Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-09-02 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: September 2, 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 Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. As Requested by Mr. Sommer, This is a Discussion on the Color of one Pole Located Within the University Avenue Caltrain Station _______________________ 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. 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 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 555 Middlefield Road [19PLN-00413]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Board Level Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Modifications to the Facade of an Existing Medical Office Building and Other Minor Site Improvements. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From CEQA per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple- Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 15, 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 # 13527) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 9/2/2021 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 Cancelled 9/2/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 9/9/2021 10:00 AM Virtual Meeting RETREAT 9/16/2021 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Cancelled 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 September 9, 2021 ARB Retreat • ARB Awards: Initial Discussion • Discuss how the ARB defines high quality development 1.b Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13419) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 9/2/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: University Avenue Caltrain Station Pole Color Title: As Requested by Mr. Sommer, This is a Discussion on the Color of one Pole Located Within the University Avenue Caltrain Station From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) discuss Mr. Sommer’s request. Discussion Topic As part of the electrification of Caltrain, several tall poles have been placed along the tracks. As noted in Mr. Sommer’s letter (Attachment A), he is concerned with the color of one of the University Avenue station poles that can be seen from his upper floor residential unit. Background In 2019, the Joint Powers Board for Caltrain presented pole colors to the City’s Historic Resources Board (HRB) and ARB at a total of three public hearing. The HRB recommended tan- colored poles at the University Avenue station to match the historic University Avenue station buildings. This recommendation was supported by the ARB, and the ARB recommended other colors (green and black) elsewhere. Details of these hearings can be found below. January 10, 2019 ARB/HRB joint meeting: Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68341 Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74504 Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-1102019/ The January 2019 staff report and minutes are attached to this report (Attachment C and D). This report provides background from the two earlier public hearings; however, links to the reports, minutes and video are also provided below. At this hearing, the HRB Chair strongly recommended that the “poles in front of the University Avenue station match that station patina” (i.e. tan). The ARB then voted to go with Option 1, which included tan (FS23522) for the 2 Packet Pg. 9 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 University Avenue station poles, black (FS27040) for the California Avenue station poles, and marine green (FS 14052) for poles elsewhere. November 15, 2018 ARB hearing: Staff Report: https://bit.ly/Nov152018StaffReport Minutes: https://bit.ly/Nov152018Minutes Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-11152018/ At this first hearing, there was no concurrence from the ARB regarding the range of colors presented. November 8, 2018 HRB hearing: Staff Report: https://bit.ly/Nov82018HRBstaffreport Minutes: https://bit.ly/Nov82018HRBminutes Video: https://midpenmedia.org/historic-resources-board-46-11718/ At this first hearing, the HRB generally came to a consensus that included using tan (FS23522) for the Palo Alto (University Avenue) station poles and dark green (FS 14052) elsewhere but agreed to continue the conversation at a joint meeting with the ARB. Analysis1 In September of 2020, Mr. Sommer began contacting the Caltrain/JPB staff about the tan pole he could now see from his unit, over the tops of existing trees. He asked if the pole could be repainted forest green. A few days later, CalTrain/JPB staff responded that “the selection of the beige color was done in coordination with the City of Palo Alto and is a common color for poles located near stations”…“Once the poles have been procured and placed, we are not able to change the colors of those poles.” Mr. Sommer continued his discussion with CalTrain/JPB staff and copied City Council starting in December of 2020. At one point, CalTrain/JPB staff said they could not repaint the pole due to budgetary concerns, to which Mr. Sommer asked for a quote for such repainting with the idea that the City might be willing to pay for this change. After internal discussions, Caltrain/JPB staff decided that they were not comfortable providing Mr. Sommer with an estimate to repaint the pole, because of the precedent it would create, as well as liabilities to the agency. The City Manager communicated this decision to the City 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. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Council in February 2021 with the understanding that Caltrain/JPB staff would communicate directly with Mr. Sommer (Attachment B). It should be noted that CalTrain/JPB staff stated that the poles are powder coated and would likely need to be taken down to be re-coated in a different color, rather than repainted in place. Beginning in April 2021, Mr. Sommer began emailing staff and the ARB stating, “for my home (5 floors above street level) …, your pole color to match the station exterior, has had the exact opposite effect … What was a beautiful view of Stanford campus and the Santa Cruz Mountains, has become a daily eye-sore. I cannot look outside, without seeing a huge beige pole, staring me in the face. My million-dollar view has dropped to zero.” On April 23, 2021, Boardmember Baltay emailed Mr. Sommer suggesting “voice your concerns at our next meeting. We take input on matters not on our agenda at the start of every meeting. You might request that the Chair put this issue on a future agenda so we can formally discuss the matter.” While these emails were announced at a few ARB meetings, Mr. Sommer did not appear at any summer hearings, and unfortunately Mr. Sommer’s May 2021 request for a hearing had a delayed response from staff. On July 23, 2021, staff informed Mr. Sommer that the Chair had requested his item be heard by the ARB. While we are open to the discussion, it is staff’s opinion that the ARB’s opportunity to review the pole colors has passed. The electrification of Caltrain is a State project and therefore outside the City’s jurisdiction. The project’s environmental review included a requirement to received feedback from neighboring cities, but the EIR only required the State get a recommendation from these adjacent cities; the State retains jurisdiction over this decision. ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Mr. Sommer's Request Letter (PDF) • Attachment B: February 16, 2021 Email from Caltrain (DOCX) • Attachment C: January 10, 2019 ARB Staff Report (PDF) • Attachment D: January 10, 2019 ARB minutes (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 11 August 8, 2021 Page 1 of 7 Martin J Sommer, Palo Alto, CA Dear Palo Alto Architectural Review Board (ARB), Thank you for taking time to listen, and read this document. Summary On January 10, 2019, the ARB gave their recommendation for pole colors to Caltrain, for the University Ave. Station. I am writing to request that you reopen this item, add it to your September 2 agenda, allow me to present my case, and ultimately ask Caltrain to repaint the 11 poles to the City standard color of Marine Green. The following, is my reasoning: 1) City of Palo Alto (City), Jonathan Lait, November 15, 2018, "The goal is for the ARB to provide feedback on the color selection, with the intent that the poles can better blend or fade into the background." 2) Brent Tietjen, Caltrain, Jan 10, 2019, “Center poles, are in the 35 foot range”. Neither of these two stated objectives were met. 1) The beige poles do not “blend” into the natural green environment of University Station, and 2) the installed 45 foot poles, are 25% higher than presented to the ARB, and should have been brought back to the City for review. Every day mistakes are made, and ultimately corrected. I am proposing that was simply a mistake, and should be corrected before the Caltrain line is electrified. Below, is a description of what occurred, its impact, and what can be done. The Promise Figure 1. The future of University Ave Station. 2.a Packet Pg. 12 August 8, 2021 Page 2 of 7 Martin J Sommer, Palo Alto, CA Shown above in Figure 1, is the most publicly distributed picture of what an electrified Caltrain would look like at the Palo Alto University Ave Station. Notice the: 1) dark colored poles, 2) pole-height equal to the top of the rail contact wires, and 3) symmetrical north/south design. Figures 2 and 3, Proposed vs delivered Figures 2 and 3 above, shows what was proposed, vs delivered. Notice the: 1) light colored poles, 3) pole-height 30% higher than the top of the rail contact wires, and 3) unsymmetrical north/south design. This is a catastrophe, to any esthetic designer. What happened? One of the issues contributing to this result, was the idea of matching the station “building”, vs the station “surrounding area”. Given the actual station building is only a small part of the surrounding area, pole color matched to the building, is completely out of sync with its surrounding area. What we have now, are huge poles that project above the tree tops, Figure 3, and tall poles conflicting with the surrounding natural environment, figure 4. An intentionally good decision, resulted in an environmental disaster. 2.a Packet Pg. 13 August 8, 2021 Page 3 of 7 Martin J Sommer, Palo Alto, CA Figure 4, Pole projecting above the tree tops. Figure 5, Poles conflicting with nature, and all other surrounding poles. 2.a Packet Pg. 14 August 8, 2021 Page 4 of 7 Martin J Sommer, Palo Alto, CA In essence: • Poles were painted beige to match the “building”, vs the standard City marine green to match (blend in with) the surrounding “environment”. It’s worth noting, that the other 2 Palo Alto stations both have dark poles, even though California Ave Station shown in Figure 6, has a beige building. • Caltrain installed 45 foot center poles, which are 10 feet taller than the 35 foot poles presented to the City ARB. A 25% increase in height (30% above the rail contact wires), should have been passed back to the City for review. Ref Figures 2, 3, and 4 above. • Caltrain installed a taller center pole configuration, where individual poles on the north and south bound platforms could have reduced the required height. Shorter individual poles, were used on both California Ave and Stan Antonia Stations, Figures 6 and 7. California Ave Station: Figure 6, dark poles and beige building, and Figure 7, short pole, platform mounted. How is this impacting the neighbors? The taller beige poles sticking over tree tops and against side trees, Figures 4, 5, and 8, are creating a tremendous eye sore, generating a more stressful environment, and lowering property values for downtown Palo Alto residents. If you think about the amount of time, 2.a Packet Pg. 15 August 8, 2021 Page 5 of 7 Martin J Sommer, Palo Alto, CA effort, and money that is put into blending cell-towers into our town, there is no way that this would be accepted. The question, is why are City officials accepting it here? This decision to place beige poles to blend in with the station “buildings”, completely missed the perspective of homeowners living above street level, and office dwellers gazing outdoors, for a clear perspective. As a matter of fact, you look closely at figures 1 and 5, the beige poles do not even match the grey light poles, already in place. Figure 8, Neighborhood blight. What can be done? So, at this point, what can be done? A number of things: 1) Replace the taller beige poles, with the originally proposed shorter beige poles. 2) Paint the top half of the taller beige poles, the standard Palo Alto marine green. 3) Paint all beige poles at University Ave Station marine green, to match the standard City color. 2.a Packet Pg. 16 August 8, 2021 Page 6 of 7 Martin J Sommer, Palo Alto, CA I am asking the ARB, to propose Option 3 to Caltrain, and ask them to paint all 11 beige poles at University Ave station the standard marine green color, and to paint them before the line is electrified. Doing this before electrification, will minimized costs and schedule impact. It will also fix a bad mistake, and give us a system to be proud of. Other mistakes being fixed? Are there other Caltrain mistakes, and are they being fixed? Yes, there are other mistakes being made with the Caltrain Electrification project, and yes, they are being corrected. Figure 9, for example, is a pole foundation hole cut into the California Ave station north bound platform, that: a) clearly was a mistake, and b) is being ramified, by using a larger pole on the opposite side. The point is, we all make mistakes, and we typically do our best to correct them. The original choice of pole color for the University Ave station, should be no exception. Figure 9, Misdrilled pole foundation hole, in California Ave station northbound platform. 2.a Packet Pg. 17 August 8, 2021 Page 7 of 7 Martin J Sommer, Palo Alto, CA The ask … I am asking for the ARB and City of palo Alto, to request Caltrain to paint all beige poles at University Ave Station the standard marine green. This will give a solution we can live with for many years, and a design we can be proud of. Figure 10, show a standard City marine green pole, just outside the University Ave station. Had Caltrain continued through the station with this color, it would have blended quite well. Figure 10, A standard City marine green pole, just north of the University Ave station. If the ARB would like to see in person the physical perspective of the photos in this report, and stay within the Brown Act, I ask the ARB to appoint a 2-person ad-hoc committee to visit my home, take notes, and report back. We can also, tour the location of other photos taken. 2.a Packet Pg. 18 From: CalMod@caltrain.com <CalMod@caltrain.com> Sent: Tuesday, February 16, 2021 8:42 AM To: martin@sommer.net; CalMod@caltrain.com Cc: Board (@caltrain.com) <BoardCaltrain@samtrans.com>; Council, City <city.council@cityofpaloalto.org>; Pat Burt <pat@patburt.org> Subject: RE: University Ave Beige Pole Color CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. Hi Martin, Thanks for your patience as I brought this to the appropriate teams internally. As mentioned previously, the color of the poles in the station have been reviewed and chosen by the Architectural Resource Board (ARB) and the Historic Resource Board (HRB). The three HRB and ARB public meetings were held in November 2018 and January 2019. This process for input on the pole colors selection follows the agreed upon requirements included in the City of Palo Alto/Caltrain Comprehensive Agreement that was approved by City Council and executed by both parties in January 2019. The poles within the station are power-coated (long-lasting paint) and shipped to the Caltrain property. To change the color would require sand blasting the existing poles which could cause delay and inefficiency claims by the Contractor for the testing of the Overhead Contact System. Given all of this information, we are not able to accommodate your request. For further reference, City staff provided a link to the January 10, 2019 ARB/HRB joint meeting minutes which can be found here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/74504. And the staff report for the item is here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68341. This report provides background from the two November 2018 public hearings which included color discussions by the commissioners. The City also provided the attached screenshots from the January 2019 minutes regarding the color selection from the commissioners. Best, Brent Tietjen, Government and Community Relations Officer SamTrans | Caltrain | TA 1250 San Carlos Ave. San Carlos, CA 94070-1306 tietjenb@samtrans.com 2.b Packet Pg. 19 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 9888) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/10/2019 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project Overhead Contact System Title: PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact System Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Historic Resources Board (HRB) and Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Provide comments on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCEP) Overhead Contact System (OCS) paint samples and pole designs proposed within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way. Report Summary Caltrain Joint Powers Board (JPB) seeks input on the PCEP (conversion of Caltrain from diesel- hauled trains to electrically-powered trains) OCS design for improvements within JPB right of way. The subject project “65% plans” were previously reviewed by the HRB and ARB on November 8 and November 15, 2018. The January 10, 2019 joint meeting of the HRB and ARB will allow expedited review of the information requested by the boards in November 2018. 