Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My WebLink
About
2022-01-20 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet
_______________________ 1.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2.The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3.The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: January 20, 2022 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM ****BY VIRTUAL TELECONFERENCE ONLY*** https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 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 1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency 2.Recognition of Board Member Lew and Board Member Lee for Their Service with the Architectural Review Board 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 3.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions _______________________ 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 4. Discuss Revisions to Objective Design Standards based on Feedback from City Council 5. 2850 West Bayshore [21PLN-00177]: Request for Architectural Review of a Proposed 48-Unit Residential Townhome Development. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: ROLM (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing). 6. ARB Awards: Consider the Eligible 11 Projects and Associated Photographs Taken by Board Members, and Decide on a List of Award Categories and Award Winners Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2021 8. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 9, 2021 Subcommittee Items Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Adjournment _______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Boardmember Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/boards/architectural/default.asp. The ARB Boardmembers are: Chair Osma Thompson 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. Please read the following instructions carefully. • 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. • 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. • 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. • When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. • 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. 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. 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 # 13779) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/20/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board Meetings Title: Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency. Background In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act, effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days. AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances: (A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. (B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for 1 Packet Pg. 5 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B) (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).) In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider the state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1, 2021, and at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances exists: 1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person. 2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. 1 Packet Pg. 6 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Discussion At this time, the circumstances in Section 54953(e)( 1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. (See August 2, 2021 Order.) In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other social distancing measures. Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing are protected. To comply with public health directives and promote public safety, Palo Alto policy bodies have been meeting via teleconference since March 2020. On September 27, 2021, the City Council considered the format for future Council, committee, and Board and Commission meetings. Council determined that beginning November 1, 2021, Council meetings would be conducted using a hybrid format that allows Council Members and the public to decide whether to attend in person, following masking and distancing protocols, or participate via teleconference. Council directed that Council standing and ad-hoc committees and Boards and Commissions would continue meeting via teleconference until January 2022. On December 13, 2021, Council directed that Council committees and Boards and Commissions would continue meeting via teleconference through February 2022. Adoption of the Resolution at Attachment A will make the findings required by Section 54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees. Attachments: • Attachment A: Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing Under Government Code Section 54953(e) for Meetings of Architectural Review Board (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 7 NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. ____ Resolution Making Findings to Allow Teleconferenced Meetings Under California Government Code Section 54953(e) R E C I T A L S A. California Government Code Section 54953(e) empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act so long as certain conditions are met; and B. In March 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency in California in connection with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, and that state of emergency remains in effect; and C. In February 2020, the Santa Clara County Director of Emergency Services and the Santa Clara County Health Officer declared a local emergency, which declarations were subsequently ratified and extended by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and those declarations also remain in effect; and D. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days; and E. While federal, State, and local health officials emphasize the critical importance of vaccination and consistent mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Santa Clara County Health Officer has issued at least one order, on August 2, 2021 (available online at here), that continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts; and F. The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other social distancing measures; and G. The Architectural Review Board has met remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and can continue to do so in a manner that allows public participation and transparency while minimizing health risks to members, staff, and the public that would be present with in-person meetings while this emergency continues; now, therefore, 1.a Packet Pg. 8 NOT YET APPROVED The Architectural Review Board RESOLVES as follows: 1. As described above, the State of California remains in a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At this meeting, the Architectural Review Board has considered the circumstances of the state of emergency. 2. As described above, State and County officials continue to recommend measures to promote physical distancing and other social distancing measures, in some settings. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That for at least the next 30 days, meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees will occur using teleconferencing technology. Such meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees that occur using teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who wish to address the body and its committees and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Architectural Review Board staff liaison is directed to place a resolution substantially similar to this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of the Architectural Review Board within the next 30 days. If the Architectural Review Board does not meet within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place a such resolution on the agenda of the immediately following meeting of the Architectural Review Board. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Staff Liaison Chair of Architectural Review Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney Department Head 1.a Packet Pg. 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13942) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 1/20/2022 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 3 Packet Pg. 10 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) 3 Packet Pg. 11 Architectural Review Board 202 2 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2022 Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 01/20/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 02/03/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 02/17/2022 8:30 AM Virtual Meeting Regular 03/03/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 03/17/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 04/07/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 04/21/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 05/05/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 05/19/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 05/20/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 06/02/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 06/16/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 07/07/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 07/21/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 08/04/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 08/18/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 09/01/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 09/15/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 10/06/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 10/20/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 11/03/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 11/17/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 12/01/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 12/15/2022 8:30 AM TBD Regular 2022 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair on the day of the hearing January February March April May June July August September October November December 3.a Packet Pg. 12 Architectural Review Board 2022 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics February 3, 2022 • 300 Pasteur: SUMC Nursing Pod Extension • Wireless Design Standards 3.b Packet Pg. 13 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13907) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/20/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: ARB Feedback on Objective Design Standards Title: Public Hearing: Discuss Revisions to Objective Design Standards based on Feedback from City Council From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) a. Review the City Council motion from November 8, 2021 b. Discuss and provide preliminary direction to staff on the three parts of Council’s motion that are relevant to the ARB c. Continue this item to a date uncertain Background Project Purpose The State legislature has made several changes to State housing laws in recent years to streamline housing approvals. These steps include reducing how much subjective discretion jurisdictions have - to deny, or reduce the density of, residential and residential mixed-use projects. Instead, in many contexts, jurisdictions must rely solely on objective design and development standards. The objective standards project aims to respond to State law by making changes to the Zoning Ordinance (Title 18), including the Context-Based Design Criteria. Summary of Public Meetings This report section summarizes meetings with the ARB and City Council on the objective standards project. Records from previous meetings can be found on the project webpage: bit.ly/ObjectiveStandards. ARB Review At its April 1, 2021, meeting, the ARB recommended (4-1) City Council approval of the objective design standards, following 13 meetings. Several meetings were with the full ARB and many meetings were the Ad Hoc Committee, composed of Board Members Thompson and Hirsch. 4 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 City Council Following a recommendation from the ARB and subsequently the Planning & Transportation Commission, the City Council reviewed objective standards during meetings on October 4 and November 8, 2021 (continued without discussion from September 27 and October 25, respectively). ARB Member Thompson presented the ARB’s work and role to the Council at the October 4th meeting. Table 1 restates the November 8th Council motion and summarizes next steps for revision and implementation. There are three issue areas that City staff suggested the ARB weigh in on before the Council takes action. These items are highlighted in bold in the table below and include: (Cii) potential new privacy protections; (F) expanding the menu of options in the design standards; and (G) new height transition standards. Table 1: November 8, 2021 Council Motion and Next Steps for Amendments Council Motion #/Topic Next Steps A. Take Council feedback on overlays and then take to Housing Element Working Group and return to Council for further discussion; Referred to Housing Element; no further action. B. Direct Staff to retain current Context-Based Design Criteria and Chapter 18 laws for development applications that do not fall under the State housing laws requiring objective standards; City staff to revise ordinance to distinguish process for Housing Development Projects vs. all other projects C. Direct Staff to return with proposed objective standards and intent statements and to provide: i. A detailed side-by-side comparison of the existing Context-Based Design Criteria and the proposed new laws; City staff to expand comparison matrix of design criteria vs. new standards and intent statements ii. Adoptable changes to existing and proposed laws that would provide standards for privacy and other protections for all residents, regardless of their zones. Regarding privacy, to come back with stronger protections for elevated floors looking into neighboring lots. Stronger definitions of sight lines and how this applies. Address concerns about allowing 15% windows. In RM40, retain 25’ front set back; For ARB Review: Discuss potential new standards to ensure privacy for residential uses. This could include offsetting windows and limiting clear glass windows when uses are close together. iii. Refer to the S/CAP Ad Hoc Committee on the evaluation of approximate GHG impacts in construction; Referred to S/CAP Ad Hoc Committee; no further action 4 Packet Pg. 15 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Council Motion #/Topic Next Steps D. Prior to any rezoning of PF to WH (workforce housing), the City Council would re-examine the affordability threshold of workforce housing; Referred to Housing Element; no further action. E. Hold at least two meetings on the proposed changes before the next Council session for free-form discussion by the general public; Community meetings planned for January and March F. In Building Massing / Facades sections where there is a menu of choices, increase the number of required choices per category; For ARB Review: Discuss expanding menu of options G. Put in place a temporary height transition backstop. Initial ordinance should include objective height transition language, for example “No part of the building can be more than X’ higher than the lowest adjacent building, up to the applicable height limit”. Come back with a specific proposal along these lines for adoption this year and Staff can then propose additional amendments in the future; and For ARB Review: Discuss height transition standards for abutting uses H. Evaluate and return with strengthened language to use “design standards” instead of “design intents”; City staff to revise ordinance accordingly I. Evaluate whether "decision by director" option throughout objective standards puts those at risk and should be changed /remove; and City staff to revise ordinance accordingly J. On appeal, consider sending directly to Council if required to meet streamlining requirements. City staff to revise ordinance accordingly Discussion The ARB will hold a preliminary discussion of the three topics outlined in Table 1. The draft design standards ordinance is attached for reference. This discussion will help inform future Council hearings and community meetings. After the discussion, staff would ask the ARB to continue this item to a date uncertain. At a future hearing, the ARB will be asked to make a formal recommendation on the three topics to the City Council. City staff anticipates that the Council will take up a portion of Motion item G on January 24, 2022, to clarify ambiguities in height transitions standards when new uses are adjacent to lower 4 Packet Pg. 16 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 density residential uses. Then, the Council will consider the remaining issues in late winter, following the community meetings and based on feedback from the ARB on design standards. Staff is also setting up additional meetings with the community to discuss the overall objective standards project. A virtual meeting will be on February 1, 2022 at 6:00 pm. The second meeting will be held in March. Environmental Review The ordinance revisions represent implementation of adopted plans and policy. Therefore, the revisions are exempt under CEQA and/or covered by the CEQA documents prepared for the Comprehensive Plan. The project aims to facilitate implementation of State law. The project does not propose to increase development beyond what was analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments This item was published in a local paper, Daily Post, on January 10, 2022, which is 10 days in advance of the meeting. Next Steps Staff will bring the ARB’s recommendation to the City Council for their consideration on a revised draft ordinance. Report Author & Contact Information ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Jean Eisberg, Consultant Planner Jodie Gerhardt, Planning Manager (415) 841-3539 (650) 329-2575 jean@lexingtonplanning.com jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: 2021-09-14 ORD 18.24 Objective Design Standards (PDF) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 17 *NOT YET APPROVED* 1 0160052_20210914_ay16 Ordinance No. ____ Ordinance of the Council of the City of Palo Alto Adding Chapter 18.24 of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code to Adopt Building Design Intent Statements and Objective Standards The Council of the City of Palo Alto does ORDAIN as follows: SECTION 2. Chapter 18.24 (Objective Design Standards) of Title 18 (Zoning) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code is added as follows: Sections: 18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character 18.24.030 Site Access 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks 18.24.050 Building Massing 18.24.060 Façade Design 18.24.070 Residential Entries 18.24.080 Open Space 18.24.090 Materials 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Design 18.24.010 Purpose and Applicability (a) Purpose. The purpose of this Chapter is to provide guidance for good design in the form of “intent statements” for all project types and to provide objective design standards for multifamily and residential mixed-use development projects that qualify as Housing Development Projects under the Housing Accountability Act. Diagrams are provided for illustrative purposes only and are not intended to convey required architectural style. Rather, the objective design standards aim to accommodate a variety of styles, construction types (e.g., wood frame, modular) and housing types including townhomes, apartments, condos, and mixed-use buildings. (b) Applicability of Regulations Within the following zones and combining districts, the intent statements apply to all project types (including non-residential projects), new construction, and renovations in the zoning districts identified below. Additionally, objective design standards apply to new multifamily housing with three or more units (see definition in 18.04.030), supportive and transitional housing, and residential mixed-use projects with at least two-thirds residential square footage: (1) Chapter 18.13: RM-20, RM-30, RM-40 (2) Chapter 18.16: CN, CC, CC(2), CS (3) Chapter 18.18: CD-C, CD-S, CD-N (4) Chapter 18.20: MOR, ROLM, ROLM(E), RP, RP(5), GM – residential and residential mixed-use only; regulations do not apply to non-residential projects 4.a Packet Pg. 18 *NOT YET APPROVED* 2 0160052_20210914_ay16 (5) Chapter 18.28: PF – residential and residential mixed-use only; regulations do not apply to non-residential projects (6) Chapter 18.34: PTOD combining district (c) Process and Alternative Compliance Each section of this chapter includes an intent statement that gives guidance for all applicable projects, regardless of use. (1) Housing development projects are required to comply with objective standards; however, applicants may choose to forgo one or more objective standards, in which case the housing development project will be evaluated to the spirit of the relevant intent statements and be subject to architectural review as set forth in Sections 18.76.020 and 18.77.070. (2) Non-Housing development projects and non-residential projects shall adhere to the spirit of the intent statements and be subject to architectural review as set forth in Section 18.76.020 and 18.77.070. (d) Definitions In addition to definitions provided in Chapter 18.04, the following definitions are specific to this Chapter. (1) “Primary Building Frontage” means the front lot line or frontage along the public right- of-way. In the case of a through-lot, the primary building frontage could be on either public right-of-way. (2) “Primary Building Entry” means the entrance leading to a lobby and accessed from the primary building frontage. (3) “Pedestrian Walkway” means a sidewalk or path that is publicly-accessible and connects from a public right-of-way to another public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space. (4) “Façade Modulation” means a change in building plane, either a recess or a projection, that changes the shape of the exterior massing of the building. 18.24.020 Public Realm/Sidewalk Character (a) Intent Statement To create an attractive and safe public realm and sidewalk space for pedestrians and cyclists through the implementation of design, landscaping, and infrastructure. Publicly accessible spaces and sidewalks should: (1) Design the transition between the public and private realm through the coordination of amenities and materials, such as accent paving, tree wells, lighting and street furniture (e.g., benches, bicycle racks, trash receptacles, news racks). (2) Complement or match accent paving to existing designs in the Downtown and California Avenue business district. (3) Provide sidewalk widths that accommodate landscaping, street trees, furniture, and pedestrian amenities; create a pleasant, desirable place to walk; provide shade; and enable comfortable pedestrian passage. (4) Provide amenities, such as parking and repair equipment, for micromobility, such as bicycles and scooters. 4.a Packet Pg. 19 *NOT YET APPROVED* 3 0160052_20210914_ay16 (b) Objective Standards (1) Sidewalk Widths (A) Public sidewalks abutting a development parcel in any commercial mixed-use district (CN, CS, CC, CC(2), CD-C, CD-S, CD-N, PTOD) shall have a minimum sidewalk width (curb to back of walk) of at least 10 feet. This standard may be met with a combination of pedestrian clear path and landscape and furniture strip (see Figure 1), as long as the pedestrian clear path is no less than 8 feet. If the existing public sidewalk does not meet the minimum standard, a publicly accessible extension of the sidewalk, with corresponding public access easement, shall be provided. Notwithstanding the total dimensions required herein, the following streets/locations shall have a minimum sidewalk width as noted: (i) El Camino Real: 12 ft (ii) San Antonio Road, from Middlefield Road to East Charleston Road: 12 ft (B) Publicly accessible sidewalks or walkways connecting through a development parcel (e.g., on a through lot) shall have a minimum six-foot width. (C) Pedestrian walkways that are designed to provide access to bicycles shall have a minimum width of eight feet, with two feet of clear space on either side. Figure 1: Illustrative Sidewalk Section and Description of Zones Mixed-Use Frontage Residential Frontage 4.a Packet Pg. 20 *NOT YET APPROVED* 4 0160052_20210914_ay16 Frontage Sidewalk Street Building Setback Frontage Area Pedestrian Clear Zone Landscape/Furniture Zone Vehicles/Bike Lanes Mixed-Use • Sidewalk Dining • Outdoor Displays • Public Art • Seating • Trees/Planting Residential • Stoops • Porches • Front Yards • Trees/Planting • Sidewalk • Street Trees/Planting • Street Lighting • Seating • Bike Parking • Public Art • Outdoor Dining • Bus Shelters • Utilities (e.g., hydrants) • Street Parking • Bike Lanes • Drop-off Zones • Parklets • Bus Stops (2) Street Trees Sidewalks shall include at least one street tree, within six feet of the sidewalk, for every 30 feet of linear feet of sidewalk length. Rights of way under control of the County of Santa Clara or State of California, supersede this requirement if they have conflicting regulations. (3) Accent Paving On University and California Avenues, new construction projects shall install accent paving along the project frontage(s) (e.g., at intersections, sidewalks and/or other publicly-accessible areas), as indicated in the table below. Street Segment Paving Material University Avenue from Alma Street to Webster Street Brick at corners Brick trim at mid-block California Avenue from El Camino Real to Park Boulevard Decorative Glass (4) Mobility Infrastructure (A) Micromobility infrastructure, such as locations to lock bicycles and scooters, shall be located within 30 feet of the primary building entry and/or a path leading to the primary building entry. This standard may be satisfied by existing infrastructure already located within 50 feet of the project site and located in the public right-of- way. (B) Primary building entries shall provide at least one seating area or bench within 30 feet of building entry and/or path leading to building entry. This standard may be satisfied by existing seating area or benches located in public right-of-way within 50 feet of the building entry. On arterials—except Downtown—seating areas or benches shall not be located between the sidewalk and curb. Arterial roadways are identified in Map T-5 of the Comprehensive Plan and do not include residential arterials. 4.a Packet Pg. 21 *NOT YET APPROVED* 5 0160052_20210914_ay16 18.24.030 Site Access (a) Intent Statement To provide facilities and accommodations for pedestrians, vehicles, cyclists, and transit users to safely and efficiently access and circulate both within individual sites and in the site’s surrounding context. Site access should include the following elements: (1) Site circulation and access that presents a clear hierarchy and connectivity pattern both within a project and to adjacent sidewalks and transit stops. This hierarchy should prioritize pedestrians, bikes, vehicles, and utility/loading access in the order listed. This hierarchy may provide separate access for vehicles and other modes, or demonstrate how all modes are accommodated in shared access points. (2) Connections to side streets, open spaces, mews, alleys, and paseos (3) Vehicle, loading and service access that is integrated into building and landscape design and located to prevent conflicts with pedestrians and cyclists, while also provided convenient access to building entries. (b) Objective Standards (1) Through-Lot Connections. Through lots located more than 300 feet from an intersecting street or pedestrian walkway shall provide a publicly accessible sidewalk or pedestrian walkway connecting the two streets. (2) Building Entries. Entries to Primary Building Entries shall be located from a public right-of-way or, if not possible, a publicly accessible Pedestrian Walkway. (3) Vehicle Access. (A) Vehicle access shall be located on alleys or side streets where available. (B) Except for driveway access, off-street parking, off-street vehicle loading, and vehicular circulation areas are prohibited between the building and the primary building frontage. (4) Loading Docks and Service Areas. Loading and service areas shall be integrated into building and landscape design and located to minimize impact on the pedestrian experience as follows: (A) Loading docks and service areas shall be located on facades other than the primary building frontage: on alleys, from parking areas, and/or at the rear or side of building if building includes these frontages. When only primary building frontage is available, loading docks and service areas shall be recessed a minimum five feet from the primary façade and shall be screened in accordance with Chapter 18.23.050. (B) Loading dock and service areas located within setback areas shall be screened in accordance with Chapter 18.23.050 and separated from pedestrian access to the primary building entry to avoid impeding pedestrian movement and safety. 