Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-04-17 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, April 17, 2025 Council Chambers & Hybrid 8:30 AM Architectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attend by teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while still maintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participate from home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in the meeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending in person. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o n YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are available at https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB.  VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491) Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833 PUBLIC COMMENTS Public comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or an amount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutes after the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance to arb@paloalto.gov 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@paloalto.gov 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.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.540 University Avenue [25PLN‐00030]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings at 530 and 540 University Avenue and the Construction of a New, Approximately 30,375 Square Foot, Three‐Story, Commercial Building with Ground Floor Retail‐Like Uses and Office, Second and Third Level Office Spaces, and a Private Roof Top Terrace for Office Users. CEQA Status: Not a Project. The Formal Application will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD‐C (GF)(P)(Commercial Downtown‐Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov. ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2025 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2025 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@paloalto.gov. 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@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, April 17, 2025Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@paloalto.gov and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’swebsite. 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 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@paloalto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerkwill have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecuritymanagement 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.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items STUDY SESSION Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.540 University Avenue [25PLN‐00030]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings at 530 and 540 University Avenue and the Construction of a New, Approximately 30,375 Square Foot, Three‐Story, Commercial Building with Ground Floor Retail‐Like Uses and Office, Second and Third Level Office Spaces, and a Private Roof Top Terrace for Office Users. CEQA Status: Not a Project. The Formal Application will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD‐C (GF)(P)(Commercial Downtown‐Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov. ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 3.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2025 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2025 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@paloalto.gov. 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@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, April 17, 2025Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@paloalto.gov and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’swebsite. 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 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@paloalto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerkwill have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecuritymanagement 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 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.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda ItemsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.540 University Avenue [25PLN‐00030]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review forthe Demolition of Two Existing Buildings at 530 and 540 University Avenue and theConstruction of a New, Approximately 30,375 Square Foot, Three‐Story, CommercialBuilding with Ground Floor Retail‐Like Uses and Office, Second and Third Level OfficeSpaces, and a Private Roof Top Terrace for Office Users. CEQA Status: Not a Project. TheFormal Application will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Review. Zoning District: CD‐C (GF)(P)(Commercial Downtown‐Community with GroundFloor and Pedestrian Combining Districts). For More Information Contact the ProjectPlanner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov.ACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work PlanAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 6, 20255.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2025 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@paloalto.gov. 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@paloalto.gov. Requests for assistance or accommodations must be submitted at least 24 hours in advance of the meeting, program, or service. ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARDRegular MeetingThursday, April 17, 2025Council Chambers & Hybrid8:30 AMArchitectural Review Board meetings will be held as “hybrid” meetings with the option to attendby teleconference/video conference or in person. To maximize public safety while stillmaintaining transparency and public access, members of the public can choose to participatefrom home or attend in person. Information on how the public may observe and participate in themeeting is located at the end of the agenda. Masks are strongly encouraged if attending inperson. T h e   m e e t i n g   w i l l   b e   b r o a d c a s t   o n   C a b l e   T V   C h a n n e l   2 6 ,   l i v e   o nYouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen MediaCenter https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plansand details. Commissioner names, biographies, and archived agendas and reports are availableat https://bit.ly/paloaltoARB. VIRTUAL PARTICIPATION CLICK HERE TO JOIN (https://cityofpaloalto.zoom.us/j/96561891491)Meeting ID: 965 6189 1491    Phone: 1(669)900‐6833PUBLIC COMMENTSPublic comments will be accepted both in person and via Zoom for up to three minutes or anamount of time determined by the Chair. All requests to speak will be taken until 5 minutesafter the staff’s presentation. Written public comments can be submitted in advance toarb@paloalto.gov and will be provided to the Board and available for inspection on the City’swebsite. 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 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@paloalto.gov at least 24 hours prior to the meeting. Once received, the Clerkwill have them shared at public comment for the specified item. To uphold strong cybersecuritymanagement 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 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.Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda ItemsSTUDY SESSIONPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.2.540 University Avenue [25PLN‐00030]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review forthe Demolition of Two Existing Buildings at 530 and 540 University Avenue and theConstruction of a New, Approximately 30,375 Square Foot, Three‐Story, CommercialBuilding with Ground Floor Retail‐Like Uses and Office, Second and Third Level OfficeSpaces, and a Private Roof Top Terrace for Office Users. CEQA Status: Not a Project. TheFormal Application will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA)Review. Zoning District: CD‐C (GF)(P)(Commercial Downtown‐Community with GroundFloor and Pedestrian Combining Districts). For More Information Contact the ProjectPlanner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov.ACTION ITEMSPublic Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three(3) minutes per speaker.3.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work PlanAPPROVAL OF MINUTESPublic Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker.4.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 6, 20255.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2025BOARD 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@paloalto.gov. 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@paloalto.gov. 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: April 17, 2025 Report #: TITLE Director's Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) review and comment as appropriate. BACKGROUND This document includes the following items: • ARB meeting schedule • Upcoming ARB agenda items • Recently submitted and pending projects subject to ARB review Board members are encouraged to contact Veronica Dao (Veronica.Dao@PaloAlto.gov) to notify staff of any planned absences one month in advance, if possible, to ensure the availability of an ARB quorum. Approved projects can be found on the City’s Building Eye webpage at https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning. Any party, including the applicant, may request a hearing by the ARB on the proposed director’s decision(s) within the 10-day or 14-day appeal period by filing a written request with the planning division. There shall be no fee required for requesting such a hearing. However, there is a fee for appeals. Pursuant to 18.77.070(b)(5) any project relating to the installation of cabinets containing communications service equipment or facilities, pursuant to any service subject to Palo Alto Municipal Code Chapter 2.11, Chapter 12.04, Chapter 12.08, Chapter 12.09, Chapter 12.10, or Chapter 12.13 is not eligible for a request for hearing by any party, including the applicant. No action is required by the ARB for this item. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 5     Item No. 1. Page 2 of 2 UPCOMING ARB AGENDA ITEMS The following items are tentative and subject to change: MEETING DATE TOPICS May 1, 2025 •City Parking Garage: Sign Exceptions •3950 Fabian Way: Minor AR and Conditional Use Permit RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS The following new ARB projects were submitted: ADDRESS & RECORDS #PROJECT DESCRIPTION 180 El Camino Real (Ralph Lauren) 25PLN-00092 Request for Minor Board Architectural Review to allow for exterior improvements including painting, new entry door, glazing, patio, and new signage for proposed Ralph Lauren & Ralph's Coffee approximately 5,200 Square Foot, Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Pending Projects AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@PaloAlto.gov. Item 1 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 6     Architectural Review Board 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments 2025 Meeting Schedule Meeting Dates Time Location Status Planned Absences 1/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Cancelled 1/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular Adcock 3/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 3/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 4/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 4/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/1/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 5/15/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/5/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 6/19/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid CANCELED 7/3/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 7/17/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/7/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 8/21/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 9/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/2/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 10/16/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/6/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 11/20/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/4/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 12/18/2025 8:30 AM Hybrid Regular 2025 Ad Hoc Committee Assignments Assignments will be made by the ARB Chair January February March April May June 3/20 – Adcock & Rosenberg July August September October November December Item 1 Attachment A - 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments     Packet Pg. 7     ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Pending ARB Projects The following projects will soon be reviewed by the ARB. For more information, visit the project webpages at bit.ly/PApendingprojects or via Building Eye at bit.ly/PABuildingEye. Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 9/16/20 20PLN-00202 250 Hamilton Ave Bridge 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. On-hold for redesign Major Architectural Review Zone Change 12/21/21 21PLN-00341 24PLN-00239 660 University 680 University Mixed-Use Planned Community (PC), to Combine 3 Parcels (511 Byron St, 660 University Ave, 680 University Ave/500 Middlefield Rd), Demolish Existing Buildings (9,216 SF Office) and Provide a New Four Story Mixed-Use Building with Ground Floor Office (9,115 SF) and Multi- Family Residential (all floors) Including a Two Level Below-Grade Parking Garage. Proposed Residential Proposed Residential (42,189 SF) Will Include 65 Units (47 Studios, 12 1-Bedroom, 6 2- Bedroom). NOI Sent. Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow SB330/Builder’s Remedy project and construct a new six (6) story mixed-use building. The proposal includes ground floor non- residential (5,670 SF), ground and sixth floor office (9,126 SF), multi-family residential (all floors), and a two level below-grade parking garage. Proposed residential will include 88 units with 20% on-site BMR. ARB 1st formal 12/1/22, ARB recommended approval 4/22; Applicant is revising project plans. Item 1 Attachment B Pending Projects     Packet Pg. 8     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 6/8/23 23PLN-00136 23PLN-00277 (Map) 23PLN-00003 and -00195 – (SB 330) 24PLN-00230 (Code compliant version) 24PLN-00231 (Map) 3150 El Camino Real Housing – 380 units 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. Focus Area Compliant Application Filed 8/7/24; NOI Sent 9/7/24. Pending Resubmittal. Tentative ARB 11/7/2024. Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Reported out 5/4 on SB 330 Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) Reported out on 8/17 ARB 11/7 Rec. approval Major Architectural Review 7/19/23 23PLN-00181 824 San Antonio Road Housing – 16 senior units, 12 convalescent units 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). 12/21/23 ARB hearing; Revised Plans resubmitted 9/25/24; ARB 11/21 Rec. approval. PC Amendment 8/9/23 23PLN-00202 4075 El Camino Way Commercial 16 convalescent units Request for a Planned Community Zone Amendment to Allow New Additions to an existing Assisted Living and Memory Care Facility consisting of 121 Units. The additions include 16 Additional Assisted Living Dwelling Units; 5 Studios and 9 One Bedrooms. Zoning District: PC-5116 Community Meeting in October. 2/28/24 and 6/12/24 PTC hearing, 7/18/24 ARB hearing, ARB 10/17/24, PTC & Council hearings TBD. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) reported out 6/1 Item 1 Attachment B Pending Projects     Packet Pg. 9     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review 1/10/24 24PLN-00012 3265 El Camino Real Housing 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. NOI Sent 1/10/24. PTC 4/10/24; ARB 4/22/24; Applicant submitted revised project 9/13/24 with 55 Units; Tentative ARB 11/21/24. Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Thompson) reported out 8/17 on prescreening Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) ARB 11/21 Rec. approval PTC 1/15 Rec. approval 3-2 with two additional conditions. CC 2/10 approved Major Architectural Review 3/6/24 24PLN-00064 640 Waverley Mixed-Use Request for a Major Architectural Review Board application to allow the construction of a new four-story, mixed use commercial and residential building with below grade parking. The ARB held a preliminary review on 6/15/23. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CD-C(P). NOI Sent 4/5/24. ARB 6/6/24. Pending Resubmittal; Preparing 15183 Exemption. Tentative ARB January 2025. Ad Hoc (Rosenberg, Hirsch) ARB 1/16 Rec. approval Minor Architectural Review 3/7/24 24PLN-00066 180 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review to allow exterior upgrades for a restaurant tenant (Delarosa); 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 NOI Sent 4/10. ARB 3/20 Rec. approval Item 1 Attachment B Pending Projects     Packet Pg. 10     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes replace existing light fixtures. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: (CC) Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/02/24 24PLN-00100 24PLN-00223 (Map) 156 California Mixed-Use Request for Major Architectural Review in accordance with California Government Code 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes to redevelop two lots located at 156 California Avenue and Park Blvd. Lot A, 156 California Ave ( 1.14 ACRE) is situated at the corner of Park and California, Lot B, Park Blvd. (0.29 ACRE) is at the corner of Park and Cambridge Avenue; the reinvention of both sites will include the conversion of an existing parking lot and Mollie Stone's Grocery Store into a Mixed Use Multi Family Development. This project consists of three integrated structures; (1) 7 Story Podium Building with 5 levels of TYPE IIIB Construction over 2 levels of TYPE I Construction, 15,000 square feet will be dedicated to the Mollie Stone Grocery Store, (1) 17 Story Tower, (1) 11 Story Tower, both Towers will be proposed and conceptualized as TYPE IV Mass Timber Construction. Environmental Assessment: Pending Zoning District: CC(2)(R)(P) and CC(2)(R) (Community Commercial) NOI Sent 5/2/2024; 60-day Formal Comments sent 6/1; Resubmitted, Request for Supplemental Info Sent 7/11; Pending Resubmittal. SB 330 Pre-app submitted 11/21/24 Ad Hoc (Baltay, Adcock) Deemed Complete 12/22/24 Supplementary info req. Zone Change 03/28/24 24PLN-00095 70 Encina Housing – 10 Units Request for Planned Community Zone Change (PHZ) to allow construction of a new 3-story, 22,552 sf building (1.86 FAR); to include ten (10) residential condominium units organized around a common access court that provides both vehicular and pedestrian access and full site improvements to replace the existing surface parking area. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: CC, (Community Commercial). NOI Sent 4/28/2024. PTC 9/11/24, Plans Pending Resubmittal, Tentative 1st ARB November 2024. ARB prelim 12/7 Ad Hoc (Hirsch, Adcock) ARB 11/07/24 Continued ARB 2/6/25 Rec. approval PTC Spilt vote, but moved to Council, Date TBD. Item 1 Attachment B Pending Projects     Packet Pg. 11     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 4/23/24 24PLN-00120 762 San Antonio Housing – 198 Units Request for Major Architectural Review to Allow CA GOV CODE 65589.5(D)(5) “Builders Remedy" which proposes the demolition of three existing commercial buildings and the construction of a 7- story multi-family residential building containing 198 rental apartments. This is 100% Residential Project. Environmental: Pending. Zoning District: (CS) AD. NOI Sent 5/23/2024. Ad Hoc (Baltay, Chen) Streamlined Housing Development Review 5/28/24 24PLN-00152 24PLN-00023 (Prelim) 4335- 4345 El Camino Housing – 29 Units 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). NOI Sent 6/27/2024. ARB 9/19/24. Pending Resubmittal of Plans. Ad Hoc (Hirsch, Baltay) reviewed prelim Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00161 24PLN-00048 (SB 330) 3781 El Camino Real Housing – 177 units 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) NOI Sent 7/10/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Deemed Complete 4/3/25 Supplementary info req. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 6/10/24 24PLN-00162 24PLN-00047 (SB 330) 3606 El Camino Real Housing – 335 Units 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 NOI Sent 8/1/2024. Resubmittal on 11/22/24 Deemed Complete 12/25/24 Supplementary info req. Major Architectural Review – Builder’s Remedy 7/17/24 24PLN-00184 24PLN-00232 (Map) 3400 El Camino Real Housing – 231 units & Hotel – 92 rooms 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 NOI Sent 8/16/2024 and 9/12/2024; Pending Resubmittal. Item 1 Attachment B Pending Projects     Packet Pg. 12     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes 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) Minor Architectural Review & Conditional Use Permit 9/24/24 24PLN-00263 3950 Fabian Way Private Education Request for Minor Board Level Architectural Review for exterior modifications to an existing 32,919 square foot, 2-story commercial building, site modifications and a new approximately 4200 sf addition to the North side. The project also includes a Request for a Conditional Use Permit for the change of use to private education to accommodate Girls Middle school. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: GM. NOI Sent 10/24/2024. Early ARB 11/21 Tentatively scheduled for ARB 5/1 Streamlined Housing Development Review 10/08/24 24PLN-00280 3997 Fabian Way Residential Request for Streamlined Housing Development Review to deconstruct two existing commercial buildings located at 3977 & 3963 Fabian Way and surface parking lot at 3997 Fabian Way to construct a new single structure of seven stories containing 295 multifamily residential rental apartment units (8% very low- income units – 19 units), 343 parking spaces, 295 secured bike parking spaces, open courtyards, several outdoor gathering spaces, a pool area, and a rooftop terrace. The project is proposed to comply with the City’s GM/ROLM Focus Area Development Standards and is proposed in accordance with State Density Bonus Law. Environmental Assessment: Pending. Zoning District: General Manufacturing (GM). (Housing Inventory Site & State Density Bonus Law) (Previous SB 330 Pre-Application: 24PLN-00111) NOI sent 1/16/25 Resubmittal 1/31/25 NOI Sent 2/21/25 Master Sign Program 11/7/24 24PLN-00322 340 Portage Av Mixed-Use Master Sign Program for the installation of 2 Project ID Monuments, 2 Entry ID's, 2 Parking ID's, 2 Directional Wall signs, 1 Brand/Tenant ID Wall sign, and 2 Tenant ID Canopy signs at The Cannery Palo Alto. Zoning District: RM-30 (Medium Density Multiple-Family Residence District). Environmental Assessment: Pending. NOI sent 1/09/25 Resubmittal 3/27/25 Minor Architectural Review 12/03/24 24PLN-00339 2280 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board Level Architectural Review for the exterior and interior remodel of the existing Jack in the Box restaurant. Modification to the exterior of the building include the removal of the mansard roof, installation of new parapets, new finishes and branding panels. No increase in building footprint. NOI sent 1/22/25 Resubmittal 2/21/25 NOI sent 3/26/25 Item 1 Attachment B Pending Projects     Packet Pg. 13     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit 12/8/24 24PLN-00356 24PLN-00357 (Map) 2100 Geng Rd Housing – 137 Units Tentative Map/Subdivision and Site and Design & Conditional Use Permit (CUP) for the transformation of an existing underutilized business park at 2100-2400 Geng Road into a new residential neighborhood with 137 multi-family townhome units and community space. Project site totals approximately 11-acres. NOI sent 1/24/25 Pending resubmittal Minor Architectural Review 2/6/2025 25PLN-00027 180 El Camino Real Restaurant Minor Board review for Cedar & Sage restaurant (formally Terrain Cafe) at Space #1301, Bldg. DD at the Stanford Shopping Center. Exterior improvements include new textured plaster and painted façade, new storefront glazing, and bi-folding door system, remodeled outdoor patio, new retractable canopy system, new railing, landscape planters, and new signage. Interior improvements will include partial interior remodel. No change of use, no new square footage. NOI sent 3/10/25 Resubmittal on 4/8/25 Preliminary Architectural Review 2/5/2025 25PLN-00030 540 University Ave Commercial Preliminary Board review to allow for demolition of two existing buildings at 530 and 540 University Ave and the construction of a new 30,375 sq. ft. commercial three-story building. With ground floor retail and office, second and third level office spaces and a private roof top terrace for the office users. Scheduled ARB 4/17 Item 1 Attachment B Pending Projects     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 10 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 17, 2025 Report #: 2503-4439 TITLE 540 University Avenue [25PLN-00030]: Request for Preliminary Architectural Review for the Demolition of Two Existing Buildings at 530 and 540 University Avenue and the Construction of a New, Approximately 30,375 Square Foot, Three-Story, Commercial Building with Ground Floor Retail-Like Uses and Office, Second and Third Level Office Spaces, and a Private Roof Top Terrace for Office Users. CEQA Status: Not a Project. The Formal Application will be Subject to California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) Review. Zoning District: CD-C (GF)(P)(Commercial Downtown-Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Districts). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action: 1. Review and provide informal comments. No formal action is requested. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The subject application is a request for an early Architectural Review of a proposal to demolish two existing legal noncomplying structures at 530 and 540 University Avenue; to combine these two parcels with the neighboring parcel at 500 University; and to construct a new building replacing the existing legal noncomplying floor area and adding floor area using transferred development rights (TDRs). This is an initial hearing on the project and no recommendation is requested at this time. For preliminary review applications, the Planning and Development Services Department staff performs a cursory review of the project for compliance with the Zoning Code. A comprehensive review of a future project to applicable codes, including context-based design criteria and other standards, would follow the submittal of a formal application. Accordingly, there may be aspects of this preliminary review application that do not comply with municipal regulations or require additional discretionary applications beyond architectural review. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 10 The purpose of this meeting is to provide the applicant an opportunity to present a conceptual project to the ARB and receive initial feedback. No formal direction is to be provided to the applicant and ARB members should refrain from forming and expressing opinions either in support or against the project. ARB members may identify aspects of the project that are appropriate given the neighborhood context and consistent with City policies or areas of concern that the applicant may want to reconsider in a formal submittal. Community members are also encouraged to provide early input to the project. PROJECT DESCRIPTION Project Information Owner:Thoits Bros. Inc. Architect:James Tefend, Form4 Architecture Representative:Tyler Weeks, Form4 Architecture Legal Counsel:Not Applicable Property Information Address:530 and 540 University Avenue Neighborhood:University South Lot Dimensions & Area:50 feet x 102.5 feet + 50.06 feet x 100 feet (10,131 square feet) Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:Not Applicable Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):530 University Ave: two story; 8,400 square feet; 1957 540 University Ave: three story; 14,935 square feet; 1982 Existing Land Use(s):Mixed Use Retail/Office Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: Retail (CD-C (GF)(P)) West: Mixed Use Retail/Office (CD-C (P)) East: Planned Community (PC-3995) South: Mixed Use Retail/Office (CD-C (GF)(P)) Aerial View of Property: Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 10 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Regional/Community Commercial Zoning Designation: CD-C (GF)(P) ((Commercial Downtown-Community with Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining District) Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guidelines (2008/2005) El Camino Real Guidelines (1976) Housing Development Project Downtown Urban Design Guidelines (1993) South El Camino Real Guidelines (2002) Utilizes Chapter 18.24 - Objective Standards Individual Review Guidelines (2005) Within 150 feet of Residential Use or District Context-Based Design Criteria applicable SOFA Phase 1 (2000)Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 10 PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project involves the demolition of two existing commercial buildings at 530 and 540 University Avenue (Attachment A), which are currently occupied with retail and office uses, and the construction of a new commercial building with: •Approximately 30,375 square feet of total floor area; •Three-stories in height; •Ground floor retail and office; second and third-level office spaces; and a private roof top terrace for the office users. The applicant intends to add floor area to the site using transferred development rights (TDRs). The total floor area with TDRs would be 3:1, the maximum allowable with TDRs. The project also includes a rooftop open space area and related amenities, which would be added in accordance with the provisions for rooftop open space and related amenities set forth in Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.18.060(e) for noncomplying buildings in the CD-C Zone District. The project also proposes to combine lots 530 and 540 University Avenue, and considers a design alternative in the conceptual plans that includes combining these two lots with a third adjacent property at 500 University Avenue. No additional parking is proposed. Anticipated Entitlements: The following discretionary applications are anticipated, and discussed in relation to the proposed project in the Discussion section below: •Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Section 18.77.070. Major 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 ARB’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any one finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. •Zoning Code Text Amendment: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Chapter 18.80 and requires a recommendation from the Planning and Transportation Commission, which is forwarded to City Council for a final decision. PAMC Chapter 18.79 further requires a prescreening review with City Council prior to filing a formal application. •Conditional Use Permit – CUP: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC Section 18.76.010. CUP applications are reviewed by the staff and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for action. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if filed within 14 days of the decision. CUP 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 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 10 project redesign or denial. The findings to approve the CUP application are provided in Attachment B. •Certificate of Compliance to merge lots under two acres combined: The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) and California Government Code 66474. The process for approval of a Preliminary Parcel Map is outlined in PAMC Sections 21.08.050 (Lot line adjustments). Public Works reviews whether the amended subdivision is consistent with the Subdivision Map Act (Government Code 66474), Title 21 of the Palo Alto Municipal Code, the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, and other applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Municipal Code and State Law. DISCUSSION Preliminary review applications receive a cursory review for compliance with zoning regulations and consistency with the Comprehensive Plan or other applicable policy documents, see Attachment C. This information was previously transmitted to the applicant. A more comprehensive review will occur upon formal submittal, which may reveal other code or policy concerns. At this point in project development, the ARB is encouraged to provide feedback to the applicant on the preliminary drawings. The ARB may want to consider comments that relate to: •Scale and mass; •Transitions in scale to adjacent properties; •Relationship to the neighborhood setting and context; •Pedestrian-orientation and design; •Access to the site; •Consideration to any applicable policy documents (Background Section); and/or •Architectural design, theme, cohesiveness, and quality of materials Neighborhood Context The two sites are located on University Avenue, adjacent to the newly constructed three-story commercial building at 500 University, across from the 14-story Palo Alto Office Center at 525 University Avenue, and next to the seven-story Cowper/Webster public parking garage at the rear. The surrounding vicinity is a mix of downtown retail, office, and parking facility uses. Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines1 The existing uses of the site include a variety of small retail, personal service, and office uses (e.g. beauty salon, optometry, capital management firm). The applicant will be asked to provide further information on the current and previous occupants of the existing buildings as part of any formal application. In general, the proposed uses of these sites would not change. Office and the existing retail like uses are consistent with the allowable uses within the Comprehensive Plan for the 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: http://www.paloalto.gov/topics/projects/landuse/compplan.asp Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 10 Regional/Community Commercial land use designation. The proposed redevelopment of the buildings is consistent with policies outlined in the Comprehensive Plan to encourage pedestrian design, including, but not limited to Policy L-4.7, which states “Maintain and enhance the University Avenue/Downtown area as a major commercial center of the City, with a mix of commercial, civic, cultural, recreational and residential uses. Promote quality design that recognizes the regional and historical importance of the area and reinforces its pedestrian character.” Downtown Urban Design Guidelines2 Staff will review the formal application for consistency with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. The Guideline document divides the downtown area into districts, each having a unique identity and design characteristics. The project site is in the Cowper Center District, which is centered around the intersection of Cowper Street and University Avenue. With the Cowper/Webster public garage in the heart of the block, the proposed building will serve as a destination point and people generator for the area. The project’s building design, active ground floor retail uses, and amenities (e.g. new walkway and public seating as indicated in the Project Description, Attachment D, and shown on Sheet M4.2 of the plans in Attachment E) are generally consistent with the Downtown Urban Design Guidelines. Zoning Compliance3 The proposed development is located within the CD-C(GF)(P) Commercial Downtown Community with a Ground Floor and Pedestrian Combining Zoning District. The CD-C Zone district is intended to be a comprehensive zoning district for the downtown business area, accommodating a wide range of commercial uses serving City-wide and regional business and service needs, as well as providing for residential uses and neighborhood service needs. The existing uses are all permitted uses within the CD-C zone district and are proposed to continue operating following construction. Attachment C includes an initial analysis of the project’s consistency with relevant zoning development standards. This analysis is consistent with the information provided in the plan set and reflects the standards with 530 and 540 University Avenue combined. If the applicant proposes to combine the site with 500 University Avenue, as indicated in the project description, this consistency analysis would need to be modified accordingly. Ground Floor (GF) and Pedestrian (P) Combining Districts Although office use is a permitted use within the CD-C Zone District, the ground floor combining district restricts ground floor uses. Office use is not a permitted or conditionally permitted use within the GF Combining District. Therefore, the existing ground floor office use is nonconforming (grandfathered). Staff is researching whether the ground floor use is legal nonconforming; but initial record searches appear to show that the ground floor office use at the rear of the building has existed since 1982, as discussed further below. The applicant 2 Downtown Urban Design Guidelines available online: https://www.cityofpaloalto.org/files/assets/public/planning-amp- development-services/downtownurbdesguidelines_all.pdf 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: http://www.amlegal.com/codes/client/palo-alto_ca Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     Item No. 2. Page 7 of 10 proposes to continue the ground floor office use. Legal nonconforming uses may continue, but may not be expanded, as discussed further below. The Pedestrian combining district does not restrict uses but includes provisions that require pedestrian friendly design. The project design generally appears to comply with the pedestrian combining district requirements; however, staff