Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-08-03 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, August 03, 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. 3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [23PLN‐00178]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of Major Architectural Review to Allow the Deconstruction of the Existing Palo Alto Fire Station No. 4 and Construction of a New 8,000 sf Fire Station. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Replacement) and 15303 (Small Structures). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2023 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2023 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 6.180 El Camino Real: ARB Ad Hoc Committee Review of Additional Material Details for Arhaus 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, August 03, 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. 3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [23PLN‐00178]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of Major Architectural Review to Allow the Deconstruction of the Existing Palo Alto Fire Station No. 4 and Construction of a New 8,000 sf Fire Station. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Replacement) and 15303 (Small Structures). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2023 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2023 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2023 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 6.180 El Camino Real: ARB Ad Hoc Committee Review of Additional Material Details for Arhaus 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, August 03, 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. 3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [23PLN‐00178]:Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of Major Architectural Review toAllow the Deconstruction of the Existing Palo Alto Fire Station No. 4 and Construction ofa New 8,000 sf Fire Station. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section15302 (Replacement) and 15303 (Small Structures). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility).APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 18, 20234.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 1, 20235.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 6.180 El Camino Real: ARB Ad Hoc Committee Review of Additional Material Details for Arhaus 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, August 03, 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. 3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [23PLN‐00178]:Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of Major Architectural Review toAllow the Deconstruction of the Existing Palo Alto Fire Station No. 4 and Construction ofa New 8,000 sf Fire Station. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions ofthe California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section15302 (Replacement) and 15303 (Small Structures). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility).APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 18, 20234.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 1, 20235.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTAD HOC COMMITTEE6.180 El Camino Real: ARB Ad Hoc Committee Review of Additional Material Details for Arhaus 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: August 3, 2023 Report #: 2306-1668 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 Board members 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 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 and potential 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. 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 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. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 No action is required by the ARB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. 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 7/06/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Rosenberg 7/20/2023 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled Hirsch 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 2/16 – Hirsch, Baltay 3/16 – Chen, Rosenberg 4/6 – Rosenberg, Thompson July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A 2023 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     Palo Alto Architectural Review Board Tentative Future Agenda The following items are tentative and subject to change: Meeting Dates Topics August 17, 2023 •800 San Antonio Road (1st formal) September 9, 2023 •NVCAP Second Study Session Pending ARB Projects The following items are pending projects and will be heard by the ARB in the near future. The projects can be viewed via their project webpage at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Assigned Ad Hoc 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 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, __ Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 8     Zone Change 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, Developmen t 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, 10/26 and 11/30; HRB hearing 1/12/23; ARB hearings 12/15/22, 1/19/23, 4/6/23, ARB 6/15/23, PTC 7/12 and 7/26 – 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) and GM (general manufacturing). Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR was circulated on September 16, 2022 for a 60-day review period. __ AR Major - Board 06/16/2022 22PLN- 00201 CHODGKI 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, Formal Resubitted 7/21- 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 is subject to the current regulations in effect. Zoning District: RM-20 (Low Density Multi-Family Residential). Environmental Assessment: Pending __ Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CHODGKI 2501 EMBARCAD ERO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration On hold pending discussions with Mountain View City Council on shared costs - Request for Site and Design Review to allow construction of a Local Advanced Water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). The proposed project will include the construction and operation of a membrane filtration recycled water facility and a permeate storage tank at the City’s RWQCP to improve recycled water quality and increase its use. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: Public Facilities with Site and Design combining district (PF)(D). __ Zone Change 1/19/2023 23PLN- 00010 EFOLEY 800-808 SAN Housing Tentative 8/17 ARB hearing date - 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 Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 9     ANTONIO RD 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. 5/4 Major Architectural Review 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 420 Acacia Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot NOI sent 3/7/23, Tentative September/October ARB hearing - Request for Major Architectural Review 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 SB 330 pre-application was deemed compliant on February 2, 2023. Zone District: RM-30 and R-1. Environmental: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (infill development)— documented exemption currently under preparation. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Major Architectural Review 6/8/2023 23PLN- 00136 23PLN- 00003 – SB 330 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Housing - 380 units NOI sent 7/6. Request for Major Architectural Review for construction of 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. Staff is reviewing the project to ensure the requested concessions and waivers are in accordance with the State Density Bonus laws. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 on SB 330 Formal has not been reviewed Minor Board Review 6/22/2023 23PLN- 00155 THARRIS ON 180 El Camino Real Retail NOI Sent 7/18. Exterior modification to previous planning entitlement for Restoration Hardware. Modifications include changes to plaster, metal color, and other minor architectural details. Zoning district: CC. Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (existing facilities) Major Architectural Review 6/22/2023 23PLN- 00160 GSAULS 3600 Middlefield Public Facility Prelim ARB 2/16. 8/3 1st Formal. Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the deconstruction of the existing Palo Alto Fire Station Number 4 and construction of a new 8,000SF fire station. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (replacement) and 15303 (small construction). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 10     Major Architectural Review 5/5/2023 23PLN- 00110 CHODGKI 3000 El Camino Office Request for a Major Architectural Review to convert an existing 10,000 square foot movie theater into new office space. Zoning District: Planned Community (PC-4637 and 2533). Baltay, Thompson Potential Projects This list of items are pending or recently reviewed projects that have 1) gone to Council prescreening and would be reviewed by the ARB once a formal application is submitted and/or 2) have been reviewed by the ARB as a preliminary review and the City is waiting for a formal application. Permit Type Submitted Permit # Project Mgr.Address Type Work Description Assigned Ad-Hoc Prescreening Council 06/13/2022 22PLN- 00198 EFOLEY 70 Encina AV Housing – 20 units 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. __ Prescreening Council 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00227 GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Housing – 382 units Heard by Council on 9/19/22, SB 330/Builder’s Remedy application submitted 6/14/23, 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: CS, CS(H), RM-20. __ Prescreening for Zone Change 11/17/2022 22PLN- 00391 EFOLEY 4075 El Camino Way Residential - add 14 units to existing Will be scheduled for 8/9 Council hearing - 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: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Baltay, Chen Reported out 6/1 Council Pre- Screening 2/8/2023 23PLN- 00036 THARRIS ON 1237 SAN ANTONIO Public Utility Council Pre-Screening request by Valley Water to allow a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to __ Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 11     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). SB 330 Pre- Application 3/22/2023 23PLN- 00073 JGERHA RDT 300 Lambert Housing – 45 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for a proposed 5-story housing development project utilizing Builder's Remedy. The project includes 45 residential units and two floors of below grade parking (85 spaces) in a 3:1 FAR building. Nine units will be designated as BMR/Low Income Units. Two parcels 280 and 300 Lambert Ave, previously used as automotive repair facilities, would be merged. Zoning District: CS. Thompson, Chen Preliminary Architectural Review 4/11/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 640 Waverley Mixed-use ARB prelim hearing 6/15/23; waiting on formal application. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of an Existing Residential Home and Construction of a four-story, approximately 10,392 Square Foot mixed-use commercial/residential building with basement and a below-grade Residential parking. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C(P) (Downtown Commercial). __ Council Pre- Screening 5/2/2023 23PLN- 00105 EFOLEY 3265 El Camino Housing – 44 units Council Prescreening scheduled 9/11 to rezone from CS to PHZ to develop a 5-story multi-family residential building with 44 housing units that would be 100% affordable for teachers Rosenberg, Thompson SB 330 Pre- Application 5/3/2023 23PLN- 00107 GSAULS 3997 Fabian Housing – up to 350 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for an 292 or 350 unit apartment development in an 8 story structure. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Chen, Hirsch Council Pre- Screening 5/5/2023 23PLN- 00100 GSAULS 260 Homer Office Council prescreening to amend a development agreement for 260 Homer that Currently Restricts the Amount of Space that One or More Commercial Office Tenants can Occupy at the Property. Zoning District: AMF (MUO). __ Item 1 Attachment B- Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 3, 2023 Report #: 2307-1754 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [23PLN-00178]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Approval of Major Architectural Review to allow the deconstruction of the existing Palo Alto Fire Station No. 4 and construction of a new 8,000 sf fire station. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Replacement) and 15303 (small structures). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Consider the project exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Sections 15302 (reconstruction) and 15303 (small projects) 2. Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The application is a request for Major Architectural Review to replace an existing one-story fire station (Palo Alto Fire Station #4) with a new one-story fire station in the same location at 3600 Middlefield Road. Site improvements include a new trash enclosure, emergency generator, and new screening walls/fences for equipment enclosures as well as revisions to the landscaping. Public Works Engineering staff filed a preliminary Architectural Review application for the proposed project. The ARB held a study session to review the preliminary application on February 16, 2023. Links to the staff report and meeting minutes are provided in this report. This report summarizes key comments from the ARB as part of that preliminary review and Public Works Engineering staff’s response to those comments. Public Works staff also obtained feedback from members of the public in community meetings and has incorporated that feedback into the design. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 9 A location map is included in Attachment A and the project plans are included in Attachment G. The draft findings are provided in Attachment D. Draft conditions of approval are provided in Attachment E. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:City of Palo Alto (CPA) Architect:Brown Reynolds Watford Architects Representative:James Haliburton (BRW); Valerie Tam (CPA) Legal Counsel:N/A Property Information Address:3600 Middlefield Road Neighborhood:Fairmeadow Lot Dimensions & Area:284 feet wide x 349 feet long Housing Inventory Site:Not applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:None Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):2,800 square foot one-story fire station built in 1953; Palo Alto Substation Existing Land Use(s):Public Facility (Palo Alto Fire Station #4) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: R-1 (Single-Family Residential) West: R-1 (Religious Institution – Covenant Presbyterian Church) East: R-1 (Single Family Homes) South: R-1 (Public Facility – Palo Alto Substation; Palo Alto Little League Clubhouse) Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 9 Zoning Designation:PF (Public Facility) Comp. Plan Designation:Major Institution/Special Facility Context-Based Design Criteria:Not applicable Downtown Urban Design Guide:Not applicable South of Forest Avenue Coordinated Area Plan:Not applicable Baylands Master Plan:Not applicable El Camino Real Design Guidelines (1976 / 2002):Not applicable Proximity to Residential Uses or Districts (150'):Yes Located w/in the Airport Influence Area:Not applicable Recent Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:The ARB held a preliminary (study session) hearing on February 16, 2023 to provide feedback in accordance with the City’s preliminary review process. The application number for the preliminary architectural review is 22PLN-00406. The ARB website includes links to the staff report, video, and meeting minutes from this hearing.1,2 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant proposes to demolish the existing building and surface parking lot and to construct a new 8,000 square foot (sf), 25-foot-tall fire station with a surface parking lot located at the rear of the building. The proposed building will maintain the driveway entries along Middlefield Road and East Meadow Drive, which will lead to a surface parking lot at the rear of the building. The building will include a fitness center, captain’s office, training room, kitchen/dining room, as well as five bedrooms for staff use. The new building would accommodate two new active vehicle bays with one reserve vehicle bay. The site improvements include a new trash enclosure, emergency generator, and new screening walls/fences for equipment enclosures. The building will utilize Porcelanosa porcelain wood tile exterior cladding, Trespa wood soffit panels, four-fold 1 The staff report for the February 16, 2023 hearing for this item (Staff Report ID 2301-0896) is available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-2.16-3600-middlefield.pdf 2 The meeting minutes for the February 16, 2023 ARB hearing are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2023/arb-2.16.2023-minutes.pdfhttps://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/agendas- minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural-review-board/2023/arb-2.16.2023-minutes.pdf.A video of the hearing is available online at: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board-2162023/ Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 9 glass panels for the vehicle bay doors, and stucco siding. The street elevations offer a pedestrian scale to the building and minimize the second story elements. There are four existing trees along the Middlefield Road frontage of the site which will be retained. The trees located along East Meadow Drive and the trees located between the existing fire station building and electric substation would be removed and replaced, as shown on the plans and as required in accordance with the tree technical manual. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: •Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the 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 finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment D. ANALYSIS On February 16, 2023, the ARB held a study session to provide preliminary feedback on the proposed design and to allow for early public comment on the project. Comments from board members, which are non-binding, and the applicant’s responses are summarized in the following table: ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Site plan. Some board members felt the site plan should be more oriented towards the corner. They expressed that the existing fuel tank was overly constraining the design potential and encouraged public works staff to review whether this tank could be relocated. The existing fuel tanks are underground and the location and supports the aboveground fuel pump. The existing location of the fuel tank and pump is ideal because this pump is utilized by various city departments and allows for vehicles to fuel without interfering with fire operations. The fuel tank is not in need of replacement and would be costly to relocate. Building Design. Board members commented that although the building massing has a low-key residential form that does appear to fit with the existing setting, they believed that the location of the site and type of building (civic building) warranted a design that provided The massing and design of the building reflects the surrounding neighborhood's architectural fabric and conveys the significance of a civic structure at an appropriate scale. By incorporating contemporary materials and systems to ensure functionality, durability, serviceability, and energy efficiency, the design becomes a distinctive and iconic element within the neighborhood, establishing a new Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9 more of a statement (e.g. taller, and more defined at the corner). They asked if the station could be taller or denser and whether the current design was the best use of the site. At least one board member noted that the massing could be a variety of cubistic designs to make it more exciting. benchmark for both visual appeal and operational excellence. The design of the fire station optimizes the usable area of the site (less than 50% of the entire site) for the efficient and effective operations of the fire department. Additionally, it integrates public spaces into the site design and prioritizes landscaping along the frontages. For these reasons and based on the overwhelmingly positive feedback from the public regarding the current design, the building has not been substantially modified in response to this comment. Materials. Wood material that isn’t wood creates a different visual aesthetic; consider a different material The wood-look tile offers the appealing visual characteristics of wood while providing the durability and low-maintenance advantages of a masonry material. It is resistant to rot, fading, and impact which eliminates the need for repainting or refinishing. Additionally, the tile incorporates functional benefits such as a rainscreen system for moisture removal and high insulation value, resulting in reduced energy consumption. Enhance corner. Corner glazing at East Meadow/Middlefield intersection of building; there should be more “pop” at the corner with forms and architecture The corner glazing has been modified to more clearly define the public entrance and provide more of a “pop” at the corner. Windows. Board members commented that there were no windows in the training room and that adding windows would help to increase the connectivity of this space to the public. At least one board member also noted that the windows on the elevations did not match the floor plans and asked this to be re-reviewed and revised prior to any formal ARB hearing. Windows in the training room were adjusted to enhance visual connectivity with the public, maximize natural light, and create an environment conducive to focused meetings and training sessions, free from distractions. The plans have been revised to be internally consistent with respect to the windows. Public Input. Board members encouraged Public Works to get public feedback and respond to it in The City went door-to-door with fliers to promote an online community meeting, which was held on April 6, 2023. They also presented the design at the City’s Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 9 the design before the first ARB hearing. open house on July 15, 2023 and provided a survey which numerous attendees filled out. Public comments were addressed and incorporated as further noted below. Landscaping. Board members commented that they wanted to see a full landscaping plan as part of the formal application. Complete landscape plans have been developed by the landscape architect and incorporated into the overall design. Functionality. Ensure the building is functional for the many proposed users The building is designed with effective and efficient fire department operations as the priority. Chief Lindsey has been instrumental in the development of the plan presented. The proposed fire building improves the existing condition of the site by providing a direct connection from the adjacent sidewalk for visitors and the proposed landscaping plan, which has now been provided as part of the formal application, helps to better define the pedestrian entrance for other users. Although substantive changes to the overall design of the building and the location of the fuel tank were not made in response to board member comments, the applicant has provided appropriate reasoning as to why these changes were not made. The proposed design has received an overwhelmingly positive response from members of the public and the design prioritizes the functionality of the building with respect to efficiency of the space (i.e. not constructing a denser/taller building, which may be less functional). As discussed below and in the draft findings, the proposed design appears to be consistent with the Architectural Review findings for approval under PAMC 18.76.020. Neighborhood Setting and Character The subject site is surrounded by a church to the West, a baseball field to the South, and single- family homes to the North and East. The proposal has a 24-foot special setback along the Middlefield Road frontage. Along East Meadow Drive the building will have a 20-foot setback in accordance with the PF district requirements. The placement and massing of the building is representative of buildings within the immediate context. The proposed building has a sharp, angular design and wood materials mirror the tower element of the adjacent church and the siding of the church and baseball field buildings adjacent to this property. The use of glass on the building presents a mixture of materials that creates a distinctive style appropriate for the setting and vicinity. While the selection of architectural materials distinguishes the proposed building from the varying styles of the surrounding buildings, the proposed building is compatible with its surroundings. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 9 Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines3 There are no coordinated area plans or guidelines that direct how development should be considered in the within this area of the City other than the Comprehensive Plan and its adopted goals, policies, and programs. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan as well. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment D. Zoning Compliance4 The proposed project is located on a Public Facility zoned parcel. The continued use of the site for a fire station is consistent with the uses allowed in the zoning ordinance. A detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable development standards of the zoning ordinance is provided in Attachment C. The proposed project complies with all applicable codes in a manner that is consistent with the Zoning Ordinance. Consistency with Application Findings Staff has prepared a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with the Findings for approval. The draft findings for the proposed project are provided in Attachment D. The proposed project appears to meet all applicable findings for Architectural Review approval. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT The proposed project is a capital improvement project for the City of Palo Alto (PE-18-004) and the total cost of the project is estimated to be approximately $15.3 million. In March 2022 the City Council reached out to its state representatives to request state funding for its infrastructure projects, including Fire Station #4 (Attachment F). In March 2023, Public Works staff was notified that the City received $5.2 million in grant funding through the state in order to replace Fire Station #4. However, in order to utilize this funding, the City is required to submit an executed construction contract by June 30, 2024 to the state. In order to achieve this goal, Public Works is seeking to complete the entitlement process no later than early October 2023. This would allow enough time for construction document development, building permit approval, bidding, and City Council approval. 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 3The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp 4 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 9 July 21, 2023, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 19, 2023 which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. The ARB held a study session on February 16, 2023 to allow for public comment on the proposed project and to provide preliminary feedback on the proposed design. The comments from the ARB were summarized in this report. No comments were received at the study session from members of the public. Public Comment Public Works held a virtual community meeting on April 6, 2023. To raise awareness of the project and the community meeting, Public Works staff walked door-to-door to talk to residents/hand out fliers on East Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road. At the virtual meeting, staff presented the same preliminary design that was presented at the ARB study session. The community’s response to the design was positive. Members of the public raised concerns regarding the construction timeline, resiliency of the fire station, and concerns about the amount of glass proposed on the building and how it may affect birds. Public Works staff also showcased the proposed design at the Municipal Service Center Open House on July 15, 2023 and provided a survey for public input on the design. The feedback provided by members of the public in both the survey and during the event was positive. Residents described the proposed design as “beautiful” and “good as is”. Most survey responses note that they would not want to change the proposed design. A member of the public also spoke at the April 20, 2023 ARB hearing to items not on the agenda and provided comments on this proposed project. The commenter noted disagreement with the ARB’s recommendations to upscale the project, stating that she felt that the design was already too large and should be downscaled instead. The commenter noted that the additional community amenities being proposed could already be found at the local library and also noted that the glass could impact birds. Public Works staff is keeping the community updated on the project via email newsletters and project webpage updates as well as notification of public meetings. Public Art Although not required for Public Facilities, Public Works intends to add public art to the site, working in coordination with the City’s Community Services Division. Stephen Galloway has been selected as the artist to create and implement a public art piece at this site. Public Works held a meet the artist event with local residents to provide an opportunity for Mr. Galloway to share his art process and past artworks with local residents. He and the attendees discussed the different characteristics of the surrounding neighborhoods and what they felt the community was like. This is intended to better inform the art concepts and themes as Mr. Galloway begins the conceptual design process. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 9 The subject project was assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the City’s environmental regulations. Staff determined that the project is exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Replacement) and 15303 (Small Structures). The project replaces an existing fire station with a new fire station that will be used in substantially the same capacity. The project is also exempt in accordance with the Class 3 exemption because the proposed fire station is less than 10,000 sf and located in an urban area. Although the building is not located on any historic register, because it is over 50 years old, the City hired a historic architect to determine whether the existing building is eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHRH), which would make it ineligible for an exemption. The evaluation concluded that the building is ineligible for the CRHR and therefore is eligible for the above-mentioned categorical exemptions. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; or 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain. ATTACHMENTS ATTACHMENT A: Location Map ATTACHMENT B: Project Description ATTACHMENT C: Zoning Comparison Table ATTACHMENT D: Draft ARB Findings ATTACHMENT E: Draft Conditions of Approval ATTACHMENT F: City Council Funding Request Letter ATTACHMENT G: Project Plans and Environmental Documents AUTHOR/TITLE: Garrett Sauls, Planner Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Palo Alto Little League Fire Station 4 Mitchell Park Library__Mitchell Park_Community Center 97.7' 112.3'120.8' 18.9' 104.4' 106.0' 42.9' 31.4' 86.0' 62.9' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 62.9' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 60.0' 106.0' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 29.9' 136.1' 120.0' 99.0' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 52.9' 113.5' 113.5' 44.0' 7.5' 31.4' 150 375.9' 400.6' 200.0' 280.4' 398.8' 51.8' 145.2' 130.9' 437.5' 192.5' 331.7' 175.7' 349.2' 99.0' 54.0' 113.5' 18.6'24.9'21.6' 73.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 80' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 76.5' 110.6' 63.3' 103.5' 76.5' 119.2' 63.3' 110.6' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 79.3' 110.7' 40.0' 103.5' 113.2' 124.7' 33.1' 24.9' 110.7' 76.9' 52.2' 136.1' 40.7' 124.7' 119.2' 76.5' 128.9' 63.5' 53.2' 84.0' 37.8' 60.4' 106.0' 21.4' 85.0' 59.9'45.4' 116.0' 52.0' 116.0' 116.0' 52.0' 16.0' 76.2' 91.6' 117.2' 85.0' 117.0' 100.2' 91.5' 117.0' 15.0' 217.0' 112.1' 58.1' 135.0' 54.2' 134.9' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 58.0' 103.5' 103.5' 58.0' .5' 58.0' 103.5' 281.8' 174.5' 31.4' 105.0' 77.8' 156.8' 116.7'61.8' 134.9' 57.9' 134.8' 104.8' 77.8' 84.8' 31.4' 57.8' 116.7' 70.0' 116.7' 70.0' 77.8' 122.0' 77.8' 122.0' 89.7' 105.0' 89.7' 105.0' 34.5' 7.0' 100.0'130.5' 136.6' 89.7' 105.0' 89.7' 105.0' 112.1' 105.0' 5.1' 13.9' 42.5' 106.3' 107.0' 31.2' 20.0' 19.1' 134.5' 68.6' 77.8' 6.2' 106.3' 37.0' 139.6' 27.5' 139.6' 36.3' 107.0' 112.7' 134.5' 59.5' 134.5' 59.5' 134.5' 59.5' 134.5' 59.5' 134.5' 59.5' 134.5' 59.5' 314.2' 516.8' 210.0' 231.0' 133.8' 287.3' 166.9' 77.8' 166.9' 77.8'287.3' 113.1' 36.0' 136.6'39.5' 94.8' 118.0' 5.0' 15.0' 39.7'113.1' 92.0' 129.8'118.8' 60.0'90.0' 13.6' 437.3' 42.0' 38.0' 100.0' 80.0' 100.0' 34.7' 16.7' 28.5' 86.6' 93.0' 100.0' 37.6' 136.0' 14.0' 123.8' 86.6' 76.2' 105.0' 76.3' 105.0' 76.3' 105.0' 76.2' 105.0' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 94.7' 129.8' 136.0' 36.1' 103.6' 28.6' 66.5' 25.1' 59.3' 105.0' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 67.9' 86.0' 94.7' 39.5' 77.5' 68.0' 150.0' 67.9' 77.5'10.0' 92.8' 132.1' 87.7' 132.1' 92.8' 10.4' 74.6' 34.8' 68.1' 102.0' 120.0' 34.0' 14.4' 81.4' 39.3' 13.0' 91.5' 34.8' 74.6'48.5'7.4' 126.2' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 91.8' 87.3'91.8' 87.3' 93.3' 91.8' 73.3' 31.4' 71.8' 73.7' 110.3' 97.7' 115.4' 70.4' 124.9' 70.5' 124.9' 85.4' 113.8' 70.4' 123.1' 15.0' 236.9' 70.4' 123.1' 70.5' 123.1' 70.5' 123.9' 70.4' 123.9' 85.4' 113.0' 70.5' 123.9' 15.0' 236.9' 122.4' 60.0' 142.1' 63.2' 98.7' 72.0' 122.4' 75.8'122.9' 98.7' 122.1' 12.5' 51.0' 85.4' 134.9' 85.4' 134.9' 85.4' 120.0' 85.4' 120.0' 15.0' 137.9' 70.5' 117.0' 85.4' 254.9' 70.5' 115.0' 70.5' 115.0' 70.4' 115.0' 70.4' 115.0' 85.5' 236.9' 15.0' 115.0' 70.4' 121.9' 85.5' 121.9' 70.5' 115.0' 15.0' 236.9' 15.0' 254.9' 85.4' 113.0' 70.4' 141.9' 70.4' 137.9' 70.5' 137.9' 51.4' 50.6' 79.3' 113.4' 18.9' 67.2' 60.0' 134.0' 60.0' 134.0' 118.5' 63.2' 118.5' 63.2' 63.2' 118.5' 63.2' 118.5' 63.1' 160.3' 60.0' 179.8' 17.5' 118.5'126.3' 61.3' 196.8' 125.3' 63.2' 118.5' 192.5' 437.5' 437.3' 107.9' 70.0' 135.9' 24.4' 48.6' 112.6' 62.3' 120.0' 29.9' 45.1' 120.0' 30.0' 120.0' 30.0' 150.0' 77.9' 150.0 82.0' 107.9' 20.8 71.8' 31.4' 73.3'91.8' 93.3' 77.9' 150.0' 77.9' 150.0' 67.2' 8.1' 6.9' 61.1' 118.0' 77.7' 110. 18.0' 105.9' 65.5' 15.7' 95.9' 75.5' 170.9' 101110.9' 58.5' 60.0' 42.9' 78.8' 12.5' 75.7' 254.9' 85.5' 129.0' 70.4' 125.9' 70.5' 141.9' 70.4' 141.9' 70.4' 125.9' 70.4' 125.9' 70.5' 1279 85.4' 127.0' 70.5' 85.5' 100.0' 170.9' 60.0' 1 118.5' 63.2' 118.5' 63.2' 78.1' 110.3' 78 110.0' 68.0' 11 15.0 70.5' 128.0' 70.5' 128.0' 70.5' 128.0' 15.0' 254.9' 81.5' 49.0'50.6' 51.4' 91.8'126.6' 81.5' 95.5' 70.4' 141.9' 60.0' 115.0' 57.5' 188.0' 57.5' 188.0' 57.5' 188.0' 57.5' 188.0' 152. 73.0' 128.6' 78.1' 110.6' 110.3' 114.1' 221.9' 89.5' 219.2' 62.5' 133.2' 62.5' 133.3' 133.2' 51.7' 161.1' 30.3' 32.0' 15.7' 231.0' 60.3' 13.6' 80.0' 104.0' 108.0' 69.8' 102.3' 102.3' 83.9' 117.6' 66.5'85.0' 160.3' 132.5' 89.6' 102.0' 104.5' 85.4' 84.7' 104.5' 149.3' 18.8' 373.7' 331.7' 284.3' 69.1' 331.7' 200.0' 400.6' 349.5' 284.3' 367.9' 398.8' 80.0' 85.5' 133.1' 136.9' 80.0' 142.1' 73.7' 15.8' 89.6' 15.0' 124.9' 70.5' 112.0' 85.5' 236.9' 102.2' 70 114.5 50 134.5 59.5 134.5 59.5 134.5 218.1' 64.5' 65.6' 58.0' 60.0' 100.0' 98.0' 17.5' 29.5' 96.8' 38.3' 116.9' 84.9' 9.0' 123.5'14.9' MURDOCH DRIVE CHRISTINE DRIVE MIDDLEFIELD ROAD EAST MEADOW DRIVELGER DRIVE ROSS ROAD CHRISTINE DRIVE GROVE AVENUE MAYVIEW MIDDLEFIELD ROAD EAST MEADOW DRIVE EAST MEADOW DR T A L I S M A N C This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend City Jurisdictional Limits (PL), boundary Special Height and Setback Buffer 150 feet around Res Zones Special Setback Curb Edge Tree (TR) Highlighted Features Known Structures abc Lot Dimensions 0' 145' 3600 Middlefield Road CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CAL I F ORN I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f AP R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto gsauls, 2023-01-26 16:33:44 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\gsauls.mdb) Item 2 ATTACHMENT A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 22     BRW Architects Nov ember 15 , 2022 PA 4 Narrative for ARB Submittal The new Palo Alto Fire Station 4 will be a 7,800 SF LEED Silver, single-story facility located at 3600 Middlefield. This project will replace the existing single-story fire station constructed in 1953. Current site improvements include a fueling station, a private cellular tower, generator, and a small parking lot. It has served the community well but, due to operational changes, current space needs, new technologies, and resiliency demands, the existing station needs to be replaced. The current facility is staffed by two fire personnel with one active apparatus bay. The new facility will accommodate five fire personnel with two active apparatus bays and one reserve bay. This facility will also provide an alternate Emergency Operations Center / Training Room to serve both the Fire Department and public. Site improvements will include more parking for both firefighters and visitors, emergency generator, trash enclosure, and landscape. The site is located on the corner of a large block that includes Meadow Park, First Presbyterian Church, a little league field, and a library community center. In addition to meeting the operational requirements, the project design also recognizes the importance of the neighborhood context. The arrangement of spaces and exterior design must strike a balance between serving the essential life safety operations with the presentation of an open and inviting public image. The proposed design solution has a massing that is both pedestrian friendly and serves as a public safety beacon for the community. Our material selections have been driven by sustainability, maintenance, product availability, durability, after life reuse or recycling capability and neighborhood aesthetic factors. The fire station must be resilient and easy to maintain, with considerations for longevity and vandalism resistance. The proposed design also respects the influences of the surrounding buildings, such as the Covenant Presbyterian Church, Mitchell Park, and Library. Our goal for this study session is for the Architectural Review Board provide advice on the massing, site planning, and material selection. Item 2 ATTACHMENT B - Project Description     Packet Pg. 23     2 1 5 3 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 3600 Middlefield Road, 23PLN-00160 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.28 (PF DISTRICT) Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth None 1.89 acres 1.89 acres Minimum Front Yard (East Meadow Drive) (2) 20 feet 28 feet 20 feet Rear Yard 10 feet 239 feet 210 feet Interior Side Yard 10 feet 106 feet 81 feet Special Setback (Middlefield Road) 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps 27 feet 24 feet Max. Site Coverage 30% (24,691 sf)5.5% (4,500 sf)11.7% (9,670 sf) Max. Total Floor Area Ratio 1:1 (82,304 sf)1:0.05 (4,500 sf)1:0.11 (9,670 sf) Max. Building Height 50 ft or 35 ft when located within 150 ft of residentially zoned property 17 ft 25 ft, 3 in. Daylight Plane At abutting residential property line, taken at 10 feet and angled in at a slope of 1:2 Complies Complies Employee Showers 0 required for new square footage greater than 9,999 sf 2 3 showers Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Public Facilities* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking To be determined by Director 6 12 Bicycle Parking To be determined by Director 0 4 (Short Term) Loading Space To be determined by Director 0 0 Item 2 ATTACHMENT C - Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 24     ATTACHMENT D ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The project is in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies: Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency Policy L-1.3: Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project proposes to replace an aging one- story fire station with a new fire station that is designed with the low-scale, residential and commercial uses in mind. The wood-look material and stucco are similar materials used on surrounding buildings. 