Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-03-18 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: March 18, 2021 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 986 3046 7682 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 Pursuant to the provisions of California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, issued on March 17, 2020, to prevent the spread of Covid-19, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. The meeting will be broadcast live on Cable TV and through Channel 26 of the Midpen Media Center at bit.ly/MidPenwatchnow. Members of the public may comment by sending an email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org or by attending the Zoom virtual meeting to give live comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of this agenda. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Action Items Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4260 El Camino Real [19PLN-00142]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Façade Renovation to an Existing Structure. Scope of Work Includes Removing Existing Wood Siding and Replacing it With new Stucco and Metal Siding, new Paint and Metal Cable Railing Along all Stairways. Environmental Assessment: Exempt. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org. 3. Public Hearing: Recommendation on Objective Design Standards Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 18, 2021 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2021 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates – Boardmember Lew Adjournment At Place Memo _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Osma Thompson Vice Chair Grace Lee Boardmember Peter Baltay Boardmember David Hirsch Boardmember Alex Lew Get Informed and Be Engaged! View online: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/ or on Channel 26. Public comment is encouraged. Email the ARB at: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Material related to an item on this agenda submitted to the ARB after distribution of the agenda packet is available for public inspection at bit.ly/paloaltoARB. Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329-2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Public Comment Instructions Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below for the appropriate meeting to access a Zoom-based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. A. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in-browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up-to-date browser: Chrome 30+, Firefox 27+, Microsoft Edge 12+, Safari 7+. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. B. You will be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. C. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raise hand”. The moderator will activate and unmute attendees in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. The Zoom application will prompt you to unmute your microphone when it is your turn to speak. D. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. E. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Council, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow instructions B-E above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 986 3046 7682 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12096) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 3/18/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: City Official Report Title: Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. Background The attached documents are provided for informational purposes. The Board may review and comment as it deems appropriate. If individual Boardmembers anticipate being absent from a future meeting, it is requested that be brought to staff’s attention when considering this item. The first attachment provides a meeting and attendance schedule for the current calendar year. Also included are the subcommittee assignments, which are assigned by the ARB Chair. The second attachment is a Tentative Future Agenda that provides a summary of upcoming projects or discussion items. The hearing dates for these items are subject to change. Board level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAapprovedprojects. Administrative staff-level Architectural Review approvals can be found on the City’s webpage at http://bit.ly/PAstaffapprovals. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments: x Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) x Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 6 Architectural Review Board 2021 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2021 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/7/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Regular 1/21/2021 8:30 AM Cancelled Regular 2/4/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 2/18/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 3/4/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 3/18/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 4/1/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 4/15/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 5/6/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 5/20/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 6/3/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 6/17/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 7/1/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 7/15/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 8/5/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 8/19/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 9/2/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 9/16/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 10/7/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 10/21/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 11/4/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 11/18/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 12/2/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 12/16/2021 8:30 AM TBD Regular 2021 Subcommittee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June 3/4 – Lee/Hirsch July August September October November December 1.a Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2021 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics April 1, 2021 x 486 Hamilton: Mixed Use with Four Units (2nd Formal) x 300 Pasteur: Stanford University Medical Center Nursing Pod Expansion (Preliminary) x 2850 W Bayshore: Residentila Townhome Development (Preliminary) 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 11934) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/18/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 4260 El Camino Real: Facade Renovation (2nd Formal) Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 4260 El Camino Real [19PLN-00142]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Architectural Review to Allow for Façade Renovation to an Existing Structure. Scope of Work Includes Removing Existing Wood Siding and Replacing it With new Stucco and Metal Siding, new Paint and Metal Cable Railing Along all Stairways. Environmental Assessment: Exempt. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes extensive background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online: [https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/77486]. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and describe the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and was modified to reflect recent project changes. Background 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 On July 2, 2020, the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-722020/. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s responses are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Clarification and consistency throughout the plan set regarding stair railing material. Delete unused details and images. Railing will be the NOVA II railing system. See plan page A2.0, A2.3 and Applicant’s Project Description pages 19-37. Unused details have been deleted. Provide a lighting plan, including proposed fixtures and locations. Photometric information may be required. Lighting fixtures were added to elevation drawings, no detail was provided. Therefore, Ad Hoc Committee may be required. Concern about glare was noted by multiple ARB members. Materials should be darker and/or more accurately shown in the renderings. See Applicant’s Project Description page 7 and materials samples. Also see next response. If metal panels continue to be the proposed material, more detail is needed. The panels will need to fix exactly onto the existing building, which may be difficult. Colors should be more appropriate to the surrounding area and less metallic. Panels should also be more human scale. Plans must detail how all panel joints and connections to adjacent materials work. Other materials should be considered. The panels have been reduced in size, and a corner panel detail has been added as seen on the elevations (A3 and A4). Additional details on the joints and connections are provided on A2.4. The applicant has compared the colors and materials to other buildings in the neighborhood in the Applicant’s Project Description on pages 4-10. Additionally, the panels now include three colors: a dark gray on the second floor, a dark red band in the middle, and a lighter gray on the ground floor. Overall, these colors are more muted than the previously proposed. There was some concern the roof color was not appropriate, as well as potentially not being accepted by CalGreen cool roof standards. Proposed roof color is improved. The composition shingle includes a blend of red and black tones. See Applicant’s Project Description, page 8. Project is not required to comply with CalGreen Mandatory as there is no increase in floor area. The rear elevation needs more attention including maintaining/replacing the existing trellis. Trellis details have been added to sheet A4. The existing trellis on the side will be enhanced and a new trellis will be added to the rear. See plans page A4 and Applicant’s Project Description page 46 and 47. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Provide a landscape plan indicating the existing landscaping to remain, and proposed landscaping for planter boxes shown on plans. Native species are preferred, as this is ARB Finding #5. Landscaping information has been added to the site plan A2.0. An overview of existing landscaping is provided in the Applicant’s Project Description on pages 14-18, and rear trees are also shown on page 12 and 42. It was recommended the existing utility box be painted if landscape screening is not an option. The applicant would like to retain the existing green color as it blends in with adjacent shrubs (see Applicant’s Project Description, page 13). Analysis1 Overall, Staff has some concerns about the materials and details. There were minimal changes from the previous iteration; however, this is in keeping with the owner’s preferences. The plan set has been improved and the details are more accurate. The colors are darker and more appropriate to the surrounding neighborhood. The darker gray and red tones help break up the massing, though the lower half of the building remains a lighter gray. Other improvements include additional details regarding the existing landscaping, particularly at the rear of the building and in the stair areas. Trellises with Bougainvillea are proposed for the side and rear, along with existing planters and potted plants. While more permanent landscaping would have been preferred, space on the built site is limited, and the planters have large mature plants. The ARB expressed concern over the details for the metal panels being retrofitted on an older building. The applicant would still like to use the panels, and has adjusted them to be smaller in size. 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 exempt per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). 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 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 take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 on March 5, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on March 5, 2021, which is 13 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. Recommend approval of the project with additional conditions; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Foley, AICP, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2575 emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) x Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings (DOCX) x Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) x Attachment D: Project Plans and Applicant's Description (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 12 Cro w n e Pla za C a b a n a H otel P alo Alto _R e d w o o d s Dinah's Garden HotelB800 Dinah's_ Poolside Grill S k y R a n c h M otel 113.2' 57.0' 71.6' 108.4'75.0' 108.9' 60.0' 50.4' 110.9' 9.6' 49.6' 10.4' 110.4' 110.9' 60.0' 109.9'60.0' 110.4' 60.0' 109.4'60.0' 109.9' 6 0.0' 108.9' 60.0' 109.4' 389.6' 131.2' 378.9' 13.0' 5 9.8' 11.3' 29.1' 173.5' 16.2'14.0' 20.0'14.0' 83.0' 14.0' 93.9' 19.3' 45.0' 19.3'30.0' 318.8' 20.2' 32.5' 162.5' 380.0' 19.7' 147.3' 163.5' 29.0' 95.2' 29.0' 78.3' 15.7' 80.0' 60.0' 125.0' 60.0' 125.0' 204.0' 306 50.9' 50.0' 185.7' 50.4' 179.6' 179. 160.4' 109.0' 50.8' 162.5' 172.2' 58.0' 21.9' 172.2' 32.5' 1 10.0' 58.0' 134.8' 104.3' 55.7' 81.8' 20.2' 358.7 55.7' 188.7' 607.4' 27.9' 173.5' 16.2' 14.0' 20.0'14.0' 83.0' 14.0' 93.9' 19.3' 45.0' 19.3'30.0' 318.8' 188.7' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 30.2' 151.2' 40.2'10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 91.2' 12.6' 34.1' 12.7' 16.0' 109.7' 23.0' 40.2' 9.1' 24.3' 6.0' 126.8' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 225.2' 60.0' 38.5' 29.0' 53.7' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0'30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 153.2' 151.2' 40.2' 10.0' 19.0' 10.0' 17.0' 53.0' 11.3' 25.0' 10.5' 1 13.2' 240.2' 24.3'9.1' 40.2' 23.0' 109.7' 16.0'12.7'34.1'12.6' 144.9' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 175.2' 94.1' 80.0' 15.6' 78.3' 29.0' 41.5' 47.8' 6.5' 48.5' 29.9'5.0' 30.8' 54.1' 77.3' 89.7' 42.0' 22.2' 160.4' 21.9' 48.3' 98.7' 90.4' 74.6' 71.0' 100.0' 57.7' 168.3' 65.3' 30.5' 32.5' 48.4' 28.5' 16.3' 13.6' 12.2' 15.2' 10.0' 35.7' 45.2' 34.2' 21.8' 22.7' 120.0' 7.0'6.5'7.5'7.1' 47.0' 17.4' 15.3' 17.0' 15.2' 30.6' 28.1' 51.8' 9.6' 10.4' 10.3' 4' 60.6' 51.3'51.3' 101.6' 72.7'72.7' 6 7.2' 82.7' 6' 34.8' 87.7' 102.0' 67.4' 72.4' 4' 34.3' 189.9' 189.9'120.0' 189.9' 189.9' 1 89.9' 189.9' 189.9' 189.9' 189.9' 149.5' 149.9' 112.1' 100.0' 100.0' 112.1' 45.2' 203.3' 197.9' 50.4' 204.0' 45.6' 191.8' 50.4' 197.9' 185.7' 50.4' 191.8' 50.4' 50.4' 203.3' 255.7' 157.0' 49.2' 214.1' 13.2' 128.5' 267.7' 278.1' 3 142.9' 6.1' 13.1' 396.4 5 6 3 550 4 2 4 5 553 4 2 7 5 4 2 6 5 4 2 5 7 4 2 5 1 4 2 3 8 4 2 34 4232 429 0 4 2 5 6 42 6 0 4291 460466 470 4301 474 4269 450 4261 4279 42 3 0 4292A-P 4249 4 2 50 4 294 A-P 431 4260 4273 4251 428 5 4300 11 9 3 1194 1192 1 1 8 8 432 412 416 418 4 4290 4294 4 2 2 8 E L C A M I N O R E A L DIN A H'S C OU RT E L C A MI N O R E A L M O NR OE DRIVE E L C A MIN O R E A L C T E L C A MIN O R E A L R Y A N C OLECO AdobeCreek RM-30CS C S ( L ) PC-4448 RM-30 CS RM CS(H) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 157' Attachment A 4260 El Camino Real CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2020-06-23 14:28:39Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 13 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 4260 El Camino Real 19PLN-00142 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 design is consistent with the Zoning Code, Comprehensive Plan, and El Camino Design Guidelines to the extent possible. Most aspects of the building, with regard to setbacks, height, and site planning, are not changing from the current conditions. 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 generally consistent with the context-based design criteria of the CS district, as described in greater detail below. The existing building has a contemporary style, with wood siding, a tower element near the street, large street-facing windows, and a large gable with beam detail. Most of these elements are remaining as is, with the change in siding from wood to metal panels. It is generally compatible with the context. The hotel on the left is significantly set back from the front property line, it is not a notable part of the streetscape. To the right is 4256 El Camino, a project recently approved by the ARB (18PLN-00096). This new building will be contemporary/modern in style with wood-look composite siding and black metal accents. It will enhance the area to update the existing building. 2.b Packet Pg. 14 Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The metal panels would be generally compatible with the surrounding area. The proposed building to the right contains a significant quantity of metal screens, railings, and window frames with extended face caps. The project’s metal panels fit at the corners with a flat outside corner trim. Adjacent panels sit flush with little relief between panels. The panels are smaller on the front façade and tower element, and larger on the sides and rear. There is also accent corrugated metal siding in the front and rear gable. The existing building is a rusty brown color with yellow accents. The proposed color scheme is shades of gray, with red accents for the roof and gable. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). No changes to the layout of the building or with regards to function are proposed. The ground level parking is convenient and access to the building is through two exterior stair wells or the exterior elevator. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. There is limited opportunity for landscaping on the site. The adjacent properties contain mature landscaping along the project site’s left and rear property lines, which are to remain and be protected during construction. There are also two planters at the front with mature ornamental trees and shrubs, and one planter on the second floor of the front façade to remain. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. This project does not plan to incorporate any additional design principles, beyond the requirements for Green Building and Title 24. 2.b Packet Pg. 15 CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA 4260 El Camino Real 19PLN-00142 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The proposed project provides adequate sidewalk in front of the building, as well as adequate bicycle parking. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. The existing stair railings are solid. The proposed stair railings will be open to increase visibility, safety, and ease of access for pedestrians and motorists. No other changes are proposed that would change the building’s relationship with the street. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. No changes to the building’s overall massing or setbacks are proposed. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This property does not abut low density residential, though it is adjacent to multiple-family (Palo Alto Redwoods) in the rear. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site. This building currently contains usable balconies on the left side and in the rear. No changes 2.b Packet Pg. 16 are proposed to the existing balcony spaces. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment Parking is located in a covered garage on the first floor of the building that is screened from the public right-of-way. There are no proposed changes to this facility. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood N/A. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The building will conform to Title 24 and Green Building requirements, as necessary. 2.b Packet Pg. 17 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 4260 El Camino Real 19PLN-00401 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS: Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Commercial Office Building, 4260 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, California,” received by the City on January 7, 2021 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: A copy of this cover letter and conditions of approval shall be printed on the second page of 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. PERMIT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 6. LANDSCAPE PLAN. Plantings shall be installed in accordance with the approved plan set and shall be permanently maintained and replaced as necessary. 7. NONCOMPLYING FACILITY WALLS: The applicant has agreed to maintain all non-complying walls in their current condition. Window replacement is allowed as long as they fit within the existing wall openings. Should any wall replacement/maintenance be required it shall conform with PAMC Section 18.70.100(b) as described below: a. When the damage or destruction of a noncomplying facility affects a portion of the facility that constituted or contributed to the noncompliance, any replacement or reconstruction to such damaged portion shall be accomplished in such manner as not to reinstate the noncompliance or degree of noncompliance caused by the destroyed or damaged portion of the facility, and otherwise in full compliance with this title; however, if the cost to replace or reconstruct the noncomplying portion of the facility to its previous configuration does not exceed fifty percent of the total cost to replace or reconstruct the facility in conformance with this subsection, then the damaged noncomplying portion may be replaced or reconstructed to its previous configuration. In no event shall such replacement or construction create, cause, or increase any noncompliance with the requirements of this title. 2.c Packet Pg. 18 8. 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, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING PRIOR TO ISSUANCE OF EXCAVATION AND GRADING PERMIT: 9. If access to adjacent properties is required for façade improvements, contractor to work with adjacent property owners/tenants. 10. Provide the following note on the plan: “Contractor shall not stage, store, or stockpile any material or equipment within the public road right-of-way.” Contractor shall keep materials and equipment onsite. 11. SIDEWALK ENCROACHMENT: Add a note to the building permit plan set that says, “Work must be done in a manner that is safe for pedestrians using the public sidewalk. The work area must be coned or taped off while still leaving at least 4 feet of sidewalk for pedestrian use. If less than 4 feet of sidewalk is available for pedestrians, the contractor must obtain an encroachment permit from Public Works to close the sidewalk.” 12. STORM WATER POLLUTION PREVENTION: The City's full-sized "Pollution Prevention - It's Part of the Plan" sheet must be included in the plan set. The sheet is available here: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/2732 Urban Forestry 13. TREE PROTECTIO COMPLIANCE. In addition to installing proposed tree protection as per plan drawing, take extra precaution during construction to avoid damage to tree canopies when removing/replacing building siding. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 14. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 15. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 2.c Packet Pg. 19 16. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 17. BUILDING PERMIT SUBMITTAL- PROJECT ARBORIST CERTIFICATION LETTER. Prior to submittal for staff review, attach a Project Arborist Certification Letter that he/she has; (a) reviewed the entire building permit plan set submittal and, (b) affirm that ongoing Contractor/Project Arborist site monitoring inspections and reporting have been arranged with the contractor or owner (see Sheet T-1) and, (c) understands that design revisions (site or plan changes) within a TPZ will be routed to Project Arborist/Contractor for review prior to approval from City. 18. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 19. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 20. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. Building 21. Hire architect to assist with remodel and plans preparation for BP. Show correct occupancy and Building Code Year 2019. 2.c Packet Pg. 20 22. Visual review only. Technical reviews will be conducted at BP. Hire an architect to assist with Fire rated wall and protection of opening details required at new wall finishes. CROSS REF ALL DETAILS ON PLAN at time of BP. If not applicable please delete to avoid confusion during construction. 23. Illustrate existing Elevator meets current code. 24. Provide Fire rated wall and protection of opening details required at new wall finishes. Include UL design # and head # at fire-rated construction." 25. Solid Parapet is required matching existing condition. At building permit, architect shall illustrate compliance. Zero Waste The following requirements are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code 5.20 and cut-sheets for both the internal and external containers must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from the Zero Waste Department. 26. PAMC 5.20.108 Internal Waste Stations. a. Internal waste stations are required for common areas such as lunchrooms, conference rooms, cafeterias, and coffee stations. The waste station shall be comprised of three-color coded containers. Black for landfill waste, blue for recycling, and green for compostables. The green compostable container, if bags are used, shall be green compostable bags. The waste station containers shall also contain color coded signs. All dining area waste stations must have 3-sort color-coded labeled containers for garbage (black), recycling (blue) and compost (green). Any kitchen area must have the appropriate number of 3-sort color-coded labeled waste stations for garbage, recycling and compost. b. Restrooms that use paper towels for hand drying must have color-coded labeled compost container for paper towels and it is recommended to have a labeled landfill container for the diaper changing stations. c. Signs can be obtained from GreenWaste of Palo Alto pacustomerservice@greenwwaste.com or call (650) 493-4894 to request signs. 27. PAMC 5.20.108 External Waste Station. a. If the site choses to have refuse containers outside they will need to be installed at convenient and appropriately selected locations. The waste station shall be comprised of three-color coded containers. Black for landfill waste, blue for recycling, and green for compostables. The green compostable container, if bags are used, shall use green compostable bags. The waste station containers shall also contain color coded signs. Signs can be obtained from GreenWaste of Palo Alto pacustomerservice@greenwwaste.com or call (650) 493-4894 to request signs. 2.c Packet Pg. 21 Attachment D Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans and the Applicant’s description are provided to Board members. During Shelter-in-Place, documents are only available online for the public. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “4260 El Camino Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/news/displaynews.asp?NewsID=4867&Targetid=319 Materials Boards: During Shelter-in-Place, color and material boards will be available to view in the display case outside of City Hall, on the exterior elevator near the corner of Hamilton Ave. and Bryant St. 2.d Packet Pg. 22 TO: ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD FROM: JODIE GERHARDT, MANAGER OF CURRENT PLANNING DATE: MARCH 18, 2021 SUBJECT: AGENDA ITEM 3 – RECOMMENDATION ON OBJECTIVE DESIGN STANDARDS Following is additional information related to building height transitions. 2. Other Updates to Title 18 Transition Zone Between Lower Density Housing and Higher Density and/or Taller Development As noted in the staff report, the Zoning Code includes special development standards that ensure a transition in height when a project is near low to mid-density residentially zoned properties (generally R-E through RM-30). While staff implements these height standards on a regular basis, the concern is that each section of the Code expresses this requirement in a slightly different manner. This makes the regulations difficult to implement consistently, as represented by several recent projects on El Camino Real. Additionally, these standards can be confusing to developers that would like to make significant investments in our City. Therefore, staff would like to retain the spirit of these regulations while streamlining the language for ease of use by the public, applicants, reviewing bodies, and staff. The most confusing section and where staff believes the most significant change is needed is the CN, CC, CC(2), and CS development standards. In these zones it is unclear if the transition area is 50 feet or 150 feet. In many instances, a 50 feet transition area has been enforced. Staff would like to codify this interpretation because (1) a 50-foot transition zone provides protection to lower density development while accommodating the City’s need to provide additional housing and (2) this transition zone aligns with the most recent Code interpretations and project approvals. It should be noted that transitions in height are also regulated by daylight plane requirements (in the RM, Commercial zones) and by Context-Based Design Criteria (soon to be Objective Design Standards). 3 2 Summary of Existing Transitional Height Standards The existing height transition standards are summarized below: • Zoning Chapter 18.13 (RM-40): The Multiple Family Residential zones chapter provides height standards. In the RM-40 zone, the maximum height is reduced “for those portions of a site within 50 feet of a more restrictive residential district or a site containing a residential use in a nonresidential district”. The transition area is limited to 50 feet, with no mention of a 150-foot radius affecting height. • Zoning Code Chapter 18.16 (CN, CC, CC(2), CS zones): Community Commercial and Commercial Service zones, excluding CN (Neighborhood Commercial), Section 18.16.060 development standards for mixed use (including residential) projects specify special lower height limits with the following parameter: “Within 150 ft. of a residential zone district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the side.” This has long been interpreted that the portion of a proposed building’s height must be lower when it is within 50 feet of the side of the parcel that abuts residential property (R-zoned property other than RM-40 or a residential PC). If the proposed building is to be placed at least 50 feet from the abutting residential property line, the new building does not need to meet a lower height limit in the CN, CC, CC(2) or CS zones. 3 • Zoning Code Chapter 18.18 (CD - Commercial Downtown zone): Development standards Section 18.18.060, mixed use and residential Table 3, has clearer height standard language; i.e. a lower height is required. This code section states that “within 150 ft. of an abutting residential zone” the height limit is reduced from 50 feet to 40 feet. This section includes a footnote (4) that states: “For sites abutting an RM-40 zoned residential district or a residential Planned Community (PC) district, maximum height may be increased to 50 feet.” The CD height standard within the 150-foot radius of an R-zone has no reference to “within 50 feet of the side.” • Zoning Chapter 18.20 (MOR, ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), and GM zones): The chapter enables multiple family residential use mixed with non-residential use via a Conditional Use Permit. The Chapter’s Table 1 enables this mix of uses by CUP in the ROLM, MOR and RP zones, but not in the GM zone. For Exclusively Residential Uses: Within the MOR and ROLM zones, such development must meet RM-30 development standards. Within the ROLM(E) zone, such development must meet RM-20 development standards. Within the RP and RP(5) zones, the height and other standards for such development is noted as follows: “Within 150 feet of an R- E, R-1, R-2, RMD, or similar density residential PC zone” the mixed-use development subject to CUP must meet RM-20 standards. • Zoning Chapter 18.30 Combining Districts: o Affordable Housing, J (AH): “Within 50 ft of an R-1, R-2, RMD, RM-20, or RM-30 zoned property”. The 150-foot radius is not cited as affecting height. o Workforce Housing, K (WH): “Within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM- 40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site”. This is similar to the Chapter 18.16 verbiage but staff believe there is a clerical error. Staff believe that “site” should be “side”, as in, the abutting side of the property. • Zoning Chapter 18.38 Planned Community: Section 18.38.150 Special regulations notes “The maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of any RE, R-1, R-2, RM, or applicable PC district shall be thirty-five feet; provided, however, that for a use where the gross floor area excluding any area used exclusively for parking purposes, is at least sixty percent residential, the maximum height within one hundred fifty feet of an RM-4 or RM-5 district shall be fifty feet.” Suggested Clarifications for Chapters 18.16 and 18.30(K): As shown above, these height transitions standards are expressed in at least 11 different ways making them difficult to implement in a consistent manner. Staff would like to streamline the language in all sections, to standardize them while maintaining the same intent. 