Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2025-05-15 Architectural Review Board Agenda PacketARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD Regular Meeting Thursday, May 15, 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. The meeting will be broadcast on Cable TV Channel 26, live on YouTube https://www.youtube.com/c/cityofpaloalto, and streamed to Midpen Media Center https://midpenmedia.org. Visit https://bit.ly/PApendingprojects to view project plans and details. 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 ACTION ITEMS Public Comment is Permitted. Applicants/Appellant Teams: Ten (10) minutes, plus ten (10) minutes rebuttal. All others: Three (3) minutes per speaker. 2.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [25PLN-00027]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review of Exterior Storefront Modification, Including Façade Change, a Redesigned Outdoor Dining Area and Signage for a New Tenant, Cedar & Sage (Space #1300B, Building DD), at the Stanford Shopping Center. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). 3.PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 340 Portage Avenue [24PLN-00322]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for a Master Sign Program. The Proposed Project Includes Nine Signs. CEQA Status: The City Council Certified a Final EIR for The Project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023 (Resolution No. 10123). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov 4.Architectural Review Board's (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan This item has been postponed to allow additional time to prepare and will be re- noticed on a future agenda. APPROVAL OF MINUTES Public Comment is Permitted. Three (3) minutes per speaker. 5.Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 17, 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. Item No. 1. Page 1 of 2 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 15, 2025 Report #: 2504-4581 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 June 5, 2025 •2280 El Camino Real: Jack-In-The-Box Improvements RECENTLY SUBMITTED PROJECTS No new ARB projects were submitted since the last meeting. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: 2025 Meeting Schedule & Assignments Attachment B: Pending ARB Projects AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails may 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 Rosenberg 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 ARB 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. Approved 1/21/25 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 ARB 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 ARB 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 forward. Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 11     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes Council approved 4/21. (1st Reading) 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 Approved 2/19/25 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. Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 12     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes 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 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) NOI Sent 8/16/2024 and 9/12/2024; Pending Resubmittal. 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 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. NOI sent 1/22/25 Resubmittal 2/21/25 Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 13     Permit Type Filed Permit #Address Type Work Description Status/Notes 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 3/26/25 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 Resubmittal on 4/16/25 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. ARB 4/17 Minor Architectural Review 4/07/25 25PLN-00092 180 El Camino Real Commercial 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). Comments due 5/09 Minor Architectural Review 4/16/25 25PLN-00100 975 Paige Mill Rd Commercial Minor Board review for the renovation of an existing building (approximately 50,000 square feet) with no net change in the building area proposed and a request for Conditional Use Permit for a new cafe (retail service use - 3,769 square feet) with Alcohol Service within the renovated building. Comments due 5/22 Item 1 Attachment B - Pending ARB Projects     Packet Pg. 14     Item No. 2. Page 1 of 6 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 15, 2025 Report #: 2504-4603 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 180 El Camino Real [25PLN-00027]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review of Exterior Storefront Modification, Including Façade Change, a Redesigned Outdoor Dining Area and Signage for a New Tenant, Cedar & Sage (Space #1300B, Building DD), at the Stanford Shopping Center. CEQA Status: Exempt from CEQA per Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). Zoning District: CC (Community Commercial). RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB) take the following action: •Recommend approval of the proposed project to the Director of Planning and Development Services based on draft Findings (Attachment B) and subject to Conditions of Approval (Attachment C). EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The proposed project includes a request for approval of a Board Level Architectural Review application to allow exterior modifications to an existing tenant space for, Cedar & Sage, at the Stanford Shopping Center. The Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP) for the Stanford Shopping Center requires an Architectural Review of exterior changes to tenant spaces more than 35 feet in width and facing a public right-of-way. BACKGROUND Housing Inventory Site:Not Applicable Located w/in a Plume:Not Applicable Protected/Heritage Trees:Various throughout the site, none will be removed with this project Historic Resource(s):Not Applicable Existing Improvement(s):1,361,751 square feet; 1 to 3 stories; 37 feet height maximum Existing Land Use(s):Retail, Personal Service, General/Professional Offices, and Commercial Recreation Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 15     Item No. 2. Page 2 of 6 Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: North: (Caltrain and parkland) PF West: (Multi-Family Housing) CC(L)/PF(D) East: (Medical Offices and Supportive Services) HD South: (Retail) CC Aerial View of Property: Source: Google Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Zoning Designation:Community Commercial (CC) Comp. Plan Designation:Regional/Community Commercial Yes Yes Yes Baylands Master Plan/Guideline s (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 Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 16     Item No. 2. Page 3 of 6 Yes Yes Yes SOFA Phase 1 (2000) Within Airport Influence Area SOFA Phase 2 (2003) Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None PROJECT DESCRIPTION The new storefront features a modern design with decorative horizontal lines. The exterior is primarily gray/silver with red accents above the main entrance and patio area. An existing open black metal canopy runs along the curved frontage of the building over the floor expansive windows and overhangs above portions of the patio and a newly proposed cantilevered canopy at the outdoor dining area. A bi-folding door system is also proposed that will allow the new tenant to take advantage of comfortable weather. Landscaping includes rectangular powder coated aluminum planter boxes with trimmed hedges and potted plants near the entrance and new landscaping along the perimeter of the patio area facing towards Quarry Road and El Camino Real. In addition, new pin mounted back-lit reverse open channel building graphics and exterior lighting are proposed for visual interest and to balance the newly proposed primary signage for the new tenant. The proposed signage includes one new primary wall sign, one new blade sign, and one window sign. The wall and blade sign will read “Cedar & Sage” on upper line and “Bistro & Lounge” on lower line. The wall sign will consist of reverse channel letters with halo illumination, pin mounted to the wall. The blade sign is attached near the main entrance and is face illuminated, set with a tan and white finish. The window signage is proposed on the main entrance door and will read “Cedar & Sage”. The project is located within an exterior facing tenant space within Building DD of the Stanford Shopping Center. The proposed project involves a façade over 35 feet in length and faces Quarry Road, therefore, requiring Board Level Architectural Review. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview The following discretionary application is being requested: Architectural Review – Major (AR): The process for evaluating this type of application is set forth in PAMC 18.77.070. Major AR applications are reviewed by the ARB and recommendations are forwarded to the Planning & Development Services Director for Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 17     Item No. 2. Page 4 of 6 action within five business days of the ARB’s recommendation. Action by the Director is appealable to the City Council if the appeal is filed within 14 days of the decision. AR projects are evaluated against specific findings. All findings must be made in the affirmative to approve the project. Failure to make any single finding requires project redesign or denial. The findings to approve an AR application are provided in Attachment B. Neighborhood Setting and Character The project is located within the Stanford Shopping Center on the northern portion of the site off Quarry Road. The Shopping Center is defined within the Municipal Code as all properties zoned CC and bounded by El Camino Real, Sand Hill Road, Quarry Road, and Vineyard Lane. The site is surrounded by a hospital, retail, and multi-family uses. Stanford Shopping Center has an open-air pedestrian environment defined by a mixture of retail, dining, professional and general business offices, and personal service uses. ANALYSIS Staff has analyzed the proposed project for consistency with relevant plans, policies, and regulations as well as the Architectural Review findings for approval. Overall, staff finds the project to be consistent with all relevant plans, policies, regulations, and findings, as discussed herein, and recommends that the ARB recommend approval of the proposed project. Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans and Guidelines1 ARB Finding #1 requires that the design be consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The Comprehensive Plan identifies the Stanford Shopping Center as a regional center with a land use designation of Community Commercial. On balance, the project is consistent with the policies in the Comprehensive Plan and therefore fulfills the goals of the Plan. Attachment B provides a detailed review of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan. Zoning Compliance2 Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Section 18.16.060(e)(3) states that the maximum floor area for the Stanford Shopping Center is limited to 1,412,362 square feet. The proposed project would not cause the square footage of the overall center to increase beyond what is allowed by the underlying zoning. A spreadsheet of all Shopping Center building areas has been provided on Sheet A0.7 as shown in Attachment E. No site plan changes will occur for the Shopping Center. Attachment D provides a summary of the project’s consistency with relevant development standards set forth in the zoning ordinance. Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program The Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program (MTFSP 15PLN-00040) provides a master plan for all facades and signage at the Stanford Shopping Center. Projects that are consistent with the 1 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 2 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 18     Item No. 2. Page 5 of 6 Master Sign Program are seen as consistent with other relevant guidelines, including the El Camino Real Design Guidelines and the Context-based design criteria. Façade Changes The façade improvements will maintain and update the existing façade of the subject tenant space and the outdoor dining area, utilizing a sophisticated color palette that enhances the existing façade and outdoor seating area. The proposed façade design will extend the full height of the tenant space, maintaining consistency with the MTFSP design standards. Updates to the façade includes new raked warm gray plaster stucco, a burgundy retractable canopy, bi-folding door system with dark metal trim, metal planter boxes doors, red accented main entrance and new signage. The existing 645-square-foot outdoor dining area includes a retractable awning with attached heating equipment to provide shade from the sun during the summer and act as heat sources during the winter and evenings. Additionally, the seating is set against the landscape planters adding visual appeal to the entire façade and outdoor experience. These improvements provide a outdoor dining environment and experience and further aligns with other nearby tenants. The project’s design and materials appear cohesive and consistent with those found within the Shopping Center. Signage The MTFSP also details the sign limitations for the Shopping Center. As shown in Attachment E, the max height for a stacked primary sign is 36 inches and 32 inches is proposed. A blade sign is limited to one foot and three inches in height and must provide nine feet clearance. The proposed blade sign provides 11 feet and six inches clearance and is one foot and three inches in height. Additionally, a 3.22-square-foot window sign is proposed on the windowed front entrance, consistent with the MTFSP and the PAMC. Multi-Modal Access & Parking The project site has multi-modal access and parking for pedestrians, bicyclists, private automobiles, and public transit (VTA, Caltrain, and SAMTRANS). The existing buildings within the site are surrounded by surface level parking lots with two multi-level parking structures located at the southern portion of the site along Quarry Road. The center currently has 64 excess vehicle parking spaces and has satisfied its requirement for short-term bike parking spaces. The landlord for the Stanford Shopping Center is working with the City’s Planning and Transportation teams to address long-term bike parking for the center. As a result of this ongoing effort, the mall’s Landlord team was able to secure a Bronze level status as a Bike Friendly Business for 2024-2028 from The League of American Bicyclists. Throughout the site there are additional pedestrian amenities such as outdoor seating areas, planters, fountains, interactive maps, pedestrian level lighting, and public art. Consistency with Application Findings As described in more detail in Attachment B, staff finds that the project is consistent with the required findings for Architectural Review. The project will renovate an existing tenant space Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 19     Item No. 2. Page 6 of 6 that will strengthen the Stanford Shopping Center position as a premier regional shopping center with distinctive businesses and an open, appealing pedestrian environment. The improvements contribute to the exclusive retail, dining, and personal service experience of the Stanford Shopping Center. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance of the public hearing. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 2, 2025, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 30, 2025, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project has been assessed in accordance with the authority and criteria contained in the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the State CEQA Guidelines, and the environmental regulations of the City. Specifically, the project is categorically exempt from the provision of CEQA in accordance with the Class 1 (Existing Facilities) exemption (CEQA Guidelines Section 15301) because the scope of work that is limited to exterior alterations to the façade of an existing building. ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Approve the project with modified findings or conditions; 2. Continue the project to a date (un)certain, with specific direction; or 3. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft Findings for Approval Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Project Plans Report Author & Contact Information ARB3 Liaison & Contact Information Tamara Harrison, Contract Planner Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (951) 506-2061 (650) 329-2321 Tamara.Harrison@mbakerintl.com Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 3 Emails can be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@paloalto.gov Item 2 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 20     24 24 24 25 24 24 7 7 7 7 7 24 25 24 University Avenue _Train Station Sheraton Palo Alto American_Red Cross Fire_Station # 1 Arboretum Children's Center Rescue_Air GARAGE Tower_Well Lytton Square Senior Center Everett Manor Quarry_Substation A_Research_Institute PAMF Lytton Gardens Senior Residence Building JRH Building AA ELECTIONEER COURT Building BB Building CC Building DD Building D THE GARDEN WALK The PlazaBloomingdales Building V SAND HILL WALK Building H THE PAVILION Building E Building F LADY ELLEN PL Building K Macy's Building N THE PLAZA Building M Building W P F Chang's Bank of_America Wilkes -_ Bashford Bldg P Parking Structure Sand Hill Station The Westin Hotel Gym Lot RParking Garage City of Palo Alto Comerica Bank Pizza My Heart Peninsula_Creamery Mac's Smokeshop Wasson Building Center________Skilled Nursing Living Building C 13-190Neuroscience_Health Center 13-040CENTER FOR ACADEMIC MEDICINE Everett House Nordstrom's Crate & Barrel_______The Container_Store Building ONeiman-Marcus Building L AZMOOR PLACE 90-925n Pediatric_Ambulatory Care Center 90-935ROld_Winery 13-019 PSYCHIATRY_ACADEMIC &_CLINIC BLDG. Hoover Pavilion Garage Fleming's Prime_Steakhouse_& Wine Bar 13-045CAM Parking Garage Entrance 74.0' 74.0' 54.0' 54.0' 37.5' 37.5' 36.7' 36.7' 64.0'64.0' 112.5' 49.7' 112.5' 49.7' 76.0' 94.5' 26.0' 87.4'54.1' 161.5' 175.0' 75.0' 112.5' 100.0' 12.5' 125.0' 112.5' 225.0' 100.0' 125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 90.0' 25.0' 90.0' 25.0' 90.0' 50.0'90.0' 50.0'90.0' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5'100.0' 112.5' 25.0'12.5'25.3' 112.5' 50.3' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 25.0'12.5'25.0' 125.0' 125.0' 225.0' 99.5' 27.7'.5' 72.3' 25.0' 125.0' 44.0' 25.0' 25.0' 72.3' .5'27.7'50.5' 99.6' 48.9' 81.0' 48.9' 57.5' 25.0'125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0'148.0' 100.0'160.0' 88.0' 17.