Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2022-03-03 Architectural Review Board Agenda Packet_______________________ 1. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson’s presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non-speaking members agree not to speak individually. 2. The Chair may limit Oral Communications to 30 minutes for all combined speakers. 3. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak to two minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. Architectural Review Board Regular Meeting Agenda: March 3, 2022 Council Chamber & Virtual 8:30 AM https://zoom.us/join Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491 Phone number: 1 669 900 6833 Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate in the meeting from home or attend the meeting in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda or online here. To Participate in Person, you must: • Provide Proof of Vaccination or negative COVID-19 test (taken within 48 hours) • Wear a mask at all times • Maintain social distancing • If you cannot or do not wish to comply, you can still participate virtually Members of the public may comment by sending an email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org or by attending the meeting in person, or via Zoom virtual meeting to give live comments. Instructions for the Zoom meeting can be found on the last page of this agenda. Commissioner Names, Biographies, Present and Archived Agendas and Reports are available online: bit.ly/paloaltoARB. Visit bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube at https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center at https://midpenmedia.org. Call to Order / Roll Call Oral Communications The public may speak to any item not on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,2 Agenda Changes, Additions, and Deletions The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. _______________________ 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. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recent Project Decisions Study Session Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 2. 901 South California Avenue [21PLN-00274]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to allow the demolition of an existing building and construction of an approximately 55,583 square foot Office/R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RP(L)(Research Park). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org. 3. California Avenue Street Improvements / Parklets 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. 250 Cambridge Ave [21PLN-00281]: Request for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review to Allow Renovation of the Façade for an Existing Three-Story Office Building to Create a more Inviting Public Entry and Improved Pedestrian Experience. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is Included to Increase the Height of the Building to Allow for Light Monitors to be Installed on the Roof. Zoning District: CC(2)(R). Environmental Assessment: Exempt per Guideline Section 15301. For more information, Contact the Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@CityofPaloAlto.org. 5. Public Hearing: Discuss Revisions to Objective Design Standards based on Feedback from City Council and Analysis of Missing Standards 6. Discuss the Draft Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Work Plan, Suggest Changes, and Recommend Submitting the Draft Work Plan to the City Council; and Discuss the ARB's Annual Report and any Bylaw Changes Needed. Approval of Minutes Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.1,3 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 3, 2022 _______________________ 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. 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 Vice Chair David Hirsch Boardmember Peter Baltay 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 # 14086) Report Type: City Official Reports Meeting Date: 3/3/2022 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 1 Packet Pg. 6 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Attachments: • Attachment A: ARB Meeting Schedule Assignments (DOCX) • Attachment B: Tentative Future Agendas (DOCX) 1 Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2022 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 Hybrid Regular 03/17/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 04/07/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 04/21/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 05/05/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 05/19/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 05/20/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 06/02/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 06/16/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 07/07/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 07/21/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 08/04/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 08/18/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 09/01/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 09/15/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/06/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/20/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/03/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/17/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/01/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/15/2022 8:30 AM Hybrid 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 1.a Packet Pg. 8 Architectural Review Board 2022 Tentative Future Agenda The Following Items are Tentative and Subject to Change: Meeting Dates Topics March 17, 2022 • 2609 Alma: Four Residential Rental Units (2nd Formal) • Castilleja School: Kellogg Revisions and Option E Findings 1.b Packet Pg. 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 14097) Report Type: Study Session Meeting Date: 3/3/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 901 South California Avenue: Replacement Office/R&D Building Title: 901 South California Avenue [21PLN-00274]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to allow the demolition of an existing building and construction of an approximately 55,583 square foot Office/R&D Building. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: RP(L)(Research Park). 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. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. Report Summary The subject application is a request for preliminary review. No formal direction is provided to the applicant and Board members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. For preliminary review applications, the Planning and Community Environment department only performs a cursory review of the project for compliance with the zoning code. A comprehensive review of a future project for compliance with applicable codes would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. 2 Packet Pg. 10 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 Similarly, there has been no comprehensive review of the project to the Comprehensive Plan or other policy documents. Such review will occur upon the filing of a formal application. The purpose of this meeting is to provide an applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Board members may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. Background Project Information Owner: Board of Trustees of the Leland Stanford Junior University Architect: RMW Architecture & Interiors Representative: Stan Lew; Radika Bunton Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 901 South California Avenue Neighborhood: College Terrace Lot Dimensions & Area: 662 feet wide x 210 feet long Housing Inventory Site: Not applicable Located w/in a Plume: Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: None Historic Resource(s): None Existing Improvement(s): [54,930 square foot two-story office building; 35 feet tall; built in 1984] Existing Land Use(s): Research and Development Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 (Single-Family) West: RP (Office/R&D) East: RP (Office/R&D) South: RP (Office/R&D) Aerial View of Property: 2 Packet Pg. 11 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: RP; RP(L) Comp. Plan Designation: Research/Office Park Context-Based Design Criteria: Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide: Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: Not applicable Baylands Master Plan: Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes Located w/in the Airport Not applicable 2 Packet Pg. 12 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Influence Area: Recent Prior City Reviews & Action City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and surface parking lot then construct a new 58,059 sf two-story, office/R&D building with a surface parking lot located at the rear of the building. The new building square footage includes 55,583 sf that counts toward FAR and 2,476 sf of amenity space. The site is zoned RP; RP(L) and is surrounded by similar office/R&D uses with single family homes across the street. The vicinity includes buildings that are single- story and two-stories in height. The site will be modified to add a driveway along the western property line to support circulation through the site. The first floor of the building will include a subtle pedestrian entry along the eastern property line and will primarily consist of office space. The second floor of the building will include a fitness center, office space, as well as a recessed second floor balcony which faces the eastern interior side property line. The applicant is also proposing a two-story tower element that will utilize wood slats on the interior glass to limit light spill out. All required parking spaces are proposed to be provided at the rear of the site. The exterior of the proposed building would have a modern style consistent with other projects in the Stanford Research Park. The building will utilize red and grey terracotta, manufactured recycled wood, metal panels, and glass elements. A metal and glass overhead sectional door is proposed for the entry to the garage. The side elevations include extensive amounts of windows to capture the East-West sunlight. The street elevations offer fewer openings with more solid terracotta surfaces to prevent spill over light towards the residential properties. All materials are identified on pages 28 – 32 of the plan set. Analysis1 Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 Packet Pg. 13 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. In addition to any comments the Board members may provide, the applicant has asked the ARB to comment on the following items: 1. Site circulation: Cars, pedestrians, service 2. Architecture: Look and feel, materiality, massing 3. Side entrance/entry sequence from California Street 4. Project FAR size, parking, concept for added amenities 5. Landscape concepts for California frontage and East terrace amenity Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is surrounded by office / R&D buildings to the East, West, and South with single-family homes facing the property to the North. The site has a Landscape (L) overlay along the California Avenue frontage which matches the 50-foot special setback. There are three mature street trees along the frontage of the site which will be retained in the proposed application. The placement and massing of the building is representative for the Research Park context. The building follows a rectangular shaped plan, with the longest façade facing the eastern and western property lines. Exterior materials would consist of painted metal panels, wood soffit paneling, substantial glass, and a red and grey terracotta cladding. The mixture of materials presents a distinctive style that appears appropriate for the setting and vicinity. While the selection of architectural materials distinguishes the proposed building from the varying styles of the surrounding buildings, the proposed building would appear to be compatible with its surroundings. Staff would like to receive input on potential light impacts on the neighboring single-family homes and surrounding properties as well as the applicant’s proposed 15-foot tall mechanical screen. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 There are no Area Plans or Guidelines which direct how development should be considered in the Stanford Research Park other than the Comprehensive Plan and its adopted Goals, Policies, and Programs. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Upon submittal of a formal application, staff will evaluate the project’s consistency with the relevant policies. Zoning Compliance3 A preliminary review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. The proposed project appears to comply with all applicable codes. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 2 Packet Pg. 14 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 The City’s Annual Office Limit does not apply to the Stanford Research Park Area. Consistency with Application Findings Once the project is submitted with a formal application it will need to meet the City’s findings for approval under PAMC 18.76. The findings have been included for reference in Attachment B. Environmental Review The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project’s conformance with CEQA will be performed. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on February 18, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 16, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. 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: ARB Findings (DOCX) • Attachment E: Conflict of Interest Map (PDF) • Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 2 Packet Pg. 15 College Terrace_ Library 239423922390 2396 236923612353 2377 2393 2345 901 855 777 601 658 2 2385 2395 2320 2349 2325 22952285 000 2345 984 984A 2226- 2248 950 2385 1200 1250 2314- 2340 2282-2288 720- 740 752-760 750 850 860 868- 876 780 2321 800 23402330 23572353 890 2345 2310 2330 2350 975 910 920 940 960 7 2241 2255 22 2239 2300 1117 CALIFORNIA AVENUE CALIFORNIA AVENUE WELLESLEY STREET This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Highlighted Features abc Building Roof Outline (BL) Curb Edge Current Features 0' 112' 901 S. California Avenue 21PLN-00274 CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2022-02-09 10:55:24 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.a Packet Pg. 16 RMW Architecture Interiors 160 Pine Street 4th Floor San Francisco California 94111 Office 415 781–9800 Fax 415 788–5216 rmw.com Page 1 of 1 MEMORANDUM Project No. 17027.01 Date February 14, 2022 Project 901 S California Avenue Palo Alto, CA To Garrett Sauls Associate Planner Planning and Development Services Department Palo Alto, CA Issued By Stan Lew CC R. Bunton/ARE, S Worthington/RMW Subject 901 S California Project Description 901 S California Avenue is located on the western edge of Stanford Research Park within Palo Alto. Adjacent and nearby buildings include single family homes along the western edge of the site, and commercial buildings line the eastern edge of the site. The project includes the removal of an existing 2-story structure, and replacement with a similar 2-story building that is sited to correct existing non-conforming property-line setbacks and provision of required parking stalls. Existing neighboring commercial buildings vary greatly with respect to materials and scale; however, all maintain a significant landscaped setback from the primary frontage. The replacement building provides a 50’ landscaped setback. The proposed replacement building is 58,059 square feet with a building height of 50’ to the top of the mechanical equipment screen. Proposed building materials are terra cotta, manufactured recycled wood and clear vision glass. The architectural scale, warm materiality and shadowed rhythms are crafted to be a comfortable addition to the residential neighborhood. Landscape and site elements include a welcoming entry sequence beginning at the sidewalk featuring three clusters of public seating that lead to a tenant front door and arcade walkway along the building’s northern edge. Accessible, clean-air vehicle, electric vehicle and carpool/vanpool parking stalls are provided with standard parking stalls. All vehicular parking is located at the back (east) of the site. END OF MEMORANDUM 2.b Packet Pg. 17 ATTACHMENT C ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 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. 2.c Packet Pg. 18 Page Mill Rd Hanover Street Ram os W ay (Private) Page Mill R oad Hansen W a y Hanover Street California Avenue W ellesley StreetStreet Cam bridge Avenu e College AvenueWilliams Street Yale Street Staunton Court Oxford Aven a m in o R e al Grant Avenue Sherida Jacaranda El Camino Real Sherman Aven Ash Street Page Mill Road Mim osa Lane C New California Avenu S edro Lane Peral Lane Road Page Mill Road Yale St Birch S 239423922390 2396 236 9236 1235 3 237 7 239 3 234 5 230 1 231 7 2331 2330 2333-2337 2650 2700 901 855 777 601 2600 2500 505 2342 2344 610 624 642 658 26752343- 2347 2385 2395 2305 2290 560 552 550 2172 2280 555 559 577 599 2200 550 2305 1-4 2390 2270 2277 2310 2325 2331 2251 2263 2251 2271 2515 466 445 444 425 2502 2508 409 407 456 454 448 425431 475 2450 453451 449 451453 446- 454 456- 464 2805 404 309- 315 2225 2237 454- 460 2209 2233 440 414 406-410 442-444 433-447 403- 409 2502- 2518 302-360 332- 362 1296 12662357349 2307 1021 941 961 981 2251 2250 10 921 990 2161 980 940942 960 2160 922 2320 2349 2325 2295228522652225 2225A 889 885 851 2255 1040 1020 1000 2330 2345 984 984A 2226- 2248 811 817 819 827 2340 2342 790 21332127212121152105 60 2070 2174 2150-2158 2077 2085 2087 2080 2110 2130 565567 575 560 555 570 20512031 2060 2064 2090-2096 2135 2139 2101- 2123 2000 2020 2030 580 2170 2145 2111 589 587 575 2130 2152- 2166 615 707 703 634- 642 664 668 2175 2179 2145- 2153 2211 2215 657- 665 544546 1454 2626 2550 3120 3100 3140 3130 1244 1230 1216 1202 950 640 2625 2627 2475 1000 835 9 2208 2453 2504 2506 2227 2261 955 477 2324 417 2335 2264 2385 2253- 2269 429 644 440 421 2292 1299 2105 2062 2346 2221 2231 2287 2315 2575 2501 2705 370 2331 2147 420 1100 1200 1250 1450 1455 1470 1475 1490 1495 2450 2500 2600 1635 1645 965 2435 401 22952285 2314- 23402282-2288 720- 740 752-760 750 850 860 868- 876 780 2321 800 2310 490 2335 2345 2275 480 564- 572 643 645 2260 2262 570 566 566A 405 408 2401 465 463 461 459 447 445 437- 441 433-435 24582454 410 430 2455 460 2755 2780 410 469 450 2650 360 2701 425 455 2100 450 463 470 2415 2438415 421 2415 399 385 381- 395 2330 2340 2350 2360 2296 2298 2317 2317 2297291 2268 2284 2254 2219 1067 1045 2250 2272 2274 2290 2294 2255 2285 2295 2297 2301 2310 2320 2303 215021402124 884 870 23402330 23572353 890 2345 23292311 2310 2330 2350 2300229822902270 2271 2291 2293 901 975 910 920 940 960 770 750 720 2135 2139 2125 850 826 2158 2155 2101 2137 2132 2134 2136 2138- 2144 2130 21362120-21222106- 2112 730 732 591 679 613 653 2025 731 582 580 581- 587 20952075 2085206520552045 637- 645 2040-2046 2070-2076 2050 2054 2080- 2096 745-49 2123 217821722166216021502140 739 757 2241 2255 2260 2280 2239 2300 21392133 2252 2254 715- 727 2178 550 129 0 2675 925 3075 2631 111 7 1400 1450 2400 845 2321 2321A 2323 1160 1140 1130 23402304 1120 2350 1058 2321 2331 2341 2351 755 1001 775 435 398 650 500 475 975 1510 2431 350 450 999 550-560 568 572-592 2052 2137 2132 2289 2291 2255 2259 2257 2473 450 2171 324 2395 642 601 507 2101 2790 2798 431 435 439 503 507 2149 1400 1420 0 1410 1415 1430 1435 0 1605 1615 1625 1050 25012456 542 501 545 555 Greg Tanaka City Council Doria Summa PTC Tom Dubois City Council Grace Lee Architectural Review Board This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits Conflict-Of-Interest, Architectural Review Board Conflict-Of-Interest, City Attorney Assessment Parcel Current Features 0' 281' Conflict of Interest Map CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2022-02-14 15:26:21COI map All Bodies 2021 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 2.d Packet Pg. 19 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 901 S California Avenue, 21PLN-00274 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.20 (RP DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth 1 acre, 100 feet, and 150 feet 3.189 acres 3.189 acres Minimum Front Yard (2) 20 feet 67’6” feet 50 feet Rear Yard 20 feet 308 feet 328 feet Interior Side Yard 20 feet 16’; 20’ feet 38+ feet Special Setback 50 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 67’6” feet 50 feet Max. Site Coverage 30% (41,687 sf) 27% (38,091 sf) 24% (33,347 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 40% (55,583 sf) 39.5% (54,930 sf) 40% (55,583 sf + 2,476 sf amenity space not included in FAR; 58,059 sf) Max. Building Height 35 ft or 25 ft when located within 40 ft of residentially zoned property (4,5) 35 ft 35 ft (50 ft measured to rooftop mechanical enclosure per PAMC 18.20.040(e)(2) Daylight Plane N/A N/A N/A Employee Showers 4 required for new square footage greater than 50,000 sf 2 4 showers (4) See subsection 18.20.040(e) below for exceptions to height and floor area limitations in the ROLM and RP zoning districts. (5) Residential zones include R-1, R-2, RE, RMD, RM-15, RM-30, RM-40 and residential Planned Community (PC) zones. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Profession/General Office Uses* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/300 sf of gross floor area for a total of 185 parking spaces 174 185 Bicycle Parking 1/3,000 sf (80% long term and 20% short term) equals 19 spaces 18 20 (10 long term, 10 short term) Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10,000 – 99,999 sf 1 1 * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 2.e Packet Pg. 20 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 “901 S. California Avenue” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information 2.f Packet Pg. 21 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 14022) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/3/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: 250 Cambridge Ave: Facade Improvements & DEE Title: 250 Cambridge Ave [21PLN-00281]: Request for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review to Allow Renovation of the Façade for an Existing Three-Story Office Building to Create a more Inviting Public Entry and Improved Pedestrian Experience. A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is Included to Increase the Height of the Building to Allow for Light Monitors to be Installed on the Roof. Zoning District: CC(2)(R). Environmental Assessment: Exempt per Guideline Section 15301. For more information, Contact the Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at Samuel.Gutierrez@CityofPaloAlto.org. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning & Development Services (PDS) based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. Report Summary The applicant seeks to revitalize the exterior façade of 250 Cambridge Avenue, within the California Avenue business district on a parcel zoned CC(2)(R). The existing three-story building has been used for office tenants since it was built in 1986. The proposed exterior changes include new materials, refined facade proportions, new landscaping and planter boxes, and new public seating. The project also includes new bicycle parking and associated amenities such as a bike room, lockers, and showers. The Architectural Review application is paired with a request for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE). A DEE approval would enable a building height increase to create two new light monitors on the roof, which would exceed the 35 foot height limit by 3 foot 8 inches. Staff 3 Packet Pg. 22 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 considers the light monitors an architectural features that are eligible for DEE consideration. The DEE is recommended for approval as it meets the required findings of PAMC 18.76.050. Overall, the proposed changes to the exterior of the building are compatible, well designed, and present a much-improved façade to the street while providing a more pedestrian-scaled design. The project is shown to meet the applicable findings for approval and is consistent with the applicable zoning and staff is recommending approval to the Director of Planning & Development Services. Background The project is located on the northwest side of Cambridge Ave between Birch St and Park Blvd, directly across the street from the US Post Office and a City public parking structure. The project site is also directly adjacent to RM-30 zoned residential properties that include a range of single-family to multi-family uses. The character of the subject block is a mixture of retail businesses, commercial offices, and public facilities that range from one to three stories in height with painted stucco, exposed brick, and rectangular forms. Parking for the site is provided via an existing below-grade parking garage and past California Parking Assessment District parking spaces. Project Information Owner: 250 Cambridge Associates, LLC c/o Tarlton Properties, Inc. Architect: Heather Young/ Heather Young Architects Representative: N/A Legal Counsel: N/A Property Information Address: 250 Cambridge Ave Neighborhood: Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area: 100’ x 150’; 15,000 sf Housing Inventory Site: N/A Located w/in a Plume: No Protected/Heritage Trees: Three Street Trees along Cambridge Ave Historic Resource(s): No Existing Improvement(s): 34,438 sf; Three Stories; 42’ 4” (top of mech housing); Built 1986 Existing Land Use(s): General Office Use Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: RM-30 (Multi-Family & Single Family Residential) & CC(2)(R) (Retail) West: RM-30 (Multi-Family & Single Family Residential) & PF(R) (Parking Facility) East: CC(2)(R) (Retail) South: PF (Parking Facility) & PC-4127 (Parking Facility) Aerial View of Property: 3 Packet Pg. 23 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Source: https://www.google.com/maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation: Community Commercial (2) Subdistrict, Retail Combining District; [CC(2)(R)] Comp. Plan Designation: Community Commercial [CC] Context-Based Design Criteria: N/A Downtown Urban Design Guide: N/A South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan: N/A Baylands Master Plan: N/A El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002): N/A Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'): Yes, rear property line abuts RM-30 Residential Zone & Uses Located w/in the Airport Influence Area: N/A Prior City Reviews & Action 3 Packet Pg. 24 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 City Council: None PTC: None HRB: None ARB: None Project Description The applicant requests Minor Board Level Architectural Review of a façade revitalization on an existing three-story office building located at 250 Cambridge Ave, zoned CC(2)(R). The exterior changes include new materials and refined facade proportions to create a more inviting public entry and improved pedestrian experience. The request for a Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is to increase the height of a portion of the existing roof to allow for two new light monitors to be installed on the roof. The monitors would extend 3’8” above the 35’ height limit. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary applications are requested: • Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any applicable finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. • A Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) is allowed per PAMC 18.76.050 to allow a minor exception to zoning regulations to enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties; or enable the preservation of the architectural style of existing improvements on the site. A DEE may be granted to adjust site development and parking and loading requirements to enhance the appearance and design of commercial and multiple-family development and other development subject to architectural review. Items for which DEE may be granted include, but are not limited to, roof elements & design, bay windows, columns, arcades, fountains, art, balconies, stairs, entry features, and other minor architectural elements and design features. A DEE can allow limited minor changes to the setback, daylight plane, height, lot coverage limitations, parking lot design, landscaping configuration, and in the required proportion between private & common open space. A DEE shall not be granted that would increase floor area, decrease the number of required parking spaces, decrease the amount of required on-site landscaping, or decrease the required open space. 3 Packet Pg. 25 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Analysis1 Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located on the northwest side of Cambridge Ave between Birch St and Park Blvd, directly across the street from the US Post Office and a City public parking structure. This Cambridge Ave block has a mixture of retail businesses, commercial offices, and public facilities that range from one to three stories in height. The architectural finishes and massing of the adjacent buildings include painted stucco and exposed brick, in rectangular forms. The current building form is long and linear, with unvaried massing at the third floor which transitions to a façade that engages the ground only at the parking garage entry. The street is lined with trees on both sides including three street trees in front of the project site. The existing façade (shown above) has a brutalist design style where the bare building materials and structural elements are displayed with no decorative design elements. This building is not designed to a pedestrian scale; in particular, large openings to the building are presented as two-story elements. These make the building feel larger than it truly is from the sidewalk. The dark mirrored windows do not allow any views into the building. These are not consistent with the design standards of the Retail (R) combining district, where exterior ground floor windows are required to use transparent glazing to the extent feasible. The building is built to the front and side property lines and has a ten foot rear setback. Parking spaces for the site are located below grade, and within the parking assessment district.2 Exterior Improvements: The applicant seeks to update the exterior façade of the building by changing the scale of the design elements and providing more relief in the massing. Adjustments will be made to the street-facing façade walls, with new glazing and recessed balconies will be installed. These façade changes will create variation and minor articulation, to improve the existing façade, 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 California Ave Parking Assessment District terminated in 2014. Past assessment district parking spaces or “credits” are continued today, no new assessment parking spaces are able to be purchased. 3 Packet Pg. 26 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 which is very flat. The ground floor entry would receive updated landscaping and public seating, and the support pillars would be adjusted. Proposed materials include fiber cement panels (Equitone panels) in a smooth, natural, warm- colored panel around the building entry and a ribbed neutral color panel for the rest of the façade. The cement panels would be installed to create ventilation to avoid thermal bridges, condensation, and mold growth. These panels would have airflow behind them, and thereby reduce thermal gain from sun exposure. The cement panels are made of a natural composite that is non-combustible and is rated to last for at least 50 years. These panels are through- colored material which allows them to be weather resistant and hold their color. The existing design has two architectural pieces; the ground floor has a recess and the upper floors are built close to the property line. The proposed changes break the building façade into three sections: left side, middle, and right side. Though there are three pieces to the building, the proposed pieces are intended to work well together with compatible light and natural colors and materials, providing contrast and interest in the building façade (see image on the following page). The interior of the recessed entry would be finished with a warm wood-like composite material from the soffit down the new wall facing the city parking lot. The wood-like material would complement the new wood public seating benches, which would be attached to the new planter boxes. This would create a warmer, more pedestrian-friendly appearance for the entry of the building. The existing ribbon windows would be replaced with new taller windows along the third floor, opening the building to the street, completing the renewal of the façade. Landscaping & Trees The project site has limited open space. The 12 existing trees, located along the northern end of the rear property line, would remain. The project also has three street trees along the 3 Packet Pg. 27 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 7 Cambridge Ave sidewalk at the front of the building; these would also remain with the project. The existing planters have a high and angled concrete design that are not pedestrian in scale. The existing planters are to be replaced with new lower height planters that have wooden features (including the new continuous benches, sheet L2.1). The proposed landscaping will be lower to the ground and more pedestrian in scale, making the street level portion of the building more open and inviting. Of the five proposed plant species, four are native California species. The lone non-native plant is Dianella Revoluta, a long grass-like shrub native to Australia (see areas in red in the table below). Though a non-native, only eight of these will be planted within the open atrium of the ground floor. This flowering plant species meets the low water usage requirement for landscaping and the habitat requirement; however, due to its interior atrium placement, it is unlikely to function as a habitat-forming plant. Instead, the Dianella Revoluta and the other interior atrium plants would function more like interior, ornamental plants. The four other species, to be planted along the front of the building within the new exterior planters, meet the AR findings for landscaping. These are California natives, habitat-forming, and have low watering needs. Type Native Habitat Forming Water Use Landscape Plan Gandelaria Lilacina yes flowering/ pollinators low Dianella Revoluta no flowering/ pollinators low Bouteloua Blonde Ambition yes - low Asclepias Speciosa yes flowering/ pollinators low Achillea Millefolium Californicum yes flowering/ pollinators low In addition, the proposed landscaping appears to have compatibility with the proposed façade design change, which is more pedestrian in scale and modern via the new planter boxes with integrated public seating. Zoning Compliance3 Staff performed a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. A summary table is provided in Attachment D. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards, in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3 Packet Pg. 28 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 8 The floor area ratio (FAR) of the building would be reduced via this project and bring the site closer to compliance with the maximum allowed FAR of 30,000 sf (2.0 FAR max in CC(2) zone). The existing FAR is 34,348 sf. Minor FAR is replaced to allow for street façade support beam/pillars to be adjusted in thickness, and the addition of a thickened wall at the ground floor (sheets A.5 & A.17). The project would remove 279 sf of FAR via changes to the 3rd floor where the new recessed balconies are proposed. The project does not change the setbacks; no changes to the existing building footprint are proposed. Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) The requested Design Enhancement Exception (DEE) would enable two new rooftop light monitors (clear story skylights) to exceed the maximum height of the building by 3’ 8” (to reach 38’ 8”). The tallest portion of the building is the southwestern tower-like feature where the roof equipment surround/screening reaches 42’ 4” (6’ 8” over the 35’ height limit). The site's 35’ height limit is due to the adjacent RM-30 zoned properties to the west of the project site; thish triggers a reduction of the 37’ standard height limit to 35’.4 A DEE is allowed per PAMC 18.76.050 for the purpose of allowing a minor exception to zoning regulations that will: 1. Enhance the design of a proposed project without altering the function or use of the site, or its impact on surrounding properties; or 2. Enable the preservation of the architectural style of existing improvements on the site. Attachment B provides required approval findings. The rooftop light monitors would not raise the entire roof, only a portion of the roof. The DEE process allows for minor height changes. The light monitors would: • not increase FAR • not cause any changes to the required parking spaces, landscaping, or open space on site. • allow additional natural light to enter into the building without increasing rear window openings, which face the rear yard of residential properties. • enhance the interior environment of the building • allow improved energy savings (better than if additional windows were added along the rear and sides of the building). Finally, the DEE request is a minor, additional architectural feature 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. Staff believes that the requested DEE is within the context of the intent of the DEE process. Multi-Modal Access & Parking 4 PAMC 18.16.060(a) table 3, CC(2) Maximum Height within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) abutting or located within 50 feet of the site 3 Packet Pg. 29 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 9 The applicant proposes no changes to the pedestrian and vehicle access to the site, nor any changes to the below-grade parking facility. The project includes new short-term bicycle parking; two bicycle racks are proposed near the front entry (for a total of four parking spaces). Additionally, the project includes a new bicycle storage room; this enables 11 long-term bicycle parking spaces (sheet A.6 & A34). The bicycle room is located within the below-grade parking garage and provides lockers for employees who bike to work to store belongings. Another improvement associated with bicycle parking is the upgrade to the bathrooms, which feature new showers for employee use. These improvements bring the project site closer to compliance in terms of bicycle parking, and meet the requirement for employee showers for commercial office buildings. Given the project site’s proximity to the Cal Ave Caltrain Station, VTA stops along El Camino Real, and access from Evergreen Park, Southgate, College Terrace, and the Ventura neighborhoods, these bicycle amenity improvements are welcomed and would promote cycling as a mode of transportation to and from the project site. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines5 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, AR Finding #1 requires the design to be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Regional/Community Commercial (CC). In general, the CC land use designation is intended for shopping centers and districts that have a wider variety of goods and services than the neighborhood shopping areas. Non-retail uses such as medical offices, software development, residential, mixed-use projects, may also be located in this land use designation. The existing building has long been occupied by office uses. Office uses are allowed uses per the CC(2)(R) zoning designation. The applicant does not seek to change uses with this application. On balance, the project is consistent with several policies in the Comprehensive Plan such as: • Policy L-4.4: The project better scales the building with the pedestrian environment and adds new public seating, • Policy T-1.16 & Program T5.12.1: The project includes new bicycle amenities to facilitate the use of bicycles as a mode of travel to and from the site. Attachment B provides a detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan and the applicable findings. Overall, the project meets the applicable findings for approval and is consistent with the applicable zoning, given the DEE request’s consistency with the DEE intent and the project’s eligibility for DEE approval. Attachment D provides draft conditions of approval. 