notes that if 530 and 540 University are not combined with 500 University, the wall along that shared property line will not be allowed to have openings along that shared pathway, and the design would therefore be less pedestrian friendly. Nonconforming Uses and Noncomplying Facilities PAMC Chapter 18.18 also includes provisions for the treatment of “grandfathered” uses and facilities. Generally, “grandfathered” uses, also called “nonconforming uses,” are uses that were permitted at the time that they were established but, through subsequent legislative action, have lost their status as a permitted or conditionally permitted use. Likewise, “grandfathered facilities,” also called “noncomplying facilities,” are facilities that were legally established but, through subsequent legislative action, are no longer in compliance with one or more site development regulations (height, bulk, setbacks, etc.). A noncomplying facility may or may not house a nonconforming use, and vice versa. Citywide, such grandfathered uses and facilities are regulated by PAMC Chapter 18.70; however, Section 18.18.120 provides specific regulations for grandfathered uses and facilities in the CD district that were legally established prior to August 1, 1986. The buildings at 530 and 540 University Avenue were constructed in the 1957 and 1982, respectively, and are considered noncomplying facilities due to the gross floor area. The ground floor office use has also occupied a portion of the ground floor at the rear of the building prior to adoption of the ground floor combining district regulations, which restricted ground floor office uses. Therefore, the ground floor office, if it has continued to be operational, is a legal nonconforming use which is allowed to be replaced per PAMC Section 18.18.120. The applicant is proposing to modify the building in a manner that would combine the provisions set forth in PAMC Section 18.18.120 for modifications to noncomplying buildings in the CD-C Zone District with the provisions for rooftop access in PAMC Section 18.18.060(e). Specifically, PAMC Section 18.18.120 allows the building to be demolished and reconstructed with the same floor area and building envelope, except to the extent that the floor area is being added in accordance with TDR allowances. The applicant is also proposing to add features that provide rooftop access, which is permitted for noncomplying facilities under PAMC 18.18.060(e). While the code could be interpreted to require the applicant to accomplish this in two steps - demolishing and reconstructing the building first and then adding the rooftop features second - staff does not believe there is any utility to requiring this process. In addition, however, the applicant is moving existing noncomplying floor area around in a manner that is not consistent with this code provision (exceeding the existing envelope per 18.18.120), a zoning code text amendment would be required to achieve the proposed design. The applicant filed a prescreening application with Council the week this report was published Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 21     Item No. 2. Page 8 of 10 in order to schedule that study session with Council. A date for that hearing has not yet been set. Transferred Development Rights The project is an eligible receiver site for transferred development rights because it meets the requirements for receiver sites stipulated in PAMC Section 18.18.080. The site is located in the CD-C(GF)(P) district, the site/structure is not historic, and the site is located at least 150 feet from any property zoned for residential use, not including property in planned community zones (PC) or in commercial zones within the downtown boundaries where mixed use projects are located. The applicant has stated that they are utilizing 7,798.6 square feet of TDRs for this proposed project. Documentation of the proposed TDRs to be utilized would be required as part of any formal application. Rooftop Open Space As noted above, the applicant also intends to utilize PAMC Section 18.18.060(e) to add rooftop open space to the new building. However, the proposed rooftop improvements do not appear to align with the requirements of that code provision. Specifically, this code section states that “for buildings requesting increased height, all fixtures and structures shall remain below a plane measured at a forty-five-degree angle beginning from the edges of the building, nearest the rooftop deck surface, and sloping upward and inward toward the center of the building.” The proposed improvements exceed the height of both the existing building and the district (57 feet where 50 feet is allowed), and therefore must comply with this requirement. A conditional use permit would also be required as part of any formal application in order to utilize this code provision to add a rooftop open space. Retail Preservation The project is required to retain the existing retail like uses on the ground floor. The applicant proposes to retain the existing retail-like uses on the ground floor consistent with this requirement. However, the proposed plans do not clearly indicate the existing and proposed areas for retail and retail-like uses, nor whether these areas are being reduced or expanded. Additional clarification will be needed as part of any formal application. Context-Based Design Criteria Staff will provide a complete review of the project’s consistency with the context-based design criteria as part of the formal application. However, generally, the project improves and promotes pedestrian activity, creates public and private open spaces, and will improve the building’s sustainability by incorporating Green Building Design requirements during the design and construction phase. Annual Office Limit Because the project would result in an increase of more than 2,000 square feet of net new office space and is not a self-mitigated rental housing project, the project would be subject to the annual office limit requirements in accordance with PAMC Section 18.40.210. Staff will evaluate the formal application for compliance with this requirement once a formal application is submitted. Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 22     Item No. 2. Page 9 of 10 Multi-Modal Access and Parking The site has paid into the Downtown Parking Assessment District for 94 total in-lieu parking spaces. There are no existing parking spaces on site and there is no minimum parking requirement given that the site is within half a mile of a major transit stop (in accordance with Assembly Bill (AB) 2097). In accordance with code modifications recently adopted by City Council, a transportation demand management (TDM) plan will be required to reduce parking in accordance with AB 2097 as part of any formal application. Per PAMC Section 18.52.040(c), because the proposed office floor area is less than 9,999 square feet, no loading spaces would be required. The project would be subject to short- and long-term bike parking requirements per PAMC Section 18.52.040. The project would provide pedestrian improvements along University Avenue by redeveloping the site to comply with the existing ground floor and pedestrian overlay design requirements. Improvements would include pedestrian arcades, the new landscaped pedestrian connection from University Avenue to the Cowper/Webster garage, transparent glazing on the ground and floors above, as well as increased visibility into the space. Subdivision Map Act and Title 21 Compliance A lot merger application, through a certificate of compliance (also referred to as a lot line adjustment) would be required as part of any formal application. The applicant has proposed two potential options, one that includes merging only 530 and 540 University Avenue, and another that includes merging both of these parcels with 500 University Avenue. The process would be the same for either option. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on April 4, 2025, which is 12 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 2, 2025, which is 14 days in advance of the meeting. As of the writing of this report, one public comment was received (Attachment F). ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject review involves no discretionary action and is therefore not a project and not subject to review pursuant to the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). If a formal application is filed, staff will evaluate the formal application in accordance with CEQA. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: ARB and CUP Findings for Approval Attachment C: Zoning Consistency Analysis Attachment D: Applicant’s Project Description Attachment E: Project Plans Attachment F: Public Comments Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 23     Item No. 2. Page 10 of 10 Report Author & Contact Information ARB4 Liaison & Contact Information Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 496-6945 (650) 329-2321 Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 4 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 24     Alain Pinel Realtor El Prado Hotel 75.0' 43.0' 15.0' 150.0' 90.0' 107.0' 102.5' 43.0' 11.5' 107.0'114.0' 150.0' 72.5' 130.0' 72.5' 130.0' 72.5' 75.0' 127.5' 00.0' 200.0' 59.0' 07.0' 41.0' 0' 45.0' 90.0' 150.0' 90.0' 150.0' 105.0' 55.0' 105.0' 55.0' 1 105.0' 85.0' 50.0' 50.0' 45.0' 112.5' 100.0' 125.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 35.0' 100.0' 0' 100.0' 30.0' 100.0' 262.5' 225.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 150.0' 102.5' 50.0' 102.5' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 45.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0' 100.0'100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'125.0' 8.0' 100.0' 12.5'25.0' 20.5' 125.0' 92.0'125.0' 92.0' 100.0' 100.0' 25.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 147.5' 75.0' 75.0' 107.0' 107.0' 525 537 415 541 520 525 530 540 500- 528 480- 498 531 530 440-446 505 530 546 550 564 568 578 555 567 579 581 438 435 425 417 610 600 436 434 4 430 428 426 424 4 520 533 535 UNI V E RSITY AV E NUE COWPER STREET ET ASSO STREET WEB PC- 4052 PC-3995 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend abc Building Roof Outline abc Lot Dimensions Zone Districts abc Zone District Labels Tree Current Features 0'55' ATTACHMENT ALocation Map540 University Avenue CITYOF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altokpaulau, 2025-03-28 12:33:02Location Map (Basic) (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Item 2 Attachment A - Location Map     Packet Pg. 25     ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB and CUP Findings     Packet Pg. 26     CUP FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings as required in Chapter 18.76.010 (c) of the PAMC. Finding #1: The proposed use, at the proposed location, will not be detrimental or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity, and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general welfare, or convenience. Finding #2: The proposed use will be located and conducted in a manner in accord with the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan and the purposes of the Zoning Ordinance. Item 2 Attachment B - ARB and CUP Findings     Packet Pg. 27     Page 1 of 2 2 6 3 9 ATTACHMENT C ZONING CONSISTENCY ANALYSIS 540 University Avenue, 25PLN-00030 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.18 (CD-C DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-Residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Lot Size 10,131 sf (survey info) Minimum Setbacks Front Yard (University Ave)None Required 0 ft 0 ft Rear Yard None Required 8.3 and 4.9 ft 0 ft Interior Side Yard None Required 0 ft 0 ft Street Side Yard None Required None None Special Setback Pursuant to Code Section 20.08 Not Applicable Not Applicable Minimum street setback for sites sharing a common block face with any abutting residential zone district _ (4)Not Applicable Not Applicable Minimum yard (ft) for lot lines abutting or opposite residential zone districts 10 feet (1)Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Site Coverage None Required Not Clear Not Clear Maximum Height 50 ft Unknown (single-story and three-story) 57 ft to top of building Portions of a site within 150 ft of an abutting residential district _ (3)Not Applicable Not Applicable Maximum Floor Area Ratio (FAR) 1.0:1 (10,125 sf) (5)23,335 sf (2.3:1)Inconsistent though the plans, 28,085.6 sf (2.77:1); 30,375 sf (3:1) Maximum Size of New Non- Residential Construction or Expansion Projects 25,000 sf of gross floor area or 15,000 sf above the existing floor area, whichever is greater, provided the floor area limits set forth elsewhere in this chapter are not exceeded Not Applicable 7,798.6 sf < 15,000 sf Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts Initial Height at side or rear lot line _ (2)Not Applicable Not Applicable Slope _ (2)Not Applicable Not Applicable Notes 1) The yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen, excluding area required for site access. 2) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the residential zone abutting the site line in question. Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 28     Page 2 of 2 2 6 3 9 3) The maximum height within 150 feet of any abutting residential zone district shall not exceed the height limit of the abutting residential district. 4) The minimum street setback shall be equal to the residentially zoned setback for 150 feet from the abutting single-family or multiple family development. 5) FAR may be increased with transfers of development and/or bonuses for seismic and historic rehabilitation upgrades, not to exceed a total site FAR of 3.0:1 in the CD-C subdistrict or 2.0:1 in the CD-S or CD-N subdistricts. 18.18.110 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52.040 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Downtown University Avenue Parking Assessment District Type Required Existing Proposed Conforms? Vehicle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 2 All uses except residential: 1 space per 250 sf 28(1)94 in-lieu 0 Yes(1) Bicycle Parking (within the Downtown Parking Assessment District) PAMC 18.52.040 Table 2 All uses except residential: 1 space per 2,500 sf 40% Long Term (LT) 60% Short Term (ST) 2 spaces 1 LT 2 ST None Not Clear Not Clear Loading Space Office projects greater than 10,000 sf are required to provide loading spaces 1 space required; no loading space provided 1Spaces are currently provided in-lieu through historic payment into the parking assessment district •28 spaces would be required based on the additional floor area of 7,040 sf (30,375 sf (proposed) -23,335(existing)), however, Assembly Bill 2097 prohibits the City from enforcing minimum parking requirements for projects within 0.5 mile of a major transit stop. Therefore, the project is not deemed to be out of compliance. 18.18.120 Noncomplying (Grandfathered) Uses and Facilities. Any office use existing on April 16, 1990 on a property zoned CD and GF combining, which also existed as a lawful conforming use prior to August 28, 1986, notwithstanding any intervening conforming use, shall be permitted to remodel, improve, or replace site improvements on the same site, for continual use and occupancy by the same use, provided such remodeling, improvement, or replacement complies with all of the following: (A) shall not result in increased floor area; (B) shall not relocate below grade floor area to above grade portions of the building; (C) shall not result in an increase of the height, length, building envelope, building footprint or any other increase in the size of the improvement. For purposes of this section, “building envelope” shall mean the three dimensional shape and size occupied by an existing building. It is not the maximum, buildable potential of the site; Item 2 Attachment C - Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 29     Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 30     Item 2 Attachment D - Applicant’s Project Description     Packet Pg. 31     ATTACHMENT E Project Plans In order to reduce paper consumption, a limited number of hard copy project plans are provided to Architectural Review 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 online: 1. Go to: https://paloalto.buildingeye.com/planning 2. Scroll down to find “540 University Ave” and open the record by clicking on the blue dot 3. Review the record details on the left side and open the “more details” option 4. Use the “Records Info” drop down menu and select “Attachments” 5. You will find links to the project plans and other important information Direct Link to Project Webpage: https://www.paloalto.gov/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/540-University-Avenue Item 2 Attachment E - Project Plans     Packet Pg. 32            !"# $%&"' ()"**'+),!-./,01234 5676898: ;8<;= >3? @%&A-/-'B C"-'-4! (C"-'-4!.@%&A-/-'+D-#E>!F.")0GHIJKLMN JOPQ RSTPU VWPXPYTZR[ \WVS V]ZQP[R V\ ZOR VWXTYP^TZPVY_ `R aT]ZPV]Q V\ VbRYPYXTZZTaOSRYZQ TY[ aUPacPYX VY UPYcQ_d& e!A& '-)4-E-/!4 /4/&"4' "&)!"*-4) e& !,4 E 4-'& !4* *' e-' f"g&/ ,!# /"&!&B )-A&4e& A!"-&# E -4A!'-A& f"/&*"&'B -4/*-4) '")-/! /!"& 4*&" !4&'e&'-! h& /4*/ &!/e *!# !" :;7 i#"4 j"&& /-4-/B *-"&/# !*g!/&4  :59 k :l9 m4-A&"'-# FA&4&.3!4# E " f!-&4' e!A& /,f&n ,&*-/! -''&'B -4/*-4) %"&!e-4) -''&' '/e !' !'e,! !4*D>@. e&"' 'EE&" E", '&A&"& !4n-&# *-'"*&"'. on/&''-A& *' !4* * 4-'&' h* '&A&"&#-,f!/ e&-" /!"&.p4 !**--4B e& *-'"f-4 E "!EE-/ !4* f!"-4) -' !' E /4/&"4B )-A&4 e& ,!g" f"%&,' e&"&/&4 h" %# @!& -' /!'-4).>&!'& !*A-'& he! '&f' h- %& -,f&,&4&*  &4'"& !4# /4'"/-4 h- 4 -,f!/ e& '!E&#!4* h& %&-4) E " f!-&4' ! :;7 i#"4. !"# C. $%&"'B @.@.j.j!4E"* m4-A&"'-# @&f!",&4 E j")&"#@-A-'-4 E >!'-/ k $&/4'"/-A& j")&"#@&4! 3&*-/-4& k j")&"# j&"A-/&!4* %# D"&'# E !"#4))#6q&!* k r&/ j")&"#/&< =:9s897s9t95f!)&< =:9s78ls===;6p@< ;9798&,!