4 The proposed height transition standards are summarized below: The most significant change would be in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS zoning section, where the City received most of its multiple family residential and mixed-use projects fronting El Camino Real. The current language of this height transition for development in the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS zones is confusing for City staff and project applicants. The proposed standard for these commercial zones clarifies the Code: that only the portion of the building within 50 feet of the applicable lower density residential zone must have a reduced height limit. This is intended to provide visual relief, and access to light and air, along with other requirements (i.e. daylight plane and objective design standards). Staff will present several example projects (i.e. 2209 El Camino Real, 3001 El Camino Real, 3705 El Camino Real, and 4216 El Camino Real) and a graphic that illustrates this concept during the hearing. This standard is in keeping with current interpretation of the CN, CC, CC(2) and CS zoning regulations. This concept would also apply to the WH combining district which has the same confusing language. Staff believes the other zones’ height standards only need slight wordsmithing changes to streamline their implementation. ARB & Objective Standards As the ARB, PTC, and ultimately City Council consider objective standards, these advisory and policy making bodies can also clarify this aspect of the Code. By providing feedback on this topic, the ARB can help advise the PTC and the Council on how to treat transition zones. Clarity will help meet the other goal of this project, which is to streamline housing development through clear, consistent, and well- organized code language. Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12097) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 3/18/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of February 18, 2021 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 18, 2021 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the February 18, 2021 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB Attachments: x Attachment A: February 18, 2021 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Osma Thompson, Vice Chair Grace Lee, Board Members Peter Baltay, Alexander Lew, and David Hirsch. Absent: None. Chair Thompson: Good morning, everybody. Welcome to the February 18th Architectural Review Board hearing. Pursuant to the California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. Spoken comments via a computer will be accepted through the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address the Board, go to zoom.us/join. Meeting ID is 961 9160 1296. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “Raise Hand.” The moderator will activate and unmute speakers in turn. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. Spoken public comments using a Smartphone will also be accepted through the Zoom mobile application. To offer comments using a regular phone, call 1-669-900-6833, and enter Meeting ID 961 9160 1296. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Thompson: The next item is oral communications. The public may speak on any item, not on the agenda. Vinh, do we have any members of the public that would like to speak? Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate: We do have two raised hands. One moment, let us get the speaker timer up. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: Yes, we do have one staff member that would like to speak. Tim Wong is our Senior Planner. I call him our housing department because we have one person helping us with housing. He was with us in years past and now he is back again. We appreciate his help in all of those endeavors. [Setting up caller.] Tim Wong: Good morning, ARB. Thank you for giving me this time. Again, as Jodie mentioned, my name is Tim Wong. I am a Senior Planner for the Palo Alto Planning and Development Services Department. I just wanted to take this time to let you know about the Housing Element Working Group. You can see the flier on your screen. The City is looking for creative, collaborative, and energetic persons interested in housing to be part of this Housing Element Update process. Just real brief, the Housing Element is the City’s strategic plan for meeting the housing needs of its current and future ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: February 18, 2021 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM 4.a Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Page 2 residents. We are currently going through the update of the Housing Element, and as part of that, the City anticipates it will need to plan for approximately 6,000 housing units for the next update. As part of this update process, we are looking for volunteers to help serve the Working Group. This Working Group will help the City select potential housing sites and prepare housing programs and policies to accommodate these approximate 6,000 units. To serve on the Working Group you must apply. The application deadline is by 5:00 p.m. on March 5, 2021. Just to let you know, the Working Group is scheduled to meet probably one evening a month, tentatively set as the first Thursday of every month from 5:30 to 8:30. The Working Group will be meeting from May of 2021 through October 2022, approximately 15 months. If you’re interested please apply. City Council will review all of the applications at its April 5, 2021, meeting and make the group selections at that meeting. For more information about the Working Group or if you are interested in applying please go to www.cityofpaloalto.org/heupdate. On that website, you will find online applications in English and Spanish, and, hopefully, we will have a Chinese application online in the next day or so. That concludes my comments. I thank you very much for the time. I just encourage you to spread the word about the Housing Element update and also about the Working Group. We are looking for anyone interested in housing to apply. Again, the Council will make their selections at its April 5 meeting. Thank you very much. Board Member Baltay: To the Chair, a quick question. Chair Thompson: Yes. Board Member Baltay: Tim, how many people do you anticipate having as members of this group? How large of a group will it be? Mr. Wong: Great question. We have recommended 15 members with two alternates. Board Member Baltay: Thank you very much. Mr. Wong: Thanks. Vice Chair Lee: Osma, if I may, I just want to ask Tim where the flier is if we did want to share that with folks in our network? Is that something on the website already? Mr. Wong: Yes. There is a .pdf you can download on the website and I did send ARB staff a .pdf of the flier also. Either way, you can get a copy of that flier. Vice Chair Lee: Thank you. Mr. Nguyen: I can forward the flier over to all of the Board Members. Mr. Wong: Thank you. Chair Thompson: All right, thank you. Mr. Nguyen: Thank you, Tim. It looks like the other member of the public who had their hand raised has lowered their hand. That concludes oral communications. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Thompson: Great. Let’s move on to agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Ms. Gerhardt: No changes at this time. 4.a Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Page 3 City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Chair Thompson: Thanks. City official reports. Ms. Gerhardt: Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning. You have the schedule here up on the screen. We are still in virtual meetings. As I was saying earlier, for the March 4th meeting we did have some items: 486 Hamilton and 4256 El Camino. Those two items may not be quite ready, and I need to find out about the Lytton Avenue subcommittee. It may only be subcommittee happening on March 4th. I will let you know as soon as possible. I am going to have to confirm that today. March 4th is (inaudible) at the moment. Thank you. That’s it. Study Session 2. Study Session for Architectural Review Board of Draft Objective Standards That Would Modify Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code Chair Thompson: With that, we will move on to our first item which is the study session. This is a study session for the Architectural Review Board of draft objective standards that would modify Title 18 (Zoning Ordinance) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code. I understand that this will be the last time that we will get to do a study session on this before the next time that we meet, which will be when we can vote on it. I did want to make sure that the person that raised their hand wasn’t supposed to be on the panel working on the project. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, that is Chris. We should bring Chris over. Mr. Nguyen: Okay, bringing him over right now. Chair Thompson: I’ll let staff give their report. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you, Chair, for the introduction. As you mentioned, this is sort of our last working session. At the next ARB hearing we are hoping to get a recommendation from the board so that we can move on to Planning Commission and Council, and ultimately have these objective standards in place come summertime. At that point, we could potentially be looking at some SB35 projects and we want to make sure that we have our rules in place before those projects come in. With that, I do want to introduce Jean and Chris who are greatly helping me with this project. I will let Jean Eisberg take it away with the presentation. Jean Eisberg: Great, thank you. Good morning, Chair Thompson and members of the Board. [Setting up presentation.] Ms. Eisberg: I am going to give a five-minute presentation before we have a discussion. Based on our pre-meeting with Chair Thompson -- she can explain further -- we are going to give an opportunity for all of the Board Members to provide any general comments and identify sections of the draft ordinance that you want to focus on in terms of how we spend our time today. I am just going to recap where we have been, the schedule going forward and describe changes that have been made to the design standards since our two meetings in October and November where you may recall we reviewed a single draft of the draft standards overt those two meetings. Then, I am going to introduce some other changes to Title 18; you may recall that we floated these ideas about a year ago when we started the project and we are going to continue working with the PTC and the Council on other changes to standards in Title 18 but just wanted to brief you on them today. Reminder for folks who may be participating from home, why we are doing this project is the City has several subjective design criteria and regulations mixed-use projects are reviewed. Our program here is to transform the context space design criteria currently in 4.a Packet Pg. 74 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Title 18 into objective standards, and this would actually be replacing those design criteria. This is really a fundamental change in the way that all cities in California are reviewing certain types of residential and mixed-use projects. This is the new organization of the 18.24, this new design standard section. We have purpose and applicability in the administrative section; issues around site design related to the public realm, access to the site and building orientation; and the standards relating to building design. Some of this organization is new. The current context space design criteria has some sense of organization but his is trying to create a little bit more standardization and more specificity as you move from the site design to building details. Each section is organized with an intent statement and a set of standards. The intent statement is drawn from the context space design criteria. Sometimes it is actually verbatim. The standards are objective standards and are either measurements, or ratios, or provide a menu of options. I want to be clear about the organization. We received some public comments and I just want to make sure it is clear that there are two paths towards compliance for projects going forward that are multi-family residential or mixed-use. One, there is a discretionary path that is really similar to what’s happening right now. Projects can continue to go through the discretionary ARB review process, and they are going to be required to meet the intent statements, the more general design guidelines, as they are interpreted by the ARB. It is very similar to the process that you have today. Now, this new other option is for projects that are meeting objective standards either because they are SB35 eligible projects or they want coverage under the Housing Accountability Act that gives them that coverage under state law. In that case, the project must meet objective standards as we have outlined in this new design standard chapter; either the dimension standards or the menu of options, where they are available. Again, two paths towards compliance. Our schedule moving forward: we will be meeting with the Planning Commission next month for a study session. We are supposed to update them on the progress that the ARB has made over the last year and to introduce draft standards in other parts of Title 18. As Jodie indicated, we are planning to come back to you for an action item on March 18th. We will be making any changes to the design standards in the interim based on the feedback today. We will be going to the Planning Commission and Council this spring and summer to wrap up the project in anticipation of potential SB35 projects that could come down the pipeline later this year. To summarize the two meetings this fall, generally there was support of the structure of the ordinance; the idea of either meeting the intent statements or meeting the standards. We have resolved all together to clarify where the standards would apply versus where the intent statements would apply and determined that new design standards would apply to all multi-family residential and residential mixed-use project types. Regardless of the mix of commercial or residential, it wouldn’t matter if it's 50 percent commercial, 50 percent residential, or just ground-floor commercial and upper-story residential. Also resolved non-residential projects would only need to comply with the intent statements. Most of these design standards are written for residential and mixed-use buildings, but the non-residential other commercial projects would need to comply with the intent statements, again, as determined by the ARB. Where more debates happened, as you may recall, were in terms of the specifics around standards in some of the design topics. We debated a number of details, ideas for the menu of options, and specific measurements and ratios for individual design topics. The other item which resulted in a lot of debate was around the graphics. We heard from you a variety of perspectives about the zoning graphics in terms of height and style, windows, things like that. As you'll see, we have tried to respond to all of those comments in this current draft. Also in the last couple of months, staff has reached out to about 30 architects, developers, and other stakeholders who regularly use the design standards in the zoning ordinance to get their feedback on the project. We received four responses including three substance responses and two that provided some detailed comments around the standard. Some of that was expressing concern about the prescriptive nature of a lot of these standards. Again, that’s why we want to be really clear that, yes, there is this set of prescriptive standards but there is still this alternative compliance path that is very similar to what you have today. We have made changes in five key areas of the draft standards since you saw them this fall. I am going to go through each of these five topics. First are the ground floor residential units. You may recall at the end of our November meeting we showed this idea that Chris and his colleagues developed which expresses the relative nature between distance from the sidewalk, the setback, to the elevation of the first floor. The issue here is trying to retain privacy while also expressing a presence to the street. Basically, the further that you get from the sidewalk the lower that first-floor elevation can be. It could be screened with landscaping but you have that physical distance that reflects privacy, versus if you're right out against the street edge having that higher first-floor elevation maybe there is the stoop, allows for increased privacy and a little more 4.a Packet Pg. 75 City of Palo Alto Page 5 presence on the street. We made a number of changes to graphics including most of the graphics now are no more than four stories. We have done some cropping and isolating to the feature that’s just being expressed by that specific standard, and some changes to the style just to be more generalized. In terms of height transitions, you may recall that we had some conversations about the existing daylight plane which appears in the district zoning standards, so in the development standards and different ways to create height transitions between higher and lower density districts. We had some standards in earlier drafts that talked about setbacks and different ways to articulate that transition. At this point, we resolved to maintain the daylight plane, which is in the existing zoning districts, and then provide some options for additional ways to soften that transition through landscape screening, through façade breaks on the butting elevation, and minimizing transparent glazing so that you have either opaque windows or fewer windows on those confronting facades. Fourth is materials; you may recall we had some examples from another project that Chris had worked on about a matrix for prohibited and allowed materials. We have developed a material list specific to Palo Alto and it is something that is described as either primary materials or secondary materials versus accent materials. Then, lastly, we added back a section on suitability and green building. This is really verbatim from the existing context space design criteria. There is only an intent statement in the proposed draft ordinance, and then it cross-references the existing sustainable design standards that are in 16.14 in the municipal code. I am going to have Chris talk to the next slide. Chris Sensenig: Jean just asked to grab some images of projects that would meet the objective standards. I have taken a few from around the peninsula, and South Bay, and one from San Francisco. Here you can see the façade rhythm and pattern, the base, middle, and top, and also the setback and stoop conditions for the ground-floor residential, and also a corner element. Here is another part of that project that has a similar stoop configuration, base, middle, and top, change in primary and secondary materials, and corner elements. Here is a Daniel Solomon project in San Francisco that limits the overall length of façade lengths and uses the minor break, and the change in window pattern to create a base, middle, and top. I want to thank David also -- I don’t think we have a slide for it here -- for sending the Wilton Court project in Palo Alto that we can also speak to later that I believe fits it. Here is another project in Oakland that has the same type of rhythm and pattern that is required in the objective standards. Ms. Eisberg: Thank you, Chris. I am just going to wrap up the next minute to talk about three notable changes to Title 18 that we will be working on with the Planning Commission. Again, this was presented about a year ago when we first started talking about the project. The way it is now the combining districts in the City, Workforce Housing, Affordable Housing overlays, need to be legislatively applied; they go through review by the Planning Commission and City Council. One thing to consider is whether transitions from a legislative action for these overlays, instead if there could be objective criteria that if a project meets the below-market-rate or moderate-income threshold then that overlay could automatically be applied to the site and, in that way, it incentives affordable housing and allows for the more generous development standards. This is similar to the City’s recently adopted housing incentive program. Second, in Chapter 18.23 of the code, there are performance criteria or performance standards. Things like water quality, refuse storage, lighting and landscape screening. We are looking to both make sure that those standards are objective so they can be continually applied, but also to integrate and reorganize them so that they are located in sections of the code where they can more easily be found. Lastly is just a small one, but mechanical lift parking; the way it is right now this requires approval by the plane director or the City Council. We have suggested that mechanical parking lifts be allowed by right; tighten up some of those objective standards just so a project would not automatically get pushed to the director or the City Council just because it has mechanical parking. This is just an issue that is becoming more common in the Bay area in residential projects and allowing a little streamlining there. Again, these projects would continue to come to the ARB if they are going through architectural review, and the mechanical lifts could be reviewed as part of that review process. That concludes my presentation. I am happy to answer any questions. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Jean. Are there any questions of staff from the Board before we move into our own comments? 4.a Packet Pg. 76 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Board Member Baltay: I do, Osma. Chair Thompson: Sure, go ahead Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Chris, could you pull up the slide of 777 Broadway again, please? Do you mind, Osma? Chair Thompson: Not at all. Go ahead. Board Member Baltay: I am trying to understand how we are going to be using or interpreting these objective standards. Chris, if this comes before you as a planning staff in Palo Alto, or any of the Planning staff, would you say that this building has a base, middle, and top, and, if so, how would you define it? Mr. Sensenig: I would say yes. It has a base, middle, and top. Through that, there are a number of distinctions that we have in the code. One is a horizontal shift, a change in floor plates that protrude or recess with a minimum dimension from the middle to the top. Also, a change in window pattern and a change in façade articulation, and a change in horizontal or vertical projections, such as shading or weather devices where the middle does not have them, the top does have them that distinguish it. It also has datum lines separating the middle from the top. The base and middle are a change in material and a variation of two of the following: façade material, material size, texture, pattern, and color. This is an example of a project that actually uses more than two of the four techniques to show variation between any of the distinct base, middle, and top sections. Board Member Baltay: Okay, Thank you very much. I just wanted to hear your thoughts on that. Thank you, Osma. Chair Thompson: Sure thing. Any other questions of staff before we bring it back to the Board? Vice Chair Lee: Osma, I also have questions regarding those photos, if I may? Chair Thompson: Sure, go ahead. Vice Chair Lee: Thank you so much, Chris. I just wanted to ask about the Dan Solomon project in Mosaica. If you could just describe the change in… is it the change in windows that makes the top more articulated in your mind? Is that how you described it? Mr. Sensenig: Yeah. Vice Chair Lee: That’s in San Francisco, I assume. Mr. Sensenig: That is in San Francisco. It is in the Mission District along 19th Street. One way that it meets it is a change in window pattern and type where the base is defined by the storefront window, the middle is defined by the joint windows, and then the top is defined by breaking those joint windows into separate windows creating three different layers there. Then the top is also defined by the parapet line. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. I am just wondering, of the examples that you have shown here in Sunnyvale and San Francisco and Oakland, are they all apartments? Are they condominiums? How many different kinds of residential building types are there? Lofts? Mr. Sensenig: I am not sure whether they're condominiums or apartments for rent. Vice Chair Lee: I am not sure either. Then, I just wasn’t sure if these images are proposed to be included as graphics and if there were Palo Alto examples… Mr. Sensenig: They are not proposed to be included in the document. The direction that… 4.a Packet Pg. 77 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Ms. Gerhardt: These photos come out of me asking if we use all of these different objective standards what is it going to look like. These are sort of helping us put all of the pieces together. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. The other question I had, Osma, is more for Jean. I know this is going to return to us on the 18th and I wasn’t sure if this is a study session and we are next going to see it as a voting item. I am just wondering if there are proposals to revise how we review that next draft and how that is incorporated into a vote. Do you have some thoughts on what the process would be? Ms. Eisberg: Sure. Jodie, do you want to address this? Ms. Gerhardt: Jean, you can help as well. I think mainly we are looking for all of your comments today for sure. We are hoping that we can coalesce on some conclusions so that we are able to wrap it up in the next hearing. The more information you give us the better we can make these standards. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew: Grace, I can answer the question on the housing. I used to work for Dan Solomon and that project on Alabama Street is affordable housing on top of what they call PDR space, it is like workshop space that used to be on the site. I think the ironworks project in Sunnyvale is also rental; they are on both sides of Evelyn Street. It was done in two phases. I think that is market-rate. It’s not affordable. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. Board Member Baltay: Osma, one more question if I could. Chair Thompson: Sure. Board Member Baltay: To the staff, this is regarding the applicability of these standards. Can you speak to what the minimum the state law would require regarding affordability of housing units, and then what the mixed-use ratio would be as a minimum that the objective standards would have to kick into by state law? What percent is the minimum amount that requires these standards to go into effect, and is there a housing affordability component to the state law regarding objective standards. Ms. Eisberg: A couple of things. The Housing Accountability Act requires that at least two-thirds of the project is residential, and it doesn’t necessarily require affordability. That is a little bit different. The Housing Accountability Act projects need to meet objective standards. Board Member Baltay: Okay. Ms. Eisberg: To be eligible for SB35 streamlining, it depends on which tier or threshold a specific jurisdiction is in. At this point in time, in Palo Alto an SB35 eligible project needs to be 50 percent affordable. Now if the city doesn’t meet its regional housing needs allocation prorated for that year, then it can move tiers. So some jurisdictions in the Bay area in the state are at a 10 percent threshold, meaning a project can be eligible if it has 10 percent affordable units, but at this point in time in Palo Alto the threshold is 50 percent. Board Member Baltay: But you're saying that all housing projects have to follow objective design standards? Ms. Eisberg: No. An application could come in in Palo Alto and it could choose to meet the intent statements and not the objective standards just as it can today. Just as it can today in terms of how the ARB reviews the projects for consistency with the context space design criteria which are a mix of objective and subjective. Projects can continue to do that they just won’t have any protections under state law under the Housing Accountability Act. 4.a Packet Pg. 78 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Board Member Baltay: I'm sorry, but if a housing project comes in and they want to follow the objective standards we have to provide them with objective standards for any housing project in Palo Alto? Ms. Eisberg: A project always needs to meet, for example, development standards or district regulations unless they're seeking some kind of variance waiver or exception. Just the way it is now, we are building another layer into those objective standards with a series of objective design standards. The design standards that we’re proposing in 18.24 are a little bit different from development standards that are in the district regulations in that we are saying there is this out, or other option if a project for whatever reason doesn’t want to meet the standard they can choose to meet the intent statement. Board Member Baltay: I’m sorry I'm being so… Ms. Gerhardt: Let me try as well, and Jean can correct me. Currently, we have design criteria, and those roll up into our ARB findings. We are doing it a little bit different than some cities because we are going to have this option where you can still go to the ARB and not abide by the objective standards, but what I mean by that is that we are building these intent statements that are taking the place of our current design criteria. Those intent statements will roll up to the ARB findings, so all projects will have to abide by those intent statements at a minimum. Those intent statements are still subjective. Now, the housing opportunity projects that fit into the SB35 and the SB330, those types of projects, are the ones that can take advantage of the objective standards. If they meet those objective standards then we are not able to deny them. Board Member Baltay: Right. The question, I guess, is that projects that meet the requirements of SB35 or SB330, that’s the Housing Accountability Act, is that all housing projects or is that more limited? Ms. Gerhardt: No. I’ll let you explain, Jean. It’s the two-thirds housing. Board Member Baltay: So, projects that are mixed-use up to two-thirds and then all other housing projects. Ms. Eisberg: Residential must be at least two-thirds of the floor area, it can be supportive housing, or market-rate housing, or affordable housing. Ms. Gerhardt: But it has to be two-thirds. Ms. Eisberg: It has to be at least two-thirds. Board Member Baltay: Okay. Thank you for putting up with my denseness everybody. Ms. Eisberg: No, it’s very complicated. Ms. Gerhardt: It’s okay. Chair Thompson: It’s important that we all understand what's going on. I appreciate your questions, Board Member Baltay. Any other last questions for staff before we bring it back in? Okay, not seeing any. This is a dense topic; a lot to go through. We do have another item on the agenda after this. The way that I would like for our Board to... sorry, go ahead. Ms. Gerhardt: We do have some people on the line so I don’t know if we have public comments for this particular project. Chair Thompson: Sorry, thank you for the reminder. Yes, do we have any members of the public who would like to speak? Mr. Nguyen: Yes, it looks like we do have one raised hand. 4.a Packet Pg. 79 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Thompson: Yeah, let’s hear from them. Mr. Nguyen: Our first speaker will be Chris. Chris Wuthmann: Good morning. Can you hear me? Chair Thompson: Yes, if you could state and spell your name. I think it's three minutes or is it now five minutes? Okay, it's three minutes. Mr. Wuthmann: My name is Chris Wuthmann [spells name], and I am with Stanford University Real Estate. I will be the only person from Stanford speaking. If I go slightly over three minutes if it’s possible to get just a bit of distanciation? Mr. Nguyen: Chris, I am sorry. Let me cut you off for just a brief moment. Veronica, you have to exit the timer before you can change the time. Yes. I am sorry about that, Chris. Please go ahead. Mr. Wuthmann: Okay, thanks. I have responsibility for design and construction of housing that is not for students, such as for faculty and staff. In particular, I was involved in the recent development of Mayfield Place, the 100 percent affordable housing community on El Camino and University Terrace, the new 17-acre faculty housing neighborhood on South California Avenue. While the importance of your work converting design criteria to standards for multi-family housing is naturally evident to us, we actually became aware of it only recently. The few comments we would like to offer this morning do not do justice to the breath of your discussion over the past year, and hopefully can suggest dialogue that can still be explored and prove useful. First, the question was raised back at your first study session by Board Member Lew what the relation of these standards would be to subdivisions. University Terrace is an example of this where compatibility with existing context was focused on our frontage interface with the college terrace neighborhood, which allowed the interior of the site to create a new context with the inclusion of more dense and contemporary multi-family housing. It might be worth considering whether to keep some discussion about applicable context such as currently exists within the design criteria section of the code that is being replaced, and, by implication, leave open the possibility of creating new contextual references where conditions permit. Second, we share the concerns that I think all of you expressed that the standards do not limit too much plan and design elements that may be necessary to make housing affordable. You wrestled with how to do this without having to compromise too much, which is obviously a fair concern but is also a vexing dilemma. Perhaps a solution could be an affirmative statement with an alternative compliance that demonstrable cost-saving elements, including prefabricated and modular construction, shall be legitimate consideration where the affordability of a project exceeds inclusionary requirements. Finally, we and other property managers within multi-family housing have been hearing that increased work-from-home and package and food deliveries will persist after the pandemic abates. These new ways of living will likely require adapting traditional building and site plan standards to create the necessary areas for safe workspaces outside of residents’ units and drop-off areas that are not in the public right of way. We would welcome the opportunity to talk with staff about this. Thank you for the extra time here, the extra few seconds. Thank you for hearing these thoughts and for the unflagging reflection you have put into this work thus far, which I have seen reading all of the minutes, and hopefully for the opportunity to dialogue with you further in this process further. Thank you. Mr. Nguyen: Thank you, Chris. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Nguyen: That concludes public comments for this item. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. All right. Thanks for the reminder, Jodie, on the public comment. Because this is such a big item and we do have another item on the agenda, I was hoping that we could speak about this for the next hour and a little bit and maybe have a hard-stop at 10:30 where we will probably need to take a five or ten-minute break. In general, I would like to hear each Board Member’s 4.a Packet Pg. 80 City of Palo Alto Page 10 general comments and then specific items that you would like to discuss with the Board at large as part of your feedback and review. Is there anyone that would like to start first? Board Member Baltay: Osma, I wondered if I could make a suggestion or ask something? Chair Thompson: Sure. Board Member Baltay: Could we put a discussion of the applicability of this at the end of our discussion? Just carve out a few minutes after we have gone through the specifics of the thing? Chair Thompson: The applicability of the standards at large? Board Member Baltay: Yeah. We have this section 18.24010 purpose and applicability, and I would like to discuss that but I would first hear everybody’s thought about all of these other standards and stuff before I come to an opinion about it and I would rather discuss that at the end. Is that possible? Chair Thompson: Sure, we can. Yeah. I think it's part of our review. We’ll see if this is something others want to discuss as well, but I’ll note it down. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s start with Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Osma, I don’t have any general comments but I do have lots of specific comments on each item. Chair Thompson: That’s great. Yeah, let’s just go through what you got. Board Member Lew: Okay. I will just do it in order. Chair Thompson: If you flag the particular headers I can note them kind of like Board Member Baltay flagged the header 18.24.010(B). Board Member Lew: This is general and specific. This is to 18.24.040. This is on corner buildings. We have two options; one is a corner tower or a corner plaza. I think my general comment is that we do have some projects like three-unit projects on RM20 sites that are more suburban-like, they are kind of like houses. They're technically condos but they look like houses and I don’t think that either of these, an urban plaza or a corner tower, are appropriate. I would cite a project that we looked at recently was 702 Clara in midtown. It did have the requisite open space; I think they were calling out for 1,000 feet of open space, and it does have that, but it’s just suburban landscape. It’s not suburban and there is no communal interiors space in the project. Everything is private space. The next item is 18.24.020 on sidewalks under sidewalk width. I think the staff highlighted Park Boulevard as well as El Camino and San Antonio Road. I think on San Antonio Road I just want to note that there are different sections of the street; some parts of it have frontage roads, some parts are residential, and other parts are commercial and we might want to look at that a little more carefully to get some nuance into there. It seems like 12 feet may be fine for commercial but it may be too much on the residential areas. The next one is on ground-floor residential units. I think that is site access 18.24.030(iii). We do have some projects, like 570 Hamilton Avenue, which the Board reviewed recently which is like a courtyard building and the primary entrances are from the courtyard but they do have second entrances to private patios facing the street. It seems like those units wouldn’t meet this ground-floor requirement. I think that is just something to consider. I am not opposed to what is being proposed here. The next item is under massings 18.24.050 under (B) contextual massings and the setbacks there. I do have some other examples and possible options that I’ll forward to staff that don’t have the setbacks but they do have some alignment issues and alignment of building elements that I have seen. I have taken photos of that so I can forward that to staff. The next item is on façade design, 18.24.060 on base, middle, and top item. That’s item C, human-scaled architecture. Again, I think we do have some projects in the RM20 4.a Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Page 11 zone that are only two-stories high. I am thinking of maybe just excluding them altogether from this. You have one standard for three-stories and up and one standard for two-stories or less. I am thinking, maybe, of just eliminating it altogether for the two-story buildings. Then, under ground-floor character, section D of the façade design, under section B is parking. I think staff has mentioned a minimum 20- foot deep area for retail or common spaces lining the street. I just wanted to note that I looked at other projects, like at Santana Row, that that depth is actually physically more like 44 feet. I am okay with the 20 feet minimum but it seems like to get a really good building that you're actually going to need something much deeper and you would need a really deep lot. I’ve looked at some of the new proposed projects that have come into the Planning Department and some of them are really just showing all parking with zero-depth in there. That’s just in order for them to get all of the parking to fit in the site. I think this is really important for us to try to figure out a way, or an alternate way, of making an attractive ground floor if there isn’t… what if there isn't any retail or common space or if it is very limited. I just wanted to highlight that. I think that’s going to be an issue to keep continuing to require full parking ratios. The next item is under 18.24.090 on materials. I did do two studies of this on approved projects in Palo Alto and I was really struggling with the 65 percent requirement for primary materials. The projects that I looked at really only got up to maybe 40. Let me get the actual numbers. I looked at 611 Cowper, which is a Hayes Group project. I also looked at the Wilson Court housing project by Pyotalk [phonetic] and they were only getting up to 40 percent. I think both projects had like four or five different materials on there. I think that we need to look at those ratios a little bit more carefully there because I think trying to get it to 65 percent would have a detrimental impact on the design of the building. I think that needs a lot of work. Then, also, too, on the materials I think we should clarify a primary façade versus a side elevation. Also under materials, I think you have the essifs [phonetic] as a band material and I just wanted to highlight that we do have the Restoration Hardware store on University Avenue which I think most people would find attractive but that’s essifs, so that would not be allowed under the current standards, although that’s just a commercial only project. For me, it’s not necessarily the material itself; it’s how it’s used. Those are all of my detailed comments. Chair Thompson: Great, thank you. I think what we’ll do is still go through everybody’s general comments and specific comments, and then if there are items to debate we will revisit those once we have all had a chance to give all of our comments. Okay, Board Member Hirsch. [Adjusting Audio.] Board Member Hirsch: I am going to take a different slant on this. I guess a more global view of the whole process. [Adjusting Audio.] Board Member Hirsch: A bit more global view of everything here. I think that the state has overreached in its requirement that we don’t have any subjective elements at all in how we deal with new construction more that it becomes an alternative procedure and that we have to use all of the requirements that are in this new zoning. I don’t think that this proposed revision to the zoning code addresses the obvious state objective which is to provide a major relaxation of the local bulk restrictions and height limitations to allow a very significant increase in affordable housing. For example, to limit the height of buildings to four-stories, when, in fact, you could get five-stories into 50-foot height limitation. Without this change, it is unlikely that the projected for new housing units will occur. I say that especially her in Palo Alto from my eight-year observation there isn’t enough land to build 6,000 units of housing available without something giving, in particular bulk and height issues. Each year, the news media points out how we’re falling way behind the requirements here, and 6,000 units --even though it’s a reduction from the requirement of 10,000 a year ago -- is a huge number for us. It will not be achievable without major up- zoning in the regulations. Because the scope of this zoning study draft was not directed to address this issue of the increased bulk or height, Palo Alto is left with a housing conundrum unless, of course, we never intend to achieve 6,000 units. Aside from these more global issues, I believe that this draft objective standards is not a coherent, rational set of priorities based on understanding the process of design. While the intent sections are clearly written and comprehensive, the specific requirements cling to references of historic code language which does not reflect present-day principles. It requires design 4.a Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Page 12 elements which are simply unfounded preferences, imposes specific dimension without any reasonable justification. To illustrate these issues, I would like to use Wilton Court. Could we pull up a picture for Wilton Court? Thank you. Under the text for treatment of corner buildings, it says corner buildings greater than 40 feet in height shall include one of the following special features. The street wall shall be located at a minimum front yard setback or building-to line for a minimum aggregate length of 40-feet in length on both facades meeting at the corner, and shall include one or more of the following building features. This corner element of this building has about 40 feet on the front but it doesn’t have 40 feet on the side. When it comes to specifics like this we run into some problems. Treatment of a corner building, text item number one. Then, we turn the page under corner building and it says it should have one or more of the following building features. The entry to the ground-floor retail or primary building entrance located within 20 feet within the corner of the building. The reality is that the entry to Wilton Court is more than 20 feet from the corner. A different material application and fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade; it doesn’t really have a significantly different… it doesn’t have a different material and the fenestration pattern is pretty much the same as the rest of the building with the exception that the windows on the corner element have a clear-story piece. It really doesn’t apply because it doesn’t have a different material. Under C, the change in height of at least four feet greater than less than… could you pull up the second illustration there? No, that’s the second one I wanted. I wanted the straight-on elevation. There, that’s good. The reality is that C, the change in height of at least four feet greater less than the height of the abutting façade… well, as you can see here the abutting façade is just about the same height, maybe a foot lower. Then, there is the section of the continuing terracotta but it is separated by a joint at that point. The materials change in the back but the front material stays the same on both elements. Really, it doesn’t qualify under that piece of it at all. Then, open space. We would have to use the open space because these first pieces don’t apply. On the open space, could you refer to the next drawings? That one. The open space on this building, because it is a shallow lot -- there isn't a rearing yard capable because it was filling up the property -- the open space is on a deck in the back. What are the requirements for open space? Publicly accessible open space plaza… a space used for outdoor seating for public dining. Neither of those, A or B, apply. A residential common space adjacent to common interior space is not greater than 3 feet above the adjacent sidewalk grade, fences and railings, et cetera, et cetera, 50-foot transparency. The image of open space at Wilton Court is a private deck above the parking garage at the rear of the building and is openly accessible from an interior lobby only. There is not adjacent indoor common space. Designers have chosen a large ground-floor space on El Camino as the major community room space. It faces the street where you can’t really have housing, and it is a good control area because there is a reception desk there. It can be used by outside groups that would be using the building or the staff. At best, these regulations would make it difficult for a project like Wilton Court to be approved. Frankly, describing those other projects, brushing over them and say this would apply because… really, is someone is reading the specifics of all of these that wouldn’t really be allowed; they wouldn’t be allowed. I have a problem with the specificity of all of these details for how this whole zoning is going to, really, effectively be used. I want to note that we have had a couple of interesting responses from public architects that stated that they have a problem with the detail as well. In particular in Menlo Park, Heather Young [phonetic], in trying to make it work, was running into problems where eventually they said to her, “Well, go get another site.” I think that’s a problem with a code that is so detailed written as this is that you're going to just run into terrible problems along the way and interpretation of what is acceptable and what is not under the requirements of the State. I am going to finish up here. I guess, I think I am mostly done because of this example. It just seems to me it is antithetical to architectural common sense to create arbitrary vertical recesses. No, here, I have a whole bunch of other things here. Façade design on packet page 33, can we go on to that? Human- scaled architecture is exclusively for buildings with a base, middle, and top, but the actual text in the existing context space design criteria in 18.16.090 describes this as base, body, and roof, or parapet edge. That’s all true in the El Camino Real design guidelines, and there is no description of these elements as if they represent specific floors as noted in this text and shown in all of the diagrams on pages 33 to 37. This building typology is not a likely prototype, so it ought not be proposed as a solution to human-scale architecture. Many other design elements create human-scale, as noted under 18.16.090 under street buildings facades, projects projecting eaves, overhangs, porches, and other architectural elements. This list should be broadened to include scale elements and larger building prototype. That prototype used exclusively to describe façade for base, middle, and top -- and please do change the titles to be appropriate to what we already have -- really isn't an appropriate description. Another one, here. 4.a Packet Pg. 83 City of Palo Alto Page 13 There is a required and arbitrary 600 square foot recess in any building over 100 feet in length. This creates havoc for planning the interior functions. Planning most generally happens from the inside out, not the reverse. It’s really a problem here with the way all of the specifics have been addressed because they are using a lot of this exact language that says have a recess, et cetera. It is antithetical, to me, to architectural common sense to create arbitrary vertical recesses not in packet pages 77 and 79 on façade design. Just look at the Wilton Court project and you can see how recess is properly places, and the one that is shown that separates the corner function from the remaining pieces is an example of that. Just look at that and you can see how recessed properly placed can work with organizing building functions and enhancing exterior expressions. Arbitrary recesses every 40 feet, or whatever it might be, simply aren’t workable, and they don’t have any relationship at all to the interior function of a building. The demand to create an objective zoning code that makes sure it is based on totally or rational mathematical principles, such as daylight plane, height factor, floor area ratios, required setbacks, open space ratio, yard dimensions, light and air requirements… this is the first step of preliminary zoning review and approval and the second is context and that exists in chapter 18 the way it is written. It is mostly appropriate, could benefit by some editing but it still the proper guide for maintaining the quality of Palo Alto-built environment. I really feel strongly about this that it is a major change in the code, but if you really want to create an objective code then we are not there in what we have been describing. I’m sorry but that’s my opinion. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Hirsch. We will move on to Board Member Baltay. [Adjusting Audio.] Board Member Baltay: Thanks. I have three basic ideas here. One, I am profoundly bothered by the idea of objective standards as a concept, as a design principle, as Ken Hayes put it, “as form-based design.” I share David’s concerns. At the same time, I don’t think we have a choice and it’s important to be realistic here. If we stay on the high pedestal, David, like you're talking about and just say this isn't good enough -- and it probably never will be -- we’re just going to get hosed. We’re just going to be forced to accept design that is much less. I think what we have done is really a good effort to try to come up with something that will mitigate the potential impact on our built environment, on our design standards. I think it is incumbent upon us to just roll up our sleeves and try to do the best we can to come up with standards that will do as much as possible. While we recognize that as design professionals, I think a lot of us know that a lot of this stuff isn't going to work that well. Some of these numbers and things are just not going to work. It’s going to produce pretty bad design overall, but maybe that is what we need to do in order to get more housing. With that first part off my chest, I want to just sort of step through some of this stuff and make some detailed comments, sort of like what Alex was doing. The first comment on 18.24.020, Alex suggested that 12 feet might be too wide a sidewalk in some cases along San Antonio for housing. I agree with that and think we should just check where we really want to require 12-foot sidewalks. I think the best way to do that is just to be very specific about what the widths need to be. What might be realistic is not to try to put it into code but rather to leave it to the director to just stipulate sidewalk widths and provide a table in some point in the future so that we can be sure we get it right. The second part in that section is regarding the paving materials. One member of the public brought up a comment about some of the old glass/concrete pavement on California Avenue, and I agree that that’s not always the most appropriate thing to follow even if it’s what's there now. I suggest that we just say that sidewalk paving materials are prescribed by the director. If they're going to be in this objective standards thing then the director of planning will tell you what the paving of the sidewalk should be. I don’t see any way to otherwise write down what’s an appropriate paving material and I think it’s not that big of a deal. Just let the staff or planning director call that one. That’s my opinion. On building orientation regarding the corner elements -- I think I brought this up last time -- I think when you have this section B treatment of corner building you're giving four options and saying you can pick any one of them. I think in order to have a successful corner you have to have all three, A plus B plus C, or you can do option two which is the open corner. In my opinion, it should say not one or more of the following, but, rather, it should say A plus B plus C or do the open corner detail. That’s just my opinion about that. When you have an open corner, I think it needs to be lower to the ground. I think if it were three feet above the sidewalk grade that’s too much; for it to be successful, I think it needs to be three steps maximum. Rather than define a number, just say it's 4.a Packet Pg. 84 City of Palo Alto Page 14 three steps. As defined by the building code, a step can’t be more than, I think, seven-and-a-half inches, but just leave it that way. Threes steps doesn’t require a railing, which is, in my book, much more close, much more accessible and visually easy to get to, which is what the idea of the open corner is. I suggest that we change that to three steps maximum. On 18.24.040 section 3 ground-floor residential units A, in the case where you have a sloped site, how do you measure how high above the ground a unit is? It says here the average height of the finished floor and I wanted to know, just a clarification, if average height means the average height of the whole façade or the per individual apartment unit? I think it would be more successful if it were just per living unit. You can step the living units with the grade, otherwise, on a sloped site, you’re going to find for a large building this numerical thing is very tough to work with. Again, on that one I would like to find some clarity on what we mean by average height. On building massing, that’s section 050, Section (ii)(A), transition to lower density building types we are proposing 36-inch box trees every 30 feet. I think in situations where you have tight corridors are with a parking garage underneath, 36-inch box trees can be pretty big. I’d rather see us use 24-inch box trees and maybe increase the spacing every 20 feet. That’s just a nitpicking detail but to my colleagues, I suggest that 24-inch box trees might be more successful and practical. On item number three on the same section, it says within 40 feet of an abutting structure, et cetera. I suggest that we change the phrasing. The last clause says, “As this will allow light to maintain privacy”, I think we should say in order to allow light but maintain privacy. The code should not be assuming what the response will be. They should be explaining why, so in order to is a better term. Replace “as this will” with “in order to.” Under the base, middle, and top, I am profoundly bothered by this whole thing. I think the example we were given of 777 Broadway at the beginning of our meeting today demonstrates to me that that building clearly does not have what a classically trained architect would call a base, a middle, and a top. We've got, sort of, a bastardization of this concept, which is so far from the renaissance idea of what a base, a middle, and a top, or as David put it “the bottom, a body, and a roof” would be. I don’t know what to say. I don’t think you can put that down in words. We’re trying and trying and we are not getting very far I don’t think. I think we just put it down the best we can. Two comments though: one is that the text here says on lots wider than 50 feet. We probably should say on lots 50 feet and wider. There are many lots in Palo Alto that are exactly 50 feet, and I think our intent is that this should apply to those lots. I think we should change that phrasing. I strongly agree with the comment Alex made earlier for two-stories or less. I think a two-story building is not really possible to design it with the way we’re describing it, a base, a middle, and a top. I mean, in any practical sense, most residential structures have a base, middle, and top. A foundation, siding, and a roof eave, but I agree with Alex’s idea for buildings two-stories or less we should just strike it altogether. I just don’t see how it’s going to work and I think it’s a ridiculous design constraint that is a waste of effort. I am sorry; I am stepping through this whole document here. It would be helpful. Staff, if we had the sections on each page so I could see it. 18.24.060, façade design, at the very end under parking, loading and utilities, I think it is important to clarify when you're saying that you can’t be more than five feet above the grade for the second-story when you have semi-submerged parking. That five feet is measured from the top of the finished surface, not the bottom of the structure. The structure could be quite thick and that would make quite a difference. Again, that clarity for item one, maximum five feet above grade is from the finished floor or the top of the structure to the grade, not the bottom. On 18.24.07 for residential entries, I question if we shouldn’t have a minimum height for the stoop and the porch-style entrance. We’re saying they have to be a maximum of five feet; shouldn’t they also be some distance off the ground? I suppose that’s governed by the residential height when we have the chart of setbacks but it seems to me it makes sense to clarify, as well, that maybe the porch should be at the same level as the residential unit so that you have some raising up of the porch off the ground. My last comments are on 18.24.090, similar to Alex, I started thinking about this percentage business; I was as much concerned about just how are we measuring the percentage? I think we need more clarity on this one or else it’s going to become a disaster. If you include the entire areas of the façade, many contemporary buildings are a large percentage glass glaze walls. It could be easily 20 or 30 percent. If you're saying of the total area, which is an allowed primary material glazing, then the balance is not that hard to come up to a primary material, say a stone or a brick or something like that; however, if you exclude the windows and say the façade material is really just the solid stuff, it changes again quite a bit. I think it is really worth doing some analysis of what building facades that we have approved are and be clearer about percentages. Just how do you measure it? I could see as I thought about this, just for a few minutes even, a lot of questions start to come about how do you measure this percentage. What was included? What is not 4.a Packet Pg. 85 City of Palo Alto Page 15 included? That’s the kind of stuff that makes or breaks the success of a project and getting it approved quickly. More clarity on that percentage would be really useful. I agree with Alex, as well, that we need to clarify what the primary facades are, again, to be very clear. For this to work, the definitions have to be crystal-clear so designers can understand and follow them. We really do need to check the percentages to make sure that they're realistic. I was channeling Joe Bellomo thinking about board- formed concrete, and I think he would argue strongly that that’s a primary building material. I think making a definition of that is awfully challenging because standard poured concrete is not as attractive. I am happy just to leave that off and that would come back to the ARB or something like that, which would probably be fine. I do think that we should have a better definition of T1-11 siding or plywood here. That’s a very generic term and we really want to say that that’s some pattern-sawn wood veneer panels is what my definition was, but we have to be careful about what words we’re using. We do allow wood veneer; it says here on the fourth item down that wood veneer is a primary allowed material. T1-11 siding is a wood veneer siding. We need to be very precise about these things. I agree with Alex that the esiffs system is not in and of itself a low-quality material, it’s how it’s used. We just need to be clearer about that again. It is probably better to err on the side of caution and just not leave things on the list if we think it can be used badly. Those two things are running a big risk. I would like to, Osma, come back to the items about applicability after everyone else speaks, if we could. That’s what I have to say. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thanks. I think we will get a chance to go through each section one more time and talk about after hearing each other’s comments. Okay, thank you, Board Member Baltay. Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: I will just start by thanking staff and all of the time that Osma and David put into this subcommittee item. This is not a small thing objective standards and every municipality is dealing with this. I understand the pressure given the legal impetus and also the queue that might arise in the summer. However, I don’t think this is something to breeze through quickly and to push through. I really appreciate the effort from our planning staff and our consultant Chris in terms of thinking about this, reworking it, bringing it back to us, and thank you, again, Amy and Jodie and Vinh for reaching out to the community in terms stakeholders. I think that was really an important gesture in knowing that we are in shelter-in-place and not able to do this in-person and everything happening at once. I guess I will just start and say that I very much agree with everything that has been said so far largely in terms of outlook of fellow Board Members. I very much appreciate the comments that people have made not in- person, but sent to us. We did hear from Architect Ken, And Elaine [phonetic], and Heather [phonetic], and they made some very compelling points. I just wanted to touch on those, and then, also, the gentleman who did make some comments -- believe it was Chris -- and I guess I will start there. Like Board Member David, from the start and I still do have discomfort in terms of looking at an objective standards in terms of a strict, prescribed, numerical dimension or formula. I just want to approach this context because, as we know as architects and designers and planners, for every site there is a specific contextualized situation. I have just been thinking about Palo Alto in particular, the 2010 ARB Awards whenever that was… it was such a joy to participate on and really think about the environments and the buildings that we have built and were approved, and seeing age. To go back to that example of what Chris brought today -- thank you so much -- I want to start with the graphics because people so often look at graphics as examples and this manual, the objective standards, even to a seasoned consultant, the graphics do matter. I found really compelling those examples that you showed today, Chris, in terms of something in Sunnyvale, and San Francisco, and Oakland and I wasn’t on the board during the Wilton Court approval process and it was really great, Board Member David, that you brought those forward. I see that there are specific conditions that we are not drafting this document for and it sits very uncomfortably with me. However, we want to do our best and try to do the right thing. This issue of compatibility to context, that Ken Hayes brought up, I think that’s what we are all working towards, right, To find that compatibility and that comfort. Architect Elaine talks about... I feel strongly that we need to think about flexibility in a range of graduated dimensions and standards per the sizes of these lots in different conditions. I just began to think about it and since we have been meeting I have been thinking about San Antonio and some of its corridors, and University Avenue, and Cal Avenue, and El Camino Real, and the contrast of Ramona Historic corner, for example, that you brought up. I also just wanted to repeat what Architect Heather mentioned in terms of that important issue of making sure that we think about the big picture before we vote on this, and, having said that, I will just go to the document. If we 4.a Packet Pg. 86 City of Palo Alto Page 16 start with the materials -- I am going to work my way backward -- my comments from .060 to .090. Thank you so much Board Member Alex and Board Member Peter. I agree. When I first looked at this I was trying to calculate the percentage of the primary material and it is difficult. I do think it’s the glazing because so much of it is glass. Do we need -- I am just going to ask a question -- the larger percentage or can we use language in terms of primary, secondary, and accent. Can we rely on consultants and our planning staff to evaluate based on those descriptors? I feel like we can, so I would remove those percentages. If we can go back to .080 and open space. My largest concern is where we are forgetting the zoning and the dimensions. You know, I hear Board Member Alex often refer to the RM20, and I am thinking of the RM40. To be frank, I am most sensitive for projects that have… sorry go back to materials. I have one more related to open space and materials; what we’re not thinking of. There was a gentleman who came through… I just met with a modular company yesterday for work. Modular and prefab; we haven’t even discussed modular and prefab. That is going to affect materials and I just wonder where else the language might come up where we think about the future. I think Architect Ken actually wrote about that too in terms of compatibility and styles. You know, I don’t like the word style; however, the architectural language that is based on modern technology, perhaps, or unforeseen climate change. It might also be a building type that is housing that maybe is not condos or apartments or townhouses. It is something new. I just want to make sure that there is language that actually addresses prefab and modular, or when we go to open space and when we talk about deliveries and our way of adapting to outdoor living in terms of what we’ve seen happening with our crisis in the world, we have something in there that is the general language, and maybe it is up high under intent. Now we can go to open space. Do you mind if we just go to the open space? My worry there is just the sizes, and not so much the clear heights, I think that’s fine, but when we talk about minimum square feet area -- I will just make my comments general; I don’t want to be long -- in .0702 in residential entries, I know that we have patio entries, and shared entries that are not as large as what we are prescribing here, in my visual vocabulary in living in the area. I guess I am more comfortable with the five-foot by five-foot language rather than six by six and some of these larger numbers for dimensions on open space, when I am thinking about some housing proposals, in particularly affordable housing, or a mixed-use where there is a percentage. Anyways, I often think the open spaces, when I look at the dimensions, might be a little bit too large. I am sorry I didn’t say that earlier in the previous meetings, but after going and looking out at examples I think that might be something to look at a little more carefully. Going back to the graphics, under the section of 1060 façade design, I think the graphics have improved immensely, but in the façade design section because all of the examples are very traditional in style I am a little bit uncomfortable. I am wondering if I can just bring up this idea of bringing in more photos. Working in other cities, I see a lot of their specific planes, for example Mountain View often includes built examples of a certain typology of building that exists within their city. It is going to be harder in Palo Alto because we haven’t built a lot of housing; however, maybe we could include some photos as part of this document that we fell are compelling and might illustrate. In terms of the base, middle, and top discussion -- I really appreciate both Alex and Peter talking about the two-story -- I agree that maybe we just take that out. Board Member David mentioned this whole thing about the base, middle, and top, and I think about the projects that we have recently reviewed. I wonder if that heading of base, middle, and top under human-scaled architecture might simply be described as differentiation. Not to water- down the point, I understand that you still want to include that differentiation includes a defined base or ground-floor. Do you see that under (C)(1)(a)? Even a middle or body, but I would take out the two- story and I think we are talking about differentiation. Then, very important -- there may be disagreement with Board Members -- I feel most comfortable when there is a menu of options. On the slide, Jean, when you said ARB the intent is there and then you go down the ARB side or you can go down the side of standards and then it branches off again to a menu of options or dimensions. I feel comfortable with the menu. I feel like the menu are examples with maybe a slight change to our graphics that might show actual examples that have been built in Palo Alto, but that menu becomes really important. Maybe where there are dimensions there is a range according to different size lots and different conditions. Under the menu -- I am not sure if we are going to find agreement here -- I feel like you can choose one option; there is not a need for two or more. My feeling is with seasoned professionals and consultants who come in they can choose one. There is also city staff and maybe there is an option for city staff to pull from a subcommittee or if there is a question to go to someone on the ARB if they find that one is not enough. I believe the intent and then examples with professionals and our city team might be enough to choose one option and allow for some flexibility. I just wanted to offer 4.a Packet Pg. 87 City of Palo Alto Page 17 that. We will keep going on the document. I did mark up more but I also want to pass the baton to keep to our time. Building orientation and setbacks, when we go to .040 treatments of corner buildings. Thank you Board Member Alex. There are situations where I think we need to just make a change there, but I feel like I did glance over this whole… the dimensions over 40 feet here it is one of the following. This is for the length; I am talking about the lengths of the building. I guess I also am not sure about where you have the length of the building that is 100 and then you subtract such a large volume; sorry that’s under building massing. Also on the corner where we see the strict dimension of 40 feet, we see that. I just wanted to point to those two that… it is on maximum façade length and those breaks where you take a chunk out of the building. I do think that might be a little bit prescriptive. Also, Board Member Hirsch mentioned -- I believe it also came up in Architect Heather’s example of those continuous facades in terms of compatible rhythm and pattern when you subtract. Maybe these are examples that are offered; that these are possible ways to do it and maybe there are some photos where there are continuous facades or built examples that are greater than 100 feet in length and there is compatibility shown in the rhythm and the treatment of the building façade. I can stop there. To conclude, I do feel the pressure; I understand. There is a housing crisis and we do need to provide this route that does allow for it, I just want to make sure that there is flexibility and there is also an acknowledgment that housing is included in many different kinds of building types. I just want to end by saying in Palo Alto we also have these housing overlays, and the PD comes back and mixed-use can take very different forms; we don’t want to close off avenues for quality housing. We also don’t want to be too prescriptive for affordable housing in asking for too much. I’ll pass it off, Osma. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thanks, Vice Chair Lee. I will get into my comments. I appreciate the thoroughness of my fellow Board Members’ comments, and also I appreciate the format that everyone stuck to. I think it is really nice to hear everybody’s comments from start to finish. Especially since I know in the past when we have tried to talk about this document it is really hard to get through all the way to the end. I read Architect Hayes’s comments and the members of the public’s comments. I am so grateful and thankful that we had those comments come in because I think they were very compelling; they all have a good point. Form based criteria won’t ever really take the place of subjective criteria. In that sense, I still understand the need, similar to what Board Member Baltay said. There is a need for this and I think we are going to try to do the best we can with what we have done. I appreciate staff’s responsiveness to a lot of our comments to date. I will start from the top and go down since we went the other. The note on 18.24.020 public realm about the sidewalk width that Board Member Lew and Board Member Baltay brought up, I am okay with the width as stated. If it’s too large in some conditions… I mean, I understand the whole tricky thing here is sensitivity to context. There is kind of like a where possible kind of note; I would be okay with a thinner sidewalk if it made sense, but I do think that these roads are important corridors and I think uniformity is part of their identity in terms of how they evolve. I don’t have an issue picking one versus sending it to staff to make an objective or subjective decision. The other note I had was on street trees, which was on that same page as (ii)(a) where it say every 30 feet sidewalks shall include at least one street tree within six feet of the sidewalk for every 30 feet of linear feet. Architect Elaine had a note to add where possible because it is true, in some cases that is not possible. I might also suggest where the context calls for something denser maybe there is an opportunity to have them every 25 feet or every 20 feet to encourage the applicant to make an argument for that. In addition, Architect Elaine had a note about the existing paving, if the paving that exists isn't safe or accessible Board Member Baltay made a note to go back to staff on that. Potentially if that is a roadblock we could have something like a caveat like if existing paving is not safe, or accessible, the applicant can propose an alternative to be reviewed. That was my note on that. For 18.24.040 in the intent statement, the last note optimized building for heat gain, I would scratch heat gain and note thermal comfort instead -- there is another location where that happens in 18.24.100 -- because thermal comfort encompasses everything that you're trying to look for when you're evaluating that. Then, similarly, the item above that, landscape or usable spaces that contain open space or hardscaped spaces, I sort of read that as asking for a lot of hardscape. I wonder if there is a way to word that where we can say there is a reasonable balance between hardscape and softscape as it makes sense. In that same section, under B, the concern about the corner lengths that has been brought up a few times that we have all mentioned/. I know Architect Elaine made a comment that 40 feet is too long. I am on board for a smaller number, as well, for that; 20 feet, 30 feet. At that point, you wonder if this criteria is even necessary; something to consider. There was also a discussion about having it be a proportion to the 4.a Packet Pg. 88 City of Palo Alto Page 18 building at large or at the street. Yes, I could support a lower number there. There was also a note by Architect Elaine on the open space that is just a little bit lower on this section. Architect Elaine had a comment about graduated open space depending on the size of the lot. For this item two here, maybe we could make a comment about a minimum of 20 feet, minimum area of 1,000. Maybe that 1,000 feet could modulate based on the lot size. In 18.24.50(ii)(A)(2) and (3), these are kind of the side façade. I wonder if there is fire code that covers item three in terms of the façade area being glazing that we need to consider. Maybe that item is not necessary if the code is already covering that item. Then, in (iii)(3)(b), which is the open space continuous façade, we have a lot of comments that this requirement might be onerous; it might be burdensome. I know that this is a big item of discussion. I think it depends on the lot, honestly. It is really hard to make a call but I could be open to removing this item in favor of having the buildings refer to open space requirements separately. There is a comment on 18.24.060 about non-residential ground-floor height, to consider a range between 12 and 15 instead of keeping a minimum at 14. I could support that. Then, 18.24.080 common open space, for this one under (c)(i) we have a note of a minimum size of 200 feet for common open space. I know that there are other jurisdictions that go by zone and they say a required square footage of open space by that zone and then they have a number for private and then a slightly increased number for common open space. I wonder if that might allow for that individuality and flexibility per lot. Okay, those are all of my notes. Maybe what makes sense is we go through the document -- Chris has been great about noting all of our comments -- and see if there are other items that may be conflicting and that we may need to take straw polls or provide more clarity. Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, did we want to start at the top of the document? I would like a moment to add a few comments as well just as we are going through our detailed discussion. Chair Thompson: Sure, yeah. Yeah, let’s start at the top. Ms. Gerhardt: I think Board Member Baltay maybe wanted to talk applicability. Is now the time for that? Chair Thompson: I think we could, if you're okay with that, Board Member Baltay, or do you want to go through all of the detailed items first and then talk about this at the end? Board Member Baltay: What I want to do is make a case that we should limit as much as possible the applicability of this whole thing. I think it may be better to go through the details first. That’s really what we need to get feedback on today. That’s my suggestion to you, Chair Osma. Chair Thompson: Okay. We will come back to this, Jodie. Let’s start with 18.20. There were things like pretty minimal comments, but are there any other comments from the Board on this item or questions on staff in terms of ARB? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, if I may on the San Antonio sidewalks I can understand that the 12 feet is more applicable in a commercial type area. We did just expand the HIP to San Antonio for two blocks, and we also have the area closer to the 101 freeway is more commercial in nature. I am sorry; I am forgetting what the two blocks are. I think it's Middlefield or something. I might be saying the wrong street, but maybe if we say like East of Middlefield maybe that might give people more comfort. Chair Thompson: There’s a zoning change in there or it’s just the overlay is getting applied there? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, the Housing Incentive Program is now allowed on two blocks of San Antonio. Chair Thompson: Got you. Board Member Baltay: Jodie, is it necessary to specify that at this point in the code? I mean, San Antonio is probably going to change as we continue to think about the planning on that street. Ms. Gerhardt: It is but we fight about sidewalks so often that I really would like to write this down so that it is very clear to developers what is needed. 4.a Packet Pg. 89 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Board Member Baltay: Wouldn’t it just make sense with a code? For the law to stipulate that the city shall maintain a list of required sidewalk widths and then internally you can develop what that list is overtime? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, that actually would be stronger if it was in the code itself. Board Member Baltay: Okay. That’s just my two cents is that to force that right now it may be too much and we may end up regretting the width we choose now two years from now. Chair Thompson: Which width do we think we would feel more comfortable with, if it’s not 12? Board Member Baltay: Alex, you started this one. What do you think? Board Member Lew: If you talk to urban designers they actually recommend 15 to 17 feet minimum; the 12 feet has always been the compromise standard that Palo Alto has used. You don’t actually get everything that is in the diagrams on that sheet. It is actually hard to fit that all in, in 12 feet. It is just because we have small size lots in many places. Chair Thompson: You think 12 feet is too small? Ms. Gerhardt: It’s a compromise. Board Member Lew: It’s a compromise. That’s what we have been using for downtown and El Camino. It is something that has been widely used in Palo Alto. I think if you walk downtown you will see sidewalks that are maybe eight feet, and those are definitely too narrow. Chair Thompson: Does it make sense to do a minimum of 12 feet, and then potentially a maximum as per allowable by the site? Board Member Lew: I think what’s written is okay. Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s keep going, then. Do you feel all right about the accent paving notes? Ms. Gerhardt: On the accent paving, we are trying to establish some standards downtown and Cal Avenue. The glass has been made safe. Again, it is one of those things where staff just needs that written down somewhere so that we can clearly implement it. Chair Thompson: Okay. If it is being made safe then I don’t have any issue with the way that it is written. Any other thoughts from Board Members? Board Member Baltay: Just repeating the same argument, Jodie. Some things are best left as policies that staff provides rather than enacted as legislation and code. It is just easier to keep control of. I think things like sidewalk paving is a good one to do that way. Take that flexibility; internally establish it rather than having City Council have to approve it every time you want to change. Board Member Lew: I have one comment on the accent paving. If you look at University Avenue it is actually a mish-mash of different sidewalks. We have had controversies on some of the projects, like some of Roxy’s [phonetic] projects where he doesn’t want to do the brick accent. He wanted to do interval color concrete. If you actually start walking and looking at it very carefully it is a total mixed-bag of different sidewalks and there really isn't a standard. We would like to have a standard but it is not really there yet. Ms. Gerhardt: It was there and got eliminated in some places and we’re trying to bring it back; that is the point. Board Member Lew: Yeah, understood. 4.a Packet Pg. 90 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Thompson: It is 10:30. We are kind of at the time where I wanted to do a hard stop. The good thing is that we got everyone’s comments out. The not-good thing is that we didn’t really get to debate too much. What do you think, Jodie? Do you feel like staff has enough or are there items you think we should focus on that are particularly contentious that we can spend another five or ten minutes wrapping up? Ms. Gerhardt: I think I do have some questions. Maybe if I can breeze through some of my questions, and if Jean or Chris add into that, that would be helpful. I think on this corner element, the 40 feet gives the corner element some substantial weight. I heard some comments on the side street; it doesn’t have to be the 40 feet on the side street. I also heard that if it is a smaller piece of property then maybe this can scale down in proportion. For the moment, that’s the way that I would tackle that. Mr. Sensenig: I would like to just say two clarifying points on this. One is, Alex, it only applies to buildings greater than 40 feet in height. The more house-shaped buildings and the more suburban areas would not be included; they are excluded from this. Two, to clarify that it is an aggregate of 40 feet on both sides of the building; it is not 40 feet in one direction. It is a total of 40 feet. Ms. Gerhardt: We do have room to have one side longer than the other. Mr. Sensenig: Yes. Board Member Baltay: I think 40 feet is the right number. We are talking about four-story or taller buildings here. Forty feet, when it is a combination of two sides, is not too small, in my opinion. Chair Thompson: Okay, any other Board Member thoughts? Vice Chair Lee: I am okay with 20 now that you have clarified. I was reading 40 and 40 on both sides. Chair Thompson: I am also okay with that. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. One the next one, Chris, the entry on ground-level, Board Member Hirsch was saying that Wilton Court would not meet that. I mean, I think we still want to keep entries close to the corner. Do we maybe want to change it to 30 feet? If entries are more than that then they would come to the ARB. Is there some number that people might want to change it to? Board Member Baltay: I think you should leave it at 20 feet and if it goes beyond that it comes to the ARB. Otherwise, it is not part of the corner; that’s the idea. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. Next one, Chris. Chair Thompson: Any other thoughts? I just want to make sure that we have a group straw poll on this. I am okay to increase it to 25 if that is helpful. Vice Chair Lee: I could support 25. Chair Thompson: Anybody else? Board Member Baltay: Twenty-five is fine with me if that’s the consensus. Chair Thompson: Okay, great. Board Member Lew: Can I be the contrarian for a minute? You know, we have the Sunrise housing on El Camino, and it has a corner element but the main building entrance is on the side street. It is senior housing, so it has porte cochere and a drop-off there. The corner element isn't really an entrance. Maybe there is an exception for certain kinds of housing. If it’s senior housing where they really are using the automobile drop-off… 4.a Packet Pg. 91 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Ms. Gerhardt: But I wonder if such a project, too, could have a secondary entrance at the corner and still abide by this. Board Member Lew: Yeah. On the senior housing, they really try to control the entrance just for security and to keep tabs on the residents for the ones who have Alzheimer’s and who can wander off the campus. Yeah, I don’t know that we need to make a big deal about it. I just wanted to point out that I think that there may be other ways; there might be another option. Vice Chair Lee: I do concur with Alex there. I see that right now we are saying either or, right? In a situation for Sunrise they would need to, right? Isn't this a menu option? Mr. Sensenig: Yeah. This is a menu of options that you can have A, B, or C. Mr. Baltay wanted all of them to be part of it in his comments, but you do have an option here of how to meet this. There is also always the ARB route. The direction that we took from the ARB earlier in this process is, when possible, be stricter. That kind of goes through this whole document that, yes, we understand that we are not providing every building type to fit these standards, but, you know, these are a tighter set of standards and then if you want to deviate from them you go to the ARB. Vice Chair Lee: Thank you, Chris. If I may, I do think the menu option is compelling and to have one as a possibility. In the case of Sunrise I just know -- thank you, Alex, for that reminder -- it wouldn’t be possible for them to have an entry on the corner and then space is very precious and they have actually saved that space for open space further along the block. I don’t know. I think in that situation it makes sense to have the options and choose one. Chair Thompson: I would agree with Vice Chair Lee that I don’t think they should all be required. I think the menu is important and having that flexibility is important. Board Member Hirsch: Under B, it has to be a change of material? A different material application and fenestration pattern. Ms. Gerhardt: That’s one of the options you could choose. Board Member Hirsch: I'm sorry; I demonstrated I think on Wilton Court the use of the same material worked very well in the corner, so why does it have to be a separate material? Mr. Sensenig: David, thank you for your comments. Wilton Court would meet these standards with the increase to 25 feet here. Concerning your comment on C, I think you made a really good point that it is not clear what the overall height that needs to be four feet greater or less than. That can be clarified that since Wilton Court has a part of the façade that’s punched out and then the part back, that it is actually greater than the average primary façade for each façade. I am proposed, kind of, rewriting this with a little bit more clarity that what Wilton Court is doing is acceptable because it’s essentially, through its design, having a change in height. But, you're right; this wasn’t written clear enough to allow that. Chair Thompson: That makes sense. I can support that. Board Member Baltay: That’s all fine with me if you're waiting for that. Ms. Gerhardt: Chair Thompson, maybe silence means you're okay with it. Chair Thompson: From here on out, silence means you're okay with it. Board Member Baltay: I don’t agree but I yield to the consensus of the Board. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, silence means you're okay enough. Chair Thompson: We yield to the silence. 4.a Packet Pg. 92 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Ms. Gerhardt: What did we pass, Chris? Mr. Sensenig: I think the other one… Ms. Gerhardt: The 100 feet? Mr. Sensenig: Yeah. Going back to some of the examples shown and some of the examples given by the subcommittee in the past, I agree that this is an onerous standard and one that is going far in requiring breaking up of buildings. There are two possible ways, I think, to change this. One, is to increase that its building is greater than, like, 140 feet or 150 feet. If that’s what Palo Alto feels appropriate before there is a major break. Or, as Osma recommended, potentially removing this item and relying on the façade rhythm and pattern standards. Ms. Gerhardt: I am hoping Board Member Lew might be able to speak to this because I am assuming that the Olive Garden-type building that was the whole length of the block is what we are trying to get to here. Board Member Lew: Yeah. I think a lot of the new buildings are 200, 300, 400 feet long. I think that once you get over 200 feet I think you do need something. I don’t think it has to be 600 square feet. It could be, maybe, 300 or 400 square feet. If you just walk down Hamilton Avenue you'll see a lot of 100 by 100-foot buildings, and then there is a 25-foot alley in between them. That seems to work pretty well. The Olive Garden project, my recollection of it had one six by six notch in the building and that was it. I think if you look at the Mayfield housing and College Terra Centre both had something much larger, approximately 20 by 20 feet. I have all of those drawn in AutoCAD, so I can forward staff the dimensions of all of those projects if you want. Vice Chair Lee: I will just say that I appreciate Chris’ suggestion; I think 100 feet is not that long. I think it needs to go longer to increase that length and maybe it is a proportion. Also, this diagram implies open space the way it is shown. I think connotes that. I just want to make that comment. Board Member Baltay: I think 600 square feet may be a little bit too much. Maybe more like 400 is a more realistic target. Board Member Hirsch: Can I suggest something here? Many of the examples we were shown -- I agree with Grace’s comment that we should be seeing some photos of buildings that exist and samples of what are appropriate -- have recesses, bays, and one would count the face of the building when there is a bay as a recess. You might have a series that define a building’s façade. We certainly saw that in the example I showed at Wilton Court where the recesses are effective in creating the exterior volumes scale of a building. Why do we have to incorporate that in a single recess? The actual fact of a long building if you had a recess like this it would kind of be meaningless, but when I converted into something that can, in plan, be turned into bays or part of a unit I think it is very useful. We are talking about modulating the exterior face of a building. That is the way to do it. Chair Thompson: I was just also going to put in my two cents. I am okay with creating a higher number than 100, so 150 or even 200, and then, if necessary, making the break smaller in size from 600. Mr. Sensenig: Just for reference, the Wilton Court project is about 150 to 160 feet in length. That is actually a good one to look at and say would you be okay with that building being 50 percent longer without a break? Chair Thompson: I think that would be too much. Vice Chair Lee: I also just want to point out the language here says at least one vertical façade break. You know, maybe if we are rethinking the language we are talking about overall length and we are also talking about a prescribed break. I also look at the graphics and I think of it as a C-shaped building like 4.a Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Alphabet City and Steven Holl and that is not what we are asking for. I just want to be clear that we present it and write it specific and not specific. Mr. Sensenig: Osma, is it okay to do a straw poll on 150 feet and 400 square feet? Chair Thompson: Yeah, let’s do that. Straw poll to changing it to 150 feet in length and 400 square feet, like Chris said. Sorry, Board Member Baltay? Board Member Baltay: Yes. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew? [Adjusting Audio.] Board Member Lew: I can support that, and I could also go maybe up to 200. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Hirsch? Board Member Hirsch: I am not in favor of a single one. Chair Thompson: Not in favor of changing it to 150? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, in favor of changing it to 150, but I am not in favor of a single break that is on a dimension like this. Chair Thompson: The verbiage is at least one. The applicant could choose to do more than one. Okay, Board Member Lee? Vice Chair Lee: I am fine with that; it’s better. I think 200 is possible as well. Chair Thompson: Okay. I am in support of 150 with a minimum area moving down to 400. Keep going? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. What are the next sections, Chris? Mr. Sensenig: There’s the base, middle, and top excluding two stories. Chair Thompson: Yeah, should we take a quick straw poll on that? I think I heard three people in support of that, at least. Go ahead, Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: That sounds good. Chair Thompson: Okay, I am also in support of that. Mr. Sensenig: Okay. I think that was the main question here other than its appropriateness or changing its name to base, body, and roof parapet edge. Chair Thompson: Let’s talk about that. Are there any other Board Members that have a response to Board Member Hirsch’s suggestion? Board Member Baltay: Actually, I think Grace had her finger on it best. It is no longer base, middle, and top. It is rather differentiation that we’re talking about. Vice Chair Lee: I would support it. My feeling is, I don’t want to repeat, but I just feel like we don’t use the word differentiation as a heading. We use the word articulation and modulation if we are calling those out separately. I would be comfortable with that. 4.a Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Page 24 Chair Thompson: I am sorry; is the suggestion to change it to differentiation from base, middle, and top? Vice Chair Lee: Yes, and I would retain the language of differentiating in the paragraph using the language base, middle, and top pointing to the example. Chair Thompson: I see. Okay. Mr. Sensenig: Would it be a vertical differentiation or just differentiation period? Vice Chair Lee: I could go either way. I think it relates to massing. Mr. Sensenig: Okay. Chair Thompson: let’s do a straw poll just for differentiation. Board Member Lee. Anybody else? Board Member Lew? [Adjusting Audio.] Chair Thompson: I am in support of changing it. Board Member Hirsch: Are we calling this human-scale architecture? Board Member Baltay: Sure, it sounds fine. I feel like I am sort of just making big changes to architectural history with this kind of verbiage, but, yes, it’s a more accurate description so I support it. Chair Thompson: I think I heard Board Member Hirsch asking if we would still keep human-scaled architecture as item C. I think we still would, we are just changing the letter (I) from base, middle, and top to differentiation. Board Member Hirsch: I pointed out that the actual code indicates other elements of human-scaled architecture. I don’t find it to be appropriate. I don’t have a substitute right now but maybe Grace could come up with something. Human-scaled architecture when it’s a small building is one thing; when it’s a very large building, which we are likely be seeing, is something very different. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Hirsch: There are so many different kinds of elements, like canopies over the front door, or the plantings, or the trees in the front yard, or the size of the windows, or different sizes of windows. Some of that is in your diagrams, Chris, nut to call this specific design human-scaled architecture doesn’t seem appropriate to me. Chair Thompson: Board Member Hirsch, you're suggesting changing the term human-scaled architecture to something else? Is there any support from anyone else on the Board to do that? Board Member Baltay: No, I don’t support that. I think human-scaled is an important concept. Chair Thompson: Okay. I saw Board Member Lew shake his head. Board Member Lew: Yeah, I don’t support that at all. I am actually reading the Jan Gehl book Cities and People, and I think the human-scale is actually the most important thing. If we do nothing else, that is what we should focus on. Vice Chair Lee: I agree. 4.a Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Board Member Lew: I think he would argue that the base is the most important thing. The top is not as important as you get taller buildings because you don’t really see the roof. I am actually more in support of the base, middle, and top than articulation because articulation sort of gets everything equivalency. You are differentiating but the top is doing something different than the bottom. You see in so many of the new apartment buildings it is all kind of the same, like the 777 Broadway project in Oakland. There are better projects in Berkley that do base, middle, and top in more of the classical architectural thinking and I think that is where we should focus our attention. I will go with the majority on the board. Chair Thompson: I think you have a really good point, Board Member Lew. I think as much as this is a classical thing that we’re discussing it is also a very human-experience thing. A human-experience is the base when they are right next to the building but they experience the top when they see it from down the street, and then they experience the middle somewhere in between there. I sort of see these at the three different distances at which a building is perceived by a human in a city, and they all have a very important role to play. The silhouette of a building can be so iconic and that only happens if you do something to the top. Certainly, in older style, a lot of detail is put there and it is fun for the eye to be able to look at those things. I am with you; I think human-scaled architecture is important to stay. I think the discussion we are having is very relevant. I think differentiation is a very modern way of talking about it but I think it is still referencing the same concept. Any other comments from the Board? Board Member Baltay: I guess I will support what Osma and Alex just said. Maybe we should keep the term base, middle, and top for now at least. That is referring back to our human-scaled concept here. Chair Thompson: Wait, we just did a straw poll to change it to differentiation. Board Member Baltay: I know, but Alex made a good point, and only after he speaks can I think about what he is going to say. Chair Thompson: For reference, we are keeping the term in the description. It is still saying defined base or ground-floor, middle or body, and top or cornice in the verbiage. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, but I think the problem is that the actual mechanism we are giving to make a base, middle, and top isn't really doing what we’re thinking about. We are just talking about semantics here, and I don’t think it is possible to really define it that way. We probably should just move on, Osma. Chair Thompson: Okay. I guess we won’t redo the straw poll. [Adjusting Audio.] Board Member Hirsch: In reference to Alex’s comment, I agree with whoever he is reading there that human-scale elements are critically important, and he pointed out, actually those usually occur on the ground floor -- it seems that the book you're reading also points that out -- so that the base, middle, and top is another experience as you move away from the building. The organization is quite different and I am concerned saying human-scaled architecture from that point of view ought to be building articulation or composition… articulation and composition. But when you get close to the building then it becomes human-scaled architecture. It is how you read a building when you get close into it that it really becomes important that it is of a human scale. Chair Thompson: Okay. We have a few suggestions. Board Member Hirsch: It’s made as a suggestion. Chair Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: building articulation instead of using human-scaled architecture because it refers to everything about the building and being human-scale which it really is not, especially if it’s a bigger building. 4.a Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Page 26 Chair Thompson: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: Do we want to think about this a little bit more? For a change of this scale, we could still do this at the next hearing as well. Chair Thompson: Okay. I think that sounds good. Let’s keep going. Ms. Gerhardt: Chris, do we have another section or anything? Do we need to talk about materials at all or is there anything before that? Vice Chair Lee: Before we leave that, did we want to talk about the menu of choosing two? I wasn’t sure if there was any consensus in choosing a menu of one through the use of two or more of the following techniques. I think it is important to allow for some flexibility to say use of one or more. Chair Thompson: What do the other Board Members think? Let’s do a straw poll to change it back to one. Vice Chair Lee: If I may, I just want to point out that I forget to say that the examples I saw with Broadway, and Mosaica and Ironworks I would describe their base, middle, and top in fulfilling this requirement differently, I think. I think we all would slightly differently. I do think a professional could choose one. Ms. Gerhardt: Chris, can you walk through how this menu works? Mr. Sensenig: Yes. The reason for two is that they kind of work in conjunction and we separated different things out. There are also menus within menus, right? There are four things that you have to choose two between. One is variation and building modulation. There are three options in that. The second one is variation and façade articulation; having bays, or not having bays, or a change in vertical projections or adding datum lines, or a change in fenestration, size and proportions. Oops, that’s number three. It is hard on a small screen like this. We had a slide that previously showed this. If I just go to the high-level ones, it is variation in building modulation, variation in façade articulation, variation in fenestration, size, proportion, and pattern, and variation in façade material and pattern or color. It is two of those four and then within some of them, there are multiple options. Chair Thompson: Okay, thanks. Let’s just do a quick straw poll on if we think it’s worthwhile to change it to one or more instead of two or more. This is proposed by Board Member Lee. Do we have any concurrence from the Board? Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: Yeah, I don’t have an opinion yet. I would prefer to do some studies before (inaudible) meeting. Chair Thompson: All right. Board Member Baltay? Board Member Baltay: I think we should stick with what staff has worked at. It sounds like they’ve really thought a lot about this and I don’t want to, on the fly, try to undo their work. It is a complex thing they are trying to accomplish. I support what’s currently in front of us. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Hirsch? [Adjusting Audio.] Board Member Hirsch: My biggest problem with this is the image of the building itself in each one of these. We went pretty far, Osma… Chair Thompson: Sorry, Board Member Hirsch, I was just asking if you are in concurrence of changing the menu as part of the straw poll. 4.a Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Board Member Hirsch: Good point. I haven’t got an opinion about that at the moment, but I do have an opinion about the actual prototype building that is expressed here as a sample that I would like to be brought up as an issue to discuss. Chair Thompson: Okay. For the straw poll, I am in favor of keeping it the way that it’s written. It’s 11:00 right now. We are completely out of time. I know you have a note on the imagery, Board Member Hirsch. I think you did mention it as part of your initial commentary. Board Member Hirsch: I did. Chair Thompson: I think it is noted by staff. Let’s talk about materials really quick because I think there were some items on there that maybe not all of the Board Members had a chance to put input on, and then we will wrap up with the purpose and applicability, and then take a ten-minute break. Ms. Gerhardt: On the materials, I heard a lot of comments that it would be hard to meet the 65 percent. I am wondering if we included glass and a second material, and counted those two things as the primary material would that better make it work out? Chair Thompson: There is glass on this list. It’s the fourth item from the bottom. I wanted to make sure that the Board Members that brought up the issue about glazing were aware of that. Board Member Baltay: I think it is more a matter of how you're defining all this. Almost every building is going to have a lot of glass, a lot of windows. Is that a primary building material or is that just a de facto part of the building? Ms. Gerhardt: That’s the other way, too. We could just not calculate the glass. When you were running your numbers, I don’t know how you were running them, but if you took out the glass from the percentages would that make it work better? Board Member Baltay: Jodie, are you terribly uncomfortable with Grace’s idea of leaving primary as a staff judgment? A know it when you see it kind of thing. Ms. Gerhardt: That would be subjective. Chair Thompson: It would be. Ms. Gerhardt: That means anything gets through. Board Member Baltay: I mean, sort of, but you might say any reasonable person might conclude that. Ms. Gerhardt: We need to have a bare minimum objective standard. We need to set a bottom bar, kind of thing. Vice Chair Lee: I am glad you asked the question about comfort level of staff because ultimately they are going to be reviewing it. I appreciate your remarks, Jodie. I just want to mention, also, that there are service areas and there are areas that are not so public to the primary corridor, vehicular or pedestrian, and that is a calculation and if we get to those percentages it can be misleading in terms of the percentage and what actually is seen as a primary material. That’s why I am more comfortable with the words primary and secondary and accent. Chair Thompson: That’s a good point. Vice Chair Lee: Other cities do this, right, in design. Don’t you feel like we have seen primary, secondary, and accent, and then staff review and not percentages in other design guidelines? Ms. Gerhardt: If there are any examples you could send us that would be wonderful. 4.a Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Chair Thompson: If we did remove item (B)(I) there is an inherent implication that the primary material would be everything else because it says secondary is not allowed more than 35, accents not allowed more than five. So, there is an inherent implication that everything else would be the primary. Potentially, that could solve our problem for us so that you're only checking for secondary and accent. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, that is actually a great solution. Board Member Baltay: That sounds like a good idea. Chair Thompson: Any other concurrence from the Board? Board Member Hirsch: On one material, glass block. There are other forms of glass materials that are similar to a glass block. It should be a broader description than just glass block. Ms. Gerhardt: Are you talking about any sort of frosted or obscure glazing? Board Member Hirsch: No, with glass but there are other forms of glass besides block. Chair Thompson: Like what, David? Board Member Hirsch: Double layer of glazing that intersects itself. I can’t recall what it’s called but it is being used commonly. Chair Thompson: Maybe there is a caveat that materials not listed can be brought to subcommittee or something like that. Could that solve, potentially, the item for unmentioned materials here? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, I think… Board Member Baltay: I am sorry; is it a crazy idea just to say that staff shall maintain a list of materials and keep it updated from time to time or even establish a process for that? Again, just let the code say that this exists and let the details of it be something that we can professionally adjust as time goes on. You just can’t get it right right now and put it in this log I don’t think. Chair Thompson: Yeah. Ms. Gerhardt: Board Member Baltay, I think that’s a great idea, especially when it comes to materials that it is going to be changing on a regular basis. We want the ability to change that without going back to Council. Board Member Baltay: Yeah. Maybe just say that with the consent of the ARB, this list will be updated every three years or something. Chair Thompson: Okay. I think that sounds good. Let’s wrap this up and we will talk about the purpose and applicability really quick. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Yes. I would like to prose that I think this should only apply in the most stringent case. I would like to say that a unit has to be two-thirds mixed-use, not just all possible things. Somebody could come in with one apartment in a large building and call it mixed-use because it is and all of this would apply. I don’t think that’s a good idea. Secondly, I don’t think we should even reference non-residential projects in there. I want to be really clear that we are doing this because we have to, not because we think it is a great way to do urban planning. We should focus this as tightly as possible on what we are required to focus it on, which is, as I understand it, residential projects and mixed-use projects with more than two-thirds housing. I would like to state that in here. I feel pretty strong about that, actually. I think it might also be worth putting in a clear statement that… it says here, as I read it, “It may include a recommendation by the Architectural Review Board depending on review required by Chapter 18.76.” I think it is better to say that it needs to follow the requirements of 18.76. It is not 4.a Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Page 29 always discretionary to the director to send it to ARB. Again, I would like to see the language tightened up so that it really focuses this whole thing. Ms. Gerhardt: I think -- Jean can help me with this -- on the non-residential projects we say in Section C here that they would need to meet the intent statements. They are encouraged to meet the objective standards, but they have to meet the intent statements because those will still continue to be reviewed by the ARB in our standard fashion. What we are doing with this code change is we are taking away all of those design criteria that we currently have and so we need a replacement for those, but we made it fairly high-level in just applying the intent statements to commercial projects. Board Member Baltay: I guess that’s fine, Jodie, it just seems not so clear to me. If I were designing just an office building I might say why should I have to look at this whole bunch of stuff if it’s only voluntary; it just muddies the water. But my real concern is about the mixed-use percentages. I really think we want to limit this to buildings with at least two-thirds residential. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay, meaning that you want the objectives… you're suggesting that the objective standards only apply to the SB35 and the SB330 type projects. Board Member Baltay: Absolutely, yes. That is the core of what I am saying. That is the core of, I think, the feedback that we have received from the community. Ms. Eisberg: We will need to check with the City Attorney. Part of this is that our standards need to be generally applicable according to state law, so just making sure that that meets that threshold. We will check in with the attorneys. Ms. Gerhardt: I think the minimum that we could do… I mean, again because we’re replacing the design criteria we would still want to have all housing projects meet the intent because those roll-up to the findings. Board Member Baltay: The intent is fine. It really comes down to, I think, the percentage of mixed-use, and my fear is that an office building with one penthouse apartment could be called mixed-use housing. Ms. Gerhardt: It cannot. It would have to have three apartments to be multi-family, but yes, three apartments and a big office would be mixed-use. Board Member Baltay: That really concerns me greatly, and this is something I feel very strongly about. Chair Thompson: If I may, I agree with Peter, and my computer is at three percent. I might have to run and get a cord. Thank you, Peter; I agree with your comments there. Board Member Hirsch: I would agree with that, too. Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: I can go along with the Board. I actually think a little differently, though. I was hoping we could get to a place where there are cookie-cutter buildings, but a good cookie-cutter. Let’s say like House Minoterrace [phonetic] or all of the bay-windowed buildings in San Francisco. I think you have generic housing buildings that are following a pattern and they create really nice neighborhoods. I hope that we can get there someday. I think it is going to be a long way off, though. Chair Thompson: thank you. In terms of my feedback, the item about the non-residential uses I think is pretty clear in there that it only needs to meet the intent statement. There is a sentence afterward about being encouraged to meet the objective standards, and I am okay to strike that if that makes it even clearer that it is really only meant to meet the intent statement. For the majority of housing, I am not sure I fully understand the issue, but it seems like a square footage proportion percentage thing. A certain percentage of the square footage… three units is actually three percent of the whole -- this is a 4.a Packet Pg. 100 City of Palo Alto Page 30 gigantic lot or something -- but there might be something to be wary of in that case. In most of the cases we’ve seen, the housing -- even if it’s three units -- tends to take up most of the lot anyway. I will leave it at that. Are there any other final comments from staff? Anybody? Thank you so much. Let’s take a ten-minute break. We will reconvene at 11:30. Ms. Gerhardt: I believe Board Member Lee needs to recuse herself for the next item, and is on three percent battery so maybe we let her go now. Board Member Baltay: (Inaudible). Vice Chair Lee: See you next time. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. Chair Thompson: We will see everyone at 11:27/11:30. [The Board took a short break.] Action Items 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 650 Clark Way [20PLN00134]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to allow in-channel creek bank stabilization of the Children’s Health Council property. The proposed project will install a live log crib wall with a rock toe within San Francisquito Creek to prevent future erosion impacts. Environmental Assessment: A Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) was circulated from February 5, 2021 to March 7, 2021 in accordance with CEQA. Zoning District: PF (Public Facilities). For more information contact the Project Planner at Claire.raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Thompson: Our next item is a public hearing/quasi-judicial. 650 Clark Way: recommendation on applicant’s request for approval of a major architectural review to allow in-channel creek bank stabilization of the Children’s Health Council property. The proposed project will install a live log crib wall with a rock toe within San Francisquito Creek to prevent future erosion impacts. Staff. Claire Raybould: Good morning. Claire Raybould, Senior Planner with the City of Palo Alto. [Setting up presentation.] Board Member Lew: Osma, we should do disclosures, as well. Ms. Raybould: Yes. Chair Thompson: Okay, sure. Are there any disclosures? Board Member Baltay: I have nothing to disclose. Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: I went to the site on Tuesday. Chair Thompson: Board Member Hirsch? [Adjusting Audio.] Board Member Hirsch: I went to the site yesterday. 4.a Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Page 31 Chair Thompson: Thank you. I have nothing to disclose. Go ahead, Claire. [Setting up presentation.] Ms. Raybould: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner with the City of Palo Alto. The project before you today is the Children’s Health Council Streambank Stabilization project. Before we start, I just wanted to explain why this is in front of you today because I know it is a bit of a unique project in that there is very little architecture to comment on. The way that our code is written, and we do require for any exterior improvements, including things like landscaping, architectural review. If a project is subject to a CEQA document it is not exempt from CEQA then it is required to come before the Architectural Review Board. Part of that is providing an opportunity for the public to comment during the circulation period of the mitigated negative declaration for the project. I just wanted to kind of explain that to you guys before we get started today. With that, the project location is 650 Clark Way. As you can see, the work would be located along the creek bank at this property within San Francisquito Creek. Just for a bit of background, this project really did occur in two phases. Back in 2018, the Children’s Health Council and WRA came to the City with concerns because there was an imminent threat of landslide at this property. In the 2016 to 2017 rainy season, there was significant loss of property, approximately 20 horizontal feet of the creek bank and 7,500 square feet of the outdoor learning area was lost. You can see in this picture where the creek bank was previously and where the current fence line and see where that property was lost. There was this imminent concern for the safety of children that are using that outdoor area there needed to be some immediate protection of that creek bank. The project that came before the City in 2018 was all outside of the creek and it was exempt from CEQA; therefore, it did not come before the Architectural Review Board. That just included a sheer-pin wall behind the top of bank, all buried underground to provide that immediate protection. Unfortunately, though, that sheer-pin did not provide long-term erosion protection at all. The creek bank continues to undermine the bank in this location at the toe of the bank. The purpose of this project is really to provide that long-term solution for erosion along this property. Just a quick overview of the project, the project includes construction of a log-crib wall with a rock toe foundation along a 275 foot long, 50-foot wide linear portion of the campus bordering the creek. The crib wall would be built using stacked layers of logs and rootwads installs at a 1:1 slope. As I noted previously, this project is subject to CEQA and the City, as the lead agency, circulated a mitigated negative declaration for this project on February 5th, so we are still in the 30-day circulation period which ends on March 7, 2021. Mitigation has been incorporated into the project to address specific concerns, particularly related to biology, air quality, archeological and tribal cultural resources, and hydrology. In terms of next steps, following the ARB’s recommendation and the close of the MND circulation the City would evaluate any comments they receive on the MND and publish a final mitigated declaration. The Director, following that, would issue a decision on the proposed project. If approves, the applicant would continue to pursue applicable permits and approvals from other state, regional, and federal agencies, which there are quite a few. A lot of those are already in process right now but require the CEQA to be complete before they can have them move forward and issue those permits. The applicant really hopes to complete work in a single dry season, ideally this dry season coming up this summer. Staff recommendation is that the Architectural Review Board takes the following actions: consider the Mitigate Negative Declaration and the Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and conditions of approval, which have been included in the packet. With that, I will turn it back to you and recommend that you hear from the applicant briefly. Chair Thompson: Sure. Let’s hear from the applicant. [Setting up presentation.] Bianca Clarke: Good morning, everyone. It is nice to see you guys. Thanks for this opportunity to bring this project in front of you. My name is Bianca Clarke [spells name]. I am with WRA, INC., and we are the biological firm that has contracted with CHC to do the design of this project and also to secure all of the regulatory permits that will be required for it, as Claire had previously mentioned. I have my colleague here also, Brian Bartell. He is our lead restoration designer for this project. We are both very 4.a Packet Pg. 102 City of Palo Alto Page 32 heavily involved in it but we come at it from two different expertises. We also do have the applicant’s representative Terry Boyle [phonetic] of CHC on the call, I believe. Male: Thanks, Bianca. Ms. Clarke: Are we okay if I start? Chair Thompson: Yes, please. Ms. Clarke: Okay wonderful. As Claire was mentioning, we are dealing with a very steep creek bank that is really right at the edge of the Children’s Health Council campus. In this picture that you're seeing here is pretty much its current condition where you see a bank that is completely slumped in on itself as a result of several years of extreme rains, heavy flow events, and overall exposure to the elements has compromised the integrity of the creek bank. This is a little bit of a different overview of where it is, but as Claire had mentioned, it is 650 Clark Way and it really is at the edge of the outdoor playground of the school. Because there was this phase one work that was put forth, we wanted to really demonstrate that, yes, that was some emergency work that needed to happen to immediately protect the playground but it was not the end all be all. At the end of the day, we still need to provide long-term protection of the bank so that it did not erode any further and also protected the sheer-pins that are in place. At this point, this is what we are proposing is this living crib wall to be installed. The sheer design of it is meant for long-term protection. We can get into specifics in later slides, but at the end of the day, that is the real purpose and need of putting this second-phase of work forward. A little bit of history of what CHC is and what they do for the community, they are an educational and clinical services facility that aids children and teens with learning differences. They deal with autism, ADHD, anxiety, and depression, and individuals with those types of challenges are very susceptible to their environment. The outdoor learning area serves as a very critical component to being able to service these individuals. It isn't just a playground for kids to go out there and swing, it really is their sanctuary for when they are for dealing with challenging or stressful situations this helps calm them. Again, it really is a critical component for the children. It is composed of two on-site schools and a therapy center. They do some clinics that also help underserved families, and they also provide an education center so that they host a myriad of workshops -- right now everything is virtual but assuming we all get back to normal -- and families come and utilize their services for workshops and classes on how to help their own children. On average, I think that they serve about 150 students daily. It is not a small feat what they are doing and they are really out there trying to provide a sanctuary and help for families in these situations. That’s a little history of CHC. Let me take you to 2016 when this bank decided to take a dive into the creek. When Claire was talking about the lateral extent of land that they lost, that equated to about 7,500 square feet of their outdoor schoolyard; it is not an insignificant amount that caved in. As I mentioned, WRA assisted with this, but sheer pins were installed to immediately protect it and now we have this phase two where we need to do this long-term protection. In total, we installed 19 sheer pins and, as I mentioned, it is for the immediate protection for the bank. In the approval process with the City, it was conditioned that we have to do this more long-term protection. It is kind of a two-fold effort but, yes, the City allowed the first-phase to move forward but did condition it, but it was also a good idea to have this long-term protection as well; it is serving two purposes here. Here are some images of the sheer pin work that was installed. It was very intricate. I am going to let Brain jump in and tell you a little bit about what the sheer pins do and what that all entailed. Brian Bartell: Thanks, Bianca. The immediate need was to make sure that no more land was lost. Du Technical Consulting Firm [phonetic] was contracted by CHC, and we worked with them and CHC to come up with this design. Basically, what you see here, with these circles, are the forms, the rebar, that go inside these sheer pins, and they are essentially concrete cylinders that are about two-and-a-half feet to three feet around circular and they extend about 50 feet into the ground. They have a space of about two or three feet between. What this does is prevents that slumping motion because what the creek is undermining and then slumping in. This was put in as phase one to prevent any more land from being lost. Basically, everything that is on the creek side could be lost; everything that is on the school side is there to stay. The concern is that if the creek does get to the wall and starts to erode then you’re in a bad situation when you have to do something right away. The City predicated the approval of phase 4.a Packet Pg. 103 City of Palo Alto Page 33 one, which was the sheer pin wall, on coming and doing some kind of stabilization within the creek. Phase two is this living crib wall design. We selected this design because we have got a lot of constraints. This is something that we called a vegetated crib wall. These are rootwads at the bottom, which are basically trees that have been pulled from the ground, they are about 10 to 20 feet long, and the trees extend into the bank. Then, overtop, you have logs and they are stacked kind of like Lincoln Logs, and in between you have a mix of rock and soil. In the voids you plant Willows and other species, mainly Willows that will grow in wet environments, and overtime as the roots take hold other plants come in and start to take hold. As the wall begins to decay -- over a long time because we use Redwood logs - - it remains stable. What this does is it protects the bank from the erosive forces of the actual channel during high flows. Another reason why we selected this is because it has been used successfully on San Francisquito Creek upstream in a couple of locations in recent years. It is something that is favored by the agencies, it's fish-friendly, and it provides that long-term stability. This is just a quick overview of the design. As you can see, we’ve got a rock base that extends down below the base of the channel to account for scour; these are the rootwads at the bottom layer; these are the logs stacked back into the bank parallel with the flow that goes up. Above the ten-year flow, we just slop back at 1:1, and, of course, like I said, this area will be planted with native riparian trees and shrubs. Ms. Clarke: One thing I want to also point out is this image here showing the plantings right here. This is what it’ll look like immediately post-construction and within the first couple of years. The intent is, over the long-term, is these plants would grow and become much more robust and provide a very thick riparian canopy over the creek bed, which, in turn, adds to the benefits of this particular design because the more shade that you have the better it is for the water and the better it is for fish. Just some added detail there. Speaking of fish, this creek is known for being critical habitat for Steelhead, and it is a very heavily regulated creek, first and foremost. By putting in these rootwads, it actually helps create refugia habitat for fish because they tend to overhang just a little bit. When you’re getting a flow event -- keep in mind that these rocks are below-grade -- fish will be able to actually get refuge underneath these logs. In turn, it has that added benefit of really being an ecological benefit for Steelhead. They are able to hide from predators, and the rootwads, in nature, will actually also provide nutrients and food production for the fish. Then, as I had mentioned, the planted vegetation, as it continues to grow and get bigger and more robust, will help shade the creek bed and add for cooler water, which is a benefit for fish as well. Chair Thompson: Bianca, you're ten minutes are up. If you could wrap it up that would be great. Ms. Clarke: Okay, I'm sorry. Yeah. These are some other pictures of what you can expect to see for the rootwad. These are not what’s happening in our particular creek; these are just representative photographs and then just more information on the diversity of the habitat it will provide. Long story short, ecological benefit as a result of this design. Ultimately, we will stabilize the sheer pin wall, we will stabilize the bank long-term, and the plants will become the long-term stabilizer. The last thing I wanted to mention is that it is a very heavily regulated design because of the type of system we are working in. We have a number of regulatory agencies that are overseeing this. This is how many people we have to coordinate with. It is being done under the utmost scrutiny. I will leave it at that. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant from the Board? Not hearing any, do we have any members of the public that would like to comment? Mr. Nguyen: We do not have any public comments for this item. Chair Thompson: Okay. I guess we can bring it back to the Board. Board Member Hirsch? Board Member Hirsch: Okay. It really is a fascinating new thing to look at here for an architect. We don’t have many opportunities to see such an interesting treatment to our natural issues around us. I happen to live right on the creek quite a bit further down and it is about 30 feet down in this area as well. Should it all fall in, I would be very happy to have this work done close to where I am living because it looks to me like it is a great solution for stability, as well as answering all of the issues necessary for natural habitat. I look at the area I'm in and I wonder, “What the heck is holding it all up 4.a Packet Pg. 104 City of Palo Alto Page 34 here?” There are trees that grow into the slope and probably not by choice, more by what seeds have fallen there and managed to grow. I really can’t think of any reason to ask questions. I note that the sections in the drawings I see where the wall is now that you tied back to the playing fields where they are now. It’s somewhat distant from the part that you're going to be adding to down below. It just seems like a neat idea to use the base of the tree at the bottom, and the Willows in between. I am assuming that the round elements that are shown in the section drawing are going to be round continuous pieces that will connect to each other in that direction and then be pinned to the ones that are more like deadened into the ground. What can you say? It looks like a beautiful thing; I’d love to see when it is complete. I have taken a look at the hazardous present condition and I think that the engineers are really doing something very clever and aesthetically appropriate. That’s about all I would say. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Thank you for your presentation. I can recommend approval today. My only comments are for staff in the findings; I think you could enhance finding number five with what was described in the presentation today, which is that the Redwood logs will protect the Steelhead trout, and also that eventually the Willow canopy will provide shade to the creek bed, which will benefit the trout as well. It looks good, thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Lew. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Thank you very much. I can make the findings to recommend approval of this project. I have no further comments. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you. I am hoping to ask a question to the applicant briefly. Where is the wood that you are using being sourced from? Is there any thought that has been put to that yet? Mr. Bartell: We do not have a source yet, and that is because it is kind of a fluid market. If we need to find wood, it’s usually up to the contractor that we hire to find a good source. The agencies that give us permits, mostly notably CDFW and Regional Water Quality Control Board, are very explicit that they have to be taken from either a logging operation that has approval or a site that has the approval to remove the trees. It is always a challenge when we build something with logs like this; finding a good source for the logs. Chair Thompson: Yeah, I imagine. Thank you for answering my question there. I mean, the solution seems appropriate. I would just encourage the applicant to source their material from a place that has the lowest impact possible in terms of… I learned a lot about logging, weirdly enough, in the last couple of weeks and there is definitely a wide variety out there and a sustainable force has many different meanings. I would just encourage the applicant to try and pay attention to that since that’s the most important building element here. I really appreciate the applicant’s presentation and I can recommend approval. Any other discussion or should we go for a motion? Does anybody want to do a motion? MOTION Board Member Baltay: I will move that we recommend approval of this project as presented. Board Member Hirsch: Second that. Chair Thompson: Motion by Baltay, seconded by Hirsch. Any comments? Vinh, can we have a vote? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lew, Thompson (4) No: (0) Absent: Lee (1) 4.a Packet Pg. 105 City of Palo Alto Page 35 MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-0-1. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Thompson: Thank you. Good luck, guys. Our next item is Board Member comments, questions, or announcements. We have the NVCAP update by Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: There is nothing to update in the last two weeks. Chair Thompson: Okay. I appreciate the update of no update. I know that happens. I think we are good to go unless there is anything else. Ms. Gerhardt: I did just want to confirm that the major items for March 4th have dropped off. There is potentially a subcommittee item with Board Member Hirsch and Board Member Lee. I will let them know if that is going to continue, but it would just be the two Board Members at most. Otherwise, we will see everyone on March 18th. Thank you very much. Chair Thompson: All right. Thank you, everybody. This meeting is adjourned. Adjournment 4.a Packet Pg. 106 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12098) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 3/18/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of February 4, 2021 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 4, 2021 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the February 4, 2021 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB Attachments: x Attachment A: February 4, 2021 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 5 Packet Pg. 107 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Chair Osma Thompson, Vice Chair Grace Lee, Board Members Peter Baltay, David Hirsch and Alexander Lew. Absent: None. Chair Thompson: Welcome, everybody, to the Architectural Review Board meeting on February 5, 2021. [Reading] Pursuant to the California Governor’s Executive Order N-29-20, this meeting will be held by virtual teleconference only, with no physical location. Spoken comments via a computer will be accepted through the Zoom teleconference meeting. To address the Board, go to zoom.us/join. Meeting ID is 986 4526 8157. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “Raise Hand.” The moderator will activate and unmute speakers in turn. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. Spoken public comments using a Smartphone will also be accepted through the Zoom mobile application. To offer comments using a regular phone, call 1-669-900-6833, and enter Meeting ID 986 4526 8157. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. [Roll Call] Oral Communications Chair Thompson: Thank you for the welcome and thank you for being a great Chair, Board Member Baltay, that I might follow in your steps. The next item is oral communications. The public may speak on any item not on the agenda. Do we have any raised hands? Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate: No, we currently do not have any raised hands. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Thompson: Great. We will move on to agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: No changes at this time. I believe the agenda was already changed to have the Embarcadero project go first. As long as you have that in your agenda. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, and 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Chair Thompson: That’s right. I have that. Great. City official reports. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: February 4, 2021 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM 5.a Packet Pg. 108 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you. My name is Jodie Gerhardt, I am the Manager of Current Planning. Thank you to the New Chair Thompson and Vice Chair Lee. Also, thank you to our past Chair, Board Member Baltay. As far as official reports, we will remain virtual for the foreseeable future. You can still have your pajamas on the bottom. For the next hearing on February 18, we are expecting to discuss the objective standards. We do have some revisions, especially to the graphics and things. I will try and get that up on the web as early as possible so that you have a little bit of extra time. I will send you an email when that is available. The other items on the agenda would be the 650 Clark Way, which is not a retaining wall but more of a stitch pier wall to hold back the land from the creek. We also have 656 Litton Avenue, which is the subcommittee so that will just be two members of the Board. Thank you. Action Items 2. 1700 Embarcadero Road [20PLN-000290]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed Two-Story Approximately 31,377 Square Foot Automobile Dealership. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CS(D)(AD) (Service Commercial with Site and Design Review and Automobile Dealership Combining Districts). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Sheldon Ah Sing at sahsing@m-group.us. Chair Thompson: Thanks. We will move on to our first action item. This is 1700 Embarcadero Road: request for preliminary architectural review of a proposed two-story approximately 31,377 square foot automobile dealership. Environmental assessment: not a project. The formal application will be subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) review. I want to ask the Board if there are any disclosures. Board Member Baltay: I have visited the site. Vice Chair Lee: I have as well. Board Member Hirsch: No disclosures regarding this project. Board Member Lew: No disclosures. Chair Thompson: Great. I visited the material board. Board Member Hirsch: Oh, me too. Chair Thompson: I will hand it over to staff. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, we have Sheldon Ah Sing here to present first off. [Setting up presentation.] Sheldon Ah Sing: Good morning. Here we are. Some things changed and some things remain the same. Welcome to the new year. We are back with another iteration of this site. We will learn a little bit about the background here in just a moment. Great overview by the Chair. It’s a preliminary review of a commercial project located on 2.5 acres. It is just at the corner property. It does not include the alley site. It is zoned CS with the site design as well as an automobile dealership district. The request from the applicant would eb an Architectural Review, site and design review, as well as design enhancement exception for setbacks. We are just here to review and provide some comments to the applicant as well as to staff. This site has been the subject of many projects, as well as hearings. Sixteen public hearings to date. The site is a vacant site of a former restaurant that was closed in 2014. The site was rezoned to CS from industrial in 2009. A hotel was previously approved in 2013, but that entitlement expired in 2015. That is an image on the lower left there from the intersection. Then you have had an automobile dealership proposed in 2015 for the site. That project went all the way to the City Council, and then it was directed back to the ARB. It was deemed to be too big. It didn’t fit in with the context of the baylands. The applicant withdrew the application. Another application came in in 2018, that’s the one at the far right. 5.a Packet Pg. 109 City of Palo Alto Page 3 That one also encompassed the adjacent alley site as well. It was a bigger project but a little shorter in height. That went all the way to the Council. The zoning reached the change to add the automobile dealership combining overlay. There was an appeal earlier last year and that was upheld but when the applicant decided to withdraw and sell the site to the current owner. A little bit of site context here, it is located in an area that is predominately commercial office use. the two properties that are adjacent along Embarcadero Road are dealerships, that’s the Audi and the Honda site. There are some automobile uses behind on one of the streets there. It is within the baylands area but these properties are in the private properties area. This property does not directly abut the baylands. You can see a little bit of that green in this photograph in the upper right there where this property does not touch that directly. The properties in the area are generally characterized by larger buildings with large setbacks and surface parking. The one exception really is the Audi showroom has the closest setback to Embarcadero Road. It is about 30 feet. All of the others have larger setbacks. On this property, in particular, it is 1,700. There was an 80- foot easement along East Bayshore for various utilities including the overhead transition line. That does preclude structures from being included there, especially height-wise in terms of the height limit of 15 feet for structures and that includes vegetation. The project summary for this project is just solely a Mercedes Benz brand. It includes service and sales. The total square footage is 31,000 square feet. The total FAR is .29, and that includes .25 for the dealership as well as .04 for the showroom area. The site coverage is 27 percent. Height is up to 26 feet with an architectural element that does go up to 36 feet. Then there is surface parking, there is no mechanical lifts. The only mechanical lifts are for the vehicles that are booing serviced. That is very typical for a dealership but not any customer parking or inventory parking. There is also an additional setback that is proposed along East Bayshore and Embarcadero Road that is consistent with all of the other dealership applications for this site. There is also a carwash for the dealership. Some notable differences between the approved prior project and the proposed project: you can see the square footage is down by about 20,000 square feet; the FAR is down; the lot coverage is also less; the height is less; setback is also less there. It is a little greater along the Bayshore side by a few feet. The approved project had a multi-use path; this project does not propose that. The approved project proposed a removal of trees along East Bayshore and this project does not propose that at all. It does preserve those trees. A little bit more about the site plan and massing. It shows that it will follow the predominant pattern in the area with a larger setback, surface parking, and the building situated in the middle. The CS zone does require build-to setbacks. Mostly that makes sense in the El Camino Real area to try to get your building close to the pedestrian realm. This is an automobile dealership with automobile-oriented use, and then, of course, a couple lifts of the easement restraints. It does make sense to support the design enhancement exception. The height of the building would be mostly consistent with the surrounding units at 26 feet. It is a standard two-story type of building. The covered drive-through for the service is exempted from the gross floor area, and that is consistent with the automobile dealership providing this district. That area is 4,300 square feet. Showing some of the floor plans here. It breaks down the showroom there in yellow and then the dealership area in green, which includes the service area. The service drive, as I mentioned, is excluded. There is a little bit of limited second-floor space there with some offices and storage areas. Going to the elevations here -- the applicant will discuss more about the materials -- the project is, again, two-story height in some areas, but it does roughly maintain that 26-foot plate. Then you have that 36- foot architectural element which would have a future sign. Along this elevation, the building does have and the site does have a (inaudible) shape but generally here at the corner you have a showroom, which has the fenestration, and then you have some of those elements that are consistent with the brand of Mercedes which is that black colored and silver-colored metal being used there with some of that white. They are introducing some of that reclaimed wood siding as well as a landscape wall. It is more consistent with some of the features that we had in the prior project and trying to bring in the consistency with the Baylands. This is along Embarcadero Road, kind of similar features here. Again, because of the shape of the building and the shape of the lot, some of these views are similar but, again, you are continuing that silver panels mostly along Embarcadero Road. On the opposite side of Bayshore faces Audi. Here you have the silver panels closer to the street and then as you get towards the rear of the property it transitions to a stucco-type of material. Then, opposite of Embarcadero, you can see on the left side a little bit of that landscape wall terminates there and it transitions to paneling closest to the street. From there, it turns to stucco towards the rear of the building. This is the side with the carwash. Then, we just show a little bit more detail here. Obviously, this is at the preliminary stage and a little bit more conceptual. We will ask for more detail and contextual type of exhibits for the formal. The landscaping, as we expect, with a smaller footprint. The project to the left side, the prior project to the right side. Then, you have more 5.a Packet Pg. 110 City of Palo Alto Page 4 opportunities for landscaping, and as I mentioned, they are saving those trees along Bayshore Road and Embarcadero Road. Some considerations here to think about, and what we are looking for some feedback from the Board on, is how the project fares against the required findings. Some of these are just relationship to the neighborhood setting and context, the transitions and scales to adjacent properties, as well as scale and mass. Then, architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, use of materials. We need to consider how the project is consistent with the Baylands Master Plan, using natural colors and choose materials and finishes that will weather well, preserve the horizon line, low horizontal elements, reduce the size of signs, and also just to design for practicality. I think we have a lot of experience on this site with the other two projects and this project tried to bring some of those features here, which we could probably hone a little bit more. Lastly, the pedestrian-oriented design. That brings us to the multi-use path, which I think is something worth considering. The city’s Bicycle/Pedestrian Master Plan does indicate that there is a class two bicycle facility along this frontage, but when you actually go out there that does not exist. There is no facility such as that. The plan does not prescribe how to address a gap in that situation because it assumed that there was something there. We knew that; staff knew that so when we were having discussions with the prior applicant for their request -- their request had a legislative request for the zone change -- we negotiated to get this gap reconciled. This multi-use path is something that was proposed by the prior applicant. It did necessitate the removal of the trees there with some other planting on the site that were at 15 feet. What would be needed here is we need 12 feet. We need to have eight feet for two lanes and then we need two two-foot shoulders to make this work. There is a right-of-way now of ten feet and then there is a five-foot landscape buffer between the edge of the property and the parking lot. There is some room that we could put something there. There are tradeoffs implementing the pathway, it would be the removal of trees. There could be some other options. We would need to work this out but we want to hear some direction from the Board whether there is something we can get support to pursue. It is something that was on the previous project, and we would expect to see something here to alleviate that gap. This is an important area to have bicycle travel, especially with the Baylands. The other issue we noticed with the last project was the carwash. It is still facing the neighboring property that had the objection to the issue. With this project, we will have to have a new acoustic study that will address the noise for the site. The site does not have any backup generators. That will help a little bit but certainly, we have an updated acoustic study that will address the issues and be consistent with the municipal code. That ties into CEQA. The prior project had included an adopted mitigated negative declaration. We would propose to provide an addendum to the previous document and will include updated studies which are acoustic and traffic analysis. That will be included with the formal application. With that, we will be conducting the public hearing, provide direction on the project, and the applicant will consider those and file a formal application. Staff recommends that the ARB take the following action, which is to review and provide comments. No formal action is requested. With that, I conclude my presentation. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you. I guess next we’ll hear from the applicant. Eric Iversen, Director of Real Estate Construction: Hello, this is Eric Iversen with Swickard Automotive Group. We are the applicant here today for the Mercedes of Palo Alto site. I also have my team with me. We can go through a short presentation and then we are also able to answer any questions should anybody have any questions. [Setting up presentation.] Chair Thompson: Thanks. You’ll have ten minutes. Mr. Iversen: Okay. [Setting up presentation.] Chair Thompson: Jodie, will we require applicants to state and spell their name for the record? Ms. Gerhardt: It can be very helpful, yes, otherwise it ends up misspelled in the minutes. Chair Thompson: Okay. Mr. Iversen, could you also state and spell your name for the record? 5.a Packet Pg. 111 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Iversen: Absolutely. It is right in front of you right now, but Eric Iversen [spells name]. Eric Iversen, Director of Real Estate Construction for Swickard Automotive Group. Chair Thompson: Thank you, go ahead. Mr. Iversen: We are here. Hopefully you can see a screen with a green Mercedes on it right now. My team is involved, our architect also on the call is Doug Van Kay. Al Shaghaghi is our civil engineer and Bryan Love is our landscape architect. Again, if there are any detail questions, they are here to answer those questions. Sheldon went through the overall perspective and overall general design of the facility. I don’t want to repeat some of the things that he already touched on. I think one of the largest items here today is that we have come back with a much more scaled-down proposal than the previous Mercedes proposal. Again, we had bought this land -- and bought basically the franchise rights -- for Mercedes to go here. The prior owners couldn’t put it all together and the cost of the facility was just simply too great. We came back with what I think is a much simpler and straight-forward proposal more in line with the other car dealerships on Embarcadero, the Audi and the Honda store, yet providing a, what I would call, a better design. Adding some fun elements like the reclaimed wood and the live green wall. Location, I think Sheldon went over that very well. Again, we are next to the other two car dealerships and other than that surrounded by office buildings. With Audi being the newest store, which is a very standard corporate Audi design, is immediately next door. Behind us are office buildings, as we all know. Then, of course, the Baylands is just beyond that. As we know, our biggest challenge is the high-powered transmission lines and those don’t go anywhere. There is a large easement underneath them. We can’t obviously build on them, and our stormwater drainage is also very limited what we can do within that easement. If you take a quick note here on this slide, you will see to the right the trees that Sheldon had mentioned that personally I am very much in love with and very much in love with the shade that they provide. I’d love to do everything possible to maintain that row of trees along East Bayshore. As I had previously mentioned, this is a picture that Sheldon didn’t show but it shows the massing of the previously submittal that was approved and how significantly larger that building that was. It had multi-story service, it had car elevators; many things. They were trying to accomplish everything on this one site which ultimately made the project unbuildable and not affordable for them. Again, we came back with a much simpler straightforward, overall smaller dealership. As you can see, the dash line is just how significantly larger the previous proposal was. Again, this is the side view from East Bayshore. Again, you’re starting to see some of the fun stuff, which is the reclaimed wood siding and the landscape wall to really break up that overall façade. You have the modern glass and architectural composite panels along the front going into a reclaimed wood product. If anybody has any questions, I could talk for 15 or 20 minutes just on how awesome and cool reclaimed wood is. Then, I think landscaped walls are great, especially in the climate that we have in Palo Alto. The plan itself on the inside does separate what we call the front of house and back of the house. Along Embarcadero is the front of the house with the showroom. It is the part of the car dealership that we’re all familiar with, the showroom, service riders separated with a service drive that does have opening and closing doors. The weather is great maybe nine months of the year and those doors will be open during the day but closed at night for the service drive. Then, the actual service shop with 22 bays to work on cars. The carwash in this proposal as opposed to the previous one is attached to the building. It is approximately 40 feet further away from the property line as the previous proposal. The acoustic study, as Sheldon had mentioned, obviously we will get that updated. We have talked to the same acoustic engineer. I mean, common sense tells us moving that facility farther away from the property line will only reduce noise. We have brought on the same landscape architect that had worked on one of the earlier proposals and I think we have ourselves a pretty good landscape plan. Again, preserving those trees along East Bayshore is critical at least in my mind. Reclaimed wood product, like I said, I can talk for half an hour on that. It is an awesome product. The company goes around to churches, anything that is being demolished not only in the United States but around the world; they salvage it, they re-mill it, re-plane it, and then send it back out and it gets installed on a building. The green wall that we talked about is not just vines growing up the side of the building, it is actually a green wall with vertical planters. Should an area or a planter die off, they can actually be removed and rehung with a new one grown in a nursery to always have a fresh green wall appearance. Then, finally, once again my favorite trees. I don’t think I am going to stop talking about my favorite trees because they provide excellent shade, they are under and adjacent to high-powered lines. It would be really hard for us to replace those with anything that is going to get much more than 8 to 12 feet tall. Here we have established trees that provide excellent shade 5.a Packet Pg. 112 City of Palo Alto Page 6 whether you are walking or biking on the street. That’s all I have. I am able to answer any questions, as is our architect engineer and landscape architect. We are all here to chat with everyone. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Do we have any questions of the applicant? I don’t see any. I guess I will open this to public comment. Do we have any members of the public that would like to comment? Mr. Nguyen: We do not have any public speakers for this item Chair Thompson: Okay. I guess that concludes the public hearing and brings this back to the Board. Shall we start with Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: Sure. Thanks for your presentation. I am generally in support of the project. I have got a couple items for you. I think the first one is how much off-site parking are you going to need for inventory of cars. If I look at other similar dealerships, they have large parking garages. Even if you look at the Audi dealer next door, they have been using this property for car inventory for several years now. I guess my question is how much is there and then where are the [distortion]. Chair Thompson: Alex, you are cutting out a little bit. Board Member Lew: Why don’t you skip me and I’ll try [distortion]. Chair Thompson: Okay. We will circle back to you. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Thank you, Osma. Thank you to the applicant for this presentation. I am generally in favor of the project presented to us. I think it is an easier pill to swallow than the large building we already approved. It is hard not to be in favor of it in principle. I would like to see if the applicant can’t shift the building perhaps slightly farther away from Bayshore in order to give us both the tree and the pathway. I have argued strongly in previous projects on this site, and I really do feel that the trees should be preserved. They are mature trees under a powerline, so they cannot be replaced. It is really a shame not to have a pathway for the public at the same time. If there is any way to push the building back a bit further, perhaps, or whatever it takes to get the parking and display area they need but also to have some sort of a pathway perhaps inboard of the trees that would be really appreciated. I think it can be done, although it might impact one row of parking in the front unless you shift the building back. It would certainly be a wonderful gesture to the city if you could get all of the pedestrian, bicycle path along Bayshore and preserve those trees. That would go a long way to really smoothing your approval process on what has been a very contentious site. It is a great gesture to the city of goodwill. I would love to see you make an effort to make that happen. Other than that, the building siding is fine, I think. I am wondering if you can’t modulate the massing just a little bit more. Looking straight at the elevations, the height of the building is consistently the same throughout with the exception of the Mercedes wall. It seems to me it would be a pretty easy matter to raise up or down different pieces of it to give it a little more modulation and variation. It is a fairly long façade and it would benefit from that. Again, it could just be the way you did the parapets but it would help to have that. I would like to see you consider flipping what I call the (inaudible). The reclaimed wood and the green wall and such to be on the Embarcadero side. I don’t know if you followed the approval process from previous (inaudible), we had come to the idea that the building does need to conform to the Baylands design guidelines, which require muted and natural materials. We had felt that going towards the Baylands is where it was important to have these materials. Say on the Bayland side of the Mercedes fin, your design seems to do the opposite. You have the natural and muted Baylands-type materials but along Bayshore, not along Embarcadero where you’re leading backward. I appreciate that the Audi dealership immediately to the left really doesn’t seem to have those kinds of materials, so it does lead you to some sort of design challenge but it will be easier for this to be claimed to be in compliance with the Baylands design guideline standards if you get those materials flipped to the other side of the building. I think that would be easily done, again. You could put, say a reclaimed wood façade, on the office facility while you leave the showroom having the glass and steel look that Mercedes likes. I caution you -- or maybe you just want to check and see -- on the previous projects there was a strong design aesthetic about some kind of decorative metal poles and elements used to hold up the canopy at the front and you aren’t showing any of that now. You may want to really be sure that Mercedes 5.a Packet Pg. 113 City of Palo Alto Page 7 will accept this design quality or this design style. We were told on previous projects that they would note. That they wanted more of that decoration that you see on other Mercedes dealerships. I think it could go either way, but you want to be sure that you have got that covered with them. The carwash, I think, is going to be fine where it is. The previous one was right on the property line and that was where the problems came from. Nonetheless, they did a detailed acoustic study and they had to actually put closing doors on their carwash to make sure that it didn’t acoustically bother neighbors. The folks in the office building to your right behind you have lunch tables out in the back area there and you really don’t want to disrupt that with a loud carwash. Perhaps you could just come back to us with an acoustic study showing that it doesn’t do that. The fact that you’re 30 feet away is a big help and I would hate to see you have to put those closing doors on this but study it and just see if you can make it work. I don’t see it as a problem otherwise with that. My last comment to you is if you could be sure to supply real material samples next time so we can really understand, especially the reclaimed wood. What are you proposing? A photo of it just doesn’t cut it. I understand these days it is hard to do that, but we would love to see it. That’s what I think. Thank you very much. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Baltay. I want to check in with Board Member Lew to see if his audio got setup. [Adjusting Audio.] Board Member Lew: I just have a few items. One is any off-site car inventory and where do those get delivered to this particular project site. I would just say that I do know that we do have some issues with other car dealers in Palo Alto where they unload the cars in the traffic lanes during commute times. On the elevations, I do like the changes that you have made with the reclaimed wood and the planted façade. I am actually okay with the location. On the elevations though, I think the northeast elevation could use a little bit more work. It is very flat and you have two different materials that are coplanar with each other. I think that that one is not up at the same level as the other three elevations. On the bike path, it seems to me that a bike path would be appreciated but it does have a flaw. The southbound bicyclists using that path would then still have to crossover across East Bayshore. It’s not a perfect solution. If we can get the bicyclist route to work in the street, I am actually okay with that. If there is a way for staff to look at that; if there is a way of narrowing lanes to get a bike route in there. The issue is that in the late afternoon the car traffic backups from the Dumbarton Bridge on occasion, and then the bicycles end up using the sidewalk. On the existing trees, I think that is also tied in probably to the flood elevations. The previous scheme had to raise the grade up, and that can cause issues with saving existing trees if you’re re-grading the entire site. I think that we do need more information on that and how you’re handling the grade. I you’re going to raise the full side up similar to the previous scheme for the Audi dealer next door. I think that is all I have. I am generally in support of the project. I think the massing looks good and the material changes are well-considered. Thanks. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Lew. We will go on to Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Thank you for the presentation. It certainly is a step down in massing and prominent of the site and the building on the site. I have similar questions about the parking as Board Member Lew. What has happened here is the previous scheme managed to keep the significant amount of the parking in the building itself, but here we are doubling up on the lanes of parking and storage for a significant element of the site here where you cut back on the building and you increase the storage on the site itself. I don’t think it bothers me much on the site that faces the office building, but it is more of a problem on Bayshore. I think where more of the visible nature of this building is going to be seen daily to have a double layer of parking. Then, where does it go if you don’t put it there? I don’t have a good answer to that but I would’ve hoped that it could look a little bit more natural. I think that keeping the trees, I agree, is a good idea butt hen somehow you have to work out the bicycle path and the issues related to a limited sidewalk. It is not a sidewalk where pedestrians will use it very much, so perhaps there is a way of compromising; take a little bit of it closer to the tree or find a way in which the trees can actually live with a drainage scheme under them that allows for an expansion of the sidewalk. It is a study that needs to be done; to expand that enough to have a bike path I think is important. To have that indicated to us all the way around the corner onto Embarcadero is also significant. In terms of parking and entry to 5.a Packet Pg. 114 City of Palo Alto Page 8 the building, I am somewhat discouraged by the fact that if you get out of your car, you’re a visitor along there to get to the front door of this building means you have to pass the service entry area. If you’re familiar with the way those usually get jammed in the early morning and there is very a really difficult pedestrian issue there. Certainly, what will happen -- from my experience -- is that that those cars will backup and align with your whole passageway into the site from the Bayshore and a lot of those parking spots will be basically parking for vehicles coming for repair. I don’t know. That seems to me to be a problem relative to how you deal with the entry to the building at the same time. I noticed on the inside that there doesn’t seem to be any planning for people who are going to wait in some way for their cars. I mean, that is a question I probably should have addressed to you earlier. Maybe you can come up to an answer to that at some point a little later. No waiting area, no intention of people who are going to be staying for minor car repair issues or whatever. I wonder if actually maybe the service isn’t brought into the back of the building and you create more a plaza entry on this side and limit the exit the other way? That may be that that might solve that kind of issue because, after all, you could have a backup of cars waiting for service at the backside, whereas the front side does create a conflict with your front door. In terms of the material, in general, I am sort of favorable to the design. Yes, it does take away a lot of the detail, as Mr. Baltay commented on. The front, which I really rather liked, the detail that was Mercedes like but this is a different kind of canopy. Maybe something more in the detail of that will occur later on in the design here. It is a very thin element now. I don’t know exactly what to suggest. The point of view is taken to see the elevations completely because it is far enough away, but if you’re closer in it becomes a different elevation. You’re using that to kind of link the two major forms, and, frankly, I don’t quite see where the industrial feel of the Mercedes car and the detail of the part that faces Embarcadero relates to all of a sudden introducing this kind of a wood element, and then switching to a very much more natural feel of the planting. But if others think it is appropriate… I will say one thing about it is at least it turns the corner, which the planting doesn’t do and I wish it would. Whether or not the building has a lower profile as seen from the Baylands or not, I don’t like the idea of a material like that just ending at the corner. I think even though it is a sharp corner, I sort of feel if you’re going to make a statement that you’re doing a natural building and its environmental building and then all of a sudden you switch when you turn the corner; I don’t see how that really works well. I would think you’d carry it around at least to the notch on the side that faces the office building. It would certainly be a nicer gesture towards the office building rather than just being the back of something functional like it is now. Other aspects of this, I think we need to see the perimeter elevation and the planting in much, much more detail. I am sure your landscape people can work on that. I do question -- so I wait to see if others on the Board also do -- this use of the wood and then the planting wall, and whether that is kind of… the way in which the forms are used in order to do that because all of a sudden, you’re going to switch now from wood to metal canopy to the metal building above. It is a strange connection of paste on elements, in my opinion. Maybe it should one or the other, or maybe the planting area really turns the corner as it enters into that niche. I think my most major concern is that somehow the entry to this building, for me, doesn’t function well at all, and it should be an emphasis here. The question that Alex raised I think is a very good question. What do you do with the storage of cars? Is this the best way? To be honest, one thing I really did like about the previous scheme is it got more cars off the site, and I wondered whether or not it would be possible to somehow use the roof of the maintenance area for the storage of cars. Would that make a better site plan? I could go along with it the way it is as long as there is plenty of planting and softening of the perimeter. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Hirsch. Let’s move on to Board Member Lee. Vice Chair Lee: I want to thank Sheldon for a very complete presentation, and thank the applicant for bringing this forward. This site has a long history and it is great to see that it is going to move forward. I recall the hotel discussion, which was as far back as 2011 I remember. I can be brief. I am in support of this project. I think that knowing this is a preliminary and that the project will be coming forward with more information on a greater scale I look forward to that. I will begin with this multi-use path discussion. I appreciate Sheldon’s way of communicating that there is a larger plan for access in this area. This is one site; however, we do want to connect. My feeling is I did appreciate that multi-use pathway in the previously project that we saw and I don’t want to tell you how to do it. I am not a huge bicyclist, not like Alex, but I don’t know how to do it but I encourage you to work with the city and collaborate and see what is possible. I look forward to seeing that move forward. Maybe it is possible -- I just want to put it out 5.a Packet Pg. 115 City of Palo Alto Page 9 there -- that the benefits of the path outweigh the preservation of those trees. Sometimes that occurs and I don’t know what is the right answer but please pursue that goal would be my advice. The overall architectural massing and the elevations the way they are presented, even at this beginning preliminary, I feel very comfortable with just how… for me, it is that terrific corner of where you see… I know there is that tower and the corner is set back quite a bit, but I love how the showroom turns and it is a very simple design. There is a brow, it wraps, and then you have this highlight which is very important. You have your sign that is ten feet larger that highlights and I am fine with the Embarcadero elevations as it turns. I did go and see the materials board at City Hall and I appreciate the diversity of materials, absolutely. I think the general placement of them make a lot of sense. One thing, though, I did want to note -- I appreciate Board Member Peter’s comments -- it is true, there is an extreme horizontality here and the length of those facades, though they are setback quite far back from the property line and from the street, you really read… I just think facades on a big building like this with long lengths and a lot of surface area the overall design moves make sense. However, it is true, it is very long and I am just not sure given the length of those facades if small popups are going to make a difference. I am fine with the 26 feet to 36 feet in the way that it is sitting. If you want to show us an option that shows that it comes up and down in different areas, I think you’ll still see an extreme horizontality and I’m open to reviewing that as well. The other piece that I wanted to mention was glare. The way the sun is moving around the site… I am always really hesitated and at first when I saw the material board, I wasn’t sure the brow is white, right, and then you have two different tones of silver. What I find is that the light silver sometimes reads as white under extreme glare or sun. When I look at the elevation, it really is just on the East Bayshore where there is a little bit of length and it is up and it is light silver. I just want to make sure about glare issues and if maybe that’s not too much. It is just something that I want to bring up. I believe that the whole screen wall, I love to see how that is going to move forward. I couldn’t tell from the landscape plan. I don’t know what’s planted there, so it will be terrific to see what that is. The reclaimed wood, the warm color is a terrific addition to have. The issue is where you turn, though, from East Bayshore and that northeast elevation. I agree with Board Member Lew. I think that could use another round; it is rather blank. Let’s see, did I cover it? There is the other piece in terms of the plants. When you show it in terms of the green screen wall, I think you're going to come back with landscape plans that are a little bit larger in scale so we can get a sense of the choices there in terms of… because it is a feature and it is kind of nice that it is on that side of the building and that we just want it to thrive. I can stop there. I will hand it back to Chair Osma. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Vice Chair Lee. Great. I share a lot of the similar opinions that have been expressed. Not all of them, so I will go in order and we will try to wrap at the end to try to come to a consensus. In general, I am also in support of the project. I appreciate how low-rise it is. I appreciate the horizon that it is kind of promoting. For the materials, the more I was looking at your elevations the more I started to notice this parti diagram where there is kind of like a sandwich where there were the tough metal materials that are overlaying on these natural materials. I am hearing some of my other Board Members’ feedback and I can see pushing that a little bit more where --I like where the wood and the green walls are currently -- maybe there is an opportunity to introduce them on the Embarcadero side, the shorter side. I think also what is really lovely about reclaimed wood is being really close to it, so perhaps there is an opportunity to snake it through the interior and have it connect on the other side. There is kind of a cool experience for the customers to see that kind of relationship that you're creating between these more brand-appropriate materials and then this natural material that makes everyone feel a lot better. As it related to the Mercedes columns that are pretty typical, I don’t have any love for them necessarily. I think the design as you have it now makes a lot of sense in this context. In some ways I think those other columns didn’t really make much sense in this context. I think I would also even encourage pushing that natural palette even more. I think a previous iteration of those facades on that face the Baylands, that Board Member Lee and Lew mentioned, are a little blank. I think a previous iteration had just green screens in some locations where there was a little opportunity for greenery on those sides with a lot less maintenance. I think also because those sides face the Baylands there is some kind of good relationship to create there. I might even encourage a green roof. This is kind of a cool location and you're doing something really amazing with this green wall and how cool would it be to have that even creep over onto the roof? This is just some feedback for pushing your design concept but I think it is in a really good place right now. Hopefully, this feedback is helping to bring it even further. I am just going to mention that for the DEE I am okay with that DEE to not build to the line. I am also a big fan of those trees. I really would 5.a Packet Pg. 116 City of Palo Alto Page 10 hate to see those trees go away. I’m sort of in the camp where try to keep those trees at all costs. Try to make it work on the street side, if possible. I think I would support a proposal that keeps those trees at any cost. Let’s see. I think everything has been said for the most part. All right. Is there any other discussion from other Board Members from things that they’ve heard others say? Ms. Gerhardt: I was just taking some notes as well. There were some concerns about the loading spaces where off-site cars may be coming from. We talked about the bike path and the trees. Board Member Lew was also talking grade changes and how that may affect trees that are to remain. The carwash, we are aware and we will get a noise report for that. We definitely, for a formal application, will need lots more detail as far as details and elevations and landscape plans. Staff will make sure to get that. There was a question about where customers were going to wait and the path of travels internal to the site. I think those are the majors concerns or discussion items that I was picking up on. Maybe if we can ask the applicant if they had any questions before we move forward. Chair Thompson: Okay. Mr. Iversen: This is Eric Iversen again. No specific questions. On the big general, if you would like me to answer a question on the vehicle storage, I could do that. If that’s inappropriate we could wait for the future but I will keep that one really short. In the automotive industry, we go up and down with our inventory. Almost all of our facilities have short-term storage on a month-to-month basis as inventory changes over the year. The key is to not overdesign the site so that there is empty parking on-site but to find parking in an industrial area. We will have off-site vehicle storage of one kind of another. As far as the other items, I think there were a lot of great suggestions and I think we will take a look at how we can variate the façade and how to play around with the green walls and such stuff. It’s all great ideas. We’ll see what we can come up with. Chair Thompson: Great, thank you. If there is nothing else… Board Member Baltay: Osma, I have a question if I could? Chair Thompson: Yeah, go ahead. Board Member Baltay: Jodie, is the approval process now ARB to completion? We recommend approval and the Planning Department says it’s okay or does it have to go to City Council again? Ms. Gerhardt: Sorry, remind me, Sheldon, this is site and design though. Actually it would go through, PTC, ARB, and then the Council. Board Member Baltay: This has to go back to the Council again? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, that’s our standard site and design process because it is in the Baylands area and it has that D-overlay is why it needs to do that. Board Member Baltay: Okay. The gist of my question is that I think the staff and the town as a whole is tired of keeping going over this same thing over and over again, and anything we can do to expedite this process… to the applicant, if you can find a way to really resolve that bike path issue it’s going to really smooth your passage through all this regulatory stuff. To planning staff, is there just a way we can get the next application in front of us and one we can recommend approval on? Let’s get the pieces together and make it go a lot smoother this time. I think everybody would really appreciate that, certainly I would. This has been quite a few times now to look at the same property. Ms. Gerhardt: We agree and we will just make sure that we have all of those details that you expect with the materials. Board Member Baltay: Thank you. Thank you, Osma. 5.a Packet Pg. 117 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Thompson: All right. Thank you. If there is nothing else, we will close this item and I believe Board Member Lee will be leaving. Vice Chair Lee: Yes, thank you, Chair Osma. I will recuse myself given employment with Stanford. Chair Thompson: Right. Vice Chair Lee: Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [20PLN-00172]: Recommendation on Replacement of Wall Signs for Macy's that do not Comply with the Stanford Shopping Center Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program. Additionally, Consider Revisions to the Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program for Anchor Tenants. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per Guideline Section 15301. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Vice Chair Lee: Yes, thank you, Chair Osma. I will recuse myself given employment with Stanford. Chair Thompson: Right. Vice Chair Lee: Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you. All right. We will move on. Our next item is a public hearing/ quasi-judicial project 180 El Camino Real: recommendation of replacement of wall signs for Macy's that do not comply with the Stanford Shopping Center Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program. Additionally, considering revisions to the Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program for anchor tenants. Environmental Assessment: exempt per Guideline Section 15301. Staff? Oh, are there any disclosures? Sorry. Board Member Baltay: Yes, I visited the site. Board Member Lew: I also visited the site and I did want to point out a couple items that I raise to staff. I saw some additional finds that aren’t in our package, like new signs. I think there are like six or seven. Also, I wanted to point out to other Members of the Board, if you didn’t go to the site that some of those existing wall signs are sort of like on axis and that is why they cross some of those construction joints in the brick. Board Member Baltay: All of them, Alex. Board Member Hirsch: David Hirsch, I visited the site and the board at City Hall, and yes, Alex, you're right. There are additional signs that were there I noticed. Some of them actually have the new graphics but they aren’t apart of this presentation. Chair Thompson: I appreciate the disclosures. I could not visit the site, I was out of town but I did visit the material board very, very late last night. All right, go ahead staff. Samuel Gutierrez, Planner: Good morning, Board. Samuel Gutierrez, planner for this shopping center project planner here. I think this is out first, or at least my first, ARB of the year. Happy New Year! Chair Thompson: Happy New Year. Mr. Gutierrez: Good to see everybody virtually. We do have a presentation and I do appreciate the comment by Board Member Lew. I will be addressing those signs that he mentioned in his disclosures in the presentation. 5.a Packet Pg. 118 City of Palo Alto Page 12 [Setting up presentation.] Mr. Gutierrez: This is the Stanford Shopping Center; the Macy’s building. There used to two Macy’s buildings, now there’s only one. This is the, I guess you would say, all-encompass of Macy’s at the Stanford Shopping Center located at 180 El Camino Real. Next slide. To provide some background and context, the Stanford Shopping Center has a Master Tenant Façade Sign Program, and the program was developed to regulate façade signage, materials, and design throughout the shopping center. It also provides the level of review that would be required based on tenant location and size. This was done to provide some consistency in the shopping center while allowing some variation; however, we did notice -- that is the second point of the recommended action -- that the anchor tenants were not specifically called out in the Master Tenant Facade Sign Program other than that they would require some type of ARB review or possible staff review. Macy’s, the subject building -- also known as building K -- is a long-standard anchor tenant. It is the largest single-tenant building at the shopping center. The larger existing wall signs predate the Master Tenant Façade Program. As a result, signage does not comply with the Master Tenant Façade Program and any changes require a signage exemption, that’s why we’re here before you. Here’s the site. Again, we can see the Macy’s located here. I hope you all can see the cursor as I am hovering. These are the proposed large signs for the Macy’s with their relative location pointed out. It should be noted that the signs are illuminated. The corporate Macy’s star logo is internally illuminated, while the Macy's copy is halo illuminated. Here, we see that there are the other signs located at the corners at, I would say, interior mall entry at CL2 over the doorway there with the awning. Then, you see to the left on this slide the corners of the Macy’s building. If you’re entering from the parking lot in Sand Hill or coming from further down the way, like towards El Camino, and you go down that walkway you’ll encounter these signs at the corner of the building. Again, the applicant is proposing to hang out these signs. Just a note, the brock panels that are around the façade of the building are 24 feet wide with pretty large band spacing. There is about a 5-inch separation between each of the façade panels. That is just something to note as the ARB considers the proportions of the signs and the layout on the building. The existing signage versus the proposed, again the existing signage does not comply with the Master Tenant Façade Program. It does comply with the sign code, however. If we were just to apply the Palo Alto Municipal Sign Code from Title 16, the wall signage on the building does not exceed the limitations per that code. The applicant is proposing smaller signs than what is existing. The conflict there is that if we apply the Master Tenant Façade Program limit for the signs, they would be limited to only 24 inches tall; only two feet tall. I believe the existing signs are approximately five-feet tall. That is a very dramatic change, and, again, this is one of the largest building in the entire shopping center. It is interesting there. This is considered a four-sided and it doesn’t touch any other shopping center mass or continuous buildings with smaller tenants. It is a standalone. It does have one of the arcades over it that do kind of span between the buildings. Here is this additional signage that was brought up. The signage is displayed inside of the entries where there are concrete frames that project out. On the larger archway entries -- the one from the parking lot or the entry facing towards the Neiman Marcus building and the Apple Store, for example, in the first slide -- they are really right next to the door, as you can see here in this lower left photo. Again, this is on the lower right, this is that corner signage near the storefront to give people wayfinding abilities there. These signs are actually quite small. We liked them to secondary signage -- I will go in a bit more detail on the next slide -- in terms of the Master Tenant Façade Program, but also like wayfinding signs because if you do approach the building from the interior of the mall you will not see the large wall sign. You will see these kinds of corner or doorway signs. The signs themselves, in the doorway in particular, measure approximately six square feet. They’re not very large. They are just pin-mounted flat, acrylic letters. Going here for the proposed signage to the Master Tenant Façade Program, again, the limit there is the height conflict where you are limited to 24 inches tall. Then, also, you’re only limited to one primary wall sign. Again, this was considering the vast majority of tenants that really only have one wall or perhaps have a secondary wall with no entry if they’re a corner tenant at some of the other buildings in the shopping center. Not a freestanding anchor tenant like the Macy’s building K is. Here we can see, again, another example of the application of the Master Tenant Façade Program. We have a storefront and then we have a secondary wall where you don’t see an entry for secondary signage to find your way to that store. Here, we can see that the height criteria is spelled out across the tenant’s space façade. There is, of course, the 36-inch limit but that would be for stacked signs like into the north face copy, something like that where there are two lines of tenant name copy work whereas Macy’s is a single line. Moving on, we have the sign exception that, again, requires findings to be made in support of the approval. This one here in 5.a Packet Pg. 119 City of Palo Alto Page 13 particular requests to exceed the maximum number of signage total of signs and the height per the approved Master Tenant Façade Sign Program, again the 24-inch height limit. Here, we have identified them in bullet points. Moving on. The sign exception, again, these are the required finings. There are some exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property. That is generally not applicable to the other properties there. In considering the shopping center as its own neighborhood, if you will, because, of course, the shopping center is either surrounded by Stanford land, many forests of Redwoods, or medical buildings and then there is Ronald McDonald House on Sand Hill, and some retirement communities further down before you get to the medical center. In looking at that, if we were to apply the Master Tenant Façade Program as is to the Macy’s building, it would be a little strange considering how large the Macy’s building is in comparison to the standard tenant spaces, which are approximately 20 feet tall where this one is over 50 feet tall with a large façade. We are talking about a building that is over 200,000 square feet of retail space versus the standard tenant space in the shopping center varies from 1,000 to 10,000 square feet. There are some larger buildings, like the Fleming’s or the Wilkes Bashford, that do have more square feet. It would just seem a little strange to apply the Master Tenant Façade Program there and we made the finding that it would be a little burdensome there and assume it would be exceptional for this to have this grant. The second finding noted here, this would preserve the ability of the Macy’s building to standout with its presence in the shopping center to have larger signage and be identified that way. It is the top anchor tenant in terms of size. Then, of course, granting an approval would not be detrimental to any health or general welfare of convenience; these are just signs, and they are not changing any land or creating any safety violations. Through this application, we found, again, that there was a flaw in the Master Tenant Façade Program. We got the consistency. I could say after years of applying this program it has created a pretty good consistency in the shopping center and efficiency; however, again, when it comes to these anchor tenants, we find this issue as identified with Macy’s. Here you can see this is the guidelines in the top right from the Master Tenant Façade Program where we created a map of the different buildings in the general shopping center mass and the parameters for review are identified there. Here, you can see in this table that the Macy’s building K is the largest anchor tenant at the shopping center just by square feet and sheer size when you look at it in the map of the entire shopping center. Again, when we developed the program, we didn’t fully consider the context of the anchors in terms of their signage and even some other details. That is where we would seek more conversation there. Again, the intent of the program was to be adjusted over time so we could modify and change things understanding that the retail environment may change over time at the shopping center. That is where we have potentially an opening now to make some modifications. Staff does seek the guidance of the ARB on refinement suggestions of where we would go forward from this. Again, these are the parameters here for the shopping center signage in particular. We can see that this table here seems to better fit with the smaller tenants, but when looking at the limits of the signage and the size it doesn’t really seem fitting for 50-foot-tall buildings with over 100,000 square feet in floor area. In the staff report, it was noted that we suggested a starting point conversation might be that the maximum signage could be considered, perhaps, 80 percent of the wall area allowed by the Palo Alto Municipal Sign Code. That is noted here in table three. In concept, if we apply that type of limitation, for example, to the Macy’s signage now, that would limit the project to a maximum sign area per wall of 162 square feet rather than 203 maximum because the building is so big it actually reaches the very top maximum for wall signage. Again, just a little conversation starter there. Moving forward to the recommendation, we recommend for the ARB to recommend approval of the proposed project, the sign exception, to the Director of Planning and Development Services, based on the findings and subject to the conditions of approval. Also, to provide direction to staff regarding the future application of the Master Tenant Façade Program for anchor tenants. That wraps up the presentation. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Sam. Do we have a presentation by the applicant? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes. Chair Thompson: Okay. [Setting up presentation.] Bill Comer: My name is Bill Comer, All California Signs is my company. I think Samuel presented the case. 5.a Packet Pg. 120 City of Palo Alto Page 14 Chair Thompson: Sorry. Could you spell your name? Mr. Comer: [Spells name]. Chair Thompson: Thanks. You have ten minutes. Mr. Comer: Okay. I think Samuel presented the case quite well. When they developed the Master Sign Program for the shopping center, they didn’t take into account what the needs of the anchor tenants would be. What I have put here is to show that the pictures… in the sign business that is what we are doing is pictures. This one up here in the corner… Mr. Gutierrez: You have to share your screen. [Setting up presentation.] Mr. Comer: What I did is I put this is what is existing and this one is what the sign program would allow, and the bottom left is what we’re asking for. On this particular elevation view, what we gave to Sam crosses this architectural line here but now we have brought it back in to fit inside the two lines. Bloomingdale’s was almost eight years back now and the same thing. This bottom one here would have been what was allowed by the sign program and this top view is what you gave us a variance for. As you can see, it is pretty tiny and hard to read on the bottom one. Nieman Marcus, I assume that sign has been up there quite a while. It is quite large but this is the difference in size and how it would look on the building if we went with the sign program. That’s pretty much my whole presentation. I think we need a little larger sign. None of these signs are visible from the street. They all are visible only from the interior of the mall. These are three signs that we’re asking for the variance on. This is the side of the building that faces the new parking lot. I guess it would be the south side of the shopping center I believe. If you stand there and look all the way to the other side of the mall you would see [distortion]. Then this one is the one we started out looking at. Other than that, I can answer any questions you have. Chair Thompson: thank you. Does anybody on the board have any questions for staff or the applicant? Board Member Hirsch: I do. Chair Thompson: Go ahead, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, in our package here on page four in the packet, the Macy’s sign that faces the plaza area where the Apple Store is it shows Macy’s overlapping the line on… Mr. Comer: Let me go to that slide. You're talking about this one, correct? Board Member Hirsch: No, facing… Mr. Comer: This one. You're talking about this one? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah. Mr. Comer: Yeah, I noticed this when I got ready to do this presentation today that we had an old photo in there showing but this on here is how we want the sign to look. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Mr. Comer: We have gone through several variations sent to the mall for approval and Stanford for approval and getting it the same and back and it looks like I made a mistake in there. 5.a Packet Pg. 121 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Just one more here just to make sure. On page six of eight where there are lower display windows, CL3. Could you go to that one just to make sure that it is doing what I see on the drawings? Okay, that one and that one. Is that where it’s going to be, the one to the right there? Mr. Comer: I don’t like the looks of it. It was put there because that just matches where the old one was but we didn’t discuss it is the answer. I am sure they wouldn’t be averse to moving it to one side or the other, probably to the left side of the… I would have to look at the post and stuff to see how much visual impact, you know. Are we impacted where people see coming down those long corridors leading into the mall? I would be happy to move it one way or the other. Board Member Hirsch: It is kind of a moving target, right, when we’re walking this way the columns holding up the roof structure there. Mr. Comer: Yeah, it is pretty cluttered in there. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Okay, well, thank you. Chair Thompson: Any more questions? Board Member Baltay: Yes, Osma, I have a question for staff, for Sam. Sam, the Master Tenant Façade Sign Program, is that established as a bureaucratic policy or is that something legislatively approved by City Council? Mr. Gutierrez: We approved it by staff via the ARB. We didn’t go to City Council by that. Board Member Baltay: It’s different from the Town’s Sign Ordinance, which is part of the Municipal Code. Is that correct? Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. It is, in effect, an expanded master sign program. That is the more typical thing that gets presented to the Board, where in this case we did a Master Sign and Facade Program with the intention to, again, create some continuity in terms of materials and design because you might recall in past years the shopping center facades would not go all the way up to the top parapet. There would be the old mall; you would see the old corrugated concrete band at the top. This program actually kind of codified the concept moving forward of any new tenant that comes in that still has that old band has to complete their façade all of the way up. We say you have to go all the way up as noted in the façade program. Then, the signage, again, creates consistency. We don’t necessarily say that there is a square foot limit, but there is a height limit and locations are called out to create that internal consistency at the shopping center. Board Member Baltay: Okay. Then, within this sign program is there a definition of an anchor tenant? Is that some place established? Mr. Gutierrez: No, there is not a definition of an anchor tenant in the sign program. Board Member Baltay: Do you have one that you propose then or do you how do you propose to make that work? Mr. Gutierrez: I believe that it would be a square footage threshold along with building type. In terms of an anchor tenant, we broached the subject before at the ARB approximately two years ago now, I believe, when we went with the sign exception for Pacific Catch, which is a larger tenant within a bigger shopping center or building and them having multiple sides. In that discussion, we found that we couldn’t support the exemption because it wasn’t actually an anchor tenant. Taking that conversation and applying it moving forward, a proposal would be a standalone building with square feet exceeding 30,000 square feet. That would actually identify most of the retail department stores or even the forthcoming, under construction Restoration Hardware building would be considered an anchor tenant. That would be language that we 5.a Packet Pg. 122 City of Palo Alto Page 16 would use moving forward, and it would be a good suggestion to incorporate that into a modification of the program. Board Member Baltay: Okay. I had seen in your report someplace a statement along the lines of any building that is single-occupancy would essentially meet our anchor tenant building. Mr. Gutierrez: Right. Board Member Baltay: I am concerned about that because there are some that are very small that are obviously not anchor tenants, like Shake Shack for example. Mr. Gutierrez: Right. Shake Shack is Building W and they are connected with the P.F. Chang’s. Perhaps the Fleming’s would be an example of a single-tenant building but it is not anywhere near the size of the Macy’s or Neiman Marcus or Bloomingdale’s. Board Member Baltay: I am just trying to understand the legislative nature of the Master Tenant Sign Program. Aren’t these generally coming from an applicant, or in this case, owner of the shopping center rather than from planning staff? It seems like you guys are writing these programs? Is that the way it is usually done? Mr. Gutierrez: Originally, it was a collaborative effort. The shopping center via Simons [phonetic] sought to more standardized the process in the shopping center. Instead of it being a case-by-case scenario which would develop a lot of variation and inconsistencies. Also, staff seeing the shopping center and all of the turnover for some of these smaller tenants, we saw the need to develop a program to create consistency and an understanding to deal with the normal tenants that come in and out or refresh their storefronts. That became a collaborative effort between staff and the property owner. Board Member Baltay: Is it still collaborative or is it something that you are doing now? Mr. Gutierrez: We work with Simon regularly on it. This in particular was brought to Simon’s attention. They did not object to us seeking potential modifications for the anchor tenants. The anchor tenants themselves, at least the department stores and larger buildings, don’t readily change over. These are the longstanding tenants of the shopping center; they are the big tenants. Again, this does not come up very often at all. Board Member Baltay: Okay, thanks for answering the question, Sam. That’s what I wanted to know. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Any other questions for staff or the applicant? Great. Do we have any members of the public that would like to speak, Vinh? Mr. Nguyen: Chair Thompson, we do not have any public comments for this item. Chair Thompson: Thank you. I guess we will bring this back to the Board now. Board Member Hirsch, would you like to go first. [Setting up screen.] Board Member Hirsch: Okay, thank you. Where do start? I think I would do it from the numbers on the pamphlet that we received. We would start with C01, which is -- as everybody pointed out -- across from the parking lot. These new graphics are replacing these old graphics which are really on this side rather humongous. By the way, let’s just start by saying it is an incredible improvement to the graphics, period. The star is terrific; I think the use of the star again rather than some other element is a nice idea for the hyphen. The scale of the Macy’s letters are very nice. The propositions of them look very nice to me. It is a major improvement, so thank you for that. I am sure you worked with the Macy’s people on this and however that came about, I don’t know, but it is a big improvement. On this particular one, you come out 5.a Packet Pg. 123 City of Palo Alto Page 17 of that parking lot and I was trying to think where are these people going to see this sign. They actually come from various locations, even if the crosswalks are at a corner here. They would still see the building from different locations because the access to the parking lot is a different area. I almost feel like a second sign at the other corner just similar to this one might be a good idea, but this is certainly a nicer proportioned sign. Then you have the entry right there immediately entering. Most people I think are going to know if they are parking in that area they are going to be going to Macy’s, perhaps on the way to somewhere else, but this is a big improvement. C02 over the side door facing Bloomingdale’s as you pointed out is, again, much better proportioned lower down. I sort of felt as you show these graphics what would be kind of nice for us would be to see the entire wall and to see where the graphics are on the wall relative to the mass of the building all the way to the roof to the ground just as a presentation. It certainly looks fine here. My thought was that it could be a little bit lower and still look nice and proportioned to the wall, but it’s not a critical comment really. C03, I really have a problem, as you do, Mr. Comer, with it crossing over the line. You are, after all, fixing up the wall where previous signs are going to be removed and putting in the new sign so I don’t know why you couldn’t move that sign away from the dividing line of brick break line on the outside of the building and put it over the window itself. I mean, it just doesn’t work for me there at all. As we discussed, you come down the lane from the parking lot and you will see it from one location or another. It is a fine identity at some point along there that you won't miss, basically. I personally cannot accept that version. Moving on to C04, that is fine. That is a nice location. You do see it coming in and it works well with the display window. It is perfect right there. Then, the final one, thank heavens. You moved that to the next panel over and you managed to incorporate the entire larger sign, larger but not as large as the original. I think in proportion to the wall… although we can’t see that drawing and maybe the next submission we’ll get to see it if we don’t approve these right now. The only thing I am kind of wondering about is that there is almost an opportunity to do something else on this wall and keep the wall clean because in going into the store itself that is… the way in which the outside structure works with the planting behind it growing up, the major archway with a lot of openings in it to the store… actually there is this kind of vertical grid holding up the canopy in some way that is above the door and the first part of it up to the upper windows and upper archway there is really doing nothing. The inside of the store blanks out. If it is supposed to windows that you're looking at you don’t see them when you're inside the store. You almost feel like right above that major door that faces out to a major plaza wouldn’t have your graphics on it to be closed off as a paneled area and coordinated with a better paint job, et cetera, all around the entry there. I mean, this is a major change, I will agree, but if I were voting on this, I would say put the sign right there in that major point of entry to the building. It is a major access inside, so why isn’t the signage within that? If I were Macy’s, I would want it there. Then again, of course, when you're stepping far back in that little plaza area there you do want to see it. I think, therefore, the lighting of it would have to be different for nighttime viewing. But just sticking it up on the wall there doesn’t, for me, do the trick. It is not important enough, but the archway would coordinate all of the graphics into the design of this building. Other than that, I would say I approve the graphics themselves with those couple of changes I think that the scaling down of Macy’s on this major store and generally speaking throughout the shopping center, as you pointed out, is a big improvement in the graphics. However, that is achieved with Sam, and the city, and the sign program it could be like a new program for the standalone large building of a certain size. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: Okay, thank you. I think the signs generally are looking good. I would say I have some similar comments to David. One is on sign CL3, I think that the alignment is off. The location is off. It seems to me it could be aligned with the window or it could be aligned between the columns and the sidelights, but it is not working as it is. I think that one needs to shift somehow. Sign CL4, as I looked at it on the site it is too low. If you're coming in from clarying court [phonetic] alignment there are some new planters with trees and I think the sign is hidden by the tops of the trees. I can accept it as is it, but it seems like it is not quite working as well as it could be. I am okay with the CL5 sign location. I think that is fine. On the master sign program, I pulled up my old notes from 2015. I didn’t take a lot of notes on the document but I think maybe if we want more clarity on what the Board wanted before I think it was condition of approval number 23. I think that the Board wanted to see any signs if they were larger dimensions. The Board clearly understood that the anchor tenants were not going to comply with this particular document. I don’t need to see 24-inch sign letters. We know that that is not going to work and 5.a Packet Pg. 124 City of Palo Alto Page 18 the Board knew that at the time. My recollection is that Simons- said that they were very complicated lease agreements with these anchor tenants and how much visibility they had to have, and that they couldn’t just put it in one simplified master sign program. I think in that sense I am okay with keeping it as is where it just has to come back to the Board or to staff. I think we should note, too, though, that if you try to create an anchor tenant definition, I think what will happen is you're going to have things like Restoration Hardware and Anthropology say that they’re anchor tenants. We already had that when the Anthropology store came in. They wanted to build their building to look like an anchor tenant and the board said we really want you to fit in with the smaller buildings. If the staff wanted to simplify it, I am actually okay with it, but I think we have to set the threshold pretty high; I would say higher than the Anthropology store. That’s where I am. I don’t know what the other Board Members are feeling, but I think that this should come back. It seems like there are enough inconsistencies in these drawings that we could do it one more time. If time is of the essence, then I am okay with this maybe coming back to subcommittee. Thanks. Chair Thompson: Thanks, Board Member Lew. Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Thanks, Osma. Thanks, everybody. I am okay with the signs as presented as long as sign CL3 gets shifted left or right as Board Members Hirsch and Lew have commented. I will also comment that I think sign CL3 and sign CL4 should probably be at the same elevation. Alex may well be correct that CL4 is too low but I believe those two are seen along the same façade with the same relationship to the decorative windowfront underneath. I am perfectly fine letting the applicant make decisions on how those are placed in detail, as long as CL3 is shifted so it is not going across the brick pattern. We can leave it to staff to make that final evaluation; this is an internal shopping center thing. I am okay with the sign exception allowing the larger signs. If anything, CL1 should be bigger, although then it wouldn’t fit with the brick patterning on the wall, so I am perfectly fine with the way it is there. To me, the bigger issue is whether we try to sort of put all of this into the sign program. I agree completely with what Alex just said. I think that coming up with a definition of an anchor tenant is going to be problematic, and because they are so rare that we have this issue anyway I think it is much better to bring it to the review board when you have a case of the sign being larger than what the program calls for. I think, Sam, you have an excellent idea of what is likely to be approved and such and you can advise tenants of that. You have clearly established this four-feet-four-inches seems to be about the right size for these larger buildings. I think you will find that if you try to actually write it down and put it into code it gets complicated and you really just opened yourself up to odd questions and arguments, which you don’t have. I have to say, I am a little bit uncomfortable that you're spending city money and time coming up with what really should be an applicant’s responsibility. This is Simon Properties shopping mall and they should be coming to you with a request for a sign program that we can approve. It just struck me. I thought this was something that the City Council had voted on and that we really need to go through them. On the flip side of all of that, I have to say that, Jodie, you and your staff have done an excellent job managing this shopping center. Sam has been really focused and wonderful. It is fantastic to have one person, one very capable planner looking this over. Sam is absolutely right, that the consistency of signage and design as a whole, consistency of the approval process has really improved and it is something that you want to keep going and keep and keep working on. I give you latitude that way and maybe if you really feel you need to improve the sign program, fine, put time into it but work with the applicant. You’ve got to come up with a better definition of anchor tenants. I will caution you; I don’t think you can do it but you’ve done a great job so far so I don’t want to handicap you on what you're doing. I think right what we have is working. The few times where we have a big sign, we are happy to look at it. As you can tell from our comments, we are focused and caring enough about it that you don’t need to legislate every piece of it. I think what is before us today is otherwise quite approvable. To that effect, I have made a few changes to some of the findings, but why don’t we finish with Osma’s comments, and then if she wants us to we can get into that. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Sure, thank you. All right. I will kind of repeat and add to it. CL1 appears to be good across the board. CL2 is also okay. Agree with my fellow Board Members that CL3 should be adjusted. I did have a note that I think it should be aligned right-justified with the window edge so that it is still close to its original location but justified on the right side to maximize visibility. CL4 I agree that it should be maintained at the same height. If it is too low because of the trees, that might be an issue and it might 5.a Packet Pg. 125 City of Palo Alto Page 19 not be the right location. I will trust Board Member Lew’s note on that because I did not see that. For CL5, I do appreciate Board Member Hirsch’s suggestion for CL5 being within the arch. I was kind of struggling with that a little bit as well because we all noticed that it was straddling the line, and I understand the applicant shoes to put it on the right side but that arch has some depth and if you are standing right where the arch is then potentially the arch would obscure that sign if it is on the right side. I had a thought maybe it might be better to put it on the left side. Then Board Member Hirsch came up with the idea of putting it in the middle of the arch. I do think in the middle of the arch it would be the most straightforward place to put because that’s where you’re entering. I think CL5 potentially needs a little bit more discussion. I did hear Board Member Baltay and Lew say that they are okay with that location, but maybe we should do a straw poll on that in a minute. We are getting rid of these big signs and I have a huge concern that they are going to leave shadow marks behind them against the façade. I don’t know if there is something in the conditions to make sure that when we get rid of that that there is some sort of way to clean it or something. I am not sure how you clean something that is cleaner than everything else around it but some way to blend it in. Then, for the sign exception program, for the anchor tenant issue I am really less- fussed with that. It is really more about how this sign relates to the wall. I actually think it is more about the architecture that it is being put against rather than how much money this potential tenant is bringing in, which is kind of how I understand an anchor tenant. You know, really, I think the reason these changes make sense is because this is a bigger building and the shopping center has a lot of smaller-scale stuff which calls for smaller-scale signs. This is a bigger-scale building and therefore it calls for bigger-scale signs. I think proportion is really more what I think needs to be considered over whether it is an anchor tenant or not. That is all of my notes. I wrote we should potentially do a straw poll for the height of CL4, and then a straw poll for CL5 in terms of how we feel about the location of that. Let’s start with CL4. Do we feel like it is too low where it is? Let’s start with Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: I thought that -- actually Alex could clarify this -- he was really talking about CL2 when he talked about the height f the signs because the signs that are above those windows should match up because the two of them are on the same façade. CL4 and… Chair Thompson: And CL3. Board Member Hirsch: CL3, yeah. The height of those should be similar above the display window. Alex was mentioning -- I think, so he should clarify for us -- CL2 and the height of that which I thought would be a little lower. He mentioned the trees further along that alleyway, I believe that is what the discussion was, so that that particular Macy’s, he thought, should be higher. I also mentioned the fact that it isn’t being shown with a full wall elevation. It is a little hard to tell proportionately. The whole idea of presenting signs should be something that is done almost with different perspective angles, your step backs, and the alleyway that’s in front with the open plaza in front. Then you get closer to it relative to the canopy and where the canopy’s perspective might interrupt the proportion above. That would make it easier to see, but, first of all, are we talking about CL2 or are we talking about CL4, Alex. Chair Thompson: Yeah, why don’t you clarify Board Member Lew. Ms. Gerhardt: I believe you were doing a straw poll on CL4, correct? Chair Thompson: I was. I was doing a straw poll on the height of CL4. Board Member Lew: Yeah. I would think it is hard for us to do a poll if there isn’t any information to see the issue. I could send you guys a photo at the moment that I took yesterday but maybe it is better just to either have it come back or we just approve it with whatever minor adjustments. Board Member Baltay: How about if we just say that CL3 and CL have to align, Alex, and then they can decide what height exactly with the planning staff. Chair Thompson: We would have to ask them to consider the height if that’s what we want to do for both of them. 5.a Packet Pg. 126 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Ms. Gerhardt: The applicant just needs some general direction. If we want to bring this back to subcommittee, if we want to bring to staff, just who to bring it back to would be the question. Board Member Baltay: I am okay with it going to staff, as long as they are the same height; I think the applicant and staff can figure it out. That is my straw poll vote. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew: I will agree with that. Board Member Hirsch: I would agree with that. Chair Thompson: Okay. I think it should come to subcommittee, but this is a democracy. Board Member Hirsch: I agree with that, too. Board Member Baltay: I think, Osma, we have so many things we’re trying to do with the planning staff right now. This is just not high on the list. Chair Thompson: There are other things too. Let’s talk about CL5; Board Member Hirsch had a suggestion for a different location. I would be open to that, and also even whether it is on the left side or the right side of that joint. Can I hear some opinions on CL5? Board Member Baltay: I am okay with it where it is proposed on the façade. I think it is crossing the joint but it seems to me still that it works. I think it would be fine in the middle of the arch, but I don’t want to be designing this for the applicant. If they wanted it there, they should propose it there. It is a big change from how the sign will function and I am not comfortable just mandating that. Chair Thompson: To clarify, the applicant showed today that it is no longer straddling that joint. The applicant showed it on the right side of the joint today, which I understand is the… Board Member Baltay: I am fine with that, too. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew. Board Member Lew: You know, I actually have fond memories of looking out that window, as well as the other big arch window. You used to be able to see out. My recollection is it was floor-to-ceiling glass, and so I think I am okay with the wall sign. It seems to me if you do try to fit a halo-lit sign there then it is going to look completely different than the other signs, right, because the lighting is internal and it is bouncing off of the brick. It seems to me that that would a different animal altogether. If you're trying to do that, I would think that you're actually trying to do an awning sign, perhaps, or something like a canopy sign. I think I am not supporting moving that one. Chair Thompson: Do you have an opinion on whether it is on the left side of the construction joint or the right side? Board Member Lew: I think what the applicant showed today in the presentation is better than the drawing set. Chair Thompson: Sorry, that wasn’t my question. it was a question of whether the sign should be entirely on the right side or entirely on the left side of the joint. The applicant showed today on the right side and I had mentioned that might get obscured by the architecture. Board Member Lew: Yeah, but I haven’t seen the other option, right? Chair Thompson: Okay. I’ll note you down as okay with it. 5.a Packet Pg. 127 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Board Member Lew: (Inaudible) better setting back farther, like the photo simulations would be actually better showing more of the context. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Hirsch, on CL5? Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, the point you raise is a good one, I think, whether to the right or to the left of that particular joint. In other examples here, it is kept on the right-hand side. No, I am sorry. Excuse me, it is kept on the end of the building. It is too bad we couldn’t see it in that location and the proportioned… I don’t know if by putting it there -- because both of those panels seem to be approximately the same size -- it would feel crammed at the end wall but I think, Osma, you raise the issue and it is too bad… we should really ask to see it. That pushes us a little bit more into the committee versus us not seeing it again. Alex mentioned a couple of reasons why; I just think Macy’s should be part of the discussion of the door and signage and in changing scope because I am not denying that it isn’t a major scope change to put it in the arch, but it is not a bad idea in terms of what would be possible, even if it led to them building a background for the sign to be against that simply took up the space of all of the non-usable windows. Inside those ceilings have been dropped and you can’t see out that, and Alex’s memory of having light behind him coming through isn’t there anymore. It just isn’t inside, so the outside, which is not exactly pretty structural element, could very well be done differently where we would create a background for the sign within the arch. All of that said, I admit, it is a much more major change in how this is done. It involves more than just putting a sign on the side of the building. If this is a suggestion that others would agree is worth studying while we, let’s say, discuss this other major sign on the side of this building, then why not suggest it? That’s why I did because I think it is a much better location if it were in the arch. If this word could get back to Macy’s and to Simons, if it were considered, I think it would be a benefit to the whole shopping center to make that kind of improvement. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Baltay: Osma, I’ll defer; if you as Chair would like this to go to subcommittee, I can easily support that. Chair Thompson: Okay. I am going to really quickly share my screen to show at least what Google Earth shows on the street view. This is the sign in question and we are discussing… can you guys see? Okay. I feel like it is a good time to make a motion. Board Member Baltay: Osma, I would like to modify some of the findings, perhaps, because I am concerned about them supporting a change to the whole program if it’s okay. Chair Thompson: Sure, go ahead. Board Member Baltay: Finding one, this is the ARB findings on page 19 of our packet here. Finding here, the sixth line down there is a break in the sentence. It says “signage are either 43.75 or 66 square feet in area.” I believe all of the text after that should just be struck from the rationale. I think all of that is just supporting a change to the program rather than the sign that we are approving. Similarly, down in the second, the project is consistent with finding two because… let’s see. Really, we should just strike to where it is the very last two words on this page “the proposed signage is of a consistent design and illumination on each façade, creating a sense of order.” I think that is sufficient rationale for approving it again, striking the first three-and-a-half lines. Then, I would like to strike the last sentence of the rationale for line three, which is that “while the reverse halo illuminate provides a modern look and sleek appearance at night…” I would like to strike that from the rationale for a finding. I don’t think that’s something we want to necessarily support. With the indulgence of my colleagues, I recommend those changes to the findings. Chair Thompson: I am okay with that. Do Board Members Lew or Hirsch have any comment? Board Member Hirsch: No. Board Member Baltay: If you would like, Osma, I can make a motion based on that. 5.a Packet Pg. 128 City of Palo Alto Page 22 Chair Thompson: Sure. Board Member Baltay: Alex, are you okay with that? Chair Thompson: I saw Alex nod. Alex, we can’t hear you. MOTION Board Member Baltay: I will move that we recommend approval of this project with the following items to come back to subcommittee: 1) sign CL3 be shifted left or right to avoid the break in the building façade; and 2) sign CL5 be properly shown at the location desired, and also that the applicant consider placing the sign instead under the archway; 3) would be that the findings be changed as I previously mentioned. That is my motion. Chair Thompson: Do we have a second? FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Board Member Hirsch: I suggest an amendment that CL5… Chair Thompson: Wait, sorry. I didn’t hear a second. Was that Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: I will second. Chair Thompson: Okay. Motion by Baltay, seconded by Lew. Did you want to add a friendly amendment? Board Member Hirsch: Friendly amendment. I would suggest that CL5 be considered on the left-hand brick panel as an alternate to go along with the rest of them. Board Member Baltay: You're saying, David, we should just tell them to put it on the left-hand panel when they put it up on the wall? Board Member Hirsch: If it is on the wall it should be considered on the left-hand panel, which we haven’t seen. Board Member Baltay: That’s fine with me. Alex? Board Member Lew: Sure. What is the exact language? Consider? Chair Thompson: It’s consider. Board Member Lew: Or are you dictating? Chair Thompson: It’s consider. Board Member Lew: (Inaudible) consider. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Chair Thompson: Okay, consider. Can I also add a friendly amendment? Board Member Baltay: You can try, Osma. Chair Thompson: That we ask the applicant to consider aligning CL3 and CL4 to the same height. Board Member Baltay: Absolutely, I forgot about that. Yes, thank you. I support that completely. 5.a Packet Pg. 129 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Board Member Lew: Okay, I am fine with that. Chair Thompson: Okay. If there is nothing else, motion by Baltay and seconded by Lew. Can we have a roll call vote? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lew, Thompson (4) No: (0) Absent: Lee (1) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-0-1. Ms. Gerhardt: Chair Thompson, do we want to go ahead and nominate the subcommittee members at this time? Chair Thompson: Sure. Board Member Baltay looks like he just stepped away but I’ll suggest Board Member Baltay and Board Member Hirsch. Ms. Gerhardt: See, when you walk away you get assignments, right? Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 3, 2020 Chair Thompson: Okay to move on? Great. Next item is approval of minutes. We have the draft Architectural Review Board meeting minutes of December 3rd. I am going to wait for Board Member Baltay to come back to approve these because I was absent for them. We probably need more than two people to vote on the minutes. Or do we? Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, we do need a quorum. Actually, he is back. There we go. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Baltay: I am here. We are going to approve the draft meeting minutes for December 3rd. I will abstain because I was not present. Does someone have a motion? MOTION Board Member Baltay: Sure. I will move to approve the minutes from December 3rd, 2020. Board Member Hirsch: Second. Chair Thompson: Motion by Baltay, seconded by Hirsch. Can we get a vote? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lew (3) No: (0) Abstain: Thompson (1) Absent: Lee (1) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 3-0-1-1. 5.a Packet Pg. 130 City of Palo Alto Page 24 5. Draft Architectural Board Meeting Minutes for December 17, 2020 MOTION Chair Thompson: Thank you. Next item is the draft Architectural Review Board meeting minutes from December 17, 2020. I move that we approve these meeting minutes. Board Member Baltay: Second. Chair Thompson: Motion by Thompson, seconded by Baltay. Can we get a vote? Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lew, Thompson (4) No: (0) Absent: Lee (1) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-0-1. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Thompson: Thank you. Okay, our next item is board member comments, questions or announcements. Alex, do we have any update on the NVCAP item? Board Member Lew: Sure. The NVCAP went to the Planning Commission on January 13th for a second hearing. I think the Planning Commission gave a lot of good comments about modifying the three alternatives to make them more financially feasible. Also, there was a prescreening for 2951 El Camino. It was actually a second prescreening at the City Council, and that is within the NVCAP project area. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, the project at 2951 El Camino is a prescreening right now. We have heard from the applicant that it will come back as a formal application, then it would come to the Board at that time. This would be for a PHZ, planned community rezoning. It could go through all, the PTC, ARB, and City Council ultimately. Board Member Lew: Right. Also, just in the news if you guys have been following it, one of the property owners in the NVCAP area is proposing an office overlay for their properties. That’s going to the City Council on March 1st. Everybody is looking out for their own interest there it sounds like, so stay tuned. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah. I think with 3045 Park -- thank you for these reminders, Alex -- is zoned GM as are a bunch of those other buildings right there. Some of the other buildings have grandfathered office uses but because this building is brand new it doesn’t have that grandfathering. They are allowed to do research and development but they have not been able to find such a tenant. So, they are proposing additional office uses, and, as you said, that will be reviewed by Council. Board Member Lew: Also, that Park project technically is not within the official NVCAP boundaries. Ms. Gerhardt: It’s just on the other side of the street. Is that correct? Board Member Lew: Some of the planning staff have been thinking about adding that to the boundaries and to consider the housing over on those sites as well. Also, the developer owns the old HP Cloudera site as well. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, Cloudera and also 2747. They own three properties right there. 5.a Packet Pg. 131 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Chair Thompson: Thank you for that update. We all got the reminder earlier that the objective standards will be presented at our next meeting. Just a reminder to the public to send any comment sin on that. Any other comments before we adjourn? Board Member Lew: I’ve got a couple more. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Lew: In January, William Riggs on the Planning Commission had to resign. There are three vacancies, and the Council is scheduled to meet on February 8th to do the PTC as well as the HRB appointments. Also, there are a whole bunch of other housing projects coming in. It sounds like there are quite a few projects coming in. We really need to get to work on the objective standards. I think it is really critical that we really focus on that. I think that is going to be the biggest thing that the Board has ever had to tackle. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you, Alex. We did over Christmas and the New Year receive a bunch of new housing projects, which we are excited about, but, yes, we also need to make sure we have the proper regulations in place. I do appreciate all of the work that has gone into those objective standards. It is our goal to finish those in the summer, but to get them through the ARB before then because we need to go to Council in the summer. Thank you. Chair Thompson: All right. Thank you. Thanks, everyone. Happy New Year. The meeting is adjourned. Board Member Hirsch: Congratulations on your first. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, first meeting. Board Member Baltay: (Inaudible). Chair Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: Take care, everyone. Chair Thompson: All right. Take care. Adjournment 5.a Packet Pg. 132