Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-07-15 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: July 15, 2021 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 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. 180 El Camino Real [21PLN-00122]: Recommendation on Facade Changes and New Signage for Peloton that Includes a Request for a Sign Exception for Signs that do not Comply with The Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program and the Municipal Code. 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. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2021 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 17, 2021 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates – Boardmember Lew Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Osma Thompson Vice Chair 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: 965 6189 1491 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 (you may need to exclude the initial “1” depending on your phone service) Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13414) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 7/15/2021 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: • Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) • 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 Virtual Meeting Cancelled 1/21/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 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 Cancelled 6/3/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 6/17/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 7/1/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 7/15/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 8/5/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 8/19/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting 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 Ad Hoc Committee 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 4/15 – Baltay/Hirsch 5/6 – Baltay/Lew 6/17 – Thompson/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 August 5, 2021 • Cancelled August 19, 2021 • ARB Awards: Initial Discussion 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 12382) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 7/15/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 180 El Camino Real: Peloton Store Facade & Sign Exception Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [21PLN-00122]: Recommendation on Facade Changes and New Signage for Peloton that Includes a Request for a Sign Exception for Signs that do not Comply with The Master Tenant Facade & Sign Program and the Municipal Code. 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. From: Carlos Ruiz Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend denial of the requested signage exception to the Director of Planning & Development Services, and 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project façade changes to the Director of Planning & Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Background Project Information Owner: The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Jr. University Architect: Lochte Architectural Group Representative: Jason Smith/Land Shark Development Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 180 El Camino Real 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Neighborhood: Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area: Various & 2,300,402 square feet (sf); 52.8 acres Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: N/A Protected/Heritage Trees: Various throughout the site Historic Resource(s): N/A Existing Improvement(s): 1,361,751 square feet (sf); 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s): Retail, Personal Service, Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation: Regional/Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Not Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): El Camino Real Design Guidelines 1976 only 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description Peloton proposes a new storefront façade, storefront glazing, and new signage at their new location (16B, Bldg. C – formerly Bed Bath & Body Works) within the Stanford Shopping Center. The application includes a request for a Sign Exception for signage that does not comply with the City’s Sign Code, El Camino Real Design Guidelines, nor the Master Tenant Façade & Sign (MTSF) program for the Stanford Shopping Center. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are requested: • Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. • Sign Exception: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 16.20.040. (a) An application for exception from any of the regulations of this chapter (except a temporary sign which is regulated by Section 16.20.050) may be made in conjunction with an application for architectural review approval under Chapter 18.76 (Permits and Approvals), in such form and including such information as the Director of Planning & Development Services may prescribe. An exception may be approved by the Director of Planning & Development Services or City Council, if it is found that: (1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; (2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; (3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Analysis1 The proposed project is located on the northeast side of the Stanford Shopping Center facing El Camino Real. The project involves the relocation of the existing tenant Peloton to the tenant space located in building C, soon to be vacated by Bed Bath & Beyond. The applicant proposes a new façade design that is consistent with other Peloton tenant facades nationwide. The three design components are exterior stone cladding, a metal illuminated “portal”, and storefront glazing. The applicant indicates that the design intent is to use high-quality finishes that reflect the premium nature of the products sold by Peloton. The design (image below) utilizes stone cladding in large cut pieces along the full height of the façade, to create a uniform and simple façade element. The storefront entry would be framed by an intentional “portal” design consisting of a matte black faceted metal frame, tapered towards the storefront glazing and door. Internally illuminated LED lights would cause a glowing effect for the acrylic that lines the portal edges. The storefront glazing and recessed entry would have thin matte black mullions consistent with the portal design. The use of thin mullions for the glazing would allow for uninterrupted views into the storefront, to enhance the pedestrian environment of the Shopping Center. The façade would be consistent with the Master Tenant Façade & Sign program for the Shopping Center and is well suited to the Shopping Centers’ character. However, the project includes a request for a sign exception, discussed further in the following section of this report. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Signage The proposed upper façade wall sign would be located on the upper stone portion of the façade and consist of internally illuminated face-lit individual letters. At 1’ 9” tall the sign would be consistent with the MTFS program’s prescribed wall sign limits. The proposed blade sign is 1’ 8” x 1’ 3”, also consistent with the MTFS program. Both the upper façade wall sign and blade sign are made of aluminum, painted in a matte black finish consistent with the façade design. These signs are typical of signage found within the Shopping Center. Signage Requiring an Exception The application includes a second wall sign that consists of the entire entry portal featuring Peloton “P” logos at each leg of the portal. The inclusion of the logos in the portal feature makes the entire feature a wall sign. A second wall sign is not consistent with the MTFS program, which only allows one wall sign for tenants not located at the corners of a building or those that are not anchor tenants. The portal signs are inconsistent with the signage of similar- sized tenants within the Shopping Center as the portal sign is 11’ 8” tall, 29’ 10 7/8” wide. The MTFS program allows wall signs that are single line a maximum height of 24”. The portal sign has a signage area of 106 sf and when combined with the upper façade wall sign, the project would have a total wall sign area of 129 sf. This is 69 sf over the maximum wall signage area of 60 sf for this storefront. Additionally, the El Camino Real Design Guidelines are applicable; these would require reducing the proposed signage by 1/2 to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the sign ordinance. As a result, this project would have a reduced wall sign area maximum between 30 sf to 40 sf respectively. The proposed wall sign area would significantly exceed what is allowed. Attachment C of this report provides design details for the proposed signage. 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 The MTFS was intended to create consistency within the Shopping Center while allowing enough variation between tenants to set them apart from one another. The subject signage exception in context with the storefront size is not supported by the MTFS. The cumulative sign area would be the largest signage area for any tenant along the El Camino Real frontage of the Shopping Center. In summary, the upper façade wall sign is compliant, the portal “p” logo sign, is not compliant and recommended to be denied. Consequently, staff has drafted a condition to remove the logos from the entry portal. This approach would declassify the portal as a wall sign, bringing the project into conformance with the applicable zoning regulations and the MTFS program. 1979 El Camino Real (ERC) Design Guidelines The Shopping Center site is subject to the El Camino Real (ECR) Design Guidelines (1979 ECR Guidelines). The 1979 ECR Guidelines state that signs on ECR shall be limited to 1/2 to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the Sign Code (see Attachment C).2 During an ARB hearing of the Shake Shack design (ARB 6/21/2018 http://bit.ly/shakeshack1ARB) within building W, the ARB discussed the applicability of the ECR Guidelines. Staff and the ARB concluded the intent of the size reduction appears to be for signage along ECR that is within the line of sight or public view from ECR. Therefore, the ECR Design Guidelines do apply in this application, as the subject tenant space for Peloton within Building C is visible from ECR. Therefore, staff included ECR Design Guidelines considerations in this report. As noted, the portal signage is not compliant with the City’s sign code. Approval of the requested signage exception would be viewed as granting special privileges to the applicant, and for this reason, staff recommends denial. Also, there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances present to the subject storefront. The storefront faces El Camino Real and has similar conditions as the adjacent storefronts along the subject side of the Shopping Center (building C & building J). Denying the requested signage exception for this specific tenant would not remove or deny substantial property rights of the applicant or cause hardship. The tenant is allowed two exterior signs (a wall sign and blade sign) of standard sizes per the MTFS program, which all tenant signage is subject to. Zoning Compliance3 Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. The project does not include any changes of use or increase in floor area that would change the existing zoning compliance of the Shopping Center. As such, the zoning analysis focused on the project's request for a signage exception. A summary table is provided in Attachment C and findings for denial of the sign exception are provided in Attachment B. The proposed project as conditioned (to remove the signage logos from the portal feature of the façade) complies with all applicable codes within the Zoning Ordinance and the MTSF program for the Shopping Center. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines4 Policy L-50 of the Comprehensive Plan encourages “… high-quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs.” The façade size of the project's tenant space is typical of other Shopping Center façade sizes. The proposed wall signage on the upper façade and the blade sign would be constructed of high-quality durable materials and would feature high-quality illumination. The portal signage, though constructed of high-quality materials and a high-quality design, is inconsistent with other storefront designs within the Shopping Center. Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempted from the California Environmental Quality Act under the Class 1 exemption 15301 Existing Facilities as this project is proposing new signage on the exterior of an existing building on site. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing to be published in a local paper and to be mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on July 2, 2021, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on June 30, 2021, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Report Author & Contact Information ARB5 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: 4 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings and Sign Exception Denial Findings (DOCX) • Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment D: Draft Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment E: Applicant Request Letter (PDF) • Attachment F: Master Tenant Facade &Sign Program (PDF) • Attachment G: Project Plans (DOCX) 2 Packet Pg. 17 120-39-054 120-39-032 120-39-006 326.1' 153.5' 326.1' 153.5' This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0'448' 180 El Camino Real Stanford Shopping Center CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sgutier, 2021-06-25 15:22:16Parcel Report with zoningdistricts (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Project Site 2.a Packet Pg. 18 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real Peloton/21PLN-00022 Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed façade design is consistent with the MTFS program’s requirements for high-quality storefront designs and materials that are of high quality, durability, exterior grade finishes with minimal maintenance requirements. Additionally, as conditioned (i.e. removal of the portal signage) the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass, and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: As conditioned, the project is compatible with the rest of the Shopping Center tenant façades and the MTFS program's intent to provide an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community. The project's proposed façade design has a scale that consistent with the Shopping Centers' pedestrian environment creating a sense of order and consistency along the El Camino Real frontage of the Shopping Center. Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The proposed façade design is utilizing high-quality exterior materials and finishes that are balanced in the design, where the dark tones of stone tile and metal panels create a uniform and minimal look. The color palette consists of matte black and grey tones that mute the scale of the façade material pieces while providing a high-end appearance. The design of the centered entry portal features an illuminated bands along the border of its tapered edges that angle towards the storefront glazing. The glazing and entry vestibule both have thin mullions providing uninterrupted views into the tenant space, providing a simple, clean, and aesthetically pleasing storefront design typical of the Shopping Center. 2.b Packet Pg. 19 Finding 4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space, and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The signage as conditioned is well placed and consistent with the MTFS program signage regulations providing signage that is in scale with both pedestrians and automobiles entering the Shopping Center from Sand Hill Road and El Camino Real. The black aluminum surrounds with white internally illuminated faces provide excellent contrast and are easily visible to visitors of the Shopping Center. Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Finding #5 does not apply to this project. The subject tenant space does not have existing landscapingas the subject tenant space location is directly in front of a required loading area and as a result, has a narrower sidewalk pathway than others along this portion of the Shopping Center. New planter boxes are not recommended as they would further narrow the sidewalk pathway and there are no existing planter boxes nearby. Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The proposed project includes materials that consist of stone tile, metal panels, and glass which are readily recyclable and is subject to the local energy and recycling codes. The proposed signs are illuminated and made of durable long-lasting materials and are subject to the green building energy regulations. 2.b Packet Pg. 20 Signage Exception The following findings have been made to deny the signage exception application for an exception from the regulations within the existing Master Tenant Façade & Sign (MTFS) Program for the Stanford Shopping Center and the Municipal Code Wall sign area allowance. The specific exception that has been requested is as follows: • To exceed the maximum total wall sign allowance per the MTFS program and the wall area allowance per the Municipal Code. 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to properties in the same district. The new signage is not compliant with the City’s sign code the proposed portal wall sign and the upper façade wall sign would exceed the signage area limitations of the City’s signage regulations (60 sf max). The MTFS was intended to create consistency within the Shopping Center while allowing enough variation between tenants to set them apart from one another. The subject signage exception in context with the storefront size is not as readily appropriate for the proposed application as it would be the largest signage for any tenant along the El Camino Real frontage of the Shopping Center. As such, the proposed signage is inconsistent with the signage of a similar tenant within the Shopping Center and there are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances present by the applicant. The storefront faces El Camino Real, has similar conditions as the adjacent storefronts along the subject side of the Shopping Center (building C & building J), and is therefore subject to the El Camino Real Design Guideline requirements. This requires that the proposed wall signage to be reduced by 1/2 to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the sign ordinance, which is 30 sf to 40 sf respectively. When combining the upper façade sign and the portal sign areas, the total wall sign area would be 129 sf. Approval of this signage exception would be viewed as granting special privileges to the applicant as it would allow the applicant to have signage exceeding the allowed maximum area and as mentioned above, there are are no exceptional or extraordinary circumstances present by the applicant. For these reasons, requested signage exception fails to make this finding and recommended for denial. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships. Denying the requested signage exception for this specific tenant would not remove or deny substantial property rights of the applicant or cause hardship as the tenant is allowed two signs (a wall sign and blade sign) of standard sizes per the MTFS program that all tenants are subject to. 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. This finding does not apply as the request is recommended for denial, however, denying or granting the requested signage exception would not be detrimental or injurious to the property or improvement in the vicinity nor would it be detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare, or convince. 2.b Packet Pg. 21 Page | 1 Attachment C Zoning Comparison Table For Signage Existing Signs/ Location Dimensions Proposed Signs/Location MTFSP Compliance Blade Sign 1’ 8” x 1’ 3”; Area = 2 sf Left Side Façade Wall Yes Wall Sign 12’ 10 ¾” x 1’ 9” Area = 23 sf Upper Façade Wall Yes Portal Sign Various Dimension Area = 106 sf Lower Center Façade No, Sign Exception Requested Total Façade Wall Façade 26’ x 36’ = 936 sf = 60 sf allowed sign area* *NOTE: PAMC Sign Code maximum signage area for this façade is 60 sf. El Camino Real Design Guidelines limits the area of signs along El Camino Real to 1/2 to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the Sign Ordinance, which is 30 sf to 40 sf (See Page 8 and 9). All proposed signs have the internal illumination of the sign copy (either Peloton or “p” logo) copy. Reference exhibit shown below. 2.c Packet Pg. 22 Page | 2 Proposed Signage Exhibits Illumination 2.c Packet Pg. 23 Page | 3 2.c Packet Pg. 24 Page | 4 2.c Packet Pg. 25 Page | 5 2.c Packet Pg. 26 Page | 6 2.c Packet Pg. 27 Page | 7 2.c Packet Pg. 28 Page | 8 PAMC 16.20 Sign Code Chapter 16.20 — Table 3 Allowable Sign Area for Walls Signs NOTE: THESE ARE MAXIMUM DESIGN DIMENSIONS, AND MAY BE REDUCED IN THE DESIGN REVIEW PROCESS PURSUANT TO CHAPTER 16.48 • Nonresidential zones only. • For wall signs in residential zones, see Section 16.20.120. PAMC 16.20.010 Definitions (a) The following words and phrases whenever used in this chapter shall be construed as defined in this section: (17) “Wall sign” means any sign posted or painted or suspended from or otherwise fixed to the wall of any building or structure in an essentially flat position, or with the exposed face of the sign in a plane approximately parallel to the plane of such wall. Any sign suspended from or attached to, and placed approximately parallel to the front of a canopy, porch, or similar covering structure shall be deemed to be a wall sign. 2.c Packet Pg. 29 Page | 9 EL CAMINO REAL GUIDELINES FOR SIGN DESIGN 1. The El Camino Real Design Guidelines limit the area of signs along El Camino Real to 1/2 to 2/3 the maximum size permitted by the Sign Ordinance. 2. The El Camino Real Design Guidelines limit the height of freestanding signs along the El Camino Real to ten feet if placed at the property line and slightly higher if set back from the property line. 3. Wall signs are generally not allowed above the first floor level. 4. Strict limits are placed on the amount of signs allowed on ATMs and ATM surrounds. 5. Reader board and changeable signs are generally not approved. Churches and community organizations should limit sign copy to the name, address and pastor/director only. Menu box signs for restaurants and information signs for community service organizations and churches are acceptable if located near a building entrance and designed to provide information to someone already on site. 6. External illumination of signs is preferred and illumination is generally limited to the hours of operation of a business. 7. A-frame signs are generally not acceptable and should be applied for only when a group of businesses does not have a street frontage or acceptable wall area for a directory sign. 8. No flashing, moving, or changeable signs are allowed [PAMC Section 16.20.090(a)] 9. Advertising copy on signs is limited [PAMC Section 16.20.090(b)]. Signs should contain only enough information to identify the business. For example, the words "A division of XYZ Company" or "Cocktails, Dining and Dancing" or any like menu of services are considered generally not allowed. 2.c Packet Pg. 30 Attachment D Draft Conditions of Approval PLANNING DEPARTMENT 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Peloton Stanford Shopping Center,” stamped as received by the City on April 22, 2021 on file with the Planning & Development Services Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. Changes required to be included in the plan set are as followed: a. The proposed “Portal” logo signs are to be removed from the plan set. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 6. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DEPARTMENT 7. A building permit is required for the construction of the illuminated monument sign using the current applicable codes: CBC, CEC, CEnC, and PAMC. The supporting foundation, framing and connection details, and the Title 24 Lighting compliance forms are required for the building permit submittal. 2.d Packet Pg. 31 TO: CITY OF PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD REGARDING: ARB SUBMITTAL 04.09.2021 PELOTON @ STANFORD SHOPPING CENTER 180 EL CAMINO REAL, BLDG-C SPACE-16B PALO ALTO, CA 94304 DESIGN STATEMENT Peloton is constructing a new store at the Stanford Shopping Center in the space currently occupied by Bath & Body works. They currently have an existing smaller store that they will be vacating, two spaces over from the new location. The scope of work is a typical tenant improvement, which includes a completely new Interior as well as new exterior facade. The exterior facade is comprised of three main design components including: Exterior Stone Cladding, a Metal illuminated “Portal” and Storefront Entry Glazing. The exterior stone cladding provides a high quality finish that reflects the premium nature of the Peloton brand and product. This stone frame extends full height of the tenant facade creating a monolithic and minimal look. This massing is then penetrated by the “Portal” a faceted metal element which host the P-logo and subtle, flush, illuminated band along the border. The storefront glazing and entry vestibule are composed of a thin profile mullion and structurally glazed system, giving a clear view into the store and products. Our “Exception Request” for having the P-logo is out of Pelotons desire to not have branding applied to the glazing, but instead be incorporated into the Architecture. The P-logo integrated into the Portal acts as an additional wayfinding tool for pedestrians at eye level height. The concern is that due to the height of the “Peloton” signage, the blade signage alone will not support this. This is typical for all Peloton retail stores. For concept renderings please see sheet G101 For material and as-builts precedents see sheet A151 Best, Stephen Lochte 2.e Packet Pg. 32 MASTER TENANT FAÇADE & SIGN PROGRAM Effective Date: April 23, 2015 Program Approval 15PLN-00040 Edited PCE 7/10/2018 2.f Packet Pg. 33 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW Facades facing the right of way shall incorporate architectural design features in order to reduce apparent mass and bulk. Rooftop equipment, equipment enclosures, roof vents, flues and other protrusions through the roof of any building or structure shall be obscured from public view by a roof screen or through placement. Green Lines indicate tenant spaces which require City review • Storefront > 35ft in length require Architectural Board Review (Public Hearing) • Storefront ≤ 35ft in length require Staff Level Review Major tenants and free standing buildings (shaded) require City Review • The type of review (Board level or Staff level) will be determined based on the scope of work. 2.f Packet Pg. 34 For the Tenants whose elevation is located on facades other than those listed above, review by the Architectural Review Board might be required depending on if the storefront is visible from the public right of way. Tenants are required to receive Landlord’s approval prior to filing for ARB approval. However, approval by the Landlord does not guarantee ARB approval. Furthermore, all comments provided by the ARB must be addressed and Tenant shall file promptly for resubmittal. Any deviation from Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program must receive Landlord’s prior written approval prior to submitting drawings to the ARB or for Planning Approval. Architectural Review Processing Procedure. The architectural review processing procedure for Stanford Shopping Center tenants shall be as follows: 1. The Landlord and Stanford University conduct architectural review of non-anchor tenant signs and facades for those locations within the shopping center interior to ensure that they conform to the Tenant Design Manual. 2. Planning staff and/or the ARB shall conduct architectural review of tenant signs and facade applications for locations at the shopping center exterior. a. Any façades or architectural components that extend beyond the height of the existing parapet wall or increase gross or net floor area shall be reviewed by the Architectural Review Board (ARB). b. Two-story tenant facades intended for single tenant occupancy shall have a façade that is continuous between the first and second stories. If separate tenants occupy the first and second stories, the design of each façade shall be reviewed by the ARB. c. Tenant facades that are 35-feet in width or greater are reviewed by the ARB. Architectural review for tenant facades that are less than 35-feet in width may be conducted by Planning Staff. d. If there are no tenant façade changes and the proposed tenant signs are consistent with the Master Tenant Sign Program, Planning review at the staff- level occurs as part of building permit applications. Any signs that require an exception to the Master Tenant Sign Program shall be reviewed by Planning staff or the ARB. Examples of tenants that have continuous façade vs those that do not have continuous facades 2.f Packet Pg. 35 STOREFONT ELEVATIONS GLOSSARY OF TERMS GENERAL: • Base Building: Base Building Shell construction, common and service areas, including all work that is the responsibility of the Landlord. • Design Control Zone: The area of the store extending from the storefront lease line into the store, at a minimum of five feet (5’-0”), in which the Landlord controls design components. The Design Control Zone shall extend across the entire width of the store. • Neutral Pier: An architectural element separating two adjacent Tenant storefronts or a Tenant storefront from a finish controlled by the Landlord. • Vitrine: Shallow wall mounted display cases on the exterior of the façade and can house vignette displays, merchandise or seasonal graphics. The illumination of any vitrine shall be similar in color and intensity to the remainder of the Tenant storefront displays. All vitrines must be incorporated into the design aesthetic of the storefront vocabulary. Stanford Shopping Center is an upscale Lifestyle Center and requires Tenants to create a unique and contemporary storefront design. Tenants shall take advantage of the garden setting by creating storefront designs that bring a sense of the outdoors into their space. Tenants are required to present their businesses with distinctive architectural designs using the highest quality of materials and workmanship, and with creative lighting and signage designs. Typical Tenant storefronts extend between adjacent storefront finishes and shall extend to the height of the roof parapet. STOREFRONT DESIGN CRITERIA General Design Criteria Storefront The Tenant’s entire storefront, as per Zone, shall be designed, fabricated, constructed, installed and maintained by the Tenant at the Tenant’s expense. The storefront design shall work in concert with, and be respectful of, the Landlord’s building façade, thematic architectural expression, and landscaping. Tenant storefronts shall meet the base building parapet height and shall not exceed the parapet in overall height. Storefronts shall maintain a consistent height on each building. Tenants are required to extend their storefront design along all building facades. Approved architectural finishes, façade details, and additional components such as lighting and graphics, will visually activate all side of each Building. At a minimum, Tenants shall extend their exterior color palette across the solid portions of the exterior wall. A combination of super-graphics, showcase windows and/or vitrines are required and shall be the foundation of the Tenant’s aesthetic interpretation of the exterior walls. Closed Doors Tenant spaces shall be designed for closed-door operation as this is an open-air center. Tenant storefront doors shall remain closed during normal mall hours. Landlord piers or columns in the Tenant’s storefront that are clad or otherwise designed as part of the Landlord building architecture shall be preserved without alteration by the Tenant. Unclad piers or columns in the Tenant’s storefront shall be incorporated into the Tenant’s storefront design. The Tenants storefront windows and other large glazed areas shall include provisions for mullion articulation beyond a basic extruded aluminum profile. This may be achieved through applying cap and pan elements to the basic window assembly to add relief and dimension. 2.f Packet Pg. 36  Doors within the storefront assembly may be articulated in a similar manner or may include further customized elements to enhance the overall design and building identity.  No alterations, additions, changes, or modifications to the Base Building finishes or construction shall be permitted without obtaining Landlord’s prior written approval (such approval must be requested by Tenant under separate cover from Tenant’s drawings). If permitted, all work shall be performed by Landlord at Tenant’s expense.  All Tenant construction, including storefronts, must be of non-combustible materials. Treated fire-resistive materials are permitted only with approval by local jurisdictional authorities.  All Tenant storefronts and floors shall be watertight and must properly slope to drain and to meet flush with Landlord’s finishes and/or pavements at the storefront. All exterior Tenant storefront materials must be suitable to outdoor weather, use, and wear.  Pedestrian and security lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and shall be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. Architectural lighting that project upward shall be directed so as not to affect abutting land uses. Floodlights on tenant facades are discouraged. Storefront Finishes Tenants shall maximize the use of glazing with the storefront area having a minimum of 70% transparency, measured across the width of the Premises. Full height opaque areas of the storefront shall be minimal. Where possible, a constant height opaque sign band, extending across the entire storefront width, is not acceptable. Varied glazed show window heights and/or projections should be incorporated. 2.f Packet Pg. 37 All storefront materials shall be high quality, durable, exterior grade finishes with minimal maintenance requirements. Acceptable Finishes:  Stainless Steel, Solid Brass and Copper  Wrought Iron, Cast Iron and Steel  Marble, Granite, Limestone, Brick, Textured Masonry  Finished/protected premium grade hardwoods  Precast Concrete, Cast Stone, GFRC, GFRG  Homogenous porcelain tile  Sandblasted, frosted, etched, textured, leaded glass, spandrel glass (in limited quantities)  Glazing (tempered) *Additional finishes not listed are subject to Planning Department review and approval Discouraged Finishes:  Simulated Brick, Wood, Stone  Plastic Laminates, Metal Laminates, Plastic Panels  Mill finish  EIFS  Plexiglas or plastics  Field painted metals  Ceramic, glass or quarry tile, used as a field or background. Note: Storefront canopies and marquees must conform to project location specifications and will be reviewed for conformance with material and color selection, location, projection and overall design effect. Fabric awnings are not generally permitted. 2.f Packet Pg. 38 Each Tenant shall provide a solid canopy above their entry. Canopies are to be a minimum of 3’-0” deep and must at lease cover the width of the entry alcove. The finish of the canopy is to compliment the Tenant’s overall storefront design aesthetic. Storefront and glazing graphics, film, animation techniques and projection techniques must be clearly shown on Tenant’s Drawings and are subject to Landlord’s approval. Entrance Alcoves & Closures Store closure is limited to hinged or pivoting doors only. Out-swinging or pivoting doors cannot extend beyond the storefront Lease Line. Coiling grilles and shutters are prohibited. Doors glazed with true divided slites are encouraged, as are doors or clear tempered glass and doors with decorative leaded or patterned glazing. Tall entrance doors of 8’-0” height or higher are encouraged; standard height doors with overhead transoms are also permitted. The following requirements shall apply without exception:  Tenant is responsible for exterior floor finish within the entry recess and must provide a minimum transition of less than ½ inches from the sidewalk elevation to Tenant floor finish.  Tenant is solely responsible for the design and construction of the slope in the recessed entry area, as well as compliance with any applicable code requirements for same. Exterior floor shall have positive drainage to the sidewalk at a minimum 1% and maximum 5% slope.  Tenant’s recessed entrance shall meet or exceed the finish specifications in the Design Criteria and Design Control Zone. The finish must be Tenant’s own material - matching Landlord’s sidewalk finish will not be permitted.  Recessed entrance location, presentation and temperature control are subject to Landlord approval. Tenant’s drawings shall include details for drainage, foundations, interior /exterior slab conditions, weatherproofing and finishes. Landlord shall not be responsible for ponding water in the recessed entry. All storefront doors must be framed. Frameless glass doors will not be allowed due to outdoor environment. Each Tenant shall display the space number posted in accordance per the local Fire Code and per City of Palo Alto Building Department Standards and shall install the mall standard ADA address plaque, provided by the Landlord’s designated vendor. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. Storefront Bases The storefront base shall be a minimum of six inches (6”) in height. The base shall be constructed from highly durable non-porous material appropriate for exterior use, such as stone, tile, substantial gauge metal with a powder-coated finish, stainless steel, or other material as approved by Landlord. Storefront base material must be specified to withstand contact with cleaning equipment and solutions as well as exposure to the elements. Entry Floor Floor finishes at the entry shall be hard, high-quality, durable materials. At the entry, the floor finish shall be a non-slip material. Vinyl and/or rubber-resilient flooring or sealed/stained concrete systems are not allowed in the design control zone. If carpeting is proposed, 32 oz. nylon fiber minimum specification is required. The finished elevations at the store entrance must align with Landlord’s finished and/or pavement elevation of the exterior walkway, with a weather-proofed threshold of minimal thickness (not to exceed ½”) provided at the doors. The use of vinyl or metal reducer strips is prohibited. Tenant should provide a metal-embedded transition strip flush with the hard surface flooring at all transitions to other flooring types. No trip hazards such as reducer strips, thresholds or other noticeable transition devices shall be permitted between different flooring materials. 2.f Packet Pg. 39 Storefront Lighting Tenant Interior Lighting – Tenant interior lighting shall be designed to minimize nighttime glow visible from and/or intruding into nearby properties Tenant Exterior Lighting – Pedestrian and security lighting shall be of the lowest intensity and energy use adequate for its purpose and shall be designed to focus illumination downward to avoid excessive illumination above the light fixture. Architectural lighting that project upward shall be directed so as not to affect abutting land uses. Floodlights on tenant facades are discouraged. Bird-Friendly Facades Tenant facades with glazing covering a large area shall utilize a bird-safe glazing treatment. The bird-friendly treatment can be invisible to the human eye. Typical treatments include fritting, netting, permanent stencils, frosted glass, exterior screens, and physical grids placed on the exterior of glazing or UV patterns visible to birds. Vertical elements of the window patterns are generally at least 1/4 inch wide at a minimum spacing of 4 inches, or have horizontal elements at least 1/8 inch wide at a maximum spacing of 2 inches. Noise Producing Equipment Any noise producing equipment should be screened from public view and must comply with noise limits. Storefront Design Control Zone The Tenant Storefront Design Control Zone is the area of the store extending from the storefront lease line into the store at a minimum of five feet (5’-0”) across the entire width of the store. Since the appearance of this zone is critical to the overall store appearance, design solutions, and materials are expected to be of the highest quality and will be closely reviewed by Landlord. Tenant music systems, speakers and sound systems are not permitted to be installed within the Design Control Zone. Speakers/ sound systems located behind the first 5’-0” of the entry shall have a separate volume control that can be set to the Mall Managers’ specified level. The backs of Emergency Exit signage/lights (over the entry doors) shall not be visible from the exterior. Storefront security systems, if used, shall be unobtrusively incorporated into the Tenant’s Design Control Zone. Storefront security system design and installation details shall be included in the Tenant storefront design and drawings submitted to the Landlord for approval prior to installation. Security grilles or gates behind storefront show windows or entrance doors are strictly prohibited. All walls within the Design Control Zone shall be provided with high quality finish material – plain painted surfaces are not permitted. Materials such as stone, tile, wood panels, the use of trim and other decorated treatments shall be utilized. Slat wall and grid wall are not permitted. All plants shall be shown on Tenants drawings, and identified by species as well as whether living or artificial. Plants on storefronts shall have photographs submitted as part of Tenant’s drawing submission to Landlord for approval. Depressed or slab-level plantings are prohibited. All plants installed by Tenant shall be properly maintained by Tenant at Tenant’s expense. (Self-watering pots with a bladder system shall be used to ensure no leakage onto the hardscape). Gross Floor Area. Permanently covered tenant patio spaces count toward gross floor area, but uncovered tenant spaces do not. 2.f Packet Pg. 40 Store Display and Merchandising Within the Design Control Zone, the side walls and show windows shall be dedicated for use as a high-quality show window display. A creative display is required – standard merchandise racks, and wall finishing materials such as slat wall and prepackaged wall-mounted grid systems are prohibited. Distinctive, high-quality and appropriate display techniques which best showcase the Tenant’s merchandise must be used. At the storefront entry, display fixtures and merchandise must be placed at least 3’-0” behind the Tenant’s entry door/ closure line. Merchandise rack and display features must not block customer traffic flow in and out of the store. Television monitors proposed to be installed at the storefront or within the Design Control Zone require specific approval by the Landlord, and will be reviewed on a case by case basis. If approved, monitors shall be incorporated into the overall storefront design and are to be encased within attractive display fixtures to conceal all surfaces except for the screen surface. They must be mounted a minimum of 3’-0” behind the storefront glass and must incorporate slow fade type graphics with no sound, animation is not permitted. Maximum screen size is 42” measured diagonally. All cables and wiring must be concealed from view. Show Window Safety Logos Repetitive safety symbols (graphically designed) or lettering may be applied to the inside face of storefront glazing as approved by Landlord for identifying transparent surfaces for customer safety purposes. Emblems, logos, and lettering must not exceed 3” in height and the font shall be Circular Pro, black vinyl, maximum letter is not to exceed 3” in height. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. Tenant shall provide signage at the exterior side of the service entrance. Font shall be Circular Pro, black vinyl, maximum letter is not to exceed 2” in height. The length of the sign shall be proportionate to the sign height limit. Tenant shall ensure the signage complies with current codes and regulations. General Sign Criteria Building permits are required for all illuminated signs and the Tenant shall be responsible to obtain any and all permits as may be required by the local jurisdiction. 2.f Packet Pg. 41 Sign Requirement Number Max Size Location Primary Sign (Wall Sign) Required 1 Max Height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height. Signs discouraged closer than 24” to demising wall or building corner Primary Facade Banner or Blade Sign (Projecting Sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” in height Blade: 24” projection x 15” in height Primary Façade (Blade signs to be located either under an awning or a façade wall not directly adjacent to an existing sign) Canopy Sign Optional 1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary Facade Super Graphic Optional Not Limited None Flexible Secondary Sign or Emblem Optional 1 (where applicable) Secondary Sign: Max. height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: max. height is 24” in any direction Secondary Façade (where applicable) Advertising Graphics and Signs Optional Not Limited None Only on inside plane of storefront windows, Digital Images and Digital Signage Optional Not Limited 42” measured diagonally Only in storefront windows 2.f Packet Pg. 42 In additional to the criteria herein, Tenant signage shall comply with the current version of the City of Palo Alto’s Municipal Code and the City of Palo Alto’s Design Guidelines. All signage shall be of the highest quality design and construction. Tenant signage shall be designed to be proportionate in scale to the elevation to which it is affixed. Sign design and placement shall be well integrated with the tenant façade and hall be designed to complement the storefront design and general building design. Wall signs and sign area are defined in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PMAC) 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. When wall area exceeds 5,000 square feet, sign area may be increase by seven (7) square feet for each additional 500 square feet of wall area, but no sign shall exceed 203 square feet. All attachment hardware which supports and or powers the signage must be concealed from view and be weather resistant. Sign illumination must be connected to a 7-day / 24 hour time clock to be set to the hours specified by Mall Management Acceptable Primary Storefront Sign Types (required):  Dimensional wood, metal, glass, or other material with a permanent appearance, internally illuminate only. Flood lights are prohibited.  Reverse channel letter with halo illumination, opaque letter-sides and faces and non-reflective background.  Internally illuminated individual channel letters with acrylic faces.  Signs that are incised, cast into or carved out of an opaque material, indirectly illuminated.  Sculptural iconographic elements contextual to the storefront design, internally illuminated. *Additional finishes not listed are subject to Planning Department review and approval Discouraged Primary Storefront Sign Types:  Box or cabinet type signs.  Signs employing audible equipment, and/or moving, flashing, or blinking lights  Signs employing exposed raceways, ballast boxes, or transformers  Luminous vacuum-formed type plastic letter signs  Exposed neon  Cloth, paper, cardboard signs or signs of other temporary or non-durable materials  Signs using highly reflective finish materials (i.e. polished brass, chrome, etc.) 2.f Packet Pg. 43 Blade Signs Tenants can elect to use a variety of media for their signs; however, blade signs are required to meet the following criteria:  Sign panels can be a maximum of 3” thick and constructed of wood, metal, glass or other solid surface material. Plastics are not permitted.  