2 Packet Pg. 8 2.c Packet Pg. 20 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 2 Earlier staff reports included background information; those reports are available online. Copies of the staff reports without prior attachments are available in Attachment A and B (HRB and ARB staff reports, respectively). The City Council, on consent calendar agenda of December 17, 2018, authorized the City Manager to enter into a Comprehensive Agreement with the JPB. The December 17th packet is viewable here: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/68157. The draft Agreement had been considered by the Council Rail Committee on September 26, 2018 (https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/blobdload.aspx?t=60164.71&BlobID=66798). The December 17 Council report provides a summary of the committee’s recommendations. Background On November 8 and 15, 2018 the HRB and ARB, respectively, reviewed the project. Video recordings of the boards’ meetings are available online: x HRB video: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/historic-resources-board/. One public speaker spoke to the HRB. x ARB video: http://midpenmedia.org/category/government/city-of-palo-alto/boards- and-commissions/architectural-review-board/. x HRB Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67562 x ARB Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/67647 Excerpt meeting minutes are attached to this report. The HRB minutes were provided to the ARB members by email prior to the November 15th hearing. The HRB minutes are attached (Attachment C) to this report. The ARB minutes are also attached (Attachment D). HRB Summary On November 8, 2018, two members of the public commented: x Martin Bernstein (as an individual) regarding the color and compatibility of poles, and x Herb Borock (via letter included as page 72 of the November 15, 2018 ARB packet). The HRB voted 5-0-1-1 (Wimmer absent, Bernstein not participating as a member due to conflict) on motion made by HRB member Bower, seconded by HRB member Corey. HRB member questions, comments and responses are captured in the below table. HRB Questions Project Team Response Were battery powered trains explored? Battery powered trains were not explored as part of the EIR. Reasonable alternatives to the project were considered (see Chapter 5 (Alternatives) of the FEIR. Will poles line up with other poles? The designer considered technical, operations & maintenance, utility conflicts and right-of way factors to determine pole locations and these factors generally prevent poles being placed in line with existing poles. In addition, existing poles are typically existing utilities, which requires a defined clearance based on the project’s design criteria. What size trees will be planted and why is the The replacement tree size depends on the tree it is replacing and the 1:1 ratio is the minimum replacement ratio for 2 Packet Pg. 9 2.c Packet Pg. 21 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 3 ratio a 1:1 tree replacement ratio? Cities along the Caltrain corridor (chosen as the tree replacement standard in Caltrain ROW). Bridge clearance? The distance from wire to the bottom of truss is 10.5” and the clearance from the top of the rail to contact wire within the San Francisquito Bridge is 19.81’ Will HRB see the paralleling station design? JPB will submit the station design in January and HRB will get a set (may be 100% design). What is the pole height and stability of poles in the event of earthquakes? The 75’ tall poles will be utility poles installed by utilities to avoid conflicts with Caltrain overhead contact system. Caltrain’s overhead contact system poles will range between 30-45.5’, depending on pole type. Seismic load is one of the loads analyzed in the overall design of the foundations, however the wind load is the governing load that ultimately drives the design. HRB Comments Project Team Response The attachment to the San Francisquito Bridge should avoid impacting the historic resource, follow SISRs Secretary of the Interior’s Standards will be followed Palo Alto’s Urban Forester should be called to observe work near El Palo Alto No response provided (Urban Forestry will be involved due to the tree’s significance) Consensus: Use tan (FS23522) for PA Depot poles and the green color (FS 14052) elsewhere Color discussion continued – colors will be discussed in a joint meeting with the ARB Palo Alto Depot poles must be contextually appropriate – minimize presence, not in front of depot if possible No response provided; no change in plans after 11/8 Locate the paralleling station near California Av Paralleling Station is proposed next to Park Plaza 2 Packet Pg. 10 2.c Packet Pg. 22 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 4 ARB Summary On November 15, 2018, there were no public speakers. The ARB provided input on screening vegetation (asking JPB to provide additional, native species plants including shrubs), placement of poles (with a note that center pole placement is preferred), finishes of poles and the structures in the proposed paralleling station (no concurrence on color selection among the range of paint colors displayed electronically, and thoughts shared about public art on the paralleling station structure(s)). The ARB voted to have the JPB staff return to present actual paint chips reflecting color options, and additional information about the various proposed pole styles (including clarification about where tapered vs. non-tapered poles are proposed). ARB member questions, comments and responses are provided in the below table. ARB Comments Project Team Response Screening vegetation – need more native trees and shrubs Staff will be able to review the 100% drawings to see whether additional vegetation in JPB ROW is proposed Pole placement, finishes need further review See below response to questions Need color sample actual paint chips (non-consensus on pole color) Paint samples for poles and paralleling station will be presented 1-10-19 Need information on pole styles – clarification as to where tapered vs. non-tapered proposed Caltrain will have technical staff in attendance to provide more detailed information about pole types and configurations. ARB Questions Project Team Response Why are the side poles preferred by Caltrain? Side poles are preferred by Caltrain for operations and maintenance and considerations. This configuration allows Caltrain to maintain revenue service if the poles or wires were damaged or being maintained on the adjacent track. When maintenance is required on a center pole, both tracks have to be taken out of service, which has the potential to impact Caltrain revenue service. How will the painted poles be maintained? The poles will be added to the routine maintenance program implemented by Caltrain. The paint has a 10 year life cycle and poles will be painted as needed. Will there be any unpainted (galvanized) poles in Palo Alto? No, all poles in Palo Alto are planned to be painted. Poles outside of the station areas will be painted Marine Green per Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Program (MMRP). Poles within station areas will be painted per the City of Palo Alto’s selection. Is there a plan to replace lights at stations with LEDs? Caltrain is replacing station lights with newer LEDs throughout the system as needed. There are no specific plans to replace lights at the Palo Alto stations at this time. Why is there barbed wire fencing along Alma? Caltrain has a program to install fencing along the Caltrain right-of-way to deter and prevent trespassing. Caltrain, at the request of the City, installed the additional three foot extension along Alma Street. 2 Packet Pg. 11 2.c Packet Pg. 23 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 5 Comprehensive Agreement The Council Rail Committee’s recommendations included a proposal to delete Caltrain staff’s term “courtesy” to describe the HRB and ARB review purview. The Council December 17, 2018 report regarding the Comprehensive Agreement (ID #9873) included the agreement, which includes a Section 6, “General Commitments” Item N “Design Review”. Agreement Section 6 described the JPB’s agreements to: x “provide information regarding the following Project elements to the City for ARB review and recommendation to the City Planning Director: (a) OCS Poles, including pole design, color, location, and configuration (e.g. gull-wing versus standard design); (b) Proposals for vegetation removal and plans for Project screening ;and (c) Paralleling Station(s)”; x “provide information to the HRB regarding the final design of any Project elements or features adjacent to, or with the potential to impact the historical resources specifically identified in section (5)(C)(2),any other designated historical resources within the City.” Agreement Section 5, “Extent of City Review of Issued for Construction Plans” states, “Since JPB is exempt from local planning and building regulation, submittal of information and plans to the City is for the purposes of a courtesy review only, with the exception of any required work that alters or replaces City Improvements, in which case the City shall have 21 business days to review the Issued for Construction Plans.” The December 17, 2018 Council report (ID #9873) notes ,“Caltrain has agreed to remove the term “courtesy” from the description of their review process with the City and its Boards.” On December 17, 2018, Council adopted the agreement on consent, allowing three Councilmembers who requested to submit comments to submit them to staff after the Council meeting. Analysis1 Pole Types and Colors The pole types were indicated on OCS Foundation and Pole Layouts plans, OCS Basic Design Poles and Structures package provided in late 2018 to the ARB and HRB. None of the poles are proposed within the City’s rights of way. Proposed pole color recommendations are under consideration. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to take an alternative action from the recommendation in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 12 2.c Packet Pg. 24 City of Palo Alto Planning & Community Environment Department Page 6 At the January 10, 2019 public hearing, the HRB and ARB will be able to view paint samples showing several color options for the two train depots in Palo Alto, and for the Stadium stop (near Town and Country Shopping Center). The project team will also present additional information about the pole types and confirm the location of each type (assuming the information is known at this stage). Environmental Review The earlier staff reports reported the CEQA status of the project. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments Notice of a joint public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on December 21, 2018 (28 days in advance of the meeting). Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received (other than Mr. Borock letter that was included in the November 15, 2018 ARB packet). Report Author & Contact Information ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Amy French, AICP, Chief Planning Official Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2336 (650) 329-2575 Amy.french@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: x Attachment A: HRB Staff Report November 8, 2018 Without Attachments (DOC) x Attachment B: ARB Staff Report November 15, 2018 Without Attachments (DOC) x Attachment C: HRB Excerpt Minutes 11-8-18 (DOCX) x Attachment D: ARB Excerpt Minutes 11-15-18 (DOCX) x Attachment E: Memo Regarding Color Samples (ARB and HRB Members to Receive Hard Copies) (DOCX) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 13 2.c Packet Pg. 25 City of Palo Alto Page 1 Call to Order/Roll Call Present: Architectural Review Board: Chair Wynne Furth, Vice Chair Peter Baltay, Board Member Alexander Lew, Board Member David Hirsch Historic Resources Board: Chair David Bower, Vice Chair Brandon Corey, Board Member Makinen, Board Member Martin Bernstein Absent: Architectural Review Board: Board Member Osma Thompson Historic Resources Board: Board Member Margaret Wimmer, Board Member Roger Kohler, Board Member Deborah Shepherd Chair Furth: Welcome to a Special Meeting of the Architectural Review Board and the Historic Resources Board on January 10, 2019 for the City of Palo Alto. Would staff please call the roll. [Roll Call] Chair Furth: Okay, we have four out and three present, four present, okay, so each Board has a quorum. Oral Communications Chair Furth: Are there any oral communications? I see no one in the audience, so I believe the answer is no. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Chair Furth: Any agenda changes, additions or deletions staff? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: None. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items. Chair Furth: We have a City Official Report, the transmission of the ARB meeting schedules, etc. I think we had a subcommittee to schedule for the 17th for the project at the intersection of, what is it, Charleston, no, Charleston and El Camino, or Meadow and El Camino. Across the street from the Goodwill. East Meadow. There’s an actual address. Alex would you serve on that subcommittee with me? ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD and HISTORIC RESOURCES BOARD MINUTES: January 10, 2019 City Hall/City Council Chambers 250 Hamilton Avenue 8:30 AM 8:30 AM 2.d Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto Page 2 Board Member Lew: Yes. Chair Furth: So, Board Member Lew and I will serve on that subcommittee. Ms. Amy French: Thank you, so noted. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING: Historic Resources Board and Architectural Review Board Input on Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project (PCP) Overhead Contact System Foundation & Pole Layouts Design for Installation Within Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) Right of Way in Palo Alto. Environmental Assessment: The JPB Certified the Final Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and Adopted a Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan (MMRP) in January 2015, Following Publication of the Draft EIR in February 2014 for Public Comment. For More Information Contact the Chief Planning Official Amy French at amy.french@ityofpaloalto.org. Chair Furth: Our first action item is a public hearing between, involving the Historic Resources Board and the Architectural Review Board for consultation with the Peninsula, on the Peninsula Corridor Electrification Project, known as the PCP, overhead contact system foundation and pole layouts designed for installation within the Caltrain Peninsula Corridor Joint Powers Board (JPB) right of way in Palo Alto. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for this project was certified in January 2015. Are there any comments before we begin? Board Member Bernstein. Board Member Bernstein: Thank you Chair Furth. I received a ruling from the Fair Political Practice Commission, as I won property within five hundred feet of the railroad right of way, I won’t be able to participate in this item. Thank you. Chair Furth: We will miss you. So, we no longer have a quorum of the HRB, but we would ask them to sit with us and consult and deliberate with us, as we hear this report, those members who remain, in their individual capacities. Thank you. Staff? Ms. Amy French, Chief Planning Official: Thank you, good morning. Amy French, Chief Planning Official. We visited with the HRB on November 8 and the ARB on November 15. The report captures the comments and questions of both Boards, with responses as received from the Project Team, who are here today. Three members of the Caltrain’s Electrification Project Team, and they will be giving a presentation. First, I’ll just give a brief overview and that is, again, we are here for color selection specifically, and what happened at the ARB meeting in November was a continuation to receive actual color samples. The color samples have been presented at the front. They are powder-coated metal in four different colors. The color selection, they have requested that we submit our color selection as a City by tomorrow, January 11, so we would appreciate kind of final comments from both Boards, or members of the HRB and the collective ARB. The color can be the same everywhere, or there an be differences. We had, with the HRB, a suggestion that the Downtown Station or Palo Alto Station near University, have, and this is very bright yellow but I don’t think that’s the intent, the color sample there shows a warm color in an attempt to mimic the color at the station there. So, that was one item that the HRB suggested, was to be compatible with the station there. The Stanford Station here on the screen shows a green color. I believe the HRB suggested that the rest of the poles be green throughout the City, so here’s an image showing that. And then the California Avenue Station here is showing a black color, I believe that’s black and that is another possibility certainly among the, these are three of the four samples that you have. Moving on, the paralleling station there near the Park Plaza Project, 195 Page Mill, is another place that color choices are available for discussion, and I’ll let the project team cover this. They have these slides as well in their presentation. One thing that came up was the letter, as mentioned, from Mr. Borock. We had presented this in November about the fact that pruning work had begun and that pruning work would resume and the team can say more about that, but this slide had been presented back in November, so we were aware that there was tree activity. And that concludes 2.d Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto Page 3 staff’s presentation. I’m going to switch this to the applicant’s presentation. Are there questions of staff while we’re uploading? Chair Bower: In response to Herb Borock’s email to the HRB and the ARB, I’d like to point out for anyone who actually watches this that the Caltrain MOD.org website has a place where you can sign up for weekly updates on where the construction is occurring. Correct me if I’m wrong, but I get those now and they’re pretty thorough and you can keep track of where construction and what kind of construction is going on in the corridor, throughout the entire corridor by signing up for that. Brent Tietjen, Government and Communications Relations Officer for Caltrain: Thanks for prefacing that Chair David, or Chair Bower, excuse me. Yes, you can sign up by calmod.org/get-involved. You can enter Palo Alto as your city of residence, and we do send weekly updates to all folks who interested about construction along the whole corridor, but we also send updates just to work that’s happening in Palo Alto. If a new phase of work is starting, we send out an update to the City as well. So, thank you all again for having us here today. Myself, I’m Brent Tietjen, here with Lynn Guan (phonetic) and Stacy Cocke from the Caltrain Electrification Project, here to give you an update on the pole color selection that was continued from the last ARB meeting in November. So, a quick reminder of what the Caltrain Electrification Project is, we are electrifying the 61 miles of track that JPB Caltrain owns from San Francisco to San Jose Tamien Station. The Electrification Project is really just an infrastructure project where we are electrifying the current tracks. We are installing concrete foundations in the ground, poles atop those foundations, and then connecting the poles to wires and the train, which will convert to electric from diesel. We are converting 75% of our fleet from diesel to electric. Our speed will remain the same at 79 miles per hours. The project, however, will allow us to increase from five train an hour currently to six trains an hour per direction. That will allow us to have more station stops, will reduce travel time or a mix of both. As part of the project, we are also committed to restoring both Atherton and Broadway service on the weekdays, and we will continue to have tenant service, ACE, capital corridor, Amtrak and freight operate on the corridor underneath the wires. A quick look at the schedule, this is a log time coming. Back in 1999 it was first introduced in this strategic plan for Caltrain. More than 20 years later we’re under construction. Groundbreaking happened in 2017 with quite a bit of work happening last year in 2018, and continuing until 2021 for construction. And then there will be some testing between 2021 and 2022 and we hope to have passenger service in early 2022. So, there was a request last time for renderings of the stations with poles. We do have color samples that Amy provided and I have additional ones here. I’ll bring one up for each different station. This will be Palo Alto Station. So, for Palo Alto station our architectural consultants suggested this warmer yellow/tan color to match the historic station at Palo Alto. Chair Furth: I just note that in this light, it’s a long way from yellow. Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, these slides don’t do it justice. I will also note that these chips are glossy; however, the poles will be matte, powder coat matte. Chair Furth: You’re proposing matte? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, although all the poles along the corridor will be matte to reduce glare. I don’t know if you want to take each station. I’ll defer to the Chairs, if you want to take each station? Chair Furth: I think if you’d tell us what the meaning of these various samples is, that would be helpful, and then we can have our discussion. Mr. Tietjen: Sure. These were recommended by our architectural consultants. The first one was… Chair Furth: The warmer one. Mr. Tietjen: The warmer, the tan, which was the recommended color based on the matching of the station. 