Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-08-15 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, August 15, 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 [23PLN00311] Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for Two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions at two locations. The Project at 525 University Includes Five Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A), One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign (Type B), One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (Type C), One Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D), and One Illuminated Directional Sign – Parking Monument ID (Type E). The Project at 530 Lytton Includes Four Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A), One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (Type C), One Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D), and One Illuminated Directional Sign – Parking Blade ID (Type E). 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2024 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2024 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 16, 2024 7.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 8.800/808 San Antonio Road [23PLN‐00010]: Ad Hoc Review of Modifications to the Proposed Application to Rezone 800 and 808 San Antonio Road from Commercial Services to Planned Community, which the ARB Previously Recommended for Approval. The Proposed Modifications Address Refinements to Trash Management. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, August 15, 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 [23PLN00311] Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for Two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions at two locations. The Project at 525 University Includes Five Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A), One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign (Type B), One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (Type C), One Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D), and One Illuminated Directional Sign – Parking Monument ID (Type E). The Project at 530 Lytton Includes Four Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A), One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (Type C), One Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D), and One Illuminated Directional Sign – Parking Blade ID (Type E). 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. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2024 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2024 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 16, 2024 7.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 8.800/808 San Antonio Road [23PLN‐00010]: Ad Hoc Review of Modifications to the Proposed Application to Rezone 800 and 808 San Antonio Road from Commercial Services to Planned Community, which the ARB Previously Recommended for Approval. The Proposed Modifications Address Refinements to Trash Management. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, August 15, 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[23PLN00311] Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural ReviewApproval for Two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions at two locations. TheProject at 525 University Includes Five Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A),One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign (Type B), One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (TypeC), One Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D), and One IlluminatedDirectional Sign – Parking Monument ID (Type E). The Project at 530 Lytton Includes FourSigns: One Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A), One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (TypeC), One Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D), and One IlluminatedDirectional Sign – Parking Blade ID (Type E). Environmental Assessment: Exempt fromthe provisions 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 Kallas atEmily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 20244.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2024 6.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 16, 2024 7.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT AD HOC COMMITTEE 8.800/808 San Antonio Road [23PLN‐00010]: Ad Hoc Review of Modifications to the Proposed Application to Rezone 800 and 808 San Antonio Road from Commercial Services to Planned Community, which the ARB Previously Recommended for Approval. The Proposed Modifications Address Refinements to Trash Management. PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, August 15, 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[23PLN00311] Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural ReviewApproval for Two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions at two locations. TheProject at 525 University Includes Five Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A),One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign (Type B), One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (TypeC), One Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D), and One IlluminatedDirectional Sign – Parking Monument ID (Type E). The Project at 530 Lytton Includes FourSigns: One Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A), One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (TypeC), One Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D), and One IlluminatedDirectional Sign – Parking Blade ID (Type E). Environmental Assessment: Exempt fromthe provisions 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 Kallas atEmily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.3.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 20244.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 20245.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 2, 20246.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 16, 20247.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2024BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s).ADJOURNMENTAD HOC COMMITTEE8.800/808 San Antonio Road [23PLN‐00010]: Ad Hoc Review of Modifications to theProposed Application to Rezone 800 and 808 San Antonio Road from Commercial Servicesto Planned Community, which the ARB Previously Recommended for Approval. The Proposed Modifications Address Refinements to Trash Management. 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: August 15, 2024 Report #: 2407-3315 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 Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2024 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Tentative Future Agenda and New Projects List AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1& Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning (650) 329-2575 Jodie.Gerhardt@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 Canceled 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 Baltay, Hisrch 6/6 July August September October November December Hirsch, Adcock 8/15 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 September 5, 2024 •180 El Camino Real (The Melt) 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 Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN- 00341 EKALLAS 660 University Mixed use ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB recommended approval 4/22; PTC hearing delayed by applicant; no tentative Council hearing at this time - 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) __ Item 1 Attachment B - Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 8     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). 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 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 convalescent 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 - 16 additional convalescent units Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 and 6/12/24 PTC hearing, 7/18/24 ARB hearing, future PTC and Council hearings needed. 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 additions include 16 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. 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 and 8/15/24. 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 with Pedestrian Shopping Overlay). _____ Item 1 Attachment B - Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 9     Master Sign Program 11/15/23 23PLN- 00311 EKALLAS 530 Lytton Signs NOI Sent 12/15/23, ARB Hearing 5/16/24 and 8/15/24. 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 with Pedestrian Shopping Overlay). ___ Major Architectural Review 12/11/2023 23PLN- 00323 THARRISO N 180 El Camino Real Restaurant Major Architectural Review Board review of The Melt restaurant (currently The Melt), Space #705A, Bldg. E at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new façade, new storefront glazing, redesigned outdoor patio and new signage. Interior improvements will include complete interior remodel. No change of use. Zoning District: CC. 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 Rosenberg/ Hirsch Streamlined Housing Development Review 2/15/2024 24PLN- 00041 23PLN- 00348 (SB 330) 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 Minor - Board Level Architectural Review 3/7/2024 24PLN- 00066 THARRISO N 180 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior upgrades; to include new exterior pergola over seating and planters in existing location. New metal awnings over main entrance to replace existing acrylic and new metal awning at rear to replace existing fabric awning. New signage.and replace existing light fixtures. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CC) Item 1 Attachment B - Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 10     Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/02/2024 24PLN- 00100 CHODGKI 156 California Mixed-Use NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments Due 6/1 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 Zone Change 03/28/2024 24PLN- 00095 EKALLAS 70 Encina Housing- 10 Units NOI Sent 4/28/2024. 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 – Builder’s Remedy 4/23/2024 24PLN- 00120 EKALLAS 762 San Antonio Housing -198 Units NOI Sent 5/23/2024. 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 Housing- Streamlined Housing Development Review 5/28/2024 24PLN- 00152 24PLN- 00023 (Prelim) EKALLAS 4335- 4345 El Camino Housing-29 Units NOI Sent 6/27/2024. Request for Major Architectural Review to allow a housing development project on two noncontiguous lots (4335 & 4345 El Camino Real) including the demolition of an existing commercial building (4335 El Camino Real) and an existing motel building (4345 El Camino Real) and construction of 29 three-story attached residential townhome-style condominiums with associated utilities, private streets, landscaping, and Hirsch, Baltay reviewed prelim Item 1 Attachment B - Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 11     amenities. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/2024 24PLN- 00161 24PLN- 00048 (SB 330) SSWITZER 3781 EL CAMINO REAL NOI Sent 7/10/2024. Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing commercial and residential buildings located at 3727-3737 & 3773-3783 El Camino Real, 378-400 Madeline Court and 388 Curtner Avenue to construct a new seven-story multi-family residential housing development with 177 units. Two levels of above ground parking, rooftop terraces, and tenant amenities are proposed. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN & RM-30. (Previous SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00048) Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/2024 24PLN- 00162 24PLN- 00047 (SB 330) GSAULS 3606 EL CAMINO REAL NOI Sent 8/1/2024. Request for Major Architectural Review to demolish multiple existing vacant, commercial, and residential buildings located at 3508, 3516, 3626- 3632 El Camino Real, and 524, 528, 530 Kendall Avenue to construct a new seven-story, multi-family residential housing development project with 335 units. The new residential building will have a two levels of above ground parking, ground floor tenant amenities, and a rooftop terrace facing El Camino Real and Matadero Avenue. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CN, CS, RM-30, RM-40. For More Information (SB 330 and Builder’s Remedy: 24PLN-00047) Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 7/17/2024 24PLN- 00184 GSAULS 3400 EL CAMINO REAL Major Architectural Review of a Builder's Remedy application to demolish several low-rise retail and hotel buildings located at 3398, 3400, 3450 El Camino Real and 556 Matadero Avenue and replace them with three new seven-to-eight story residential towers, one new seven- story hotel, one new three story townhome, and two new underground parking garages. Three existing hotel buildings will remain with one being converted to residential units. 231 total residential units and 192 hotel rooms. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: various (SB330) Item 1 Attachment B - Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 12     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 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). 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 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. Item 1 Attachment B - Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 13     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 SB 330 Pre- Application 5/14/2024 24PLN- -00145 CHODGKI 680 University Mixed Use- 110 Units and 9,215 sf of office Note: Submitted as an Alternative to 660 University Rezoning Project. Request for an SB330/Builder’s Remedy project that seeks to combine 3 parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), demolish existing buildings and provide a new six story mixed-use building with a roof deck (7 stories per building code). The proposal includes ground floor office (9,115 SF), multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below-grade parking garage. Proposed residential (75,739 SF) will include 110 units (85 studios, 20 1-bedrooms, 5 2-bedrooms), and 20% of the total units will be provided as on- site below market rate (BMR) units. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: RM-20. SB 330 Pre- Application 6/19/2024 24PLN- 00171 GSAULS 4015 Fabian SB 330 Pre-Application - Housing development project including demolition of existing structures and development of 100 residential apartment units with supporting use, including amenity spaces, lobby, leasing office, and a parking garage with one space per unit. Zoning District: GM (General Manufacturing). Proposed project consists of 100 for-rent residential apartment units with supporting use that include amenity spaces, lobby, leasing, and parking in a garage at one space per unit. SB 330 Pre- Application 7/8/2024 24PLN- 00181 JGERHAR 2300 Geng SB 330 Pre-Application - Housing development project including demolition of existing structures and development of 159 residential units located at 2100-2400 Geng Road. Zoning District: ROLM(E)(D)(AD). Item 1 Attachment B - Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 4 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 15, 2024 Report #: 2405-3098 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 525 University [23PLN-00308] and 530 Lytton [23PLN00311] Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for Two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions at two locations. The Project at 525 University Includes Five Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A), One Illuminated Canopy Address Sign (Type B), One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (Type C), One Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D), and One Illuminated Directional Sign – Parking Monument ID (Type E). The Project at 530 Lytton Includes Four Signs: One Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A), One Illuminated Address Wall Sign (Type C), One Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D), and One Illuminated Directional Sign – Parking Blade ID (Type E). 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 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 4 The subject project was previously reviewed by the ARB. An earlier staff report includes background information, project analysis and evaluation to city codes and policies; that report is available online1. A copy of the report without attachments is available in Attachment E. The purpose of this report is to restate the comments made by the Board and detail the applicant’s response to those comments. The analysis section below builds upon the information contained in the earlier report and modified to reflect recent project changes. BACKGROUND On May 16, 2024 the ARB reviewed the project. A video recording of the Board’s meeting is available online.2 The Board’s comments and the applicant’s response are summarized in the following table. ARB Comments/Direction Applicant Response Show all planter locations and heights accurately to 2021 approved plans in the sign elevation drawings Both sets of plans have been updated accordingly. For 525 University - sign type A, the maximum height of the sign should be seven feet as measured from sidewalk level See 525 University plans sheet 8. The sign has been modified to include the planter base in the height and is now measured 84 inches (7 ft) from grade to the top of sign. 530 Lytton - sign type A maximum height of 7ft from sidewalk level See 530 Lytton plan sheets 8-9. Sign has been moved back from the public sidewalk edge to the interior side of the planter. Sign height is 7ft from the plaza level and 10.5 ft from the sidewalk level. Define the tenant space parameters for sign type A See both plans sheet 8. Tenant plaques are 7 in by 30 in, with text space of 2.5 in by 25.5 in 525 University - sign type C maximum size of 40 sf, maximum height of 12 inches for lettering, clarify mounting, cannot exceed the wall height See 525 University plans sheet 15. Sign Is now 40.5 sf, with 12 inch lettering. It does not exceed the wall height and will be mounted on the existing concrete wall. The indent the sign was shown sitting in the prior plans does not exist. 1 The Staff report for the May 16, 2024 Architectural Review Board Hearing is Available online at: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/v/1/agendas-minutes-reports/agendas-minutes/architectural- review-board/2024/arb-5.16-525-university-530-lytton.pdf. A 2 A video of the May 16, 2024 hearing is available online at: https://midpenmedia.org/architectural-review-board- 77-5162024/. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 4 For 530 Lytton - sign type C the maximum size should be 40 square feet with a maximum height of 12 inches for lettering See 530 Lytton plans sheet 13. The sign is now 40.5 sf, with 12 inch lettering. It does not exceed the wall height and will be mounted on the existing concrete wall. The bottom of both parking signs types E shall be the minimum required above the sidewalk, top of sign shall not exceed 11 feet. See 525 University plans sheet 20 and 530 Lytton plans sheet 18. Sign heights have been reduced by approximately one foot to meet this requirement. ANALYSIS Overall, the revised plans are responsive to the ARB’s comments. However, there are two items that were not fully addressed. 1. Sign Type C (wall signs on the side streets) were reduced to 40.5 sf rather than the requested 40 sf 2. Sign Type A (Directory Sign) for 530 Lytton at the corner of Lytton and Cowper Street has not been revised in accordance with the ARB’s recommendations. The ARB requested this sign be no more than seven feet tall measured from the sidewalk, which would leave approximately three feet for the height of the sign because it is raised up from grade on a planter. To accomplish this, it would require fully redesigning the sign. The sign would also no longer be consistent with the design proposed for 525 University, and one of the primary objectives of this project is to unify currently mis-matched signage. As an alternative solution, the applicant moved the sign back from the edge of the planter and rotated toward the center of the planter, closer to the building entrance. The height is seven (7) feet when measured relative to the plaza height it is nearest, and 10.5 ft from the sidewalk height. With respect to Sign Type C, staff finds that the total size of the sign is reasonable and minimally differs from the ARB’s recommendation. With respect to Sign Type A, although this does not meet the ARB’s comment, staff feels that it meets the intent of the comment, which was to reduce the sign height directly adjacent to the sidewalk. The revised design maintains site-wide cohesion for the sign design. The signs are otherwise consistent with the sign code requirements as detailed in Attachment D, or are requesting an exception through the Major Architectural review process consistent with the sign code requirements. Therefore, staff finds that the plans, with the proposed modifications to address ARB comments, are consistent with the findings for Architectural Review and for the Sign Exceptions. The Draft findings for approval are included in Attachment B and the recommended conditions of approval are included in Attachment C. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 4 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. 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. PUBLIC NOTIFICATION, OUTREACH & COMMENTS 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 August 2, 2024, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on July 31, 2024, which is 14 in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 3. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 4. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 5. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment E: May 16, 2024 ARB Staff Report Attachment F: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB[1] Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2575 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org [1] Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     7 17 17 7 7 Webster House El Prado Hotel 112.5' 40.0' 112.5' 40.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 36.0' 95.0' 36.0' 95.0' 39.0' 37.5' 18.0' 75.0' 57.0' 112.5' 107.0' 50.0' 107.0' 50.0'107.0' 25.0' 107.0' 25.0' 20.0' 50.0' 130.0' 100.0'125.0' 37.5' 25.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 14.0'17.5'36.0' 130.0' 130.0' 50.0' 130.0' 50.0' 102.5' 43.0' 11.5' 107.0'114.0' 150.0' 50.0' 218.0' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 110.0'100.0' 72.5' 130.0' 72.5' 130.0' 72.5'75.0' 127.5' 200.0' 59.0' 80' 100.0' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 125.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 30.0' 100.0' 30.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 60.0' 100.0' 262.5' 225.0'262.5' 225.0' 130.5' 225.0' 130.5' 225.0' 93.0' 112.5' 93.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5'53.0' 112.5' 2.5' 50.0' 130.0' 140.0' 65.0' 140.0' 65.0' 140.0' 65.0' 140.0' 65.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0'190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 130.5' 225.0' 130.5' 225.0' 130.5' 225.0' 130.5' 225.0' 130.5' 225.0' 130.5' 225.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 60.0' 190.0' 60.0' 190.0' 60.0' 190.0' 60.0' 100.0' 50.0' 85.0' 50.0'85.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0'50.0' 190.0'50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 190.0' 60.0' 190.0' 60.0' 190.0' 60.0' 190.0' 60.0' 190.0' 60.0' 190.0' 60.0' 190.0' 60.0' 190.0' 60.0' 140.0' 50.0' 140.0' 50.0' 140.0' 50.0' 140.0' 1 50.0' 50.0' 60.0'50.0' 60.0' 75.0' 125.0' 75.0' 125.0' 50.0' 65.0' 50.0' 65.0' 102.5' 102.5' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 450 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50 100.0' 50.0'125.0'100.0' 12.5'25.0' 20.5' 125.0' 92.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 150.0'150.0' 140.0' 75.0' 107.0' 440-444 499 475 421-423 431-433 530 480 420 355 359 525 430 473 425 415 4 500 508 516 440-446 555 420-438 437 542-550 409 419 545 524 548 550 4 460- 476 430 480 463 451 443 437 411 405 441 480- 498 347 351 400 570568 556 550 543 515 525 551 555 573 591-599 557-571 406-418 417 54530B 530 530A 528 531 567 531-539 440 435 447 469 COWPER STREET KIPLING STREET SITY AVENUE UNIVERSITY AVENUE COWPER STREET WEBSTER STREET LYTTON AVENUE TASSO STREET EVERETT COURT 30 PC-4052 RM-30 CD-C (P) PC-4296 PC- 3437 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site Current Features 0' 68' 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, 2024-08-08 11:45:22Attachment A. Location Map (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A: Location Map     Packet Pg. 19     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 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. Item 2 Attachment B: Draft Findings For Approval     Packet Pg. 20     4 3 2 1 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: Draft Findings For Approval     Packet Pg. 21     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 •Directory Sign (Type A) – exceeds allowed sign area for non-business name portions of a directory sign in order to provide the site address – 6.45 sf where 4 sf are allowed •Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D)– exceeds allowed sign area and of a directional wall sign – 89.8 sf where 6 sf is allowed •Directional Sign - Parking Monument ID (Type E) – 7.63 sf where 3 sf is allowed 530 Lytton •Directory Sign (Type A) – exceeds allowed sign area for non-business name portions of a directory sign in order to provide the site address – 6.45 sf where 4 sf are allowed •Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D)– – exceeds allowed sign area and of a directional wall sign – 69.8 sf where 6 sf is allowed •Directional Sign – Parking Blade ID (Type E) – exceeds allowed sign area and height of a directional sign – 7.36 sf where 3 sf is allowed and mounted between 8-11 feet in height where 3 feet height 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: Draft Findings For Approval     Packet Pg. 22     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: Draft Findings For Approval     Packet Pg. 23     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 July 3, 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 for the signage will align with the colors and materials approved by the architectural review board. 5. TENANT SIGNS. Future tenants shall obtain an OTC Planning Entitlement for tenant plaques on the Directory Sign (Type A) and any other future site signage. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 9. A building permit is required for the signs shown. Include structural calculations as part of building permit submittal. OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION 10. The car detection device (or equivalent new model) shall be reinstalled on the new parking freestanding sign. Item 2 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 24     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 July 3, 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 for the signage will align with the colors and materials approved by the architectural review board. 5. TENANT SIGNS. Future tenants shall obtain an OTC Planning Entitlement for tenant plaques on the Directory Sign (Type A) and any other future site signage. 6. 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. 7. 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. 8. 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 9. A building permit is required for the signs shown. Include structural calculations as part of building permit submittal. OFFICE OF TRANSPORTATION 10. 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. 25     Attachment D Zoning Table 525 University Proposed Sign / Type PAMC 16.24 Compliance Allowed Dimensions/Height Existing Dimensions/Height Proposed Dimensions Directory Sign (Type A) No, Sign Exception Requested, replaces existing signage 4 sf plus business names 8ft in height 30.6 sf total 8ft in height 6.5 sf plus business names 13.85 sf total 5.5 ft from base, 7ft from grade Address Wall Sign (Type C) No, Sign Exception Requested Cannot extend beyond wall height Replaces 12.7 sf monument sign 40.5 sf Located on retaining wall Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D) No, Sign Exception Requested, replaces existing signage 6 sf (more than 10 feet from property line) Currently multiple smaller signs 89.75 sf on Cowper St Directional Sign – Parking Monument ID (Type E) No, Sign Exception Requested, replaces existing signage 3 sf (less than 10 feet from property line)13.3 sf 7.36 sf 6’11” from base 11 ft from grade Item 2 Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 26     530 Lytton Proposed Sign / Type PAMC 16.24 Compliance Allowed Dimensions/Height Existing Dimensions/Height Proposed Dimensions Directory Sign (Type A) No, Sign Exception Requested, replaces existing signage 4 sf plus business names 8ft Replaces 18 sf monument sign 6.5 sf plus business names 13.85 sf total 5.5 ft from base 7 ft from plaza Approximately 10.5 ft from sidewalk Address Wall Sign (Type C) Yes Replaces 38.5 sf monument sign 40.5 sf Located on retaining wall Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D) No, Sign Exception Requested, replaces existing signage 6 sf Currently multiple smaller signs 69.8 sf on Tasso St Directional Sign – Parking Blade ID (Type E) No, Sign Exception Requested 3 sf (less than 10 feet from property line) Min 7 ft clearance N/A 7.36 sf Mounted 8’3” above sidewalk, total height not to exceed 11 ft Item 2 Attachment D: Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 27     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 2 ​Attachment E: May 16, 2024 ARB Staff Report     Packet Pg. 28     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 2 ​Attachment E: May 16, 2024 ARB Staff Report     Packet Pg. 29     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 2 ​Attachment E: May 16, 2024 ARB Staff Report     Packet Pg. 30     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 2 ​Attachment E: May 16, 2024 ARB Staff Report     Packet Pg. 31     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 2 ​Attachment E: May 16, 2024 ARB Staff Report     Packet Pg. 32     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 2 ​Attachment E: May 16, 2024 ARB Staff Report     Packet Pg. 33     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 2 ​Attachment E: May 16, 2024 ARB Staff Report     Packet Pg. 34     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 2 ​Attachment E: May 16, 2024 ARB Staff Report     Packet Pg. 35     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     Item 2 ​Attachment E: May 16, 2024 ARB Staff Report     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 F: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 37     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 15, 2024 Report #: 2408-3323 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of April 4, 2024 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning (650) 329-2575 Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 38     Page 1 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: April 04, 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 8:33 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock Absent: None Public Comment Administrative Associate III Veronica Dao stated there were no cards submitted for Public Comment. 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 Planner Raybould stated that there were items being brought up on the April 18th and May 2nd hearing which included many new housing projects, the North Ventura coordinated area plan being brought back for another Study Session, as well as the associated ordinance that would coincide with the coordinated area plan, the pre-approved parklet’s design will also be discussed with ARB, and the Bird Safe glazing and Dark Sky ordinance will be discussed further with the ARB. On April 18th, the elections had been scheduled to take place but may be moved to the May 2nd hearing as Staff wanted the Council to have chosen the new Board members before the election; the appointment interviews were to be held on April 8th and April 22nd. Upcoming ARB projects included a formal application for 640 Waverly, which was a mixed-use office space with four residential units that used the housing incentive program that increased the Floor Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 39     Page 2 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Area Ratio (FAR) for this project, and noted an application for 156 California had come in to Staff that included 300 hundred units, with a maximum seventeen stories, proposed under Builder Remedy and the California Avenue area, as well as a formal application for the 70 Encina project located by Town and Country Plaza. Chair Baltay assigned Chair Baltay and Boardmember Chen as ad hoc committee for the 3980 El Camino Real project, assigned Vice Chair Rosenberg and Boardmember Hirsch as ad hoc committee to 640 Waverly, and noted that the project on 156 California Avenue had been assigned to Chair Baltay and Boardmember Adcock previously. The 70 Encina Way project was assigned to Boardmember Hirsch and Boardmember Adcock; the other unassigned projects were unnecessary for an ad hoc committee. Action Items 2. 2501 Embarcadero Way [22PLN-00367]: Recommendation to Council for Approval of a Site and Design Application and a Design Enhancement Exception to Allow the Construction of a Local Advanced water Purification System at the Regional Water Quality Control Plant (RWQCP). A Design Enhancement Exception to Allow for a Taller Screening Qall is Also Requested. Environmental Impact Report (EIR) for the City of Palo Alto Recycled Water Project Which Evaluated the Environmental Impacts of the Proposed Project. Zone District: PF (D) (Public Facility with Site and Design Combining District). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Claire Raybould, at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org Chair Baltay asked for any disclosures on this project. Boardmember Adcock visited the site during the previous meeting. Boardmember Chen commented she visited before the previous meeting. Chair Baltay had a phone conversation with Shani Kleinhaus who explained the importance of turning off lighting at night, keeping the lights to the warmest colored tone, and had requested no more than 3,000 Kelvin was to be used for lighting in projects, as well having visited the site. Vice Chair Rosenberg said she had not visited the site this meeting period but had done so at the previous meeting. Boardmember Hirsch revisited the site during this meeting period. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 40     Page 3 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay thanked the Board and asked for the Staff’s presentation. Planner Raybould stated today’s project was on the 2501 Embarcadero Way advanced water purification system project. The project included construction of a reverse osmosis permeate storage tank, with a pre- engineered open air canopy building that covered a membrane filtration system, chemical storage, feed system components and other ancillary components essential to the purification system, and a small prefabricated electrical building in front of the canopy. The building had a footprint of approximately 15,544 square feet, and noted it was to reduce solidity of recycled water. When this project had been brought before the ARB in November of 2023, the key comments made by the Board focused on context of the regional water quality control plant, what was happening regarding the existing and future facilities that were planned for the area, the consistency on the project with the Baylands design guidelines and suggested modifications to be better aligned on the plan, questions that regarded the ambient and proposed equipment noise levels, and the minimization of lighting and tree removal had been discussed. Modifications had been made in response to the project plans and showed a visual of the general area of the regional water quality control plant included in the packet memo, with the restrictions to plan South for the area that had a sewer lateral and easements that restricted placement of the facility. Key modifications related to the Bayland’s design guidelines and noise issues included changes to the roof structure color to the standard grey color used throughout the Baylands, better screening made of perforated metal material that could be placed on two sides of the canopy that blocked equipment from public view, the chain link fencing had been changed to include a black vinyl coating per the Bayland’s design guidelines, and had a noise study provided that showed baseline noise conditions at the site and detailed the project’s noise level with the distance of noise producing equipment from the property line in combination with the proposed sound wall; the reduced noise will be code compliant, maximum of forty-nine decibels. Planner Raybould noted when this project had came before the Board previously, the lighting had been proposed at 4,000 Kelvins, but it had been reduced from previous iterations from 5,000 Kelvins at the time and as stated in the disclosure the Autobahn Society had requested no more than 3,000 Kelvins, but the Staff report included a memorandum prepared by a third party that analyzed the safe lighting levels were to be 4,000 Kelvins and no less for this facility. The lighting has been focused below the canopy with additional aluminum paneling design helped shield two views on either side of the canopy to reduce light spill-over, with motion sensors and timers provided; added a colored chart showing the color difference that could be expected between 3,000 and 4,000 Kelvin. There was consideration for the trees that tied with whether the project could be moved to different locations or slightly back on the site as the new facilities planned at the reginal water quality control plant could not be moved back away from Embarcadero Road to have more trees saved, but highlighted that there were numerous reiterations that happened before coming to the ARB previously, and had been brought before the Parks and Recreation Commission who commented on saving as many trees as possible as well; they updated the Arborists report with thirty-five trees to be removed, and noted most were non-native and invasive species of trees and was to be replaced with native trees, as it was outdated and did not reflect the number of trees that had fallen during the severe storms the previous year and a half. The Planning and Transportation Commission’s (PTC) recommendation on this project was to ask for additional exploration Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 41     Page 4 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 to reduce the color temperature of lighting that was consistent with similar comments that came before PTC from the Autobahn Society regarding all native species of trees were to be provided; the lighting had not been reduced from the 4,000 Kelvins as of yet, but the landscaping plan had been updated to have all native species of landscaping except for the wall climbing vines. The California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) analysis that was done for this project made from a mitigation measure MM Hydro 3D from a 2015 EIR on recycled water, which required the City to consider treatment options such as reverse osmosis that reduced solidity of recycled water that made the water reusable for irrigation of salt sensitive species; in response to the mitigation measures a preliminary design was prepared, and in November of 2019 discretionary actions were taken to pursue this project that Council adopted and EIR addendum for this specific design of the project that included more site specific details of the proposed development. Staff recommended to keep the previously adopted addendum, and the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project to Council based on the provided fundings and subject to conditions of approval, which Council’s final decisions would be issued on the proposed project tentatively scheduled for May of 2024. Chair Baltay thanked Staff for the detailed presentation and asked for the applicant’s presentation. Public Works Senior Engineer Tom Kapushinski, Public Works Engineer Diego Martinez-Garcia, Design Engineer with Black and Veatch Katie Gellerman, Landscape Architect with Siegfried Engineering Robert Norbutas, and Public Works Plant Manager Jamie (James) Allen all were here to present the project. Mr. Martinez-Garcia started the presentation by showing the agenda for today’s discussion. The purpose of the project was to improve the water quality produced at the plant by lowering the salt content, in doing so it would increase the number of customers and reduce the amount of recycled water used. The project was made a few years ago when the Council approved a recycled water solidity reduction policy with direction to Staff on how they moved forward with agreements and permits on reducing the salt content in recycled water. The projects’ location was at the water quality control plant on the West side near Embarcadero Road, and included a new permanent storage tank, a microfiltration and reverse osmosis treatment units under a canopy structure, a blending station added to an existing building at the plant, with Landscaping, paving, and side work done around the site, and an electrical building being constructed near the plant wall. The project went through the finance committee and Council the previous year and were currently working on permitting and financial agreements including the planning entitlements and hoped to issue invitation permits in the fall of this year with construction starting in early 2025 and completed by mid-2027. He showed an illustration of the plant with a brief overview of the highlighted areas, and what was proposed to be constructed and the footprints of the site. The architectural features were pre-engineered open-air buildings with a canopy, which was updated with the grey color, and had an electrical building that housed motors and electrical equipment; it was a custom engine heavy duty modular building. An are permeate tank made of glass lined bolted steel was included in the design, and stored up to 350,000 gallons of product water from the facility, it was colored in forest green and updated the chain link security fence with a black vinyl laced coating with new pedestrian paths added to replace current sidewalks. Aluminum laser metal panels were added to the project to help shield excess lighting from the roof and provided screening from the public view; they chose a pattern that Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 42     Page 5 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 resembled leaves to match the existing trace and future installations. The applicants were asked on the previous meeting to provide more detail and aesthetic to the exterior ten-foot concrete sound wall and they added a linear textured wood panel with color stain in a combination of colors; gave a proposed image of what it would look like, as well as an installation done in Sacramento. He finished stating the handouts given to the Board had the new updated renderings and the revised transcribe screening with the modified tree species selected based on PRC recommendations previously mentioned in the Staff report; mentioned the design also included information on all educational parts to be installed outside of the facility for public knowledge. He thanked the Board for their time. Chair Baltay thanked the applicant for his presentation and opened the floor to Public Comment. PUBLIC COMMENT Administrative Associate Veronica Dao stated one card had been submitted. The Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter Dashiel Leeds talked about the joint letter his Chapter and the Santa Clara Autobahn Society had sent regarding the color temperature of lighting, and asked if the color temperature was kept below 3,000 Kelvin or below. Artificial light caused a variety of negative impacts such as distractions, disorientation, and changed key behaviors in wildlife such as pollination, foraging and migration. He discussed the Circadian Rhythm disruption of lighting, as in the Staff report they talked about why they wanted the higher correlated color temperature lighting with alertness, but the disruption was also harmful to the circadian rhythms of people; studies showed regularly disrupted circadian rhythms could lead to increased health risks of cancer, stroke, and diabetes. Mr. Leeds thanked Staff and Board for their time. Chair Baltay thanked Mr. Leeds for his comments, closed public comment, and brought the discussion back to the Board for questions and comments; asked the applicant what they had meant when referring to the proposed future building as headworks. Mr. Martinez-Garcia responded that it was the initial phase of the wastewater treatment at the plant, and included the pumping station, grid, and screening components of the treatment plant that protected the pumps and equipment. Chair Baltay clarified that it was not a headquarters or administrative type facility. Mr. Martinez-Garcia replied no that it was an industrial type of pump. Boardmember Adcock asked what the Staff schedule was in the space that needed the lighting to understand if overnight lighting was necessary. Mr. Kapushinski answered they had Staff on-site twenty-four hours a day, with operators and mechanics traversing the entire facility through the day; they added to the design timing sensors that allowed the light to be off when no one was in the area. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 43     Page 6 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Boardmember Adcock inquired if sunset to sunrise the lights would rarely be used. Mr. Kapushinski said that operators did rounds, but imagined after the rounds the lighting would be turned off; if a mechanic had an emergency service that needed to be provided it would be a different situation. Boardmember Adcock referred to packet page 52, where the light level pattern was drawn over the facility, and questioned if there was additional sight lighting beyond the area not factored in the light level counts, or if only light from the canopy. Mr. Kapushinski responded that the photometric drawing was only showing lighting for the facility. Boardmember Adcock inquired if there was other sight lighting that needed to be factored into this project. Mr. Kapushinski stated that was correct, and as the location implied was further from the building, it was shielded due to the facility. Boardmember Adcock noticed looking at the left side of the drawing where the electrical building was mostly at zero, and asked for clarification if the screening would only be on one side. Mr. Martinez-Garcia indicated there was only one screen, and that it was on the left side of the image. Boardmember Adcock mentioned when looking past the building outside the canopy, there were light levels as high as twenty-two, and when looking at the top and bottom of the plans, the light levels were as high as twenty-seven. She asked if there were any improvements that could be added to have light not leaked outside of the canopy area. Mr. Martinez-Garcia replied that they had not included any other provisions on that issue. Boardmember Adcock noted that the leaked lighting outside the canopy could be problematic with the Dark Sky and bird migration issues brought forth before the Board; asked on packet page 46 if it was correct on the note saying the average elimination inside the canopy would be 157-foot candles. Mr. Martinez-Garcia said that was a typo, and he believed it should be 15.7 as that was the average. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked why the lighting needed to be set at 4,000 to 5,000 Kelvins, and why it could not be brought down to 3,000. Mr. Kapushinski answered that it was up to the elimination engineering society guidelines for industrial facilities; it was recommended that 4,000 to 5,000 Kelvin for adequate management and operations around the facility. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if it was a building code requirement or recommendation for industrial buildings. Mr. Kapushinski responded it was a recommendation. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if there was anything the color temperature could negatively affect in terms of the equipment on the site or was the concern it being too dim for workers to see. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 44     Page 7 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Mr. Kapushinki stated it was a safety concern for Staff at the facility working overnight. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked how many Staff were working at the plant. Plant Manager Jamie Allen answered there were fifty-eight people at the plant, with fourteen percent regularly assigned to the night shift, and eighty percent working part of their shift in the evening. They had half of their operators paid for night shift differentials as they were there during the evening hours as well. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired how many people would be assigned to each working area. Mr. Allen replied that there were three to four people assigned to night shift, 6 P.M. to 6 A.M., with one person passing through during the shift for maintenance or operation management. Vice Chair Rosenberg followed whether it was an issue needing the lighting altered to comply with concerns, or if needing to stay the same as what was proposed for safety issues. Mr. Allen responded that the safety issue was a regular concern as they had chemical deliveries, workers who managed the chemicals, and emergencies that were to potentially occur; to which the lighting was needed within the facility to accommodate the plant worker’s safety. Vice Chair Rosenberg thanked the applicant for his explanation. Boardmember Hirsch asked how far from the southwest wall was the water line mentioned previously. Mr. Kapushinki answered that the water line was parked close to the facility without protruding onto the East Palo Alto sanitary easement line. Boardmember Hirsch inquired the dimensions of the present design wall. Mr. Kapushinki said it was a twenty-foot easement. Mr. Martinez-Garcia indicated the easement was twenty-foot wide, and the distance would be ten-foot from the center of the pipeline to the southernmost corner of the facility. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if the applicant had to maintain the dimensions of the twenty-foot. Mr. Kapushinki stated it was a requirement that East Palo Alto sanitary district have the easement placed, and they had to comply to the requirements. Planner Raybould noted sheet C10.101 showed the easement line was butted against the property line and could not be moved. Boardmember Hirsch asked what would happen if the building was shifted in any other direction. Mr. Martinez-Garcia replied that due to the existing and future equipment, the strength of the building was focused on the East and Northeast part of the facility, and the building was placed in a way that was feasible to accommodate the restricted easement line. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if the new tank to be placed was thirty feet tall and if the distance from the existing tank to the future tank placement had any restrictions or regulations. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 45     Page 8 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Mr. Kapushinski responded there were no restrictions or regulations placed on the tanks, but the extra space was reserved for the headworks facility; the original headworks facility had been built in 1972 with the base plant’s construction, and the facility was a critical component to the plant and referred to the drawing in the packet. Boardmember Hirsch asked which drawing Mr. Kapushinski was referring to. Mr. Martinez-Garcia stated it was on the Staff packet page 43. Planner Raybould brought the image onto the screen that gave a clearer picture. Mr. Martinez-Garcia showed the orange-yellow area as the future plant headworks facility. Boardmember Hirsch noticed that the headworks facility would be placed over the old tank location. Mr. Kapushinski mentioned with the limited space it was drawn up as such to allow the existing and new equipment to run. Boardmember Chen questioned whether there was an existing status as it was a facility being built on existing property, if there were lighting studies done on the current conditions of the plant, and if any of the other structures required similar lighting requirements. Mr. Kapushinski replied that currently the facility uses 4,000 to 5,000 Kelvins as a lighting temperature. Boardmember Chen inquired if the entire site plan were opened other than the allotted area, would the other structures have the same required 4,000 Kelvin. Mr. Kapushinski answered that was correct. Boardmember Adcock asked if it was correct that the vinyl black coated fencing to be placed gave no privacy to the facility. Mr. Martinez-Garcia stated that was correct, and that on this project, it had only a small section of the chain link fencing. Vice Chair Rosenberg referred to the booklet page L00.004, image F on screen wall and fencing along pathways, and questioned whether the sound wall could be extended another ten feet as the chain link fencing was not aesthetically pleasing as it ran close to the public pathway. Mr. Kapushinski responded that due to the Fire and Safety Department wanting gate access to the facility, they had to comply. Chair Baltay questioned if the Landscaping Engineer could give a brief explanation of the landscaping design and how it was going to keep native land plantings. Mr. Robert Norbutas introduced himself and said the Siegfried Landscape Architect group had worked on these types of projects for the last ten to fifteen years and understood the Bayland’s regulations and the screening for the facility through the preserve primary plan. The planting transitions from the Baylands to Embarcadero required the plant material to be appropriate for both the influence of the Bay, as well as a material that accepted and recycled water. Studies done on plant materials and the interior of the facility Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 46     Page 9 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 assessed the water against domestic water to show what salinity the plants tolerated, which gave the appropriate material to be used. The previous reviews requested the Group study and used a plant list from the Bayshore precise plan in Mountainview and considered during the final pallet decision; all the current plants were native to the area and had a salt tolerance. It had been requested with the limited space to create a naturally grown screen that had a safe space for the walkway corridor. They had required the plant material be planted a couple of feet back from the pathways to allow the plants to grow to their natural space and helped with less maintenance. The trees came in varied sizes and had fifteen gallon and thirty-six-inch boxes that gave a naturalized look to the notched areas along the walkway, as well as groups and clusters of shrubs throughout. There was to be an educational sign placed midway along Embarcadero for the public that pointed out what was being constructed within the facility wall and information on plant life being installed. Chair Baltay commented on the trees with bright purple foliage within the renderings shown in the booklet and asked what kind of trees they were. Mr. Norbutas answered they were the closest images to a strawberry tree as if was difficult to get the color renderings appropriate to the correct color and plant material; the Group wanted to show a tree with blossoms and other trees that had color to them and would not be the rich purple color as shown. Chair Baltay inquired if image F with a large tree was an existing Eucalyptus tree, what type of screening plants were to be used, and if there were any other discrepancies within the images of the handout due to the renderings being appealing to the project; he showed concern for the inaccuracies. Mr. Norbutas responded the tree shown in image F was a Sycamore tree screening the recycle tank. Chair Baltay asked about the tree with yellow foliage. Mr. Norbutas replied it was a Poplar Cottonwood tree, and they were trying to illustrate a concept of the feel of the space area and plant materials required. Chair Baltay thanked Mr. Norbutas for the clarifications, and questioned Staff what conditions could be placed on the control systems of the lighting that ensured they would be kept off unless necessary; how did they phrase and enforce the requirement. Planner Raybould stated that motions sensors had been proposed, so a condition of approval could be placed that motion sensors had to be installed on the lights proposed in the plan; Staff would look to have a condition on appropriate timing placed on the sensors, but the appropriate timing on when it was applicable had to be worked on with Staff to accommodate the safety and engineering recommendations. Chair Baltay questioned if enforcement of the light issues were complaint-based or if Staff had to check on the requirements regularly. Planner Raybould said it was complaint-based on whether Staff went to confirm the lights being on all night, as they did not have time to regularly go and check sites for compliance at night. Boardmember Adcock asked if it was a fair assumption that with the facility being a taller building, when a light came on at night, it illuminated the whole area below. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 47     Page 10 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Mr. Kapushinski replied that was most likely true, if a motion sensor light were to come on it would light an entire space. Chair Baltay thanked the applicants and opened the floor to comments; he directed Vice Chair Rosenberg to start. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented it was a tremendous improvement since the last time it had been brought before the Board and understood the limited landscaping and lighting issues were a challenge to overcome. Being a natural area in the Bay area, it needed to be maintained with respect to the wildlife but felt setting the light limit to 4,000 Kelvin was a reasonable compromise to ensure worker safety. The wood paneling proposed went well with the natural environment but was concerned that it was only located on one side of the structure and encouraged them to consider placing them on the North facing gable façade as well. The sound walls’ naturalness in the look gave an elegant feature to the outside wall and commended them on the work they had done. Boardmember Hirsch showed concern and had wished to see all the trees kept in the plan but recognized that overcoming the challenges faced with a mechanical plant was difficult and appreciated the work accomplished within the constraints and requirements. He noted that the drawings handed in were engineering drawings and not specific sections and was displeased with the water line easement restrictions on the South side of the property line. He showed a drawing he had done regarding the trees and site, with a brief explanation of how he felt there was an allowable flexibility on the locations of where structures should be placed. He noted that the Board was not given a chance to see the future headworks facility in the set of handouts, so he hoped there was time to consider being flexible when the applicants produced the drawings to allow the landscaping team to reach the full potential. The lighting issue was important for wildlife, but the safety of employees was as well so there needed to be a common requirement for both and did not feel the Board had adequate qualifications to make the judgement. His main concern was the existing tanks’ movement and removal; if moved back they could move the facility to allow every inch possible for more landscaping space. Boardmember Adcock thanked the applicants for their presentation and was an excellent improvement from the previous iterations reviewed. The concern was the color temperature versus the light level due to the various levels of Kelvins and how it affected the foot candles and should be considered two varying choices for lighting. Light level was geared towards the safe work environment, but it was difficult to find a median as the standard was between 4,000 and 5,000 for foot candles in indoor industrial facilities. Outdoor sight lighting was kept below 3,500 Kelvin that provided a pleasant environment, as well as helped accommodate wildlife; she suggested using a warmer color temperature for the outside lighting as the lighting level was not related strongly for outdoors, and no more than 3,000 Kelvins for the light sources. She stated that on this project it would be a good example for future developments if there were a black fabric that surrounded the chain link fencing to allow reduced visibility from the public view. Boardmember Chen appreciated the changes made since the previous review and commented that the 4,000 Kelvins with controlled lighting system was reasonable as the recommendations set for industrial Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 48     Page 11 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 buildings were placed for worker safety. The landscape design was attractive and liked implementing the natural trees and plant life into the plan, as well as the canopy screening pattern and scale being appropriate. She thanked the applicants for their presentation and time. Chair Baltay said the lighting levels were the biggest issue and felt 3,000 Kelvin was an appropriate color temperature as Boardmember Adcock had mentioned for exterior lighting fixtures had different effects and the standards did not work in this situation. He directed a statement to the fellow Board regarding the Bird Safe and Dark Sky upcoming issues within the town, and asked why the tone of the lighting could not be warmer as this project was in the heart of the Baylands that had a natural environment; suggested restricting the lighting to 3,000 Kelvin as a color temperature, as well as conditions placed on the timing of light only being allowed at night when necessary. He referred to Boardmember Hirsch’s sketch of the movement of the tank and felt it was convincing that the building could be shifted, and asked the applicant for an explanation as to why it was not feasible to do so. Mr. Kapushinski responded that the tank was placed to allow access from the east side of the canopy structure for maintenance and expanded the capacity of the facility for future expansions of equipment. Chair Baltay asked what the distance was between the tank and the new enclosure proposed. Mr. Kapushinski answered it was approximately twenty feet. Chair Baltay referred to drawing C05102, saying it looked as if the building distance was more than twenty feet inquiring the Boards input. (Crosstalk – tank placement and scaling of the sound wall compared to existing tank and future tanks) Vice Chair Rosenberg said on drawing C10-101 the easement lines are noted at twenty-feet apart, but the tank looked closer to twenty-five to twenty-eight feet in distance. Mr. Martinez-Garcia responded a further explanation on the larger space in the equipment access area near the tank was the fire department had reviewed the facility due to the chemicals used, and wanted four entrance access points but were only allotted three so they had to input an entrance large enough to allow trucks to come on to the site. Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if it was related to the chemical truck unloading area attached to the main structure. Mr. Martinez-Garcia replied that was for chemical deliveries, but the fire department was concerned about the storage of chemicals and wanted easy access in case of emergencies. Chair Baltay questioned if the building were shifted to the right laterally, closer to the old storage tank, it would not have changed the distance clearance to the new building but would impact the future plans for the headworks facility. Mr. Martinez-Garcia answered that was correct. Chair Baltay commented there were many points of focus regarding the project from an engineering and safety standpoint, and asked if it would be possible to have one more review session with the tank moved slightly, or if it was the only location the applicant’s felt was feasible. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 49     Page 12 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Planner Raybould stated that if ARB were to give directions on what ideas to explore, they could look at the different components on what they were trying to design and what possibilities there were to have the building moved in different directions and the exact distances needed as this was going before City Council. Vice Chair Rosenberg questioned if moving the building was something they could issue as a condition of approval as there was a better analysis of what clearances were required, and if they had the permission to move one foot down and over would they be allowed to do so. Planner Raybould replied that was possible to do. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay suggested that the project be reviewed once more as it benefitted the community to have the tank shifted further from the public’s view. He felt unsure of implementing a restricted condition that it needed to be moved or have a limited dimension; when he looked at the landscaping site plan L00005 regarding the permeate tank, half was shielded by the concrete sound wall but the half that was not had a top chair link fenced area that turned upward to the fire gate, and asked why the wall could not be extended the additional length to cover more of the tanks view. (Crosstalk – Planner Raybould projected image of the site plan) Mr. Martinez-Garcia stated that they originally needed access for the fire department and kept one gate without changing the chain link design and would have it looked into changing it to a wall if no reason for the access gate. Chair Baltay wished to see it changed to a concrete wall as a condition of approval, and requested the applicants consult with members of the design team to shift the permeate tank further from the sound wall. Boardmember Adcock referred to L00011 and suggested the light tree density area surrounding the tank have the pathways moved closer to the street to allow extra trees to be placed. Chair Baltay made two conditions of approval regarding better screening placed around the permeate tank by it being shifted further from the street, extending the sound wall, and having the landscaping screening increased. Vice Chair Rosenberg mentioned her previous suggestion of having more paneling added to the gable face that helped reduce light spill out from the front, and inquired if that was necessary to be added. Chair Baltay replied if any members of Staff wanted to explain more on the item as it was a possibility. Boardmember Adcock said looking at the photometric diagram on the third to last page of the packet, if modeled accurately, the perforated screen on the left side of the page showed the light leakage was blocked beyond the canopy on the East and Northeast side where there was less equipment stored, but on the North and South plan that had manned equipment there was no screen to block the light spillage. She suggested improving the screening for that area, and that with the two extra bands wrapped around the fencing it helped to reduce the light concerns. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 50     Page 13 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay noted the rendering showed the metal screening went along the non-gable end of the eve edge and would be easy to have the paneling attached to the header, but if placed across the gable end it could have additional structural added to the project; it was not detailed in the drawing how it was built, and asked the applicant if it was feasible to have the gables installed on two sides of the building. Mr. Kapushinski stated that if added to the North side of the facility it needed modified structural members to have the gables supported as the header was exceedingly long. Chair Baltay inquired if it was a feasible request to have implemented. Mr. Kapushinski responded they would investigate what could be done. Boardmember Adcock with a butler frame added to the end, it seemed like a reasonable request that miscellaneous framing was added to support the screening. Chair Baltay asked if Ms. Gellerman was a member of the design team and if she would like to have the question addressed. Mr. Martinez-Garcia introduced Katie Gellerman to respond to the question. Ms. Gellerman clarified that the Eastern and Western side did not have the panels on the walls due to the large equipment that would need to be accessed and moved in the future. The paneling could not impede overhead in the space as the equipment had to enter with forklifts, cranes, or upkeep required for machinery, and needed to have the open canopy space on both ends. Boardmember Adcock asked if it was for future replacements of one or two parts of equipment or if for regular daily maintenance. Ms. Gellerman answered there would be regular maintenance that happened along both sides that needed to be accessed, but the addition added in the future underneath the canopy would also as well. Chair Baltay questioned what vertical clearance was required for the overall design clearance for the internal part of the structure. Ms. Gellerman replied that it had been measured in a way that allowed the installation of the reverse osmosis treatment units to the side and was unsure of the actual height. Boardmember Adcock asked if the clearance needed was higher than the twenty-four feet the lights were hung at, and if the lights needed to be moved to get the access required. Ms. Gellerman stated for the potential future construction being proposed it would. Chair Baltay inquired if the structure needed a large amount of structural work redone to support the panels or was it feasible to have them suspended from the gable beam. Ms. Gellerman responded a structural engineer needed to be consulted to confirm if horizontal beams needed to be added in addition to what was already in place. Chair Baltay asked if the proposed panels going between the bends had been checked by a structural engineer currently. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 51     Page 14 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Ms. Gellermer said the Northern side had no requirements applied so modifications to the structure could be possible from the structural engineers’ assessment. Chair Baltay thanked Ms. Gellerman, and addressed the Board that the light spillage was a prominent issue, screening panels that could be unbolted to allow equipment access could be implemented, (Interrupted) Mr. Martinez-Garcia noted that the height they were allowed to lower to would not be known until the beginning of actual construction as the equipment to be used was selected at that time; they would also have the light screening height elevated looked at as well. Planner Raybould commented that could be added as a condition of approval to have explored before applying for the building permit. Boardmember Adcock mentioned on the photometric diagram it showed that the twenty-four feet on lighting based on the light level quoted previously, the section S00008 stated the bottom of the hinge point on the butler frame was also twenty-four feet, but it was not how the light had been drawn, and asked for clarification on what the height of the frame or lighting was; it seemed to be more structure added but was designed to be removable and was not convinced future equipment justified having an open visible space, and suggested a bolted type connection that could be removed as it was an important issue. Chair Baltay and Boardmember Hirsch supported what Boardmember Adcock had commented for the record. Boardmember Hirsch added it was consistent with the materials used surrounding the building as an exterior view of the building and should be shaped to match the roof line as well. Chair Baltay looked at the current proposed screening panel and saw the bottom panel being approximately twenty feet above ground of the building; a twenty-four-foot plate height with a four-foot panel and thought a second condition of approval should be the two sides of the building screening panel had to be placed at twenty-feet going up, and left how to mount and bolt the screen to the engineers. He brought the discussion back to the color temperature and the control systems of the lights and mentioned the Boardmembers stances on whether 3,000 or 4,000 Kelvin was appropriate; stating it was to go before City Council in two months and knew there would be complaints from the Autobahn Society regarding the lights being too bright for the birds, but wanted a unanimous decision from the ARB to aid Council in making a decision. Boardmember Hirsch commented to help with a decision he would go with lowering the light level to 3,000 Kelvin or had a restriction on lights during the evening hours to vary the Kelvin temperature based on operations in the facility. Boardmember Adcock stated that would be a large request for industrial typed lighting based on the purchase of particular foot candles, which made it hard to adjust in the plan, and thought if the 3,000 Kelvin was purchased and settled for the light levels proposed in the photometrics seemed appropriate. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 52     Page 15 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay and Boardmember Hirsch supported Boardmember Adcock’s statement. Chair Baltay asked Vice Chair Rosenberg for input on her stance with the lighting issue. Vice Chair Rosenberg said it was a delicate balance between the safety of the workers and the impacts of the environmental surroundings, and placed the safety of workers as a priority; being in the heart of the Baylands there were many disruptions in the area already, and understood the importance of protecting the area, but with the site already designated at 4,000 to 5,000 Kelvin it was difficult to try and force a regulation on this particular area with the other part of the site uncompliant. If costly sensor monitors and adjustable lighting fixtures were forced on a project such as this, it would be unreasonable; the lumens and foot candles were separated from the color temperature, so was convinced pushing the color temperature should be considered if maintained light levels were needed for the illuminations, and felt 3,000 Kelvins was reasonable to ask for as this being an outdoor lighting issue and impacted the Bayland area. Chair Baltay inquired if Boardmember Chen had any comments on the lighting issue. Boardmember Chen was in agreement with Vice Chair Rosenberg as the site was located close to the Baylands, but when the overall context was looked at there was an airport and other facilities with higher color temperatures in the same area, and after Boardmember Adcock’s statement on the color temperature and foot candle being separate issues, it was suggested that more studies be done on how lowering to 3,000 Kelvins impacted the safety of workers and birds during the evening. Vice Chair Rosenberg summarized that when the future of the city was looked at, with all the buildings and infrastructures that will be built, lowering the color temperature in this project could be valuable for the environment in future. Boardmember Adcock commented that it was a small issue within the project, but there were future projects that this issue helped resolve when plans were made. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to address the view of the pathway along the fencing and solid wall that had the fire department access, and asked if the solid wall could be continued to both side of the fencing with an emergency access inserted. (Planner Raybould brought up the previous diagram on to the screen) (Crosstalk) Mr. Martinez-Garcia noted that the fire department planned to have access to the site through the existing front gate, and the one on the chain link fencing was a pedestrian not a truck fire access; the fire department had requested a new fire hydrant be placed outside the facility near the sidewalk that allowed firefighters to bring the hoses through the gate. (Crosstalk) Vice Chair Rosenberg argued that the chain link fence should be farther off the pathway as the sound barrier fencing was more aesthetically pleasing than the chain fencing. (Crosstalk – discussed the fencing areas on the diagram) Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 53     Page 16 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Hirsch if it was suggested to move the access gate to the middle of the sound wall, closer to the street. Boardmember Hirsch answered that was correct. Fellow Board members showed disagreement with the suggestion. Chair Baltay felt a five-foot break being added to the sound wall was not preferable. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and thought it was better placed off the street and felt the sound wall had been well designed. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay asked Vice Chair Rosenberg to continue the motion. Motion of Approval Vice Chair Rosenberg motioned to approve with the following conditions: 1. Light fixtures were to be changed to 3,000 Kelvins. 2. Screens were added to Northeast, Northwest, and Southwest sides of the building with a height of no greater than twenty feet above the finished floor. 3. Requirements be placed on motion sensors to reduce lighting on site and set a maximum time limit on the sensors. 4. The sound proofing wall needed to be extended to meet with the existing chain link fencing end corner. 5. Explore the potential of the relocation of the reverse osmosis permeate tank to the inward portion of the property’s site. 6. The proposed planting be increased on the reverse osmosis permeate tank side of the soundwall. MOTION: Vice Chair Rosenberg moved, seconded by Boardmember Adcock. Boardmember Adcock requested a friendly amendment that the tree planting be increased, not the lower planting. Chair Baltay asked the First and Seconder that an additional phrase was to be added to the third condition regarding the lighting set amount with a maximum time limit on the sensors that they were only on at night when necessary for safety or operational needs. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed, Boardmember Adcock seconded. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 54     Page 17 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay inquired if Public Works wanted to give feedback on the conditions proposed before taking a vote. Jamie Allen stated that points two to six were agreeable, but the first condition was difficult as the engineer needed to ask the electrical designer if they would go against the recommendations of safety by the Illumination Engineering Society on an industrial facility; they had records of injury to workers on the night shift. They had motion sensors on existing lights that turned off if an employee was wiring a panel and needed to move in front of the sensors to turn back on. The maximum time limit in condition three needed flexibility as the lighting had to be adjustable for high frequency areas as workers spent longer time in certain areas. The fencing and surrounding sound wall helped to lower the expected number of mammals wandering onto the site; he gave the example of the streetlights and airport having overnight usage and encouraged the lighting stay at the recommended 4,000 to 5,000 Kelvin as the motion sensors would be off when an area was unused. Chair Baltay thanked Mr. Allen for the input, and suggested they modified condition number three to remove the maximum time on the motion sensors and leave the Staff in charge of how the sensors would operate. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that condition three did not have a set maximum time limit and could be implemented by facility Staff, and felt it was appropriate to keep the condition. Boardmember Hirsch noted that the words when in operation and for safety need stated in the condition allowed for appropriate control of the request. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay asked if all members of the Board were in agreement to keep the condition as stated. All members of the Board agreed. Chair Baltay said the Board had come to a balance between bird safety and the Baylands but felt condition one on light temperature was a recommendation to the planning director, and the decision should be left to them; he felt strongly to leave the condition as it was. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Adcock said that every condition could not be met due to her knowledge of the technical memorandum she had studies and found the color temperature section seemed to focus on the productivity of the workers, not the safety; light levels were concerned about the workers safety, and the color temperature was not. In interior environments the lighting was warmer for hospitality type businesses and higher temperatures were used for industrial spaces, and as this project was an outdoor industrial space it needed to have a balance of both issues. Vice Chair Rosenberg countered that if the Kelvin was set at a warmer color temperature, was it potentially induce fatigue in workers and cause an unsafe environment; she wanted to be attentive to the location of this project, but the key focus was worker safety in a night environment. (Crosstalk) Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 55     Page 18 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Vice Chair Rosenberg proceeded with the motion as it was written. Vote: 3-2-0, Boardmember Chen and Boardmember Hirsch voted no. Planner Raybould asked if the Board members who voted no could explain further the reasoning for the decision. Chair Baltay allowed the explanations. Boardmember Chen stated that the knowledge on how it impacted the safety of the facility workers or birds to lower the Kelvin lighting to 3,000 was lacking in the decision, and felt it was appropriate to leave the decision to the applicant rather than have it required. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to add a minimum of five feet that extended the tank interior to the site as an additional setback. Planner Raybould thanked the Board members for the explanations. The ARB took a 10-minute break and resumed with all members present. Chair Baltay called the next Item and noted that Planner Raybould had left for a training session. Action Items 3. Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan Chair Baltay asked Senior Planner Jodie Gerhardt to present the Item. Senior Planner Jodie Gerhardt stated there was no presentation but shared the document on the screen. The two parts of what would be discussed was the Council’s work plan that looked at future projects, and the ARB’s version of an annual report that discussed what had occurred in the last year. Chair Baltay addressed the Board and summarized the ARB was tasked by Council to have a work plan made for the following year, which was shown in the document, and have an annual report drafted for City Council and the Planning and Transportation Department. The objective was to keep focused on a group of items for both the work plan and report, and felt it was best to track the future and past items at the same time. The first item was the review of ongoing projects, the quasi-judicial review and recommendation process, and had asked Staff to have a list made of the notable projects reviewed over the last year and wanted to provide images to City Council and the Planning and Transportation Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 56     Page 19 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Department of the changes the ARB’s recommendations had benefited towards the projects. In packet page 73, the application review section of the annual report, listed the projects that had been reviewed and made recommendations on, and wanted to have the list divided into five groupings with the each Board member, assisted with Staff, locating the proper images that represented the before and after stages of the project, or a final image with comments on the result of the changes made recommended by the ARB; it helped Staff if each Board member took three of the projects as they were knowledgeable on the changes made to each plan. If images on a certain project had not been shown visibly, bullet points showing the areas where ARB’s recommendations positively affected the planning should be added. The list consisted of fifteen projects, and asked for volunteers to pick which projects they wished to select. Vice Chair Rosenberg clarified in packet pages 76 and 77, and provided were before and after project images that did not show the impact of ARB’s contribution to the projects planning, which was why the suggestion to have Board members work creating bullet points on changes made to the projects added to the images. She referred to packet page 73 and inquired if two of the projects were still in progress and if they were to be included in the list. Chair Baltay stated that if they were still being constructed then they did not apply to the list and asked Planner Gerhardt if they were still in the process of completion. Planner Gerhardt responded that they were still in the process and uncompleted projects. (Crosstalk regarding the NVCAP and the eight hundred San Antonio project being discussed that day) Chair Baltay removed the NVCAP and 660 San Antonio project that were still in the process stage from the list and left eight hundred San Antonio on the list as it was counted completed following the meeting today. Chair Baltay asked for volunteers or by the end of the day had a list of members made. Boardmember Adcock questioned if allowed to pick her own projects as she had only been with the ARB a limited time and had knowledge on only a few; 739 Stutter, 2501 Embarcadero, and eight hundred San Antonio. Chair Baltay agreed to all projects selected and inquired if any fellow members wanted to choose. Vice Chair Rosenberg picked the three projects located in the Stanford Shopping Center: The OurHouse, Sushi Roku, and Restoration Hardware. Boardmember Chen inquired what was expected of the Board to add with the images. Chair Baltay replied to depict the changes ARB had recommended that showed the contributions to standard reductions, such as SB9. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if they were to add the bullet point to the list or just the images. Chair Baltay responded the idea was to assist Planner Raybould with creating a gallery of images with projects before and after completion with highlighted bullet points with clarity on what had been ARB’s recommendations and examples for City Council and the Planning and Transportation Department to review. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 57     Page 20 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 (Crosstalk on the images shown and what Chair Baltay wished to see on the reports.) Vice Chair Rosenberg brought up the OurHouse project that ARB’s ad hoc committee had a major influence on the oversight of the change being approved and what had been proposed, and the how it benefited from being brought back for rereview before approval. Boardmember Chen asked how detailed and defined the bullet points needed to be on the changes and recommendations made. Chair Baltay answered depending on the images provided, between three to ten bullet points with key changes should be added. He questioned Boardmember Chen if she would work on the 3100 El Camino and 3200 Park Boulevard projects. Boardmember Chen agreed. Chair Baltay assigned the 420 Acacia and 123 Sherman projects to Boardmember Hirsch. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Chair Baltay selected the Fire Department and SB9 projects and opened the floor to Public Comment on the Item. Administrative Associate Veronica Dao stated there was no comment card submitted. Boardmember Adcock corrected that packet page 69 was misprinted with the year as it said 2023-2024 instead of 2024-2025, as well as her status being added to the current Board member list. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay said they were to have a round of questions and comments with the goal that in a month there was a unanimous supported idea of ARB’s work handed over to City Council. The second goal regarded the Objective Standards and how they were to move forward, as well as what had been done in the past; asked for any Board questions or comments on the standards. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned that SB9 should be added to the Objective Standard as it had been brought to his attention by Planner Gerhardt previously. Planner Gerhardt responded that the note was referring to Objective Standards chapter 1824 on the multi-family projects, not the SB9 project because it was a separate standard. Boardmember Hirsch stated that he had made many comments addressed to the Board previously that were not discussed, but he had them written and asked for a common review of the SB9 should be incorporated into the standards. Chair Baltay responded that SB9 had been looked at for the objective design standards relative to SB9 projects, and the concerns on SB9 standards were appropriate to be added to Section one, objective design standard refinements category. (Crosstalk) Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 58     Page 21 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay clarified that Boardmember Hirsch wanted to have added to the work plan for Council the opening back up the SB9 Objective Standard discussion as a Board, and questioned if there was anything to add on the past year discussions of the SB9 standards previously reviewed and approved. Planner Gerhardt noted that goal number two was regarding the future plans for City Council. (Crosstalk) Planner Gerhardt asked Chair Baltay what packet page was being used to clarify the SB9 discussion with Boardmember Hirsch. Chair Baltay responded packet page seventy-four and said they had looked at the objective standards and found how some standards were not appropriate to town home developments, and felt the standards needed to be revisited on regular basis; he asked Boardmember Hirsch if he wanted the comments on SB9 made be added to this section. Boardmember Hirsch commented that the reasoning behind Boardmember Chen and his hesitance of recommendations on townhomes were because they wanted to receive the minutes from the previous meetings before they could properly add their comments on the issue. Chair Baltay moved to packet page seventy and stated the goal was to assist the city as it considered modifications to objective standards, provide feedback on research as they progressed forward, and suggest better ways to have different housing typologies defined. Boardmember Hirsch said if they listed the objective standards for the following. Chair Baltay questioned Planner Gerhardt about the list in the objective standards chapter 1824. Planner Gerhardt responded that was only for multi-family housing; she suggested removing that chapter and just having it called the Objective Standards. Chair Baltay asked if that incorporated the SB9’s standards as well. Planner Gerhardt encouraged that if it were a lower priority item or later in the year project being proposed, she would suggest they worded the standards to that effect. Chair Baltay said the Board wanted to be able to bring before the City Council what the ARB had found standards within the Objective Standards needed to be adjusted given the projects brought before the Board and asked for Planner Gerhardt’s recommendation on appropriate phrasing to be written. Planner Gerhardt stated there were more specifics in the high and low priority columns that allowed space for detail to be added, and in the high priority column the first bullet point should have addressed the modifications to the objective standards in 1824, based on reviews from a number of projects done previously with a separate line item for the SB9 objective standards. (Crosstalk on previous meetings regarding the SB9) Planner Gerhardt recommended the SB9 standard be added later in the year as it had just been changed this year. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 59     Page 22 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay said if it were feasible that they added under the high priority collum modifications that addressed objective standards in chapter 1824, and under lower priority add modifications that addressed objective standards regarding SB9. (Crosstalk) All members of the Board agreed to the addition to the priority column of lists. Planner Gerhardt noted that she was adding to the 1824 first bullet under high priority and use the same language to have the changed SB9 under the low priority collum. Chair Baltay brought up project goal number three regarding coordinated area plans within the city and hinged from recommendation number two. He referred to the San Antonio Avenue Corridor lacked large scaled urban planning and was the reason for the need of the coordinated area plans. The downtown area needed a specific plan to increase housing, which members of the Board had discussed previously on how to have it implemented, as well as the benefit of enlarging the scale of Encina Avenue which had been currently brought to ARB’s attention. The three projects listed were in the high and low priority columns, and the projects listed under high priority were San Antonio and downtown, with Encina Avenue under the low priority; asked Board if any other projects should be considered as a recommendation to Council regarding specific studies and what order of priority the projects should be listed as. Boardmember Adcock commented that the 156 California Avenue project was coming before the Board soon, and with relevance to that project, and asked if there was a California Avenue coordinated area plan placed that she had not been aware of. Planner Gerhardt responded there was not. Boardmember Adcock stated that the Encina project had brought the attention to what the coordinated area plan for the California Avenue area was supposed to be, as there was many new developments being considered in the location, and felt it was best to learn from City Council what future developments were proposed before ARB reacted to the projects. Boardmember Hirsch questioned why both California and University downtown areas were not being taken into consideration at the same time as they both were categorized under the same subject matters such as potential housing. Boardmember Adcock inquired if California Avenue was being considered for major housing other than the Molly Stone site previously reviewed. Planner Gerhardt replied she needed to look up the information as they had gone through a whole housing element housing process and housing element sites were chosen but did not believe it was on California Avenue; the Molly Stones construction was a Builder’s Remedy project and did not adhere to the housing element. She informed the Board that Council had moved forward with plans on San Antonio and the main downtown area, and if ARB had any input or details, they wanted added to the projects were appreciated; there had been no plans to implement a coordinated area plan for California Avenue and Encina that she was aware of. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 60     Page 23 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Boardmember Hirsch felt both locations should be condensed together for a study done that aided the ARB in their feedback, and California Street should be added to the high priority list as there was significant sites that were still available for development. The City Council had approved a consultant contract that had been studied over the past few years, which was passed a couple of weeks ago, and the ARB needed to describe the street as an ongoing project that they had information regarding. Chair Baltay asked Staff for information regarding the approved contract from City Council. Planner Gerhardt stated there were no details at her disposal currently, but by the next scheduled hearing she would bring information for the ARB to look over. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if there was a study being done over the next two years, how would they implement the Boards recommendations as it slowed the process with the downtown’s development periods; gave the open question as to whether they continued moving forward with the consideration of the special study or not. Chair Baltay mentioned that the Council had been notified that the downtown housing plan was important and a high priority to the ARB, but it was up to Council to decide how the city resources was allocated to have the goals set accomplished. The question left for ARB was if other areas were to be added or removed from the lists, as it was the ARB’s responsibility to point out issues on development before they reached City Council. Boardmember Adcock questioned if the housing element sites were to be layered into the goals for this discussion and gave an example of San Antonio being a large portion of the housing element, construction site, and zoning areas; the housing element plan did not include significant portions of California Avenue plan, so was unsure of how readily available development was going to be implemented unlike San Antonio. She asked if the housing element map needed to be reviewed and be ahead of the planning of projects to push for a coordinated area plan for California Avenue to ensure the same comments were not mentioned repeatedly. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay pointed out a sentence on the bottom of the ARB recommendations and reported that the comments over the year were centered on the increased importance of housing projects within the city; he indicated to the Board that if in consensus with the statement, which of the coordinated area plans were likely to be selected for the issue of increasing the housing in the area. He gave an example of Encina Avenue being categorized as a low priority project area as it was not sufficient enough to accommodate the needed number of housings required, but the San Antonio area had enough space in the area to provide the required amount of housing, so it was categorized as a high priority project area. Boardmember Hirsch commented that if California Avenue were included in the list, it would be a high priority area as well, even if the housing element had not been brought in discussion previously. Cambridge Avenue and Molly Stones had been reviewed by him for housing projects before was also now under consideration for the housing elements as well. Chair Baltay questioned if California Avenue had the same potential of increased housing as San Antonio. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 61     Page 24 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Boardmember Hirsch thought it had significant potential for increased housing and gave the example of Cambridge having sixty percent of one side of the street being a parking lot, with three functional uses on the site. Planner Gerhardt noted there were three sites on Cambridge that were part of the housing element but were small four and five units that were to be constructed. Boardmember Hirsch recalled the units were to be built on the North side of the street. Planner Gerhardt stated that there was potential for California Avenue to add future developments as new regulations regarding no parking being required, which would open many opportunities for the area. Chair Baltay questioned if California Avenue should be added to the list of low priority projects or adding with the downtown high priority list. Vice Chair Rosenberg indicated that some areas looked at in the projects proposed were high density versus low density buildings that were condensed to downtown, midtown, and California Avenue areas for retail areas adding housing density in the nodules, however there were too many restraints that prevented the developments from being too high and too large in mass, such as lot sizes were smaller and the zoning areas were less useful for large unit complexes as it was too constrained. San Antonio had more freedom on projects as there were larger lots available, it ran on a well driven street, and the added large-scaled developments constructed with a number of residential housings affected future development; she felt San Antonio was the first high priority area that dramatically impacted the area, second priority was downtown, third being California Avenue, and four if achievable, midtown. Encina Avenue was not a high priority area in her opinion as it had too many restraints to accommodate the necessary increased housing required. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay clarified that Encina Avenue was not on Vice Chair Rosenberg’s list of priorities due to the limitations and regulations restricting construction of potential housing. Vice Chair Rosenberg responded it was not as high of a priority as the previously mentioned areas. Boardmember Adcock asked if there were any current areas located near Encina that were part of the housing element. (Crosstalk) Planner Gerhardt answered that there were four to eight smaller units proposed on three to four sites of the properties located on Encina. Boardmember Hirsch questioned Planner Gerhardt as to why locations like Encina would not have been potential parking for the Town and Country instead of a Planned Housing Zone (PHZ) development. Planner Gerhardt stated that if a developer were to bring a PHZ application before the Staff it would be considered, but Town and Country were adamant about the usage of their parking lot and structured parking needed to be implemented which had not been discussed as of yet. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 62     Page 25 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Boardmember Hirsch and Planner Gerhardt discussed the Hamilton area and the parking being separated and accessible to the University and stated areas similar were perfect for future development but recommended that California Avenue be considered for housing but also that there were parking requirements for the street itself. Boardmember Chen clarified that from what was understood, the coordinated area plan was only for future projects that projects under review or had been completed would not be affected by the plan. Planner Gerhardt answered that if the project was farther along in the process and was pending, Staff tried to collaborate the projects as best they could but was not required until the plan had been approved. Boardmember Chen commented it would help if the housing element plan were overlayed to show where the current project stages were at currently and felt that locations that had the higher potential for housing elements should be the higher priority. Boardmember Hirsch agreed with Boardmember Chen’s comment. Chair Baltay stated that all members of the Board were in agreement that San Antonia was the first on the high priority list and downtown would be second. All Board members agreed. Chair Baltay said there had been no consensus on how they were to move forward, and referenced to the review process that had high density housing within close proximity to single family housing as there were many concerns from the community about privacy, and stated it would be easier to have the projects approved if moved to more opened proximity locations such as San Antonio and downtown. (Crosstalk between Boardmember Hirsch and Chair Baltay regarding the parking and increased housing in certain areas of Palo Alto) Boardmember Hirsch commented that long-term planning and the urban design impact of was the focus of the ARB recommendations and they needed to have that in consideration when decisions were made on locations for parking and housing elements. Chair Baltay asked if there was a consensus that California Avenue as the third priority on the coordinated area plan list. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay noted that California Avenue was added as a third high priority study area, and asked if midtown was to be added to the list as well. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that California Avenue should be lower on the priority list as the urgency for development was not as prominent as San Antonio and the downtown area were. Chair Baltay questioned what the Encina Avenue site was to be categorized as. Boardmember Chen commented that it should be added to the end of the high priority list. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 63     Page 26 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay asked Vice Chair Rosenberg if it was all right to remove the midtown area as a potential study area or if it was to be classified in the lower priority area. Vice Chair Rosenberg felt comfortable with midtown being categorized on the lower priority list as there were SB330 projects that were expected for development and was a collision zone with residential and commercial buildings in the area; it was not an immediate concern, but it should be added to the list as a potential area. Chair Baltay questioned the Board for further support on adding midtown to the lower priority future work study list. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay stated there was a consensus on California Avenue as a high priority area to be added to the future work study list. He said there was a statement in the annual plan that regarded what had been observed in each area, and a statement regarding California Avenue needed to be included; gave Boardmember Adcock the opportunity to express her questions or comments on San Antonio. Boardmember Adcock clarified the focus for the San Antonio area were the services, fire access, and pedestrian and vehicular circulation through the area, and inquired what the area boundary was as the housing element map showed an area close to Charleston in the Meadow Circle area, which was a high density planning for the housing element; wanted to have a study with City Council to discuss the boundary and the overlay of the housing element so to not have repeated discussions regarding the issue. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if it was to be placed within the San Antonio study or if would be categorized by itself. Boardmember Adcock replied that the housing element maps were all connected by the GM and RM zoning areas but had more projects on San Antonio that were coming before Staff, and thought the area studied should be a wider dimension so the development options were not restricted. Chair Baltay commented the wording be phrased to say San Antonio Avenue, extending from the bay to El Camino Real to have the entire area included. If how far inland to extend the property was discussed, one side of the street was property owned by Mountain View, and the other side needed to have explicit regulations on what was allowed for development; and example was to consider extending the area as far as the Coverly Community Center and did not support that idea. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned that areas looked at should consider the long-term issues with future development and high-density housing element possibilities and referred to the Fabian design projects. Planner Gerhardt stated that as the housing element, the Fabian east-middle circle area had re-zoning implemented on the area, same as El Camino and Page Mill. The zoning standards were already placed on what was regulated within certain areas; the coordinated area plan had the details for each site. She commented that the Home Key project was underway, and felt it was unnecessary to extend the area to the Bay. (Crosstalk) Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 64     Page 27 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay referred to Boardmember Adcock’s comment that regarded defining the areas to be added in the future work study list. Boardmember Adcock commented that it was to define the areas in which to study surrounding San Antonio Avenue that were potential future higher density development. Vice Chair Rosenberg said the first bullet point defined what the area encompassed, once defined the second point focused on the commercial areas and how they would be replaced, neighborhood parks, transportation, and sewage lines. Boardmember Adcock clarified it was issues that were above grade to be defined as well. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed and felt it appropriate to have the defined areas of what was to be planned in the future for San Antonio. Chair Baltay questioned if phrased to say what the San Antonio area was to experience, would that be accurate. All Board members agreed. Chair Baltay mentioned that comment regarding the last sentence on the coordinated area plan would allow consideration for Transportation Park’s integration with Mountain View, and asked if the description should be changed. Boardmember Adcock stated that Transportation neighborhood parks, City services, and pedestrian and bicycle pathways be added. Boardmember Hirsch added that commercial should be added as well as it was a higher population density in that area. Chair Baltay asked if to phrase it as retail commerce and was the integration of nearby developments in Mountain View to be removed. Boardmember Hirsch commented that sounded reasonable. Chair Baltay moved to the next item regarding downtown, and it stated the increased standards while increasing vibrancy sentence and did not feel anything needed to be added to the phrasing. He asked Boardmember Hirsch to draft a paragraph regarding the addition of California Avenue to the future work plan list. Boardmember Hirsch agreed. Chair Baltay questioned if any changes or thoughts needed to be made to the Encina Avenue section. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned he had spoken with owners of properties on Encina Avenue that had said there were areas available for potential development, and that Town and Country had separate ownership to their property. The land area by the railroad was a prime area for future development as well as the parking that would be needed but felt Encina should be seen as a singular project. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 65     Page 28 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay inquired if there was a better way to phrase the wording, but there were three and four sentences that stated the site had potential for higher density housing, it acknowledged the importance of Town and Country, the parking had to be a large portion of what was to be constructed, and the coordination area plan was the way to have the project implemented. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay stated the phrasing was to be left as is. There was a consensus there were four projects, three of which were higher priority, and one was not; the text had been defined, so he moved to the fourth goal. It was Item three in the annual study that related to the bird safe glazing in Dark Sky. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay continued that goal number four was new guidelines, ordinances, and streetscape that included, but was not limited to, bird safe glazing, Dark Sky, parklet designs, and University Avenues streetscape, and asked if any changes needed to be made. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that it had impact on current projects that had come before the ARB board, so it was an item that needed to be discussed, but how it was written was sufficient. Boardmember Adcock inquired how the University streetscape section differed from the downtown housing plan, and asked if it was considered an overlap on goal number three and four. Chair Baltay said as he thought on the issue, it should be stated University Avenue and California Avenue streetscapes, as it was tasked to ARB by Council in previous projects to be involved in the California Avenue redesign, and asked if it should be left as a potential discussion to participate in. Planner Gerhardt commented that it could be phrased generically on streetscape designs, not necessarily on University Avenue. All the Board agreed. Boardmember Hirsch questioned how the Board was to look at the El Camino area on how to review the new zoning and how it was to be applied, as the general objective standards did not allow higher that four and five storied buildings, but seven and eight storied buildings were being proposed in the areas. Chair Baltay responded El Camino had not been placed on the list due to the design standards on zoning that were applied and had not seen projects failing due to lack of standards. (Crosstalk) Planner Gerhardt stated that there were several projects proposed along El Camino that were pending and had objective standards that many of the projects would use; there were South El Camino guidelines that had been in place for a lengthy period of time. Boardmember Hirsch asked how the objective standards would be used within those types of projects. Planner Gerhardt replied that projects were reviewed against all the different guidelines and zoning standards. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 66     Page 29 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Chair Baltay asked if that was where the twelve-foot width and build of the sidewalk standard was placed. Planner Gerhardt believed that was where the twelve-foot guideline had been placed, but it was also within the zoning code. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Hirsch questioned where the mass of the building’s standard would be placed. Planner Gerhardt answered that step backs were discussed in the objective design standards, and if a project came in as discretionary, it was used as a starting point. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if a height limitation was implemented as well. Planner Gerhardt replied it was, and that the Page Mill and El Camino area had been rezoned to allow taller buildings, but it had a maximum limit regulation. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay brought the discussion back to goal number four concerning the bird glazing, and asked if there was anything to be added to the annual plan list, as it stated the ARB was to provide feedback to planning Staff, Council, etc. regarding upcoming bird safe glazing in Dark Sky. All the Board agreed it was fine left as written. Chair Baltay moved to Item number four on the lack of communication between other Board, Commissions, and Council, and ideally, he felt there should be a liaison that relayed the information between each partie; had no issue on how it was done, but more on the politics that were to be defined. Boardmember Adcock supported the Item but was unsure how to move forward and having the recommendation implemented. Chair Baltay said three to four years prior, Council made a Board and Commissions handbook that studied and debated the issue at length and had not addressed the particular issue as it was not an important discussion at the time, and asked if it should be removed from the work plan list. Vice Chair Rosenberg noted that it was important to address when a concern of lacking communication between Boards. (Crosstalk) Boardmember Adcock felt that from project to project it was important for the Board to know how each of the committees were progressing, but outside the projects she questioned what the main objective was, and how to achieve the goal. Boardmember Hirsch added a third if the communication helped be constructive in the planning process. Chair Baltay stated a liaison from the Planning Commission had explained in better detail their discussions on color temperature of lights, and if the ARB had been given the information prior, it would have been helpful on current projects; the description could be worded to say a system of liaison between various Board and Council needed to be created, and noted it was to be added as an Action Item. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 67     Page 30 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 (Crosstalk) Planner Gerhardt commented that what the liaison responsibilities were to be needed better detail that helped Council understand what was expected. Chair Baltay took the responsibility to write in the sentence regarding the addition of a liaison between Boards. (Crosstalk) Chair Baltay asked if any other Items not discussed would like to be commented on. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated a fifth goal to be added was roof terraces as an important issue to discuss in terms of how it was to be planned, and suggested it be written that the ARB should provide feedback and possible guidelines to Staff and City Council regarding roof terraces and if it was allowed, where they were allowed, and what were the regulations to be placed; many SB330 building were starting to be proposed with roof terraces, and felt the ARB did not have a consistent and comprehensive guideline on how the issues were approached. Planner Gerhardt responded that roof terraces were allowed, and there was some code language in place, but was open to ARB’s feedback on the issue to refine the standard. Chair Baltay questioned if it was added under project goal number four, as it was intended to address bird safe glazing. Vice Chair Rosenberg felt it was a separate issue than the bird safety issue. Boardmember Adcock mentioned that it would be better placed in the goal number two on modifications to objective standards. (Crosstalk) Planner Gerhardt said that there were code standards on roof terraces, and in goal number four the guidelines and ordinances were already placed; it could be changed to say the existing ordinances as well. Vice Chair Rosenberg commented that it could be placed in goal number four as A. bird glazing and Dark sky, and B. roof terraces. Chair Baltay questioned the Board if roof terraces should be added to the list. All the Board members agreed. Chair Baltay stated that a written description of how it was to fit from the annual plan to the work plan. Vice Chair Rosenberg volunteered to assist in having the drafts made. (Crosstalk between Chair Baltay and Vice Chair Rosenberg on how they were to word the added phrasing) Chair Baltay asked if there were any concluding thoughts on the discussion. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 68     Page 31 of 31 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/04/24 Vice Chair Rosenberg inquired if there was a specific due date when the image and bullet points for the projects were to be finished. Planner Gerhardt noted that the packet was released a week ahead of the meeting, and they were a month out from the next meeting, so two weeks would be feasible to allow Staff to add it to the packet. Vice Chair Rosenberg said that by the next ARB meeting on April 18th they should be done. Chair Baltay reiterated the date the information was expected to be done by, and asked if there were any questions, comments, or announcements from the Board. Planner Gerhardt stated that there was none. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 12:24 p.m. Item 3 Attachment A - Minutes of April 4, 2024     Packet Pg. 69     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 15, 2024 Report #: 2408-3324 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of April 18, 2024 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning (650) 329-2575 Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 70     Page 1 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: April 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 8:32 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock Absent: None Public Comment None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions No changes. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould noted that Boardmember Rosenberg would be gone on May 16 and she would make sure to note that. She gave details of the tentative future agenda to include the Buena Vista Mobile Home Park Streamlined Housing Development Review Study Session on the May 2 agenda followed by Preapproved Parklet Designs, Bird Safe Glazing and Dark Sky Ordinance. For the May 16 agenda, they are planning on the Work Plan, 800 San Antonio ad-hoc hopes to come back and they expect a last minute item of a Master Sign Program for an area in downtown on Litton Avenue. Because all of the board members would not be present, she planned to do elections following the June 6 hearing. Interviews were planned for April 30 for election of the board members by Council. There had been no new projects in the last couple of weeks with the exception of some SB 330 preapplications. She noted there was a new preapplication for 531 Stanford Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 71     Page 2 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 for a housing development project proposing 30 new detached single family homes. She questioned if they wanted to assign an ad-hoc to that item. Boardmember Chen announced she would not be present on June 6. Ms. Raybould advised the planned absence was already noted. Boardmember Adcock announced she would not be present on June 20. Ms. Raybould stated she would talk separately with the Chair about what they want to do about that. Chair Baltay requested picking up discussion of SB 330 preapplications at the next meeting. Action Items 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 660 University Ave. [21PLN-00341]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning (PC/PHZ) on Three Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Deconstruction of Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Construction of a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and 63 Residential Rental Units (48 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 3 2-Bedroom), Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. The Applicant Anticipates a Parcel Map to Subdivide the Office Component from the Residential Component. Environmental Assessment: Environmental Impact Report Circulated for Public Review Beginning on April 2, 2024, and Ending on May 17, 2024. Zoning District: RM-20 (Multi-Family Residential). For More Information Contact the Project Planner, Emily Kallas, at Emily.Kallas@CityofPaloAlto.org. Chair Baltay asked if any board members had any disclosures to make on this project. Boardmember Hirsch commented he visited the site the day before. Boardmember Rosenberg remarked she visited the site earlier in the week. Chair Baltay disclosed that he visited the site and had email correspondence with Sandy Sloan, a local attorney. He did not learn anything that is not in the public record. Boardmember Chen said she visited the site the day before. Boardmember Adcock indicated she visited the site and since she was not there for the December 2022 hearing, she watched the Youtube recording for the previous hearing. Chair Baltay asked for a staff report. Planner Emily Kallas gave a slide presentation providing a project overview, project location, site plan, floor plan, roof plan, elevations compared to prior ARB, key considerations, height and daylight plane, Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 72     Page 3 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 proposed setbacks, proposed parking, tree protection, BMR units, CEQA report, neighbor comments, and recommended motion. Ted Korth, KSH Architects, introduced the project team. He gave a presentation revealing the site of the project, the existing conditions, updated context, revisions from the comments of the December hearing, different views of the project, and floor plans. Paul Lettieri, Guzzardo Partnership, gave a presentation discussing the changes and updates, description of some of the materials being used, the native plantings being used, the roof garden, planting imagery for the roof deck, the existing oak tree, and a cross section of the building in relation to the oak tree. PUBLIC COMMENT Carol Gilbert described the project as an oversized building being shoehorned into a small property. She also mentioned maintaining the privacy of the Hamilton Residence and suggested that space be confined to smaller seating areas, no big TV sets, and possibly some with screening with greenery to abut the Hamilton to cut down on noise. She emphasized ensuring the life of the coastal oak. She spoke about keeping Byron Street safe. She asked the Board to refer to the copies she sent them. Christopher Ream, speaking on behalf of Justine Forbes, Peggy Forbes, Nancy Martin, and Carol Varian, pointed out that the building would be located at what is called the Senior Corner. He spoke about an arborist’s report regarding the tree who said in his professional opinion the tree’s vigor would be negatively impacted to a severe degree as a direct result of the proposed site work. He advised that the Palo Alto Tree Technical Manual mandates that the radius of that tree protection zone is to be 10 times the trunk diameter, which works out to be a 41 foot radius. He provided slides showing a LiDAR root scan of the tree showing how far the roots go. He expressed concern that the construction would damage the tree. He read a statement made by David Babby indicating that they were considering the tree protection zone to be only 25 percent of what it should be. He suggested that the Board insist that they follow the rules and have a 41 foot TPZ and observe that. He mentioned the balconies looking over University Avenue being too close to the sidewalk and he opined the party deck would create a lot of noise and create a nuisance to the neighborhood. Ali Sapirman, speaking on behalf of the Housing Action Coalition who endorse the project. She indicated the Board should have received around 20 letters of support from neighbors that could not be present. She described why their committee would have liked to see the project use the density bonus. She also stated the committee would like to see a reduction on the amount of parking provided for the project and have the parking costs redirected to increasing the overall density. She pointed out that Palo Alto is one of the few cities still out of compliance for their state housing element and that this project would help the City meet its state requirements. Amie Ashton, executive director of Palo Alto Forward, stated the Board should have received letters of support from the organization and its members. Speaking on behalf of herself, she expressed support of the project, the setback exception and the amount of bike parking provided. She urged the Board to provide concrete feedback and direction and recommend that Council approve the project. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 73     Page 4 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Stephen Levy requested moving the project forward. He expressed concern that eventually the developers would give up or go to a builder’s remedy solution. He reiterated the other speakers comments. Faith Brigel, owner of the building across the street on Byron Street, described how the large building would create problems for her tenants. She discussed the likelihood of water drainage due to shallow water level and reduced parking. She opined the project would make the already busy intersection worse. She hoped they would reconsider or make the building smaller. German Guerrero, field representative for the North Cal Carpenters, highlighted the immense potential of the project and the need to hire a responsible general contractor and to give local accredited apprentices opportunities. David Babby, consulting arborist, evaluated Coast Live Oak Tree #10 located on the neighboring site. He maintained he had no plans provided and no design discussed. He was simply asked to provide setbacks and he did so. As the project progressed, he reviewed the design on several occasions and at all times found his recommendations to have been abided by and he anticipated they would achieve success in protecting the tree. He pointed out the City’s tree protection zone and stated that is a guideline provided within the tree technical manual. From that guideline, professionals will identify other setbacks that are still reasonable. He indicated Coast Live Oaks are quite tolerant of impacts to canopy and roots. He has experience since the 90s and with this type of situation with this given setback, he saw no absolute certainty of decline with this tree. He opined the City’s protection measures were adequate. He described a similar situation he was involved with where the tree has and continues to thrive since construction ended 10 years ago. He was confident with their setback with the oak tree. Boyd Smith clarified that the roof deck would be completely isolated by a roof screen from the Hamilton. It would be facing University Avenue. He believed it would be completely shielded visibly and sound wise. He did not see it being an issue for the Hamilton. Chair Baltay asked for the City’s official position regarding the viability of tree #10 surviving construction. Catherine Mondkar, Urban Forestry, commented the City’s position on its viability was that there was work in the tree protection zone; however, it was being mitigated by specific measures such as hand or pneumatic excavation. Any work within the encroachment of the TPZ would be done in the presence of the consulting arborist. They believed the proposed encroachment into the TPZ would be within tolerable levels of industry standards. Additional measures were also being taken regarding a bond that would be required to be placed on the tree. Chair Baltay asked how the tree protection zone was defined. Ms. Mondkar answered all work from where the fence begins going outward to 41 feet would be work in the tree protection zone and would be done within the presence of the consulting arborist, even work done after excavation work. No tools that could impact roots unnecessarily would be used. She clarified that the location of the fence was proposed 30 feet from the tree so any excavation outside of the fence up to 41 feet would be done in the presence of the consulting arborist. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 74     Page 5 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Boardmember Rosenberg asked if it was an accurate assessment that there would be full protection within 20 feet of the tree, from 20 to 30 feet ground disturbances up to a few inches in soil would be allowed, from 30 to 40 feet all work that would be done must be done in the presence of an arborist and beyond 40 feet is free and clear. Ms. Mondkar confirmed that was accurate. Any work outside of the fence still within the tree protection zone, anywhere there would be soil disturbance and any disturbance that has to happen within the fence would have to be overseen by the consulting arborist. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if their department would get an opportunity to review structural methodology for the supports for the whole building and alternatives that might be less impactful on the tree roots. Ms. Mondkar advised they reviewed the entire plan set and all of the structural proposals and foundation recommendations. She stated there are foundations that would be more forgiving toward roots. Boardmember Hirsch observed the perimeter of the building would be likely to impact the perimeter of the tree. He wanted to know if they were reviewing it as it goes up so the tree is going to be entirely under their control how ever it has to be reduced. Ms. Mondkar answered they understand there is a projected 15 percent impact to the canopy, which is acceptable. Boardmember Adcock asked if she was correct that if it was 30 feet to the fence and the building foundation was coming up right to the 30 feet, there would be shoring work beyond that would be inboard of the tree protection fence and would be fully monitored. Ms. Mondkar answered there would be no work proposed near the trunk but any disturbance of the soil or root zone within 41 feet from the trunk must be overseen by the consulting arborist, including the area within the fence. Boardmember Adcock observed balconies would project into the 30 feet and asked if that was allowed to be constructed within the 30 feet tree protection zone and if she was correct that work inside that would impact fully into the 10 feet zone and they would be monitoring onsite the entire workday every day. Ms. Mondkar said there is a 15 percent expected canopy intact where pruning will have to take place and the consulting arborist includes tree protection zoning impact as well as canopy impact. When the proposed balcony is constructed, the consulting arborist would also have to monitor exactly which limb is being cut, where it is being cut and only removing what is necessary to provide clearance and safety. Boardmember Adcock queried if the 15 percent was within the 30 feet setback. Ms. Mondkar explained the impact to the roots and the canopy were on the same side of the tree. The 30-foot setback would be a horizontal impact and the canopy would be a vertical impact. They did not think of the TPZ in the same scope as the canopy impact. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 75     Page 6 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Boardmember Hirsch inquired if they looked at the latest plans that have been submitted. He noted there is a circle showing the 30-foot line all around the tree but there were projections of balconies that extend well within that 30 feet. Ms. Mondkar confirmed she had looked at the latest plans. She explained the balconies would be impacting the canopy which falls under the canopy impact, which 15 percent is within tolerable levels and is considered something that can be approved. Boardmember Hirsch asked if it would be reasonable for the Board to request not to have balconies in those areas due to the impact of the tree or should they allow the applicant to keep the balconies. Ms. Mondkar said that the consulting arborist’s projected impact of 15 percent was based on industry standards of what is generally acceptable, especially for such a good condition tree and the balconies fall within that area. Chair Baltay pointed out that on the plans the balconies would fall within 24 feet of the tree trunk. He questioned if 15 percent reduction makes sense if the tree protection zone is 41. Ms. Mondkar explained that the 15 percent was of the overall canopy, not of just one side. Boardmember Rosenberg was not finding any description around the language surrounding when the arborist needs to be onsite for the duration of construction within which dimension from the tree protection zone in the conditions of approval on packet page 36 under Urban Forestry. She felt having an arborist onsite while they waterproof seemed excessive and wanted understanding of the language. Ms. Mondkar specified that the language “the consulting arborist must be onsite long before waterproofing begins” would be added and modified into the conditions of approval. Ms. Kallas clarified that the conditions of approval currently say that the project is required to meet the CEQA mitigation measures which reference the recommendations from the arborist requiring the arborist to be onsite but they would make it more clear. Ms. Raybould clarified they always require all of the references to recommendations from the arborist to be put into the building permit so they always have to follow the recommendations from the arborist’s report. Chair Baltay wanted to know what the dollar amount of the appraisal bond would be. Ms. Mondkar stated the Urban Forest Division estimated it to be $75,000 with a 150 percent appraised value and wanted to make that recommendation. The consulting arborist has to also provide their appraised value. Boardmember Hirsch requested a description of how the bike room would work. He asked for a calculation of bicyclists who might use the main lobby exit from the bike room in any particular day. Amanda Borden, KSH Architects, described that the bike path to the parking garage is through the front entry of the lobbies and down through the elevator. She added there would be multiple bike parking rooms to provide in excess of the required bike parking. They would be scattered in smaller rooms, two per basement level, for a total of four rooms. She thought it would be difficult to calculate the number Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 76     Page 7 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 of bicyclists who might use the main lobby exit from the bike room on a particular day without knowing the demographic of exactly what types of bikes were being used. The total bike parking being provided would be over 100 stalls. Chair Baltay explained they wanted to see how someone brings their bicycle downstairs. He asked if a tandem bicycle or a bike with a trailer could be brought down the elevator. Ms. Borden used a slide of the plans to demonstrate the bike paths, show the bike rooms and the variety of bike parking styles. Chair Baltay inquired if a tandem bicycle or a bike with a trailer could be brought down the elevator. Ms. Borden indicated those pieces would have to be separated and would not typically go up and down the elevator. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if the lobby area down in the basement would also be used for move in conditions when the building was just beginning. Ms. Borden explained there was a loading and move in at the first floor. She used a slide drawing of the plans to describe the location of a loading stall with a ramp and roll up door where a vehicle could pull up to the site to unload. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if a portion of the sidewalk she pointed out on the plans was accessible by vehicle. Ms. Borden answered perpendicularly a vehicle could pull into the gray loading area. Boardmember Adcock queried if the office tenants wanted access to their bike parking location if they would go to the residential lobby. Ms. Borden stated the office would have the same access, describing it on the plans. She clarified that there would also be short-term bike racks outside both entries. Boardmember Adcock inquired about the location of the trash staging area and if there was an analysis showing how often the garbage would be picked up. Ms. Kallas answered it was at the street within the loading area. The garbage pickup analysis is in the trash management plan and there would be multiple pickups per week for various services. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know if it was standard practice to have the bicycle service for the tenants to come through the main lobby on a building of that size. He asked if there were car ramps that had extra space for a bike to go in and out. Ms. Kallas remarked that it is standard practice to have the bike parking within the parking garage and when the parking garage is above or below grade it is standard practice to go in an elevator. She stipulated that the ramp was of a grade that it was possible for bicyclists to ride their bikes down the parking ramp. She added they would be working with a parking consultant that will advise on different safety measures. She explained the cyclists would not be separated from traffic allowing them to go in and out on the car ramps. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 77     Page 8 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Boardmember Adcock questioned if it was clearly allowed by zoning code to have the balconies into the setback and if the stairs going down to the basement on Middlefield and Byron were allowed to be in the setback or if they were asking for a variance for that. Ms. Borden explained the balconies are allowed to encroach into the setback based on the zoning; however, the stairs typically would not so it is part of what the PHC project is proposing. Related to the setback, the basement was being built right up to the edge of the property line. She wanted to know the excavation plan. Ms. Raybould clarified the project is a planned community rezoning and would have its own ordinance and zoning. Everything they request that did not align with the underlying zoning of RM-30 would have to be written into that ordinance in order to allow for it. She asked if there was a valid reason for building the round columns so close to the edge of the basement wall. She asked if the radius of the ramp from Byron was maxed out in terms of turning. Ms. Borden explained they have not yet figured out if they need to encroach at the City right-of-way for the shoring. With regards to the tree protection, it is included in the arborist’s review and recommendations. The 30-foot setback includes a 5-foot allowance for shoring which will be less at an estimated 2.2-foot depth offset from the foundation wall. That is in the review that Mr. Babby has conducted on the work within that tree area. She thought they could review the space between the columns and the basement wall with the structural engineer. She described how the columns were provided for load bearing. She explained how they were maxed out on turning on the ramp from Byron. Chair Baltay asked if he was understanding correct that the ramp goes up 5 feet from the street and then down into the basement. Ms. Borden confirmed it goes down a horizontal distance of 5 feet at a slope of 1.8 percent. The 5-foot horizontal distance goes from the sidewalk up 1 percent and then back down which was a Public Works requirement. Boardmember Rosenberg queried if any possibility of bringing the basement in and just had piers in the location had been considered, which would be less impactful on the tree root structure. Ms. Borden answered they had not talked specifically about that idea but there were a lot of ideas on the table. They are working with a great structural engineer who are very creative. She anticipated they would most likely have a mat foundation that would be thinner at the ramp than the rest of the garage. She hoped they would not end up with any additional vertical supports below that foundation which would be easier for waterproofing and less invasive. She thought everyone was on the same page regarding minimizing impact on the tree. Boardmember Chen asked for clarification on the lack of screening in some areas. She asked why there were balconies on some units above B1 and not others. She wanted to know if it was intentional that on the B4 units the dotted line of the 30 foot tree protection zone went into the wall of the building. Mr. Korth answered explained described the mechanical enclosures set back from the edge of the roof in that area providing privacy from the other side of the building. He stated if the Board did not feel the Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 78     Page 9 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 screening was adequate it could be increased. He stated that one comment they heard at the first meeting was that there were too many balconies which is why some were removed. Mr. Smith explained they were trying to have as many balconies as they could and the ones included were not in the protected area. Mr. Babby explained that the dotted line on B4 was the 30-foot offset line. That specific setback established for the canopy did consider an additional 5 to 6 feet to erect construction scaffolding along the perimeter of the building. The balconies now encompass that space. It was discussed internally about how to construct those and it is addressed in his report that they are acceptable provided there is no construction scaffolding needed along the outside of the balcony. The design team and contractor have been looking at how to construct those balconies. His assessment of the 30 feet considered the additional 5 to 6 feet toward the tree. Chair Baltay requested clarification of the design intent regarding the glazing panels for the west facing windows in unit E2. He wanted to know the design intent of some of the material samples. He queried how the white horizontal lap siding is detailed at the corners where it returns to the windows. Boardmember Adcock asked if the intent was a form liner or real wood board form. She questioned if the intent was to do form lined precast panels that are mechanically fastened to the building. She asked about the glass intended for the railings of all the balconies. She queried what the plan was for the divider for the balconies between units. Mr. Korth explained there are some opaque panels and some vision panels. The dark version could be a shadow box and the behind it would be an opaque panel with the intention to have the building not appear completely solid. He indicated a revision would be required on that portion of the plan. He advised they could not figure out a way to bring in a real piece of board formed concrete so they got a panel of a material that replicates it as a color and texture material. They wanted to find panels that can provide the same feel. He stated the intent was ideally a form liner and explained it had better properties from a water proofing perspective. He remarked that it could be a veneer if the material achieves their goal in terms of the texture. A precast panel might be too thick for a wood frame construction. They would do everything to make sure it looks the way it has been rendered. He offered to run the actual panel by the Board with they get it. He described the lap siding as a Hardie Board product and stated he would like to do a reentrant corner where the panels meet. The balcony railings would be clear, laminated, tempered glass. He said the divider between the balconies would be a double pane of glass with a translucent inner layer to provide privacy. It would go up to the window height balcony to balcony with vertical support at both locations. Boardmember Chen wanted to know what material the railings above the garage exit would be. She asked how tall the concrete base and opening would be. Boardmember Adcock asked if the 42-inch tall gate was for security because somebody could jump it at that height. She inquired if there would be some type of keypad entry on the garage doors. Mr. Korth answered the railings would be metal and described the design that would make it transparent. The concrete base will be 3.6 feet above the concrete band which is 1.9 feet tall. He agreed Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 79     Page 10 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 that somebody could jump the 42-inch gate but advised that at the bottom there were doors going into each garage so it was secure. He said they had not gotten into a security overlay but the keypad entry would be a good idea. Boardmember Hirsch did not think having the apartments in the middle of the tree was reasonable and thought the building should be set back where the tree impacts it. He suggested improving the façade by duplexing the ends of the building with a bridge element and considering the possibility of sunshades to add texture and detail to the building. He thought they should be listening to some of the suggestions about what to do about the foundation without disturbing the tree. Boardmember Adcock thought they could achieve the look of the color difference without pretending to be concrete. Regarding the Hardie Boards, she recommended going a tone darker. She suggested turning the elevator to face the lobby. She did not think they needed the extra 3 feet into the tree zone. She thought the extra 5 feet for the ramp was also encroaching into the tree zone and urged her colleagues to recommend another 3 feet around the tree. Boardmember Chen agreed with the suggestion to work with the structure engineer to see whether the basement wall could push back a few feet. She suggested widening the ramps from 5 feet. She expressed concern with the encroachment to Middlefield and suggested to push it back 5 feet and align the setback with the Hamilton senior housing. Boardmember Rosenberg commented that maybe a portion of B3 could be one of the F1s to pull back from the canopy and request that it becomes two units. She read a statement about the responsibility of the ARB and stated they were put in a difficult situation when they risk 63 new potential units for the sake of one tree in a housing deficit. She thought the project deserved to move forward. Chair Baltay suggested changing the tree zone to 28 feet to avoid having permanent buildings in the tree zone at 30 feet. He believed they needed to have strong, clear language in the conditions of approval that are printed on the drawing set regarding the arborist’s inspections. It was his position that the bond amount should be two times the appraised value bond. He thought the elevation on the corner of University and Byron needed to be modified to be real windows. He thought the roof deck screening was necessary. He was dissatisfied with the bicycle access and felt there needed to be better efforts to make the ramps safe. He was disappointed they had not found a way to fit the bike parking on the main level and thought a chunk of the commercial section over the ramp behind the lobby for the residential building would make a great bike parking area. He thought the white horizontal lap siding was the wrong choice and should be white or lightly colored plaster. He wanted to see more detail on how the board formed concrete effect comes about. He supported the idea of getting the foundation revisions to pull the foundation as far as possible from the tree. He was comfortable with the reduced setback on University Avenue. He agreed with changing the apartment units, especially the ones facing the tree but he opined that the project needs to be approved and he did not want to see them do further redesign. Boardmember Chen wanted to know the whole Board’s opinion about the setback along Middlefield. She asked if the applicant would consider a 15 or 16 foot reduction. She said looking at the rendering on the cover page, the trees down the road could be seen and there was nothing in front of this building. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 80     Page 11 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Boardmember Hirsch commented that he did not think there was a lot of pedestrian traffic along that piece of the street and thought it would be reasonable to narrow the pedestrian path to allow a tree pit or eliminating the staircase to widen the sidewalk. He also presented an alternative of having a single, longer run of stairs. He thought the setback was adequate. Boardmember Adcock thought the setback was fine but was bothered by the stairs in the setback because it would prevent a bike lane on Middlefield unless one of the two lanes of streets became a dedicated bike lane. If they ask for a deeper setback but the basement goes up to the setback, the sidewalk would not go over the podium in the future if the road gets widened. She thought in the struggle of bike lane versus density that density was more important. Boardmember Rosenberg opined the setback was an acceptable solution. Boardmember Chen wanted to reconsider having more trees along the street. She agreed with reconfiguring the stairway going up to ground level to push it back a few feet. Chair Baltay found Boardmember Hirsch’s comments to be germane. He did not understand why the foundation has to go to the property line along the full frontage or what the point of the staircase was. He thought pulling the foundation back in line with the buildings would let greater landscaping take place and would address Boardmember Chen’s comments. Boardmember Adcock observed the stair stack could go all the way to the two levels of basement instead of jogging to the outside. Boardmember Hirsch found the impact of the tree was too serious to minimize and could not approve it without the setback. Boardmember Rosenberg countered to imagine that the tree was slightly closer to the property and the property owner had the decision whether or not to cut the tree down. The reason the tree has to be protected is partly because it is not actually on the property. The property is being impacted by a neighbor’s decision to keep the tree. She agreed with respecting the tree but also understood that the client that owns the property and pushing the project forward is doing the best they can with the situation at hand. She did not want the project to come to a halt because of a tree they do not have control over when in an alternate situation the tree might be cut down altogether. Chair Baltay stated Boardmember Hirsch’s suggestions to make the four units into two and turn the other direction made sense but was a significant reduction in unit count. He opined that they were all convinced that the tree was going to be adequately protected. The question was the viability of the units and if the applicant wishes to build these units in this way and feel the apartments are not quite as viable, he was willing to let them run with that. Boardmember Hirsch countered they already have an exception to a height limitation so they could raise both ends of the building. He thought the volume of this building would be enhanced if they were allowed to build it higher. Boardmember Rosenberg argued that the four-story is a respectful, appropriate height for the area it is in and she did not think it should come back to the drawing board on those grounds. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 81     Page 12 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Boardmember Hirsch indicated he was not suggesting raising it two floors but raising the ends of the building. Boardmember Adcock maintained that was asking for a redesign and it was three years into their work and she did not think they should do that. She recommended removing the balconies from the protected zone but not changing the unit count. The upper floors could still be at 30 feet off the edge of the tree trunk but the basement could go another 3 feet without impacting the structure. She thought they should maintain the 30 foot canopy and 33 feet for the root zone and not push back to redesign. Chair Baltay suggested making it 28 up top and no balconies. Boardmember Adcock thought there was a graphic area because it was 30 on some floors and 28 on others and she wanted them to check that. Mr. Korth explained there is a difference between floors. The basement and ground floor are 30 and it is less at the upper floors. Chair Baltay asked if the boardmembers could support the project. Boardmember Hirsch could not support the project unless the substantial changes he suggested were explored. Boardmember Chen requested making the upper units smaller and pushing the basement inward. She suggested making unit B and E1 smaller. Boardmember Adcock asked if Boardmember Chen was suggesting that it shrink 5 feet or so to make the 10 feet into a 15 feet or trying to go the full 24. She restated her position that if they can get the 10 foot setback to grade versus the 10 feet being a podium would be better future proofing of the space than to push the upper floors back another several feet. Boardmember Chen was suggesting the 15 to align with the other buildings. She wanted staff input on the setback. Chair Baltay asked if there was anything in motion to put a bicycle lane along Middlefield Avenue. Female answered there are lots of plans in the works but nothing specific they are aware of. They have been trying as best as possible to perverse the special setbacks for potentially future bike lanes but that is just speculation at this point. Boardmember Rosenberg thought it was unlikely that they would move the entire sidewalk down the entire length of Middlefield to get a new bike lane in. Her issue with the project was that it is a big picture item with a lot of potentially long-term consequences. She opined it would set a precedent for new setbacks, for how they want to build in the downtown area and how important new housing is for them. She thought they, as the Board, were being tasked with if they think this is the direction the City wants to go. Chair Baltay stated it would be hard to change the 10-foot setback. He said it was probably possible to get the foundation changed. He asked Boardmember Chen if moving the foundation back and Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 82     Page 13 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 conditioning more trees and landscaping review along the elevation would mitigate the 10 feet sufficiently. Boardmember Rosenberg stated she preferred the podium. She pointed out the retail down the road were all right on the sidewalk. This would anchor a significant portion of downtown from where the shops are to this building and every building in between there would start filling out to the 10-foot setback. She did not think it was a bad thing. She was okay with the 10-foot setback. Motion of Approval Recommend that Council approve the project with the following conditions of approval to return to an ARB ad hoc committee: 1. The tree protection zone be 33 feet at grade level and 30 feet above grade level; that conditions of approval be added to say that the arborist recommendation be followed; that the bond be increased to 200%; that the balconies be removed on the units projecting into the tree canopy. 2. Review the window design on the Byron street elevation for units E2 to provide more transparency. 3. Provide roof deck screening of a minimum of 6 feet high for the roof deck facing south. 4. Include greater specification of all materials, include complete material specifications and samples, the corner details, reduce the LRV level of the white paint finish to 83 or less. 5. Revise the foundation design to maintain a 10-ft setback along Middlefield Road except that the stairs may encroach to the minimum degree necessary for access. 6. Provide at least 25% of the long-term bicycle parking readily accessible at grade. MOTION: Chair Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Rosenberg. Motion carries 3-2 (Hirsh and Chen dissenting) Chair Baltay assigned Boardmembers Adcock and Rosenberg to the ARB Ad Hoc and offered the no votes a chance to speak to their vote. Boardmember Chen appreciated the addition of item 5. She opposed the setback because of the landscape and trees and if it was too close would eliminate the future flexibility. Boardmember Hirsch thought his suggestions had value, would make a better building and even more interesting arrangement of apartments at the top of the building. The setback is a necessity and would ultimately be a problem for the building due to the tree growth and that side of the building would be better if there were a reduced amount of extension into the tree. The ARB took a 10 minute break. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 83     Page 14 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 The ARB resumed with all present except Boardmember Rosenberg. Action Items 3. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 3265 El Camino Real [24PLN-00012]: Consideration of Applicant's Request to Rezone the Subject Parcel from Commercial Services (CS) to Planned Community/Planned Home Zoning Application (PC/PHZ) and to Construct a 100% affordable, Five-story, 44 Dwelling Unit Residential Rental Project. Environmental Assessment: Initial Study/15183 Exemption. For more information contact the project planner at Garrett.Sauls@Cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Baltay inquired if any boardmembers had disclosures. Boardmember Adcock announced she had visited the site and that her office is on Lambert about 300 feet from the site but she does not own the property. Boardmember Chen stated she visited the site the day prior. She parked behind the lot and wanted to point out that she saw a big window on the hotel side that was only a couple of feet from the property line which did not show on the drawing. She understood that it is much taller than the hotel building so there might be privacy issues but maybe not much. Chair Baltay disclosed that he visited the site earlier in the week. Boardmember Hirsch indicated he had not visited the site recently. He did drive by it a few days prior. Garrett Sauls, project planner, provided a slide presentation describing the application background/process, project overview, Affordable Housing Incentive Program, project location, floor plans, elevations, parking lift sections, trash collection, additional considerations, Council and PTC feedback/comments and recommended motion. Boardmember Rosenberg rejoined the meeting and disclosed that she had visited the site. Isaiah Stackhouse, applicant from Trachtenberg Architects, provided a slide presentation discussing the background and details of the project, context plan, recap of the September study session with Council, progress from January to March, the ground level plan that was included in the package, an alternate plan, a typical residential floor plan, the rooftop plan, a building section plan, building elevations, proposed materials, a view looking northwest along El Camino Real, a view looking southeast along El Camino Real, and a view of ground level entry along El Camino Real. Amie Ashton, executive director of Palo Alto Forward, expressed the organization’s support for this project and the City’s need for more dwelling units. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 84     Page 15 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Boardmember Adcock queried the intent of the egress corridor on the first floor. She asked if the one- hour tunnel on the upper left of the front is an enclosed interior space. Mr. Stackhouse explained it is essentially a side yard that allows egress from the rear stair and access to the bike room. It is proposed as a 6-foot plastered wall. He stated the one-hour tunnel was still completely exterior. At the front, this portion of the building extends over the side yard. There is an open air gate. On the roof level plan, it can be seen that the vast majority is open to sky on the side yard but coming back to the typical unit plans, in order to fit a full one bedroom unit they extended a unit over. Boardmember Chen asked how the people that park their cars in the garage can get through the lobby and to their units. She wanted to know if the restroom on the ground floor was code required. She asked if they were required to have two fire exits on the roof garden. Mr. Stackhouse pointed out on the plans where the people could enter the building from the garage. He indicated the restroom on the ground floor was particular to the project sponsor as something for building maintenance. He explained because the occupiable space is 750 or under, that allows 49 occupants and works with a single exit. If they get above 49 occupants, it turns into an A occupancy and they have to build the building out of concrete which would be unfeasible so they keep the occupiable to 750 and the space itself requires only one exit; however, any occupied floor via the California Building Code needs two exits so the floor has the two egress stairs but the space itself only needs one. Chair Baltay questioned if there would be a garage door on the elevation for the entrance. Mr. Stackhouse stated they were proposing a garage door there. Boardmember Rosenberg queried how fast that garage door would open and close. She wanted to know where trash collection would be located. She wanted the reasoning for having the electrical room located at the ground floor across from the elevator. Mr. Stackhouse answered that the garage door opens and closes quick. He added that there is a 12-foot setback and the door itself is at another 3 feet for a total of 15 feet as it opens. There would be security issues with leaving it open. He stated due to the small size of the project, tenants would bring their trash to the trash room on their own. The location of the electrical room was necessary in order to get the lines run due to the size of the building and for easy access by PG&E and the City. There was request to get an access door into that electrical meter room from the sidewalk but they were able to find a compromise where they could come in through the side gate and did not have to add one more door to the facade. Boardmember Hirsch asked about the backflow preventer and some of the plumbing. He questioned if the post office requires that they keep everything on one side. He asked if somebody would have to go back outside, turn the corner and come back in at the handicap spot in order to access the garbage area if coming down by elevator. He wanted details on the lighting. Mr. Stackhouse pointed out the backflow preventers on the screen. He indicated the package and mail area could get split to multiple sides of the lobby. He confirmed he was correct about the access to the garbage area. They looked at options to try to bring the trash up to the front but effectively they would Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 85     Page 16 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 have to shift everything down accordingly to get not only the bins but clearance in front of the bins and they would lose a stack or two of parking. They had been charged by Council and PTC to get as much parking as they possibly could. He pointed out lighting details near the end of the plan set. Boardmember Chen wanted to be sure there would be no privacy impact between the two units on the second floor sheet A 2.2. Boardmember Hirsch wondered if there was a method in which they could go through the stairwell to access to the garbage. He suggested moving the postal boxes to the opposite side giving an opportunity to have a door in that area. He wondered if it would be possible to make it a little more exciting by breaking the top parapet so there was an opening that led out to something over one of the window boxes. He asked if there was a limitation in some way to the extent of the bay windows. He suggested giving the rooftop more life with possibly a canopy and Juliet balconies or bay windows on the sides. He expressed concern about ventilation of the apartments facing the street. He opined that it would be better if the planter in the back were a skylight. Mr. Stackhouse explained much thought was given to access to the garbage area. He pointed out on the plans why other areas would not work to access the garbage area due to the tight space but they were open to ideas. He supposed they could look if they could set back a door vestibule enough that someone could step out safely but they would have to traverse down the driveway which made him uncomfortable. He indicated the bay windows can extend further out but as they get close together privacy issues start to occur between the units. If the windows extend out too far, the base building can no longer be seen and it will start to look like an office building. Boardmember Rosenberg thought the east building elevation was the most visible but less exciting than the west side. She suggested looking at color and material change. She found the front a little repetitive but she liked it. Mr. Stackhouse said they could explore doing side windows to help activate the façade. Boardmember Adcock was not sure who would maintain the areas of planters between the patios on the A2.2 level two plan. She was curious how privacy between unit patios would be addressed. She assumed there was a code reason why the egress corridor is outdoors. She wondered if the one-hour rated tunnel could be enclosed. She commented about traffic flow issues in and out of the garage getting cars out of the stackers. Mr. Stackhouse stated if the egress court was fully interior, it would be an exit passageway. Exit passageways cannot have any unoccupied spaces, mechanical rooms or anything else off of them so an MEP design would not work if that were interior. Chair Baltay echoed Boardmember Chen’s concern about privacy with the window at the hotel. He agreed with Boardmember Hirsch’s concern about access between the parking area and lobby and thought it should be high priority. He thought Boardmember Rosenberg’s concern about the view of the side of the building going up El Camino northward or southward was important. He suggested a window or decorative reveal and extended around to the back of the building. He agreed with Boardmember Adcock’s concerns about the planters at the back, the gate at the front and the garage door. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 86     Page 17 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Mr. Saul wanted to know if Boardmember Rosenberg’s comments would also be directed to the southbound facing side of the building. Boardmember Rosenberg indicated the southbound façade looked more interesting. MOTION: Vice Chair Rosenberg made a motion to continue to a date uncertain. She would like to see that next date be after the CEQA is available so a motion can be made on it, seconded by [Inaudible 4:39:40]. VOTE: 5-0 The ARB took a lunch break until 1:30. The ARB returned with all members present. Study Session 4. Study Session to Review the Proposed Ordinance Implementing the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan (NVCAP) and to Receive Stakeholder Comments on the Draft Supplemental Environmental Impact Report for the Proposed Project. Kelly Cha, project planner, gave a slide presentation about the Draft North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan including study session objectives, a timeline of the project, NVCAP goals and objectives, the NVCAP plan area, Council endorsed plan, document contents, transition of commercial properties to mixed-use and residential, NVCAP land use designation and PAMC zoning designation crosswalk, PAMC zoning implementation and the next steps. Chair Baltay asked if there were any public comments. Cedric dLB was happy to see support and encouragement for rooftop gardens as well as good access to the renaturalized creek. He hoped the zoning areas would dissuade any development through the area the creek would expand into. He wondered if there were additional ways to incentivize more rooftop gardens. He hoped for a solution to clean up the ground pollution so the creek could have full contact with the earth. Chair Baltay suggested they focus on diving into the tables that start on packet page 124. Boardmember Chen wanted a definition of interior rear yards, asked if the larger lots would be divided to smaller ones and wanted to know the location of the rear yards. Ms. Cha answered they would remove the term interior. She stated it was basically anything opposite of the street. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 87     Page 18 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Ms. Raybould explained that they may have intended it to be interior because there was a scenario where the rear yard was facing a street. She stated they would take note of it and make sure of what they want on that. Boardmember Chen suggested having a minimum percentage requirement on minimum landscape/open space coverage for residential. Boardmember Rosenberg recalled some of the interior rear yard may have also been to cover some potentials for townhouses, etc. where there is a huge block of high density residential. Boardmember Adcock thought there was a difference between the minimum usable open space that can be balconies or rooftop versus the minimum landscape open space coverage of the site which is why R4 says none and they just need to be consistent. She stated in this section there is no 100 percent maximum lot coverage. It is 45 percent in R4. Chair Baltay stated they could certainly have some percentage of landscape coverage. Ms. Cha remarked the RM-40 currently requires 20 percent and they could require 20 percent in this area, as well. Boardmember Adcock commented that both on R3 and R4 there is the maximum lot coverage which is 40 percent for R3 and 45 for R4 and then minimum landscape/open space is 30 percent and none. She did not understand why that did not add up to 100 percent. Boardmember Rosenberg answered there is also the possibility of paving and she was not sure that counts as open landscape space. They need to clarify open space/landscape. Chair Baltay opined 45 percent was too low. Boardmember Rosenberg was in agreement. She thought 60 percent would be a nice increase in that area. She did not know why they would want NV-R3 and NV-R4 to be dramatically different. Boardmember Chen thought it would depend on the parcel size considering the setback requirements. Boardmember Adcock remarked they were trying to determine the maximum so if the setback makes it less than it is less. If the base lot coverage for R3 is more like 60 percent and R4 is more like 80 percent, then 80 percent and 20 percent of landscaping, there can be other stipulation that the landscaping has to be pervious or otherwise it counts as lot coverage. That is more in the stormwater management side of things but it does seem like the two highest density areas are asking for pretty low lot coverage. Chair Baltay agreed. Boardmember Chen asked if “landscape coverage may be provided above the ground floor” meant if there is a roof garden on the second floor it will be counted to the open space or landscape coverage. Female answered they should likely change that because they do want some shrubbery and perimeter landscaping but open space would be okay with providing on the upper floors so they need to move that note. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 88     Page 19 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Boardmember Rosenberg reiterated that on packet page 125 they were looking to create the maximum base coverage of the NV-R3 at 60 percent and the NV-R4 at maybe 70, 75 or 80 percent. She wanted to throw out the number 70 and see where it would land. On packet page 126, the minimum landscape/open space coverage for the NV-R4 should be 20 percent. She thought there should be a notation saying 50 percent needs to be permeable. Chair Baltay asked if they have definitions of open space and if there is any restriction on impermeable or permeable. Ms. Raybould answered for single family residential, there are certain areas that have 60 percent permeability on the front yard areas but for other areas they do not have permeable versus impermeable. It is something they evaluate as part of a CEQA analysis. She also noted that sometimes they do permeable pavers so depending on how they feel about that they might specify if they want it to be landscaping, etc. Boardmember Rosenberg thought the goal was to make sure these things are not all sitting in concrete islands. Chair Baltay remarked they were jumping into a new set of regulations. Ms. Raybould commented they did have C3 municipal stormwater requirements that do end up minimizing to some degree but there are a lot of different nuances to that in terms of how the design is engineered and where the bioswale and everything needs to be. Chair Baltay stated the C3 jumps into various levels of engineering. He said Boardmember Rosenberg was talking about preserving some form of natural permeability on all sites. He did not think they had that anywhere except for residential in Palo Alto. He asked if the intention was to start that now. He thought it was reasonable to think about. His understanding was that the purpose of open space was for livability aspects. He queried if they should be looking at ecological or environmental concerns. Boardmember Adcock concurred with Chair Baltay about the boundary of reach versus overreach because when they increase the lot coverage to 70 or 80 percent in that R4 area and if it is built out to that much then a very small area is left for open space. She agreed that the C3 would take care of managing the stormwater itself and back to Chair Baltay that it is about livability. Whether it is permeable pavers, nice pavers but not permeable plus landscaping, she thought the balancing of lot coverage versus open space was in their purview. Chair Baltay stated that the entire Piazza San Marco was impermeable and still the best open space in the world. Boardmember Chen excused herself and said she would watch the video and if she wanted to add anything she would send an email. Boardmember Adcock thought if there was a wrinkle of open space being allowed above grade then the maximum lot coverage by building is the main thing they want to make sure they drive down to. She opined it needs to be more than 40 and 45. She wanted clarity on whether the lot coverage includes or excludes below grade. On the mixed use development standards on page 126 on the bottom left, the Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 89     Page 20 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 minimum site specification on the MXL is blank so she was curious if that was intended to be none or if it should be something. On the higher density sections, maximum lot coverage on packet page 127 for both MXM and MXH is 100 percent lot coverage so basically says if it is MXH and 0 open space required. In this case, she had the opposite concern because it is fully covered and there is no open space required on or above grade. She would like to discuss that further. Ms. Cha remarked those purple parcels are MXH and are on El Camino Real and Lambert and then also along Park Boulevard and MXM are orange parcels along El Camino Real as well as Lambert. Chair Baltay questioned where else in town has 100 percent lot coverage allowed. Ms. Cha answered she believed downtown also has 100 percent. She was not sure about the other commercial districts. Chair Baltay asked if any of the current zoning districts along El Camino allow 100 percent coverage. Ms. Raybould answered no except for under the Housing Incentive Program there was no maximum on lot coverage so for housing projects they would be able to. Female remarked the commercial zones can be 100 percent and many have 50 percent max. Ms. Raybould countered that then it has open space and landscaping requirements so it effectively ends up reducing it. Chair Baltay said there are landscape and open space requirements that eat into that even though there is no requirement. Boardmember Adcock confirmed that adding here they were saying maximum lot coverage 100 percent and landscape coverage required none so it can be completely solid concrete with no requirement. She remarked that seemed extreme on the other side of the R3 and R4 they were just talking about. Chair Baltay stated these are mixed use so might be office or retail at the ground level or parking lot and depends if the low grade parking is going to be to the perimeter. If that is how it is designed, it needs to say that. Boardmember Adcock said on packet page 128, she wanted them to think about the maximum ground floor height of 14 feet which in a lot of cases feels generous but also not if there are large volume spaces. She stated parking garages are fine at 14 feet but if there is any kind of event type venue or A1, A2, E2 or E3 space, it felt short to her to limit it to 14 feet. Ms. Cha thought they initially had 15 feet but changed to 14 to be consistent with the objective standards unless the Board feels there should be a higher height. Boardmember Rosenberg questioned if there is a minimum and maximum. for the first floor. Female answered the objective standards say a minimum of 14 feet so they would change the language. Ms. Cha said they did not have a maximum. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 90     Page 21 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Boardmember Adcock did not think a maximum was needed and it should be up to the designers based on the volume of the square footage. Boardmember Rosenberg asked if they wanted to do a lobby atrium that goes five stories tall, there would be no penalization for that. Female read the entire objective standard. Boardmember Rosenberg thought they needed the abutting building stipulation but that the minimum 14-foot floor to floor was appropriate. Chair Baltay asked why they would put a duplicate regulation there if the objective standards apply to everything they were looking at. Ms. Cha answered it was for the ease of the implementation but they could remove them to make sure there is no inconsistency. Boardmember Rosenberg announced she had to leave. Boardmember Hirsch questioned the density of R30 and R40. Ms. Cha explained they have anticipated density for all of the NV zoning districts which she believed was in a table on one of the slides. They did have minimum density per unit listed there but the intention was that with the four area ratio and development standards, those development standards would create the density and they had no maximum density listed there so the design can actually dictate those requirements. Boardmember Hirsch said that was good because the projects that will be coming in were much denser than R30 or R40. The low income housing project between Olive and Acacia is 129 units and a little over an acre so is significantly higher than 30 or 40 per acre. Ms. Cha stated it is not unlimited but there is no maximum density set for these districts because they want the development standards to allow higher density in this area. Chair Baltay thought the specified street yard setback seemed too big on packet page 124. He thought it seemed if you have a 20-foot setback for residential, there would be a place for a car to pull up in front. If trying to increase housing density, 10 feet or less should be plenty and he would leave it to architectural design and landscaping to get a greater sense of privacy but on these properties that impacts the use of potential housing. He suggested that 12.5 number be 10. He would like to see the minimum setbacks on table 2 on Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue reduced to 10, as well. For maximum height, he thought a better way to do the zoning was to have setbacks that are realistic to the area and use a daylight plane. He suggested getting rid of the maximum height as it stands. Ms. Cha stated the maximum might have been part of the endorsed plan by City Council but for the 30 abutting the residential, they could leave it blank or remove it so that the daylight plane can dictate the height for that. Boardmember Adcock was concerned that if the lot is one giant lot, daylight plane could let the building be 100 feet tall. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 91     Page 22 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Chair Baltay said the 35-foot limit for within 50-feet of residential should be eliminated and let the daylight plane cover that issue. Boardmember Hirsch remarked they started the daylight plane a lot higher in a commercial situation previously and there was some talk about reducing the daylight plane to 6 feet instead of starting at 10. That bothered him. Chair Baltay stated that was referring to the R1 properties where there were uncertain situations where they wanted the daylight plan to start at a lower level. He thought the beauty of this was when getting to an objective standard and using a daylight plane, there could be more specificity about the shape of the daylight plane given the context. He thought they could tweak it and revisit whether it starts at 6 feet but establishing that as the means by which they were trying to regulate the mass of building was more effective than plain height limits. Boardmember Hirsch agreed except that a maximum height could be established. Boardmember Adcock said that 35 and 55 is basically saying you can build a 3 or 4-story and did they want to recommend going 1 story higher and go to 45 and 65 for R3. Chair Baltay commented if they wanted to say 6-story building, it needed to be 65 feet. Boardmember Hirsch was okay with that. Chair Baltay asked if they should see what Council says about MV3, R3 and R4’s maximum height of 65. Female commented that in the objective standards, the daylight plane starts at 25 feet and asked if that was the version they were looking for. Chair Baltay confirmed that was correct and asked if that was contextually based depending on buildings next door and zoning. Female stated it says if the project is not subject to a daylight plane pursuant to something else but they would be referring back to here where there is nothing that says to use the R1 standards when adjacent to R1 so there is not that catch. They would have a daylight plane that starts at 25 feet. Chair Baltay thought it was impossible to build a 4-story building with a daylight plane starting at 10 feet. Boardmember Adcock said they could recommend 65 feet but based on daylight plane that zone of R3 will never hit 65 feet. Chair Baltay said if the townhomes they approved were to never get built, this would apply to that whole area. His understanding was that part of this exercise was that they want to have zoning of the whole lot in place even if it is already being built out or the cannery site was not going to be built. Ms. Cha confirmed that adding that the entire NV-R3 project did not get fulfilled, there is a chance City Council can adopt an amendment to the zoning to allow this R3 but until then the PC district that was rezoned would actually apply. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 92     Page 23 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Chair Baltay asked if he was correct that they were talking about making maximum height standard 35 and 55 for R3 and R4 65 on both. Boardmember Adcock answered she would say 50 and 65 but she could go with 65 on both. Chair Baltay referred to page 126 regarding mixed use on NV-MXM stating he thought it should be 10 or less on Pepper and Olive Street instead of 12.5. He asked what the density of the units per acre were on the approved project on the Cannery site. Female believed that was 19.3 units per acre so 16. Chair Baltay did not think that was a strong minimum and they should look for a higher minimum. Boardmember Hirsch thought that was strong. Boardmember Adcock said when you can go taller you can put more in the same square footage. She agreed 16 per acre was low. Chair Baltay said if it is 61 for R4, they should go for something more substantial on R3. He asked where they came up with 61. Female answered 16 came from RM-40. It might have been adjusted different after looking at it. R40 is the largest site after the cannery. Within the plant area, they might have envisioned a higher density for that particular lot or parcel. Boardmember Adcock stated the only consideration on this is if they ask for higher density per acre on R3. She wondered how many townhouses that would be or disqualify townhouses. Boardmember Hirsch added they also want open space and if they overload it they will never get any open space. Chair Baltay said if they had 30 units per acre, that would mean on a quarter acre lot they would have 7.5 or 8 units. He thought it was reasonable. Ms. Cha explained they do have minimum density for MXM of 31 units per acre so that might be something they would like to consider. Boardmember Adcock added thinking about the types of development. In the R3 area, if it is limited to 16 then it allows townhouses versus R4 that allows more versus if they say 30 per acre in R3, then it is 1400 square foot per unit and they would not get a townhouse. She did not think they should go there. ] Chair Baltay was in agreement. He said he was asking to change setbacks on page 126 for mixed use from 12.5 to 10. Ms. Cha said that was for both low as well as medium density mixed use. Chair Baltay stated he was trying to make it consistent. He was concerned they were being too generous on the balcony encroachments on page 127. He did not think a permanent part of the building encased by the footprint should go into the setback. He thought eaves and balconies should be four or five feet but six feet was a lot. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 93     Page 24 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Boardmember Adcock said it basically said the building is build right up to the setback and then do a 5- foot minimum balcony out into the setback. Female said code section 18.40 talks about allowed projections into yards being uncovered porches, stairs, landings, balconies or fire escapes may extend not more than 6 feet into a required front or rear yard and may extend no more than 3 feet into a side yard. Chair Baltay remarked that is different than the way he was interpreting it. The stair there is an exterior access stair like a front porch. Female stated the code is not 100 percent clear but when you put them together, porches, stairways, landings, balconies and fire escapes seem to be more unenclosed spaces. Chair Baltay said if he came to them with an unenclosed stair that went the full height of the building they would deny it. The intent was a stair coming out of a house or the front entrance to a building or something required for an emergency exit at ground level and those should be allowed to project into the setbacks. Boardmember Adcock said it could be clarified to say exterior stairways or unenclosed. Female said they could refer back to 18.40. Ms. Raybould said they have always interpreted it to be enclosed areas. Chair Baltay suggested that things like balconies on the six foot project was substantial and he thought it should be four or five feet. Ms. Raybould said that has always been standard. Chair Baltay did not want to change that. Boardmember Adcock questioned what the setback means if you can build up to the lot line below grade particularly when the first floor is on a podium. Chair Baltay was in favor of making a new standard saying it is that zone from the grade to three feet down. Boardmember Adcock agreed with that. Boardmember Hirsch was okay with that. Female thought if they felt comfortable with that answer, they would start with NVCAP and have code changes that happen all the time and they could talk about bringing it to the rest of the City. Chair Baltay remarked they were conceptually saying that all the lot coverage calculations and setbacks apply to the property from a depth of three feet below the grade up. Anything that happens below that is not regulated the same way. Female stated they could talk to Urban Forestry to see what that depth would be to get a decent size tree. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 94     Page 25 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Chair Baltay said three feet was their guess and they should adjust that number and make sure it works. Boardmember Hirsh added that in reality, oftentimes the underneath will be used as a parking area so this is a kind of a compromised number. Chair Baltay pointed out they had maximum lot coverage for the MXM and MXH zones at 100 percent which is in sync with other commercial zones in town. He asked if that made sense or if they should push for some level of open space on every project. Boardmember Adcock thought the minimum landscape open space coverage which can be above grade is what they should ask for a little bit more than five and none if it is mixed use development. Chair Baltay was in favor of as much as 10 percent. He felt if a code is set that pushes to make taller buildings with more space around them that is better urban planning. He was in favor of changing packet page 127 minimum landscape coverage second to the bottom line from 5 and none to 10 and 10 percent. He added it should say there is no lot coverage requirement. He asked why MXL has a 5 percent. Ms. Cha answered the MXL is very small areas and they were trying to retain the existing characteristics so decided to keep the 50 percent there. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the area next to the NV-PF zone was a historic building. He asked about the metal building on NV-MXM facing the park in the corner. Ms. Raybould confirmed that was a historic building covered under the development agreement to remain as is. The metal building is part of the development agreement, as well, and would remain as is. She stated the way everything is designed is what they want to have in general in this area. Under the development agreement, they cannot rezone or redesignate for 10 years so everything is being presented as the way they have generally proposed the entire area. The way they have written the zoning ordinance is that it does not include actual rezoning of these areas so these development standards will not apply right now. If the developer does not fulfill the development agreement, then the City will come back and establish the zoning under the NVCAP. Boardmember Adcock said for that lot it does not matter and they should just recommend none required for MXM and MXH. Female stated the 100 percent and none was the same and they would figure out how to word it. Chair Baltay thought it was better to just say no requirement because 100 percent could be construed as being conflicting. Female asked for comments on the heights on the mixed zones on page 128. Chair Baltay was in favor of MXM, MXH, R3 and R4 zones all having a 65-foot maximum limit with the possible exception of the R3 going down to 50 or 55. Boardmember Adcock was in agreement. She recommended 55 for R3. Boardmember Hirsch also agreed. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 95     Page 26 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Ms. Raybould noted that the reason for the 35 was that Council was interested in being deferential to the height of the cannery form. Female said they have to be careful because as it is currently written, the objective standards only apply when someone is trying to do a streamlined process where they probably want at least these couple of sections of the objective standards to apply everywhere and at all times. Ms. Raybould stated they could refer back to that section and say they have to comply with that section. Chair Baltay stated they have to take these recommendations at face value and put it all together. PROPOSED CHANGES TO THE TABLES: 1. Packet page 124, table 1, street yard: Recommend changing the Pepper and Olive Avenue setback to 10 feet. 2. Packet page 124, table 2, street yard: Recommend changing Park Boulevard and Olive Avenue setbacks to 10 feet on both R3 and R4. 3. Packet page 124, table 2, maximum height: Recommend changing 35 feet for NV-3 to 55, R4 to 65 feet. The next line regarding portions within 50 feet should be eliminated. 4. Packet page 125, table 2, maximum lot coverage: Recommend base percentage 60 and 80 percent for R3 and R4. 5. Packet page 126, minimum landscape/open space: Recommend [inaudible 6:41:19] and move the footnote on the minimum landscaping down to usable open space, that open space could be provided above the ground floor. 6. Packet page 126, table 3, street yard: Recommend Olive Avenue changes to 10, Pepper Avenue changes to 10 in both columns. 7. Packet page 127, minimum landscape open coverage: Recommend MXM and MXH to be 10 percent each. Note the setback includes below grade three feet or TBD and add a definition for this particular rezoning district. Suggest R3, R4, MXM and MXH. 8. Packet page 127, top line: Recommend Olive Avenue and Park Blvd 10 feet. 9. Packet page 128, maximum height: Recommend 65 feet for MXM and MXH. Ground floor height should be removed altogether. Put a note to always adhere to that one particular objective standard. 10. Packet page 129, storefront guidelines, (3): Recommend maximum of 10 percent but no less than 10 feet. MOTION: Chair Baltay moved the above recommendations, Boardmember Adcock seconded. VOTE: 3-0 Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 96     Page 27 of 27 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 04/18/24 Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 3:24 p.m. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes April 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 97     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: August 15, 2024 Report #: 2408-3352 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of May 2, 2024 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning (650) 329-2575 Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 98     Page 1 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 2, 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 May 2, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:33 a.m. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock Absent: None Oral Communications There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions There were no changes. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Claire Raybould, Principal Planner, noted she had Rosenberg out on the June 20 hearing. She asked to be informed by anyone that would be out on June 20. She announced the workplan would be coming back on May 16 as well as two Master Sign programs for 525 University and 535 Lytton. Elections are also planned to be held that day pending Council’s decision on appointments. June 6, they hoped to have 640 Waverley do a first formal and the Lighting and Bird Safe Glazing Ordinances. She made a correction to a new project on packet page 12 to read 762 San Antonio. She indicated a new SB 330 preapp came in for 531 Stanford for a housing project and a new advised SB 330 that was originally proposed months ago but the preapp expired so they were reupping the SB 330 preapp. Chair Baltay asked for volunteers 531 Stanford ad hoc committee and assigned Boardmembers Chen and Rosenberg in response. Study Session Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 99     Page 2 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 2. 3980 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00041]: Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to Allow the Redevelopment of the Buena Vista Village Mobile Home Park into Two Parcels, Featuring a new 100% Affordable Housing Development. One Parcel Would Include a 61‐Unit Multi‐Family Apartment Building; the Other Parcel Would Include a 44‐Unit, Occupant Owned Mobile Home Park. The proposed 61‐Unit Development and Work within the City’s Public ROW is Subject to the City’s Review. Redevelopment of the Mobile Home Parcel is Subject to HCD Review. The Project Includes a Request for Concessions and Waivers Pursuant to State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in Accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15332 (In‐fill Development). Zoning District: RM‐20. Chair Baltay asked for disclosures. Boardmember Hirsch noted he had visited the site the day prior. Vice Chair Rosenberg had also visited the site that week. Boardmember Chen had no disclosure. Boardmember Adcock had visited the site and observed that it was unclear from the plans that the lot directly adjacent on the east toward El Camino looks like additional mobile homes but the area is empty and has foundations left over from previous mobile homes. Chair Baltay disclosed that he visited the site. He also had correspondence with Sandy Sloan, a member of the Alta Housing Board of Directors, regarding the need for private open space on affordable housing types who felt strongly that it was not necessary because of the additional cost. He then called for a staff report. Ms. Raybould provided a slide presentation about 3980 El Camino Real, a streamlined housing development review application submitted by the Santa Clara Housing Authority to include the project location, project overview, key considerations, next steps and recommendations. Kris Adhikari, Project Manager of Santa Clara Housing Authority, gave a slide presentation with an overview of the project proposal. Fred Pollack, Van Meter Williams Pollack, discussed slides showing the overall development, guiding principles, the allowed height, setbacks and daylight plane, circulation and parking, resulting volume, courtyard and massing, massing articulation, proposed site plan: parcel A, building form, building elevations, exterior finishes and colors, aerial views, Greenway connection, and the BBQ area and courtyard. Chair Baltay opened the meeting to comment from the public. Winter Dellenbach, public commenter, strongly supported the project. She was not sure there would be enough parking provided. She expressed concern about the removal of trees and commented that tree #75 in particular could make up for the deficit of parking lot shade and should be re-evaluated. She indicated a tree by tree evaluation with specific reasons cited for removal was mostly missing and must Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 100     Page 3 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 be rectified. She opposed the use of Lombardy poplar trees and requested the recommendation of another type of tree. Chris Brosnan, public commenter, seconded Ms. Dellenbach’s comments about the trees. He recommended planting native trees. Chair Baltay closed the meeting to public comment and returned to the Board for questions. Boardmember Chen wanted clarification on the timeline regarding the submission of pre-application in December. Regarding Concessions and Waivers, she wanted to know which one is related to the budget. She queried what the difference is between site, usable, common and private open space on packet page 27 and how that is calculated. Ms. Raybould clarified it freezes it for 180 days and the formal application has to be submitted within that 180 days. The applicant has 90 days between each resubmittal and if that is missed they will lose the SB 330. She stated concessions is related to the budget. She did note in the staff report they had not provided the cost savings it would give them for each of those concessions and they could request them if desired. She explained that private open space is individual to each unit. The common open space is the space shared between everybody. Usable open space means outdoor or unenclosed areas on the ground or on a roof, balcony, deck, porch, patio or terrace designed and accessible for outdoor living, recreation or pedestrian access but excluding parking facilities, driveways, utilities, service areas or other areas with mechanical equipment. It includes common open space like courtyards, park areas and private open spaces. Landscaping includes all landscaping on the site such as shrubbery and trees as well as common open space. Chair Baltay asked if private open space counted toward the common or site open space requirements. Ms. Raybould answered private counts toward usable and landscape but common and private are separate and feed up from there. Boardmember Hirsch asked for the applicant’s response regarding justification of which trees will be retained or removed and the amount of parking provided relative to the need. Mr. Pollack explained the existing mobile home park is mainly paving with some existing trees. They would be removing 19 trees for the apartment building. Some were in locations that would be challenging to maintain. They would be planting 54 trees. Erik Jensen, Landscape Architect, indicated there were a variety of reasons for removing the trees. He encouraged people interested to review the entitlements resubmittal. He reported that because of thee extent of the paving and the reality of the mobile home park being somewhat ad hoc, very few of the trees on site are suitable for preservation because they are stuck in random places. On the apartment side, there are a few small trees in the area needed for parking, emergency access and egress. They feel they are replacing those with more suitable tree stock. The majority of the 54 trees going in are climate adaptive oak trees that are disease resistant. There are a variety of constraints with tree #75. The arborist feels strongly it will fail once the building is removed. Some trees had to be removed for access for utilities, infrastructure and all the required equipment needed to support the apartment complex. They were being replaced with trees of a longer and more substantive quality. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 101     Page 4 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 Boardmember Hirsch wanted a response regarding the amount of parking provided relative to the need. Ms. Raybould commented that they feel the parking for the apartment complex area was appropriate. Seventy-nine spaces were being proposed. The staff report noted a requirement to have one car loading space and they did recommend using one of those spaces for that. They are redesigning the frontage to include a few public parking spaces. Boardmember Adcock was curious where the parking for the mobile home side was so the 79 parking is not doubled for both. Mr. Pollack explained the planned 44 mobile homes and coaches each had parking adjacent to it. Some include tandem spaces. The plan includes two lot areas and parking adjacent to the actual mobile home. That will be looked at with HCD. Chair Baltay asked if they thought there would be overflow pressure from the mobile home park that fills the apartment building parking lot. Mr. Pollack stated the parking is assigned in the apartment building and the lot will be assigned to the resident’s of the apartment building to help manage that. Boardmember Adcock questioned if they could do better than 24 percent versus 35 percent reduced coverage over parking. She saw areas where it would be possible to plant additional trees. Her concern was creating a bigger heat island effect than necessary. Mr. Jensen answered they have done their best to provide coverage. They are dealing with compression between the building and the parking lot. They have trees out beyond where they have clearances they need to allow the trees. He said the public comment about the Lombardy poplar was well taken but noted they are sometimes using narrower canopy diameters to fit trees in where they can. They feel like they have planted as many as will fit. He also noted that the building itself provides quite a bit of shade which will extend out over the parking lot. He stated this was the best they could do with the design. Boardmember Adcock wanted to know how the popouts on the building were being supported and if the framing would make the overhangs come down lower. On floor plan A2.11, she wanted explanation of the end of the hallway that steps back on the left of the plan. She wanted to ensure that all of the ins and outs were thought through and if that changes the massing once they are sorted out. She wondered about the logic of the white and green areas in the mass renderings. She asked if it was fair to say every time there was beige siding, it is an additive piece versus the green and white are the backdrop. She wanted to know the plan for the top portion of the red area that extends beyond toward the courtyard. She queried what the material intent for the picture frame and the top was as it wraps the top and the recess in the BBQ area. Mr. Pollack said they intend to cantilever popouts. It may require added thickness. There is no intention of including a balcony space. It will be a roof area, either sheet metal or some sort of TPO. They have common areas on the ground floor that are going to require some steel frame to allow the larger spans. With that steel frame, there will be capabilities to include some of the cantilever areas. He stated that the red areas were special areas. The green are the recessed areas to guide around the corner to where the main entry and canopy is over the main entry into the lobby. He admitted they were not fully Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 102     Page 5 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 consistent because the bays are the horizontal siding to get texture and scale but they also used a pattern of an inset accent to break the white massing to carry a bit of the pattern through to visually break it down. The logic of the green versus white is in terms of the overall massing, white is the main mass and then there are additives with the horizontal siding and then there are recesses with the green accent. Those are entryways on the ground floor or recesses on the other elevations. He did not know what the degree of that recess was. He believed there was a recess but it was not dramatic. There was overhang on the parapet above where that is shown. He would follow up with that information at a later time. Regarding the red area, they generally do an integral color finish on stucco which is a part of the final finish coat. The material in the cutout would also be plaster. The top would likely be sheet metal painted to cover it with roofing on top of that. They would not be extending the stucco on top of it. The seal is likely to be all integrated with countertop material but will have to have waterproofing details. Vice Chair Rosenberg noticed the FAR number they are asking for was 0.99 in the presentation and on packet page 27 it says it is 0.86 and asked for clarification. Regarding the 25 percent versus 35 percent on the minimum landscape site/open space, she wanted to know how often they have seen concessions granted on that item. She queried what the goal was of having the roof covered in solar. She asked if having the electrical and mechanical rooms on Los Robles was for an access reason and if there was a possibility of relocating them to a slightly different location within the property. Ms. Raybould explained there were some last minute changes to the floor area and they realized the floor area needs to be based on the net lot area which will exclude the new private street as well as the Valley Water easement along the frontage. It was revised to 0.99 based on the net lot area. She knew of at least one other density bonus project approved but there have only been about four projects. On A2.10, there is a nice access point on the north side of the building from the parking lot but down by the orange 2-bedroom one on the Los Robles face, there is no good way to get into the building from that corner. On the upper levels, that is designated as a hallway. She felt the long hallway was a safety concern. She asked if having a secondary entrance on the ground level was considered and if there was a reason why it was not there. On the upper levels, she noticed a one-bedroom junior suite and it appeared there was no window into that bedroom space. She asked if there was a reason that would have to be called a one-bedroom junior or if could be converted to a studio. She questioned if there were any concerns about sound attenuation with the one-bedroom apartment next to the community room on the ground floor. Mr. Pollack indicated it is an all-electric building so there is quite a bit of benefit to maximizing the solar on the site as well as trying to offset the battery requirements. It is an ongoing process in coordination. The reasoning for the location of the electrical and mechanical rooms was the proximity of the transformers. There are higher loads with all electric buildings requiring more equipment. Regarding having a secondary entrance on the ground level, they have to meet a certain percentage of two and three bedrooms to qualify for the tax credit allocation. Part of that puzzle is getting everything to fit and that was a priority they were not able to meet. It stated it would be considered if there was a good solution for it. He did not know what the one-bedroom junior suite should properly be called. They are often called an embedded one bedroom. The building code no longer requires windows for designation for a bedroom. This allows a very livable unit and flexibility because if it was a studio they would lose the Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 103     Page 6 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 wall and it would just be one open space. Regarding the one-bedroom apartment next to the community room, they intend to properly treat that wall for sound attenuation. Chair Baltay inquired if they had considered raising the building up a foot or two so the ground floor units have some separation from grade. He wanted explanation about how the courtyard works as a community space regarding the spaces in front of the two three-bedroom and one-bedroom apartments fronting there at grade. The question came down to what other separations they can accomplish. He queried if the entire courtyard was considered common open space or landscape open space. He observed that making the ground floor taller, the whole building gets taller and they were already over the 30-foot height limit. He asked if that was a concern or if it was more to do with accessibility ramps if making the building taller. He noticed on the site a totally different design on the public placard about a month prior. He was told by staff that design came in recently. He wanted to know the reason behind this. He asked what the requirements were in granting a concession or a waiver. Mr. Pollack admitted he had not looked carefully enough at the fine grading to see if that makes sense. He thought that could be taken into consideration. Part of the intent with the design of that courtyard was to have the landscape buffer between the action area, courtyard and those units. He stated the concern would be more the connections from the corridors because if the goal is to raise the unit level above finished floor, it was to get the grading to work so the entries, trash access, bike rooms, etc. could connect directly at grade. It also had the added challenge of potentially increasing cost. The reason behind the redesign was cost. He wanted to know how a 2-foot modulation requirement would reduce density if it was enforced. He asked if exempting them from the City requirement for parking lot shading prevented them from building at the density they were asking for. He asked if he was correct in understanding the mobile home component would be a totally separate project under separate review and they were looking at the apartment building on the 1.7 acre site and those were the standards they were judging by that day. Ms. Raybould explained that having a concession required proof that it would save money. That information has been provided for the height. In the second round plan set, there was discussion about the subjective standards. She thought the applicant intends to go back and see how they can improve and if there