Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2019-06-20 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: June 20, 2019 Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3000 El Camino Real (18PLN-00277): Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of Major Architectural Review for a Master Sign Program to allow three monument signs, six directory signs and thirteen directional signs and a Sign Exception to exceed sign height and/or area for free standing signs and directional signs. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: PC-4637. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Building Located in the Stanford Shopping Center for the Construction of a new Three-Story Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 Square Feet, two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 Square Feet each and Construction of a New Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximate 28,000 Square Feet _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. (Total Square Feet 78,500). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez @cityofpaloalto.org. Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2019. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 16, 2019. Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Wynne Furth Vice Chair Peter Baltay Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember Alex Lew Boardmember Osma Thompson Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Show up and speak. Public comment is encouraged. Please complete a speaker request card located on the table at the entrance to the Council Chambers and deliver it to the Board Secretary prior to discussion of the item. Write to us. Email the ARB at: arb@cityofpaloalto.org. Letters can be delivered to the Planning & Community Environment Department, 5th floor, City Hall, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301. Comments received by Noon two Wednesdays preceding the meeting date will be included in the agenda packet. Comments received afterward through 3:00 PM the day before the meeting will be presented to the Board at the dais. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at the address above. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10452) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 6/20/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects. Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments:  Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)  Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 2019 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/21/2019 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay/Hirsch 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled egular 7/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson 8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 3/21 - Baltay/ Thompson 4/4 - Baltay/ Thompson 4/18 – Lew/ Hirsch July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics July 18, 2019  565 Hamilton Avenue: Mixed-Use (2nd Formal)  Newell Road Bridge Replacement (1st Formal)  Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 3 (1st Formal)  Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 1 (1st Formal)  486 Hamilton Avenue (Prelim)  250 Sherman: Public Safety Bldg - brick and lighting (Sub-Comm) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10294) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/20/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3000 El Camino Real: Palo Alto Square Master Sign Program and Sign Exception Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3000 El Camino Real (18PLN-00277): Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of Major Architectural Review for a Master Sign Program to allow three monument signs, six directory signs and thirteen directional signs and a Sign Exception to exceed sign height and/or area for free standing signs and directional signs. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: PC-4637. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The proposed project is an amendment to an existing Master Sign program from 2008 and a request for an exception to exceed the allowed sign area for freestanding signs and exceed the allowed height and sign area for directional signs allowed by Municipal Code Section 16.20. The Master Sign program provides design provisions for location, colors and materials. Individual signs are typically considered minor projects requiring staff review only, however, pursuant to Section 18.76.020 of the Municipal Code, Master Sign programs and sign exceptions are considered major projects and are subject to review by the ARB. With the approval of a Master 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Sign program, subsequent individual signs that conform to the program do not require additional architectural review. Background Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Not applicable Representative: Bryan Panian – Corporate Signs Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 3000 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area: Various, 15 acres Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable Located w/in a Plume: Yes; Hillview-Porter Regional Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes; there are numerous protected and regulated trees on this site Historic Resource(s): Not applicable Existing Improvement(s): Six buildings between one to ten stories tall comprising of roughly 311,097 square feet of office use, retail and theater, built circa 1972 Existing Land Use(s): General Business Offices, Professional Business Offices, Administrative Offices, Eating and Drinking, and Theater uses Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Public Facility (PF) and Research Park (RP) West: Research Park (RP) East: Service Commercial (CS) South: Service Commercial (CS) and Research and Development (RP) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: PC-4637 (Planned Community) Comp. Plan Designation: Research/Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Applicable, as discussed below Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: In 1994, ARB reviewed a Master Sign program (94ARB-31) that allowed for three free-standing signs (two of which exceeded the allowed height limitations), seven directory signs, four directional signs. The staff report for this application is provided as Attachment D. Minor changes to this sign program were approved by staff (08PLN-00325, Attachment E) in 2008, which resulting in the existing signs on-site today. Project Description The applicant proposes a Master Sign program with sign exceptions for the existing Planned Community 4637 located at 3000 El Camino Real. The program consists of a primary monument sign, two theater display signs and vehicular and pedestrian wayfinding signage. The purpose of the Master Sign program is to update the existing sign program to provide a consistent design concept on the site. Any wall signs for individual businesses would still be processed as separate sign application(s) and would be subject to the City’s Sign Code and El Camino Real Guidelines. The following signs are requested with the Master Sign Program including Sign Exceptions:  One (1) freestanding monument sign (sign A) located on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. This sign is proposed to be constructed upon concrete footing with an aluminum cabinet, acrylic panels and vinyl graphics. Sign A would be a maximum height 144” inches in height by 24” inches in width, with a sign area of 24’ square feet. There are existing lights that will provide illumination to the sign by upward-facing lighting.  Two (2) freestanding theater signs (sign B) at the vehicle entrances to the site along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The signs are proposed to be non-illuminated and constructed upon concrete footing with an aluminum cabinet, acrylic panels and vinyl graphics. Sign B would be a maximum height of 192” inches in height by 84” inches in width, with a sign area of 112’ square feet.  Six (6) freestanding directory signs (signs C) located along the perimeter of buildings. Signs are proposed to be non-illuminated and constructed upon concrete footing with an aluminum cabinet, fastened glass panel, bottom acrylic panel and vinyl graphics. Each sign will be 86” inches in height by 26” inches in width, with a sign area of 15.53’ square feet. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5  Two (2) vehicular directional signs (signs E) located throughout the property to help direct drivers towards the different buildings on site. Signs are proposed to be entirely constructed of painted aluminum with a white reflective vinyl identifying building numbers and theater with directive arrow. Each wayfinding sign is proposed to be eight feet tall, with a sign area of 2.3 square feet. These signs will not feature illumination.  Six (6) building identification signs (signs G) located throughout the property to identify building numbers to aid employees and visitors on the site. The signs are proposed to be non-illuminated and constructed upon concrete footing with an aluminum cabinet, acrylic panels and vinyl graphics. Each sign will be 120” inches in height by 18” inches in width, with a sign area of 15’ square feet.  Four (4) new pedestrian interior court directional signs (signs G.1) located in the interior court yard of the property to help direct pedestrians toward the different buildings on site. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Master Sign Program: In accordance with PAMC Section 16.20.030 "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. The master sign program shall designate the sign locations and areas of all signs in the program, as well as typical sign designs, colors and faces. Pursuant to the approval of the master sign program, subsequent individual signs may be erected without further design review. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Director of Planning & Community Environment for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve this application are provided in Attachment C.  Architectural Review – Sign Exception for area and height: In accordance with PAMC section 16.20.040 “Sign Exception” means an application made in conjunction with an architectural review which requests a deviation from what is allowed in the Sign Code. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Director of Planning & Community Environment for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Projects are evaluated against specific findings. All 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve this application are provided in Attachment C. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is a 15-acre office development located on the southwest side of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road along the western border of the City and the Stanford Research Park. The neighborhood is characterized by large to medium sized commercial and research/office buildings along El Camino Real, Page Mill Road, and Hansen Way. Single-family residential uses begin south of Hansen Way buffered by multiple commercial sites, spanning nearly 1,300 linear feet away from the south property line of the subject property. Existing signage in the area includes large freestanding monument signs located in landscape berms along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The scale of the existing signage in the area is appropriate given the larger parcels with multiple occupants located in and around the Research Park. El Camino Real and Page Mill Road are heavily trafficked roads which explain the need for larger signs to showcase primary tenant names, movie titles and show times to vehicles passing by and looking for their destination. Given that many of the surrounding parcels are large in size compared to other commercial sites within the City, it is more difficult to apply the strict allowances of the Sign Code, as the regulations do not translate as well onto larger properties with multiple tenants. Doing so would significantly limit this property’s ability to identify the tenants that work on the site which would make it challenging for anyone trying to locate the offices of one of the primary tenants. The secondary property monument identification sign located on El Camino Real heading south towards Mountain View is partially obscured by four large redwoods trees. While the proposed sign area exceeds the maximum allowed 50 square feet; the dimensions of the new sign will be reduced in height and width compared to what is existing their today. The new sign will be located in the same location as the existing sign so as to not obscure the sight triangle to traffic entering and exiting the site along El Camino Real. The proposed sign area will serve to provide more visibility of the existing tenants and movie showings as vehicles approach the property along El Camino Real without creating a sign that is obtrusive or unappealing. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The secondary property monument identification sign is located at the entry to the site off of Page Mill Road and is designed to be vehicle oriented and will be large enough to be seen by visitors looking for either a specific tenant or movie showing from the street. The updated design will connect with the site’s overall design concept to produce a coherent aesthetic that will be easily recognizable to anyone coming to the site. While the area of the proposed sign exceeds the maximum allowed by the Sign Code, it would be very challenging to legibly display the tenant names, movie titles and show times and retain a height that would be easily viewable from a street view and still be in compliance with the 50 square foot allowance. The proposed design will update the existing freestanding sign to provide a more consistent design with the site without creating new visibility issues for vehicles. The existing directory signs and directional wayfinding signs located within the complex are a mix of small and large structures that do not currently create a sense of internal order as you travel from building to building and are difficult to notice when traveling in a vehicle. As proposed, the new design for both sign types would better serve to create a sense of consistent size, scaling, and aesthetic design as you travel through the site. The new design of the signs would better direct people coming to the site to their destination as they would be more visible from a moving vehicle. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The project is also subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1979 ECR Guidelines), South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (South ECR Guidelines), context-based design criteria, and performance criteria (Attachment F). The 1979 ECR Guidelines state that signs on ECR are limited to ½ to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the Sign Code. The South ECR Guidelines contain design criteria for signage including a requirement that monument signs be low-profile. The applicant requests ARB’s consideration of the project’s compliance with these applicable design guidelines as well as feedback regarding the overall design. The standards for freestanding signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.20.120, are listed below:  Area and Height. Freestanding signs over five feet in height shall be permitted only on nonresidential properties in the Hospital zone, GM zones and on El Camino Real in the CN and CS zones and for service stations, restaurants and shopping centers elsewhere. The maximum area and height of such signs is set forth in Table 2. Would not comply outside of an approved Sign Exception. Sign A complies with allowed height and sign area. Sign B along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road would exceed the 50 square foot 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 size allowance but not the twenty-five foot height limitation.  Location. Every such sign shall be wholly on the owner's property. Complies; all signs are located on the subject property.  Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be one such sign for each frontage and one additional sign for any portion of frontage in excess of two hundred fifty feet. The size of any additional sign shall be determined from Table 2* by counting as frontage that portion thereof which is in excess of two hundred fifty feet. In the case of shopping centers and other multiple occupancies having a common frontage, the frontage shall be deemed to be that of the shopping center or commonly used parcel and not the frontages of the individual businesses or occupancies. Complies; sign A is more two hundred fifty feet away from signs B.  Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; all sign frames and cabinets are made from aluminum.  Lighting of Freestanding signs. No freestanding sign shall be constructed in such a way that any light bulb or filament is visible from the front of the sign or from beyond the property line. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit signs of neon tubing or similar self-illuminating material of equivalent or less intensity. Complies; external illumination will be minimal and focused on sign A. The standards for directional signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 16.20.120, are listed below:  Area and Height. Directional signs shall not exceed an area of six square feet or a height of three feet. Would not comply outside of an approved Sign Exception. The proposed heights of 8 and 10 feet would exceed the three foot allowance. The sign area for the building directional sign proposes an area of 15 square feet and will exceed the allowable six square feet.  Location. Every such sign shall be located on the property to which they pertain and shall be located at least twenty feet within the nearest property line, except that directional signs of not more than three square feet in area may be located not less than ten feet within any front property line. Complies; all signs are located on the subject property.  Number. Currently there are no limitations indicated in the Sign code to the number of directional signs allowed on a property. Complies with sign code given that there is no limitation indicated. The consistency of the design and number of signs in conjunction with all the other proposed signs would be more appropriately processed under a 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Master Sign program.  Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; all sign frames, cabinets and poles are made from aluminum. The standards for directory signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 16.20.160, are listed below:  Area and Height. Such signs may have an area of four square feet, plus one and one-half square feet per name, in no event to exceed seventy-five square feet and shall not exceed eight feet in height. Complies; all directory signs have been proposed at a height of 8 feet and do not exceed the maximum allowed sign area of seventy-five square feet  Location. Every such sign shall be situated at least two feet inside the property line. Complies; signs will be located more than two feet into the property.  Number. Currently there are no limitations indicated in the Sign code to the number of directory signs allowed on a property. Complies with sign code given that there is no limitation indicated. The consistency of the design and number of signs in conjunction with all the other proposed signs would be more appropriately processed under a Master Sign program.  Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; all sign frames and cabinets are made from aluminum. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 Policy L-50 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages “…high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs”. The main vehicle entry signs have been designed to provide an updated look to connect with the existing building’s own mix of traditional and modern design. The location of these two signs is consistent with existing signage in the area, and would be uncluttered while still providing visibility from several angles. The materials are proposed to consist of painted aluminum cabinet, and the chosen color palette of black, grey and white is understated and would easily blend into the surroundings given the surrounding office park environment. With the exception of the directional wayfinding signs, the remainder of the freestanding signs will follow the same design and color scheme which will serve to establish a consistent design, size, and scale throughout the site. The height of the proposed wayfinding signs are taller than similar signs in the area, however, the design will be more visible at vehicle level than the existing wayfinding 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 signs used to guide visitors and tenants to their destination while not obscuring visibility when traveling through the site. While some of the signage exceeds the allowable heights or signage areas for freestanding signs and directional, signs, staff believes that much of the new signage will be appropriate in scale in relation to the existing buildings and size of the site. Additionally, staff believes that it will facilitate easier identification of the site as well as pedestrian and vehicle traffic through the site. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15311 (Accessory Structures), item (a) “On-Premise Signs”. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on June 7, 2019, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 10, 2019, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Danielle Condit, Building/Planning Technician Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2442 (650) 329-2575 Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment C: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: 1994 Master Sign Program (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11  Attachment E: 2008 Master Sign Program (PDF)  Attachment F: ECR and South ECR Guideline Excerpt (PDF)  Attachment G: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 18 50 4 50 50 NO_SPECIAL_SETBACK_FOR_MIXEDUSE_HOTEL 1A 2A 6 5 Day_Care 3 4 Palo Alto Square 2 B 1 1133.4' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 54.7' 26.3' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 65.7' 119.7' 65.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0'119.7' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 1134.7' 103.5' 38.4' 284.0' 280.2' 147.3' 120.0' 114.3' 39.9' 280.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 119.7' 65.7'119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7'50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 300.0' 142.5' 112.5' 49.8' 61.8' 49.0' 62.8' 63.3' 200.0' 119.9' 8.0' 8.4'8.8'12.1'13.1' 15.0' 9.1' 85.1' 13.8' 39.9' 114.3' 120.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 1134.7'1134.7'1134.7'1134.7'1134.7'1134.7' 726.0' 600.0' 270.9' 1' 193.1' 274.7' 245.3' 200.0' 44.0' 200.0' 20.0' 260.0' 75.0' 149.3' 164.1' 50.0' 164.5' 797.5' 317.0' 216.1' 375.4' 208.0' 214.6' 259.4' 51.4' 214.6' 33.2' 213.9' 33 310.8' 166.7' 365.7' 157.4' 50.4' 41.6' 706.6' 498.2' 526.6' 375.4'216.1' 568.6' 792.3' 448.4' 568.6' 147.2' 26.3' 199.8' 199.8'199.8' 199.8' 110.0' 54.0' 54.0' 110.0' 164.1' 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4'166.4' 30.0' 30.0' 18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 600.0' 726.0'577.6' 150.0' 69.3' 199.9' 50.0'65.2' 149.0' 150.0' 149.0' 150.0' 134.7' 200.0' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85'129.85' 206.05' 478.7' 109.8' 150.0' 21.8' 109.8' 19.8' 611 3150 3170 3200 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 3159 435 395 385 375 2650 2700 420 441 430 440 450 460 471 461 451 4702805 2865 2875 412 420 430 440 450 451 441 431 421 411 2904 456 470 471 461 2999 2951 2905 461 2755 3000 3017 3001 2780 412 2701 925 845 835 3128 755 3127 850 700 600 3111 775 473 620 630 660 975 955 481 642 601 3051 3101 3160 2790 2798 2705 2825 965 425 PAGE MILL ROAD HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY ANSEN WAY ACACIA AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE PAGE PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL Ramos Way (Private) EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL PF (AS3) CS PF (WH)CN PC-4637 R-1 CS CS CS(D) Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages Park School abc Building Roof Outline Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits: Palo Alto City Boundary Tree Current Features 0'248' Location Map 3000 El Camino Real PC-4637 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto dcondit, 2019-05-22 16:54:56Location Map (Basic) (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment A 2.a Packet Pg. 19 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3000 El Camino Real 18PLN-00277 _________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Palo Alto Square,” stamped as received by the City on April 29, 2019 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, 2.b Packet Pg. 20 including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Danielle Condit at Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DIVISION 7. A building permit is required for the construction of the illuminated monument sign using the current applicable codes: CBC, CEC, CEnC, and PAMC. The supporting foundation, framing and connection details, and the Title 24 Lighting compliance forms are required for the building permit submittal. 8. For the post mounted vehicular and pedestrian wayfinder signs, provide the supporting foundation and anchorage details for the building permit. For post mounted signs that overhang the pedestrian circulation paths, the lowest edge of the sign shall be 80 inches minimum above the finish floor or ground. Please indicate this dimension on the plans for the building permit. (CBC 11B-307.3) 9. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3000 El Camino Real/18PLN-00277 Master Sign Program The following findings have been made to support the application for a Master Sign Program, as modified by the ARB approval conditions. The specific Master Sign Program that has been requested is for the following standard:  New free standing sign over 5’ in height to serve as a primary property monument ID sign at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real.  New free standing signs over 5’ in height to serve as secondary property monument ID and theater signs off El Camino Real driveway entrance and Page Mill Road driveway entrance.  (6) New special propose directory signs throughout the property and primary entrances.  (2) New special propose directional vehicular pole signs.  (6) New special propose building directional ID signs.  (4) New special propose pedestrian directional pole signs. Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The design is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed project is consistent with policy L-6.10: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. The design of the signs, materials, and colors are attractive and appropriate for the buildings and the surrounding area. The proposed signage was designed to be compatible with the large scale structures on the site. Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The master sign program presents a framework for purposes of wayfinding and site visibility. The proposed signage uses consistent materials and colors that is unified and coherent, and will assist in creating a sense of order on the site. As conditioned, the design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site and is appropriately scaled to compliment large scale buildings ranging from 1 to 10 stories in height. 2.c Packet Pg. 22 Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The master sign program makes use of aluminum, acrylic, vinyl and glass materials that are durable while also being simple, clean, and aesthetically pleasing. The primary color palette of black, white and light grey proposed for the metal sign material create a modern and sleek appearance. Finding 4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The signage has been placed to assist in wayfinding for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists entering the buildings and site from a number of locations. The new signage program specifies regular predictable locations with an almost identical order that existed on the site under the previous Master Sign Program approved in 1994 under permit number 94-ARB-31. The black background of the aluminum signs paired with the bright white lettering provides a nice contrast and is easily visible. Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. The existing landscaping will not be impacted by the proposed signage. Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The proposed signs are non-illuminated and made of durable long-lasting materials. 2.c Packet Pg. 23 Sign Exception The following findings have been made to support the sign exception request to exceed the maximum signage, as modified by the ARB approval conditions. The specific exception that has been requested is for the following standard:  To exceed the maximum size of fifty (50’) square feet for free standing signs. Sign Type B proposes an area of 112 square feet.  To exceed the maximum height of three (3’) feet and maximum sign area of six (6’) square feet for Directional signs. Sign Type G proposes a height of ten (10’) feet and a sign area of fifteen (15’) square feet.  To exceed the maximum height of three (3’) feet for Directional signs. Sign Types E and G.1 propose a height of eight (8’) feet. 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; The property has been granted a special site specific zoning designation recognizing the uniqueness of the property and its location. Palo Alto Square is exclusively zoned PC-4637 (Office and Hotel Complex) within an area of Palo primarily zoned for commercial use, such as CS, CN and CC. The immediate surrounding properties are in differing zoning districts, such as Public Facilities (PF), Service Commercial (CS), and Research Park (RP). Staff recommends approval of the proposed signage because of the scale of existing development on the site. Such as, lengthy frontages along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, large structures ranging from 1 – 10 stories in height, multi-tenant use, and the speed of traffic along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. As well as, the surrounding zoning which allows for larger scaled signs. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; In that the visibility of signage is important for any site to be easily identifiable and promote a sense of place in the community. The proposed signs for Palo Alto Square have been carefully designed for compatibility with the large scale of buildings and were reviewed and found consistent with the Architectural Review findings as required by the Municipal Code. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The signs were designed to be aesthetically pleasing and would not detract from the visual environment. The placement and appearance of the signs do not pose safety hazards nor do they detract from the subject building or surrounding properties. 2.c Packet Pg. 24 2.d Packet Pg. 25 2.d Packet Pg. 26 2.d Packet Pg. 27 2.d Packet Pg. 28 2.d Packet Pg. 29 2.d Packet Pg. 30 2.d Packet Pg. 31 2.d Packet Pg. 32 2.d Packet Pg. 33 2.d Packet Pg. 34 2.d Packet Pg. 35 2.d Packet Pg. 36 2.d Packet Pg. 37 2.d Packet Pg. 38 2.e Packet Pg. 39 2.e Packet Pg. 40 2.e Packet Pg. 41 2.e Packet Pg. 42 2.e Packet Pg. 43 2.e Packet Pg. 44 2.e Packet Pg. 45 2.e Packet Pg. 46 2.e Packet Pg. 47 2.e Packet Pg. 48 2.e Packet Pg. 49 2.e Packet Pg. 50 2.e Packet Pg. 51 2.e Packet Pg. 52 2.e Packet Pg. 53 2.e Packet Pg. 54 2.e Packet Pg. 55 2.e Packet Pg. 56 2.e Packet Pg. 57 2.e Packet Pg. 58 2.e Packet Pg. 59 2.f Packet Pg. 60 2.f Packet Pg. 61 2.f Packet Pg. 62 2.f Packet Pg. 63 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Recommended on June 6, 2002 by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board for interim use by staff and applicants in conjunction with the City Council-adopted El Camino Real Design Guidelines Prepared for the City of Palo Alto by Van Meter Williams Pollack and Kendall Planning and Design 2.f Packet Pg. 64 2.f Packet Pg. 65 2.f Packet Pg. 66 2.f Packet Pg. 67 2.f Packet Pg. 68 3000 El Camino Real “Palo Alto Square” Signage Findings for Exemption per 16.20.040 In an effort to improve the wayfinding, identification and appearance at the property, we are proposing a new sign program which includes: (1) New primary property Monument ID sign (2) New secondary monument signs (x1) at each driveway entrance (6) New Directory Signs throughout the property at pedestrian pathways and primary entrances (2) New vehicular wayfinding pole signs at the end of each driveway, turning location (6) New Building Directional ID signs (4) New Pedestrian wayfinding Pole signs Each of the above listed items is proposed in an effort to update the existing/dated signage to a new and modern appearance. In addition to improving general appearance, the functionality and improved wayfinding provided by these signs will greatly improve this property. At Palo Alto Square, there are 6 individual buildings, surrounded by parking and multiply entry points. These buildings are tall, multi- story, multi-tenant occupancies and navigating the property can be difficult. It is our hope that this new sign program will assist in the following ways: 1. vehicular wayfinding and traffic flow 2. pedestrian wayfinding into and throughout the property 3. improved tenant identification 4. improved individual building identification 5. greater visibility and use of signage Some of our proposed signage exceeds current city height restrictions but we feel that the size of the signs match and compliment the height of the property. The height of the signage keeps maps, directories and information at eye-level for a better user experience and usability. With the size of the buildings and parking areas, we hope that the size of these signs will greatly improve overall identification and ease of locating each specific building. Our signs will be built in accordance with the current California Building Code. No signs will impede accessibility, path-of-travel, nor pose any possible threat or harm to the property, landscaping or the persons surrounding it. Best regards, Bryan Panian, Project Manager ph. 408.292.1600 x319 fax. 408.292.1673 bryan@corporatesigns.com www.corporatesigns.com 2.g Packet Pg. 69 ATTACHMENT H Project Plans and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hardcopies of project plans and the Initial Study are provided to Board members. These plans and environmental documents are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “3000 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial Study and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4610&targetID=319 2.h Packet Pg. 70 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10430) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/20/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Macy's Mens Redevelopment (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Building Located in the Stanford Shopping Center for the Construction of a new Three-Story Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 Square Feet, two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 Square Feet each and Construction of a New Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximate 28,000 Square Feet (Total Square Feet 78,500). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez @cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide formal comments on the projects design and site plan. Report Summary The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center, at the interaction of Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real. The proposed changes to this area of the Shopping Center include demolition of the existing Macy’s Men’s building to construct two new 3,500 sf tenant spaces directly adjacent to Building J, along with two new standalone buildings, and reconfiguration of the parking lot in the project area. These changes require Board Level Architectural Review due to size of the project and its visibility from the public right of way. 3 Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 At this time, the Major Architectural Review application is still under review by Staff as some code compliance matters remain outstanding. However, the project has progressed enough to bring the application before the ARB to receive feedback on the site plan which effects circulation, parking, landscaping, and utilities. The purpose of this meeting is to present the ARB with the proposed project and understand the ARB’s position on the proposed project to allow the applicant to adjust the design accordingly while finalizing the project for code compliance. Community members are also encouraged to provide input to the project. A future hearing will provide a comprehensive review of the project’s compliance with the applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards. Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Architect: Kimley Horn Representative: Curt Tappendorf – Simon Property Group Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 180 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area: Various & 2,300,402 square feet Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: N/A Protected/Heritage Trees: Various throughout the site Historic Resource(s): N/A Existing Improvement(s): 1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s): Retail, Personal Service, Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): El Camino Real Design Guidelines 1976 only Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary Hearing on February 7, 2019 Staff report - bit.ly/ARBHearing_2_7_2019 3 Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Minutes - bit.ly/ARBHearing2-7-2019Minutes Project Description Overall, the proposed project would demolish the existing 94,300 square foot (sf) Macy's Men's building and surrounding parking lots located in the Stanford Shopping Center, to construct three new buildings totaling 78,500 square feet. This would result in a net loss of floor area for the Shopping Center overall and includes parking lot design changes to accommodate the new buildings. These changes require Board Level Architectural Review due to the scope of work and visible changes from the public right of way. The first portion of the proposal involves a standalone single-story retail building with a mezzanine level, located within the southern portion of the parking lot between Sand Hill Road and Pistache Place, with frontage on El Camino Real. This building is proposed to be the new location for Wilkes Bashford (retail store). The other standalone building is proposed to be located along Sand Hill Road. The building would be three stories with a rooftop glass surrounded restaurant, open rooftop garden, second floor terraces, and new ground level landscaping. The building is designed by the future tenant, Restoration Hardware. The final portion of this project involves two 3,500 sf single story tenant spaces directly adjacent to Building J (LaBelle Day Spas, Jeffrey, and Blue Bottle Coffee). These new tenant spaces will be located directly across from the new Restoration Hardware building and a new elevated drive aisle and pedestrian walkway area. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): This project would be subject to the criteria found within PAMC 18.77.070. Architectural Review applications are reviewed by the Architectural Review Board whose recommendations are then forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Actions by the Director are appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Architectural Review projects are evaluated against specific findings which must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires a project to be redesigned or to be denied.  Conditional Use Permit (CUP): – A CUP is needed for alcoholic beverage service in association with eating & drinking uses. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.010 and 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by Planning staff and forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action. This aspect of the project is outside the purview of the ARB. 3 Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Discussion The ARB is asked to review the submitted plans and comment on the site plan and design changes that are sourced from the comments received during the preliminary hearing of this project on February 9, 2019 (see summary below). At future hearings for this project, staff will discuss compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. The ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the Applicant and Staff on the submitted plans related to:  Site Planning  Access to the site  Compatibility with site context (Shopping Center and surrounding) Preliminary Review Summary The preliminary review comments have been broken down into three main categories, as further discussed below. Site Planning and Parking 1. Provide an access plan that shows a logical circulation pattern for the parking lots 2. Work to straighten out the drive aisle between Building J and Restoration Hardware 3. Explore ways to help customers quickly find empty parking spaces 4. Explore underground parking Landscaping and Ped access 1. Set buildings back from street to provide sufficient space for existing mature trees 2. Use native landscaping, provide habitat on the RH roof garden 3. Nine foot boxwood hedge in front of RH cuts it off from the rest of the Shopping Center 4. Ensure there are areas for customers and employees to take a seat/break 5. Provide walkways to encourage pedestrians to walk to/through the area Architecture 1. Add windows to the Wilkes Bashford facades, show the activity inside 2. The length of the Wilkes Bashford building seems out of character with its surroundings 3. Encourage taller buildings along El Camino 4. Provide street elevations of all buildings, along with the height of trees along the creek Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the northwestern portion of the site, facing El Camino Real. The overall site is 52.8 acres 3 Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 with proposed development on a ~4.5 acres (196,300 sf) portion of the property. The Stanford Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The site is surrounded by hospital, retail, and multi-family uses. Site Planning This portion of the Shopping Center has a large paved parking lot with existing trees planted throughout the area. The portion of parking lot closest to the Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real intersection has significant utilities underground. The proposed buildings’ configuration results from avoiding conflicts with the underground utilities including a regional water line. The water line greatly limits development at the corner of the site, as primary structures are not allowed to be constructed over it and its relocation would be prohibitive. 3 Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The applicant has provided greater details on the site plan (Sheet C2, HS-WB, HS-EE) since the Preliminary Review for this project. The current site plan has indicated the locations of outdoor seating for Shopping Center patrons and refined the pedestrian walkways both on site and within/adjacent to the public right of way (PROW). The drive aisles and the location of the proposed building are consistent with the locations presented to the ARB during the Preliminary Review. The ARBs feedback on these changes are sought by Staff to determine if the project is on course to meet the ARB Findings for design and function relating to ease of use and safety of pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic. 3 Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Access to the site The project site has extensive multi-modal access and parking. The site can be accessed by pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface parking lots and two multi-level parking structures located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. Throughout the site, there are pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. It is important that the ARB’s comments consider the projects level of access and the impact to site plan features such as parking. Compatibility with site context (Shopping Center and surrounding) The massing and designs for the new buildings appear to be consistent with what is found within the Shopping Center, though two of the new buildings would function as a transition point from the greater Shopping Center building mass to the new three-story Restoration Hardware Building. The submitted plans include detailed elevations and expansive El Camino Real elevations that include the new buildings in the existing Shopping Center context (Sheets A2 – A4). When reviewing the expanded elevation (without trees), one can see that the larger buildings at each end (Left: Bloomingdales; Right Restoration Hardware) appear to mirror each other and balance the massing. Staff seeks the ARB’s thoughts and feedback on the transition from the proposed buildings, which are a maximum height of 50’ tall, relative to each other and the greater Shopping Center. 