HomeMy WebLinkAboutStaff Report 4321
City of Palo Alto (ID # 4321)
City Council Staff Report
Report Type: Consent Calendar Meeting Date: 12/16/2013
City of Palo Alto Page 1
Summary Title: Appeal of 3445 Alma St. (Alma Plaza) ARB Sign Exception
Title: Council Review of an Appeal of the Director's Architectural Review And
Sign Exception Approval of the Installation of One Projecting Sign on a 50,500
sq. ft. Two-Story Mixed Use Building Located at 3445 Alma Street (Alma
Plaza/Village) in the Planned Community (PC-4956) Zoning District. Exempt
from the Provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), per
CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities)
From: City Manager
Lead Department: Planning and Community Environment
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends that the City Council deny the appeal by approving the consent calendar
item, thereby upholding the Director’s decision to approve the Architectural Review/Sign
Exception application subject to the conditions in the Record of Land Use Action attached.
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
The Council is tasked with final action on an appealed Director’s approval of a Sign Exception
and Architectural Review application for the Alma Plaza development located at 3445 Alma
Street. The appellant objects to one component of the application: a 91 square foot (sq. ft.)
projecting cabinet sign stating “Grocery Outlet.” The proposed sign would replace the
previously approved 104 sq. ft. fabric projecting sign; only the letters would be illuminated,
similar to the projecting sign previously approved for the adjacent building. The Architectural
Review Board (ARB) recommended conditional approval of the projecting sign, and a wall sign
stating “Alma Village”, on November 7, 2011, on a 3-1-1 vote. The appellant objects to the
projecting sign because of its aesthetics; the appeal did not object to the wall sign.
BACKGROUND
The site’s Planned Community (PC 4956) ordinance requires grocery store occupancy of the first
floor of the mixed use building on the site. The shopping center, formerly Alma Plaza, was
10
Packet Pg. 286
City of Palo Alto Page 2
renamed Alma Village. On November 13, 2013, after review and recommendation by the
Architectural Review Board (ARB), the Director conditionally approved an Architectural Review
and Sign Exception application (13PLN-00421) for signage to be placed on the mixed use
building. The project application initially included two projecting signs, but the project was
modified during the review and approval process, such that the approval is for only one
projecting sign advertising the grocery tenant (Grocery Outlet) and one wall sign stating “Alma
Village.” On November 27, 2013, within the 14 day request for hearing period, Sheri Furman,
who is representing a group of residents, submitted an appeal (Attachment B) focused on the
projecting sign that was approved as part of the Director’s approval (Attachment C).
A master sign permit, previously granted through the Architectural Review process for this
building, established an expedited process for wall signs that meet the requirements of the sign
code. The November 13th Director’s approval included the installation of one wall sign, with
copy that reads “Alma Village” on the building’s Alma Street frontage. The sign is intended to
identify this neighborhood shopping center and to provide more architectural interest along the
facade. The site’s master sign permit would allow the “Alma Village” wall sign. The projecting
sign for Grocery Outlet can only be permitted via Sign Exceptions, for which specific findings are
required.
Council Review Authority
Pursuant to the Palo Alto Municipal Code (PAMC) Chapter 18.77.070, once the Director’s
decision is made and an appeal is filed, the project is sent to Council on the consent calendar. In
the case of Architectural Review applications, a minimum of three (3) council member votes are
required to remove the project from the consent calendar. If the item is not removed from the
consent calendar, the Director’s decision stands and no hearing is held. If the appeal is
removed from the consent calendar, the City Council has two options: (1) it can review the
appeal based solely on the evidence presented at the ARB hearing or (2) it can review the
appeal “de novo” and allow more evidence to be submitted before or at the Council hearing. If
the Council elects to hear the appeal based on the ARB record only, it can hear the matter this
evening. If the Council elects to hear the appeal “de novo”, staff suggests continuing the item to
allow for additional noticing.
Architectural Review Board Recommendation
The ARB reviewed the application on October 17 and November 7, 2013. At the November 7th
hearing, the ARB formally recommended that the Planning Director approve the application as
modified to allow one projecting sign and one wall sign. Consistent with the ARB
recommendations, the Director’s approval allows installation of one 91 sq. ft. internally
illuminated blade sign, where only the letters would be illuminated, similar to projecting signs
approved for the adjacent building. A condition of approval requires that the applicant work
with staff to implement additional measures to improve the mixed use building’s Alma Street
10
Packet Pg. 287
City of Palo Alto Page 3
elevation. Measures can include painting and landscaping improvements to bring additional
interest to the façade. Should the sign permit be denied, this condition requiring additional
measures to improve the Alma Street elevation would not be adopted. The Director’s approval
letter is attached (Attachment C).
The applicant had originally requested approval for two similar 26 foot tall projecting signs, one
for “Grocery Outlet” and a second for “Alma Village,” flanking both building ends along the
Alma Street elevation at the October 7, 2013 ARB hearing. The ARB requested the projecting
sign be modified to incorporate more architectural interest. The ARB also requested
improvements to the building’s Alma Street elevation. Following the first ARB hearing, staff
recommended that that project include only one projecting sign. The applicant proposed three
options: one projecting sign and one wall sign, two projecting signs and one wall sign, or two
projecting signs. The ARB then recommended approval of the option that proposed one
projecting sign and one “Alma Village” wall sign.
Consistent with the requirements of the shopping center’s master sign permit, the applicant is
proposing to replace the existing wall signs for the previous tenant, Miki’s Market, with three
new halo illuminated wall signs. A 47.1 sq. ft. wall sign for Grocery Outlet is proposed for the
west elevation, facing the internal parking lot. A second 72.1 sq. ft. halo illuminated wall sign
for Grocery outlet is proposed for the south elevation, intended to be visible from Alma Street.
A third halo illuminated 51.4 sq. ft. wall sign is proposed for the Alma Street elevation to
identify the Alma Village shopping center and to break up the façade. As noted above, this
third sign was proposed to replace the second projecting sign that was not approved. The
appellant did not object to these wall signs in the appeal letter.
DISCUSSION
Sheri Furman, representing a group of area residents, appealed the Director’s approval of a Sign
Exception and Architectural Review for an internally illuminated 91 sq. ft. projecting sign
advertising “Grocery Outlet” at the Alma Village Shopping Center. The appellant is challenging
the approval because she does not believe that the findings for the Sign Exception and
Architectural Review can be made to allow for an exception. The appellant states that the
approval of a sign exception would set a precedent where no such signs currently exist.
The Sign Code allows for exceptions through a Sign Exception permit. A Sign Exception for the
existing non-illuminated 104 square foot fabric banner sign was approved previously because it
exceeded the maximum size and height and extended above the sidewalk and roof of the
building, although it had been shown as part of the project during the entitlement process for
the buildings and rezoning. The “Alma Village” banner is a red fabric banner with white letters
mounted on the corner by metal brackets. The sign was to be illuminated with external lighting
fixtures.
10
Packet Pg. 288
City of Palo Alto Page 4
The proposed projecting sign would replace the existing fabric banner in the same location.
The sign will be approximately 16 inches deep. A Sign Exception is required because the sign is
larger than three square feet in area, taller than 12 feet in height, extends over the sidewalk
and ten feet above the building. The sign would be constructed primarily of a dark red (#3630-
73) painted aluminum, and would consist of three pieces. The sign would consist of a 66 square
foot (2 feet 10 inches by 23 feet 6 inch) long rectangle above and a smaller 10 square foot (2
feet 6 inch by 4 foot) rectangle below, separated by a thin black painted aluminum reveal. The
sign would be secured to the building by four aluminum brackets offset by approximately 14
inches from the wall and trellis. Similar to the existing fabric banner sign, the new projecting
sign would be 26 feet tall and would extend approximately 10 feet above the building roof.
Responses to the appellant’s objections are provided below.
Sign Exception/ARB Findings
There are two discretionary decisions before the Council: (1) does the projecting sign qualify for
a sign exception under PAMC Section XX and (2) does the projecting sign comport with the
architectural review findings required by PAMC Section XX. Appellant claims that the sign’s
design does not meet the findings required by the Code as described below.
Sign Exception
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the
mixed use building is located directly adjacent to the public sidewalk along a very busy
intersection. The site has been granted a special site specific zoning designation recognizing
the uniqueness of the property and its location. This property serves as one of the few
neighborhood shopping centers within the City.
Appellant’s Comment: We disagree with the idea that there are exceptional or extraordinary
circumstances or conditions applicable to the property or that the site was granted a PC zoning
designation because of its uniqueness and location; it’s much more complicated than that.
This property really no longer serves as a neighborhood shopping center as the only stores that are
grocery and a Starbucks. Also, Starbucks seems to function well and stay within the allowable sign
parameters.
Staff Response: The site was granted a Planned Community (PC) Zoning designation to allow
different development standards, including reduced setbacks. Although there were various reasons
10
Packet Pg. 289
City of Palo Alto Page 5
the PC Zoning was granted, the resulting configuration creates a unique condition that would not
exist for a property with a standard zoning designation. A Sign Exception and Architectural Review
permit was also granted to the Starbucks building for a similar internally illuminated projecting sign.
(2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
unnecessary hardships in that the visibility of signage is important for a retail business to be
easily identifiable and to attract customers. Because the building is located directly
adjacent to the public sidewalk, along a very busy intersection, there is limited visibility for
typical signs. The proposed sign has been carefully designed for compatibility with the
buildings and were reviewed and found consistent with the Architectural Review findings as
required by the Municipal Code.
Appellant’s Comment: We also don’t believe the granting of the application is necessary to prevent
unreasonable property loss or unnecessary hardships. A retail business need not have a 26-foot sign
to be easily identifiable.
Staff Response: While a sign is not required, the Municipal Code recognizes that signage is an
important component for the success of a business. The provision of a grocery store is a critical
component of this PC Zoning. The granting of a permit for the projecting sign has been requested
to improve the visibility and viability of the grocery store. The granting of the sign exception would
potentially improve the success of a grocery store where one had already failed.
