Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-05-16 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, May 16, 2024 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Architectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate 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. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o n YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 525 University [23PLN‐00308] and 530 Lytton [23PLN‐00311] Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for Two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions at 525 University Avenue and 530 Lytton Avenue. The Project at 525 University Includes Five Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign, One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign, One Illuminated Wall Property ID Sign, One Illuminated Parking ID Sign, and One Illuminated Parking Directional Directory Sign. The Project at 530 Lytton Includes Four Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign, One Illuminated Wall Property ID Sign, One Illuminated Parking ID Sign, and One Illuminated Parking Blade Sign. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Action in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15311. Zoning District: CD‐C (P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. 3.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan 4.Chair and Vice Chair Elections APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 16, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted. Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks, posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do not create a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated when displaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view or passage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting. CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALL PUBLIC COMMENT  Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker. AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS The Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management. CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS 1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 525 University [23PLN‐00308] and 530 Lytton [23PLN‐00311] Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for Two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions at 525 University Avenue and 530 Lytton Avenue. The Project at 525 University Includes Five Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign, One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign, One Illuminated Wall Property ID Sign, One Illuminated Parking ID Sign, and One Illuminated Parking Directional Directory Sign. The Project at 530 Lytton Includes Four Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign, One Illuminated Wall Property ID Sign, One Illuminated Parking ID Sign, and One Illuminated Parking Blade Sign. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Action in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15311. Zoning District: CD‐C (P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. 3.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan 4.Chair and Vice Chair Elections APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 16, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 525 University [23PLN‐00308] and 530 Lytton[23PLN‐00311] Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural ReviewApproval for Two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions at 525 University Avenueand 530 Lytton Avenue. The Project at 525 University Includes Five Signs: OneIlluminated Directory Sign, One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign, One Illuminated WallProperty ID Sign, One Illuminated Parking ID Sign, and One Illuminated ParkingDirectional Directory Sign. The Project at 530 Lytton Includes Four Signs: One IlluminatedDirectory Sign, One Illuminated Wall Property ID Sign, One Illuminated Parking ID Sign,and One Illuminated Parking Blade Sign. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from theprovisions of the California Environmental Quality Action in Accordance with CEQAGuidelines Section 15301 and 15311. Zoning District: CD‐C (P) (Downtown Commercial).For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallasat Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.3.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan4.Chair and Vice Chair ElectionsAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, May 16, 2024Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.Signs and symbolic materials less than 2 feet by 3 feet are permitted provided that: (1) sticks,posts, poles or similar/other type of handle objects are strictly prohibited; (2) the items do notcreate a facility, fire, or safety hazard; and (3) persons with such items remain seated whendisplaying them and must not raise the items above shoulder level, obstruct the view orpassage of other attendees, or otherwise disturb the business of the meeting.CALL TO ORDER/ ROLL CALLPUBLIC COMMENT Members of the public may speak to any item NOT on the agenda. Three (3) minutes per speaker.AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONSThe Chair or Board majority may modify the agenda order to improve meeting management.CITY OFFICIAL REPORTS1.Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative FutureAgenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted ProjectsACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 525 University [23PLN‐00308] and 530 Lytton[23PLN‐00311] Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural ReviewApproval for Two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions at 525 University Avenueand 530 Lytton Avenue. The Project at 525 University Includes Five Signs: OneIlluminated Directory Sign, One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign, One Illuminated WallProperty ID Sign, One Illuminated Parking ID Sign, and One Illuminated ParkingDirectional Directory Sign. The Project at 530 Lytton Includes Four Signs: One IlluminatedDirectory Sign, One Illuminated Wall Property ID Sign, One Illuminated Parking ID Sign,and One Illuminated Parking Blade Sign. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from theprovisions of the California Environmental Quality Action in Accordance with CEQAGuidelines Section 15301 and 15311. Zoning District: CD‐C (P) (Downtown Commercial).For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallasat Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.3.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan4.Chair and Vice Chair ElectionsAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2024BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 16, 2024 Report #: 2405-2971 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 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal 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 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2024 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 2/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/29/2024 9:00 AM Hybrid Retreat 3/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Canceled 4/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/2/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/16/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Rosenberg 6/6/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Chen 6/20/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock, Rosenberg 7/4/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 7/18/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/1/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/15/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/3/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/17/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/7/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/21/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/5/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/19/2024 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2024 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June Hirsch, Adcock 4/4 July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A: 2024 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 June 6, 2024 •640 Waverley (1st formal) •Lighting and Bird Safe Glazing Ordinances June 20, 2024 •3000 El Camino Real (1st formal) •4075 El Camino Way (1st formal) 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 CRAYBOU 250 Hamilton Ave. 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 9/26/19. Zoning District: PF. __ AR Major - Board 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EKALLAS 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB recommended approval 4/22; PTC tentatively scheduled June 2024; Council __ Item 1 Attachment B: 2024 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 8     Zone Change tentatively schedule August 2024- 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). Site and Design 10/27/2022 22PLN- 00367 CRAYBOU 2501 EMBARCA DERO WY Public Utility – Water Filtration Application Resubmitted 8/8/23; 11/2 ARB Hearing, Resubmitted 2/5; PTC recommended approval 2/28 ARB recommended approval 4/4; Council Scheduled May 13, 2024.- 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 EKALLAS 800-808 San Antonio Road Housing 8/17 ARB; Resubmitted 1/29/24; 3/7/24 hearing, 4/4/24 AdHoc, 4/10 PTC, 5/6 Council - 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 Major Architectural Review 3/22/23 23PLN- 00061 EKALLAS 702 Clara Street Housing – 3 units No activity from applicant since November 2023; Request for Withdrawal or resubmittal sent to applicant. 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 CRAYBOU 3000 El Camino Office NOI Sent 6/6/23; Resubmitted 9/25; NOI Sent 10/25; Resubmitted 1/24/24, NOI Sent 2/23/24; Tentative June 2024 ARB hearing. 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, Rosenberg Item 1 Attachment B: 2024 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 9     Major Architectural Review 6/8/2023 23PLN- 00136 23PLN- 00277 (Map) 23PLN- 00003 and - 00195 – SB 330 GSAULS 3150 El Camino Real Housing - 380 units NOI sent 11/3/23. Pending Resubmittal. 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 Major Architectural Review 7/19/2023 23PLN- 00181 EKALLAS 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescen t units 12/21/23 ARB hearing; pending resubmittal. 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 floor commercial space. Zoning District: CS (Commercial Services). ___ PC Amendment 8/9/2023 23PLN- 00202 EKALLAS 4075 El Camino Way Commercial — 14 additional assisted living units Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 PTC hearing, second PTC tentative May 2024. 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. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). Baltay, Chen reported out 6/1 Master Sign Program 11/14/23 23PLN- 00308 EKALLAS 525 University Signs NOI Sent 12/15/2023, ARB hearing 5/16/24. Master Sign Program to allow for the installation of one illuminated monument, one illuminated canopy address, one illuminated wall property ID, one parking ID w/ uplight, one illuminated parking monument, one non-illuminated parking entry ID. Zoning District: CD-C (P) (Downtown Commercial). _____ Master Sign Program 11/15/23 23PLN- 00311 EKALLAS 530 Lytton Signs NOI Sent 12/15/23, ARB Hearing 5/16/24. Master Sign Program for the installation of 1 illuminated monument, 1 illuminated address, 1 illuminated wall property ID, 1 parking ID w/ uplight, 1 illuminated parking blade and 1 non-illuminated parking entry ID. This application is being reviewed along with 435 Tasso and 525 University. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD- C (P) Downtown Commercial District (Pedestrian Shopping). ___ Item 1 Attachment B: 2024 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 10     Major Architectural Review 1/10/2024 24PLN- 00012 GSAULS 3265 El Camino Real Housing NOI Sent 1/10/24. PTC 4/10/24; ARB 4/22/24. Request for rezoning to Planned Community (PC)/Planned Home Zoning (PHZ). New construction of a 5-story 100% affordable multifamily housing development with 44 dwelling units and ground level lobby and parking. Zoning District: CS. Rosenberg, Thompson reported out 8/17 on prescreening plans Rosenberg/ Hirsch Streamlined Housing Development Review 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00041 CHODGKI 3980 El Camino Real Affordable Housing NOI Sent 3/15/24. Plans resubmitted-ARB Study Session 5/2/24. Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to allow the redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village mobile home park into two parcels, featuring a new affordable housing development with a 61-unit multi-family apartment building on one parcel and a 44- unit, occupant owned mobile home park on the second parcel. Zoning District: RM-20 Baltay, Chen Major Architectural Review 3/6/2024 24PLN- 00064 CHODGKI 640 Waverley Mixed-Use NOI Sent 4/5/24. ARB tentatively Scheduled 6/6/24. Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to allow the construction of a new four-story, mixed use commercial and residential building with below grade parking. The ARB held a preliminary review on 6/15/23. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD-C(P). Rosenberg, Hirsch Major Architectural Review 4/02/2024 24PLN- 00100 CHODGKI 156 California Mixed-Use Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is situated at the corner of Park and California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29 ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use Multi Family Development. This project consists of three integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I Construction, 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1) 17 Story Tower, (1) 11 Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed and conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction. Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial) SB 330 Pre-app submitted 11/21/24 Baltay, Adcock Item 1 Attachment B: 2024 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 11     Zone Change 03/28/2024 24PLN- 00095 EKALLAS 70 Encina Housing- 10 Units Request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf building (1.86 FAR); to include ten (10) residential condominium units organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access and full site improvements to replace the existing surface parking area. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CC, (Community Commercial). ARB prelim held 12/7 Hirsch, Adcock Major Architectural Review 4/23/2024 24PLN- 00120 EKALLAS 762 San Antonio Housing - 198 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7-story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD. Baltay, Chen 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. __ 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: 2024 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 12     Preliminary Architectural Review 8/29/2023 23PLN- 00231 CHODGKI 616 Ramona Commercial Preliminary ARB hearing held 11/2; waiting on formal application submittal. 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. Preliminary Architectural Review 12/19/2023 23PLN- 00339 EKALLAS 1066 E Meadow Private School ARB Hearing 1/18/24; pending formal application. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Consider the Deconstruction of an Existing 35,000 Square Foot Commercial Building, and Construction of a new 2-Story, 46,000 sf School Building. It Will Contain Classrooms, Administrative Offices, and a Multi-Purpose Room. Site Improvements Include Parking, a Play Area, and a Rooftop Garden. Zoning District: ROLM Rosenberg, Adcock Preliminary Architectural Review 1/25/2024 24PLN- 00023 CHODGKI 4335/4345 El Camino Real Housing Preliminary Review Application Withdrawn. Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to allow demolition of an existing commercial building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building (4345 El Camino Real) and to redevelop the two parcels with a 28-unit multi-family townhome style development project with associated utilities, private streets, landscaping, and amenities. Hirsch, Baltay SB 330 Pre- Application 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00047 CHODGKI 3606 El Camino Real Housing SB 330 Pre-Application. Request for review of an SB330 Pre-Application for a Builder's Remedy project consisting of construction of a 315-unit multifamily residential rental and condo map, to include five levels of Type IIIA construction over 2 levels of Type IA residential parking (with 388 spaces) and residential support spaces. The project comprises the following parcels: 137-08-016, 137- 08-070, 137-08-077, 137-08-079, 137-08-080, 137- 08-081, & 137-08-088. Street addresses include: 3508-3628 El Camino Real and 528-530 Kendall Ave. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CN, CS,RM-30, RM-40) Neighborhood Commercial, Commercial Service, High Density Multiple-Family Residential, Multiply Family Residential, and Commercial Service. SB 330 Pre- Application 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00048 CHODGKI 3781 El Camino Real Housing SB 330 Pre-Application. Request for review of an SB330 Pre-Application for a Builder's Remedy project to construct a 169-unit multifamily residential rental and condo map project comprising 5-levels of Item 1 Attachment B: 2024 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 13     Type IIIA construction over 2 levels of Type IA residential parking with 215 parking spaces and residential support spaces. The project includes the following parcels: 132-41-019, 132-41-020, 132-41- 083, & 132-41-084; and the following street addresses: 3727-3781 El Camino Real, 388-400 Curtner Street. Zoning District: (CN, RM-30,) Neighborhood Commercial, Multiply Family Residential. SB 330 Pre- Application 4/10/2024 24PLN- 00107 GSAULS 531 Stanford Housing SB 330 Pre-Application for a housing development project that proposes 30 new detached single-family homes and six new below- market-rate units in a standalone multi-family building on the approx. 1.18-acre project site at the intersection of Stanford Avenue and El Camino Real. 20% of the units would be deed restricted for lower-income households. Zoning: RM-30. Environmental Assessment: Pending. SB 330 Pre- Application 4/15/2023 24PLN- 00111; 24PLN- 00112 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). Note: project has not changed but previous SB 330 pre-apps expired. Chen, Hirsch reported out 8/17 Item 1 Attachment B: 2024 Agenda and New Projects List     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 16, 2024 Report #: 2404-2903 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 525 University [23PLN-00308] and 530 Lytton [23PLN- 00311] Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for Two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions at 525 University Avenue and 530 Lytton Avenue. The Project at 525 University Includes Five Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign, One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign, One Illuminated Wall Property ID Sign, One Illuminated Parking ID Sign, and One Illuminated Parking Directional Directory Sign. The Project at 530 Lytton Includes Four Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign, One Illuminated Wall Property ID Sign, One Illuminated Parking ID Sign, and One Illuminated Parking Blade Sign. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Action in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15311. Zoning District: CD-C (P) (Downtown Commercial). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Emily Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board: 1. Find the projects exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15311; and 2. Recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve the Master Sign Programs and Sign Exemptions based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant requests approval of two Master Sign Programs, one for 525 University Avenue and one for 530 Lytton Avenue. These two parcels are adjacent to each other and the signage for the two separate parcels has been coordinated as these buildings encompass the entire block between Cowper Street and Tasso Street, and University Avenue and Lytton Avenue, functioning as an office campus environment. The Master Sign Program at 525 University includes five total signs and the Master Sign Program at 531 Lytton Avenue includes four total signs. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 9 Sign exceptions are requested for most of these signs, as detailed further in this report, for minor deviations from the Code requirements. These signs primarily replace existing signage of a similar size and nature. The site proposes to maintain existing business-specific wall signage. The proposed signs unify wayfinding/directory signage across these two sites. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner of 525 University: PAOC, LLC Owner of 530 Lytton 530 Lytton CM, LLC Owner Representative: David Giusti, Orchard Commercial Real Estate Sign Company Representative: Mardeen Gordon, SignAge and ArtWorks Legal Counsel: Not Applicable Property Information Addresses:525 University and 530 Lytton Neighborhood:Downtown Lot Dimensions & Area:525 University: 225 ft wide, 262.5 ft long, 59,062.5 sf 530 Lytton: 225 ft wide, 130.5 ft long, 29,362 sf Total: 225 ft wide, 393 ft long, 88,425 sf (2.03 acres) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees: Not Applicable (signs would have no impact on existing protected trees on or near the sites) Historic Resource(s):Yes, 525 University is a CRHR eligible building. See further discussion below. Existing Improvement(s):525 University: 15-story office tower with two, 2-story wing buildings, 199,115 sf, built 1966 530 Lytton: four-story office tower, 49,264 sf, built 1975 Existing Land Use(s):Office, Financial Services Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Land Use (CD-C(P)) West: Land Use (RM-30) East: Land Use (CD-C(GF)(P)) South: Land Use ((CD-C(P))) Aerial View of Properties: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 9 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Community Commercial (CC) Zoning Designation:Downtown Commercial, Pedestrian Overlay CD-C (P) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) X 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 X SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 9 PTC:None HRB:None for the proposed signage. Exterior building and landscaping changes were reviewed by the HRB on April 28, 2022 as a part of 21PLN-00209 (currently under construction) ARB:None PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed projects include two Master Sign Programs, both of which include Sign Exceptions. The proposed Master Sign Program at 525 University Avenue includes five total signs, all of which are illuminated, including: 1. A freestanding directory sign; 2. A canopy address sign; 3. A wall property ID sign; 4. A parking ID sign; and 5. A parking directional sign The proposed Master Sign Program at 530 Lytton Avenue includes four total signs, all of which are illuminated, including: 1. A freestanding directory sign; 2. A wall property ID sign (address); 3. A parking ID sign; and 4. A parking blade sign; Sign exceptions are required for the freestanding directory signs at both properties, parking ID signs at both entrances to the underground garage, parking directional/blade signs at each site, and a wall property ID sign at 525 University, as summarized below. 525 University Avenue Type of Sign Code Compliance (or deviation) Freestanding directory sign 6.5 sf allowed plus 1.5 sf per business name, where 4 sf plus 1.5 sf per business name is allowed Canopy address sign Compliant Wall property ID Sign (Address Sign)Extends beyond the wall height where exceedance beyond the wall height is not allowed Parking ID Sign (Directional Wall sign)89.75 sf proposed where 6 sf is allowed Parking Directional Sign 7.36 sf where 3 sf is allowed 530 Lytton Avenue Type of Sign Code Compliance (or deviation) Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 9 Freestanding directory sign 6.5 sf plus 1.5 sf per business name, where 4 sf plus 1.5 sf per business name is allowed Wall property ID sign (Address)Compliant Parking ID sign (Directional Wall Sign)69.8 sf where 6 sf is allowed Parking blade sign 7.36 sf where 3 sf is allowed The proposed sign materials include umber black aluminum as well as perforated aluminum for the sign surface with white acrylic push-through lettering. All signs include LED internal illumination or LED strip up lighting. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: •Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Community Environment Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. •Architectural Review – Master Sign Program: In accordance with PAMC section 16.20.030 "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. The master sign program shall designate the sign locations and areas of all signs in the program, as well as typical sign designs, colors and faces. Pursuant to the approval of the master sign program, subsequent individual signs may be erected without further design review. The findings for a Master Sign Program are those for Major Architectural Review. •Architectural Review – Sign Exception: In accordance with PAMC section 16.20.040 “Sign Exception” means an application made in conjunction with an architectural review application which requests a deviation from what is allowed in the Sign code. Sign Exceptions are evaluated against specific findings, provided in Attachment B. ANALYSIS1 The proposed projects have been reviewed for conformance with relevant plans, policies and regulations. Staff finds that the project is in conformance with these requirements or is seeking through the requested permits permission to deviate from certain code standards in a manner 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to the findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 9 that is consistent with the code. Staff has also concluded that the project is consistent with the Architectural review findings as detailed further in this section. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines2 ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The projects would provide high quality signage, consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to high quality design. Specifically, the project is consistent with Policy L-6.10, which encourages high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. A summary of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in the findings under ARB Finding #1 in Attachment B. Municipal Code Compliance3 Attachment D includes a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards or the areas in which the applicant is seeking, through the requested permits, permission to deviate from the standards in a manner that is consistent with the exceptions process outlined in the sign code. Specifically, the Master Sign Program at 525 University includes one sign that is code compliant (canopy address sign) and four signs that include minor deviations from the code. The Master Sign Program at 530 Lytton Avenue includes one sign that is code compliant (Address Wall Sign). Overall, the proposed sign packages replace existing signs in a manner that will create a more modern and cohesive design. While exceptions are requested, they are comparable or reduced in comparison to the existing signage, and appropriate based on the scale of the sites and buildings. The proposed signs are consistent with the Context Based Design Criteria for the CD-C zoning District (PAMC 18.18.110). The signs help define the primary entrances to the parking, buildings, and site overall. They improve wayfinding within the site for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. The Downtown Design Guidelines likewise do not focus on signage, but the project meets the Guidelines to improve signage related to parking, and to utilize signage as a visual anchor for the site. Directory Signs Per PAMC 16.20.160, a directory sign is a sign that displays the names of the occupants of a building. These signs must be situated at least two feet inside the property line and has a height limit of 8 feet. The maximum sign area is four square feet, plus one and one-half square feet per name, up to 75 sf maximum. The proposed directory signs at both addresses are more than four square feet of non-business name sign area, which says the address of the building. Essentially, the project has combined a monument sign for the address with the proposed directory sign for the site, however staff has treated each of these as directory signs. The height of the sign is 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 9 allowed, but the total address area is 6.5 sf where 4 sf is allowed. A minor deviation from the code for which a sign exception is requested. Staff supports this exception, as the buildings do not have other monument signage on this facade, the size of the signs are appropriate to the scale of the building, and the signage is for an address. Parking ID Signs The proposed parking ID signs, which read “Welcome to 525 University Avenue” and “Welcome to 530 Lytton” and indicate entrances and exits to the underground garage are considered directional signage. Directional signage, per PAMC 16.20.160, does not include any business names and provides directional information only. They are limited to 6 square feet (sf) and a height of 3 feet for signs located more than 20 feet from a property line. The proposed signs are 23 sf and 3 feet tall. However, this signage is unique and encompasses address signage with safety and directional signage. The size is appropriate to the scale of the wall on which they are located and are appropriate to the scale of what is legible for drivers. They are also similar in size to the parking directional signages existing on the site. Parking Directional and Blade Sign A small parking directional sign is proposed for 525 University Avenue and a small blade sign for 530 Lytton Avenue. Both directional signs and blades are typically limited to 3 square feet and 3 ft tall when located within 20 ft of a property line. However, in this case larger signs are necessary for safety (they include a car indicator signal for visibility for pedestrians and bicyclists), and the size is consistent with the scale of the buildings. Each sign is approximately 7 sf. Wall sign at 525 University There is a proposed sign above the retaining wall for the raised landscaping area. This sign most aligns with a wall sign and therefore is being proposed as such. However, the sign is located in a manner that extends beyond the top of the wall on which it is mounted on, which is not typically allowed. This code is intended to stop signs from exceeding the height of a building rather than a retaining wall, and staff finds that the sign exception is appropriate in this circumstance. The findings for these requested sign exceptions are provided in Attachment B. Consistency with Historic Eligibility The building at 525 University is California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) eligible, but not currently listed. Nevertheless, the proposed site signage would not have any impact on the site’s eligibility for the CRHR. Consistency with Application Findings The existing buildings are in the commercial downtown area. The two buildings create an office campus environment that encompasses the entire block between Cowper Street and Tasso Street, and University Avenue and Lytton Avenue. Therefore, the building façades are significantly larger than most other buildings within the downtown area. They also have unique Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 9 mid-block entrances to the below grade parking garage, with tall retaining walls even when the ramp reaches grade. The size of the two parking signs are appropriate based on the size of the driveways and the need for the signs to be visible for both drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. The proposed sign packages replace existing signs, in a manner that will create a more modern and cohesive design. While exceptions are requested, they are comparable to the existing signage or otherwise function in a cohesive manner to reduce excessive signage across the site. For example, the two directory signs function as both monument signs with the building addresses, and directory signs listing the businesses within the buildings. If the directory signs were reduced, monument signs would still be desired, leading to additional signs being added. The scale of the directory signs are appropriate to the scale of the building. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 3, 2024, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on May 2, 2024, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is exempt from the provisions of CEQA per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 and 15311. Specifically, CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 considers minor alterations to existing buildings to be categorically exempt from CEQA. CEQA Guidelines Section 15311 considers on-premise signs for commercial developments to be exempt from CEQA. None of the exceptions to the exemptions under 15300.1 would apply. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Project Plans Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 9 Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2116 Emily.Kalles@cityofpaloalto.org Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org 4 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     COWPER STREET LING STREET UNIVERSITY AVENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE COWPER STREET WEBSTER STREET LYTTO N AVENUE TASSO STREET R E 30 480 530 499 415 541 431 433 437 0 520 540 45 525 530 540 473- 479 500- 528 425 415-419 480- 498 460- 476 436- 452 531 43 406-418 440-446 21423 443 451 463 440 480 499 444 423 5 432 530 548 551545 50 570568 546 550 555 567 579 581 438 435 425 417 556 550 420 430 515 436 434 432 430 428426 424 422 420 531 533 535 537 539 55755 525 524 533 535 450 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Curb Face (RF) Pavement Edge (RF) Address Label Points (AP) Highlighted Features Current Features 0' 67' Attachment ALocation Map525 University and 530 Lytton CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altoekallas, 2024-04-22 09:26:15Assessor Parcels (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A: Location Map     Packet Pg. 24     4 3 2 1 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL & SIGN EXCEPTION 525 University Avenue/23PLN-00308 530 Lytton Avenue/23PLN-00311 The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The design is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed project is consistent with policy L-6.10: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. The design of the signs, materials, and colors are attractive and appropriate for the building and the surrounding area. Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: This finding can be made in the affirmative in that the proposed design of the signage is appropriate for the downtown office tower setting. The proposed signage uses consistent materials and colors that is unified and coherent between the two sites. Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project incorporates high quality materials, and replaces existing mis-matched signage with a cohesive set. The proposed materials include perforated and solid aluminum, with push-through acrylic Item 2 Attachment B: ARB and Sign Exception Findings     Packet Pg. 25     4 3 2 1 lettering. The colors are black, gray, and white, which is appropriate to the modern architecture of the buildings and appropriately blend in with 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.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The intent of the design is to provide functional directional assistance throughout the building and to assist with pedestrian safety. The two directory signs allow people to know what businesses are in the buildings. The parking signs at each of the two garage entrances include “car coming” warning systems to help protect pedestrians and bicyclists crossing in front of the garage entries. The two monument signs provide pedestrian-scale identifying address markers. Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. There is no landscaping that would be impacted by the proposed signage. Landscaping was previously reviewed by Staff under 21PLN-00209. Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The proposed sign is made of durable long-lasting materials. Although the signs are illuminated, lighting is the minimum necessary to provide for wayfinding after dark and is either limited to the lettering itself, partially shielded by the materials, or provided as small lights directed on the sign itself to avoid light spillover. Item 2 Attachment B: ARB and Sign Exception Findings     Packet Pg. 26     4 3 2 1 Sign Exception The proposed signs that exceed code requirements comply with the Findings for Sign Exception as required in PAMC Chapter 16.20.040 . The specific exceptions are requested for the following standards: 525 University •Freestanding Directory Sign – exceeds allowed sign area for non-business name portions of a directory sign (6sf where 4 sf are allowed) in order to provide the site address •Wall Property ID Sign (address sign)-Exceeds the height of the wall on which it is located upon •Parking ID Sign – exceeds allowed sign area and height of a directional sign •Parking Directional Sign – 7.63 sf where 3 sf is allowed 530 Lytton •Freestanding Directory Sign – exceeds allowed sign area for non-business name portions of a directory sign •Building Projecting Parking Sign (Blade Sign) – exceeds allowed sign area and height of a blade sign, in a location where they are not normally permitted •Parking ID Sign (directional wall sign) – 69.8 sf where 6 sf is allowed 1. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district; The existing buildings are in the commercial downtown area, the building at 525 University is California Register of Historic Resources eligible, but not currently listed. The two buildings create an office campus environment that is unique to the downtown area and that encompasses the entire block between Cowper Street and Tasso Street, and University Avenue and Lytton Avenue. Therefore, the building façades are significantly larger than most other buildings within the downtown area. They also have unique mid-block entrances to the below grade parking garage, with tall retaining walls even when the ramp reaches grade. The size of the two parking signs are appropriate for wayfinding based on the size of the driveways and the need for the signs to be visible for both drivers, bikers, and pedestrians. The two directory signs function as both monument signs with the building addresses, and directory signs listing the businesses within the buildings. If the directory signs were reduced, monument signs would still be desired, leading to additional signs being added. The scale of the directory signs are appropriate to the scale of the building. 2. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships; The granting of this application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property right of the tenant to have appropriately scaled signage for safety in the parking entrances, and to provide site identification signage that is appropriate based on the size of the building and that does not detract from the potential historic nature of the property. Item 2 Attachment B: ARB and Sign Exception Findings     Packet Pg. 27     4 3 2 1 3. The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare or convenience. The project will be constructed in accordance with all building code requirements of the City of Palo Alto and will be neither detrimental nor injurious to surrounding properties, public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. The signage reduces the overall number of signs at the site and unifies the signage across two adjacent properties. Item 2 Attachment B: ARB and Sign Exception Findings     Packet Pg. 28     4 4 3 8 ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 525 University Avenue 23PLN-00308 _________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Project: 525 UNIVERSITY AVE, SUITE 200 PALO ALTO, CA 94301,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on April 26, 2024, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Transportation, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. COLORS AND MATERIALS. The final colors and materials for the signage will align with the colors and materials approved by the architectural review board. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 6. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 7. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning. Contact your Project Planner, Emily Kallas at emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DIVISION 8. A building permit is required for the signs shown. Include structural calculations as part of building permit submittal. OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION Item 2 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 29     4 4 3 8 9. The car detection device (or equivalent new model) shall be reinstalled on the new parking freestanding sign. CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 530 Lytton Avenue 23PLN-00311 _________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Project: 530 LYTTON AVE, PALO ALTO, CA 94301,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on April 26, 2024, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Transportation, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. COLORS AND MATERIALS. The final colors and materials for the signage will align with the colors and materials approved by the architectural review board. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS: All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 6. INDEMNITY: To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 7. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning. Contact your Project Planner, Emily Kallas at emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING DIVISION Item 2 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 30     4 4 3 8 8. A building permit is required for the signs shown. Include structural calculations as part of building permit submittal. OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION 9. The car detection device (or equivalent new model) shall be reinstalled on the new parking blade sign. Item 2 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 31     Attachment D Zoning Table 525 University Proposed Sign / Type PAMC 16.24 Compliance Allowed Dimensions/Height Existing Dimensions/Height Proposed Dimensions Directory Sign No, Sign Exception Requested, replaces existing signage 4 sf plus business names 8ft 30.6 sf total 8ft 6.5 sf plus business names 20 sf total 8ft Address Wall Sign No, Sign Exception Requested Cannot extend beyond wall height Replaces 12.7 sf monument sign 58.5 sf Located on retaining wall, exceeds height of wall Directional Wall Sign (Parking Entrances) No, Sign Exception Requested, replaces existing signage 6 sf Currently multiple smaller signs 89.75 sf on Cowper St Free Standing Sign – Parking No, Sign Exception Requested, replaces existing signage 3 sf 13.3 sf 7.36 sf 6’11” 530 Lytton Proposed Sign / Type PAMC 16.24 Compliance Allowed Dimensions/Height Existing Dimensions/Height Proposed Dimensions Directory Sign No, Sign Exception Requested, replaces existing signage 4 sf plus business names 8ft Replaces 18 sf monument sign 6.5 sf plus business names 14.8 sf total 5’11” Item 2 Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Table     Packet Pg. 32     Address Wall Sign Yes Replaces 38.5 sf monument sign 56.3 sf Located on retaining wall Directional Wall Signs No, Sign Exception Requested, replaces existing signage 6 sf Currently multiple smaller signs 69.8 sf on Tasso St Projecting Sign - Parking No, Sign Exception Requested 3 sf Max height 12’N/A 7.36 sf Mounted 8’3” above sidewalk 16.20.160 Special Purpose Signs Item 2 Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Table     Packet Pg. 33     Item 2 Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Table     Packet Pg. 34     Item 2 Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Table     Packet Pg. 35     Item 2 Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Table     Packet Pg. 36     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “525 University Avenue” and “530 Lytton Avenue” and click either for the address link 3. On these project-specific webpages you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpages: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/525-University-Avenue and https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/530-Lytton-Avenue Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available in the chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 2 Attachment E: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 37     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 16, 2024 Report #: 2405-2994 TITLE Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss the second draft of the Annual Report and Work Plan, suggest changes, and recommend submission of the Work Plan to the City Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The ARB Chair is expected to prepare an annual report/work plan by the second quarter of each calendar year with help from staff and their fellow Board members. City Council reviews the plan and provides feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting. The plan must be submitted to the City Clerk in May for Council consideration in June, prior to the end of the fiscal year. The plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan and activities included in the board’s work for the next fiscal year. The Council Handbook has a template for work plan development. If new issues arise during the year, the work plan can be amended and forwarded to Council for review and approval. ANALYSIS As discussed on April 4, 2024, an ARB annual report is required in the Bylaws and reviews the prior year, while the Council’s new work plan requirement is to look forward on the next fiscal year. A draft work plan for fiscal year 2025 has been prepared by the ARB Chair and staff (Attachment A) using Council’s provided template. The attached plan includes a summary of the ARB’s accomplishments from last year and how they aligned with last year’s work plan goals. It also suggests new goals for the ARB over the next year. The ARB is asked to review this document, suggest updates, and add any additional tasks as needed. Council is scheduled to review this plan—as well as all other board and commission work plans—and adopt any changes to this plan in June 2024. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 38     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2 Adoption of the proposed work plan is exempt from CEQA in accordance with Guidelines Section 15063(b) because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the work plan would not have an environmental impact on the environment. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft Work Plan and Annual Report AUTHOR/TITLE: Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 39     Architectural Review Board 2024-2025 Workplan Staff Liaison: Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner Lead Department: Current Planning, Planning and Development Services Division About the Board The Architectural Review Board is composed of five members, at least three of whom are architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.21. Residency is not required. For the ARB webpage go to bit.ly/paloaltoARB. Board Members •Peter Baltay (Chair) •Kendra Rosenberg (Vice Chair) •Mousam Adcock •Yingxi Chen •David Hirsch Mission Statement The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on the building design, site planning, landscape planning, massing and facades, material selection, lighting, signage and other related issues for most major new construction including additions and renovations that alter the exterior building face. The type of buildings reviewed include commercial, industrial, and multiple-family residential. In addition, the ARB is a resource as knowledgeable observers of many varied urban environments, to assist Palo Alto as it develops area plans to accommodate additional housing. The ARB Scope of Review is fully noted in Title 18 of the Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76 under Section 18.76.020 as well as in Chapter 18.77 under Section 18.77.073. Prior Year Accomplishments •See attached Summary Item 3 Attachment A: Draft ARB Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 40     PROJECT/GOAL 1:Review Planning applications for conformance with ARB Findings and Objective Standards BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED This is the Board's main mission and serves to ensure the City develops high quality projects On-Going Planning staff prepare staff reports, packets and presentations. They ensure paper plan sets and material boards are ready for ARB review. Other departments, such as, City Attorney, Urban Forestry, Transportation, etc., may be required from time to time. Consultants, including CEQA consultants, may also be required. Issuance of recommendations on projects and high-quality architecture throughout the City. Yes HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE •Projects that include new housing units that will help with City reach its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) N/A PROJECT/GOAL 2: Assist the City as it considers modifications to Objective Standards; Provide feedback based on research from projects as they go through the objective standards ministerial processes. Suggest ways to better address different housing typology. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Streamline the objective standard review process and ensure that projects using the streamlined review process/objective standards conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Goals and Policies, including its high-quality design standards Provide high level modifications to objective standards to Council by the end of 2024; If directed by Council, work with staff to propose specific code language for Council adopted by the end of FY 2025 Additional staff at Planning so that the quality and completeness of the work is maintained. Council Approval No HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE In order of priority:•Modifications to address objective standards (18.24) based on review of several projects using the standards•Modifications to address townhome projects based on the feedback from the ARB Ad Hoc Committee on townhomes •Modifications to SB 9 objective standards No Item 3 Attachment A: Draft ARB Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 41     PROJECT/GOAL 3: Discuss specific Coordinated Area Plans that the ARB would recommend exploring/implement; If the City Council directs the preparation of those plans to staff, provide comments on those Coordinated Area Plans BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED This project would enhance implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan On-going Planning staff to help research policies and programs; coordination with long range planning section staff. Increased adherence to Comprehensive Plan policies Yes HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE •Coordinated Area Plan for San Antonio area•Downtown Housing Plan •California Avenue •Encina Avenue No PROJECT/GOAL 4:Provide feedback to staff and Council on the creation of new guidelines, ordinances, and/or streetscape, including but not limited to upcoming roof terraces, bird safe glazing and dark sky lighting regulations, parklets design, and streetscape designs. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED The ARB has unique feedback to provide as a stakeholder as they have interest in approving the aesthetic environment of the City while also understanding constraints that architects/developers may come across when implementing standards being considered Anticipated to return to the Board in spring/summer 2024 Staff time Council Approval Yes HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE •Roof Terraces•Bird safe glazing / dark skys•Riparian setbacks No PROJECT/GOAL 5: Improve Coordination between the Architectural Review Board and other boards, commissions and Council. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED •Improved coordination between boards/commissions and council to get feedback from colleagues on other board •More coordinated feedback from the City for developers On-going Staff time •Staff provide summary reports from PTC, ARB, and HRB meetings promptly following each meeting •Take direct feedback from the ARB on reviewed projects up for Council approval. The ARB can appoint a member to represent the board directly to the Council No HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE •Create liaisons between boards/commissions No Item 3 Attachment A: Draft ARB Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 42     Architectural Review Board of the City of Palo Alto Annual Report of Prior Year Accomplishments and ARB Recommendations for Fiscal Year 2025 Following is a review of the ARB’s accomplishments over the past year and the Board’s recommendations to Council regarding areas of work that should be prioritized in next fiscal year and opportunities for better coordination. 