2.d Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Page 4 Chair Furth: Right, and these don’t have names, these just have numbers. Is that right? Mr. Tietjen: They should have names. They should have Palo Alto Station recommended. Chair Furth: Oh, but the colors don’t have names. We have to refer to it as FS349, 3649? Mr. Tietjen: Correct. They don’t have names. I think you an refer to them as the tan, gray and brown for these… Chair Furth: So, you have three alternative proposed colors for the Palo Alto Stations? Mr. Tietjen: Correct, yes. And the tan is recommended per our architectural consultant and historical consultant. Chair Furth: And then the other selection that we had, the other group of, are these duplicates of the ones we had earlier, no? Mr. Tietjen: So, you have two sets of each. This is just for Palo Alto Station. Chair Furth: Not the green. Mr. Tietjen: The green is not recommended for Palo Alto Station. (crosstalk) Chair Furth: … downtown Palo Alto. Mr. Tietjen: I wasn’t sure if you wanted to talk about each station individually, and then… Chair Furth: Why don’t you give us the whole array, and then we’ll deliberate. Mr. Tietjen: I’ll keep going then. So, yeah, these are just renderings of what Palo Alto Station would look like, the center poles, as well as side track poles at Palo Alto Station. This is a photo simulation looking from the west platform facing south. Again, these yellows aren’t doing it justice, but the chips are much closer to reality. This is typical of what a center pole would look like, the center poles. Poles in general range from 30 to 45½ feet. Center poles are in the 35-foot range. And this is typical of the side pole on the platform. The side poles are the shorter ones, in the 30 to 35-foot range. This may be hard (recording skipped) Chair Furth: …the minutes of our last meeting at this meeting, so I think we’re pretty familiar with the (crosstalk) presentation. Mr. Tietjen: Sure. So, this is just the designs for Palo Alto Station. You can see, it might be hard to see, but hopefully you can see on your screen, the stations are kind of hatched out here. So, this is the first set of the Palo Alto Station, and then this is the second. These small dots here are the poles. These will be center poles. These would be side poles, yeah, side poles here as well and the center pole. And this is just a summary of the color recommendations for all the stations, but I’ll continue going through for the rest of the stations, and we are seeking the ARB, HRB recommendation on station area pole colors. That recommendation would go to the City and the City would have the final say. This is a rendering from Alma Street facing north of Stanford Station. The only color recommended for Stanford Station was the marine green. Again, typical side poles for Stanford Station and with the current design, they are only side poles at Stanford Station. I will note on all these designs, it is only 65% and it is subject to change as we move further along. Again, the only color recommended for Stanford Station was marine green. And then finally, the photo simulation of California Avenue Station. Mostly side poles at California Avenue 2.d Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Page 5 Station. Black was the recommended color with brown a second and green, marine green as third. And the black was recommended to match the current poles and shelters at that station. Again, typical side poles for the station areas and design for California Avenue Station with side poles being highlighted about every 150 feet. So, that is it for the station areas. We do have color selection for the PS-5 paralleling station. I can go into that as well… Chair Furth: And what about the non-station poles? Mr. Tietjen: Those will all be marine green per the MMRP, the Monitoring and Mitigation Reporting Plan. Chair Furth: Well, we could change that. Okay, so to summarize, if it’s okay with the Board Members, I think it would be good to talk about the poles first, and then the paralleling station. Does that make sense? I’m seeing nodes. Mr. Tietjen: I’ll provide another set of chips as well, for both California and Stanford Station. Chair Furth: Great. So, marine green is the default color for poles in the City? This was described and defined in the Mitigation and Monitoring Report for the EIR. Mr. Tietjen: That’s correct. Chair Furth: (crosstalk) You’re also suggesting marine green for Stanford Station, which is sort of a wide place in the track, well not the track, the right of way. And black for California Avenue and what’s the name of the color at, that you’re recommending for the Palo Alto Station? Mr. Tietjen: I would say a tan to match the Palo Alto Station. Chair Furth: Okay. Who would like to begin? Alex. I was really impressed by Alex’s detailed review last time. Board Member Lew: Sure. I don’t think I have any comments today. I think we covered everything last time, and I don’t object to anything that’s been presented today. Chair Furth: So, you would second their recommendations as to color, or at least agree with them? Board Member Lew: Yeah. I mean I think, based on my previous comments, I think I would prefer the gray at University Avenue and then the others are all fine, but I don’t object to the tan at University Avenue Station and I think that’s more of a call for the HRB. Chair Furth: Do you want to call on your members, HRB members? Chair Bower: Are there any HRB members that want to comment on this, Brandon or Michael? Brandon, go ahead. Vice Chair Corey: Yeah, so just real quick, one question, the MMRP. So, is the pole for the City is the marine green? That’s decided, there’s no debate on that? Because, I don’t know if that would impact this decision. Mr. Tietjen: That’s correct, yeah. That’s per the MMRP for any visually sensitive area. That’s correct. Vice Chair Corey: Because at the last time we met at the HRB we had discussed it, and you know, then it was still up in the air and it wasn’t clear if you were looking for our input or not. Mr. Tietjen: I’m sorry that was unclear. We are not looking for input outside the station area. Those (crosstalk). 2.d Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto Page 6 Chair Bower: The only comment I would make is that at our meeting, the HRB did feel strongly that the poles in front of the University Avenue Station match that station patina. You know, it’s a subjective thing, color is a subjective thing, but the tan here or something like that will certainly be more compatible with the building than green or gray or brown, or any of the any colors here. Vice Chair Corey: I would agree with that. Chair Bower: And I don’t think that would change if all the Board Members were here. Mr. Tietjen: Yeah, and our historical consultant for this project went out to the stations and actually brought the chips and tried to match the stations closely. Chair Bower: And our other comment, if I’m remembering correctly, is that all the rest of the poles could be green, just because they would be uniform throughout the City and most of the corridor through Palo Alto is lined with trees and the green would simply, again, be more compatible with that color scheme. I don’t have an objection personally to the suggestions that your consultant has made here, but it seems to me it would be less expensive over a long-term maintenance consideration to have one color over as many poles as possible. Chair Furth: Thank you. Any other comments? Vice Chair Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Thank you. I share with what Alex said earlier, I can make the findings to recommend a recommendation back to Caltrain. I’d like to reiterate that at least I feel that a single pole in the middle rather than a pair of them on the side is preferable throughout the City, given an aesthetic choice, that’s an aesthetic choice that’s preferable. Secondly, in my opinion any sort of a finish on these poles that does not need maintenance, either a galvanized or a weathering steel would be preferable in the long term. I remain concerned that these paints will wear and I doubt they will be maintained the way they would need to be. That said, I can support the project as presented. Thank you. Chair Furth: Anybody else? So, I’m generally supportive. I’m glad that you have a color that you’re happy with for, and the HRB is happy with for the Downtown Palo Alto Station. I was really struck by Alex’s careful analysis of all the different categories of colors that are used at these stations for the buildings, for the light poles, for the railings, for the other things that happen. And Alex you feel that black is suitable for the Caltrain, the California Avenue Station, the proposed color? Board Member Lew: Well, I think it’s possible. The metal that’s already out there and all the shelters is like a dark bronze anodized aluminum, but there is some black there, I think, I forgot what it is. There is an element there that is black, so I think it is workable. And I think the benches that are there are actually like this brown color, so there’s actually a range of stuff that’s out there, so generally darker would be better to help it blend in. Chair Furth: I don’t actually think, I very much support not changing colors for the Stanford Station. The Stanford Station is meaningful to Caltrain, but it’s not particularly visible if you’re not catching a game train. And so, I think it’s good to just have it, those poles blend in. I’m fine with changing them for the Downtown Station, and I’m fine with changing them for Caltrain. I don’t think, I think having a signal that you’re at that station is fine, so I wouldn’t object to the proposal. Yes, Board Member Makinen. Board Member Makinen: I guess my thought here was, I don’t know if you’re going to do this, but are these going to be powder coated for longevity? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, they will be powder coated. Board Member Makinen: So, it’s going to be like a permanent coating and low maintenance. Mr. Tietjen: Yes. We have a ten-year life cycle for the paint. 2.d Packet Pg. 31 City of Palo Alto Page 7 Chair Furth: And when you spoke to us last time, we had a question about fencing, newly installed fencing with wire that is otherwise prohibited in the City, and you were going to get back to us with information on that? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, that was installed at the request of the City for trespassing concerns. Chair Furth: Okay, in that form. Mr. Tietjen: Yes. The regular fence was installed per Caltrain standard. The additional three foot was installed in coordination with the City. (inaudible) Chair Furth: Right. All right. Any other questions before we go on on this. We did ask you for information about costs, but as I understand it, you are confident that matte finished color is your best bet in terms of maintenance, and we will hope that you are right. Any other questions? Well seeing none, shall we recommend approval? I don’t know exactly what we’re doing here. We’re no longer doing courtesy consultations, because they revised the agreement between the City. It’s now a real consultation, which means we tell you what we think and you do what you want. But, shall we advise the Calmod Project of Caltrain that we are supportive of their color recommendations for the poles? Board Member Lew: Do you want to reference their chart? (crosstalk) Chair Furth: Sure, go for it. Why don’t you make a motion? I can’t read this. MOTION Board Member Lew: Okay. I think I will make a recommendation that we recommend Option 1 of the three options. So, that is Palo Alto Station which is color FS23522; the California Avenue Station is color FS27040, which is black; and the Stanford Stadium Station which is color FS14052, which is the marine green. Chair Furth: Is there a second from the ARB Board Member? Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll second that motion. Chair Furth: Thank you for the discussion. All those in favor way aye. Any opposition? MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 4-0 WITH ONE ABSENT Chair Furth: So, that is four votes in favor, one absent, Board Member Thompson, and consensus from the HRB, which has advised us particularly on the Palo Alto Station. Thank you. J Chair Furth: Would the ARB like to continue with us for the discussion of the paralleling station? Chair Bower: Oh, sure. Chair Furth: Okay, great, paralleling station. Mr. Tietjen: Before I jump into that, I did want to answer the question that we received via email. So, tree work has been about 35% complete in the City of Palo Alto, and the first pass of foundation potholings where you pothole for every utility, every foundation location, that should be done by the end 2.d Packet Pg. 32 City of Palo Alto Page 8 of this week. They will have to come back and do any resolutions if there are any other utilities, so they will do another pass at potholing, and utility potholing will continue from now until February. Chair Furth: Thank you. And I was just looking at my notes. We also had a question about were there any new lighting projects, and I believe the answer we got was that you are substituting LED lamps where they exist, but other than that, there’s no project online. Mr. Tietjen: Correct. Yeah, we don’t have any plans currently for Palo Alto Station, but we are updating our station lights. Chair Furth: We’re just asking, of course, because we’re thinking about what goes with what. Mr. Tietjen: Sure. Chair Furth: Thank you. All right, the paralleling station. Mr. Tietjen: I did want to show there are additional pole types in addition to the ones I showed for the details. There are some portholes which are a little bit wider for, a little bit for the wider tracks, and then some two-track cantilevered within the City of Palo Alto. And again, all poles outside of the station areas will be painted marine green in Palo Alto. So, there is a paralleling station being installed in Palo Alto. I’ll show a diagram of the location in a moment. The paralleling station, there are ten tracks for Palo Alto facilities throughout the corridor. Those help provide and distribute power to the new electrified system. The paralleling station in particular does not get power from PG&E. It gets power from the overhead lines and then helps redistribute it throughout the corridor. The facility components are the transformer gantries, which are up to 50 feet, and the control house which we will look for your recommendation on color selection. These are unmanned, secured and lighted facilities. Paralleling station number five in Palo Alto will be located just south of Page Mill Road on Caltrain property. We have coordinated with the City on location during the EIR phase. Vegetation screening will be implemented at this location with review and input from the City staff, and the control house is to be selected by the City, the color be selected by the City with input from HRB and ARB. This is the location of the paralleling station number five. You can see Page Mill Road right here going up and down on the page. These are the components of the paralleling station, the two gantries on either side of the tracks, the control house which we will ask for your color recommendation, and then the transformer. This is an example of the paralleling station from Amtrak Northeast Corridor. You can see the components here in green, or the point in green, is the transformer, the gantries, both this one in the foreground and then this one in the background, these A- frame steel structures, and then the control house is the one on the right here. An example again of a transformer and then the control house in the background. And I do have color samples as well for the paralleling station control house, and I’ll get up and pass these around. Chair Furth: Thank you. Mr. Tietjen: And the colors highlighted in orange are the ones that are recommended per our architectural consultant. Chair Bower: So, can you clarify, so (not understood) Canyon is the control house color? Mr. Tietjen: Correct, yeah, it would be the control house. Chair Bower: And then the juniper green is the gantry color? Mr. Tietjen: These are all considerations for the control house color. Chair Bower: Oh, just control house color? Mr. Tietjen: Yes, correct. These are options for the control house color. 2.d Packet Pg. 33 City of Palo Alto Page 9 Chair Furth: And the gantry would be marine green? (Male): No, I don’t think so. Mr. Tietjen: We don’t believe so. Chair Furth: What do you believe that it would be? Mr. Tietjen: What was that? Chair Furth: What do you believe it would be? Mr. Tietjen: Just the galvanized steel. Chair Furth: Galvanized steel? Mr. Tietjen: Yes. Chair Bower: I’ll take a moment here to ask another question. So, is there a reason why we wouldn’t, the gantries, those towers, would not match the rest of the towers in the corridor? (Female): It’s just something that we had not included as the specifications in our contract. So, we had been focused on the poles and there wasn’t a consideration to not include it. It just, for kind of standard material purchase of the gantries went with the galvanized steel, didn’t specify a color. Chair Bower: Can I ask a related question to this? On the corridor there are switching towers apparatus that crosses the tracks that tell the trains, they are red or green lights, so that they move forward or not. The one I’m thinking of is near Woodside Road for instance. And I’m wondering how that, how the height of that particular signaling tower compares to the gantry at this station. Do you know? Roughly, I mean I’m not – just trying to get a sense of what 45 feet is going to look like at that site. That’s fairly large. (Male): I think overall the signal bridge that you’re referring to, the one at Woodside Road, they’re going to be about roughly the same, they’re roughly the same height, potentially even a little bit taller. So, our rough estimate, probably about 40 foot or so, 40 to 45 foot, in terms of height. Chair Bower: Okay, thank you. Chair Furth: Any comments on the proposal for the paralleling station? We had a lot of comments last time, most of which I think were rejected. Any comments from anybody on this? Sure. Chair Bower: I can’t remember, Amy, what the HRB discussion was about this, but I think it was that they would just go away. I mean, so, you know, that the color not be white for instance. That it be an innocuous or blending color. That’s a better way of describing it maybe. So, from my perspective any of these colors would be acceptable, but I don’t have an opinion. I don’t know if the other HRB members do. Vice Chair Corey: That’s what we discussed. Chair Furth: Okay. And as I recall, one of the big issues was the location of this particular facility, and generally you’re satisfied with the proposed location. One of the more ardent commentators was Board Member Thompson. Alex, David? David. Board Member Hirsch: Yes. Do you see the top of that facility when you’re in the train? You do. So, what is the roofing material and what color would it be? 2.d Packet Pg. 34 City of Palo Alto Page 10 (Male): To be honest, off the top of my head I do not know what the roofing material would be on top of the control houses, but that is something we could look into and get an answer back to you. I think it really will be the same, I think overall the control house is just a steel, just a single steel or whatever the material outside, the sheeting material is going to be for the entire house, but we can look into it. I’m not 100 percent sure. Board Member Hirsch: So, do you have any thought as to how that would be painted? Is that discussed by your consultant for this? (Male): That’s something we can double check. When I kind of just think about painting the house, I’m thinking about painting the outside, the four surrounding walls, but the top portion, it’s a good question. I’ll have to look into it. Chair Furth: When are you planning to build these paralleling stations? What is your timeline? Mr. Tietjen: So, three are currently under construction right now in South San Francisco and San Jose. We don’t have the final schedule with PS-5 yet, but I think we would expect late this year or early next year. Chair Furth: So, PS-5 is what you call ours? Mr. Tietjen: Correct, yes, paralleling station number five. Chair Furth: It’s like public school. Okay, paralleling station five. All right, so last time we had questions about how visible this was going to be. Board Member Hirsch has pointed out, quite visible from the train. Remind me what the feeling was about, what the conclusion was with regard to planting around this? To what extent it’s possible and to what extent you need to be so far away for safety reasons that it’s going to be visible? Mr. Tietjen: So, there will be vegetation around the paralleling station. We don’t have the vegetation plan currently. It’s not designed yet, but we will be working with the City on that. It will be surrounding the perimeter of the facility, and it’s generally trees and vines, what has been used in other areas. Chair Furth: Okay. So, the roof’s also going to be visible from the housing nearby, is that correct, or am I seeing this wrong? Is that a blank wall? (crosstalk) (Male): It’s a blank wall. There’s not a single window. Chair Furth: Right, I remember that. Board Member Lew: Between the paralleling station and 195 Page Mill Road, there is a row of newly planted redwood trees. Chair Furth: Right. That should do it. And then the next thing over is the train track and then there’s landscaping and then there’s Alma, is that right? So, there’s quite a few opportunities for screening. Mr. Tietjen: Correct, and the current thought is to do the screening around the perimeter of the facility with trees and vines. Chair Furth: But if you needed to do some more, you could also do it on the other side of the right of way, right, on the edge of Alma? Mr. Tietjen: Stacy. 