-< uvwxyvz{|{z}~wv€ y€‚ " uƒv€€{|u„}…† ‡w„ ˆ%&'‰Š‹Œ Ž ‘ ’ Œ “Œ’ ‹” • – —‹˜ • ––™ ” Œ— š ™Œ › œ™ Œ‹ “ šžŒž‹Ÿ™–œ ” •—   ’ ™ ¡ ” ” –œ — ¢ Œ— ‹ ‹”ŒŸ˜žŒœ Œ‹ •— •£   ž– šŸ”ž˜‘ Œ— ›‹”£ › £¤ ¥¦§¦¨©ª «¬©­ ®¯ ¯°±² ³ ´µ¶·¸¹±º±»¼ª ½¾±¼¿±À° ³ Á»¿²µµ· ¿¿Ã¼¬¦¦µ»¿²µµ·ÄµÅűº¸ÄºµÆ¦Æ°±²¦±À¶µÇ¦±È¦Éɯ·ÉÊ˱ÁÊÌÍÎƯÏÐÑÒÇÁÑ̿δөұÔÂÒÕ˱ÐѯÍÖ´ÒÏÖ´×ÔÖØÌÙÒÓÚÊÉÉÉÉÉÉÚºÛÇÊܨÚÁÓÕÝÞß¾Åà Ô¦Ô ATTACHMENT FItem 2 Attachment F - Public Comment     Packet Pg. 33     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 17, 2025 Report #: 2504-4464 TITLE Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan RECOMMENDATION It is recommended that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) discuss the draft Annual Report and Work Plan, suggest changes, and recommend submission of the Draft Work Plan to the City Council. BACKGROUND The ARB Chair is expected to prepare an annual report/work plan by the second quarter of each calendar year with help from staff and their fellow Board members. City Council reviews the plan and provides feedback annually at a dedicated City Council meeting. The plan must be submitted to the City Clerk in May for Council consideration in June, prior to the end of the fiscal year. The plan should include the results of the prior year’s plan and activities included in the board’s work for the next fiscal year. The Council Handbook has a template for work plan development. If new issues arise during the year, the work plan can be amended and forwarded to Council for review and approval. ANALYSIS An ARB annual report is required in the By-Laws and reviews the prior year, while the Council’s new work plan requirement is to look forward on the next fiscal year. A draft plan has been prepared by the ARB Chair and staff (Attachment A) using Council’s provided template. The attached plan includes a summary of the ARB’s accomplishments from last year and how they aligned with last year’s work plan goals. It also suggests new goals for the ARB over the next year. The ARB is asked to review this document, suggest updates, and add any additional tasks as needed. Council is scheduled to review this plan—as well as all other board and commission work plans—and adopt any changes to this plan in June 2025. If an additional hearing is needed prior to taking action, a second hearing can be scheduled in May 2025. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Adoption of the proposed work plan is exempt from CEQA in accordance with CEQA Guidelines Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 34     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 2 Section 15063(b) because it can be seen with certainty that adoption of the work plan would not have an environmental impact on the environment. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Draft ARB 25/26 Work Plan and Annual Report AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@PaloAlto.gov. Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 35     Architectural Review Board 2025-2026 Workplan Staff Liaison: Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner Lead Department: Current Planning, Planning and Development Services Division About the Board The Architectural Review Board is composed of five members, at least three of whom are architects, landscape architects, building designers or other design professionals. Terms are for three years. See Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 2.21. Residency is not required. For the ARB webpage go to bit.ly/paloaltoARB. Boardmembers • Peter Baltay • Kendra Rosenberg (Chair) • Mousam Adcock • Yingxi Chen (Vice Chair) • David Hirsch Mission Statement The Architectural Review Board reviews and makes recommendations to the Planning Director on the building design, site planning, landscape planning, massing and facades, material selection, lighting, signage and other related issues for most major new construction including additions and renovations that alter the exterior building face. The type of buildings reviewed include commercial, industrial, and multiple-family residential. In addition, the ARB is a resource as knowledgeable observers of many varied urban environments, to assist Palo Alto as it develops area plans to accommodate additional housing. The ARB Scope of Review is fully noted in Title 18 of the Municipal Code, Chapter 18.76 under Section 18.76.020 as well as in Chapter 18.77 under Section 18.77.073. Prior Year Accomplishments • See attached summary for more information. Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 36     PROJECT/GOAL 1: Review Planning applications for conformance with ARB Findings and Objective Standards BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED This is the Board's main mission and serves to ensure the City develops high quality projects On-Going Planning staff prepare staff reports, packets and presentations. They ensure paper plan sets and material boards are ready for ARB review. Other departments, such as, City Attorney, Urban Forestry, Transportation, etc., may be required from time to time. Consultants, including CEQA consultants, may also be required. Issuance of recommendations on projects and high-quality architecture throughout the City. Yes HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE • Projects that include new housing units that will help with City reach its regional housing needs allocation (RHNA) N/A PROJECT/GOAL 2: Assist the City as it considers modifications to Objective Standards; Provide feedback based on research from projects as they go through the objective standards ministerial processes. Suggest ways to better address different housing typology. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Streamline the objective standard review process and ensure that projects using the streamlined review process/objective standards conform to the City’s Comprehensive Plan, Goals and Policies, including its high-quality design standards Provide high level modifications to objective standards to Council by the end of FY 2026; If directed by Council, work with staff to propose specific code language for Council adopted by the end of FY 2026 Additional staff at Planning so that the quality and completeness of the work is maintained. Council Approval No HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE • Modifications to South of Forest Area Coordinated Area Plan (SOFA) subjective development standards with objective standards consistent with Housing Element Program 3.7. • Modifications to address objective standards (18.24) based on review of several projects using the standards at Council’s direction. Yes Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 37     PROJECT/GOAL 3: Discuss specific Coordinated Area Plans/ streetscape improvements and provide comments that the ARB would recommend exploring/implementing. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED This project would enhance implementation of the City's Comprehensive Plan. On-going Planning staff to help research policies and programs; coordination with long range planning section staff. Increased adherence to Comprehensive Plan policies Yes HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE • San Antonio Road Area Plan • Downtown Housing Plan • California Avenue streetscape improvements • University Avenue streetscape improvements Yes PROJECT/GOAL 4: Provide feedback to staff and Council on the creation of new guidelines, ordinances, and/or streetscape, including but not limited to wireless communication facility regulations and innovative housing structures. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED The ARB has unique feedback to provide as a stakeholder as they have interest in approving the aesthetic environment of the City while also understanding constraints that architects/developers may come across when implementing standards being considered Anticipated to return to the Board in spring/summer 2025 Staff time. Council Approval Yes HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE • Wireless communication facility regulations restoring subjective standards. • Innovative housing structures (e.g., micro-units, intergenerational housing, aging adults, students and lower-income units, etc.) consistent with Housing Element Program 6.5. Yes PROJECT/GOAL 5: Improve Coordination between the Architectural Review Board and other boards, commissions, and Council. BENEFICIAL IMPACTS TIMELINE RESOURCES NEEDED MEASURE OF SUCCESS STATE MANDATED / LOCAL LAW / COUNCIL-APPROVED Improved coordination between boards/commissions and council to get feedback from colleagues on other boards. Provide more coordinated feedback from the City for developers. On-going Staff time. • Have staff continue to provide updates in the pending projects attachment on development proposals. • The ARB can appoint a representative to attend Council and provide feedback on reviewed projects. No HIGH PRIORITY LOWER PRIORITY COUNCIL-DIRECTED POLICY UPDATE • Create liaisons between boards/commissions. No Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 38     ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD ANNUAL REPORT PRIOR YEAR ACCOMPLISHMENTS AND ARB RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FISCAL YEAR 2025 ITEMS OF NOTE • The ARB reviewed roughly 100 eligible projects for the 2025 Design Awards and selected six winners to recognize their contributions to Palo Alto. While not included in the work plan, this initiative aligns with Comprehensive Plan Program L6.1.1, which promotes award programs that celebrate architectural excellence and projects that positively impact the community. The ARB Design Awards recognize outstanding built projects every five years beginning in 2005. • The ARB provided a comprehensive review and made recommendations on updates to the objective standards to better address townhome style designs and modifications to SB 9 objective standards. This work was consistent with Goal 2 of the 24/25 Work Plan. • The ARB provided valuable feedback to assist Council with respect to Car Free Streets Implementation Plan, specifically for California Avenue Signage. Although not explicitly identified in the work plan, this work was consistent with Goal 3 of the 24/25 Work Plan. • The ARB provided valuable feedback to assist Council with respect to the Lighting and Bird Safe Glazing Ordinances, Parklet designs, El Camino Real Focus Area, and Housing Incentive Program (HIP) consistent with Goal 4 of the 24/25 Work Plan. • The ARB reviewed around 20 projects, including multi-family housing with below-market units, mixed-use developments, master sign programs, and retail modifications at Stanford Shopping Center, aligning with Goal 1 of the 24/25 Work Plan. APPLICATION REVIEW The ARB prides itself on its collaborative review process, where board member’s diverse perspectives enhance proposed projects and improve Palo Alto's built environment. Our oversight has made a significant impact, as shown in the renderings section of this report, comparing initial proposals to final designs. ADDRESS/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4075 El Camino Real Assisted Living Lighting Standards (PAMC 18.40.250) Ordinance Bird Friendly Design (PAMC 18.40.250) Ordinance 525 University Avenue Master Sign Program 530 Lytton Avenue Master Sign Program 180 El Camino Real The Melt Façade 3000 El Camino Real Office Conversion 4335-4345 El Camino Real Housing (with inclusionary units) Housing Incentive Program (HIP) Ordinance 3150 El Camino Real Housing (with inclusionary units) 70 Encina Ave Housing (with inclusionary units) -Townhomes 3265 El Camino Real Affordable Housing 824 San Antonio Mixed Use (Retail and Assisted Living) Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 39     ADDRESS/PROJECT DESCRIPTION 3950 Fabian Way Private Middle School 660 University Avenue Mixed Use (Office with Housing) El Camino Real Focus Area Ordinance Architecture Review Board Awards Award Program (Occurs every 5 years) 640 Waverley Street Mixed Use (Office with Housing) 164 Hamilton Avenue Façade 180 El Camino Real Delarosa Façade California Ave Signage Car Free Street improvements City Parking Garages Signage Exceptions TBD TBD Additionally, several projects were submitted for preliminary review to gather early feedback from the ARB. This early input helped incorporate key programming and design changes, streamlining the formal application process. These projects including 540 University Avenue and 640 Waverley Street. RECOMMENDATIONS Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 2.21.030 directs the Architectural Review Board to report annually our “concerns… with respect to the city’s plans, policies, ordinances and procedures as these affect the projects which the board reviews.” Our reviews are site specific, focusing on individual development proposals rather than broad policies. However, we evaluate each project in its physical and regulatory context—considering its impact on the neighborhood and its alignment with City policies, from the Comprehensive Plan to the various design guidelines. Because the ARB looks at many projects each year, and its board members have years of experience in Palo Alto, patterns emerge and specific areas of concern have been identified. Our comments this year are centered around the increasing importance of housing projects to the city. 1. Objective Design Standard Refinements. In our continuing response to recently enacted state legislation, Palo Alto previously adopted objective design review standards for housing projects, effectively eliminating architectural review on residential and mixed-use projects where objective standards can be met in order to streamline review of those applications. Several residential projects over the past years were townhouse type developments (3200 Park Boulevard, 739 Sutter Avenue, 420 Acacia, and 70 Encina). In our review, it was noted that some of the current standards focused more on larger multi-family buildings. Therefore, some aspects of townhouse style design were not fully addressed/accommodated for in the standards. Through an Ad Hoc committee we studied many local townhouse developments and have provided the planning department with recommendations to modify the Objective Design Standards to address townhome designs as well as larger multi-family designs. The ARB recommends that refinements be made to the objective standards based on implementation of the standards for a series of projects as well as with the recommendations from the ARB regarding modifications for townhome designs. Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 40     2. Coordinated Area Plans to Encourage Housing Development and Better Planning. • San Antonio Avenue: The San Antonio Avenue area is experiencing increasing residential development but our zoning regulations for the area are outdated and focused on commercial development, resulting in applicant uncertainty and long entitlement processes. The existing one-story light industrial and commercial buildings will be substantially replaced in the coming decade. A coordinated area plan will allow us to consider larger issues such as transportation, neighborhood parks, city services, pedestrian/bicycle pathways, and integration with nearby developments in Mountain View as this area transforms. • Downtown Housing Plan: To increase housing, the downtown area needs revised standards to accommodate redevelopment of parking lots as to encourage housing additions while maintaining the vibrancy of the downtown area and its pedestrian friendly streetscape. • California Avenue: With State requirements as outlined in AB 2097 and Builder’s Remedy, the California Avenue area will experience more development then in the past. This area should have a coordinated area plan to better scope future development. • Encina Avenue: The Encina Avenue area, between El Camino and the railroad is an excellent location for higher density housing. However, the adjacent Town and County shopping center, a low lying and historically significant facility, must be protected. Parking considerations are also paramount in this area. A coordinated area plan offers an efficient path towards increased density while protecting a much loved shopping area. 3. Review Aesthetic Standards for Wireless Communication Facilities. The ARB should provide feedback to the planning staff, PTC and Council regarding upcoming Wireless Communication Facilities (WCFs) regulations. The ARB previously reviewed WCFs standards in years past. ARB feedback on the upcoming permanent amendment to the WCFs Ordinance will improve the aesthetic compatibility of WCFs with their surrounding settings. 4. City Council/Planning Commission Communication. The Architecture Review Board has very little formal interaction with the City Council, the Planning Commission and the Historic Resources Board. Board members are forced to act on individual initiative to gain input from council members and other commissioners. Joint meetings with full boards are rarely productive; yet uncoordinated serial meetings leave commissioners unaware of feedback from colleagues on other boards. Applicants often feel that they are ‘running a gauntlet’ of approvals rather than facing a coordinated review. • Have staff continue to provide updates in the pending projects attachment on development proposals. • Take direct feedback from the ARB on reviewed projects up for Council approval where Council approval is required. The ARB can appoint a member to represent the board directly to the Council. • Request staff to schedule joint preliminary discussions between the ARB, PTC and HRB chairs/vice-chairs on projects of common interest. These ‘preliminary meetings’ would not be to review specifics of a project; rather they would serve to coordinate the review process between boards and planning staff. • Appoint HRB, PTC and Council liaisons to the ARB to facilitate open communication between boards and commissions and city council. ARB liaisons will provide a clear channel for passing information between reviewing bodies, enabling all board and commission and council members, as well as the general public, direct access to relevant information on a project-by-project basis. RENDERINGS Below are renderings of approved projects, showcasing the evolution from their initial proposal to designs with the incorporated ARB feedback. A summary of key design modifications made based on ARB feedback is also provided. Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 41     70 Encina Ave - Initial Proposal 70 Encina Ave – Incorporated Feedback Design • Encouraged more usable landscaped area. • Encouraged the design to better address privacy between units, including views from the public parking lot into the units. • Consideration of material choices and how the project would be visually compatible to the adjacent Town and Country. 164 Hamilton Ave - Initial Proposal 164 Hamilton Ave - Final Design • Revised the second-floor window mullion pattern for consistency with the rest of the windows and provide natural ventilation to the upper floors. • Clarified the control joints at the brick and stucco. • Recessing the windows in the stairwell for more three-dimensional expression. Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 42     3265 El Camino Real - Initial Proposal 3265 El Camino Real - Final Design • The ARB encouraged for a window or decorative reveal and extended around to the back of the building and for the rooftop terrace to be more engaging. • The ARB provided feedback on the internal programing and suggestions for the vehicles utilizing the stacking stalls. • The applicant incorporated feedback and added an additional floor to the development to increase density. 824 San Antonio Rd- Initial Proposal 824 San Antonio Rd - Final Design • Consideration of material choices and how the selected colors and materials contrast with each other. In particular, the initial selected white was too bright and contrasted with the other materials. • The ARB encouraged the drop-off area to be redesigned in a way that did not impede the front entrance. • The ARB encouraged more simplified balcony designs in relation to their usage by residents. Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 43     4335-4345 El Camino Real - Initial Proposal 4335-4345 El Camino Real - Final Design • The initial roof forms were complex and recommended to be reevaluated, while still maintaining separate roofs for each unit. This involved the removal of the third story balconies and fake roof dormers for a more simplified rooftop. • The ARB encouraged accenting the doors for more variation, but overall approved the color scheme with its subtle differences in color. 180 El Camino The Melt- Initial Proposal 180 El Camino The Melt - Final Design • The Melt came to the ARB with a comprehensive design. The ARB had some recommendations on the detailing of exterior materials, but generally approved the design as proposed. Item 3 Attachment A Draft ARB 2526 Workplan and Annual Report     Packet Pg. 44     Item No. 4. Page 1 of 1 6 9 9 7 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 17, 2025 Report #: 2504-4468 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of March 6, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@PaloAlto.gov. Item 4 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 45     Page 1 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: March 6, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on March 6, 2025 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:31 a.m. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board Member Mousam Adcock, Board Member Peter Baltay, Board Member David Hirsch Absent: None. Chair Rosenberg called the meeting to order. She announced that Board Member Baltay was running a couple minutes late and that the record would reflect his arrival. The Clerk called roll and declared there was a quorum. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Chair Rosenberg announced that Board member Baltay had joined the meeting. Historic Preservation Planner/ARB Liaison Steven Switzer noted that there were upcoming and recently submitted items detailed in the packet. The next meeting would include a study session related to the California Avenue signage, Delarosa exterior upgrades, and an ad hoc for the 164 Hamilton Avenue façade modifications, and he would report on who would be on the ad hoc. Recently submitted items included an exterior upgrade for the former Terrain Café, which was detailed in the packet under pending projects, as well as a preliminary ARB for 540 University. There were planned absences for the 19th. He requested that any other planned absences be directed to his or Veronica Dao’s attention. Vice Chair Chen asked that her name be added to the absences on June 19th. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 46     Page 2 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Board Member Adcock added that she may not be in attendance on the 19th, which would mean there would not be a quorum. Interim Manager of Current Planning Claire Raybould commented that the meeting may be cancelled if there was not going to be a quorum. Planner/Liaison Switzer voiced that they were working with the Chair and Vice Chair to coordinate some of the background efforts for the ARB awards, which was tentatively set for May 29 from 5 to 7 p.m. Interim Manager Raybould stated, regarding 164 Hamilton, that the Ad Hoc Committee would consist of Chair Rosenberg and Board Member Adcock. She asked the Board if they would be available for that date and time. They wanted to ensure that everybody would be able to attend. Regarding 824 San Antonio, she explained that it would not be in conformance with State law to have the applicant return for a discretionary action for a housing development project. The Director issued a decision letter, and staff had asked the applicant to make changes to align with Board members’ requests, which included public art, and how they placed or designed their public art could not be prohibited or limited. She detailed the condition that had been added to the approval letter, which aligned with the language in the code. Regarding Item 2, the ad hoc had asked to consider the pattern of the Equitone panels, and the design had been changed to a standard rectangular vertical pattern before approving the plans. She also pointed out windows that had been revised. She added that all balconies would be glass. Due to safety concerns, they did not make changes related to the access doors between the dining room and the rear yard. She mentioned that the project could not be discussed at this meeting, but she would be happy to have further discussions with individual members. Chair Rosenberg thanked Interim Manager Raybould for the summary. Board Member Baltay noted that the Board had been concerned that public art was being proposed as part of the architectural design and the Board did not want it to be considered public art if integrated into the building’s architecture. He asked staff if that was not the determination staff had made. Interim Manager Raybould confirmed that was correct. Chair Rosenberg did not believe the Board was aware of that in advance. However, it was worth noting if cited in the code. Board Member Baltay wanted it to be more than noted. He protested it. He asked if it would be permitted if an ad hoc committee was reviewing a residential project. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer answered that they strongly recommended against an ad hoc being used for housing projects. They recommended focusing on crafting specific conditions of approval rather than relying on review by an ad hoc for housing projects. Regarding the public art, staff heard the Board’s concerns and had they worked to put as strong a condition as possible. Board Member Baltay wanted staff to understand that there would not have been a recommendation of approval to go to the ad hoc if that had been the case with the public art. Board Member Hirsch inquired what the process to the face of the building would lead to. Assistant Director Armer replied that for that project staff would be responsible for ensuring it would not be significantly different in appearance than what the Board had seen. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 47     Page 3 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Board Member Baltay expressed that there had been no description of the public art. Assistant Director Armer noted that there were diagrams, so if it looked significantly different than what had been shown, it may need to return as a new project. Interim Manager Raybould understood that the concern was that they might change it in a way that would potentially substantially enclose, which would change the design and the architecture of the project. Chair Rosenberg stated if it matched what was shown and what had been approved that they would be good to go forward. If they tried to do a dramatic shift, it would be a problem. Interim Manager Raybould added that they would have to return to the PAC for the final design. A representative of the ARB could make comments on the design so that the PAC could consider that when making their decision. Board Member Adcock queried if the language on the screen had been issued as approval and if there would be editing of the language. She took exception to the description of significantly altering the character, as that was the Board’s concern. She added that the concern was not just about enclosing the proposed screen, that it was the appearance of the exterior with the terracotta color and the patterning, which she stated was lovely but not what would happen. She did not consider color change to be significant, but she would consider something other than a vertical pattern to be a significant change. Assistant Director Arme replied that there would be no editing of the language. Chair Rosenberg supported Board Member Adcock’s point as it related to the pattern being a significant change. She would rely on staff to follow up on the project. She wanted staff to understand the ARB’s position and the definition of significant. Interim Manager Raybould added that the language did preclude staff from considering other such changes significant. Board Member Hirsch queried if the Chair could review it and indicate if it would be okay. He thought the Board should see the entire thing at some point in order to make comments to the Chair if there was a problem. Interim Manager Raybould answered that the process could not be changed. The public art was subject to the PAC’s purview. The language added aligned with the language in the code, so if it was considered to be substantially different from what had been presented, staff could require them to file an Architectural Review Application to have the change considered. Board Member Hirsch questioned if staff would make the decision and if the Board as a whole would see the decision made by the PAC. Assistant Director Armer replied that the determination of a significant change would be made by the Director. Board Member Baltay remarked that that determination would typically be made with the advice of the ARB. Chair Rosenberg stated that it would be with the advice of the ARB for the frontend. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 48     Page 4 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Board Members Baltay and Hirsch did not agree. Assistant Director Armer stated that she heard the Board’s concerns. She noted that sometimes staff would consult with the Chair or Vice Chair of the ARB on certain changes, although some would be determined by the Director without consultation with the ARB. The process was not unusual. Board Member Hirsch stated that this could be a significant change, and he thought the process should follow regulations. Chair Rosenberg stated that argument was being made for something that had not yet happened. The ARB liked the design. If there were changes to the screen, she wanted the Director to understand that the ARB would consider it a significant change. She understood that it would not be returned to the ARB. She noted that there was overlap between art and architecture, and she questioned at what point it would be public art and at what point it would be part of the façade. She noted that for this project, it was very much an integrated part of the architecture and if removed it would be a completely different building. Considering it public art did not sit right with her. Moving forward, she wanted it to be clear when public art would be art and when architecture would be architecture. She mentioned that a screen on a building was part of the architecture. Board Member Baltay discussed a precedent being set with this project. He commented that the intent of the ARB ad hoc was to push this through, not to allow this to happen. He voiced that if Legal staff should indicate a process could not be done, it should return to the ARB. Board Member Hirsch thought the front of the building was significant. He could imagine part of the process being the PAC and ARB convening on something like this. Chair Rosenberg inquired how the ARB could make an accurate and viable determination on something being art or architecture. Board Member Adcock queried what the process is for public art to be part of the building versus the process in terms of timing. Chair Rosenberg believed that the ARB considered the screens to part of the architecture, not public art. In the future, the ARB would be clear to say if something should be part of the architecture and not considered art. Interim Manager Raybould stated, regarding timing, that applicants are required to go before the PAC prior to approval of the project to get approval of the location of the art and generally what was being considered in terms of materials, etc. The PAC had approved the location. The PAC had been very clear about there being only certain benefits in calling something public art, which she outlined. Chair Rosenberg stated that off-the-shelf art may need to be addressed by the PAC. She wanted the ARB to have a discussion with the PAC to say art is art and architecture is architecture, although they sometimes merged. She did not want to set a precedent of screens being called art. Assistant Director Armer expressed that this had been a learning experience and that it would help with future projects. Chair Rosenberg stated that it might be helpful for staff to report on ad hoc happenings in the future. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 49     Page 5 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Action Item 2. Ad Hoc Committee Report: Review Ad Hoc committee Report on Objective Standards for Townhomes and Provide Direction to Staff Chair Rosenberg read the ad hoc committee report. NO PUBLIC COMMENT Interim Manager of Current Planning Claire Raybould hoped that a conclusion would be reached on the ad hoc committee’s recommendations and that there would be a formal recommendation from the ARB on how objective designed standards may be changed to better align for townhome projects. When the objective design standards were originally developed there was an understanding that, while it accommodated townhomes, changes could be made to be more clearly defined for townhomes. They hoped to get a recommendation today. At the last meeting, the Chair had asked staff to return with a summary of the conclusions made at the last meeting. Attachment A was a summary of the meeting minutes and the conclusions the ad hoc committee (Vice Chair Chen and Board Member Hirsch) had put together, and they had made some additional edits for clarity. Attachment B reflected the recommendations to be added to those notes and the final recommendations, which were annotated with underlining and yellow highlighting. The ad hoc agreed on the underlined items. They did not necessarily agree on the highlighted items, but they wanted to present them for the Board’s consideration. Board Member Hirsch stated that the ad hoc agreed that all the visuals should remain in the packet. He wanted to go through each item with the Board as not all the changes he made were reflected in the underlined items. He had an additional document that no one else had. Board Member Baltay referenced Pages 19 through 21 and asked if the highlighted and underlined items were generally new to the document. Vice Chair Chen confirmed that was correct. Chair Rosenberg questioned why Board Member Hirsch’s underlined items were not incorporated in the document. Board Member Hirsch understood that the item should not have been discussed prior to the meeting, so it should not have been distributed. Chair Rosenberg declared that each item would be addressed. She did not think it was appropriate to change everything when there had been 7 meetings on the topic. She wanted this to be brought to a conclusion at this meeting. Board Member Hirsch addressed the townhouse definition and suggested changing vertically single stacking building type units with a minimum of 2 stories, but more commonly 3 stories, with private vehicular parking on the first ground floor, living rooms and bedrooms above, at least 2 exterior facing walls and units with 3 exterior facing walls, cul-de-sac units having 3 exterior facing walls at the closed end, more atypical townhomes arranged above a grade platform, including all of the parking below, and townhome clusters above, including the unbuilt areas as pedestrian circulation and common use space, Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 50     Page 6 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 including landscaping, so it would define not only the typical singular line of townhomes but would expand it to the description of the cul-de-sac units. Chair Rosenberg questioned if would be better to hyper-define or loosely define the townhomes. She asked what the goal was for the definition. She was concerned that a townhome being uniquely designed in a way not matching this definition would be excluded. She asked if a T-shape versus an L- shape would change the definition. Board Member Hirsch stated that there were several different possibilities for townhomes and that these were basic formats. He added that it would be hyper-defined later in the details. He noted that a cul-de-sac-type unit would be different because it would contain more units. He considered this to be a general definition, and he did not think it was a good idea to expand it. Board Member Adcock stated that a definition would be general with all the items narrowing the broader definition. She felt private vehicular parking below was too much of a restriction and that it should not be a must-have. Chair Rosenberg added that with some of the new housing rules that public parking was not required if within one-quarter or one-half mile of major public transit, but she did not know if that would apply to townhomes. She thought there should be a broad, general description and then a list of all the possible scenarios. She did not feel there should be requirements for it to be defined as a townhome. Board Member Hirsch believed that parking below the townhomes was standard, and he wanted Planning to speak to that. Interim Manager Raybould stated that there was an allowance to not have parking, but she thought it went back to building code and townhomes having parking below, although she had seen one that was different from the traditional townhome design. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer discussed why she advised against requiring parking underneath. Board Member Hirsch stated that it could be eliminated as an item in the definition. He wanted to do a format of all the different possibilities. He suggested including cul-de-sacs and platform-type housing with the parking being entirely below and under a platform. Chair Rosenberg suggested retaining the definition as a little more high-level and, if desired, there could be an addendum listing the typical items seen in a townhome which could be used more as a description rather than a full definition. Concerning the parking, it was possible for townhomes to have driveways. She appreciated the effort to say it could be fully combined parking underneath in a big parking structure but that each individual unit being its own item made sense. Board Member Hirsch did not know if that would properly define townhome. Chair Rosenberg voiced that the goal was not to restrict but to include. She was concerned that things would be excluded by over-emphasizing hyper-minutia details of a townhome. Her goal was to have a broad-brushed definition and then to include a list of the smaller items typically seen with townhomes, but she did not want them to be requirements. Assistant Director Armer inquired if these objective standards should apply to side by side rows of vertical rental units with multiple stories with carports not immediately attached, instead of garages. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 51     Page 7 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Chair Rosenberg answered yes. Board Member Hirsch noted that such buildings were in Palo Alto. He preferred that townhomes have parking below. He thought it should be in the code. Interim Manager Raybould remarked that per the building code the definition of townhome spoke more to form, not parking. Historic Preservation Planner/ARB Liaison Steven Switzer read into the record that it would be a single- family dwelling unit constructed in a group of 3 or more attached units in which each unit would extend from the foundation to roof with a yard or a public way on not less than 2 sides. Board Member Hirsch stated that that allowed flexibility, and he supported using that definition. Board Member Baltay voiced that townhomes had individual access to the exterior, and he felt it was important to include that in the code. Vice Chair Chen stated that under the definition read by Planner/Liaison Switzer that the podium-type would not be considered a townhome. Interim Manager Raybould noted that it could include a podium-type construction. Chair Rosenberg suggested it state building code definition and to add in the individual access from the exterior and to note that the underlying portion with below grade parking would be viable. Board Member Adcock stated that typically townhome party walls were vertical but she had seen some projects with jenga configuration and such and as long as fire separation, etc., was maintained, it would be for the City Building to confirm that it would apply. She did not think it needed to be added to the definition. Board Member Baltay thought a building official would make a similar determination on a case-by-case basis and that the ARB would not need to step into that. Chair Rosenberg declared that the definition would be a single-family dwelling unit constructed in a group of 3 or more attached units in which each unit would extend from foundation to roof and with a yard or public way not on less than 2 sides, including access from the exterior. Board Member Baltay wanted to reference the building code with individual access to the exterior. Chair Rosenberg added that after the words “2 sides” that “per current building code definition” should be put in parenthesis. Board Member Hirsch suggested eliminating “treatment of end corner units” and that the chapter be titled “required elevation features.” Vice Chair Chen asked if the elevation features would be included in Item 2 under Attachment B, so that it would not be limited to end corners but to all units. Board Member Hirsch affirmed that was correct. He felt the wording should be: All units within a cluster must consistently repeat common features per the following list, including materials, colors, and patterns, so that would be a consistent character to the entire development. End units must be Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 52     Page 8 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 emphasized in importance by a more inclusive set of exterior design features per the following list. All other cluster units must include these selected features so that there would be consistency and repetitive relationship of townhome clusters. He stated this would replace Attachment B. He had rewritten the items in the list. Board Member Baltay understood that Board Member Hirsch wanted to change the text under Item 1 on Page 17 pick up the text from Item 1 on Page 19 but that the list on Page 17 would remain – Items A through D. Board Member Hirsch stated that he noted the ones that would be changed. The minimum handicapped covered or partially covered entry would need to be 5X5 minimum. Vice Chair Chen noted that it was included in Packet Page 19, 2A. Board Member Baltay queried if the Packet Page 19, Items A through I were being considered as the building design treatment guidelines and if they would be given an opportunity to select a certain number of the items as their objective standards. Board Member Hirsch affirmed that was correct. He added that a 1-sided wraparound corner roofed patio should be a minimum of 4 feet deep but if it was a wraparound for an end unit it would need to be bigger, so he had increased it to 8X8. Vice Chair Chen noted that they had agreed on it being 6 feet wide and that 8 feet was newly added by Board Member Hirsch. Board Member Hirsch suggested that be flagged for discussion. Planner/Liaison Switzer mentioned that there were 2 attachments in the packet, one starting on Packet Page 17 and the other starting on Packet Page 19. He understood the discussion to be a combination of both. He displayed Attachment B and requested that the Board address that list and add any additions to that. Board Member Baltay thought a 5-foot deep entry would be challenging. Vice Chair Chen added that there was a 5X5 accessibility requirement but not every townhome had to be accessible. Interim Manager Raybould confirmed that only a certain percentage has to be. The Board agreed with balconies being 6 feet wide and 4 feet deep. Chair Rosenberg, regarding a variation in roof heights between townhome units, had been told that anything less than an 18-inch difference in roof height was difficult to build. Vice Chair Chen suggested it be 2 feet. Board Member Baltay did not think it made sense to specify that the variation would occur at the eave rather than at the ridge. He could conceive a building with an equal eave but a varied ridge by changing the slope. He suggested the roof height at the eave be a minimum of 2 feet. Board Member Hirsch opted for a variation. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 53     Page 9 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Vice Chair Chen pointed out that not every single unit may have the same roof variation, such as a gable roof or flat roof. Chair Rosenberg noted that there could be a potential scenario for one being a gable and one being flat, so there would be a difference in roof height. She wanted it to be at least 2 feet and to state eave. Board Member Baltay spoke to Item E on Packet Page 19 and he interpreted the façade to be the façade of a building and the building to be the cluster of townhomes. He noted that the intent was to break up monoplanar façades. Vice Chair Chen questioned if it was more a reverse in saying that if projecting bays were used they must be a minimum of 5 feet wide and 2 feet deep. Board Member Hirsch considered that reasonable wording, although 6 feet seemed better but the minimum of 5 feet was reasonable. Board Member Baltay asked if applying these standards would mean that the current standards would not apply. Planner/Liaison Switzer replied that there was a section on façade breaks and the language was a minimum façade break in 4 feet in width, 2 feet in depth, and 32-square feet of area for every 36 to 40 feet of façade length. Board Member Hirsch did not think that could be applied to a townhome project. Interim Manager Raybould explained that it had been applied in different ways to past townhome projects. Board Member Baltay stated that basically every other unit would have to have one of the features. He voiced that it might be worth stating that this would apply to end units. He interpreted the façade of an end unit as a façade and that this would apply if it was more than 36 feet. Interim Manager Raybould remarked that it had been applied to the side and the front. She believed it would be anything facing a street, including a private street. Board Member Baltay asked if the objective was to change the modulation requirement from 36 feet to 20 feet for townhomes. Vice Chair Chen stated that each 20-foot section of townhome would have a choice of the items. It was intended to apply to each townhome. Chair Rosenberg wondered if the language should read each unit in a cluster must select a minimum of 2 or 3 instead of all units in a cluster. Board Member Baltay inquired if it should apply to each one or the group. Board Member Hirsch suggested that 4 items be chosen from a list for the cluster, not for each unit. Chair Rosenberg mentioned that the desire may be for every other unit to have a porch or a variation in height difference to increase the modulation. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 54     Page 10 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Vice Chair Chen suggested going through the list to determine how many items would apply to each individual unit and how many would apply to the cluster and then separate the lists. Board Member Hirsch thought choosing 4 from the list was reasonable. Board Member Adcock stated it depended on whether speaking about a cluster or individual unit. She considered A, B, and C to be related to unit variation, D and F to the cluster, and E to a unit or a cluster. She expressed that the title sentence of Item 2 was confusing. She agreed with Item F on Packet Page 19. She mentioned that tower element related to an end unit or a unit facing a public or private street. Chair Rosenberg thought if it would specifically apply to end units that it should be added. Board Member Baltay requested the definition of a tower element. He inquired if there were examples of townhomes with tower elements and if roof variation promoted tower elements. Assistant Director Armer stated that a chimney would not be considered a tower element. Board Member Hirsch voiced that Arbor Real had a tower element and that roof variation did not necessarily promote tower elements, which he explained. Vice Chair Chen pointed out a tower element on Packet Page 63, which was basically another story. Assistant Director Armer believed that the list of items had originally been intended to be about the end units and the discussion was broader and about the façades as a whole. She was concerned that this was changing what had been originally developed and recommended by the ad hoc. Board Member Adcock queried if that meant any other façades would revert back to objective standards for any building, if the list would apply to corner units only, and if the list should be split into 2 lists for corner units versus façade. Chair Rosenberg wanted to keep a list of corner units as that was what the Board had agreed to previously. She thought it made sense to add an additional list for the other unit required elevation features. She wanted to split the list into corner units and then additional elevation requirements. Assistant Director Armer added that the objective standards were supposed to address specific things that would be different for townhomes and that the corner units needed special attention. General façade recommendations needed to work with the existing objective standards. Board Member Hirsch did not believe townhomes lent themselves to the general objective standards, and he did not feel that the relationship would work. Assistant Director Armer recommended bringing the discussion back and to look at the original goal of the document, which was to tackle a few of the unique subjects to townhomes. Some additional guidance on top of the other objective standards would be useful in making better designs. Chair Rosenberg referenced Attachment A and stated that the original one had headers of building typology, etc., and she questioned why there were no headers in Attachment B. Interim Manager Raybould responded that the ad hoc recommended removing the headers. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 55     Page 11 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Board Member Baltay addressed Item 1 on Page 17, and he suggested it be phrased as corner units or end units that face 2 streets must have 1) a change in the roofline 2 feet at the roof eave to a different elevation or the entire unit’s parapet or roof line should be different from the adjacent unit and 2) it must have at least 2 of the items in the list of A through E. He understood that Item A should be a 5X5- foot entry patio or a 4X8-foot wraparound patio or balcony. Chair Rosenberg did not want to completely dismiss Attachment B, which the ad hoc had worked on. She noted that some of the goals between Attachments A and B were dropped. Board Member Baltay suggested addressing the standards applying to mid-unit town homes later. He wanted to discuss what the end unit definition should be. Assistant Director Armer inquired if the ARB supported what she had displayed on the screen. Board Member Baltay thought with some changes it would be supported. He suggested that it be clarified that the roof change would be 2 feet at the eave or 2 feet between 2 units, in other words stating that the roof change would be 2 feet high. The second part would be choosing from the list of 5 choices. He thought the Committee was suggesting a 5X5 covered entry. Board Member Baltay asked if that would assume that they would all be accessible units or if that dimension would still be true knowing that not all would be accessible. Planner/Liaison Switzer asked if A would be a minimum of 5X5. Chair Rosenberg affirmed that was correct. Vice Chair Chen stated that, based on the Committee’s discussion, it would apply to the end units, but she understood that the Board wanted it to apply to all units, and she inquired if there would be a separate requirement for that. Chair Rosenberg wanted to focus on the corner end units, and she stated there would be a secondary list for the infill units. The dimensions could be different for the end and the infill units. Board Member Hirsch addressed Item B and he wanted it to be 8X8 with a depth of 4 feet for a wraparound/corner unit. Board Member Adcock stated that it could be edited to state 8 feet on the primary side and 6 feet on the secondary side. Chair Rosenberg and Board Member Hirsch were not opposed to that. Board Member Baltay queried if a 4-foot deep by 6-foot wide balcony was consistent with most townhomes. Board Member Hirsch thought it was. Board Member Baltay asked if balconies must project out from the face of the façade and not be an inset. Chair Rosenberg said it could be changed to state a minimum of 4 feet deep. She added that the flush of the front of the balcony could be in line with everything else. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 56     Page 12 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Board Member Baltay wanted it to be clear that this would apply to the façade of the end units. Board Member Hirsch commented that it could be an inset, partial inset, or fully extended. Vice Chair Chen remarked that the open-space requirement was 6 feet deep. Board Member Baltay questioned if a tower element could be defined as a minimum of 250 square feet and a full story higher. Board Member Hirsch thought it could be a minimum of 4 feet wide by 2 feet deep for a closet, pantry, etc. Chair Rosenberg added that it would also allow for an exception to the RM30 height limitation, and she asked if a full separate floor should be allowed or prevented. She wanted to define tower element. Board Member Hirsch defined a tower element as a smaller structure that could extend above. Regarding the RM30 height limitation, he did not want to allow a full separate floor. Chair Rosenberg considered a tower element to be a unique architectural feature that would not be a habitable space. She opined that having a stairwell acces to a roof terrace would be a nice feature, which could be utilized as a tower element, although she did not think it needed to be written into the code. She asked if a staircase extension would qualify as a tower element. She did not want fake chimneys to be part of the tower element. Planner/Liaison Switzer expressed that in the objective standards it was defined as a corner element, which would be a change in height of at least 4 feet greater or less than the height of an adjacent primary façade. Chair Rosenberg responded that that would be covered with the roof change height of at least 2 feet. She questioned if there needed to be a tower element. She voiced that it could state that chimney penetrations would be allowed. Board Member Hirsch remarked that a chimney was a specific use, and he wanted to add flexibility to it. He stated that a tower element could include a chimney or a closet. Assistant Director Armer wanted to bring the conversation back to the design of the townhomes. She believed this was added originally in talking about variation and architectural design elements, so she wanted to be cautious about allowing something that would exceed too much the standard zoning regulations. Chair Rosenberg commented that there was a 2-foot eave roof change height. She questioned if there should be a maximum so as not to allow a second floor. She asked if there would be just a minimum of 2-foot change height versus a maximum of 6 feet and if an extra level would be allowed. Board Member Baltay answered that violating the zoning code height limit was not realistic. He wanted the designer to decide how big the feature piece would be. He did not see a definition of tower element in any kind of statutory sense. He felt that allowing a significant change for corners going above the height limit was a larger policy issue. He wanted to focus on design details to make these better, and he thought the roof change was sufficient. Chair Rosenberg also did not see a definition of tower element in any kind of statutory sense. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 57     Page 13 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Board Member Hirsch did not think an element had to go above the roof but that it could be an expression above the roof. He thought there should be a choice of more than 4. Board Member Baltay stated that this was too hard to define as an objective standard because there was not a clean definition. Chair Rosenberg voiced that the existing RM30 height limit was 35, so this would be for an additional 15 feet of height for a tower element that had not been defined. Planner/Liaison Switzer mentioned that there was a code requirement requiring a 4-foot differentiation on the end unit. The Board was comfortable striking D. Chair Rosenberg moved to E. Board Member Baltay questioned if there was a definition of the setback area concerning different materials and/or color of major façade material and percentage of area in the regular objective standards. Planner/Liaison Switzer stated that he would look into that. Board Member Baltay noted that it was not clearly stated that the list would apply to the end façades of the units. He understood that the end façades should be more modulated than a flat wall. Chair Rosenberg wanted the porches to be more notable and interesting. Vice Chair Chen stated that it would be on the long façade, not the end façade. Board Member Hirsch noted that there was an option for an end unit to have an entry around the corner. Board Member Adcock thought the list of options would be shorter for the end units. Board Member Hirsch felt there should be a list for the whole townhouse cluster and that the end units should be special. Board Member Baltay stated that she was parsing words of the end units being special versus the side façade of the end unit having XYZ variations. Board Member Hirsch agreed and mentioned that the side and the roof height variation should be emphasized. Part of the list would be the roof height variation. Board Member Baltay did not think the roof height variation was optional. Board Member Hirsch disagreed. Vice Chair Chen wanted to see variations at the end units. As the corner unit list was getting shorter, she suggested putting everything in a large list that choices could be made from. She addressed Packet Page 19 and suggested deleting “all units” from item 2 and saying under A or B that each unit should have a minimum 5X5 covered porch and that there could be more specificity for the others, such as an end unit having a wraparound balcony or patio. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 58     Page 14 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Chair Rosenberg asked if the goal was to have a list that would apply to all the units and if each unit in a cluster would have to have XYZ and a corner unit would have to have XYZ. Vice Chair Chen thought it could be simplified to say the cluster could have ABCDE but that ABCDE could be more specific, such as each unit could have A and B and that the end unit could have C. She stated there could be 10 items from which the applicant/designer could choose 2 or 3. Interim Manager Raybould stated that she was struggling with the conversation because in looking at Attachment A she had a clear understanding of the sections to be changed. She stated that what was being discussed was crossing many different sections of the code. There were whole code sections speaking to variation, depth of patios, open space, etc. Staff did not intend to create a whole separate code section for townhomes. The idea was to add in some language to provide clarity. This had to work in a way that would not completely change everything to only address townhomes. Chair Rosenberg expressed that the goal of the document was to focus on exceptions to the objective standards. [The Board took a 10-minute break] Chair Rosenberg did not think the ARB was ready to continue the discussion as there was too much confusion between Items A and B. She saw 2 options moving forward. One was to vote on Attachment A (not Attachment B) versus bringing it back to comment specifically on Attachment A, highlighting what should be changed from Attachment A and highlighting items of discussion. She noted that 2 Board members each had a list of additional comments, and she stated that there should be a clear and concise list of what would be voted on. She did not feel this was ready to be reviewed as there was not a clear list of items. Board Member Hirsch felt it needed more work. He was not ready to vote. Chair Rosenberg declared that this would likely be brought back. Vice Chair Chen believed recommendations should be formalized for staff instead of continuing the discussion in future meetings. She wanted the ARB to address the items in Attachment A that the ad hoc did not completely agree on. Board Member Baltay commented that Packet Page 19 was a confusion of Attachment A as the ad hoc did not reach an agreement, which was the objective of the ad hoc. He did not know what Vice Chair Chen wanted to pass to staff. Chair Rosenberg stated that if Attachment B was to be used that the adjustments needed to be clear and concise in a way closely related to Attachment A. Interim Manager Raybould suggested moving forward with Option A but with clarity on next steps. Staff could make a recommendation on Attachment A where there had been consensus. The ARB could also give direction to consider some of the changes in Attachment B. Upon having a draft ordinance, staff could return to the ARB to make refinements with clear understanding and code language of how it would relate. Assistant Director Armer added that putting it in the code could include an additional discussion by the ARB, PTC, and Council if requested by the ARB. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 59     Page 15 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 Chair Rosenberg asked the Board if Attachment A was ready for primetime. Board Member Adcock thought Attachment A was ready but that a few of the underlined portions of Attachment B should be brought forward to Attachment A. Vice Chair Chen agreed that Attachment A was ready but with some refinements from Attachment B. She felt the Board should address the highlighted portions at this meeting. Board Member Hirsch wanted to discuss the physical limitations of townhomes that had not been discussed at this meeting, which he detailed. He did not know if there were enough items to choose from in Attachment A. Board Member Baltay supported Attachment A on Pages 17 and 18 as written. He wanted it to be further improved, but he did not see that in Attachment B. Planner/Liaison Switzer suggested using Attachment A with the underlined items, the definition of townhomes based on the building code with individual exterior entrances, and the 2-foot roof variations. Assistant Director Armer commented that that level of Attachment A could be included since there seemed to be consensus on those additional changes. Chair Rosenberg asked if it would be brought back to the ARB at the time it would be written into code. She expressed that Attachment A was a notable document that the ARB had addressed repeatedly and was the majority of what the Board had agreed to. She trusted the ad hoc’s judgment on the items they agreed to in Attachment B. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved, seconded by Board Member Baltay, to approve Attachment A adding in the underlined items from Attachment B and including the definition of a townhome based on building code and individual exterior elevations as discussed at this meeting and the 2-foot measurement for roof variations at corner units as discussed at this meeting. Vice Chair Chen suggested a friendly amendment to strike the tower element. Chair Rosenberg was amenable to that since there was not a firm definition of it. VOTE: Motion carried 4-0-1 (Hirsch abstained) Board Member Hirsch stated regarding his abstention that he did not think they were ready. Chair Rosenberg wanted to see the document reviewed for correctness at an upcoming meeting and treated as a review of minutes. She did not want there to be a long discussion or for it to be voted on. Planner/Liaison Switzer stated that it could be brought forward as an informational item. Board Member Hirsch inquired if the details for the corner element would only refer to the corner element. Chair Rosenberg stated that they were reverting back to Attachment A and adding in the underlined items. The details for the corner element would only refer to the corner element. The other units were Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 60     Page 16 of 16 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/06/25 addressed with the rhythm, pattern, and materiality, and the objective standards was the overarching item. Vice Chair Chen thanked Board Member Hirsch for his work and inquired if he should have an opportunity to speak about his additional concerns regarding townhomes. Chair Rosenberg encouraged Board Member Hirsch to email staff the items that he felt may have been underrepresented, misconstrued, or left out altogether. Approval of Minutes 3. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 6, 2025 Board Member Baltay noted that Martin Bernstein had asked about putting a condition of approval regarding the back alley for construction. He stated that it was not explicitly part of the motion, but he felt it was implicitly intended to be. Interim Manager of Current Planning Claire Raybould replied that a condition had been included related to that. Board Member Adcock referenced the fifth paragraph on Page 145 and stated that it should read flush vault, not flash vault. Board Member Hirsch addressed Page 28 and asked what a “see-cannot” wall was. Interim Manager of Current Planning Claire Raybould defined a secant wall. Chair Rosenberg declared that should have read secant, not see-cannot. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer asked Board members to email any future corrections to staff ahead of meeting time, and they would send out a revised version. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved, seconded by Board Member Adcock, to approve the Minutes with the adjustment of flash to flush and noting that Martin Bernstein’s item had been covered. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0. Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Board Member Hirsch asked if he could share his notes on townhomes with ARB members. Chair Rosenberg thought it would be in violation of the Brown Act. Assistant Director Jennifer Armer suggested he share it with staff and they would have it in the file as part of this discussion, and if it came back to the ARB, it could be included at that time. She explained why he could not share it with other ARB members. The City Attorney recommended against sending it to the Board. Staff would look into it and it would be shared with the ARB if acceptable. Chair Rosenberg thanked the ad hoc for their work. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:25 a.m. Item 4 Attachment A - Minutes of March 6, 2025     Packet Pg. 61     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 6 9 9 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: April 17, 2025 Report #: 2504-4469 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of March 20, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@PaloAlto.gov. Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 62     Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: March 20, 2025 Council Chamber & Zoom 8:00 AM Call to Order / Roll Call The Architectural Review Board (ARB) of the City of Palo Alto met on March 20, 2025 in Council Chambers and virtual teleconference at 8:34 a.m. Present: Chair Kendra Rosenberg, Vice Chair Yingxi Chen, Board member Mousam Adcock, Board member Peter Baltay (joined 8:38 am), Board member David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. City Official Reports 1. Director’s Report, Meeting Schedule, and Upcoming Agenda Items Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner/ARB Liaison, provided a slide presentation including upcoming/recently submitted items, 2025 meeting schedule and updates on ARB Awards, Council interviews for 3 vacancies and Boardmember Baltay leaving. Boardmember Hirsch hoped to formally invite the entire Council to the Awards. Action Item 2. PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI‐JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [24PLN‐00066]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for 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 with a New Tenant, Delarosa (Space #136B, Building D), at the Stanford Shopping Center. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 20, 2025     Packet Pg. 63     Page 2 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 Mr. Switzer announced Boardmember Baltay’s arrival at 8:38 PM. He noted there was an At-Places Memo for the attachment of the draft findings of approval. Chair Rosenberg asked which of the board members had visited the site and if there were any disclosures. Boardmember Adcock had not visited the site. Vice Chair Chen had visited the site. Chair Rosenberg had visited the site a week and a half before. Boardmember Baltay visited the site the day before. Boardmember Hirsch had visited the site. Tamara Harrison, Contract Planner, provided a slide presentation about the 180 El Camino Real Stanford Shopping Center including the project location, background, project overview, colors and materials board, signage considerations, key considerations and conditions and recommended motion. Chair Rosenberg wanted to confirm that all signs were in conformance. She asked if there were any restrictions or regulations on colors specifically in Stanford Shopping Center. She also wanted to know if there were any restrictions on light refractive value of a white color. Ms. Harrison confirmed that to be correct. She explained there was some language that some of the brighter colors were limited to accent features. She described a few locations that would maintain brighter colors. She did not believe there was any restriction on the light refractive value of a white color in the master program. Boardmember Adcock wanted clarifications about the canopy. Ms. Harrison replied the canopy would be new cladding over existing canopy and new wood underside. Hannah Walbridge, applicant representing Back of the House, Inc. in Delarosa, described the concept and some of the background of their business and why they thought it would be a good fit for the center. PUBLIC COMMENT No requests to speak. Chair Rosenberg wanted confirmation that orange was their typical logo color. She asked if the Chantilly lace white was the only white they considered, if they had used it in other places before and why they chose that color. Ms. Walbridge confirmed orange was their brand color. She stated they had used China white over the past 10 years. It was looking dated and they wanted something fresher and brighter. She said they could find something in the middle but the idea was to brighten it up. Boardmember Adcock had questions about the canopy. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 20, 2025     Packet Pg. 64     Page 3 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 Ms. Walbridge replied they wanted to line the canopy up and make the front corner proud. They had the perforated orange metal above and wanted to line it up with that. It would fall with a transition in the wall finish. It would be up to the structural engineer if it would require replacement of the whole canopy to extend the double distance on the one side. Ideally, they would just add another section, clad the whole face and the section would be welded and supported from another rod from above. It was yet to be confirmed if that was possible. Boardmember Hirsch remarked they were not showing any way in which the cable was connected through the new metal cladding at the top. He asked if it was going to be interrupted in some way. Ms. Walbridge answered they would have to anchor or weld it. Boardmember Baltay had questions about the canopy design. Ms. Walbridge confirmed they would change the extension of the canopy on both sides and the tie rods. The intention was to add another piece of trim horizontally on the right side. The detail of how that would be done was to be determined. Boardmember Hirsch questioned about drainage at the top of the canopy. He asked how they would provide heating under the awnings for the seating. He opined it would be nice to do have heaters within the umbrellas. Titan Davis, applicant with Crome Architecture, stated the intent at the entry awning canopy structure was to utilize what they could with the existing structure and grow in both directions. The tie rods would be replaced with something sleeker and the detail and connection to the main facade and penetration through that perforated panel was to be determined. The EIFS stucco trim to the right of the main entry was existing. He did not recall what was going on at the left but if it was not existing it would be new to match existing detail. There was a small EIFS trim under the awning that would be patched, repaired and painted. They existing CPK awning structure was just sloped to drain onto the mall common area walkway. There were currently post mounted gas heaters. One was in an area of easement for the Public Works Department. They would be keeping any that were outside of the easement area and relocating the one currently located in the easement area. Ms. Walbridge commented they had proposed a canopy all the way around for the whole patio but had to remove it because there was a 20-foot easement for the utility room on the front elevation. Boardmember Baltay asked why they did not continue the awning at the front the full width of the orange panel above it and they planned to leverage the same drainage that was existing. They then proposed a canopy that could be disassembled for that 20-foot easement. The Building Department came back with a requirement that there had to be 20 feet in between the outside of their patio and the patio for Sushi Roku. That did not allow enough seating or parking so they had to remove it. Mr. Davis stated that respected the seated layout. Vice Chair Chen asked questions about the planter and railing. Mr. Davis explained the height of the railing would be three foot eight and the planter box three feet. Boardmember Hirsch asked questions about seating. He inquired if it was possible to create a closure in order to have privacy to the dining area in the center. He asked about the railing and suggested it might Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 20, 2025     Packet Pg. 65     Page 4 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 be possible to continue the fabric enclosure since it had to remain as thin as possible and to incorporate that into the face of the railing for more privacy. Mr. Davis said there would be seating down the mall walkway. He indicated they had tried to provide an enclosed private seating area but the limitations of the clearances and the covered square footage did not allow for a more permanent private dining setting at that side. He did not believe the existing CPK seating was in compliance with the 20-foot clearance. He explained the railing would be sleek, modern metal powder-coated white with a white oak cap. Ms. Walbridge added the retractable awning would cover a certain length of the side elevation. That was the last amount of square footage allowed to be covered so they did a retractable awning that would start at the corner of that elevation and go down on the side that enters the mall and come out the width of the patio. She confirmed the current CPK footprint stuck out 2 feet past the 20-foot clearance. She noted the limited space and suggested putting a canvas drop down at that end. She said they could lever a panel the width of the patio. Boardmember Baltay wanted explanation about the 20-foot easement, the 20-foot clear aisle requirement and the logic behind allowing light poles and trees to project into the 8-foot clear travel. He asked if the easement was a legal requirement or a request by the utility division for access to the facilities. He wondered why this had not applied anywhere else in the mall. He recommended the architect push back and