Precise Plan has different character areas that permit different parts of different types of architecture throughout the city. And the Indigo project is in the portion of the downtown that does permit contemporary, whereas this doesn't. And so some of those design and architectural styles are specifically curated for where they are in the precise plan itself. So and then they're also curated for potentially the maximum height limit. So I don't know if there's any good example would be any good examples at least in the downtown itself of kind of tall Mediterranean buildings or tall Victorian or Art Deco buildings.

But there are there may be examples throughout other parts of the that we can look at.

Right. Thank you, Mr. Chewy. I do have a couple of follow-up questions before mister. But relating to height, do we have the height of the proposed 1900 Broadway project, which is adjacent to this proposal?

It's also in a 92 feet zone, so it's 92 feet.

92 feet. Okay. And then the other question that we heard from residents as well is, did a proposed housing units being for senior living count towards the city contribution for Arena allotment for this cycle?

I'm not sure I know the answer to that question. Sue?

All right. Could you repeat it? I'm having a little bit of a hard time hearing you.

Well, that's Okay. The proposed housing units being senior living, do they count towards the city's contribution towards the RINA allotment for this cycle?

So that's still being fully evaluated, but our hope and intention that at least the independent living units will count. The facility is broken up into different units. So we are hoping that those at the very least do count.

Great. Thank you. Commissioner Bob.

Yeah. Just a follow-up on the sorry. There we go. Just a follow-up on the design. So the the staff report on that same page that commissioner Robinson pointed out says that two of the main things that staff raised concerns about were the project height and building design. And as I understand it, is do we have any examples in the area of a Mediterranean neoclassical, Art Deco or Victorian housing tower? Is this something that is feasible? Or is this a requirement that categorically excludes what's been proposed?

Thank you, Commissioner. But I think that's very much along the lines of question from Mr. Robertson from Commissioner Robinson. And I think that well, I'm not going to answer the question for you, but Mr. Chui, senior planner, may decide to reiterate the answer.

Yeah. We we I mean, there are examples downtown of Mediterranean residential buildings, just not not or other type of styles of that are residential, but just not that nothing that was contemplated at this current height.

Right. Certainly, non river city. Of course, there are examples in San Francisco or San Jose or some of these tiles, not within our city boundaries. Commissioner Cornejo. I

have two questions. My first one is a follow-up to what was shared. I'm sorry, I don't remember the other staff member's name.

Lindy.

I'm sorry, what is it? Lindy.

Libby?

Lindy.

Lindy. Okay. Sorry, Lindy. I wanted to as I was reading the report and when it was brought to the council in 2025, the council expressed concerns or shared that they wanted a heavy outreach and community engagement, given the scale of the project? And I know we're having this meeting, and we've received public comment, and there's people here. What other approaches have you all taken to make sure that we get as much community outreach? Because even though we received emails from people, I was expecting just a lot more. But anyways, I wanted to hear your thoughts on that.

I'll start. The applicant has done a good amount of community outreach. They can speak to what they have done and some of the results of their outreach efforts. They've done that on their as part of the response to City Council.

Okay. So will that be in the presentation?

Yes. So they can speak to

it. Yes.

Okay. Got it. So then I'll just wait there. And then my next question is on the design and the height. How will this affect like when I walk around all downtown Redwood City, there's places where there's a lot of sunlight, and then there's certain places where there really isn't any. So how will this affect just the sunlight, the shadows? What will what would that look like?

That's a good question. The precise plan has a specific shadow impact that standard or threshold, and maybe it's the best way to say it. We're still I think we've asked the applicant to provide that as part of their application materials to show if it has a specific shadow impact, but specifically what the precise plan considers a shadow impact at least is a specific time and specific amount of shadow that's cast over public historic resources or parks or whatever it is. So and that's during the spring equinox. But they would have the applicant is we've requested a shadow study as part of their project plan.

So that's something that we have seen partially of, but not we haven't seen the full kind of limited and shadow at least based on that threshold of the precise plan has.

Okay. Yeah, because even when I walk through Box between Box and Limon, that street, never I never really see any sunlight. So I don't know why that is. But anyways, thank you.

Sorry. Thank you, Commissioner Cornejo. Committee member Jenkins.

Thank you. Is there a comprehensive list of the 14 exceptions that are being requested?

Staff has that list, yes. If I can try to grab that for you if you are looking for that full list.

Commissioner Jenkins just also want speak to the fact that the city is still evaluating all of the waivers. It's 14 at this time. There may be more. So I just want to focus the attention on the design and the exterior, not so much on the waivers per se, but the ones that we've called your attention to is what we want to focus on. And then high level preliminary design feedback. There will be a subsequent opportunity where we will ask the Architectural Advisory Committee to formally weigh in on each of those requests and formally provide a recommendation on the design. I think we didn't want to provide too much detail at this phase because it is a lot of information, but trying to keep the discussion high level. But I'll also just see if there's anything else that William wants to add.

If there's any kind of maybe specific things you're thinking of in terms of what's requested, I'd maybe happy to summarize. But otherwise, I think agreed, the focus of the meeting is kind of the overall design. You have a question?

Yeah. Thank you. Committee member Stuart. Yes. Yeah.

I'm just thinking of the precedent that this could set because there's probably other sites that are similar to this. And if this gets approved, do we end up with a city that's you know, 200 feet tall? Is that been considered? Mean, there's nothing unique about this site that says that this is the one that's going to be the tallest building because it could be a whole city of these, right? Is that true?

May I ask for some legal input on this particular question?

It's not so much a question. Hi, I'm Barbara Kautz. I'm special counsel to the city, and thank you for having me. It's not so much that the project sets a precedent, but that density bonus law allows developers to request an unlimited number of waivers from local development standards. And although there's some question about how that applies to the height requested here, which is why the city has asked the Department of Housing and Community Development for their opinion or for technical advice.

In general, waivers can only be denied if there's a specific health and safety problem caused by the waiver that can't otherwise be mitigated, or the waiver violates state or federal law, or it has an adverse impact on a historic building listed on the California register. For instance, this building was actually proposed to be much higher, but the federal government, the FAA, said it was too high for a building near the San Carlos Airport. But it does require generally, you know, either effect on an historic building or a violation of state or federal law or a specific health or safety impact to turn down a waiver. So the legislature has made it really quite difficult for cities to maintain their design standards and vision.

Thank you. Maybe Commissioner Hunter, your last question before I would like to give the applicant also a chance to present just to

No. That's fine. I was going to follow-up on that with a question that I had intended to ask later, but it would have been in response to that. But why don't we wait?

Yeah. Want to give a chance for the applicant. That was my attempt. No worries.

Chair Srinagaras, we have just one more comment from commissioner Robinson.

Alright. Commissioner Robinson, please join us.

Yeah. I'm I'm still focused on building design. So I think we've talked about residential towers and and that kind of thing. But the actual podium itself, so this is something that's going to be at street level. What is the proposed design style that I'm looking at in Figure 4 Spring Street frontage?

And that's back on page nine because I think, you know, the the tower is one thing. We're all gonna see that from a distance. At street level, the podium needs to integrate with the surrounding architecture, which is very close to some of our historic buildings, for example. But what are what am I seeing in the what do you guys call the podium design now? Is that contemporary? Is that the the, like, first three stories of glass, etcetera? Thank you.

Yes. It's a good question. I'm not sure if we've contemplated maybe the design style, but in terms of what it's represented is that it's the parking podium, but then there's kind of perforated screening panels for the garage itself. There's some planters along the streetscape, but that is maybe the extent of what at least is shown on the project design for that that piece.

The figure I'm sorry. Figure six, that is showing, the backside of the podium, which will be a parking structure and screening. Is that what I'm seeing?

Yes. Yes.

Spring Street perspective. Yes. Okay. And then other than that, it's just the pedestrian sidewalk. Alright. And then in figure seven, the Marshall Street Ground Floor, the sidewalk's shaped with trees and then the the glass and the other appearance. But that's the Marshall Street Ground Floor is the tower. It goes straight up from there. Is that right?

Yes. Okay.

Was there any contemplation of that being of the tower being stepped back a little bit further within the triangle so that it doesn't create such a straight up? There's no there's no so what I'm seeing then on Marshall Street is there there is no real step back from Marshall Street. For example, on El Camino Real, when many new multifamily rental apartment buildings went up. The first two or three stories are at street street frontage, but then they stepped back a little bit. Was there any contemplation on on the Marshall Street for the tower being stepped back? Thank you.

I think the applicant will touch on some of their design approach in part of their presentation and what they've looked at and what they've explored.

Thank you, Mr. Chuy for answering our plethora of questions. It's been quite exhausting, but we're going to have our applicant pay their presentation and we'll follow-up with our further questions. You.

Good evening, AAC members and planning commissioners. My name is Steven Reller with R and M Properties, the applicant for nine Board Board

Directors

to thank planning staff, of particularly Lindy and William, who have worked with of us closely for over two years to get us where we are tonight. Kevin Dang with HG Architects will present the project, but I wanted to take a minute to introduce myself and talk about the need for the project. This year the baby boom generation begins to turn 80. The coming decades will bring a demographic shift unlike anything we've ever seen before and Redwood City will feel it acutely. Over the next twenty years, Redwood City's population is expected to grow only about 4%.

However, in that same time period, the number of residents 70 will increase by roughly 70%, almost 20 times faster than the population as a whole. This translates to over 8,000 more residents 70 than there are today in Redwood City. This isn't a distant trend, it's already underway and will be a massive change. Some seniors will choose to age in place, many others will want or need to move. But in the last twenty years, Redwood City has built only about 300 similar senior housing units, a small fraction of what's needed.

Without action, this shortage will only get worse and will force many seniors to move from the city they call home. Redwood City has transformed remarkably over the last twenty years. You have a thriving downtown with many new housing, life science and office developments. But one critical development type that has been ignored is senior housing. Nine ten Marshall is one important step toward filling that gap and keeping lifelong residents in the community they call home. I'll now turn it over to Kevin Dang with HD Architects who will walk you through the project details. Thank you.