2.d Packet Pg. 35 City of Palo Alto Page 11 Chair Furth: Is that correct City staff? Ms. French: Yes. Part of that is City right of way, and we are always amenable to increase the vegetation in our right of way. Chair Furth: All right. Board Member Baltay. Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I think it comes down to the color and to me the juniper green or the beetle would be the two preferable choices. Slightly darker would go better with the live oak colors. And it’s just really tough to put us in the spot in this light to make that call. I’d say that you guys, that your architects make that call. But I think a darker green is preferable. Chair Furth: Okay. My view is that darker is better. My view is that it does matter how it looks from the top. These are fairly large structures. People will see them, and one of the problems and one of the big… It makes a big difference what you see when you look outside of a train window, and often you have no control of it. Often cities show their most dilapidated faces to a railroad right of way. That’s less true now. And this is an opportunity for you to have something that looks trim and organized and well thought out all the way through. So, I think it does matter how it’s going to look for the top, how the edges are finished. Does somebody want to make a motion? And I will say that these colors can’t be read at all when you’re sitting inside. You can get some idea of them at the window. Would somebody on the ARB make a motion, or we can have further discussion. MOTION Board Member Lew: I will make a recommendation that the paralleling station be either juniper green or the beetle clay green. Vice Chair Baltay: I’ll second that motion, the recommendation. I’m sorry. Chair Furth: Any further discussion? All those in favor say aye. All opposed. Hearing none, that’s unanimous from those of us who are here, ARB and HRB Members alike. MOTION CARRIES 4-0 WITH ONE ABSENT. Chair Furth: Is there anything else you would like from us? Mr. Tietjen: No. Thank you again for allowing us to present today. Chair Furth: Thank you for coming, and we know it’s a complicated project and we know we don’t necessarily make your life easier, but we hope we make the project better. Thank you. And we will say thank you to the HRB for coming and staff if you will keep an eye on the design of the paralleling station, we will not expect to see rooftop design unless you feel it’s necessary, but if you would keep that in mind as you continue to work collaboratively, we’d appreciate it. Thank you. Study Session Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 18, 2018. Chair Furth: We have minutes to approve. All right, we will now do the rest of our agenda, not the rest of my agenda, because my agenda didn’t include all the items, but I understand the public redistributed one did. Thank you. Okay, draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 1, 2018. 2.d Packet Pg. 36 City of Palo Alto Page 12 Mrs. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning: I believe we have October 18 first. Chair Furth: Oops, sorry. Minutes for October 18, any comments or corrections? Board Member Lew: Yes, I have a comment. So, for the subcommittee there were two items, 2609 Alma, which is the three unit and also 250 Sherman, which was the Public Safety Building, and in the minutes – so they’re not listed in the – the action at that meeting I think was not, but in the minutes… Chair Furth: Could you report? Board Member Lew: We do have… Yeah, so on the next meeting on November 1 Peter Baltay gave a summary of what happened in the, for the Public Safety Building, and they changed the base to brick, and I don’t know, there may have been other changes as well. But I don’t think we have a record of what happened on 2609 Alma. I think we were just trying to change the back façade. Jodie Gerhardt: Okay. I think maybe we might want to bring the October 18 minutes back then so that we can add the subcommittee. Chair Furth: What was your question, because it’s not actually a meeting of the Board, but it does need to be recorded somehow. How do we do that normally? Do we report at the next meeting? Jodie Gerhardt: We do as far as the file is concerned, we do sort of a summary memo that we put in the file itself, and we have many times sort of put a short paragraph into the minutes. Chair Furth: Oh, the minutes of the meeting the day it happened or? Jodie Gerhardt: The day (crosstalk) Chair Furth: That’s probably the simplest way to do it, do you think Alex? Board Member Lew: I think the issue is that it’s something the transcriber can’t do, right? So, it’s something that staff has to actually do. Jodie Gerhardt: Correct, and that’s why I think it got missed this time is because, yeah, it’s not coming straight from the transcriber. Staff needs to add that piece. Chair Furth: Okay. I mean… Board Member Lew: I think it’s okay on this. If you wanted to come back. I think that’s fine. I think, I’m aware of these two particular projects, and I don’t have any issues with it. I do understand that people go back through minutes and stuff and it is good to have it in there. So, if it needs to go back, that’s fine. Chair Furth: So, from my point of view, I don’t care whether you add it to the material you present to us. I don’t care which meeting’s minutes it gets added to, but it does need to be recorded. What would you like to do staff? Come back with it? Jodie Gerhardt: I think that’s probably best. Chair Furth: All right. Then let’s… Board Member Lew: Would you like a motion? Chair Furth: Yes. MOTION 2.d Packet Pg. 37 City of Palo Alto Page 13 Board Member Lew: I move that we continue the minutes for October 18, 2018 to a date uncertain. Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: All in favor say aye. Okay, that’s three in favor and one abstention and one absent. MOTION PASSED 3-1-1 WITH ONE ABSTENTION, ONE ABSENT. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 1, 2018. Chair Furth: November 1, 2018. It was very helpful to have these by the way. Board Member Lew: So, I think there’s only one correction that I would make, which is on page 53, there are multiple references to Caltran and I think that should be Caltrain, and I think those two are very different. I think we do want that corrected. And I had another just thought, and I think we’ve mentioned this before, but like on page 52 and 54 we used a lot of acronyms, and I’m wondering if it’s really, if we’re making it really confusing for people. Chair Furth: So, if we just spell them out the first time. Board Member Lew: Yeah, like we have TVM, TMA, VMT, LOS, MM, Los Loma… Chair Furth: It’s bad. We should probably clean up our presentations and conversation and probably in the minutes it should at least be spelled out once the way you would in a legal document. Board Member Lew: And then under, I think under subcommittee, oh, I think that’s the next item. So, that’s all that I had. Chair Furth: Any other comments on November 1st? Motion to approve. MOTION Board Member Lew: I’ll make a motion that we approve the minutes for November 1. Vice Chair Baltay: Second Chair Furth: Moved by Board Member Lew, seconded by Vice Chair Baltay. All those in favor say aye. So, that’s 3-1-1 with one abstention and one absent. MOTION APPROVED 3-1-1 WITH ONE ABSTENTION AND ONE ABSENT. Board Member Lew: Actually, Thompson would be, she was absent at that meeting so she should be recused as well. Chair Furth: But she is absent. That’s what we need to say, but good point. Actually, we had enough votes. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 15, 2018. Chair Furth: Minutes for November 18, 2018. Those were actually the ones I meant to say were helpful. Other than typos, I have… Board Member Lew: So, the same comment, just like under, I think under subcommittee, I think they are listing the items and then there is mention of 744 San Antonio, which was just the lighting at the terraces. And so, in the minutes it says like “insert email” I think from our consulting planner. But I would 2.d Packet Pg. 38 City of Palo Alto Page 14 just say except for the subcommittee, which was myself and Wynne approved the lighting fixture on the upper terraces. And for 3945 El Camino Real, which is the Comfort Inn, I think we approved the corner detail for the Trespa. And then I think that 3223 Hanover is fully described. Chair Furth: Any other comments? MOTION Board Member Lew: No. I would make a motion that we recommend, that we approve the minutes for the November 15, 2018. Vice Chair Baltay: Second. Chair Furth: All those in favor say aye. And was Osma there or not there? She was, wasn’t she? Yes, she commented. All right, so that is a 3-0-0 vote, one abstention, one absent. MOTION PASSED WITH A VOTE OF 3-0-0 with one abstention, one absent. Subcommittee Items Chair Furth: Subcommittee Items. We have one coming up for the 17th. Jodie Gerhardt: Yes, so related to the 17th, on the tentative future agenda you have the 702 Clara Drive is being deferred to a February hearing, and then Subcommittee Item 4115 El Camino has been added, and that is the Pizz’a Chicago location. Chair Furth: Pizz’a Chicago is what I couldn’t think of. It’s 4105? Jodie Gerhardt: 4115. Chair Furth: 4115, and Alex and I will do that one. Jodie Gerhardt: Okay. Chair Furth: So, that leaves us with a second round on 380 Cambridge Avenue, a second round on 4256 El Camino and Verizon Cluster, three small cells. Is that Downtown North? So, I will not be participating in that. Okay. And the item that… Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcement Chair Furth: Okay, questions, comments or announcements? Board Member Lew: The next North Ventura meeting is next, will be next Wednesday, January 16, here in City Hall. I think it’s in the front conference room. Chair Furth: Thank you. I wanted to ask, I wanted to say that when we make recommendations and when the Director or whoever the recommending body is, decides to modify those recommendations, it’s important for us to get that information back in a formal way from staff. So, is there a consensus on that? Vice Chair Baltay: Strongly so, yes. Several times I think decisions have been made through the system that we’re not aware of, and I think we should be made aware of what actions are actually taken. 2.d Packet Pg. 39 City of Palo Alto Page 15 Chair Furth: So, if they have problems with our recommendations, it’s important for us to understand what the considerations are that, perhaps, we didn’t take into account. So that we’re not just spitting into the wind. Vice Chair Baltay: More importantly I feel that many members of the public look to us. They think we have a meeting and a recommendation is made, and then when a different action is actually taken, it leaves severe distrust in the system. It’s really important to emphasize clearly why a different action was taken. I think the case with these cellphone towers recently demonstrates that. Chair Furth: Any other comments. Board Member Lew: The previous Planning Director had a, like a monthly bulletin, and I thought it was useful because it summarized what each Board was doing, so it was very easy for us to follow what was happening with the HRB, PTC and the ARB, and then the Planning Director’s decision, and if there was a problem, we could sort of see what was happening. As we have it now, it is sort of left to us to sort of follow the other Boards on our own, and then we don’t really get – there is no physical communication between the Planning Director and the Boards. Chair Furth: I do agree. I miss that greatly because I feel often that I’m startled to find out that something involving a project that we’re also charged with dealing with is going before another Board or another body. The prime example is the recommendation on sidewalk treatment or, you know, bicycle lanes in front of the new housing at the corner of El Camino Real and Page Mill, and sending us project approvals, that was a very helpful document, and surely something similar must exist internally, and if there’s a way of modifying that for public use it would be great. Anything else? Vice Chair Baltay: Yes. I would like to raise the question about the small cell telephone cell tone tower issue. The City Council, as I understand it, is reviewing a proposal by staff to change the ordinance of how these are reviewed. And I’d like to address my concern that the Architecture Board has not even been consulted as to what that ordinance contains, and at least I’ve received a tremendous amount of public correspondence regarding that ordinance, questioning what the ARB should be doing, and I’m, frankly, surprised that I don’t even – I haven’t even been told what’s in that ordinance. Nobody’s asked our opinion, yet we’re worked long and hard on that issue. And I would think we have good advice to offer, if we were only involved or asked about it. Then to the Board, I feel that we need to go to that Council hearing and be present for the Council to confer with us, if they would like regarding that issue again. I think one of the central questions that’s going to come up is what is the appropriate level of review for these towers, and clearly staff is trying to balance practical necessities of reviewing these things in a quick way. I think the Town has consistently expressed concern about the aesthetics of it. The Board has struggled with this issue. I think it’s negligent of us not to stay involved in that discussion, even if the Planning staff has not involved us. So, I’d like through the Chair, to have her appoint someone to be our representative at that hearing. Chair Furth: I’m happy to do that, and I’m happy to appoint you, unless somebody else wants that assignment? Seeing no volunteers… Vice Chair Baltay: Well, I think it might be better if the Chair were to represent us. Chair Furth: I think it would be best if you did it. Vice Chair Baltay: But mostly I think it’s important that the Board be acting with a voice on this. Not saying we all agree, but at least agree that we should (crosstalk) Chair Furth: I think it’s important to have a representative. I think we can’t discuss this very far, but I will say from the massive public correspondence that we have received, the charge and the correspondence, and I say this to staff, asking you to get back to us on this, is that the revised regulations take the ARB 2.d Packet Pg. 40 City of Palo Alto Page 16 out of the process, in terms of defining and applying standards. And if this is the case, this would be an appropriate thing to discuss or have discussed with us. So, that’s as far as we can go, direction to staff. Board Member Business And not on my agenda, but I understand on other people’s agendas, is reorganization, which we are due to do, and I think staff usually presides over that, unless you want to defer this till we have a full Board? Jodie Gerhardt: Yes. So, we do have the elections of the Chair and the Vice Chair on the agenda, and so I think it would be best – we’re already a little bit delayed on this, so I’m hoping that we could move forward. Are there any nominations for Chair of the ARB? Vice Chair Baltay: Can I make a comment first, please? Especially I’d like to get Alex’s opinion on this, but it seems to me in our particular circumstance I would be likely to be elevated to the Chair, and that leaves us then having a choice for the Vice Chair of being either Alex, who just recently was the Chair, or two new Board Members, who are both extremely new on the Board and may not feel comfortable to have the experience necessary. I would like to propose an option would be just to continue the current officer situation for the next year, and then go forward after that. But I very much would like to hear what Alex thinks about that. Board Member Lew: That’s unusual. So, normally we – normally we rotate through and then somewhere – so, I’ve been on the Board for ten years. Somewhere in the middle we had a lot of people who had to step off the Board for various different reasons and we did switch that around at that point where, I think, Clare Malone Prichard served on the Board a couple of times as Chair pretty close together, just because we didn’t really have the right mix of people. And so, it does happen, so we’re not tied to the rotation. But I think we should just rotate through, because I think you’ve been around – you’ve definitely been around long enough, and I think Osma, I think she should be ready to be Vice Chair, right? I think it would be useful to go through that. Chair Furth: I should add that I will be leaving the Board sometime in the fall, because my family is moving to, going north. I don’t know the date yet. I did discuss this with the previous Mayor. I haven’t discussed it with the new Mayor, but I will try to time my departure so that it leads to seamless continuity on the Board. Sorry, I’m not sharing this. Jodie Gerhardt: Sorry, I’ll ask, David, do you have any comments? Board Member Hirsh: I’m pretty new to make a comment on this, but I certainly like the way it’s been handled up to now, and it’s a conflict to see that when you’re not going to be more than another partial term here. I sort of agree with Peter. I think that it’s a good idea to continue as it is right now. It certainly is a lesson for me to hear you both. Although Alex has had plenty of experience in this, I sort of feel that I agree with the general idea that there’s more senior people here on the panel, really have a greater depth of understanding of how the process works and it would be useful to keep it just the way it is. That’s my opinion. Vice Chair Baltay: Alex, in your broad experience on the Board, has there ever been a case where a Chair has repeated two times in a row? Board Member Lew: I don’t recall that, but I do recall that I think, like Clare Malone Prichard served as Chair maybe two times within three years, perhaps. So, we’ve definitely considered it before. And then I think like at that time, there was one time that I was supposed to be, it was like my turn to be Chair that I was mostly doing subcommittee stuff, because I actually like doing the subcommittee more than I like being Chair, so, yeah. I think it’s fine if you want to continue the way it is now, I think that is fine. And then we just realize that we will have to deal with an election in the mid-summer, which is kind of unusual. I would say maybe if we’re doing – if the Council is doing term realignments, they’re halfway through the term realignments, then we could maybe say, maybe be preemptive and say we’re going to 2.d Packet Pg. 41 City of Palo Alto Page 17 extend it until I think May 31st, or something, and then we can switch in June. Because they want to switch the term so that they’re not, so that you don’t have, what do you call it? Chair Furth: It works for me, but I think I would have to do a Nancy Pelosi and promise you that I would retire as Chair, but not from the Board. NOMINATION Vice Chair