3 Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Wilkes Bashford A new standalone building is set within the existing parking lot at the corner of El Camino Real and Pistache Place. This building is proposed to be 28,000 sf and includes a mezzanine level. The design along the El Camino frontage includes the right of way improvements consisting of new planting and a larger 12-foot wide sidewalk which enhances the pedestrian environment along this section of the Shopping Center. There are adjustments to these improvements to account for the existing heritage oak tree, which will require sidewalk improvements that are sensitive to the health and preservation of the oak. The project has shifted the sidewalk improvement to prevent impacts to the Oak in question. Additionally, the proposed design includes new planting areas that enhance the corner of Pistache Place and El Camino Real. Restoration Hardware The proposed Restoration Hardware (RH) building is an open design with large windows around all facades and includes new planting throughout the building. The third floor will include a new glass surrounded restaurant with access to a rooftop garden creating additional green space for Shopping Center patrons. Surrounding this building are new pedestrian walkways that form a 3 Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 U-shape around the building from Sand Hill Road. These walkways will take pedestrians from the tree lined sidewalk along Sand Hill Road and move them past the proposed bioretention areas that would have new landscaping. As pedestrians continue towards the RH building, the pathways open to provide 10’ to 13.5’ widths. Additionally, there are proposed improvements such as new trees, angled parking, raised planters, and a new loading area. The improvements appear to be complimentary to the proposed project and the greater Shopping Center experience. New tenant spaces (Addition to Building J) The third portion of this proposal involves two new tenant spaces that are single story, directly adjacent to Building J, and located directly across from the new RH building. These two spaces are proposed to be 3,500 sf each and have large windows with metal awnings that extend over the pedestrian walkways along the corners of the buildings. Their design includes a green wall located at the center where the tenant spaces meet. These tenant spaces will have new pedestrian walkways that are edged by new landscape areas adjacent to the new raised two- way drive aisle across from the RH Building. The walkways around these buildings are wider than the aforementioned buildings walkways ranging from 10’ to 31.5’ in width. Additionally, there are new trees proposed to shade the outdoor seating areas. The current design and features of the site plan appear to be sizable improvements to the Shopping Center. The wide pathways, green spaces, trees, and patron seating area are enhancements to this portion of the Shopping Center. However, it is unclear if these improvements would meet what the ARB would find these proposed features sufficient. For this response, Staff seeks the ARB’s feedback regarding the projects site plan, circulation features around the project area. Shopping Center Façade and Signage Design Standards The project involves the redevelopment of a sizeable portion of the Shopping Center and would change the character of this location. The exterior facades and any new proposed signage will need to be compatible with the requirements of the Stanford Shopping Centers “Master Tenant Sign and Façade Program” (MTSFP; 15PLN-00040) to maintain the Shopping Centers character. The MTSFP can be viewed in Attachment E for reference. 3 Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 2 exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). This project meets this exemption as it consists of replacement of existing structures and facilities where the new structures will be located on the same site as the existing structure to be replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity. More specifically, the existing Macy’s Men’s building is a commercial retail building of greater floor area than the total proposed floor area of the new commercial retail buildings in same general location on the project site. Forthcoming Shopping Center Board Level Projects For context, staff would like to make the ARB aware of two other pending applications at the Stanford Shopping Center. These projects are listed below and will be heard by the ARB in the near future: 1. 180 El Camino Real Bldg C #10B (19PLN-00114): Minor Board Level Architectural Review to Allow for modifications of an exterior storefront for L'Occitane 2. 180 El Camino Real (19PLN-00129): Minor Board Level Architectural Review to Allow for modifications of the exterior storefronts and market plaza area for Sigona's Market (space#399), Schaub's Meat, Fish, and Poultry (space#395), and Cocola Bakery along with changes to the service entrance façade at bldg. E within the Stanford Shopping Center. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment E: Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 81 3.a Packet Pg. 82 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 19PLN-00110 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. Consistency will be finalized prior to the second formal hearing. Policy B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high- quality regional shopping center. GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The project would be required to be consistent with the zoning requirements, El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and the Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. 3.b Packet Pg. 83 Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 3.b Packet Pg. 84 Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 3.b Packet Pg. 85 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real, 19PLN-00110 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 2,300,402 square feet (52.81 acres) Consistency will be finalized prior to future hearings. Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varied Rear Yard No Requirement N/A Interior Side Yard No Requirement N/A Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied Special Setback (PAMC 20.08) 24 feet along Sand Hill and Arboretum Roads Varied Max. Site Coverage No Requirement N/A Max. Building Height 50 feet or 37 feet maximum (4) Within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site Varied, Max 37 feet Varied, Max 50 feet Max. Floor Area per 18.16.060 (e) for Stanford Shopping Center 1,412,362 sf 1,361,751 net sf ~1,346,007 net sf (Proposed loss of 15,744 net sf) Consistency will be finalized prior to future hearings. (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 3.c Packet Pg. 86 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property Consistency will be finalized prior to future hearings. Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) (2) In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage: (A) Except in shopping centers… (B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 sf shall be subject to a conditional use permit. (C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) … Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. Employee Showers (18.16.040 (j)) Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building ... 4 showers are required for 100,000 sf and above Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CC district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 3.c Packet Pg. 87 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area (1,437,603 gross sf) for a total of 5,228 on-site parking spaces 5,448 spaces ~5,292 spaces Further analysis will be done prior to future hearings Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf 40% long term and 60% short term) equals 523 spaces for the site overall. 265 spaces (93 long term, 172 short term) ~261 spaces will remain (2 lockers with 4 spaces to be removed by the project) Note - Staff will be requiring additional spaces to come closer to compliance Loading Space 3/70,000 -120,000 sf with 1 additional space per 50,000 sf over 120,000 sf. Total of 29 loading spaces required. 2 loading space would be required for this portion of the site. ~15 loading spaces At least 1 new loading space is proposed on this portion of the site. Further analysis will be done prior to future hearings 3.c Packet Pg. 88 Table 1: Stanford Shopping Center Master Sign Program Sign Types, Number, and Locations Sign Requirement Number Maximum Size Location Primary sign (wall sign) Required 1 Maximum height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height; no sign closer to 24” from demising wall or building corner. Primary facade Banner or blade sign (Projecting sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” height Primary facade Canopy or Awning Sign (optional) 1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary facade Super- graphic (optional) Not limited None Flexible Secondary sign or Emblem (optional) 1 where applicable Secondary sign: Maximum height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: Maximum height is 24” in any direction. Secondary façade where applicable Advertising graphics and signs (optional) Not limited None Only on the inside plane of storefront window (s) Digital images and digital signage (optional) Not limited 42” measured diagonally Only in storefront window *Maximum Allowable Sign Area for Wall Signs. Wall signs and sign area are defined in PAMC 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. Logos are considered wall signs and can be utilized as a primary wall sign or can be a component of a primary wall sign. Logos shall not exceed the maximum height of a stacked sign, which is 36-inches. Logos shall be included in calculations of maximum wall sign area limits. 3.c Packet Pg. 89 ATTACHMENT D PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 18.23 180 El Camino Real, 19PLN-00110 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. Consistency will be finalized prior to future hearings. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 3.d Packet Pg. 90 The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 3.d Packet Pg. 91 MASTER TENANT FAÇADE & SIGN PROGRAM Effective Date: April 23, 2015 Program Approval 15PLN-00040 Edited PCE 7/10/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 92 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Facades facing the right of way shall incorporate architectural design features in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk. Rooftop equipment, equipment enclosures, roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or structure shall be obscured from public view by a roof screen or through placement. Green Lines indicate tenant spaces which require City review • Storefront > 35ft in length require Architectural Board Review (Public Hearing) • Storefront ≤ 35ft in length require Staff Level Review Major tenants and free standing buildings (shaded) require City Review • The type of review (Board level or Staff level) will be determined based on the scope of work. 3.e Packet Pg. 93 For the Tenants whose elevation is located on facades other than those listed above, review by the Architectural Review Board might be required depending on if the storefront is visible from the public right of way. Tenants are required to receive Landlord’s approval prior to filing for ARB approval. However, approval by the Landlord does not guarantee ARB approval. Furthermore, all comments provided by the ARB must be addressed and Tenant shall file promptly for resubmittal. Any deviation from Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program must receive Landlord’s prior written approval prior to submitting drawings to the ARB or for Planning Approval. Architectural Review Processing Procedure. The architectural review processing procedure for Stanford Shopping Center tenants shall be as follows: 1. The Landlord and Stanford University conduct architectural review of non-anchor tenant signs and facades for those locations within the shopping center interior to ensure that they conform to the Tenant Design Manual. 2. Planning staff and/or the ARB shall conduct architectural review of tenant signs and facade applications for locations at the shopping center exterior. a. Any façades or architectural components that extend beyond the height of the existing parapet wall or increase gross or net floor area shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). b. Two-story tenant facades intended for single tenant occupancy shall have a façade that is continuous between the first and second stories. If separate tenants occupy the first and second stories, the design of each façade shall be reviewed by the ARB. c. Tenant facades that are 35-feet in width or greater are reviewed by the ARB. Architectural review for tenant facades that are less than 35-feet in width may be conducted by Planning Staff. d. If there are no tenant façade changes and the proposed tenant signs are consistent with the Master Tenant Sign Program, Planning review at the staff- level occurs as part of building permit applications. Any signs that require an exception to the Master Tenant Sign Program shall be reviewed by Planning staff or the ARB. Examples of tenants that have continuous façade vs those that do not have continuous facades 3.e Packet Pg. 94 STOREFONT ELEVATIONS GLOSSARY OF TERMS GENERAL: • Base Building: Base Building Shell construction, common and service areas, including all work that is the responsibility of the Landlord. • Design Control Zone: The area of the store extending from the storefront lease line into the store, at a minimum of five feet (5’-0”), in which the Landlord controls design components. The Design Control Zone shall extend across the entire width of the store. • Neutral Pier: An architectural element separating two adjacent Tenant storefronts or a Tenant storefront from a finish controlled by the Landlord. • Vitrine: Shallow wall mounted display cases on the exterior of the façade and can house vignette displays, merchandise or seasonal graphics. The illumination of any vitrine shall be similar in color and intensity to the remainder of the Tenant storefront displays. All vitrines must be incorporated into the design aesthetic of the storefront vocabulary. Stanford Shopping Center is an upscale Lifestyle Center and requires Tenants to create a unique and contemporary storefront design. Tenants shall take advantage of the garden setting by creating storefront designs that bring a sense of the outdoors into their space. Tenants are required to present their businesses with distinctive architectural designs using the highest quality of materials and workmanship, and with creative lighting and signage designs. Typical Tenant storefronts extend between adjacent storefront finishes and shall extend to the height of the roof parapet. STOREFRONT DESIGN CRITERIA General Design Criteria Storefront The Tenant’s entire storefront, as per Zone, shall be designed, fabricated, constructed, installed and maintained by the Tenant at the Tenant’s expense. The storefront design shall work in concert with, and be respectful of, the Landlord’s building façade, thematic architectural expression, and landscaping. Tenant storefronts shall meet the base building parapet height and shall not exceed the parapet in overall height. Storefronts shall maintain a consistent height on each building. Tenants are required to extend their storefront design along all building facades. Approved architectural finishes, façade details, and additional components such as lighting and graphics, will visually activate all side of each Building. At a minimum, Tenants shall extend their exterior color palette across the solid portions of the exterior wall. A combination of super-graphics, showcase windows and/or vitrines are required and shall be the foundation of the Tenant’s aesthetic interpretation of the exterior walls. Closed Doors Tenant spaces shall be designed for closed-door operation as this is an open-air center. Tenant storefront doors shall remain closed during normal mall hours. Landlord piers or columns in the Tenant’s storefront that are clad or otherwise designed as part of the Landlord building architecture shall be preserved without alteration by the Tenant. Unclad piers or columns in the Tenant’s storefront shall be incorporated into the Tenant’s storefront design. The Tenants storefront windows and other large glazed areas shall include provisions for mullion articulation beyond a basic extruded aluminum profile. This may be achieved through applying cap and pan elements to the basic window assembly to add relief and dimension. 3.e Packet Pg. 95  Doors within the storefront assembly may be articulated in a similar manner or may include further customized elements to enhance the overall design and building identity.  No alterations, additions, changes, or modifications to the Base Building finishes or construction shall be permitted without obtaining Landlord’s prior written approval (such approval must be requested by Tenant under separate cover from Tenant’s drawings). If permitted, all work shall be performed by Landlord at Tenant’s expense.  All Tenant construction, including storefronts, must be of non-combustible materials. Treated fire-resistive materials are permitted only with approval by local jurisdictional authorities.  All Tenant storefronts and floors shall be watertight and must properly slope to drain and to meet flush with Landlord’s finishes and/or pavements at the storefront. All exterior Tenant storefront materials must be suitable to outdoor weather, use, and wear.  Pedestrian and security lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and shall be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. Architectural lighting that project upward shall be directed so as not to affect abutting land uses. Floodlights on tenant facades are discouraged. Storefront Finishes Tenants shall maximize the use of glazing with the storefront area having a minimum of 70% transparency, measured across the width of the Premises. Full height opaque areas of the storefront shall be minimal. Where possible, a constant height opaque sign band, extending across the entire storefront width, is not acceptable. Varied glazed show window heights and/or projections should be incorporated. 3.e Packet Pg. 96 All storefront materials shall be high quality, durable, exterior grade finishes with minimal maintenance requirements. Acceptable Finishes:  Stainless Steel, Solid Brass and Copper  Wrought Iron, Cast Iron and Steel  Marble, Granite, Limestone, Brick, Textured Masonry  Finished/protected premium grade hardwoods  Precast Concrete, Cast Stone, GFRC, GFRG  Homogenous porcelain tile  Sandblasted, frosted, etched, textured, leaded glass, spandrel glass (in limited quantities)  Glazing (tempered) *Additional finishes not listed are subject to Planning Department review and approval Discouraged Finishes:  Simulated Brick, Wood, Stone  Plastic Laminates, Metal Laminates, Plastic Panels  Mill finish  EIFS  Plexiglas or plastics  Field painted metals  Ceramic, glass or quarry tile, used as a field or background. Note: Storefront canopies and marquees must conform to project location specifications and will be reviewed for conformance with material and color selection, location, projection and overall design effect. Fabric awnings are not generally permitted. 3.e Packet Pg. 97 Each Tenant shall provide a solid canopy above their entry. Canopies are to be a minimum of 3’-0” deep and must at lease cover the width of the entry alcove. The finish of the canopy is to compliment the Tenant’s overall storefront design aesthetic. Storefront and glazing graphics, film, animation techniques and projection techniques must be clearly shown on Tenant’s Drawings and are subject to Landlord’s approval. Entrance Alcoves & Closures Store closure is limited to hinged or pivoting doors only. Out-swinging or pivoting doors cannot extend beyond the storefront Lease Line. Coiling grilles and shutters are prohibited. Doors glazed with true divided slites are encouraged, as are doors or clear tempered glass and doors with decorative leaded or patterned glazing. Tall entrance doors of 8’-0” height or higher are encouraged; standard height doors with overhead transoms are also permitted. The following requirements shall apply without exception:  Tenant is responsible for exterior floor finish within the entry recess and must provide a minimum transition of less than ½ inches from the sidewalk elevation to Tenant floor finish.  Tenant is solely responsible for the design and construction of the slope in the recessed entry area, as well as compliance with any applicable code requirements for same. Exterior floor shall have positive drainage to the sidewalk at a minimum 1% and maximum 5% slope.  Tenant’s recessed entrance shall meet or exceed the finish specifications in the Design Criteria and Design Control Zone. The finish must be Tenant’s own material - matching Landlord’s sidewalk finish will not be permitted.  Recessed entrance location, presentation and temperature control are subject to Landlord approval. Tenant’s drawings shall include details for drainage, foundations, interior /exterior slab conditions, weatherproofing and finishes. Landlord shall not be responsible for ponding water in the recessed entry. All storefront doors must be framed. Frameless glass doors will not be allowed due to outdoor environment. Each Tenant shall display the space number posted in accordance per the local Fire Code and per City of Palo Alto Building Department Standards and shall install the mall standard ADA address plaque, provided by the Landlord’s designated vendor. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. Storefront Bases The storefront base shall be a minimum of six inches (6”) in height. The base shall be constructed from highly durable non-porous material appropriate for exterior use, such as stone, tile, substantial gauge metal with a powder-coated finish, stainless steel, or other material as approved by Landlord. Storefront base material must be specified to withstand contact with cleaning equipment and solutions as well as exposure to the elements. Entry Floor Floor finishes at the entry shall be hard, high-quality, durable materials. At the entry, the floor finish shall be a non-slip material. Vinyl and/or rubber-resilient flooring or sealed/stained concrete systems are not allowed in the design control zone. If carpeting is proposed, 32 oz. nylon fiber minimum specification is required. The finished elevations at the store entrance must align with Landlord’s finished and/or pavement elevation of the exterior walkway, with a weather-proofed threshold of minimal thickness (not to exceed ½”) provided at the doors. The use of vinyl or metal reducer strips is prohibited. Tenant should provide a metal-embedded transition strip flush with the hard surface flooring at all transitions to other flooring types. No trip hazards such as reducer strips, thresholds or other noticeable transition devices shall be permitted between different flooring materials. 3.e Packet Pg. 98 Storefront Lighting Tenant Interior Lighting – Tenant interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow visible from and/or intruding into nearby properties Tenant Exterior Lighting – Pedestrian and security lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and shall be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. Architectural lighting that project upward shall be directed so as not to affect abutting land uses. Floodlights on tenant facades are discouraged. Bird-Friendly Facades Tenant facades with glazing covering a large area shall utilize a bird-safe glazing treatment. The bird-friendly treatment can be invisible to the human eye. Typical treatments include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns are generally at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. Noise Producing Equipment Any noise producing equipment should be screened from public view and must comply with noise limits. Storefront Design Control Zone The Tenant Storefront Design Control Zone is the area of the store extending from the storefront lease line into the store at a minimum of five feet (5’-0”) across the entire width of the store. Since the appearance of this zone is critical to the overall store appearance, design solutions, and materials are expected to be of the highest quality and will be closely reviewed by Landlord. Tenant music systems, speakers and sound systems are not permitted to be installed within the Design Control Zone. Speakers/ sound systems located behind the first 5’-0” of the entry shall have a separate volume control that can be set to the Mall Managers’ specified level. The backs of Emergency Exit signage/lights (over the entry doors) shall not be visible from the exterior. Storefront security systems, if used, shall be unobtrusively incorporated into the Tenant’s Design Control Zone. Storefront security system design and installation details shall be included in the Tenant storefront design and drawings submitted to the Landlord for approval prior to installation. Security grilles or gates behind storefront show windows or entrance doors are strictly prohibited. All walls within the Design Control Zone shall be provided with high quality finish material – plain painted surfaces are not permitted. Materials such as stone, tile, wood panels, the use of trim and other decorated treatments shall be utilized. Slat wall and grid wall are not permitted. All plants shall be shown on Tenants drawings, and identified by species as well as whether living or artificial. Plants on storefronts shall have photographs submitted as part of Tenant’s drawing submission to Landlord for approval. Depressed or slab-level plantings are prohibited. All plants installed by Tenant shall be properly maintained by Tenant at Tenant’s expense. (Self-watering pots with a bladder system shall be used to ensure no leakage onto the hardscape). Gross Floor Area. Permanently covered tenant patio spaces count toward gross floor area, but uncovered tenant spaces do not. 3.e Packet Pg. 99 Store Display and Merchandising Within the Design Control Zone, the side walls and show windows shall be dedicated for use as a high-quality show window display. A creative display is required – standard merchandise racks, and wall finishing materials such as slat wall and prepackaged wall-mounted grid systems are prohibited. Distinctive, high-quality and appropriate display techniques which best showcase the Tenant’s merchandise must be used. At the storefront entry, display fixtures and merchandise must be placed at least 3’-0” behind the Tenant’s entry door/ closure line. Merchandise rack and display features must not block customer traffic flow in and out of the store. Television monitors proposed to be installed at the storefront or within the Design Control Zone require specific approval by the Landlord, and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If approved, monitors shall be incorporated into the overall storefront design and are to be encased within attractive display fixtures to conceal all surfaces except for the screen surface. They must be mounted a minimum of 3’-0” behind the storefront glass and must incorporate slow fade type graphics with no sound, animation is not permitted. Maximum screen size is 42” measured diagonally. All cables and wiring must be concealed from view. Show Window Safety Logos Repetitive safety symbols (graphically designed) or lettering may be applied to the inside face of storefront glazing as approved by Landlord for identifying transparent surfaces for customer safety purposes. Emblems, logos, and lettering must not exceed 3” in height and the font shall be Circular Pro, black vinyl, maximum letter is not to exceed 3” in height. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. Tenant shall provide signage at the exterior side of the service entrance. Font shall be Circular Pro, black vinyl, maximum letter is not to exceed 2” in height. The length of the sign shall be proportionate to the sign height limit. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. General Sign Criteria Building permits are required for all illuminated signs and the Tenant shall be responsible to obtain any and all permits as may be required by the local jurisdiction. 3.e Packet Pg. 100 Sign Requirement Number Max Size Location Primary Sign (Wall Sign) Required 1 Max Height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height. Signs discouraged closer than 24” to demising wall or building corner Primary Facade Banner or Blade Sign (Projecting Sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” in height Blade: 24” projection x 15” in height Primary Façade (Blade signs to be located either under an awning or a façade wall not directly adjacent to an existing sign) Canopy Sign Optional 1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary Facade Super Graphic Optional Not Limited None Flexible Secondary Sign or Emblem Optional 1 (where applicable) Secondary Sign: Max. height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: max. height is 24” in any direction Secondary Façade (where applicable) Advertising Graphics and Signs Optional Not Limited None Only on inside plane of storefront windows, Digital Images and Digital Signage Optional Not Limited 42” measured diagonally Only in storefront windows 3.e Packet Pg. 101 In additional to the criteria herein, Tenant signage shall comply with the current version of the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code and the City of Palo Alto’s Design Guidelines. All signage shall be of the highest quality design and construction. Tenant signage shall be designed to be proportionate in scale to the elevation to which it is affixed. Sign design and placement shall be well integrated with the tenant façade and hall be designed to complement the storefront design and general building design. Wall signs and sign area are defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PMAC) 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. When wall area exceeds 5,000 square feet, sign area may be increase by seven (7) square feet for each additional 500 square feet of wall area, but no sign shall exceed 203 square feet. All attachment hardware which supports and or powers the signage must be concealed from view and be weather resistant. Sign illumination must be connected to a 7-day / 24 hour time clock to be set to the hours specified by Mall Management Acceptable Primary Storefront Sign Types (required):  Dimensional wood, metal, glass, or other material with a permanent appearance, internally illuminate only. Flood lights are prohibited.  Reverse channel letter with halo illumination, opaque letter-sides and faces and non-reflective background.  Internally illuminated individual channel letters with acrylic faces.  Signs that are incised, cast into or carved out of an opaque material, indirectly illuminated.  Sculptural iconographic elements contextual to the storefront design, internally illuminated. *Additional finishes not listed are subject to Planning Department review and approval Discouraged Primary Storefront Sign Types:  Box or cabinet type signs.  Signs employing audible equipment, and/or moving, flashing, or blinking lights  Signs employing exposed raceways, ballast boxes, or transformers  Luminous vacuum-formed type plastic letter signs  Exposed neon  Cloth, paper, cardboard signs or signs of other temporary or non-durable materials  Signs using highly reflective finish materials (i.e. polished brass, chrome, etc.) 3.e Packet Pg. 102 Blade Signs Tenants can elect to use a variety of media for their signs; however, blade signs are required to meet the following criteria:  Sign panels can be a maximum of 3” thick and constructed of wood, metal, glass or other solid surface material. Plastics are not permitted.  Sign panel shall be supported by a bracket attached to the Tenant’s storefront or under an awning with a complimentary design, color and finish. At no time may the blade sign panel be attached to the Landlord’s neutral pier or building facade.  Perimeter of the sign should fall within a 24” (h) x 15” (w) envelope, including the support bracket. Tenant shall determine a creative sign shape.  Minimum clearance height to sidewalk is 9’-0” above the sidewalk plane.  Wording of the blade sign is limited to the Tenant’s trade name (DBA) and logo.  Tenant’s customary signature or logo, hallmark, insignia, or other trade identification will be respected and reviewed on a case by case basis for use as the blade sign design.  The graphic element of the sign may be paint, enamel, appliqué, dimensional graphic/lettering or may be pushed out of the panel material for a three- dimensional appearance (routed or incised is also approved).  Blade signs may be illuminated by concealed methods only. Building Mounted Banners and Projected Signs (optional – in lieu of Blade Sign) This type of sign is vertically oriented and is mounted high and perpendicular to the building and may or may not be illuminated. Maximum width or projection shall be 24” from the face of the Tenant storefront and the height cannot exceed 60”. Bottom of banner must be 9’’-0” clear ground plane. Signage of this type, if permitted, is usually restricted in number and location. Projecting banner signs shall not be placed in a manner that will allow the banner sign to exceed the adjacent parapet height. Canopy Signs (optional) Canopies are defined as heavy-framed protective and/or decorative structures over entrances. Tenant may elect to use the canopy sign as their primary storefront sign. The sign shall conform to the “Acceptable Primary Sign Types” as indicated above. The canopy sign may be illuminated internally only. The maximum height of any capital letter of a canopy sign shall not exceed 9” in height. Traditional fabric awnings are not permitted, however, taught contemporary awnings shall be allowed only with prior Landlord approval. Show Window Graphics (optional) Vinyl lettering and/or logos may be applied to the face of storefront glazing, provided that the sign communicates the Tenant Trade Name only. Advertising panels, banners or signs with opaque backdrops are prohibited. Signage Approval Process Landlord’s approval of Tenant’s storefront signage shall be based on the size and style of the sign and lettering, the location of the sign within the storefront, and the cohesive integration of the sign into the overall storefront design. Approval of the Tenant’s preliminary design or Working Drawings by the Landlord shall not constitute review and approval of the Tenant’s signage. Tenant shall submit one (1) set of the Tenant’s sign shop drawings for review and approval by Landlord. Fabrication or installation of the Tenant’s signage shall not commence before the Landlord’s approval of the sign shop drawings. 3.e Packet Pg. 103 Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “180 El Camino Real – Macy’s Men’s” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4479&TargetID=319 3.f Packet Pg. 104 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10475) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 6/20/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of May 2, 2019 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2019. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the May 2, 2019 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB A hard copy of the minutes of the above referenced meeting will be made available at the ARB hearing in the Council Chambers at 8:30 am. Attachments:  Attachment A: May 2, 2019 ARB Minutes (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Members Alexander Lew, Osma Thompson and David Hirsch. Absent: None Chair Furth: Good morning. Is staff ready? All right. I'm calling to order the May 2, 2019, meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. Could you call the roll, please? [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Furth: The first item on the agenda is oral communications. This is time for any member of the public to speak on an item not on our agenda. I have no speaker cards. Is there anyone in the audience who wishes to speak on a matter not on the agenda? Seeing no one, we'll go on to the next matter. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Agenda changes, additions and deletions. Are there any? Hearing none. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: City official reports. Transmittal of the ARB meeting schedule and attendance record, tentative future agendas, and recent project decisions. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. You'll see in Attachment A we have cancelled the July 4th meeting. We don't think we need a special meeting at this time, so we'll leave the schedule as such. Chair Furth: I just wanted to note that I believe I will be here on June 20th. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Do you want me to change that on here? Chair Furth: Yes, please. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. That would be great. And then, for May 2nd, for the next hearing... That is not correct. I believe it's May 16th. We have two potential items, 4256 El Camino, which is a new hotel project, and then, 567 Homer, which three residential units. It's possible one of those items may still drop off. We are making some decisions later today. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 2, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 4.a Packet Pg. 106 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Furth: Thank you. And that new hotel is not new to us. It's a... Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. It would be a third hearing. All right. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL. 233 University Avenue [18PLN-00344]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow for Seismic Rehabilitation of an Existing Single-Story Structure, the Addition of a Second-Story for Office Use, and a Rooftop Terrace. Additional Floor Area Would be Added Using a Seismic Floor Area Bonus and Transferred Development Rights (TDRs). The Project Includes Alterations at the Ground Floor to Revise the Entrances, Revisions to the Walls Along the Interior and Rear Lot Lines, and Brick Details. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: CD-C(GF)(P) (Commercial Downtown Community with Pedestrian and Ground Floor Combining District Overlays). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Hodgkins, at Claire.hodgkins@Cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Our first action item for the day -- and in fact, our only one -- is a public hearing, it's quasi- judicial, on 233 University Avenue. The staff is asking for a recommendation on the applicant's request for approval of a major architectural review to allow for the seismic rehabilitation of an existing single- story structure, the addition of a second story for office use, and a rooftop terrace. Additional floor area would be added using a seismic floor area bonus and transferred development rights. The project includes alterations to the ground floor to revise the entrances, revisions to the walls along the interior and rear lot lines, and brick detailing. The project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act as infill development. The zoning district is CD-C with a ground floor retail, I guess, and pedestrian overlay. The architect is Ken Hayes, and it's the Mills Family Trust, is the owner. If we could hear from the staff. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner: Good morning, Board members. Claire Hodgkins, Project Planner. The project before you today, as you noted, is 233 University Avenue, which is located on the corner of University and Ramona. The project actually includes two addresses, which is 233 and 235 University. As you noted, it's located within the CD-C(GF)(P) zoned district, which is Commercial Downtown Community with a ground floor and pedestrian combining district. Existing uses of the site include the Mills Florist Shop The Tap Room, and the hookah lounge. Just a brief overview of the project, again, of the different components. Rehabilitation of an existing brick masonry building to meet current seismic standards, use of seismic rehabilitation bonus, transferred development rights, and existing mezzanine floor area, which would be removed from the existing building. Would be used to construct a new second floor office addition and an open terrace above the second floor. It also includes addition of a trash enclosure on site, ADA [Americans with Disabilities Act] compliance upgrades, and revisions to the façade on the ground floor to create more windows and to create an access to the office. I just wanted to go through some of the key revisions that were made since the last hearing. The ARB had commented on the rear and interior side walls in particular, so they've revised the materials on the rear and the side wall partially to use some stucco and some of the metal to kind of break up that façade. They've also added a few non-operable windows that would be fire-safe. The ARB had also commented on the brick detailing, so they are going to be keeping the existing brick capitals that would be flanking the sides of the doors, as well as a brick trim to be added or retained on the top portion. There were some revisions to the retail entrances. The ARB had commented that they felt that the entrances should have been located closer to the corner of University and Ramona. The retail entrance along Ramona was moved slightly closer to the 4.a Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Page 3 corner, not quite as close as I think the ARB had commented on, but there were some grade separation issues that the architect has been trying to work around, so I just wanted to note that. There are two designs proposed. The applicant is proposing sliding doors for the retail doors along Ramona, but they've provided an alternative that would include doors that open up, swinging doors, which is what staff would recommend for the site. The ARB also recommended improvements to the pedestrian experience, so there was a small addition of a seated bench within a window along Ramona. We did look into some benches along, adding a bench in the public right-of-way, but Transportation Division and Public Works engineering had some resistance to that. They felt that this would not be the best location. There was a lot of different things going on in the right-of-way already and they didn't feel it was a wide enough right- of-way to be putting in benches within the public right-of-way. The street trees have also been revised. Originally, they were proposing to remove all three street trees. The mature street tree right at the corner of Ramona and University is now going to be retained, and they have proposed some smaller, medium-sized trees for the two additional trees along Ramona, which staff felt was a better option, but was more in line with the utilities in this letter and would be more compatible. There was a question that came up about just what the office restrictions are in general in Palo Alto, so I wanted to provide some clarity about that. There were three different restrictions. There are now two because the Downtown cap has been removed. The Downtown cap included all non-residential, not just office. The two that are remaining are the citywide limit on new office and R&D [Research and Development]. This is adding 4,400 square feet of new office. There's somewhere around 500,000-or-something square feet that can still be added. There's also an annual office limit. I think I noted in my last staff report there was somewhere around 20,000 that was still available, and again, this is adding 4,400, so it wouldn't exceed any of those requirements. Staff recommends that the ARB consider the proposed project, provide comments based on findings, and subject to conditions of approval. With that, I'll turn it back to you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I'd like to hear from the applicant. You have 10 minutes once you're set up. [Applicant setting up presentation.] Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects: Good morning, Chair Furth and members of the Board. My name is Ken Hayes with Hayes Group Architects. I'll be making a presentation on behalf of our clients, the Mills family. The Mills family joins us all this morning, as well as Terry Murphey from my office. When we were here... Let me quickly show you the existing building that I'm sure you're very familiar with. We're proposing this wall be removed. We're proposing that the brick veneer here be removed to reveal the former wall below, which you can see here in the bottom photograph. We did a little more reconnaissance, and up in the attic you actually can see the old brick work from the inside. You're looking out through what were the transom windows and you can see the column capitals... It's basically like a corniche, a stepped-out corbeling at the top of the columns. We're proposing that that obviously remain. That occurs along the front University façade for all three columns flanking each of the two bays. The building is actually double wide. It includes the road's façade there. At some point it was remodeled, I guess, by Birge Clark. That's the existing. At our hearing on March 7th - I can't believe it was that long ago - we talked, the comments that Planner Hodgkins just discussed. Improve the retail entry on Ramona, consider awnings along Ramona, consider exterior seats, consider additional brick detailing, provide more relief and variety along the property line walls next to the Stanford Theater. I think that was also at the back of the building. I think staff did a great job already, showing you the changes a little bit. This is the revised Ramona Street façade, and you can see here the idea of two sliding doors. There is a grade issue. We are able to meet the grade on University and on Ramona in this bay. Basically, you would walk right in from Ramona sidewalk at the same level as the interior of the store. As it goes this way, the sidewalk climbs; as it goes this way, the sidewalk falls about four to five inches. This is the natural place to put that opening. We're showing sliding doors, they would both slide open, or an alternate. And I rarely have an alternate for you, but an alternate would be, in that same bay, do a pair of swinging doors. The swinging doors most likely need to swing out, so there's a bit of an impact to the plan that I'll show you a little later. We would define those entries by canopies. This canopy was already 4.a Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Page 4 shown previously as the office entry. We would, taking Board Member Hirsch's comment about adding more canopies on Ramona, instead of doing it everywhere just sort of wholesale, we said let's just define the entry. So, we provided at the entry itself. Staff explained that Public Works and Transportation, they were not excited about a seat along Ramona along the right-of-way, so we've lowered the sill at the stair element, where there is a deeper recess. I think it's about 16 or 18 inches deep, and now it's about 18 inches high. There would be a concrete, precast concrete slab there that would be seat height. You could have a seat there by the office entry, to wait for a coworker or what-have-you. At University, we're also proposing, you can't walk out here because there's this five-inch grade separation, but we think it would be nice to be able to see into the store, so we're taking that sliding door concept, sort of like what we did at Poy-ya [phonetic] years ago. Those doors on the corner would slide open and stack over here, so the corner would be partially open, but there's a decorative rail to prevent people from walking in and out of that entrance. The entrance here remains. We show the brick detailing at the top of these columns that is existing, and then there's the existing frieze that we're then taking around the side of the building, and of course, the existing corniche at the top of the brick wall. This is the side that faces the Stanford Theater. Previously, we had it all as the vertical metal panel. There was some concern about, I guess, the monotony of that, so we've just accentuated the stair elements both here and at the rear of the building, so the stair has the metal cladding on it, and it also has the higher height, whereas the stucco wall steps down two feet in this area. Then we added fire barrier openings, so, as staff explained, non-operable fire- barrier openings, but they do allow light into the stairwell, and they start to break up that façade a little bit. Not much of it is visible from the street. This is the Stanford Theater here. Our building stops right here. We have the door that comes out into this exit, hopefully easement, and the metal panel again defining the stair, and then we have that sitting on a concrete base that wraps around to the sill at the Ramona façade. And then, in this location, we're able to get two windows in, unlike the other location. You can only get one because of where the landings are in the building next door. That is the presentation. Oh, no, I'm sorry, there's a few more slides. This is the ground floor with the sliding doors. In this area, if we do the swinging door, we need to set that in, so that would be an interruption, let's say, in the façade. But we could do swinging doors. Can't swing over the property line, which is why we have to set it back. This just shows the window location here, over in that stair, and then you see the canopies below in that area. And then the window here, and the window there. No other change. Just sort of overall shot from there. The view that staff had. A view from the street. You can see how this now breaks up. And then, with and without the tree. The camphor tree is, we've been requested to keep the camphor tree. You can see the building, and you can see the tree. That's my presentation. I look forward to any questions you might have, and hopefully we have support of staff's recommendation. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any questions of the applicant before we start discussing this amongst ourselves? Board Member Thompson: Is there a material board again? I think there was last time, right? Mr. Hayes: [no audible response] Chair Furth: Peter, any questions? Board Member Hirsch: I'd like to ask, what's your preference... Chair Furth: Closer to the mic. Board Member Hirsch: Closer to the mic. Mr. Hayes: The sliding doors. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Furth: Peter, any questions? 4.a Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Architect Hayes, what is the offset on the metal panels defining the stairwells on the inside, the side walls of the building, between the plaster and the aluminum? Or metal. When you look at it... Mr. Hayes: Two inches, it sounds like. Vice Chair Baltay: Two inches...? Mr. Hayes: You're talking about between the stucco, Board Member Baltay? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, two inches. Vice Chair Baltay: Right there, between those two materials. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. Correct. And this is not our building here, but right there, yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: Yeah, between those two materials. Mr. Hayes: Right. Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: I had... Excuse me. Mr. Hayes: The metal panels (inaudible). Chair Furth: I had two questions. One is, what is the width of the new bench, the new seating area? Mr. Hayes: Terry? Chair Furth: Length, width, whatever. Terry Murphey: The width is four and a half feet. Mr. Hayes: It is about four and a half feet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Hayes: Enough for two people. Chair Furth: Or three slender ones. And when you use the sliding door, there's a column between the two of them as they open? Is that right? Mr. Hayes: That's correct, yeah. Chair Furth: How wide is the entrance? Mr. Hayes: It's about four and a half feet. Chair Furth: Each? Mr. Hayes: Each panel is four and a half feet, so I would envision both of those being open, so it's going to look like you have nine feet and you can walk in, you know, around... Chair Furth: And if you have... Mr. Hayes: Six feet on the... Chair Furth: ...swinging doors, how big is the entrance. 4.a Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Hayes: Six feet. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other questions? Board Member Thompson: I think Board Member Hirsch had a question about, out of the two - and correct me if I'm wrong - out of the two, the swinging door option and the sliding door option, which do you...? Mr. Hayes: We prefer the sliding door option. I think that if it's used properly, it will... I mean, the swinging doors are always going to open and close, most likely. The idea behind it is that they could open it up so that they could have product displayed and you can walk in and around it. The swinging door option probably is not going to provide that. Board Member Thompson: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: All right. Mr. Hayes: Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. I think you may be seated. I'm sorry, Board Member Hirsch has one more question. Board Member Hirsch: When you did your test from the inside, noting the corbeling, what was the condition of the brick on the inside? Mr. Hayes: We have photographs. The brick on the inside looks fine. What we don't know -- and Board Member Baltay pointed this out last time -- is that when we remove that veneer that the Mills family put up years ago, not sure what it's going to be. We're, you know, we're hopeful. Chair Furth: Yes, Board Member Baltay, Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Architect Hayes, what is your backup plan if you take off the facing veneer and the brick behind it [crosstalk] .... Mr. Hayes: We don't have a backup plan yet. Vice Chair Baltay: We're assuming this brick is going to be there, and look beautiful, and old, and weathered... Mr. Hayes: Correct. Vice Chair Baltay: ... and if it comes off and the backup brick comes off, too, what happens? Mr. Hayes: The backup brick? Vice Chair Baltay: The brick that we want to save. If you're not able to save it, what happens? Mr. Hayes: Right. The brick that's there is a double-wide wall, so I wouldn't imagine it coming off when we pull the veneer off, but it might require removal of, if there's a mortar bond there, or... I don't know. Maybe they built it as a cavity wall, Board Member Baltay, and it's not an issue. But we haven't done that investigation yet. I wouldn't anticipate that bricks are going to come off. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I mean more when you pull the facing brick off, the brick behind it may be damaged. The surface of the brick may come off. It may end up being chipped or something. [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: The surface behind the brick is not (inaudible) .... 4.a Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Hayes: It depends on how... The brick on the Ramona façade, we're going to save that. You know, it's also double-wide, so we're anticipating that given there's so much of it, that we'll be able to, when we build the new wall, that we'll have extra brick to be able to pick-and-choose the bricks that we want to use there. But the brick that's on this building has gone through a number of recladding over the years. I mean, the building was originally a stucco building, so that cement plaster was chipped off. And if you look at the brick closely, you see the remains of that cement plaster that was on there. I would anticipate you're going to get that same kind of mottled look. It might be fine in the end. We don't want it to look new, obviously. Vice Chair Baltay: Can you clarify for the record, then, the intent is to remove brick from some parts of the building -- the old brick -- and clean it up enough that you can re-use the existing brick in other places. Mr. Hayes: Correct. Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: You're going to go through the effort of cleaning the existing brick and reusing it. Mr. Hayes: We're going to remove the brick that's there, and most likely, the brick that faces the inside is, I mean, we know that it's in better condition than the brick that faces the outside because it hasn't gone through that repeated plastering and removal of the plaster. We're going to take that brick and, you know, divide it into piles of use this/don't use that. Vice Chair Baltay: Are your clients aware of the expense involved in doing that? Mr. Hayes: [no audible response] Vice Chair Baltay: Is that a yes or a no? Mr. Hayes: Yes, sorry. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Chair Furth: It's not showing up for the record. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: I actually have one more question. Chair Furth: Go ahead. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: On the elevation on Ramona, I'm actually looking at the rendering in Sheet A4.1, which is the corner of University and Ramona. I think it's the one with the tree/no tree, but it's a sketch up-view. Mr. Hayes: Oh, the sketch-up view. Board Member Thompson: Yeah. You can see it in this elevation, as well. There is corbeling at the top of the storefront, so, on the University side, there's sort of two striations of corbeling... Mr. Hayes: Right. Board Member Thompson: ...at the line of the storefront, and then just above it. And the one above it wraps around. But, I noticed on Ramona, the bottom line doesn't... Mr. Hayes: Correct. Board Member Thompson: ... continue. Mr. Hayes: Correct. 4.a Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Thompson: I just wanted to ask your intention in choosing that. Mr. Hayes: We're giving priority to the University façade. I mean, it partially goes back to, you know, we're creating a new façade using recycled material, all right? This kind of goes to Board Member Baltay's comments about, you know, false historicism last time. We're not trying to... Chair Furth: We're calling it "recycling" now. Mr. Hayes: Right. Thank you. We're not trying to replicate it. I mean, this is a completely different design on this side of the building, and that's why we did not do the corbeling at that point. However, we felt it was important to bring the corniche around and the frieze around that side. And then, just let the corbeling capital at the slender columns that are on University, that is existing as the detail. Chair Furth: Would you mind answering that again, using different words? I always forget what corbeling is. I know what frieze is. Mr. Hayes: The top of the brick, we'll call that the corniche, so, we're going to wrap that... Chair Furth: All right. The top edge. Mr. Hayes: ...around because I feel like that's important for sort of completion of that... Chair Furth: And I can't tell from looking at this drawing what the detail is there. Mr. Hayes: It's a double step. Basically, the brick sticks out about an inch and a half, then an inch and a half, and then the wall. The same thing is true at the frieze, so, the frieze line is... Chair Furth: The horizontal band. Mr. Hayes: ...the next horizontal line down. Right. In fact, the corbeling at the column capitals is not unlike that as well. There's no... Chair Furth: And a corbel is a decorative element that protrudes? Mr. Hayes: The top of the column, yeah, instead of having a... Chair Furth: Oh, it goes like that. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. Chair Furth: That 45 degrees... Mr. Hayes: No, but it's corbel, though, Chair Furth, so it steps out. The existing steps out. It doesn't... Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Thompson: I just want to clarify. When you say "frieze," are you talking about the space between the two corbels? Mr. Hayes: Well, I'm not talking about the frieze line, let's say -- or if you want to call it the architrave, or whatever -- but the horizontal line above the windows, about a foot above the windows. I'm just calling that the frieze line. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Sorry, just [crosstalk]. Chair Furth: The one that doesn't have a triumphal procession of Greek Gods? Mr. Hayes: Right, that one. Board Member Thompson: I was going to say, I didn't really see a frieze. 4.a Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Page 9 [crosstalk] Mr. Hayes: Good questions. Chair Furth: You understand I'm working from art history rather than being a trained architect. All right. Any other questions? Okay, I think we're good. I'm sure we'll have more. Before we start discussing, I went back through, reading the minutes of your last meeting. We discussed dimensions of the front window bays. Osma had a concern about the relationship of the glossy aluminum panel and the brick. Peter had a concern -- somewhat -- about how the brick would actually be used. Room for street trees, and wall facing the Varsity Theater, the wall facing the alley. Canopies on both frontages, whether the roof elevations were a bit random. The retail entry on Ramona, the detailing of the brick, the seating, and the need to keep the windows open, which Alex mentioned. Okay. Staff, just to be clear, this is a building that is applying for a seismic bonus, so this has to be a rehabilitation rather than a demotion, and the walls to be retained as shown on Sheet A10 are the interior wall facing the theater? And the wall facing University, but not the wall facing Ramona. Ms. Hodgkins: Correct. Chair Furth: Thank you. That is, they can do whatever they want with that wall. Thank you. Who would like to begin? Board Member Thompson: Okay, I'll begin. In general, I think it's nice that you stuck to your original design intent with this update, and in general, I would say the design is looking cleaner and tightened and more intentional. With regard to the sliding door or the swing door, it is rather strange that there is a column in the middle of it, but ultimately, I don't have a preference one way or the other. Just looking at these images, trying to envision what it would look like if that second bay on Ramona was punched in a little deeper, it might break the rhythm. At the moment, I think I'm leading toward the sliding door option. That seems like the right thing to do here. I do like the addition of the senate posture [phonetic]. I think it does break up that wall a bit nicer. In general, I would say this is a good update. Yeah, I don't actually have that much more to say. I'll stop there. Thanks. Chair Furth: Thank you. Alex? Board Member Lew: I can recommend approval today. When we get to findings, I have one minor comment on findings. Chair Furth: Board Member Hirsch, David. Board Member Hirsch: I concur with fellow board members. I also concur with Vice Chair Baltay's comment about the bricks, but I hear your sensitivity to it. I think you're going to be spending a little more time on it when you reveal it and find out what's there. In some ways, sometimes historic restorations, although a lot of the precedent is not going to really be historic, but in some ways, sometimes less cleaning is better than too much cleaning. So, whatever needs some sensitivity as to historic quality of what's there. I definitely prefer the sliding door. It's a narrow sidewalk, and it would be inviting. It looks more like the front of a building where you also want to open up and have some interior/exterior relationship. I come down strongly on your side on that one. And I think all of the other improvements that you made are definitely improvements. I really don't have any problem with what's been done. Chair Furth: Anything else? Board Member Hirsch: No. Chair Furth: Vice Chair Baltay. 4.a Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Vice Chair Baltay: Okay, thank you. I'd like to focus on two things. One is the notion of whether it's falsely historic, or not. I've been giving some thought to that because I'm, or at least I was at past hearings, concerned about the reuse of the brick in a way that implies that this is an old brick building when it's not. I firmly believe a lot of these bricks are going to be rebuilt and this will very much be a new building. That said, as I've walked up and down University, I really tip my hat to the architect. I think this is actually a very deft example of historical, you know, an appropriate way to introduce a new building in the old. The new work here, the building up on the top is clearly differentiated and it's very different, and while the brick may be new, the massing of the building, the modulational along the street, the way it respects the historical nature of downtown University Avenue, is actually very good. It really does tie right in. It fits with old, it's part of the old, and it's not falsely historic, it's genuinely the way the retail avenue along University has been, and this helps continue that. I actually find that that makes it very definitely an historic rehabilitation in the first order. It took me going out there several times to realize that. It's not just the material. There are much deeper aspects to it, so, in that regard, I think the building really is very successful at putting something new on top of something historic. I'm very pleased with that and can support it for that.I really leave it to the architect to decide if the door should be sliding or hinged. I can make the findings either way. With that, I'd like to segue into the second issue that I have, and I'd like to, I guess set Wynne up to take it further, but it's really a shame that there's not more of a pedestrian amenity outside of this building on the corner. It's a very active street corner in Palo Alto, and I don't think that will change with this building. Right now, there's a tightness about it. There's no place to sit, or to stop, or even a nicely-landscaped little garden. If you think of a similar street corner up by Paris Baguette, they've got that little recessed bench area. There's frequently a guy playing a guitar at lunch there. It's a more pleasant street corner somehow. It attracts pedestrians. People want to be there. And this is not doing that, and it's a shame. This seems like an opportunity, with such a big project, to ask the applicant to somehow provide some sort of pedestrian amenity on the corner, be it a recessed landscaped area, or some benches, or things like that. I understand that the multitude of public departments within in the City have issues with benches perhaps, or recesses, or something, but I think it's fair to say, just ask the applicant to figure it. To go back to Public Works and find a place you can put a bench, or two benches. And not just on a window sill at the far back corner, but on the corner of the property where the people are, where there's a lot of activity. I'd like to see us as a Board just push back on that some, and not just accept the Transportation Department saying there's no room for a bench. I walked around there extensively and there is room for benches, there is room to do things. It's not expensive for the applicant, and now is the time for them to push to get this done. I think we should be doing that. Wynne, your turn. Chair Furth: We didn't disclose our most recent visits. We have all seen the site, correct? And Peter and I have walked up and down that block. Thank you for your presentation. Thank you, staff, for the report. I think it's an attractive building. I don't think anybody is going to think it's old. I believe the applicant has choices on its materials, their materials on the Ramona side. I think if this is what they want to do, it's their building. But I'm sure it doesn’t feel like that when you are going through the review process. And I think it's handsome. One of the things that has concerned me a lot is whether this looks and reads to the person walking by as retail space. I went and walked up and down University and the side streets some more, because last time I really looked at this carefully, I was working for the City. We were working on historic issues on University, and the first version of retail we had on University, the windows went down to about -- what? -- 36 inches, there was a vitrine above that, and the doorway was really strongly marked. You were channeled into the doorway. If you look at more recent buildings, if you look at Keen Shoes, for example, those buildings have floor-to-ceiling windows, and they've figured out how to use them as retail space in a way that's very engaging and inviting. So, this is sort of transparent building is what's replaced our previous design. But as Alex pointed out in our last meeting, to make that work, the City has to insist that it stays transparent. One of the things it says in the downtown plan is that corners should be open. And on a lot of corners, that means the building is notched. The building is recessed from the corner, so you get more space. But if it isn't that, at least you see through the glass from one frontage to the other, so as you walk around the corner, you see the people on the other side. Actually, I 4.a Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto Page 11 realized when I went and looked at Keen's more closely, they actually had what I think we call a vitrine? I'm not sure. They have an improvised display window where I think the backing is about two or three feet back, and it doesn't go floor to ceiling, so you can see around it, and there's things in front of it. It's open, but it gives them more display space. So, if we are to approve this, I would want to talk about a condition that would ensure that that happens. The other thing that has concerned me about -- oh, where's the sign...? We have a signage exhibit somewhere, right? Because without signage, it really doesn't read "retail." Ms. Hodgkins: We just have the boxes of generally the location... Chair Furth: I know, I'm sorry. What sheet are they? A3.1? Ms. Hodgkins: A3.1. [Looking for document.] Chair Furth: I didn't use my magnifying glass. I looked at that, I thought that was a decorative brick element a little. Brick diamond rather than the signage, rather than something that had a tree [phonetic] in it, indicating "sign." Thank you for that explanation. Okay. It actually exacerbates the problem with the door entry because nothing tells you where the door is. As I come into this retail space, you've got all these bays. I guess you're adding a canopy. Mr. Hayes: Right. Chair Furth: And that's supposed to tell me where the door entry is. I guess I would think that the sign would be over the doorway, as well. Those are my principal concerns, and I look to my colleagues to tell me whether they think those things have been addressed, and if they think there's a condition that could help with the other. Okay. My next comment, thank you for adding the four-foot bench over by the back entry to the theater. That would at least be a place for some of the workers who presently perch on the curb. But, staff, I cannot share the view of the City staff that there's no room for benches along this sidewalk. I know I walked it a number of times. I thought about opening car doors, I thought about bicycle racks, I thought about utilities, I looked at all the access points, what we used to call manhole covers. I looked at the telecom facility sitting on the corner within 20 inches of the curb, if we’re that worried about doors opening. That's a prime place for a good bench. And I don't know what our ability is to force relocation, because there's things that we've placed in actual... We placed an actual mailbox, didn't it? Ms. Hodgkins: I believe so. When I had originally asked Public Works about it, they said it's not moving. Ms. Gerhardt: It would have been done (inaudible). Ms. Hodgkins: Yeah. Chair Furth: Whose is it? Ms. Gerhardt: Likely AT&T. Ms. Hodgkins: It's likely, yeah, AT&T. Chair Furth: Which is much harder to deal with than some of our people who don't have as many entitled rights. They are doing some work on the sidewalk. What are they doing? What's the proposed change to the sidewalk conditions around here? Around the building? Ms. Hodgkins: I know that the sidewalk is being repaved. Grates are being added around the trees, and then the improvements to the tree wells and the soil volume underneath those. And then there's two new bicycle racks being added in the public right-of-way. 4.a Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Furth: And those tree well grates, are those the rubbery kind that we have along the railroad track? Or are they steel, firm, or aluminum, or whatever? Can you stand on them? Ms. Hodgkins: My understanding was it was the, not the rubber grade, such... Yeah. I thought they were metal. My understanding was that they were metal. Chair Furth: I believe our current planning manager is indicating that that is correct. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. The grates downtown are standardly metal. Chair Furth: So that they provide a better walking area. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Furth: When I look at that sidewalk, other than the problem with the AT&T facility -- which keeps you from opening the door, by the way -- it just doesn't make any sense to me that there's no room. There are big tree well spaces, which at this point are just dirty holes in the sidewalk, all of which could accommodate benches that were designed to go in or around trees. And I think we should require it. And I think that... I went back and looked at all of the City documents, and I couldn't find the old section in SOFA 2, which talks about how much bench per frontage. But this is not, generally speaking, a narrow sidewalk. You have eight feet-plus in most areas, right? Ms. Hodgkins: It's about eight feet, yeah. Board Member Lew: That is narrow. Chair Furth: But that's before you get to the street tree, right? It's six feet to the street tree? How many feet to the street tree? I'm sure the applicant knows. Board Member Lew: I think it's a 12-foot sidewalk. Chair Furth: It's big. It's got... [crosstalk] Ms. Hodgkins: Eight feet to the... Mr. Hayes: To the tree. Ms. Hodgkins: I think it's about seven to eight fee to the tree. Chair Furth: Yeah, but how far to the curb? Mr. Hayes: Twelve. Chair Furth: Twelve, yeah. It's not skinny. And I'm not arguing that you necessarily couldn’t put... Mr. Hayes: Clearly do a furniture zone. Chair Furth: Pardon me? Mr. Hayes: We could clearly do a furniture zone. Chair Furth: Yeah. Mr. Hayes: I don't know why... Chair Furth: I think we need... I think what happens is pedestrians become a very low priority. First we've got telecom facilities. Then we've got car doors. And then we've got bike racks. Well, we have more people walking up and down that street than we have bicycling, and you shouldn't oppose bicycles and people, and pedestrians. I mean, we're still people when we get on bikes. So, I would like to add a 4.a Packet Pg. 117 City of Palo Alto Page 13 condition for additional seating in the public right-of-way, on that block, in a manner acceptable to the City. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, just to reiterate that we have talked to Public Works and our Transportation Department, you know, Claire has talked to them, and both of those departments have said that there is not sufficient room. I think we would need at least some other options. We can certainly go back and talk to that staff and push on that issue a little bit more. We can see about... Chair Furth: I'm not arguing it needs to be in front of this building, either. That would be better, but I'm not saying it has to be. I'm talking about the half of the block between, you know, the University (inaudible) half the block, is what I'm thinking. Ms. Gerhardt: You're talking about along University, or are we talking about...? Chair Furth: I'm talking about Ramona. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, we're talking about along Ramona. This block of Ramona, but not necessarily... Chair Furth: And I have not actually focused on University. If there's good room there, fine, but it is more heavily used. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I think some of our other, other parts of University have the bump-outs where we have benches. We don't have that bump-out here. But if you’re asking for a bench along Ramona, we'd have to just take a closer look at it. We haven't looked at the rest of the block. Chair Furth: I'm asking for attractive seating along [crosstalk]. Ms. Gerhardt: I understand, and we certainly want to comply with that. We just don't have all the information, and the information that we do have is suggesting that we can't put a bench, at least in front of this business. Chair Furth: I would be happy if it was in front. I think it would be a significant improvement even if it were in front of an adjacent business. And perhaps it would be helpful to have them come explain their thinking on this. I know it's a very complicated environment, and I respect their expertise. I'm not sure I’m in alignment with their priorities. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, I'm wondering, you know, potentially we can do subcommittee, if other Board members agree. Chair Furth: Why don't we hear from the applicant? Do you have any thoughts? I know that you've looked at your own frontages and block. Mr. Hayes: We had proposed benches, and we talked with Planner Hodgkins, and she then reviewed that with Public Works, and they said no, so we took them off. We thought that we could have benches, I think we flanked the tree, right? On Ramona. We were in favor of that. I think if you really study it, there's probably room. It's just that I'm not sure that Public Works wants to get involved in that. [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I'm not suggesting they should. Ms. Hodgkins: I think my concern is just that I don't want to put a condition of approval that the applicant is, you know, not going to be able to comply with because it’s not Planning that's going to be approving that... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: I understand that. I don't want it to be a condition where they just say, "It's optional, we say no," they're not going to do it. 4.a Packet Pg. 118 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Ms. Gerhardt: I think that's why the subcommittee, you would have a second chance. We could bring in, you know, Public Works and Transportation to that subcommittee, and we could have a deeper conversation. And if you're convinced at that point that there's no room for it, then the subcommittee could say that it's not needed. Chair Furth: I wouldn't say it wasn't needed; we'd say it wasn't feasible. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Chair Furth: Well, I don’t even know if I'm going to have three votes on my side, so, let us go. Okay. Anybody have any further questions or comments? Board Member Thompson: I had a quick question. It's about the rails. It's being called a cane rail, at the corner. Mr. Hayes: Yeah, it's just a horizontal flat bar. Board Member Thompson: And there's sort of three tiers, it seems? Two tiers...? And what's the height of that with relationship to a pedestrian on the street? I see there's a four and a half inch grade change on that floor and sidewalk. Mr. Hayes: Right, so, it's about 12 inches to the top of the rail. From the interior floor. Board Member Thompson: On the sidewalk it would be, like, 16 inches? Mr. Hayes: On that corner, yeah. Yeah. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Hayes: I mean, we don't want someone to try to walk over it. The intent is to not allow people to walk in there, but to see product that's on display and feel like they can easily go in. Or if there's seating inside like at Hoya, they'd be able to be connected to the sidewalk. Board Member Thompson: By code, do you have to go up to 27? Mr. Hayes: No. I mean, it just would... Cane rail, basically, so, as long as it's within the 27 inches and lower, the cane would pick it up. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Mr. Hayes: Yeah. Thank you, though. Chair Furth: Anybody else? Board Member Lew: I have a comment on the sidewalk and the bench issue. We've discussed this... I've been on the Board for a long time and this has come up on a lot of streets, including El Camino. We've talked about it with urban designers on our El Camino Corridor Plan. Those urban designers, their recommendation was, if you want things like benches, that you need 15 feet of sidewalk area to get the trees, benches, bike racks, and all of that in there. And the things is that we don't really have that with our 12 feet, so, I do not support putting a bench in the right-of-way. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Hirsch: I'd like to add my opinion to this. I think that walking on that street and going to the movie theater has always been a really significant corner, and now I think we can really kind of celebrate it. The uses are going to be vastly improved, and in respect to the entire University Avenue feel, I think it really is going to be significant to push hard for the benches, and to push hard for a push- out in urban design change at that corner. If it doesn't work on University, maybe it could work around the corner. I would advocate with getting together with Transportation and pushing very hard to do a 4.a Packet Pg. 119 City of Palo Alto Page 15 street improvement. I don't think in any way this is related to the building itself because it's been an improvement already, so, we can look forward to that happening. But, I think it's a very, very significant corner, especially for pedestrians here. I want to note that bicyclists are required to get off their bike on University anyhow, so we should take an extra look at the pedestrian at that corner. It's very, very busy almost all the time, and it will be more so when this is improved. I'd like to celebrate that corner with a quality urban design improvement of the streetscape. Board Member Lew: If you actually look at all of the blocks on University Avenue, you'll see that several of them have bump-outs for pedestrian areas, and that was done on purpose back in the early 70's. So, we have bench and seating areas. They're not on every single corner, but they're actually there. I've actually drawn all the blocks downtown and you can actually look and see where they are placed. But they did not put them on every corner. And maybe they should have, but they didn't. And it seems to me that you're asking for something that's beyond the scope of this project. Chair Furth: I worked on the tail-end of that project because it took a long time to get the art elements together, for example, and I agree; those are big, engineered modifications of University Avenue. And I’m not asking for anything like that. I'm asking for respite. I'm asking for mobility. I'm asking for access. I agree that it's better to have a wider sidewalk, but we don't have a wider sidewalk, so it's either smaller benches, simpler benches, for all I know there are backless benches with hand rails, which let you get up and down when you're having difficulties. They can be the kind of subtle benches that architects are always proposing to us. You know, horizontal spaces. But there's room for something that small, and there also are ones that are adapted to going around tree wells. We have these beautifully-designed corners, and then we have corners like the corner of Nobu, where the sidewalk wasn't really up to the level of the improvement, and I want something similar than those elaborate designs, and I do think it would be appropriate. MOTION Chair Furth: Okay. Would somebody like to make a motion? Oh, Alex, is there another condition you wanted to mention? Board Member Lew: It was just findings. Chair Furth: The findings. Sorry. Ms. Gerhardt: Related to conditions, I just wanted to clarify that for windows, condition number 20 on packet page 31, if you can review that for a second, I believe that addresses the concern of transparent windows. Chair Furth: That says, "...interior areas in front of first-story windows are to remain free of storage or other interior-focused elements. All ground floor windows shall remain transparent to allow views into the tenant space, consistent with Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.30(A).055. In areas on the second floor where blinds are provided, all drapes, curtains, shutters, blinds or other window coverings visible from the street shall be beige, white, or an off-white color, or lined in beige, white or off-white unless otherwise approved by the Director of Planning." Any comment or opinions on that? I don't have any opinion on what color blinds they use upstairs. I think we hardly see them. Board Member Thompson: I think I’m fine with it. Chair Furth: Is the applicant fine with that? Mr. Hayes: Yes, we are. Chair Furth: Okay. On the text supporting Finding #2, at the top of page 23, at the end of the first paragraph it says, "The proposed building also steps back, reducing the perceived height of the building from the pedestrian perspective along University." I think we should also say that there is a change in 4.a Packet Pg. 120 City of Palo Alto Page 16 materials, which also supports that. I'd like to go on record supporting strongly the idea of getting benches of some kind. In order to make the contextual-based findings, one of the requirements is that the project promotes pedestrian walkability and connectivity through design elements. I think that's clearly what we're talking about here, and we're well within the scope, Alex, of requesting something. I think our condition should be along the lines of providing at least two separate seating areas on the exterior of the building. It could be within the envelope of the building if the applicant is forced to make that work, but maybe that will give them some incentive to push with Public Works. If they didn’t agree with your drainage system, Architect Hayes, you would call them yourself rather than let Claire call them. And I'm sure you're very persuasive. Maybe you could lend a hand in this issue and try to find a place to get some seating on the outside of the building, either in the public right-of-way or within the envelope of your building. Say, cutting away that corner. Which I'm sure you don't want to do, but I think we should condition it upon having at least two exterior seating areas. Chair Furth: Would anybody like to make a motion? Okay. I'm sure, incidentally, the applicant and the applicant's architect are doing whatever they can to get this project to a place where they can proceed and get a good and wonderful building and environment. I move that we recommend approval of this project, subject to the findings and conditions set forth in the staff report, with the modification to the finding... Alex, what was your finding comment? Or did you have one? Did I get that? Board Member Lew: It's just minor comments. Under Finding #2... Chair Furth: Page, please. Board Member Lew: ...page 22, it says, "The area is comprised of various commercial and residential buildings..." I'm only aware of commercial buildings here. Chair Furth: True, so, delete "residential." I knew somebody was going to read this really carefully and thoughtfully. Board Member Lew: Well, somebody has to read it, and it's always... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Yes, they do. We take turns. Board Member Lew: No, well, it's usually the senior... Clare Malone Prichard used to be the senior person and she would read through them very carefully, so I'm taking up her role. Chair Furth: Thank you. We appreciate it. I tend to only read the ones I'm upset about. Board Member Lew: On page, same finding, page 23, it says, 'The proposed project is consistent with the findings to provide high-quality materials and finishes in a neutral color palette..." And, like, the dark metal color is not really neutral, but it actually provides a design linkage to the Stanford Theater annex. Chair Furth: You want to say a "good" color? What do you want to say instead of "neutral?" Board Member Lew: Let's just say, strike "neutral," right? Chair Furth: Okay. Perfect. That's on page 23. Board Member Lew: Yeah. Chair Furth: I think we strike the whole thing, right? We don't... Vice Chair Baltay: (inaudible). Chair Furth: I don't think "palette" without "neutral" helps. Okay. Board Member Lew: But I think the colors are working with the neighbors, so... Anyway. Doesn't matter. Chair Furth: Suitable colors? Appropriate? 4.a Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Board Member Lew: It's fine. Chair Furth: Contextually-appropriate colors. That's real garbage-y. I'm going to say "contextually- appropriate colors." Why use one word when six will do? Okay? Any others, Alex? Board Member Lew: No. Chair Furth: Okay. And I am going to also recommend adding a condition, that this be referred to subcommittee for review of the provision of two seating areas on the exterior of the building or in the public right-of-way. If there a second? Vice Chair Baltay: I will second that motion. Chair Furth: Further discussion? All those in favor say aye. Opposed? You are through with us. Thank you. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Chair Furth: Thank you very much for the project. We look forward to seeing it. So glad that probably the building is not going to come down before you get to rebuild it. Been looking at that list for 20 years. I'm sure you have, too. I must say the night life provided by your tenants makes my walk home in the dark feel more comforting because there's always somebody there. And I will miss the florist. Take care. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2019. Chair Furth: All right, we have a couple of sets of minutes. And, Claire, thank you very much for all your work on this project. For the record, I guess I should say Planner Hodgkins, but I don't seem to be able to manage that. All right. Minutes of March 7th. Any comments or corrections? Board Member Thompson: I emailed a correction just this morning. Chair Furth: Yeah, at one point, it's a comment that I made to Board Member Thompson. I asked her what sheet she was referencing. She didn't ask herself what sheet she was referencing. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, we have that email, so we will make that correction. Chair Furth: All right. Is there a motion? We were all there. Anybody can make this motion. MOTION Board Member Thompson: I move that we approve the minutes of March 7th. Chair Furth: Second? Board Member Hirsch: Second. Chair Furth: Motion by Thompson, second by Hirsch, to approve the minutes of March 7th. All those in favor say aye. Opposed? Hearing none, that passes unanimously. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 21, 2019. Chair Furth: Board meeting minutes from March 21, 2019. Any comments, corrections? Board Member Lew: We need to add, on page 54, we need to add the action that the subcommittee made for 3200 El Camino, which is the Parmani Hotel. 4.a Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Chair Furth: And what was that? Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I think we approved it. We looked at the materials... Chair Furth: Did you make any changes? Vice Chair Baltay: That needs to be in the record. Chair Furth: Did you add additional conditions as part of that, or did you have different materials submitted? Ms. Gerhardt: I wasn't present at the subcommittee. Do you want us to bring those minutes back, or can the subcommittee recount, or...? Vice Chair Baltay: No, I think that, in my opinion, it's okay to just have the staff planner put down something. But I think it always should have, at the minimum, it should say the subcommittee approved it. Chair Furth: And if they provided revised materials or plans, those should be noted in the minutes so that we know which version of the plans and materials board... [crosstalk] Vice Chair Baltay: ...pink façade change? Remember, we did the color on that one? [crosstalk] Board Member Thompson: Yeah, we looked at the... Vice Chair Baltay: ...flaming pink (inaudible). Board Member Thompson: Yeah. Vice Chair Baltay: So it's kind of important... [crosstalk] Chair Furth: Looking forward to (inaudible). Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, so we do, staff normally does a summary memo at the end, so it sounds like, unfortunately, that language... Chair Furth: That should be attached to the minutes. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, that language should get into the minutes. Chair Furth: If you would attach it, that would be great. Ms. Gerhardt: I'll make sure. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: And then, on page 11 and 12, there's something that's confusing. I think I understand what happened, but I think item 3 is listed twice. And I think you actually did read the heading twice. Chair Furth: I read it wrong, yes. Board Member Lew: But in the minutes, it looks really weird. Maybe we should just take one of them out, even if it actually happened. Chair Furth: It's probably accurate, but unnecessary. 4.a Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Lew: Yeah. It's item 3 on page 11 and 12. Chair Furth: Thank you. Is there a motion to approve with the corrections noted? MOTION Board Member Lew: I move that we approve the minutes for March 21, 2019. Chair Furth: Second? Board Member Thompson: I'll second. Chair Furth: Motion by Lew, second by Thompson, to approve the minutes of March 21st. All those in favor say aye. Opposed none. Passes 5-nothing. MOTION PASSES UNANIMOUSLY 5-0. Subcommittee Items Chair Furth: We have no subcommittee items today, is that correct? There are no subcommittee items today. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements 5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP)- Board Member Lew Chair Furth: Board Member Lew, a report on the North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. Board Member Lew: Nothing has happened since the last ARB meeting, but the next meeting with be on May 22nd at 5:30, here in City Hall. They are three hours long. And website for the project, there's a dedicated website, which is PaloAltoNVCAP.org. All of the materials for future meetings and past meetings are posted at that website. Chair Furth: Thank you. 6. Architectural Review Board Annual Report to City Council: Review of Draft Letter Chair Furth: We don't have a draft letter of a report to City Council, so we will punt on that one. I wanted to report that I went to a meeting at the Mitchell Park Library, sponsored by the City. Is it Save our Groundwater? Save our Palo Alto Groundwater? At which Christine Lit [sic] - better double-check the name - an engineering professor from the University of California, made a presentation on adaptation to sea level rise. And I believe it's going to be posted on the City website. I recommend it to everybody. Basically, she talked about how we might make an orderly retreat from the Bay, and the two cities in the Bay Area that are going to be hit hardest by the first meter of sea level are San Raphael and Palo Alto because we have the most low-lying land that isn't in wetlands. Good thing most of ours is in wetlands. And that the line of retreat is probably 880 on the East Bay and 101 on our side. And that while the San Francisquito Creek Joint Authority is working on thinking about levees, and I guess other groups are, too, that her argument is that the levies could hold back salt water, sea water, but they also hold in ground water and surface water. And that, furthermore, the rise in sea level will lead to essentially the pushing up of ground water and the raising of ground water levels inboard. I don't think anybody ever thought this was simple, but it's perhaps even less simple than we thought. And her recommendation is that we think about floodable development -- which I'm sure we've all seen in various areas, for these areas -- and she went on with other, perhaps more visionary responses that were done. And her argument was that there are places around the Bay which are very hard hit, which suffer from a lot of other disadvantages, so, while they might be eligible for funding from the resources board for global warming impact aid, they're not organized enough to take advantage of it at this point. Whereas we are not particularly eligible, but we have hundreds of organized citizens really engaged in this issue, plus a very 4.a Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Page 20 complex and I think pretty sophisticated City response. And it will be a couple years before the City has its sea level rise reports together, but we are working on it. Her argument is, so, Palo Alto is rich, Palo Alto is smart, Palo Alto is vulnerable, Palo Alto should go pioneer something. But meanwhile, we should have floodable development in these areas. I recommend the... Board Member Hirsch: What did she say about the Baylands? Chair Furth: They're going to go under. Essentially that we need to retreat, and that we can have development there that can accommodate being flooded from time to time. She's worked in Japan, where the airports float; at least one does. She's worked in The Netherlands, where they dug canals to absorb the extra water and pile it up nearby to provide some elevation. And she's worked in Venice, she said, where what they do is they just get flooded. They keep abandoning the lower floors of buildings. That's one approach. And the flooding for a while will be intermittent. But as we learn from some of the... You don't put electrical facilities on the ground floor, certainly not in the subbasement. You don't put the hospital infrastructure down at the bottom. You think about how to retreat. She also had cheerful things to say about our practice of capping volatile organic compounds doesn't work so well when the water washes the cap away. But that's for another day. So, her basic advice is that we need to look at those maps and face the fact that this is, we're not talking distant future; we're talking near future. We're talking within the lives of the buildings that we're looking at. The Public Works Director was there. The Groundwater Management person that the... What is it? Santa Clara County...? What's it called? Water District? What is our big management...? Ms. Gerhardt: There is the Santa Clara Valley Water District. Chair Furth: Santa Clara Valley Water District. They're all there, they're all working on it, and it's coming sooner than I might have thought. But it's a very intelligent, interesting and engaged thing. She's a very entertaining speaker. I recommend the tape. Or the video. Ms. Gerhardt: The event was co-sponsored by Save Palo Alto's Groundwater and the City, and the guest speaker was Dr. Christina Hill from UC-Berkeley. And there is a City webpage, you know, if you just Google for Palo Alto sea level rise, there's a City webpage. Chair Furth: Thank you. Board Member Lew: Next week on May 9th, at SPUR (San Francisco Planning & Urban Research), the San Jose location, there's going to be a presentation on Palo Alto's housing crisis. Our Planning Director will be there, as well as Liz Kniss and some members of Palo Alto Forward. This is SPUR, which is San Francisco Planning & Urban Research, they also have additional offices in Oakland and San Jose. This is at the San Jose location at six o'clock on May 9th. Chair Furth: Thank you, Alex. How's the Los Angeles airport going? Board Member Thompson: It's going well. Chair Furth: Good. We're everywhere. All right. Anything further before we adjourn? Board Member Hirsch: You know, I'd like to ask that we kind of -- and I asked Jodie... Chair Furth: Could you speak a little closer to the mic? Board Member Hirsch: Closer, yeah. Information on the small cells, the meeting that took place with City Council, and then the resolution that was passed by them. We should really have an updated copy of that. Also, it started out with Councilman DuBois, who said that he included the ARB in the requirements as they move forward, and then it was eliminated. I thought we should really have the whole process of that, from beginning to end. Peter spoke at it. But it sort of left it with us kind of not specifically in the picture, and I would prefer that somehow or another we get back in the picture, somehow, if we can. 4.a Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Because I think we add to the discussion on this quite considerably. I asked Jodie to put together the paperwork that happened during that meeting and pass it along to all of us. Chair Furth: If you could just give us the links to the appropriate minutes, and also maybe at our next meeting, let us know what the rules are now, and if there is a proposal to continue to change them. Thank you. Thank you, David. Anything else? Well, it's 9:45, and we are adjourned. Adjournment 4.a Packet Pg. 126 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10476) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 6/20/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of May 16, 2019 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 16, 2019. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the May 16, 2019 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB A hard copy of the minutes of the above referenced meeting will be made available at the ARB hearing in the Council Chambers at 8:30 am. Attachments:  Attachment A: May 16, 2019 ARB Draft Minutes (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 127 City of Palo Alto Page 1 F Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Alex Lew, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Osma Thompson. Absent: Chair Furth: Good morning. I’d like to call to order the meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. This is our regular meeting of May 16, 2019. Could you call the roll please? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Good morning everyone. [Roll Call] Ms. Gerhardt: Great, everyone’s here. Thank you. Oral Communications Chair Furth: Thank you. We have a space on our agenda for oral communications. That’s the time to speak to a matter that’s not on the agenda, but that is subject to the ARB’s purview. I don’t have any speaker cards. Is there anybody who wishes to speak in oral communication? If you could come up to the microphone and give us your name and address? (no mic) Chair Furth: Oh, great. We’ll hear you in Item two. Thank you. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Any agenda changes, additions or deletions? [The Board moved to Approval of Minutes] City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions. Chair Furth: Let’s see, I guess we’re on City Official Reports, is what I’m going to. Board Member Hirsch: Madam Chair. Chair Furth: Yes. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 16, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 5.a Packet Pg. 128 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Hirsch: I’m going to have to, which I didn’t mention… Chair Furth: Could you speak into the mic. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I would like to be out on the same day that Peter’s out. Chair Furth: You know you have to speak very, very close to our mics. They’re not… Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Furth: That would be June 20th? Board Member Hirsch: June 20th. Chair Furth: So, Board Member Hirsch would – Vice Chair Baltay and Board Member Hirsch would be missing on June 20th. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Will everyone else be present? Chair Furth: I will be. Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I’m planning to be there. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so we’ll still have… Chair Furth: You’ll have a quorum. Ms. Gerhardt: We’ll still have quorum. Chair Furth: Well, we will miss you, but thank you for letting us know. Ms. Gerhardt: And then as far as the next hearing June 6th, we will be hearing the Mercedes Project, and then also the former Cheesecake building is coming in for a renovation. We’re hoping for Mercedes, it’s the third hearing. For Cheesecake it’s the first hearing, but you also had a prelim, a recent prelim on that project, so we’re actually hoping to get recommendations on both those projects. Chair Furth: I’m sure you will. It may or may not be the one you want, but yes. (unknown male): One way or another. Action Items 2. 567 Homer Avenue [18PLN-00145]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing 1,292 Square Feet Two-Family Residential Building and Construction of a Three-Story, Three-Unit Residential Project. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Project will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multiple Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Furth: All right, we have one public hearing item today, an action item, which is, concerns 567 Homer Avenue. I think it’s actually a double address. It’s a request for preliminary architectural review for a project that would demolish an existing 1300 square foot two-family residential building and construct a three-story, three-unit residential product, project, sorry. The Environmental Assessment is not a project, 5.a Packet Pg. 129 City of Palo Alto Page 3 though I presume you’re going to double check on the historic, possible historic nature of the building before you make that determination, because it would not be exempt if it were, I think. The zoning is RM-30, multiple family and the project planner is Sheldon Ah Sing. Sheldon. Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing: Yes, good morning. I do have a power-point presentation for you and the applicant is here also. So, this is an application that is subject to the preliminary review, and that’s an opportunity for the applicant to present a project prior to formal submission, and also an opportunity to get feedback from the various departments of the City and the Board. We try to get these projects expeditiously to the Board upon submittal and that way we’re not going back and forth a lot on the details, which we will get to during the formal application. So, just, for this project in particular, you may notice some inconsistencies with scale on the drawings or that maybe code provisions, like the windows, may not be appropriate for egress, but just, or daylight plane for instance, we’re just showing the daylight plane that goes through the building. But we did want to get enough information back to present to the Board, so you have sufficient information to present, at least enough direction and feedback for the formal submittal, which the applicant wants to do within the next couple of months. So, with that said, the application is preliminary for three units on a 0.17-acre site, 7500 square feet, and the request would be eventually for formal major architectural review. It is on Homer. It’s a two-lane one-way street. The context of the area, you do have some, a mix of kind of lower intensity with the Channing House across the way, which is a little more intense, fenestrated by those large redwood trees. You do have some newer developments along the street there that’s more in the context, maybe, of the area. On this site you have one a one-story, but two-unit building, so those would be replaced with three-story, about 4500 square feet. That’s just at the FAR that’s allowed for the project. What’s proposed for the building is a contemporary type of design. The heights of the plates are ten-foot height plates. You probably would think that’s a little bit tall, but we do want to get feedback on that. The exterior walls would include some integral muted colored stucco accented with some wood paneling for the balcony rails as well as for the surrounds of the windows. The windows are aluminum framed and there’s a uniform pattern to them, although it’s kind of narrow. I think I’ve identified that already, in the fenestration. So, it’s either squares or vertically oriented, instead of rectangles. The stairwells of each unit are really in plain view. There’s a lot of fenestration there, so we may want to have some feedback about that as relates to privacy. Each unit would have three bedrooms and different configurations. So, we want to have some focus here, as the project will need to address as I’ve identified, the daylight planes. We do believe that the open space arrangement access could be better defined for the site just so it meets the findings. We are seeking some comments and directions from the Board regarding the scales and mass of the project in and of itself, and then kind of how it relates to the neighbors, as well as on that note, the design in the neighborhood context of whether or not this design is appropriate. Is there enough landscaping as proposed? And then other areas of interest by the Board that you may have. So, with that we do recommend that the Board review and provide us comments. There’s no formal action requested. We do identify that, yes, the site may be potentially deemed historic, so that will have to be vetted out in the formal process, but we do have a scope for the applicant to consider regarding our third-party consultant to review that. So, with that, that concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may be. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Before we ask Sheldon our questions, has everybody had a chance to visit the site? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I have. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: So, we’ve all visited the site and look at the property at least from the street and look at the neighborhood. Is the applicant here and ready to speak? Great. If you want to just come to the 5.a Packet Pg. 130 City of Palo Alto Page 4 microphone and you’ll have ten minutes. Please introduce yourself and we ask that everybody spell their names so that our transcriber can get it right. Jerrick: My name is Jerrick and its spelled J-E-R-R-I-C-K. Chair Furth: Thank you. Jerrick: So, the main architect I designed this project with is not present today, but I was also part of this project, so I could answer most of the questions today. And so, as mentioned earlier, the existing house is almost 100 years old and we will be seeking to introduce three attached units on the lot and each unit will be around 1500 square feet. And right now, we have all three units facing a different direction for the main entrance. The front unit facing Homer Street, we currently have the main entrance facing towards the Channing Apartment out front and with the huge out-front setback, this will allow front private space for that unit in the front. And then the middle unit will have some outdoor area in the center of the floor plan. And the back unit will have its private backyard in the rear setback. So, our main intent was to build high-quality homes in a very appropriate entry and compliment the existing neighborhood. The proposed project will allow opportunities for the residents in Palo Alto to see the contemporary design on the Homer Ave, and we mainly focused the design with the newest developed multi-family residence in the downtown area of Palo Alto. So, currently we are seeking to submit a plan for planning and review and for ingress and egress. Our submittal includes one site plane showing a main entrance and the vertical circulation of each unit. I could be taking questions if you have more questions. Chair Furth: Thank you. I forgot to ask you earlier, but we’re required to determine whether we have any conflicts of interest with respect to applications, and that means that the only thing that’s listed about the owner of this project is that – I guess I’m looking at, it’s different here. So, who is the owner of this project? Jerrick: The company called HESTIA2. Chair Furth: And is that a name specific to this project, or is it an ongoing corporate entity? I mean, is this an LLC for this corporation? Who is the real party? Who owns that? Jerrick: His name is Jang Hyuk. Chair Furth: Could you spell that for us? Jerrick: J-A-N-G H-Y-U-K. Chair Furth: Thank you. And who is the architect? Jerrick: Mar, Weiss Mar. Chair Furth: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant or the applicant’s architect, or of Staff? Okay. Then we will have public comments. Thank you, you may sit down. (no mic) Chair Furth: I have two speaker cards. The first one is from David Kwan, to be followed by T. Schaul. Mr. Kwan, you will have three minutes. Dave Kwan: Thank you. Again, my name is Dave Kwan. That’s K-W-A-N for the spelling. So, I’m the owner of the property on 750 Webster. So, it’s one of the adjacent properties to this particular project. In reviewing the plan, now I’m not an architect so I’m probably not… Chair Furth: Neither am I. 5.a Packet Pg. 131 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Kwan: I’m definitely concerned about the privacy impact on my property. The plan did address a couple of properties around the property, 734, 738, which is probably one of the three on Webster Street that it’s going to impact, but nothing was stated about the impact on 750, 760. So, I’m definitely concerned about that. And then, as such, since it wasn’t addressed in the plan, certainly I’m concerned about the ancillary impacts such as sunlight, noise, as well as scale. I think you guys asked that question about scale and mass. Certainly, I’m a resident of Palo Alto. This is just actually one of my many properties. I am concerned about the project size, just because I haven’t seen many projects… I mean, I love the design, but I’ve never seen, or haven’t seen many projects or haven’t seen any projects that’s three stories in nature or if that is, that must be a new sort of new way of doing things. So, I think that should be considered as well. So, that’s my prepared comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. If you could wait just a minute. Staff, which sheet, Sheldon, which sheet has, shows – this block has a very unusual lotting pattern. Which, I know you have a sheet which shows all that. Which one is it? It’s really complicated interlaced lots. I know I saw it somewhere. Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, I think maybe the best one is A0.3. Chair Furth: A0.3? Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, so basically you have the subject site is pretty detailed. It does show Webster Street and Homer, that’s the intersection, so this property is actually the second property on Webster. Chair Furth: Okay. There was another one I was thinking of. Mr. Ah Sing: There’s a better one? Chair Furth: There was another one that shows how the lots interlock on this block. Maybe I was looking at another map. Any questions of Mr. Kwan? Vice Chair Baltay: Could you, I’m sorry, I just don’t understand which house is yours. As I’m standing on the street looking at this property, are you to the left or to the right? Mr. Kwan: Looking at this property, we’re on the right-hand side. Chair Furth: It’s in the Staff Report. Alex just pointed out that if we look at the Staff Report, Sheldon did provide us this. Mr. Kwan: So, these three properties, (no mic), yeah, from the corner of Webster and Homer, the first one is 760, the second one is 750, which is my property, and then the next one I think is 734 or 738. Actually, I know the owner of 734 and 738 as well, and we’re, I’m kind of expressing the concern on her behalf as well. Chair Furth: So, you’re… Mr. Ah Sing: Packet page 15 is the location map. Chair Furth: Yes. Mr. Ah Sing: So, at the corner it’s one property removed from that intersection, that’s adjacent to the property. Chair Furth: So, you’re one in from the – the property that you own is one in from the corner? 5.a Packet Pg. 132 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Kwan: Correct. So, the corner property, I think is 760, mine is 750, the next one is 734. So, on the privacy map or chart I see pictures of 734, one corner picture. And that’s about it. I don’t see anything of 750. I don’t see anything of 760. So, as such, I’m not sure that enough consideration… Chair Furth: So, this particular parcel that’s under development touches one, two, three, four, five other parcels? Mr. Ah Sing: Yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Kwan: Yeah, so I expect that the tall middle unit that’s proposed would have the most impact on 750. So, as I can imagine, that huge stairwell with all the windows would be… Chair Furth: You’re concerned about the stairwell? Mr. Kwan: The stairwell would stare right into my bedrooms. Chair Furth: Okay, and 750 is developed with, what’s on… I did go look at this, but I can’t remember what is on your lot. Mr. Kwan: Ah, just a house unit, building. Chair Furth: A single-family house? Mr. Kwan: It has two units, but it’s essentially just, yeah, one, yeah, you could think of it as one unit. Chair Furth: And when was it built? Mr. Kwan: Oh, I don’t know, but I think there is some historical significance to it too. I just know that back in the old days, (crosstalk). Chair Furth: My colleague just showed me a picture. I’ve got it in my head now. Mr. Kwan: Yeah. Chair Furth: All right. Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Kwan? Thank you very much. Yes. I remember the first initial is T. Shall. Mr. Shall. And if you could spell your name first. Thomas Schall: Yes, I will. My name is Thomas Schall, S-C-H-A-L-L. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Schall: Thank you for hearing my comments today. I appreciate the Architectural Review Board’s time on this. I live next door at 563 Homer Avenue, in a house originally built in 1922. It is on the back of a flagged lot fronted by a duplex, address 559 and 561. Chair Furth: So, just before you – we won’t take this out of your time, but if you could show this to us on the vicinity map. Mr. Schall: This home, this lot will be directly adjacent to the project’s lot. It is just to the, I guess, where is the compass here, so this would be just to the west, towards the foothills. The immediately adjacent lot. Chair Furth: Oh, you’re in the flagged lot. 5.a Packet Pg. 133 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Schall: I’m in the flagged lot, that’s correct. Chair Furth: Got it. Mr. Schall: In 563, which is a two-story home built in 1922, and the duplex unit that was probably put there sometime in the 1940’s or 50’s in front. So, all together, the lot comprises three single-family units at 559, 561 and 563. I inhabit 563. I think I can speak on behalf of my neighbors in the front as well. This project, as I said, this project is directly next door. It’s not, our homes are not seen anywhere in these photographs or any of the other depictions. We find the scale to be absurd, ridiculous. One of my neighbors said monstrous, when considering the three stories. I think that we collectively in our small community on that lot at 559, 561 and 563, have three, actually four intense concerns. One is the height, obviously. I know of no other three-story units, residential units in the neighborhood. This just seems to be completely out of scale. The second issue then, leads from the height and the glass nature of the structure, which is our privacy. We certainly think our privacy will be absolutely compromised and we would like to see that addressed very thoroughly in the design. And ultimately, also, our third concern revolves around density on that site. These are three, three-bedroom units. This is not a very large lot. It is a very narrow lot, as is our lot at, where my residence stands. So, the density. We find that there has been, again, a remarkable lack of – we don’t know who is building the project. We would like to be able to comment more openly on the design. I understand this is a preliminary review. And with respect to the obvious talents of the designer and the architect, and I admire the elements of the design, but it is wholly inappropriate for this site, and we the residents and neighbors would like to see that addressed before a final design is ratified Thank you. Chair Furth: Just, I have one question of you. So, this lot is not subdivided, is that right? Your lot? Mr. Schall: My lot? Well, I rent. I’ve lived there for 16 years, so I’m not sure. Chair Furth: You’re entitled. Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Schall? Seeing none, thank you so much for talking to us. Mr. Schall: Thank you. Chair Furth: Staff, so would you like to say anything further, having heard their comments? Jerrick: With the concern on the Webster Street, properties on the Webster Street, so currently the existing unit has a driveway along the west side of the lot, and we actually relocated the driveway to the address site to provide more privacy for the property that’s facing our lot on Webster Street. So, with the driveway setback, we allowed more space in between the Webster and our property. And as you could see on the elevation facing the Webster Street, the only window that’s facing to that side is the vertical. I think you could refer to the elevation drawing on A1.3. So, right now I am discussing the northeast elevation on the sheet. It’s the very top one. So, the window that’s designed on that elevation is the vertical circulation, and the vertical circulation has a huge, three-story glass panel to allow daylight for the entire floor on that unit. And that’s the, as you can see on the outer units, the windows that are on the room concerning privacy, it’s very minimal, and we tried to reduce many windows as possible facing the Webster properties. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else? Any further questions? Board Member Lew: I have a question. Chair Furth: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: So, I think the ground floors of your units are showing like a front door and a back door, so like one from the side yard and one towards the driveway, and I was wondering which ones, which door were you thinking, which doors were you thinking were the front entrance door? 5.a Packet Pg. 134 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Jerrick: So, the front unit facing the Homer, the main unit will be the unit that’s next to the living room. That’s facing Homer. And the middle unit, the entrance is on the northeast elevation view, and the rear unit has its own private courtyard in front of the main entrance and it’s located in the center. Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions before we let the applicant sit down? This is a fairly informal process, so anybody wishes to contribute further to discussions, wave your hand and I’ll get you. But you could sit down for the moment. Jerrick: Thank you. Chair Furth: So, I had a question for Staff or my colleagues, which is, when I was looking at these area calculations, there’s a reference to parcel three and there’s gross area and net area and they’re very different, and I was trying to figure out what that’s about. I just misplaced the sheet. I also think it’s not parcel three. I didn’t know what gross and net area meant in this situation. Mr. Ah Sing: I’m sorry, what sheet are you referring to? Chair Furth: Somebody else can go on while I go find it again. Oh, take a look at sheet A04, Parcel three, gross area 2,663 square feet, net area 1765 square feet. I’m used to that subdivision where you net out the… But what’s this? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, while many cities do do a net floor area, the City of Palo Alto does not. We use gross floor area. So, that’s… Chair Furth: And is that of the building? It must be, right? Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, that’s of the… Chair Furth: So, is unit one really 3,000 square feet by our calculations, and unit three 2600 square feet, 2663? I’m confused. Mr. Ah Sing: Maybe the applicant can describe what their program is. Whether this is going to be a rental or are they going to do a subdivision. That might be helpful. Chair Furth: But that wouldn’t have any… What I’m trying to figure out is the, what we think of as the area of the individual units. Ms. Gerhardt: It’s the size of the units, and we can ask the applicant to verify. Chair Furth: Okay, if you could. I’m looking at sheet A04. Ms. Gerhardt: Because we also have some numbers on the cover sheet as well. Chair Furth: Right, and there’s a big difference. Jerrick: So, to direct you with the correct square footage of the units on this project, I would like to show A3.0. So, the floor area calculation, you could refer to the very top part of the list. So, it shows that each level square footage on each unit and the total of all these floors combined comes out to 4,487 square feet. Chair Furth: And then you have additional enclosed space with the garages. Is that right? Jerrick: Correct. 5.a Packet Pg. 135 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: That’s another 9,000 square feet, 900, sorry. Oh, sorry. That’s a lot of coverage. But the garage area that you’re showing above, is that internal dimensions, external dimensions? I’ll stop asking these questions in just a minute. Jerrick: So, the garage square foot was not included in the square footage that’s listed above. The above is only showing the living square foot. Chair Furth: Right. Jerrick: And to refer back to your question on the total square foot, we would have to add the garage space on each unit. Chair Furth: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Who would like to begin? Okay, Alex, Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you for coming in for a preliminary. I think this is a, I think will be a worthwhile hearing. I do like, when I’m looking at the floor plans, I do see like some very really great design elements within the unit plans, so I do want to encourage you to – I just want to thank you for that. But I think on this particular project the challenge for you is going to be complying with our context- based design criteria, which is in the zoning code. And really your building design has to fit in with the neighbors on the block. And so, at the moment I don’t really see how it complies at all. I did want to point out two projects for you that are in the neighborhood that are three stories, and they are contemporary, but they still manage to fit in with the neighbors. So, one is at 557 to 571 Litton, and it’s four units, RM-30 zoning. It’s a 50-foot wide lot. It’s four units but it’s on a deeper lot than yours. And it complies with the daylight plane and it’s fitting in with Victorian neighbors. So, and some mid-century buildings as well. It’s a pretty eclectic street. But, for example, they have like wood siding, design linkage to the neighboring Victorian house. It has a modern shed roof, which is completely different than the Victorian houses, but it’s sort of the same eves and the overhangs, and this kind, and this wood, and so it does – I mean you look at, when I look at a photo I do see some connections to that. It also has like a stone base and low walls that tie into some of the more recent buildings on the street. Board Member Thompson: Alex, could you repeat that address again? Board Member Lew: The address? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Board Member Lew: It’s called Litton Park. It’s 557 to 571 Litton. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Lew: There’s another project, three-story project, 455 Forest, which is City Lofts, and that’s four units, three stories, contemporary. So, just having like the three-story wall, three-story high straight walls that you have, it’s steps, they’re all stepped, and it’s tiered and so it makes some linkages to the shorter buildings, but it does step up. So, I think that’s the most important thing is to work on the daylight plane and the massing. Also, for site planning, I think that we do need to sort of enhance the entrances, and also like mailboxes and trying to make it like a nice development. Typically, like the mail, the Post Office won’t deliver it to individual, yeah, individual doors. So, we try to encourage you to make something nice and make an entrance element for all three units. I think in all of the other three and four-unit projects that we have on 50-foot wide lots, there is an issue with side yard, with landscaping on the side yards. Like along the side yards, because usually people run out of space on that. That’s been a project – I think that’s been a problem on all of the other projects as well. But they do, they have managed to add in like vines on top of fences and so I am looking for some, we are looking for some landscaping. 5.a Packet Pg. 136 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Jerrick: Yeah, we will try as much as landscape on the side walls as possible. Board Member Lew: Yeah. You have, you’re showing a shadow study, so thank you for that. Typically, we’ll show in all the neighbors, the neighboring buildings, so you can actually get a sense for the impact of the shadows on the neighbors. So, please add that into your drawings. Jerrick: Okay. Board Member Lew: And then I think one other detail, two other details that I just want to encourage you to pursue is, one is like the heating and ventilation systems. So, we don’t allow them in the setbacks usually for noise, like the air conditioner compressors. So, that typically has to be out of the setback. And then we do have some units, some projects where they put them on the upper floor decks, but then they’re really exposed to the neighbors. So, they do need to be screened some way. So, like I would try to discourage you from having like say, for example, glass railings. You know, that would expose the condensers. Okay. I will pass it on to the other Board Members. Those were my big issues. Chair Furth: David, I think you had comments. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Okay. You know, it’s kind of an interesting project, and thank you for its submission. But it’s kind of ill placed to begin with. I kind of like the side elevation and think of it as almost like a streetscape from the side. But we don’t have that situation here. You have a long, deep, narrow lot, so my concerns are that in your planning of the whole project, it’s really, you’ve really – it’s not consistent and it, to me, isn’t logical. It’s on a tight site designed for three separate condominiums. To have extremely tall floor heights, extravagant two-story spaces, wasted potential floor space above garages and hidden courts. When it’s a right site, you really have to make the most use out of all of the square footage available to you. And you’re not doing it. But the remedy above garages and hidden courts, to use that space. And I think that the City should enforce the daylight plane restrictions and limit the height to two stories, or minimize the third story in response to issues of neighboring privacy, which have been discussed, and transitions in relation to the neighboring setting and context. Expressing the exterior stair towers with a wall of glass overwhelmingly dominant element facing neighboring properties, and especially unacceptable design choice, even if the entire structure is reduced to two stories, still unacceptable. With the dwellings on a fairly narrow, but deep site, it becomes critical to take special care to describe the landscaping, including paved areas, plantings, including existing trees. Although it’s noted that the trees were not, in the planning study were not significant in any way, I think that there’s an opportunity to save some of the trees. You haven’t either shown us photographs of the landscape that’s there and whether or not there is anything that could be kept in the front. You need to show us the car parking in more detail. Fencing, as mentioned. Privacy areas, you’ve left areas completely gridded with no indication of any plantings and how they’re going to be used, or with your recessed courts, how they work with that. You’ve left us no indication of how the garbage is going to be stored, where it’s going to be stored, collected, etc. The textures and materials list that you really need to show us some indication of how you intend to treat those spaces. The lighting, there’s nothing about that. We understand it’s very preliminary, but you have to have some thought about how the project is going to be landscaped, just beginning a project. These are especially important here, because the pedestrian access in this type of project, it’s the same as the vehicular access, so the residents of the rear units walk through the parking traffic areas. I think for us it’s going to be very critical knowing some of the previous questions that have been asked on other projects. We’re going to want to see all of that landscaping in your final, but an indication of how you’re going to do that in the preliminary would have been useful to us. So, if you want to look at the projects that are very nearby that are worthy to look at in different styles, even if you keep a more modernist style, visit 649 and 637 Homer, just a block away. They’re really very well-done projects. And I’m not saying copy the style or the, you know – I’m saying look at how they’re done, because the proportions are good, the materials are really rather wonderful, and they are two very differently styled projects. Also, take not of how those particular projects enhanced the Homer Street façade. Again, they do a very good job on the front unit of making that, even thought it’s a deep three- story dwelling unit, of making it look like it belongs on the street face, along with other quality projects in the neighborhood. And it would be exactly of that quality. I think that’s all I have. 5.a Packet Pg. 137 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: Thank you David. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Thank you for your submission. Normally I don’t like to comment on clerical errors, but the drawings did have a few in there that made it a little difficult to review. I think especially printing black and white, this is a little hard to differentiate what was wood, what wasn’t wood, what was maybe another material. So, in your resubmission, I would definitely encourage color and materials board, a physical one, and then detail your elevations a bit more to give us a better idea of exactly what’s happening with the design. Aesthetically, in terms of the design, there’s a lot of, it’s kind of an interesting choice, the choices that you guys made to slope the stair rails, but not to slope any of the other roof elements. A lot of the neighboring structures have a lot of slopes, and you know, I was kind of looking up the precedence that both Board Members Lew and Hirsch called out and all of those precedence kind of have this element of sloping in their silhouette and in their sort of façade. And so, I would kind of recommend having I would say an attitude on the slopes. I don’t know that just sloping the stair rail on its own is adequate for the neighborhood. And the other element in the neighborhood, which is also a quality of the style, is the small-scale detail that is prevalent everywhere. And, yes, this is a really schematic design and so I can understand that small-scale detail hasn’t really come in, but oftentimes it doesn’t. Oftentimes, you know, this style, the modern style stays pretty big scale in terms of the muse. And so, I think there’s opportunities, if you want to stay with this style to kind of integrate a smaller scale element and maybe that’s in some of the material choices you have. Even in this rendering, it’s, I think you have some pop outs that look like they’re sided in wood, but in the rendering, it still looks kind of like one sheet versus like a bunch of small lines. So, when you guys come back, I would say in your presentation, definitely highlight where you want to have small scale elements in your structure, just so that we know how you’re trying to relate to the context The first sheet where you were kind of showing all of the adjacent structures, that was really helpful. And that would also kind of be a nice way to tell your story. With the privacy impact on the stairwells, in terms of design intent, there could be a way to accomplish, you know, a really bright circulation space. Maybe it’s a skylight that could help mitigate some of these privacy issues that the neighbors are having, but still keep the feel that maybe you’re looking for in that area. I agree with Board Member Lew that your shadow study should have the neighbors in the surrounding context in there. And then, I did like that in some places you’re expressing the slab. It does break down the scale of it. I wasn’t exactly quite sure what material that is that’s kind of expressing that floor slab. I guess that’s kind of related to my previous comment that when you have your elevation, maybe like call out what each of these materials are. And then, also, if there’s like dimension to it. Like, is that slab sticking out, is it, you know, kind of inset or something, just to get a better idea. Okay. I’ll just leave my comments there for now. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you for bringing this application to us. I understand how challenging it can be to meet all of the requirements and the neighbors’ concerns and City Staff. Nonetheless, I’m afraid I agree completely with my colleagues that this has a long way to go. I’m afraid you really just, it’s just not ready yet. The neighbors’ concerns about privacy and massing are well founded. Alex’s and Osma’s and everybody’s comments are good. I’d like to offer you some, I guess advice. I put these drawing sets together all the time, and there’s a lot of stuff just lacking on the plans. It does seem that you perhaps made a checklist of some kind, but I’d like to advise you to take control of your design team first of all. Who is the designer? Who is the surveyor, the landscaper? Who is the owner? That information needs to be out here, and you should be in charge of how it’s all presented. It’s very haphazard right now. Your drawings need to have a correct scale that’s consistent. It’s usually a quarter inch or eighth inch per foot. These are basic things, but it makes it very tough to review, and I suspect it makes it hard for you within your team to communicate as well. You need to show the orientation of things, north arrows. You need to really have some color renderings and images so we can understand, and the neighborhood and the community can understand what the finishes are. Color printing is really not a big deal these days. You also need to pare down a little bit. You have floor plans and project elevations shown twice basically. One set just for the buildings and one for the whole thing. They’re all at the same scale. They’re showing the same information. It results in an overabundance of irrelevant information. You also need less technical information. We really just don’t need to see the sewer line and water line, how it’s being put together. I 5.a Packet Pg. 138 City of Palo Alto Page 12 say that because that’s what I mean by take control of your design team. Focus on what’s important now. Don’t spend money on engineering details that can be and will be worked out, but aren’t necessary now. Distract our attention, but also more importantly, yours. You really need to show the context everywhere. Every drawing should be showing the neighbors, the trees, the views from the neighbors. It’s really important. Shadow studies without neighboring buildings are meaningless. The whole purpose is to show the impact on the community. You need to show many more 3-D images. What would this look like from the street. Again, with the computer technology available to us, it’s a fairly easy thing to do, and it’s critically important. Just take charge of the process. Insist that your designers show you that kind of information. You’ll find it informs your own decision making, as well as being able to make it something we can understand. And then lastly, you really need accurate area calculations. I know this is preliminary, but I found myself so skeptical that I actually went into one of these plans, and I’ll give you this sheet later where I measured very carefully, figured out the scale and found you to be about 20 percent off, under measuring the space of some of these rooms. The Staff will carefully check all of that. There’s no chance it will fly. But you do yourself a big favor by measuring carefully now. What happens is that the whole building, because you’re on such a tight square footage count, you just can’t easily shave 100 square feet here and there. It just doesn’t work. I promise you, having designed many buildings like this, that the area is just the first thing you’ve got to be thinking about, and it has to be measured accurately. So, that said about your presentation and design package, I’m going to talk next about the circulation on your site, because it just doesn’t work. I’m looking at drawing A04, and you really don’t have a place for cars to turn around on the property to get back out again, which would result in people backing out onto Homer Avenue, which is just not acceptable. It takes generally about 25 feet of width at the minimum. And just try it for yourself. Go to an alley and see what it takes to do that, because you’re going to be trying to sell these units or attract tenants to these units, and when the parking is so tight that everybody’s denting their car, you’re not doing yourself any favors. The same thing applies to actually getting into these garages. You have to be an excellent driver to even begin to consider it the way this is done. It’s such sharp corners, such tight turns. Having been through the process in Palo Alto, it’s not going to fly. You will be forced to address these things, and it is so painfully difficult to shift these things around on a tight project like this. You need to get it all straight. For what it’s worth, there is a Public Works requirement that the apron of the driveway be five feet from the property line, however, that’s so restrictive on narrow lots like this, that we have historically found that to be grounds for a variance, and you can put the driveway closer to the property line. In this case, that just makes a lot of help that you can get a little more room to do a turnaround. So, consider that. That is possible to ask for a variance on that. And you will need some landscaping buffer along the sides of your property, where the fences are. You can’t have the driveway right to the fence. You need some landscaping buffer and that takes at least a foot or two of earth to make that work. I’d like to make, excuse me, there’s a lot of pages here to flip through. I think your massing of your building really is just too tall for the neighbors in the context, and I think you’ve chosen finishes that accentuate rather than diminish that. The white plaster is both obnoxiously reflective to the neighbors, but it just enhances the appearance of the mass. Choosing to have ten-foot plate heights, which is above average for a residential, for small residential units, is something you may well feel you need to do to make up for small spaces, but it has to be done with incredible skill and delicacy. What you’ve done here is just stack 30 feet of height next to existing one-story houses. That just isn’t appropriate. You have to meet basic egress requirements. Things like that with your windows, and I’m sure you’ll get to that as you go through with more detail, but if your designer’s not thinking about it now, it results in very different proportions on windows, which changes the look, which is what we’re after here. So, it’s actually really important to think about that kind of stuff. The fully glazed stair tower is an attractive element if this is in a field a quarter of a mile from anyone, but consider the privacy impact on your neighbors. And it’s not just whether somebody is reading a book on the stair tower, looking into their yard, because they’re not, but the neighbors’ perception of privacy. Having essentially 20 or 30 feet of glass brightly lit at night leaves them feeling violated, even if there’s nobody there. It’s just too much. It’s too insensitive. It’s too inappropriate to have such a large amount of glass that’s six feet from a property line, eight to ten feet from a neighbor’s house. It’s really too much of an impact on privacy and Palo Alto has very strict requirements about privacy impacts. You’re not even allowed to have second floor decks really that look into neighbor’s yards. And you’re proposing much more than that. I’d like to echo some of David’s comments about the floor plans. They really just don’t quite make sense. You have incredibly small bedrooms, less than the code requirement of seven feet as 5.a Packet Pg. 139 City of Palo Alto Page 13 far as I can tell, in places. And you have to consider who’s going to be living here. You will have a very difficult time renting or selling or even using these rooms with seven-foot wide bedrooms. That’s just not possible. It is the code minimum, and you’re not even at that. At the same time, you have a number of spaces that are just extra space at the end of a staircase or something. Another ten square feet just hanging out there, and as David pointed out, especially on extremely tight buildings, you have to be very efficient with your design. So, while the individual details of a floor plan aren’t really our purview, we do have to find that the building is functional, and I certainly could not find that this floor plan is functional. In almost every step, it’s just pieces, parts of it that don’t make sense. My last comments were going to be about the landscaping, and at the start you need to be more clear which trees you do and don’t have to work with. So, it’s a live oak up at the front, not a redwood. And while Japanese maples are beautiful trees, I’m not entirely sure they’re really going to do the trick. You’re basically putting in four Japanese maples and calling it a landscaping scheme. And it seems to be you need to really be focused on both creating a cohesive street appearance, but also really using your landscaping to ensure more privacy for the neighbors. And I think lastly, you really need to focus that you have indigenous plants. That’s one of our requirements, and I don’t think Japanese maples meet that. But you just have to take seriously our request that you create a planting scheme that’s native plants that are drought tolerant. So, I really appreciate your effort and look forward to seeing what you guys come up with, and if Staff would allow me, I’ll just give you this package of drawings which I redlined for you. I’d really like to see you take these comments to heart. Thank you very much. Jerrick: Thank you. Chair Furth: Please sit down, but I have comments too. First of all, thank you very much for coming to us with your preliminary plan and thank you for coming to us with a project for this particular light, lot rather. I think it – it’s a cross between lot and site. I think it’s particularly due for redevelopment and I think there’s ample evidence that in this City you can build three units on a lot like this in a way that provides good living spaces for the people who move into this site, and also enhance what’s around them. And that’s the requirement. We have to find that your project will essentially be a good place for people to live and that it will enhance life for the people around. And on a long, narrow lot with many frontages, that’s not easy, but it’s certainly possible. I wanted to talk a little bit about context, because we have to find that you’re appropriate in this context, and you’re in a very complicated context. You have Channing House, which is huge. You have really a quite beautiful street with very healthy live oaks and other big trees going all the way up to City Hall, essentially. Actually, even beyond that. City Hall kind of destroys the wooded look when you get there, unfortunately. You have a bigger mix of building types than I realized until I went to look at your project. Much of what appears to be single family isn’t. You have these really deep lots with more units in the back, so that’s part of the pattern. I think that when Channing House built the Lee Medical Center, they really improved the link of Channing House to the rest of the street by building that structure that’s a little over two feet, two stories, but essentially presents as two stories using really beautiful materials and beautiful detailing, and it’s soft. Much softer than Channing House itself. It’s got deep plaster elements. It’s got a number of soft shades. I don’t think they every used white. So, I’m not saying that your project should be like that, but that’s an example of beginning to build things that make more sense with the other residences around. I did find your packet confusing, even for a preliminary review, and I do urge you to work closely with Staff about what makes it possible for us to understand your project well enough to give you meaningful comment and, we hope, approve it. Having talked about context, which I think is basically heavy landscaping, greenery is the dominant thing, as you go down that street, subtle design. Buildings are pretty recessive there. They’re not particularly in your face. And generally, privacy, because of the lands - because of the scale of the houses and the density of the landscaping, those are the three aspects of your project that I think I would like to see significant improvement on. In terms of massing, these buildings, these units, I mean they’re 1500 square foot units. That’s not excessive. That’s a reasonable size for a residential unit. But you’ve made these look bigger than that, and I don’t think that’s ever going to work on this site. They need to look as small as possible for what they are. They need to be modest and unassuming and quietly elegant. That’s going to work better in this site. In terms of privacy, we need to understand how every window works with respect to all the adjacent property owners. Not so much on the ground floor, of course, but… For two reasons. One is, they overlook other people. Sometimes fretted glass helps that 5.a Packet Pg. 140 City of Palo Alto Page 14 problem, sometimes it doesn’t. And you also need to think about light. We really don’t want to be illuminating the neighbors’ yards. And I would say that this big illuminated tower wouldn’t work 40 feet back from the property line. It just isn’t – if I, I live in a very small, I live in a 1400 square foot house on a very small lot that was built in infill in downtown north, but it’s designed so that we all have perfect residential privacy. None of our windows look into anybody else’s windows. Our side yards are private. You have a tougher assignment here, because we have a back alley that solves all our problems. But that’s the goal, so that people have private or reasonably private usable spaces, both indoors and outdoors on your side and next door. And landscaping needs to be a much bigger part of this project. I don’t know whether you’re going to grow vines up trellises on the building walls. I don’t know if you’re going to put trellises over the parking access. But in order to get the level of landscaping that this project needs in order to be approved, you’re going to need a lot more green mass than just a few low-lying things will do. When you have tall buildings, you need tall landscaping. And if the building becomes shorter, it doesn’t have to be quite so high, but it needs to be proportional. If you’re toing to have a third story on part of this building, then I need to see two story landscaping before it’s going to seem adequate to me. So, do you have any other questions of us, or does anybody else have any comments before we wind this up? Seeing none. Okay, we look forward to seeing you when you come back with this project. Thank you. Oh, and if the next project set is small scale, that would be more useful for us, though you’ll have to work with Staff to make sure that the, what you elect to put on each page is sufficiently small, so that we can actually read the plans. All right, we’ll take a two-minute break and then we’ll go on to the rest of our agenda. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2019 Ms. Gerhardt: Actually, I don’t believe that everyone got a chance to review the minutes, so we’ll move that forward to the next agenda. Chair Furth: Thank you. Yes, those are the Minutes of April 4, which we’ll review at our next meeting. And no more changes in vacation schedules or agendas? 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2019. [The Board moved to Official City Reports] Subcommittee Items Chair Furth: If we can come back into session. Alex, oh, we have no subcommittee items, correct? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: We hardly have any items at all these days. Ms. Gerhardt: Ah, well… Chair Furth: Could you comment on that? Is there a backlog back there, or, what’s happening? We were so busy. Ms. Gerhardt: Well, I hardly have any Staff, number one Chair Furth: Okay. 5.a Packet Pg. 141 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Ms. Gerhardt: I’m down to three permanent Staff out of five, so we’re looking to hire, but then, you know, HR is busy as well. You know, I do have some extra consultant help here and there, but that’s part of it. But then part of it is just not as many large projects. So, that’s the other half. Chair Furth: All right, thank you. Well, we’re sorry you’re without Staff. That’s not good for anybody, particularly applicants and the community. Okay. 5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (HVCAP) – Board Member Lew. Chair Furth: North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Report Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: There’s nothing new to report. The next meeting is Wednesday, May 22nd, which is next week at 6:00, here in City Hall. Chair Furth: Okay And last time you reported a big website to us, right? Board Member Lew: Yes. 6. Architectural Review Board Annual Report to Council: Review Draft Letter. Chair Furth: Well, unfortunately, I cannot provide you with a draft of our Annual Report to Council because my life is more chaotic than I had hoped. But I did want to go over, and part of it is, it’s difficult to draft a document when you sit on a board and your drafts aren’t private, and I don’t like my intermediate thoughts wandering out there. So, and also, we don’t have the minutes of, we just got the minutes of April 4th, which was the last time we discussed this, so I couldn’t go back and read the minutes. Having said that, I wanted to at least go through the topics we were talking about, and the assignments we had. So, Alex, you were writing about, remind me. Board Member Lew: I don’t have the, I didn’t bring the list with me. (crosstalk) So, one of the topics that you wanted me to work on was the curb management, and so I have a couple of bullet points about what’s happening in like San Francisco and Mountain View with regard to Uber and Lyft and buses. And I think there’s a name now for those, the Transportation Network. Chair Furth: Yeah. I mean, I noticed, I was at Auerbach in Berkley, and clearly, they have reconfigured Bancroft to deal with the fact that a very large number of people arrive there and depart there, so there’s all these people leaning out with their phones, fairly comical. Okay, so curb management. Just a second while I find your document, somewhere closer than my desk. Ms. Gerhardt: I’m just reading through the April 4th minutes, scanning through them, and it looks like parking standards was a question. Chair Furth: Well, there was the issue of parking with respect to… Ms. Gerhardt: Or surface lots? Chair Furth: A couple of things surfaced, so to speak. One was parking standards for the shopping centers, in light of the changing nature of retail. Yes. Board Member Thompson: I don’t think I brought this up last time, but could I rate a little section on the state of aesthetic elements involved and like the state of architecture as it stands today in terms of similarities and stuff that we’ve seen massing wise. You know, kind of aesthetic elements that a lot of applicants are implementing, and how they relate to Palo Alto’s aesthetic? Chair Furth: Sure, please do. One of the things that Jodie pointed out were most, all these things are worth raising. We’re most helpful when we can suggest code changes or standard changes. I know the 5.a Packet Pg. 142 City of Palo Alto Page 16 section I’m writing on mobility, by which I mean pedestrian mobility, and you know, that’s street furniture and you know, what it takes to make an area really accessible for people who need to sit down from time to time. That’s the sidewalk, like the curb, is a very contested space. There’s trees. There’s endless, what used to be called manhole covers. There’s vaults. There’s Telecom facilities. And there’s parking, you know, for cars, there’s parking for bicycles, there’s doors swinging open. And so, if we just ask, as we did with respect to the redo of the Mill’s Building for parking somewhere, sorry, benches somewhere, seating somewhere on the sidewalk, the answer is going to come back, no, it’s really busy. But if we have another standard for people to contend with that says, you need X feet in a block or something like that, then it becomes something that we have to figure out how to do, rather than something that’s just too complicated to do. It’s similar to what happened – you know, we saw for years, we saw the plans for Charleston Arastradero, which is a big reconfiguration of the street, the sidewalks, the medians with lots and lots of trees. When it came back to us for implementation, more than half the trees, as I recall, were found to be impossible because of utility conflicts. So, we need to figure out another way of doing these things. So, I was going to write about, I was going to write about trees in two contexts. One was, we have, I was going to try to tie this stuff to the General Plan. And there’s an initiative to have more trees, and one of the things that we’ve been noticing, two things about trees we’ve been noticing is that when you get underground parking that goes all the way to the edge of the property, you reduce your chance for significant trees. And another one is that when you start having two- and three-story buildings where you used to have one story buildings, you really pull the canopy in. It’s really visible on Litton, for example. You used to have spreading trees, and now you have straight up trees. But, yeah, so write about it and tie it to it if you can. Alex, I’m still looking for your document. Did you find it? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. I think it might, in terms of like codes and standards…I don’t know, I think it might help with the context-based criteria and also just design neighborhood design guidelines. Just given that, I guess, context is starting to change and it would – I don’t know. It sounds like it might be worthwhile just to highlight the stuff that we think is worthwhile, and then also just highlight the big aesthetic moves that some applicants are implementing that are less successful. And then also, a lot of applicants sometimes kind of ignore the small-scale stuff, and that’s a comment that comes up, so yeah. Chair Furth: Okay. So, I found Alex’s document. One of the sections that Alex was going to write about was the loss of spaces for small business surfaces, and he cited Berkley’s report that retail is stagnant downtown, restaurants are up in downtown, personal services are down in downtown, but up in outer areas. San Francisco zoning now requires new large, approximately 10,000 square foot ground floor commercial floors, to carve street-facing spaces for smaller tenants. And I will say that some of the more heartrending testimony we’ve had is from small businesses being displaced. So, Alex, are you willing to do small business displacement? Or do you just want to take what you gave me and weave it into something? Board Member Lew: Yeah, I don’t have any other ideas about that, besides those two. I think there should be more than that. And I wasn’t actually proposing this to go to the Council at this time. I think the Council is interested in it, and I think I forwarded the San Francisco zoning item to Staff. Chair Furth: Well, I’m in favor of including reference to the issue, that this is what we’ve seen. Board Member Lew: And I will keep it brief. How’s that? Chair Furth: That’s always your approach, right? Got it. Ms. Gerhardt: So, I wanted to note as well, I was speaking with Amy French the other day about, you know, past Boards and how this was run. She did bring to light that the ARB previously had guidelines, and so these could be, you know, guidelines of how, what needs to be in a project in order for the ARB to make the findings. So, that’s another possible way, besides just codifying it into the Municipal Code. Of course, if it’s in the Code, you know, it’s… Chair Furth: A big process. 5.a Packet Pg. 143 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. Gerhardt: It’s a big process. I mean, it’s easier to implement sometimes, but you know, sometimes guidelines can be good as well if there’s, you know, if a project can’t meet all guidelines, you know the ARB could still weight that. Chair Furth: If you could track down any copies of those, those would be interesting to see. Well, I mean, we use the Downtown Guidelines all the time. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. I think she was speaking mostly to El Camino in the way that the El Camino signage, that we do reduce signage on El Camino. That was one item that she brought up. Chair Furth: Okay. So, that was one topic. One was an issue of tree loss when the reduction of landscaping in CS and other districts when underground parking replaces surface parking lots, because where once parking lots were asphalt seas and then became landscaped asphalt seas, and now we’re losing those trees. Board Member Lew: I think we decided to put that on the back burner the last time we discussed this. Chair Furth: I don’t see that in the notes, but okay. Vice Chair Baltay: It sore of pares out of your comment about trees in general, that perhaps some guidelines, but really just to observe to Council that big buildings and a lot of underground parking results in a loss of trees. Chair Furth: I think it’s worth talking about that the sort of perhaps unforeseen impacts of these things. If they’re wrong, we should take them out. Then there was the question of just a note that the monitoring of TDM plans is important as we increasingly rely on them, which, of course, is a budget issue. And then there was some question about whether required parking is being made available for the required parking uses, but I think – Jodie, would you say that’s generally a code enforcement issue? You’ve got adequate regulations to deal with that? I mean, I was noticing, I was looking at a surface parking lot, and it was, every space was marked, you know, only for this business, only for that business. I doubt that that’s what the code required. I don’t think the code said you could reserve particular spaces for particular uses. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the code doesn’t actually speak to that sort of thing, and you know, in the plans that you see were not to marking parking spaces. I mean, I suppose if we dropped it down to that level, you know, if it’s sort of a strip mall with a couple different businesses, we can calculate, you know, this retail business needs five spaces and this one needs three. But usually it ends up being like 1 ½ and 2.3, so it’s... Chair Furth: I wasn’t arguing that you should. I was saying that the result of this is that there are spaces that sit empty, because people honor and they go park, you know… It reduces the availability of parking on the other hand (crosstalk) Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t think we have clear language one way or the other. Chair Furth: All right, we won’t necessarily think about that. Curb management, I’ve got Alex’s notes, but you’ll do more, Alex, or not, or do you think you’re done? Board Member Lew: Well, it depends on how long a letter you want to make. I’m sort of worried that there are so many topics, that this thing could easily ramble on to be like a ten-page report and really it shouldn’t be. Chair Furth: Well, I think it needs to be short, but I think you can also reference attachments if we think that’s useful. I agree it needs to be short. Its issue identifying, I think more than problem solving. And then the other issues, I’ll see how it looks and you can cut it. Let me get Peter’s notes. I agree that 5.a Packet Pg. 144 City of Palo Alto Page 18 people may not read something if it’s long, but it’s not inherently a bad thing, if it has narrative rhythm, right? So, I think it would be good to put in something about parking center standards, and I think Peter suggested also that we comment on the fact that the new ARB findings have been helpful. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I think that’s exactly the kind of feedback a letter to Council should be. They changed the findings, how is it working out for us? It can be a one sentence thing, but just give them some feedback. Chair Furth: Well, I think I’ve got what I need now that I’ve found it again. Osma, I look forward to getting something from you by email? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. When do you need that by? Chair Furth: Preferably next week sometime. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: David, are you good with what we’ve got? Anything you want to add? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Sort of a general concern, a general concern that there are some large projects coming up. We don’t seem to be part of the picture, really. Alex goes to meetings, but we don’t really get the material at all. The two largest ones, of course, are the Ventura and the Cubberly projects. They’re going to have tremendous impact on each of those neighborhoods, and I was sort of thinking when I came on the Board that having already kind of looked into those areas, that we might deal with the issues that would come, likely come up that might affect us as comments, commenters. But we would have to be a part of those projects in some integral way that we might have a private meeting, whatever they call that session when you get together and it’s not official. Chair Furth: Study session? Board Member Hirsch: Study session. Chair Furth: It’s public. Board Member Hirsch: …where we as architects, urbanists here, whatever we call ourselves, have some impact on those projects as they move forward. You know, there is a presentation that was made, the Cubberly presentation was finally made and my opinion is that it’s very lacking in its final conclusions, certainly in regards to planning and, of course, there’s the Planning Department, but shouldn’t we be involved in some way in the whole process of major developments like that. Chair Furth: Staff? Ms. Gerhardt: I think, I mean, the ARB would certainly be involved, you know, in the individual buildings. I think even the plans before they go forward would come to the ARB, but you know, it might be at that sort of that half-way to three-quarters point through the project. So, I can talk to Staff. I mean, these are not projects that I’m intimately familiar with, so I can go back and ask others that are and see what the plans were for that. They’ll definitely come through you and I think I hear you saying that you would like to see them sooner rather than later. Board Member Hirsch: Absolutely, sooner and to look at the conclusions and even make commentary on the side that, I don’t know how we determine that commentary. Chair Furth: Well, I think it is, I do think there’s a lot of talent on the Board and I do think there’s a lot of history of thinking about the City, and the ARB could be useful. I actually think, I mean, we have Alex as a representative to keep us posted, but, and we have a website, but I think it would be good to have a 5.a Packet Pg. 145 City of Palo Alto Page 19 stud session on Ventura so we understand early what, where it’s going. I mean, I think people don’t always want our comments, but I think they can be useful, and I think you often see things that are useful. You know, your experience with design lets you make comments that are, that make things better without making anything worse. So, what – and at least it would be good to have a report on what the Cubberly process is. I mean, Cubberly is a publicly-owned site and it would be unfortunate if we got it, you know, when the Master Plan had already been adopted and we said, oh my gosh, why did you put that building here, when obviously this is not the site for that. So, if we could have – that’s our request. Think about it and let us know. I mean, I will at least second David’s request. Board Member Hirsch: If we’re going to go on from that, or Peter you want to talk about that issue, fine. Because I have another one. Chair Hirsch: What’s your other one, David? Board Member Hirsch: The other one? Chair Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Peter was commenting. Vice Chair Baltay: Could I finish? Chair Furth: Sure, go ahead. Vice Chair Baltay: I wanted to comment that it seems to me that Alex is our representative on the North Ventura Plan process, which you’re very interested in, David. And you can, of course, go to those meetings but… Board Member Hirsch: I did. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex is a member of that Board to put commentary and stuff, but it seems to me that Alex is there because of his role on the ARB. Chair Furth: Right. Vice Chair Baltay: And it’s reasonable to say, Alex should be coming back to the Board reporting, which he is, and he should be taking feedback from the Board back to that public body. So, we do have a role in that process. I think we just haven’t done very much with it, but maybe Alex can correct me if my thinking isn’t right, but that’s how I see the situation. Alex? Board Member Lew: Yeah, so this is new for the Board. I think in the past we haven’t had representatives on other projects. But we have commented on other Master Plans, so I’m thinking of, there was Mitchell Park Master Plan that didn’t, I think in the end I’m not sure that one went anywhere. There was the Rinconada Park Master Plan and we did comment on that, and changes were made based on that. So, I don’t think there’s any reason why something couldn’t come to the Board. And then with regard to the North Ventura Plan though, is that I think, I’ve looked through the schedule of meeting the Planning Director has put out, and there is no plan to come to the ARB at the moment. So, if you want it to come, then I think you should ask for it. It’s on a very right timeline and they’ve factored in a lot of meetings with the Council and the Planning Commission, but not the ARB. Vice Chair Baltay: I was just saying, Alex, that it doesn’t need to come to the ARB as a body, but rather through you as a representative. If we discuss it at a meeting when you report to us and take feedback. Board Member Lew: Well, that was the Council’s idea. 5.a Packet Pg. 146 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Vice Chair Baltay: I think we are taking part (crosstalk) Chair Furth: But, in fact, we aren’t, or at least I’m not. Alex says they had a meeting or they didn’t have a meeting. So, he tells us about the process and he refers us to the website, which I have not studied. And I think if it were on, I mean, I don’t know what state it’s in. I mean, are there drawings, are there plans, are there maps, are there principals. All these things I could learn. But if it’s just a report on them and it’s not scheduled for more extensive, you know, if there’s not something, some short Staff Report that at least says, go look at this, then I don’t think we are as a body doing this. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I’m assuming that’s because there is nothing of substance to bring back to the Board yet, from Alex. Board Member Lew: They’re just, they just started developing the two alternatives. But it’s going to move very fast over the summer. But there’s nothing to present to the Board at this time. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: I mean, they’re collecting information on the context. Chair Furth: So, maybe the thing to do, but I’m not going to be here probably, so I will leave it to you all, but I will be here in July. It seems to me it would be useful to have it as an agenda item a little more formally, at least in our own heads, that we’ll commit to see what’s out there so that we can, if we have anything we want to get back, we will channel it through Alex? Vice Chair Baltay: I would expect Alex to bring to the Board when he thinks it’s appropriate some process or progress or some kind of commentary, if Board Members are interested and Alex thinks there’s something of substance there, yes absolutely. Board Member Hirsch: The other issue is the wireless issues, you know, with the Board. The Council came to a final decision Jodie forwarded. Actually, Jodie you forwarded it to everybody? Chair Furth: Yes, she did. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, okay. So, you note that we were kind of left out of the final part of that, Peter. We didn’t… Chair Furth: I don’t think the final part of that has happened yet. I think that the (crosstalk) Vice Chair Baltay: David, on that account I think the issues was clearly that the ARB’s opinion was clearly heard by the Council, and the Council made a decision what they wanted to do. So, our commenting on it further, I think, is redundant. Chair Furth: And Peter, you were there, right? Vice Chair Baltay: David and I were both at that particular meeting. Chair Furth: I think that one’s perhaps done for the moment. Board Member Hirsch: Planning was supposed to go back and reexamine the standards, and they were to do that in about a year’s time. I personally am still unclear as to what the planning’s standards really are. Peter, are you satisfied? Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I won’t say I’m satisfied with the decision, but I think the Board, the Council made a clear decision. One of the decisions, one part of it was to not include the ARB in the review process. And based on the wisdom of the Council, that’s what they decided. 5.a Packet Pg. 147 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: And I realize we’re, actually what we’re supposed to be discussing here is our report, and we’re probably getting (crosstalk). It’s good to raise the issue, but we shouldn’t (crosstalk). Vice Chair Baltay: That’s why I think it doesn’t belong in our report. Chair Furth: Yeah. And I’m happy to talk with you about it later. And with respect to Cubberly, Jodie, if you could find out what the state of play is, you know, sometimes going to look at two hours of tape or something isn’t a very efficient way to learn. So, with that I will put together a draft. I will hear from Osma and you can rip it to shreds next time. Alex, anything more? Okay, Staff, Jodie, thank you. We’re done. Adjournment 5.a Packet Pg. 148 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10452) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 6/20/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects. Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 1 Packet Pg. 4 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments:  Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX)  Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 5 2019 Schedule Architectural Review Board Meeting Schedule & Assignments Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/10/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Special 1/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2/21/2019 /17 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 3/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 4/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/2/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 5/16/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/6/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 6/20/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Baltay/Hirsch 7/4/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Cancelled egular 7/18/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular Thompson 8/1/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 8/15/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 9/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/3/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 10/17/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/7/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 11/21/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/5/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 12/19/2019 8:30 AM Council Chambers Regular 2019 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 3/21 - Baltay/ Thompson 4/4 - Baltay/ Thompson 4/18 – Lew/ Hirsch July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2019 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics July 18, 2019  565 Hamilton Avenue: Mixed-Use (2nd Formal)  Newell Road Bridge Replacement (1st Formal)  Vinculums/Verizon Cluster 3 (1st Formal)  Crown Castle/Verizon Cluster 1 (1st Formal)  486 Hamilton Avenue (Prelim)  250 Sherman: Public Safety Bldg - brick and lighting (Sub-Comm) 1.b Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10294) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/20/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 3000 El Camino Real: Palo Alto Square Master Sign Program and Sign Exception Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3000 El Camino Real (18PLN-00277): Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of Major Architectural Review for a Master Sign Program to allow three monument signs, six directory signs and thirteen directional signs and a Sign Exception to exceed sign height and/or area for free standing signs and directional signs. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15311 (Accessory Structures). Zoning District: PC-4637. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Environment based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The proposed project is an amendment to an existing Master Sign program from 2008 and a request for an exception to exceed the allowed sign area for freestanding signs and exceed the allowed height and sign area for directional signs allowed by Municipal Code Section 16.20. The Master Sign program provides design provisions for location, colors and materials. Individual signs are typically considered minor projects requiring staff review only, however, pursuant to Section 18.76.020 of the Municipal Code, Master Sign programs and sign exceptions are considered major projects and are subject to review by the ARB. With the approval of a Master 2 Packet Pg. 8 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Sign program, subsequent individual signs that conform to the program do not require additional architectural review. Background Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: Not applicable Representative: Bryan Panian – Corporate Signs Legal Counsel: Not applicable Property Information Address: 3000 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Research Park Lot Dimensions & Area: Various, 15 acres Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable Located w/in a Plume: Yes; Hillview-Porter Regional Plume Protected/Heritage Trees: Yes; there are numerous protected and regulated trees on this site Historic Resource(s): Not applicable Existing Improvement(s): Six buildings between one to ten stories tall comprising of roughly 311,097 square feet of office use, retail and theater, built circa 1972 Existing Land Use(s): General Business Offices, Professional Business Offices, Administrative Offices, Eating and Drinking, and Theater uses Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Public Facility (PF) and Research Park (RP) West: Research Park (RP) East: Service Commercial (CS) South: Service Commercial (CS) and Research and Development (RP) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: PC-4637 (Planned Community) Comp. Plan Designation: Research/Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Applicable, as discussed below Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: In 1994, ARB reviewed a Master Sign program (94ARB-31) that allowed for three free-standing signs (two of which exceeded the allowed height limitations), seven directory signs, four directional signs. The staff report for this application is provided as Attachment D. Minor changes to this sign program were approved by staff (08PLN-00325, Attachment E) in 2008, which resulting in the existing signs on-site today. Project Description The applicant proposes a Master Sign program with sign exceptions for the existing Planned Community 4637 located at 3000 El Camino Real. The program consists of a primary monument sign, two theater display signs and vehicular and pedestrian wayfinding signage. The purpose of the Master Sign program is to update the existing sign program to provide a consistent design concept on the site. Any wall signs for individual businesses would still be processed as separate sign application(s) and would be subject to the City’s Sign Code and El Camino Real Guidelines. The following signs are requested with the Master Sign Program including Sign Exceptions:  One (1) freestanding monument sign (sign A) located on the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. This sign is proposed to be constructed upon concrete footing with an aluminum cabinet, acrylic panels and vinyl graphics. Sign A would be a maximum height 144” inches in height by 24” inches in width, with a sign area of 24’ square feet. There are existing lights that will provide illumination to the sign by upward-facing lighting.  Two (2) freestanding theater signs (sign B) at the vehicle entrances to the site along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The signs are proposed to be non-illuminated and constructed upon concrete footing with an aluminum cabinet, acrylic panels and vinyl graphics. Sign B would be a maximum height of 192” inches in height by 84” inches in width, with a sign area of 112’ square feet.  Six (6) freestanding directory signs (signs C) located along the perimeter of buildings. Signs are proposed to be non-illuminated and constructed upon concrete footing with an aluminum cabinet, fastened glass panel, bottom acrylic panel and vinyl graphics. Each sign will be 86” inches in height by 26” inches in width, with a sign area of 15.53’ square feet. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5  Two (2) vehicular directional signs (signs E) located throughout the property to help direct drivers towards the different buildings on site. Signs are proposed to be entirely constructed of painted aluminum with a white reflective vinyl identifying building numbers and theater with directive arrow. Each wayfinding sign is proposed to be eight feet tall, with a sign area of 2.3 square feet. These signs will not feature illumination.  Six (6) building identification signs (signs G) located throughout the property to identify building numbers to aid employees and visitors on the site. The signs are proposed to be non-illuminated and constructed upon concrete footing with an aluminum cabinet, acrylic panels and vinyl graphics. Each sign will be 120” inches in height by 18” inches in width, with a sign area of 15’ square feet.  Four (4) new pedestrian interior court directional signs (signs G.1) located in the interior court yard of the property to help direct pedestrians toward the different buildings on site. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested:  Architectural Review – Master Sign Program: In accordance with PAMC Section 16.20.030 "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. The master sign program shall designate the sign locations and areas of all signs in the program, as well as typical sign designs, colors and faces. Pursuant to the approval of the master sign program, subsequent individual signs may be erected without further design review. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Director of Planning & Community Environment for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve this application are provided in Attachment C.  Architectural Review – Sign Exception for area and height: In accordance with PAMC section 16.20.040 “Sign Exception” means an application made in conjunction with an architectural review which requests a deviation from what is allowed in the Sign Code. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Director of Planning & Community Environment for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Projects are evaluated against specific findings. All 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve this application are provided in Attachment C. Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is a 15-acre office development located on the southwest side of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road along the western border of the City and the Stanford Research Park. The neighborhood is characterized by large to medium sized commercial and research/office buildings along El Camino Real, Page Mill Road, and Hansen Way. Single-family residential uses begin south of Hansen Way buffered by multiple commercial sites, spanning nearly 1,300 linear feet away from the south property line of the subject property. Existing signage in the area includes large freestanding monument signs located in landscape berms along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. The scale of the existing signage in the area is appropriate given the larger parcels with multiple occupants located in and around the Research Park. El Camino Real and Page Mill Road are heavily trafficked roads which explain the need for larger signs to showcase primary tenant names, movie titles and show times to vehicles passing by and looking for their destination. Given that many of the surrounding parcels are large in size compared to other commercial sites within the City, it is more difficult to apply the strict allowances of the Sign Code, as the regulations do not translate as well onto larger properties with multiple tenants. Doing so would significantly limit this property’s ability to identify the tenants that work on the site which would make it challenging for anyone trying to locate the offices of one of the primary tenants. The secondary property monument identification sign located on El Camino Real heading south towards Mountain View is partially obscured by four large redwoods trees. While the proposed sign area exceeds the maximum allowed 50 square feet; the dimensions of the new sign will be reduced in height and width compared to what is existing their today. The new sign will be located in the same location as the existing sign so as to not obscure the sight triangle to traffic entering and exiting the site along El Camino Real. The proposed sign area will serve to provide more visibility of the existing tenants and movie showings as vehicles approach the property along El Camino Real without creating a sign that is obtrusive or unappealing. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The secondary property monument identification sign is located at the entry to the site off of Page Mill Road and is designed to be vehicle oriented and will be large enough to be seen by visitors looking for either a specific tenant or movie showing from the street. The updated design will connect with the site’s overall design concept to produce a coherent aesthetic that will be easily recognizable to anyone coming to the site. While the area of the proposed sign exceeds the maximum allowed by the Sign Code, it would be very challenging to legibly display the tenant names, movie titles and show times and retain a height that would be easily viewable from a street view and still be in compliance with the 50 square foot allowance. The proposed design will update the existing freestanding sign to provide a more consistent design with the site without creating new visibility issues for vehicles. The existing directory signs and directional wayfinding signs located within the complex are a mix of small and large structures that do not currently create a sense of internal order as you travel from building to building and are difficult to notice when traveling in a vehicle. As proposed, the new design for both sign types would better serve to create a sense of consistent size, scaling, and aesthetic design as you travel through the site. The new design of the signs would better direct people coming to the site to their destination as they would be more visible from a moving vehicle. Zoning Compliance2 A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes, or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. The project is also subject to the El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1979 ECR Guidelines), South El Camino Real Design Guidelines (South ECR Guidelines), context-based design criteria, and performance criteria (Attachment F). The 1979 ECR Guidelines state that signs on ECR are limited to ½ to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the Sign Code. The South ECR Guidelines contain design criteria for signage including a requirement that monument signs be low-profile. The applicant requests ARB’s consideration of the project’s compliance with these applicable design guidelines as well as feedback regarding the overall design. The standards for freestanding signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 16.20.120, are listed below:  Area and Height. Freestanding signs over five feet in height shall be permitted only on nonresidential properties in the Hospital zone, GM zones and on El Camino Real in the CN and CS zones and for service stations, restaurants and shopping centers elsewhere. The maximum area and height of such signs is set forth in Table 2. Would not comply outside of an approved Sign Exception. Sign A complies with allowed height and sign area. Sign B along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road would exceed the 50 square foot 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 size allowance but not the twenty-five foot height limitation.  