It seems that our slides are not advancing. Okay. You can go to the next slide. And the next one. Okay. Thanks, Steve. So it's first, I want to say it's a special honor tonight to present to both the architectural advisory committee and the planning commission in the same evening. We truly appreciate the opportunity for this study session. While and next slide. Sorry.

While tonight's focus is the building design, it's important first to ground the project within the city's broader priorities. This proposal directly supports key downtown goals around housing, transportation and mobility, and children and youth. That intergenerational connection between seniors and their community. Next slide, please. The site's downtown location is central to the project's success.

It offers immediate access to services, transit public life, and everyday amenities that are essential to senior independence, dignity, and long term well-being. Next slide, please. The site is connected to the fabric of the city. As we shared during our city council presentation last fall, senior housing presents unique challenges. Staff retention and meaningful participation in communities are critical to the facility's success.

These are not operational issues alone, they are design drivers and they shape our wellness centered approach to the project. Next slide, please. These conditions led us to a set of core design values, urban integration, resident wellness and access to natural light and air at every level. Next slide, please. The site is captured by urban density and height on one side and by a gateway pedestrian scale corridor on another.

Our response is a building that participates in an existing urban rhythm while leveraging solar orientation to create generous, highly usable common open space. It's unfortunate that the slide doesn't show very well. Next slide please. The massing evolves directly from that urban environmental response. At the lower levels, entries, services, and amenities help articulate the building's relationship to the street.

The tower form is refined to optimize resident views, daylight access, facade composition and an articulated silhouette. Next slide please. An active Ground Floor experience is critical along Marshall Street, while Spring Street also serves as an important gateway into downtown. These precedents help frame our thinking around potential programs, materials and formal gestures that reinforce a vibrant pedestrian realm. Next slide, please.

On the 3rd Floor, we've dedicated an entire amenity level organized around a large outdoor terrace. These shared spaces are fundamental to the mental and physical well-being of our residents, offering multiple ways to connect with one another and with nature directly from their homes. Next slide, please. The residential floors prioritize access to natural light and views, not only within the units, but also within the shared circulation spaces and common areas. These everyday moments of daylight are essential comfort, orientation, and quality of life.

Next slide please. That design intent now comes together in the architecture itself. Next slide, please. Here's the Ground Floor plan. At Plan North, a generous drop off in court per share along Marshall Street provides a dignified arrival sequence while screening parking from the primary frontage. Back of health services functions are efficiently organized along Walnut Street to the West. Next slide, please. The 3rd Floor Amenity level contains a wide range of dedicated program and activity spaces and dining areas. The south facing edge is intentionally porous, creating both visual connection to open spaces and direct pedestrian access to the outdoor terrace. Next slide, please.

At the typical residential level, you can begin to see how facade articulation and unit mix planning are working together in an efficient floor plate. The design maximizes daylight through into both the units and the shared hallways and elevator lobby, while many residences also include private balconies to further reinforce an access to light air and outdoor connections. Next slide please. Here's a building section illustrating the distribution of programs. Next slide, please.

This is the project we submitted last year. I won't spend too much time here, but I do want to acknowledge that the next several images differ from what was formally submitted. We've been working closely with planning staff on the facade evolution and while it took longer than we anticipated, we deeply appreciate that collaborative process and I believe the result is significantly stronger because of that partnership. Next slide please. Here is the current proposed design of the project.

The most significant evolution is the shift from a predominantly horizontal expression to a more vertical architectural language. One that better reinforces the building's proportion, presence and relationship to the surrounding skyline. Next slide, please. Along Marshall Street, the frontage emphasizes pedestrian rhythm and material depth. Next slide, please.

At Spring Street, green walls and ornamental perforated metal panels screen the garage levels below the terrace while contributing texture and softness to the streetscape. Next slide, please. Looking down Marshall, additional massing articulation distinguishes the north and south portions of the tower. Next slide, please. And finally, close-up street level views highlight pedestrian scale materials.

Next slide, please. Detailing and the quality of the public realm experience. Next slide, please. And next slide, please. The architectural expression draws from warm tones and timeless materials. Concrete, metal and wood applied through high performance facade systems consistent with contemporary Class A urban buildings. The goal is a building that feels both durable and welcoming. Next slide, please. These elements come together as a cohesive palette that balances warmth, permanence and refinement. Next slide, please.

With that architectural framework established, I'd like to briefly connect the design back to the Downtown Precise plan. Next slide, please. I won't read the slide in detail, but it's important to acknowledge that as a state density bonus project, we are employing waivers for several DTPP standards related to facade composition, disposition type, architectural character and height. That said, our team does understand the underlying urban design intent of those standards, and our goal has been to meet that intent through an alternative but rigorous architectural response. Next slide, please.

While the building does not align neatly with the prescribed tower disposition type in the DTPP, the massing is still carefully sculpted and appropriate to its context for tall building. Next slide, please. Similarly, while the facade does not follow a literal base middle top or prescribed vertical break framework, it still establishes a strong compositional hierarchy, rhythm and depth. Next slide, please. At the base, we remain fully aligned with the spirit of the DTPP.

Pedestrian scale design gestures, transparency into active uses, expressed structural base as well as landscape elements all work together to soften the building edge and enrich the public realm. Next slide, please. While we do not express a conventional middle zone as outlined in the TTPP, the facade still uses a disciplined and highly articulated panel system with familiar compositional logic. This is intentionally not a glass box. It is a refined architectural system with depth, texture and a composed repetition of parts.

Next slide, please. And at the top, the building culminates in a distinctive south facing canopy that gives the tower a recognizable skyline identity while also reinforcing solar responsiveness. Next slide, please. Thank you. We appreciate the opportunity to share the evolution of the design and look forward to your feedback.

Thank you so much for your presentation. At this time, are there any clarifying questions that the commission or committee would like to ask the applicant? Committee member Tanaka Tsubo.

So in working with staff and having to also work with the downtown precise plan, did you feel at any time that it was forcing you as as the architect to address all these issues in a prescriptive manner as opposed to having the freedom to maybe address them differently if you weren't hemmed in by prescriptive requirements?

That's hard to say. We have we certainly recognize the GTPP standards, and they come from somewhere. I think we use those as a platform to make design decisions knowing that we would, you know, be working within what was expected of the DTPP as in terms in terms of style. If you're saying if the DTPP didn't exist at all and we've just came to the city with a project, perhaps perhaps we would make different decisions.

Were there were there areas prescriptively within the Downtown Pacific, precise plan rather, that you would have liked some freedom to be able to really push the envelope or kind of maybe color outside the line with their understanding that it still conceptually met the intent?

I don't think so. I mean, the the that we were our understanding of a state density bonus project allowed us to make use of waivers, but we didn't want to fully abandon the spirit of the TCPP language to essentially do what we wanted. I think we we used those TCPP guidelines and and their spirit of what they wanted to achieve urbanistically in our understanding of that to make those decisions.

So I I'm I'm not trying to put you on the spot, believe me. I'm just trying to get a sense of how much more the envelope you would push if given the opportunity. Understanding you've worked a long time with staff

Yeah.

And and staff quite conscientiously working with you to stay within the intent and not just the specific guideline, but also the intent of of these precise plan guidelines.

I guess I'm not really sure what what the question is. I think we have done what the the design of the project meets a whole host of of goals and targets, not only from the city, but from our own sort of architectural ambitions as well as our clients' ambitions. I don't know that we would make significantly different decisions if the downtown precise plan were not sort of in our laps from the beginning. And that may also be because we've worked in the city before, and we know, you know, what is successful here and what certain elements are are appropriate for areas like the downtown. So I think we did make the the correct decisions, and we would not have made such different or wildly different gestures in the architecture, if that's what you're asking.

Yeah. I'll get more into the specifics later as we as we go around the table. I was just trying to get a sense of the overall environment in which your firm and your client felt they had to work within. So thank you.

Thank you, committee member. Commissioner Cornell.

Thank you for the presentation. I'm just curious on your thought process, or how did you land on like 21 storeys or a building that high within that high given that in this city, that isn't really that's not a common look for us. So I'm just curious on why 21 stories?

It's a good question. And as I think was mentioned previously, we did contemplate a different project and took a different tower. Much of it is coming from the metrics of the base case study, which was submitted, and that is a particular yield of of number of units of gross area, things of that nature for an Azovite project. And so you kinda multiply that up, and that gets you a kind of rough target for areas and average unit sizes and and number of units. That starts to become part of the recipe of putting a of a a an overall project together.

Mhmm. And once you get into other aspirations for the project, for example, the open terrace on the 3rd Floor for for common use, things of that nature, that starts to push and and evolve that massing into the number of stories that you need to achieve the the development goals essentially dictated by that base case.

Got it. Yeah. Just following up on your comments. I don't think that the residents are excited for a building that high in Downtown Redwood City. I do hear that a lot of people love how Redwood City has evolved, but still maintain that kind of homey feel that it had before. And just by looking at the building, it kind of reminds me of like Miami City or something completely different from perhaps what we're used to. So just I just wanted to know how you landed on 2021. So thank you for that.

Thank you, Commissioner Cornejo. I have actually a similar question as a follow-up. I know in downtown, we follow, I guess, form based code in terms of the dwelling density on a particular parcel. So your design choices were for a podium of a two or three store two storeys and then a tower of 21. So were alternative design choices that were, for example, have a larger box, like a 12 story box and then a a rooftop open space amenities for the residents not meet the goals of the project or at least the what we were hoping to implement in terms of this particular application, like, in a different geometrical form, I may.

Sure. I I think I know what you're asking, and we did explore different massing typologies, let's call them. Mhmm. They became problematic in different ways, and it would maybe take a little while to explain, but there are many different pressures for this particular typology of residential use related to the way that residents make their way through the facility, but also how they arrive and depart the facility that make, let's say, different typologies of housing somewhat inappropriate for this population that required a kind of consolidation of core elements, circulation, drop off, that kind of thing that that drove us or or resulted in this solution.