Sign panel shall be supported by a bracket attached to the Tenant’s storefront or under an awning with a complimentary design, color and finish. At no time may the blade sign panel be attached to the Landlord’s neutral pier or building facade.  Perimeter of the sign should fall within a 24” (h) x 15” (w) envelope, including the support bracket. Tenant shall determine a creative sign shape.  Minimum clearance height to sidewalk is 9’-0” above the sidewalk plane.  Wording of the blade sign is limited to the Tenant’s trade name (DBA) and logo.  Tenant’s customary signature or logo, hallmark, insignia, or other trade identification will be respected and reviewed on a case by case basis for use as the blade sign design.  The graphic element of the sign may be paint, enamel, appliqué, dimensional graphic/lettering or may be pushed out of the panel material for a three- dimensional appearance (routed or incised is also approved).  Blade signs may be illuminated by concealed methods only. Building Mounted Banners and Projected Signs (optional – in lieu of Blade Sign) This type of sign is vertically oriented and is mounted high and perpendicular to the building and may or may not be illuminated. Maximum width or projection shall be 24” from the face of the Tenant storefront and the height cannot exceed 60”. Bottom of banner must be 9’’-0” clear ground plane. Signage of this type, if permitted, is usually restricted in number and location. Projecting banner signs shall not be placed in a manner that will allow the banner sign to exceed the adjacent parapet height. Canopy Signs (optional) Canopies are defined as heavy-framed protective and/or decorative structures over entrances. Tenant may elect to use the canopy sign as their primary storefront sign. The sign shall conform to the “Acceptable Primary Sign Types” as indicated above. The canopy sign may be illuminated internally only. The maximum height of any capital letter of a canopy sign shall not exceed 9” in height. Traditional fabric awnings are not permitted, however, taught contemporary awnings shall be allowed only with prior Landlord approval. Show Window Graphics (optional) Vinyl lettering and/or logos may be applied to the face of storefront glazing, provided that the sign communicates the Tenant Trade Name only. Advertising panels, banners or signs with opaque backdrops are prohibited. Signage Approval Process Landlord’s approval of Tenant’s storefront signage shall be based on the size and style of the sign and lettering, the location of the sign within the storefront, and the cohesive integration of the sign into the overall storefront design. Approval of the Tenant’s preliminary design or Working Drawings by the Landlord shall not constitute review and approval of the Tenant’s signage. Tenant shall submit one (1) set of the Tenant’s sign shop drawings for review and approval by Landlord. Fabrication or installation of the Tenant’s signage shall not commence before the Landlord’s approval of the sign shop drawings. 2.f Packet Pg. 44 ATTACHMENT G Project Plans Hardcopies of project plans are provided to Board members and available to the public online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “180 El Camino Real – Peloton Façade & Sign Exception” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the Project Plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/180-El-Camino-Real 2.g Packet Pg. 45 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13415) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 7/15/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of May 6, 2021 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes May 6, 2021 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the April 15, 2021 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB Attachments: • Attachment A: May 6, 2021 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 46 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. [Roll Call] Pursuant to the provisions of 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 95873908317. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on “raised hand”. When called, please limit your remarks to the time allotted. Spoken public comments using a Smartphone will also be accepted through the Zoom Mobil application. To offer comments using a regular phone call 1-669-900- 6833 and enter meeting ID 95873908317. When you wish to speak on an agenda item, click on *9 on your phone so that we know you wish to speak. Oral Communications Chair Thompson: We have oral communications next. The public may speak on any item not on the agenda. Do we have any members of the public that wish to speak? Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate: Chair Thompson, actually we do have one raised hand. Chair Thompson: Okay. [Setting up caller.] Mr. Nguyen: Our speaker is Juliana. Juliana, if you're there you can unmute yourself and speak. Juliana Lee: Good morning, everyone. I just want to make sure if there is underground parking that I have no knowledge what is going to impact my building. I just want to make sure nothing is going to go bad. Chair Thompson: Ms. Lee, are you referring to the action item on the agenda? Ms. Lee: The underground parking, yes. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 6, 2021 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM 3.a Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Chair Thompson: Okay. We’ll have a chance to do public comments for that later on. This was for any item that’s not on the agenda. We’ll keep a note of that. Mr. Nguyen: Seeing how there are no other raised hands, that concludes oral communications. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Thompson: Thank you. Our next item is agenda changes, additions, and deletions. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: That’s me. No changes. 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: All right. Thank you. The next item is city official reports. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you. The next slide here shows us continuing in virtual meetings for the foreseeable future. The City is talking about going back to in-person work but it is going to be a gradual- type thing, probably around the August timeframe. I don’t know when exactly the hearings will come back to in-person, so we are going to stay virtual for the time being. We do have a subcommittee at the end of today and that would be Board Member Baltay and Board Member Lew. On the next page, we have the future agendas. May 20th there are no items, so that hearing is canceled. We all get a day off, yay. June 3rd we do have the 486 Hamilton project. We are expecting to bring that back assuming that the applicant is able to work with us on some vibration issues. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: I think, Chair Thompson, you also wanted me to talk during this time about an email that the Board Members had received about the pole colors at the CalTrain station. Chair Thompson: Sure, yes, if you could speak briefly to some email correspondence that we received regarding that. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. The Board did receive an email from a resident concerned about the color of the electrification poles that are happening along the CalTrain line, in this particular case at the CalTrain station. It is a CalTrain state project. We only can recommend, we cannot require, but what we as a City recommended was to have the poles at that particular station be a tan color to be in keeping with that historic train station. The other poles were to be green and black. CalTrain did follow through on our recommendations. They also spoke with the neighbor in February and said unfortunately because the pole has already been painted -- and you will know better than I -- that it is powder-coated and so it is not an easy change to change that color, so they were not able to make the requested change of the resident. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you for the update. Board Member Hirsch: Could I ask a question about that? Ms. Gerhardt: Certainly. Board Member Hirsch: When we look at that photo and think how did that happen, is that pole actually next to the station? Is it in a portion of the station? 3.a Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Page 3 Ms. Gerhardt: From my look at the photo -- but we were looking at bird’s eye view of the photos -- it seemed to be near the station. I have not checked up on it exactly just because we really don’t have purview at the end of the day so there is not much that we can affect, unfortunately. Board Member Hirsch: One would think that maybe other areas within the system are being painted, perhaps, the green that would work and that an inquiry into whether it is really a part of the station or a part of the landscape coming up to the station, that it would be a consideration which we could bring up to the CalTrain and see if there was some future possibility if they are in fact painting other poles within the distance that could allow them to come to redo this one. It certainly, from the photo, looked really quite out of place and I kind of agree with the person who is making the comment and was feeling a bit embarrassed that somehow we -- even if it is only a suggestion -- wouldn’t have stated that the poles would be appropriately colored within the station but that anything in the perimeter landscape would be of a landscape color. Ms. Gerhardt: I think the poles come pre-painted and get installed. Could this pole be changed out for another and the tan pole go somewhere else? I don’t know how far into construction CalTrains is and that would be a decision for them but I can certainly ask the question. Chair Thompson: If the Board would like to agendize this for a future agenda I think please let me know. Send me an email and we can try to put that on an agenda if we would like to discuss this more. Board Member Baltay: Osma, I think you should agendize this. Yes, I’ll say it right now. Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I second that. Chair Thompson: Okay. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you very much, Chair. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING/QUASI-JUDICIAL: 4256 El Camino Real [21PLN-00034]: Request for Changes to an Approved Project to Revise the Underground Garage Parking and Clarify the Director's Parking Adjustment. Environmental Assessment: Use of a Previous EIR. Zone District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Thompson: All right. Thank you for that. We will move on to our action items. Our first action is 4256 El Camino Real parking garage revisions. This is a public hearing/quasi-judicial, request for changes to an approved project to revise the underground garage parking and clarify the Director's parking adjustment. I’ll hand it over to Jodie. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, we should have Sam Gutierrez here, our project planner. He will bring up his presentation. [Setting up presentation.] Sam Gutierrez, Project Planner: I am Samuel Gutierrez, Project planner for this item today before the Architectural Review Board. I should note that I have been the project planner for this specific project going on three years now. It has gone through quite a lengthy process, which I will cover in the presentation. Moving to that process that I just mentioned, I wanted to provide some background and context for the Architectural Review Board and anyone listening from the general public. This project originally started with the 96-room hotel that was recommended for approval by the ARB on January 16, 2020, and approved by the Director on June 3rd, 2020. It did have an EIR done and the approval was finalized once the mitigation monitoring program and then the EIR was finalized and certified. The project and project EIR included in the Director’s adjustment for loading space which reduced the 3.a Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Page 4 required loading area which is quite large, actually for a semi, 12 by 45, in the municipal code down to an SU-30, which is like a standard FedEx or UPS delivery vehicle, and a 15 percent parking reduction that included aisle parking. The project was approved with 85 parking spaces plus 17 aisle parking spaces for a total of 102, six over the 96 required if it were to be fully parked per code. Again, 96 rooms require one per room and that is how the breakdown originally was. It did include a 24/7 valet parking, which is always required when we have lift parking systems and aisle parking. We need some type of trained professionals to manage that system being that this isn’t a residential property. This would be new users quite often, so that’s where the valet requirement is. The project did have some changes associated with that original approval that needed to go to subcommittee regarding the rear massing. That went to subcommittee and was moved for approval May 21, 2020, noting that last year we were still calling it subcommittee and now we call it ad hoc committee, I believe. Moving on, this current project which is the parking garage revision was submitted in January and the request from the applicant was to submit these garage revisions that I am going to discuss and a clarification of the Director’s parking adjustment. These changes to the garage change it from a two-level to a single-level; seek to provide 77 parking spaces physically on-site, down from the 102 that was provided previously. I will go in-depth into those numbers later in the presentation. Other changes associated with this would be the garage lobby area and hotel back of house spaces within the garage. That was originally in two levels and now that has kind of been rearranged to fit within the single level. Continuing here to discuss the Director’s parking adjustment, the parking adjustments are not typically subject to ARB purview but given the high level of public interest and public review for the hotel project… again, I believe the project originally took two years of review with two prelims and three formal ARB hearings and then a subcommittee; quite a lengthy review process and involvement with the public. The Director determined that with those things in mind that these revisions should actually be considered by the ARB to allow public discussion and to allow the ARB to provide some comments and feedback to the Director. However, because this is a garage revision -- the hotel itself wouldn’t really be changing its massing or exterior -- The ARB’s purview is limited to ARB finding number one and finding number four. These findings require that the design is functional, has access for all modes of transportation, and provides support of the necessary operation of the building. The analysis of the proposed changes were reviewed by City staff. This included the new parking and circulation memo that was prepared and is in one of the attachments for the staff report. This memo analyzed several factors for the proposed changes, which is on-site circulation within the garage and for trucks, i.e. the loading area, and the porte-cochere on the ground level, the parking stall dimensions, traffic operations within the porte-cochere which is the driveway area off of El Camino, not that there are any changes proposed there but we did want to analyze and check and see if a single level garage would impact any operations at the ground level. Of course, the valet operation would be key, so that was analyzed and then the projected trip generation, which ties everything together if the projected demand and timing were to be off, for example, then that would make potential queuing issues for the site. But when the analysis concluded, we found that the proposed changes would not cause any queuing off-site, meaning that the site design and these changes, along with the valet operation, are sufficient to have all queuing done on-site and the circulation for the project would function correctly. Everything would be sufficient towards the projected demand for the parking on-site. An analysis was conducted by the same consultant for consistency purposes that was previously on the project, and per City police, that consultant was managed by City staff. Again, the analysis concluded it would not cause queuing off-site, so there would be no issues with El Camino Real consistent with the original approval. The circulation for the site in terms of modes of transportation function correctly and the valet operation, again, is sufficient for the projected demands of the site. Associated with these changes, there was a need for the TDM plan that was previously approved to be revised to correspond with these changes that the applicant is seeking. The TDM plan was reviewed by City staff. After review and working with the applicant, now the TDM plan that is found for this project or these project revisions is on par with what was previously approved for the project in terms of requirements and thresholds. Just to go into the previously approved design, you can see here on the left is the first level of the previously approved design, which has a two-level garage. Here you can see that the driveway ramp starts from the upper level, that’s where it’s cut off. I think you should be able to see my mouse cursor here, correct? Can everyone see that? Yes? Okay. Chair Thompson: Yeah. 3.a Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Mr. Gutierrez: Here the cars enter, they circle around and this was the original valet drop-off area. Then this would the lower area for the parking garage. This would be level two of the garage. Here are the proposed design changes. This would be a single-level garage requiring less excavation and obviously has a more compact design. You see here there is more lift parking being used. These are the mechanical lifts, three-level lifts and there are some aisle parking as well. You do see some standard spaces which do meet the requirements for the lift parking of ten percent standard which excludes the accessible spaces and of course the aisle parking spaces, which are not standards spaces per our code. Here you can see the lobby redesigned. It accompanies this revision along with some of the back-of- house elements. Here, on the right, you can see a part of the analysis from the updated memo for the project. That was done by the project consultant managed by the City. We wanted to be sure that the vehicle turning radiuses and swept patterns would be sufficient to allow vehicles to efficiently enter into this design. We did have turning radius diagrams and measurements for the previously approved project, so it was only right to do this, of course, for these revisions. This is a simplified table found within the staff report for this project. Here you can see we have 96 code-required spaces before we get into any adjustments; 96 parking spaces for 96 hotel rooms. The approved project had 54 standards spaces, it had 26 mechanical lifts, 17 valet-operated aisle spaces, four accessible spaces. The parking reduction request was 15. The code-complaint spaces was 102 and physical provided was 102. As I get into that, I want to note that since the project was approved, there were code changes where we now count accessible spaces twice towards the minimum parking requirement. That’s where you see the code-complaint spaces versus physical parking spaces. That accounts for when we double count. Of course, the previous project was approved before those code changes, so we did not consider that at the time. The current project is subject to those changes. Again, that’s where this breakdown of complaint spaces versus physical. Just to run through, the project is proposing eight standard spaces. These are standard stall spaces on concrete or asphalt. The mechanical lifts go up to 59, the valet-operated spaces go to five, the accessible spaces, including two EV accessible spaces, total five, and, of course, those double count so they are equivalent to ten spaces. The parking reduction sought is the same and the total code complaint spaces are 82 with 77 physically provided, again accounting for the double count of those five spaces. I do show a little formula here for the breakdown of how we do the parking reduction. You take the 96, you multiply that by 15 percent and you get 14 spaces. That reduces the parking down to 82 that would be required. Again, once you account for the five double-counted accessible spaces you get 77 physically provided. I hope that wasn’t too confusing and I am happy to answer questions later. Then, this is just an example of the more complex table shown in the attachment for the zoning comparison. I did want to show that and it is in one of the attachments for the staff report. Essentially, it says the same information just at a higher level of detail. Getting into the ARB findings, again, the ARB purview for this is found within finding number one, which is to make sure that the project is consistent with applicable provisions of the comprehensive plan, zoning code, and any other applicable plans, but, of course, this is not in a coordinated area plan so this is limited to the zoning code and the comprehensive plan. Looking at some comp plan policies, we see here we have program in transportation and goals and transportation. I list in brief summary, which is also found in one of the attachments for the staff report, the consistency with each programming goal. That continues on to additional policies from our comprehensive plan related to transportation. Then, finally, finding number four, which requires that the design is functional, allowing for ease of pedestrian safety, bicycle traffic, and supporting the building’s necessary operation. Here, just to touch on that one, after reviewing it we find that the project maintains proper circulation per the analysis of the design through the circulation and parking memo and has access for all modes of travel. Of course, the 24-hour valet service is maintained and access for pedestrian and bicycles are provided throughout the site, the pedestrian and bicyclists who visit the site can access all levels via the elevators on-site which go from the ground level up to the upper floors and the garage level as well. The design changes do not change the function and circulation of the driveways, that being the underground driveway or the at-grade porte-cochere driveway in front of El Camino. One thing to note is that we did receive some public comments, or actually public questions, that were forwarded to the Board. I just wanted to list them here for public view and to remind the Board. These questions really centered on how these changes may impact traffic circulation, queuing on El Camino, and really the function of the parking operation of the hotel. As I went through my presentation, many of these questions were answered. There is maintaining of the 24- hour valet service. There is a sufficient queuing area for vehicles visiting the site within the garage and within the porte-cochere. The loading area is maintained per the previous approval. Hotel staff may 3.a Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Page 6 park at the site; the municipal code doesn’t differentiate parking that’s for staff and guests, but, of course, the TDM program that is associated with his also requires some transit use, carpooling. There is also the on-site shuttle that is maintained which will take people to CaLTrain stations. There was a question about the tour buses which we did address in the previous application for the hotel. There was a concern about tour buses visiting the site and blocking driveways. The conditions of approval still maintain that the curb management occurs just like before; red no parking area in front of the hotel; management of the porte-cochere with the loading and unloading areas there and then, of course, the valet service. Noting that, the tour bus phenomenon is a city-wide issue through El Camino being a state highway. It has articulated buses from VTA, it has large vehicles, oversized vehicles coming to and from construction sites. It is a highway so it does have the capacity for tour buses. Of course, any vehicle, be it a tour bus or standard vehicle, that is double-parked or found parked in a red area, if observed by the Palo Alto Police Department would be cited for that infraction. Any vehicles observed blocking driveways or double parking should be reported to the Palo Alto Police Department and they would follow up because all of those vehicles do have registration and coach operators that they can contact. If the ARB wishes, I can go more in-depth in all of these questions but I just wanted to give a brief overview on those public comments and questions that we received. The recommendation from staff to the ARB, again to remind you, is to review the project and provide a recommendation to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on the project’s ability to meet ARB finding number one and number four. Also, to provide feedback on the Director’s parking adjustment. The Director would consider the ARB’s thoughts on that. That concludes staff’s presentation. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Can we hear from the applicant? Randy Popp, Applicant: Good morning. [Setting up presentation.] Chair Thompson: Good morning. You'll have ten minutes and please state and spell your name for the record. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Good morning. My name is Randy Popp, [spells name]. The entitlement support for this project with me today is Dennis Stenmit [phonetic] who is (inaudible). Let me take you through this presentation quickly. The staff report for this was excellent and I really appreciate the very thorough presentation. I’ll just try to be brief instead of repeating a bunch of things that have already been said. You know, the big question is why are we back here today and we have a newly configured project team who challenged the two-level parking design and asked if all the requirements could be accomplished in a single level. We anticipated clearly that there would obviously be less cost if we just do a single-level garage but it would be a pretty significant reduction in the duration of the time it takes to construct, minimizing impact to neighbors. We would better use our resources; less concrete; less steel; less fuel for construction; reduce excavation removal. Interesting to note, in the changes that we have made there is a slight reduction in the impact to the adjacent trees. All of that seemed like a great (inaudible). We shared this with staff and the discussion with them raised some questions about what the 15 percent parking reduction means when you have a valet program. It is interesting when you read through the zoning; it’s a bit antiquated and not as precise you might hope it would be. It does indicate that the valet parking is defined as being a service that uses any city street, or alley, or city parking facility. There is actually a lack of clarity about how private garages and valet [distortion]. Initially, staff had indicated the one complication was that valet spaces don’t count as standards stalls creating a bit of tension in the language. I think in Sam’s presentation he clarified that a bit; the interpretations changed and shifted over time here and similar to the Marriot that is down at 477 San Antonio Road, the valet spaces in that garage are counting toward that minimum requirement. (Inaudible) and trying to move through this calculation clearly and adding those valet spaces in was important to how we were accomplishing a single-level garage. Initially, we understood the 15 percent reduction was granted but the valet was not counted toward that minimum requirement and by adding the valet back in then we were creating essentially 100 percent parking project. Remembering that this is a hotel and they don’t have a parking demand that is consistent with the zoning regulations. That is something that we can all recognize… 3.a Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Thompson: I'm sorry. There is… I think it said Jeff Albreze [phonetic], we can hear… can you please mute yourself. I’ll pause your time really quick. Okay, I see that Jeff is now muted. Thank you. Go ahead. Mr. Popp: Thank you. Just jumping in here to what I was talking about, the parking demand study that was done by Hexagon Consultants back in 2017, studied a series of local area hotels. All 13 of them showed that the average rate was actually .66 and we are being asked to be at a .25 (inaudible). This study is in the approved project (inaudible). Here’s what we’re asking, we just want you to validate our interpretation and (inaudible) would like to have your recommendation in support of this. We are doing this in a public forum as requested by the Director and staff just to (inaudible). We believe a 15 percent reduction (inaudible) and a hotel with a 24/7 valet program should be able to include all available modes of parking that include standard stalls, standard mechanical lift spaces, and aisle spaces provided through the valet program. We believe this interpretation is supported by staff, it’s supplemented by the additional memo for parking and circulation analyses and the PTDM (inaudible). I want to just briefly mention that the neighbors did have quite a bit of interaction with us during the review process but their communication was primarily focused on traffic and safety, not really parking capacity. As Sam said, the (inaudible) really addressed all of that. I also was asked a question about how the new design might affect the front elevations of the building, so I quickly prepared this slide for you that shows these are the basement, ground level, and second level plans of the new design. You'll see that this ground-level stair ends over here and represent her in the… I am sorry, this basement-level stair, excuse me, that starts here represent here on the ground level and then adjacent to the glass we have a sculptural stair on the interior of the building that extends up to the lobby that is a second level. You'll see that the initially approved ARB subcommittee elevation is consistent with the glass design and proposed elevation. The structural grace has altered slightly as a result of doing the structural analysis that (inaudible) but the openness of that lobby and that front elevation (inaudible). Thank you for your time today; happy to take any questions if you have them. I will stop my share and let you get to your discussion. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you. I think we’ll do questions by the Board after we hear from the public. The next item would be to hear from any members of the public that would like to speak on this item. Vinh, I see one raised hands, two raised hands. Mr. Nguyen: Yes, one moment. Let’s get the speaker timer up. Thank you, Veronica. We have two raised hands. Our first speaker will be Stephanie, followed by Sharlene. Stephanie, you're up first. Stephanie Tramz: Thank you. I am concerned because the parking situation in our part of town is already very dire. I just received a notice from Las Altos that El Camino Real is going to be resurfaced and there will be bicycle lanes installed. There is not going to be any on-street El Camino Real parking here and there will be absolutely no availability for hotel guests to queue or park in these areas. All of this parking reduction is of great concern to the surrounding properties. That’s all I have to say and I am concerned about the crush of… we have already got problems and I am afraid they are going to get worse. I live next door. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Mr. Nguyen: Thank you for your comments. Our next speaker… Chair Thompson: Vinh, sorry. Could we bring Stephanie back and ask her to state and spell her name for the record? Mr. Nguyen: Sure. Ms. Tramz: Yes, my name is Stephanie Tramz and I live at 4250 El Camino Real. I have been an owner here for many years. Chair Thompson: Could you spell your name for the record? 3.a Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Page 8 Ms. Tramz: Yes. [Spells name]. Chair Thompson: Thank you so much. Okay, let’s go to our next speaker. Mr. Nguyen: Our next speaker is Sharlene. [Setting up caller.] Chair Thompson: Sharlene, can I ask you to state and spell your name for the record? Sharlene Carlson: I am Sharlene Carlson, [spells name]. I am President of Palo Alto Redwoods Home Owner’s Association, so I am the neighbor next door. I just wanted to thank Sam and Randy for taking our questions and answering the concerns that our homeowners have always had about traffic and safety issues. At this time I don’t have any additional questions but thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Sharlene. Do we have any other members of the public that would like to speak? Mr. Nguyen: We do not have any more raised hands. That concludes public comments for this item. Chair Thompson: All right. Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, did Juliana Lee want to speak on this item? She had spoken earlier in the meeting. Chair Thompson: That’s true, she did. I’d give her the opportunity to speak again, if she’d like. Mr. Nguyen: her hand is not raised but I can go ahead and unmute her to see if she wants to speak. Ms. Lee: I really appreciate the one level and then I think that three make me less nervous. Thank you for letting me talk. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Could you spell your name for the record? Ms. Lee: [Spells name]. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Ms. Lee: Thank you. Chair Thompson: Do we have any other members of the public that would like to speak? Mr. Nguyen: We currently do not have any other requests for speakers. Chair Thompson: All right. Thank you. Typically, we give the applicant a chance to respond to public comment at this time if they would like to. Would the applicant like to? I see a head shaking. We’ll move on. Are there any questions by the Board of staff or the applicant? Board Member Baltay: I have three, Osma, if I am the only one but I don’t want to take up everybody’s time. Chair Thompson: Go ahead, Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Okay. The one that is most interesting to me, and this is a question to staff I suppose, as I understand it, the maximum allowed parking reduction is 15 percent through a TDM. Is that right? That sin code or is that… what am I missing on that? 3.a Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Ms. Gerhardt: No, that’s incorrect. It is in the code and I want to say it is 20 percent, correct, Sam? Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, 20 percent. Board Member Baltay: Okay, great. Ms. Gerhardt: If there was shared use, you could go up to 30 percent but they don’t have that type of shared us, so it is just 20 percent maximum. Board Member Baltay: Okay. What that would mean is that if they're supposed to supply 96 spaces, the Director could approve to a reduction of 20 percent from that within the code as it is? Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. Mr. Gutierrez: Correct. Board Member Baltay: Then, what I am grasping at understanding -- this is a question to Sam -- is that it seems to me you're counting the aisle parking spaces as legitimate spaces and then applying the 15 percent reduction in your math. Is that right? Ms. Gerhardt: We’re counting the aisle spaces given that they have the valet to park those spaces. That is correct. Board Member Baltay: So, you're essentially agreeing with the applicant’s argument that because they have a valet program there, the aisle spaces count as legitimate parking spaces? Because if you did not agree with that interpretation, then it would seem to me that the math would be different. I am struggling to understand why you would be… why don’t you address for me, please, why are the valet… why are aisle parking spaces considered normal parking places? Ms. Gerhardt: They wouldn’t normally be if we did not have the valet but because we have the TDM program and we have the valet that is part of that program, that’s a required part of this project, that’s how we’re able to count those parking spaces. Board Member Baltay: But wouldn’t… okay. Fair enough. Okay, I understand what you're saying. My second question is, again, regarding valet parking. In the code, I saw something that said that valet parking is not allowed to have any fees associated with it. I think I also saw in the applicant’s presentation that all parking spaces are going to be charged a $20 fee. Has the City Attorney looked into the question of whether that is legitimate, the overall parking fee, including valet fees? Mr. Gutierrez: The parking fee does come from the TDM program. In the TDM program, it does detail that that is a way to incentivize the ulterior modes of transportation, in particular for hotel staff. Board Member Baltay: I am referencing in the code where they allowed mechanical lift parking. It said there can be no fee associated with using the mechanical lifts. Has the staff or the legal department in the City looked into this because this is essentially a fee as I see, even though it is associated with all the parking? Ms. Gerhardt: I think it is something we’re going to have to look deeper into, but my initial thoughts are that this is a parking adjustment. This is not valet parking that’s under code Section 10. This is a parking adjustment that’s under Title 18. There are different regulations that apply. We are really working off of the TDM program and what is contained in there. Mr. Gutierrez: Right. Title 10 of the code, I believe, refers to the public parking or use of public right of way for the valet, which would be consistent because if you're using the public right of way or public property and then charging private fees for that, that’s where the conflict would be but this is a valet operation wholly on private property. 3.a Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Page 10 Board Member Baltay: I guess I am referring to the section where it allows mechanical lift parking and there is a clause in there that prohibits charging fees to use those lifts in order to count those as regular parking places. I am just pointing that out. I think that is something that needs to be looked at, obviously, but the question really is what the City staff has interpreted that to be. My last question -- I guess I can direct to the project architect -- is that when I look back at the plans that were approved by the ARB last April was it, there was a fitness room of some kind out at the façade with a glass wall where the staircase is not coming up from the basement. We weren’t supplied with any floor plans for the main floor or the second floor, perhaps where this new staircase is and I am confused as to what the application is regarding the changes to the façade, if any, adjacent to the porte-cochere where there is a new staircase coming up. Randy, at the end of your presentation, you showed two slides. Maybe you could clarify that for us, please. [Setting up presentation.] Mr. Popp: Yes, Peter. We have decided to internally reconfigure the lobbies (inaudible) that will be a more attractive to have on the glass rather than a bunch of (inaudible). The original design had people working out on treadmills and things literally at the lobby entrance, so we altered the interior of the building slightly and hid those uses to the interior (inaudible). Board Member Baltay: Can you explain, please, Randy, how this new staircase works? Lead me up from the basement to the lobby level. Mr. Popp: Sure. At the basement… can you see my cursor, Peter? Board Member Baltay: I can. Thank you. That’s very helpful. Mr. Popp: At the basement, you would enter the stair here. Board Member Baltay: Okay. Mr. Popp: You would exit the stair here. Then, you would circle around and enter the stair here and move up to the upper lobby exiting here. Board Member Baltay: I see. Does the stair continue above that level or is it just two stories? Mr. Popp: I am sorry to say, I don’t recall if this continues. I don’t believe it does. I am sorry. It stops at the lobby (inaudible). Board Member Baltay: You're proposing a glass façade on the side of the stair facing the covered porte- cochere, as in the original plan? I see that on the elevation here. That’s really my concern. Mr. Popp: Yeah. We are going to do… it’s not fully designed yet because we still haven’t submitted the building permit but the intention we used to (inaudible) at the lobby. Board Member Baltay: Is that staircase and emergency egress from the garage though? Is it allowed to have a glazed wall? Mr. Popp: The stair that comes up from the garage is actually enclosed. It is inside this (inaudible). Board Member Baltay: I'm sorry. So, on the floor plan that straight-shot stair is fully enclosed and the other one is not? Mr. Popp: There is a wall on this side of it; on this side of it it would be open but you won’t see it from below. Again, I don’t have all of the detail about this, I don’t want to misspeak and I don’t want to (inaudible). I’ll just admit to not fully knowing all of the details of it yet, but from the ground-level, inside an enclosure that is (inaudible) up the stair and arrive at the lobby level (inaudible) and all of that would 3.a Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Page 11 be (inaudible). This stair is in front of that essentially really limiting your view through the glass through the stair and all of the elements of this secondary stair (inaudible). Board Member Baltay: Okay. Thank you for the explanation. I have no other questions, Chair Thompson. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Are there any other questions of the applicant? I am not seeing any. I just had a quick follow-up question on this item. Board Member Hirsch: I do have a question. Chair Thompson: Sorry, Board Member Hirsch. I didn’t hear you. Board Member Hirsch: I was muted. I'm sorry. I wonder if you could describe, Randy or I don’t know who is best to do this, the valet idea here. Somebody comes to the hotel, they take out their luggage, I gather, under the porte-cochere and the valet then takes the car down to the basement and also then there are valets in the basement and families would come and go to the basement first? Be directed by signage to go to the basement area and unload? Could you describe a little better how that’s really going to work, the valet situation? Mr. Gutierrez: I could actually speak to that. The valet operation for vehicles that are going to be parked on-site has to take place in the garage level, not at the porte-cochere. The porte-cochere is really for drop-offs, like from Uber or Lyft, or some other taxi-like service, or for loading area for service vehicles as it has a double driveway. If you are going to the hotel with your vehicle and will park, you would be directed to the lower level where you would have the valet booth stationed and that’s where the valet operation is to take place. Board Member Hirsch: Who directs you, Sam? Mr. Gutierrez: There is signage that was previously approved and I believe actually that was refined during the subcommittee hearing. It was one of the items, I think, during the subcommittee also with the rear massing. The signage does say valet parking, turn here, go down the ramp; for pick-up and drop-off and loading is in the porte-cochere. Board Member Hirsch: Continuing on that, I note that the area where the drop-off is in the basement is really a parking area as well and there is kind of a central areaway that takes you through to the elevator. I assume that from randy’s description it takes you to that staircase as well. The picture doesn’t show it with two cars in that location. How will that really be seen? Is it really a wide-open enough space to create access to the elevators or is it going to be a place where vehicles are moving in and out of storage in that same area where the drop-off is? I don’t know who answers that. Mr. Gutierrez: There are two accessible spaces that are there because the accessible needed a dedicated location per their standard. There is an accessible path to travel and a walkway adjacent to the parking spaces that do lead to the valet booth. There are a couple of areas for movement of hotel guests. They're not necessarily walking between a narrow space between two cars. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. I just want to comment about the staircase. Although it isn't clear from the diagrams we are looking at, I recall that there was some usage in that space of that glassed area that wasn’t exactly compatible with entering a hotel, I think if I remember correctly. The staircase, if it is easily accessible from the basement, then that is certainly a better entry into the hotel from the valet area and the basement than some other usage that I think was there before. This is in response, in a way, to what Mr. Baltay was asking. I think that if it can be shown that that is easily accessible, that staircase, it certainly is an improvement in the lobby area. This might be better off stated later but I am stating it now just because it seems to relate to what were discussing. Thank you. 3.a Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Chair Thompson: Thanks. I actually have a question for you, Randy. I see that you're hand was raised, so maybe we kind of combine. I do see in the previous plans there was a Board room on the ground floor and a fitness room on the upper floor. I also noticed that some of the other stairs have shifted around in the plans potentially affecting the rear façade and the side façade as well. Can you confirm all the ramifications of the change that is happening here on the ground floor? Mr. Popp: Thank you. I can confirm that the changes (inaudible) does not affect the elevations (inaudible). Chair Thompson: Sorry, it’s really hard to hear you. [Adjusting Audio.] Mr. Popp: I can confirm that the changes that we made below grade do not affect the elevations above- grade. It’s just many are happening in the basement and we have been very careful to maintain the character of the building as approved so we don’t have conflict (inaudible). I can also just briefly respond to Board Member Hirsch’s (inaudible) and say that the (inaudible). Chair Thompson: Sorry. Your voice keeps coming in and out. [Adjusting Audio.] Mr. Popp: I just wanted to respond to Board Member Hirsch’s question as well, if you don’t mind. The report that the City Commission, from the City’s traffic and transportation engineer, really did study the efficiency of that garage and the valet operation, and the conclusion is that there is ample room for queuing and vehicle movements for a valet program in the garage as designed. Sam, if you want to articulate anything further about that happy to have you jump in about that but it is my understanding that the design is supported by that memo without any kind of condition. I think that’s really all I needed to say. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Okay. Thank you. If there are no other questions by the board I will close the public hearing and bring it back to the Board. Who’d like to go first? Takers? Board Member Lew, I’ll call on you first. Board Member Lew: Sure. I don’t really have much to say on this particular item. I will disclose that I have reviewed the number of condominiums sold at the Palo Alto Redwoods since the design review for this project started. I have reviewed the TDM program, which was previously proposed but I did review it again looking at the transit options. Then, I will just also add that I have considered people that I have met who have stayed at hotels nearby, mostly the Courtyard Marriott and also people I have met while I have been on CalTrain who have been trying to get to hotels on El Camino. There is something that is a little counterintuitive here on this particular site. It is actually easier to get to this site on transit if you actually get off at the University Avenue CalTrain station and tike the Express Bus. That’s two stops away. It’s farther away but it is actually easier and faster because there is better service getting off at the University Avenue station and then taking an Express Bus down to this site. That’s all that I have on the TDM. I think for the revised parking lift, it seems to me it meets the comprehensive plan goals as stated in the staff report. I can support that. I don’t really see any huge change in the layout that would affect the functioning of the valet service. I think I can support that. That’s all that I have. Thanks. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Lew. Let’s go to Board Member Baltay. Board Member Baltay: Thank you, Osma. I support what Alex said and that I think the valet service is, if anything, improved the way it functions having it closer to the bottom of the ramp, you don’t go around the corner. I think the sketch the applicant provided convinces me that although there are two parking places in front of the entrance into that lower lobby, there are not as likely to be filled and so it probably will work better than what we already approved. I have no problem with that layout that way. I am concerned that the changes that are being made to the lobby level are something that are not presented 3.a Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Page 13 and I would like to, at a minimum, have those come back to an ad hoc committee to really understand them. My concern is that that glass façade facing the porte-cochere is something that was previously approved and I don’t want to see that go away, at least not without the Board considering the impact on the design. I think it might be a little bit of a challenge to get a stair out of the basement with an enclosure and keep that glazed wall. I did toy around with it quickly and thought you could also put the stair back as a straight shot to the backside of the elevations but that’s up to the applicant to propose how they want to do it. I think that should be something that we see before we sign off on it. It does have an effect on the layout of the building. It might also be worth checking, as Chair Thompson points out, that if there is other changes to staircases throughout the building, we should verify that that is not affecting the external appearance of the building. I am modestly concerned about that. In principle, I think the parking count business works fine and the TDM is good. I am very concerned, though, that we are concerning aisle parking spaces as normal places and then applying the percentage reduction. As I do the math, we are supplying 77 actual parking places, which comes down to about a 20 percent reduction, and then we are using the TDM to justify the aisle parking places, which is fine, but I think we should be clear that it’s a 20 percent reduction, not a 15 percent reduction. I really cannot make finding number one that it meets the code when aisle parking spaces are clearly not defined as parking places in the code and the code does not address this question of whether valet parking programs make aisle parking spaces a legitimate parking spot. I think that is a very slippery slope to go down. I absolutely cannot support the tacit assumption here that aisle parking spaces are bona fide parking stalls. Fortunately, the applicants can still do what they want to do and meet it within the required reduction allowed by the TDM but I strongly feel that the Director should consider it to be a 20 percent reduction, and five of those spaces are now legitimately allowed because of the TDM. I guess I should disclose that I went through and read the actual traffic hotel parking study that was made by Hexagon Consultants that was not included -- the actual study -- in our report. I found it very convincing that 13 different hotels in the area are tracking about .66, or 66 percent, of parking places per room, which is convincing that this will actually function. I think everything the staff and the consultants and applicants say about the parking functioning with the size of this building is true. I think it will function just fine. Lastly, I would like staff to investigate the fact that mechanical lift parking is not supposed to have a fee associated with its use. That was something the City council made clear when they allowed mechanical lift parking to count as regular parking; yet, I am sure that the valet service in this hotel, the parking service, is going to have a fee associated with it. I would really appreciate it if the City Attorney could chime in and make sure that that is a proper interpretation of those conflicting code requirements. Those are my concerns. Thank you very much. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Baltay. Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch: Thank you, Osma, First, I would like to just, if he is still around, thank Sam for his very complete description of everything that’s gone through this project from inception on to the present. It was a very excellent presentation. I sort of agree in some ways with Mr. Baltay’s comments here but have a slightly different slant on it. There was one question about what happens when the lift isn't working and I guess you have to assume that transportation has looked at that issue and dismissed it as an issue here. We didn’t really get an answer to that particular question but it appears that Redwoods is happy with the parking arrangement here and it would certainly affect them the most, but it would also affect El Camino Real. We have to trust that the City has looked into this and I guess I will do the same. I agree 100 percent with the question of how this staircase description really affects the façade. As I noted, I thought it was an improvement that the ground level wouldn’t be a conference room as noted, but rather be an access from a staircase. We haven’t been given the appropriate description of how all of those changes are really working in the building. I suspect that one answer to a question asked of Randy is that there are some other exits from the hotel and so all of those could be described rather than leave it up in the air at this point. I would be okay with it going to committee so that it isn't held up for another ARB, but they need to be addressed in some way, including the use of the second floor as it affects the façade and how the staircase is working; that whole area. It seems to me that -- just to question Peter’s comments about the five spaces that count -- most parking areas that are valet run seem to work pretty well and they find a way to accommodate all of the cars and move them around as need be as they might be warned that somebody is coming down to pick up a car, and, therefore, they have to make some adjustments. In terms of the count, based on the numbers that are 3.a Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Page 14 being provided and agreed to by the city so far, I can see how that would work, but it is a bit of a surprise because it seems like -- seems, this is just seems to me -- the whole floor is extremely tight and I wondered why it wasn’t possible somehow, even if it was on the same level, to expand that area to accommodate but it isn’t done and it seems to solve the numbers so I guess I can say I will go along with it. The idea, again, of access to the elevator and the valet treatment down in the basement also seems tight. You are all saying that you think it will work and Sam says it was reviewed, but, frankly, to me, it is not the best the way it works with the cars that are actually parked in that same location. People getting out of cars where you get out of the side of the car and the back of the car is still in that location; you have to come around the extra space that is required for a whole family getting out of a car and luggage getting out of the back of the car and it doesn’t seem to me to be very well solved. If this project were to come back to the ARB, I would ask for that to be looked at in more detail. I just think in terms of the workings of a hotel you need more space in that area than is given, especially when there are other cars that are also parked in that area making access to the elevators more difficult. I would like to have seen that shown in a way that you could see it working, with a car parked there with people getting out of a car and luggage coming out of the trunk of a car, et cetera. It is a normal, very busy area. I almost wonder why it isn't better to have the car with that happening above in the porte-cochere where there is more space. I think there are questions of the tour bus and the issue of that that haven’t really been properly addressed in transit study, if in fact there are going to be tour buses coming to this location; if the hotel is intending to service a tour bus kind of access to the site. Actually, I disagree with Alex’s comments about somebody can get on a train and get off the train and get on a bus and come to the building, but what about tour buses? How do they come to this hotel, or do they go somewhere else? A nearby hotel is certainly a better location to deal with tour buses but this one would have a problem, so are they eliminated? Has that traffic study really been well done? Let’s get back to it, folks. We are not the ARB and Transportation Department, here. So, we have to leave it to the Transportation Department but I am raising the issues and letting everybody else think about that. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Hirsch. I see that Sam has his hand raised. Are you wishing to speak, Sam? Ms. Gerhardt: I think we can wait until the end if you'd like, and we can address everyone’s concerns. Mr. Gutierrez: Yeah, actually, that would be better. Chair Thompson: Okay. Let’s do that. Okay, Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee: I can be brief. I want to thank everyone who has spoken. I support the Director’s parking adjustment here. I appreciate the Director’s direction to talk about this as a public forum. I understand that City staff has given careful review; we have a compelling traffic report. I, too, was heartened to see that there were 13 in the area hotels and that points at six at the peak. The zoning code is antiquated and I believe the one per guest room is really too much. I do not see any issues here. I did also want to mention that the findings one and four I can support. I believe that the questions that have been raised by my fellow Board Members… the one that I wanted to bring up was I heard from the applicant that there are no elevation changes per our previous approval. I just wanted to confirm that is the case. I do not believe that we need to hesitate here; it’s time to move forward. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Vice Chair Lee. I appreciate all of the sentiments from my fellow Board Members, and the members of the public, and the applicant and the City’s presentation. A lot of my original questions were answered. In general, I can support this adjustment because of all the reasons noted by my fellow Board Members. As to the façade change, the changes that I noticed when looking over the approved and the new plan that came to us this week, it is just the stair locations are a little different which means they probably daylight in a different location on the upper floor. That was where my concern about the façade change came from. I believe the applicant in that it may not be that significant of a change to the façade potentially, but I would support an ad hoc committee just to look at the ramifications of this change. The stair coming up the two stories is really interesting but it leads me to ask where those other pieces of the program have gone. In the old plans, we have what looks like rooms that are on the ground floor against the backside, and in the new plan, we have a stair day 3.a Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Page 15 lighting there. I am sure things have changed a little bit. I am sure it’s not that bad; I’m sure it’s not very significant, and if the Board felt the need to have an ad hoc committee to look any of these other subsequent changes to the façade, if there were any significant ones, I could support that as well. Those are my two items. In general, I can make the findings of one and four, and recommend approval. Go ahead, I will let the City respond to some of the concerns that they heard. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, thank you, Board Members. There are some great questions that we are hearing. Related to any possible exterior changes, staff has not reviewed a building permit yet. Is that correct, Sam? Mr. Gutierrez: That’s correct. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. We will take a look at any drawings through the building permit review. If we do see significant changes then we will bring that back to an ad hoc committee. We will be able to better judge at that point. Board Member Baltay brought up the counting aisle spaces as regular spaces, I think it is a good point; we do want to make sure that we are setting the right precedent, and, so, the Director will take another look at that to make sure whether this needs to be a 15 percent reduction or a 20 percent reduction because we do want to set that right precedent. Regarding fees, I did find the code section that Board Member Baltay was referring to. It does look like it is actually broken into two sentences, though, and it does say that hotels can use lifts. It does say that other uses… let me read it clearly, “mechanical lifts may be used for multi-family, office, hotel, automotive, industrial, or institutional uses. Other uses need Director approval…” Then, it says cannot have a fee for those users. I believe those are two separate sentences; two separate regulations, but, again, we will double-check with the attorneys and make sure we are setting the right precedent there, as well. As far as the lifts not working, we do have conditions and I believe the conditions in the previous approval, correct, Sam, about maintenance and having a system in… Mr. Gutierrez: Yes, there has to be a maintenance agreement for the lift systems, and I believe that is a standard condition when we have lifts for commercial projects like this. Ms. Gerhardt: Okay. We hear the concern about people getting to the stairs and the elevators. We believe we have a sufficient walkway that has been reviewed by Transportation. We can look at that again, but I think we have done the best we can with this particular floor plan. The reason that the floor plan was not expanded, at least to the rear, is that we do have some significant Redwood trees and we want to maintain our distance from those trees. Those are the clarifications that I had. Thank you very much. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Jodie. I will bring it back to the Board if there are any other items that Board Members would like to discuss, or a motion. MOTION Board Member Baltay: Could I make a motion, Osma, please? Chair Thompson: Sure. Board Member Baltay: I move that we recommend to the Director that this revision to the project be approved with the following request that revisions to the lobby staircase be brought back to an ad hoc committee either in the planning process or during the building permit approval process for verification that there are no changes to the exterior façade. I don’t want it to go beyond that, but I think that’s a fair piece for us. The second part of my motion is that we provide feedback to the Director that, A) aisle parking spaces not be considered as normal parking places, and B) that parking fees be verified by the legal department of the City that it is properly done per code. Chair Thompson: Okay. We have a motion. Is there anybody that would like to second that motion? 3.a Packet Pg. 61 City of Palo Alto Page 16 FRIENDLY AMENDMENT Vice Chair Lee: I’ll just ask a question as a friendly amendment. I think I heard that Jodie suggested that staff would raise the question if there are significant changes to elevations. I am just wondering if we need to state in the motion in that way since the staff will be… maybe we should just say it the way Jodie said it. Board Member Baltay: That’s a fine point, Grace. I am happy to remove the section strictly to the elevations if you think that matters. I don’t want to get into any other redesign of the building anymore than we have to. I am trying to keep it clean. If that earns your support, I am happy to do that. Vice Chair Lee: Then, I guess, my other thought -- just thinking out loud -- I am just wondering about the other two parts of your motion if those are appropriate for ARB to be bringing up. Board Member Baltay: I hear you, Grace, and I agree, normally. Frankly, I am concerned. We approved Castilleja the other day based on staff assuring us that basements in neighborhoods didn’t count and it went to Council and they completely disagreed with that point. I feel that this is a similar thing. There is a fine line on what the code is actually doing, but, to me, an aisle parking place is not a parking place. I think if the town, if the staff, if the code wants to be changed to make it otherwise that’s fine, but, to me, it’s a very slippery slope and I think we owe it to the Director to give them a clear statement that aisle parking is not the same as regular parking, even for valets you have to move a lot more cars to make that work. They asked for recommendations to the Director and this is the recommendation I think we should make. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. It sounds like… (Crosstalk) Vice Chair Lee: My feeling is that that is a staff… that we really on City staff to define what these aisle spaces are, and, clearly, this is not something we normally talk in ARB. I feel like that is something that should be defined by staff before it comes to us. I am not sure if it is appropriate to put in an ARB motion. I just wanted to raise that. Board Member Baltay: That’s a fair point. I agree with you, normally. Chair Thompson: Yeah. Just to continue the discussion on this, I am trying to think if I have read any code that says one way or the other; would the aisles count as parking spaces? I don’t know if City staff can advise if that is currently in the code. Board Member Baltay: I thought the applicant showed us the section in the code where it said it did not at the beginning of the presentation. Ms. Gerhardt: The applicant is showing you Chapter 10, which is not necessarily in play here because it is a private valet lift system. Again, I don’t have a full answer for you today but that is why we are going to go back and take a look at it and make sure we are setting the right precedent. As Board Member Baltay said, even if we don’t count those aisle spaces we would just have to increase the Director’s adjustment to 20 percent and the project would still be able to move forward in the same fashion. Board Member Baltay: Actually, if I could amend my motion to include an advise to the Director that the Board supports a 20 percent TDM reduction in parking to make this feasible. Chair Thompson: Board Member Baltay, if I could restate your motion. Board Member Baltay: Please. 3.a Packet Pg. 62 City of Palo Alto Page 17 Chair Thompson: You are moving to recommend approval with an additional note to the Director of Planning that should all parking be considered in the parking count, that we could recommend approval of the 20 percent reduction. Then, you had said you agreed to strike the time about the exterior façade, with the knowledge that staff will bring it back if there are changes. Is that right? Board Member Baltay: No, I want the new floor plan for the staircase and the lobby to come back to the ad hoc committee. We can leave it at that. There’s no additional stipulation of what the committee is looking at, in response to Grace’s concern about it just being the elevation. Chair Thompson: Okay. Then, you had a third item about the parking fees. Board Member Baltay: Yes, I was just concerned that what seems to be a conflicting element in our code be addressed by staff before this is approved, but I can strike that if that’s what it takes to earn a second. So far I am not having much luck. Chair Thompson: Would anybody like to discuss, or is there a second? I am not hearing a second. Vice Chair Lee: I’ll just ask the question, it sounded like staff is going to be finding the answer to that question regarding the parking fee whether it shows up in a motion or not. I don’t know if that needs to be placed in the motion in that staff is hearing our comments and going to be moving forward with that research. Board Member Baltay: Can I get your second, Grace, if we strike that one? Vice Chair Lee: Maybe you could just repeat what the motion is. Board Member Baltay: Okay. I move that we recommend to the Director that the project be approved as submitted with the request the final staircase floor plan be brought back to an ad hoc committee of the Architectural Review Board. Secondly, that the Board recommends that the Director approve the revised parking count with up to 20 percent TDM reduction, and that the Architectural Review Board recommends that aisle parking spaces not be considered as normal parking spaces in the parking calculations. Vice Chair Lee: I’ll just say that I am not one that needs to see anything back, even at the ad hoc and I am not sure about adding the aisle. I don’t think I’ll second. Board Member Baltay: Okay, thank you. Chair Thompson: I see that Board Member Hirsch is trying to say something but you're on mute, Board Member Hirsch. [Adjusting Audio.] Ms. Gerhardt: If I may, I think maybe the Board Members are struggling because this is a little outside of the purview. I think might be worthy of making a motion on the proposed project and then afterward providing comments to staff that we would… I mean, we are always willing to listen to the ARB and we could take those more as comments versus a motion. We are very willing to look into the things that Board Member Baltay has asked for. Chair Thompson: Thank you. I see that Board Member Hirsch was able to unmute himself. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. I think we could leave most of this to the staff and it will eliminate the requirement for a response, at this time, regarding the valet spaces, the five extra spaces. I don’t see why it is critical to an approval at this time. I would ask Peter to re-describe the motion without that if that’s possible. 