Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-03-02 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, March 02, 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 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 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00229]:  Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application Allowing Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings to Construct a 129 Unit, 100% Affordable, Five‐story, Multi‐family Residential Rental 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. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Was Circulated for a 30‐day Public Review Beginning on February 13, 2023 and Ending on March 15, 2023 Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00237]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow for a new Storefront Façade, Outdoor Patios, and Signage for Sushi Roku (Space #700B, Bldg. E‐formally Yucca De Lac). The project also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Alcohol Sales. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For more information Contact the Project Planner, Tamara Harrison, at Tamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.com APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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, March 02, 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 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 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00229]:  Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application Allowing Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings to Construct a 129 Unit, 100% Affordable, Five‐story, Multi‐family Residential Rental 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. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Was Circulated for a 30‐day Public Review Beginning on February 13, 2023 and Ending on March 15, 2023 Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org. 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00237]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow for a new Storefront Façade, Outdoor Patios, and Signage for Sushi Roku (Space #700B, Bldg. E‐formally Yucca De Lac). The project also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Alcohol Sales. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). For more information Contact the Project Planner, Tamara Harrison, at Tamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.com APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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, March 02, 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 CALLPUBLIC 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 REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00229]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural ReviewApplication Allowing Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings to Construct a 129 Unit,100% Affordable, Five‐story, Multi‐family Residential Rental Development UtilizingAllowances and Concessions Provided in Accordance With State Density BonusRegulations. The Units Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 30%‐50% ofArea Median Income. The Project Would be Located on a Proposed new 49,864 Square‐Foot lot Located at 3001‐3017 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An InitialStudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Was Circulated for a 30‐day Public ReviewBeginning on February 13, 2023 and Ending on March 15, 2023 Accordance With theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial).For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould atClaire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org.3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00237]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural ReviewApplication to Allow for a new Storefront Façade, Outdoor Patios, and Signage for SushiRoku (Space #700B, Bldg. E‐formally Yucca De Lac). The project also includes a requestfor a Conditional Use Permit for Alcohol Sales. Environmental Assessment: Exempt fromCEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (CommunityCommercial). For more information Contact the Project Planner, Tamara Harrison, atTamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.com APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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, March 02, 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 CALLPUBLIC 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 REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00229]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural ReviewApplication Allowing Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings to Construct a 129 Unit,100% Affordable, Five‐story, Multi‐family Residential Rental Development UtilizingAllowances and Concessions Provided in Accordance With State Density BonusRegulations. The Units Would be Deed Restricted to Serve Tenants Meeting 30%‐50% ofArea Median Income. The Project Would be Located on a Proposed new 49,864 Square‐Foot lot Located at 3001‐3017 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An InitialStudy/Mitigated Negative Declaration Was Circulated for a 30‐day Public ReviewBeginning on February 13, 2023 and Ending on March 15, 2023 Accordance With theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial).For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould atClaire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org.3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [22PLN‐00237]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural ReviewApplication to Allow for a new Storefront Façade, Outdoor Patios, and Signage for SushiRoku (Space #700B, Bldg. E‐formally Yucca De Lac). The project also includes a requestfor a Conditional Use Permit for Alcohol Sales. Environmental Assessment: Exempt fromCEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (CommunityCommercial). For more information Contact the Project Planner, Tamara Harrison, atTamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.comAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT 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 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 2, 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. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. 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 AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Report #: 2302-0916 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     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 Yingxi Chen Kendra Rosenberg July August September October November December Item 1 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Packet Pg. 7 Architectural Review Board 2023 Tentative Future Agenda and New Planning Projects The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics March 16, 2023 •SB 9 Objective Standards •Modifications to by-laws for remote meeting attendance •414 California Ad Hoc • 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 Submitted 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). Item 1 Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 8 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 10/28/2021 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 04/28/2022 22PLN- 00142 GSAULS 901 S California AV Office Prelim 3/3/22, ARB hearing 10/20, Ad Hoc 2/16 – sending approval letter - 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 06/13/2022 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 06/16/2022 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 - 07/06/2022 22PLN-THARRIS 180 EL Commercial Minor Architectural Review Board (ARB) review of The Melt restaurant Item 1 Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 9 Board 00223 ON CAMINO REAL, STE E705A (currently The Melt), Space #705A, Bldg. E (#E705A). Exterior improvements include new façade, new storefront glazing, redesigned 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 07/07/2022 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 07/07/2022 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). Council Prescreening 10/18/2022 22PLN- 00355 EFOLEY 250 CAMBRIDGE AVE Code Change – roof gardens To be heard by Council or withdrawn - 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) Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCADE RO WY Public 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). Item 1 Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 10 Zone Change 11/17/2022 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 12/20/2022 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 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 01/18/2023 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 4/25/2022 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. Minor Architectural Review 1/24/2023 23PLN- 00015 GSAULS 3200 EL CAMINO REAL Hotel Minor Architectural Review approval to remove one level of underground parking at the previously approved Parmani Hotel (18PLN-00045; Record of Land Use Action 2019-06). No proposed changes to the approved hotel design, but the entire hotel likely needs to be re-approved. The request proposes to reduce the number of approved parking spaces from 106 parking spaces to 63 parking spaces. Zoning District: CS. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Item 1 Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 11 Council Pre- Screening and Zone Change 2/1/2023 & 2/2/2023 23PLN- 00025 23PLN- 00027 AFRENC H 2901 MIDDLEFIEL D Housing – one unit Council Pre-Screening and Zone Change to consider an amendment to the PC-2343 to amend the development plan to consolidate parking and to extract 700 Ellsworth from PC district and rezone it to R-1. Zoning District: PC-2343. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project (no formal action required). Council Pre- Screening 2/8/2023 23PLN- 00036 THARRIS ON 1237 SAN ANTONIO Public Utility Request by Valley Water for a Council Pre-Screening application to allow a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update the land use of a portion of Area B of parcel #116-01-013 from Public Conservation Land to Major Institution/Special Facilities. The other portion of Area B is currently designated as a Major institution/Special Facilities and the proposed project also calls for the subdivision of Area B. Zoning District: PF(D). Environmental Assessment: Not a Project (no formal action required).. Item 1 Agenda and New Projects List Packet Pg. 12 Item No. 2. Page 1 of 14 1 6 0 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 2, 2023 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN-00229]:  Consideration of Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application Allowing Demolition of Two Existing Retail Buildings to Construct a 129 Unit, 100% Affordable, Five-story, Multi-family Residential Rental 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 49,864 Square-Foot lot Located at 3001-3017 El Camino Real. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration Was Circulated for a 30-day Public Review Beginning on February 13, 2023 and Ending on March 15, 2023 Accordance With the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the Mitigated Negative Declaration and Mitigation Monitoring and Reporting Plan; and 2. Provide comments and continue to a date uncertain. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed 100% affordable housing project, located on El Camino Real between Acacia Avenue and Olive Avenue, includes 129 residential rental units to be provided to very low- income (30%-50% of AMI) tenants on a 1.14-acre parcel. The project would replace two vacant structures (formerly Mike’s Bikes retail use totaling 9,000 sf) and a surface parking lot. The applicant filed a compliant pre-application in accordance with Senate Bill 330 on May 17, 2022. Therefore, the project analysis is based on the applicable objective standards at the time the compliant SB 330 preapplication was submitted. The affordable project qualifies for up to four concessions, or changes to the objective development standards, to accommodate the development in accordance with the State Density Bonus allowances (California Government Code §65915) and PAMC Chapter 18.15. This project qualifies based on the percentage and income level restrictions on the provided units. Separately, the project is eligible for a height increase of up to 33 feet, unlimited density, and Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 13 Item No. 2. Page 2 of 14 1 6 0 8 exemptions from parking requirements based on the site’s proximity to transit. The applicant has requested four concessions to allow for: •An increase in floor area from 0.6 to 2.7 •An increase in lot coverage from 50% to 74%; •A reduced rear setback on Acacia Avenue from 10 feet to 5 feet; •Change in location of open space to allow some of the common usable open space to be provided on the second-floor podium. The new five-story building height would be 60 feet where between 68 and 83 feet is allowed under state law (68 feet within 150 feet of R-1 zoning and 83 feet beyond). A stair feature at each end of the building extends to a height of 66 feet, three inches. A location map for the proposed project is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment J. The City, acting as the lead agency in accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act, prepared an Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) for the proposed project, which was circulated for a 30-day public review on February 13, 2023. The comment period ends on March 15, 2023. BACKGROUND On November 17, 2022 the ARB reviewed the project. Minutes from the Board’s meeting are available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/4d4d951f-0e07-4993-b520- a567ffb1aa90/ARB-11.17-Approved-Minutes.pdf. The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response to those comments are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments Applicants Response Pedestrian Circulation: Several board members noted concerns about the circulation for the building from a pedestrian perspective. More specifically, the path of travel between the elevator and some of the units was too far. They noted that the elevator needs to be more centrally located in the building for proper pedestrian circulation on the interior. This is also a building code requirement for ADA compliance. Boardmembers also commented on the connection between the residential fitness area on the corner of Olive Avenue and El Camino Real and the entrance/exit to the The applicant has redesigned the project to include a more centrally located elevator that provides a more convenient path of travel for residents living on end units and to ensure compliance with the accessibility requirements. This also ensures that all residents are provided an equal pathway to the stairs and elevator from their unit. The lobby has been reconfigured to accommodate this change while still providing a welcoming entry point to the building. In addition, on the podium level a connection has been added between Stair 1 and the elevator through the courtyard, which minimizes the circulation from the Acacia end of the building. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 14 Item No. 2. Page 3 of 14 1 6 0 8 building closer to the Acacia/El Camino Real corner. The fitness area for residents has not been relocated. Relocating the fitness center to a different floor would reduce the total unit count. Charities has modified the building to provide more space in front of the fitness area for an on-site pedestrian pathway with vegetation. Use of Ground Floor Space: The board asked to see the ground floor more activated. Board members expressed an interest in a commercial use on the ground floor or, if infeasible, activating the spaces with: •flex room or community space •moving the ground floor units around to front the street, particularly on Olive Avenue The applicant is not proposing a commercial use on the ground floor and is retaining the fitness room at the corner of El Camino Real and Olive Avenue. Although the ground floor units haven’t been moved to front Olive, the living room of the end unit has been pushed out toward Olive Avenue. A community room is provided toward the rear of the building on Acacia. This room has not been moved to the frontage because it was designed to be adjacent to a common open space area so that events, particularly events with kids, can spillover into the open play area. The applicant notes that this space can be “rented” to small groups free of charge for greater community use, such as neighborhood association meetings, girl scouts, etc. Vehicular Access: Several board members asked the applicant to change the vehicular access to the site from Olive Avenue to Acacia Street in order to reduce vehicular travel on a residential street. The location of the access has not been changed. The project was designed as proposed because providing the entrance/exit on Olive Avenue provides direct access to and from northbound and southbound El Camino Real. In addition, fire and domestic water service needs to be provided from Acacia Avenue, which has a larger water main. Therefore, the associated pump rooms shown on the ground floor must be located along the Acacia frontage. The proposed modification would result in a substantial redesign of the project because simply flipping the design would result in more massing on upper levels adjacent to single-family residential uses instead of the larger setbacks as currently designed. Massing of the building and top/middle/bottom: Boardmembers The project, as refined, successfully provides a base, middle and top. The base is defined Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 15 Item No. 2. Page 4 of 14 1 6 0 8 indicated that the massing of the building needed refinement. They noted that the S- shape design helped to reduce massing but the building did not have clear differentiation between the top and the middle of the building. They asked that the applicant explore treatments of the façade, and a clearly differentiated “top” to the building to help break up the massing at upper levels. by the concrete podium, warm wood cladding, and glazed storefront. A restrained white mass, punctuated with warm toned corten balconies, is elegantly placed on top of its base. The building roof edge on top is further defined in this revision with a darkened coping cap and a set-back roof edge railing that completes the design. Back wall: The linear concrete form of the rear wall nearest Olive along the interior lot line (forming the foundation of the second- floor deck) needs more articulation/softening. The linear form and lack of variation in materials (particularly use of concrete as the sole material) is not ideal, especially when facing a single-family residential use, and it needs more thought to help break up that façade. Suggestions also included An additional rendering of the back wall and mews open space has been included on Sheet G100. The elevation along this interior lot line has been further developed by adding vertical window strips with thin brick accents and colorful doors. The landscaping has also been further developed and shown on the plans. Ground floor façade: Boardmembers expressed concern about the glass curtain wall across the ground floor façade. The noted that this treatment didn’t seem to correlate well with the heavier massing above and left the building “floating” and without “feet” to it. They asked the applicant to consider adding columns or other framing options to give it a more sturdy foundation that correlates better to the massing of the building above. The facades have been revised to reduce the glass curtain treatment. Warm wood cladding has been provided, in particular, along the El Camino Real frontage to guide residents into the entry lobby of the project. Additional detail on the lighting and landscaping has also been provided which will help to activate the ground floor and create a welcoming space. The resident services, Property Management, and Fitness storefront will be occupied throughout the day activating the streetscape along El Camino Real. The redesign also included making the bicycle parking area solid wall (instead of glass) to discourage theft. Corten: It was noted that Corten is a desirable material but there was some concern that the material can be expensive and if value engineering occurs, the alternative material would be much less desirable than the Corten. One ARB member asked the applicant to consider and explain what the alternative option would be if the Corten material were not used on this project. The applicant indicated that they like the corten material for its ability to provide warmth and unique variation. An alternate, more economical material is galvanized aluminum which does provide some variation and uniqueness. The proposed project continues to include corten as a key material in the design. Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 16 Item No. 2. Page 5 of 14 1 6 0 8 Elevation Changes: Consider making parts of the building taller along Acacia and other portions (along Olive) shorter. The applicant did not make this revision. The addition of a floor level on Acacia would change the building construction type to a Type III building construction. This would be cost prohibitive to the proposed project. Removing a floor level adjacent to Olive without being able to relocate the units would also render the project financially infeasible. Floor plans: Boardmembers asked to see all the floor plans in the next package and understand the design for ground floor. There was a note that there is a real opportunity to make those units something more unique and comments related back to the façade on this rear ground level falling a bit flat All floor plans are provided in the revised plan set, beginning on sheet A110. ANALYSIS Staff has analyzed the project in accordance with applicable plans, goals, policies, regulations and adopted guidelines, as discussed further below. Staff’s analysis of the applicant’s response to key comments from the board during the previous hearing is also included. Overall the project has been redesigned to be more consistent with the City’s design guidelines, zoning, and goals and policies set forth in the Comprehensive Plan when compared to the previous submittal, particularly with respect to massing and materials along the façade as well as internal circulation on the site. However, there are still several code compliance issues that require resolution as well as revisions needed to comply with finding #4. Staff Analysis of Applicant Responses Although the applicant has not modified the design to address all comments from boardmembers, the revised design includes improvements that are responsive to the comments and improve the project’s consistency with goals, policies, and guidelines adopted by the City. Where changes were not made, information has been provided to explain why the project has not been redesigned to address the suggested modifications. Staff’s analysis of the applicant’s response to key comments is provided herein. Pedestrian Circulation The project was redesigned to accommodate a centrally located elevator. This has improved internal circulation for future residents when compared to the previous design; however, the current design still does not appear to comply with the building code, which requires a maximum of 200 feet between the stairs and elevator. The stairs on the Acacia side of the building appear to exceed this requirement. In addition, the revisions to the exterior stair from the second level courtyard egress too close to the property line and do not comply with the California Building Code requirements. Therefore further refinements to the design are Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 17 Item No. 2. Page 6 of 14 1 6 0 8 necessary in order to meet the code and to meet Finding #4 of the architectural review findings. Although this redesign reduced the ground floor open courtyard area, the courtyard still has a large, recessed entry to break up the front façade and provides a clear entry area that is welcoming for residents. The open space area has increased on the second floor accordingly. Therefore, with refinements to the design to ensure the maximum 200-foot distance requirement between the stairs and elevators is met, the proposed revisions could be responsive to the ARB’s recommendations. The fitness area for residents has not been relocated. While staff believes that the project could be improved by providing an internal connection to the fitness center, other ground floor amenities could not be removed without reducing their functionalities. For example, staff considered whether the community room could be relocated to the corner of El Camino Real and Acacia in order to have internal access to the fitness center. Charities indicated that this was considered; however, the community meeting room was designed to allow it to connect to outdoor open space. The applicant has noted that they have redesigned the project to provide a covered, on-site pathway to connect the building entrance with the fitness center. However, this is not represented in the current project plans, which show an on-site path, but not one that is covered. A visual of an alternative that shows a covered path (adjacent the building) will be presented to the ARB during the hearing for consideration. An on-site covered pathway will provide better circulation in comparison to the current project plans; however, this will reduce some of the landscaping along the frontage. Staff encourages the ARB to comment on the proposed revisions and if there is a preference regarding the two options. Use of Ground Floor Space The applicant has not modified the design or uses to address this comment as it relates to the fitness room location or use of this corner space. The proposed project does not relate to an objective standard of the code. Although moving the fitness center to a location on an upper level may be more desirable, it would result in a reduction of units. In addition, it’s anticipated that the future NVCAP will provide policies and guidelines to activate ground floor uses, particularly along El Camino Real, and that active uses will include fitness centers associated with residential development. The project has been refined along Olive Avenue to bring the living room of one of the units out to the Olive Avenue frontage, providing evidence of ground floor unit habitation on Olive Avenue. This is less desirable than providing a pedestrian entrance off of Olive but is an improvement from the previous design. However, staff notes that the revised design seems to provide large, full height windows on Olive Avenue. A section detailing how this would relate to the interior to more clearly show the intent should be provided on Sheet G702 or a subsequent section plan sheet and the elevations. Full height windows into the living room space may not be desirable to the resident of this end unit. Staff encourages the ARB to comment on possible refinements to this design (e.g. bringing up the sill of the windows) to better comply with the Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 18 Item No. 2. Page 7 of 14 1 6 0 8 ARB finding #2, which includes providing a desirable environment for occupants. Although the objective standards do not apply to this project, PAMC Section 18.24(b)(4) that relate to finish floor could be interpolated to provide guidance on an appropriate height for ground level windows based on the setback. Vehicular Access The City evaluated this further in coordination with the Office of Transportation (OOT). OOT indicated that either access could likely be viable. Access from Olive Avenue has existing ingress/egress from both southbound and northbound El Camino Real. The City’s Local Transportation Analysis concluded that the proposed design would not cause any safety concerns or be inconsistent with Council’s adopted policies. If the entrance/exit were to be provided on Acacia, a U-turn would be required at Portage/El Camino to access the site from southbound El Camino Real. A right turn onto El Camino Real followed by a U-turn at Olive/El Camino would be required to travel Southbound on El Camino Real. While OOT staff indicated that this could also be feasible, the local transportation analysis would need to be revised accordingly to assess new intersections based on a revised design. Staff also notes, consistent with the applicant’s response above, that the existing fire and domestic water service is provided from Acacia and would need to be retained as such because of the size of the water main on Acacia. The associated pump rooms provided on the plans would, accordingly, need to remain on the Acacia frontage. This wouldn’t necessarily prohibit the applicant from exploring ingress/egress from Acacia versus Olive. However, maintaining these rooms on the Acacia side while also accommodating the parking garage could be difficult and would require a substantial redesign of the project. Further, as the applicant notes above, simply flipping the building would change the design in a way that eliminates some of the benefits of the current design, including larger setbacks for