Okay. I

think that's fair. And then the next question I have is maybe a little esoteric is that I know at some point I may have viewed maybe the very early proposal that involved a neighboring parcel in addition to the one acre parcel you're currently considering. So is there a reason why the applicant hasn't thought about potentially expanding the the the footprint dimension of this project to have, you know, let's say, half the height of the particular tower with similar amenities and similar orientation and open space just over a larger footprint area to make a less of a strategic impact onto the downtown core?

I might have to pass that one to the owner. I don't think we have content. Once we abandoned the parcel merging Mhmm. Project, we didn't really think about revisiting it, I guess. I don't know if there's more to it than that.

Yes. I'll just say when the project got smaller, the economics changed. Using more property would add more cost. And there's also a tenant in that property next door in DaVita that has a lease. So there's not an option really.

Got it. All right.

Thank you so much for the answer. Commission Member Finch.

I

saw in the survey that there was some questions about, like, transportation and, like, alternative means of transportation. Is the the applicant considering any kind of like TDM measures at this point such as like like I think a shuttle was mentioned in the survey, but maybe also like unbundled parking or transit passes or something like that?

There there is a TDM plan in the application. There is unbundled parking. There will plan to be a shuttle. There's also a host of other transportation measures that will be available for residents outlined in that TDM plan. I believe there's plans to have rideshare programs or even potentially a fleet of vehicles available for use for the residents. What am I missing? I think that covers most of it. But, yeah, there there will be a TDM plan submitted.

Okay. That that's yeah. That's great to hear. Yeah. Because I know one concern is is traffic of of the people living there. And then one other question is on the east side of the property, it doesn't look like it on the design, but is there any kind of pedestrian through access on the in the east side of the parcel?

There is a minor separation between the property line and the building facade, but it's not meant for pedestrian access.

Okay. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you. Commissioner Hunter.

Thank you. Can you tell me how many I couldn't find this anywhere. It may have been there, but could you tell me how many units there are of each bedroom type? From studio up to three bedroom.

Let's see if I can read it. My project designer printed this out for me.

Where am I here?

So of the assisted living oh, the building unit types. Assisted living, there are four one bedroom units. There's 15 studios.

Wait. Wait. They said four one. Okay. Yep. 15 studios.

The memory care units, there are 15. Those are sort of naturally studios without kitchens. Of the independent unit build of the independent living units, there are twelve one bedrooms. Nope. Well, we split this up into different categories, so it's a little bit tricky for me to follow. But twelve one bedrooms, one baths, thirty two one bedroom, one and a half baths, thirteen one bedrooms, one and a half baths plus dens. There's eighty two two bedroom and two baths. There's forty seven two bedroom, two baths and dens, and there are two three bedroom units, if you could follow all that.

I'm trying to write them down. So there's only only two three bedroom units.

Correct.

And then two bedroom units is 83 plus 47?

80 two plus 47.

Pardon me?

82 plus 47.

Okay. And and in the independent living, no studios?

There are no studios.

Okay. Good. Thank you for that. Oh, sorry. I turned. Since we're getting feedback, I turned that off. Thank you for that. And I have a question. This is probably for the for the owner. But can you talk about the what what is the business model for the project? In other words, you know, units can be ownership or rentals. I got the impression from having watched the city council meeting that that instead of those two things, it's actually a buy in or an entrance fee model?

Yeah. It's it hasn't been a 100% determined. It's it's it's not a it's not a purchase. It's a it's a rental. And sometimes those can have entrance fees that are, you know, lower fees and higher rents or higher entrance fees with lower rents. Generally, those entrance fees are refundable. The bulk of them are refundable. But again, those if you look at models across the state or country, they're kind of all over the place. But some of them, they can be 100% refundable or 0% refundable. So that's not determined quite yet.

Well, understanding that it's not determined yet, what would you estimate would be the range of the entrance fees?

Oh, I we have not even talked about that. It's more the the the rental. We it's probably in the 5,000 to 15,000 range. Don't quote me. But but this also isn't just rent. This is rent. This is meals. This is health care. This is entertainment, you know, everything, transportation. So it's it's not just it's not just a rent number.

Okay. So the people in the independent living units, which is by far the majority of the units Right. They would have meals provided? Yes. Oh, okay. I didn't know if that only applied to the Yes. Assisted living.

Yeah. They'd they'd be available. There's a there's a full commercial kitchen with a large, I think, 150 to 200 seat dining room. So we expect most people get the bulk of their meals there, but they'd also have kitchens, and they'd also, you know, be eating downtown.

Okay. Great. Thank you.

Commissioner Cornejo.

Yeah. I just have some follow-up questions on that about the rent range. I agree that we need to support our senior population. I mean, they're one of our vulnerable communities. And I like the idea of this building being in Downtown Redwood City.

I've been to some of the other senior homes in Redwood City, and they're not great. So I like that quality of life that could be presented to them. But I'm curious, since there's no affordable housing here, I'm trying to picture like what kind of person would afford living there. And I want to make sure that it's as equitable as possible, and there are opportunities for us to serve all seniors throughout Redwood City and San Mateo County. Just wanna hear your thoughts on that.

You know, there are obviously different size units, so there's a variety of prices. What makes this particularly difficult is the fact that it's the whole bundle of services, health care, meals, everything I listed before. So affordable subsidizing, all those things just becomes very, very difficult. And then of course, density bonus is the state. The city actually has also recognized that senior projects aren't required to provide affordable I would have presumably because they've seen the need that's going to be common that's here that is going to continue to grow.

Okay. Yeah, and I get that. I'm just thinking about some of the seniors that I know that live in North Fur Oaks, just a couple minutes from here who would benefit from being closer to downtown and all these amenities. So I just want to make sure that when we're moving projects forward, we're thinking about all kinds of people that are able to experience these kinds of things. Thank

you, Commissioner Cornejo. Committee Member Stewart.

I was wondering if you considered any other designs besides the tower idea. For instance, if you did a courtyard kind of building where the residential went all the way out to the edges of the property, perhaps you could lower the height of the building. And, you know, it kind of feels like it's two separate buildings to me now. So you've got the tower, and then you've got the three story building. And then the amenity that you have on the 3rd Floor, could put it on the roof.

The views would be fantastic from up there. And I think the major objection from what I've heard from people on the street is the height. So if you could lower the building, you know, by I don't know, make it a 150 feet tall and instead of 200. I think it would go a long way to appease the the neighbors and and I'm really worried about the precedent of, you know, the thing looking like Beverly Hills, like you said, or Miami. But after one project gets approved, then somebody else is going to go on.

I can buy a piece of land and what I thought would be a 100 or 92 feet tall is going to be twice that. So it kind of scares me. So that's my concern. And I guess the question is that everything that I've seen has this narrow tower, which accentuates the height because it's so narrow. Whereas if it was more spread out, you know, it wouldn't feel so tall. But did you consider anything like that? Or right from the get go, you were thinking tower?

Or Well, we it was it's related to the previous question about different massing typologies. And I think Right. There were many different pressures to other program elements to the project that essentially drove us to this solution.

Yeah. And

and the other question is there's no underground parking. Right?

Correct.

Is that because of the water table? Or

Correct.

Yes. That's a shame. I don't know if there's a way around that. It's probably expensive to waterproof.

A foot above your base floodplain elevation, which also makes it very challenging to set your building elevation that far up the street. Partially why the building entry is set back so far from the street is to get to that elevation.

Thank you, committee member.

Thank you.

Commission Chair Sotogorovitz, Commissioner Robinson is has had his head raised.

Thank you. Before Commissioner Robinson, I do have a similar question is about, you know, parking structure. And I know that you are limited because of the floodplain and no underground parking and currently spaced and placed geographically towards Spring Street, and it really shows the back towards the that part with those perforated walls. I know there's currently 95 parking spaces, and many other people living here maybe, you know, assisted living situations, may not be able to drive or or or license to drive. How did you arrive to that number?

I know you you had to come to that particular had to come up with a particular number, and whether other ways of trying to reduce the footprint of that part to, you know, reduce the impact on the streetscape like stackers or there are other technical solutions to reduce the overall volume of that parking garage and and how it impacts the the streetscape.

Yeah. Stackers present a particular challenge and somewhat of a technical challenge for the for the equipment as well as fire protection and all those kinds of things that make it challenging. Mhmm. That's not to say that we could not potentially do it, but that's not in the project right

now. Mhmm.

Reducing the number of parking spots. So currently, the the project is is sort of supplemented by a valet system Mhmm. Given that we kinda don't know how many residents will bring a car, will or won't. Our intent or our hope is that as autonomous driving and all these kind of rideshare services evolve and begin to grow, that the the demand for having an individual owned car reduces, and there are opportunities to use that space for something else. Mhmm. But currently, I think it was a market driven demand for, you know, people that want to have their cars as of, you know, today or a year from now, few years from now.

Is the design plan for a potential future adaptive use of those That's

not something that we can particularly plan for architecturally, but I think that is the hope in the future.

Great. Thank you. Commissioner Robinson, your floor is yours.

Thank you. Regarding the heights, twenty years ago when I was and human concerns committee and we were the city was updating the downtown precise plan, I had commented that the tallest building that our high school students would look at at Sequoia High School, for example, was the jail. So we've we've done a good job embracing hype. I I'm less concerned about the hype now because I think we need to take bold steps since you very well articulated the demographics of what we're seeing with baby boomers. I know an 80 year old woman in Redwood City who worked at Sequoia Hospital most of her career and then retired from Kaiser Hospital just a block or so from this proposed project.

That woman is physically totally disabled now and dependent upon, caregivers, intermittently coming to the home. That's my mother. I also know many neighbors who I believe would be more likely to sell their home at some point, and that will free up single family homes that are occupied by one or two occupants for new families to move into. I don't expect this to be affordable to lower moderate income residents. I know the cost of this type of care.