1.Application Review. The ARB takes prides in its collaborative process of review, where members meld their individual opinions and experience into one democratic summary that improves proposed projects and therefore the quality of the Palo Alto built environment. This past year, the ARB reviewed approximately 20 projects including two major public projects, multi-family housing projects with inclusionary below market rate units, and commercial projects as well as larger retail modifications in Stanford Shopping Center, meeting Goal 1 of the 2024 annual work plan. Our review and oversight of the following projects has made a real and significant difference. Below are renderings of some of these projects showing the initial proposal and final design. Address/project Building type 3001 El Camino Real Affordable Housing 3200 Park Boulevard Development Agreement 420 Acacia Ave Housing (with inclusionary units) 739 Sutter Avenue Housing (with inclusionary units) 3600 Middlefield Road Fire Station 180 El Camino Real Arhaus Facade 180 El Camino Real Sushi Roku Facade 180 El Camino Real Restoration Hardware Facade 123 Sherman Avenue Office 2501 Embarcadero Advanced Water Purification System 800 San Antonio Road Mixed Use (Office and retail with inclusionary units) SB 9 Objective Standards Review Ordinance/Plan In addition, a number of projects came in as a preliminary review to obtain early feedback from the ARB. The ARB’s early review of these projects and board member feedback prior to formal application will help to incorporate key programming modifications and design changes in the early stage of development, helping to streamline the formal application. These included 640 Waverley Street, 616 Ramona Street, 1066 East Meadow Drive, and 70 Encina Avenue. •The ARB provided valuable feedback to assist Council with respect to updating SB 9 standards. They also provided a comprehensive review and made recommendations on updates to the objective standards to better address townhome style designs. This work was consistent with Goal 2 of the fiscal year 2024 work plan. •The ARB provided valuable feedback to assist Council with respect to Preapproved Parklets Design. Although not explicitly identified in the work plan, this work was consistent with Goal 2 of the fiscal year 2024 work plan. •The ARB provided valuable feedback to assist Council with respect to the Dark Skies and Bird Safe Glazing Ordinance as well as the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan consistent with Goal 3 of the fiscal year 2024 work plan. Additional work on this effort is expected in the next few months to further assist with these efforts prior to a final Council decision. Item 3 Attachment A: Draft ARB Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 43     Recommendations PAMC Section 2.21.030 directs the Architectural Review Board to report annually our “concerns… with respect to the city’s plans, policies, ordinances and procedures as these affect the projects which the board reviews.” Our reviews are site specific – we look at individual development proposals, not broad policies. At the same time, we are directed to look at each project in both its physical and regulatory context – how it will enhance its neighborhood (or not) and how it will implement the City’s polices, from the Comprehensive Plan to the various design guidelines the City uses. Because we look at many projects each year, and because many board members have years of experience in Palo Alto, patterns emerge and specific areas of concern have been identified. Our comments this year are centered the increasing importance of housing projects to the city. 2. Objective Design Standard Refinements. In our continuing response to recently enacted state legislation, Palo Alto previously adopted objective design review standards for housing projects, effectively eliminating architectural review on residential and mixed-use projects where objective standards can be met in order to streamline review of those applications. Several residential projects over the past year were townhouse type developments (3200 Park Boulevard, 739 Sutter Avenue, 420 Acacia). In our review, it was noted that some of the current standards focused more on larger multi-family buildings. Therefore, some aspects of townhouse style design were not fully addressed/accommodated for in the standards. Through an Ad Hoc committee we studied many local townhouse developments and have provided the planning department with recommendations to modify the Objective Design Standards to address townhome designs as well as larger multi-family designs. The ARB recommends that refinements be made to the objective standards based on implementation of the standards for a series of projects as well as with the recommendations from the ARB regarding modifications for townhome designs. 3. Coordinated Area Plans to encourage housing development and better planning •San Antonio Avenue area. San Antonio Avenue is experiencing increasing residential development but our zoning regulations for the area are outdated and focused on commercial development, resulting in applicant uncertainty and long entitlement processes. The existing one-story light industrial and commercial buildings will be substantially replaced in the coming decade. A coordinated area plan will allow us to consider larger issues such as transportation, neighborhood parks and integration with nearby developments in Mountain View as this area transforms. •Downtown. To increase housing the downtown area needs revised standards to accommodate redevelopment of lots as to encourage housing additions while maintaining the vibrancy of the downtown area and its pedestrian friendly streetscape. •California Avenue. •Encina Avenue. Encina Avenue between El Camino and the railroad is an excellent location for higher density housing. However, the adjacent Town and County shopping center, a low lying and historically significant facility, must be protected. Parking considerations are also paramount in this area. A coordinated area plan offers an efficient path towards increased density while protecting a much loved shopping area. 4. Bird safe glazing and dark sky regulations. The ARB should provide feedback to the planning staff, PTC and Council regarding upcoming bird safe glazing and dark sky lighting regulations. Roof terraces. 5. City Council/Planning Commission communication. The Architecture Review Board has very little formal interaction with the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Board. Board members are forced to act on individual initiative to gain input from council members and other commissioners. Joint meetings with full boards are rarely productive; yet uncoordinated serial meetings leave commissioners unaware of feedback from colleagues on other boards. Applicants often feel that they are ‘running a gauntlet’ of approvals rather than facing a coordinated review. •Request staff to provide summary reports from PTC, ARB and HRB meetings promptly following each meeting. Item 3 Attachment A: Draft ARB Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 44     •Take direct feedback from the ARB on reviewed projects up for council approval where Council approval is required. The ARB can appoint a member to represent the board directly to the council. •Request staff to schedule joint preliminary discussions between the ARB, PTC and HRB chairs/vice-chairs on projects of common interest. These ‘preliminary meetings’ would not be to review specifics of a project; rather they would serve to coordinate the review process between boards and planning staff. •Appoint HRB, PTC and Council liaisons to the ARB to … Below are Renderings of approved projects from Initial proposal to Final Design from the list of reviewed projects. A summary of key modifications that were made to the design based on ARB feedback is also included: 739 Sutter Avenue - Initial Proposal 739 Sutter - Final Design - Private outdoor balconies for residents were increased to two levels on Sutter side but removed the roof deck - Balconies facing single family residences were improved to maintain privacy for single family residences - Massing around building corners were greatly improved 3001 Camino Real - Initial Proposal 3001 El Camino Real - Final Design - Improved the central building circulation to make the site more useable and building code compliant. - Recommended modification to the El Camino Real façade articulation to create greater visibility onto the street from the El Camino Real facing uses. - Recommended design modifications that allowed for more visibility into the community room from Acacia to provide a more pedestrian-friendly façade along that street frontage. Item 3 Attachment A: Draft ARB Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 45     123 Sherman Avenue - Initial Proposal 123 Sherman Avenue - Final Design -The ARB focused on improving the entrance to and design of the first-floor commercial space at the corner to ensure the viability of a future tenant and to create interest at the corner -A focus on the detail and use of the full height decorative panels on portions of the perimeter of the upper floor office levels. -Increased vegetation planting -Revisions to the plans to ensure privacy of nearby residential uses and reduce light intrusion from this building into their units. 3200 Park Boulevard- Initial Proposal 3200 Park Boulevard - Final Design -Increased the widths of the pedestrian paseos to increase usability and reduce privacy impacts both through building setbacks and landscaping -recommended modifications to design, materials and color to increase the variability across different buildings, provide variation in height across the longer facades, and to provide interest on the end units -Simplified the forms along the southern façade of the cannery building, reducing design changes that detracted from the historic character of the building, particularly with respect to the windows below the monitor roof -Refined the color variations for the parking garage to help further break down the scale of the garage and brought down the height of the garage to reduce impacts on neighboring single-family residents and maintain the stepped height of the cannery, which relates back to its historic use with loading docks at the rear of the building Item 3 Attachment A: Draft ARB Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 46     180 El Camino Arhaus- Initial Proposal 180 El Camino Real Arhaus - Final Design -The initial design was well received; however, the applicant returned later to propose modifications based on tenant preferences. The ARB’s initial recommendations, which were also incorporated into the final design, included minor revisions to the materials, to emphasize the entrance design, and to request additional details regarding the bicycle parking as it relates to this site and the overall facility 180 El Camino Restoration Hardware- Initial Proposal 180 El Camino Real Restoration Hardware- Final Design -Although the initial design was generally well received as a clean, light design, the ARB recommended minor modifications to make the white less glaring and more toned down. In particular, the ARB requested that metal accents to be a deeper hue to create more interest, depth, and warmth, recommended keeping green walls that were planned to be removed, and provided input to refine small details such as the lighting Item 3 Attachment A: Draft ARB Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 47     180 El Camino Sushi Roku- Initial Proposal 180 El Camino Real Sushi Roku - Final Design -Sushi Roku came to the ARB with a comprehensive design, steeped in the culture and rich in texture. The ARB had some questions regarding maintenance and detailing of exterior materials, but generally approved the design as proposed ___________________________________ 800 San Antonio Road- Initial Proposal 800 San Antonio Road - Final Design - Building above grades were redesigned to avoid encroaching into setbacks - Main entrance volume expressed appropriately on the street with material and form - Improved trash pick-up logistics - Improved courtyard function and circulation - Improved internal circulation with widening hallways at back elevator - Provided planting soil depth above top of basement for ground floor softscape at base of building - (second ad hoc committee meeting pending) Item 3 Attachment A: Draft ARB Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 48     2501 Embarcadero Road- Initial Proposal 2501 Embarcadero Road - Final Design - Colors muted to align with Baylands guidelines - Light pollution shielded from all sides using perforated metal below the roof - Color temperature of the lighting lowered, while maintaining high light levels for worker safety - Section of chain-link fence removed and replaced with board formed concrete to screen tank better from the street 420 Acacia Avenue- Initial Proposal 420 Acacia Avenue- Final Design - Overall, the project was well received as proposed. The ARB recommended minor improvements to provide better pedestrian circulation, clarify details of the rooftop open space, and ensure privacy between those spaces as well as for adjacent uses. - Refined the details of how the private street relates to the neighboring parking facility. Item 3 Attachment A: Draft ARB Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 49     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 16, 2024 Report #: 2405-2995 TITLE Chair and Vice Chair Elections RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Elect a new Chair and Vice-Chair to serve from May 16, 2024 to May 15, 2025 BACKGROUND Section 3.1 of the Architectural Review Board (ARB) By-Laws states: “The offices of Chairperson and Vice Chairperson shall be elected from among the appointed members of the Board, and the person so elected shall serve for a term of one year or until a successor is elected. Elections shall be held at the first meeting in April of each year, which coincides with the first meeting of new Board members.” This election was agendized for the second hearing in May to allow for Council‘s appointment of the new board members prior to elections. There is no express procedure for Chair and Vice Chair elections. Where the ARB’s bylaws and procedural rules are silent, the presiding officer may decide questions of procedure, though any board member may appeal a decision to the ARB as a whole. The process for the most recent election is summarized below: 1. Nominations for Chair are made from the floor. Board members may nominate anyone, including themselves. A second is required for the nomination. 