(3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience in that the placement and appearance of the projecting signs do not
pose safety hazards nor do they detract from the subject building or surrounding properties.
The signs will not be detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare or convenience.
They will be securely placed in a location that will not provide any conflicts with pedestrians,
drivers, occupants, visitors or employees.
Appellant’s Comment: We do think that the placement and appearance of the project signs detract
from the building and the surrounding properties.
Staff Response: The placement of the sign will be required to be done in a way that is safe and
secure. Although the sign is 26 feet tall, its vertical placement on the building would use minimal
street frontage whereas additional horizontally placed wall signs would create more visual clutter.
The surrounding properties are developed with commercial or multi-family buildings. The building
10
Packet Pg. 290
City of Palo Alto Page 6
is also set back significantly from the adjacent buildings by driveways and parking stalls, providing a
buffer for those adjacent properties.
Architectural Review Findings
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo
Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with Policy L-50: Encourage
high quality signage that is attractive, 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 buildings and the surrounding area.
Appellant’s Comment: We do not believe the project provides “high quality signage that is
attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs.” The
proposed 26 foot tall sign provides none of these.
Staff Response: The sign provides visual interest at a prominent location and serves to break up
what would otherwise be substantial massing at the back of sidewalk. The permit requires that
only the letters of the sign be illuminated. Unlike typical cabinet signs, the red background is
required to be constructed of an opaque material to not allow light to show through. The sign
replaces an existing fabric banner sign with similar placement/dimensions and has been
reviewed by both staff and the ARB for design and compatibility with the City’s policies and
Municipal Code.
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The design
and placement of the signs are consistent with the existing architectural style of
the building. The colors and materials have been designed to be compatible
with the building.
Appellant’s Comment: The design is not compatible with the immediate environment of the
site.
Staff Response: The shape of the sign was chosen to mirror the banner sign that was part of
the original design. The color is compatible with the neutral shade of the building. Although
the size of the 26 ft. tall sign requires a Sign Exception, the sign’s 91 sq. ft. is only a small
portion of the building’s 6,976 sq. ft. Alma Street façade.
10
Packet Pg. 291
City of Palo Alto Page 7
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project, in that the signs provide
identification for the business for customers and visitors who are pedestrians or
drivers.
No objection was provided by appellant for this finding.
(16) The Design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review
as set forth in subsection (a) in that the proposed sign promotes a visual
environment which is of high aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the
same time, is considerate of others.
Appellant’s Comment: The proposed sign neither provides a visual environment which is of high
aesthetic quality nor is it considerate of others, particularly those living above or near the
grocery store.
Staff Response: The proposed sign would be required to be constructed so that only the letters
of the cabinet sign are illuminated. The background that constitutes the majority of the sign is
to be constructed of an opaque material to prevent illumination, which is not typical of cabinet
signs. The sign was carefully reviewed by the ARB and staff and was required to incorporate
the curve that was part of the originally approved banner sign.
Additional Objections
The appellant has also provided additional reasons for objecting to the Sign Exception and ARB
approval. The reasons are as follows: that the business can be identifiable with a smaller sign,
that the sign does not enhance the site and that there are no other such signs in the area. The
appellant is concerned that the sign will set a precedent. The appellant has stated that the
request should be denied because it does not comply with the sign ordinance. However, the
Sign Exception process is set forth in the Municipal Code (Chapter 19.20) to allow exceptions to
the standard sign regulations.
These concerns have been addressed as part of the ARB findings discussion above. While the
proposed sign is larger than the appellant would like, a sign exception and ARB permit have
been granted for a similar projecting sign on the smaller commercial building that is also part of
this shopping center. The projecting signs for both buildings have been designed to be
proportionate to the size of the building. The proposed sign would not set a precedent for
more, similar signs because the scale of the building and its special PC Zoning designation is
unique to this site. There are no other large commercial or mixed use buildings in the area.
10
Packet Pg. 292
City of Palo Alto Page 8
RESOURCE IMPACTS
The decision by Council to uphold the Director’s decision would not result in any cost and/or
revenue impacts to the City. The appeal process and development review costs are recovered
through permit fees.
POLICY IMPLICATIONS
The proposed use is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan in that the proposed signage is for
a retail use that is consistent with the site’s Neighborhood Commercial land use designation.
The Architectural Review process ensures a quality of design that would comply with
Comprehensive Plan policies. The project, as conditioned, is in general conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan and supported by Policies L-50 and L-48. Policy L-50 encourages high
quality signage design that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility
needs with aesthetic needs. Policy L-48 promotes high quality, creative design and site
planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
The project is categorically exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA).
Attachments:
Attachment A: Record of Land Use (DOC)
Attachment B: Appeal Request (PDF)
Attachment C: November 12, 2013 Director's Approval (PDF)
Attachment D: November 7, 2013 Architectural Review Board Staff Report and
minutes (PDF)
Attachment E: October 17, 2013 Architectual Review Board Staff Report and
minutes (PDF)
Attachment F: Public Correspondence (PDF)
Attachment G: Plans (TXT)
10
Packet Pg. 293
1
Attachment A
APPROVAL NO. 2013-____
RECORD OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF PALO ALTO LAND USE APPROVAL
FOR 3445 ALMA STREET (ALMA PLAZA/VILLAGE): SIGN EXCEPTION AND
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW 13PLN-00421] (MCG ARCHITECTURE, APPLICANT)
On December 16, 2013, the Council approved an Architectural
Review Application to allow installation of one 91 sq. ft.
internally illuminated projecting sign and one halo illuminated
51.4 sq. ft. wall sign for a two story mixed use residential and
commercial building, making the following findings, determination
and declarations:
SECTION 1. Background. The City Council of the City of
Palo Alto (“City Council”) finds, determines, and declares as
follows:
A. On November 7, 2013, in a public hearing continued
from October 17, 2013, to allow the applicant to make project
modifications, the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommended
approval of a Sign Exception and Architectural Review request to
allow the installation of one internally illuminated projecting
sign and one halo illuminated wall sign on a two story mixed use
residential and commercial building in the Planned Community (PC-
4956) Zoning District located at 3445 Alma Street(“The Project”).
B. On November 12, 2013, following the ARB’s
recommendation for approval, the director of Planning and Community
Environment (Director) approved the request for a Sign Exception
and Architectural Review permit to allow installation of a 91 sq.
ft. projecting sign and 51.4 sq. ft. wall sign on a two story mixed
use residential and commercial building in the Planned Community
(PC-4956) Zoning District located at 3445 Alma Street.Notices of
the Director’s decision were mailed notifying neighbors of the
decision.
C. Within the prescribed timeframe, an appeal of the
Director’s decision was filed by Palo Alto resident Charmain
Furman.
SECTION 2. Environmental Review. The project is
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality
Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301. A Mitigated Negative
Declaration was approved by the City Council for the Alma Plaza
Mixed Use project on May 14, 2007, pursuant to the provisions of
the CEQA. The modifications to the building do not create any
additional impacts beyond those anticipated and addressed in that
Mitigated Negative Declaration.
10.a
Packet Pg. 294
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
2
SECTION 3. Sign Exception Findings: The following
findings have been made to support the sign exception request to
exceed the maximum signage, as modified by the ARB approval
conditions. The specific exception that has been requested is for
the following standard:
To exceed the maximum size of three (3) square feet for
projecting signs.
To allow projecting signs that are more than twelve (12) feet
in height
To allow projecting signs to be extend over a public sidewalk
without being placed under a covering.
To allow more than one projecting sign on a building face
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or
conditions applicable to the property involved that do
not apply generally to property in the same district in
that the mixed use building is located directly adjacent
to the public sidewalk along a very busy intersection.
The site has been granted a special site specific zoning
designation recognizing the uniqueness of the property
and its location. This property serves as one of the few
neighborhood shopping centers within the City.
(2) The granting of the application is necessary for the
preservation and enjoyment of a substantial property
right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable
property loss or unnecessary hardships in that the
visibility of signage is important for a retail business
to be easily identifiable and to attract customers.
Because the building is located directly adjacent to the
public sidewalk, along a very busy intersection, there is
limited visibility for typical signs. The proposed signs
have been carefully designed for compatibility with the
buildings and were reviewed and found consistent with the
Architectural Review findings as required by the
Municipal Code.
(3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental
or injurious to property or improvements in the vicinity
and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience in that the placement and
appearance of the projecting signs do not pose safety
hazards nor do they detract from the subject building or
10.a
Packet Pg. 295
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
3
surrounding properties. The signs will not be
detrimental to public health, safety, general welfare or
convenience. They will be securely placed in a location
that will not provide any conflicts with pedestrians,
drivers, occupants, visitors or employees.
SECTION 4. Architectural Review Findings: The design
and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned,
complies with the Findings for Architectural Review as required in
Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable
elements of the Palo Alto Comprehensive Plan. The project
is consistent with Policy L-50: Encourage high quality
signage that is attractive, 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 buildings and the surrounding
area.
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment
of the site. The design and placement of the signs are
consistent with the existing architectural style of the
building. The colors and materials have been designed to
be compatible with the building.
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project,
in that the signs provide identification for the business
for customers and visitors who are pedestrians or
drivers.
(16) The Design is consistent and compatible with the purpose
of architectural review as set forth in subsection (a) in
that the proposed signs promote a visual environment
which is of high aesthetic quality and variety and which,
at the same time, is considerate of others.
Architectural Review findings 4 through 15 are not applicable to
the project.
10.a
Packet Pg. 296
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
4
SECTION 5. Sign Exception and Architectural Review Permit
Granted.
Sign Exception and Architectural Review Approval is hereby granted
for the Project by the City Council pursuant to Chapter 18.77 of
the Palo Alto Municipal Code
SECTION 6. Plan Approval.
The plans submitted for Building Permit shall be in Substantial
conformance with those plans prepared by United Sign Systems,
consisting of six pages, and received on October 6 and 29, 2013,
except as modified to incorporate the conditions of approval in
Section 8.