This is a very high cost building, etcetera. So that's just simply my commentary on on, you know, kind of perspective where I'm at on on this project. I do, though I did hear you say you wanted some feedback, and so I'm gonna go back to the Spring Street,

you know,

base portion of it and say, I know this well because there's a little Mediterranean building across the street that I think currently is a dispensary that used to be a branch of Mid Peninsula Bank. And then I'm looking at it now on screen, and I see, oh, there's some arches there in the design in the windows. And then the I guess that's the proposed building where the old Wells Fargo is, and that has a step down on Broadway, and there looks like there's some arched facade at street level. What I'm seeing on the base of of this building, even though it has, you know, the chain link with the greenery growing upon it, frankly, from my perspective, and I'm not an architect, I'm just a city resident, it's it's flat. It's not interesting.

It doesn't it doesn't look welcoming as as as for this is just off Broadway, you know, one of the entrances to our city. And I think we saw this done by the county parking garage down at another prominent corner on Veterans that I think could have been done better. So that's just simply my feedback on that elevation.

Commissioner Robinson, I just wanna say thank you so much for your feedback. I think at this point, we're asking clarifying questions from the applicant, and we'll have ample time to to to to provide feedback, both for the applicant and the staff on this particular project.

So worries. Sorry.

I'm gonna I'm gonna let the commissioner also ask any follow-up clarifying questions.

Yeah. I will also save my more detailed feedback for after the public has a chance to speak. But one of my questions I had written down from earlier was Commissioner Hunter's question, so thank you for asking management fees. The second was that we were presented with this this packet of survey results both online and in real life. I noticed that you said that you had 21,000 mailers sent and 60 meeting attendees. I do have some concerns that this is not exactly a representative sample. Can you just talk about, like, these meetings? Where was was all one meeting where you got together, ask people questions, have them raise their hands, or what is the style of gathering the sample?

I don't know if you wanna take this one. It was a couple of vents on-site. You wanna describe them?

Yeah. There there's a slide that I think we sent but late, but I think maybe you have it in your packet. We did send out 21,700 mailers, had in person meetings. The meetings were on-site in, I think, November and December. There were two two meetings, and, yeah, roughly 30 people attended each over three hours. It was kind of chilly out there. Collected over a 120 surveys. That's really where they came from.

Thank you. Thank you, Commissioner Butt. Maybe the last two questions, we'll have Commissioner Cornejo.

I'm just is are we going to talk about community engagement? I know some staff said that you were going to mention it in your presentation. I'm just wondering if I'm like missing a step, or is this the presentation?

As as far as I'm aware, maybe mister Chewy can can provide some feedback. I think this this meeting is about high level opinions or at least the feedback about the form and the structure of the particular proposed project and building. You know, there'll be ample multiple future meetings evaluating the project, its purpose.

So I'll just hold my feedback on that then for now?

Perhaps these are clarifying questions on the presentation and slides provided. So perhaps maybe during the open discussion.

Okay. I'll do that.

Thank you. Committee member, Sanakatsuba.

This is to the development team. Have you developed a senior project of this scale or close to it previously?

No. We haven't. I'm I'm a partner in Palo Alto Commons, which is roughly a 180 units in Palo Alto that was built thirty five years ago. The Avant, which is part of that, is another 44 units that was built ten to fifteen years ago. I've not built anything of this scale before.

Only because it's it's such a whole different world. I I was involved in being on the board of a board and care facility for quite a few years, and yeah, it I understand a lot of the programmatic components that the architecture has put in here. So I'm just curious as to how much experience from senior care facilities were part of programming.

Yeah. I mean, I'm not the operator. We have the operator here, Steve Sandholz with WellQuest Living. He's the operator of Palatto Commons. They operate, I think, roughly 30 communities in California of different sizes and shapes. And he can answer quite specific operational questions if you

No. I I don't have any specific operational questions. I just wanted to get a sense of where the base programming data for what ends up becoming your building and the architecture got it to. Right. Okay. Thank you.

Thank you, committee member. Queen Romer Jenkins, you had one.

Thank you. I have some questions. I was curious about the material, the kind of the shiny kind of copper material. I'm sorry. I've got my back.

It's alright.

Is that something that would patina? Is that I I was trying to marry that to the material board and kind of figure out

which Yeah. I think the the intention is that it has some weathering as part of its character. Yes.

To a brown? Or

That hasn't been decided yet. Okay. I think there was some intention or design intention around that, but the specific material and and treatment of it and care of it and detailing of it hasn't yet been decided.

I have a similar question about the the vertical tower, I think, at your kind of elevator bank. What what is that material?

That was intended to be exposed concrete. That is actually the core element. It's a structural element of the building. It's just treated with a kind of fluted texture to it. Got it. It looks shinier in the image than

it actually will be. And then I'm looking at the base of the previously proposed project where you have kind of the rust colored material that that was on the South side, kind of on Spring Street, but then also on the on the East side. But in the new proposal, the east side I'm trying to understand what that adjacency is on the side that's facing us. We've got a pretty blank wall there now. One of the diagrams showed kind of a teal colored strip along the edge, and I thought it was implying that it was adding a lane. So is that is that actually gonna be vehicular through there, or is it pedestrian? What is that edge?

What you're seeing on the screen now is the existing driveway entry to the adjacent property. So there really isn't any program between our building face and the adjacent property, there is some separation just for construction tolerances as well as the allowance of a very limited amount of openings for the garage to be somewhat naturally ventilated, although it is mechanically ventilated.

But do you have a property line condition there, which is requiring the solid wall?

Yes. Within a certain distance of a shared property line, you can't have more than, I think, 15%

So that's the limitation there. That's why we have a solid wall. Yes. Okay. And then on the aerial view on Sheet 20, Marshall Street, What is the is there in fact an accessible green roof? What is the the chartreuse color at the roof?

So it I and I don't know that I can get to it from where I am sitting, but there is an intention to put sedum trays on the top of the building to have some amount of bioretention and stormwater treatment.

Okay.

But the the top top of the building is not meant to be accessible for anyone other than maintenance. There are other levels as shown kind of in this image where there are outdoor spaces for residents.

Okay. So if I'm looking at the architectural package that was linked. Yep. Okay. Those are all my questions. Thank you.

Sure. Thank you, Committee Member Jenkins. And thank you for your presentation and ask and answering all of our questions. Much appreciated. I would like to open now the public hearing in order to see how many speakers we have. I ask for everyone who wishes to speak on Gedem, please raise your hand in Zoom now. And if you're in person, please fill out the speaker's card and give it to the staff. We will call your name in the order that we received, and you can make your way to the podium to speak. I will call in person speakers first, and the staff liaison will call the Zoom speakers. How many do we know how many people have online?

We have let me just give it one more second. We have six hands raised online.

Six? All right. All right. I will I'll launch two minutes per person. And we first have in person speaker, Mike Bollander, followed by Michael Arisa Cruz, I think.

Sorry if I mispronounce the names.

Good evening. My name is Mike Bolander. I live and work here in Redwood City, and I'm here to support senior housing at this site. Our seniors are our neighbors, our family members, the people who help build this community, and frankly, we'll all be one one day. They deserve the chance to stay here and age in place with dignity, support, and connection to the city they love.

What stands out about this location is that it's situated in the greater downtown area with easy access to grocery stores, medical care, and Caltrain, all of which can make a huge difference in someone's daily life. It means independence and staying connected. It also clear that the community recognizes this need. In surveys, 92% of respondents said senior housing is vital future. So I urge you to approve senior housing at this site and support the people who have given so much to this community. Thank you.

Thank you so much, Mr. Ballinger. We have Michael Cruz followed by Nicholas Kennan.

Alright. Hello. My name is Michael Arusak Cruz. I'm here to speak in support of the senior housing development at 910 Marshall Street. The story of our housing crisis right now essentially is the story of the Bay Area's population graph looking like a line going up and to the right, but the number of homes that we have built in order to accommodate all of the people coming to the Bay Area and joining our communities has not remotely kept pace.

Reason for that is that oftentimes whenever housing developments are proposed, they're either outright denied or altered to reduce the total number of units, and this problem has compounded over time to the point where we are nowhere close to meeting our housing needs right now and have a lot of ground that we need to cover. As others have mentioned, we are also in the midst of a growing elderly population, especially in the Bay Area, that is only going to continue to grow. That is also a line that goes up into the right. And I worry that if we don't start to ensure that we're building not just enough housing but enough senior housing, we're going to have compounding crises of not enough housing for most people, but also not enough housing for seniors that can actually support the needs that their needs. So I fully support this development.

I think the location is great near downtown in services. And I urge Planning Commission to move this decision forward and consider the development seriously. Thank you.

Thank you, Mr. Cruz. We have Nicolas Kennen followed by Brett Weber.

Good evening. My name is Nick Kennan. I'm a Redwood City resident in District 6. I'm here to strongly urge all commission members to support the nine ten Marshall Project. Redwood City has only built about 200 residential care facility for the elderly units in the past thirty years, not a sustainable number given the population aging.

And nine ten Marshall is a sorely needed addition to those poultry numbers. And I don't think we should be intimidated by the size and height of this project. I find the renderings to be charming, especially the outdoor terrace. I think everyone should have access to green spaces where they live. I think from an architectural standpoint, it would be beautiful a beautiful welcoming addition to the city.

Its position in the downtown core precisely where it should be, concentrated with all the other tallest buildings in the area. And this is not a brand new novel venture that's being attempted here. Bay Area cities like Santa Clara, San Francisco and Oakland have all built large 20 plus storey senior housing towers. And if they're able to get these projects approved and built, then I don't see any reason why we can't follow their lead and also get it done. So I strongly urge you all to support this as it winds its way through the approval process. And thank you for your time.

Thank you, Mr. Kennen. We have Brett Weber followed by Thomas Gomez. I also like to reiterate it public that we're in a study session, so no formal decisions will be taken tonight. We're just reviewing. I do appreciate everyone's feedback.

I have two minutes,

two and a

half, three

Two minutes, please.

