Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2023-10-19 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, October 19, 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. Board member 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 STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.616 Ramona [23PLN‐00231]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for Modifications to An Office Building Including a Partial Third‐Floor Addition Utilizing Transferred Development Rights. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD‐C (P)(Commercial Downtown‐Community with Pedestrian Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 21, 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 4.1700 Embarcadero Road [21PLN‐00191]: Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Landscaping and Elevation Details. 5.3600 Middlefield [23PLN‐00160]: Ad Hoc Committee to Review Additional Refinements to Architectural Elements and Design of Fire Station No. 4. 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, October 19, 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. Board member 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 STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.616 Ramona [23PLN‐00231]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for Modifications to An Office Building Including a Partial Third‐Floor Addition Utilizing Transferred Development Rights. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD‐C (P)(Commercial Downtown‐Community with Pedestrian Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 21, 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 4.1700 Embarcadero Road [21PLN‐00191]: Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Landscaping and Elevation Details. 5.3600 Middlefield [23PLN‐00160]: Ad Hoc Committee to Review Additional Refinements to Architectural Elements and Design of Fire Station No. 4. 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, October 19, 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. Board member 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 ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.616 Ramona [23PLN‐00231]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review forModifications to An Office Building Including a Partial Third‐Floor Addition UtilizingTransferred Development Rights. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The FormalApplication will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.Zoning District: CD‐C (P)(Commercial Downtown‐Community with Pedestrian CombiningDistrict). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould atClaire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTAD HOC COMMITTEE 4.1700 Embarcadero Road [21PLN‐00191]: Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Landscaping and Elevation Details. 5.3600 Middlefield [23PLN‐00160]: Ad Hoc Committee to Review Additional Refinements to Architectural Elements and Design of Fire Station No. 4. 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, October 19, 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. Board member 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 ProjectsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.616 Ramona [23PLN‐00231]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review forModifications to An Office Building Including a Partial Third‐Floor Addition UtilizingTransferred Development Rights. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The FormalApplication will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review.Zoning District: CD‐C (P)(Commercial Downtown‐Community with Pedestrian CombiningDistrict). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould atClaire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2023BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTAD HOC COMMITTEE4.1700 Embarcadero Road [21PLN‐00191]: Review of Previously Approved Project toReview Landscaping and Elevation Details.5.3600 Middlefield [23PLN‐00160]: Ad Hoc Committee to Review Additional Refinements to Architectural Elements and Design of Fire Station No. 4. 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: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 19, 2023 Report #: 2310-2097 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 to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2023-24 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 2023-2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2023-2024 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 1/04/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/01/2024 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 - 2023-24 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 November 2, 2023 •Local Advanced Water Purification System: First Formal as a Study Session •739 Sutter: Streamlined Housing Development Review for Replacement of 8 units with 12 units November 16, 2023 •North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan: Second Study Session •SB 9 Update Informational Report December 7, 2023 •University Avenue Streetscape: Update/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. __ Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 8     AR Major - Board Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EFOLEY 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB 2nd formal tentative for Dec/Jan - Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed- Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi-Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2-Bedroom). __ AR Major - Board 06/16/2022 22PLN- 00201 CHODGKI 739 SUTTER AV Housing Prelim 11/18/21, Formal Resubmitted 7/21, 11/2 ARB hearing- 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 Application Resubmitted 8/8/23; 11/2 ARB Hearing- 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 ANTONIO RD Housing 8/17 ARB; Waiting on resubmittal, targeting late Dec hearing - Request for a zone change from CS to Planned Community (PHZ) for a 76-unit, 5-story residential building. 16 of the units would be provided at below market rate, 4 of which would be to low income and 7 of which would be to very low income. The building is designed as a 5-story building with four levels of wood framing over a concrete podium superstructure, with two levels of subterranean parking. Project went to a Council prescreening on 8/15. Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out 5/4 Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 9     Major Architectural Review 1/04/2023 23PLN- 00058 CHODGKI 420 ACACIA Residential- 16 units replacing surface parking lot NOI sent 3/7/23, October 5 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 3/22/23 23PLN- 00061 EFOLEY 702 Clara Street Housing – 3 units NOI sent 4/21. Waiting for revised plans. Request for Major Architectural Review and Individual Review to Allow the Construction of Three new two-Story homes approximately 1700sf Square Foot each, to be located on the same Lot, Subdivision Major Architectural Review 5/5/2023 23PLN- 00110 CHODGKI 3000 El Camino Office NOI Sent 6/6/23. 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 Major Architectural Review 6/8/2023 23PLN- 00136 23PLN- 00003 and - 00195 – 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 Rosenberg, Hirsch Reported out on 8/17 Minor Board Review 6/22/2023 23PLN- 00155 THARRIS ON 180 El Camino Real Retail NOI Sent 7/18. Resubmitted; Tentative October 5 ARB hearing. 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 7/19/2023 23PLN- 00181 EFOLEY 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescen t units Submitted 7/19/23. Notice of Incomplete sent 8/20/23. Targeting Jan hearing. Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the Demolition of an existing 2-Story office building and the new construction of a 4-Story private residential senior living facility, including 15 independent dwelling units, 12 assisted living dwelling units and 1 owner occupied unit. Common space amenities on all floors, underground parking, and ground Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 10     floor commercial space. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). PC Amendment 8/9/2023 23PLN- 00202 EFOLEY 4075 El Camino Way Commercial — 14 additional assisted living units Submitted 8/9/23. Community Meeting in October. Targeting Jan PTC, and Feb ARB hearing. Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility consisting of 121 Units. The New additions include 14 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. The total Proposed 135 Units are for Assisted Living and for the elderly in need of day-to-day care for Memory Issues. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Baltay, Chen reported out 6/1 Preliminary Architectural Review 8/29/2023 23PLN- 00231 CHODGKI 616 Ramona Commercial Submitted 8/29/23. 10/19 ARB hearing. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Allow the Partial Demolition and remodel of an Existing 8,357 square foot, Commercial Building with the addition using TDR and exempt floor area earned from ADA Upgrades. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. 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 SB 330 Pre- Application 07/07/2022 22PLN- 00227 23PLN- 00149 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. __ Council Pre- Screening 2/8/2023 23PLN- 00036 THARRIS ON 1237 SAN ANTONIO Public Utility Heard by Council on 6/5/23 - Council Pre- Screening request by Valley Water to allow a Comprehensive Plan Amendment to update the __ Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 11     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 Reported out 6/15 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 reported out 8/17 SB 330 Pre- Application 5/3/2023 23PLN- 00107 GSAULS 3997 Fabian Housing – up to 350 units SB 330 Pre-Application - Request for a 292 or 350-unit apartment development in an 8 story structure. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Chen, Hirsch reported out 8/17 Preliminary Architectural Review 7/6/2023 23PLN- 00171 CHODGKI 425 High Street Commercial Preliminary Hearing Held 9/7; waiting on formal application submittal. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to provide feedback on a proposal to add a new 4th floor (2,632 square feet) for either a new office use (existing hotel to remain) or to provide eight new guest rooms to the existing three-story Hotel Keen structure. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. Zoning District: CD-C (P) (Downtown Commercial-Community with Pedestrian Combining District). Item 1 Attachment B-2023 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 12     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 19, 2023 Report #: 2309-2089 TITLE 616 Ramona [23PLN-00231]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for Modifications to An Office Building Including a Partial Third-Floor Addition Utilizing Transferred Development Rights. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C (P)(Commercial Downtown-Community with Pedestrian Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org. RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Staff is requesting preliminary review of the proposed modifications and addition to add an existing office building at 616 Ramona Street. The applicant is proposing a new 2,632 square foot (sf) office addition using transferred development rights to accommodate the addition of up to a total floor area of 1.63:1, which is less than the maximum allowed in the commercial downtown-community (CD-C) zone district. The project also includes modifications to the façade of the building. No formal direction is to be provided to the applicant and Board members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. For preliminary review applications, staff performs a cursory review of the project for compliance with the Comprehensive Plan and Zoning Code. A comprehensive review of a future project for compliance with applicable codes and adopted policies would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the Board and receive initial comments. Board members may identify aspects of the Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 13     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 7 project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with city policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Hamilton Investors, LLC Architect:Hayes Group Architects Representative:Ken Hayes Legal Counsel:Not Applicable Property Information Address:616 Ramona Street Neighborhood:University South Lot Dimensions & Area:~50x102 (5,125 sf) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:Not Applicable Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):Two-story; 8,258 sf; 1967 Existing Land Use(s):office use Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: City Hall/Civic Center Plaza (PF Zoning) West: Mixed Use Retail/Residential Land Use (CD-C [GF][P] Zoning) East: Office Land Use (CD-C [GF][P] Zoning) South: Retail/Office Land Uses (CD-C [GF][P] Zoning) Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 7 Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Regional/Community Commercial Zoning Designation: CD-C (P) (Commercial Downtown-Community with Pedestrian Combining District) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None The applicant previously submitted a prescreening application (File No. 22PLN-00146) for a study session with Council to evaluate a different proposal for this site, which required amendments to the municipal code to accommodate changes to the massing of the building (e.g. increased height) using existing noncomplying floor area. Following the Council prescreening, the applicant modified their proposal to one that did not require legislative actions (e.g. zoning code text amendment). PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the partial demolition and remodel of the existing two-story office building and the addition of a partial third floor and roof terrace utilizing transferred development rights (TDRs) and exempt floor area as allowed in accordance with the code for ADA compliance purposes. The total floor area with TDRs would be 1.63:1. The project would move around existing floor area, primarily using floor area from the second floor to fill in an open courtyard at the center of the building on the first floor. Anticipated Entitlements: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 7 The following discretionary applications are anticipated: •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 one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. ANALYSIS Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the comprehensive plan or other applicable policy documents. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide objective feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The Board may want to consider comments that relate to: •Scale and mass •Transitions in scale to adjacent properties •Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context •Pedestrian-orientation and design •Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials Neighborhood Context The site is midblock on Ramona Street, adjacent to 240 Hamilton, a four-story mixed-use building and 630 Ramona Street, a category 2 Historic Resource. The surrounding vicinity is a mix of downtown retail and office uses. City Hall King Plaza is directly across the street. The property backs onto Lane 11 West, a twenty-foot wide alley at the rear. There is a six-foot special setback along Ramona Street, which the existing building and neighboring buildings encroach into. Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines1 The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. The existing uses of the site are a variety of small general business and medical office uses (e.g. architecture firm, chiropractor, etc.). The use of the site would not change; office use is consistent with the allowable uses within the Comprehensive Plan for the Regional/Community 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.cityofpaloalto.org/gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 7 Commercial land use designation. The proposed redevelopment of the building is consistent with policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan to encourage pedestrian design. These include Policy L-4.7: Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character. The project would also address policies in the Natural Element of the Comprehensive Plan that encourage the reduction of natural gas emissions from existing buildings because a new development would be required to comply with the most current CalGreen requirements. Downtown Urban Design Guidelines Staff will review the formal application for consistency with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. However, generally the guidelines speak to facades and amenities that enliven the streetscape and are generally pedestrian oriented along the ground floor. The project improves the existing building’s consistency with these guidelines. This building is also identified in the plan as a building that should be taller to “create outdoor rooms” as shown in Figure 6 of the plan. The project is consistent with this aspect of the plan in that it adds a partial third floor and creates a large rooftop outdoor space. Zoning Compliance2 The proposed development at 616 Ramona Street is located within the CD-C(P) Zone District Commercial Downtown Community with a Pedestrian Combining District. The Commercial Downtown Community district is intended to be a comprehensive zoning district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving city-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The existing office use at the site would continue; this use is consistent with the allowable uses within the commercial downtown community. A preliminary review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards is provided in Attachment C. It appears that the development complies with most of the development standards of the underlying zone district. However, the project appears to increase the degree of noncompliance with the six-foot special setback by increasing the amount of wall on the upper levels that is within the special setback along Ramona. Modifications to the structure would need to be made prior to formal application or a request for a variance would need to be made in addition to the request for Major Architectural Review when the formal application is filed. It is not clear what the findings would be to support the variance. The applicant would need to submit information to support the findings for a variance. Context-Based Design Criteria 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 7 Staff will provide a complete review of the project’s consistency with the context-based design criteria as part of the formal application. However, generally, the project improves the pedestrian environment and provides updates to the building that improve sustainability by bringing the site into conformance with current green building code requirements consistent with the context-based design criteria. The project is not a multi-acre site and does not provide parking on site; therefore, certain aspects of the context-based design criteria would not apply to this site. Transferred Development Rights The project is an eligible receiver site for transferred development rights (TDRs) because it meets the requirements for receiver sites stipulated in 18.18.080 of the Zoning Code. The site is located in the CD-C(P) district, the site/structure is not historic, and the site is located at least 150 feet from any property zoned for residential use, not including property in planned community zones or in commercial zones within the downtown boundaries where mixed use projects are. The applicant has stated that they have contracted for 1,600 sf of TDRs for this proposed project. Documentation of this will be required as part of any formal application. Annual Office Limit Because the project would result in an increase less than 2,000 sf of net new office space, the project would not be subject to the annual office limit requirements in accordance with PAMC Section 18.40.210(d). Multi-Modal Access and Parking The site has paid into the Downtown Parking Assessment District for 33 total in-lieu parking spaces. There are no existing parking spaces on site and, in accordance with Assembly Bill 2097, there is no minimum parking requirement for sites within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop. The project is within 0.5 mile of the University Avenue Caltrain Station. A transportation demand management (TDM) plan or condition of approval to purchase passes may still be a requirement for the formal application. Because the project increases the total office floor area above 10,000 sf, a loading space would be required. The project would either need to request a Director’s waiver of this requirement or reduce the total square footage to be less than 10,000 sf for the formal application. Short-term bicycle parking spaces are proposed within the public right of way along Ramona Street and long-term bicycle parking spaces are proposed from the alley entry at the rear of the site in order to bring the project into compliance with this code section. The project would provide improvements for pedestrians along Ramona Street by redeveloping the site to comply with the existing pedestrian overlay design requirements. Improvements would include a wider sidewalk, balconies that provide pedestrian coverage on the ground level and “eyes on the street” for levels above, as well as increased visibility into the space. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 7 Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on October 6, 2023, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on October 4, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, an analysis of the project to CEQA will be performed. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: ARB Findings for Approval Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment D: Applicant’s Project Description Attachment E: Project Plans AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, Senior Planner Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     7 7 6 City Hall & 50.0 0' 45.0' 102.5' 125.0' 102.5'125.0' 102.5' 40.0' 102.5' 100.0' 5.0' 00.0'50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 40.0' 102.5' 40.0' 102.5' 30.0' 102.5' 30.0' 102.5' 30.0' 102.5' 30.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 25.0'7.5' 40.0' 102.5' 65.0' 95.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 7.0' 400.0' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 35.0' 0' 104.0' 100.0' 0' 35.0' 100.0' 00.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 100.0 125.0' 85.0' 59.0'85.0' 59.0' 85.0' 66.0'85.0' 66.0' 620 624 628 632 636 640 644 630 616 208 228 220 231 611-623 625-631 250 651 221- 225 227 668 247 602 604 643 635 203 642640 636200 240 5 229 552548546 230-238 235 600 229 HAMILTON AVENUE EM ERSON STREET FOREST AVENUE RAMONA STREET LANE 6 LANE 11 WEST P CD-C (P) C(GF)(P) Civic Center Plaza Pa rking Lot CC This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0' 63' Attachment A: Location Map 616 Ramona CITY OF PALO ALTOI N C O R P O R A T E D CAL I F OR N I A P a l o A l t o T h e C i t y o f A P R I L 1 6 1 8 9 4 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2023-10-11 14:50:10 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 20     ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB Findings only     Packet Pg. 21     Page 1 of 2 2 6 3 9 ATTACHMENT C ZONING COMPLIANCE TABLE 616 Ramona Street, 23PLN-00231 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Setbacks Front Yard None Required 0 ft 0 ft Rear Yard None Required 0 ft 0 ft Interior Side Yard None Required 0 ft 0 ft Street Side Yard None Required 0 ft 0 ft Special Setback Pursuant to Code Section 20.08 Not Applicable Not Applicable Minimum street setback for sites sharing a common block face with any abutting residential zone district (4)Not Applicable Not Applicable Minimum yard (ft) for lot lines abutting or opposite residential zone districts 10 feet (1)Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Site Coverage None Required 5,125 sf (100%)4,860 sf (95%) Maximum Height 50 ft Unknown (single-story)39 ft to top of building (mechanical equipment height not noted) Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 (5,125 sf) (5)8,357 sf 10,208 sf Maximum Size of New Non- Residential Construction or Expansion Projects 25,000 sf of gross floor area or 15,000 sf above the existing floor area, whichever is greater, provided the floor area limits set forth elsewhere in this chapter are not exceeded Not Applicable Not Applicable* Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Initial Height at side or rear lot line (Note 2)Not Applicable Not Applicable Slope (Note 2)Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes 1) The yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding area required for site access. 2) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the residential zone abutting the site line in question. Item 2 Attachment C-Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 22     Page 2 of 2 2 6 3 9 3) The maximum height within 150 feet of any abutting residential zone district shall not exceed the height limit of the abutting residential district. 4) The minimum street setback shall be equal to the residentially zoned setback for 150 feet from the abutting single-family or multiple family development. 5) FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District Type Required Existing Proposed Conforms? Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 2 All uses except residential: 1 space per 250 sf 33 spaces 33 spaces1 No Change Yes(1) Bicycle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 2 All uses except residential: 1 space per 2,500 sf 40% Long Term (LT) 60% Short Term (ST) 3 spaces 1 LT 2 ST None 2 LT, 2 ST Yes Loading Space Office projects greater than 10,000 sf are required to provide loading spaces 1 space required; no loading space provided 1Spaces are currently provided in-lieu through historic payment into the parking assessment district •33 space are required based on the existing use; although 41 would be required for the proposed use under title 18.52, AB 2097 prohibits the City from enforcing a minimum parking requirement for projects within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop. Therefore the project is not deemed to be out of compliance. Item 2 Attachment C-Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 23     August 16, 2023 City of Palo Alto Department of Planning & Development 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor Palo Alto, CA 94301 Re: 616 Ramona Street - Preliminary ARB Review Project Description To Planning Staff and ARB Members: Attached is Hayes Group Architect’s submittal package for 616 Ramona Street for preliminary architectural review. The project applicant is Hayes Group Architects on behalf of our client, Hamilton Investors, LLC. The project team is seeking feedback on the overall conceptual compliance with the municipal code, as well as the contextual and compatibility aspects of the proposal. This package includes an electronically submitted plan set, including the site survey, contextual photos, the proposed site plan, floor plans, elevations, sections, and perspectives. A Historic Resource Evaluation prepared by the city’s consultant, Page & Turnbull, was submitted for this site in a prior application for city council prescreening. 1. EXISTING CONDITIONS The site is midblock on Ramona Street, adjacent to 240 Hamilton, a four-story, mixed-use building completed by our office several years ago and next to 630 Ramona, a Category 2 Historic Resource. The existing office building was constructed in 1962. The surrounding vicinity is a mix of downtown retail and office uses. City Hall Plaza is directly across the street. The property backs onto Lane 11 West, a twenty- foot-wide alley at the rear. The zoning district is CD-C(P): Downtown Commercial, Pedestrian Shopping Combining District. This district has no setbacks or maximum site coverage requirements. Per review of the title report, no easements are recorded on this property. There is a six-foot Special Setback along the Ramona Street frontage where the existing building encroaches, but since this is a remodel of an existing building, this condition will remain existing non-complying. However, as a bit of context relative to this special setback, 240 Hamilton, just next door, was granted a variance from these outdated Special Setbacks on both Hamilton Avenue and Ramona Street frontages in 2012. The site is more than 150 feet from any residentially zoned properties, does not contain an historic resource and is therefore an eligible Transfer Development Rights receiver site pursuant to PAMC 18.18.080(e). The site area is 5,125 square feet. The existing building consists of 8,357.59 square feet and is considered a legal non-conforming building in terms of commercial floor area since it exceeds a 1.0:1 FAR. No parking is provided onsite. The building is assessed for 33 parking spaces in the Downtown Parking Assessment District. 