Section 7: Conditions of Approval.
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building
Inspection Division shall be in substantial conformance with
the revised plans, project details and materials received on
October 6 and 29, 2013, except as modified to incorporate
these conditions of approval.
2. Option 1 shall be the approved plan, consisting of one wall
sign (“Alma Village”) and one projecting sign (“Grocery
Outlet”).
3. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet
of the plan set submitted to obtain any permit through the
Building Inspection Division.
4. Construction details, colors, materials, and placement of the
shopping center signs shall be submitted to the Planning
Division for review prior to submittal of the building permit.
5. Wall signs shall consist of halo illuminated channel letters,
except for logo signs.
6. Only the letters of the projecting signs shall be illuminated.
The background shall consist of an opaque material so that it
is not illuminated.
7. The applicant shall submit for the approval by the Planning
Division additional treatment along the Alma Street elevation
to provide greater visual interest. Treatment may consist of
either paint or landscaping. The treatment, as approved by
Planning, shall be implemented by January 30, 2014.
10.a
Packet Pg. 297
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
5
Ongoing Condition
8. Each tenant shall conform to the provisions of the Master Sign
Program, as illustrated in the plans dated received July 26,
2012. Any variation from this program would need to be
approved via the Architectural Review process.
Public Works Engineering
9. The contractor is required to obtain an encroachment permit if
the sidewalk/ROW will be used for the installation of the
signs
SECTION 7. This matter is subject to the California
Code of Civil Procedures (CCP) Section 1094.5; the time by which
judicial review must be sought is governed by CCP Section 1094.6.
SECTION 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 its actual attorney’s 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.
SECTION 9. Term of Approval. Sign Exception and
Architectural Review Approval. The approval shall be valid for
one year from the original date of approval, pursuant to Palo
Alto Municipal Code Section 18.77.090.
PASSED:
AYES:
NOES:
ABSENT:
ABSTENTIONS:
ATTEST: APPROVED:
_________________________ ____________________________
City Clerk Director of Planning and
Community Environment
APPROVED AS TO FORM:
___________________________
10.a
Packet Pg. 298
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
6
Senior Asst. City Attorney
10.a
Packet Pg. 299
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
A
:
R
e
c
o
r
d
o
f
L
a
n
d
U
s
e
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
10
.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
3
0
0
Attachment: Attachment B: Appeal Request (4321 : Appeal of 3445 Alma St. (Alma Plaza) ARB Sign
10
.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
3
0
1
Attachment: Attachment B: Appeal Request (4321 : Appeal of 3445 Alma St. (Alma Plaza) ARB Sign
10
.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
3
0
2
Attachment: Attachment B: Appeal Request (4321 : Appeal of 3445 Alma St. (Alma Plaza) ARB Sign
10
.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
3
0
3
Attachment: Attachment B: Appeal Request (4321 : Appeal of 3445 Alma St. (Alma Plaza) ARB Sign
10
.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
3
0
4
Attachment: Attachment B: Appeal Request (4321 : Appeal of 3445 Alma St. (Alma Plaza) ARB Sign
10
.
b
Pa
c
k
e
t
P
g
.
3
0
5
Attachment: Attachment B: Appeal Request (4321 : Appeal of 3445 Alma St. (Alma Plaza) ARB Sign
10.c
Packet Pg. 306
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
2
,
2
0
1
3
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
'
s
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
10.c
Packet Pg. 307
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
2
,
2
0
1
3
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
'
s
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
10.c
Packet Pg. 308
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
2
,
2
0
1
3
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
'
s
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
10.c
Packet Pg. 309
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
2
,
2
0
1
3
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
'
s
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
10.c
Packet Pg. 310
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
2
,
2
0
1
3
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
'
s
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
10.c
Packet Pg. 311
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
C
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
1
2
,
2
0
1
3
D
i
r
e
c
t
o
r
'
s
A
p
p
r
o
v
a
l
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
@ w
C IT Y OF
PALO
ALTO
Agenda Date:
To:
From:
Noventber 7, 2013
Architectural Review Board
Elena Lee, Senior Planner
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Department: Planning and
Community Environment
Subject: 3445 Alma Street [13PLN-00421]: Request by MCG Architecture, on behalf of
Alma Trestle LLC, for Architectural Review and a Sign Exception, to allow to the
installation of two projecting signs and two wall signs on a 50,500 sq. ft. two-story
mixed use building at the Alma Village development. Zone District: PC-4956.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California
Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities ).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval of the proposed
Architectural Review and Sign Exception for Option 1 to the Director of Planning and
Community Environment (Director), based upon the ARB Approval Findings in Attachment A
and as modified by the conditions of approval in Attachment C.
BACKGROUND
Project Description
The applicant is requesting Architectural Review and Sign Exception approval for new signage at
the Alma Village shopping center. The applicant requested a Sign Exception to allow the
installation of two internally illuminated proj ecting signs for the large mixed . use building
(Building A). The applicant requested the Sign Exceptions for two projecting signs per july 18,
2013 ARB Subcommittee recommendations regarding the signage. The second blade sign was
incorporated into the application in direct response to ARB Subcommittee feedback. The signage
would be for the new tenant, Grocery Outlet, who will occupy the first floor of the building,
previously occupied by Miki's Market. The site's Planned Community Zoning (PC 4956)
requires that the first floor of the mixed use building be occupied by a grocery store.
DISCUSSION
Previous ARB Hearing
The project was initially reviewed as a consent calendar item at the October 17, 2013
Architectural Review Board hearing, but was pulled to be discussed. The ARB was supportive of
the proposed wall signs but had concerns regarding the two blade signs. The ARB was concerned
13PLN-00421 PageJ of3
10.d
Packet Pg. 312
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
that the quality of the design of the blade signs did not warrant a Sign Exception. The ARB was
also concerned about the removal of the existing "Miki's" wall sign along the Alma Street
frontage. The previous wall sign broke up the massing along Alma Street and brought additional
visual interest. The ARB expressed concerns about the existing window decals. Staff will
provide a separate memo regarding that issue. The ARB voted to continue the proj ect to
November 7, 2013 consent calendar agenda (by a vote of 5-0-0-0) to allow the applicant to
address a few issues and to revise the submittal package. The following items summarize the
comments requiring follow up expressed by the board members present at the hearing and the
applicant's response. The applicant is proposing three options that incorporate a combination of
the two responses described below to address the ARB's comments. Option 1 proposes one blade
sign and ,one new wall sign. Option 2 proposes two blade signs, similar to what was originally
proposed. Option 3 proposes two blade signs and one wall sign.
1. Modify the blade signs to create more architectural interest:
The applicant has considered the ARB's feedback and preference for the original projecting sign.
In response, the applicant has redesigned the blade sign to incorporate the "belly" curve to
decrease the utilitarian appearance of the originally proposed sign. The curve would extend out
farthest at the center of the sign and taper off at each end. The sign would still be approximately
26 feet tall but would range between 30 and 42 inches in width. The "Grocery Outlet" projecting
sign would include a ten square foot component at the bottom of the sign to include "bargain
market" as originally proposed. The second projecting sign which would identify "Alma Village"
would be very similar to the "Grocery Outlet" sign with the exception of the smaller "bargain
market" rectangle at the bottom. There is no copy to include in that rectangle so the applicant
has removed it from that sign. If the ARB supports both projecting signs and for both to be
identical, a condition of approval can be added requiring that both projecting signs incorporate
that secondary piece.
2. Consider options to bring more visual interest to the Alma Street facade:
Staff has consulted with the applicant regarding the addition of visual interest. The applicant has
agreed to work with staff to identify opportunities to incorporate color or landscaping material to
bring greater visual interest to the Alma Street fayade. One option would be to paint the
rectangular columns along Alma Street a darker color, similar to the color of the round columns
on the south elevation. A condition of approval has been added requiring the applicant to work
with staff for a solution within the next three months.
The applicant is also proposing a new wall sign identifying "Alma Village" for the west elevation,
similar to the "Miki's Farm Fresh Market" sign that exists currently. The "Alma Village" sign
would be a halo illuminated channel letter sign that would be placed where the "Farm Fresh"
portion of the current sign, over the center bank of windows. The new sign would be
approximately 51.4 square feet in size, which would be consistent with the master sign program.
Three Options and Staff Recommendation
In response to the Board feedback, the applicant has provided three options that incorporate the
changes discussed above. Option 1 proposes one blade sign ("Grocery Outlet") and one new wall
sign ("Alma Village") along Alma Street. Option 2 proposes two blade signs ("Grocery Outlet"
13PLN-00421 Page 2 of3
10.d
Packet Pg. 313
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
and "Alma Village"). The third option is a combination that proposes two blade signs and one
wall sign. Staff recommends approval of the first option as it provides the blade sign that the
applicant originally requested and a wall sign that would provide visual interest that was lost with
the removal of the original "Miki' s" wall sign. The wall sign is consistent with the site's master
sign program and would be approvable with a building permit. As discussed below, there are
already existing street signs that identify the center. The wall sign would provide more effective
visual interest and having only one blade sign would reduce the degree of the sign exception
requested. It would also reduce the nurrlber of internally illuminated boxed signs for the center,
which the City does not typically support in this type of area. The property owner is also most
supportive of Option 1.