upper floor massing adjacent to the single-family residential zone district. Therefore, substantial redesign of the project would be required to accommodate this request. Massing of the Building and Top/Middle/Bottom The applicant has made improvements to the materials and ground floor to improve the design of the facades consistent with many of the boardmembers comments. However, staff feels that further improvements could be made to the design of the top to provide more differentiation between the middle and top. This design guideline is subjective; therefore, the City cannot deny the application based on this design guideline. However, if the applicant does not propose refinements to the design, a specific, objective condition of approval could be made a requirement of the project to provide improved differentiation between the middle and top. Back wall The project design and associated renderings have been refined at the rear of the building. Although the project still has a long linear concrete form, the revisions to add linear windows and other materials successfully helps to break up the concrete façade consistent with Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 19 Item No. 2. Page 8 of 14 1 6 0 8 boardmember comments. The addition of landscaping along the outer area of the second level deck also helps to break up this façade. Ground floor façade The applicant responded to boardmember comments regarding the ground floor design, which primarily included glass. The revised design includes mixes of material and provides views into the building where appropriate (e.g. at entrances and common spaces but not into bicycle parking areas). Staff believes the revised design successfully provides a more sturdy base to the building that correlates better to the massing of the building above. Elevation Changes This request was not carried forward in the project revisions. Given the required height limits within 150 feet of the single-family residential areas (which encompasses a portion of the building area abutting Acacia) this could only result in a small addition of a sixth floor at the corner of El Camino and Acacia, which may be insufficient to provide for the units that would be lost on the Olive Avenue side. These changes would also require a new type of construction, therefore increasing construction costs. The project as proposed aligns with Council direction with respect to heights along El Camino that should be considered for affordable housing projects (up to 65 feet) as part of the proposed North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1 As discussed in the previous staff report, the proposed use of the site for a 100% affordable high-density multi-family residential project in a transit-oriented location is consistent with the Service Commercial land use designation. The project is also consistent with numerous goals and policies outlined in various Chapters of the Comprehensive Plan, including in particular the Housing Element. The proposed project is located on a Housing Inventory Site (HIS) which is currently allocated to provide a maximum yield of 9 units and realistic yield of seven units to the City’s housing inventory. However, because of the proposed consolidation of three parcels (only one of which was listed as a HIS), the project proposes 129 units. Proposed housing supports the Comprehensive Plan Goal of providing housing to support the City’s fair share of regional housing needs and the location of this housing within the proximity of job opportunities within the City (including the 10-story Palo Alto Square office complex and Stanford Research Park) is consistent with the City’s goal of improving the existing job/housing imbalance in Palo Alto. A consistency analysis with specific goals and policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan is included in Attachment B. Based on the proposed uses within each land use designation, consistency with the housing element, and consistency with other policies and goals outlined in the Comprehensive Plan, staff finds that, the project is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 20 Item No. 2. Page 9 of 14 1 6 0 8 The City began planning for the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan in 2018. Although this plan has not yet been adopted and therefore does not apply to the project, a summary of the project’s consistency with the stated goals of the plan is provided for informational purposes in Attachment D. A draft plan has not yet been made available to determine the project’s consistency with the proposed plan. South El Camino Real and El Camino Real Design Guidelines The project site is located within the California-Ventura corridor area and is identified as a CalVentura strategic site in the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. The guidelines note that development on El Camino Real frontage should accommodate pedestrian activity with attractive sidewalks and landscaping. New buildings should front El Camino Real with prominent facades and be clearly visible and easily accessible to pedestrians. In compliance with the Housing Accountability Act and State Density Bonus allowances, the project is primarily reviewed against objective standards. Many of the El Camino Real and South El Camino Real design guidelines standards are subjective. However, for informational purposes, an analysis of the project’s consistency with these guidelines is included in Attachment G. The project is consistent with the objective standards provided in these guidelines. Staff and boardmembers encouraged the applicant to make improvements to the design, especially with respect to providing more definition between the base, middle, and top (specifically between the middle and top). The project design has been refined. Staff believes that further improvements could be made to improve consistency as discussed above. Zoning Compliance A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is provided in Attachment C. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes or is seeking, through the state density bonus allowances, permission to deviate from certain code standards. State Density Bonus Law Compliance The project provides 100% of the units to very low income (30-50% of Area Median Income) except for the manager’s units. Therefore, the project is a qualifying project in accordance with California Government Code §65915(b)(1)(G) which includes projects that provide “One hundred percent of all units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, but exclusive of a manager’s unit or units, for lower-income households, as defined by Section 50079.5 of the Health and Safety Code, except that up to 20 percent of the units in the development, including total units and density bonus units, may be for moderate-income households, as defined in Section 50053 of the Health and Safety Code.” Accordingly, under §65915(d)(2)(D) and PAMC §18.15.050(c)(iv), the project is eligible for four incentives or concessions. In addition, because the project is 100% affordable and located within one-half mile of a major transit stop (California Avenue Caltrain Station), separate from the concessions or waivers, the applicant is also eligible for a height increase of up to three additional stories, or 33 feet; unlimited density (§65915[f][3][d][ii]); and is not required to comply with a minimum parking requirement (§65915[p][3]). The requested concessions, aside from the allowable Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 21 Item No. 2. Page 10 of 14 1 6 0 8 increase in height, density, and reduced parking, are detailed further in the previous staff report and include: •Increases in floor area from 0.6 to 2.7 •Increases in lot coverage from 50% to 74%; •A reduced rear setback on Acacia Avenue from 10 feet to 5 feet; •Change in location of open space, some of the common usable open space to be provided on the second-floor podium. The four proposed concessions are necessary in order to reduce the per-unit cost of the proposed project, as detailed in Attachment H. Objective Standards The applicant submitted a compliant Senate Bill 330 pre-application on May 17, 2022. Therefore, the applicable requirements for this project are based on the objective standards and regulations in effect on May 17, 2022. The project is not subject to the more recently adopted objective design standards under Chapter 18.24, which became effective in July 2022. The project is subject to the context-based design criteria and performance criteria to the extent that these requirements are objective. The project complies with the objective requirements of the performance criteria and context-based design criteria. For informational purposes, an analysis of the overall consistency with the criteria, objective and subjective, is provided in Attachment E and F respectively. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The proposed project provides multi-modal access as well as parking for vehicles and bicyclists as discussed in further detail below. Site Access The use of the site and proposed improvements are consistent with the goals of the City’s 2012 Bicycle and Pedestrian Transportation Plan (BPTP). The City’s BPTP goals include converting discretionary vehicle trips to walking and biking trips as a mechanism to reduce greenhouse emissions by 15% and doubling rates of bicycling and walking. Affordable housing development located near transit (within 0.5 miles from Caltrain and 600-2,000 feet from several bus stops) and jobs allows future residents to access a greater share of destinations while reducing the need for single-occupancy vehicle trips. Direct pedestrian connectivity from the public sidewalk is provided to the proposed residential use from all three streets (Olive, El Camino Real, and Acacia) with the project’s primary access provided from El Camino Real. Modifications to the sidewalk increase the walking surface. The project eliminates a curb cut along El Camino Real, an improvement for the potential future bicycle path proposed along this roadway. Overall, vehicular circulation eliminates existing entrances to the site from El Camino Real; creating a single entrance/exit onto Olive Avenue; which is more consistent with the El Camino Real design guidelines. Boardmembers recommended that the applicant explore changing the location of the vehicular access to Acacia Avenue in order to reduce traffic impacts to single Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 22 Item No. 2. Page 11 of 14 1 6 0 8 family residences along Olive Avenue. This recommendation aligns with recent comments from residents along Olive Avenue to move the ingress/egress in order to reduce potential parking impacts on their street. The applicant has not proposed a change to the ingress/egress for several reasons, as discussed above. The project would generate more than 50 net new peak hour trips and therefore would be required to provide a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan. In accordance with Program T1.2.3 of the Transportation Element, the TDM plan must show how the project will achieve a 30% reduction in vehicle trips. The applicant is currently preparing a draft of this plan and the plan is required to be finalized prior to building permit approval. Vehicle and Bicycle Parking The project provides 103 vehicle parking spaces on site, including five ADA compliant spaces. Although this is 26 spaces fewer than the required parking in accordance with the Palo Alto Municipal Code, state law mandates that no minimum parking requirement be imposed on a 100% affordable housing project located within 0.5 miles of transit (California Government Code 65915(p)(3)). Therefore, the proposed project complies with the parking requirements. The proposed parking would be provided in five (5) different lift systems. The lift systems provided tandem, puzzle lift parking. Although each parking space is individually accessible (i.e. doesn’t require moving a car to access another) the parking spaces require driving through an empty space to the rear of the lift system. While this design has not yet been permitted for a project, staff has reviewed the system and believe it will provide timely parking given the 5 access points, with a condition of approval requiring that the tandem lifts be accessible without having to leave your vehicle. Providing an on-site space for delivery drivers would be desirable and is encouraged. However, absent this, street parking is available on all three sides of the building and could be used for deliveries. However, transportation has indicated to the applicant that the mail room requires relocation to the Acacia side for safety reasons. They noted that based on the number of units, larger truck deliveries (e.g. UPS) would be common and would have to stop on El Camino Real rather than a side street. While there is street parking on El Camino Real, it is often filled. Double parking would block traffic on El Camino Real and create safety concerns. Relocating the mail room to the Acacia side will avoid these safety concerns. The City could allow for an off- site loading space on Acacia; the City does not have the authority to allow for designation of an off-site loading space on El Camino Real within Caltrans right-of-way. The project promotes increased bicycle usage by providing both short-term and long-term bicycle parking for residents and guests near entrances. The project includes 138 bicycle parking spaces within a ground-level bicycle parking room and 14 short-term bicycle parking spaces. This exceeds the 129 long-term and 13 short-term spaces required per PAMC Chapter 18.52. Therefore, the project exceeds the total required bicycle parking requirements. Resident Concerns Related to Site Access and Vehicle Parking Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 23 Item No. 2. Page 12 of 14 1 6 0 8 Olive Avenue residents had raised specific concerns about current cut-through traffic utilizing Olive and Ash Street to bypass a northbound right-turn from El Camino Real onto Page Mill Road/Oregon Expressway. The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan is considering modifications to streets to reduce cut through traffic and improve circulation within the North Ventura area. One consideration being explored includes providing one-way, westbound access from Ash Street to Olive, which would eliminate the described cut-through traffic. Residents also suggested making a portion of Olive Avenue one-way out to ECR from the project site, with the rest of the street beyond two-way east of the project site. They suggested that this would eliminate any parking spillover onto Olive Avenue. However, this would likely cause people to use Pepper to circle around. This would not be desirable because it does not provide an appropriate egress option or enough runway for cars that may turn onto Olive Avenue without realizing that it is a dead-end. With initiation through a neighborhood petition pursuant to PAMC Section 10.50.050, the City could for a Resident Preferential Parking (RPP) District for this area, which could help to alleviate the stated concerns regarding other uses parking on Olive Avenue. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance of a public hearing. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Palo Alto Weekly on February 17, 2023, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 15, 2023 which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. No public comments were received prior to or during the initial public hearing for the proposed project before the ARB on November 17, 2022. Several residents located within the vicinity of the project site along Olive recently expressed some concerns with respect to the proposed project. These primarily focused on the potential impacts of the project to affect parking demand on Olive Avenue, noting that the street is already overburdened by parking demand. More specifically, the residents were concerned that because the ingress/egress is located on Olive, any spillover parking would affect Olive Avenue first. Residents suggested moving the ingress/egress to Acacia to address this concern. Written public comments are included in Attachment J. Written comments have been provided by a single commenter; however, the City met with four individual residents that live on Olive Avenue that expressed these comments. Resident comments and responses to these comments are discussed further above under Multi-modal Access and Parking. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s environmental regulations. Specifically, a Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration was circulated on February 13, 2023 for a 30-day comment period which will end on March 15, 2023. A link to the Draft Mitigated Negative Declaration is included in Attachment J. The ARB must consider the draft Mitigated Negative Declaration in making a recommendation on the project and may Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 24 Item No. 2. Page 13 of 14 1 6 0 8 comment on the draft. Following completion of the ARB’s review and recommendation on the project, a Final Draft MND and Mitigation Monitoring and Report Plan (MMRP) would be prepared and incorporated into the findings and conditions of the Director’s Decision. Mitigation has been included, in particular, to address hazardous materials associated with former uses of the site, construction noise, and cultural and tribal cultural resources, if discovered during construction. The project is located on a hazardous waste site enumerated under Government code section 65962.5 (Cortese list) and is therefore not eligible for streamlining in accordance with Senate Bill 35. Specifically, the site is located on the Regional Water Quality Control Board’s list of leaking underground storage tank (LUST) sites, as documented in the GeoTracker database. Although remediation and closure of these tanks has occurred, the required screening levels for site closure is based on the use of the site. Therefore, site closure would have only required remediation for commercial environmental screening levels (ESLs) based on the former retail use. For the proposed residential use, further remediation may be necessary to address ESLs. The site is also located within the California-Olive-Emerson Plume. The MND analyzes impacts of the proposed project on the environment. However, CEQA does not analyze impacts of the environment on the project (i.e. the existing contamination on future residents). As a condition of approval of the project, in compliance with Comprehensive Plan Policy N5.4, further evaluation, as deemed necessary by an applicable oversight agency (e.g. County Health, the Regional Water Quality Control Board, or DTSC), will be required to determine the extent and nature of any contamination on site and, if applicable, measures to remediate the potential for impacts on human health would be required. An appropriate oversight agency, as noted above, would review and approve any proposed site mitigation plan. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Comprehensive Plan Consistency Attachment C: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment D: Analysis of Consistency with NVCAP Goals Attachment E: Context-based Design Criteria Consistency Analysis Attachment F: Performance Criteria Consistency Analysis Attachment G: South El Camino and El Camino Design Guidelines Consistency Analysis Attachment H: Applicant’s Summary of Per Unit Cost Reductions for Concessions Attachment I: Written Public Comments Attachment J: Project Plans and Environmental Analysis AUTHOR/TITLE: Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 25 Item No. 2. Page 14 of 14 1 6 0 8 Report Author & ARB2 Liaison Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org (650) 329-2116 Report #: 2 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report Packet Pg. 26 EL_USES_3200_ECR_PAMC 20_08_20 PARKING 199.7' 149.7' 65.6' 149.7' 65.7' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 49.9' 150.0' 166.4' 270.2' 100.0' 149.8' 150.0' 100.0' 40.0' 149.7' 199.7' 10.0' 198.3' 100.0' 199.7' 98.9' 148.9' 58.1' 90.0' 100.0' 40.0' 100.0' 50.0' 199.7' 276.0' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 115.7' 119.7' 115.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 754.2' 570.4' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 39.0' 88.7' 78.0' 7.3' 134.7' 65.7' 134.7' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 55.3' 65.0' 79.4' 60.3' 79.4' 52.7'95.9' 50.0' 95.9' 51.8' 109.3' 50.0' 109.3' 51.1' 119.7' 50.0' 119.3' 55.3' 105.6' 119.7 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 32.0' 17.5'34.6' 97.9' 165.0' 137.0' 34.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7'4.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 65.7' 119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.6' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.7' 134.7' 115.7' 159.0 91.7' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 165.4 85.1 34.6 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 149.7' 149.7' 149.7' 115.7' 165.7' 100.0'50.0' 85.1 199.7' 149.7' 250.0' 275.2' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4'166.4' 30.0' 30.0' 18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5 ' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 78.5'78.5' 370.9' 123.4' 164.9 199.7 109.85' 458.75' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85' 308.64' 129.85' 102.65' 129.85' 102.56 129.85' 205.99' 129.85' 206.05' 478.7' 109.8' 150.0' 21.8' 109.8' 19.8' 83 3150 3170 3200 447 429 439 3159 411 435 3250425 435 3200 455 460 3200 3201 395 385 375 450 430 401 411 425 300 210 365 345 315 305 295 285 245 265 275 3040 411 420 430 440 450 412 420 430 440 450 451 441 431 421 411 2904 456 470 471 461 2999 3128 406 3225 441 445 3215 3275 3201 3051 3260 3265 3225 3239 3255 3295 455 3339 417 415 451 441 431 421 411 405 399 400 3275 3261 3251 220 230 336 340 370 380 400 402 404 408 2951 05 461 3017 3001 412 3127 3111 440 3180 360 200 429 3101 3160 278 419 LAMBERT AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE ASH STREET PAG E MILL ROA D EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL PC-2952 RM-30R-1 CS ROLM CS GM This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'192' Attachment A:Project Site CITYOF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F O R N I A P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f A P 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 chodgki, 2022-10-28 12:47:26 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A Location Map Packet Pg. 27 Attachment B: Comprehensive Plan Consistency 3001 El Camino Real (22PLN-00229) Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Policy L-1.6: Encourage land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change and development to benefit the community. The project provides 129 units (exclusive of manager’s units) to those with very low income (30-50% of AMI). The project seeks to addresses the housing crisis that the City Council has identified as a top priority, particularly targeting the deepest affordability levels. Policy L-2.5: Support the creation of affordable housing units for middle to lower income level earners, such as City and school district employees, as feasible. The project is 100% affordable to very low income. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The project includes a communal gathering spaces in the building recesses, including a courtyard at the front of the building and at the back of the building, facing the interior lot line. The project includes a second floor open space area at the second floor near single- family residential uses with upper level landscape setbacks to reduce massing near the single-family residential use in addition to landscape open space at the ground level. Policy L-9.3: Treat residential streets as both public ways and neighborhood amenities. Provide and maintain continuous sidewalks, healthy street trees, benches and other amenities that promote walking and “active” transportation. The project proposes to maintain most the existing street trees along the El Camino Real frontage and provides improvements to active the street frontage, including a recessed courtyard to break up the façade along the frontage and to provide landscaping, open space, and seating areas. Policy T-1.17: Require new office, commercial and multi-family residential developments to provide improvements that improve bicycle and pedestrian connectivity as called for in the 2012 Palo Alto Bicycle + Pedestrian Transportation Plan. Policy T-1.19: Provide facilities that encourage and support bicycling and walking. The project does not include new bicycle lanes, but is designed to ensure that future improvements would not be prohibited, particularly along El Camino Real. Improved sidewalks and amenities (landscaping, short- term bike parking, etc.) are provided. Long- term bicycle parking is also provide with direct access from El Camino Real. Policy T-5.1: All new development projects should manage parking demand generated by The project provides all its required parking onsite. A TDM plan is required for the Item 2 Attachment B Comprehensive Plan Consistency Packet Pg. 28 Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency the project, without the use of on-street parking, consistent with the established parking regulations. As demonstrated parking demand decreases over time, parking requirements for new construction should decrease. proposed project and is required to reduce trip generation by 30%. The TDM plan is currently being prepared. Policy N-2.10: Preserve and protect Regulated Trees, such as native oaks and other significant trees, on public and private property, including landscape trees approved as part of a development review process and consider strategies for expanding tree protection in Palo Alto. The project protects existing street trees. Any tree removed will be replaced pursuant to City requirements to ensure no net loss of canopy, as required by code. Program H2.1.2: Allow increased residential densities and mixed-use development only where adequate urban services and amenities, including roadway capacity, are available. The project is located within an urban area along the El Camino Real corridor in close proximity to high-quality transit. Item 2 Attachment B Comprehensive Plan Consistency Packet Pg. 29 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3001 El Camino Real, 22PLN-00229 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CS DISTRICT) Mixed Use and Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 49,864 sf (No Change) Minimum Front Yard (Olive Avenue)0-10 feet to create an 8-12 foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (7) 5-foot building setback; 8 ft effective sidewalk width (curb to back of sidewalk) Rear Yard (Acacia Street)10 feet for residential; none for commercial 5 feet Interior Side Yard None 10 feet (second floor) 40 feet, 9 inches (floors 3-5) Street Side Yard (El Camino Real)5 feet Not Applicable (12-foot effective sidewalk proposed) Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)10 feet Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback 33% of the side street built to setback (1) 100% on Olive and Acacia 78% on El Camino Real Max. Site Coverage 50%74% Minimum Landscape/Open Space Coverage 30% (14,959 sf)53% (26,509 sf) Usable Open Space (Private and/or Common) 150 sq ft per unit (2) (19,350 sf) 100 sf per unit (12,307 sf [does not count second floor open areas]) Max. Building Height PAMC: 50 ft or 35 ft within 150 ft. of a residential district (other than an RM-40 or PC zone) (5) California Government Code (§65915[f][3][d][ii]): 68-83 feet (33 feet taller than local code allowance) 60 feet; 66 feet, 3 inches to top of each stairwell (25 feet taller than the 35-foot area [within 150 feet of R-1] and 10 feet taller than areas allowing 50-foot height (outside of 150 feet from R-1) Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone 10 feet at property line; 45- degree angle along interior side yard property line abutting R-1 Complies Residential Density Sites on El Camino Real have no maximum(3) Proposed density is 113 DU/AC Item 2 Attachment C-Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 30 Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)0.6:1 residential (29,918 sf)2.74: 1 (136,945) Minimum Mixed-use Ground Floor Commercial FAR 1,500 sf of retail(6)(10)Not Applicable (not mixed use) Exclusive residential uses allowed on Housing Inventory Sites (1) Twenty-five-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage; the build-to requirement does not apply to the CC district. (2) Required usable open space: (1) may be any combination of private and common open spaces; (2) does not need to be located on the ground (but rooftop gardens are not included as open space except as provided below); (3) minimum private open space dimension six feet; and (4) minimum common open space dimension twelve feet. For CN and CS sites on El Camino Real and CC(2) sites that do not abut a single- or two-family residential use or zoning district, rooftop gardens may qualify as usable open space and may count as up to 60% of the required usable open space for the residential component of a project. In order to qualify as usable open space, the rooftop garden shall meet the requirements set forth in Section 18.40.230. (3) Residential density shall be computed based on the total site area, irrespective of the percent of the site devoted to commercial use. (4) For CN sites on El Camino Real, height may increase to a maximum of 40 feet, and the FAR may increase to a maximum of 1.0:1 (0.5:1 for nonresidential, 0.5:1 for residential). (5) Distance shall be measured from the property line of the subject site. 150-foot measurement may be reduced to 50 feet at minimum, subject to approval by the Planning Director, upon recommendation by the Architectural Review Board pursuant to criteria set forth in Chapter 18.76. (6) Ground floor commercial uses generally include retail, personal services, hotels, and eating and drinking establishments. Office uses may be included only to the extent they are permitted in ground floor regulations. (7) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage. (8) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be no minimum mixed-use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project, except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies. (9) Residential densities up to 20 units/acre are allowed on CN zoned housing inventory sites identified in the Housing Element. Other CN zoned sites not located on El Camino Real are subject to a maximum residential density of up to 15 units/acre. (10) In the CC(2) zone and on CN and CS zoned sites on El Camino Real, there shall be no minimum mixed use ground floor commercial FAR for a residential project, except to the extent that the retail preservation requirements of Section 18.40.180 or the retail shopping (R) combining district (Chapter 18.30(A)) applies. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Residential Uses Vehicle Parking PAMC: 194 spaces under CS zoning; 97 spaces with AH combining district Per California Government Code 65915(p)(3): None required 103 spaces Bicycle Parking 1 long-term space per unit; 1 short-term space per 10 units = 129 long-term; 13 short term 138 long-term spaces; 14 short-term spaces Loading Space None required None Item 2 Attachment C-Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 31 Attachment D: Consistency with North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Goals North Ventura CAP Goals Development Agreement Alternative Housing and Land Use: Add to the City’s supply of multifamily housing, including market rate, affordable, “missing middle,” and senior housing in a walkable, mixed-use, transit-accessible neighborhood, with retail and commercial services, and possibly start-up space, open space, and possibly arts and entertainment uses. The project adds 129 units to the City’s housing supply; 100% affordable to very low income, consistent with the NVCAP goals. Transit, Pedestrian, and Bicycle Connections: Create and enhance well-defined connections to transit, pedestrian, and bicycle facilities, including connections to the Caltrain station, Park Boulevard, and El Camino Real. The project improves El Camino Real’s frontage, providing a wider sidewalk, and retains existing mature trees along the frontages. Bicycle and pedestrian access to the building is provided along El Camino. Pedestrian access is provided on all three streets. Short-term bicycle parking is dispersed on El Camino and Olive Avenue, and long-term bicycle parking is provided at the ground level. Connected Street Grid: Create a connected street grid, filling in sidewalk gaps and street connections to California Avenue, the Caltrain Station, and El Camino Real where appropriate. The project does not include changes to the street grid. The project would not affect the proposed plans for a connected street grid under the NVCAP. Community Facilities and Infrastructure: Carefully align and integrate the development of new community facilities and infrastructure with private development, recognizing both the community’s needs and that such investments can increase the cost of housing. The project does not include community facilities but includes upgraded infrastructure to serve the site. Upgrades to the transformer could assist in future improvements within the vicinity without the need for additional upgrades. Balance of Community Interests: Balance community-wide objectives with the interests of neighborhood residents and minimize displacement of existing residents and small businesses. The project replaces residential retail space that would generally be considered neighborhood serving based on its size. However, this space has been vacant since 2017. Urban Design, Design Guidelines, and Neighborhood Fabric: Develop human-scale urban design strategies, and design guidelines that strengthen and support the neighborhood fabric. Infill development will respect the scale and character of the surrounding residential neighborhood. Include transition zones to surrounding neighborhoods. The project is a 59-foot building adjacent to single-family residential uses which could be considered a conflict with this goal. However, the project is stepped back on upper levels such that the 59-foot portions of the site are 50 feet or more from the adjacent residential uses, consistent with this goal. The project is also located along El Camino Real where taller uses are encouraged. Generally, the NVCAP preferred Alternative that was endorsed by the Council looked at heights of 50 to 70 feet, specifically indicating that taller buildings may be considered for affordable housing projects. Sustainability and the Environment Protect and enhance the environment while addressing the principles of sustainability. The new affordable housing project building will be all- electric and will comply with GB-1 plus Tier 2 requirements. Item 2 Attachment D-Analysis of consistency with NVCAP goals Packet Pg. 32 Attachment E: Context-Based Design Criteria 3001 El Camino Real, 22PLN-00229 Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle-friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The proposed project provides primary pedestrian and cyclist access via a courtyard on El Camino Real and pedestrian access options on both Olive Avenue and Acacia. Vehicular access is provided on the side street rather than El Camino Real. The project includes a long-term bicycle storage room along El Camino Real for cyclists and provides short-term bicycle parking in multiple locations. This is an improvement over the existing conditions, where no bicycle parking is provided. The sidewalks would be wider and activated through the building design (large windows and courtyard) to orient toward pedestrians. Improved landscape planting along the frontages would be provided. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The project is built to the required setbacks on El Camino Real and the side streets with ground floor setbacks to allow for pedestrian overhangs, wider sidewalks, and planting on the ground floor. The design includes large windows along the ground floor frontage to allow views. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The building complies with the required setbacks with the exception of the rear along Acacia, which has a 5- foot setback where a 10-foot setback. A concession under state density bonus allowances is requested to allow for this exceedance. The project provides setbacks adjacent to the single-family residential uses of 50 feet at upper levels to respect the transition and provides landscaping on a second-floor open space area on the second level in order to reduce massing. Along the El Camino Real frontage, a courtyard is provided to help break up the massing along the façade. 4. Low-Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower-scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties The project provides setbacks adjacent to the single-family residential uses of 50 feet at upper levels to respect the transition. It also provides landscaping on a second-floor open space area to set back the useable area from the balcony edge and to reduce massing. Item 2 Attachment E-Context based design criteria Packet Pg. 33 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site Common open space is provided in a courtyard at the front of the building, in areas along the interior, adjacent lower-density uses, and in a second-floor open space area. Private open space is also provided for the units. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment The project provides parking within a parking garage but provides other spaces along the El Camino Real to activate the frontage including the ground floor lobby, residential services, a fitness center for residents, and bicycle parking facilities with secure access. The parking is not visible from the exterior and does not overwhelm the pedestrian environment. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood The project is located on a site that is 1.14 acres in size. The project abuts El Camino Real. High-density housing is encouraged along this corridor, which is close to jobs (Palo Alto Square and Stanford Research Park) as well as transit and other commercial uses (e.g. California Avenue commercial district). The project is taller than neighboring structures but respects the setbacks and daylight plane adjacent to the neighboring single-family residential uses along Olive (50-foot setback to upper floors). Although it is taller than other commercial uses on the corners of El Camino Real and Olive, the streets (Acacia and Olive) provide a natural setback between the buildings. 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will be all-electric and is required to comply with the green building mandatory plus tier 2 requirements under the green building code. This includes requirements such as all-electric, solar power, and electric vehicle-ready stalls. All landscaping shall be required to meet the Model water efficiency landscape ordinance requirements. Item 2 Attachment E-Context based design criteria Packet Pg. 34 Attachment F Performance Criteria 18.23 3001 El Camino Real Avenue 22PLN-00229 These performance criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of developments in the multi-family, commercial, and industrial zones. The purpose is to balance the needs of the uses within these zones with the need to minimize impacts on surrounding neighborhoods and businesses. The criteria are intended to make new developments and major architectural review projects compatible with nearby residential and business areas and to enhance the desirability of the proposed developments for the site residents and users, and abutting neighbors and businesses. Assure that development provides adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of trash and recyclable materials in appropriate containers, and that trash disposal and recycling areas are located as far from abutting residences as is reasonably possible. The project includes a trash enclosure within the building. The facilities are fully enclosed and not in clear sight of any public right-of- way or neighbors. To minimize the visual impacts of lighting on abutting or nearby residential sites and from adjacent roadways. The proposed exterior lighting is sufficient to provide safe circulation and is directed downward to reduce glare and impacts to neighboring uses. The purpose is to restrict retail or service commercial businesses abutting (either directly or across the street) or within 50 feet of residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones, with operations or activities between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. Operations subject to this code may include, but are not limited to, deliveries, parking lot and sidewalk cleaning, and/or clean up or set up operations, but does not include garbage pick-up. The project does not include any commercial uses. Privacy of abutting residential properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) should be protected by screening from public view all mechanical equipment and service areas. Landscaping should be used to integrate a project design into the surrounding neighborhood, and to provide privacy screening between properties where appropriate. The project is adjacent to residential uses and provides landscape screening at the ground and upper levels between the project and the adjacent single-family residential use. 18.23.020 Trash Disposal and Recycling Project Consistency 18.23.030 Lighting 18.23.040 Late Night Uses and Activities 18.23.050 Visual, Screening and Landscaping Item 2 Attachment F- Performance Criteria Packet Pg. 35 The requirements and guidelines regarding noise and vibration impacts are intended to protect residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones (residential properties) from excessive and unnecessary noises and/or vibrations from any sources in abutting industrial or commercially zoned properties. Design of new projects should reduce noise from parking, loading, and refuse storage areas and from heating, ventilation, air conditioning apparatus, and other machinery on nearby residential properties. New equipment, whether mounted on the exterior of the building or located interior to a building, which requires only a building permit, shall also be subject to these requirements. The parking is located within a parking garage on the ground level. Access to the garage is set back substantially from the adjacent residential use. HVAC will be located on the rooftop over 50 feet from the adjacent residential uses and therefore is not anticipated to impact nearby uses. The project shall comply with PAMC 9.12; no amplified noise sources would be allowed in the open space areas of the site. The visual impact of parking shall be minimized on adjacent residentially zoned properties or properties with existing residential uses located within nonresidential zones. The project’s parking is located on the ground floor within an interior parking garage and therefore complies with this requirement. The guidelines regarding site access impacts are intended to minimize conflicts between residential vehicular, pedestrian, and bicycle users and more intensive traffic associated with commercial and industrial districts, and to facilitate pedestrian and bicycle connections through and adjacent to the project site. The site circulation facilitates easy access for all modes of transportation. The project includes short-term and long-term bike parking. The project moves the existing curb cut along Olive further away from the existing single-family residential use. The requirements for air quality are intended to buffer residential uses from potential sources of odor and/or toxic air contaminants. No proposed uses on the project site would produce odor or toxic air. Future uses are required to comply with these performance standards. In accordance with Titles 15 and 17 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, minimize the potential hazards of any use on a development site that will entail the storage, use, or handling of hazardous materials (including hazardous wastes) on-site in excess of the exempt quantities prescribed in Health and Safety Code Division 20, Chapter 6.95, and Title 15 of this code. This is not applicable to the proposed residential use. 18.23.060 Noise and Vibration Project Consistency 18.23.070 Parking 18.23.080 Vehicular, Pedestrian and Bicycle Site Access 18.23.090 Air Quality 18.23.100 Hazardous Materials Item 2 Attachment F- Performance Criteria Packet Pg. 36 Attachment G South El Camino Real Design Guidelines Address/File #: 3001 El Camino Real [22PLN-00229] This checklist provides a summary of the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines in conjunction with the 1979 Council-adopted El Camino Real Design Guidelines, and the proposed project's consistency. Guiding Principles Proposed Project 1 Within a pedestrian node (California Av., Barron-Ventura, or Triangle at El Camino Way) The project is not located within a pedestrian node. The project is located within the Cal-Ventura corridor. 2 A 12' sidewalk (curb face to building) with trees, planters, and seating The project provides a 12’ sidewalk from the curb to the back of the sidewalk/building along El Camino Real and 8’ between the curb and back of the sidewalk on Olive Avenue (front of the parcel). Mature trees are preserved, and improvement such as windows with views in and a courtyard area with seating and landscaping is proposed. 3 Built with the front wall (building face) located at the back of the sidewalk The project complies 4 Outdoor seating and dining, where appropriate The project does not include any commercial uses but includes seating within the courtyard along El Camino Real. 5 A minimum height of 25 feet (2 and 3-story building) to reinforce the street's importance The project is 5 stories along El Camino Real and reinforces the street’s importance. 6 An entry or entries facing El Camino Real, so the building is oriented to the street The building is oriented toward El Camino Real 7 On a street comer, incorporate special features to highlight building The proposed project, with the revisions, highlights the building and provides and appropriate presence along El Camino Real and at prominent corners at Acacia/El Camino Real and Olive/El Camino Real through variations in height and materials. 8 Facades that animate the street: doors and windows, arcades, awnings, balconies, stairs The project includes doors and windows, as well as balconies, to animate the street along El Camino Real 9 Flat roofs and parapets to create a cohesive streetscape The project includes flat roofs to create a cohesive streetscape 10 Facades that have clearly expressed bases, bodies, and roofs or parapets The project provides differences in materials to differentiate between the base and middle. Improvements could be made to better define the middle and top. Item 2 Attachment G-South El camino real design guidelines Packet Pg. 37 11 Scale and presence proportional to the scale and importance of El Camino Real The project has a scale and presence that is proportional to El Camino Real 12 Adjacent to a residential neighborhood, variations in scale, articulation, setbacks The project includes substantial setbacks for upper floors from the adjacent residential uses and utilizes second floor open space to reduce massing adjacent lower density uses. Recessed areas help to break up the long façade along El Camino Real and the interior side lot line paralleling El Camino. Site Planning and Landscape Design Concepts Node Area projects: 15 At least 75% of the building face is at ECR setback line/build-to-line 16 On a comer, the building occupies 50% of side street frontage The project is not located within a node. Corridor Area projects (Cal Ventura, Hotel Area): 18 At least 50% of the building face is at ECR setback line/build-to-line 19 On a comer, the building occupies 33% of side street frontage The project is within the Cal Ventura Corridor and complies with these build-to lines. Increased setbacks: (more than the build-to-line) 21 An increased setback that does not exceed 20 feet of the property frontage length The project does not include an increased setback. 22 Public amenities (wider sidewalk, outdoor seating or dining)The project includes outdoor seating in a recessed courtyard along the frontage and wider sidewalks along El Camino Real. Curb cuts and parking lots 24 A minimized curb cut width The project has a single curb cut along a side street. The curb cut is the minimal width necessary to provide ingress/egress. 25 An extension of sidewalk material and width across driveways The sidewalk extends across the driveway access. 26 Sharing driveway with adjoining property The driveway is not shared but this would not be appropriate given the adjacent single-family residential use. 27 Using alley access or side street access to parking lot The project provides side street access on Olive Avenue, consistent with the existing access to the site but further from the existing single-family residential use. 28 Parking lot no more than 50% of ECR frontage, no more than 120' None of the parking is provided along the frontage. Usable Open Space Amenities 30 Attractive and functional plazas, seating, and activity areas are located at the entrances The project includes recessed plaza/courtyard areas on the ground floor Item 2 Attachment G-South El camino real design guidelines Packet Pg. 38 along El Camino Real and to set back the building and add greenery near the single- family residential uses. Additional common open space is provided along the interior side yard lot line. Open space areas include play areas for children, landscaping, seating, etc. 31 Seating, tables, canopies and covered trellises The project does not include canopies or covered trellises in the open space areas but does provide overhangs on the ground floor and outdoor benches and landscaping in courtyards, including along El Camino Real at the entrance to the building 32 Careful treatment of property edges and spaces between buildings The project includes landscaping/open space between Landscape and Hardscape 33 Extensive planting and the use of other landscape amenities to create “outdoor rooms” The project includes landscaped areas, including useable common open space, on the ground floor and second-floor levels. Landscaping is used to screen outdoor areas from adjacent uses to maintain privacy. Site Lighting 34 Emphasize pedestrian path and safety, minimize glare The project provides lighting that is designed to provide safe circulation while reducing glare and any overspill. 35 Use a variety of fixtures that are integrated into building/landscape design The lighting is integrated into the building and landscape. Alleys 37 Windows and doors oriented toward alley 38 Service facilities screened with enclosures 39 Durable, attractive garage doors, entry doors, windows 40 Lighting directed to not impact adjacent properties Not applicable (no alley proposed) Building Design Concepts 42 An articulated base, body, and roof/parapet The materials create a natural base and middle but further improvements could be made to better differentiate between the middle and top. 43 Expressed structural bays The project includes a courtyard on the ground floor along the El Camino Real frontage. 44 Facades parallel to the right of ways The facades parallel the right-of-way 45 Exceptions to front or side daylight plane requirements No exceptions are requested. The daylight plane requirements apply to the interior side yard property line (paralleling El Item 2 Attachment G-South El camino real design guidelines Packet Pg. 39 Camino Real). The project complies with the requirement by setting the upper floors back from the single-family residential uses. 46 Design consistency on all facades The project is properly designed on all four facades. 47 An articulated facade rather than a merely decorative or false front The project includes courtyards on both the frontage along El Camino Real and the interior side yard paralleling El Camino Real to break up the building. Material changes, changes in elevation, and balconies provide further articulation of the façade on all four sides. 48 ADA features as an integral part of building design The project is ADA-compliant and ADA- compliant features are incorporated into the building design. 49 Recessed entry arcades The project includes a recessed courtyard at the entry of the building to provide a gathering space and to break up the frontage along El Camino Real. Awnings 51 Spaces to gather or retreat The first floor of the building is set back on all streets, providing an overhang for shelter from the elements and allowing for wider sidewalks and landscaping while still enforcing the frontage 52 Habitable space in front of parking The project includes more active uses, such as a gym, leasing office, and bicycle parking along the frontage, and sets the parking toward the rear, away from El Camino Real. Windows 54 Inset or trim on windows The project insets the windows from the stucco providing the appearance of a window trim . Improvements could be considered to provide more of a trim to the windows to provide depth and articulation in accordance with the South El Camino Real Design Guidelines. 55 Display windows The project does not include commercial uses. Therefore, display windows are not provided. 56 Transparent doors and windows along at least 75% of ground floor ECR facades Windows on the ground floor are transparent 57 Transparent windows along at least 50% of upper-level ECR facades Windows on the upper floors of the façade, as well as most of the ground floor are transparent Item 2 Attachment G-South El camino real design guidelines Packet Pg. 40 Rooflines 59 Prominent cornices and rooflines The roofline/top could be better differentiated from the middle to provide a more clear roofline. 60 A flat roof and/or a roof form reflecting facade articulation The project provides a flat roof 61 Parapet hides rooftop mechanical equipment The parapets hide rooftop mechanical equipment as shown in the line-of-sight diagrams Materials 63 Durable, high-quality materials to convey integrity, permanence and durability The project provides high quality materials and an appropriate mix of materials. The project utilizes concrete for portions of the project, a material that conveys durability and permanence and corten for highlighted features. 64 Materials integral to facade and structure, not arbitrarily applied The materials are integral to the façade and structure and are not arbitrarily applied. Signage 66 Sign colors are limited as set forth in the 1979 El Camino Real Design Guidelines 67 Sign area limited to 2/3 of the maximum sign area per PAMC (1979 ECRDG) 68 Integrated into building façade 69 Individually formed letters (no sign cabinets) 70 Window sign coverage no greater than 20% maximum 71 No new pole signs 72 Monument signage only when no feasibility for wall signs on the building 73 Wall wash lighting or halo lighting ("reverse pan channel letters")/backlighting of signs 74 Colors that coordinate with building colors (no florescent or very bright colors) The project does not include any proposed signage at this time. Therefore, these sign guidelines are not relevant to the proposed project. Item 2 Attachment G-South El camino real design guidelines Packet Pg. 41 Charities Housing 3001 El Camino Real, Palo Alto: Concessions Analyses The affordable housing development project proposed by Charities Housing at 3001 El Camino Real is a 100% affordable housing project and is entitled to a density bonus pursuant to Government Code Section 65915(b)(1)(g). The project will provide all of its units at 50% AMI or below, exceeding the density bonus threshold qualification of 80% AMI. As a 65915(b)(1)(g) project the affordable housing development is entitled to four (4) concessions. The following are the bases of the findings to support the four concessions pursuant to 65915(d)(1). 1.FAR: increase to 2.7:1 from a max allowable of 0.6:1. Pursuant to California Government Code Section 95915(d) and section 18.15.050(c) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Charities Housing requests a concession to allow the project to be developed at a floor area ration (FAR) of 2.7:1. The requested concession would enable the 100% affordable housing development to proceed. Without a concession for FAR, this development is not financially feasible to pursue. A multifamily affordable housing development competes for financing at the local, state and sometimes federal level for the limited dollars available for affordable housing. One critical benchmark in lender’s analysis is cost per unit. If the land cost per unit is 5 to 7 times higher than average, the total cost per unit including construction and soft costs, will exceed the standard for affordable housing and the development would never be awarded funding. Charities paid $16,000,000 for the land. The current maximum allowable FAR in the zoning district of 0.6:1 on the 1.96-acre project site would result in a development project with only approximately 32 units. This would equate to $500,000 per unit, which is well beyond feasibility from any public financing perspective. Developing at a FAR of 2.7:1 enables 129 apartments to be built, reducing the affordable housing land cost to $124,000 per unit. Although this is still a high per unit land cost this and the balance of the project concessions will allow the project to move forward with public financing options. 2.Reduce rear setback (Acacia Avenue) from 10’ to 5’ Pursuant to Pursuant to California Government Code Section 95915(d) and section 18.15.050(c)(iv) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Charities Housing requests a concession to allow the project to reduce the rear setback at Acacia Avenue from the required 10 feet to the proposed 5 feet at floors two through five (8’ setback at the ground floor level). This concession impacts 16 below market rate units on the Acacia Avenue side of the project. As discussed in the concession request above, this project needs every allowable unit, bedroom, and floor area benefit it is entitled to per state density bonus law to help write down the cost of the property and provide for the BMR units. This concession ensures the project is both eligible for and competes well for public financial resources. Item 2 Attachment H-Applicants Summary of Per Unit Cost Reductions for Concessions Packet Pg. 42 Not allowing the requested concession will eliminate all the bedrooms of the units that front Acacia Avenue. This particularly effects eight large, three-bedroom family-sized units as well as a stack of four two-bedroom units. That will eliminate or significantly reduce the units along that frontage, increasing the per unit cost of the whole project. In addition, to complete for tax credits projects must fall within a designated category. In this case the category is large family housing. This category requires a minimum of 50% of the total units to be 2- and 3-bedroom units. If the project loses the 2 & 3 BR units along Acacia, the project will not receive tax credits and as a result will not be feasible. The additional 5 feet along the length of Acacia Avenue allows for the total of 129 affordable dwelling units, where only 113 dwelling units could be constructed with a 10’ setback. 