18.24.040 Building Orientation and Setbacks (a) Intent Statement To create a coherent and active interface between private development and the public realm that contributes to the sense of place and structure of the neighborhood and enhances the 4.a Packet Pg. 22 *NOT YET APPROVED* 6 0160052_20210914_ay16 public’s experience. Site design that responds to the orientation of adjacent uses and creates opportunities for landscaping and usable open space. Buildings and site design should meet the following criteria: (1) Buildings that create a street frontage that are compatible with nearby buildings and land uses. (2) Placement and orientation of doorways, windows, stoops, and landscape elements to create a direct relationship with the street. (3) Ground floor residential units that have direct entry and presence on the street, and maintain privacy. (4) Transitional spaces and buffer areas between buildings, parcels, and sites through building setbacks that distinguish private and public spaces. (5) Buildings that provide side and rear setbacks and/or upper story step backs to create a compatible relationship with adjacent lower density residential development. (6) Landscaped or usable areas that contain a balance between landscape and hardscape. (7) Optimized building orientation for thermal comfort, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation and other forms of passive design. (b) Objective Standards (1) Treatment of Corner Buildings (less than 40 feet) Corner buildings less than 40 feet in height and end units of townhouses or other attached housing products that face the street shall include the following features on their secondary building frontage: (A) A height to width ratio greater than 1.2:1 (B) A minimum of 15 percent fenestration area. (C) At least one facade modulation with a minimum depth of 18 inches and a minimum width of two feet. Examples: Wrap around front porch, bay window. (2) Treatment of Corner Buildings (40 feet and higher) Corner buildings 40 feet or taller in height shall include at least one of the following special features: (A) Street wall shall be located at the minimum front yard setback or build-to line for a minimum aggregated length of 40 feet in length on both facades meeting at the corner and shall include one or more of the following building features: 4.a Packet Pg. 23 *NOT YET APPROVED* 7 0160052_20210914_ay16 (i) An entry to ground floor retail or primary building entrance located within 25 feet of the corner of the building 4.a Packet Pg. 24 *NOT YET APPROVED* 8 0160052_20210914_ay16 (ii) A different material application and/or fenestration pattern from the rest of the façade. (iii) A change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of the abutting primary façade. (B) An open space with a minimum dimension of 20 feet and minimum area of 450 square feet. The open space shall be at least one of the following: (i) A publicly accessible open space/plaza (ii) A space used for outdoor seating for public dining 4.a Packet Pg. 25 *NOT YET APPROVED* 9 0160052_20210914_ay16 (iii) A residential Common Open Space adjacent to a common interior space and less than two feet above adjacent sidewalk grade. Fences and railing shall be a minimum 50% transparent. (3) Primary Building Entry The primary building entry shall meet at least one of the following standards: (A) Face a public right-of-way. (B) Face a publicly accessible pedestrian walkway. (C) Be visible from a public right-of-way through a forecourt or front porch that meets the following standards: (i) For residential buildings with fewer than seven units, building entry forecourts or front porches shall be a minimum area of 36 square feet and minimum dimension of six feet. (ii) For commercial buildings or residential buildings with seven or more units, building entry forecourts or front porches shall be a minimum of 100 square feet and a minimum width of 8 feet. (4) Ground Floor Residential Units (A) The finished floor of ground floor residential units, when adjacent to a public right-of-way, shall be within the minimum and maximum heights according to setback distance from back of walk identified in Figure 2. On sites with a cross slope greater than 2% along a building facade, the average height of the finished floor and back of walk shall be used. In flood zones, the minimum floor height shall be defined by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) flood zone elevation. (B) Ground floor units with a setback greater than 15 feet shall have at minimum an average of one tree per 40 linear feet of façade located in the building set back. 4.a Packet Pg. 26 *NOT YET APPROVED* 10 0160052_20210914_ay16 (C) Ground floor residential entries shall be setback a minimum of 10 feet from the back of sidewalk. (D) Where no minimum building set back is required, all residential units shall be set back a minimum 5 feet from back of walk. (E) A minimum of 80% of the ground floor residential units that face a public right- of-way or publicly accessible path, or open space shall have a unit entry with direct access to the sidewalk, path, or open space. (Senior units or other deed- restricted units for special populations are exempt) Figure 2a: Finished Floor heights for ground floor residential units, calculation. Formula: 𝑦𝑦 = �−415�(𝑥𝑥)+ 163 where 𝑦𝑦 = ground floor finished floor height, in feet and 𝑥𝑥 = setback distance from back of walk, in feet Setback Length Ground Floor Finished Floor Height (minimum) 5 ft* 4 ft 7.5 ft 3 ft 4 in 10 ft 2 ft 8 in 12.5 ft 2 ft 15 ft 1 ft 4 in 17.5 ft 8 in 20 ft 0 ft (grade) *Per 18.24.040.(b)(4)(D), ground-floor residential units shall be set back a minimum 5 feet from back of walk. 4.a Packet Pg. 27 *NOT YET APPROVED* 11 0160052_20210914_ay16 Figure 2b: Finished Floor range for ground floor residential units. 4.a Packet Pg. 28 *NOT YET APPROVED* 12 0160052_20210914_ay16 Example 1: Finished floor height greater than 4 feet above sidewalk grade with minimum 5 feet setback. Example 2: Finished floor height in the middle of the range. 4.a Packet Pg. 29 *NOT YET APPROVED* 13 0160052_20210914_ay16 Example 3: Finished floor height at sidewalk grade. (5) Front Yard Setback Character Required setbacks shall provide a hardscape and/or landscaped area to create a transition between public and private space. The following standards apply, based on intended use and exclusive of areas devoted to outdoor seating, front porches, door swing of building entries, and publicly accessible open space: (A) Ground-floor retail or retail-like uses shall have a minimum of 10% of the required setback as landscaped area or planters. (B) Ground-floor residential uses shall have a minimum of 60% landscaped area in the required setback area. 18.24.050 Building Massing (a) Intent Statement To create buildings that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area through the consideration of building scale, massing, and bulk. Massing should create a human-scale environment that is of high aesthetic quality and accommodates a variety of uses and design features. Building massing should include elements that: (1) Break down large building facades and massing to create a human-scaled building that enhances the context of the site (2) Are consistent in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations (3) Reinforce the definition and importance of the street 4.a Packet Pg. 30 *NOT YET APPROVED* 14 0160052_20210914_ay16 (4) Provide rooflines and massing that emphasize and accentuate significant elements of the building such as entries, bays, and balconies, and shading elements where appropriate. (5) Provide harmonious transitions between adjacent properties (b) Objective Standards (1) Upper Floor Step Backs (A) When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average height (i.e., average of low and high roof elevations) of an adjacent building, an upper floor step back shall start within 2 vertical feet of the height of the adjacent building. The step back shall be a minimum depth of 6 feet along the primary building frontage, and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of the façade length. (B) Notwithstanding, subsection (a), when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height. (2) Transition to Lower Density Building Types When a building abuts a side and/or rear property line with a RE, RMD, R-1, or R-2 zoned parcel or a village residential or existing single-family residential use, the building shall break down the abutting façade by meeting all of the following standards: (A) A landscape screen that includes a row of trees with a minimum 1 tree per 25 linear feet and continuous shrubbery planting. This screening plant material shall be a minimum 72 inches (6 feet) in height when planted. Required trees shall be minimum 24” box size. 4.a Packet Pg. 31 *NOT YET APPROVED* 15 0160052_20210914_ay16 (B) A minimum façade break of four feet in width, two feet in depth, and 32 square feet of area for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length. (C) Within 40 feet of an abutting structure, no more than 15% of the confronting façade area shall be windows or other glazing. Additional windows are allowed in order to maintain light, if they are fixed and fully obscured. (3) Maximum Façade Length. For portions of a building facade facing a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, any building greater than 25 feet in height and 70 feet in length shall not have a continuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulation, which can include bay windows. Upper floor façade modulations shall be a minimum 2 feet in depth, which can be a recess or a projection. 4.a Packet Pg. 32 *NOT YET APPROVED* 16 0160052_20210914_ay16 (A) Buildings 250 feet in length or greater, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 400 square feet and a width greater than or equal to two times the depth. (B) Buildings 150 to 250 feet in length, which face a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path, shall have at least one vertical façade break with a minimum area greater than 64 square feet and a minimum width of 8 feet and minimum depth of 4 feet. (4) Special Conditions - Railroad Frontages All parcels with lot lines abutting railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following standards on the railroad-abutting facade: (A) A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. (B) For portion of a building 20 feet or greater in height, a maximum continuous façade length shall not exceed 60 feet. 18.24.060 Façade Design (a) Intent Statement To create cohesive and well-crafted building facades with human-scaled details that incorporate textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Facades should include the following elements: (1) Human-scaled detail, articulation, and craftsmanship (2) Quality of construction, craftsmanship, and design to create long lasting buildings (3) Expression of a human-scaled façade rhythm and pattern that reflects the building’s use (4) Fenestration that enhances the architectural character of the building (5) Defined building entry that is proportional to the building and number of people served (6) Articulation of the building shall break down the scale of the building via building modulation, façade articulation, and variation of fenestration and material patterns. 4.a Packet Pg. 33 *NOT YET APPROVED* 17 0160052_20210914_ay16 (b) Application (1) All facades shall meet all the required design standards and guidelines to ensure the same level of care and integrity throughout the building design. (2) Façade sidewalls located along a zero-lot line where, at time of approval are not visible from a right-of-way, are exempt. (3) Façade sidewalls located along a zero-lot line, where at time of approval are visible from a right-of-way, shall continue color, material, and pattern of the main façade. (c) Objective Standards (1) Base/Middle/Top (A) Buildings three stories or taller and on lots wider than 50 feet shall be designed to differentiate a defined base or ground floor, a middle or body, and a top, cornice, or parapet cap. Each of these elements shall be distinguished from one another for a minimum of 80% of the façade length through use of two or more of the following four techniques: (i) Variation in building modulation (minimum of one, if option selected) a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of two feet from the primary facade. b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum five-foot step back from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of the length of the façade. 4.a Packet Pg. 34 *NOT YET APPROVED* 18 0160052_20210914_ay16 c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of two feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback requirements, where stated. (ii) Variation in facade articulation (minimum of one, if option selected) a. Variation in horizontal and/or vertical recesses or projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, bay windows or similar strategies as approved by the Director of Planning and Development 4.a Packet Pg. 35 *NOT YET APPROVED* 19 0160052_20210914_ay16 Services. The recess or projection shall be a minimum four inches in depth. b. Variation in horizontal and/or vertical projections such as shading and weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar c. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as parapets or cornices, with a minimum four inches in height or a minimum two inches in depth and include a change in material; 4.a Packet Pg. 36 *NOT YET APPROVED* 20 0160052_20210914_ay16 (iii) Variation in at least two of the following: fenestration size, proportions, pattern, and depth or projection. 4.a Packet Pg. 37 *NOT YET APPROVED* 21 0160052_20210914_ay16 (iv) Variation in two of the following: façade material, material size, texture and pattern, or color. (2) Façade Composition Building facades shall use a variety of strategies including building modulation, fenestration, and façade articulation to create visual interest and express a variety of scales through a variety of strategies. All facades shall include a minimum of two of the following façade articulation strategies to create visual interest: (i) Vertical and horizontal recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, or similar strategies as approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services. The recess shall be a minimum four inches in depth. (ii) Vertical and horizontal projections such as shading and weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies as approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services. Projections shall be a minimum four inches in depth. (iii) Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a minimum four inches in depth, or a minimum two inches in depth and include a change in material; (iv) Balconies, habitable projections, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with a minimum four inches in depth; (v) Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, perforated metal screens, or similar strategies as approved by the Director of Planning and Development Services; or (vi) Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to exceed eight inches in either height or width. (3) Compatible Rhythm and Pattern (A) Buildings shall express a vertical rhythm and pattern that reflects the size and scale of a housing unit and/or individual rooms and spaces. This may be achieved with building modulation to create vertically oriented facades (height greater than the width of the façade), façade articulation and fenestration repetitive vertically 4.a Packet Pg. 38 *NOT YET APPROVED* 22 0160052_20210914_ay16 oriented patterns. Depending on the length of the façade, the following standards apply: (i) For continuous facades less than 100 feet in length, the façade shall have vertically oriented patterns of vertical recesses or projections, façade articulation, and/or fenestration. (ii) For continuous facades 100 feet or greater in length, the façade shall include either: a. A vertical recess or change in façade plane with a minimum 2 feet deep vertical shift modulation for a minimum 4 feet in width to establish a vertical rhythm or a unit between 20 to 50 feet in width; or 4.a Packet Pg. 39 *NOT YET APPROVED* 23 0160052_20210914_ay16 b. A vertical recess or projection with a minimum depth of 2 feet that establishes the vertical rhythm housing units or individual rooms between 10 to 16 feet in width. (B) Residential mixed-use buildings shall express a vertical rhythm and pattern by meeting at least one of the following standards: (i) Vertical Patterns and Modulation: Facades shall use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration. (ii) Horizontal Patterns and Modulation: Facades that use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum four feet wide and two feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length. 4.a Packet Pg. 40 *NOT YET APPROVED* 24 0160052_20210914_ay16 (C) Storefront uses shall express a vertical rhythm not to exceed 30 to 50 feet in width. (4) Emphasize Building Elements and Massing (A) Building Entries Within Façade Design (i) Primary building entries shall be scaled proportionally to the number of people served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries inclusive of doorway and facade plane shall meet the following minimum dimensions: a. Individual residential entries: five feet in width b. Shared residential entry, such as mixed-use buildings: 8 feet in width c. Commercial building entry: 20 feet in width d. Storefront entry: six feet in width (ii) Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following: a. A recess or projection from the primary façade plane with a minimum depth of two feet. (B) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. (5) Storefront/Retail Ground Floors (A) Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor or shall maintain a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building. (B) Transparency shall include a minimum 60 percent transparent glazing between 2 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space. 4.a Packet Pg. 41 *NOT YET APPROVED* 25 0160052_20210914_ay16 (C) Bulkheads and solid base walls: If provided, shall measure between 12 and 30 inches from finished grade (D) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. (E) Awnings, canopies and weather protection: (i) When transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and similar, weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and display windows. These elements should allow for light to enter the storefront through the transom windows and allow the weather protection feature to shade the display window. (ii) Awnings may be fixed or retractable. (6) Other Non-residential Ground Floors (A) Ground floor height shall be a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor or shall match the 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building. (B) Transparency shall include a minimum 50 percent transparent glazing between 4 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk or terrace grade. (C) Primary entries shall include weather protection that is a minimum 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. 4.a Packet Pg. 42 *NOT YET APPROVED* 26 0160052_20210914_ay16 (7) Parking/Loading/Utilities (A) Entry Size: No more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet) (B) Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space/path, with the exception of vehicular alleys, shall be lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet. (C) Partially sub-grade parking shall not have an exposed façade that exceeds five feet in height above abutting grade at back of sidewalk. (D) Partially sub-grade parking shall be screened with continuous landscaping and shrubbery with minimum height of 3 feet and be within 10 feet of the sub-grade parking. 18.24.070 Residential Entries (a) Intent Statement Private entries into ground floor residential units shall be designed to provide: (1) human-scaled detailing (2) enhanced pedestrian experience (3) transition between public and private space (4) spaces for residents to gather and spend time outdoors (5) resident privacy (b) Objective Standards (1) Ground Floor Unit Entries: Where ground floor residential unit entries are required, one or more of the following entry types shall be provided: (A) Stoop: (i) Stoops shall provide entry access for a maximum of two units; and (ii) Stoop heights shall be within 1 step of finished floor height of adjacent unit; and 4.a Packet Pg. 43 *NOT YET APPROVED* 27 0160052_20210914_ay16 (iii) Stoop entry landings shall be a minimum 5 feet in depth; and (iv) The maximum stoop height from the back of sidewalk grade shall be 5 feet. (B) Porch: (i) Porches shall provide entry access for a maximum of one unit; and (ii) Porch heights shall be within 1 step of finished floor height of adjacent unit; and (iii) Porches shall be large enough so a 6-foot by 6-foot square can fit inside of a porch for each unit; and (iv) The maximum porch floor height from the back of sidewalk grade shall be 5 feet. (C) Patio Entry (i) Patio entries may serve up to two units; and (ii) Patios shall be large enough so a 5-foot by 5-foot square can fit inside of the patio for each unit; and 4.a Packet Pg. 44 *NOT YET APPROVED* 28 0160052_20210914_ay16 (iii) The Patio shall include at least one of the following features to define the transition between public and private space: a. A row of shrubs not exceeding 42 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio that assists with defining the edge between public and private space. Shrubs shall be at least one gallon in size and be planted a maximum of three feet on center; or b. A fence not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio that assists with defining the edge between public and private space, with a gate or fence opening to provide access to the pedestrian route between the pedestrian way and the front door; or c. A metal, wood or stone wall not to exceed 36 inches in height located between the sidewalk and the patio that assists with defining the edge between public and private space with a gate or wall opening to provide access to the pedestrian route between the pedestrian way and the front door. A minimum 18-inch landscape strip shall be located between the wall and the abutting pedestrian way and entirely landscaped with ground cover, shrubs or other landscape living plant material. (D) Terrace: (i) A Terrace may serve multiple unit entries; and (ii) The maximum Terrace height shall be 30 inches above the grade of the back of the adjacent sidewalk or accessway; and (iii) Walls, fences and hedges on Terraces shall be a maximum of 42 inches tall and have a minimum transparency of 40 percent. 4.a Packet Pg. 45 *NOT YET APPROVED* 29 0160052_20210914_ay16 (E) Frontage Court: (i) A Frontage Court may serve multiple unit entries; and (ii) The minimum Frontage Court width along a primary frontage shall be 25 feet; and (iii) The maximum Frontage Court width along a primary frontage shall be 50 percent of the facade length or 80 feet, whichever is less; and (iv) The minimum Frontage Court depth shall be 25 feet; and (v) The maximum Frontage Court depth shall be 50 feet or a ratio not to exceed 2:1 depth to width. 4.a Packet Pg. 46 *NOT YET APPROVED* 30 0160052_20210914_ay16 18.24.080 Open Space (a) Intent To ensure that residents and visitors have access to usable open space and common facilities that provide recreational opportunities, promote a healthy environment, and enhance the experience of living in Palo Alto. Common and private open spaces should include the following characteristics: (1) Be integrated into the site access and building circulation strategy (2) Be generous in dimension to provide usable space (3) Provide landscape elements that will support the health of the plants and enhance the character of place (4) Promote public health (5) Be located to provide easy access to private and common building areas, protected from the activities of commercial areas, and balance privacy and noise impacts to neighboring uses (6) Promote sustainable practices and opportunities for green infrastructure (7) Promote community safety through eyes on the street (b) Objective Standards (1) Private Open Space If Private Open Spaces is provided, it shall meet the following standards: (A) Floor area shall include a clear space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a six-foot diameter. (B) Minimum clear height dimension of 8’-6” feet (C) Be accessed directly from a residential unit (D) Balconies shall not be located within the daylight plane (E) Notwithstanding subsection (a), ground floor patios shall meet the following minimum requirements: (i) RM-20 and RM-30 districts: Minimum 100 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is eight feet for at least 75% of the area (ii) RM-40 districts: Minimum 80 square feet of area, the least dimension of which is six feet for at least 75% of the area (iii) Street facing private open space on the ground floor shall meet the finished floor height for ground floor residential standards in section 18.24.040(b)(4) (2) If Common Open Space is provided, it shall meet the following standards: (A) Minimum size of 200 square feet (B) Area shall include a space with a minimum dimension of a circle with a 10-foot diameter. (C) A minimum of 60% of the area shall be open to the sky and free of permanent weather protection or encroachments. Trellises and similar open-air features are permitted. (D) Notwithstanding subsection (1), courtyards enclosed on four sides shall have a minimum dimension of 40 feet and have a minimum courtyard width to building height ratio of 1:1.25 4.a Packet Pg. 47 *NOT YET APPROVED* 31 0160052_20210914_ay16 (E) Include places to sit (F) A minimum 20% of landscaping (G) Soil Depth: Planting in above grade courtyards shall have a minimum soil depth of 12 inches for ground cover, 20 inches for shrubs, and 36 inches for trees. (H) Rooftop Open Space: (i) In order to qualify as usable open space, a rooftop garden shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 18.40.230. (ii) Rooftop open spaces may fulfill usable open space requirements in the following districts: a. CD-C sites that do not abut a single- or two-family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 75% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a project. a. For CN and CS sites on El Camino Real and CC(2) sites that do not abut a single- or two-family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a project. 