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 95.0' 20.5'5.0' 79.5' 90.0' 23.0' 193.0' 112.5' 193.0' 112.5' 100.0' 225.0' 100.0' 225.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'52.1' 44.1' 28.3'25.0' 31.3'25.0' 68.7' 50.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 68.7'25.0'31.3' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 28.3' 44.1' 105.0' 50.0' 225.0' 93.0' 12.5' 37.5' 112.5'130.5' 125.0' 143.0' 112.5' 50.0' 12.5' 93.0' 100.0' 125.0' 100.0'125.0' 100.0' 125.0' 25.0' 125.0' 25.0' 125.0' 25.0' 125.0' 25.0' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 112.5' 112.9' 12.5' 112.5' .8' 99.9' 225.8' 25.0' 90.0' 12.5'16.8' 101.2' 25.0' 101.3' 16.8'12.5' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 15.0' 112.5' 15.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 46.0' 100.0' 100.0 100.0' 50.0 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0'150.0' 100.0' 100.0' 85.0'100.0' 85.0' 175.0' 112.5' 50.0' 37.5' 25.0'25.0' 100.0' 50.0' 55.0' 125.0' 55.0' 125.0'38.0' 75.0' 50.0' 37.5'50.0'12.5'38.0' 125.0' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 93.0' 50.0'93.0' 50.0' 93.0' 62.5'93.0' 62.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5' 25.0' 112.5'125.0' 225.0' 93.0' 62.5'93.0' 62.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5'93.0' 162.5' 93.0' 162.5' 12.5'25.0' 112.5' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 43.0' 100.0' 43.0' 100.0' 50.0' 75.0'50.0' 75.0' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5'30.0' 112.5' 30.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 102.2' 50.0' 102.2' 50.0' 97.5' 50.0' 97.5' 193.0' 105.0' 193.0' 105.0'40.1'.6'1.0'10.5'33.8'7.7'35.6'4.0'6.4'4.8'27.0'11.5' 75.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 22.8'50.0'4.7'50.0' 17.5' 41.5' 72.2' 35.0' 112.5' 35.0' 112.5' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 162.5' 220.0' 162.5' 220.0'26.0' 101.0' 31.5' 68.2' 5.5'32.8' 33.8' 32.8'5.5' 68.2'27.5' 68.2' .8'32.8' 25.0' 32.8' .8' 68.2' 29.5' 68.2' 3.7'32.8' 33.8' 32.8'3.7' 68.2' 27.5' 68.3' 2.7'32.7'32.7' 2.7' 68.3' 31.5' 94.5' 10.2'22.3' 31.5' 101.0' 26.0' 32.8' 5.5' 68.2' 27.5' 68.2' 5.5'32.8'33.8' 32.8'.8' 68.3' 29.5' 68.3' .8'32.8'25.0' 32.7'3.7' 68.2' 72.0' 29.7'72.0' 29.7'72.0' 31.9'72.0' 31.9' 47.8' 51.6' 70.2' 173.3' 64.0' 63.0' 54.0' 162.0' 37.5' 112.5' 37.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 65.0' 112.5' 15.0'18.5'50.0' 131.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 94.0' 50.0' 94.0' 218 15.0'7.0' 150.0' 7.0' 25.0'7.0' 125.0' 100.0'100.0' 12.5'50.0' 112.5' 278.0' 220.0'278.0' 220.0' 50.0' 30.8'.6'10.5'1.0'.6'40.1' 37.8' 33.2' 30.8'33.2'30.8' 46.8' 27.0'4.8'6.4'4.0' 35.6' 23.2' 30.0' 100.0' 30.0' 100.0'50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 35.0' 100.0' 35.0'200.0' 110.0' 49.3' 100.0' 70.0'100.0' 70.0' 100.0' 50.0'100.0' 50.0'100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 25.0' 100.0' 75.0'100.0' 75.0' 95.0' 50.0' 25.0'25 200.0' 110.0' 200.0' 110.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 100.0' 2.5'16.0'47.5' 116.0' 50.0'50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 50.0' 190.0' 34.0' 87.5' 16.0' 102.5' 75.0' 40.0'75.0' 40.0' 75.0' 66.0'75.0' 66.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0'75.0' 106.0'75.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0'50.0' 68.6'50.0' 68.6 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 45.0' 106.0' 45.0' 106.0' 30.0' 106.0' 30.0' 106.0' 25.0' 106.0' 25.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 125.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'50.0' 32.5'5.0' 80.0' 45.0' 112.5'5.0' 80.0' 5.0' 80.0' 130.0' 36.9' 130.0' 36.9' 130.0' 75.6'130.0' 75.6' 64.0' 37.5'64.0' 37.5' 50.0' 75.0'50.0' 75.0'36.0' 112.5' 50.0' 75.0' 14.0'37.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 150.0' 100.0' 50.0'12.5' 100.0' 112.5' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 68.0' 47.6'68.0' 47.6' 64.0' 32.3'64.0' 32.3'64.0' 32.3'64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 32.3'64.0' 32.3' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 72.0' 30.3'72.0' 30.3' 72.0' 32.5'72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5'72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5'72.0' 32.5' 72.0' 32.5'72.0' 32.5' 31.5' 68.2' 2.7' 32.8'22.3' 10.2' 94.5'27.5' 68.2' 3.7'32.7'33.8' 32.8'2.7' 68.2' 70.2' 51.6'70.2' 51.6' 54.0' 63.0'54.0' 63.0' 25.0' 55.0'25.0' 55.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 45.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5'93.0' 50.0'93.0' 50.0' 93.0' 75.0'93.0' 75.0'150.0' 112.5' 110.0' 90.0'110.0' 90.0' 55.0' 10.0'5.0' 100.0' 50.0' 110.0'33.0' 100.0' 33.0' 100.0'160.0' 110.0' 10.0'28.0'10.0' 19.2' 34.4' 35.8' 105.6' 193.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 68.0' 55.0'68.0' 55.0' 58.2' 50.0'58.2' 50.0' 68.0' 54.4'68.0' 54.4' 126.1' 43.0' 126.1' 43.0' 43.0' 79.0'43.0' 79.0' 43.0' 33.5'43.0' 33.5'93. 1055 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0 57.0'57.0'43.0' 100.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0'35.0' 150.0' 35.0' 150.0' 40.0' 150.0' 40.0' 150.0' 37.5' 150.0' 37.5' 150.0' 143.0' 100.0' 43.0'50.0'67.0' 50.0' 33.0' 100.0' 43.0' 50.0'43.0' 50.0'110.0' 50.0'110.0' 50.0' 37.5' 100.0' 33.0' 100.0' 110.0' 50.0' 193.0' 100.0' 12.5' 150.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0'50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0'50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 200.0' 5.6' 35.8' 34.4'35.8'10.0' 200.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0'200.0' 50.0' 200.0' 50.0' 50.0' 100.0' 50.0' 100.0' 64.0' 32.3'64.0' 32.3' 64.0' 34.4'64.0' 34.4' 65.0' 0'150.0' 100.0' 75.0' 190.0' 75.0' 190.0' 6 140.0' 60.0' 140.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0'50.0' 190.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 190.0' 50.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 40.0' 116.0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0' 65.0' 0'.0'50.0'81.4'1 50.0'112.5' 37.5' 112 37.5' 11 22 50.0'70.0' 30.0' 73.0' 30.0' 73.0' 0 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 200.0' 100.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 65.8' 5.4' 55.9' 71.5' 107.9' 150.0' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 542.81' 107 760.5' 76.0' 819.5' 77.3' 97.6' 39.0' 671.1' 657.0' 593.6' 188.0' 333.6' 370.0' 372.1' 357.8' 31.4'34.6' 41.2' 358.5' 370.0' 156.2' 136.5' 347.5' 655.8' 114.4' 333.6' 576.4' 372.1' 655.8' 403.7' 38.0' 136.5' 156.2' 118.8' 30.0' 235.9' 568.3' 21.1'25.8' 49.1' 612.6' 71.8' 519.0' 588.3' 51.3' 79.0' 30.0' 69.9' 31.6' 70.0' 31.6'54.3'30.0' 27.7' 74.5'39.2' 486.4' 32.9' 122.4' 5.3' 977.6' 144.5' 410.6' 135.6' 136.5' 626.5' 137.1' 148.3' 147.7' 114.0' 37.8' 64.0' 136.5' 135.6' 66.4' 55.8' 40.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 514.7' 149.8'55.0'14.4'10.2'41.8'19.3'15.5'13.2'17.3' 133.6' 436.5' 42.4'49.6' 338.1' 64.5' 73.8' 14.4'.0'.2'6.8'.8'.9'.0'1.3'.8'.9'.8'.7'.8'1.1'12.1'9.8'17.2'23.9' 177.8' 66.1' 24.2' 566.5' 45.7'7.0' 329.0' 135.0' 336.8' 143.1' 60.0' 602.1' 229.8'43.9' 124.5' 68.1'195.1'77.2' 204.2' 118.8' 52.0' 65.5' 129.5' 39.0' 97.6' 156.3' 137.1' 121.9' 30.0' 118.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 45.0' 114.5' 45.0' 114.5' 25.0'6.0'25.0' 99.4' 50.0'95.4' 60.0' 171.5' 60.0' 171.5'171.5' 44.8' 171.5' 44.7' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 288.7' 335.5' 235.2' 254.7' 85.8' 89.8' 111.5'89.7' 111.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0' 112.5'100.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 75.0' 112.5'275.0' 77.1' 147.0' 35.4' 128.0' 112.5' 35.4' 147.0' 35.4' 147.0' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 75.0'75.0' 75.0' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 785.2' 56.2' 202.6' 10.9'10.0'10.0'11.9' 84.5' 336.8' 143.1' 329.0' 135.0' 84.5' 21.4'10.8'10.6' 124.9' 112.0' 25.2' 31.7' 17.7' 9.6' 9.2' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5'150.0' 112.5' 89.7' 60.0'89.7' 60.0' 125.0' 54.0' 125.0' 54.0' 125.0' 54.0' 125.0' 54.0' 66.5' 54.0' 66.5' 54.0' 150.2' 54.0' 150.0' 54.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0'37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5'75.0' 37.5' 37.5' 75.0' 37.5' 75.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 69.5' 108.0' 6.0' 139.5' 48.7' 164.5' 42.7'25.0' 48.7' 164.5' 48.7' 164.5' 48.7' 164.5' 48.7' 164.5' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 65.0' 100.0' 65.0' 100.0' 85.0' 150.0' 85.0' 150.0'50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0'100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 198.6' 106.5' 235.2' 100.0' 135.2' 53.2' 153.4' 50.0' 50.0' 153.4'50.0' 50.0' 150.0' 50.0' 150.0' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 48.7' 112.5' .3' 52.0'49.2' 164.5' 45.0' 112.5' 54.0'44.3' 54.0'.3' 112.5' 50.0' 52.5' 2.0' 60.0'48.0' 112.5' 37.5' 75.0'39.5' 60.0' 2.0'15.0' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 98.6' 150.0' 120.0' 128.7' 26.3' 55.0' 114.5' 50.4' 114.6' 350.0' 250.0' 350.0' 250.0' 250.0' 100.0' 250.0' 100.0' 65.0' 50.0'65.0' 50.0' 150.0' 150.0' 50.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 50.0' 106.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 150.0' 100.0' 34.6' 35.6' 161.6' 26.1' 14.6'19.6'40.3' 112.5' 50.0' 112.5' 100.0'112.5' 75.0' 112.5' 125.0' 31.1' 129.5' 30.0' 77.6' 77.6' 93.2' 93.2'100.0'100.0' 100.0' 45.0' 90.0' 14.3'34.0' 18.0'18.0' 18.0'18.0' 18.0'18.0'18.0'18.0' 18.0' 18.0' 18.0' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 75.0' 55.0' 25.0'55.0'25.0' 112.5'125.0' 112.5' 18.0' 50.0' 50.0'50.0' 50.0'50.0' 50.0'50.0' 50.0'50.0' 50.0'58.0' 58.0' 50.0' 54.5' 189.0' 67.0' 64.7' 147.7' 147.1' 115.0 115.0' 147.7'397.4' 356.5'154.8' 30.0' 157.5' 192.0' 644.0' 222.9'8' 228.4' 226.4' 220.4' 116.2' 142.6' 238.3' 169.5' 12.5' 164.1' 109.3' 519.0' 71.8' 612.6' 49.1' 25.8' 21.1' 568.3'198.0'198.0' 242.3' 134.0'133.8' 392.1 373.9' 176.0' 176.0' 182.3' 256.9' 136 610 116-122 150 535 529 525 542 516 140 102 116 164 158156 101 440 444 436 432 427 425 117 119 180 508 500 170 172174 542 544 411 425 429 185 165 181 412 250 420 245 171- 169 441- 445 270 250 251 485 255 271 281 271 281 252 270 240-248 202- 216 223- 229 209 215 247-259 240 232230 311-317 347 265 272-278 418 319 321- 341 328 330 325 330 332 1&2 330 1-3 324 326316 318 373- 377 361 313 334 333325 326 321 335 379 310 332 378 -390 360 - 1A - 1C 360 - 2A - 2C 360 - 3A - 3C 360 - 4A - 4C 360 - 5A - 5C 360 - 6A 8 805 700 600 730 130 312 318 324 317 301 186 192 323 329 151 325 329 334 131129 202 158 180 165 147 143 125149 101 150 170172 165 167169171 252 247 244 250 177 220 261 251- 257 205 245 231 225 213205 170 210- 216 246 129 160 116 112 180 - 180A 171 219 197 208 210 212 216 220 281 400 335 328 330 345 230 302 306 308 312 316 301 50 120 207 345 200 398 539 115 550 321 461 650 9989 87 320322 346 115 264 430 211213 401 440 691 755 202 262 201 303 401 403 254 401 91 40 575 301 146 217 510 127 502 504 506 455 301 25 192 124 163 145 566556 167 528 151 115 125 135 514 575 530- 534 536 540 552 177 156 59 541- 547 205 201 203451449209 219 221 233 235 450 460 470 442 444 420 430 435- 439 346344 333 335 342 344 431 460 450 530 220 220 B 222 240 259- 267 5 520-526 228226 234238 244242 210- 216 228- 234 251 344 326 340 400 420 332330 314 305 300- 310 401 366 369 335 319 301 315 307- 311 303301 229 336 308 310 312 316 318 311 331 315 319 317 347-367 1 369-379 31404 313 325 327 333 385 155 600 623 675 4941 711 100 625 395 520 217 222 148 171 421 101 301 235 258 212 163 115 291 247 131 141 145 150 210 201 207 164 101- 119 121 123 129 139 235 251249 172 206 234240 183 251 270 241- 247 215- 237 124 124A 132 144 152 147 221- 243 275 220 219 235 262 202 245 254252250 151 159 203 215 221 313-317 318 220- 224 238 09 188190 251- 293 180 202 206 275 539 201 27 168 408412 303 305 307 309 95 445 324 211 315 200 280-290 150 162 164 132 127 180 528 336 227 255 167 351 451 551 415 12 103 548 423 323 471 117 218 398 119121 120 101 470 215 401 355 365 111 121 213 100 143 379 453 215 211 331 San Francisquito Creek PC-1992 OR PC- 3266 HD CN PC- 4182 PF CS PC-4465 CS CD-C (P) PC-4612 CC PF CC RM-30 PF RM-30 PC-4063 PC-3 PF CD-C (P) PC-4374 PF PF PF CD-N (P) PF PC-3111 PF PC-4262 PC-4243 RM-20 RMD(NP) PC-3429 CD-N (P) CD-C (P) CD-C (P)P PC-4611 CC(L) PC-4053 RMD(NP) PF PC-2049 PC-3102 RM-30 PC-4339 RM-30 RM-30 PC CD-C(GF)(P) PC-5158 PF(D) El Camino Park El Camino Park Lot A LotF Lot O Lot P Lot C Lot K Cogswell Plaza L Lot K Lytton Plaza Stanford Shopping Center El Palo Alto Park Bryant / Lytto Parking Garage Tract No. 5447 El Palo Alto Park Tim ARBORETUM GROVE Lot S Lot N Lot R Lot Q Cogswell Plaza This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Project Site 0'508' Attachment A: Location Map CITYOF PALOALTOINCORPORATED CALI FORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 1 6 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Alto chodgki, 2022-08-04 15:02:21 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Personal\Planning.mdb) Project Location Item 2 Attachment A Location Map     Packet Pg. 21     ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real Bldg. DD Suite 1300B 25PLN-00027 In order for the ARB to make a future recommendation of approval, the project must comply with the following Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76.020 of the PAMC. Finding #1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project would need to be found in conformance with the following Comprehensive Plan Goals and Policies. Comp Plan Goals and Policies How project adheres or does not adhere to Comp Plan The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the site is Regional Commercial. The project is an eating and drinking use that is allowed within this land use designation. No change in the land use designation is proposed. Land Use and Community Design Element Policy L-4.9: Maintain Stanford Shopping Center as one of the Bay Area’s premiere regional shopping centers. Promote bicycle and pedestrian use and encourage any new development at the Center to occur through infill. The proposed project would modify the exterior storefront of one (1) existing restaurant tenant space and replace it with a new restaurant tenant. The proposed modifications to the exterior of the storefront are cohesive and consistent with designs found throughout the center and would further enhance the Quarry Road entry into the shopping center, helping to maintain the center’s regional significance. Policy L-1.11: Hold new development to the highest development standards in order to maintain Palo Alto’s livability and achieve the highest quality development with the least impacts. The proposal has been reviewed against the Palo Alto General Plan, the PAMC, the Stanford Shopping Center Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program as well as applicable design guidelines to determine consistency with all regulations and Item 2 Attachment B Draft Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 22     standards. Proposed materials and colors have also been reviewed for consistency with Palo Alto’s design quality standards. The proposal has been found to be consistent with standards and will result in a high-quality development. As previously mentioned, the proposal will replace an existing restaurant tenant with another restaurant tenant proposing to modify the exterior façade of the tenant space and no new areas of the overall site would be disturbed; thereby, lessening potential impacts from the project. Program L-2.4.2: Allow housing at Stanford Shopping Center, provided that adequate parking and vibrant retail is maintained and no reduction of retail square footage results from the new housing. Not applicable as housing is not a part of this proposal. Policy L-2.9: Facilitate reuse of existing buildings.The proposed project would modify the exterior facades and outdoor patio area of an existing restaurant tenant space and replace it with a new restaurant tenant. Existing buildings would be used, and no new buildings are proposed. Policy L-2.11: Encourage new development and redevelopment to incorporate greenery and natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas and rain gardens. The proposal does not include any natural features such as green rooftops, pocket parks, plazas, or rain gardens. However, landscape planter boxes will be located on the exterior of the tenant space along the perimeter of the remodeled outdoor dining area and will include drought tolerant plants. The planters will be hand watered. In addition, the Stanford Shopping Center includes multiple landscaped areas throughout the site, specifically Pavillion Five located near to the subject tenant space, which provides shaded seating areas enhanced with lush landscaping. Policy L-4.1: Encourage the upgrading and revitalization of selected Centers in a manner that is compatible with the character of surrounding neighborhoods, without loss of retail and existing small, local businesses. The proposed project would upgrade existing tenant space within the Stanford Shopping Center and is cohesive and compatible with existing designs found throughout the center. This location was Item 2 Attachment B Draft Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 23     previously a restaurant tenant and will remain a restaurant tenant; therefore, no loss of retail would occur. Policy L-4.4: Ensure all Regional Centers and Multi-Neighborhood Centers provide centrally located gathering spaces that create a sense of identity and encourage economic revitalization. Encourage public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, restrooms and public art. The project itself does not propose any gathering spaces nor public amenities such as benches, street trees, kiosks, or public art; however, the modified outdoor patio space creates gathering spaces where customers can also access outdoor dining, as desired. In addition, the Stanford Shopping