Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-02-16 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, February 16, 2023 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Pursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council 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 from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. 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. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL 1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid‐19 State of Emergency PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 2.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [22PLN‐00406]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to reconstruct Palo Alto Fire Station 4. The proposed 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver, single‐story building would replace the existing 2,800 square foot single‐story fire station. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The formal application will be subject to CEQA. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For more information contact the project planner at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By‐Laws to Address Remote/Virtual Meeting Attendance APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2022 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 6.788 San Antonio [19PLN‐00079]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Address Conditions of Approval and Related Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes 7.901 California Avenue [22PLN‐00142]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Window Modulation and Details of the Terracotta Material. The Project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. 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 to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. 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: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may 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 Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called 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 Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  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. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, February 16, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL 1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid‐19 State of Emergency PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 2.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [22PLN‐00406]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to reconstruct Palo Alto Fire Station 4. The proposed 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver, single‐story building would replace the existing 2,800 square foot single‐story fire station. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The formal application will be subject to CEQA. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For more information contact the project planner at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By‐Laws to Address Remote/Virtual Meeting Attendance APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2022 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 6.788 San Antonio [19PLN‐00079]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Address Conditions of Approval and Related Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes 7.901 California Avenue [22PLN‐00142]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Window Modulation and Details of the Terracotta Material. The Project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. 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 to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. 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: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may 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 Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called 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 Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  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. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, February 16, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural ReviewBoard During Covid‐19 State of EmergencyPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS2.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [22PLN‐00406]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Reviewto reconstruct Palo Alto Fire Station 4. The proposed 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver,single‐story building would replace the existing 2,800 square foot single‐story firestation. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The formal application will be subjectto CEQA. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For more information contact the projectplanner at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.orgACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.4.Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By‐Laws to AddressRemote/Virtual Meeting AttendanceAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2022 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 6.788 San Antonio [19PLN‐00079]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Address Conditions of Approval and Related Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes 7.901 California Avenue [22PLN‐00142]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Window Modulation and Details of the Terracotta Material. The Project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. 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 to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. 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: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may 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 Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called 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 Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  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. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, February 16, 2023Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMPursuant to AB 361 Palo Alto City Council meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with theoption to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safetywhile still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose toparticipate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe andparticipate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged ifattending in person. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live onYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL1.Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural ReviewBoard During Covid‐19 State of EmergencyPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS2.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [22PLN‐00406]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Reviewto reconstruct Palo Alto Fire Station 4. The proposed 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver,single‐story building would replace the existing 2,800 square foot single‐story firestation. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The formal application will be subjectto CEQA. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For more information contact the projectplanner at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.orgACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.4.Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By‐Laws to AddressRemote/Virtual Meeting AttendanceAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2022BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTAD HOC COMMITTEE6.788 San Antonio [19PLN‐00079]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously ApprovedProject to Address Conditions of Approval and Related Architectural and LandscapeElement Design Changes7.901 California Avenue [22PLN‐00142]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously ApprovedProject to Review Window Modulation and Details of the Terracotta Material. The Projectis Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. 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 to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. 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: Chrome 30 , Firefox 27 , Microsoft Edge 12 , Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may 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 Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called 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 Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  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. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: February 16, 2023 TITLE Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Adopt a Resolution (Attachment A) authorizing the use of teleconferencing under Government Code Section 54953(e) for meetings of the ARB and its committees due to the Covid-19 declared state of emergency. BACKGROUND In February and March 2020, the state and the County declared a state of emergency due to the Covid-19 pandemic. Both emergency declarations remain in effect. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act, effective October 1, 2021, to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days. AB 361, codified at California Government Code Section 54953(e), empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act in any of the following circumstances: (A) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency, and state or local officials have imposed or recommended measures to promote social distancing. (B) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency for the purpose of determining, by majority vote, whether as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (C) The legislative body holds a meeting during a proclaimed state of emergency and 1     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 3 has determined, by majority vote, pursuant to subparagraph (B), that, as a result of the emergency, meeting in person would present imminent risks to the health or safety of attendees. (Gov. Code § 54953(e)(1).) In addition, Section 54953(e)(3) requires that policy bodies using teleconferencing reconsider the state of emergency within 30 days of the first teleconferenced meeting after October 1, 2021, and at least every 30 days thereafter, and find that one of the following circumstances exists: 1. The state of emergency continues to directly impact the ability of the members to meet safely in person. 2. State or local officials continue to impose or recommend measures to promote social distancing. ANALYSIS Although conditions have changed since the beginning of 2022, staff believe it is still reasonable to find that the circumstances in Section 54953(e)(1)(A) exist. The Santa Clara County Health Officer continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing, and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts. In addition, the California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (Cal/OSHA) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other social distancing measures. Accordingly, Section 54953(e)(1)(A) authorizes the City to continue using teleconferencing for public meetings of its policy bodies, provided that any and all members of the public who wish to address the body or its committees have an opportunity to do so, and that the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing are protected. The City Attorney’s office recently provided an updated analysis to the City Council regarding the ability to meet remotely under the Brown Act. That analysis is available on packet page 150 of the City Council’s October 3, 2022 agenda document: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas- minutesreports/agendasminutes/city-council-agendas- minutes/2022/20221003/20221003accsmamendedpresentations.pdf Adoption of the Resolution in Attachment A will make the findings required by Section 54953(e)(3) to allow the continued use of teleconferencing for meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees. 1     Packet Pg. 6     Item No. 1. Page 3 of 3 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing Under Government Code Section 54953(e) for Meetings of Architectural Review Board AUTHOR/TITLE: Report Author & Contact Information Albert Yang, City Attorney (650) 329-2171 Albert.Yang@CityofPaloAlto.org ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org Report #: 2301-0864 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 1     Packet Pg. 7     NOT YET APPROVED Resolution No. _____ Resolution Making Findings to Allow Teleconferenced Meetings Under California Government Code Section 54953(e) R E C I T A L S A. California Government Code Section 54953(e) empowers local policy bodies to convene by teleconferencing technology during a proclaimed state of emergency under the State Emergency Services Act so long as certain conditions are met; and B. In March 2020, the Governor of the State of California proclaimed a state of emergency in California in connection with the Coronavirus Disease 2019 (“COVID-19”) pandemic, and that state of emergency remains in effect; and C. In February 2020, the Santa Clara County Director of Emergency Services and the Santa Clara County Health Officer declared a local emergency, which declarations were subsequently ratified and extended by the Santa Clara County Board of Supervisors, and those declarations also remain in effect; and D. On September 16, 2021, the Governor signed AB 361, a bill that amends the Brown Act to allow local policy bodies to continue to meet by teleconferencing during a state of emergency without complying with restrictions in State law that would otherwise apply, provided that the policy bodies make certain findings at least once every 30 days; and E. While federal, State, and local health officials emphasize the critical importance of vaccination and consistent mask-wearing to prevent the spread of COVID-19, the Santa Clara County Health Officer has issued at least one order, on August 2, 2021 (available online at here), that continues to recommend measures to promote outdoor activity, physical distancing and other social distancing measures, such as masking, in certain contexts; and F. The California Department of Industrial Relations Division of Occupational Safety and Health (“Cal/OSHA”) has promulgated Section 3205 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, which requires most employers in California, including in the City, to train and instruct employees about measures that can decrease the spread of COVID-19, including physical distancing and other social distancing measures; and G. The Architectural Review Board has met remotely during the COVID-19 pandemic and can continue to do so in a manner that allows public participation and transparency while minimizing health risks to members, staff, and the public that would be present with in-person meetings while this emergency continues; now, therefore, 1     Packet Pg. 8     NOT YET APPROVED The Architectural Review Board RESOLVES as follows: 1. As described above, the State of California remains in a state of emergency due to the COVID-19 pandemic. At this meeting, the Architectural Review Board has considered the circumstances of the state of emergency. 2. As described above, State and County officials continue to recommend measures to promote physical distancing and other social distancing measures, in some settings. AND BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED, That for at least the next 30 days, meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees will occur using teleconferencing technology. Such meetings of the Architectural Review Board and its committees that occur using teleconferencing technology will provide an opportunity for any and all members of the public who wish to address the body and its committees and will otherwise occur in a manner that protects the statutory and constitutional rights of parties and the members of the public attending the meeting via teleconferencing; and, be it FURTHER RESOLVED, That the Architectural Review Board staff liaison is directed to place a resolution substantially similar to this resolution on the agenda of a future meeting of the Architectural Review Board within the next 30 days. If the Architectural Review Board does not meet within the next 30 days, the staff liaison is directed to place a such resolution on the agenda of the immediately following meeting of the Architectural Review Board. INTRODUCED AND PASSED: AYES: NOES: ABSENT: ABSTENTIONS: ATTEST: Staff Liaison Chair of Architectural Review Board APPROVED AS TO FORM: APPROVED: City Attorney Department Head 1     Packet Pg. 9     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: February 16, 2023 TITLE Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects 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 this 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 as needed. 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. The attachment also has a list of pending ARB projects. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director's decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. 2     Packet Pg. 10     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 2 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 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 Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Planning Projects AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650)329-2116 Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org Report #: 2301-0863 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. 2     Packet Pg. 11     Architectural Review Board 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2023 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/05/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/19/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Thompson 3/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen 4/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/04/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/18/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/01/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/15/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Thompson 7/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 7/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/03/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/17/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/07/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/21/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/05/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/19/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/02/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/16/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/07/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/21/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2023 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June July August September October November December 2     Packet Pg. 12     Architectural Review Board 2023 Tentative Future Agenda and New Planning Projects The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics March 2, 2023 •3001 El Camino Real: 129 Unit Affordable Housing •180 El Camino Real: Façade and Signage Modifications for Sushi Roku at Stanford Shopping Center The following items are likely to be heard by the ARB in the near future and have a pending project webpage (bit.ly/PApendingprojects) and/or can be view via Building Eye (bit.ly/PABuildingEye). Grey items are recently approved or projects that have gone to Council prescreening and would be reviewed by the ARB if a formal application is submitted. Permit Type Submitte d Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description AR Major - Board 10/21/19 19PLN- 00347 CHODGKI 486 HAMILTON AV Mixed use On-hold pending environmental review for vibration. Major Architectural Review for a new three-story mixed-use project including 2,457 square feet of retail space, 2,108 square feet of office space, and four (4) residential units. Zoning District: CD-C(P) AR Major - Board 9/16/20 20PLN- 00202 CHODGKI 250 HAMILTON AV Bridge On-hold for redesign - Allow the removal and replacement of the Pope- Chaucer Bridge over San Francisquito Creek with a new structure that does not obstruct creek flow to reduce flood risk. The project will also include channel modifications. Environmental Assessment: The SFCJPA, acting as the lead agency, adopted a Final EIR on September 26, 2019. Zoning District: PF. AR Major - Board 1/28/21 21PLN- 00028 GSAULS 3300 EL CAMINO REAL R&D 1st formal 4/7/22, 2nd formal 10/20/22 (recommended approval with AdHoc Committee requirement) - Major Architectural Review to Allow the Construction of a two-story, 50,355 sf office/R&D project with 40% surface parking & 60% below-grade parking, includes a 2,517 sf amenity space. Environmental Assessment: MND Pending. Zoning District: RP (Research Park). 2     Packet Pg. 13     AR Major - Board 6/16/21 21PLN- 00172 EFOLEY 123 SHERMAN AV Office ARB 1st formal 12/1/22 - Major Architectural Review application to allow demolition of existing buildings to allow the construction of a new 3-story office building with 2 levels of below grade parking. This project would also require the combination of 3 existing parcels. Zoning District: CC (2)(R). Environmental Assessment: Pending. AR Major - Board Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EFOLEY 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22 - Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-Bedroom). AR Major – Board, Development Agreement and PC 7/28/2020 10/28/202 1 8/25/2022 20PLN- 00155 21PLN- 00108 22PLN- 00287 CHODGKI 340 Portage (former Fry’s) 200 Portage 3200 Park Blvd Commercial and townhomes Was heard by PTC on 10/12/22, ARB hearings to be held 12/15/22 – Development Agreement, Rezoning and Major Architectural Review application to allow the redevelopment of an approximately 4.86-acre portion of the site. Scope of work includes the partial demolition of an existing commercial building and construction of 91 or 74 new Townhome Condominiums. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending. AR Major - Board 04/28/202 2 22PLN- 00142 GSAULS 901 S California AV Office Prelim 3/3/22, ARB hearing 10/20 (Recommended approval with AdHoc Committee Requirement) - Major Architectural Review to allow the demolition of an existing two-story office building totaling approximately 55,000 Square Feet and Construction of a new two-Story approximately 55,583 square foot office building with a 2,525 square foot amenity space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. Zoning District: RP (Research Park). Prescreening Council 06/13/202 2 22PLN- 00198 EFOLEY 70 Encina AV Housing Heard by Council on 9/12/22, waiting for formal application - Prescreening for a New multi-family residential condominium project with 20 units. The project is pursuing approval for the use of PHZ zoning regulations under the Palo Alto Municipal Code. AR Major - Board 06/16/202 2 22PLN- 00201 CHODGKI 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, NOI sent 7/15/22, waiting for revised plans - Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing 8-unit apartment building, and Construction of 12 new townhome units on the project site Using the State Density Bonus Allowances. The proposed units are 3-stories in height, and 25,522 sf of floor area. Rooftop Open Space is proposed for the units adjacent to Sutter Avenue. A Compliant SB 330 Pre-Application was submitted on 5/5/2022; however, the applicant did not resubmit plans within 90 days; therefore, the project will be subject to the current objective standards upon resubmittal. Zoning District: RM-20 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending AR Minor - Board 07/06/202 2 22PLN- 00223 THARRIS ON 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE Commercial Minor Architectural Review Board (ARB) review of The Melt restaurant (currently The Melt), Space #705A, Bldg. E (#E705A). Exterior improvements include new façade, new storefront glazing, redesigned 2     Packet Pg. 14     E705A outdoor patio and new signage. Interior improvements will include complete interior remodel. No change of use. (CUP 11PLN-00253). Zoning District: CC. AR Major - Board 07/07/202 2 22PLN- 00229 22PLN- 00057 (SB 330) CHODGKI 3001 EL CAMINO REAL Affordable Housing ARB 1st formal hearing 11/17/22 - Major Architectural Review to demolish two existing retail buildings and to construct a 129 unit, 100% affordable, five-story, multi-family residential development utilizing allowances and concessions provided in accordance with State Density Bonus regulations. The units would be deed restricted to serve tenants meeting 30%-50% of Area Median Income. The project would be located on a proposed new 49,864 square foot lot located at 3001-3017 El Camino Real. (Senate Bill 330 Housing Development Project). Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Service). Prescreening Council 07/07/202 2 22PLN- 00227 GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Housing Heard by Council on 9/19/22, waiting for formal application - Prescreening for a Planned Housing Zone (PHZ) to build 382 residential rental units comprised of 44 studios, 243 one-bedroom, 86 two-bedroom and 9 three-bedroom units in two buildings. Zoning District: CS, CS(H), RM-20 (Service Commercial, Hotel, Multi-Family Residential). AR Minor - Board and Conditional Use Permit 7/19/2022 22PLN- 00237 THARRIS ON 180 EL CAMINO REAL, STE E700A Commercial Minor Architectural Review Board (ARB) review for Sushi Roku restaurant (formally Yucca De Lac) and CUP for alcohol service at Space #700B, Bldg. E (#E700B) at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new façade, new storefront glazing, outdoor patios and new signage. Interior improvements will include complete interior remodel. No change of use. Zoning District: CC. AR Minor - Board 7/26/2022 22PLN- 00243 THARRIS ON 221 FOREST AV Commercial/ Office Architectural Review for proposed improvements to the interior and to the front and rear of 221-227 Forest. The floor area will increase but the volume of the building envelope will not increase. Zoning District: CD-C (P). AR Major - Board 10/11/202 2 22PLN- 00328 EFOLEY 900 WELCH RD Signs Major Architectural Review for Master Sign Program and Sign Exception to Allow installation of Proposed New Wayfinding Signage and messaging updates to existing signage on the Stanford Medicine campus to support the upcoming Blake Wilbur Drive Roadway Extension. Council Prescreening 10/18/202 2 22PLN- 00355 EFOLEY 250 CAMBRIDGE AVE Code Change – roof gardens Pre-Screening to consider the potential entitlement process at 250 Cambridge Avenue for installation of a new rooftop garden terrace at the front half of the existing building roof facing Cambridge Avenue. Zoning District: CC(2) 2     Packet Pg. 15     Site and Design 10/27/202 2 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCADE RO WY Utility – Water Filtration Request for Site and Design Review to allow construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed project will include the construction and operation of a membrane filtration recycled water facility and a permeate storage tank at the City’s RWQCP to improve recycled water quality and increase its use. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Public Facilities with Site and Design combining district (PF)(D). Zone Change 11/17/202 2 22PLN- 00391 EFOLEY 4075 El Camino Way Residential - add 14 units to existing Request for Planned Community Zone Change to add 14 new units to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility in a similar style to the existing building. Twelve of the additional units proposed are to be stacked above the existing building footprint with the other two units proposed to be located as minor expansion to existing building footprint. The new units are to be of a similar size and layout to the existing units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Preliminary AR 12/20/202 2 22PLN- 00406 GSAULS 3600 Middlefield Public Facility Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to replace Palo Alto Fire Station 4. The proposed building will be a 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver, single-story structure replacing the existing 2,800 square foot single-story fire station constructed in 1953. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). SB 330 Pre- Application 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00002 CHODGKI 4200 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot SB 330 Pre-Application for a 16-unit Multi-family Residential Townhome Project. The Project will Provide 15% Below Market Rate On-site and Includes Requested Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. The pre-application was deemed compliant on February 2, 2023. SB 330 Pre- Application 1/10/2023 23PLN- 00003 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Residential- 380 units replacing eating and drinking and office Request for a SB 330 Pre-Application for 3128, 3150, and 3160 El Camino Real to replace two existing commercial buildings on-site and construct a 380 unit Multi-family Residential Rental Development with 10% Below Market Rate. The project includes a 456,347 square foot apartment building with a 171,433 square foot garage that extends to 84 feet in height. The project includes Requested Concessions and Waivers in Accordance with the State Density Bonus. Minor Board 01/18/202 3 23PLN- 00009 THARRIS ON 180 El Camino Commercial Request by Jason Smith of LandShark Development for a Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior improvements, including a new façade, new storefront glazing, new signage, and a complete interior remodel for Arhaus. Zoning District: CC. Zone Change 04/25/202 2 22PLN- 00010 EFOLEY 800-808 SAN ANTONIO RD Housing Request for a zone change from CS to Planned Community(PHZ) for a 76-unit, 5-story residential building. 16 of the units would be provided at below market rate, 4 of which would be to low income and 7 of which would be to very low income. The building is designed as a 5-story building with four levels of wood framing over a concrete podium superstructure, with two levels of subterranean parking. Project went to a Council prescreening on 8/15. 2     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 5 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: February 16, 2023 TITLE 3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [22PLN-00406]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to reconstruct Palo Alto Fire Station 4. The proposed 7,800 square foot, LEED Silver, single-story building would replace the existing 2,800 square foot single-story fire station. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The formal application will be subject to CEQA. Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). For more information contact the project planner at Garrett.Sauls@cityofpaloalto.org. 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 Staff is requesting preliminary review of the proposed redevelopment of City Fire Station 4 located at 3600 Middlefield Road. No formal direction is to be 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, staff performs a cursory review of the project for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. A comprehensive review of a future project for compliance with applicable codes and adopted policies 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. 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. 3     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 5 BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:City of Palo Alto (CPA) Architect:Brown Reynolds Watford Architects Representative:Megan Zhang (BRW Architects); Valerie Tam (CPA Public Works Engineering) Legal Counsel:N/A Property Information Address:3600 Middlefield Road Neighborhood:Fairmeadow Lot Dimensions & Area:284 feet wide x 349 feet long (Fire Station and Electric Substation) Housing Inventory Site:Not applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:None Historic Resource(s):None; an evaluation of the existing building will take place in advance and as part of review of the formal application Existing Improvement(s):2,800 square foot one-story fire station; built in 1953; Palo Alto Substation Existing Land Use(s):Public Facility Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 (Single-Family) West: R-1 (Religious Institution – Covenant Presbyterian Church) East: R-1 (Single Family) South: R-1 (Public Facility – Palo Alto Substation; Palo Alto Little League Clubhouse) Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps 3     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 5 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation:Public Facility (PF) Comp. Plan Designation:Major Institution/Special Facility 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 Influence Area:Not applicable Recent Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None PROJECT DESCRIPTION The City proposes to demolish the existing building and surface parking lot and to redevelop the site with a new 7,800 square foot (sf), 25 foot tall (single story) fire station. The project will include a surface parking lot at the rear of the building. The site is zoned Public Facility (PF) and shares the property with the City’s Electric Substation. There are four existing trees along the Middlefield Road frontage of the site which are proposed to be retained. The trees located along East Meadow Drive and the trees located between the existing fire station building and electric substation are planned for removal. The project will replace these trees in accordance with Title 8 of the Municipal Code and the associated Tree Technical Manual. The proposed building will maintain the driveway entries along Middlefield Road and East Meadow Drive. The building will include a fitness center, captain’s office, training room, kitchen/dining room, and five bedrooms for staff. The new building will accommodate two active vehicle bays with one reserve vehicle bay. The site improvements will include a new trash enclosure, emergency generator, and refueling station. The building is proposed to utilize Porcelanosa porcelain wood tile exterior cladding, Trespa wood soffit panels, four-fold glass panels for the vehicle bay doors, and plaster siding. 3     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 5 ANALYSIS Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. A comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The ARB is particularly encouraged to comment on: 1. Site Planning 2. Massing 3. Colors and Material Neighborhood Setting and Character The property is surrounded by the Palo Alto Little League to the South, the Covenant Presbyterian Church to the West, and single-family homes across the street to the North and East. The vicinity includes buildings that are single-story and two-stories in height. The project includes a 24-foot setback along the Middlefield Road frontage, consistent with the 24-foot special setback requirement. Along East Meadow Drive the building will have a 20-foot setback in accordance with the PF district requirements. The placement and massing of the building is representative of buildings within the immediate context. The proposed building has a sharp, angular design that mirrors the tower element of the adjacent church. The proposed material for the fire station also matches the wood material siding of the church and adjacent baseball field buildings. The use of glass on the building presents a mixture of materials that creates a distinctive style which 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. The street elevations offer a pedestrian scale to the building and minimizes where the taller elements of the building occur. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1 There are no Coordinated Area Plans or Guidelines applicable to the project site 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. The Comprehensive Plan designation for this property is Major Institution/Special Facilities which allows for government and community facilities like a fire station. Upon submittal of a formal application, staff will further evaluate the project’s consistency with the relevant policies. Zoning Compliance2 A preliminary review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards has been performed. A summary table is provided in Attachment C. 1The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca 3     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 5 Consistency with Application Findings Any formal application will need to meet the City’s findings for approval under PAMC 18.76. The Architectural Review findings have been included for reference in Attachment B. ENVRIONMENTAL 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, the formal application will be analyzed in accordance with CEQA. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, OUTREACH, AND COMMENTS Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on February 3, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on January 31, which is 17 days in advance of the meeting. As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. AUTHOR/TITLE: Garrett Sauls 650-329-2471 Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org Report #: 2301-0896 Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Project Description Attachment C: ARB Findings Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Project Plans 3     Packet Pg. 21     Palo Alto Little League Fire Station 4 Mitchell Park Library__Mitchell Park_Community Center 97.7' 112.3'120.8' 18.9' 104.4' 106.0' 42.9' 31.4' 86.0' 62.9' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 29.9' 136.1' 120.0' 99.0' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 113.5' 44.0' 7.5' 31.4' 150 375.9' 400.6' 200.0' 280.4' 398.8' 51.8' 145.2' 130.9' 437.5' 192.5' 331.7' 175.7' 349.2' 99.0' 54.0' 113.5' 18.6'24.9'21.6' 73.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 80' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 76.5' 110.6' 63.3' 103.5' 76.5' 119.2' 63.3' 110.6' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 79.3' 110.7' 40.0' 103.5' 113.2' 124.7' 33.1' 24.9' 110.7' 76.9' 52.2' 136.1' 40.7' 124.7' 119.2' 76.5' 128.9' 63.5' 53.2' 84.0' 37.8' 60.4' 106.0' 21.4' 85.0' 59.9'45.4' 116.0' 52.0' 116.0' 116.0' 52.0' 16.0' 76.2' 91.6' 117.2' 85.0' 117.0' 100.2' 91.5' 117.0' 15.0' 217.0' 112.1' 58.1' 135.0' 54.2' 134.9' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 103.5' 58.0' .5' 58.0' 103.5' 281.8' 174.5' 31.4' 105.0' 77.8' 156.8' 116.7'61.8' 134.9' 57.9' 134.8' 104.8' 77.8' 84.8' 31.4' 57.8' 116.7' 70.0' 116.7' 70.0' 77.8' 122.0' 77.8' 122.0' 89.7' 105.0' 89.7' 105.0' 34.5' 7.0' 100.0'130.5' 136.6' 89.7' 105.0' 89.7' 105.0' 112.1' 105.0' 5.1' 13.9' 42.5' 106.3' 107.0' 31.2' 20.0' 19.1' 134.5' 68.6' 77.8' 6.2' 106.3' 37.0' 139.6' 27.5' 139.6' 36.3' 107.0' 112.7' 134.5' 59.5' 134.5' 59.5' 134.5' 59.5' 134.5' 59.5' 134.5' 59.5' 134.5' 59.5' 314.2' 516.8' 210.0' 231.0' 133.8' 287.3' 166.9' 77.8' 166.9' 77.8'287.3' 113.1' 36.0' 136.6'39.5' 94.8' 118.0' 5.0' 15.0' 39.7'113.1' 92.0' 129.8'118.8' 60.0'90.0' 13.6' 437.3' 42.0' 38.0' 100.0' 80.0' 100.0' 34.7' 16.7' 28.5' 86.6' 93.0' 100.0' 37.6' 136.0' 14.0' 123.8' 86.6' 76.2' 105.0' 76.3' 105.0' 76.3' 105.0' 76.2' 105.0' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 94.7' 129.8' 136.0' 36.1' 103.6' 28.6' 66.5' 25.1' 59.3' 105.0' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 67.9' 86.0' 94.7' 39.5' 77.5' 68.0' 150.0' 67.9' 77.5'10.0' 92.8' 132.1' 87.7' 132.1' 92.8' 10.4' 74.6' 34.8' 68.1' 102.0' 120.0' 34.0' 14.4' 81.4' 39.3' 13.0' 91.5' 34.8' 74.6'48.5'7.4' 126.2' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 93.3' 91.8' 73.3' 31.4' 71.8' 73.7' 110.3' 97.7' 115.4' 70.4' 124.9' 70.5' 124.9' 85.4' 113.8' 70.4' 123.1' 15.0' 236.9' 70.4' 123.1' 70.5' 123.1' 70.5' 123.9' 70.4' 123.9' 85.4' 113.0' 70.5' 123.9' 15.0' 236.9' 122.4' 60.0' 142.1' 63.2' 98.7' 72.0' 122.4' 75.8'122.9' 98.7' 122.1' 12.5' 51.0' 85.4' 134.9' 85.4' 134.9' 85.4' 120.0' 85.4' 120.0' 15.0' 137.9' 70.5' 117.0' 85.4' 254.9' 70.5' 115.0' 70.5' 115.0' 70.4' 115.0' 70.4' 115.0' 85.5' 236.9' 15.0' 115.0' 70.4' 121.9' 85.5' 121.9' 70.5' 115.0' 15.0' 236.9' 15.0' 254.9' 85.4' 113.0' 70.4' 141.9' 70.4' 137.9' 70.5' 137.9' 51.4' 50.6' 79.3' 113.4' 18.9' 67.2' 60.0' 134.0' 60.0' 134.0' 118.5' 63.2' 118.5' 63.2' 63.2' 118.5' 63.2' 118.5' 63.1' 160.3' 60.0' 179.8' 17.5' 118.5'126.3' 61.3' 196.8' 125.3' 63.2' 118.5' 192.5' 437.5' 437.3' 107.9' 70.0' 135.9' 24.4' 48.6' 112.6' 62.3' 120.0' 29.9' 45.1' 120.0' 30.0' 120.0' 30.0' 150.0' 77.9' 150.0 82.0' 107.9' 20.8 71.8' 31.4' 73.3'91.8' 93.3' 77.9' 150.0' 77.9' 150.0' 67.2' 8.1' 6.9' 61.1' 118.0' 77.7' 110. 18.0' 105.9' 65.5' 15.7' 95.9' 75.5' 170.9' 101110.9' 58.5' 60.0' 42.9' 78.8' 12.5' 75.7' 254.9' 85.5' 129.0' 70.4' 125.9' 70.5' 141.9' 70.4' 141.9' 70.4' 125.9' 70.4' 125.9' 70.5' 1279 85.4' 127.0' 70.5' 85.5' 100.0' 170.9' 60.0' 1 118.5' 63.2' 118.5' 63.2' 78.1' 110.3' 78 110.0' 68.0' 11 15.0 70.5' 128.0' 70.5' 128.0' 70.5' 128.0' 15.0' 254.9' 81.5' 49.0'50.6' 51.4' 91.8'126.6' 81.5' 95.5' 70.4' 141.9' 60.0' 115.0' 57.5' 188.0' 57.5' 188.0' 57.5' 188.0' 57.5' 188.0' 152. 73.0' 128.6' 78.1' 110.6' 110.3' 114.1' 221.9' 89.5' 219.2' 62.5' 133.2' 62.5' 133.3' 133.2' 51.7' 161.1' 30.3' 32.0' 15.7' 231.0' 60.3' 13.6' 80.0' 104.0' 108.0' 69.8' 102.3' 102.3' 83.9' 117.6' 66.5'85.0' 160.3' 132.5' 89.6' 102.0' 104.5' 85.4' 84.7' 104.5' 149.3' 18.8' 373.7' 331.7' 284.3' 69.1' 331.7' 200.0' 400.6' 349.5' 284.3' 367.9' 398.8' 80.0' 85.5' 133.1' 136.9' 80.0' 142.1' 73.7' 15.8' 89.6' 15.0' 124.9' 70.5' 112.0' 85.5' 236.9' 102.2' 70 114.5 50 134.5 59.5 134.5 59.5 134.5 218.1' 64.5' 65.6' 58.0' 60.0' 100.0' 98.0' 17.5' 29.5' 96.8' 38.3' 116.9' 84.9' 9.0' 123.5'14.9' MURDOCH DRIVE CHRISTINE DRIVE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD EAST MEADOW DRIVELGER DRIVE ROSS ROAD CHRISTINE DRIVE GROVE AVENUE MAYVIEW MIDDLEFIELD ROAD EAST MEADOW DRIVE EAST MEADOW DR T A L I S M A N C 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 (PL), boundary Special Height and Setback Buffer 150 feet around Res Zones Special Setback Curb Edge Tree (TR) Highlighted Features Known Structures abc Lot Dimensions 0' 145' 3600 Middlefield Road CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2023-01-26 16:33:44 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\gsauls.mdb) 3     Packet Pg. 22     BRW Architects Nov ember 15 , 2022 PA 4 Narrative for ARB Submittal The new Palo Alto Fire Station 4 will be a 7,800 SF LEED Silver, single-story facility located at 3600 Middlefield. This project will replace the existing single-story fire station constructed in 1953. Current site improvements include a fueling station, a private cellular tower, generator, and a small parking lot. It has served the community well but, due to operational changes, current space needs, new technologies, and resiliency demands, the existing station needs to be replaced. The current facility is staffed by two fire personnel with one active apparatus bay. The new facility will accommodate five fire personnel with two active apparatus bays and one reserve bay. This facility will also provide an alternate Emergency Operations Center / Training Room to serve both the Fire Department and public. Site improvements will include more parking for both firefighters and visitors, emergency generator, trash enclosure, and landscape. The site is located on the corner of a large block that includes Meadow Park, First Presbyterian Church, a little league field, and a library community center. In addition to meeting the operational requirements, the project design also recognizes the importance of the neighborhood context. The arrangement of spaces and exterior design must strike a balance between serving the essential life safety operations with the presentation of an open and inviting public image. The proposed design solution has a massing that is both pedestrian friendly and serves as a public safety beacon for the community. Our material selections have been driven by sustainability, maintenance, product availability, durability, after life reuse or recycling capability and neighborhood aesthetic factors. The fire station must be resilient and easy to maintain, with considerations for longevity and vandalism resistance. The proposed design also respects the influences of the surrounding buildings, such as the Covenant Presbyterian Church, Mitchell Park, and Library. Our goal for this study session is for the Architectural Review Board provide advice on the massing, site planning, and material selection. 