Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2024-09-05 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, September 05, 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. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subject line. Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified as present at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up to fifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking members agree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes for all combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions and Action Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers. PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted only by email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are not accepted. 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. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00323]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review of exterior storefront revisions and improvements including a redesigned outdoor dining area, façade revisions, new signage and updated lighting for an existing restaurant tenant, The Melt (Space #705A, Building E), at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. [23PLN‐00110] 3000 El Camino Real (Palo Alto Square): Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for facade changes and site improvements associated with conversion of a vacant theater use to an office use within Building 6. Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction and conversion of small structures). Zoning: PC‐4648. For more information contact the project planner Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 15, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, September 05, 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. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted. 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. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00323]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review of exterior storefront revisions and improvements including a redesigned outdoor dining area, façade revisions, new signage and updated lighting for an existing restaurant tenant, The Melt (Space #705A, Building E), at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. [23PLN‐00110] 3000 El Camino Real (Palo Alto Square): Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for facade changes and site improvements associated with conversion of a vacant theater use to an office use within Building 6. Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction and conversion of small structures). Zoning: PC‐4648. For more information contact the project planner Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 15, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, September 05, 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. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.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. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00323]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review ofexterior storefront revisions and improvements including a redesigned outdoor diningarea, façade revisions, new signage and updated lighting for an existing restauranttenant, The Melt (Space #705A, Building E), at the Stanford Shopping Center.Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial).3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. [23PLN‐00110] 3000 El Camino Real (Palo AltoSquare): Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major ArchitecturalReview for facade changes and site improvements associated with conversion of avacant theater use to an office use within Building 6. Exempt from the provisions of theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(new construction and conversion of small structures). Zoning: PC‐4648. For moreinformation contact the project planner Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2024 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 15, 2024 BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS AND AGENDAS Members of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, September 05, 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. Board member names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@CityofPaloAlto.org and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on theCity’s website. Please clearly indicate which agenda item you are referencing in your subjectline.Spokespersons that are representing a group of five or more people who are identified aspresent at the meeting at the time of the spokesperson's presentation will be allowed up tofifteen (15) minutes at the discretion of the Chair, provided that the non‐speaking membersagree not to speak individually. The Chair may limit Public Comments to thirty (30) minutes forall combined speakers. The Chair may reduce the allowed time to speak for Study Sessions andAction Items to two (2) minutes or less to accommodate a larger number of speakers.PowerPoints, videos, or other media to be presented during public comment are accepted onlyby email to arb@CityofPaloAlto.org at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received,the Clerk will have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strongcybersecurity management practices, USB’s or other physical electronic storage devices are notaccepted.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. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN‐00323]:Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review ofexterior storefront revisions and improvements including a redesigned outdoor diningarea, façade revisions, new signage and updated lighting for an existing restauranttenant, The Melt (Space #705A, Building E), at the Stanford Shopping Center.Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities).Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial).3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. [23PLN‐00110] 3000 El Camino Real (Palo AltoSquare): Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major ArchitecturalReview for facade changes and site improvements associated with conversion of avacant theater use to an office use within Building 6. Exempt from the provisions of theCalifornia Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303(new construction and conversion of small structures). Zoning: PC‐4648. For moreinformation contact the project planner Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org.APPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 18, 20245.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 15, 2024BOARD MEMBER QUESTIONS, COMMENTS, ANNOUNCEMENTS OR FUTURE MEETINGS ANDAGENDASMembers of the public may not speak to the item(s). ADJOURNMENT PUBLIC COMMENT INSTRUCTIONS Members of the Public may provide public comments to teleconference meetings via email, teleconference, or by phone. 1. Written public comments may be submitted by email to arb@cityofpaloalto.org. 2. Spoken public comments using a computer will be accepted through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, click on the link below to access a Zoom‐ based meeting. Please read the following instructions carefully. You may download the Zoom client or connect to the meeting in‐ browser. If using your browser, make sure you are using a current, up‐to‐date browser: Chrome 30, Firefox 27, Microsoft Edge 12, Safari 7. Certain functionality may be disabled in older browsers including Internet Explorer. You may be asked to enter an email address and name. We request that you identify yourself by name as this will be visible online and will be used to notify you that it is your turn to speak. When you wish to speak on an Agenda Item, click on “raise hand.” The Clerk will activate and unmute speakers in turn. Speakers will be notified shortly before they are called to speak. When called, please limit your remarks to the time limit allotted. A timer will be shown on the computer to help keep track of your comments. 3. Spoken public comments using a smart phone will be accepted  through the teleconference meeting. To address the Board, download the Zoom application onto your phone from the Apple App Store or Google Play Store and enter the Meeting ID below. Please follow the instructions above. 4. Spoken public comments using a phone use the telephone number listed below. When you wish to speak on an agenda item hit *9 on your phone so we know that you wish to speak. You will be asked to provide your first and last name before addressing the Board. You will be advised how long you have to speak. When called please limit your remarks to the agenda item and time limit allotted. CLICK HERE TO JOIN    Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491   Phone: 1‐669‐900‐6833  Americans with Disability Act (ADA) It is the policy of the City of Palo Alto to offer its public programs, services and meetings in a manner that is readily accessible to all. Persons with disabilities who require materials in an appropriate alternative format or who require auxiliary aids to access City meetings, programs, or services may contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at (650) 329‐2550 (voice) or by emailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 5, 2024 Report #: 2408-3406 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 19, 2024 •4335-4345 El Camino Real (29 Townhomes) •Discuss Amendments to the Housing Incentive Program (HIP and AHIP) in the Palo Alto Zoning Code to Implement Housing Element Program 3.4 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) 24PLN- 00230 (Code compliant version) 24PLN- 00231 (Map) 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 Baltay, Chen reported out 6/1 Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 9     One Bedrooms. Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community). 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). _____ 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 Rosenberg, Hirsch Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 10     6/15/23. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD-C(P). 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) Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/02/2024 24PLN- 00100 24PLN- 00223 (Map) 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: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD. Baltay, Chen Item 1 Attachment B: Tentative Agenda and Pending Projects List     Packet Pg. 11     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 amenities. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CS (Service Commercial). Hirsch, Baltay reviewed prelim 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 24PLN- 00232 (Map) 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 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 5, 2024 Report #: 2408-3356 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [23PLN-00323]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review of exterior storefront revisions and improvements including a redesigned outdoor dining area, façade revisions, new signage and updated lighting for an existing restaurant tenant, The Melt (Space #705A, Building E), at the Stanford Shopping Center. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action(s): •Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on findings and subject to conditions of approval. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project includes modifications to an existing tenant space for, The Melt, at the Stanford Shopping Center. The Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP) for the Stanford Shopping Center requires an Architectural Review of exterior changes to tenant spaces more than 35 feet in width and facing a public right-of-way. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:The Board of Trustees of Leland Stanford Junior University Architect:Globeatelie Architects Representative:Jason Smith – Land Shark Development Legal Counsel:Not Applicable Property Information Address:180 El Camino Real (Space #705A, Building E) Neighborhood:Stanford Shopping Center Lot Dimensions & Area:Various; 52.8 Acres Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 7 Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:Various throughout the site, none will be removed with this project Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):1,361,751 sf; 1 to 3 stories; 37’ height max. Existing Land Use(s):Retail, Personal Service, General/Professional Offices, and Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Community Commercial (CC) Zoning Designation:Regional/Community Commercial Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 7 Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None PROJECT DESCRIPTION The applicant requests approval of a Major Architectural Review application to allow for exterior tenant improvements, including updates to the existing storefront façade and glazing, new signage, updated lighting and outdoor dining layout for “The Melt” (Space #705A, Building E), an existing restaurant tenant at the Stanford Shopping Center. Façade and Outdoor Dining Changes The subject tenant space is located near the northeastern corner of Building E, with façades facing the parking lot off Sand Hill Road. The existing façade consists of high-gloss white tile, bold orange graphics, original arched louvers and canopies (left in place from earlier tenant fit outs), and patio area with tables and orange umbrellas. The new storefront design features a warm classic design inclusive of wooden finish plank exterior fencing in Spanish Walnut, decorative peppermill-thin brick flats, accents in black and warm gray tones, and an opaque, all season window film, in Matte Black. The building façade itself has been upgraded with a new color palette, glazing to replace metal louvers, and solid panels at all three arches, A new garage door unites the indoor/outdoor spaces providing more light and air into the space. The project includes new planter boxes with boxwood hedge, which are primarily placed along the perimeter of dining area that faces the existing parking lot. Signage The proposed signage includes new primary and secondary signs, a new blade sign, and a circle logo vinyl sign. The primary and blade signs will read “Melt”, the secondary sign will read “World’s Meltiest Burger”, and the circle logo vinyl sign will read “the Melt”. The primary sign will consist of five-inch deep open face channel lighters with orange minleon LED G30 bulbs. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 7 The secondary sign will feature three-inch deep white front-lit channel letters for the “World’s/Burger” text, and 3” deep open face channel letters painted orange with amber LED illumination bulbs for the “Meltiest” text. The blade sign will feature illuminated letters. The circle logo vinyl sign will feature HP white and kumquat orange vinyl. Requested Entitlements, Findings and Purview The following discretionary application is being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if the appeal is 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 single finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. ANALYSIS Staff has analyzed the proposed project for consistency with relevant plans, policies and regulations as well as the Architectural Review findings for approval. Overall, staff finds the project to be consistent with all relevant plans, policies, regulations and findings, as discussed herein, and recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project. Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the western portion of the site, near the London Plane entrance off of Sand Hill Road. The Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The site is surrounded by a hospital, retail, and multi-family uses. Stanford Shopping Center has an open-air pedestrian environment defined by a mixture of retail, dining, professional and general business offices, and personal service uses. The project is located within an exterior facing tenant space within Building E of the Stanford Shopping Center. The proposed project involves a façade over 35 ft in length and faces Sand Hill Road, therefore, requiring Board Level Architectural Review. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines: The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. Further, ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Stanford Shopping Center as a regional center with a land use designation of Community Commercial. On balance, the project is consistent with the Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 7 policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Attachment B provides a detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Compliance Palo Alto Municipal Code Section 18.16.060(e)(3) states that the maximum floor area for the Stanford Shopping Center is limited to 1,412,362 square feet. The proposed project would not cause the square footage of the overall center to increase beyond what is allowed by the underlying zoning. A spreadsheet of all Shopping Center building areas has been provided on Sheet G00.20 as shown in Attachment E. No site plan changes will occur for the Shopping Center. Attachment D provides a summary of the project’s consistency with the zoning ordinance. Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program The Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP 15PLN-00040) provides a master plan for all facades and signage at the Stanford Shopping Center. Projects that are consistent with the Master Sign Program are seen as consistent with other relevant guidelines, including the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the Context-based design criteria. Façade and Outdoor Dining Changes The façade updates will utilize a sophisticated color palette that enhances the existing façade and outdoor seating area. The proposed façade design will extend the full height of the building, maintaining consistency with the MTFSP design standards. Exterior dining areas total 743 square feet and will offer a variety of different seating options. 408 square feet of the exterior dining area will be permanently covered and therefore count towards gross floor area, where the remaining 335 square feet will be uncovered. Additionally, multiple three-dimensional elements have been added to the patio, including Tucci cabanas and cantilever umbrellas with built-in heaters. These improvements are meant to increase the quality of the exterior dining experience to align with other nearby tenants. The project’s design and materials appear cohesive and consistent with those found within the Shopping Center. Staff would appreciate the ARB’s comments on the façade and outdoor dining revisions. Signage The MTFSP details the sign limitations for the Shopping Center. As shown in Attachment E, the primary wall sign would be limited to 36-inch maximum heights, which the current design meets. Additionally, the proposed blade sign meets the maximum dimension for blades at 15 x 24-inches. A 9-foot clearance from the bottom of the blade to the sidewalk has been provided, consistent with the MTFSP. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site has multi-modal access and parking for pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface level parking lots with two multi-level parking structures Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 7 located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. The center currently has 64 excess vehicle parking spaces. Throughout the site there are pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. Per previous ARB project approvals at the Stanford Shopping Center, the Landlord shall install an additional 24 bike parking spaces (20 short term and 4 long term spaces) in accordance with previous project conditions of approval. However, bike parking remains insufficient at the center due to a shortage of 143 bike parking spaces (36 short term and 107 long term). This project would add one additional short term bike parking space; thereby, reducing the shortage of short term bike parking spaces to 35. The landlord is in the process of working with the City’s Planning and Transportation Departments in order to develop a bike program for the center. Consistency with Application Findings The project is consistent with the required findings for Architectural Review as shown in Attachment B. The project will renovate an existing tenant space that will strengthen the Stanford Shopping Center position as a premier regional shopping center with distinctive businesses and an open, appealing pedestrian environment. The improvements contribute to the exclusive retail, dining, and personal service experience of the Stanford Shopping Center. 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 August 23, 2024, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 21, 2024, which is 16 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance with the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption (Guidelines Section 15301) because the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade of an existing building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 7 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information Program Manager Contact Information Tamara Harrison, Contract Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (951) 506-2061 (650) 329-2575 Tamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.com jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     24 24 24 25 24 24 7 7 7 7 7 24 25 24 University Avenue _Train Station Sheraton Palo Alto American_Red Cross Fire_Station # 1 Arboretum Children's Center Rescue_Air GARAGE Tower_Well Lytton Square Senior Center Everett Manor Quarry_Substation A_Research_Institute PAMF Lytton Gardens Senior Residence Building JRH Building AA ELECTIONEER COURT Building BB Building CC Building DD Building D THE GARDEN WALK The PlazaBloomingdales Building V SAND HILL WALK Building H THE PAVILION Building E Building F LADY ELLEN PL Building K Macy's Building N THE PLAZA Building M Building W P F Chang's Bank of_America Wilkes -_ Bashford Bldg P Parking Structure Sand Hill Station The Westin Hotel Gym Lot RParking Garage City of Palo Alto Comerica Bank Pizza My Heart Peninsula_Creamery Mac's Smokeshop Wasson Building Center________Skilled Nursing Living Building C 13-190Neuroscience_Health Center 13-040CENTER FOR ACADEMIC MEDICINE Everett House Nordstrom's Crate & Barrel_______The Container_Store Building ONeiman-Marcus Building L AZMOOR PLACE 90-925n Pediatric_Ambulatory Care Center 90-935ROld_Winery 13-019 PSYCHIATRY_ACADEMIC &_CLINIC BLDG. Hoover Pavilion Garage Fleming's Prime_Steakhouse_& Wine Bar 13-045CAM Parking Garage Entrance 74.0' 74.0' 54.0' 54.0' 37.5' 37.5' 36.7' 36.7' 64.0'64.0' 112.5' 49.7' 112.5' 49.7' 76.0' 94.5' 26.0' 87.4'54.1' 161.5' 175.0' 75.0' 112.5' 100.0' 12.5' 125.0' 112.5' 225.0' 100.0' 125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 90.0' 25.0' 90.0' 25.0' 90.0' 50.0'90.0' 50.0'90.0' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5'100.0' 112.5' 25.0'12.5'25.3' 112.5' 50.3' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 25.0'12.5'25.0' 125.0' 125.0' 225.0' 99.5' 27.7'.5' 72.3' 25.0' 125.0' 44.0' 25.0' 25.0' 72.3' .5'27.7'50.5' 99.6' 48.9' 81.0' 48.9' 57.5' 25.0'125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0'148.0' 100.0'160.0' 88.0' 17.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 95.0' 20.5'5.0' 79.5' 90.0' 23.0' 193.0' 112.5' 193.0' 112.5' 100.0' 225.0' 100.0' 225.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'52.1' 44.1' 28.3'25.0' 31.3'25.0' 68.7' 50.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 68.7'25.0'31.3' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 28.3' 44.1' 105.0' 50.0' 225.0' 93.0' 12.5' 37.5' 112.5'130.5' 125.0' 143.0' 112.5' 50.0' 12.5' 93.0' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0'125.0' 100.0' 125.0' 25.0' 125.0' 25.0' 125.0' 25.0' 125.0' 25.0' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 25.0' 90.0' 12.5'16.8' 101.2' 25.0' 101.3' 16.8'12.5' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 15.0' 112.5' 15.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 46.0' 100.0' 100.0 100.0' 50.0 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0'150.0' 100.0' 100.0' 85.0'100.0' 85.0' 175.0' 112.5' 50.0' 37.5' 25.0'25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 55.0' 125.0' 55.0' 125.0'38.0' 75.0' 50.0' 37.5'50.0'12.5'38.0' 125.0' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 93.0' 50.0'93.0' 50.0' 93.0' 62.5'93.0' 62.