Five. I'm Brett Weber. I'm with Kitter Matthews. I live in Redwood City. I live 200 yards from the project. I'm deeply opposed to this project. I just wanna be clear. I've spent since 2000 actually 2005 fixing up buildings on Redwood City. Medical building built one, helped Redwood City get one of their affordable housings, 134 units on Main Street. Fixed up the Popick furniture buildings, also the the old Young's furniture, Young's automotive building.

But here's my concern. You guys built or you guys created a downtown precise plan that I thought worked fabulous. Our town works and thrives. Here's our problem. When you put a monolith, drop it in your city to destroy and make everything uneven to the city, it ruins it. I am a senior citizen. Here's the other problem I have. And I'm sorry I'm saying this to the owner, but when you build a 22 story building that's not a hundred and two hundred and thirty feet, but it's 260 feet at the top, And I'm walking to grocery store outlet and thinking, wow, there's a plane coming down. Is that 250 feet or 350 feet? We don't know.

So I hope that you guys, when you're gonna research all this, that you're gonna demand that this developer determines without notice to the FAA or anyone at the San Carlos Airport what is gonna be the height of those planes that are coming directly over this site. I could just imagine, since I'm 65 years old, I'm gonna be sitting on the Top Floor because I might buy one of these or rent that little place, and I'm gonna sit looking out the window having a cup of coffee even though I only drink tea, and I'm gonna say, here comes a plane. Oh my gosh. I'm gonna see his face because he's gonna be that close. So it's really important that you gotta realize that there's a lot of problems.

Last things that I'm gonna leave. Is our fire department well? Are they capable of going up there and grabbing somebody in the event of fire? How much will the city have to pay to have the necessary equipment to be able to save somebody in the event of a fire? Is it 1,000,000? Is it 2,000,000? We gotta research this. I just wanna say I'm against it. I do want a lot of I know I gotta go. But last week, he does own adjacent properties. You can always move DaVita. Join his other property. Lower the height, and I think this would be a good opportunity, but I'm flat out against it.

Thank you, mister Weber, for your for your comments. Really appreciate it. Next, we have Thomas Gomez followed by online speakers.

Good evening. My name is Thomas Gomez, a lifelong resident of River City. I'm just encouraging the commission to approve the the building. I think it's a good building. Our seniors need more help. Maybe different, like you were saying, a different model, but definitely to go forward. Thank you very much.

Thank you, mister Gomez, for your public comment. Miss Sechstein, please follow with the public speakers that we have joining us via Zoom.

The first speaker I have is Jordan Grimes. Jordan, go ahead if you want to unmute and I'm going to try the next speaker just to see if it's a problem. We'll come back to you, Jordan, if we're able to get the next speaker to speak and see if it's on your side or our side. The next speaker is Adrian Brandt.

Hello. Good evening. Can you hear me?

We can hear you. Thank you.

Okay. Yeah. My name is Adrian Brandt, and I wanted to speak out in support of the height and the location. I think it's really ideal in terms of walkability, and it'll do a lot, I think, for our downtown. I'm not worried about the height, but I do have some concerns about the frontages being not not very pedestrian friendly, not not promoting sort of good urban design, especially the wall along Spring Street that a couple of the committee members have asked questions about.

But I find that to be a very cold, harsh, sort sort of deadening length of of sort of nothingness facing Spring. Now if Spring turns into something else, I don't know. But I really would love to see all of that parking depressed into the ground. I know there was a comment about groundwater, and I would just point out it's just a matter of cost. In San Francisco and Mission Bay and all over the Bay Area, there's numerous places where the developers have been able to put significant underground structures and garages and whatever in place.

But I realized I'm not a developer, and maybe it doesn't pencil out for this particular developer's, you know, balance sheet to do that, but it's certainly possible. There's no reason why it couldn't be undergrounded so that that nice screen activity level that we see from the aerial views on the second level or third level It could be more at street level and kind of solve that problem of having the blank wall. And then lastly, I just wanted to point out that this is obviously gonna be an expensive project. My mother-in-law just moved out of the Avant, the project that the developers are associated with. And her rent for a two bedroom unit went up to $17,000.

And so just have to know that that's the monthly cost for a very premium unit. Thank you.

Thank you. I'm going to try Jordan Grimes, I guess, one more time. Jordan, are you there? All right. We'll move to Nate.

Hello?

Yes. We can hear you.

Awesome. So I'm speaking in support of this plan. My grandparents moved to The US from Germany after being persecuted and lived in Redwood City for a very long time. After finally finding a home, as they grew older, they realized that, unfortunately, there was no senior living available for them in in Redwood City. They were unable to find a place to live after they retired, and so they had to move away from the city that had taken them in.

I believe that it is imperative that we make more senior living available in Redwood City, and I believe that this is a fantastic first step in that process. One thing about this particular location that I I think is crucial is its location and the fact that it is very close by many things that that those that are aging or elderly will need. I when I see this and I think about this, I think of my own father who was a boomer himself. And as he continues to to age, there's a very high likelihood that he will retire and want to live in Redwood City after many years of service, within the county and that kind of a thing. So I I think it is imperative that we have, areas within Redwood City for people to retire and to live the rest of their life out.

I've done research. I've seen how I've seen how how much how the population that is aging and and and growing older than boomers in in the Peninsula, how many there are and how important it is that we have senior living available for them for their retirement. So thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Florence.

Hi. Good evening, commissioners. I wanted to speak as someone who works closely with families across Redwood City. I encourage you to move forward, move this project forward. Older adults play an important role in raising and supporting our families. And as their roles shift, they continue to, be, you know, close to loved ones, and so they should be able to stay, in our community while having the independence and support that they need. So, I hope that this project can, continue to well, can address the the growing growing need here. And also, if we can continue to prioritize options that are accessible for seniors, that would be great. Thank you.

Thank you. The next speaker is Orion Jenkins Shell.

Hello. I would like to speak in support of the project. I think, that senior housing is one of the most pressing needs in our region. Nearly 25% of Redwood City residents are 55 or older, and that population is expected to grow a lot in the near future. Our elders and people like in my family need a spot to live, and I think that nine ten Marshall would give seniors a spot that is respectable, is dignified, and one that they would appreciate.

I think the location is really good. I work actually at the nearby coffee bar, and we get a lot of older people who come in walking and enjoy the area. In planning surveys that I've checked, it's above 90% of respondents said that senior housing is vital for Redwood City's future. And I think that denying this project or postponing it is only gonna hurt the population and prospects for a cared for future.

And that's all I needed. Thank you. The next speaker is Alana Ballon.

Good evening. Thank you for the opportunity to speak. My name is Anna Caddenbalan, and I have been in the community for over a decade. I work very closely with our families, especially the school age population, and I wanna say that I support this project. It's a very unique piece of land, and I I'm happy to see that there'll be it could be put put to good use.

As our population continues to age, we are hopeful that we can free up some of our housing for our families and that we can create additional job opportunities for our families here in River City. I continue to wanna focus on how we can ensure that there is affordability so that we're not necessarily creating a z like, community in River City because we wanna make sure that we're also providing housing stock for people who live here. I think that approving project like this in the future and not waiting, is essential to allow us to continue to grow and thrive as a community. Thank you so much.

Thank you. Patty Ortiz? Patty, can you hear us? I'm going to move to the next person, Cheryl. Cheryl, are you can you hear us?

Oh, how's that?

I can hear you now. Yes.

Okay. Great. I'm sorry. I'm always not good at unmuting. Okay. As a recently retired home owning resident of Redwood City, I am writing in support of the proposed project at 910 Marshall. I am the demographic the developers have in mind when designing this project. I'm not ready yet, but there will come a time when I no longer want the responsibilities of maintaining a home and the right thing to do would be to pass this home on to a new family. Unfortunately, if I wanted to relocate to a senior community in Redwood City right now, I can confidently say there is not single facility that I would consider. The facilities are not geared toward active seniors.

What's missing a facility with state of the art safety features, a facility large enough to support a community with a variety of interests, a community that welcomes active seniors as well as those requiring assisted living or memory care, a location close to restaurants, shopping, entertainment, and public transportation, and a location that is walkable and safe, not on El Camino or Woodside Road. From reading the literature and listening to the presentations, it's my understanding that nine ten Marshall will meet these needs. My mother lives in a wonderful senior community in Portland, Oregon, and at some point, I'd love to have her move here. And I have toured most of the senior facilities in the area. None of them are suitable.

I would not feel safe putting my mother in any of them, and that's why I'm excited about this new vibrant senior community. As to how tall it should be, I remember when the box building went up, and we were shocked. Ten years later, it's an accepted part of the skyline. In order to provide homes for more people downtown, we must take advantage of the vertical space. We need options for the ever growing senior population. Thank you.

Thank you. I don't think the last two speakers were able to unmute, but I'll give it one last try. Jordan Grimes.

Yes. Good evening. Can you hear me, commissioners?

We can hear you. Go ahead.

Stand stick. Alright. Thank you

so much, staff. Good evening, everyone. My name is Jordan Grimes. I am with Greenbelt Alliance. We are an environmental organization working throughout the nine county Bay Area on sustainable land use policy, climate resilience, and conservation.

We are excited to be in support of this project from a climate standpoint, from an environmental standpoint. Building tall dense housing near our existing public transit stations in our existing communities is one of the best things that we can do. Getting people out of cars, getting people living near public transit in downtowns, close to services, close to hospitals, close to all the things that people need, is really, really important. And in terms of affordability, I want people to think of housing, as an ecosystem, because that is that is functionally what it is. When you do not have senior housing, you know, even even market rates in your housing, that means that people are going to be in living in, you know, older single family homes.

They're not able to get out. When those people are able to age into different and smaller units, they free it up for, new families. Those people free up the apartments that they're living in. So this really is actually, a critical step for Redwood City in terms of affordability. Very supportive of, the height, I think, like others have mentioned, when it comes to intensity, there was at one point nothing here. And over time, things change, and that is just the reality of the peninsula. When you can't build out anymore and we really should not be building out anymore, you build up. So we're excited about this project, supportive of it, and look forward to seeing it built. Thank you so much.

Thank you. That's all of our speakers.