Center provides multiple gathering spaces and public amenities located throughout the center that are available for use. Program L-4.2.3: Explore and potentially support new, creative and innovative retail in Palo Alto. The proposed project would replace an existing restaurant tenant. The new restaurant will provide additional variety to patrons of the center. Policy B-6.3: Work with appropriate stakeholders, leaseholders, and Stanford University to ensure that the Stanford Shopping Center is sustained as a distinctive, economically competitive and high-quality regional shopping center. Goal L-6: Well-designed Buildings that Create Coherent Development Patterns and Enhance City Streets and Public Spaces. The proposed project has also been reviewed by Stanford University and Simon Mall Management in order to ensure consistency with the Master Tenant Façade and Sign Program as well as ensure consistency with the existing Shopping Center. The project design has been found to be consistent with the Master Program standards and cohesive with the overall Shopping Center. The design of the proposed façade is cohesive with existing facades within the Stanford Shopping Center. Improvements have not been proposed to any City Streets or public spaces within the Shopping Center as a result of this project; however, the improved façade will be more aesthetically pleasing to those entering the Shopping Center from Pear Lane from Quarry Road and for those patrons using the public spaces located near the tenant space. Policy L-5: Maintain the scale and character of The proposal is located within the Stanford Item 2 Attachment B Draft Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 24     the City. Avoid land uses that are overwhelming and unacceptable due their size and scale. Shopping Center which has previously be found to maintain the scale and character of the City. The proposed use is a restaurant tenant that will replace an existing restaurant tenant; therefore, the proposed land use will not be overwhelming and unacceptable due to the size and scale of the operation. The project would be required to be consistent with the zoning requirements and the Master Façade and Sign program for the Stanford Shopping Center. Finding #2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: a. creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, b. preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, c. is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, d. provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, e. enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. Pursuant to PAMC 18.16.090(b), the following context-based design considerations and findings are applicable to this project. These context-based design criteria are intended to provide additional standards to be used in the design and evaluation of development in a commercial district. The purpose is to encourage development in a commercial district to be responsible to its context and compatibility with adjacent development as well as to promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. 1. Pedestrian and Bicycle Environment Project Consistency The design of new projects shall promote pedestrian walkability, a bicycle friendly environment, and connectivity through design elements The project includes exterior façade and patio improvements. The existing tenant space includes access to pedestrian paseos and walkways surrounding the tenant space. The project has been reviewed for adequate walkway widths and conforms to Palo Alto and Stanford Shopping Center requirements; thereby, maintaining connectivity throughout the area of the tenant space and the center overall. Existing bike racks provided by the landlord for the shopping center are located northeast of the tenant space. Additionally, the Item 2 Attachment B Draft Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 25     center provides a number of seating opportunities including bench seating near the bike racks and seating within Pavillion Five. 2. Street Building Facades Street facades shall be designed to provide a strong relationship with the sidewalk and the street (s), to create an environment that supports and encourages pedestrian activity through design elements The project proposes a new façade with a well- designed mixture of colors and materials that would enliven the pedestrian entry for this portion of the Shopping Center. This project also includes a new storefront window system, outdoor dining features, and signage that are well designed and in scale with the pedestrian environment of the Shopping Center. The improvements encourage pedestrian activity at this location while supporting a connection between the tenant space boundaries with pedestrians and patrons on the outside throughout the use of the modified outdoor patio spaces. 3. Massing and Setbacks Buildings shall be designed to minimize massing and conform to proper setbacks The proposed project will not change the existing building setbacks or massing. 4. Low Density Residential Transitions Where new projects are built abutting existing lower scale residential development, care shall be taken to respect the scale and privacy of neighboring properties This finding does not apply. 5. Project Open Space Private and public open space shall be provided so that it is usable for the residents and visitors of the site This finding does not apply. 6. Parking Design Parking shall be accommodated but shall not be allowed to overwhelm the character of the project or detract from the pedestrian environment This finding does not apply. 7. Large Multi-Acre Sites Large sites (over one acre) shall be designed so that street, block, and building patterns are consistent with those of the surrounding neighborhood This finding does not apply 8. Sustainability and Green Building Design Project design and materials to achieve sustainability and green building design The project will utilize energy efficient LED lighting. The project will also conform to Green Item 2 Attachment B Draft Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 26     should be incorporated into the project Building Energy codes for commercial businesses. Finding #3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials, and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The proposed façade design integrates high-quality exterior materials and finishes that are balanced in the design. The proposed raked warm gray plaster stucco, burgundy retractable canopy, bi-folding door system with dark metal trim, metal planter boxes doors and main entry doorway accents complement the existing adjacent tenant spaces in this area of the center. The color palette consists of grays, silvers and earthy reds. The proposed stoic textured gray wall supports with warmth of the red canopies protecting the outdoor patio and main entrance and is further softened with thin backlit building graphics framing the tenant’s main wall sign. The proposed primary signage will include reverse channel letter with halo illumination, pin mounted above retractable canopy and the secondary sign consists pin mounted back-lit lettering located above the main entrance, providing a high-end appearance that is aesthetically pleasing and typical of the Shopping Center. Finding #4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building’s necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The subject building is existing, and the project does not propose any modifications to the Shopping Center’s roadways or sidewalks; therefore, the existing circulation improvements will remain in place. The signage is well placed and consistent with the MTFS program signage regulations providing signage that is in scale with both pedestrians and automobiles entering the Shopping Center from Quarry Road. The aluminum lettering with LED lighting located on the façades of the building provides excellent contrast and are easily visible to visitors of the Shopping Center. Finding #5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site’s functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The outdoor dining areas at the subject tenant space includes planter boxes with drought tolerant plantings. In addition, existing mall planters located along the adjacent parking fields and along pedestrian pathways will remain and will add to the overall landscaped area of the tenant space. Finding #6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The proposed project includes materials that consist of metals, stucco, and clear glazing, many of which are readily recyclable. The project is also subject to the local energy and recycling codes. Item 2 Attachment B Draft Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 27     The proposed signs are illuminated and made of durable long-lasting materials and are subject to the green building energy regulations. Furthermore, updated landscaping complies with State and City of Palo Alto Landscape water efficiency requirements. Item 2 Attachment B Draft Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 28     ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 180 El Camino Real 25PLN-00027 ________________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "Cedar & Sage,” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on April 25, 2025, on file with the Planning & Development Services Department, 250 Hamilton Avenue, Palo Alto, California except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. A copy of this approval with conditions shall be printed on the second page of the plans submitted for building permit and shall incorporate the following changes: a. The proposed blade sign shall be reduced to a maximum height of 15 inches and a maximum width of 24 inches, including the support structure/brackets. 4. USE AND OCCUPANCY PERMIT. A valid Use and Occupancy permit issued by the Building Department is required for “Cedar & Sage” restaurant operation. The operator shall ensure the building’s permitted occupancy is not exceeded at any time. 5. SIGNAGE. Newly approved signage is also included in the overall approval and consists of the following signage: a. Primary wall sign with Halo Illuminated Reverse Channel letters that will read “Cedar & Sage Bistro & Lounge” b. Blade sign that will read “Cedar & Sage Bistro & Lounge” c. Vinyl graphic Window sign at main entry that reads “Cedar & Sage” 6. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 7. PROJECT EXPIRATION. The project approval shall be valid for a period of two years from the original date of approval. Application for a one-year extension of this entitlement may be made prior to expiration. Item 2 Attachment C Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 29     8. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 9. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning, including but not limited to; materials, landscaping and hard surface locations. Contact the Planner-on-Duty at Planner@paloalto.gov to schedule this inspection. BUILDING 10. At Building Permit, install additional bathrooms within Anthropologie or provide a door between Anthropologie and Cedar and Sage. Item 2 Attachment C Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 30     ATTACHMENT D ZONING COMPARISON TABLE 180 El Camino Real (Building DD - Space #1300B), 25PLN-00027 Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC DISTRICT) Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Regulation Required Existing Proposed Minimum Site Area, width and depth No Requirement 52.8 Acres No Change Minimum Front Yard 0-10 feet to create an 8–12-foot effective sidewalk width (1), (2), (8) Varied No Change Rear Yard No Requirement N/A No Change Interior Side Yard No Requirement N/A No Change Street Side Yard No Requirement Varied No Change Min. yard for lot lines abutting or opposite residential districts or residential PC districts 10 feet (2)N/A Not Applicable Build-to-lines 50% of frontage built to setback; 33% of side street built to setback (7) N/A No Change Special Setback 24 feet – see Chapter 20.08 & zoning maps Varied No Change Max. Site Coverage No Requirement N/A Not Applicable Max. Building Height 50 feet (4)Varied No Change Max. Floor Area Ratio (FAR)N/A (9)~1,361,751 net sf No Change Daylight Plane for lot lines abutting one or more residential zone districts other than an RM-40 or PC Zone None (6) (1) No parking or loading space, whether required or optional, shall be located in the first 10 feet adjoining the street property line of any required yard. (2) Any minimum front, street side, or interior yard shall be planted and maintained as a landscaped screen excluding areas required for access to the site. A solid wall or fence between 5 and 8 feet in height shall be constructed along any common interior lot line. (4) As measured to the peak of the roof or the top of a parapet; penthouses and equipment enclosures may exceed this height limit by a maximum of five feet, but shall be limited to an area equal to no more than ten percent of the site area and shall not intrude into the daylight plane. (6) The initial height and slope shall be identical to those of the most restrictive residential zone abutting the site line in question. (7) 25-foot driveway access permitted regardless of frontage, build-to requirement does not apply to CC district. (8) A 12-foot sidewalk width is required along El Camino Real frontage (9) Stanford Shopping Center shall not be permitted to add more than 80,000 square feet of floor area to the total amount of floor area of the shopping center existing as of June 14, 1996, 1,332,362 square feet, for a total square footage not to exceed 1,412,362. Any hotel or mixed-use development for the Stanford Shopping Center shall only be included if approved as part of a Development Agreement for the site. Item 2 Attachment D CC Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 31     Table 1: COMPARISON WITH CHAPTER 18.16 (CC(2) DISTRICT) continued Exclusively Non-residential Development Standards Topic Requirement Proposed Hours of Operation (18.16.040 (b)) Businesses with activities any time between the hours of 10:00 p.m. and 6:00 a.m. where located within 50 feet of residential properties. shall be required to obtain a conditional use permit. The director may apply conditions of approval as are deemed necessary to assure compatibility with the surrounding uses. Not applicable (not within 50 feet of a residential use). However, the CUP issued under 25PLN-00020 indicated planned hours of operation and approved alcohol service. Outdoor Sales and Storage (18.16.040 (h)) Except in shopping centers, all permitted office and commercial activities shall be conducted within a building, except for: (i) Incidental sales and display of plant materials and garden supplies occupying no more than 2,000 square feet of exterior sales and display area, (ii) Outdoor eating areas operated incidental to permitted eating and drinking services or intensive retail uses, (iii) Farmers’ markets that have obtained a conditional use permit, and (iv) Recycling centers that have obtained a conditional use permit. Stanford Shopping Center is a “shopping center” as defined in Title 18, therefore this regulation does not apply. Recycling Storage (18.16.040 (i)) All new development, including approved modifications that add thirty percent or more floor area to existing uses, shall provide adequate and accessible interior areas or exterior enclosures for the storage of recyclable materials in appropriate containers. The design, construction and accessibility of recycling areas and enclosures shall be subject to approval by the architectural review board, in accordance with design guidelines adopted by that board and approved by the city council pursuant to Section 18.76.020. The proposed project is not adding square footage and adequate recycling storage is provided within the larger shopping center. Employee Showers (18.16.040 (j)) Employee shower facilities shall be provided for any new building constructed or for any addition to or enlargement of any existing building as specified in Table 6 of 18.16.040(j)) Not Applicable. Proposed project is renovation of an existing building and doesn’t enlarge the building. Office Use Restrictions (18.16.050) Total floor area of permitted office uses on a lot shall not exceed 25% of the lot area, provided a lot is permitted between 2,500 and 5,000 sf of office use. The maximum size may be increased with a CUP issued by the Director. Not Applicable. Proposed project is a restaurant. 18.16.090 Context-Based Design Criteria. As further described in a separate attachment, development in a commercial district shall be responsible to its context and compatible with adjacent development, and shall promote the establishment of pedestrian oriented design. Item 2 Attachment D CC Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 32     Table 2: CONFORMANCE WITH CHAPTER 18.52 (Off-Street Parking and Loading) for Retail Services* Type Required Existing Proposed Vehicle Parking 1/275 sf of gross floor area for a total of 5,216 parking spaces 5,265 spaces No change Bicycle Parking 1/2,750 sf (40% long term and 60% short term) equals 523 spaces for the site overall. 