5 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 3 Packet Pg. 30 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 10 Environmental Review The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempted from the California Environmental Quality Act under the Class 1 15301 Existing Facilities exemption as this project is proposing exterior alterations to an existing building that does not expand the existing use. 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 February 18, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 16, which is 15 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. Alternative Actions In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or Report Author & Contact Information ARB6 Liaison & Contact Information Samuel Gutierrez, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2225 (650) 329-2575 Samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Location Map (PDF) • Attachment B: Zoning Comparison Table (DOCX) • Attachment C: ARB and DEE Findings (DOCX) • Attachment D: Conditions of Approval (DOCX) • Attachment E: Applicant Request Letter (PDF) • Attachment F: Project Plans (DOCX) 6 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Packet Pg. 31 124-28-012 124-28-014 124-28-020 124-28-018 124-27-036 124-28-001 124-28-024 124-28-023 M olly Stone's Market Bldg 5 Bldg 3 Bldg 4 Bldg 2 Bldg 1 For zon See 50.4' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 99.9' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 99.9' 100.0' 99.9' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 70.0' 50.0'70.0' 50.0' 80.0' 50.0' 25.0' 100.0' 100 50.0' 2.4' 50.4' 50.0' 75.0' 50.0' 110.0' 5' 82.5' 110.0' 250.0' 110.0' 250.0'132.2' 50.0' 132.3' 0 132.0' 50.0' 132.2' 50.0' 131.9' 50.0' 132.0' 50.0' 131.8' 50.0' 131.9' 50.0' 131.6' 50.0' 131.8' 50.0' 131.5' 50.0' 131.6' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 99.6' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 131.1' 37.5' 131.2' 37.5' 130.9' 50.0' 131.1' 50.0' 131.2' 37.5' 131.3' 37.5'37.8' 131.5' 37.5' 131.4' 37.5' 131.3' 37.5' 131.4' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 38.5' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 100.0' 14.1' 40.0' 110.0' 50.0' 125.092.0' 90.5' 135.6' 100.0' 10.0'9.5' 133.5' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 40.0' 1712 257.7' 218.5' 121.5' 25.0' 135.0' 7.6' 200.7'150.0' 488.6' 100.0'125.0' 20.0' 10.0' 25.1' 135.0' 45.0' 125.0' 59.2' 89.8' 59.0' 94.9' 7' 94.9' 51.5' 99.4' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 0.0' 50.0' 150.0'150.0' 50.0' 0.0'0' 50.0' 50.0' 95.6' 41.7' 95.2' 50.0' 95.2' 48.0' 95.2' 48.0' 95.2' 47.7' 95.2' 47.8' 45.4' 133.9' 45.2' 137.8' 49.5' 99.4' 100.4' 150.6' 26.0' 41.0' 41.0'41.0' 125.0' 84.0'62.9' 26.2' 26.2'26.2' 36.7' 89.0' 57.5' 280 2290 315 325 335 350 318 306 277 23132307 309 307 305 303 301 164 201- 217 33 231 2 211 221 22482250 275 276 2333 2160 251 2280 261 250285 299 267-271 245 240 255 265 220 230 240 3432323 206 200 210 2170 220 230 55 254 260 274 215 2255- 2259 2261- 2271 2273- 2283 2315 232 208 250 208 2260 2301 NEW MAYFIELD LANE CAMBRIDGE AVENUE BIRCH STREET COLLEGE AVENUE PA RK B O ULEV A R D CALIFORNIA AVENUE ULEVARD NOGAL LANE PF(R) R-2 CC(2)(R) RM-30 -2 PC-4127 CC(2)(R) CC(2) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. 0' 96' 250 Cambridge Ave CITY O F PALO A L TO IN C O R P O R ATE D C ALIFOR N IA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P RIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto sgutier, 2022-02-09 11:24:50 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 3.a Packet Pg. 32 ATTACHMENT # ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 250 Cambridge Ave, 21PLN-00281 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 15,000 sf No Change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) ~0 ft setback with 9 ft 2 in sidewalk No Change Rear Yard No Requirement 10 ft No Change Interior Side Yard (left & right) No Requirement 0 ft No Change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2) ~9 ft 3 in No Change Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to front setback(7) 100% along Cambridge Ave No Change Max. Site Coverage No Requirement No Change Max. Building Height 35 feet Within 150 ft. of a residential district(4) 34 ft 8 inches to parapet Roof light monitors increase to 38 feet 8 in tall (3 ft 8 in increase) – DEE required Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 2.0:1 (30,000 sf) 2.295:1 (34,438 sf) 2.277:1 (34,159 sf, 279 sf loss) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone 10 ft at the property with 45 degree angle due to single family uses in the adjacent RM-30 zone (6) Not compliant No Change (Roof Light Monitors do not increase any non- compliance with the daylight plane due to their offset to the edge of the building) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line.. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage 3.b Packet Pg. 33 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the nearby residentially zoned property Standard business hours, no late night activities requested Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. Existing on-site Employee Showers (18.16.040 (j)) Medical, Professional, and General Business Offices, Financial Services, Business and Trade Schools, General Business Services; 20,000-49,999 Gross Floor Area of New Construction (ft 2) = 2 showers required Two (2) showers 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CS district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/310 sf of gross floor area for a total of 111 parking spaces 28 spaces, with 85 parking spaces in Cal Ave Parking Assessment District 113 parking spaces 30 parking spaces (accessible parking double counted), with 85 parking spaces in Cal Ave Parking Assessment District 115 parking spaces Bicycle Parking 1/3,100 sf (60% long term and 40% short term) equals 11 spaces; 7 long term, 4 short term None 4 short term spaces – legal non- conforming While interior spaces to not count towards Code requirements, the project will provide 11 long term spaces in a new bike room Loading Space 1 loading spaces for 10,000 - 99,999 sf None None - legal non-conforming * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements 3.b Packet Pg. 34 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 250 Cambridge Ave 21PLN-00281 The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The proposed project complies with the zoning code as proposed. The project is subject to the Baylands Design Guidelines due to the project sites location. The proposed project is generally consistent with the following Comprehensive Plan, below is an analysis of the applicable goals and policies: Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional/Community Commerical (CC). The project does not change the existing land use of the building which is office use. Land Use and Community Design Goal L-1 A compact and resilient city providing residents and visitors with attractive neighborhoods, workplaces, shopping districts, public facilities, and open spaces. The project is proposing changes to an existing building historically used for offices to improve its exterior façade, contributing to the improvement of the surrounding area. The changes proposed in the project maintain the overall size of the building which is compatible with the varied neighborhood character of commercial and government buildings that are single story and multi-story. The proposed changes to the exterior of the building seek to change the street façade to better scale it with the pedestrian environment and add new public seating (benches). Policy L-3.1 Ensure that new or remodled structures are compatible with the neighborhood and the adjacent structures. Policy L-4.4 Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art 3.c Packet Pg. 35 Policy L-4.10 Maintain the existing scale, character and function of the California Avenue business district as a shopping, service and office center intermediate in function and scale between Downtown and the smaller neighborhood business areas. The project does not increase the size or foot print of the existing building, maintaining the existing pattern of single and multi-story buildings in the area. Policy T-1.16 Promote personal transportation vehicles as an alternative to cars (e.g. bicycles, skateboards, roller blades) to get to work, school, shopping, recreational facilities and transit stops. Program T5.12.1 Work with employers, merchants, schools and community service providers, to identify ways to provide more bicycle parking, including e-bike parking with charging stations, near existing shops, services and places of employment. The project includes new bicycle parking, a bicycle room with lockers for employees to store bicycle equipment, and new employee showers. All of these amenities facilitate the use of bicycles as a mode of travel to and from the site. The project has also been reviewed for conformance with the development standards in the zoning code and found to be in compliance with the intent and regulations contained therein. A comprehensive review of the project to applicable development standards is included in the administrative record. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The area is comprised of various commercial offices, retail, and government facailities that are one to three stories in height. The project proposes to update the exterior of the building to improve its function and appearance, while not changing its FAR or building footprint. The proposed project is consistent with the findings to provide high-quality materials and finishes in that is has a mixture of light and medium neutral colors as part of the palette. The overall visible 3.c Packet Pg. 36 building height is not change, though a minor increase in roof height is requested with a DEE for new light monitors that would not be visible from the ground. The design elements of the existing building are changing with the proposed project to better scale the façade to the pedestrian environment. In general, the existing development envelope is being maintained. The building will maintain its function as a office building. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian-oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle-friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed project offers short-term and long- term bike parking for visitors and employees. Addionally, a new bicycle room located in the parking garage (no loss of vehicle parking) is proposed that includes a locker room for cyclists to store equipment. The project also includes amenity showers for employees to use. These bicycle focused amenities further promote bicycling as a mode of travel to the project site, which is in close proximity to bike lanes, Cal Ave Caltrain, and El Camino Real VTA bus stations. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The project meets this finding as the changes to the façade includes façade elements that are pedestrian in scale. Also, the project removes the existing large planter boxes along the street facing façade and proposes new low level planter boxes that include new extensive public seating within the recessed entryway of the building. New light fixtures hang from the soffit of the entryway that function to enhance the entryway for pedestrians during the evening and nighttime hours. Additionally, the project proposed to replace the existing mirror filmed street facing windows with new more transparent windows, creating a more welcoming building experience from the street. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks This finding is not applicable because the project does not involve changes to the site plan setbacks or the building footprint. 3.c Packet Pg. 37 4. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding is applicable as this project site is directly adjacent to RM-30 zoned residential properties that vary from single-family to multifamily uses. The project does not increase the size of the building or its footprint. The project does not propose any changes to the exterior facades that faced the rear yard of the neighboring RM-30 zoned properties. Instead, the project only includes changes to the street façade windows and includes a DEE request to allow for the installation of new light monitors on the roof that are hidden from view due to their setbacks from the edges of the building and the existing parapets. These changes allow more natural light into the building without increasing any window openings or adding windows that would have sightlines to the adjacent residential rear yards. 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 The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the project provides a private outdoor amenity space for employees to gather during breaks via the existing rear yard open space, the newly proposed street-facing balconies, and the public seating area proposed within the recessed entry area of the ground floor. 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 This finding is not applicable as the existing parking is provided via a below-grade garage and no changes to the garage in terms of vehicle parking or the design of the garage are proposed. 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 This site is less than an acre and does not include new development. Therefore, this context-based criteria is not applicable. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The finding can be made in the affirmative in that the building will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2 in accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations. Additionally, the project includes a façade concrete panel that allows for airflow behind the panels 3.c Packet Pg. 38 which has a positive effect on lowering heat gain from sun exposure. The project also includes new landscaping that consists of California native and low water use plants. The project also includes substantial improvement to the bicycle parking and amenities on-site. These includes new short- term bike racks at the ground floor entry, new long-term bicycle parking within the new bike room that includes lockers, and new showers located within the bathrooms. The proposed changes to the site would allow for bicycling as a mode of travel to and from the site to be easier and would equal less vehicle GHG being produced by visitors and employees to the site who use bicycles. This is demonstrated on the GB sheets in the plan set. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project proposes a contemporary style that includes medium and light colors consistent with new façade panels that have either a smooth or textured finish to provide contrast between the different portions of the building. The proposed building façade panels are made of cement panels that are highly durable materials and have integrated colors that are rated to last for over 50 years. Additional materials include wooden-like panels for soffit within the recesses of the façade, which complement the new planter boxes and wooden benches that are located within the ground floor recessed entry. The changes to the street façade also include changes to the existing rounded support pillars where they are proposed to be squared and a new wall at the south end of the recessed entry adjacent to the City parking lot. This creates a separation from the parking lot to the new landscaping and public seating area. The street-facing glazing is replaced with larger windows to open the building façade up along with two recessed balconies on the third floor. Compared to the existing building, the project's changes to the façade appear to create three pieces to the building that are compatible, while different enough to create interest in the façade, and provide better pedestrian scale. The colors and proposed textures appear to be well integrated into the design of the existing building and modernize its dated brutalist appearance. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The project does not create changes to the access of the site. The changes to the façade in terms of the ground floor entry do present a more welcoming pedestrian environment and also provide new short-term bicycle parking at the entry. 3.c Packet Pg. 39 Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought-resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The project will provide a variety of drought-tolerant California native planting along the front of the façade. The proposed plants are appropriate habitats for wildlife as they flower and would be suitable for pollinators. The proposed landscaping enhances the visual appearance of the site and is better scaled with the new façade design over the existing landscaping and planter boxes. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: In accordance with the City’s Green Building Regulations, the project will satisfy the requirements for CALGreen Mandatory + Tier 2. The project includes new façade materials that allow airflow to past behind the façade panels which allow for better energy efficiency. The landscaping that is proposed is drought-tolerant California native planting. 3.c Packet Pg. 40 DEE FINDINGS 250 Cambridge Ave 21PLN-00281 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. The required approval findings can be made to support the Design Enhancement Exception for a 3’ 8” height increase for two rooftop light monitors for the existing building located at 250 Cambridge Avenue. 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; This finding can be made in the affirmative as the existing building height is primarily below the maximum building height of 35 ft when measured to the top of the parapets and the proposed roof-top “light monitors” would exceed the height limit by 3’ 8” for a maximum height of 38’-8”. The light monitors are to provide additional natural light to the interior of the third floor. While the existing building can add additional windows on the south elevation or to the east elevation, these face the rear yards of RM-30 zoned properties where a mixture of single-family and multifamily uses are located. Rather than increasing the window sizes on the south end of the building and increasing the impacts to privacy of the adjacent residentially zoned properties, the light monitors would allow for additional natural light to enter the building without increasing the vantage point to the residential rear yard, and light monitors are only visible from the upper levels of adjacent buildings. Additionally, the light monitors allow for better energy saving over standard skylights or additional windows being added to the exterior of the south, east, and west facades. 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 This finding can be made in the affirmative as the requested DEE for the rooftop light monitors involves a minor 3’ 8” increase in height over the allowed 35’ maximum height (height limit is due to the adjacent RM-30 zoned properties). Additionally, in context, the tallest portion of the building is the southwestern tower-like feature where the roof equipment surround/screening reaches 42’ 4” (6’ 8” over the 35’ height limit) and is notably visible to the public. The proposed light monitors have been designed to be hidden from street view by existing façade and parapet 3.c Packet Pg. 41 heights via a minimum of 18’-10” setback from the surrounding facades and roof parapets. The roof-top monitors enable renovation of the existing structure to be more usable, sustainable, and adaptable. The ability to have additional natural daylight decreases the electrical load without producing reflective glare that can impact adjacent properties. The minor exception does not increase floor area, change parking requirements, landscaping, or lot coverage. 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. Granting the DEE request would involve a minor architectural feature that would be added to the roof of the building 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. Furthermore, granting the DEE would not negatively impact the privacy and general welfare of the adjacent residentially zoned properties by design as the light monitors do not provide direct views into or from, existing or potentially proposed projects around the property. 3.c Packet Pg. 42 Draft Conditions of Approval 250 Cambridge Ave 21PLN-00281 PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Exterior Building Improvements” stamped as received by the City on January 18, 2022, on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Fire, Public Works, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for the building permit. 4. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. PARKING. The Project does not involve any loss in vehicle parking, any changes to the parking facility and or total number of parking spaces must first be submitted for review and approval by the Director of Planning & Development Services. 6. LANDSCAPING. The project proposes to change the existing landscaping planters along the frontage to install new planters with public seating. The landscape planter boxes, approved plants, and public seating (benches) are to be installed in compliance with the approved plans. The project also includes 12 existing trees that are located long the rear property line of site which are to remain on site. 7. AMENITY SPACE. The project includes new employee showers, locker room, and a new bicycle room within the parking garage. The addition of employee showers brings the existing building into compliance with PAMC 18.16.060(j) where general business office uses between 20,000-49,999 sf are required to have at least two employee showers. This amenity space is required to remain on site. 8. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval if, within such two-year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 9. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including 3.d Packet Pg. 43 (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Samuel Gutierrez at samuel.gutierrez@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 11. ENCROACHMENT PERMIT: Any encroachments in the public right-of-way such as sidewalk closures, installation of scaffolding, pedestrian protection structures and tunnels, crane lifts, and so on, shall require an encroachment permit from the Department of Public Works. See the following link for more information -- https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public- Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-and-Permits 12. CONSTRUCTION PARKING: Construction staff parking shall be done onsite or in a City parking garage. Street-parking is intended for business operations, their customers, and their deliveries. Long term parking passes may be purchased from the City Revenue Collections Division. Daily parking passes can be purchased from pay stations located in garages. 13. CONSTRUCTION MATERIALS AND EQUIPMENT STAGING: Shall be stored onsite and not within the public right-of-way. Exception is given on a case-by-case basis for dumpsters which requires an encroachment permit. Building Department 14. A building permit is required for this project. At time of building permit, please provide the following plans/details/specs/documents/calculations in accordance to the 2019 Ca Building Standards Codes as amended by the City of Palo Alto. Contact building department if there are any submittal or technical questions. Additional information may be required at building permit. Public Works Urban Forestry 15. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the Urban Forester. 16. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 3.d Packet Pg. 44 17. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.202.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 18. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 19. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 20. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 21. PLAN SET REQUIREMENTS. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: a. SHEET T-1, BUILDING PERMIT. The building permit plan set will include the City’s full-sized, Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!), available on the Development Center website at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/31783. The Applicant shall complete and sign the Tree Disclosure Statement and recognize the Project Arborist Tree Activity Inspection Schedule. Monthly reporting to Urban Forestry/Contractor is mandatory. (Insp. #1: applies to all projects; with tree preservation report: Insp. #1-7 applies) b. The Tree Preservation Report (TPR). All sheets of the Applicant’s TPR approved by the City for full implementation by Contractor, shall be printed on numbered Sheet T-1 (T-2, T-3, etc) and added to the sheet index. c. Plans to show protective tree fencing. The Plan Set (esp. site, demolition, grading & drainage, foundation, irrigation, tree disposition, utility sheets, etc.) must delineate/show the correct configuration of Type I, Type II or Type III fencing around each Regulated Tree, using a bold dashed line enclosing the Tree Protection Zone (Standard Dwg. #605, Sheet T-1; City Tree Technical Manual, Section 6.35-Site Plans); or by using the Project Arborist’s unique diagram for each Tree Protection Zone enclosure. 3.d Packet Pg. 45 CITY OF PALO ALTO PLANNING DEPARTMENT 250 Cambridge Avenue Exterior Improvements Project Description The overall scope of this project consists of a street side façade improvement to an existing 40 year old, 3-story office building in Palo Alto, California. The primary objective is to revitalize the aging building façade with a new, highly curated design highlighted by more refined proportions; use of more sophisticated materials; creating a more inviting public entry to the building and an improved pedestrian experience. Scope The scope includes the following improvements;  Replacing the failing existing Exterior Foam Insulation System(EFIS) with a new and more refined rain screen ventilated façade system  Re-proportioning of the building façade forms to create a more human scaled massing and rhythm with emphasis on accentuating the pedestrian entry to the building.  The introduction of new seating and landscaping around the building entry for a more inviting public interface.  Re-proportioning the glazing at the 3rd floor to bring more daylight into the building and re-placing the existing single pane, mirrored and highly reflective glazing on the entire street façade with new clear, energy efficient insulated glazing.  Introducing new recessed balconies at the 3rd floor to reduce the linear appearance of the façade.  The introduction of 2 new north facing roof top light monitors (vertical oriented skylights) to provide natural lighting into the center of a deep and dark floor plate.  Provide a new secure long term bike parking room and lockers in the below grade parking garage. Use The Existing building use is for professional and general business offices and there is no proposed change to that use. Design Concept The overarching design concept of this project is to improve the proportions, public interface, energy efficiency, and materials of an older, tired building that is seeing its exterior materials fail. The proposed investment in the public façade of this building solves many of its shortcomings. 3.e Packet Pg. 46 The current building form has a long, linear, and unvaried massing at the third floor which transitions to a façade which engages the ground only at the parking garage entry. The façade has no human scaled elements or relief in its massing. This flat façade, coupled with the 2 story thin columns, creates a looming mass at the street and an uncomfortable experience for the pedestrian. Furthermore the recessed space under this massing creates a relatively deep, dark and uninviting entry, which is exacerbated by the unwelcoming dark reflective glass on the façade. The primary design move is to break up this long and linear façade by pushing the face of the 3rd floor wall back in the middle of the façade breaking the long linear run of EIFS and glazing. This enables the façade to develop varied planes which disrupt the flat, linear nature of the existing condition. The new massing establishes an “A-B-A” rhythm along the street, creating and entry mass (A); a center mass at the 3rd floor (B) and a distinct mass at garage entry (A). Further improvements at the entry include re-skinning the existing, narrow proportioned columns with a warmer, more contemporary material and rectilinear form. The introduction of a variety seating using organic shaped forms with planters offer amenities to both the building tenants and the public and enhance the entry experience. The organic shaped bench theme continues into the courtyard space just past the entry doors. A warm wood like composite material is proposed to be used at the soffit will continue down the new wall facing the city parking lot. This warm material will further highlight the entry in conjunction with new lighting to make for a rich and welcoming pedestrian experience. Relationship to existing conditions The introduction of two recessed balconies at the third floor help to create further depth and variety to façade by providing a play of contrasting shadows. Tenant use of these balconies will further activate these spaces and how the façade engages with the street. In addition, by replacing the existing narrow ribbon windows with re- proportioned taller windows all along the 3rd floor, the balconies will help to mitigate the existing long featureless façade and engage with the street more openly. Introduction of 2 north facing light monitors on the roof will provide much needed natural lighting the center of a the third floor plate and help to further reduce the lighting and HVAC load requirements for that space, further enhancing the sustainable design approach. The monitors are proposed to be slightly taller that the existing parapet. They are located in the center of the building plan, 19’ from the property line and well away from the building perimeter minimizing visibility from the street and nearby surrounding properties. Materials & Colors These proposed refined materials include the use of Equitone panels, a stable fiber cement panel, to create a new ventilated façade for the building. The construction principal of incorporating a ventilated “rain-screen” facade helps to avoid thermal bridges in materials and eliminates condensation and mold growth on the exterior envelope. It allows air to freely circulate behind the building panels creating a well 3.e Packet Pg. 47 ventilated and comfortable building. In addition to helping create a more consistent insulated envelope, the Equitone panels are a fully natural composite with outstanding physical properties, are non-combustible, and have a life expectancy well beyond 50 years. The Equitone panel is also a through-colored material, which means the material will retain its rich physical color properties over its life-time. The project proposes to use 2 variations of the Equitone panel; a smooth, natural, warm colored panel to highlight the building entry and a ribbed more neutral color panel for the remainder of the façade. The use of a ribbed or textured panel will provide interesting shadow play on the façade and to help highlight the buildings’ entry by contrast. The subtle texture of the proposed Equitone in conjunction with the changing with angle of the sun will provide a dynamic and ever-changing façade throughout the day. Panels are mechanically fastened and the panel seam & sizes have been carefully studied to reinforce the architectural lines and proportions of the building. We believe that approval of the 250 Cambridge Exterior Improvements with greatly enhance the existing 40 year old structure and bring richness and detail to the existing diverse fabric of the Cal Ave Neighborhood. Sincerely – ______________________________ Heather Young, Heather Young Architects 3.e Packet Pg. 48 Heather Young Architects 250 Cambridge Ave December 08, 2021 Samuel Gutierrez | Project Planner City of Palo Alto Planning Department 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: DEE Request ARB Application 250 Cambridge Ave, Palo Alto, CA 94306 Application Number: 21PLN-00281 This letter of application requests Architectural Review Board Approval of the Design Enhancement Request for new roof top light monitors as part of the renovation of an existing, three-story commercial office building at 250 Cambridge Ave. Project Overview The overall scope of this project consists of a street side façade improvement to an existing 40 year old, 3-story office building in Palo Alto, California. The primary objective is to revitalize the aging building façade with a new, highly curated design highlighted by more refined proportions; use of more sophisticated materials; creating a more inviting public entry to the building and an improved pedestrian experience. Scope The scope includes the following improvements; • Replacing the failing existing Exterior Foam Insulation System(EFIS) with a new and more refined rain screen ventilated façade system • Re-proportioning of the building façade forms to create a more human scaled massing and rhythm with emphasis on accentuating the pedestrian entry to the building. • The introduction of new seating and landscaping around the building entry for a more inviting public interface. • Re-proportioning the glazing at the 3rd floor to bring more daylight into the building and re-placing the existing single pane, mirrored and highly reflective glazing on the entire street façade with new clear, energy efficient insulated glazing. • Introducing new recessed balconies at the 3rd floor to reduce the linear appearance of the façade. • The introduction of 2 new north facing roof top light monitors (vertical oriented skylights) to provide natural lighting into the center of a deep and dark floor plate. • Provide a new secure long term bike parking room and lockers in the below grade parking garage. 3.e Packet Pg. 49 Heather Young Architects 250 Cambridge Ave Findings A Design Enhancement Exception is being requested to allow for the addition of two, roof-top light monitors to the existing building that project above the allowable maximum height limit of 35’-0” by 3’-8”. We believe that the findings that can be made to support the exception are as follows: 1.There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable tothe property or site improvements involved that do not apply generally to property in the same zone district. The existing structure was constructed with the primary building height remaining below the maximum building height of 35’ at the exterior parapets. As allowed by code, the existing elevator core and mechanical housing are permitted to extend beyond this maximum height, set here at 42’-4”, to provide required building functionality. This mechanical enclosure is integrated into the primary design of the building and reads as an anchoring tower to the Southwest end of the building and the true maximum height of the structure. Like the mechanical enclosure, the roof-top light monitors are an integral part of the renovated building’s lighting and energy use systems. These minor architectural elements will remain well below the mechanical enclosure height topping out at 38’-8” and only be visible from the upper levels of adjacent buildings with little to no impact on pedestrians or motorists around the property. 2.The granting of the application will enhance the appearance of the site or structure, or improve the neighborhood character of the project and preservean existing or proposed architectural style, in a manner which would not otherwise be accomplished through strict application of the minimumrequirements of this title (Zoning and the architectural review findings set forth in Section 18.76.020(d). The proposed light monitors are located above the center of a 150’ wide by 85’ deep floor plate and have been designed to be hidden from street view by existing façade and parapet heights. The monitors are 51’ long by 13’-8” wide and are set back on all sides a minimum of 18’-10” from the surrounding facades and roof parapets. The addition of these light monitors significantly enhances the amount of natural light provided to the center of the existing office floor plate without impacting the surrounding properties or street level pedestrian experience. The “saw-tooth” design of the monitors allow for the collection and even dispersion of indirect light into the space without adding internal glare, which would occur by providing flat skylights that remained below the maximum building height allowed by the municipal zoning code. The roof-top monitors enable redevelopment of the existing structure to be more usable, sustainable, and adaptable. Harvesting natural daylight decreases the load on our electrical grid and unlike the addition of solar 3.e Packet Pg. 50 Heather Young Architects 250 Cambridge Ave panels do not produce glare. The minor exception does not increase floor area or alter the number of required or provided parking spaces. 3. The exception is related to a minor architectural feature or site improvement that will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The granting of this DEE will enhance the health and welfare of the building occupants without negatively impacting that of neighbors, pedestrians or motorists in the area of the site. The height of the roof-top monitors has been minimized to allow for a water resilient curb at the roof level, 2’-6” of vertical glazing, and 10” of structure imbedded within a fire-rated assembly. The design of the light monitors allows for the inclusion of natural light without providing direct views into or from, existing or potentially proposed projects around the property due to the location, shape and size of the proposed glazing openings on the roof. Sincerely – ______________________________ Heather Young Heather Young Architects 3.e Packet Pg. 51 Attachment F Project Plans During the ongoing Shelter-in-Place, project plans are only available online. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll to find “250 Cambridge Ave” 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/250-Cambridge- 21PLN-00281?transfer=0577bcf2-54f1-47bf-ba0d-31147f53d5e4 3.f Packet Pg. 52 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 14034) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/3/2022 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 and Analysis of Missing Standards From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) provide feedback to City staff and the City Council on privacy, menu of options, contextual height standards and additional standards identified in staff’s enhanced crosswalk document. 