3.To exceed lot coverage from required max of 50% to 74% Pursuant to California Government Code Section 95915(d) and section 18.15.050(c)(iv) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Charities Housing requests a concession to allow an increase in the zoning district’s maximum allowed lot coverage from 50% to 74%, as proposed in the density bonus project. The lot coverage limitation will deprive the project of nearly one-third of its total floor area, reducing the unit count of an unknown redesigned project to less than 90 units. That will increase the affordable housing land price per unit to well beyond the $124,000 per unit of the current project. Allowing the increase in lot coverage to 74% as proposed for the project enables 129 apartments to be built. This lot coverage concession, along with the balance of the concessions, helps reduce the project’s affordable housing land costs from $500,000 per dwelling unit to $124,000 per dwelling unit. The requested concession will enable the 100% affordable housing development to proceed. 4.Reduce required useable open space from 19,350 sf to 12,917 sf Pursuant to California Government Code Section 95915(d) and section 18.15.050(c)(iv) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, Charities Housing requests a concession to reduce the required useable open space from 19,350 square feet to 12,917 square feet in the proposed project. To provide the required useable open space, the project would either have to forego at least 7,500 square feet of land at the ground level or create 7,500 square feet of open space on the roof top. Reducing the project’s footprint by 7,500 square feet is a 20% reduction in the footprint of the building. As an extrapolation that equates to a 27-unit reduction in the project. It also increases the per unit construction cost by reducing the project’s economy of scale and significantly increase the affordable housing costs as they related to the per unit cost of the land. To create the required open space on the roof top, significant new engineering, architecture, and construction costs are required. Additional water proofing, roof bracing, decking, materials, soils, planters, benches/tables/chairs, and other amenities come with a cost of approximately $200 per square foot. In addition to reducing the amount of solar capacity on the rooftop, this scenario would cost the project an additional $1,500,000. That is an increase in the affordable Item 2 Attachment H-Applicants Summary of Per Unit Cost Reductions for Concessions Packet Pg. 43 housing project’s per unit costs. If we simply assume that the open space could go on the roof and maintain unit count, that’s an additional $1,162,000 per unit. The cost is much higher of we were to look at ground level options. This lot coverage concession, along with the balance of the concessions, helps reduce the project’s affordable housing land costs from $500,000 per dwelling unit to $124,000 per dwelling unit. The requested concession will enable the 100% affordable housing development to proceed. Item 2 Attachment H-Applicants Summary of Per Unit Cost Reductions for Concessions Packet Pg. 44 Feb 12, 2023 TO: Charities Housing TO: Claire Raybould TO: Palo Alto City Council TO: Olive Ave Neighbors RE: 3001-3017 El Camino Real Project RE: Existing Plan with ingress/egress onto Olive Ave There are several considerations regarding cars from this proposed project to enter and exit onto Olive Avenue. 1- It encourages cars from this building to park on Olive Ave. If there is rather a south facing entrance/exit there is a choice to first use Acacia for parking before coming to Olive Ave to park. 2- Using a south facing entrance/exit eliminates the extremely dangerous crossing of El Camino to continue south on El Camino. 3- In the current north facing entrance/exit plan prevent all cars from making a right turn EXCEPT for only this building’s car users. No other traffic allowed to make a right turn. 4- Berm of some sort to prevent cars from continuing further on Olive Ave. 5-This eliminates all the commuter traffic from turning right onto Olive Ave and speeding down Olive to Ash to make a right turn to get back onto Page Mill. 6- Right lane on Olive Ave to remain open. Comments here continue to address parking and heavy commuter traffic onto Olive Ave, and now the addition of more cars from this project. Consider creating a berm to discourage eastbound traffic on Olive Ave. yet allowing cars to get into the Charities building. Creating a right turn lane from El Camino Real onto Page Mill Rd would help the flow of traffic going north, and help to eliminate blocking both Pepper and Olive intersections. Sincerely Sandra Lockhart 405 Olive Ave, Palo Alto Ph 560 380-4957 Item 2 Attachment I-Public Comment Packet Pg. 45 From:Sandra Lockhart To:jhead@charitieshousing.org; Cponcetta@Charitieshousing.org; Raybould, Claire; Council, City; Kou, Lydia Subject:More on a south facing direction Date:Thursday, February 9, 2023 2:59:40 PM CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautious of opening attachments and clicking on links. ________________________________ To: Charities Housing To: Claire Raybould, Sr Planner City of PA To: Palo Alto City Council To: Olive Ave Neighbors RE: 3001-3017 El Camino Real project RE: Turn building around so car traffic is toward Acacia and NOT Olive Ave. This would allow for a safer entry and exit from El Camino. Entry coming south from north, then onto Acacia would entail using an already there left turn lane, using an already there light, making the turn on a green light moving into the right lane and then right onto Acacia. Parking choice there is on Acacia, bldg parking lot, or back to El Camino to Olive Ave. Entry coming north from south, turn directly onto Acacia. Again parking choice there is on Acacia, the bldg parking lot, or back to El Camino to Olive Avenue. Leaving the parking lot of the bldg with intention to go south. Wait for the light to turn red (a short block south) then It is 100 feet to the left turn lane on El Camino. Make the U turn at El Camino /Olive Ave. Leaving the parking lot of the bldg with intention to go north. A straight shot after making the right turn onto El Camino, move into the middle lane to avoid right turn lane to Page Mill. This is by far the safest of all methods: Ingress/Egress to/from the 3001 3017 Building from Acacia St. Using Olive Avenue to cross El Camino is extremely dangerous, entangling with fast drivers coming from the south on El Camino, the left or U turn lane, and the fast cars coming from the north. Sincerely, Sandy Lockhart Item 2 Attachment I-Public Comment Packet Pg. 46 From:Sandra Lockhart To:Cponcetta@Charitieshousing.org; jhead@charitieshousing.org; Council, City; Raybould, Claire; Kou, Lydia Cc:Landform01@earthlink.net; kwokedmond@hotmail.com; jaredlockhart@yahoo.com; yugenl@hotmail.com; sjul@umich.edu; anupabajwa@gmail.com Subject:3001-3017 el camino Date:Wednesday, February 8, 2023 3:07:26 PM Attachments:jE8FpxS0k8hMXzbm.png CAUTION: This email originated from outside of the organization. Be cautiousof opening attachments and clicking on links. Feb 7, 2023 To: Christian Poncetta,Charities.com TO: Joe Head, Charities.com TO: Palo Alto City Council TO: Claire Raybould, Sr. City Planner of Palo Alto TO: Olive Ave Neighbors From: Sandy Lockhart 405 Olive Ave, Palo Alto salockhart405@Yahoo.com RE: 3001-3017 El Camino Real, Palo Alto, Parking mandate that doesn't cover sufficientparking on site for proposed project. Parking on Olive Avenue, this morning 2/7. There are 98 cars parked on our street thismorning, plus the cars on Ash. We live a block from Park Ave. Whatever is happening at that end of the street is causingevery spare space to be used. That company at the end of Olive does NOT provide sufficientparking. One neighbor at 275 Olive told me he had someone move his garbage bins inorder tomake room for his car. This morning I spent 8 minutes trying to get my car started to take achild to school and someone waited there for me to move until he realized I couldn't move mycar. Is there room for yet more cars to be parked on Olive Ave. because of your project? I DON’T THINK SO. Item 2 Attachment I-Public Comment Packet Pg. 47 Sincerely, SAL Sandy Lockhart Item 2 Attachment I-Public Comment Packet Pg. 48 If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Attachment J Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Environmental Document An Initial Study / Mitigated Negative Declaration has been prepared for this project. In accordance with CEQA Guideline Section 15073, this document will be available for a minimum 30-day circulation period beginning February 13, 2023 and ending on March 15, 2023. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3001 El Camino Real” 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/30013017-El- Camino-Real Materials Boards: Prior to the hearing, color and material boards will be available to view in the display case outside of City Hall, on the exterior elevator near the corner of Hamilton Ave. and Bryant St. For closer examination, this same board will be brought to chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 2 Attachment J-Project Plans and Environmental Analysis Packet Pg. 49 Item No. 3. Page 1 of 7 1 7 1 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: March 2, 2023 Report #: 2302-0974 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [22PLN-00237]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow for a new Storefront Façade, Outdoor Patios, and Signage for Sushi Roku (Space #700B, Bldg. E-formally Yucca De Lac). The project also includes a request for a Conditional Use Permit for Alcohol Sales. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Community Development based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project is a request for approval of a Major Architectural Review application to allow for an exterior tenant improvement to an existing tenant space for a new tenant “Sushi Roku” (Space #700B, Building E – formally “Yucca de lac”), a new restaurant tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center. The project is subject to requirements outlined the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP, 15PLN-00040). The MTFSP for the Stanford Shopping requires a Planning entitlement if any standalone building or tenant space that faces a public right-of-way proposes exterior changes. Major Architectural review is required for tenant spaces with outward facing façades greater than 35 ft long. The proposed façade meets both of these thresholds and is therefore subject to Major Architectural Review. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University Architect:Finn Wijatno Architects Representative:Jason Smith – Land Shark Development Legal Counsel:N/A Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 50 Item No. 3. Page 2 of 7 1 7 1 8 Property Information Address:180 El Camino Real Neighborhood:Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area:Various & 52.8 Acres Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:Various throughout the site, none will be removed with this project Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s):Retail, Personal Service, General/Professional Offices, and Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation:Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation:Regional/Community Commercial Context-Based Design Criteria: Yes, applicable Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 51 Item No. 3. Page 3 of 7 1 7 1 8 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):Yes, 1976 Guidelines Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'):Not Applicable Located w/in the Airport Influence Area:Not Applicable Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None Project Description The proposed project is a Major Architectural Review application to allow for an exterior tenant improvement, which includes a new storefront façade, storefront glazing, modified outdoor dining areas and new signage for “Sushi Roku” (Space #700B, Building E – formally “Yucca de lac”), a new restaurant tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center. The project also includes interior improvements as well as a request for a Conditional Use Permit for alcohol service (Type 47). Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary application(s) are being requested: •Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. The following discretionary application is not subject to the ARB’s purview: •Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for Alcohol Sales: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.76.010 and 18.77.060. CUP applications are reviewed by staff with a decision from the Director of Planning and Development Services or his/her designee. Any party may request a hearing of the planning and transportation commission on the proposed director’s decision by filing a written request within 14 days Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 52 Item No. 3. Page 4 of 7 1 7 1 8 of the decision. CUP projects are evaluated against specific findings. Both findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make either finding requires project redesign or denial. ANALYSIS Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the western portion of the site, near the London Plane entrance just off of Sand Hill Road. The Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The site is surrounded by a hospital, retail, and multi-family uses. Stanford Shopping Center has an open-air pedestrian environment defined by a mixture of retail, dining, professional and general business offices, and personal service uses. The project is located within an exterior facing tenant space within Building E of the Stanford Shopping Center. The proposed project involves a façade over 35 ft in length and faces Sand Hill Road, therefore, requiring Board Level Architectural Review. Façade Changes The subject tenant space is located at the northwestern corner of Building E, with facades facing California Pizza Kitchen and the parking field located off of Sand Hill Road. The tenant space was formally occupied by “Yucca de lac” and has an existing façade that consists of a yellow and brown stucco with brown metal canopies covering the outdoor dining spaces. In addition, the existing façade includes red drapes and potted plants around the outdoor spaces. There are two existing wall signs on each facade of the building. The existing façade design extends the full height of the building, consistent with the MTFSP design standards. The new storefront design features a refreshed contemporary design inclusive of smooth troweled stucco, natural Acoya wood slats and decorative porcelain tile façade with specialty metal panel, glass and natural board-formed concrete accents in warm earth tones. The upper portion of the façade (across from the parking field) will consist of a floating wood slat screen and a metal canopy that help to frame areas below. The floating wood screen wraps around the corner of the building and partially extends along the upper portion of the tenant façade along Azmoor Place, just across from California Pizza Kitchen. The balance of the upper portion of the façade along Azmoor Place includes smooth troweled stucco with a portion of the wall being furred out, creating a shelf for pin-mounted signage. Lower portions of each façade include decorative porcelain tiles and specialty metal panels. The proposed façade design will extend the full height of the building, maintaining consistency with the MTFSP design standards. In addition, the façade updates will maintain and update the outdoor dining spaces. Outdoor dining areas total 1,172 square feet (1,006 square feet covered and 166 square feet uncovered) will have glass barriers used to frame the outdoor dining spaces. The proposed design consists of a more open feel with more window surfaces, allowing more visibility to the interior of the tenant space and a new elevated water feature with a decorative stone pillar will be provided as an enhancement to the entryway. The project’s design and materials appear cohesive and Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 53 Item No. 3. Page 5 of 7 1 7 1 8 consistent with those found within the Shopping Center, while updating a corner entry to the interior of the Shopping Center. Staff would appreciate the ARB’s comments on the façade revisions. Signage The proposed signage includes new wall/canopy signs and a new blade sign. Each wall/canopy sign will read “Sushi Roku” and the blade sign will display the restaurants logo. The wall signs consist of ½ inch thick cut out acrylic letters that will be lit by rear LED up-lighting. The front façade will have black and red copy on the acrylic letters. The side façade will have acrylic letters painted with a faux corten finish. The blade sign being a painted acrylic circle with vinyl lettering and is non-illuminated. Staff would like the ARB to discuss the sign materials as they don’t seem to currently meet Finding #3 (high quality). The Master Tenant Façade & Sign Program (MTFSP 15PLN-00040) details the sign limitations for the Shopping Center. As shown in Attachment D, the primary wall sign would be limited to 36” maximum heights, which the current design meets. Additionally, the proposed blade sign meets the maximum dimension for blades at 15” x 24”. Planter Boxes/Landscaping The project includes new planter boxes and planted pots on stone pedestals. The pots will contain drought tolerant plants such as Kangaroo Paws, New Zealand Flax, Tamarix Juniper and Golden Bamboo. Small Eastern Redbud trees will be provided in a planter box and act as screening for the nearby water and gas meters. The plants and small trees will be watered by a drip irrigation system. The new landscaping will primarily be placed along the façade of the tenant space that faces the existing parking field; however, new planters and landscaping will also be provided at strategic locations along the façade that faces Azmoor Place. Consistency with Application Findings The project is consistent with the required findings as shown in Attachment B. For example, the project will renovate an existing tenant space that will strengthen the Stanford Shopping Center position as a premier regional shopping center with distinctive businesses and an open, appealing pedestrian environment. The improvements contribute to the exclusive retail, dining, and personal service experience of the Stanford Shopping Center. Zoning Compliance1 The Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.060(e)(3) states the maximum floor area for the Stanford Shopping Center is limited to 1,412,362 square feet. Staff performed a review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards. The proposed project includes a slight reduction to the floor area of the center as the covered, outdoor dining area has been reduced by approximately 225 square feet. A draft spreadsheet of all Shopping Center building areas is provided on Sheet A001. An updated sheet will be available at the hearing. No site plan changes will occur for the Shopping Center. This results in a slight reduction to FAR and no 1 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 54 Item No. 3. Page 6 of 7 1 7 1 8 changes to access, circulation, and parking. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes within the Zoning Ordinance. Attachment D provides a summary table of the zoning compliance information for this project. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Stanford Shopping Center as a regional center with a land use designation of Community Commercial. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Attachment B provides a detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site has multi-modal access and parking which for pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface level parking lots with two multi-level parking structures located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. The Landlord recently installed approximately 76 short-term bicycle parking stalls at the Stanford Shopping Center. 18 of those spaces will fulfill bicycle parking requirements from previous ARB approvals at the center, while 2 of the 76 spaces will be used to fulfill the requirement for this Sushi Roku project. 56 excess short-term bicycle parking spaces remain at the center. Throughout the site there are pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on February 17, 2023, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on February 15, 2023, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 55 Item No. 3. Page 7 of 7 1 7 1 8 provision of CEQA in accordance with the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301) because the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade of an existing building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Tamara Harrison, Consulting Senior Planner Tamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.com Item 3 Staff Report Packet Pg. 56 Arboretum Children's Center Quarry_Substation Building JRH Building AA ELECTIONEER COURT Building BB Building CC Building DD Building D THE GARDEN WALK The PlazaBloomingdales Building V SAND HILL WALK Building H THE PAVILION Building E Building F LADY ELLEN PL Building K Macy's Building N THE PLAZA Building M Building W P F Chang's Bank of_America Wilkes -_ Bashford Bldg P Parking Structure Sand Hill Station ____Skilled Nursing Building C 13-190Neuroscience_Health Center Nordstrom's Crate & Barrel_______The Container_Store Building ONeiman-Marcus Building L AZMOOR PLACE Hoover Pavilion Garage Fleming's Prime_Steakhouse_& Wine Bar 77.3' 97.6' 39.0' 671.1' 657.0' 593.6' 156.2' 136.5' 347.5' 655.8' 655.8' 403.7' 38.0' 136.5' 156.2' 118.8' 30.0' 235.9' 568.3' 21.1' 25.8' 49.1' 612.6' 71.8' 519.0' 588.3' 51.3' 79.0' 30.0' 69.9' 31.6' 70.0' 31.6' 54.3'30.0' 27.7' 74.5' 39.2' 486.4' 32.9' 122.4' 5.3' 977.6' 144.5' 410.6' 135.6' 136.5' 626.5' 137.1' 148.3' 147.7' 114.0' 37.8' 64.0' 136.5' 135.6' 66.4' 55.8' 40.8' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 514.7' 149.8' 55.0'14.4'10.2' 41.8' 19.3' 15.5'13.2'17.3' 133.6' 436.5' 42.4' 49.6' 338.1' 64.5' 73.8' 14.4'.0'.2'6.8'.8'.9'.0'1.3'.8'.9'.8'.7'.8'1.1'12.1'9.8'17.2' 23 118.8' 52.0' 65.5' 129.5' 39.0' 97.6' 156.3' 137.1' 121.9' 30.0' 118.8' 335.5' 235.2' 60.0' 171.5' 60.0' 171.5' 171.5' 44.8' 171.5' 44.7' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 335.5' 235.2' 89.8' 111.5' 600 69.5'69.5'69.5'69.5'69.5'69.5'69.5' 31.1' 129.5' 30.0' 30.0' 157.5' 192.0' 644.0' 222.9' 226.4' 220.4' 116.2' 142.6' 238.3' 169.5' 164.1' 109.3' 519.0' 71.8' 612.6' 49.1' 25.8' 21.1' 568.3'198.0' 198.0' 242.3' 176.0' 176.0' 182.3' 256.9' ARBORETUM ROAD RY ROAD QUARRY ROAD QUARRY ROAD QUARRYROAD ELCAMINOREAL PALO ALTO AVENUE EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL ALMA STREET QUARRYROAD SAND HILL ROAD SAND HILL ROAD SHOPPING CENTER WAY PLUM LANE ORCHARD LANE ORCHARD LANE SHOPPING CENTER WAY PEAR LANE SWEET OLIVE WAY L O N D O N P L A N E W A Y S H O PP I N G C E N T E R W A Y S H O P P I N G C E N T E R W A Y S H O P P I N G C E N T E R W A Y S A N D H I L L R O A D PISTACHE PLACE PENINSULA CORRIDOR JOINT POWERS BOARD ARBORETUM ROAD ARBORETUM ROAD ARBORETUM ROAD PAL ARBORETUM ROA 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 0'202' 180 El Camino Real - 22PLN-00237 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, 2023-02-09 08:32:27 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 3 Attachment A - Location Map Packet Pg. 57 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 22PLN-00237 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. The project would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The project continues the Regional Commercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. The proposed project would modify the exterior storefront of one (1) existing restaurant tenant space and replace it with a new restaurant tenant. The proposed modifications to the exterior of the storefront are cohesive and consistent with designs found throughout the center and would further enhance a Sand Hill Road entry into the shopping center, helping to maintain the center’s regional significance. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The proposal has been reviewed against the Palo Alto General Plan, the PAMC, the Stanford Shopping Center Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program as well as applicable design guidelines to determine consistency with all regulations and standards. Proposed materials and colors have also been reviewed for consistency with Palo Alto’s design quality standards. Item 3 Attachment B - Draft ARB Findings Packet Pg. 58 The proposal has been found to be consistent with standards and will result in a high-quality development. As previously mentioned, the proposal will replace an existing restaurant tenant with another restaurant tenant proposing to modify the exterior façade of the tenant space and no new areas of the overall site would be disturbed; thereby, lessening potential impacts from the project. . Program L-2.4.2: Allow housing at Stanford Shopping Center, provided that adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained and no reduction of retail square footage results from the new housing. Not applicable as housing is not a part of this proposal. Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings.The proposed project would modify the exterior front and outdoor patio area of an existing restaurant tenant space and replace it with a new restaurant tenant. Existing buildings would be used, and no new buildings are proposed. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposal does not include any natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas, or rain gardens. However, landscaping at the tenant space will be refreshed with a palette of drought tolerant plants and small trees that will be placed in pots and planter areas. The new pots and planters will contain self-irrigating and drip systems. The updated landscaping has been carefully placed throughout the exterior of the tenant space and outdoor patio area. A water feature is also included in the proposal and will be located at the entryway along the primary façade. In addition, the Stanford Shopping Center includes multiple landscaped areas throughout the site. . Policy L-4.1: Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that is compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, without loss of retail and existing small, local businesses. The proposed project would upgrade existing tenant space within the Stanford Shopping Center and is cohesive and compatible with existing designs found throughout the center. This location was Item 3 Attachment B - Draft ARB Findings Packet Pg. 59 previously a restaurant tenant and will remain a restaurant tenant; therefore, no loss of retail would occur. Policy L-4.4: Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. The project itself does not propose any gathering spaces nor public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, or public art; however, the modified outdoor patio. spaces creates two gathering spaces where customers can also access outdoor dining as desired. In addition, the Stanford Shopping Center provides multiple gathering spaces and public amenities located throughout the center that are available for use. Program L-4.2.3: Explore and potentially support new, creative and innovative retail in Palo Alto. The proposed project would replace an existing restaurant tenant by adding a new restaurant to the Stanford Shopping Center and will provide additional variety to patrons of the center. Policy B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high-quality regional shopping center. Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The proposed project has also been reviewed by Stanford University and Simon Mall Management in order to ensure consistency with the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program as well as ensure consistency with the existing Shopping Center. The project design has been found to be consistent with the Master Program standards and cohesive with the overall Shopping Center. The design of the proposed façade is cohesive with existing facades within the Stanford Shopping Center. Improvements have not been proposed to any City Streets or public spaces within the Shopping Center as a result of this project; however, the improved façade will be more aesthetically pleasing to those entering the Shopping Center from Sand Hill Road via London Plane Way and for those patrons using the public spaces located near the tenant space. Item 3 Attachment B - Draft ARB Findings Packet Pg. 60 Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The proposal is located within the Stanford Shopping Center which has previously be found to maintain the scale and character of the City. The proposed use is a restaurant tenant that will replace an existing restaurant tenant; therefore, the proposed land use will not be overwhelming and unacceptable due to the size and scale of the operation. The project would be required to be consistent with the zoning requirements and the Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with this finding. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context- based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project includes only exterior façade and patio improvements. The existing tenant space includes access to pedestrian paseos and walkways surrounding the tenant space including Azmoor Place and along the primary façade of the building. The project has been reviewed for adequate walkway widths and conforms to Palo Alto and Stanford Shopping Center requirements; thereby, maintaining connectivity throughout the area of the tenant space and the center overall. Existing bike racks Item 3 Attachment B - Draft ARB Findings Packet Pg. 61 provided by the landlord for the shopping center are provided to the south of the tenant space just in front of the Pacific Catch restaurant. Additionally, the center provides a number of seating opportunities including seating at large planter boxes. There is an existing large planter with seating opportunities located along the Azmoor Place pedestrian paseo adjacent to the subject tenant space. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The project proposes a new façade with a well designed mixture of colors and materials that would enliven the pedestrian entry for this portion of the Shopping Center. This project also includes doorways, windows and signage that are well designed and in scale with the pedestrian environment of the Shopping Center and would help encourage pedestrian activity at this location of the Stanford Shopping Center while supporting a connection between the tenant space boundaries with pedestrians and patrons on the outside throughout the use of the modified outdoor patio spaces. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will not change the existing building setbacks or massing. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding does not apply. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding does not apply. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment This finding does not apply. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the This finding does not apply Item 3 Attachment B - Draft ARB Findings Packet Pg. 62 surrounding neighborhood 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting. The project will also conform to Green Building Energy codes for commercial businesses. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The proposed project is consistent with this finding in that the façade design is utilizing high- quality exterior materials and finishes that are balanced in the design, the proposed smooth troweled stucco, natural Acoya wood lats and decorative porcelain tile façade with specialty metal panel, glass and natural board-formed concrete accents complements the existing adjacent tenant spaces in this area of the center. The color palette consists of warm earth tones including beige, browns and bronzes. Signage will include acrylic painted lack and burgundy lettering with logo accents of red and black and white LED lighting, providing a high-end appearance that is aesthetically pleasing and typical of the Shopping Center. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with this finding in that the subject building is existing, and the project does not propose any modifications to the Shopping Center’s roadways or sidewalks; therefore, the existing circulation improvements will remain in place. The signage is well placed and consistent with the MTFS program signage regulations providing signage that is in scale with both pedestrians and automobiles entering the Shopping Center from Sand Hill Road. The black, acrylic pin mounted lettering with LED lighting located on the façade of the building provides excellent contrast and are easily visible to visitors of the Shopping Center. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with this finding in that the front façade of the subject tenant space includes refreshed drought tolerant landscaping inclusive of trees, shrubs and plantings located in pots and planters and a new water feature along the facades of the tenant space. Sidewalks along the primary façade and Azmoor Place will maintain a minimum width of 8 feet free and clear with the addition of the new landscaped pots and planters. In addition, existing mall Item 3 Attachment B - Draft ARB Findings Packet Pg. 63 planters located along the adjacent parking fields will remain and will add to the overall landscaped area of the tenant space. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with this finding in that the proposed project includes materials that consist of wood, metals, concrete, and clear glazing, many of which are readily recyclable. The project is also subject to the local energy and recycling codes. The proposed signs are illuminated and made of durable long-lasting materials and are subject to the green building energy regulations. Furthermore, updated landscaping complies with State and City of Palo Alto Landscape water efficiency requirements. Plants specified are rated as low to moderate water requirements and a fully automatic water efficient drip irrigation system will be installed. Item 3 Attachment B - Draft ARB Findings Packet Pg. 64 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 22PLN-00237 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Sushi Roku,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on January 6, 2023, on file with the Planning & Development Services Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Zero Waste and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT. A valid Use and Occupancy permit issued by the Building Department is required for the “Sushi Roku” restaurant. The operator shall ensure the building’s permitted occupancy is not exceeded at any time. 5. HOURS OF OPERATION. Alcoholic beverage services shall not be served beyond the hours of operation for the eating and drinking use, which is allowed to operate from 11:30am-Midnight, Seven days a week. 6. GENERAL OPERATION. This conditional use permit allows indoor sales and outdoor dining patio area (only within enclosed areas of outdoor dining patio area) sales and service of alcohol in conjunction with a restaurant use and an ABC License Type 47. The consumption of alcohol shall be consistent with the established hours of operation and permitted functions of the restaurant. A full-service menu selection shall be available during all operating hours. 7. ALCOHOLIC SERVICE. This conditional use permit allows the sale of alcoholic beverages, in conjunction with a restaurant use, to be located within an existing building and the associated two (2) outdoor patio areas at the Stanford Shopping Center, as indicated on the approved plans. 8. KITCHEN FACILITIES. Suitable kitchen facilities shall be maintained for the eating and drinking establishment. 9. RECYCLING & GARBAGE. The Businesses on site must ensure that all service areas have access to garbage, recycling, and compost as required in Municipal Code 5.20.108. Item 3 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 65 10. GROSS FLOOR AREA, LOT COVERAGE AND PARKING. This approval does not include any changes/increase in gross floor area, lot coverage, or parking on the property. As a result of this project, outdoor patio dining areas at the tenant space will be reduced from 1,231 square feet to 1,172 square feet; thereby, reducing the overall gross floor area of the tenant space by 59 square feet. 11. EXTERIOR ALTERATIONS. Any exterior alteration would require a separate Architectural Review application. 12. INTENSIFICATION. Any intensification of the alcohol sales and service shall require an amendment to the Conditional Use Permit and any other entitlements as specified in the Palo Alto Municipal Code. 13. ENTERTAINMENT. This permit does not allow any operations associated with a nightclub-type use and live entertainment shall not be permitted. There shall be no live entertainment, live music dancing or other amusement facilities or devises. An amendment to this use permit shall be required to permit these uses at the restaurant. This condition does not apply to any standard/background music provided by the Stanford Shopping Center. Maximum decibels shall be no more than 66 dBA at the property line. 14. NUISANCES AND NOISE. The business shall be operated in a manner to protect any nearby residential properties from excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources during the business hours. Noise levels emanating from the restaurant use shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10. 15. CODE COMPLIANCE. The current and proposed uses shall be comply with all applicable City codes, including Titles 9 (Public Peace, Moral and Safety) and 15 (Uniform Fire Code) of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and Titles 4 (Alcoholic Beverage Business regulations) and 19 (Public Safety) of the State of California Administrative Code. 16. AGREEMENT. The consumption of alcoholic beverages under this use permit shall be deemed an agreement on the part of the applicant, their heirs, successors, and assigns to comply with all terms and conditions of this Conditional Use Permit. 17. EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. In the event a building permit(s) is not secured for the project or the use does not commence within the time limit specified above, the approval shall expire and be of no further force or effect. 18. REVOCATION OR MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. Item 3 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 66 The director may issue a notice of noncompliance for any failure to comply with any condition of this permit approval, or when a use conducted pursuant to a Conditional Use Permit is being conducted in a manner detrimental to the public health, safety and welfare. 19. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 20. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final inspection. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact the Planner-on-Duty at Planner@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING 21. Submit Building Permit for the proposed scope of work. Refer to Building Department Submittal checklist for Building Permit requirements. Contact the Building Department for an questions regarding submittal requirements. ZERO WASTE 22. Locations of trash bins and associated signage shall be shown on building plan sets. Please see requirements below. a. The following comments below are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code and cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste. i. As per Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 the site is required to have color-coded refuse containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Applicant shall present on the plan the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas such as entrances, conference rooms, back of the house kitchen, sushi bar, patio and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items. Restrooms Item 3 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 67 must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero- Waste/What-Goes-Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. Item 3 Attachment C - Conditions of Approval Packet Pg. 68 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real (Building E - Space #700B), 22PLN-00237 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 52.8 Acres No Change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8–12-foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varied No Change Rear Yard No Requirement N/A No Change Interior Side Yard No Requirement N/A No Change Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied No Change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)N/A Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback; 33% of side street built to setback (7) N/A No Change Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Varied No Change Max. Site Coverage No Requirement N/A Not Applicable Max. Building Height 50 feet (4)Varied No Change Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)N/A (9)~1,361,751 net sf No Change Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage (9) Stanford Shopping Center shall not be permitted to add more than 80,000 square feet of floor area to the total amount of floor area of the shopping center existing as of June 14, 1996, 1,332,362 square feet, for a total square footage not to exceed 1,412,362. Any hotel or mixed use development for the Stanford Shopping Center shall only be included if approved as part of a Development Agreement for the site. Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 69 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Not Applicable. Project does not include late night hours. Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted within a building, except for: (i) Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior sales and display area, (ii) Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services or intensive retail uses, (iii) Farmers’ markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and (iv) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit. Stanford Shopping Center is a “shopping center” as defined in Title 18, therefore this regulation does not apply. Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. The proposed project is not adding square footage and adequate recycling storage is provided within the larger shopping center. Employee Showers (18.16.040 (j)) Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 6 of 18.16.040(j)) Not Applicable. Proposed project is renovation of an existing building. Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. Not Applicable. Proposed project is a restaurant. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CC district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 70 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area for a total of 5,216 parking spaces 5,265 spaces No change Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf (40% long term and 60% short term) equals 523 spaces for the site overall. 410 spaces (97 long term, 313 short) Landlord recently installed 76 short term bike parking spaces at the center. 18 of those spaces will satisfy requirements for previous approvals and 2 spaces will be used for Sushi Roku. 56 excess spaces remain. Loading Space 29 loading spaces ~25 loading spaces No change * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Table 3: Stanford Shopping Center Master Sign Program Sign Types, Number, and Locations Sign Requirement Number Maximum Size Location Primary sign (wall sign) Required 1 Maximum height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height; no sign closer to 24” from demising wall or building corner. Primary façade (north elevation) Banner or blade sign (Projecting sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” height Secondary façade (east elevation) Canopy or Awning Sign (optional)1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Primary façade Super-graphic (optional)Not limited None None proposed Secondary sign or Emblem (optional)1 where applicable Secondary sign: Maximum height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: Maximum height is 24” in any direction. Secondary façade (east elevation) Advertising graphics and signs (optional)Not limited None None proposed Digital images and digital signage (optional)Not limited 42” measured diagonally None proposed *Maximum Allowable Sign Area for Wall Signs. Wall signs and sign area are defined in PAMC 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. Logos are considered wall signs and can be utilized as a primary wall sign or can be a component of a primary wall sign. Logos shall not exceed the maximum height of a stacked sign, which is 36-inches. Logos shall be included in calculations of maximum wall sign area limits. Item 3 Attachment D - Zoning Comparison Table Packet Pg. 71 If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Environmental Document The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 1 or an “Existing Facilities” exemption (Categorical Exemption 15301). This project meets this exemption due to the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade of an existing building. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “180 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/180-El-Camino- Sushi-Roku Materials Boards: Prior to the hearing, color and material boards will be available to view in the display case outside of City Hall, on the exterior elevator near the corner of Hamilton Ave. and Bryant St. For closer examination, this same board will be brought to chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 3 Attachment E - Project Plans Packet Pg. 72 Item No. 4. 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: March 2, 2023 Report #: 2302-0966 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 19, 2023. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of January 19, 2023 AUTHOR/TITLE: Veronica Dao, Administrative Associate Item 4 Staff Report Packet Pg. 73 Page 1 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: January 19, 2023 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, Boardmember Osma Thompson, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember Kendra Rosenberg 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 Vice Chair Baltay, 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 is one speaker on zoom. Ms. Shani Kleinhaus spelled her name for the record and stated she is an advocate for the Santa Clara Audubon Society and is a Parks and Recreation Commissioner, however she was not speaking on behalf of the Commission for this meeting. Santa Clara Audubon society sent a letter regarding 3300 El Camino and the issues with bird safety and lighting. Residents is Palo Alto value the natural environment. The majority of residents of Palo Alto rate the overall quality of the natural environment as good. Part of that natural environment is urban forests and the birds that come with it. Many birds fall victim to hazardous elements in the environment including transparent glass and reflective hazing. Many surrounding cities have requirements that any new buildings over 10,000 square feet must implement safety measures. Palo Alto has implemented for 3300 El Camino that there must be Safe Glazing. When questioned about what type of Safe Glazing there will be, Staff has indicated the City does not have an ordinance requiring Safe Glazing. The building at 3300 El Camino is within 300 feet of a creek and is surrounded by vegetation, additionally it has a green roof. It should have been required to use effective glazing on 90% of the glass façade anywhere near a green roof element. She understands the project has been approved and cannot be revisited, however she requests that the Board reviews the proposed Frye Development, and any other future development, and consider the aesthetics of the building for any non-human residents of the city. Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, stated she and Garrett [Sauls] are reviewing the letter and the project is fairly far along. There is not a Code Section regarding bird safe glass, only a Comp Plan Policy, which limits staff’s authority on future projects regarding bird safe glass. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 74 Page 2 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Chair Hirsch stated he hoped that someone would be listening because this is an important issue, but the project has been approved. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Ms. Claire Raybould indicated there are no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. City Official Reports 2. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Claire Raybould, Senior Planner and ARB Liaison displayed the ARB meeting schedule and said the hearing scheduled for February 2, 2023 is planned to be cancelled. The project at 3001 El Camino Royale is scheduled to move forward on February 17, 2023 and is an affordable housing project. There have been three Senate Bill (SB) 330 pre-applications that have been filed. One is for 4200 Acacia Avenue, which was formerly the area in the rear section of the property at 3001 El Camino site, for 16 units of multi-family residential. Another SB 330 pre-application has been filed for 3150 El Camino Royale and is the McDonald’s property, as well as the fish market, which are proposed to be merged for the larger 380 unit housing project with 15% being below market rate. Ms. Claire Raybould asked if there were any planned absences for the Boardmembers during the next couple of weeks. Boardmember Thompson stated she has March 2, 2023 and June 15, 2023 are the only two planned absence on her schedule at this time. Boardmember Chen noted she is scheduled to be absent April 6, 2023. Boardmember Rosenberg said she is scheduled to be absent July 6, 2023. Vice Chair Baltay commented he believes he is scheduled to be absent from the second meeting in February, however he will have to confirm the date and follow up with staff. Vice Chair Baltay inquired about pre-application information pertaining to SB 330. Ms. Claire Raybould explained the pre-application for SB 330 is very limited with information it requires; the applicant is required to give information pertaining to the hazards of the site, elevation drawings and a site plan. Vice Chair Baltay asked what the entitlement process would be for this project. Ms. Claire Raybould responded it would depend upon how the applicant files. Currently the applicant is proposing a State Density Bonus project which would put the project in front of the ARB and only the ARB. The only scenario that would put the project in front of City is Council is if there was a need for an over- riding consideration, if there were a need for an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and a significant impact were identified, significant and unavoidable. Vice Chair Baltay questioned if the current drawings on file are available publicly on the internet. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 75 Page 3 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Ms. Gerhardt added she would verify. Vice Chair Baltay stated that would be good to confirm as this sounds like a good sized project. Chair Hirsch inquired if there were zoning changes involved in the application. Ms. Gerhardt responded there were no zoning changes. Ms. Gerhardt added the only thing on file is the SB 330 application which is just to freeze the regulations. the actual project drawings are not on file yet. Ms. Claire Raybould confirmed it is not yet part of the schedule for the ARB. Chair Hirsch stated the tentative and future Agenda is next and appeared to be edited and inquired if information about the status of projects could be included under submittal area as it can be difficult to know which project is which without going to the listings of pending projects. The last project listed under SB 330 application (interrupted) Ms. Claire Raybould explained the last column heading was copied by accident and could be crossed out, the project listed before that column is the 380-unit project. Chair Hirsch confirmed the 380 project was the one specified in the discussions. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed yes. Action Items 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 900 Welch Road [22PLN-00328]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Modification to Existing Master Sign Program to add Sign Exceptions for Two New Free-Standing Vehicular Directional Signs Along New Road Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: MOR (Medical Office and Medical Research). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Foley at emily.foley@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Hirsch began introducing the 414 California Avenue project and staff interrupted him to provide the correct project. Emily Foley, Project Planner, shared her screen with the ARB and explained this project is a modification to the existing sign program for the Stanford University Medical Center (SUMC) and includes two new freestanding vehicular directional signs. The proposed signs would be along the new road Blake Wilber Road extension. The new portion of road was approved at the staff level due to it originally being approved as part of the SUMC Master Plan. The signs are consistent with Master Sign Program in terms of the typology of the signs, however this parcel is zoned Mixed-Office Residential District (MOR) rather than HD for hospital district. It requires a sign exception because the signs exceed the allowable area height and setback. Ms. Foley showed a slide for signage color and typology and explained the max height allowed for the signs is 5’ with a sign size max of 27 square feet, and a required setback of 20 feet. The proposed sign size is 29.75 square feet with a height of 7’6 and a requested setback of 2 feet. There is also a Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 76 Page 4 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 referenced medium and small sign but the larger sign is appropriate as it is the first sign visible as people enter the campus area. The proposed location is where there are currently other vehicular directions signs placed. Chair Hirsch called for disclosures. Boardmember Chen stated she had no disclosure. Boardmember Thompson stated that she visited the site. Vice Chair Baltay stated he has nothing to disclose. Boardmember Rosenberg also disclosed she visited the site. Chair Hirsch stated he has nothing to disclose but has passed the site many times and knows the area. Ruemel Panglao with Stanford Medicine introduced Project Manager Molly Swenson and consultant Clearstory who provided the applicant’s presentation. Nikki San Miguel, signage designer with Clearstory, shared her screen via zoom and provided the presentation and showed for reference and context the suite of signage used by the SUMC. Many signs are provided throughout the medical campus to help facilitate vehicular navigation to all the medical destinations. Two signs are being proposed for the New Blake Extension and Ms. San Miguel showed the location on a map. For reference the signs marked in blue need modifications, the two marked in yellow require exceptions due to zoning in the MOR district. Both signs would sit across the street from each other and both would be at a setback of 2 feet and strategically location before the decision point of choosing a left or right turn lane. Chair Hirsch thanked the applicant and checked for questions from the Boardmembers. Ms. Dao confirmed there were no public comment requests submitted. Chair Hirsch inquired if there would be a left turn/right turn situation at the main intersection at Sand Hill leaving the area. Ms. San Miguel explained as traffic is leaving the campus on Welch Road, there will be a left or right turn lane to get onto Sand Hill, or vehicles can travel straight into the residential district. Chair Hirsch asked if there would be a streetlight at that location. Ms. Foley responded that is covered by the street work permit that is acquired through Public Works. Boardmember Chen inquired if the other existing signs throughout the campus are illuminated. Ms. Miguel responded there are two illuminated signs on campus, both indicating the location of the Pediatric and Adult Emergency Rooms. All other signage is not illuminated however they have the reflective vinyl copy so headlights hit them, and text is visible at night and confirmed the new signs are not illuminated and will also have the reflective wording. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 77 Page 5 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Rosenberg, to approve staff’s recommendation of a Modification to Existing Master Sign Program to add Sign Exceptions for two new Free-Standing Vehicular Directional Signs along the new road extension. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 4. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 414 California Avenue [22PLN-00207]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of a Minor Board-Level Architectural Review to Allow the Removal and Replacement of Existing Stucco with new Tenant Colors, Rooftop Mechanical Equipment and Enclosure, Removal of two Parking lot Trees, Replace Existing Front Breeze Block Screen Wall with a new Lattice System, new Landscaping, and new Signage. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of CEQA per Section 15301. Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) (Community Commercial). Garret Sauls, Senior Planner, shared a presentation and provided information about the property. It is a Community Commercial (CC) zone, and the property is about 1/3 of an acre in size. The existing bank building will remail and the improvements include replacing damaged stucco, with grey paint, replace the breezeblock with aluminum lattice, new tenant signage, new rooftop mechanical screen and native landscape planting at entry and in the parking lot. Mr. Sauls shared rendering of the site plan, proposed new parking lot and where the landscaping would be. The canopy of the two remaining trees more than exceeds the required 50% coverage of the parking lot. There is a proposed mural on the California Avenue south façade side of the building that wraps around the side of the building, the proposed aluminum lattice will also be on the California side. Climbing ivy will continue down two panels of the side of the building from where the mural ends on the parking lot side, to help break up some of the massing of the 2-story building. The proposed mechanical screening on the roof is located towards the rear of the building. The damaged stucco is located on the rear of the building on the elevation side. Plans include introducing a new horizontal element where the breeze block is removed to create a pedestrian scale to the building. New extruded aluminum lattice structure will infill the three structural bays where the original breeze block stands. Additional study will be done regarding changing the pavers under the entry canopy, in addition to power washing the surface to return the concrete finish to a consistent monolithic color. If spottiness remains, a light grind and seal will be provided. The new signage will be along the new aluminum structure. The paint will be both light and a darker shade of grey. Staff visited the site to discuss, per the ARB’s request, trees to be planted behind the bike rack. Due to a significant amount of utilities in the area, and public utilities requirement of not planting trees within 10 feet of their equipment, that location is not feasible. The applicant also determined it would be a security issue to put an operable window on the side of the building. The developer felt additional landscaping would be more appropriate than a bench in the corner of the property behind the existing mail boxes, however there may be an opportunity to put a bench in the area of the mural. Currently the bench is not included in the submittal. Chair Hirsch called for disclosures. Boardmember Chen disclosed that she visited the site. Boardmember Thompson stated that she visited the site. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 78 Page 6 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Vice Chair Baltay disclosed that he visited the site earlier in the week. Boardmember Rosenberg also disclosed that she visited the site. Chair Hirsch said that he did not visit the site, however he’s been to the location several times prior to the application. Ms. Gerhardt reminded Chair Hirsch the applicant also has a presentation. Vice Chair Baltay commented he has questions of staff but was okay with waiting until after the applicant’s presentation. Ben Kracke, managing Principal Architect with STUDIOS Architect, introduced himself and thanked the ARB for hearing about the project. The building is on California Avenue and the property is on the pedestrian access point which is part of the Uplift Local campaign. The property is currently vacant. It is a standalone building with an adjacent parking lot that was built in 1958. Several options have been explored to replace the front breeze block entry. Per the 1997 Uniform Building Code (UBC) and 1998 California Building Codes (CBC) updates, projects with a heavy concrete wall or appendage attached to it will be penalized. To completely rebuild the breeze block for the short side of the building would take significant work, for that reason they are proposing to remove the current concrete breeze block and replace it in kind with a new modern lattice breeze block interpretation. The façade hasn’t been updated since 1958, plans are to provide a new stucco wall covering with a new paint scheme that aligns well with the neighbors. Mr. Kracke showed horizontal renderings for the street view and side view. The signage has been brought down along the panel and enlarged slightly from previous plans, which aligns well with the neighbor context signs. The SVB with Chevron part of the logo would be back lit against the opaque portion of the breeze block. The lattice is 7 inches deep and the developer is attempting to use readily available profiles in a unique way to create the depth and texture the Board mentioned the previous review didn’t include. The backing would be lighter grey, the backfill and lattice would be a darker shade of grey, Mr. Kracke commented samples are available if the Boardmembers are interested. Chair Hirsch indicated they were interested, Mr. Kracke’s associate passed out the samples. Mr. Kracke’s associate passed the paint sample to the Boardmembers. The white and blue metals shown are the colors of the signage. Mr. Kracke went on to explain the landscaping plans for the site. Currently there are about 43’ of planting along the front of the building, this is being proposed to increase to 305 square feet. The orientation of the parking lot is being modified to take advantage of the in and out through New Mayfield Lane, as opposed to the closed off pedestrian street. The artist for the existing mural is Mary Henry. With the invasive addition of the ATM machine and then covering it with stucco, the integrity of the original mural is likely not sound. The artist for the new mural will be rendering another mural that is aligned with Mary Henry’s style of art. The mural will go full height and wrap the corner of the building. Mr. Kracke ended his presentation by stating he is available to answer any questions. Chair Hirsch commented that was a nice presentation and inquired about public comments. Ms. Dao replied there are not any raised hands. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 79 Page 7 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Vice Chair Baltay requested the applicant explain which of the sample of colors provide go where on the lattice part of the breeze block. Mr. Kracke explained the colors Boardmember Chen held up are for the aluminum breeze block profile and the colors Boardmember Thompson held up is the two-tone scheme for the building. The aluminum sample is not indicative to sizing, rather a sample of the material for the lattice. Boardmember Thompson confirmed the colors of the samples in her hand with the applicant and asked if the aluminum would be shiny or a matte finish. Mr. Kracke responded it will have a matte grey finish. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the paint samples have names and requested that information be made available. Mr. Kracke confirmed they do have a name and he will provide the names of the paint samples. Boardmember Thompson stated the design of the lattice has an appearance of having an offset and asked if the intent was to be a true waffle design or have the offset. Mr. Kracke explained the lattice material would have more of a design of a true waffle and stated the darker tone grey is a Benjamin Moore Great Timber Wolf, and the lighter tone grey is the Benjamin Moore Bunny Tone Grey. Boardmember Thompson asked if the mural in the rendering was correct and if an artist has been selected. Mr. Kracke replied it is just a place holder, the mural has not yet been designed, once designed it will be reviewed by the Public Art Commission. An artist has not yet been selected. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the breeze block in the rendering is higher than the current breeze block. Mr. Kracke confirmed it is about 8” higher from the streetscape from the original. Boardmember Thompson commented when she visited the site there is a box on the wall up high, and inquired the plan for that. Mr. Kracke stated that is an alarm and it will be removed. Boardmember Chen questioned if the mural design would have a final review by the Public Art Program. Mr. Sauls clarified this project does not qualify for Public Art Commission requirements. Their specific size requirement evaluations determine whether a piece is required to go before the Public Art Commission. Once the design is complete staff will have their public art planner review the design and identify any copyright issues and staff will approve that at a staff level. Vice Chair Baltay questioned if it’s possible to have the Public Art Commission review it? Ms. Gerhardt replied this is not public art, it’s private art. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 80 Page 8 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Vice Chair Baltay asked if it’s possible if the applicant is willing. Ms. Claire Raybould stated the Commission could certainly view it, but that would be the applicants choice. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if staff could ask the applicant. Ms. Gerhardt commented she’s not sure if the Commission would view it as private art and that would need to be confirmed. Boardmember Thompson questioned if that would require an extra set of reviews for the applicant. Mr. Sauls replied yes. Ms. Gerhardt stated she will follow up with this item. Boardmember Thompson inquired what’s preventing the artist and the design from being chosen at this time. Mr. Kracke answered in part, the current project approval from this meeting. The client has a history if teaming with local artists for non-branded projects, he would have to speak with his client to see if he would be open to adding the additional time for another Board review process and could not speak on his clients behalf for this review about the design of the mural. Ms. Gerhardt explained because this will not be reviewed by the Art Commission, it is an exterior element so the ARB is rightfully interested, and the ARB could request the element come back as a sub-committee review item with a recommendation that the applicant work with the Art Commission’s staff who has a list of local artists that are often approved by the Art Commission. Chair Hirsch commented his preference would be for the designers to choose the artist, he would hate to see someone else apply a design to the project and invited other Boardmembers to weigh in with their opinions. Vice Chair Baltay reminded Chair Hirsch they were asking questions of the applicant and staff. Chair Hirsch stated he understood; however, the Board will need to make a decision on which way to move forward. Ms. Raybould explained typically when a project comes in with private art, staff reviews it the same as any modification and will make a determination of what type of review the project will require based on what had been previously approved. That would not preclude the Board from having a subcommittee if that was something the Board wanted to consider. Boardmember Rosenberg requested confirmation that it was at the request of the ARB that a mural be added to the building due to the historical nature of the previous mural. Ms. Gerhardt replied that the staff report indicated the Board requested the applicant introduce art elements or other design elements to wrap the corner of the building façade. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 81 Page 9 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Boardmember Rosenberg commented she believed that was due to the historic nature of the original mural mosaic and if that had not been the case the mural would not be a factor in the current project. Ms. Raybould answered she is not aware of the history. Boardmember Rosenberg requested the other Board members confirm or correct her recollection of the intent behind the request for the art elements as she would hate to require the applicant replace the mural and then navigate several obstacles in order to do so. Chair Hirsch recalled there was a considerable amount of discussion regarding the original mural as a feature of the original rendition of the building and stated Boardmember Rosenberg’s question is reasonable. Mr. Kracke noted that the independent third party historical review committee Page & Turnbull analyzed the property and determined the only historic item on site was the original mural and it was not deemed historical because so little remained after years of being compromised. The applicant is looking to bring back life to the front of the building by way of art. Mr. Sauls confirmed Mr. Kracke was correct and replied to Boardmember Rosenberg’s question that a lot of the previous discussion centered around the mural and the removal of the breeze block entirely and what could be done to honor the historic past of the building while keeping it aligned with current modern architecture. Ms. Gerhardt stated Elise DeMarzo, Director of the Public Art Program, is available on zoom if the Board was interested in asking her questions and requested Ms. Dao add her in zoom as a panelist. Ms. Gerhardt asked Ms. DeMarzo to provide information to the Board on how private art is handled at the staff level within the department and any special programs CalAve may have. Ms. DeMarzo explained this artwork falls under the size threshold to be considered public art. When private art is submitted it does not typically go before the Art Commission, rather is reviewed by her and her staff for any obvious issues. Ms. DeMarzo stated the city needs to be cautious about judging what people consider art on private property and used the press the Flintstone House in Hilldale as an example. However, there is a current Open Call for Walls in the California Avenue district which was launched for a mini mural festival that will take place in spring or early summer. In this program they are hoping to get interested property owners to offer their walls and the city will fund the murals on those walls and encouraged the applicant to look into that, with the understanding that if they pursued that, it would not be tied to this approval process. Boardmember Rosenberg requested confirmation that if the applicant chose to participate in that program, it would not hinder the project approval process. Ms. Gerhardt asked Ms. DeMarzo if the applicant chose to engage in the Call for Walls program would it hold up their permitting or renovation process. Ms. DeMarzo confirmed it would not hold up their permitting or renovation and both the front wall under the breeze block and the side parking lot wall would be great walls for the program to help liven the district. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 82     Page 10 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Ms. Gerhardt suggested the Board might consider making a condition that a private mural be brought back before a sub-committee, a mural designed through a public program would not need further review. Ms. DeMarzo commented that murals commissioned through the city follow the city’s vetting process. Chair Hirsch stated subcommittees for the upcoming year will be determined later in the meeting. Boardmember Thompson inquired what the interim color of the wall would be if the applicant chose to participate in the city’s mural program. Mr. Kracke stated for consistency the wall would be the darker in-fill grey. Boardmember Thompson asked if the applicant might be interested in also doing the parking lot wall in the program. Mr. Kracke said the square footage of the wall is substantial and they would consider it depending on the scheme of the design. Boardmember Thompson questioned the material of the diamond shape on the ivy wall. Mr. Kracke answered it’s a diamond shaped cable system with stand offs. Vice Chair Baltay inquired if any structural retro-fit is being done to the building. Mr. Kracke replied the applicant is not. Vice Chair Baltay asked how that would affect the front breeze-block. Mr. Kracke explained that due to the weight of the current concrete element, and it was built pre seismic code standards, there is no sheer volume frame. Current code does not allow that type of building front. Mr. Kracke stated it would be exorbitantly expensive to construct a code compliant brace for the current front of the building. Vice Chair Baltay requested confirmation that Mr. Sauls had stated street trees could not be placed due to proximity of utilities and asked which street trees on California Avenue are not within 10 feet of utility equipment. Mr. Sauls confirmed Vice Chair Baltay was correct and answered the existing street trees are treated differently. Vice Chair Baltay questioned if the utility department has to approve all new trees. Mr. Sauls answered that both utilities and public works review the location of new trees. Boardmember Rosenberg referenced sheet 20 of the packet, under Pedestrian and Bicycle Circulation, and commented in the rendering of the parking lot there is an area where the pedestrian area overlaps where the intended planting is located and asked Mr. Kracke to clarify that area. Mr. Kracke explained the blue dots in the drawing depicts the truncated domes for the Americans with Disabilities Act Standards for Accessible Design (ADA) parking, and part of the blue lines are not placed accurately in the drawing, pedestrians would have to walk in the parking lot. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 83 Page 11 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Boardmember Rosenberg inquired what the distance is between the parallel parking and the standard parking area. Mr. Kracke replied it is a two way path area, currently it is a one way thruway as cars are not able to enter from California Avenue due to the pedestrian enclosure. There will only be rear alley access unless the pedestrian access uplift program is removed and explained the current curb cut is outside the property line. The applicant has proposed in their civil application to extend the greenway into the curb cut, additionally the current handicapped parking area is not compliant and will be reconfigured to current code standards. Boardmember Rosenberg strongly encouraged the applicant to continue the pedestrian traffic are from where it’s located against the side wall, rather than forcing them to walk through the parking lot and through the handicapped spaces to get to the front of the building. Mr. Kracke stated he is not able to say at this time that they could make that alteration without first reviewing the turning clearances. Boardmember Thompson requested clarity on the sprinkler apparatus on the parking façade and what effect it will have on the façade. Mr. Kracke explained the building is currently non-sprinklered and the exact location of the sprinkler on the side façade will be determined by where the utility connection is located, the intent is to place it as far back on the wall as possible, there will be very little effect on the façade. It has to be accessible to the fire department and clearly visible. It can’t be placed on the north wall due to the alley, or the rear wall of the building due to limited space. It will be the standard color red, with emergency valves. Chair Hirsch inquired if the location has to be on the parking lot façade. Mr. Kracke explained it is a pipe that is buried from California Avenue and putting it at the rear of the building would require another hundred feet of trenching and tearing out existing sidewalk. Mr. Sauls commented that the Fire Department would likely need to have a say in any change in location. Mr. Kracke stated they had hoped the main utility line was in a different location, however, it is buried right outside the front of the building on California Avenue. Chair Hirsch thanked the applicant and turned the discussion back to Board comments. Vice Chair Baltay commented that this is a minor architectural review and it’s being grinded out. He feels back but it’s an old building so unfortunately the more they look at the project, the more they are finding things to look at. The Public Art review process is if the project had been presented as a new build, the Board would have requested the Art Commission be involved. It is indeed private art; however, people have to see it which is why the Council created the Public Art Commission. Vice Chair Baltay stated he is distressed that staff can’t find a way to facilitate the public volunteer Board to look at the application without forcing the applicant to navigate additional hearings, permits, and processing time. Since that can’t happen he feels strongly that as private art, it should be brought back before a subcommittee. The mural was originally put there for a reason, as a Board we should hold the same standard. He is comfortable with adding additional review but would like to see it facilitate the application rather than Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 84 Page 12 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 hinder it. Vice Chair Baltay is appreciative of the lattice work and believes it’s a great idea, but he would like to see more detail on what it’s going to look like, and believes the current drawings are a sketchy design intent and would like to see one final design again at the subcommittee level. Additionally, he’s disappointed the bench idea didn’t follow through. Some type of public seating is important on such a large stretch of California Avenue, and he would like that to be a condition, and he would like to see a better contrasted color on the top trim and feels the current colors are too muted. The lighter grey color seems a little too grey. That could also come back to the subcommittee level. Boardmember Thompson commented she’s struggling with the project because the drawings are not detailed enough to be approved at this hearing. The names of the colors are not defined in the drawings, the elevations do not show all the elements that will be on the elevations, and the mural, which is 30% of the front façade, is not defined. She’s having a difficult time approving what’s in front of the Board because of the vagueness. Similarly, the details of the lattice are not right in the drawing which makes approving the lattice difficult as the design intent of the drawings does not match what was described. Boardmember Thompson agrees with Vice Chair Baltay that the colors are washed out. It was stated the design intent was to achieve warmth, these colors are not warm. Grey is a cool color, warmth would be more in the taupe shades, and the contrast is lacking. The mural is a bold idea, she recommends the building get a little bold as well. Introducing a color could make a statement. As the applicant considers the detailing on the lattice, she might recommend the applicant look closer at the lattice design, doing something more delicate and less clunky might be better since it doesn’t do anything structurally for the building. The dark grey color is a heavy grey and seems cold. The details of the designs are not present in its current submission and Boardmember Thompson is currently not ready to approve the project as it stands. If the applicant returns for another hearing she would recommend a more detailed look at the colors, consider the detailing of the lattice. The applicant is going in a good direction with the lattice but more could be done to make it more refined so it competes with what is currently in place. Boardmember Chen thanked staff and the applicant for the presentation and all the information that was provided and commented there’s been an improvement in the information that was previously provided and believes the applicant is moving in a good direction. The aluminum lattice on the front is a good idea, however she believes the scale is better than what is existing and adds a contemporary feel to the building. She agrees the colors are too washed out and suggested possibly going a little darker since it is a south facing elevation. The mural is a large feature for the building and will wrap around the building, which makes it viewable other than from the front. For this reason, she hopes the Public Art Commission can be involved in the reviewing process. More attention should be given to the scale of the graphics. Boardmember Chen believes the project is approvable at this level and all the details could be reviewed by the ad-hoc committee since it is a minor architectural project. She doesn’t feel it’s right to hold up the project at this point since the ad-hoc committee could review the details further. Boardmember Rosenberg is somewhat in disagreement with her colleagues and likes the project and believes the colors are interesting; knowing they will be the backdrop of the mural she does not have an issue with the grey. There should be some oversight of the mural because it is a significant portion of the façade. She likes the rendering of the front of the building on the cover of the presentation. Art is highly subjective thus there will never be total agreement. Boardmember Rosenberg loves the idea of the mini mural festival, it’s a unique way to get the city involved. Having an ad-hoc committee is also a great option, Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 85 Page 13 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 or the applicant can return with a more firm design. The lattice is a beautiful design and the scale is appropriate for the front of the building and she likes the intent of angling the extrusion in order to create an interesting pattern. It is in the drawings of the lattice that she believes everything appears more plain, however, on page 12 the details of the lattice provide a more interesting look and feel. The pedestrian path should be all the way around the building and there should be a reasonable solution. Boardmember Rosenberg commented she did not have any issues with approving the project with additional conditions and believes it is a good improvement from the previous submission. Ms. Gerhardt thanked Boardmember Rosenberg for providing better language and expressed an interest in changing her previous comment. Because private art is so subjective, it is probably not something the ARB should be involved in. Elise DeMarzo is highly qualified to review private art and it would be best left in her realm of expertise, if the applicant wanted to participate in the city program, [Ms. DeMarzo] would handle that as well. Chair Hirsch stated he’s intrigued by the Board’s comments and believes the improvements have been incredibly well made and appreciated that all of the ARB comments made in the previous submission were considered. There is opportunity for the applicant to play with the contrast of the colors and fully qualified to make that decision. He believes Boardmember Rosenberg was on target with all her comments about the breeze block design. The detailing will be more evident in the shop design phase of creating the lattice. He does believe having metal around the columns will create a heavy feel, a reveal would be nice where the lattice meets the columns so it defines itself in that space and feels as if that could be a missing element from the drawings. The pattern of the lattice will make the colors in the mural more interesting. Thus the artwork itself will be very different once it’s viewed through the spaces of the lattice. Vice Chair Baltay’s comment is accurate in that it will make what’s viewable of the mural even more dramatic. He is happy the graphics were brought down and is intended to be full bleed on the wall, and proportionately pleasing in aesthetics. He’s not sure he agrees with Boardmember Rosenberg about the parking lot issue due to it being a small parking lot. To make the pedestrian change changes everything in the parking lot. Often times people have to walk through parking lots to get to a building entrance, and his preference is to see the ivy and plants along the wall to soften the aesthetics of the wall. The only issue he sees in the project are the small planters placed in front of things. Chair Hirsch preference would be to have the whole area from column to column turned into a planted area, or even place a bench. Most people won’t walk through the dead area to the right of the door, it provides an opportunity to do something more interesting with the space. In response to comments about the mural, that is a very exciting piece of work and there will likely be more thought put into it, as it is a tremendous addition to the area and is very eye- catching. Chair Hirsch believes everything in the project is per the applicants intent and is carried to the level of being approvable, and that the applicant will carry it through the rest of the way. Boardmember Thompson cautioned the Board that when a project is approved, the Board is approving what is in front of them at the time, and what is currently in front of the ARB does not have colors defined, the rendering on the front page is showing flat bars and detail is not showing that. The Board would be approving the details of the project, which do not represent what the drawing depicts. The current package is not what the Board would normally approve of in terms of the level of details provided. The entire scope of the project includes the colors of the walls and the lattice which are the two items that Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 86     Page 14 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 are not defined. Approving the project as it stands would set a precedent for future items submitted before the Board. Additionally, the green screen is not defined, with no material noted. Mr. Sauls requested Boardmember Thompson define what she meant by green screens. Boardmember Thompson explained there is a part of the parking lot façade that is supposed to carry the ivy that was described as a cable structure for the ivy to grow on and it’s not defined anywhere in the package. It is drawn as black lines without any information calling it out. Vice Chair Baltay requested at the indulgence of the Chair he would like to find a way to push the project forward. He believes [Boardmember Rosenberg] is correct in wanting to push the project forward, and there is not enough information in the current set of drawings to justify approving it at this time. It’s a small minor architectural project, that could be reviewed and approved through a subcommittee process. Vice Chair Baltay recommended that the ARB make approval of the project with the following conditions: 1.) Colors of the façade return to the Board with greater detail and more contrast, 2.) The lattice screen information will return with exactly how it will be built and what it will look like, 3.) The applicant considers adding a bench or more landscaping in front of the building to the right of the entrance, and 4.) The applicant either returns to the Board with a final design, goes before to the Public Art Commission for their approval, or the applicant participates in the public mini mural program as described by staff. Chair Hirsch seconded the motion with the additional condition that the details of the ivy mechanism also be included with the return to the Board. Vice Chair Baltay stated he supports adding that as condition number 5. Boardmember Thompson requested the details of the lattice include specifically the connection of the lattice to the corners. Vice Chair Baltay commented that lattice details include the full constructible details of the lattice, including the materials, the design and how it will connect to the building. Chair Hirsch commented that in general the Board agrees with the idea of the lattice, the details will need to be reviewed. Ms. Raybould requested confirmation that the friendly amendment by Boardmember Thompson was accepted. Vice Chair Baltay stated yes, the friendly amendment by Boardmember Thompson was accepted. Boardmember Thompson added she believes the material for the window was also not defined in the presentation and would like to see that included when the applicant returns. Boardmember Rosenberg walked the material sample for the window over to Boardmember Thompson. Boardmember Thompson stated normally the Board receives the window mullion. Mr. Kracke stated there are not window mullions. There are no new windows on the front of the building and the door will match the existing fixtures. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 87 Page 15 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Boardmember Thompson retracted her request for more details about the windows. Ms. Gerhardt requested more discussion about the artwork. She no longer recommends the art work return to the ARB due to artwork being subjective and no one at the hearing is qualified to review the art, and going to the Art Commission with private art would be an added process that is not normally required. Adding that would set a precedent and the ARB should remain mindful of that. Chair Hirsch explained he believes they could handle that situation differently by having Ms. DeMarzo meet with the ARB in an ad-hoc environment. Ms. Gerhardt added Ms. DeMarzo indicated that would be possible and that is likely a happy median. Boardmember Thompson commented the first option was to return to the board with details of the art, if they would return with an elevation of the wall to include paint colors, texture, and line placements, it could be easily approved as part of the ad-hoc committee as architecture. Chair Hirsch stated his concern is the architect may feel they are not capable of answering to those details without an artist’s point of view. Vice Chair Baltay addressed the staff and stated he envisioned the architect would find an artist would render a design and that is what would be presented as part of the building design. The city cherishes and encourages public involvement and this is a large mural on a major public part of the City, a part that the City is trying to bring more life into. It doesn’t make sense not to involve the citizenry of the town in that process. The Art Commission are citizens who volunteer to help improve public art, and an applicant willing put up a mural design. The process should include the public and the city should strive to do it in a way that does not hinder the applicants process. Chair Hirsch replied he is in agreement, however, all the Boardmembers have indicated they would like to see the project move forward as expeditiously as possible. He is concerned about involving the Art Commission and feels the presentation has been sophisticated enough with the plans to create the mural. However, he also feels the Art Commission will be concerned by seeing this type of artwork that was not presented before them. The agency has a qualified person who has experience in reviewing art and making the determination of whether or not the Art Commission should be involved in the permitting process. It is possible that between her review and that of the ad-hoc, the problem can be resolved. Vice Chair Baltay stated all three options he provided in the motion includes public involvement via the ARB, the Art Commission or the City’s mural program which is critical. The applicant should choose which process to follow. His fear is staff will review the mural for copyright compliance and nothing further and Vice Chair Baltay believes that is wrong. Staff can decide how it could work in an Art Commission review or an ARB ad-hoc review. The community needs to be involved. Chair Hirsch requested hearing the motion again. Boardmember Rosenberg added she has a concern with this being a private building, if the City wants to encourage more buildings and applicants to engage in this type of artwork, they need to make the process as straightforward as possible. By adding additional permitting processes, it will make sure that applicants who follow will come back with grey buildings and no art. Everything Vice Chair Baltay has presented is Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 88 Page 16 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 fair and leaves the options open for the applicant in the direction they would like to follow, it engages the public and it moves the project forward. It accomplishes the ARB’s concerns while maintaining it is private art. Boardmember Thompson requested a friendly amendment to request the applicant to consider a color that is not grey. Vice Chair Baltay requested help in rewording the motion to elaborate on more contrasting colors in such a way that the project receives 4 or 5 votes of approval. Boardmember Thompson commented she would be open to a blue. Boardmember Rosenberg stated changing the colors profoundly changes the application. Boardmember Thompson clarified those colors would be approved at the ad-hoc committee. Mr. Sauls interjected that the applicant had a blue in the previous design and the ARB requested they change the colors. Mr. Kracke stated that it was originally a darker blue. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the friendly amendment is not accepted. Vice Chair Baltay replied the motion stands with “greater contrast”. Ms. Raybould restated the motion as being the ARB make approval of the project with the following conditions: 1.) Colors of the façade return to the Board with greater detail and more contrast 2.) The lattice screen information will return with exactly how it will be built and what it will look like with a friendly amendment that the details should include the connection of the elements as well as the connection into the columns of building. 3.) The applicant considers adding a bench or more landscaping in front of the building to the right of the entrance, and 4.) Add details about the ivy connection on the side of the building. 5.) The applicant either returns to the Board with a final design, goes before to the Public Art Commission for their approval, or the applicant participates in the public mini mural program as described by staff. Ms. Raybould requested Elise clarify if the Public Art Commission would be open to reviewing a project that is private art. Ms. DeMarzo explained the Public Art Commission has had applicants previously submit private art for a courtesy review. They are open to it, but as private art, there’s not much in the way of direction that they can add. Chair Hirsch commented he believes a courtesy review is a good idea for this project. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 89     Page 17 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Vice Chair Baltay cited part of the duties of the Public Art Commission is to “advise the Director of Arts and Culture on the selection and commissioning of artists …”. And added there’s plenty of room within the Municipal Code for the Art Commission to weigh in on this project. Ms. Gerhardt asked if the applicant would return to an ad-hoc committee on the conditions. Vice Chair Baltay confirmed yes. Chair Hirsch called for a vote. MOTION: Vice Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Chair Hirsch, to approve the project and return to an ad- hoc committee with the following conditions: 1.) Colors of the façade return to the Board with greater detail and more contrast 2.) The lattice screen information will return with exactly how it will be built and what it will look like with a friendly amendment that the details should include the connection of the elements as well as the connection into the columns of building. 3.) The applicant considers adding a bench or more landscaping in front of the building to the right of the entrance, and 4.) Add details about the ivy connection on the side of the building. 5.) The applicant either returns to the Board with a final design, goes before to the Public Art Commission for their approval, or the applicant participates in the public mini mural program as described by staff. VOTE: 4-1-0-0 (Boardmember Thompson voted no) Boardmember Thompson spoke to her no vote as being the quality of the drawings. Vice Chair Baltay requested the ad-hoc committee be appointed. Boardmember Rosenberg and Boardmember Chen volunteered to be on the ad-hoc. Chair Hirsch thanked staff and the application for the presentations. Ms. Gerhardt requested the applicant follow up with Mr. Sauls on the process of the ad-hoc committee. Chair Hirsch called for a 10-minute break. The ARB took a break. Study Session 5. 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 Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 90 Page 18 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 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. Ms. Raybould explained the project before the ARB is located along Park Boulevard. 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 ARB chose to split the study session and the portion of the town homes were discussed in the prior study session in December 2022. This study session is to review the Cannery building and the new parking garage on the same property. Ms. Raybould shared a presentation with a map of the property and the location of the proposed locations of each of the projects. The Audi dealership and Ash buildings would remain the same with no changes. The existing building was deemed eligible for the California Register of Historical Resources under Criteria 1 offense because of it’s association with the cannery industry. The Environmental Impact Report (EIR) identified that the demolition of a portion of the building which is everything east of the monitor roost, was deemed a significant and unavoidable impact and not consistent with the Secretary of the Interior's (SOI) standards. The Council ad-hoc, the Historic Resources Board (HRB), and members of the community have expressed an interest in maintaining the remaining building as consistent with the standards as much as possible. Consistency with the standards is not a requirement because it’s already identified as a significant impact and the building would already lose its integrity by demolition of a portion of the building. The defining character features of the building include the form and massing of the building, varied roofs, and structures with prominent paired monitor roofs, arched roofs, and visible gable roofs, and exterior wall materials, board formed concrete with corrugated metal cladding. Exterior cannery features include concrete loading platforms, cooling porch at rear of the building, exterior shed awnings with wood post-and-beam construction. Fenestration includes frame windows, garage door openings, and wire glass skylights over the former warehouse. Interior features include exposed wood truss ceilings, wood and concrete post-and-beam construction and concrete floors. Key changes identified as inconsistent with the SOI standards are the addition of the windows and doors for the north and south side of the building, fixed windows following sloped roofline, new entries, and the removal of shed awnings, changes to the north side to remove the loading docks and the materials for the parking garage. Staff is looking for Board feedback on some of these changes in trying to remain consistent with the SOI standards without losing some of the pedestrian features and site improvements. The Public Art of the project would be subject to the City’s public art for private development requirements, with an estimated required contribution equivalent to $840,000 for an anticipated piece that relates to the historic use of the site. The initial Public Art Hearing is scheduled for Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 91 Page 19 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 the evening of January 19, 2022 for feedback on possible requested art styles. The applicant will choose an artist following the outcome of that meeting so a conceptual design could be created and would be presented as part of the project. The parking garage replaces surface parking spaces adjacent to Matadero Creek on a proposed City dedication parcel. The levels of parking at grade with a single two way ramp to second level on the west end. Key considerations of privacy and lighting adjacent to single-family residential uses. It does meet the daylight plane requirement and has a setback of at least 10 feet on the west end, with the rest of it set back about 25 feet. Room has been left for landscaping between the parking garage and the residential single-family uses. Staff is seeking feedback for consistency with the SOI standards for rehabilitation, while meeting the context-based design criteria and ARB findings, and consistency with the key goals of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) of additional retail space, interest in having a public park area, and an interest in retaining at least the same amount of parking availability. Staff’s recommendation is for the ARB to conduct a study session to consider the design of the commercial portion (remaining portion of the cannery building and new parking garage) for the proposed development agreement at 3200 Park Boulevard. Chair Hirsch inquired if the Board had any questions about the staff presentation. Boardmember Thompson answered she will ask her questions after hearing from the applicant. Tim Steele, Senior Vice President of the Sobrato Organization (Developer), introduced his team which includes Evan Sockalosky with Arc Tec as the primary architect of the cannery building, the landscape architect Morgan Burke with Guzzardo Partnership, and Nektarios Matheou a civil engineer with KEIR+WRIGHT. Mr. Sockalosky with Arc Tec introduced himself to the Board and commended Ms. Raybould on her presentation and began his presentation by stating the project encompasses five different parcels and showed a slide of the cannery parcel which is the focus of the meetings discussion. Matt David with Architectural Resource Group was enlisted to assist with the plans of the cannery building due to the historical nature of the building. The existing condition of the building is rundown and much of the glazing and light elements have been covered up through the years. The proposed project includes demolition of a portion of the building with historical rehabilitation as a guide for the changes. The original window line will remain intact, and the original skylights will be replaced. Large windows would be added at the front of the northside of building and on the southside of the building to allow more visual access to the inside private part of the space. Adjacent to the cannery building is the intended parking garage which was needed to replace the vacated parking area. The corrugated metal used on the cannery would also be used on the parking structure to tie the two buildings together and to provide additional light screening from the parking garage to the residential area and proposed townhomes. The previous dock area is being reconstructed into an amenities area and is the space between the building and the parking garage. The shed roof is being replaced with a beam structure to tie into some of the original features of the building. An open trellis and covered space will be utilized to help facilitate and indoor/outdoor community environment. A skylight is being designed for the retail portion of the space to give the community the opportunity to experience some of the historical elements of the building. Morgan Burke with Guzzardo Partnership continued the presentation on the proposals for the landscaping of the property. On the corner of the building near the retail space an outdoor seating area has been Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 92 Page 20 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 planned with a seating wall and a circular raised planter with integral seating. A coastal live oak tree will be planted on one side with an opening left on the southside for possible future integration with the development across the street and a bike rack is included. The commercial tenant’s break out space, which is partially located under the rehabilitated canopy, will include accent paving which will allow future tenants to utilize flexible furnishings for outdoor space uses. Under the trellis space there will be raised planter walls, two outdoor cooking counters, and a central freestanding green living wall. The entry walk leading into the plaza space has been kept open to accommodate pedestrian traffic. Circular planters with seating will be used to unify this pace with the retail space under the trellis, and another coastal live oak will be planted in this area. Accent pavers of varying colors will be used to help identify it as the entrance to the commercial space. Mr. Sockalosky continued the presentation with the elevations portion of the project. He noted that the landscaping slide for the area between the parking garage and residential area did not make it into the presentation and they will follow up with the Board with that information. There is significant setback area that will allow for planting along that side of the parking garage. Mr. Sockalosky showed a slide of the building and parking elevations for context, due to the length of the building. The parking elevations will be low profile, with modern features that tie back into the historical features of the existing building. Chair Hirsch requested information on if the Boardmembers had visited the site. Boardmember Chen commented that she has not visited the site. Boardmember Thompson stated she has visited the site. Chair Hirsch stated he hasn’t visited the site recently but has visited the site multiple times. Vice Chair Baltay replied he spent a good amount of time at the site the previous day. Boardmember Rosenberg commented she has visited the site last week. Boardmember Thompson questioned if public comments are included in study sessions. Ms. Raybould answered they do generally open public comments. Ms. Dao confirmed there are no raised hands for public comment in zoom or in person. Vice Chair Baltay called attention to the numerous letters included in the Agenda packet. Boardmember Thompson asked for clarification on 380 Portage and if anything is being reviewed for that property. Ms. Raybould explained the remaining cannery building will include 380 Portage, however, there are no proposed changes to that portion of the property. Playground Global currently occupies the space and will continue to do so. They completed a buildout of the space in 2016 which did not include any changes to the exterior of the building. Vice Chair Baltay commented on his understanding of the development agreement was the whole building was to be rehabilitated and that included 380 Portage and inquired why it’s not included. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 93     Page 21 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Mr. Sockalosky replied the 380 Portage building is a different structure of board form poured in place and there are no historical significant changes in place to that building that would require immediate modifications. The interior of the building was in need of electrical and plumbing updates so that is where the focus has remained. Boardmember Thompson questioned the south side monitor roof treatment that is different from the symmetrical glazing treatment of the northside monitor roof and what the design intent was. Mr. Sockalosky said in part to try to accent the retail space as a distinct feature of the building and in part to highlight the monitor roof itself. The intent was to improve the views of the old monitor roofs. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the front setback between the front façade along the south wall and the beginning of the monitor rooms. Mr. Sockalosky answered approximately 10 feet. Boardmember Thompson asked if there are setbacks between the two accents, or a plane difference. Mr. Sockalosky responded there is a plane difference of about a foot. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the idea was for the retail space to be darker and it shade lighter as the building progresses back. Mr. Sockalosky commented yes that was the intent. Boardmember Thompson reference sheet 8C – 2.7.0 for the corrugated steel and commented the steel has a round corrugation and the renderings look more like a standard seam faceted corrugation and asked for clarification of which the developer was considering and what the finish would be. Mr. Sockalosky confirmed they will be utilizing more of the rounded corrugated steel as it is more historical in nature. The architects are in the process of updating those renderings, however they wanted the Board’s feedback before they made any changes and the finish would be more of a matte finish. A materials board should have been submitted to Ms. Raybould and if not, they will send one over. Ms. Raybould confirmed she does not have a materials board but could have missed it. Boardmember Rosenberg questioned the applicant if there are three different colors and two textures for the corrugated metal and referenced the M2 and M3 textures are listed but there’s not an explanation of what the difference is between the two. The rendering on AC 1.0.7 looks like the dark grey and the mid- tone grey are on the larger wave and the lightest grey is on the smaller wave. Mr. Sockalosky answered that the renderings on the corrugated steel are slightly off dependent upon the feedback that will be received from the ARB. The intent is for it to be a smooth wave of a traditional corrugated metal and they will all be of similar profile to what had been historically installed on the building. Boardmember Rosenberg stated on AC 2.7.0 it’s noting the two textures and asked if the only difference is the color and there should be three types listed for the three different colors. Mr. Sockalosky replied that is correct, the only difference is the color and there should be three listed. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 94 Page 22 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Boardmember Thompson inquired if the retail element was thought to be potentially food and beverage. The developer had originally requested food and beverage; however, they are open to what type of retail that would be. They are looking for a tenant that would actively engage the corner of the space along with the park. Boardmember Thompson questioned if other openings were explored for the access to the area. Mr. Sockalosky stated that as well is tied to not knowing what tenant would assume occupancy of the space. Chair Hirsch added that the plan for the retail space on sheet AC 2.1.9, the rendering shows lines of the store being full bay and inquired why what is shown on AC 2.1.5, the retail sky lighting lines do not indicate full bay. Mr. Sockalosky explained that both drawings are correct, but the angles are different in the renderings. Vice Chair Baltay paraphrased and stated the skylight in the retail space is an open space in the center of the right monitor area that allows people to look up and into the monitor room at the skylights. Mr. Sockalosky stated the goal is to give the public as much access to look into the private space as possible without jeopardizing the privacy of the non-retail space. Boardmember Rosenberg noted in some of the sections a portion of the building looks as if there is a mezzanine and questioned if there is any intent to ever open up the two-story space and keep the mezzanine in place and questioned how it’s going to work for the first-floor retail space looking up into the second-floor private space. Mr. Sockalosky answered there is a partial mezzanine space that they are looking into to reinforce any structural requirements to maintain the western side of the monitor roofs, currently the interior space will become an open type of two-story space for a future tenant and the intent with the skylight is for the public to be able to look up and into the skylight space without looking over and into the space. Boardmember Thompson questioned if any of the windows proposed are operable and asked if there were any sustainable elements the developer would like to point out. Mr. Sockalosky stated the current intention is not to make the windows operable, but rather include sliding glass doors to allow for integration into the indoor/outdoor space. One of the sustainable elements they are looking into is adding photovoltaic onto the roof as well as meet all the sustainable green requirements of the City. Vice Chair Baltay inquired about the width of the light monitor rooms and stated they look much larger in the rendering and in person than what is in the photograph. Mr. Sockalosky explained they feel the modeling is accurate in terms of scale and proportion as field verification measurements were taken of the existing building and the developers have been monitoring it to follow those as accurately as possible. Some of the views perhaps feel a little different due to the structure that has been taken off in front of those monitoring rooms. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 95     Page 23 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Vice Chair Baltay expressed concern and referenced drawing AC 1.0.7 where the rendering shows it about twice as wide as it is tall, possibly even more, and when he looks at the original it appears almost one to one; and inquired if the applicant has seriously analyzed what it’s going to take to keep the building while making this amount of changes. Additionally, a seismic analysis will have to be done and Vice Chair Baltay questioned how the building will stand up to that with that amount of glass. Mr. Sockalosky stated when they started the project and realized the appreciation for the historical nature of the building, they brought on Matt David with Architectural Resource Group, and a structural engineer, to help guide them from the initial development stages to ensure they can make the required reinforcements to the entire building. They would not have continued the project had they not included that assessment early in the process, and feel that even though the building will no longer be a historical resource once the changes have been completed, they felt the money was worth the expense to save the integrity of the historical presence of the building as much as possible. Vice Chair Baltay questioned if the engineer suggested steel moment frames internally for lateral support. Mr. Sockalosky explained there are additional framing that the team is working on that will be added, he does not have that information at hand, but he will provide that to the Board at a later time. Boardmember Rosenberg interjected that on sheet AC 2.1.2 and the demo elevation and the proposed south elevation lined up above one another, in Demo #2 the models do look significantly thinner and when you looked down at proposed south elevation #3, they look significantly wider, and suggested clarification would be helpful. Mr. Sockalosky stated he will get additional clarification on the framing and dimensions of the monitoring rooms and the continuity of those structures; and correct any irregularities that are found, with details of any changes if necessary, and provide that information to the ARB. The current intent is to maintain the original structure. Vice Chair Baltay commented on the many letters included in the staff packet, most of which commented on the draft EIR. The one that caught his attention the most was from former Mayor Karen Holman who pointed out that there is no alternative presented that avoids the significant impact to the historic property as required by California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and inquired if staff had responded to that yet. Ms. Raybould replied staff is currently preparing responses to comments on the EIR and anticipate that being completed before staff returns to the ARB with a formal recommendation on the project, however, what Ms. Holman was speaking to was considered, however then dismissed in the EIR as an alternative. Boardmember Chen inquired what the material will be on the canopy leading to the entrance. Mr. Sockalosky explained the canopies leading to the entrance are a composite metal material with a type of copper finish. Boardmember Chen asked if the canopies connecting to the wood trellis are the same material. Mr. Sockalosky stated the canopy connected to the trellis will be a metal facia with a stucco inset on the underside with the roofing above. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 96 Page 24 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Boardmember Chen questioned what the wood slat screening wall is between the garage and the commercial courtyard and its height on sheet AC 2.2.0 and is that on the same wall as the green wall. Mr. Sockalosky stated the height is approximately 8 feet. Mr. Burke responded to Boardmember Chen and stated it’s in the center of the wall and is better depicted on sheet L 1.3, there’s an orange wall, right now it’s the outboard of the fence and ultimately it will be incorporated into the fence. Boardmember Chen inquired about the railing height on the second level of the parking garage. Mr. Sockalosky answered the railing is 3’6”. Boardmember Chen commented that she noticed the material is different on the north parking and the east parking elevations and questioned the design intent. Mr. Sockalosky answered those are the areas facing into the residential areas so they incorporated the additional horizontal corrugation in those areas to assist in blocking the lights in the parking garages during evening hours. Boardmember Chen stated in staff’s presentation they mentioned art and inquired if there is art in this project and if so what format. Ms. Raybould explained the initial meeting with the Public Art Commission was to receive their feedback about possible locations and appropriate types of art they would be interested in seeing the applicant consider. There has been some talk around the outdoor retail space and possibly on the west side of the building, and possibly wrapping around the building on the Portage side of the building. Boardmember Thompson requested a description of the circulation of the parking garage. Mr. Sockalosky responded that the upper level is only accessed from the west side of the structure and the grade level of the parking can be accessed from both the east and west sides of the structure. Boardmember Thompson commented she did not see the mechanical systems in the elevations but it is located on the roof plan and inquired if the idea. Mr. Sockalosky answered it is being proposed as a single space and in the feeding of that they would consider where any duct work will be to minimize impacts so it can be fed into the building from the side. Chair Hirsch followed up on the circulation question and asked if the intent was to access the second story of the garage from inside the grade level of the garage. Mr. Sockalosky replied traffic can follow the lane from the east side of the garage to the west side and access the ramp from that point. Boardmember Rosenberg referenced sheet AC 2.1.10 it shows the north facing side of the parking garage in relationship to the residential homes and commented the daylight plane is not designated for that location and asked if that could be added to the drawings for follow-up. Mr. Sockalosky responded they will add that daylight plan diagram to the plans. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 97 Page 25 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Boardmember Rosenberg commented it is available on the side for the townhomes, she would appreciate seeing it for the existing homes as well. Chair Hirsch commented there’s been some discussion regarding the view of the parking garage from second story single family homes in the existing residential area and inquired if a survey was done with the neighborhood to establish any possible impacts. An assessment was made that there aren’t any current impacts however public comment letters indicated there were concerns for future two story homes built. Mr. Sockalosky explained the developer has attempted to make the parking garage as low profile as possible in the current location, as well as using as much of a setback as possible from the property line as they could to minimize view impacts, and working to minimize the lighting impacts as much as possible while still providing replacement of the parking that’s needed for the park which is why they are doing only single story with a slightly lower parking ratio that to the current parking on the site. Chair Hirsch asked if the parking requirements set forth by code have been fulfilled and if the parking numbers represent the parking of all three areas listed in the plans. Mr. Sockalosky stated it’s an equivalent ratio to what is existing on the site now based on the existing square footage and current parking. Part of the development agreement with the City allows for a slightly lower ratio of new parking to new square footage. The surface parking on the south and east façade parcel #3 are included in the parking for the cannery building. Chair Hirsch questioned if the doors on the south façade of the building are all operable. Mr. Sockalosky responded the intent is there will be some access points, some of that will be for the required egress from the interior space of the building. How they will be utilized by future tenants will determine if they are for egress only. The majority of the flow of pedestrian traffic will be in and out of the north side of the building as that is where the parking area is located. Chair Hirsch inquired if the applicant has yet considered how the passage on the south side will be utilized in the future. Mr. Sockalosky explained the passage is functional in a way, they are in the process of determining whether the original canopy structure will be rebuilt, they are looking to continue the canopy structure that is on the 380 building, however they are also considering that the connection between Park and Ash will become a street and the retail portion on the south east corner of the building is still available and foresee the that covered walkway as being a feature that could be developed on the south side of the park. It could potentially be something that ties the building to the site across from park. Chair Hirsch commented that area is a raised area in elevation and inquired if there are any future intentions of relating the area to any future park. Mr. Sockalosky stated on the south side of the building there is only roughly a 6” elevation for most of the portion of off the parking. Mr. Burke stated the retail plaza is intentionally kept open on the south end so the curb line can create that potential connection to the adjacent parcel. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 98 Page 26 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Ms. Raybould asked Mr. Burke to clarify if he means the connection to the townhomes or to the connection to the park. Mr. Burke replied there’s a connection to both. There’s a crosswalk on the east side leading to the townhomes parcel and the area on the south side which will have a crosswalk and a curb cut entrance to a potential street. Ms. Raybould explained the EIR did identify a significant impact with respect to inconsistencies with an adopted transportation plan, specifically the bicycle and pedestrian plan does identify a connection from Park to Portage and it’s also consistent with the county wide trails plan. The EIR identified a mitigation measure to address that, which requires public access through and an enhanced bikeway. Aligning with what Mr. Burke was saying, and add that staff are exploring potential options for the enhanced bikeway, which only requires sharrows. Staff has expressed some concern about the sharrow design because there are so many parking spaces that would back into those sharrows. There is a City Schools Safety meeting scheduled next week and staff went to the Palo Alto Bicycle Advisory Committee (PABAC) in November to get initial feedback. The staff plans to return to PABAC in February to get feedback on a more design. Currently they are researching the possibility of having a Class 1 bike lane that would be shared between the applicant’s property line and the city dedication parcel that would entail a bike lane all the way through to Portage. This would align with the current design of the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) which is exploring a Class 4 bike path on Portage Avenue. A Class 4 bike path involves a completely separate connection and is expected on the south side. Details are still being reviewed and researched to make sure all the ADA compliances and C3 storm water requirements are met. It doesn’t completely answer the question about pedestrian access, but it lets the Board know that staff are aware and currently working to resolve the concerns. Chair Hirsch inquired if a transportation study has been done to date for the new street that’s expected and possible impacts not only to the park but the residential area, and parking garage. Ms. Raybould explained the traffic study does explore anticipated trips coming to and from the parking garage through Acacia. Only the bottom portion of the parking garage can be accessed through Park. Most of the trips were assumed to originate from Acacia. Chair Hirsch raised the question of Acacia being a one-way path in that area. Ms. Raybould explained if people wanted to leave the property they could travel that path out to Portage if they wanted to turn south onto El Camino. She would have to confirm what the traffic distribution looked like but the traffic study looks at the property as a whole, including the affordable housing units that are being planned. Boardmember Rosenberg inquired if there was a total number of available parking spaces listed and how many are electric vehicle (EV)? Chair Hirsch responded he believes approximately 450 spaces. Mr. Sockalosky answered the garage itself has 330 spaces. The applicant is looking to provide 100 EV conduit only spaces and 5 electric and green vehicles (EVSE) chargers. There will be 3 standard accessible spaces and 2 van accessible spaces and an additional ADA accessible space. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 99     Page 27 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Boardmember Rosenberg asked if this meets the minimum requirements. Mr. Sockalosky replied that it does meet the minimum requirements and they are all located on the ground level and there are no plans to install an elevator to the second story parking area. Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed open corrugated information on the top level of the parking garage. Boardmember Chen questioned if the trash collector was shown in the plans. Ms. Raybould confirmed the trash collector is shown along the Portage side where the parking spaces are located, at approximately the center and looked to see if that elevation was provided. It is A 110. Mr. Sockalosky stated the elevation of the trash enclosure is included on sheet AC 2.1.11. Boardmember Chen questioned if there are any other locations at the building that uses the same materials that are used for the trash enclosure. Mr. Sockalosky responded that they do not have that information at this time and are open to comments and suggestions if the Board would like them to consider different material. Boardmember Rosenberg continued her questions by asking if there was a specific paint in mind for the darker grey corrugated metal used in the parking garage. Mr. Sockalosky responded the material board has the manufacturers details on the paint color and he will ensure Ms. Raybould receives that and it picks up the same darker grey that is used at the retail space. Boardmember Rosenberg confirmed they will include the specifications used for the open railing as well as the vertical elements at the next review. On sheet AC 2.1.9 in the longitudinal building section, there appears to be two windows that over look the mezzanine and she has not seen the elevations for those windows and inquired if there are any for that façade on the west side of the cannery building. Mr. Sockalosky responded they do not yet have the elevations for that area the team is still working on that area. It will not be visible to the public due to the walkway structure, however he will make sure the elevations are included for the next review for the Board. Chair Hirsch inquired if there will be bicycle parking at the facility. Mr. Burke responded to the Chair that the information is on sheet L 1.7. Currently there are 10 racks for 20 short-term biking spots, with 6 lockers in the parking garage for long-term. Mr. Sockalosky confirmed it meets the minimum requirements and there are additional long-term lockers located in the building. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the picture or the drawing should be used for the bike racks. Mr. Burke replied that the picture is the actual bike rack, the drawing depicts the details of location and sizes. The color would not be green, it would match the intended color scheme. If a picture is not available for the next review they will include a swatch of the actual color. Chair Hirsch thanked everyone for the presentation. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 100     Page 28 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 Vice Chair Baltay stated he tried to look at this in the same way he looks at other projects, when he looks at the site development he can’t really sit in on the project because of the residential development and how that will affect this project. It’s difficult to analyze the project without that information. The connection to the future park and housing on the south would have to be considered. It’s tough to currently analyze that without knowing what that will be. Modifications to the historic structure affect the site layout dramatically. For those reasons it’s difficult to consider. The parking structure is too long and close to the building. Any place in town, such a structure would not be considered. The surface parking lot has a lot of landscaping and as soon as you make a 2 story structure you lose a lot of that. The previous parking area was located next to a creek and had all the great landscaping. The applicant should strongly consider leaving the parking area down at the grade rather than building it up to be flush with the building. Anything that can be done to minimize the bulk of the building would be good. In this project the dirt has already been taken away, which would minimize the impact on the community. The developer could create variety by breaking up the massing more and by integrating landscaping and public areas. Vice Chair Baltay expressed concerns about the interior layout of 340 Portage, the building with the light monitors. His concerns stem from the fact that nothing is proposed. If you do the math, it’s a 230 by 230- foot square blank space. He doesn’t understand how they intend to turn that into useful space without adding light wells, monitors, a courtyard, or anything else. It will no longer be a manufacturing environment, it’s a place where people will work and live all day long. When you make the use of the site change, the building must also change. Vice Chair Baltay questioned how a review can be changed when there is a lack of understanding of how the site will change. It’s a very large space with zero definition provided. The retail space is even more problematic. What is being shown is a square box being thrown into a corner without any effort of integration with the light monitors and that is the important historical element that people want to see. He is flabbergasted that nothing better than a hole being cut in the ceiling is being considered for viewing the monitors from the retail space. Without a minimum of more detail, of what they proposed to do with the space, he is unable to do an analysis or review. The changes to the old building are too much to preserve the historical integrity. All the changes are such a dramatic alteration, the building is no longer historic. The changes that Frye’s and other previous tenants made have left the building in a mess. In conclusion, the structures may remain standing but the faint trace of our past is lost and this proposal does not preserve our heritage. Boardmember Thompson thanked the staff and application for the presentations and answering their questions. She agrees with many points that Vice Chair Baltay made. The parking garage is hidden away so she had not considered the façade closely, she’s not sure who would be affected by it. She would be open to doing something more accessible. She liked the idea of doing more landscapes, or light wells. Some parking structures include a courtyard, possibly existing trees. She might recommend something to that effect. It is hard to evaluate this project, it does look like a new building. She made notes of integrating operable windows. That type of structure is made for some type of ventilation system, exhausting hot air. Prior to the study session she thought this was going to be a big thoroughfare which would have been really nice. Dallas has something where there is an old barn structure with food and beverage and boutiques surrounding it that hosts food festivals, or farmers markets. That would have been nice with garage doors on the side. It’s imperative that these upper elements are operable. Treating this project as one big space is very unsustainable and inefficient. She recommends keeping the space as flexible as possible so the applicant isn’t designing something they don’t know will happen in the future and it Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 101 Page 29 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 doesn’t end up with a very costly energy bill. Boardmember Thompson would like to see more sustainable elements, in addition to PVs. Operable windows, façade treatments, shading elements. It would be nice to see this building function and perform well without energy. She didn’t catch that the elevation didn’t match between the demo’s and the proposed and appreciates Vice Chair Baltay for pointing that out. It’s true what is seen in the drawings doesn’t really match the pictures and she encourages the applicant to look closely at that. On the south façade there’s two levels with the retail being one and R&D being another, there’s already issues with seeing the roof line and adding the pop up would obscure the view more. She would not support that, as the intent is to celebrate the form. She the standing seam corrugation is popular currently, which is why it looks more like a new project. She is concerned with corrugated metal due to past experience, with the metal wearing through time. She’d like to see something that would prevent that from happening in this project. Having more definition of what will happen on the inside will make a huge difference. It is difficult to do that without having current tenants, but it would better enhance the overall design of the project. Ms. Raybould clarified that the pop up exists today and what the applicant is doing is bringing the area on the eastern portion down for a portion of it. Vice Chair Baltay added what is existing today is less important than what was historically there, which is what the Board is looking at and the photo in the packet is clear on what that was. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that when she first looked at the packet and saw the proposal, she was excited that this was going to be a really great space for people to utilize and enjoy. She was excited to see the prospect of people being able to walk from the front to the back. In hearing this project is one small space for retail and the rest is dedicated private space with a lot of unknown variables, it feels like a missed opportunity. Office space is abundant and will fit in any space you put them in. Retail vibrancy takes a specific type of architecture and this type of architecture is already asking for that. Townhomes and housing are being added to that area and here’s this beautiful historic building and the plan is to close it off and not allow the community around it to enjoy it. That is a tragic perspective given the opportunity to do something better with a building of this historical importance. Boardmember Rosenberg feels like there’s a way to make the cannery portion with the pop ups be more interesting. Office space fits into where they are put. She has concerns about the boxed like nature of the space on the west side. She doesn’t understand where the light is going to get into the building, in the center of the building, where will the vents be. There’s a lack of information. Even from a future build out perspective. It’s difficult to review what’s not there. Regarding the cannery, historical preservation is very important particularly on a building such of this. When the conditioni of the historical building is not safe, it needs to be addressed and revitalized. During the revitalization history needs to be preserved. Homage needs to be paid to the past. She appreciates the windows on the east side, the monitors popping up with extensive glazing, they are historical in context for the pop ups but the windows on the east side are modern. There needs to be a balance between preserving history, celebrating new, revitalizing this and giving it new life. The north façade is a much more successful homage to what was previously there. The southern side is not a celebration of the historical context of the building. The upper box is problematic visually. What is being shown for a floor plan, the retail is in there on the right, then there’s a hallway and with a big box up and over so the plan is hard to follow. Why is the middle box going up and over the retail. There’s not a clear context. It’s beautiful for a new building but for a historical context building it’s pushing the envelope too Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 102     Page 30 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 far. Boardmember Rosenberg appreciates the color plans, the materials being used, the window color selection, she urges the applicant to revisit the historical context and find ways to bring that back more. With the monitors, there are a lot of mullions in the windows, it’s very typical to have that type of ventilation, and very evocative of the old cannery type buildings. The lower windows are very modern with no mullions, no breaks up, they are mostly large panes of glass that don’t highlight the historical preservation of the building. This site plan is tricky, there are so many moving parts and pieces of the project. The townhomes and the elements below, the urban planning in this project will be crucial. She would love to see each portion of the project, as it progresses through this review process, present more context of where the project being reviewed sits in relation to everything else that is planned around it. How will it integrate and what will the impacts be. That context is vitally important for this project every step of the way. Boardmember Rosenberg thanked everyone for the work put into it and looks forward to seeing the project return. Boardmember Chen thanked everyone for the presentation and agrees with the comments of the previous Boardmembers. She appreciates the large opening at the entrance and the large windows, the introduction light into the open space, however there is still a lot of work that needs to be done. The parking garage is a massive structure that is very close to the cannery building. It might help to make it smaller and keep as much of the existing landscaping as possible. Regarding privacy of the residential area behind the parking structure, she suggests keeping the building at a 20’ setback. The railing is only 3’ tall, everyone will be able to view the backyards of their homes. The trash enclosure doesn’t blend with the cannery building, other materials could be used to make that less obvious. The 60’ blank wall would be a great candidate for the mini mural festival program the City was talking about earlier. Chair Hirsch began with agreeing with Boardmember Rosenberg in that there are all these projects for this site and he is unaware of one large master plan for the area. The building is rimmed with cars, it’s a tremendous conflict regarding all the cars and the privacy of the residential areas. There’s a problem with the site being polluted and you can’t dig below grade to lower the parking structure. He would ask why not at this point. Why not dig the parking down to add more spaces in the garage and have less parking around the entire perimeter of the building. Even a slightly large parking area to include part of the west side of the building. The traffic patterns may not have been studied and Park Ave may ultimately conflict with the housing portion of the property. This is part of the urban planning of this site and that hasn’t been discussed. Some of the comments about the materiality of the have been very good. The question of the historical quality of the building is missing. Perhaps not described as what would satisfy the historic committee of the city. They are very concerned, as is the Board. There is an art element required and that’s a great opportunity to highlight the history of the property. It’s a very public piece of work and he hopes the art commission will consider how it will effect the exterior of the building so it can be a statement of what the history of the building really is. It’s incredibly important to Palo Alto to describe what when on this building 100 years ago. He appreciates the exterior of the building and facility that’s there now and how it’s open with plenty of light. And open ceiling showing the duct work running through the space is interesting and exciting. It’s possible to do that with that space. He questions what will happen to the south side of the property in relation to the park. It’s important to recognize the people who will utilize that space. The only impacts being discussed are regarding the commercial parts of the building. Consider all the people who will be in the area in the future. He is concerned about the housing and how Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023     Packet Pg. 103     Page 31 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/19/23 6 9 2 it will be impacted by the entry ways into the parking garage. The potential problem in and out of the passage through the garage is a concern because of the amount of traffic in that small space. Vice Chair Baltay concluded Boardmember comments by reading his essay entitled “To Save Less and Remember More.” Mr. Sockalosky appreciates the feedback and looks forward the continuing the process. They received valuable input from the Board. Approval of Minutes 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 1, 2022 MOTION: Boardmember Thompson moved, seconded by Boardmember Rosenberg, to approve the meeting minutes for December 1, 2022, as amended. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 17, 2022 Boardmember Thompson commented on packet page 184, there was a typo under the paragraph that starts with Boardmember Thompson thanked the applicant, there’s a line in there that says the building was quite “hash”, it’s a typo, it should say “harsh”. Closer to the bottom there’s a comment that says the E shape allows for more sunlight, she was proposing that an E shape would allow for more sunlight and would break up the massing. A change in sentiment. MOTION: Boardmember Thompson moved, seconded by Boardmember Rosenberg, to approve the meeting minutes for December 1, 2022, as amended. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Board Member Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Hirsch commented on committee assignments, there was one change. The board reminded Chair Hirsch that Boardmembers are appointed by project when the it’s necessary, at the time. Adjournment Chair Hirsch adjourned the meeting. Item 4 Minutes of January 19, 2023 Packet Pg. 104