Baltay: I would like to nominate Wynne Furth to be the Chair for the next term. Board Member Lew: Okay, I will second. Jodie Gerhardt: So we have a motion and a second. All those in favor? Okay, so Chair Furth will continue. And so, then do we have a nomination for Vice Chair? NOMINATION Board Member Lew: I will nominate Peter Baltay for Vice Chair. Chair Furth: Second. Jodie Gerhardt: Okay, so we have a motion by Board Member Lew and a second by Board Member Furth. All those in favor? Okay, that’s four approved with Board Member Thompson absent on both of those votes. Thank you. Chair Furth: And I will say that for the next five months, knowing how much Alex enjoys subcommittees, I will be much less inhibited about appointing him to them. (no mic) …to come before this Board today at this special meeting, for which we all managed to show up practically. Then we are adjourned. Adjournment 2.d Packet Pg. 42 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13480) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 9/2/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 555 Middlefield Rd: Facade Modifications and Other Minor Site Revisions Title: PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 555 Middlefield Road [19PLN-00413]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Minor Board Level Architectural Review and Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for Modifications to the Facade of an Existing Medical Office Building and Other Minor Site Improvements. Environmental Assessment: Exempt From CEQA per Guideline Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Danielle Condit at danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Executive Summary The proposed project scope includes modifications to the facade of an existing grandfathered medical office building in the RM-30 Zoning District. Site improvements for grandfathered uses are regulated by PAMC Chapter 18.13. In short, the site is limited to the permitted changes listed under Grandfathered Uses unless otherwise processed through the granting of a design enhancement exception. The project as proposed requires one exception: To allow the existing second-level building face to be extended to meet the existing 20’ height of the sloped-roof ridge to create a parapet around the existing roof edge. 3 Packet Pg. 43 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Along with improving the façade of the building, the project would provide new long-term and short-term bicycle parking on site, as well as landscape improvements and a new covered trash area. Background Project Information Owner: Robert Hansen Architect: Randy Popp Representative: N/A Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 555 Middlefield Road Neighborhood: Crescent Park / University South Lot Dimensions & Area: 140’ wide, 112.5’deep, 15,750 square feet Housing Inventory Site: No Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: No Historic Resource(s): No, Determined not Eligible for CRHR in 2021, (Attachment D) Existing Improvement(s): 10,491 sf Building; 2 Stories; 20’ Height; Built 1956 Existing Land Use(s): Medical Office Adjacent Zoning & Land Uses: North: R-1 - Single-Family Land Use West: RM-30 - Professional Office Land Use East: RM-30 - General Business Office Land Use South: PC-4173 - Hamilton Senior Living RM-20 - Parking Lot, Single-Family & Medical Office Use Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 44 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: Google Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: RM30 - Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District Comp. Plan Designation: MF - Multiple-Family Residence Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: No Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None 3 Packet Pg. 45 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Project Description The applicant proposes to renovate the building façade with minor fenestration changes and new exterior finishes. The cantilevered second level will be refreshed with a skim-coated cement plaster and painted feather white. The eave overhangs will be removed, and the second level building face extended by a parapet to match the existing height of the low-sloped gable roof ridge. The first level CMU block siding and wood trim will be treated with a darker tone and painted Hearthstone. Exterior building improvements include replacement of all perimeter windows and exterior doors with some modification to the size of the openings and removal of all through-wall AC units. New windows will be dual-pane with a pattern of clear and textured glazing set in dark bronze anodized aluminum frames. Within the original eave line, the second level windows at the East, South, and West facing sides will have a bris-soleil detail installed to assist with solar control and add character. The site will also benefit from new landscaping primarily located at the front of the building, new pedestrian pavers, free standing address sign, new short-term and long-term bicycle parking, and new covered trash area. The project includes a new accessible lift system located within the interior court that would transport individuals from the ground floor to the second- floor balcony. Additionally, a new code-compliant ADA van parking stall and accessible path are proposed. No changes to floor area, interior layout, circulation, or use are proposed. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: • The applicant requests approval an Architectural Review – Minor (AR) – application. 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 ARB’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if an appeal is 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 anyone finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. • The applicant requests approval a Design Enhancement Exception – DEE – application. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070 (Architectural Review) as prescribed above. The findings to approve a DEE application are provided in Attachment B. Analysis1 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. 3 Packet Pg. 46 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project site is in an urbanized area along the border of Crescent Park and University South neighborhoods on Middlefield Road. It is bounded by two existing buildings that operate with existing grandfathered office uses in the RM-30 zone. To its right, 575 Middlefield has predominantly stucco siding with a tile roof, is two-stories and approximately 22 feet in height. To its left, 720 University has stucco siding at its base, with anodized aluminum framed windows fixed within smooth trowel concrete panels, with cornice that perimeters the flat roof edge. The building is single-story and approximately 13 feet in height. The surrounding buildings generally incorporate traditional materials such as stucco, trowel concrete, or wood siding. Across the street is PC-4173, the Hamilton Senior Living Community that occupies half the block facing Middlefield Rd. The traditional Spanish Colonial building, with stucco exterior and tile roof, is four stories tall and 48 feet in height. 530, 524 and 500 Middlefield consist of a parking lot, single-story single-family home and two-story medical office building located in the RM-20. R-1 zoning with existing Single-family use is located directly behind 555 and 575 Middlefield at the shared rear property line. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines 2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires designs to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project design and intent are in general conformance with the Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with and supported by the following Land Use policies: • Policy L-2.2: Enhance connections between commercial and mixed-use centers and the surrounding residential neighborhoods by promoting walkable and bikeable connections and a diverse range of retail and services that caters to the daily needs of residents. • Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings. • Policy L-6.1: Promote high-quality design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces. • Policy L-6.7: Where possible, avoid abrupt changes in scale and density between residential and non-residential areas and between residential areas of different densities. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 47 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Zoning Compliance3 Within the Medium Density Multiple Family Residential (formerly called RM-3 and now RM-30), medical or professional office uses are not permitted land uses in the RM-30; but are covered by the “grandfather” clause provided by Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.13.070(b). The zoning ordinance allows for permitted changes to the site so long as: • The number of offices or floor area of the building is not increased. • The project scope does not result in the shifting of the building footprint. • The building height, length or building envelope is not increased. If such remodeling, improvement or replacement increases the existing degree of noncompliance, the granting of a Design Enhancement Exception pursuant to PAMC section 18.76 is necessary. The applicant is not proposing changes to the building footprint or the number offices. However, the applicant does propose a slight increase in the building height through the application of a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). “Grandfathered” Uses The existing building use is considered a grandfathered, legal non-conforming use. Based upon the PAMC Chapter 18.13, ‘grandfathered’ uses are those existing on July 20, 1978, and which, prior to that date, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit, or which uses were, prior to July 20, 1978, located in an RM-3 or RM-4 district, which was imposed by reason of annexation of the property to the city without benefit of pre-zoning and which, prior to the date of annexation, were lawful conforming permitted uses or conditional uses operating subject to a conditional use permit. The project site is subject to the latter, previously zoned RM-3 and prior to the date of annexation, was a lawfully conforming permitted medical office use. Design Enhancement Exception Design Enhancement Exceptions (DEE) may be granted for the site development as part of the Architectural Review process when such exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of commercial development and other development subject to architectural review. Items for which DEEs may be granted include, but are not limited to, eave lines, roof design, parapets, moldings, balustrades, stairs, entry features, and other minor architectural elements and design features. The DEE application for this project is for the proposed parapet that will result in a minor height increase and change to the building’s envelope; by which means the new parapet will extend the existing second-level face to meet the existing 20’ height of the sloped-roof ridge. The proposed parapet will establish a new contemporary building character that over all seems to remain compatible with the surrounding development pattern. The project improvements would not increase floor area, decrease the number of required parking spaces 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 48 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 or decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping, as stipulated in the applicability of a DEE application. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site includes 27 existing parking spaces in a surface parking lot. The required amount of parking on site is 42 stalls. The proposed improvements will not increase the amount of required parking on site; nor will the project scope reduce the number of existing parking stalls. Additionally, the project scope includes improvements in multi-model access with new short-term and long-term bicycle parking. The minimum bicycle parking requirement for this site is four bicycle parking spaces. The applicant proposes six new bicycle spaces; four short- term and two long-term. The site will also update the existing van accessible stall to meet ADA compliance. Performance Criteria The proposed project is subject to the performance criteria outlined in PAMC Section 18.23. The existing site conditions leave little opportunity for site improvements due to the existing legal noncomplying nature of the existing parking layout, which is deficient in the required amount of onsite parking, as well as noncomplying in the parking facility design. The existing lot conditions provide no opportunity to increase the amount of parking on site, as the existing stall dimensions and drive aisle widths are legal non-conforming but do not meet the minimum standards required per PAMC 18.54. However, the existing parking layout does provide some opportunity for the addition of new long-term bicycle parking within the right-side rear corner of the lot, with new tree planting and landscaping. The landscaping gained at the bicycle enclosure will not only compensate the approximate 106 square feet of landscaping removed from the front of the property for the ADA van accessible stall restriping, but also provide nearly 70 additional square feet of landscaping on the site. The site will receive a total of three new 36”-box native trees; along with a combination of native and adaptive native landscaping primarily located at the front of the building. The trees will make up for the loss of mature landscaping that was removed from the exterior court under previous ownership. Since staff could not identify the landscaping that was removed, we used a combination of Google aerial view and the block area diagram to determine an approximate replacement ratio using Table 3-1 (Attachment E) from the Tree Technical Manual4. Per the block area diagram provided, the court opening has been indicated as 11'-8" wide. Google aerial view shows the canopy of the very large shrubs/trees fill out the entire opening, which makes the maximum canopy spread approximately 11' wide. 4 The Tree Technical Manual is available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/public- works/tree-section/ufmp/tree-technical-manual/cover-corecombined_cpa_ttm-2016-final-copy.pdf 3 Packet Pg. 49 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 The narrowest measurement of those shrub/trees canopy is probably safe to assume anywhere between one and seven feet; which means the average canopy spread is approximately six to nine feet and would follow such row per the tree replacement table. Assuming a minimum of three shrubs/trees were existing in the court, three 36"-box trees would adequately replace the landscaping that was removed from this area. The existing fence along the rear property line, will be improved with a new lattice that will continue the existing lattice from the right side of the rear property line to the left. Typically, to satisfy the performance standards new fencing and new landscape screening would be proposed along the rear property line when abutting a residential use. Unfortunately, the existing site conditions does not allow any encroachment room into the existing parking stalls located along the rear property line as mentioned above. Additionally, a new covered trash area will be provided at the right-side front corner of the lot. The new covered trash area does not fully meet the standards of a typical trash enclosure, in the way that it is not “enclosed”. This is due to the constraints of the existing site conditions and to avoid additional loss of parking spaces. The covered trash area does fully cover the existing trash bins to reduce wastewater run-off and will provide screening of the bins from the public right-of-way. The site was assessed by the Planning Department and Zero Waste staff to consider placing a trash enclosure in the right-side rear corner of the lot. However, since the enclosure would be located more than 25’ away from the street curb, the enclosure would not fall within the service range of the waste hauler, subjecting the property owner to additional maintance fees to haul the waste bins to and from the enclosure themselves. 3 Packet Pg. 50 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 In addition, the proposed new parapet in combination with the proposed mechanical roof screen will help conceal mechanical ductwork that is exposed on the roof from the residential and public right-of-way sightlines. The two pieces of major HVAC equipment will be surrounded by roof screens to match their height. A review has been performed to ensure the project’s general compliance with the applicable performance criteria. That evaluation is provided in Attachment B. Consistency with Application Findings Staff finds the project to be consistent with the AR Findings. Based on the nature of this project, Finding #3 (regarding use of high quality materials and details) is the most relevant finding to consider. The exterior materials will remain generally consistent with existing materials of the building, as well as the surrounding developments as described in the “Neighborhood Setting and Character” above. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Application Findings is provided in Attachment B. 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 remodel project is Categorically Exempt per 15301 (Existing Facilities). Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on August 20, 2021, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 19, 2021, which is 14 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 Danielle Condit, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 5 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 51 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 (650) 329-2242 (650) 329-2575 danielle.condit@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft ARB and DEE Findings (DOCX) • Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment D: Historic Resource Evaluation (PDF) • Attachment E: Tree Canopy Replacement Table (PDF) • Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 3 Packet Pg. 52 -40 RM-20 PC-4173 RM-30 R-2 43.0' 10 49.0' 93.0' 26.0' 93.0' 150.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 250.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0' 125.0' 140.0' 112.5'140.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5' 160.0' 112.5' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 00' 50.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0'100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 59.0' 100.0' 66.0' 100.0' 66.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 174.7' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'112.5' 50.0' 50.0'50.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 48.5' 7.0'1.5' 150.0' 143.0' 75.0' 125.0' 48.5' 82.0' 48.5' 82.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50 75.0' 150.0' 75.0' 150.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 151.5' 75.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 125.0' 150.0' 200.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 1125 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 200.0' 225.0' 250.0' 130.0' 50.0' 95.0' 50.0' 112.5' 5 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 60.0' 70.0' 9.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 60.0' 150.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 55.0' 60.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 149.0' 9. 70.0' 140.0' 100.0' 100.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 250.0' 225.0' 25.0' 25.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0'75.0' 75.0' U NIV E R SITY A V E N U E B Y R O N ST R E E T MID DLE FIELD R O A D F ULT O N S TR E ET MID DLEFIELD R O A D G UIN D A ST R E E T F ULT O N ST R EET MID DLE FIELD R O A D H A MILT O N A VE N U E U E 600-610 434 730 603 615 623 626 765 540 -546750-798 482 486 490 483 547 526 660-676 518 511 517 524 500 680 443 425 725 478 499 489 435 428 422 416 417 555 530 765 755 731 723 575 555 550 536 518 720 500 541 -547 498 434 789 800 2 755 537 543539 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Known Structures Tree (TR) Zone Districts abc Zone District Notes abc Zone District Labels Curb Edge abc Dimensions (AP) Sidewalk 0' 69' Location Map 555 Middlefield Rd. 