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. ARB Study Session – January 20, 2022 The ARB met on January 20, 2022 to review the City Council’s action on November 8, 2022 regarding the objective design standards ordinance. During the study session, the ARB provided initial feedback on three issue areas where the Council wanted to see modifications to the ordinance: 1. Motion Item Cii – Privacy Protections: “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 4 Packet Pg. 53 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 this applies. Address concerns about allowing 15% windows. In RM-40, retain 25 foot front setback” 2. Motion Item F – Menu of Options: “In Building Massing / Facades sections where there is a menu of choices, increase the number of required choices per category” 3. Motion Item G – Contextual Height Transitions: “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” As part of the November 8, 2002 motion, Council also asked staff for an enhanced crosswalk document, which will be provided to the ARB at-places. In developing this document, staff identified four (4) Context-Based Design Criteria that have not yet been captured in the 18.24 draft objective design standards: • Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units (Figure 6-1), attached rowhouses/townhouses (Figure 6-2), and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development, provided that…; • Each detached unit shall have at least one usable side yard between the house and fence to provide outdoor passage between the front and rear yards; • For properties with parking accessed from the front, minimize the amount of frontage used for parking access, no more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to garage openings, carports, or open/surface parking (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet); • Maintaining view corridors from Colorado Avenue and El Dorado Avenue west to the hills. City staff would like the ARB’s feedback about whether these standards or similar should be added to the draft objective design standards. City Council Public Hearing – January 24, 2022 At its January 24, 2022, the City Council conducted a first reading on portions of Motion Item Cii and G. During this first reading, the Council provided feedback on a draft ordinance to modify setbacks in the RM-40 district and clean up ambiguities in height transition standards. The forthcoming objective design standards’ ordinance will address the other parts of the full motion. This includes the remaining portion of Motion Item G, which is to consider additional contextual height transition requirements, such as when a taller building is proposed next to a shorter building, regardless of its zoning district. Community Meeting – February 1, 2022 4 Packet Pg. 54 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 3 Since the ARB’s last meeting, City staff also held a community webinar on February 1, 2022. The purpose of this meeting was to provide an overview of the objective standards project and listen to community member’s concerns and ideas. Community members expressed support for privacy, sunlight, and air for existing residential uses regardless of density, zoning district and location. Summary of Public Meetings Records from previous meetings can be found on the project webpage: bit.ly/ObjectiveStandards. Discussion During this March 3rd meeting, the ARB will continue its discussion of the four topics outlined in the Background section above and listed in the first column of Table 1. The ARB’s preliminary feedback from January 20th is listed in the second column. Staff’s suggested responses to the City Council and standards for discussion are in the third column. The City Council will consider these additional standards later this spring, following a second community meeting and based on feedback from the ARB on design standards. The next virtual community meeting will be on March 22, 2022 at 6:00 pm. Zoom details will be provided on the project webpage. Table 1: November 8, 2021 Council Motion and Next Steps for Amendments Motion/Topic ARB Feedback (1/20/22) Potential Standards Cii – Privacy • Existing daylight plane is effective • Consider minimum building separation standard • Add privacy standards from IR Guidelines/SB9 proposals regarding windows and privacy to open spaces/balconies/decks • Encourage opaque windows in non- habitable spaces (e.g., bathrooms, corridors, stairs) • Encourage angling windows to increase Add to Building Massing Intent statement based on context-based design criteria: • (6) Maintain privacy of residential uses through design strategies such as offset windows, reduced glazing, landscape screening, and site planning that extends setbacks to residential uses (e.g., location of pedestrian paths and mews/drive aisles). Add Objective Standard, stating that new projects abutting a residential use and located within 20 feet of facing windows (except windows to garages or common areas) or balconies/decks shall meet the following standards along the facing façade: • Upper Story Window Privacy: Window sills on the 2nd floor and above shall be at least 5 feet above the finished floor level or angled at least 4 Packet Pg. 55 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 4 Motion/Topic ARB Feedback (1/20/22) Potential Standards privacy • Avoid window offset requirements (too difficult to administer) • Maintain “eyes” from units onto shared courtyards and open spaces 15 degrees away from facing windows. AND/OR • Stair/Corridor Window Privacy: Stair or corridor windows shall have permanent obscure glazing or exterior mounted permanent architectural privacy screens (e.g., lattice, decorative metal, minimum 85% solid) to at least 5 feet above the finished floor level AND/OR • Landscape Privacy: Privacy screening landscape shall be located to align with proposed second floor windows at maturity. Screening trees and shrubs shall be specified by botanical name with at least 50 percent of screening trees and shrubs being evergreen. Screening trees shall be specified and planted at 24-inch box size or larger and 8 feet height or taller. Screening shrubs shall be specified and planted at 15-gallon size or larger and 8 feet or taller. AND/OR • Balcony Limitations: No second-floor balconies are permitted along the facing side and/or rear façade. Balconies at and above the third story are allowed. Based on Building Code requirements for fire/life safety for bedroom window egress, reducing the proposed 15% maximum transparent window standard, as suggested by the motion, is not recommended. F – Menu Options • Requiring that applicants select more choices might not make a feasible or better building • Instead, add more options to choose from Staff requests the ARB review the existing Building Massing / Facades menu/checklist items to see if projects should incorporate more required options and if so, what items (see Attachment B). The ARB may also wish to increase the number of options. G – Contextual Height • Existing daylight plane and setbacks are effective Although the ARB was not supportive of adding a contextual height standard, City staff would like to provide the City Council with options that address 4 Packet Pg. 56 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 5 Motion/Topic ARB Feedback (1/20/22) Potential Standards • 150-foot requirement for height transition is too deep; 50 feet is generally appropriate • Allowing full height and requiring modulation through design standards is recommended • Additional contextual height reduction is not necessary the motion item while acknowledge State law’s prohibition on downzoning. Some possible standards include: When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average height of an adjacent building and the two buildings are separated by 20 feet or less: • Upper Story Step Back (Facing Façade): an upper floor step back shall be located on the facing façade. The stepback 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 facing facade and the step shall occur for a minimum of 70% of the façade length. OR • Daylight Plane: (Note - The existing daylight plane typically starts at an initial height of 10 feet and then goes up 45 degrees. Additional standards could be added that provide choices) Setback of 10 feet, initial height of 30 feet, then 45 degrees. This allows a similar amount of volume, but pushes a building further from the property line. Ci - Crosswalk n/a Staff has prepared an enhanced crosswalk document (provided at-places) and requests the ARB discuss if and how the following context- based criteria should be integrated into the draft design standards: • Multifamily projects may include a variety of unit types such as small-lot detached units (Figure 6-1), attached rowhouses/townhouses (Figure 6-2), and cottage clusters in order to achieve variety and create transitions to adjacent existing development, provided that… • Each detached unit shall have at least one usable side yard between the house and fence to provide outdoor passage between the front and rear yards; 4 Packet Pg. 57 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 6 Motion/Topic ARB Feedback (1/20/22) Potential Standards • For properties with parking accessed from the front, minimize the amount of frontage used for parking access, no more than 25% of the site frontage facing a street should be devoted to garage openings, carports, or open/surface parking (on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet); • Maintaining view corridors from Colorado Avenue and El Dorado Avenue west to the hills. 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 February 18, 2022, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Next Steps Staff will hold a community meeting on March 22nd and then bring all recommendations 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, Manager of Current Planning (415) 841-3539 (650) 329-2575 jean@lexingtonplanning.com jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: Proposed ORD 18.24 Objective Design Standards 9-14-2021 (PDF) • Attachment B: Draft Objective Standards Checklist_Massing & Facades (DOCX) 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Packet Pg. 58 *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. 59 *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. 60 *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. 61 *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. 62 *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. 63 *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. 64 *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. 65 *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. 66 *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. 67 *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. 68 *NOT YET APPROVED* 11 0160052_20210914_ay16 Figure 2b: Finished Floor range for ground floor residential units. 4.a Packet Pg. 69 *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. 70 *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. 71 *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. 72 *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. 73 *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. 74 *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. 75 *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. 76 *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. 77 *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. 78 *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. 79 *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. 80 *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. 81 *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. 82 *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. 83 *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. 84 *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. 85 *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. 86 *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. 87 *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. 88 *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. 89 *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. 90 *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. 91 *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. 92 City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 1 Objective Design Standards Checklist (DRAFT for ARB) 18.24.050 Building Massing Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(1) Upper Floor Step Backs Pi c k O n e ☐ 1. When the height of the subject building is more than 20 feet above the average height 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. i. Proposed building height: _____ feet ii. Average building height of the adjacent building(s): _____ feet iii. Building height where upper floor step back begins: _____ feet ☐ 2. Except, when adjacent to a single-story building, the upper floor step back shall occur between 33 and 37 feet in height. (b)(2) (A)(B)&(C) Transition to Lower Density Building Types 1. Buildings that abut 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 breaks down the abutting façade by meeting all of the following: Ch e c k Al l ☐ 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. ☐ b. A minimum façade break of 4 feet in width, 2 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 fixed and fully obscured 4.b Packet Pg. 93 City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 2 Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(3)(A) & (B) Façade Length 1. Buildings 70 feet in length or greater ☐ 1. Building is greater than 25 feet in height and 70 feet in length, and faces a public street, right-of-way, or publicly accessible path shall not have a continuous façade plane greater than 70% of the façade length without an upper floor modulation, of at least 2 feet in depth a. Façade length featuring continuous plane: _____ feet b. Total Façade length: _____ feet c. Percent of façade length without upper floor modulation (a/b) (maximum 70%): _____ % 2. Buildings 250 feet in length or greater ☐ 1. 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 a. Total Building length: _____ feet b. Number of vertical façade breaks: ___ breaks 3. Buildings between 150 feet and 250 feet in length ☐ 1. 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. a. Total Building length: _____ feet b. Number of vertical façade breaks: ___ breaks 4.b Packet Pg. 94 City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 3 Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (b)(4) Special Conditions: Railroad Frontages All parcels with lot lines abutting railroad rights-of-way shall meet the following standards on the railroad-abutting façade: Ch e c k Al l ☐ 1. A minimum facade break of at least 10 feet in width and six feet in depth for every 60 feet of façade length. ☐ 2. Portions of a building 20 feet or greater in height shall not have a continuous façade length that exceeds 60 feet. 18.24.060 Façade Design Check Two or More Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (c)(1) Base-Middle-Top ☐ 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: ☐ 1. Variation in Building Modulation: Building modulation shall extend for a minimum 80% of the façade length feet, and shall include one or more of the following building features. Ch e c k on e o r m o r e if se l e c t e d ☐ a. Horizontal shifts. Changes in floor plates that protrude and/or recess with a minimum dimension of 2 feet from the primary facade. ☐ b. Upper floor step backs. A horizontal step back of upper-floor façades with a minimum 5 foot step back from the primary façade for a minimum of 80% of the length of the façade ☐ c. Ground floor step back. A horizontal shift of the ground floor facade with a minimum depth of 2 feet for a minimum 80% of the length of the façade. Ground floor step backs shall not exceed the maximum setback requirements, where stated 4.b Packet Pg. 95 City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 4 ☐ 2. Variation in Façade Articulation: Façade articulation modulation shall include one or more of the following building features. Ch e c k on e o r m o r e if se l e c t e d ☐ a. Horizontal and/or Vertical Recesses or Projections. Recesses or projections such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, bay windows or similar strategies. The recess or projection shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ b. Horizontal and/or Vertical Projections. Projections such as shading, weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies. ☐ c. Datum Lines. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as parapets or cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in height or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material ☐ 3. Variation in two of the following: Ch e c k tw o if se l e c t e d ☐ a. Fenestration Size ☐ b. Fenestration Proportion ☐ c. Fenestration Pattern ☐ d. Fenestration Depth or Projection ☐ 4. Variation in two of the following: Ch e c k tw o if se l e c t e d ☐ a. Façade Material ☐ b. Facade Material Size ☐ c. Façade Texture and Pattern ☐ d. Façade Color 4.b Packet Pg. 96 City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 5 Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (C)(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: Ch e c k Tw o o r M o r e ☐ 1. Vertical and horizontal recesses such as a pattern of recessed grouping of windows, recessed panels, or similar strategies. The recess shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ 2. Vertical and horizontal projections such as shading and weather protection devices, decorative architectural details, or similar strategies. Projections shall be a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ 3. Datum lines that continue the length of the building, such as cornices, with a minimum 4 inches in depth, or a minimum 2 inches in depth and include a change in material. ☐ 4. Balconies, habitable projections, or Juliet balconies (every 20 to 40 feet) with a minimum 4 inches in depth. ☐ 5. Screening devices such as lattices, louvers, shading devices, perforated metal screens, or similar strategies. ☐ 6. Use of fine-grained building materials, such as brick or wood shingles, not to exceed 8 inches in either height or width. (c)(3) Compatible Rhythm and Pattern 1. Buildings less than 100 feet in length ☐ 1. Buildings with 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 4.b Packet Pg. 97 City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 6 Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification 2. Buildings 100+ feet in length Ch e c k O n e ☐ 1. 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 ☐ 2. 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 3. Residential mixed-use buildings Ch e c k O n e or M o r e ☐ 1. Facades use vertical patterns of building modulation, façade articulation, and fenestration ☐ 2. Facades use horizontal articulation and fenestration patterns shall use a vertical massing strategy with a minimum 4 feet wide and 2 feet deep vertical shift in modulation at least once every 50 feet of façade length 4. Storefronts ☐ 1. Storefront uses express a vertical rhythm between 30 and 50 feet in width. (c)(4) Emphasize Building Elements & Massing 1. Primary building entries shall be scaled proportionally to the number of people served (amount of floor-area or number of units accessed). Building entries shall meet the following minimum dimensions: Ch e c k A l l ☐ a. Individual residential entries: 5 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: 6 feet in width 2. Primary building entries (not inclusive of individual residential entries) shall include a façade modulation that includes at least one of the following: Ch e c k On e o r Mo r e ☐ a. Recess or projection from the primary façade plane (minimum 2 feet). ☐ b. Weather protection, awning, or similar strategy that is a minimum 4 feet wide and 4 feet deep by recessing the entry. 4.b Packet Pg. 98 City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 7 Check All that Apply Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification (c)(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. a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR b. Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: _____ feet ☐ 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. a. Façade area between 2 feet and 10 feet: _____ square feet b. Transparent glazing area: _____ square feet c. Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 60%): _____ % ☐ C. If provided, bulkheads and solid base walls measure between 12 and 30 inches from finished grade ☐ D. Primary entries shall include weather protection by recessing the entry, providing an awning or using a combination of these methods. a. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): _____ feet b. Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): _____ feet ☐ E. If provided, when transom windows are above display windows, awnings, canopies and similar, weather protection elements shall be installed between transom and display windows. (c)(6) Other Non-Residential Ground Floors ☐ 1. Ground floor height is a minimum 14 feet floor-to-floor OR maintains a 2nd floor datum line of an abutting building Pi c k On e ☐ a. Ground floor height (minimum 14 feet): _____ feet; OR ☐ b. Height of 2nd floor datum line of abutting building: _____ feet 4.b Packet Pg. 99 City of Palo Alto Objective Design Standards: Checklist Page 8 Check Standard Sheet # Applicant’s Justification ☐ 2. Minimum of 50% transparent glazing between 4 and 10 feet in height from sidewalk, providing unobstructed views into the commercial space a. Façade area between 4 feet and 10 feet: _____ square feet b. Transparent glazing area: _____ square feet c. Percentage of transparent glazing (minimum 50%): _____ % ☐ 3. Primary entries 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. a. Weather protection width (minimum 6 feet): _____ feet b. Weather protection depth (minimum 4 feet): _____ feet (c)(7) Parking/Loading/Utilities 1. Entry Size ☐ 1. Portion of the site frontage facing a street devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access is a maximum of 25% (or on sites with less than 100 feet of frontage, no more than 25 feet) a. Site frontage: _____ feet b. Frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access: _____ feet c. Percent of frontage devoted to garage openings, carports, surface parking, loading entries, or utilities access _____ % 2. Above Ground Structured Parking ☐ 1. Above grade structured parking levels facing a public right-of-way or publicly accessible open space/path, with the exception of vehicular alleys, are lined with commercial or habitable uses with a minimum depth of 20 feet 3. Partially Sub-Grade Structured Parking ☐ 1. Partially sub-grade parking does not have an exposed façade that exceeds 5 feet in height above abutting grade at back of sidewalk. ☐ 2. Partially sub-grade parking is screened with continuous landscaping and shrubbery with minimum height of 3 feet and located within 10 feet of the sub-grade parking. 