3     Packet Pg. 23     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. 3     Packet Pg. 24     ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3600 Middlefield Road, 22PLN-00406 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PF DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 1.75 acres 1.75 acres Minimum Front Yard (East Meadow Drive) (2) 20 feet 28 feet 20 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 239 feet 210 feet Interior Side Yard 10 feet 106 feet 81 feet Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 27 feet 24 feet Max. Site Coverage 30% (22,869 sf)27% (4,500 sf)13% (9,397 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 1:1 (76,230 sf)6% (4,500 sf)13% (9,397 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft when located within 150 ft of residentially zoned property 17 ft 25 ft Daylight Plane At abutting residential property line, taken at 10 feet and angled in at a slope of 1:2 Complies Complies Employee Showers 0 required for new square footage greater than 9,999 sf 2 3 showers Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Public Facilities* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking To be determined by Director 6 12 Bicycle Parking To be determined by Director 0 0 Loading Space To be determined by Director 0 0 3     Packet Pg. 25     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 “3600 Middlefield Road” 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/3600- Middlefield-Road 3     Packet Pg. 26     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: February 16, 2023 TITLE Review and Adoption of the Revised Architectural Review Board By-Laws to Address Remote/Virtual Meeting Attendance RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) discuss, review, and adopt a revised version of the By-Laws to address allowances for remote meeting attendance. PROJECT DESCRIPTION On November 17, 2022, the ARB discussed modifications to the by-laws to align with state regulations regarding remote meeting attendance. Based on those discussions and to align with recently adopted state laws, staff has drafted a modification to the ARB’s By-laws as shown in underline in Attachment A and as further discussed below. BACKGROUND On May 2, 2022, Council directed all commissions and boards to adopt their own remote attendance policy. The current ARB by-laws were last updated in September 2022 to better align with the Council Procedures and Protocol Handbook. The By-laws do not include rules on attendance such as how many meetings a member can miss, nor do they take into account the COVID-19 Pandemic when virtual meeting attendance became necessary. ARB By-laws The Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.21 provides content regarding the composition of the board and how often the board may meet (twice monthly). The meeting frequency is also cited in Section 6.9 of Article VI of the ARB By-laws. The ARB By-laws contain three sections in Article VI regarding meetings. The ARB may wish to discuss adding By-laws Section 6.3 to set forth an attendance policy and as reflected in the suggested edits in Attachment A. Attendance Policies of Other Boards/Commissions On May 2, 2022, Council made a motion to limit Councilmembers’ remote attendance for Council Committee Meetings to three times per year. The motion also encouraged boards and commissions to meet in person and asked that they establish a remote attendance policy. 4     Packet Pg. 27     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 3 On January 30, 2023, Council adopted revisions to the Council Procedures and Protocol Handbook that allowed for a total of five remote hearings per legislative body (i.e. five for Council and five for each Council Committee). However, the Brown Act requirements, as discussed further below, would also apply. The HRB and PTC have not adopted attendance policies to date. It is not required that all boards and commissions choose to follow the Council’s direction. Brown Act Requirements The Brown Act has long permitted remote attendance through teleconferencing, as long as: 1) the locations of each teleconference participant are provided in notices and agendas, 2) the agenda is posted at each teleconference location, and each location is open to the public, and 3) at least a quorum of the board members participates from locations within the boundaries of the City. The Brown Act does not limit the number of times these procedures can be used. AB 361 allowed a local government to suspend these teleconference requirements during a statewide emergency, such as the COVID-19 pandemic, by making certain findings. However, when the statewide emergency is formally lifted in March 2023, as currently anticipated, AB 361 exceptions will no longer apply. Effective January 1, 2023, AB 2449 provides an additional, limited exception to the typical teleconference requirements, which do not rely on the existence of a statewide emergency. A board member may participate remotely, without making their location available to the public, only when there exist a “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” approved by the board, for remote participation, and the reason is disclosed to the public. In addition, a quorum of the board must meet in a single location (i.e. the meeting must be a “hybrid” meeting). The exception under AB 2449 may not be used by a member of the board for more than three consecutive months or more than 20% of the regular meetings in a calendar year (Four (4) total meetings per year for the ARB). As has always been the case under the Brown Act, if a member of the board wishes to attend virtually without citing one of the “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” identified under the law and follows the necessary standard remote attendance procedures set forth in Attachment A, then they may do so without a limitation on the meetings. ANALYSIS Staff has provided suggested edits to the ARB by-laws in underline in Attachment A. The proposed language aligns with Council’s adopted policies for Council and Council committees. It allows for up to five meetings to be attended remotely (more limiting than state law). However, in accordance with the Brown Act, as amended per AB 2449, a boardmember may only attend remotely without following the standard remote attendance procedures and under “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” up to 4 times (20% of the hearings). Staff’s suggested changes to the By-laws align with Council’s motion on January 30, 2023. The ARB may choose to allow for more than five meetings to be attended remotely, so long as the proper noticing is completed and the remote attendee’s location is made accessible to the public. Only four hearings (20%) and for no more than 3 consecutive months may be attended 4     Packet Pg. 28     Item No. 4. Page 3 of 3 remotely without following the standard remote noticing procedures and under “just cause” or “emergency circumstances.” ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW This is not considered a project as defined by CEQA and no review is required. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Redlined Copy of the ARB By-Laws AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org Report #: 2301-0905 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 4     Packet Pg. 29     1 Revised February 16, 2023 RULES AND REGULATIONS AND BY-LAWS OF THE PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ARTICLE I NAME Section 1.0 The name of this board shall be the PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD (ARB) ARTICLE II Section 2.0 This board shall perform any duties imposed upon it by Ordinances of the City of Palo Alto and by applicable State and Federal law, or as requested by the City Council of the City of Palo Alto. ARTICLE III Officers Section 3.0 The officers of the Board Shall consist of a Chairperson, a Vice Chairperson, and a Secretary who shall be a non-voting member. Section 3.1 The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among the appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of one year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first meeting in April of each year, which coincides with the first meeting of new Board members. Section 3.2 The Director of Planning and Development Services of the City of Palo Alto or their designated representative shall be the Secretary of the Board. Section 3.3 The duties of the offices of the ARB shall be as follows: Section 3.31 It shall be the duty of the Chairperson to preside over all meeting of the Board, to appoint committees and to serve as an ex-officio member of the committees so appointed, to call special meetings of the Board and to designate the time and place of such meeting, to set the date and time for the public hearing held by the Board, to sign documents and correspondence in the name of the Board, to ensure the Annual Report/Council Work Plan is completed before the end of their term (March 31st), and to represent the Board before the City Council, its commissions and committees, and such other groups and organizations as may be appropriate. The Chairperson may designate the Vice Chair, or in the Vice Chairperson’s absence, another member of the Board to act in their stead. 4     Packet Pg. 30     2 Revised February 16, 2023 Section 3.32 It shall be the duty of the Vice Chairperson to assist the Chairperson and to act in their stead during their absence. Section 3.33 It shall be the duty of the Secretary to keep a record of all meeting of the Board, to accept in the name of the Board documents and correspondence addressed to it, to present such correspondence to the Board, to provide the Board with early notification of pending projects that will require the ARB’s review, and perform other staff functions as deemed necessary by the Board. The Secretary will determine the agenda for all public meeting of the Board, based upon an assessment of the applications made to the City requiring architectural review, and based also upon the desirability of hearing such other matters as may be deemed, by the Chairperson or by the Secretary, to be of concern to the Board. ARTICLE IV Committees Section 4.0 The Chairperson shall appoint special committees as they be desired or required. ARCTICLE V Quorums and Voting Section 5.0 Three members of the Board shall constitute a quorum for the purposes of conducting business. Section 5.1 All actions taken must be by affirmative vote of majority of those Board members present, except to adjourn or continue for lack of a quorum. A tie vote constitutes a denial of an item, except that a member of the Board may then move that the item be reconsidered or continued to another meeting. A majority of the Board may then vote to reconsider or continue the item to another meeting ARTICLE VI Meetings Section 6.0 Regular meetings of the ARB shall be held not less than twice a month. The Chairperson shall establish the dates of the meetings. Meetings shall be held on Thursday at 8:30 A.M. in the Palo Alto City Hall. Regular meetings may be adjourned and reconvened upon a majority vote of the members present. 4     Packet Pg. 31     3 Revised February 16, 2023 Section 6.1 The Chair, Vice Chair and Secretary shall meet ahead of each public hearing to go over the agenda and submit early questions to staff that will be answered at the hearing. Section 6.2 Special meetings may be called at any time by the Chairperson, or at the request of three members, by a written or oral notice given to each member at least 48 hours before the time specified for the proposed meeting. Section 6.3 Boardmembers are strongly encouraged to attend meetings in person. State law allows boardmembers to attend meetings remotely by following the procedures outlined in Government Code Section 54953(b) (“Standard Remote Attendance”) or the procedures outlined in Assembly Bill 2449 (2022) (“AB 2449 Remote Attendance”). For convenience, these procedures are described below and are current as of the date of this Bylaw revision. If state law is subsequently amended, the amended terms of State law will apply. 1) Number of Remote Appearances Permitted. A boardmember may elect to participate remotely not more than five (5) times in a calendar year, whether following Standard Remote Attendance or AB 2449 Remote Attendance procedures. Note, AB 2449 Remote Attendance may not be utilized for more than four meetings (20%) or more than three consecutive months. 2) General Procedures for Appearing Remotely. Boardmembers must follow mandatory procedures set forth in State law. At any meeting where a boardmember is attending remotely, the following requirements must be met: i. The agenda must identify and include an opportunity for the public to attend and directly address all boardmembers through a call-in option, an internet- based service option, and in-person at the location of the meeting. ii. Boardmembers may not take action if there is an unresolved disruption to the meeting broadcast, to a remote boardmember’s audio or visual feed, or to the ability to take call-in or internet-based public comment. If these above threshold requirements are met, the Boardmember attending remotely must ensure they follow the procedures associated with either Standard Remote Attendance or AB 2449 Remote Attendance. 3) Standard Remote Attendance Procedures. A boardmember attending remotely using these procedures must ensure that: a. At lease a quorum of the Board is participating from locations within the City. b. The meeting agenda identifies the remote attendance location and is posted at that location in an area that is accessible and visible 24 hours a day for at least 72 hours prior to a regular meeting and 24 hours prior to a special meeting. c. The remote attendance location is open and fully accessible to the public, and fully accessible under the Americans with Disabilities Act, throughout the entire meeting. These requirements apply to private residences, hotel 4     Packet Pg. 32     4 Revised February 16, 2023 rooms, and similar facilities, all of which must remain fully open and accessible throughout the meeting, without requiring identification or registration. The Boardmember must state at the beginning of the Board meeting that the posting requirement was met at the location and that the location is publicly accessible and must describe the location. d. The remote attendance technology used is open and fully accessible to all members of the public, including those with disabilities. e. Members of the public who attend the meeting at the remote attendance location have the same opportunity to address the Board from the remote location that they would if they were present in Council Chambers. f. The remote attendance location must not require an admission fee or any payment for attendance. g. Advanced written notice a minimum of 12 days ahead of the public hearing must be given by the Boardmember to the Secretary of the Board about their intent to participate remotely; the notice must include the address at which the remote attendance will occur, and the address the ARB packet should be mailed to, if a hard copy is requested. h. The Boardmember is responsible for posting the ARB agenda in the remote location, or having the agenda posted by somebody at the location and confirming that posting has occurred. The Secretary of the Board will assist, if necessary, by emailing, faxing or mailing the agenda to whatever address or fax number the Boardmember requests; however, it is the Boardmember’s responsibility to ensure that the agenda arrives and is posted. If the Boardmember will need the assistance of the Secretary of the Board in delivery of the agenda, the fax number or address must be included in the 12 day advance written notice above. If the Boardmember intending to follow the procedures of Standard Remote Attendance determines that any or all of the preceding requirements cannot be met, he or she shall not participate in the meeting remotely using Standard Remote Attendance procedures. 4) AB 2449 Remote Attendance Procedures. A Boardmember attending remotely using these procedures must ensure that: a. At least a quorum of the Board is participating in person from a singular physical location clearly identified on the agenda and open to the public. b. The Boardmember has either “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” that require remote participation, as required by AB 2449. i. “Just cause” is defined as: •a childcare or caregiving need of a child, parent, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, spouse, or domestic partner that requires remote attendance, •a contagious illness that prevents in-person attendance, •a need related to a physical or mental disability which cannot be resolved by a request for reasonable accommodation, or 4     Packet Pg. 33     5 Revised February 16, 2023 •travel while on the business of a state or local agency. ii. “Emergency circumstances” is defined as: •a physical or family medical emergency that prevents a Boardmember from attending the Architectural Review Board meeting in person. c. Notice. A Boardmember that is attending remotely due to “just cause” or “emergency circumstances” must notify the Chair and the Secretary of the Board at the earliest possible opportunity, including at the start of the meeting, of their need to participate remotely and provide a general description of the circumstances. The Boardmember is not required to disclose any personal medical information. d. Acceptance. At the earliest opportunity available to it, the Board, by a majority vote of its members, take action on the request to approve or disapprove it. If the request does not allow sufficient time to place it on the agenda for the meeting for which the request is made, the legislative body must take action on the request at the beginning of the meeting by majority vote. e. Disclosures. Boardmembers attending remotely must publicly disclose at the meeting before any action is taken whether any other individuals 18 years of age or older are present in the room at the remote location with the member and the general nature of the member’s relationship with the individual. f. Technology. All technology necessary for the Boardmember and for the public to attend remotely must function at all times, which must include two-way, live audio and visual communication. If the Boardmember determines that any or all of these requirements cannot be met, he or she shall not participate in the meeting remotely using AB 2449 Remote Attendance procedures. ARTICLE VII Rules Section 7.0 All meetings of the Board shall be conducted in accordance with a modified Robert’s Rules of Order. ARTICLE VIII Design Awards Section 8.0 Design Awards for outstanding built projects may be awarded every five years beginning in 2005. Award-winning projects shall be selected from those reviewed by the ARB, and completed since the last awards were made. 4     Packet Pg. 34     6 Revised February 16, 2023 Section 8.1 Criteria and number of awards shall be determined by the awarding board. Section 8.2 Winning projects may be displayed in the City Hall lobby for one month following the presentation of awards. The ARB shall request that the Mayor of the City of Palo Alto issue an appropriate proclamation. THE FOREGOING BY-LAWS WERE ADOPTED BY A MAJORITY VOTE OF THE PALO ALTO ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD THE 28TH DAY OF JUNE, 1973. Amended: July 3, 1974 May 19, 1977 August 4, 2005 February 5, 2015 September 15, 2022 February 16, 2023 4     Packet Pg. 35     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: February 16, 2023 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 15, 2022 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of December 15, 2022 AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Report #: 2301-0821 5     Packet Pg. 36     Page 1 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: December 15, 2022 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on this date in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:30 a.m. Present: Chair David Hirsch, Vice Chair Peter Baltay (arrived approximately 8:35 a.m.), Boardmember Osma Thompson, Boardmember Yingxi Chen Absent: Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg (planned absence) 1. Adoption of a Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for the Architectural Review Board During Covid-19 State of Emergency MOTION: Boardmember Thompson moved, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to adopt the Resolution Authorizing Use of Teleconferencing for the ARB During Covid-19 State of Emergency. VOTE: 3-0-0-2 Oral Communications Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate III, stated there were none. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Claire Raybould, Senior Planner and ARB Liaison, indicated that staff had none. Chair Hirsch asked if any new projects had come in. Ms. Raybould stated that no new major projects came in. Boardmember Thompson stated for the public that Vice Chair Baltay had arrived. Ms. Raybould stated for the record that Vice Chair Baltay arrived. City Official Reports 2. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Ms. Raybould displayed the ARB meeting schedule and said that the January 3, 2023, hearing was canceled, and the next hearing was scheduled for January 19, 2023. The agenda included a Study Session on the Fry’s Development Agreement related to the cannery building. The discussion at this hearing was related to the townhomes. There were no major projects submitted since the last hearing. 5     Packet Pg. 37     Page 2 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Chair Hirsch stated that they needed to discuss the ARB’s decision on how many vacation days were allowed out of the year. All Boards had to do that. Ms. Raybould asked if he was talking about the number of hearings to be canceled. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, explained that Chair Hirsch was talking about the ARB Bylaws and the number of meetings individual members could be absent. The Bylaws change generically said, “In compliance with State Law.” They should develop more internal policies and that could be agendized for January. Boardmembers just received training a few days prior so they should have the information from that meeting. Study Session 3. 3200 Park Boulevard/200 Portage/340 Portage [22PLN-00287 and 22PLN-00288]: Study Session to Consider a Request for a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, Planned Community Zoning, and Tentative Map, to Allow Redevelopment of a 14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. This Study Session will Focus on Feedback Regarding the Design of the Townhome portion of the Development Plans. The Full Scope of Work Includes the Partial Demolition of an Existing Commercial Building That has Been Deemed Eligible for the California Register as Well as an Existing Building With a Commercial Recreation use at 3040 Park and Construction of (74) new Townhome Condominiums, a one Level Parking Garage, and Dedication of Approximately 3.25 acres of Land to the City for Future Affordable Housing and Parkland Uses. The Existing Building at 3201-3225 Ash Street Would Remain in Office use, and an Automotive use at 3250 Park Boulevard Would Convert to R&D use. Environmental Assessment: Draft Environmental Impact Report for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated on September 16, 2022 in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). The EIR Comment Period Ended on November 15, 2022. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Hirsch asked Ms. Raybould if the item included the whole project or just the housing. Ms. Raybould explained the full project included the entire site including the remaining cannery building. the Study Session was to focus and provide feedback on specific portions of the project. The current focus was the townhome project. Chair Hirsch asked if he needed to read the whole description. Ms. Raybould said that it was fine to read the title. Chair Hirsch stated that the ARB was discussing the housing portion and called for staff’s presentation. Ms. Raybould requested that he read the title first. Chair Hirsch introduced the project. 5     Packet Pg. 38     Page 3 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Ms. Raybould explained the goal of the Study Session was to provide an orientation for the ARB on the project and to obtain feedback on the design of the townhome portion of the project. Another Study Session was planned for January 2023 on the cannery portion of the project. That Study Session would follow a Historic Resources Board (HRB) meeting which could inform the ARB’s discussion. She stated that the project was located along Park Boulevard and displayed a slide showing the project parcels. In accordance with the development agreement the parcels were labeled as they were intended to be subdivided into the cannery area, the townhome parcel, the City dedication parcel along Matadero Creek, the Ash parcel, and the Audi parcel. The Audi dealership would remain, but the parcel was being converted to research and development use from an auto services use. The project was within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP). NVCAP started in 2018 and was ongoing. The community provided significant input about what they wanted to see and how the site should be redeveloped. The input was used to identify key objectives for the City and Sobrato. Throughout 2021 numerous overlapping discussions were held around the site. Sobrato filed the 200 Portage townhome project in March 2021. The project was streamlined under Senate Bill (SB) 330. Sobrato also requested clarification from the City on the code language which allowed for retention of nonconforming uses specific to the research and development uses in the existing cannery building. Council held hearings in June and October 2021 and ultimately formed an ad hoc committee to explore shared redevelopment interests in the site. The ad hoc committee concluded in Summer 2022 and Council held a study session on its work to begin the public process for the development agreement and associated entitlements. Council allowed for the 91 unit townhome project to be placed on hold while the City completed the public process for the proposed development agreement. The draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for 200 Portage was released on September 16, 2023. It identified a 45 day review period which ended on October 31, 2023. The City extended the deadline to November 15th in response to public comment. The City is preparing responses to the comments on the draft EIR. The final EIR was scheduled for release in early 2023. There were a number of entitlements and legislative actions associated with the project including the development agreement, a Comprehensive Plan Amendment, a Planned Community (PC) rezoning for the majority of the parcels, a tentative map and final map for a total of 5 parcels, and an HRB review. All discretionary actions were being processed concurrently in accordance with the PC rezoning process and the HRB review process. The HRB would hear the matter on January 12, 2023. The ARB had another Study Session on January 19, 2023. Then there would be formal HRB, ARB, Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC), and Council hearings from February to April. The EIR looked at the 200 Portage townhome project which included 91 townhome units and demolition of a portion of the California Register eligible building and assumed retention of the rest of the site. No park space was proposed as part of the project. In accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) project alternatives were required. In addition to the “no project” alternative the City evaluated two build alternatives. Alternative 3 was the project that was before the ARB under the development agreement. The proposed project as well as the build alternatives had significant and unavoidable impacts on a historic resource. There were also impacts on biological resources, hazardous materials, noise, and traffic and transportation. Those impacts could be reduced to less than significant through mitigation measures. The development agreement objectives came from the community during the NVCAP process, and she displayed a slide of them for the ARB. She summarized the key negotiated terms of the agreement as demolition of a portion of the cannery building to develop townhouses, allowing the remaining cannery building to remain research and development space, allowing the Ash building to remain office space, a conveyance of a 3.25 acre parcel of land to the 5     Packet Pg. 39     Page 4 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 City for open space, the development of an affordable housing project, and a $5 million contribution to the City for open space or affordable housing. Chair Hirsch interrupted to clarify the size of the parcel being conveyed to the City. Ms. Raybould stated that it was 3.25 acres. Roughly one acre of that would be used for an affordable housing project. Approximately 2.25 acres would be for parkland. Key considerations for the ARB included the design of the townhome portion of the project, feedback on design consistency with the Context Based Design Criteria, feedback on consistency with the goals of NVCAP, and feedback on consistency with the ARB Findings. The proposed development agreement was not considered a housing development project as it was not 2/3rds housing and had legislative actions associated with it. The project would also be in a PC zone and not one of the use districts. The ARB had latitude to provide feedback on the design since it was a PC rezone. The PC zone district ordinance would set the development standards for the site. Staff encouraged the ARB to provide comments within the context of the key negotiated terms of the development agreement. She recommended that the ARB call for the applicant’s presentation. Chair Hirsch called for the applicant’s presentation and explained they had 10 minutes. Evan Sockalosky, Arc Tec, stated that Ms. Raybould had done a great job of introducing the project. His firm was the architect for the cannery portion of the project, which would be presented to the ARB in January 2023. He introduced Tim Steele and Robert Tersini with Sobrato, David Burton with KTGY, Morgan Burke with the Guzzardo Partnership, and Nektarios Matheou with Kier and Wright Civil Engineers. There were 5 parcels in the overall development and this project involved Parcel 1. Parcel 3 was the cannery building that would be discussed in January. He showed an enlargement of the two parcels they were developing. The cannery building included 380 and 340 Portage and would be redeveloped into Office R&D with a small retail portion. There was also a parking structure being developed to offset the loss of parking for the park dedication. He noted that the right side of the drawing reflected the townhome portion of the project and introduced David Burton to give the rest of the presentation. David Burton, KTGY, explained that the building layout and design was intended to create maximum engagement with the street and an active and attractive streetscape. There were 12 buildings over the site and each building had one or two elevations that faced streets. The six buildings at the center of the site faced a landscape paseo that connected interior Streets A and B. the buildings had front doors facing the streets and elevations were articulated to read as fronts. The density was about 30 dwelling units to the acre based on the net site area and 19 dwelling units to the acre based on the gross site area. Buildings had four floorplan types which were combinations of 3 and 4 bedrooms and ranged from 1,800 square feet (sf) to 1,980 sf. The building design gave expression to individual units and had projecting bays that gave rhythm to the street frontage. The primary exterior materials were stucco, horizontal cement siding, and fiber cement panels. There was also some brick veneer and metal roofing elements used as accents. The front doors to the units were painted in a variety of bold colors. The intention was to comply with the City’s design guidelines as much as possible. He noted that if it were up to them they might have varied the roofline more, but that they did not do so in order to respect the 35’ height limit. He showed the color schemes and noted that there were 3 of them in order to provide visual diversity across the site. The building design was modern but they wanted the homes to feel welcoming and used color to that effect. The darker colors were used closer to the ground in order to develop the pedestrian scale and streetscape. 5     Packet Pg. 40     Page 5 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 He showed on the site plan where each of the color schemes would be located and noted how the schemes interacted with the neighbors. Finally, he showed a view of the townhouses and how they interfaced with the cannery building. They were of similar height and nicely framed Street C, which ran between the buildings. Chair Hirsch asked if there was a landscape discussion at this point from the landscape designer. The applicant responded that there was not. Chair Hirsch called for ARB questions. Boardmember Thompson asked if there were public comments. Ms. Dao stated that there were none. Chair Hirsch asked who wanted to start with questions. Vice Chair Baltay wanted to understand the overall site dimensions of the project. Tim Steele, Sobrato, displayed an aerial view of the project site and explained that anything outlined in yellow was part of the approximately 14.65 acre site. Vice Chair Baltay explained that he was trying to understand the spaces between the townhomes. He mentioned Elevation AR2.0.1 and asked for the space between the buildings. He measured the space to be 32’ at the drive aisle and 22’ at the paseo. Mr. Burton said that was correct, it was 32’ from garage to garage. The buildings stepped in a bit at the upper levels so there it was 26’ clear between buildings. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed that there was 26’ clear between the building faces up above and 32’ at the garage doors. On the paseo he scaled it to be 22’ at the base and 20’ above. He asked if that was correct. Mr. Burton thought it was closer to 21’ above and 22’ was correct at the base. Vice Chair Baltay explained that he thought that information would be important to the ARB’s discussions and thanked the applicant for the clarification. He asked staff to further explain which guidelines the ARB needed to consider and work under. He noted that the Contextual Based Design Guidelines were 8 pages long. He asked if that was the standard that governed the project. Ms. Raybould said that was correct, but that the PC rezoning allowed flexibility to modify anything within Title 18 of the Municipal Code. They wanted to know how the project complied with the Context Based Design Criteria as part of the ARB Findings. The ARB needed to evaluate if it was consistent with their Findings which included the Context Based Design Criteria, the Comprehensive Plan, and the zoning. Vice Chair Baltay understood that there was deviation for the PC zoning and the negotiated agreement. He just wanted to understand that it was the Context Based Design Criteria and not the new Objective Standards. Ms. Raybould said that was correct. The new Objective Standards did not apply but the ARB had some latitude under the PC ordinance and could speak to the Objective Standards as a means of feedback on the project. 5     Packet Pg. 41     Page 6 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Vice Chair Baltay noted that Municipal Code 21.20.240 governed the width of streets in developments and noted that they should be no less than 32’ wide. Some of the other criteria implied that was intended to be the driving width. He requested staff’s justification for the project. Ms. Raybould explained that private street width included everything in what was determined to be the right of way. Staff never interpreted that to mean there was a 32’ driving width. Vice Chair Baltay stated that Section B of the Code said that if a private street was a public parking strip of at least 6 feet then it allowed the reduction to 26’. That implied the 6’ parking would come out of the 32’ reducing it to 26’. He asked if that was what she meant. Ms. Gerhardt explained that when a city discussed the right of way it was talking about the entire street. Curb to curb was the drive aisle, but right of way included sidewalks, planting strips, and other related things. Section A included a 20’ setback, but Section B she was not as familiar with. Staff needed additional time to verify the information. Vice Chair Baltay said that he was just trying to determine which codes applied to the project. Ms. Raybould stated that staff always interpreted it to mean that they needed a 32’ right of way, which meant that there could be no buildings within the right of way. They allowed landscaping bulb outs. The applicant would be requesting a map with exceptions for a 26’ total street width because the upper built portions of the building encroached on the street. They were proposing a 32’ width at the ground level. Ms. Gerhardt clarified that the public parking strip was not for parking but for landscaping. Vice Chair Baltay heard that the project was not going to comply with Section 21 regarding width because the building cantilevered into the space. The clear public right of way was 26’. Ms. Raybould said that was right and noted that the staff report indicated that the applicant would request a tentative map width exception, which was subject to the PTC and City Council’s approval. Vice Chair Baltay noted that Ms. Gerhardt had previously told him that the source of the width of the streets came from some sort of public referendum and requested background information. Ms. Gerhardt indicated that Ms. Raybould had more current information. Ms. Raybould could not recall the date, but there was a townhome development proposed a few years prior with raised concerns about parking and narrow streets. The intent of the drive aisles was to have streets wide enough to provide parking. The ultimate language did not specify that parking had to be provided. With the current project they could not put parking in front of the garages, but guest parking would be allowed on the streets without garages. Vice Chair Baltay thanked staff for the clarifications. He asked the landscape architect to point out where the native species of trees would be planted. He could only identify one native species on the paseo and asked if that was correct. Morgan Burke, Guzzardo Partnership, said that Vice Chair Baltay was correct and that they needed to identify more native species for use within the site. He indicated that they planned to study it further. 5     Packet Pg. 42     Page 7 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Vice Chair Baltay thanked him for the clarification. Chair Hirsch said that he wanted to take the ARB on a “side trip” before returning to the questions and responses. He requested they put up the site plan and asked them to explain the garbage collection. Mr. Burton displayed the site plan and explained that the 8 buildings on the lower section of the site had individual trash pickup with a traditional garbage truck on the apron behind their garage doors. The four buildings at the north end of the site would have a trash enclosure. Homeowners would place their trash behind their garages and the Homeowners Association (HOA) would have a concierge service take them to the trash enclosure for centralized collection. It was a hybrid system they worked out with the City. Chair Hirsch asked if they discussed the plan with Sanitation. Mr. Burton said that they had. Ms. Raybould stated that discussions were ongoing, and they had not looked at a revised design for the dead end aisles. Everything else had been resolved. Boardmember Thompson asked the architect about the design intent behind the distribution of where each palette went on the site. Mr. Burton said that mostly they tried to distribute the three color schemes so that they would get each color scheme along each street frontage. They wanted to provide visual variety no matter where one was looking from. The building in the upper right corner of the site was chosen to relate to the neighboring building. Boardmember Thompson asked if that was Building B4. Mr. Burton did not know the numbers of the buildings off the top of his head. Boardmember Thompson stated it was a warmer beige. Mr. Burton said that was correct and it had a darker brick base. Boardmember Thompson asked if there was any intent to provide more architectural diversity beyond the color palette. Mr. Burton stated that they liked the rhythm and consistency of the bays the way they developed them. They thought there was a nice cohesiveness and rhythm to the site. The color was used to provide the variety. Boardmember Thompson asked if there was consideration given to the sun’s location and how it affected the site. Mr. Burton said that they always tried to provide as much distance between the buildings as possible for sunlight. The dimensions of the site meant that the current layout was as ideal as possible in terms of solar panels. Boardmember Thompson asked if they studied a scheme where the aisles went true north/south. 5     Packet Pg. 43     Page 8 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Mr. Burton said that the current scheme worked out where they were parallel to the street and able to create a good streetscape. That dictated the rest of the site’s layout. Boardmember Chen requested clarification on the short term bicycle storage and where the racks would be along the street. Mr. Burke said that they had the information but was unsure if it was in the submittal. They showed staff a markup of where they intended to put the short term bicycle parking. He believed there were 8 spaces, and they were located around the site within 200’ of every residential door. They would provide the information formally in a forthcoming submittal. The placement had been studied. Boardmember Chen inquired about the mailbox locations and designated parking spots for deliveries. Mr. Burke said that the mailboxes were at either end of the paseo and to the north on Street A. He was unable to speak to the parking spot. Mr. Burton did not believe they had designated a spot but there were on street parking spots at all of those locations. Chair Hirsch called for follow-up questions. Vice Chair Baltay said that the Objective Design Guidelines had them consider how units would have privacy from other units. He read Section 6, Statement H aloud and asked the applicant to explain how they achieved privacy in the project. Mr. Burton said that it was mostly visual separation combined with the landscaping. They did not do a specific study. The way that the building flipped caused the major windows to offset a bit, but he had no specific information. Chair Hirsch called for ARB discussion. Vice Chair Baltay thought the application was through and complete and thanked the applicant and staff for their work. He reminded the ARB to focus their comments on the townhome portion of the project. He understood it to be a negotiated contract with the City and the project before the ARB was the design of the townhomes. It was not for the ARB to renegotiate the deal. With respect to the site plan things were functional. He appreciated the access off of Park and agreed with Boardmember Thompson’s question about if they had considered orienting the major drive aisles differently. He thought the elevation could be more textured along Park if they did that. Dead end drive aisles also set the project up for difficult situations for trash collection and general living in the end unit. He suggested they loop the road and connect it back to provide more landscaping by the R1 neighborhood. He commended the project for including guest parking and thought 35 spaces was wonderful. There were curb drop off areas along Park and he thought that was important for deliveries. One concern was that the space between the units at the paseo was too tight. A 20’ wide space that was 35’ tall was too narrow and felt like a tight urban alley and not a paseo. The 74 homes needed a more landscaped thoroughfare. It was a shame that it was not wider. Since the ground floor units were at grade they needed to landscape areas in the front so the area of the paseo would only be 6’ to 8’ and that was not a paseo but a pathway. He recommended an aspect ratio of 1:1. The buildings should also step up and be recessed backwards rather than inwards. 