Thank you, Ms. Ecklund. I will if there's no objection, I will now close the public hearing, and I will open the meeting for commission and committee discussion. Commissioner Finch.

Thank you. I just first wanted to disclose that I met with the applicant and was present for downtown neighborhood association meeting where they also presented on the project, but I didn't learn anything that was not included in the presentation tonight. I guess lots of thoughts. I think I'm so glad to hear you guys are considering the TDM plan. I think that's that's great.

The unbundled parking is that's awesome. I think that combined with the shuttle, I think that will all help mitigate the increase in traffic that we might see in downtown, which is great. I know at the council meeting there was kind of a question about community's openness to a building of this height. And I found it just interesting in the surveys and the comments tonight. It seems like there's at least some some openness to to the height which is which is great to hear.

So I think that's a good data point and I really appreciate the applicant for doing the outreach. And, you know, 21,000 mailers is really great. You know, it's it would have been nice to get more than the 83 the survey submitted but there's only so much you can do and 21 mail 21,000 mailers is a lot. So I think we've heard from the community and there's there's openness to it. And yeah, I think my main concern is around the the kind of pedestrian experience.

And I think there was a question in the questions that we're considering about the kind of driveway and entrance being set back from Walnut Street. And I think that is I'm personally fine with that just because as the building the on the upper floors it looks like the building does still hug pretty close to the street. And so I think that's kind of in keeping with the spirit of of that requirement from the DTP DTPP, and I think that would still have a good pedestrian experience on that street. I think yeah I'm a little bit more worried about the Spring Street side and how it is just kind of the the wall of the parking garage. It would be great to I mean there's really if you can't underground it, there's really not that much you can do.

It would be it would be nice to have some kind of pedestrian through access on the eastern side of the property. And and then, yeah, as for Spring Street, I think the city should move forward with like still getting rid of Spring Street and still kind of closing it off to vehicles especially with the other section of Spring Street already being closed. And I think that that could serve as a great place to it could serve as open space, it could serve as a nice community gathering point. I like that the project has some ground floor retail on the one corner. It would be nice if there was more, but I think that if Spring Street were closed, maybe that could also serve as a place where there is retail in the form of maybe little kiosks or little just street vendors kind of in the park space there.

And so I think that could all kind of tie together and if Spring Street were closed and turned into some kind of park, that could also, as one of the commenters mentioned, kind of mitigate maybe some of the impacts of the the Spring Street frontage just being the back of the parking garage. And yeah, think that was all my comments. So yeah, if the applicant is looking for opportunities for community benefits, maybe a park along Spring Street could be something adding to the green space that's included in the project. Yeah, thank you.

Thank you Commissioner Finch. Commissioner Bott. Yes.

Thank you to everybody who spoke today. This is a good amount more public comment than I'm used to in this commission. Now one of the questions the staff posed to us was about the tower design and that's something I was I've been thinking about too about like, is a tower necessary and good here? So as part of my research on that, I took a trip to Channing House which is in Palo Alto, it's a senior living facility. I believe it's 11 stories tall and at the time the Channing House was built, I believe everything around it was two stories at maximum.

And there was a in the historical records I've been looking at, there was a similar amount of concern about this is too tall for the surroundings. Now, I I actually I asked a friend in Channing House if I could take a trip inside and he said, yes, and talked to the residents. And many of them were very supportive of the idea of the tower in the first place. And in fact, were saying like, Yo, go ahead with that nine ten Marshall. And I was like, Yo, I don't have This is not We're not taking a vote here.

But I I think for many seniors living in these facilities, the the tower itself is very good for just creating this tight knit community where they're all seeing each other, they have access to this this care on all the floors they need. These floors serve different purposes. And you don't get the same community aspect or at least that's what I've been told when it's a much more spread apart design. So that that is just something that I I it was a novel perspective to me about why a tower would be a good thing here. And for the fourth question that staff is asking us about where additional opportunities to create a building of this sort.

I actually believe that a building right in our downtown is perfect. Many seniors are, as we heard tonight and as we probably all know from experience, probably want to be downsizing. They probably want to be living in a much smaller place to take care of, maybe they're losing some of their facilities to maintain a big house and maybe some of them don't want to be driving in the first place or but see it as a necessity. And for a building to be located in downtown on this like parcel of land that's close to grocery outlet, Caltrain station, every the entire downtown, which we all think is great, is, I think, an an amazing location for this project.

Thank you, commissioner Butt. I really appreciate your comments. Commissioner Cornejo, are we ready for some feedback?

Oh, was just writing some stuff down. Let me gather myself here. I like I shared in some of my past comments, I think and believe that we need to support our seniors. And I have visited some of the other locations in Redwood City. I've done outreach through senior homes for other projects when I was working for the county of San Mateo.

And it has been a mortifying experience to see that we have seniors living under those conditions. Like I said, I love the project. I love the location. I live in Downtown Redwood City, so I'm able to enjoy all the walkability. And I think that everybody should be able to do that, especially seniors and low income seniors.

In my culture, a lot of the seniors just end up coming to live with the kids because they can't afford services. So that's where I come from with those thoughts and questions. I am a little bit concerned about the height of the building. I'm curious from past from the when Redwood City was building out the process for Box and Indigo, I'm curious on the level of community engagement that they did because I don't think 120 surveys is enough. I would love to see much more community involvement for a project this large, especially something that high.

I would love to see more engagement. But those are my thoughts. Yes. Thank you.

Thank you, Commissioner Cornejo. I myself also share many of the opinions that have been shared and as part of the feedback from the other commissioners. I do think that I'm generally not opposed to a tower in Downtown City even the size of 21 stories. I believe this particular location for this particular use is also a very good match, mainly because I think seniors should be close to amenities that are as plentiful as in Downtown Redwood City and not put somewhere on the edge of town in place that it's rarely visited. You know, senior housing is a very low intensity use, so a lot of the concerns about traffic and interactions and all that, I think, kind of follow by the wayside, which makes me think that it's a pretty good fit here.

I do appreciate the massing towards the north side of the parcel that would, I guess, move away the shadows as far away from the main pedestrian spine of our city, which is Broadway. Of course, it does there's drawback if you give your residents East West orientation with plentiful sunlight, someone else is not going to have the sunlight. In this case, it's a commercial building north of that and some a little bit of a Kaiser property, which is not ideal. I would like to see these shadow studies when the formal proposal comes before the Planning Commission. I like the poker share and the Marshall Street frontage overall and the use of materials in that particular area.

Also appreciate the individual balconies and open space for the residents to be able to enjoy in addition to the large walking path in the 3rd Floor. I don't know if that pool in the presentation is going to happen, but having pool also on-site for the residents is a plus. And the one thing I want to bring up and I think is the biggest disappointment in this particular design so far is the Spring Street frontage. There's currently is proposed no street trees, and they're a passive 30 foot wall that kind of presents the pedestrians on region, there's no eyes on the streets. It will be kind of like a dead zone that is very much avoided by majority of the people.

So it's very much the back of the building that is not, I feel, could be integrated better into the urban fabric. I don't know what solution would that be in some kind of reorientation of the internal garage or I know the garage only represents 50% of the frontage of that wall, the other side is some kind of fire related pools and generators and a few other things that are much more of a technical nature. I don't know how would one improve the streetscape interaction with such utilitarian uses. But anything other than a blank wall, I mean, know you're going to have perforated, but I walk by the county garage at six stories high perforated wall, and it is not a super fun experience. It's certainly not an interactive one.

So that's my main comment is I'm really currently disappointed with this, the Spring Street frontage, and I know it's the back of the building, but I think it could be dealt with much better. Commissioner Finch?

Yes. I think for me, I I I don't mind the Spring Street frontage being kind of utilitarian and just like, you know, narrow sidewalk and just the back of the wall. As long as like once, if Spring Street is closed and turned into something else, like I'm because it's a triangular parcel that's fairly small, I'm kind of thinking that it would just end up as a park or something. Like, once it becomes that, I feel like it's not as much of a problem that the the Spring Street frontage is is fairly just the heck of the parking garage and not a very wide sidewalk. But yeah, I guess my concern would just be in the interim there between when this building goes up and then later when Spring Street turns into something else.

And that interim could be a decade. So that's the

Yeah. Yeah.

I'm gonna pass my gavel to committee member Tanaka Suba. I have previous engagements. I do apologize.

What I would prefer to do is, commissioner Rick, would you finish the go around with the the planning commission comments? And then what I like to do is then have the architectural advisory committee relate their concerns after hearing planning commission. And then given that we have the limited number of public hearings, I'm going to try and see if we can craft a a list of of cohesive comments that the design team and the architect or the project development team and the architect can take back and work on since they've only really got one shot to come back in front of the AAC. So Right. If if you wouldn't mind.

Okay. I was not prepared to do this, but no problem.

Your microphone was on.

So I see. I have I have the mic. So the only people who've not commented yet are myself and Commissioner Robinson. Is and I don't know. Commissioner Robinson, do you

Yeah. Well, I I did make my comments, unfortunately, at the wrong part of the agenda. So just reiterating what I had said, the Spring Street elevation is a three like any three story building, that facade is problematic. And I think that echoes what some of the others have said. So thank you.

Okay. Great. Thank you. So I will make my comments now. Before I make my specific comments on the project, I would like to have maybe a little dialogue with the city attorneys about what we actually have the authority to do and not do.

You said earlier You that we basically have no discretion at all in whether in denying a request for a waiver unless it's for health and safety. And I know those are very high bars that, you know, you're never going to meet. As I read it in the in in the staff report, the project as a senior housing project, it's eligible for waivers from development standards that are needed to accommodate the permitted density, and I focus on that, that are needed to accommodate the permitted density. So I'm assuming that the permitted density means two twenty two units, which is what would be allowed under the downtown precise plan plus 20%?

Yes, that's the permitted density. I think many cities initially because of the language of the way the waiver provision is written, required developers to show that they needed you know, that they needed the waivers in order to accommodate the density they were entitled to. But there was a case about two or three years ago, Bankers Hill one hundred fifty v. City of San Diego, where the court basically said that waivers had unless one of the three findings could be made, waivers had to be granted even if it was possible to get the same number of units without waivers. So it so that language about so they interpreted that language about waivers being needed to physically you know, that would otherwise physically preclude the building, you know, the project, to mean physically preclude the project as designed.