The ARB has expressed a concern about the lack of identifying signage for the center. One
element that already exists that would address this concern is the set of street signs installed with
the new traffic signal on Alma Street. The new signal was installed approximately 600 feet north
of the previously existing Alma Street and East Meadow Drive traffic signal, near the northern
driveway entrance for the site. As part of that project, the City also installed one northbound sign
and one southbound sign, both illuminated, identifying "Alma Village". These signs clearly
identify the center and would be easily visible to drivers and passengers on Alma Street. As
discussed above, the property owner, John McNellis, has also agreed to work with staff to study
opportunities to improve the Alma Street elevation. Condition of approval number 7 requires the
applicant to work with staff to implement treatment in the form of paint or landscaping prior to
January 30,2014.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
. Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is
categorically exempt from CEQ A, per Section 15301.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
ARB Findings
Sign Exception Findings
Conditions of Approval
Developnlent Plans (Board Members Only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES
J ohn(ii)McN ellis. com
Sean(f~unitedsign.et
Psahakangas@mcgarchitecture.com
pnlarconett(Q2cfgo.COll1
Prepared By: Elena Lee, Senior Planner '0-
Manager Review: Amy French, Chief Planning Offici$
13PLN-00421 Page 3 of3
10.d
Packet Pg. 314
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
3445 Alma Street/Alma Village -Grocery Outlet
File No. 13PLN-000421
Architectural Review Findings
The design and architecture ~f the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the
Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with Policy L-50: Encourage high quality signage
that is attractive, 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 buildings and
the surrounding area.
(2) The design is compatible with the imnlediate environment of the site. The design and
placement of the signs are consistent with the existing architectural style of the building. The
colors and materials have been designed to be compatible with the building.
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project, in that the signs provide identification
for the business for customers and visitors who are pedestrians or drivers.
(16) The Design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth
in subsection (a) in that the proposed sign promotes a visual environment which is of high
aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, is considerate of others.
Architectural Review findings 4 through 15 are not applicable to the project.
3445 Alma Street
10.d
Packet Pg. 315
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
ATTACHMENT B
SIGN CODE EXCEPTION
ARCIDTECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
3445 Alma Street/Alma Village -Grocery Outlet
File No. 13PLN-000421
The following findings have been made to support the sign exception request to exceed the
maximum signage, as modified by the ARB approval conditions. The specific exception that has
been requested is for the following standard:
• To exceed the maximum size of three (3) square feet for projecting signs.
• To allow projecting signs that are more than twelve (12) feet in height
• To allow projecting signs to be extend over a public sidewalk without being placed
under a covering.
• To allow more than one projecting sign on a building face
(l) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in the same district in that the
mixed use building is located directly adjacent to the public sidewalk along a very busy
intersection. The site has been granted a special site specific zoning designation
recognizing the uniqueness of the property and its location. This property serves as one
of the few neighborhood shopping centers within the City.
(2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
unnecessary hardships in that the visibility of signage is important for a retail business to
be easily identifiable and to attract customers. Because the building is located directly
adjacent to the public sidewalk, along a very busy intersection, there is limited visibility
for typical signs. The proposed signs have been carefully designed for compatibility with
the buildings and were reviewed and found consistent with the Architectural Review
findings as required by the Municipal Code.
(3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience in that the placement and appearance of the projecting
signs do not pose safety hazards nor do they detract from the subj ect building or
surrounding properties. The signs will not be detrimental to public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience. They will be securely placed in a location that will not provide
any conflicts with pedestrians, drivers, occupants, visitors or employees.
3445 Alma Street
10.d
Packet Pg. 316
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
ATTACHMENT C
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
3445 Alma Street/Alma Plaza Projecting Signs
File No. 13PLN-000421
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division
shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans, proj.ect details and
materials received on October 29, 2013, except as modified to incorporate these
conditions of approval.
2. Option 1 shall be the approved plan, consisting of one wall sign ("Alma Village") and
one proj ecting sign ("Grocery Outlet").
3. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set
submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division.
4. Construction details, colors, materials, and placement of the shopping center signs
shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to submittal of the
building permit.
5. Wall signs shall consist of halo illuminated channel letters, except for logo signs.
6. Only the letters of the projecting signs shall be illuminated. The background shall
consist of an opaque material so that it is not illuminated.
7. The applicant shall submit for the approval by the Planning Division additional
treatment along the Alma Street elevation to provide greater visual interest.
Treatment may consist of either paint or landscaping. The treatment, as approved by
Planning, shall be implemented by January 30, 2014.
Ongoing Condition
8. Each tenant shall conform to the provisions of the Master Sign Program, as
illustrated in the plans dated received July 26, 2012. Any variation from this
program would need to be approved via the Architectural Review process.
Public Works Engineering
9. The contractor is required to obtain an encroachment permit if the sidewalk/ROW
will be used for the installation of the signs
10.d
Packet Pg. 317
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
10.d
Packet Pg. 318
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
2
Thursday, November 7, 2013 3
REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5
250 Hamilton Avenue 6
Palo Alto, CA 94301 7
ROLL CALL: 8
Board members: Staff Liaison: 9
Lee Lippert (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner 10
Randy Popp (Vice Chair) 11
Alexander Lew Staff: 12
Clare Malone Prichard Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 13
Robert Gooyer Amy French, Chief Planning Official 14
Elena Lee, Senior Planner 15
Clare Campbell, Planner 16
17
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 18
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: 19
Announce agenda item 20
Open public hearing 21
Staff recommendation 22
Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. 23
Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) 24
minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. 25
Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments 26
Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes 27
Close public hearing 28
Motions/recommendations by the Board 29
Final vote 30
31
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the 32
agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must 33
complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural 34
Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. 35
36
Elizabeth L. Moon’s comments are included on Item #3 (429 University Avenue). 37
38
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 39
October 17, 2013 40
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT MINUTES
10.d
Packet Pg. 319
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
City of Palo Alto Page 2
1
Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Malone Prichard moved seconded by Board 2
Member Lew to approve the minutes as amended by the Board. 3
4
Vote: Approval, 4-0-1-0 (Vice chair Popp absent) 5
6
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional 7
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. None. 8
9
CONSENT CALENDAR: 10
11
1. 3445 Alma Street [13PLN-00421]: Request by MCG Architecture, on behalf of Alma Trestle 12
LLC, for Architectural Review and a Sign Exception, of the installation of two projecting signs 13
on a 50,500 sq. ft. two-story mixed use building at the Alma Village development. Zone 14
District PC-4956. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California 15
Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). 16
17
Chair Lippert: With that we will move onto the Consent Calendar, which is 3445 Alma Street, a request 18
by MCG Architecture, on behalf of Alma Trestle LLC, for architectural review including a sign 19
exception, of the installation of two projecting signs on a 50,500 square foot two-story mixed-use 20
building at the Alma Village development. Zone District PC-4956. Environmental Assessment: 21
exempt from the provisions of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA). And just with that 22
I’d like to say that I for the record met with the applicant. 23
24
Board Member Lew: I also met with the applicant last week to discuss the three options presented 25
today. 26
27
Chair Lippert: Ok. 28
29
Board Member Malone Prichard: And I also met with the applicant to discuss the three options. 30
31
Chair Lippert: Ok. Does anybody wish to pull this from the Consent Calendar? Alex? 32
10.d
Packet Pg. 320
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
Board Member Lew: Yes. 2
3
Chair Lippert: Ok, if staff would like to introduce the item please. 4
5
Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you Chair and Board Members. Per the Board’s direction the 6
applicant has revised the option for the projecting signs and provided three options to address those 7
concerns. The, basically the projecting sign was redesigned to incorporate a belly similar to the 8
original Alma Village banner. The first would be to include one blade sign and one wall sign on the 9
Alma frontage. The second would be to propose two blade signs incorporating the belly. And the third 10
option would combine the first and second options, which would be two blade signs and one wall sign. 11
The wall sign was added to provide visual interest on Alma elevation similar to the existing Miki’s wall 12
sign. Staff and the property owner prefer the first option because it provides signage required by the 13
tenant, breaks up the façade, and would only require one exception for one sign. However, staff 14
requests the Board’s feedback and recommends the Board recommend that the Director approve one of 15
the three options. 16
17
At places this morning provided is a memo from the Assistant Director Aaron Aknin regarding the 18
status of the window images as requested by the Architectural Review Board (ARB) at the last hearing. 19
The applicant is also here to speak if needed. This concludes staff’s report. 20
21
Chair Lippert: Ok, the applicant would like to make their presentation. I will give you 10 minutes, but 22
if you don’t need it please make your comments brief. 23
24
10.d
Packet Pg. 321
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
City of Palo Alto Page 4
John McNellis: Thank you Mr. Chairman. I probably won’t need more than a minute. Ms. Prichard, 1
gentlemen, I was at a weeklong conference in Chicago this week. I came home late last night because 2
this is a very important hearing. And it’s important not only for Grocery Outlet and ourselves, but for 3
the City of Palo Alto. As you all know in our town of 60,000 people we have 6,500 residents on Social 4
Security and we have over 2,000 official low income units. We have no affordable groceries within 20 5
minutes in either direction. Grocery Outlet is going to solve that pressing social problem for us, but it 6
can neither open nor succeed at Alma Village without the signage that it needs. 7
8
What we need today is a decision that enables Grocery Outlet to go forward. Like Ms. Lee said, we 9
much prefer Option One. We, with the addition of the wall sign saying “Alma Village” that would give 10
us three signs including the two on the street light place identification. We don’t think a fourth place 11