18.24.090 Materials (a) Intent Statement To promote the use of high quality, durable, sustainable, and attractive materials that exhibit a sense of permanence and contribute to the aesthetic quality of the development and to the urban design fabric of the community. (b) Objective Standards (1) Façade Materials. Primary, secondary, and accent materials are allowed or prohibited as in the Residential and Residential Mixed-use Material List, which may be updated from time to time by the Director of Planning with a recommendation by the ARB. 4.a Packet Pg. 48 *NOT YET APPROVED* 32 0160052_20210914_ay16 List provided for informational purposes; will be posted to City’s website and not codified by ordinance. Residential and Residential Mixed-use Material List Material Maximum Usage % of façade area Brick (full dimensional) 100% Stone/masonry 100% Stucco/Cement Plaster 100% Glass (transparent, spandrel) 100% Finished wood, wood veneer, engineered wood, and wood siding 100% Factory or naturally finished flat, profiled, fluted, or ribbed metal panels 100% Fiber reinforced cement siding and panels 100% Terracotta 100% Concrete (poured in place or precast) 35% Concrete blocks with integral color (ground, polished, or glazed finishes) 35% Concrete blocks with integral color (split face finish) 35% Ceramic tile 35% Standing seam metal 35% Three Dimensional Glass 5% Corrugated metal 5% Vegetated wall panels or trellises 5% Vinyl siding Not Permitted T-111 Plywood Not Permitted Exterior Insulation Finishing System (EIFS) Not Permitted Plastic or vinyl fencing Not Permitted Chain link fencing Not Permitted 4.a Packet Pg. 49 *NOT YET APPROVED* 33 0160052_20210914_ay16 18.24.100 Sustainability and Green Building Design (a) Intent Statement To incorporate sustainability, green building, and environmental considerations into the project design and construction. Green building design aims for compatibility with the local environment: to protect, respect and benefit from it. In general, sustainable buildings are energy efficient, water conserving, durable and nontoxic, with high-quality spaces and high recycled content materials. The following considerations should be included in site and building design: (1) Optimize building orientation for thermal comfort, shading, daylighting, and natural ventilation, including operable windows (2) Design landscaping to create comfortable micro-climates and reduce heat island effects (3) Design landscaping with native species (4) Maximize onsite stormwater management through landscaping and permeable pavement (5) Use sustainable building materials (6) Design lighting, plumbing and equipment for efficient energy use (7) Create healthy indoor environments (8) Use creativity and innovation to build more sustainable environments. One example is establishing gardens with edible fruits, vegetables or other plants to satisfy a portion of project open space requirements (b) Objective Standards See Chapter 16.14: California Green Building Standards additional requirements for green building and sustainable design. Notwithstanding Section 18.24.010(c), these regulations may not be modified through alternative compliance. SECTION 3. If any section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase of this Ordinance is for any reason held to be invalid or unconstitutional by a decision of any court of competent jurisdiction, such decision shall not affect the validity of the remaining portions of this Ordinance. The City Council hereby declares that it would have passed this Ordinance and each and every section, subsection, sentence, clause, or phrase not declared invalid or unconstitutional without regard to whether any portion of the Ordinance would be subsequently declared invalid or unconstitutional. SECTION 4. The Council finds that this Ordinance represents the implementation of adopted plans and policy. Therefore, the Ordinance are exempt under the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and/or covered by the CEQA documents prepared for the City of Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan 2030. The project aims to facilitate implementation of State law. The project does not propose to increase development beyond what was analyzed in the Comprehensive Plan. 4.a Packet Pg. 50 *NOT YET APPROVED* 34 0160052_20210914_ay16 SECTION 5. This Ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first date after the date of its adoption. PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: _________________________ ____________________________ City Clerk Mayor APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: _________________________ ____________________________ Assistant City Attorney Director of Planning and Development Services 4.a Packet Pg. 51 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13797) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/20/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 2850 West Bayshore Road: 48 Townhomes (1st Formal) Title: 2850 West Bayshore [21PLN-00177]: Request for Architectural Review of a Proposed 48-Unit Residential Townhome Development. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: ROLM (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend continuation of the proposed project to a date uncertain for review of final design and environmental documents. Report Summary Summerhill Homes seeks approval of a three-story, 48-unit townhome development in the Midtown neighborhood. The project previously went before the ARB as a preliminary review on April 1, 2021 (File No. 21PLN-00041). The townhome project would replace a 1977 office building, which is not a historic resource. The project is subject to architectural review findings, conditional use permit findings, Design Enhancement Exception findings, and context-based design criteria, and compliance review with the City’s multifamily zoning code Chapter 18.13. The applicant is also requesting a density bonus and concessions under California State Government Code Section 65589.5. The ARB is encouraged to review the project’s massing and architectural elements, which may require further refinement. Draft findings and conditions will be included in a future staff report; City staff are preparing environmental documents which are necessary prior to any decision on the project. Background Project Information 5 Packet Pg. 52 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Owner: Summerhill Homes Architect: SDG Architects Representative: John Hickey, Summerhill Homes Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Address: 2850 W Bayshore Road Neighborhood: Midtown Lot Dimensions & Area: ~235 feet x ~767 feet, 2.34 acres Housing Inventory Site: Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Street trees present (see discussion below) Historic Resource(s): Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s): 34,296 sf, single-story office building constructed in 1977 Existing Land Use(s): Research and Development (currently vacant) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: PC-1889 Zoning (Institutional land use [school/daycare]) West: PF Zoning (Park land use [Greer Park]) East: PF Zoning (Open Space land use [Baylands across Highway 101]) South: PF Zoning (Park land use [Greer Park]) Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans 5 Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Zoning Designation: ROLM (Research Office and Limited Manufacturing) Comp. Plan Designation: Research/Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: Applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not Applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not Applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not Applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not Applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: Not Applicable (just outside the boundary) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: Preliminary ARB Hearing [21PLN-00041] – April 1, 2021 Project Description Summerhill Homes proposes to demolish an approximately 32,300 square foot (sf) commercial building and redevelop the 2.34-acre site with a 48-unit townhome style development. The new development includes eight three-story buildings, each with six residential units. Access to the site would be provided from West Bayshore Road. The project would include seven (7) below market rate units and the applicant would provide in-lieu fees for 0.2 units, consistent with the City’s affordable housing requirements for new condominium developments. The project’s residential density is 20.5 units per acre. A location map is included in Attachment A. The applicant’s complete project description and request letter is included in Attachment B and the project plans are included in Attachment E. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: • Architectural Review – Major (AR). The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the ARB’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if the appeal is filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the 5 Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Tailored AR findings will be provided in the next staff report. • Conditional Use Permit (CUP). A CUP is needed for residential project within the ROLM zone. The process for this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed at a staff level and the Director of Planning and Development Services issues a decision. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if the appeal is filed within 14 days of the decision. PAMC 18.76.010 outlines the findings for the granting of approval of a Conditional Use Permit. To approve the project, both findings must be made in the affirmative. Failure to make either finding requires denial of the project. Tailored CUP findings will be provided in the next staff report. • Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). The applicability and findings for a DEE are outlined in PAMC Section 18.76.050. Design Enhancement Exceptions are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director. This request would be processed in conjunction with the Major AR application. DEE requests are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. Tailored DEE findings will be provided in the next staff report. The following anticipated application would be subject to review by the PTC and City Council: • Vesting Tentative Map. The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Vesting Tentative Map for a condominium subdivision is outlined in PAMC Sections 21.12.010 and 21.13.020. Vesting Tentative maps require Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) review. The PTC reviews whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (in particular Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State Law. The PTC’s recommendation is forwarded to the City Council for final approval. In accordance with Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, all entitlements must be completed prior to formal review of the Vesting Tentative Map. In addition, the project review is subject to the following State regulations: • Housing Accountability Act. The Housing Accountability Act (HAA) (Government Code Section 65589.5) acknowledges the lack of housing as a critical problem in California. The HAA applies to all "housing development projects" which the State defines as: “residential units; mixed-use developments (with at least two-thirds of the square footage designated for residential use), and transitional or supportive housing.” 5 Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 The HAA states that a city cannot disapprove a project, reduce its density, or otherwise make a project infeasible, when the project complies with objective standards. The only exception to this is when a project would have a specific adverse impact, which is narrowly defined. Modifications to the HAA in 2018 made it easier to claim compliance with objective standards; a project must be considered consistent with objective standards if "there is substantial evidence that would allow a reasonable person to conclude" that a project complies. However, if an applicant seeks an exception to an objective standard, such as a Design Enhancement Exception, many HAA limitations no longer apply. Decision-makers must rely on the findings required or criteria for approval of that specific modification; however, this opens the whole project to discretionary review. In such a case, subjective standards and design guidelines can be used to evaluate projects. • SB330 Permit Review. Effective January 1, 2020, SB330 made several changes to existing State housing law, including the HAA and Permit Streamlining Act. For the purposes of the work described herein, the important elements are as follows: o Prohibits jurisdictions from imposing (on housing projects) subjective design standards established after January 1, 2020. o Requires that jurisdictions only subject a housing development project to review pursuant to the ordinances, policies, and standards adopted and in effect when a preliminary application is submitted (vs. when it is deemed complete). o Prohibits jurisdictions from enacting development policies, standards or conditions that would change current zoning and land use designations where housing is an allowable use. In such cases, the City cannot lessen the intensity of housing—such as reducing height, density, or floor area ratio, requiring new or increased open space, lot size, setbacks or frontage, or limiting maximum lot coverage. Effectively, this clause prohibits downzoning, though the City may rebalance density between various districts. o Limits jurisdictions to reviewing the project in five hearings in total once the project is deemed complete. This includes the hearings needed under the Vesting Tentative Map. 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. 5 Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is bounded by Greer Park, West Bayshore (a Highway 101 frontage road)), and the property at 2800 West Bayshore Road. Except for the adjacent park, the only other land use on this block is the Emerson School and HeadsUp! preschool at 2800 West Bayshore Road. Across from Greer Park are the single-family neighborhoods and Colorado Apartments in Midtown. Both 2800 and 2850 West Bayshore Road were developed in the late 1970’s with commercial buildings. The existing building on 2850 West Bayshore Road is emblematic of a simple modernist office building where the design focuses on simple geometries and provides little or no ornamentation. The existing building on 2800 West Bayshore is residential in appearance due to its low gable roof and use of softer wood elements that blends the facility into the background of the vegetation that surrounds the site. As the residential properties across from Greer Park are roughly 400+ feet away, there are no other sites that provide a relevant building context for the project at 2850 West Bayshore Road. The existing building on 2800 West Bayshore Road is about 18 feet and seven inches tall based on the streetscape elevation drawings in the plan set. The proposed townhomes will be almost twice as tall with an average height of 35 feet to the top of the parapet and roughly 39.5 feet to the midpoint of the tower elements on each building. While this could impact views from 2800 West Bayshore Road, mature tree canopies would interrupt views and soften the massing impacts. The basketball court at the shared property line on 2800 West Bayshore Road is an active use; otherwise, there are no active uses currently along this side of the property. As a result, the proposed building is unlikely to deter individuals from utilizing the currently inactive space. As there are children present adjacent to this new housing project, staff seeks the ARB’s input on potential privacy impacts from the project’s adjacency to the playground and measures to bolster privacy between the sites. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research/Office Park, which allows for a variety of commercial uses as well as mixed-use and exclusively residential projects. The Research/Office Park land use designation states that It allows floor area ratios (FAR) ranging from 0.3:1 to 0.5:1. This project would exceed that FAR through use of a concession, in accordance with the state density bonus (Government Code Section 65915). As outlined in this government code, “the granting of a density bonus shall not require, or be interpreted, in and of itself, to require a general plan amendment, local coastal plan amendment, zoning change, or other discretionary approval.” Therefore, neither a Comprehensive Plan amendment, nor a 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 5 Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Zoning Code Text Amendment is required to accommodate the proposed floor area requested under the state density bonus. The proposed use is consistent with the property’s Comprehensive Plan land use designation. The City’s Comprehensive Plan, particularly the Land Use and Housing Elements, includes several goals and policies that encourage housing development. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan will be provided in the next staff report. Zoning Compliance3 The project is located on a site zoned Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). The ROLM zoning allows multi-family residential uses with approval of a CUP. Under the ROLM zoning, exclusively residential projects must comply with the RM-30 Zone District development standards. Staff presents an analysis of the project’s consistency with the multifamily standards in PAMC 18.13 in Attachment C. Conformance with the Performace Criteria in 18.23 will be provided in the subsequent hearing. As shown in the attachments, the project exceeds the allowable floor area and height allowances. As noted, the applicant requests a state density bonus concession and Design Enhancement Exception. This is further described below. State Density Bonus The project includes 15% of the units on-site as moderate-income affordable units (in-line with the City’s minimum affordability requirements), which enables the applicant to take advantage of the state density bonus and concession policies under PAMC 18.15. Per PAMC 18.15.050 Table 2, any project that provides 10%-20% moderate-income, for-sale units, qualifies for one concession from the City. The applicant will provide seven units on site with 0.2 units paid through in-lieu housing fees. The proposed residential density (approximately 20 dwelling units per acre) is consistent with the site’s allowable density. As noted in the applicant’s project description (Attachment B), the applicant requests to utilize the “off-menu” concession provisions of PAMC 18.15.080 to request an FAR of 1.153: 1:0. The applicant has provided evidence, in the form of a cost analysis, in accordance with PAMC Section 18.15.080, to show that a floor area ratio of this amount provides “identifiable and actual cost reductions.” Staff are in the process of evaluating this submission for consistency with state density bonus law. Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) Request The applicant proposes a DEE for increased height for three tower elements on each of the individual structures. The intent is to create more variation between the middle and top of the structure as well as to provide better articulation across the buildings. The height (i.e. mid- point) of the main sloped roof and parapet roofs would be 35 feet, consistent with the height requirements for the zone district. However, the tower elements would be 39.5 feet in height. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 5 Packet Pg. 58 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 DEEs are typically applied to unique architectural features. The code states that “items for which DEEs may be granted include, but are not limited to, dormers, eave lines, [and] roof design…” The code also states that DEEs are limited to “minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height…” The ARB previously indicated support for the applicant’s DEE provided that the tower elements were integrated into the living spaces of the units rather than be tacked on architectural elements to the building. As a result, the applicant has modified their design to have vaulted ceilings in units that have tower elements and have included three panel tall windows to allow for light to enter these units. Staff believes that this modification addresses the primary concerns the ARB previously raised, however, if there are additional details or clarification needed, board members may request them. Open Space The ARB previously raised concerns regarding the available open space provided for each unit and encouraged the applicant to ensure that each unit have private open space. In response to this feedback, the applicant increased each unit’s available private open space. A majority of units have a mixture of balconies at the second-floor level and patios at the ground floor level. Ten (10) corner units will also incorporate a second-floor balcony. In accordance with PAMC Section 18.13.040(e)(2), with the ARB’s review, the Director may allow part or all of the required private usable open space areas to instead be provided as common usable open space. The intent of this flexibility is to improve design, privacy, protection, and increase play area for children. As some of the ground floor patio spaces do not fully meet the dimensional requirements identified in the code, the applicant is proposing a 9,000+ square foot common open space to satisfy the private open space requirements for each unit. Staff believes that the applicant’s modifications have adequately addressed the ARB’s previous concerns. It does not appear as though the applicant has provided an internal connection between the project and Greer Park. This is an issue that the ARB said was something the project should address so that future residents will have easy access to Greer Park without needing to walk out to West Bayshore Road. The applicant studied the issue, as shown in Attachment F, after the preliminary hearing. The applicant notes that the grade change between the property after fill and Greer Park would be too challenging to implement without causing safety and accessibility issues. Staff is seeking input from the ARB on how this access may be achieved with the project design. Sound Wall To reduce noise levels for residents, the applicant proposes to install a sound wall within the City’s public right-of-way between Highway 101 and West Bayshore Road. Various departments, including Transportation and Public Works, reviewed and evaluated engineering plans for the wall location to determine the feasibility of this request. In response to comments from staff and the ARB, the applicant states that they will expand the right of way in front of their property to accommodate additional space for the sound wall as well as an expanded bike lane connection on both sides of the street. This will be achieved through an access easement 5 Packet Pg. 59 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 recorded along the front of the property through the Vesting Tentative Map process. Staff believes that this modification to the plans addresses the concerns that the ARB previously raised. It also would provide the City an enhanced public benefit with the expanded bike lane connection along West Bayshore Road. Multi-Modal Access & Parking PAMC 18.52.040 Table 1 requires multifamily units to be parked based on how many bedrooms are provided for each unit proposed on site. The highest ratio requires two parking spaces based on a two-bedroom or greater unit size. The applicant proposes 48 units with two- bedrooms or more and 96 covered parking spaces, which complies with the City’s minimum parking requirements. The applicant proposes to provide four guest parking spaces on site as well as one Drop- Off/Delivery space adjacent to Buildings 6 and 7; three more spaces than were previously presented to the ARB. The applicant is also proposing to provide 96 long term bicycle parking spaces, distributed inside the garages of each unit, and six short term bicycle parking spaces near the common open space area inside the complex; this proposal conforms to the bicycle parking requirements in Table 1. Consistency with Application Findings The generic findings for approval of the Architectural Review, Design Enhancement Exception, and Conditional Use Permit applications have been be included as an attachment in this staff report. As noted, tailored findings will be provided in the next staff report. Environmental Review The subject project is being 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. Staff has retained Rincon Consultants Inc. to perform an assessment of the project’s impact on the environment. As a part of this review, Rincon has contracted with W-Trans to perform a circulation study and VMT analysis that is currently being performed. Once that document has been finalized, staff will provide additional analysis regarding these aspects of the project. Staff anticipates that the project will qualify as a Categorical Exemption; however, a complete analysis will not be available until the next hearing. Upon completion of the environmental document, staff will review it and bring it back to a second hearing for public review. 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 January 7, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 4, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. 5 Packet Pg. 60 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 Public Comments As of the writing of this report, the city received one project-related, public comment as a part of the preliminary ARB application [21PLN-00041]. The comments received were related to the project’s potential massing, parking, and traffic impacts. In April, staff responded to these comments after the project was heard on April 1, 2021. Since the project was formally submitted to staff for review, there have been no public comments received. Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Associate Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2471 (650) 329-2575 Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Applicant's Project Description (PDF) • Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment D: ARB, Context-Based Design Criteria, DEE, and CUP Findings (DOCX) • Attachment E: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Packet Pg. 61 24 24 2 4 24 C ommu nity _B uildin g Colorado_Pump Station Colorado Substation 8.3' 1003.3' 709.3' 355.0' 56.0' 261.9' 10.2' 441.4'341.9' 44.3' 156.3' 27.1' 119.6' 199.9' 244.8' 337.2' 767.0' 232.5' 55.0' 87.9' 112.2'148.6' 08.2' 60.0' 89.0' 97.9' 108.2' 16.1' 8.1' 112.7' 24.2' 112.4' 24.2' 39.1' 9.6' 73.5' 33.8' 112.4' 113.4' 25.2' 108.3' 73.5' 9.6' 37.9' 2.4'21.7' 113.4' 53.0' 14.0' 99.6' 24.7' 72.7' 39.1' 19.2'37.9' 2.4' 52.4' 44.4' 23 68.5' 20.1' 11.0'8.2'24.0' 89.5' 49.0' 20.0'13.1' 45.5'76.6' 12.6'26.2' 13.5' 87.6' 24.0'1.5'24.0'4.0'24.0'9.2' 54.8' 6.9' 278.9' 108.3' 5.4'20.2' 24.2' 109.4' 45.6' 107.2' 86.4' 1.1' 425.2' 34.3' 77.7' 158.5' 112.1' 383.6' 33.0' 415.9' 340.8' 76.8' 99.3' 69.4' 107.4' 82.0' 34.7' 64.3' 100.0' 99.3' 66.6' 107.4' 68.4' 115.7' 8.5'24.4' 36.1' 115.8' 72.0' 104.8' 103.8' 104.8' 78.9' 142.4' 360.9' 64.7' 232.5' 425.2' 235.2' 588.0' 235.2' 341.8' 337.2' 7' 32.7' 33.0' 212.3' 167.3' 28.3' 33.0' 140.3' 33.0' 212.3' 20.1'11.0' 35.5' 31.9' 10.0' 45.6' 41.5'24.0' 89.5' 24.0' 89.5'31.9' 62.2' 25.0'20.0'13.1' 42.7' 93.1' 11.5' 13.5' 87.6' 24.0' 88.5' 24.0' 88.5' 24.0' 29.5' 88.5' 30.8' 79.5' 9.1' 23.1' .9' 97.6' 24.0' 97.7' 91.6' 24.0' 101.7' 11.7'14.7' 26.7' 14.0' 99.6' 24.7' 112.0' 24.3' 112.0' 24.2' 112.7' 1040 1042 1044 1046 1048 1050 1052 054 1064 1066 1068 10701072107410761078 1011 2901 2903 29072905 2909 2911 2913 2915 2917 2919 2850 1125- 1139 2800 1082 7 106 3- 1 075 1077- 1091 1095- 1107 110 9- 112 3 1143- 1151 2999 2860 1098 119 9 1080 2800 2870 E A ST B A Y S H O RE R O A D WES T B A Y S H O R E RO A DCOLORADO A V E N U E E A ST B A Y S H O RE R O A D B A Y S H O R E F REE W A Y W ES T B A Y S H O R E R O A D SIM KINS COU R T W E S T B AY SHORE R OAD B A YSH O RE FR E E W A Y B A Y S H O RE F RE E W A Y B A YSH ORE FRE E W A Y COLORADO PLACE C O L O R AD O A V E N U E RM-20 PC-3183 R-2 PC- 1889 ROLM Greer P a rk E mily R e n z el W etla n d s This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 237' Location Map: 2850 W Bayshore CITY O F PALO A L TO I N C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2021-03-04 12:58:05Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 5.a Packet Pg. 62 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.857.0122 fax 650.857.1077 SHHomes.com June 14, 2021, revised December 6, 2021 Jodie Gerhardt Manager of Current Planning City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 2850 W. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto Project Request Letter and Letter of Application Dear Ms. Gerhardt, SummerHill Homes respectfully submits this Project Request Letter and Letter of Application in compliance with the City’s Submittal Requirements Checklists for Conditional Use Permits and Major Subdivisions. Project Summary As explained in the attached project description, SummerHill proposes to redevelop a 2.34-acre site at 2850 West Bayshore Road with a new 48-unit townhome community. The project will offer a variety of three- and four-bedroom home plans, with an average living area of approximately 1,725 square feet. All of the units will have private decks or front patios, but the project will also feature a large central community open space — approximately 9,777 square feet. Vehicular circulation is provided through an entry drive from W. Bayshore Road and on-site private streets. The project will provide approximately 100 off-street parking spaces. Each unit will have an attached private two-car garage — side-by-side garages for 32 of the units and tandem garages for 16 of the units. Bike storage for residents is provided in the garages, and bike racks for guests will be located near the central common area for convenience. Consistent with City standards for private streets, the project will provide 32-foot wide streets, including paving, sidewalks, and garage aprons. For the privacy and quiet of the residents, SummerHill will construct a 14-foot sound wall along the east side of W. Bayshore Road within the City right-of-way, across from the project frontage. The property currently contains a 32,500 square-foot single-story commercial building, built in 1976, which will be demolished to accommodate the project. To the southeast and southwest, the site is bordered by Greer Park. To the northwest of the site is the Emerson Montessori School, and to the northeast of the site, across W. Bayshore Road, are the Bayshore Freeway, E. Bayshore Road and the Emily Renzel Wetlands. 