4.b Packet Pg. 100 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 13943) Report Type: Action Items Meeting Date: 3/3/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: ARB Workplan and Annual Report Title: Discuss the Draft Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Work Plan, Suggest Changes, and Recommend Submitting the Draft Work Plan to the City Council; and Discuss the ARB's Annual Report and any Bylaw Changes Needed. From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss the Draft Work Plan, suggest changes, and recommend submission of the Draft Work Plan to the City Council. 2. Discuss process for the ARB Annual Report and Bylaw changes that may be required. Background On November 30, 2020, the City Council adopted a new City Boards, Commissions, and Committees Handbook (can be found online).1 The Handbook included the need for a Work Plan that would be approved by the City Council, as described below. Work Plan • The ARB is expected to prepare an annual work plan by the second quarter of each calendar year, starting June 2021. • The work plan should include information on equity in the work. • City Council will review the work plan and provide feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting. • The work plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan, metrics of community involvement in meetings and activities included in the commission’s work. • The Handbook has a template for work plan development. 1 Handbook: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/city-clerk/palo-alto-boards-commissions-and- committees-handbook_final_adopted_november-2020.pdf 5 Packet Pg. 101 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services Department Page 2 • If new issues arise during the year, the work plan should be amended and forwarded to Council for review and approval. Discussion An ARB annual report is required in the Bylaws and reviews the prior year, while the Council’s new work plan requirement is to look forward. On June 17, 2021, the ARB adopted its first work plan. At that time, the ARB thought it best to combine the newly required Work Plan and the ARB’s Annual Report which is usually done in December. However, there was not sufficient time to complete the ARB Annual Report. The ARB may wish to solidify the combination of these two documents and have them due at the same time, with a change to the Bylaws. As an alternative, these could remain two separate documents. In either case, a draft work plan has been prepared by staff (Attachment A) using Council’s new template. The ARB is asked to review this document suggest updates and additional tasks as needed. Council is scheduled to review this plan—as well as all other board and commission work plans—and adopt any changes to this plan in April 2022. Public Notification, Outreach & Comments The Palo Alto Municipal Code does not require publication of this hearing item in a local newspaper. ARB2 Liaison & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2575 jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Attachments: • Attachment A: 2022-23 Draft ARB Workplan (PDF) 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 5 Packet Pg. 102 X/X/202X Prior Year Accomplishments This area should address the prior year Work Plan accomplishments including each goal/objective, activities that supported the successful completion of the goal and the status of the goal. This section will need to be updated each year. Architectural Review Board Staff Liaison: Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning Lead Department: Planning and Development Services (PDS) About the Commission The Architectural Review Board is composed of five members, at least three of whom are architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years and commence on December 15. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Sections 2.16 and 2.21. Residency is not required. For the ARB webpage, go to bit.ly/paloaltoARB 2022-2023 Workplan Overview Mission Statement The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on design and related issues for certain new construction, and changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multiple family projects, as described in the Municipal Code. The Board's goals and purposes are to: • Promote orderly and harmonious development of the City • Enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the City • Encourage the attainment of the most desirable use of land and improvements • Enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas • Promote visual environments which are of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, are considerate of each other • To implement and enforce the city’s ordinances pertaining to architecture and design Current Commissioners • Osma Thompson (Chair) • David Hirsch (Vice Chair) • Peter Baltay • Vacant • Vacant Date approved by [ABBREVIATED BCC]: 5.a Packet Pg. 103 TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED On-Going [Include the people, money, tools and other resources the project requires] [Detail the measurable goals or method in which success is measured, if applicable] [Specify if 'Yes.' If not, write 'N/A'] COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE [Specify if 'Yes.' If not, write 'N/A'][State aspects of high/urgent priority as it relates to the goals and objectives] LOWER PRIORITY [State aspects of medium/low priority as it relates to the goals and objectives] PROJECT/GOAL 1 : BENEFICIAL IMPACTS Review Planning applications for conformance with ARB Findings and Objective Standards PURPOSE STATEMENT:The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on design and related issues for certain new construction, and changes and additions to commercial, industrial and multiple family projects, as described in the Municipal Code. HIGH PRIORITY Architectural Review Board 2022-2023 Workplan Staff Liaison: Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning Lead Department: Planning and Development Services (PDS) [Detail the benefits of your project. For example: financial, social, organizational, etc benefits] 5.a Packet Pg. 104 TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED [State when the project will begin and end. Include any other deadlines or important milestones] [Include the people, money, tools and other resources the project requires] [Detail the measurable goals or method in which success is measured, if applicable] [Specify if 'Yes.' If not, write 'N/A'] COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE [Specify if 'Yes.' If not, write 'N/A'] TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Review Council's November 2021 motionadn finish Spring of 2022 [Include the people, money, tools and other resources the project requires] [Detail the measurable goals or method in which success is measured, if applicable] [Specify if 'Yes.' If not, write 'N/A'] COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE [Specify if 'Yes.' If not, write 'N/A'] [Detail the benefits of your project. For example: financial, social, organizational, etc benefits] HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY [State aspects of high/urgent priority as it relates to the goals and objectives] [State aspects of medium/low priority as it relates to the goals and objectives] [Detail the benefits of your project. For example: financial, social, organizational, etc benefits] [State aspects of high/urgent priority as it relates to the goals and objectives] HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY [State aspects of medium/low priority as it relates to the goals and objectives] Finalize review of the Objective Standards project, that was approved by the ARB on April 1, 2021, as directed by City Council BENEFICIAL IMPACTS PROJECT/GOAL 3: PROJECT/GOAL 2: BENEFICIAL IMPACTS Discuss specific Goals, Policies, Programs the ARB would like to further explore/implement 5.a Packet Pg. 105 TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Awards Ceremony in Spring of 2022 [Include the people, money, tools and other resources the project requires] [Detail the measurable goals or method in which success is measured, if applicable] [Specify if 'Yes.' If not, write 'N/A'] COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE [Specify if 'Yes.' If not, write 'N/A'] TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED After Council adoption of necessary Ordinance changes [Include the people, money, tools and other resources the project requires] [Detail the measurable goals or method in which success is measured, if applicable] [Specify if 'Yes.' If not, write 'N/A'] COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE [Specify if 'Yes.' If not, write 'N/A'] The ARB is interested in being part of height and massing discussions, as may be needed to allow increased housing in the City. The Board is also interested to know if Council would like to update the South El Camino Real Guidelines and/or create guidelines for increased densities along San Antonio Road. [Detail the benefits of your project. For example: financial, social, organizational, etc benefits] HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY [State aspects of high/urgent priority as it relates to the goals and objectives] [State aspects of medium/low priority as it relates to the goals and objectives] [Detail the benefits of your project. For example: financial, social, organizational, etc benefits] HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY [State aspects of high/urgent priority as it relates to the goals and objectives] [State aspects of medium/low priority as it relates to the goals and objectives] PROJECT/GOAL 4:Hold ARB Awards ceremony for 2015 to 2020 award winners (Awards were postponed due to the pandemic) Next Awards in 2025. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS PROJECT/GOAL 5:Update By-laws as needed to be in conformance with Council’s new Handbook BENEFICIAL IMPACTS 5.a Packet Pg. 106 Architectural Review Board Staff Report (ID # 14085) Report Type: Approval of Minutes Meeting Date: 3/3/2022 City of Palo Alto Planning & Development Services 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 (650) 329-2442 Summary Title: Minutes of February 3, 2022 Title: Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 3, 2022 From: Jonathan Lait Recommendation Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. Background Draft minutes from the February 3, 2022 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: Minutes of February 3, 2022 (DOCX) 6 Packet Pg. 107 Page 1 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MINUTES: February 3, 2022 Virtual Meeting 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Participating Remotely: Chair Osma Thompson, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch Absent: None. 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, shared her screen with the Architectural Review Board (ARB) and displayed the 2022 Meeting Schedule and Assignments. February meetings will be virtual and future meetings may be in person or hybrid. 525 East Charleston will be discussed on February 17, 2022. It will have one hearing to determine if the project meets the zoning code. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 300 Pasteur [21PLN-00235]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review to Allow an Addition of Approximately 37,000 sf to an Existing Stanford Hospital Building to Meet Seismic Standards and Enable Renovation of Existing Patient Rooms, and Associated Landscape Changes. Zoning District: HD. Environmental Assessment: Certified EIR for the Stanford University Medical Center Facilities Renewal and Replacement Project (Council Resolution No 9168). For More Information Contact Project Planner Emily Foley at Emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org Chair Thompson introduced the item and called for disclosures. Boardmember Baltay disclosed he visited the site. Boardmember Hirsch disclosed that he visited the site and the boards at City Hall. 6.a Packet Pg. 108 Page 2 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Chair Thompson disclosed that she visited the site at nighttime and the material boards at City Hall. She called for the staff report. Emily Foley, Project Planner, shared her screen and presented a PowerPoint on the first formal review for the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) Nursing Pod project at 300 Pasteur. The application is for a 37,116 square foot (sf) addition. The staff report incorrectly lists the square footage used for a preliminary application which was reviewed by the ARB on April 15, 2021. The project allows hospital uses to be moved to a seismically stable building. The extension will have a capacity of 72 beds and overall, the facility will decrease by 15 beds. The extension will be four stories and match the existing height of the building. The project includes landscaping upgrades to the below grade courtyards and promenade. The guidance documents include the Conditional Use Permit (CUP), the Development Agreement, and the SUMC Design Guidelines. The relevant design guidelines are listed in the staff report. She showed slides contrasting the elevation presented at the preliminary review with the current proposed elevation. They added windows and changed the exterior panels and several materials. The next slide illustrated the landscaping plan and layout of the gardens. There are several benches which will line the promenade. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project, but they may also send items to subcommittee or continue to a date uncertain. Chair Thompson asked Ms. Foley to put up the slide of the existing site versus the proposal. Ms. Foley brought the slide up and explained that it did not represent the existing condition. The slide compares the initial proposal the ARB previously heard to the current proposal. Chair Thompson stated that both had the same suffix. Ms. Foley explained that the top picture was from the preliminary hearing and the bottom picture represented the current proposal. Chair Thompson stated she understood. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there were a difference between the top and bottom pictures. Ms. Foley said that there were no differences in terms of window location, but the windows were slightly different. Ms. Gerhardt noted that the first slide demonstrated more differences. Chair Thompson stated she had just wanted to clarify there were no errors. She called for the applicant’s presentation. Molly Swenson, Stanford Medicine Planning, Designing, Construction Department, thanked the ARB for hearing the proposed addition to Stanford Hospital’s nursing pods. The project was first presented to the ARB in April 2021 for preliminary review. It is part of the overarching renewal project at Stanford Medicine and brings them closer to compliance with State seismic safety requirements. The project fronts the pedestrian throughfare known as the Promenade. The ARB provided its comments, and they took the feedback and refined the project. A primary focus was softening the building façade. She introduced Pam Kurz with Perkins Eastman. 6.a Packet Pg. 109 Page 3 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Pam Kurz, Perkins Eastman, stated that she was the lead on the design effort. She showed the ARB the proposed plan including the campus context. She showed views from the southern end of the Promenade which included new seating and large garden spaces. The West Elevation follows the SUMC Design Guidelines, and the scale is in keeping with the existing hospital buildings. She showed the previous West Elevation as well as the current proposed design including close ups to show the materials used. Material selection has been taken from the SUMC Design Guidelines and are in a neutral beige color palette. Signage has been changed to a lighter color. Based on ARB feedback they have created a more engaging façade with a variety of textures and new fenestration. Patient rooms have garden views, and the stair windows create movement. She showed views from Wang Plaza. With the penthouse visibility they rendered pedestrian views along the Promenade and determined that the penthouse is either not visible or only partly visible for the majority of the walk. When it is visible it is in keeping with the existing penthouses on the pods and the new hospital. The focus is on the gardens and the pedestrian experience along the activated Promenade. She introduced Adit Pal to discuss the landscape design. Adit Pal, BFS Landscape Architects, explained that the view down the Promenade illustrated that the architecture and landscaping are complimentary. It creates an urban street like dialogue between architectural façade and greenery to help visually activate the Promenade. The frontage of the courtyards is about twice as long as each façade. pedestrians walking along the Promenade get a sense of open space and vegetation framed by buildings. The steel fence which separates the sunken courtyards from the Promenade is slatted in a modern but random pattern and balances privacy with transparency. It varies in height and is taller near the patient room windows for privacy. Signage is still under development but will narrate the story of the hospital though text, graphics, and historical pictures across eight panels. The panels will be lit at night and integrated with other light sources. The plantings in the courtyards consist of a two layered approach, with the layer close to the windows featuring flowering and familiar garden plants and is balanced by a textured and seasonally flowering landscape behind it in the middle of the courtyard. The middle tier is lower water use. The flowering plants forward the habitat creation goals of the City Urban Forestry Master Plan. He showed a slide illustrating the side and center courtyard which are emergency and maintenance access only. Each is about 75 square feet (sf) in area and will contain small to medium sized flowering trees. The landscaping creates a buffer from the building to the Promenade. The F courtyard will serve psychiatric patients outdoors and is about 4,500 sf in area and will be surrounded by the fence with added wood paneling for acoustic privacy. He stated they welcomed comments and questions. Chair Thompson called for the public comment, but there was none. She called for ARB questions of the staff or the applicant. Boardmember Hirsch asked who would use the lower courtyard. Mr. Pal showed a slide of the landscape and noted that those courtyards were for patient viewing only. Courtyard D has a lot of utilities underneath it which require access. The gate and steps are for maintenance access. Courtyard E has an emergency potable water tank underneath it and must also serve as a fire exit, which is the reason for the ramp. Courtyard F is a user programmed courtyard and a fire exit. Chair Thompson inquired about the interface between the building and the public walk. 6.a Packet Pg. 110 Page 4 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Ms. Kurz explained that area contained patient rooms, which is why the courtyards are private. Chair Thompson confirmed that in the preliminary design there were no windows that looked onto the Promenade, but there were in the new design. Ms. Kurz said that was correct. She noted that you could not see into patient rooms because of the treatment on the glass. Chair Thompson asked about the material. Ms. Kurz explained they referred to it as ribbed. Chair Thompson questioned its relationship with the adjacent material. Specifically, she wondered if the ribs stuck out or if they were inset and aligned with the adjacent material. Ms. Kurz said that the material faces would be flush. She asked Ms. Swenson to find the slide. Ms. Gerhardt asked if the detail was in the plan set printed for the ARB. Ms. Kurz confirmed it was. The material lays