identifier is necessary. What we need are Grocery Outlet signs approved and the height, the shape, the 12
coloring, the lettering. Any of the three options as long as that is included will work for us, but we 13
really need this to go forward. 14
15
And finally I would just like to point out that Grocery Outlet’s three signs are actually smaller than 16
what’s approved and what’s on the building today. They are in the same location and they are made of 17
identical materials with just the one exception. The only change that we’re requesting today is 18
absolutely minuscule and it’s actually for the better. Rather than a canvas sign, which would be 19
externally lit we are proposing a much more expensive, higher quality, internally lit cabinet sign. 20
That’s it. Eric Parker is here to answer any technical questions. I’m here to answer any larger social 21
issues. Thank you very much. 22
23
10.d
Packet Pg. 322
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
City of Palo Alto Page 5
Chair Lippert: Thank you Mr. McNellis. This is the time when members of the public may speak to 1
this item. Is there anyone from the public that wishes to speak? Ok with that I will close the public 2
hearing and return to the Board for comments and questions. Alex would you like to begin? 3
4
Board Member Lew: So I just had some detail comments for staff. The Option One, just the drawings 5
themselves are missing some of the details that are in Options Two and Three. And so that’s for the 6
blade, for the projecting blade sign. So I think that those should be amended to the drawings if we are, 7
if we do go with Option One. Also in the last packet that we received on this at the last meeting there 8
was some structural drawings and there was also information in that drawing that is not included in this 9
packet today and that has like the depth of the blade signs. So there are other details that should be 10
incorporated into this one if we go this route. And then also too as I was looking at the Grocery 11
Outlet’s sign in Redwood City and their wall signs. The one that I saw had like white sides to the 12
cabinet box. And I think that they’re not called out on this. I didn’t, it may not be called out on this 13
one. I didn’t see any colors and I understand like the wall signs are part of the, pardon me. I think the 14
wall signs really aren’t part of our review technically today it’s because we’re just looking at the 15
exception. I mean this is for background information. 16
17
Ms. Lee: If I may? Basically the wall signs are proposed that were shown other than the wall sign on 18
Alma Village are, would be approved as part of the staff level review, but the wall sign that we’re 19
showing today is proposed to compensate for the (interrupted) 20
21
Board Member Lew: Sign Exception. 22
23
Ms. Lee: Yes, so that’s sort of one package this time. 24
10.d
Packet Pg. 323
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
City of Palo Alto Page 6
1
Board Member Lew: And then so I think that I’m in favor of Option One. It seems like the addition of 2
a second blade sign to me seems complicated for me when their utilities are crossing over the sidewalk 3
that seem to encroach into that, the area where that second blade sign would be, where the second blade 4
sign is proposed. And then also too is that the blade signs that I really like ideally, like Cardinal Hotel 5
or there’s also a CVS on California Drive near Castro Street in Mountain View and those that I like are 6
actually they’re red, but they’re right on the corner. They sort of mark the corner. And I know this one 7
isn’t exactly on the corner, but I think to me the emphasis should be placed on getting people to turn the 8
corner and to go into the shopping center. Because to me that’s the weakness of this particular site 9
since the parking is in back of the building. And I think that primary focus should be on the tenant and 10
not necessarily the Alma Village. I mean it seems like we have an issue, issues with getting people and 11
foot traffic in there and I think that’s sort of more important than trying to highlight that there’s like 12
houses and stuff in the back of there. And I think that’s all that I have here. Thanks. 13
14
Chair Lippert: Board Member Gooyer. 15
16
Board Member Gooyer: I don’t really have anything at this point. I’m fine with it. 17
18
Board Member Lew: There are three options. 19
20
Chair Lippert: Yeah, there are three options. 21
22
Board Member Gooyer: The option, I can go for One. That’s fine. 23
24
10.d
Packet Pg. 324
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Chair Lippert: Board Member Malone Prichard. 1
2
Board Member Malone Prichard: I am in support of Option One. I think it is exactly as Alex said, the 3
blade sign has more impact when there is one blade sign and it is in the right location. So I’m prepared 4
to support that. 5
6
Chair Lippert: Ok. Would anybody like to make a Motion? 7
8
MOTION 9
10
Board Member Lew: I would move we approve Option One subject to the conditions of approval and 11
the, our standard findings and with the inclusion of all of the detailed sign information from previous 12
packets. 13
14
Chair Lippert: Do I have a second on that? 15
16
SECOND 17
18
Board Member Gooyer: I’ll second it. 19
20
VOTE 21
22
10.d
Packet Pg. 325
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
City of Palo Alto Page 8
Chair Lippert: Board Member Gooyer. Ok. With that we have a Motion and a second. All those in 1
favor say aye (Aye). All those opposed? Opposed. And we have one Board Member absent. So that 2
passes 3-1-1. Great. Thank you John. 3
4
MOTION PASSED (3-1-1, Chair Lippert opposed, Vice-Chair Popp absent) 5
6
Board Member Lew pulled Item #1 from the Consent Calendar. 7
8
Architectural Review Board Action: Board Member Lew moved seconded by Board Member Gooyer 9
to approve Option One of the project with the inclusion of the details from the prior packets. 10
11
Vote: Approval, 3-1-1-0 (Vice chair Popp absent & Chair Lippert ‘no’) 12
13
10.d
Packet Pg. 326
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
D
:
N
o
v
e
m
b
e
r
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
r
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
CITY OF
PA LO
ALT O
Architectural Review Board
Staff Report
Agenda Date: October 17,2013
To:
From:
Subject:
Architectural Review Board
Elena Lee, Senior Plan,ner Department: Planning and
Community Environment
3445 Alma Street lI3PLN-00421]: Request by MCG Architecture, on behalf of
Alma Trestle LLC, for Architectural Review and a Sign Exception, to allow to the
installation of two projecting signs and two wall signs on a 50,500 sq. ft. two-story
mixed use building at the Alma Village development. Zone District: PC-4956.
Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of, the California
Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing
Facilities ).
RECOMMENDATION
Staff recommends the Architectural Review Board (ARB) recommend approval of the proposed
master sign program to the Director of Planning and Community Environment (Director), based
upon the ARB Approval Findings in Attachment A and as modified by the conditions of approval
in Attachment C.
BACKGROUND
Project Description
The applicant is requesting Architectural Review and Sign Exception approval for two internally
illuminated projecting signs for the large mixed use building (Building A) at Alma Village. The
application also includes two halo illuminated wall signs that are consistent with the master sign
program approved for this site. The applicant is requesting the Sign Exceptions for two projecting
signs per July 18,2013 ARB Subcomnlittee recommendations regarding the signage. The second
blade sign was incorporated into the application in direct response to ARB. Subcommittee
feedback. The signage would be, for the new tenant, Grocery Outlet, who will occupy the first
floor of the building, previously occupied by Miki's Market. The site's Planned Community
Zoning (PC 4956) requires that the first floor of the mixed use building be occupied by a grocery
store. The commercial component of the 4.21 acre site is developed with (1) Building A, the
50,500 square foot two story mixed use building which includes a 17,000 square foot first Hoor
for a grocery store, an 18,200 square foot basement/garage, a 1,757 square foot second floor
community room and 14 below market rate rental units on the second floor, (2) Building B, a
smaller 5,580 square foot two story retail/office building, and (3) a small park. The residential
component of the site is developed with 37 single family residential units at the rear of the site.
13PLN-00241 Page 1 of 4
10.e
Packet Pg. 327
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
Entitlement History
The City Council adopted Planned Community (PC) Ordinance (Ordinance 4956) on May 14,
2007 (effective July 19, 2007) to allow the redevelopment of Alma Plaza into a residential and
commercial mixed use project. PC 4956 set forth land use types, conunercial floor area, housing
density, and number and location of below market rate (BMR) units, public benefits, including an
approxin1ately 9,000 sq. ft. park, grocery store and the community living room. A Site and
Design Review application and Tentative Map application were approved by the City Council on
January 26, 2008, consistent with the PC ordinance.
'A master sign program was approved for the site on August 8, 2012 following a hearing by the
ARB for Buildings A and B. The sign program specifically included provisions for three wall
signs and a sign exception for a fabric blade sign for Building A. The non illuminated fabric
blade sign is located on the northwest comer of the Alma Street frontage identifying "Alma
Village". A sign exception was required for the 104 square foot fabric blade sign because it
exceeded the maximum size allowed by the sign code for proj ecting signs and extended over both
the sidewalk and the top of the building. A subsequent approval was granted on November 8,
2012 following an ARB hearing to allow the "Alma Village" banner to be replaced with a "Miki's
Market" banner. However, the second banner was never installed before the business was closed.
DISCUSSION
The Alma Village Master Sign Program was approved to provide design standards for all signage
on the subject site to follow and streamline the approval process. Signs that are consistent with
the master program would be permitted with a building permit, subject to planning review. Both
wall signs are consistent with the master sign program and would be approvable with a building
permit. However, they are being included with this application to provide context. A new Sign
Permit Ex<;eption is required for the two projecting signs because of the increase in the number of
projecting signs and changes to the materials and appearance.
Wall Signs
The applicant is proposing to replace existing wall signs on Building A on the east elevation
facing the interior parking lot and the south elevation that would be visible to drivers going
northbound on Alma Street. The applicant is proposing to remove the wall sign on the Alma
Street (west) frontage with no replacement. Sign A is a 47.1 square foot chartnelletter sign
proposed for the east elevation. Sign B is a larger 72.1 square foot channel letter sign that is
otherwise identical for the south elevation to ensure better visibility to motorists driving
northbound on Alma Street. The channel letters are to be constructed of a three inch deep
aluminum letters and spaced one inch from the face of the building to allow the halo illumination
with LED lights. Both signs would consist of two parts. The top part of the sign would read
"Grocery Outlet" painted in a dark red (#3630-73) and "bargain market" would be placed directly
below painted in golden yellow (#3630-125), matching the corporate identity of the market. The
signs are illuminated in a way so that they will appear black with a soft glow around the edges as
shown on page 1 of the plan set.
The master sign program would allow a variety of sizes for the building. All wall signs are
required to be halo illuminated. The table below shows what the sign code permits, the master
sign permit allows and what the applicant is proposing for Building A.
13PLN-00241 Page 2 of4
10.e
Packet Pg. 328
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
Wall size Sign Code Master Sign Proposed Sign Conforms
(sq. ft.) Max. (sq. ft.) Program Max (sq. ft.)
(sq. ft.)
East Elevation 6976 195 151 47.1 (Sign A) Yes
South 2937 110 95 72.1 (Sign B) Yes
Elevation
West 6976 195 151 None N/A
Elevation
As shown above, both proposed wall signs are consistent with the Alma Village Master Sign
Program and the sign code.
Projecting Signs
As discussed above, the application proposes two projecting signs (Signs C and D) that would
require sign exceptions. The Sign Code allows projecting signs provided that they meet the
following criteria:
Height:
• Shall not exceed a height of twelve (12) feet
• Shall not extend above the top level of the wall upon or in front of which it is placed
• Shall have a minimum clearance of seven (7) feet to the sidewalk helow.