5     Packet Pg. 44     Page 9 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 There was no grade separation between ground level units. He understood that they were at grade due to the height limit, but some separation was important and was spelled out in the Objective Design Standards. that level of privacy was also required in the Contextual Standards as well. Objective Standards 18.13.060(b)5 required three different building types and he interpreted that to mean three types of housing. The ARB was told that the agreement allowed for 74 townhome units, which was a single type. He just wanted that pointed out for the record and stated that it also went to a question Boardmember Thompson asked about architectural variety which he thought was lacking. The purpose of the regulations was to get greater variety and that was something which the project lacked. His largest issues were with the massing of the building. there was not sufficient variety between individual building masses. That was required by the Contextual Guidelines. It was important for the neighborhood to have a variety of different building types, sizes, and designs. The massing of the buildings was identical and just changing the color palette three times was insufficient. More variety of height, projections, and entry doors were required. That was missing from the project which was not residential feeling. The project needed both vertical and horizontal articulation, so he suggested a greater use of roof eaves, window bays, porches, and entries to break up the massing and provide visual interest. He further requested more elements that defined entries, broke down the mass, and signaled human habitation. The intensity of the masses needed to be broken up and things near the door needed to be human scale. There was not sufficient privacy between the units as they were mirrored. He encouraged that they consider changing the floor plans to promote privacy. The ARB did not expect perfect privacy, but the Objective Guidelines gave examples of angled windows and other solutions. Being only 20’ from the neighbor was very tight and would cause people to leave their windows closed. He suggested they consider angled windows, vertical offsets, and greater plan variation. Greater variety in open spaces would be encouraged. Stepping the buildings in and out would create different types of open spaces at the ground level. He encouraged the applicants to provide more variety to the floor plans and open spaces. With the colors and materials he agreed that they were playing off the brick of a neighboring building but encouraged them to go out into the neighborhood more for context. The brick was not a large proportion of the neighborhood and was an inappropriate contextual response. The long elevations were too repetitious, and the palette was not sufficient to provide greater variety. With landscaping the project needed a greater variety of native species planted in the residential section. A magnolia was not the most majestic tree they could choose for the paseo, and he encouraged more thought there. He repeated that his major issue was that there were too many of the same building types or plans and wanted more variety. Chair Hirsch thought Vice Chair Baltay summed things up nicely in his comments and stated that the other Boardmembers would add to his thoughts. He wanted to discuss the project as presented relative to an alternate. He understood that the ARB was not allowed to consider a rezoning of the site but thought that 74 units on the site was insufficient and with the alternate consideration that might be better. In order to clarify concerns and create discussion around the issues there was a good alternative. He requested that Ms. Raybould display the alternative. Ms. Raybould displayed the image and apologized for being unable to rotate it. She pointed out Park and Olive for the ARB’s reference. Chair Hirsch explained that the subcommittee had studied townhomes, but by the time the project was in process most of the work was done. Therefore, they could only make suggestions which would 5     Packet Pg. 45     Page 10 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 hopefully be useful. He noted that the subcommittee was familiar with the applicant’s other projects and some of them were particularly good. The alternative showed a series of cul-de-sacs and the subcommittee determined that was a way to deal with many issues. End units would face the paseo and the Fry’s building. He read the alternate project description aloud for the record. The townhomes were indicated on the diagram in purple and there were two types of townhomes shown and a multi-story building in orange. This alternative provided for less repetitive linear streetscapes and a landscaped common use paseo without entries facing it. He then showed an example of a cul-de-sac with two car garages and requested that they imagine the paseo coming out of the end. This site plan also minimized vehicular conflict. He pointed out the access to the garage and noted that the one way direction of the traffic was the only real conflict on the street. The current project would always have vehicular conflict. The alternative project required a zoning change and so was outlawed by the agreement. That was a shame and he noted that Palo Alto faced significant housing requirements and the site could contain more units, more varied units, a different massing, and an improved paseo. The paseo could continue to a raised courtyard accessible to all ground floor units and the environment would be very different with a variety of housing typology. The Council had looked at the possibility of six-story buildings so it was possible that they could have a greater building mass resulting in more units. The bicycle storage for the multi-story building and townhomes could be on the corner and would have easy street access. Depending on the layout the site could hold more than 100 units. The discussion about typology and how that reflected in the detail of each of the building types was a significant part of the discussion and he agreed with Vice Chair Baltay regarding variation. There were special considerations that ensured the alternate project would not happen, which he thought was unfortunate. The paseo in the alternative was without conflict at the entryways and was wider than the current project. It also continued across the street and into the courtyard of the multi-story building. Unfortunately, the density of the alternative project exceeded the zoning and rezoning would be required. At a recent Council meeting they were in favor of higher density. Sobrato needed to consider creating “a place” for the paseo to lead and noted that under the current site plan there was no space for that. Finally, the bicycle path was exceptionally important to the neighborhood. He spoke to someone with Planning and Transportation who felt it was reasonable to put the path on the opposite side of the street, but that was a major consideration. Ms. Gerhardt asked Chair Hirsch if she could make some clarifications. Chair Hirsch said that she could. Ms. Gerhardt indicated that staff had separate discussions with Transportation. There were bicycle lanes on both sides of Park Boulevard currently. Any changes made would enhance the bicycle lanes versus changing or moving them. The City wanted to move to a bicycle boulevard on Park. Therefore, staff did not want to move the bicycle paths. Staff would speak to Transportation further. Chair Hirsch said that this project had a number of cars going to a garage which was a new issue and would affect the bicycle lane. The access to Page Mill and the Oregon Expressway also interrupted the bicycle lane. Ms. Gerhardt assumed that the environmental review would take that intersection into account. With Park Boulevard Transportation told Planning to keep the number of driveways onto the boulevard to a minimum. 5     Packet Pg. 46     Page 11 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Chair Hirsch stated that impacted another suggestion in his diagram, which was a one way loop for traffic. He suggested providing an area adjacent to the paseo for garbage collection for the townhomes with a mail drop or a place for a transformer. To summarize he stated that the ARB and PTC should meet together to discuss the issues. A project of this size required more than a series of linear houses in one direction. The possibility of creating gathering spaces within the community needed to be explored and had options in this alternative. Using a cul-de-sac scheme would change the whole nature of the project and he wanted to raise it even without the particular hope that it would really happen. Often the ARB made comments on façade improvements, but this project needed more than that. Boardmember Thompson thanked the applicant for the application. She noted that she had not seen Chair Hirsch’s sketch before the meeting, so it was hard to respond to that. With configuration she had heard that the current configuration was quite long and monotonous and she agreed with those comments. She recommended they consider reorienting the drive aisles to true north/south. Vice Chair Baltay noted that would create visual interest on the street. If the paseo could connect Park to the commercial corner at 340 Portage and the neighboring park she would recommend that. It was not similar to Chair Hirsch’s setup but probably did not discount his thoughts. Currently the paseo was set up so that it would be in shade most of the time, but if it was oriented north/south it would have light despite the building height. That might also provide opportunities for throughput driveways. The trash collection, mailboxes, and bicycle parking needed more thought. The current configuration of the drive aisles meant that there were no eyes on the street. The precedent project mentioned by Chair Hirsch had the same problem. People would want to gravitate to the bigger street, but there were no eyes on it. There were balconies at the second level, but she worried about the street level and pedestrians. Eyes on the public areas allowed projects to thrive. She was pleased the applicant discussed the design intent and stated that engagement with the street was important. She agreed with that but thought that garage door facing streets would minimize engagement. The bedroom at the street level mentioned by Vice Chair Baltay was probably Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA) accessible, so she understood that but still thought it was in a bad location. It meant that there would be closed windows and no engagement on the ground floor. Based on that she recommended other ways of creating engagement like porches or stoops for outdoor living space. The current design read very closed off and needed to be more inviting. The applicant mentioned a desire for visual diversity, but the current design did not achieve that since they were the same buildings, and the color palettes did not help in creating visual diversity. She agreed with Vice Chair Baltay that they could add roof eaves, angled windows, plan variation and other things like balconies, window placement, and shading options. She spoke of a solid/void dynamic and called for more consideration of how the sun hit the site and affected the façades. Currently people might get lost because everything was so similar. She stressed that architects could not keep making the same building over and over as it was not good for the future. The building type selected could allow for diversity without much added cost and she thought that was very important. The palette had promise, but the ARB had identified stucco as a low quality material. The findings required high quality materials. Additionally, the color boards all looked the same, so she requested that they put the color on the materials for the next hearing. She appreciated the wood color and the textures. The warmth was welcome, and she thought it could be even warmer, especially given the applicant’s design intent to be warm and earthy. There was much to be done in terms of reconsidering the orientation, and the façade character and depth. There was also a lot of promise in the project, but it was currently a hard sell. 5     Packet Pg. 47     Page 12 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Boardmember Chen thanked the applicant and stated that her colleagues covered everything and she did not want to repeat the comments. She noted that several mature trees were being removed and referred to Sheet L6.2 and Trees 43 to 51, which were listed as redwoods in fairly good condition. She recommended keeping the trees and providing another open space area. Ms. Gerhardt asked Boardmember Chen to repeat the page number and tree numbers. Boardmember Chen repeated that she was looking at Sheet L6.2 and Trees 43 through 51. Also on Sheet L6.3 there was Tree 104 which was being removed for a parking spot. She asked if that could be saved by reconfiguring the parking area. The paseo concept was good, but the proposal was too narrow and due to the orientation would be in shadow most of the time. Based on that she recommended that it be widened. With the building massing and form she agreed that it was too consistent and that it needed variations. Since the project was next to the historic cannery she requested to see the relationship between the buildings. If the buildings were related to the neighborhood they might have more interesting elevations. On Sheet AR2.1.2 it showed the building next to the single family zoning and she thought that they needed to put more thought into the design related to the daylight plane instead of cutting the corner. On the existing elevations she noted the metal roof between the framed boxes and stated that the element did not belong to the building. Based on that she suggested they rethink the architectural elements on the elevations. She encouraged variation on the building height, window types, and materials rather than just changing the material’s colors. Chair Hirsch stated that he would summarize the conversation and then confirm that that he had gotten all the comments. Boardmember Thompson was concerned about eyes on the street, the orientation of the buildings relative to the sun, solid and void, a greater variety of high quality materials, and variety in the typology of the buildings and possibility for variation. Boardmember Chen was concerned about trees and the paseo width. The paseo width was a common concern for the ARB. She was also concerned about the lack of variety in unit types and the project’s relation to the historic building. The applicant talked about precedent of colors within the neighborhood but stylistically they did not discuss the relationship to the cannery building and the past industrial uses of the site. They should look for consistency in how they approach the design and the variation in the materials. Vice Chair Baltay was concerned about contextual issues, street widths, the visual relationship between window lines, privacy, and limitations on dimensions including the paseo. He asked the ARB if he had missed anything in his summation. Vice Chair Baltay thought that the summation was fine. He asked if he could respond to his colleagues’ comments. Chair Hirsch indicated he could. Vice Chair Baltay was taken with Boardmember Chen’s idea about responding to the cannery building. He reviewed the prior public hearings on the project and the negotiated agreement. The community wanted to preserve the historic nature of the building, but he did not get it and see the historical significance. He stated that was flat out wrong and noted that the staff report discussed Thomas Foon Chew, a Chinese immigrant and a groundbreaking figure in the canning industry. Mr. Chew provided jobs to many people in Silicon Valley before the tech industry, which was exactly what historic preservation was about. He asked why the project could not do more to bring the historical context into the City’s consciousness. He did not know if that would happen through architectural forms or through street names, but he suggested 5     Packet Pg. 48     Page 13 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 the applicant take the challenge and make the City remember and celebrate its history. He repeated that he appreciated and supported Boardmember Chen’s comments about historical preservation. In response to Chair Hirsch’s presentation he stated that he disagreed and believed the ARB should not design the project from the dais. Further, fitting 74 townhomes on the site was tight and presented issues that were not easily resolved. He was comfortable allowing portions of the project to be taller and denser in some places to allow for the same amount of housing. The townhomes did not need to be the exact same kind of building and would support a design typology that allowed for taller buildings in some places. He asked if his colleagues agreed that it was acceptable to exceed 35’ in some places to achieve the greater good. Boardmember Thompson agreed with Vice Chair Baltay and was open to a taller structure to allow for more open space. She liked the idea of harkening to the cannery’s architecture. However, she had looked at the renderings for the new cannery structure and the material palette was cold. Some of the forms were nice and could be added to the townhomes, but she cautioned that the applicant should keep a warm palette for comfortable living. She further appreciated the comments on the trees and stated that she had been unable to visit the site. If there were nice redwoods she wanted them preserved. Boardmember Chen indicated that she had additional thoughts on the trees and circulation. It was not necessary to keep all the streets rigid and linear; they could curve in order to preserve the trees. Chair Hirsch said that much of his sketch grew from the subcommittee work on townhomes. He was enamored of the idea of cul-de-sacs as they were an interesting prototype for housing. He repeated his reasons for the preference but noted that the site was very tight. He reminded the ARB that the sun found its way to different places by reflecting and refraction. Based on that it was impossible for the applicants to design something diagonally on the site. Boardmember Thompson asked why he thought that was as half of the site was on the diagonal. The project would not lose square footage. Chair Hirsch said that there were many different conflicting relationships on the diagonal because other streets had perpendicular connections with specific traffic. It was hard to end diagonals. Boardmember Thompson offered San Francisco as an example. Chair Hirsch noted that he had been playing off the idea of the paseo, which he thought was nice. It was hard to do a paseo on a diagonal. Boardmember Thompson stated that she did not want to discount the idea without study. Chair Hirsch said that many of the criticisms of the site were worth studying. It was unfortunate that things would be studied as the project was already in progress. That was bothersome to him as the comments were interesting. He and Vice Chair Baltay were concerned that the process “was not 100% here” where the ARB could comment on something and that that design would never be built. He believed his suggestion would never be built because the zoning would not be changed at this point in the process. He hoped Sobrato would speak to the Council and request latitude to create more units. If they built higher buildings they could have more units. Several members of the ARB agreed that more height was a good idea. Based on that they could do it in a more efficient way and have a taller building. He repeated that 5     Packet Pg. 49     Page 14 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 his idea got the traffic off the streets where it would otherwise be problematic and created an interrelationship between public and private areas. He asked if anyone had further comments. Vice Chair Baltay thought Boardmember Thompson’s concept of diagonalizing the whole thing was as valid as any other ARB suggestion. There were issues that had to be worked through, but the site had a bias in one direction that was worth studying. The project was zoned PC and that meant they were creating their own zoning. Suggesting they make the building higher was not crazy or illegal. PC zones were planned and it was important to remember that. Chair Hirsch agreed. Ms. Gerhardt asked if the applicant had questions. Chair Hirsch said that the ARB wanted to know that as well. Mr. Burton stated that the comments were clear and thanked the ARB for the items to consider. Chair Hirsch thanked the applicant and called for a 10 minute break. The ARB took a break 4. Ad Hoc Committee Report: Objective Standards Phase 2 for Townhomes Chair Hirsch: Explains that he and Boardmember Chen spent time viewing different townhome developments and noted that they used Google to view some places that were out of town. He displayed a map of the 7 various townhome projects around Palo Alto. The next slide showed the other townhome projects on a map of the Bay Area. Boardmember Thompson asked why the item had to be heard that day and for the goal of the discussion. Chair Hirsch suggested she ask the question following the presentation. Vice Chair Baltay said that the recently passed Objective Standards fell short regarding townhomes. He thought the ARB saw that in the last two townhome applications they heard. The purpose was to determine if the ARB had suggestions for the Council and staff about how to fine tune the Objective Standards relating to townhomes. The subcommittee was created to research the topic and the presentation was their report. Chair Hirsch agreed. Vice Chair Baltay suggested they listen to the report. Boardmember Thompson said that Vice Chair Baltay’s comments were helpful. Chair Hirsch stated that in some ways they took an amateurish approach to the project. They needed Planning to help as the language was not complete. He looked forward to working with staff on the language for the document. He continued pointing out the projects on the map of the Bay Area and suggested that Boardmembers visit nearby sites. He asked Boardmember Chen to discuss Neighborhood Context. 