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5'125.0' 225.0' 93.0' 62.5'93.0' 62.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5'93.0' 162.5' 93.0' 162.5' 12.5'25.0' 112.5' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 43.0' 100.0' 43.0' 100.0' 50.0' 75.0'50.0' 75.0' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5'30.0' 112.5' 30.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 102.2' 50.0' 102.2' 50.0' 97.5' 50.0' 97.5' 193.0' 105.0' 193.0' 105.0'40.1'.6'1.0'10.5'33.8'7.7'35.6'4.0'6.4'4.8'27.0'11.5' 75.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 22.8'50.0'4.7'50.0' 17.5' 41.5' 72.2' 35.0' 112.5' 35.0' 112.5' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 162.5' 220.0' 162.5' 220.0'26.0' 101.0' 31.5' 68.2' 5.5'32.8' 33.8' 32.8'5.5' 68.2'27.5' 68.2' .8'32.8' 25.0' 32.8' .8' 68.2' 29.5' 68.2' 3.7'32.8' 33.8' 32.8'3.7' 68.2' 27.5' 68.3' 2.7'32.7'32.7' 2.7' 68.3' 31.5' 94.5' 10.2'22.3' 31.5' 101.0' 26.0' 32.8' 5.5' 68.2' 27.5' 68.2' 5.5'32.8'33.8' 32.8'.8' 68.3' 29.5' 68.3' .8'32.8'25.0' 32.7'3.7' 68.2' 72.0' 29.7'72.0' 29.7'72.0' 31.9'72.0' 31.9' 47.8' 51.6' 70.2' 173.3' 64.0' 63.0' 54.0' 162.0' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 15.0'18.5'50.0' 131.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 94.0' 50.0' 94.0' 218 15.0'7.0' 150.0' 7.0' 25.0'7.0' 125.0' 100.0'100.0' 12.5'50.0' 112.5' 278.0' 220.0'278.0' 220.0' 50.0' 30.8'.6'10.5'1.0'.6'40.1' 37.8' 33.2' 30.8'33.2'30.8' 46.8' 27.0'4.8'6.4'4.0' 35.6' 23.2' 30.0' 100.0' 30.0' 100.0'50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0'200.0' 110.0' 49.3' 100.0' 70.0'100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0'100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 95.0' 50.0' 25.0'25 200.0' 110.0' 200.0' 110.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 100.0' 2.5'16.0'47.5' 116.0' 50.0'50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 190.0' 34.0' 87.5' 16.0' 102.5' 75.0' 40.0'75.0' 40.0' 75.0' 66.0'75.0' 66.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0'75.0' 106.0'75.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0'50.0' 68.6'50.0' 68.6 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 45.0' 106.0' 45.0' 106.0' 30.0' 106.0' 30.0' 106.0' 25.0' 106.0' 25.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 32.5'5.0' 80.0' 45.0' 112.5'5.0' 80.0' 5.0' 80.0' 130.0' 36.9' 130.0' 36.9' 130.0' 75.6'130.0' 75.6' 64.0' 37.5'64.0' 37.5' 50.0' 75.0'50.0' 75.0'36.0' 112.5' 50.0' 75.0' 14.0'37.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 150.0' 100.0' 50.0'12.5' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 68.0' 47.6'68.0' 47.6' 64.0' 32.3'64.0' 32.3'64.0' 32.3'64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 32.3'64.0' 32.3' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 72.0' 30.3'72.0' 30.3' 72.0' 32.5'72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5'72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5'72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5'72.0' 32.5' 31.5' 68.2' 2.7' 32.8'22.3' 10.2' 94.5'27.5' 68.2' 3.7'32.7'33.8' 32.8'2.7' 68.2' 70.2' 51.6'70.2' 51.6' 54.0' 63.0'54.0' 63.0' 25.0' 55.0'25.0' 55.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'93.0' 50.0'93.0' 50.0' 93.0' 75.0'93.0' 75.0'150.0' 112.5' 110.0' 90.0'110.0' 90.0' 55.0' 10.0'5.0' 100.0' 50.0' 110.0'33.0' 100.0' 33.0' 100.0'160.0' 110.0' 10.0'28.0'10.0' 19.2' 34.4' 35.8' 105.6' 193.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 68.0' 55.0'68.0' 55.0' 58.2' 50.0'58.2' 50.0' 68.0' 54.4'68.0' 54.4' 126.1' 43.0' 126.1' 43.0' 43.0' 79.0'43.0' 79.0' 43.0' 33.5'43.0' 33.5'93. 1055 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0 57.0'57.0'43.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0'35.0' 150.0' 35.0' 150.0' 40.0' 150.0' 40.0' 150.0' 37.5' 150.0' 37.5' 150.0' 143.0' 100.0' 43.0'50.0'67.0' 50.0' 33.0' 100.0' 43.0' 50.0'43.0' 50.0'110.0' 50.0'110.0' 50.0' 37.5' 100.0' 33.0' 100.0' 110.0' 50.0' 193.0' 100.0' 12.5' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0'50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0'50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 200.0' 5.6' 35.8' 34.4'35.8'10.0' 200.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 64.0' 32.3'64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 34.4'64.0' 34.4' 65.0' 0'150.0' 100.0' 75.0' 190.0' 75.0' 190.0' 6 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0'50.0' 190.0' 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' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0'.0'50.0'81.4'1 50.0'112.5' 37.5' 112 37.5' 11 22 50.0'70.0' 30.0' 73.0' 30.0' 73.0' 0 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 65.8' 5.4' 55.9' 71.5' 107.9' 150.0' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 107 760.5' 76.0' 819.5' 77.3' 97.6' 39.0' 671.1' 657.0' 593.6' 188.0' 333.6' 370.0' 372.1' 357.8' 31.4'34.6' 41.2' 358.5' 370.0' 156.2' 136.5' 347.5' 655.8' 114.4' 333.6' 576.4' 372.1' 655.8' 403.7' 38.0' 136.5' 156.2' 118.8' 30.0' 235.9' 568.3' 21.1'25.8' 49.1' 612.6' 71.8' 519.0' 588.3' 51.3' 79.0' 30.0' 69.9' 31.6' 70.0' 31.6'54.3'30.0' 27.7' 74.5'39.2' 486.4' 32.9' 122.4' 5.3' 977.6' 144.5' 410.6' 135.6' 136.5' 626.5' 137.1' 148.3' 147.7' 114.0' 37.8' 64.0' 136.5' 135.6' 66.4' 55.8' 40.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 514.7' 149.8'55.0'14.4'10.2'41.8'19.3'15.5'13.2'17.3' 133.6' 436.5' 42.4'49.6' 338.1' 64.5' 73.8' 14.4'.0'.2'6.8'.8'.9'.0'1.3'.8'.9'.8'.7'.8'1.1'12.1'9.8'17.2'23.9' 177.8' 66.1' 24.2' 566.5' 45.7'7.0' 329.0' 135.0' 336.8' 143.1' 60.0' 602.1' 229.8'43.9' 124.5' 68.1'195.1'77.2' 204.2' 118.8' 52.0' 65.5' 129.5' 39.0' 97.6' 156.3' 137.1' 121.9' 30.0' 118.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 45.0' 114.5' 45.0' 114.5' 25.0'6.0'25.0' 99.4' 50.0'95.4' 60.0' 171.5' 60.0' 171.5'171.5' 44.8' 171.5' 44.7' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 89.8' 111.5'89.7' 111.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5'100.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5'275.0' 77.1' 147.0' 35.4' 128.0' 112.5' 35.4' 147.0' 35.4' 147.0' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 75.0'75.0' 75.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 785.2' 56.2' 202.6' 10.9'10.0'10.0'11.9' 84.5' 336.8' 143.1' 329.0' 135.0' 84.5' 21.4'10.8'10.6' 124.9' 112.0' 25.2' 31.7' 17.7' 9.6' 9.2' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 89.7' 60.0'89.7' 60.0' 125.0' 54.0' 125.0' 54.0' 125.0' 54.0' 125.0' 54.0' 66.5' 54.0' 66.5' 54.0' 150.2' 54.0' 150.0' 54.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0'37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 6.0' 139.5' 48.7' 164.5' 42.7'25.0' 48.7' 164.5' 48.7' 164.5' 48.7' 164.5' 48.7' 164.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 85.0' 150.0' 85.0' 150.0'50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0'100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 198.6' 106.5' 235.2' 100.0' 135.2' 53.2' 153.4' 50.0' 50.0' 153.4'50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 48.7' 112.5' .3' 52.0'49.2' 164.5' 45.0' 112.5' 54.0'44.3' 54.0'.3' 112.5' 50.0' 52.5' 2.0' 60.0'48.0' 112.5' 37.5' 75.0'39.5' 60.0' 2.0'15.0' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 55.0' 114.5' 50.4' 114.6' 350.0' 250.0' 350.0' 250.0' 250.0' 100.0' 250.0' 100.0' 65.0' 50.0'65.0' 50.0' 150.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 34.6' 35.6' 161.6' 26.1' 14.6'19.6'40.3' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0'112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 125.0' 31.1' 129.5' 30.0' 77.6' 77.6' 93.2' 93.2'100.0'100.0' 100.0' 45.0' 90.0' 14.3'34.0' 18.0'18.0' 18.0'18.0' 18.0'18.0'18.0'18.0' 18.0' 18.0' 18.0' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 18.0' 50.0' 50.0'50.0' 50.0'50.0' 50.0'50.0' 50.0'50.0' 50.0'58.0' 58.0' 50.0' 54.5' 189.0' 67.0' 64.7' 147.7' 147.1' 115.0 115.0' 147.7'397.4' 356.5'154.8' 30.0' 157.5' 192.0' 644.0' 222.9'8' 228.4' 226.4' 220.4' 116.2' 142.6' 238.3' 169.5' 12.5' 164.1' 109.3' 519.0' 71.8' 612.6' 49.1' 25.8' 21.1' 568.3'198.0'198.0' 242.3' 134.0'133.8' 392.1 373.9' 176.0' 176.0' 182.3' 256.9' 136 610 116-122 150 535 529 525 542 516 140 102 116 164 158156 101 440 444 436 432 427 425 117 119 180 508 500 170 172174 542 544 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171- 169 441- 445 270 250 251 485 255 271 281 271 281 252 270 240-248 202- 216 223- 229 209 215 247-259 240 232230 311-317 347 265 272-278 418 319 321- 341 328 330 325 330 332 1&2 330 1-3 324 326316 318 373- 377 361 313 334 333325 326 321 335 379 310 332 378 -390 360 - 1A - 1C 360 - 2A - 2C 360 - 3A - 3C 360 - 4A - 4C 360 - 5A - 5C 360 - 6A 8 805 700 600 730 130 312 318 324 317 301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131129 202 158 180 165 147 143 125149 101 150 170172 165 167169171 252 247 244 250 177 220 261 251- 257 205 245 231 225 213205 170 210- 216 246 129 160 116 112 180 - 180A 171 219 197 208 210 212 216 220 281 400 335 328 330 345 230 302 306 308 312 316 301 50 120 207 345 200 398 539 115 550 321 461 650 9989 87 320322 346 115 264 430 211213 401 440 691 755 202 262 201 303 401 403 254 401 91 40 575 301 146 217 510 127 502 504 506 455 301 25 192 124 163 145 566556 167 528 151 115 125 135 514 575 530- 534 536 540 552 177 156 59 541- 547 205 201 203451449209 219 221 233 235 450 460 470 442 444 420 430 435- 439 346344 333 335 342 344 431 460 450 530 220 220 B 222 240 259- 267 5 520-526 228226 234238 244242 210- 216 228- 234 251 344 326 340 400 420 332330 314 305 300- 310 401 366 369 335 319 301 315 307- 311 303301 229 336 308 310 312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 347-367 1 369-379 31404 313 325 327 333 385 155 600 623 675 4941 711 100 625 395 520 217 222 148 171 421 101 301 235 258 212 163 115 291 247 131 141 145 150 210 201 207 164 101- 119 121 123 129 139 235 251249 172 206 234240 183 251 270 241- 247 215- 237 124 124A 132 144 152 147 221- 243 275 220 219 235 262 202 245 254252250 151 159 203 215 221 313-317 318 220- 224 238 09 188190 251- 293 180 202 206 275 539 201 27 168 408412 303 305 307 309 95 445 324 211 315 200 280-290 150 162 164 132 127 180 528 336 227 255 167 351 451 551 415 12 103 548 423 323 471 117 218 398 119121 120 101 470 215 401 355 365 111 121 213 100 143 379 453 215 211 331 San Francisquito Creek PC-1992 OR PC- 3266 HD CN PC- 4182 PF CS PC-4465 CS CD-C (P) PC-4612 CC PF CC RM-30 PF RM-30 PC-4063 PC-3 PF CD-C (P) PC-4374 PF PF PF CD-N (P) PF PC-3111 PF PC-4262 PC-4243 RM-20 RMD(NP) PC-3429 CD-N (P) CD-C (P) CD-C (P)P PC-4611 CC(L) PC-4053 RMD(NP) PF PC-2049 PC-3102 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 RM-30 PC CD-C(GF)(P) PC-5158 PF(D) El Camino Park El Camino Park Lot A LotF Lot O Lot P Lot C Lot K Cogswell Plaza L Lot K Lytton Plaza Stanford Shopping Center El Palo Alto Park Bryant / Lytto Parking Garage Tract No. 5447 El Palo Alto Park Tim ARBORETUM GROVE Lot S Lot N Lot R Lot Q Cogswell Plaza This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'508' Attachment A: Location Map CITYOF PALOALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2022-08-04 15:02:21 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Project Location Item 2 Attachment A: Location Map     Packet Pg. 22     5 3 6 4 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 23PLN-00323 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional/Community Commercial. The project continues the Regional/CommunityCommercial land use. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. The proposed project would modify the exterior storefront of one (1) existing restaurant tenant space. The current tenant will remain. The proposed modifications to the exterior of the storefront are cohesive and consistent with designs found throughout the center and would further enhance a Sand Hill Road entry into the shopping center, helping to maintain the center’s regional significance. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The proposal has been reviewed against the Palo Alto General Plan, the PAMC, the Stanford Shopping Center Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program as well as applicable design guidelines to determine consistency with all regulations and standards. Proposed materials and colors have also been reviewed for consistency Item 2 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 23     5 3 6 4 with Palo Alto’s design quality standards. The proposal has been found to be consistent with standards and will result in a high-quality development. As previously mentioned, the proposal will remodel an existing restaurant tenant, proposing to modify the exterior façade and interior of the tenant space and no new areas of the overall site would be disturbed; thereby, lessening potential impacts from the project. Program L-2.4.2: Allow housing at Stanford Shopping Center, provided that adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained and no reduction of retail square footage results from the new housing. Not applicable as housing is not a part of this proposal. Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings.The proposed project would modify the interior areas, exterior facade and outdoor patio area of an existing restaurant tenant space. The existing tenant would remain. Existing buildings would be used, and no new buildings are proposed. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposal does not include any natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas, or rain gardens. However, landscaping at the tenant space will be refreshed with a planter box featuring moderately drought tolerant boxwood hedge. The new landscaping will be primarily placed along the perimeter of the tenant space dining area that faces the existing parking field, with one planter box place perpendicularly. In addition, the Stanford Shopping Center includes multiple landscaped areas throughout the site. Policy L-4.1: Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that is compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, without loss of retail and existing small, local businesses. The proposed project would upgrade the existing tenant space within the Stanford Shopping Center and is cohesive and compatible with existing designs found throughout the center. The proposed project is a remodel of an existing tenant space; therefore, no loss of retail would Item 2 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 24     5 3 6 4 occur. Policy L-4.4: Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. The project itself does not propose any gathering spaces nor public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, or public art. However, the modified outdoor patio space creates a gathering space where customers can also access outdoor dining as desired. In addition, the Stanford Shopping Center provides multiple gathering spaces and public amenities located throughout the center that are available for use. Program L-4.2.3: Explore and potentially support new, creative and innovative retail in Palo Alto. The proposed project would remodel an existing restaurant tenant and will therefore continue to provide a variety to patrons of the Stanford Shopping Center. Policy B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high-quality regional shopping center. Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The proposed project has also been reviewed by Stanford University and Simon Mall Management in order to ensure consistency with the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program as well as ensure consistency with the existing Shopping Center. The project design has been found to be consistent with the Master Program standards and cohesive with the overall Shopping Center. The design of the proposed façade is cohesive with existing facades within the Stanford Shopping Center. Improvements have not been proposed to any City Streets or public spaces within the Shopping Center as a result of this project; however, the improved façade will be more aesthetically pleasing to those entering the Shopping Center from Sand Hill Road via London Plane Way and for those patrons using the public spaces located near the tenant space. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The proposal is located within the Stanford Shopping Center which has previously been found to maintain the scale and character of the City. The proposed use is a restaurant Item 2 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 25     5 3 6 4 tenant that will remodel an existing restaurant tenant; therefore, the proposed land use will not be overwhelming and unacceptable due to the size and scale of the operation. The project would be required to be consistent with the zoning requirements and the Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project includes only interior, exterior façade and patio improvements. The existing tenant space includes access to pedestrian paseos and walkways surrounding the tenant space including Azmoor Place and along the primary façade of the building. The project has been reviewed for adequate walkway widths and conforms to Palo Alto and Stanford Shopping Center requirements; thereby, maintaining connectivity throughout the area of the tenant space and the center overall. Approximately 20 existing short term bike racks provided by the landlord for the shopping center are provided to the south of the tenant space just in front of the Pacific Catch restaurant. In addition, the project would cause the installation of 1 additional bike Item 2 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 26     5 3 6 4 parking space to the center. Additionally, the center provides a number of seating opportunities including seating at large planter boxes. There is an existing large planter with seating opportunities located along the Azmoor Place pedestrian paseo adjacent to the subject tenant space. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The project proposes a new façade with a well designed mixture of colors and materials that would enliven the pedestrian entry for this portion of the Shopping Center. This project also includes doorways, windows and signage that are well designed and in scale with the pedestrian environment of the Shopping Center and would help encourage pedestrian activity at this location of the Stanford Shopping Center while supporting a connection between the tenant space boundaries with pedestrians and patrons on the outside throughout the use of the modified outdoor patio spaces. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will not change the existing building setbacks or massing. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding does not apply. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding does not apply. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment This finding does not apply. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply 8. Sustainability and Green Building Item 2 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 27     5 3 6 4 Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design should be incorporated into the project The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting. The project will also conform to Green Building Energy codes for commercial businesses. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The proposed façade design utilizes high-quality exterior materials and finishes that are balanced in the design, including the proposed Wooden finish plank voyager series in Spanish walnut, matte black accents, and decorative “Peppermill” thin brick flats. These improvements complement the existing adjacent tenant spaces in this area of the center. The color palette consists of warm neutral tones including grays and blacks. Signage will include new primary/secondary signs, a new blade sign, and a circle logo vinyl sign. The primary and blade signs will read “Melt”, the secondary sign will read “World’s Meltiest Burger”, and the circle logo vinyl sign will read “the Melt”. 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 subject building is existing, and the project does not propose any modifications to the Shopping Center’s roadways or sidewalks; therefore, the existing circulation improvements will remain in place. The signage is well placed and consistent with the MTFS program signage regulations providing signage that is in scale with both pedestrians and automobiles entering the Shopping Center from Sand Hill Road. The orange and white mounted lettering with LED lighting located on the façade of the building provides excellent contrast and is easily visible to visitors of the Shopping Center. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The front façade of the subject tenant space includes refreshed drought tolerant landscaping inclusive of boxwood hedge in planters. Sidewalks along the primary façade and Azmoor Place will maintain a minimum width of 8 feet free and clear with the addition of the new landscaped pots and planters. In addition, existing mall planters located along the adjacent parking fields will remain and will add to the overall landscaped area of the tenant space. Item 2 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 28     5 3 6 4 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 proposed project includes materials that consist of wood and metals, many of which are readily recyclable. The project is also subject to the local energy and recycling codes. The proposed signs are illuminated and made of durable long-lasting materials and are subject to the green building energy regulations. Furthermore, updated landscaping complies with State and City of Palo Alto Landscape water efficiency requirements. Per the City’s “Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance Compliance Instructions,” the proposed project would not trigger the applicability of the landscape ordinance as it is a rehabilitated project that includes less than 2500 square feet of landscaped area. Plants specified are rated as moderate water requirements and a fully automatic water efficient drip irrigation system will be installed. Item 2 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 29     ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 23PLN-00323 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "The Melt,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on July 24, 2024, on file with the Planning & Development Services Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Building, Zero Waste, Public Works – Urban Forestry and Utilities – Water Gas Wastewater Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT. A valid Use and Occupancy permit issued by the Building Department is required for “The Melt” restaurant operation. The operator shall ensure the building’s permitted occupancy is not exceeded at any time. 5. SIGNAGE: Newly approved signage is also included in the overall approval and consists of the following signage: a. Primary wall sign – 86.76”x24” Channel letters that will read “Melt” b. Secondary wall sign – 128”x18” Channel letters that will read “World’s Meltiest Burger” c. Blade sign – 24”x15” Projecting blade sign that will read “Melt” d. Window vinyl signs – 2 - 14.5”x14.5” Circle vinyl logos that will read “the Melt” 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. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. Item 2 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 30     8. 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. 9. FINAL INSPECTION: A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact the Planner-on-Duty at Planner@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. BUILDING 10. Submit Building Permit for the proposed scope of work. Refer to Building Department Submittal checklist for Building Permit requirements. Contact the Building Department for any questions regarding submittal requirements. ZERO WASTE 11. Please confirm if the following areas will have internal refuse bins. If so, cut sheets for the bins and signage needs to be presented in the plan set. Additional requirements would also apply, please see below: Outdoor Dining/Indoor Dining •All three refuse bins (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill) will be required to be right next to each other with proper signage posted on the millwork door. The opening to millwork must have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, wrapping around the full width of the millwork/opening. Back of House •All three refuse bins (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill) will be required with proper signage posted on each of the bins. Restroom •A green compost for paper towels and a small black landfill for sanitary products will be required with proper signage posted on each of the bins. •Any area with a handwashing station and paper towels would require a green compost bin with proper signage posted on the bin. Item 2 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 31     The following comments below are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code. If your scope of work includes internal and external bins then cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste. Please see below for more details. As per Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 the site is required to have color-coded refuse containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Applicant shall present on the plan the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas such as entrances, conference rooms, back of the house kitchen, café, dining area, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items. Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and a small black landfill bin for sanitary products. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes- Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. 12. WASTE COLLECTION: At the time of building permit submittal, please indicate who and how the waste will be collected and be brought to the refuse enclosure. Will it be onsite staff, or will it be collected by in-house Stanford Mall facilities staff? Where will you store the waste for the time being? 13. Ensure site has three refuse containers for customers to sort their waste. Blue container for recyclables. Green container for compostables. Black or Gray container for garbage. Each container must have colored signage which adheres to City's PAMC 5.20 requirements. Please show container type and signage in plans. 14. Restrooms are required to collect and placed paper towels into a green compost container. The container must have green compost sign the meets PAMC 5.20 requirements. 15. Show refuse collection containers inside the refuse room. Make sure refuse containers are drawn to scale. There must be three containers. Each container must have equal access. No stacking of containers. Blue container for recyclables. Green container for compostables. Black or Gray container for garbage. Each container must have colored signage which adheres to City's PAMC 5.20 requirements. Please show container type and signage in plans. Item 2 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 32     16. Show refuse collection containers inside the refuse room. Make sure refuse containers are drawn to scale. There must be three containers. Each container must have equal access. No stacking of containers. Blue container for recyclables. Green container for compostables. Black or Gray container for garbage. Each container must have colored signage which adheres to City's PAMC 5.20 requirements. Please show container type and signage in plans. Ensure each container has colored signage. Please refer to signage requirements below: As per Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 the site is required to have color-coded refuse containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Applicant shall present on the plan the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas such as entrances, conference rooms, back of the house kitchen, café, dining area, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items. Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public-Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes- Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. 17. Restrooms are required to collect and placed paper towels into a green compost container. The container must have green compost sign the meets PAMC 5.20 requirements. 18. Kitchen and food prep areas need to have three waste containers to allow for proper waste sorting. Blue container for recyclables. Green container for compostables. Black or Gray container for garbage. Each container must have colored signage which adheres to City's PAMC 5.20 requirements. Please show container type and signage in plans. PUBLIC WORKS – URBAN FORESTRY 19. At building permit phase, the T1 Sheet with a filled out and signed tree disclosure statement, must be included in the plan set. Item 2 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 33     UTILITIES – WATER GAS WASTEWATER The following comments are required to be addressed prior to any future related permit application such as a Building Permit, Excavation and Grading Permit, Certificate of Compliance, Street Work Permit, Encroachment Permit, etc. These comments are provided as a courtesy and are not required to be addressed prior to the Planning entitlement approval: FOR BUILDING PERMIT (WGW Utility Engineering): 20. The applicant shall submit a completed water-gas-wastewater residential service connection application - load sheet for City of Palo Alto Utilities. The applicant must provide all the information requested for utility service demands (water in fixture units/g.p.m., fire in g.p.m., gas in b.t.u.p.h, and sewer in fixture units/g.p.d.). The total demands including existing and new are required. (if there is only one water meter (master meter) serving all the spaces, the total demand for all the spaces/units is required) 21. The applicant shall submit improvement plans for utility construction. The plans must show the size and location of all underground utilities within the development and the public right of way including meters, backflow preventers, fire service requirements, sewer mains, sewer cleanouts, sewer lift stations, and any other required utilities. Plans for new wastewater laterals and mains need to include new wastewater pipe profiles showing existing potentially conflicting utilities, especially storm drain pipes, and electric and communication duct banks. Existing duct banks need to be daylighted by potholing to the bottom of the duct bank to verify cross-section prior to plan approval and starting lateral installation. 22. The applicant must show on the site plan the existence of any auxiliary water supply, (i.e. water well, gray water, recycled water, rain catchment, water storage tank, etc.). 23. An approved reduced pressure principle assembly (RPPA backflow preventer device) is required for all existing and new water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPPA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the water meter within 5 feet of the property line. RPPA’s for domestic service shall be lead-free. Show the location of the RPPA on the plans. An approved reduced pressure detector assembly (RPDA backflow preventer device, STD. WD-12A or STD. WD-12B) is required for all existing and new fire water connections from Palo Alto Utilities to comply with requirements of California administrative code, title 17, sections 7583 through 7605 inclusive. The RPDA shall be installed on the owner's property and directly behind the City’s fire service, within 5’ (feet) of the property line or City Right of Way. 24. All backflow preventer devices shall be approved by the WGW engineering division. Inspection by the city inspector is required for the supply pipe between the meter and the assembly. Item 2 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 34     25. The applicant shall pay the capacity fees and connection fees associated with new utility service/s or added demand on existing services. The approved relocation of services, meters, hydrants, or other facilities will be performed at the cost of the person/entity requesting the relocation. 26. Utility vaults, transformers, utility cabinets, concrete bases, or other structures cannot be placed over existing water, gas, or wastewater mains/services. Maintain 2’ horizontal clear separation from the vault/cabinet/concrete base to existing utilities as found in the field. If there is a conflict with existing utilities, Cabinets/vaults/bases shall be relocated from the plan location as needed to meet field conditions. 27. All utility installations shall be in accordance with the latest City of Palo Alto utility standards for water, gas, & wastewater. Item 2 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 35     5 3 6 3 ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real (Building E - Space #750A), 23PLN-00323 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 52.8 Acres No Change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8–12-foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varied No Change Rear Yard No Requirement N/A No Change Interior Side Yard No Requirement N/A No Change Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied No Change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)N/A Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback; 33% of side street built to setback (7) N/A No Change Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Varied No Change Max. Site Coverage No Requirement N/A Not Applicable Max. Building Height 50 feet (4)Varied No Change Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)N/A (9)~1,361,751 net sf No Change Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25 foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12 foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage (9) Stanford Shopping Center shall not be permitted to add more than 80,000 square feet of floor area to the total amount of floor area of the shopping center existing as of June 14, 1996, 1,332,362 square feet, for a total square footage not to exceed 1,412,362. Any hotel or mixed use development for the Stanford Shopping Center shall only be included if approved as part of a Development Agreement for the site. Item 2 Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 36     5 3 6 3 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Section 18.16.040(b) is not applicable to the subject project as there is no residentially zoned land within 50 feet of the subject tenant space. Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted within a building, except for: (i) Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior sales and display area, (ii) Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services or intensive retail uses, (iii) Farmers’ markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and (iv) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit. Stanford Shopping Center is a “shopping center” as defined in Title 18, therefore this regulation does not apply. Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. Adequate recycling storage is provided within the larger shopping center. Employee Showers (18.16.040 (j)) Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 6 of 18.16.040(j)) Not Applicable. Proposed project is renovation of an existing building. Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. Not Applicable. Proposed project is a restaurant. 18.16.080 Performance Standards. All development in the CC district shall comply with the performance criteria outlined in Chapter 18.23 of the Zoning Ordinance, including all mixed use development 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Item 2 Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 37     5 3 6 3 Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area for a total of 5,192 parking spaces 5,256 spaces No change Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf (40% long term and 60% short term) equals 519 spaces for the site overall. 355 installed spaces (254 short term, 97 long term and 4 bike cargo spaces) Add one additional short term bike parking space; Loading Space 29 loading spaces ~25 loading spaces No change * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Table 3: Stanford Shopping Center Master Sign Program Sign Types, Number, and Locations Sign Requirement Number Maximum Size Location Primary sign (wall sign) Required 1 Maximum height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height; no sign closer to 24” from demising wall or building corner. Primary façade (northwest elevation) Banner or blade sign (Projecting sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 15” height Primary façade (northwest elevation) Canopy or Awning Sign (optional)1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics None proposed Super-graphic (optional)Not limited None None proposed Secondary sign or Emblem (optional)1 where applicable Secondary sign: Max height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo Emblem: Max height 24” in any direction Primary façade (northwest elevation) Advertising graphics and signs (optional)Not limited None None proposed Digital images and digital signage (optional)Not limited 42” measured diagonally None proposed Show window graphics (optional)Not limited Vinyl lettering and/or logos may be applied to the face of storefront glazing, provided that the sign communicates the Tenant Trade Name only. Advertising panels, banners or signs with opaque backdrops are prohibited. Primary façade (northwest elevation) *Maximum Allowable Sign Area for Wall Signs. Wall signs and sign area are defined in PAMC 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. Logos are considered wall signs and can be utilized as a primary wall sign or can be a component of a primary wall sign. Logos shall not exceed the maximum height of a stacked sign, which is 36-inches. Logos shall be included in calculations of maximum wall sign area limits. Item 2 Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table     Packet Pg. 38     If you need assistance reviewing the above documents, please contact the Project Planner or call the Planner-on-Duty at 650-617-3117 or email planner@cityofpaloalto.org Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Board members for their review. The same plans are available to the public, at all hours of the day, via the following online resources. Environmental Document The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA as it falls under a Class 1 or an “Existing Facilities” exemption (Categorical Exemption 15301). This project meets this exemption due to the scope of work that is limited to interior improvements and exterior alterations to the façade of an existing building. Directions to review Project plans and environmental documents online: 1. Go to: bit.ly/PApendingprojects 2. Scroll down to find “180 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/180-El-Camino-Real-The-Melt Materials Boards: Prior to the hearing, color and material boards will be available to view in the display case outside of City Hall, on the exterior elevator near the corner of Hamilton Ave. and Bryant St. For closer examination, this same board will be brought to chambers during the ARB hearing. Item 2 Attachment E: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 39     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 8 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: September 5, 2024 Report #: 2408-3379 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. [23PLN-00110] 3000 El Camino Real (Palo Alto Square): Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Approval of a Major Architectural Review for facade changes and site improvements associated with conversion of a vacant theater use to an office use within Building 6. Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15303 (new construction and conversion of small structures). Zoning: PC-4648. For more information contact the project planner at Claire.Raybould@Cityofpaloalto.org. RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board take the following action: 1. Recommend that City Council approve the proposed facade and site modifications based on the findings in Attachment B and Conditions of approval in Attachment C, while reserving a final determination on zoning compliance for the City Council. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project includes façade modifications and site improvements associated with Building 6 at Palo Alto Square to accommodate the conversion of existing theater space to an office use. Cinemark first announced the potential closure of its operations at this site in 2016. Following concerns raised by residents and elected officials at that time, Cinemark worked with Hudson Pacific Properties to continue its operations. Cinemark permanently closed in spring 2020 following the beginning of the COVID-19 pandemic. The building has not been occupied since the closure of the theater. The proposed project is located within a Planned Community Zone District (PC-4648), which incorporates by reference the original Planned Community Zone District (PC-2533). In accordance with PAMC Section 18.38.070, minor modifications may be made to a PC Zone District through the architectural review process. The applicant has submitted an architectural review application in accordance with this process. Architectural review applications of this Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 40     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 8 scope and size are typically acted upon by the Director of Planning and Development Services. However, given the significant public interest in the project, the Director has elected to bring the project before the Architectural Review Board, with City Council making a final decision in accordance with PAMC Section 18.40.170. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Hudson Pacific Properties Architect:HGA Representative:Jarred Willis Legal Counsel:Rutan and Tucker LLP Property Information Address:3000 El Camino Real, Building 6 Neighborhood:Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area:~770 feet x 720 feet (irregular); 653,413 sf (~15-acres) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Yes (COE Plume) Protected/Heritage Trees:Yes (see discussion below) Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable (see discussion below) Existing Improvement(s):6 buildings; ranging from one to 10 stories in height; 333,000 sf Existing Land Use(s):Mixed-use (office, restaurants, theater) Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Public Facilities and Research office Land Use (Research Park [RP] and Public Facility [PF] Zoning) West: Research Office land use (PC-4657 zoning) East: Service Commercial Land Use (CS Zoning) South: Research Office Land Use (RP Zoning) Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 41     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 8 Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Research Office Zoning Designation:PC-4648 (incorporates by reference the original PC Zoning, PC-2533) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 42     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 8 Project Description The proposed project includes modifications to the window and door design on all four sides of Building 6. No changes to the building material or color are proposed; however, the building will be repainted. At the rear of the building, the project includes a new fenced outdoor seating area. One existing protected tree is proposed to be removed and three new trees are proposed to be planted within the immediate vicinity. On the interior, the project includes conversion of an existing approximately 13,200 sf area from a theater use to an office use. The project includes expansion of an existing second floor area to add 1,193 sf. New rooftop equipment and an associated roof screen are also proposed. The roof screen would be painted to match the existing building. 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 typically reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action within five business days of the Board’s recommendation. However, in accordance with 18.40.170, the Director may defer their decision to Council. The Director has elected to utilize this code allowance for this project given the public interest in this project. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. ANALYSIS The proposed project has been analyzed in accordance with relevant regulations, plans, and policies, as detailed further in this section. Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board recommend approval of the proposed project based on the physical changes being proposed to the site with the understanding the Council will determine whether the proposed change in use is consistent with the Planned Community Zone District (PC-4648). Neighborhood Setting and Character The proposed modifications to Building 6 at Palo Alto Square would not be visible from the public right-of-way on Page Mill Road or El Camino Real. Surrounding uses include the Mayfield Soccer fields across Page Mill Road, the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan area across El Camino Real, and other office uses to the rear of the site on Ramos Way (private street). The new proposed outdoor area faces the professional office uses across the private street. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 43     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 8 The Comprehensive Plan includes Goals, Policies, and Programs that guide the physical form of the City. The Comprehensive Plan provides the basis for the City’s development regulations and is used by City staff to regulate building and development and make recommendations on projects. ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Research Office. Allowed uses include, but are not limited to, “office, research and manufacturing establishments whose operations are buffered from adjacent residential uses.” Although there are residential uses across El Camino Real and proposed adjacent to the project site; given the size of the property, the proposed modifications are not in the vicinity of existing or planned residential uses and are therefore consistent with the Comprehensive Plan land use designation. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan. A detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in Attachment B. The project includes reuse of an existing building within a developed area and reduces current vacancies, consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. However, the theater provided an important mix to the uses on the site that supported the vitality of the surrounding area. The conversion of this use to office is less desirable than other allowed uses that support the existing office uses and nearby neighborhood. Zoning Compliance2 The proposed project is located within PC-4648, which incorporates the originally approved Planned Community Zone District for the site (PC-2533). The PC sets forth the allowed uses for this zone district, which includes: financial services, professional offices, restaurants, theaters, a hotel, and commercial service facilities incidental to a major office for the convenience of employees or visitors. The proposed office use is therefore an allowed use within this zone district. Staff initially considered the movie theater to be a public benefit that would have required an amendment to the Planned Community zoning to remove and replace with office. However, after reviewing the administrative record, staff has not been able to substantiate this conclusion. At the time of the initial planned community rezoning for this site, there was no public benefit requirement for PC Zone Districts. PC-2533 and PC-4648 also set forth a net rentable floor area requirement that applies to four of the six buildings on the Palo Alto Square site (the four one and two-story buildings). The PC ordinance states, “the one and two-story buildings shall not exceed a total of 85,000 square feet of net rentable floor area with 65,000 square feet to be on the ground floor.” Currently, across the 4 one and two-story buildings, the net rentable floor area is 67,905 sf with 45,865 sf on the first floor and 22,041 sf on the second floor. With this proposal, the net rentable floor area would be 69,099 sf with 45,865 sf on the first floor and 23,234 sf on the second floor. Therefore, the 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 44     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 8 low-rise buildings at Palo Alto Square comply with PC 2533 and PC 4648’s overall net rentable cap of 85,000 square feet. It is unclear, however, whether the buildings comply with requirements for distribution of square footage between the ground and second floors. The project does not include any changes to the existing building envelope with the exception of new rooftop HVAC equipment and screening, which extends two feet taller than the existing building. The HVAC equipment covers a small area of the rooftop on a portion of the building toward the center of the property. The screen is proposed to be painted to match the building color. The existing building envelope is consistent with the originally approved Planned Community Zone District for the site and is therefore compliant with the PC Zone District. The proposed outdoor area does not count toward floor area or lot coverage as it is uncovered. The fence around the outdoor area is 6 feet facing toward the rear and 7 feet on the side. This complies with the maximum fence height of 7 feet. Retail Preservation Ordinance The retail preservation ordinance does not apply to PC Zone Districts as indicated in PAMC Section 18.40.180 (e). Title 8 (Trees) Compliance There are numerous protected trees across the Palo Alto Square site, most of which would not be impacted by the proposed project. A 21-inch southern magnolia tree is proposed to be removed from the outdoor area because it conflicts with the fence line. This is a higher water use tree and appears to be in fair condition. Removal of this tree in conjunction with the proposed development is allowed in accordance with PAMC Section 8.10.050 (d)(3) so long as the project complies with the required replacement canopy ratio and replacement plantings are climate adaptive and drought tolerant. The project is consistent with these requirements. All other trees within the immediate vicinity will be retained and protected in place. Safety The existing Building 6 is listed on the City’s hazardous building inventory. The proposed modifications to the building façade require a seismic reinforcement of the building, such as additional bracing. Therefore, the project, with the requested revisions would provide for a safer building once renovated. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The existing site does not appear to comply with the required 1650 parking spaces required for the project site under the PC Ordinance. However, staff notes that this parking total incorporates the 755 Page Mill Road site as well as 3000 El Camino Real, and accounts for square footage that was never constructed, including a 300-unit hotel use. The project has been analyzed against the City’s current code standards based on the existing uses of the site and complies with the total parking requirements that would be required under PAMC Section 18.52 for those uses. Therefore, although the existing site does not comply with the PC, staff has not requested additional parking based on the proposed conversion. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 45     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 8 A total of 111 bike parking spaces are required (67 long term and 44 short term) for the site based on the mix of uses. The parking analysis shows that the project exceeds this requirement by providing 67 long-term spaces and 58 short-term spaces. However, the project appears to be removing 14 total short-term bicycle parking spaces on the site adjacent to Building 6. While the project still meets the code without these spaces, staff would encourage these bicycle parking spaces to be replaced in another location on the site in order to maintain the current bike parking ratio. Consistency with Application Findings Overall, staff finds the project to be consistent with the Architectural Review findings for approval. FISCAL/RESOURCE IMPACT Processing of this application has no fiscal impact as applicants are responsible for staff and consultant costs through applicable fees through the deposit-based cost recovery program. Although historically the operational theater generated revenue for the City, in terms of sales tax receipt, the project would not impact the City’s current review considering the current site has been vacant since 2020. 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 August 23, 2024, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on August 21, 2024, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. To date, staff has not received comments on this specific application. However, members of the public have expressed concerns generally with the loss of the theater and have discouraged the conversion of the theater to another use, particularly an office use. As noted previously, in 2016 when the theater initially announced that it would close, stakeholders encouraged maintaining the theater use and the theater was able to remain open until 2020 when it closed permanently. 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 the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 46     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 8 ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Findings for Approval Attachment C: Conditions of Approval Attachment D: PC Ordinances Attachment E: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Claire Raybould, AICP, Principal Planner Jodie Gerhardt, AICP, Planning Manager (650) 329-2116 (650) 329-2575 Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org jodie.gerhardt@cityofpaloalto.org 3 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@cityofpaloalto.org Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 47     1B 1C 1A 1 2A BLDG 5 BLDG 3 BLDG 4 Palo Alto Square BLDG 2 B BLDG 1 BLDG 6 Altalocale Apartments 705.1' 1133.4' 199.7' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0 49.9' 150.0' 144.3' 58.1' 68.3' 705.1' 276.0' 100.0' 242.1' 29.5' 54.7' 26.3' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 115.7'119.7' 115.7' 139.5' 50.0' 139.5' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 139.6' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0'119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0'119.7' 50.0' 66.9' 200.0' 66.9' 200.0' 115.6' 134.7' 50.07 50.0' 119.7' 103.5' 38.4' 284.0' 280.2' 147.3' 120.0' 114.3' 39.9' 100.0'163.1' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 134.7' 50.0' 134.7' 50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 119.7' 65.7'119.7' 65.6' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7'50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 119.7' 50.0' 47.9' 150.0' 47.9' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 95.7' 150.0' 300.0' 142.5' 112.5' 49.8' 61.8' 49.0' 62.8' 63.3' 200.0' 119.9' 8.0' 8.4'8.8'12.1'13.1' 15.0' 9.1' 85.1' 13.8' 39.9' 114.3' 120.0' 200.0' 72.6' 200.0' 72.6' 115.6' 134.7'115.7' 134.7'115.6' 134.7'115.6' 134.7'115.6' 134.7'115.7' 134.7' 726.0' 600.0' 270.9' 193.1' 274.7' 245.3' 200.0' 44.0' 200.0' 20.0' 260.0' 75.0' 149.3' 164.1' 50.0' 164.5' 797.5' 317.0' 216.1'375.4' 208.0' 214.6' 259.4' 51.4' 214.6' 3 213.9' 310.8' 166.7' 365.7' 157.4' 50.4' 41.6' 706.6' 498.2' 526.6' 375.4'216.1' 26.3' 199.8' 54.0' 110.0' 148.7' 51.0' 51.0' 148.7' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 200.0' 150.0' 150.0' 99.8' 99.8' 199.7' 85.1 14914 85.1 151.5' 275.2' 14.4' 108.7' 108.7' 52.8' 52.8' 98.8' 67.2' 166.4'166.4' 30.0' 30.0'18.0' 18.0' 275.2' 185.2' 190.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 275.0' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 119.5' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 50.0' 250.0' 20.0' 20.0' 78.5'78.5' 47.4' 47.4' 600.0' 150.0' 69.3' 199.9' 50.0'65.2' 149.0' 150.0' 149.0' 150.0' 164.9 199.7 134.7' 200.0' 200.0' 109.85' 458.75' 239.70' 150.05' 129.85' 308.64' 129.85' 102.65' 129.85' 102.56 129.85' 205.99' 129.85' 206.05' 478.7' 109.8' 150.0' 21.8' 109.8' 19.8' EL CAMINO REAL HANSEN WAY HANSEN WAY NSEN WAY ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE OLIVE AVENUE PEPPER AVENUE STREET PAGE MILL RO PAGE MILL ROAD EL CAMINO REAL Ramos Way (Private) EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REAL EL CAMINO REALEL CAMINO REAL PF AS3) PF (WH)CN PC-4637 R R-1 CS CS RP PC-4831 CS(D) This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Zone Districts 0'252' Attachment A: Location Map CITYOF PALOALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2024-08-20 15:45:36 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Area of Work: Building 6 6 Item 3 Attachment A : Location Map     Packet Pg. 48     5 3 6 4 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 3000 El Camino Real 23PLN-00110 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Research Office. The proposed office use is allowed within the Research office comprehensive plan land use designation Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-1.2: Limit future urban development to currently developed lands within the urban service area. The boundary of the urban service area is otherwise known as the urban growth boundary. Retain undeveloped land west of Foothill Expressway and Junipero Serra as open space, with allowances made for very low- intensity development consistent with the open space character of the area. Retain undeveloped land northeast of Highway 101 as open space. The proposed project includes reuse of an existing, vacant building, within an urban area, consistent with this policy. Policy L-1.3. Infill development in the urban service area should be compatible with its surroundings and the overall scale and character of the city to ensure a compact, efficient development pattern. The project is located within the urban service area and maintains the existing envelope of the building, consistent with this policy. Policy L-1.6. Encourage Land uses that address the needs of the community and manage change Although the proposed office use is less desirable to the surrounding community Item 3 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 49     5 3 6 4 and development to benefit the community that the former theater use, the building is currently vacant and it is unclear whether the theater could recover as a revenue generating business. The proposed office use is consistent with other uses in this area and is an allowed use on this site. Therefore, on balance, the project is consistent with this policy. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The proposed project includes remodeling an existing building within its existing envelope and maintains the same materials and color as the other buildings across the project site. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings.The proposed project would modify and reuse an existing, vacant building, consistent with this policy. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposed project provides a new outdoor area for the proposed office users, consistent with this policy. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. The proposal includes a remodel of an existing building and does not change the scale of the existing building, which is consistent with the general area. Therefore, the project is consistent with this policy. 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. Because the project is located within a Planned Community Zone District, the context-based design criteria and objective design standards do not apply to the proposed project. Regardless, the proposed modifications to Building 6 would not be visible from the public right-of-way and Item 3 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 50     5 3 6 4 would generally enhance the design of the site. Modifications to the façade include new windows and doors that provide more views into the building, as is appropriate for this change in use from a theater to an office. The project also includes a new outdoor area at the rear of the building that creates quality outdoor amenity space for the office use. The design as proposed includes removal of one existing protected tree, which is allowed as part of a development application in accordance with PAMC Section 8.10.050 so long as the replacement canopy requirements have been met and the replacement trees are native. The proposed project would be consistent with this finding. The proposed revisions would also require upgrades to the building in accordance with the green building code as well as seismic reinforcements, which would improve the safety of the building. The project does not include modifications that would change the building envelope, aside from a new rooftop HVAC system and associated screening, which would be two-feet taller than the existing parapet height. Therefore, it would not affect the massing and transitions in scale across the site. The proposed office use is consistent with the land use designation and allowed uses under the PC zoning. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The proposed project does not include any changes to the existing building material, which aligns with all of the other buildings on the project site. The project includes repainting the building following construction work on changes to windows and doors on the building. The project also includes an outdoor area using high quality materials and with muted colors that align with the existing structure and surroundings. 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 introduces more windows and doors to align the building with the new proposed office use whereas the existing theater included very few windows and doors. The project has a functional design that maintains all existing pathways in and around the project site and that does not impact any drive aisles. The open space is appropriate and integrated into the building design. 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 landscape design is appropriate and practical, using low water use, native plants and incorporating vegetation into the open space area. The project includes changes to facades that Item 3 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 51     5 3 6 4 would necessitate removal of existing climbing plants on the building; however, new climbing plants are proposed as replacement plantings. 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 modifications to the building would require bringing the building into conformance with green building standards which will help to reduce the existing energy use of the building. The proposed plantings would be native and low water use, consistent with the City’s MWELO requirements. Item 3 Attachment B: Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 52     ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 3000 El Camino Real 23PLN-00110 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Palo Alto Square Building 6 Planning Submission Revision 3,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on June 7, 2024, on file with the Planning & Development Services Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning and Zero Waste Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit. 4. USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT. A valid Use and Occupancy permit issued by the Building Department is required for the office tenant prior to occupancy. The operator shall ensure the building’s permitted occupancy is not exceeded at any time. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 6. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. 7. ESTIMATED IMPACT FEE. Development Impact Fees, currently estimated in the amount of $124,892.78 for the 1,193 sf of additional office square footage, plus the applicable public art fee, per PAMC 16.61.040, shall be paid prior to the issuance of the related building permit. 8. IMPACT FEE 90-DAY PROTEST PERIOD. California Government Code Section 66020 provides that a project applicant who desires to protest the fees, dedications, reservations, or other exactions imposed on a development project must initiate the protest at the time the development project is approved or conditionally approved or within ninety (90) days after the date that fees, dedications, reservations or exactions are imposed on the Project. Additionally, procedural requirements for Item 3 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 53     protesting these development fees, dedications, reservations and exactions are set forth in Government Code Section 66020. IF YOU FAIL TO INITIATE A PROTEST WITHIN THE 90-DAY PERIOD OR FOLLOW THE PROTEST PROCEDURES DESCRIBED IN GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 66020, YOU WILL BE BARRED FROM CHALLENGING THE VALIDITY OR REASONABLENESS OF THE FEES, DEDICATIONS, RESERVATIONS, AND EXACTIONS. If these requirements constitute fees, taxes, assessments, dedications, reservations, or other exactions as specified in Government Code Sections 66020(a) or 66021, this is to provide notification that, as of the date of this notice, the 90- day period has begun in which you may protest these requirements. This matter is subject to the California Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6. 9. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 10. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact Claire.Raybould@cityofpaloalto.org to schedule this inspection. ZERO WASTE 11. If the scope of work involves internal and external bins (compost, recycle, and landfill) and its related millwork, then on the overall site plan, please show where the bins will be placed and reference the cut sheets of the three bins (recycle, compost, and landfill) that will be used at each location. The recycle, compost, and landfill bin must be placed right next to each other. Please see requirements below. 12. The following comments below are part of the Palo Alto Municipality Code. If your scope of work includes internal and external bins then cut-sheets for the color-coded internal and external containers, related color-coded millwork, and it’s colored signage must be included in the building plans prior to receiving approval from Zero Waste. Please see below for more details. a. As per Palo Alto Municipal Code 5.20.108 the site is required to have color-coded refuse containers, related color-coded millwork, and colored signage. The three refuse containers shall include recycle (blue container), compost (green container), and garbage (black container). Applicant shall present on the plan the locations and quantity of both (any) internal and external refuse containers, it’s millwork, along with the signage. This requirement applies to any external or internal refuse containers located in common areas Item 3 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 54     such as entrances, conference rooms, back of the house kitchen, café, dining area, and etc. except for restrooms, copy area, and mother’s room. Millwork to store the color-coded refuse containers must have a minimum of four inches in height worth of color-coding, wrapping around the full width of the millwork. Signage must be color coded with photos or illustrations of commonly discarded items. Restrooms must have a green compost container for paper towels and an optional black landfill container if applicable. Copy area must have either a recycle bin only or all three refuse receptacles (green compost, blue recycle, and black landfill container). Mother’s room must minimally have a green compost container and black landfill container. Please refer to PAMC 5.20.108 and the Internal Container Guide. Examples of appropriate signage can be found in the Managing Zero Waste at Your Business Guide. Electronic copies of these signage can be found on the Zero Waste Palo Alto’s website, https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Public- Works/Zero-Waste/What-Goes-Where/Toolkit#section-2 and hard copies can be requested from the waste hauler, Greenwaste of Palo Alto, (650) 493-4894. Urban Forestry 13. The owner and contractor shall implement all protection and inspection schedule measures, design recommendations and construction scheduling as stated in the TPR and/or Sheet T-1, and is subject to code compliance action pursuant to PAMC 8.10.080. The required protective fencing shall remain in place until final landscaping and inspection of the project. If called for, project arborist approval must be obtained and documented in the monthly activity report sent to the City. When required, the Contractor and Arborist Monthly Tree Activity Report shall be sent monthly to the City (pwps@cityofpaloalto.org) beginning with the initial verification approval, using the template in the Tree Technical Manual, Addendum 11. 14. Tree Damage, Injury Mitigation and Inspections apply to Contractor. Reporting, injury mitigation measures and arborist inspection schedule (1-5) apply pursuant to TTM, Section 2.20-2.30. Contractor shall be responsible for the repair or replacement of any publicly owned or protected trees that are damaged during the course of construction, pursuant to Title 8 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, and city Tree Technical Manual, Section 2.25. 15. The following general tree preservation measures apply to all trees to be retained: No storage of material, topsoil, vehicles or equipment shall be permitted within the tree enclosure area. The ground under and around the tree canopy area shall not be altered. Trees to be retained shall be irrigated, aerated and maintained as necessary to ensure survival. 16. TREE PROTECTION VERIFICATION INSPECTION REQUIRED. Prior to any site work, contractor must call Uriel Hernandez at 650-329-2450 to schedule an inspection of any required protective fencing. The fencing shall contain required warning sign and remain in place until final inspection of the project. 17. Any approved grading, digging or trenching beneath a tree canopy shall be performed using ‘air- spade’ method as a preference, with manual hand shovel as a backup. For utility trenching, Item 3 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 55     including sewer line, roots exposed with diameter of 1.5 inches and greater shall remain intact and not be damaged. If directional boring method is used to tunnel beneath roots, then Table 2-1, Trenching and Tunneling Distance, shall be printed on the final plans to be implemented by Contractor. 18. During the permit phase of a project an applicant must provide the proposed square footage of the rehabilitated landscape to determine if the project requires a MWELO compliance review. Please see the document titled “Model Water Efficient Landscape Ordinance (MWELO) Compliance Submittals and Guidelines” (https://cityofpaloalto.org/civicax/filebank/documents/76159) to determine if the project qualifies for MWELO Review. If a MWELO review is required, please follow the instructions in the above document when submitting your permit application and plan set. 19. NO NET LOSS OF CANOPY. In order to comply with the city’s no net loss of canopy policy (Urban Forest Master Plan: Goals 6.A, 6.B & 6.C & Comprehensive Plan Natural Environment Chapter: Goal N-2 and others) all trees 4” DBH and larger are subject to replacement to avoid a loss of canopy at the neighborhood level. Replacement ratios are determined by table 3-1 in the Tree Technical Manual (Section 3.20.C). New landscape tree plantings (24” box or larger) count towards the replacement total. Screening trees may also count toward the total depending on size and species selected. If unable to plant the required number of trees on site (our preferred solution) there is the option of paying in-lieu fees of $650 per each 24” box tree into the forestry fund. 20. The final Plans submitted for building permit shall include the following information and notes on relevant plan sheets: The building permit plan set will include the Sheet T-1 (Tree Protection-it's Part of the Plan!) Item 3 Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 56     Item 3 Attachment D: PC Ordinances Palo Alto Square     Packet Pg. 57     Item 3 Attachment D: PC Ordinances Palo Alto Square     Packet Pg. 58     follows: ORDINANCE NO. 4648 ORDINANCE OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO AMENDING SECTION 18.08.040 OF THE PALO ALTO MUNICIPAL CODE (THE ZONING MAP) TO CHANGE THE CLASSIFICATION OF PROPERTY AT THE INTERSECTION OF EL CAMINO REAL AND PAGE MILL ROAD KNOWN AS 3000 El CAMINO REAL (PALO ALTO SQUARE) FROM PC PLANNED COMMUNITY 2533 TO PC PLANNED COMMUNITY 4648 The Council of the City of Palo Al to does ORDAIN as SECTION 1. Section 18.08.040 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the "Zoning Map", is hereby amended by changing the zoning of certain property at the intersection of El Camino Real and Page Mill Road from PC Planned Community 2533(Office and Hotel Complex) to PC Planned Community 4648. SECTION 2. The City Council hereby finds that: (a) The Planning Commission, hearings held March 8, and May 10, Section 18.08.040 (the Zoning Map) of .be amended as hereinafter set forth. after a duly noticed public 2000 has recommended that the Palo Alto Municipal Code (b) The proposed amendment is in the public interest and will promote the public health, safety and welfare, as hereinafter set forth. (c) Modification of the existing PC Planned Community 2533 District to permit building-mounted telecommunications facilities on the site is consistent with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and is compatible with existing and potential use on adjoining sites and in the general vicinity. In particular: (i) Establishment of building-mounted telecommu­ nication facilities in developments such as Palo Alto Square is .supported by the following Comprehensive Plan Policies: a. Business and Economics Policy B-13: Support the development of technologically-advanced communications infrastructure and other improvements that will facilitate the growth of emerging telecommunications industries. b. Business and Economics Policy B-14: Work with electronic information network providers to maximize potential benefits for Palo Alto businesses, schools, residences, and other potential users. (ii) Building-mounted telecommunications facilities are a conditionally permitted use in City zoning districts. Palo Al to Square has buildings sui table for telecommunications facilities. 