3.a Packet Pg. 63 City of Palo Alto Page 18 Board Member Baltay: I’ll leave it to somebody else to make a motion then if that’s okay. It’s fine; the motion fails for lack of a second. Osma, go on. Chair Thompson: Yes, okay, would anybody else like to make a motion? Board Member Hirsch: I thought Grace could put hers together. If not, well okay. Go ahead, Grace. Vice Chair Lee: I feel like I am always speaking up too much. Alex, feel free to chime in… (Crosstalk) Chair Thompson: Okay, I’ll make a motion. I move that we approve the project per the staff’s recommendation with the stair coming back to ad hoc committee. Board Member Hirsch: I second. Chair Thompson: Okay. Motion by Thompson, seconded by Hirsch. Would anybody like to discuss this further? Vice Chair Lee: Can you simply repeat it again? I'm sorry. Chair Thompson: I just move that we approve the project and then a=have the stair and any other exterior façade changes come back to ad hoc committee. Okay, can we get a vote? Aye: Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (4) No: Baltay (1) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-1. Chair Thompson: Okay, thank you. I see that you have your hand raised, Randy. Do you have a quick comment? Mr. Popp: Yes, thank you so much for your discussion. I’m not trying to derail the process at all here, but we have literally been waiting months and months to get to this hearing and our ability to have our project reviewed and approved is being held up by this discussion. While we very much appreciate the detail, I’d like to be able to get back to ad hoc committee or have the process move forward with plan check review with staff concurrent with that process. If we can come back to ad hoc at the very next meeting on the 20th we are available to do that. Thank you. Ms. Gerhardt: Just to be clear, staff has not allowed the applicant to submit a building permit just yet because this garage is very foundational to that structure and we wanted to make sure that the one-story versus the two-story was going to be approved. Now that it is approved, now we can let the applicant submit their building permits. As part of those building permits, we will see what the changes are to the stairways and we will bring that to the ad hoc committee before we approve the building permit, but the building permit can be submitted at this time. Chair Thompson: Thank you. I think this item can be closed. Ms. Gerhardt: Thank you. Chair, if I may, can I get a five-minute recess before the next item? Chair Thompson: Certainly. Yeah. Let’s meet back here at 10:10. [The Board took a short break.] 3.a Packet Pg. 64 City of Palo Alto Page 19 Study Session 3. Review the City of Palo Alto’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook, and discuss implementation of its contents Chair Thompson: All right. I think we are all back now. We will move on to our next item, which is a study session. This is a review of the City of Palo Alto’s Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook, and discuss the implementation of its contents. Jodie, I understand you have a little presentation. Ms. Gerhardt: I do. Just one second. [Setting up presentation.] Ms. Gerhardt: Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning. I just wanted to give a short presentation on the Handbook. On November 30, 2020, the Council ad hoc committee presented the Handbook to the full Council and at that time Council made a motion that they adopted the Handbook. They also made some other clarifications, and these are just the ones that affect the ARB. They are going to be using the ARB application. They modified the terms for the ARB and the HRB to be three terms. The term limits would apply to current Board Members. They are requiring staff reports be provided seven days in advance of the hearing. Also, the Clerk’s Office does need to make some ordinance changes and the term limits are one of those things that do need to be changed in the ordinance. That’s not effective quite yet but by the time it matters, it will be effective. Staff and Board Members did attend a training in March of this year. As I said, the Clerk’s Office will be bringing forward the necessary ordinance changes to a June 1st hearing. In the Handbook, it does list out the goals and purpose for the ARB as directed by City Council. The goals and purposes are to promote orderly and harmoniously development, enhance the desirability of residences or other investments, encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements, enhance desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas, promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other, and to implement and enforce City ordinances pertaining to architecture and design. The Board is also composed of five members, three of whom are required to be architects, landscape architects, building designers, or other design professionals. Terms are for three years and they will start on November 1, whereas in the past they have started on December 16, and residency is not required. A large portion of the Handbook is dedicated to Board Members' personal code of conduct. We do ask that you review that and there is a form that needs to be filled out and returned to staff. I believe some of you have already done that. There are also roles for the Chair. At the beginning of the year, the Board would select a member to be Chair, where as currently in our bylaws it says October. The Chair exists to structure productive meetings, encourage the input of ideas, promote inclusiveness, and facilitate the overall decision-making process. However, they do not have any greater power than any other member. The Chair would also ensure that the ARB completes an annual work plan in June and reports the results annually to the City Council. Now, given we are so close to this June, I will need to confirm with the City Clerk how it is going to be handled this first year. The Handbook also discusses subcommittee and ad hoc committee. We had previously referred to our committee as a subcommittee, but in reading the Handbook we now will be calling it an ad hoc committee as that are committees are short-term, established for a specific project usually. They convene for a single topic and they disband once that work is done as will be done later today. The ad hoc committee does not need to be noticed or open to the public; however, normally we are in chambers where the public could see what’s going on, and the Chair makes the assignments to the ad hoc committee. Effective today, staff will be ensuring that future minutes are in summary form, that’s one of the other items that is in the Handbook so that we no longer need to do the verbatim minutes, which I think will be helpful for everyone that they will be in a more condensed fashion but still get everyone’s point across. We will also be gathering those signed statements from Board Members saying that you have read through the entire Handbook. We will also return to the ARB in the near future with the necessary changes to the bylaws, mostly the Chair election that that would be at the beginning of the year, and we would be using the ad hoc committee title going forward. That’s the end of my presentation. Thank you. 3.a Packet Pg. 65 City of Palo Alto Page 20 Chair Thompson: Thanks. Are there any questions or comments from the Board on this item? Vice Chair Lee: I had a couple of questions. Chair Thompson: Go ahead. Vice Chair Lee: I would love to hear what other Board Members think, or Jodie, you could just simply answer. I did go to that orientation, or meeting, recently online and I see in the Handbook that when we talk about the terms I just want to make sure does that mean… because on page eight, packet page 144 today, I just was wondering about this consecutive terms or successive as it applies to ARB because I understand the term limit as it is shown in your slide. That was one question. The other question is I saw you mentioned November 1, and then I just recall that Chair Osma and myself, we came on not November 1 this year. Does that mean our term is three years but it would be November 1, right? Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, as far as term limits, what you see written here was amended by the Council motion. For the ARB and the HRB, they would be allowed to serve three terms of three years, which equals nine years total. That is an ordinance change that needs to be made by the City Clerk and that will happen in the near future before we need to reappoint anyone. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. Some cities have this not-successive terms. I don’t know if there is any language in that just so we are understanding because if it’s not over nine years how does it work in terms of… I mean, could it be you serve once, and then you come off and come back again. I am just thinking of some of our Board Members who have been on for a while. Ms. Gerhardt: It currently says two successive terms. My understating is that they would change that to three successive terms for ARB and HRB members… Vice Chair Lee: Oh, I see. Ms. Gerhardt: …so that it could be a solid nine years. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. Then, I just thought to ask because we do have it and it’s not required, but normally we do an ARB retreat and is that something that is going to be on our calendar, and then this June work plan… can you tell us or chair YOU can tell us what the plan is for the work plan. Ms. Gerhardt: Yeah, so the retreats have kind of been as requested, as needed, but that is something that could be put into the work plan. Chair Thompson: Yeah, I think we were discussing doing a retreat but I think the logistics are still up in the air. I think we should discuss it given that all of our meetings are still virtual, maybe it is something we can agendize for next time to discuss our retreat and how we want to do it. Ms. Gerhardt: We can certainly add that to the agenda. Chair Thompson: Okay. Board Member Baltay: Osma, can I point something out that I wonder about. Chair Thompson: Yeah, sure. Board Member Baltay: In the past, we have made an annual report to City Council and that is because it was required for us to do so in the bylaws to both City Council and the Planning Commission. Is it the intention that this work plan will now replace the annual report? That would seem to make sense to me but I am just trying to be clear. 3.a Packet Pg. 66 City of Palo Alto Page 21 Ms. Gerhardt: It would seem to make sense. I think that is a discussion that the Board Members could have because the Council is asking for the annual report in the summertime period versus at the end of the calendar year. Board Member Baltay: I think it would be a good idea for us to remove from the bylaws the annual report requirement and instead bring in the work plan requirement that the Council has requested schedule. I don’t think other boards and commissions have an annual report requirement, and, certainly, it has been something that has been spotty with the ARB over the years. Chair Thompson: The packet pages that I'm looking at kind of speak to those things in the same breath. It says work plans/annual report, almost as if they are the same thing. Ms. Gerhard: I think it is a look forward and a look backward, yes. Board Member Baltay: Yeah, the Council has asked the annual report to include some metrics of how you're passed annual reports have done, which is, effectively, a look backward. I am just suggesting that when we make the bylaw changes, we should get rid of the annual report then so it is not lingering. Chair Thompson: I guess you're seeing it as a separate, additional thing than the annual report that they're asking us for. Board Member Baltay: I know I started pushing for us to do the annual report a few years ago back when Wynne Furth was the Chair because a couple of members of the Planning Commission had come to us and said look this is required in the law, you have to do this. It is true; that’s what it says. So, we did and it takes a bit of work to do that. I don’t think we should do that and a work plan. That’s a lot of work and they are redundant. Chair Thompson: What do other folks think? Vice Chair Lee: I agree. Board Member Hirsch: I agree, too. Vice Chair Lee: It makes sense. Chair Thompson: Board Member Lew? Board Member Lew: Yeah, I think that is fine. I don’t have any issues with that annual report and meeting. I think in the past, it was considered the annual report or joint City Council meeting. A lot of the times, a meeting would be scheduled, and then it would get bumped several times and then not happen. That was the reason why sometimes the annual report didn’t get written. It seems to me that the process going forward seems to be clear. Chair Thompson: I am actually a little confused about it. I see the work plan as what we plan to do throughout the year, like the look forward, and then in the text that I am reading here it doesn’t say anything about summarizing what's happened to date, which would be what was the annual report. Is the Board suggesting that we don’t summarize our comments from the last year at all? Board Member Hirsch: Wouldn’t an annual report be just a listing of projects that were reviewed and the date of approval and the general opinions or whatever; some summary of opinion. Just like we’re doing a summary of the meetings you could do a summary of the opinions after each. I wouldn’t say it was necessarily our responsibility to do this either. Chair Thompson: Yeah. I think our last annual report wasn’t quite that explicit. I think it was more our thoughts and understandings of things we had noticed in the past year when we have been reviewing 3.a Packet Pg. 67 City of Palo Alto Page 22 stuff that might be helpful for City Council to know. Am I hearing from the majority of the board that we don’t want to do that anymore and we just want to do a future/looking forward work plan? Board Member Baltay: Osma, if I can interrupt, I am reading the Handbook now on page 20 of the Handbook, or at least as it is written now, it says the annual report should include the results of the prior year’s plan. In our case, that probably is the same thing as our annual report. Actually, it calls it here the annual work plan and performance measures. Chair Thompson: Okay. I was looking at a different thing. Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, I see that, peter. I just wanted to let you know also on packet page 1169 or Exhibit A page 33, it just seems like that what you just read, which is kind of summarizing what an annual report is, is not in the work plan guidelines and process. I feel like it’s just a missing bullet point that is not included in Exhibit A. That’s why it is confusing. Board Member Baltay: I think that’s a good point, Grace. Maybe we could ask staff to see if that can be included in Exhibit A if it is intended… (Crosstalk) Vice Chair Lee: Yeah, because it does seem funny, right, because it is in the paragraph description, then it says see Exhibit A but when you go to Exhibit A in the bullet points there is no reference to any of that. Board Member Baltay: Yes, you're absolutely correct, Grace, about that. Ms. Gerhardt: I guess I am reading packet page 169 sort of at the very end there. It does say to give a list of priorities, projects and goals, but it also says status updates and that if items are not complete include why and those sorts of details. I think, too, on packet page 170, you see a work plan template, but that is really just a template. The Board can choose to do this in a slightly different manner if they choose. Vice Chair Lee: Okay. So, status updates, Jodie, might refer back to what has happened this past year in your mind? Ms. Gerhardt: That’s how I was reading it. I agree it is not 100 percent clear. I can go verify with the Clerk’s Office but I think if the Board wants to look forward and backward, that would seem appropriate. Chair Thompson: Okay, I see. It should include both, the forward and the backward. It’s not specifically written. Okay, well that makes sense to me now. Like you were saying, Jodie, they are asking for us to have this by June. Our next meeting is canceled, so the next time that we are all going to meet is June. We just discussed agendizing this for that meeting in June, but it seems like we were agendizing it to discuss it for when we actually discuss it later in that month. Does that sound about right to everybody? Board Member Hirsch: Are you looking for additional comments on any of this wording at this time? Chair Thompson: Yeah. Board Member Hirsch: Just on the Board’s goals and purposes are to, and then the final one is to implement and enforce. Is this what we do or do we recommend conformants with City’s ordinances pertaining to the architecture and design? Are we the agency that implements and enforces this? Chair Thompson: What page are you on? Board Member Hirsch: Page 133. Ms. Gerhardt: Packet page 145. 3.a Packet Pg. 68 City of Palo Alto Page 23 Chair Thompson: Board Member Hirsch: Packet page 135? Ms. Gerhardt: Forty-five has the purpose. Board Member Hirsch: I was looking on page 133, which are goals and purposes of the ARB, page nine. Packet page… to implement and enforce the City’s ordinances. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, 133 and 145 are the same thing. Board Member Hirsch: Oh, okay. Board Member Baltay: Jodie, can you steer us to where… yeah, 145 is the actual Architectural Review Board language. Ms. Gerhardt: Correct. That’s straight from Council. Board Member Hirsch: Yeah, it’s the same thing. Okay. Exactly. Board Member Baltay: Yes, David is correct that the word enforce is not consistent with the role of the ARB I don’t believe. Our authority, essentially, extends to a recommendation. Board Member Hirsch: While I am at it if I could bring up just a few other issues here. I note that I just went back to look at the findings and so if I might just aggress the study here a little bit. If we took this to packet page 30… Chair Thompson: Wait, hold on. Before you go there, Board Member Hirsch, I’d like to discuss enforce a little bit or just get other Board Members’ comments because I just googled the definition of enforce and it does say compel, observance, or compliance with a law, or rule, or obligation, and that’s what we are doing here. I have no problem with the word enforce. Board Member Hirsch: I think it’s better to say recommend conformance with the City’s ordinances. Chair Thompson: Are there any comments from Board Member Lew or Vice Chair Lee. Board Member Lew: Yeah, Osma, in the past the City Attorney’s Office has said that our purview does not extend to code enforcement. Say, like we used to have a code enforcement department, so we were not supposed to involve ourselves with, say like, illegal finds that were not ARB projects. I think that the way it is written is a little too broad. I think that maybe we should point that out and highlight that to staff. There is a role of enforcing existing codes, but then there are other issues beyond that, you know beyond the ARB’s purview, as well. Vice Chair Lee: I’ll just say that I agree. If you turn the page to 146, it is interesting how the language is very different for the HRB in terms of review and make recommendations; research and make recommendations. I do think the word enforce is… the connotation is we aren’t compliance officers. Maybe it should be reviewed by staff. Chair Thompson: Okay, that’s fair. Board Member Hirsch: This is far-field but take it as you will. I look back at findings number three and it says design of highly aesthetic quality using high quality integrated materials and appropriate constructions techniques and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible. I personally would like to add with each other and enhance the surrounding area. You know, compatible with and enhance the surrounding area doesn’t mention how they relate to each other. It is a small 3.a Packet Pg. 69 City of Palo Alto Page 24 addition; is it possible to pass findings that are different? Does that have to go through a legal procedure here in Palo Alto? I don’t know but I find the wording isn't appropriate. Board Member Lew: (Inaudible) talking about (inaudible) not on the agenda. Board Member Hirsch: It isn't on the agenda, you're right. Board Member Lew: (Inaudible) discussing this. Board Member Hirsch: Shall we leave it alone? Chair Thompson: Yeah, we’re just talking about the handbook right now. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. The Handbook, all right. I do have some other comments here, and that is Council liaison. There is no Council liaison for the ARB, is there? I don’t know of one. I think it would be nice to have one. I note that in particular, it would be good when information that is decided upon by the Council is noted to us. For example, there was a project, I think, that they disapproved on Bayshore; the one that we actually discussed in a recent meeting because it was in a flood zone and mentioning this to Peter the other day he was unaware of it because it was a news item that if you read the newspaper you would have heard that. Items like that that don’t get back to us that we ought to be able to know about, I think, are important. How to make that information available to us would be normally through some kind of liaison with the Council but we don’t have that relationship. I think it should be done. We should have that. Under the work plan, I think we have already been discussing that in plenty of detail so far. One other general comment I have is that the Board would include a landscape person. I personally wish that that were person, not leaving it all on Alex’s back all the time. He does a great job but landscaping is certainly a specialty in itself, which we, as architects, would normally turn to some consultant and the projects that are presented to us normally have a landscape architect, the better ones, anyhow. It would be beneficial for us to have a landscape architect as a member of our committee as well. How to achieve that? I think it is an important thing to try to achieve but how is it possible to include that in our committee. Chair Thompson: Thank you, Board Member Hirsch. Are there any other thoughts from other Board Members either on items that Board Member Hirsch brought up or other items? Board Member Baltay: Just some background information, maybe, David. The City Council went through -- maybe four or five years ago -- a real overhaul of the findings we have to make. It was quite a process. It was really a thing that took several Council meetings to close on. So, even a change of one word there would be a big deal. Board Member Hirsch: Okay. Board Member Baltay: The same thing applies, I think, to other aspects of how we work. Thing like putting a landscape architect on the Board. It doesn’t seem like it, perhaps, but they have given a lot of thought politically to what is the right way to make it up and that is where they have landed on this. The Board’s Handbook, I think, is more just sort of a guideline on how to operate than it is to any change to ordinances that establish out Boards. The second thing I can point out is I think the Council is fairly conflicted on whether they want liaisons to the Architectural Review Board and the Planning Commission, and that’s why they don’t explicitly say here that they're going to have it. I don’t think they had a consensus when they were discussing even this booklet. I think the Board has been very clear that we would like to have a liaison to City Council for exactly the reasons you mentioned, and I think it would be great if staff could help us bring that message to them. I think we have consistently and repeatedly asked them for more communication between the Council and whether they're doing and our operations. I think they did not put it in this booklet because that was as much as they could get approved. That is just background. Alex is right; some of these are not even on the agenda today. I just offer that for thought. 