Location. Every such sign shall be wholly on the owner's property. Complies; all signs are located on the subject property.  Number. Subject to the provisions of Section 16.20.170, there may be one such sign for each frontage and one additional sign for any portion of frontage in excess of two hundred fifty feet. The size of any additional sign shall be determined from Table 2* by counting as frontage that portion thereof which is in excess of two hundred fifty feet. In the case of shopping centers and other multiple occupancies having a common frontage, the frontage shall be deemed to be that of the shopping center or commonly used parcel and not the frontages of the individual businesses or occupancies. Complies; sign A is more two hundred fifty feet away from signs B.  Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; all sign frames and cabinets are made from aluminum.  Lighting of Freestanding signs. No freestanding sign shall be constructed in such a way that any light bulb or filament is visible from the front of the sign or from beyond the property line. Nothing herein shall be construed to prohibit signs of neon tubing or similar self-illuminating material of equivalent or less intensity. Complies; external illumination will be minimal and focused on sign A. The standards for directional signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 16.20.120, are listed below:  Area and Height. Directional signs shall not exceed an area of six square feet or a height of three feet. Would not comply outside of an approved Sign Exception. The proposed heights of 8 and 10 feet would exceed the three foot allowance. The sign area for the building directional sign proposes an area of 15 square feet and will exceed the allowable six square feet.  Location. Every such sign shall be located on the property to which they pertain and shall be located at least twenty feet within the nearest property line, except that directional signs of not more than three square feet in area may be located not less than ten feet within any front property line. Complies; all signs are located on the subject property.  Number. Currently there are no limitations indicated in the Sign code to the number of directional signs allowed on a property. Complies with sign code given that there is no limitation indicated. The consistency of the design and number of signs in conjunction with all the other proposed signs would be more appropriately processed under a 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Master Sign program.  Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; all sign frames, cabinets and poles are made from aluminum. The standards for directory signs, as specified in Palo Alto Municipal Code section 16.20.160, are listed below:  Area and Height. Such signs may have an area of four square feet, plus one and one-half square feet per name, in no event to exceed seventy-five square feet and shall not exceed eight feet in height. Complies; all directory signs have been proposed at a height of 8 feet and do not exceed the maximum allowed sign area of seventy-five square feet  Location. Every such sign shall be situated at least two feet inside the property line. Complies; signs will be located more than two feet into the property.  Number. Currently there are no limitations indicated in the Sign code to the number of directory signs allowed on a property. Complies with sign code given that there is no limitation indicated. The consistency of the design and number of signs in conjunction with all the other proposed signs would be more appropriately processed under a Master Sign program.  Construction. In addition to the requirements of Section 16.20.190, every such sign shall be constructed wholly of metal, incombustible plastic or other approved fire-resistant material. Complies; all sign frames and cabinets are made from aluminum. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines3 Policy L-50 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages “…high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs”. The main vehicle entry signs have been designed to provide an updated look to connect with the existing building’s own mix of traditional and modern design. The location of these two signs is consistent with existing signage in the area, and would be uncluttered while still providing visibility from several angles. The materials are proposed to consist of painted aluminum cabinet, and the chosen color palette of black, grey and white is understated and would easily blend into the surroundings given the surrounding office park environment. With the exception of the directional wayfinding signs, the remainder of the freestanding signs will follow the same design and color scheme which will serve to establish a consistent design, size, and scale throughout the site. The height of the proposed wayfinding signs are taller than similar signs in the area, however, the design will be more visible at vehicle level than the existing wayfinding 3 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 signs used to guide visitors and tenants to their destination while not obscuring visibility when traveling through the site. While some of the signage exceeds the allowable heights or signage areas for freestanding signs and directional, signs, staff believes that much of the new signage will be appropriate in scale in relation to the existing buildings and size of the site. Additionally, staff believes that it will facilitate easier identification of the site as well as pedestrian and vehicle traffic through the site. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from CEQA per Section 15311 (Accessory Structures), item (a) “On-Premise Signs”. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on June 7, 2019, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 10, 2019, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Danielle Condit, Building/Planning Technician Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2442 (650) 329-2575 Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX)  Attachment C: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment D: 1994 Master Sign Program (PDF) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 17 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11  Attachment E: 2008 Master Sign Program (PDF)  Attachment F: ECR and South ECR Guideline Excerpt (PDF)  Attachment G: Applicant's Project Description (PDF)  Attachment H: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 18 50 4 50 50 NO_SPECIAL_SETBACK_FOR_MIXEDUSE_HOTEL 1A 2A 6 5 Day_Care 3 4 Palo Alto Square 2 B 1 1133.4' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 54.7' 26.3' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 65.7' 119.7' 65.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0'119.7' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 1134.7' 103.5' 38.4' 284.0' 280.2' 147.3' 120.0' 114.3' 39.9' 280.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 119.7' 65.7'119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7'50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 300.0' 142.5' 112.5' 49.8' 61.8' 49.0' 62.8' 63.3' 200.0' 119.9' 8.0' 8.4'8.8'12.1'13.1' 15.0' 9.1' 85.1' 13.8' 39.9' 114.3' 120.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 1134.7'1134.7'1134.7'1134.7'1134.7'1134.7' 726.0' 600.0' 270.9' 1' 193.1' 274.7' 245.3' 200.0' 44.0' 200.0' 20.0' 260.0' 75.0' 149.3' 164.1' 50.0' 164.5' 797.5' 317.0' 216.1' 375.4' 208.0' 214.6' 259.4' 51.4' 214.6' 33.2' 213.9' 33 310.8' 166.7' 365.7' 157.4' 50.4' 41.6' 706.6' 498.2' 526.6' 375.4'216.1' 568.6' 792.3' 448.4' 568.6' 147.2' 26.3' 199.8' 199.8'199.8' 199.8' 110.0' 54.0' 54.0' 110.0' 164.1' 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4'166.4' 30.0' 30.0' 18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 600.0' 726.0'577.6' 150.0' 69.3' 199.9' 50.0'65.2' 149.0' 150.0' 149.0' 150.0' 134.7' 200.0' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85'129.85' 206.05' 478.7' 109.8' 150.0' 21.8' 109.8' 19.8' 611 3150 3170 3200 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 3159 435 395 385 375 2650 2700 420 441 430 440 450 460 471 461 451 4702805 2865 2875 412 420 430 440 450 451 441 431 421 411 2904 456 470 471 461 2999 2951 2905 461 2755 3000 3017 3001 2780 412 2701 925 845 835 3128 755 3127 850 700 600 3111 775 473 620 630 660 975 955 481 642 601 3051 3101 3160 2790 2798 2705 2825 965 425 PAGE MILL ROAD HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY ANSEN WAY ACACIA AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE PAGE PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL Ramos Way (Private) EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL PF (AS3) CS PF (WH)CN PC-4637 R-1 CS CS CS(D) Stanford Palo Alto Playing Fields This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Special Setback Frontages Park School abc Building Roof Outline Underlying Lot Line abc Easement abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels City Jurisdictional Limits: Palo Alto City Boundary Tree Current Features 0'248' Location Map 3000 El Camino Real PC-4637 CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto dcondit, 2019-05-22 16:54:56Location Map (Basic) (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Attachment A 2.a Packet Pg. 19 ATTACHMENT B CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3000 El Camino Real 18PLN-00277 _________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Palo Alto Square,” stamped as received by the City on April 29, 2019 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, 2.b Packet Pg. 20 including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Danielle Condit at Danielle.Condit@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DIVISION 7. A building permit is required for the construction of the illuminated monument sign using the current applicable codes: CBC, CEC, CEnC, and PAMC. The supporting foundation, framing and connection details, and the Title 24 Lighting compliance forms are required for the building permit submittal. 8. For the post mounted vehicular and pedestrian wayfinder signs, provide the supporting foundation and anchorage details for the building permit. For post mounted signs that overhang the pedestrian circulation paths, the lowest edge of the sign shall be 80 inches minimum above the finish floor or ground. Please indicate this dimension on the plans for the building permit. (CBC 11B-307.3) 9. The review and approval of this project does not include any other items of construction other than those written in the ARB project review application included with the project plans and documents under this review. If the plans include items or elements of construction that are not included in the written description, it or they may not have been known to have been a part of the intended review and have not, unless otherwise specifically called out in the approval, been reviewed. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3000 El Camino Real/18PLN-00277 Master Sign Program The following findings have been made to support the application for a Master Sign Program, as modified by the ARB approval conditions. The specific Master Sign Program that has been requested is for the following standard:  New free standing sign over 5’ in height to serve as a primary property monument ID sign at the corner of Page Mill Road and El Camino Real.  New free standing signs over 5’ in height to serve as secondary property monument ID and theater signs off El Camino Real driveway entrance and Page Mill Road driveway entrance.  (6) New special propose directory signs throughout the property and primary entrances.  (2) New special propose directional vehicular pole signs.  (6) New special propose building directional ID signs.  (4) New special propose pedestrian directional pole signs. Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The design is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed project is consistent with policy L-6.10: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. The design of the signs, materials, and colors are attractive and appropriate for the buildings and the surrounding area. The proposed signage was designed to be compatible with the large scale structures on the site. Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The master sign program presents a framework for purposes of wayfinding and site visibility. The proposed signage uses consistent materials and colors that is unified and coherent, and will assist in creating a sense of order on the site. As conditioned, the design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site and is appropriately scaled to compliment large scale buildings ranging from 1 to 10 stories in height. 2.c Packet Pg. 22 Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The master sign program makes use of aluminum, acrylic, vinyl and glass materials that are durable while also being simple, clean, and aesthetically pleasing. The primary color palette of black, white and light grey proposed for the metal sign material create a modern and sleek appearance. Finding 4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The signage has been placed to assist in wayfinding for pedestrians, cyclists, and motorists entering the buildings and site from a number of locations. The new signage program specifies regular predictable locations with an almost identical order that existed on the site under the previous Master Sign Program approved in 1994 under permit number 94-ARB-31. The black background of the aluminum signs paired with the bright white lettering provides a nice contrast and is easily visible. Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. The existing landscaping will not be impacted by the proposed signage. Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The proposed signs are non-illuminated and made of durable long-lasting materials. 2.c Packet Pg. 23 Sign Exception The following findings have been made to support the sign exception request to exceed the maximum signage, as modified by the ARB approval conditions. The specific exception that has been requested is for the following standard:  To exceed the maximum size of fifty (50’) square feet for free standing signs. Sign Type B proposes an area of 112 square feet.  To exceed the maximum height of three (3’) feet and maximum sign area of six (6’) square feet for Directional signs. Sign Type G proposes a height of ten (10’) feet and a sign area of fifteen (15’) square feet.  To exceed the maximum height of three (3’) feet for Directional signs. Sign Types E and G.1 propose a height of eight (8’) feet. 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; The property has been granted a special site specific zoning designation recognizing the uniqueness of the property and its location. Palo Alto Square is exclusively zoned PC-4637 (Office and Hotel Complex) within an area of Palo primarily zoned for commercial use, such as CS, CN and CC. The immediate surrounding properties are in differing zoning districts, such as Public Facilities (PF), Service Commercial (CS), and Research Park (RP). Staff recommends approval of the proposed signage because of the scale of existing development on the site. Such as, lengthy frontages along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road, large structures ranging from 1 – 10 stories in height, multi-tenant use, and the speed of traffic along El Camino Real and Page Mill Road. As well as, the surrounding zoning which allows for larger scaled signs. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; In that the visibility of signage is important for any site to be easily identifiable and promote a sense of place in the community. The proposed signs for Palo Alto Square have been carefully designed for compatibility with the large scale of buildings and were reviewed and found consistent with the Architectural Review findings as required by the Municipal Code. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The signs were designed to be aesthetically pleasing and would not detract from the visual environment. The placement and appearance of the signs do not pose safety hazards nor do they detract from the subject building or surrounding properties. 2.c Packet Pg. 24 2.d Packet Pg. 25 2.d Packet Pg. 26 2.d Packet Pg. 27 2.d Packet Pg. 28 2.d Packet Pg. 29 2.d Packet Pg. 30 2.d Packet Pg. 31 2.d Packet Pg. 32 2.d Packet Pg. 33 2.d Packet Pg. 34 2.d Packet Pg. 35 2.d Packet Pg. 36 2.d Packet Pg. 37 2.d Packet Pg. 38 2.e Packet Pg. 39 2.e Packet Pg. 40 2.e Packet Pg. 41 2.e Packet Pg. 42 2.e Packet Pg. 43 2.e Packet Pg. 44 2.e Packet Pg. 45 2.e Packet Pg. 46 2.e Packet Pg. 47 2.e Packet Pg. 48 2.e Packet Pg. 49 2.e Packet Pg. 50 2.e Packet Pg. 51 2.e Packet Pg. 52 2.e Packet Pg. 53 2.e Packet Pg. 54 2.e Packet Pg. 55 2.e Packet Pg. 56 2.e Packet Pg. 57 2.e Packet Pg. 58 2.e Packet Pg. 59 2.f Packet Pg. 60 2.f Packet Pg. 61 2.f Packet Pg. 62 2.f Packet Pg. 63 SOUTH EL CAMINO REAL DESIGN GUIDELINES Recommended on June 6, 2002 by the City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board for interim use by staff and applicants in conjunction with the City Council-adopted El Camino Real Design Guidelines Prepared for the City of Palo Alto by Van Meter Williams Pollack and Kendall Planning and Design 2.f Packet Pg. 64 2.f Packet Pg. 65 2.f Packet Pg. 66 2.f Packet Pg. 67 2.f Packet Pg. 68 3000 El Camino Real “Palo Alto Square” Signage Findings for Exemption per 16.20.040 In an effort to improve the wayfinding, identification and appearance at the property, we are proposing a new sign program which includes: (1) New primary property Monument ID sign (2) New secondary monument signs (x1) at each driveway entrance (6) New Directory Signs throughout the property at pedestrian pathways and primary entrances (2) New vehicular wayfinding pole signs at the end of each driveway, turning location (6) New Building Directional ID signs (4) New Pedestrian wayfinding Pole signs Each of the above listed items is proposed in an effort to update the existing/dated signage to a new and modern appearance. In addition to improving general appearance, the functionality and improved wayfinding provided by these signs will greatly improve this property. At Palo Alto Square, there are 6 individual buildings, surrounded by parking and multiply entry points. These buildings are tall, multi- story, multi-tenant occupancies and navigating the property can be difficult. It is our hope that this new sign program will assist in the following ways: 1. vehicular wayfinding and traffic flow 2. pedestrian wayfinding into and throughout the property 3. improved tenant identification 4. improved individual building identification 5. greater visibility and use of signage Some of our proposed signage exceeds current city height restrictions but we feel that the size of the signs match and compliment the height of the property. The height of the signage keeps maps, directories and information at eye-level for a better user experience and usability. With the size of the buildings and parking areas, we hope that the size of these signs will greatly improve overall identification and ease of locating each specific building. Our signs will be built in accordance with the current California Building Code. No signs will impede accessibility, path-of-travel, nor pose any possible threat or harm to the property, landscaping or the persons surrounding it. Best regards, Bryan Panian, Project Manager ph. 408.292.1600 x319 fax. 408.292.1673 bryan@corporatesigns.com www.corporatesigns.com 2.g Packet Pg. 69 ATTACHMENT H Project Plans and Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Hardcopies of project plans and the Initial Study are provided to Board members. These plans and environmental documents are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “3000 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans, Initial Study and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4610&targetID=319 2.h Packet Pg. 70 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 10430) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 6/20/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Macy's Mens Redevelopment (1st Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [19PLN-00110]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing 94,300 Square Foot Macy's Men's Building Located in the Stanford Shopping Center for the Construction of a new Three-Story Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximately 43,500 Square Feet, two Retail Buildings, Approximately 3,500 Square Feet each and Construction of a New Stand Alone Retail Building, Approximate 28,000 Square Feet (Total Square Feet 78,500). Environmental Assessment: Exempt From the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in Accordance With Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez @cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Review and provide formal comments on the projects design and site plan. Report Summary The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center, at the interaction of Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real. The proposed changes to this area of the Shopping Center include demolition of the existing Macy’s Men’s building to construct two new 3,500 sf tenant spaces directly adjacent to Building J, along with two new standalone buildings, and reconfiguration of the parking lot in the project area. These changes require Board Level Architectural Review due to size of the project and its visibility from the public right of way. 3 Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 At this time, the Major Architectural Review application is still under review by Staff as some code compliance matters remain outstanding. However, the project has progressed enough to bring the application before the ARB to receive feedback on the site plan which effects circulation, parking, landscaping, and utilities. The purpose of this meeting is to present the ARB with the proposed project and understand the ARB’s position on the proposed project to allow the applicant to adjust the design accordingly while finalizing the project for code compliance. Community members are also encouraged to provide input to the project. A future hearing will provide a comprehensive review of the project’s compliance with the applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards. Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Architect: Kimley Horn Representative: Curt Tappendorf – Simon Property Group Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 180 El Camino Real Neighborhood: Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area: Various & 2,300,402 square feet Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: N/A Protected/Heritage Trees: Various throughout the site Historic Resource(s): N/A Existing Improvement(s): 1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s): Retail, Personal Service, Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): El Camino Real Design Guidelines 1976 only Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary Hearing on February 7, 2019 Staff report - bit.ly/ARBHearing_2_7_2019 3 Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 Minutes - bit.ly/ARBHearing2-7-2019Minutes Project Description Overall, the proposed project would demolish the existing 94,300 square foot (sf) Macy's Men's building and surrounding parking lots located in the Stanford Shopping Center, to construct three new buildings totaling 78,500 square feet. This would result in a net loss of floor area for the Shopping Center overall and includes parking lot design changes to accommodate the new buildings. These changes require Board Level Architectural Review due to the scope of work and visible changes from the public right of way. The first portion of the proposal involves a standalone single-story retail building with a mezzanine level, located within the southern portion of the parking lot between Sand Hill Road and Pistache Place, with frontage on El Camino Real. This building is proposed to be the new location for Wilkes Bashford (retail store). The other standalone building is proposed to be located along Sand Hill Road. The building would be three stories with a rooftop glass surrounded restaurant, open rooftop garden, second floor terraces, and new ground level landscaping. The building is designed by the future tenant, Restoration Hardware. The final portion of this project involves two 3,500 sf single story tenant spaces directly adjacent to Building J (LaBelle Day Spas, Jeffrey, and Blue Bottle Coffee). These new tenant spaces will be located directly across from the new Restoration Hardware building and a new elevated drive aisle and pedestrian walkway area. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated:  Architectural Review – Major (AR): This project would be subject to the criteria found within PAMC 18.77.070. Architectural Review applications are reviewed by the Architectural Review Board whose recommendations are then forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Actions by the Director are appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. Architectural Review projects are evaluated against specific findings which must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires a project to be redesigned or to be denied.  Conditional Use Permit (CUP): – A CUP is needed for alcoholic beverage service in association with eating & drinking uses. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.010 and 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by Planning staff and forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action. This aspect of the project is outside the purview of the ARB. 3 Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Discussion The ARB is asked to review the submitted plans and comment on the site plan and design changes that are sourced from the comments received during the preliminary hearing of this project on February 9, 2019 (see summary below). At future hearings for this project, staff will discuss compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. The ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the Applicant and Staff on the submitted plans related to:  Site Planning  Access to the site  Compatibility with site context (Shopping Center and surrounding) Preliminary Review Summary The preliminary review comments have been broken down into three main categories, as further discussed below. Site Planning and Parking 1. Provide an access plan that shows a logical circulation pattern for the parking lots 2. Work to straighten out the drive aisle between Building J and Restoration Hardware 3. Explore ways to help customers quickly find empty parking spaces 4. Explore underground parking Landscaping and Ped access 1. Set buildings back from street to provide sufficient space for existing mature trees 2. Use native landscaping, provide habitat on the RH roof garden 3. Nine foot boxwood hedge in front of RH cuts it off from the rest of the Shopping Center 4. Ensure there are areas for customers and employees to take a seat/break 5. Provide walkways to encourage pedestrians to walk to/through the area Architecture 1. Add windows to the Wilkes Bashford facades, show the activity inside 2. The length of the Wilkes Bashford building seems out of character with its surroundings 3. Encourage taller buildings along El Camino 4. Provide street elevations of all buildings, along with the height of trees along the creek Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the northwestern portion of the site, facing El Camino Real. The overall site is 52.8 acres 3 Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 with proposed development on a ~4.5 acres (196,300 sf) portion of the property. The Stanford Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The site is surrounded by hospital, retail, and multi-family uses. Site Planning This portion of the Shopping Center has a large paved parking lot with existing trees planted throughout the area. The portion of parking lot closest to the Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real intersection has significant utilities underground. The proposed buildings’ configuration results from avoiding conflicts with the underground utilities including a regional water line. The water line greatly limits development at the corner of the site, as primary structures are not allowed to be constructed over it and its relocation would be prohibitive. 3 Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 7 The applicant has provided greater details on the site plan (Sheet C2, HS-WB, HS-EE) since the Preliminary Review for this project. The current site plan has indicated the locations of outdoor seating for Shopping Center patrons and refined the pedestrian walkways both on site and within/adjacent to the public right of way (PROW). The drive aisles and the location of the proposed building are consistent with the locations presented to the ARB during the Preliminary Review. The ARBs feedback on these changes are sought by Staff to determine if the project is on course to meet the ARB Findings for design and function relating to ease of use and safety of pedestrian, bicycle, and automobile traffic. 3 Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 8 Access to the site The project site has extensive multi-modal access and parking. The site can be accessed by pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface parking lots and two multi-level parking structures located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. Throughout the site, there are pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. It is important that the ARB’s comments consider the projects level of access and the impact to site plan features such as parking. Compatibility with site context (Shopping Center and surrounding) The massing and designs for the new buildings appear to be consistent with what is found within the Shopping Center, though two of the new buildings would function as a transition point from the greater Shopping Center building mass to the new three-story Restoration Hardware Building. The submitted plans include detailed elevations and expansive El Camino Real elevations that include the new buildings in the existing Shopping Center context (Sheets A2 – A4). When reviewing the expanded elevation (without trees), one can see that the larger buildings at each end (Left: Bloomingdales; Right Restoration Hardware) appear to mirror each other and balance the massing. Staff seeks the ARB’s thoughts and feedback on the transition from the proposed buildings, which are a maximum height of 50’ tall, relative to each other and the greater Shopping Center. 3 Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 9 Wilkes Bashford A new standalone building is set within the existing parking lot at the corner of El Camino Real and Pistache Place. This building is proposed to be 28,000 sf and includes a mezzanine level. The design along the El Camino frontage includes the right of way improvements consisting of new planting and a larger 12-foot wide sidewalk which enhances the pedestrian environment along this section of the Shopping Center. There are adjustments to these improvements to account for the existing heritage oak tree, which will require sidewalk improvements that are sensitive to the health and preservation of the oak. The project has shifted the sidewalk improvement to prevent impacts to the Oak in question. Additionally, the proposed design includes new planting areas that enhance the corner of Pistache Place and El Camino Real. Restoration Hardware The proposed Restoration Hardware (RH) building is an open design with large windows around all facades and includes new planting throughout the building. The third floor will include a new glass surrounded restaurant with access to a rooftop garden creating additional green space for Shopping Center patrons. Surrounding this building are new pedestrian walkways that form a 3 Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 10 U-shape around the building from Sand Hill Road. These walkways will take pedestrians from the tree lined sidewalk along Sand Hill Road and move them past the proposed bioretention areas that would have new landscaping. As pedestrians continue towards the RH building, the pathways open to provide 10’ to 13.5’ widths. Additionally, there are proposed improvements such as new trees, angled parking, raised planters, and a new loading area. The improvements appear to be complimentary to the proposed project and the greater Shopping Center experience. New tenant spaces (Addition to Building J) The third portion of this proposal involves two new tenant spaces that are single story, directly adjacent to Building J, and located directly across from the new RH building. These two spaces are proposed to be 3,500 sf each and have large windows with metal awnings that extend over the pedestrian walkways along the corners of the buildings. Their design includes a green wall located at the center where the tenant spaces meet. These tenant spaces will have new pedestrian walkways that are edged by new landscape areas adjacent to the new raised two- way drive aisle across from the RH Building. The walkways around these buildings are wider than the aforementioned buildings walkways ranging from 10’ to 31.5’ in width. Additionally, there are new trees proposed to shade the outdoor seating areas. The current design and features of the site plan appear to be sizable improvements to the Shopping Center. The wide pathways, green spaces, trees, and patron seating area are enhancements to this portion of the Shopping Center. However, it is unclear if these improvements would meet what the ARB would find these proposed features sufficient. For this response, Staff seeks the ARB’s feedback regarding the projects site plan, circulation features around the project area. Shopping Center Façade and Signage Design Standards The project involves the redevelopment of a sizeable portion of the Shopping Center and would change the character of this location. The exterior facades and any new proposed signage will need to be compatible with the requirements of the Stanford Shopping Centers “Master Tenant Sign and Façade Program” (MTSFP; 15PLN-00040) to maintain the Shopping Centers character. The MTSFP can be viewed in Attachment E for reference. 3 Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 11 Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. The project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 2 exemption from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Guideline Section 15302 (Replacement or Reconstruction). This project meets this exemption as it consists of replacement of existing structures and facilities where the new structures will be located on the same site as the existing structure to be replaced and will have substantially the same purpose and capacity. More specifically, the existing Macy’s Men’s building is a commercial retail building of greater floor area than the total proposed floor area of the new commercial retail buildings in same general location on the project site. Forthcoming Shopping Center Board Level Projects For context, staff would like to make the ARB aware of two other pending applications at the Stanford Shopping Center. These projects are listed below and will be heard by the ARB in the near future: 1. 180 El Camino Real Bldg C #10B (19PLN-00114): Minor Board Level Architectural Review to Allow for modifications of an exterior storefront for L'Occitane 2. 180 El Camino Real (19PLN-00129): Minor Board Level Architectural Review to Allow for modifications of the exterior storefronts and market plaza area for Sigona's Market (space#399), Schaub's Meat, Fish, and Poultry (space#395), and Cocola Bakery along with changes to the service entrance façade at bldg. E within the Stanford Shopping Center. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments:  Attachment A: Location Map (PDF)  Attachment B: ARB Findings (DOCX)  Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX)  Attachment D: Performance Criteria (DOCX)  Attachment E: Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program (PDF)  Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 81 3.a Packet Pg. 82 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 19PLN-00110 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element POLICY L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. Consistency will be finalized prior to the second formal hearing. Policy B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high- quality regional shopping center. GOAL L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The project would be required to be consistent with the zoning requirements, El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and the Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. 3.b Packet Pg. 83 Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 3.b Packet Pg. 84 Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 3.b Packet Pg. 85 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real, 19PLN-00110 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 2,300,402 square feet (52.81 acres) Consistency will be finalized prior to future hearings. Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varied Rear Yard No Requirement N/A Interior Side Yard No Requirement N/A Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied Special Setback (PAMC 20.08) 24 feet along Sand Hill and Arboretum Roads Varied Max. Site Coverage No Requirement N/A Max. Building Height 50 feet or 37 feet maximum (4) Within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site Varied, Max 37 feet Varied, Max 50 feet Max. Floor Area per 18.16.060 (e) for Stanford Shopping Center 1,412,362 sf 1,361,751 net sf ~1,346,007 net sf (Proposed loss of 15,744 net sf) Consistency will be finalized prior to future hearings. (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 3.c Packet Pg. 86 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property Consistency will be finalized prior to future hearings. Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) (2) In the CC district and in the CC(2) district, the following regulations shall apply to outdoor sales and storage: (A) Except in shopping centers… (B) Any permitted outdoor activity in excess of 2,000 sf shall be subject to a conditional use permit. (C) Exterior storage shall be prohibited, except as provided under subparagraph (A)(iv) … Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. Employee Showers (18.16.040 (j)) Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building ... 4 showers are required for 100,000 sf and above Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CC district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 3.c Packet Pg. 87 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area (1,437,603 gross sf) for a total of 5,228 on-site parking spaces 5,448 spaces ~5,292 spaces Further analysis will be done prior to future hearings Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf 40% long term and 60% short term) equals 523 spaces for the site overall. 265 spaces (93 long term, 172 short term) ~261 spaces will remain (2 lockers with 4 spaces to be removed by the project) Note - Staff will be requiring additional spaces to come closer to compliance Loading Space 3/70,000 -120,000 sf with 1 additional space per 50,000 sf over 120,000 sf. Total of 29 loading spaces required. 2 loading space would be required for this portion of the site. ~15 loading spaces At least 1 new loading space is proposed on this portion of the site. Further analysis will be done prior to future hearings 3.c Packet Pg. 88 Table 1: Stanford Shopping Center Master Sign Program Sign Types, Number, and Locations Sign Requirement Number Maximum Size Location Primary sign (wall sign) Required 1 Maximum height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height; no sign closer to 24” from demising wall or building corner. Primary facade Banner or blade sign (Projecting sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” height Primary facade Canopy or Awning Sign (optional) 1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary facade Super- graphic (optional) Not limited None Flexible Secondary sign or Emblem (optional) 1 where applicable Secondary sign: Maximum height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: Maximum height is 24” in any direction. Secondary façade where applicable Advertising graphics and signs (optional) Not limited None Only on the inside plane of storefront window (s) Digital images and digital signage (optional) Not limited 42” measured diagonally Only in storefront window *Maximum Allowable Sign Area for Wall Signs. Wall signs and sign area are defined in PAMC 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. Logos are considered wall signs and can be utilized as a primary wall sign or can be a component of a primary wall sign. Logos shall not exceed the maximum height of a stacked sign, which is 36-inches. Logos shall be included in calculations of maximum wall sign area limits. 3.c Packet Pg. 89 ATTACHMENT D PERFORMANCE CRITERIA 18.23 180 El Camino Real, 19PLN-00110 Performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. Consistency will be finalized prior to future hearings. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick up. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 3.d Packet Pg. 90 The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 3.d Packet Pg. 91 MASTER TENANT FAÇADE & SIGN PROGRAM Effective Date: April 23, 2015 Program Approval 15PLN-00040 Edited PCE 7/10/2018 3.e Packet Pg. 92 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Facades facing the right of way shall incorporate architectural design features in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk. Rooftop equipment, equipment enclosures, roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or structure shall be obscured from public view by a roof screen or through placement. Green Lines indicate tenant spaces which require City review • Storefront > 35ft in length require Architectural Board Review (Public Hearing) • Storefront ≤ 35ft in length require Staff Level Review Major tenants and free standing buildings (shaded) require City Review • The type of review (Board level or Staff level) will be determined based on the scope of work. 3.e Packet Pg. 93 For the Tenants whose elevation is located on facades other than those listed above, review by the Architectural Review Board might be required depending on if the storefront is visible from the public right of way. Tenants are required to receive Landlord’s approval prior to filing for ARB approval. However, approval by the Landlord does not guarantee ARB approval. Furthermore, all comments provided by the ARB must be addressed and Tenant shall file promptly for resubmittal. Any deviation from Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program must receive Landlord’s prior written approval prior to submitting drawings to the ARB or for Planning Approval. Architectural Review Processing Procedure. The architectural review processing procedure for Stanford Shopping Center tenants shall be as follows: 1. The Landlord and Stanford University conduct architectural review of non-anchor tenant signs and facades for those locations within the shopping center interior to ensure that they conform to the Tenant Design Manual. 