5     Packet Pg. 50     Page 15 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Boardmember Chen explained they separated the item into 8 topics they wanted to cover and the first was Neighborhood Context. Under that heading they separated the discussion into three different points, the first one being a site close to a historic district or building, the second was being on a Major street or Boulevard, and the third was a site adjacent to low density residential areas. She displayed a townhouse project in Paloma, a historic district. The railroad ran in front of the site and the building had warehouse elements. Vice Chair Baltay noted that the project felt like a railroad somehow. Ms. Raybould reminded the ARB that they went through a majority of the presentation at the last hearing. She wanted to make sure they weren’t reviewing the same material. Boardmember Chen stated that they added some slides. Chair Hirsch said that there were new slides and many aerials that they did not have previously. They also wanted to get feedback. Boardmember Chen showed another slide of the Arbor Real in Palo Alto. It was a corner treatment facing two major streets. The subcommittee liked the corner building and how the street trees filtered the building. She showed a photograph of a corner unit at the JCC townhomes. The next slide was of an apartment building in Mountain View, but the subcommittee thought it illustrated a better transition from a higher density zone to a lower residential zone. Chair Hirsch interjected that the street trees were also important on the major street. Boardmember Chen said that for townhomes on a major street there were five things they wanted to point out and have design teams select two or more items. She stated that she would not read the text listed on the slides. With corner units they felt they were the anchor of a project and therefore they needed more detailed requirements. The corner unit would not have to meet every requirement, but the subcommittee was considering requiring projects to meet two or three of them. She suggested the ARB determine if they wanted to add more requirements. Chair Hirsch noted there were three parts to Community Circulation, 1) vehicle access and parking, 2) pedestrian/bicycle paths, and guest parking. The next slide was of a rental project, but it illustrated the podium scheme that might work for townhomes. Podiums were more expensive so he hoped supportive housing could find funding that would make it feasible. The photograph showed a central garbage collection area which was close to the perimeter of the site and would accommodate easier garbage collection. The next slide showed a cul-de-sac and featured colors and materials that were nicely done. The end unit faced El Camino and dead ended in a dark element. He suggested they imagine that open or with a connecting element that was a story higher. There were many options on how to treat a unit that closed a cul-de-sac. The next slide showed an aerial view of a series of cul-de-sacs on El Camino. The ones that were not pedestrian oriented were a dead end. The trees in the area were fully grown on the avenue and therefore needed to be mandated with appropriate setbacks. The next aerial view was of Livermore and was similar to the cannery project with the paseo behind it with a sloped roofline. Later they planned to show an elevation of the project that was quite different from the roof lines. The project had different typologies. The next slide showed a townhome in Mountain View with a central courtyard and a perimeter 5     Packet Pg. 51     Page 16 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 roadway surrounding the project featuring guest parking. The guest parking was extremely convenient for any unit in the project. He noted that the units at the front were setback further and suggested that the requirements ought to follow the Downtown requirements where they had an area for planting trees. There was easy circulation in and out of the development and one side was emphasized as the major entry. The site plan was clear and the openness was very effective and enjoyable. The next slide showed the hierarchy between the plantings, front door, and the street, and what it looked like when it was done well. He noted that the units were a bit more expensive, and they were also separate townhouses. He displayed an elevation from a series of houses which showed a variation. The ARB needed to consider how variation was possible, even in the project they looked at earlier in the day. Each townhome had a unique presentation of details which added quality and personality. Boardmember Thompson asked if they could comment on the façades as Chair Hirsch went through them. Chair Hirsch said that they could. Boardmember Thompson noted the variation slide featured a very chaotic façade. she did not know if Palo Alto should aspire to that. The ground level had open space and the balconies were appreciated, but there were too many materials, grains, and styles. There were some good things, but there were a lot of bad things on the façade. Chair Hirsch indicated that they were unable to find perfect projects, but he thought that one was interesting as a sampling of treatments. Vice Chair Baltay thought it would receive an opposite response from the project the ARB heard earlier. They would have been told to do less. He thought that it made moves at the form level which were good. Boardmember Thompson wondered if they should look at examples that they did not want to see in Palo Alto and thought it might be easier to create a diagram or sketch that emphasized what they wanted to see. She worried that an applicant would watch the hearing and think the ARB would support a project similar to the example given, which was not the case. Vice Chair Baltay said that they should go on record. The projects were not necessarily supported as examples of good townhome design, but examples to stimulate the ARB to think about the issues. Chair Hirsch agreed that was correct. Vice Chair Baltay noted that Boardmember Thompson had a good point and that the examples were not models of design. He asked if that was correct. Boardmember Chen said it was. Chair Hirsch thought the ARB would choose half of the details from the building and repeat them. Boardmember Chen thought they wanted to show it to trigger discussion. there were a few things they liked and other things that they did not. No project was perfect, so they were separated into different categories. There was a separate category for materiality. They showed the project under Community Circulation because they wanted to show the frontage from the streetside. The building had a greater setback and landscaping along the street. Additionally, each unit had its own front yard or patio. 5     Packet Pg. 52     Page 17 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Vice Chair Baltay asked what the setback was on the project. Chair Hirsch stated that he did not measure it but noted that there were no street trees even though it was a fairly major street. He agreed with Boardmember Thompson that they could have used less materials but liked the fact that they tried to individualize each unit. The project simply went too far. Boardmember Thompson agreed. One of the regulation suggestions mentioned grouping units, but she thought individuality or distinction was a good thing. Chair Hirsch moved to the next slide and stated that it showed the idea of wood shingling and other materials. Vice Chair Baltay asked if they knew how wide the space was between the buildings. Chair Hirsch said that they did not, but noted that the units on the right were end units and the ones on the left were front units. Vice Chair Baltay said that he asked the question because it was a paseo and he wanted to know how much space it took to function. Chair Hirsch thought they had more pictures. Boardmember Chen noted that the project had some narrow places and some wider spaces. The narrower ones were around 20’. Some of the units in the project were 2 stories instead of 3, so building height was somehow related to the width of the walkway. Chair Hirsch noted that the sun shone in either way. Vice Chair Baltay agreed that it did in the photograph but he did not know if it was sunny otherwise. He knew the JCC had nice public spaces. Chair Hirsch thought the scale between the buildings was the best part of the project. The next slide was an aerial view of a project and he pointed out the significant amount of guest parking. It was possible that there was parking there for other purposes. He confirmed that there was a good amount of parking in the project that they heard earlier. Ms. Raybould said that there were approximately 35 spaces and all of it was parallel or perpendicular parking along the main street. Chair Hirsch said that some of it was near the Fry’s building. Vice Chair Baltay thought that the ARB should refrain from further discussion on the earlier project. Chair Hirsch suggested they look at the diagonal landscaping scheme within the paseo. Vice Chair Baltay thought there were two paseos. Chair Hirsch said that there were multiple paseos. Vice Chair Baltay wanted to know how wide the paseos were compared to the height of the buildings. He noted that a 1:1 ratio made communities feel good. Objective Standards required numbers. 5     Packet Pg. 53     Page 18 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Boardmember Chen explained they had another photo of the pictured project which was a view between the two buildings. It was narrow compared to the height. Vice Chair Baltay thought a good architect could make a narrow space work as it was routinely done in Europe. The ARB needed to determine how to objectify the requirements. Chair Hirsch said that there would be different kinds of diagrams. Boardmember Chen indicated that the next slide was still related to parking. Chair Hirsch noted it was Arbor Real and featured the cul-de-sac scheme. Boardmember Chen pointed out the guest parking. Chair Hirsch said that it was on the main street which was much wider. There was a good amount of guest parking there. He asked the ARB to remember the aerial photograph as they planned to show the garbage collection area later. Trash enclosures were a significant issue that needed to be addressed in the new standards. The next slide was text. Boardmember Thompson asked if the slide was the suggestion for the Objective Standard. Chair Hirsch said that it was. Vice Chair Baltay asked if tandem parking was currently allowed for 100%. Ms. Raybould said that it was 25%. Boardmember Thompson noted that the packet said 50%. Boardmember Chen stated that was due to a last minute change the subcommittee made the day before. Boardmember Thompson requested clarification on the suggestion. Boardmember Chen said it was 30%. Chair Hirsch noted that the ARB needed to discuss it. Vice Chair Baltay suggested 100%. Boardmember Thompson asked why they should limit it. Chair Hirsch asked if Vice Chair Baltay was speaking about guest parking. Vice Chair Baltay said that he was discussing tandem parking. When a family had two cars they could stack them. Boardmember Thompson asked for the reason there was a limitation in the code. Ms. Raybould thought the only reason was because they wanted the parking spaces to be as useable as possible. Tandem parking spaces were potentially less usable. Vice Chair Baltay thought that with single ownership tandem units made sense. 5     Packet Pg. 54     Page 19 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Ms. Gerhardt explained that tandem spaces had to be for the same unit. The City would not allow it otherwise. With lift parking some lifts bring one’s car independently and that was acceptable. Tandem lifts needed to be for the same unit. Ms. Raybould had concerns with the discussion around guest parking because Council had made moves to eliminate guest parking from the code over the past few years. That aligned with State Housing Code as well. Asking for a requirement for guest parking might not be well received by Council. Boardmember Thompson thought several of the issues were really about zoning standards and not architectural standards. she was not sure why the ARB would dictate the percentage of tandem units or guest parking as it was not in their purview. Vice Chair Baltay pointed out that the functionality of a unit depended on parking. Guest parking was part of the basic functionality of a townhome and that was the ARB’s purview. He agreed the discussion boarded on zoning issues of a broader scale but the ARB needed to be careful not to limit itself. without guest parking it was tough to live in a townhome. Boardmember Thompson did not disagree, but thought it was not the correct forum to discuss the issues in. whether there was guest parking or not did not impact the building function or the architectural aesthetic. Ms. Raybould thought it could affect how the building looked. The discussion was about potential changes to the Objective Standards which were part of the Zoning Code. She clarified that they did not have clear direction from Council for staff time to work on the changes. They would need to present something to Council on the changes to the Objective Standards and then go through a process for the Zoning Code changes. Both the PTC and the Council would consider Zoning Code Changes. Chair Hirsch agreed that if they put something in there they could note that it did not conform to the current code, but the ARB felt it merited discussion. Then Council could give the topic more thought. Ms. Gerhardt thought they would need to provide rationale for changes. For example, she asked what the subcommittee’s reason was to increase the tandem parking from 25% to 30%. Tandem parking affected the floorplan of a garage so maybe that was the reasoning. Vice Chair Baltay explained that eliminating a two car garage in favor of a one car garage had design implications on the floor plans of the units. Boardmember Thompson understood that but asked why the ARB was experts on where tandem parking was and was not appropriate. Vice Chair Baltay explained that in townhomes having a greater amount of floor area be accessible was an important thing and an architectural issue that the Council would not consider otherwise. Once tandem parking was allowed other good things could happen and Council needed to hear that as a recommendation. Chair Hirsch stated that was why the subcommittee included it. Vice Chair Baltay thought that number of spaces per unit was a Council decision. 5     Packet Pg. 55     Page 20 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Boardmember Thompson agreed. Vice Chair Baltay thought that tandem spaces had such an effect on the units that the ARB’s recommendation was important. Boardmember Thompson thought she would be more comfortable saying what should happen when there was a tandem space versus how many tandem spaces were allowed. If a project had tandem spaces then a set of standards would apply. Vice Chair Baltay thought that implied that when there was not tandem spaces the unit required a larger frontage. Projects had to achieve other goals related to entries that would cause wider units. That was a narrow focus and what the ARB needed to do was provide the decision makers with good information. He was certain they did not look at issues in the same way as the ARB. Chair Hirsch agreed that was the case. Vice Chair Baltay was comfortable discussing the issues but understood Boardmember Thompson’s points. They needed to be careful not to overstep their bounds. Boardmember Thompson was unsure that she was able to judge what the percentage should be. She noted that she had not studied Transportation Demand Management (TDM) and thought a TDM planner or someone who studied traffic might understand the trends in parking better. Vice Chair Baltay repeated that the ARB was not making statements about the number of required parking spaces, only how they were configured. It was for the TDM, staff, and the PTC to determine the number of parking spaces. Boardmember Thompson said that was good. However, stating a maximum was making a statement on that. Ms. Gerhardt explained it did not change the total number of parking spaces, only the configuration. They were discussing the difference between a two car garage and a tandem two car garage. Vice Chair Baltay indicated he was comfortable with tandem parking throughout a townhouse development. He thought the percentage should not be regulated. So long as a project contained the number of required spaces the configuration did not matter. He asked for confirmation that the R1 Zoning Code stated that tandem parking was legitimate. Ms. Gerhardt and others in the room agreed that was correct. There were many single family homes with one covered space and the second space was in front of the garage. That was allowed in R1 but was not done as much in multi-families because of the code section requiring a maximum of 25%. The ARB could make a Motion about the code section so long as they stated that they were looking at it from a certain lens and understood that the PTC and Council would do the same. Chair Hirsch stated that he had tandem parking at his home despite only having one car. He thought it was good that the issue generated a lot of discussion. Boardmember Chen explained that in their research they noticed that tandem parking was often used for the smaller units in the communities. That could be why they would limit the percentage of the tandem 5     Packet Pg. 56     Page 21 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 parking. Another reason to increase it from 25% to 30% was because a 7 unit building could have two units with tandem parking and that was more reasonable. Boardmember Thompson asked if the other units had traditional two car garages. Chair Hirsch indicated that they did. Boardmember Thompson asked if that was successful or if the other units could have been more successful if they were tandem spaces. Chair Hirsch said that it was possible but that one needed to review the interior plans. Vice Chair Baltay explained that as a practicing architect he felt comfortable saying that they would have been more successful with tandem spaces. He always preferred a single car garage and more space for the building’s entry. Boardmember Chen explained most townhomes had bedrooms that perfectly fit above the two car garage. However, with natural light and other considerations that might not be the best solution. Boardmember Thompson said that her parents had a tandem parking situation, and it was not great. She wanted to discuss the architectural implications because a standard two car garage did take up frontage, but it left the other side of the unit open for living space. If the space was tandem then both sides of the building would be cheated a bit. Vice Chair Baltay thought that was a good point depending on the depth of the development. Boardmember Thompson asked for the average depth of a townhome. Vice Chair Baltay did not know. Chair Hirsch thought the ones they had looked at were about 42’. Vice Chair Baltay thought that meant Boardmember Thompson’s point was well taken. Ms. Raybould noted that many of the designs staff saw had more of a configuration with the parking on one side and living space and entry were on the other. It could be looked at in a different way. Vice Chair Baltay suggested they leave the choice to the architect and allow tandem parking everywhere rather than trying to focus on Objective Standards around the frontage. He wanted the architects to have more tools available in their toolbox. There were many issues with tandem parking about living with them and reselling the units. Tandem parking forced people to use guest parking more often because it was more convenient. The PTC needed to consider those questions and not the ARB. Chair Hirsch noted that at one of the Mountain View projects he visited he asked someone about who used the close guest parking and learned that the answer was whoever got there first. That person owned a smaller unit with one spot. Allowing for 100% tandem parking placed pressure on all the guest spaces. Vice Chair Baltay thought that in the 32’ right of way people would parallel park in front of their own garages in order to fit 3 cars. Chair Hirsch did not think that could happen as the street needed to be kept open. 5     Packet Pg. 57     Page 22 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Vice Chair Baltay agreed that people were risking a ticket from the Fire Marshall. Chair Hirsch thought the Fire Department investigated the developments to ensure that did not happen. He suggested the ARB move on and called for the next slide related to building typology. Boardmember Chen noted that the slide was a site plan for the Arbor Real project, which was made up of townhomes and single family homes. There were cul-de-sac layouts and duplexes. Chair Hirsch noted that those were typologies and were quite different. Boardmember Chen called for the slide that was an aerial view of the Arbor Real and pointed out the different building types. The next slide was a site plan for a community along Bayshore. Units faced the major street and others faced the common open space. The project featured a variety of building types and she displayed them with an aerial view on the next slide. Chair Hirsch noted that there were eyes on the park. Boardmember Thompson requested to see the slide again. Chair Hirsch stated that there were eyes on the open space and he was sure it was well used. The development was older, so it was just open space. Current