Area:
• Shall not exceed three (3) square feet in area
Location:
• Shall not extend over or above any public sidewalk or place unless situated under a
covering structure, such as a porch.
Number:
• Shall be only one projecting sign per building face.
A Sign Exception for the existing non-illuminated 104 square foot fabric banner sign was
approved previously because it exceeded the maximum size and height and extended above the
sidewalk and roof the building. The "Alma Village" banner is a red fabric banner with white
letters mounted on the corner by metal brackets. The applicant is now requesting approval to
install two projecting signs, both measuring 76 square feet, replacing the existing fabric banner.
The signs will be approximately 16 inches deep and extend approximately ten feet above the
building. A Sign Exception is required for the two signs because there are two projecting signs
proposed for the Alma Street face, both are larger than three square feet in area, are taller than 12
feet in height and extend over the sidewalk and above the building.
The two signs are the same size and similar in appearance. Sign C would be placed where the
existing banner sign is located and the Sign D would be placed on the southwest comer of the
building in a parallel location. Both signs, to be constructed primarily of a dark red (#3630-73)
painted aluminum, would consist of three pieces. The sign would consist of a 66 square foot (2
feet 10 inches by 23 feet 6 inch) long rectangle above and a smaller 10 square foot (2 feet 6 inch
13PLN-00241 Page 3 of4
10.e
Packet Pg. 329
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
by 4 foot) rectangle below, separated by a thin black painted aluminum reveal. The signs would
be secured to the building by four aluminum brackets offset by approximately 14 inches from the
wall and trellis. Similar to the existing sign, the new projecting signs would each be 26 feet tall
and would extend above the building roof.
The signs differ in their copy. Sign C would include 14 inch tall, one inch thick clear acrylic push
through letters in white that read "Grocery Outlet" on the top portion and "bargain market" on the
smaller bottonl portion in golden yellow. Sign D would function as an identifier for the
development. The larger top component of the sign would include letters that read "Alma
Village" also with 14 inch tall 1 inch deep push through letters in white. There would not be any
copy on the smaller bottom rectangle. The signs are designed with push through letters and will
be conditioned so that only the letters are illuminated. Staff believes that the signs are compatible
with the building and provide additional interest to the Alma Street elevation. The signs would
serve to provide better identification to the center, as well as the business.
Comprehensive Plan
The project design, as conditioned, and project intent are in general conformance with the
Comprehensive Plan and supported by Policy L-50. Policy L-50 encourages high quality signage
that is attractive, appropriate for the location and balances visibility needs with aesthetic needs.
The ARB is requested to weigh in on the balance between the business visibility and aesthetics
during discussion of the requested sign exceptions. Policy L-48 promotes high quality, creative
design and site planning that is compatible with surrounding development and public spaces.
ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW
Pursuant to the requirements of the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA), the project is
categorically exempt from CEQA, per Section 15301.
ATTACHMENTS
Attachment A:
Attachment B:
Attachment C:
Attachment D:
ARB Findings
Conditions of Approval/Sign Exception Findings
Location Map
Development Plans (Board Members Only)*
* Prepared by Applicant; all other attachments prepared by Staff
COURTESY COPIES
John(a)McNellis.conl
Scan((_~unitcdsign.ct
Psahakangas(q1.m.cgarchitecture.com.
bnlarconett(a)ci"2:o. conl
Prepared By:
Manager Review:
Elena Lee, Senior Planner -rJ--'
Steven Turner, Planning Manage~
13PLN-00241 Page 4 of4
10.e
Packet Pg. 330
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
ATTACHMENT A
FINDINGS FOR APPROVAL
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
3445 Alma Street/Alma Village Grocery Outlet
File No. 13PLN-000421
Architectural Review Findings
The design and architecture of the proposed improvements, as conditioned, complies with the
Findings for Architectural Review as required in Chapter 18.76 of the PAMC.
(1) The design is consistent and compatible with applicable elements of the Palo Alto
Comprehensive Plan. The project is consistent with Policy L-50: Encourage high quality signage
that is attractive, 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 buildings and
the surrounding area.
(2) The design is compatible with the immediate environment of the site. The design and
placement of the signs are consistent with the existing architectural style of the building. The
colors and materials have been designed to be compatible with the building.
(3) The design is appropriate to the function of the project, in that the signs provide identification
for the business for customers and visitors who are pedestrians or drivers.
(16) The Design is consistent and compatible with the purpose of architectural review as set forth
in subsection (a) in that the proposed sign promotes a visual environment which is of high
aesthetic quality and variety and which, at the same time, is considerate of others.
Architectural Review findings 4 through 15 are not applicable to the project.
3445 Alma Street
10.e
Packet Pg. 331
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
SIGN CODE EXCEPTION
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD STANDARDS FOR REVIEW
3445 Alma Street/Alma Village.-Grocery Outlet
File No. 13PLN-000421
The following findings have been made to support the sign exception request to exceed the
maximum signage, as modified by the ARB approval conditions. The specific exception that has
been requested is for the following standard:
• To exceed the maximum size of three (3) square feet for projecting signs.
• To allow projecting signs that are more than twelve (12) feet in height
• To allow projecting signs to be extend over a public sidewalk without being placed
under a covering.
• To allow more than one projecting sign on a building face
(1) There are exceptional or extraordinary circumstances or conditions applicable to the
property involved that do not apply generally to property in the sanle district in that the
mixed use building is located directly adjacent to the public sidewalk along a very busy
intersection. The site has been granted a special site specific zoning designation
recognizing the uniqueness of the property and its location. This property serves as one
of the few neighborhood shopping centers within the City.
(2) The granting of the application is necessary for the preservation and enjoyment of a
substantial property right of the applicant and to prevent unreasonable property loss or
unnecessary hardships in that the visibility of signage is important for a retail business to
be easily identifiable and to attract customers. Because the building is located directly
adjacent to the public sidewalk, along a very busy intersection, t}:lere is limited visibility
for typical signs. The proposed signs have been carefully designed for compatibility with
the buildings and were reviewed and found consistent with the Architectural Review
findings as required by the Municipal Code.
(3) The granting of the application will not be detrimental or injurious to property or
improvements in the vicinity and will not be detrimental to the public health, safety,
general welfare or convenience in that the placement and appearance of the projecting
signs do not pose safety hazards nor do they detract from the subject building or
surrounding properties. The signs will not be detrimental to public health, safety, general
welfare or convenience. They will be securely placed in a location that will not provide
any conflicts with pedestrians, drivers, occupants, visitors or employees.
3445 Alma Street
10.e
Packet Pg. 332
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
ATTACHMENTB
DRAFT CONDITIONS OF APPROVAL
3445 Alma Street/Alma Plaza Projecting Signs
File No. 13PLN-000421
Department of Planning and Community Environment
Planning Division
1. The plans submitted to obtain all permits through the Building Inspection Division
shall be in substantial conformance with the revised plans, project details and
materials received on October 10,2013, except as modified to incorporate these
conditions of approval.
2. All conditions of approval shall be printed on the cover sheet of the plan set
submitted to obtain any permit through the Building Inspection Division.
3. Construction details, colors, materials, and placement of the shopping center signs
shall be submitted to the Planning Division for review prior to submittal of the
building permit.
4. Wall signs shall consist of halo illuminated channel letters, except for logo signs.
5. Only the letters of the projecting signs shall be illuminated. The background shall
consist of an opaque material so that it is not illuminated.
Ongoing Condition
6. Each tenant shall conform to the provisions of the Master Sign Program, as
illustrated in the plans dated received July 26, 2012. Any variation from this
program would need to be approved via the Architectural Review process.