So if somebody designed a project that required waivers cities and counties were required to approve them unless they could make one of the three findings.

Is that sub law or is

Yeah, that's a published case.

I wonder if that has been I mean, me and I don't I don't want to take our time with that, but it it just it, of course, just doesn't really make any sense. It basically makes our zoning and even general plan meaningless.

Yes. However, I think as the architect said, we do see developers attempting to accommodate, you know, cities and coming up with a better design. So I think, you know, in terms of, may not have authority to deny the project, but I think you have authority to encourage the developer and the architect to do a better job and, you know, come closer to meeting the city's standards. And the developer here has been willing to modify the design. So I think the particularly for this meeting, which is a study session, you know, that you're not making a decision, I think indicating, you know, areas in which you'd like improvements is perfectly reasonable.

Right. And I do appreciate it. It it definitely does seem like the developer has been working very well with our city staff to make this the best project possible, and and I appreciate that. And I know I have no doubt that they are coming at this with goodwill and, you know, trying to make trying to improve our city. That being said, I do think I mean, in my mind, this project is way too tall.

That that's that's my opinion. And I think that we need to have more outreach in the community about that. But the question is that, you know, if if if it would be if it would be better for the city and and equally profitable and equally, you know, for the developer, you know, equal in other ways to have, say, two eleven story towers instead of one twenty one story tower. There there is no way to insist on that if the developer says, no, we like that. We like what we've done. Correct?

That appears to be the case. As I said earlier, there for the case where there's in your downtown, you have a form based code, you don't have a maximum density. So with that, there's a provision in the density bonus statute that says that the bonus project is supposed to maintain the same average unit size as in the base project as in a project that would conform, which this does, and also other project details. So, you know, in many ways, here the proposed project's very different from the, you know, what a conforming project, how that would look and be masked. But that's where the city has asked the Department of Housing and Community Development for technical advice.

The developer's attorney has written a letter about why this should be included, and so the city said, well, you know, is the project eligible for the height that's being requested? But if the project's eligible, then the city really has to find one of the make one of the three findings.

Good. Thank you

so much for your elucidation of that. It's a complicated And area, I so I believe that this is too tall. It will stand out like a sore thumb. That's my opinion and many people's opinions, but I know obviously many people have different opinions. And I would like to really know what the community thinks. I know this came up at the city council study session too is what does the community think? This is a very big it's it's it's a huge thing that can redefine downtown. It can redefine Redwood City. It is that much bigger than other things here. And so we wanna we wanna get it right.

And if the community says yes, it's it's so it's important enough to have the senior housing that we support that, then then that's that's fine. But so that's all kind of a long winded way of getting it. But I think we really need some exceptional community outreach and and engagement. And maybe this needs to be run by the city whether paid for by the developer or not. Because this is a landmark project if approved that would would redefine the city.

And so in so many projects, and I've been on the Planning Commission for a long time, seen a lot of city council meetings where the most common request is for more committee outreach or community outreach, and that's always a good thing. But, you know, I almost kind of roll my eyes sometimes. It's like, okay, that's that that's what you always that that that's what you always want, it's more community outreach. In this case, I think it's particularly important because it is such a landmark decision. So my yeah.

I I guess my request for for for that would be that we really or that the city or the city and the developer together really do a comprehensive community outreach to determine is this what the community wants? This height, which is very high, but in exchange for very much needed senior housing. As far as the rest of my comments are actually a lot easier and quicker than that. I would personally like to see more studios in one bedroom apartments and fewer two and three bedroom apartments. I mean, most of the residents in this facility would be single seniors or couples.

I imagine there will be very few families of more than two. And so the more one bedrooms there are as opposed to two and three bedrooms, I think the more affordable the project could be for the residents. And also possibly it could the project could be reduced somewhat in size because the average size of a one bedroom would be smaller. So I would like to consider that. The staff report talked about the side the Marshall Street, I think, sidewalk that was only eight feet wide and the downtown precise plan has a minimum requirement of 12 feet.

I would strongly want to have at least the 12 feet because the people in this development will be seniors with accessibility needs, and many of them I imagine would be in wheelchairs or walkers. And so I think a wider sidewalk would be essential for people with accessibility needs. I echo what many of my colleagues have said about Spring Street that since it will no longer go through to Marshall, it would be great if that section was removed and converted to a better use such as the park. And then this is really not really common what we can what you can do, but I would note that two very important issues would be the San Carlos Airport, which Mr. Weber talked about.

And there is a San Carlos Airport Land Use Commission, and I imagine I don't know if they're even in conversation with them yet, but I'm sure once the project is further on you will need to be. And then also the analysis of fire safety. I thought it was interesting that in the city council meeting, the Baraka Carter, the fire chief said that this would be the first of its kind in Redwood City and on the Peninsula. And he said, and as far as he knows, in the state of California, and they don't really have a knowledge right now of how to develop evacuation plans for a senior facility of of that height. And so I I imagine that you will be working very carefully with the fire department.

And with that, I cede it to to the AAC. Oh, I'm so I'm sorry. Commissioner Finch.

Oh, thank you. Yeah, I just wanted to ask the applicant about the community outreach that they had already conducted just because I'm also in favor of getting more community outreach. But I just concern is that they have sent out, know, 22,000 mailers. They've done online advertising. I believe they had two in person meetings at the site. I guess maybe a question for you is do you how do you think the community outreach could get more comprehensive? I'm sorry the public hearing is closed. We'd have to open it again.

Oh, would happy to do so to answer questions. Yes.

Oh, for asking the applicant?

Okay. And

so I would open the public hearing again just so we can hear from the applicant.

Okay. Thank you. Yes. That would be great. Or can I not ask them? That's okay.

We were just talking about it.

I mean, there was a closing of the public hearing. I think it could be reopen. This is not a formal public hearing. It's a workshop. So some of the formal rules don't really apply as much here. So if if notwithstanding the closing of the public hearing, I think

we could reopen it

if if the chair Yeah.

I I have no problem with asking the applicant or anyone else if if they care to to respond to what your question is.

Please. Thank you for your deliberation of that.

Adam Alberti. I'm with Singer Associates, and we're the public outreach consultant to the project here. And I want to first say that the outreach that you see in this report is an iterative process. There was outreach that happened before on a different project, and even before that, on what the right use of the site might be. And all of that outreach has guided us on the senior housing path and where we are today.

The project has changed since some of that outreach is done, and we'll have additional outreach that happens from here until we get to the point of project completion, including going to neighborhood associations, additional community meetings, additional paid advertising to ask people to give us the feedback that we're asking for. So

Thank you very much. That's great to hear.

Okay. Unless there are any additional Planning Commission comments, I'm gonna open this up for discussion with the AAC in our conventional manner of going around, and then I'll try and give my comments as final and and see if I can coalesce your comments into something at least as cohesive as we can present to the applicant and the architectural team.

I guess I'll I'll lead it off. I agree. I think the building's too tall to go from 92 to double that, and I'm really concerned about what that means for the future. It's not only this building, it's every other building. And I know we're doing a, I forget what it's called.

Rework of the downtown plan from Whipple to Woodside Road and El Camino to 101. And what are these rules from the state mean for all that planning and all that effort that's going to go into, you know, comprehensive plan for what we want in our city and then the state can just say throw that all out the window and you know, and being an architect and being on a commission and then having been told before when I was on the architectural review committee in San Carlos, I was pulled in the the attorney's office and saying, can't say that, you know. So it's like at some point, what are we doing here? You know, just give people a building permit and be done with it. But I think there's other configurations for this property, like I mentioned, where you could lower the height and still get the density that they need to make it the economics work.

And for sure, I agree with everybody's comments on Spring Street, you know, to have a parking garage with a screen. I don't believe you could even grow all those plants because it impedes the ventilation into the parking garage. And not having a resolution of what's gonna happen to Spring Street is really a kind of a shame because, you know, it should be an integrated design. So those are basically my comments, and I can just leave it at that, I guess. Thank you.

Thank you. I like the building. I'm okay with the height also. I've been in Robot City for since the late 90s and I remember when the DTPP was passed and the community feeling around height and density at that time and now how everybody's feeling about downtown, I think it's very positive. I think that this type of density is the way that we're leaning in terms of some of these RINA numbers that we need to try and accomplish and how we're going to move the needle on residential if we don't build density.

So I'm in support of extra height on the building. I feel like the redesign is more successful. It seems counter to think that kind of adding verticality to a building will kind of make it feel smaller. But I do think that this kind of massing approach and this kind of layering of materials does kind of lighten the overall building. And I do appreciate how the I'll call them kind of the bay window elements, the kind of punch opening elements in white kind of stop short of the roofline.

It kind of lightens the top of the building as well. And I do like the roof element. I think that there's a lot of refinement to do. I think developing the design is something that you're going to continue to do. So these concrete elements, the elevated towers feel kind of less detailed than the rest of the building and maybe there's some kind of texture or some other way to detail that so it feels as thoughtful.

I like the I'm looking at this list of questions that we're supposed to answer here. Hold on. Okay. So those are my thoughts on kind of the overall design and massing. I like I do like the lobby and kind of the Marshall Street frontage at grade.

I think it actually expands your experience in the streetscape having the kind of drive through and Port Cochette kind of detail there, especially since it's a fairly tall kind of opening along the front. I do like the colonnade, the opportunity for some kind of landscape transition between the sidewalk and the driveway as you pull in. And I think the I do like the metal canopy material. I'm just curious how that's going to look over time. The one thing that feels a little odd to me, I think, this three story kind of colonnade that is focused around that kind of drive through entry experience and the shape of the top of the kind of flat arch that kind of peaks in the middle, it feels a little pinched in terms of its proximity to the bay window elements above, you know, kind of having a little bit more space for that expression might be a little bit more successful.