3.a Packet Pg. 70 City of Palo Alto Page 25 Ms. Gerhardt: Yes. Today is just a study session, just a discussion. No motion is needed but I am obviously taking notes. Thank you, Board Member Baltay, for the discussion about findings because it is a long process, but obviously if something’s desired we will go through that process. As far as the Council liaison, we will bring that message forward. I think another option is that planning management can do a summary that I can read out for things that would affect the ARB or be relevant. We can certainly try to do a little bit more on that. Then, as far as the landscape architect on the Board, three of the members do have to be an architect, a landscape architect, or a design professional; that actually is a requirement. I would assume that maybe we just haven’t had as many landscape architects apply. It might be a matter of talking to your friends. Thank you. Chair Thompson: Thank you. Any further thoughts? Board Member Lew: Osma, I had one question. Chair Thompson: Yea, go ahead. Board Member Lew: I guess this is for staff, maybe, social media posts by Board Members… I was watching the Housing Element Working Group selection by the Council and they were reviewing social media posts by the applicants, and it seemed to me years ago -- I am saying over ten years ago -- the city attorney really tried to discourage board members from posting just because it was a real gray area with regard to bias and ethics and stuff. It was just -- at least from his mind at the time -- safer for board members not to post. A lot has happened in that time and I don’t really see very much in here about that. I think if there is another edit of the booklet, I would appreciate guidance on that. I think when we go through our ethics training, I think the city attorney says it is kind of a gray area and to be careful about posting and what gets posted. At the same time, just at this last Council hearing, it seemed like they were expecting the Housing Element Working Group to be social media active and to be promoting things through their own social media. That seems to be a departure from past guidance. Chair Thompson: Interesting. Thank you for that feedback. Any other comments, Vice Chair Lee? Vice Chair Lee: I don’t have any. No comments. I did think to just touch upon… I think we have talked previously about the liaison and I understand the Council has never achieved it. In a way, that represents all boards, commissions, and committees with a liaison and I just ask the question asked for one or PTC, maybe all the board, commissions, and committees deserve to have that liaison and there isn't capacity given the ask. Then, the comment about landscape architects, I appreciate that. I do feel like landscape is a big part of our purview. I also just want to point out that the current language does include landscape architects, as Jodie mention. At the time that many of our terms are completed, sometimes there are very few people who want to step up to service to the City. And I do think it is something that we as Board Members should be aware of that this is an important position and during that time of term limits it is important to check in with current Board Members and see if they are going to be reapplying, but also welcome new members and just ensure that the Board continues quality review and service to the City. I think that’s important. Chair Thompson: Yeah. Ms. Gerhardt: Chair, if I may, I did want to note on the Council liaison that Council thinks that ARB projects that get appealed do go before the Council, and so there may be some conflict there which is likely why we don’t have a liaison right now but I will go double-check all of that. Board Member Baltay: Osma, can I come back to something Alex was just talking about? Chair Thompson: Sure. Board Member Baltay: He was talking about social media posts and just in general interacting with the media. I am reading again more clearly the packet page 163 where they talk about interaction with the media and the public and I think Alex’s words should be taken fairly seriously because we interact, we 3.a Packet Pg. 71 City of Palo Alto Page 26 behave as a quasi-judicial body quite a lot and I would think that the standards they are putting here would be inappropriate when we are evaluating some of our projects. Certainly, I think we would want to have another bullet point even when you're acting in a quasi-judicial manner there is a much higher standard, I believe, we have to follow. Between reviews of a project, we really shouldn’t be expressing opinions online, even if we clearly state that they're our own and I don’t think any of us do that but reading this it would seem that that would be okay and I don’t think it is. Chair Thompson: That’s a good point. What do others think about that? Board Member Hirsch: I have a comment to make on it. Maybe it would be best if we ever did something like that to say this is not an opinion as a member of the ARB. Ms. Gerhardt: You should always be making clear when you're speaking for the ARB versus when you're speaking for yourself, but, as Board Member Baltay said, if it is a pending project then you need to make sure that you're not making a decision on a project outside of the public hearing. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Chair Thompson: It seems like it would be a worthy clarification on that packet page. Ms. Gerhardt: We will certainly bring that to the Clerk’s attention. As I said, the Council will look at this again on June 1. I will get those suggestions to them as quickly as possible. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 1, 2021 Chair Thompson: Sounds good. Any other final thoughts? Okay. I guess we’ll close the study session. Thanks for everyone’s feedback. I thought it was cute that they mentioned PDA’s on there. You’ve got to turn off your PDA’s. That is it for our study session. Our next item is approval of the minutes for April 1, 2021. Can I get a motion or are there any comments, edits? MOTION Board Member Lew: I’ll move that we approve the minutes. Board Member Baltay: Second. Chair Thompson: Motion by Lew, seconded by Baltay. Can I get a vote, Vinh? Ms. Gerhardt: I’ll do the roll call, here. Chair Thompson: All right. Aye: Baltay, Hirsch, Lee, Lew, Thompson (4) No: (0) MOTION TO APPROVE PASSES 4-0. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Thompson: Thank you. Our next item is Board Member questions, comments or announcements. The first item is the North VCAP working group updates. Board Member Lew: Yeah, there are no updates. It is going to the Council in June for discussion. 3.a Packet Pg. 72 City of Palo Alto Page 27 Chair Thompson: Okay. Thank you. Any other comments or announcements? Board Member Hirsch: Yes, I have one. This is going back. I am sorry to go back on an item but packet page 117, I would like the name of Su Hong Restaurant to be removed from the restaurants, cafes, delis, and bakeries within the neighborhood of the new hotel. That’s packet page 117. Ms. Gerhardt: You're asking for a change to the minutes? Board Member Hirsch: Just a joke. Board Member Baltay: I’ll second your joke, David. Chair Thompson: Sorry, I missed that. Okay. It sounds like it was just a joke, though. Board Member Baltay: Think about it, Osma. Chair Thompson: I don’t get it. Board Member Hirsch: Okay, Osma. It’s the site of the hotel. Chair Thompson: Oh, the site. Yeah. That’s interesting. Okay. All right. If there is nothing else then we will adjourn. Board Member Baltay: Thank you, Osma. Ms. Gerhardt: Yes, and Board Member Baltay and Board Member Lew will stay on for the subcommittee. Claire Raybould is the project planner. She will take over from here and I will say goodbye to everyone. Chair Thompson: All right. Adjournment Ad Hoc Committee Items 5. 233 University Avenue [18PLN-00344]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Two Benches. Boardmembers Baltay and Lew will preside. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From CEQA per Guideline Section 15332 (In-fill Development). Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P) (Commercial Downtown Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Shopping Combining Districts). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. 3.a Packet Pg. 73 City of Palo Alto Page 28 Architectural Review Board Ad Hoc Committee Review Jeff Galbraith, Hayes Group Architecture, 350 Sansome, Suite 750, San Francisco, CA 94104 233 University Avenue [18PLN-00034] May 6, 2021 Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner The application, and plans dated April 1, 2021, were reviewed by an ARB Ad hoc Committee on May 6, 2021 in accordance with condition of approval #6, as stated below. The ARB Ad Hoc Committee was comprised of Boardmembers Lew and Baltay. 6. ARB AD HOC COMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB Ad hoc Committee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services: a. Provide at least two benches along the Ramona or University frontage within the vicinity of the project site in order to improve the pedestrian environment within this area. Benches may be within the private property or within the public right-of-way. Any benches placed within the public right-of-way must be located and designed to the satisfaction of Public Works Engineering, the Office of Transportation, and the Director of Planning. Benches may include traditional benches or other seating areas built into the design of the building such as seating areas built into windows or planters. At the meeting, the Ad hoc Committee agreed with the revisions presented. The applicant shall ensure the changes presented in the Ad hoc are reflected in the plans submitted for building permit(s). In addition, this Ad Hoc Committee review letter shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s) following the Record of Land Use Action. TO: SUBJECT: DATE: FROM: 3.a Packet Pg. 74 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13416) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 7/15/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of June 17, 2021 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 17, 2021 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the April 15, 2021 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB Attachments: • Attachment A: June 17, 2021 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 75 Page 1 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: June 17, 2021 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Participating Remotely: Chair Osma Thompson, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Alex Lew Absent: Vice Chair Grace Lee Oral Communications Lorna Naugle and Edith Weiser called in remotely to participate in the meeting regarding 160 Waverley. Andy Pergam announced his intention to speak on 160 Waverley. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Amy French, Chief Planning Official, announced there were none. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Amy French, Chief Planning Official, stated she was representing Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, who was out on vacation but listening to the teleconference. The Objective Standards worked on by the ARB were passed by the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to the City Council (Council). The target date for the item to go to Council is August 16, 2021. The ARB decided to cancel the July 1, 2021, meeting for lack of agenda items. The July 15, 2021, ARB meeting agenda has the Stanford Shopping Center item and possibly the ARB Awards, which were postponed in 2020 due to the Pandemic. There are revisions to the Castilleja project, and it may return to the ARB by the end of summer. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 160 Waverley Street [20PLN-00301]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of the Existing Residential Structures (3 units total) for the Construction of Two New Structures Containing Three Apartment Flats and Six Tuck Under Parking Stalls at Grade. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: RM- 4.a Packet Pg. 76 Page 2 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 30. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, introduced Project Planner Samuel Gutierrez. Boardmember Baltay disclosed that he met with the architect and learned that she considered her former project at 515 Webster in Palo Alto to be like this building. He also visited the project site. Boardmember Hirsch disclosed he also met with the architect and visited the site of the existing building on Webster and the site for the new building. Boardmember Lew disclosed that he visited the project site and was aware of the 515 Webster project. Chair Thompson disclosed that she visited the site and the materials board at City Hall. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner, gave a presentation on 160 Waverley. The project proposes to demolish the existing 3 dwelling unit development and develop two new buildings containing 3 dwelling units and a 6 space parking garage. The project is zoned RM-20, not RM-30 as erroneously indicated in the item’s description. The neighborhood contains a mixture of architectural styles and zoning districts. Staff’s review found the project zoning compliant as proposed. Staff also reviewed the design, which is modernist. It is unclear if the design sufficiently meets ARB Findings #2 and #3. Staff reviewed the parking design, which underwent several iterations and now the parking for the project meets the design standards. The project provides more open space than required and provides for various trees and shrubs, but staff requests the ARB’s opinion on the proposed planting and suggested native replacements. The privacy impacts of the project have prompted public input and concern, predominantly related to the duplex situation at 150 and 134 Waverley. Staff visited the project location and took photographs of the existing conditions. There are also photographs provided by the neighbors included in the public comment for context. Staff requests the ARB’s comments and guidance regarding the potential privacy impacts to the adjacent properties. The project is being reassessed per California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and a historic resources evaluation is being completed. Ms. French clarified that Category 4 is a local inventory historic status. Mr. Gutierrez explained once the CEQA and historic resources evaluations are complete they will be posted on the project website for the public. Public comments and questions were taken and there were concerns about the design, privacy, sun exposure, rooftop terraces, and proposed setbacks. The ARB’s key considerations should include if the proposed design meets ARB Findings #2 and #3, if the landscaping meets ARB Finding #5, and the privacy impacts to the adjacent R-1 parcel. Staff recommended the ARB consider the project, provide feedback on the proposal, and continue the hearing to a later date uncertain. Heather Young, representative of the project applicant at 160 to 164 Waverley Street, utilized a PowerPoint presentation to show the project and its placement in the neighborhood. With the adjacent zoning at RM-20 the project will not be the first or last multi-family project in the neighborhood. Waverley has a wide range of architectural styles and colors, and the project is not out of the norm for the site. The project as proposed is fully code compliant. The reference project is at 519 to 515 Webster was completed in 2018, is an RM-30 site remarkably similar in its diversity of existing context, has a 4.a Packet Pg. 77 Page 3 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 lower scale single family home on one side, and is multi-family. The Waverley site is very narrow, 50 feet by 250 feet, which is challenging for parking and resulted in tuck under parking to reclaim as much of the site as possible for landscape and open space. The site plan was shown including the setbacks, parking, and dwelling units. Chair Thompson advised Ms. Young that her 10 minutes were up and asked her to conclude her presentation. Ms. Young showed the materials and façade of the building. To address privacy concerns the elevation facing 134-150 Waverley was shown with its proposed and existing trees and view lines. The project reinforces the existing privacy screen, and the applicant is working with the landscape architect to better address privacy from the first dwelling unit. The applicant will continue working with staff and the neighbors on privacy. The final image presented was of the completed project and new plantings in context with the neighboring buildings. The project is transitional and brings more open space and landscaping to the area. Chair Thompson opened the public hearing. Lorna Naugle called with her mother, Edith Weiser, a neighbor of the project. Ms. Weiser has not been contacted by Nancy Young or her peers. The family is primarily concerned with privacy. Ms. Weiser has submitted a letter dated June 9, 2021, detailing her concerns for the ARB’s review. They were unable to watch the meeting or presentation as they did not have internet access. The family believes the project will be approved and that Ms. Weiser will simply have to deal with the construction and loss of privacy. They strongly believe the rooftop patio is a hinderance to their enjoyment of their property. Andy Pergam of 134 Waverley called in and stated appreciation for City staff’s work and the inclusion of his photographs into the presentation. The project should focus on privacy protection and to be harmonious with the existing neighborhood. Specifically, the roof decks and the landing and staircase in the multi-family building are problematic both for privacy and noise. The roof decks would be an anomaly in the neighborhood and should be revisited and removed from the project. He also voiced concern over the sight lines from 164 Waverley and noted several errors in Ms. Young’s diagram. He invited members of the ARB to visit his property and view it in person. Chair Thompson invited Ms. Young to respond to the public comment. Mr. Gutierrez clarified he had visited the site and informed the neighbors of Ms. Young and the architect’s offer to meet and his willingness to facilitate the meeting. Ms. Young stated there was a misunderstanding and that they did wish to meet with the neighbors. She thanked Mr. Pergam for his corrections regarding the site lines and offered to meet with him on site to further address his concerns. The tenants of the project at 519 Webster mostly use the elevators. The stairs are required for egress and not expected to be used as a hang out space. The views from the roof terraces are not anticipated to be a problem. She requested clarification from staff on any City ordinances or policies regarding noise levels and multi-family homes. The massing of the building is fully compliant regarding the daylight plain and maximum building height. Chair Thompson closed the public hearing and called for ARB questions. 4.a Packet Pg. 78 Page 4 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 Boardmember Baltay requested a comparative size to the houses currently existing on the property. Mr. Gutierrez said the capacity is comparable and staff confirmed compliance with SB 330. Boardmember Baltay requested Mr. Gutierrez provide square footage comparisons. He understood that the building is being evaluated for historical significance and asked what happened if it was found to be historic. Ms. French explained that if a determination were made that it was eligible for the California Register then it would be a CEQA issue and trigger environmental analysis on the historical resource. Boardmember Baltay stated the project would destroy the historical resource. Ms. French agreed that it was hard to mitigate demolition. Environmental review is quite different from an exempt project. Boardmember Baltay asked staff if the project was subject to the Individual Review (IR) process done on single family homes. Ms. French stated that a single-family home in the RM zone undergoes IR if it is adjacent to another single-family home. Mr. Gutierrez explained that if there was a single-family use on the property it would be subject to the IR guidelines, but this is multi-family use. It does not go through IR but does have a privacy process under the Multi-family Performance Standards. Boardmember Baltay asked if the ARB had to uphold the IR standards in this project. Mr. Gutierrez said the Performance Standards are not as specific as the IR guidelines so it could be used as a template or an advisory guidance document, but it is not explicitly stated in multi-family zoning code. Boardmember Baltay requested confirmation that if the parcel to the right of the project redeveloped it would have to go through IR. Mr. Gutierrez stated that 150 Waverley would have to go through IR for a two-story home as related to the single-family home next door, not the multi-family project. Ms. French clarified that multi-family refers to 3 or more homes. In a duplex situation that would be subject to IR. Boardmember Baltay asked what happened if 150 Waverley redeveloped. Ms. French said it would go through IR. Boardmember Baltay requested clarification on a façade material change. Ms. Young explained the material changed from engineered stone to a stucco/plaster finish about 10 foot 2 inches from the corner. Chair Thompson called for additional ARB questions, but there were none. 4.a Packet Pg. 79 Page 5 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 Ms. French indicated that she was prepared to answer questions on noise. Boardmember Baltay asked staff to explain the noise ordinance implications on the project. Ms. French stated that the noise ordinance applies. Residential property noise more than 6 decibels (dB) above the local ambient is the limit and that is the same in all of Palo Alto. There are code sections related to construction noise and hours as well. Noise violations are handled by the Police. Chair Thompson called for ARB feedback. Boardmember Lew found the project interesting and unique from other 3-unit projects the ARB had reviewed. He was pleased with the project’s parking, open space, and landscape possibilities, but had problems making ARB Findings #2 and 3. He suggested lowering the height of the building and voiced concerns about the utility placement, visible trash area, and stone depth on the front wall. Although it was not a code issue, he raised the possibility of flipping the back unit so that the balcony and living area would face the backyard. He supported the inclusion of more native plants, but not Toyon due to its height. The sidewalks and entrance walkways need better landscaping or treatment. Overall, the project is close, but could be better. He understood that the roof decks were controversial and noted that he had not decided about them yet. Boardmember Hirsch appreciated several things about the project, specifically the access to the rear units, the tight parking scheme, and the interior unit planning. He was concerned about a lack of quality design especially on the street façade. The rear forms facing the courtyards are simple and traditional with quality proportions and a consistent use of materials. The street façade features a mundane and undistinguished second floor. He enumerated his issues with the materials and design. Privacy is an issue with the staircases, and he also suggested flipping the rear unit, although in a different way than suggested by Boardmember Lew. He also suggested moving the stair entrance in the front building to provide scale. The rear courtyard makes no sense given other open space areas. His more minor comments were that the proposed movement pattern for the front unit is complicated, the side elevations look better in brick, the crossover balcony seems unnecessary, and the open shaft to the rooftop is problematic. He deferred to Boardmember Lew on plantings but noted the need for more attention to the front elevation and to look at the feasibility of planting trees where shown. He did not view rooftop decks as necessary, but also had no specific objection. Given the current front façade he did not support the project as presented. Boardmember Baltay stated he generally agreed with the comments of Boardmembers Lew and Hirsch. He asked if Mr. Gutierrez had the square footage numbers. Mr. Gutierrez stated the existing front unit is 1,500 square feet (sq. ft.) with two bedrooms, the middle unit is 1,280 sq. ft. with three bedrooms, and the rear unit is 1,000 sq. ft. with two bedrooms. All the proposed units will be three bedrooms. Boardmember Baltay confirmed it was 3,700 square feet of living space being changed to 4,300. Mr. Gutierrez explained that in a multi-family dwelling parking is not counted the same way it is in single-family homes. 