is anything that could be done to better align with the standards without having to use a concession. For now, they have noted waivers and concessions accordingly. She stated they are eligible for unlimited waivers from physical standards and they are based on what precludes them from building at the density proposed and it is allowed under the state density bonus. They are proposing an 80 percent density bonus, 36 units dwelling units per acre where 20 dwelling units per acre would otherwise be allowed. That is based on the percentage and income level at which they are providing so they are maxing out their density. Under the new language, state density bonus law per Assembly Bill 762 allows them the four concessions and unlimited waivers for the 100 percent affordable at the income levels they are providing. She believed it had to be 80 percent low income and 20 percent moderate and they are providing 100 percent to low or very low income. The waivers are granted because of physical standards effecting the building envelope that would preclude them from the density they are eligible for and wanting to propose. The process is that they would typically submit some sort of justification with each waiver. They have not submitted all of the justifications yet. She explained the façade breaks was a concession, different than the waiver, so they would need to Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 104     Page 7 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 determine if it would save them money. They would need to provide the argument for the parking lot shading and it would be more aligned with how much parking is required at the density they are proposing and if they can provide more shading while still meeting the parking requirements. She confirmed it was the 1.7 acre site with a new apartment building that they were to consider. Boardmember Chen queried if the front setback was measured from the property line or from the easement as the drawing appeared it was from the easement. She asked if the applicant could clarify the building operation and whether it made sense to have the ground entry directly connected outside the ground units. She queried if the intent of the staging areas behind the apartment building and next to the mobile homes trash enclosures was to have the garbage truck to have only one stop to pick all the garbage up. She wanted to know how often they would pull the trash bins from the apartment to the staging area. Ms. Raybould answered it was showing from the easement but the setback is measured from the property line and they were exceeding the setback. Mr. Pollack described in terms of building operation for the offices, there was a management office, resident services office that helps coordinate services for the residents and the resident’s storage which was requested by the residents at Buena Vista. He explained the main lobby is adjacent to the management office and the teen rooms so there is supervision on the comings and goings on the site. There is also the mail area, vertical circulation and laundry room. It is a mixing area. With regards to individual entries for the at grade units, this was a discussion about priorities and what they could achieve on the site once they carved out what they had to provide. They felt it was a better idea to get some sort of landscaping in between the parking lot and units rather than having a direct entry on the sidewalk where it is a parking lot. Internal to the courtyard, it was a similar discussion. It was prioritized more to provide privacy through the landscaping given the proximity to the open space and the courtyard area rather than provide individual entries. The intent of the garbage staging areas was trash flow of the apartment building. The did not know how often the trash bins would be pulled but there was a full trash management plan submitted as part of the application. Boardmember Adcock was curious about the general egress plan out of the first floor to the public way, particularly in the hallway on A.20. Mr. Pollack answered the public way would be Los Robles but because of their adjacency to parking or the streets they would be able to exit far enough away that they should be able to avoid any kind of rated windows. He said they would have to go through the analysis of property lines, etc. and get all that dialed in but once you get out in the courtyard, you can get out to Los Robles. The pinch point in the bike room where the corridor comes out, they are likely looking at not having openings along the community room and focusing the community rooms toward the BBQ area and other street frontage so they can avoid any openings that are in conflict. If they have 20 feet between those two volumes, they can have nonrated openings moving through that space. Chair Baltay invited the boardmembers’ comments. Vice Chair Rosenberg observed having residential units on the ground floor was always a bit of a privacy issue. She encouraged that for the next presentation they give good ideas as to what the landscaping Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 105     Page 8 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 will be and how they will tackle the privacy of the ground floor residential units. She indicated she would strongly push for the secondary access point next to the two bedroom on the Los Robles corner on A2.10. She urged them to be careful of the window sizes of the inner corner units of the two bedrooms on the upper levels. She thought the junior one-bedroom was not as successful as it could be and she would give it another once over. The color scheme was not her favorite. She felt like the green and red were opposing and maybe they should lean more into one color and potentially add some wood look to bring the level of the quality of material up a notch. She asked if there was a possibility of putting the transformer in the parking lot and making the façade on Los Robles more attractive. She was not in favor of those mechanical doors. She thought it would be nice if there was a drop-off curb near the property management office. Boardmember Adcock preferred that they emphasize the clarity of massing, i.e. the logic of the popouts. She recommended they go back to that to find clarity in the design in the materials and colors. She was not convinced that a waiver for not having the required amount of tree canopy was well justified yet. She saw areas in the site plans where they could add a few trees and urged them to increase shading from the trees. She thought they should reconsider having the apartment doors directly facing each other. Boardmember Hirsch thought the corridor issue was significant on the side of the building and should be worked out. He described ways to mitigate the privacy issue. He thought the landscaping was sufficient. He thought there should be revision in the language that says ground floor units have to have direct access to the apartment. He thought there was an alternative of projects like this which have exterior exposure like that and work better if the circulation is on the inside and protected by the visual barrier or landscape on the outside. He did not agree with the suggestion of raising the building. He wondered if lighting should be addressed. He wanted more detail of the public park. He opined that changing the way in which the projections are expressed would change the cost of the building. He though it was appropriate that they have a one-foot dimension and that exception should reflect itself somehow in all objective standards and they should go back and re-examine some of the objective standards because they are not 100 percent applicable to all projects. He said the materials do not equal the module they have in their objective standards and that has to be re-examined. He thought the scale was already broken down to unit by unit and, therefore, reasonable to change their objective standards to be more broadly inclusive of materials. He thought having the garbage on one far end of the building made it inaccessible to some of the people at the other end. He wanted them to think about where it is located so it could be an equal distance to everybody in the building. He liked the design, materials and colors like they were. Boardmember Chen went through the concessions and waivers on the list. For concession three, she agreed that it did not make sense to have direct access to the parking lot. She thought it made sense to just have one single entry from the corridor side facing the parking lot. For concession four, she thought it would be more pleasant to have more units facing the street side but she understood there were other concerns so it made sense to have all the utility rooms along the street. Since they have the large setback on that side, she was fine with that. For the private open space waiver, she did not find strong support on why they did not provide any private open space for each unit. She thought it was a good addition to all the units. For the waiver for the parking shading, she thought it was worth revisiting the Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 106     Page 9 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 objective standards because when she looked at the numbers on sheet A0.11, they only provided 2 extra parkings than required but 8 more trees than required and still short on what is required for the tree canopy calculation. When she looked at the site plan, she thought there may be possibility to have one or more trees planted but questioned if that would help them to meet the minimum requirement for the tree canopy. She thought it was time to revisit the standards. She thought the one foot setback was reasonable and made the articulation interesting and have enough variations for the exteriors. She agreed with the suggestion to offset the doors along the corridor. She agreed with Vice Chair Rosenberg’s suggestion to reconsider the colors and materials. Chair Baltay thought the building could use more work. He described how he thought it would be better to have it be a real C-shape with two end units. He saw significant benefits to re-evaluating the basic floor plan. He was concerned that all the ground floor units being at grade would be uncomfortable to live in. He suggested adding landscaping there but opined it would be tough to maintain with only a couple of feet of buffer next to the sidewalk. He felt raising the building a foot or two would be all that was needed. He pointed out that their codes do not articulate what the income level of the applicants are. They make the codes on what they think are the right way to design the building so they have a private open space requirement because they think that makes for better living spaces. Every living space has to have 50 square feet of open space per unit. Here and other affordable housing projects they have done, they have waived that because of cost. He questioned if they were becoming a two- tiered city where market rate housing is required to have balconies but affordable stuff is not because it is not affordable. He looked at the inexpensive hardy siding on the outside of the building and observed they were going to approve that material because of the cost. He stated they would not approve that building for market rate projects. He wanted to acknowledge and discuss where they come down on that. He thought it was appropriate that not all buildings have open space and the materials seemed to be perfectly adequate but he was nervous and bothered about creating a two standard system. He also felt the façade articulation was tacked onto the building and not integrated to the floorplan or structure of the building and would need to be at some point. He found it disappointing there was not a little more actual variety in the building’s floor plan to give them the offsets they were looking for. He wanted to see them take another pass at coming up with a different way of articulating the façades. He thought there was a concession that had not been talked about which was required in their code that they have different building types for projects larger than one acre. This site is 1.7 acres and has one building type on it. He was fine to let that happen but it is a concession. He opined that would call into question whether some of the other concessions were really waivers and once it is called a waiver, there is a little more rationale for them to actually make a real architectural effort to redesign that. If they allow the façade break to be a concession to the design standard, they are telling the town as a whole that it is an important architectural standard they all stand behind except here it is not important to meet. The intent behind concessions is things that allow buildings to get built, not with how well the façade is designed. He would put it back to the architect to try once more to do a better job of articulating the façades and making that work. He wanted to pick a couple of things the board members agree on to ask them to go back to. He mentioned some sort of revision to the interior design to get better access from all ends of the building. He thought that might be paired with reconsidering where the mechanical and electrical rooms are. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 107     Page 10 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 Vice Chair Rosenberg said that also ties in with his comment regarding the potential for having a centralized access point. Chair Baltay offered one potential comment was regarding the basic layout of the circulation and access points. He thought they should discuss what the private open space requirement really is. Boardmember Adcock opined that was difficult because they were creating a double standard but if it is a waiver being asked to make the project affordable, they had to prove that cost is being reduced without the waiver. Ms. Raybould added they had to prove that it would physically preclude the project as proposed for cost or physical reasons. Chair Baltay read in the code that concessions are granted based on cost. Waivers are granted based on feasibility. Boardmember Adcock asked if it could be proven that having private open space precludes the existence of the project. Chair Baltay wanted to discuss where they stand on that question. He asked if the board members wanted to continue talking about the parking lot shading requirements. Boardmember Adcock felt strongly about the parking lot shading requirements because it is a very long term issue for the site. The reason the code exists is part of the climate change issues. It should not be more uncomfortable in this area because it is affordable housing. She thought it was about how many of the trees are actually shading the blacktop and she felt it was possible to increase shading on the blacktop than what has been presented. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there would be a conflict between the capacity of the parking lot itself and the shading and trees. Boardmember Adcock did not think there was a conflict. They have landscape islands that are large enough to have multiple trees and a possibility of splitting some of the landscape islands in order to have more trees distributed. Boardmember Hirch inquired if the dimension was big enough to be able to split them and would there be some loss of parking spaces in the process. Boardmember Adcock stated that was for the landscape architect but she thought there was a possibility to increase quite a bit from where they are at now and also along the edges of the parking, not just the islands, where there is possibility of increasing the density of tree canopy. Boardmember Chen said maybe it was a question to the landscape architect whether they could reconsider the tree species because for the island maybe they could plant two smaller trees or one large tree so the canopy area could be different. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed with Boardmember Hirsch that they are already planting eight trees above what they have been asked. They are providing the required amount of parking plus two or four. She did not feel they were trying to skirt the issue and were meeting the numbers required with the exception Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 108     Page 11 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 of the shading. She also pointed out that it was a vast improvement from what exists and she would support steps in the right direction even if they are not hitting their numbers as they intend them to be. She also pointed out having to worry about water consumption to water the trees. Boardmember Adcock agreed but countered that the deficiency is quite low and it will take a long to time get to that amount in the first place. She pointed out that trees only need to be watered for establishing them and she did not think that was a good counter argument. Chair Baltay invited comments about the colors and textures. He asked if they should consider raising the height of the building. Boardmember Adcock did not support raising the height of the building. Boardmember Chen did support raising the height of the building. Boardmember Hirsch pointed out the possibility that landscape buffer could make it more private. The windows could be designed to be higher on that lowest façade. He thought the opportunity was there to make it better and it was a good item to be solved in the design. Chair Baltay stated coupling onto that would be asking for a greater landscape design to address these issues through landscape because there is also a series of units facing the courtyard that will need either extensive landscaping or raising the elevation and it is a loss of opportunity to have small private outdoor patios there. He recalled the market rate projects they have reviewed with private patios that the market demands and asked why that was not required here. Boardmember Hirsch opined that the idea was that it was primarily a mix of the outdoor public area and the courtyard public area. He found the comment about the narrowing area of the inner court to be appropriate but the idea of making an outdoor space with doors and access to a small amount of private area relative to the amount of public area for the whole project would be in conflict with each other. Chair Hirsch summarized the Board's comments as follows: 1. Access circulation configuration regarding the hallway, the configuration of the C shape and trash room location. 2. Discussion on private open space. 3. Discussion on parking lot shading. 4. Requirements or changes on the colors and textures of the exterior and organization of ins and outs. 5. Raising the height of the building or providing greater landscaping to ensure privacy of the ground floor units. Chair Baltay asked if the Board thinks the trash location is acceptable or should they ask them to consider moving the trash room closer to the center of the building. Vice Chair Rosenberg believed that it would be better if it was centrally located but it was in an appropriate location. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 109     Page 12 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 Boardmember Adcock remarked they did not talk about the mail room area which is also central but at the other end of the building. She did not think it would serve the design to try to push to move both toward the center of the building. Boardmember Chen wondered if it would be a major or simple change. She also thought the laundry room could either be either centralized or have two separate smaller ones for easier access. Chair Baltay stated he thought the consensus was that the design could be thought through more, there was not enough facility regarding trash, mail and laundry. He did not hear a strong consensus that it needs to be changed as much as it could be thought about once more. He asked how the reset of the Board felt about Vice Chair Rosenberg’s question of whether a secondary or additional entrance was needed at the back lefthand side near Los Robles. Ms. Raybould noted that all of those were less than 200 feet from the furthest unit. Boardmember Adcock asked if he was suggesting the additional entrance go west or north. Vice Chair Rosenberg answered it would go north toward the parking lot similar to the upper levels. Boardmember Adcock observed that some part of that might just happen once the design was further developed because at stair one the door needs to swing out but also needs a clear line of sign to an egress in the public way. Ms. Raybould did not understand where they were hoping to get another egress or window. Vice Chair Rosenberg pointed out on the plans where they were talking about. Chair Baltay was not sure how much that improves the flow of the building at the ground floor and it would throw a wrench in the work figuring the right layout for all the different unit types. They said they had thought about it. He did not want stipulate it outright. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed they should not stipulate it outright but there was the potential to put a split there and shift those units down. She understood this would completely affect the façade but maybe that maintenance room did not need to be quite so big and that length of units could be shifted getting the doors off of each other and articulating the façade. It is not an unattainable go and she would ask that they strongly consider it. Boardmember Hirsch seconded Boardmember Adcock’s comments adding that they could tie that with switching one of the mechanicals on the front to put an apartment there. Vice Chair Rosenberg stated the mechanical room could become smaller and the access could go toward Los Robles. Boardmember Adcock remarked for quality of life in the building, having just on access for the whole left side of the building would be a huge benefit. She supported going toward the parking more than toward the street. Boardmember Hirsch would support that as a more significant change than moving the garbage room. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 110     Page 13 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 Vice Chair Rosenberg added you could rotate the two-bedroom unit by 90 degrees and eat into the mechanical room for space. Chair Baltay and Boardmember Chen were both in support of those comments. Chair Baltay thought it was feasible to locate the transformer slightly further back on Los Robles and stretch the conduits another 10 or 20 feet to put the mechanical room where the three-bedroom unit was facing the parking lot. Vice Chair Rosenberg thought that would be a benefit. Boardmember Adcock preferred it the way it was with the big landscape buffer in front because transformer is not capping a corner of the building. If it shifts west, it will be right as you enter the parking lot. Chair Baltay pointed out there would still be 30 feet of landscaping on the edge of the building. Ms. Raybould noted that there are some line of sight clearances that the transformer is not located within to maintain line of sight. Mr. Pollack addressed moving the entry. He stated they are generally trying to provide the management office and oversight of the site at the entry point. Part of that is the way it relates to the corner, the teen room, the mail and also vertical circulation. In terms of laundry, they try to get the laundry in proximity of the elevator and near management. He advised the stairwell door swinging the wrong direction would be corrected. He thought the design team agreed with the connection back to the parking lot in that wing. He explained complications they ran into regarding the reconfiguration of the unit mix to try to get a three bedroom to work and recommended to the client team they look for solutions. They will take the comments on the façades into consideration. Boardmember Adcock opined making the big triangle arrow on A2.10 be a little bit more emphatic of an entrance on that side might unlock the courtyard to be functional and be the main entrance. Chair Baltay agreed on making the lobby focus on the main entry and not the courtyard. He remarked that the Board was basically feeling that the building needed more work and it was imperative the applicant do the best possible design even if it means taking more time. He recommended they take another round of thinking on the items they talked about. He presented the question of what level of standard they hold them to regarding they open space and parking lot shading. Boardmember Hirsch circled back to whether the courtyard was a better space for the main entry issue. He questioned who uses it and how important it is for somebody coming here for the first time to see an entry and find their way into the building and if they want to commit to this kind of an idea. Chair Baltay thought Boardmember Adcock’s comment that the real entry is the large red triangle proximate to Los Robles Avenue and main drive entrance. Boardmember Hirsch agreed and opined it would mean shifting some of the mass of the building to create that kind of an entry at that end of the building. Ms. Raybould summarized what she was hearing: Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 111     Page 14 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 1. Refinements to the interior floor plans are needed. 2. Reconsidering some aspects of the interior floor plans to provide better access to the ends of the building including considering mimicking the window on the ground floor where the two- bedroom is to have an additional access point to the parking and maybe even rotating that unit. 3. Considering a centralized entrance area instead of having that on the end. 4. Possibly refining the design in terms of the laundry and trash rooms, making them centrally located but probably not the highest priority in comparison to some of the other items. 5. Reconsidering the junior one-bedroom unit design. 6. Reconsider the windows on the inner corner units of the two-bedroom. Chair Baltay confirmed that any of those could be thought about but the design process is more holistic and hoped they would address these as they go through another design cycle. Boardmember Adcock thought the umbrella of the five items on the list were the overarching comments. Chair Baltay addressed the question of the requirement for private open space and shading requirement on the parking lot. He felt the requirement for balconies should be optional. He believed they could get closer to the requirement for parking lot shading without changing the parking counts. Boardmember Hirsch agreed that this project demonstrates why private open space is not needed in all cases. He thought the island strips that come out on the parking lot could be divided up a little differently and get more trees. He did not think the suggestion that the building’s shadow was totally effective because during the day it moves around. Boardmember Chen thought the private open space was even more important for projects like this because it is more compact. She did not find strong support on why improving the private open space would reduce the density. She suggested maybe changing the tree species to provide larger canopies. She felt providing 50 percent shading might be too restrictive in this project. Boardmember Adcock was not a fan of the double standard but in this particular project trying to be 100 percent affordable, having to add private open space did create a major cost barrier. She agreed that it was not the project that needs to change but perhaps what the City requires of projects. Vice Chair Rosenberg agreed with Boardmember Adcock’s statements. She thought there was an opportunity for some of the apartments to have balconies. She understood the need for parking lot shading. She felt it was adequate but thought there was no harm in trying to increase it. Ms. Raybould noted that Peter Gollinger, Urban Forester, was listening in and they would consider their comments. The arborist was struggling with concerns whether the one large tree growing through the mobile home area could be maintained. The City’s position was to probably have that be evaluated again toward the end of demolition work. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 112     Page 15 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 Chair Baltay responded that the tree was not in question but if the case was that the City arborist is in the opinion that the tree can be saved he wanted to hear about that. City Arborist agreed that there is potential for the tree to be unstable once the mobile home is removed but they could not actually see the root crown of the tree in order to determine how much damage is being done to the trunk by the floor and ceiling. Based on the photos, he did not think they could properly evaluate the actual impact. He proposed that be to be determined until the mobile home is removed. He supported removing the tree if it was assessed as not stable. He felt it was in doubt whether or not it would be unstable. Boardmember Adcock asked if he thought changing the species of choices of trees in the parking lot would significantly increase the parking shade canopy. City Arborist believed the oaks they had chosen were a medium size class oak; however, it would be based on how fast they could grow in 15 years. He did not know if it would be an appreciably higher percentage over 15 years if they chose a bigger species. He said they could run the calculations for some other species and see what they would be at 15 and 20 years to see if it was worth considering changing species. He pointed out the larger the species the more soil requirement needed. He thought they had picked a good species as far as balancing the available soil with the desired height. Chair Baltay asked if anybody had changed their position on the trees versus the parking lot shading. He supported asking the applicant to strongly try to keep the tree if there was a chance for survival. Ms. Raybould stated they assumed the worst case scenario of the tree being removed but they could have conditions of approval that relate to exploring that further. Vice Chair Rosenberg felt strongly that the City was going about it backwards if the worst case scenario for the applicant was to plant if that tree stays. Mr. Jensen pointed out that tree #75 was sitting on the edge of what could be a planted area but if that parking lot needs to go in as it does for both parking and fire access, they will be paving across three- quarters of the critical root zone. He added protecting the tree would require protecting a quite substantial area which would interfere with circulation and the parking lot. City Arborist stated the arborist pointed out that he would recommend a larger protection zone around the tree than they would require but also pointed out it is currently already paved over. It is possible the pavement could be preserved for part of the project. He did not feel like they could just write the tree off wholesale without looking at the root crown. They have asked the arborist to justify the reasons for removal of the trees. He is particularly concerned about four live oak street trees that are in the City right-of-way that are rated as good possibility for preservation and are in an existing proposed landscape area but still proposed to all be removed and they have not seen any justification for that. Chair Baltay thought the issue of tree #75 was something staff would deal with best. He wanted to cover the question about the colors, textures and organization of the ins and outs on the façade. Boardmember Adcock thought it was up to the applicant on what color choices they make. It was important that each choice has an architectural reasoning. The red has architectural logic. The green and Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 113     Page 16 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 white were blurry in her opinion. If it is intended to be different, there should be a massing or articulation reason. On the siding, she thought the two moments where the siding appears needs to be a stronger architectural logic. When going in and out two or three feet, the argument is made with the concession that the two feet of planar changes cannot be done but they are doing a lot in the little ins and outs where the hallways do not line up. It needs to either be cleaned up because it is more cost effective or if the concession they are asking for is needed than it needs to be architecturally clean and higher quality in their design even if they are not using the highest quality materials. Chair Baltay did not think the colors were very complimentary of each other. He wanted them to study the colors once more. He did not support the use of thin Hardie Board siding and thought it would be larger to get more of a texture line. He thought they should be using a three-quarters of an inch thick horizontal siding board. Boardmember Hirsch agreed that a thicker material would be better. He was concerned with the fact that some of them were layered on materials that did not change the dimension. He liked the colors. He was confused whether the window shading would just be above the window or on two sides. Mr. Pollack responded that is primarily on the south side and it is L-shaped. It adds another level of texture and light play. For reference, he remarked they had two buildings in Mountain View that were also affordable housing that both include the same Hardie panel on them. He stated the siding that was Boardmember Hirsch referred to was cement fiber board siding. He stated they were using vinyl windows for the residential and they had some store front where they have larger ground floor windows. The window has a panning frame on it so it is recessed. The panning frame depth is generally about two inches. Chair Baltay remarked the last item was regarding getting greater privacy for the ground floor units. They had suggested either raising the building or providing more clear landscaping buffers. He asked if that was a fair statement. Boardmember Adcock agreed and thought it was up to the applicant and the City how they do it. Her concern with raising one foot was that it would not achieve the glare issues given that some of the west- facing windows go down to the floor. She thought it was more of the articulation of the windows and the landscaping because one foot is 12 feet of ramp or 20 feet of path and that is a lot for each door to have to address. She worried they would lose more landscaping when they try to get that much ramping or sloped paths in trying to achieve a one foot raise. She thought it was better to address the fenestration and landscaping directly outside those windows to get the privacy. She added that the west facing windows ground floor windows should go up and have a certain height of denser landscaping to get privacy. Chair Baltay felt strongly they should make a comment that right now it is not working. Female remarked that they have a standard for the ground level floor height that is adjacent to a public right of way. They do not have that objective standard when adjacent to parking lots but she felt like that is what they might be designing. They may not be able to apply that to this particular project because it is not an objective standard but they can request something of the applicant. She asked if they wanted the same standard as a public right-of-way or something halfway the same. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 114     Page 17 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 Chair Baltay thought a standard regarding landscaping in front of these units was in their objectives standards for some privacy buffer. Ms. Raybould responded that was when adjacent to the common open space or a public right-of-way. Chair Baltay opined if they did not interpret a sidewalk next to the parking lot as a public right-of-way or common open space that was something they should change. Ms. Raybould stated the comment they were taking was to further evaluate the privacy of the ground floor units by raising the units by a foot, adding privacy fencing, revising the seals or providing better landscaping to create the necessary privacy. Mr. Pollack stated those comments would be taken into consideration. 3. Study Session to provide feedback on the Pre‐Approved Parklet Designs and the Associated Draft User Guide. Ashwini Kantak, City Manager’s Office, provided an update on the pre-approved parklets designs as well as proposed revisions associated with the feedback from the Board that was being incorporated and that would be brought forward to Council. She discussed some background of the project. Hannah Chan Smyth, Urban Planning Partners, provided a slide presentation about the parklet prototypes to include a background of the Parklet Program scope and location, ARB feedback, ARB ad hoc committee feedback, stakeholder meeting, analysis of proposed revisions to parklet standards, analysis of program standard updates, analysis of pre-approved parklet designs, design options – framing, framing considerations, roof coverings, flooring, enclosure, planters and sidewalls, analysis of the user guide, an overview of the program timeline and requested discussion. Vice Chair Rosenberg mentioned that the ad hoc committee had a conversation with Ms. Kantak at their pre-Council meeting. The biggest topic of conversation was in regards to the framing structure underneath. Chair Baltay directed the Board to focus on things they wanted to see changed further or that they thought were not meeting the standards. Vice Chair Rosenberg suggested starting with the focus on the areas where there are deviations. Boardmember Adcock asked for detail about the roof frame material. Ms. Kantak responded they were proposing light-gauge steel framing with C-channel. They talked with the architect about making sure it looks good. It would be painted. Ali Afrasiabi, Project Engineer, added for the light gauge the C-channel was one option but there were many more options that could be used. The load on the roofs are very low so it does not need to be a bulky structure. They can be combined to create the channel and can come up with a tube shape. There are other sections they can use to angle the shapes where only the plate can be seen. They can come up with a variety of the sections but for the presentation, because it was general, they only got into the Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 115     Page 18 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 detail. For clarifying the terminology, he stated the light-gauge steel based on American Steel Society, anything lighter than an eighth of an inch can be constituted as light gauge. Thicker than that would be steel. That gives a different design criteria and application. When they specify light-gauge, it is about the thickness and not the C-channel or what they use for bracing the mechanical equipment. He described the varieties of shapes and sections. Ms. Kantak agreed to make a note of the Board’s concern that it looks good and not the kind of framing used for walls with the slots. Boardmember Adcock was not sure intent of the detailed sketch on page 124 for the guard rail. It had a footing and from the presentation they were not going to have any footings on the street. She asked for clarification about what the guard rail detail was about. Ms. Smyth responded that sketch was part of an analysis previously completed by Siegfried Engineering in evaluating traffic protection options. They were describing what might be required to implement a rail that could withstand a 6000-pound force. This is an attachment from a memo just for context. There would be no footings permitted as part of custom parklets or preapproved parklets. Ms. Kantak clarified the reason this was referenced was the original memo also talked about planters and the basis for the initial recommendation was not to include planters. The memo referenced certain types of planters with certain materials that could be potential hazards so they asked the engineer to provide an analysis following up on that which allowed them to recommend the use of planters. Boardmember Adcock asked if integrating or incorporating vegetation into enclosure at least every six feet was intentional. The diagrams had planters at the end so they would not be incorporating planting every six feet. Ms. Smyth responded that needed to be updated depending on where the final designs end up. Chair Baltay asked if he was correct that there was no requirement for planting. Ms. Kantak explained they were just allowing planters to be accommodated. Ms. Smyth added for the custom they will be permitted. The preapproved designs based on the ARB’s feedback are being designed where the planters are seen on the diagrams, the planters will not be part of the shop drawings but the parklets will be designed to have a space there available for planters to be installed. Boardmember Hirsch asked for clarification about the light-gauge steel. Chair Baltay suggested staff may want to revisit the definitions regarding the light-gauge steel. Mr. Afrasiabi added that they are limited with the light-gauge steel and pressure treated without the base. It is possible to use quarter, half or three-eighth inch steel as opposed but then they have to revisit the base because that thick of steel cannot be connected to something light gauge. Then they would have to enhance the base. Ms. Smyth clarified this was for the preapproved design. Ultimately, the preapproved designs would include a light-gauge steel option and a pressure-treated wood that will be represented in the shop Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 116     Page 19 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 drawings. The thickness of that steel will be worked out in advance as a result of their conversation and incorporated into the shop drawings. For a custom parklet, a business could go forward with any number of material options. Boardmember Chen asked if the angled parking along the street for the planter locations on the diagram was in the three-foot clearance or in the maximum area they are allowed. Ms. Kantak responded it still allows for the buffers so nothing can encroach into the buffer space. With the angled spaces, there is more depth so they are able to put the planters parallel to the travel lanes whereas the parallel parking spaces are already pretty narrow which is why they are proposing the planters on the two edges. It will not encroach into the buffer from the travel lane. She clarified it would encroach into the potential seating space. Boardmember Chen asked if that meant it was also acceptable to have the planters on both ends of the angled parking. Ms. Smyth confirmed that was correct as long as it does not encroach into the setbacks. Within the footprint of the parklet, they could put planters there. Boardmember Chen observed that it seems like they only gave options to the parallel parking instead of angled parking. Ms. Kantak advised the design of the framing allows them to scale up so that could be the preference if they did not want to accommodate the planter. Boardmember Hirsch mentioned the dimension of the perimeter walls. Chair Baltay explained the building official came back and said he considers less than 42 inches too dangerous so it is a public safety issue. He considered it a loss of opportunity for greater visual transparency but that is the way it is. Boardmember Adcock added in terms of all of the view angles is the reason why the parklets are so small but at 42 inches high plus up to 6 inches of curb is 4 feet high. A short car cannot see over the 48. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know if it would be possible to redesign the outside perimeter to a longer length to have a structural bar and have it open between there and 36 inches. Chair Baltay believed that would be allowed by the standard. Ms. Smyth verified that would be allowed as long as it meets the four-inch sphere requirement. Chair Baltay instructed the building code requirement for guard rails without the 30-inch grade difference is being applied so it is the 4-inch sphere, the 42-inch height and the 200-pound lateral load. This is a situation where there is not a 30-inch grade difference so the 4-inch sphere does not matter. There is a 6000-pound lateral load. That is the current standard and the building official feels strongly about it. It was unclear to him how plexiglass would withstand a 200-pound lateral force if a transparent barrier was desired. A metal guard rail might be an option. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 117     Page 20 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 Ms. Smyth advised the plexiglass would go on top of the guard rail and would not provide a structural element. Chair Baltay stated that as of two days prior the requirement was that the structure of the platform be made of light-gauge steel. Vice Chair Rosenberg and he pushed back strongly that an option was needed to allow that to be made with pressure-treated wood. He saw in the report that was allowed seemingly provided the pressure-treated wood is never less than an inch and a half thick which he supported. Vice Chair Rosenberg asked if the board members were in agreement with the three proposed standards that were different than what they had hoped for and they all agreed. Boardmember Adcock opined it should be clearly stated whether the sidewall plexiglass is intended to be clear. Chair Baltay noted they had not stipulated any regulation on colors, patterns, etc. He asked if there was definition of how open the sidewalls need to be. Ms. Kantak agreed to include the percentage. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know if the grating at the edge demonstrated on packet page 82 would be an absolute requirement which was confirmed. He felt it was a tricky detail that might alter the location of vertical structures, etc. He thought it was worth looking at it again. Chair Baltay recalled Public Works concerns about this and this was a compromise they came to. Ms. Smyth advised this was addressed when they initially looked at the standards between 2021 and 2022. She confirmed it was a compromise to find a way to make parklets work allowing for drainage and the ability to clean up debris. The grates are intended to be removable. Boardmember Hirsch thought it might create more problems than it solves but he would back down about it. Motion Vice Chair Rosenberg moved to support the parklet design as presented seconded by Boardmember Adcock. MOTION: Moved by Vice Chair Rosenberg, seconded by Adcock VOTE: 4-1-0 Boardmember Hirsch thought they should have been tougher on the idea of the height of the railing and that it still could be done in a manner protecting the guard rail regulation but with more transparency than what was proposed. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 7, 2023. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 118     Page 21 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 Boardmember Adcock provided a correction on packet page 131 in the middle of the page where it states: “Chair Baltay thanked Mr. Galbraith for his honest answer and asked for any other Council questions”. She corrected Council to Board. Boardmember Adcock made a motion to approve seconded by Boardmember Chen. MOTION: by Boardmember Adcock, seconded by Boardmember Chen VOTE: 5-0-0 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for December 21, 2023. Vice Chair Rosenberg made a motion to approve seconded by Boardmember Adcock. MOTION: by Vice Chair Rosenberg, seconded by Boardmember Adcock VOTE: 5-0-0 Board Member Questions, Comments and Announcements Vice Chair Rosenberg announced an ad hoc meeting that was a preliminary review of a school that came forward at 1066 East Meadow. Based on that preliminary review that had been before the Board during a public hearing, they wanted an extra level of feedback directly from the Board so they set up an ad hoc with them to meet so when they were making a decision which direction to go they felt they had more sure footing. The presented two potential ideas for the redesign of the school. They reduced the square footage by almost half and came forward with two potential projects, one being a single story and the other a two story. Both seemed amenable to the ad hoc. They had a slight preference of one over the other but could not speak for the Board as a whole and both potential projects were in good shape and heading in a decent direction so they left them with that commentary. Boardmember Adcock commented on the improvements on the design based on their feedback which included the proposed exterior material, the plinth and the safety adjacent to the driveway in which they lowered the walkway to be at grade, reduction of the height of the building, reduction in square footing reducing the grade levels on that site to preschool through kindergarten only so they eliminated rooftop playground but in the single story option they would have an interior playground only that was previously proposed as preschool playground but it would be schedule staggered for both preschool and kindergarten versus the two story option. They had positive feedback on both options. Boardmember Hirsch questioned if they are keeping the footprint basically where it was. Boardmember Adcock confirmed adding the single story option was pretty much the same footprint. The two story option took away some of the footprint to have an on-grade playground for kindergarten but the shape and orientation is the same as what they had before. They did show their sun studies to further reinforce their site orientation. The playground would be mostly sunny with a little bit of shading by the building itself for most of the school day throughout most of the school year. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 119     Page 22 of 22 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/02/24 Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 12:52 p.m. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of May 2, 2024     Packet Pg. 120     Item No. 6. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 15, 2024 Report #: 2408-3353 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 16, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of May 16, 2024 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning (650) 329-2575 Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 6 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 121     Page 1 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: May 16, 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 May 16, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:34 AM. Present: Chair Peter Baltay, Boardmember Yingxi Chen, Boardmember David Hirsch, Boardmember Adcock Absent: Vice Chair Kendra Rosenberg Public Comment None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda Items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Planning Manager Jodie Gerhardt reported the tentative agenda for June 6 includes a first formal for 640 Waverly but staff will not seek a recommendation from the ARB yet. Lighting and bird-safe glass was tentatively on the June 6 agenda but it may be postponed as staff is in the process of making changes to this item. The tentative agenda for June 20 includes 3000 El Camino Real and 4075 El Camino Way. There are no new projects. 762 San Antonio is on Packet Page 12 but Ms. Gerhardt believed the ARB already heard about it. 3997 Fabian on Packet Page 14 is a redo of a 330 that was on file. Action Items Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 122     Page 2 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 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. Chair Baltay asked if staff or members of the Board had any disclosures. Boardmember Adcock stated she visited the site and noticed it was under construction and fenced in. Boardmember Adcock did not see the existing signs. Boardmember Chen and Chair Baltay visited the site and echoed Boardmember Adcock’s observations. Boardmember Hirsch lives close to the site but he did not focus specifically on the site when he passes by it. Planner Emily Kallas addressed the Board. The project location is the block between University Avenue, Lytton Avenue, Cowper Street, and Tasso Street; comprised of four office buildings under the addresses 525 University and 530 Lytton. The 525 University building is eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources. Prior entitlement 21PLN-00209 is under construction, which is primarily for landscape and minor facade changes such as adding a canopy in the courtyard area. The project being proposed to the ARB this morning includes two Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions. 525 University has a canopy address sign, directory sign, wall property ID sign, parking ID sign, and parking directional sign. 530 Lytton has a directory sign, wall property ID sign, parking ID sign and parking blade sign. Ms. Kallas combined the maps from each plan set to depict all of the signs, showing three signs near the parking entrance on each side and the directory signs close to the primary entrances of the buildings. The ARB does not typically regulate building numbers because buildings are required to have numbers, so the 525 University canopy address sign is in compliance. Ms. Kallas showed a slide with the existing 96-inch directory sign on the left, the proposed 96-inch directory sign in the middle, and on the right is how the sign would look in its proposed location. Where it says 525 University at the top of the sign is about 6½ square feet, which requires a sign exception because it exceeds 4 square feet. The total sign area for 525 University is 20 square feet. At 530 Lytton, a 71-inch directory sign is proposed in the current location of an address monument sign. The total sign area for 530 Lytton is about 15 square feet. The retaining wall on the Tasso Street frontage will have the proposed wall property ID sign for 525 University. The existing monument sign will be removed. The proposed sign is compliant in size; however, its location is noncomplying because wall signs are typically not allowed to project over the Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 123     Page 3 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 height of the wall they are mounted on, as this one does in the illustration. Another wall property ID sign will be located on the other side and is considered complying because it does not exceed wall height. A parking ID sign is proposed at the 525 University entrance at Tasso Street. The existing sign is a cluster of smaller signs. The proposed sign would be one single, continuous sign with the same information. The intent of the signage proposed for this site is to unify the current combination of nonmatching signs. At 525 University, an existing directional sign includes a car-coming indicator light. The proposal is to make this sign smaller and simpler but it would still contain the car-coming indicator light as required by the Office of Transportation. Typically, this type of directional sign would have a maximum size of 3 square feet. The proposed sign is 7.36 square feet but staff felt it was appropriate considering the size of the driveway it is indicating and the need to have the built-in car-coming indicator light. For 530 Lytton, the proposal is for a blade sign attached to the retaining wall. Typically, blade signs of this size are not allowed; however, staff was in support of the proposed sign because of the importance of the car-coming indicator light as well as the parking sign providing wayfinding for cars, pedestrians, and bicyclists. The ARB’s key considerations are that sign exception findings need to be met. There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the property that do not generally apply to other properties in the same district. The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation of enjoyment of a substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or hardship. 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 of the public. This project is exempt from the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per Code Section 15301 for existing facilities and 15311 for signage. Staff recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the project to the Director of Planning and Development Services. Chair Baltay invited the applicant to present their project via Zoom. Will Pike spoke on behalf of LUX Create as the client’s signage designer. Mr. Pike stated they took the site and architecture into consideration. They wanted to pay homage to the detailing. There are many vertical elements in the buildings with curved supports, so they applied that to the base detailing of the signs. Since 525 University is significantly higher than some of the surrounding buildings, vertical signs and directories were implemented where possible. To keep it to a minimal palette, dark gray and white was chosen to keep it looking clean and not too busy or intrusive to the surrounding neighborhood. For wayfinding, the proposed text height and panel sizing was appropriate based on multiple site surveys and line of sight visibility studies. Orientations and locations were selected that were best suited for vehicles and pedestrians. A parking blade sign is proposed to identify the garage entrances, as overheads would not be sufficient since the garage entrances are set back from the road. The wall signs were meant to have more presence on both sides of the property from a vehicular and pedestrian standpoint since the directories are small and more geared toward building entrances. The perforated metal was meant to add more intriguing texture to the design. The white acrylic and dark paint is a neutral palette to complement the existing site. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 124     Page 4 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 PUBLIC COMMENT None. Chair Baltay invited Boardmembers to ask questions. Boardmember Adcock remarked that the perforated aluminum in the material sample board and packet looks like mill finish aluminum but it looks dark in the renderings. Boardmember Adcock asked if it was intended to be dark aluminum with a black umber finish or acrylic. Mr. Pike responded that the example was only to show the size and scale of the perforation pattern. The finish would match the dark gray, so it would appear like the rendering in a black umber color. The material is aluminum. Based on Boardmember Adcock’s understanding of the canopy detail on Page 10 of the drawings, the number sign on 525 over the canopy appeared to attach to an existing outrigger. Boardmember Adcock wanted to know if the number sign was going over an existing canopy or a new canopy. Mr. Pike replied that the addition of a new canopy was part of the architectural enhancements. As it has a glass top with a spider fitting over the wide-flanged structure below it, Boardmember Adcock asked if this would punch through the glass to pop up. Mr. Pike answered yes. The tube support had to be coordinated to accommodate a surface to mount the letters to since it is a glass-top canopy. Mr. Pike invited Dustin to respond, as he was more familiar with the coordination. On Zoom, Dustin with LUX Create explained that the GC would give them a notch-out in the glass. A stem arm has been engineered that will weld to the canopy but it was not included in the planning submittal. They will run the electrical into the building. Boardmember Adcock was curious how it was going to get coordinated because she noted it looked like a different canopy on the elevation drawing on the page. Boardmember Adcock asked Ms. Kallas to coordinate so it installs as presented. Boardmember Adcock thought the intent was for the Lytton monument sign to orient south as shown in the elevation, which was not how she read it on the plan. The planter it is sitting on top of seemed tall on Boardmember Adcock’s site visit but it does not look as tall in the image. In the drawing, the grade line on Page 8 is the top of stairs, not street level. Mr. Pike stated the intention is for both signs to have a similar presence. This sign is slightly shorter because it is on a raised wall. Boardmember Adcock remarked that the rendering for the 525 project looks like it is on the ground but it is indicated on a planter on the drawing. Mr. Pike explained that planters were being implemented as part of the architectural enhancements. At the time of design, they did not have any renderings for this side of the property, just the existing conditions. It will be a lower planter. In reply to Boardmember Adcock inquiring if the proposed height of 96 inches from grade was from pavement grade or the top of the new planter, Mr. Pike and Dustin both answered from the top of the new planter. Boardmember Adcock pointed out that the sign will be taller than 96 inches from people walking by it and Dustin confirmed Boardmember Adcock was correct. Chair Baltay took a photo recently of the planter on 530 Lytton that is approximately 48 inches above the sidewalk, which is about 2 feet higher than shown on the rendering. The planter was rebuilt two or three years ago. Boardmember Adcock agreed the planter is taller than the rendering shows. In Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 125     Page 5 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 response to Boardmember Adcock asking if the overall sign would be 71 inches plus 4 feet, totaling almost 10 feet from the sidewalk, Dustin said yes, that was correct although he thought the rendering was accurate to the height of the new planter. Boardmember Adcock commented on both signs to the parking as shown on Page 5. Boardmember Adcock opined that exit and enter are the hierarchy of things you are trying to see, and it seemed odd to her that “Welcome to” had more hierarchy than the address. Boardmember Adcock wondered if the monument sign had tenant panels that were removable as tenants change and Dustin responded yes. Boardmember Adcock asked if the font and size of tenants would be consistent and standard regardless of individual tenants’ logos and fonts. Mr. Pike replied that the intention was to have the tenant’s wordmark in white and standardizing the cap height to fit within that area but there is not enough space for the full logo. Boardmember Chen asked staff if there is a minimum requirement for the tenants’ letter size. Ms. Kallas responded the zoning code has a maximum area of 1.5 square feet but there is no minimum size. The 525 University parking sign is mounted on top of the retaining wall. Boardmember Chen wanted to know the distance from the bottom of the sign to the street level. Ms. Kallas replied that Page 20 shows it being 12 feet from the sidewalk level to the top of the freestanding sign. In response to Boardmember Chen querying how tall the bottom of the sign was for 530 Lytton, Ms. Kallas answered it was shown as 99 inches to the bottom and 141 inches to the top. Chair Baltay asked staff to clarify if a sign’s height is considered from grade level, the surface a person is standing on, or from the top of the surface it is mounted on such as a planter or a wall. Planning Manager Jodie Gerhardt explained that usually when staff looks at height, they go a couple feet out from the object and measure down to the ground. For freestanding signs on a planter, staff would measure from the planter level; however, if it were at the edge of the planter, staff would measure from the sidewalk height. The directory sign had surrounding planter, so it would be measured differently. Generally, the code says to measure grade 5 feet away. Chair Baltay thought the sign code is vague on some items. Ms. Kallas clarified that the existing sign is at the edge of the planter and the new sign is oriented as shown in the rendering. Chair Baltay stated that the planter at 530 is 5 feet deep. The rendering showed the 525 planter at sidewalk grade. Dustin commented that the planter is being built. Ms. Kallas pointed out that the approved plans do not show a planter. Chair Baltay said it seemed the planters were 4 square feet. Chair Baltay wanted to know if monument signs were different from directory signs in our sign code and Ms. Kallas answered yes. Chair Baltay queried what the size and height limitations in the code were for freestanding signs and Ms. Gerhardt replied it was a 5-foot maximum in this area. In response to Chair Baltay asking if there was a width maximum or total area maximum, Ms. Kallas stated it depended if it was on the frontage of the building. Chair Baltay questioned why the two tall signs were proposed as directory signs instead of monument signs. Ms. Kallas stated the definition in the code for a directory sign is a list of building occupants. On Plan Page 6, it is called a primary monument. Ms. Gerhardt remarked that when projects come to the City, staff determines where they fit into the code. Ms. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 126     Page 6 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 Gerhardt thought this was a good topic for staff and ARB to discuss because the code is not clear. Staff called it a directory sign because it met the code’s sign definitions. Other times, staff has called it a freestanding monument sign such as on Park Boulevard where there are multiple tenants on a sign. Chair Baltay asked when this code was last updated or reviewed. Ms. Gerhardt replied it has been a long time and it will continue to be a long time because there are First Amendment issues, which is the reason why staff does not want to redo this code. Boardmember Hirsch asked what the procedure was for adding additional lines of tenants, for example the sign was shown with four tenants but it needed to accommodate eight tenants. Mr. Pike replied it was the client and owner’s delineation of who had rights to representation on the signage, based upon previous signage and/or a requirement per the lease agreement. Dustin believed the 525 sign had six tenant spaces. Staff stated that the applicant had to come back for approval to add more tenant lines on the sign. Boardmember Adcock noted the 525 freestanding sign was depicted with six rows of text that said Tenant but thought there was space to use the bottom slot for a seventh tenant, so she inquired of staff if the applicant had to come back for review if they used the bottom slot. Ms. Kallas replied that where it says tenant on the sign are considered the available slots. Boardmember Adcock pointed out that the plan showed six rows with a blank at the top and bottom whereas there is only a blank at the bottom on Page 8. Ms. Kallas wanted the Board to discuss if the bottom panel did not have a tenant if it should look like a blank or look like the rest of the frame and she wondered what the applicant’s design intention was. Mr. Pike explained that the isometric view had a gap at the top and bottom because it was produced before the final elevation, so there were some slight proportion differences. For the elevation view, the intention was to have it at the maximum square footage allowable per tenant and raise them up as much as possible to make sure there was a gap below in case there was any low-lying grass or other elements in the planter. Boardmember Adcock asked for details of the sign materials. Mr. Pike confirmed that the blank would be in black umber material; the curved base, the entire facade of the sign would be the same color, including the tenant panels. Dustin remarked that C1 is black umber. Mr. Pike stated that M2 day/night acrylic is only for the car-coming element of the parking blades; the rest is white acrylic vinyl and dark gray or black umber paint. Chair Baltay invited Boardmember comments. Boardmember Adcock opined it was odd for “Welcome to” on the parking sign to be louder than the address. Boardmember Adcock thought it would be just as successful graphically to flip the font and bold text versus not bold on the parking sign. Boardmember Adcock expressed concern that the height of the signs relative to the sidewalk did not address the pedestrian experience because a 10-foot tall sign on top of a 4-foot planter is much more ominous and overpowering than a 6-foot sign next to you as you walk by it. Chair Baltay clarified that Boardmember Adcock’s comments were in reference to 525 Sign A and 530 Sign A in the applicant’s package. Boardmember Adcock asked staff to clarify the requirements for the font size of tenant names and the square footage of the text or panel. Ms. Gerhardt replied that the code regulation is 1.5 square feet for the combined total sign area. Anything above grade is considered a sign. The code does not regulate the size of the panel but the ARB can. The text could fill the whole panel or be smaller. Directory signs have an allowance of 4 square feet plus 1½ square feet per tenant. For 525, the applicant is proposing a Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 127     Page 7 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 directory sign of 20 square feet but the code allows 13 square feet with six tenant names. For 530, the applicant is proposing a directory sign of 14.8 square feet but the code allows 10 square feet. Therefore, the applicant is seeking Master Sign Programs with Sign Exceptions. For consistency, Boardmember Adcock wanted to know if it was possible for the ARB to provide some guidance on the percentage of text fill on the panel while not having one tenant go edge to edge on the panel with a large, bold name versus another tenant with a long name in smaller font. Ms. Gerhardt remarked that the Master Sign Program allows the ARB to add those details. Regarding the overhead parking sign, Boardmember Chen agreed with Boardmember Adcock’s comment about switching the size of “Welcome to” because it is more important and directional to make the address larger. Boardmember Chen thought the primary monument sign’s size and height for 525 was okay based on its location more toward the inside of the plaza area. For 530, Boardmember Chen was concerned about the sign being too tall on top of a 4-foot tall planter because it is close to the sidewalk. For the 525 parking sign, Boardmember Chen thought the blade sign and freestanding sign looked tall and would appreciate it if the applicant could lower it. A sign does not meet code if it extends beyond the wall of a building. Boardmember Chen asked staff for the code requirements for a sign on a retaining wall. Ms. Kallas replied that the code does not anticipate signs on retaining walls. An exception could be appropriate to exceed the height of a retaining wall. Chair Baltay clarified that Boardmember Chen was referring to 530 Sign C, Parking ID. Boardmember Chen opined it is acceptable for the sign to exceed above the wall in this location. For the sign into the parking for 530, Boardmember Hirsch disagreed with other Boardmembers’ comments and felt that “Welcome to” should be the same text and size because it reads as one message rather than two messages but he did not have a strong preference for font size. Boardmember Hirsch thought Enter and Exit were clear enough in size. Boardmember Hirsch believed there should only be two varieties of font for the sign. Referring to Page 15, Boardmember Hirsch was concerned that 525 Sign C looked huge and over-scaled, especially because the sign is located on the wall closer to the Lytton end of the street and not on the prime elevation of the building. Boardmember Hirsch wondered if his fellow Boardmembers thought it was necessary to have a sign on a side street when you can see the sign in the front of the building once you get to the corner. It bothered Boardmember Hirsch that the sign in the courtyard is out of scale. Chair Baltay commented that the applicant’s package of signs was nicely designed, fits in the design of the building, and is an improvement compared to existing signs. Chair Baltay greatly appreciated the applicant’s clever, careful, and thoughtful consistency with the design of these signs. Chair Baltay expressed his concern that the applicant’s packet did not accurately represent existing conditions. For example, the heights of the planters were not fully represented. Chair Baltay believed that switching the font sizes for “Welcome to” and the address because that gets into the content of the sign, the message, rather than the design. Chair Baltay would flip the fonts if he Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 128     Page 8 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 was designing this but he was not sure if it is within the Board’s purview to make that recommendation. Chair Baltay thought it was up to the firm or owner to decide and he asked for staff’s opinion. Ms. Gerhardt stated it would be regulating the content; therefore, the ARB could only make suggestions. Chair Baltay clarified that Boardmembers could make suggestions on the “Welcome to” but the applicant ultimately makes the final decision. Ms. Gerhardt remarked that the ARB could regulate the size of the lettering of tenant names. Chair Baltay expressed his opinions about Sign 525 C. The sign should not exceed the height of the wall; otherwise, it is not a wall sign but would be a monument sign or another kind of sign. The sign is over- scaled for the nature of the traffic going by. This is not a highway. These are small streets with primarily pedestrian traffic passing by these enormous signs. Sign 525 C is about 50 percent larger than necessary and should be scaled down. Chair Baltay made the following comments about 525 Sign A and 530 Sign A. In the past, the ARB has enforced pedestrian-scale signs. In a downtown pedestrian environment, signs should not be taller than people are. The sign should be more than 6 feet from the sidewalk. The street on University Avenue was closed during the pandemic. A sign 8 feet high off the ground is too tall (a 6-foot sign on top of a 2-foot planter. Chair Baltay wants the application to come back to the ARB with proper height and positioning of the planters, reduce the size of the signs, and perhaps make the signs more horizontal to be of pedestrian scale. Regarding Sign C, Boardmember Adcock wanted the Board to consider the purpose of the wall sign. The sign for University is on Cowper and the sign for Lytton is on Tasso. Having a “Welcome to” sign with the address above the entrance to the garage itself makes the wall sign secondary and therefore supports the argument that it is too big. Because of the height of the retaining wall, Ms. Kallas remarked there was concern that you do not see the sign until you are almost past it. Boardmember Adcock suggested the sign be on par with the retaining wall height or maybe a tad taller but it does not need to be 16 inches tall because 16-inch tall signs are to be seen from quite far away, not as you are about to enter the garage. Boardmember Adcock pointed out that the rendering shows the sign flying up above the height of the wall but on Page 13 it is fully attached to a wall all the way up and down. Dustin replied there is a wall there and apologized. Boardmember Adcock stated the drawings of the elevation on Page 15 clearly showed 60 percent of the sign is above the retaining wall and there is a guardrail at the landscaping behind it. Chair Baltay asked the applicant to clarify how the sign is mounted because Detail 4 on Sheet 13 clearly shows the sign mounted to a wall taller than the sign. Dustin referred to Page 15 for 525 University, Sign C. Dustin explained that a raw elevation without the sign would show that the retaining wall has an inset wall that pops up, which is why the applicant decided to cover that portion of the wall entirely with a sign but the sign is no higher than the retaining wall. Chair Baltay asked the applicant if Detail 4 on Sheet 13 was correct. Dustin replied yes, it is correct. Chair Baltay queried if the applicant showed the wall recess on Detail 4. Dustin guessed they showed the wall going up a little higher but the wall and the sign are exactly the same height. The elevation showed an iron railing that did not match the photo shown on the screen. Chair Baltay pointed out to his fellow boardmembers that the applicant’s drawings were not consistent or clear. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 129     Page 9 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 Dustin stated the railing was not there yet on the photo. Chair Baltay asked staff if the railing was not there yet or if it was intended to be there. Mr. Pike remarked they were working with materials provided by the architect. The applicant based their render on previous conditions because they did not have access to updated renderings of every condition. Chair Baltay advised the applicant to respond only when directly asked a question. Ms. Kallas explained that the prior planning entitlement had locations where the railing did not meet OSHA standards, so railings have been added in those locations. Chair Baltay did not think the Board was satisfied that the applicant’s packet was consistent or complete, although that did not change his opinion that the signs are too big. This street is narrow. Chair Baltay opined that the traffic did not justify the necessity of having such a large sign. Chair Baltay is not sure it is in the Board’s purview to tell applicants directly where they can put their signs. Applicants are entitled to put a sign where they want. The question for the ARB is if it fits with the character, and is the scale and size of it okay. Referring to Package Sheet 10, the sign above the canopy for 525, Chair Baltay was concerned that the letters were 20 inches tall in a heavy font and illuminated bright white. Chair Baltay wondered if it needed to be that bright. At an upcoming meeting, the ARB will address a bird-safe and dark-sky ordinance. The Fire Department wants building signs to be illuminated. Chair Baltay asked staff for their input. Ms. Gerhardt remarked that the dark-skies ordinance is in draft form but the ARB can start to invoke it. Ms. Gerhardt would need to refer to the downtown design guidelines but she believed it encourages halo illumination, so the ARB could discuss that option. Chair Baltay invited comments from the Board. Boardmember Adcock stated that the light level and lumen output from letters that are 20 inches tall and 35 inches wide was unknown. Boardmember Adcock noted that 500 across the street had an enormous aluminum sign but it was not illuminated. A sign that size being illuminated has a compounded, very bright, almost neon feeling, which Boardmember Adcock did not feel was appropriate. Boardmember Adcock was concerned about how the wiring for the sign with the glass on top would work with the consistency of the look of the existing canopy, which Boardmember Adcock thought was quite handsome. Chair Baltay wondered how the applicant would get the junction box and wiring up there because the detail is not in the drawing. Boardmember Hirsch thought the sign for 525 in Elevation 4 was an appropriate scale for freestanding numerals. Chair Baltay agreed it was in scale for a building of its size but was not in scale from a pedestrian perspective on the sidewalk. Chair Baltay opined it was too brightly lit for University Avenue and the whole building was out of scale for University Avenue. Boardmember Hirsch noted it is a total glass facade, so the interior would probably be lit as well. Boardmember Adcock asked for Google Street View to be shown on the screen. Chair Baltay asked for the elevation of the building to be shown. Chair Baltay asked if the canopy in the front over the center door was being added. Ms. Kallas replied the canopy is being added as per the 2021 plans. Board consensus was that Signs A were too big as well as Sign C along the side of the street. Chair Baltay referred to Packet Page 9 for 525 University Sign A. The rendering of the vertical monument sign shows it 96 inches above the sidewalk. The sign is on a planter, so Chair Baltay guessed it is about 2 Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 130     Page 10 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 feet higher. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed the planter is not shown but one is under construction. Page 6 of the plan shows a rectangle but it is not clear what the rectangle represented. Chair Baltay asked the applicant to clarify if Sign 525 A is mounted on top of a planter and what was the height of the planter. Dustin confirmed the sign is on top of a planter that he believed is 2 feet tall. The applicant made the proposed sign to conform to the existing sign size. Chair Baltay commented the proposed sign is much more attractive. The existing sign is tucked into the corner of the building where you do not see its full size relative to pedestrians or anything else. Boardmember Adcock pointed out that the existing sign was on the ground. Chair Baltay thought the sign should be 5 or 6 feet tall from the sidewalk. Boardmember Hirsch thought a total of 7 feet was reasonable. Boardmember Adcock pointed out that the sign is 8 feet tall on Page 8 but the ARB was not provided with dimensions for the planter. Boardmember Hirsch opined it was too tall for an 8-foot sign on top of a 2-foot planter. Chair Baltay thought the applicant could get the same effective signage with a horizontal sign, which would make a big difference to pedestrians having a sign with the tenants names be less than 5 feet tall from the sidewalk. Chair Baltay was not bothered by the area of the sign as much as the height. Considering the proportion, height compared to width, Boardmember Chen thought the directory sign was appropriate to the building. Boardmember Adcock thought a vertical sign is appropriate for a tall and vertical building but she does not think it needs to be 2 feet plus 8 feet. Boardmember Adcock suggested a 5-foot sign on top of a 2-foot planter to make it a total of 7 feet and have the tenant names at or just under eye level, similar to the existing sign. At 10 feet tall, the tenant names would be too high and would not provide a pedestrian experience. Chair Baltay echoed Boardmember Adcock’s comment. Chair Baltay could not support this sign being taller than 6 feet above the sidewalk. Chair Baltay asked the Board to come to a consensus in order to provide the applicant clear direction. Boardmember Chen suggested keeping the sign at street level because it does not need to be on top of a planter. Chair Baltay thought Boardmember Chen made a good point but it is up to the applicant where they place their sign. Chair Baltay commented it was paramount to keep the sign in scale to pedestrians. Boardmember Hirsch would push for a 7-foot high sign on the ground if the Board could speak to the location of the sign. Boardmember Hirsch thought 8 feet was too much but 7 feet was appropriate and it would leave plenty of room for the tenant names to be at a reasonable level. The ARB had a similar discussion last year about the directional signs for Stanford Hospital’s addition and, per Chair Baltay’s recollection, the resolution was to have 5-foot signs. During Chair Baltay’s site visit, he noted All Saints Church on the corner of Hamilton and Waverley had a very nice corner monument sign that is maybe 3½ feet high in a landscaped area. Chair Baltay thought the sign was lovely and perfectly suitable for locating that structure. Chair Baltay opined you do not need a big sign to get the point across and to serve as a functioning sign. Boardmember Hirsch believed a bigger sign should represent a larger building with a big facade. It is important to have a significant size for the number of the building so you know you are there when you get to the front door. Boardmember Adcock can agree with 7 feet. The proposed address portion of the sign for 525 University is 31 inches tall. If the address portion is 2 feet and the portion with the tenant names is 5 feet, you can read the tenant labels at 5-foot level to Chair Baltay’s point and the address would be a little higher than Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 131     Page 11 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 that to Boardmember Hirsch’s point, and the sign would maintain its verticality relative to the look of the building. Boardmember Hirsch commented that not showing all the landscape work was affecting this proposal. If there had been some coordination, a better solution would be to pull back the planter to allow for a freestanding sign. Chair Baltay asked for a motion to continue this item to an uncertain date, subject to the applicant having a complete packet. Boardmember Chen was okay with the current proposal for 525 Sign A if it is not on top of a planter. If the ARB lowers it to 7 feet, Boardmember Chen agreed with Boardmember Adcock’s suggestion of changing the 31 inches to 24 inches so the tenant names could be higher and somewhere at eye level instead of bending over to see the tenant names. Boardmembers suggestions were between 6 and 8 feet, which averaged to 7 feet. Chair Baltay invited discussion on the appropriate size and height for the 530 monument sign. Page 9 of the 530 drawing set shows Sign A mounted on what was a planter at one point but is now taller. Page 10 shows the existing horizontal sign. Chair Baltay believed a horizontal sign was more appropriate, with signage no more than 6 feet above the sidewalk, and he asked for consensus support for those restrictions. Boardmember Chen agreed that a horizontal sign in this location is more appropriate. Boardmember Chen asked why the applicant wanted to turn the sign in another direction instead of being parallel to the pedestrian street as the existing sign is oriented. Chair Baltay invited the applicant to respond. Dustin replied that the orientation was for visibility in both directions and the height was to accommodate the tenant names. Mr. Pike wanted to keep a consistent program in the design since it is one campus, so the directories are the same type and proportion. There is a 4-foot wall, so it would not be conducive to have a 7-foot maximum sign. Mr. Pike thought the sign needed to be a minimum of 5 feet. The sign is vertical to be consistent in the campus. The orientation was meant to address the intersection better so people would know when to turn onto the street. Boardmember Chen pointed out that the building is much lower in this corner and you can see some horizontal lines in the background. Considering the 4-foot-high planter wall, Boardmember Chen suggested a horizontal sign with two columns of tenant names with the sign orientation to go along with the length of the planter. Ms. Gerhardt stated she had a picture that showed the existing planter size. Chair Baltay remarked it is important in the final presentation for the applicant to show the planter in its correct size, which he thought would affect the design of the sign. Boardmember Adcock supported a horizontal sign in response to the building behind it and the tall planter. Sign C is horizontal but it still stays within this sign family, so the Board is not asking for a new design. Using the curve at the bottom, Boardmember Adcock thought it is appropriate to set the upper limit of 7 feet to be consistent and to give the applicant 3 feet of space to work on the horizontal version Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 132     Page 12 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 of this sign, given the 4-foot height of the planter. Boardmember Adcock suggested keeping a consistent 7-foot height for the monument/freestanding direction sign on both properties. Boardmember Hirsch thought that the Lytton Street sign is a problem because the planter is approximately 4 feet above the sidewalk, so a horizontal sign 3 feet above that level would not look very attractive. Boardmember Hirsch thinks it needs to be a vertical sign. Chair Baltay pointed out that the sign would block the view out to the street, so it may be the wrong place for a sign. Chair Baltay stated there are options, for example, a 7-foot vertical sign at a 45-degree angle at the middle of the handrail would look cool but he does not want to design it for the applicant. Boardmember Adcock noted the planter in the picture shown on the screen is about 2½ feet tall based on counting the stairs next to it but that is not the existing planter. Chair Baltay asked the applicant how they could address the Board’s concerns about the size of the sign. Mr. Pike would like to propose a smaller vertical option that still served its function. Mr. Pike believed a horizontal sign would be more unattractive and would not serve the direction of traffic they were trying to meet. Dustin thought they might propose a couple of options for the Board to review. On the rendering, the sign seemed a couple feet taller relative to the woman walking by. Ms. Kallas stated that the 2021 plans show the increased height of the planter. The top of the planter is higher than the height of the railing, so it is likely a 48-inch tall planter as the applicant stated. Boardmember Adcock thought the 2021 plan shown on the screen was beautiful but placing the sign on top of the planter would make it 10 feet tall. Chair Baltay suggested limiting the sign to 7 feet in height from the sidewalk and leave it up to the applicant to propose a solution. The ARB could form an ad hoc committee if the applicant wants preliminary feedback. Chair Baltay asked staff about the sizes of the address and tenants. Ms. Kallas replied that the non- tenant area of a directory sign typically is limited to 4 feet but the applicant is proposing 7.4 feet as a sign exception because it has the address. Chair Baltay stated the justification for the sign exception could be the size of the building and property. Boardmember Hirsch was concerned about the lack of consistency in the sign program for lettering of tenant names. Regarding Sign C on the retaining wall, the consensus was that it was too large. Boardmember Adcock and Chair Baltay stated Sign C was huge and should not be larger than the wall it is mounted on. Ms. Gerhardt remarked that there is a wall behind this, as seen on the Google image. The applicant is covering the entire wall, which is why you cannot see it in the plan set. Chair Baltay was okay with the sign being as tall as the solid wall behind it. Chair Baltay asked if the perimeter size was larger than the code allowed. Ms. Gerhardt replied that a wall sign on a retaining wall is allowed to be the size of the retaining wall. Besides the height, Chair Baltay opined the sign was too large. Boardmember Adcock thought the fonts were too big. Chair Baltay Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 133     Page 13 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 wondered how the Board could ask the applicant to modify it, if by putting a limit on the size or vertical height. Boardmember Hirsch suggested floating the numerals and letters on the wall instead of a big block. Chair Baltay thought that would go a long way toward reducing the apparent bulk of the sign. Boardmember Hirsch was concerned the letters did not have too much character and he thought that when you put letters on a wall they ought to be interesting letters. Boardmember Adcock agreed and suggested asking the applicant not to use the Master Sign Design. Boardmember Adcock suggested having a height and overall sign limit for this sign but leave it up to applicant if they want to use pin- mounted letters. Boardmember Adcock opined a 16-inch font on a pedestrian street was too tall and the whole wall does not need to be filled with sign. Boardmember Chen commented that the location of the signs for 525 and 530 are next to the parking garage entrance, so she is not sure whether the design intent is for visitors to find the entrance easier. Because there is a lot of street parking along those two streets, to make it easy for drivers to see the address, it has to be above car height and easy to see. Boardmember Chen thought an 8-foot height from the bottom of the letter to the top is appropriate for this location. Chair Baltay pointed out that there are 7-foot signs on either corner identifying 525 and 530, so you know what building it is as you are coming close. Boardmember Chen viewed the signs as reminding her where to go to avoid missing the garage entrance. Chair Baltay stated the Google image was taken from the top of a car about 4 or 5 feet high, making the driver’s vision about 2 feet lower than the Google image, so you will see the sign mounted on the wall at that height. Boardmember Adcock suggested following the guidance per the code for Wall Property ID. As shown, the sign does not exceed the wall height but the font does not need to be 16 inches tall if the applicant proposed 9½-inch bold font on the parking sign is visible for cars. Chair Baltay suggested maximum 12- inch fonts. The applicant’s proposal was 56 square feet. Chair Baltay suggested no more than 40 square feet of area within the height of the wall. Boardmembers agreed. For consistency, Boardmember Adcock suggested the same limitations for Lytton Sign C on Page 11. Chair Baltay clarified that his comments were for 525 and 530 C. On Page 21, Boardmember Chen thought the 525 freestanding parking sign was tall from the street level. Boardmember Adcock noted on Page 20 that the top of the sign is 12 feet tall, the sign itself is 3½ feet, so 8’ 6” to the bottom of the sign. On the next page, if you consider the people walking around being 6 feet tall, the sign is rendered at maybe 7 feet tall instead of 8½ feet tall. For consistency with code clearances and with the applicant’s rendering, Boardmember Adcock suggested 7’ 6” to the bottom. Chair Baltay agreed with Boardmember Adcock. Chair Baltay liked the design of the sign. Pedestrians are not always aware there is a driveway, so Boardmember Adcock appreciated the “car coming” light. Boardmember Adcock asked staff if there were any safety or fire concerns for access. Ms. Gerhardt needs to confirm the minimum height with Public Works. Chair Baltay commented that if the sign is too high, you do not see it once you get close to it. Boardmember Hirsch remarked that if the drawing on Page 19 was accurate, it does not look bad where it is. Chair Baltay reminded Boardmember Hirsch that the sign would be on the top of the planter. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 134     Page 14 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 Boardmember Adcock stated that Page 20 shows the sign with the planter and it states it is 61 inches tall; however, it looks maybe 4’ 6” on the rendering with the people, so it is inconsistent. Boardmember Hirsch asked about the parking sign on Page 20 for 525. Chair Baltay replied it is a pole- mounted blade sign. Staff said it is a freestanding sign as defined by the code. Chair Baltay said it should be limited to 5 feet. Ms. Kallas stated it needs a height exception because it is a directional sign. Chair Baltay remarked that Page 21 has a rendering of the sign in situ. Boardmember Adcock noted on Page 6, Sign E, the red line shows the sign orientation on Cowper Street. Chair Baltay stated the sign is perpendicular to the direction of traffic on Cowper to function as a parking sign. Boardmember Hirsch was fine with it sticking out as a blade sign because it has to be seen. Boardmember Adcock commented that the sign has to be in that direction for pedestrians walking by to know there are cars coming with the car-coming light because it is hard to see with the giant retaining walls. Motion 1. Show all planter locations and heights accurately to 2021 approved plans in the sign elevation drawings 2. 525 University Sign Type A maximum height of 7 feet from sidewalk level 3. 530 Lytton Sign Type A maximum height of 7 feet from sidewalk level 4. Define the tenant space parameters for Sign Type A 5. 525 University Sign Type C maximum size of 40 square feet, maximum height of 12 inches for lettering, clarify mounting, cannot exceed the wall height 6. 530 Lytton Sign Type C maximum size of 40 square feet, maximum height of 12 inches for lettering 7. Bottom of both parking signs Types E shall be the minimum required above the sidewalk, top of sign shall not exceed 11 feet. MOTION: By Chair Baltay, seconded by Boardmember Chen, to continue this project to a date uncertain, subject to the seven conditions outlined in the motion. VOTE: Motion passed 4-0. The ARB took a 5-minute break. The ARB returned with all members present. 3. Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan Chair Baltay asked Planning Manager Jodie Gerhardt if she had a presentation. Ms. Gerhardt did not have a presentation but she shared the document on the screen. This document would go to City Council in the same format as in the ARB’s packet, with black and white photos. Ms. Gerhardt could look Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 135     Page 15 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 into the potential of color photos but it would require be a special run or it could be emailed to the Council in color. Staff updated the document with the year and current Boardmembers, as well as high and low priorities added as per the ARB’s previous request. Ms. Gerhardt invited questions from the Board on the work plan. Chair Baltay invited any comments. Boardmember Adcock commented on Packet Page 42, Goal 4, parklet design and streetscape designs, timeline spring/summer 2024. Streetscape design is not on the ARB’s priorities nor was the ARB planning to address streetscape designs this spring or summer. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the goal was meant to be generic, meaning the ARB wants to review these types of things. Chair Baltay suggested adding “to monitor parklet and streetscape designs” under low priority. Chair Baltay asked Ms. Gerhardt to introduce the annual report. Ms. Gerhardt mentioned that a few items were removed from the list because they were not finished. The numbering in the annual report was changed to align with the work plan. The staff used yellow text to denote changes that were made to the annual report. Boardmember Hirsch asked his fellow Boardmembers to think about areas that require urban design and how to think about long-range planning. Chair Baltay stated that the ARB is asking Council to create a Coordinated Area Plan for Encina Avenue. Chair Baltay suggested it include the area between El Camino and the railroad, Town and Country on the south, and Palo Alto Medical Foundation on the north. Discussion ensued amongst the Board. Ms. Gerhardt did not see a write-up for California Avenue. Chair Baltay asked the Board why California Avenue should have a Coordinated Area Plan. Boardmember Hirsch spoke about the 800 linear feet of parking lots on Cambridge. California Avenue should have a Coordinated Area Plan to develop a scope of future development, especially for the parking lots. Ms. Gerhardt pointed out that under AB 2097, the City cannot require parking within a half-mile of a train station. The Board and staff reached a consensus on the following wording: With the State’s requirement outlined in AB 2097 and Builders Remedy, the California Avenue area will experience more development. The area should have a Coordinated Area Plan to better scope future development. Discussion ensued about coordinated area plans for downtown and Encina Avenue. Roof terraces were added to Item 4. The Board had observed many multifamily developments utilize roof terraces to meet outdoor open space requirements, yet there is a lack of clear guidance on how those should be designed. Access to roof terraces is challenging with our height limit. Allowing stairs and elevators to go up another 15 feet would provide ADA access and make roof terraces functional. The Board has received feedback from the public about roof terraces causing privacy issues. Item 5 is formalizing a communication process with City Council and Planning. Boardmember Hirsch wanted the ARB to be agendized to make a direct presentation of this list to City Council. Chair Baltay asked Ms. Gerhardt what the process was in the Board and Commission Handbook Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 136     Page 16 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 for providing these reports to the Council and the PTC. Ms. Gerhardt replied that the work plan is put in a packet with all the other work plans. Chair Baltay did not think it was appropriate to push for the ARB to present this to Council. Chair Baltay viewed the ARB as the City’s architects. Private architects inform clients about things they should know about, such as a change in the code or a change in situation. That is what the ARB is doing with its annual report, clearly communicating what the ARB is seeing. Whether Council chooses to act on it is up to them. Chair Baltay commended Ms. Gerhardt and her staff for their work on the annual report, stating it was nicely presented and attractive. Discussion ensued on wording and staff made edits as the ARB reviewed the document on the screen. Boardmember Hirsch pointed out that the 824 San Antonio senior project was missing. Ms. Gerhardt explained that staff excluded projects that were not final. Boardmember Hirsch remarked that the annual report was brilliantly done and he liked the inclusion of pictures in the report. Chair Baltay mentioned to the PTC that the ARB made a recommendation to start measuring underground construction such as parking garages, as they are affected by setbacks and lot coverage at a depth below the ground. The ARB recommended 3 feet as a means to try to get greater landscaping capacity and control how stairs came up. The PTC agreed it was a good way to start making these changes. Chair Baltay thought it should be included in next year’s annual report. Motion Accept and present this work plan for 2024 to City Council. MOTION: By Boardmember Hirsch, seconded by Boardmember Adcock. VOTE: Motion passed 4-0. 4. Chair and Vice Chair Elections Chair Baltay spoke with Boardmember Rosenberg and she indicated to him that she was willing to take on the responsibility of Chair. Motion Nominate Boardmember Rosenberg for Chair to be effective at the close of this hearing. MOTION: By Chair Baltay, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch. VOTE: Motion passed 4-0. Motion Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 137     Page 17 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 Nominate Boardmember Chen for Vice Chair. MOTION: By Boardmember Hirsch, seconded by Boardmember Adcock. Chair Baltay asked Boardmember Chen if she wanted to address the motion. Boardmember Chen thanked her fellow Boardmembers for their nomination. VOTE: Motion passed 4-0. Chair Baltay thanked his colleagues for the honor and pleasure of serving with them, and looked forward to working with the new Board leadership next year. Approval of Minutes 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2024 Chair Baltay invited any comments or a motion. On Packet Page 61, Paragraph 7, Boardmember Chen stated she was talking about ceiling height, not seating height. Boardmember Adcock stated that Page 63, 5th line, should read as one-hour rated window, not one out- rated window. Regarding Page 53, the last sentence on the third large paragraph states that the best solution to minimize the hazard is to not create the bus shelters at all. Boardmember Adcock’s recollection was that the speaker said to not create clear-glass bus shelters. Boardmember Hirsch recalled the speaker showed the Board a bus shelter that she thought was more appropriate. Chair Baltay asked staff to check the transcript to see what was said. Ms. Gerhardt stated she would look at the meeting video to verify intent instead of relying only on the verbal words. Chair Baltay suggested removing the sentence or for staff to use their judgment. Ms. Gerhardt remarked that since it is summary minutes, staff would ensure it is capturing the intent. Motion Approve Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for January 18, 2024 as revised. MOTION: By Boardmember Chen, seconded by Boardmember Hirsch. VOTE: Motion passed 4-0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Chair Baltay attended the Planning and Transportation Commission (PTC) meeting last week. The PTC discussed NV-CAP and the ARB’s recommendations on the design standards. The PTC decided to Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 138     Page 18 of 18 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 05/16/24 recommend a lower height limit in NV-MXM and NV-MXH. Staff recommended buildings be limited to 55 feet, the ARB thought 65 feet was appropriate, and the PTC agreed to 45 feet. The ARB and PTC recommendations will be presented to City Council for final determination. Boardmember Chen asked when is Council’s meeting. Chair Baltay believed the Council would review this in June. Chair Baltay thought it was important for the new Chair to represent the ARB’s point of view on this to the Council. Boardmember Adcock thanked Chair Baltay for his leadership during the past year. Boardmember Adcock congratulated Chair Rosenberg and Vice Chair Chen. Boardmember Hirsch echoed Boardmember Adcock’s comments. Boardmember Hirsch remarked that the ARB was able to make many decisions, primarily because of Chair Baltay’s leadership. Adjournment Chair Baltay adjourned the meeting at 11:34 AM. Item 6 Attachment A - Minutes of May 16, 2024     Packet Pg. 139     Item No. 7. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 15, 2024 Report #: 2408-3354 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of June 6, 2024 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1& Contact Information Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Manager of Current Planning (650) 329-2575 Jodie.Gerhardt@CityofPaloAlto.org 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@CityofPaloAlto.org. Item 7 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 140     Page 1 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/06/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: June 6, 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 June 6, 2024, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:32 AM. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Boardmember Mousam Adcock, Boardmember Peter Baltay, Boardmember David Hirsch Absent: Vice Chair Yingxi Chen Oral Communications There were no requests to speak. Agenda Changes, Additions And Deletions There were no changes. City Official Reports 1. Transmittal of 1) the ARB Meeting Schedule and Attendance Record, 2) Tentative Future Agenda items and 3) Recently Submitted Projects Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould reported there were no plan sets for 3000 El Camino Real yet, so the June 20 meeting was canceled. The July 4 meeting was already canceled, and the Board will return on July 18 with a full schedule that day. There was an alternative to the 660 University project filed under 680 University as a Builder's Remedy alternative. The applicant is still moving forward with the 660 University project, but this is an alternative SB 330 preap anticipated to move to the Planning Commission and the Council for the Planned Community Rezoning Project within the next couple months. SummerHill Homes filed a new housing project at 4335 and 4345 El Camino Real, which is 29 units. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 640 Waverley Street [24PLN‐00064]: Consideration of a Major Architectural Review to Allow the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings on a 5,277 square foot lot and Redevelopment of the Site with a Proposed Four‐story, Approximately 11,403 Square Foot Mixed‐use Development with Ground Floor Office and Four Residential Units Above. Environmental Assessment: The City is Preparing Documentation to Support an Exemption from Item 7 Attachment A - Minutes of June 6, 2024     Packet Pg. 141     Page 2 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/06/24 the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) in accordance with Guideline 15183 (Consistency with an adopted Comprehensive Plan). Zoning District: CD‐C (P). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Claire Raybould at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. Chair Rosenburg asked for disclosures. Boardmember Adcock and Chair Rosenburg stated they visited the site. Boardmember Baltay noted he had visited the site and spoken with the architect several times. Boardmember Hirsch did not visit the site. Boardmember Adcock also noted she was not present for the previous presentation but had watched the recording. Senior Planner and Architectural Review Board (ARB) Liaison Claire Raybould provided an overview of the project to replace 2 existing office-use buildings on a 5225-sq-ft parcel with a new 4-story mixed-use development (ground floor office and 4 residential units), with a total FAR of 2.16:1 and 6 parking stalls for residential use in the parking garage. The project is designed to meet the intent of the objective standards versus the objective standards, so the major ARB process applies. This will be the first formal hearing for the project, and it will return to the ARB following completion of the CEQA to ask for a recommendation. The project is subject to context-based design criteria, the Downtown Design Guidelines, CD-C Zone District Requirements, and ARB findings. Feedback is requested related to massing, site planning, material selection, and context-based design criteria consistency, particularly transition and privacy. Staff recommends the ARB review the application, provide feedback, and continue to a date uncertain. Ken Hayes, Hayes Group Architects, discussed the zoning and location of the project, describing and showing pictures of existing buildings in the neighborhood. The project statement is to respond to the nature of the site and context; add 4 new homes, including the owner's residence; provide ground-floor commercial space; accommodate below-grade parking; and integrate sustainable systems and features to try to achieve a net zero goal. The plan intends to connect with nature through integrated plants, daylight, and air; set back a fourth-floor pavilion to increase privacy and open space and reduce the mass on the upper floor; and provide materials that are long lasting and durable. He described a sculpted edge of green lanes along the property edge with opportunities for light, air, and plantings for the use of architectural elements of courtyards and skylight wells. He showed and described the site plan. A covered paseo was added to the plan and opens up to the courtyard and driveway and provides access to the rear trash area and the stair. At the back of the building, there is a slot that separates the stair tower from the ground floor mass, allowing a view corridor at the end. He further discussed and showed plans for the green lanes. He presented the plans for the residential floors. An all-electric building was proposed with a 30-kW PV array on the roof. Mr. Ken Hayes reviewed comments made at the preliminary hearing and changes made as a result of those. The trash facilities for residential and commercial have been separated. To reduce the mass of the rear stair, that has been separated from the ground-floor piece with a textured pattern on part of the ground floor and vines planted on the stair tower itself. The new plan significantly reduced the low-carbon concrete mass on the 650 side of the building, deemphasized the concrete frame, introduced a warm metallic face, extended the roof to reveal more wooden surface, and integrated additional plantings at all levels. The roof was redesigned to privilege the views from below. At the property line with 636 Waverly, levels 3 and 4 step back to allow light into the light well void at 636. This also allows for privacy to both buildings by having solid walls. He showed 3D views of the building from ground level. Item 7 Attachment A - Minutes of June 6, 2024     Packet Pg. 142     Page 3 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/06/24 PUBLIC COMMENT Roger McCarthy, resident of 650 Waverly, felt his building was the most impacted by this project. He noted the builders had been extremely receptive to concerns and needs and had made concessions from the beginning. He felt this site should be developed and that there would never be another builder with such sensitivity to neighbors' concerns. He implored the ARB to approve the project. Chair Rosenburg closed the Public Hearing and opened up discussion to the Board. Boardmember Adcock asked when this might come back for final approval after the CEQA process. She noted the egress onto stair 2 was only on the fourth floor and asked if that was not required for the other floors. She asked if the movable shades were manual. She questioned maintenance and access for the garden areas on all of the terrace levels: the long planter on the third-floor level toward the street, the concrete wall and planting behind it on the right of the first-floor plan, and the planting on the painted metal screening between the car lift and stair 2. Ms. Raybould expected to do a 15183 exemption, streamlining under the Comprehensive Plan, with a few months of review and preparation of technical analyses to support the exemption. She believed fall was the earliest the project would come back to ARB. Mr. Ken Hayes noted the stair egress was not required for the other floors. The shades were intended to be a manual sliding system. He explained the purpose of the door out of stair number 1 was to access the planting area. The planters were designed to be able to access from floor level. The planters on the rear terrace are outside of the railing. On the first-floor plan, the front wall is a full-height share wall and the two return walls are low planter walls, 3 feet high; that planter is raised. There are 12 inches of soil all the way around the building with an opportunity to plant in the ground. He noted the plants growing on the concrete wall were growing up onto the vine, not from planters above. Mason Hayes added that in the slatted portion of the rear stair that faces Waverly, there would be channel planters intermittently at the levels inside the stair or just outside of the slats, which would promote growing down of those vines on the upper levels. Boardmember Baltay felt the project's landscaping was ambitious and was interested in a condition of approval to ensure the plants survive. Ms. Raybould noted there is a standard condition that all plants proposed must be maintained. She added that the landscaping is not being maintained, that condition can be enforced as needed. James Lin, owner, explained that he wanted everything done properly for the site because he intended to live there. Boardmember Baltay was not satisfied that the landscaping would survive. He asked if the concrete wall on the third-floor terrace on the 636 side of the building was adjacent to glazing or solid wall on the neighboring property. Mr. Ken Hayes explained the blue highlighted line on the plan is the 636 glass line. Outside of the glass line is a 5-foot roof terrace of 636 with a void that drops off to the floor below and is open to the sky above. On the fourth floor, there is a covered entry porch coming off the elevator. The garden is open to Item 7 Attachment A - Minutes of June 6, 2024     Packet Pg. 143     Page 4 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/06/24 the sky. The tallest wall there stops at the interior stair at the edge of the garden and aligns with 636. The glazing faces a concrete wall. He noted the wall would be lower to provide both privacy and a view of the sky. Boardmember Baltay understood the reason for the wall is on the fourth floor was privacy at the entry porch but stated the third floor was just a terrace to access the planter. Mr. Ken Hayes agreed but explained that wall needed to be there because of building code requirements that preventing an opening on the property line. There was further discussion and explanation of this. Boardmember Baltay wanted to minimize the impact to the neighbor. Regarding the privacy screening on Waverly Street, he questioned how it functions and how it is made. He asked the size of the slats and how far apart they are. Mr. Ken Hayes responded that the Company that makes the metal ribbed siding makes the panels and it would be part of that system. The spacing is ¾ or ½ inch but can be changed. Boardmember Baltay, noting the applicant was not required to have any parking, asked if that applied to ADA parking as well and whether elevator-accessed parking complies with ADA standards. Ms. Raybould acknowledged that because the building is within a half mile of a major transit stop, no parking was required. ADA parking was also not required, but if parking is provided, it must meet ADA requirements. She added that it was something Staff would be looking at to ensure compliance. Mr. Ken Hayes believed this complied with ADA standards as long as the controls were within reach. – parking standars – that is my understanding. As long as they can reach the controls that are required to be at a ceratin . Boardmember Hirsch questioned were there was access to the roof for the maintenance of the solar collectors, etc. Mr. Ken Hayes responded that it was agreed with Palo Alto Fire to have a ship's ladder at stair number 2 at the rear up to the roof and a ladder that goes over the parapet to the roof that has the PV panels on it. There was discussion about the convenience of residents needing to take garbage to the cellar. Boardmember Hirsch felt it was a problem. He suggested the office entry could be put on the side of the building and the landscaped front of the building could be used for garbage. Mr. Ken Hayes agreed that an entrance could be put on the side but believed the City liked to have entrances face the street. He noted fire issues with the exit passageway and paseo, explaining he wanted to see some kind of connection between the office and courtyard. Boardmember Hirsch asked if the planters would have automatic watering devices, making maintenance less critical. Regarding parking, he questioned how the cars will turn around within the parking area. Mr. Ken Hayes stated the planters would have automatic watering devices. He felt the current design for parking was not ideal and suspected that one space would have to be removed to create a turnaround. Boardmember Hirsch felt this plan was an improvement to the original. Item 7 Attachment A - Minutes of June 6, 2024     Packet Pg. 144     Page 5 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/06/24 Boardmember Adcock inquired if the residents are moving their own trash up via the car lift. Mr. Ken Kayes responded that the owner would have someone that does that. Chair Rosenburg asked if there was a specific tenant for the office and if the other units would be for sale or rent. She questioned how long the car elevator takes to rise and the safety protocols when the elevator is in the lifted position. She also asked about alerts for the car system if someone is leaving while someone else is arriving. Mr. Ken Hayes responded that the owner's company would most likely occupy the office space. The other units would be for sale but will likely be rented. The car lift takes 90 seconds, up or down. He explained the function of the lift and that there is at no point a hole anyone could fall into. He described there is a light that can be seen from the street to identify that someone is operating the lift. Chair Rosenburg asked if there was a designated spot for Amazon deliveries and drop-offs. She questioned if residents would be accessing the residential bikes by taking them up and down on the elevator. She inquired about the foundation system around the perimeter. She also asked about the amps needed for the building and whether there would be a transformer on site. Mr. Ken Hayes felt it would be great if delivery drives pulled in the driveway but noted there is street parking in front. Bicycles would be accessed via the passenger elevator. The foundation horizontal would be a mat slab, probably 18 inches thick, and then the excavation. He assumed it would have a soldier pier with wide flange beams drilled into the ground and wood lagging between them to hold that soil. He explained that the existing transformer in the sidewalk was planned for. Chair Rosenburg closed questions and turned to the Board for comments. Boardmember Hirsch felt the more serious questions were about the planting. He thought the circulation of the building worked well even if there is a crossover between office use and residential use and the apartment planning is excellent. He stated the actual site and use of open space seemed to be adequately addressed and that the exterior textures were are appropriate to the City's request for less concrete. He found the exterior materials to be adequate texturally and friendlier than just a concrete building. He noted it was a complicated building but pretty well done. Boardmember Baltay believed the new paseo and courtyard were wonderful and a good example of how to do something like that. He wondered if the metal privacy screens on the front were necessary or if a different material could be used. He wanted to lessen impact to 636 as much as possible, possibly lowering the fourth-floor concrete wall so that it would not affect privacy but would help the neighbors get more sky into their view. He wanted to consider if there was a way to make that more open or visually interesting on the third floor as well. Lastly, he felt the building would be much more successful if the landscaping was successful. He wanted some measure of assurance that it would be as seen in the renderings. Boardmember Adcock felt having the planting areas at each level walkable versus raised was a great intent and wanted to see that fleshed out. She felt the openings in between the vine channels would make stair 2 much friendlier. She agreed with Boardmember Baltay's concern about the 636 view and felt that the Item 7 Attachment A - Minutes of June 6, 2024     Packet Pg. 145     Page 6 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/06/24 garden view should be shared with the neighbors. She commended the thoughtful design and felt the massing intent of the screens was night but needed to be a little more open. Chair Rosenburg agreed about the planting maintenance and wanted to make sure the thoughtful plan was carried through and brought to life. She encouraged the applicants to return with more information about the maintenance plan, the irrigation systems, access to the planting portions, and better diagrams for the parking turnaround. Chair Rosenburg summarized the full Board's comments as follows: 1. The Board would like to more details about plant maintenance and have a better understanding of how this will operate long term. 2. The Board wanted a better diagram to understand the ins and outs of how parking is going to work as well as a visual for the lift in open and closed positions to clarify what this will look like from each level. 3. The Board was interested in seeing real samples of the metal privacy screening and getting a better understanding of the screen, whether it is too open or too much in general. 4. The Board had concerns about the visual impact to the neighbor at 636 and wanted to understand what could be done there to make the appearance a little bit nicer and softer for the neighbor. Chair Rosenburg thanked the applicant for the presentation and felt it was a beautiful project. She believed the neighbor coming spoke volumes about how the project was being handled and the thoughtfulness of it. MOTION: Boardmember Baltay moved, seconded by Boardmember Adcock, that the project be continued to a date uncertain subject to the comments outlined by Chair Rosenburg. VOTE: Motion carries, 4-0-1 (Chen absent) Approval Of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2024 Boardmember Adcock provided several corrections to the minutes. On packet page 35, the sentence "Boardmember Adcock inquired if the approved drawings gave businesses the ability to go to any vendor for the drawings," should be changed to say "…with the drawings." On page 38, "Boardmember Adcock clarified that if it were to become a requirement, then the 350 square foot could not become the upper limit, due to the 20ft times 8ft limit of the parklet, and could not be a contiguous three-hundred and fifty square feet if made to break up the parklets every three feet…" should read "to break up the parklets every 20 feet." On packet page 49, she wanted to add the italicized phrase to the following sentence: "…which were not achievable due to grid pattern on insulated glass not usually being set on the number one surface of standard insulated glazing." Boardmember Hirsch noted that the word "Pescadero" on packet page 48 should say "Embarcadero." MOTION: Boardmember Hirsch, seconded by Boardmember Adcock, moved to accept the Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 15, 2024. Item 7 Attachment A - Minutes of June 6, 2024     Packet Pg. 146     Page 7 of 7 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 06/06/24 VOTE: Motion carries, 4-0-1 (Chen absent) Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 10:06 AM. Item 7 Attachment A - Minutes of June 6, 2024     Packet Pg. 147     Item No. 8. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: August 15, 2024 Report #: 2407-3267 TITLE 800/808 San Antonio Road [23PLN-00010]: Ad Hoc Review of Modifications to the Proposed Application to Rezone 800 and 808 San Antonio Road from Commercial Services to Planned Community, which the ARB Previously Recommended for Approval. The Proposed Modifications Address Refinements to Trash Management. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): 1. Discuss and provide direction or approve project revisions. BACKGROUND On March 7, 2024, the ARB recommended approval of the subject project with a condition that certain project elements return to an ARB Ad Hoc Committee. Adcock and Hirsch were selected to act as the Ad Hoc Committee. On April 4, 2024 an ARB Ad Hoc Committee was held, and it was determined all items were addressed except for Item 4, alternate methods for trash collection. Below is the full text of the item requested to return to the Committee and the applicant’s response: 4. Architecture Review Condition: Recommend considering alternate locations of the trash collection area, means of bringing trash to the street staging area, and location of the trash staging area Applicant’s Response: Alternatives have been prepared, see Attachment A. ANALYSIS The exhibit provided by the applicant shows three alternatives. The first is the existing configuration included in the approved ARB plan set. In this plan, refuse bins are moved by a Item 8 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 148     Item No. 8. Page 2 of 2 trolley from the below-grade trash room, up the garage ramp, to the staging area. The second option switches the locations of the bike room and the trash room, so that the trash room is at grade and the bike room is in the below grade garage. Staff believes this option is not in line with the ARB findings and requirements to make the bike room as accessible as possible. The third option includes a lift from the basement level to the ground level, within the space of the commercial tenant. This is in response to Board Member Hirsch’s recommendation to use a lift. However, it makes an already small commercial space potentially less desirable, as 80 sf must be dedicated to the lift area. Greenwaste has reviewed the plans. Since these changes do not affect their pick up in the staging area, they did not find any of the options infeasible. However, they noted if a lift is used it must be rated to lift at least 2,300 pounds as that is the estimated weight of a full 4 CY compost bin. The Board is encouraged to provide direction to staff and the applicant as to whether the proposed changes are sufficient or require further refinement. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Trash Alternatives Exhibit Report Author & Contact Information ARB[1] Liaison & Contact Information Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 617-3125 (650) 329-2575 emily.kallas@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org [1] Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 8 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 149     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 “800 San Antonio” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/800-San-Antonio-Road Materials Boards: Color and material boards will be available to view in chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 8 Attachment A: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 150