5.b Packet Pg. 63 Jodie Gerhardt June 14, 2021, revised December 6, 2021 Page 2 Requested Approvals The site is designated Research/Office Park in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). The ROLM District allows multifamily residential use, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit and the development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district. SummerHill requests Major Architectural Review approval, a Conditional Use Permit, a concession pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus ordinance, a Design Enhancement Exception, approval to provide additional common usable open space to meet the overall usable open space requirements, a tree removal permit, a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map and CEQA review for the project. Conditional Use Permit Consistent with section 18.76.010 of the Municipal Code, the proposed project will (1) 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; and (2) be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Code. Not Detrimental or Injurious The project site is well-suited to multi-family residential development, because it is close to public parks and schools and has convenient access to neighborhood retail. The density of the project is within the range of existing residential development in the area, and the project will fully comply with the City’s parking requirements. The project will not significantly increase the A.M. or P.M. peak hour vehicle trips generated by the current use of the site, and by providing new homes close to major employment centers, the project is expected to reduce total vehicle miles traveled. In addition, the project will comply with all applicable public health and safety standards during construction and use. Consistent with Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code The site is designated Research/Office Park in the 2017 Comprehensive Plan and is zoned Research, Office and Limited Manufacturing (ROLM). The Comprehensive Plan allows residential use in the Research/Office Park designation in certain locations. (Comprehensive Plan at p.34.) The ROLM District allows multifamily residential use, subject to the approval of a conditional use permit and the development standards prescribed for the RM-30 zoning district. (PAMC §§ 18.20.030, 18.20.040(b)(6).) With the approval of the requested Design Enhancement Exception pursuant to section 18.76.050 of the Zoning Code and approval of the requested Density Bonus concession pursuant to chapter 18.15 of the Zoning Code, the proposed project is fully consistent with the Comprehensive Plan and the development standards for the RM-30 zoning district. For further detail, please refer to the attached table (Compliance with RM-30 Development Standards). 5.b Packet Pg. 64 Jodie Gerhardt June 14, 2021, revised December 6, 2021 Page 3 Density Bonus SummerHill proposes to designate 7 of the 48 units as below-market rate units affordable to moderate- income households and pay an in lieu fee for a fractional 0.2 unit. Pursuant to the State Density Bonus Law and the City’s Density Bonus ordinance, as a Common Interest Development project that will make more than 10% of the units affordable to Moderate Income Households, the project is eligible for one concession or incentive. (PAMC § 18.15.050(c).) As a concession or incentive, SummerHill requests that the City allow the site to be developed at a floor area ratio of approximately 1.153:1. The additional floor area ratio will allow SummerHill to provide more market-rate and below-market rate units than would otherwise be feasible and will reduce the cost of providing the below-market rate units through economy of scale. In accordance with section 18.15.080 of the Zoning Code, SummerHill provides the attached Summary of Costs, comparable to the information in a pro forma, which shows that the requested concession will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions. The proposed project includes three main unit plans, ranging in size from approximately 1,484 SF to approximately 1,975 SF of living area, with an average living of approximately 1,725 SF. If the project were subject to a maximum FAR of 0.6:1, the project would only be able to provide approximately 25 units. The cost of demolition, site grading, the construction of the sound wall and other fixed costs that are not dependent on the number of units would be spread over 25 units. Alternatively, if the maximum FAR is increased to 1.153:1, the project is able to provide 48 units, the cost of demolition, site grading, the construction of the sound wall and other fixed costs that are not dependent on the total unit count will be spread over 48 units, reducing the fixed cost per unit by approximately 48%. The attached Summary of Costs shows that allowing the site to be developed at a floor area ratio of approximately 1.153:1 will result in identifiable and actual cost reductions for the site improvements for the seven below-market rate units. The cost reduction for the seven below-market rate units is estimated to be approximately $286,789, or $40,970 per unit. Design Enhancement Exception SummerHill requests a Design Enhancement Exception for the project to incorporate tower elements with a height of approximately 39.5 feet, slightly taller than the applicable height limit of 35 feet. The tower elements will enhance the appearance of the overall project by allowing for more variety in the massing and the roofline. The tower elements will also enhance the Plan 3 units by allowing the master bedroom to have a higher ceiling, with clerestory windows for extra light where acoustic conditions allow. The height increase will not adversely affect any nearby homes, because the site is bordered on two sides by Greer Park and on a third side by the Bayshore Freeway. 5.b Packet Pg. 65 Jodie Gerhardt June 14, 2021, revised December 6, 2021 Page 4 Unlike most properties that are subject to the RM-30 zoning standards, the project site is located in a prominent location within view of U.S. 101, but more than 350 feet from any other homes. As such, it is exceptionally well situated to include design features that enhance the appearance of the buildings from public viewpoints along U.S. 101 and the open space to the east, without casting additional shadows on or otherwise adversely affecting nearby residents. The proposed design enhancements are a minor part of the architecture, but they will improve the overall look of the project by varying the massing and the roofline, and will enhance the interior space of the Plan 3 units. Combined Common Open Space SummerHill requests to add 1,600 square feet of common usable open space to the amount of common usable open space required for the project in order to meet the usable open space requirements of section 18.13.040(e) of the Zoning Code. In the RM-30 district, section 18.13.040(e)(2)(B) of the Zoning Code allows part or all of the required private usable open space areas to be added to the required common usable open space for purposes of improved design, privacy, protection and increased play area for children. The project is designed so that each unit will have its own private usable open space, either as a deck or a ground-level patio or both. Thirty-two of the units have a private deck or patio that meets the minimum size and dimensional requirements in section 18.13.040(e)(2)(A) of the Zoning Code. The other sixteen units have a front patio with an area of at least 50 square feet and a minimum dimension of 6 feet, which provides enough private space for casual seating and a small table or a grill, but does not meet the minimum size and dimensional requirements for a ground-level open space to qualify as private usable open space. In order to achieve a more efficient overall design for the landscaped and usable open space for the project, SummerHill proposes to comply with the usable open space requirements by providing additional common usable open space to meet the technical requirements for private usable open space for the 16 units, as allowed by section 18.13.040(e)(2)(B) of the Zoning Code. Combining the open space will improve the design and the enjoyability of the open space by shifting the open space farther from the freeway and W. Bayshore Road to a protected area close to the park. In total, the project will provide more than 12,047 SF of common and private usable open space, which is more than 150% of the amount required. Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map SummerHill will prepare a Vesting Tentative Subdivision Map to establish appropriate access, utility and service easements and condominium plans to define exclusive use areas and areas of separate undivided interests for the individual units. SummerHill has submitted the proposed Vesting Tentative Map at the same time as the application for Major Architectural Review, a CUP and the other project entitlements so that all aspects of the project can be reviewed concurrently. 5.b Packet Pg. 66 Jodie Gerhardt June 14, 2021, revised December 6, 2021 Page 5 The proposed Vesting Tentative Map fully complies with the design standards and improvement standards in chapters 21.20 and 21.28 of the Municipal Code. Following approval of the Vesting Tentative Map, SummerHill will prepare a Final Map and condominium plans. We look forward to working with the City regarding the proposed project. Please let us know if you have any questions regarding this Project Request Letter and Letter of Application. Thank you. Sincerely, John Hickey Director of Development Attachment: Compliance with RM-30 Development Standards Summary of Costs: Site Improvement Cost Comparison cc: Claire Raybould, City of Palo Alto Garrett Sauls, City of Palo Alto Elaine Breeze, SummerHill Housing Group 5.b Packet Pg. 67 Compliance with RM-30 Development Standards PAMC § 18.13.040 Required/Allowed Proposed Minimum Site Specifications Site Area (ft) 8,500 101,786 ± Site Width (ft) 70 425 ± Site Depth (ft) 100 239 ± Minimum Setbacks Setback lines imposed by a special setback map pursuant to Chapter 20.08 (ft) 24 ≥ 24 Front Yard (ft) 20, but see special setback line ≥ 24 Interior Side Yards for lots with width of 70 feet or greater (ft) 10 ≥ 10 Interior Rear Yards (ft) 10 ≥ 10 Maximum Height (ft) 35 39.5 with Design Enhancement Exception Daylight Plane for side and rear lot lines for sites abutting a RM-30, RM-40, Planned Community, or nonresidential district that does not contain a single-family or two-family residential use, for lots with width of 70 feet or greater None None Maximum Site Coverage Base 40% 35.9% Additional area permitted to be covered by covered patios or overhangs otherwise in compliance with all applicable laws 5% 2.8% Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 0.6:1 1.153:1 with Density Bonus Concession Residential Density (units) Maximum number of units per acre 30 20.5 Minimum number of units per acre 16 20.5 5.b Packet Pg. 68 2 2021-06-14, rev. 2021-12-06 Required/Allowed Proposed Minimum Site Open Space 30% 30.6% Minimum Usable Open Space (sf per unit) 150 ≥ 224 (Average: 250) Minimum Common Usable Open Space (sf per unit) 75 170 Minimum Private Usable Open Space (sf per unit) • 50 at balconies; or • ≥ 54 at balconies (Average: 59); or • 100 at patios or yards; or • ≥ 100 at patios (Average: 107); or • 100 at additional Common Usable Open Space per PAMC § 18.13.040(e)(2)(B) • 100 at additional Common Usable Open Space Performance Criteria Not applicable Parking Resident 96 (2 per 2-bedroom or larger unit) 96 Resident Covered 48 (At least one space per unit must be covered) 96 Resident Tandem 24 (Maximum of 25% of total required spaces) 16 Guest 0 (No additional guest parking required) 4 Bicycle – Resident (Long-Term) 48 (1 per unit) 48 Bicycle – Guest (Short-Term) 5 (1 per 10 units) 6 5.b Packet Pg. 69 2021-06-14, rev. 2021-12-06 SUMMARY OF COSTS: Site Improvement Cost Comparison 2850 W. Bayshore Road: Proposed Townhouse Community Pursuant to section 18.15.050(c) of the Zoning Ordinance, SummerHill requests that the City allow the project to be developed at a floor area ratio (FAR) of 1.153:1. The requested concession would reduce the site improvement costs by an estimated amount of $40,970 per unit, which would result in an identifiable and actual cost reduction of $286,789 to provide the seven proposed Below-Market Rate units. 0.60:1 FAR 25 Units 1.153:1 FAR 48 Units Total Per Unit Total Per Unit DEMOLITION $476,632 $19,065 $476,632 $9,930 SITEWORK DEMOLITION $476,632 $19,065 $476,632 $9,930 ASBESTOS REMOVAL $0 $0 $0 $0 GRADING $565,302 $22,612 $914,092 $19,044 ROUGH GRADING $440,848 $17,634 $789,638 $16,451 EROSION CONTROL $124,454 $4,978 $124,454 $2,593 UTILITIES $900,214 $36,009 $1,231,864 $25,664 STORM DRAINS $262,989 $10,520 $398,185 $8,296 SANITARY SEWER $318,414 $12,737 $318,414 $6,634 WATER $318,811 $12,752 $515,265 $10,735 POWER UTILITIES $228,635 $9,145 $407,460 $8,489 GAS AND ELECTRIC INSTALLATION $238,635 $9,545 $426,660 $8,889 UTILITY REFUND ($10,000) ($400) ($19,200) ($400) STREET LIGHTING $47,042 $1,882 $72,200 $1,504 STREET LIGHTS, POLES, CONDUCTOR, CONDUIT ETC. $47,042 $1,882 $72,200 $1,504 HARDSURFACES $632,144 $25,286 $878,303 $18,298 CURB, GUTTER & SIDEWALK $326,216 $13,049 $437,407 $9,113 BASE & A.C. $255,928 $10,237 $344,896 $7,185 REPAIRS $50,000 $2,000 $96,000 $2,000 WALLS & FENCES $353,345 $14,134 $739,965 $15,416 BOUNDARY WALLS $333,000 $13,320 $333,000 $6,938 RETAINING WALLS $20,345 $814 $406,965 $8,478 LANDSCAPING $513,504 $20,540 $713,377 $14,862 IRRIGATION & LANDSCAPING $513,504 $20,540 $713,377 $14,862 SIGNS $22,161 $886 $22,161 $462 STREET SIGNS & PAVEMENT MARKINGS $22,161 $886 $22,161 $462 CONTINGENCY $527,947 $21,118 $769,891 $16,039 SITE CONTINGENCY $527,947 $21,118 $769,891 $16,039 TOTAL $170,677 $129,707 COST REDUCTION $40,970 Note: All costs are estimates based on current information; actual costs may vary. 5.b Packet Pg. 70 777 S. California Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94304 phone 650.857.0122 fax 650.857.1077 SHHomes.com January 13, 2022 Via email: garrett.sauls@cityofpaloalto.org Garrett Sauls Associate Planner City of Palo Alto 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: 2850 W. Bayshore Road, Palo Alto Major Architectural Review – 21PLN-00177 Dear Garrett, We look forward to the upcoming hearing on January 20th for the Architectural Review Board to review our proposed project at 2850 W. Bayshore Road. For the convenience of the ARB, we would like to summarize the changes we have made to the project to address the comments that we received during the preliminary ARB review session on April 1, 2021. Architecture • In general, the ARB expressed preliminary support for a proposed Design Enhancement Exception to allow certain tower elements to exceed the 35-foot height limit, but several of the members commented that the tower elements should be integral to the interior function of the building. We revised the architecture so that the tower elements provide extra volume in the primary bedroom with clerestory windows for additional light. • Several members commented that having three tower elements on each building might be too heavy and repetitive, so we eliminated the center tower element from each building. In addition, in Buildings 4, 5, 7 and 8, we modified the design to reflect the context so that the tower element is less prominent in the locations closer to the park along the rear of the site. • As suggested by some of the members, we enhanced the end elevation for the units facing the park in Buildings 4, 5, 7 and 8 to take advantage of the view across the park and to add interest to the elevation as viewed from off-site. • As recommended by the ARB, we developed three different building types and three different color schemes for variation across the site. We refined the color schemes and simplified the massing at the front elevations for a more timeless appearance. We also enhanced the rear elevations by 5.b Packet Pg. 71 Garrett Sauls January 13, 2022 Page 2 introducing plane breaks, private balconies with open wood-and-steel railings, and lite accents in select garage doors so that the architecture will be engaging from the alleys as well as the front entries. Site Plan • Several members requested that we look for opportunities to provide more guest parking on-site, in addition to the two spaces we had proposed. As noted during the preliminary review session, the project meets the City’s requirement of two parking spaces per unit for residents, and the zoning code does not require any on-site guest parking. Because of the City’s requirement that all of the private streets be at least 32 feet wide, any increase in the number of on-site guest parking spaces risks a reduction in the number of homes. However, we were able to find a location for two additional guest parking spaces near Buildings 4 and 5, providing a total of four guest parking spaces plus a drop off/delivery space. • As recommended by the ARB, we expanded the walkway system to provide full pedestrian circulation around the site so that every resident will have convenient access to the central common open space. • Several members commented on the importance of maintaining the tree canopy. In response, we relocated the entry drive to preserve an additional street tree. Eight of the nine existing street trees will be preserved along the project frontage. • At Staff’s request, we modified the street improvements for W. Bayshore Road to provide a new southbound 6-foot wide bike lane along the project frontage and south to Colorado Avenue. To accommodate the new bike lane, W. Bayshore Road will be widened along the project frontage by approximately 3 feet, potentially impacting the root system of the existing street trees. Anticipating that the ARB would be concerned about damaging the street trees, we revised the plans to shift the public sidewalk onto the project site so that it will skirt behind the root zones. • Several members expressed strong support for a direct pedestrian connection from the site to Greer Park, if feasible. We agree, and we explored a number of different design concepts in an effort to provide direct access. However, because the homes must be built above the base flood elevation, the site will need to be substantially higher than the adjacent park. As a result, direct access to the park would require long ramps and changes to the on-site circulation system which we believe, on balance, would be a detriment to the project. Under separate cover, we have provided you with exhibits showing the two options that we believe would be least detrimental to the project, but as we discussed with you, we do not favor either of these options given the impact that they would have on the project and the fact that even without a direct connection, the residents will still have close and convenient access to the park via the public sidewalk. Landscaping • Several members commented that while an exception to the private usable open space requirements might be appropriate for some of the units closer to W. Bayshore Road, the members would prefer that most of the units have private open space. We revised the plans so that every unit will have private outdoor space in addition to the common open space. Every unit will have at 5.b Packet Pg. 72 Garrett Sauls January 13, 2022 Page 3 least 50 – 110 square feet of private outdoor space and at least 170 square feet of common usable open space. For sixteen of the units, the private outdoor space will not meet the City’s minimum dimension of 8 feet for ground-floor open space, but every unit will have private open space with a minimum dimension of at least 6 feet. In addition, to compensate for the sixteen units with smaller private open space, the project provides 1,600 square feet of additional common usable open space. • As suggested by the ARB, we made several revisions to the landscape plan to provide additional screening for the retaining wall at the sides and rear of the site. We split the wall into two tiers with a landscape strip between, so that the outer retaining wall will be lower and the inner retaining wall will be screened by additional planting. We also added vines to trail over the top of the outer retaining wall. • As suggested by the ARB, we revised the landscape plans to include vines along the proposed sound wall along W. Bayshore Road. • As suggested by the ARB, we included substantial planting areas next to each garage entrance with room for a vertical-form tree and low planting. We appreciate the comments that we received from the ARB during the preliminary review session on April 1, 2021 and we believe that the recommendations and revisions have improved the project considerably. We respectfully request that you provide a copy of this letter to the ARB prior to the hearing on January 20th. Please let us know if you have any questions. Thank you. Sincerely, John Hickey Director of Development cc: Elaine Breeze 5.b Packet Pg. 73 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 2850 W Bayshore, 21PLN-00177 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.13 (RM-30 DISTRICT) Regulation Required Proposed Minimum/Maximum Site Area, Width and Depth 8,500 sf area, 70 foot width, 100 foot depth 101,800 sf (2.337 AC), 361 foot width, 234 foot depth Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet 24 - 28 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 15 feet Interior Side Yard 10 feet 11-13 feet Street Side Yard 16 feet Not Applicable Special Setback 24 feet 24 feet (special setback on West Bayshore) Setback from major roadways [18.13.040(b)(1)(A)] 25 feet Not Applicable Max. Building Height* 35 feet Main:35 feet; Towers (3 on each building): 39’6” (request for DEE) Side Yard Daylight Plane None Not Applicable Rear Yard Daylight Plane None Not Applicable Max. Site Coverage 40% (40,714 sf) 35.5% (36,124 sf) +2.8% for covered patios (2,900 sf) = 39,024 sf Max. Total Floor Area Ratio** 60% (61,080 sf) 1.153 (89,952 sf/ 78,035 net lot area in sf) area (Concession requested per state density bonus law and PAMC Chapter) Residential Density 16-30 DU/AC 20.51 DU/AC Minimum Site Open Space 30% (30,536 sf) 30.6% (31,207 sf) Minimum Usable Open Space 150 sf per unit (7,200 sf) 250 sf per unit Minimum Common Open Space 75 sf per unit (3,600 sf) 170 sf per unit Minimum Private Open Space 50 sf per unit (2,400 sf) 50+ sf per unit (16 units will request to provide private open space as common open space in accordance with 18.13.040(e)(2)(B)) * Design Enhancement Exception requested. ** Increase per 18.15.080 5.c Packet Pg. 74 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking) for Multiple-Family Residential Type Required Proposed Vehicle Parking 1.5 spaces per unit (for two to three bedrooms units per Assembly Bill 2345 for density bonus projects). 72 spaces required 96 private spaces provided; 4 guest spaces plus drop- off and delivery; 100 spaces total plus drop- off/delivery Bicycle Parking 1 space per unit (100% long term) 48 required 1 space for every 10 units (100% short term) 5 required 48 provided (LT) 6 (ST) 5.c Packet Pg. 75 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 2850 West Bayshore Road 21PLN-00177 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. 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. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. 5.d Packet Pg. 76 CONTEXT-BASED DESIGN CRITERIA 2850 West Bayshore Road 21PLN-00177 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project 5.d Packet Pg. 77 DEE FINDINGS 2850 West Bayshore Road 21PLN-00177 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval for a design enhancement exception, the project must comply with the following Findings for a Design Enhancement Exception as required in Chapter 18.76.050 of the PAMC. 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; 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); and 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. 5.d Packet Pg. 78 CUP FINDINGS 2850 West Bayshore Road 21PLN-00177 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval for a conditional use permit, the project must comply with the following Findings for a Conditional Use Permit as required in Chapter 18.76.010 of the PAMC. Finding #1: 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; Finding #1: Be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of this title (Zoning). 5.d Packet Pg. 79 Attachment E Project Plans During Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Board members. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “2850 W. Bayshore” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/2850-W.- Bayshore-21PLN-00177 5.e Packet Pg. 80 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13918) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 1/20/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: ARB Awards: Fifth Discussion Title: ARB Awards: Consider the Eligible 11 Projects and Associated Photographs Taken by Board Members, and Decide on a List of Award Categories and Award Winners From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Discuss the ARB Design Awards, including possible awards categories, and timeline for awards, 2. Review photographs of eligible/completed projects, and 3. Decide on award winners Report Summary The list of potential projects has been reduced to 11 locations. The goal for this meeting is to develop award categories and decide on winning projects. Each board member should come ready to the hearing with information about a handful of projects they would like to nominate. Background ARB Bylaws The ARB bylaws Article 8, Design Awards, sets forth the following: • Design Awards for outstanding built projects may be awarded every five years beginning in 2005. Award-winning projects shall be selected from those reviewed by the ARB and completed since the last awards were made. • Criteria and number of awards shall be determined by the awarding board. • Winning projects may be displayed in the City Hall lobby for one month following the presentation of awards. The ARB shall request that the Mayor of the City of Palo Alto issue an appropriate proclamation. Purpose 6 Packet Pg. 81 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 The Architectural Review Board (ARB) awards were established to express appreciation for architects’ efforts to help create and maintain Palo Alto's unique visual character through their creative and responsive designs of public and private spaces, which contribute to the well-being and healthy environment of our city. Past ARB Awards Background • 1998: five awards went to five projects built prior to mid-1997. • 2005: five awards went to five projects constructed between mid-1997 and mid-2004. The eligible projects list was comprised of 70 major projects constructed prior to 2005; with criteria as follows: (1) Innovative, creative and authentic, (2) Enriches the quality of the built environment in Palo Alto, (3) Respectful of its context and the environment, (4) Well-built, well-detailed and durable. • 2010: ten awards went to ten projects from an eligible list of over 100 projects constructed prior to 2010. The ARB determined the number of awards could be increased to ten, to include ‘honorable mention’ awards for a variety of projects. • 2015: five awards went to five projects from an eligible list of over 34 projects constructed prior to 2015. The awards were presented in November 2015 and followed the same criteria set in 2005. The five main projects included the Hoover Pavilion on Quarry Road, Rinconada Library, Apple Store on University Ave, and Magical Bridge Playground; the Mitchell Park Library also received a special sustainability award, and Paris Baguette Remodel on University received a small project category award. Discussion Eligible Projects Documentation and Followup Staff suggests boardmembers review the revised list and photos that were taken to determine what projects are award winning and what categories of awards should be given out. The ARB may also wish to consult past ARB members to assist in the selection and write-ups of award winners. Staff typically contacts the award winners with an official letter, and prepares the proclamation for Council. Display of Winning Projects The bank of televisions in the City Hall lobby will again be an option to display the winning projects, as well as the City’s webpages. In previous years, a reception was held in the lobby and community meeting room of City Hall prior to the Council meeting where the awards were presented to the winning teams. ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6 Packet Pg. 82 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: 2020 ARB Award Eligibility List 1-12-22 (PDF) 6 Packet Pg. 83 # File # Address Project Description Short Title Year Approved/ 2021 Status Type Planner Researcher Second Straw Poll Initial Straw poll Notes Proposed Category Architect Notes 22 19PLN-00103 375 University Avenue Modifications to a ex Exterior Renovations (Cheesecake) 2019 Commercial Emily Peter 5 Yes DH, ODT, PB Storefront good proportions, exterior façade, human scale, urban experience 15 15PLN-00129 4175 Manuela Avenue Request by CongregCongregation Kol Emeth 2016 Assembly Use Ranu Osma 4 Yes ODT, GL, DH, Institutional / Sustainability Leed Platinum 25 16PLN-00135 701 Welch Minor Architectural R Lucile Packard Children's Hospital Medical Alex 4 Yes AL, DH, GL Institutional / Human Scale large broken down/detailed bldg, honorable mention? 8 16PLN-00263 799 Embarcadero Road Request by Shah Ka Fire Station #3 Replacement Project 2017/Complete Public Facility Amy Osma 4 Yes Instutitional / Concept context, urban design, landscape, tree preservation, materials 17 17PLN-00147 1451 Middlefield Road Request by Sarah VJunior Museum and Zoo 2018/Complete Public Facility Amy David 4 Yes DH, PB, ODT Institutional / Site Planning street experience, site planning 13 16PLN-00190 17PLN-00225 3223-3251 Hanover Street Allow the ConstructioR&D Building 1 & 2 2018/Complete R&D Graham Grace 4 Yes ODT, DH, GL Commercial / Site Planning saved trees, sustainability, site planning, concept, bike path 19 13PLN-00188 1400 Page Mill Allow the constructioOffice 2013/Complete R&D Clare Grace 3.5 Yes AL, PB, ODT Sustainability - Net Zero net zero by Stanford, removed trees 3 13PLN-00213 611 Cowper Request by Ken HayFour story mixed use 2013/Const 2016 Mixed Use Clare David 3 Yes PB, AL, DH materials, concept realized Ken Hayes already got AIA award 20 14PLN-00074 1050 Page Mill Road Request by Allison K 287,000sf R&D/Office, Sand Hill Prop 2014/Const 2019 R&D Jodie Grace 3 Yes AL, GL, ODT Design Concept Form 4 nice courtyard 21 15PLN-00237 355 University Major Architectural R Design Within Reach (seismic/façade) 2016/Complete Commercial Rebecca Peter 2 Yes PB, DH, GL material, urban design Ken Hayes seimic bonus, open basement, storefront 11 17PLN-00171 180 Hamliton Avenue Allow for Exterior ImHotel / Nobu Facade Change 2017/Complete Hotel Samuel David 0 Yes PB, ODT, GL material, exterior renovation 2020 ARB Awards Eligibility - 1/12/22 Projects must have completed construction to be eligible 6.a Packet Pg. 84 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13896) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/20/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of November 18, 2021 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 18, 2021 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the November 18, 2021 Architectural Review Board (ARB) are available in Attachment A. Draft and Approved Minutes are made available on the ARB webpage at bit.ly/paloaltoARB Attachments: •Attachment A: November 18, 2021 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 7 Packet Pg. 85 Page 1 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES: November 18, 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, Vice Chair Grace Lee, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Alex Lew Absent: Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, thanked Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, for taking over for Vinh Nguyen, Administrative Associate III. The ARB will continue to meet virtually through the end of the year. The Castilleja School project will most likely be discussed at the December 2nd meeting. Study Session / Preliminary Review 2.739 Sutter [21PLN-00222]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review of a Proposed 12 Unit Townhome Development within two Buildings on a 0.38 Acre Site. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Stan Ketchum at sketchum@m-group.us. Chair Thompson introduced the project and called for the staff report. Ms. Gerhardt introduced the consultant, Stan Ketchum, of M-Group and explained he was assisting while Claire Raybould is out. She shared her screen with the ARB and called for the presentation. 7.a Packet Pg. 86 Page 2 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Stan Ketchum, Project Planner, M-Group, thanked the ARB and introduced 739 Sutter. The project is on Sutter northeast from Middlefield Road. The plan is to demolish an existing 8-unit apartment building and redevelop the site to 12 townhomes. The site is approximately 0.38 acres and surrounding uses are multi- family and single-family. He explained that two key State housing laws affect the project, the Housing Accountability Act, and the Housing Crisis Act (SB 330). Two of the twelve units will be restricted to low- income residents, 25% of the project is made up of low-income units allowing for 3 concessions, the project qualifies for a density bonus and will request concessions for Floor Area Ratio (FAR) and will include a condominium subdivision to allow for-sale units. He showed the ARB the site plan and project building elevations. The key considerations identified in the staff report revolve around private street design which differs from city street design. The project will require a shared access easement. Following the ARB meeting the applicant may choose to file a formal application. The SB 330 application has been deemed compete and has triggered the 180 days to submit a formal application. Chair Thompson called for the applicant’s presentation and indicated they had 10 minutes. Eric Muzzy, Planning Entitlement Manager for Dahlin Group, presented the conceptual design on behalf of the applicant. He thanked the ARB and Mr. Ketchum. They have added several items to the presentation based on a meeting with Planning. He showed a conceptual rendering of the proposed streetscape from Sutter. He also showed an aerial map of the project location. The existing parcel contains 8 residential units and a shared driveway with the adjacent multi-family property. The proposal is to replace the existing buildings with 12 for-sale units. He showed an aerial site plan and pointed out the garages and unit entries. He also showed the conceptual elevations and indicated they added materials list. The elevation style is contemporary, and the materials will be modern. Access requirements are included in the design. Since the top plate is only 30 feet aerial access is not required. He continued to show the elevations of the buildings, the conceptual unit plans, and the renderings from various angles. There was an application in 2018 that proposed a four-unit residential plan with a central drive within the site. City Transportation Department suggested the access be combined into a single driveway, which is the existing shared driveway. No easement exists so the current design incorporates a shared driveway and maintains access to the adjacent carports. The Fire Department told them to make the width of the driveway as close to 26 feet as possible, so currently the driveway measures at 22 feet wide. The applicant has spoken to the adjacent property owner and received a verbal agreement that the easement is acceptable. The City has noted that the easement is a condition of approval. They have not made a specific request related to the Density Bonus, but they anticipate requesting waivers and/or concessions. Chair Thompson called for the public comment, but there was none. She called for ARB disclosures. Boardmember Lew disclosed that he visited the site and researched the neighboring properties on San Carlos Court including fire maps, aerial photos, and zoning. Boardmember Hirsch disclosed that he visited the site and its neighborhood. He noted the distinctly different character of Sutter as it approaches Middlefield Road. Boardmember Baltay disclosed he visited the site. Vice Chair Lee disclosed she visited the site. 7.a Packet Pg. 87 Page 3 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Chair Thompson disclosed she visited the site. She called for ARB questions of the applicant or staff. Vice Chair Lee asked the applicant to comment on their intention for open space and landscaping. Mr. Muzzy explained that they had decks and porches proposed on the front building for private open space. The rear building has second floor decks for private open space. There is a shared rear paseo that will be landscaped. The existing frontage trees will be maintained, and lower scale landscaping will be added to define the private space. He noted that the landscaping was not included in the conceptual design plans yet, but the areas are allocated. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the applicant had done any studies on cars turning in and out of the garage, especially those against the property line. Mr. Muzzy stated they had not done the studies on the site. They observed the driveway standards, which require a 10-foot radius. Typically, Civil will run the turning movements. A driveway of this depth with aprons should accommodate the turning movements. Boardmember Hirsch asked if Transportation had looked at the plans. Mr. Ketchum confirmed they had not. Ms. Gerhardt clarified that given the proposal is for 12 condominiums it needs to be on a private street. The Private Street standards apply. That is a concession the applicant has requested. There are several other concessions requested in Attachment B. Mr. Muzzy said that they would request waivers and concessions where necessary. Ms. Gerhardt explained that waivers are generally only used for bonus units in Palo Alto. The detail would be worked out in the formal application. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the project zoning. Mr. Muzzy confirmed that it was zoned RM-20. The 40 dwelling units per acre was based on the General Plan designation. No rezoning is proposed. Chair Thompson requested more information on the height restrictions. Ms. Gerhardt said that it is an RM-20 district, so all the restrictions apply. The maximum height limit is 30 feet, and 35 feet is being proposed. Affordable housing projects are allowed to request concessions. The preliminary project proposes 25% low-income housing which grants three concessions. Attachment B contains the list of concessions. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the zoning allowed the concessions. Ms. Gerhardt explained the State law required them and had been written into Palo Alto code. Boardmember Baltay stated that floor to floor height was approximately 10’3”. He asked why the building was 35 feet in height. Mr. Muzzy stated that there would be a parapet and likely a solar zone. There could potentially be air conditioning units on the roof as well. The foundation is also built into the number. 7.a Packet Pg. 88 Page 4 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Boardmember Baltay said that assuming the building was within a foot of grade he did not see how they got to 35 feet. Mr. Muzzy explained that they had a 42-inch parapet. If they could decrease it then they will. Boardmember Baltay inquired about the daylight plane restrictions on the site. Ms. Gerhardt shared Attachment B with the ARB. Anything that does not meet the standards is listed in bold. As the project is for affordable housing the applicant is allowed three concessions. The project has not been fully analyzed yet as it is still in the preliminary stage. The daylight plane is standard. Boardmember Baltay asked if that applied to the back of the property where it abuts R-1. Ms. Gerhardt stated it applied to the rear and the side of the property. RM-20 and under is considered low density for daylight plane. Boardmember Baltay asked if the substandard lots to the rear of the project impacted the criteria. Boardmember Lew stated that the substandard lots are restricted to one story buildings and a 16- or 17- foot height limit. Ms. Gerhardt stated that staff would look at it again, but that she did not believe anything extra was required. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that the daylight plane exists at the back fence. Secondly, the HAA Act says that to deny or reduce the density they had to find that there was a significant impact to the public’s health and welfare. He asked how that was phrased. Ms. Gerhardt stated that it was a high bar to cross. Boardmember Baltay explained that the staff report said that staff considered the reduced fire drive to be an “adverse impact on public safety.” Ms. Gerhardt said that was correct, if the Fire Department could not gain access to the site safely it would be an adverse impact. However, Planning, Fire, and the applicant have worked together and are moving forward. Boardmember Baltay asked if a shadow on the neighboring property could be considered an adverse impact on public health. Ms. Gerhardt said that was something staff could explore. Boardmember Baltay asked if the public health referred to the public in general or the public as in the owners of the neighboring properties. Ms. Gerhardt explained it was all based on new State law. The main ones that are seen as having an impact on public health are for fire and flood. The ARB can give its thoughts and Planning will have the City Attorney’s Office review it. This is new regulation that all cities are learning how to implement. Boardmember Baltay said that State law requires that they do not reduce the density, which is measured by housing units per area. He asked for the physical size definition of housing unit. 7.a Packet Pg. 89 Page 5 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Ms. Gerhardt stated that she believed the size was in the 150 or 250 square foot range. Boardmember Baltay asked the applicant about the size of the units. Mr. Muzzy stated that all 12 units were three bedrooms. Boardmember Baltay asked if the existing 8 units were rentals or condominiums. Mr. Muzzy explained that they may have indicated condominiums on the initial application, but they could be simple homes as well. The current 8 units are rental. Boardmember Baltay said that they were going from 8 rental units to 12 for sale houses. Mr. Muzzy confirmed that was the proposal. Boardmember Hirsch stated that the FAR currently on site is [.5.1 and it’s going to 1.43 34:42] and asked how that was determined. He also wanted to understand the rationale behind the increase. Ms. Gerhardt said that there is a significant increase in FAR. The applicant is allowed bonus square footage and concession square footage. Those details will be looked at further, but under the new State regulations a 50% bonus is not unheard of. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the ARB should expect a compromise. Ms. Gerhardt deferred to the applicant. Mr. Muzzy explained they were trying to create a nice lifestyle in 12 units allowed under the 50% density bonus. The floor area is less than the 50% bonus on top of what is allowed. If the site design and architectural design are refined the FAR could be lower or could be anywhere from what they proposed to 1.5. Chair Thompson called for further ARB questions. Boardmember Baltay asked how the City calculated the affordable housing units. Mr. Muzzy explained that based on State law the affordable housing units were calculated from the base units. The base units on this project are 8 so 25% of that are at low-income affordability. Boardmember Baltay asked if staff confirmed that. Ms. Gerhardt said that staff is in the process of learning and reviewing the project. The project itself is still a moving target. Generally, staff agrees with the applicant. Mr. Muzzy said that he is a land planner and not an attorney, so he only conveys what he had learned. Boardmember Baltay asked if it was possible to request a concession for a reduction in required parking. Ms. Gerhardt believed that it was possible, but not likely. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that each unit would receive two parking spots. 7.a Packet Pg. 90 Page 6 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Ms. Gerhardt said that was correct and noted that met the City standards. There is a 58% tandem, which is above Palo Alto standards, but is allowed by law. Boardmember Baltay asked if they increased the density if they would have to add spaces per unit or if they could request an exemption. Ms. Gerhardt stated they would need a concession for additional units and another for the parking reduction. So, it would use two of the three concessions and is therefore unlikely. Boardmember Lew said he did not think that was correct. In the density bonus section there is a separate provision where the applicant can request a parking reduction and another list of parking concessions. He thought they might be able to go to one space per unit by choice. Ms. Gerhardt said that the applicant is proposing more than what is required. Mr. Muzzy stated that current density bonus law for 2 and 3 bedrooms requires 1.5 parking spaces per unit. If there were a one bedroom or studio they would be allowed 1 space. In this case with the private garages 1.5 spaces is not feasible so they are meeting the standard by providing 2 spaces. Chair Thompson noted that in the elevations the finishes for Building 1 and Building 2 were slightly different. She inquired about the design intent. Mr. Muzzy showed the ARB the elevations and asked if Padru Kang, Design Director at Dahlin, could answer the question. Padru Kang, Director of Design at Dahlin Group, introduced himself and explained that the materials were a way to create modulation with the elevation and accent the modulation vertically to break the horizontal feel of the architecture. They also wanted to focus on the entry doors. There are three different materials being applied to each elevation. With Building 2 they looked to compliment but not mimic what was happening in Building 1. Chair Thompson heard no further questions, so she called for ARB feedback. Boardmember Hirsch said that it was a project full of concessions requesting maximum concessions, perhaps with the assumption they would be whittled down in some way. It is difficult for the ARB to review the project due to the new law and because of its great impact on the neighborhood in general. The character of the street varies and a decision on this project impacts everything between it and Middlefield Road. This is also a major zoning change due to the concessions. He noted that Palo Alto was working on the Housing Element and the report must go through Council upon receipt. The State is pushing major changes to most of the zoning. The design of the project is nice, and he appreciated the changes from the front building to the back. There is narrow passage to the back units. With the fire access and safety issues he requested further clarification. He noted that there were balconies over a traffic lane. This project is not like Palo Alto because the City values the open space landscaping. He said that he had many doubts about the project and that they involved the Housing Element Study and how the City would manage this kind of increase in zoning. In this area it might be more reasonable to have a lower FAR exception and less units. He questioned the FAR of the existing buildings on the site and noted that it was probably very dense. Overall, he did not look favorably on the project as designed. The City must come to grips with the 7.a Packet Pg. 91 Page 7 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 planning under the new rules quickly. He asked if there were better sites for denser projects and is this an appropriately dense project for its neighborhood and site. Boardmember Baltay thanked the applicant for the project. He agreed with Boardmember Hirsch and stated it was important to note that this was not the best place in town to increase housing density. He understood that was not a required finding, but there are other places where the level of density would fit. This is a crisis situation, and they are faced with concessions to zoning, but it may not work next to R- 1 zoning. There are ways for the applicant to reduce the height of the building by not having mechanical units or a parapet on the roof. Regardless of zoning status the applicant would be better off not pushing the height limit. The extra five feet makes a significant difference in neighborhood compatibility. He was extremely concerned about the impacts to the daylight plane. That is the greatest zoning concession requested, especially at the rear. A building of this size is an adverse impact to those residents’ health. He requested that staff research the issue further. He was also concerned about ground level open space and landscaping. Currently the site is nicely landscaped, and families will need an open space at ground level; it is not enough to have a deck off the unit. He suggested that the applicant investigate reducing its parking. The density is not an issue, but each unit is too big, so he suggested smaller units or variability of unit sizes. The basic design style is appropriate for the area, but he needed more information and a more refined design to provide further feedback. He repeated that he did not believe this was the best place in Palo Alto for the proposed density. Vice Chair Lee thanked the applicant for the proposal and was pleased to review a multi-family project. She knew the site and area well and felt it was the right project for the site. She understood that preliminary reviews did not require several things including landscape plans and materials boards. One of the things that is helpful in the preliminary review is context. She looked forward to seeing the project improve and the applicant providing further context. The setbacks should be revisited to be more in line with other projects in Palo Alto. The side setback on the south side given the massing should be revisited. She agreed with Boardmember Hirsch about the variation between the buildings. She suggested the applicant think about decreasing the verticality. With landscaping in a town home context, she was interested to see the shared mailboxes, walkways, and bicycle storage. The applicant could provide more of that context even in the preliminary application. She looked forward to seeing the project move forward and noted it was needed in the area. The neighborhood already has multi-family projects, and the density is appropriate. Boardmember Lew thanked the applicant for bringing the project forward. His thoughts were most aligned with Vice Chair Lee. He thought the site was perfect for adding density. He shared Boardmember Hirsch and Baltay’s concerns about concessions. The number of concessions requested show that the project does not present the correct solutions. In the RM-20 Zone a townhouse project should be allowed. Three story townhomes are economically feasible and many of these units are under construction in the greater Bay Area. Because of this he was concerned that Palo Alto’s zoning was not in line with the market. The zoning and density bonuses are in place, but the applicant does not have the right solution. In townhomes the end units are often smaller and stepped down to the neighbors. The roof line should be explored and minimized. The project had a long way to go to meet the context criteria. He also wondered if there was a way to reduce the parking as that could help reduce the massing. The project requests too 7.a Packet Pg. 92 Page 8 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 many concessions, but he thought that the architects were accomplished and could create a site-specific design that works. He looked forward to the project’s return to the ARB. Chair Thompson agreed with Boardmember Lew and Vice Chair Lee that the project was appropriate for the site. Middlefield Road is getting developed commercially and she noted that the Safeway there operates differently than the one on San Antonio because of density. This project will bolster the site and make it successful. Generally, she agreed with her colleagues that there are too many requested concessions. She thought the design could use more work in terms of aesthetics. The front elevation of Building 2 is successful due to the light/dark play with a pop of color. Initially she thought they should flip the facades for Buildings 1 and 2, but now she would encourage the design team to further explore the concepts of Building 2 in all the building elevations. She did not think that the shading elements would be effective because of where they are placed so she urged the design team to consider other options. Building 2 has a light/dark palette with a color pop but Building 1 is simply different shades of beige. She suggested another color, perhaps sage, to give the façade more visual interest. The wood tones overall will feel refreshing on the street. She appreciated the rendering, but due to the included trees it was not as helpful as it could have been. She further suggested adding a section showing how the small lots to the north are affected by the building. She supported a reduction of parking as mentioned by other ARB members. Vice Chair Lee wondered if the applicant had considered the path of travel or daily activities of users on the site. She also wanted trees and their dimensions added to the plans and for the drawings to be done to the scale of a person for context. Boardmember Baltay looked at Building 2’s elevation and questioned the privacy impacts of the windows and the difference in window design to the other buildings. Chair Thompson explained that she planned to let the applicant speak after the ARB finished its discussion. She wondered if the windows were placed on the north side to allow more light in the units. On Building 1 the windows are smaller and contain shading elements. There is something about the parti of the front elevation of Building 2 that is more successful than Building 1. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he wanted to stress Boardmember Lew’s points about the massing of the building. The ARB is discussing detail at the preliminary stage while not pinning down the FAR and other issues. The massing comment is applicable right now. It would be possible to have a rooftop deck if there were smaller units with a step back situation. There needs to be a bigger study of the formal aspects of the project. It is unreasonable to make a lot of comments about the detail on the buildings when these larger issues have not been addressed such as massing, privacy, and scale. If the project started with two less units or two-bedroom units it could reduce the parking and massing and have a better relationship to its neighbors. The project needs to be developed that way before they get into the details. Chair Thompson called for further comments, but there were none. She called for the applicant to respond to the ARB. Mr. Kang said meeting with the ARB and hearing their comments is welcomed and productive. The design is conceptual and should be seen as a starting point, the application is not formal. They have taken notes 7.a Packet Pg. 93 Page 9 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 and when the ARB reviews it next he hopes they see that their opinions were considered. He thanked them for their time. Mr. Muzzy thanked the ARB for its time and stated they would incorporate their thoughts into the project. Chair Thompson noted that no formal action was requested and closed the item. The ARB took a Break Action Items 3. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency. Chair Thompson introduced the item and called for the staff report. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the pandemic started in early 2020. In September 2021, the Governor amended the Brown Act to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconference during a state of emergency given they pass monthly resolutions confirming that there is still a local state of emergency. This item will become a monthly occurrence and may change in 2022 when they move to a hybrid model. Chair Thompson asked if they needed a Motion. Ms. Gerhardt said that they needed a Motion and then Chair Thompson and staff would sign the resolution. Boardmember Baltay asked if they needed to hear the item monthly. Ms. Gerhardt explained that they did as that was the way the State set it up. The must state that there is still a state of emergency in the local area. Boardmember Baltay inquired about what would happen if the ARB did not meet in a given month. Ms. Gerhardt stated that the resolution needed to be placed on the agenda of the following meeting. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Lew, to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 4. ARB Awards: Consider the Reduced List of Eligible Projects and Associated Photographs Taken by Board Members and Develop a List of Award Categories. Chair Thompson recapped the work done by the ARB on the Awards thus far and stated that the goal for the meeting was to create categories, make nominations, and possibly vote on winners. Ms. Gerhardt said that staff had the original photographs taken by the ARB and some additional aerial photographs. Vice Chair Lee also provided additional pictures. She shared her screen to show the short list of projects and photographs. Chair Thompson suggested they go project by project and discuss their thoughts. 7.a Packet Pg. 94 Page 10 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Boardmember Hirsch stated the list was still long and suggested projects be nominated by more than one Boardmember to be considered. Chair Thompson appreciated the idea. Vice Chair Lee said that she was part of the review of most of the projects and requested that Boardmembers state the reason for their nomination. Chair Thompson also liked Vice Chair Lee’s idea and suggested the ARB do both. Ms. Gerhardt asked Chair Thompson to state when they wanted to advance the slides and indicated she would take notes. Boardmember Hirsch asked if staff included more ARB pictures in the slideshow. Ms. Gerhardt said that except for the most recent email from Vice Chair Lee all the ARB pictures are included in the slideshow. Nothing was added related to the museum. Boardmember Hirsch indicated he would comment on the museum when they reached it. Chair Thompson called for thoughts on the Bowman School Annex. Boardmember Baltay said that the photograph did not show the recessed group area behind the buildings that he would like to see photographed and discussed. Chair Thompson asked if anyone had access to the image. Ms. Gerhardt said that would require the plan set which would take more staff time. She suggested whittling the list down before they pulled site plans. Boardmember Hirsch thought that what Boardmember Baltay meant is that they needed to see more information on the project. Boardmember Baltay suggested it stay on the list and that either a Boardmember could take additional photographs, or the Bowman School could supply a photograph. Chair Thompson heard Boardmember Hirsch and Baltay support the project. She thought reducing the list was a good goal for the meeting. The end of the year seemed like a reasonable time to wrap up the project, so the ARB has an additional two meetings to discuss the Awards. Boardmember Baltay suggested running through all the pictures. Chair Thompson said that was the plan. Ms. Gerhardt announced 260 California Ave. Chair Thompson asked if it was only the outdoor seating part of the project. Ms. Gerhardt said that was the most recent application. Boardmember Lew said the original building did not include a restaurant. They made modifications for seating and parking. 7.a Packet Pg. 95 Page 11 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Chair Thompson called for support for the project, but there was none. Ms. Gerhardt announced 1451 California Avenue, the Stanford residential subdivision. Vice Chair Lee stated she sent Ms. Gerhardt an additional aerial picture of the project. She suggested keeping it on the list for site plan and neighborhood connectivity as well as the massing and the landscape. Ms. Gerhardt said that they stepped down the density toward California Avenue. Boardmember Hirsch thought the project was worth keeping on the list. It deals with the neighborhood context nicely and the site planning is significant. Vice Chair Lee noted that there were two tiers of open space as well. Boardmember Hirsch appreciated the cul-de-sacs as well. There is a variety of planning ideas. Chair Thompson asked what the ARB application was. Ms. Gerhardt said that the ARB looked at limited development standards. Boardmember Lew suggested it stay on the list but limit it to context since the ARB had no purview over the site plans. Vice Chair Lee said given that she was not sure that it should stay on the list. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Boardmember Lew stated that matching the context was key to getting community support. It was not easy to achieve. Vice Chair Lee withdrew her support. Boardmember Lew said the condominiums had unusual features. They tried hard to incorporate large decks, privacy, and corner units. That could be acknowledged without providing a full award. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the judgement was dependent on how much review the ARB did or on the quality of the project. Boardmember Lew thought that was up to the ARB. The Bylaws state that the Awards can be given to projects that the ARB reviewed. Multi-family housing is an important issue, and this is probably the best project for that category. Boardmember Hirsch voted to keep the project on the list since they found it compatible with the neighborhood. Vice Chair Lee stated she had changed her opinion and would support keeping the project on the list. Boardmember Lew and Boardmember Baltay also stated support. Ms. Gerhardt said that once the list was cut in half staff could provide additional research. She announced 400 Channing, comprised of 4 units. 7.a Packet Pg. 96 Page 12 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Boardmember Baltay thought the elevation along Channing was not well done. He could not support the project. He recalled that Planning had to make changes to the screening. Ms. Gerhardt explained additional equipment had to be added later and they had to determine how to screen it. Chair Thompson shared her screen and showed the equipment mentioned by Boardmember Baltay. Boardmember Baltay said it was not an award worthy piece of architecture. Boardmember Lew asked if the oak tree was cut down. Ms. Gerhardt stated she would check. Boardmember Lew indicated he would look at the plans. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed that there were no votes for the project. She announced 611 Cowper, a mixed- use building. Boardmember Baltay indicated he liked the building. Boardmembers Hirsch and Lew agreed. Boardmember Hirsch enjoyed the scale. Boardmember Baltay was impressed with the use of materials. Chair Thompson confirmed the project was new construction. Boardmember Lew said that 611 Cowper won an American Institute of Architects (AIA) Award. Ms. Gerhardt said that it would stay on the list and announced 405 Curtner. Vice Chair Lee said she did not plan to nominate the project but supported an award for housing. Chair Thompson said she could support the project. Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch also supported it. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed they were keeping it and announced 180 El Camino, Shopping Center Phase III. Boardmember Lew said that they removed it from the list at the last meeting, but that Boardmember Hirsch voted for the Vineyard Vines which was part of Phase III. Boardmember Hirsch supported keeping Vineyard Vines on the list. Boardmember Baltay asked to see the Shake Shack building. Ms. Gerhardt showed the picture. Boardmember Baltay suggested they nominate Shake Shack instead. Boardmember Hirsch preferred Vineyard Vines. 7.a Packet Pg. 97 Page 13 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Chair Thompson supported Shake Shack but not Vineyard Vines. Ms. Gerhardt said that three supported Shake Shack, but only one for Vineyard Vines. Boardmember Lew said that the second floor of Vineyard Vines was office space. Ms. Gerhardt announced 2585 El Camino, a three-story mixed-use development. Boardmembers Hirsch, Baltay, and Chair Thompson supported the project. Ms. Gerhardt announced Fire Station #3. Boardmembers Baltay, Hirsch, and Lew supported the Fire Station. Ms. Gerhardt announced the Sludge Facility on 2501 Embarcadero Road. Chair Thompson apologized for taking the wrong photo and not replacing it before the meeting. Boardmember Baltay thought they should see a picture of the building before removing the project from the list. Boardmember Hirsch said that the access point was not handsome. Boardmember Baltay agreed, but said it was not part of the building. The building is industrial but has interesting detailing and a large entrance door. Boardmember Lew volunteered to go take pictures. Ms. Gerhardt announced the Baylands Boardwalk at 2775 Embarcadero. Chair Thompson and Boardmember Hirsch stated support. Boardmember Baltay explained that it was only the actual boardwalk that was built, not the building. Ms. Gerhardt agreed. Boardmember Lew said it was done very well. Boardmember Hirsch said that by itself it was not enough and withdrew his support. Boardmember Baltay and Vice Chair Lee agreed to go walk the boardwalk. Ms. Gerhardt announced 135 Hamilton Avenue. Boardmember Lew explained that Downtown has a ground floor retail requirement the City waived in this location. There is a penthouse, and the rest of the building is office. Boardmember Hirsch was bothered by the stone façade. The proportions and detail are nice, but the rusticated stone is out of place. Boardmember Baltay said that at night the stone is up lit and is very dramatic. Chair Thompson confirmed there was no support for the project. 7.a Packet Pg. 98 Page 14 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Ms. Gerhardt announced 180 Hamilton, the Nobu façade and some changes to the hotel. Chair Thompson thought the façade was nice at night. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the Nobu annex was not complete yet. Chair Thompson suggested a category for nicest material. Vice Chair Lee supported a category for materiality or exterior renovation details. Boardmember Baltay asked if there was supposed to be a bench instead of the planter. Ms. Gerhardt said that there were many conversations about that. Chair Thompson voiced support for the project. Vice Chair Lee voted to support as she liked the category. Ms. Gerhardt announced 261 Hamilton Avenue, a remodel of the whole building. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, explained that the building was remodeled. They used historic tile and uncovered some details that had been previously covered. Boardmember Hirsch said that he would need to see a before and after picture to understand the changes. He called the block incredible and praised its consistency. If the project fits with the block and was a significant renovation he would support it. Ms. French said they could pull together more images. Vice Chair Lee stated her support. Boardmember Baltay voiced disappointment that University Art was chased out by the renovation. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed that it received two votes. She announced 3223 Hanover, the “butterfly” building in the Research Park. The building also includes a tuck under garage. Chair Thompson and Boardmember Hirsch voted for the building. Chair Thompson stated that the website had pictures of the building and shared her screen. Ms. Gerhardt said that there are several Research Park projects on the list. There could be a Research Park category. Boardmember Lew noted that the project had to work with existing grading to save existing landscaping. The project could be compared to the same architect and landscape designer’s building on Page Mill. Chair Thompson said the building could be a candidate for some kind of sustainability award. Boardmember Lew also supported the project. Ms. Gerhardt said that there were two buildings on the site. She confirmed they would view it as one property even though it was built in phases. 7.a Packet Pg. 99 Page 15 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Boardmember Hirsch noted that there was an interior courtyard that was not pictured. Boardmember Lew said that he had taken a picture. Boardmember Hirsch thought the sighting was interesting. Ms. Gerhardt announced 3406 Hillview, which was also in the Research Park. There is both underground and hillside parking. Vice Chair Lee noted that there was significant landscaping on the project. Chair Thompson thought they had discussed this project receiving a landscape award. Boardmember Baltay asked if there were more pictures of the landscaping. Vice Chair Lee apologized for not getting more pictures and suggested they keep it on the list for landscape. Boardmember Baltay said he remembered having significant concerns about the parking and landscaping in the back of the project. Boardmember Hirsch thought this project was not necessary because they kept the last. Chair Thompson said they would be for different categories. The previous project would be in a sustainability category while this would be for landscape. Boardmember Baltay and Vice Chair Lee did not support the building. Ms. Gerhardt announced 480 Lytton Avenue. Boardmember Baltay supported the building. Boardmember Lew said that he would support it in a small project category. The last ARB Awards included a small scope project. Chair Thompson said that the categories were still open. Boardmember Hirsch saw a “small” project as being residential. Boardmember Baltay urged the ARB to look at the glass fins on the façade. They are sophisticated. Chair Thompson said that she had not seen the project in person. Boardmember Lew said he would support the building conditionally. Ms. Gerhardt announced Congregation Kol Emeth at 4175 Manuela Avenue. Chair Thompson and Boardmember Hirsch supported the building. Ms. Gerhardt asked if they had suggestions for categories. Chair Thompson shared her screen and noted that there was a potential for a sustainability award for the building. 7.a Packet Pg. 100 Page 16 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 B Hirsh enjoyed the site plan and the open space brought into the building. He thought it was a wonderful piece of architecture that deserved to be nominated for more than just being sustainable. Vice Chair Lee supported the project. Ms. Gerhardt announced the 13 residential units at 567 Maybell. There was controversy behind the project. Boardmember Baltay noted there was a piece about the project in the New York Times. He stated he could not support it. Boardmember Hirsch also could not support the project. Ms. French explained the New York Times article was critical of the community. Ms. Gerhardt said it was planned for 60 units and the community wanted lower density. There was a referendum and ultimately 16 units were approved. Chair Thompson thought the homes were nice looking. Ms. Gerhardt announced 636 Middlefield Road. Boardmember Hirsch apologized for the photographs and explained he could not get good light on the building. The use of the red against the background and the chimneys made the project unique. The buildings are simple forms and are shaped different. He appreciated it and voted in support. Boardmember Lew said that there was an existing building and then three units were added to the site. Boardmember Baltay said the project had a crazy tandem drive through parking feature added to meet code. He was not impressed with the materials or detailing of the remodel. Ms. Gerhardt announced 1451 Middlefield Road. Boardmember Baltay said the building was excellent. Boardmember Hirsch agreed and explained that the building opens through the parking lot to Lucy Stern. He suggested ARB members look at the entry and scale and the way in which it approaches the street. There is also a courtyard. Chair Thompson said the ARB liked the project and suggested Ms. Gerhardt move on. Ms. French noted that the feature Boardmember Hirsch thought was flagpoles was interactive public art. Ms. Gerhardt announced 2555 Park Boulevard. Vice Chair Lee indicated she sent Ms. Gerhardt better photographs of the building. She wanted to keep the project on the list for the vertical garden by the sidewalk. The signage is also well done. Boardmember Hirsch suggested a special award just for the vertical garden. Vice Chair Lee said the façade was very long and they were able to break it into two separate masses. She did not love the corner above the vertical garden. 7.a Packet Pg. 101 Page 17 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Boardmember Hirsch said it could receive an environmental detail award for the ground floor. Chair Thompson announced that Vice Chair Lee and Boardmember Hirsch voted for the building. Ms. Gerhardt announced 3045 Park Boulevard in the Research Park. The project was going to have an above grade surface parking lot, but they changed it to below grade. Beginning to end the project improved so she suggested a “most improved” award. Chair Thompson, Boardmember Baltay, and Boardmember Hirsch indicated they could not support the project. Ms. Gerhardt announced 3180 Porter. Hearing no support, she announced 1400 Page Mill. Chair Thompson asked if there was a sustainability thought with the project since it was near a river. Ms. Gerhardt said that it is a concrete channel, so she was not sure how much attention was paid to it. Boardmember Lew explained the channel was existing and went through the Research Park. The building is net zero electric use and was done speculatively. Stanford is the developer and they committed to net zero before they lined up a tenant. They also regraded the site, so they removed all the trees. Chair Thompson asked if there was any support. Boardmember Lew said he would support this project or 636 Waverley because they are net zero electric. Boardmembers Baltay, Hirsch and Chair Thompson did not support the building. Ms. Gerhardt announced 1050 Page Mill in the Research Park. It is four large buildings on a large site. There is underground parking and a center courtyard. Chair Thompson supported the project. Boardmember Hirsch stated he did not support the project. Vice Chair Lee explained that she did not get photographs of the courtyard and noted that she had not seen it used due to Covid. The project is also not done so she is still on the fence. Boardmember Lew suggested looking at a before and after photo for the project. He thought the landscaping was nicely done. Vice Chair Lee suggested they keep it on the list. Ms. Gerhardt announced 355 University Avenue. There is bonus space for seismic renovation. Boardmember Baltay strongly supported the project. They opened up the lower level from the street and it is extremely successful at increasing retail frontage without changing the mass of the building. Vice Chair Lee supported the project. Boardmember Baltay said the project would work well for a storefront category. Ms. Gerhardt announced 375 University Avenue. 7.a Packet Pg. 102 Page 18 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Boardmember Hirsch thought it was beautiful. Boardmember Baltay said it was well proportioned and detailed. Chair Thompson supported the project. Ms. Gerhardt announced 500 University Avenue. Boardmember Baltay thought it was a beautiful building. Boardmember Lew voted for the building. Chair Thompson asked what they liked about the building. Boardmember Baltay asked if there was a street view that captured the overhang and the third-floor balcony. He also liked how it opened to the parking on the backside. The project is pedestrian friendly and has a glass enclosed coffee shop. Chair Thompson asked if he was thinking about retail. Boardmember Baltay said he liked the building as a whole. It does a lot to animate pedestrian and retail activity on University. He also appreciated the scale. Boardmember Hirsch thought it looked overdone. Ms. Gerhardt announced 636 Waverley. Chair Thompson said it was the other net zero building. She asked if there was a second. Boardmember Baltay said he did not support the project. Ms. Gerhardt announced 701 Welch, the Children’s Hospital. Boardmember Hirsch said they needed to look at the building from across Welch. The project is nicely done and detailed. Boardmember Lew noted that the inside of the building was interesting. There is a redwood tree design and treehouses. Chair Thompson asked if Boardmember Lew supported the project. Boardmember Lew said that he really appreciated the inside which was not accessible to the public, so his support depended on the category. Chair Thompson said that the ARB does not review interiors so she did not think they could do awards for that. Boardmember Hirsch said the pictures do not do the building justice. Chair Thompson asked if there was further support. Boardmember Baltay explained he needed to abstain because one of his clients was really involved in the project. 7.a Packet Pg. 103 Page 19 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Boardmember Lew asked Boardmember Hirsch about a possible category for the building. Boardmember Hirsch said that he liked the exterior and that the photos did not show the detailing. It is a huge complex with nice detailing. He asked if the ARB had anything to do with the artwork on the exterior. Vice Chair Lee voted to support the project. Boardmember Lew [unintelligible-crosstalk 2:49:40] would support. Ms. Gerhardt said that they got through the list. Chair Thompson said she counted about 20 projects, so they eliminated about a third. Vice Chair Lee asked if they had a focused assignment to work on. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed there were 25 projects still on the list. Boardmember Baltay asked if 1400 Page Mill was still on the list. Chair Thompson said it was crossed off. Ms. Gerhardt said she listed it as a 1.5 support because of the net zero. Boardmember Baltay asked if it was a yes or no on the list. Chair Thompson asked who was the .5 Boardmember Lew said that his support depended on the categories. Chair Thompson said that for categories she wrote down that they discussed materiality, sustainability, retail, housing, and landscape. Vice Chair Lee asked if they could each send in their votes and then see a spreadsheet of the breakdown to inform the next discussion. Chair Thompson asked if they should nail down categories first or if they should continue to think about them while they send in their favorites. Vice Chair Lee suggested they each write a list with categories and addresses and then review them for consensus. Given the time constraints Boardmembers should have homework. Chair Thompson suggested that Ms. Gerhardt send out the updated list and Boardmembers review it, list their preferences and categories, and return it to her for collation. Boardmember Baltay said that they must go through Ms. Gerhardt since it is a public meeting. Ms. Gerhardt agreed and suggested she speak with Ms. French and the attorneys to see if a Google document was acceptable. Chair Thompson suggested they send the short list out as an Excel file so that it was easier to collate. Ms. Gerhardt said she would have a column for proposed category and one for support. 7.a Packet Pg. 104 Page 20 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Chair Thompson called for last thoughts, but there were none. She closed the item. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 7, 2021. Chair Thompson called for comments or a Motion. MOTION: Boardmember Lew moved, seconded by Vice Chair Lee, to approve the Minutes for the ARB meeting of October 7, 2021. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for October 21, 2021. Chair Thompson called for comments or a Motion. Boardmember Lew noted that in the minutes one of the architects was labeled as a “Mr.” instead of a “Ms.” on Packet Page 57, 60, and 62. Ms. Gerhardt said she had noted the change. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Lew, to approve the Minutes for the ARB meeting of September 2, 2021, as amended. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements North of Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) Working Group Updates – Boardmember Lew Chair Thompson asked Boardmember Lew if he thought the NVCAP should be removed from the agenda. Boardmember Lew explained there was currently no action by the working group, but that it was possible to reconvene the committee. It could be removed and readded later if necessary. Chair Thompson agreed and said it could be put back on if necessary. She also noted that the Mayor had asked the ARB to discuss ideas for California Avenue. Ms. Gerhardt said that the topic was on the digital agenda under announcements. There was not enough time to make it an action item. The Council hearing was moved to January so there is more time before Council will discuss it. Chair Thompson could open the conversation and lay out the facts and then continue the discussion to the next meeting. Chair Thompson explained that the Mayor met with the Chairs of the City Boards and mentioned that he wanted the ARB to discuss California Avenue. Cal Ave. has been shut down to vehicles and has live music and restaurants. He wants the ARB to propose suggestions to make the project successful. 7.a Packet Pg. 105 Page 21 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Ms. Gerhardt said that Cal Ave. is shut down until 2022. Council will need to have that conversation as well. Chair Thompson said that the ARB could also provide short term ideas as well. She wanted the ARB to think about what it could do in terms of projects or research from an architectural and space planning perspective. She called for the ARB’s initial thoughts. Boardmember Baltay explained he had informally discussed the idea of an outdoor performance space/stage with several Council Members on either Cal Ave. or University Avenue. Redwood City has a similar concept that draws a lot of people. The Council Members suggested that the ARB take the lead and set up an architectural design competition to the community for ideas. The ARB could have an ad hoc subcommittee that organizes the design competition at very little cost to the City. Properly structured, the City would receive lots of helpful ideas. He has created a one-page outline of the idea and met with Chair Thompson about it once. He was also not sure how appropriate it was for the ARB to push forward with the idea, but he liked it. Ms. Gerhardt said that Council had requested ARB interest in the topic. Chair Thompson thought Boardmember Baltay had a great idea and that if they wanted to move forward they should set up an ad hoc subcommittee or have the Cal Ave ad hoc committee take it up. Vice Chair Lee liked Boardmember Baltay’s idea. She thought it was important to look at Council’s ask before acting. She thought it was also important to identify stakeholder groups and understand their needs. She hoped that mapping was occurring on the Council side and that the ask is well articulated. Ms. Gerhardt said that so far Council had directed staff to return with a process recommendation to pursue a pro bono design expertise such as the American Institute of Architects (AIA) or ARB and to include an evaluation of potential sites for permanent performance stages in other potential areas such as Downtown. Staff will speak to Council further in January 2022 and can include ARB questions in the discussion. Boardmember Lew noted that the City had done something like this before in the Downtown. He remembered that the brought in teams of students from Cal Poly and they analyzed different parts of Downtown then made recommendations. Many of the concepts were eventually included in the Comprehensive Plan. Anything with the City takes a long time. Boardmember Hirsch said that in New York when they built the original World Trade Center the ground floors were used in very flexible ways for commercial uses. Things then happen on the street and invite people to the area. California Avenue is currently very successful at noontime and has a variety of attractions. He suggested giving the project the flexibility to create itself. Chair Thompson agreed that the flexibility was critical. Boardmember Baltay wanted to fight City inertia by asking staff to act. He requested they form an ad hoc committee with two ARB members, two members of the City Council, and possibly two members of 7.a Packet Pg. 106 Page 22 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) to explore doing a design charrette competition this spring. He volunteered to be one of the ARB members on the ad hoc committee if that was acceptable to Chair Thompson. Vice Chair Lee agreed with Boardmember Baltay. Boardmember Hirsch also agreed. Vice Chair Lee thought there should be public listening workshops. Boardmember Baltay agreed that outreach was important. Vice Chair Lee wanted to map out a process since it was already November, and the deadline is June 2022. If anything was going to happen it needed to have a masterplan. Boardmember Baltay was excited to see the community’s ideas. He asked if it was feasible to ask Council to form a committee. Ms. Gerhardt indicated that they were putting together a January staff report for Council and that she would include the ARB ideas. She suggested an ARB representative attend the meeting. Chair Thompson asked if it was appropriate to form the committee in advance. Ms. Gerhardt said that given the noticing she did not think they should form the committee at this meeting, but that they could gauge interest. Chair Thompson instructed Boardmembers to contact her with interest. Boardmember Baltay said he was interested in being on the committee if the idea has Council support. He wanted that stressed in the report to Council. Chair Thompson suggested that the project might be more long term in nature. She also liked Boardmember Lew’s suggestion of including students. The Stanford d.school could be a good collaborative partner. Vice Chair Lee said that they could work with the architectural design program at Stanford or even with younger students. Chair Thompson thanked the ARB for their thoughts and asked them to message her individually with their thoughts. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, announced that the ARB December 2nd electronic packet would be out two weeks in advance of the meeting. The ARB would also receive hardcopy plans on the Castilleja project on November 19th. 7.a Packet Pg. 107 Page 23 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 11/18/2021 Ms. Gerhardt stated that they were trying to get out the public information early for the December 2nd meeting. Chair Thompson stated that following the meeting there would be an ad hoc subcommittee item with Boardmember Lew and Boardmember Hirsch. Adjournment Chair Thompson adjourned the meeting at approximately 11:47 a.m. 7.a Packet Pg. 108 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13897) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 1/20/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of December 9, 2021 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 9, 2021 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the December 9, 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: December 9, 2021 Draft Minutes (DOCX) 8 Packet Pg. 109 Page 1 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES: December 9, 2021 Virtual Meeting 1:00 PM 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, Vice Chair Grace Lee, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Alex Lew Absent: Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, reported the City Council would interview candidates for the ARB on Monday, December 13, 2021. There will be no ARB meeting on December 16th or January 6, 2022. The first meeting of the new ARB will be January 20, 2022. The meeting is planned to be a hybrid meeting, but Council will make the ultimate decision and may want to hold off on in person meetings due to ongoing COVID concerns. Even in the hybrid model there is the option to participate via Zoom. Boardmember Lew did not reapply to the ARB. Vice Chair Lee shared that she had not heard back from the City Clerk, but indicated she was sad to leave the ARB due to family matters. She apologized for having to leave the ARB following the meeting. Ms. Gerhardt thanked both Boardmember Lew and Vice Chair Lee for their service and work. She also thanked Boardmember Baltay and Hirsch and wished them well with their reappointment. Boardmember Baltay said it was a pleasure getting to know and working with Vice Chair Lee. Vice Chair Lee said the feelings were mutual. 8.a Packet Pg. 110 Page 2 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Ms. Gerhardt said that Chair Thompson was planning a “coffee break” gathering and staff wants to put something together in 2022. They are allowed to get together so long as they do not discuss ARB business. She concluded her report. Action Items 2. ARB Awards: Consider the Eligible 25 Projects and Associated Photographs Taken by Board Members, and Decide on a List of Award Categories and Award Winners. Chair Thompson announced the item and recapped how the list was reduced to 25 eligible projects. She suggested going through each project to see if it could get three votes. If a project receives three votes then the ARB needs to determine which category it would be eligible for. Some pictures of 405 Curtner were circulated by email. Ms. Gerhardt said that she believed she had circulated the hospital pictures as well but indicated that she could share her screen if photos were missed. She noted that she added pictures to the projects as well. Boardmember Hirsch asked if Ms. Gerhardt received his photographs. Ms. Gerhardt indicated she had and was working on adding them. Boardmember Baltay asked if he could propose categories first. Chair Thompson said that he could. Boardmember Baltay explained he went though the list and defined categories, which was helpful to him. He proposed four categories of architectural design: 1) residential, 2) commercial, 3) storefront improvement, and 3) institutional. He further suggested a category for best sustainable project and one for best overall project. That is six awards in total. There may or may not be a suitable project for each category. He was unable to determine a project worthy of the sustainable award, but it could be debated. Chair Thompson asked if other Boardmembers had considered categories and would like to offer suggestions. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he might prefer calling them “The best buildings of Palo Alto” over the past five years and recognize them no matter what their particular use might be. If the ARB uses categories they may leave one out. For example, if they have a sustainable category but no winner then they are only recognizing four projects. Boardmember Baltay asked if Chair Thompson wanted to have a debate on the categories. Chair Thompson said she just wanted to hear suggestions for categories. She thought they would review the list and note which categories projects would work for and potentially there would be nominees. Boardmember Hirsch said that under that framework they would know what categories would apply. He stated that was his preference. Chair Thompson asked for Boardmember Lew and Vice Chair Lee’s thoughts. 8.a Packet Pg. 111 Page 3 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Boardmember Lew said that categories could be useful. For example, a small multi-family project did not have the same budget as a major office or hospital project would have. The projects are apples and oranges so categories might be useful to set the expectations. There also might be similar projects so categories might help that evaluation. Chair Thompson remembered that Boardmember Lew had previously mentioned a category on urban and contextual design. Boardmember Lew agreed but noted that project could also fall under “best project” or “best commercial project” or “architecture.” He suggested award categories be based on ARB findings but noted they had not trended that way. Boardmember Baltay suggested “Best compliance with the Comprehensive Plan.” Chair Thompson said that they had previously discussed a landscape award, which ties into the findings. Vice Chair Lee thought it was great to start with some categories in mind. They could assist in the discussion and lead to a more natural conversation. She questioned the word “best” especially in terms of “best architecture” and noted that she was not on the ARB for the review of many of the projects. Even for the ones that she did participate in she would not use the word “best.” Chair Thompson added that they had previously discussed “materiality” as a category. There is an approach by program and a second approach by the quality of the building. She asked Ms. Gerhardt to go through the list. Ms. Gerhardt shared her screen to show the ARB Awards final short list. She had some technical issues. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, asked if Ms. Gerhardt would like Madina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, to run the slideshow. Ms. Gerhardt said that was not necessary and began the presentation. The first project was Bowman School and she showed additional pictures, a diagram of the campus, and a picture of the sunken patio that required a variance. Chair Thompson noted that the sunken patio was not visible from the street. Boardmember Hirsch said that it was not visible and inaccessible. Ms. Gerhardt [audio cut out at 16:42ish] Chair Thompson clarified that the picture taken were part of the project. Ms. Gerhardt explained that it was a large addition to the school. Boardmember Hirsch clarified that all the buildings in the diagram plus the landscaping were part of the project. Chair Thompson asked if there were any further images. Ms. Gerhardt said there were not. 8.a Packet Pg. 112 Page 4 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Chair Thompson explained the project needed three votes to remain in the conversation and would also need a potential award category. she called for votes of support. Boardmember Hirsch said he went to the building, and they would not let him in, nor would they let him photograph anything because children were present. It is a wonderful little complex of buildings in the same architectural vernacular with a limited materials palette which was nicely compiled. They used traditional shapes to fit into the Palo Alto look and he thought it was a terrific and well thought out general plan for the school. Ms. Gerhardt noted Boardmember Hirsch’s vote. Boardmember Baltay said that he thought it was a good building and strong candidate. The site planning is excellent. He would compare this to another institutional project, The Junior Museum in Palo Alto. The projects are similar, and he felt the Junior Museum did a better job of integrating. He thought the Bowman School integrated by mimicking the residential buildings nearby while the Junior Museum goes a step further. Chair Thompson said that she wanted to see if there was interest in nominating the project. When they complete the list they would be able to tell if there were multiple nominees for similar categories. She asked if Boardmember Baltay wanted to nominate the Bowman School as a contender or not. Boardmember Baltay said that it was second on his list of institutional projects. He thought it was a strong project. Chair Thompson said that it would be the difference between having one contender for his institutional category instead of two if the Junior Museum also received three nominations. Boardmember Hirsch stated that they did not have to choose a single project for each category. That was why he preferred to nominate the projects and then determine the categories. The categories could be chosen later. He wanted Bowman School kept on the list and gave numerous reasons why. Boardmember Baltay stated the project was in his top 10 and he could support it. Vice Chair Lee said that she did not choose to support it. She clarified that they would go through each project, see if three people supported it, and then have a discussion at the end. Chair Thompson explained she wanted three votes in support of nomination and a potential category for each project. Boardmember Lew explained he passed by the Bowman School often on the bike path and is disappointed with the façades that face the bike path, especially the back of the gym. He liked the front, but not the rest of the project. Chair Thompson was also not in support of nominating the Bowman School because she found the façade on Arastradero underwhelming. Boardmember Hirsch said he understood. 8.a Packet Pg. 113 Page 5 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Ms. Gerhardt announced 1451 California Avenue and provided an aerial view and photographs. As previously stated by Boardmember Lew the ARB’s purview was limited in the project to the California Avenue streetscape. Chair Thompson called for thoughts on the project. Ms. Gerhardt said that if the ARB wanted to do the voting quickly she could shorten the presentation. Vice Chair Lee said that as it was a minor architectural review she could give the project a half a vote. She was not on the ARB when the project was considered, but it was a wonderful project and a neighborhood she knew well. Boardmember Lew said he felt the same as Vice Chair Lee. He was also a half a vote. Matching the houses on California Avenue to the other side of the street was a major issue with the neighborhood and the ARB spent a lot of time on it. The ARB was also able to review the materials for the two condominium buildings. Stanford kept the review very limited per its development agreement with City Council. Ms. Gerhardt heard one vote. Chair Thompson agreed. Ms. Gerhardt introduced 611 Cowper Street and showed a picture of the door area. Boardmember Baltay voted to nominate the buildings and said it was a wonderful commercial project that did a great job of scaling down to fit the neighborhood and the materials. The detailing is exquisite. Boardmember Lew also voted for the project. Boardmember Hirsch voted for the project and noted that he liked the separation of the circulation core and the massing. The idea of the screening to bring the scale down sold him on the project. The entry is also nice and ties everything together. Ms. Gerhardt heard three votes. Chair Thompson asked if Vice Chair Lee had comments. Vice Chair Lee said that she did not. Chair Thompson noted that she heard “commercial” as a category and asked if there were any others that should be considered like “materiality” or “context design” or “detailing.” Boardmember Hirsch thought that could be part of “materiality.” Chair Thompson asked for other thoughts on categories. Boardmember Baltay was not comfortable with “detailing” or “materiality.” The range of projects is so diverse that it would be difficult to judge them on that category. he understood what they meant and stated the building had excellent detailing and wonderful use of materials. Chair Thompson said that the program is characteristic of the building that is outside the architecture, but she wanted to celebrate what it was about the architecture that they were awarding. 8.a Packet Pg. 114 Page 6 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Ms. Gerhardt thought that once they determined the final award winners they would have a chance to write up a paragraph explaining the reason for the award. Boardmember Hirsch asked if Chair Thompson were suggesting that 611 Cowper would receive a “materiality” award. The concept of the building is what is powerful. The massing is more impressive even though the detailing is important. Boardmember Baltay noted that an award winning building should incorporate a lot of things. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Boardmember Lew said that the building had already won an American Institute of Architects (AIA) Award. There was a previous scheme by a different architect on the same site that was a mess. It did not tie the residential to the commercial. The architect of 611 Cowper was successful from start to finish. The building is also contextual with the high rise housing next door. Chair Thompson suggested a category for “concept design realized” because architects struggle with that a lot related to built work. She called for the next project. Ms. Gerhardt announced 405 Curtner and showed a new picture of the interior. Chair Thompson confirmed it was a multi-family residential. Ms. Gerhardt said it was a small multi-family project. Boardmember Baltay voted for the project and explained he visited the site. It is important to have an award for what the ARB sees as good residential architecture. To achieve residential density multi-family projects are important and this one is a good example of a healthy multi-family residence. The materials and their use are also well done. During ARB review he had been concerned about the massing, but the result is highly successful. It should be awarded because it is the best residential project and an excellent piece of architecture. Chair Thompson called for other votes. Boardmember Hirsch said that his support would have been based on the front of the building, but it fell apart from there. The type of building on such a tight site with 8 dwellings contains too much hardscape. He was concerned about getting more projects that were as dense and car oriented. The railings are too clunky and heavy, and he disliked the large scale stucco elements and rooflines. The building is overwhelming. The concept was good, but he disliked the detailing. An award winning project needed both a good concept and good detailing. Vice Chair Lee said that they were only on the third project and were 40 minutes into the meeting. She suggested just looking for three votes and then returning to the discussion. Chair Thompson agreed and noted that she had to make a meeting at 3:00 p.m. Vice Chair Lee said that it was the third meeting on the Awards. Chair Thompson called for a straw poll on 405 Curtner. 8.a Packet Pg. 115 Page 7 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Ms. Gerhardt said she had heard one vote. Chair Thompson indicated she voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt said that was two votes. Boardmember Baltay said that it was the best residential project. Chair Thompson said that the materials were good, and it looked nice. Ms. Gerhardt said that she would note the two votes and stated they could return to the project if they did not find another residential project to support. She announced 180 El Camino. She provided a site plan and pictures and explained the project was Phase III of the shopping center. Chair Thompson called the straw poll. Boardmember Lew did not vote for the project. Ms. Gerhardt said that anyone who did not speak up would count as a no for the sake of time. Chair Thompson said the project was eliminated. Ms. Gerhardt announced 180 El Camino, the Shake Shack, and showed photographs. Chair Thompson voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the one vote. She announced 2585 El Camino and showed some drawings and photographs. Boardmember Hirsch said that if the project were split in half he would vote for one section of it. Ms. Gerhardt said he had to vote for the whole project and then confirmed it had no votes. She announced the Fire Station at 799 Embarcadero and showed photographs. She confirmed four votes. Vice Chair Lee said that she liked the project but was not voting for buildings that had already won awards. Ms. Gerhardt announced the Sludge Facility and showed the new pictures. Chair Thompson said the building was utilitarian and affordable. The nicest thing about it are the trees in front. She said that the project had an “ode to brutalism” that sort of made her like it. Ms. Gerhardt called for votes. Boardmember Baltay asked Chair Thompson if the building really used Corten steel. Chair Thompson confirmed it did. Boardmember Baltay asked if it was board formed concrete. Chair Thompson explained it was not. Ms. Gerhardt stated the project had no votes and moved on to the boardwalk replacement. Chair Thompson voted yes. 8.a Packet Pg. 116 Page 8 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the one vote and introduced 180 Hamilton. Chair Thompson voted yes. Boardmember Baltay confirmed voting yes was just to keep the project in the running and then voted yes. Vice Chair Lee voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the three votes and introduced 261 Hamilton and showed the photographs. Vice Chair Lee voted yes. Boardmember Hirsch voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the two votes and then introduced 3223 Hanover in the Research Park. She showed the pictures sent in by Boardmember Hirsch. Boardmember Hirsch said that the parking is in a huge berm all around the entry at the lower level and explained the flow into the plaza. He voted yes. Vice Chair Lee voted yes. Chair Thompson was happy that they were paring the list down. Ms. Gerhardt announced 480 Lytton and showed a photograph at night. She thought the building already received an award. Boardmember Baltay voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the one vote and announced Kol Emeth. Vice Chair Lee voted yes. Boardmember Hirsch voted yes. Boardmember Baltay said that he was disappointed in the execution of the project from what the ARB saw. He saw a garbage dumpster at the end of a building and stated that the wood slats “did not do it” somehow. Boardmember Hirsch said that he wanted to push hard for the project on materiality. The concepts are interesting, and the site planning is amazing. Chair Thompson said there were three votes from Vice Chair Lee, Boardmember Hirsch, and herself. She said that they did not hear from Boardmember Lew. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the three votes. Boardmember Lew indicated he was on the fence about the project. Chair Thompson said that she took the pictures. Ms. Gerhardt announced 636 Middlefield. 8.a Packet Pg. 117 Page 9 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Boardmember Baltay said that it was infill high density multi-family housing project. It is similar to 405 Curtner. He did not vote for it. Boardmember Hirsch said he voted for it and liked the unusual color contrast with the dark stucco and red elements. He also liked how the houses fit the site even though there is not much greenery. Chair Thompson called for more votes. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the one vote and announced 1451 Middlefield Road, the Junior Museum. She showed several pictures of the project and entryway. Boardmember Baltay announced his enthusiastic support of the project. Chair Thompson voted yes. Boardmember Hirsch voted yes but noted that the scale bothered him because it did not seem to be child’s scale, especially compared to the old building. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the three votes. She announced 2555 Park. Chair Thompson said that at one point they discussed nominating the landscape wall, but noted they were voting on the whole building. Vice Chair Lee gave it half a vote since it had previously won an award. Chair Thompson asked if it won an AIA Award. Vice Chair Lee said that it had for Santa Clara Valley. Chair Thompson asked if anyone supported the building. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the half vote. She announced 1400 Page Mill. Chair Thompson asked if that was the property with the landscape. Ms. Gerhardt said it was not and that project had been removed. Boardmember Lew thought 1400 Page Mill was previously removed. He liked the project because it was net zero energy, but it had no other support. Boardmember Baltay said that he had not been aware that it was a net zero project. Boardmember Lew stated it was the first net zero speculative office building. Chair Thompson voted yes. She thought another building was also net zero. Boardmember Lew said that 636 Waverley was also net zero but was a much smaller project. Boardmember Baltay asked if Boardmember Lew was sure about the building being net zero. Ms. Gerhardt indicated she looked it up and the building is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum Net Zero. 8.a Packet Pg. 118 Page 10 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Boardmember Baltay indicated his support. Chair Thompson said that was three votes. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the three votes. She announced 1050 Page Mill and showed the pictures. There is a large courtyard that was not pictured. Chair Thompson indicated her support. Boardmember Lew voted for the project. Vice Chair Lee voted for the project. Ms. Gerhardt stated it was a larger building on a larger site. Chair Thompson indicated the category could be “design concept.” She asked if others had category ideas. Ms. Gerhardt announced 355 University Avenue. Boardmember Baltay voted for the project and said it was a wonderful storefront improvement to the avenue. Boardmember Hirsch voted yes. Vice Chair Lee supported the project. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the three votes. She announced 375 University Avenue. Chair Thompson voted yes. Boardmember Hirsch voted yes and noted it was beautifully detailed with good proportions. Boardmember Baltay said that he would support if for now as a beautiful façade renovation. Ms. Gerhardt announced 500 University Avenue and showed additional pictures. Boardmember Lew noted the project had already won a Silicon Valley Business Journal Award. He voted for the project. Boardmember Baltay said he compared the project to 611 Cowper, and he liked 611 better, but 500 University is a close second. He voted to keep it in. Chair Thompson said that was two votes. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the two votes and announced 636 Waverley. Boardmember Lew thought that it had been previously struck from the list. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed there were no votes then announced 701 Welch, the children’s hospital. She provided additional photos. Boardmember Hirsch really liked some aspects of the project a lot. Ms. Gerhardt counted it as a half a vote. 8.a Packet Pg. 119 Page 11 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Chair Thompson asked what aspect of the building they wanted to consider if they did not want to vote for the whole thing. Boardmember Hirsch said that pictures did not do the building justice. The elevation that works well is not photographed. Boardmember Lew stated that the sense of human scale set the building apart. There is attention to the design of the building everywhere, which is something that is not seen very often. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Boardmember Lew. Chair Thompson asked if he was speaking to the ground floor experience. Boardmember Lew stated that throughout the entire building every vestibule, elevator, lobby, courtyard has been designed around child height. Boardmember Hirsch said the outdoor spaces were as well as the entry. For a very large building that aspect was important. Boardmember Lew also noted that in the medical center all buildings are going above the Palo Alto 50 foot height limit since they were in a special zone. There is something that could be said about going over the height limit but maintaining scale, character, and quality. That could be addressed by the ARB. Chair Thompson confirmed the children’s hospital had Boardmember Lew and Boardmember Hirsch’s votes. Vice Chair Lee indicated she would vote for the project as well. From what she read in the description she was not sure what the ARB reviewed or if it was a minor review. Boardmember Lew thought it was a minor review but the whole project was completed within the ARB’s timeframe. The only reason he saw the interior was because he took the grand opening tour. Vice Chair Lee voted to keep the project on the list. Ms. Gerhardt asked if Boardmember Hirsch wanted to add back in 2500 El Camino and displayed a picture. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he wanted to add it back because there were more photos for context. He wanted the ARB to see the full context. Boardmember Baltay thought the building was problematic from El Camino and was not a good example of good urban design or housing. Boardmember Hirsch said that they were missing pictures of the courtyard before, and he thought that was quite nice. Boardmember Baltay agreed that the courtyard was great. Boardmember Hirsch agreed that there was something weak about the El Camino side. Chair Thompson said that the project did not have her support. 8.a Packet Pg. 120 Page 12 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Boardmember Hirsch thanked Ms. Gerhardt for bringing it back up. Chair Thompson indicated that she had 11 yeses. Boardmember Baltay asked her to list them. Chair Thompson said they were 611 Cowper, 799 Embarcadero, 180 Hamilton, 3223 Hanover, 4175 Manuela (interrupted) Boardmember Baltay requested she slow down with the list. Chair Thompson shared her screen. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they would discuss categories again. Chair Thompson thought it was a good time to discuss categories. She confirmed that everyone could see her screen. She listed potential categories on the right. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the California Avenue garage was completed within the Awards timeframe. Chair Thompson said that if it was not finished then it was not considered. Ms. French confirmed that they were stopping in 2020. She did the final site visit for the garage in 2021. It is not eligible for the five year period ending 2020. Boardmember Hirsch indicated he understood. With respect to categories, he thought there was a discrete category for commercial buildings which Cowper or a few others could fit. Then there is the large project on Hamilton that is a major commercial complex. There is a possible category there. Chair Thompson asked for the category. Boardmember Hirsch said it was commercial buildings. Chair Thompson showed where she noted the type of project. 611 Cowper is all commercial. Boardmember Baltay said that it had top floor residential. Chair Thompson indicated they could call it mixed-use. She confirmed that 1400 Page Mill is Research and Development (R&D). Ms. Gerhardt stated it was. Boardmember Hirsch said that R&D would be the larger scale building. Chair Thompson explained that she noted the quality items they spoke about. There are two for sustainability, three for materials, and three for design concept. She asked for categories on the storefront façades other than commercial. Vice Chair Lee mentioned that 355 was a historic review and seismic rehab. She was struck by the basement and daylighting and use of glass for transparency. So that may be more than just the façade. for the categories she would feel more comfortable with typology categories because it’s harder to find consensus on design concepts. She asked if they should discuss each project and see if any could get four 8.a Packet Pg. 121 Page 13 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 votes. A few of the projects previously won awards and she would rather lift up one that had not received a regional award. Boardmember Lew thought they should try to reduce the list down. When the City Council makes their proclamations they are wordy, and it takes a lot of time. There are also photo opportunities after each one. Therefore, he thought it was better to get to four or five awards if possible. Chair Thompson did not have the same reservation as Vice Chair Lee about awarding a project that had received another award. Boardmember Baltay and Vice Chair Lee have both indicated preference for awarding according to typology. She thought there should also be an architectural component as well. She asked for Boardmember Lew and Boardmember Hirsch’s opinions on the categories. Boardmember Hirsch requested clarification. Chair Thompson explained that the design concept category would be a “design concept realized” category where the concept is clear in the execution. It is not necessarily the best concept. Sustainability, materiality, and scale have been discussed. Those were things worth celebrating. Vice Chair Lee added that in the past at the ARB Awards they had written an explanatory paragraph stating what the ARB felt strongly about. She asked if that was a way for their words to come through when the awards are presented. Boardmember Hirsch said that projects could have more than one description. Chair Thompson said they have three R&D projects so they would only pick one. Boardmember Baltay agreed with that. Vice Chair Lee suggested that it could be ok to have multiple projects of the same type win awards. Boardmember Baltay said that most design competitions were isolated by typology with the jury having the ability to pull a few special things out for consideration. It is usually organized by the way the public perceives the uses of the buildings. It is hard to judge execution of a design concept especially by City Council or the public. Vice Chair Lee said that the ARB’s purview is institutional, commercial, and multi-family. Most of the projects they see are commercial. She thought if they gave two or three awards to commercial projects that was in line with what they have reviewed. In the past they had not given one award per typology and listed off past winners. Chair Thompson asked if she had the past categories. Vice Chair Lee said that she was just reading the staff report and looking at the 2015 projects that were awarded. They were Hoover Pavilion, Rinconada Library, Apple Store, the Magical Bridge Playground, Mitchell Park Library for sustainability, and [Paris ? 1:13:54] remodel. Boardmember Baltay thought they needed a housing category and if no building fit the award then it should be publicly known. He thought that was a good statement to make. Chair Thompson said that they have a mixed-use category which could count as housing. 8.a Packet Pg. 122 Page 14 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Boardmember Baltay said that was not an example of housing he could support. The housing was not what made the building good. Chair Thompson said that was part of her point and why she did not want to do it by only typology. She did not think the typology was what made a building good and stressed that they needed to judge buildings on what made them good. Vice Chair Lee explained Santa Clara Valley has merit awards, honorable mentions, etcetera. She said they could consider that as well. Boardmember Hirsch said that it struck him that the reason they chose the buildings was because of the proposed categories as described. They do include descriptive language but noted that was missing from Chair Thompson’s sheet. Chair Thompson said that they did not discuss categories for those projects. Boardmember Hirsch said he liked it because it gave a general sense of what they liked about the buildings rather than the use function. Chair Thompson wanted to address Boardmember Baltay’s concern about the public getting behind the ARB Awards. She thought the public should be encouraged to look at buildings for more than their use. Boardmember Hirsch thought they should fill out the proposed categories so that people can understand why the projects were selected. Chair Thompson asked Boardmember Lew his opinion on the categories. Boardmember Lew had no comment. Chair Thompson asked if he had an opinion on how they should do the categories. Boardmember Lew thought that they needed to figure out a method to cut the list in half and then determine the categories. Chair Thompson said that she was also ok with Vice Chair Lee’s suggestion of trying to get four votes. She asked if Ms. Gerhardt had whittled the presentation down to the remaining projects. Ms. Gerhardt indicated she needed another minute to finish doing that. Vice Chair Lee said that in 1998 five awards went to 5 projects, 2005 five awards went to 5 projects, 2010 ten awards went to 10 projects from an eligible list of over 100 projects. 2015 five awards went to 5 projects. It is interesting to see what each Board decided to do. Chair Thompson wondered if they could have more awards since the list was long. Boardmember Baltay agreed with Boardmember Lew’s assessment that they need to keep the awards to five or six projects. Ms. Gerhardt stated staff agreed. She shared her screen of the final short list candidates. She called for a revote and announced 611 Cowper. 8.a Packet Pg. 123 Page 15 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Boardmember Baltay, Boardmember Hirsch, and Boardmember Lew voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt announced the Fire Station #3. Boardmember Baltay, Boardmember Hirsch, Boardmember Lew, and Chair Thompson voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt announced 180 Hamilton. Chair Thompson and Vice Chair Lee voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt announced 3223 Hanover. Boardmember Hirsch, Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Lee, and Boardmember Lew voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt asked everyone to announce their votes. She announced Kol Emeth. Chair Thompson, Boardmember Hirsch, Vice Chair Lee, Boardmember Baltay voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt announced 1451 Middlefield Road, the Junior Museum. Boardmember Baltay, Chair Thompson, Boardmember Hirsch, and Vice Chair Lee voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt announced 1400 Page Mill. Chair Thompson, Boardmember Lew, Boardmember Baltay voted yes. Vice Chair Lee was on the fence. Ms. Gerhardt announced 1050 Page Mill. Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Lee, and Boardmember Lew voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt announced 355 University Avenue. Boardmember Baltay and Vice Chair Lee voted yes. Boardmember Hirsch indicated he liked the project, but that he liked another one better. He did not know what to do. Boardmember Baltay said that it would have been easier to make selections within categories for that reason. Both projects are excellent, but he liked this one better. Boardmember Hirsch stated preference for the other project. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed they were speaking about 375 University. Boardmember Hirsch thought that was stronger. Boardmember Lew corrected that the building was Roxy’s not Chop Keenan’s. Ms. Gerhardt said it sounded like both would go though. Chair Thompson did not hear Boardmember Lew’s vote on 355. Boardmember Lew stated he was a no on 355. Chair Thompson said she was also a no. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed two votes. 8.a Packet Pg. 124 Page 16 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Vice Chair Lee said that she had planned to also vote for 375 University because she liked it as well. Chair Thompson said that she could. Boardmember Hirsch asked where they were. Ms. Gerhardt said that she would reconduct the straw poll on Design Within Reach, 355 University. Boardmember Baltay and Vice Chair Lee voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt called the vote on 376 University. Boardmember Hirsch, Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Lee, Boardmember Baltay, and Boardmember Lew voted yes. Chair Thompson indicated that was the only unanimous vote and was getting an award. Ms. Gerhardt called for a vote on 701 Welch. Chair Thompson, Vice Chair Lee, Boardmember Hirsch, and Boardmember Lew voted yes. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the four yes votes. She asked if Chair Thompson updated her spreadsheet. Chair Thompson indicated she had and shared her screen. Ms. Gerhardt said that two projects were eliminated. Chair Thompson said that if you only took four yes votes and up there were only 6 projects. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there were only three votes on Cowper. He wanted to go back and look at it. Vice Chair Lee said that she did not vote for that one because it had won a San Mateo Award. She noted that she voted for three institutional projects. Boardmember Hirsch thought it would be a shame not to include the Cowper building. Boardmember Lew explained that Kol Emeth had won an AIA Project Award for Santa Clara Valley. Vice Chair Lee said that she was fine if that one did not get a Palo Alto Award. She was also not a part of the review of the project. Chair Thompson asked if she would retract her vote. Vice Chair Lee explained that she did not vote for the Fire Station because it won an award. Chair Thompson said the Fire Station had four votes. Boardmember Baltay asked Vice Chair Lee if she realized that she was skewering the result by having a standard that no one else held. Vice Chair Lee said there were many standards that they did not share. She thought they should have multiple commercial and institutional projects win awards. 8.a Packet Pg. 125 Page 17 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Boardmember Baltay said she was entitled to whatever standards she wanted, but no one else is judging by that standard so it skews the results. Vice Chair Lee repeated that everyone was judging by different standards. Boardmember Baltay said he understood. Vice Chair Lee stated that she thought she should not be part of the vote as she had not been part of the review. Ms. Gerhardt said that all ARB members have an equal vote, and they are all qualified architects who could judge the projects after the fact just the same. She asked if they wanted to provide categories for the top projects. Chair Thompson said that the number one project was the Cheesecake Factory. She asked if they wanted to talk about anything other than it being a commercial façade. Ms. Gerhardt said they would write a paragraph about each winner. They needed to determine the main award and then give key points about why the project is interesting. Later the paragraph will be completed. Boardmember Hirsch liked the process. Chair Thompson asked what the award should be for the Cheesecake Factory. Boardmember Hirsch asked to revisit Cowper. He did not want to leave it out. Ms. Gerhardt said they would focus on the top ones first and stressed that they had not completed the process. With the Cheesecake Factory Boardmember Baltay had mentioned a storefront renovation category. Boardmember Hirsch liked the proportions and the detailing and how it fit the context. Chair Thompson mentioned the high quality material. Boardmember Hirsch said materiality. Chair Thompson said most of the projects had good materiality. Chair Thompson asked if they liked the category as “storefront renovation.” Boardmember Baltay said it should just be “storefront.” Boardmember Lew explained it was more than that because they had to break the space into two buildings since the Cheesecake Factory combined it. Chair Thompson thought “urban design” was a good category because she really liked the connection with the street due to the location of the windowsills. Ms. Gerhardt asked if that was “human scale.” 8.a Packet Pg. 126 Page 18 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Chair Thompson thought that was something different, but it could work. “Urban design” is street experience and urban experience. She thought the project enhanced the urban experience along University. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Vice Chair Lee said that she normally thought of urban design in a planning context. She could see the human scale and how it related to the street. Ms. Gerhardt asked if it was “streetscape.” Vice Chair Lee asked who would write the paragraphs after the five or six projects were chosen. Ms. Gerhardt agreed that it would be helpful to give someone ownership of the projects. Chair Thompson asked Vice Chair Lee if she meant that the person would decide the category. Vice Chair Lee suggested they determine the five or six they want as there were still 11 projects listed. Chair Thompson stated that they had six. Ms. Gerhardt explained they had a top six and that Boardmember Hirsch wanted to further discuss Cowper. She thought they could look at categories and then determine if they were missing anything. Vice Chair Lee apologized for her misunderstanding. Ms. Gerhardt said that they were trying to determine which categories the top six would fall into. Then they need to list some key words about the project. From the category and the key words then someone could take ownership and write the paragraph. Chair Thompson said she was ok with “human scale.” Boardmember Baltay asked if they were calling the category “Best Human Scale Architecture.” Chair Thompson preferred “Urban Experience.” Ms. Gerhardt thought the category was “storefront renovation” and then the human scale and urban experience were more key words. Boardmember Baltay stated that was not what he heard Chair Thompson say. He agreed with Ms. Gerhardt’s characterization but thought Chair Thompson was pushing something different. Chair Thompson said she was but realized that she might be alone on that. She asked if everyone felt good about the “storefront” category. Boardmember Baltay said yes. Boardmember Hirsch said that it was a “Storefront renovation.” Ms. Gerhardt said that the whole building was renovated. 8.a Packet Pg. 127 Page 19 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Chair Thompson moved the discussion to Kol Emeth. She stated it had a sustainability story. There was another project with a 3.5 vote which was net zero sustainability. So, there might be two in the category. Boardmember Baltay asked why Kol Emeth was sustainable. Chair Thompson said that the website contained diagrams showing circulation. She did not know that it was passive. Boardmember Baltay remembered the review and noted they did not have anything out of the ordinary for sustainability. They basically met CALGreen standards. It would be a mistake to give it a sustainability award if they were not sure about it. Boardmember Hirsch said that the first project was at human scale, but Kol Emeth (interrupted) Ms. Gerhardt stated the project was LEED Platinum. Chair Thompson said that sustainability could still be on the table. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to see something that gave it a sense of place. Chair Thompson liked the connection to the context of the street. Boardmember Hirsch said that there was a natural corner to the landscape that they made a connection with. Vice Chair Lee said that it would be appropriate to say something about how the daylight was handled. Chair Thompson asked if they would still consider it for sustainability since it was LEED Platinum. Vice Chair Lee thought it could. Chair Thompson said that they could have two awards for sustainability. Boardmember Baltay supported Kol Emeth winning an award for sustainability over the project on Page Mill. Vice Chair Lee said that Kol Emeth was an older campus and they started from the beginning and did a lot of site planning. That may have been sustainability thought out in terms of light. She was not part of the review, but she gathered that there was a long master planning process that probably kept sustainability in mind. Chair Thompson confirmed they felt good about sustainability. Boardmember Baltay said it was fine with him. Chair Thompson asked for Boardmember Lew’s opinion. Boardmember Lew thought it was a good project but was ultimately disappointed in it. He felt similar to Boardmember Baltay. 8.a Packet Pg. 128 Page 20 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Boardmember Baltay said he was on the fence. If this project is sustainable then the office building at 1400 Page Mill is net zero. That is a tough thing to achieve and if they have done so it’s better than LEED Platinum. Vice Chair Lee thought the category was institutional for Kol Emeth with “sustainable” as a descriptor. Boardmember Baltay noted that in the proposed category column it said “sustainability.” Chair Thompson asked if institutional would count. Ms. Gerhardt said that the ARB could choose its own categories. Vice Chair Lee thought “institutional” would be the category and “sustainable” could be a descriptor. Ms. Gerhardt said that the Fire Station and the Junior Museum were also in the top. Vice Chair Lee thought they could have multiple winners in the categories. Chair Thompson said that she thought there should be something to distinguish them unless they decided to have three categories for institutional work. Last time the ARB did the awards they did not just focus on the type of architecture, they said something about it. She asked if she was alone and if everyone else wanted to do a program. Ms. Gerhardt thought the categories could be a mix of uses and other things. Kol Emeth is an institutional type building, but they could have multiple awards. The Fire Station could have something else about it that was award worthy other than the use. It would be strange to have three of the same awards. Boardmember Baltay agreed. Vice Chair Lee asked if they should discuss an institutional category and within that there’s a merit award and a main winner. The bulk of the projects reviewed by the ARB are institutional and commercial. They are forcing themselves to find a residential project when they do not see that many of them. She was fine with going the route of changing the category as well. Boardmember Baltay said institutional made perfect sense. That is how the world sees the buildings. The ARB is not creating the category. Chair Thompson asked for Boardmember Lew and Boardmember Hirsch’s opinions. Boardmember Hirsch said he could go along with it as it stood. Ms. Gerhardt suggested moving on. Chair Thompson said the next project was the children’s hospital and was also institutional. Ms. Gerhardt said that what she heard the ARB liked was the attention to detail. Boardmember Hirsch said it was the scale. Boardmember Baltay suggested giving it an honorable mention for attention to detail. Chair Thompson said it received four votes. 8.a Packet Pg. 129 Page 21 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Boardmember Lew said that much of what he liked was on the inside, which is not really in the ARB purview. Chair Thompson said that a lot of it was visible on the outside. Boardmember Lew stated that it was also not open to the public so no one would see the inside unless they were a patient other than the lobby. Vice Chair Lee said she was in support of an honorable mention or merit award within the institutional category. Boardmember Lew said it was a major project. The description was incorrect. Vice Chair Lee said that there were different ways to do the awards and noted they could call out something special about the hospital under the category of institutional. Ms. Gerhardt said that the next project was the Fire Station. Boardmember Baltay said that on his list that was the number one project. He thought it was above the category. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Chair Thompson asked what they meant. Ms. Gerhardt explained it could be an overall winner. Boardmember Baltay said he agreed with Vice Chair Lee that they should not use the word “best,” but it was his first choice of all the projects for most successful design. Chair Thompson asked what about it was successful. Boardmember Baltay explained that it fit the scale of the environment, functioned exceptionally well, is an innovative use of materials, the design is modulated to be next to the park in a successful fashion, they preserved a large redwood tree successfully. The building is wonderful. Ms. Gerhardt said that she thinks Boardmember Baltay just took ownership of the award. Boardmember Baltay said that if it was the best of the lot he would. Ms. Gerhardt said it was in the top six. Chair Thompson said that they had not decided to do a best overall yet. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Boardmember Baltay on the Fire Station. Chair Thompson moved to the Junior Museum. What she liked most about the project were the materials and the [knave ? 1:47:21] form was compelling. Boardmember Baltay said that there was great site planning compared to what was previously there. They reconfigured the parking lot elegantly and preserved the Girl Scout building nearby. 8.a Packet Pg. 130 Page 22 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Boardmember Hirsch thought the streetscape was also wonderful. Boardmember Baltay stated they needed to pay attention to the R-1 neighborhood across the street without making the building look like a bunch of houses. It is also something the Bowman School does not do as successfully. This building does what they want others in town to do and does it exceptionally well. Vice Chair Lee said that there were notes about historic review and asked if there was a Historic Resources Board (HRB) conversation. Boardmember Baltay said that the Girl Scout building was next door and that was the historic part of it. It’s on the Lucie Stern campus as well. Vice Chair Lee thought the entry was improved from the parking lot. She did not know the history and was a little on the fence. Boardmember Baltay explained how the parking lot used to be set up and stated the site planning took care of the issues. Vice Chair Lee agreed that the site planning was better. Boardmember Baltay said that there were many categories, but the site planning brought everything together. He saw it as an institution project. Chair Thompson said they had four institutional projects. the last project is either R&D or office. Ms. Gerhardt said that it was the research park building with the butterfly roofs. Boardmember Baltay said it was a commercial building. Chair Thompson said it was office and not commercial. Boardmember Baltay said that R&D and office were both private businesses. Vice Chair Lee said it was commercial. Chair Thompson said that she had notes on sustainability and site planning. Boardmember Lew suggested tree preservation and noted they improved the lighting on the bike path. Ms. Gerhardt said that the bike path was a big deal. Boardmember Lew said they also addressed privacy with the adjacent houses. Boardmember Baltay said they should not get an award for that as they “did that kicking and screaming.” Chair Thompson said that the project looked good. Boardmember Baltay said that it is not sustainable as it is all glass and faces south. Chair Thompson said there were overhangs. Boardmember Baltay thought they were not substantial. He remembered the review and thought there would be enormous heat gain. 8.a Packet Pg. 131 Page 23 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Chair Thompson asked if it had a LEED score. She told the Board that she needed to leave in 5 minutes. She asked how people felt and if what they had done was enough. Boardmember Hirsch stated they had not addressed the other project that was left off the list yet. Chair Thompson offered to deputize Vice Chair Lee to finish the meeting. Ms. Gerhardt said that she did not see a green building score for Hanover, but the project is newly completed. Vice Chair Lee requested Chair Thompson to provide direction on assigning tasks and who would plan with staff to achieve consensus on how awards a given, how they would reach out to the architectural team, and other things. There are still several things left to do to complete the planning of the awards. Ms. Gerhardt wanted this ARB to make the decision on the winners. Chair Thompson asked if they needed to do another round of votes or if they had determined the winners. Boardmember Baltay wished 611 Cowper was in the mix. Ms. French thought it was not a problem to have another meeting with the current ARB members to finalize the effort. In the past they have asked former Boardmembers to come back and participate so if there was another hour meeting necessary that would be fine. Vice Chair Lee said that was great and she would be happy to do that. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Lew, that the ARB provide architectural awards to the top six projects on Chair Thompson’s list for architectural merit with the categories to be determined later. Boardmember Hirsch called for a point of information. He asked if Cowper was included on the list. Boardmember Baltay said that it did not have the votes. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Boardmember Hirsch asked if they had taken a poll and offered a friendly amendment to include Cowper. FRIENDLY AMENDMENT REJECTED: Boardmember Baltay did not accept the friendly amendment. Boardmember Lew agreed that to award 611 Cowper another project would have to be removed from the list. Boardmember Baltay asked which one Boardmember Hirsch would substitute for 611 Cowper. Boardmember Hirsch said that was difficult. Chair Thompson thought they should move forward with the Motion. UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT: Boardmember Hirsch called for a vote on his friendly amendment. Boardmember Baltay said it was not a friendly amendment and asked how the Chair wanted to proceed. 8.a Packet Pg. 132 Page 24 of 24 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/9/2021 Chair Thompson explained she heard no support for the friendly amendment. Ms. Gerhardt asked if there was a second on Boardmember Hirsch’s unfriendly amendment and explained that was how it had to be viewed. UNFRIENDLY AMENDMENT FAILED FOR LACK OF SECOND: Chair Thompson heard no second. She called for a vote on the original Motion. MOTION PASSED: 5-0 Chair Thompson stated that they would continue the conversation and thanked Boardmember Baltay for his Motion. Boardmember Hirsch thanked Ms. Gerhardt for her work. Ms. Gerhardt thanked the ARB for its help and for their Motion. She also thanked Ms. French for the suggestion of meeting to work out the details and thanked the Boardmembers for their willingness to do that. Chair Thompson thanked the whole board for its participation. Boardmember Hirsch looked forward to seeing everyone. Ms. Gerhardt noted that they would try to meet in person on January 20, 2022 but noted it might not happen until February. She would let everyone know. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Thompson thanked Boardmember Lew and Vice Chair Lee for their service. Adjournment Chair Thompson adjourned the meeting. 8.a Packet Pg. 133