377 spaces (101 long term, 272 short and 4 cargo) Landlord has satisfied the short-term bike parking requirement and will continue working on a bike program for the center in an effort to satisfy the long-term parking requirement. Loading Space 29 loading spaces ~25 loading spaces No change * On-site employee amenity space is exempted from the parking requirements Table 3: Stanford Shopping Center Master Sign Program Sign Types, Number, and Locations Sign Requirement Number Maximum Size Location Primary sign (wall sign) Required 1 Maximum height 24” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics; Stacked signs not to exceed 36” in height; no sign closer to 24” from demising wall or building corner. Primary façade (northeast elevation) Banner or blade sign (Projecting sign) Required 1 Banner: 24” projection x 60” height Secondary façade (north elevation) Canopy or Awning Sign (optional)1 Maximum height is 9” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics None proposed Super-graphic (optional)Not limited None None proposed Secondary sign or Emblem (optional)1 (where applicable) Secondary sign: Maximum height 18” and otherwise proportional to logo characteristics Emblem: Maximum height is 24” in any direction. None proposed Advertising graphics and signs (optional)Not limited None Main Entrance (north elevation) Digital images and digital signage (optional)Not limited 42” measured diagonally None proposed *Maximum Allowable Sign Area for Wall Signs. Wall signs and sign area are defined in PAMC 16.20.010. Canopy and awning signs erected parallel to a building face are also considered wall signs. The maximum total allowable sign area of a single wall sign or the combined total maximum allowable area of multiple wall signs per building face shall be consistent with the sign area limits outlined in PAMC 16.20 Table 3. Staff level architectural review is required for any sign at the shopping center exterior that requires approval of an exception to these sign area limits. Logos are considered wall signs and can be utilized as a primary wall sign or can be a component of a primary wall sign. Logos shall not exceed the maximum height of a stacked sign, which is 36-inches. Logos shall be included in calculations of maximum wall sign area limits. Item 2 Attachment D CC Zoning Consistency Analysis     Packet Pg. 33     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 “180 El Camino Real—Cedar and Sage Façade revisions” 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/180-El-Camino-Real-Cedar-and-Sage Item 2 Attachment E Project Plans     Packet Pg. 34     Item No. 3. Page 1 of 9 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 15, 2025 Report #: 2504-4501 TITLE PUBLIC HEARING / QUASI-JUDICIAL. 340 Portage Avenue [24PLN-00322]: Recommendation on Applicant’s Request for Major Architectural Review Approval for a Master Sign Program. The Proposed Project Includes Nine Signs. CEQA Status: The City Council Certified a Final EIR for The Project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023 (Resolution No. 10123). For More Information Contact the Project Planner Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends that the Architectural Review Board (ARB): 1. Recommend that the Director of Planning and Development Services approve the Master Sign Program based on the findings in Attachment B and subject to the Conditions of Approval in Attachment C. EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The applicant is requesting approval of a Master Sign Program for the property located at 340 Portage Avenue, known as The Cannery Palo Alto (the Project). The Master Sign Program includes seven sign types: 1. Type EI – Entry ID 2. Type PI – Parking ID 3. Type D2 – Directional Wall 4. Type T1 – Project/Tenant ID Wall 5. Type T2 – Tenant ID Canopy 6. Type PA – Parking Address 7. Type BA – Building Address The proposal includes a total of nine signs, including: 1. Two internally illuminated directory signs (Type EI); 2. Two internally illuminated parking identification wall signs (Type PI); 3. Two non-illuminated directional wall signs (Type D2); Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 35     Item No. 3. Page 2 of 9 4. One internally illuminated tenant identification wall sign (Type T1); and, 5. Two internally illuminated tenant identification awning wall signs (Type T2). In addition, the project includes building address signage (Type BA) and parking address signage (Type PA), but these signage types are not regulated under zoning. The proposed signage is appropriately scaled to complement the existing buildings and site context. The site will retain existing business-specific signage for the Playground Global tenant, while the proposed Master Sign Program serves to unify wayfinding signage across the property and provide consistency for new tenant signage, enhancing overall consistency and clarity. BACKGROUND Project Information Owner:Robert Tersini, Sobrato Development Owner Representative:Dustin Passalalpi Sign Company Representative:Mardeen Gordon, SignAge & ArtWorks Legal Counsel:Not Applicable Property Information Address:340 Portage Avenue Neighborhood:Ventura Lot Dimensions & Area:Various & 12.531 acres Housing Inventory Site:Yes; signage for approved uses has no impact on HIS Located w/in a Plume:Yes; COE Plume Area Protected/Heritage Trees:Not Applicable (trees are present; signs would have no impact on any trees on or near the property) Historic Resource(s):Yes, see discussion below Existing Improvement(s):142,744 square feet; 21 feet 2 inches; 1948 Existing Land Use(s):Research & Development, Commercial Recreation Adjacent Land Uses & Zoning: North: NV-MXH (North Ventura, High Density Mixed Use); existing uses include various commercial land uses West: NV-R2 (North Ventura Low Density Residential); existing uses are single-family residential East: PC-5600 (Planned Park and affordable housing as part of the development agreement); existing parking lot South: NV-MXM (North Ventura Medium Density Mixed Use); existing uses include various commercial and multi-family housing under construction Aerial View of Property: Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 36     Item No. 3. Page 3 of 9 Source: Google Satellite Maps Land Use Designation & Applicable Plans Comp. Plan Designation:Mixed Use Zoning Designation:PC-5596 and PC-5597 (Planned Community) 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) Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 37     Item No. 3. Page 4 of 9 Prior City Reviews & Action City Council:None PTC:None HRB:None ARB:None PROJECT DESCRIPTION The proposed project includes a Master Sign Program for the proposed development under the Sobrato Development Agreement. The intent of the program is to establish a unified and consistent display of all business identification signage throughout the property. The Master Sign Program includes seven sign types: 1. Type EI – Entry ID 2. Type PI – Parking ID 3. Type D2 – Directional Wall 4. Type T1 – Project/Tenant ID Wall 5. Type T2 – Tenant ID Canopy 6. Type PA – Parking Address 7. Type BA – Building Address The project proposes the installation of nine new signs: •Two internally illuminated directory signs (Type EI); •Two internally illuminated parking identification wall signs (Type PI); •Two non-illuminated directional wall signs (Type D2); •One internally illuminated tenant identification wall sign (Type T1); Two internally illuminated tenant identification awning wall signs (Type T2). The proposed sign materials include paint finishes in Cannery Orange, Cannery Gray, White, Playground Red, Playground Gray, and Slightly Blue. Sign lettering will consist of face-lit, edge-lit push-through, or non-illuminated flat cut-out (FCO) matte acrylic letters, mounted on either acrylic-faced metal panels or fabricated aluminum cabinets. Requested Entitlements, Findings, and Purview: The following discretionary applications are being requested: •Architectural Review – Master Sign Program: In accordance with Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) section 16.20.030 "Master sign program" means a program allowing the occupants of a building or project including a number of buildings to combine the total lawful sign coverage into one or more lawful signs in an integrated design concept. The master sign program shall designate the sign locations and areas of all signs in the program, as well as typical sign designs, colors and faces. Pursuant to the approval of the Master Sign Program, subsequent individual signs may be erected without further Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 38     Item No. 3. Page 5 of 9 design review. The findings for a Master Sign Program are those for Major Architectural Review. ANALYSIS1 Staff reviewed the proposed project for conformance with relevant plans, policies, and regulations and finds that the project is mostly in conformance with these requirements as well as the Architectural Review findings as detailed further in this section. Staff notes the two directory signs along Park Boulevard will require minor modifications prior to approval in order to comply with the code requirements for directory signs as summarized below: 340 Portage Avenue Signs Sign Type Code Compliance (or Deviation) Two Directory Signs (Type EI)Signs currently exceed the allowed square footage by two square feet and do not include the directional arrows necessary to be considered directory signs. Two Parking Identification Wall Signs (Type PI)Compliant Two Directional Wall Signs (Type D2)Compliant One Tenant Identification Wall Sign (Type T1)Compliant Two Tenant Identification Awning Wall Signs (Type T2) Compliant Consistency with the Comprehensive Plan, Area Plans, and Guidelines2 The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the project site is Mixed Use. The Mixed Use designation is intended to promote pedestrian-oriented places that layer compatible land uses, public amenities and utilities together at various scales and intensities. The designation allows for multiple functions within the same building or adjacent to one another in the same general vicinity to foster a mix of uses that encourages people to live, work, play, and shop in close proximity. Most typically, mixed-use developments have retail on the ground floor and residences above. This category includes Live/Work, Retail/Office, Residential/Retail and Residential/Office development. The site was redesignated to Mixed Use in conjunction with the approval of the Sobrato Development Agreement. The proposed directory, tenant, and 1 The information provided in this section is based on analysis prepared by the report author prior to the public hearing. The Architectural Review Board in its review of the administrative record and based on public testimony may reach a different conclusion from that presented in this report and may choose to make alternative findings. A change to findings may result in a final action that is different from the staff recommended action in this report. 2 The Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan is available online: bit.ly/PACompPlan2030 Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 39     Item No. 3. Page 6 of 9 directional signage helps with wayfinding on the site and the Master Sign Program allows for consistency in the signage materials and colors across the site. The proposed project would provide high quality signage for a historic Cannery building, consistent with Comprehensive Plan goals and policies related to high quality design. Specifically, the project is consistent with Policy L-6.10, which encourages high quality signage that is attractive, appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. A summary of the project’s consistency with the Comprehensive Plan is provided in the findings under ARB Finding #1 in Attachment B. Municipal Code Compliance3 Staff prepared a detailed review of the proposed project’s consistency with applicable zoning standards (Attached D), and found that the proposed project complies with all applicable codes. Although not applicable, the proposed signs are also consistent with the Context Based Design Criteria for the North Ventura District (PAMC 18.29.020) because the signs help define the primary entrances to the parking, buildings, businesses, and site overall. They improve wayfinding within the site for pedestrians, bicyclists, and vehicles. Directory Signs – Type EI Per PAMC 16.20.160, in all districts where group occupancies in office buildings are permitted, directory signs may be erected displaying the names of the occupants of a building who are engaged in a particular profession, business or the like. Such signs shall be situated at least two feet inside the property line and shall not exceed eight feet in height. Such signs may have an area of four-square feet, plus one and one-half square feet per name, in no event to exceed seventy-five square feet. The proposed directory signs do not currently meet the code for two reasons. The signs are currently approximately nine square feet where only seven square feet is allowed, and the signs do not currently have arrows on the signage to appropriately direct the viewer to the appropriate location. As a freestanding sign (versus a directory sign) the applicant would only be allowed to have one such signage along a frontage. The applicant has expressed their intent to modify the sign prior to approval to comply with the directory sign requirements to meet the code requirements, which will also allow for two such signs along the Park Boulevard frontage. Directory signs must also be less than eight feet in height, which the proposed signs comply with (at approximately four feet in height). Parking Identification Directional Signs – Type PI The two proposed parking identification signs, which read “PARKING,” indicate the entrances and exits to the garage and are classified as directional signage. Per PAMC 16.20.160, directional signage is limited to providing wayfinding information only and must not include 3 The Palo Alto Zoning Code is available online: bit.ly/PAZoningCode Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 40     Item No. 3. Page 7 of 9 business names. Such signs are restricted to a maximum of six square feet in area and a height of three feet when located more than 20 feet from a property line. Each of the proposed signs is 5.8 square feet in area and 10.5 inches in height. Their size is appropriate in relation to the scale of the wall on which they are mounted and ensures clear visibility and legibility for drivers. Directional Wall Signs – Type D2 The two proposed directional wall signs will include both the tenant/business name and arrows indicating the direction to the respective business locations. Each Type D2 sign is 49 square feet in area and contributes to the overall signage for the building. The combined signage remains within the total maximum allowable area of 135.8 square feet, as determined by the 4,985- square-foot building face. Tenant Identification Wall Sign – Type T1 One proposed wall sign on the east elevation, which reads “THE CANNERY PALO ALTO,” reinforces and celebrates the project’s brand identity. It also has the potential to accommodate a single tenant logo on the primary elevation in the future. The sign is 30 square feet in area, well within the maximum allowable sign area of 67.5 square feet. Awning Wall Signs – Type T2 Two awning wall signs reading “TENANT ID” are proposed, each measuring 12.5 square feet. Both signs are smaller than the maximum allowable wall sign area. The proposed tenant identification signage will project above the existing entry canopies but will remain below the top edge of the wall to which it is attached. Address Identification Signs – Type BA and PA One proposed Building Address sign, reading “340,” measures one foot in height, three feet in length, and has a total area of three square feet. Additionally, one proposed Parking Address sign, reading “400,” measures 10.5 inches in height, two feet six inches in length, and covers an area of 2.37 square feet. Both signs are classified as Address Identification per PAMC Section 16.04.240. Each character meets the minimum requirements of four inches in height with a stroke width of at least one-half inch and are consistent with relevant size and illumination standards outlined in Section 502.1 of Chapter 5 of the California Building Code. This project does not account for existing individual business freestanding, wall, and projecting signs, which are calculated separately based on the frontage of each tenant space. Consistency with Historic Eligibility The building at 340 Portage Avenue was deemed potentially eligible for the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR), but not currently listed. The approved Development Agreement and the associated Environmental Impact Report adopted by Council allowed for partial demolition of the existing cannery building, which was determined to result in a significant and unavoidable impact on this historic resource. The proposed demolition has occurred and, Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 41     Item No. 3. Page 8 of 9 although the site will be reevaluated following the completion of construction in accordance with the conditions of approval, the site is not assumed to have retained integrity such that it is still eligible for listing. Nevertheless, the proposed signage on the building is removable and therefore would not have the potential to affect the historic character of the building. Consistency with Application Findings Staff finds that the proposed Master Sign Program establishes a unified and consistent approach to business identification signage. The signage is thoughtfully designed to align with the historic character of the site, while ensuring consistency in quality, placement, size, color, and illumination methods. The two proposed directory signs must be reduced in size by two square feet and arrows must be added to direct viewers to the correct buildings. The applicant has expressed their intent to modify these signs accordingly to align with the code prior to approval of the project. Architectural Review findings are provided in Attachment B and may be modified by the ARB as needed. Staff recommends that with the proposed modifications, the Master Sign Program is consistent with the code and the ARB findings for approval. STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT The Palo Alto Municipal Code requires notice of this public hearing be published in a local paper and mailed to owners and occupants of property within 600 feet of the subject property at least ten days in advance. Notice of a public hearing for this project was published in the Daily Post on May 2, 2025, which is 13 days in advance of the meeting. Postcard mailing occurred on April 30, 2025, which is 15 days in advance of the meeting. Public Comments As of the writing of this report, no project-related, public comments were received. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW The subject project was analyzed in an Environmental Impact Report. The City Council certified a Final EIR for the project (SCH#2021120444) on September 12, 2023 (Resolution No. 10123). ALTERNATIVE ACTIONS In addition to the recommended action, the Architectural Review Board may: 1. Continue the project to a date (un)certain with specific direction; or 2. Recommend project denial based on revised findings. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Location Map Attachment B: Draft ARB Findings Attachment C: Draft Conditions of Approval Attachment D: Zoning Comparison Table Attachment E: Project Plans Item 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 42     Item No. 3. Page 9 of 9 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 3 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 43     AMBERT AVENUE EL DORADO AVENUE LAMBERT AV ASH STREET BIRCH STREET PARK BOULEVARD PARK BOULEVAR ACACIA AVENUE PORTAGE AVENUE PENINSULA 3261 455 3239 411 401 415- 425 3111- 3159 210 220 230 336 340 370 380 360 200 3200 3180 3250 290 2 2773- 2781 110 2811- 2815 365 3225 435 3260 400 460 5 411 450 430 400 3197 3241 1 405 399 429 440 435 425 3200 3250 375 365 385 395 3201 3225 278 3275 320 3251 3290 268 270 280 271 281 3335 291 2799 129 149 3101 265 275 285 295 245 315 305 345 3040 3045 120 130 429 447 3350 292 300 295A 295B 305A 305B 420 This map is a product of the City of Palo Alto GIS This document is a graphic representation only of best available sources. Legend Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Palo Alto Assessment Parcel Outside Palo Alto abc Road Centerline Small Text (TC) Curb Face (RF) Pavement Edge (RF) Address Label Points (AP) Current Features 0' 122' Attachment ALocation Map340 Portage Avenue CITY OF PALO ALTOINCORPORATED CALIFORNIA P a l o A l t oT h e C i t y o f APRIL 16 1894 The City of Palo Alto assumes no responsibility for any errors. ©1989 to 2016 City of Palo Altokpaulau, 2025-04-21 09:26:47 (\\cc-maps\Encompass\Admin\Meta\View.mdb) Item 3 Attachment A Location Map     Packet Pg. 44     4 3 2 1 ATTACHMENT B ARB FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL 340 Portage Avenue/24PLN-00322 The design and architecture of the proposed project, as conditioned, complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in PAMC Chapter 18.76. Finding 1: The design is consistent with applicable provisions of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan, Zoning Code, coordinated area plans (including compatibility requirements), and any relevant design guides. The project is consistent with Finding #1 because: The design is consistent and compatible with the applicable elements of the city's Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed project is consistent with policy L-6.10: Encourage high quality signage that is attractive, energy-efficient, and appropriate for the location, and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs. The design of the signs, materials, and colors are attractive and appropriate for the building and the surrounding area. Finding 2: The project has a unified and coherent design, that: (a) Creates an internal sense of order and desirable environment for occupants, visitors, and the general community, (b) Preserves, respects and integrates existing natural features that contribute positively to the site and the historic character including historic resources of the area when relevant, (c) Is consistent with the context-based design criteria of the applicable zone district, (d) Provides harmonious transitions in scale, mass and character to adjacent land uses and land use designations, (e) Enhances living conditions on the site (if it includes residential uses) and in adjacent residential areas. The project is consistent with Finding #2 because: This finding can be made in the affirmative, as the proposed signage design is appropriate for the historic building setting. The signage employs consistent materials and a cohesive color palette, resulting in a unified and visually coherent appearance across the entire site. Finding 3: The design is of high aesthetic quality, using high quality, integrated materials and appropriate construction techniques, and incorporating textures, colors, and other details that are compatible with and enhance the surrounding area. The project is consistent with Finding #3 because: The project incorporates high-quality materials, including durable paint finishes in Cannery Orange, Cannery Gray, White, Playground Red, Playground Gray, and Slightly Blue. Sign lettering will consist of face-lit, edge-lit push-through, or non-illuminated flat cut-out (FCO) matte acrylic letters, mounted on acrylic-faced metal panels or fabricated aluminum cabinets. The selected colors and materials are Item 3 Attachment B Draft Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 45     4 3 2 1 thoughtfully chosen to complement the historic architecture of the building and integrate harmoniously with the surrounding context. Finding 4: The design is functional, allowing for ease and safety of pedestrian and bicycle traffic and providing for elements that support the building's necessary operations (e.g. convenient vehicle access to property and utilities, appropriate arrangement and amount of open space and integrated signage, if applicable, etc.). The project is consistent with Finding #4 because: The intent of the signage design is to provide functional wayfinding throughout the site while enhancing pedestrian safety. The directory signs serve as pedestrian-scale wayfinding to the businesses from Park Boulevard and tenant identification signs help visitors easily recognize the businesses located within the buildings. Additionally, the directional parking signs positioned at each of the two garage entrances guide drivers toward the appropriate circulation routes, promoting safe and efficient on-site navigation. Finding 5: The landscape design complements and enhances the building design and its surroundings, is appropriate to the site's functions, and utilizes to the extent practical, regional indigenous drought resistant plant material capable of providing desirable habitat that can be appropriately maintained. The project is consistent with Finding #5 because: Finding #5 is not applicable for this project. There is no landscaping that would be impacted by the proposed signage. Landscaping was previously reviewed and approved by Council as part of the Development Agreement (22PLN-00287). Finding 6: The project incorporates design principles that achieve sustainability in areas related to energy efficiency, water conservation, building materials, landscaping, and site planning. The project is consistent with Finding #6 because: The proposed sign is made of durable long-lasting materials. Although the signs are illuminated, lighting is the minimum necessary to provide for wayfinding after dark and is generally limited to the lettering itself, partially shielded by the materials. Item 3 Attachment B Draft Findings for Approval     Packet Pg. 46     ATTACHMENT C CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL 340 Portage Avenue 24PLN-00322 _________________________________________________________________ PLANNING DIVISION 1. CONFORMANCE WITH PLANS. Construction and development shall conform to the approved plans entitled, "The Cannery Palo Alto, Master Sign Program, 340 Portage, Palo Alto, CA 94080” uploaded to the Palo Alto Online Permitting Services Citizen Portal on May 4, 2025, except as modified by these conditions of approval. 2. BUILDING PERMIT. Apply for a building permit and meet any and all conditions of the Planning, Transportation, and Building Departments. 3. BUILDING PERMIT PLAN SET. The ARB approval letter including all Department conditions of approval for the project shall be printed on the plans submitted for building permit and shall incorporate the following changes: a. On Sheet 16 reduce entry ID sign area to 7 sq ft or 8.5 sq ft if including an additional tenant name. Add directional arrows to both directory signs. b. On Sheet 18 remove references to Directory Signs as these signs are directional signs and meet the requirements accordingly. c. On Sheet 19 revise the max allowable to be 6 sf as this parking sign is a directional sign. The proposed directional sign is 5.8 sf and therefore complies. d. Revise Sheets 26 and 27 to be consistent with the details on Sheets 28 through 30. The proposed sizes for these two tenant signs is listed as both 12.5 sf and 15 sf. Both sizes are compliant with the allowable sign size. 4. COLORS AND MATERIALS. The final colors for the signage will align with the colors and materials approved by the architectural review board. 5. PROJECT MODIFICATIONS. All modifications to the approved project shall be submitted for review and approval prior to construction. If during the Building Permit review and construction phase, the project is modified by the applicant, it is the responsibility of the applicant to contact the Planning Division/project planner directly to obtain approval of the project modification. It is the applicant’s responsibility to highlight any proposed changes to the project and to bring it to the project planner’s attention. 6. INDEMNITY. To the extent permitted by law, the Applicant shall indemnify and hold harmless the City, its City Council, its officers, employees and agents (the “indemnified parties”) from and against any claim, action, or proceeding brought by a third party against the indemnified parties and the applicant to attack, set aside or void, any permit or approval authorized hereby for the Project, including (without limitation) reimbursing the City for its actual attorneys’ fees and costs incurred in defense of the litigation. The City may, in its sole discretion, elect to defend any such action with attorneys of its own choice. 7. FINAL INSPECTION. A Planning Division Final inspection will be required to determine substantial compliance with the approved plans prior to the scheduling of a Building Division final. Any revisions during the building process must be approved by Planning. Contact your Project Planner, Kristina Dobkevicius at Kristina.Dobkevicius@PaloAlto.gov to schedule this inspection. Item 3 Attachment C Draft Conditions of Approval     Packet Pg. 47     Attachment D Zoning Table 340 Portage Avenue Proposed Sign / Type PAMC 16.24 Compliance Allowed Dimensions/Height Existing Dimensions/Height Proposed Dimensions Directory Signs (Type E1) No 4 sf plus 1.5 sf for each additional tenant (7 sf) N/A Two 9.4 sf (not compliant) Parking Identification Wall Signs (Type PI) Yes 6 sf, 3ft N/A Two 5.8 sf, 10.5“ Parking Identification Directional Wall Signs (Type D2) Yes 135.8 sf N/A Two 49 sf each Tenant Identification Wall Sign (Type T1) Yes 67.5 sf N/A 30 sf Tenant Identification Awning Wall Signs (Type T2) Yes 60 sf N/A Two 15 sf each Item 3 Attachment D Zoning Table     Packet Pg. 48     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 “340 Portage 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.cityofpaloalto.org/Departments/Planning-Development-Services/Current- Planning/Projects/340-Portage-Avenue-Master-Sign-Program Item 3 Attachment E Project Plans     Packet Pg. 49     Item No. 5. Page 1 of 1 Architectural Review Board Staff Report From: Planning and Development Services Director Lead Department: Planning and Development Services Meeting Date: May 15, 2025 Report #: 2505-4625 TITLE Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for April 17, 2025 RECOMMENDATION Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) adopt the attached meeting minutes. ATTACHMENTS Attachment A: Minutes of April 17, 2025 AUTHOR/TITLE: ARB Liaison1 & Contact Information Steven Switzer, Historic Preservation Planner (650) 329-2321 Steven.Switzer@PaloAlto.gov 1 Emails may be sent directly to the ARB using the following address: arb@PaloAlto.gov. Item 5 Staff Report     Packet Pg. 50     Page 1 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD MEETING DRAFT MINUTES: April 17, 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 April 17, 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, Board member David Hirsch Absent: None. Oral Communications None. Agenda Changes, Additions and Deletions None. Chair Rosenberg had a planned absence for June 5. 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 and recently submitted items, 2025 meeting schedules and updates. Chair Rosenberg queried if there was a comment that people that had applied needed to reapply since there was an extension on the recruitment process. Mr. Switzer replied applications previously received were not carried over so it would be a new recruitment and any one that would like to be considered would need to reapply. Study Session 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 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 51     Page 2 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 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. Boardmember Adcock disclosed she visited the site. Vice Chair Chen had no disclosure. Chair Rosenberg visited the site and had no disclosures. Boardmember Baltay visited the site and had nothing else to disclose. Boardmember Hirsch had visited the site. Kristina Dobkevicius, Associate Planner, provided a slide presentation about the project proposal including project location, project overview, noncomplying facility, key considerations and recommendations. Boardmember Baltay asked for an explanation about the relocated use of space from the third floor to the ground floor on the noncomplying facility slide. He wanted to know if it was related to the use of floor area whether it was retail or commercial. Ms. Dobkevicius explained on the slide how the second floor area was relocated to the ground floor. She stated there was an existing basement for the existing structure. The space on the second floor was existing nonconforming floor area. Claire Raybould, Manager of Current Planning, added the pink and green on the right side was the floor area of the project. The green would be the allowable floor area. They were keeping their legal noncomplying floor area over the allowable floor area and modifying it in a way that would include increases in height to the building where they had the shrink wrap rule for the downtown that says the floor area can be moved as long as the envelope of the building did not change. With the non-TDR floor area, the envelop of the building was changing. The area in the beige was the allowable floor area that could exceed the height and envelope but the green and pink would have to remain within the red line if they wanted to keep it as noncomplying floor area. She confirmed it was a separate issue of the uses of the building and the diagram was regarding the structure, not the use of the structure. Boardmember Adcock did not understand the hatched pink on the left. She asked if she was correct that it was being removed and translated to some of the green. She asked what the applicant would have to do for the zoning text amendment and if that was applicable just to this project. Ms. Raybould explained the applicant was making the case that they were building legal floor area in the green and the additional floor area they were keeping was within the allowable but that was not how Staff saw it or their understanding of what Council saw as staying within the envelope. If all the green exceeding the red was being done with TDRs, that could be done without a code amendment but they were trying to limit how much was being done through TDRs. She commented the text amendment had just been filed. It was filed separate from this project. There had been a number of projects generally in Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 52     Page 3 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 the downtown area that were interested in potentially changing this section of the code. It would be an amendment to 18.18.120 to allow for floor area to be moved around in a different way as long as it remained under the height of the zoning district. It would give more flexibility on exceeding the envelope and moving things around. There were other projects that had come forward even to Council through prescreenings that were interested in just increasing the height of the building for ground floor retail. Even that was not within the bounds of what 18.18.120 would allow. It would start with a prescreening in front of Council as the first step. If an ordinance passes, they would be able to do the project as proposed. Boardmember Baltay wanted to know if the text amendment would be specific to this project or an amendment to the entire code. Ms. Raybould clarified it would be an amendment to the entire downtown code. Vice Chair Chen asked what the difference of the two scenarios. She asked about the firewall requirement. She remarked when looking at the floor plans, there were no dimensions but it seemed like the glazing was close to the property line on sheet A2.3. Ms. Dobkevicius explained both options would require a lot merger application, go through Architectural Review Board and need the CUP for the conditional use permit for the rooftop. The only difference was the top image was in case they decide to only merge 530 and 540. The western wall between building 500 and 540 was blank so if they merged the three properties they could resolve the architectural elements of that wall and make it more pedestrian friendly. It would have more glad and visual interest. Ms. Raybould added the type of mapping process would be the same no matter what. Everything would be based on the larger parcel. The data provided as part of the application was based on just 530 and 540. They would have to update that zoning code. She stated 500 University was a fairly recent project so presumably if that was code compliant and these were code compliant that should not be an issue. They had not fully done that analysis in that scenario yet. She said the firewall requirement would be three feet set back from the property line to be able to have windows. She commented there can be fire rated glass that does not open on the property line. She stated the fire rated wall was required to be three feet from the property line if there would be openings. Boardmember Hirsch wanted to know if the exterior elements seen on University would be changed or was it presented as part of the picture. He asked if the connection to the garage was a required city connection. Ms. Dobkevicius explained those two images were between 500 and 530 University where they were proposing a pedestrian access to the garage space at the back. They were not facing University and were interior elevations. There would be no physical connection. The properties would be joined together to form a larger parcel. The space between 500 University and 540 University combined together would be addressed in terms of adding additional landscaping and glass making it more pedestrian friendly. Ms. Raybould added there was a pedestrian path going down the alley going toward the parking garage. This would open up to that pedestrian access area. She remarked the connection to the garage was private property. Ms. Dobkevicius added the connection would be there but the elevations would look different depending on which option they went for. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 53     Page 4 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Boardmember Baltay wanted to discuss more of the pedestrian alley and to understand what the restrictions would be for residential uses on this property. James Tefend, applicant, provided a slide presentation about the 540 University Ave. project proposal including a background of the project, views of the intended design elements, street view, site location, floor plans, proposed enhancements to the existing breezeway connection from University Avenue to the public parking garage, proposed building height, roof deck, building canopies, view looking east, view from the back looking at breezeway and entrance into rear office, the main façade, view looking toward the building entrance located on the corner, the western façade shown blank with the intention to remove the property line between the 500 University site and combine a new project line to avoid a fire rated façade and proposed materials. PUBLIC COMMENT Faith Brigel queried if a garage basement was going to be built and what would accommodate the extra demand for parking. Jack Norman wondered how City Council predicted this project would affect Palo Alto and their housing. Mr. Tefend stated they were not proposing an underground parking garage since the site was within half mile to Caltrain. They looked at residential for the site but it was not economically viable so there was interest for an additional office building for the site. Boardmember Adcock commented about the exit onto the adjacent property and questioned if they were reviewing this project as if it was all combined. She asked if the south side toward the garage noted as public way was truly a public way people in all the buildings could exit out to. She asked if they had analyzed where the imaginary property line was and how much opening they were going to have. Ms. Raybould explained because it was the same property owner, they could put some sort of easement if they wanted to on that area that would allow them to exit out but otherwise would not be allowed to have any sort of door to exit out. When they looked at it, they were provided the data and information for 530 and 540 University alone but they did have the 500 University option of potentially combining it. They were trying to look at both options. Because it was a preliminary review, they did not dig into all of the details of those components. She confirmed the south side noted as a public way was truly a public way. Mr. Tefend remarked they had analyzed where the imaginary property line was and how much opening they were going to have. He said when they come back for the full application, they would show all the diagrams and calculations. Once the property line was removed, they would show that they could build both buildings on the same lot and meet the building code requirement for maximum building area and setbacks. Regarding the south property line side to the garage, they did the calculations and positioned the building wall in order to meet the maximum amount of openings unprotected. Boardmember Hirsch queried if they had explored the possibility of sprinklers as a means of fireproofing the openings they had in the alleyway wall. Mr. Tefend answered they had not explored the possibility of sprinklers as a means of fireproofing the openings they had in the alleyway wall since their intent was to remove the property line. They showed the blank wall intentionally as just a step. The intention was to remove the property line and develop Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 54     Page 5 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 the facade in the presentation allowing for unprotected openings because they were combining the lots and show the distance separation required by code. The intention was when they go for the formal application, if the new façade is approved as a condition of approval they would do that façade and go into the Planning and Building Department permit process with that intended façade. Boardmember Baltay asked if there was an easement on the property to allow pedestrian alley or if there was intent to place one for future use. Mr. Tefend replied there was not an easement or intent to put one. It was intended to give the City access to the parking garage. Boardmember Adcock wanted to know the process for allowing the building height to reach 57 feet. Ms. Dobkevicius commented if they wanted to do the rooftop, they could go over the 50-foot height limit for all the elements like the staircase and elevator to exceed the height but not for the canopies because they have to comply with the 45 degree angle measured from the building wall at the deck height so those canopies encroached into the daylight plane. Ms. Raybould clarified they can have canopies that exceed the height. It was a conditional use permit. Anything that exceeds the height would have to be set back from the property line and meet a 45 degree angle from the deck. The intent of that code when it was written was that Council wanted to allow for larger buildings in the City to still be able to have these roof decks but did not want to add to massing of existing buildings so they wanted things to be set back if they were going to be added. This was not meeting those requirements in this scenario. They wanted to highlight that in the staff report because it was a critical piece of the architectural design of the building. There was no path to allowing it except they could explore a design enhancement exception but she thought it would be difficult because making the findings for the design enhancement exception, it would have to be consistent with the intent of the code and the specific intent of that code when it was written because it was written was to ensure that it was not adding to massing. She thought it was a potential option that could be explored. Chair Rosenberg referenced the canopies at the front façade of the building on sheet A2.4 and wanted to know if there was ever consideration to pull those back instead of being between grid lines A and B to be between grid lines B and C. Mr. Tefend stated they did look at that but felt it was a more interesting and dynamic façade when it was front and center and felt that was needed in the façade. Boardmember Hirsch queried if the canopies on the existing building were fitting into the 45 degree angle to the rooftop elements on 500 University. He asked if they would use a DEE procedure on the newer canopies if it were to be considered. Ms. Raybould explained 500 University was not using that code section. She stated it was through a DEE process that they did it on 500 University but it was separate from the conditional use permit, conditions under 18.18.060e, which was what they were proposing under this. Mr. Tefend said the trellises were set back but they did have a large stone armature that went from the front into the back that extended the height limit, as well. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 55     Page 6 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Ms. Dobkevicius said they possibly would use a DEE procedure if it were to be considered but it was unclear if they had findings to approve it. Mr. Switzer believed it was stated already that the DEEs was for the intent of the code and this would be hard pressed to meet the intent of exceeding that. Boardmember Adcock commented it also looked like the 500 one was below the 50 feet but she did not see anything with dimensions that would confirm that. Mr. Tefend pointed out the armature could be seen on the axon of 500 University rising up and going back across the roof deck and the trellises were set in. They respected the 45 degree angle. Ms. Raybould clarified that was done separately before the 18.18.060e code was written. She thought there might be some code provisions they could explore for architectural features or similar they could look into as potential options. It would be dependent on how they proposed to do those features. The stairwells, trellises and elevator all exceeded the height limit. Vice Chair Chen wanted to know if there was any code restriction for the ground floor canopy that projected 11 feet over the property line. Ms. Raybould explained canopies could not extend over the property line unless Public Works allowed for that and there was a permanent easement for it. A number of buildings have that existing but they generally were not supportive of new encroachments. It would be a determination from Public Works on whether they would allow for that. Boardmember Hirsch asked if there was some fire department regulation about that and if they had explored that. Ms. Raybould replied they had not explored that and it would be something they had to consider as part of the formal application. Boardmember Adcock observed the front entry canopy on the first floor exceeded the property line but the tree canopies on the rooftop also projected past the property line and was also the case for 500 University and asked if she was correct. Mr. Tefend confirmed that to be correct. Boardmember Baltay wanted to hear Architect Hayes’ discussion of the FAR exemptions requested. He provided an explanation of code section 18.18.120. He asked if they were proposing the text amendment for the uses or the facility part of this and asked if they would support it if it was only for the facility or if there was some parallel clause requiring or addressing the residential question. He opined they would have to give a little bit to get this through and suggested they consider finding way to work housing into part of it. He asked if it would be financially feasible if they were allowed to go above 50 feet. Ken Hayes, applicant, stated they came before the ARB a few months prior with an application for a building on Ramona Street. That was the owner they made the application for the text amendment with. The text amendment was not specific to this project. They prepared this FAR Tetris diagram to try to figure out a creative way of working with the shrink wrap rule that says for the purposes of this section, building envelope shall be the physical three-dimensional volume of the existing building. He Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 56     Page 7 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 did not think the change that took place in 2015 was good for the future of Downtown Palo Alto. He had been trying to work with Staff on ways to work with it, work around it or get rid of it. This was one way they thought made sense to work with it. They would not do the text amendment. They would look at every single project. He referenced the diagram showing the floor area can be replaced provided replacement doesn't exceed the height, extend the footprint, shift the building footprint or violate the building envelope of the existing building. He mentioned the building owners were most likely all paying into the downtown parking assessment district for much of their floor area so they would they lose their floor area. They could keep the parking but would no longer need it if they got rid of that floor area yet would still be assessed for it in the assessment district. This was a way of working with the existing buildings individually by figuring out a way to always move existing floor area down so as not to exceed the height and the building footprint. The diagrams were showing how they would do this. In this particular building, they were out of floor area. They took existing down, used the one-to-one to fill in the rest. To do the third floor, they had to use TDR and would be limited by the 50-foot height limit in the district. It was too complicated so they decided to submit a text amendment that would eliminate that section and go back to how it was before 2015. He stated they were proposing the text amendment for the uses and the facility. They would support it if it was only for the facility. They would not support it if there was some parallel clause requiring or addressing the residential question. He did not believe it would be financially feasible if they were allowed to go above 50 feet. Boardmember Hirsch asked Boardmember Baltay why he would suggest that housing was required there who thought housing was required almost everywhere in Palo Alto and he did not see why housing would not be encouraged on high levels along University Avenue. Boardmember Hirsch did not think it seemed reasonable to just insert a few housing units into a much larger commercial structure. Chair Rosenberg asked if they could have an entire floor level free instead of having to pay $400 square foot for the TDRs if that would potentially balance out better for the applicant. She asked about the purpose of the side trellis. She wanted to ensure there were no safety concerns with the railings. Mr. Tefend replied that needed to be studied. If they were to add in residential they would need a separate lobby and elevator. It would take a bite out of the usable floor space. He commented they felt the side trellis enhanced the experience of the breezeway. He confirmed the railings were all designed in the code. Boardmember Hirsch added there would be extensive mechanical issues needed for an apartment that would be difficult to put into a commercial building. He asked if it was conceivable that all these ideas could be done. Ms. Raybould answered that Staff was not endorsing or supporting anything at this point. They had filed a text amendment separate from this project to bring forward for Council’s consideration as a study session to get initial feedback. The pre-screening with Council would be to gauge their interest in whether they want to make modifications to this section of the code to provide more flexibility. At this time, Staff would bring forward what the applicant was presenting to consider if Council had any interest in changing the code and if so what some considerations were to think about in how they would write that code section. Boardmember Adcock asked what a typical timeline would be for that kind of code amendment approval. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 57     Page 8 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Ms. Raybould explained it would require a pre-screening with Council. It would not be able to go before Council until after their July break. Once they did the pre-screening application, they could file a formal application. It would go to the Planning Commission and then to Council. She thought it would be about six months depending on the CEQA. Staff would have to take some time to analyze how it would affect all properties in commercial downtown. Mr. Hayes commented as part of the project across the street on Ramona in 2022, they had a pre- screening to talk specifically about this for that project. When Council added language to 18.18.120 in late 2015/early 2016, there was no analysis, study or comprehensive impact that CEQA would be concerned about. It just happened at a Council meeting, they had a second reading then it was over. He did not know why it could not go back without having to go through this lengthy process. Chair Rosenberg thought this was an opportunity for making adjustments to code if they needed to be made. She asked questions about combining the lots or keeping the buildings separate. Mr. Tefend replied the client would like the option to have the buildings separate. They did not know if it would different tenants and the proposal was no parking garage and fully separate. Boardmember Hirsch inquired if there were any reservations about the fact they were making a major aesthetic change with the canopies on the building. Mr. Tefend expressed they believed this building should be a cousin to the first building. They needed to relate to each other but not be the same. They wanted a strong façade with these canopies because they felt it was a more exciting building and added to the street presence. He thought the extended height limit was needed. Chair Rosenberg found this to be an interesting building. She felt there was a lot of glass on the front façade and would like to see more introduction of the stone on the front façade. She thought the canopies were bold. She had a hard time understanding why they could not be pushed back and suggested that might be an analysis they could provide at the next round. She thought the interior layout looked great and their intent for the alleyway was special. She was glad to know the glazing and combining all three properties was the intent. Boardmember Baltay thought this was very good site planning. The preserved and enhanced pedestrian alley was a great opportunity to have retail established along the entire length of the alley. He also liked that they set back from the parking garage. He felt it would be a great place for a residential entrance. He thought they needed to reconfigure the floor plan to allow deep retail spaces off University rather than closing it off. His biggest issue was regarding the building massing. He wanted to see some additional horizontal element that would relate to the strong horizontal cap on 500 University. He thought it was too tall because the plate heights were too tall and because of the large parapet at the top. All those things ran against the intent of the roof deck code. He thought they needed to get a horizontal element that would relate to 500 University at closer to that elevation. He remarked it would help if they showed the plants and detail on top of 500 University more accurately on the renderings. He applauded the roof terrace as a concept. He stated the blank wall at the alley was unacceptable and even if they kept the separate parcels they needed to do something to make it look like a nice design. He thought the elevations on the two buildings were too similar. He felt the vertical parts of the building were interesting but disjointed. He encouraged