flush with the final panel. Boardmember Baltay stated that it was on Detail #1 on Sheet A4.5. Ms. Kurz said that on the other elevation the ribbing happens above the windows for continuity of materiality. She believed the ARB had a sample of the material. Boardmember Baltay noted that he had viewed the materials but had not felt the need to disclose that as it was on public display. Boardmember Hirsch asked for an explanation of the use of the middle window on the West Façade Cladding slide. Ms. Kurz explained it was a window to a corridor between patient rooms. At the lower level you will not be able to see in due to glass treatments. People inside will be able to see out and get natural light. Boardmember Hirsch noted that was hard to determine from the drawing. Chair Thompson asked if the glass in the middle was inset. Ms. Kurz stated it was. Chair Thompson called for further ARB questions, but there were none. She thanked the applicant and returned to the ARB for comment. Boardmember Baltay said he could support the project as presented. Boardmember Hirsch said that generally speaking the project had improved since the last hearing. He thought it was like a mall and asked if Ms. Klicheva had his slides available to show. Medina Klicheva, Administrative Assistant, indicated she had the slides and shared them with the ARB. 6.a Packet Pg. 111 Page 5 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Boardmember Hirsch explained the first slide was of Chuck Close, a picture that looks like a man from far away but is made of a pattern close up. Ms. Klicheva said that the next one was on a blog and displayed a picture of a hole in the road. Boardmember Hirsch explained that the painting really changed the spaces. Ms. Klicheva put up the next link. Boardmember Hirsch explained it was a Peter Wagner with a constantly changing pattern that is quite exciting. He asked them to imagine it in the SUMC environment. Peter Wagner is doing several pieces throughout Palo Alto, but this piece really enlivens the space. He asked Ms. Klicheva to go to the next one. Ms. Klicheva said that was all that she had received from him. Boardmember Hirsch said that was fine, but that it was a work of art by Victor Vasarely. He asked to go back to the elevation of the building. Ms. Swenson displayed the Extension West Façade – Proposed Change slide. Boardmember Hirsch explained that the ARB thought the building needed work and the proposal is vastly improved, but there is a lost opportunity. The pod is an incredible improvement to the site planning and the sunken gardens are wonderful. The façade references the hospital building across the street, but he misses an element like he demonstrated in his examples. Right now, it is a piece of nicely designed architecture with some lit panels people may read once. He suggested making the panels part of the experience and more exciting. The building across the way has a bold cantilever and the whole of the Promenade goes to the Plaza where the Edward Durell Stone building lays. He asked why they could not put art in the bottom piece of the building to animate the public way. Having said that, he stated that he could accept the project, but it was not great. It is not out of scale and is detailed nicely but is not exciting. He suggested more glass elements from bottom to top. If they had a moving art piece from one side of the pod to the other and then picked up on the second pod it would provide continuity and a more exciting experience. If they use the framework they’ve already created it would reinforce the building as well. The mall is a great idea and a wonderful thing for hospital workers, and he wanted to see something there that is delightful and not ordinary. Chair Thompson said that the project has improved. The canted panels provided special depth that she was concerned the updated design lacked, but the updated design contains a texture that the previous design lacked. When she visited the site she noticed the other building’s cantilever and visual interest and remembered former Boardmember Lew’s concern about how the provenance would be compressed. Based on that she wondered if the ground level could be inset a little bit. She did not want to sacrifice patient rooms but wanted to differentiate the ground level from the upper levels. The other elevations are fine and work in the overall context. So overall something more interesting on the ground level would be appreciated. she asked Boardmember Baltay for further comment. Boardmember Baltay felt the two extensions came too close to the mall given how tall they are. The project is a fair compromise for the needs of the applicant. With respect to Boardmember Hirsch’s comments he agreed it would be wonderful to animate the space, but it might not be an appropriate place 6.a Packet Pg. 112 Page 6 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 to do so given the wonderful landscaping. The area provides for a lot of life and activity and sometimes it is good for a building to step back and let life take place. The hospital building on the other side is very interesting and is full of people outside living. He thought that was the sculpture for this particular area. He was comfortable with the building being in the background as it’s an extension of the main hospital. He wished the building could be further from the Promenade, but he did not want to slow the project down. If the ARB wanted to tweak the details around the lower level windows, they could discuss it, but the project is pretty good, and the landscaping is astonishing and should be supported. Chair Thompson thought she was ready to support the project. They could ask the applicant to consider in setting the ground level or adding more visual interest as an item for subcommittee. Boardmember Baltay said that he would support that if they put out a Motion. Boardmember Hirsch thought it could be done less for its showiness and more for its appropriateness. It would require study and he agreed it might be nice to set it in more to emphasize the form of the building. That area needs some architectural work, the rest is delightful. The center piece could be uniform in character and not divided into floors with ribbed glass. Receding the bottom would be an improvement in the form. The graphics could be explored separately and everything else could move ahead. The base of the building could be reviewed as a sign or some other minimal change so as to not hold up construction. He agreed with Boardmember Baltay that there was a life to the Promenade. He would approve the formal architecture except for the ground floor with needs more dimensional change. Ms. Swenson asked to respond to the comments. Boardmember Hirsch said she could. Ms. Gerhardt requested the Chair answer the question. Chair Thompson said that was typically not allowed but asked if she had a lot of comments. Ms. Swenson wanted to respond about stepping the building back. That would cause them to lose patient rooms and she wanted the ARB to be aware of that. Additionally, there is a robust exterior art program with pieces at the northern and southern ends of the Promenade. They tried to concentrate activity at the two ends of the promenade and under the cantilever in the middle. The stretch along the extensions was intended to be a more passive and contemplative space. The interpretative panels are to add interest. Chair Thompson thanked Ms. Swenson. MOTION: Chair Thompson moved, seconded by Boardmember Baltay, to approve the project subject to the findings and with a request that it return to subcommittee for the applicant to consider an alternate treatment to the base of the building as it interfaces with the Promenade to provide more visual interest. Boardmember Baltay stated he seconded the Motion to move it along. He asked staff if going to subcommittee would prevent the applicant from moving the project forward. Ms. Gerhardt said that the applicant could apply for building permits but would run the risk of some changes happening. Boardmember Baltay asked if they already applied for the building permits. 6.a Packet Pg. 113 Page 7 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Ms. Swenson explained the building permits were with OSHPD. Boardmember Baltay did not want the ARB to cause more delays. He asked what would happen if it went to subcommittee. Ms. Gerhardt said that subcommittee did not have the same noticing requirements so it could be at the next hearing if the applicant was ready with ideas. Chair Thompson stated that the Motion was to consider a change. Ms. Gerhardt stated they would need to draw up options and present them to subcommittee. At the earliest that would be the 17th. Boardmember Hirsch said that he did not believe the changes they would like to see would change the interior program. Boardmember Baltay agreed that Chair Thompson had made that clear. Chair Thompson said she was clear that it would not. They are really looking for an architectural treatment. Boardmember Baltay said he seconded the Motion. Chair Thompson called for the vote. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Chair Thompson thanked the applicant team and went to move to the next item. Boardmember Baltay asked if Chair Thompson wanted to appoint the subcommittee so that the applicant knew who they would work with. Chair Thompson indicated that she would appoint herself and Boardmember Hirsch. Boardmember Baltay agreed with that. Ms. Gerhardt indicated she had the subcommittee noted. 3. 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 Chair Thompson introduced the item. Ms. Gerhardt shared the presentation with the ARB. Chair Thompson noted that former Boardmember Lew was in attendance and that they would take public comment. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if Ms. Gerhardt had filled in additional photographs. Ms. Gerhardt explained that she tried to but had technical problems. The first slide was on 611 Cowper Street. The packet contains the list of eligible projects. 6.a Packet Pg. 114 Page 8 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Chair Thompson said that there were 6 projects that each received four or more votes. Then the other 5 had less than four votes. The ARB has to decide if they want to do honorable mentions. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Boardmember Baltay’s previous comments that they should highlight one project, the Fire Station, because it was the most incredible project of the bunch. Everything else should receive an honorable mention rather than awards of equal importance. The Fire Station is a step above. Boardmember Baltay asked if there was a staff presentation or if Chair Thompson had a preference as to how to structure the conversation. Chair Thompson said she wanted to go through the short list again. Ms. Gerhardt explained the list and notes were in the staff report. The slides are out of order, but all 11 are in the presentation. Chair Thompson asked to go through the 11 and view them again. Ms. Gerhardt said that if former Boardmember Lew or other members of the public wanted to discuss the project they could be promoted to do so. The first slide was 611 Cowper. The ARB discussed materials and concept realized for that project. The Fire Station project at 799 Embarcadero was next. The main category discussed there was public building. 180 Hamilton is the Nobu restaurant and renovation of the face of the hotel. The ARB discussed materials and exterior renovation. For 3223 Hanover the ARB discussed the butterfly roofs. With Kol Emeth on 4175 Manuela has a religious assembly use and is Leadership in Energy and Environmental Design (LEED) Platinum. 1451 Middlefield Road is the Junior Museum and is a public project. 1400 Page Mill is a Research Park project and is Net Zero, so the ARB was talking about sustainability as a potential category. 1050 Page Mill was being discussed for design and concept. 355 University Avenue is a façade change and seismic upgrade. 701 Welch is the Lucile Packard Children’s Hospital, which the ARB was considering for its human scale despite it being a very large building. Chair Thompson requested Ms. Gerhardt show the photos again so that she could take screenshots. She also noted that former Boardmember Lew was the only attendee remaining at the meeting and asked if the other ARB members would mind if she promoted him to panelist. Boardmember Baltay thought she should do so. Ms. Klicheva indicated she was promoting former Boardmember Lew to panelist. Chair Thompson shared her screen with pictures of the projects and noted that the Cheesecake Factory was missing from the pictures. She welcomed former Boardmember Lew to the meeting. Former Boardmember Lew indicated he was on the call. Chair Thompson explained that she could mark the pictures on her screen with notes as they determined categories. Boardmember Baltay asked if they had created final categories. Chair Thompson said they had not and that was what they needed to do. 6.a Packet Pg. 115 Page 9 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Boardmember Baltay suggested that they have a series of categories that are broken out by the use of the building. That is how the field of architecture is set up. So, they should have best public or institutional building, the best large commercial project, the best small scale commercial project, the best storefront, the best sustainable project, and the best overall project. He thought six was a reasonable number of categories. Chair Thompson requested he repeat the categories. Boardmember Baltay said sustainable, institutional, store front, large commercial, small scale commercial, and best overall. Chair Thompson asked for Boardmember Hirsch’s thoughts on the categories. Boardmember Hirsch only had a problem when sustainability did not match up with design quality overall. It is essential that every project be sustainable, but use functions differ. Sustainability should be a part of every project. Boardmember Baltay agreed and thought it was a nod to being politically correct. In other words, it’s a logical inconsistency. He also thought it would be good to have another category for residential projects. Chair Thompson said that was taken out already. Boardmember Baltay suggested that they leave the residential award blank. That would make a strong statement that there has not been any good residential design. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Amy French, Chief Planning Official, suggested considering mixed-use projects as their own category. Chair Thompson noted that there were no projects remaining that fit that category. Ms. French said that 611 Cowper is mixed-use. Chair Thompson asked if it had residential. Boardmember Baltay thought it did not. Ms. Gerhardt stated that it said it was mixed-use. Chair Thompson said that it did not receive enough votes. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they could have a mixed-use/residential category. Boardmember Baltay said that under SB35 mixed-use is more than ¾. He asked for the limitation. Ms. Gerhardt explained it was two-thirds, but many projects do not reach that because of the zoning code. Ms. French said that mixed-use refers to residential and something nonresidential in Palo Alto. Chair Thompson asked if former Boardmember Lew had thoughts on the categories. 6.a Packet Pg. 116 Page 10 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Former Boardmember Lew did not have many thoughts on the categories. 611 Cowper has one penthouse on the top floor. The other three floors are office. That’s typical of Palo Alto mixed-use projects, but other projects that contained more residential were on the list and discarded for lack of votes. There was one on Page Mill and another on El Camino. Ms. Gerhardt said that in the past they allowed one unit, but for the past several years they’ve defined multi-family as three units or more. Former Boardmember Lew explained that the penthouse of 611 Cowper was condo mapped as a separate unit. Boardmember Hirsch thought six categories were manageable. He asked if the Junior Museum and the Fire Station would be in the same category. Boardmember Baltay indicated they were. Chair Thompson pointed out that the pictures on the top half of her screen received four or more votes. The pictures on the bottom received three or less. She added categories that were alternatively described. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they all agreed that if they planned to pick six winners that they should be the six top vote getters. Chair Thompson said that the six on top would receive the awards, but the ARB needed to assign them categories. The issue with having one institutional category is that four projects are institutional. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they agreed that those were the six projects. Boardmember Baltay did not agree. He thought 611 Cowper was outstanding. Boardmember Hirsch agreed and said that the hospital was the best substitute for that. Chair Thompson asked why they should not honor the previous vote. Boardmember Baltay said that the votes were not there now and that they had not previously finalized the projects. Chair Thompson explained that the mandate per the staff report was to build off what they had before. Boardmember Baltay said that it was up to Chair Thompson. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Boardmember Baltay and noted that he pushed for 701 Welch before, but he now thinks that Cowper is a stronger candidate. Chair Thompson did not think it was right to discount the previous work. The only thing the ARB had left to do was pick the categories. She saw that as their only job at this meeting. Boardmember Baltay indicated he would respect the Chair’s decision. Boardmember Hirsch did as well but thought a slight modification did not destroy anything. 6.a Packet Pg. 117 Page 11 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Ms. French indicated that six was a good number of awards and that the ARB could also have honorable mentions. That has worked in the past. Boardmember Hirsch suggested they give 701 an honorable mention because of its special concern and scale for children, but not as a piece of exceptional architecture. That was former Boardmember Lew’s thoughts as well when he last commented. Chair Thompson thought it was fine for the second five projects to receive honorable mentions, but the top six are being awarded. Boardmember Hirsch indicated he would like to make a motion to switch Cowper with Welch. Chair Thompson confirmed that was because he wanted Cowper to receive the award. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he did and further suggested they could have seven awards. Chair Thompson indicated that she was open to that and it was within his right to make a Motion. Boardmember Baltay suggested letting former Boardmember Lew speak on the institutional history. Chair Thompson said she would like to hear from former Boardmember Lew. Former Boardmember Lew agreed with Boardmember Hirsch that the children’s hospital could be bumped down because many of the great things are in the courtyard or inside the building and are not open to the public. Bumping 611 Cowper up is problematic as it received several parking exemptions and that may rub people the wrong way. Also, there are many people who are upset about overly large penthouses. As this has one penthouse it is not really the best mixed-use. It’s three floors of office and one penthouse. It is very attractive and uses great materials, but the whole idea of a mixed-use building is to have a lively building that is occupied 24 hours a day and attracts people to the urban environment. In terms of uses this may not be the best mixed-use project. Boardmember Baltay asked for former Boardmember Lew’s opinion on the current three ARB members reworking some of the decisions made at past meetings. Former Boardmember Lew said that since they were not finished he thought the ARB could rework it however they want. Boardmember Baltay supported reworking the Awards. Ms. Gerhardt indicated that there was an initial straw poll that yielded the 11 projects and a secondary straw poll that yielded the six. They were looking to move forward, but the item is not closed so it can be changed. Chair Thompson asked how much reworking Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch wanted to do since a considerable effort went into determining the six. Boardmember Baltay indicated the hospital building was not worthy of an award and 611 Cowper should be considered as a commercial building. Former Boardmember Lew’s comments on the Cowper project have colored his thinking. He disagreed with the straw poll, felt circumstances had changed, and wanted to push for what he thought was right. 