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 dcondit, 2021-08-10 15:44:44 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3.a Packet Pg. 53 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 555 Middlefield Road 19PLN-00413 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The design is consistent with the Zoning Code and Comprehensive Plan to as much extent possible. Most aspects of the building are not changing from the existing current conditions; which have mostly stayed the same since the building’s initial construction in 1956. The existing building has a recorded variance on file with the City from 1955 for the construction of the building 20’ from the front setback line, where 24’ are otherwise required. 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 existing building footprint is not changing. The proposed new landscape will incorporate both native and adaptive native landscaping primarily at the front of the building. Two 36” box Parkinsonia “Desert Museum’ trees will be planted at the front of the building where no existing trees existed prior. The light green leaves and yellow flower color will be a welcomed frontispiece to the building without blocking the building from the street. The 3 mature street trees are proposed to be preserved; the project scope proposes to provide mulch within the City’s planter strip. These trees are significant to the site and will continue to be maintained and protected. The existing building was constructed prior to the implementation of the context-based design criteria; however, the project scope does bring the existing site conditions closer to compliance with these standards. This is described in greater detail in context-based design considerations and findings below. The scale and mass of the building will not be significantly affected by the 3.b Packet Pg. 54 proposed façade changes. The continued grandfathered use of medical office is consistent with the adjacent land uses; and enhances the walkability of adjacent residential uses. The landscaping and utility-related upgrades will enhance the site conditions for all whom work and visit the site. Including accessibility improvements for those employees and visitors that require such improvements in order to work at and visit the facility. 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 project proposes to refresh the building exterior using the same materials as it was constructed with. The second level will be skim-coated with hard-trowel cement plaster and painted feather white. The eave overhangs will be removed, and the second level building face extended by a parapet to match the existing height of the low-sloped gable roof ridge. The first level CMU block siding and wood trim will be treated with a darker tone and painted Hearthstone. The proposed changes will modernize the building; but will still integrate with the surrounding neighborhood character which generally incorporates traditional materials such as stucco, trowel concrete, or wood siding. The proposed materials and colors are compatible with existing buildings in the surrounding neighborhood, keeping in theme with the neutral color palette primarily seen in the surrounding area. The refreshed building character will enhance the surrounding area and enliven 20th century building in the 21st century. 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: No changes to the layout of the building or function are proposed. The ground level parking is convenient, and access to the building is primarily through the exterior court. Two exterior stair wells located in the court provided the only access option to the second floor, as there is not interior access between the first and second level existing. The project scope includes a new ADA lift within the interior court from the ground floor to the second-floor balcony for ADA compliance. 3.b Packet Pg. 55 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: The proposed new landscape will incorporate both native and adaptive native landscaping primarily at the front of the building; as well as the right rear corner of the lot where the proposed new long-term bicycle parking is located. All proposed trees will be native; the proposed shrubs, ground covers and grasses will be a mixture of native and adaptive native species. Two 36” box Parkinsonia “Desert Museum’ trees will be planted at the front of the building where no existing trees existed prior. A third 36” box Fraxinus Latifolia will be planted at the rear of the site. All new landscaping for the site will be low to medium water usage. Native plantings such as Cleveland sage and Manzanita have been included in the planting palette. 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: This project does not plan to incorporate any additional design principles, beyond the requirements for Green Building and Title 24. 3.b Packet Pg. 56 DEE FINDINGS 555 Middlefield Road 19PLN-00413 The required approval findings can be made to support the Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76.050 of the PAMC for an existing grandfather use in the RM-30 at 555 Middlefield Rd. The specific exception that has been requested is for the following: Requested Design Enhancement Exception: • Allow the existing second-level building face to be extended to meet the existing 20’ height of the sloped-roof ridge to create a parapet around the existing roof edge. Finding #1: There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The existing property is considered a Grandfather medical office use in the RM-30 and must obtain a DEE if the proposed scope does not fall within the permitted changes listed in PAMC 18.13.070(b). These permitted changes do not apply generally to property in the same zone district when there is a zone compliant land use. The site was constructed prior to the RM-30 zoning and was purposely constructed in 1956 for office use. In 1966 the Mental Research Institute (MRI purchased the site which occupied the building until 2019. In 2020, L&P Aesthetics filed a Use and Occupancy permit with the City of Palo Alto continuing the site’s grandfather medical office use. The project scope proposes a new parapet around the existing roof edge that will meet the height of the existing ridge line. DEE’s may be granted through the architectural review process, when such exceptions will enhance the appearance and design of commercial development; and would not result in increased floor area, decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping, or decrease the required open space. The DEE will not result in any of the above. Finding #2: The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preserve an existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimum requirements of this title (Zoning) and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d). The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the structure that is in line with the minor changes permitted through a DEE and will modernize the building. It should be noted, 3.b Packet Pg. 57 that a DEE would not be necessary should the project include a permitted land use. However, do to the existing grandfathered medical office use and enlargement of the building envelope a DEE must be obtained. The strict application of the RM-30 development standards to the scope of work proposed at subject site would be zoning compliant. The proposed parapet complies with daylight plane; and is well under maximum 35’ height limit. The additional height provided by the parapet will benefit both the front and rear façade by reducing the visibility of the mechanical roof top screen from the public right-of-way on Middlefield Rd.; and the neighboring single-family residential uses at the shared rear property line. Finding #3: The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The exception is related to a minor architectural feature that is to include a new parapet around the perimeter of the existing building. This improvement 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. 3.b Packet Pg. 58 CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA 555 Middlefield Road 19PLN-00413 Pursuant to PAMC 18.13.060(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a multiple-family residential district. The purpose is to encourage development in a multiple- family residential district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote effective transitions to adjacent uses or nearby natural features. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The existing site conditions provide adequate sidewalk in front of the building. The project scope proposes new short-term and long-term bicycle parking on site. The existing grandfather use of medical office is located within the RM-30; and is surround by medium density multiple-family residential district, as well as single-family residential zoning. The close proximity of medical office to residential use promotes pedestrian walkability and bicycle ridership to the site. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements. No exterior changes are proposed that would change the building’s relationship with the pedestrian access. The proposed new parapet would raise the second-level face to the existing 20’ roof ridge line. The minor increase to the building’s height will not affect the pedestrian scale of the building and will blend with the overall mass and scale of the existing neighborhood development pattern. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks. The existing structure was built in 1956, the project scope does not propose demolition of the existing structure. 3.b Packet Pg. 59 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties. The existing structure was built in 1956, the project scope does not propose demolition of the existing structure. This property does abut single-family residential at the shared rear property line. However, no changes to the building’s overall footprint or setbacks are proposed. The project scope includes improvements to the existing rear fence to encourage a continuity of privacy along the rear property line, by continuing an existing lattice from the right-side property line to the left. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site. Not applicable. The subject site is not a residential use. The site operates under an existing grandfather use as medical office, as permitted by PAMC 18.13.070. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment Parking is located on site within the existing surface parking lot. There are no proposed changes to existing parking layout except for ADA improvements. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood Not applicable, the subject site is well under an acre. 3.b Packet Pg. 60 Performance Criteria 18.23 555 Middlefield Road 19PLN-00413 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts to surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas, and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and for abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. A new covered trash area will be provided on site. The new covered trash area does not fully meet the standards of a typical trash enclosure, in the way that it is not “enclosed”. This is due to the constraints of the existing site conditions and to avoid additional loss of parking. The covered trash area does fully cover the existing trash bins to reduce wastewater run- off and will provided screening of the bins from the public right-of-way. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. There are only two type of lights to be applied to the exterior of the building: The WAC downlight will be installed in the cantilever soffit at the underside of the second level. The RAB ALED will be installed on the East (right) side of the building to provide safety lighting for the parking area. A photometric plan was provided demonstrating less than 0.5-foot candles at the shared rear property line with residential use. All exterior lighting will be on a timer. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 3.b Packet Pg. 61 The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pickup. The current project proposal does not include late night uses or activities. Future commercial tenants would be limited to the standards for Grandfather Uses in PAMC 18.13.070. This section only permits continual use and occupancy by the same use of professional and medical office. If a grandfathered use ceases and thereafter remains discontinued for twelve consecutive months, it shall be considered abandoned and may be replaced only by a conforming use. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project is adjacent to residential uses at the shared rear property line. The existing fence at the rear property line will be improved with a new lattice that will continue the existing lattice on top of the existing fence from the right side of the rear property line to the left. Typically, to satisfy the performance standards new landscape screening would be proposed along the rear property line when abutting a residential use. Unfortunately, the existing site conditions does not provide any additional encroachment room into the existing (noncomplying) parking stalls located along the rear property line. 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping 3.b Packet Pg. 62 The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The project scope does not include replacement of existing roof mounted units. The proposed roof top mechanical screen should further decrease existing decibel levels. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project’s parking layout will remain as existing. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle uses and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The overall site circulation will remain as existing. Changes to the existing ADA parking stall will improve the sites conditions to accommodate a van accessible stall and accessible path. These improvements will progress the site’s ADA compliance for accessibility purposes. The project includes short- term and long-term bike parking. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 3.b Packet Pg. 63 In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed uses associated with the project. 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials 3.b Packet Pg. 64 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 555 Middlefield Rd, 19PLN-00413 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 15,750 sf (0.36 acres) No Change Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet 20 Feet No Change Rear Yard 10 feet 30 Feet No Change Interior Side Yard 10 feet Left side: 12’ Right side: 49.7’ No Change Street Side Yard 16 feet Not applicable Not applicable Special Setback 24 Feet 20 Feet No Change (Variance, 1955) Setback from major roadways [18.13.040(b)(1)(A)]: 25 feet Not applicable (Residential Arterial) Not applicable Max. Building Height (18.04.030(67)) average height of the highest gable of a pitched or hipped roof (18.79’+20’)/2 35 feet 19.3’ 20’ Side Yard Daylight Plane: Daylight Plane for side lot lines for sites abutting a RM-30; For lots with width of 70 feet or greater None Rear Yard Daylight Plane: Daylight Plane for rear lot lines for sites abutting R-1 10 feet at rear setback line then 45-degree angle Complies Complies Max. Site Coverage 40% (6,300 sf) 35% (5,445 sf) 35% (5,445 sf) Trash Area & Accessible Lift exempt Max. Floor Area Ratio 0.6:1 (9,450 sf) 0.66 (10,445 sf) No Change: Trash Area & Accessible Lift exempt per PAMC 18.04 (65)(B)(iv)(c) & (b) Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1 per 250 sq. ft. of gross floor area 42 spaces No change (28 spaces, legal non-conforming) Bicycle Parking 1 per 2,500 sf 4 spaces 6 spaces (2 long-term, 4 short- term) 3.c Packet Pg. 65 3.e Packet Pg. 66 Attachment F Project Plans During Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “555 Middlefield Rd” 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://bit.ly/555MiddlefieldRd Materials Boards: During Shelter-in-Place, color and material boards will be available to view in the display case outside of City Hall, on the exterior elevator near the corner of Hamilton Ave. and Bryant St. 3.f Packet Pg. 67 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13528) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 9/2/2021 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of July 15, 2021 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 15, 2021 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the July 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: July 15, 2021 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 4 Packet Pg. 68 Page 1 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: July 15, 2021 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Participating Remotely: Chair Osma Thompson, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Alex Lew Absent: Vice Chair Grace Lee Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, announced there were none. Vice Chair Lee will join the meeting later as she is recused from items related to Stanford. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, announced that the August 5, 2021, meeting was canceled. The August 19, 2021, meeting will focus on the ARB Awards. In person meetings are tentatively scheduled to resume in September. The ARB will meet in chambers by October. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real (21PLN-00122]: Recommendation on Façade Changes and New Signage for Peloton that Includes a Request for a Sign Exception for Signs that do not Comply with The Master Tenant Façade & 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. Chair Thompson called for disclosures. Boardmember Baltay disclosed that he visited the site. 4.a Packet Pg. 69 Page 2 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Boardmember Lew disclosed that he visited the site and reviewed the color board at City Hall. He also researched the façade materials and considered the Tesla Dealer at 4180 as a prior project. Boardmember Hirsch disclosed that he visited the site and the board at City Hall. He did not read the previous ARB minutes regarding the adjacent building. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, disclosed that she provided a 2011 staff report to the ARB about Urban Outfitters. Chair Thompson explained that she was currently out of town but that she was familiar with the area in general. She called for the staff report. Samuel Gutierrez, Project Planner, gave a presentation on the 180 El Camino Real – Stanford Shopping Center Peloton façade change and sign exception utilizing slides. The project is on the northeastern frontage of the Stanford Shopping Center facing El Camino Real with a large surface parking lot between the building and the street. The project seeks to change the existing façade to accommodate Peloton and includes a sign exception request. The shopping center has a Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFS Program) subject to City review. As the storefront is over 35 feet long it requires ARB review. The project does not seek to increase Floor Area Ratio (FAR), height, or lot coverage but does request cosmetic changes. The exterior façade has three design elements: stone cladding, a metal illuminated entry portal, and an open storefront glazing. The applicant will use high quality finishes reflective of its premium products. The façade design is consistent with the MTFS Program and the shopping center’s character. Mr. Gutierrez showed a rendering of the façade including materials. The signage exception requested is to include a second wall sign that consists of the entry portal featuring the “P” logo. Because the logo is incorporated into the feature it makes the entire feature a wall sign. The process for the sign exception is set forth in the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), which allows for several wall signs within a certain square footage. The subject façade is approximately 936 square feet (sf) and would allow a maximum of 60 sf of sign area. The PAMC also allows for blade signs up to 3 sf in area. The project includes this allowed blade sign as seen on the rendering. In addition to the PAMC the project is subject to El Camino Real Design Guidelines. These guidelines reduce signage area maximums down by one half or two thirds of the maximum size allowed in the PAMC. For the project that would be 30 to 40 sf and both the wall sign and the portal entry sign would be included in the calculated wall sign area. The MTFS Program regulates signage and allows for one wall sign and one blade sign. The requested blade sign complies. The large Peloton wall sign is approximately 23 sf, and the portal entry sign is approximately 106 sf. Combined that exceeds the 30 to 40 sf limitation. In order to approve the project the ARB must make three findings. The first finding is that exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property do not apply generally to other nearby properties. The second is that granting the exception is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant. Neither finding can be made by staff. The third finding is that granting the exception would not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the area and would not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. As the request is for a sign exemption finding three is not applicable. Based on this, the project façade design is consistent with the MTFS Program and the ARB findings for design, material quality, and enhancement of the shopping center. Staff has proposed draft conditions of approval requiring the “P” logos be removed from the portal entry which would make it a façade element instead of a sign and would 4.a Packet Pg. 70 Page 3 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 remove the need for a signage exception. Therefore, staff recommended that the ARB deny the signage exception and recommend approval of the proposed project façade changes and signage to the Director of Planning subject to staff’s conditions of approval. Chair Thompson called for the applicant’s presentation. Jason Smith, Land Shark Development, introduced Ryan Badger of Peloton and Blake Thompson from Lochte Architectural Group. Ryan Badger, Construction Manager for Peloton, explained that the signage portal was developed to be a compelling architectural design element. The incorporation of the “P” logo adds interest. The tile on the upper portion was chosen to add texture and the entry portal adds interest with its varying dimension and the illumination of the “P” logos. They tried to be sensitive to the surrounding area and create a concept that would be an attractive addition to the shopping center. Blake Thomas, Lochte Architectural Group, asked the ARB to see the portal as an architectural element as described by Mr. Gutierrez’s findings. He suggested the ARB see the “P” logos as plaques or secondary signage of only 2 sf. The portal element acts as an attractor to pedestrians. Similarly, the “P” logos are a form of wayfinding since the large sign is predominately for car traffic in the parking lot or street. Chair Thompson called for the public comment, but there was none. She then called for ARB questions of the applicant or staff. Boardmember Baltay asked about the clearance from the façade to the curb and for the amount that is being reduced for the new façade. Mr. Thomas explained that the addition is 18.5 inches and from that point it is 11 feet 8 inches to the curb. The existing Bath & Body store’s entrance protrudes in a similar manner. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that the curb cut for ADA access was 3 foot 4 inches leaving 8 feet 4 inches of true sidewalk space. Mr. Thomas stated the location of the curb cut to the façade is 9 foot 10 inches. Boardmember Baltay requested confirmation that without the “P” logos the portal would be an architectural element and not a sign. Mr. Gutierrez stated that was correct and noted that staff’s recommendation was to remove the “P” logos. Illuminated entry features are allowed and there are other storefronts in the shopping center that have similar elements. Boardmember Baltay inquired about moving the “P” logos away from the portal frame. Mr. Gutierrez stated that as placed the “P” logos function as a cabinet sign, so that is why staff determined the entire portal was a sign. Boardmember Baltay clarified that it was staff’s determination that the portal frame combined with the logo is a sign. 4.a Packet Pg. 71 Page 4 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Ms. Gerhardt stated that the City has held a conversation about signage like this project before, specifically regarding the Tesla property. There was a large Tesla sign with punch through letters and the City Council decided that the entire structure of the sign counted. Staff views this portal entry in the same manner. Boardmember Baltay requested the Chair allow Boardmember Lew to discuss his findings related to the Tesla project. Chair Thompson called for further questions, but there were none. She asked for further information on the Tesla project. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the Sign Code defines sign area as the lettering and sign structure combined. The Director of Planning determined that the entire Tesla structure was a sign and granted an exception, which was appealed to City Council. Chair Thompson asked about City Council’s final determination on the Tesla project. Ms. Gerhardt asked Boardmember Lew for his findings. Boardmember Lew stated that he was on the ARB at the time of the Tesla project, but that he did not remember the Council decision. The sign is in place. Ms. Gerhardt said the exception must have been approved. Boardmember Lew said that as there are multiple signs on the property the project could have eliminated other signs in order to keep the one in question. Overall, it was an unwise use of City Council’s time to look at the definition of sign area. Additionally, the current City Council is more conservative than it was in 2014. The general principle behind both discussions is the same; what is the definition of a sign versus an architectural element. Mr. Gutierrez showed the street view of the Tesla project with the monument sign and the wall signs. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that the issue was whether the entire red structure was the sign or only the white logo portion. Ms. Gerhardt stated that was correct. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that the portal frame would be considered the same as the red area in the Tesla sign. Ms. Gerhardt stated that was also correct, and that with Tesla the entire red sign was the sign structure and therefore counted towards the sign square footage. Boardmember Lew requested confirmation that the red metal area of the Tesla sign was not illuminated, only the white logo. Mr. Gutierrez stated that was correct. Boardmember Lew said that the Tesla sign was different than the portal entrance as the portal is illuminated. 4.a Packet Pg. 72 Page 5 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Ms. Gerhardt explained that she was still looking at the Tesla project, and that the compromise with Tesla might have to do with the sign material being metal. Boardmember Lew said that he thought the red area was always metal and never illuminated. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that the red area was not illuminated. Boardmember Lew did not recall it ever being proposed as illuminated. Chair Thompson called for any further questions of staff or the applicant, but there were none. She called for ARB comment. Boardmember Lew thanked the applicant team and thought that the façade was well designed and detailed. The staff report stated that the material used was stone, but the drawings said porcelain tile. The MTFS Program does not allow porcelain tile. However, upon inspection the material is more of a ceramic slab and is high quality and acceptable. The glass also looked good. With respect to the sign exception, he agreed with staff. The MTFS Program encourages graphics on the glass, but he understood that the applicant did not want to do that. The Tesla project was brought up because it is painful for something like that to be elevated to City Council. He did not want this project to be appealed and to have to go through that process, especially if the applicant has other options for pedestrian level signage. He stated support for the staff recommendation and conditions of approval. Boardmember Baltay saw no grounds for a sign exception and stated that the issue is whether the entire portal frame is a sign. When compared to the Tesla building a key difference is that the portal frame serves an architectural purpose with or without the “P” logos. The red element in the Tesla project was strictly signage without other overriding architectural function. The ARB may have to determine if the portal entry is more a sign or more an architectural feature. He saw it as an architectural feature that clearly framed and identified the entrance with the logos being secondary. If the lines were painted in white rather than illuminated the portal frame would be more of an architectural feature as signs tend to be illuminated while architectural details do not. He was inclined to call the “P” logos signs surrounded by the portal frame as an architectural element. If that determination were made it would eliminate the need for a sign exception, but the ARB must be careful about any precedent it sets. Boardmember Lew’s points about City Council’s time are valid so the applicant should be asked about how integral the “P” logos are to the design. If the applicant is okay with removing the logos then that would be helpful in avoiding further issues. The Urban Outfitters next door to the project has large elements that project into the sidewalk right of way. The Peloton entrance extends 18 inches into the public sidewalk at a point where its narrowest. The walkway is wide enough, but applicants should not be encouraged to push designs into the right of way. The portal entry could be done where it recesses into the store instead of pushing into the sidewalk. The ARB previously dealt with this issue several years prior with the fish restaurant and had to establish an 8-foot minimum width on the sidewalk. He requested staff speak further on that issue in the future. In summary, he supported classifying the “P” logos as signs and allowing the project to proceed without an exception. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Boardmember Baltay’s comments. With or without the lights he did not see the portal entry as a single signage element. The blade sign can only be seen from some distance away so having the logos symmetrically placed on either side of the entry is an appropriate design idea. 4.a Packet Pg. 73 Page 6 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 He believed City Council would be reasonable and if the ARB granted an exception and it was appealed to Council it would agree to the exception. With respect to the sidewalk the new entry will be similar in size to the old storefront which does not interfere with the sidewalk or handicapped accessibility. The neighboring Urban Outfitters makes use of aggressive materials and graphics. In contract this project is simple, direct, and pleasantly detailed. The current storefront is incredibly overdone, and the new project is a simplification of the area. He supported the design as presented and suggested ARB approval. Chair Thompson agreed with staff and viewed the entry portal as a sign because it is integrated and presents as an illuminated cabinet. The sign is nice and does many things architecturally that other signs do not. She supported the sign as is and thought that removing the “P” logo would be a detriment. She disagreed with Boardmember Baltay about painting the entry portal white rather than illuminating it. There is grey area in this matter so she could either support staff’s proposal or grant the sign exception. Mr. Gutierrez explained that if they focused on the area around the logos as signs there would still need to be a sign exception. The MTFS Program only allows for one wall sign and if the portal were broken into the individual logos there would be three wall signs. Chair Thompson asked the applicant for further comments. Mr. Badger stated that the portal entry protrudes into the sidewalk because of a structural header that goes across the storefronts of the tenant spaces. The header pushes any storefront elements out further to maintain the height of the storefront and the glazing. Regarding the MTFS Program the design was presented to the landlord and approved. Ms. Gerhardt clarified that the size of the sign from staff’s perspective is the entire entrance portal. Staff is supported by the Tesla item which was a Consent Item and was ultimately approved for additional square footage with an exception. Chair Thompson said there were two Boardmembers in support of the proposed design and two supporting the staff recommendation with mixed opinions on the sign exception. She called for additional ARB comment. Boardmember Baltay stated the ARB should first decide whether the entire portal entry was a sign or not. He was concerned that his opinion was incorrect based on Ms. Gerhardt’s explanation of the City Council determination on the Tesla sign. If the Tesla sign was determined to be a sign, then the portal entry is a sign. He could not accept a sign exemption of this magnitude as the project signage is much larger than allowed and is three wall signs instead of one. As he could not make the findings the only way he could support the project is if the entire portal frame were not considered a sign, but an architectural element. Chair Thompson stated that the ARB received information and precedence from staff and must decide to follow staff’s recommendation or support the sign exception. Boardmember Hirsch agreed that the portal entry was a single element and suggested that the project remove the blade sign and retain the “P” logos. He noted that the shopping center already approved the sign. The ARB was playing with descriptive language and that was not exactly rational. The feature is 4.a Packet Pg. 74 Page 7 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 part of the architecture, and the “P” logos are useful and symmetrical. The symbol is not the name of the business and fits in as part of the composition of the face of the building. Therefore, he was willing to grant the sign exception. Boardmember Baltay asked Boardmember Hirsch how he made the findings to justify the exception. Boardmember Hirsch said that it was a good design. Boardmember Baltay asked which finding involved it being a good design. Ms. Gerhardt suggested that Mr. Gutierrez put up the slides regarding the necessary ARB findings. Staff’s concern was whether the ARB could make the findings. Trading the “P” logos for the blade sign as suggested by Boardmember Hirsch could be a possibility, but it would set a precedent for the entire shopping center and perhaps beyond because the project would still be out of compliance with the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the PAMC. Mr. Gutierrez showed the Signage Conditions slide. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the blade sign was 2 sf in area, the main wall sign was 23 sf, and the portal entry was 106 sf. The total sign area as currently proposed was 131 sf and the allowed square footage under the PAMC and the El Camino Real Design Guidelines is between 30 and 40 sf. The MTFS Program limits tenants to one wall sign. Those are the three levels of regulation the project needed to adhere to. Boardmember Hirsch said that the “P” logos should be considered signage, not the entire portal entry. The fact that the entry portal is illuminated serves different purposes, it illuminates the front of the building, draws in pedestrians, and is a part of the whole construction. If the ARB stated the project that way he thought the City Council would accept it. Chair Thompson stated that earlier Boardmember Hirsch said that the whole portal was the sign because of the cabinet construction. Boardmember Hirsch said that the entire portal was the sign. That was the issue. Chair Thompson stated that was correct and that the portal was built like a cabinet. Boardmember Hirsch agreed that the portal was part of one thing, the entire façade. The signage was separate and was simply the elements that have symbolic value. Boardmember Baltay agreed with Boardmember Hirsch’s logic. If the “P” logos were removed the portal entry would no longer be a sign. He asked how simply adding the logo made the entry a sign when without the logo it would be considered an architectural element. The Tesla project differed in that it was only a sign, not an architectural element. The illuminated portal is an integral part of the design, so the logic does not hold. He suggested that if it were acceptable to Chair Thompson he would make a Motion that directs staff to interpret the sign as strictly the logo and then process it as an ordinary application. That would be a clear way to get the project through without the question of the sign exception and the possibility of going to City Council. Ms. Gerhardt stated that a sign exception would still be required for the number of wall signs. 4.a Packet Pg. 75 Page 8 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Boardmember Hirsch asked if the applicant would eliminate the blade sign in favor of the other signs. Mr. Gutierrez showed the Required Signage Exception Findings slide. Chair Thompson said that staff viewed the entire entry portal as a sign. Based on that she asked the ARB if they could make the findings for the signage exception. Boardmember Baltay said that there was nothing special about the property or the sign. The findings are a high bar and staff was correct that an exception would be a bad precedent. Chair Thompson advised Boardmember Baltay that he could make a Motion if he wished. Boardmember Baltay stated that he wanted to work by Chair Thompson’s direction. Chair Thompson asked how the ARB felt about staff’s recommendations. Boardmember Baltay suggested that they check with the applicant. Chair Thompson said she wanted to hear from the ARB if the removal of the “P” logos hurt the project. Boardmember Baltay thought it hurt the applicant’s business opportunity but did not affect the quality of the architecture. Most businesses have more than one sign in the form of names on the glass or other elements. He asked if the “P” logos were moved to the glass if they would be considered a sign. Ms. Gerhardt explained that logos on the glass were allowed, and that Mr. Gutierrez had suggested that to the applicant. Boardmember Baltay said that the “P” logos could be placed on the glass inside the frame for a similar effect. Chair Thompson asked the applicant for their thoughts. Mr. Badger said that they felt strongly that the “P” logos on the portal entry were an important element. Boardmember Baltay requested permission to ask follow-up questions of the applicant. Chair Thompson granted permission. Boardmember Baltay asked if there were other Peloton stores that did not have the “P” logo on the portal entry. Mr. Badger said that where they have executed the portal element the “P” logos have been included. MOTION #1: Chair Thompson moved, seconded by Boardmember Lew to approve the project per the conditions of approval in the staff report. Chair Thompson called for discussion on the Motion. Boardmember Baltay stated he was unsure. Boardmember Hirsch stated he disagreed with the determination, thought staff’s determination was not logical and would vote against the Motion. 