1 000629 syn 0090450 Item 3 Attachment D: PC Ordinances Palo Alto Square     Packet Pg. 59     (d) The site is so situated, and the use or uses proposed for the site are of such characteristics that the application of general districts or combining districts will not provide sufficient flexibility to allow the proposed development. The majority of building-mounted telecommunication facilities must be placed at a height significantly above surrounding development in order to function properly. This often requires that such facilities be located in Zoning Districts that allow building heights in excess of the City's typical 50-foot height limit. The subject site is developed with two structures over 140 feet in height and is ideally suited to accommodating such facilities. (e) Development of the site under the provisions of the PC planned community district will result in public benefits not otherwise attainable by application of the regulations of general districts or combining districts. The subj ect site is already developed in accordance with the existing PC Zoning District standards and the proposed inclusion of' telecommunications facili ties as a permitted use will not materially alter the physical or aesthetic appearance of the site. Moreover, the provision of on-site telecommunications facilities will result in a benefit to the public through improved and more wide ranging wireless communication services. (f) The use or uses permitted, and the site development regulations applicable within the district shall be consistent with the Palo Al to comprehensive plan, and shall be compatible with existing and potential uses on adj oining sites or wi thin the general vicinity . Comprehensive Plan Policies B-13 and B-14 promote the establishment of technologically advanced telecommunications infrastructure that will benefit the City's residents, schools, and businesses. Permitting building-mounted telecommunication facilities at the subject site is consistent with these Comprehensive Plan Policies. Additionally, telecommunication facilities are compatible with surrounding land uses, which consist of commercial and office-research and development uses. SECTION 3. The Council has reviewed and considered the proposed Negative Declaration, including the initial study, prepared for this project, on file with the Department of Planning and Community Environment, together with the comments received during the public review period. The City Council finds, on the basis of the whole record, that there is no substantial evidence that the project will have a significant effect on the environment. The City Council further finds that the negative declaration reflects the independent judgement of the City. The Negative Declaration is hereby adopted. SECTION 4. Those certain plans entitled "Change from C-3:S and L-M;S to P-C" a copy of which is on file with the Planning Division of the City, are made a part of this ordinance by this reference. Said Development' Plan is approved pursuant to Section 2 000629 syn 0090450 Item 3 Attachment D: PC Ordinances Palo Alto Square     Packet Pg. 60     18.68.070 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code subject to the following conditions: (a) Permitted Uses. (i) Financial services such as' banks, brokerage firms, title companies, insurance firms and similar uses. (ii) Professional, administrative, and executi ve offices. (iii)Restaurants and cocktail lounges. (i v) Theatres. (v) 300-guest room hotel including support facilities such as conference and banquet rooms. (vi) Commercial service facilities incidental, to a major office and hotel complex such as barber shop, beauty salon, smoke shop-newsstand, gift shop, parking structure and similar uses for the convenience of the employees and visitors to the complex. Major retail or commercial services to serve the community at large shall not be permitted. (vii) Building-mounted telecommunications facilities, provided that the design of the proposed facility is approved by the Director of Planning and Community Development after review and consideration by the Architectural Review Board. (b) Improvements: (i) Buildings, offstreet parking, landscaping including planting spaces within and immediately adjacent to the parking area to accommodate a minimum of 400 tree's, and other improvements shall be substantially as shown on the approved Development Plan. (ii) The office tower buildings shall not exceed 100,000 square feet of net rentable floor area in each and 10 stories and 159 feet in height. (iii)The one and two-story buildings shall not exceed a total of 85,000 square feet of net rentable floor area with 65,000 square feet to be on the ground floor. (iv) The hotel shall not exceed 17 stories, plus roof lounge and 176 feet in height. (v) Vehicle ingress and egress to El Camino Real and Page Mill Road shall be substantially as shown on the approved Development Plan minus the egress driveway on El Camino Real 3 000629syn 0090450 Item 3 Attachment D: PC Ordinances Palo Alto Square     Packet Pg. 61     nearest Page Mill Road and except for revisions as may be required by the State Division of Highways, the County of Santa Clara Department of Public Works, and the City of Palo Alto Department of Public Works. (vi) Acceleration and/or deceleration lanes shall be provided as required by the City of Palo Alto, County of Santa Clara and State of California. (vii) No less than 1650 parking spaces shall be provided. (c) Development Schedule. (i) Start of construction within 18 months of October 22, 1969. (ii) Completion of all construction and development within 3 years of start of construction. SECTIONS. This ordinance shall be effective on the thirty-first day after the date of its adoption. INTRODUCED: June 12, 2000 PASSED: June 26, 2000 AYES: BEECHAM, BURCH, EAKINS, KLEINBERG, KNISS, LYTLE, OJAKIAN NOES: ABSTENTIONS: ABSENT: FAZZINO NOT PARTICIPATING: MOSSAR APPROVED AS TO FORM: Attorney TH"'; DOClJME,NT IS CERTIFIED TO BE AN O"i)!;,:>'CE DUI.Y PASSED BY THE COUNCIL '" "'f OF PALO ALTO AND ::-'~()ST;:D iN:'~ CO~NCIL !;Jwil2:~ -0 (WITHIN 1:5 .';'~-~ P;\~3~}i·\GE) " :,'C' 'd'i (or uZi::LJ'v) under penally r,\' ~li~; ;,:i)' (irat the foregoing is true 000629".0_SO ll.!C:~:~ ~~ .~~~ ing and Environment Item 3 Attachment D: PC Ordinances Palo Alto Square     Packet Pg. 62     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 5 3 4 4 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 “3000 El Camino Real” and click the address link 3. On this project-specific webpage you will find a link to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current-Planning/Projects/3000- El-Camino-Real Materials Boards: Because the project does not include changes to the existing building material or color, no materials board is provided for the proposed project. Item 3 Attachment E: Project Plans     Packet Pg. 63     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: September 5, 2024 Report #: 2408-3422 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for July 18, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of July 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. 64     Page 1 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: July 18, 2024 Council Chambers & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on July 18, 2024 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:35 AM. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board Member Mousam Adcock, Board Member Peter Baltay, Board Member David Hirsch Absent: None Oral Communications 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 announced she is the ARB liaison to replace Claire Raybould who has been promoted to Principal Planner. The potential item for August 1 on 660 University will be moved to a future date as the applicant is rethinking the project. As a result, the August 1 ARB meeting is cancelled. The next ARB meeting is scheduled for August 15, which will include two master sign programs and one more item may be added. Ms. Gerhardt called the Board’s attention to the List of Pending Projects that staff is reviewing and will come to the ARB in the near future. A new seven-story multifamily housing project at 3781 El Camino is listed at the bottom of Packet Page 11. A new 335-unit housing project at 3606 El Camino is listed on Packet Page 12. The List of Potential Projects was displayed on the screen. Board Member Hirsch asked for an update on 660 University. Project Planner Emily Kallas replied that the applicant’s team requested to cancel the June 12 PTC hearing on the project. Ms. Kallas thought the applicant is reconsidering aspects of the project. Action Item Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 65     Page 2 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 2. 4075 El Camino Way [23PLN-00202, Palo Alto Commons]: Consideration of an Amendment to a Planned Community Zone District (PC-5116) to allow additions to an existing 121-unit Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility. The additions would include 16 Assisted Living Units and 172 sf of support space. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Modifications to Existing Facilities). Zoning District: PC-5116 (Planned Community) Disclosures: Board Member Baltay, Chair Rosenberg, Vice Chair Chen, and Board Member Hirsch visited the site earlier this week. Board Member Adcock visited the site and noticed some scaffolding on the south side that she believed was for maintenance work not related to this project. Ms. Kallas addressed the ARB. There will be no change to the overall building height or wall setback adjacent to the single-family neighborhood. The proposed additions are primarily in existing step-backs on the upper floors. The Avant and Palo Alto Commons buildings on this property were built using PC 5116 in 2011 and PC 3775 in 1987. The assisted living units do not have kitchens, therefore, are not considered dwelling units for the purpose of the RHNA allocation. The project is located on 4075 El Camino Way, located near West Meadow Drive. The property contains two facilities; Avant is independent living for seniors and Palo Alto Commons is assisted living and memory care. Staff review is ongoing for this project. PTC hearings were held in February and June 2024. This is the first ARB hearing. The next steps are to obtain formal recommendation from the ARB at a later meeting, obtain PTC recommendation, and the final decision by Council. The project proposes filling in nine existing step-backed areas. This would add 1187 sf to the ground floor, including 172 sf for office or administrative space, providing 6891 sf total. The building is outside the 45-degree daylight plane. A slide was shown of the elevations of the front entrance as seen from El Camino Way. The Board had materials with the proposed color scheme of gray, blue, beige, and brown. The rear elevation was shown facing the Wilkie Way single-family neighborhood. The right elevation faces West Meadow Street. The interior elevation faces the Avant building. In PC Ordinance 3775, the initial approval for the Palo Alto Commons Building, the requirement was a 45-degree daylight plane measured 10 feet up. In the current PC zoning district, per Section 18.38 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC), commercial projects are required to have a 3:6 daylight plane; however, this was considered a residential use because there was no differentiation between dwelling units and housing projects at the time. Staff believes it is appropriate to continue using the 45-degree daylight plane based on the existing PC ordinance. A PC project may request encroachments into the daylight plane. The proposed additions are below the 45-degree daylight plane but would encroach substantially into the 3:6 daylight plane. Parking is a concern for this project. There are an adequate number of parking spaces per the code; however, staff is working with the applicant to ensure that parking is accessible to visitors. Staff expects to receive a TDM plan from the applicant to ensure access to parking spaces and to meet the original PC requirements. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 66     Page 3 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 At the June PTC meeting, the motion included recommendations for the ARB to consider the following: An upper floor setback from the Wilkie Way neighborhood, window privacy measures perhaps using the IR Guidelines, potential noise mitigation measures, and landscaping for privacy. The proposed upper floor setbacks vary from 12 to 21 feet with the third floor setback generally further than the second floor. Ms. Kallas thought it was likely unfeasible or would result in a significant reduction of the project if the setback was increased to 20 feet. For privacy, the PTC wanted the ARB to consider privacy glazing, screening, or alternative locations for the windows. Ms. Kallas pointed out that due to the assisted living use and size of the units, many units have one or two windows and the residents spend more hours of the day in their homes than a typical residence. Ms. Kallas stated the third floor windows are 19 to 21 feet away; therefore, the windows meet the IR Guidelines for windows facing a rear yard to be 20 feet away. Ms. Kallas remarked that a noise study analyzed equipment and operational noise and found no noticeable increase to the existing noise conditions, so staff does not recommend applying noise measures. The applicant proposed two additional screening trees. The plans show where existing screening landscaping is located. The plan set included shade models demonstrating how the building and landscaping would affect shade during different seasons and times of day. A summary of the neighbor comments included in the report include: Desire for the current step-backs to be maintained, concern about increased shade, concern about parking on local streets rather than on site, and concern about noise. Staff recommends that the ARB provide initial comments and feedback and that the project be continued to a date uncertain. Architect Daniel Bowman delivered a slide presentation depicting the remodeled interior courtyard, proposed color scheme and landscaping screening. Architect Daniel Bowman stated that the majority of the building has trees. The FAR is proposed to increase from 1.19 to 1.25. There will be no protrusions into the 45-degree daylight plane. The landscape plan was shown. There are a few existing 60- to 70- foot tall redwood trees. Two trees are proposed in the middle where there is grass. The applicant believed the landscape plan provided screening without adding too much shade but was willing to add more trees if needed. Mr. Bowman remarked that most of the building does not directly view any neighbors, the majority if not all have been screened by trees, and they are mostly 40 feet away from the property line. Slides were shown of the existing and proposed neighbors’ views as well as the daylight plane. Per 18.38.150, PC zoning should have a 10-foot setback. The PAMC considers this site a corner lot. The front is on West Meadow Drive. If the applicant is required to have a 20-foot setback instead of the existing 10 feet, Mr. Bowman stated they would lose four units, with the remaining units being smaller and unable to accommodate two bedrooms. Mr. Bowman stated that the shadow study showed there will not be much of an increased impact from shadowing on the neighbors’ properties. Most of the shade will be added to the project’s property. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 67     Page 4 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 Board Member Hirsch noted parking is limited on site and asked if there had been a response from Transportation regarding how visitors are directed to areas in the parking garage. Ms. Kallas replied that there have been some preliminary improvements to make the garage spaces accessible to visitors. Staff is waiting to receive the TDM plan from the applicant. Board Member Adcock queried if West Meadow was considered the front yard in the original PC since the address is on El Camino and there is no gate on West Meadow to signify it is the front yard. Ms. Kallas explained that the setbacks were set in the PC but it did not use the words “front” or “side.” Chair Rosenberg remarked that the shorter side is typically considered the front for corner lots. Ms. Kallas stated that Chair Rosenberg was correct. The shorter side has access to a street. A front door does not equal the front setback. Ms. Gerhardt pointed out that since it is a customized zone, general setbacks (not front or rear) were determined when the building was originally built. In reply to Vice Chair Chen inquiring if there was an open space requirement for this project, Ms. Kallas answered that because it is a PC, the development standards are custom to the existing building. Board Member Hirsch wanted to know if there was a reason for not defining the front of a building. Ms. Kallas replied that whenever a property in Palo Alto has multiple street frontages, the zoning code defines the shorter of the street frontages as the front. As a PC, the setbacks for this site were approved through the design review process. Board Member Baltay asked what the purpose of PC 5116 was. Ms. Kallas responded that PC 5116 was to build the Avant building on the same parcel. Board Member Baltay did not see a landscape plan in the drawing set and thought the ARB normally received a landscaping plan showing the existing landscaping. Ms. Gerhardt replied that we do not always get a full landscape plan for projects that are adding to an existing structure but if the ARB desires, especially because of concerns about privacy issues, staff can get more information. Board Member Baltay noticed a number of balconies on the second level were missing on the proposed elevations and wondered if there were other exterior changes to the building. Mr. Bowman responded that some of the balconies will be removed because they are memory care units and the residents cannot go out on those balconies. Board Member Baltay asked if it the removal of balconies was shown on the floor plans. Mr. Bowman stated he could provide an updated floor plan at the next ARB meeting. Chair Rosenberg noted that most of the building is at a 45-degree angle; however, some of the additions will have flat-facing windows looking at the Wilkie Way residents. Chair Rosenberg inquired how many units are being added with front-facing windows and how many windows. Mr. Bowman guessed at most four because there was nowhere in the unit to put a window on a 45-degree wall. PUBLIC COMMENT 1. Kevin Ji spoke on behalf of Manas K., Celine W., June L., and Adrian L. in opposition to the project at 4075 El Camino Way in its current form. Mr. Ji provided a handout to the ARB. Chair Rosenberg advised that items should be submitted to staff 10 days prior to meetings. Mr. Ji commented on the difficulty of preparing and submitting something within the same day of knowing an item is on the agenda. Mr. Ji is a resident of 4072 Wilkie Way. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 68     Page 5 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 As defined by PAMC Section 18.76.020(a), part of the purpose of architectural review is to enhance the desirability of residence or investment in the city as well as enhance the desirability of living conditions upon the immediate site or in adjacent areas. Mr. Ji and his neighbors opine that this project significantly reduces the desirability of living adjacent to it. As defined by state and local code cited in the staff report, senior assisted living facilities are considered a commercial use and do not qualify under RHNA standards. Per PAMC Section 18.38.150, the daylight plane angle for a commercial property is 3:6 with a 10-foot setback. Mr. Ji strongly disagrees with staff’s assertion that the 45-degree angle should be used. If this project was considered housing, the setback would be 20 feet. The applicant’s design shows a 10-foot setback. As a result, the proposed units are closer than other commercial or residential zoning would normally allow. Mr. Ji believed that this project violated criteria for context-based design, harmonious transitions, and scale. PAMC 18.16.090(B)(iv) and 18.13.060(B)(ii) require low-density residential transitions. The three main sub-criteria are step-backs and transitions, privacy and sight lines, and sun/shade impacts. The proposed in-fill units are in violation of step-backs. There will no longer be a transition from a three-story building to a one-story single-family home. With the proposed three-story project being so close, he feels as though somebody is constantly watching over them. All the units along the Wilkie Way property line have at least one window facing toward Wilkie Way houses in some direction. The current design violates the 3:6 required for daylight planes and has significant daylight impacts. The reason there are many front yard gardens on Wilkie Way is because the backyard is covered by shade caused by the Palo Alto Commons building. Mr. Ji commented it is difficult to garden with his grandparents in his backyard. With the proposed construction, Mr. Ji believes he will no longer be able to garden. Due to the significant daylight and privacy impacts, the project does not enhance their residential area. On the contrary, it reduces their quality of life. Mr. Ji cited Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan Policies L-1.7, L-3.1, L-6.1, L-6.7, and L-6.8. The Wilkie Way community has been involved and is against the current project design as it is not compatible with their single- family residential area. Step-backs avoid abrupt changes in scale and density. Mr. Ji suggested a few options. Construct the seven units that do not face the Wilkie Way property line. This option would avoid disrupting the current step-back formation, would have no shade impact on Wilkie Way, and would not violate the municipal guidelines on daylight planes. Another option is to build facing El Camino Way, away from Wilkie Way property line; however, Mr. Ji stated that Palo Alto Commons rejected that option because it was costly and needed exemptions. Mr. Ji pointed out that an exemption was needed for FAR on their current plan. The cost to live in the assisted living facility is between $200,000 and $300,000 per year, so Mr. Ji believed that the net cost of building on El Camino would be negligible in view of their revenue. Mr. Ji did not think that Palo Alto Commons has been transparent on the cost difference. The El Camino alternative would not disrupt the current step-back formation, and a commercial project is in alignment with the aesthetic of the El Camino corridor with other high- density developments such as the North Ventura Coordinated Area Plan. Mr. Ji was concerned about parking and stated that PTC Chairwoman Bryna Chang was told to park on the nearby residential streets when she visited the site. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 69     Page 6 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 2. Lily Lee spoke on behalf of JP, Austin T., Maegan C, Yichen, and Zhou. Ms. Lee is a resident of Wilkie Way. She agreed with the previous commenter. She supports the idea of adding seven interior units as well as units on the front side of the building. She supports seniors and is fine with parking and traffic impacts in exchange for the community benefit. The building is close to her house, covers her entire view, and creates a lot of shade. Ms. Lee has tried to plant in her backyard since 2003 but many have not survived. She tried to plant screening trees with the advice from an arborist but the trees have not thrived. Ms. Lee opined that the building is unattractive. Ms. Lee stated that her children do not feel comfortable with eyes on them. A 10- foot setback would not be granted if the original project came today, so Ms. Lee thought a 20- foot setback was more appropriate and reasonable given the transition area. Ms. Lee believed the 3:6 daylight plane was more appropriate. Ms. Lee preferred the current green color because it blends in better with foliage, so she encouraged the applicant to use a color scheme more similar to nature, especially if new landscaping might provide more screening. If the new screening does not make the shade worse or has minimal impact on the shade, Ms. Lee preferred screening for her backyard. Ms. Lee encouraged the applicant to work with individual neighbors on what type of landscaping and screening might work best for their situations. Ms. Lee spoke with people who were visiting Palo Alto Commons and were not parking in the designated parking area. She heard the applicant state at the PTC meeting that maybe the employee who gave advice to park on Wilkie Way did not remember the parking plan. 3. Shashank Divekar is a resident of 4054 Wilkie Way. His single-family residence is directly behind Palo Alto Commons and shares a fence. He is opposed to this expansion. Balconies overlook him and he feels it invades his privacy; therefore, more units would make it worse. He agreed with the comments the previous speakers made. He believed the additional units will create a visual towering wall-like structure, impact his standard and quality of life, and decline property values. 4. Jenny Chen is resident of 4072 Wilkie Way. She shares a fence with Palo Alto Commons. She is strongly opposed to the proposed expansion project at 4075 El Camino Way in its current form. She echoed her neighbors’ comments regarding valuation, significant daylight impacts, and privacy issues that this project would introduce. She thought the current setback should not be changed. When she bought her house, it was fully surrounded by about eight tall trees and she could not see Palo Alto Commons’ buildings. After buying the house, her homeowner insurance would not issue an insurance policy unless she removed the trees. She stated she spent a lot of money to remove those trees and replace them with shorter trees. The windows face her house and can see her backyard and backside of the house. For that reason, she rarely opens her curtains. She asked the ARB to consider the privacy issue of Wilkie residents. 5. Mona He lives at 4040 Wilkie. She submitted two photos to the ARB. She is strongly opposed to Palo Alto Commons’ expansion. The project violates PAMC 18.16.090(B)(iv), which requires low- density building transition from the neighborhood. When the project was initially built, it followed that standard with step-backs from the Wilkie community. The proposal is to fill in the current step-back. The submitted photos were taken from her backyard. Grass does not grow in her backyard. She bought the house in 2003. She planted four privacy trees but two have died Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 70     Page 7 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 because there is not enough sunlight. She believed the 3:6 daylight plane was applicable because it is a convalescent facility. Since they are not residential buildings, the 45-degree does not apply. Ms. He pointed out that this is a flag lot, not a corner lot. The definition of a corner lot is two joined property lines to create an angle less than 135 degrees. West Meadow and El Camino do not join. 6. William Moss has lived on Wilkie Way since 1983. He feels like he lives in a fishbowl and was a violation of privacy. He stated that employees park on Wilkie Way. 7. Huibin Tang is a Stanford scientist. He played an audio recording of noise coming from Palo Alto Commons at 4 AM, 2:50 PM, and 9:50 PM. He will submit a photo via email for Ms. Gerhardt to place into the record. Mr. Tang stated that noise of 62 decibels wakes him up at 4:49 AM. Noise is 62.3 decibels throughout the day. At 9:37 PM, noise was at 63.3 decibels. Mr. Tang displayed a photo of 10 pipes pointing to his fence that generate this noise. Mr. Tang urged the ARB to think seriously about Palo Alto Commons’ negative impact to the neighborhood. 8. Yanfeng Wang lives on Wilkie Way. She agreed with Kevin Ji’s comments. Ms. Wang believes Palo Alto Commons is a commercial use with over 200 residents and over 50 employees in addition to visiting healthcare providers. She heard noise of 67 or 68 decibels in the summertime in the backyard when the air conditioner is running; without air conditioner, the lowest is 53 or 43 decibels. She took video of people parking on the street including in front of her house and walking to Palo Alto Commons. 9. Natalie Choo is a resident of Wilkie Way. She wanted senior housing done in a more thoughtful way with less of an impact to Wilkie Way residents. She appreciated Kevin Ji’s presentation. Parking is a problem on Wilkie Way. A 10-foot setback from a one or two-story building to three stories makes a large presence in your backyard. Most of Wilkie Way gardens are on the front. Ms. Choo asked Palo Alto Commons to consider building toward El Camino, which is more commercial. She felt as though the burden of daily living and having large masses is being borne on the backs of a few small single-story houses. Ms. Gerhardt stated this is a planned community (PC), a customized zone. Ms. Gerhardt clarified there are no violations because a new customized zone is being created. Ms. Gerhardt said that the portions of the code cited in the public comments do not apply to this property. Staff will continue to address the parking issue. Staff asked management of the facility to open the gates so below-grade parking can be used. The facility had concerns because it is a memory care facility. Staff is continuing to work with the facility to open the gate or use a callbox. If the gate is opened, there is sufficient parking for the existing and proposed units. Ms. Gerhardt stated that staff takes the noise complaint seriously. Staff will take a deeper look at the noise report for this project to ensure measurements were taken in the right places or whether additional measurements need to be taken to address neighbors’ concerns and ensure compliance with the code. Staff will address air conditioner noise but cannot address people noise. Court cases have ruled that people noise in their backyard or open space is not a significant impact. Board Member Hirsch asked for an explanation of a customized zone. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the City determines the setbacks and daylight plane. Chair Rosenberg clarified that we are following the setbacks and daylight plane initially established with this project in 1987. Vice Chair Chen asked if Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 71     Page 8 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 customized means project by project or if PC was all the same. Ms. Gerhardt replied that you can customize PC any way you choose. For example, the City could choose to not have a daylight plane. Staff’s recommendation is to stay within the parameters of the existing PC. Board Member Adcock asked if hypothetically this was an empty lot and a Housing Element site, what would the setbacks be for multifamily residential. Ms. Gerhardt replied that the City does not have a certified Housing Element, so it could be almost anything if it was a housing project. Chair Rosenberg remarked that this could be an eight-story built to the setbacks if this was SB 330 or Builders Remedy. Ms. Gerhardt pointed out it could be 100 stories tall because of the new California law. Chair Rosenberg invited the applicant to approach the podium to provide comments in rebuttal or in response to items presented by public comment. Mr. Bowman stated that parking is per PAMC. In regard to the noise complaint, adding two HVAC units is below the maximum decibels allowed. The applicant is requesting the following PC changes: An increase in the FAR, increase in maximum units by an additional 16, and changing the setback on the Goodwill side to match Goodwill’s setback of roughly 6 to 7 feet. Steve Sandholtz represents the management company. The owners are locally based, a long-time Palo Alto family. The headquarters are in Utah but the entire business is in California, operating 16 communities and employing 1400 people. Mr. Sandholtz stated he has had many conversations with the neighbors and he has made adjustments to initial plans to address some of the neighbors’ concerns. For example, some expansion units were relocated to the other side of the building that approaches toward the Goodwill site and the Avant courtyard to eliminate some of the density along the Wilkie Way neighbors. Mr. Sandholtz stated that the daylight plane calculation is what staff has concluded is the correct one to use. Mr. Sandholtz offered to address privacy by planting additional trees but that does not help the shade. Mr. Sandholtz stated that the applicant has done shadow studies that demonstrate the increased height of the building has virtually no impact on shade to the Wilkie neighbors. If adding trees helps with the privacy issue without exacerbating shade and is beneficial to the neighbors, the applicant is willing to consider it. The City conducted a noise study, which found that there were no issues relative to noise and nothing would change. Mr. Sandholtz remarked that the City conducted a parking study which concluded that the applicant is adequately parked. Mr. Sandholtz stated that the applicant does not control where everybody will park; however, they are adjusting their parking policies and engaged a consultant to prepare the TDM for their next Planning Commission meeting. Mr. Sandholtz is open to continue working with staff to make this project work. Mr. Sandholtz remarked that City Council was highly desirable of having additional senior housing units because there is demand. Mr. Sandholtz stated that the facility provides great care and service to over 150 residents that live in their combined community at Avant and Palo Alto Commons. The ARB took a break at 10:10 AM and resumed at 10:19 AM. The ARB returned with all Board Members present. Chair Rosenberg invited the Board to ask questions of staff and the applicant. Board Member Adcock noted that the A1.2 landscape drawing in the showed two proposed trees but did not specify the species, proposed height, or mature height of those trees. While driving on Wilkie, Board Member Adcock noticed the northeast side landscaping on the Meadow Drive end has large redwoods and you Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 72     Page 9 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 can barely see Palo Alto Commons versus traveling west away from Meadow Drive it becomes more open and you can see into the windows of Palo Alto Commons from Wilkie. Board Member Adcock asked why the applicant only proposed two trees. Mr. Bowman replied they are adding two trees because there is a gap in the trees where there is currently grass, so they wanted to add screening but not impact shade. The species has not been chosen. The mature height will be around 20 to 30 feet to avoid increasing shade. Board Member Adcock stated that two-thirds of the length seemed sparse looking at it from the Wilkie side. Mr. Bowman is willing to add more trees if the neighbors want. Board Member Hirsch asked if the applicant had a landscape architect. Mr. Bowman replied that two trees is not a large enough scope for planning, so the applicant is waiting until the building submittal when the tree species is chosen. Board Member Adcock asked if it was required for planning submittal to have an idea of species and size. Ms. Gerhardt responded that if it was a new building we would receive a full landscape plan; however, we can have lesser requirements for additions. Ms. Gerhardt understood from the Board’s discussion that a landscape plan was needed. Mr. Bowman stated he would have a landscape plan for the next meeting. Chair Rosenberg asked if there is a height limit for the Wilkie Way houses and if they could be two-story. Ms. Kallas confirmed there is no single-story overlay, so it is typical R-1 zoning along Wilkie Way. The height of a potential second story would be regulated through the individual review guidelines. Chair Rosenberg had questions about the noise report. Ms. Gerhardt confirmed there was a noise report. Ms. Kallas believed that on-site monitoring was done for 72 hours. There were no violations or code issues based on the noise. Staff will take a closer look at where the monitors were placed on the property. Vice Chair Chen asked where the new HVAC equipment would be located. Mr. Bowman replied it is shown on the roofing plan and believed it was labeled M-7. Two new units are proposed and will be stepped back from the building at least 50 feet away from the property line. Chair Rosenberg queried how close the existing HVAC units were to the property line. Mr. Bowman answered that they go up to the 10-foot setback on the first floor. The proposal is not impacting the existing HVAC units on the first floor. Chair Rosenberg asked if the applicant had considered replacing the old HVAC units. Mr. Bowman responded that they wanted to maintain the current HVAC units. Board Member Adcock asked for details about the proposed areas of sloped roof. Mr. Bowman replied that asphalt roof shingles are proposed to match the homes on the R-1 side. There is currently no sloped roof. The reason for the sloped roof was one of the City staff’s comments was Fire needed a 30-inch parapet but it could not go in the daylight plane, so the asphalt sloped roof pushed the 30 inches back so it does not go into the daylight plane. In reply to Board Member Adcock’s question, Mr. Bowman confirmed that no balconies are being added; however, some balconies will be removed from the Memory Care (MC) wing. Board Member Adcock noticed scaffolding on site and wondered if it was for maintenance or painting. Mr. Bowman replied it is for maintenance of the wood siding that is rotting. The applicant is waiting for the ARB’s approval before painting. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 73     Page 10 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 There are eight Wilkie Way properties adjacent to the rear of the Palo Alto Commons property. Chair Rosenberg noted that five of those eight properties have ADUs. Ms. Gerhardt did not do a file search on the adjacent properties but she believed they are ADUs. Looking on Google Maps, Chair Rosenberg did not know if it is a garage, shed, or ADU. Ms. Gerhardt and Ms. Kallas confirmed for Chair Rosenberg that ADUs are allowed up to a 16-foot-tall single story. Chair Rosenberg invited discussion amongst the Board. Board Member Baltay thanked the community for attending tonight’s meeting. The town wants additional senior living facilities and Board Member Baltay believed this is the right place. Board Member Baltay acknowledged the existing significant privacy impact from Palo Alto Commons onto the neighbors on Wilkie Way but the impact is not changed much by adding what the applicant is proposing. Board Member Baltay opined the massing is fine, and the change to the neighborhood pattern and use is minimal. Board Member Baltay agreed with the 10-foot setback at the neighbors’ property, which is consistent with what is there now and what has been done elsewhere. The changes are small enough that Board Member Baltay can justify it as part of an extension of the existing PC that has been in place since 1987. Board Member Baltay is in favor of keeping a daylight plane of 45 degrees starting at 10 feet from the property line because it is the standard used throughout Palo Alto when you have new uses adjacent to existing residential. A less steep daylight plane is too restrictive and not consistent with other daylight plane protections provided to residences in Palo Alto. Board Member Baltay is fine with allowing the proposed minimal increase of approximately 10 percent in the coverage and the FAR, which is justified by the need to have additional units on the property. Board Member Baltay opined that the design of the proposed project layout, massing, materials, and colors were fine. On Page A5.10, Board Member Baltay is somewhat concerned about Drawing 5, Proposed View 1. In the lowest corner of Drawing 5 are units 312B and 314B, two new units on the third floor. He thought those two units create a three-story facade very close to the neighbors. Board Member Baltay opined that modifying or eliminating those two units would minimize the increase of massing and bulk on the neighbors. Board Member Baltay does not think the remainder of the proposal is a significant change based on the photos and his site visit. Windows looking into neighbors’ property is annoying and problematic but it is an existing privacy issue. Board Member Baltay stated that there is no way to design these units without having those windows and it is unreasonable to eliminate those windows or have obscured glass; however, good landscaping can help. Board Member Baltay suggested asking the applicant to comply with the ARB’s objective standards regarding privacy guidelines for windows that face neighbors. The objective standards included choices on windowsill heights, obscured glazing on windows, and angling windows so they do not look directly into neighbors’ properties. Board Member Baltay remarked that the applicant needs to provide a good landscaping plan and do everything they can to ensure privacy is increased as much as possible between them and the neighbor. Board Member Baltay stated that the ARB’s objective standards for landscape screening should be applied to this project. The objective standards specify the spacing and size of trees as well as distance to the property line. Board Member Baltay wanted to require the applicant to work with the neighbors individually as some may prefer smaller landscaping, and document it to the City. Listening to the 4 AM audio recording during public comment, it is clear to Board Member Baltay that Palo Alto Commons has an HVAC unit with a ventilation output opposite the backyard, which was not Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 74     Page 11 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 captured in the noise study because tests were not done near that particular property. Besides meeting the noise ordinance, Board Member Baltay proposed prohibiting ventilation or exhaust from noise- producing equipment in the rear 10-foot setback. Board Member Baltay wanted to require the applicant to modify the existing situation and install new HVAC equipment on the roof. Board Member Baltay had trouble parking when he visited the site on Wednesday morning; therefore, he agreed there was an issue with parking for visitors and employees overflowing into the neighborhood. Staff should ask for a Transportation Demand Management Plan (TDM). The applicant has not been in compliance with PC 3775’s requirement for a parking plan and it was never enforced. The applicant has to provide parking for employees and visitors on site or a plan to the Planning staff’s satisfaction to mitigate or reduce impact on neighborhood parking. Employees should not park in front of houses on Wilkie Way. The proposed additional units will increase parking demand. Board Member Hirsch stated that landscaping is critical for privacy. Board Member Hirsch thought it was possible to put some landscaping adjacent to the fence line to create a higher barrier for privacy on the Wilkie side but not too high to increase shadowing on the neighbors’ properties but the applicant needs to coordinate with each of the affected residents. Board Member Hirsch agreed that the applicant needs to supply a landscape plan. Regarding the windows facing the Wilkie side in the proposed scheme, Board Member Hirsch thought the applicant may have to change the elevation treatment by providing some bays or putting skylights in the roofs of those units so the windows do not create a privacy issue for the Wilkie neighbors. Board Member Hirsch opined that the color scheme change was a good idea because he personally was bothered by the green. Board Member Hirsch wished the applicant had shown the ARB how the color scheme worked with a three-dimensional model because it is difficult to read the drawings as elevations and to note the way in which the colors change. Board Member Hirsch thought the site was a good place to increase the number of dwellings for seniors in the community and a significant improvement for Palo Alto in general. Board Member Hirsch agreed with the angle of the roofline. Board Member Hirsch was concerned about the extreme impact of parking on the neighborhood. Visitors need to find easy access to parking areas. Board Member Hirsch hoped the City could work with the applicant on making it easy to use the garage and notifying residents’ visitors, perhaps designating visitor parking spots in the garage closer to the entry and making the garage open instead of gated. Board Member Adcock echoed Board Member Baltay’s comment about the 45-degree daylight plane and 10-foot setback seeming reasonable based on similar projects the ARB has reviewed with single- family residences backing into a new development. From what Board Member Adcock has heard commented and as seen in the plans, based on the number of staff working at Palo Alto Commons, there is not enough parking to avoid spilling over to adjacent streets. Board Member Adcock wondered if the applicant considered increasing parking by extending the garage to under the front parking lot. Board Member Adcock found the plans difficult to read between the angles and the split between the sheets. Referring to A2.2B, Board Member Adcock thought the layout of the units could be modified to have primary windows 45 degrees away from the Wilkie back fence instead of parallel. For example, the unit plan on the top of the page could have the bathroom or kitchen on that wall and not have a window but have windows on the other sides. Board Member Adcock observed during her visit that plenty of the Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 75     Page 12 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 units are exposed toward Wilkie and it is not just about privacy of the Wilkie residents but also the Palo Alto Commons residents. The units would be greatly improved if windows are not parallel to the fence line. Referring to Sheet 5.7, there is space in the 10 feet to plant trees with a mature height of 16-20 feet to provide screening for the neighbors and privacy to Palo Alto Commons’ residents from Wilkie, and Board Member Adcock urged the applicant to look into it further. In Section 1 on 5.7, there are areas of sloped roof and flat roof. Board Member Adcock is not sure how that resolves in massing and proportion. Board Member Adcock wondered about keeping the current design of parapet walls and work with the language of the existing building instead of adding a partial mansard-type roof that does not add to the building look. Vice Chair Chen had mixed feelings on this project. Before this meeting, Vice Chair Chen thought the applicant did a great job to angle the units to not face the neighbors directly and to fill in pockets with new units; however, after hearing neighbors’ comments and concerns and seeing the photos submitted of how the building appears from their backyard, she feels sad. The proposed additional units on the third floor add into their neighbors’ backyard, which is a privacy issue, a visual impact, and a huge massing. Residents’ attempting to plant trees in their backyard but not being successful maybe because of shading is an existing condition. Vice Chair Chen believed the 45-degree daylight plane and 10-feet setbacks were reasonable. Looking at the unit layout, several units had large windows facing the neighbors’ backyard and Vice Chair Chen wondered if there was a way to reduce the impact. People living in the assisted living would want a more pleasant view instead of looking at their neighbors’ backyard. Vice Chair Chen suggested adding units on the El Camino side by create four stories, which might reduce the cost and impact to the tenants because it takes a lot of effort to fill-in versus focusing on one area and adding an additional floor. Vice Chair Chen appreciated the provided shadow studies, which show there is not