2. PROPOSED PROJECT Item 2 Attachment D-Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 24     The proposed project involves the partial demolition and remodel of the existing two-story office building and the addition of a partial third floor and roof terrace. The building’s exterior form consists of three primary elements: a pedestrian-oriented plinth at the ground floor, a two-story office component perched atop it, and a roof terrace running parallel with the building’s new third floor. The building’s mass is biased toward its taller neighbor to the north, with a step-down occurring at approximately the midpoint along the Ramona Street frontage. An open trellis shading element extends south from this point, providing protection from the harsh solar exposure. Where the building abuts its southern, historic neighbor, deference is given: the design is restrained, the existing setback is preserved, and the overall building height is unchanged. The primary, taller façade, is expressed in bronze-like metal panels and clear glass. A brise soleil terminates each end of the office volume, providing shade for its occupants and scale to the composition. This taller façade is where the TDR floor area is being applied so the building can exceed the existing building height. Compared to its predecessor, the proposed building promises to be more active participant in the Ramona streetscape and will be fully compliant with 18.18.110’s context-based design criteria. Two new entries engage pedestrians at a comfortable walking interval: the first fronts a ground floor space with generously high ceilings while the second leads to a lobby providing access to both the ground floor and the upper stories. Both entries are served by overhangs that give shade and plantings that bring delight to passersby. A bench projects from the lobby, demarcating ingress and offering a place for rest. At the second floor, transparent glazing reveals the internal structure (possibly CLT) and dynamic interior life of the building. And at the third floor, the roof deck invites occupants to work, collaborate, and dialogue with the elevated civic plaza across the street. Mechanical equipment may be located within screened enclosures at the second and third floor roofs. An array of photovoltaic solar panels is located at the third-floor roof. 3. FLOOR AREA INCREASES As stated above, this project is an eligible receiver site for Transfer of Development Rights: 1) the site located in the CD commercial downtown district; 2) the site is located at least 150 feet from any property zoned for residential use; 3) the site is neither an historic site nor a site containing an historic resource. The owner has entered into a contract to purchase 1,600 square feet of TDRs to be applied to this site. This TDR was previously going to be used for a project that has been abandoned at 233 University Avenue. An additional 580 square feet is minimally required for ADA upgrades to the existing building, as demonstrated on sheet A0.5. This area is deemed “exempt floor area”, per 18.18.060 (e) 2. of which a maximum of 500 square feet may be applied to the proposed project. Exempt floor area can exceed the height of the existing building. With this cumulative additional floor area (2,100 square feet) and removal of approximately 249 square feet of existing area the gross floor area of the proposed project is 10,208 square feet. The proposed FAR is 1.63:1; 3.0:1 is permitted with TDR and exempt floor area. 4. PARKING & BICYCLE SPACES The site is in the Downtown Parking Assessment District and was previously assessed for 33 spaces. There is no parking provided on site for the existing building and no additional vehicle parking is required for the proposed project. Short-term bicycle parking will be provided at the Ramona Street sidewalk. Long-term bicycle parking shall be provided at the alley entry. Refer to the plans for the bicycle parking calculation. 5. TRASH/RECYCLING There is no existing on-site trash or recycling enclosure. The building occupants have historically used bins in the public alley behind the property. This project improves this situation by providing a new, covered, trash and recycling room inside the building with direct access to the rear alley. Item 2 Attachment D-Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 25     6. GREEN BUILDING STANDARD This project shall satisfy requirements of the Palo Alto Energy Reach Code for commercial buildings bringing the outdated building into the new era of energy-efficient, all-electric systems, with added benefits for the building operator and the community at large. We look forward to a staff review and scheduling of an ARB hearing so that we can proceed with the next steps in the entitlement process. Please call me at (650) 365-0600x115 if you have any questions. Sincerely, Ken Hayes, AIA Principal cc: Steve Reller, Hamilton Investors, LLC Mark Moragne, Hamilton Investors, LLC Item 2 Attachment D-Applicants Project Description     Packet Pg. 26     Attachment E Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Boardmembers for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “616 Ramona” 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/616-Ramona-Street Item 2 Attachment E-Project Plans     Packet Pg. 27     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: October 19, 2023 Report #: 2310-2124 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for September 21, 2023 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of September 21, 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. 28     Page 1 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: September 21, 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 8:37 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch Absent: None Oral Communications None Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (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 Senior Planner Raybould reported tentative projects expected on the October 5 Agenda include 420 Acacia Avenue, a sixteen unit townhome development using density bonus, and 180 El Camino Real the Stanford Shopping Center has modifications to a façade for Restoration Hardware. In addition, Ms. Raybould will have a brief operational report on housing regulations that was requested by a few Boardmembers. The October 19 Agenda will include the NVCAP study session for Chapter 7: Implementation, and the draft zoning regulations that go along with the NVCAP, that staff will be proposing to PTC and City Council. There will also be a preliminary review for 616 Ramona, which is across the street from City Hall. It is a proposed project for redevelopment with transfer development rights. There have not been any new projects added to the report since 616 Ramona was added. Ms. Raybould requested the Boardmembers consider their holiday plans and offered a reminder to please inform staff if any members have planned absences scheduled. Ms. Raybould stated she has announcements for the end of the meeting. Chair Baltay requested Ms. Raybould bring the ARB up to date on any changes known for the project at 3150 El Camino Real as the subcommittee has provided two reports. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 29     Page 2 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 Ms. Raybould explained her understanding of their status is they have submitted a formal application and staff has completed a single round of review and they are still waiting on revised plans. Chair Baltay requested confirmation that no formal plans have been resubmitted. Ms. Raybould stated that was correct. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN-00009]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major 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 introduced the item and requested the staff report. Tamara Harrison with Michael Baker International provided the staff report as the contract planner. Chair Baltay requested a pause and asked for Boardmember disclosures. Boardmember Chen stated she recently visited the site. Chair Baltay stated he visited the site recently. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she had not visited the site but was on the ad hoc subcommittee for this project. Boardmember Hirsch stated he had not visited the site and was also on the ad hoc subcommittee for the project. Contract Planner Harrison continued with the staff presentation and explained the project is in Building V at the Stanford Shopping Center formerly the American Girl Doll Store. It is part of the Master Tenant Façade & Sign Program (MTFS Program), and the applicant is looking to change the façade for the new Arhaus tenant and is located off of the Sand Hill entrance. In June there were four items that were brought before an ad hoc committee, grout color for aged Belgium bricks, color and material details for soffits, potential bike parking locations, and updated renderings for consistency with elevations. At the ARB Sub- committee, it was required that the project return to the full ARB due to a change in material. The Belgium brick is being replaced by a Terra Cotta Baguette system, which prompted a change in color of other front elevation elements. Ms. Harrison showed different slides of the changes and stated that key considerations included ensuring the project is in conformance with the ARB findings and the MTFS program for façade and signage. Staff recommend the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project façade changes to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to staff’s conditions of approval. Chair Baltay thanked Ms. Harrison and requested the sub-committee provide a brief report on their review of the project. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 30     Page 3 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 Vice Chair Rosenberg explained the project felt that the changes made were beyond the scope of what had been previously approved by the ARB. The applicant had very clear response to all of the items, however, the change from the brick to the baguette seemed too dramatic of a change that the sub- committee felt comfortable approving without a complete Board review. The ad-hoc provided the applicant with the option of keeping the brick or continuing with the Terra Cotta Baguette and are now returning to the ARB for additional approval of the Terra Cotta Baguette system. Jason Smith, Landshark Development, stated that Marc Lins with Onyx Creative was also present along with representation from Arhaus. Marc Lins provided the applicants presentation and explained they are not altering the footprint of the building and showed slides of the existing design. The most significant change to the material was replacing the brick with the Terra Cotta Baguette System because they felt it was better aligned with Arhaus’ design standards and their goal for better sustainability. The baguette system is made from recycled content. They also revised the ecotone color so that it would contrast and play with the Terra Cotta in both color and finish. The soffit color was chosen to blend with the baguette system and the stain on the rain screen panels have a natural patina that will change over time and blend well with the earthy tones being used. The remaining materials stayed the same. They included the elevation drawings depicting the placement of the new materials, also showing the façade hasn’t changed, just the materials. Mr. Lins showed several elevation renderings of the new design and noted that there is no grout between the baguettes, they are mounted horizontally, and the mounting will be concealed. Behind the Terra Cotta Baguettes will be a mounting system that will be darker, to show that it is a screened system. Detail 11 explains how they plan to mount the baguette system. Chair Baltay thanked Mr. Lins for the presentation and opened the item for questions from the Board for the applicants and staff. Boardmember Chen inquired about the length of the Terra Cotta system. Mr. Lins stated he believed they were five feet. Boardmember Chen referred them to the elevations on sheet A3.01 where the dimension is listed as 6’8.5” including the … Mr. Lins asked if he could ask Alyssa Arbogast to explain the Terra Cotta Baguette system. Alyssa Arbogast explained that the Terra Cotta baguettes have a maximum length of five feet, anywhere that was used, there would be a vertical member to divide that up. Boardmember Chen requested she go to the southeast elevation where the dimension is listed as being over six feet. Ms. Arbogast replied that the dimension on the southeast side also includes the fin portals but should also have the vertical member in it as well, to ensure they had the five foot on either side. Boardmember Chen asked what the vertical thing was that she kept referring to. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 31     Page 4 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 Ms. Arbogast answered that it is part of the fin system, it would be the same color as what is behind the Terra Cotta Baguette so it would be the same color as the ACMs, a black metal color and they would blend in with the portals that are framing the project. Boardmember Chen inquired if it continued vertically or if it would be staggered between the different (Interrupted) Ms. Arbogast stated they would be going in a continuous line all the way up. Chair Baltay stated as a follow up he didn’t understand, is this intended at the edge augmenting the width of the fin to bring the Terra Cotta to five feet or something that would be in the middle of the run of vertical panels. Ms. Arbogast replied that it would run vertically through the Terra Cotta Baguettes. Chair Baltay confirmed that it would run straight up the middle of the elevation. Ms. Arbogast answered yes. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if it would be straight up the middle as the intention is to divide it in the middle over the intention to have a full five foot panel of Terra Cotta Baguettes and then sort of the smaller system to the side. Ms. Arbogast responded that if they are required to have that, they would split it right down the middle, that way it would look even on both sides. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired about the Ipe and if it would require maintenance to keep its rich brown color. Mr. Lins answered there would be maintenance. The Ipe produce has been used on several Arhaus stores across the country and they understand the maintenance requirements based on geographical locations and subsequent environments and daylighting. Chair Baltay inquired if Mr. Smith was aware of any maintenance requirements in the lease as Ipe needs to be refinished every six to twelve months, if it doesn’t get finished it looks terrible. Mr. Smith replied that all tenants are required to maintain their storefronts and periodically, onsite management tours the facilities and identifies any deficiencies on the store front and notifies the tenants when needed. Chair Baltay asked if a fading finish would be considered one of those requirements. Mr. Smith responded that fading is considered maintenance that needs to be properly maintained. Currently there are fading deficiencies and the management company is working with tenants to make those repairs. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how the bike parking was being addressed. Ms. Harrison stated that the bike parking that was addressed at the sub-committee meeting has been addressed with staff and the management company to provide not only bike parking but also bring the Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 32     Page 5 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 vehicle parking availability up to current standards. There is an iteration that is still in progress but based on that one, it appears as if there is excess bike parking that has been installed. As they move through the approval process, they are chipping away at that overage. With the Arhaus store they will be required to install six short term bike parking, as a result of that change, the six will be deducted from their current overage from the bike parking installed earlier this year. They hope to have that solidified in the next couple of weeks. Ms. Raybould added that staff are looking at it from a more holistic approach in terms of how they are getting up to speed with the bike numbers. Each time they make a change that is reviewed. The bike spaces that are being added and where they are allocated are not currently adjacent but that’s because there are already existing bike spaces in that area. Mr. Smith clarified that around Building V, there are currently 32 bicycle parking spaces available. With the expansion of the shopping center and Building EE, they will be adding an additional eighteen spots once the construction is complete. Currently there is a positive of bicycle spaces that they are working around, and the management company is working with staff to ensure those requirements are met. Chair Baltay opened the item to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT There being none Chair Baltay closed the meeting to public comment and opened Board discussion. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked staff and the applicant for the presentations and stated she was in favor of the project previously and the only reason for the second ARB review was to ensure the entire Board was unified in their approval of the full material scope. She’s pleased with the improvements and believes it will be quite lovely and it is a bit more modern leaning of a design selection than the brick and it lightens and brightens the space quite a bit. Boardmember Hirsch stated he agreed with his colleague, he believes it is a good change, he also had reservations about the brick material. This is a more consistent material, and the colors are beautiful, and the front enhancement is improved with these materials. Boardmember Chen stated she believed the introduction of the new material was an improvement to the project and she liked the way they made the corner elements lighter. She liked the contrast that is now being provided. She is concerned about the joint line that was mentioned and it would have been beneficial to have seen the details and how it would look, she would be more comfortable with a conditional approval. The floor plan widths between the columns and the glazing areas are all different and wondered if it would be possible to make the six-foot-eight inches more narrow to make sure it fits in with the five feet baguette maximum lines. That could be a better solution, she’s not looking to do the design, but she encouraged the applicant to think about it. Chair Baltay shared his colleagues’ comments, he believed the design has improved and comfortably supports the changes and also supports Boardmember Chen’s concerns about the baguette system. Having a vertical seam is not acceptable and he believed it could be possible to have a condition that the baguette system does not have a vertical seam. They could either make the fins slightly wider or find a different manufacturer with the longer baguette. His suggestion was to approve the project with the Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 33     Page 6 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 condition that there not be a vertical seam in the baguette system and let staff verify the improvement of that. Vice Chair Rosenberg offered another option would be to flip flop which material goes into which racing stripe. MOTION: Moved by Vice Chair Rosenberg , seconded by Chair Baltay, to approve the project with the condition that the there is no vertical fin on the baguette system. VOTE: 4-0-0 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3600 MIDDLEFIELD ROAD [23PLN-00160]: Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the deconstruction of the existing Palo Alto Fire Station #4 and construction of a new 8,000 sf fire station. The application also includes a Variance request from the City's 50% shading canopy coverage in the parking lot. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15302 (Replacement) and 15303 (New Construction). Zoning District: PF (Public Facility). Chair Baltay introduced the item and requested Boardmember disclosures. Boardmember Chen stated she visited the site. Chair Baltay also visited the site recently. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated she had nothing to disclose. Boardmember Hirsch stated he had nothing to disclose. Chair Baltay requested the staff report. Planner Garrett Sauls provided the presentation for the fire station replacement at 3600 Middlefield Road and provided the background of the project located East Meadow Drive and Middlefield Road, adjacent to the presbyterian church and the Palo Alto Little League clubhouse. It is to replace the existing 2,900 sf fire station with a one store 8,000 sf lead silver target fire station. One slight change from the previous approval is that previously there were twelve parking stalls, now there are only nine. As a part of the application, three emergency loading bays are the same and the emergency generator is still the same. The proposal will ultimately end up removing twelve trees and replace both onsite and offsite within the right of way on Middlefield Road, as well as onto the shared space of the substation along Middlefield Road. This project was previously heard on August 3, 2023. Comments during the hearing included the Board wanted the applicant to provide a comprehensive material Board, which the applicant now has and is Attachment G in the application. All of the materials that are being proposed are identified and provide the details of the colors that will be utilized. The Board asked the applicant to consider a different material than the stucco siding. After reviewing the consideration, the applicant felt the stucco provided the greatest contrast between the other materials, the wood soffit, and the glass elements of the building. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 34     Page 7 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 They are proposing to continue utilizing the stucco material as part of this application. The ARB requested a greater connection and openness to the building façade. Mr. Sauls explained the difference between the prior elevation and the current elevation is that along Middlefield Road, the window vestibule was expanded into the cooking and lobby room for the fire fighters. They also included a different kind of fencing along the left hand side of the building. A conceptual sign design was requested by the ARB. There is an orientation and size difference between what is in the application now and what was present previously. Tentatively the materials for the sign that is being proposed would be something that would be aluminum. They have also identified the font type and thickness of the letters that will be used. The applicant was also requested to provide roof construction detailing. On Sheet E1, that is now included in the application; and they identified the slope of the roof. On Sheets H1 and 2, there are section details of the roof eave and there are blown up images on H2. The ARB requested that the applicant provide clear story windows or skylights in the exercise room, the applicant is now wrapping around the clear story windows along the backside as well as wrapping the corner with the rain screening system from the front of the building. The height of the building was raised in that area as well, to provide additional volume within that space. Noted by the Chair, the applicant has requested a variance to the City’s 50% shading requirements. This was something the Public Works team communicated to the City after that August ARB hearing, that they wouldn’t be able to achieve and would need to request a variance in order to continue processing the application. The City has included the variance findings in the Staff Report. Staff believes with the uniqueness of the site and facilities, and the services and critical functions that they provide for the City and the constraints of the power lines over the property, they can make the findings to approve the variance application. Staff’s recommendation would be to approve the project based on the findings and conditions of approval. Chair Baltay thanked staff and asked if the Board had any questions for staff. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he clarified some of the comments that were made in the minutes and inquired if those were discussed with the applicant. Ms. Raybould stated that those were made after the packet had been published and they had the final plan set. Chair Baltay requested more information on the fifty percent shading requirement for the parking lot and expressed an interest in understanding what those requirements are for a public facility versus a commercial facility. Ms. Raybould stated she wasn’t sure if other fire stations meet those requirements, her guess was anything that was developed before the requirement was in place, likely do not meet those requirements, it is a standard that is required of any surface parking across the city. It applies to public facilities, commercial lots, and multifamily residential. The requirement is to have shading on parking spaces such that it would cover fifty percent of the surface parking lot. Chair Baltay asked if she was aware of the purpose behind the requirement. Ms. Raybould answered it is a method of improving tree canopy and a way to reduce heat island effect. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 35     Page 8 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if when they calculate parking spaces, is it just the parking stalls themselves, as this building requires more surface area due to the nature of the size of the emergency vehicles. Ms. Raybould answered it is the whole paving middle, which is why this is a very unique site. Chair Baltay requested the applicant presentation. Chief Stepen Lindsey provided the presentation with Chris Ford and Valerie Tam. While they met as a team to discuss the ARB previous requests, they considered a day in the life of a firefighter at Station 4. They work a forty-eight hour shift, and often come from a shift at another station. The parking itself, they are confident it will work for the station. As far has opportunities to engage with the community, the Fire Department embraces that and one of the ways they came up with was the make the windows a little bit larger in the front and adding and additional window that faces the apparatus bay and the apron area. When they are in the day room or kitchen and see someone outside the front façade, they will have opportunities to engage. They will be in the lobby side Monday through Friday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m. engaging in inspections, conducting business, and providing training. During the off hours they will be in the day room side. That is their time to have meals, plan their days, and engage with the public during off hours. Adding a Dutch door on the side allows the community to see the firefighters if they are outside eating. They also added seating and areas where they can walk around the entire station. When they do station tours, there will be an opportunity to walk around and open up the station. They are very proud of the updates and feel it will work for the community and the firefighters. They tried their best to preserve the canopy of the trees, but they have to have the space to park the vehicles and perform required maintenance. They also need the space for loading the hose into the hose bed. There are also drains in the back because that’s where they clean the apparatus. Chris Ford, with BRW Architects, displayed a focused slide show for the changes that were made and provided the updated material board for the ARB. The aluminum soffit now looks like wood and the fencing that was Ipe has now been matched up to be an aluminum system that is now all the same tone and material. The stucco has a smooth finish, and an example has been provided. It is still being determined where the art will be placed, and that stucco finishing is an option, and currently provides the best contrast to the wood and glass finishes on the remaining façade. They added a Dutch gate on Middlefield and a meet and greet patio bench area in the tree area, to enhance the community interaction. Additionally, tables have been provided should the firefighters choose to eat their meals outdoors. A window was added overlooking the apparatus bay, which also allows them to see any activity in the front of the building from the lobby, the day room and the kitchen. They provided more details regarding the front plaza landscaping, bike parking, how to get to the plaza, and provided an ariel view of the proposed plaza, as well as clarification of the location for the flagpole. They added design clarification for the proposed sign with the understanding that the exact signage design will be returned to the ARB for approval during the construction phase. The Department liked the idea of the large number 4 element. Everything else matches the signage of Station 3. They have two opportunities for signage because the building sits on a corner. The roof and façade clarifications are now included, and they raised the ceiling of the exercise room and introduced the rain screen system along two of those walls and added the clear story. They recently finished another fire station that had clear story, it’s a balance between offering the fire fighters enough hard wall to set up their exercise equipment but also getting natural lighting. The door that opens to the back also allows them to go outside and also take equipment outdoors. They tried to Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 36     Page 9 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 get as much shading in the back parking area, again, they had to adjust for the amount of space required to maintain the emergency vehicles, while navigating the power lines overhead. Chair Baltay thanked Mr. Ford for the presentation and asked if there were Board questions for the applicant. Boardmember Hirsch inquired how they get from inside to the outdoor areas in the front of the building. Mr. Ford stated there is a gate there currently, which was perpendicular to Middlefield. The gate is moved in the plans to run parallel to Middlefield and as the Chief mentioned, it’s a Dutch door gate so the upper panel can stay open for viewing and opens fully to access the outdoor area. There is a shaded canopy on the front of the building and often the firefighters will eat outdoors. Boardmember Hirsch requested information on the ceiling height of the exercise room. Mr. Ford explained the ceiling tops out at about eleven feet. The stucco band above it is a little higher than a standard parapet because they are also hiding the VRF compressors and all of the mechanical equipment, as well as the battery back up for the microgrid. It has a bit of a tall look to it, but they believe it’s worth it because it will be hiding virtually every piece of mechanical equipment, leaving the rest of the roof simple and flat for the PV panels. It is an eleven foot ceiling in the exercise room. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the height of the taller sections were about fifteen feet. Mr. Ford confirmed that was correct. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there would be a valence in the exercise room. Mr. Ford replied that previously they had an exposed painted out underside of the deck, but it likely wouldn’t be a drop ceiling. They have not yet finalized those details. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked Chief Linsdey how many firefighters are at the station at any given time. Chief Lindsey stated they expect to have five fire fighters total for the new station. Three on a fire engine and two on an ambulance. They are also considering the potential future needs of the community. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if there was any possible way to shift the trash containers by the generator forward, to get another tree behind them. Mr. Ford answered that might be possible but that it would then be a trade off between giving the firefighters the outdoor cross fit-workout area… Vice Chair Rosenberg referred him to Sheet C-2 and noticed there was quite a bit of space between the trash enclosures and the actual parking stalls. But it also says com tower. Mr. Ford stated yes, it’s likely feasible. The generators have doors that open and service panels so that will also need to be considered. Mr. Sauls added that the trash enclosures will also need movability space in front of them for pick up, they will need to study that request a little further. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 37     Page 10 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 Ms. Valerie Tam, Public Works Engineering, explained that the utility station is on the other side of the fence, and they have to maintain two to three feet tree canopy air space from that fence. They had to exclude that whole side from planting trees. Vice Chair Rosenberg mentioned the stucco joint lines on the front white façade and requested more information. Mr. Ford explained they are very thin, and barely show up on the renderings. It’s a light shadow line that is crack control for the glass and won’t be accentuated or a design feature. It’s to help organize the graphics but also just a slight shadow line, much like the division of the panels behind Vice Chair Rosenberg in the meeting room. Chair Baltay opened the meeting to public comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Seeing no public comment Chair Baltay closed the meeting to public comment and brought the item back to the Board for ARB discussion. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the applicant did a fine job with the landscaping and the use of the site and the building, it’s very publicly oriented. The ARB pushed for that early on and he thanked the applicants for having recognized the importance of the firemen being able to access the area out front. He wished it was a little more open, but he understood that it’s a trade off with the living area. He felt the corners could have been opened up a bit more by adding more glass. Another glass door could have been added to create more sight of the front apron, more could have been done in the front to keep it consistent with what is being done on the opposite side. His biggest concern is the view from the back of the building. As one is traveling down East Meadow, the view of the back of the building is going to be very busy, however the potential possibilities for landscaping in the rear is nowhere as nice as the front. He is unhappy with how the two sides relate to each other. There are two important aspects between the front lobby and training room on one side and the living quarters on the other with the high roof in between. The interesting part of the concept of the building gets lost in the rear of the building. He would have liked to have seen the tall fifteen foot section extended all the way to the rear of the building, which could have eliminated the mix of materials that don’t work well together. He felt it is conceivable to rethink how the mechanical system is placed above, perhaps move them to a different area of the plaza, or possibly extend the fencing in a way to incorporate some of the mechanical on the ground level. That would allow a repeat of the same idea as the front for the conference room, in the rear of the building. It isn’t a major piece of the project, and it could have been if they had extended the two lower parts of the fifteen foot high roof line around to the back of the building. There are other ways to have eliminated putting the mechanical in the roof extension, and to make that work. It also would have made a significant difference in the view of the back side of the building. All of their activities in the rear of the building are very interesting, it would have been nice if the area around it was as nice as the front. It’s amazing to watch them train for the incredible things they do. He doesn’t have a problem with the landscaping, it is what it is, and they did the best that they could. Some of the other details mentioned at the prior hearing, like the skylight for more daylight in the back area of the living quarters would have been nice and it’s such a simple idea. The front is taller than he felt it needed to be. He emphasized that they should consider the rear of the building more to make sure they coordinate with all the rest of the forms. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 38     Page 11 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 Boardmember Chen thanked them for the presentation and commented that she is a big fan of the project since the study session, and she really likes the cleanness of the design. The building itself is really attractive and she appreciated that they provided greater openings at the bay room and created the plaza outside the kitchen area to create an ability to be interactive with the public. She echoed Boardmember Hirsch’s comments about the elevation design of the exercise room. Currently it seems the parapet wall is kind of tall, but with the introduction of new materials there competes with the stucco wall below it. She recommended they consider relocating the mechanical room above the bedroom area, because that area doesn’t need high ceiling space. In doing so, they could lower the parapet wall above the exercise room and make the rear elevation more proportionately right. She was not sure if an opening to the rear courtyard was necessary; she drove down East Meadow everyday and there’s a big buffer zone between the courtyard and the road itself. It’s hard to see behind the trees what will happen there. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the applicant and stated she was the sole supporter of the project at the last meeting, and she still supports it. She was pleased with the improvements, and this is one of the times she appreciates the other Boardmembers pushing for further improvements to the design. Those improvements are successful. She hears what her colleagues are saying about the high parapet wall, there’s a potential that could be moved, maybe over the restrooms instead of the bedrooms, she doesn’t feel it’s enough to require a change, she thinks it’s nice the way it is, but she could see room for improvement. She did, however, believe that was up to the architects to design. She did not see any major issues with the design as it was being presented. She likes the improvements to the exercise room, but she does get the comment about it being a little discontinuous with the opposite side, however it is a major improvement over the all-white wall. She appreciated the new windows on the sides for the day room and Middlefield. She likes the dayroom window out to the apparatus area and believes it will be very useful. Regarding the central main height, there was a lot of discussion on whether this building should be civic or residential, she appreciates the height that it is. It hits that sweet spot between being tall and interesting and having a presence, without overtaking the primarily Eichler neighborhood that it sits in. She personally believed it was very responsive to its surroundings and she appreciated the height on the front portion. She appreciated the grout lines; those are looking good. Regarding the courtyard, she doesn’t believe it’s going to be a public courtyard, but she did believe it’s going to be great for when families come to visit. Her final comment was that the “No.” portion of the Station No. 4 is just a little big. It's a very small comment, but because it’s the same size as the “Station” portion, they compete with each other. A small tweak to the size of that would improve the signage. Chair Baltay said hats off to the architect, he did a bang up job getting the building to fit into the community and have a civic presence. The corner elevation did wonders for him and it’s going to be a wonderful building. They nailed it by being tall enough to have presence and just low enough to fit into the community and he appreciated what they had done. His comment is exclusive on the exercise piece; he felt Boardmember Hirsch was correct that the building will be seen from East Meadow drive and that is a weak element on the building. He’s comfortable recommending a condition of approval with the exercise room coming back to an ad hoc committee for one more pass at possibly changing the roof parapet, the roof eave. He believed Boardmember Hirsch summarized what the issue is, and improvements could be made, but he would like to see the project get pushed forward. His recommendation is they approve it with that element returning for a subcommittee review. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 39     Page 12 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 MOTION: Chair Baltay motioned, seconded by Vice Chair Rosenberg , to approve staff’s Recommendation on Applicant's Request for Major Architectural Review to allow the deconstruction of the existing Palo Alto Fire Station #4 and construction of a new 8,000 sf fire station, with the condition that the exercise room element be redesigned subject to the comments that Boardmember Hirsch made - to be reviewed by a subcommittee. Ms. Raybould ask for specific requests based on the comments of Boardmember Hirsch. Chair Baltay explained the exercise room needs to have a character that’s more consistent with the rest of the building, which means having a roof eave of some kind, and not being so tall. Likely the mechanical equipment needs to then be relocated. Boardmember Hirsch stated in looking at the front page elevation, it includes two materials and a glass panel in between. That should also be the material on the outside of the exercise room. It does in part, but it’s mixed with the stucco. That and move the mechanicals, which would require some coordination, but it could be done. Ms. Raybould wrote on screen to create a bullet list for the conditions. Chair Baltay stated provide a character that is more consistent with the rest of the building to include: •Provide a more consistent eave treatment. •Consider relocating the mechanical equipment to allow for the removal of the big parapet wall. •Have exterior material treatment on the exercise room that is consistent with the rest of the building. Mr. Ford stated they’ve been chasing the mechanical equipment around since the very beginning, it’s a tight sight, and the site is shared with the substation. The last spot left is their outdoor dining area. Putting the VRF condensers above the bedroom is not good for the well being of the fire fighters. The other option was putting them above the bathrooms, but then they will be seen from Middlefield. They can’t design it during the meeting, they will try to see what they can do. He liked the idea of returning to a sub-committee and bringing back the model. Chair Baltay suggested that even if the mechanical equipment has to be in the same location, put it there and put a separate screen around that, pulled back from the edge of the roof. Boardmember Hirsch didn’t understand how it would be seen if it was put over the bathrooms. They are far enough back in the building, and they’d be screened by the rest of building. He believed it was a reasonable idea, and suggested they consider that carefully. VOTE: 4-0-0 Chair Baltay assigned Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Chen to the ad-hoc committee for the return of this item. Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements Chair Baltay announced that City Council appointed Mousam Adcock to the Board, she will be joining the next meeting. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 40     Page 13 of 13 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 09/21/23 2 7 1 1 Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 10:07 a.m. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of September 21, 2023     Packet Pg. 41     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 3 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 19, 2023 Report #: 2310-2099 TITLE 1700 Embarcadero Road [21PLN-00191]: Review of Previously Approved Project to Review Landscaping and Elevation Details. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Ad-Hoc Committee take one of the following action(s): 1. Discuss the details and revisions, and recommend that the Director find they meet the approval conditions and align with the approval findings; or 2. Provide additional direction to the project applicant and continue the item. BACKGROUND On November 3, 2022, the ARB recommended approval of the subject project, which Council approved on December 5, 2022. A condition of approval requiring certain aspects of the design to return to an ARB Ad Hoc Committee was incorporated into the Record of Land Use Action at the ARB’s recommendation. AD HOC CONDITION The following condition was made a requirement of the project as Condition of Approval #15 in the Record of Land Use Action (RLUA 22-04). Condition #15 Prior to building permit issuance, the owner or designee shall demonstrate to the Architectural Review Board Ad Hoc the following: a. Clarify cross sections along the multi-use path to confirm elevations; b. Show more low-level plantings in-between trees and consider other canopy trees where feasible to increase shading, such as the addition of western redbuds to the landscape fingers along East Bayshore Road; c. Confirm that trees can be planted adjacent to the multi-use path; d. Conform that the building elevations along the west and northwest elevations include the continuation of the ribbed metal paneling and also confirm the green colors. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 42     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 3 ANALYSIS Condition of Approval #15a: Clarify cross sections along the multi-use path to confirm elevations. Applicant’s Response: •See Sections A-A and B-B on Landscape Sheet L-1 and Civil Sheets EX-1 and EX-2 for cross sections at the multi-use path. Staff Analysis: •It should be further noted that Condition #38 states the multi-use path shall have a minimum width of 10 feet wide. The path along Bayshore appears to meet this requirement. Whereas the path along Embarcadero is at least 2 feet too narrow. Office of Transportation staff continue to review these cross sections and will provide more details prior to the meeting date. Condition of Approval #15b: Show more low-level plantings in-between trees and consider other canopy trees where feasible to increase shading, such as the addition of western redbuds to the landscape fingers along East Bayshore Road. Applicant’s Response: •See Sheet L-1 Overall Landscape Plan. All available planting areas are filled with low and medium-height shrubs, grasses and groundcovers. Tree planting has been maximized. Trees cannot be planted at the landscape fingers along East Bayshore Road due to PG&E easement. Staff Analysis: •The Ad Hoc plan set submitted by the applicant shows the following changes: o One proposed tree has been removed along the southern property line. o Two proposed trees have been removed on Bayshore Road. o Three proposed trees have been removed along Embarcadero Road. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 43     Item No. 4. Page 3 of 3 Because of these changes, staff has asked the applicant to submit a revised shading study to ensure the project has not gone below the required 50% shading requirement. Other ground cover and shrubs are also shown on Sheet L-1. Condition of Approval #15c: Confirm that trees can be planted adjacent to the multi-use path. Applicant’s Response: •Yes, trees can be planted adjacent to the multi-use path. Proposed trees are 36-inch box size Japanese Maples with minimum 6 foot clearance from the ground to start of tree head. Staff Analysis: •Office of Transportation staff continue to review the proposed clearance and will provide more details prior to the meeting date. Condition of Approval #15d: Confirm that the building elevations along the west and northwest elevations include the continuation of the ribbed metal paneling and also confirm the green colors. Applicant’s Response: •Confirmed. See the west and northwest elevation on Sheet 02. The ribbed metals panels are shown continuing across the building. The green colors are shown and labeled as Rosemary stucco, Sea Salt stucco, and Dried Thyme stucco. See the finish schedule for additional information. Renderings reflecting these materials have been provided at the top of this sheet as well as on Sheets 04 through 06. Staff Analysis: •Staff believes this satisfies Condition of Approval #15d. The ARB Ad-Hoc Committee is encouraged to affirm these changes address condition of approval #15. Otherwise, the Committee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal requires further refinement. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Project Plans for Ad Hoc Committee AUTHOR/TITLE: Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 44     Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to the Ad Hoc Committee for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “1700 Embarcadero 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/1700- Embarcadero-21PLN-00191 Item 4 Attachment A - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 45     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 2 3 3 0 5 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: October 19, 2023 Report #: 2310-2119 TITLE 3600 Middlefield [23PLN-00160]: Ad Hoc Committee to Review Additional Refinements to Architectural Elements and Design of Fire Station No. 4. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) Ad-Hoc Committee take one of 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. ANALYSIS On September 21, 2023, the ARB recommended approval of the subject project with the requirement that four aspects of the design, as they related to the building above the exercise room, 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. Mechanical Design Above Exercise Room The applicant was encouraged to redesign the mechanical area above the exercise room in the following ways: 1. Provide a character that is more consistent with the rest of the building 2. Provide a more consistent roof eave treatment 3. Consider relocating the mechanical equipment to allow removal of the parapet wall 4. Provide a more consistent exterior finished material treatment Applicant’s Response: The Exercise Room adjacent to the Service Yard has been modified from a parapet to an overhang condition to be consistent with the architectural language of the roof eave, fascia, and soffit throughout the design. The result is a character more consistent with the overall design. The exterior finish treatment is consistent with the rest of the building, creating a unified design in materials, massing, and character. After careful study, the mechanical equipment was relocated to a central well above the restrooms, thereby removing the need for roof screening and allowing for a clean simple roof line. Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 46     Item No. 5. Page 2 of 2 3 3 0 5 Staff’s Analysis: Staff agrees that the proposed modifications address the ARB’s direction in accordance with its motion. The roof eave treatment is now consistent between the front of the building and the rear of the building, so that the rear of the building matches the character of the building consistent with ARB points 1 and 2. Relocation of the mechanical equipment onto a roof well above the bathrooms allows for removal of the parapet wall meeting ARB point 3. By removing the stucco element of the parapet, the project now provides a more consistent exterior treatment on all sides of the façade that is more consistent with the rest of the building, meeting ARB point 4. The ARB Ad-Hoc Committee is encouraged to affirm these changes address the ARB’s motion from the September 21, 2023 hearing. Otherwise, the Committee should provide direction to staff and the applicant if the submittal requires further refinement. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Project Plans for Ad Hoc Committee AUTHOR/TITLE: Garrett Sauls, Planner Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 47     2 6 9 2 Attachment H 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 5 Attachment A - Project Plans for Ad Hoc Committee     Packet Pg. 48