them to go through more design iterations in order to Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 58     Page 9 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 express the building and refine the detail. He expressed the shade elements on the roof were too tall, large and dramatic and would not stand the test of time well. He advised keeping a clean parapet lining up with the rest of the buildings on the avenue and set back the upper level a little bit. He could not support the trellises the way they were shown. Boardmember Adcock agreed the trellis seemed too large and on the edge for the building. She thought the column design was interesting but the scale seemed to large. She thought the heroic gesture on the alley side was unnecessary. She thought the large rectangular vertical expression on the University Avenue side was interested but needed a little bit of editing down to be compelling. She thought the site plan was good. She was glad to hear there would be egress onto the adjacent property with some easements. She agreed with Boardmember Baltay that the retail would need to have a little more of a presence on the street. Vice Chair Chen remarked the site plan was well thought out and the ground level was a very pedestrian friendly design. She said the landscape and seating areas along the alley were nice. She thought having the retail street front recessed back helped to provide more buffer zone from the side walk from the building. She wanted to ensure the ground floor retail canopy would be resolved in the future. She thought the scale of the building was appropriate and compatible with the neighboring buildings. She liked the materials. She agreed that the upper level canopy was heavy and too bold and suggested lowering it a couple of feet. Boardmember Hirsch felt the original building was exciting and this one extended too far, especially in the canopies above. He observed some of the elements of the original building could be adapted to this building. He would like to see more similarities in the buildings. He thought the alley was nice and thought they could extend the windows to the front of the building. He opined the entry to the building at the back end alleviated the fact that it was quite far back to the elevator so people would be inclined to go in the side door more often than just in the front door. He advised not pushing the building height so high above the standard and making the top of the building work closer to the original idea repeating some of the masonry in most of the façade. Boardmember Baltay found himself persuaded by Mr. Hayes’ arguments regarding the shrink wrap rule for the structure of the building but not for the use. He thought it was reasonable and important for the City to stand behind when a building was dramatically changed, the uses needed to be in conformance with the current code. They wanted retail on the ground floor along University Avenue so he did not understand why they would allow them to continue the nonconforming use. He indicated Mr. Hayes’ argument about the economic justification for someone rebuilding their building being able to keep the square footage they have made sense and they should facilitate that and relaxing the shrink wrap rule was one way to do that and the ARB should chime on loudly on that. He would like to see them use this as a point to tell City Council to allow residential use above 50 feet high perhaps following the same rule about setting it back from the parapet. Boardmember Hirsch explained why he did not think that what was gained with residential was worth that kind of change of use. He wanted to focus on the housing element. Boardmember Baltay countered it was not just about affordable housing counts. He said the downtown area lacked vitality and allowing housing of any kind would fight that. He advised letting the market Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 59     Page 10 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 decide what housing they need and support it through government and private efforts to do affordable housing. Boardmember Hirsch argued they would be forcing something on a project that was not in the character of the building. Boardmember Baltay advised leaving that to the building owners to decide and make it possible they could. Boardmember Hirsch stated it was important to have housing and commercial together where there was ground floor commercial to keep the street alive. He did not think this was the best place to put housing. He advised letting them try to solve the shrink wrap and aesthetic problems. He did not think it was important to put another element in the project that would make it difficult. Boardmember Adcock supported the changing of the shrink wrap rule including the use and square footage. She thought they should support that. She felt whether ground floor retail must be required to meet current code and allowing building height be taller if it was residential were separate issues. She thought they should support allowing the height to be taller to allow residential and whether this project took that on or not was up to the applicant. She thought financial feasibility was a concern for every project and there needed to be a certain amount of benefit to take that on. She agreed any type of residential was great for vitality of downtown. Vice Chair Chen thought opening up the opportunities to have extra height allowed for residential use was interesting and she supported it. She observed the town had changed a lot in the last couple years and it was time to revisit some of the regulations and make some changes to encourage housing opportunities. Chair Rosenberg opined that while this item was not the discussion at hand, it should be kept at the forefront for City Council conversations and Staff to be aware that as far as the ARB is concerned, housing was something they would support in terms of height extensions. She would like to be informed if something came up with City Council where this would be pertinent. Ms. Raybould added they were in the process of doing a downtown housing plan specifically looking at how regulations may need to be changed or what they would want to do to increase housing in the downtown. Action Item 3. Architectural Review Board’s (ARB) Draft Annual Report and Work Plan Mr. Switzer provided a slide presentation of the ARB FY 25/26 work plan and the next steps. PUBLIC COMMENT There were no requests to speak. Chair Rosenberg observed the mission statement was the same as the last two years. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 60     Page 11 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Mr. Switzer commented project goal number one was carried over from previous work plans so would be an ongoing effort of the Architectural Review Board reviewing applications for conformance with ARB findings and objective standards. The language was the same as previous years’ work plans. Boardmember Baltay queried why they said that high priority was new housing projects. Mr. Switzer replied this was carried over from the previous work plan. Based on the prior year’s discussion, this was determined to be high priority. The Board could choose to either remove that or friendly amendments or additions. Chair Rosenberg recalled that was because they had such a high focus on the housing elements from the prior year and were trying to push for more housing. She did not have an opposition to keeping that there because they were still hyper-focused on housing at the state and the city level but would understand there being a friendly amendment to potentially remove that if it were precluding something else. Boardmember Baltay observed the project goal one was to review planning applications and he did not think they set priority which applications they review but reviewed them equally to which Chair Rosenberg agreed. Mr. Switzer said there was expedited review for housing projects or streamlined review. There as not a priority on processing of the applications. Boardmember Baltay thought high priority would be the timely and efficient review of all projects to which Chair Rosenberg agreed and she was okay with scratching that from high priority and leaving it blank and everything would be equal. Boardmember Hirsch objected stating he thought the highest priority for the City was development of housing. He indicated the contextual section of the code designated if a project was more than one acre, it should have mixed usage. When it was three acres or more, it changed again. He thought that led to site planning and density issues. The way it was written said there should be at least two prototypes which meant there could be single-family houses, town homes and multiple dwellings. Chair Rosenberg supported Boardmember Hirsch’s comments but inquired how that related to project goal number on. She added based on this conversation, they might want to add a project goal number six more specifically related to housing but the question at hand was if it was appropriate to prioritize housing above everything else. She did not think the ARB should treat housing projects as higher priority than a storefront. She agreed that this was inappropriate for project goal number one but thought it was a reasonable suggestion to add a full project goal related to their thoughts on housing. She asked Boardmember Hirsch if he was comfortable deleting this and then discussing adding in another project goal specifically related to housing. Boardmember Hirsch countered that the intent of the section was about quality and it should be more than quality and should maybe be impact on the City’s needs. Chair Rosenberg added there was beneficial impacts and measure of success. Boardmember Adcock interjected this was relating to their mission which was to treat all projects that come before them equally. She agreed with Chair Rosenberg that housing would be a different project goal but would not change their main mission. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 61     Page 12 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Chair Rosenberg had no objection to how goal one was written as the Board’s main mission was to ensure the City developed high quality projects. She wanted to circle back to housing and review the list and add to it if needed. She read project goal number two and invited discussion. Mr. Switzer explained this was a carryover from the previous work plan. There was some language, particularly in the high and lower priority sections that was changed to align with the recently adopted Council priorities. Boardmember Baltay queried if this was in the agenda for the coming year and if they had objective standards they would be reviewing. Jennifer Armer, Assistant Director, explained making the SOFA area design standards into objective design standards was one item in both the housing element and one of the priorities. She was not sure of the exact timing of that. They hoped to start that effort in the next few months. One of the Council priorities was that effort. Chair Rosenberg opined the first line that stated assist the City as it considers modifications to objective standards was the key so they would be there as the City wanted their input. Boardmember Baltay agreed but stated it was not modifications, it was the creation of an objective standard. Chair Rosenberg confirmed for SOFA specifically but if he main objective standards came up they would handle that, as well. Vice Chair Chen queried if they were seeing any new applications in that specific area or if it would effect any pending projects. Mr. Switzer was unaware of any recent projects in SOFA in particular. Boardmember Hirsch asked why it became such a priority if there was no application and guessed they would have to interpret what the Council was saying. Mr. Switzer explained the high priority listed would be converting the subjective development standards listed in SOFA into objective standards consistent with the housing element program 3.7 so consistency across those documents and moving away from subjective and getting into some objective standards. The line item from the Council priorities was short and just converting those subjective to objective. Assistant Director Armer added there were timelines in the housing element in regards to this item. The goal was to make sure it got started soon enough so they could meet the deadlines as well as getting objective standards in place before they got development applications. Chair Rosenberg read the third goal and invited discussion. Boardmember Baltay asked if there was anything in the works to do that this year and if they were going to look at the coordinated plans. Mr. Switzer answered the high priority list was pulled from the Council priorities list. They were detailed for the San Antonio Road Area Plan, Downtown Housing Plan, the California Avenue Streetscape improvements and some University Avenue Streetscape improvements. Those items were on Council's Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 62     Page 13 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 priority list to review within the next fiscal year and the intent was to align the ARB's work plan with those priorities. Boardmember Hirsch had questions about the San Antonio Road Area Plan. Assistant Director Armer replied it was a defined area. They had a consultant onboard and they were starting their work on that effort. It was not yet set in stone when it would come to the ARB. They were working to compile the different steps of outreach for that process. They wanted to make it clear that the ARB would be available when their advice and guidance was needed for that process. Vice Chair Chen said she had received emails from the City about the Cubberley redevelopment in the last few weeks and asked if that would be part of the ARB’s job to review that plan. Assistant Director Armer would check in with them as to whether that would be a helpful part of it. Their work was targeting an item to go to the voters in a year and a half. Boardmember Hirsch stated he attended the first meeting and it was undefined, no programmatic study yet. They were having another meeting possibly in June. It was his opinion the meeting was not very informative. Chair Rosenberg questioned if that should be added to the list or if they should wait until they had more guidance and timeline. Mr. Switzer felt sure Staff would try to align the ARB with any ongoing City projects and future work plans. Considering it would be more than likely processed outside this fiscal year, he thought it would be good direction to capture it captured by this work plan. Assistant Director Armer added they would bring it to the Board whether it was on the work plan or not. This showed that the ARB would be available to support the different area plan and other efforts related to their expertise. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they should be seeing some things out of the El Camino Real zoning changes and if the zoning was a complete piece now for that area. Assistant Director Armer remarked with the thoughts and input received late last year for that area plan, they brought a proposal to Planning and Transportation Commission for their recommendation to Council. It was scheduled to go to Council for consideration next month. It seemed to support the different changes to the regulations. They needed to focus in the area of expansion, primarily to the tier 1, because if they went beyond that, there would be additional CEQA review required because it was going beyond the 500 units estimated in the housing element. They confirmed that PTC recommended going forward to meet this housing element requirement deadline for the first piece and then discuss further expansion in the future. The new regulations would go into effect by the summer and hopefully could help some of the projects currently proposed or proposed in the future in that area. Chair Rosenberg wanted to know if they could expect that to come back to ARB in any capacity. Assistant Director Armer stated it would not be on their work plan for the future. Boardmember Hirsch recalled Boardmember Baltay brought up that he would like to see this expanded area and he agreed that it should be expanded all the way from Page Mill toward south. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 63     Page 14 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Assistant Director Armer replied that was understood. The recommendation going to Council was an expansion of the existing focus area but was focused primarily on the tier one sites, not expanding into the tier two, three, four as the recommendation of the ARB. There seemed to be a full support for further expansion because that would have delayed the process by at least another four months and they had a June deadline. Boardmember Hirsch commented the whole of El Camino met up against residential neighborhoods all the way along. He wanted to know if an analysis of those issues would be included. Assistant Director Armer explained one of the benefits of keeping this expansion a little more focused was that it did not have as many of those areas abutting immediately against the low density residential. By keeping it focused, a larger effort could proceed in the future that would look into the nuance of the interactions where they had parcels that were not as deep or immediately adjacent to low density residential and what would be appropriate in those locations. It was not yet clear whether that would be a subsequent area plan. Vice Chair Chen asked if they saw any possibilities that they would bring back the Encina Street Area Plan based on the last City Council meeting. Assistant Director Armer said the 70 Encina application that went to Council on Monday was approved and they would have the second reading of that planned community zone then that would go into effect. There did appear to be discussions among the property owners and lessees of those adjacent parcels so they would be talking with them and available when they were ready to come forward with a proposal for a larger development if it did proceed. That would come to ARB for review. Chair Rosenberg did not believe it would fall under the coordinated area plan because it was all one owner and lessee. Assistant Director Armer stated it would be a larger development project application rather than an area plan. Boardmember Hirsch asked if they were saying there was one owner for all the property. Chair Rosenberg replied it was one owner surrounding 70 Encina. The property owner was Town & Country. Boardmember Hirsch countered Town & Country was leasing. Assistant Director Armer stated it was more complex than a single owner but they were looking to the possibility of a redevelopment of that and it would be processed as a redevelopment. Chair Rosenberg read project goal number four and invited discussion. She asked why the two were lumped together. Mr. Switzer recalled the presentation of the last fiscal year work plan that Council had added the addition of project goal number six. The intent was to provide a catch all for the items coming forward. The Innovative Housing Structure was also listed on the Council priorities for the coming fiscal year. That would not be limited to micro units or intergenerational housing, aging adults, students, lower income units. Those items were listed on the Council's priority list to be further investigated and would fall under the purview of the Architectural Review Board to further investigate. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 64     Page 15 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Chair Rosenberg proposed changing project number five to six and splitting four into four and five. She thought wireless was its own item and they needed a goal more focused on housing and the micro housing and more interesting units should go into that one. She wanted to prioritize that as goal number four pushing wireless to goal number five and then the coordination would become goal number six. Boardmember Baltay did not care about whether they were split but he thought they needed to be directed by Council on both items. He observed wireless was under consideration by Council but it had not been agreed on yet. He thought it should at the minimum say as directed by Council under the project goal. Chair Rosenberg agreed that was fair. Boardmember Baltay added these were all things they could not do without Council direction. Assistant Director Armer stated that was common with these work plans. They could include telecom on here because they knew they would be discussing whether that would return to ARB or not for those projects for review that at some point this year. It could be listed as an example of a potential item the ARB might consider in terms of supporting the City on new guidelines, ordinances, etc. They provided an interim urgency ordinance for Council to consider at the end of last year and it got pulled from the consent calendar. It had been tentative agenda for a Council meeting several times. The difficulties with scheduling and prioritizing other items meant it had not yet been discussed by them but they were still working to be prepared from the Staff side to have that discussion with them. They did not have an indication as to the reason it was pulled or what the current Council members’ opinions were on whether to change the existing process or not. She said they had published a staff report based on what they had found as of December and she would likely pull together a supplemental report before it got published for the next Council review. Boardmember Baltay suggested project goal number four strike the reference to the wireless communications and just say provide feedback to Staff and Council on creation of new guidelines, ordinances and streetscapes, as directed by Council. He would like to see them put housing as a high priority. He thought they would address wireless communication at Council request. Mr. Switzer clarified it was added as work plan goal number six for the last fiscal year of a new project or goal to specifically address the wireless communication facility regulations. It was directed that there would be an interim ordinance and then following that would be a more permanent ordinance that would be reviewing those items upon which the ARB would provide feedback on. That was the intent of that added goal. Assistant Director Armer added that was what would have been approved through the consent calendar in December and was pulled. They were waiting at that point to get the actual direction from them as to whether this work would move forward or they would be retaining the existing process and objective standards. Chair Rosenberg then agreed it would be inappropriate to separate that out as a separate goal at that time. She asked if they should move the wireless commentary to lower priority and add the words as directed by City Council. Boardmember Baltay suggested just striking the wireless communication thing. He stated their priority was the housing question and should be the important part of priority four. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 65     Page 16 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Chair Rosenberg was comfortable keeping it as a much broader overreaching overall project goal and keeping innovative housing structures, micro units, intergenerational housing in the high priority. She wanted to add in commentary that they would like to identify and focus on potential ways of getting more housing in the City. She asked how they could get that concept at part of this goal. Assistant Director Armer recommended that stay general. She stated there were a few different possibilities of things that could fall into that category that were moving forward. Tying into the downtown housing plan was on of them. There was also interest from Council in potentially doing some interim work for the California Avenue area or some other things like that. Chair Rosenberg stated the high priority would be change to housing generation and feasibility, bullet point number two would be innovative housing structures, micro units, intergenerational housing, aging adults, students and lower income users, consistent with housing element program 6.5. Boardmember Baltay asked if that could be pushed to project goal number two. Chair Rosenberg agreed with pushing that to project goal number two and dropping the rest down. Boardmember Baltay remarked that they had been advocating for item number five and nothing had ever come of it. Chair Rosenberg argued she was included on many more of City Council emails. They always informed her when something more important came up. She appreciated having the opportunity to sit in on some of the City Council meetings she might not have been privy to otherwise. She felt it could be expanded further but felt like she had been kept in the loop when something pretty important came across their desk. Boardmember Baltay pointed out it was talking about liaisons between other boards. He advised scratching project goal number five. Chair Rosenberg had no objection to scratching it. Assistant Director Armer stated the efforts they had been making to try and make sure the Chair was aware when something that had come to ARB was going to PTC or Council was something they would continue to work on and seemed like it was providing a good link. Boardmember Adcock indicated it would be helpful if they could all be included in that. Assistant Director Armer recommended upcoming items going to PTC or Council that had gone to ARB may become part of the standard staff presentation. Boardmember Hirsch encouraged adding that to the standard staff presentation. Mr. Switzer noted the pending projects list on attachment B of the director’s report detailed updates in the column for notes for any of the projects going in their tentative scheduled dates with Council and PTC as well as any subsequent hearings that it might be going before. He thought they could improve the coordination of that and have that included in the presentation. Boardmember Baltay suggested changing the high priority to no longer being create liaisons between boards and commissions but rather maintain and improve the ongoing list of projects coming up and maybe even circulate that more widely. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 66     Page 17 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Assistant Director Armer pointed out they did have some of these details in the measure of success, having staff continue to provide updates on pending projects. If they chose to keep project goal number five as an ongoing effort they could or they could remove it but she was hearing there was support for removing the high priority detail. Chair Rosenberg agreed with removing the high priority but the measure of success clearly stated have Staff continue to provide updates in the pending projects attachment on development proposals and then the ARB could appoint a representative to attend Council meetings to provide feedback on reviewed projects. Boardmember Adcock suggested when they got future meeting dates for ARB and the projects coming in front, even an abbreviated list of what was going in front of PTC and Council of stuff they had reviewed would be helpful. Chair Rosenberg queried if there was anything in status notes that said when it was going to PTC or anything like that. Assistant Director Armer said it could be that the second bullet point under measure of success might should be PTC and Council. She recommended to align with the presentation that she, as liaison, present to PTC that that be the time to share the upcoming meetings with the ARB as part of that presentation. Chair Rosenberg was comfortable with that being an amendment to the measure of success. Vice Chair Chen asked if five of them attend a PTC or City Council meeting, did that mean they represent themselves as individuals or as ARB. Mr. Switzer stated as listed it would singular. Getting into the area of having more than one would edge toward a quorum. Assistant Director Armer added they were all welcome to join and provide comments as individuals but they do recommend a single person represent the ARB so they should make it clear they were not speaking on behalf of the ARB. There was also the option to watch the meeting on YouTube and then there would be no concern. She supported the addition of PTC to this list. Chair Rosenberg remarked project goal number five would remain with the amendments as noted. She asked if they should add El Camino to the list. Mr. Switzer replied that was on bullet number four. He noted bullet number four was a lot of work condensed in one. Boardmember Adcock wanted to make a correction on bullet number one. She did not think there were 100 eligible projects because by the time they got to the eligible projects there were around 20. Mr. Switzer advised removing the word eligible. Chair Rosenberg suggested adding the word potentially before eligible. Boardmember Baltay suggested striking everything after the first sentence and say they reviewed these projects and awarded them because of their contribution to Palo Alto. Boardmember Hirsch thought it would be good to get some Council members to the ARB Awards. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 67     Page 18 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Chair Rosenberg said they would circle back to that. Mr. Switzer stated there were ongoing efforts with Staff on the coordination of that award ceremony. Chair Rosenber said the application review was a nice list and wanted to know what the TBD was at the bottom of the highlight. Mr. Switzer explained that was included because they were in the month of April and were not fully closed out for this fiscal year. There were some projects that may be coming forward that would be representative of the work that was reviewed by the ARB within this fiscal year. Chair Rosenberg wanted to know how much of the words after the word recommendation was rolled over. Mr. Switzer answered that the majority of this was carried over from the previous work plan. Staff was open to any additions or suggestions for changing the language. Chair Rosenberg asked for clarification of the word recommendations listed under the recommendations section. Mr. Switzer clarified the recommendations section was carried over for any items that wanted to be highlighted to Council noting efforts that were partially satisfied within the fiscal year. Boardmember Baltay suggested item three about the wireless communications should be struck from the recommendations list. Chair Rosenberg agreed. Boardmember Baltay went on to say in the past and in practice, the Chair had written the recommendations. He thought the Chair should be doing this. Chair Rosenberg noted that. Boardmember Adcock wanted to clarify the recommendation section was their recommendation to the Council and asked if that was how it should be titled and thought they should elaborate that. Mr. Switzer replied in previous years that was the intent of that section of the report. Boardmember Hirsch wanted some language added saying something about how they expedite projects. Mr. Switzer asked if there was any suggested language to be added. Boardmember Baltay thought they should review the recommendations more specifically themselves. Mr. Switzer further noted in alignment with work plan goal number five, he thought having this scheduled at a subsequent hearing to review these items would be warranted on this particular section of the report. Chair Rosenberg noted they would pause this section and move on to the renderings and she would circle back to that at a later meeting. She invited discussion on the renderings. Boardmember Hirsch had a problem with The Melt. Chair Rosenberg agreed and suggested striking it from the series as it did not reflect the ARB’s best work. Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 68     Page 19 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Boardmember Adcock mentioned the comparison of 3265 El Camino just showed they made the building taller which was not based on their recommendation. She preferred a different view of it. Mr. Switzer agreed that could be achieved. He showed a slide of all the projects that were reviewed within this year barring the projects that had yet come before the Board. Any of the other items could be considered or highlighted since they removed The Melt façade and asked for suggestions. Boardmember Adcock asked if they wanted to note their lengthy conversation about their recommendation regarding the art at 824 San Antonio or at least note that the ARB supported the façade design as shown. Chair Rosenberg pointed out they were not trying to justify what they did. It was a bigger comment of whether public art was part of the façade or not. Boardmember Hirsch noted these were things the Council looked at quickly and they would not get into depth with them. The idea of before and after was good, specifically on 824. On 3265, he felt it missed the fact that an extra floor was added. Chair Rosenberg thought on 3265 it should note support and increase in housing. Boardmember Baltay felt they were missing the purpose of this at a higher level. He stated they were trying to show Council and the City why they exist and what they do. He did not think the images conveyed what they had done. He thought they should take the list of projects and define what they were trying to say. Chair Rosenberg argued there was a limitation to how well they could explain what they do. It was not always big, flashy and contentious but sometimes quiet, smaller, more subtle things that kept the streetscape important. She agreed this section was worth going back and having each person take a project to review the bullet points individually and note if the images were the appropriate images for that project. Mr. Switzer noted they were not limited to just one before and one after. There could be multiple renderings and columns for one project. There was discussion about which projects should be included in the renderings. He suggested continuing this discussion to another meeting and assigning some projects listed in the packet and having some work done with the Board in the meantime. Chair Rosenberg went over the list of addresses and descriptions then assigned them as follows: 4075 El Camino, 3000 El Camino and 4335 El Camino to Boardmember Adcock; 3150 El Camino and 70 Encina to Boardmember Baltay; 3265 El Camino and 824 San Antonio to Vice Chair Chen; 3950 Fabian and 660 University to herself along with the Architectural Review Awards; and 640 Waverly, 164 Hamilton and 180 El Camino to Boardmember Hirsch. MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved that with the following homework for the ARB members and including the adjustments made they defer the item to a later date uncertain seconded by Vice Chair Chen. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 69     Page 20 of 20 Architectural Review Board Meeting Draft Summary Minutes: 4/17/25 Approval of Minutes 4. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 6, 2025 MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes as written seconded by Boardmember Adcock. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 5. Draft Architectural Review Board Meeting Minutes for March 20, 2025 MOTION: Chair Rosenberg moved to approve the minutes as written seconded by Vice Chair Chen. VOTE: Motion carried 5-0 Board Member Questions, Comments, Announcements Or Future Meetings And Agendas Chair Rosenberg discussed the City Council meeting she sat in on where they discussed 70 Encina. She described it as a very lively discussion. The summary was that the City Council approved Encina unanimously and that project would be moving forward. They received an email from a member of the public who spoke at that hearing who made an accusation that the Board had violated the Brown Act since they had met with representatives from both sides of the aisle. She stated that was factually inaccurate as they had met individually. It had been reviewed by the lawyer and no violation occurred. Boardmember Baltay said he met with the applicant but did not meet with, speak with or discuss this project in any way with other members of the Board. Chair Rosenberg said all five members of the Board could make that statement. Boardmember Adcock agreed they never discussed the items or any of the conversations they had with either the applicant or Town & Country with each other. Adjournment Chair Rosenberg adjourned the meeting at 11:57 am Item 5 Attachment A - Minutes of April 17, 2025     Packet Pg. 70