6.a Packet Pg. 118 Page 12 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Chair Thompson requested clarification. Boardmember Baltay said he was asking to remove Welch from the list of Award winners and for the ARB to consider Cowper or any of the others in the bottom for a primary award. The results from the last meeting were a straw poll and not binding. Chair Thompson asked how a new straw poll would be any different. Boardmember Baltay explained he was trying to set the ground rules for the current discussion. The purpose of having a mixed-use or a mixed-use/residential award would be to point out that they did not have one. There is not an award worthy mixed use building in Palo Alto that was built in the last five year cycle. 611 Cowper is not an award winning mixed-use building. Chair Thompson stated that they did not have those categories because they did not have projects to put in them. She felt it was a bit passive aggressive to create a category and not award a winner. Boardmember Baltay said that he would use any tool he could to get things through to Palo Alto. Boardmember Hirsch thought that they agreed that 701 did not merit an award. 611 is a wonderful piece of architecture, but they do not need more of that type of building in Palo Alto. It’s hard to not award it based on the design. He understood the social reason not to award it and could support that as well. He thought former Boardmember Lew made very good points. Chair Thompson indicated that she was confused about Boardmember Hirsch’s position. Ms. Gerhardt explained that 611 Cowper was not the best example of mixed-use. Boardmember Hirsch said that was correct. He could not award it for mixed-use. It could be called a best piece of architecture, but it should not be best mixed-use. Chair Thompson did not believe it made sense to have a category without a winner unless they were trying to make a point. Ms. Gerhardt noted that with respect to the residential categories the discussion would be included in the meeting minutes. Boardmember Hirsch suggested it be noted as a commercial building. Chair Thompson called for a straw poll on swapping Cowper with Welch. Boardmember Baltay did not want to swap it, he thought Welch did not deserve an award. Chair Thompson confirmed that he wanted it to be an honorable mention. Boardmember Baltay said that they had not agreed on honorable mentions either, but he wanted Welch removed from the awards list. Boardmember Hirsch said that if they were going to make that decision he would agree with Boardmember Baltay. He suggested substituting 611. 6.a Packet Pg. 119 Page 13 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Chair Thompson called for a straw poll on swapping Cowper with Welch. Boardmember Baltay stated he did not want to do that. Boardmember Hirsch said no. Ms. Gerhardt asked if they could take a straw poll on moving 701 Welsch down. Boardmember Baltay said that he wanted to do that. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Ms. Gerhardt stated that was two votes. Chair Thompson disagreed. Ms. Gerhardt asked about a straw poll for moving 611 up. Boardmember Baltay wanted to discuss categories first. Ms. Gerhardt asked if they wanted to start with the categories for the five remaining projects. Boardmember Baltay said that there were two types of categories being discussed. Chair Thompson is putting up categories that are parts of an architectural design strategy. Chair Thompson explained they were architectural characteristics that displayed excellence. Boardmember Baltay felt that was too vague for the public to understand and not how architectural awards are typically done. Most people do not understand “best materiality.” Chair Thompson said it was a good use of materiality. Part of the findings are for high quality materials. Boardmember Baltay thought that these were architectural awards, and all good architecture should contain good materials. Chair Thompson asked if the ARB wanted to state what the projects excelled at. Boardmember Hirsch thought the categories they started with, like “institutional” would work. Chair Thompson noted that many of the projects were institutional. Boardmember Baltay thought that the Fire Station was the best building overall. Boardmember Hirsch said it was the best building overall. Boardmember Baltay noted that two of the three ARB members wanted that. He asked Chair Thompson how she wanted to move forward. Ms. French indicated that they did not have to craft specific awards, they could just say that these five are the award winners. Honorable mentions can be given for specific items. Chair Thompson confirmed that they did not need categories. 6.a Packet Pg. 120 Page 14 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Ms. French said that they did not. It was a method in the past to give other projects honorable mentions for specific things. Boardmember Baltay agreed with not naming the categories. Boardmember Hirsch thought that was a great idea. Chair Thompson said that they had their five winners. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they agreed that 611 Cowper would not move up. Boardmember Baltay said that was a different discussion. Ms. Gerhardt said that they would have a paragraph to explain the reasons projects won. Ms. French agreed that there did not have to be only one reason for a project to win. They could state many reasons. Chair Thompson thought that solved all the problems. Boardmember Hirsch said that they could talk about materiality and the other elements that Chair Thompson was interested in. He noted that Kol Emeth might draw criticism for the underground parking and comparisons to Castilleja. Ms. Gerhardt noted that parking may not be the reason for the award. Ms. French stated they did not need to pontificate, but they could explain that they deserved an award as one of the best projects of the past five years. If they wanted to give more awards or honorable mentions then they could point out specific aspects to recognize. Boardmember Baltay asked if they could limit the awards to five or six. Chair Thompson pointed out that they currently had five. Boardmember Baltay stated he meant the honorable mentions. Boardmember Hirsch said no honorable mentions. Chair Thompson asked if he did not want to have honorable mentions. Boardmember Baltay thought that honorable mentions dilute the impact of the awards. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Chair Thompson reminded them that the list was narrowed down from 200 projects. Boardmember Baltay said that he knew that and thought five or six projects was enough. He suggested one “best” award with the others being honorable mentions. Chair Thompson disagreed. She stated there were five that were winners, and each could be acknowledged in its description with at least two or three honorable mentions. 6.a Packet Pg. 121 Page 15 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Boardmember Hirsch thought that they should emphasize the police building [meaning Fire Station] as the best. Chair Thompson disagreed. Boardmember Baltay asked Chair Thompson how many she thought were deserving between awards and honorable mentions. Chair Thompson thought it would make sense to have five winners with two or three honorable mentions. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that was a maximum of eight. He thought eight was fine and asked if Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Boardmember Hirsch noted a preference for six awards total. Boardmember Baltay said that Chair Thompson compromised at eight. Chair Thompson said she could go to seven. Boardmember Baltay moved to provide seven winners including honorable mentions for the ARB Awards. Ms. Gerhardt said that they did not need an actual Motion. Chair Thompson said that they could call it a straw poll. Ms. Gerhardt indicated they needed to remove some honorable mentions. Boardmember Baltay asked if they have a “best” and the rest are winners or if they have all seven equal or some honorable mentions. Ms. Gerhardt suggested that they narrow the honorable mentions down. Boardmember Baltay advised Ms. Gerhardt that the issue is if the ARB wanted to name a “best project” or not. He and Boardmember Hirsch prefer that, but Chair Thompson does not. Ms. French stated it would be the first time in the history of the ARB Awards that there was one top winner. It would be odd. Chair Thompson thought that would be a huge mistake. Boardmember Baltay asked her to explain her thoughts. Chair Thompson explained that she did not want to set that precedent and that she did not want there to be a hierarchy as the ARB worked some percentage on all the projects. each project excels at different things. The Fire Station has shortcomings as well. The winners are the winners, there is no “best.” Ms. French added that she would be reluctant to call a City building the “winner.” There are private sector projects being recognized as well and it would look odd for the City to call itself the best. Boardmember Baltay asked for former Boardmember Lew’s opinion. 6.a Packet Pg. 122 Page 16 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Boardmember Hirsch thought that the private projects did not have all the restrictions that public projects had to face. Chair Thompson said that she would like to hear from former Boardmember Lew as well. Former Boardmember Lew suggested they pick the award winners and not assign a “best” for several reasons. One, former Vice Chair Lee was opposed to that. Second, the ARB Awards are only done every five years so winning one of only five awards is enough recognition. Additionally, saying something is the “best” may imply that the same standards have been applied to all the projects and that is not necessarily the case. The Cheesecake Factory storefront did not face the same issues as the other projects so its not fair to call one the “best” without criteria. It is too subjective to say one is better than the others. Boardmember Baltay asked former Boardmember Lew how he felt about not having categories. Former Boardmember Lew thought it was okay not to have categories so long as there was a description and narrative with each award. Boardmember Baltay thanked former Boardmember Lew. Boardmember Hirsch voiced agreement with former Boardmember Lew. He suggested that he and Boardmember Baltay were being seduced by the Fire Station, but the projects should be treated equally because they solve different problems. The Junior Museum has trees and things that needed to be preserved so the site planning was important. The storefront is simple, but beautiful. There are lots of good reasons to keep the projects equal. Boardmember Baltay said that he “had been talked off the cliff.” He asked if they should have awards and honorable mentions or just awards. Boardmember Hirsch said he just wanted award winners. Chair Thompson confirmed that they wanted seven award winners versus five award winners and two honorable mentions. Boardmember Hirsch indicated he wanted six award winners. Boardmember Baltay reminded Boardmember Hirsch they had agreed to seven. Boardmember Hirsch said that they agreed to seven, but not to the breakdown. He suggested recognizing the six and using sustainability for the seventh. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that Boardmember Hirsch wanted 611 Cowper to be a winner and 1400 Page Mill as sustainable. Boardmember Hirsch said that was correct, but noted he was not particularly happy with the 1400 Page Mill design. Boardmember Baltay did not feel it had much architectural merit in a classic sense. The project’s merit is that it is sustainable. Chair Thompson said that was worth an honorable mention. 6.a Packet Pg. 123 Page 17 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Boardmember Hirsch preferred they do it that way. The six projects above including Cowper would win awards. Chair Thompson did not feel that strongly about Cowper and was happy with the five winners. She suggested Cowper as an honorable mention along with the Net Zero project and the concept design project. Boardmember Hirsch was absolutely opposed to the concept design. Boardmember Baltay did not think that building should receive an award. It looked like an applique on a box. Chair Thompson said that they would take it out. Boardmember Baltay thought the Nobu restaurant was great, but not in the same category as the rest. He recommended it be removed. Chair Thompson agreed. Boardmember Hirsch said that that they only needed one storefront. Boardmember Baltay thought the Cheesecake Factory was the better storefront. He asked about Welch and stated that he did not believe it was worthy of an award. Boardmember Hirsch appreciated the sensitivity toward children and found that quite amazing. Ms. Gerhardt noted that with ARB Awards they are mostly dealing with the exterior. Chair Thompson indicated that the building had really grown on her over time. The pictures do not do it justice. Boardmember Baltay said that “not bad” was not convincing enough to him and he could not support 701 Welch. Chair Thompson said that she liked it and asked for B Hirsch’s opinion on removing it from consideration. Boardmember Hirsch said that if they agreed to seven he was happy at six. Boardmember Baltay noted they were still at eight. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they moved Cowper up. Chair Thompson said that had not discussed that yet. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they could move it. Chair Thompson asked Boardmember Hirsch if he thought 701 deserved an honorable mention. Boardmember Hirsch preferred 701 Welch to 1400 Page Mill. Chair Thompson agreed that 701 was a better building aesthetically. 6.a Packet Pg. 124 Page 18 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Boardmember Baltay stated he could support that. He asked if they were doing honorable mentions or just seven awards. Chair Thompson preferred honorable mentions. Boardmember Baltay and Boardmember Hirsch agreed that 701 deserved an award. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that there was one honorable mention and six award winners. Chair Thompson said that was acceptable. Boardmember Hirsch indicated he was satisfied. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch, to accept the six award winners and one honorable mention for this ARB Award cycle. MOTION PASSED: 3-0 Chair Thompson asked former Boardmember Lew for comments. Former Boardmember Lew stated the ARB did a good job. Boardmember Hirsch thanked former Boardmember Lew. Ms. French said that the ARB Awards were never an easy process and congratulated the ARB. Boardmember Hirsch thanked Ms. French and Ms. Gerhardt. Ms. Gerhardt requested confirmation that people liked the categories listed. She explained that the projects would be divided so that Boardmembers could speak with the architects and get additional detail and high quality photographs. Chair Thompson asked if they needed to assign themselves to buildings. Ms. Gerhardt stated that would be helpful. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they needed to write the text as well. Chair Thompson asked if Boardmembers Baltay and Hirsch had buildings they wanted to take. Boardmember Baltay said he would like Kol Emeth. Chair Thompson said she had her name on Kol Emeth. Boardmember Baltay told her that she could have it. Chair Thompson said Boardmember Baltay could have Cowper and Boardmember Hirsch could have the Fire Station. Then they determined it should be flipped. Boardmember Baltay asked if Chair Thompson remembered who did the Junior Museum. Chair Thompson stated that she was not on the ARB at that time. 6.a Packet Pg. 125 Page 19 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Ms. French said it was CSW and the architect is working on another Palo Alto project. She will provide the ARB the information. Chair Thompson gave Boardmember Baltay Kol Emeth and she took Hanover. Boardmember Baltay said he was suggesting she take the Junior Museum because he thought she would enjoy meeting those architects. Chair Thompson asked if Boardmember Baltay would take the Cheesecake Factory. Boardmember Baltay agreed. Chair Thompson said Boardmember Baltay had Kol Emeth and the Cheesecake Factory, Boardmember Hirsch had Cowper and the Fire Station, and she had the rest. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed that everyone is okay with the yellow labels as the main reason for each award. Chair Thompson said that they were not doing categories. Boardmember Baltay suggested they remove the yellow labels. Ms. Gerhardt said that they were just part of the reason for the award. Boardmember Baltay confirmed that they should write a paragraph about each building. Ms. Gerhardt said that they should and that was why they needed to call the architects for help and photos. Ms. French indicated that they needed professional photos for display. Ms. Gerhardt said that ultimately the photos would go on the screens in the lobby of City Hall. Ms. French reminded the ARB to get the names of the entire architect team that worked on the project. Chair Thompson confirmed that they needed to contact the architects and get pictures. Ms. French indicated that staff would supply the name and contact information of the applicant, which is usually the architect. The architect could then provide the names of the other members of the architect team. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they needed to get the engineers or just the design people. Ms. Gerhardt suggested they ask for the whole team. Chair Thompson asked what the format should be for the architect’s board. Ms. Gerhardt asked if they needed physical boards or if they planned to use websites and TV screens. Ms. French said that in the past they had used both. The question is when the Awards would happen and if there would be a reception with food. Currently the ARB is meeting via Zoom, but if the Awards are put off for a few months they might be in person. If the Awards are held virtually it would be silly to have physical boards. 6.a Packet Pg. 126 Page 20 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Summary Minutes: 2/3/22 Boardmember Baltay suggested that the Chair should send an email to the applicant winners and formally let them know they won. Staff should provide Boardmembers with clear instructions as to what they need from the winners so that the graphic format and other information is consistent. Ms. French stated she would work with Ms. Gerhardt and get that done. Boardmember Baltay suggested that staff provide Boardmembers with a deadline as well. Ms. Gerhardt said that staff would create a template. Chair Thompson thanked Boardmember Baltay for the suggestions. Subcommittee Items None. Election of Vice Chair Chair Thompson called for nominations. Boardmember Baltay nominated Boardmember Hirsch for Vice Chair of the ARB. Boardmember Hirsch accepted the nomination. Chair Thompson asked if they needed a Motion. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Chair Thompson, to appoint Boardmember Hirsch Vice Chair of the ARB. VOTE: 3-0 Chair Thompson congratulated Vice Chair Hirsch. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Thompson called for Boardmember questions, comments, and announcements. Ms. Gerhardt announced that staff is currently working out of the office due to the Omicron surge. They plan to return to the office on February 28th and open the in-person counter. Things may change, but that is the current plan. With respect to ARB interviews Council will review the latest applications on February 14th and plan to do interviews on February 28th. There could potentially be new ARB members in March. The California Avenue discussion will be placed on a future agenda per Chair Thompson’s request. Chair Thompson stated that she would reach out to the Mayor for further direction about California Avenue. She called for further questions, comments, or announcements, but there were none. Adjournment Chair Thompson adjourned the meeting. 6.a Packet Pg. 127