4.a Packet Pg. 80 Page 6 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 Boardmember Baltay observed that the project added two bedrooms and approximately 800 sq. ft. of living space. He was concerned that the parking lot as planned was too difficult for drivers. He offered a critique of the building code, not the project or the architect, as he felt a redevelopment of this property should include more than three units. He struggled with ARB Findings #2 and #3 primarily because the compatibility issue is significant and problematic due to the height of the building. Although the neighborhood is eclectic it is also residential, and the project does not seem quite residential enough. With respect to materials, he also was concerned about them looking fake. He stated significant concern over privacy impacts and specifically listed the side walkways and roof deck as problematic. Palo Alto has a strict level of privacy concern and so privacy needs to be taken more seriously on this project. The roof deck in and of itself is fine so long as there is an effective privacy treatment although Council may not be receptive either way. Currently, he was unable to make ARB Finding #2. Chair Thompson agreed with her colleagues in part. She disagreed with the characterization of the project in the staff report in that a modernist design does not have brick, cornices, and other detail. She felt the materials were acceptable but agreed with the concern that they could appear fake. The ground floor entry to the first unit does not feel residential due to the carport and trash locations. The comparison project has more ground floor interest which is needed in this project. She voiced concerns regarding the change of material around the corner as noted by other Boardmembers. The project fits the eclectic nature of the neighborhood due to its use of different materials and textures. With respect to landscaping she deferred to Boardmember Lew and staff. The carport is thoughtful, but she worried it might not work in practice due to its complexity. Privacy is a difficult issue as the City wants to support more housing, but density hinders privacy. As much as possible the neighbor’s privacy concerns should be addressed and mitigated. With a few edits she could make ARB Findings #2 and #3. She called for further Boardmember comment. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Chair Thompson on the materials. The front elevation has problems with the podium construction and the materials as discussed. He stressed a strong preference for real brick. Chair Thompson explained that brick was problematic in seismic zones. Boardmember Hirsch suggested that the architect investigate doing something interesting with the cornice. The front elevation could be improved by relocating the trash area and doing something interesting with the stairway. The front of the building should be welcoming. MOTION: Boardmember Lew moved, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch to continue the project until a date uncertain. MOTION PASSED: 4–0, Vice Chair Lee absent Chair Thompson provided the applicant an opportunity to ask questions. Ms. Young asked if Boardmembers were open to individual follow ups on the revisions due to their varied concerns. Chair Thompson thanked Ms. Young and announced a five-minute break. 4.a Packet Pg. 81 Page 7 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 THE ARB TOOK A BREAK Chair Thompson called the meeting back to order and announced that it is at each Boardmember’s discretion if they would like to meet with a project applicant or architect so long as it is disclosed. Boardmember Lew thought that between hearings it was discouraged to meet with applicants/architects as that could be viewed as lobbying. Additionally, when the ARB worked on the Castilleja project the City Attorney reminded them that they had to take and submit notes on the meetings. Ms. French agreed with Boardmember Lew’s recollection. It is acceptable to meet after a preliminary hearing because that is not a filed application, just a study session. Disclosure is always important at the start of an item. Chair Thompson asked Mr. Gutierrez to advise the applicant of that policy and closed the item. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3241 Park Boulevard [20PLN-00032]: Recommendation on a Major Architectural Review to demolish an existing 4,501 square foot building and construct a new 7,861 square foot office building. Environmental Assessment: Exempt per CEQA Guidelines Sections 15303 and 15332. Zoning District: GM. For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Thompson opened the item and called for the staff report. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, introduced Project Planner Garrett Sauls. Garrett Sauls, Project Planner, gave a presentation on 3241 Park Boulevard. The ARB previously reviewed the project on December 3, 2020, and provided comments on the site plan, organization, and appearance of the project. The project is no longer a renovation of an existing building, but a demolition and new construction of a new two-floor office building. He provided a summary of the project’s square feet, parking, revised planting plan, and the strong indication that a vapor mitigation system is necessary. An environmental analysis determined that the project would have a Class 3 or 32 exemption. He listed the ARB’s feedback from the December 3, 2020, meeting and showed the previous site plan as submitted. The new site plan includes additional landscaping accommodated by a one space parking decrease. He further demonstrated the changes with slides showing the elevations and landscaping plans. The new project includes operable windows, which was a concern of the ARB. The material board has been updated and is posted at City Hall. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project as overall the applicant has addressed the ARB’s previously provided comments. Chair Thompson called for disclosures. Boardmember Baltay disclosed that he visited the site. Boardmember Hirsch had no disclosures. Boardmember Lew had no disclosures. Chair Thompson disclosed that she viewed the materials board at City Hall and visited the site. She called for the applicant’s presentation. 4.a Packet Pg. 82 Page 8 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 Jeff Galbraith, Hayes Group Architects, thanked Mr. Sauls, stated he covered the project well, and asked the ARB for specific topics they wanted covered or for questions. Chair Thompson called for Boardmember requests, but there were none. She questioned the reasoning behind not extending the canopy and retaining the framing despite prior ARB comment. Mr. Galbraith shared his screen and provided images for context. He explained that the concept of the building is planes, and the design is very directional. The steel members in question have no occupied floor in between them, they are gestural members that are expressive. Boardmember Baltay inquired about the purpose of the private open space at the ground level. Mr. Galbraith explained they created two different outdoor spaces and they wanted them to feel distinct. The open space on the left is intended to be more public and open, and the second “refuge garden” is intended to be a more private contemplative space. Considering the ARB’s previous comments, they changed the wall in front of the “refuge garden.” Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects, suggested Mr. Galbraith walk through the presentation. Mr. Galbraith gave a presentation including the elevations and changes made from the last ARB visit. Highlights include that the tree species were changed, planting space was increased, operable windows were added, the “refuge garden” has greater visibility from the street, and the south elevation was redesigned. Chair Thompson called for the public comment, but there was none. She then opened the floor for Boardmember questions and inquired about the shading material. Mr. Galbraith explained the shades were roll down guided by wires and were concealed by the upper steel. It is an exterior shade cloth. He clarified that there was no horizontal shading. Chair Thompson stated that was not the case in one of the renderings. Mr. Galbraith showed the rendering in question and explained that what the ARB saw was the edge of the roof. Mr. Sauls directed the ARB’s attention to the Plan Set Page 85-1 which showcases the exterior shade fabric mechanism and the roof portion over the steel pieces. Chair Thompson inquired about the overlap into the open space. Mr. Sauls stated it overlapped less than 50% in terms of the total area. Chair Thompson said she wanted to understand the dimension that extends and how much it overlaps. Mr. Galbraith pulled up a plan and articulated the dimensions. Boardmember Baltay thought it was an exciting and attractive building that fit well in the area, but noted the project is in the part of the Ventura area that is supposed to be designated housing and it is an office building. He provided specific notes for the architects and stated a preference to open the “refuge garden” and treat it as the other open space area. Overall, he supported the project. 4.a Packet Pg. 83 Page 9 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 Boardmember Hirsch was delighted with the planes in the roofline and other structural aspects of the project. He was pleased with the other changes made by the architect and voiced enthusiastic support for the project. He disagreed with Boardmember Baltay on the “refuge garden” and thought there should be a place outside with more private open space. Boardmember Lew stated the project met all the findings but noted that the text on the landscape sheets were blank and should be corrected. Secondly, he was concerned about light spilling into the creek and asked that it be reduced. In the Staff Report Floor Area Ratio (FAR) percentages are confusing and unclear to the public. He reminded the other Boardmembers that there were new Elements in the Comprehensive Plan and read Goal N3 and Policy N3.1. Further the Pedestrian and Bicycle Plan includes a pedestrian and bike bridge near the project area. The Comprehensive Plan and bridge project should be included in the Staff Report. Otherwise, he could make the findings so long as the blank landscape sheets were corrected. Mr. Sauls requested clarification on the issue with the landscape sheets. Boardmember Lew directed his attention to Sheet L1.3 and the several following blank pages. Chair Thompson showed staff the blank pages. Mr. Sauls stated that there must have been a printing error and shared his screen. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that his report was also incomplete and suggested that Mr. Sauls show the pages for the record. Mr. Sauls reviewed the pages in depth for the record and stated that the full report was available on the project webpage. He apologized for the printing error. Chair Thompson inquired about the green screen feature. Mr. Sauls explained that it was a cable system on which vines would grow. Chair Thompson asked for further clarification from the architect. Mr. Galbraith stated there was a horizontal bar with a few minimal cables for the vines to grow on. There is no heavy mesh, simply vertical cables. Mr. Sauls continued his review of the missing Staff Report pages for the record. Chair Thompson confirmed that L3.3 forward printed. Mr. Sauls showed L4.1. and the next several pages, ending with T03. He apologized again for the printing error. Chair Thompson stated that so long as the information was part of the public record she was comforted. She thanked the applicant for the updates and noted pleasure with the operable windows. The wall against the substation is still lacking, specifically the wall compared to the fence. The steel structure seems strange despite its sunshade function. The fence in the “refuge garden” is also lacking compared to the substation fence. She called for Board discussion or a Motion. 4.a Packet Pg. 84 Page 10 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 Boardmember Baltay asked about the windows facing the power station. Mr. Galbraith confirmed that the windows would be fire glass and were technically a transparent wall with a one-hour rating. Boardmember Baltay asked staff to remember that the architect stated the glass was feasible. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about a foundation wall and its proximity to the creek. Mr. Galbraith explained they did extensive work on that issue with the Board in charge of the creek. The foundation will be constructed deep enough that surcharge loads against the wall are avoided. Chair Thompson asked for the ARB’s opinion on Boardmember Lew’s comment about shielding the light. Boardmember Baltay did not see that as a reasonable requirement. Boardmember Lew asked staff to explain the requirements regarding light spill. Mr. Sauls explained that 18.23.30 regulates lighting on commercial properties. The project fronts the creek, and the code is specific to residential properties. There is a condition of approval that identifies lighting between 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. should be reduced to security lighting. He noted that as an office building the property would generally not be in use during that timeframe. Chair Thompson asked if Boardmember Lew still supported protecting light off the edge. Boardmember Lew said that he only supported it if it was a code issue. Mr. Sauls stated the code only regulates commercial to residential light spillage. Boardmember Thompson commented that he found the steel structure to be an interesting method of enclosing the space by providing the extension to the perimeter. He questioned the shading device at first but trusts that the architects looked at solar angles. He saw it as a defining element of the outdoor space. Chair Thompson called for a Motion. MOTION: Boardmember Hirsch moved to approve the project in its entirety and detail. MOTION FAILED: Lack of second Boardmember Baltay asked if the ARB supported changing the privacy fencing in the front to more of a vine screen. Boardmember Lew stated he had no opinion on that issue as it was not addressed in code. Boardmember Baltay seconded the Motion. MOTION: Boardmember Hirsch moved, seconded by Boardmember Baltay to approve the project in its entirety and detail. MOTION PASSED: 4-0, Vice Chair Lee absent 4.a Packet Pg. 85 Page 11 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 Boardmember Baltay excused himself from the meeting and said he supported the meeting minutes as presented. 4. Discuss the Draft Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Work Plan, Suggest Changes, and Recommend Submitting the Draft Work Plan to the City Council; and Discuss the ARB's Annual and any Bylaw Changes Needed. Chair Thompson announced the opening of the item and asked Ms. French to report. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, gave a PowerPoint Presentation covering the ARB Draft Work Plan, which will be presented to the Council on June 21, 2021. The Work Plan and Handbook template were put together by Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning. Some of the items in the plan did not occur this year due to time constraints but will be done in 2022. The Council will provide feedback following its meeting and could always refer more items to the ARB. She stressed that the City was in the early stages of this new process and if the need arose the ARB could amend the Work Plan. The Work Plan is different than the old Annual Report process and the two could be merged in spring 2022, with a Bylaws change. The Work Plan cites ARB general purposes and contains a work chart which will be updated prior to the Council meeting with an at places memo. The ARB Awards were skipped in 2020 and will be held in the late summer/fall of 2020. The Work Plan also contains Comp Plan policies that the ARB is considering tackling. Chair Thompson confirmed there was still a quorum. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, indicated she was on the teleconference from vacation. She noted that they had not had a deep conversation about the Comprehensive Plan but there may be a few the ARB wanted to focus on. Chair Thompson directed attention to Packet Page 124, Work Plan, and requested Ms. French share that on her screen. Ms. Gerhardt explained the Work Plan contained the ongoing review of projects, Objective Standards, and ARB Awards. The completed projects from 2015 to 2020 are eligible for ARB Awards and staff will provide the ARB with a list of eligible projects. she suggested setting a retreat time to review the projects. The Work Plan also includes changes to the Bylaws and the possibility of merging the Work Plan with the Annual Report. Chair Thompson said that the Annual Report was currently in the Bylaws. Ms. Gerhardt said that the Council would receive the Work Plan as a forward-looking document, while the Annual Report was a look backwards. In 2022 the two could possibly be merged. Ms. French explained that the Annual Report was usually done in advance of a joint meeting between the ARB and Council. Ms. Gerhardt suggested the joint hearing be requested in the at places memo. Ms. French said that Planning Director Jonathan Lait would address the timing of the joint meetings and when they would resume. 4.a Packet Pg. 86 Page 12 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 Chair Thompson suggested looking into the Comprehensive Plan line item. Ms. French displayed a slide of some of the Community Design Policies from the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan. Ms. Gerhardt said in the past the ARB focused on pedestrian access and walkability and capturing that in the Objective Standards. She asked the ARB if they had any issues like that they wished to focus on in the coming year. Ms. French displayed a second slide of the Community Design Policies from the Land Use Element of the Comprehensive Plan and gave examples of potential ARB projects. Boardmember Lew stated that in the past Boardmembers had mentioned updating the South El Camino Design Guidelines and writing a separate set of guidelines for San Antonio Road. Chair Thompson asked if Boardmember Lew wanted to do either of those items. Boardmember Lew said that he was not sure and provided examples of past occasions where those items were discussed without consensus. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about policies requiring greater density in housing and the potential impacts to the Comprehensive Plan. He also asked about the Ventura plan and its impacts and stated the ARB should review the plan. Ms. French explained the Housing Element Working Group selects sites and through that process there are opportunities for learning and discussion. Ms. Gerhardt agreed but stated she would put in the memo that the ARB would like to be involved regarding potential height increases. Ms. French said that typically after the Housing Element legislation is introduced to implement the policies. That could alter the Zoning Codes and Development Standards and should involve the PTC and ARB. Boardmember Hirsch understood but stated that how to and where to increase density is a planning activity. Ms. Gerhardt said that the increase in Regional Housing Needs Assessment (RHNA) numbers will have to be handled by Council. How that conversation will evolve is unknown. She thought it would be good to note that the ARB wanted to be involved in the conversation. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Chair Thompson asked if Staff was requesting the ARB approve the Work Plan. Ms. Gerhardt explained approval was necessary in order to be ready for the Council meeting on June 21, 2021. Ms. French stressed that changes could be made later. 4.a Packet Pg. 87 Page 13 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 Chair Thompson voiced regret that two Boardmembers were absent for the conversation and disliked the question mark in the Comprehensive Plan description for the programs. She thought bird friendly design was an interesting subject and could be made part of the retreat and discussed how pedestrian friendly University Avenue is now. She voiced hope that Council would continue supporting the trends on University and Cal Avenues. Ms. Gerhardt said that staff had time to make edits prior to the Council meeting so they would remove the question mark and state that the ARB will explore the policies it wants to focus on. Chair Thompson agreed. Boardmember Lew inquired about equity in work, including measuring community engagement on projects, and a possible public survey. He noted Council’s interest in public engagement. Ms. Gerhardt responded that some Council Members spoke of equity in terms of participation and allowing the public to continue to call in using Zoom and suggested the ARB could support that. There also could be diversity proposals related to equity but that would come from Council. Surveys take staff time and money and would require Council approve. MOTION: Boardmember Lew moved, seconded by Chair Thompson to adopt staff’s Draft Work Plan with edits stating that the ARB will explore which existing Comprehensive Plan policies to pursue further in 2022. MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Boardmember Baltay and Vice Chair Lee absent Ms. Gerhardt excused herself from the meeting. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 15, 2021 MOTION: Boardmember Lew moved, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch to approve the Minutes for the ARB meeting for April 15, 2021. MOTION PASSED: 3-0, Boardmember Baltay and Vice Chair Lee absent Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates – Boardmember Lew Boardmember Lew reported the Council met on June 14, 2021, and took 22 public comments then held debate. The Council closed the hearing by unanimous vote without taking any action and will reopen the hearing in the fall. There are two houses with Accessory Dwelling Units (ADU) that have been submitted within the plan area despite the plan not being finished. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if Boardmember Lew supported 3B. Boardmember Lew said he abstained as did the Planning Commissioner on the Working Group. Boardmember Hirsch suggested setting a date to review the latest Objective Standards. 4.a Packet Pg. 88 Page 14 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 Chair Thompson stated the ARB received the updated graphics and needs to provide feedback. She suggested speaking over the weekend or early the following week. Adjournment Chair Thompson adjourned the meeting at 12:04 p.m. 4.a Packet Pg. 89 Page 15 of 15 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 6/17/2021 DocuSign Envelope ID: 9A9E295C-5C5C-4EAB-AB2F-2CE48FA01EFE Architectural Review Board Ad Hoc Committee Review TO: SUBJECT: DATE: FROM: Randy Popp, Randy Popp Architect 4256 El Camino Real Parking Revisions [21PLN-00034] June 24, 2021 Samuel Gutierrez, Planner The application, and plans dated June 24, 2021, were reviewed by the ARB Ad Hoc Committee on June 17, 2021, in accordance with condition of approval #5, as stated below. The ARB Ad Hoc Committee comprised of Board member David Hirsch and Chair Osma Thomson presided. 5. ARB Ad Hoc Review: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB for Ad Hoc review approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning & Development Services: A. Project plans are required that include interior floor plans for the lobby staircase to ensure that the proposed garage changes do not change the exterior design of the building. At the virtual meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee reviewed the submitted plans and agreed that the approved garage revisions to the previously approved hotel project at 4256 El Camino Real did not significantly alter the exterior of the hotel project. No conditions were added by the Ad Hoc Committee. The applicant will ensure the building permit plans are consistent with the approved parking garage revision plans as approved on June 4, 2021, and as reviewed by the Ad Hoc Committee. This letter shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s). PLANNER’S SIGNATURE 4.a Packet Pg. 90