Let's see. I think there's a lot going on. So I think also still looking forward to kind of the detail in terms of specifics on the materials and where those are applied. I do appreciate the amount of texture and articulation on the facade overall. I think that's it. That's my comment. Thank you.

Commissioner King or Committeeman King. Thank you.

I think it's a nice design, but it seems to be a bit tall when you compare to like when I listen to the man talk about the the flight pattern and, you know, that smaller airplanes coming in here, I do have concern about about that because you look at San Jose, the tallest building around that airport is 18 stories. And this is would be quite a bit higher than that. And a building of this type too that he said has really never been done for the elderly and the evacuation process, that would be a concern too. But I know that they have to increase the height to make it more, you know, make it worthwhile to do it. I think there's other ways to do it, though.

The the unit size seems to be a bit large for the elderly. If if like, I can imagine my mom going into a a unit like this. She wouldn't need two two rooms or three rooms. You know, it would it would just need to be a lot smaller of a space. And she she wouldn't be able to afford, you know, the 17,000 or whatever it would be to to live there to either.

So I think that they looked at more units that are a little bit smaller, then possibly they wouldn't have to go up so high and make it more of a reasonable project to go further with. As far as some of the materials and that they're used now, they could be I know they're gonna look into it more and enhance things more, but it doesn't have to look like a garage structure entry to go into it. You could dress up a wall any way you want. Look at the walls around this space right here. They're not just flat white walls.

They're you know, put color into them. You put designs, you know, lines, different patterns. You can make it look a lot nicer and not appear that that's just the back of the building. You know, why does it why does the building have to have a back? Why can't they all have to have equal sides? And that's about it for right now. Thanks.

Can I get it back, please? Yes. Okay. Sorry. I did forget to comment on the three story facade on Spring Street and then also the east side.

You know, can we ask staff to pull up the renderings? Yeah. Because you were commenting on the the flat arch, and I pulled it up here on my computer and went, oh, yes. So that would be it was Slide 23 maybe.

Don't know if it's the same packet, is it? So just while we wait for that, the I think the previous iteration on the design felt more friendly at the base. There was a different color utilized there in kind of the more of cotin kind of looking material, and it wrapped all the way around. So you didn't feel like there's a blank wall on one side and then some articulation on Walnut Street. So I agree that I think there just needs to be a little bit more work at that lower level.

I'm not gonna start to try and suggest any one direction, but I think kind of maybe warmer materials. You know, we see a lot of blank walls in Redwood City that have murals on them. You know, if it's gonna be kind of an alley kind of condition, is there any way to kind of brighten and lighten that up without adding too much expense? And how do we feel about that in the context of the overall building? Yeah. I think we see those arches now.

Actually, there's a the perspective from the others other end of the building showed it a lot better. Right there. Oh, there you go. Yeah. That yeah. There you go.

Mhmm. Why are those no other arches on the building right now. Make it straight.

I don't mind the shape. I I it just felt like the the point in the center was getting real close to kind of the bay windows above, and if we're gonna do that, then maybe it just needs a little bit more space.

It feels tenuous. Yes.

Oh, and I guess I've gone through this process before in terms of height and airport land use compatibility, and there is an FAA application that you, you know, you the ALOC has maps and heights. You kind of go for that first and then add the FA application and then they'll confirm whether the heights allowed them. Is that what you went through? Okay. So this Yeah.

It is what it is.

Yeah.

I know that we we did a four story project in Bravo Shores and they said, and it's too tall. We ended up taking off a story. So Okay. I'm going to go through a a list of items. And before I start, I want to acknowledge that the development team and the architectural design team, I understand how much work you you guys have put in.

So please take my comments not as a criticism at all of the work you've done, but part of this relates to projects at this scale that I've been involved with in the past and how we got caught with things we forgot about or we didn't give consideration to, and we ended up having to do some major shifts. The other part of it relates to a comment I'm going to make regarding your parking, the Spring Street elevation. So can I ask staff to pull up the ground floor plan on the presentation? It's yeah. Design everything.

There we go. Oops. Nope. Wrong one. We'll get into this later.

It

was on page 14, at least on the staff report that There we go. Okay, great. Thank you. So the issue I have well, first of all, it's a difficult side. It's a triangle and then those are always tough.

But when I look at the floor plan, only really Marshall Street is the only elevation of this building or side of the building that presents itself to the public. Turn the corner on Marshall and come down Walnut, and it's a loading dock and utility rooms. And you come further, turn the corner on Spring Street and more utility rooms and an entire dead zone of parking. I think there's enough room to manipulate pulling the parking up, creating another different aisle in another direction, and pulling those utility rooms further down Walnut and possibly turn the corner on the Spring Street. I mean, we're going to dead zone the Spring Spring Street, then we should try to move as much as we can away from the other streets that we can have a public and a friendlier frontage to.

The other concern I have is my mother-in-law just was taken back by my wife to where she lives, and it occurs to me that the last thing I'd want her to do is try to walk from this building across a driveway that has Uber drivers zooming in and out or UPS drivers as well as other drivers coming in that are residents and then cross another driveway at the street level to try to get over to Kaiser. I think by moving or possibly shortening the porticochet so that a person in a walker does not have to navigate across that driveway to get over to Marshall to go to Kaiser, which is one of the strengths of the presentation of this location, would would go a long way. I don't think we should give we shouldn't give her three chances to get hit by a car because the only other option is she's got to go all the way to the left and still cross two driveways to try to get over to Kaiser as one of the selling points at this location. And I know that's reworking a lot of the guts of this building, but there's another aspect we recently finished.

I no longer am a project architect, but I am a development manager for an affordable housing developer. And we recently have finished two projects of one project was two thirty three units in San Jose, another one was 124 units here on the Peninsula. And PG and E, I really shouldn't name them, but the utility company that provides power because of the concerns related to the number of future power requirements from electric vehicles and everything else related to it, heat pump, water heaters, and just kind of go all electric buildings, no more natural gas, have upsized their transformers. And they've also told us on those projects, there's no way these transformers are going in a building anymore, they're not going underground anymore, and if they do it so they had us surface mount these transformers. We ended up putting four transformers for 233 units and three transformers for a 124.

They take up a lot of room. There's a lot of secondary runs that go to it, into the building for everything else. So I think given the footprint as it currently exists, if you had to put two or three transformers exposed outside with room for PG and E's access requirements, we're going to have a serious impact on the spaces you have. In the small item, the mail rooms that we have are twice the size of this one for the 124 unit deal as well as the package room, which is a thing now because nobody drives to the mall to shop anymore. It all gets brought in, and there are issues related to that.

So my question is, also in this, how are have you made any kind of provisions for the volume of traffic that you're going to see from drop off delivery services? It's not just packages, but it's also Lyft and Uber. At some point, maybe we don't have to worry about all the parking because dad can't drive anymore and neither can mom. And it's gonna be Uber, you know, lined up and Lyft and Waymo. There you go.

You know? So so I'm less concerned about the parking because dad moves in with his Cadillac and then six months later, loses his driver's license, and the car just stays there parked. And I'm and I'm aware of this because I I like I said, I was involved with the senior nonprofit previously, and those are the kinds of interesting issues that happen. Oh, and, you know, Committeeman King, to your point about the size of the unit, it the downsizing process is is really traumatic for seniors. They move out of their home into a unit.

They've lived in a home forever. Now they gotta move into a unit. I mean, the aspect of having to throw things away is is crazy. So it's not like when we were coming out of college and we can put stuff in a couple of crates and, you know, orange crates and

we're done.

Our parents have been there for fifty years or longer and now they're trying to figure out how do I fit all how do I fit a 2,000 or a 3,000 square foot house into 1,200 square foot two bedroom? I don't know how to do this. Yeah. So I'm not that worried about the unit size.

Alright.

That's a lot for for the, you know, the basic guts of this, and and I know you've also got all the other functional spaces and amenities that you're providing for the seniors. So I think that's that's absolutely amazing. I would suggest as expensive as it is, you may need one more elevator because they always seem to go out. And my mother-in-law lives in a high rise building, they've got six elevators and two are always under repair or under maintenance. So it's really a four elevator building.

And these three elevators are effectively going to become just two elevators for the most part. And it gets even worse when the one elevator around the stair tower to to the Northwest goes down because then they've got a long way to walk. I know they're really expensive, but it is what it is. So I and I think everybody has covered most of the other comments, especially Spring Street, we beat that to death, but I think it's I think it's a thing. As right now, it is it's we've effectively killed it.

And if you wanna see what happens to a street when you put a parking garage next to it, walk around the county buildings, you know, at 10:00 at night or 08:00 at night or even 07:00 at night, and it doesn't matter what's going on downtown. Those streets, you can she can she can fire down the street. You're not gonna hit anybody. It's they're just dead. In fact, there's an office building on the other side just to the west, I'm gonna call it, of the Wells Fargo block. That's an office building. There's all kinds of stuff happening just across the street on Broadway. You cross the street, and it's dead. Yeah. It there's nothing happening.

So and to staff, I I would highly suggest that you work with engineering or whoever you need to work with to figure out what you can do at Spring Street as soon as possible because it could have a real positive impact on this development or what happens later on, but it could also create so many constraints that we're going to end up with a place that you just don't want to walk down. I just see that happening right now. The other aspect is Spring Street could also be converted to right now, we've got the loading dock off of Walnut. Once we remove Spring Street as a shortcut, Walnut still it's going to get impacted and already is a real real major thoroughfare as people try to work around all the other streets. And you know, it might be possible to relocate the loading dock on the Spring Street.

In Spring Street, maybe it doesn't get removed entirely, maybe it's a one way street. Maybe it ultimately just goes one third of the distance from Walnut to serve this building as a loading street as well as whatever happens to the other side of Spring Street at some future time. And the rest of it can be, you know, whatever it ends up being. But at this point, it it's it's a serious impediment to this project in terms of what they want what they can do with it. But if it's gonna be kind of a dead zone anyway, then let's let the trucks use it and not impact the adjacent streets.