2. The nominee states whether they will accept the nomination. 3. The Board members who moved and seconded the nomination make a brief statement on why they support the nomination. 4. Nominee(s) may also make a brief statement regarding their candidacy. 5. Other Board members may give comments or ask questions to the nominee(s). Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 50     Item No. 4. Page 2 of 2 6. The ARB will take a vote after all nominations have been made, seconded, and the nominee(s) have stated whether they will accept. 7. A majority vote is required for confirmation. 8. The entire process is repeated for Vice Chair election. ARB1 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 51     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 16, 2024 Report #: 2405-2970 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of January 18, 2024 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner (650) 329-2116 Claire.Raybould@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 52     Page 1 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: January 18, 2024 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 8:31 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock Absent: None Oral Communications Administrative Associate III Veronica Dao noted there was one card submitted for Oral Communications. Senior Planner and ARB Liaison Claire Raybould noted she would be showing a presentation while Shani Kleinhaus provided public comment via Zoom. Ms. Kleinhaus stated she is the environmental advocate for the Santa Clara Valley Audubon as well as a member of the Park and Recreation Commission (PRC), however, was speaking on behalf of the Audubon and would be giving a presentation on bus shelters and bird safety regarding the transparency of shelters. Using Google images, Ms. Kleinhaus gave a brief explanation on the different styles and designs of shelters available for use to alert birds of the enclosures. After a request from Stanford regarding who maintained the bus shelters, Standard stated it was the purview of the Architectural Review Board (ARB); they were able to retrofit existing bus shelters with visual cues and would implement any future new shelters built. Palo Alto is working on a new bird safety ordinance, Ms. Kleinhaus wanted to take the time to remind the ARB that the best solution to minimize the hazards is to not create the bus shelters at all. Chair Baltay thanked Shani Kleinhaus and moved to the next Agenda item. 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 53     Page 2 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 Senior Planner Raybould noted the February 1st hearing would be cancelled; however, staff were still resolving what the expected items on the Agenda would be for the February 15th hearing; a new project application had been submitted at 833 Los Trancos Road for an accessory dwelling unit (ADU), and with it being a new building, the open space requires a site and design review. Today’s project is 1066 E. Meadow, and 3265 El Camino Real is a new project for 100% affordable multi-family specifically for teacher housing. A new SB 330 pre-application was submitted for 762 San Antonio Road for a hundred and ninety-eight multi-family residential units. Chair Baltay suggested waiting before assigning an ad hoc committee for East Meadow until after the presentation. Chair Baltay assigned Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Hirsch as the 3265 El Camino Real housing project ad hoc committee and assigned Chair Baltay and Boardmember Chen to the SB 330 application on San Antonio as ad hoc committee. Chair Baltay indicated he’d be looking for a status update from the ad hoc committee for 739 Suter, as it had been resubmitted. Senior Planner Claire Raybould noted the resubmittal on 739 Suter and would send to Council a revised application which has made substantial revisions. Chair Baltay inquired if the ad hoc committee on Objective Design Standards (ODS) relative to townhomes had an update on what the standards may be. Chair Baltay clarified they were to have done research on townhomes and from a broad perspective what development ODS would be appropriate and useful, and then formalize the information into what those standards might look like. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the Planning Director stated there was no intention of moving forward so they had stopped working on it. Chair Baltay clarified that the Planning Director felt they did not have resources to hire a consultant, but if the ARB could produce something, they would look at it. Chair Baltay stated it would be a shame to waste the research that had already been completed, and requested they continue with the ad hoc committee for the item. Chair Baltay moved on to the Study Session. Study Session 2. 1066 E Meadow Circle [23PLN-00339]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review to Consider the Deconstruction of an Existing 35,000 Square Foot Commercial Building, and Construction of a new 2-Story, 46,000 sf School Building. The Project Will Contain Classrooms, Administrative Offices, and a Multi-Purpose Room. Site Improvements Include Parking, a Play Area, and Rooftop Garden. Environmental Assessment: Not a Project. The Formal Application Will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: ROLM (Office Research and Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 54     Page 3 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 Manufacturing). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kallas at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Baltay introduced the item and called for staff’s presentation. Project Planner Kallas stated the proposed project included construction of a preschool through second grade campus, having twenty-six classrooms and three-multipurpose shared spaces, with a total of 46,000 square feet. The project will include three outdoor areas, with one on the second floor and one on the roof; the site plan includes queuing space for drop-off and pick-up areas and fifty-eight parking stalls. This project falls within the flood zone, so it includes grading a six-foot platform to elevate the building. The formal application will include major Architectural review and a conditional use permit for school use, as well as allow a rooftop garden, which requires a zoning text amendment to receive Council approval to allow a rooftop garden in this zoning district. Additional topics to consider for discussion are the overall site planning and architectural design, the circulation and parking, the height, grade and massing of the building and the play spaces in the rooftop garden. The site context along East Meadow Circle is bordered by Eichler Swim and Tennis Club to the rear, with single family residential neighborhoods off Lewis Road and Greer Road, and one-to-two story office spaces on the Circle itself. This property is zoned as Research Office and Light Manufacturing (ROLM). Ms. Kallas explained that the site plan includes a U-shaped building facing the parking lot, with a two-lane drop-off corridor, fifty-eight parking spaces, and a play yard that is built up at the platform level to allow grade separation from the parking area. An item to note was that due to it being an ROLM zoning site district, the 8,000 square feet area that will operate as a preschool is allowed as a floor area bonus and is not counted towards the floor area maximum allowance for the site, equivalent to 50%. Items to note on the Landscape Plans include a basketball court is proposed for the rooftop garden, the second floor terrace is primarily for seating, and the first floor play space is for the school. Ms. Kallas stated that upon discussion with the Planning Director, the six foot platform was considered a berm and the zoning maximum height of thirty-five feet would need to be measured from existing grade and not from the platform. The rooftop garden proposal as shown exceeds the maximum height, which would require a zoning text amendment as per the zoning code 18.04, grade is measured from the existing grade and excludes berms, planters, and similar therefore the proposed height is six feet taller than allowed. Ms. Kallas concluded her presentation and stated applicant Michelle Huber had a presentation as well. Chair Baltay inquired if the Board had any questions for staff regarding the presentation. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if the site, being on a flood plain, was allowed to be built if it had a waterproofing perimeter to it. Ms. Kallas responded that Public Works requires the building to be one foot above the base flood elevation, so to meet Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements and local regulations, it will need to be elevated. The question is not about how it is being raised, but how the maximum height of the building is being measured. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if that applied to habitable spaces. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 55     Page 4 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 Ms. Raybould responded that for commercial versus residential you could have uninhabitable spaces such as parking, but it would involve a lot of waterproofing and would have to be one-foot above elevation and she believed the local base flood elevation is 10.5 for this area, so they would need to be at 11.5 for this project. Boardmember Adcock inquired if the site was being measured by the existing grade. Planner Kallas responded that the formal application requires a survey to be submitted with that information and it had not yet been submitted. Chair Baltay stated he had visited the site previously and it was flat and within a foot. Boardmember Adcock inquired whether the zoning amendment for the rooftop garden was for the height or the use of the roof. Planner Kallas stated she believed it may be for both, but in this context, there were height limitations to rooftop gardens within one hundred and fifty feet of residential and are typically only allowed in downtown or certain housing project areas. The heigh exception is limited to those areas but in general overall use is also something for staff to consider. Boardmember Chen asked for more information regarding the daycare floor area calculations and questioned if the 50% bonus and if it included a portion of the shared spaces such as the corridor and classrooms. Planner Kallas responded that the zoning code is what allows the bonus area, but the calculations provided were still preliminary and staff would be looking into more details in the formal application for the exact breakdown. Boardmember Chen questioned whether the calculations would include the shared spaces or only the preschool classrooms. Planner Kallas answered that the calculations included the areas exclusively for the preschool which may include some portion of the shared spaces, just not all of it if it’s shared with higher grades. Boardmember Chen inquired about the irregular shape on the site plan, and asked where the rear and sides were. Planner Kallas stated in general the rear setback is the one furthest and most parallel to the street but did not have a good answer at this moment due to the ROLM zoning district having twenty-foot setbacks for both interior and rear sides. Senior Planner Raybould showed a close-up of the site plan from the top view. Planner Kallas stated with the setbacks being the same on all sides it would likely be the street location to the rear and questioned if something in particular was affected. Senior Planner Claire Raybould answered it would be twenty feet whether interior or otherwise. Boardmember Chen commented there had been no daylight plane requirement at this location. Senior Planner Claire Raybould responded that was correct. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 56     Page 5 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 Chair Baltay asked for background information regarding the site no longer being listed as a housing element opportunity site as stated in a letter to Council. Senior Planner Claire Raybould responded her understanding from Housing and Community Department (HCD) comments, Staff was questioned on sites selected for the adopted housing element and were asked for assurance on certain sites becoming housing and/or choosing sites that would have a higher probability in becoming housing. In response to HCD, changes have been proposed for the housing element. This site has been marked as one to be removed and there are other sites that will be added to meet Palo Alto’s Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) requirements. Council has not yet adopted those changes, so the site has to be treated as an opportunity site that has already been adopted. Chair Baltay inquired if the site is currently listed as a potential housing site in the housing element, would that force a development proposal other than housing. Senior Planner Claire Raybould explained that just because it is a housing element site it does not force exclusive residential uses, but the City and Staff would have to evaluate how to meet the Regional Housing Needs Allocation (RHNA) without the units being proposed. There are 10% buffers built in which allows flexibility within the housing element inventory sites. Chair Baltay clarified that listing the site as a housing element site does not give it the force of zoning law that it must do that. Senior Planner Claire Raybould responded that was correct. Boardmember Chen inquired about the parking requirements only being for teachers and if there were short-term parking areas for parents to pick up and drop off, per the zoning code. Planner Kallas responded not per the zoning code as listed on the cover sheet of project plans, and is based on teacher staffing, however, as part of the Conditional Use Permit (CUP) application for private schools a circulation study is required based on expected enrollment and staff would decide if additional parking would be needed. Chair Baltay called for the applicants presentation and thanked them for their patience. Applicant Barbara Greiner stated she was the Head of School for Silicon Valley International and gave a brief description of what the school pertains and programs they offer. Two campuses were created in Palo Alto in 1979, one site was leased, and it ended in 2021 and relocated to Menlo Park. In 2022 they purchased East Meadow Circle property with the goal of bringing back two campuses in Palo Alto and incorporating the younger students. Twenty percent of their families are Palo Alto City residents and if closer, it would increase the preschool enrollment. Ms. Greiner explained they opened communication with the neighborhood early in this process regarding the upcoming hearing and have received positive feedback. Architect Michelle Huber from Studio Bondy Architecture hoped to get feedback regarding elements discussed by Planner Kallas such as building height, outdoor spaces, play areas and the rooftop garden. Ms. Huber showed an outline of the proposed footprint on the existing site and stated that the outlines in red were superimposed over the existing building, and images that showed the neighboring areas of Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 57     Page 6 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 the site were also included. The proposed site plan showed the integrated landscape design with the design intent which was designed to support the school’s programs and missions while respecting the privacy of the neighborhood. Ms. Huber stated that the solution was to rotate the building to act as an acoustic and visual buffer for the large preschool play yard in the center of the Campus. California dictates the minimum size allowed for the outdoor spaces and with 160 students, the minimum allowed is 12,000 square feet. The rooftop area play yard supports that requirement as the rest of the site has been filled with elements for the older students and a parking lot. The applicant stated that the goal in the preliminary traffic circulation study was to design a drive aisle long enough to allow as many vehicles as possible in the pick-up and drop off zone, as well as two one-way lanes through the site. The site elevation has a two-foot grade change from East Meadow Circle to the back of the parcel. Due to FEMA flood zoning requirements, the key challenge on flood elevations resulted in raising the first floor one foot above base flood elevation, which made the grade roughly six feet. The applicant showed an early concept of a rooftop garden appropriate for first and second graders including a half-court basketball court, a small play structure and one third of the garden area having raised planter beds for the school’s Gardening program. They wanted to study this view as it was the same as the residential neighbors and with respect to their privacy, the rooftop garden was not visible from that angle. Ms. Huber gave a brief description of the design intent and stated that it would be a straight board building with modern aesthetics, a recessed entry to provide interest to the front façade, and an integrated raised elevation. Chair Baltay called for Public Comment prior to the Boards questions for the applicant. PUBLIC COMMENT Kelly Tuke, manager of the Eichler Swim and Tennis Club, stated the Eichler Board and its members were concerned the large building would change the dynamic of their club due to the construction and current site plans, as it neighbors their tennis courts. Helen Piekos, Head of Special Project at the Eichler Swim and Tennis Club, expressed concerns of the elevation and exterior rooftop garden being an issue on privacy and tranquility for their members, commenting she would be following up on the future hearings. Chair Baltay closed public comments and brought the item back to the Board for questions. Boardmember Hirsch asked for a description of how the buses will pick-up and drop-off in the circulation of the lot, and questioned what the plans were for private vehicle pickups and deliveries. Ms. Grenier responded the current site is designed to allow a drop-off zone for parents and buses of kindergarten to second grade, with parking for parents of preschoolers and prekindergartners to bring into the building. Ms. Kallas clarified that the E on the site plan is the designated drop off. Ms. Grenier stated that their current campuses have three drop off times for different grade levels, with about a fifteen-minute spacing. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if there were assigned teacher parking or if there was a circulation in the cul-de-sac of the site being a method of getting a parking spot. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 58     Page 7 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 Ms. Grenier referred to the Menlo Park Campus and stated there were assigned parking for parents and teachers and are looking at doing that design on this site. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they would be using the street circle in any way for parking or other uses that could impact the major entry point. Ms. Grenier responded yes as schools have deliveries throughout the day. Planner Kallas added that it would be a one-way drive aisle with two driveways, the one farthest to the right being the entrance and the one closer to the parking spaces being the exit. Boardmember Adcock requested more information on how the bus circulation would impact the parents waiting to drop off and pick up. Ms. Grenier stated they intended to have buses parked in an area that would not block parents. Boardmember Adcock commented that spot E showed to be blocking the area on the site plan. Ms. Grenier replied they would need to designate a different area for parent drop-offs. Boardmember Chen questioned how many kindergarten through second grade students would be attending. Ms. Grenier responded there were about eighteen to twenty students in each grade. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that it would be about two hundred and forty students for kindergarten through second grade. Boardmember Hirsch referred to the C on the site plan and questioned whether there should be more sidewalks along the pick-up and drop-off location, commenting on the trees and plantings that could be used for paving. Ms. Grenier responded they would certainly look into it. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated that her concerns were regarding the six-foot tall wall and what the height would be at the entry area. Ms. Huber commented that the grade was lower so this area would be slightly lower. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if it was correct there were no sidewalks near the drive aisle, and if the aisle was directly next to a sheer six-foot tall retaining wall. Ms. Huber answered that was correct and added that at the elevated grade there was a walkway that was part of the egress. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if the outer perimeter adjacent to the drive aisle was at a lower grade. Ms. Huber responded that would all be at grade. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked for clarification as to how many parking spaces were required for teachers. Ms. Huber stated the calculation is for fifty-eight spaces, which is what they are providing. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 59     Page 8 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified that they were providing fifty-eight spaces for teachers and staff but were still expecting parents to park and drop off preschoolers. Ms. Huber responded that the calculation is described by measuring against teacher stations, and that was the minimum required and the maximum allowed on the site while trying to accommodate the program. Ms. Grenier commented that staggering drop-off times helps and makes circulation easier. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if they considered a longer aisle which would mitigate the need for parents to park. Ms. Grenier answered that parents are required to sign them into the classrooms. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if they had considered an underground parking structure beneath the building since it was already being raised six feet. Ms. Huber responded it is prohibitively expensive and although not a significant grade to excavate, they must design it in a way vehicles can clear height minimums; in doing so it takes away from the play area perimeter and compromises needs within the program and noted that being in the flood zone there would need to be a more robust engineering design requirement. Chair Baltay questioned how a second grader getting dropped off at site E would get into the building and which door they would enter. Ms. Grenier stated they have multiple entrances, but depending on grade they would have teacher assistance getting to their classrooms. Chair Baltay asked if they intended students to come down the hallway of classrooms and if they would still be able to cross the play yard during inclement weather, noting the reception area was the entrance to the front door of the school. Ms. Huber commented that the reception area of East Meadow Circle has a secondary entrance that runs along the multi-purpose room the students could use, which leads students directly to the hallway leading to classrooms. Chair Baltay inquired why they oriented the courtyard to the north. Ms. Huber responded it was an area with seven property lines and odd shaped spaces, but they were able to design an efficient u-shaped building protecting the preschool play yard on three sides, and when facing north it was the best orientation for the size and allowed the building to be a buffer to the southern neighbors. Chair Baltay asked if they were buffering from industrial neighbors, not residential. Ms. Huber answered the southern wing of the building is the property line adjacent to the residential zone. Boardmember Adcock inquired if they had considered the garage being under the Preschool play yard using the entire plinth, as adding it had the potential to solve neighbor concerns on the rooftop garden Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 60     Page 9 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 and it was plausible to get the fifty-eight parking spaces to fit underground, which would allow the teacher parking to be used for the upper and it would alleviate the thirty-five plus six plus ten issue. Boardmember Adcock mentioned they should take this into consideration as the parking did not need to be taller since it was already six feet above grade. Ms. Huber responded they will look into it while they further their study. The thirty-five plus ten plus six was slightly less due to the fence line being measured from the top of the roof, subtracting a few feet. Boardmember Chen asked if there were any controlled points of security around the building other than just the gate. Ms. Huber responded there would be a perimeter fence around the building with both pedestrian and vehicular entrances, but the main security checkpoint would be at the reception area which would have views of the two entry points. Boardmember Chen inquired about the entry stairwells and if they would be included in the security perimeter. Ms. Huber stated they are outside the perimeter fence so it would give public access to the entry doors from the main entrance. Boardmember Chen asked if they had any thoughts on the floor assembly and what the sitting height was for the classrooms. Ms. Huber answered the preliminary design on the floor assembly would be a steel frame structure with flange beams and a concrete filled metal pan deck for the flooring, and the standard when designing schools is a basis of fifteen feet for the mechanical systems, plumbing and drop ceiling are usually three to four feet which makes the ceiling height a range of eleven to twelve feet. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if the multi-purpose room was considered a double height structure. Ms. Huber responded it would be, maybe a little lower. Chair Baltay asked if they had done classrooms with lower ceiling heights, and if so, what have they reduced it to in the past. Ms. Huber answered when starting from scratch they typically stay to the height limits stated before, maybe dropping a foot lower but when doing so it gives a feeling of being less open. Chair Baltay inquired about the three-dimensional space within the classrooms. Ms. Huber stated that the preschool classrooms are a bit larger, but the other classrooms are in the general range of 750 to 850 square feet, with the width being twenty-seven feet and length roughly being thirty-five feet. Boardmember Hirsch questioned would it be assumed that there would be hung ceilings in classrooms and stated there was nothing indicated in the schematics phase regarding the mechanicals. Ms. Huber responded that was correct. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 61     Page 10 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 Boardmember Hirsch asked if it would be possible to move parking underground to eliminate the conflict of the play yard area, allowing more room for the playground in the cul-de-sac itself referring to the section named A. Ms. Huber commented to be efficient in underground parking, the real estate required had the potential of not getting the appropriate number of spaces for the cost trade-off. Boardmember Hirsch noted that the residential neighborhood was behind the rooftop play area and the soundproofing would be mitigated if they considered moving the play yard to other available areas. Ms. Huber commented that the only time the play grounds would be used would be during the daytime hours and only at set times, and with the wall surrounding the play area it did help with the visual disturbance. Chair Baltay asked if the property had a historic designation. Planner Kallas responded it was not formally designated but was recognized as an original Eichler structure so if evaluated it would likely be eligible. Chair Baltay inquired if they would be doing an Environmental Impact Report (EIR) on this project and if one would be done for the impact on what could potentially be a historic structure. Planner Kallas responded it is typically limited to structures on the site itself, not to adjacent structures on a development proposal. Senior Planner Claire Raybould clarified she did not know if they had made a determination on the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis but there will be an environmental analysis. Chair Baltay asked if there was any contextual compatibility requirement in this zoning district. Planner Kallas responded yes; the contact space design criteria would be applicable. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if the primary means of access, ingress/egress, to the rooftop terrace were the staircases. Ms. Huber answered there were two means of egress, one being an interior stair, and first and second graders would be using one flight of stairs to the rooftop from the classrooms. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if there was an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) accessibility via the elevator. Ms. Huber responded yes. Boardmember Adcock asked if the stair on the right behind the corner hub fell on the drive aisle. Ms. Huber answered the stairs fall onto a plinth height walkway that runs along the east side of the building to the front, and then leads to a ramp to get to East Meadow. Boardmember Adcock asked if that would require rated windows along the side of the building. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 62     Page 11 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 Ms. Huber responded they had yet to meet the City Building Department to confirm, but they would comply if necessary. Boardmember Adcock commented that if they were able to come down to the drive aisle and go to the street, the path of egress travel along the building would require the classrooms and offices to require one out-rated window and adding a walkway along the drive aisle would alleviate some of the issues. Ms. Huber said that was something they would look at and would help to extend the stairs. Boardmember Adcock added that it should be considered how the visibility safety of the edge on site plan E would affect the students and parents at drop-off. Ms. Huber said they can have good design development, but it would be a combination with the teacher elements to assist on early or late drop offs. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the main enclosed stairwell leading to the rooftop was a fire escape stairwell and if it would be better if it were not egress. Ms. Huber answered they would love to open that stairwell, but where limited due to communication between two floors, and in doing so it would eliminate the fire stair which is required. Boardmember Chen inquired where the students ate meals. Ms. Grenier answered the first and second graders eat outside on the rooftop playground and the preschoolers in the main play area, unless inclement weather, then they would eat in the classrooms. Chair Baltay moved item to ARB Comments. Chair Baltay commented that he did not feel the height limit was being met by compressing the floor assembly from the four feet to two feet, and supported planning departments Directors’ decision on the exemption not working in this case. He referenced the site plan image looking at the street elevations, saying the plinth is a constructed element of the building, and the existing grade should start where the road is and it will need to meet those requirements, which would in turn change everything in the parti. Chair Baltay stated that if the playground were moved from the rooftop to the ground and parking was underground, the cost trade-off would allow the expenses to be lowered in other areas of construction; and noted an additional concern of the daylight plane of the rooftop and the stairwell leading up to the roof not being sufficient for the students. Changing the parking plans to underground parking would fix many of these things. Additionally, the massing of the building was boxy and too tall. Chair Baltay expressed concern that the plans needed more articulation and detailing of the variation of the finish materials as they did not match Palo Alto’s quality of design, but these are all things that can be reconsidered and he believed they could get there however, they would need to meet the height limits. He commended their efforts in communicating with the community and their concern for potential impacts on the neighbors. Boardmember Adcock stated that the parking is dictating the orientation of the building and if they made that change with the play area on ground level with protective fencing, they would get a better response from the neighborhood, and it would also help the noise mitigation. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 63     Page 12 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 Boardmember Hirsch commented that the plan and circulation had not been considered enough for the different daylight changes throughout the day, and he liked the idea of the playground on the roof and but also like the idea of the playground in the courtyard as the building could serve as a protection barrier , but they would need to study the daylight effects on the building massing more to prove it would be a useful courtyard throughout the year. He noted that the entry ways into the building seemed too far and the way the circulation worked did not seem to be the best for the students during drop off; putting some of the circulation on the building is costly, but not an unreasonable idea as previously suggested. Boardmember Hirsch stated the ARB would be asking about fence detailing and requirements, and they should research other school fencing projects to help with the design issues and there needed to be a better way than using Exterior insulation and finish system (EIFS) on this type of construction. There could be better textures and colors used in the design to add to the excitement of the building itself. If the play area isn’t on the roof, then the fire stairs are fine. He expressed concern for the City’s requirement on podium construction cutting two thousand square feet of potential space and if the bottom of the building could be waterproofed as is, then it could be done to the parking garage, and they could make better use of the space. Chair Baltay asked for clarification on what he meant on the two thousand square feet. Boardmember Hirsch responded the floor area ratio (FAR) was much larger than what they were using and could be used in the Podium area. Chair Baltay asked staff to clarify who made the requirement. Senior Planner Raybould responded it was a federal requirement from FEMA. Planner Kallas commented technically speaking the flood zone is a FEMA requirement, and the additional one foot above may be a local requirement. Boardmember Chen stated that she agreed with the concerns of the drop off and circulation and suggested adding short-term parking for parents and a south facing outdoor playground is important and suggested reconsidering the building orientation. A suggestion might be to have the connected area facing the street, this would allow for two driveways on each side connecting to the back parking. She noted that the reception was being under used as the majority of students would not enter through the reception area. The ceiling height on this particular building could be lower since it was a school for younger students. The agreed with her colleagues about the materials and colors need to be higher quality and the exterior elevations should be scaled to the children. Vice Chair Rosenberg appreciated the presentation and how difficult the project is and commented that the perimeter drive aisle was a good idea but suggested extending the drop off area. There is an appendix area to the side which was prohibiting the design, and it should be designated as the surface parking to allow focus on the pentagon area in the middle to figure out the best orientation for this site. She said the surface parking was taking too much space and the rooftop garden would not be successful in this situation. The large building next the south facing neighborhood could be imposing and could be the play area and noted that she appreciated the thoughtfulness of the neighbors and respect to surrounding buildings by keeping it within the 20-foot setbacks. They should consider a partial or full basement parking for staff specifically to help with drop off circulation. Vice Chair Rosenberg brought up the six foot Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 64     Page 13 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 perimeter wall being problematic due to believing there needed to be a forty-two inch high fence setting on top to prevent falls and felt more options should be explored she agreed on the Board’s concern with the reception area, the materials, trash service, delivery loading and unloading, and bicycle circulation regulations. The Board will need further information about the mechanical equipment location. Chair Baltay asked the applicants if they had any questions. Mindie Romanowsky introduced herself as the Assisting Silicon Valley International School with land use and inquired about the process moving forward if they made changes that were as a result of the ARB’s feedback. Senior Planner Raybould responded there was nothing precluding them from having another preliminary review for early feedback, usually projects take the ARB’s comments and work with staff to find a reasonable medium. Chair Baltay commented that an ad hoc committee could be formed to help facilitate the ARB’s feedback and suggested that the applicants could reach out to the committee in an effort to avoid having to return for another preliminary review. Senior Planner Claire Raybould believed there is an option for creating an ad-hoc to communicate with the applicants, but she would need to confirm the process so to remain in compliance with the Brown Act. Senior Planner Claire Raybould clarified there are no resubmittals for preliminaries and once the Study Session is over the preliminary review is closed. If they chose to file a new preliminary before a formal application, the fees would need to be paid and they would allow a full Board Study Session, as part of that they could do the ad hoc but they would need to think of what the ad hoc’s role would be prior to filing a formal application once the fee and process details have been worked out. Chair Baltay commented that the reasoning for the ad hoc committee was to have two members focused on this project once made a formal project. Senior Planner Claire Raybould suggested they take this discussion offline and talk with the Chair and management on the issue so when they come to the next hearing, they could have a better understanding of how this would work. Ms. Romanosky stated they would be open to an ad hoc committee and would pay for the staff’s time but needed to discuss amongst themselves whether they would be able to move forward from the feedback heard. If not, they would not reach out for ad hoc due to some of the concerns raised rendering the project infeasible, commenting that if there were some collaborative issues worked into the formal application to save money on another preliminary hearing, it would make the most sense. Chair Baltay said he would hold off on appointing an ad hoc committee for a few days wanting to consult with the Vice Chair and Staff but will make an appointment of two members within the week, and very much appreciated the programs of the school. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that they really hoped the project would return and that the preliminary review was not a discouragement, but rather a motivation. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 65     Page 14 of 14 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 01/18/24 Boardmember Hirsch agreed it would be a shame to lose the project. Approval of Minutes 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for November 2, 2023. Chair Baltay asked for comments or a motion. MOTION: Vice Chair Rosenberg moved, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to approve the meeting minutes for November 2, 2023 as written. Chair Baltay offered a friendly amendment for a correction on the 11th page, packet page 36, 6 paragraph down, move forward inhibited should have been move forward uninhibited. Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Chen agreed to the Friendly Amendment. VOTE: 5-0-0 Boardmember Questions, Comments or Announcements None Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 10:41 a.m. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of January 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 66