much increase to the neighbors; however, there is a big visual impact and privacy issue for Wilkie residents. Chair Rosenberg thought a fourth story was a worthwhile consideration for the applicant. Chair Rosenberg commented that she lives in the neighborhood and drives past Wilkie Way every day, and she has family who has lived in this neighborhood for many years. Chair Rosenberg encouraged the public to understand that this property had a lot of nicely done things, such as the angles creating a lot of privacy and relief from what could be an otherwise very imposing building if it was built straight across the back. Chair Rosenberg believed it was appropriate to apply the existing the 45-degree daylight plane and 10-foot setback, which was better than the 6 feet it could be. It appeared that eight units had a direct-facing window to the back but two units could be flipped around with relative ease, as Board Member Adcock mentioned. Getting windows off the flat faces and onto the angles will provide more privacy for the neighbors. Regarding Board Member Baltay’s comment about the proposed northernmost units seeming to have the most visual impact for the neighbors, Chair Rosenberg stated her concern with massing is not as strong as Board Member Baltay’s. Chair Rosenberg asked for more zoom-ins of the site plan for the next meeting and to include the neighbors on the zoomed-in A-2 series, depicting neighbors’ ADUs, property lines, and any other relevant features to evaluate how the proposed project would impact the neighbors. Chair Rosenberg wanted to see the full landscaping plan. When the applicant comes back to the ARB, Chair Rosenberg Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 76     Page 13 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 would appreciate knowing that the applicant had input from the neighbors and had considered landscape screening on a case-by-case basis. Chair Rosenberg pointed out that properties on Wilkie Way are allowed to be built up to two stories and ADUs are allowed up to 17 feet tall. Going from a three-story to a two-story is a reasonable transition in height. Chair Rosenberg appreciated hearing the audio recording of the noise. Chair Rosenberg stated that noise is a significant concern and she supported keeping any noise-producing equipment out of the 10-foot setback. Chair Rosenberg wanted to ensure that noise studies will be updated and reevaluated. Chair Rosenberg pointed out that nobody brought up triple-pane windows; however, the noise seems to be from the mechanical equipment and not from within the units. Chair Rosenberg stated that parking needs to be addressed because it is inappropriate that staff is parking in front of homes to go to work around the corner. For the next hearing, Chair Rosenberg wanted to see a parking diagram showing the number of spaces to ensure that staff had appropriate parking as well as a use plan so employees understand they are not to park on Wilkie Way. Chair Rosenberg suggested signage may be placed on Wilkie Way noting that parking for the Commons is not appropriate. Regarding the color scheme, Chair Rosenberg preferred green but did not have any issue with blue. Chair Rosenberg stated that the height and daylight shade and shadow diagrams were highly effective as a counterargument to the public’s concerns. The building has minimal impact on the shade and shadow. Regarding the suggestion to build on the El Camino Way side of the project, Board Member Baltay commented on the complexity of building on top of a three-story wood-frame building built in 1987. The only way to do so is to structurally change the entire building. You cannot get shear walls below to support a new floor above. It is cost prohibitive and not realistic. Board Member Baltay pointed out that Palo Alto’s goals are to increase density and increase places for people of all walks of life to live. Elderly housing is desperately needed. Chair Rosenberg summarized what the ARB is looking for the applicant to provide for the next hearing: 1. Landscape plan with neighbor input. 2. Parking diagram and plan as well as any additional information the applicant can provide of how they would instruct staff to make sure people are not parking on Wilkie Way. In the parking garage plan, Board Member Adcock would like to see spaces assigned for staff parking, how that relates to the number of staff currently employed and projected for at least the next five years, what is the ratio of staff versus parking spaces, and the methods of transportation for the remaining staff (required carpool, biking, etc.) Board Member Hirsch suggested the applicant look into an arrangement for rental of off-site parking. Board Member Baltay recalled the ARB recently reviewed and approved an addition to the Castilleja School, which is located in the middle of an intensely developed residential neighborhood and there were many parking questions. Through the TDM program, the ARB required employees to park offsite with the applicant providing transportation back and forth. 3. Include ADUs and property lines on the A2 series of sheets. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 77     Page 14 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 4. A count of how many windows are flat facing toward the neighbors. How does the applicant intend to mitigate privacy (frosting a portion of the window)? The applicant can refer to ARB’s standards. 5. Staff to review noise studies, obtain a better understanding of where the noise is coming from, which equipment pieces are causing noise, and how decibels are rated at the property line. 6. A thorough diagram of the proposed new HVAC units, where they sit on the roof, how far from the neighbors, and their decibels. Make sure the HVAC units are not directionally pointed straight at the neighbors; it is great if they can be turned sideways. The ARB may decide that the applicant needs to keep HVAC units out of the 10-foot setback, so the ARB wants to know where the current HVAC units are located, their age, and decibels. 7. Board Member Baltay wanted the applicant to follow the ARB’s objective standards for privacy regarding landscaping and window placement. Chair Rosenberg agreed. Chair Rosenberg asked for a motion to continue to a date uncertain. MOTION: Board Member Baltay moved to continue this project to a date uncertain, subject to the comments that have been recorded. Chair Rosenberg seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion passed 5-0. The ARB took a break at 11:15 AM and resumed at 11:27 AM. The ARB returned with all Board Members present. Study Session 3.Study Session to Review the Draft Ordinances Updating Lighting Standards (Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.40.250) and introducing Bird-Safe Design standards (PAMC Section 18.40.280) Chair Rosenberg announced that she needs to leave the meeting at noon, at which time she will pass the meeting over to Vice Chair Chen. Project Planner Kelly Cha delivered a slide presentation. One of Council’s 2024 priorities is to initiate an evaluation of strategies to protect natural habitats such as bird-safe glass and wildlife protection from light pollution. Comprehensive Plan Policy L-6.3 encourages bird-friendly design. The existing section in the code on exterior lighting standards would be repealed and replaced with the new standards from the dark-sky ordinance once adopted. The lighting standards in the draft ordinance would apply to all new construction and any exterior modifications requiring a planning application or approval. Requirements include: Shielding exterior lighting, maximum 3000 kelvin, lighting extinguished by 10 PM, and 10-minute maximum motion sensor activation permitted after 10 PM. The ordinance includes sections on special purpose lighting, security lighting, outdoor recreational facilities, service station lighting, and string lighting. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 78     Page 15 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 Bird-safe design standards would be in a new section, PAMC 18.40.280, and would apply to all new construction and any exterior modifications requiring a planning application or approval. Staff included exemptions for historic structures, first-floor retail storefronts, 100% affordable housing projects, and single-family homes outside of the bird-sensitive area. The bird-sensitive area is defined as 300 feet buffered from creeks, watercourses, and some open spaces and parks larger than 1 acre. The ordinance requires installation of at least one of the following bird-safe treatments: Fenestration and glazing, exterior features, or threat factor. Ms. Cha offered to share a pdf document showing examples of materials and threat factors. Ms. Cha expressed staff’s concern about the burden these ordinances might put on property owners wanting to make small alterations to their homes or properties. Staff was open to consideration of replacing “any exterior modifications that require a planning application or approval” with “substantial remodel,” “substantial improvement,” or “substantial structural alteration.” Staff spoke with retailers, suppliers, architects, and designers and discovered there is limited availability and increased cost of products for bird-safe treatment for single-family homes or smaller-scale projects. Therefore, staff proposes an exemption for single-family homes outside of bird-sensitive areas. The draft ordinance is existing grade. Staff researched other cities and found height threshold exemptions. Berkeley starts at 35 feet to exempt some single-family homes and lower-density residential buildings. San Francisco exempts below 45 feet. One option is to require bird treatment glazing for homes with 50% or more glazing or have a treated glass requirement on unbroken glass of 24 sq. ft. or larger. Staff is seeking input from the ARB on the design standards. Next steps: PTC hearing for recommendations in August 2024 and City Council hearing for adoption in September 2024. Public Comment 1. Shani Kleinhaus spoke on behalf of the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. She is a PRC commissioner but is not speaking on their behalf. San Francisco recognized two types of hazards for birds, location and architectural or structural elements. Ms. Kleinhaus wanted any house or structure citywide proposing to include hazardous elements be retrofitted. Staff provided examples of hazardous elements in the ordinance. In Mountain View, Cupertino, and other cities, any building citywide that is not a single-family home requires retrofitting according to the guidelines. Ms. Kleinhaus asked for bird safety measures to be required citywide for all with the exception of single-family residences. The Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society will continue reviewing the ordinance and communicating with staff. 2. Rani Fischer is a Sunnyvale resident. She commented on her experience with a strong light from a building in an office park shining into her living room; however, the City of Sunnyvale could not address it because Sunnyvale’s lighting code only covers the residential area. She urged the ARB to include existing buildings in the code for the benefit of residents, birds, and bats. 3. Dashiell Leeds is the Conservation Coordinator for the Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter. He is in support of the comments made by Ms. Kleinhaus and Ms. Fischer. He agreed with expanding the Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 79     Page 16 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 applicability of bird-safe design and dark-sky standards. The Sierra Club Loma Prieta Chapter along with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society provided staff with a model ordinance based on the best practices of many jurisdictions. Recently adopted dark-sky ordinances in Malibu and Brisbane apply standards to existing lighting fixtures. Noncompliant lighting that can be adjusted without replacing the fixture can be brought into compliance within a short grace period. Noncompliant lighting requiring a fixture change could be allowed a grace period of several years to comply with the ordinance. Palo Alto should address existing lighting to allow neighbors suffering from light pollution to address their issue through code enforcement. The ordinance proposed a curfew of 10 PM for new buildings, which is ineffective at reducing light pollution because it does not apply to all existing structures. It is unfair for new buildings to comply with a lighting curfew while others do not. 4. Junyan Wang is an intern with the Santa Clara Valley Audubon Society. She has Master’s Degrees in Ecology and Environmental Policy. Ms. Wang asked the ARB to reduce the maximum color temperature to 2700 kelvin, with the exception of industrial facilities having a maximum of 4000 kelvin. To human eyes, there is little difference between 2700 and 3000 kelvin; however, wildlife is more sensitive to bluer color temperatures than humans. Migratory birds use blue- green spectrum light for navigation and can be disoriented by high kelvin lights. In 2021, San Jose’s citywide design standards and guidelines established a maximum color temperature of 2700 kelvin for most new developments with the exception of single-family residences. Ms. Wang urged the ARB to expand the proposed standards to apply citywide. On Packet Pages 141 and 142, Board Member Adcock asked if 18-40-250 would be repealed and replaced with 18-26-040. Ms. Cha replied it was an error. Attachment A, 18-40-250, will replace the existing 18-40-250 section. On Packet Page 144, Section 3, Item C, Board Member Adcock asked for clarification of “Maximum light intensity on a site shall not exceed a maintained value of 5 foot-candles. Areas of higher or lower levels of illumination should be indicated on project plans.” Ms. Cha responded that staff will clarify the statement to read “maintained value of the average 5 foot-candles.” On Packet Page 144, Section 4, Item C, Board Member Adcock noted that this section applied to exterior lighting and wondered if tunnels and parking garages were considered interior. Ms. Cha explained that parking garages might be interior. Tunnels are usually not completely enclosed. Ms. Cha offered to change the language to specify whether it is interior or exterior and whether it applies to completely enclosed buildings. On Packet Page 144, Section 4, Item D, Board Member Adcock supported keeping it to avoid light spillover from a building onto an adjacent property but thought there needed to be clarity on how the language is written because it includes interior lighting when the premise of the section is about exterior lighting. Ms. Cha replied that staff copied existing language; however, staff can consider removing it if it is not appropriate. On Packet Page 145, Section E, Item V, Board Member Adcock asked why outdoor recreational facilities operated for general public use shall extinguish the outdoor lighting at 10:30 PM when everything else in the ordinance is 10 PM. Ms. Cha responded that Public Works and Parks Department commented to Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 80     Page 17 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 staff that they have facilities with a close of business time of 10:30 PM. Chair Rosenberg asked if there is a reason those facilities must stay open until 10:30 PM and if it was for all seasons. Ms. Cha thought it is how the facilities have been operating. Ms. Cha could confirm if 10:30 PM was for all seasons. Board Member Adcock asked if recreational facilities included outdoor courts. Ms. Cha understood it to be anything operated by the City but staff could clarify. On Packet Page 146, Section 4, Item I, Board Member Adcock requested specificity if the 42 lumens was per foot or per lamp in the limitation for string lighting not to exceed 3,000 kelvin or 42 lumens. Ms. Cha replied that staff’s understanding is 42 lumens total brightness for the entire string light but staff could clarify it to read per foot. Chair Rosenberg asked if there is a reason for a difference in the forms of measurement because some parts of the ordinance uses foot candles while in others it uses lumens. Ms. Cha explained that foot candles are usually used for the spillage of lighting. Foot candles are difficult to use for string lighting, so staff used lumens. Board Member Baltay asked Ms. Kleinhaus about the effectiveness of bird safety measures on the height of a building. Ms. Kleinhaus replied that birds are more prone to collision with buildings up to 60 feet tall, which is usually the height of taller trees. Migratory birds flying en masse on the flyways at night are very susceptible to tall lit buildings such as seen in huge bird kills in Chicago and Texas; however, Palo Alto does not have many tall buildings. Studies have shown that single-family homes with a lot of glass and vegetation have more bird collisions. The reason some cities exempted single-family homes is because there are not many solutions for bird safety such as premade windows. The first 60 feet are the most dangerous, so Ms. Kleinhaus did not recommend using Berkeley, San Francisco, or Cupertino’s height exemptions. Ms. Cha remarked that Berkeley’s applicability is 35 to 75 feet. San Francisco has an exemption below 45 feet. The purpose of Palo Alto’s ordinance is to protect the bird population and reduce mortality and collision. Products are not readily available for single-family homeowners. Staff referred to the CALGreen pilot program but is open for discussion as to what is the most appropriate height. Chair Rosenberg asked if there was a count of how many birds are lost every year within Palo Alto. Ms. Kleinhaus answered that there is no way to determine that because it is rare to find a dead bird. Collisions occur very early in the morning when birds start foraging and animals such as cats, crows, gulls, raccoons, or possums pick up the dead birds before people see them. Studies done in Mountain View and San Francisco showed a substantial number of collisions. Chair Rosenberg was interested in hearing about Mountain View as it is more similar to Palo Alto. Ms. Kleinhaus spoke of a study on a commercial building in Mountain View mostly retrofitted with lines. Over 90 percent of bird collisions occurred within the first 60 feet in the areas with no lines. On the contrary, almost no collisions occurred where there were lines. One of those birds was a yellow warbler, a species of special concern. Ms. Kleinhaus did a study on a mirror-like commercial building that was very reflective. The building had surrounding fox territories and the scat of foxes was full of feathers. Chair Rosenberg wanted to make sure the City was not putting undue burden for something that is unknown how great the problem is in Palo Alto. If the bird-safe glazing is effective and we do not have bird strikes, Chair Rosenberg wondered if foxes would starve because they cannot catch as many birds. Chair Rosenberg remarked that the Board is tasked with finding reasonable measures and is responsible Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 81     Page 18 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 to reevaluate those measures to determine if something is not working or is placing undue burden on people who live and work in Palo Alto. Board Member Adcock asked if Packet Page 148 regarding fenestration and glazing meant that film-type application is not allowed. Ms. Cha replied that staff is recommending permanent features due to the concern of decals or stickers being easily removed. Board Member Adcock pointed out that it is more difficult and expensive to obtain something permanent versus a more accessible frit-pattern film. Ms. Gerhardt remarked that the same standard applies when doing a privacy review on two-story houses. Board Member Hirsch suggested perhaps staff reconsider the possibility of allowing film. Board Member Adcock recommended a cost or area threshold; for example, a new 20,000 sf building requires a permanent feature but allow a film product for a 2000 sf addition. On Staff Report Packet Page 139, Board Member Baltay noted a 2% to 10% estimated increased cost of a building, which is huge when you calculate a $2M home is adding between $40,000 and $200,000 for glazing. Ms. Cha remarked that the 2% to 10% was based on staff’s research of literature as well as information provided by Michael Baker International. Board Member Baltay stated that glazing is not widely used; however, obscured glass on a window is done at no extra cost. Chair Rosenberg pointed out that prices escalate when something is required. At 12:14 PM, Chair Rosenberg left and handed the meeting over to Vice Chair Chen. Based on her project experience, Board Member Adcock believed the 10% cost increase is likely for glazing, not for the entire project unless the whole building is glass. Board Member Adcock has noted a 10% increase when ordering regular glazing versus Number 3 surface fritted pattern. Board Member Baltay stated that customized glazing is needed for residential to meet this requirement. Board Member Adcock suggested allowing film for residential. Board Member Baltay agreed film is a good compromise. Board Member Hirsch advised staff to do more research on the increase of construction costs. The proposed ordinance exempts 100% affordable housing. Vice Chair Chen thought it was not a pleasant experience to have all the glasses fritted or glazed for any housing project, including long-term care and multifamily. Fritted glass is okay for hotels because you do not have to see it every day. Board Member Baltay pointed out that Council asked the ARB for a professional opinion but the City Council makes the final decision. For bird-sensitive area in Item B on Page 148, Board Member Baltay wanted a clear definition where the 300-foot measurement starts, if it is from the center or edge of the waterway. Ms. Cha explained that staff used whatever data was available when creating the map in Attachment E of the staff report. Creeks and watercourses were measured from the center line. Park and other water features were measured from the outer boundary. Once the ordinance is adopted, the map will be posted online for residents to determine if they are located in a bird-safe area. Board Member Baltay thought “open space” and “water feature” were too vague and suggested that staff provide a clear and simple delineation. For example, the City has standards applying to anything west of 280. Board Member Hirsch wondered if dry periods affect the location of the bird population. Ms. Cha stated that is not her expertise. Board Member Baltay advised staff to make sure that Council understands the extent of staff time necessary to research information. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 82     Page 19 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 Board Member Baltay remarked that the ordinance was complex to require a percentage of the elevation that has to be treated. As a result, architects have to calculate percentages on every elevation of a building and document it to staff, which staff has to verify. Board Member Baltay suggested simplifying the standards to apply above or below a certain height instead of a percentage. Discussion amongst the Board ensued. Board Member Baltay stated it would add $5000 of his staff’s time to calculate and document percentages for a house. Board Member Baltay suggested a simpler regulation based on maximum dimensions for width, height, and area for untreated glass. Ms. Cha asked for the Board’s input on the three options for exemptions on Staff Report Page 140. Board Member Baltay was in favor of a regulation based on glass size. Board Member Adcock suggested applicability based on glazing percentage, and exemption based on square footage. Ms. Cha referred the Board to Page 149, Section G.1, where it states if the building material is using a reflectance level that it should not be more than 20 percent, which can be expanded if the Board thought additional measures should be included. Board Member Baltay cautioned that reflectance of a material does not have a definition and could not be proven. Ms. Cha recalled the NVCAP Ad Hoc Committee’s conclusion on bird-safe design was that some materials such as metals could create reflections and increase bird collisions, so staff added the provision in Section G.1. Ms. Gerhardt offered to clarify an LRV number. Board Member Baltay remarked that 20% LRV or below is very dark. Board Member Adcock agreed that LRV 20% was not correct. Ms. Cha asked if someone from Michael Baker could answer the question but there was no response. Ms. Cha explained that staff was trying to use an objective measure in the ordinance because the current code has subjective language stating “should not be highly reflective”. Staff will review if it is feasible and applicable. Board Member Baltay pointed out that mostly windows kill birds, so the focus should be on large pieces of glass, especially ones you can see through. If buildings are being proposed with glass transom panels and mirrors, then the ordinance can be refined. Board Member Baltay advised keeping the ordinance simple will increase the likelihood of getting it passed and making a difference. Vice Chair Chen invited Ms. Kleinhaus to comment. Ms. Kleinhaus stated that besides large surfaces of glass, the biggest problems are hazardous construction. For example, a wall around a patio with trees in it kills birds more than most other structures, so it needs to be retrofitted. Ms. Kleinhaus suggested having different applicability and solutions for offices, homes, and other construction. Wires kill birds but Ms. Kleinhaus did not know if the ordinance would include a bridge in Palo Alto that had wires. Ms. Kleinhaus is less concerned with metal walls. Staff’s draft document includes hazardous examples such as transparent skyways, glass verandas, and greenhouses. The American Bird Conservancy tests materials to determine no more than 20% reflectivity. Many commercial buildings use materials that are 15% to 20% but Ms. Kleinhaus is not familiar with materials for homes. Vice Chair Chen opened discussion on the definitions on Packet Page 138 to apply new standards to existing buildings. Board Member Baltay preferred “substantial remodel” because it has a clear definition with metrics. Board Member Adcock believed that “substantial remodel” 50/50/50 makes the most sense and stated her reasons for eliminating the other two choices. Board Member Hirsch agreed with Board Member Adcock. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 83     Page 20 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 Board Member Baltay suggested applying the regulations in the ordinance to a defined area of light sensitivity because there is a difference between a building downtown, a house with a street light in front of it, a building in the office park at Stanford, or a new house on Page Mill Road. Board Member Baltay opined that the light pollution problem is not addressed by regulating the type of front light fixtures somebody puts on their house on University Avenue. Board Member Baltay suggested staff’s definition of “fully shielded light fixture” be changed to “shielded.” Board Member Baltay stated that many fixtures used on a wall cast an aura of light coming out all sides of it, which is a pleasing aesthetic. A security light it is usually angled at some degree with the light source deep within the cone to helps focus the light, so it would not meet staff’s definition of fully shielded. Board Member Baltay advised staff to find definitions by looking at codes for Los Altos Hills, Woodside, and Portola Valley. Ms. Gerhardt pointed out that security lights are listed in the exempt section. Board Member Baltay read security lights shall be fully shielded. Board Member Hirsch objects to fully shielded. Board Member Hirsch does not want lights eliminated that have a pinhole on top to provide a cone of light above because he thinks it is an attractive feature. Board Member Baltay remarked that fully shielded eliminates too much. Ms. Gerhardt explained that the fully shielded definition is very similar to the City of San Jose and many other cities. Board Member Adcock commented that the definition of light pollution is lighting upward without a cover above; therefore, a building overhang or part of the light fixture needs to shield it to prevent light pollution. Board Member Baltay remarked that the proposed ordinance would require buildings to have a sophisticated automation system to turn off outdoor lights at 10 PM. Having a specific time is more complicated. When Board Member Baltay has presented customers with the option of a lighting control system costing between $50,000 and $80,000, customers decline that option and prefer a light switch on the wall. Board Member Baltay pointed out that energy efficiency in the building code requires every outdoor light fixture to have a photo sensor to avoid turning on during the daytime. Board Member Baltay stated that auto dealerships are gross violators of light pollution because they leave flood lights on all night long, which staff could address as a code enforcement issue. Board Member Baltay expressed concern with a code that does not allow residents to have outdoor parties past 10 PM. Ms. Cha replied that Section 4(a) on Page 144 states that lights should be fully extinguished by 10 PM or when people are no longer present in the exterior area. Regarding Section F.1, Article 4, Board Member Baltay suggested staff may want to research if motion- activated security lights of 1600 lumens were bright enough. Ms. Cha stated that Section J on Page 147 stated if any public facility requires a deviation from these standards, they would have to meet the objective or intent of the ordinance but the Director might have some discretion to allow some deviations for different levels of brightness. Board Member Adcock noted that Packet Page 147, Item 4, limited seasonal lights to October 15- January 15; however, another city starts in November, so she asked staff to verify to make it consistent with cities adjacent to Palo Alto. Ms. Cha explained that staff chose October to include Halloween but they can look at other cities and make it consistent. Board Member Baltay supported the 3000 kelvin cutoff, 2700 is too warm and 4000 is too much. Board Member Adcock’s main concern is the availability of fixtures with kelvin lower than 3000. A public Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 84     Page 21 of 21 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 07/18/2024 commenter mentioned that wildlife is more sensitive to 3000 versus 2700 kelvin, so Board Member Adcock wanted to ensure that staff follows through to confirm. Ms. Cha stated that staff will revise the draft ordinance based on the feedback received today and will present the revised version to the PTC on August 14. Staff does not plan to return to the ARB. Vice Chair Chen stated this item was a study session, so there is no vote. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 29, 2024 Vice Chair Chen asked the Board to make a motion if there were no changes or comments. MOTION: Board Member Adcock moved to approve the minutes as presented. Board Member Baltay seconded the motion. VOTE: Passed 4-0-1. Chair Rosenberg absent. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 7, 2024 Vice Chair Chen asked the Board to make a motion if there were no changes or comments. Board Member Hirsch noted in the middle of Page 167 it stated that Mr. Muir presented the 3265 Real project, which he thinks is El Camino Real. Staff will correct the minutes. MOTION: Board Member Baltay moved to approve the minutes as presented with the correction by Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch seconded. VOTE: Passed 4-0-1. Chair Rosenberg absent. Ms. Gerhardt clarified that Board Member Hirsch’s requested correction was for the first set of minutes. Adjournment Vice Chair Chen adjourned the meeting at 1:05 PM. Item 4 Attachment A: Minutes of July 18, 2024     Packet Pg. 85     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: September 5, 2024 Report #: 2408-3423 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for August 15, 2024 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of August 15, 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. 86     Page 1 of 6 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/15/24 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD DRAFT MINUTES: August 15, 2024 Council Chambers & Zoom 8:30 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on August 15, 2024, in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:37 AM. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Pingxi Chen, Board Member Mousam Adcock, Board Member Peter Baltay, and Board Member David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications 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 Jodie Gerhardt, Manager of Current Planning, discussed the upcoming schedule and September’s agenda. The agenda for the September 5 meeting will include discussion on the tenant space located at 180 El Camino (The Melt). The Board will also be discussing 3000 El Camino, where they are planning to convert a movie theater into office space. A formal application was received for a pending project located at 3400 El Camino Real, which will be a builder’s remedy housing project to include 231 units and 192 hotel rooms. Ms. Gerhardt received the SB 330 preliminary application for 2300 Geng Road. The applicant for that project was seeking to convert existing office buildings into 159 townhomes. Action Item 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 Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of August 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 87     Page 2 of 6 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/15/24 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. Chair Rosenberg asked if there were any disclosures. All board members disclosed that they had either visited or driven by the site recently. Project Planner Emily Kallas addressed the Board and presented a slideshow. The applicant attended the meeting via Zoom. The project was before the ARB on May 16 for the approval of sitewide signage located at 525 University and 530 Lytton. The applicant had obtained a prior entitlement and building permit for landscape changes. The ARB previously reviewed the four sign types at those locations, which included an Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A), an Illuminated Address Wall Sign (Type C), and an Illuminated Directional Sign at Parking Entrance (Type D). The signage for 525 University will include a Directional Sign – Parking Monument ID (Type E) and 530 Lytton will have an Illuminated Directional Sign – Parking Blade ID (Type E). Ms. Kallas discussed the overview of the project, including which signs were being revised. The ARB previously requested the Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A) located at 525 University be lowered to account for the raised concrete pad. The previously proposed height was 96 inches. The proposed height is now 84 inches from the ground and 66.5 inches from the concrete base. The Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A) for 530 Lytton was originally proposed closer to the sidewalk and slightly taller. The proposed sign height was changed to 66 inches when measured from the total sign area and 84 inches when measured from the bottom of the planter. The applicant requested the ARB consider measuring the sidewalk height from the height of the plaza rather than from the height of the public sidewalk. Ms. Kallas mentioned the Illuminated Address Wall Sign (Type C) was reduced to 40.5 square feet which will not exceed the wall’s height. The 530 Lytton side of the sign was reduced, and its mounting is now clarified. The size of the Illuminated Directional Sign – Parking Monument ID (Type E) on Tasso Street was clarified to meet the ARB’s recommendation of not exceeding 11 feet from the sidewalk level. It also met the minimum height requirement. The height of the pole portion was reduced from 83 inches to 71 inches. On the opposite side, the orientation and height of the blade sign mounting now meets the 11‐foot recommendation. It was her recommendation that the ARB approve the project based on the findings and subject to any conditions of approval. Chair Rosenberg noted the materials board was present if anyone would like to view it. Public Comment Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of August 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 88     Page 3 of 6 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/15/24 The applicant, contractor, and sign designer, Dustin Passalalpi, requested that the Board consider allowing him to measure the Illuminated Directory Sign (Type A) from the height of the plaza rather than the height of the public sidewalk. Chair Rosenberg closed public comment and turned comments and questions over to the Board. Board Member Baltay questioned the wall height of Sign C located at 525 Lytton. The elevation in the drawing on Page 15 was different than the previous rendering on Page 14. There were two walls, and he thought the intention was to have that sign match the height of the lower wall adjacent to the sidewalk, not the higher wall. Board Member Baltay wanted the record to indicate the sign height must match the lower wall. The Board requested a response from the applicant. Mr. Passalalpi admitted it was an error. He forgot to add the projection. It will match the rendering on Page 14 and match the lower wall’s height. Board Member Hirsch asked if there was an elevation on Sign B that would be attached to the front door’s canopy. Ms. Kallas explained that the canopy sign will be the address number for the building and not part of the Architectural Review Board’s purview. Board Member Hirsch questioned why that was and thought the Board should be reviewing all address numbers. Chair Rosenberg explained that standard addresses are reviewed by the Fire Department. Board Member Baltay wanted clarification because the Public Hearing title says Sign B, Canopy Address Sign. It is on the agenda today and it was discussed at the last meeting. Ms. Gerhardt read the building code for the Board. Title 16.04 addresses signage and says any numbering 4 to 12 inches is the Fire Department’s purview. It is only when it goes beyond 12 inches that it comes before this Board. These numbers are 20 inches tall, so it is correctly before the Board. Board Member Hirsch referred to a picture of the canopy on the slide. He pointed out the canopy was beautiful but was worried that it might disturb the entryway’s design and disrupt the aura of the building. Board Member Adcock mentioned a difference in the picture versus the elevation drawing on Page 10. He questioned if the canopy was being replaced or if a sign was being added to the existing canopy. Mr. Passalalpi clarified that the sign would be added to the existing canopy. The letters will be illuminated freestanding letters, as shown on Page 10. Upon further explanation, Board Member Hirsch admitted the drawing misled him and retracted his earlier statement. Board Member Hirsch opined that when approaching the building, the plaza seems like an empty space. He suggested the idea of adding a piece of art to the face of the building to give the plaza entry an appealing feeling from different angles and viewpoints. Chair Rosenberg pointed out that the landscape and building permits were already in place and not on the agenda today. MOTION: A motion was made by Board Member Adcock, seconded by Vice Chair Chen, to approve the project as submitted today. VOTE: Motion passed 5‐0. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 4, 2024 Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of August 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 89     Page 4 of 6 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/15/24 Board Member Hirsch referred the Board to an error on Page 44. “Elimination Engineering Society” should have been “Illuminating Engineering Society.” Board Member Adcock found mistakes in the minutes. The word “elimination” should have been “illumination.” The word “site” was spelled “sight” throughout the minutes. The sheet and reference numbers on Page 50 were also wrong. Board Member Adcock mentioned that it was hard to read because most sentences ran on for five to seven lines before the use of a period or semicolon and she lost track of what was being discussed. She questioned why the minutes read differently than the next four sets of minutes. Chair Rosenberg also noted “mountain view” was spelled as one word. Audubon was also misspelled. It was written as “Autobahn.” Chair Rosenberg pointed out that they were not discussing the German freeway. Ms. Gerhardt explained they have since switched transcription companies. The minutes from April 4, 2024, were through the previous transcription company. Ms. Gerhardt said she would attempt to get the minutes corrected. Member Baltay did not believe it would be an efficient use of the staff’s time to find the drawings and cross‐reference them and was pleased that they captured the debate regarding the light temperature. Board Member Baltay noted that the transcript was only “partially verbatim.” Ms. Gerhardt reminded him that were minutes, not a transcript, and they were not verbatim. Chair Rosenberg asked if they would like to have a formal review of the minutes but decided against it. MOTION: Board Member Baltay moved to approve the minutes as presented with a note to fix the errors. Chair Rosenberg seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion passed 5‐0. 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 18, 2024 Board Member Adcock had an issue with a sentence on Page 73 and read it into the record. “She also mentioned maintaining the privacy of the Hamilton residence and suggested that space be confined to smaller seating areas.” She felt she was speaking of roof‐top space and suggested changing it to “rooftop space” or “roof‐terrace space.” Board Member Baltay questioned if they captured Vice Chair Chen comments correctly regarding the setback on Middlefield Road. Vice Chair Chen believed they captured her general idea and rationale. MOTION: Board Member Baltay moved to approve the minutes as presented. Board Member Adcock seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion passed 5‐0. 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 2, 2024 Board Member Baltay mentioned that meeting covered the Parklet design and questioned whether the minutes captured the motion regarding pressure‐treated wood. On Page 118, he claimed the minutes did not mention the modification concerning the use of pressure‐treated wood that they agreed upon. Chair Rosenberg will get clarification on that motion. Chair Rosenberg moved to bring the minutes back to the Board after the issue was researched. Board Member Baltay asked Chair Rosenberg to verify that without involving the Board. Ms. Gerhardt will research the issue and report back to Chair Rosenberg. Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of August 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 90     Page 5 of 6 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/15/24 MOTION: Chair Rosenberg made a motion to approve the minutes excluding the final motion. Vice Chair Chen seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion passed 5‐0. 6. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for May 16, 2024 Board Member Baltay had a concern on Page 123 where it mentioned the building numbers they discussed. It was not clear to him who was speaking. Chair Rosenberg read the sentence into the record. “The ARB does not typically regulate building numbers because buildings are required to have numbers, so the 525 University canopy address side is in compliance.” Ms. Gerhardt suggested the minutes of today’s meeting will clarify the issue. Board Member Baltay asked for that sentence to be stricken from the minutes. Chair Rosenberg did not feel comfortable striking anything from that record that was discussed during the meeting. Board Member Baltay claimed it was not a discussion. Chair Rosenberg thought a credit for who made the comment would clear up the issue. Ms. Gerhardt reminded the Board these were minutes not verbatim. The Board agreed to remove the sentence from the minutes. MOTION: Board Member Baltay moved to approve the minutes as revised. Board Member Hirsch seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion passed 5‐0. 7. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for June 6, 2024 Chair Rosenberg pointed out that her name was spelled incorrectly numerous times. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes as written. Board Member Baltay seconded the motion. VOTE: Motion passed 5‐0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements or Future Meetings and Agendas Chair Rosenberg sat in on the PTC Hearing for Bird‐Safe Glazing, Dark Skies, and Stream Corridors and found it fascinating. Shani Kleinhaus from the Audubon Society and Dashiell Leeds from the Sierra Club were speakers. Chair Rosenberg highly recommended her fellow board members take the time to listen to the segment. Ms. Kleinhaus and Mr. Leeds will be returning to the next meeting, which she plans to attend. Board Member Baltay attended the City Council meeting two weeks ago regarding the NVCAP, which was approved (6‐1). Council Member Kou opposed. Board Member Baltay represented the ARB’s position on building heights. The Council focused on the height of the buildings in the NV‐XM zone, which are the buildings along El Camino. The ARB had recommended a limitation of 65‐feet high and to have them rely on the daylight plane as a means of limiting bulk. The Planning Commission recommended a 45‐foot height limit, but they settled for 55 feet in the end. Board Member Baltay thought they were concerned with the State Density Bonus laws which allow applicants to go higher and wanted to keep the starting point at a lower height. Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of August 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 91     Page 6 of 6 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 08/15/24 Chair Rosenberg asked if Council Member Kou spoke about why she opposed it. Board Member Baltay was unsure of why and did not want to speculate. Board Member Baltay said Council was concerned that the NVCAP project eliminated all required parking in the entire zone, and they wanted a better understand why they were eliminating parking. Council voted against it because parking would be required and necessary under the current code. Council Member Burt proposed an increased setback along Park Avenue, which was approved. All new developments along Park Avenue will now require a 15‐foot setback. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 9:41 AM. Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of August 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 92     Copies sent to: Project File Yorke Lee, yorkelee@timespacegroup.com Architectural Review Board Ad Hoc Committee Review Mark Donahue, Lowney Architecture, 360 17th Street, Suite 200, Oakland CA 94612 800 San Antonio Road [23PLN-00010] August 23, 2024 Emily Kallas, AICP, Planner PLANNER’S SIGNATURE The additional exhibits dated March 21, 2024 and July 11, 2024, were reviewed by the ARB Ad Hoc Committee on April 4, 2024 and August 15, 2024 in accordance with condition of approval #4 a-g, as stated below. The ARB Ad Hoc Committee comprised of Board members Adcock and Hirsch. ARB SUBCOMMITTEE: Prior to the issuance of building permits, the applicant shall return to the ARB subcommittee for approval of the following items, to the satisfaction of the Director of Planning and Development Services: a. No projections be allowed above ground into the special setback b. That private and common space be revised to meet the open space requirements c. The hallway adjacent elevator 2 be revised to have fewer bends in the hallway and to have more functional space adjacent the trash storage and elevator d. 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 e. Schematic foundation design including consideration of planters, bioswales and secant walls f. More comprehensive landscape plan in the courtyard including provisions for planters, furnishing and pathways through the courtyard g. Provide clerestory windows in the bicycle storage area The Ad Hoc Committee agreed with the revisions presented April 4, 2024, with the exception of trash collection. As part of the August 15, 2024 meeting, the Ad Hoc Committee recommended no changes to trash collection, therefore reverting to the Council approved plan set. The applicant will ensure these changes are incorporated into the building permit plan set design and this Ad Hoc Committee Review letter shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit(s). TO: SUBJECT: DATE: FROM:            Item 5 Attachment A: Minutes of August 15, 2024     Packet Pg. 93