Public Works Engineering
7. The contractor is required to obtain an encroachment permit if the sidewalk/ROW
will be used for the installation of the signs
10.e
Packet Pg. 333
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
The City of
Palo Alto
Attacmnent C
Location Map
This map is a product of the
City of Palo Alto G!S
-. o· 120'
1!IlJ.--~.~~myGlbest ..... l~be"""",,". 1l1tCiiyolP"",AJto.....,.,.m~iiili\YIor~I1l!.®l!milall3CittolP.lloAf\:)
10.e
Packet Pg. 334
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
City of Palo Alto Page 1
1
=================MEETINGS ARE CABLECAST LIVE ON GOVERNMENT ACCESS CHANNEL 26======================
2
Thursday, October 17, 2013 3
REGULAR MEETING - 8:30 AM 4
City Council Chambers, Civic Center, 1st Floor 5
250 Hamilton Avenue 6
Palo Alto, CA 94301 7
ROLL CALL: 8
Board members: Staff Liaison: 9
Clare Malone Prichard (Chair) Russ Reich, Senior Planner 10
Lee Lippert (Vice Chair) 11
Alexander Lew Staff: 12
Randy Popp Diana Tamale, Administrative Associate 13
Robert Gooyer Amy French, Chief Planning Official 14
Elena Lee, Senior Planner 15
Jason Nortz, DS Planning Manager 16
Clare Campbell, Planner 17
Jodie Gerhardt, Senior Planner 18
19
20
PROCEDURES FOR PUBLIC HEARINGS 21
Please be advised the normal order of public hearings of agenda items is as follows: 22
Announce agenda item 23
Open public hearing 24
Staff recommendation 25
Applicant presentation – Ten (10) minutes limitation or at the discretion of the Board. 26
Public comment – Five (5) minutes limitation per speaker or limitation to three (3) 27
minutes depending on large number of speakers per item. 28
Architectural Review Board questions of the applicant/staff, and comments 29
Applicant closing comments - Three (3) minutes 30
Close public hearing 31
Motions/recommendations by the Board 32
Final vote 33
34
ORAL COMMUNICATIONS. Members of the public may speak to any item not on the 35
agenda with a limitation of three (3) minutes per speaker. Those who desire to speak must 36
complete a speaker request card available from the secretary of the Board. The Architectural 37
Review Board reserves the right to limit the oral communications period to 15 minutes. 38
39
40
ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW BOARD
DRAFT EXCERPT MINUTES
10.e
Packet Pg. 335
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
City of Palo Alto Page 2
APPROVAL OF MINUTES. 1
October 3, 2013 2
3
AGENDA CHANGES, ADDITIONS AND DELETIONS. The agenda may have additional 4
items added to it up until 72 hours prior to meeting time. 5
6
CONSENT CALENDAR: 7
8
1. 3445 Alma Street [13PLN-00421]: Request by MCG Architecture, on behalf of Alma Trestle 9
LLC, for Architectural Review and a Sign Exception, of the installation of two projecting signs 10
on a 50,500 sq. ft. two-story mixed use building at the Alma Village development. Zone 11
District PC-4956. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California 12
Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15301 (Existing Facilities). 13
14
Chair Malone Prichard: The first one is 3445 Alma Street. Would any Board Members like to pull 15
that? 16
17
Vice-Chair Lippert: I'd like to pull that. 18
19
Chair Malone Prichard: Okay, so Board Member Lippert would like to pull that. This is 3445 Alma 20
Street: Request by MCG Architecture on behalf of Alma Trestle LLC for Architectural Review and a 21
Sign Exception of the installation of two projecting signs on a 50,500 square foot two-story mixed use 22
building at the Alma Village development. Do you have a staff presentation? 23
24
Elena Lee, Senior Planner: Thank you, Chair. If there are substantive issues to discuss about this 25
project, staff would request that this item be deferred until after 11:00 because the primary applicant is 26
not here yet. 27
28
Sean Campbell: I'm right here. 29
30
Chair Malone Prichard: Board Member Lippert, do you agree that we should postpone it until after 31
11:00? 32
33
Vice-Chair Lippert: I'm sorry? 34
35
Chair Malone Prichard: Do you agree we should move this to after 11:00? Do you have substantive 36
items to discuss? 37
38
Vice-Chair Lippert: No, they're not substantive. 39
40
Chair Malone Prichard: Okay, let's go ahead and discuss. Since you pulled it, do you have any 41
questions? 42
43
Vice-Chair Lippert: Did you want to make a presentation at all on this? 44
45
Ms. Lee: Basically the proposal is to add two blade signs and this is in response to Subcommittee 46
comments from a few months ago. The applicant is proposing this in order to meet their signage 47
requirements. And it does require a sign exception and that is the reason why it's before you today. 48
10.e
Packet Pg. 336
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
City of Palo Alto Page 3
1
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. I'm on the Subcommittee and we discussed this before the Subcommittee. 2
And we felt that it was significant enough and with the exception that it needed to come before the 3
ARB. This was our recommendation actually. And staff had said that it needed to come back before 4
the entire Board. 5
6
The only thing I wanted to point out is that the discussion that we had were that the two signs were to 7
be identical. And in this case they're not identical. One has a belly to it or a bow. The other one is 8
straight with "bargain market" underneath of it. We're talking about the marquee or blade signs. And 9
that we also had one other comment which was the placement, we're talking about page 3 here. 10
11
Board Member Lew: The bow is the existing sign, correct? 12
13
Vice-Chair Lippert: Correct, but that was the point that I'm trying to make. And then the other issue is 14
that we felt that if you look at the plan for C and D, that going south on Alma Street it was important to 15
have "Alma Plaza" visible on the north face of C and that the "Grocery Outlet" would be on the south 16
side of C. And then on the other side it would be reversed, whereas you're coming north it would say 17
"Alma Village" on the south side of the sign and then "Grocery Outlet" on the north side of the sign. 18
That was one of the discussions that we had had at the Subcommittee. And so I think it's important that 19
the ARB make a determination on that. 20
21
Board Member Popp: Yeah, I'll just chime in here for a moment. 22
23
Vice-Chair Lippert: Yeah, go ahead. 24
25
Board Member Popp: As a participant in the Subcommittee that day, I don't recall exactly that direction 26
but I do recall us suggesting that there should be some notation of "Alma Village" at the entry points to 27
Alma Village and perhaps some type of a sign that went across the roadway might be appropriate in 28
some way. I don't think I gave direction to have the Alma Village sign at the southernmost and the 29
northernmost faces of the building. But I do have other comments about this. I don't know if you want 30
to, is that all you have or you want to ... 31
32
Vice-Chair Lippert: No. And then the other thing is that in the staff report it said internally illuminated 33
signage and we don't generally approve internally illuminated signage. It's always halo illuminated and 34
I want to know where that internally illuminated signage is located. 35
36
Ms. Lee: There are internally illuminated signs in terms of the blade signs on the site. And the way that 37
we've addressed is to require that only the push-through letters are illuminated. So the entire sign 38
doesn't glow, that it's really just the letters. And it would be probably difficult to do halo illumination 39
for the blade signs. 40
41
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. So it's not a full face illumination. 42
43
Ms. Lee: Correct. There are conditions of approvals added to make sure and I think the application 44
also, the plans show that it is intended to be push-through letters. 45
46
10.e
Packet Pg. 337
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
City of Palo Alto Page 4
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. And then the last item that we discussed was the obscuring of the windows 1
and we had mentioned to the applicant at that time that that was not appropriate and consistent with 2
what we allowed or the conditions of approval for the project, I believe. 3
4
Ms. Lee: Yes, I recall that discussion. And the windows are something that staff is working with the 5
applicant on and it's not part of this application. It's something that the applicant is working directly 6
with the Interim Director. 7
8
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Because originally when the market, when Miki's had gone in, that window 9
was visible and it actually had had, I think the wine shop portion of the market was in that area and it 10
was visible from Alma Street. 11
12
Ms. Lee: Yes. And subsequent to Miki being the tenant that there were subsequent approvals to allow 13
the obscuring of the windows. However, staff is working with the applicant on that issue and we are 14
considering that a separate item from this. 15
16
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. So that's my two cents. 17
18
Chair Malone Prichard: Do you have more comments? 19
20
Board Member Popp: I do actually. So I think of this as one building and while they may be separate 21
items, we are allowing the project to move forward by approving the signage. And I'm not comfortable 22
with the covered windows on this project. I think that the City Council agreed to allow this building to 23
be closer to the street than would normally be allowed. And they did that with the expectation that 24
these windows would allow you to have transparency into the building and to see what was going on. 25
And I'm often aware of comments people make about this building and how aggressive it is toward the 26
sidewalk and how that appears and the general nature of this building aesthetically. And the windows, 27
I think, are a huge component of this and I'm not inclined to move this forward until we really 28
understand the total picture of what this applicant is doing with signage and graphics on the building. 29
30
Ms. Lee: Thank you. Staff does appreciate the Board's concerns about the windows; however, we 31
would request that the discussion be on the blade sign. The whole window covering issue is being 32
separately discussed by the Director and the applicant as well as the City Manager's Office. And I 33
believe a decision has been made on that. And so in order to move the project forward, though, we do 34
respectfully request that the Board move on this item understanding that the window covering issue 35
will be dealt with as a separate matter. 36
37
Amy French, Chief Planning Official: And we'd be happy to prepare an informational memo regarding 38
the window coverings as a separate item. 39
40
Board Member Popp: I'd very much appreciate that. Thank you. So I'll follow your direction about 41
that and just provide the couple of comments that I have about the blade sign. The first is that they 42
seem awfully bulky and blocky. And I'd really like to see them have a little bit more character to them. 43
The building itself is bulky and blocky already and this just further reinforces and exaggerates that. 44
And I'd really like to encourage the applicant to consider something that's a little more relaxed like the 45
old signage that was approved, the Alma Village sign that had the little bit of a belly that would come 46
out. And something to add a bit more character to it would be more to my liking. And I'd also like 47
them to look at the direction of the text. My experience is always that text doesn't read well when it's 48
10.e
Packet Pg. 338
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
City of Palo Alto Page 5
stacked like that and I'd much prefer to see it run up the building versus letters stacked in the way that 1
they are. I just think that it's awkward to read like that. Those would be my comments today. Thank 2
you. 3
4
Chair Malone Prichard: Alex. 5
6
Board Member Lew: So I was wondering if there were color samples available today or maybe in the 7
future? Great, thank you. And then I think I agree with Board Member Popp and I think my other 8
comment would be that the existing building is very blocky, especially because the residential units 9