investigate the 20-foot clearance. He recalled having established a 12-inch projection exception in the 8-foot clear pathway in outdoor dining areas and was dismayed that Staff was not aware of that. Ms. Harrison explained the 20-foot easement area was a requirement from the City’s utilities team. There was a utility room in that area that needed to be kept free and clear. Planters located at the patio area were on rollers so they could be moved. It was her understanding the 20-foot clearance was a building code requirement for mall egress. That comment came directly from the building department. She did not believe it was provided before. The building team was adamant that the 20-foot needed to be provided with this project. Regarding the 8-foot pathway, there were existing trees and light poles in that pathway. Staff had a discussion regarding those items and it made more sense to leave them because taking the poles out would interfere with the tree roots and the City did not want to remove trees. Richard Wessells, applicant with Simon Property Group, stated the 20-foot easement that ran to the face of the building was a recorded document. It was in the hands of the city attorney and had been mandated as part of an overall easement plan for the shopping center. The city owns the gas line that runs up to the building which sits within a 20-foot required easement. The easement was mandated to keep that area free and clear in case there was ever a requirement to get into the ground for excavation. CPK had been in violation of that. It was an incorrect assumption that it had to be cleared on a daily basis. Ms. Harrison and Ms. Walbridge both understood it had to be removed daily. Mr. Davis confirmed that comments from the utility company was explicitly clear that it needed to be cleared daily. Mr. Wessells stated he would get hold of the recorded document and share it with the City to clear up the requirement for that. He stated this was the first time they had come up to the 20-foot clearance instance in this situation. He indicated they had spent six months arguing the point and had exhausted their ability to negotiate that point with the City. He stated their discussions with the encroachment was on The Melt. They had moved the light poles out of the middle of the walkway to one foot from the Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 20, 2025     Packet Pg. 66     Page 5 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 curbline which provided a 7-foot clear. With this particular location with CPK where it existed to provide the 8-foot clear they would have to remove the trees and not plant them back in front of the building. Mr. Davis added the 20-foot clearance was straight from the California building code. It was an egress requirement and 20-feet minimum aggregate. Boardmember Hirsch asked about access to the outside dining area. Mr. Davis understood all patrons would enter by the main entry door to be seated. Ms. Walbridge confirmed that to be correct. She said they would come in and the host would seat them and then lead them out through the side door. Boardmember Adcock queried if that was why the rope stanchions were on either end. She wondered if patrons would have to go inside to exit. Mr. Davis replied they were not both needed for egress and if they were not in favor they were open to providing more planter box structures. He stated as it currently was and if they were to build a more permanent structure patrons would have to go inside to exit. Boardmember Hirsch saw it as an issue. Mr. Davis did not see it as an issue but understood if he did. Ms. Walbridge said they could create another exit. Boardmember Adcock wanted to flag it and Ms. Walbridge agreed it would be cleaner to have another exit for the patio. Boardmember Baltay did not see many problems with the project meeting their standards. He thought the questions about the awning could be left to the applicant or brought back to them for an ad hoc committee review. He expressed strong disappointment with Staff and the applicant for not working hard regarding the regulations but he understood they wanted to get it done. He did not believe it was a fully correct interpretation of the codes. Chair Rosenberg had no major objections. She thought the support system for the canopy and the egress and finalization of the patio perimeter could both potentially be brought back for ad hoc but supported moving forward. She mentioned the orange was bright but she understood it was their color choice. She wanted to caution the Chantilly lace and advised potentially having a backup color. Boardmember Adcock supported the project and thought the canopy as drawn looked right. She did not think it needed to come back to ad hoc. Vice Chair Chen was in favor of the project and had no additional comments. Boardmember Hirsch had issue with the casualness of the planters around the front door and thought they needed work. He felt everything else was well answered and saw no reason to bring it back to ad hoc. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the project as presented seconded by Boardmember Baltay: VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 20, 2025     Packet Pg. 67     Page 6 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 Study Session 3. Review and Provide Feedback on the Proposed California Avenue Signage Program and Outdoor Activation Approach for the Car-Free Portion of California Avenue. Bruce Fukuji, provided a slide presentation about the signage and outdoor activation for Car-Free California Avenue including discussion of stakeholder engagement, signage brand identity and system, elements of brand identify, signage system, wayfinding to California Avenue destinations, outdoor activation: street space zones, setbacks and activity zones, outdoor activity: layout of setback and zones and maps of outdoor activation zones. PUBLIC COMMENT Osma Thompson thought the shifty dynamic baseline of the sign looked unintentional and advised toning it down. She made suggestions regarding the font. She recommended exploring a pattern other than terrazzo that was more relevant to Palo Alto. She thought there was a striation pattern and arch in the scheme that seemed to have been lost. She thought it would be nice to include the planter that was shown in the upscale contemporary thing. She liked the general color palette. For the outdoor zones, she recommended coloring the bike lanes. She suggested putting pedestrians in the center to make more space for the storefront. She thought it would make sense to justify the access lane when it comes to the median at the intersection of Birch and Cal Ave. She felt raising the road to meet the sidewalk would help it feel more car free and inquired if there were plans to do that. She thought it felt like a parklet and recommended breaking that space up. Boardmember Adcock was curious how the directory sign was maintained. She asked if there was a plan to have more organized planting areas that did not have the shape of the leftover angled parking. She asked if there was a plan to address a cohesive lighting plan. Mr. Fukuji indicated it was their goal to help cultivate a merchant’s association and it would be under their purview to maintain a directory sign. Otherwise, the City would be responsible. He stated the next step in their process would be doing space allocation studies. They would do community outreach in April to get feedback on that. He described two options being framed up to either adapt or to reimagine the street. Part of what they were looking at were the cost and benefits of the improvements. The street was built and engineered in 2016 and it was complex to adjust. He commented they were starting to explore how to redo the lighting on the street. He described the effort as an urban design planning exercise about setting intentions around things. Vice Chair Chen mentioned the different sizes of the options of gateway signs and queried if there were any restrictions on the width of the third option. She asked if there were any thoughts about the structure of the supporting system on option one. She asked if the various sizes of the different symbols for wayfinding signs on packet page 102 indicated they would be different sizes. She wanted to know if a digital screen had been considered for the tenant name. She inquired about the scale of the terrazzo pattern. Mr. Fukuji replied there was no restriction on any of the signs. He thought that the size of the lettering was important to readability. He stated the graphic design proposal was conceptual. He thought the wayfinding signs would all be the same size. He confirmed the initial proposal was to have four directory cabinets along the street. He agreed the use of a digital screen for the tenant name could be a choice to Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 20, 2025     Packet Pg. 68     Page 7 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 explore. He explained the consultant provided them with templates. There was a pattern template in the branding template that could be scaled. Chair Rosenberg questioned if it was the intention to paint the portion of the street on packet page 101. She asked if there would be signage on El Camino indicated the need to turn on Cambridge to find parking spaces. She wanted to know how an emergency egress vehicle would get in and out of El Camino. She pointed to a blue space on the outdoor activation map and suggested it needed to be left open. She pointed out a place on the Birch slide that she thought would possibly be a dropping off place. Mr. Fukuji answered it was a graphic design convention for a directory map. They wanted to think about how to color the pedestrian areas so they were uniquely defined. He explained they had an encroachment permit that's permitted us to put signs up that are there now that provide direction for that. They heard from Caltrans that when there is a decision for the permanent closure of the street they could have a discussion about how to replace what those signs are. According to the municipal uniform traffic control device guidance around the types of signs that could be used they did not have the same flexibility because they were the public right-of-way. He thought having permanent signage that did not look like construction signage would be a good idea. He indicated that all three intersections at Birch, Ash, and El Camino would have retractable bollards that facilitate emergency egress in and out. He said they were looking at the area on Birch Street as a drop-off area. On the Ash Street side, there would be clay-colored stamped asphalt. There would be two ADA/pickup/drop-off spaces and a 16-foot fire zone that had to be clear. That clear zone could be used for ADA access. Boardmember Baltay wanted to understand the scope of what the real changes were going to be. He questioned putting this level of detail and comprehensiveness on a sign program and how they justified doing the signs first. He asked if an outdoor stage or public entertainment area would be incorporated into this project. He wanted comments on the public commenter’s thoughts about the balanced feedback on the questionnaires. He asked him how he would advise the City to close on all this. Mr. Fukuji explained they were in the process of developing two design alternatives. Once those were developed, he thought it would be clear to see what would change. They had to figure out how to accommodate outdoor dining in a way that would work for businesses to advance the commercial use of the street. The next part would be introducing how to do bike lanes on the street. They would then look at how to allocate the space on the street with the two options being a series of adaptions to meet all the objectives or reimagining the whole street. That would be laid out in the next round of outreach and then they would go back to Council with those options for their direction. They started with the signs because they were able to accurately define what that could be in terms of the aesthetics, character and function. He stated they would next go through outdoor dining, bikes, activation, public improvements and then look at different users and ways to attract them. Once they get through that cycle, they would go back and look at everything they put together and see what they learned and put together a summary package of what could be the transformations. They would come back and look at the signage but they wanted to advance this enough so they could introduce into a capital improvement program. He stated there were two signs in this year’s capital improvement budget, replacing the California Avenue sign on El Camino and replacing the sign on Oregon Expressway. They would have to put a program together for the other signs and that would need to be approved as part of the budget. He remarked that looking at either alternative, an outdoor stage or public entertainment area could be incorporated into the project. He commented that the questionnaires came out numerically slightly Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 20, 2025     Packet Pg. 69     Page 8 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 ahead. The amount of negativity around the upscale contemporary was more extreme. He said that it was clear how much it evolved based on the feedback they had received. He stated from a city policy point of view, the big step was to embrace what the district would need to function and it needed signage and an identity. There was little outright negativity about this direction so he thought it was the right way to go. Boardmember Hirsch thought it was a good decision to go with Cal Ave on the sign and opined it needed to be done big and creatively. He said there was too much information regarding wayfaring for two streets and the signage was excessive. He suggested going with the graphics they were working with. He agreed with including shop and dine in the tagline but wondered what was meant by play. He commented it could include listen to music, watch a performance, relax reading a book, dream or exercise. He said they needed to think in a broader sense of what would attract people to come to the street. He suggested different activities that could be included. Boardmember Baltay talked about redesigning the roadway and recalled the ad hoc committee wanting to curve the accessway and to look into putting in real landscaping. He liked the idea of having music performing spaces and agreed with calling it play. He agreed with Boardmember Hirsch that they were missing the sense of liveliness and spirit. He advised getting rid of the light pole on El Camino. Regarding the sign, he advised going with any one of the ones with an arching banner up in the air, big and across the whole road. Chair Rosenberg agreed with the comments of both Boardmember Hirsch and Baltay. She described ideas of activation spaces. She liked the idea of having a drop-off area at Birch Street. She thought the lighting concept could be powerful and interesting. She thought greenery was a great idea. She was in favor of having artistic moments and though the terrazzo was memorable. She felt the graphic for the terrazzo pattern were lacking, the spotting needed to be more and the white needed to be less. She thought it would be cool to paint the street and instead of having signs everywhere they could let that pattern bleed out toward the parking lots. She was a fan of option number one regarding the wayfinding sign on El Camino. She suggested centering California Avenue and putting shop, dine, play on the left and put Palo Alto California on the right. She opined a small center fixed streetlight on the center divide would be sufficient. She thought the big arch sign would be powerful. Vice Chair Chen agreed with all the comments. She thought it would be nice to work closely with Public Arts to have some interactive art installations along the street and added it could be a wayfinding thing. She agreed there were too many signs around the adjacent street. She suggested the directory map show all the tenants names and advised considering a digital screen. She agreed with having some graphic design on the ground to lead the way. She liked both option one and three of the gateway. She thought the structure of the big arching sign needed to be developed. She agreed the California Avenue letters should be centered and using the similar terrazzo pattern base for this option. Boardmember Adcock agreed they were lacking a master plan for how the street would get developed and the sign piece was a part of that puzzle. She urged them to do the initial master planning. She felt once that was done, a number of the signs shown in the plan would not be necessary. She thought a landmark was more important than a big archway gateway. She did not favor any one of the three options but stated to choose the one that would achieve their goal of what the sign was trying to do. She said the Oregon Expressway sign and sign at the end of Cal Ave on El Camino could use a refresh. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 20, 2025     Packet Pg. 70     Page 9 of 9 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 3/20/25 She did not think directional signs were needed. She did not expect them to be social engineers because there was not an organizer to manage that but she agreed with planning for that for the future. Boardmember Hirsch supported the idea of the monument as opposed to the arch. He thought they could close the street in the middle coming in from El Camino and make the traffic work around that. He suggested they talk to people in the art community to see how they could do that as a creative piece. Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for February 20, 2025 Boardmember Adcock requested on page 116 in the list of projects, the two projects listed at Boardmember Hirsch’s projects should have been listed as hers. Mr. Switzer acknowledged the request. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes with the adjustments requested seconded by Boardmember Adcock. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Mr. Switzer commented that the Director’s Report mentioned the interviews for the three candidates that would occur on Monday the 24th. There were two incumbents out of those three vacancies. He noted that this could be Boardmember Baltay’s last meeting as the April 3 meeting was cancelled and the following meeting would be on the 17th. They were working in the background for Boardmember Baltay’s years of service. Chair Rosenberg along with Boardmember Adcock, Vice Chair Chen and Boardmember Hirsch thanked Boardmember Baltay for his service. She announced they had an ad hoc following up for 164 Hamilton right after the hearing. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:38 AM Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of March 20, 2025     Packet Pg. 71