4.a Packet Pg. 76 Page 9 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Boardmember Baltay agreed with Boardmember Hirsch and could not support the Motion. Chair Thompson stated she wanted a determination that worked for everyone. Since the ARB appeared deadlocked, she withdrew her Motion. MOTION #1: Withdrawn. MOTION #2: Boardmember Hirsch moved that the signage on the façade was only the logo elements themselves and the square footage of the signage should be based only on the graphics and no other element of the façade. Boardmember Baltay noted that did not address the question of three wall signs, not one. He asked if the ARB would not consider the logos as wall signs noting that otherwise they would still have to make the findings for a sign exception. Boardmember Hirsch said that the applicant could remove the blade sign. Chair Thompson explained that even without the blade sign the sign exception would be necessary. The existing project would need two sign exceptions: one for the square footage and a second for the number of wall signs. Boardmember Hirsch confirmed that the two exceptions would be for the blade sign and one for the two logos. Chair Thompson stated that the blade sign was not controversial. The issue was the number of wall signs and the area that they take. Boardmember Baltay asked staff to define wall sign versus a logo. Many stores in the shopping center featured logos in addition to wall signs. Ms. Gerhardt asked Mr. Gutierrez to show the slide on Signage Considerations. The blade sign was categorized differently in the program than the wall signs, but it might be a better precedent to remove one sign while adding two others. The ARB would still have to make the findings for a sign exception. The MTFS Program allows a primary wall sign and, in some cases, a secondary wall sign. Mr. Gutierrez explained that the secondary wall sign was allowed for corner stores with two façades. Chair Thompson asked if Boardmember Hirsch’s Motion had a second. Boardmember Baltay asked if Boardmember Hirsch had finished making his Motion. Boardmember Hirsch stated he left it open to the applicant if they could live with the idea of only the two logo signs versus the blade sign. As stated by Ms. Gerhardt that made a better precedent. Chair Thompson clarified that Boardmember Hirsch’s Motion was to have a sign exception for the area and the number of wall signs and to remove the blade sign. Boardmember Hirsch said he did not want to make the Motion unless there was an agreement from the applicant. Chair Thompson stated she did not want to engage the applicant as all the information was provided. 4.a Packet Pg. 77 Page 10 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Boardmember Hirsch stepped away from the meeting for a moment. Boardmember Baltay thought that Boardmember Hirsch’s Motion was not to allow a sign exception for the area. It was to direct staff to interpret the portal frame as an architectural element with only the “P” logos as signage. Chair Thompson agreed that was a different Motion. Boardmember Hirsch returned to the meeting and stated Boardmember Baltay was correct. Boardmember Baltay said that the Motion did not solve the problem because the ARB would still have to make the sign exception findings because of the number of signs. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Boardmember Baltay stated he could not support the Motion as he could not make the findings for a sign exception. Boardmember Hirsch asked if he could accept the Motion if the applicant eliminated the blade sign. Boardmember Baltay said that the blade sign is an allowed separate element and has nothing to do with the number of signs necessitating the sign exemption. The ARB cannot rewrite code and must follow the rules. He asked if the “P” logos could be considered a super graphic. Ms. Gerhardt said super graphics are normally images, not words or lettering. Mr. Gutierrez agreed with Ms. Gerhardt. Boardmember Baltay requested the definition of super graphic. Mr. Gutierrez said there was none, but he has seen illuminated cabinet signs for different tenants in the shopping center such as Macy’s. Another super graphic could be an applied feature to a façade. For example, a graphic of a shoe on the Nike store that did not contain their logo would be a super graphic. Boardmember Hirsch said the portal entry was not a sign. The signage was the elements within it. If the size of the “P” logos were appropriate then it should be acceptable. Chair Thompson said that a sign exception would still have to be granted. Boardmember Hirsch’s Motion did not receive a second, so it failed. MOTION #2 FAILED: Lack of second. MOTION #3: Chair Thompson moved, seconded by Boardmember Lew to approve the project per the conditions in the staff report. Boardmember Baltay asked how the new Motion differed from Chair Thompson’s first Motion. Chair Thompson said it did not differ, it was the same Motion. MOTION #3 FAILED: 2-2, Vice Chair Lee absent. 4.a Packet Pg. 78 Page 11 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Boardmember Baltay recalled the North Face store project which had a large logo of a topographic map above the façade and stated he thought that was considered a super graphic. Ms. Gerhardt agreed. Boardmember Baltay suggested the portal frame be considered a super graphic, which would eliminate the counting of wall signs. Ms. Gerhardt explained super graphics do not normally contain words or letters. She suggested changing the “P” logos to an image of a Peloton bike. Mr. Gutierrez agreed and again provided the example of a large shoe graphic on a Nike store. Boardmember Hirsch said that seemed like reasonable direction. Boardmember Baltay asked if the Macy’s store allowed several wall signs because of its size. Mr. Gutierrez explained that Macy’s was an anchor tenant and went through a sign exception process. An anchor tenant always appears before the ARB as a significant building. Macy’s has four sides, and one side of the façade was allowed two wall signs because of wayfinding with two sidewalks. The way the signs were placed align with lines of sight entering the shopping center. Additionally, Macy’s is a standalone building not involved with the shopping center massing. Peloton is an interior tenant space with only one façade, which makes multiple wall signs unusual. Chair Thompson asked Boardmember Baltay and Boardmember Hirsch what the cutout in the façade did architecturally that a decal on the glass would not accomplish. Boardmember Baltay said he saw Chair Thompson’s point. Boardmember Hirsch said that there were many ways the glass could be etched that could be appropriate. Boardmember Baltay explained he was torn as he could not justify any kind of sign exception for the project. Even if staff changed their determination on the sign it did not matter. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Boardmember Baltay said it might be best to approve the project but noted that Boardmember Lew was correct, and the applicant could try to appeal. Boardmember Lew said he had nothing further to add about City Council and suggested looking to see if the sign could be considered a canopy sign since it was an entrance element. Boardmember Baltay requested a definition. Boardmember Lew said that the MTFS Program contained an element for canopy signs. He referred the ARB to Page 2F of the packet and read the definition. Chair Thompson asked if the applicant would have to give up its large Peloton sign in exchange. Boardmember Hirsch noted that Macy’s had both wall and canopy signs. 4.a Packet Pg. 79 Page 12 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Ms. Gerhardt requested that Mr. Gutierrez show the slide of Signage Considerations. Canopy signs are an optional sign on a primary façade. Chair Thompson requested clarification on whether the applicant would have to give up the large wall sign for a canopy. Boardmember Lew read that “tenants may elect to use the canopy sign as their primary storefront sign.” Boardmember Baltay said that it was in lieu of a wall sign. Chair Thompson was not sure the applicant would be happy with that especially because there is not really a canopy element in the façade. Mr. Gutierrez confirmed that the portal entry would have to be viewed as a canopy. Chair Thompson said that she did not see that as viable. Boardmember Baltay questioned whether only one sign was allowed as a canopy sign. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he thought it was better to agree with Chair Thompson and Boardmember Lew. Boardmember Baltay asked Chair Thompson to make her Motion again. MOTION: Chair Thompson moved, seconded by Boardmember Lew to approve the project subject to the conditions of approval in the staff report. MOTION PASSED: 4-0, Vice Chair Lee absent Chair Thompson thanked staff and the applicants. She called for a five-minute break and asked staff to contact Vice Chair Lee. ARB Break Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 6, 2021 Vice Chair Lee joined the meeting. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Lew to approve the Minutes for the ARB meeting of May 6, 2021. MOTION PASSED: 4-0-1, Vice Chair Lee abstained 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 17, 2021 Boardmember Baltay noted that the June 17th meeting minutes were in a different format and asked Ms. Gerhardt how they were put together. Ms. Gerhardt said that the City Council handbook requested summary minutes. She asked Vinh Nguyen for confirmation. 4.a Packet Pg. 80 Page 13 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate III, explained that these minutes were done in summary format and that the transcriptionist was interested in the ARBs feedback. Boardmember Baltay asked who summarized the meeting and how it was done. Ms. Gerhardt explained that they were done by the transcriptionist and ARB feedback was requested. Boardmember Baltay asked if City staff reviewed the minutes. Ms. Gerhardt said that she and Mr. Nguyen review them briefly, but they do not have time to do more than that. Boardmember Lew thought the summary minutes were done well. In the past summary minutes were done as a paragraph and were too short. The new summary could be shorter but was a good start. Boardmember Baltay supported Boardmember Lew’s comments and thought the minutes were well done. Boardmember Hirsch was surprised by the new format and concerned about loss in detail. He suggested staff review them for detail as he has reservations on the process. The summary minutes are an improvement. Vice Chair Lee supported the new format. Chair Thompson thought the format was good but stated that the new minutes should be carefully reviewed by the ARB for possible misinterpretations. She stated support for the June 17th minutes. Boardmember Hirsch clarified that when he mentioned detail he meant intent. It is up to Boardmembers to read the minutes and make sure they describe the ARBs intent. Boardmember Baltay spoke to Boardmember Lew’s question about further condensing the minutes. He was concerned that requesting shorter minutes would require the transcriptionist to make too many judgements on what is included. The new format is a good middle ground between verbatim transcript and summary paragraphs, and he supports it as presented. Chair Thompson called for further comments on Boardmember Lew’s question. Boardmember Hirsch agreed that the summary minutes were properly done and that the length was appropriate. He stressed that the ARB would have to carefully review the minutes for intent. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch to approve the Minutes for the ARB meeting of June 17, 2021. Vice Chair Lee added that the ARB could always bring edits to the minutes from their review. Chair Thompson stated that more brief minutes could be good as the benefit of summary minutes is that “dead wood” gets filtered out. The summary minutes still contain some “dead wood,” but it is summarized. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 4.a Packet Pg. 81 Page 14 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Ms. Gerhardt requested clarification that the ARB is pleased with the length and depth of the summary minutes. Chair Thompson said that two Boardmembers felt the minutes could be shorter and three agreed with the current length. Ms. Gerhardt said that the transcriptionist would be advised that the length is generally good but could be shortened if possible. Boardmember Baltay said the transcriptionist could cut out “dead wood.” Boardmember Hirsch explained that the transcriptionist could use terms like “all agreed” instead of listing out the agreement. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates – Boardmember Lew Boardmember Lew reported the Council was off in July so there was nothing new to report. There is another housing project composed of condominiums and low-income apartments proposed on Lambert which will be prescreened by the Council through the Planned Community (PC) process. Boardmember Baltay said the May 6th minutes included a question from a member of the public about paint color on the Caltrain poles through Downtown and asked when the item would be agendized. Ms. Gerhardt said that she may have missed that request and would follow the ARBs wishes. The City already held discussions with Caltrain but could revisit the issue. Boardmember Baltay said the member of the public questioned if the poles were painted as approved. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed they were painted as approved. Boardmember Baltay stated that the minutes indicated at least two Boardmembers requested the item be placed on the agenda. The public deserved to have its questions reviewed or be contacted and advised that the poles were painted as agreed. It was a mistake to ignore public comment. Chair Thompson said she understood that a staff member, possibly Amy French, had contacted the member of the public and addressed their concerns. The ARB could take a straw poll to determine if the matter needed to be addressed further. Boardmember Hirsch said that the question was about a colored pole standing out in the landscape. The pole was visually jarring. Research must be done to determine how the color of the pole was chosen and if it was only located in a station area or just Palo Alto in general. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the item was not yet agendized, but tan poles were approved at the Caltrain Station and the rest of the City was to have green poles. From the vantage point of the station the pole blended in, but the resident had a different vantage point and the pole appeared to stand out. It is a pole at the station that matches the color of the station. If the ARB wanted further discussion on the matter it must be placed on an agenda. She promised to investigate if the resident had received a response. 4.a Packet Pg. 82 Page 15 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Chair Thompson asked if the ARB wanted to place the item on an agenda for further discussion. Boardmember Baltay did not think the item warranted further discussion but was concerned that the resident had composed two emails on the topic with no response. He advised the resident to come to an ARB meeting and present his issue. The ARB must be responsive to residents and public comment. Chair Thompson understood that an answer was provided by staff. Boardmember Baltay requested a staff update at a future meeting and stated the item did not have to be on an agenda. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Boardmember Baltay and stated he had another issue. He worried that the Objective Standards were slipping away. After the Objective Standards review he wrote a detailed letter and received no response. His letter addressed legal issues he researched which determined that it was not possible to write Objective Standards that are not completely known before an applicant submits a project. The Objective Standards include an item that states the Chair can make certain decisions but that may not be legal. He requested the item be agendized for August and the ARB review his summary letter and Chair Thompson’s questions and comments. MOTION: Boardmember Hirsch moved to keep the item open for discussion by the ARB to review its comments on the graphics and intent of the Objective Standards. MOTION FAILED: Lack of second. Chair Thompson stated that her intention with her email was not to reopen any items. She wanted to discuss her questions at the ARB retreat as they went beyond the Objective Standards. Ms. Gerhardt explained the ARB made a Motion to approve the Objective Standards so it would move on to City Council. The subcommittee is working on graphics, which are forthcoming from the consultants and will be complete before the City Council meeting on August 16, 2021. If the Objective Standards do not carry through the City would have no standards and would get SB 35 projects that conform to the code with no design control. The conversations could continue but Phase 1 of Objective Standards needed to move forward as without them the City would have very few standards, possibly only height and setback. Vice Chair Lee asked about the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) hearing and the procedural and structural plan for the Objective Standards. Ms. Gerhardt said the PTC moved to approve the Objective Standards and send them to City Council. They discussed height transition at length. Height requirements are listed at least 11 times in the code so as part of the Objective Standards project staff is attempting to clean that up. There was a misunderstanding where residents thought the City was trying to change the code and that would be addressed at the community meeting on July 19, 2021. Invitations were sent to residents that attended the PTC meeting, architects, and Sheri Furman of Palo Alto Neighborhoods (PAN). The PTC appreciated the ARB work on the Objective Standards. Boardmember Baltay asked if the ARB retreat was scheduled and stated Boardmember Hirsch’s issues would be better addressed there than as an agenda item. 4.a Packet Pg. 83 Page 16 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 7/15/2021 Chair Thompson said that at the August 19th meeting the ARB Awards would be addressed. She asked if there was interest in doing that in person as part of an ARB retreat. Boardmember Hirsch thought that was a good retreat item. Chair Thompson noted the ARB nodded in agreement. She stated the retreat would include discussion topics raised in her email and referenced by Boardmember Hirsch. Vice Chair Lee confirmed the August 5th meeting was canceled and requested a summary of the July 19th community meeting. Ms. Gerhardt stated she could provide the information in an email by July 23rd and would determine if it needed to be made public. Vice Chair Lee asked how the community meeting was publicized and noted she did not receive an invitation. Ms. Gerhardt stated it was email invite only and was focused on the members of the public and architects that came to the PTC. The ARB could attend but must be cognizant of quorum; if ARB members are listening then quorum is not an issue. Council will discuss Objective Standards on August 16th and Chair Thompson or another ARB member should attend. Chair Thompson said she would attend. Ms. Gerhardt stated staff would set a location for the retreat in a conference room or the Art Center. Boardmember Hirsch suggested a room at the Rinconada Library. Ms. Gerhardt said the last retreat was in the Art Center. Boardmember Baltay preferred Downtown. Chair Thompson said that the ARB was open to the location. Ms. Gerhardt said staff would find a location. The agenda for the retreat would include information on the Caltrain pole, a review of the email summarizing the community meeting, Boardmember Hirsch’s email, and Chair Thompson’s email. Chair Thompson said it was a good place to discuss the ARB Awards. Ms. Gerhardt agreed. Boardmember Hirsch requested a schedule of the ARB Awards. Ms. Gerhardt explained the ARB Awards were past schedule due to the pandemic. She could not give a date for the Awards yet. Chair Thompson said that a date could be discussed later. Adjournment Chair Thompson adjourned the meeting at 12:04 p.m. 4.a Packet Pg. 84