have solid guardrails. And the wall signs sort of help put something, they add something to the 10
blankness. And so if we're removing all of the wall signs facing Alma, it's going to be fairly blank. 11
The existing awnings are very minimal, right, and they're just painted the body color. And so it seems 12
like maybe it might be the wrong direction. I'm fine with the blade signs, but I think maybe the 13
applicant could add more as well, like we have in the next application, small projecting signs, the little, 14
under 5 square foot projecting signs for pedestrians. So there may be a way of adding more interest at 15
the sidewalk level. And I think that's all that I have. Thank you. 16
17
Chair Malone Prichard: Robert, do you have any comments? 18
19
Vice-Chair Lippert: Your turn. 20
21
Board Member Gooyer: Oh, sorry. I have no problem with the wall sign, but I'm definitely not 22
impressed with the blade signs. I mean we're looking at a situation where we're asked to approve an 23
exemption for three items which make this sign incredibly much larger than theoretically should be 24
allowed. And based on that, I mean in past experiences I've usually had a situation where, if someone 25
comes in and they want an exception of some sort, it's sort of the product that's brought forward is over 26
and above what should be the case, just because you're asking for an exception. Here I don't see 27
anything architectural, doesn't do anything for the building. All it does basically is tell you what the 28
name is. So I agree with you that I think it needs to have some additional thought on the blade signs. 29
Though the wall signs are fine. 30
31
Chair Malone Prichard: Thank you. And I had a similar reaction of the reason the initial blade sign was 32
approved, and I believe that also required an exception, was that it was in an appropriate location, it 33
was necessary to identify the project but also because it had an elegance to it that enhanced the 34
architecture. I don't believe that the signs that are proposed, the blade signs, are enhancing the 35
architecture. They're a little bit, they're too blocky, too utilitarian. So they need more elegance and I 36
think the curve did a lot to improve the previously approved signs. I'm not saying they have to do a 37
curve, but they should look at something creative to make these signs enhance the building. 38
39
And I do also agree with Alex's comment that the way the previous wall signage was placed on the 40
building, it was in multiple locations, it was stretched across the building and that did help to break up 41
the large mass there. So I probably would be okay with the wall sign as proposed, I would prefer it if it 42
were more stretched out. And the blade signs are too blocky. So I don't feel ready to approve at this 43
time. Lee. 44
45
Vice-Chair Lippert: Comments from members of the public? 46
47
10.e
Packet Pg. 339
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
City of Palo Alto Page 6
Chair Malone Prichard: Good point, yes. Are there any members of the public here to speak about this 1
project? No. 2
3
Vice-Chair Lippert: Maybe the applicant wants to respond. 4
5
Chair Malone Prichard: Would the applicant like to make any comments? 6
7
Sean Campbell: Just that I'll wait. 8
9
Chair Malone Prichard: Okay, actually we have, somebody's here. Okay, Lee. Lee is going to craft a 10
Motion. 11
12
MOTION 13
14
Vice-Chair Lippert: I'm going to move we approve the wall signs only today and that we continue the 15
blade signs. And they can be put back on consent. 16
17
Board Member Lew: Can I ask for clarification? My understanding was that the wall signs are already, 18
don't require any exception. Those are staff level approval, so that we don't necessarily have to weigh 19
in on that. It's just the projecting signs, because they're getting an exception. 20
21
Ms. Lee: Thank you. That's correct. The wall signs do conform to the sign program that was approved 22
for the site, but staff included that information just to provide context. 23
24
Vice-Chair Lippert: Okay. Then all we're doing is continuing the blade signs or the marquee signs to 25
put them on consent and the applicant to make changes or revisions based on our comments today. 26
27
Chair Malone Prichard: Would you consider making that a date certain? 28
29
Vice-Chair Lippert: No. It's on consent so it doesn't need to be a date certain. 30
31
Chair Malone Prichard: Okay. 32
33
Vice-Chair Lippert: I need a second though. 34
35
SECOND 36
37
Chair Malone Prichard: I will second. All in favor? Aye. Opposed? None. Thank you. 38
39
MOTION PASSED (5-0) 40
41
2. 518-526 Bryant Street [13PLN-00225]: Request by VKK Signs, for Architectural Review of a 42
building sign program with Sign Exceptions to allow the installation of five projecting wall 43
signs for five commercial tenants in the CD-C(GF)(P) zone district. Environmental Assessment: 44
Exempt from the provisions of CEQA, 15301 (Existing Facilities). 45
46
CONTINUED BUSINESS: 47
48
10.e
Packet Pg. 340
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
City of Palo Alto Page 7
Major Reviews: 1
2
3. 405 Curtner Avenue [13PLN-00098]: Request by Salvatore Caruso on behalf of Zhen Zhen Li 3
for Architectural Review of a new 7,425 sq. ft., three-story building with six residential 4
condominium units on a vacant, 12,375 sq. ft. site. Zone District: Residential Multiple-Family 5
(RM-30). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California 6
Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. This item was 7
continued from the ARB meeting of September 19, 2013. 8
9
4. 636 Waverley Street [13PLN-00262]: Request by Hayes Group Architects for a Major 10
Architectural Review of the demolition of a one-story, 1,406 sq. ft. office building and 11
construction of a new, 10,328 sq. ft., four-story mixed use building with commercial uses on the 12
first and second floors and two residential units on the third and fourth floors, on a property 13
within the CD-C(P) zoning district. Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of 14
the California Environmental Quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. This 15
item was continued from the ARB meeting of September 19, 2013. 16
17
NEW BUSINESS: 18
19
Preliminary Review: 20
21
5. 3225 El Camino Real [13PLN-00344]: Request by the Hayes Group Architects on behalf of 22
De Anza Properties for preliminary Architectural Review of a new four story mixed use 23
building with one level of below grade parking on an approximately 29,962 square foot 24
parcel. Zone District: Service Commercial (CS). 25
26
27
Minor Reviews: 28
29
6. 101 Lytton [11PLN-00045]: Request by Ted Korth of Korth, Sunseri, Hagey Architects for 30
Minor Architectural Review Board review for minor rooftop revisions to the previously 31
approved four story mixed use building. Zone District: PC 5158. Exempt from the provisions of 32
CEQA per 15301. 33
34
7. 301 High Street [13PLN-00219]: Request by Hayes Group Architects, on behalf of California 35
Skin Institute, for a Minor Architectural Review to allow exterior modifications and a 200 sq. ft. 36
addition to an existing 6,255 sq. ft. commercial building and grandfathered facility. The request 37
includes a Design Enhancement Exception to allow a 14-foot encroachment into the side yard 38
daylight plane for a new roof top equipment enclosure. Zone District: Residential Multiple-39
Family (RM-30). Environmental Assessment: Exempt from the provisions of the California 40
Environmental quality Act (CEQA) per CEQA Guidelines Section 15303. 41
42
8. 1700 Embarcadero Road [09PLN-00175]: Staybridge Suites Hotel on Mings Site and Design 43
Review plan revision. Application was approved by Council by Record of Land Use Action. 44
The Board had recommended approval of the project (4-0-1-0) with an additional condition to 45
return to the ARB Subcommittee to review revised plans. Revisions are minor but extensive. 46
47
BOARD MEMBER BUSINESS AND ANNOUNCEMENTS. 48
10.e
Packet Pg. 341
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
City of Palo Alto Page 8
1
9. Election of Chair and Vice Chair. 2
3
REPORTS FROM OFFICIALS. 4
5
Subcommittee Members: Lee Lippert and Randy Popp 6
SUBCOMMITTEE: 7
8
10. 180 El Camino Real [12PLN-00382]: Request by Macy’s of behalf of the Board of Trustees 9
for the Leland Stanford Junior University for a second review of changes to the north and east 10
elevations, roof changes, and revised bicycle and bench placement for a previously approved 11
commercial project (Bloomingdale’s) in the Community Commercial (CC) zoning district. 12
13
STAFF ARCHITECTURAL REVIEW: 14
15
Project Description: Installation of one new carport within the existing site parking lot 16
Applicant: Catherine Capriles 17
Address: 2675 Hanover Street [13PLN-00380] 18
Approval Date: 9/17/13 19
Request for hearing deadline: 9/30/13 20
21
Project Description: Conditional Use Permit to allow wine and beer tasting at an existing retail store 22
(Ernie’s @Century Wine and Spirits) 23
Applicant: Antony Puthanpurayil 24
Address: 3163 Middlefield Road (Ernies at Century Wine and Liquor), [13PLN-00317] 25
Approval Date: 10/3/13 26
Request for hearing deadline: 10/16/13 27
28
29
Project Description: Installation of one internally-illuminated individual channel letter “Body Kneads 30
Spa” wall sign 31
Applicant: Ningzhi Hu 32
Address: 810 San Antonio Road [13PLN-0034] 33
Approval Date: 10/3/13 34
Request for hearing deadline: 10/16/13 35
36
Project Description: Installation of two wall signs on the existing upper wall of the Tesla automobile 37
dealership 38
Applicant: David McVey 39
Address: 4180 El Camino Real [13PLN-00353] 40
Approval Date: 10/3/13 41
Request for hearing deadline: 10/16/13 42
43
Project Description: Re-facing of one existing monument 44
Applicant: Vivian Jones 45
Address: 1651 Page Mill Road [13PLN-00371] 46
Approval Date: 10/8/13 47
Request for hearing deadline: 10/21/13 48
10.e
Packet Pg. 342
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
City of Palo Alto Page 9
1
Project Description: Replacement signage for an existing Arco gas station in the PC-1417 zone district 2
Applicant: Stantec Architecture 3
Address: 699 San Antonio Road [13PLN-00336] 4
Approval Date: 10/8/13 5
Request for hearing deadline: 10/21/13 6
7
ADA. The City of Palo Alto does not discriminate against individuals with disabilities. To request accommodations to 8
access City facilities, services or programs, to participate at public meetings, or to learn more about the City’s compliance 9
with the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 (ADA), please contact the City’s ADA Coordinator at 650.329.2550 (voice) 10
or by e-mailing ada@cityofpaloalto.org. 11
12
Posting of agenda. This agenda is posted in accordance with government code section 54954.2(a) or section 13
54956.Recordings. A videotape of the proceedings can be obtained/reviewed by contacting the City Clerk’s Office at (650) 14
329-2571. 15
16
Materials related to an item on this agenda submitted to the Architectural Review Board after 17
distribution of the agenda packet are available for public inspection in the Planning and Community 18
Environment Department at 250 Hamilton Avenue, 5th floor, Palo Alto, CA. 94301 during normal 19
business hours. 20
21
22
10.e
Packet Pg. 343
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
E
:
O
c
t
o
b
e
r
1
7
,
2
0
1
3
A
r
c
h
i
t
e
c
t
u
a
l
R
e
v
i
e
w
B
o
a
r
d
S
t
a
f
f
R
e
p
o
r
t
a
n
d
m
i
n
u
t
e
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
10.f
Packet Pg. 344
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
c
e
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
10.f
Packet Pg. 345
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
c
e
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
10.f
Packet Pg. 346
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
F
:
P
u
b
l
i
c
C
o
r
r
e
s
p
o
n
d
e
n
c
e
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)
9488.txt
Council Members Only
Page 1
10.g
Packet Pg. 347
At
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
:
A
t
t
a
c
h
m
e
n
t
G
:
P
l
a
n
s
(
4
3
2
1
:
A
p
p
e
a
l
o
f
3
4
4
5
A
l
m
a
S
t
.
(
A
l
m
a
P
l
a
z
a
)
A
R
B
S
i
g
n
E
x
c
e
p
t
i
o
n
)