projects featured more furniture and landscaping. Boardmember Thompson noted that there was access from both sides of the units that was pedestrian friendly. It appeared that the units had both front and back doors. Chair Hirsch said that there were small courts with air conditioning units and parking provided access to the staircase which ran to the unit. Vice Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Thompson how she felt about the eyes on the street in the pictured project. Boardmember Thompson said that she was unable to tell without reviewing the floor plan or elevations. With the projects the ARB saw she was concerned that one side was all garage doors with no back entry, back porch, or landscaping. That meant there were no eyes or access on that side. A successful townhome would have eyes on both the front and back. Vice Chair Baltay thought it would be good to know the density of the unit counts on the properties. He asked if it took more space to accomplish eyes on the street or if it was a matter of design. He felt that they were just looking at denser designs. They should reaffirm Boardmember Thompson’s points about eyes on the street. Chair Hirsch asked if a percentage of a project should have an open space requirement. Vice Chair Baltay thought that was an objective standard and was exactly what the ARB was discussing. Boardmember Thompson thought the experience of a project was important. If people were driving then the garage door façade would be their experience and almost like a front door. 5     Packet Pg. 58     Page 23 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Vice Chair Baltay noted that the project they were looking at seemed to be quite dense. He asked staff if they thought it was a matter of density or design. Ms. Gerhardt asked if he was questioning why the green space was in the center. Vice Chair Baltay stated that he was. Ms. Gerhardt assumed it was because of the common open space requirement. Vice Chair Baltay said that he meant to ask that independent of requirements was it just that the project had more space there or was it a design question. Ms. Raybould thought there was a common open space requirement. She liked that design feature and it was possible some of the private open space was placed toward common open space. Ms. Gerhardt indicated that the large open space was nice for parents to allow their children to play in. Vice Chair Baltay said that would work if there were eyes on the space. Ms. Gerhardt noted she was speaking about sitting on one’s porch. Ms. Raybould personally found the design nice. She agreed with Boardmember Thompson that it returned to units being designed with the same level of thought. If people were leaving the parking garage that was in effect a front door. Some thought placed on that side of the design with some articulation to have eyes on the street was a good point. That might be more difficult with entries, so she appreciated the idea of having stoops or entries that faced open space. That could also be done with porches, but personally she would rather have a porch facing a park versus a street. Chair Hirsch said that Sterling Park featured rentals facing Highway 101 and requested they return to the slide showing the site plan. He noted how many units had sold quickly. The maintenance of the edge on Bayshore was very badly kept. The street side was very dense and contained a mix of smaller and larger units. The typology of each project would determine what the developer did. Ms. Raybould thought that the units were rentals. Chair Hirsch said that they were rented. Ms. Raybould said that rental units would not be identified as sold. Chair Hirsch admitted that he did not know the full history of the project. He had simply spoken with a current tenant. He called for the next slide, which was a sketch. Circulation created the entire environment of the inside of the project. It applied the same idea as the last project with an interior center court. The entry featured a garage to garage typology and allowed for some of the interior space to be treed. The projects the ARB currently were seeing did not have that happen. Boardmember Thompson requested he repeat his last point. Chair Hirsch said that the space was capable of having trees. The plan for the units was wider to allow access to a garage and a tree on the street. Boardmember Thompson asked if the units had garages. 5     Packet Pg. 59     Page 24 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 Chair Hirsch said they did. Boardmember Thompson asked what the purpose of the center garage was. Chair Hirsch explained it was below grade visitor parking and the A unit was accessible from the garage below. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed that the center space was open public space above the garage and the experience was an open plaza. Chair Hirsch said that was correct. Ms. Raybould noted that the code did not currently count open space on the second story. She was not sure if the intent of that was related to visual impacts and privacy. Anything proposed with second floor open space was an issue because it required an exception. Board member Thompson clarified that the open space was at grade and that the parking was below grade in the visual. Chair Hirsch reaffirmed that the parking was below. Ms. Raybould knew the ARB had strong feelings about adding guest parking but the Council recently made code changes to eliminate guest parking. They did that to align better with goals and policies to reduce reliance on vehicle miles traveled and single occupancy vehicles. It was also to reduce restrictions that made it harder to build housing and meet the housing development goals under the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA). Pushing for code changes to add guest parking is not necessarily aligning with Council’s direction. Ms. Gerhardt believed Ms. Raybould was correct and they needed to be careful not to increase the total number of parking spaces, but the Bayshore project with all the spaces in two car garages did cause concern. It needed to be clearly stated that they were not discussing increasing the total number, but about potentially more undesignated surface spaces. Vice Chair Baltay thought guest parking might be the wrong term. He asked where home services such as cleaners would park or where delivery drivers would park. Many aspects of daily life required people coming in vehicles. The ARB wanted to accommodate that. Chair Hirsch suggested they think of the sketch as a project that could be on Bayshore. Bayshore had no parking and so he questioned whether it was fair to treat it the same way as a project that had street parking. There needed to be a planning reason to include the parking. Boardmember Thompson thought Ms. Raybould made a good point about being aware of Council’s conversations. San Francisco had zero parking requirements. Palo Alto was not there yet, but it was possible it could get there one day. Her main issue with many of the townhome schemes was how car centric they were. In the sketch the road was the center road for everything and she would rather see a scheme where the road was not the center. Much of Palo Alto was in a flood plane and many developers would not want to park underground and that meant the sketch was not very feasible. If that were a residential parking garage used to free up floor space in the townhomes that might work. She thought 5     Packet Pg. 60     Page 25 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 that was an interesting parti. It was great to look at existing projects, but she was interested in the “townhome of tomorrow.” She put the challenge to the subcommittee. Chair Hirsch called for the next slide. Boardmember Chen explained it was a community in Mountain View along Mendocino with a perimeter road and a central common space. The buildings faced each other, and the neighborhood was nice. It facilitated neighbors getting to know each other and children playing safely. There were five different unit plans and the blue units featured tandem parking. Vice Chair Baltay noted the design pointed out the risk created by tandem parking for narrow spaces. Chair Hirsch thought the site plan was interesting and noted the perimeter of trees. He stated that the name of the development was Summer Hill. Boardmember Chen said it was not. Summer Hill had a similar layout but larger open space at the center. Boardmember Thompson asked if there was pedestrian access along the perimeter. Boardmember Chen explained that the front doors faced the courtyard. Boardmember Thompson confirmed there was no pedestrian access on the perimeter. Chair Hirsch said there was access from the areas in the middle that were areaways between. They were smaller areas and usually contained mailboxes, but they functioned. Boardmember Thompson asked if it felt like a front door. Chair Hirsch thought so. Boardmember Chen explained that the dark green trees shown were large Redwoods to be preserved. She called for the next slide and explained it was an aerial view of the site. Chair Hirsch stated it was the elevation the Boardmember Thompson called “chaotic.” Boardmember Chen said there were too many materials. She called for the next slide which was text. The code required three different prototypes but for smaller developments it was possible that one prototype was fine. Vice Chair Baltay thought it would be helpful to have a discussion on typologies or amount of building types. When a developer wanted to build townhomes that was what they wanted to build, and many people wanted to buy them. He suggested they focus on the architectural design and call for greater variety of form types rather than typology. Requiring multiple typologies might not work and would result in less housing for Palo Alto. Boardmember Thompson might say that the role of the ARB was to get greater architectural variety or to control and regulate that. He suggested they try to define it before they tried to rewrite the Objective Standards. The question of typology in the Contextual Standards was vague and not realistic. Chair Hirsch said that what concerned him was people being eliminated from living in the community. A member of the PTC told him that their parents wanted to downsize to a single level apartment in a 5     Packet Pg. 61     Page 26 of 26 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 12/15/22 4 5 0 community. Mixes were important and were able to change density. He thought there was no problem so long as the forms were well defined. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed that Chair Hirsch thought the ARB should continue to require different building typologies. Chair Hirsch said that he believed that and was interested in mid-rise buildings and townhomes that had a neighborhood feeling. The ARB could not say what the population wanted because they did not know. Ms. Raybould stated developers looked at many aspects of a site when they decided what to build. What they would find is that the ARB could request different typologies, but developers probably would not provide them. Housing development projects with density bonus could request concessions or waivers to that allowance and probably would do so. Requesting a different project was difficult. She saw Chair Hirsch’s point about providing different types around the City, but that was different from requesting developers to build different unit types on one site. Boardmember Thompson saw value in having different types of townhomes if it was possible. What they wanted to avoid was cookie cutter monotony. It was okay to keep pushing for three different building types. If the architect could create the feeling of diversity even if the units were all townhomes she would not object. Ms. Gerhardt clarified that the three different housing types that were put in the Objective Standards clearly stated different types of units. A townhouse with a front door on one side and a garage on the rear was one type of unit. A rowhouse with the front door and garage on the same side was a different unit. Detached townhomes or condos could be named as a different type of unit. She agreed that cookie cutter was bad and that a variety of materials were preferred, but that was a separate standard. Boardmember Thompson advocated for different types of buildings as defined by Ms. Gerhardt. She suggested the ARB remember that they were discussing landscape and open space and postpone the rest of the discussion. She noted that Boardmember Rosenberg would be able to participate as well. Chair Hirsch agreed that was a good idea. As a person that came from a large urban city where the houses were four stories high with stoops and large buildings on the avenues. There was something interesting about a mix in a neighborhood that he loved. The blocks were organized by residential and commercial in the Park Slope neighborhood. There was value in different typologies and density would require Palo Alto to build higher. The Council had to consider the density issues, but that consideration should not be lost on the ARB. Vice Chair Baltay thought the discussion was great and that a lot of work needed to be focused on how to fine tune the standards. he suggested the subcommittee focus on suggesting changes to the Objective Standards. it was also important to define townhomes and perhaps building typology. The applicants needed clarity. Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements None. Adjournment Chair Hirsch adjourned the meeting. 5     Packet Pg. 62     Item No. 6. Page 1 of 6 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: February 16, 2023 TITLE 788 San Antonio [19PLN-00079]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Address Conditions of Approval and Related Architectural and Landscape Element Design Changes RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Ad Hoc Committee take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction, or 2. Confirm the revised project meets the ARB’s direction/conditions and recommend the Director move the project forward. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ARB recommended approval of the project on August 20, 2020. On December 7, 2020, the City Council approved the subject project and the related ordinance. The entitlement became effective on January 6, 2021. At the ARB’s recommendation, staff required Condition of Approval #4. This condition required the submittal of details for ARB Ad Hoc Committee review noted below, along with the applicant’s responses. This report summarizes the condition of approval and the applicant’s response to the conditions. Link to the ARB’s August 20, 2020 hearing: Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2020/arb-8.20-san-antonio.pdf Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2020/arb-10.1-minutes.pdf Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-74-8202020/ 6     Packet Pg. 63     Item No. 6. Page 2 of 6 DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS Following is a summary of each requirement in the condition of approval, the applicant’s response to the requirement, and staff’s analysis of whether the response addresses the condition of approval. Architectural Review Condition 4a: Reconsider Corten-steel material and/or provide additional details Applicant’s Response: The applicant has replaced the Corten steel with a more durable “corten-look” siding. This siding retains the visual appearance of Corten without the maintenance concern. See Attachment B A3.0d and the plans for updated material palette. Staff’s Analysis: Staff believes that the revised material will provide a similar appearance to the corten-steel material proposed in the original drawings, while also eliminating the potential concerns for rust runoff and staining of surrounding paint/siding materials. Architectural Review Condition 4b: Consider substitution for redwood material at balconies or provide more information on the life cycle/maintenance of the material Applicant’s Response: The applicant has substituted the redwood siding for New Tech Wood composite siding. Attachment B, A3.0d, and the plans show the updated material palette. The warranty and maintenance information is included in Attachment C. Staff’s Analysis: The revisions respond to the ARB’s request for a more durable material and information on the life cycle and maintenance of the proposed material has been provided. Architectural Review Condition 4c: Reconsider the bright white paint color with an earth tone color. Applicant’s Response: The applicant has substituted the bright white paint color for an off-white “pale oak” paint color. This is shown in the updated material palette shown on A3.0d of Attachment B and reflected in the plans. Staff’s Analysis: The proposed revisions appear responsive to the ARB’s recommendation. Architectural Review Condition 4d: Consider making the “ribbon” element a uniform thickness 6     Packet Pg. 64     Item No. 6. Page 3 of 6 Applicant’s Response: The applicant explored keeping the ribbon thickness more uniform; however, they kept it thicker at the horizontal bands delineating the front entry; retail/residential corner; and the garage ramp. The applicant believes that this will serve to highlight these areas as a sense of wayfinding. The ribbon is of uniform size at all other locations. See Attachment C A3.0a and A3.0b for these changes, which are also reflected in the plans in Attachment D. Staff’s analysis The applicant has chosen to remain with the thickness of the material as originally proposed and has further explained their reasoning. This condition only asked that the applicant consider a change, therefore, staff believes the application has met the intent of the condition. The ARB is welcome to provide additional feedback on this item or accept the applicant’s position. Architectural Review Condition 4e: Consider making the corner (Leghorn/San Antonio) more visually architectural. Consider adding relief through changing materials Applicant’s Response: The applicant has revised the corner, as shown on Attachment C A3.1a and reflected in the plans in Attachment D, to propose a glassy corner with Equitone panels. This is intended to contrast and accent the corner of the building with the surrounding facades. These rainscreen panels will be cut on the diagonal and will have small ribs running in different directions to create additional visual interest. Staff’s Analysis The glass corner of the building appears to be similar between the original and revised drawings where the proposed design appears to be more transparent. The introduction of the ribs within the rainscreen panels helps to provide additional relief and depth to the wall, which creates more visual interest at the corner of the building. The proposed revisions appear responsive to the ARB’s recommendation. Architectural Review Condition 4f: Consider locating the bicycle wash facility in the basement Applicant’s Response: The applicant has removed the bicycle wash from the courtyard and proposed locating it next to the bioretention basin at the rear corner of the property. See Sheet A3.3 for these changes Staff’s Analysis: Staff spoke with the Public Works department regarding concerns with run-off into the bioretention basin. Public Works does not believe it would create an issue for run-off from cleaning solutions and water to enter the bio-filtration area. The proposed location is therefore appropriate regarding the capturing run-off, but the ARB may want to also review its location relative to bike users and other bike facilities on the site. 6     Packet Pg. 65     Item No. 6. Page 4 of 6 Condition of Approval 4g: Review the use of blue oak trees with Urban Forestry Division Applicant’s Response: The applicant has proposed Blue Oak trees (Quercus Douglasii) as the proposed street trees along the San Antonio street frontage. Staff’s Analysis: Staff spoke with the Urban Forestry department regarding the ARB’s concerns with using the two oak species. Urban Forestry did not feel as though having the two species near each other would create a conflict and were supportive of the applicant using the Blue Oak species in the proposed design. Condition of Approval 4h: Consider an alternative to the vertical window in the stairwell Applicant’s Response: The vertical stairwell window has been broken up with horizontal bands at each mid-landing. See Attachment B A3.0a and A3.0b and the plans in Attachment D for these changes. Staff’s Analysis: The proposed revisions appear responsive to the ARB’s recommendation. Other Minor Modifications The applicant has made other minor modifications to the building and site plan, in comparison to the Planning approved plans, to address Building permit comments. These are changes that are being reviewed at the staff level, but staff wanted to bring them to the Ad Hoc Committee’s attention for informational purposes. Before and after changes can been seen in Attachment C and are summarized below: 1. The proposed floor area has been reduced from 1.99 (86,614.75 sf) to 1.96 (85,358.57 sf); 2. The staircase and elevator facing San Antonio Road have swapped locations to allow the rooftop terrace to egress directly to the stairwell; 3. The gym equipment proposed in the interior courtyard has been moved inside the rooftop lounge area; 4. The parking calculations have been modified to account for new code revisions for accessible loading stalls; 5. The garage layout and entry has been changed for improved vehicle efficiency; 6. A staircase and elevator entry for the retail space added into garage; 7. The retail trash room has been placed at grade at San Antonio/Leghorn corner of building; 8. An additional above grade transformer has been placed adjacent to the garage ramp; 6     Packet Pg. 66     Item No. 6. Page 5 of 6 9. An ADA chair lift and entry ramp have been added to the interior side of the property facing Mountain View; 10. A leasing area was added near the long-term bike storage inside the building; 11. The bike room layout inside the building has been modified for structural purposes; 12. Balconies at the rear corner unit have been expanded; 13. The rooftop lounge has been changed to a gym and the terrace planting has been changed to a community garden; 14. Updates to the cement plaster and window trim paint colors 15. New windows have been introduced on the interior side-facing lot line at the rear of the building facing towards Mountain View. The previously approved windows on the interior side-facing lot line have been modified at the front corner of the building facing Mountain View; Summary On balance, staff believes that the applicant’s proposed revisions address Architectural Review Condition #4 and that the design has been improved in comparison to the approved plans. The additional modifications do not substantively change the design in comparison to the approved plans. The more visible changes (e.g. for trash pickup and the addition of a transformer) were made to address code requirements that were identified as part of the building permit process for proper service to the building. The ARB Ad Hoc Committee is encouraged to affirm these submittals meet Approval Condition #4. Otherwise, the Ad Hoc Committee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal requires further refinement. AUTHOR/TITLE Report Author & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Planner (650) 329-2471 Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 6     Packet Pg. 67     Item No. 6. Page 6 of 6 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A – Location Map Attachment B – Applicant Responses Attachment C – New Tech Wood Siding Details Attachment D – Project Plans Report #: 2301-0876 6     Packet Pg. 68     Building 6 Building 5 Building 3 Building 8 Building 9 Building 1 Building 2 Building 10 Building 10 Building 4 Building 7 Building 7 Building 12 Building 11 Building 8 Building 6 Building 9 Building 6 Building 5 Building 13 Building 5 Build i n g 2 Building 14 Building 2 Building 4 Building 3 Building 4 Building 15 Building 1 Building 1 Building 3 131.0' 98.0' 34.3' 24.0' 106.1' 51.0' 35.4' 79.6' 106.5' 43.0' 100.0' 0.0 150.0' 72.5' 150.0'66.4' 70.0' 72.5'120.5' 50.0' 31.4' 100.5' 120.5' 6' 120.5' 120.5' 55.5' 121.9' 84.7' 102.1' 55.5' 136.2' 30.0' 70.4' 121.9' 102.7' 110.9' 54.7' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 13.5'146.5' 289.7' 229.4' 228.9' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 72.6' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 102.2' 88.0' 136.2' 67.8' 267.4' 304.8' 151.0' 125.0' 123.9' 289.7' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 58.0'145.0' 114.0' 250.0' 94.1' 73.8' 95.3' 457.3' 413.9' 556.2' 600' 91.5' 52.9' 25.2' 60.0' 43.7' 130.5' 20.8' 50.0' 110.0' 60.0' 110.0' 40.0' 90.0' 158.9' 32.8'127.7' 60.0' 27.0' 30.4' 40.0' 26.1' 102.