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 design of the project is well ordered and provides a coherent plan that is readily understood in the neighborhood context. The contemporary design is consistent with other designs along Middlefield Road and East Meadow Drive and adds to the aesthetic diversity of buildings within the immediate vicinity. Policy L-6.6 Design buildings to complement streets and public spaces; to promote personal safety, public health and wellbeing; and to enhance a sense of community safety. The proposal incorporates additional tree planting at the street and pedestrian entry plaza along Middlefield Road and East Meadow Drive. This will bolster the public’s experience when walking along the site on either road and help to make it a more pedestrian friendly environment. The additional tree planting will help to soften the views of the building when they are mature from the single-family residences across the street. Policy L-9.2 Encourage development that The project retains most parking along the Item 2 ATTACHMENT D - ARB Findings & Comp Plan Policies     Packet Pg. 25     Comprehensive Plan Goal/Policy Consistency creatively integrates parking into the project, including by locating it behind buildings or underground wherever possible, or by providing for shared use of parking areas. Encourage other alternatives to surface parking lots that minimize the amount of land devoted to parking while still maintaining safe streets, street trees, a vibrant local economy and sufficient parking to meet demand. rear of the property which will be screened behind a fence. The proposal also will provide additional tree planting in the parking lot area to satisfy the City’s 50% shading requirement. Policy T-3.7 Encourage pedestrian-friendly design features such as sidewalks, street trees, on-street parking, gathering spaces, gardens, outdoor furniture, art and interesting architectural details. The proposal incorporates additional tree planting at the street and pedestrian entry plaza along the front of the property. This will bolster the public’s experience when walking along the site and help to make it a more pedestrian friendly environment. In addition, the building will incorporate a public meeting room for residents to use at the corner of East Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road that will help to activate this space. Policy N-2.1 Recognize the importance of the urban forest as a vital part of the city’s natural and green infrastructure network that contributes to public health, resiliency, habitat values, appreciation of natural systems and an attractive visual character which must be protected and enhanced. The applicant has proposed to plant additional trees along the Middlefield Road frontage which enhances the pedestrian experience. Additionally, the applicant proposes to plant additional trees on site to provide shading over the surface parking lot and other recreational areas to be used by the tenants of the building, totaling 33 trees on site. This will further the City’s goal of achieving a 50% canopy coverage throughout the Palo Alto. The project has been evaluated for consistency with the Zoning Code, and the project meets all applicable development standards. Middlefield Road does not have a coordinated area plan or specific design guidelines. 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 Item 2 ATTACHMENT D - ARB Findings & Comp Plan Policies     Packet Pg. 26     and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: The design creates an internal sense of order by providing a well-landscaped public realm along the California Avenue frontage with the introduction of pedestrian entry area to create an inviting pedestrian amenity. This integration provides a desirable environment for pedestrians that would be crossing the site, as well as building occupants and visitors. The proposed landscaping along East Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road serves as important elements that define the streetscape and draw attention to the popping corner of the building at the intersection. The scale, mass, and character of the building is appropriate for the residential neighborhood and commercial buildings surrounding the site through its angular architectural features and wood siding materials. Finding #2.c. is not applicable to the site, as the Municipal Code does not provide context-based design criteria for the Public Facilities (PF) zoning district. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The contemporary design of the building utilizes a variety of complimentary building materials, textures and colors that are appropriate to the setting and context of the nearby residential and commercial buildings. The use of wood-looking materials contrasted with the stucco tower element highlights the building entrances and façade. This also introduces a sense of depth that enhances the appearance of the building. These entrance features also provide a fitting contrast in appearance with the glass façade at the emergency vehicle bays. Overall, the selection and use of materials yields a building of high aesthetic quality, which would be further enhanced through the proposed landscaping. In addition to introducing a high-quality structure, the project would enhance the appearance of the surrounding area by maintain all parking at the rear of the site and increasing the landscape buffer along Middlefield Road from the City’s electric substation. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The design is appropriate to the function of the project in that the placement of the vehicle bays is done in a way that allows easy emergency vehicle access and exiting. Circulation from Item 2 ATTACHMENT D - ARB Findings & Comp Plan Policies     Packet Pg. 27     the street to the site would be improved by widening existing driveways along East Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road. Pedestrian access to the building entrances is significantly enhanced by the sidewalk improvements that are included with the project. Bicycle parking is convenient and located near building entrances. Adequate vehicle and accessible parking is located conveniently along East Meadow Drive for visitors and staff parking will be located at the rear of the site and screened from view. The amount and arrangement of open space is appropriate to the design and the function of the structures as it creates a significant landscape buffer along East Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road from the adjacent single-family properties. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: The plant material is suitable and adaptable to the site, capable of being properly maintained, and is of a variety that would tend to be drought-resistant and reduce consumption of water in its installation and maintenance. The landscape plan increases the use trees along the Middlefield Road street frontage. The landscaping plan supplements the tree canopy with additional plantings, providing a majority of species as native and drought tolerant. As the site is in a developed portion of Palo Alto, it is not considered prime habitat. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The project has been designed to achieve a LEED Silver rating which requires the building to incorporate many aspects of sustainability in the design. The Porcelanosa tile siding is a durable material that is resistant to rot and fading and serves a functional purpose as a rainscreen system for moisture removal. It has high insulation value which helps to reduce energy consumption. The site planning relegates most vehicle parking to the rear of the site. This design element, in addition to the proposed parking lot tree shading, reduces the “heat island effect” associated with surface parking. New groundcover plantings would consist of a variety of low water use and drought tolerant species. Item 2 ATTACHMENT D - ARB Findings & Comp Plan Policies     Packet Pg. 28     ATTACHMENT E DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3600 Middlefield Road 23PLN-00160 PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, “3600 Middlefield Road” dated July 27, 2023 on file with the Planning Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of approval included in this document. 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. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 5. LANDSCAPE MAINTENANCE. All landscape material shall be well maintained and replaced if the plant material dies or if the irrigation equipment fails. Planters shall not drain onto sidewalk, ground, or public right of ways. 6. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall automatically expire after two years from the original date of approval if, within such two year period, the proposed use of the site or the construction of buildings has not commenced pursuant to and in accordance with the provisions of the permit or approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to the expiration. (PAMC 18.77.090(a)) 7. LIGHTING. Between the hours of 10:00pm-6:00am (normal cessation of business hours), lighting within the building or on the property shall be reduced to its minimum necessary to facilitate security, in order to minimize light glare at night. 8. NUISANCES AND NOISE. The outdoor space shall not be operated in a manner to produce excessive noise, odors, lighting or other nuisances from any sources. Noise levels emanating from the outdoor space shall not exceed the maximum level established in the PAMC Chapter 9.10. Amplified sound equipment is not included in this approval, and any such equipment proposed for this site shall be submitted for review by the Planning Department. 9. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Item 2 ATTACHMENT E - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 29     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. 10. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact your Project Planner, Garrett Sauls at Garrett.Sauls@CityofPaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. PUBLIC WORKS ENGINEERING 11. PUBLIC WORKS APPLICATIONS, FORMS, AND DOCUMENTS: Applicant shall be advised that most forms, applications, and informational documents related to Public Works Engineering conditions can be found at the following link: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public- Works/Engineering-Services/Forms-and-Permits 12. GRADING AND EXCAVATION PERMIT: A Grading Permit is required per PAMC Chapter 16.28. The permit application and all applicable documents (see Section H of application) shall be submitted to Public Works Engineering. Add the following note: “THIS GRADING PERMIT WILL ONLY AUTHORIZE GENERAL GRADING AND INSTALLATION OF THE STORM DRAIN SYSTEM. OTHER BUILDING AND UTILITY IMPROVEMENTS ARE SHOWN FOR REFERENCE INFORMATION ONLY AND ARE SUBJECT TO SEPARATE BUILDING PERMIT APPROVAL.” 13. LOGISTICS PLAN: A construction logistics plan shall be provided addressing all impacts to the public including, at a minimum: work hours, noticing of affected businesses, bus stop relocations, construction signage, dust control, noise control, storm water pollution prevention, job trailer, contractors’ parking, truck routes, staging, concrete pours, crane lifts, scaffolding, materials storage, pedestrian safety, and traffic control. All truck routes shall conform to the City of Palo Alto’s Trucks and Truck Route Ordinance, Chapter 10.48, and the route map. 14. PUMPS: Any pumps required to facilitate drainage shall be plotted and labeled on the plans. Storm water runoff from the pumped system shall daylight onto onsite landscaped areas and be allowed to infiltrate and flow by gravity to the public storm drain line. Storm water runoff that is pumped shall not be directly piped into the public storm drain line. 15. C.3 THIRD-PARTY CERTIFICATION: Applicant shall provide certification from a qualified third-party reviewer that the proposed permanent storm water pollution prevention measures comply with the requirements of Provision C.3 and Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 16.11. Submit the following: a. Stamped and signed C.3 data form (April 2023 version) from SCVURPPP. https://scvurppp.org/wp-content/uploads/2023/04/SCVURPPP-C.3-Data-Form-_- updated__4-12-2023_clean_fillable.pdf b. Final stamped and signed letter confirming which documents were reviewed and that the project complies with Provision C.3 and PAMC 16.11. Item 2 ATTACHMENT E - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 30     16. C.3 STORMWATER AGREEMENT: The applicant shall enter into a Stormwater Maintenance Agreement with the City to guarantee the ongoing maintenance of the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures. The City will inspect the treatment measures yearly and charge an inspection fee. The agreement shall be executed by the applicant team prior to building permit final. 17. C.3 FINAL THIRD PARTY CERTIFICATION PRIOR TO OCCUPANCY: Within 45 days of the installation of the required storm water treatment measures and prior to the issuance of an occupancy permit for the building, the third-party reviewer shall submit to the City a certification verifying that all the permanent storm water pollution prevention measures were installed in accordance with the approved plans. 18. PAVEMENT RESTORATION: The applicant shall restore the pavement along the entire project frontage, curb-to-curb, by performing a 3.5” grind and overlay. The exact restoration limits will be determined once the resulting road condition is known following completion of heavy construction activities and utility lateral installations, at minimum the extent will be the project frontage. 19. PRIOR TO PUBLIC WORKS FINAL/ACCEPTANCE (STORM DRAIN LOGO): The applicant is required to paint “No Dumping/Flows to Matadero Creek” in blue on a white background adjacent to all onsite storm drain inlets. The name of the creek to which the proposed development drains can be obtained from Public Works Engineering. Stencils of the logo are available from the Public Works Environmental Compliance Division, which may be contacted at (650) 329-2598. Include the instruction to paint the logos on the construction grading and drainage plan. BUILDING DIVISION 20. A Building permit is required. Contact the building department for building plans submittal requirements. Building permit application after 12/31/22 will be based on the 2022 CBSC. STORM WATER/WATER QUALITY NOTICE OF FUTURE REGULATION OF PCB MATERIAL – EFFECTIVE JULY 1st, 2019: Please be advised that new requirements regarding stormwater control during building demolition for polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) became effective starting July 1st, 2019, in accordance with the San Francisco Bay Region Municipal Regional Stormwater NPDES Permit (MRP), Order No. R2-2015-0049. MRP Provision C.12.f. requires that San Francisco Bay Area municipalities develop a program to ensure that PCBs from building materials (e.g. caulk, paint, mastic) do not enter the storm drain system during building demolition. Palo Alto City Council adopted the PCBs regulation in May 2019. For specific questions about your project, please email CleanBay@cityofpaloalto.org, call 650-329-2122 or visit http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/pcbdemoprogram. 21. If the project is submitting a demolition permit application on or after July 1st, 2019, then the applicant shall complete and submit the “PCBs Applicant Package,” including any required sampling reports (per the Applicant Package instructions), with the demolition permit application. The PCBs Application Package and other resources are outlined at http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/pcbdemoprogram. The Applicant Package will outline PCBs sampling and reporting requirements that must be met if the project meets ALL of the following conditions: Item 2 ATTACHMENT E - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 31     a. The project is a commercial, public, institutional, or industrial structure constructed or remodeled between January 1, 1950 and December 31, 1980. Single-family and two-family homes are exempt regardless of age. b. The framing of the building contains material other than wood. Wood-frame structures are exempt. c. The proposed demolition is a complete demolition of the building. Partial demolitions do not apply to the requirements. 22. If the project triggers polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs) sampling as identified on the “PCBs Applicant Package,” then the project shall conduct representative sampling of PCBs concentration in accordance with the “Protocol for Evaluating Priority PCBs-Containing Materials before Building Demolition (2018).” a. If the representative sample results or records DO NOT indicate PCB concentrations ≥50 ppm in one or more “priority materials,” then the screening assessment is complete. Applicant submits screening form and the supporting sampling documentation with the demolition permit application. No additional action is required. b. If the representative sample results or records DO indicate PCBs concentrations ≥50 ppm in one or more “priority materials,” then the screening assessment is complete, but the Applicant MUST also contact applicable State and Federal Agencies to meet further requirements. Applicant submits screening form and the supporting sampling documentation with the demolition permit application, and also must contacts the State and Federal Agencies as indicated on Page 3 of the “PCBs Screening Assessment Form.” IMPORTANT: ADVANCED APPROVAL FROM THE UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY (USEPA) OR OTHER STATE AGENCIES MAY BE REQUIRED PRIOR TO BUILDING DEMOLITION. IT IS RECOMMENEDED THAT APPLICANTS BEGIN THE PCBs ASSESSMENT WELL IN ADVANCE OF APPLYING FOR DEMOLITION PERMIT AS THE PROCESS CAN TAKE BETWEEN 1-3 MONTHS. 23. Stormwater treatment measures a. All Bay Area Municipal Regional Stormwater Permit requirements shall be followed. b. Refer to the Santa Clara Valley Urban Runoff Pollution Prevention Program C.3 Handbook (download here: http://scvurpppw2k.com/c3_handbook.shtml) for details. c. For all C.3 features, vendor specifications regarding installation and maintenance should be followed and provided to city staff. Copies must be submitted to Pam Boyle Rodriguez at pamela.boylerodriguez@cityofpaloalto.org. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. d. Staff from Stormwater Program (Watershed Protection Division) may be present during installation of stormwater treatment measures. Contact Pam Boyle Rodriguez, Stormwater Program Manager, at (650) 329-2421 before installation. Add this bullet as a note to building plans on Stormwater Treatment (C.3) Plan. 24. Bay-friendly Guidelines (rescapeca.org) a. Do not use chemicals fertilizers, pesticides, herbicides or commercial soil amendment. Use Organic Materials Review Institute (OMRI) materials and compost. Refer to the Bay-Friendly Landscape Guidelines: http://www.stopwaste.org/resource/brochures/bay-friendly-landscape- guidelinessustainable-practices-landscape-professional for guidance. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. Item 2 ATTACHMENT E - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 32     25. Avoid compacting soil in areas that will be unpaved. Add this bullet as a note to the building plans. 26. Stormwater quality protection a. Temporary and permanent waste, compost and recycling containers shall be covered to prohibit fly-away trash and having rainwater enter the containers. b. Drain downspouts to landscaping (outward from building as needed). c. Drain HVAC fluids from roofs and other areas to landscaping. d. Offsite downgrade storm drain inlets shall also be identified on this plan set and protected. If City staff removes protection from an inlet in the ROW during a rain event, the contractor shall replace the inlet protection by the end of the following business day. 27. If the concentration of any of the priority building materials sampled as part of the regional PCBs in Priority Building Materials Demolition Program (implemented by the City) resulted in greater than 50 ppm of PCBs, include the following note on this sheet: a. “Priority building materials sampled from this site resulted in greater than 50 ppm of polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs). An abatement plan must be approved with the EPA before demolition commences.” b. Provide an electronic copy of the the PCBS Screening Assessment Form and associated lab results to Brad Hunt at brad.hunt@cityofpaloalto.org. RECYCLING Deconstruction and Construction Materials Management Requirements. 28. REQUIRED DECONSTRUCTION. In conformance with PAMC 5.24, deconstruction and source separation are required for all residential and commercial projects where structures (other than a garage or ADU) are being completely removed, demolition is no longer allowed. Deconstruction takes longer than traditional demolition, it is important to plan ahead. For more information, visit www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. 29. SALVAGE SURVEY FOR REUSE. A Salvage Survey is required for deconstruction permit applications. The survey shall be conducted by a City approved reuse vendor. The survey submittal shall include an itemized list of materials that are salvageable for reuse from the project. The applicant shall source separate and deliver materials for reuse. Certification is required indicating that all materials identified in the survey are properly salvaged. Contact The ReUse People to schedule this FREE survey by phone (888) 588-9490 or e-mail info@thereusepeople.org. More information can be found at www.TheReusePeople.org. Please upload a completed copy to the deconstruction permit. 30. SOURCE SEPARATION FOR RECYCLING. The applicant shall source separate deconstruction materials into specific categories for recycling. Additional staging areas for source separated materials will need to be considered. All materials shall be delivered to one of the City approved materials recovery facilities listed in Green Halo, all records shall be uploaded to www.greenhalosystems.com. For more information, refer to www.cityofpaloalto.org/deconstruction. URBAN FORESTRY Item 2 ATTACHMENT E - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 33     31. TREE PROTECTION COMPLIANCE. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR & Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. Project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. The mandatory Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 32. PLAN CHANGES. Revisions and/or changes to plans before or during construction shall be reviewed and responded to by the (a) project site arborist, or (b) landscape architect with written letter of acceptance before submitting the revision to the Building Department for review by Planning, PW or Urban Forestry. 33. TREE DAMAGE. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.202.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 34. GENERAL. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 35. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION. Prior to any site work verification from the contractor that the required protective fencing is in place shall be submitted to the Urban Forestry Section. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 36. EXCAVATION RESTRICTIONS APPLY (TTM, Sec. 2.20 C & D). Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air-spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. PUBLIC ART 37. The following conditions are required to be part of any Planning application approval and shall be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. as further described below: a. If commissioning art on site, the applicant must complete their final review and receive approval from the Public Art Commission prior to the issuance of a building permit; b. If the applicant chooses to pay a contribution into the Public Art fund in-lieu of commissioning art on site, the contribution must be made prior to the issuance of a building permit; Item 2 ATTACHMENT E - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 34     c. All information and application materials may be found at www.cityofpaloalto.org/publicart under “policies and documents” tab. FIRE 38. Onsite wharf hydrant to be changed out to an American AVK model 24-92 assembly. 39. All new trash enclosures must include fire sprinklers. Item 2 ATTACHMENT E - Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 35     Item 2 ATTACHMENT F - City Council Funding Request Letter     Packet Pg. 36     Item 2 ATTACHMENT F - City Council Funding Request Letter     Packet Pg. 37     Item 2 ATTACHMENT F - City Council Funding Request Letter     Packet Pg. 38     Item 2 ATTACHMENT F - City Council Funding Request Letter     Packet Pg. 39     Attachment G Project Plans and Environmental Documents Project plans are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Board members. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “3600 Middlefield Road” and click the address link 3. On this project specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/News-Articles/Planning-and-Development-Services/3600- Middlefield-Road Item 2 ATTACHMENT G - Project Plans & Environmental Documents     Packet Pg. 40     Item No. 3. 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: August 3, 2023 Report #: 2306-1708 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 18, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of May 18, 2023 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 41     Page 1 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 18, 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 Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Osma Thompson Absent: None Oral Communications None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and ARB Liaison Claire Raybould indicated there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Ms. Raybould reported there were slight changes to future agendas, the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Study Session will be on the June 1 Agenda, along with the 640 Waverly Preliminary review for a mixed-use project. The development agreement for 3200 Park has been moved to the June 15 hearing. New projects include 3265 El Camino which is a rezoning from a CS to a Planned Home zoning for a 5- story multi-family residential building with 44 housing units at 100% affordable for teachers, 3997 Fabian Way near the JCC which is up to 350-units. Chair Baltay reviewed the current subcommittees and the members appointed and requested a report out at the next meeting and requested volunteers for a subcommittee for 3997 Fabian Way. Boardmembers Chin and Hirsch both volunteered to be the subcommittee for 3997 Fabian Way. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 42     Page 2 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg felt 3265 El Camino warranted a preliminary look and volunteered to be on the subcommittee for it. Boardmember Thompson volunteered to be on the subcommittee as well. Chair Baltay commented there was a multi-Commission/Board meeting in which he and Vice Chair Rosenberg attended and requested Vice Chair Rosenberg provide a brief summary of the meeting. Vice Chair Rosenberg reported that anyone wishing to see updates on all eight Boards and Commissions can do so by visiting www.cityofpaloalto.org/departments/city-clerk/boards-and-commissions. She encouraged everyone to get to know the Boards and Commissions and when they meet. The Boards and topics that were discussed at the meeting were as follows: Architectural Review Board (ARB): Discussed Objective Standards and how they are impacting the design of the community. Historical Resources Board (HRB): Discussed their plan to update the registry for Historic Buildings in Palo Alto, which has not been updated since the 70’s; the Mills Act; the Cannery Building. Human Relations Commission (HRC): Discussed the Asian Americans Pacific Islanders (AAPI) Survey they are encouraging everyone to take. The website for that is www.cityofpaloalto.org/AANHPIsurvey. Parks and Recreation Commission: Topics included expanding the parks to accommodate the growing population, and they are looking to place a dog park in Baron Park. Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC): Discussed Objective Standards. Public Arts Commission: They are looking to install new works and murals, and the artist in residence in Palo Alto. Stormwater Management Oversight Committee: They are working on updates to their rules and regulations. Utilities Advisory Commission (UAC): Palo Alto is still doing better than PG&E as far as their rates and standards are concerned, there was an unknown increase in gas for one month they are investigating. There will be two meetings of this nature per year, each meeting will be 90 minutes. Boardmember Hirsch has been in contact with the Rinconada Library and inquired if they had the ability to display the Awards Board, they have easels available if the Board is interested. He envisioned they would attach possibly a photo with a brief description of each award. Chair Baltay thought it was a great idea and asked staff who the award subcommittee was on staff. Boardmember Thompson stated she was on the subcommittee with Vice Chair Rosenberg. Chair Baltay assigned Boardmember Hirsch and Vice Chair Rosenberg as the new subcommittee for presenting the awards and descriptions as they see fit, anywhere throughout the city. Ms. Raybould stated staff still have the boards from prior years and she would make them available for Boardmember Hirsch after the meeting. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 43     Page 3 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 123 Sherman [21PLN00172]: Recommendation of Approval of a Major Architectural Review Application to Allow Demolition of Four Existing Buildings and Construction of a New 3-story 53,267 Square Foot Office Building With Two Levels of Below-grade Parking. This Project Would also Require a Lot Merger to Merge Three Existing Parcels. Environmental Assessment: An Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration is Available for Public Review Beginning May 5, 2023 and ending June 5, 2023 in Accordance with the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). Zoning District: CC (2)(R). Chair Baltay asked for Boardmember disclosures. Vice Chair Rosenberg disclosed she revisited the site. Chair Baltay disclosed he visited the site. Boardmember Thompson disclosed she visited the site. Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Chen stated they did not revisit the site. Planner Emily Foley provided the staff report for 123 Sherman [21PLN00172] which is a request for major architectural review to allow demolition of two existing office buildings and one existing (vacant) single- family residence to build a primarily office building that will have a smaller retail component and 175 parking spaces and a transportation demand management plan. The project will merge three parcels. The site wraps 2555 Park Boulevard near the Cal Trans California Avenue station and has condominiums on three sides and is near the new public safety building. The ARB previously heard this project on December 1, 2022. Previous Board comments included material depth and color warmth, accessibility and location to retail space, massing/building modulation, potential to accommodate housing in the future, sculptural elements, and additional landscaping/greenery. The staff report will summarize the applicants responses and the applicant will also provide a presentation. Ms. Foley showed several elevation drawings depicting before ARB comments and after ARB comments to highlight the changes that were made from the previous hearing. Primary changes include adding additional dimension to the coping at the top of the parapet, adding the same color to the screening element. The staff report states and shows what appears to be a yellow color over the entry. However, on the material board, it is more of a brown color. The material board is the accurate coloring. Additional detail was added to the green wall and the entrance to the retail space. Ms. Foley Vice Chair Rosenberg stated the iPad was not in sync with what Ms. Foley was showing on the large screen. Chair Baltay requested the presentation be paused for Vice Chair Rosenberg’s screen to be corrected. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that zoom was down, and she was good at looking at the big screen. Ms. Foley continued showing the changes in the elevations. Another primary change is the wooden slat material that was added to the entrance wall at the corner of Park and Sherman. Screening on the Park side wraps around for visibility from the Sherman side, which provides somewhat of a shield for the equipment screening. The balcony railing has additional detail that has been added to the parapet Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 44     Page 4 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 detailing, and taller landscaping has been added to the garage entrance. The change on the north side of the property which faces the Cal Tran station and some residents, is a vine wall over the solid wall on the right. Mechanical screening has been rearranged so that it will have less of a visual impact. There haven’t been design changes on the Grant Avenue side, however the material samples are now included with the material board which provided a clearer design intent. As an office building, the project is subject to the office limit, however there is plenty of space to accommodate the new building. This project is subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) and was analyzed through an initial study and mitigated a negative declaration which is in circulation that started on May 5 and will end on June 5, 2023. Comments received during this time will be responded to as part of the CEQA process. Staff’s recommendation is that the ARB consider the Initial Study/Mitigated Negative Declaration (MND) and recommend approval of the project subject to the Architectural Review findings and conditions of approval to the Director of Planning and Development Services. Chair Baltay thanked Ms. Foley and suggested the applicant provide their presentation and then walk the ARB through their material board, as there is a good amount of new material that he felt was exciting to see. Applicant Lund Smith thanked the Board and staff for all their prior feedback, and all those who have provided comments during community outreach and introduced the architect’s for the project. Ted Korth, Architect, with Amanda Borden and Boyd Smith, provided further details about the landscaping and design changes that Ms. Foley presented to the Board in staff’s presentation, as those changes pertain to the ARB’s original comments. Mr. Korth provided an explanation of what part of the project each material in the material packet is intended, while Vice Chair Rosenberg made notations for the ARB. Chair Baltay opened the meeting for public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Jeff Levinsky provided public comment and stated no copies of the plans or staff report were made available for community members attending the meeting. Additionally, Mr. Levinsky expressed three concerns regarding the parking to include the parking data in the plans don’t seem to agree with the parking data provided in the staff report for both the number of spaces that will be provided, and the number of spaces required. The plans depict a restaurant in the retail space in the building and restaurants require far more parking than stores and the proposed amount of parking falls short of restaurant requirements; and both the plans and the staff report have the City granting a 20% parking reduction for having a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) to the office space and the retail space. A TDM typically provides all employees with subsidized transit passes, carpool aps and free last minute cab rides. That would work for office employees. However, most parking for retail space is for customers and retails stores won’t provide TDMs for customers. Mr. Levinsky stated this warrants the question of why a restaurant would be provided the same 20% parking reduction as that of an office and recalled a previous decision of allowing a reduction of parking in retails spaces and the issues that it caused. Suzanne Steimle provided public comment as a resident that lives ten feet behind the proposed building. She thanked the applicant for adding the rear stairwell on the Sherman Avenue side and inquired if Green Waste had yet weighed in on the traffic route and access to the Palo Alto central garage room at Grant Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 45     Page 5 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Avenue. Grant Avenue is a narrow dead-end street with recycling/trash pick up cumulative for 5 days a week in three different locations near the building. The renderings for R2AB and R3AB seem to be spatially incorrect, the street seems too narrow to allow parking on the street, and the distance from the Pack building to the walls of the street is shorter. The trash route staging plan shows garbage trucks utilizing curb to curb for 123 Sherman. This will be difficult when cars are parked on the street. Having Green Waste evaluate the plans as well is important. Patience Young, Palo Alto homeowner, provided public comment and noted she also submitted her comments via email and stated she supports sensible City planning. Vacant office space is in abundance, which is a good reason to discuss the viability of the project. The architects have listened to the communities concerns and have changed plans accordingly, which is appreciated. Her concerns remain with the local roads not being plotted to meet and carry traffic demands. Park Boulevard is quite busy with a bicycle route and Grant and Sherman are narrow dead-end streets which provide essential parking for 144 homes and garbage removal. Palo Alto Central relies on residence pedestrian gates for deliveries and pick/ups. Many vehicles park on Grant Street while deliveries are made on foot. Green Waste trucks are already challenged with the locations they currently serve in the spaces allotted on Grant street and then returning to Park Boulevard. The drawings of these locations are misleading as the space at the end of Grant Street is quite constricted. This congestion needs attention before construction begins. The north side of the building has been changed to improve privacy; however, it still has floor to ceiling windows, residents had proposed upper wall windows with views of sky and daylight, but not into their patios. Neighbors have been annoyed by the glaring light from the office building at 2555 Park Boulevard and light spill from 123 Sherman could be modified with timed window shades with motion detection light censors or by adjusting the fenestration. Homeowners across Sherman will also be affected by light spill from this project. Renderings of the retail space show some sort of café with no space shown for kitchen, prep space, or deliveries. This proposal relies on TDM, zoning code requires that food service be supported by more parking spaces than are required for retail. The parking formula is still iffy on this project. There are additional comments in the emailed version of her comments regarding the initial plan for this project and utility sources for the building. She appreciates the City’s scrutiny of this project and she’s confident that resolutions to the community’s concerns will be found. Joseph Oorebeek provided public comment as a resident of Palo Alto Central and is concerned about the garbage access and removal of the proposed project. He highlighted that the mixed use on Plan R5 and R6, the windows and balconies of the residential spaces are not highlighted at the corner of Sherman and Park. Those are the residences that will be affected by the sightlines in the offices, and the lights left on during the night. Mitigation will be needed other than just timed shades. He questioned if the parking access for EV chargers will be 24/7 or behind locked gates and if they would be available for public use and what the traffic circulation will look like during the early phases of construction for the 144 residences utilizing Sherman and Grant, particularly with the plans to retrench Grant for the electrical lines. Additionally, plans are not available for potential damage to households in close proximity for vibrations during construction of the parking garage when they dig down two stories. Anoja Herath provided public comment as a resident of Palo Alto Central and thanked the architects and ARB for providing the opportunity for public discussion and expressed concerns regarding the glass glare on the Sherman side and reflecting sunlight during specific times during the day and the transportation Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 46     Page 6 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 plan for this project combined with the other new projects anticipated in the area. She echoed concerns with the cracks that have developed on the building in Phase I, one of the residents had to patch the crack. The noise from the increased traffic will be a challenge for residents who work from home. Chair Baltay closed the meeting to Public Comments and offered the applicant time for rebuttal. Applicant Lund Smith replied to the public comments by thanking them for their input. He heard the concerns about parking, construction, and garbage pick-up on narrow streets and acknowledged those have been challenges they have tried to address those concerns. He will make sure as they begin construction, they will keep all the residents informed. They have had experience developing sites similar to this one and are familiar with the challenges and mitigation for vibrations and cracking during construction and they have a monitoring consultant who will come in and make certain the building is not having impacts on the neighboring residences. It will be monitored throughout the construction phase, as well as the noise pollution caused by equipment. They can provide a schedule of sorts to the residents for extended construction plans, which will provide the residents with advanced notice for high noise pollution from large equipment. Parking has been carefully considered with a robust TDM plan in place. There are still parking concerns for the area, and he noted that they not only consider City parking requirements, but also what is viable for the project. They feel confident that the parking for the office portion and retail portion of the project is adequate. Recent changes in State Law states that parking is not required if a building is within a half mile of a transit station. They are not imposing that, however, mentioned it for those concerned with the number of parking spaces that are proposed. The garage is designed to enter at the ground level and the Electric Vehicle (EV) chargers will be available to the public, the lower two parking levels will be secured for the office building. Ms. Amanda Borden explained the trash consultant with GreenWaste and who confirmed they can still service the residential trash enclosures; however, they will have to back out on to Park Boulevard. The project itself has a loading zone incorporated within the site for trash staging. The trucks will be able to pull into the building and make a three-point turn for a frontal exit onto Park. Mr. Ted Korth explained there will be stencil panels set into the glass in combination with the trees, which provide filtering of the reflection from the building and the view from within the building looking over residential neighbors. Chair Baltay closed the hearing to public comments and opened up questions from the Board. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the shadow boxes on the façade and if the perforated metal aligns with the glass where the opaque white backing is located and if there are any operable windows in the project. Mr. Ted Korth explained that the opaque white panel is in line with the glass and the stencil panel extends about three and a half inches from the glass. The stencil panel will be in front of the glazing. The panels are solid on the sides and will be the same color as the panels. There are no operable windows worked into the project. Boardmember Thompson requested confirmation that there will be a living wall on Park with the vine trellis on the Sherman and Grant sides. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 47     Page 7 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Mr. Korth confirmed that was correct, he would have to confirm with the landscape architect what the vine will be. It’s meant to grow up to the first white band. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the parking count. Ms. Borden responded that the parking count in the plans is correct, in the report it referenced the December 1, 2022 version and the square footage has changed slightly since that time, that is where the 5-space discrepancy was derived. Boardmember Chen asked staff if the retail parking qualifies for a 20% reduction. Ms. Foley responded that there is a TDM plan that was reviewed by the Office of Transportation who confirmed the 20% reduction allowance for both the office and retail use. Boardmember Chen questioned the applicant about the ceiling height difference in the retail space. Mr. Korth stated it is nine feet with a slight gain inside. In the rendering it shows the ceiling plane is the same as the underside of the white band above the first floor. The balconies are above the 1’6” white band that runs around the entire building. It would be possible to raise it as the white band is quite a bit thicker than the concrete slab. Boardmember Chen called out Sheet A4.2B, it seemed the bottom of the balcony is a few more inches lower than the office space. Ms. Borden clarified that the A4.2B is the section just at the balcony where they have to step the slab to put in pedestal pavers, it’s a very small area of the retail, which is where the bottom of the slab will align with the bottom of the white band, which would be nine foot clear. The 9’8” is typical throughout the rest of the space, which is shown on A4.7. Mr. Korth added that in the rendering of the interior the lower area can be seen. Boardmember Chen inquired about the retail trash service on the right side would be moved to the left side where the garbage will be picked up. Ms. Borden confirmed they relocated the office trash towards Sherman, so it is directly adjacent to the staging area, which houses the larger bins. The retail trash is made up of smaller bins that will get pulled across the driveway for pick-up service at the larger bin staging area. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the building is planned for a single office tenant or multiple tenants. Mr. Boyd Smith explained the project is designed to go either way, with an individual tenant per floor. Boardmember Hirsch confirmed there were no windows in the shadow boxes. Mr. Korth confirmed that was correct, there is white paneling on the rear inside of the shadow boxes. Boardmember Hirsch commented that it’s unfortunate the tenants will not get the benefit of the patterned light from the shadow boxes. Mr. Korth explained they felt it would be beneficial to the inside tenants not to have too much glass. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 48     Page 8 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Chair Baltay inquired the actual color behind the metal shades of the shadow boxes. Mr. Korth replied it is the white sample on the material board. The name of the color is bone white, the rendering depicts it accurately. Boardmember Hirsch continued and inquired if the panels were on hinges so they could be accessed for future cleanings and maintenance, and commented the maintenance and cleaning seemed it could be a difficult procedure. Mr. Korth explained the panels were on hinges, they met with a façade maintenance consultant who helped them with how the boxes would be maintained. A lift will be used, and the boxes will open for cleaning and then shut, which is in line with Occupational Safety and Health Act (OSHA) compliance. There will not be planting in front of them. The same applied to the boxes in the residential areas. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the light well that allows light to penetrate into the parking area. Mr. Korth confirmed that was correct. Vice Chair Rosenberg requested clarification on the location of the gate within the parking structure for the secured area, she was not able to locate it in the plans. Ms. Borden explained it is not currently shown in the plans, the space allows for that should the tenant make that request. It would not be right at the entrance. Chair Baltay asked Vice Chair Rosenberg to point out the area she was asking about. Vice Chair Rosenberg explained there will be an interior gate preventing the public from parking in the office area parking, should the tenant have that desire, it is not currently reflected in the plans. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired about the four parking spaces depicted on Grant Road. When you flip between the rendering on R6 and the Trash Staging and Turnabout Plan on TR0.0, the centrally located parking space appears to be an imposition on the trash pathing; if necessary, could that spot be eliminated. Ms. Borden explained at the first community outreach effort there was concern about being able to provide street parking, the rendering is reflecting the spaces without the curb cut, it is not a requirement to maintain that added street parking. Vice Chair Rosenberg shifted her questions to the vibration as related to construction and asked if they knew what type of temp shoring they would be using, or if temp shoring would be required for the site on the residential facing. Mr. Lund Smith stated he wished the contractor had attended the meeting. He’s not sure of the specifics but he does know they have engaged with the consultants, and he has had experience in past projects with shoring when digging down two levels for parking at previous locations and that will be closely monitored. Chair Baltay requested staff go through the parking requirements to eliminate any concerns that had been previously mentioned. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 49     Page 9 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Ms. Foley explained the project did not consider potential restaurant use and stated she will check what that requirement is. Ms. Raybould noted that under Assembly Bill 2097, the City is not allowed to impose any parking requirements for this site, thus there is no minimum parking requirement as of January 1, 2023. The applicants are, however, working towards the City’s Code standards. Chair Baltay was interested in it being stated for the record. Ms. Foley stated the parking requirements for eating and drinking services per Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) 18.52.040 is one space for each 60 sq. feet of service area plus one space for each 200 sq. feet of other areas. The plans do not go to that level of detail in how the space will be allocated. Chair Baltay asked if that would include the outdoor seating area for the café. Ms. Foley stated outdoor seating would count towards floor area which is also not being accounted for currently. Chair Baltay stated if it weren’t for the new State regulation, someone wishing to submit an application for an eating area would have likely been denied. Ms. Foley replied that is correct. Chair Baltay recalled a similar case where the restaurant had to give up the outdoor seating area due to parking constraints and it was an unfortunate situation. For the record, Chair Baltay requested confirmation again that this building does not provide parking that would meet Palo Alto’s current standard for a restaurant. Ms. Foley stated per the TDM 172 parking spaces would be required with the 20% reduction, the applicants are providing 175 spaces. She does not have enough information as to if those three spaces would make or break the success of the project. Chair Baltay asked if the TDM applies to retail, restaurant and office spaces. Ms. Foley answered that TDM applies to the building as a whole and considers shared parking between the mixed uses. Chair Baltay explained that while parking is not under their purview, he wanted the information on record for any future questions. Chair Baltay called the discussion back to the Board as there were no more questions. Boardmember Chen thanked the applicant for his presentation and making the changes that have been made since the prior meeting, there have been many improvements and she liked the colors and the wood slats over the covered plaza, as well as the new designs for the entrances to the office space and retail areas. She appreciated the addition of the living wall. She continued encouragement of increasing the ceiling heights in the retail space, nine feet is too low. The green wall should receive careful consideration on which plants to use as it pertains to the direction both sides are facing. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 50     Page 10 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Boardmember Hirsch thanked the applicant for the presentation and the many ideas that make up the project and commented that the architects managed to hide two of the parking levels below grade but not without consideration for natural light, which is a good idea for below grade parking. The indoor/outdoor areas are creative on each of the floors and those are significant as they will likely be used by many residents. The landscape depicts thoughtfulness in placement planning and the green wall is a great idea and is important for softening the view of the building for the neighboring residents. The panels are a unique idea; however, they would be easier to maintain and an added benefit for pattern lighting if windows were added. The biggest concern is on the Park Boulevard elevation. There are three factors being the plaza, the entry to the office and the green wall. All three are approximately equal dimensions along Park Boulevard and all serve different functions. A great opportunity is being missed by not considering the possibility of giving up some of the office space above the plaza and turning it into an atrium or something of grand nature. It’s too low for its dimension. Unlike the rendering which naturally lights the ground level of the building, the inside of the building won’t get nearly the lighting compared to the outside of the building. It’s a shadowed deep space. If a two-story space was created there could be a good opportunity to create something really nice. That corner is the most significant space in the building. The office entry could go back to where it was originally, and the retail space would be more useful and would stand out more. It could be the organizing element of the whole building, with entries leading to the cafe, retail, the court, or the office areas. The green wall would be improved significantly as you would be able to carry it further across behind the stairwell. It doesn’t make sense to him to have all three elements on the Park side of the building. The screens might be better on some type of track system so they could be moved to provide access behind them without swinging out from side hinges. Chair Baltay requested that Boardmember Hirsch clarify his vision of a redesign of the corner as the Board had previously requested that they relocate the café to the corner of the building. Boardmember Hirsch stated that originally the plans showed the office entry could be accessed when entering the Park side and turning right and the commercial was straight ahead. It’s possible to bring the commercial further forward and the concern about the ceiling height is not as significant when entering it from a two-story entry space. His assumption is that there must have been a zoning constraint otherwise there wouldn’t have been any issues with making the first floor higher. The objective standards have a much higher requirement for first floor commercial heights than what is being proposed. Boardmember Thompson thanked the applicant for the presentation and the members of the public for speaking on the item. She appreciates the changes that were made per the ARB’s suggestions and the suggestions of the public. The wood slat entry looks really nice, the living wall locations look really great. She initially didn’t realize the screens on the upper levels were solid and thought there would be glass behind them; however, she does appreciate that there is solid on the façade versus a full curtain wall from start to finish. In general, she could recommend approval for the project, the comment about the 9’ ceiling height is a bit of a sticking point, potentially, the first level of parking doesn’t look like it has stackers, and it could get lower, which would allow a sunken courtyard type area which in turn would provide extra height. A lot of the design elements such as the verticality of the wood would help with making the space feel taller, her recollection is there was a restriction on building height. Overall, the project is appropriate in the area. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 51     Page 11 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Thompson if she had any to add to her comment about operable windows. Boardmember Thompson said it would be great if there were operable windows as it would be great if the building could perform without a mechanical system at some point in the future. She is usually consistent with that opinion with most curtain wall office buildings. There is a lot of opportunity to add an operable wall and still maintain a seal. They developed some good tectonics with the half height perforated screens around the balconies and the half height solid shadow boxes in the back. If they could incorporate operable walls in the façade, it would be a great benefit for the longevity of the project. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the applicant, she appreciated the presentation, and she does feel like they took the Board’s previous comments seriously and made some significant changes. Thank you to the public for their comments, she appreciated the organization and thoughtfulness of their input both in person and online. A lot of the comments that came up today aren’t very architecturally related such as the construction process, which is noisy and messy and inconvenient, but it is part of the process. She appreciates that the applicant has a vibration consultant they can work with and encourages that as part of their process moving forward. It is a valid concern. She encourages good communication with the neighbors with the scheduling of things like blocked roads, heavy equipment usage et cetera. Parking concerns have been noted, it was stated clearly by Ms. Raybould what the actual issue was, so she is comfortable with parking. Her only comment regarding parking is she would like to see the center parking space on Grant removed. If it were blocked off, it would ensure the traffic turnaround is accessible at all times and it would solve any concerns with turning the trash trucks around. In terms of architecture the improvements that have been made are quite lovely. She does not share similar concerns about the plate heights and believes the 9’ plate height is adequate, considering the proportion of the retail space and the use of the retail space is still unknown. Imposing strict standards on something that is unknown seems unfair at this time. She sincerely appreciates the relocation of the café doors and likes the bench and the warm wood wall; it enhances the space. She noted Boardmember Hirsch’s concerns about that being a dark corner, ensuring good lighting in that space with consideration to daytime versus nighttime is important. She likes the office entry on park, it’s a proud sort of entrance and finds it charming. She appreciates the parapet wall addition and the color change, and she agrees that it would be nice to see those panels from the inside. She understands why the solid panel was put in that space; however, it would be nice to have just a few additional ones that you can see from the inside. Even if it’s just a couple panels over windows so you get an inside/outside effect. Chair Baltay commented he generally supports the comments that have been made and wanted to flag three items they may want to consider further; one is the plate heights. Nine foot eight is fine, but they are talking about a structural 9’8, there is always finish underneath, they were pointing to the wood slats, there’s typically wiring, plumbing, sprinkler systems and things like that which often bring it down even as much as twelve inches, and 8’8 is certainly not acceptable for a retail space in a new building. Boardmember Hirsch is correct in that the Objective Standards require something taller, and he doesn’t see why they wouldn’t hold to that standard. He doesn’t believe the issue is that they can’t make the whole building taller, but rather that they have to make the offices shorter, and that’s the trade off an applicant has to make. The second concern has to do with the panels in the large windows, it’s related to many of the comments they’ve heard repeatedly from the public about light spillover. They are tall pieces Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 52     Page 12 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 of glass that will be lit up at night. It’s an established residential area, they need to find some solution to mitigate the light. He agrees the sliding panels would be wonderful if you could see them from the inside as well. The white color behind it is quite bright. Those panels are at least 50% transparent. He’s concerned the building has too much brightness for the residents that are close. He share’s Boardmember Thompson’s opinion that if it’s possible, make operable windows. It’s preferable, particularly on nice days. Many buildings around the world are using operable windows as a way of improving the environment for tenants. The first big item Chair Baltay asked the Board to discuss is Boardmember Hirsch’s request to reconsider the entry on the corner. That’s also related to the plate heights of the building, which several Boardmembers have expressed concerns about. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the panels that could be used at the corner could be the yellow color which is the warm accent color versus the standard grey. That’s one element that could happen at the corner. The perforated metal could be used to pull the space down if they were to create a double story space. The whole space has the potential of becoming a major entry space, both to the retail which could move forward some, and the entry to the office lobby which could share in some of the two-story space as well. Chair Baltay confirmed the suggestion is the corner become a two-story space that incorporates entrances to both commercial and office space and asked the other Boardmembers opinions. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the ARB is tasked with making sure there is beautiful architecture in Palo Alto and not to design the buildings for the clients. While she thinks it would be beautiful, she is hesitant to impose it on the applicant given this is already the second hearing. Chair Baltay commented he agrees with Vice Chair Rosenberg. Boardmember Chen stated she also agrees with Vice Chair Rosenberg and Chair Baltay, but she could see the benefit from what is being suggested. If the office and retail switched the spaces, the bike storage would be closer to the office lobby as well. Currently there’s a fair walk from the bike storage to the office space. Boardmember Thompson stated she’s not in favor of Boardmember Hirsch’s suggestion. She’s in love with the wood slats and can’t support paint over something that’s more biophilic like wood. The area that’s really being vocalized with great accents is the ground floor with the living wall and the wood slats, a lot of connections to nature. Bringing more green accents up higher would also help with some of the reflectivity concerns. In terms of rearranging the entrance for the office, she agrees with Vice Chair Rosenberg, it makes sense on the façade to keep it where it is and create a deep cave type pocket, it’s cozy with open corners on two sides. She understands the objective standards don’t permit retail heights that are lower, however, the other element of this is if the applicant things it makes sense to deviate that, they can bring it before the ARB and they can reconsider a lower height, subjectively. She’s happier with what’s in front of them now. Chair Baltay summarized he’s not hearing a consensus regarding the corner and moved forward with the discussion of the height of the first floor. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 53     Page 13 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg requested staff remind the Board what the Objective Standards require for a plate height or a ceiling height of a retail space. Manager of Current Planning Jodie Gerhardt asked if the Board would like the applicant to walk the Board through the different floor levels. Chair Baltay believed they did that at the last meeting, he first wanted to hear what the required height for retail space is as stated in the Objective Standards. Boardmember Hirsch stated he believes it’s either fourteen or fifteen feet. Boardmember Chen agreed that was what she remembered. Boardmember Hirsch added that in addition to any sprinklers, duct work and any AC mechanical would also cut into that space, which is the reason for that height. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that on sheet A3.1A, the top elevation labeled 3, proposed south elevation at Park Boulevard, you can see the building next door versus the proposed building and this building’s floor plates are a little but shorter than the existing building, but they are not six feet lower. Going from a 14’ plate to a 9’ plate would dramatically change the building. Chair Baltay questioned Vice Chair Rosenberg if they used the terms on the drawings of 10’6” floor to floor, the Board understands what that means to the inside, would she be able to support that. Boardmember Thompson noted in the same drawing the other floors appear to be 11’9”, maybe they should ask 11’9” on the ground level and maybe the upper level be shorter. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested the top floors be reduced to eleven feet and put the additional 18” on the first floor. Boardmember Chen suggested asking for twelve feet. Boardmember Hirsch stated he’s going to have to vote against the rest of the Board because he’s not in favor of the project as presently designed. He’d like to increase the nature wall further on the face of the building and that’s possible if a different entry were created to the office space. He agrees twelve feet is a good compromise. Chair Baltay requested the applicant come forth and explain why they believe the request is not reasonable. Mr. Boyd Smith explained he’s already losing sleep over the ceiling height on the second and third floor. If they can’t lease the office space, they can’t build the building. They are already two or three feet shorter than a typical office space with the current design. There was a zoning change mid process that lowered the building from 37 to 35 feet, trying to accommodate three floors is really tough. They’ve spent a lot of time on the potential café area, trying to determine how they could make it work. A kitchen space in a café is going to be 25’ to 30’ deep, which leaves another 30-40 feet of actual space at 9’8”. The ducting can be run along the sides, so it won’t encroach further into the 9’8”. They are at their limit in terms of ceiling height. They are confident it will be a nice delightful retail space, which includes floor to floor glass, Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 54     Page 14 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 vertical elements inside and ducting that is tucked into naturally lower spots of the buildout. He can’t build the building if he can’t lease the office space. Chair Baltay commented that now is the time to compromise, the ARB will likely suggest something taller. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the Board is asking the first floor to be notably taller, which would dramatically change to their potential viability of the project over a quarter of the square footage of the first floor. Most of the first floor is parking. She wanted to point out they are asking for something pretty dramatic in what appears to be about one-fourth of the footprint of the first floor. Chair Baltay stated that is their choice to decide if they want a flat plate building or they raise higher on the corner. Architects can vary things. Boardmember Thompson asked the Chair if they could ask Planning why the height was reduced by two feet. Ms. Foley explained that it had to do with the proximity to the residential area, having to do with the CN District. Ms. Gerhardt explained that City Council had clarified that in years past the City had a code section that talked about within fifty feet and within 150 feet there had to be a lower height limit and that was very confusing to everyone involved, Council clarified that there now needs to be the lower height limits within 150 feet of residential property. Ms. Foley referenced Code 18.16.060 Table III, “portions of a site within 150 feet of abutting residential district, other than a PC zone, has a maximum height of thirty-five feet.” Mr. Lund Smith followed up that the item was presented to Council a year prior to the change, they had already designed the building at thirty-seven feet, it made it tricky to manage the change to thirty-five feet, they did everything they could possibly do to shrink the building, they are confident the retail will lease at the proposed height as there are many buildings in and outside of Palo Alto that have retail space that is not fourteen feet high, and have the 9’8” clear. It doesn’t have to be a café; it could be a different retail. Mr. Korth added that the other thing making the building a little different is there are no beams on the ceiling. Many buildings with fourteen feet ceiling height have added beams. This building is designed as a concrete structure with columns that are thirty feet apart, which allows the flat plate height. Chair Baltay continued the discussion with the Boardmembers and stated he believes they should request 11’6” floor to floor on the ground level. He believes that is a fair compromise given everything he heard. Boardmember Hirsch commented he disagreed because it’s clear they have limitations they can’t overcome. Those limitations being caused by the change in the zoning, and the Board should be cognizant of that, and again suggested raising the corner, if that is raised, you could certainly accept a lower retail area. If he’s the only person that recognizes that’s a good idea, then he would recommend the Board accepts the applicants explanation. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 55     Page 15 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she’s in agreement with Boardmember Hirsch in that the project clearly had to deal with a code change midstream. She was very hesitant to completely derail the project based on a retail space that the ARB specifically requested and imposed on the project to some extent, and the applicants made that change. Additionally, the fact that it is a quarter of the footprint of the entire ground floor, while the remaining portion is parking, and the applicant is providing when it is not required, she found it difficult to support raising the floor height for retail space that could potentially make the project unfeasible. Boardmember Chen commented that she understands the challenges the applicant faced, and the ARB needed to work with those, however, she wondered if it would be feasible to have multiple smaller retailers in smaller spaces, which would allow the current ceiling height to work with the size of the spaces. Chair Baltay commented that’s not currently on the table. Boardmember Chen stated she prefers the taller space for the retail but could get on board with some of the other suggestions that were voiced, which could make the project more acceptable at the current height. The office space facing Park doesn’t have a great entrance, but it has a two-story high interior space. If the office and retail were switched, the office space would have a more welcoming plaza, and it wouldn’t need the two-story high foyer. Ideally the retail should have a higher ceiling, however she has no idea how to solve it, which is why she supported Boardmember Hirsch’s suggestions. Vice Chair Rosenberg added the lost floor area would be 1,044 square feet if they raised the foyer to two levels. Boardmember Thompson commented that regardless of the suggestion made by Boardmember Hirsch and the ARB’s suggestion, they are still asking the applicant to sacrifice some of their office space. The applicant made it clear that the project isn’t viable if that office space is sacrificed. She liked the suggestion of varying the height along the first level given that the retail space is a smaller percentage of the whole floor plate and if that piece could be raised just a little. She doesn’t love the idea of a two-story entrance. It doesn’t make sense since none of the other buildings have that feature, and it would be a lower scale across the whole area. Her suggestion is to ask the applicant to study it as part of a subcommittee item, raising just one part of the floor plate. Any type of addition to the ceiling space to make it work. She wouldn’t want it to affect the façade on the front, that would also have to be part of the study. She doesn’t want this issue to hold up the process. In this very specific case, a smaller height could work for a retail space. Chair Baltay stated he was not hearing a consensus to ask the applicant to have a higher floor plate on the retail space so moved to the next item for discussion, the windows under the panels, and asked the applicant to offer possible solutions for adding more windows and in turn creating more opacity for the neighbors. Mr. Korth explained they made the wall behind the stencil panels solid, but there is an interest in having glass behind those as well, which is contradictory. They could add more of the panels and have them be opaque; or add two or three more per floor so there will be enough window area to have a nice interior space. Some of the screens could be added and have them open for natural lighting. It could be a Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 56     Page 16 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 combination of any of those with Boardmember Hirsch’s idea as a way of reducing the amount of glass on the project and still maintain natural light. Chair Baltay stated in past projects the ARB has requested interior shades on distinct timing systems and some fairly strict regulations about how they function and inquired if that could work. Mr. Boyd Smith stated they would be happy to study and consider that. They have never done that before. Chair Baltay asked staff if there was a building on Page Mill Road, the Butterfly building, that did that. Staff could look into how they regulated that building. It was a similar building with tall windows facing a neighborhood. Boardmember Thompson commented that Chair’s comment about the backing of the shadow boxes looked too white, the sides are opaque so there’s no actual light coming in from the side. The only light that would be emitted off the panels would be the incidental sunlight that gets through the metal that then reflects back through the metal. Those boxes within themselves won’t really be a reflectivity issue. There’s so little of the white in general, she’s not concerned about the reflectivity. It seemed a bigger issue could potentially be the reflectivity from the glass, and possibly more vines/plants would help with that on the upper levels. Boardmember Hirsch believes the Chair’s suggestion is a good one and the shades would probably be sufficient on the inside of the building, and it would be a way of eliminating any neighborhood concerns, in conjunction with the outside panels. Chair Baltay commented that if they had shades on the outside under the panels the building could be completely glass. Boardmember Chen agreed that shades help and what is being proposed she is not concerned about the reflectivity issue. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that her biggest challenge with reflectivity would be on the north side elevation and there is already a system of paneling, white or glazing would only differentiate between a privacy issue and not a brightness issue. Between the buildings there may be a need for paneling, where the residences would be located, to prevent privacy issues. The interior shades would completely handle that. Chair Baltay noted consensus for interior shading and moved into the concern about operable windows, and asked the Board if there was consensus of that being something they should require. All Boardmembers agreed that would be a good request of the applicant. Chair Baltay asked staff how they had addressed that in a prior project. Ms. Gerhardt responded that it was asked to return to an ad hoc committee to discuss the elevations. Boardmember Thompson commented that there was one other item they might consider getting consensus on: adding some perforated metal over glass. It might be worthwhile to ask the applicant to study adding more of the perforated metal panels over glass so there is a bit of filtered light inside the Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 57     Page 17 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 building. If the Board asks the applicant to add operable windows this item may be part of that elevation update. Boardmember Chen stated she could support that. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she could support that as well. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Chair Baltay stated there was consensus on having that as part of the ad hoc committee review. Ms. Foley requested clarification and asked if that was instead of glass or having a mix of that and glass. Boardmember Thompson responded it would be a mix of solid and glass. Chair Baltay expressed concern that the ARB would like to have a café at the location and asked staff if it would be possible to somehow entitle the project with the café being an intended future use, and the parking would be deemed satisfactory for a café. Ms. Foley replied that would be something they could study for the ad hoc. All ARB members supported that suggestion. Boardmember Thompson commented that she heard based on State Law it didn’t matter. Chair Baltay agreed, but he wanted it in the record so it couldn’t be changed again. Ms. Raybould commented that she is unsure if the project was analyzed as a food service establishment and there are requirements under Title 5 of the Palo Alto code that is related to food service establishments. Most of those things relate to the interior and are resolved at the tenant improvement stage at building permit. They would also need feedback from the Zero Waste team and water quality division as part of that review if that change were made. Chair Baltay stated the plans have café posted over the space, that’s a pretty clear intent and expectation. MOTION: Boardmember Hirsch, seconded by Boardmember Chen to deny the project. Chair Baltay requested a roll call vote. VOTE: 2-3-0-0 (NOES: Baltay, Thompson, Rosenberg) The motion did not carry. MOTION: Boardmember Thompson moved, Vice Chair Rosenberg seconded that the ARB recommend approval of the project subject to the conditions and findings with the following to return to an Ad Hoc Committee for review: the feasibility study of a café or restaurant use as it relates to the corner TDM, the applicant’s study adding operable windows to the façade and additional perforated metal screens without an opaque backing, the addition of automatic shades to the interior for night filtering of light to adjacent residences, and the study of adding as much height as possible to the ground level for the retail space. Chair Baltay requested a roll call vote. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 58     Page 18 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 VOTE: 3-2-0 (NOES: Hirsch, Chen) Boardmember Hirsch spoke to his descent by stating he feels a great opportunity is being missed by not considering the higher foyer and he hoped it could have been a study that returned to the Ad-Hoc as an alternative possibility as it’s related to the building as a whole and could change the effect of the lower ceiling heights. Boardmember Chen stated the proper ceiling height related to the size of the space and the function of the retail space, and highly recommended the applicant do more study on the space planning to see if there are other possibilities. The ARB took a 12-minute break. The meeting continued with all ARB Boardmembers present. 3. Continuation of a Study Session to Review and Discuss the City's Local Objective Standards for Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits Previously Approved by Council Along with the City’s SB 9 Interim Ordinance 5538. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. For More Information Contact Amy French at Amy.French@cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay introduced the item as a continuation from a previous meeting for a study session to Review and Discuss the City's Local Objective Standards for Senate Bill 9 (SB 9) Residential Units and Urban Lot Splits Previously Approved by Council Along with the City’s SB 9 Interim Ordinance 5538. There is a staff report and Boardmember Hirsch has asked for a few minutes to present some thoughts he had and Chair Baltay requested thirty minutes on each of the three sections for comments and possible closure on the discussions. There will be opportunity for public comments after the staff report. Senior Planner Amy French provided a brief summary of where the ARB left off in their discussions. This is the third meeting, and the standards are from the Individual Review (IR) guidelines for two-story homes and second floor additions that were translated for the purpose of creating objective standards for Senate Bill (SB) 9 projects. They are not design review standards, they are privacy, mass, and streetscape. The ARB is accustomed to having design standards and this is not that. Ms. French explained the images for guidelines 3, 4, and 5 that were requested by the ARB, which include key points that were extracted from the individual reviews of each item and transferred to the Objective Standards by City Council last year. Guideline three relates to form and roof lines. Guideline 4 relates to façades and entries; Guideline 5 relates to privacy. Chair Baltay asked if there were public comments and there were none. Boardmember Hirsch put together a slide show which reflected both modern and historical buildings because he believes it’s critical to make specific design decisions in SB 9 based on the reality of what is available to see in Palo Alto. He offered the samples in the slides because there were so many comments regarding roof lines and daylight planes and suggested everyone read the book “Zoning Ordinance Technical Manual for Single Family Resident Zoning”. Vice Chair Rosenberg interjected it is available online for whoever wants to read it. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 59     Page 19 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Boardmember Hirsch stated it is a book created by seven people in 2006 with significant aspects dependent upon measurements and actual calculations. Boardmember Hirsch showed twenty photos he took of various properties around Palo Alto and explained the different design concepts. He believes the SB 9 requirements ought to look like the ordinance that was created in 2006 where all of the regulations are formed from mathematical requirements, daylight planes, setbacks requirements, and rear-yard dimensions, and side-yard dimensions; all of which are very specific and nothing that would lead to limitations in design other than those regulations. Ms. Gerhardt thanked Boardmember Hirsch for the compliments on the tech manual, she was not involved in that but also appreciates that document and finds it very helpful when talking about single- story homes that need to adhere to developmental standards. The SB9 regulations today are most related to the individual review guidelines that are currently subjective and have been converted to be objective as part of SB 9, and asking the ARB look at those and see if staff has lined them up properly with individual review guidelines; or if any changes need to be made. SB 9 objective standards need to be considered along with the IR guidelines as those are already in place, adopted and staff is not looking to make changes to those discretionary standards at this time. Chair Baltay requested Ms. French lead the ARB discussion by explaining the key points under Guideline 3 for forms and roof lines. The key points (on Packet page 57) translated into the objective standards include garage and mass and entry points, roof form variation, roof pitch variation and rooflines in Eichler tracks. Boardmember Thompson posed a question about the key points not being verbatim from the IR to the crosswalks of the objective standards. Ms. French explained it is likely abbreviated for the presentation crosswalks; these were the crosswalks that were presented to City Council. Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified there’s a difference in the verbiage from slide 2 and 3. Boardmember Thompson gave a specific example and stated she’s been basing her comments off of the crosswalks, however if there was more design intent, she needed to make that adjustment. Ms. French stated she can not explain the difference. Vice Chair Rosenberg would like to urge the ARB to remember this is specifically related to SB 9 and higher density with tighter setbacks, so the focus is on privacy, daylighting, airflow, and things like that. Her comments for Guideline 3 include Guideline 3.1 and 4.1 have some relation to each other in terms of entry height and visual façade focal points. She has always had an issue with the twelve-foot height over the entryways, she understands why they are there; however, she believes that is applicable in smaller, tighter and more dense residences. In 3.2, the roof pitch variation, no more than two roof pitches will be depicted might be a bit restrictive in cases of curved roofs, does a curved roof apply as a roof pitch. Her question regarding incomplete roof forms was if it applied to cutouts. Do truncated roofs support cut outs. No more than two bay windows on elevations facing streets is too restrictive, but she understands they are deferring to IR rules as much as possible. Her biggest concern is with contextual roof pitch under 3.5A. She believes it is overly restrictive and should be eliminated. A great example would be Boardmember Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 60     Page 20 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Hirsch’s example in photo number two. It’s a cottage style house and by keeping the roof pitch steep, they are reducing the bulk of the building. Her only suggestion for item 3 amendment would be to eliminate items 3.5A. Boardmember Chen commented regarding item 3.2, all the working is fine for her. Her question was when there are four units on a single lot, if there are two roof line forms, would it apply to each unit or all four units on a single lot. She would like to see consistent and believes it should be per lot and not per unit. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed. Boardmember Chen commented that under 3.4A she has seen examples of longer elevations on one side and has seen examples of this on sides and at entries and at the garage. Possibly amend it to say no more than three gables for corner lots. Boardmember Hirsch commented that based on what he showed it’s limited based on roof forms. He questions why there are only two roof forms allowed, and what is the restriction that requires only two roof forms. It should read that anything within the daylight plane is allowable. Several roof forms are possible. No more than two roof pitches, same thing, anything should be a limitation of 2-4 or 2-3, only two is too restrictive. The Eichler tracks she defers to Boardmember Thompson. He does not believe they should be bothered with truncated roof lines, and they should not be permitted on two-story structures. Same with gable roof lines, it is very specific and not subject to the opportunities to do whatever is reasonable. Bay window limitations on elevations facing a public street; again, no reason to limit it to just two. Adding a third would allow an option for more variety. Roof pitches should be another addition. All of his examples should be added, not limited to subtracting them. Boardmember Thompson echoed the other Boardmember thoughts and didn’t understand truncated roof form. The IR guideline makes no mention of it and architects generally don’t do that unless they need to. Referring to 3.2A, having no more than two types of roof forms, her original thoughts were similar to Boardmember Hirsch regarding that restriction, however for just this Objective standard, she could be convinced that limitation served a purpose. For 3.4, she believes that restriction is based on the size of the lot and the proportion of the buildings. The intent is to deviate from clutter and limiting it to a certain number might not be the best way to go about that objectively. It might be better to go about that based on proportion. Chair Baltay stated on 3.1A it should say “maximum height of a roof over a single-story attached garage”. It seems if there were a second story over the garage that item would be removing that option. The 12’ in height is intended to trigger whether it counts twice as FAR, which is the proper way to limit it. If an architect wants to have it taller, they are paying a penalty in other aspects of the design to justify that. It should be stricken, as it’s already limited through the FAR calculation. On item 3, they should define what they mean by roof form. Maybe say “primary roof form” and make a definition. There are many times there’s a small dormer bay window, a little pop out over a kitchen when they want to achieve something different. He agrees that major elements should be the same. Ms. Foley requested clarification about what was meant by roof form. In this case it was supposed to be style of roof, like hip gable, flat, not necessarily the number of roofs that the building has. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 61     Page 21 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Chair Baltay stated he realized that. His suggestion was it gets defined as the primary roof element. The building typically has only one or two primary elements, maybe a gable end, and a hip mixing up on the top. However, there might be another small one over a kitchen bay window with a curved copper dormer element. It’s a roof element and a different shape. The wording of this currently would prohibit that. If a determination is made between which are decorative and which are primary elements it wouldn’t. Boardmember Chen’s suggestion of making it per property is too restrictive. If there’s an ADU in the back and you want a totally different architectural style that should not be prohibited. There’s nothing in the standards that prohibit it now, why should that be introduced. It would allow more flexibility if it were per building or structure. On 3.3A, incomplete roof form is an overreach, and it should be struck altogether. There are too many cases where that would be a problem, when it’s not a problem now. Gable roof forms and bay windows, Boardmember Thompson suggestion is the proper way to handle that. He supports it the way it is. Contextual roof pitch, the daylight plan regulates it effectively. Letting one building make that determination for another building seem wrong. The architect should be allowed to determine the roof pitch to fit the design. Back to 3.1, the only comment he heard was about it being a single-story garage element and striking the second one altogether. All Boardmembers supported that. Regarding roof form variation, Boardmember Hirsch indicated there should be no requirements on this one. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she liked Chair Baltay suggestion of a primary roof form variation. It makes sense to have two forms for primary with a definition of what primary is which opens the option for decorative. It could be defined as two primary roof variation with primary covering 75% of the floor area. Chair Baltay asked if there was support for Boardmember Hirsch idea of no regulations. Boardmember Thompson stated she could support having some regulation. Boardmember Chen stated she liked Chair Baltay’s idea of defining the primary roof form. But for a single- family zone it should still require some consistency on a small lot. Chair Baltay summarized he heard there should be some restriction on roof forms overall. Boardmember Thompson added that she also heard Chair Baltay say they should not restrict an ADU. Chair Baltay said if they are going to decide there should be some restriction, they next would need to determine if it should be per building or per property. It’s important to keep in mind they are not creating a design standard for every house. This is a restrictive standard for SB9 lot projects, which is already going to be a small percentage of what’s being done overall. An applicant always has the option to take it to the Individual Review process if they want to get more creative with the project. It’s wise to keep tighter guardrails on the item. He respected Boardmember Hirsch’s thoughts, but he believed there should be some form of regulation. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented she would agree with that for increased density as it’s related to proximity. Boardmember Hirsch believed they should allow more than two. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 62     Page 22 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Chair Baltay asked if the restriction should be per building or per property. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented she believed per building. Chair Baltay believed per building. Boardmember Hirsch agreed, per building. Boardmember Thompson agreed as well, per building. She’s not sure she wants restrictions, but if there are, it should be per building. Boardmember Chen explained that SB 9 pertains to urban development, so the lot sizes will not be large. On a six thousand square foot lot or large, there needs to be some consistency for different units. However, instead of allowing only two types of roof forms, they can increase it to three. Boardmember Hirsch stated he would agree with Boardmember Chen. Some regulation is okay for the roof form. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she’s for regulation. Boardmember Thompson commented she’s in the minority but that’s okay. Boardmember Chen continued to believe the regulation should be per property, with an increased number allowed. Boardmember Thompson stated she prefers per building. Vice Chair Rosenberg made the argument that if it was allowed to be varied per building, there will be more variation seen. If it’s per property, they will find there will be little clusters of 4 houses that looked like they were developed as opposed to crafted. Allowing it per building allows for more variation. Boardmember Thompson commented that it might also help with contextualizing the properties. Boardmember Chen raised the point that with an ADU, all four wouldn’t necessarily be built at the same time and one may go in after the others with a completely different type of roof form. Chair Baltay inquired from staff if an additional project went in after the SB 9 project, if the new project would then fall under the IR process. Ms. Foley stated it is correct they wouldn’t have to build out the entire floor area, however because SB 9 units do count towards property area, if more units were allowed, there would not be additional floor area bonuses allowed. Staff didn’t feel there would be much opportunity for them to expand again after the SB 9 project is built, however if they were, they would fall under whatever rules were in place at the time of the addition, and the rules to change often. Chair Baltay asked if it should stay at two or increase to three. All Boardmembers agreed they should be increased to three. Chair Baltay inquired about the suggestion of defining the difference between primary and decorative roof forms. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 63     Page 23 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and questioned if a limit of three would be enough to cover that. All Boardmembers started to leave it at three . Chair Baltay summarized the limit would be per building with three types of roof forms and three roof pitches are possible. Regarding item 3.3, incomplete roof forms, he and Boardmember Hirsch said no, Boardmember Thompson stated architects don’t do it. Vice Chair Rosenberg believed 3.3A should be stricken. It’s overly restrictive. A Barn style building would want that. Boardmember Chen agreed. Chair Baltay stated 3.3A should be removed. Gable roof forms is suggested as no more than three gable roof forms facing the street and no more than two bay windows with Boardmember Chen suggesting a corner lot exception and Boardmember Hirsch wanted an allowance for three bay windows and Boardmember Thompson questioned if it should be proportional. Vice Chair Rosenberg the intent is to avoid an overly cluttered design, so she would leave it as it is and make sure that dormers are accepted. As far as bay windows are concerned, it should be proportionate and say no more than 40% of the façade could be bay windows. The number isn’t the potential issue, the proportion of the façade is. Boardmember Chen stated she’s not convinced on the width because it could depend on the width of the first floor or second floor. Boardmember Thompson stated the intent is about clutter, maybe rather than go by proportion, state a maximum number. Boardmember Hirsch stated he likes the percentage idea, it’s a reasonable compromise. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated it’s already done for several other material items at 35% of the facade, bay windows could be added to that list. Boardmember Thompson inquired if that measurement was from the deviation of the flat plane. Vice Chair Rosenberg responded yes. Chair Baltay shared in his experience, he’s found it becomes a nightmare to try to figure out how to calculate a percentage of façade for a treatment. He believes it should be kept more simple. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed that was fair enough. Chair Baltay stated he’s in favor of leaving it at two and he’s fine with three gable forms. Boardmember Hirsch stated he’s for 40% of the surface area of the façade. Boardmember Thompson stated that 40% seems like a large area for bay windows. That’s also for façade modulation too. If all of this is restricted, are they then asking for flat façades. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 64     Page 24 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she agrees with all of that, and she’s convinced no more than three bay windows with a little less restriction and keep it simple. For 3.4A, she’d like to see the words “dormers accepted” added. Boardmember Thompson stated she agrees with that. Boardmember Hirsch stated he can support that. Boardmember Chen stated she agrees with that. Chair Baltay stated he supports that as well and moved on to contextual roof pitch. He heard three Boardmembers said it should be eliminated altogether. Boardmember Chen agreed. Boardmember Thompson stated in the IR guidelines it doesn’t say anything about adjacent. She’s going back to what’s not in the crosswalk but what’s in the IR guidelines. Chair Baltay stated that it does but in a more descriptive way. It states you have to line up eaves heights and look to the architects to look for other design elements to provide continuity. Boardmember Thompson added “where beneficial”. Chair Baltay it’s extremely difficult to objectify how to make a building compatible with it’s neighbor. He believes it’s not necessary when the daylight plane covers that. Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Boardmember Thompson agreed to remove it. Chair Baltay summarized the Board is unanimous in removing 3.5A as well. Chair Baltay asked Ms. French to cover section IV. Ms. French explained the IR Crosswalk for Guideline 4 on Packet pages 51 and 52, which included four sections A-D under Keypoint III, two relating to Keypoint IV and V. Her presentation did not include Keypoints I and II, new façades focal points and façade composition. Both are listed on Packet page 51. Boardmember Thompson commented that 4.1A seemed arbitrary to have a 50’ glazing large window as the focal point. It might make sense to suggest an accident feature such as massing or a door that is a different shade of color. Under item 4.3A window frames, she didn’t understand why the trim needed to be a minimum of 3.5” wide; it seems like a wide trim, particularly since the intent is to have distinctive eaves, patterns, shapes, and groupings. She didn’t believe 4.3B seemed necessary, with a suggestion to strike the item. Item 4.5A, garage door panel matching the design of the entry door or window fenestration, also didn’t seem to make much sense and she suggested striking that item as well. . Many people like to differentiate their front door. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that item 4.1AB, roof support depth and width, might not be possible due to possible tight entrances. The 12” tall is covered in 3.1, it doesn’t need to be listed again. She would change B comment to read “a roofed or trellised porch at entry door and leave it alone. She agreed with Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 65     Page 25 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Boardmember Thompson’s comments about 4.1A being arbitrary. Item 4.2A, window alignment, the vertical alignment requirement should be struck. The Cottage example from Boardmember Hirsch’s examples were a perfect example where those would not align, and it doesn’t matter. It’s overly restrictive for potentially small buildings. She would change 4.2B to three feet in height and three feet horizontally apart due to tighter spaces if it’s kept. Regarding window trim she believes the intent is to keep people from having no trim which looks cheap. She would rather see a lower minimum than 3.5”. She doesn’t mind the recessed options, but she doesn’t want to strike it altogether and the same with 4.3B. It’s the simulated divided lights and the muntin bars. When they are between the panes of glass it looks cheaper. It's trying to maintain a quality of aesthetics that Palo Alto is trying to maintain. Contextual entries on 4.4A, this might not be possible. It’s a good intent however, there may not be space; she would delete that item. 4.5A she agrees is overly restrictive and can be scratched. Boardmember Hirsch doesn’t believe it’s necessary to have focal points on every house. Using that terminology suggests too many possibilities. He would eliminate the item. If any of the A’s or B’s are going to be discussed, it should be a variation of amounts and percentages, not specific numbers; “should be at least fifty feet…” there are situations where there will be no glazing. There’s a lot of conflict on standards that are reasonable standards. An example would be the Spanish style houses. Regarding window alignments should be vertical is a definite no. There are many situations where windows do not align, it should be removed. Façade elements shall be spaced at 5” could be less. The suggestion of 3” is reasonable. Boardmember Hirsch doesn’t like the wording of “shall be”, it needs to read “a minimum of”. Window frames being minimal doesn’t apply for steel window frames. That won’t work unless the use of steel window frames is eliminated. It would need to be wooded differently and use a minimum of. To say all sides of window are the same isn’t how that works. Window fenestration with divided light, Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Divided lights should be all the way through. He was fine with the Eichler item and very bothered by porch entries. That’s more of a deed restriction which isn’t allowed for ADU additions. There are regulations of that nature for specific neighborhoods of specific character, not additions on single-family properties. He prefers variation and believes that should be stricken. Garage doors have been discussed and it makes no sense to bring them up again. Ms. Gerhardt cautioned that there have been projects that came through with beautiful front doors and the cheapest garage doors. Chair Baltay added that’s a point well taken. Boardmember Chen stated she’s fine with 4.1, it’s similar to what the IR guidelines already are. For 4.2A, she agrees with all the Boardmembers regarding alignment. She also agrees three feet is a good number 4.2B, however where it says large window, large window can be very subjective. For item 4.4A, she believes it should align with what is required by the IR process, so it is fine. Item 4.5A is too restrictive to match the materials and the colors. However, for panel design, it would be good if it matched the entry door, particularly on the craftsman and garage door styles. Vice Chair Rosenberg doesn’t believe it should match the color or the door necessarily. Chair Baltay stated listening to everyone has helped him to home in on two in particular. In general, requiring a focal point is overreach. In small buildings occasionally people try to make it into a garage. The intent here is to prevent someone building a home with the garage door as an entry. What’s more Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 66     Page 26 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 important is to focus on the negative...” the garage door can not be the focal point”. He can see people trying to use SB 9 to divide up properties in odd ways. Boardmember Thompson stated she has no objections to that. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented to counter that, she lives in a cul-de-sac and the first thing seen on her house is the garage, and there was no other option for cars entering. Chair Baltay suggested it can’t be the only focal point. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she was good with that. Chair Baltay asked if there was consensus removing item 4.1A. Boardmember Thompson stated she was okay with striking 4.1A and would like to add “provide other architectural things to provide cohesion and suggested they take a straw poll on whether or not to eliminate that item. Two were in favor of eliminating it, two were in favor of changing the working. It’s a straw pull and staff can make that decision. Chair Baltay stated he believes front porches are important and there is a way to regulate it. If an applicant wants to eliminate it, they can go through the IR process and justify their reasoning. He supports it and could also support making it four feet deep versus six feet. It’s the depth of the porch that limits the development because it pushed back from the front setback. Vice Chair Rosenberg countered that it’s not whether or not you have a front porch, rather whether or not it’s the focal point of the property. Chair Baltay suggested later they need to lump the two together rather than eliminate it. Boardmember Hirsch prefers to change the wording to say, “if the project chooses to have a front porch, then the front porch will be the following minimum dimensions”. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated the size and depth of a front porch is dealt with later. This item is purely talking about whether that front porch is considered a visual focal point. Maybe there should be size restrictions on visual focal point of the front porch. Chair Baltay asked if everyone agreed to lump the front porches with section 4.4A, contextual porch entries. It’s obvious that a front porch is a focal point whether it’s required or not. Chair Baltay jumped to item 4.4A. Boardmember Chen stated 4.4A is in line with the IR review so she has no problem with the item. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated her comment was to strike it. When dealing with subdividing lots and small properties, the item is too restrictive. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Vice Chair Rosenberg. Boardmember Thompson said she’s okay to keep it. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 67     Page 27 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Chair Baltay said they again have a split on item 4.4A. Chair Baltay addressed Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Hirsch and said he understands the issue of taking up space or setback space on small properties for a front porch, however communities are a place where someone can sit on their front porch and interact with neighbors, drop mail, welcome a friend, it’s an important element in a home. When there’s not a porch that’s eliminated. It’s not saying you can’t eliminate the porch; it’s just saying you have to go through a more restrictive process to get there. It’s similar to the contextual garage placement requirement. Boardmember Thompson stated the IR guideline states, “where there is a prevailing pattern for an entry type such as front porches, or entry courts, that entry type should be considered for the design”. Boardmember Hirsch said it’s reasonable to say that it should be considered. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented she finds an issue with the concept because they will be splitting lots with main houses in the front and ADU’s in the back. Does that mean the porch also has to be built on the ADU? Chair Baltay said he thought it applied to street facing property. Vice Chair Rosenberg reread it and stated if it was changed to 4-feet deep she would be fine. Boardmember Hirsch stated he’s okay with the current dimensions. Vice Chair Rosenberg said she could be fine with leaving it. Chair Baltay returned to 4.2A window alignment. Boardmember Thompson interrupted and stated if 4.1A was going to stay in place, she had an additional suggestion for line-item C to “A focal point could be achieved by an accent color or change in plane on the front façade”. Boardmember Chen requested adding a feature instead of a porch that needs to be specific dimensions. Chair Baltay commented that they’ve broadened the definition of focal point. All Boardmembers agreed. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested instead of using the words focal point, use façade visual features. Boardmember Hirsch stated that would make a big difference for him. Boardmember Thompson commented she would be more comfortable with “unifying visual features on the façade”. Chair Baltay moved on to 4.2A, window alignment. There were three Boardmembers who wanted to strike it. He could also support striking it. Boardmember Thompson agreed. Chair Baltay in response to Boardmember Hirsch on item 4.1A added color and material detail. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 68     Page 28 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Moving back to item 4.2A, three Boardmembers Rosenburg, Hirsch and Chen wanted the alignment 3 feet apart. Boardmember Thompson said she was fine with 3-feet. Chair Baltay stated he is fine with 3-feet as well and moved on to window detailing in which Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested a narrower restriction, Boardmember Thompson thought it was too wide. Boardmember Hirsch felt it should be relative to the proportion of the windows. He wants to strike stucco over foam. That’s a character and has nothing to do with how it actually looks. Boardmember Hirsch suggested if it’s a wood window it should have trim, if it’s steel, the trim is not necessary. Boardmember Thompson stated her objection was with the minimum of a 3.5 trim and read the IR guideline again. Chair Baltay and Boardmember Hirsch agreed if it’s not in the IR guidelines, why add it now. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested “windows shall not be frameless and in plane with the exterior façade”. The goal is to prevent the stucco to window detail, anything else is fine. Boardmember Chen stated she’s fine with it with the addition of “except for contemporary steel windows”. Trim in traditional styles is a good idea. Boardmember Hirsch suggested “if an expressed trim is proposed, it must be a minimum dimension of 3.5”. Boardmember Thompson disagreed as there are so many beautiful window trims that are not 3.5 inches. All Eichler homes have really thin trimmed windows that are wood. Because it’s so thin there’s a feeling of there being more glass. If they want to in-set the window, they should be able to go frameless because it’s a modern look. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Chair Baltay stated they removed the minimum and stated if a window is flush with the exterior wall, it should have a trim. All Boardmembers agreed. Everyone agreed with the mullions and stucco texture items; and to strike item 4.5A. The ARB took a 5-minute break. The meeting continued with all ARB Boardmembers present. Ms. French explained the organizational structure for Guideline 5. Boardmember Chen stated her only comment on item five was clarification on point 5.2A, and if the requirement was only for the front unit facing the street. Chair Baltay stated he thought it should say “largest window should face either the front or the rear” and they could leave that with ADUs on front and back of the property. Generally, there are larger setbacks on the front than the back. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 69     Page 29 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Ms. Gerhardt stated with an SB 9 the rear could have a 4-feet setback. Chair Baltay agreed, however, some clients don’t want their bedroom windows facing the street, they should have the option to not do that. He was concerned about 5.3A, he believes the number should be 32 not 30, based on the dimensions of the most popular windows currently being used. On 5.3B, consideration should be given that double hung windows could apply to this situation which is called a tilt-turn window. Boardmember Thompson stated looking at the IR guidelines, in 5.1 she doesn’t have many comments, however for 5.2 she read the IR guideline and questioned if that’s where locating the bedroom window street side comes from. Chair Baltay explained the conflict often comes when the window is facing the side because the setbacks are smaller, the rear window can sometimes be conflicting when it overlooks someone else’s backyard which is going to be an issue. Ms. Gerhardt explained that egress windows need a lower sill height which is why there’s more concern for those types of windows. Ms. Foley added they tend to view it as a privacy hierarchy where the side is of the most concern, the rear is a lesser concern, and the front is where the most opportunity is to put larger windows. Boardmember Thompson her query was with 5.2D, the privacy screening landscape should be located to align with proposed second floor windows across side and rear lot lines, and between windows at facing windows on units on a single property… when she read privacy screen landscaping that’s bushes and does it have to be a certain height. Ms. Gerhardt answered they ask them to be planted at 24” box and eight feet tall at planting. They would then grow to 20 to 30 feet. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how much space is allowed for trees in the side yard. Ms. Foley replied that one of the other objective design standards under she believes IR guideline 1, required a two-foot-wide planting strip. They would have to check how prior comments may have affected that. Chair Baltay recalled they removed that altogether. Ms. Raybould believed the spacing was 25 feet. Ms. Foley added 25 feet would be a minimum, with placement being where it would make most sense, which is where the windows are located. Ms. Gerhardt stated most of the buildings would be accessed from the center of the lot. Boardmember Hirsch stated a tree at 25’ doesn’t provide much privacy. Ms. Raybould commented there’s the 25’ minimum and then there’s the privacy requirement, they are two different things. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 70     Page 30 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Ms. Gerhardt referred to 1.4 and stated staff can go back and make sure it’s clear how to measure that distance. Boardmember Hirsch said the side lot line should also be considered, it keeps changing. His concern is how the trees get rooted properly in narrower spaces, in addition to privacy concerns and the trees for privacy should be called out specifically. Ms. Gerhardt stated in 1.4 it says screening trees and 24” boxed trees adapt to the space. Boardmember Hirsch said he has a personal opinion about privacy. The best way to create privacy is a window shade or drape. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented on 5.2A, it would promote a visual interest on the front façade so she can support it however house versus ADU might be a little different. Overall, in all of the V Keypoint items she’d like to change where the sill is five-feet, to 4.6’; and in 5.2B(c) make that five-feet to six feet. Ms. Gerhardt stated she would want to have significant conversation about that. Staff has been implementing the five feet for a fair amount of time, the point of that was they would have to get pretty close to the window to see your neighbor. Vice Chair Rosenberg said if that’s the precedence she’s not going to argue over six inches. Item 5.2B lists A, B, and C. She believes all three should apply to the stair window privacy. It would allow for a little more flexibility in that staircase design. The three points between 5.2 and 5.3 are really the same points. One is listed in a run on sentence and the other is broken down into A, B, and C. Ms. Foley stated the intent was the measurement from the landing. Vice Chair Rosenberg supports up to 32 that Chair Baltay suggested. Her issue is with 5.3B is the item she takes issue. It is overly restrictive, if there’s an obscure glazed window, they will want to decide which way that opens based on where the neighbor is. Once there is a five-foot sill, it’s not needed. Ms. Foley stated with the obscure glazing they don’t need to follow the five-foot sill; this item refers to those cases. Chair Baltay summarized he’s heard no objection to 5.1A. Item 5.2 Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested the criteria in 5.2B also apply to 5.2C. Everyone agreed. He suggested the orientation of a primary window in a room. Boardmember Chen noted when you have a building at the back of a property would that still apply if it was facing forward. That might be good intent. Boardmember Thompson stated she could agree with scratching that. It would depend on the property and the orientation of the building. Chair Baltay suggested making it front or rear, possibly the way it’s written would be the best. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested maybe saying in the front or rear if there’s a 10-foot setback. Chair Baltay stated he’s fine with it the way it’s written. All Boardmembers agreed. Regarding landscaping, Boardmember Hirsch was concerned about the spacing of trees, he agrees 25-feet is too far apart for privacy, and asked staff if that could be changed to closer to 15 feet. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 71     Page 31 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Ms. Gerhardt stated they probably should not do the reference to 1.4. It’s got a different reasoning so it could have a closer number for this item. Vice Chair Rosenberg argued that 25-feet allows for other plantings in between. Ms. Foley stated, as it’s currently written, having the 1.5 as a separate requirement, staff would expect what gets proposed would be something in between. They may need to consider if that’s not objective enough. They are two different requirements for two different purposes. In order to meet the privacy requirement, it may be more than one per 25 feet. Boardmember Hirsch stated he was okay with leaving it to staff’s judgement of whether or not it meets privacy requirements. Ms. Gerhardt stated this might be one where staff need to come back for the actual language of the change. Ms. French stated she’s comfortable with striking the reference to 1.4 because 1.4 is more about trees and most of the time in a 4-foot setback, those won’t be trees, it will be shrubs. Ms. Foley stated she was sure the reference pertained to when an architect is reading through and determining what to plant, there’s the reminder that they do need to comply with both. Chair Baltay recapped that staff needs more detail from the ARB on how privacy screening is done with landscaping. All Boardmembers agreed. All Boardmembers agreed with the 32 feet change from 30 feet in item 5.3A. Chair Baltay continued with operable windows and the sill height of windows. The 5-foot rule has been enforced in Palo Alto for some time. If a window is less than 5-feet, it’s considered a privacy violation. If they wanted to do something different, they would need to acknowledge they are doing something different than what is currently enforced as an IR standard. Boardmember Thompson questioned if the 5-foot rule is written. Ms. Gerhardt stated it’s a solution staff have been using because precedence has already been created in the last ten years. Boardmember Thompson stated it’s worth talking about it. Vice Chair Rosenberg added it would be setting a bad precedent for changing it specifically for the SB 9 project regulations, and backtracking her earlier comments, if 5-feet is what has always been used in Palo Alto, SB 9 should not be different. Boardmember Hirsch stated he disagreed with everyone. He believes the base of the window with translucent glazing should have diffused glass in the bottom of it. Then it could be as low as 3 feet. Lower limit could be 5-feet for clear glazing. Boardmember Thompson stated the only reason she wanted to talk about it is because people are short. It’s worth talking about the five-foot limit might have been set at a time when people weren’t thinking about the amount of population that are short. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 72     Page 32 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Ms. Raybould added she’s made site visits where they forgot to add the glazing, or chose not to, and it was something they needed to resolve and in going back for the second inspection it resolved the issue. It’s been an effective way to keep the proposed projects compliant. Chair Baltay stated the words “clear glazing” needed to be added to operable windows to read operable windows with clear glazing. All Boardmembers agreed. Additionally, Chair Baltay stated the word operable should be removed as operable windows have nothing to do with privacy. Vice Chair Rosenberg believes the case for operable windows is the operation portion of the window needs to be at 5 feet or above, because even it if’s obscure glass down to the floor, you wouldn’t want to be able to slide that open. Chair Baltay stated staff has consistently interpreted the ARB to require five feet when the window was transparent, at the sill height. They have not consistently regulated whether you can see through the window once it’s open. In numerous cases there have been casement windows that allowed privacy violation. It’s been deemed to be not consistently an issue. Ms. Gerhardt stated the five feet has been very standard, they have tried to have the obscured windows open towards the public street, that has been a newer item they have been regulating; staff is however very open to talking about the five-foot measurement. If that were to change, it would need to change across all projects, not just SB 9 projects. Chair Baltay recommended that they keep 5.3B to say that clear windows on the upper level with a sill height of less than five feet… he believes they should strike completely whether or not they are operable. It should say “Windows with clear glazing in the upper sill level, within 20-feet of an interior side lot line should have a sill height of five-feet or greater.” Ms. Foley asked if it would be helpful to show them what 5.3B would look like, because what Chair Baltay just stated is what 5.2B already says. The intent of 5.3B is to limit which direction obscured glazed windows are opening with the intent to push those views towards the street rather than to neighbor’s rear years. Vice Chair Rosenberg made a good point regarding not being able to look into other windows which had not been previously considered. Chair Baltay stated that obscure glazing on an operable egress window allows for ventilation. Privacy should not be limited to how a window operates. It’s not as consistently regulated right now; they should not try to increase the level of regulation. Boardmember Thompson stated she hasn’t heard an argument for why they should regulate the operability of a window that’s above five feet. Chair Baltay stated they are talking about below five feet and it’s limiting that you can’t have a sliding window. This is an issue that has multiple times found it’s way before City Council with egress versus privacy. Chair Baltay stated he feels uncomfortable trying to increase regulation on something like this. His opinion is it should be struck altogether. All Boardmembers agreed. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 73     Page 33 of 33 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/18/23 Chair Baltay continued with the last item, 5.4A regarding second floor balconies and he didn’t hear anyone having any issues with that item. He believed it was a reasonable interpretation of the current standard. All Boardmembers agreed. Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Boardmember Thompson reported out on the ad hoc committee regarding the street design work, they’ve been keeping an eye on the development on California Avenue. Today is the first “Third Thursday Program” that will happen throughout the summer. Everyone should go out between 6-9 p.m. to check out the program and live music. Additionally, on Cal Ave there are four or five community spaces that the ad-hoc committee worked with the planner looking at how they could make them more accessible for the public both architecturally and logistically. The full design concepts likely have not been fully executed, but there are some initial things out there today, however anyone attending can let them know their comments. The flexible public places will evolve and in June there will likely be another update. Chair Baltay added the City has hired a consultant to help take public comment and figure out how to deal with whether they want to and how they would close California Avenue and portions of Ramona Street in the downtown area. Part of that process was that they were authorized by Council to do a demonstration project, which is where the ad-hoc committee became involved with helping the planning staff figure out the best way to do a demonstration project. The hope is that their advice will be highly effective. Boardmember Thompson was very helpful in providing design thought. It’s not a permanent solution, it’s a temporary demonstration. Boardmember Hirsch commented about the empty areas between the eating facilities, if those could be filled with activity that’s going to be a terrific thing. Boardmember Thompson explained that was the thinking behind it. Boardmember Hirsch added he recently went to another city that utilized input from art schools and different groups. There’s a lot of possibilities for what could work well for activities. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting. Item 3 Attachment A Minutes of May 18, 2023     Packet Pg. 74     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: August 3, 2023 Report #: 2307-1734 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 1, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of June 1, 2023 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 75     Page 1 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: June 1, 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 Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Osma Thompson Absent: None Oral Communications None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and ARB Liaison Claire Raybould indicated there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. Chair Baltay inquired about any new projects. Ms. Raybould replied that new projects include a Council prescreening to convert an existing 10,000 square foot movie theater at 3001 El Camino Real in the Palo Alto Square site into new office space. Additionally, there will be Council prescreening on 260 Homer to amend a development agreement that currently restricts the amount of space that one or more commercial office tenants can occupy. There is interest in a single tenant occupying other existing space. Chair Baltay assigned an ad hoc for the movie theater at 3001 El Camino Real consisting of himself and Boardmember Thompson. He did not see a need for an ad hoc committee for 260 Homer. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 76     Page 2 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 Ms. Raybould reported that upcoming items include the Sobrato development agreement for the Fry’s site on June 15, 2023, as well as a façade modification. Retailer Arhaus is a tenant looking to fill the American Girl space at Stanford Shopping Center. July 6, 2023 has been slotted for 800 San Antonio Road which is a larger high-density multi-family development project. That will be it’s first formal hearing. Study Session 2. 640 Waverley [23PLN-00092]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review To Allow Demolition of a Single-Family Home and to Allow Development of a Proposed Four-Story, approximately 10,400 Square Foot Mixed-Use Development Comprised of Ground Floor Office and Three Levels of Residential (Four Residential Units in Total) with a Basement and Below-Grade Parking. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CN (Neighborhood Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay introduced the item and noted that disclosures were not needed as it is a study session only. Ms. Raybould provided the staff report for the preliminary review of 640 Waverly, a new mixed-use development that will be located on Waverly, near Forest. The project would replace two existing residences on a 5,227 square foot (sf) parcel with a mixed-use development, the ground floor office with four residential units above and five parking stalls (which count as seven with the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA)) for residential use in a below grade parking garage. It came to Ms. Raybould’s attention that this may have originally been zoned for only office use, that still needs to be researched. The applicant noted to Ms. Raybould that there are 7 parking spaces paid into the downtown in lieu program. As part of a formal application staff will be reviewing that further. The applicant intends to meet the objectives standards and follow the standards ARB process instead of meeting all of the objective standards, which are subject to a context-based design criteria, downtown design guidelines, CD-C zone district requirements, and ARB findings. Staff and the applicant are requesting key feedback from the ARB for massing, site planning, material selection, and context-based design criteria consistency for privacy. Vice Chair Rosenberg requested clarification of the sf of the project as two different numbers are in the staff report. Ms. Raybould clarified that the new project is for 10,400 sf mixed-use development. Chair Baltay requested the applicant, Mr. Ken Hayes, provide his presentation. Mr. Ken Hayes, with Hayes Group Architects, provided a presentation for the ARB on behalf of the applicants, however, clarified that the two buildings there are zoned commercial and in the downtown parking assessment study as commercial with a requirement of seven parking spaces on site, there are actually no parking spaces being assessed. The project is a mid-block parcel that is 50x102 feet deep with two buildings current that are not historical in nature and will be deconstructed. The site is zoned CD-C with a pedestrian overlay and surrounded by Public Facility (PF) and CD-C properties. Both neighbors have supplied a letter of support for the project and displayed site views from different sides of the site. One Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 77     Page 3 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 level of the residences in the project is intended to be the owner’s home. The project has a net zero goal for the building. The applicants are looking to do a pavilion type top floor such as a net zero building that was designed in New York City. The materials will be warm and robust natural materials with a symbiotic edge to the 636 Waverly project, with voids for light and plant material to provide both sun and privacy screening. Mr. Hayes showed several drawings for each floor entries. The driveway into the garage area will be nine feet (eight feet is the minimum allowed), with a lift that will lower the vehicles down to the parking area. Additionally, trash refuse drawings were shown along with how they intend to plan for refuse pick up. Municipal Code for Waverly allows for curbside staging of trash bins for pick-up. The property at 636 Waverly was built with a zero-setback line, this property will have a five-foot setback on the adjoining side, with an eight-foot setback on the commercial façade. The project does not comply with the objective standards; however, they are intending on complying with the daylight plane, particularly on the side adjoined with the historical property. The only exception is at the rear of the building where there is a stair. There was no way to add a stair to the outside of the building and stay within the daylight plane. It is well beyond the historical portion of the building on the abutting property. Mr. Hayes showed the floor plans and the screen walls. There will be a roof garden on the top floor unit. The units above the ground floor all have balconies. Chair Baltay thanked Mr. Hayes for the presentation and inquired if there were public comments for the study session. Administrative Associate III Veronica Dao stated there were no cards submitted for public comment. Chair Baltay opened the item up for questions from the board for both the applicant and staff. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the thought process of the materiality of the band between the first and second floor. Mr. Hayes explained the intent is for there to be some sort of metal cladding or standing seamless product that would add some verticality, not unlike the slats located throughout the project. The intent is to add differentiation between the commercial space and the residential space. The material has not yet been determined, possibly some sort of wood type material or metal. Boardmember Thompson inquired about the privacy screening. Mr. Hayes replied that it would be the same material as the residential entry slat material. All the other wood-like material will match. Boardmember Thompson asked about the elevation facing the historical building that is part privacy screening and part concrete, specifically with an inquiry of how much of the concrete wall would be visible. Mr. Hayes stated there is about four feet from the wall of 650 Waverly in the front portion. The historic portion of the building at 650 Waverly is the front 40 feet of the building, and with the stepping effect of the building, the back portion is about eight feet between the two building masses. There will likely be planting materials hanging over the cement wall from the roof terrace in the sections front closer sections. Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Thompson questioned the roof heights on the different portions of the historical building in relation to the proposed building. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 78     Page 4 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 Ms. Raybould stated she believed at the peak of the historic building it is about 35 feet. There are two stories, but there’s also a portion that is raised. The elevation sheet is A3.03. Mr. Hayes referred them also to A3.02 which showed the historic building’s profile. Boardmember Thompson inquired if the historic building is being used as a residence. Mr. Hayes answered it is 100% residential, a Mr. McCarthy lives in the building. Vice Chair Rosenberg continued her questions, still on sheet A3.02, and requested an explanation as to which of the windows are in bedrooms and which need to be egressed. Mr. Hayes stated the two windows that are closet to the stair tower on the third floor are egress windows. All the windows on the third floor are egress. On sheet A2.02, the second floor, the first window closest to the stir tower is not an egress window, which is a living room. On Sheet 3.02, the second-floor window that is obscured by some of the concrete wall is a partially egress window. The top piece would likely be the operable piece. Boardmember Chen inquired if the basement parking would be for residents only, and if the office tenants could have access to the elevator. Both the parking and the elevator would be for residential use only; and requested the elevation for the car lift and trash room. Mr. Hayes stated it would be about 3.5 feet lower. The ramping is at 5% or less, so no handrails are required. Chair Baltay questioned why the parking was lowered by three feet. Mr. Hayes explained it is a function of the fourth floor, with an original concept of a single exit building. However, the fourth floor has a second floor which requires a secondary egress; the rear stairs become that secondary means of egress. Design logistics for the vehicle lift was the reason for lowering the parking below ground. Boardmember Chen asked about the privacy wall between 636 and this project what the treatment will be on the wall balconies on those floors. Mr. Hayes answered that the entry to the residence is on the fourth floor. The balcony would not be covered. The concrete wall is being sustained by the garden that is at the fourth-floor level, the concrete wall is eight 8 feet tall and then open to the sky. There are no visual connections currently between. Boardmember Chen asked of the neighbor’s view is a concrete wall. Mr. Hayes confirmed the neighbor’s view is a concrete wall, they assumed they like concrete walls since their own building is primarily concrete. Boardmember Hirsch questioned the setback of the building on the property line, and if there actually openings in the breezeway as depicted in the drawings. Mr. Hayes replied no, there would not be openings on the property line as that is not allowed. They will be infilled with transparent wall, a type of window. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 79     Page 5 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 Boardmember Hirsch clarified at that point the neighboring building is only a foot away. Mr. Hayes explained that is also opposite the recess of the neighboring building. It’s a big void. The intent was for light to come into that area. It will most likely be translucent. Boardmember Hirsch questioned how the garbage is taken from the units to the garbage location. Mr. Hayes responded they consulted with GreenWaste and what is being proposed is six 96-gallon cans for the residential and two or three for the commercial space. It would all be in totes (the wheeled ones) and would need to be brought to the street for pick up, the same way it’s being done at 650 Waverly and 636 Waverly. On trash day they would be brought out and then put away. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how they would get from the unit to the bins. Mr. Hayes stated all the residential tenants have access to the garage via the elevator in the building, that elevator would bring them to the lift, they could come up the lift either with their bikes or their cars and put the trash in the trash room. They could also leave via the front entrance of the building and walk the trash around to the holding area. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he felt that was a remote location for the residents and asked if the possibility of a trash shoot was ever considered. Mr. Hayes stated a shoot was not considered on this project. Chair Baltay inquired about the second-floor siding that wraps the corner on the 636 building. Mr. Hayes stated that is not glass, then corrected himself saying it is glass, however there is a concrete firewall behind the glass, and you cannot see through the glass. Chair Baltay said he remembered in the past one of the neighbor’s was upset with a proposed projects concrete walls and it was hard to understand how this will impact 636 Waverly. Mr. Hayes replied that 636 has concrete and glass on the second floor at the front, probably 15 feet going back into the site. It is a property line wall. The proposed building is five feet back, anything beyond the five feet will be obscured up to the second floor. The building at 636 opens up with terraces, this building opens up with terraces as well on the third and fourth floors. Chair Baltay requested more information on the parking situation and why there is no commercial parking, and what rules have been applied. Additionally, he’d like to know if it’s okay to have all ADA parking, below grade and using a lift. In the past that wasn’t permissible. Ms. Raybould responded that she was not aware of any requirement and Building didn’t comment on any concerns about providing ADA parking at grade. If parking is provided at grade, you must also provide ADA parking. Chair Baltay stated his question is if you can have ADA parking only accessible by a car lift. Ms. Raybould explained there are five total stalls, it counts as seven because Palo Alto’s Code counts ADA parking spaces twice. There are only five actual stalls that are being proposed on the site. Transportation’s comments on this preliminary review asked that any formal application provide more clarity about Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 80     Page 6 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 maneuvering in the below grade garage space to make sure it all works. Staff will be looking for that information when they review the formal application. It is not actually paid into the district at this time. For multi-family and commercial uses, other than hotel, Assembly Bill 2097 does state that you cannot require minimum parking requirement if the property is within a half mile of major CalTrain station. This site is within a half mile of the University Avenue CalTrain station, therefore does not require them to provide any parking. If parking is provided, all the standards must be met for ADA and EV. Chair Baltay commented that he understands what the State Law requires, but it seems for what is being proposed, the project is under parked. Ms. Raybould responded that staff would require a Transportation Demand Management (TDM) Plan per Palo Alto’s standard requirements under Palo Alto Municipal Code 18.52. Chair Baltay stated parking isn’t within the ARB purview, he just wanted the record to reflect that the ARB was aware of the problem. Ms. Raybould stated staff is also aware the proposed project is meeting the law. Boardmember Thompson commented that she could see the design relationship to the non-historic adjacent building, and inquired if there were any type of nods with the historical building as well. Mr. Hayes stated the main design goal in relation to the historic building was to ensure it kept it’s space. Rather than be like the historic building, they attempted to frame it. The owner of the historic building pointed out in his letter that he liked the way they gave him space on both sides to highlight the historic building. Stepping back from it shows considerable effort was made to not overshadow it. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that it looked like all of the mechanical systems would be soffit-ed down. Mr. Hayes replied that there would be distribution, should they use air, another option would be in core hallways where they could lower the ceiling to accommodate the system. Vice Chair Rosenberg confirmed that the floor to ceiling height appeared to be 10’6”. Mr. Hayes answered that is correct for the residential portion. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that this probably meant that the ceiling height was about 9 feet Mr. Hayes commented that it would likely be about that assuming the slab will be 10 to 12 inches thick. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the slope of the roofline and asked if this type of design was partially selected to give some deference to the historic building Mr. Hayes responded yes to Boardmember Hirsch. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the slab of the fourth floor is an evident corner as it relates to the adjoining property. Mr. Hayes stated they considered many options at that corner, the third floor in that corner is set back five feet. They reduced the scale of the wall on the fourth floor by adding an additional three feet of Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 81     Page 7 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 setback. The eight-foot setback wall on the fourth-floor lines up with the roofline of the 636 neighbor, and the commercial space below. And the porch of the historical building is also setback eight feet. Mr. Hayes stated there are other views of that corner in image 4.01 and the upper left of the image on 4.02. Image 4.03 is a what the view would be from the historical building on the 636 parcel. There are three views, the top and bottom images are from the 636 model, looking towards the new project. If privacy is a concern, there is definitely room for more study. Chair Baltay moved the study session into ARB comments. Boardmember Thompson questioned not forming an opinion on the project. Vice Chair Rosenberg read the caveat from the City Attorney regarding the ARB refraining from forming an opinion either for or against the project. Boardmember Thompson stated it’s an Eclectic street with many styles, and this particular site is nested between two very different styles of building. She appreciates the architect’s response to her questions and comments regarding finding a balance to both sides of the property. She believes there are some very good seeds overall for the project, however, the proposed building shows too much difference from the buildings on each side. She appreciates the attempt being made to be mindful of zero waste and using biophilic materials when possible. She encouraged the applicant to consider bringing some of the detailing from the sides of the buildings and extending it across the front of the project. More planters in the front would also help. Given the location and differences in the design of the area, they have an opportunity to do more with design. Boardmember Thompson had concerns regarding the façade of the concrete wall and the wall facing the parking lot. Additionally, she would encourage more treatment along the sides of the stair tower. She’d like to see more warm materials, more wood and more green, and along the roofline. Boardmember Chen commented it is probably a challenge to do a lot of stuff on such a narrow and deep site. Her comments are focused more on two areas, one being the trash room. She believes there are functional concerns there, she would like to see more thought put into how trash is disposed of and collected in the formal application. She would also like to see more thought put into the privacy wall and the stair tower. There could be more treatments on those rather than just concrete. Particularly on the 636 side because there are some good sized south facing terraces on that building. As it stands in these drawings, this project would block their views and provide them with a cold big solid concrete wall as their view. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented she echoes the concerns of the first two Boardmembers, as well as basement parking and traffic flow could use more thought to make sure the maneuverability of the cars which is important. The trash room is a bit of an issue for her. A trash-shoot next to the elevator could use consideration, or something secondary for the residents. The concrete wall on the historic side could use a second pass and more thought. She would also like to see a second look at the rear façade, particularly on the commercial level. It feels a bit abrupt. She would encourage more of a detailed landscape plan with the formal application, along with more information on the plants. Additionally, she suggested they label the floor-to-floor heights, the ARB loves to see that, and the emergency egress windows on the one façade. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 82     Page 8 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 Boardmember Hirsch commented Boardmember Chen did a great job of expressing his concerns with the trash circulation for the residents. He would like to see more study on the aspect of trash removal for the residents. The comments made regarding the rear stairwell were good. Ultimately, there could be a lot and building behind it someday, and what may appear tall in the rear doesn’t always appear tall from the street side. The element at the top of the building seems like a great opportunity to do more. A nice stand-alone element could provide great added character to the building. The step-back issues at the front of the building could use more thought. They may be able to notch the slab on the fourth floor so that is could be even more respectful to the neighboring building. The rooftop is very important and provides an opportunity for a distinct quality to the building. He agrees with Boardmember Thompson and hates the fact that they can’t use wood in some way, or at least more natural materials. It might be beneficial to go back and consider more wood material to soften the feel in that respect. More details about the landscaping would also help to soften the look. The images of the building make it clear that the building relates to its neighbors. He appreciates the entry into the modern era and design ideas for entry ways. Again, it’s a great opportunity to put more formal treatment. It’s an interesting study of the way one can deal with three dimensionality on a relatively small site. Chair Baltay stated that he supported items his colleagues pointed out such as the trash room access is not yet solved. He agreed with Boardmember Thompson regarding the materials aren’t warm enough. His concern is 636 has too much concrete and is too stalk and too tall for downtown and the neighborhood. He would hate to see that get repeated. The back stair tower is too much. People see that everyday walking down Gilman street. Consider bringing in more eco-friendly materials, things that are native, or landscaped; things that are looking to the future, not just a concrete wall. In looking at the fourth-floor roof he was stuck thinking it was a nod to Palo Alto’s residential style, and it didn’t fly. Listening to the explanation and looking at the 3D renderings he understands it more, however in listening to the other Boardmember comments, there are many other forms, shapes, and ideas up there that will provide the same level of success. The building steps down nicely to make the distinction between the neighbors on the left, and on the right. What it doesn’t do is step down by material selection or design style. The expressed concrete structure is being repeated. It would be great to see Mr. Hayes make a nod towards it being halfway residential through the material choice and material expression. Chair Baltay commented to the owner regarding the parking situation. There is not enough parking for the number of cars that will be in the building. Regardless of what the code or the law says, it’s responsible for the owner to find a way to park the people who live there. Otherwise, they will park on the street and that’s just not fair. There are ways to get a few more spaces. The lack of commercial parking is understandable, but to not park the residents seems wrong to Chair Baltay. They can’t force him to do it, by the force of persuasion, consider doing something more. Chair Baltay invited Mr. Hayes to respond to ARB comments and ask clarifying questions. Mr. Hayes commented that what really made the project feasible at this time is that they aren’t required to provide commercial parking. AB 2097 provided the window to make the project possible. This project was started in 2012, somehow 636 got ahead and the city worked out zoning compromises that made that happen. This project was not afforded the same opportunities months later. By only having residential parking in the garage, which again, they are not required to do so, they would have to make the driveway 16 feet wide. It renders the narrowness of the site very problematic. They elected to provide residential parking in such a way that the driveway can be seven feet narrower, and still provide Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 83     Page 9 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 landscaping and the needed floor area back to the building. It increased the commercial space by about 400-feet. Mr. Hayes thanked the ARB for their comments, he appreciated the consistency from the original review in 2017. He does like the idea of working with concrete and totally gets it’s not the best of building materials from an environmental standpoint, they are investigating low carbon concrete, which reduces the GHC by 40%. What he likes most about concrete is it doesn’t have to be decorated. He loves the idea of trying to warm it up. The ARB took a 12-minute break. The meeting continued with all ARB Boardmembers present. 3. Study Session to Review the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan Planner Sheldon Ah Sing provided the staff report and history on the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) along with the consultant Marc Asnis with Perkins & Will, and Transportation staff member Shrupath Patel. Principal Planner Sheldon Ah Sing began by explaining how and when NVCAP began. The North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan is a long-range planning document for an area of the city near the California Avenue Caltrain transit station and located within the City’s only Priority Development Area – a boundary intended to focus commercial and residential development due to its proximity to high quality transits. The City’s adopted Comprehensive Plan includes policies to guide development and plan for community amenities and specifically encourages the preparation of a plan for this area. During this process they have continued receiving applications for development which are called pipeline projects and do not have to be consistent with NVCAP, however they do have to be consistent with the existing zoning. Notably these projects include Mike’s Bikes, Sobrato project, and the project on Lambert. Staff is seeking ARB’s confirmation that the draft NVCAP provides aesthetic and design principles that substantially support the Council’s endorsed plan; provides aesthetic and design principles that substantially support the state goals and objectives from the Council for the plan; and conveys urban design principles that are achievable. There are six requirements staff is asking the ARB to convey the draft NVCAP remains consistent with which include Location of proposed land use designation, proposed public and private improvements, development regulations/public works projects and financing measures, site design and architectural standards and criteria for private development, determination of the economic feasibility of the plan, and environmental review with the maximum extent feasible tiering from the Comp Plan. Consultant Marc Asnis continued the presentation by providing further details on the current plan area consisting of about 60 acres bounded by Oregon Expressway and Page Mill Road to the north, El Camino Real to the west, Lambert Avenue to the south and the CalTran corridor to the east. Notable sites within the Plan area include Matadero Creek Channel, and the buildings associated with the Cannery. The plan is designed to help set up the framework for the addition of integrating over 500 new high-density residences within this area and provide standards for this growth in design, urban planning, and implementation. The intent is to create a rare opportunity within the City of Palo Alto to plan proactively for a transit-oriented, mixed-use, mixed-income, and walkable neighborhood. The NVCAP is broken down Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 84     Page 10 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 into 7 chapters. Chapter 1 is an introduction on the physical and regulatory context, Chapters 2 outlines the long-term vision of the urban design vision for the transition of the built and natural environment, Chapters 3-6 are design standards and guidelines focused on the public realm, streets, parks and buildings, and Chapter 7 is implementation actions including infrastructure improvements, capital projects, and funding and financing strategies. Mr. AhSing provided land use development standards information in the draft, as well as zoning implementation for the transfer of commercial zoning to mixed-use zoning. Chair Baltay opened the item for public comment; seeing none, he continued by commenting that he and Vice Chair Rosenberg met earlier to review the large packet of information. He requested the study session be structured by the ARB looking at sections three and six of the NVCAP, with those two sections being of direct interest to the ARB. The Coordinated Area Plan is a broad zoning guideline that does not actually act on any zoning changes. Chair Baltay would like to have an ARB discussion on the zoning changes and how they would be implemented in a subsequent meeting that would allow for greater detail. The intent was to try to structure their time to provide clear feedback. At the end of the design standards discussion, Chair Baltay wanted to take a look at if the NVCAP is meeting the Council’s preferred options and stated goals, which a matrix in Appendix D had those carefully lined out. Chair Baltay requested a thirty-minute timer for ARB comments on chapter three, with more time allotted for Chapter six, followed by comments and discussion on Chapter two per the request of Boardmember Thompson and Boardmember Chen. Chair Baltay began comments for Chapter three, the public realm. He had two concerns with the questions about the sidewalk; first it doesn’t describe how the zones of the sidewalk are separated. More detail on that would be helpful. His second thought on sidewalks is that it often says that it “would allow for the following details” and it should be more specific; they should require certain features. The way the traffic lanes are written in 3.2.2 regarding the fire code limits, they are trying to allow for pedestrians, vehicles and bicycles, and the fire trucks are requiring sixteen feet down the middle for emergency access, and it doesn’t seem like it would work. Some of the technical requirements need to be addressed and superseded by a greater requirement. Regarding Green Storm Water infrastructure, Chair Baltay believes it's unrealistic to expect a street to manage its storm water disposal. That would mean putting basins under the streets to capture and disburse the water and would likely be very expensive. Boardmember Thompson and Ms. Raybould requested a page reference for the storm water information. Chair Baltay stated on Packet page 110, where it’s referring to the public realm, his concern is that a public park or plaza or something of that sort could have its own on-sight storm water treatment, however, to think that would be applicable to a street seems to be a big reach and difficult to do. Ms. Raybould commented she would note that with respect to that, the new C3 storm water regulations that are coming into effect July 1, when a site is redesigned, the total square footage of replacement will now include the public sidewalk as well as the parcel. Chair Baltay commented that Ms. Raybould’s comments segways into his next comments regarding paving. They talk about responsible material use, leading towards some type of permeable paving for sidewalks and roadways. That could be considered an overreach. They are expensive and difficult to build, Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 85     Page 11 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 to stretch that this particular neighborhood has to do that everywhere is going to result in it being done nowhere. He loves the idea of accent paving in intersections, it makes a lot of sense. The City needs a better standard for exterior lighting overall. Public Works should have a dedicated set of standards for exterior lighting, the ARB has come across that before where there are different requirements for different areas. There should be one set of guidelines for the whole thing. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed with several of Chair Baltay’s comments. However, her comments are more with respect to how the packet reads and will be presented to applicants, and the public in general. On pages 110 and 111, packet pages 64 and 65, the tables are noted as Table 6 – Local native protected tree species and Table 7 – Trees exempt from protection. She had no idea what each one of those tables were. The labeling for the table is tiny and at the bottom. The text should be visible and with a header. She understands that may be nit-picky, however it needs to be clear. On that same page, the whole concept of 3.3 is it covers trees and storm water infrastructure which feels very disjointed. If the two are meant to be together, some clarification as to why and how they are supposed to interact together may make the point more clear. She agreed with Chair Baltay regarding the frontage zone to pedestrian clear zone, as shown on packet page 107, even the image shows the porch and front steps going into the sidewalk. If the intent is for there to be a setback and a sidewalk is there, the picture could be misleading. Dimension lines may help as well. She believes there should be some type of public features such as public art could use a certain requirement per block and provided example scenarios. She agrees that the first code for the trucks should take precedence. She appreciates the list of intersection enhancements. They could also dissuade the use of trees that require high water usage. Storm water runoff is a bit of a reach. Paving sounds great. Boardmember Thompson reference Figure 49 under sidewalk zone and suggested making that more clear. In chapter 4, packet page 123, there are some pretty clear dimensions per street. She wonders if that is why it was left ambiguous in the previous chapter. Further suggesting it might be different by street. Ash Street is the next street over and it has a different setback requirement. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that Boardmember Thompson’s explanation made perfect sense, however, it should be dimensioned in both places, not just one. Vice Chair Rosenberg read from section 3.1.1 “where conditions allow, public sidewalks shall have a minimum of at least 12 feet”. That’s pretty clear, however prefaced with “where conditions allow”. Mr. AhSing explained that on page 107 at the top, there’s an icon with a book that says, “for more information go to Chapter 4”, they attempted to make that connection, but it looked to him like they could go back and make that better and more clear. He added that he completely appreciated the comments because that type of information was what they were hoping to get from the ARB. Vice Chair Rosenberg added that again on Packet page 107, top right, there’s a little book icon that says, “for more information”, and due to the how it was printed out for the ARB, they also have a grey bubble that says, “Item 3 Attachment A draft”. Boardmember Hirsch commented that there is an existing neighborhood, and they are talking about it like it’s an open book and they can start developing in it. There are many different schemes and setback situations, they won’t actually have the opportunity to do all of the ideas listed. He doesn’t understand how you make a transition from an existing neighborhood with setbacks already existing without defining Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 86     Page 12 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 where the possibilities really are. It can’t be don’t piece meal. The NVCAP is as if it’s a brand-new neighborhood and it’s not. He asked Mr. AhSing to explain how they are going to deal with neighborhoods that already have established schemes and setback requirements. Boardmember Thompson commented that the El Camino setback and Page Mill setback is in Chapter 4. Mr. Asnis explained that Boardmember Hirsch is correct, it will always be on a project-by-project basis and that this is a long-range planning document that is trying to provide guidance and design frameworks and best practices for future long-term development. In terms of Chapter 4, they have done to the best of their ability, looking at a typical type of section for each street, to really provide a sense of what can actually be done with the curb to curb, and right-of-way, and also thinking about the types of minimum and maximum setbacks to really respect the existing context, and also help create something compact and comfortable from a pedestrian experience moving forward with development. Chair Baltay stated that was not helpful because he didn’t address Boardmember Hirsch’s concerns that the guidelines weren’t going to be used for only short-term. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he has experience with biotreatments of the streets. They were a good concept, but they would be very difficult to maintain, particularly if they were planted and through a drought. The biotreatment issue is a bigger project for streets where something like that can be done. He’s not sure how you deal with capturing storm water when there’s only a three-month period that they have to deal with that. He’s not sure if he’s ever seen any good solutions for that. The drawings are pretty standard drawings for different areas and to Chair Baltay’s point, Emergency services will always have to be considered. This document wasn’t prepared so that it tells you where you can do what and on which streets, that needs to be defined. Boardmember Chen commented she had similar comments regarding image 3.1, there needs to be more of a definition of how and where to use which requirements. Additionally, she believes they should also be including Chapter 4 in their discussions because there are dimensions and setbacks labeled in that chapter, and listed street by street and block by block. It might affect future development. She also agrees with Chair Baltay on 3.2.2 and the walkway pathway. The tables are listed as Table 6 and Table 7, but in the text, they refer to Table 7 and Table 8. Boardmember Thompson referred to the woonerf comment on Packet page 139 in Chapter 4, it does look like it’s a walkable path and appears to account for an emergency vehicle. Similar to the sidewalk zone, on packet page 107 where it talked about adding the dimension likes, that would definitely enhance that diagram, and could also reference Chapter 4 a bit more clearly. On Packet page 114 in item 3.4.3, about responsible material use, she believes that EV’s are expensive, there’s something to be said about being responsible in the long term, even if the market isn’t great. She would also encourage that they need pervious paving, with the most recent atmospheric rivers, all the water washed away, it didn’t stay, and California will likely see another drought. Currently cities are being designed incorrectly in that way. Changing the design of a city to keep the runoff water is important in the scheme of things so they don’t get three atmospheric rivers and still find themselves in a drought. Boardmember Chen believed Boardmember Thompson brought up a very good point, sustainability in the long term, but in reality, how to make it happen is very expensive. This is also just one area within the Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 87     Page 13 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 entire town, if it’s going to be changed in this area, would it also then apply in the remaining areas. That also needs to be considered. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated in general she’s in support of permeable paving, at a high level of cost and existing structure, not withstanding, the concept of having retention water is a nice thought. How to execute it is completely different. The Matadero Creek re-naturalization is going to be very important for that and this area. Having the permeable paving adjacent to the re-naturalized creek bed is going to make a pretty tremendous difference for how the rainwater flows out of the area. In theory it will help prevent flooding. And again, in theory, it will help recharge the groundwater table. Boardmember Hirsch commented that it’s very hard to change standards in a city where you have existing materials, and when you do, other problems are created. The idea of trying to retain the water to negate the drought situation is great in theory, how to do it environmentally to make it work for the whole City is a different item altogether. At this point they are likely trying to avoid the flooding. Storing floodwater is a major piece of work and he believes the standardization of the way they deal with the water run-off is the best way without changing paving. While changing paving might be aesthetically appealing, it’s a pretty dumb idea. Ms. Raybould commented that staff can look into it a little more but part of this came also from goals and policies set forth in the Green Stormwater Infrastructure Plan (GSIP) which was a requirement that the City prepare as part of their permitting requirements for stormwater. Chair Baltay inquired if it would make sense to steer the NVCAP towards the GSIP for addressing the stormwater. When you restate it in this document the debate is opened up again, when it has already been decided by the City. Mr. AhSing commented that there is another chapter that defers to other City documents. Chair Baltay and Boardmember Hirsch agreed, keep this focused and the more you can defer to documents that are already in place and addressed appropriately, the powerful this document becomes. Chair Baltay requested a thirty-minute timer is set and moved on to Chapter 6. Boardmember Chen started with Packet page 152, the diagram reflects that the daylight plane applies to the rear property line and inquired if it would also include the interior side property line daylight plane. Mr. AhSing stated he will have to look into that. Boardmember Chen referred to Packet page 153, it shows the height limit for different areas, and it also mentions that if it’s 100% affordable housing, it will allow up to thirty feet additional. If that’s the case, would that mean it could be built up to 88-feet high. Mr. AhSing stated that was correct. That is consistent with State Law regarding density bonus. They are trying to be consistent with Housing Incentive Program specifically for this district. There has been some dialogue regarding that much additional height, and the conclusive thought was that there really are not many 100% affordable housing projects. Chair Baltay stated that they’ve seen two in the past year. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 88     Page 14 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if that is regardless of whether or not that building is next to a residential or mixed-use. Mr. AhSing replied that if it is a 100% affordable housing project, that is correct. Boardmember Chen stated that was why she asked the previous question about the interior side daylight plane. Because it might apply. Ms. Raybould noted that the 100% affordable that is also within a half mile from transits. Mr. AhSing added there are several concessions for 100% affordable. Ms. Raybould stated that the additional thirty-three feet is only if the project is providing low- or below- income housing, it’s not 100% affordable in general. Once it gets taller, it gets into a different type of construction as well, which is the other consideration. Boardmember Chen continued with her comments and reference Packet page 154, 6.2.2 the ground floor retail height states the minimum is fifteen feet, the objective standard she believes states fourteen feet. That could be another spot where it could reference another document, or at least align with the document that is already in place. Mr. AhSing stated that they are using fifteen feet because that is what the City Council had endorsed. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned why there’s a difference. Mr. AhSing responded that in general this is a sixty-acre area of the city and there are going to be some unique things about it that are going to be different than other aspects of the city, which is why they wanted to consolidate guidelines and standards to one space. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that that was more restrictive. They are forcing the applicant to build an additional foot. Mr. AhSing stated they were also giving them additional height overall. Boardmember Chen continued with the next page, Packet page 156, 6.3.1, it requires a minimum of four active doorways per 200 linear feet. She believes more clarification on whether that applies to a single tenant or to all multiple tenants. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he found the massing study to be reasonable on Packet page 153. What disturbs him is how do you change an entire neighborhood to a completely different zoning, and how do you do that in a consistent manner. Boardmember Hirsch’s sense of this, is Council has decided this is an area where there can be an increase in density, but the actual application will happen in a way that is going to be very piece meal because there is a variety of ownerships. It’s not going to create a consistent neighborhood which leads to the question of if that is the way an urban area should be developed. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that when she flips back and forth between Packet pages 55, 79, and 153, Cloudera is designated on page 79 as a high density residential. In the future, if anyone wants to build on that property, it will not be commercial, it will only be residential and questioned if that is the goal. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 89     Page 15 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 Mr. AhSing replied yes, that is the goal. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that the building heights in Chapter 6, better labels on the figures would be helpful. A chart listing just all of the levels of affordability with allowed height in one table would be helpful. The thirty-three feet additional height is super problematic next to residential. The daylight plane will hopefully prevent that from going to tall, she has serious concerns with that height next to a residential zone. Looking at Olive, there is residential that backs up to medium density residential. There are three conditions for residential intersects with anything else: 1. medium density mixed-use 2. Low- density mixed-use and 3. medium density residential. If the daylight plane applies to all three of those, that’s great. If it’s slightly different per intersection, she’d love to see all three. Regarding residential frontage in 6.4, the ground floor entry at 6.4.1, she’s curious if there was any consideration for ADA compliance or allowing those residences to be very low threshold or allow access in. She would urge them to consider that by requiring it to be a level up, they may be prohibiting appropriate ramping, particularly if there are very low setbacks. Similarly, with the stoops, consideration should be given to how deep they need to be for privacy concerns. Boardmember Hirsch commented on 6.4.1 and inquired if the objective standards deal with some of that. Chair Baltay commented that the objective standards are very detailed, and this would again be another place where it would be fair to reference what is already in place. Mr. AhSing commented that was noted. Boardmember Thompson commented that she agreed with most of the comments already stated. She also had the note on the ADA concern on figure 6.4.1. For the building heights on 6.1.2, the affordable height bonus, she inquired if there is also a Floor to Area Ratio (FAR) bonus. Mr. AhSing answered not in this case. The base FAR is already pretty high or higher. For this district they are only considering the height so that it will be consistent with State Law. Boardmember Thompson commented they might consider adding a FAR bonus, because that tends to make projects more viable. In terms of heights, it does feel a bit jumbled, but it seems a little bit like a fortress. There’s the high stuff on the edges and the low stuff in the middle. She referenced Chapter 2, the ground floor uses, on Packet page 85 item 2.3, and noted that they have office edges in a different location from the retail edges and noted that she might consider recommending changes to this because people in offices are going to want to go to retail and so having office edge near residential might not make sense. Retail space often makes more sense to concentrate it in one area. It might be more successful if it were concentrated. The ADA issue for the stoops, instead of requiring that, they could make it an option to allow for direct access as well. On Packet page 158, item 6.5, item C under the bird safe building design, the UV coated glass. She recently found out that really isn’t very effective. She suggested flagging that item as a not preferred option. She doesn’t remember why, possibly because of the glazing backlit. In 6.6, heat gain, a lot of those are good, however the term eggcrate façade stood out to her and wondered if there’s another way of wording that. There are other kinds of façades that do the same thing but don’t look like egg crates. Under 6.6.5, roofs, she appreciates the intent, she would love to see a picture of a green roof included. The working in itself is fine however, she wondered if there is a way to encourage more green roofs. If there isn’t some sort of minimum requirement on green roofs, there will Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 90     Page 16 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 be a bunch of white roofs everywhere. The ecology and long-term of the space should be factored in with the considerations. Additionally, she believes there should be an open space requirement for each of the parcels. There is a specific plan happening at Moffit Park, for each space there is an open space requirement for each site. If they are not able to give the ground open space, they are able to go vertical with the green, or roof green space that could allow for the same amount of vegetation. She encourages everyone to look at that plan, it’s a very interesting read. They are trying to make an eco-neighborhood in a college-y neighborhood. Chair Baltay commented on the building heights and massing. He is struck that the 30-foot residential areas in the middle are going to get lost and won’t work if the rest of this comes to pass. A good resolution may be to say that when those properties are changed to higher density residential, then the height limit can be changed. It needs to be acknowledged it’s creating a fortress of thirty or so houses that are completely surrounded by high-rise buildings. There needs to be a clearer daylight plane regulation regarding development adjacent to single-family residential development, to protect the houses on Pepper and Olive. The 60-degree daylight plane from grade that is shown in the report, at the rear property, should really be at the side property as well and it should start at ten feet higher. Similar to what is in the R1 Code. The daylight plane is the best way to regulate the impact of different heights of buildings adjacent to single-family residential. At a high level in a coordinated area plan, the use of daylight planes to enable transitions from higher density to single-family residential is what is appropriate. That needs to be more clearly spelled out and maybe under implementation, actually figure out how to do it. On retail and active use, limiting uses of commercial to professional services with regular customers that are less than 5,000-square feet should be more broadly defined. There are a lot of businesses that provide services to residents of Palo Alto that are really under threat because they can’t afford fancy new office space. If you let them use street frontage and side streets, it would actually be quite effective. He would like to see that definition of what’s professional services at the ground floor level in an attempt to save something that is really at threat in Palo Alto. Regarding ground level retail height, Chair Baltay believes it should be questioned. Recently an applicant stated twelve feet was too much because it threatened their ability to do development above. Fifteen feet minimum is really ambitious. As they look at implementation, they need to reconsider what that number should be. This is one that Council has already amended; however, the ARB should give them advice on that. Regarding Portage Avenue, what is really in question is the Cannery. It bother’s Chair Baltay that they don’t have a clear statement that development or reuse of the Cannery building, which is a historic building, should be done to meet the Secretary of Interior standards. It seems pretty basic. He strongly supports the bird safe glazing standards on sustainable design. He questions if the ARB should come up with a subcommittee to come up with really good implementation ideas. He questions that there isn’t anything about natural ventilation. The ARB has repeatedly questioned, pushed, and told applicants to put natural ventilation in their projects, even commercial, and there is nothing in the NVCAP requiring it and there should be. He’d like to see the plan ask for that in some form. Boardmember Chen believes more detailed research and additional information for bird safety would be helpful in the NVCAP. She agrees that egg-crate façade could also be changed to different terminology. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he questions whether or not planted roofs is a good idea due to the limited water resources and what it would take to keep them maintained. He likes the idea, however, in Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 91     Page 17 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 a drought-stricken environment they have to be careful about the amount of water used. Sustainability is a good one to deal with and in other ways is really important. Caution needs to be taken for the use of too much glass, and too many enclosed office buildings, there really are no great answers yet as part of a zoning regulation. Shading devices and other elements outside the building are important and should be incorporated in some of the codes. Regarding the historic issue revolving around Fry’s, he doesn’t really come down on the side of it being an important historic monument in itself, however the social importance of the building and the original owner is very important. He finds the new design that has been presented is good to describe what it’s function had been originally. He doesn’t believe they should push for the national registry. It’s too limiting. But it is important to try to maintain the historicism where appropriate. Vice Chair Rosenberg is in full agreement that incentivizing applicants to use sustainable with green roofs is a good idea. She understands the limitations of water shortages, but if an owner is willing to take that on, they should be allowed to do so. It could be incentivized but ultimately it would be their decision to make. There is the natural ventilation comment in 6.6.4, however it’s not a requirement. If it were to be required, consideration should be given to whether it should have a per square-foot designation. Boardmember Chen added that she wondered if they could add one item under sustainability, to explore and reuse the existing structure. Not only the Cannery building, but as listed on Packet page 79, the existing office building on Page Mill which could be turned into high density. That would save a good amount of new construction . Chair Baltay asked Mr. Asnis if it would be helpful if the ARB created a subcommittee to review some of the unanswered questions. Mr. Asnis responded that it would be helpful. And regarding the use of UV glass, it’s really about balancing all of the urban design objectives. Boardmember Thompson stated that was a good point and she forgot to mention there was a recommendation of pairing the glass with a planter or screen. That strategy isn’t included in this document, but she recalls an article. Mr. Asnis commented that you have to be careful with vegetation next to glazing can be dangerous as birds may thing it’s a fly through. Chair Baltay appointed a subcommittee for sustainable massing consisting of Boardmember Thompson and Boardmember Chen. The committee should address items 6.6.2, bird safe building design, item 6.6.4 P – daylighting and natural ventilation, and 6.6.5 roof design. The ad-hoc can help guide the ARB when they get to the section of implementation. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to comment that using the daylight plane as a means to control high buildings next to residential was a good point because it comes up in every project, and the ARB is rather unified in what they would like to see regarding specific daylight plane that would answer all issues regarding height. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 92     Page 18 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 Mr. AhSing commented that in the packet there’s a draft on how to address that issue and made note of their suggestion of pointing back towards standards that have already been created and that are effective. If there is something more specific that can be applied, they can look more closely at that. Chair Baltay questioned if figure 77 is from the objective standards. Mr. AhSing answered he doesn’t believe it is and staff needs to go back and reconcile the figures and what they pertain to, and which can be directed to standards already in place. Chair Baltay commented that several times they came across diagrams that were really unclear and, in this case, it’s not referencing the standard that staff said it was intended to reference; and yet, it’s the only diagram in the packet. The ARB can figure it out, the public will not, and the Council will not. It would really be a disservice not to be consistent. Chair Baltay asked if they wanted a break before they moved into sections 4 and 2. The ARB took a 5-minute break. The meeting continued with all ARB Boardmembers present. Chair Baltay moved into Section 4. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she did not have comments on Section 4. Boardmember Chen commented she has a major issue on Ash Street, on 4.1 on Packet page 124, between Page Mill and Olive Avenue. It says that it will change from a two-way lane to a one southbound lane. Considering the long-term development of this area, it will be just the high-density residential just northeast to Ash Street and wondered if it would create a huge burden to the other street. She suggested considering keeping it a two-way lane street. Boardmember Thompson questioned the thinking behind changing it to a one-way street. Mr. AhSing stated that respectfully, questioning the decision to change a road from two ways to one-way is not in the purview of the ARB. However, the reason for that is there has been a lot of cut-through traffic in that area. Transportation staff member Shrupath Patel commented that the street they are referring to is coming from El Camino Real making a right onto Olive Avenue and then making a left onto Ash Street to access the Eastbound Urban Expressway. The object behind making Ash Street one way is to stop that cut through traffic. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he found it to be appropriate the way it has been handled and they recognized that each one of the situations is a little bit different and even the length of the street, which is not long, they addressed the issue well in terms of the specific needs of the specific areas. Boardmember Thompson commented that on Packet page 132 permeable paving was mentioned again and she recommended that there are some products that could be looked into, some work and some don’t and some of the Boardmembers know those differences. It might be a good idea to show some Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 93     Page 19 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 examples of those, in addition to the kind that makes wheelchair accessible difficult. She appreciates the curb-less design along Portage Avenue, that’s a nice touch. Boardmember Hirsch added throughout the presentation they have not at all looked into what is being planned for Fry’s development, it’s not included in any of the drawings. One of the aspects of Portage that is planned in the drawings is to include parking along the building façade whereas in figure 6.3 it’s shown as being a landscaped area that is being used publicly in the woonerf idea. Which one is it going to be and how is that decision going to be made. Chair Baltay commented that they will have a subsequent meeting for the implantation of ideas and that may be a better time for that question, and asked Boardmember Hirsch if he had a suggestion on how it should be done. It’s about a coordinated plan for the whole area and not specific to one project. Ms. Raybould commented that she can assure they speak to that in the staff report for the Sobrato project when it comes before the ARB. Mr. AhSing added that the Sobrato project is one of the pipeline projects he mentioned earlier that is already in process. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the opportunity to use the street width could be more detailed with more of a design concept and should be more of a social street and not just a regular street and it should follow a format that is being approved. Chair Baltay moved into Section 2 and commented that it’s about a vision and a rather loose topic and asked that the timer be set to 15-minutes which would allow for three minutes each to address this and anything else in the NVCAP that they see. Boardmember Thompson commented on 2.5 located on Packet page 97, this diagram is a really important diagram because it is talking about the ecology of the site and initially it seemed they were focusing a lot of the nature stuff where the creek naturalization is happening, however this diagram is the only one that depicts that this is not really how nature works. Nature is everywhere, birds are going to fly everywhere. This is the only diagram that speaks to the greater ecology of the whole site. She would encourage showing more green roofs, more wood fake panels; green roofs are great thermal masses. Drought tolerant planting requires less water. It’s important to enhance this diagram. It would be good to see what kind of habitats are coming out of the different areas and possibly push the idea more. She felt like each part has a nature character to it and that’s missing as part of the vision. Matadero Creek has a section that has a 45’ height near it and that may not be the best area for that. They are going to want as much solarization in the naturalization process of Matadero Creek as possible. Lower density around the creek might be a better idea. The design standards and guidelines talk about sustainability on an ecological perspective, but there is much more research coming out on the mental health sustainability of structures and architecture with regard to color theories and biophilia and which elements tend to boost mental health. She wondered if there could be a mental health sustainability aspect in this NVCAP because our built environment does contribute to it. There is much more research now about how urban environments cause depression and anxiety because they aren’t thinking about that as they think about the future scheme. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 94     Page 20 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 Vice Chair Rosenberg commented about the same diagram and how it’s misleading. If you look at Packet page 79 versus 97, 79 is the colored land use in 2.2, and on the third sheet on Packet page 153 that talks about the heights, the diagram shows a very nice wide green stretch along that whole Matadero Creek when you flip back to Packet page 79, it’s showing that as medium density mixed use quite narrowly at the bottle neck. If they don’t require there to be certain setbacks, they may see buildings encroach that bottle neck at Matadero Creek. She would appreciate clarification as to which the goal might be from that bottle-necked area coming in from Matadero Creek. Referring to Packet page 79 where the residential curves out, it goes to a medium density residential with a 36’ tall stretch of building potential and when you flip back to Packet page 97, that is shown as mostly an orchard. While she would love the orchard, if that gets developed, it’s not going to look like that at all. She believes the diagram is a bit misleading to what the actual intent is meant to be and what the final result of the area is going to be. Chair Baltay requested staff address Vice Chair Rosenberg comment. Mr. AhSing commented that they need to get more eyes on the images in the document to make sure they correspond correctly to what is being planned, and how they are interpreted. There will be setbacks from Matadero Creek, and he believes they are already in the code. Ms. Raybould answered that setback is twenty feet. Vice Chair Rosenberg confirmed the setback would be from the top of the creek bank and then the creek bank would be redefined. Once they redefine the Creek banks, there will be new setbacks imposed on those properties directly to the west and east of the mouth of the creek. Those two properties will be significantly impacted by new top of creek banks and new setbacks and inquired if staff foresee any issues with the owners of those properties. Mr. AhSing stated they have some ideas they are working with the owners of the pipeline projects; however, they don’t have any detailed information as of yet, that will define where the top of bank would be. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested they use diagrams that reflect the area and it’s intent more accurately. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the problem with using the picture that’s there, is years from now people will question whatever happened with that; it never ended up the way the picture was shown. It would be better to use diagrams that reflect a more realistic view of what is intended with the naturalization. Packet page 79 is likely closer to reality. Mr. AhSing added there’s a concept that was endorsed by the Council so they can overlay that in that spot. Boardmember Chen agreed Packet page 97 should be updated with a plan view of the ongoing projects. Maybe there could be the possibility of connecting the green area of the creek to the pathway between the buildings for the townhome project. It would be nice to see the greenbelt connect to the entire neighborhood. Chair Baltay stated he shared his colleagues’ comments and didn’t need to add anything new. He had been very impressed with the document as he looked at it originally. As they went through the detail of Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 95     Page 21 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 it, he was less impressed. There are nice graphics but there seems to be significant content that is inaccurate. It’s important to get it right. They want the public to support it in a positive way. Boardmember Thompson requested the resolution be increased on the graphics of the pages. Boardmember Hirsch requested they look at Packet page 89 and what appeared to be pedestrian paths, they don’t reflect projects that are going to be happening and the circulation could be revised so that the circulation patterns are realistic. In general, the lights on the pedestrian pathways should be reflected accurately as well, and requested an explanation of what the purple dashed lined are that say first mile and last mile connections on Packet pages 88 and 89. Mr. Patel explained the first mile and last mile connection has to do with pedestrian and bike trail activity to major CalTrain stops and neighborhoods as they relate to retail areas nearby. The purple rounds are reflecting as part of the NVCAP that those intersections are identified as major or minor intersection, signal, or bike improvements. Mr. AhSing explained the red dashed lines are opportunities to negotiate how they can get the connection to the pedestrian and bike paths to happen. Chair Baltay inquired if the connections are included in the plans for redevelopment that are currently happening. Ms. Raybould responded that is where the pedestrian muse is, it’s not public. It’s gated and for residents only. Chair Baltay referred the Board to Appendices C and D on pages 212 and 214 respectively and requested comments from the Board on if they feel any of those are not correct. He does not see any issues with Appendices C and believes the guidelines meet those objectives. On attachment D, he believes there’s an issue where it says the preferred plan emphasis townhomes near existing residential. The only housing provided is townhomes so it’s not emphasizing. On Packet page 216 regarding the Cannery building, “maintains the Cannery building and allows for two possible uses of the building ”, the second possible use it claims to allow is adaptive reuse in to housing and he doesn’t see anything that does that or attempts to do that or makes any provision to do that. Regarding woonerf’s and transportation and he doesn’t see anything included from transportation to evaluate what details are required to make that happen within transportation requirements. Vice Chair Rosenberg echoed Chair Baltay comments particularly the adaptive reuse of the housing transition into long-term vision. She was surprised when she read that. She doesn’t know how they would readapt the Cannery building into housing without appropriate egress windows and there are no windows in the building other than super high up. It should be removed; they aren’t even close to that. More transition space is needed between the single-family homes and the townhomes are a good way to do that. Boardmember Thompson commented she can agree with all the other comments that have been made and on Packet page 216, there’s a comment about increasing FAR. That is something she felt could be added to the incentives. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 96     Page 22 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 Boardmember Hirsch commented he doesn’t believe they can make the statement they are asking. He hasn’t gone into the detail in the back of the book, but he would like to see opportunities there that are realistic, and the drawings should show what programs are in the works currently. Boardmember Chen requested clarification regarding Packet page 214 the preferred plan and if it includes 100% affordable housing had limits based on the other five story retail affordable housing that is 55’ or a six-story nonretail affordable housing which is 65’ tall, how is that related to the 33-additional feet. Mr. AhSing explained the relationship is that State Law has stipulated the 33’ so when they were going through and Council had said 65’, staff doesn’t want to set that as the base for affordable housing because then they can go 33’ above that. Ms. Raybould explained the 33’ is a co-provision and State density bonus that applies to 100% affordable to low income or below, so very-low income was 30-60%, so low income is 60-80% and within a half mile from transit. Mr. AhSing questioned the timing of the subcommittee. Chair Baltay stated they created the subcommittee to come back the same time staff returns with the NVCAP project again in more detail. He will leave it with staff to coordinate that time frame with the subcommittee. They are not looking to do the consultants work, but rather to make sure the ARB is well informed on the issues. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 20, 2023. Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for any additions, deletions, or changes. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved, seconded by Boardmember Thompson, to approve the meeting minutes for April 20, 2023, as drafted. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay requested a report on 4075 El Camino and 300 Lambert. Boardmember Chen reported that the project for 4075 El Camino is pretty straight forward for senior housing with additional units added on to the existing building and they asked staff to request the applicant to provide the following: a) an arial rendering showing the new editions to the existing buildings, it’s currently not clearly depicting the scope or scale or intent of the work b) the rendered elevation with the new editions and modifications more clearly identified c) the photos of the existing buildings to more clearly show the existing forms and finishes. They also requested they show additional information regarding the neighborhood context. On the site plan they suggested including the major vegetation, building footprint, and adjacent single-family residences. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 97     Page 23 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/1/23 Chair Baltay said he would push 300 Lambert off until next time, Boardmember Thompson did not see the notice requesting the report. The type of report is Boardmember Chen just provided is the type of report he would like to see. Ms. Gerhardt commented that the comments were broken into two different tables for projects pending for the ARB versus projects that are potential projects. The projects Chair Baltay requested reports for, are SB 330 pre applications, so they are automatically not going to have detailed information in their plan set. Chair Baltay stated the ad hoc committee comments are things he would like Council to see and the ARB to see when it returns with the formal application. Boardmember Hirsch felt that Ms. Gerhardt brought up a good point and the items requested of the applicants should be for the purpose of the ARB’s formal application review to help with their decision and not for the Council. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting. Item 4 Attachment A Minutes of June 1, 2023     Packet Pg. 98     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 3, 2023 Report #: 2307-1753 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 15, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of June 15, 2023 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Senior Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 99     Page 1 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: June 15, 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 Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Osma Thompson Absent: None Oral Communications Jeff Levinsky provided public comment regarding a new State Law AB 2097 that an applicant had mentioned in a prior meeting, which exempts buildings from providing parking. There is a process within that law that still allows cities such as Palo Alto to still require parking by way of showing it would be a problem if parking is not available. Palo Alto has several parking programs that are in place for the purpose of negating the current parking issues it already has. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and ARB Liaison Claire Raybould indicated there were no Agenda changes, additions, or deletions. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Ms. Raybould reported there is one new project that is not listed on the report, 3150 El Camino Real submitted a formal application after the packet was submitted for the meeting. It is for the McDonalds site that is next to Palo Alto square. Ms. Gerhardt stated it is the fish market and McDonalds site that is for a 380-unit multi-family project. The ARB had previously looked at the SB 330 pre-application, the major architectural review is now on file. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 100     Page 2 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 Chair Baltay noted that the project description can be found at the bottom of Packet page 11. Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Hirsch were the ad hoc committee assigned to that project and agreed to continue through this stage of the application process. Chair Baltay requested they review the new information and report back to the ARB. Ms. Raybould noted staff has scheduled 800 San Antonio Road for the July 6 agenda, it is part of a multi- family housing development that is part of a planned home zoning. The second NVCAP may return on the July 15 agenda. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted she will be absent on the July 6 meeting and Boardmember Hirsch will be absent from the following meeting. Ms. Raybould requested the ARB inform staff of any other absences so they can ensure there will be a quorum. Action Items 2. 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage: Development Agreement [22PLN-00287 and 22PLN-00288]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community Zoning application 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. The Project also Includes a Development Agreement, Comprehensive Plan Amendment, and Vesting Tentative Map. Environmental Assessment: A Draft EIR for the 200 Portage Townhome Development Project was Circulated September 16, 2022 through November 15, 2022; the Final EIR was Made Available for Public Review on May 15, 2023. The Proposed Development Agreement is Evaluated as Alternative 3 in the Draft EIR. Zoning District: RM-30 (Multi-Family Residential) and GM (General Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay asked for Boardmember disclosures. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he visited the site many times, but not this time. Vice Chair Rosenberg disclosed she also visited the site many times, but not this time. Chair Baltay disclosed he visited the site recently. Boardmember Chen stated that she visited the site recently, she was absent from the prior project’s review in front of the ARB, however she watched the video. Boardmember Thompson stated she had nothing to disclose. Project Planner Claire Raybould provided the staff report for 3200 Park Boulevard/340 Portage: Development Agreement [22PLN-00287 and 22PLN-00288], which included a brief summary of the history of the project, applicant responses to prior ARB comments, and changes that have been made. The project packet, along with the attachments, can be found here. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 101     Page 3 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 In Fall 2022, the Sobrato Organization, LLC (Sobrato) submitted a development application requesting a development agreement, rezoning, tentative map, and architectural review. The project is the redevelopment of the 14.65-acre site at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040-3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street and 278 Lambert. The project site is within the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) boundary and consists of a Development Agreement between the Sobrato Organization and the City, rezoning of the site, comprehensive plan amendment, and tentative map. The project would allow for the redevelopment of 14.65 acres located at 200-404 Portage Avenue, 3040- 3250 Park Boulevard, 3201-3225 Ash Street & 278 Lambert Avenue, as shown in the Location Map in Attachment A. The project includes partial demolition (84,000 sf) of the former Bayside Canning Company building (a portion of which was more recently occupied by Fry’s Electronics). The existing building is eligible for listing on the California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR). A draft Environmental Impact Report (EIR) was completed in September of 2022, the formal EIR was submitted in May of 2023. Some of the key ARB comments from the prior hearing are as follows: requests to revise the frontage of the retail façade to eliminate the A- symmetric forms, request for better material samples, reconsider the blue coloration of the glass, provide a schematic design for the Heating, Ventilation, and Air Conditioning (HVAC), improve the views of the monitor roof from the retail areas, provide operable windows in the monitor roof windows. They were asked to revise the pallet in the parking garage through color or material variation, provide higher quality materials with better documentation for the townhomes, all sides of the building should be given the same care with improvements to the sides and back of the garages, consider the addition of sunshades on the north and south façades; the second-floor sunshades conflicted with the fire access; however, sunshades were added to the other floors. It was requested that both paseo’s be widened, and the heat island effect be considered on the parking isles. Ms. Raybould showed several slides of the before and after changes that were made based on ARB feedback at the previous hearing. Chair Baltay requested the meeting be paused while Boardmember Hirsch’s audio equipment was fixed. Chair Baltay stated everything was worked out and Ms. Raybould could continue. Ms. Raybould continued and stated the applicant has provided a couple of options regarding widening the north to south paseo, however if they had reduced the townhomes size the minimum requirements for garage sizes would not have been met. The options presented were widening the paseo by either 4 or 6-feet. In doing so, it would be at the expense of the drive isles. Staff did a study of what Palo Alto’s requirements are, and the options available would meet those requirements. Staff did an analysis of the EIR and found that option three for the 91-unit townhome project, so the development agreement was studied as an alternative. The EIR was circulated for review September through November 2022, the final EIR which included responses to comments was released May 15, 2023. There was a revised final EIR that the City release on June 2, 2023. Staff inadvertently had not included applicant comments, so the revised final EIR includes those comments and the City’s responses to those. None of the conclusions were changed. Ms. Raybould highlighted that the EIR does identify a significant and unavoidable impact on a historic resource for the proposed project on the 91-unit project, as well as all build alternatives including the project currently before the ARB, the development agreement alternative. The EIR and a development impact are being brought before the Board. Staff recommended that the ARB: Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 102     Page 4 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 1) Consider the Environmental Impact Report (EIR) and EIR Mitigation Measures in Attachment K. 2) Recommend approval of the Development Plan for the planned community rezoning based on the Architectural Review findings in Attachment B, subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment C, and recognizing that the development agreement, comprehensive plan amendment, and subdivision map are not subject to the ARB’s purview. 35.21 Vice Chair Rosenberg requested Ms. Raybould return to the before and after drawings of the elevations so she could make a few notes. Chair Baltay called for the applicant to state and spell their name and gave them ten minutes for their presentation. Evan Sockalosky, with Arc Tec, provided the applicant’s presentation with architect David Burton from KTGY, Morgan Burke with the Guzzardo Partnership (landscape designer), historian Matt Davis with Architectural Resources Group (ARG), art consultant Jennifer Easton, Tim Steele and Robert Tersini with the developer Sobrato. Mr. Sockalosky stated the applicant’s team has worked hard to consider all the feedback and requested changes from the various stakeholders of the project and mentioned that the Palo Alto Historic Review Board (HRB) recently gave the project unanimous approval and added that Sobrato actually began conversations with the City about this project in 2011 and 2012, and they are excited to see it moving forward, with hope that it will continue doing so. Mr. Davis provided a brief history of how they came to the design of the project with regards to preserving the historic nature of the Cannery building and showed slides of the existing and proposed rooflines. The design seeks to preserve the monitoring rooms while also allowing for visibility of the monitor rooms from the retail locations. There is a precedence for projecting massing at the entrance of the retail area while also keeping the design sleek and simple. In an effort to mitigate strategy to document the property prior to altering it, they are in the process of recording Historical American Building Style (HABS) documentation. The Historic American Buildings Survey (HABS) program documents architecturally significant buildings/sites through the development of in-depth written reports, large-format black and white photographs, and architectural drawings. There will be interpretive displays of historical photos of the site which will depict the historical nature of the site for visitors. Mr. Sockalosky continued with slides of before and after changes that were made as a result of the prior ARB hearing. They considered operable windows in the monitoring room, and between the location on the roof and their goal of net-zero sustainability goal, operable windows were not feasible, as well as the operations in the Research and development (R&D) facility. They enlarged the current and added a skylight in the retail space. Mr. Burke, of the Guzzardo Partnership (landscapers), spoke about the changes in landscaping in front of the retail plaza and showed slides with drawings. Mr. Sockalosky added that they opened up some of the landscape next to the building in response to the ARB’s comments about potentially using the side of the building for public art. Mr. Burke continued with slides of renderings of landscape changes. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 103     Page 5 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 Chair Baltay opened the Board to questions for the applicants. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired about the existing depth of the protrusions at the entrance of the retail space versus what the proposed depth will be, and she indicated there is both a one-story and two-story number, she wanted them both. Mr. Sockalosky replied that the two-story depth is matching the existing condition as it stands now, he would have to find out those exact numbers, but he did know they were going to match what those dimensions are now. The depth of the retail portion projects out an additional two feet beyond the two- story projection. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if it will also match the same height. Mr. Sockalosky stated that it would. Boardmember Thompson asked about the color added to the parking garage and commented it was difficult to tell where that was proposed to be added and inquired from where it would be visible. Mr. Sockalosky replied that in response to the ARB’s request to pull in some of the colors from the townhomes to the parking garage, they added the colors on the ends of the parking garage and the façade facing the townhomes. They pulled in some of the blues and yellows from the accent colors. The façade facing the Cannery building had a trellis already, so they pulled it into the open spaces on the other sides including the façade facing the residents on Olive. Ms. Raybould added that in response to Vice Chair Rosenberg questions there is a drawing with the projection dimensions on Sheet A3, 2.1-11. Chair Baltay asked for a description of the proposed landscaping on the façade facing the residents on Olive. Mr. Burke responded that they learned the easement on that side is a general easement which does not preclude them from providing stormwater treatment or planting in that area. They reworked the geometry of the stormwater treatment basin to allow for larger box sized trees, so there will be a mix of native live oak trees and redwoods. The redwoods are on the corner of Olive and Park. Chair Baltay inquired if there are any trees adjacent to the large triangular shaped building. Mr. Burke answered there was not enough room to put a substantial tree in that are so shrub planting is being proposed. Possibly a hedge type shrub. Chair Baltay questioned if the developer has considered narrowing the street between the Cannery building and the townhomes in order to widen the paseo. David Burton from KTGY replied that the street needs to be at the 26-foot width because it is part of the arial apparatus access for the fire department. Additionally, there is necessary parking for the R&D building, as well as guest parking for the townhomes. Chair Baltay requested that staff comment on that statement. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 104     Page 6 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 Ms. Raybould noted that the guest parking for the townhome side is required; when they were looking at getting rid of the guest parking, in order to gain additional space by narrowing that street area, it can’t be narrowed less that 26-feet due to the firetruck access. Chair Baltay recalled that staff had mentioned, from a public life safety point of view, having the private streets between the townhomes reduced from 32’ to 29-30’ in width. There is also a Palo Alto Statute requiring a 32’ width and questioned if that was correct and how it might be overcome. Ms. Raybould explained that the 32’ width is in Title 21 of Palo Alto code, the subdivision chapter, they would have to ask for a tentative map with exceptions in order to approve. The code is not being changed and cannot be changed because it was added via voter initiatives, thus it would have to be removed via voter initiative. Because it is a design feature, they can ask for a map with exceptions to that. The goal of that code section was to have parking. The townhome parcel is still overparked, they’re meeting all of their parking requirements, plus some for the guest parking. The intent of the code is still being met, even with a reduction in total width. Reducing it could also reduce the heat island effect. Chair Baltay inquired about the Historical Review Board’s (HRB) decision to approve the Cannery building alterations as they are being proposed. Ms. Raybould explained that the HRB made recommendations of how to move forward with the project if Council chose to move forward with the proposed project. It is not within the HRB’s purview to approve or deny a project. The project was not required to go before the HRB, staff and the applicant chose to go before the HRB because they felt Council would be interested in understanding the HRB’s thoughts on the project. Chair Baltay asked if it would be fair to say the HRB endorsed the project. Ms. Raybould answered that she wouldn’t say they endorsed the project. Chair Baltay opened the hearing to public comments. PUBLIC COMMENTS Former Mayor Karen Holman (on behalf of Fred Balin, Pat Hernandez, Tommy Van Duyne, Nelson Ng) and thanked Ms. Raybould for her interpretation of the HRB’s opinion of the project, they did not say it was okay to do this. The HRB presumed it was going to be demolished and in case it was, they made recommendations on what they think should happen. Ms. Holman read an excerpt from the ARB’s purview: a) promote orderly and harmonious development of the City, and b) encourage and obtain the most desirable use of land and improvements. What is proposed to happen to the Cannery building is nearly a 40% demolition of the California Register Eligible Resource that eliminates it’s historic standing. She asked the Board to consider what residents want done with any of the City’s resources, and asked if it was really to demolish, obliterate, remove, and disregard. She quoted architecture critic Louise Huxtable who said, “We will probably be judged not by the monuments we build but those that we destroy.” Ms. Holman suggested that this building and site is a monument to the accomplishments of Thomas Foon Chew, a Chinese man who was honored by twenty-five thousand people, including elected officials when Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 105     Page 7 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 he died in the thirties, which makes his accomplishments even more remarkable. The California Register criteria are: (a) The first, last, only, or most significant of it’s type in the State or in the large geographic region, northern, central or southern California associated with a individual or group having profound influence on the history of California (b) A prototype or an outstanding example of a period style architectural movement or construction or (c) Is one of the most notable works, or the best surviving works of the region or of a pioneer architect, designer or master builder. This site and building satisfy those criteria. She questioned if the photos that were shown as historical photos of the projections were from a period of significance. The final EIR contains conflicting conclusions and statements. Adaptive reuse of the Cannery building, in response 3.8 of the applicants response to ARB comments was incorrect because not every possible alternative was considered to eliminate a significant impact. There are 75 housing units as the alternative to the 91 units, but the alternative that the City looked at was putting housing in the Cannery building, which imposed 281 units in the Cannery building to feasibly obtain the basic project objectives because the City selected three-story adaptive reuse scenario for a detailed analysis. She questions where and why the City chose a three-story scenario. It totally obliterates any comparison or alternative. Seventy-five or ninety-one compared to 281 units. Perhaps only a small, if any, portion of the building would need to be removed if they really made an apt comparison. There are numerous creative examples in a variety of uses in other cities. This building was R&D and retail for decades. City Council will have to make a statement of overriding considerations and find the adequacy of the final EIR. In no other response is this more infeasible because the applicant’s own architect was asked to conceive of an adaptive reuse of the Cannery building. Numerous times at the NVCAP, it was requested that the City conduct a feasibility study presumably independent for reuse of the building. There is no evidence known to her or anyone on the call with her that that ever occurred. She asked the ARB to please ask the City Council to conduct a study for the benefit of everyone including Sobrato. Project objectives are stated as cohesive development that respects the historic uses at the site. This proposal does not. It demolishes the history of the site. Another project objective is to contribute to the concept of complete neighborhood. She put forward that the proposal does not do that; it is predominantly R&D office with only 2,600 square feet (sq ft) of retail, which is basically hidden from the view of the neighborhood and travelers on nearby streets and housing. At the same time there’s a proposal to change the Comp Plan designation to commercial service. A designation used specifically on El Camino Real because it’s characterized as a vehicle destination. This site is near the CalTrain station, it doesn’t satisfy that at all. This building is a rare surviving example of Palo Alto and Santa Clara County’s agricultural past. It’s from the Page & Turnbull's Historic Resource Evaluations (HRE). Yet the response in the EIR, or in the FEIR, has to do with the question about whether this has not just a local, but regional significant impact. It states that “the proposed project would not contribute to cumulative impacts on cultural resources outside the project’s site. The valley of the heart’s delight is not a historic district and the project area is not within a historic district.” I can’t get my mind around those responses. The addition of a parking structure, adding a street directly in front, adding a housing project, directly in front, analysis, the applicant’s response to those having additional impacts was “Analysis unnecessary due to significant impact”. It’s important whether or not the Cannery is saved, and as they advocate, the Cannery will be compromised for listing locally due to impacts. It’s almost saying if the site is going to bludgeoned, it doesn’t matter how bad it’s bludgeoned. The applicant used the phrase “replace-in-kind” at the HRB meeting when referring to the remnant building, as opposed to “repair and restore” the elements on the building. That means they don’t know what’s going to be left of the original building. “Restore and repair” Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 106     Page 8 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 should come before “replace in kind”. At the August 1, 2022 Council presentation for the introduction of this project, one of the slides indicated that the remaining Cannery building would be subject to the Secretary’s standards. She suggested that it’s not, for the reasons she stated. PC zoning is proposed for four parcels as a part of this project. She suggested that more creative thinking could save them from having to do PC zoning. PC zoning is being requested because of the development on the remaining parcels, the parcels that are being created doesn’t satisfy anything in the zoning code. More creative thinking about land use and agreements would have the potential of eliminating that. There is a lot of talk about displacement and for good reason, to ensure people, who have long been someplace, are not being displaced for the sake of adding more and new opportunities. She suggests they are replacing their culture, their legacies, their important histories, and a community, and beyond, when the past is erased. The ARB, at the first view of this, made very clear their thoughts about the proposal. The ARB did that essentially in the first review. It is also appropriate to make comments about what if this goes forward as proposed, and what the ARB thinks is important. She hopes they will also assert their opinion about the proposal, consistent with the charge of the ARB. The development agreement has been revised and she now understands there is latitude to make changes. They hope Sobrato takes seriously the concerns and care the community has about the current proposal and considers changes. They are all volunteers, and they believe there is a better way to accomplish the goals of the development agreement, the applicant, and the public – community at large, while respecting history, and giving its rightful place in their future. She thanked the ARB for their thoughtful consideration. Terry Holzemer provided public comment 200 Portage Avenue. He served on the NVCAP working group for two and attended several hundred hours of meetings regarding this topic. They came up with several alternatives and one of the first was historical preservation of the site. The building at 340 Portage is not a typical run-down structure. It is one of the last of its kind in all of California. It is a true historic building due to what occurred there on a daily basis, and because of who built and established the Bayside Cannery Company. It was one of the most important of its kind in the world. It is vital the understand its significance so that future generations can learn and study what happened there. In a very similar way, which is why the community has so carefully preserved and saved the Addison House that will now hold the Palo Alto History Museum. He urged the ARB to carefully consider the City’s own Rincon Consultants report which started on Packet page 59 in the staff report. It states that destroying or demolishing 40% of this important historical structure would constitute material impairment to the historical resource and would not meet the Secretary of Interior’s standards for the treatment of historical properties. More importantly, the next sentence says, “Even though there will be remaining portion remaining, these elements would be inconsistent with the Secretary of Interior’s standards for distinctive and character defining features that characterized this property.” The remaining portion would not be acceptable as an historical structure. The feasibility study is a critical element that should be put together and discussed about the future of this building. Jeff Levinsky provided public comment regarding the Cannery building and stated it can’t be said often enough that the Cannery and the office on Ash Street are extraordinary and their terms of significance to Palo Alto, to the greater region, and to the world. As the analysis by Page & Turnbull indicates, demolishing almost 40% of the Cannery will be catastrophic and defeat the whole notion of historic preservation at the site. Some perceive that the City has no choice in this matter, perhaps due to the threat of a lawsuit from the property owner because of new State Laws. He asked about that and the answers of the Final Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 107     Page 9 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 EIR indicate that the City does have choices. The proposed mixed uses do not comply with current zoning laws and will require lifelong changes which are discretionary, that means the City does not have to agree to this project at all. There are questions about whether it complies with the Comprehensive Plan, and experts who wrote the plan say that it does not comply. Given that the City is not obliged in any way to approve the current proposal, there’s an enormous opportunity for the ARB to suggest creative ways to preserve the entire Cannery and improve the overall site. He outlined one approach on Page 64 of the FEIR, instead of building a new garage north of the Cannery, park those cars inside the Cannery that was to be demolished. Put the Condominiums where the garage was to be built, that are now proposed for the demolished part of the Cannery. You end up with about the same number of condominiums and parking spaces, but the Cannery building remains 100% intact. The FEIR dismissed the idea in one sentence by saying, “Modifying the Cannery building to convert it to a parking use could not be done without modifying the character defining features of the building.” Only part of the building would be for parking, and the only external change needed is to turn the current ramped entrance area on Park, which isn’t original, into the garage entrance. No other doors or windows would need to change, neither would the roofline. It would preserve the existing building, avoid the considerable environmental negatives in cost of constructing a brand-new giant garage, move condominiums further away from the train, and still keep about the same number of condominiums. That’s just one possibility. Please offer your ideas and consider other cities that have preserved buildings like this, urge the PTC and City Council to as well in your motion. Palo Alto has an amazing one-of-a-kind piece of history, we should be creative and save it. Yugen Lockhart provided public comment as an Olive Avenue resident. He understands the applicant’s are looking into drainage but it’s critical that they understand the impact of the slope of Olive Avenue towards this property, so there will be additional drainage added to the site drainage. Additionally, ensure the proposed Live Oaks will be able to handle the winter water logging. One the parking garage side, bushier trees would be helpful rather than incredibly slow growing Live Oaks, so it can block out the noise from car alarms and headlights at night. More green space bushes between the garage and residential neighborhood would be greatly appreciated. Alongside the townhouses, it isn’t quite as bad, although some green space would be appreciated. The townhouses are still a bit boxy and ugly; they do appreciate they put one of the versions with a slightly sloped roof to represent Ventura. The boxy tends to represent Park Avenue with the industrial buildings. It’s interesting that all the photos are not representing the remaining structure on the other side of the monitor roof building, which is going to remain. It would be nice to see in some of the renderings how the old section that is going to remain unchanged is going to represent into the new modified area. It’s been rumored that another low-income housing project that will be deeper on the creek side of the parking lot, if that’s true it will be allowed to exceed all of the regulations, it gets to be taller and wider, Charities has been courteous about not going way over, it would be nice to see how that development is going to work in with all of this. These three-story buildings going in will be impacted by the five-story buildings regarding sun lines and shades and vertical heights, and that’s even separate from the Bol Park/Creek renovation that’s also being discussed. Chair Baltay closed the meeting to Public Comments and offered the applicant time for rebuttal. Mr. Sockalosky commented that he appreciates the comments from the neighbors along Olive and noted that they lowered the garage with the input from the ARB and took particular care in designing the façade Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 108     Page 10 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 facing those residents with panels to screen headlights, they definitely understand the importance of that. They were looking to mitigate that to their neighbors as much as possible. Chair Baltay asked staff to comment on what they perceive is the proper role of the ARB to be regarding the historic preservation of the Cannery building. His understanding is there’s the development agreement that the City Council made regarding demoing that building. They’ve heard members of the public requesting the ARB to get deeply involved in essentially the guts of that development agreement. Ms. Raybould replied that was a good question, and where she saw the ARB’s role was… The role in the ARB findings, do speak to the historic aspects of the site. Staff is anticipating with respect to that is 1) the ARB understand the findings of the EIR and acknowledge that those findings are that this project would result in a significant and unavoidable impact on a historic resource. Staff’s finding is that the building would not be eligible for the California Register and National Register following this development. The ARB in making any recommendation on the project need to consider the environmental impacts and understand that that is an environmental impact. Council, in negotiating the key terms of the agreement, had a key understanding, and it was known that this project would remove half of the Cannery building, therefore this building would no longer be eligible. They are still interested in trying to retain this remaining building as much in line with the standards as possible. The analysis that was completed for this project for the Secretary of Interior’s standards, will always conclude that it’s not consistent with the Secretary’s standards because they are demolishing a portion of the building which results in material impacts on the resource. The goal was to try and align and reduce the changes as much as possible to the remaining structure and think about how the project would be used moving forward. There’s an intersection of the urban design and how to make the site usable for the proposed use, while also trying to retain as much historical aspects of the site as possible. Going back to the ARB findings, the goal would be to try to retain as much historic integrity of the site and try to further the historic aspects of the sites. Staff believes the applicant is doing that through the required plaques, the HABS mitigation, the public art aspects, as well as trying to retain certain features such as the monitor roofs which are character defining. Boardmember Thompson requested clarification on what staff’s recommendation is for this hearing. Ms. Raybould explained the ARB is being asked to recommend approval of the project in front of you, the piece that is part of the ARB’s purview is the development plan itself, which is one component of the planned community rezoning essentially. Everything else is within the Planning Commission and Council’s purview. The development plan itself is what staff are asking the ARB to recommend. Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Thompson to start since she would have to step away at 10 a.m. Boardmember Thompson thanked the applicant, staff, and public commentors for their input. In terms of the monitor roof frontage, the final member of the public made a good point about the rest of the building and seeing a lot that in the renderings that is cut off, it can be seen in the elevations, but perhaps in the context of the greater building, she can accept what is over there. She is lukewarm on the proposal, but she can accept it. She appreciated the effort put into the HVAC design. The parking garage pallet appears to not be visible from places in the public, so she encouraged more integration of color. She likes the offset of the different panels, she would suggest they work on bringing in a bit more color into the backside, it looks monotone and like no thought was put into it. She appreciates the material samples; they were helpful and offered much more detail than they last saw. She’s supportive of the materials. She Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 109     Page 11 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 agrees they are still a little boxy however the elevations are much improved since the last meeting. The elevations on Olive and the other side could still use more thought. She supports widening the paseo to six feet. That may have been the minimum that was requested at the prior meeting. She would suggest as much widening at possible. She wished the applicant had responded to more of the public comments. Those comments gave her more to think about. Originally, they had hoped the Cannery building could be this cool farmer’s market type of building with a lot of opportunities for what the space could be. She’s not sure if it’s being used to it’s full potential. She had to step away from the meeting at 10 a.m. and hoped she didn’t miss much of the other Boardmember comments. Chair Baltay commented that if Boardmember Thompson stepped away for any length of time and missed the other Boardmember comments, he wanted her aware that he wouldn’t be comfortable with allowing her to vote. Boardmember Thompson stated she understood. Boardmember Chen thanked everyone for the presentations and stated she agreed with Boardmember Thompson regarding the Cannery building. She’s worried that with the parking being so close to the Cannery building and felt that more color on the parking would be quite aggressive next to the historic part of the building. Her thoughts were overall she’d like the Cannery building to standout and be seen. Instead of adding more colors to the parking garage, she would discourage them from doing so. On the townhomes, she appreciated the applicant making the paseo wider, but believes it is still too narrow. Her original thoughts on the paseo were it could be a really cool place for people to do different activities. Looking at the current site plan it seems to just be a walkway with landscapes on each side. Making it wider would be a benefit to the whole community as well as including activities for the kids and people who live there. She does not feel the paseo is as pleasant as it could be given it’s ratio to the building height. She saw good improvement on the materials of the buildings and the rooflines and building design, however, the fourplex next to the single-family zone, there is a corner end unit that was cut off to meet the setback and to meet the daylight plan. It’s a weird unit for an end unit. She didn’t feel it was compatible with the other part of the townhomes. She hoped they would be able to make improvements to that unit. She encouraged them to work on the unit layout to gain a couple more feet from the unit layout to make the depths of the building narrower, if they could reconfigure the layout of the units, they may be able to gain width for the paseo. Boardmember Hirsch addressed the historic issues first and felt Ms. Raybould summed it up well. He added he’s had significant amount of experience with historic architecture in New York and gave a summary of the historical significance of the projects he worked on and commented on the knowledge he gained for federal requirements for historical restoration. His judgement is the Cannery is a wonderful remnant of a past industrial fruit-packing era, however the amount of historical detail really isn’t there. He believes what the architects have done is a wonderful way of bringing it into the new century. He doesn’t agree with trying to retail all of what was there as a memory of what it was, but there are wonderful ways that the artist that’s been selected could go back in history and find proper descriptions of how it was used, the number of people who used it, and what it served as not just a part of the building but of the whole city as a completely different kind of place. An agricultural situation of fruit trees and plants, and to see it historically or for the kids in the community to see what it was, is something that can be recreated through art and doesn’t need the building to represent it in it’s entirety. He prefers there be Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 110     Page 12 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 a transition to today’s time, and it be a different kind of expression, which it has become, and he congratulated the architect for the way it was put together and all of their sensitivity to that. Regarding the planned community zoning issues, he read that it’s their responsibility as they review projects large and small, planning also opines using the same findings in the packets at each meeting. There are times when they need to go beyond the specific qualifications because members of the Palo Alto community and as architects, they bear responsibility to recognize the needs of the entire city. That ought to influence their decisions. As he took his first bike ride through Palo Alto, he realized that Fry’s was one of the most significant sites in Palo Alto. Recently it because clear that as one of the only few remaining open parcels, it has become an obvious opportunity to advance a significant portion of the Housing Element in cooperation with an owner/developer Sobrato Corporation, capable of producing it and with significant self interest in making it a success. More than 60% of the Sobrato scheme is in his opinion a very exciting proposal. He believed if Thomas Foon Chew could see the end result after it’s been repurposed, he would marvel at the change from such a humble processing building near the farms to a gleaming metal, high- tech center, in a transformed economy. We can agonize over some of the small aspects of the design, but the end product will clearly be a thrilling statement. As to the other 40%, he finds he cannot accept the presentation of townhomes. Boardmember Chen and he spent weeks reviewing townhome projects and studying them and visiting them. This townhome plan violates too many of the principles they found that work well in the projects they study. Even more important to him, the decision to fill this portion of the site with townhomes was wrong from the start. It is important to consider this design for the following reasons: 1. The zoning could easily be revised so that substantially more units could be constructed as mid-rise housing which is essential to reach the Palo Alto’s requirements; 2. Larger buildings will allow a great diversity of tenant population and it wouldn’t be an exclusive family-oriented community; 3. Park Boulevard by commercial office buildings which are not incompatible with a medium density residential use as would be more likely as a lower density residential neighborhood and the scale could be reduced in height as it they approach the Olive Street residential neighborhood; 4. Larger buildings allow better use of the sites residual open space for the residents common use; 5. The building forms can be located in shapes that Sobrato office building that the new rendition is visible from the point of entry from Park Boulevard; 6. The panoramic views from the higher elevations from these buildings will be both towards the Baylands and foothills so rooftop socializing space will be in high demand; 7. Tall buildings will establish a visual identity to the project just as the Charities project will define the opposite corner on Olive and El Camino Real. He asked Chair Baltay if he could make a motion regarding that particular way of considering the site. Chair Baltay replied after everyone speaks if there’s support for that, of course he could make a motion. Boardmember Hirsch stated he has one other comment to make. Regarding the Comp Plan Goals and policies, Comp plan land use designation for sites in multi-family residential: Project proposes to add a new public park and multi-family residential use, 74 townhomes and affordable project housing project on the proposal city dedicated parcels. These uses are consistent with multi-family residential land use designation, which encourages high density residential uses within .5 miles of transit. This project is close to transit, could use State regulations to minimize some of the parking requirements, and is an ideal location for a denser project that would be much more responsive to the housing element requirements that Palo Alto has. They cannot allow it to be used in the density that is being proposed. The paseo doesn’t work, the project uses up the land for single-family homes, if it was designed as a multi-family larger scale Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 111     Page 13 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 development there would be much better use of the open space and it would be more in keeping with the objective of answering the State’s requirements. Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Hirsch if he wanted to speak on the check list of the changes that were made by the applicant based on comments from the ARB at the prior meeting. Boardmember Hirsch stated he already stated the site plan doesn’t work and doesn’t meet the objectives of the designers who were talking about it as a paseo, squeezing a few feet here and there in order to make the paseo work. That was one of the items the Board discovered was really important. Socializing space has to be appropriately scaled so they can work, this one does not. He’s confused by the aesthetics of the project, there are many elements within the housing façades, he thinks there’s been a modest improvement, but he’s less interested in talking about it in detail because he believes the entire site plan is wrong in respect to the amount of housing that could be provided at a much more dynamic project based on increasing the density and creating shapes and buildings that would fit the site. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that she’s okay with the monitor roof frontage, understanding and appreciative of the public comment that the photos of historical frontage may or may not be from the timeline of impact and significance. She’s okay with how it’s being proposed at this time. The HVAC is being reflective and thoughtful. There’s one element where it drops down and goes around the dip in the Cannery on the interior, that one moment gave her minor concerns, but it’s not the end of the world. She said the potential of painting the duct work black might also potentially help fade those out a bit. The parking garage pallet makes her appreciate the introduction of color and she appreciates the dysregulation of the really long façade behind the houses. She would encourage the applicant to apply that more to the Cannery side, which may be where she and Boardmember Chen disagree. The modulation of the panel really breaks up that façade in a nice way, as does the introduction of color. Touching on Boardmember Thompson’s comments there doesn’t seem to be any mention of why they are doing the color in the places they are, and why they are regulating where they are regulating. It is reasonably successful, and she encouraged the applicant to lean into that a bit more. Material samples are incredibly helpful. The glass color is great, monitor review is understood. Operational windows understood, disappointing, but understood. The townhome materials show significant improvement, and she appreciated the introduction of more wood elements. The selection of imitation wood is high quality and will look like wood. It’s a good solution for long-term and will be easier to maintain. Sunshades would be great. She used to walk in townhomes because of the paseo. She can see this becoming as successful as the townhomes she used to walk in. However, it would need to be as widened as possible. The reduction of parking is not the only thing to consider. There’s the potential to put a slanting in the parking that’s perfectly adjacent to the Cannery. That may also buy them a couple more feet for the paseo. She is disheartened that more wasn’t done on that front to try to understand how the borders of the townhomes and felt as if the applicant said, these are our borders, this is what we can do. The width of 6’ is successful for the paseo however, she would appreciate more exploration on that front. She is of the opinion that the townhomes are a good idea. That is in direct contrast to what Boardmember Hirsch believes, she respectfully disagrees. They have to acknowledge that there are single-family homes in the area, and they are butting up to a very significant project which they can’t control. Putting up a higher density and taller project would significantly impact those homeowners. A taller building would also directly compete with the Cannery building that they are trying to celebrate. The current project is thoughtful to the property Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 112     Page 14 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 itself, a good idea for the area it’s in, particularly in consideration of the other similar projects nearby. The townhomes are a good idea and much more respectful of the neighbors already in the area. The Cannery’s story is something she’s just learning about, and she was born and raised in Palo Alto. With this proposal she’s seeing the history, the importance on the community and learning about the man who built it. While history needs to be preserved, it also needs to be understood and celebrated. She believes the architecture of the building now shows off more of the Cannery than it did previously. They are being respectful of what was there before, and they are reinvigorating a building that has been quite neglected. If the preservation had been consistent through the years, she would have been more apt to say the entire building needs to be preserved. At this point, with the uses it’s been through, she believes the architect and the applicant have made good strides forward to celebrate the building and reinvigorate it in a way that will move forward with new generations coming through Palo Alto, with a better understanding of the history of the building, architecturally speaking. The use is where she has an issue. The problem she sees with the building is that the use of the Cannery, specifically the two monitor buildings, is not being made useful for the public. It’s being made useful for a corporation and a retail space at the front, that the ARB asked for, that is being allotted two tiny skylights, to view the monitor buildings. Boardmember Thompson had commented on it being used as a farmers market, or something along those lines, Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she’s not there to tell the developer what to put in the building, however, it is a huge shame, that while this building is being celebrated and useful and they history will be acknowledged, all of that is being done for one occupant. That feels like a tremendous waste. The use should be more public, and more open, and should be celebrated for what it is. She appreciates the comments from the public, and the impact this will have on the neighbors. She appreciates the impact of the history of the building. This is a very significant project in the town, likely one of the most significant they’ve seen in decades. It does need to be treated with care and thoughtfulness. Chair Baltay appreciated Vice Chair Rosenberg’s comments regarding the history. He believed she was spot on in that the use of the building and site is what was truly historic. He agrees with Boardmember Hirsch’s assessment that the building itself lacks architectural merit. It’s not architecturally a significant building, it is significant because of it’s past use. Its past use was paramount to Palo Alto. Vice Chair Rosenberg’s comment that she never knew it was historic, is very much a majority in Palo Alto. He shares the same comment. He went to Fry’s electronics all the time. In doing so, he would look up at the monitor roofs and see something special about the building. Fry’s was a public building. Anyone could go in there. What is lacking in this project is that preservation of the use, the recognition of the use. Most people in Palo Alto would likely agree with that simple statement. The use is not being preserved, rather it’s being lost. That’s the real travesty, that the town somehow can’t figure out a way to preserve it’s use. With that in mind, he did not want to see for the ARB what was forced upon the HRB. The ARB needs to make a clear statement about what should be preserved historically. City Council can choose to listen or not, the public as well. He would like to see them make a motion and vote that effectively the use of the building is not appropriate. Then they can move on with what the Planning Commission needs from the ARB. He offered Boardmember Hirsch the opportunity to convince the Board that they would have a similar vote regarding the use of the townhomes. He understands and supports his statement that a higher density use would be more appropriate to both the town’s Housing Element and general policies and goals, that townhomes. He’s not sure the entire Board would support that, but he’d like to offer him the chance to make a clear statement, through a motion with a vote that they can offer to the Council. The project has Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 113     Page 15 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 improved dramatically, they need to go through the checklist. He believed the current design with the asymmetric blocks on the front of the monitor roofs are better than they were before. It’s better than what was there. He can support the changes to the HVAC design. The parking garage is fine the way it is, he appreciates the material samples that were provided, same with the glass color, and same with looking into the monitor roofs. It’s better than what was there before. He believed there are ways to make operable windows work so he can not accept the applicants statement on that, but he wasn’t sure that was a significant enough thing. The townhomes are high quality materials, the buildings have been sufficiently redesigned several times, and they are pretty good given where they are. The sunshades help a lot. He cannot support anything less than six feet wide for the paseos, that’s the minimum they agreed to at the prior hearing, it needs to be that much. He was disappointed the applicant didn’t come up with a better solution. Narrowing other streets is going to be tough to get through the political process due to the thirty-two-foot code. There’s a chance it’s not going to get wider, which means the ARB is being put in a position to recommend something with a condition that may or may not be accepted, or they continue the hearing and ask them to return with a serious design that will meet that requirement, which is what he believes should happen. The Board has been consistent regarding the narrowness of the paseos. They’ve been provided with great level of presentations as to why they need to be bigger. The narrowness as it stands is not suitable. The ARB’s unanimous opinion regarding the width of the paseos is not going to change and they should not be made to accept anything less than six feet, at a minimum. He neglected to be clear that Boardmember Chen missed the first meeting. She has stated since that she looked at the past videos, which satisfy the City’s requirements to allow her to participate and gave her the opportunity to clarify that in public. Boardmember Chen commented that she missed the last meeting, she did watch the video and disclosed at the beginning of this hearing. Chair Baltay asked staff if they are clear with that disclosure. Ms. Raybould replied that it was perfect. Ms. Raybould stated for the record that while it is the prerogative of the ARB to comment on the use of the space, staff did not push back on the use of the building because they had the key terms of the negotiated development agreement on Page 15 of the packet. The ad-hoc committee, which consisted of the City Manager, City Attorney, two Council members, the Director of Planning, and Sobrato, spent a year negotiating the uses of the site and the exact square footage of the space. Those uses were accepted as the key negotiated terms of the agreement, this is also in reference to the exact number of housing units, by the Council and approved by the full Council. The directive from Council was to propose a project that met the key terms of that development agreement. The project before the ARB at this meeting, and that will go before Council, will reflect the key terms of the development agreement. The ARB can certainly express their opinions about that, but for the record she clarified why the uses and square footage are the way that they are. Chair Baltay stated that one of the purviews of the ARB is to advise City Council on the architectural interest of the town. MOTION: Chair Baltay, seconded by Boardmember Chen, that the Architectural Review Board finds that with respect to the historic reuse of the cannery building: Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 114     Page 16 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 •The use of 340 Portage is historically significant and should be preserved so the public can experience the interior of the building. •All of the area underneath at least one of the monitor roof portions of the building should be publicly accessible and usable space, such that entirety of the length of the monitor roof is visible. Chair Baltay requested a roll call vote. Ms. Gerhardt suggested they include that in an all-inclusive motion. MOTION WITHDRAWN: Chair Baltay and Boardmember Chen withdrew the motion. Boardmember Hirsch responded to Vice Chair Rosenberg’s comments regarding the impact of the project on the neighborhood and how the project faces Park Avenue and that is a mostly commercial area. Vice Chair Rosenberg disagrees with the idea of making the project high density and taller, due to the impacts other high density tall projects that are currently proposed and already in process, and the impacts a massive three to five story housing complex would have on what they are trying to accomplish with the Cannery building. Boardmember Chen agreed that it is a perfect location for higher density but agreed with Vice Chair Rosenberg regarding the impact on the existing neighborhoods when you zoom out and consider the number of high-density projects that are already underway and being proposed; and if they were to build high-rises, the Cannery building would appear to be surrounded by a fortress. With regard to the monitor roofs, the Ferry Building in San Francisco is a great example of people being able to experience the interior ceiling element in retail and commercial space. Ms. Gerhardt commented that the Housing Element is anticipating, along with this project and others around the city, 75% affordable on another portion of the site. Ms. Raybould stated that what is not shown is that part of the development agreement is 149 total units of higher density housing. Vice Chair Rosenberg requested clarification as to where the higher-density projects would be on this site location. Ms. Raybould explained that parcels four and five are not expected to be changed. The high-density affordable housing is expected to be built on parcel two. A specific location on that property has not yet been determined. Boardmember Hirsch commented regarding the benefits of adding more density to the project and suggested they could find additional footage by moving “Private Street A” more south than it is depicted in the plans, and buildings 1-4 can be increased into higher density housing. It makes for a better project as opens up more square footage, allows for different scaling of all of the aspects of the project, and could potentially allow a bigger open space area for people to enjoy. MOTION: Chair Baltay, seconded by Vice Chair Rosenberg, that the Architectural Review Board finds that: 1. With respect to the historic reuse of the cannery building: Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 115     Page 17 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 •The use of 340 Portage is historically significant and should be preserved so that the public can experience the interior of the building. •All of the area underneath at least one of the monitor roof portions of the building should be publicly accessible and usable space, such that entirety of the length of the monitor roof is visible. 2. With respect to the townhomes •A portion of the site currently designated for townhomes should be higher density residential housing. 3. The Architectural Review Board recommends approval with the conditions that the project return to an ad hoc committee to ensure: •The paseo width shall be a minimum of 28-feet wide, and the drive isles may be a minimum of 29- feet wide on the ground level. •The end unit on Building #1 (closest to Olive Avenue) be redesigned to eliminate the angled roof form that is incompatible with the rest of the building. Chair Baltay called for a roll call vote. VOTE: 4-0-1-0 (Boardmember Thompson was not present for the vote) Chair Baltay appointed Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Chen to be the ad hoc committee for the return of the project. The ARB took a 12-minute break. The meeting continued with all ARB Boardmembers present. 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN-00009]: Architectural Review of a new storefront façade including new glazing and signage within Space #820B, Bldg. V (#v820B) for “Arhaus” at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). Chair Baltay asked for Boardmember disclosures. Boardmember Thompson stated she visited the site very recently. Boardmember Chen visited the site over the weekend. Chair Baltay visited the site over the weekend. Vice Chair Rosenberg visited the site a week and a half ago. Boardmember Hirsch visited the site. Project Planner Tamara Harrison provided the staff report for 180 El Camino Real [23PLN-00009]: Architectural Review of a new storefront façade including new glazing and signage in Stanford Shopping Center in Building B, Suite 820-B, formerly the American Girl Store. It is subject to the Master Tenant Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 116     Page 18 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 Façade and Sign Program (MTFS) for the center. The shopping center identifies which tenants require City review. The project does not increase the FAR or lot coverage of the site nor does it propose to change the use of the tenant space. Proposed exterior façade improvements include steel rainscreen panels, aluminum curtain walls, ages Belgium bricks, Equitone panels, new storefront glazing and acrylic and aluminum signage. The design is consistent with the MTFS program for the shopping center and is consistent with the shopping center’s character. The proposed building height will be increased to 42- feet, at the brow features over the entry and at the corner of the building. The remainder will remain the same at 38.5-feet. The frontage facing Sandhill Road and the parking area will be pushed back approximately 8-feet from it’s current location. Ms. Harrison showed slides in her presentation of the materials being proposed. Municipal Code allows for several wall signs within the allowable sign area and the subject façades are 38’6” by 79’1” for 3,053 sf, allowing a maximum of 115 sf of sign area for wall signs. The second sign is 38’6” by 99’9” for 122 sf of sign area for wall signs. Municipal Code sign regulations allow for blade signs up to 3 sf in the area. MTFS signage regulations allow for one primary wall sign, one secondary sign, and one blade sign. The proposal includes one wall sign, one wall/canopy sign that will be acrylic letters, and one aluminum blade sign on the primary façade. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval to the Director of Planning & Development services for the project façade changes and signage, subject to staff’s conditions of approval. Jason Smith, applicant, provided a presentation with Abby Wimpsett and Felipe Bermudez. Ms. Wimpsett gave a history of Arhaus and the owners, who founded the business based on sustainable sourced materials. Architect Felipe Bermudez, with Onyx Creative, presented the drawings of the proposed project, site plan and exterior accessibility through the site, floor plan and materials, and landscaping diagrams and photos. The design is consistent with the brand design of their other stores. Chair Baltay opened for Board questions of staff or the applicant. Boardmember Thompson asked the applicant the intent behind the Belgium bricks versus the wood treatment on their other buildings, if there is grout between the brick, and the color of the grout. Mr. Bermudez explained the Belgium bricks is a new material the stores are now using. Ms. Wimpsett answered they have moved to the brick material due to the cost to maintain the wood treatment, there is grout between the bricks; they would have to research the color of the grout. Boardmember Chen thanked the applicant and stated she appreciated the well documented plan set and referenced Sheet A-300 for the front elevation and inquired about the bottom of the Canopy as being 15’ in height and the door height as 9’. The rendering of the frontage on the cover sheet seemed like it didn’t proportionately reflect what is being shown on Sheet A-300. Mr. Bermudez answered that the data on Sheet A-300 is accurate. Boardmember Thompson commented that it looked like a shorter building. Boardmember Chen questioned how they intended to use the patio space on the front of the building. Ms. Wimpsett replied that they display their outdoor furniture in that space. Boardmember Chen inquired about the LED lighting features of the signage. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 117     Page 19 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 Mr. Bermudez answered there would be LED strips going around the exterior edges of the metal features. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that on rendering A-400 the pop up shows the LED strips going around it but corner one with the pop-up does not, and inquired if that was correct and if the secondary “Arhaus” that does not have a pop-up also have LED strips. Mr. Bermudez responded that was correct. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the top of the areas in between window frames noting that the rooftop shows a metal piece of ACH-1 and PC-1 and asked if there was a metal strip along the roofline. Mr. Bermudez stated that the roofline does have a metal strip trim cap. Mr. Smith noted that can be found in Detail 7 on Sheet A-531, the last sheet in the set, the parapet detail. It isn’t being shown in the rendering. Boardmember Hirsch commented that it’s unfortunate the building isn’t being shown relative to the Pottery Barn, which has similar dimensions and they both cap each end of the building. Mr. Smith stated the Pottery Barn is set forward and Arhaus is set back. Mr. Bermudez commented that on Rendering A-400 the lower left picture reflects part of the Pottery Barn frontage. Boardmember Hirsch inquired about the grout in the brick. Mr. Bermudez replied that the grout will match the color of the brick. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the same vertical façade would also be on the site entrance, stating in the rendering the side elevation is different that the front. Mr. Bermudez explained that on the south side elevation there are mullions at the door. On the second story it is butt glazing. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the side elevations don’t pick up the divisions, except when you reach the side elevation doorway. Chair Baltay opened the meeting to public comment. Public Communications PUBLIC COMMENT Chair Baltay asked if there were public comments and there were none. Chair Baltay closed to the meeting to public comments. Chair Baltay commented that it seemed the renderings are not the project in front of the Board in height parameters, glazing patterns, things of that nature. It’s hard to get a good impression then be told it’s not accurate. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 118     Page 20 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 Boardmember Hirsch thanked the applicant for the presentation and believed it will be an elegant building. It was nice to see the history of other Arhaus buildings. He liked the rendering of the cap flashing idea, he liked the rendering rather than the cap and wondered if it would be possible to do that differently, it would be nice to see that material going all the way up to the top. It seems to lose something by breaking it up. The divisions at the glass of the major façade are really very nice and the proportions look nice, and definitely an improvement from the previous tenant. The comments made about lighting are significant. The same thing is done at the corner that is very expressed, it would be nice if that element had similar lights. It looks like the side has lighting as well. That’s an important entry, many people will be coming from the center of the shopping center, it’s important to emphasize that elevation as well. It would be even more impressive of a statement if you could keep going through all of the three entrances. Furniture in the portico area becomes an issue as how to monitor the furniture at night, he hoped they had a way to secure it. The metal strip seems to have two colors in it. There needs to be more bicycle racks for the plaza. Mr. Smith replied that Simon Properties has been working with planning staff on the placement of all the required bicycle parking. Currently they are on the way to being up to date. Ms. Gerhardt stated they are working on upgrading that property one location at a time. Chair Baltay inquired what the requirement is for this property. Ms. Harrison answered this property is at six required spaces and there are also existing bike racks and lockers in front of stores. Mr. Smith stated that Sheet G-101.1 there are three sets of existing racks near gridline K and again between G and F. Boardmember Thompson asked if those were part of a proposed project or existing. Mr. Smith replied that they already exist. The proposed ones have not been located yet because sometimes they aren’t allowed to be adjacent to the property. Mr. Harrison confirmed that is what they are in the process of working out with Simon Properties. As new projects come forward, they are commissioning them for the number of racks they are required per tenant space that is being worked on. Boardmember Hirsch commented that he would suggest putting them in the open spaces as a means of attracting bikers to the store. He likes the subtle black elements; he believes it’s an elegant building and thanked the applicant for the presentation. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the applicant for the presentation, she liked the material choices and believes they are high quality and make the building interesting and dynamic. Her two comments are that she would like to see LED lighting at the corner pop-up and encouraged the third entrance to also have a pop-up. The entrance without the pop-up makes that façade look a bit mundane. She believes the door selections are nice, and the door selections are likely less accurate, and she believed the elevations should be adhered to. The mullions could be tidied up a bit, to maybe line up with the door. She would love to see a sample of the grout color, as long as it’s not white, that would be great. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 119     Page 21 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 Boardmember Thompson noticed she had another question regarding the canopy soffit, one of the renderings is showing a light-colored earthy material underneath the canopies and the other one is showing it black up to a certain point and requested clarification. Mr. Bermudez replied that the canopies at the main entrance have wood paneling underneath and the other ones continue metal. The wood material samples were not provided and will be inside the arcade. Boardmember Thompson asked if that would be transitioned to the metal soffit at the other canopies. Mr. Bermudez responded that was correct. Chair Baltay questioned which detail sheet that was. Boardmember Thompson said the other canopies showed partially under the canopy and stopped. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that Sheet A-501 section 1 shows the depth of that area but does not show a material change at any given point. Chair Baltay requested clarification that those materials were not included. Mr. Bermudez stated that was correct. Boardmember Thompson commented that in general the concept of the building is very strong, she’s not a fan of all black buildings but in this case, it works for the brand, and there are other brick materials in the other corner, with brilliant earth and feels this will be compatible with it’s surroundings. It would be nice to know what that wood material is and the extent of it. She also agrees that the elevation should be adhered to. If the rendering were more accurate, the building would look a lot taller so she wondered if that were true, would it be necessary to go even taller with the eyebrows. It does emphasize the entrance. Concept and design intent, she didn’t have too many comments. Boardmember Chen thanked the applicant for the presentation and felt it was a very beautiful and elegant design for that corner of the site and well delivers their brand. All the materials looked carefully chosen and looking at the elevation sheet it appeared nicely proportioned, with the combination of different materials. She agreed with her colleagues suggestions on the corner, it would be nice to add the lighting fixture. Chair Baltay agreed with what had been said and had no further comments but asked the applicant to address Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Chen’s comments regarding the lighting. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated on Sheet A-300 where the Arhaus entry doors are located, it would be nice to have that additional pop-up to re-emphasize the entrance on the façade. Mr. Bermudez responded they had previously had it as a pop-up, and they lowered it. He’s not sure why it was changed, he believes they were asked to lower it. Mr. Smith stated they would definitely entertain that idea and look forward to making that modification, as well as adding additional lighting to the corner if necessary. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that would be great. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 120     Page 22 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 Chair Baltay stated he heard unanimous support for the project and stated that he was disappointed that the elevations and renderings were out of sync. They have confidence in Mr. Smith’s projects, perhaps this was something that they should send back to an ad-hoc committee just to verify. To reiterate that the ARB needs to see these things more carefully put together. MOTION: Vice Chair Rosenberg, seconded by Boardmember Thompson to approve the project with the condition that it comes back for an ad-hoc committee to address the following items: •Grout color. •Wood sample of the underside of the canopy with better drawings of where it starts and stops with dimensions. •Potential bike locations, if possible. •Renderings updated to match the elevations. Mr. Smith asked if it could be a “date certain”. Ms. Raybould stated she wouldn’t be able to make a date without getting the plans back. The Board motioned to approve the project, and the ad hoc is quite flexible in terms of scheduling. Chair Baltay requested a roll call vote. VOTE: 5-0-0-0 Chair Baltay appointed Boardmember Thompson and Vice Chair Rosenberg to the ad hoc committee. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 4, 2023. Chair Baltay asked for comments or a motion. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to approve the meeting minutes for May 4, 2023 as written. VOTE: 4-0-1-0 (Boardmember Thompson abstained) Boardmember Hirsch commented that on Packet Page 159, the paragraph which begins with Boardmember Hirsch, instead of edition, it should be addition. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that Packet page 157, third paragraph down, “Vice Chair Rosenberg commented the muse on the pathway”, she believes it should be mews. MOTION: Boardmember Rosenberg moved, seconded by Boardmember Thompson, to approve the meeting minutes for May 4, 2023 as amended. VOTE: 4-0-1-0 (Boardmember Thompson abstained) Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay stated there are no report outs and asked if there were comments. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 121     Page 23 of 23 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/15/23 Boardmember Thompson stated that she and Boardmember Chen discussed 300 Lambert. There were a handful of comments for the applicant to consider before it comes before the Board. It’s located at the NVCAP next to Matadero Creek. They asked the applicant to clarify the interface of the buildings backyards, and setbacks from the creek, and on the sides and the front. The application was showing details for upper units and not for the ground floor, they asked those be included. Consider fire access to the units in the rear of the property. The solution is not clear in the application. They also asked for more clarification on material choices. There appears to be an open space on a second-floor level but it’s not clear if it has access to tenants or just open. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she will not be at the next meeting; she will watch the video to catch up. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting. Item 5 Attachment A Minutes of June 15, 2023     Packet Pg. 122     Item No. 6. Page 1 of 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Jonathan Lait, Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 3, 2023 Report #: 2307-1795 TITLE 180 El Camino Real: ARB Ad Hoc Committee Review of Additional Material Details for Arhaus RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Ad Hoc Committee take the following action(s): •Discuss and provide direction, or •Confirm the revised project meets the full ARB’s direction and recommend the Director approve the project. BACKGROUND On June 15, 2023, the ARB held a hearing to review façade modifications for the proposed tenant space for a new tenant, Arhaus, to replace the existing American Girl Doll store (23PLN- 00009). In its motion to approve the project, the ARB recommended that certain project elements be reviewed by the ARB Ad Hoc Committee; these elements are noted below, along with the applicant’s responses. Draft ARB minutes for the June 15, 2023 meeting are provided as part of this August 2, 2023 meeting packet. A Link to ARB’s June 15, 2023 staff report and a video of the meeting are available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Architectural- Review-Board-ARB/Current-ARB-Agendas-Minutes ANALYSIS The ARB recommended that four aspects of the design be reviewed by the ARB Ad Hoc Committee. A summary of the ARB recommendations, the applicant’s response to those recommendations, and staff analysis are included herein. ARB Recommendation #1: Provide color and material details (and sample) for the grout portion of the proposed Aged Belgium Bricks. Item 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 123     Item No. 6. Page 2 of 3 Applicant’s Response: The Aged Belgium Brick is no longer proposed. The applicant now proposes Terracotta Baguettes in the color “Gauntlet Grey”, which was added to the material set on Sheet M-1 and noted in the drawings. A Flat Flush Metal Panel in the color “Midnight Bronze” will be used underneath the proposed Terracotta Baguette as shown in details 10 and 11 on Sheet A531 of the plan set. Samples of the Terracotta Baguette and the flush metal panel are on file and will be available to the ARB Ad Hoc Committee at the meeting. Staff Analysis: The proposed materials for the underside of the canopies are consistent with the Master Tenant and Façade program for the Stanford Shopping Center and material samples for all materials have been provided as requested. The revised design continues to meet the ARB findings for approval. ARB Recommendation #2: Provide colors and materials details (and sample) for the proposed materials on the underside of the canopies. Applicant’s Response: All canopy ceilings/soffits are to be Natural Ipe with a Rosewood Oil finish with the exception of the underside of the entry canopy, which will consist of Belgium Sandstone Tile in the color “Gray” as noted on Sheets M-1 and A300 of the plan set. The newly proposed materials are reflected in the materials schedule shown on Sheets M-1 and A300 of the plan set. Material samples for both canopies have been provided to staff ad will be available to the ARB Ad hoc at the meeting. Staff Analysis: The proposed materials for the underside of the canopies are consistent with the Master Tenant and Façade program for the Stanford Shopping Center. However, the plan set does not clearly show the proposed locations of the materials. The Natural Ipe is not called out on the elevation drawings. The Belgium Sandstone is called out; however, the pointer showing the location of the material is not shown correctly. At the Ad Hoc committee meeting a revised plan sheet will be provided correcting this callout. ARB Recommendation #3: Show future potential bike parking locations for bike parking that will be added to the Stanford Shopping Center as a result of the new Arhaus tenant. Applicant’s Response: New bike parking locations are not shown on the plans. See the staff analysis below. Staff Analysis: The Palo Alto Municipal code requires bicycle parking at the Stanford Shopping Center to be provided at a ratio of 1 per 2,750 square feet of gross floor area. Based on the proposed gross floor area for the Arhaus tenant, six (6) bicycle parking spaces would be required in order to comply with the code’s requirements. The Stanford Shopping Center Landlord recently installed Item 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 124     Item No. 6. Page 3 of 3 approximately 54 short-term bicycle parking stalls at the center. Approximately 47 of those spaces will fulfill short-term bicycle parking requirements from previous ARB approvals at the center, while 6 of the 54 spaces will be used to fulfill the requirement for this Arhaus project. Approximately one extra short-term bicycle parking space remains at the center for future use. ARB Recommendation #4: Provide updated renderings that match the elevations that were provided. Applicant’s Response: The storefront doors were updated on the renderings to match the elevations. Staff Analysis: Proposed renderings and elevation are now consistent, addressing the ARB’s recommendation. Other Modifications In addition to the revisions mentioned above, the applicant has indicated other minor modifications have been made to the plans. These are summarized for informational purposes: •The renderings were updated to reflect the new terracotta brick material, raised metal frame element at south entry, the LED strip light at the corner, and the centering of the entrance doors within each bay. •Storefront doors were adjusted to be centered within each bay. The exterior face was extended to accommodate new materials, and to achieve one continuous stud to the second floor. The tall entrance portals were adjusted to be a larger depth and thickness as shown in the renderings. •A Reflected ceiling plan was added to show all canopy and exterior lighting. All canopy ceilings/soffits to be Natural Ipe as noted in the drawings. •The equitone pattern has been adjusted. The height of the side entry portal was adjusted to match the front entry portal. A curb was added to all materials where they reach the ground. •The side entry portal height was increased to match the front entry portal. The Ad Hoc Committee is encouraged to affirm these submittals meet the recommendations discussed at the June 15, 2023, ARB public hearing. Otherwise, the Committee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal requires further refinement. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Applicant’s Response to ARB Comments Attachment B: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Tamara Harrison, Principal Consulting Planner Item 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 125     To whom it may concern, This letter is written in response to the comments received at the June 15, ARB hearing. Please reference the revision set of drawings, the physical material samples, and see the updated project description letter. Revised Sheets • CS100 – Renderings were updated to reflect new terracotta brick material, raised metal frame element at south entry, the LED strip light at the corner, and the centering of the entrance doors within each bay. • G101.1 – Storefront doors were adjusted to be centered within each bay. The exterior face was extended to accommodate new materials, and to achieve one continuous stud to the second floor. The tall entrance portals were adjusted to be a larger depth and thickness as shown in the renderings. • G102.1 – Same as above (Storefront doors were adjusted to be centered within each bay. The exterior face was extended to accommodate new materials, and to achieve one continuous stud to the second floor. The tall entrance portals were adjusted to be a larger depth and thickness as shown in the renderings.) • W-1 – Waste Bin & Bathroom Compost Bin Specs were updated to reflect the color-coded lids/bins as required. • M-1 – Terracotta Baguette, Nature Ipe, Flat Flush Panel, and Belgium Stone Tile were added to the material set and noted in the drawings. Please see the physical material samples for reference. • A100 - Storefront doors were adjusted to be centered within each bay. The exterior face was extended to accommodate new materials, and to achieve one continuous stud to the second floor. The tall entrance portals were adjusted to be a larger depth and thickness as shown in the renderings. • A200 – LED light strip was added to the corner portal to match the other larger portals. City of Palo Alto Architectural Review Board 250 Hamilton Avenue Palo Alto, CA 94301 RE: Arhaus Stanford Shopping Center 180 El Camino Real, BLDG-V Space 820B Palo Alto, CA 93404 July 20, 2023 Item 6 Attachment A- Applicant Response to ARB Comments     Packet Pg. 126     • A201 – Reflected ceiling plan was added to show all canopy and exterior lighting. All canopy ceilings/soffits to be Natural Ipe as noted in the drawings. • A300 – New materials shown in elevation. Terracotta baguettes added, Equitone pattern has been adjusted, natural ipe canopy ceiling has been noted, and the Belgium sandstone tile has been noted under the entry canopy. Height of side entry portal was adjusted to match the front entry portal. Storefront doors were centered in each bay. Curb was added to all materials where they reach the ground. • A301 – Storefront doors were adjusted to be centered within each bay, and therefore the glazing percentage was affected. • A400 – Storefront doors were updated to match elevations, and centered on each bay. Side entry portal height was increased to match the front entry portal, and an LED strip light was added to the corner element. A curb was added to the bottom of all materials where they hit the ground. Natural Ipe is shown on the underside of the canopy, and the Belgium stone tile is shown at the front entrance. • A500 – New ACM covered curb was been added to all sections, and materials have been updated to reflect renderings. • A501 – Same as above (New ACM covered curb was been added to all sections, and materials have been updated to reflect renderings.) • A531 – Details were provided to show the new Terra Cotta Baguette system. New ACM covered curb was been added to all sections, and materials have been updated to reflect renderings. Sincerely ONYX CREATIVE, INC. Alyssa Arbogast Item 6 Attachment A- Applicant Response to ARB Comments     Packet Pg. 127     2 1 5 7 Attachment B Project Plans and Environmental Documents Project plans are only available to the public online. Hardcopies of the plans have been provided to Ad Hoc members. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “180 El Camino Real: Arhaus” 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/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/180-El-Camino-Real-Arhaus Item 6 Attachment B - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 128