2. Planning staff and/or the ARB shall conduct architectural review of tenant signs and facade applications for locations at the shopping center exterior. a. Any façades or architectural components that extend beyond the height of the existing parapet wall or increase gross or net floor area shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). b. Two-story tenant facades intended for single tenant occupancy shall have a façade that is continuous between the first and second stories. If separate tenants occupy the first and second stories, the design of each façade shall be reviewed by the ARB. c. Tenant facades that are 35-feet in width or greater are reviewed by the ARB. Architectural review for tenant facades that are less than 35-feet in width may be conducted by Planning Staff. d. If there are no tenant façade changes and the proposed tenant signs are consistent with the Master Tenant Sign Program, Planning review at the staff- level occurs as part of building permit applications. Any signs that require an exception to the Master Tenant Sign Program shall be reviewed by Planning staff or the ARB. Examples of tenants that have continuous façade vs those that do not have continuous facades 3.e Packet Pg. 94 STOREFONT ELEVATIONS GLOSSARY OF TERMS GENERAL: • Base Building: Base Building Shell construction, common and service areas, including all work that is the responsibility of the Landlord. • Design Control Zone: The area of the store extending from the storefront lease line into the store, at a minimum of five feet (5’-0”), in which the Landlord controls design components. The Design Control Zone shall extend across the entire width of the store. • Neutral Pier: An architectural element separating two adjacent Tenant storefronts or a Tenant storefront from a finish controlled by the Landlord. • Vitrine: Shallow wall mounted display cases on the exterior of the façade and can house vignette displays, merchandise or seasonal graphics. The illumination of any vitrine shall be similar in color and intensity to the remainder of the Tenant storefront displays. All vitrines must be incorporated into the design aesthetic of the storefront vocabulary. Stanford Shopping Center is an upscale Lifestyle Center and requires Tenants to create a unique and contemporary storefront design. Tenants shall take advantage of the garden setting by creating storefront designs that bring a sense of the outdoors into their space. Tenants are required to present their businesses with distinctive architectural designs using the highest quality of materials and workmanship, and with creative lighting and signage designs. Typical Tenant storefronts extend between adjacent storefront finishes and shall extend to the height of the roof parapet. STOREFRONT DESIGN CRITERIA General Design Criteria Storefront The Tenant’s entire storefront, as per Zone, shall be designed, fabricated, constructed, installed and maintained by the Tenant at the Tenant’s expense. The storefront design shall work in concert with, and be respectful of, the Landlord’s building façade, thematic architectural expression, and landscaping. Tenant storefronts shall meet the base building parapet height and shall not exceed the parapet in overall height. Storefronts shall maintain a consistent height on each building. Tenants are required to extend their storefront design along all building facades. Approved architectural finishes, façade details, and additional components such as lighting and graphics, will visually activate all side of each Building. At a minimum, Tenants shall extend their exterior color palette across the solid portions of the exterior wall. A combination of super-graphics, showcase windows and/or vitrines are required and shall be the foundation of the Tenant’s aesthetic interpretation of the exterior walls. Closed Doors Tenant spaces shall be designed for closed-door operation as this is an open-air center. Tenant storefront doors shall remain closed during normal mall hours. Landlord piers or columns in the Tenant’s storefront that are clad or otherwise designed as part of the Landlord building architecture shall be preserved without alteration by the Tenant. Unclad piers or columns in the Tenant’s storefront shall be incorporated into the Tenant’s storefront design. The Tenants storefront windows and other large glazed areas shall include provisions for mullion articulation beyond a basic extruded aluminum profile. This may be achieved through applying cap and pan elements to the basic window assembly to add relief and dimension. 3.e Packet Pg. 95  Doors within the storefront assembly may be articulated in a similar manner or may include further customized elements to enhance the overall design and building identity.  No alterations, additions, changes, or modifications to the Base Building finishes or construction shall be permitted without obtaining Landlord’s prior written approval (such approval must be requested by Tenant under separate cover from Tenant’s drawings). If permitted, all work shall be performed by Landlord at Tenant’s expense.  All Tenant construction, including storefronts, must be of non-combustible materials. Treated fire-resistive materials are permitted only with approval by local jurisdictional authorities.  All Tenant storefronts and floors shall be watertight and must properly slope to drain and to meet flush with Landlord’s finishes and/or pavements at the storefront. All exterior Tenant storefront materials must be suitable to outdoor weather, use, and wear.  Pedestrian and security lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and shall be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. Architectural lighting that project upward shall be directed so as not to affect abutting land uses. Floodlights on tenant facades are discouraged. Storefront Finishes Tenants shall maximize the use of glazing with the storefront area having a minimum of 70% transparency, measured across the width of the Premises. Full height opaque areas of the storefront shall be minimal. Where possible, a constant height opaque sign band, extending across the entire storefront width, is not acceptable. Varied glazed show window heights and/or projections should be incorporated. 3.e Packet Pg. 96 All storefront materials shall be high quality, durable, exterior grade finishes with minimal maintenance requirements. Acceptable Finishes:  Stainless Steel, Solid Brass and Copper  Wrought Iron, Cast Iron and Steel  Marble, Granite, Limestone, Brick, Textured Masonry  Finished/protected premium grade hardwoods  Precast Concrete, Cast Stone, GFRC, GFRG  Homogenous porcelain tile  Sandblasted, frosted, etched, textured, leaded glass, spandrel glass (in limited quantities)  Glazing (tempered) *Additional finishes not listed are subject to Planning Department review and approval Discouraged Finishes:  Simulated Brick, Wood, Stone  Plastic Laminates, Metal Laminates, Plastic Panels  Mill finish  EIFS  Plexiglas or plastics  Field painted metals  Ceramic, glass or quarry tile, used as a field or background. Note: Storefront canopies and marquees must conform to project location specifications and will be reviewed for conformance with material and color selection, location, projection and overall design effect. Fabric awnings are not generally permitted. 3.e Packet Pg. 97 Each Tenant shall provide a solid canopy above their entry. Canopies are to be a minimum of 3’-0” deep and must at lease cover the width of the entry alcove. The finish of the canopy is to compliment the Tenant’s overall storefront design aesthetic. Storefront and glazing graphics, film, animation techniques and projection techniques must be clearly shown on Tenant’s Drawings and are subject to Landlord’s approval. Entrance Alcoves & Closures Store closure is limited to hinged or pivoting doors only. Out-swinging or pivoting doors cannot extend beyond the storefront Lease Line. Coiling grilles and shutters are prohibited. Doors glazed with true divided slites are encouraged, as are doors or clear tempered glass and doors with decorative leaded or patterned glazing. Tall entrance doors of 8’-0” height or higher are encouraged; standard height doors with overhead transoms are also permitted. The following requirements shall apply without exception:  Tenant is responsible for exterior floor finish within the entry recess and must provide a minimum transition of less than ½ inches from the sidewalk elevation to Tenant floor finish.  Tenant is solely responsible for the design and construction of the slope in the recessed entry area, as well as compliance with any applicable code requirements for same. Exterior floor shall have positive drainage to the sidewalk at a minimum 1% and maximum 5% slope.  Tenant’s recessed entrance shall meet or exceed the finish specifications in the Design Criteria and Design Control Zone. The finish must be Tenant’s own material - matching Landlord’s sidewalk finish will not be permitted.  Recessed entrance location, presentation and temperature control are subject to Landlord approval. Tenant’s drawings shall include details for drainage, foundations, interior /exterior slab conditions, weatherproofing and finishes. Landlord shall not be responsible for ponding water in the recessed entry. All storefront doors must be framed. Frameless glass doors will not be allowed due to outdoor environment. Each Tenant shall display the space number posted in accordance per the local Fire Code and per City of Palo Alto Building Department Standards and shall install the mall standard ADA address plaque, provided by the Landlord’s designated vendor. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. Storefront Bases The storefront base shall be a minimum of six inches (6”) in height. The base shall be constructed from highly durable non-porous material appropriate for exterior use, such as stone, tile, substantial gauge metal with a powder-coated finish, stainless steel, or other material as approved by Landlord. Storefront base material must be specified to withstand contact with cleaning equipment and solutions as well as exposure to the elements. Entry Floor Floor finishes at the entry shall be hard, high-quality, durable materials. At the entry, the floor finish shall be a non-slip material. Vinyl and/or rubber-resilient flooring or sealed/stained concrete systems are not allowed in the design control zone. If carpeting is proposed, 32 oz. nylon fiber minimum specification is required. The finished elevations at the store entrance must align with Landlord’s finished and/or pavement elevation of the exterior walkway, with a weather-proofed threshold of minimal thickness (not to exceed ½”) provided at the doors. The use of vinyl or metal reducer strips is prohibited. Tenant should provide a metal-embedded transition strip flush with the hard surface flooring at all transitions to other flooring types. No trip hazards such as reducer strips, thresholds or other noticeable transition devices shall be permitted between different flooring materials. 3.e Packet Pg. 98 Storefront Lighting Tenant Interior Lighting – Tenant interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow visible from and/or intruding into nearby properties Tenant Exterior Lighting – Pedestrian and security lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and shall be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. Architectural lighting that project upward shall be directed so as not to affect abutting land uses. Floodlights on tenant facades are discouraged. Bird-Friendly Facades Tenant facades with glazing covering a large area shall utilize a bird-safe glazing treatment. The bird-friendly treatment can be invisible to the human eye. Typical treatments include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns are generally at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. Noise Producing Equipment Any noise producing equipment should be screened from public view and must comply with noise limits. Storefront Design Control Zone The Tenant Storefront Design Control Zone is the area of the store extending from the storefront lease line into the store at a minimum of five feet (5’-0”) across the entire width of the store. Since the appearance of this zone is critical to the overall store appearance, design solutions, and materials are expected to be of the highest quality and will be closely reviewed by Landlord. Tenant music systems, speakers and sound systems are not permitted to be installed within the Design Control Zone. Speakers/ sound systems located behind the first 5’-0” of the entry shall have a separate volume control that can be set to the Mall Managers’ specified level. The backs of Emergency Exit signage/lights (over the entry doors) shall not be visible from the exterior. Storefront security systems, if used, shall be unobtrusively incorporated into the Tenant’s Design Control Zone. Storefront security system design and installation details shall be included in the Tenant storefront design and drawings submitted to the Landlord for approval prior to installation. Security grilles or gates behind storefront show windows or entrance doors are strictly prohibited. All walls within the Design Control Zone shall be provided with high quality finish material – plain painted surfaces are not permitted. Materials such as stone, tile, wood panels, the use of trim and other decorated treatments shall be utilized. Slat wall and grid wall are not permitted. All plants shall be shown on Tenants drawings, and identified by species as well as whether living or artificial. Plants on storefronts shall have photographs submitted as part of Tenant’s drawing submission to Landlord for approval. Depressed or slab-level plantings are prohibited. All plants installed by Tenant shall be properly maintained by Tenant at Tenant’s expense. (Self-watering pots with a bladder system shall be used to ensure no leakage onto the hardscape). Gross Floor Area. Permanently covered tenant patio spaces count toward gross floor area, but uncovered tenant spaces do not. 3.e Packet Pg. 99 Store Display and Merchandising Within the Design Control Zone, the side walls and show windows shall be dedicated for use as a high-quality show window display. A creative display is required – standard merchandise racks, and wall finishing materials such as slat wall and prepackaged wall-mounted grid systems are prohibited. Distinctive, high-quality and appropriate display techniques which best showcase the Tenant’s merchandise must be used. At the storefront entry, display fixtures and merchandise must be placed at least 3’-0” behind the Tenant’s entry door/ closure line. Merchandise rack and display features must not block customer traffic flow in and out of the store. Television monitors proposed to be installed at the storefront or within the Design Control Zone require specific approval by the Landlord, and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If approved, monitors shall be incorporated into the overall storefront design and are to be encased within attractive display fixtures to conceal all surfaces except for the screen surface. They must be mounted a minimum of 3’-0” behind the storefront glass and must incorporate slow fade type graphics with no sound, animation is not permitted. Maximum screen size is 42” measured diagonally. All cables and wiring must be concealed from view. Show Window Safety Logos Repetitive safety symbols (graphically designed) or lettering may be applied to the inside face of storefront glazing as approved by Landlord for identifying transparent surfaces for customer safety purposes. Emblems, logos, and lettering must not exceed 3” in height and the font shall be Circular Pro, black vinyl, maximum letter is not to exceed 3” in height. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. Tenant shall provide signage at the exterior side of the service entrance. Font shall be Circular Pro, black vinyl, maximum letter is not to exceed 2” in height. The length of the sign shall be proportionate to the sign height limit. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. General Sign Criteria Building permits are required for all illuminated signs and the Tenant shall be responsible to obtain any and all permits as may be required by the local jurisdiction. 3.e Packet Pg. 100 Sign Requirement Number Max Size Location Primary Sign (Wall Sign) Required 1 Max Height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height. Signs discouraged closer than 24” to demising wall or building corner Primary Facade Banner or Blade Sign (Projecting Sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” in height Blade: 24” projection x 15” in height Primary Façade (Blade signs to be located either under an awning or a façade wall not directly adjacent to an existing sign) Canopy Sign Optional 1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary Facade Super Graphic Optional Not Limited None Flexible Secondary Sign or Emblem Optional 1 (where applicable) Secondary Sign: Max. height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: max. height is 24” in any direction Secondary Façade (where applicable) Advertising Graphics and Signs Optional Not Limited None Only on inside plane of storefront windows, Digital Images and Digital Signage Optional Not Limited 42” measured diagonally Only in storefront windows 3.e Packet Pg. 101 In additional to the criteria herein, Tenant signage shall comply with the current version of the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code and the City of Palo Alto’s Design Guidelines. All signage shall be of the highest quality design and construction. Tenant signage shall be designed to be proportionate in scale to the elevation to which it is affixed. Sign design and placement shall be well integrated with the tenant façade and hall be designed to complement the storefront design and general building design. Wall signs and sign area are defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PMAC) 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. When wall area exceeds 5,000 square feet, sign area may be increase by seven (7) square feet for each additional 500 square feet of wall area, but no sign shall exceed 203 square feet. All attachment hardware which supports and or powers the signage must be concealed from view and be weather resistant. Sign illumination must be connected to a 7-day / 24 hour time clock to be set to the hours specified by Mall Management Acceptable Primary Storefront Sign Types (required):  Dimensional wood, metal, glass, or other material with a permanent appearance, internally illuminate only. Flood lights are prohibited.  Reverse channel letter with halo illumination, opaque letter-sides and faces and non-reflective background.  Internally illuminated individual channel letters with acrylic faces.  Signs that are incised, cast into or carved out of an opaque material, indirectly illuminated.  Sculptural iconographic elements contextual to the storefront design, internally illuminated. *Additional finishes not listed are subject to Planning Department review and approval Discouraged Primary Storefront Sign Types:  Box or cabinet type signs.  Signs employing audible equipment, and/or moving, flashing, or blinking lights  Signs employing exposed raceways, ballast boxes, or transformers  Luminous vacuum-formed type plastic letter signs  Exposed neon  Cloth, paper, cardboard signs or signs of other temporary or non-durable materials  Signs using highly reflective finish materials (i.e. polished brass, chrome, etc.) 3.e Packet Pg. 102 Blade Signs Tenants can elect to use a variety of media for their signs; however, blade signs are required to meet the following criteria:  Sign panels can be a maximum of 3” thick and constructed of wood, metal, glass or other solid surface material. Plastics are not permitted.  Sign panel shall be supported by a bracket attached to the Tenant’s storefront or under an awning with a complimentary design, color and finish. At no time may the blade sign panel be attached to the Landlord’s neutral pier or building facade.  Perimeter of the sign should fall within a 24” (h) x 15” (w) envelope, including the support bracket. Tenant shall determine a creative sign shape.  Minimum clearance height to sidewalk is 9’-0” above the sidewalk plane.  Wording of the blade sign is limited to the Tenant’s trade name (DBA) and logo.  Tenant’s customary signature or logo, hallmark, insignia, or other trade identification will be respected and reviewed on a case by case basis for use as the blade sign design.  The graphic element of the sign may be paint, enamel, appliqué, dimensional graphic/lettering or may be pushed out of the panel material for a three- dimensional appearance (routed or incised is also approved).  Blade signs may be illuminated by concealed methods only. Building Mounted Banners and Projected Signs (optional – in lieu of Blade Sign) This type of sign is vertically oriented and is mounted high and perpendicular to the building and may or may not be illuminated. Maximum width or projection shall be 24” from the face of the Tenant storefront and the height cannot exceed 60”. Bottom of banner must be 9’’-0” clear ground plane. Signage of this type, if permitted, is usually restricted in number and location. Projecting banner signs shall not be placed in a manner that will allow the banner sign to exceed the adjacent parapet height. Canopy Signs (optional) Canopies are defined as heavy-framed protective and/or decorative structures over entrances. Tenant may elect to use the canopy sign as their primary storefront sign. The sign shall conform to the “Acceptable Primary Sign Types” as indicated above. The canopy sign may be illuminated internally only. The maximum height of any capital letter of a canopy sign shall not exceed 9” in height. Traditional fabric awnings are not permitted, however, taught contemporary awnings shall be allowed only with prior Landlord approval. Show Window Graphics (optional) Vinyl lettering and/or logos may be applied to the face of storefront glazing, provided that the sign communicates the Tenant Trade Name only. Advertising panels, banners or signs with opaque backdrops are prohibited. Signage Approval Process Landlord’s approval of Tenant’s storefront signage shall be based on the size and style of the sign and lettering, the location of the sign within the storefront, and the cohesive integration of the sign into the overall storefront design. Approval of the Tenant’s preliminary design or Working Drawings by the Landlord shall not constitute review and approval of the Tenant’s signage. Tenant shall submit one (1) set of the Tenant’s sign shop drawings for review and approval by Landlord. Fabrication or installation of the Tenant’s signage shall not commence before the Landlord’s approval of the sign shop drawings. 3.e Packet Pg. 103 Attachment F Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members. These plans are available to the public online and/or by visiting the Planning and Community Environmental Department on the 5th floor of City Hall at 250 Hamilton Avenue. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “180 El Camino Real – Macy’s Men’s” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4479&TargetID=319 3.f Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Page 1 F Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Alex Lew, Board Member David Hirsch, Board Member Osma Thompson. Absent: Chair Furth: Good morning. I’d like to call to order the meeting of the Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto. This is our regular meeting of May 16, 2019. Could you call the roll please? Ms. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Good morning everyone. [Roll Call] Ms. Gerhardt: Great, everyone’s here. Thank you. Oral Communications Chair Furth: Thank you. We have a space on our agenda for oral communications. That’s the time to speak to a matter that’s not on the agenda, but that is subject to the ARB’s purview. I don’t have any speaker cards. Is there anybody who wishes to speak in oral communication? If you could come up to the microphone and give us your name and address? (no mic) Chair Furth: Oh, great. We’ll hear you in Item two. Thank you. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Any agenda changes, additions or deletions? [The Board moved to Approval of Minutes] City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions. Chair Furth: Let’s see, I guess we’re on City Official Reports, is what I’m going to. Board Member Hirsch: Madam Chair. Chair Furth: Yes. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 16, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Hirsch: I’m going to have to, which I didn’t mention… Chair Furth: Could you speak into the mic. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I would like to be out on the same day that Peter’s out. Chair Furth: You know you have to speak very, very close to our mics. They’re not… Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Chair Furth: That would be June 20th? Board Member Hirsch: June 20th. Chair Furth: So, Board Member Hirsch would – Vice Chair Baltay and Board Member Hirsch would be missing on June 20th. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Will everyone else be present? Chair Furth: I will be. Board Member Lew: Yes. Board Member Thompson: Yeah, I’m planning to be there. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, so we’ll still have… Chair Furth: You’ll have a quorum. Ms. Gerhardt: We’ll still have quorum. Chair Furth: Well, we will miss you, but thank you for letting us know. Ms. Gerhardt: And then as far as the next hearing June 6th, we will be hearing the Mercedes Project, and then also the former Cheesecake building is coming in for a renovation. We’re hoping for Mercedes, it’s the third hearing. For Cheesecake it’s the first hearing, but you also had a prelim, a recent prelim on that project, so we’re actually hoping to get recommendations on both those projects. Chair Furth: I’m sure you will. It may or may not be the one you want, but yes. (unknown male): One way or another. Action Items 2. 567 Homer Avenue [18PLN-00145]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow Demolition of an Existing 1,292 Square Feet Two-Family Residential Building and Construction of a Three-Story, Three-Unit Residential Project. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Project will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multiple Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon S. Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Furth: All right, we have one public hearing item today, an action item, which is, concerns 567 Homer Avenue. I think it’s actually a double address. It’s a request for preliminary architectural review for a project that would demolish an existing 1300 square foot two-family residential building and construct a three-story, three-unit residential product, project, sorry. The Environmental Assessment is not a project, City of Palo Alto Page 3 though I presume you’re going to double check on the historic, possible historic nature of the building before you make that determination, because it would not be exempt if it were, I think. The zoning is RM-30, multiple family and the project planner is Sheldon Ah Sing. Sheldon. Mr. Sheldon Ah Sing: Yes, good morning. I do have a power-point presentation for you and the applicant is here also. So, this is an application that is subject to the preliminary review, and that’s an opportunity for the applicant to present a project prior to formal submission, and also an opportunity to get feedback from the various departments of the City and the Board. We try to get these projects expeditiously to the Board upon submittal and that way we’re not going back and forth a lot on the details, which we will get to during the formal application. So, just, for this project in particular, you may notice some inconsistencies with scale on the drawings or that maybe code provisions, like the windows, may not be appropriate for egress, but just, or daylight plane for instance, we’re just showing the daylight plane that goes through the building. But we did want to get enough information back to present to the Board, so you have sufficient information to present, at least enough direction and feedback for the formal submittal, which the applicant wants to do within the next couple of months. So, with that said, the application is preliminary for three units on a 0.17-acre site, 7500 square feet, and the request would be eventually for formal major architectural review. It is on Homer. It’s a two-lane one-way street. The context of the area, you do have some, a mix of kind of lower intensity with the Channing House across the way, which is a little more intense, fenestrated by those large redwood trees. You do have some newer developments along the street there that’s more in the context, maybe, of the area. On this site you have one a one-story, but two-unit building, so those would be replaced with three-story, about 4500 square feet. That’s just at the FAR that’s allowed for the project. What’s proposed for the building is a contemporary type of design. The heights of the plates are ten-foot height plates. You probably would think that’s a little bit tall, but we do want to get feedback on that. The exterior walls would include some integral muted colored stucco accented with some wood paneling for the balcony rails as well as for the surrounds of the windows. The windows are aluminum framed and there’s a uniform pattern to them, although it’s kind of narrow. I think I’ve identified that already, in the fenestration. So, it’s either squares or vertically oriented, instead of rectangles. The stairwells of each unit are really in plain view. There’s a lot of fenestration there, so we may want to have some feedback about that as relates to privacy. Each unit would have three bedrooms and different configurations. So, we want to have some focus here, as the project will need to address as I’ve identified, the daylight planes. We do believe that the open space arrangement access could be better defined for the site just so it meets the findings. We are seeking some comments and directions from the Board regarding the scales and mass of the project in and of itself, and then kind of how it relates to the neighbors, as well as on that note, the design in the neighborhood context of whether or not this design is appropriate. Is there enough landscaping as proposed? And then other areas of interest by the Board that you may have. So, with that we do recommend that the Board review and provide us comments. There’s no formal action requested. We do identify that, yes, the site may be potentially deemed historic, so that will have to be vetted out in the formal process, but we do have a scope for the applicant to consider regarding our third-party consultant to review that. So, with that, that concludes my presentation. I’d be happy to answer any questions you may be. Thank you. Chair Furth: Thank you. Before we ask Sheldon our questions, has everybody had a chance to visit the site? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I have. Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: So, we’ve all visited the site and look at the property at least from the street and look at the neighborhood. Is the applicant here and ready to speak? Great. If you want to just come to the City of Palo Alto Page 4 microphone and you’ll have ten minutes. Please introduce yourself and we ask that everybody spell their names so that our transcriber can get it right. Jerrick: My name is Jerrick and its spelled J-E-R-R-I-C-K. Chair Furth: Thank you. Jerrick: So, the main architect I designed this project with is not present today, but I was also part of this project, so I could answer most of the questions today. And so, as mentioned earlier, the existing house is almost 100 years old and we will be seeking to introduce three attached units on the lot and each unit will be around 1500 square feet. And right now, we have all three units facing a different direction for the main entrance. The front unit facing Homer Street, we currently have the main entrance facing towards the Channing Apartment out front and with the huge out-front setback, this will allow front private space for that unit in the front. And then the middle unit will have some outdoor area in the center of the floor plan. And the back unit will have its private backyard in the rear setback. So, our main intent was to build high-quality homes in a very appropriate entry and compliment the existing neighborhood. The proposed project will allow opportunities for the residents in Palo Alto to see the contemporary design on the Homer Ave, and we mainly focused the design with the newest developed multi-family residence in the downtown area of Palo Alto. So, currently we are seeking to submit a plan for planning and review and for ingress and egress. Our submittal includes one site plane showing a main entrance and the vertical circulation of each unit. I could be taking questions if you have more questions. Chair Furth: Thank you. I forgot to ask you earlier, but we’re required to determine whether we have any conflicts of interest with respect to applications, and that means that the only thing that’s listed about the owner of this project is that – I guess I’m looking at, it’s different here. So, who is the owner of this project? Jerrick: The company called HESTIA2. Chair Furth: And is that a name specific to this project, or is it an ongoing corporate entity? I mean, is this an LLC for this corporation? Who is the real party? Who owns that? Jerrick: His name is Jang Hyuk. Chair Furth: Could you spell that for us? Jerrick: J-A-N-G H-Y-U-K. Chair Furth: Thank you. And who is the architect? Jerrick: Mar, Weiss Mar. Chair Furth: Thank you. Does anybody have any questions of the applicant or the applicant’s architect, or of Staff? Okay. Then we will have public comments. Thank you, you may sit down. (no mic) Chair Furth: I have two speaker cards. The first one is from David Kwan, to be followed by T. Schaul. Mr. Kwan, you will have three minutes. Dave Kwan: Thank you. Again, my name is Dave Kwan. That’s K-W-A-N for the spelling. So, I’m the owner of the property on 750 Webster. So, it’s one of the adjacent properties to this particular project. In reviewing the plan, now I’m not an architect so I’m probably not… Chair Furth: Neither am I. City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Kwan: I’m definitely concerned about the privacy impact on my property. The plan did address a couple of properties around the property, 734, 738, which is probably one of the three on Webster Street that it’s going to impact, but nothing was stated about the impact on 750, 760. So, I’m definitely concerned about that. And then, as such, since it wasn’t addressed in the plan, certainly I’m concerned about the ancillary impacts such as sunlight, noise, as well as scale. I think you guys asked that question about scale and mass. Certainly, I’m a resident of Palo Alto. This is just actually one of my many properties. I am concerned about the project size, just because I haven’t seen many projects… I mean, I love the design, but I’ve never seen, or haven’t seen many projects or haven’t seen any projects that’s three stories in nature or if that is, that must be a new sort of new way of doing things. So, I think that should be considered as well. So, that’s my prepared comments. Chair Furth: Thank you. If you could wait just a minute. Staff, which sheet, Sheldon, which sheet has, shows – this block has a very unusual lotting pattern. Which, I know you have a sheet which shows all that. Which one is it? It’s really complicated interlaced lots. I know I saw it somewhere. Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, I think maybe the best one is A0.3. Chair Furth: A0.3? Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, so basically you have the subject site is pretty detailed. It does show Webster Street and Homer, that’s the intersection, so this property is actually the second property on Webster. Chair Furth: Okay. There was another one I was thinking of. Mr. Ah Sing: There’s a better one? Chair Furth: There was another one that shows how the lots interlock on this block. Maybe I was looking at another map. Any questions of Mr. Kwan? Vice Chair Baltay: Could you, I’m sorry, I just don’t understand which house is yours. As I’m standing on the street looking at this property, are you to the left or to the right? Mr. Kwan: Looking at this property, we’re on the right-hand side. Chair Furth: It’s in the Staff Report. Alex just pointed out that if we look at the Staff Report, Sheldon did provide us this. Mr. Kwan: So, these three properties, (no mic), yeah, from the corner of Webster and Homer, the first one is 760, the second one is 750, which is my property, and then the next one I think is 734 or 738. Actually, I know the owner of 734 and 738 as well, and we’re, I’m kind of expressing the concern on her behalf as well. Chair Furth: So, you’re… Mr. Ah Sing: Packet page 15 is the location map. Chair Furth: Yes. Mr. Ah Sing: So, at the corner it’s one property removed from that intersection, that’s adjacent to the property. Chair Furth: So, you’re one in from the – the property that you own is one in from the corner? City of Palo Alto Page 6 Mr. Kwan: Correct. So, the corner property, I think is 760, mine is 750, the next one is 734. So, on the privacy map or chart I see pictures of 734, one corner picture. And that’s about it. I don’t see anything of 750. I don’t see anything of 760. So, as such, I’m not sure that enough consideration… Chair Furth: So, this particular parcel that’s under development touches one, two, three, four, five other parcels? Mr. Ah Sing: Yes. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Kwan: Yeah, so I expect that the tall middle unit that’s proposed would have the most impact on 750. So, as I can imagine, that huge stairwell with all the windows would be… Chair Furth: You’re concerned about the stairwell? Mr. Kwan: The stairwell would stare right into my bedrooms. Chair Furth: Okay, and 750 is developed with, what’s on… I did go look at this, but I can’t remember what is on your lot. Mr. Kwan: Ah, just a house unit, building. Chair Furth: A single-family house? Mr. Kwan: It has two units, but it’s essentially just, yeah, one, yeah, you could think of it as one unit. Chair Furth: And when was it built? Mr. Kwan: Oh, I don’t know, but I think there is some historical significance to it too. I just know that back in the old days, (crosstalk). Chair Furth: My colleague just showed me a picture. I’ve got it in my head now. Mr. Kwan: Yeah. Chair Furth: All right. Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Kwan? Thank you very much. Yes. I remember the first initial is T. Shall. Mr. Shall. And if you could spell your name first. Thomas Schall: Yes, I will. My name is Thomas Schall, S-C-H-A-L-L. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Schall: Thank you for hearing my comments today. I appreciate the Architectural Review Board’s time on this. I live next door at 563 Homer Avenue, in a house originally built in 1922. It is on the back of a flagged lot fronted by a duplex, address 559 and 561. Chair Furth: So, just before you – we won’t take this out of your time, but if you could show this to us on the vicinity map. Mr. Schall: This home, this lot will be directly adjacent to the project’s lot. It is just to the, I guess, where is the compass here, so this would be just to the west, towards the foothills. The immediately adjacent lot. Chair Furth: Oh, you’re in the flagged lot. City of Palo Alto Page 7 Mr. Schall: I’m in the flagged lot, that’s correct. Chair Furth: Got it. Mr. Schall: In 563, which is a two-story home built in 1922, and the duplex unit that was probably put there sometime in the 1940’s or 50’s in front. So, all together, the lot comprises three single-family units at 559, 561 and 563. I inhabit 563. I think I can speak on behalf of my neighbors in the front as well. This project, as I said, this project is directly next door. It’s not, our homes are not seen anywhere in these photographs or any of the other depictions. We find the scale to be absurd, ridiculous. One of my neighbors said monstrous, when considering the three stories. I think that we collectively in our small community on that lot at 559, 561 and 563, have three, actually four intense concerns. One is the height, obviously. I know of no other three-story units, residential units in the neighborhood. This just seems to be completely out of scale. The second issue then, leads from the height and the glass nature of the structure, which is our privacy. We certainly think our privacy will be absolutely compromised and we would like to see that addressed very thoroughly in the design. And ultimately, also, our third concern revolves around density on that site. These are three, three-bedroom units. This is not a very large lot. It is a very narrow lot, as is our lot at, where my residence stands. So, the density. We find that there has been, again, a remarkable lack of – we don’t know who is building the project. We would like to be able to comment more openly on the design. I understand this is a preliminary review. And with respect to the obvious talents of the designer and the architect, and I admire the elements of the design, but it is wholly inappropriate for this site, and we the residents and neighbors would like to see that addressed before a final design is ratified Thank you. Chair Furth: Just, I have one question of you. So, this lot is not subdivided, is that right? Your lot? Mr. Schall: My lot? Well, I rent. I’ve lived there for 16 years, so I’m not sure. Chair Furth: You’re entitled. Thank you. Any other questions of Mr. Schall? Seeing none, thank you so much for talking to us. Mr. Schall: Thank you. Chair Furth: Staff, so would you like to say anything further, having heard their comments? Jerrick: With the concern on the Webster Street, properties on the Webster Street, so currently the existing unit has a driveway along the west side of the lot, and we actually relocated the driveway to the address site to provide more privacy for the property that’s facing our lot on Webster Street. So, with the driveway setback, we allowed more space in between the Webster and our property. And as you could see on the elevation facing the Webster Street, the only window that’s facing to that side is the vertical. I think you could refer to the elevation drawing on A1.3. So, right now I am discussing the northeast elevation on the sheet. It’s the very top one. So, the window that’s designed on that elevation is the vertical circulation, and the vertical circulation has a huge, three-story glass panel to allow daylight for the entire floor on that unit. And that’s the, as you can see on the outer units, the windows that are on the room concerning privacy, it’s very minimal, and we tried to reduce many windows as possible facing the Webster properties. Chair Furth: Thank you. Anything else? Any further questions? Board Member Lew: I have a question. Chair Furth: Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: So, I think the ground floors of your units are showing like a front door and a back door, so like one from the side yard and one towards the driveway, and I was wondering which ones, which door were you thinking, which doors were you thinking were the front entrance door? City of Palo Alto Page 8 Jerrick: So, the front unit facing the Homer, the main unit will be the unit that’s next to the living room. That’s facing Homer. And the middle unit, the entrance is on the northeast elevation view, and the rear unit has its own private courtyard in front of the main entrance and it’s located in the center. Board Member Lew: Great. Thank you. Chair Furth: Any other questions before we let the applicant sit down? This is a fairly informal process, so anybody wishes to contribute further to discussions, wave your hand and I’ll get you. But you could sit down for the moment. Jerrick: Thank you. Chair Furth: So, I had a question for Staff or my colleagues, which is, when I was looking at these area calculations, there’s a reference to parcel three and there’s gross area and net area and they’re very different, and I was trying to figure out what that’s about. I just misplaced the sheet. I also think it’s not parcel three. I didn’t know what gross and net area meant in this situation. Mr. Ah Sing: I’m sorry, what sheet are you referring to? Chair Furth: Somebody else can go on while I go find it again. Oh, take a look at sheet A04, Parcel three, gross area 2,663 square feet, net area 1765 square feet. I’m used to that subdivision where you net out the… But what’s this? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so, while many cities do do a net floor area, the City of Palo Alto does not. We use gross floor area. So, that’s… Chair Furth: And is that of the building? It must be, right? Mr. Ah Sing: Yeah, that’s of the… Chair Furth: So, is unit one really 3,000 square feet by our calculations, and unit three 2600 square feet, 2663? I’m confused. Mr. Ah Sing: Maybe the applicant can describe what their program is. Whether this is going to be a rental or are they going to do a subdivision. That might be helpful. Chair Furth: But that wouldn’t have any… What I’m trying to figure out is the, what we think of as the area of the individual units. Ms. Gerhardt: It’s the size of the units, and we can ask the applicant to verify. Chair Furth: Okay, if you could. I’m looking at sheet A04. Ms. Gerhardt: Because we also have some numbers on the cover sheet as well. Chair Furth: Right, and there’s a big difference. Jerrick: So, to direct you with the correct square footage of the units on this project, I would like to show A3.0. So, the floor area calculation, you could refer to the very top part of the list. So, it shows that each level square footage on each unit and the total of all these floors combined comes out to 4,487 square feet. Chair Furth: And then you have additional enclosed space with the garages. Is that right? Jerrick: Correct. City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: That’s another 9,000 square feet, 900, sorry. Oh, sorry. That’s a lot of coverage. But the garage area that you’re showing above, is that internal dimensions, external dimensions? I’ll stop asking these questions in just a minute. Jerrick: So, the garage square foot was not included in the square footage that’s listed above. The above is only showing the living square foot. Chair Furth: Right. Jerrick: And to refer back to your question on the total square foot, we would have to add the garage space on each unit. Chair Furth: Okay. Thank you. Any other questions? Okay. Who would like to begin? Okay, Alex, Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Okay. Thank you for coming in for a preliminary. I think this is a, I think will be a worthwhile hearing. I do like, when I’m looking at the floor plans, I do see like some very really great design elements within the unit plans, so I do want to encourage you to – I just want to thank you for that. But I think on this particular project the challenge for you is going to be complying with our context- based design criteria, which is in the zoning code. And really your building design has to fit in with the neighbors on the block. And so, at the moment I don’t really see how it complies at all. I did want to point out two projects for you that are in the neighborhood that are three stories, and they are contemporary, but they still manage to fit in with the neighbors. So, one is at 557 to 571 Litton, and it’s four units, RM-30 zoning. It’s a 50-foot wide lot. It’s four units but it’s on a deeper lot than yours. And it complies with the daylight plane and it’s fitting in with Victorian neighbors. So, and some mid-century buildings as well. It’s a pretty eclectic street. But, for example, they have like wood siding, design linkage to the neighboring Victorian house. It has a modern shed roof, which is completely different than the Victorian houses, but it’s sort of the same eves and the overhangs, and this kind, and this wood, and so it does – I mean you look at, when I look at a photo I do see some connections to that. It also has like a stone base and low walls that tie into some of the more recent buildings on the street. Board Member Thompson: Alex, could you repeat that address again? Board Member Lew: The address? Board Member Thompson: Yes. Board Member Lew: It’s called Litton Park. It’s 557 to 571 Litton. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Board Member Lew: There’s another project, three-story project, 455 Forest, which is City Lofts, and that’s four units, three stories, contemporary. So, just having like the three-story wall, three-story high straight walls that you have, it’s steps, they’re all stepped, and it’s tiered and so it makes some linkages to the shorter buildings, but it does step up. So, I think that’s the most important thing is to work on the daylight plane and the massing. Also, for site planning, I think that we do need to sort of enhance the entrances, and also like mailboxes and trying to make it like a nice development. Typically, like the mail, the Post Office won’t deliver it to individual, yeah, individual doors. So, we try to encourage you to make something nice and make an entrance element for all three units. I think in all of the other three and four-unit projects that we have on 50-foot wide lots, there is an issue with side yard, with landscaping on the side yards. Like along the side yards, because usually people run out of space on that. That’s been a project – I think that’s been a problem on all of the other projects as well. But they do, they have managed to add in like vines on top of fences and so I am looking for some, we are looking for some landscaping. City of Palo Alto Page 10 Jerrick: Yeah, we will try as much as landscape on the side walls as possible. Board Member Lew: Yeah. You have, you’re showing a shadow study, so thank you for that. Typically, we’ll show in all the neighbors, the neighboring buildings, so you can actually get a sense for the impact of the shadows on the neighbors. So, please add that into your drawings. Jerrick: Okay. Board Member Lew: And then I think one other detail, two other details that I just want to encourage you to pursue is, one is like the heating and ventilation systems. So, we don’t allow them in the setbacks usually for noise, like the air conditioner compressors. So, that typically has to be out of the setback. And then we do have some units, some projects where they put them on the upper floor decks, but then they’re really exposed to the neighbors. So, they do need to be screened some way. So, like I would try to discourage you from having like say, for example, glass railings. You know, that would expose the condensers. Okay. I will pass it on to the other Board Members. Those were my big issues. Chair Furth: David, I think you had comments. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Okay. You know, it’s kind of an interesting project, and thank you for its submission. But it’s kind of ill placed to begin with. I kind of like the side elevation and think of it as almost like a streetscape from the side. But we don’t have that situation here. You have a long, deep, narrow lot, so my concerns are that in your planning of the whole project, it’s really, you’ve really – it’s not consistent and it, to me, isn’t logical. It’s on a tight site designed for three separate condominiums. To have extremely tall floor heights, extravagant two-story spaces, wasted potential floor space above garages and hidden courts. When it’s a right site, you really have to make the most use out of all of the square footage available to you. And you’re not doing it. But the remedy above garages and hidden courts, to use that space. And I think that the City should enforce the daylight plane restrictions and limit the height to two stories, or minimize the third story in response to issues of neighboring privacy, which have been discussed, and transitions in relation to the neighboring setting and context. Expressing the exterior stair towers with a wall of glass overwhelmingly dominant element facing neighboring properties, and especially unacceptable design choice, even if the entire structure is reduced to two stories, still unacceptable. With the dwellings on a fairly narrow, but deep site, it becomes critical to take special care to describe the landscaping, including paved areas, plantings, including existing trees. Although it’s noted that the trees were not, in the planning study were not significant in any way, I think that there’s an opportunity to save some of the trees. You haven’t either shown us photographs of the landscape that’s there and whether or not there is anything that could be kept in the front. You need to show us the car parking in more detail. Fencing, as mentioned. Privacy areas, you’ve left areas completely gridded with no indication of any plantings and how they’re going to be used, or with your recessed courts, how they work with that. You’ve left us no indication of how the garbage is going to be stored, where it’s going to be stored, collected, etc. The textures and materials list that you really need to show us some indication of how you intend to treat those spaces. The lighting, there’s nothing about that. We understand it’s very preliminary, but you have to have some thought about how the project is going to be landscaped, just beginning a project. These are especially important here, because the pedestrian access in this type of project, it’s the same as the vehicular access, so the residents of the rear units walk through the parking traffic areas. I think for us it’s going to be very critical knowing some of the previous questions that have been asked on other projects. We’re going to want to see all of that landscaping in your final, but an indication of how you’re going to do that in the preliminary would have been useful to us. So, if you want to look at the projects that are very nearby that are worthy to look at in different styles, even if you keep a more modernist style, visit 649 and 637 Homer, just a block away. They’re really very well-done projects. And I’m not saying copy the style or the, you know – I’m saying look at how they’re done, because the proportions are good, the materials are really rather wonderful, and they are two very differently styled projects. Also, take not of how those particular projects enhanced the Homer Street façade. Again, they do a very good job on the front unit of making that, even thought it’s a deep three-story dwelling unit, of making it look like it belongs on the street face, along with other quality projects in the neighborhood. And it would be exactly of that quality. I think that’s all I have. City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: Thank you David. Board Member Thompson. Board Member Thompson: Thank you. Thank you for your submission. Normally I don’t like to comment on clerical errors, but the drawings did have a few in there that made it a little difficult to review. I think especially printing black and white, this is a little hard to differentiate what was wood, what wasn’t wood, what was maybe another material. So, in your resubmission, I would definitely encourage color and materials board, a physical one, and then detail your elevations a bit more to give us a better idea of exactly what’s happening with the design. Aesthetically, in terms of the design, there’s a lot of, it’s kind of an interesting choice, the choices that you guys made to slope the stair rails, but not to slope any of the other roof elements. A lot of the neighboring structures have a lot of slopes, and you know, I was kind of looking up the precedence that both Board Members Lew and Hirsch called out and all of those precedence kind of have this element of sloping in their silhouette and in their sort of façade. And so, I would kind of recommend having I would say an attitude on the slopes. I don’t know that just sloping the stair rail on its own is adequate for the neighborhood. And the other element in the neighborhood, which is also a quality of the style, is the small-scale detail that is prevalent everywhere. And, yes, this is a really schematic design and so I can understand that small-scale detail hasn’t really come in, but oftentimes it doesn’t. Oftentimes, you know, this style, the modern style stays pretty big scale in terms of the muse. And so, I think there’s opportunities, if you want to stay with this style to kind of integrate a smaller scale element and maybe that’s in some of the material choices you have. Even in this rendering, it’s, I think you have some pop outs that look like they’re sided in wood, but in the rendering, it still looks kind of like one sheet versus like a bunch of small lines. So, when you guys come back, I would say in your presentation, definitely highlight where you want to have small scale elements in your structure, just so that we know how you’re trying to relate to the context The first sheet where you were kind of showing all of the adjacent structures, that was really helpful. And that would also kind of be a nice way to tell your story. With the privacy impact on the stairwells, in terms of design intent, there could be a way to accomplish, you know, a really bright circulation space. Maybe it’s a skylight that could help mitigate some of these privacy issues that the neighbors are having, but still keep the feel that maybe you’re looking for in that area. I agree with Board Member Lew that your shadow study should have the neighbors in the surrounding context in there. And then, I did like that in some places you’re expressing the slab. It does break down the scale of it. I wasn’t exactly quite sure what material that is that’s kind of expressing that floor slab. I guess that’s kind of related to my previous comment that when you have your elevation, maybe like call out what each of these materials are. And then, also, if there’s like dimension to it. Like, is that slab sticking out, is it, you know, kind of inset or something, just to get a better idea. Okay. I’ll just leave my comments there for now. Chair Furth: Thank you. Vice Chair Baltay Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you for bringing this application to us. I understand how challenging it can be to meet all of the requirements and the neighbors’ concerns and City Staff. Nonetheless, I’m afraid I agree completely with my colleagues that this has a long way to go. I’m afraid you really just, it’s just not ready yet. The neighbors’ concerns about privacy and massing are well founded. Alex’s and Osma’s and everybody’s comments are good. I’d like to offer you some, I guess advice. I put these drawing sets together all the time, and there’s a lot of stuff just lacking on the plans. It does seem that you perhaps made a checklist of some kind, but I’d like to advise you to take control of your design team first of all. Who is the designer? Who is the surveyor, the landscaper? Who is the owner? That information needs to be out here, and you should be in charge of how it’s all presented. It’s very haphazard right now. Your drawings need to have a correct scale that’s consistent. It’s usually a quarter inch or eighth inch per foot. These are basic things, but it makes it very tough to review, and I suspect it makes it hard for you within your team to communicate as well. You need to show the orientation of things, north arrows. You need to really have some color renderings and images so we can understand, and the neighborhood and the community can understand what the finishes are. Color printing is really not a big deal these days. You also need to pare down a little bit. You have floor plans and project elevations shown twice basically. One set just for the buildings and one for the whole thing. They’re all at the same scale. They’re showing the same information. It results in an overabundance of irrelevant information. You also need less technical information. We really just don’t need to see the sewer line and water line, how it’s being put together. I City of Palo Alto Page 12 say that because that’s what I mean by take control of your design team. Focus on what’s important now. Don’t spend money on engineering details that can be and will be worked out, but aren’t necessary now. Distract our attention, but also more importantly, yours. You really need to show the context everywhere. Every drawing should be showing the neighbors, the trees, the views from the neighbors. It’s really important. Shadow studies without neighboring buildings are meaningless. The whole purpose is to show the impact on the community. You need to show many more 3-D images. What would this look like from the street. Again, with the computer technology available to us, it’s a fairly easy thing to do, and it’s critically important. Just take charge of the process. Insist that your designers show you that kind of information. You’ll find it informs your own decision making, as well as being able to make it something we can understand. And then lastly, you really need accurate area calculations. I know this is preliminary, but I found myself so skeptical that I actually went into one of these plans, and I’ll give you this sheet later where I measured very carefully, figured out the scale and found you to be about 20 percent off, under measuring the space of some of these rooms. The Staff will carefully check all of that. There’s no chance it will fly. But you do yourself a big favor by measuring carefully now. What happens is that the whole building, because you’re on such a tight square footage count, you just can’t easily shave 100 square feet here and there. It just doesn’t work. I promise you, having designed many buildings like this, that the area is just the first thing you’ve got to be thinking about, and it has to be measured accurately. So, that said about your presentation and design package, I’m going to talk next about the circulation on your site, because it just doesn’t work. I’m looking at drawing A04, and you really don’t have a place for cars to turn around on the property to get back out again, which would result in people backing out onto Homer Avenue, which is just not acceptable. It takes generally about 25 feet of width at the minimum. And just try it for yourself. Go to an alley and see what it takes to do that, because you’re going to be trying to sell these units or attract tenants to these units, and when the parking is so tight that everybody’s denting their car, you’re not doing yourself any favors. The same thing applies to actually getting into these garages. You have to be an excellent driver to even begin to consider it the way this is done. It’s such sharp corners, such tight turns. Having been through the process in Palo Alto, it’s not going to fly. You will be forced to address these things, and it is so painfully difficult to shift these things around on a tight project like this. You need to get it all straight. For what it’s worth, there is a Public Works requirement that the apron of the driveway be five feet from the property line, however, that’s so restrictive on narrow lots like this, that we have historically found that to be grounds for a variance, and you can put the driveway closer to the property line. In this case, that just makes a lot of help that you can get a little more room to do a turnaround. So, consider that. That is possible to ask for a variance on that. And you will need some landscaping buffer along the sides of your property, where the fences are. You can’t have the driveway right to the fence. You need some landscaping buffer and that takes at least a foot or two of earth to make that work. I’d like to make, excuse me, there’s a lot of pages here to flip through. I think your massing of your building really is just too tall for the neighbors in the context, and I think you’ve chosen finishes that accentuate rather than diminish that. The white plaster is both obnoxiously reflective to the neighbors, but it just enhances the appearance of the mass. Choosing to have ten-foot plate heights, which is above average for a residential, for small residential units, is something you may well feel you need to do to make up for small spaces, but it has to be done with incredible skill and delicacy. What you’ve done here is just stack 30 feet of height next to existing one-story houses. That just isn’t appropriate. You have to meet basic egress requirements. Things like that with your windows, and I’m sure you’ll get to that as you go through with more detail, but if your designer’s not thinking about it now, it results in very different proportions on windows, which changes the look, which is what we’re after here. So, it’s actually really important to think about that kind of stuff. The fully glazed stair tower is an attractive element if this is in a field a quarter of a mile from anyone, but consider the privacy impact on your neighbors. And it’s not just whether somebody is reading a book on the stair tower, looking into their yard, because they’re not, but the neighbors’ perception of privacy. Having essentially 20 or 30 feet of glass brightly lit at night leaves them feeling violated, even if there’s nobody there. It’s just too much. It’s too insensitive. It’s too inappropriate to have such a large amount of glass that’s six feet from a property line, eight to ten feet from a neighbor’s house. It’s really too much of an impact on privacy and Palo Alto has very strict requirements about privacy impacts. You’re not even allowed to have second floor decks really that look into neighbor’s yards. And you’re proposing much more than that. I’d like to echo some of David’s comments about the floor plans. They really just don’t quite make sense. You have incredibly small bedrooms, less than the code requirement of seven feet as City of Palo Alto Page 13 far as I can tell, in places. And you have to consider who’s going to be living here. You will have a very difficult time renting or selling or even using these rooms with seven-foot wide bedrooms. That’s just not possible. It is the code minimum, and you’re not even at that. At the same time, you have a number of spaces that are just extra space at the end of a staircase or something. Another ten square feet just hanging out there, and as David pointed out, especially on extremely tight buildings, you have to be very efficient with your design. So, while the individual details of a floor plan aren’t really our purview, we do have to find that the building is functional, and I certainly could not find that this floor plan is functional. In almost every step, it’s just pieces, parts of it that don’t make sense. My last comments were going to be about the landscaping, and at the start you need to be more clear which trees you do and don’t have to work with. So, it’s a live oak up at the front, not a redwood. And while Japanese maples are beautiful trees, I’m not entirely sure they’re really going to do the trick. You’re basically putting in four Japanese maples and calling it a landscaping scheme. And it seems to be you need to really be focused on both creating a cohesive street appearance, but also really using your landscaping to ensure more privacy for the neighbors. And I think lastly, you really need to focus that you have indigenous plants. That’s one of our requirements, and I don’t think Japanese maples meet that. But you just have to take seriously our request that you create a planting scheme that’s native plants that are drought tolerant. So, I really appreciate your effort and look forward to seeing what you guys come up with, and if Staff would allow me, I’ll just give you this package of drawings which I redlined for you. I’d really like to see you take these comments to heart. Thank you very much. Jerrick: Thank you. Chair Furth: Please sit down, but I have comments too. First of all, thank you very much for coming to us with your preliminary plan and thank you for coming to us with a project for this particular light, lot rather. I think it – it’s a cross between lot and site. I think it’s particularly due for redevelopment and I think there’s ample evidence that in this City you can build three units on a lot like this in a way that provides good living spaces for the people who move into this site, and also enhance what’s around them. And that’s the requirement. We have to find that your project will essentially be a good place for people to live and that it will enhance life for the people around. And on a long, narrow lot with many frontages, that’s not easy, but it’s certainly possible. I wanted to talk a little bit about context, because we have to find that you’re appropriate in this context, and you’re in a very complicated context. You have Channing House, which is huge. You have really a quite beautiful street with very healthy live oaks and other big trees going all the way up to City Hall, essentially. Actually, even beyond that. City Hall kind of destroys the wooded look when you get there, unfortunately. You have a bigger mix of building types than I realized until I went to look at your project. Much of what appears to be single family isn’t. You have these really deep lots with more units in the back, so that’s part of the pattern. I think that when Channing House built the Lee Medical Center, they really improved the link of Channing House to the rest of the street by building that structure that’s a little over two feet, two stories, but essentially presents as two stories using really beautiful materials and beautiful detailing, and it’s soft. Much softer than Channing House itself. It’s got deep plaster elements. It’s got a number of soft shades. I don’t think they every used white. So, I’m not saying that your project should be like that, but that’s an example of beginning to build things that make more sense with the other residences around. I did find your packet confusing, even for a preliminary review, and I do urge you to work closely with Staff about what makes it possible for us to understand your project well enough to give you meaningful comment and, we hope, approve it. Having talked about context, which I think is basically heavy landscaping, greenery is the dominant thing, as you go down that street, subtle design. Buildings are pretty recessive there. They’re not particularly in your face. And generally, privacy, because of the lands - because of the scale of the houses and the density of the landscaping, those are the three aspects of your project that I think I would like to see significant improvement on. In terms of massing, these buildings, these units, I mean they’re 1500 square foot units. That’s not excessive. That’s a reasonable size for a residential unit. But you’ve made these look bigger than that, and I don’t think that’s ever going to work on this site. They need to look as small as possible for what they are. They need to be modest and unassuming and quietly elegant. That’s going to work better in this site. In terms of privacy, we need to understand how every window works with respect to all the adjacent property owners. Not so much on the ground floor, of course, but… For two reasons. One is, they overlook other people. Sometimes fretted glass helps that City of Palo Alto Page 14 problem, sometimes it doesn’t. And you also need to think about light. We really don’t want to be illuminating the neighbors’ yards. And I would say that this big illuminated tower wouldn’t work 40 feet back from the property line. It just isn’t – if I, I live in a very small, I live in a 1400 square foot house on a very small lot that was built in infill in downtown north, but it’s designed so that we all have perfect residential privacy. None of our windows look into anybody else’s windows. Our side yards are private. You have a tougher assignment here, because we have a back alley that solves all our problems. But that’s the goal, so that people have private or reasonably private usable spaces, both indoors and outdoors on your side and next door. And landscaping needs to be a much bigger part of this project. I don’t know whether you’re going to grow vines up trellises on the building walls. I don’t know if you’re going to put trellises over the parking access. But in order to get the level of landscaping that this project needs in order to be approved, you’re going to need a lot more green mass than just a few low-lying things will do. When you have tall buildings, you need tall landscaping. And if the building becomes shorter, it doesn’t have to be quite so high, but it needs to be proportional. If you’re toing to have a third story on part of this building, then I need to see two story landscaping before it’s going to seem adequate to me. So, do you have any other questions of us, or does anybody else have any comments before we wind this up? Seeing none. Okay, we look forward to seeing you when you come back with this project. Thank you. Oh, and if the next project set is small scale, that would be more useful for us, though you’ll have to work with Staff to make sure that the, what you elect to put on each page is sufficiently small, so that we can actually read the plans. All right, we’ll take a two-minute break and then we’ll go on to the rest of our agenda. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2019 Ms. Gerhardt: Actually, I don’t believe that everyone got a chance to review the minutes, so we’ll move that forward to the next agenda. Chair Furth: Thank you. Yes, those are the Minutes of April 4, which we’ll review at our next meeting. And no more changes in vacation schedules or agendas? 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2019. [The Board moved to Official City Reports] Subcommittee Items Chair Furth: If we can come back into session. Alex, oh, we have no subcommittee items, correct? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Furth: We hardly have any items at all these days. Ms. Gerhardt: Ah, well… Chair Furth: Could you comment on that? Is there a backlog back there, or, what’s happening? We were so busy. Ms. Gerhardt: Well, I hardly have any Staff, number one Chair Furth: Okay. City of Palo Alto Page 15 Ms. Gerhardt: I’m down to three permanent Staff out of five, so we’re looking to hire, but then, you know, HR is busy as well. You know, I do have some extra consultant help here and there, but that’s part of it. But then part of it is just not as many large projects. So, that’s the other half. Chair Furth: All right, thank you. Well, we’re sorry you’re without Staff. That’s not good for anybody, particularly applicants and the community. Okay. 5. North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (HVCAP) – Board Member Lew. Chair Furth: North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Report Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: There’s nothing new to report. The next meeting is Wednesday, May 22nd, which is next week at 6:00, here in City Hall. Chair Furth: Okay And last time you reported a big website to us, right? Board Member Lew: Yes. 6. Architectural Review Board Annual Report to Council: Review Draft Letter. Chair Furth: Well, unfortunately, I cannot provide you with a draft of our Annual Report to Council because my life is more chaotic than I had hoped. But I did want to go over, and part of it is, it’s difficult to draft a document when you sit on a board and your drafts aren’t private, and I don’t like my intermediate thoughts wandering out there. So, and also, we don’t have the minutes of, we just got the minutes of April 4th, which was the last time we discussed this, so I couldn’t go back and read the minutes. Having said that, I wanted to at least go through the topics we were talking about, and the assignments we had. So, Alex, you were writing about, remind me. Board Member Lew: I don’t have the, I didn’t bring the list with me. (crosstalk) So, one of the topics that you wanted me to work on was the curb management, and so I have a couple of bullet points about what’s happening in like San Francisco and Mountain View with regard to Uber and Lyft and buses. And I think there’s a name now for those, the Transportation Network. Chair Furth: Yeah. I mean, I noticed, I was at Auerbach in Berkley, and clearly, they have reconfigured Bancroft to deal with the fact that a very large number of people arrive there and depart there, so there’s all these people leaning out with their phones, fairly comical. Okay, so curb management. Just a second while I find your document, somewhere closer than my desk. Ms. Gerhardt: I’m just reading through the April 4th minutes, scanning through them, and it looks like parking standards was a question. Chair Furth: Well, there was the issue of parking with respect to… Ms. Gerhardt: Or surface lots? Chair Furth: A couple of things surfaced, so to speak. One was parking standards for the shopping centers, in light of the changing nature of retail. Yes. Board Member Thompson: I don’t think I brought this up last time, but could I rate a little section on the state of aesthetic elements involved and like the state of architecture as it stands today in terms of similarities and stuff that we’ve seen massing wise. You know, kind of aesthetic elements that a lot of applicants are implementing, and how they relate to Palo Alto’s aesthetic? Chair Furth: Sure, please do. One of the things that Jodie pointed out were most, all these things are worth raising. We’re most helpful when we can suggest code changes or standard changes. I know the City of Palo Alto Page 16 section I’m writing on mobility, by which I mean pedestrian mobility, and you know, that’s street furniture and you know, what it takes to make an area really accessible for people who need to sit down from time to time. That’s the sidewalk, like the curb, is a very contested space. There’s trees. There’s endless, what used to be called manhole covers. There’s vaults. There’s Telecom facilities. And there’s parking, you know, for cars, there’s parking for bicycles, there’s doors swinging open. And so, if we just ask, as we did with respect to the redo of the Mill’s Building for parking somewhere, sorry, benches somewhere, seating somewhere on the sidewalk, the answer is going to come back, no, it’s really busy. But if we have another standard for people to contend with that says, you need X feet in a block or something like that, then it becomes something that we have to figure out how to do, rather than something that’s just too complicated to do. It’s similar to what happened – you know, we saw for years, we saw the plans for Charleston Arastradero, which is a big reconfiguration of the street, the sidewalks, the medians with lots and lots of trees. When it came back to us for implementation, more than half the trees, as I recall, were found to be impossible because of utility conflicts. So, we need to figure out another way of doing these things. So, I was going to write about, I was going to write about trees in two contexts. One was, we have, I was going to try to tie this stuff to the General Plan. And there’s an initiative to have more trees, and one of the things that we’ve been noticing, two things about trees we’ve been noticing is that when you get underground parking that goes all the way to the edge of the property, you reduce your chance for significant trees. And another one is that when you start having two- and three-story buildings where you used to have one story buildings, you really pull the canopy in. It’s really visible on Litton, for example. You used to have spreading trees, and now you have straight up trees. But, yeah, so write about it and tie it to it if you can. Alex, I’m still looking for your document. Did you find it? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. I think it might, in terms of like codes and standards…I don’t know, I think it might help with the context-based criteria and also just design neighborhood design guidelines. Just given that, I guess, context is starting to change and it would – I don’t know. It sounds like it might be worthwhile just to highlight the stuff that we think is worthwhile, and then also just highlight the big aesthetic moves that some applicants are implementing that are less successful. And then also, a lot of applicants sometimes kind of ignore the small-scale stuff, and that’s a comment that comes up, so yeah. Chair Furth: Okay. So, I found Alex’s document. One of the sections that Alex was going to write about was the loss of spaces for small business surfaces, and he cited Berkley’s report that retail is stagnant downtown, restaurants are up in downtown, personal services are down in downtown, but up in outer areas. San Francisco zoning now requires new large, approximately 10,000 square foot ground floor commercial floors, to carve street-facing spaces for smaller tenants. And I will say that some of the more heartrending testimony we’ve had is from small businesses being displaced. So, Alex, are you willing to do small business displacement? Or do you just want to take what you gave me and weave it into something? Board Member Lew: Yeah, I don’t have any other ideas about that, besides those two. I think there should be more than that. And I wasn’t actually proposing this to go to the Council at this time. I think the Council is interested in it, and I think I forwarded the San Francisco zoning item to Staff. Chair Furth: Well, I’m in favor of including reference to the issue, that this is what we’ve seen. Board Member Lew: And I will keep it brief. How’s that? Chair Furth: That’s always your approach, right? Got it. Ms. Gerhardt: So, I wanted to note as well, I was speaking with Amy French the other day about, you know, past Boards and how this was run. She did bring to light that the ARB previously had guidelines, and so these could be, you know, guidelines of how, what needs to be in a project in order for the ARB to make the findings. So, that’s another possible way, besides just codifying it into the Municipal Code. Of course, if it’s in the Code, you know, it’s… Chair Furth: A big process. City of Palo Alto Page 17 Ms. Gerhardt: It’s a big process. I mean, it’s easier to implement sometimes, but you know, sometimes guidelines can be good as well if there’s, you know, if a project can’t meet all guidelines, you know the ARB could still weight that. Chair Furth: If you could track down any copies of those, those would be interesting to see. Well, I mean, we use the Downtown Guidelines all the time. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. I think she was speaking mostly to El Camino in the way that the El Camino signage, that we do reduce signage on El Camino. That was one item that she brought up. Chair Furth: Okay. So, that was one topic. One was an issue of tree loss when the reduction of landscaping in CS and other districts when underground parking replaces surface parking lots, because where once parking lots were asphalt seas and then became landscaped asphalt seas, and now we’re losing those trees. Board Member Lew: I think we decided to put that on the back burner the last time we discussed this. Chair Furth: I don’t see that in the notes, but okay. Vice Chair Baltay: It sore of pares out of your comment about trees in general, that perhaps some guidelines, but really just to observe to Council that big buildings and a lot of underground parking results in a loss of trees. Chair Furth: I think it’s worth talking about that the sort of perhaps unforeseen impacts of these things. If they’re wrong, we should take them out. Then there was the question of just a note that the monitoring of TDM plans is important as we increasingly rely on them, which, of course, is a budget issue. And then there was some question about whether required parking is being made available for the required parking uses, but I think – Jodie, would you say that’s generally a code enforcement issue? You’ve got adequate regulations to deal with that? I mean, I was noticing, I was looking at a surface parking lot, and it was, every space was marked, you know, only for this business, only for that business. I doubt that that’s what the code required. I don’t think the code said you could reserve particular spaces for particular uses. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, the code doesn’t actually speak to that sort of thing, and you know, in the plans that you see were not to marking parking spaces. I mean, I suppose if we dropped it down to that level, you know, if it’s sort of a strip mall with a couple different businesses, we can calculate, you know, this retail business needs five spaces and this one needs three. But usually it ends up being like 1 ½ and 2.3, so it’s... Chair Furth: I wasn’t arguing that you should. I was saying that the result of this is that there are spaces that sit empty, because people honor and they go park, you know… It reduces the availability of parking on the other hand (crosstalk) Ms. Gerhardt: I don’t think we have clear language one way or the other. Chair Furth: All right, we won’t necessarily think about that. Curb management, I’ve got Alex’s notes, but you’ll do more, Alex, or not, or do you think you’re done? Board Member Lew: Well, it depends on how long a letter you want to make. I’m sort of worried that there are so many topics, that this thing could easily ramble on to be like a ten-page report and really it shouldn’t be. Chair Furth: Well, I think it needs to be short, but I think you can also reference attachments if we think that’s useful. I agree it needs to be short. Its issue identifying, I think more than problem solving. And then the other issues, I’ll see how it looks and you can cut it. Let me get Peter’s notes. I agree that City of Palo Alto Page 18 people may not read something if it’s long, but it’s not inherently a bad thing, if it has narrative rhythm, right? So, I think it would be good to put in something about parking center standards, and I think Peter suggested also that we comment on the fact that the new ARB findings have been helpful. Vice Chair Baltay: Yes, I think that’s exactly the kind of feedback a letter to Council should be. They changed the findings, how is it working out for us? It can be a one sentence thing, but just give them some feedback. Chair Furth: Well, I think I’ve got what I need now that I’ve found it again. Osma, I look forward to getting something from you by email? Board Member Thompson: Yeah. When do you need that by? Chair Furth: Preferably next week sometime. Board Member Thompson: Okay. Chair Furth: David, are you good with what we’ve got? Anything you want to add? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Sort of a general concern, a general concern that there are some large projects coming up. We don’t seem to be part of the picture, really. Alex goes to meetings, but we don’t really get the material at all. The two largest ones, of course, are the Ventura and the Cubberly projects. They’re going to have tremendous impact on each of those neighborhoods, and I was sort of thinking when I came on the Board that having already kind of looked into those areas, that we might deal with the issues that would come, likely come up that might affect us as comments, commenters. But we would have to be a part of those projects in some integral way that we might have a private meeting, whatever they call that session when you get together and it’s not official. Chair Furth: Study session? Board Member Hirsch: Study session. Chair Furth: It’s public. Board Member Hirsch: …where we as architects, urbanists here, whatever we call ourselves, have some impact on those projects as they move forward. You know, there is a presentation that was made, the Cubberly presentation was finally made and my opinion is that it’s very lacking in its final conclusions, certainly in regards to planning and, of course, there’s the Planning Department, but shouldn’t we be involved in some way in the whole process of major developments like that. Chair Furth: Staff? Ms. Gerhardt: I think, I mean, the ARB would certainly be involved, you know, in the individual buildings. I think even the plans before they go forward would come to the ARB, but you know, it might be at that sort of that half-way to three-quarters point through the project. So, I can talk to Staff. I mean, these are not projects that I’m intimately familiar with, so I can go back and ask others that are and see what the plans were for that. They’ll definitely come through you and I think I hear you saying that you would like to see them sooner rather than later. Board Member Hirsch: Absolutely, sooner and to look at the conclusions and even make commentary on the side that, I don’t know how we determine that commentary. Chair Furth: Well, I think it is, I do think there’s a lot of talent on the Board and I do think there’s a lot of history of thinking about the City, and the ARB could be useful. I actually think, I mean, we have Alex as a representative to keep us posted, but, and we have a website, but I think it would be good to have a City of Palo Alto Page 19 stud session on Ventura so we understand early what, where it’s going. I mean, I think people don’t always want our comments, but I think they can be useful, and I think you often see things that are useful. You know, your experience with design lets you make comments that are, that make things better without making anything worse. So, what – and at least it would be good to have a report on what the Cubberly process is. I mean, Cubberly is a publicly-owned site and it would be unfortunate if we got it, you know, when the Master Plan had already been adopted and we said, oh my gosh, why did you put that building here, when obviously this is not the site for that. So, if we could have – that’s our request. Think about it and let us know. I mean, I will at least second David’s request. Board Member Hirsch: If we’re going to go on from that, or Peter you want to talk about that issue, fine. Because I have another one. Chair Hirsch: What’s your other one, David? Board Member Hirsch: The other one? Chair Hirsch: Yes. Board Member Hirsch: Peter was commenting. Vice Chair Baltay: Could I finish? Chair Furth: Sure, go ahead. Vice Chair Baltay: I wanted to comment that it seems to me that Alex is our representative on the North Ventura Plan process, which you’re very interested in, David. And you can, of course, go to those meetings but… Board Member Hirsch: I did. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex is a member of that Board to put commentary and stuff, but it seems to me that Alex is there because of his role on the ARB. Chair Furth: Right. Vice Chair Baltay: And it’s reasonable to say, Alex should be coming back to the Board reporting, which he is, and he should be taking feedback from the Board back to that public body. So, we do have a role in that process. I think we just haven’t done very much with it, but maybe Alex can correct me if my thinking isn’t right, but that’s how I see the situation. Alex? Board Member Lew: Yeah, so this is new for the Board. I think in the past we haven’t had representatives on other projects. But we have commented on other Master Plans, so I’m thinking of, there was Mitchell Park Master Plan that didn’t, I think in the end I’m not sure that one went anywhere. There was the Rinconada Park Master Plan and we did comment on that, and changes were made based on that. So, I don’t think there’s any reason why something couldn’t come to the Board. And then with regard to the North Ventura Plan though, is that I think, I’ve looked through the schedule of meeting the Planning Director has put out, and there is no plan to come to the ARB at the moment. So, if you want it to come, then I think you should ask for it. It’s on a very right timeline and they’ve factored in a lot of meetings with the Council and the Planning Commission, but not the ARB. Vice Chair Baltay: I was just saying, Alex, that it doesn’t need to come to the ARB as a body, but rather through you as a representative. If we discuss it at a meeting when you report to us and take feedback. Board Member Lew: Well, that was the Council’s idea. City of Palo Alto Page 20 Vice Chair Baltay: I think we are taking part (crosstalk) Chair Furth: But, in fact, we aren’t, or at least I’m not. Alex says they had a meeting or they didn’t have a meeting. So, he tells us about the process and he refers us to the website, which I have not studied. And I think if it were on, I mean, I don’t know what state it’s in. I mean, are there drawings, are there plans, are there maps, are there principals. All these things I could learn. But if it’s just a report on them and it’s not scheduled for more extensive, you know, if there’s not something, some short Staff Report that at least says, go look at this, then I don’t think we are as a body doing this. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I’m assuming that’s because there is nothing of substance to bring back to the Board yet, from Alex. Board Member Lew: They’re just, they just started developing the two alternatives. But it’s going to move very fast over the summer. But there’s nothing to present to the Board at this time. Chair Furth: Okay. Board Member Lew: I mean, they’re collecting information on the context. Chair Furth: So, maybe the thing to do, but I’m not going to be here probably, so I will leave it to you all, but I will be here in July. It seems to me it would be useful to have it as an agenda item a little more formally, at least in our own heads, that we’ll commit to see what’s out there so that we can, if we have anything we want to get back, we will channel it through Alex? Vice Chair Baltay: I would expect Alex to bring to the Board when he thinks it’s appropriate some process or progress or some kind of commentary, if Board Members are interested and Alex thinks there’s something of substance there, yes absolutely. Board Member Hirsch: The other issue is the wireless issues, you know, with the Board. The Council came to a final decision Jodie forwarded. Actually, Jodie you forwarded it to everybody? Chair Furth: Yes, she did. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, okay. So, you note that we were kind of left out of the final part of that, Peter. We didn’t… Chair Furth: I don’t think the final part of that has happened yet. I think that the (crosstalk) Vice Chair Baltay: David, on that account I think the issues was clearly that the ARB’s opinion was clearly heard by the Council, and the Council made a decision what they wanted to do. So, our commenting on it further, I think, is redundant. Chair Furth: And Peter, you were there, right? Vice Chair Baltay: David and I were both at that particular meeting. Chair Furth: I think that one’s perhaps done for the moment. Board Member Hirsch: Planning was supposed to go back and reexamine the standards, and they were to do that in about a year’s time. I personally am still unclear as to what the planning’s standards really are. Peter, are you satisfied? Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I won’t say I’m satisfied with the decision, but I think the Board, the Council made a clear decision. One of the decisions, one part of it was to not include the ARB in the review process. And based on the wisdom of the Council, that’s what they decided. City of Palo Alto Page 21 Chair Furth: And I realize we’re, actually what we’re supposed to be discussing here is our report, and we’re probably getting (crosstalk). It’s good to raise the issue, but we shouldn’t (crosstalk). Vice Chair Baltay: That’s why I think it doesn’t belong in our report. Chair Furth: Yeah. And I’m happy to talk with you about it later. And with respect to Cubberly, Jodie, if you could find out what the state of play is, you know, sometimes going to look at two hours of tape or something isn’t a very efficient way to learn. So, with that I will put together a draft. I will hear from Osma and you can rip it to shreds next time. Alex, anything more? Okay, Staff, Jodie, thank you. We’re done. Adjournment