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 64.2' 100.8'8.0' 52.6' 100.8' 95.5' 117.5' 64.0' 117.5' 97.7'158.9' 55.5' 41.0' 115.9' 72.1' 135.0' 43.0' 135.0' 71.2' 130.5' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 250.0' 114.0' 145.0' 58.0' 605.0' 660.1' 275.9' 148.9' 242.4' 73.8' 94.1' 287.1' 199.6' 312.7' 198.0' 108.2' 120.0' 94.0' 120.0' 94.0' 96.3' 6.0' 94.0' 96.3' 0' 151.0' 147.9' 164.7' 125.0' 100.7' 60.0' 100.7' 60.0' 100.7' 60.0' 100.7' 60.0' 100.7' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.6' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 8.0' 74.5' 142.3' 115.8' 100.0' 100.7' 609' 100.7' 60.0' 100.7' 60.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 239.6' 443.1' 29.1' 27.6' 167.5' 27.4' 450.0' 169.6' 60.1' 165.8' 60.0' 165.8' 60.2' 160.8' 60.0' 160.8' 107.0' 148.9' 105.9' 95.0' 129.4' 32.0' 74.4' .1' 149.9' 244.42' 197.0' 244.42' 197.0' 100.0' 197.0' 100.0' 197.0' 109.5' 52.2' 197.0' 71.7' 266.3' 106.1' 24.0' 34.3' 102.0' 98.3' 27.4' 112.3' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 120.0' 200.0' 120.0' 200.0' 171.8' 50.0' 169.6' 50.0' 302.6' 27.2' 59.5' 132.0' 50.6' 30.8'110.6' 70.0' 115.2'32.0' 109.4' 132.0' 130.0' 100.0' 185.2' 219.3' 20.0'121.6' 165.0' 120.8' 165.0' 121.6' 144.0' 30.8' 219.3' 90.1' 209.1' 89.2' 209.1' 94.1' 198.5' 93.2' 198.5' 98.7' 187.4' 21.3' 76.4' 187.4' 103.5' 178.2' 102.6' 178.2' 107.3' 172.2' 106.7' 172.2' 147.6' 147.0' 34.3' 124.2' 345.4' 287.1' 282.3' 136.6' 118.1' 159.4' 102.4' 27.9' 159.4' 219.8' 180.6' 126.6' 97.2' 107.4' 409.8' 107.4' 409.8' 180.6' 71.8' 53.8' 62.9' 250.1' 137.7' 250.1' 142.3' 115.8' 79.7' SAN ANTONIO ROAD MIDDLEFIELD ROAD FABIAN STREET MONTROSE AVENUE SAN ANTONIO ROAD LEGHORN STREET EAST CHARLESTON ROADN ROAD 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 (PL), boundary Curb Edge Tree (TR) Known Structures Highlighted Features abc Lot Dimensions 0' 141' 788 San Antonio Road CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2023-01-26 09:12:24 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) 6     Packet Pg. 69     Studio S Squared Architecture, Inc. 1000 S Winchester Blvd. San Jose, CA 95128 ph: (408) 998-0983 www.studios2arch.com June 09, 2022 City of Palo Alto ARB Dear Sir or Madam, Thank you for taking the time to review our revised drawings. The following pages include the changes that were made since the ARB approval, reference sheet numbers, and applicable screenshots identifying important key items on plans. We look forward to reviewing these items with you at our upcoming Subcommittee meeting. Should you require any further information or clarifications on these matters, please do not hesitate to call our office. Sincerely, Isabeau Guglielmo Project Manager: Architecture isabeau@studios2arch.com (408) 998 0983 x5 6     Packet Pg. 70     Screenshot from Original ARB Set Screenshot from Current Set Responses/Changes Sheet # ARB Comment: Consider substitution for redwood or provide more information on the life cycle of Maintenance Response: We have substituted the redwood siding for Newtechwood composite siding. See A3.0d for updated material palette. Warranty and Maintenance info: https://www.newtechwood.com/wp-co ntent/uploads/2020/11/NTW_06_83_00_S D_CompSiding.pdf A3.0d ARB Comment: Reconsider corten steel material and/or provide additional details Response: Corten steel has been replaced with a more durable “corten-look” siding. This siding retains the visual appearance of Corten without the maintenance concern. A3.0d ARB Comment: Reconsider bright white paint color with earth tone color Response: We have substituted the bright white paint color for an off-white “pale oak” paint color. See A3.0d for updated material palette. A3.0d ARB Comment: Consider making the “ribbon” element a uniform thickness Response: We have explored keeping the ribbon thickness more uniform, however we have kept it thicker at the horizontal bands delineating the following areas: 1.front entry, 2.the retail/residential corner, and 3.the garage ramp. A3.0a,b 6     Packet Pg. 71     This will serve to highlight these areas and as a sense of way-finding. The ribbon is of uniform size at all other locations. ARB Comment: Consider making corner (Leghorn/SanAntonio) more visually architectural. Consider adding relief through changing materials Response: We are proposing a glassy corner with high quality Equitone panels to contrast and accent. These rainscreen panels will be cut on the diagonal and will have small ribs running in different directions to create additional visual interest. A3.1a ARB Comment: Consider locating the bicycle wash facility in the basement Response: We have removed the bicycle wash from the courtyard and located it to the bioretention basin at the rear. A3.3 6     Packet Pg. 72     ARB Comment: Review the use of blue oak trees with Urban Forestry Division Response: The Blue Oak trees (Quercus Douglasii) are the proposed street trees along the San Antonio street frontage. The species selection was based on input from the city arborist during the planning review process. ARB Comment: Consider an alternative to the vertical window in the stairwell. Response: The vertical stairwell window has been broken up with horizontal bands @ each mid-landing. A3.0a,b 6     Packet Pg. 73     During the previous ARB submittal, we were originally showing the utility and storage areas as counting towards FAR in the subgrade garage. The City informed us that these would be exempt from FAR so we removed them from our subsequent calcs. At the recommendation of our structural engineer, we also widened the bike room so that the wall would stack with the unit walls above for structural loads. A3.1,A3.2 Staircase and elevator were swapped so that the rooftop terrace could egress directly into the stairwell. This is a building code requirement. A3.6 Inner courtyard has changes in design, positions and dimensions. Gym equipment and bike wash removed. A3.3 Parking Calculations have been updated per zoning code updates PAMC 18.52.040(b)(8) in regards to the van spaces. A3.1,A3.2 6     Packet Pg. 74     Parking layout has been revised in order to be more efficient and pedestrian and vehicle friendly and to better accommodate the utility rooms. Semi-circular ramp was revised to a straight ramp to better allow for 2-way access. A3.1,A3.2 Dedicated retail stair and lift added to garage in order to separate retail and residential stairs/elevators for security/privacy reasons. A3.1,A3.2, A3.3 Retail trash room was relocated to grade level to allow for easier maintenance and access to the trash pickup area. A3.3 Because retail now has its own dedicated stair and lift, the residential stair and elevator path to the retail has been closed off and has instead been opened up to egress directly out to the street. A1.0 6     Packet Pg. 75     .An additional above grade transformer was added to accommodate the loads. A1.0 Chair lift added to stairs for accessibility and exit stairs revised to accommodate. A1.0 Leasing office added to bike room area. This area has been counted towards FAR. A3.3 6     Packet Pg. 76     Bike room layout modified with greater efficiency, user convenience and aesthetic appeal from external street level while maintaining appropriate security features per discussion with Transportation and Planning Departments. A3.3 At the advice of our structural engineer, bike room wall shifted to stack with the walls of the hall/units above resulting in a wider bike storage room. A3.3 Balcony area enlarged at back right corner. A3.3, A3.4, A3.5, A3.6 6     Packet Pg. 77     Lounge room changed to gym.A3.6 Minor updates to grey paint specs A3.0d . Rooftop terrace planting areas refined and community garden added. A3.6 6     Packet Pg. 78     Added windows at rear elevation.A3.0b Added/refined windows at hallway and stairs at rear elevation and updated model per updated paint specs. A3.0b 6     Packet Pg. 79     1 Spec-Data® is a registered trademark of ConstructConnect. The ten-part Spec-Data format conforms to the editorial style of The Construction Specifications Institute and is used with their permission. The manufacturer is responsible for technical accuracy. ©2018 ConstructConnect. All Rights Reserved. COMPOSITE PANELING 06 83 00 NewTechWood America, Inc. 1. Product Name ●● NewTechWood Ultrashield Naturale Composite Cladding- Siding 2. Manufacturer NewTechWood America, Inc. 19111 Walden Forest Drive Suite B Houston Texas 77346 Phone: 281-570-6450 Fax: 281-661-1167 Email: richard@newtechwood.com Web: www.newtechwood.com 3. Product Description Basic Use Used for interior and exterior applications, the Ultrashield Naturale Composite Cladding-Siding is a solution for a wood-like façade without the maintenance. It can both cover up unsightly areas and accent concrete buildings providing a contemporary look. It can also be used for ceilings and soffits as well as siding. The tongued board, US09, is secured with 6063 aluminum clips, which act as the groove in the system. Also available are outside corner trim, inside corner trim, butt joint trim, and end cap trim pieces—all made with the encased composite material, see Accessories/Options for the item numbers and sizes. See images for fastener, fascia and all accessories' installation examples. Composition and Materials The composite material is comprised of HDPE plastic and hardwood chips. The composite material is encased in a 0.5–0.7 mm plastic shell with UV and stain inhibitors additives to ASTM G154, called Ultrashield, which is a proprietary blend of plastics. The T-7 End Plugs are composed of rubber. Features and Benefits ●●Easier to cut than comparably-sized all-wood planks ●●Maintains color/does not need to be stained or maintained ●● Ultrashield technology protection Dimensions US09 tongue and groove board: Width × depth × length: 51⁄2 × 1⁄2 inches × 16 feet. (142 × 13 mm × 4.87 m) AW08 fasteners secure the US09 boards as a tongue-and-groove system AW2 track secures the US09 boards on the lower perimeter 6     Packet Pg. 80     2 Spec-Data® is a registered trademark of ConstructConnect. The ten-part Spec-Data format conforms to the editorial style of The Construction Specifications Institute and is used with their permission. The manufacturer is responsible for technical accuracy. ©2018 ConstructConnect. All Rights Reserved. COMPOSITE PANELING 06 83 00 NewTechWood America, Inc. Colors ●●Brazilian Ipe ●●Spanish Walnut ●●Westminster Gray ●●Peruvian Teak ●●Roman Antique ●●Hawaiian Charcoal Safety Data Sheets SDS information is available here. Accessories/Options ●● AW08: siding clips (90 pieces covers 50 square feet) 0.78 × 0.59 × 1.10 inches (20 × 15 × 28 mm; installed on the joists and used as the connection between each US09 board ●● AW02: starter strips (3 feet and 9 feet sizes) 0.59 × 0.57 inch (15 × 14.5 mm); designed to fix the first cladding on the joist ●● T-7 Plug: rubber end plugs (50 per bag) 0.70 × 0.31 inch (18 × 8 mm); installed on the joists to support the US09 when installing the last board ●● US44: end fascia (8 feet lengths) 1.8 × 1.7 inch (46.2 × x 44.2 mm ●● US46: joint fascia (8 feet lengths) 3.1 × 1.0 inch (79 × 26.7 mm) ●● US46: outside corner fascia (8 feet lengths) 2.2 × 2.2 inch (58.2 × 58.2 mm) ●● US47: inside corner fascia (8 feet lengths) 2.8 × 2.8 inch (71.5 × 71.5 mm) 4. Technical Data Applicable Standards ASTM International (ASTM) ●● ASTM D7032 Standard Specification for Establishing Performance Ratings for Wood-Plastic Composite and Plastic Lumber Deck Boards, Stair Treads, Guards, and Handrails ●● ASTM G154 Standard Practice for Operating Fluorescent Ultraviolet (UV) Lamp Apparatus for Exposure of Nonmetallic Materials International Code Council (ICC) ●● ICC-ES AC 174 Acceptance Criteria for Deck Board Span Ratings and Guardrail Systems (Guards and Handrails), approved January 2012, section 3.4, 3.7, 3.9, 3.11 and 4.1 T-7 end plugs support the last US09 boards 6     Packet Pg. 81     3 Spec-Data® is a registered trademark of ConstructConnect. The ten-part Spec-Data format conforms to the editorial style of The Construction Specifications Institute and is used with their permission. The manufacturer is responsible for technical accuracy. ©2018 ConstructConnect. All Rights Reserved. COMPOSITE PANELING 06 83 00 NewTechWood America, Inc. 5. Installation Manufacturer installation instructions are available here. Installation videos available here and here. 6. Availability and Cost Contact manufacturer for availability and pricing. 7. Warranty A 25-year limited warranty is offered. 8. Maintenance Clean with soap and water. Can be pressure washed on a low setting. 9. Technical Services NewTechWood America, Inc. offers telephone support. 10. Filing Systems ●●ConstructConnect ●● Additional product information is available from the manufacturer upon request  End Fascia US44 Joint Fascia US45 OuterCorner US46 Inner Corner US47 6     Packet Pg. 82     Attachment D Project Plans 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: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development- Services/Current-Planning/Approved-Projects 2. Scroll down to find “788 San Antonio Road” 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/788-San- Antonio-Road 6     Packet Pg. 83     Item No. 7. Page 1 of 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: February 16, 2023 TITLE 901 California Avenue [22PLN-00142]: Ad Hoc Committee Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Window Modulation and Details of the Terracotta Material. The Project is Exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Ad-Hoc Committee take one of the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction, or 2. Confirm the revised project meets the full ARB’s direction and recommend the Director find that they meet the approval conditions and align with the approval findings BACKGROUND On October 20, 2022, the ARB recommended approval of the subject project. The ARB also recommended that the project return to the ARB Ad Hoc Committee for review of three details. This report summarizes the ARB’s Ad Hoc Committee recommendations and the applicant’s response to those items. Link to the October 20, 2022 Architectural Review Board Hearing: Staff Report: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-10.20.2022-901-s-cal-ave.pdf Minutes: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes- reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2022/arb-12.01.2022-minutes- 10.20.2022.pdf Video: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-10202022/ DISCUSSION/ANALYSIS Following is a summary of the ad hoc committee items identified in the previous hearing and the applicant’s response to those requests. Window Modulation at Glass and Terracotta Intersection The ARB recommended that the applicant consider increasing modulation of window façade where the glass meets the terracotta. 7     Packet Pg. 84     Item No. 7. Page 2 of 3 Applicant’s Response: The modulation of the windows on the north and south facades have been further refined with the introduction of a 1’-0 charcoal colored metal panel that interfaces between the glass and terracotta, thereby providing a soft, framed transition between the materials. Additionally, the applicant has right sized the glazing on the south façade, while retaining the linear aesthetic established on the north facade. This in turn, improves the functionality for the labs that are behind this façade. See elevations on sheets A3.1, A3.2 and A3.4 and renderings on sheets A6.1, A6.2 and A6.3. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant’s revised details of the window façade and terracotta appear to address the ARB’s comments. Detail of Terracotta Materials Intersecting The ARB recommended that the applicant provide detail showing how terracotta materials will come together Applicant’s Response: Details on the different terracotta conditions have been provided on sheets VMD001, VMD002, VMD003 and VMD051. Additionally, the applicant has assembled a small table sized mockup to show the texture and the envelope assembly of a corner condition during the hearing. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant has provided the requested details. Terracotta Material Quality The ARB recommended that the applicant consider richer material for both terracotta, noting that it could be a change in the material or the color. Applicant’s Response: The applicant considered a more pigmented color for the red terracotta to give the material more richness. The previously suggested color was M9.05, medium combed and the applicant is now proposing M9.09, medium combed which is a deeper red. The applicant will provide large physical samples M7.02 limestone (medium combed), M9.09 red (medium combed) during the Committee meeting to demonstrate the depth of the color. Staff’s Analysis: The applicant’s revised coloring appears to address the ARB’s comments. The ARB Ad-Hoc Committee is encouraged to affirm that these changes address the comments from the October 20, 2022 hearing that have been directed to the Ad Hoc Committee. 7     Packet Pg. 85     Item No. 7. Page 3 of 3 Otherwise, the Committee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal requires further refinement. AUTHOR/TITLE Report Author & Contact Information Garrett Sauls, Planner (650) 329-2471 Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloAlto.org ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Applicant Responses Attachment C: Project Plans Report #: 2301-0899 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org 7     Packet Pg. 86     College Terrace_ Library 239423922390 2396 236923612353 2377 2393 2345 901 855 777 601 658 2 2385 2395 2320 2349 2325 2295 2285 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 CALIFOR NIA 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 22PLN-00142 CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 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) 7     Packet Pg. 87     RMW Architecture Interiors 325 Montgomery St Suite 400 San Francisco California 94104 Office 415 781–9800 Fax 415 788–5216 rmw.com January 26, 2023 ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Consider increasing modulation of window façade where the glass meets the terracotta. • The modulation of the windows on the north and south facades have been further refined with the introduction of a 1’-0 charcoal colored metal panel that interfaces between the glass and terracotta, thereby providing a soft, framed transition between the materials. • Additionally, we have right-sized the glazing on the south façade, while retaining the linear aesthetic established on the north facade. This in turn, improves the functionality for the labs that are behind this façade. See elevations on sheets A3.1, A3.2 and A3.4 and renderings on sheets A6.1, A6.2 and A6.3. Provide detail showing how terracotta materials will come together. • Details on the different terracotta conditions have been provided. See details on sheets VMD001, VMD002, VMD003 and VMD051. Additionally, we have assembled a small table sized mockup to show the texture and the envelope assembly of a corner condition. Consider richer material for both terracotta, could be material or color. • We have considered a more pigmented color for the red terracotta to give the material more richness. The previously suggested color was M9.05, medium combed. We are proposing M9.09, medium combed which is a deeper red from M9.05. See large format of physical samples M7.02 limestone (medium combed), M9.09 red (medium combed). 7     Packet Pg. 88     Attachment C 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 Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/901-South- California-Avenue 7     Packet Pg. 89